The URL can be used to link to this page

4. Golden Glow Acres: Preliminary Plat.C CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 1/4/95 CC DATE: 1/23/95 CASE #: 94 -22 SUB By: Al -Jaff / Hempel:v 4 ■ STAFF REPORT ■ PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 2.22 Acres into 4 single family lots, Golden Glow Acres ■ z Q U (L Q ■ ■ ■ LOCATION: West of Powers Boulevard and approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard APPLICANT: James G. Ravis 6660 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District Action b , Cfty Admtnistmtor Endors ACREAGE: 2.22 acres MWIN DENSITY: 1.8 Units per Acre 1.87 Units per Acre -Net Baia 9wbm tw to commiesm ADJACENT ZONING AND — LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family DM submitted to cowott S - RSF, Residential Single Family E - RSF, Residential Single Family, Powers Boulevard W - RSF, Residential Single Family ■ Q ■ W NCO a WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER. The site contains a single family home and a garage. A wetland occupies the southwesterly edge of the site. Mature trees of different species occupy the northerly and easterly portion of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ■ • 0 Q M - � j i • O O O O O A O pap (D 0 LAKE Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 3 developed under a different alternative which includes a public street. Therefore, at this time staff recommends that the subdivision as proposed be denied due to premature street access to development. If a private driveway was allowed to be constructed, the remaining parcels (Kohman and Infanger) will have limited subdivision potential, if any. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is premature. We are recommending that it be denied for reasons discussed in the staff report. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.22 acres into 4 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.87 units per acre net. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 23,304 square feet. A single - family residence currently occupies proposed Lot 1. This structure meets all zoning ordinance setback requirements. The site is located west of Powers Boulevard and approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. Access to the subdivision is proposed to be provided via a private street which will serve all four lots. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. WETLANDS The edge of a large ag -urban wetland touches the Ravis property and has been staked by a trained wetland delineator. A 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average 10 foot wide buffer will be maintained as required in the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires a letter documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. 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 building construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. DRAINAGE Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) ■ ■ The city has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 ' Page 4 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 the 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. ' Storm Water Quality Fees ' The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land ' and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since there is no downstream ' water quality basin for this site these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding needed for the site. A credit for the one existing house /lot has been applied. The proposed SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $800 /acre for single - family residential developments. This proposed development of 2.14 acres (less the existing home site on Lot 1 = .72 acres) would then be responsible for a water quality connection charge of 1.42 acres which equates to $1,136.00. This fee will be waived if the applicant constructs an appropriate ' sediment basin to pretreat the stormwater runoff from the site. The site drains to the southwest into the ag /urban wetland. Since this wetland is shown to ' receive all stormwater discharge including hard surface areas, staff recommends that a sediment trap should be provided in accordance with the City's SWMP to pretreat the stormwater before it is discharged into the wetland. Staff recommends the applicant develop ' a storm water drainage plan to convey runoff from the driveways down to a stormwater treatment pond. Detailed storm drainage calculations will be required for review and approval by the City prior to final plat. Storm Water Quantity Fees ' The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Since the SWMP does not propose any improvements on this site, the applicant should be required to pay the City the stormwater quantity charge. Single family 1 residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single - family residential development of 1.42 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $2,811.60. Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 5 GRADING The grading and utility plan proposes to grade a private street from Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to service the proposed four lots. As a result of the grading most of the significant spruce trees along the southerly property line will be lost. The existing driveway access point is proposed to be relocated to tie into the proposed private street from Powers Boulevard. The Carver County Highway Department will need to issue an access permit for the proposed private street. Between 6 to 8 feet of fill is needed to build up the house pads for Lots 3 and 4. Staff is wondering if there is additional material on site to be utilized for the development of these house pads or will material be imported to the site? If material is to be imported or exported, approved haul routes will need to be submitted to the City for review and approval. EROSION CONTROL All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Erosion control fence is proposed adjacent to the wetlands within the buffer zone. Staff recommends erosion control be placed at the construction limits and not encroaching upon the buffer zone. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer service is available to the site from the west; however, sanitary sewer is not deep enough to service Lot 4 without an ejector pump in the lower level. According to the plans, the applicant is proposing the use of a 3 -inch forcemain which is not desirable nor necessary in this situation. There are alternative measures to be employed such as an ejector pump from the lower level. Staff recommends that Lot 4 be required to make use of an ejector system for the lower level so that the main level and above will be on a gravity sewer system. This option requires less maintenance for the homeowner and, from a reliability standpoint, a superior alternative. Water service is available from Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend a 6- inch water service line down for water service to the new lots as well as fire protection. As denoted in the alternative development proposals, this site can also be served by public utilities and streets from the north through a public improvement project. If this application is approved, staff recommends that the sewer and water construction be in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities should be turned over to the City for ownership and maintenance. The applicant will need to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. u Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 6 STREETS Back in September of 1991 in conjunction with Lundgren's WillowRidge subdivision which lies directly to the west of this site, access and utility service to this site were explored. Utilities were extended to the west line of this site in conjunction with WillowRidge's development proposal. Access into the Ravis parcel from WillowRidge was another matter, however. The Ravis parcel does have frontage along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) which allowed other alternatives to provide access to the Ravis property rather than WillowRidge. Staff concluded at that time a cul -de -sac from WillowRidge was not feasible. A cul -de -sac from Lundgren's WillowRidge would have involved losing a lot of trees and by the time the cul -de -sac was extended through to the Ravis property, there was very little property left to be developed. Staff has recently explored some other alternative development possibilities on the Ravis property and adjoining parcels. Attached is a memo that was sent to the residents lying south of Lake Lucy Road and west of Powers Boulevard (Attachment 1). This memo explores five alternatives to subdividing the neighborhood. Staff met with the residents regarding the alternative development proposals back on March 9, 1995. At that meeting there were numerous discussions pertaining to private driveway access points along Powers Boulevard as well as all of the options listed within the memo. The general consensus was that no one alternative could be completely agreed upon by all affected parcels. Staff did propose Option E as a viable option in developing the neighborhood, including the Ravis parcel. This alternative also provided the most flexibility for the other adjacent parcels to subdivide as well. The private driveway proposal, as submitted, limits access to only the Ravis parcel and no future access to the adjoining parcels. Staff feels that this area can and should be developed under a different alternative which includes a public street. Therefore, at this time staff recommends that the subdivision as proposed be denied due to premature street access to development. If a private driveway was allowed to be constructed, the remaining parcels (Kohman and Infanger) will have limited subdivision potential, if any. PRIVATE STREETS - FINDINGS The applicant is proposing the use of a private street to provide access to four proposed lots in this development. City Code, Section 18 -57 (o) permits up to four (4) lots to be served by a private street if the city finds the following to exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions, and the existence of wetlands. FINDING: The prevailing development does not make it infeasible for the construction of a public street. Should the applicant be permitted to construct the Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 7 private street as proposed, two parcels will be limited in subdividing and /or possibly prohibited from further subdividing. Staff believes that option E of the alternative development proposals is the best of the 5 alternatives for serving the neighboring properties. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. FINDING: The extension of a public street as described in option E is required to service the surrounding parcels. (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. FINDING: The proposed private street will result in the removal of a large number of trees located south of Lot 1. By using a public street, all those trees will be preserved. If the public street was relocated to the north of the site where staff has proposed, tree loss would be minimal. Most of the trees can be transplanted due to their size. Staff is recommending that the private streets as proposed by the applicant be denied for reasons outlined above. PARK DEDICATION Full park and trail fees will be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and /or trail construction. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 100' 125' 30' front /rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 31,437 125' 252' 30730' 10' Lot 2 18,750 125' 150' 30730' 20' n r C� Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 8 Lot 3 20,456 140' 150 30750' 20' Lot 4 22,575 169' 150' 30750' 20' TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a tree inventory and canopy coverage calculation. Also noted on the plan are required replacement plantings to be done. All trees, excluding those in the front yard of the existing home, are along the property lines of the site. Since the new road will be following the southern and lower eastern lines, a number of trees are scheduled to be removed. The diameters range from four to 16 inches, not including a 48 inch willow that appears to be on the neighbor's property. Five trees ( 35, 36, 37, 38, and 45) have been included on the survey, but do not appear to be ' on the property being developed. Trees 35 through 38 have questionable survival chances. There will be a three to four foot cut for the roadway and the four trees are 2 to 10 feet from the edge of the cut. Since they appear to be on the neighbor's property, their removal cannot ' be readily assumed. The applicant's canopy coverage calculations are in order and they will be required to plant 13 replacement trees as shown on the tree inventory. During construction, trees 51 through 58 must be protected at all times by tree protection fencing. The same preservation principles shall be applied to trees near the existing house and along the proposed roadway. Whether or not trees 35 through 38 and 45 will be included in the development plans must be resolved by the applicant considering they are not on the development property. Their removal or preservation may also make a slight difference in canopy coverage calculations. I FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; n Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 9 Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans with the exception of the private street ordinance as discussed in the private street findings section. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 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 proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure with the exception of public streets. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. Tree removal can be minimized if the applicant implemented option E of street layout proposal prepared by the city. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure with the exception of adequate streets. 0 J 7 u Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On April 19, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended denial of this application. They concluded that their role was to ensure that areas develop in an orderly fashion. Allowing the subject site to develop as proposed could hinder the development of the surrounding properties. Hence, the Planning Commission concurred with the findings presented in the staff report and recommended denial of the application. Staff met with the applicant and his attorney on June 6, 1995 and August 2, 1995 to discuss compromises to the conditions of approval for preliminary plat of Golden Glow Acres. One of the alternatives was granting an easement for the cul -de -sac over proposed Lots 1 and 2. With this proposal we had concerns for upgrading the cul -de -sac in the future. Staffs initial reaction was to require it to be paved in conjunction with the overall development or at least require a financial security to guarantee construction in the future which was not acceptable to Mr. Ravis. Staff agreed to consider it as an alternative. It appears the Ravis' are interested in striking a compromise with regards to granting a cul -de- sac easement to the City contingent upon certain conditions. The conditions involve variances to city ordinance. For instance, the SWMP connection fees are required in accordance to Section 18 -63. Some of the conditions listed may be amenable with further modifications. Listed below are the City's responses to the conditions of compromise. Condition No. 1: The condition requiring a conservation easement over the vegetated areas will be eliminated from the staff report. Based on the proposed grading plan, very little vegetated area will remain except along the north property line of Lot 1. Therefore, the conservation easement is no longer applicable. Condition No. 2: The subdivision ordinance requires a grading and development plan with each final plat to ensure that building elevations and type will be compatible with the overall drainage and grading plan. These elevations may be modified at time of building permit issuance by one or two feet, plus or minus, from the proposed grade as long as the drainage pattern is maintained. We also require this data to ensure the sanitary sewer will be able to serve the proposed dwelling via a gravity sewer system. This information is also used to verify that the driveway grade will not exceed 10% which is city ordinance. Therefore, condition no. 2 of staffs recommendations must remain as is. Condition No. 9: The subdivision ordinance (18 -78) and development contract require all of the public improvements to be initiated within one (1) year and completed within two years from the date the development contract is executed. There is a section in the development contract whereby the applicant may request the City Council grant an extension to this deadline. The reason for this requirement is to ensure that the improvements are installed in Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 11 an expedient manner to minimize erosion and disturbance to the adjacent properties. In addition, no building permits are issued for the development until the public improvements are installed and the streets paved with a bituminous surface. Condition No. 11: The requirement that the developer pay the cost of extending utilities to the north line of Lot 2 for future extension is very typical. It is necessary so the adjacent property owner is able to connect to the utility system and be able to extend it through their parcel for future development. By looping the water system, it also improves the Ravis' development proposal from a water quality and fire flow standpoint. This condition must remain as is. Even if the street from the north is not constructed to the Ravis' property, it is most likely that the watermain would be extended north to provide a looped water system. Condition No. 13: This condition may be modified. We will delete the portion of the condition as follows: "Direct access to all lots be limited to the proposed private street." The requirement for a cross - access easement will need to remain. Condition No. 14: Storm sewer improvements will be further reviewed during the final construction plan review process. Upon quick review of the project, we believe if the project was approved with just a four -lot subdivision it may only require drainage swales between the lots. However, since this development is down stream of the property to the north, additional runoff may be created and directed towards the wetlands on this site. Therefore, staff believes there should be an area designated for stormwater treatment. The developer will receive credit for the oversizing of the drainage basin. The credit will be applied to the development SWMP connection fees. The exact credit is determined upon review of the final construction plans. The proposal to waive the SWMP fees is unacceptable. These fees are required by city ordinance. Condition No. 16: The storm drainage would be reviewed in conjunction with the final construction drawings. Cul -de -sac Easement: Requirement of a cul -de -sac easement is not mentioned in the April 19, 1995 staff report to the Planning Commission because staff recommended denial of the proposal. Discussions of the cul -de -sac originated based on meetings following the Planning Commission meeting. The City does have the authority to require dedication of street right -of- way to construct a public street to city standards to access the proposed development. The proposed cul -de -sac could serve as a turnaround to meet the City's private driveway ordinance and serve as a terminus for a future public street from the north. If the property to the north develops in some other fashion than what staff had considered as Option E, the cul -de -sac easement could be vacated. At least with this scenario, there are more options available for development to occur. Should the cul -de -sac be constructed in the future, access to proposed Lots 2, 3, and 4 shall be limited to the public cul -de -sac and the private driveway shall be removed along the south side of proposed Lot 1. Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 12 The proposal for dedicating the easement for the cul -de -sac would be acceptable if dedicated on the final plat and a condition placed in the development contract notifying prospective property owners that they will be assessed in the future for the construction of a cul -de -sac should one be required. In addition, the private street through Lot 1 shall be eliminated once Lots 2, 3, and 4 are serviced by a public cul -de -sac. Staff met with Mr. Ravis and Council member Senn on Friday, August 18, 1995 to further discuss concerns Mr. Ravis had with staffs conditions of approval. Council member Senn directed staff to consult with the City Attorney on ways in which the Ravis' could be reimbursed for construction of the private driveway if the adjacent parcels request to subdivide and propose to use the private driveway. According to Mr. Roger Knutson, City Attorney, if the adjacent properties wanted to gain access to the Ravis' private driveway to service their developments, they would have to negotiate on their own behalf the easement rights to use the Ravis' private driveway with the property owners that have rights to the driveway. The other alternative would be for the adjacent property owners to petition the City to acquire an easement and construct a street through the Ravis parcel to service their development needs. This would require a §429 improvement project. Staff also discussed with Council member Senn and Mr. Ravis the need for the cul -de -sac easement and the effects on development. One of the concerns was that if the cul -de -sac was constructed in the future; homes in the Ravis plat should meet the necessary setbacks at this time to accommodate a potential future cul -de -sac. On Lot 2 the setback should be 50 feet versus the standard 30 feet from the front property line to facilitate the possible future cul -de- sac. There appears to be sufficient room on the lot to accommodate this setback requirement. Mr. Ravis does not seem opposed to the idea as well. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council recommends denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -22 for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 18, 1994 for reasons outlined in the staff report." Should the City Council wish to approve the preliminary plat, staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 13 "The City Council recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -22 for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 18, 1995, with the following conditions: The applicant will be required to plant 13 replacement trees as shown on the tree inventory. 2. Building Department conditions: a. Revise Grading and Utility Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Revise the Grading and Utility Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. C. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Submit street names to Public Safety for approval. b. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. C. Fire hydrant location is accepted. 4 Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and /or trail construction. 5. The applicant shall provide the city with a $500 escrow prior to the city signing the final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents and guarantee boulevard restoration. 6. Importing or exporting material from the site will require approval of a haul route. The I haul route shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 11 Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 14 7. Lot 4 shall utilize an internal ejector pump system to service the lower level of the ' dwellings, if necessary. The use of a forcemain shall be prohibited. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence shall be installed at the edge of the construction limits and not within the wetland buffer zone. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the final plat conditions of approval. 10. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 11. The applicant shall be responsible for extending municipal utilities to the north line of Lot 2 for future extension. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be charged at time of building permit a hookup charge in the amount of $2,425 for each lot. 12. The applicant shall receive the necessary access permit from the Carver County ' Highway Department for relocating the driveway access prior to the City signing the final plat. 13. A cross - access easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access to Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 via the proposed private street. 14. The applicant shall design and construct a storm drainage system to convey runoff from the development and pretreat the storm runoff to SWMP standards to discharge into the wetlands in lieu of paying SWMP water quality fees. The applicant shall pay the City a SWMP water quantity fee in the amount of $2,811.60. This fee is payable prior to the City signing the final plat. 15. 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 applicant shall submit a letter to the City documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. Golden Glow Acres April 19, 1995 Page 15 16. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year storm events and provide ponding calculations for the stormwater quality pond in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The grading plan shall be revised to include a storm drainage system which will convey runoff from the private street to the pretreatment pond. 17. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the utility improvements shall be required for review and formal approval by the City Council. Construction plans and specifications shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications & Detail Plates. 18. On Lot 2, the setback should be 50 feet versus the standard 30 feet from the front property line to facilitate the possible future cul -de- sac." ATTACHMENTS 1. Alternative development proposals. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle dated April 10, 1995. 3. Application. 4. Letter from the applicant dated November 24, 1994. 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated December 13, 1994. 6. Memo from Mark Littfin dated November 23, 1994. 7. Memo from Jill Kimsal, dated April 11, 1995. 8. Minnegasco dated December 1, 1994 9. Memo from DNR dated November 30, 1994. 10. Memo from Carver County Engineer dated December 30, 1995. 11. Public hearing and property owners list. 12. Excerpt from City Council minutes dated September 9, 1991. 13. Planning Commission minutes dated April 19, 1995. 14. Preliminary plat dated November 18, 1994. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' Re: Alternative Development Proposals for Ravis Property and Adjoining Parcels LUR File No. 95 -4 ' Dear Resident: This letter is a follow up to our previous neighborhood meeting regarding the Ravis development (Golden Glow Acres). As promised, please find attached a copy of five alternatives to subdividing the Ravis property and adjoining parcels. In addition, I have attached a preliminary ' assessment roll from the costs of construction these improvements assuming the City was petitioned by the benefitting property owners.. The City has reviewed the Ravis development proposal and feels that a public street (Option E) is a feasible alternative to the proposed private driveway scenario and therefore the City is not 'in support of the private driveway access to serve solely the Ravis parcel. ' Please review the attachments I have enclosed. I would like to schedule a neighborhood meeting to discuss these alternatives on March 9, =`1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City's Senior Center located on the lower level at City Hall. If you have any questions and are unable to attend the meeting, ' please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer ' DCH:jms Attachments ' c: Charles D. Folch, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II I gAeng \dave \letters \ravis February 24, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: January 30, 1995 SUBJ: Alternative Development Proposals for Ravis Property File No. 95 -4 LUR Attached are five alternatives to subdividing this neighborhood. I have listed below the pros and cons of each option. All options maintain existing homesites and Mr. Kerber's "Twins" garage is removed in all options. Dashed lines represent existing property lines. Solid lines represent proposed lot lines. Utilities would be able to be extended to each option; however, Option E would require less utility and street construction. OPTION A This option develops the northerly portion of the site with a public street (assumes Ravis subdivision proposal over the south half). Pros - City street - Utilitizes properties to their full potential - Adequate intersection spacing on Lake Lucy Road - Access limited to Lake Lucy Road - Allows for Berming along Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road Cons - Requires properties to be consolidated and replatted - Tree loss - Significant grading /filling - Rear yards against Powers Boulevard - House type mostly ramblers versus walkouts - Still requires private driveways to serve parcels to the south OPTION B This option is similar to Option A but extended to service all parcels. Pros Basically the same as Option A except serves all the parcels. - City street - Utilitizes properties to their full potential - Adequate intersection spacing on Lake Lucy Road - Provides room for berming along Powers Boulevard - Access limited to Lake Lucy Road OPTION C Pros Same as Options A and B except allows two access points and the long cul -de -sac is reduced in half. Cons Same as Option A but this option does not need private driveways. - Becomes a long (1075') cul -de -sac with one access point Cons Same as Options A and B except the long cul -de -sac issue is resolved. OPTION D Basically the same as Option B except access is from Powers Boulevard and Lot 6 would have access on to Lake Lucy Road. Pros - City street - Utilizes properties to their full potential - Adequate intersection spacing on Powers Boulevard - Provides room for berming along Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road. Cons - Requires properties to be consolidated and replatted - Tree loss - Significant grading /filling - Rearyards against Powers Boulevard - House type mostly ramblers versus walkouts OPTION E This option combines the use of private driveways and a public street to develop the site. Least disruptive to existing features and also allows for the area to develop, for the most part, independently of each other. Pros - Minimizes site grading /filling and tree loss; retains existing topographic features for the most part - Provides a mixture of house types, i.e. walkout, rambler, etc. - Allows for parts of the area to develop independently of the rest - Provides public street access - Curb cuts align with or across from existing driveways - Adequate intersection spacing - Room for berming along Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road - Maintains use of existing driveways - Most likely the most feasible from and economic standpoint - eliminates long dead -end cul -de -sac C on s - Still requires two or more parcels to replat in order to develop layout DCH:ktm Attachments: Options A, B, C, D & E g Aeng \dave \memos \ravis i 146 0 I� 1 i oe77 0A1 A C %,"LA , i 1 2q Z , z MU I I -� GRAVLUM KERBER -- RSE ON 1 n •I? t IS la i UHMAN NGER _ 1 1 om 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5�141 I � i � I MURPHY � I � GRAVLUM II� i� I --P ET SON i Tq ~`'� RA S I IN I KERBER Y M r 27 IMAN 19 SRO. IGER ` 18 _ apnaA v,a L p s�E C4ULrf. r B&" Rb. q