4. Request to Rezone 16.34 acres from RR, to RSF, preliminary plat of 16.34 acres into 19 Single Family lot s and a varience to allow a 50ft wide right-fo way, lake Lucy Estates, 1471 lake Lucy Rd, Michael ByrnePC DATE: 5/17/95
CC DATE: 6/12/95
CASE #: 95 -3 SUB 95 -1 REZ
' v ' By: Al- Jaff :v
STAFF REPORT
Q
a.
J
�
Q
I
0
�
�a
a
W
H
PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF,
Residential Single Family
Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 14.53 Acres into 18 single family lots and
two outlots, Lake Lucy Estates
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
A Variance to Allow a 20 Foot Front Yard Setback, a 10% street grade,
and a 50 Foot Wide Right -Of -Way, a 10 foot side yard setback, and five
homes to be served via a private street.
LOCATION: South of Lake Lucy Road and North of Lake Lucy
APPLICANT: Michael J. Byrne Brian & Nancy Tichy
5428 Kimberly Road 1471 Lake Lucy Road
Minnetonka. MN 55345 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Action. by City AdministMtot
PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District Er,dors,ad___k:
Modifie
ACREAGE: 14.53 acres Reiecte -
t3at
DENSITY: 1.2 Units per Acre -Cross 1.98 Units per Acre -Net Date Submitted to Commission
Date Submitted to Council
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF, Shadow Ridge Subdivision
S - Lake Lucy
E - RR, Rural Residential District
W - RR, Rural Residential District
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains two single family residences. The majority of
the site is wooded. It contains two wetlands. The topography
varies significantly throughout the site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 2
This application first appeared before the Planning Commission on April 5, 1995. Numerous
issues were raised by the Planning Commission, residents, and staff. These issues included
excessive grading, tree loss, environmental concerns, and variances. The applicant listened to
the issues and attempted to address them through a revised plan.
The application was revisited by the Planning Commission on May 3, 1995. At that meeting,
staff prepared a sketch plan to act as a guideline to improve the plat. The recommendation in
the re port was based on the layout pre pare d by staff rather than the plan pre pare d by the
applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the plan was not ready to be
sent to City Council. Action on the application was tabled and the applicant was directed to
modify the plans and incorporate recommendations made by staff.
On May 17, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed a plan that incorporated most of staff's
recommendations. The proposal was approved with conditions. This staff report has been
modified to address the changes.
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 14.53 acres into 18 single family lots and two outlots
The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF,
Residential Single Family.
The average lot size is 30,122 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.2 units per acre.
Most lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance with the exception of Lot
2, Block 2. This lot has an average depth of 123 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a
minimum depth of 125 feet. These variances can be easily eliminated by shifting Lakeway
Drive to the east. The site is located south of Lake Lucy Road and north of Lake Lucy.
Access to the subdivision will be provided via a public street /cul -de -sac south of Lake Lucy
Road to service the proposed lots, as well as internal private streets.
The majority of the site is wooded with a diverse range of species and ages. According to
the proposed plans, the minimum tree canopy to be maintained is 46% or 5.23 acres. Staff
calculated 1.32 acres of trees to be removed in excess of the minimum requirements.
Additional tree replacement will be required.
In reviewing this plat, staff worked with the applicant and offered some suggestions to
minimize the impact on the natural features of the site. Some of these options were locating
a storm pond on the site, moving the cul de sac to the west to avoid some mature trees,
custom grading house pads, and using variances to minimize impacts on the site. The
applicant incorporated these suggestions into the plans, however, additional work was required
to further improve the plan. Staff then prepared a modified sketch plan to give the applicant
additional direction and recommendation to further improve the plat. The applicant
7
1
Lake Lucy Estates
1 May 17, 1995
Page 3
1 incorporated these suggestions into the revised plans. Staff has offered additional suggestions
to reduce the height of some retaining walls, minimize grading, and reduce impact on some
mature trees.
1 Changes that took place include the following:
1 * The ultimate number of lots to be served via Lakeway Court which is a private
street is five vs. three.
* The previous plan showed 10 lots with a 20 foot front yard variance. The
1 current plan shows a total of 3 lots with a 20 foot front yard setback variance.
* Tree plan has been revised by saving trees in clusters as well as individual
trees. However, the overall tree loss has not been reduced.
1 * Grading has been reduced through custom grading of the lots and shifting
house pads and dwelling type on the lots.
* Filling on Lots 6 and 7 has been reduced. The type of home is designated as a
1 lookout rather than a walkout, which requires less fill.
The revised plans are another step in the right direction; however, additional revisions could
1 be incorporated to further improve the plan. Staff will be providing recommendations to
minimizes grading and variances. Staff is recommending approval of this application with
conditions outlined in the staff report.
1 REZONING
i The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF,
Residential Single Family. The area to the north is zoned Residential Single Family to the
east and west is zoned Rural Residential and is guided for Residential Low Density.
1 The 2000 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density
Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.2 units
1 per acre and 1.98 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out.
This area is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending approval for rezoning to RSF
1 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
1 PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide an 14.53 acre site into 18 single family lots and two
outlots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.98 units per acre net after removing the
1 roads (2.28 acres) and wetlands (3.16 acres). All lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet
of area, with an average lot size of 30,122 square feet. The depth of the lots meet ordinance
1 requirements with the exception of Lot 2, Block 2. This parcel has an average depth of 123
1
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 4
feet. The ordinance requires a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The applicant shall adjust the
plan to eliminate the lot depth variance.
The previous plan submitted by the applicant reflected four walkout lots along the lakeshore.
Two of those lots have been revised to show lookout -type dwellings verses walkouts. This
will reduce the amount of filling required on the site. The house pad on lot 7, Block 2, has
been shifted closer to the westerly property line. This will result in saving a number of
mature trees along the east property line. Staff is supporting a 10 foot side yard setback on
the westerly lot line of Lot 7, Block 2. This will push the house pad even further away from
the cluster of trees located along the southeast corner of the site. Some of the
recommendations attached to this proposal will reduce the fill on some lots and shifts the
house pads into areas that would further minimize impact on the tree canopy.
The 20 foot front yard setback variances on some of the lots is promoting the preservation of
trees and wetlands. We believe it is warranted. There are a total of three 20 foot front yard
setback variances as was shown in the sketch plan prepared by staff. The street grades and
alignment could be modified slightly to the south, closer to Lot 9, to minimize impact to trees
located on Lot 4, Block 1 and within the proposed alignment of Lakeway Court.
Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, located to the south of the cul -de -sac, are proposed to be served via
a private street, as well as homes proposed on Lots 10 and 11, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1.
The lower portion of the property located to the east of the subject property (Morins) can
only gain access to a public street through the subject property. The adjacent property has
the potential to subdivide into three lots. Two of those lots will utilize the same driveway as
proposed Lots 10 and 11, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1. The ordinance allows a maximum of
4 homes to be served via a private drive. The plan proposes 5 lots to be served via a private
street. This will minimize grading and preserve trees in that area. Staff supports granting a
variance to allow up to five lots accessing a private street.
Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, show a 20 foot front yard setback. The zoning ordinance requires all
neck lots or lots served via a private driveway to have a 100 foot width. The ordinance
further states that the 30 foot front yard setback shall be measured from the point where the
lot achieves that 100 foot width. The setback for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, can and must be
revised to reflect a 30 foot front yard setback.
Although the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and generally consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance, we believe that revisions as recommended within this staff report
should be made to minimize impacts to the natural features of the site.
WETLANDS
There are 2 wetlands delineated on -site and they are as follows:
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 5
Wetland A is a natural wetland located on the property just east of Lots 8 through 11 along
the southeastern portion of the property. The wetland is approximately 5.3 acres and is
characterized as an inland shallow fresh marsh. Approximately 1.7 acres of the wetland is
t located on the property.
Wetland B is the natural wetland complex that borders the Lake Lucy shoreline. The wetland
' is above the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Lucy, and therefore, is not within DNR
jurisdiction. Approximately 1.4 acres of the wetland is located on the property.
L
I
Since both of the wetlands are classified as natural, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30
feet wide with an average width of 20 feet. It is recommended that any disturbed areas of the
buffer strip be seeded with a mixed variety of natural upland vegetation. Although these
wetlands will not be filled or excavated as a result of the development, erosion control and
maintenance on the erosion control is a key factor in protecting wetlands. Type III erosion
control shall be provided around the wetland at the start of construction and maintained until
vegetation is fully re- established.
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,
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. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
Surface Water Management Plan.
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. The City has had discussions
with the applicant's engineer on the water quality ponding. The proposed SWMP water
quality charge of $800 /acre for single- family residential developments may be waived if the
applicant provides water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. The
C
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 6
stormwater quality pond shall be designed to retain up to 75% phosphorus according to the
Walker Pondnet model.
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. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of
$1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 16.34 acres; however,
4.86 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for
11.48 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. This fee will be due
payable to the City at time of final plat recording.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
The applicant has incorporated many design changes that staff had proposed previously.
Some of the changes include custom grading the wooded lots, increasing the street grades up
to 10% to conform better with the existing ground contours which results in less grading,
adjusting of building pad elevations and /or changing the dwelling types to conform with the
existing ground to minimize grading, modify the street and cul -de -sac alignment to
accommodate a water quality storm pond (Walker basin) for pretreatment of storm water prior
to discharging into the wetlands, adjusting lot lines and building types where significant trees
can be saved, combine the sanitary sewer alignment from Morin's property with the private
street (Lakeway Court). The plans have been prepared with a 50 -foot right -of -way, again,
which is less than the City's standard right -of -way in an attempt to preserve trees and lessen
the amount of grading. Staff believes that this compromise in right -of -way width will reduce
grading and minimize impacts to the site. Another alternative would be to reduce the
building setbacks.
Staff has also worked on the street grades which we believe will minimize grading, trees loss,
and the amount and height of retaining walls. The applicant should incorporate street grades
throughout to conform better with the existing terrain. Staff would be happy to work with the
applicant's engineer to assure that this is accomplished. Staff also considered shifting the
intersections of Lakeway Court and Lakeway Drive as well as Lakeway Lane and Lakeway
Drive southerly by approximately 20 feet to match existing grades better and lessen the
sanitary sewer depth. Lakeway Court is currently proposed with up to 7% street grades. The
relocation of Lakeway Court further to the south will, however, result in the loss of an
additional 14 -inch oak tree on Lot 9, Block 2 but will in return save two significant oak trees
which are proposed to be lost on Lot 4, Block 1 (24 -inch and 26 -inch oaks). Lakeway Court
also needs to provide for a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A temporary
turnaround could be created on site (Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 11, Block 2) until the Morins
further subdivide.
Lake Lucy Estates
' May 17, 1995
Page 7
The southerly private street ( Lakeway Drive at the end of the cul -de -sac) is proposed to serve
Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 2. The applicant has revised the grading plans to limit fill to only the
house pad areas and the service drive. Previously, the applicant had proposed up to 8 feet of
fill in this area. Staff has reviewed this proposal and believes the applicant has minimized
' the impact to this area short of reducing the number of overall lots at the end of the cul -de-
sac. In order to provide sanitary sewer service to Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, up to 4 feet of
fill will be required to provide adequate cover to prevent freezing. The homes in the cul -de-
sac (Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2) have been designed to eliminate the need for an ejector pump
as well. House dwelling types on Lots 6 and 7 have been revised from walkouts to lookouts
' to further minimize grading.
Surface water runoff from Lakeway Drive will drain between Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 towards
' Lake Lucy. Staff feels there is a more than adequate buffer to pretreat the amount of runoff
generated from the additional homesites prior to discharging into Lake Lucy. The applicant
has further designed the stormwater basin located on Lot 3, Block 2 which is proposed to
' convey and pretreat stormwater runoff from the street and front yard areas of the subdivision.
This pond will then outlet underneath Lakeway Drive easterly back to the wetlands to assure
recharging of the wetlands. At the Planning Commission meeting residents were concerned
' about the runoff being directed back into the wetland and being detrimental to wetland. Staff
believes that it is necessary to route the treated stormwater runoff back to recharge the
wetland. The exact location of the outlet pipe underneath Lakeway Drive is subject to
' change. Staff will locate in the field a path for the storm sewer to minimize impacts to the
existing vegetation. This typically is done in conjunction with review of the final
construction plans.
' Other concerns from the residents were location of numerous existing groundwater springs,
storm sewer calculations, water quality, environmental impacts, erosion control measures,
' height of the retaining walls. The plans as submitted do not show erosion control fence;
however, staff will require fencing around the perimeter of the grading limits on the final
grading plans. Storm sewer calculations are typically not submitted for staff review and
approval until the final construction plans are prepared. Typically with preliminary plat
approval, there are numerous revision in grading and lot layouts that will change the storm
sewer calculations. Staff is confident that there is adequate room being provided for the
' stormwater pond to pretreat the runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands in accordance
with the City's SWMP. Within the City of Chanhassen groundwater is evident typically with
each development. This groundwater is not necessarily springs. The City with its rolling
' terrains and heavy clay soils frequently contain areas of groundwater. Subdivisions typically
deal with groundwater through the use of either storm sewers or draintile systems to convey
the runoff to the stormwater ponds and /or wetlands to maintain the groundwater migration
pattern.
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 8
The applicant is proposing boulder retaining walls up to 12 feet in height along Lakeway
Lane /Drive (Lot 3, Block 3). Staff believes that with revised street grades, these retaining
walls can be reduce in half. This will also minimize impact to existing trees adjacent to
boulder retaining walls.
To preserve existing vegetation, staff is proposing the homesites on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 and
Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 2 be built lower than the street to reduce the amount of fill required
in the front yards. Typically, staff has reservations regarding placing the homesite lower than
the street due to drainage concerns, however, a grading and drainage plan could be developed
with each individual homesite to ensure proper drainage around the structures. A good
example of this within the City is along Bighorn Drive within the Shadowmere subdivision.
Staff has also further reviewed access and utility service to the "Willis parcel" west of this
development. It appears the parcel may be further subdivided once sewer and water is
available to the parcel. The applicant has incorporated staffs' recommendation by providing a
50 -foot right -of -way ( Lakeway Lane) to extend utility and street service. The Willis parcel
would be required to access this street pending further subdivision of the parcel.
Drainage off Lakeway Court is proposed to drain to a low point between Lots 10 and 11,
Block 2. Staff believes the road should be tilted to provide sheet drainage across the street
between the house pads towards the wetlands. Most of this runoff is from backyards or lawn
areas which requires minimal treatment. The buffer strips between the houses and the
wetlands will be sufficient in pretreating runoff prior to reaching the wetlands.
Typically, with the soil conditions on hilly terrains, ground water may be of concern. The
City requires a drain tile system behind the curb and gutter for homes which are not adjacent
to a wetland /pond. The drain tile system provides an acceptable means of controlling sump
pump discharge from the homes as well as improve the street subgrade.
The building setback lines, buffer strips, and tree fencing needs to be denoted on the final
grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion
control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used around the wetlands for maximum
protection. The final grading plan shall incorporate erosion control fence around the
perimeter of the grading limits. In addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on
the grading and drainage plan as well.
7
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 9
' UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from the Coey parcel which was
' recently subdivided into Point Lake Lucy. The Coey parcel is located approximately 200 feet
east of this site. The sewer line to date has not been extended to service this parcel from the
Coey parcel. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended this spring, early summer through the
' Coey parcel and deadend at that the property just east of the development ( Morin's). The
exact alignment of the sewer line has now been staked in the field up to the Morin's property.
The alignment minimizes tree loss and impacts to the wetlands and Morin's property. The
' applicant has been working with the Morins to acquire the necessary utility easement for this
extension in order to proceed with the project. The sanitary sewer will need to be extended
through the Coey and Morin properties. Without the sewer, this project would be considered
' premature for development. A condition has been added in the staff report that final plat
approval will be contingent upon sanitary sewer being extended through the Coey and Morin
properties. The plans have relocated the sanitary sewer line to follow Lakeway Court in an
' effort to minimize impacts to the existing vegetation.
Municipal water service is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The plans propose on
' extending water service throughout the development. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans
and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's 1995 edition of the Standard
' Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will be subject to
City Council approval. The applicant will be required as a part of final plat and construction
plan approval to enter into a development contract and provide the City with financial
' securities to guarantee conditions of approval and installation of the public improvements.
The development contains two existing homesites (Tichy and Christensen). Both of these
' homesites are currently on their own well and septic system. The existing home on the
westerly portion of the site (Lot 1, Block 2 - Christensen's) is proposed to be removed. The
other home (Tichy) is proposed to remain on Lot 1, Block 1. Both on -site well and septic
' systems will have to be abandoned in accordance with the City and State health codes in
conjunction with this development. The well and septic on Lot 1, Block 2 will have to be
abandoned in conjunction with site grading. The well and septic system on the Tichy
' property (Lot 1, Block 1) may be delayed since the construction activities appear not to
impact the systems. However, city ordinance requires properties within 150 feet of a
municipal sewer system must be connected to the City's system within 12 months after the
' system becomes operational. Connection to City water is not required until the well fails.
' The sanitary sewer to serve this development will be designed and constructed to service the
Morin's property as well as the properties to the west and north of the site. The applicant has
shown sewer and water extension west of the cul -de -sac towards the Willis property. Staff
' has reviewed the utility service to the Willis parcel and feel Lakeway Lane is the appropriate
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 10
extension point for utility service. The sanitary sewer elevation should be at 996.0 at the end
of Lakeway Lane. This can easily be changed on the plans and is typically reviewed during
the final construction plan review process.
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. This road is classified in the
City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Street right -of -way on the public street has
been reduced from the 60 -foot requirement to 50 feet wide to reduce grading and tree loss.
Staff has evaluated this compromise with the revised plans and believes the reduced right -of-
way is warranted. The plans are also incorporating the use of private streets to service
portions of the development and adjacent parcels. City ordinance provides up to four homes
to be serviced off a private street. A turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal will
also have to be provided. The private street will reduce impacts to the wetland and tree loss
versus the public street. Staff believes the use of private streets to service Lots 5, 6 and 7,
Block 2 is warranted to reduce impacts to the area. The house pad on Lot 7, Block 1 has
been relocated westerly as shown on staffs layout to minimize grading and tree loss. The use
of a public street in this area would destroy the natural features. In addition, Lots 6 and 7,
Block 2 would be marginal lots due to setback requirements from wetlands and the street.
