The URL can be used to link to this page

6. Amended Preliminary Plat for the Boley Property Subdivision 93-1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner ' DATE: July 7, 1993 SUBJ: Amended Preliminary Plat for the Boley Property Subdivision # 93 -1 r BACKGROUND ' The Boley Subdivision was given Preliminary Plat approval by the Qty Council on February 22, 1992. The applicant, Lundgren Brothers, has requested that the city reconsider one of the conditions of approval. Condition #12 states that the subdivision shall have approval from the City of Victoria. A portion of the Boley property, a 110' x 1315.16' strip of land, (3.3 acres) lies within the city limits of Victoria. Staff and the applicant have worked with the City of ' Victoria to seek approval of the subdivision. The City of Chanhassen would like to see Lots 13 -21 completely within the city limits. Victoria ' staff has stated that they would like to work out an annexation- detachment agreement with Chanhassen. Staff thinks that it makes sense changing the jurisdiction with lines but it needs to be in the context of sound planning principals. The City of Victoria unfortunately felt that if this subdivision were to be approved that a ' comprehensive plan amendment would be required by the Metropolitan Council. In a meeting with Barbara Senness, on the Council staff, she stated that because the urban services were coming from Chanhassen and the narrow strip of land would serve as back yards, a comprehensive plan amendment from the City of Victoria was not necessary (see attached letter). To date, we have been unable to work out the issue without Victoria. Land exchanges proposed by that city's staff were inequitable, wherein they asked that valuable lots be exchanged for back 1 yards. The applicants, Lundgren Bros., are requesting that the city approve the preliminary plat without the condition of the approval of the plat by the City of Victoria. Their attorneys are proposing that the rear of the lots that fall within the Victoria City limits be conveyed to the lots via a Declaration of Yard Easements. This would grant each adjacent lot exclusive use and enjoyment n PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Don Ashworth July 7, 1993 1 Page 2 of the adjoining portion of the Victoria parcel. The parcel may be used for yard purposes, but 1 they have no right to use any other portion of the Victoria parcel for any other purpose. ANALYSIS 1 The Victoria Planning Commission and the City Council have recommended denial of the Boley Subdivision. Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was that the plat be modified 1 to meet the City Planning requirements and recommended denial for the following reasons: - the property is outside the Victoria MUSA line, 1 - it is zoned agriculture, - utilities are not planned until the year 2000 - 2010, - the plat is not consistent with the comprehensive plan as recommended by the I Planning Commission - the layout is undesirable in that Lots 9 to 11 will be located partly in Victoria and partly in Chanhassen resulting in some confusion and difficulties with respect to 1 applying applicable ordinances, assessing property for tax purposes and the like. The Victoria City Council supported the issues raised by their Planning staff and recommended I denial of the subdivision. Staff realizes that it is not the ideal situation to have the lot fall within two jurisdictions but the fact that the home will be in the City of Chanhassen, and that both cities I are in Carver County, the tax assessment concern raised by Victoria should be minimal. Staff provided two alternatives to consider when platting this area. First, a stub street should I be provided to the west into Victoria. This was one of the conditions of the original staff report. Chanhassen had asked Victoria to provide a study as to how this area should be serviced. Bill Thibault, the City of Victoria's Planning Consultant, has shown two alternatives as to how this 1 area can be platted. Staff supports the stub street from the Boley property into Victoria. The second proposal from the Bill Thibault is that the city work out an annexation- detachment I agreement. The proposal, as reflected in the Mr. Thibault's report, was reviewed by Chanhassen staff and rejected. The city would be gaining 3.5 acres of land which is a narrow strip which serves as back yards but would be giving up 6 lots. Chanhassen staff would still like to consider I the annexation - detachment as the ultimate solution to the property line problem, but as to who is best able to service this area still needs to be evaluated. Jurisdictional lines should fall where sound planning principal are used. These principals include topography, preservation of natural 1 features, access and ability to provide municipal services. I It is the intent of the applicant to annex this strip of land into the City of Chanhassen. Until this occurs, they are proposing a resolution date of December 31, 1994, for the property in the Victoria limits shall exclude: the installation, maintenance, replacement or use of any building fence, swimming pool, pay equipment or other structure. If and when this property is annexed 1 1 Don Ashworth July 7, 1993 Page 2 enjoyment of the adjoining portion of the Victoria parcel. The parcel may be for yard purposes, 1 but they have no right to use any other portion of the Victoria parcel for any other purpose. ANALYSIS 1 The Victoria Planning Commission and the City Council have recommended denial of the Boley Subdivision. Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was that the plat be modified to meet the City Planning requirements and recommended denial for the following reasons: the PertY ro is outside the Victoria MUSA line, P it is zoned agriculture, utilities are not planned until the year 2000 - 2010, ' the plat is not consistent with the comprehensive plan as recommended by the Planning Commission the layout is undesirable in that Lots 9 to 11 will be located partly in Victoria and partly in Chanhassen resulting in some confusion and difficulties with respect to applying applicable ordinances, assessing property for tax purposes and the like. The Victoria City Council supported the issues raised by their Planning staff and recommended denial of the subdivision. Staff realizes that it is not the ideal situation to have the lot fall within two jurisdictions but the fact that the home will be in the City of Chanhassen, and that both cities are in Carver County, the tax assessment concern raised by Victoria should be minimal. Staff provided two alternatives to consider when platting this area. First, a stub street should 1 be provided to the west into Victoria. This was one of the conditions of the original staff report. Chanhassen had asked Victoria to provide a study as to how this area should be serviced. Bill Thibault, the City of Victoria's Planning Consultant, has shown two alternatives as to how this area can be platted. Staff supports the stub street from the Boley property into Victoria. The second proposal from the Bill Thibault is that the city work out an annexation- detachment agreement. The proposal, as reflected in the Mr. Thibault's report, was reviewed by Chanhassen staff and rejected. The city would be gaining 3.5 acres of land which is a narrow strip which serves as back yards but would be giving up 6 lots. Chanhassen staff would still like to consider the annexation - detachment as the ultimate solution to the property line problem, but as to who is best able to service this area still needs to be evaluated. Jurisdictional lines should fall where 1 sound planning principal are used. These principals include topography, preservation of natural features, access and ability to provide municipal services. It is the intent of the applicant to annex this strip of land into the City of Chanhassen. Until this occurs, they are proposing a resolution date of December 31, 1994, for the property in the Victoria limits shall exclude: the installation, maintenance, replacement or use of any building fence, swimming pool, pay equipment or other structure. If and when this property is annexed 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth July 7, 1993 1 Page 3 to the city, it would be subject to city ordinances. If the property is not annexed to the City of I Chanhassen, then the rear yards would be subject to the ordinances of the City of Victoria. The setbacks on the front and side of Lots 13 - 21 meet the city standards. The rear setback I would not meet the setback requirement without the property in Victoria. The minimum setback for the rear yard to the city limits is 10 feet. The square footage without the Victoria property included would not meet the 20,000 square footage requirement, although for all practical I purposes, the yard easement exceeds the 20,000 square foot requirement. The lots may become somewhat larger when one of the lots is eliminated for a stub street. The smallest lot within the city of Chanhassen would be approximately 11,000 square feet, most of the lots will be over I 15,000 square feet. Roger Knutson has reviewed the draft yard easement and has asked that some modifications be made to the easement. Staff would also recommend that the lots in Victoria receive final plat approval last, in order for the two cities to work out a potential I annexation- detachment agreement. RECOMMENDATION I Staff supports the applicant's proposal to provide a rear yard easement for the property that falls within the City of Victoria if this is the only way the subdivision can be platted. The ultimate I goal is to have the property in the city limits of Chanhassen. Both cities will be meeting to resolve annexation- detachment issues in this area. There has been some progress made on how Victoria envisions this area to be subdivided. There still is the larger question of who is best I able to provide municipal services to this area, including the southern portion of the Boley property. Staff supports the approval of the subdivision with the rear portion of the lots in I Victoria, even if the property cannot be annexed from Victoria. Staff will require that the rear yard easements be filed with the plat and all homeowners apprised of their property being split between two cities. The conditions below are those previously approved with modifications 1 shown in bold. "The City Council approves the preliminary plat #93 -1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 I single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions: I 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. I 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and 1 formal approval by the City Council. 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth July 7, 1993 Page 4 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army 1 Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer I calculations designed for a 10 -year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100 -year storm event, 24-hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to I NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100 -year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. Bonestroo has determined I that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff is working with the Watershed District to resolve where the 100 year flood elevation is located. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best I Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases I where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks I of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard - surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices I Handbook. 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20- I foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over I all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. 7. The applicant shall place a sign on barriers at the end of the southerly and westerly I street extension into the city of Victoria indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE ". Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain -of- title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. 1 1 1 Don Ashworth July 7, 1993 1 Page 5 ef- development This condition has been met and reflected in Condition #7. ' 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90 -15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation ' staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. 13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. I fr m lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations given on Lots be 14. Variance o the o q S g 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, for the following reasons: a. All lots abutting Lake St. Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots not adjacent ' to the lake are recommended for a variance. b. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement will not ' affect the density of the project. c. The MnDNR's shoreland regulations are inappropriate when applied within the metro area. 15. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot. 16. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed. 17. The lots which are partially in the city of Victoria shall be platted last in order for the two cities to work out an annexation - detachment agreement. If no agreement ' can be made between the cities, The Declaration of Rear Yard Easements, drafted by the applicant's attorney and approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the subdivision, and homeowners be apprised of the city limits and restrictions to its use." 1 1 Don Ashworth 1 July 7, 1993 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Boley Site Plan 2. Revised lot configuration. 3. Planning Commission report from Bill Thibault dated March 31, 1993. 4. Letter from Barb Senness from the Metropolitan Council dated May 25, 1993. 5. City Council report from Bill Thibault dated July 2, 1993. 6. Declaration of Yard Easements draft dated July 2, 1993. 7. Original staff report dated February 3, 1993. 8. City Council minutes dated February 22, 1993. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- - , 04945 EAPLE eD.T /6441 I ( I I - ------ rl ------rN \ N \ a.; 4 04eof e44 ,e.r, Se --/ .45 r X NI X 1 f A \ M !:;... --- e „. 1. •\".... ,,, ; t:17•:.•:1. Fi ...,_ ,.. , ,t•ir-! -s Fik - ; .s -----__4 \ Te• *.. :' t t' t, 4 1 1., i . "tt 1 " r: i : 7' : :It .• l' ' 51.12-1 ° - \ ... ,., 1 .. 1 \ \ ‘ ; \ ,:,..„„ , ,-_,,,tf., , _,.•:.., _,-„, q ' 6 1 iii `, --. .,...., 1 ,, t 1.. • 1 : 1 , _ . ,„ ...,, � , I .. 4) 0) )1 i k 6 *4 t c . , • * , I..° 5• 3 - I i i .4 1 1 --- ill _;.: I -..; , t ; t ., t II; 4 ;., ■ I F 1 ......, ), .......,..>, ...... t ,..i ,- -- ° \ 's ' ' s •-._ 5 I -* Fif! .ii•;;: = < N 6 * N* , 14 ,' . ...-2, „ N; ,,, pl, t ‘:, t •-.---_ ,., ..61 '\/....:: 2 a; ,_ t•-! '''' '' ''''''*'6 ''..-- 0.1 ^T A 41 1 !j•.!51,,,_Ii•E , 1 I : 1 / ,;z‹ t C N., t . ,.. OLITI.O.L B 4 • ...!•_,, I ,t .. 1 I ,.. ,1 4 'Ir. E --- ■c•N V \\ --65782-,...------ ..c I/ I 1 - -- I ---,--, . --- 64A - WT - NONNI CIRCLE 1 ' 5 \._. - \ 1\ \\ ,..-.---- /- .---.-„..,...,/ 7„,....„ .-- ------- r -- ------ I /1 7.---..., / 2 1 / 1 711 ___ / / 1 -----,' ! \ ( / .. , I , „E ' r E ': '--- --.--- *.' I '1 I ' ----, 1 ' 1 \ , k / ., ......../ 1 .....____. .....---",.." / / I / / / k • / A --,....,..,._ i ,i 47 ? i 5 5 *C ' i 5 ---- I .....,/ / / ------ •- / / 7 ____ ,, , , , ..., / 1 ; 1 / ,,,..,,, ( \ --,..z, ,, ---\ / , / . / ,..._____ , is , , / f ......_ 1 Ilim , , ,, / ,,___ y , _....._____ , , .,.._. ..._,;,/,„,,,...„ „... 1 ., \ , .8.,„ i /, , , --1--:.. .._ —.-„f, .„..., , / _... • ..•_...... ------ „.,.•.,,..... , ....._____,,,, — -- • ,, E ... k. 0 0 IPA Li " , "I 1 1 -----____ „/ i L--, -- - ....'-' !•• it" : .I.: T. i 2 / P-' ;27.7! Iv \ \ _.// / .‘„), s•-__ , r s ,, ,-..- I -- ,, - :15 ....• .. grir' • ' . ' ...-., 1 \II • ______,---....-..----•.•-< _____..../-, I _____L__ 1 .. _ . , _____, te‘ 1 - • - - • - IR PRE ■ UMINARY PLAT ; ! i ... ott $4,,,,, I I 1 11 i ... ivet,,,zgs : 'fisg.g,v1.1 PROPERTY .i.i. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. 1 1 , I " • 1 .?„ ., ibo sours mow • WAYLOA. IAN NMI A (61* 4.7 *- 4 0:0 ! , 1 I 1 ; : 1 I i 1 ' ' LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTR. INC. 010161•11•IPLNDMISON %Ps M., . 1 1 ' ■ ' 1 1 -JUL- 2- 9 3 F R I 9 :57 S A T H R E- S E R G Q U I S T .. INC. P. 0 2 1 Z g \ 1 C ` \ 1 \! i m 0 , � 1 4 74' �\ ` a-,44, in 0 zi z 1 -.11 3 - !�.-- 1 A 31 y .a J '' °' t Imo► 4 - 41 4 ,,. /° ,0 \ 11111■4.- r I Miefto ._ - D AV 1 , . , i , r If -- .... II■ 2 'al O` i ,�■ • 1 3 °'� � Imo 2 .yil P/ sr, al Ok-f I k zOt 1-7 9 \► o _ 7 i,'' I lime 41 c ” A4 i § 1 L 55 . €,rt , 1 4e► N lag 1 II, .;(,,, k 5 i e 7- 4 -- u 6 [ • r a c MJ g 1;i:. tir - 1 -: -- + I t .° A 1 ,i - .2„, */, \ 1 I • 7 1 0 k . 4 mai l& N A� 1 N ■ W .v� N N N N �„ 1 �` oO p. I 1 Ai I c 1 OUTLOT C 1 .1 3 1 1111 Agenda No. 4B AGENDA STATEMENT NO. 93-20 1 BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF VICTORIA, MINNESOTA SUBJECT: Sketch Plat of PLANNING COMMISSION ' Boley Property MEETING, DATED: April 5, 1993 Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. ' CASE NO: 93 -12 -S DATE OF REPORT: March 31, 1993 EXHIBITS: None PROCEEDING: For Review SUMMARY STATEMENT Description 1 Sketch plat of Boley Property proposed by Lundgren Brothers Construction Inc. for property located along the City's east municipal line north of State Highway 5 and located on property zoned A- Agriculture. Existing Conditions The subject property consists of 36 acres of which 32.8 acres is located in Chanhassen and 3.2 acres in Victoria. The Boley's own additional property to the south Located in Victoria. ' The property and adjacent land are rural. Essentially all the property between Lake St. Joe and Lake Tamarack and extending south to State Highway 5 is rural or agricultural in nature. ' The topography is rolling. A wetland extends from the southeast corner of Lake Tamarack to the edge of the subject property and a wooded area extends east of Lake Tamarack to and around the pond located near the northwest corner of the plat. Currently, the subject property is served by Minnewashta Parkway. There are no internal roads in the immediate area except for Kings Road which is an L- shaped road extending west of Minnewashta Parkway into Victoria where it runs along the east municipal line. This road terminates 1 approximately 800 feet north of the proposed plat. 1 1 Analysis 1 Subdividing raw land is a three step process consisting of 1) sketch plat 2) preliminary plat and 3) final plat. The sketch plat is to serve as a basis for discussion between the I subdivider, staff and the Planning Commission. It serves to provide direction to the subdivider before the more costly and demanding preliminary plat process and application are pursued. On the basis of the sketch plat, the Planning Commission unofficially advises the I subdivider of the extent to which the proposed subdivision conforms to the ordinance and to discuss possible modifications. The subdivider has elected to prepare more than a sketch plat and in fact submitted a 1 preliminary plat. However, there is no provision in the ordinance to skip the sketch plat step and in this instance the sketch plat is crucial. 1 The proposed plat will have a profound impact on development in the eastern portion of the City around Lake Tamarack. The subdivider has not submitted any information identifying 111 how the proposed plat will relate to development of the other property in Victoria other than the "ghost plat" for the southern portion of the Boley property. Chanhassen's staff met with Victoria's staff on January 22, 1993 to discuss the proposed plat and related concerns. 1 Chanhassen's staff proposed the area be served by Chanhassen and offered to submit a proposal to Victoria regarding services in the area, however, the proposal has not yet been 1 received. A comprehensive area study is needed for this area so that proper planning decisions can be made consistent with the comprehensive plan to achieve appropriate use of the property and III surrounding area in Victoria. Several of the issues that need to be considered which have not yet been adequately 1 addressed include: 1. The property in Victoria is outside the MUSA line. 1 2. The property is zoned A- Agriculture which does not permit subdivision of individual I lots as proposed. 