Preliminary Assessment Roll. LAKE'LUCY /POWERS BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD February 13, 1995 Listed below is a cost estimate to provide public utility and street improvements under a City project to service the subdivision proposal Option E. These costs are only preliminary and do not take into consideration poor soils, if any, or subdivision costs. The table below lists the property owners and the number of lots that will receive benefit from the improvements. Therefore, they will be assessed. The actual number of lots is shown on Option E. PER LOT COST GRADING $2,200 SANITARY $3,542 SANITARYIWATER S_ ERVICE ONLY $1,650 WATER $2,266 STORM $1,316 STREET $5,423 TOTAL 1. KERBER $19,800 $3,542 $3,300 $2,266 $11,844 $27,115 $67,867 (lots) 9 1 2 1 9 5 2. MURPHY $2,200 $10,626 $0 $6,798 $3,948 $0 $23,572 (lots) 1 3 0 3 3 0 3. GRAVLUM $4,400 $3,542 $0 $2,266 $2,632 $10,846 $23,686 (lots) 2 1 0 1 2 2 4. PETERSON $4,400 $3,542 $0 $2,266 $2,632 $10,846 $23,686 (lots) 2 1 0 1 2 2 5. RAVIS $6,600 $10,626 $0 $6,798 $5,264 $16,269 $45,557 (lots) 3 3 0 3 4 3 6. KOHMAN $2,200 $3,542 $0 $2,266 $1,316 $5,423 $14,747 (lots) 1 1 0 1 1 1 7.INFANGER $2,200 $3,542 $0 $2,266 $1,316 $5,423 $14,747 ( 1 1 0 1 1 1 TOTAL $213,862.00 FOOTNOTES Street estimate does not include Kerber /Murphy private driveway cost. Private driveway cost (done by owner) = Approximately $25 per L.F. Would increase Kerber and Murphy cost by $7,500 and $5,000 respectively "' This estimate does NOT include the cost of subdividing s � L III r• - � s�1E CAM F- /.z /s L. 1'� oo 5�✓ (� CO v u/) 6 zlZo . f Ae • 7, A Bviv4c C; 2& zCQ F, . zt 3 r 'S�T. Tit O p-- Lr- , vtr,N �� 7 5 - 7 Z. )�W/444 A ki 67 5e:> /'o �.-� �J�- 5 Jc, v,D ' Cv WIZ) �ow 5 A,4 a J CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator1 David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Aw DATE: April 10, 1995 ' SUBJ: Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis - File No. 95 -4 LUR Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings dated September 29, 1994 and prepared by Engelhardt Associates, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations: J J WETLANDS The edge of a large ag -urban wetland touches the Ravis property and has been staked by a trained wetland delineator. A 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average 10 foot wide buffer will be maintained as required in the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires a letter documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed City will install wetland buffer edge applicant $20 per sign. DRAINAGE Surface Water staked in accordance,, with the City's wetland ordinance. The s before building construction begins and will charge the The city has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements 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 the 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. Stone Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus Sharmin Al -Jaff April 10, 1995 Page 2 load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since there is no downstream water quality basin for this site these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding needed for the site. A credit for the one existing house /lot has been applied. The proposed SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $800 /acre for single- family residential developments. This proposed development of 2.14 acres (less the existing home site on Lot 1 = .72 acres) would then be responsible for a water quality connection charge of 1.42 acres which equates to $1,136.00. This fee will be waived if the applicant constructs an appropriate sediment basin to pretreat the stormwater runoff from the site. The site drains to the southwest into the ag /urban wetland. Since this wetland is shown to receive all stormwater discharge including hard surface areas, staff recommends that a sediment trap should be provided in accordance with the City's SWMP to pretreat the stormwater before it is discharged into the wetland. Staff recommends the applicant develop a storm water drainage plan to convey runoff from the driveways down to a stormwater treatment pond. Detailed storm drainage calculations will be required for review and approval by the City prior to final plat. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Since the SWMP does not propose any improvements on this site, the applicant should be required to pay the City the stormwater quantity charge. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single - family residential development of 1.42 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $2,811.60. GRADING The grading and utility plan proposes to grade a private street from Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to service the proposed four lots. As a result of the grading most of the significant pine trees along the southerly property line will be lost. The existing driveway access point is proposed to be relocated to tie into the proposed private street from Powers Boulevard. The Carver County Highway Department will need to issue an access permit for the proposed private street. Between 6 to 8 feet of fill is needed to build up the house pads for Lots 3 and 4. Staff is wondering if there is additional material on site to be utilized for the development of these house pads or will material be imported to the site? If material is to be imported or exported, approved haul routes will need to be submitted to the City for review and approval. EROSION CONTROL All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Erosion control fence is proposed adjacent to the wetlands within the buffer zone. Staff recommends erosion control be placed at the construction limits and not encroaching upon the buffer zone. � J ' Sharmin Al -Jaff ' April 10, 1995 Page 3 UTILITIES Sanitary sewer service is available to the site from the west; however, sanitary sewer is not deep enough ' to service Lot 4 without an ejector pump in the lower level. According to the plans, the applicant is proposing the use of a 3 -inch forcemain which is not desirable nor necessary in this situation. There are alternative measures to be employed such as an ejector pump from the lower level. Staff recommends ' that Lot 4 be required to make use of an ejector system for the lower level so that the main level and above will be on a gravity sewer system. This is much less of a maintenance item for the homeowner and, from a reliability standpoint, a superior alternative. Water service is available from Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend a 6 -inch water service line down for water service to the new lots as well as fire protection. As denoted in the ' alternative development proposals, this site can also be served by public utilities and streets from the north through a public improvement project. If this application is approved, staff recommends that the sewer and water construction be in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities should be turned over to the City for ownership and maintenance. The applicant will need to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. ' STREETS Back in September of 1991 in conjunction with Lundgren's WillowRidge subdivision which lies directly to the west of this site, access and utility service to this site were explored. Utilities were extended to the west line of this site in conjunction with WillowRidge's development proposal. Access into the Ravis parcel from WillowRidge was another matter, however. The Ravis parcel does have frontage along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) which allowed other alternatives to provide access to the Ravis property rather than WillowRidge. Staff concluded at that time a cul -de -sac from WillowRidge was not feasible. A cul -de -sac from Lundgren's WillowRidge would have involved losing a lot of trees and by ' the time the cul -de -sac was extended through to the Ravis property, there was very little property left to be developed. Staff has recently explored some other alternative development possibilities on the Ravis property and adjoining parcels. Attached is a memo that was sent to the residents lying south of Lake Lucv Road and west of Powers Boulevard (Attachment 1). This memo explores five alternatives to subdividing the neighborhood. Staff met with the residents regarding the alternative development proposals back on March 9, 1995. At that meeting there was numerous discussions pertaining to private driveway access points along Powers Boulevard as well as all of the options listed within the memo. The general consensus was that no one alternative could be completely agreed upon by all affected parcels. Staff did propose Option E as a viable option in developing the neighborhood, including the Ravis parcel. This alternative also provided the most flexibility for the other adjacent parcels to subdivide as well. The private driveway proposal, as submitted, limits access to only the Ravis parcel and no future access to the adjoining parcels. Staff feels that this area can and should be developed under a different alternative ' which includes a public street. Therefore, at this time staff recommends that the subdivision as proposed be denied due to premature street access to development. If a private driveway was allowed to be constructed, the remaining parcels (Kohman and Infanger) will have limited subdivision potential, if any. r -, � i Sharmin Al -Jaff April 10, 1995 Page 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this subdivision proposal be denied on the basis of premature street access to the site. Staff has demonstrated that public street and utility improvements can be installed to service this development and the adjoining parcels. Should the Planning Commission and City Council approve the proposal as submitted, staff has outlined the appropriate recommendations and conditions below. 1. Utility construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over the sanitary sewer and water lines. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 2. Importing or exporting material from the site will require approval of a haul route. The haul route shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 3. Lot 4 shall utilize an internal ejector pump system to service the lower level of the dwellings, if necessary. The use of a forcemain shall be prohibited. 4. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence shall be installed at the edge of the construction limits and not within the wetland buffer zone. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the final plat conditions of approval. 6. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during I construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for extending municipal utilities to the north line of Lot 2 for future extension. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be charged at time of building permit a hookup charge in the amount of $2,425 each lot. 8. The applicant shall receive the necessary access pennit from the Carver County Highway , Department for relocating the driveway access prior to the City signing the final plat. 9. Direct access to all lots shall be limited to the proposed private driveway. A cross - access , easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access to Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 via the proposed private driveway. 10. The applicant shall design and construct a storm drainage system to convey ninoff from the development and pretreat the storm runoff to SWMP standards to discharge into the wetlands in lieu of paying SWMP water quality fees. The applicant shall pay the City a SWMP water ' quantity fee in the amount of $2,811.60. This fee is payable prior to the City signing the final plat. Sharmin Al -Jaff April 10, 1995 Page 5 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 applicant shall submit a letter to the City documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year storm events and provide ponding calculations for the stormwater quality pond in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The grading plan shall be revised to include a storm drainage system which will convey runoff from the private street to the pretreatment pond. 13. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the utility improvements shall be required for review and formal approval by the City Council. Construction plans and specifications shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications & Detail Plates. ktm Attachment: Alternative Development Proposals c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g: \eng \diane \planning \mvis.ppr CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: U LS OWNER: cIi G. p$21 i c 0--'k� ADDRESS: �"_ / 0 U ADDRESS: ct, 1 cts Ay, Mii . - S 3 1 7 TELEPHONE (Day time) fVl �� Ya l TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW /Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading /Excavation Permit 13. _Z Wetland Alteration Permit ? 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds ,- P�> -,. t. 10. Subdivision $Lj &0 TOTAL FEE $ / % /ez c�) c> A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8'/s" 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. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract I i PROJECT NAME ' LOCATION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION L_ PRESENT ZONING C(- S r REQUESTED ZONING S c =� -- t '1 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION F" REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION � F�ti; REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ` �� 7 ' . .� <=- � � t This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ' I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. /X Signature of Applicant /Date I F1, Signature of Fee Owner Date 0 Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be malled to the applicant's address. AEI N ov - LVK be,^ ►Q`tK - Gkan k csSe», INN. To Sha y- ph in A I f f� ba�ieVe. f /�e. f o�IotJlh9 111 {orn+a'�io}, c✓� /� assist f hQ, s Lad it! iSion cLpp)icgt.ov% CG- oldt. Glow Acres scLhht•f -ied e, a V, m OV e.J 'b o C l' axk aSSetit ba c-a.ccsQ- w Q. W ;t % 'bV%. o A Q e a. r L UL S9, T* a. (So 'Y' Q G c t Y e J s 1!5� to W i V%c► pNNior C16 Ito uji mQ-Aa alms worls yoIac P. A v, a cQ i - E i o K a( la e.,, Q_- f+ A-ja. s 4 % h a. i n h ak oh k a s ckoo I s c l w t In t s So road *J i' o ti. o + GL a GSQ -S -Ho we.v j cl s u In IA- I t'kQ- as �,,p�� Xf � o y, i n o, 1^ K r a' set+ ; n Q. 7 broyi u S Lv a 14 r4 Q, l 0f 'rr ov► 0 r C. k i e, A A AA o w 14 !1 C h a. VJ for u. s +- L►a. V e, a- a: wQ-YQ+ 4, to to ih1S 6 4 V4rcla5! Po w e vrg O NO O 4.Kd� 4*.A 0.ar �o►Nt11a !O ro'1' wta.nti �(QQ rs Y w45 4, wQ.l� �WIA�K�41r11d+ I�Ogry W ;t % 'bV%. o A Q e a. r L UL S9, T* a. (So 'Y' Q G c t Y e J s 1!5� to W i V%c► pNNior C16 Ito uji mQ-Aa alms worls yoIac P. A v, a cQ i - E i o K a( la e.,, Q_- f+ A-ja. s 4 % h a. i n h ak oh k a s ckoo I s c l w t In t s So road *J i' o ti. o + GL a GSQ -S -Ho we.v j cl s u In IA- I t'kQ- as �,,p�� Xf � o y, n e C -wt - SS eh "nos C nt% ii4c cyeV. t�Q, 0. S+ -rh v4 Wears. G i y e.-r, Is �J r c to �r:v►�ar�lw ctr t Se h a. a>n� a S f iC- Vct ihcrea50 i�n't'h+�f;ri c a h powers Y31vd�!A w►-Fe a vt j 71: eG Ir ta w¢.. Waw�d yw o y `Q. Wk% 'Q N T in QV0.� ka -��KG ��t.h O��t014S if apIaeaVS a y i Y► a h o -� k 4xv )0aS tG 4 11 ` 4 YV �rri QJ War l<iha Co c.,� Co la � .4,t t t1� S c.\% Oo r % v% �i lot- 01 -s- a vv% t 14 14 v- e 4 e.r s a %W%a.tI \of w ► a v% a.w I%aW,4. a.•,. wk: iwta a i��e.vt a n c �. �6 gtoproa w� L a(so NroVia'r, t-& .. ;i 0.cp d I 'us V 1,U I f - t~ kds Lt 't 1. � � i y' vk o -� � e yv` a v► s - G- a � r : Q.1 1. w � SL V 4ors ZVn S)Q ac.i f-iCCL Gary W 0 -0 �-, Q CD tau i t.-s � o cQ Q y 2 I o Ck- 40 I CL w oc.,t� v+ ��"� ti e. c�� S�e �aQ"Visi0 . ,. N e 4 k re_v., - xh St ►1\ h a vQ- ) WOw b -q- h e. $t ha 4 w b.4- c, '� -3— ce,vv� 16 c A r r Q-wT 1 `i m o V t N q C. a y+.� aS S Qlf t t -_- 1 r; - E 5 i yw Q - �� s -IC �\ o s ¢ o 6 a U. C;Et , o e. S . T1, ¢. 4- c t [ o W'% V � 1 0. v► a- V- 0, W.-M inn. ; In d 17 All 1 o-F s a re_ w Q l 0 .6 oy c, S i Z k aid r\ o k s 4, )p 1 4.c4.%,,4.rsf. 3� T1, e. -E ti e �Q, k a14- S� 'A!% t k a -E t t -_- 1 r; - E 5 i 4- v^ J OY , o w o� c� yo 1 Q ,f,) . v► e s yy� i v► i w. asl. C a K q k Q �- X i v► 4[ a ,n c4 c o cc yL{ ,a L& . 5 T h ¢ LL+ 1 :4- A. h.d2 Y cV YJ 1 a v� d S: »rn aQA E h t i Ll j J rl J 67 4 S o- , a )p Iroy i a4 es '0 T1, e w e I a.,.` h S c v e. b K f S Q r -% ok cx, S Y%eo .,_iv►-q- T�% .0- 10 Qy k- N 9-o-& C h l o i des a V I CL J- v a + k Q. c% ± v'ft - P - c0 y¢v�a.9 .Q Gar Qr; a a rwvwle o_v+ d V - S - r o y Q. a r• e. y Q .r .� o so 4E 4f e. 3)&&N L' k a v ; h CrowcQ�� Qh� r eV%-,ova W � - b Q V 4 L. Ac . 1o w G- law A, r ctreas, is 1 rr a m y oc 4 L S t 0 1 A a o � o C. a� �. � v� 10. c�-E, sa 6 � iyis�a,r, i V" fta a IY` Q. c.� c c4 h a v e. a V% a �3 ca e S i o �► s o '*` ■ 1r• 2 k r e a $sl �� rC i o o..� l h Sc- o Y w..a.'� i 0 o- i G a.-A �r t c�c. �. �M u w i e o r -16% LA 7L1 f -1 0 ■ 11 1 I u 1 r] L MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: December 13, 1994 SUBJECT: 94 -22 SUB (Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis) I was asked to review the preliminary plat stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, NOV 17 1994, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. 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. In addition, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of 'natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes. u Sharmin Al -Jaff December 13, 1994 Page 2 Recommendations: 1. Revise Grading and Utility Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the Grading and Utility Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: November 23, 1994 SUBJ: Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis Planning Case 94 -22 SUB and 94 -7 WET I have reviewed the preliminary plat subdivi 1. Submit street names to Public 2. A ten foot clear saace must b 3. Fire hydran g.\safet yVnNoldg1 ow. l id have the following requirements: � for approval. tained around fire hydrants. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I FROM: Jill Kimsal, Forestry Intern 4 DATE: April 11, 1995 SUBJ: Tree Inventory, Golden Glow Acres, James C. Ravis The applicant has submitted a tree inventory the plan are required replacement plantings to front yard of the existing home, are along the will be following the southern and lower east4 removed. The diameters range from four to l appears to be on the neighbor's property. y coverage calculation. Also noted on All trees, excluding those in the lines of the site. Since the new road a number of trees are scheduled to be not including a 48 inch willow that Five trees ( 35, 36, 37, 38, and 45) have been included on the survey, but do not appear to be on the property being developed. Trees 35 through 38 have questionable survival chances. There will be a three to four foot cut for the roadway and the four trees are 2 to 10 feet from the edge of the cut. Since they appear to be on the neighbor's property, their removal can not be readily assumed. The applicant's canopy „coverage calculations are in order and they will be required to plant 13 replacement trees as shown on the tree inventory. During construction, trees 51 through 58 must be protected at all times by tree protection fencing. The same preservation principles shall be applied to trees near the existing house and along the proposed roadway'. Whether or not trees 35 through 38 and 45 will be included in the development plans must be resolved by the applicant considering they are not on the development property. Their removal or preservation may also make a slight difference in canopy coverage calculations. MEMORANDUM December 1, 1994 Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff Planner I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 94 -22 SUB and 94 -7 WET Golden Glow Acres James C. Ravis Dear Ms. Al -Jaff: Enclosed is the subdivision print for this project with our gas mains shown in red. Individual service lines are not shown. Natural gas service is available to this development from the main shown on Powers Boulevard. No addition work is anticipated at this time unless requested by the builder or owner. The builder or owner should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco's Residential Energy Services, 525 -7607 or 342 -5123, to make application for natural gas service. Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal. 1 Si d rely, J,% i on, P.E. De gn Engineer Engineering Services 612- 342 -5426 cc: Mary Palkovich Terry Jencks Minn^ A Division of Arkla, Inc. 700 West Linden Avenue P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1165 STATE Of H Cry CE- S ( 1rz% DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772 -7910 FILE NO. November 30, 1994 City of Chanhassen, Planning Department Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis, Lake Lucy (10 -7P), City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City #E94 -22 SUB and 94 -7 WET) Dear Ms. Al -Jaff: We have reviewed the site plans (received November 23, 1994) for the above - referenced project (Section 2, T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no DNR permit is required. However, it appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. The project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 2. The site does not appear to be within a floodplain district. 