4. Subdivide 36 Acres into 33 Single Family Lots 1 C IT O F PC DATE: 2/3/93
CC DATE: 2/22/93
. HAHAdN
CASE #: 93 -1 SUB
-.......1.„.- - By: Aanenson /v
1
1
STAFF REPORT
1 .
I PROPOSAL: Subdivide 36 Acres into 33 Single Family Lots with 3 Outlots
(Boley Property)
Q LOCATION: 7340 Minnewashta Parkway -
J
OM -
1 O APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction _ , ,
4 935 East Wayzata Boulevard -
Wayzata, MN 55391
1
1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
I ACREAGE: 36 acres
DENSITY: gross .91 u/a net 1.37 u/a
1 ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family
I S - Victoria - residential
E - RSF; single family
Q W - Victoria - residential
1 `Iii.,.. WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
I W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Rolling terrain, Lake St. Joe is in the northern portion of the
subdivision. There is a wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe and
_ another wetland found in the southwest corner of the site
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
ti
1
1
1
1
_ 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I Boley Property/Lundgren Bros.
February 3, 1993
1 Page 2
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
I 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
I Single Family. This property is a part of a larger piece of property owned by Howard Boley.
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
1 is required by the City of Victoria.
This proposal has a gross density of .91 units an acre and 1.37 units an acre net, this includes
1 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
1 the city's wetland inventory. The analysis of this wetland needs to occur before the plat receives
final approval.
1 This property is being proposed for development under the standard subdivision review process;
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
I Lake St. Joe which is in the southwest corner of the site. Compliance with the wetland
regulations is also required.
1 Assess to this site is from Minnewashta Parkway. The orientation of the subdivision is towards
Chanhassen, mainly because access is gained only through Chanhassen. At this time, access to
I 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
I the City of Victoria, before the city can grant final approval.
The staff feels that this subdivision is well conceived, but the issue of Victoria's jurisdiction over
I 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.
1 SITE ANALYSIS
1 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
1 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
Boley Property/Lundgren Bros.
February 3, 1993 11 Page 3
This site has a rolling topography, the high point is over 1000 feet, where you can see all the I
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.
I
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 I
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
I
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
I
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).
I
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 I
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
111
will minimize grading and tree loss.
There are four storm water retention ponds proposed for the subdivision. They are located on
1
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
I 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.
111
Victoria City Line
The westerly 90 feet of this subdivision is in the city of Victoria. Prior to final approval of this I
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
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.
1 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
r 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.
1 Shoreland Regulations
' 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
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
1
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 1
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. 1
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 1
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.
1
1
1
Boley Property/Lundgren Bros.
February 3, 1993
1 Page 6
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
' 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 Practices for
1 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).
' 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
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
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 quality ponds (Attachment No. 2). In an effort to help
reduce future City maintenance of these water quality ponds, staff recommends the applicant look
1 at consolidating the ponds proposed on Outlots A and B; either on one of the outlots or on Lots
1 and 2, Block 1, outside the wetlands.
1 Prior to final plat approval, detailed storm sewer and ponding design calculations shall be
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 20 feet wide. Side slopes on
the maintenance access routes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slope. Drainage and utility easements
1 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
Boley Property/Lundgren Bros.
February 3, 1993
Page 7 1
proposed lot corner elevations shall be shown. Plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering
Department for review and approval. 1
UTILITIES
The lans propose extending municipal utilities from Minnewashta Parkway into the site.
P P P g P Y
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
1
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
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. 1
STREETS
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
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
Minnewashta Parkway with the next phase will have to be carefully studied. Sight lines are poor
due to roadway geometries on Minnewashta Parkway. Ideally, 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 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 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.
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
(back -of -curb to back -of -curb) which is also within the City's guidelines. All street intersections
1
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 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.
As you are aware, the City is currently undergoing an improvement project to upgrade
Minnewashta Parkway (Project No. 90 -15). The Minnewashta Parkway project proposes to assess
1
1 Boley Property/Lundgren Bros.
February 3, 1993
1 Page 8
this parcel a portion of the project costs. The feasibility study for the Minnewashta Parkway
1 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.
I COMPLIANCE TABLE See Attachment # 1
1 PARK AND RECREATION
The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the application by Lundgren Brothers
I 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
I the owner of the property listed under the name Richard Fedtke. Mr. Terry Forbord, representing
the applicant, was present at the meeting as well.
1 Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, the Park and Recreation Commission made the
following recommendations:
1 Parkland: It is recommended that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land
dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid
I 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.
I 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
1 permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00
per unit.
1 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
1 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.
I PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
Commission recommended approval of the preliminary The Planning Co pP plat at their February 3, F P
I 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
Page 9
the prohibitions of docks. The Planning Commission directed staff to provide an intent of a
rational for the variances for the shoreland regulation requirement of lot width of 125 feet.