3. Utilities are not planned for this area until 2000 - 2010. 1 4. The plat is not consistent with the comprehensive plan as recommended by the Planning Commission, e.g. future growth plans and infrastructure. 1 5. The arrangement of the proposed streets in the subdivision does not make provision for the proper projection of streets into adjoining areas by carrying the new streets to I the boundaries of the new subdivision at appropriate locations. 6. The configuration proposed could result in an arrangement which causes hardship to 1 owners of adjoining property in platting land and providing convenient access to it. 1 1 7. There may be some minor inconsistencies with the recently adopted Shoreland 1 Ordinance. 8. In general, the layout is undesirable in that 9 to 11 lots will be located partly in I Victoria and partly in Chanhassen resulting in some confusion and difficulties with respect to applying applicable ordinances, assessing property for tax purposes and the like. ' The proper way to address these issues is through a study of the area taking these and all other relevant factors into account. Clearly, it is undesirable to proceed with the subdivision I as proposed since it will be the first subdivision in the area and would create impediments to appropriate and optimum use of other property. If the only remaining unsubdivided parcel I in the area were the strip along the municipal line, then attaching it to the proposed subdivision might have merit. • 1 SUMMARY FINDINGS It is recommended that the subdivider modify the proposed subdivision to meet the I subdivision and planning requirements of the City and in concert with this a study of the area east of Rolling Acres Road and north of Highway 5 be commenced to suggest how optimum use of the property for the mutual benefit of all can be achieved consistent with planning, 1 zoning and subdivision requirements. Agenda Statement P.C. 63 -20 1 1 1 1 1 1 Alt III METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 -1634 612 291 -6359 FAX 612 291 -6550 TTY 612 291 -0904 Ma y 25, 1993 1 • 1 Ms. Miriam Porter, Administrator City of Victoria 7951 Rose St. Victoria, MN 55386 RE: Preliminary Plat for the Boley Property 1 Dear Ms. Porter: Yesterday I met with Bill Thibeault, representing the city of Victoria and Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Bros. We discussed how the city of Victoria might deal with the strip of land that will become the backyards of a residential development in the city of Chanhassen. Mr. Thibeault stated that the city's plan shows the area in question as low density residential. He stated that it is zoned for agriculture. From a Metropolitan Council perspective, the plan designation is already consistent with the proposed use. Therefore, I do not see a need for the city of Victoria to submit a plan amendment to accommodate the proposed plat. In addition, since the proposed houses will be located in the urban service area of Chanhassen, while the narrow strip in Victoria will become the backyards of the houses and generate no need for urban services, I do not see a need for the city of Victoria to submit a plan amendment to add this area to its urban service area. The only change that the Council would see as necessary under the terms of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act is to make the planning and zoning consistent. With the actual development of the subject property, the zoning should reflect a low density residential use. In summary, I do not believe that the development of the northern portion of the Boley property as presented by Mr. Forbord :.ill require any plan amendment from the city of Victoria. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 291 -6419. Sincerely, Barbara G. Senness, AICP Planning Coordinator 1 cc: Bonnie Featherstone, Metropolitan Council District 14 Bill Thibeault, Thibeault Associates Paul Kraus, City of Chanhassen Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. 1 RECEIVED M/i 2 1 • • Recycled Paper CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 1 -' AGENDA STATEMENT NO. 93- 124 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1 City of Victoria, Minnesota SUBJECT: Preliminary plat of Boley property located along the City's ' east municipal line north of State Hwy. 5 zoned A- Agriculture and proposed by Lundgren Bros. Construction ' CASE NO: P.C. 93- 21 -PUD /S PROCEEDING: Fjr Council Action FOR COUNCIL AGENDA DATED: June 17, 1993 • DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning 1 DATE SUBMITTED: June 10, 1993 CLEARANCES: Planning Commission EXHIBITS: Preliminary Plat Metropolitan Council Letter of May 25, 1993 1 Tamarack Lake Overview Study EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property consists of 36 acres of which 32.8 acres are located in Chanhassen and 1 3.2 acres in Victoria. Boley's own additional property to the south located in Victoria. Essentially all the property between Lake St. Joe and Lake Tamarack and extending south to ' State Highway 5 is rural or agricultural in nature except for Carlson Excavation equipment yard which is located on King's Road. The terrain is rolling. Two wetlands extend from the southeast corner of Lake Tamarack in a southeasterly direction. A wooded area extends east of Lake Tamarack to and around the pond located near the northwest corner of the plat. 1 The subject property is served by Minnewashta Parkway. No internal roads are provided in the immediate area except for King's Road which is an L- shaped road extending west of ' Minnewashta Parkway into Victoria where it runs along the east municipal line. This road terminates approximately 800 feet north of the proposed plat. 3 1 SITE DATA 1 Owner: Howard S. Boley Subdivider: Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Zoning in Victoria: A- Agriculture MUSA Status: Victoria - outside MUSA line Acres in Victoria: 3.2 acres Total Acres: 36 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designates the area for Residential Use, Low Density, 0-4.9 Units 1 Per Acre. Expansion of the MUSA is scheduled for after the year 2000 although a study of the MUSA boundaries is anticipated at the end of 1993. ANALYSIS At the time the sketch plat was reviewed, the subdivision process was described along with 1 the need to study the area to address some concerns that were identified in the report. Field surveys of the area were conducted. An overview study was prepared which is 1 attached to this report. Listed below are the issues as contained in the previous report followed by a comment. 1 1. The property in Victoria is outside the MUSA line. Comment: Additional discussions were held with the Metropolitan Council and the subdivider. The Metropolitan Council will not require an amendment to the MUSA line or the comprehensive plan. 2. The property is zoned A- Agriculture which does not permit subdivision of individual lots as proposed. Comment: A zoning change could be justified. 1 3. Utilities are not planned for this area until 2000 - 2010. Comment: Extending utilities into this area prior to the year 2000 warrants consideration based on the interest in developing this property and nearby areas. 4. The lat is not consistent with the comprehensive plan as recommended by the P P P Y Planning Commission, e.g. future growth plans and infrastructure. Comment: This can be reevaluated when the zoning is considered. The Metropolitan Council will not require an amendment. 1 1 II 5. The arrangement of the proposed streets in the subdivision does not make provision for proper projection of streets into adjoining areas by carrying the new streets to the boundaries of the new subdivision at appropriate locations. 1 Comment: The new preliminary plat makes provisions for one extension. A second extension is proposed in the overview study in the ghost plat. 1 6. The configuration proposed could result in an arrangement which causes hardship to owners of adjoining property in platting land and providing convenient access to it. 1 Comment: The new preliminary plat and Alternative 2 in the overview study would abate this problem. I 7. There may be some minor inconsistencies with the recently adopted Shoreland Ordinance. I Comment: The required lot width in Victoria is 125 feet. The proposed lots partly in Victoria are about 100 feet wide. I 8. In eneral, the layout is undesirable in that 9 -11 lots will be located partly in Victoria g Y and partly in Chanhassen resulting in some confusion and difficulties with respect to 1 applying applicable ordinances, assessing property for tax purposes and the like. I Comment: Alternative Plan 2 for development of this area would, if followed, avoid this problem. I ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives merit consideration. The first alternative is the subdivider I proposal with a street extended to the west. Alternative 1 Subdivider's Proposal (Preliminary Plat) I Comment: This provides access to the west but brings the traffic through much of the Loop Street. The disadvantage of having lots in both cities remains and requires a zoning change. 1 Alternative 2 Subdivider's Proposal with Municipal Line Adjusted I Comment: This alternative has the advantage of not requiring approval by Victoria of the plat, would not affect the MUSA line in Victoria, nor would it require a change in zoning to 1 Residential. The disadvantage is that it requires an annexation- detachment - a process which Chanhassen and Victoria recently accomplished for Minnewashta Parkway. This possibility was discussed with Chanhassen on June 9, 1993. Economic Balance - This alternative I provides for an equitable distribution of the land and allows for at least some houses to be located in Victoria and fosters the Fiscal Goal in the Comprehensive Plan. 1 1 Respectfully submitted, 1 • LCD— I Bill Thibault Planning Consultant 1 APPROVED BY CITY ADMINISTRATOR FOR SUBMITTAL " I AS# 93 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • ,-..- ;;;;;; , AM.! 140. PVIII.1.0 611•1• IOW I / 3 1 • • , - ..... / ''' / V ••••• :•• ••• • /•• r i '" • • i • • a } • "a s RI 1 , ...•-• .. ..!...,tt 2..t... • I ‘ ' ' • ! ' t ...., I 1 ' ...., :. . ••''...„._"-. " I ; :'... I ,,,,. s. A : 1 : ; , S t -....\:•.,,- .. ,-,,,-,-. ,, , ••, !.,. • . ,, , . .......<„ .••• •. , : .,;:,. ' --` - ' ,.. s ,..!,• I ;K,,f.:, : ; •..• 1 ...___L ,s7 • :-.... / .. , % i I : • _ . : . ., - , , -. ... / % , _. : ■ , / 14 1 .1 , ... , 1 . , \ ; / i I • 4 ___I i 1 1 I • ..- 1 : % t : ! t • . I H''' ‘, , . ' •• 1 i ' 1 • 1 1 1 . ! ' to . • ..-...A ' 1.... 1 it,..t.,. 1 a I • • I: ! ,,, , • : 1 I.' Li) - .-...... , 1. i 1 •--- „. • .1 ...oley ' ._„ ! • , ,_____JA ' 1 ' t f .. , T !,! .. iW ..,‹ / 111 •••• • ;•.',:!: ” ;! . . I 2t,i. jr•\..... I \ \ . 1 : : r ,,.. j• I I I* ' 1,/ • • i • / • ' : : dr ‘ • I 1 , •••• : • , : . i , ••,., i , '.... I * t .. ...... :,•; 1 • ' • . • . i / . t . , 1 1- \ I / 1 1,....-- --/ 1 ; t! ,, .1 ••. , L • . g- f ....,.., ; .......3 L.: - . ,..- - ', .' • • . I g_gt ..• ..,.....--r• , 1,,....E , -.,. 4„, .. ,.1 :i — ...24,..e ....,..!..._ 4 1 --0 /- .•,,,,,,„ t , j -. .--- ...— • , ...! 1 I . 1. ........(:- j , 11 ......\___ •••-. -.11,--,••,...• ' .1. , 1 1 .::..-- '1 ' ,- , t.. , -V i 1 . • L ) )-- 1 "-• i i • 1•01111•11..0 t:. 1 \>...... ) t•••••• •••r•••••••- ••••••„, / 1 -- -7 / 1 ,I1 .- :0 34= \I ----.. ---1 -- 7 1 1-___ / \ t -,..... / • • • . 0 _ •s --; I - ■fl . 7 i( : i:! ■ , 1 • 111 1, .-- / lt , ii 0 ; s ,..\ 1.,. __- / / ;: :. , • :, I .;.4 I - 1 1 4;1 g I \ • . i IA' • . Ork ' • 1 : g ••/.. i —. k " li L .: 4 i ! 1:,/.!%, 1 1 i __.______-- ......._,..._ i ,11 IP ••• 'I ' i t • * I I 1 ! - d r-• • • i l' r ' . . . . : • :i 1 • : ! ..• ,, r. 1 • l't Ii • 1; I:. qt '5 ' . .. . •'" 1 ' i 1.1111111111■11, KAI • H 1 1 '' ATHRE:DERGQCIST. I . 1 11 ,PIID' , • ••• . f A k. .. SOLEY Nc. •: .$) SATHRE: BERG Q C 1ST, INC. s I no shah arm. • •••.• ... uovemeN •••••• • ..r, •• .... i . , I • i . • 1 1 1 1 4Ib ALTERNATE 1 1 M.., 1 MU PI. .../ "....,7- I 7 I • ,••:;,t-.P.'.:',.' , \ . - I __.\ .- . i •- / ......:...„.....„ i- ; I • ------,...,„, \-.= , , I . 1 ' • I ht ..L. . i 7\ 1 „ . • , . , :, 1 i . I .'' -' ' 1 1 art. !*;( ' - ‘1. ‘" • i .,___4',) . :1•••., i ••• , % i i - • 1 • • .! • : , al i i , .. \ ; .0, . • 1 _ .-/ .. I r" : I ■ • , • 1 1 r - f ---" , -P.-- %, . : 1:11 It'; 1 ; 1 i 1 -j 1 . ; i i IN D1 4-.:-- ..,‘, I • / /1 i '1 i 1 -- . , s 'in. • f i' I s 0 .! '; .. : V ..›■ • •: , Ay I \.... t ‹.:.... . t , 1 , It li ., .1 -- .z •1 , .. . ..[.... --,... ' : • . - •. t ; 2 ••• ..' 8 . i .. •••,,, ......... 4 1 ; .. . -;: ; , / ., i . «zii.. ...* "...Yr. ..• i I I L 839 :..... .., ...... .' I - , , , .) ... .. .j 1 /.... I i .... ..- .'t " 1 , •ii ; 1 ii ' \ c........ ..., .......:S •IlliallOf I f I I I 7::7. I 1 ____L_ I ) F 7 ,,,,,,,,,,, / _wt....-. .) 1 I / /- :.f ,..: \ I . .... ..--,- 4 -- 1_ _Z___ __. / / •-: / , - , : - ----1 1 --- --1 1 k / / t l': . •tt -........., / / 4 . ..! /<r--// 7 / / / ---\ r ,----- 1 I •..._ •: .ii / i v s2 / i ..,1 • , 1 ,.1 .,. .,I 1 . .; « • . , \ 1 .. _ ._.___,..-. -.--■•-•-----7.----- 0 1 : ■ • ■ , , , ,i • I 9 • 1 i ! , C i PMIELMIDIARI PLAT ■ . ii . ... 1 f!li:'17.111 BOLEY PROPEFITY !"" 4.4. SATIIRE-TIERGQUIST, INC. ■ • . 'Income+ was. comm. vac. : r ",' • 1 ALTERNATIVE I 2 Annex to Chanhassen 1 Annex to Victoria 1 1 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL - --- Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 -1634 612 291-6352._ FAX 612 291 -6550 TTY 612 291 -0904 May 25, 1993 Ms. Miriam Porter, Administrator nistrator City of Victoria 7951 Rose St. Victoria, MN 55386 1 RE: Preliminary Plat for the Boley Property Dear Ms. Porter: Yesterday I met with Bill Thibeault, representing the city of Victoria and Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Bros. We discussed how the city of Victoria might deal with the strip of land that will 1 become the backyards of a residential development in the city of Chanhassen. Mr. Thibeault stated that the city's plan shows the area in question as low density residential. He stated that it is zoned for agriculture. From a Metropolitan Council perspective, the plan designation is already consistent with the proposed use. Therefore, I do not see a need for the city of Victoria to submit a plan amendment to accommodate the proposed plat. In addition, since the proposed houses will be located in the urban service area of Chanhassen, while the narrow strip in Victoria will become the backyards of the houses and generate no need for urban services, I do not see a need for the city of Victoria to submit a plan amendment to add this area to its urban service area. The only change that the Council would see as necessary under the terms of the Metropolitan Land. Planning Act is to make the planning and zoning consistent. With the actual development of the subject property, the zoning should reflect a low density residential use. 1 In summary, I do not believe that the development of the northern portion of the Boley property as presented by Mr. Forbord will require any plan amendment from the city of Victoria. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 291 -6419. Sincereh', 1 0 . Barbara G. Senness, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Bonnie Featherstone, Metropolitan Council District 14 Bill Thibeault, Thibeault Associates Paul Kraus, City of Chanhassen Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. 411 1 Recyc!ec Paper 1 1 1 1 1 TAMARACK LAKE 1 OVERVIEW STUDY 1 AND PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF BOLEY PROPERTY 1 1 June 1993 1 1 1 Thibault ASSOCIATES City of Victoria 1 Urban Planning Development Redevelopment Housing 1 1 1 STUDY PURPOSE 1 This brief overview study was initiated because of development pressures in the area located north of Highway 5 between Rolling Acres Road and the City's east municipal line. Three areas of greatest interest include submission of a proposed plat for the Boley property on the 1 east, Kerber farm in the south central and the so called Swiss Mountain property on the east side of Rolling Acres Road. Lack of infrastructure in this area including interior roads and utilities coupled with barriers to development and environmental conditions are also prime reasons for the study. The purpose of the study is to provide guidance in evaluating and malting appropriate decisions regarding the proposed plat of the Boley property and other plats that can be expected. 1 STUDY AREA CONDITIONS Conditions in the study area were determined through on -site field investigations and review of aerial photography, topographic maps, land use maps, zoning, ownership information and a variety of other sources. Conditions are summarized below. 1 • Land Uses - the predominant land uses are rural and agriculture, lakes and wetlands and residential. 1 • Housing - much of the housing is new, especially adjacent to Highway 7 on the north and King's Road on the east. Older farm homes exist in along Highway 5 and Rolling Acres Road. • Lakes and Wetlands - lakes and wetlands dominate the central portion of the study 1 area. Tamarack Lake is classified as a Natural Environmental Lake and shoreland zoning provisions affect much of the study area. • Old Railroad - the old Chicago and Northwestern Railroad right -of -way runs diagonally through the northwest third of the study area. This right -of -way, now used as a trail, is owned by Hennepin County Railroad Authority (HCRR) and was 1 purchased for future transit. • Barriers - there are a number of barriers or at least impediments to development that 1 affect the study area and evaluation of plats. These include: 1) The municipal line between Victoria and Chanhassen 2) HCRR - opposition or reluctance to allow crossing of their right -of -way 3) Existing platted developments along Highway 7 and the pattern of lots of records along King's Road 1 4) Topography which is quite steep in some locations 1 1 1 1 5) Highway 7 and Highway 5 which affect where access can be located and 1 require Mn/DOT approval 6) The University of Minnesota Horticultural Resource Center which forms a barrier along the southwest portion of the study area 1 7) The relatively large areas of lake and wetlands However, some of these conditions are assets and make the property a prime site for new 1 housing. Figure 1 is a 1990 aerial of the area. Figure 2 is the base map showing the roads, municipal line and parcels. Figure 3 provides topographic information and includes the proposed plat of Boley's property. Figure 4 is the subdivider's proposal including an extension of the street to the west property line. The study area has a high number of amenities which makes it appealing for residential development and which, when studied along with the existing development pattern, helps identify a suitable framework for development. The amenities considered most noteworthy are: 1 Tamarack Lake - Pond Tamarack Lake has an outstanding setting with natural conditions on all sides and 1 excellent views from the HCRR trail and from the hills and bluffs on the northeast and southwest sides. A couple of ponds exist east of Tamarack Lake and Lake St. Joe is located farther to the east in Chanhassen. 1 Wetlands Wetlands extend around most of Tamarack Lake and to the southeast. This wetland is, however, crossed at two points where farming occurs and where a roadway exists connecting the northern portion of the Kerber farm to the southern portion. Additional wetland areas exist near King's Road. Hills The study area is punctuated by a number of significant hills at or over 1,000 feet of elevation. These are some of the highest hills in the City including a double hill on the Boley property, one where the Kerber home is located, one at Swiss Mountain and a couple of knolls east of Tamarack Lake. Woodlands Woodlands exist in the central portion of the study area around portions of Lake Tamarack, an area extending east of the lake, and a large area extending northeast along a series of dissected ridges where some of the most exciting topography in the 1 City exists. 