3. The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. You are advised that the DNR would object to having the stormwater routed directly to the WCA wetland. Stormwater sedimentation /treatment basins, or other appropriate stormwater treatment features, should be included in the stormwater management plan. If stormwater is routed directly to the wetland, it can cause sedimentation and water level bounces that are detrimental to wildlife values and water quality. 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. 5. The project area appears to be within the 1000' shoreland district of Lake , Lucy (10 -7P), a recreational development water. The development must be consistent with city's shoreland management regulations. In particular you should note: a. The project area (lots 3 and 4) contains steep slopes. Topographic alterations should be minimized in this area. b. The structures in the development should be screened using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. C. The applicant should be commended for planning to place a 10' buffer , of natural vegetation around the WCA wetland. This buffer,- st,,f4V will improve wildlife habitat in the area and improve t14 `66a er quality of the wetland. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF CHANHA55F -N t City of Chanhassen, Planning Department Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II November 30, 1994 Page 2 6. 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. 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. 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, f Joe Richter Hydrologist JR /cds c: Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann City of Chanhassen Shoreland File ri 17 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (612) 361 -1010 FAX (612) 361 -1025 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 COUNTY of CA QV December 30, 1994 TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Bill Week Assistant County Engineer #') SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis Following are comments regarding the Golden Glow Acres Preliminary Plat transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated November 21, 1994: Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: Urban Undivided 2 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 100' 110' Rural Undivided 2 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 120' 150' Urban Undivided 4 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 100' 120' Rural Undivided 4 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 140' 170' County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 (Powers Blvd.)is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The right of way shown on the plan includes a 100 foot corridor. The corridor as shown would meet the minimum recommended needs for an urban four lane roadway. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. Construction of the proposed driveway access with CSAH 17 is subject to the access permit requirements of Carver County. Carver County would require that the existing access be removed as shown on the plan. The preference of the County is to limit the number of accesses to the County Roads and have the accesses be public roads if possible. If there is any possibility of the house to the south outside the plat connecting to this new entrance, that would be desirable. RECEIVED Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste OF CHANHASSE ^4 u u Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right -of -way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right -of -way of CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right -of- way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 6. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right -of -way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right -of- way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. 7. As this area develops, the traffic on CSAH 17 will increase. The increased traffic will generate an increased noise level. The County would consider any type of noise abatement project, if necessary, to be the responsibility of the City or the developer. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plat for the proposed development. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, APRIL 19, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive Project: Golden Glow Acres Developer: James Ravis Location: 6660 Powers Boulevard Notice: You are invited to attend a public I area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to subdivide a 2.22 acre parcel into 4 lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6660 Powers Boulevard, Golden Glow Acres, James Ravis. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937 -1900 ext. 120. If you 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 April 6, 1995. o) 4Mq5 Robert & Lois Petersen 650 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 k ussell G. Kohman 6730 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wendall & Blanche Gravlun 6270 Blue Jay Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 William & Juliann Infanger 6740 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 !Melvin Allrich & Bonnie Thomas Jennie Hays 6681 Powers Blvd. 6691 Powers Blvd. I chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 j Paul & Sheryll Kreuter 1090 Carver Beach Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Stanley &Joy Javurek 6780 Redwing Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Jan & P. Mahin 1 781 Chaparral Lane hanhassen, MN 55317 l Gary Mundahl 6780 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 ,Joseph & Kathleen Hamilton 6820 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark Lathrop 6850 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN State of MN in Trust c/o Carver Co. Auditor 600 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 Randy Tikalsky 6801 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jeffrey & Laura Bros 6771 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Craig & Stacie Prescher 6790 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Allan & Connie Ott 6840 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mary Gerk 6831 Utica Lane 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Daniel & Gwen Hennessey 1 6800 Utica Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gary & Ann O'Neill 6830 Utica Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Harry Murphy 1215 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lawrence & Kathleen Kerber 6420 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Layton & Madelyn Paine 1092 Shenendoah Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Russell Paul y 1031 Carver Beach Road Chanhassen,. MN 55317 James Manders 6791 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Pallar & Sokkha Ngep Chanthan Hour 6770 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ingrid Gunnbjorg Stephens 6800 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven & Sandrea Kvidera 6850 Chaparral Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert Boe 6801 Utica Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bruce & Merridith Arnold 6850 Utica Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kathleen Mary Koch Kenneth & D. Earhart 6870 Utica Lane 6880 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Scott & Joanne Reinertson R. Chris & Mary Rumble 6801 Utica Terrace 6861 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kenneth & Karen Anderson Richard C. Ersbo 6881 Utica Lane 1211 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven & Sharon Veno Wesley & Pamela Johnson 6730 Mulberry Cir. E. 6719 Mulberry Cir. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Greg & Martha Pomerantz Barry & Murlyn Pace 1321 Heather Ct. 1331 Heather Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven & D. Manning Michael & S. Arbisi 6687 Mulberry Circle 6693 Mulberry Circle E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David J. Batt Lundgren Bros. Const. 6699 Mulberry Cir. E. 935 Wayzata Blvd. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391 David Ronnei 6666 Mulberry Cir. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edward & Carol Jannusch 6831 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas & Linda Trusty 6871 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark & B. Rasmussen 6729 Mulberry Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark & Pamela Wagner 6735 Mulberry Cir. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 David & J. Meyer 6683 Mulberry Cir. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Roy & J. Anderson 6695 Mulberry Cir. E. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jeffrey & M. Elder 6696 Mulberry Cir. Chanhassen, MN 55317 ity to 4\lgtik oe de ( abi e we tvat w rotic C '� Si alt 10 yo`' ba t - o� �a� ..;rg__.� .- City Council Meeting - Sep.smber 9, 19.91 " Dumping nutrients into the site.