1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"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
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.
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, Any '
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
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
applicant shall not place fill material below the 100 -year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe
1
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 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
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
where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row
1
I Boley Property/Lundgren Bros.
February 3, 1993
1 Page 10
of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be
1 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
I surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices
Handbook.
1 6. 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. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over
all wetlands and water quality /retention ponds on the final plat.
I 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
I be aligned perpendicular to each other.
8. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for
I future street extension to the west to serve the City of Victoria through one of the phases
of development.
I 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.
1 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations.
11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation
1 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.
1 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria.
13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
I 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots
q g
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, for the following reasons:
I All lots abutting Lake St. Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only g 1 � Y lots not
I adjacent to the lake are recommended for a variance.
b. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement will
I not affect the density of the project.
1
1
Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. 1
February 3, 1993
Page 11 1
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. 1
16. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed."
ATTACHMENTS 1
1. Compliance table.
2. Application.
3. Lake St. Joe Wetland Classification. 1
4. Typical cross section of adjacent to the wetland from Sathre- Bergquist.
5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated January 26, 1993.
6. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated January 28, 1993. 1
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.
10 Public hearing notice.
11. Planning Commission minutes dated February 3, 1993.
12. Plat dated January 5, 1992.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N460\0001 41 1
1 101' STANDARDS SUWARY TABLE
BLOCK 1 LOT AREA LUI' WIDTH AT BLDG
1 LOT RIPARIAN NON - RIPARIAN REQUIRED ACTUAL AREA ABOVE SIRED ACTUAL WETLAND
1[71' IQ AREA AREA WETLANDS WIDTH WIDTH SETBACK
1 YES - -- 40,000 SF 57,500 SF 31,000 125' 152' 100'
I 2 YES - -- 40,000 SF 51,300 SF 30,000 125' 140' 70'
3 - -- YES 20,000 SF 30,500 SF 22,000 125' 160' 55'
1 4 YES - -- 40,000 SF 49,400 SF 20,000 125' 135' 60'
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'
I 7 YES 40,000 SF 50,500 SF 20,600 125' 125' 85'
8 YES - -- 40,000 SF 103,100 SF 25,700 125' 125' 85'
1 9 YES - -- 40,000 SF 121,800 SF 25,100 125' 125' 100'
10 YES - -- 40,000 SF 96,600 SF 24,600 125' 125' 90'
Al 11 YES - -- 40,000 SF 67,300 SF 23,600 125' 125' 90'
12 YES - -- 40,000 SF 61,000 SF 31,000 125' 125' 80'
1 13 - -- YES 20,000 SF 59,900 SF 44,800 125' (1) 125 @90' 80'
14 YES 20,000 SF 28,700 SF 125' (2) 100'
15 - -- YES 20,000 SF 22,600 SF 125' (2) 100'
II 16 - -- YES 20,000 SF 21,300 SF 125' (2) 100'
17 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,400 SF 125' (2) 100'
II 18 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,100 SF 125' (2) 100'
19 - -- YES 20,000 SF 21,900 SF 125' (2) 100'
1 20 - -- YES 15,000 SF 34,100 SF 30,600 90' 100' 120'
21 YES 15,000 SF 42,500 SF 23,900 90' 100' 80'
22 - -- YES 15,000 SF 20,000 SF 90' 100'
II 23 YES 20,000 SF 21,700 SF 125' (2) 100'
24 - -- YES 20,000 SF 29,100 SF 125' 148'
1 25 - -- YES 20,000 SF 22,700 SF 125' (2)
26 - -- YES 20,000 SF 22,000 SF 125' 130'
111 - -- 1 i S 'Yi ' 1
1
1
1
1
II
LOT STANDARDS SUMMARY TABLE II
BLOCK 2 LOT AREA LOT WIDTH AT BLDG
LOT RIPARIAN NON - RIPARIAN REQUIRED ACTUAL REQUIRED ACTUAL 1
NO. LOT LOT AREA AREA . WIDTH WIDTH
1 - -- YTS 20,000 SF 20,500 SF 125' 125' II
2 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,100 SF 125' 140' II 3 YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 170'
4 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 175' 1
5 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 180'
6 - -- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 128' 1
AVERAGE LOT AREA: 38,670 SQUARE .hih1' 1
AVERAGE LOT WIDTH: 125.7 F 1' (AT PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK)
II ( 1 PROPOSED HOUSE SETBACK FOR NECK LOT IS 90 b ' 1' MINIMUM k
) Ch MI 'HERE LOT WIDTH IS 125 FEET.
LOT WIDTH AT 30 FEET SETBACK IS 38 rb:l'. VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR LOT WIDTH AT MINIMUM II SETBACK, FROM ZONING AND SHORELAND ORDINANCES.