Staff believes the applicant has followed the layout prepared by staff to minimize the
environmental concerns. Another private street is proposed to service three lots (Lots 10 and
11, Block 2 and Lots 2, Block 1) and the Morin's parcel to the east. The Morins and staff
have reviewed the development potential of the Morin's parcel and it appears that the site may
be further subdivided into two additional lots. Therefore the private street ( Lakeway Court)
as proposed would be serving up to five homes which exceeds the City's ordinance. Staff
believes there is no other way to create a street system to serve these lots which would
minimize impacts and therefore recommends a variance be granted for up to five (5) homes
accessing Lakeway Court. A turnaround which meets the City Fire Marshal's requirements
will be necessary at the end of Lakeway Court. If the Morins are not in favor of the
turnaround at this time, a temporary turnaround could be developed on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot
11, Block 2 until the Morins are ready to subdivide.
Future access was also considered for the parcel west of the development (Willis) which is
currently for sale. The Willis parcel currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road via a long
gravel driveway. Part of the driveway is actually located within the proposed subdivision and
is shown through Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3. The Willis driveway access on to Lake Lucy
Road is across from Yosemite. This intersection has substandard sight distance which makes
it difficult to safely turn to and from the property. Eventually, when the Willis parcel further
subdivides, staff will recommend that the driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road be
eliminated and the driveway be relocated to access Lakeway Lane. It appears the Willis
property has ability to further subdivide into more than four lots. The applicant has proposed
a 31 -foot wide City street and 50 -foot wide public right -of -way between Lot 1, Block 2 and
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 11
Lot 3, Block 3 to provide future access to the site. Lot 1, Block 2 will also be accessed from
this street.
' Staff has reviewed the street grades in detail and believes further modifications are warranted
to minimize tree loss, grading and the height and number of retaining walls. Staff has
provided the applicant's engineer with some street grades to incorporate. Due to the short
t turnaround time the current plans do not reflect staffs street grade changes. These changes
should only improve the overall development by minimizing grading. These types of
modifications are typically done during the construction plan review process.
All lots except for Lot 1, Block 1 are proposed to access the interior streets and not Lake
Lucy Road. Private driveway maintenance and access agreements will need to be
incorporated into covenants to permit access to the lots adjacent to private driveways as well
as the Morin parcel.
' DOCKING ISSUES ON LAKE LUCY
The issue of lake access has been considered and the following options are available for
' residents.
1. No more than one dock shall be permitted on any lakeshore site. No dock shall
exceed six feet in width and no dock shall exceed the greater of the following lengths;
50 feet or the minimum straight -line distance necessary to reach a water depth of 4
' feet.
2. Intensive removal or alteration of vegetation is not allowed. Furthermore, impacts to
wetlands, if any, would have to be mitigated if the altered area is over 400 square feet.
3. Land owners can share a dock b Yplacing the dock on the property line.
' 4. A beachlot can be created if the developer dedicates the land for it.
5. Any dock will have to receive City and DNR approval.
PARK DEDICATION
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on March 28, 1995 and
recommended full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land
acquisition and /or trail construction. They also recommended that the existing house located
on Lot 15 be exempt from these fees. If the home is demolished and a new residence is
built, the site would then be subject to these fees.
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 12
TREE PRESERVATION /LANDSCAPING
A revised development plan for Lake Lucy Estates has been submitted by the applicant.
Custom grading on home sites should help preserve wooded areas on each lot. Changes have
been made in the positioning of homes and streets although the total canopy coverage
removal has not changed significantly. Where applicable, the applicant has attempted to
move homes either closer or farther from the street in order to avoid trees. Accommodations
such as this could be applied to additional lots. In Lot 2, Block 3, pulling the home a
minimum of five feet closer to the road would give the ash trees in the rear at least 15 feet
from the grading limits. On Lot 10 in Block 2, moving the building pads closer to the
roadway would give additional distance from the grading limits to the very large oaks that
exist on the lots. The same is true for the 32 inch oak on Lot 11, Block 2. Sliding the
building pad to the east would ensure a reasonable amount of space between the grading
limits and the tree.
To assume that the shaded areas on the tree inventory denote the extent of tree loss in the
development is unrealistic. Additional trees that are near the grading limits will have
questionable survival possibilities. At least ten trees on the survey appear to be near enough
to the grading limits that preserving them will be difficult, although they are shown as being
saved. Case in point is a 30 inch Linden that will sit on a corner approximately 7 feet from a
12 foot retaining wall and 10 feet from a 10 foot retaining wall. Severance of roots that close
to such a large tree can be fatal. Shifting the entrance of Lakeway Lane to the south may
help the tree's odds. Twenty feet from the base to the retaining wall would give the tree the
extra distance it may need to survive.
Since the applicant's removal plan is somewhat ambiguous and the site is so heavily wooded,
staff recommends each tree twelve inches and larger be inventoried as to species, diameter
and number. The number shall correspond to the tagged numbers attached to each significant
tree. The inventory will be used to develop a tree removal plan prior to construction that
specifically designates all removals and saves.
On a wooded site such as Lake Lucy Estates, development will always have a heavy impact.
Removal of nearly half the existing canopy will not only change the appearance of the site,
but the climate as well. Trees on this property have long been protected from extreme wind
and sun by the dense canopy coverage and have developed in an environment with cooler soil
temperatures and higher humidity than there will be after development. Due to these
conditions, a plan detailing the care of trees to be preserved will be necessary. The applicant
must establish a Woodland Management Plan, as requested by ordinance, outlining
preservation techniques to be used and reasons for species choice and placement of required
reforestation trees. This plan will be used to assess the applicant's construction process and
enforced accordingly. Tree preservation fencing must be used in addition to the silt fence in
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 13
all wooded areas during the preliminary grading for the road. The developer shall be held
responsible for all trees on site until development has been completed.
Canopy coverage on the site is 7.45 acres. Removal of the canopy due to grading and
construction will be 3.58 acres, leaving 3.87 acres on site. The minimum requirement of
canopy coverage to maintain is 5.23 acres. The applicant exceeds the minimum by 1.36 acres
and therefore must replace the loss times 1.2. The reforestation requirement for Lake Lucy
Estates is 1.63 acres or 65 trees. A replacement plan incorporating the 65 trees designated for
reforestation will be required. Staff recommends caliper replacement of trees lost in excess of
the tree inventory plan at two times the diameter.
The Landscaping and Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required
when a subdivision plat is contiguous to a collector street. Required buffering shall include
berms and landscape materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and /or a tree
preservation area. The plan must identify plant material locations along Lake Lucy Road as
well as planting within each front yard. Appropriate financial security will be required. This
plan should show the type and size of trees proposed to be planted as well as the location of
any berms along Lake Lucy Road.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot
Area Width
Ordinance 15,000
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 40,300
Corner lot
Lot 2 16,300
Lot 3 19,000
Lot 4 25,520
Corner lot
BLOCK 2
Lot 1 22,200
90'
160'
185'
105'
135' **
230'
.
Lot
Depth
125'
Home Wedand&Buffer
Setback Setback
30' front /rear 60' Average
10' sides
185' 70730'
50'
162.5' 30'/30'
10'
162.5 *20730'
10'
212' 30730'
10'
127' **
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 14
Lot 2 15,000 121' 122.5' **
Lot 3
19,800
195'
125'
Lot 4
50,500
90'
447.5'
30'/50'
40710'
10'
Lot 5
41,800
145'
370'
* * ** 20750'
40'/10'
* * ** 10'
Lot 6
28,600
105'
275'
* * ** 20770'
40730'
* * ** 10'
Lot 7
94,000
180'
385'
* * ** 70770'
40730'
* * ** 10'
Lot 8
31,000
125'
307'
* 20750'
40710'
10'
Lot 9
29,500
110'
335'
30760'
40720'
10'
Lot 10
27,000
135'
295'
30760'
40720'
* * ** 10'
Lot 11
21,400
148'
245'
20750760'
40720'
20'
BLOCK 3
Lot 1 23,000 105 232.5
Lot 2 17,900 100 200
Lot 3 18,200 110 165 ** *20'/30'
10'
* Side yard and /or front yard variance required.
** Lot depth variance must be eliminated
* ** Wetland & Buffer setback supersedes typical setbacks.
* * ** Front yard or side yard setback variance must be eliminated.
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 15
FINDINGS
SUBDIVISION
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision requires variances to meet 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;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan
density designation for low density.
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 has a significant tree coverage and rolling
topography. The applicant will be changing the site characteristics in order to
develop it. The plans can be revised to make the subdivision more suitable for
this site.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by a public street and
infrastructures contingent upon acquiring an easement through the Morin's
parcel. Public sewer and water systems, storm sewers and erosion control
measures are proposed in accordance with city requirements.
' 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will need to be revised as discussed in the
' staff report and in the conditions of approval. Grading and tree removal must
be minimized.
' 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 16
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 will be provided with adequate public
infrastructure with the extension of the sanitary sewer from the east.
VARIANCE
As part of this plat approval, a variance to allow 20 foot front yard setbacks, a 10 percent
street grade, five homes accessing via a private street, and a 50 foot wide right -of -way is
requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the
subdivision chapter as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the
following conditions exist:
1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience.
2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land.
3. The condition of conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not
generally applicable to other property.
4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare
and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan.
Finding: Staff recommends the variances be approved as shown in plans dated May 8, '
1995, for the following:
a. A 20 foot front yard setback for Lot 3, Block 1, Lot 8, Block 2, and Lot 3, '
Block 3.
b. A 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right -of -way
C. Five homes accessing via a private drive.
d. A 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 7, Block 2.
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 17
PRIVATE STREETS
As part of this subdivision, the applicant is requesting the use of private streets to service
' portions of the site. The subdivision ordinance allows up to four lots to be served by a private
street if the city finds the following conditions 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 existence of
' wetlands.
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.
3. The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature
trees.
Finding: The applicant is utilizing two private streets to access Lots 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11
Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1. Private streets will minimize impact on the
vegetation and preserve site grades. It will require 5 lots to be served via the
private street, however, we believe in this case a variance is appropriate.
' PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE:
This application first appeared before the Planning Commission on April 5, 1995. Numerous
issues were raised by the Planning Commission, residents, and staff. These issues included
' excessive grading, tree loss, environmental concerns, and variances. The applicant listened to
the issues and attempted to address them through a revised plan.
i The application was revisited by the Planning Commission on May 3, 1995. At that meeting,
staff prepared a sketch plan to act as a guideline to improve the plat. The recommendation in
' the report was based on the layout prepared by staff rather than the plan prepared by the
applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the plan was not ready to be
sent to City Council. Action on the application was tabled and the applicant was directed to
' modify the plans and incorporate recommendations made by staff.
On May 17, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed a plan that incorporated most of staffs
recommendations. The proposal was approved with conditions. Issues that were raised at that
meeting included the following:
L
ISSUE: The Planning Commission directed staff to advise the City Council on the
appropriateness of allowing variances to the applicant on a house on Lot 7,
Block 2. A second related question raised at the meeting was if the applicant
would be able to create four buildable lots along the lake without a private
street.
FINDING: Granting a 10 foot side yard setback along the west property line will allow the
house to be located away from the easterly portion of the lot which is heavily
wooded. In this case a variance is appropriate. Staff believes that if a tree
preservation easement outside the grading limits was granted, then a private
driveway is warranted. If the applicant intends to remove the trees on Lot 7
and grade outside the grading limits, then the applicant is not entitled to a
private street.
ISSUE: The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff regarding
the appropriateness of shifting Lakeway Lane and Court to the south.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted a revised plan for staffs review. The changes and
staffs findings on that plan will be incorporated in the final plat staff report.
ISSUE: The Planning Commission directed staff to present to the City Council a
monitoring program for erosion control to ensure minor impact to the lake
during construction.
FINDING: The applicant will be required to use erosion control along the lake. Also, when
the applicant enters into a development agreement with the city, he will have to
'
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 18
ISSUE: The subdivision ordinance states that if a development is proposed adjacent to a
lake, or will affect the usage of the lake, the applicant shall provide the city
with a list of property owners abutting the lake at the time of application. The
city shall provide mailed notice to the lake homeowners as in compliance with
the procedures. The ordinance also states that notice requirement and
'
procedures set forth in this chapter in excess of those required by state law are
directory. Failure to comply with such procedures will not invalidate the
proceedings. State law requires mailings be sent to homeowners within 500
,
feet. The requirement to mail notices to all property owners abutting the lake is
in excess of state law requirements. Staff mailed notices to property owners
within 500 feet only. Neighbors requested that a notice be sent to all property
,
owners adjacent to the lake.
FINDING: A notice was mailed to all property owners adjacent to Lake Lucy on May 18,
'
1995.
ISSUE: The Planning Commission directed staff to advise the City Council on the
appropriateness of allowing variances to the applicant on a house on Lot 7,
Block 2. A second related question raised at the meeting was if the applicant
would be able to create four buildable lots along the lake without a private
street.
FINDING: Granting a 10 foot side yard setback along the west property line will allow the
house to be located away from the easterly portion of the lot which is heavily
wooded. In this case a variance is appropriate. Staff believes that if a tree
preservation easement outside the grading limits was granted, then a private
driveway is warranted. If the applicant intends to remove the trees on Lot 7
and grade outside the grading limits, then the applicant is not entitled to a
private street.
ISSUE: The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff regarding
the appropriateness of shifting Lakeway Lane and Court to the south.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted a revised plan for staffs review. The changes and
staffs findings on that plan will be incorporated in the final plat staff report.
ISSUE: The Planning Commission directed staff to present to the City Council a
monitoring program for erosion control to ensure minor impact to the lake
during construction.
FINDING: The applicant will be required to use erosion control along the lake. Also, when
the applicant enters into a development agreement with the city, he will have to
7
11
J
7
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 19
abide by the following condition: Site Erosion Control. Before the site is
rough graded, and before any utility construction is commenced or building
permits are issued, the erosion control plan, shall be implemented, inspected,
and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control
requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation
and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the
work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan,
seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as
possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as
necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in
controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control
plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City, the City
may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the
Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance
of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the
Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be
allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full
compliance with the erosion control requirements. Erosion control needs to be
maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction has
been completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the
opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion control, the City will
authorize the removal of the erosion control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The
Developer shall remove and dispose of the erosion control measures. The City
also requires a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan in
conjunction with final plat consideration.
ISSUE: The Planning Commission directed staff to review the impact of construction on
springs on the site.
FINDING: Small springs or ground water are not uncommon within the city. In the past,
many farmers and developers installed drain tiles to convey and maintain the
flow of water through a property. During construction, the city requires drain
tiles to be maintained by rerouting them into the storm drainage systems.
ISSUE: The applicant is opposed to granting a tree conservation easement on wooded
areas outside the grading limits. He believes that this will limit building pads to
specific locations and limit the house size. He also wants flexibility in house
pad locations on the lots.
FINDING: Staff discussed this issue with the applicant and informed him that we are open
to alternatives that would guarantee the preservation of trees. Staff asked the
applicant to submit a written proposal outlining how the tree preservation will
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 20
be accomplished. The applicant is working on a proposal. As to flexibility in
the location of house pad outside the grading limits shown on the grading plan,
there are some house pads that can be shifted around, however, all the lake lots
must comply with the proposed grading plan received May 8, 1995. This is the
best alternative that would minimize tree loss and grading in that area. Staff
will work with the applicant to identify which lots may have the flexibility in
house pad locations. This will be done prior to final plat approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
"The City Council approves the rezoning of 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural
Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family (95 -1 REZ); Preliminary plat (95 -3 SUB) to
subdivide 14.53 Acres into 18 single family lots and two outlots, with variances (a 20 foot
front yard setback for Lot 3, Block 1, Lot 8, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10 percent street
grade and a 50 foot wide right -of -way, Five homes accessing via a private street, and a 10 foot
side yard setback for the west side of Lot 7, Block 2) for Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in
plans dated May 8, 1995, with the following conditions:
1. Establish a tree removal plan incorporating preservation areas or numbered inventory of
trees removed and saved. It must include all trees twelve inches and larger. Trees
lost in excess of plan will be replaced at two times the diameter of the tree lost. All
trees currently listed on the inventory must be tagged and recorded as to species,
condition, and diameter. Applicant must submit a Woodland Management Plan.
2. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road
with the exception of Lot 1, Block 1.
3. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way of Lake Lucy. The '
applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the
site and along Lake Lucy Road right -of -way. The reforestation plan shall include 65
trees on site. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will '
be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit
removal of dead or diseased vegetation. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height
shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan that shows the location '
of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
Elevation of all trees to be saved within grading limits must be shown on the grading
plan. The developer will be held responsible for the general health and well -being of ,
all trees throughout the construction process of Lake Lucy Estates.
4. A snow fence shall be placed, inspected and approved by staff, along the edge of tree '
preservation easements prior to grading. The fence must be used on all wooded lots to
Lake Lucy Estates
' May 17, 1995
Page 21
protects trees designated for preservation. A tree preservation dense must be used in
addition to a silt fence during preliminary grading for roads.
' 5. Building Department conditions:
a. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top
' of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to
final plat approval.
' b. Revise the Grading and Drainage 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.
d. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the
property.
' 6. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
' trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This
is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire
fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1.
' b. Due to the close proximity of surrounding homes, any trees, shrubs, bushes,
natural vegetation, will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the
' site. No burning permits will be issued.
C. Additional premise identification signage will be required for Lots 5, 6, and 7,
Block 2, per Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992.
Other Requirements - General
I. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background.
2. Numbers shall not be in script.
' 3. If a structure is not visible from the street, additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and
location must be approved.
4. Numbers on mail box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4 ". However, requirement #3 must still be
met.
5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers if deemed necessary .