- Some of it stems � where the salts which apparently contain some phosl right off the street and into the system. So what capture a portion of those take Lucy Road flowages expanded pond with the goal that the total flowage of a hi her quality than it is today We reviewed from Lake Lucy Road itself Dhates as -well are flushing we're proposing to do is to and run it through an through that area should be g 'revised access plans at the west curb cut to save some trees and I've got a series of documents. I'll.put that up later if need be. There's a very significant stand of trees there and there's really only l,or 2 good places to come out on Lake Lucy Road for the - west entrance. The applicant spent a good bit of time trying to develop a plan that's most sensitive to .protecting those trees as possible but the Planning Commission wanted us to explore the idea of realigning the road so it sits on the Ortenblat driveway believing that that would be less destructive. We did look at alternatives to do that. What we found was that there was only a nominal improvement in saving the trees and in exchange for that we lost some of the bigger trees. In addition, doing that would wind up filling part of the ONR wetland. Now the DNR doesn't normally allow you to fill wetlands but they said if you could really demonstrate that you had substantial tree preservation they might consider it. Based upon what we know today, I don't think we could sell them on that. I think there was a net benefit of 40 caliper inches of trees which is hardly substantial enough to allow filling of a wetland, I don't believe anyway. An approved landscaping plan has been prepared. However we do have several changes or additions to that which were being recomme at we carried forward throu h the Planning Commission. ccess ana utilities to adjacent to lots owned by Ted Coey and Jim Ravis were explored. We concluded that sewer and water should be stubbed into the Ravis property. The Ravis parcel, if you could put the location map back up. The ravis parcel is just located to the east of the site in this vicinity here. I believe Mr. Ravis has, if I'm not mistaken, this lot and this lot back here. We did conclude that sanitary sewer and water should most appropriately be extended from this property into that area. Access into that area was another matter however. That if that lot does have frontage out on Powers, there are some alternatives for providing driveway access to it. We did conclude that a cul -de -sac however extending from the Lundgren property made no sense in that area. You lost a lot of trees to get it through there but by the time you got the cul -de -sac through the Ravis property, there's no Ravis property left to develo So it rpal1v g&U ective means of serving the roperty. The Coey property, we did look at various a erna Ives or rea igning a western portion of the street through there hopefully to avoid those trees. Mr. Coey's not involved in this plat. He did talk to us earlier on about the possibility of becoming involved in it and decided against it. But we did look at it from a topographic standpoint and again we concluded that it's not impossible to do things. Run things out to that property but you did incur significant environmental damage to do it and there really didn't seem to be any reason to pursue it any further. As far as utilities go to the Coey property, we are recommending that the sanitary sewer be stubbed out that way. The lift station that going to be built in the Lundgren plat is deep enough so it can provide some service to some of those properties west of the site for a short distance and we figure we might as put that in as long as we have the ability to do that. On the last matter, the Planning Commission did not make this a condition. They made a suggestion or some such language that Lot 14 be looked at as being removed from the plat. We're not sure really how to approach that. The developer can speak for themselves but they believe that the economics of the project are contingent 44 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVISION 2.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6660 POWERS BOULEVARD, GOLDEN GLOW ACRES, JAMES RAVIS. Public Present: Name Address James & Norma Ravis Bill Infanger Russell G. Kohman Bob & Lois Peterson Roy Anderson Ed Jannusch Anita & Harry Murphy Larry Kerber 6660 Powers Boulevard 6740 Powers Boulevard 6730 Powers Boulevard 6650 Powers Boulevard 6695 Mulberry Circle 6831 Utica Terrace 1215 Lake Lucy Road 6700 Powers Boulevard Shmmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners to staff? Thank you. Is the applicant here and would they like to make a presentation? Jim Ravis: I certainly think the staff. Mancino: Could you please state your name and address. Jim Ravis: Oh. My name is Jim Ravis. I live at 6660 Powers Boulevard. I'm the applicant. Staff certainly has looked at options. I don't necessarily agree that they're the best options. I think the major, key issue here is access. I'd like to ... this is an aerial photograph of this property. As staff stated, I applied for access to this property through the Willow Ridge development, when that development, even before it submitted a preliminary plat. I tried to work with the city to gain access at that time. I believe the staff recommended that that access be granted. It was not. There are only a few ways you can gain access. The one through Willow Ridge is now blocked off. There's an access here between the Kohman and Infanger property and I'm sure that would make them extremely happy to work on that, although there may be an existing access there. The one that the city has proposed, I believe has all the same disadvantages as any other. One of the main points that staff made was they would lose less trees there. That is not true. You can see that there's a significant amount of mature trees in here. Those trees are now mature. There are other trees back here and at the public, there was a town meeting or whatever you would like to call it, where all the property 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 owners and that. The gentleman who owns this property, Mr. Kerber, said he had gone out and counted them and we would definitely lose more trees by going that way. The access I'm asking for is for here. At the time that I applied for access, at the time that Willow Ridge ' developed, I was told I had sufficient access on my own property. I was also told that that access would remove a significant number of trees that the city did not want to let go. This is a photograph that I took off of my deck last week. That was absolutely not true. You can see the trees that were there before Willow Ridge developed. All of those trees have been removed, so I really have a hard time understanding the logic that has been given to me over the past 3 or 4 years. These are large lots. There are very few trees to be removed. I also ' have another two photographs. This is a photograph I took last week of Lots 3 and 4. You can see that those lots are not vegetated with a lot of trees. This is ... and the other picture that I gave you, this photograph of Lot number 2 and you can also see that there's ... I feel that at this point in time the only proper way to develop this property is through the private driveway. It does not preclude the staff or the other part of the development that they recommended from going in. It does not preclude these other properties to develop. There's an existing access over there. It could be, you also could convert private driveways to a U shape or semi - circular street ... So I guess what I'm saying is that I feel ... I was told that this was the proper access... I have provided the staff with a written response, or the Planning t Commission and City Council with a written response to the staff report. I've also provided you with a letter from the engineering firm that is helping with this development. I think those are extremely pertinent to this situation and I'm not going to read them. It will only take you a few minutes to read those letters. I do have some significant concerns about the staff report. In three areas, the preservation zone. I think that recommendation was not well thought out because it's near the homes. Those trees need thinning. I provided a picture with ! a letter. Those canopies on those trees are already innerlinked significantly. If the trees are not thinned, the growth will be impeded. We will not get the majestic trees that we ought to have in residential areas. I also have a significant issue with the drainage. There was two recommendations in the report provided. Staff made one. Gave no reasons for it. I don't believe at this time, and I have not been asked prior to this, to provide a drainage plan or what they've said is necessarily feasible. I've discussed it with the engineering firm. We don't know if that's the right way to propose any drainage solution. This is a significant slope on these lots. We're trying to maintain that. If you read the DNR report, we've been asked to maintain that. We provided a significant buffer zone from the wetlands. I think a preservation agreement certainly is in order there, but I think that until we arrive at a drainage solution, we need to take a look at that and then do what's right. I have some other concerns in terms of building requirements which I have outlined in my letter to you. I feel we only ought to live with one requirement, not double requirements, and those are outlined. I think one of the things that I see that's, I believe the adjacent property owners may not agree to, is all the plans for the alternate plans provided by the staff, give you a maximum housing density. I don't think that that's necessarily appropriate for every development, and I'm sure C 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 there's some property owners here tonight adjacent who may give you the same answer. What we're doing here and what we proposed I think fits in with the topology of the land and I guess what I'd like to ask is you approve the preliminary plat and I'll be happy to work with staff to try to resolve these issues on preservation zones, drainage and building requirements. Thank you. Mancino: Does the commission have any questions for Mr. Ravis? Thank you. Sharmin, have you had time to read through the Ravis' letter? Al -Jaffa One of them, yes. The Ravis' letter, yes I have. But the engineer's letter that was submitted just before the meeting, no I haven't. Jim Ravis: I apologize for that but even though my application has been here since November, I did not ... until Friday ... so he could not provide a response until today. Mancino: Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Fwmakes moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favo►• and the motion carded. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to speak on this issue? Bill Infanger: Yes I would. I'm Bill Infanger, 6740 Powers. I'm one of the two properties most affected by this development and I concur with the city planner. If Mr. Ravis goes ahead as he plans to go ahead with this, I'm simply shut off because... local access to County Road 17, which I doubt that the County's going to approve. In addition... which I would do for the same reasons Mr. Ravis wants to do it. Mainly to profit from it. I'd move elsewhere. Concern about the condition of the area. So am I. I'd move elsewhere in Chanhassen where it was conducive but his plan essentially says, we'll make it more congested and I'll leave at my expense and I believe at the expense of the owner next to me. So it's certainly not in my interest, and I basically concur with the city planner. Mancino: Thank you. Bill Infanger: Thank you. Russ Kohman: I'm the neighbor next door to him. I live at 6730 Powers Boulevard and. Mancino: And your name please. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Russ Kohman: Russ Kohman. Mancino: Thank you. Russ Kohman: And I've got several pine trees that sit right on the property line, right on the edge. Yeah. Where he plans on putting the private road in and if he puts the road in through the edge, the pine trees will come down because they will not withstand it. You know if you cut to their roots, eventually they'll die and I can't afford to ... I bought the land, I'm a single guy and I bought the land because I wanted to be left alone. I want to live that way. And the same as my neighbors. He bought his house. He's got a big house and a large family and he wants to be left alone. And this is, we didn't really want people building around us or right on top of us. And we didn't want no, another right -of -way coming in the back way. Or coming along side my property, reducing the value of my land and this would throw more taxes towards... eventually. Not right away. But eventually we would... Mancino: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Robert Peterson: My name's Robert Peterson. I live at 6650 Powers Boulevard, which is the property just to the north of Mr. Ravis. I'm not here to speak against their development. I'm for it. They've been good neighbors and I don't have any problem with them developing that property. I'd like to offer some suggestions however that would benefit both of us. But first, let me see if I understand Sharmin. Al -Jaff: Sharmin. Robert Peterson: I don't know if you, did you get the impression that most of us at that meeting favored this plat? Al -Jaff: No. I said there wasn't a plan that was favored by everybody. Robert Peterson: Oh, okay. I didn't hear it well, sorry. Because most of us at that meeting didn't favor that plan. My suggestion, I went back to two. Can I go over there and point? Mancino: Yes. Robert Peterson: The person that builds a house on this lot, well first of all when we moved in here a long time ago, the house was oriented towards the views. The major view which is this way towards the wetland and towards Lake Lucy, you can see sometimes. Now anybody building a house here blocks that view. I understand how that can happen. I feel that the Ravis' could re- locate these two lines, forcing this person to build farther to the south. That 43 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 would help me some but it would do something for the Ravis property. Right on this line here is where the grades starts to drop down quite a bit. If that line were moved to the south, this property would become a walkout lot which is more valuable than, otherwise it's flat. It takes a little property away from the other two but they're still well above the minimum. They're still about 20,000 feet ... I'd like to see if this plat goes ahead to discuss forcing this person here to build at least 55 feet away from that line. Naturally I'm selfish but that's my interest so I can maintain that view without looking at that edge of this house here as much. And actually ... the view. Second part of this is, it's unusual to have the back of a house facing the front of a house. That's pretty unusual. We have the same situation here too. I just have some suggestions on the layout here to be considered that would help my property and the Ravis property. That was my major concern is the view of my house. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Larry Kerber: My name's Larry Kerber. I own the property directly north, 6700 Powers Boulevard. The largest piece. Also the piece they have the whole road proposed on. I have no intention of giving up a half acre of my land so people behind me, to the south of me can develop. It also turns all my property around from the way it lays naturally. I have all walkouts now to the west. That road would turn everything around. It would also take out about 180 of my trees that were planted on the west side of my property. So I'm sure there's a solution for this but I don't think we've maybe looked at all the options. I definitely don't, yeah this one gives me 9 lots. 9 little slivered lots that are totally reversed from the way I think they should be and the way the land lays but I'm sure there's a solution but I am not in favor of this one here. But I do think Mr. Ravis should be allowed to develop. At some point he bought his place. I know he bought additional property 5 years ago, I'm sure to develop. He bought out the back of the two lots, or one of the lots of the people who were just up here. At some point he did a subdivision to get that property of his and again when Lundgren came in, they told him he could develop without access through there so I feel there's an ordinance in the city for four houses to a private driveway. I don't know if he meets all the conditions but I think he should be allowed to develop without me developing. I don't know why I should, why this development should be contingent on me and Bob Peterson and everyone else splitting their lots up even if they don't want to. So I think he should develop as long as his plan is legal and meets all the specs of the city. Mancino: Thank you. Hempel: Madam Chairperson, maybe I could address a couple of points here that are coming out of public comment. First of all staff did go through and develop all the documents for developing the neighborhood. One of the major concerns we had was access onto Powers Boulevard. That is an arterial street. It's a County Road. It's not, they have jurisdiction with 44 0 r Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 ' regards to access points. As Mr. Kerber has indicated, he didn't want to see his property develop in this fashion because it changes the lots Mr. Kerber has envisioned and developing his access points off of Powers Boulevard. I don't believe that will be allowed through the ' County. ...to look at at trying to group neighborhoods as a whole to make it work from a public street standpoint. To include public improvements. Sewer and water, storm sewer and yet give some flexibility on these parcels when it comes to developing it ... all that coming at 1 once in order for this to work. On the other hand we didn't want to see each individual property owner coming in with a private driveway proposal out onto Powers Boulevard. Mancino: So with what we're seeing as Option E, the chain of events, which one does have to come in first? Hempel: The neighborhood puts together to petition the city to do a 429 project which is an assessable project, then it would be in the hands of the City Council to determine whether they want to proceed with conducting the feasibility study and then ordering the improvement at that point. It would probably take close to 50% of the benefitting property owners. Mancino: To do that, thank you. Mr. Kohman, you wanted to come up? Thank you. Russ Kohman: I'm not too good on words. Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else? Robert Peterson: As it relates to most of us that have about an acre maybe, or right at that, that are left over, except for Larry Kerber, we could get one more lot out of our property and it would work fine. I've gone through the numbers and I don't know if the rest of them have but you take your acre ... cut it in half, pay for a city road, pay for the sewer and the assessments and the development and all of that, there's no profit to be had in making one more lot out of your property. Believe me there isn't. I can show you the numbers. There's no big advantage for me to cut my ground in half, and I bet everybody else would say the same thing. To get one more lot. It doesn't work. I'm talking about a selling price of $55,000.00 to $60,000.00 on a lot. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? ' Bill Infanger: Just one clarification. I don't necessarily oppose Mr. Ravis' development. I just oppose his development if it cuts me off from doing exactly the same thing. Mr. Peterson's comments are apropos. We've also gone through a cost analysis to see if in fact it could be profitable and the answer might be, no. Not right now, but maybe later on. What I 1 45 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 don't want is a situation where because of what happens now, I can't develop later on. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Ron. Nutting: This one's messy. At this point I am in support of staffs recommendation to deny. I'm not in any position to develop or to lay this thing out property. There needs to be more work done. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the development because we're not talking about moving this one forward. I'm not sure what can be done. Any time you have this many property owners in a competing interest, you're either at each other's throats or you come to some accommodation that isn't going to work for everybody. So I guess I'm, at this point I think there needs to be some more interaction between staff and the developer as well as continued communications to see if we can come up with something that makes this work. I guess Dave's comments sway me a bit in terms of the access onto Powers. Diane's not here anymore but I'm echoing Diane's comments from the past. From a public safety perspective and the private drives. I think this is a real problem area for future development so that's all I have right now. Mancino: Thanks. Ladd. Conrad: It's the Planning Commission's job to make sure that areas develop properly. It's the planning staffs job to do that likewise. The plan before us tonight does not do that. It just doesn't and because it doesn't, and because it forces individual development which is really not what we're about, I think this has to be turned down. This is not, the design in front of us, and I'm not talking about Option A thru E. There may be others. But what we see tonight is not the solution, and what we see tonight is not the way we can really develop one parcel at the expense of others. It's poor planning. Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: Nothing to add. No comments. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: No comments. P C 7 l Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I agree with what Ron and Ladd have said. Mancino: Thank you. Do I have a motion? Nutting: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -22, for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown in the plans dated November 18, 1994 for the reasons as outlined in the staff report. Conrad: Second. Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -22, for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown in the plans dated November 18, 1994 for the reasons as outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 52 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, HARSTAD COMPANIES. Public Present: Name Address Bill Munig 6850 Stratford Blvd. Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road Keith Bedford 3961 Stratford Ridge Janet Carlson 4141 Kings Road Margie Borris 4071 Kings Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff? 47