1 2 1 1 1 views I The views to and from the area are outstanding in terms of the distances one can see and the varied environmental conditions that make up the view. I Quality Housing New housing in the area is: high quality, likely to be viewed as an 1 amenity, and should be a factor in setting up a pattern for future housing. Soils I Soils in the upland areas are considered to be good to excellent. 1 DEVELOPMENT GOAL • 1 The development goal for this area is based on the site analysis, base information and several comprehensive plan goals, especially Goal 1: Identity, Goal 2: Environment, Goal 5: I Transportation, Goal 6: Recreation, Goal 7: Services, Goal 8: Fiscal, and Goal 9: Community Cohesiveness. I Development Goal for Tamarack Lake Study Area: Plan for suitable development which is capable of funding appropriate access and public I service costs while maintaining the natural qualities of Lake Tamarack, wetlands, some . of the wooded areas and trail, and use these qualities to foster community cohesiveness by linking development with the remainder of Victoria. 1 PLAN I A eneralized plan for shown in Figure developed based on the g p the area, as s o to Figu 5, was de ped I development goal for the area and other relevant information. This plan is necessarily generalized and quite limited based on the limited time available to conduct the study and the parameters used. The plan needs further consideration and refinement. The information can I be used by the City Engineer to evaluate the extension of utilities based on this overview study and plan. I Two alternatives are provided with the generalized plan, but differ only with respect to the Boley property. Figure 5 - Alternative 1 is the subdivider's proposal including an extension of the east/west street to the west property line. Figure 5 - Alternative 2 is the subdivider's I proposal with the municipal line adjusted. The adjustment of the municipal line would place all the lots in either Chanhassen or Victoria. The lots in the northern portion of the plat 1 3 1 1 would all be in Chanhassen including the 3.2 acres currently in Victoria. The southern 1 portion of the plat would have all lots in Victoria south of the platted lots on the east/west street. I Other alternatives were considered during the course of this overview study. To simplify the report, only two alternatives are presented. A number of variations can be developed from I these alternatives. lk EET1NG WITH CHANHASSEN On June 9, 1993, the City Administrator and Planning Consultant met with the City I Manager, Community Development Director and the Senior Planner of Chanhassen to discuss this study andthe plat of the Boley property. Salient points and conclusions tentatively reached at the meeting were: 1 • The City expressed its concern about creating nine or ten new lots which would fall into two different cities. 1 • Chanhassen did not see this to be much of a problem to the property owners but added that it could be resolved by annexation. • The City indicated that the staff /consultant prefers to consider Alternative 2 which would essentially involve an adjustment of the municipal line consistent with the I proposed plat and ghost plat. The 3.2 acres in the proposed plat in Victoria could be annexed to Chanhassen and the south portion of the plat could be annexed to Victoria I (see Figure 5). • Chanhassen implied that they are serving properties in Victoria and that if the plat on the south portion of Boley were to go through, Chanhassen would serve that area as well, therefore, it makes sense to have the entire area in Chanhassen. Or stated another way, they would not want to approve a plat in Victoria if it is to be served by I Chanhassen. The City Administrator pointed out that the City intends to serve the property in Victoria. • The last suggestion made was to consider adjustments based on the topography which , gb J might include expansion of the Boley plat into Victoria along with engineering review relative to the cost to serve this area. I 1 1 4 1 1 1 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION I Four conclusions - recommendations are offered: 1. The overview study should be used for development of a more refined plan for the 1 area including the utility plan. 2. The overview study and plan should be used to provide guidance in evaluating the 1 proposed subdivision of the Boley property. 3. Alternative 2 is considered superior to Alternative 1. I 4. Alternative 2 should be used for further development and approval of the preliminary plat and final plat on the Boley property. 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 I 1 (7111 I i i � j 1 TRUNK ! . 1 zoi,,,,,,(6, i LAKE ./ , YINNITASSTA 1 Ov KINGS ROAD a 0 C n � LAKE G. ST. JOE LAKE 1 0 r z. 1 .1- TAMARACK i n Ladd I 1 ..�..�..�..�..�..�..�.. MINNEI/SST4 1 MINNESOTA TRUNK "WY NO'S 1 i 1 Thibault City of Victoria 1 ® Tamarack Lake Overview Study 2 I ASSOCIATES 0 1000 NORTM BASE Proposed Boley Property Subdivision 1 ' > -, _ : ��r" -`. 11111 / w. • t y. • 5 I `� I �- ' G ar It, �/ ..` :'<k r = 1'..„ ' • % ' \ �. -. =_, ice _ -. _ ._.��- i i � °�sy c:- ::t..r' 1 ---.- ,, \lam "j _ i ce- �y I/ C/ . - • ____,_,...___ c__ . .• , ,.. • \;_ ,__-_,:„ I „...... _ kzei/ .." \ ‘ �. i8y % • .„ . ... a v,,...,:.,:n„:„..,..„__,:„,..:::::./..,„:5„.i...4ffl.,::, / F.-I.-- _ r.. s ' -ss'� • 7 ,..., / 4 _ -.5F:7„:§:::!" ..-:.,:'-f:-.4:-::::-'",",----r-- -../ 1 - N ii i,:e" I , , o t ‘ Ydl.:4 0 I h ."- 1 -•- , , :.:5"--')--fX,-, ) .3 1 \ 0 / ,...,_ - - .-' gi -4 :it §iffi .---‘':.-- - _3:-____ , — *N". , ‘ , Yl iccVr - ii M / It ,,•_;,',;. 13 ---. __.-- 5 ...,,,, Z I �.-t--,. - 1101`" -, - .. • , •- 6 . ,-. . lor ii ,,,,,, , ---- § , „.„-_,-,:„. 1,. '.. I L ' 7;7 e.',1: illkp \ ii .._) ref" 1 n f • nifillilli i w l i .'''''''':'"-:% Nr.- Z .7. lia 8 • ' 1 _ _ 04706 ( 1 . I I AC/. • ■)‘‘ -_ -." - - ;X:i__ - -:31 , a� _ - � � � -, a i s ,w % '7:- � � - _g 48 6 / \\ _ ��ppppp�pp y �. Au . ....■ SZ;51 e /____ '\ _ e ms . r, W __4 -r ► L / a - 11 i 1 1 '+ r1 : I q), 1 : 1 3 : 1. _.... , i.) ,,,\ ,.\ ,...7. ..\ 1 ,......\:. ! CN.1-6. . ft ii li. .. ' - \ ! •1 • 1 • air s r j � �/I�� I Thibault asscc:a-es Ci:v of V .1 T:.ara: Lake Overvie�.t Stu 3 0 1000 ' C R TOPO ::.: l'o:e% Prore:: SL.:,ii%...... 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 i i *3. i i i ) /Root O ! t i LAKE ' i YINNE/ASHTA I Cs1 • • -al. t \)1 I 23 1 LAKE 1 W f ST. JOE . ■ • M I Q LAK 447, sue . ::; , . TAMARACK s ::::::; : 4 t . . sue.:: It. .. P-L9*- L AKE o1as MINNE /ASHTA 1 Ilk r i P 4 r it : 1 41I kit ir St 1 1 MINNESOTA TRUNK MVM'M 14° 5 1 I Thibault City of Victoria 7x AI. Tamarack Lake Overview Study 4 1 ASSOCIATES 0 1000 NORTh SUBDIVIDER'S Proposed Boley Property Subdivision I PROPOSAL 1 1 1 / i i / I I L ___...... Laaa YINNaIaSHTa - 1 z 0 r LAKE e OJ� jol /;1 ! 1 Sr. JOa G �oj LAKE diKri wir" 1 ii0 't raraRacx 111111:5" a ... romdi a 1 elute .i ® YIIVNZWASBra I . Noi. ism ifir • I 77 1 I MINNESOTA TRUNK NVrl N0. 5 1 1 I Thibault Citv of Victoria r r . Tamarack Lake Overview Study 5 -1 ASSOCIATES - 0 1000 ALTERNATIVE 1 Proposed Boley Property Subdivision 1 1 1 1 1 i i I i 1 VC 1 1 I l MINNESO TRUNK ( 1 LAKE 11 l e . \ YINNEFASHTA 1 . I. 4 O I 0 1 0 Al LAKE S ST. JOB splf; 1 ' LAKE Q' Ilk Illitin ; 1 IW O r araRAC K --- d 4411 LAKE 1 ~ b MINNEWASHT4 RLOGTE � . �� • MU D �� 1 9 4**- UN • /I rti „ i 1 FIY1f NO S 1 1 MINNESOTA TRUNK j ) 1 1 iib c u It City of Victoria I = A Tamarack Lake Overview Study 5-2 1 o o l000 ALTERNATIVE 2 Proposed Boley Property Subdivision 1 LAW OFFICES I LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION SIDNEY BARROWS DRADLCY GILLA,. GREGG CAVANAGH LOREN A UNTERSEHER H AROLD D FIELD JP MICHAEL A NEKICH SUSAN M ROBINCR RODER' H TORGERSON RICHARD) GUN,. MARTHA C BRAND SUITE 2300 MICHAELR COVEN JOSHUA .4 KANA5SATEGA ALLEN I SACKS DAVID N HAYNES BRADLEY J GUNN )ANN M EICHLER SMITH I THOMAS D FEIN DE RG CA ROL YN CHAL NCR$ ISO SOUTH FIFTH STREET NANCY A WILTGCN RUTH • ONEILL MORRIS M SHLRMAN JAMCS V CHAL VIRGINIA • CONE ANDREW P LEE GEORGE REIILY RICHARD H MARTIN MICHELLE A MILLER ■ DANIEL COLTON CHARLES K DAYTON ROBERT DKMAY MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TIMOTHY R MEYERSON NICOLE A ENGISCH DAVID N Co. ANGELA M BOHMANN SLAKE SHEPARD. JO DAVID 0 ETZWILER STEPHEN 4 PrL•VM ROBERT P THAV15 TELEPHONE (612) 335 1500 WILLIAM L GREENE TAMMIE S ►TACEK I CHARLES • MAYS JAMCS G DULLARD JOSE STEVEN L BECTON JANE GODFREY LOWELL ,+ NOTE BOOM PH M FINLEY FACSIMILE (612) 335 1657 PETER H SACHMAN MC H GALATZ GLORGE F MCGVNMIGL E JR LwwPC HCE J FIELD JOHN 5 BRCNNAN DWIGHT A CARSON RICMA RD G PCPI M JR DAVID W KELLEY CARRIC L HEMPEL ROSANNE JACUZZI FREDRIC T ROSENBLATT MARK 5 WEIT2 MARC 0 SIM ►SON B YRON E STARNS DAVID L LILLEH•UG SHAUN C MOELHATTON STEVEN M RUBIM ROBERT) HUBER July y 2 , 1993 JAMES DERTR•ND GEORGE • LEONARD .6 9561 I JOHN H MERMAN DAVID M NTOR MARK W DELEHANTY ARTHUR. H STREET 6TT 96 STEVEN D DERUYTCP ANGELA .4 CHR!STY PETER [ SCHIFSKY •[M[DICT DEIN•RD 1 999 '969 JAMES R 0095(7 MARK A LIN OGREN LAWRENCE • SCHAEFEP AMOS 5 DEINARD ...s Des KATHLEEN M HENRY J SNEA III CAROLYN V WOLSKI STEPHEN J DAVIDSON LOwELL V STORTZ STEVEN* LINOEM•NN STEPHEN R LITMAN DOUGLAS • GREENSwAG WILLIAM H KOCH SIDNEY LOR•ER EDWARD M MOERSFE.DER ELLEN G SAMPSON RONALD J SCHULTZ IRENE SCOTT I ROBERT .EWIS DARgOwS RICNAR[ W[GE NER ROSAN NE NATH•NSON STEVEN J RINDSIG DANIEL D rOTH MICHAEL G TAYLOR )AM• M 9RIZ DANIEL M S•TORILIS DANIEL J MCINC RNEY JP JOHN W GCTSINGER WENDY C SKJCPVEN Ot COVNetL HUGH M MAYNLARC THOMAS 0 SLANDERS FREDEP.CK W N, D _ ROBERT ZEG.CV.TCH JOHN C KUCHN TIMOTHY WELCH 5 � � t �r.�� 1� I WRITERI�Ll er - 335W 4 2 By Messenger \` L// Roger Knutson I Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs 1380 Carriage Center Curve 317 Eagandale Office Center 1 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: Boley /Lundgren Bros.; Chanhassen, Minnesota; Our File 16066 -275 I Dear Roger: I Enclosed is my July 2, 1993 draft of the Declaration of Yard Easements for Lundgren Bros.' subdivision of the Holey Farm, which straddles the boundary between Chanhassen and Victoria. I Rick Sathre or Terry Forbord will send you the drawings. This draft is really a "first cut at the problem. We are open to suggestions from you. We would like to finalize this 1 document in time for the Chanhassen City Council meeting on Monday, July 12; but it would be satisfactory if approval of Lundgren's project were conditioned on the execution of such a ' document mutually satisfactory to the developer and the City Attorney. Please call me early next week with your questions and suggestions. Very truly yours, I LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD ��►, "O r+ 1 I By Hugh M. Maynard I cc w /encl: Terry Forbord (Lundgren Bros.) Kate Aanenson (City of Chanhassen) Rick Sathre (Sathre- Bergquist, Inc.) Bruce Malkerson (Popham, Haik Law Firm) -1 }:: . 1 7/2/93 - DRAFT 1 DECLARATION OF YARD EASEMENTS 1 THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 1993 1 by Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. ( "Lundgren "). Recitals A. Lundgren is the fee owner of the following platted lots 1 in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota: Lots 13 through 21, Block 1, [NAME OF THE SUBDIVISION). 1 Said lots are collectively referred to herein as the "Lots" and are individually referred to herein as each "Lot ". 1 B. Lundgren is also the fee owner of the adjoining unplatted land in the City of Victoria, County of Carver, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto. Said land is referred to herein as the "Victoria Parcel." C. In order to complete the orderly development of the 1 Victoria Parcel and the Lots, Lundgren hopes to arrange for the Victoria Parcel to be detached from the City of Victoria and annexed into the City of Chanhassen. In the meanwhile, Lundgren wants to provide yard easements in favor of the Lots over the adjoining portions of the Victoria Parcel. Declaration 1 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts recited above, one dollar and other good and valuable consideration, Lundgren hereby declares that the Victoria Parcel shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, occupied and developed subject to the following covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations and easements, which are for the benefit of the Lots: 1. Yard Easements. a. Grant. Lundgren, as the owner of the Victoria Parcel, hereby reserves easements for yard purposes over those portions of the Victoria Parcel that are adjacent to the Lots. The present and future owners of each Lot shall be entitled to the exclusive use and enjoyment of the "adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel" (as defined in Section 1.b below) for "yard purposes" (as defined in Section 1.c below), but they shall have no right to use any other portion of the Victoria Parcel for any purpose. NMM \LBC \BOLEY \YARDEASE.DEC 1 II ,I 7/2/93 - DRAFT b. Easement Areas. With respect to Lot 13, the "adjoining I portion of the Victoria Parcel" shall mean that portion of the Victoria Parcel lying northerly of the northwesterly extension of the southwesterly line of Lot 13. With respect to Lots 14 I through 21, the "adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel" shall mean that portion of the Victoria Parcel lying between westerly extensions of the northerly and southerly lines of the Lot. 1 c. Permitted Uses. "Yard purposes" shall include the installation, maintenance and replacement of lawn grass and other vegetation; and the enjoyment of the area for recreational I purposes. The owner of each Lot shall maintain all landscaping in the adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel. Until the Victoria Parcel is annexed into the City of Chanhassen, "yard I purposes" shall exclude the installation, maintenance, replacement or use of any building, fence, swimming pool, play equipment or other structure. If and when the Victoria Parcel is annexed into the City of Chanhassen, buildings, fences, swimming I pools, play equipment and other structures shall be allowed, subject to the ordinances, rules, regulations and permitting requirements of the City of Chanhassen. If and when Lundgren I abandons its effort to have the Victoria Parcel annexed into the City of Chanhassen, then buildings, fences, swimming pools, play equipment and other structures shall be allowed, subject to the ordinances, rules, regulations and permitting requirements of the 1 City of Victoria. d. Taxes and Special Assessments. For so long as this I Declaration remains in force, the owner of the Victoria Parcel shall timely pay all real estate taxes and installments of special assessments on the Victoria Parcel; and the owner(s) of I each Lot shall reimburse the owner of the Victoria Parcel for the taxes and specials on the portion of the Victoria Parcel adjoining the Lot. The taxes and specials on the land (not the buildings) in the Victoria Parcel shall be prorated on an acreage I basis among the easement areas adjacent to the Lots and the balance of the Victoria Parcel. I e. Insurance. Each owner of a Lot hereby releases the owner of the Victoria Parcel from all claims for personal injury, death or property damage arising from the adjoining portion of I the Victoria Parcel. Each owner of a Lot shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the owner of the Victoria Parcel from all claims made by third parties for personal injury, death or property damage arising from the adjoining portion of the II Victoria Parcel. For so long as this Declaration remains in force; each owner of a Lot shall carry at least $100,000 of public liability insurance on the Lot and the adjoining portion 1 of the Victoria Parcel; Lundgren shall be named as an additional MMN \LBC \BOLEY \YARDEASE.DEC 2 1 1 7/2/93 - DRAFT 1 insured under every liability policy; and the owner of the Lot shall provide Lundgren with a certificate evidencing such insurance and stating that the policy will not be modified or terminated without 30 days prior notice to Lundgren. 2. Annexation. Lundgren shall use its best efforts to cause 1 the Victoria Parcel (or at least the portion adjacent to the Lots) to be detached from the City of Victoria and annexed into the City of Chanhassen. Lundgren's efforts shall include petitions to the Cities of Chanhassen and Victoria and a proceeding before the Minnesota Municipal Board under Chapter 414 of Minnesota Statutes. Lundgren need not bring any court proceedings. Lundgren will endeavor to achieve the detachment and annexation by December 31, 1994. Lundgren shall have the right to discontinue its efforts to detach and annex the land at any time after a negative determination by the Minnesota Municipal Board or by any court. 3. Creation and Conveyance of Outlots. a. Subdivision of the Victoria Parcel. If the annexation efforts in Section 2 are successful, Lundgren shall use its best efforts to subdivide the Victoria Parcel such that the portion adjacent to the Lots is subdivided into Outlots that correspond precisely with the easement areas described in Section 1.b of this Declaration. All other aspects of the subdivision of the Victoria Parcel shall be in Lundgren's sole discretion, subject to municipal approval. Lundgren's best efforts shall include appropriate municipal actions, but need not include any court proceedings. b. Conveyance of Outlots. Promptly after Lundgren has subdivided the Victoria Parcel in a manner that creates Outlots that correspond to the foregoing easement areas, Lundgren shall deed the Outlots in fee simple absolute to the respective owners of the Lots, free and clear of all liens and other encumbrances. c. Consolidation of Lots and Outlots. If at the time the Outlots are deeded to the Lot owners, the Outlots are inside the City of Chanhassen, the owners of the Lots and the Outlots (and their respective mortgagees) shall promptly replat the Lots and the Outlots into nine consolidated lots; Lundgren shall pay all costs of such replatting and shall coordinate the replatting process; and, when the Lots and Outlots have been consolidated, this Declaration shall automatically expire. On the other hand, if at the time the Outlots are deeded to the Lot owners, the Outlots are inside the City of Victoria, Lundgren shall have no obligation to consolidate the Lots and the Outlots and this Declaration shall automatically expire. HMM \LBC \BOLEY\YARDEASE.DEC 3 1 1 7/2/93 - DRAFT II 3. Administrative Provisions. a. Successors and Assigns. This Declaration shall be binding upon Lundgren, its successors and assigns, as owners of II the Victoria Parcel for the benefit of Lundgren, its successors and assigns as owners of the Lots. Lundgren reserves the right to convey the Victoria Parcel to any individual, corporation, I partnership or other legal entity, provided that Lundgren shall remain jointly liable with the grantee for the performance of Lundgren's obligations under Sections 2 and 3 of this Declaration. I b. Enforcement. This Declaration may be enforced by proceedings at law or in equity. Failure by any person to I enforce any provision of this Declaration shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. • c. Severabilitv. Invalidation of any provision of this I Declaration by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect. 1 d. Amendment. This Declaration may be amended by an instrument signed by the owners and first mortgagees of at least 75% of the Lots. Each amendment must be recorded with the Carver 1 County Registrar of Titles. e. Captions. The title of this instrument and the captions of the sections and subsections hereof are for convenience of II reference only. LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1 By Peter Pflaum, President 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1993 by Peter Pflaum, President of Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on 1 behalf of the corporation. Notary Public I This Instrument Was Drafted By: LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD (NMM) 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 1 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 335 -1562 I NMM \LBC \BOLEV \YARDEASE.DEC 4 1 1 7/2/93 - DRAFT II CONSENT OF MORTGAGEES II Howard S. Boley and Margaretha Boley, husband and wife, being the holders of a mortgage on some of the land described in II the foregoing Declaration of Yard Easements, hereby consent to the foregoing instrument and agree to be bound by it upon foreclosure of the mortgage or receipt of a deed in lieu of II foreclosure. Howard S. Boley II II Margaretha Boley OF MINNESOTA II STATE ) ss. COUNTY OF ) 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1993, by Howard S. Boley and Margaretha II Boley, husband and wife. Notary Public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NMM \LBC \BOLEY \YARDEASE.DEC 5 1 • CITY O F PC DATE: 2/3/93 CC DATE: 2/22/93 CHANllAN ■ CASE #: 93 -1 SUB By: Aanenson/v I - i 1 STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Subdivide 36 Acres into 33 Single Family Lots with 3 Outlots I (Boley Property) Z 1 Q LOCATION: 7340 Minnewashta Parkway • U ' _ 1 a a APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction _ , I 4 935 East Wayzata Boulevard -�°' Wayzata, MN 55391 1 , , PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family I ACREAGE: 36 acres 1 DENSITY: gross .91 u/a net 1.37 u/a I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family S - Victoria - residential 1 E - RSF; single family Q W - Victoria - residential 1 O WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Rolling terrain, Lake St. Joe is in the northern portion of the 1 it subdivision. There is a wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe and _ another wetland found in the southwest comer of the site 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 1 , 1 1 Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 2 1 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Brothers Development, is requesting subdivision approval for 33 single family homes. This property is 36 acres and is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. This property is a part of a larger piece of property owned by Howard Boley. 