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 22
Residential Requirements (2 or less dwelling unit)
I. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4 ".
2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department.
Commercial Requirements
Minimum height shall be 12 ".
2. Strip Malls
a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6 ".
b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors.
If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings
main entrance.
d. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The
turnaround may be modified if homes on Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 are protected by
a NFPA 13 D fire sprinkler system or other means acceptable to the Fire
Marshal.
e. Fire hydrants shall be located at intersection and end of cul -de -sacs, and spaced '
300 feet apart.
7. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition '
and /or trail construction.
8. Revise the plat to eliminate the following variances:
a. Lot depth for Lot 2, Block 2 shall be increased to 125 feet.
b. Side yard setback for Lots 5, 6, east side of Lot 7, and Lot 10, Block 2, and Lot
2, Block 1, shall maintain a 20 foot side yard setback.
C. Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, shall maintain a 30 foot front yard setback.
9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used
adjacent to the wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent the
grading limits.
10. 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.
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 23
11. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
' approval.
12. 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 accepting the
utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with
the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve
prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and
post developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water
level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks.
Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be
required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water
quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
' contract.
15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
' agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department
' of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas. A 40 -foot wide drainage and utility easement will
' be required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court.
17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way.
18. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum
of 3 feet above the 100 -year high water level. Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 2 are subject
to the high water level of Lake Lucy and not the wetland on Lots 7 through 10, Block
2.
l
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 24
19. A water quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging
into the wetlands. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the
first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1
throughout for safety purposes. The stormwater pond shall be designed and constructed
with a 75% phosphorus removal efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and
wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended.
20. Existing wells and /or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in
accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations. The
existing home (Tichy) on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer
system within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to City water
is not required unless the well on Lot 1, Block 1 fails.
21. The proposed single- family residential development of 11.48 developable acres is
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. These fees are payable
to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The water quality fees will be waived
if the applicant provides for on -site stormwater treatment.
22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer. The construction plans shall include a draintile system behind the curbs and
gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond.
23. Lots 2 through 4, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 3, 9 through 11, Block 2, and Lots 1
through 3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A
detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted
with the building permit application for review and approval by the City engineer prior
to issuance of a building permit for the lot.
24. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to
the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant
obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins.
25. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance
No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance
agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private
street(s). A temporary turnaround may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14,
Block 2 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides.
26. A variance for street grades up to 10% and the City's right -of -way reduced to 50 -foot I
wide is recommended.
11
' Lake Lucy Estates
' May 17, 1995
Page 25
27. The building setback line, buffer strips, erosion control fencing and tree fencing shall
be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. Type
III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to all wetlands. The grading, drainage,
and construction plans shall be revised incorporating street grades that conform better
' with the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss.
28. The intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Court shall be shifted southerly
' approximately 20 feet as well as the intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Lane.
' 29. The applicant shall extend utilities to the "Willis parcel" through Lakeway Lane.
Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be
placed on the barricades indicating "this street shall be extended in the future ". A
condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners
in Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension.
' 30. A variance to the City's private street ordinance allowing up to 5 homes to access
Lakeway Court.
31. The private streets ( Lakeway Court and Lakeway Drive) shall be either platted as
outlots and deeded to Lots 2, Block 1 and Lots 5, 6, 7 10 and 11, Block 2 and the
Morin's property for access purposes; or the plat revised to incorporate the outlots into
' the adjacent lots and a 30 ft. wide cross access easement and maintenance agreement
for Lot 2, Block 1 and Lots 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, Block 2 and the Morin property.
32. The applicant will work with staff regarding the appropriateness of shifting Lakeway
Lane and Court to the south, prior to final plat.
Staff is to present to the City Council with a monitoring program for erosion control to
insure minor impact to the lake during construction.
This is a standard condition of the development contract and is addressed in
condition #3.
• Staff shall review the impact of the spring by construction and report to the City
Council.
This condition has been addressed in the staff report.
• Staff to advise City Council on the appropriateness of allowing variances to applicant
on House on Lot 7.
This condition has been addressed in the variance section of the staff report.
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17, 1995
Page 26
• The existing driveway of the Willis property shall remain an easement until the
property is developed.
• A conservation easement shall be encouraged on all areas outside of the grading limits
as presented by the applicant.
This condition has been addressed in condition #3.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated May 10, 1995.
2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated May 8, 1995.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated May 17, 1995.
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 3, 1995.
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 5, 1995.
5. Preliminary plat dated May 8, 1995.
1
C�
t
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: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: May 10, 1995
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat Documents - Lake Lucy Estates, Michael Byrne
95 -3 SUB /95 -1 REZ /95 -12 LUR
Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., dated July
12, 1994, revised March 6, 1995, revised April 21, 1995, and further revised on May 6, 1995 and
the wetland delineation report dated March 22, 1995 prepared by Peterson Environmental, Inc.,
we offer the following comments and recommendations:
WETLANDS
There are 2 wetlands delineated on -:site and they are as follows:
Wetland A is a natural wetland located on the property just east of Lots 8 through 11 along the
southeastern portion of the property. The wetland is approximately 5.3 acres and is characterized
as an inland shallow fresh marsh. ; ,Approximately 1.7 acres of the wetland is located on the
property.
Wetland B is the natural wetland complex that borders the Lake Lucy shoreline. The wetland
is above the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Lucy, and therefore, is not within DNR
jurisdiction. Approximately 1.4 acres of the wetland is located on the property.
Since both of the wetlands are classified as natural, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet
wide with an average width of 20 feet. It is recommended that any disturbed areas of the buffer
strip be seeded with a mixed variety of natural upland vegetation. Although these wetlands will
not be filled or excavated as a result of the development, erosion control and maintenance on the
erosion control is a key factor in protecting wetlands. Type III erosion control shall be provided
Sharmin Al -Jaff
May 10, 1995
Page 2
around the wetland at the start of construction and maintained until vegetation is fully re-
established.
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, 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. The development will be required to be
constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
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. The City has had discussions with the
applicant's engineer on the water quality ponding. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of
$800 /acre for single- family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides
water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. The stormwater quality pond
shall be designed to retain up to 75% phosphorus according to the Walker Pondnet model.
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.
Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable
acre. The total gross area of the property is 16.34 acres; however, 4.86 acres is wetland.
Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 11.48 acres resulting in a
water quantity connection charge of $22,730. This fee will be due payable to the City at time
of final plat recording.
1
Sharmin Al -Jaff
May 10, 1995
' Page 3
I GRADING & DRAINAGE
The applicant has incorporated many design changes that staff had proposed previously. Some
' of the changes include custom grading the wooded lots, increasing the street grades up to 10%
to conform better with the existing ground contours which results in less grading, adjusting of
building pad elevations and /or changing the dwelling types to conform with the existing ground
to minimize grading, modify the street and cul -de -sac alignment to accommodate a water quality
storm pond (Walker basin) for pretreatment of storm water prior to discharging into the wetlands,
adjusting lot lines and building types where significant trees can be saved, combine the sanitary
' sewer alignment from Morin's property with the private street (Lakeway Court). The plans have
been prepared with a 50 -foot right -of -way, again, which is less than the City's standard right -of-
way in an attempt to preserve trees and lessen the amount of grading. Staff believes that this
' compromise in right -of -way width will reduce grading and minimize impacts to the site. Another
alternative would be to reduce the building setbacks.
' Staff has also worked on the street grades which we believe will minimize grading, trees loss,
and the amount and height of retaining walls. The applicant should incorporate street grades
' throughout to conform better with the existing terrain. Staff would be happy to work with the
applicant's engineer to assure that this is accomplished. Staff also considered shifting the
intersections of Lakeway Court and Lakeway Drive as well as Lakeway Lane and Lakeway Drive
' southerly by approximately 20 feet to match existing grades better and lessen the sanitary sewer
depth. Lakeway Court is currently proposed with up to 7% street grades. The relocation of
Lakeway Court further to the south will, however, result in the loss of an additional 14 -inch oak
tree on Lot 9, Block 2 but will in return save two significant oak trees which are proposed to be
lost on Lot 4, Block 1 (24 -inch and 26 -inch oaks). Lakeway Court also needs to provide for a
turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A temporary turnaround could be created on
site (Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 11, Block 2) until the Morins further subdivide.
The southerly private street (Lakeway Drive at the end of the cul -de -sac) is proposed to serve
Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 2. The applicant has revised the grading plans to limit fill to only the
house pad areas and the service drive. Previously, the applicant had proposed up to 8 feet of fill
in this area. Staff has reviewed this proposal and believes the applicant has minimized the
' impact to this area short of reducing the number of overall lots at the end of the cul -de -sac. In
order to provide sanitary sewer service to Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, up to 4 feet of fill will be
required to provide adequate cover to prevent freezing. The homes in the cul -de -sac (Lots 5, 6,
and 7, Block 2) have been designed to eliminate the need for an ejector pump as well. House
dwelling types on Lots 6 and 7 have been revised from walkouts to lookouts to further minimize
grading.
Surface water runoff from Lakeway Drive will drain between Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 towards Lake
' Lucy. Staff feels there is a more than adequate buffer to pretreat the amount of runoff generated
Sharmin Al -Jaff
May 10, 1995
Page 4
from the additional homesites prior to discharging into Lake Lucy. The applicant has further
designed the stormwater basin located on Lot 3, Block 2 which is proposed to convey and
pretreat stormwater runoff from the street and front yard areas of the subdivision. This pond will
then outlet underneath Lakeway Drive easterly back to the wetlands to assure recharging of the
wetlands. At the Planning Commission meeting residents were concerned about the runoff being
directed back into the wetland and being detrimental to wetland. Staff believes that it is
necessary to route the treated stormwater runoff back to recharge the wetland. The exact location
of the outlet pipe underneath Lakeway Drive is subject to change. Staff will locate in the field
a path for the storm sewer to minimize impacts to the existing vegetation. This typically is done
in conjunction with review of the final construction plans.
Other concerns from the residents were location of numerous existing groundwater springs, storm
sewer calculations, water quality, environmental impacts, erosion control measures, height of the
retaining walls. The plans as submitted do not show erosion control fence; however, staff will
require fencing around the perimeter of the grading limits on the final grading plans. Storm
sewer calculations are typically not submitted for staff review and approval until the final
construction plans are prepared. Typically with preliminary plat approval, there are numerous
revision in grading and lot layouts that will change the storm sewer calculations. Staff is
confident that there is adequate room being provided for the stormwater pond to pretreat the
runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands in accordance with the City's SWMP. Within the
City of Chanhassen groundwater is evident typically with each development. This groundwater
is not necessarily springs. The City with its rolling terrains and heavy clay soils frequently
contain areas of groundwater. Subdivisions typically deal with groundwater through the use of
either storm sewers or draintile systems to convey the runoff to the stormwater ponds and /or
wetlands to maintain the groundwater migration pattern.
The applicant is proposing boulder retaining walls up to 12 feet in height along Lakeway
Lane/Drive (Lot 3, Block 3). Staff believes that with revised street grades, these retaining walls
can be reduce in half. This will also minimize impact to existing trees adjacent to boulder
retaining walls.
To preserve existing vegetation, staff is proposing the homesites on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 and
Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 2 be built lower than the street to reduce the amount of fill required in
the front yards. Typically, staff has reservations regarding placing the homesite lower than the
street due to drainage concerns, however, a grading and drainage plan could be developed with
each individual homesite to ensure proper drainage around the structures. A good example of
this within the City is along Bighorn Drive within the Shadowmere subdivision.
Staff has also further reviewed access and utility service to the "Willis parcel" west of this
development. It appears the parcel may be further subdivided once sewer and water is available
to the parcel. The applicant has incorporated staffs' recommendation by providing a 50 -foot
' Sharmin Al -Jaff
May 10, 1995
Page 5
right -of -way ( Lakeway Lane) to extend utility and street service. The Willis parcel would be
required to access this street pending further subdivision of the parcel.
Drainage off Lakeway Court is proposed to drain to a low point between Lots 10 and 11, Block
2. Staff believes the road should be tilted to provide sheet drainage across the street between the
house pads towards the wetlands. Most of this runoff is from backyards or lawn areas which
' requires minimal treatment. The buffer strips between the houses and the wetlands will be
sufficient in pretreating runoff prior to reaching the wetlands.
Typically, with the soil conditions on hilly terrains, ground water may be of concern. The City
requires a drain tile system behind the curb and gutter for homes which are not adjacent to a
' wetland /pond. The drain the system provides an acceptable means of controlling sump pump
discharge from the homes as well as improve the street subgrade.
The building setback lines, buffer strips, and tree fencing needs to be denoted on the final grading
and drainage plans prior to final plat approval.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion
control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used around the wetlands for maximum
protection. The final grading plan shall incorporate erosion control fence around the perimeter
of the grading limits. In addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on the grading and
drainage plan as well.
I UTILITIES
�
i
Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from the Coey parcel which was
recently subdivided into Point Lake Lucy. The Coey parcel is located approximately 200 feet
east of this site. The sewer line to date has not been extended to service this parcel from the
Coey parcel. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended this spring, early summer through the
Coey parcel and deadend at that the property just east of the development ( Morin's). The exact
alignment of the sewer line has now been staked in the field up to the Morin's property. The
alignment minimizes tree loss and impacts to the wetlands and Morin's property. The applicant
has been working with the Morins to acquire the necessary utility easement for this extension in
order to proceed with the project. The sanitary sewer will need to be extended through the Coey
and Morin properties. Without the sewer, this project would be considered premature for
development. A condition has been added in the staff report that final plat approval will be
contingent upon sanitary sewer being extended through the Coey and Morin properties. The
Sharmin Al -Jaff
May 10, 1995
Page 6
plans have relocated the sanitary sewer line to follow Lakeway Court in an effort to minimize
impacts to the existing vegetation.
Municipal water service is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The plans propose on
extending water service throughout the development. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans
and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's 1995 edition of the Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will be subject to
City Council approval. The applicant will be required as a part of final plat and construction
plan approval to enter into a development contract and provide the City with financial securities
to guarantee conditions of approval and installation of the public improvements.
The development contains two existing homesites (Tichy and Christensen). Both of these
homesites are currently on their own well and septic system. The existing home on the westerly
portion of the site (Lot 1, Block 2 - Christensen's) is proposed to be removed. The other home
(Tichy) is proposed to remain on Lot 1, Block 1. Both on -site well and septic systems will have
to be abandoned in accordance with the City and State health codes in conjunction with this
development. The well and septic on Lot 1, Block 2 will have to be abandoned in conjunction
with site grading. The well and septic system on the Tichy property (Lot 1, Block 1) may be
delayed since the construction activities appear not to impact the systems. However, city
ordinance requires properties within 150 feet of a municipal sewer system must be connected to
the City's system within 12 months after the system becomes operational. Connection to City
water is not required until the well fails.
The sanitary sewer to serve this development will be designed and constructed to service the
Morin's property as well as the properties to the west and north of the site. The applicant has
shown sewer and water extension west of the cul -de -sac towards the Willis property. Staff has
reviewed the utility service to the Willis parcel and feel Lakeway Lane is the appropriate
extension point for utility service. The sanitary sewer elevation should be at 996.0 at the end of
Lakeway Lane. This can easily be changed on the plans and is typically reviewed during the
final construction plan review process.
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. This road is classified in the
City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Street right -of -way on the public street has been
reduced from the 60 -foot requirement to 50 feet wide to reduce grading and tree loss. Staff has
evaluated this compromise with the revised plans and believes the reduced right -of -way is
warranted. The plans are also incorporating the use of private streets to service portions of the
development and adjacent parcels. City ordinance provides up to four homes to be serviced off
a private street. A turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal will also have to be provided.
Sharmin Al -Jaff
May 10, 1995
Page 7
The private street will reduce impacts to the wetland and tree loss versus the public street. Staff
believes the use of private streets to service Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 2 is warranted to reduce
impacts to the area. The house pad on Lot 7, Block 1 has been relocated westerly as shown on
staffs layout to minimize grading and tree loss. The use of a public street in this area would
destroy the natural features. In addition, Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 would be marginal lots due to
setback requirements from wetlands and the street. Staff believes the applicant has followed the
layout prepared by staff to minimize the environmental concerns. Another private street is
proposed to service three lots (Lots 10 and 11, Block 2 and Lots 2, Block 1) and the Morin's
parcel to the east. The Morins and staff have reviewed the development potential of the Morin's
parcel and it appears that the site may be further subdivided into two additional lots. Therefore
the private street ( Lakeway Court) as proposed would be serving up to five homes which exceeds
the City's ordinance. Staff believes there is no other way to create a street system to serve these
lots which would minimize impacts and therefore recommends a variance be granted for up to
five (5) homes accessing Lakeway Court. A turnaround which meets the City Fire Marshal's
requirements will be necessary at the end of Lakeway Court. If the Morins are not in favor of
the turnaround at this time, a temporary turnaround could be developed on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot
11, Block 2 until the Morins are ready to subdivide.
Future access was also considered for the parcel west of the development (Willis) which is
currently for sale. The Willis parcel currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road via a long
gravel driveway. Part of the driveway is actually located within the proposed subdivision and
is shown through Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3. The Willis driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road
is across from Yosemite. This intersection has substandard sight distance which makes it difficult
to safely turn to and from the property. Eventually, when the Willis parcel further subdivides,
staff will recommend that the driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road be eliminated and the
driveway be relocated to access Lakeway Lane. It appears the Willis property has ability to
further subdivide into more than four lots. The applicant has proposed a 31 -foot wide City street
and 50 -foot wide public right -of -way between Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 3, Block 3 to provide
future access to the site. Lot 1, Block 2 will also be accessed from this street.
Staff has reviewed the street grades in detail and believes further modifications are warranted to
minimize tree loss, grading and the height and number of retaining walls. Staff has provided the
applicant's engineer with some street grades to incorporate. Due to the short turnaround time
the current plans do not reflect staffs street grade changes. These changes should only improve
the overall development by minimizing grading. These types of modifications are typically done
during the construction plan review process.