(2) VARIANCE REQUIRED FROM SHORELAND ORDINANCE 125 1,1,ET WIDTH STANDARD. NO VARIANCE NEEDED
FROM RSF ZONING DISTRICT 90 FEET WIDTH STANDARD.
II
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
S � 9 �F
1 5
agh
BERG - BERGQUIST, INC
p 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391
�s lip 4/Qco (612) 476 -6000 FAX 476 -0104
'ti P�P�
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
BOLES 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.
r
� f
� - r Y r .�: C;- !','. =�
1
1
Lake St. Joe has been classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural
by Pa
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.
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 11 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 11 warranted .
1
1
The westerly portions of Lots 13 thru 21, Block 1, actually lie in the
' 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
At tachnv-n t
11
1
1
1
* '''' .
‘ City of Chanhassen
1
Wetland Observation Records
Wetland No.: 3 (Field Review): /_`'; — u , (Official Map)
1
Location 11 �,,j T; 7?,v), R; 1 Section On USGS NWI: • Y N 1
Observer Initials: r,r-- Date Visited: to /_a_ / la..
Picture Number(s)/Roll #: 9.--)3 I 3 Picture Nos.: I — W (=et.. 5 - ' r!r
I
13 -16/ gc-cl Cb /9/9 L)
Classification I
Wetland Type: P �r :. ,„,I ✓ Lu.: (Cowardin); 3 /5 / Iv /') (Circular 39)
Wetland Location: 1
Lakeside Streamside
Headwaters ✓ Isolated (upland)
Edge of Wetland Contour • varies I
City Class: 1
(P)ristine ; (N)atural ✓--'.- ; (A)g/Urban ; (U)tilized
1
Watershed Characteristics
Wetland Size: acres Direct drainage area: acres 1
Total drainage area: acres Open water area: acres
Vegetation �4t� - Li 4-' v pe ,��_,
111
r 1 Cp Y ": x� 4 r = 'r„�.. te a- Ct o f 'L,��
Dominant Plant Species: �_ Frye 4s s
i Reed canary grass rD Cattail � ° .
i-- G: » Ltd T) ' , ` -e....
i
Purple Loosestrife: (D)ominant; (A)bundant; (S)dme; (I)ndividuals; (N)one
Plant Diversity: No. Species Dominant - 1; 2; 3 -0
Percent open water: 70 't 1
1
1
1
1 Land Use Influences
Surrounding Land Use (Percent):
1 5 Residentia I M , D, Rur. Commercial/Industrial
°% Agricultural Lip 'i Open Water
1 5 0 % Wooded Institutional
Vacant Field - (describe below)
1
Hydrology •
1 Water Source: ✓ Natural; Stormwater; Unknown
Inflow: Stream; Ditch; Stormsewer; Surface
1 Outflow: ✓ Natural; Ditch; Culvert; None
Sedimentation/Siltation: Y t..- N
1 Flooded - dead or dying trees: v Y N
Drains to Lx 54 J ; (Direction; Wetland No.)
1 (C)ontinuouslya. onally; (I)ntermittently; (R)arely
1 Soil Classification
1 Soil Type Abby.: Soil Name:
1 Other
Wildlife Observations: P, ,,t 'OA , ,• General Notes /Comments: I cwt „t; ,,, 1 e
1 : 1
-I P � i . ' 4 r r ' p 1 A..." 4 Ck rr • !Jo !,! Irr.r 1 ".th — Lc. �t-i —C
1 iC r f ✓ (1 4 ' 7 !!� tM—✓ f ✓l^ H,' 4- t'Y'•. F - I -W Y Pr II" A.A ! v._. . '�.- 1! =4 .
Section No. 7 Wetland Sketch; Photo Lo • • �� )
•
1 1 ___:_s___„..-,:f. IP \
0 \ T I ? "-te. cr , )
A _e__... cr ,,,,A . -A- 4 - „ ,„„_ .2,.. ) 4>e 7
. 4 \ — \ / . c.,,..2
• 9 12
I 13 16 `\
4-a
1 Not to Scale /. ./
LOT 1 BLOCK I XC^ Mkp Ni
III
\ a jh. ❑ ❑ 1
1
• __\ n
•
' z.
awcrc..E ooC —
o
ii
1 p J E�CV - 0� O • • ��� =.
—== e»flrtir
fifiv : E 9l2 4,..3.9-
PROPOSED GRADE
MAXIMUM 3:1 SLOPE o
i i
_EXISTING GRADE
Y
o 1
0
R 1
W
J
\ SECTION AA 111 9 \� 2 �,, SCALE. 1 Inch = 10 Feet
\ 1t
•
I '
d II T SCALE t Inch = 100 Feet —` \ I .11111)W I
' � s 5\ \" I
--.\ 2 , i� 7
\' I I il'� 1111'�7llfll I � _ \ c
t I� 1
'/____,,-, � � I i J 1
j /h 0, 5
24 \
23 ( \ 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
,v
CHANHASSEN
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: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: January 26, 1993
1 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
I utility plans dated December 28, 1992, prepared by Sathre - Bergquist, Inc., I offer the
following comments and recommendations:
1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE
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 %).