1 The southern portion of Mr. Boley's property is located in Victoria. The applicant has ghost platted this property to show how this property could be developed. Approval of this subdivision is required by the City of Victoria. 1 This proposal has a gross density of .91 units an acre and 1.37 units an acre net, this includes 11.54 acres of wetland and .4 acres of road. Lake St. Joe borders the northern portion of the subdivision, this lake has a substantial wetland area around it. The city has classified this wetland as a natural wetland. The other wetland on the property was not reviewed as a part of the city's wetland inventory. The analysis of this wetland needs to occur before the plat receives final approval. This property is being proposed for development under the standard subdivision review process; 1 the property is currently zoned RSF. Lake St. Joe, which is on the northern portion of the subdivision, calls for compliance with the shoreland regulations. There is a wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe which is in the southwest corner of the site. Compliance with the wetland regulations is also required. Assess to this site is from Minnewashta Parkway. The orientation of the subdivision is towards 1 Chanhassen, mainly because access is gained only through Chanhassen. At this time, access to Victoria is proposed via a stub street to the south. The westerly edge of this subdivision is in the city of Victoria. The city limit is located at the most westerly 90 feet of the subdivision running the length of the plat of 1315 feet. Approval of the subdivision is therefore required by the City of Victoria, before the city can grant final approval. 1 The staff feels that this subdivision is well conceived, but the issue of Victoria's jurisdiction over part of the site raises some concern if they are unwilling to approve it. The subdivision as proposed meets all of the standards of the RSF zone. The applicants are requesting variances from the lot width requirements of the Shoreland Regulations. SITE ANALYSIS There is an existing home on the property, the Howard Boley residence. This home will have to be removed with the development of the subdivision. There are three existing homes just to south of the subdivision. The homes are exempted from the subdivision. Further south along Minnewashta Parkway is the Alt property which has horses and a stable on it. This property is also an exemption. All of these properties are in the city of Victoria. 1 1 1 ' Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 3 This site has a rolling topography, the high point is over 1000 feet, where you can see all the ' way to Lake Minnetonka. The lowest elevation is the ordinary high water mark at 945.2'. The site has three areas of trees. It appears that the trees are on Lots 4, 5, and part of 6, Block 1 which will be lost due to grading of the site. ' The other groups of trees on the site including Lots 1, 12, 13, and 10 -25, Block 1 should submit a home placement plans showing the existing trees and how they will be saved. Staff believes ' that except for Lots 12 and 13 there should be minimal tree loss. This proposal calls for grading the high point of the Block 2 area and placing this fill in the Block 1 area of Lots 2 -9. At first blush, staff had some concern about fill being placed so close to the edge of the wetland at the 950' elevation. Upon further investigation is was determined that the site has been farmed right up to the edge of the wetland. In order for the home along ' the north portion of the site adjacent to the wetland to remain above the grade of the street, fill is required in this area. The developer has shown a cross section of how this lot would look, and this proposal shows an approximate 1% grade from the home to the street (see Attachment #4). Staff believes that it is desirable to have the homes above the street grade to provide lot drainage to the street so storm water can be pre - treated before entering the wetlands. Outlot C is not being platted at this time. The ghost plat for the southern portion of the site shows Outlot C being platted via a road from the city of Victoria. Staff believes that this makes good planning sense because this area is the high point of the property and access from the south ' will minimize grading and tree loss. There are four storm water retention ponds proposed for the subdivision. They are located on Outlots A and B and on Lots 12, 13, 22, and 23 of Block 1. Access to the ponds will be gained from the road on Outlots A and B but an easement will be required for access for the other two ' ponds. A stone wall is shown between the ponds on Outlots A and B. More design details about the wall are required before it can be built. Streetscape is also required along Minnewashta Parkway as per the Landscaping Ordinance. ' Victoria City Line The westerly 90 feet of this subdivision is in the city of Victoria. Prior to final approval of this subdivision, approval by the city of Victoria is required. The property in Victoria is a strip of 90 feet wide and 1315.16 feet long. The Boley property is also divided north and south between the city of Victoria and Chanhassen. A ghost plat was shown as to how this property in Victoria could be developed. Topography, access and availability of utilities dictate that this area be serviced by Chanhassen. The applicant would like the city to consider annexation of this area. ' City staff believes this is a reasonable outcome. 1 1 Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 4 1 On Friday, January 22, 1993, Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson and myself met with the Victoria City Manager Miriam Porter and City Planner Bill Thilbalt regarding the development of the Boley property. Victoria's preference is to have the subdivision moved to the east so that the city lines do not dissect the lots. While the city lines divide Lots 13 through 21, Block 1, the homes as proposed on the home placement are shown in the City of Chanhassen. Leaving this narrow strip would provide an unbuildable lot with no access to it. Providing a stub street to the west from this subdivision should be considered. Victoria needs to make comprehensive study as to how this area can be served. Chanhassen will be working with Victoria to resolve this issue. Currently, there are four homes and a church on the east side of Minnewashta Parkway that are in the city of Victoria but have Chanhassen services. These homes are part of the Trolls Glen 3rd Addition and the church is part of the Cedar Crest Subdivision. Circumstances like this where properties are in other cities and yet serviced by Chanhassen exist elsewhere through the city. In similar circumstances, the city has worked on a service agreement with the appropriate jurisdiction. However, no such agreement exists for these parcels and they too have no physical connection to Victoria in any substantive manner. Staff is recommending that the portion of this subdivision that is in Victoria be platted and not left as a lot remanent. Shoreland Regulations r Lake St. Joe is classified by the DNR as a Natural Environment Lake. Compliance with the shoreland regulations includes all property within 1000 feet of the shoreline. In the case the entire this subdivision, falls within 1000 feet of the lake. The minimum standards are as follows: LAKESHORE NON - LAKESHORE LOT WIDTH LOT AREA STRUCTURE IMPACT LOT WIDTH LOT (sq. ft.) ZONE AREA 125 feet 40,000 150 feet 75 feet 125 feet 20,000 ' All of the lots abutting the lake meet the 40,000 square foot minimum requirement. The remaining lots meet the 20,000 square foot minimum. Not all of the lots meet the 125 foot lot width requirement. Staff has measured the setback from 30 feet back line and found that the total number of lots that are under the 125 minimum is 12. Staff is recommending that variances 111 be given on these lots (Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1). The intent of the shoreland regulations is to minimize the shoreland impact. Staff is of the opinion that making the lots conform to the 125 foot lot width will not affect the density of the project. ' In addition, 12 of the lots that do not meet the lot width requirements are not adjacent to the lake. We note that this is a problem that directly stems from the MnDNR's Shoreland r 1 Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. ' February 3, 1993 Page 5 Regulations that we intend to rectify with a revised ordinance. It was drafted to cover the entire state and is very inappropriate in the metro area. For example, much of south Minneapolis is located within the shoreland districts surrounding Lakes Calhoun, Harriet, Isles and Nokomis. ' Obviously, this is inconsistent with the state guidelines. In past discussions with the DNR, they have agreed that the manner in which we propose to regulate the shoreland on the Boley parcel is acceptable. ' Wetland Regulations ' There are two wetlands on the property. One wetland is adjacent to Lake St. Joe and the other is in the southwest corner of the proposed plat. ' The Lake St. Joe wetland was inventoried this summer and was determined to have a natural classification as per the city's new Wetland Ordinance (see attachment #3). This development proposes 13 lots adjacent to the Lake St. Joe wetland. The setback requirement for a natural classification wetland is 40 feet plus an additional 10 to 30 feet (20' average) native vegetation strip. Lots 1 -13 in Block 1 all meet the wetland setback requirement (see attached compliance table). The Wetland Ordinance also states that a monument is required for each 300 feet of wetland edge. One concern of the staff is the amount of fill being proposed adjacent to the wetland. Fill is ' proposed at a 3:1 slope which is fairly steep immediately adjacent to the wetland. The area adjacent to the wetland has been farmed in the past so there is no native vegetation established, staff's main concern is erosion control. Staff is recommending that the Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook be used to ensure erosion control measures are taken. Also see the grading section for more discussion of this issue. ' The second wetland is found in the northwest corner of the property. This is a very small part of a very large wetland that is adjacent to Tamarack Lake. This wetland was not identified ' during the inventory this past summer. Ron Peterson, a wetland specialist working for Lundgren Brothers, felt that although this wetland has been altered, the property to the west is used for cattle grazing and a road has been built through the wetland, it could be improved. Regardless of the function at this point the homes on Lots 20 and 21, Block 1 propose a 120 foot and 80 foot setback from the edge of the wetland. Even if this wetland is determined to be classified as a natural or ag/urban, adequate buffering is being provided. An inventory of this wetland is ' necessary to determine the amount of buffer strip and native vegetation required before this plat is given final approval. The city has not yet established a species list for the re- establishment of native vegetation but will have to do so before this plat can be given final approval. r 1 Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. 1 February 3, 1993 Page 6 1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE • The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of trees /wooded areas except for a few areas 1 along Lake St. Joe. The property is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The preliminary grading plan proposes extensive site grading to accommodate proposed building house pads and I maintaining street grades within the City's guidelines (0.50% to 7.0%). According to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 509 Plan, the 100 -year flood elevation for Lake St. Joe is at 949.5'. Fill placement proposed along Lots 6 through 9, Block 1, appears to be encroaching into the I Watershed District's 100 -year flood boundary. Placement of fill material on these lots should be limited to areas outside the 100 -year flood boundary. Side slopes adjacent to Lake St. Joe are proposed at 3:1 which are fairly steep but not excessive. Site restoration, vegetative cover and I erosion control efforts should follow the City's recently adopted Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fence should be employed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In some instances where side slopes I exceed 200 feet in depth, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed 200 feet upstream of the toe of slope. All access points from the construction site should be surfaced and maintained with a crushed rock base in accordance with the City's BMPH (Attachment No. 1). I Storm water runoff from the development is proposed to maintain the existing drainage pattern. The majority of the overall site drains towards Lake St. Joe. The southwesterly corner of the 1 property drains westerly towards a wetland basin in Victoria. The majority of the storm water generated from the development is proposed to be carried via storm sewer system and discharged into water treatment/retention ponds prior to discharging into Lake St. Joe or the wetlands in I Victoria. Mr. Ismael Martinez with the City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo and Associates, has reviewed this development proposal and has recommended minimum ponding capacities and I characteristics for the proposed water quality ponds (Attachment No. 2). In an effort to help reduce future City maintenance of these water quality ponds, staff recommends the applicant look at consolidating the ponds proposed on Outlots A and B; either on one of the outlots or on Lots I 1 and 2, Block 1, outside the wetlands. Prior to final plat approval, detailed storm sewer and ponding design calculations shall be Il submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. The storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event. The ponding areas shall meet or exceed the City's water quality standards (NURP) and retention requirements for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm I event. Discharge from the site shall be maintained at predeveloped runoff conditions. Access to the water quality /retention ponds for maintenance purposes shall be provided by an easement dedicated on the final plat. All easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Side slopes on I the maintenance access routes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slope. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality /retention ponds on the final plat. Upon final construction plan submittal, a development plan shall be included on the final grading plan denoting the house type and proposed lowest floor and garage slab elevations. In addition, all 1 1 1 I Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 1 Page 7 proposed lot corner elevations shall be shown. Plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering 1 Department for review and approval. UTILITIES I The plans propose extending municipal utilities from Minnewashta Parkway into the site. Municipal sanitary sewer and water lines in Minnewashta Parkway are adequately sized to 1 accommodate this development proposal. The applicant's engineer has also designed the utilities to serve a future phase to the south which is in the City of Victoria. Final placement of fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Construction of all I municipal utilities shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and final approval by the City Council. I STREETS 1 The street plans propose on extending a public street westerly from Minnewashta Parkway just south of Minnewashta Court. A public street extension is also proposed to the south for future I service to Victoria which will eventually loop back into Minnewashta Parkway. Sight lines at the proposed intersection is fairly good considering the speed limit on Minnewashta Parkway. Although a future or concept looped street to the south through Victoria and back out to I Minnewashta Parkway with the next phase will have to be carefully studied. Sight lines are poor due to roadway geometrics on Minnewashta Parkway. Ideally, future street extensions through Victoria should line up perpendicular to Minnewashta Parkway preferably across from one of the I existing intersections at either Hawthorne Circle or 77th Street. A sign indicating "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" should be placed on one of the barricades at the end of the proposed south street. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and I Chanhassen should explore the potential for a future street extension to the west to Victoria through this phase or the next phase. With the topographic constraints around this parcel, it may not be feasible; however, it should still be reviewed. I Street grades proposed are between 0.75% and 6.0% which are within the City's current standards. The applicant has proposed a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with a 31 -foot wide street 1 (back -of -curb to back -of -curb) which is also within the City's guidelines. All street intersections should be perpendicular to each other. The second intersection in from Minnewashta Parkway, at the loop, needs some minor adjusting to accomplish this. Construction of the public street 1 improvements shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. I w City is currently undergoing an improvement project to upgrade As you area are, the y y g g ro p p) pg 1 Minnewashta Parkway (Project No. 90 -15). The Minnewashta Parkway project proposes to assess 1 1 1 Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 8 this parcel a portion of the project costs. The feasibility study for the Minnewashta Parkway project estimated 39 assessable units for this parcel. The City Council approved a rate per unit of $760 and equates to a pending assessment of $29,640. The assessment hearing for the Minnewashta Parkway project is not proposed until early fall of 1993. COMPLIANCE TABLE See Attachment # 1 PARK AND RECREATION The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the application by Lundgren Brothers Construction to subdivide the aforementioned property on January 26, 1993. The staff report presented to the commission that evening is attached. Ms. Brenda Roy, a resident adjoining the proposed subdivision, addressed the commission that evening asking that she be designated as the owner of the property listed under the name Richard Fedtke. Mr. Terry Forbord, representing the applicant, was present at the meeting as well. Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following recommendations: Parkland: It is recommended that the City accept park ark fees in lieu of land P dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current , residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500.00 per unit. Trails: It is recommended that the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. Home placement plans shall be required to ensure the preservation of the trees on the site. ' Streetscape landscaping is required along Minnewashta Parkway. Plans should be submitted for staff review prior to submittal of the final plat. A requirement of one tree per lot will also be enforced as part of the building permit process. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat at their February 3, 1993, meeting. The Planning Commission raised the following issues at the meeting. The existing dock on the Boley property onto Lake St. Joe should be removed and the prospective owners of lots adjacent to the lake should be informed of the wetland adjacent to the lake and 1 1 Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 1 Page 9 the prohibitions of docks. The Planning Commission directed staff to provide an intent of a 1 rational for the variances for the shoreland regulation requirement of lot width of 125 feet. RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends that the City Council adopt y t the following motion: P 1 "The City Council approves the preliminary plat #93 -1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and I the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the 1 necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with I the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. I 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. I 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10 -year storm event and ponding calculations that show that 1 the ponds will retain a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The 1 applicant shall not place fill material below the 100 -year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. Bonestroo has determined that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff is working with the Watershed I District to resolve where the 100 year flood elevation is located. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds I located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael I Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. I 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases 1 where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row 1 Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 I Page 10 of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be I immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard - surface road shall be , surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20- 1 foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over I all wetlands and water quality /retention ponds on the final plat. 7. The applicant shall place a sign on a barrier at the end of the southerly street extension I indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE ". Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain -of -title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. 1 8. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of Victoria through one of the phases I of development. 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90 -15) 1 shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 1 11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria. 1 13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. I 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, for the following reasons: 1 a. All lots abutting Lake St. Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots not adjacent to the lake are recommended for a variance. 1 b. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement will not affect the density of the project. 1 1 I 1 ' Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 1 Page 11 c. The MnDNR's shoreland regulations are inappropriate when applied within 1 the metro area. 15. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta 1 Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot. 16. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed." I ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Compliance table. 2. Application. 3. Lake St. Joe Wetland Classification. I 4. Typical cross section of adjacent to the wetland from Sathre - Bergquist. 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated January 26, 1993. I 6. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated January 28, 1993. 7. Letter from DNR dated January 15, 1993. 8. Letter from Soil and Water Conservation District dated January 12, 1993. 9. Memo from Mark Littfin dated January 8, 1993. I 10 Public hearing notice. 11. Planning Commission minutes dated February 3, 1993. I 12. Plat dated January 5, 1992. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I A-406h01/4'en 1 LOT STANDARDS SUMMARY TABLE I BLOCK 1 LOT AREA LOT WIDTH AT BLDG LOT RIPARIAN NON- RIPARIAN REQUIRED ACTUAL AREA ABOVE REQUIRED AAA' WETLAND I NO. i LOT AREA WETLANDS WIDTH WIDTH SETBACK 1 YES - -- 40,000 SF 57,500 SF 31,000 125' 152' 100' 2 YES - -- 40,000 SF 51,300 SF 30,000 125' 140' 70' 111 3 - -- YES 20,000 SF 30,500 SF 22,000 125' 160' 55' 4 YES - -- 40,000 SF 49,400 SF 20,000 125' 135' 60' I 5 - -- YES 20,000 SF 31,300 SF 20,600 125' 140' 80' 6 - -- YES 20,000 SF 28,200 SF 21,400 125' 150' 75' 7 YES - -- 40,000 SF 50,500 SF 20,600 125' 125' 85' II 8 YES - -- 40,000 SF 103,100 SF 2500 125' 125' 85' r 9 YES - -- 40,000 SF 121,800 SF 25,100 125' 125' 100' I 10 YES - -- 40,000 SF 96,600 SF 24,600 125' 125' 90' 11 YES - -- 40,000 SF 67,300 SF 23,600 125' 125' 90' I 44 12 YES - -- 40,000 SF 61,000 SF 31,000 125' 125' 80' 13 - -- YES 20,000 SF 59,900 SF 44,800 125' (1) 125090' 80' 14 - -- YES 20,000 SF 28,700 SF 125' (2) 100' I 15 - -- YES 20,000 SF 22,600 SF 125' (2) 100' 16 - -- YES 20,000 SF 21,300 SF 125' (2) 100' 1 17 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,400 SF 125' (2) 100' 18 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,100 SF 125' (2) 100' I 19 - -- YES 20,000 SF 21,900 SF 125' (2) 100' 20 - -- YES 15,000 SF 34,100 SF 30,600 90' 100' 120' I 21 - -- YES 15,000 SF 42,500 SF 23,900 90' 100' 80' 22 - -- YES 15,000 SF 20,000 SF 90' 100' 23 - -- YES 20,000 SF 21,700 SF 125' (2) 100' 1 24 - -- YES 20,000 SF 29,100 SF 125' 148' 25 - -- YES 20,000 SF 22,700 SF 125' (2)'100' I 26 - -- YES 20,000 SF 22,000 SF 125' 130' - -- 174 2o,00n 2o.0i^ SF '2'' (2) I00' 1 1 1 II LOT STANDARDS SUMMARY TABLE 1 BLACK 2 LOT AREA LOT WIDTH AT BLDG 1 LOT RIPARIAN NON — RIPARIAN REQUIRED ACTUAL REQUIRED ACTUAL NO. LOT LOT AREA AREA . WBYTH WIDTH 1 1 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,500 SF 125' 125' 2 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,100 SF 125' 140' 1 3 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 170' • 4 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 175' ▪ 5 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 180' 1 6 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 128' ii VERAGE LOT AREA: 38,670 SQUARE FEET AVERAGE LOT WIDTH: 125.7 L 1' (AT PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK) II (1) PROPOSED HOUSE SETBACK FOR NECK LOT IS 90 Fr MINIMUM WHERE LOT WIDTH IS 125 1..E. T. LOT WIDTH AT 30 FEET SETBACK IS 38 Fhh r. VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR LOT WIDTH AT MINIMUM II SE 1 BACK, FROM ZONING AND SHORELAND ORDINANCES. (2) VARIANCE REQUIRED FROM SHORELAND ORDINANCE 125 bbl' WIDTH STANDARD. NO VARIANCE NEEDED II FROM RSF ZONING DISTRICT 90 1i r WIDTH STANDARD. 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 `' -- 0 SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC. 150 SOUTH BROADWAY (612) 476 -6000 WAYZATA, MN 55391 1 ® Q , FAX 476 -0104 � C'kF 1 January 4, 1993 • 1 Mr. Paul Krauss CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box #147 Chanhassen Minnesota 55317 Subject: BOLEY Property Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Dear Mr. Krauss: This letter is intended as supporting documentation to the Preliminary Plat and Variance request of Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. for the BOLEY Property on Minnewashta Parkway. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. has agreed to purchase the Howard Boley property, in both Chanhassen and Victoria, in its entirely. The Boundary Survey includes land in the City of Chanhassen, (currently zoned RSF, and proposed for platting) and land in the City of Victoria over which we have "ghost platted" a possible subdivision. The subdivision requested will create 33 single family lots and 3 outlots served by public street and utility extensions from Minnewashta Parkway. The Chanhassen portion of the Boley property has been zoned RSF for many years. Public utilities have been available to service the property for ' years as well. The Preliminary Plat lists the proposed lot areas. All of the subdivided lots will be at least 20,000 square feet in area. Riparian lots, those with Lake St. Joe shoreline, are a minimum of 49,400 square feet. RECEi VED JAJV 1 i 1 G03 CITY 0� CHA 1 ' Lake St. Joe has been classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural resources as a Natural Environment Lake. The City of Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance establishes a 1000 foot zone adjacent to Lake St. Joe's ordinary high water line (OHW) called the Shoreland Area. Within this zone riparian ( lakeshore lots) are required to be 40,000 square feet and non - riparian lots must be 20,000 square feet. ' Normal RSF zoning district standards are a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet with minimum lot width of 90 at the building setback. In the Lake St. Joe Shoreland Area the ordinance requires 125 foot lot width at the lakeshore and at the building line. The riparian lots (and the other lots along the lake side of the proposed street) meet the 125' width at proposed setback standards. Lots across the street or farther from the lake are proposed to be 100 ' feet wide at the building line. While this 100 foot width is 10 feet wider than the Zoning Ordinance requires it is 25 feet less than the Shoreland Ordinance requires. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. 1 requests variances be granted to allow these reduced lot widths. The table attached presents the statistical lot by lot data for your review. The table shows that 10 lots are in need of variances. We believe the variances are justified for the following reasons: ' 1. The average lot width for all lots in the " Shoreland District" is 125.7 feet. This exceeds the 125 feet ' requirement. "Extra" lots are not being forced. 2. One purpose of the 125 foot width standard is to lessen the pollution impacts of property development. The Preliminary Plans show four NURP ponds which are proposed to pre -treat the storm water from the storm sewer system. The NURP ponds are more beneficial to the Lake and wetlands than adding 25 feet to the width of the lots proposed for variances. 3. The variances sought are dictated by the physical constraints of the site. Strict adherence to the Shoreland ' Ordinance provision of 125 feet width would necessitate realignment of the streets proposed thus increasing the degree of site alteration. This hardship on the land is not ' warranted. 1 The westerly portions of Lots 13 thru 21, Block 1, actually lie in the YPo , , Y City of Victoria. The houses which will occupy these lots will be entirely built within Chanhassen. We intend to seek the necessary City of Victoria approvals to plat these lots as shown concurrently with the Chanhassen review process. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. seeks Preliminary stage approvals at this time. They intend to proceed with actual site development in the late spring and summer of 1993, following Final Stage Approval. Sincerely, SATHRE- BERGQUIST, INC. ' Richard W. Sathre, P.E. RWS /dm ' Attachment 1 1 ...:I , 1 - "o City of Chanhassen I 141111S-. Wetland Observation Records Wetland No.: 3 (Field Review): /_`''1— y r , (Official Map) 1 - Location I 1 h,J T; 7 3vJ i R; 1 Section On USGS NWI: ✓ Y N Observer Initials: �r Date Visited: to Lai 92... 1 Picture Number(s)/Roll #: 9-13 i %. 5 Picture Nos.: 1 — t-I ( :e.t . 1 c�- 13 —16/ IC°1 L b/1 /4 Z) 1 Classification . Wetland Type: P t �Fo u L11 (Cowardin); 3 /5 / b /'l (Circular 39) I Wetland Location: . ✓ Lakeside Streamside • I Headwaters ✓ Isolated (upland) Edge of Wetland Contour 1 '7, S ; varies 1 City Class: (P)ristine ; (N)atural ✓-- ; (A)g/Urban ; (U)tilized I Watershed Characteristics 1 Wetland Size: acres Direct drainage area: acres Total drainage area: acres Open water area: acres I Vegetation D s-t. e-� Gf 4, �ke -�.a :_. , .u. �- r -,-. t- a. c. _ c a1 ,_.� t Dominant Plant Species: P. ,, 1-es 1 Reed canary grass r Cattail J - , , _ , . � , , i f r r 1::: n t. � �0 � T \1 Lo � D c s� 0 D � � SAW. t'"''l'�.,.t v■,; a �'` .. -. f ar _ Fi t-: x k , .t j) - r , n2 ra ...,� Purple Loosestrife: (D)omnnant; (A)bundant; (me; (I)ndividuals; (N)one 1 Plant Diversity: No. Species Dominant -1; 2; 3 -0 Percent open water: 70 ° t o 1 1 Land Use Influences 1 Surrounding Land Use (Percent): 5 °i„ Residentia j M, D, Rur. Commercial/Industrial 1 °% Agricultural `fo %, Open Water 5 0 % Wooded Institutional 1 Vacant Field (describe below) I Hydrology Water Source: t./ Natural; Stormwater; Unknown I Inflow: Stream; Ditch; Stormsewer; ✓r Surface Outflow: ✓ Natural; Ditch; Culvert; None I Sedimentation/Siltation: Y tom- N I Flooded - dead or dying trees: v Y N Drains to LX 5-4 fie. ; (Direction; Wetland No.) (C)ontinuouslye=. onally; (I)ntermittently; (R)arely Soil Classification 1- Soil Type Abby.: Soil Name: 1 Other 1 Wildlife Observations: P..,! fl)„,,, General Notes /Comments: i ,; ., L e r I L I p P , n 4 p 1 A.wk 11 CP 1., )o ' ,1 1:---r 1 �e y - L,s _.� -E- � � f r Yn rte.., , we'' YTf9M A K�� }4' l�' c.f...,— , J , Section No. - Wetland Sketch; Photo ., 4 a �' 1 1•1 I. c e c \ 5 % 1 0 T ) . Ltt C ---\__A--, . c1 S 1 • 9 12 \t - \ 13 16 ©\ 1 ` ' , 46:, Not to Scale N . ��/ 1 li I LOT 7 BLOCK , A-ticia\me K i ( I - / \ . 1 i 1 I • . 1 I I 1 . . :jar= "■,..., • • • " = I • . - '- - - ' - - - i ,....-dy-•,.151.1._= a F . ; • 0 3 a • a • • EMI I i th I :i ' • . g =3=—z E. ° --- -- - ;=t-E4j M PROPOSED GRADE . a tr „- It 7 „..-- EXISTING GFIADE MAXIMUM 3:1 SLOPE 1 / _ _ _ _ _ 1 I !, ------- - __ __ --------- _ _ 4J ---------------------------- _ ___________ , li 0 1 _ 1 SCAL „ SE .0, CTI . 01 AA 1 1 , 1 " \ --',,, \\i.d6 i 4, \‘' vi - SCALE 1 Inct = 100 Feet .. 1 ton Alia , \7.4 C 1. ° ' . it I it IT 7 A \ . I ; ....-;,...). ,.----; • 1 ; , • i i i , ■ ■11t, \ - t , i i I / I / ' *k • ._,,... r ,--_,--- i.,.,- ; • 1 4 1 i 7 -.: /, - 7... _ „,>5 A A - - ------% l 0 / 5 ■■ . • - \ •,,,, /,,,, / 1 24 1 \ 1 1 23 1 \ 1 1 • 1 1 I 1 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner 1 FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineerlk\ 1 DATE: January 26, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for the Boley Property /Lundgren Development File No. 93 -4 Land Use Review 1 Upon review of the preliminary plat dated December 28, 1992 and preliminary grading and utility plans dated December 28, 1992, prepared by Sathre - Bergquist, Inc., I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE 1 The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of trees /wooded areas except for a few areas along Lake St. Joe. The property is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The preliminary grading plan proposes extensive site grading to accommodate proposed building house pads and maintaining street grades within the City's guidelines (0.50% to 7.0 %). According to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 509 Plan, the 100-year flood elevation for Lake St. Joe is at 949.5. Fill placement proposed along Lots 6 through 9, Block 1, appears to be encroaching into the Watershed District's 100 -year flood boundary. Placement of fill material on these lots should be limited to areas outside the 100 -year flood boundary. Side slopes adjacent to Lake St. Joe are proposed at 3:1 which are fairly steep but not excessive. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts should follow the City's recently adopted Best Management Practice for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fence should be employed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In some instances where side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed 200 feet upstream of the toe of slope. All access points from the construction site should be surfaced and maintained with a crushed rock base in accordance with the City's BMPH (Attachment No. 1). 1 Storm water runoff from the development is proposed to maintain the existing drainage pattern. The majority of the overall site drains towards Lake St. Joe. The southwesterly is PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 1 Page 2 I corner of the property drains westerly towards a wetland basin in Victoria. The majority of the storm water generated from the development is proposed to be carried via storm sewer system and discharged into water treatment /retention ponds prior to discharging into I Lake St. Joe or the wetlands in Victoria. Mr. Ismael Martinez with the City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo and Associates, has reviewed this development proposal and has recommended minimum ponding capacities and characteristics for the proposed water I quality ponds (Attachment No. 2). In an effort to help reduce future City maintenance of these water quality ponds, staff recommends the applicant look at consolidating the ponds proposed on Outlots A and B; either on one of the outlots or on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, 1 outside the wetlands. Prior to final plat approval, detailed storm sewer and ponding design calculations shall be 1 submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. The storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event. The ponding areas shall meet or exceed the City's water quality standards (NURP) and retention requirements for a 100 -year, 24- hour storm event. Discharge from the site shall be maintained at predeveloped runoff conditions. Access to the water quality /retention ponds for maintenance purposes shall be provided by an easement dedicated on the final plat. All easements shall be a minimum of I 20 feet wide. Side slopes on the maintenance access routes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slope. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water I quality /retention ponds on the final plat. Upon final construction plan submittal, a development plan shall be included on the final grading plan denoting the house type and proposed lowest floor and garage slab elevations. In addition, all proposed lot corner I elevations shall be shown. Plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. 1 UTILITIES The plans propose extending municipal utilities from Minnewashta Parkway into the site. I Municipal sanitary sewer and water lines in Minnewashta Parkway are adequately sized to accommodate this development proposal. The applicant's engineer has also designed the utilities to serve a future phase to the south which is in the City of Victoria. Final I placement of fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Construction of all municipal utilities shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be I submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and final approval by the City Council. 