' All lots except for Lot 1, Block 1 are proposed to access the interior streets and not Lake Lucy
Road. Private driveway maintenance and access agreements will need to be incorporated into
covenants to permit access to the lots adjacent to private driveways as well as the Morin parcel.
Sharmin Al -Jaff
May 10, 1995
Page 8
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review
and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the
wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent the grading limits.
2. 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.
3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
4. 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 accepting the utilities
and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
5. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with
the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve
prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post
developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and
comply with their conditions of approval.
1
Sharmin Al -Jaff
May 10, 1995
Page 9
8. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas. A 40 -foot wide drainage and utility easement will be
required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court.
9. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way.
10. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum
of 3 feet above the 100 -year high water level. Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 2 are subject
to the high water level of Lake Lucy and not the wetland on Lots 7 through 10, Block
2.
11. A water quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into
the wetlands. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first
ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for
safety purposes. The stormwater pond shall be designed to 75% phosphorus removal
' efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the
pond into the surroundings is recommended.
12. Existing wells and /or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in
accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations. The existing
home (Tichy) on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system
within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to City water is not
required unless the well on Lot 1, Block 1 fails.
' 13. The proposed single- family residential development of 11.48 developable acres is
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. These fees are payable
to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The water quality fees will be waived
if the applicant provides for on -site stormwater treatment.
14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
' construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
The construction plans shall include a draintile system behind the curbs and gutters on
those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond.
15. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road
' except for Lot 1, Block 1.
16. Lots 2 through 4, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 3, 9 through 11, Block 2, and Lots 1
' through 3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed
7
Sharmin Al -Jaff
'
May 10, 1995
Page 10
,
grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the
to issuance
building permit application for review and approval by the City engineer prior
of a building permit for the lot.
17. The grading, drainage, and construction plans shall be revised incorporating street grades
that conform better with the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss.
18. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the
,
plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a
drainage and utility easement from the Morins.
'
19. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No.
209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance
agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private
street(s). A temporary turnaround may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14, Block
2 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides.
20. A variance for street grades up to 10% and the City's right -of -way reduced to 50 -foot
wide is recommended.
,
21. The building setback line, buffer strips, erosion control fencing and tree fencing shall be
denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. Type III
'
erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to all wetlands.
22. The intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Court shall be shifted southerly
,
approximately 20 feet as well as the intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Lane.
23. The applicant shall extend utilities to the "Willis parcel" through Lakeway Lane.
'
Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be placed
on the barricades indicating "this street shall be extended in the future". A condition will
also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners in Lake Lucy
'
Estates of this street extension.
24. A variance to the City's private street ordinance to allow up to 5 homes to access
,
Lakeway Court is recommended.
'
jms /ktm
c: Charles D. Folch, Director of Public Works /City Engineer '
g:\eng\diane\planning\lklucw3.ppr
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: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official q
DATE: May 8, 1995
SUBJECT: 95 -1 REZ & 95 -3 SUB (Lake Lucy Estates, Michael Byrne)
I was asked to review the proposed subdivision plans stamped "CITY
OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAY 08 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for
the above referenced project. It appears that recommendation #4
from my earlier memo is the only item that has been addressed, so
the other comments and renumbered recommendations are repeated
below.
Analvsis:
Elevations. 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.
Dwelling Type. 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.
Soils Report. 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.
Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will
be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well
abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic
Sharmin Al -Jaff
May 9, 1995
Page 2
system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned
prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
Recommendations:
1. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor
level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor
elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
2. Revise the Grading and Drainage 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.
4. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any
grading on the property.
enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo
g: \safety \sak \memos \plan \1klcyest.sj2
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • FO. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
FLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
Wo Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
TU ( SE R SEWO WO FLO
- - - - -- �, -- , - - - - -- °` DLO
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
P lg vi ng P P
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
4M
% PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 17, 1995
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m and made an opening statement
regarding how the public hearings would be conducted.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Mike Meyer, Bob Skubic, Jeff Farmakes and Ladd
Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin
Al -Jaff, Planner II; and John Rask, Planner I
OLD BUSINESS:
REZONING REOUEST TO REZONE 16.34 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL
RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
16.34 ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50
FOOT WIDE RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED SOUTH ON LAKE LUCY ROAD (1471),
LAKE LUCY ESTATES, MICHAEL BYRNE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gayle & Joe Morin
Al Weingart
Bill & Joanne Lambrecht
Gloria Carlson
Randi Folsom
Mary Knudten
Dan Hessburg
1441 Lake Lucy Road
5330 St. Albans Bay Road, Shorewood
6990 Utica Lane
6900 Utica Lane
7050 Utica Lane
6850 Utica Lane
350 Highway 212, Chaska
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Are there any questions of staff at this point? I just have one. Sharmin, the
retaining walls around Lot 1, Block 2 that are on the east side. Front of that lot. They are
300 and 400 feet long. Are those the ones that are 12 feet tall at this point?
Al -Jaff: Actually the 12 foot retaining wall is on Lot 3, Block 3.
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17 1995
an gCo g y ,
Mancino: Okay. Do you have any idea how tall the ones are that are around Lot 1? Are
' those fairly tall, do you know?
' Al -Jaffa It's anywhere between 4 feet and 11 feet.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Does the applicant wish to address the
Planning Commission?
Michael Byrne: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Michael
Byrne. I reside at 5428 Kimberly Road in Minnetonka. I first want to say thank you to staff
for... especially Mr. Hempel, who has been very clear, concise and... Dave is busy welcoming
his first born son tonight so he's not here to hear this. This is the third time this and as you
' stated... staffs given the recommendations to the Council. I don't wish to re -read through the
staff report. It's painfully concise... worked on quite hard. I was told when we started this by
commissioners, to make sure I work with staff. To be very clear. To work... Sometimes it's
' been very difficult to balance ... I want to mention first of all, there was concern about the
maintaining of the area during construction and after construction of the wetlands along
number 1, Lake Lucy and number 2 ... pond. I can only reiterate what the staff had indicated...
' that we'll be using the best program. In addition to that, the mulching and seeding... licensed
landscaper... Part of the program will be a doubling of the ... in the drainage areas. The plans
that you showed, or are looking at, does not unfortunately show a silt fence. That is an error
on ... part and we apologize. But that did show on a previous... staff knows very well where it's
going. We were going to be asking the staff if they wanted us to follow more closely the
contour or the grading line or ... and we'll take their recommendation in whichever direction
they wish us to go. The changes you've seen, both in lot lines, grades, house spots, have all
been recommended to us by staff.. One of the things that you asked specifically was about
the change in the boulder walls. On Wednesday, Dave Hempel did a extensive review from
1 the grades on the site and recommended to us after he had seen our plan, changing those
grades. Moving them in certain areas from ... to 10% over an approximately 230 foot distance.
The wall that you were referring to, were reduced approximately half of that. The movement
of the entrance of Lakeway Lane and Lakeway Court southerly was an attempt to avoid
certain trees on Lot 3, Block 3. We're at the point now, if we move a line 10 feet, 20 feet,
we're hitting 3 trees to the south to preserve 3 trees to the north because that's how close
we're balancing this. The same goes for the movement of Lakeway Court. That movement
will hit 3 trees to save 3 trees. You can tell by that it's getting very finely balanced. Very
' finely tuned ... know we've achieved what the staff hopes to achieve. That is to do as much,
the least amount of possible damage to the site. There was concern that one of the
commissioners that staff was designing the project for us. That's a question I can't really
' answer. At what point does the staffs recommendations stop and our drawings start. The
' 2
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
staff report is so intense and so accurate... and I will await to hear the other commentaries
before I come back to you. If there's any questions...
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I just have one Mike. On my sheets, what
I'm seeing in front of me is, the dates on the first three are 7- 12 -94. So am I looking at the
right one? In the lower right hand corner.
Michael Byrne: That's when, that's the original draft possibly of just the contour lines.
Mancino: Well actually you know what? This is interesting. In the lower right hand corner
it has 7 -12 -94 and then on the left hand corner it has revision dates on it. 1, 2, 3, 4, I just
want to make sure, could you come and look at this and make sure that this is the, I don't
know. Does everyone else have the same?
Farmakes: Same here.
Michael Byrne: This is what you're looking at here?
Mancino: Now I look down here, and here was the date. And then I looked over there.
Michael Byrne: 7 -12 -94 undoubtedly was the time that the contour lines for this entire area
were started.
Mancino: And then the other dates are the overlays?
Michael Byrne: Not all the overlays. There's been approximately 15 different variations that
have been worked on. Major ones and the ones that have been submitted to the city are the
only ones probably here.
Mancino: Okay, I understand now. Thank you.
Michael Byrne: Do you have any other questions at this point?
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Meyer moved, Far-makes seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor- and the
motion carried. The public healing was opened.
Mancino: Okay, this is open for a public hearing. Those who wish to address the Planning
Commission, please come up. State your name and address.
3
C
u
n
I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Al Weingart: Good evening. My name is Al Weingart. I think you've seen me before and
you're probably getting tired of seeing me up here but appreciate the opportunity to speak
before you again. I live at 5330 St. Albans Bay Road in Shorewood and I am the current
owner of the Lake Lucy peninsula and soon to be buying... Steller Court. I'm not going to
take up a lot of time here with what we've already talked about in prior Planning Commission
meetings as well as, you have voluminous amount of materials we've provided you. If you'd
put up my slide too. My slide on, I want to only put this up there for the purpose of
reiterating again that our group is fairly serious about what we're doing here. We tend to
continue to be so. I'm not going to go through all this but basically we have been all over
this project from day one as far as trying to impress upon not only the applicant, Mr. Byrne,
but also upon staff as well as upon you and we've met with many of you. We've had you out
there. We've had the Mayor. I've spoken to the Mayor and a few City Council people about
what's going on here so everybody seems to be fairly well informed and hopefully have
receive copies of most of this stuff, but if anybody has any question about it, you certainly
can ask for copies. So but the effect on us is primarily aesthetically, environmentally and
economically. Those three things we feel we are somewhat at risk with respect to this
project. Continuing examples of why we feel we're at risk, or not at risk but at least be
influenced by. Being at risk might be a little bit strong but influenced by it, is basically one
example, and this is the only example I'm going to put up relative to what we talked about
before, and that is essentially the tree canopy calculations. The point here is not to show the
fact that we're taking down more trees than we were the last time we talked about this issue,
but primarily to emphasize the fact that they're taking 2/3 of the trees on the whole site and if
that's not abusive, then I guess I would find a hard time understanding what might be. So I
guess we're trying to impress upon you the impact this is going to have, not only on the
properties that the developer's trying to develop here but also our own properties that surround
this property. And the financial impact as well the aesthetic impact and the environmental
impact to that whole area. The sensitivity that it has to Lake Lucy and the wetlands that
support a group of wildlife around there and also the aesthetic nature of the property. So
that's the point of showing you this that 66% of that environment, at least the tree cover, is
going to be taken away. And what we're asking you to do tonight is basically to deny this
application and send it onto City Council. The reasons for the denial can be a number of
them from the standpoint of you don't really have a preliminary plat, like I talked about last
time. I think that's arguable and you probably won't agree with me on that but there still are
certain provisions in the city ordinance that would not qualify this as being a full preliminary
plat. There's still a lot of drawings that have to be done on this, from what Sharmin was
telling us and so that would be one argument I guess. The variances, in my opinion anyway,
are a privilege and not a right and the applicant makes the argument that he has been through
a lot of reiterations on this. However, basically it comes down to the fact that we've gone
from mass grading to something that 66% which is going away. So if that's an improvement,
then I'm missing something. Another one would be the detrimental impact to the wetlands
4
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
from the runoff of the water into the wetlands, not into Lake Lucy. I know on my property
when it went before you and the City Council, there were a number of provisions put in there
to restrict what I could do on my property relative to runoff, etc. One of them being that I
cannot put salt on my driveway in any way because it would leech into the lake. We have
10% grades here. That water's going to run right into the lake and into the wetlands. That
would be something maybe you ought to consider to think about relative to the property like
this. That it's particularly... graded severely. And if nothing else, basically this is the kind of
development that is just not good public policy period and that's a very broad argument, I
understand but it's just one of those developments that, it could be done a lot better. It could
be done economically for the developer. Which we realize it's got very excellent piece of
property there that he can get high dollar for if he would just take some of the
recommendations of people who have tried to offer them to him who know something about
the economics. And that's all I'm really going to say now. Just that we'd appreciate a
consideration of denial and let City Council deal with this at this point. Thank you. Are
there any questions? Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
Joe Morin: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joe
Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen. We have the property immediately to
the east of the proposed development. First of all I want to thank the staff very much for
their tremendous efforts. The diligence that they've put in. I truly appreciate the work
they've done in trying to preserve the environment, in a sense with one hand tied behind the
back, since they were operating under the constraint of working within a number of lots that
Mr. Byrne had originally proposed. Even under that constraint they've made ... to the existing
plan. If it wasn't for their efforts, we would still be looking at mass grading on 95% of the
site. And as Al points out, now we're losing only 66% but that's still a significant change. I
think credit for the progress that's been done to this point is due strictly to the staff. I'm
disappointed that the developer has shown any creativity in taking their recommendations and
extending that even further. ...value the property and the amenities certainly could be realized
with a lot fewer lots there. Progress has been made but I don't believe that sufficient progress
has yet been made. I don't want to take up a lot of your time tonight repeating the points I've
already made but I do want to tick off a few major items. I still believe that there's still
excessive density for this site. It's not compatible with the development going on on the east
property line. The Mason Homes development. There are still 11 variances on 8 of the lots,
although staff is requiring that most of these be eliminated. The springs on the property has
still not been identified or located or even addressed by the applicant. Last Friday Eric
Rivkin and I met up with our children and he showed me the springs. One of the springs
running right out of the ground. It's in the area of Lot 6, which is probably in the buffer
zone. It may not impact the development but still, the deer and the other wildlife within that
I
1
U
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
area ... water, at least one of the conditions ought to be to put a fence around it to protect it
from the bulldozers and from the fill. There's still 4 to 5 feet, perhaps more by the lake.
You still have the impact of the fill on the pond and the lake. The impact of big houses in
the middle of a wildlife migration zone. We still have 15, 16, 17,000 square .foot lots on
steep, heavily wooded terrain. 12 foot high retaining walls. 300 feet long walls, maybe 4 to
11 feet high in places. I'm not sure if shifting it south is going to affect all of these or not.
Some, they probably can be reduced somewhat but it's some of the staffs recommendations.
There's still excessive tree loss. It's even worst than what Al described. If you read the front
page of the staff report. The staff notes that at least 10 trees on the survey appear to be near
enough to the grading limits that preserving them will be difficult, although they are being
shown as being saved. These are 150 year old trees. They're irreplaceable. There's still an
impact on the wildlife. The applicant hasn't even talked about this. I think that this
development still is abusive to the environment. I want to make just two more points.
There's still too many lots in the southern region of the development and I want to focus on
this for just a moment. What the overhead here shows is the no variance plan. The plan that
the applicant was asked to put together showing what could be done if no variances were
allowed. I put this up during our last meeting but I want to highlight that there's no access to
that top lot, which is shown in there. There's no access so that is not buildable. The dashed
line that you see is the 50 foot buffer zone. He cannot, the homes must be pushed back from
that 50 foot buffer zone. The point I'm making is that in that southern area the applicant can
only access 3 lots. He cannot get 4 homes down there without a private street. Now per city
ordinance, use of a private street can be allowed if the use of a private street will permit
enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. Now clearly the applicant is using a
private drive in this area simply to gain an additional lot at the expense of the natural
environment. So my final two points are these. Number one, staff is recommending approval
with conditions. Now if approval with conditions is granted, we request that the additional
condition be added that Lot 6 be eliminated. Point number 2, my final point is however we
believe that the ordinance about preserving and protecting the natural amenities such as
vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes and water courses is being violated with this proposed plan.
On that basis we request that this application be denied. Thank you.
Mancino: Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission?
Michael Byrne: Madam Chair. On the point ... he's using the figure which ... the tree removal
process Mr. Thornton has... calculation. The ordinance lays out a replacement program which
calls for 1.2... Our own covenant restrictions exceed those by 50 %... Mr. Weingart also made
a note that water rushing down a 10 foot ... flow immediately into Lake Lucy. I believe he's
forgetting about the ... pond. He indicates that this site will be detrimental and
environmentally ... Mr. Morin brings up the fundamental cry that the site would be better with
bigger lots and more expensive... As I asked Mr. Morin... because Mason Homes is aware of
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
the economics ... it doesn't work that way. We're trying to use very attractive sites to create
very attractive homesites for... custom homes. — creating $250,000.00 lots on this site is not
even reasonable or ... statements made over the last 3 meetings have had... melodrama.
Normally at this point in time I would have asked Dave Hempel to identify within the staff
report, which I believe he would have argued that Mr. Hempel has answered continually some
of these questions about, number one. Some of the requirements for example ... they have been
done. Mr. Hempel has indicated because of the changes that are going to be continuing to
make... final plat, those calculations he would accept ... We've done our necessary preliminary...
The soils examinations are done before the final plat. Mr. Hempel in the staff report has
continually brought that up. I can only depend on what staff.. In conclusion, I'm asking for
approval... your job has always been and remains the same. To evaluate the staffs efforts and
recommendations. The presentations ... to make your decision. I think we've done the best that
we can in this situation with the limitations that we have ... thank you for your time.
Mancino: Thank you. Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? Oh excuse me, one
more.
Joe Morin: Would it be okay if I just...
Mancino: Joe, would you come on up and state your name and address again.
Joe Morin: My name's Joe Morin, 1441 Lake Lucy Road. The only thing I wanted to
address is, as you can see there are several homes immediately adjacent to the pond and also
immediately adjacent to the lake. Runoff from those homes runs directly into Lake Lucy.
The storm sewer... Secondly, Mike, Mr. Byrne eluded to the Mason Home density. If we
were to apply the same density calculations to the development on the west, there would be 4
to 6 new homes in that area. Now obviously this plan is much more environmentally
sensitive than is the site that Mason Homes is developing so one would expect even a greater
degree of care and diligence and sensitivity to the environment. We're not seeing it here. I'm
trying not to be ... but there's value in this property that extends beyond the economic value
and there is in fact economic value that could be traded here above and beyond what will be
traded when the environment is destroyed. That's all I want to say right now. Thanks.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Skubic moved, Fwmakes seconded to close the public healing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public healing was closed.
Mancino: Comments from the commissioners. Questions and comments. Jeff.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Farmakes: I'm not going to make any comments on this.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: This is a particularly difficult development for me. I'm relatively new at this and
I've had the benefit of looking at it from developments that have been completed and I look
at this development for.
Audience: Louder please.
Skubic: I've had the opportunity to look at completed developments and now I get the chance
to look at development before completion but I haven't had the benefit of seeing a
development before and afterwards so I'm a little hard pressed to make a good judgment on
this one but. There are a number of variances on this development. In my short experience
here I have not had a proposal, seen a proposal that was this difficult and required as many
variances as this. There is certainly justification for that. It is difficult grades to work with.
We have the lakefront and so forth but I get the sense that this is like putting a square peg in
a round hole. It just isn't right. That's all.
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: Well we've seen this 3 times. I think staff had a chance to look at it 3 times and
work with it every day. Issues the neighbors bring up we have ordinances for. There's a
couple that we don't. Staffs job is to interpret the ordinances and my cut at it is they have
done that. Unfortunately, when you have a sensitive area, there's not an ordinance for that
and it's tough to develop one. We don't have one. I think the staff report is appropriate.
Staff is interpreting the ordinances as they are and interpreting them fairly. It's probably not
my druthers to develop the site this way but I think again our job is to make sure that staff is
interpreting these properly. There are some variances and I think we don't have to grant them
but I think the variances do create a better project. There are probably 4 points if we approve
this that I would want to have incorporated into a motion. One of them would be for the
applicant to work with the staff in terms of shifting Lakeway Lane and Court to the south.
See if there is value in doing that. A real issue for me is the lake. And the sensitivity of that
lake to this development and there is just no way you can prevent the lake from being
contaminated by the development but I guess I'd like to put some kind of a monitoring, a
special monitoring. I'm never sure what occurs out of the city for projects like this in terms
of monitoring to make sure our ordinances are enforced and this probably deserves some
special note and some special attention so I think we need that kind of review and that's not
to say we distrust what's going on but I think just because you have other contractors
involved, we should have maybe special review of what's going on. An issue that was not
8
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
addressed by the engineer is the impact on the springs. I think that deserves an engineering
comment by the time it gets to City Council. And then I think I'd like to have staff advise
the Council on the appropriateness of developing Lot 7. Those are my comments.
Mancino: Mike.
Meyer: I think Ladd really hit all of my points so no comments at this time.
Mancino: Okay. I would like to add to Ladd's, the appropriateness of developing Lot 7.
Also, can you hear me now?
Audience: No.
Mancino: Can you hear me now? To also look at the appropriateness of that private, getting
a variance to Lakeway Drive. Whether that should be and meet the ordinance of a private
drive and why we're allowing a private drive there. A private road versus not on Lakeway
Drive.
Al -Jaff: Do you want me to address?
Mancino: Yes, please.
Al -Jaff: The applicant showed us a plan with zero variances. It is possible to serve those
lots with a full fledged street. There is one lot that is questionable along the lake.
Mancino: I think it would be worth it to show the differences to the Council.
Al -Jaff: Okay, we can do that.
Mancino: And have them look at that.
Al -Jaff: It would basically preserve trees. Additional trees if we served it via a private street
versus a full fledged street. But again, as mentioned earlier, one of the lots is questionable as
to whether it could remain or not.
Mancino: Okay. Sharmin, and just a few little questions. Lakeway Drive and Lakeway
Court, is that enough of a difference in names and Lakeway Lane, for the Fire Marshal?
Al -Jaff: He was comfortable with it. I brought it to his attention.
E
'
Planning ommission Meeting - May 17 1995
$ g Y
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Couple other questions that I have, have to do with the proposed
alignment of the city sewer and water to the Willis property, where it's located. Can that be
moved so that it aligns itself with Lakeway Lane and doesn't create another pathway or
' swath?
Al -Jaff: In the grading section of the staff report, it is recommended that the utilities be
moved so that they align with Lakeway Lane. But the condition didn't make it to, or the
request didn't make it to the conditions of approval. We will work with the applicant on
realigning that. Another thing that I might mention is, where the utilities are proposed are
' also at the same area where the retention pond is proposed to be located. So that area is
going to be disturbed regardless.
' Mancino: Oh, okay. So then... And can we also add in our conditions something about the
existing driveway easement for the Willis property to remain an easement?
Al -Jaff: Okay.
Mancino: Until it is developed and then it will get it's access from Lakeway Lane. Is there
' also in the recommendation Sharmin, about Lakeway Court and what happens to the turn
around when it, where it is next to the Morin property. What happens? Is the turn around
within the, on the eastern side.
Al -Jaff: What staff is recommending, the applicant provides a temporary turn around on Lot
2, Block 1 and Lot 11, Block 2. However, if the Morin's want to grant an easement at this
time to provide the turn around, staff would advise it. Rather than creating a turn around now
and then in the future and when they develop their property it would be vacated on this plat
and then re- created again on the adjacent.
Mancino: And is that stated such in the recommendation 31?
Al -Jaff: Actually it's condition number 25 and it's the last sentence. It says a temporary turn
around may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14, Block 2 until the Morin's parcel further
' subdivides. It's a private matter whether the Morin's wish to grant an easement at this point.
Again, staff would recommend that they do.
' Joe Morin: Madam Chair, would you like us to respond?
Mancino: No. I'll wait and let you do that with staff. Thank you Joe. On recommendation
' number 4.
10
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Al -Jaff: Number 4?
Mancino: Yes, about the snow fence. I would like it to be very clear that I think the snow
fence should be placed and inspected and approved by staff along the edge of the tree
preservation easement prior to grading. So that it's all set up. It's inspected. It's approved
before any machinery gets on there and starts grading. Secondly, I'd like to make sure we are
granting numerous variances on this. Almost like a PUD. I'd like to make sure that we do
have conservation easements on all areas outside the grading limits. And that the reason for
the conservation easements is that they are to be maintained as natural woodlands. That's
what's there. That means that the dead fall stays. That means that it keeps it's natural habitat
for the wildlife. And it's also stated very much in our tree preservation ordinance that we
talked about it and the task force, each member that not only did we want the bigger trees
saved, but we were looking ahead to the future. To the future of the next generations that
will be here and need those saplings and that underbrush saved too. So that we have a next
generation of trees. Those are all my comments. May I have a motion?
Conrad: Sure. Madam Chairman, you did make a note of the alignment of the sewer. Was
that still an applicable or appropriate?
Mancino: I will let staff and the applicant decide that.
Conrad: Okay, so that one's eliminated. Madam Chair again, you were talking about an
existing, you wanted an existing driveway for the Willis property to remain an easement. Is
that what your wording was?
Mancino: Yes.
Conrad: Until when?
Mancino: Until that property develops.
Conrad: How come?
Mancino: Because at the time that property develops and subdivides, it will gain it's access
from Lakeway Lane. They want to, staffs position from reading the report and please correct
me if I'm misinterpreting it, is when the Willis property does subdivide, that the entrance off
of Lake Lucy Road is a substandard site view?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
11
1
1
1
C
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
Mancino: And that you would prefer.
Al -Jaff: That at the time of the Willis property subdividing, and adding more traffic onto
Lake Lucy, then it would be required to utilize Lakeway Lane. I would also request that, that
came from Jill Willis and the applicant was working with her and last, to my knowledge,
agreed to allow.
Michael Byrne: Sharmin, our intention is to agree to a temporary driveway. At such time as
the ... or the subsequent owner of that property...
Al -Jaff: Okay. So everybody has agreed to permit this driveway to continue until such time
when it's subdivided.
Conrad: Is it worthwhile getting it into the motion?
Al -Jaff: Sure. While this was being discussed I wrote something so if you want me to.
Conrad: See what I do. Okay. I'll make a motion. Planning Commission recommends
approval of Rezoning 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF,
Residential Single Family (95 -1 REZ), Preliminary Plat #95 -3 SUB, to subdivide 14.53 acres
into 18 single family lots and two outlots with variances, (a 20 foot front -yard setback for Lot
3, Block 1, Lot 8, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10% street grade and a 50 foot wide right -
of-way, five (5) homes accessing via a private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the
west side of Lot 7, Block 2), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in the plans dated April 25th. Are
we sure?
Al -Jaff: May 8th. I'm sorry.
Conrad: May 8, 1995, with the conditions listed in the staff report with the following
additions. Point 32. The applicant will work with the staff regarding the appropriateness of
shifting of Lakeway Lane and Court to the south. Condition 33. Staff is to present to the
City Council with a monitoring program for erosion control to insure minor impact to the lake
during construction. Point number 34. Staff to review the impact of the springs by
construction and report to the City Council. Point number 35. Staff to advise City Council
on the appropriateness of allowing variances to applicant on house on Lot 7. Point number
36. That the existing driveway of the Willis property to remain an easement until the
property is developed. Point number 37. That the conservation easement should be
encouraged on all areas outside of the grading limits as presented by the applicant. And then
a minor revision to point number 4 in the staff report that says a snow fence shall be placed
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
and inspect and approved by staff along the edge of the tree preservation easements prior to
the grading.
Mancino: Do I hear a second?
Meyer: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Comad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission mcommends approval of
Rezoning 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single
Family (95 -1 REZ), Preliminary Plat 495 -3 SUB, to subdivide 14.53 acres into 18 single
family lots and two oudots with variances, (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lot 3, Block 1,
Lot 8, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10% street grade and a 50 foot wide fight-of-way, five
(5) homes accessing via a private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of
Lot 7, Block 2), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in the plans dated May 8, 1995, with the
following conditions:
1. Establish a tree removal plan incorporating preservation areas or numbered inventory of
trees removed and saved. Trees lost in excess of the plan will be replaced at two times
the diameter of the tree lost. All trees currently listed on the inventory must be tagged
and recorded as to species, condition and diameter. Applicant must submit a Woodland
Management Plan.
2. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road ,
with the exception of Lot 1, Block 1.
3. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way of Lake Lucy. The
'
applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the
site and along Lake Lucy Road right -of -way. The vegetated areas which will not be
affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The
'
conservation easement shall permit removal of dead or diseased vegetation. All healthy
trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall
provide a plan that shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant
'
shall provide the legal description. Elevation of all trees to be saved within grading
limits must be shown on the grading plan.
,
4. A snow fence shall be laced and inspected and approved b staff, along the edge of
P � Pe PP Y g g
the tree preservation easements prior to grading.
,
13 1
0
'
Planning ommission Meeting - May 17 1995
g g Y
' 5. Building Department conditions:
a. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of
' foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final
plat approval.
' b. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings.
This should be done prior to final plat approval.
I c. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to
issuance of any building permits.
d. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the
property.
C
C
6. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street
lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes.
This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire
fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1.
b. Due to the close proximity of surrounding homes, any trees, shrubs, bushes, natural
vegetation, will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the site. No
burning permits will be issued.
c. Additional premise identification signage will be required for Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block
2, per Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992. Copy enclosed.
d. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The turn
around may be modified if homes on Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 are protected by a
NFPA 13 D fire sprinkler system or other means acceptable to the Fire Marshal.
e. Fire hydrants shall be located at intersection and end of cul -de -sacs and spaced 300
feet apart.
7. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication
and /or trail construction.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
8. Revise the plat to eliminate the following variances:
a. Lot depth for Lot 2, Block 2 shall be increased to 125 feet.
b. Side yard setback for Lots 5, 6, east side of Lot 7, and Lot 10, Block 2, and Lot 2,
Block 1 shall maintain a 20 foot side yard setback.
c. Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2 shall maintain a 30 foot front yard setback.
9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used
adjacent to the wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the
grading limits.
10. 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.
11. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
12. 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 accepting the utilities
and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign.
13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water ponds in accordance with
the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve
prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post
developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks.
Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be
required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water
quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
15
r
'
Planning ommission Meeting - May 17 1995
g g Y
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
' necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
' Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department
of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
' 16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
' be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas. A 40 foot wide drainage and utility easement will be
required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court.
17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way.
' 18. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum
of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 2 are subject to
the high water level of Lake Lucy and not the wetland on Lots 7 through 10, Block 2.
' 19. A water quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging
into the wetlands. The proposed storm water pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the
first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout
for safety purposes. The storm water pond shall be designed and constructed with a
75% phosphorus removal efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland
' plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended.
20. Existing wells and /or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in
r accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations. The existing
home (Tichy) on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system
' within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not
required unless the well on Lot 1, Block 1 fails.
' 21. The proposed single family residential development of 11.48 developable acres is
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,730.00. These fees are
payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The water quality fees will be
' waived if the applicant provides for on -site storm water treatment.
1 16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer. The construction plans shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs and
gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond.
23. Lots 2 through 4, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 3, 9 through 11, Block 2 and Lots 1
through 3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A
detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with
the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of a building permit for the lot.
24. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the
plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a
drainage and utility easement from the Morin's.
25. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance
No. 209 and a turn around acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance
agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private
street(s). A temporary turn around may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14,
Block 2 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides.
26. A variance for street grades up to 10% and the City's right -of -way reduced to 50 foot '
wide is recommended.
27. The building setback line, buffer strips, erosion control fencing and tree fencing shall be
denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. Type III
erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to all wetlands. The grading, drainage, and
construction plans shall be revised incorporating street grades that conform better with
the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss.
28. The intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Court shall be shifted southerly ,
approximately 20 feet as well as the intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Lane.
29. The applicant shall extend utilities to the "Willis parcel" through Lakeway Lane. ,
Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be
placed on the barricades indicating "This street shall be extended in the future ". A
condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners ,
in Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension.
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995
30. A variance to the City's private street ordinance to allow up to 5 homes to access
' Lakeway Court is recommended.
31. The private streets (Lakeway Court and Lakeway Drive) shall be either platted as outlots
L and deeded to Lots 2, Block 1 and Lots 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11, Block 2 and the Morin's
property for access purposes; or the plat revised to incorporate the outlots into the
adjacent lots and a 30 foot wide cross access easement and maintenance agreement for
' Lot 2, Block 1, and Lots 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, Block 2 and the Morin property.
' 32. The applicant will worst with the staff regarding the appropriateness of shifting of
Lakeway Lane and Court to the south.
1
F �
'1
r
33. Staff is to present to the City Council with a monitoring program for erosion control to
insure minor impact to the lake during conshuction.
34. Staff to review the impact of the springs by construction and report to the City Council.
35. Staff to advise City Council on the appropriateness of allowing variances to applicant on
house on Lot 7.
36. That the existing driveway of the Willis property to remain an easement until the
property is developed.
37. That the conservation easement should be encouraged on all areas outside of the grading
limits as presented by the applicant.
All voted in favor, except Commissioner Skubic who opposed and Commissioner Farmakes
who abstained, and the motion canied.
Mancino: This goes to the City Council?
Al -Jaff: On the 12th. June 12th.
(Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
18
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 3, 1995
Chairman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Nutting, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Mike Meyer, Bob
Skubic, and Jeff Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson,
Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II, Bob
Generous, Planner II, Dave Hempel Assistant City Engineer.
PUBLIC HEARIN G -OLD BUSINESS:
-- -- - AlLTT
FOO "1' WILL turns - -
LAKE LUCY ESTATES MICHAEL BYRNE.
Public Present:
Address
Name
Alan Weingart
Joe & Gayle Morin
Nancy Tichy
Mary Knudten
Ed Jannusch
Bill & Joanne Lambrecht
Dale Carlson
Michael J. Byrne
Robert R. Christensen
5330 St. Albans Bay Road, Shorewood
(Lake Lucy Peninsula)
1441 Lake Lucy Road
1471 Lake Lucy Road
6850 Utica Terrace
6831 Utica Terrace
6990 Utica Lane
6900 Utica Lane
5428 Kimberly Road, Minnetonka
1511 Lake Lucy Road
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff mpott on this item.
Mancino: Are there any questions of staff?
Meyer: Sharmin, the conditions as they are outlined here, do they correspond to your plan?
Al -Jaff: Mainly yes, they do.
Meyer: So what this is translating into is what you have laid out here?
1
' Al -Jaff: Correct. There are a few conditions that address the applicant's plan; however, what
we are trying to achieve here is to incorporate staffs plan because is significantly reduces
' grading on the site. There are details that need to be worked out.
Meyer: OK.
Mancino: I have a couple questions. Can you talk a little bit about the entry into the western
property, how that changes? And the retaining walls that I saw on the preliminary plat from
' the applicant? And is there a difference between what staff proposed versus that one?
Al -Jaff: The difference between the property to the east and the property to the west is the
property to the east actually had a surveyor go out there, look at potential sites that could be
located on their parcel and we know exactly how many homesites they could get.
' Mancino: OK.
' Al -Jaff: We have not been able to get that from the applicant to the west. The more staff
looked at the Willis property, the more we believed that you could get maybe more than four
homes on the site. If we allowed a private drive to access the Willis property which is what
' was shown previously on the previous plat, that would have limited the number of homes to
four unless the City grants a variance. We didn't want to put ourselves in that predicament;
therefore, what we are recommending is a 50 -foot right -of -way through the Willis property
' that would service the entire site now. The Willis property will continue to gain access off of
Lake Lucy until such time when she decides to subdivide.
' Mancino: And you want to close that access off of Lake Lucy when the Willis property is
subdivided? Because I go down Lake Lucy quite a bit and there is no other way to access
the Willis property because isn't, it doesn't go, its a wetland or, I'm not sure what it is on
' that...
Al -Jaff: It is a wetland...
' Mancino: Through the whole length of that property that abuts Lake Lucy, is that correct?