1 STREETS 1 1 Kate Aanenson 1 January 26, 1993 Page 3 1 The street plans propose on extending a public street westerly from Minnewashta Parkway I just south of Minnewashta Court. A public street extension is also proposed to the south for future service to Victoria which will eventually loop back into Minnewashta Parkway. Sight lines at the proposed intersection is fairly good considering the speed limit on I Minnewashta Parkway. Although a future or concept looped street to the south through Victoria and back out to Minnewashta Parkway with the next phase will have to be carefully studied. Sight lines are poor due to roadway geometries on Minnewashta Parkway. Ideally, I future street extensions through Victoria should line up perpendicular to Minnewashta Parkway preferably across from one of the existing intersections at either Hawthorne Circle or 77th Street. A sign indicating '"THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE I FUTURE" should be placed on one of the barricades at the end of the proposed south street. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the I potential for a future street extension to the west to Victoria through this phase or the next phase. With the topographic constraints around this parcel, it may not be feasible; however, it should still be reviewed. I Street grades proposed are between 0.75% and 6.0% which are within the City's current standards. The applicant has proposed a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with a 31 -foot wide street I (back -of -curb to back -of -curb) which is also within the City's guidelines. All street intersections should be perpendicular to each other. The second intersection in from Minnewashta Parkway, at the loop, needs some minor adjusting to accomplish this. Construction of the public street improvements shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 I Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City I Council. As you are aware, the City is currently undergoing an improvement project to upgrade I Minnewashta Parkway (Project No. 90 -15). The Minnewashta Parkway project proposes to assess this parcel a portion of the project costs. The feasibility study for the Minnewashta Parkway project estimated 39 assessable units for this parcel. The City Council approved ' a rate per unit of $760 and equates to a pending assessment of $29,640. The assessment hearing for the Minnewashta Parkway project is not proposed until early fall of 1993. MISCELLANEOUS I An existing house currently exists on proposed Lot 1, Block 1. It is assumed the applicant 1 is proposing to remove the house with the subdivision construction. The applicant should be aware they will need to apply and comply with all the local building and demolition I codes. The sanitary sewer and water service to the residence shall be abandoned and disconnected at the property line along Minnewashta Parkway. 1 1 1 1 Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 I Page 4 I RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the i necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance I with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. I 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. I 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10 -year storm event and ponding calculations that show 1 that the ponds will retain a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity I of all ponds. 5. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100 -year flood elevation of Lake 1 St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. I 6. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. I In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood -fiber I blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. I 7. All access points from the construction site to a hard - surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. I 8. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding I area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. 1 1 Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 5 9. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. 10. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality /retention ponds on the final plat. 1 11. The applicant shall place a sign at the end of the southerly street extension indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE ". 1 12. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. 13. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of Victoria through one of the phases of development. 1 14. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. 111 Ismael Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. 15. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90 -15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. ktm Attachments: 1. Detail on temporary rock construction entrance. 1 2. Letter from Ismael Martinez dated January 15, 1993. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 convenient and effective. The wash rack would consist of a heavy grating over a lowered area in the construction entrance. The grating may be a prefabricated rack such as a cattle guard, or it may be constructed on -site of structural steel. In any case, the wash rack must 1 be strong enough to support the vehicles that will cross it. Figure 15.2 shows a typical wash 1 rack installation. 1 MAINTENANCE 1 The rock pad needs occasional maintenance to prevent tracking of mud onto paved roads. This may require periodic top dressing with additional rock or removal and I reinstallation of the pad. 1 1 • 1 , ti. • Hard surface i� � '..; / : public road . ..*Iii... , � ig: • . :.-_.:.-�.:- •_•• - 50' minimum �• i ..... �t� � j , �•. .: ie i ••:."111.....••0•41-;;'; I �Q -44 ••• " P ,0 6 minimum .;,:• • ; :; • 1 " - washed rock " . .: ' ::�'�:: �=:,:: - .,• ...,„...,. 1 --■,:efe-.--.-- . 1 FIGURE 15.1: Rock Construction Entrance. Source: MPCA's BMP Handbook 111 1 39304pt3 ATTACHMENT 1 01 -18 -1993 09:19 612 636 1311 80NESTR00 & ASSC. P.01 1 ifii des G. Sonless Pt. 1lawar0 A. SankWO ►,E. MOON ► Mu. I.E. M kl E. Jen15n, P.E. Bonestroo Nom W Eon*. PE.' NW 00M PS. MC M. A.I.C.P. L ►s16o prow 111. P.E. ' ANEW C. Andre*. P.E. 11MR R, Writ ►S. TNOO111 W. ► OM" PE. Wen L. Wiener, P.E. Molten L Santo. PE. MRslaf W. Ftssoer. P.E. MkhaN C Lyr+eR P.E. WY a. Krkmema. ►E R osene Wind 1.111n r. P.E. DEOP 4 tmaeta. PE. Awes R. Mow. PE F.,Emlk Pow. PE. al Gtonn E. Cook. P.E. IMMO C. EWlek, MA. Arty D Fewli. PE. RNrh R. Yapll PE A nder!lk & Thomas E. Ngl1, P.E. Iffy A. E0ualon, PE. WWI P. Mtlenon. /E. Shaw D Gustafson, PE 1 VI /kW C. Sthunkht. ►.E Mark A. Kansan, PE. Mark R ion. /E. Cam Omer, PE. Associates EWM M. EOM C.P..A moor. T Idutmarn. PI. Mark A. Sep ►E Chants A. Erickson *UN& Cofwatanr 1aci K. Feld, ►.E. Gary W Main. P1. LW M Poem* Vona R. Antearasn. AJ,A. Daniel J Upton P1. Marton M. Olson Engineers & Architects Donald c. Eia!rpPIt, ►,E. Daryl K. Kndienman, ►.E. James F E++peknardt I 'mamas E. Anau& P1. Fnuq J. cow. RE. MmWN MO M& ►E. MM D 1.414 RE. MEMO 1 TO: David Hempel, City of Chanha en Fax No. 937 -5739 1 FROM: Ismael Martinez 1 DATE: January 15, 1993 I RE: Boley Property Development FILE NO.: 3930en Stormwatcr Review i Hi Dave i i INTRODUCTION 1 We have performed a stormwater and water quality review of the proposed development, Boley Property Development. Our review was based on the proposed development characteristics 1 shown in the Preliminary Grading Plan dated December 28, 1992. As a result of our review we recommend the following capacities and characteristics for the I proposed water quality ponds: Pond A Pond B Pond C Pond D I Wet Volume AF 0.3 0.17 *0.24 0.15 Mean Depth Ft 2.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 1 • This wet volume for Pond C assumes the existence of pond D downstream. 1 OBSERVATIONS The proposed development is located in the Southwest corner of Lake St. Joe West of 1 Minnewashta Parkway in the NE 1/4 of Section 7, T 116 N, R 23 W, in the City of Chanhassen. 1 ATTACHMENT 21 1 01 -18 -1993 09:19 612 636 1311 BONESTROO & ASSC. P.02 1 The proposed development drains naturally to two existing natural wetlands, Lake St Joe to the I north and a southerly wetland. Lake St Joe is classified as a Palustrine Lake, with Emergent Vegetation in the surroundings blassifled as a natural+ wetland in the City's wetland inventory. I The stormsewer system for the proposed development contains four water quality treatment ponds. We have assigned names to these ponds as follows: 1 Pond A - Located in lot 11, drains directly into Lk. St Joe Pond B - Located in lot 21, drains into a wetland in the City of Victoria I Pond C - Located in outlot A, drains into Pond D Pond D - Located at the corner of Minnewashta Pkwy and the entrance of the proposed development, drains into Lake St Joe I 4 follows the natural h The drainage system shown m sheet 2 of f topography and most of it drains 1 directly into the wetlands. RESULTS 1 The proposed development will have to meet basic water quality treatment of the runoff collected by the stormsewers. Special considerations were made regarding this development u part of our I modeling to estimate practical pollutant concentrations due to the low traffic volume anticipated and the local topography. 1 As a result of our review we recommend the following improvements: Pond A Pond B Pond C Pond D 1 Wet Volume AF 0.3 0.17 *0.24 0.16 Mean Depth Ft 2.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 1 * This wet volume for Pond C assumes the existence of pond D downstream. I COMMENTS The proposed water quality ponds should meet or exceed the wet volume and the mean depth. 1 The mean depth is particularly important due to the size of the ponds. that can result from o Pond A should be protected against the erosion tha vertopiag. 1 Special attention should be paid to the erosion control measures and best management practices for this development. The topography and the grading proposed in the plans can result in impacts 1 to the wetlands that could exceed the performance of the ponds in Hoary years. If you have any comments please call me at 636 - 4600. 1 Have a nice day l 1 CITYOF A 1 ClIANBASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner ' FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: January 28, 1993 SUBJ: Boley Property Preliminary Plat 1 The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the application by Lundgren Brothers Construction to subdivide the aforementioned property on January 26, 1993. The staff report presented to the commission that evening is attached. Ms. Brenda Roy, a resident adjoining the proposed subdivision, addressed the commission that evening asking that she be designated as the owner of the property listed under the name Richard Fedtke. Mr. Terry Forbord, representing the applicant, was present at the meeting as well. Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, the Park and Recreation Commission made the P g following recommendations: Parkland: It is recommended that the City accept park ark fees in lieu of land P dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500.00 per unit. Trails: It is recommended that the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. 1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 C ITY OF PRC DATE: Jan. 26, 1993 �• \ i LillANHAtill CC DATE: HOFFMAN:k 7 1- 1 STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to subdivide 36 acres into 33 single family homes on property zoned RSF 1 LOCATION: Located southeast of Lake St. Joe, east of Minnewashta Parkway, and north of ' < Highway 5 (see attached location map -- Attachment A) Q 0 ' J APPLICANT: Lundgren Brothers Construction ( L 935 East Wayzata Blvd. I Wayzata, MN 55391 Q ' , 1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family S - City of Victoria 1 E - RSF, Residential Single Family W - City of Victoria 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Recreation Section of the City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the area of the city which this proposed plat lies in as park deficient. This is no surprise to the commission, d , staff, the applicant, and the residents of Chanhassen living west of Lake Minnewashta. There is no park of any kind, public open space, playground, or other recreation area located west of Lake Minnewashta between Highway 5 and Highway 7. The Minnewashta Parkway "neighborhoods" represent a large and I W W increasing population of the city. The city has initiated steps to eliminate this park deficiency. First, a park acquisition and development fund reserve specifically for the purchase of land west of Lake (n Minnewashta was established. Secondly, contacts inquiring about the purchase of property in this area I have been made. Some commissioners may recall that Mr. Terry Forbord of Lundgren Brothers Construction spoke to the commission in September of 1990 during the review of a separate issue; however, he referenced the possible development of the Boley property. A great deal of discussion that 1 Park and Recreation Commission January 21, 1993 Page 2 1 evening centered upon the designation of the land around Lake St. Joe with the exception of the Malinowski property as park/open space on the city's land use plan (Attachment B). This I designation will be honored under this current proposal. This is not due to any effort by the developer as the property is a designated wetland and is protected as such. This designated open space, although of tremendous value, does not lessen the need for a park in this region of the I city, however. The question then remains, is the Boley property the appropriate site for a park of at least ten I acres in size west of Lake Minnewashta? I do not believe so for three reasons: 1. The topographic constraints confronted on this site would make development of a park, I even one with a high percentage of passive area, difficult. 2. The site is removed from the center of the west Lake Minnewashta region. Property 1 north of this site would be more appropriate for use as a park. 3. The site borders the City of Victoria on two sides. As you can see from the preliminary 1 plat, the entirety of this proposed development includes some 20 lots in Victoria in addition to the 33 proposed in Chanhassen. Recent negotiations over ownership and operation responsibilities of Cathcart Park with the City of Shorewood exemplify the I difficulties which can arise from the acquisition of a second "border" park. RECOMMENDATION I Upon consideration of these findings, it is recommended that the Park and Recreation I Commission recommend the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate • in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family I dwellings is $500 per unit. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies two trail segments on or adjacent to this proposed development. I will address them separately. Minnewashta Parkway: An 8 -ft. bituminous trail is being constructed along Minnewashta I Parkway in conjunction with the upgrade of the parkway itself. In the area of this development, the trail is on the east side of the parkway. The construction of this trail satisfies the designation on the Comprehensive Plan for a trail adjacent to the easterly 1 border of the applicant's property. 1 1 1 Park and Recreation Commission January 21, 1993 I Page 3 Nature Trail Around Lake St. Joe: The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a nature trail around Lake St. Joe. A discussion with Mr. Mark Koegler of Hoisington - Koegler Group I confirmed my assumption that the purpose of this designation was to provide public access to the unique open space around Lake St. Joe, particularly to its west. Unfortunately, this designation was made without close consideration being given to the I difficulty of traversing this area. A trail around Lake St. Joe would require the dedication of a rear yard easements above the edge of the wetland on Lots 1 -13, Block 1. The fact I that this designation would not be favored by the applicant is of no concern to me. What does concern me is the lack of justification for the investment which would be necessary to construct and maintain a boardwalk leading north of the proposed development. If this I trail was to be located in a large city or regional park, the unique experience offered by a boardwalk entering such an area would be welcomed. In a neighborhood setting, however, this type of trail is not justifiable. 1 RECOMMENDATION I It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force I upon building permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. I As explained, this recommendation is in direct conflict with the city's Comprehensive Plan. If the commission is uncomfortable with this recommendation, a recommendation should be given to the city council requiring a trail easement be granted by the applicant on Lots 1 -13, Block 1. 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 4 ---...._ ....../ _______ 7 16 ............... _ I_ • If q . l 1 sl : • I Ct + 7) e � � o / / , °w,A�, °� i • s : , j y \ ere`' J y, m il ::# t_ Y , ` ��,: It I / ..' — —1 ;••• .. 17 tense at —. -.. — '''' •-•• , ,,... ,....: -- - - t , . , . ,. \''' FA 5 .• ...!, t � e •� 1 � �IS ` • ~ e . _.... -� '� • _ ' , ; # ,.fir • -, � • � . a. A ..N I I . — . _ tit •� I �� ! i ; :° °ea.. tl y �� = 0111 I kilii II �I EUR[KA itt Z _ _ j 3� n � it P 1 ,. _ ? ; . i . e • i p a of = 1 40 - -- — -- — -- P —1 j \' ' 7 3 3 I �� I it \ "'1 • 1 • • • I ‘, ,,. 47lc _ —r- i A I , ��f+. I .....psi 0:4j„ • ill 7 :1 * ' I \ 1 o Ge t v n R. � :i i ..• - -- _ — - -- Z_ - - - -- ___ —____1 B CIp_ 97 :TO i 1 ' h . %;: n f . c ..........L.. \ 1 v.) r_s_1),--7\ ! Z Z in � .r 1 4l '. • -;,. 'i2j. l • 1 ' OADWAY • WAYZATA, MN. 55391 • (612) ,1i ?/G ' IY e r v i - — «..... f I h ELMER CARLSON sK 811, [ Ate well "VAR me Aim , .0 N: W. AY /MO S ROBERT C. WILSON # u..!■ i I sK so,aset ..4 • N rMJ ti S ,^• t u N .ft (,C I . N. N a ti `j ■ •t r wC• •• •N •••ww G G o I . j ' WOWS Mt MIN COMM , ` f � � 1 , _______ y / • t. i` . I ::: • ....:...:%. f . • . Q 1 it 1 pm A sMAU 0 HOWARD S. DOLEY ' ' i ' N L JOANNE M/O ' I 1 •4N • w 3 CD NO. NW 1' ' 't - • t:' _ (I- t� , Sys ll . cc;.' ,)/-.5 41-4- //1(4- ; . �,/� ,A'' �1/1/ [ SM111p FINK I - 0000, 0000 : • • e.n M CN•Na HI N i.N • •M Y - 1 I ID, M 11K 9 • !w r •!■n t 1 I f ' 119440 Of 4TAI !. Ii .4 • 1 i • ANTON KERBER HOWARD >R lOLEY 4' / . A et N. 8 184 NI KS. e 4 • - 1r 4 i i i , ,o; . 1 wTLet • ,• 1 G�� .9 . I e • N.K. • 'C ►CY - s - - • - ♦ r� �•� • n ..! • ... ' s s 1 r —_ i 00 -0 0. ___ ' -T- -- j ..M :.... j�� 6 �= - - - - - -; ._..NO.....---i— . .. _... 00 +. r l ■ • .0944..«.. •4.!!.•4n • MM 110111 � �� le in, • a /\ . ' est- L I ,City council Meeting - Fed !ary 22, 1993 r S- Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I just wanted, and again. I'm agreeing with what Paul is saying. I'm not saying I want Abra there or not. I just agree with what Paul is saying. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 36 ACRES INTO 33 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS, BOLEY SUBDIVISION, 7340 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, LUNDGREN BROS. Kate Aanenson: Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Bros is proposing to develop 36 acres of property into 33 single family lots. This property is currently owned by Mr. Boley. It's part of a larger parcel that's also in Victoria. If I can explain the limits of the property here. This area here is in the city of Chanhassen. This is outlots. Exemptions...from the property... so these are actually in the city. Mayor Chmiel: Outlots are not within the city of Chanhassen? Kate Aanenson: No. These right here are exemptions. This is all Victoria and this is also part of Victoria. So there is a...city line that splits the back of those lots. The property has a gross density of .91 units per acre and a net density of 1.37 units per acre. There's two wetlands on site and the rolling topo;raF! has some significant views from the property and some treed areas also. The three tree areas located along Minnewashta Parkway on Lots 1 and the back_ of Lots 13, 12, 11, 10 and there's also significant tree areas in Outlot C. At this time the area, Outlot C is being left out. It seems to make sense that the property to the south, which is in Victoria is lotted out, that the access be gained from Victoria's side and we think this makes good planning sense to: in the fact that you can save those significant amount of trees. As I mentioned, the Victoria city line, the City Attorney, Don Ashworth and myself did mew' wit` victoria. They had concerns about the lot line splitting the subdivision and their preference would be to have it pulled in and not plat that into tw: diffe jurisdictions. It's our contention that we have other circumstance: in the city where we provided service where properties aren't in the city Nye have this across the street actually with Victoria. The church and thce homes part of the Trolls Glen area. We feel like, as far as the lot remnants it makes less sense to leave that and to be platted into the subdivision. Councilman Senn: Just so I understand what you're talking about. This is the , line right here? Kate Aanenson: Right. Yeah, you can see the lines up to the back of these. ' The homes would actually fall into the city so it's the back portion of the lot that would actually fall into the city of Victoria. Councilman Senn: But the houses would be in Chanhassen and the back of the lot wouldn't be? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Senn: And that line goes right there? Kate Aanencon: Correct. So we feel it doesn't make sense to leave that as a lot remnant. Although in working we've asked Victoria and obviously their 24 City Council Meeting - '"'"'bruary 22, 1993 !". ' approportion is a part of the puzzle on this. They would have to give because the backs of those lots do fall in their jurisdiction. They do have to give approval for the subdivision. Again, we feel that this area here itself may ' also make sense to be in part of Chanhassen and we're looking at that issue itself as far as annexation. We do have services in Minnewashta Parkway to provide services. We've asked Victoria to look at how they plan on servicing ' this area and providing access. There is a significant amount of wetlands to the west, including Tamarack Lake and a wetland surrounding that. What we're looking at is how access would be provided to this area... The Shoreland regulations, Lake St. Joe is classified as a natural environment lake. All the ' lots abutting the lake, the riparian lots do meet the 40,000 square foot requirement with the lot width. There are 12 lots that do not meet the 125 foot lot requirement and we did recommend variances from that. The Planning Commission did have concern with giving a blanket variance. What does that do to further projects that would come forward. to staff did address an intent statement reflected in condition number 14 as to why we felt that those lots ' that are not abutting the lake, why they should be under the 125 foot lot width. We feel it doesn't effect the density in any way and it's really...to the subdivision. It's not going to give less lots. The wetland regulations, as I mentioned there's two wetlands. One adjacent to the lake and the other one is ' right here. This one was left off the wetland inventory, although we have gone out and looked at a wetland special...went out and inventoried it. All the lots abutting the wetland do meet the setback requirements which is 40 feet under the ' natural classification. This is one of the few natural wetlands we have in the city as part of the new wetland regulations. As you recall, we require re- vegetation and have a 20 foot average so it can meander 10 to 30 feet, which all these lots can meet that. As a part of that we haven't come up with a vegetation requirement but we will be looking at it before it comes back to final plat. One of the concerns that we did have, in looking at the grading issue, and the trees. The amount of grading going towards the wetland. When ' you first look at it, at first blush it seems like a lot of grading back towards the edge of the wetland but upon further investigation it was determined that actually this area was farmed right up to the wetland already and going back and ' requiring the re- vegetation actually is going to improve the situation. And the other issue is that you get a positive flow, to have the run -off run back towards the street. The fill is, this is the edge of the wetland. You bring ' the fill in and they wanted to get a positive, this is a 1'c flow back in the street to actually get into the storm water system into the pre- treatment ponds so we can pre -treat it before it goes into the wetlands. So at first blush again as I mentioned, it appeared to be a significant amount of grading but then ' upon further investigation it makes good planning sense and drainage sense. As I mentioned earlier, this can be serviced from utilities from Minnewashta Parkway. There's also a trail as a part of that project that's being put in by ' the city. I mentioned earlier that we're looking at maybe stubbing, depending on what Victoria does, there's two accesses going to the property. Off of Minnewashta Parkway, this property is developed in that format. Otherwise, depending on how this lays out...provide access to Victoria to the west. ' Parkland, the Parks and Recreation Commission has met on this. They're recommending that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication. As far as trails, they're also recommending that they accept trail fees. ' Landscaping. I mentioned that there is some trees that will be moved as far as the grading. Mostly in this area right in here. Councilman Wing had brought up an issue too that the views looking across the wetland...pretty much is my ' 25 1 City Council Meeting - Febi'"' 22, 1993 4 understanding is looking across the wetlands to Minnewashta Parkway on the backs of these lots. In meeting with the applicant, we'd recommend an additional condition of approval, that being number 17. That we work, before we come back for final plat, to come up with an appropriate landscaping plan on the riparian lots to try and soften that look across the wetland. As I mentioned, the Planning Commission was concerned about the intent of giving blanket variances on the lots that did not meet the shoreland width requirements and we did add that in the condition of approval of the intent. Items (a) and (b). It doesn't effect the density and that's only the lots that are not abutting the lake. One other item of clarification would be condition number 4. There seems to be a couple different interpretations as to what the flood elevation is between the Watershed and the ONR and Bonestroo, our consulting engineers have given us a different number. So we'll be working with the applicant on that to determine what that elevation is. So based on that, staff recommends approval and the Planning Commission recommended approval also with the conditions in the staff report. I've highlighted in bold the changes that the Planning Commission did make to the report. ' Councilman Mason: And there will be one more condition about the landscaping? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, 17 you need to add. Correct. , Mayor Chmiel: 17. Landscaping. Kate Aanenson: Landscaping. Additional on those lots, the riparian lots. Councilman Senn: The issue is what, the people on the other side don't want to be able to see across...? Kate Aanenson: No, I think Councilman Wing brought that up and he can articulate a little bit better. It's my understanding that the view, this person...across the lake and that we've taken down some trees in this area so you're not looking right at the grass going up to the back of the houses. Maybe putting in some cluster of trees. We do have a requirement in the landscaping ordinance that requires that each new home you have to put 1 tree in. But that may, normally we require it in the front. We want something in the back so when you look across the lake up towards the house, that there's something to break up the line. Kind of soften it. Councilman Senn: Do those trees exist on the other side then? Kate Aanenson: Are there trees on the other side? Councilman Senn: Yeah. , Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Maybe Dick can explain his. Councilman Wing: Well, looking across Lake St. Joe, what you kind of have is ' the Sound of Music. Mary could be up on the hill singing because it's pretty wide open and it's just sort of an open knoll if you will. And if you come into Chanhassen. Mark where I was really coming from here, as you come into Chanhassen from the east, just prior to our city border, there's a large swamp. Wetland down there and then right straight across is all these little monopoly 26 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 houses and that's it. I mean you go from this wetland right to this stark neighborhood. No trees. No vegetation. Nothing. Well I don't expect Terry to come in and landscape or buffer or block those homes. They want their views. I do on the lake where I live. But I thought there's just one specific area, ' actually it's lots 7, 8 and 9 are the only ones that are going to be effected. Because there's trees off to the south and there's trees along the north border that will probably, some of those will probably stay so my thinking was just to break up the impact because it's such a touchy environmental area to, I've got ' to let Terry decide what he's going to do but my thought was to put in 3, 4, 5 pine trees with a couple hardwoods clustered in one spot and another one may be here and another there so that the impact across the lake doesn't go straight ' into this hill. Straight into the backs of these homes. That there's some buffering. Environmental buffering between the homes and this area. And if you were to drive out there, you'd see what I'm talking about immediately. Very stark and I think we deserve to have it buffered a little bit in the planning ' process, but not blocking views. Not buffering the homes from the area. Just strategically placed trees that are going to give some buffering to the impact of this development on Lake St. Joe. Councilman Senn: Okay. So I mean that's not being interpretted then by staff as some kind of solid landscaping wall so these people can't look at. Kate Aanenson: No, no, no. No, that's why we're leaving it kind of open just to work with the staff to come up with an appropriate and you'll see it when we come back for final plat. Mayor Chmiel: Does the applicant wish to say something? Briefly. Rick Sathre: Your honor, I'm Rick Sathre with Sathre- Berquist, 150 South Broadway in Wayzata. I'm the engineer and planner for Lundgren Bros on this project and Mr. Forbord, Terry Forbord is here from Lundgren as well. He's ' asked me to just briefly show you one slide and just to reiterate that Lundgren Bros are contract purchasers of all of the Howard Boley property, which is a little strange in it's boundary configuration and does lie in both cities. We will be pursuing approvals in Victoria as well. I've got an overhead that shows ' the homes. Councilmember Senn was interested in seeing how the homes related to the boundary line between the two cities. Here's that municipal boundary right here. You can see the houses would be comfortably in Chanhassen and the ' Victoria part of those lots would be the backyard space or a portion of the backyard space. We think it's a good way to deal with that very strange strip of land. What else could we do? The staff's done a terrific job with the report. We're in agreement with the condition that's being added to work on softening the views of those riparian lots. We want the development to look very nice. These lots are very large and the homes will be very nice in this subdivision. Lot areas range from 20,000 square feet up to about 121,000 square ' feet. It's a little unusual for any city but Chanhassen as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you would have. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Rick, let me ask a question in regard to the proposal and the ghost portion as to what might go within the city of Victoria: I don't have any real problems or too many concerns with the part that's within Chanhassen. But I would take a position that the city of Chanhassen is not in a position to ' provide water and sewer for those areas within the city of Victoria. 1 27 .City Council Meeting - Feb, ` _ary 22, 1993 T y Rick Sathre: We understand that you would prefer not to extend utilities into an adjoining city. Mayor Chmiel: Right. I just want that put on record so everyone is aware of ' that. In the event that this becomes annexed into the city of Chanhassen, I don't have any objections to that. But I think what we have to do as far as the city's concerned, we have to watch the total amounts of sewer addage that we're going to need for our own city or we're going to find ourselves in a position like Chaska running out of area for that, as they have presently. Their sewage treatment plant no longer can facilitate any additional building. So we made an agreement between Chaska and Chanhassen. We're going to connect into our intercept but in the same token the city of Chanhassen is getting something back from that in areas that we can go closer to their facility, we're able to connect into their sewage system to be provided iwto their sewage treatment plant. So I just want that understood. We have to get something for something and I think we have to be careful on what we do with that. Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess two questions on two separate issues. One is, I see number 16, the existing dock on Lake St. Joe on the Boley property should be removed. Is there something implied in that? Kate Aanenson: Well there was a discussion with the Planning Commission, since those are riparian lots, that maybe each homeowner would want to put a dock in. As I mentioned earlier, this is one of the few natural wetlands that we have in the city and our concern is that we'd be coming in with a wetland alteration permit on eac'l one of those lots. And I think the intent is that they have access on Minnewashta Parkway where there is an access and that would be the desires{ intent to use that access. Mr. Boley has a dock right now and that be taken out and then encourage the residents to use the parkway and go over and use that public access on the lake. Councilman Senn: So we are not, are we or are we not negating their right then to put a dock in on their property? Kate Aancn",n: Well, they'd have to go through a wetland alteration permit and the only way they could get one is a significant space between the vegetation and the lak::. The only way we could do it is under a boardwalk and I think that would be a chance to not allow those. Councilman Wing: If you could go and look at this, this is a low area. A very intense, steep, muddy swamp area and to put a dock out there, I don't know what you'd accomplish even when you got out there. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. ' Councilman Wing: And there is no fishing in the lake either by the way. Councilman Senn: There is good fishing in that lake. That's what,I'm wondering about. How do you get to the fish Wing? Councilman Wing: There is a State access on the lake. 1 28 ' City Council Meeting,.. February 22, 1993 t ' Councilman Senn: Because people like you keep saying there isn't any there, that there's plenty of fish there. Paul Krauss: Actually we've heard that that lake is 80 feet deep. Councilman Wing: I have a 75 foot anchor line and last summer we never hit bottom. Scared the daylights out of me. Paul Krauss: And I've heard that there may be some fish in there, although I don't think it's ever stocked. ' Mayor Chmiel: Sorry I brought it up. Councilman Wing: ...but you see no, there are no ice houses out there because ' they're not 9etting anything during the wintlr but during the summer and spring... Councilman Senn: I'll go diving there this summer and find out. Second question. Is there some, I don't know, this split up lot situation. My concern is, I mean is there any way that we can put some type of a governance or, I don't know what the right words are. Stipulations or something as it relates to ' covenants or whatever on the property so that the back part of the properties don't all of a sudden not meet Chanhassen rules and become whatever, we can pursue whatever we want to do and do whatever we want to routine versus meeting the same rules that the front part of the lot has to meet. Paul Krauss: Which standards are we? Councilman Senn: Well I mean if you take these lots that are...split between the cities, as I envision it, okay yes. You've got the front part of the lot which operates under one set of rules, i.e. Chanhassen. Let's say Victoria has ' no rules on the back half and all of a sudden we're in World War III because our residet are fighting with each other over uses, sheds, this, that and the other thing. Can we put, I guess my question is, to avoid that situation, can we pu' some sort of covenants or whatever on those properties through the development process which says, the residents have to assure or make sure, I mean again. I mean we can't effect the land because the land's in Victoria. Paul Krauss: Right. Councilman Senn: But we could make it a stipulation of the front half, for them ' to stay in compliance on the front half, they have to meet our rules on the back half. ' Paul Krauss: I'm sure sooner or later somebody's going to come up with something that we would not favor back there but it's hard to know what it might be. Councilman Senn: You know it's going to happen. Paul Krauss: To the extent that our regulations are more restrictive than Victoria's, presumably something like that could occur. If Victoria were more restrictive than us, then it really wouldn't matter what we said because the ' 29 City Council Meeting - Febru'' 22, 1993 ' • land's not annexed. Their ordinance would still prevail. In the form of covenants though, it presents something of an enforcement problem because then the only recourse we have is a legal one to...against the property owner. I suppose it's possible. I would defer to the City Attorney on that. I haven't heard about doing it but this situation is odd enough that maybe it's worthwhile. Councilman Senn: Do you understand what I'm saying? See my point? ' Rick Sathre: Sure. Sure. At least this isn't as bad as the Sofitel or whatever it is. Where the kitchen's in one city and the rest is in another. Councilman Senn: I understand...situations unfortunately. Rick Sathre: Lundgren Bros puts restrictive covenants on their projects and they would apply the same standards to the lots that lie in two cities to the lots that lie only in Chanhassen. Those covenants haven't been worked out at this point but they govern certainly additional restrict use of the property and we'll be working on that Councilman Senn: I guess in my mind, Lundgren Bros does a good job of that. I guess I would just like to be assured or make sure that when they do draft that, and maybe this comes' back to staff, that that in effect be considered and be put in there so we don't run into that problem in the future. Rick Sathre: You know their interest is not to have neighbors be bad neighbors to each other. Councilman Senn: Unfortunately we have to live with it longer. , Rick Sathre: That's true. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions? Councilwomen Oockendorf: I just have a question of staff. Just being a novice at this. There seem; to be a lot of open issues. I realize that this is preliminary approval but I guess it's also a question to my fellow Council members. Mayor Chmiel: Well, being that it's strictly preliminary as yet, and until it comes back and finalized, then we can have our full say as to what we really want. But the only reason I brought up the issues on the sewer and water is I thought we'd best put that up right now and take our position and say that's where it's at. Paul Krauss: I don't know if it will put your mind at ease, Councilwoman , Dockendorf, but apart from the un'.sual configuration with the city line here, it's actually a pretty simple plat. I mean the kinds of issues that are outstanding at this point are pretty standard and are generally worked out in due course. Kate Aanenson: Like I said, the utilities are there. There's no pending getting service to them. 30 ' City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was looking at the...of the wetland. ' Kate Aanenson: Right. That was just the one, we had that analysis, preliminary it looks like it's an ag urban and that house, under those circumstances would meet it. There's no re- vegetation. The other issue is the storm water and they wait until they get preliminary approval and come back with those calc's and make sure the pond's the right size. But actually this one is pretty straight forward. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard, do you have any questions? ' Councilman Wing: Well, first off Colleen. Where it says preliminary, it means the next time you see it is final and then we get into these debates. Now is the time to, rather than debating it now so that it doesn't even get to us without this done. Number 14, lot width requirements. I don't favor a variance ' on that. That condenses the project down and I don't like the appearance of that. And I happen to like the other 25 foot lot width and I'd like to stick with that. That's the...I'd like to see this without that variance. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No other discussions? Councilman Senn: Now that requirement picks some kind of an average point though right? Because of the cul -de -sacs and all that sort of thing. Kate Aanenson: Measured at the 30 foot setback line is where we measure that ' from. So if you're on a cul -de -sac and you measure where the house sits back. The width. ' mayor Chmiel: The homes being located within the cul -de -sac and setback requirements. Kate Panenson: You can go back another... Mayor Chmiel: You're saying it's only going to be, where does the footprint go from that point? Once, well we don't know yet but that probably shows some of thsm there. It has to be a 30 foot setback from the road in itself. Kate i'=,anenson: For the property line, right. Councilman Wing: For the boundary line? Councilman Senn: Which I've seen several already come through where we, I mean that's a fairly standard condition on cul - - sacs. Is that they don't... Kate Aanenson: Well curvature. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ' Councilman Senn: Make sure I understood that. • Councilman Mason: So Councilman Wing, why are you against that? If you'd repeat that. 31 City Council Meeting - Feb'' ry 22, 1993 Councilman Wing: It's just condensing down these, as I drive around and look at 1 these, I don't like those lots that come in like this and suddenly your frontage is reduced down to nothing and then densities and the appearance of those lots are awkward and I don't like them. I'd like to see the full front footage on all these as much as we can. Councilman Mason: Now according to this, the density is not going to be changed to the project by this. Councilman Wing: No, but I'm looking at some of these lots and instead of coming in and focusing on the driveways and mailboxes and everything, it spreads this whole thing out and makes the density look less. Kate Aanenson: I was going to say. We just looked at too, they're still exceeding the 90 foot which would be our standard. Even the ones they're requesting variances on I guess. Rick Sathre: Your Honor, Councilmember Wing. I'm not sure I heard you. You're 1 talking abo;.' Lot 13 that has the neck on it? Councilman Win;' Just item 14. Variance to the lot width requirements. 1 Rick Sathre• Alright. So it's all of them. Councilman Wing' It's not 14 thru 25... Kate Aanenson: Right. We'l] probably be showing the setback. Rick Sathre: What we're really asking for is, we're fully complying with the area requirements Ire order to meet the width requirements we'd have to add more blacktop and that doesn't seem to serve any good purpose. Councilma^ Senn: I like the area requirements I see on these lots. Some of them we've been seeing lately come all the way down to the minimum or whatever We said. Mayor Chn;_ei• Yeah. Okay. Can I have a motion for the preliminary plat review. Councilman Senn: I move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Preliminary Plat $93 -1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions: • 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 1 32 1 t ++. f /��. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the ' City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. ' 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department, and MWCC. ' 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event, 24 hour duration, and will discharge at the pre- developed runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity` of all ponds. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100 year flood elevation of Lake ' St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. Bonestroo has determined that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff is working with the Watershed District to resolve where the 100 year flood elevation is located. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibilty of consolidating the two storm water rentention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the ' wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael Martinez, as outlined in his ' memo dated January 15, 1993. 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow tho City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of the slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of the slope, an additional row of Type I ' silt fence should be installed. All areas distrubed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood - fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where ' utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard - surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 6. All acess points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage ' and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality /retention ponds on the final plat. 7. The applicant shall place a sign on a barrier at the end of the southerly street extension indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE ". Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain -of -title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. S. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of 33 City Council Meeting - Febekry 22, 1993 fit► 1 Victoria through one of the phases of development. 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90 -15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria. 13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. ' 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be giver on lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, ' for the following reasons: a. P_l lcts at:itting Lake St. Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots not adjacent to the lake are recommended for .a variance. b. Pe: -ement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement 6:211' ;;t affect the density of the project. c. "h_ shoreland regulations are inappropriate when applied within tie r.e'-c area. with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along r:nn?,,:.3 Pa kway and the requirement of one tree per lot. 1E. 'he e -= dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed. 17. Additional landscaping shall be added on riparian lots. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING TRAIL AND LAND DEDICATION. FIRST 1 READING. Todd Hoffman: M-. Mayor, City Council members. In light of all the talk about ' controls and gaining more control, I'm pleased to bring to you two issues this evening. Unfortunately on item 5(a), the amendment to the subdivision code, it's not that were gaining a whole lot of ground. It's simply that we're solidifying what has not been in the ordinance to date but what we have been asking developers. So the following explanations are given for those proposed amendments. Being to subparagraph (a), simply a clarification. Adding trail fund to description. Previously it said park fund. Subparagraph (j), the existing subparagraph fails to address those situations when land in lieu of dedication fees or a combination thereof is desired as a part of a commercial/ industrial development. The standards of 10% of market value or 10% of gross , 34 1 LEONARD, 1 AND DEINARD DRAFT 1 DATE): ?- e- 91 -- 7/8/93 - DRAFT SHOW;;4 G u wes -T t -91-- DECLARATION OF YARD EASEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 1993 by Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. ( "Lundgren "). I Recitals 1 A. Lundgren is the fee owner of the following platted lots in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota: 1 Lots 13 through 21, Block 1, [NAME OF THE SUBDIVISION]. Said lots are collectively referred to herein as the "Lots" and are individually referred to herein as each "Lot ". I B. Lundgren is also the fee owner of the adjoining unplatted land in the City of Victoria, County of Carver, State II of Minnesota, legally describedes follows: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 116, Range 23, and that part of the I o p'e5 Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section N 7, lying east of the following described line: I "po k Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence westerly along the north line of said I l!,,�1.�► Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, �` 110.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly I 1240.16 feet to the intersection with a line 75.00 feet north of and parallel with the south line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, and the south line of 1 Government Lot 3 of said Section 7, at a point distant 1385.10 feet west of the east line of said Government Lot 3, as measured I along said parallel line; thence southerly and parallel with the east line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter I and its northerly extension, to the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, and said line there terminating. 11 Said land is referred to herein as the "Victoria Parcel." II C. In order to complete the orderly development of the Victoria Parcel and the Lots, Lundgren hopes to arrange for the I HMM \LBC \BOLEY \YARDEASE.DEC I/ 7/8/93 - DRAFT Victoria Parcel to be detached from the City of Victoria and ' annexed into the City of Chanhassen. In the meanwhile, Lundgren wants to provide yard easements in favor of the Lots over the adjoining portions of the Victoria Parcel. ' Declaration NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts recited above, ' one dollar and other good and valuable consideration, Lundgren hereby declares that the Victoria Parcel shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, occupied and developed subject to the following covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations and easements, which are for the benefit of the Lots: 1. Yard Easements. ' a. Grant. Lundgren, as the owner of the Victoria Parcel, hereby reserves easements for yard purposes over those portions of the Victoria Parcel that are adjacent to the Lots. The present and future owners of each Lot shall be entitled to the exclusive use and enjoyment of the "adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel" (as defined in Section 1.b below) for "yard purposes" (as defined in Section 1.c below), but they shall have no right to use any other portion of the Victoria Parcel for any purpose. b. Easement Areas. With respect to Lot 13, the "adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel" shall mean that portion of the Victoria Parcel lying northerly of the northwesterly extension of the southwesterly line of Lot 13. With respect to Lots 14 through 21, the "adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel" shall mean that portion of the Victoria Parcel lying between westerly extensions of the northerly and southerly lines of the Lot. c. Permitted Uses. "Yard purposes" shall include the installation, maintenance and replacement of lawn grass and other vegetation; and the enjoyment of the area for recreational purposes. The owner of each Lot shall maintain all landscaping in the adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel. Until the Victoria Parcel is annexed into the City of Chanhassen, "yard purposes" shall exclude the installation, maintenance, replacement or use of any building, fence, swimming pool, play equipment or other structure. If and when the Victoria Parcel is annexed into the City of Chanhassen, buildings, fences, swimming pools, play equipment and other structures shall be allowed, subject to the ordinances, rules, regulations and permitting requirements of the City of Chanhassen. If and when Lundgren abandons its effort to have the Victoria Parcel annexed into the City of Chanhassen, then buildings, fences, swimming pools, play HMM \LBC \BOLEY \YARDEASE.DEC 2 ' r II r 7/8/93 - DRAFT I equipment and other structures shall be allowed, subject to the ordinances, rules, regulations and permitting requirements of the City of Victoria. d. Taxes. The Victoria Parcel is part of a larger tax parcel, which is referred to herein as the "Tax Parcel ". As used in this paragraph, "taxes" means real estate taxes and I installments of special assessments collected therewith. For so long as this Declaration remains in force: (1) Lundgren, as the owner of the Tax Parcel, shall I timely pay all taxes on the Tax Parcel. (2) Promptly after paying the taxes, Lundgren shall I send to all of the owners of the Lots: (i) a copy of the tax bill; (ii) evidence of payment of the tax bill; and (iii) an allocation of the tax bill among Lundgren and the I owners of the Lots. The taxes on the land in the Tax Parcel shall be prorated on an acreage basis among the easement areas adjacent to the Lots and the balance of the Tax Parcel. I (3) Within 30 days after receipt of the items required e by subsection (2), the owners of each Lot shall reimburse I l■ Lundgren for the taxes on the portion of the Victoria Parcel adjoining the Lot. (4) If the owners of any Lot fail to timely reimburse I ia Lundgren as required by subsection (3), then their easement rights shall be suspended until they fully reimburse 44 Lundgren and pay Lundgren interest on the late reimbursement I at the rate of 8% per annum for every day after the date reimbursement was due and through the date reimbursement is actually made by the Lot owners. 1 (5) If Lundgren fails to timely pay the taxes on the Tax Parcel, then any one or more owners of the Lots may pay the taxes and demand reimbursement from Lundgren plus I interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum for every day after the date the taxes were due and through the date reimbursement is actually made by Lundgren. I e. Insurance. Each owner of a Lot hereby releases the owner of the Victoria Parcel from all claims of whatever nature, II including but not limited to claims for personal injury, death or property damage arising from or occurring on the adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel. Each owner of a Lot shall further defend, indemnify and hold harmless the owner of the Victoria Parcel from all claims made by third parties of whatever nature, II HMM \LBC \BOLEY \YARDEASE.DEC 3 1 1 7/8/93 - DRAFT including but not limited to claims for personal injury, death or property damage arising from or occurring on the adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel. For so long as this Declaration remains in force: �1 Each owner of a Lot shall carry at least $100,000 of puTI3c liability insurance on the Lot and the adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel; (2) Lundgren shall be named as an additional insured under every liability policy; and -4 The owner of the Lot shall provide Lundgren with a certificate evidencing such insurance and stating that the policy will not be modified or terminated without 30 days prior notice to Lundgren. 2. Annexation. Lundgren shall use its best efforts to cause the Victoria Parcel (or at least the portion adjacent to the Lots) to be detached from the City of Victoria and annexed into the City of Chanhassen. Lundgren's efforts shall include petitions to the Cities of Chanhassen and Victoria and a proceeding before the Minnesota Municipal Board under Chapter 414 of Minnesota Statutes. Lundgren need not bring any court proceedings. Lundgren will endeavor to achieve the detachment and annexation by December 31, 1994. Lundgren shall have the right to discontinue its efforts to detach and annex the land at any time after a negative determination by the Minnesota Municipal Board or by any court. 3. Creation and Conveyance of Outlots. a. Subdivision of the Victoria Parcel. If the annexation ' efforts in Section 2 are successful, Lundgren shall use its best efforts to subdivide the Victoria Parcel such that the portion adjacent to the Lots is subdivided into Outlots that correspond precisely with the easement areas described in Section 1.b of this Declaration. All other aspects of the subdivision of the Victoria Parcel shall be in Lundgren's sole discretion, subject to municipal approval. Lundgren's best efforts shall include appropriate municipal actions, but need not include any court proceedings. b. Conveyance of Outlots. Promptly after Lundgren has subdivided the Victoria Parcel in a manner that creates Outlots that correspond to the foregoing easement areas, Lundgren shall deed the Outlots in fee simple absolute to the respective owners of the Lots, free and clear of all liens and other encumbrances. HMM \LBC \BOLEY \YARDEASE.DEC 4 1 II II 7/8/93 - DRAFT c. Consolidation of Lots and Outlots. If at the time the I Outlots are deeded to the Lot owners, the Outlots are inside the City of Chanhassen, the owners of the Lots and the Outlots (and their respective mortgagees) shall promptly replat the Lots and I the Outlots into nine consolidated lots; Lundgren shall pay all costs of such replatting and shall coordinate the replatting process; and, when the Lots and Outlots have been re latted, this Declaration shall automatically expire. On the of er an , if at I the time the Outlots are deeded to the Lot owners, the Outlots are inside the City of Victoria, Lundgren shall have no obligation to consolidate the Lots and the Outlots and this 1 Declaration shall automatically expire. 3. Administrative Provisions. 1 a. Successors and Assigns. This Declaration shall be binding upon Lundgren, its successors and assigns, as owners of I the Victoria Parcel for the benefit of Lundgren, its successors and assigns as owners of the Lots. Lundgren reserves the right to convey the Victoria Parcel to any individual, corporation, partnership or other legal entity, provided that Lundgren shall I remain jointly liable with the grantee for the performance of Lundgren's obligations under Sections 2 and 3 of this Declaration. 1 b. Enforcement. This Declaration may be enforced by proceedings at law or in equity. Failure by any person to enforce any provision of this Declaration shall not be deemed a I waiver of the right to do so thereafter. c. Severabilitv_. Invalidation of any provision of this I Declaration by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect. Amendment. Thi/ D Id. eclaration may be revoked or amended by an instrument signed the owner and first mor gagee of the Victoria Parcel, by the City of Chanhassen and by the owners and first mortgagees of at least 75% of the Lots. Each amendment 1 must be recorded with the Carver County Registrar of Titles. e. Captions. The title of this instrument and the captions of the sections and subsections hereof are for convenience of I reference only. LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC. I By Peter Pflaum, President 1 1 HMM \LBC \BOLEY \YARDEASE.DEC 5 1 1 7/8/93 - DRAFT II STATE OF MINNESOTA ) II ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this II 9 g day of , 1993 by Peter Pflaum, President of Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on I behalf of the corporation. 1 Notary Public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HMM \LBC \BOLEY \YARDEASE.DEC 6 1 1 1 1 7/8/93 - DRAFT 1 CONSENT OF MORTGAGEES ' Howar S. Boley a nd Margaretha Boley, husband and wife, being the holders of a mortgage on some of the land described in I the foregoing Declaration of Yard Easements, herebytconsent to the foregoing instrument and agree to be bound by P foreclosure of the mortgage or receipt of a deed in lieu of foreclosure. 1 1 Howard S. Boley Margaretha Boley I STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrum1993, was by Boley and m Margaretha day of , ' Boley, husband and w ife. I Notary Public 1 1 1 1 1 This Instrument Was Drafted By: LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD 2300 I 150 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 335 -1562 I 7 HMM \LBC \BOLEY \YARDEASE.DE 1