' Hempel: The driveway basically follows the ridge line that bisects the parcel... further review
after you extend sewer and water to the parcel... Staff felt that right now we have to ... 4.5 on
tape ...
Mancino: Would there be significant retaining walls with this...
' Hempel: There would be retaining walls at the intersection of the public street there as
proposed on the grading plans where you can see ... 5.5 on the tape
' Mancino: Sure.
' Hempel: I would like to just touch on one other point... about private driveways. You may
recall the previous submittal, the initial submittal, showed the private driveway going off to
the east of the Morin's property similar to what is seen here in staffs layout. ...there is two
groups of significant trees right in the area where the private driveway comes out on the
public street. In this proposal, as with the other ones, it is kind of a trade -off. Do we lose
one group of trees and save the other group or vice versa? Looking at this scenario I felt that
this would allow the sewer lines also to go under the private driveway... While the value of
saving trees is about equal in both scenarios, but this had greater benefit because it had run
the utility lines through the rear yards...
Mancino: Aren't you on more level ground, too?
Hempel: You're following the grade of the hillside versus going up the hill.
Mancino: With a 3% to 7% difference in grade. I just have one more question and that is
Lots 9 and 10 again on the applicant's plat were walkouts. Now that has changed to lookouts.
Does that mean that it requires less fill in that area because it is a lookout versus a walkout?
Hempel: Yes, about a foot or two less fill in that area. The only other concern we had was
the sanitary sewer elevation is very shallow and in a lookout -type home the lower level...
Mancino: Any other questions of staff?
Nutting: Sharmin, I guess, just to help me kind of bring things together. The applicant has
submitted a revised plan attempting to incorporate various changes that came through staff
and the Planning Commission at the initial meeting. Staff has concluded that there are good
efforts towards obtaining the goals but haven't quite met the spirit and so staff has come up
with an alternate layout. Is it the assumption that the developer has embraced staffs plan?
Al -Jaff: We'll let the applicant answer that. Dave met with the applicant this afternoon
briefly around 5:00 today and he agreed to incorporate some of the suggestions that we had;
however, there were others that he didn't believe they would work out, so...
Nutting: So the applicant is not putting forth this plan for approval. Staff is putting forth this
plan for approval. OR
Meyer: Sharmin, could you clarify that street grade of 10 %, is that Lakeway Drive from the
cul -de -sac?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Meyer: Do I understand correctly that you said there are only three lots that require a 20 -foot
front yard setback?
Al -Jaff: We haven't worked out the details. The plans that staff put together need to be fine -
tuned and we believe the applicant should be doing that. From the layout that was put
together, yes, we believe only two or three of the units will require a variance, a front -yard
setback variance and not ten.
3
Meyer: OK. Thank you.
' Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission?
Michael Byrne: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Michael
Byrne and I reside at 5428 Kimberly Road in Minnetonka. Could not hear tape at this point.
The question was asked, "Does the developer approve of staffs ... your last location on ... The
cul -de -sac going north ... from staff in that area. As a matter of fact, the southerly alignment of
' Lakeway Court was a part of our proposal at one time or another. They have implied there
was a decision that we had to work with staff ...Tape was not clear. If you look at your
copies of the plan, the grading plan and ... tape was not clear. Mark Gronberg conducted the
' redesign... If you will note ... we submitted 14... If you will note on version 14 Mark
accomplished the process of rearranging the lot line to grade. The three -level road was the
major reason for the improvement working from tree loss, major tree loss... Subsequently,
with the reshowing of the grading lines... Mr. Gronberg, as you will note on your grading
plan, tried to design a 30 -foot northerly as recommended at that time to avoid alot of trees.
Obviously, with the straight line road we're going to lose some trees. Another question was
' asked if the staff designed the project. No, staff does not design the project. They have
taken at least 13 different versions and is trying to take the best of each to accomplish their
goals and maintain as much tree coverage as you can. I have to bring this conversation to a
real sharp point right away. Both the staffs goals and ours are quite similar in the sense that
you are trying to save as much trees as you can and still maintain financial... We're working
and will work... There is a concept plan in the sense that I am going to develop the site to be
' sold to builders who build with custom homes. Families that wish to have their homes in the
woods. That's why I purchased the site. Once you are in the woods you are going to cut
trees down but the concept of being in the woods also includes having trees behind the house,
in front of the house, and on the sides of the house, ideally. As I spoke with Mr. Conrad,
your ordinances are not really designed for that purpose. The new ordinance, for example, six
months ago calls for tree conservation. As staff tries to make this tree conservation easement
as large as possible, this tends to move the house toward the street and create a little
townhome and that's not what I'm trying to do. The process we are going through is to find a
' balance of what I hope to be in the woods and the staffs focusing to create as large a tree
conservation easement as possible. I think we are able to work with that. I haven't seen
anything yet that tells me otherwise. I have one question and brings up my point very
clearly. If you look at your color diagrams, there is two of them, one showing the grading on
the lake. If you look at the first one which is Lake Lucy Estates you will note the building
pads are as far apart as we could get them. The easterly one is as far east as we can get it
' and the westerly one is as far west as we can get it. Lot 8 had to an approximately 180 -foot
area where you can move the house back and forth to balance. That was done for two
reasons. Number one, the neighbors had indicated that they wished to see less intense use of
' their shorelines. These are going to be large homes. There's no question about that.
Building pads of 80 feet to 85 feet by 50 are not going to be uncommon. With staffs
proposal, which is the second one, you'll see two building pads approximately 20 feet apart.
While it does in fact save some of the tree plantings, we've got 7 over lots that are deep in
the... Their pads are totally surrounded. That's what we're trying to do is we're trying to put
house pads in trees. It irritates people, some, it irritates the neighbors. I can understand that,
but what we are trying to do is create in the woods a process here with... putting two vaulted
homes 20 feet apart, I don't think it will detract. It will create a mass on the... I could only
ask that you look at provision 27... I'm asking you confirm... Two reports that are on ... tape
was not clear at this point... That's the other part of ... As we work with custom
homeowners, these are the people that are going to try to place their home in the site given
the limitations of sideyard, frontyard and rearyard, etc. We try to reinforce with them saving
the best of the site. The tree can't be... We wish to do those after we sit down with staff...
each individual lot. We've done this before and its not... If you read the entire package you
will notice the difference on lot widths. I believe that's page 3. Staff has ... tape was not clear
at this point... I placed Exhibit A in there. There was some question in the staff report about
the sewer easement... I would welcome any questions from you now.
Mancino: Excuse me. Mike, I just have a question. This was prepared yesterday for us?
Michael Byrne: Yes.
Mancino: I appreciate it.
Michael Byrne: We received staffs revision on Friday...
Mancino: Are there any questions for Mr. Byrnes? Thank you. Can I have a motion to open
the public hearing?
moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion caned. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone who would like to come up and address
the Planning Commission may.
Alan Weingart: Madam Chair. Commissioners. My name is Alan Weingart and I own the
peninsula on Lake Lucy and will be buying 1695 Steller Court in September and currently
reside at 5330 St. Albans Bay Road in Shorewood and we have a group of us here tonight
that have obviously some strong feelings about what's being proposed. Did everyone of you
get a copy of Eric Rivkin's letter that he faxed to you yesterday or today? I just wanted to be
sure that you received it from him and, if not, let us know and we will get you a copy.
We've chosen someone to speak to some of the things that are in there. I guess I have a, I
question I have is what was just given to you? Is something new?
Al -Jaffa I haven't seen it. I don't know.
Mancino: This is what Mike delivered to our homes.
Alan Weingart: OK. So you have not seen that?
Mancino: Staff has not seen it.
Alan Weingart: Well, we're sort of segregating the various things that we want to talk about
here tonight amongst a few of us and I probably have the most tedious and boring aspect of
5
this to talk about because as Mike was saying, he started to quote ordinances and basically it
sounded like we have a case of martyrdom here where the ordinances are forcing him to tear
down trees and make small lots. What he's getting to is a situation where we have to look at
this thing on a very technical ordinance basis and technical analysis of what the ordinances
will allow or won't allow and it is unfortunate that we have been pushed to the situation
where everything is coming down to what are technicalities of the ordinance. Usually, it is
my understanding the process between Planning Commission, staff, residents and applicant is
typically one of give and take and we haven't seen a whole lot of give and take in this
particular situation. So, if the applicant in this case wishes to push things to the technical
aspects of what the ordinance says or doesn't say, then 1 guess I would like to look at what
those technical rights, or what the technical obligations are under the ordinance relative to
what you guys have received and kind of go through this. It sounds like Mike is seeking to
have his application approved subject to the conditions that are laid out in the staff report
except for lots along the lake and we're asking for it to be tabled because, from an ordinance
standpoint, we don't think that what you have in front of you right now constitutes what the
ordinance calls a preliminary plat. The ordinance basically says that the Planning
Commission is to make a recommendation on the preliminary plat which assumes that the
preliminary plat is in existence, that there is one and right now, based upon various conditions
in the staff report, it doesn't appear to us that there is any kind of preliminary plat on this to
make a recommendation and, therefore, I think the applicant deserves the opportunity to go
back and incorporate the various comments that staff has made, also hopefully some of them
that we have made and that you will make and come back with a plat, a preliminary plat that
qualifies underneath the technical provisions of the ordinance so that you guys can have
something to recommend, approve, deny, or whatever and you have ample time to do that.
To support that intention I guess is... I'd like to have Sharmin put this up on the overhead. I
have copies of this too that I can give to you. This basically, uh, oh boy. Do you want
copies? Let me get you copies. Basically what we're saying here is that you don't have a
preliminary plat. Therefore, we can't really make a decision one way or another. That's our
contention, anyway. The reason that we can't because basically the various things I have
listed here, No. I - Lot dimensions and revised layout. Well, Sharmin mentioned that she
doesn't have the lot dimensions and revised layout because it hasn't been drawn yet. She has
a sketch of what it would, should look like and according to the technical verse of the
ordinance you got to have a plat that has lot dimensions and revised layout. You have to
show location and width of right -of -way to the Willis property and Lakeway Court. It doesn't
appear that we have that now. We have a private drive as opposed to a 50 -foot street. Not to
bore you with all these but basically the name of Outlot A isn't mentioned. I mean, we're
talking technicalities here and if that's the game that's going to be played, that's the game
unfortunately we have to play. Accurate soil reports, compliance with minimum setbacks on
revised plan... There is no revised grading plan because of the grades that are coming off of
Lakeway Court. We don't know what that looks like and how the sewer goes underneath it or
not. We just don't know that. The reforestation plan, I'll get to that in a minute and, of
course, the replatting with the, and the reassessment of the requested variances. We don't
know how those variances are going to be impacted on the property because we haven't seen
a drawing of what the impact of that is. So these are the kinds of things that we don't think
we have complete preliminary plat similar to the ordinance. Therefore, I don't think we can
make a decision to approve something that we don't have enough information about. Now
what Sharmin is saying is it's merely a matter of degree, too. There are conditions that can
C.1
be approved if you in fact have a preliminary plat. But what we have here, in my opinion,
are a lot of requirements that are not met. There is a difference between conditions and
requirements and that is the distinction I think is important in this particular case.
Changed tape at this point.
Alan Weingart: ...is the tree canopy and we don't have a reforestation plan. Mike even
admitted that he doesn't know what kind of trees are going to be taken down and there's no
way to know without having a new plan drawn relative to reforestation. In this particular
case based upon the staff reports, there's a total acreage of 14.5 acres plus the wetlands gives
us the buildable acreage and roads and the canopy ordinance requires %
maintained to b n be be
allowing 5.2 acres in this case. The required canopy to
reduced by what staff feels is the applicant's additional canopy that he is going to remove...
So now we're down to the canopy that's being? acres m ainta i ne d d trees4 Now I don'tlknowbu�ldu buildable
acres. Therefore, he is removing a little over st
sounds a bit unreasonable. Maybe the applicant should take a look at the site and figure out
that, it doesn't take alot to figure out, that maybe this isn't the kind of site to put that much
density of ... homes into having to remove obvious even the note at the botto
Just frustrates me I guess because it Just seems
where they indicated in the staff report that "realistically, more trees may ultimately be
removed than is shown on the grading and tree inventory survey ". So, I think 62% is
probably the minimum here and its... from there. Anyway, if any of you have any questions
on the technical aspects of this stuff I would be happy to attempt to address them. This may
not be the case but we have plenty of time between now and May 17 to discuss whether or
not these various things are being
to allow the appl gto met and I come back with plans that, Commission has asked for t in our
opinion, constitute a preliminary plat and also give us time to respond to those. Maybe not
through a public hearing but through correspondence and I think that's only fair to both sides
to do that. So, any questions for me? OK.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
Joe Morin: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joe Morin
and I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. I own the parcel immediately to the west of the, to the
east of the proposed development taking place. At the last hearing of this proposal the
proposal was so far off that the applicant did not make an attempt to present it for
consideration and during that discussion Mr. Conrad detailed 5 major points which were not
adequately addressed by the applicant's initial submittal. These were the water quality pond,
sensitivity to the physical characteristics of the site, storm damage, environmental damage and
variances. Nancy Mancino cited ordinances about preserving and protecting natural amenities
on the site such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and other members of the
Planning Commission were in agreement that these issues were not adequately addressed.
What I want to do tonight is to kind of outline or use Mr. Conrad's 5 major points as a guide
to quickly highlight as many specific areas as I can where these concerns are still not
adequately addressed. The first area, water quality pond. This is an improvement to what
was originally submitted since there is a water quality pond; however, there are numerous
springs that Eric Rivkin spoke of at his last meeting that are in this general location pretty
7
Ll
1
r,,
1
n
close to where this water quality pond is being proposed. All I can say is pretty close
because Eric spoke of them as bubbling out of ground when he was cross - country skiing
through there and he spoke of them as being right in this general area near Lot 6 and near the
area where the proposed pond is going in. These springs have not been located, they have
not been identified and they have not even been addressed at all by the applicant and I don't
what impact to put in a holding pond near a natural spring is going to have or, for that matter,
trying to install a building pad. So I think that is something that is significantly missing.
The second item related to the water quality pond is a matter of personal interest to me. I
need to understand... staff has managed to take this time to speak to many of us and members
of the Planning Commission which also have this concern but the ponding area is located to
the west of the proposed road but there's a pipe going under the road back into the existing
pond on the site and the overflow water from the holding pond is being dumped into the
larger or bigger pond which has a direct flow right into Lake Lucy and my questions here is
why not have the overflow go into the large vegetation acreage to the east and allow a better
sense of filtration... OK. Major point No. 2 relates to sensitivities to the physical
characteristics of the site. I am very happy to see a cul -de -sac and the road realigned. I think
that was a bit of a no- brainer to move the cul -de -sac over and not within the middle of a
grove of trees and that was a good thing to do. The realignment of the road also
compensated significant trees. I acknowledge that. But there are still significant problems
remaining. In the applicant's proposal, and I couldn't tell from the staffs proposal, but in the
applicant's proposal there are three 15,000 square foot lots on very steep terrain. If you have
your maps in front of you or if Sharmin could put a map up on the overhead you could see
that in Block 1, Lots 3 and 4 are 15,000 square feet and located in extremely, that's Block 2,
Lots 5, right? That also is in a very extremely sensitive terrain area. In Block 1 if Sharmin
could show Lots 3 and 4 right where all those high - density contour lines come together and
also they are very heavily wooded as well. I guess I have a question, Sharmin. In your
experience, has anyone ever submitted a plan showing 15,000 square -foot lots on this kind of
terrain with this kind of tree cover.
Al -Jaff: I haven't reviewed a plan with that type of terrain and a 15,000 square -foot lot. I
personally have not.
Joe Morin: OK. The other area I want to point out is right near Lot 4 and between Lots 4
and 5 there's a 14 -foot elevation difference between the two sites. In fact, Lot 4 is
surrounded on three sides with retaining walls 14 to 17 feet high. We're talking about
sensitivity to physical characteristics of the site. The private drive going into the Willis
property that was shown here and I think that's going to be changed but that shows 13 to 14-
foot retaining walls on either side of that private drive and, of course, more important,
inadequate access to her property. Now, I'm pleased that the developer, or the applicant is
wanting to accept the changes that staff has made. I don't know if the changes that staff has
made are an improvement. I can't tell from the layout. But I do have some grave concerns
about the way that the terrain, the natural terrain and steep slopes are being torn up in this
area. Sharmin, if you could show the drawing that you had before showing the point of
setbacks. The point I'm trying to make here and that staff recognizes is that when you have
20 -foot setbacks and you have houses that close to the road on either side you have kind of a
tunnel effect. Now, Mike is trying to create an environment that's in the woods. I would
expect an in- the -woods kind of environment would put homes in the woods you would have
8
some with trees in the front and some forward. Obviously you would have few lots if you
wanted an in -th -woods kind of environment. This submittal by the way does not in any way
to me show an in- the -woods kind of consideration. What I'm showing here is part of the plan
the applicant submitted at the request of staff to show what could be accomplished if no
variances were granted. The lot shown to the top of the page, Lot 9, has no access to it.
There is no access there. There is also grading and fill right up to the edge of the wetland
here all along the wetland in fact. But there is no access to that point... The applicant can't
get to that site without a variance. Now, how many houses he could get on without variances
is still a matter of dispute. I understand from the staff report they said probably 4 less than
what is submitted. Certainly, if you can't access to a site you can't build. What this one
shows is the applicant's current design for Lot 10. I'm going to point out a few things here
related to sensitivity and physical characteristics. You'll notice right along the wetland area
all along in here there's 10 feet of fill right up to the edge of the wetland. You'll notice that
right in the center of this driveway is the loss of that 24" oak that we spoke of. We've been
out to the site many times. This is a tree that could easily be saved with just a minimum
amount of consideration for this area. With respect to this site there is an ironwood, 12"
ironwood here that's not identified on the applicant's plan. We were out there with Jill, the
City Forester and the DNR Forester whose had 40 years of experience in this, in forestry and
he said this is a very tree. An ironwood doesn't usually get to be that big. It's a very old
tree. He also identified another oak in here. He said that was a 12 " oak. All along here are
10 ", 11 ", 9" oaks. There's a whole grove of oak trees in this area. Many of them are on my
property right in here. And these oaks will be damaged with this kind of a plan that the
applicant has submitted. The applicant is filling 9 feet of fill on this site. 9 feet of fill going
right up to my property line here. But 9 feet of fill more importantly between this pond and
this lake. He's also showing... a 10 -foot setback from the property line. ...asking for a
variance? If the ordinance is 20. I'm gravely upset by this. Putting 9 feet of dirt and then a
house on top of that in an area that's this sensitive to the environment I think is a desecration.
The basements of all of those sites located in that southern area are at a elevation of 972
roughly and the natural contour's at 964. This could require 8 feet of fill for Lots 7 and 8,
8 1 /2 feet of fill for Lot 9 and 10 feet of fill for Lot 10. I think that staffs plan is alot better in
that these work in this area. It's a heck of a lot, a huge improvement over what the applicant
proposed. I don't believe that, I think a sensitive plan of these lower sites would have one or
two houses there, one or two houses and homes without basements so that no fill at all would
be required. I don't believe that this plan adequately addresses the Planning Commission's
concerns about sensitivity to the physical characteristics of the site. The third major point is
with storm drainage. Now the applicant's proposal, Sharmin mentioned a 10% grade in part
of the areas 14% grade. Sharmin, if you could put the applicant's sketch up there again. I
don't know if 14% is even reasonable whether it meets the City standards or not. I'll let you
be the judge of that. My concern with this kind of a layout is the flow of uncontrolled and
untreated runoff coming from the street coming from the properties north of that road that's
Lakeway Court flowing at a 10% to 14% grade straight into my property in an area that is
already low and takes a certain amount of time in the spring to dry up I think I don't need
anymore water from... and this is not addressed. The impact of flowing into our properties is
not addressed in this plan. The applicant has still not submitted a plan showing storm sewer
calculations. He has still not addressed the concern expressed by Mr. Conrad about erosion
control on the southern part of the site which he is still showing as 8 to 9 feet of fill such as
previously mentioned. He has not addressed how the lake and pond will be protected either
G
1
I
1
1
1
before construction, during construction or after construction. I don't think the applicant has
adequately addressed this point either. The fourth major point, environmental damage, who
knows what the impact of 8 to 9 feet of fill and dirt will be on the pond and the lake. We
don't know that. But the impact of a big house out there after you level all the forest on 9
feet of dirt in the middle of a wildlife migration area which is a travel zone for the entire
area, not just our area but the broad areas I spoke of this last time surrounding us, I think its
still abusive to the environment. I talked about cutting into the slopes pretty severely. I'm
not sure if staffs plan will minimize that or not. I don't believe that the... calculations have
been done correctly or are missing. I think there's an issue there. Certainly there is
significant tree loss removing 7 acres of trees. Speak of being sensitive to environmental
damage I think that's horrible. I still believe there is excessive density for the site. There
ought to be 4 to 6 less homes. If you want an in- the -woods kind of environment you have to
have fewer homes. With the density that he has, he has to chop down all the trees. I believe
that this is a very rare and very unique site. The man from the DNR with 40 years of
experience, those are his words. He said this is... We don't see... like this. We don't see
oaks like this. Gayle and I took a bike ride out to Eden Prairie around Rice Marsh Lake and
we looked at the big woods that they have there that they've been struggling so hard to
preserve. This is something like we already have right here in Chanhassen. I think that this
is such a unique site that it needs special considerations in its development and that
significant pieces ought to be left alone and the design ought to be sensitive to that. Eric
spoke of the other environmental issues. He did send a letter to the members of the Planning
Commission but you haven't received that yet. I hope that you do take what he says under
consideration. He's talking about destruction of valuable natural habitat necessary to support
abundant wildlife. He speaks of a beaver lodge newly constructed this year 150 feet from
where the applicant wants to level the woods. He talks about the beaver depending on small
caliper trees and not being afraid to take the landscape trees that Mike plants. He talked
about many too -tall houses close to the lake referring to aesthetics and so on. Natural, year -
around springs. He address that. And the storm pond's relationship to the spring and the
stormwater flows on the site and he speaks to the developer that the applicant not be
unresponsive to staffs and resident's input. I know, I've seen the wildlife there. The fox,
mink, deer, beaver. These are the large mammals. Eric spoke of 14 different species of
mammals. The red -tail fox, great- horned owls on the property. I saw them there just a few
days ago. ... woodpecker, a dozen great blue herons underneath the large canopy trees where
they're nesting. Migrating water fowl such as loons. We've heard loons this spring. We've
seen pelicans out on the lake. Other waterfowl basically too numerous to mention that nest
here and make their homes. This is what Eric spoke of and this is part of the aesthetic
enjoyment that the entire community sees for this property. The lack of erosion control and
drainage pipes. I have serious concerns for this. This is a very important watershed area.
This is the headwaters of Lake Lucy which is the headwaters of the entire chain of lakes, the
Riley chain of lakes. And so pollution into this area not only affects Lake Lucy but
everything downstream. The development that's occurring here is in a natural basin. The
Mason homes development is high on a ridge where they have pulled their homes away from
this natural basin. They left it natural. My home is high on the basin. The Tichy home is
also high on the basin. Christensen's and the Willis property are also high up on the basin
but now we're taking about developing down into this basin and Lake Lucy gets most of its
flow from groundwater seepage and runoff from this area and we better be real careful about
what we do there. I don't think that, I believe that a much higher standard of care must be
10
exercised in this area and I don't believe the expectations of the Planning Commission have
been met yet with this plan or with staffs plan either for that matter. The fifth major point
was variances. I'm going to go over that very quickly because Al talked about them. There
are several variances that area being requested. The question is has the applicant earned the
right to these variances? Has the applicant earned the right to private driveways and so on? I
really worry about the history of this applicant. I don't know that he has experience with this
size of a development, let alone a development that requires this degree of sensitivity. I have
very grave concerns about the wherewithall to complete the development which is sensitive to
the area. Even this could be mitigated if he at least was cooperative with the planning staff.
But I'm worried about the history of him using variances simply to cram in more lots and not
preserving the environment. So, I'm worried about that and I'm worried about his lack of
cooperation. There are numerous citations that we have in the letter that was sent to each of
you showing his unwillingness to work with the concerns of the staff, the concerns of the
Planning Commission and the concerns of the neighbors and local residents. He didn't even
take notes at our neighborhood meeting. Sharmin, have you ever in your experience
encountered a more uncooperative residential developer?
Mancino: Mr. Morin, all those...
Joe Morin: Is that a fair question?
Mancino: No. That is not a fair question. Any questions should be directed towards me.
Thank you.
Joe Morin: I would ask you the same question... If you think it's inappropriate I'll...
Mancino: It's inappropriate. Thank you.
Joe Morin: I think that staffs layout has some improvements. I think the applicant's reaction
to it is very disappointing but not unexpected. I appreciate the long hours and hard work that
staff has put in and overtime to try to get to an acceptable plan. Unfortunately, I don't think
we're there. What we have here is a layout and a sketch. We have the document that was
submitted to Planning Commission members but not the staff. I have no... We have kind of
a hybrid between a sketch and recommendations of staff and the applicant's choosing not to
accept so I'm really not sure what we have. I want to conclude with just making two points
here. Number 1: As I tried to show I don't think your concerns have been adequately
addressed by the applicant. I think that staffs layout is better but undefined. I'm still
confused by this hybrid of the south and north and the unknown document. Number 2: The
applicant, I'm upset by his not agreeing to the changes recommended by staff. I think its still
a plan even in its hybrid form that's unacceptable to staff. I think its unacceptable to the
Planning Commission. I hope it is. Its unacceptable to the residents and will most certainly
be sent back by the City Council. This forum is here to stay. Gayle and I just... that
anything looking like this request that a preservation easement be placed over all the property
outside all of the grading limits. We request that Lot 10 be eliminated. We request that
homes without basements be placed in southern area if any homes are put down there at all.
We request that Lakeway Court be realigned the way staff has proposed and the rest of the
project be re- engineered as shown in the staff layout. Finally, Gayle and I can accept the
11
development next door. We'll even profit from the development next door. But we don't
want it rushed into the City Council in this form. We believe that the site deserves a better
effort. A much better effort. We believe that the City Council should be presented a clean
plan. A complete plan. A plan that is much more responsive to all of our concerns and we
request that this application be tabled. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else like to approach the Planning Commission?
Jill Willis: Hi. My name is Jill Willis. I'm the property that's to the west. I have a couple
of questions I would like to just coincide on Al's and Joe's comments. Sharmin, could you
put up the...
Tape ended at this point.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Kim Meuwissen
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
9. The southerly 25 feet of Lot 2, Block 1 shall be dedicated as street right-of-way with the
final plat documents. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be reconfigured to arrive at the necessary
square footage with a minimum of 15,000 square feet.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
(Kate Aanenson excused herself from the meeting at this point due to a personal conflict of
interest for the next item.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 16.34 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR. RURAL
RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
16.34 ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50
FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH ON LAKE LUCY ROAD, (1471),
POINTE LAKE LUCY WEST, MICHAEL BYRNE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Dirks
Al Weingart
Joe & Gayle Morin
Brian Tichy
Jerry Hoffman
Jill Willis
Dale & Gloria Carlson
1205 West Ash, Olivia, MN
5330 St. Albans Bay Road, Shorewood
1441 Lake Lucy Road
1471 Lake Lucy Road
6830 Utica Terrace
1571 Lake Lucy Road
6900 Utica Lane
Shanmin AI -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: Just one question of staff. Any applicant has the right to bring a plat in front of us.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Conrad: Whether it meets our standards or not. We are obligated to look at that, even
though it's obviously missing some things that we require by ordinance. Correct?
Al -Jaff: Correct. I mean we could have said that this was an incomplete application.
However, we just wanted to get the thoughts of the Planning Commission. We wanted to
10
t
P
1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
make sure we're moving on the same track. And we wanted to get your input on it. But yes,
you do have to review the application.
Mancino: With that, is the applicant here and would you like to make a presentation?
Michael Byrne: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Michael Byrne. I
reside at 5428 Kimberly Road in Minnetonka. Normally under the circumstances ... speaking
to his proposal. That is not our intention ... We are working with staff and staff has been very
gracious in working with us. We are in mid stream ... We met with the neighbors last night
and learned a lot of commentary. Madam Chair was there so she... I don't want to take a lot
of your time since...I wish however to garner as much information from you as possible...
You will hear from the neighbors. Mr. and Mrs. Morin ... I can only ask that we continue to
have the opportunity to work with staff and working with... I had made plans with Alan
Olson myself but Sharmin from staff has stole my thunder already. To give you an idea of
the... The changes that we're trying to make to this proposal are going to be hard. This is a
very, very difficult subdivision. We have somewhere between 72 to 78 percent coverage of
trees. We have terrain changes. We have ponds ... We really do wish for you to listen to
those comments... await for any questions you have.
Mancino: Any questions?
Conrad: Not right now.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open up the public hearing please?
Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the
motion cwiied. The public hewing was opened.
Al Weingart: My name is Al Weingart. I currently reside at 5320 St. Albans Bay Road over
in Shorewood. I recently purchased the island peninsula out in Lake Lucy and also will be
purchasing the Sanda home which is at 1685 Steller Court. That's the Sanda home. And
relative to my intentions with respect to the island, you guys went through it and the City
Council and they approved a plat of a roadway that goes out there that will only service a
single family home so my intention all along, after that process was over was always to put a
single family home at some point. No immediate plans to do so, but that is why we're buying
the Sanda house is to give us some time to acclimate ourselves to the neighborhood and what
not. It's a fairly big project so it's going to take some time and more importantly money.
General concerns from a personal standpoint are that, the concerns about the economic impact
that such a development, as was originally proposed, will possibly have on my property,
which is a selfish interest. And of course... shared by many people in the neighborhood. And
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
also on the quality and the level of Lake Lucy. I have a real concern about the level of Lake
Lucy, not only from Mike's development but also from the standpoint of some of the other
developments around Lake Lucy because my driveway doesn't sit much above the ordinary
high water mark and I don't want to be using a boat to get to it. So those are the personal
concerns that I have about this particular development. I'm not opposed to development. I
just wanted some sensitivity relative to those kinds of things looked at. Overall I think my
concerns would be to preserve the natural, sort of preserve, nature preserve setting of that
whole area of that north shore. We don't have a lot of lakes in Chanhassen and I think the
city character of the lakes, would surround the lake changes dramatically although I'm not
naive enough to think that it wasn't going to be developed or shouldn't be developed. That's
not our position at all. Just that it be developed responsibly. Also there's, as you may know,
there's some wildlife in that area, both on the island and all along this shore it's heavily
forested. I think Eric Rivkin will talk a little bit later about some of that but that is a
concern. There is a buffer zone that, where this wildlife seems to migrate to and from across
all of that all the way out to the western part of Chanhassen so that is a concern. Again I
want to reiterate we're not opposed to development at all. We had a meeting last night, and
Mike was gracious enough to call with all the homeowners and we have some Minutes put
together that Joe will distribute to you and they can ... comments so we're here to kind of give
you those rather than sit here and reiterate what's in that packet. Sharmin, could you put this
up?
Al -Jaff: I sure can.
Al Weingart: This, again this is a bit preliminary but my point of putting this up here is just
to emphasize, it's backwards. What the initial thrust of this whole development has been and
what we've done. You've got a copy of this in a March 28th letter that I distributed that Joe
and I ... distributed to you and basically the second portion is what, at that point in time, was
deemed to be graded to accommodate the home sites. That means all the trees and the slopes
would be impacted by the grading. And this initially of course shocked us because really it
amounts to about 80% or 90% of the lot. What isn't graded, it consists of very steep slopes, a
buffer zone around the wetland and wetlands themselves. And so that kind of caught our
attention and that's what caused us to create a bit of an organization here to just make sure
that what is done here is done with some sensitivity. Some of the points on this are that what
we're concerned about is really four things generally. The areas along the right hand side.
Right along the water front, or the lakeshore if you will. I'll call it lakeshore. Basically it's
very low. There is a proposal to range from 8 foot of fill to be put in there to build up those
lots in order so they can have walkouts and look -outs. That I understand may be being
revised to 3 to 4 feet but nonetheless when you fill that site, basically you've got to get rid of
all vegetation because you fill with dirt on top, so that's a concern. Between the wetland, the
inside wetland. That pond. The big pond and the lake. It's a very sensitive area in there.
12
1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
It's very low. That is, and over to the top. That is an area that's particularly I think critical
and I think Eric may be able to speak a little bit to that. This plat here and in subsequent to
the conversation plat I guess, whatever it was, had a lot of variances, or needs a lot of
variances to accommodate the number of homes that are being put in here. Particularly the
private drives that are necessary for that, and I think those should be taken a look at very
carefully to make sure that we're not impacting something by putting too many homesites.
And I know the pads aren't necessarily the ... factor of this whole but it still defies my logic a
bit that the more homes that you have in a situation, obviously the more trees that go down
and the more slopes that get graded and so that explanation of the pads aren't really that
important has not really flown with me and I wish somebody would articulate that to me...
That proposal incorporates taking down some very large trees, 24 inch plus in diameter trees
and particular in the cul -de -sac area. I don't know how much concession Mike is going to do
to move that cul- de- sac ... to avoid those trees. I haven't heard anything ... but that would be
something that we would like to see... Basically the issues we'd like the Planning
Commission to consider would be to, a reduction in the tree loss. A reduction in the grading
of the site. Custom grading of the lot which last night Mike had agreed to. Reduction in the
number of lots. Focus on the retention pond location. There's a retention pond that sits right
next to the wetland. A pond there and we're concerned about it's ability to hold water and not
dump it into the wetland pond which flows directly into Lake Lucy. And probably some of
the most severe concerns of our's happen to be, and these were brought up last night in the
homeowners meeting, were the number of lots that are on the lake, or even the fact that
there's any lots on the lake. To have those things moved back away from the lake. They're
awfully close to filling with a lot of fill there and there's a lot of wildlife and other types of
concerns about what impact it will have, not only on that situation but also on Lake Lucy
itself from... standpoint. And I would encourage any of you who haven't walked the site to do
so because I think you can't really appreciate the undulation of the land and trees and
everything until you've been out there. And I encourage you and whoever else is involved in
the process to do that. That's all I have right now. Any questions?
Mancino: Any questions? Thank you.
Al Weingart: Thank you very much.
I Mancino: Anyone else?
Joe Morin: Madam Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joe
Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. Last time I was here about a month ago I spoke to
you, mainly in support of the development going in to the east of my property line. It was
not complete support. I had some concerns. Those concerns have been taken care of by the
developer. Tonight I'm here before you speaking mainly in opposition to the plan proposed
13
L
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
on the west of my property. The differences in the developments, although as Mike last night
told the neighbors, he was patterning his development after the Mason Homes development.
The differences are dramatic, notwithstanding the name that he's chosen. Also the character
of the land is quite dramatic. I would like to just kind of show a little overview of some of
the differences. The Mason Homes development is laid out on a ridge. Mason Homes took
great consideration from the recommendations of the staff to reduce some of the grading
originally proposed. They reduced the number of lots which reduced the impact on our
property. The President has agreed to move some pine trees between our property and some
of the adjacent homes to further reduce the impact on us. So our relationship there has been
quite good. The topography is significantly different, as the staff report points out. The
Mason Homes development is on a ridge, whereas the Tichy, Byrne development is located
kind of in more of a ravine area, which is also heavily wooded. Sharmin, if you could put up
that. These are some numbers that I gleaned from the staff report. The bottom line here is
that in the Coey property, buildable acreage, I think I can read that from here. Is 11.1 acres.
And the buildable acreage on the Tichy /Christensen property is 7.97. Now I want to
emphasize and stress here that it's not the number of lots that's my main concern but rather
how the land is treated. I'm only showing this to kind of emphasize the differences in the
two developments. If we use the same ratio and apply it to the Tichy /Christensen property as
the Mason Homes development used in creating their plat. That would suggest that 13 to 14
building sites would be compatible. Not as a compatible development. Not even considering
the more difficult terrain that we have to deal with on that site. The status of the
development to the east of my property is, the neighbors are, I don't plan to speak for all of
them but in large part, most neighbors are well satisfied with what went on there. And to the
west of my property, most neighbors are very unhappy about what's proposed. So, I want to
also emphasize that I'm not opposed to development to the west. In fact, Gayle and I will
benefit from a development to the west greatly but we want to see a good development, and
we would rather have no development than what we see being proposed right now. The
intentions that we have with respect to our property, I want to make that clear. We have 3
potential sites, 3 developable sites on our property, one of which we have already developed.
That's our present home. When we put our home in, we built it, I cleared the area by hand.
There were no significant trees that were removed. There's no grading for the site required
except to put in our driveway. We designed the home with the site in mind and took about 3
years before we actually, after owning the property, before we actually built a home on this
site. The second site is located a little bit southwest of our existing home and in that area, I
have to acknowledge that there is one significant tree. That staff asked us for conceptual plan
potential homesites so we don't know exactly how that, where that tree fits in the site but it is
something that is a concern to us. The third site on our property is south of the slew area,
which is again more south and east of our existing home. And that's in a natural clearing so
the only brush that would need to be removed, I think right now from my walking the site,
although I'm not exactly certain where the boundaries are, it looks like it's mainly ... and
14
P1 in - S 1995
Planning Commission Meeting April ,
buckthorn. So the net impact on our 5 acres from any future development plans that we
would have would be removal of basically one significant tree. Possibly removal, but we'll
do our very best to avoid that. Although like I said, we have not platted the property. We
don't know what the implications are for the runoff and so on from that kind of development.
I think 3 homes on 5 acres is something quite reasonable, and in dealing with the character of
the property, we've taken great care to avoid any tree loss or any other ... impact to the
' environment. Now the main concerns with what's proposed there. Not with the number of
lots, as I said before but rather how the land is treated and Al has spoke to many of the
concerns that I share with both Al and the rest of our neighbors there. I'm not opposed to
' Mike Byrne developing but I do object to the callousness with which the, and the insensitivity
of the design process that's used and the results of the plan that's being proposed. I don't feel
that it does deal sensitively with the environment, and that's of grave concern to me.
Ironically one of my biggest concerns is in the area furthest from my house, and that's in an
area where Al spoke of where right between these large ponds on our property and on Tichy's
property, and the lake, the plan is to bulldoze the area, putting in up to 8 feet of fill and
erecting a house on top of that 8 feet of fill. Not only is there tremendous destruction to the
local environmental there, and Eric will speak to that later. But it's a major block and
impediment to the wildlife migration path. Sharmin, if you could put up the, well that's a
' little bit of a representative drawing but.
Al -Jaffa Like that?
Joe Morin: A little bit. In that proposed Lot 10 there, the end lot. The land is very much
constricted in that area but the wetland area to the east and to the west widens broadly in
I those areas and on the Mason ... as you travel further west there's a very large wildlife wetland
area. And so I see that as a very constrictive impediment to the free travel of the wildlife.
Not just for this site but for the whole region. The whole area. Not to mention that a home
r positioned on top of 8 or 10 of fill would be a tremendous eye sore for the whole area. Now
my other concerns I share with the neighbors. I share with Al. We brought those out in our
meeting with Mike last night. Mike didn't take any notes during that meeting but Al and I
i consolidated our notes and put together the Minutes of the meeting and I'd like to provide
each of you with a copy so that this can also be, and Mike with a copy, so that this
' neighborhood input can be considered in the further improvement of the plan. We also have
copies for people who participated in the meeting and any other neighbors who are interested
in obtaining copies of the Minutes, they can call myself or Al. Again, I don't want to take a
' whole lot of your time reiterating concerns that are already documented in these Minutes, so
thank you very much.
Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak?
' 15
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
Eric Rivkin: My name is Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 Steller Court, which is just to the west
of this development about 400 or 500 feet, and I share lakeshore on the other side of the
island. Opposite side... I'm also Co- Chairperson of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association.
I went to the neighborhood meeting last night. I've read some of the concerns that Al and Joe
have had. I've read the staff report. I used to own Joe's lot, sandwiched inbetween both of
these developments, and I know both pieces of land ... very intimately because I had owned it
for a year. Picked lots of raspberries there. Watched a lot of wildlife and meditated out
there. It's really quite a place. I think this is somewhat of an inaccurate depiction of the
lake. That edge right there, that you see between the water and the land is really the edge of
cattails. The actual high water mark goes more around here. You can connect the dots I
guess. It goes around here and goes way up in here. The proposed setbacks from here really
put a strain of the water quality of the development. It's very clear right now. There's a lot
of beavers and muskrats that excavate this area. They depend on a corridor between here and
a pond to be able to traverse. The whole area around here, around Lake Lucy and this side of
the lake primarily is basically a giant wildlife refuge. There's flocks right now of Great Blue
Herons that do nest in there. There is a rookery here. They nest in the large tree canopy that
surrounds this pond. If that integrity of that tree canopy is destroyed, which it will be on this
side of this lot, I talked to wildlife biologists today, who works for the St. Paul Parks System
and she has manages the park at Crosby Farm where they have migratory waterfowl there all
the time. And she said if these are disturbed, they're very sensitive to being disturbed and
they will leave the nesting sites. So we will lose that. It's an environmental impact that is
serious. The other particulars from the environmental issues. There's many water ... I'm
concerned about. I saw a plan Michael produced last night that had a Walker Pond or
something next to here. I want to comment that I think is potentially disastrous. We have, I
know that 4 years ago when Willow Ridge was proposed, there was a lot of talk about, it was
an experiment. This Walker Pond concept. There was a pond put right on the edge of this
giant 1.4 acre pond, which is about the same size as this one. And the theory was that the
water would drain into there. Hold the sediment. Hold the nutrients before it would dump
itself into there. Well, the water level was planned to rise. Well the whole thing, including
the Walker Pond, is all underwater as the same continuous lake right now. So there is no
benefit derived from this Walker Pond. The same thing is proposed here. The same
detriment will happen. The water quality will not improve. It will go down. If that is, the
difference between this and the Willow Ridge is they have 3 or 4 Walker Ponds for that
whole development. This has one and it was located right smack in the middle of the most
sensitive part of this development. Or sensitive part of the drainage. Highest impact.
Potential impact it would have on water quality. This pond drains into Lake Lucy with a
running stream right now. There's water flowing in it now? From what I heard.
Joe Morin: Oh yeah.
16
J
1
0
I
r
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
Gayle Morin: Almost all the time.
Eric Rivkin: Almost all the time. There's springs that feed into this, okay. And there's no
filtration between here and Lake Lucy. You dump high nutrient loading into this storm sewer
system here, it's going to go right into Lake Lucy. Unfiltered where you cannot harvest the
nutrients, the phosphorous away. So it's lacking in design and I need to state that on record
so that Mr. Byrne will take that and hire the appropriate resources to make sure that it meets
ordinances when it comes to water quality interception. There are springs in the area.
There's running springs that come flowing out sprinkled all throughout the Lake Lucy area. I
think there's one here. From what I remember, there was one over on Jill Willis. There's
several on Jill Willis' property. There's one right here ... because I saw it coming right through
the snow. I think there's one or two right here. I think engineering wise, Mr. Byrne is going
to discover that if he puts a house there, I don't think he will be able to. There are running
springs that keep the deer, who come and nest there ... or bed down every single night in this
region. There also, I don't think that it was very sensitive to put a cul -de -sac right in the
middle of a grove of mature oak trees when 30 feet from there, you could just move it and
terminate it likewise. The impact of putting large amounts of fill on here will destroy the
natural, I guess filtration that would be left between here and there on the development. I
think this would be a good place to have maybe your retention pond and open space that
would be left for wildlife. This was brought up in a neighborhood meeting last night as a
strong suggestion that was agreed upon by all the residents. And I think the economic impact
of doing something like that, reducing the number of lots to maybe 9 or 10 where you have
an amenity that would improve the value of the homes to the point where I don't think he's
really going to lose any money. I developed some land in Minnetonka, 4 acres and put 6 lots
in. It had 90% of the existing tree canopy was preserved because I wrote in the covenants,
and I suggested this to Mike last night. We had covenants that would say the developer,
which is me, would have right of refusal for any builder to come in and cut a tree. I would
say it can be cut or it can't be cut. Or I can approve your design with this house so you can
tuck it in here and there. Whatever. But that kind of environmental sensitivity is lacking
here. If Mr. Byrne doesn't have it himself, I suggest that he retain the services of a developer
and we suggested to him a name that, retain the services of some professional who can satisfy
that type, to design it environmentally properly. Well, let me get back to my sheet here. The
oaks. As you heard, almost all the oaks on this place are red oaks. I had a red oak on my
place when I put my house in. I was trying to be very, very careful not disturbing out to the
tree line and I like the idea of having them report 1 1/2 times the drip line and not disturbing
key trees. Well, destroy all the trees ... but in order to, I've seen houses by a sensitive builders
go right up within 10 feet of a dripline and not destroy a tree because they knew how to build
next to it. It's possible to do that here. You just need some talent to make it happen. I'm
concerned about the fact that the trees themselves are home to many species of animals. The
holes and they come in trees ... but also the mallard ducks. They eat the acorns and the
17
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
mallards, and I know I'm right about this, they flock there by the hundreds during migration
and they do nest there. Every single year. They need the food. They need the perch space.
They need the tree canopy. They need those oaks intact as much as possible. And I don't
think that, I would have to believe that there's enough teeth in the ordinances we have to say
no to this level of destruction. Simply saying to the developer it's okay to destroy everything
as long as you replant or, just does not meet the intent of the comprehensive plan. And I
think that Mr. Byrne can take that and use that as an important thing to preserve. There is
beaver sitting right there on the site, in the lagoon to the south of the property. They've been
cutting down some saplings on the island and on Christensen's property. Byrne's property
right now. And right between the pond and the lake. Now if you put houses in there, some
neighbor's going to get in a house and want to shoot them and they need to live. They need
to, we have to ... to the needs of the beavers here and there's a beaver lodge in that lagoon
right now. It's been there for many years and they keep building new ones all the time.
Every year they try to come back. And they need to live so we have to... Well, thank you
very much.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Would you like to come up? Thank you. If you could
give your name and address.
Jill Willis: My name is Jill Willis and I own the property adjacent to the ... Tichy property and
essentially I just want to say for the record that there are... development as has been proposed
would be pretty tragic...
Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? May I have a motion?
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public healing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Thank you. Comments from the commissioners. Ladd?
Conrad: I'm going to speak in a two part. The first part relates to our subdivision ordinance,
and then the second part relates to my personal feelings in how I'd like to see this property
develop. In the subdivision ordinance I think there are, at least there are 7 major points that
the staff has outlined and basically this development, or proposed development, misses the
first 5. From the standpoint of variances. From the standpoint of water quality pond that
should be there. From the standpoint of sensitive to the physical characteristics of the site.
From the standpoint of storm drainage. From the standpoint of environmental damage. And
these are not, I guess I'm not saying that personally, there are not personal comments.
They're just my review of the ordinance versus the project and the project fails in 5 out of 7.
Maybe the reason I started this conversation off with why is this here. In terms of how it
18
'
Planning ommission Meeting - April 5 1995
g g P ,
should be developed. I'm going to echo a couple things that staff has said. I think staff has
done a good job of reviewing this. I think they've given us good input. I'm pretty
comfortable with that staff is trying to guide this. So I think the developer, the owner, I think
as you work with staff, they're really going to represent a great deal of, at least my
philosophy and I think it's philosophy that's carried out through the ordinance. The
subdivision ordinance. So it's not Willy nilly. It's not personal opinion. I think it's
substantial defensible, solid guidelines. In terms of how, what I would recommend. In terms
of my concerns as to how you make this a development that works. We know that
developments can work. We've seen them in the neighborhood. We've seen the
neighborhood actually support them so I don't think the neighbors are out to say, don't
develop. They're not. I didn't hear any of the neighbors say that. I think it's how we do it.
And I've got a couple observations and the first one's going to reflect staffs comment. I
won't approve any variances unless we see an environmental sensitivity. Just flat out, I'll
trade. I'll do some horse trading. But right now it's all one sided. I'm real nervous about the
8 feet of fill on the south part. Regardless. 8 feet next to the lake for so many reasons.
Now maybe it's not 8 feet. Maybe it's 4. So we'll find out. We don't have a real plan in
front of us but even real well designed water quality ponding has problems. And so when we
start hauling in 4 to 8 feet of fill for 4 lots, that's a lot of fill right next to the water. It's just
extremely nervous about that. I don't know how you manage it during the fill. I don't know
how you manage it after the fill, to tell you the truth. Erosion control. The impact on the
natural habitat. It seems abusive to me. But most importantly I don't know how you manage
' 8 feet of fill going in there to not impact the lake. And Dave will say, engineering we can do
anything. Obviously there has to be some storm water ponding. Storm water ponding on
site. Obviously. I don't like to look at plans that don't even have it. It says hey, it's not a
real plan. This is a game we're playing here. The site, as I saw it, looked like every street
was aimed for a tree over 24 inches. And I say that in jest. I don't want to be perceived as
taking shots here but, I'm not going to force somebody to preserve every tree on this site, and
you don't have to and nobody does. But when I see all the major trees on this site that are
coming down, it's bad design. So that, and I know you can fix that. So I won't even extend
my conversation that I know we can miss those trees. Custom grading has to be done on
' every lot. And the cul -de -sac has to be moved. Those are my comments.
Mancino: Thank you. How did you say what I had written down? Ron.
Nutting: Yeah. Very well done Ladd. I guess one initial comment I would like to make is I
' do appreciate the developer's comments about, I guess first in holding the neighborhood
meeting. The projects that get to this point without the neighborhood meetings really seem to
not go anywhere. And holding that meeting I think was a good start. As well as the
expression of willingness to work with staff and make revisions to the plan. I'm not a
developer. I rely on staff and I think staff does a good job, for the most part. No, staff does
' 19
C
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
do a very good job. So when I read the staff report, as well as walk the site, and maybe just
to echo one of Ladd's comments. The area where the cul -de -sac is and the grove of trees at
that location. Without greater sensitivity to tree preservation, as you acknowledged, the site is
heavily wooded. Trees will go down. There's no question about that. We're not here to save
every tree but just to responsibly assist in the responsible development of the site. I would
echo all of Ladd's comments and again I can't comment further because I'm not sure what
we're going to be looking at, and as you acknowledged, but I think the neighbors comments
bear some review and the process but I think staff has done a very good job in trying to
shape the thing, the plan so that as Ladd puts it, variances require some effort towards I guess
sensitivity is really a big issue so those are my comments.
Mancino: Thank you. Mike.
Meyer: Really just to echo the same thing that Ladd has said already. I can't really add
anything to it but just go on record as saying that I agree with him 100 %.
Mancino: Alright. Did you get his comments Mr. Byrne?
Michael Byrne: Yes.
Mancino: Did you get his comments were the same? Thank you. I also echo, would like to
comment on the same concerns that I have. I'd like to add just a few more. One are the
retaining walls that I saw on the plans, knowing that they're not final but if there are going to
be retaining walls in the next version that we see, I'd like to know a little bit more about
them. These were 100 to 400 feet long. So I'd like to see, why are they there? What are
they preserving? How high are they? How are they going to be constructed? From an
engineering point of view, and from an environmental point of view. Because I think that we
had, or what I saw were 8 of them. My other concern is about the accesses to the properties
on the east and on the west, and that would be the Willis' and Morin's. And I would like to
see the developer and staff work with the property owners on both sides as far as where
exactly those access points will be. Not only for roadway but for sewer and water. And I
would like to make sure that all parties, if we get there, are in agreement on where those are.
And that they do take into the environmental concerns that we have. And I have some
concerns about the construction of a private street. Making sure that we do not limit, on
either side of the property that's going to be developed, what the other owners can do. That
means that if there's a limit to 4 houses on private drives, that it comes back to us. If we want
to see 5, that there are very clear illustrations as to how that is preserving that area. I concur
with Ladd that I need a very good explanation, something that I can understand about the
necessity for the amount of fill in the southern portion of this property. Not only having to
do with walkouts but having to do with sewer. And some other options besides that amount
20
1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
of fill. The location and the size of the retention pond I would like to have staff and the
applicant work together to locate it in an area that will not destroy significant tree coverage,
and at the same time will be effective storm water quality treatment pond. And it would be
my recommendation to staff and City Council that maybe you consider conferring with or
getting a second opinion from an outside expert on that. Not only the location but how
effectively it will work. 100% of the time... And I guess just in summary I would like to say
that I would just like to see the plat comply more with the subdivision ordinance 18- 60(d).
Lots shall be placed to preserve and protect amenities. Natural amenities such as vegetation,
wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. And I'd like to see this comply with
that ordinance. Those are my comments.
Conrad: I'd like to make a motion Madam Chairman, I'd recommend that the Planning
' Commission tables action on Rezoning #95 -1 and Subdivision #95 -3 and to have the applicant
work closely with staff to resolve some of our concerns.
Mancino: Do I have a second?
Nutting: Second.
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission tables action on Rezoning
'
495 -1 and Subdivision #95 -3 and to have the applicant wont closely with staff to resolve
the issues outlined by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
r PUBLIC
HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A TWO STORY BUILDING (RICHFIELD BANK AND
TRUST) WITH A TOTAL OF 12,166 SQUARE
FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND
'
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND KERBER
BOULEVARD, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, BURDICK PARK ADDITION, RICHFIELD STATE
'
AGENCY, INC.
Public Present:
Address
Name
Jeff Pflipsen
5410 Vanderwood Lane, Plymouth
W. G. Kirchner
6830 Newton Avenue So, Richfield
Jon Thorstenson
4 Glen Court, Chaska
Jan Susee
6625 Lyndale Avenue So, Richfield
Steve Kuchner
6625 Lyndale Avenue So, Richfield
I I
21