1 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.
1 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).
Storm water runoff from the development is proposed to maintain the existing drainage
1 pattern. The majority of the overall site drains towards Lake St. Joe. The southwesterly
� 1.4. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
Kate Aanenson
January 26, 1993 1
Page 2
corner of the property drains westerly towards a wetland basin in Victoria. The majority 1
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 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 1
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 '
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 1
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 1
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 1
elevations shall be shown. Plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department
for review and approval.
UTILITIES 1
The plans propose extending municipal utilities from Minnewashta Parkway into the site. 1
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 1
submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and final approval by the City
Council.
STREETS 1
1
1
1
1 Kate Aanenson
January 26, 1993
1 Page 3
I 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 service to Victoria which will eventually loop back into Minnewashta Parkway.
1 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 Minnewashta Parkway with the next phase will have to be carefully
1 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 existing intersections at either Hawthorne Circle
I 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 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,
I it should still be reviewed.
Street grades proposed are between 0.75% and 6.0% which are within the City's current
I standards. The applicant has proposed a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with a 31 -foot wide street
(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
1 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
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans shall be
I submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City
Council.
I As you are aware, the City is currently undergoing an improvement project to upgrade
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
II 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.
I MISCELLANEOUS
1 An existing house currently exists on proposed Lot 1, Block 1. It is assumed the applicant
is proposing to remove the house with the subdivision construction. The applicant should
I be aware they will need to apply and comply with all the local building and demolition
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
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1
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.
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. 1
3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR,
Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC.
1
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 predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed
and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity j
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.
6. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's 1
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 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.
7. All access points from the construction site to a hard - surface road shall be surfaced 1
with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices
Handbook. 1
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
area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block
1 outside the wetlands.
1
1
1
Kate Aanenson
January 26, 1993
1 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.
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.
1 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.
14. All storm water retention onds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
P g
the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr.
Ismael Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993.
15. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No.
1 90 -15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the
development.
1 ktm
' Attachments: 1.
2. Detail on temporary rock construction entrance.
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
reinstallation of the pad. 1
Joir
1
1
Hard surface �
1
public road .-i;.
..i: -ice • •.� � • j f�i��
/ , - •- •,••-'• • • • -.1 50 minimum
r minimum —re 1 1 *. .
OS We'
V -2" washed rock ..:�•�.:,,,,•�•.�,• :,.:. .
1
FIGURE 15.1: Rock Construction Entrance. Source: MPCA's BMP Handbook
39304pt3
ATTACHMENT 1
1
1 01 -18 -1993 09:19 612 636 1311 BONESTROO & ASSC. P.01
Otto G. Rones= PE HONK' Wad. ad. PE es Mlehiel 1 P. PE Man R. Jensen, PE.
1 IA Bonestroo Robert W Rosana. PE,' Kenn A, A 5$ P Agnes M. RN. A.I,C.P Grave: Jo, PE.
Joseph C. Mark PE. ROM R. Pfeffer*, P.C. T omaS W. Peterson, P.E. Keen L. Witmer', P.E.
/fi
Marvin L. SOrwIa, P.E. Rknaro W Poster, P1. - MlMiel C Lyneh, P.E. Gary D. Krlstena. PE Rosene Richard E. 'Sonar, PE. DavIO a Loskota. PE, James R Milano, PE P Twit Foster PE.
II
Anderltk & Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Rt14eft C. Rwflk, A.I.A. Jerry D. Pennell. PE. K o, P
Korth R. RepE
Thomas E. Noyes 11. Jerry A. Bourdon, PE. Kenneth Anderson. PE. Snswn D Gusurson, PE
Robrt G. SehunIht. P..E Mark A. Hanson, PE. Mar( 1 ROlff, PE. CecClo Olivier. Y.E.
gssoc iates swan M. Eetnln, CPA Whit T Kaufmann, P.C. Mark A. Seep. PE Charles A. Erickson
ii ` *home C mrIanr Teo K. Field, PE. Gary W Marren. P.C. Leo M Piwelsky
Thomas R Anderson, M.A. Daniel J Edgerton, PE, Harlan M, bison
1 Engineers & Architects Donald C. turgatik, PE. Daryl K K+nchenman, PE. James F Engelhardt
Thomas E. Angus. PE PMSlp J. Caswell. PE,
bmlel MMtneS, PE. Mark 0 1tA16S, PE.
1 MEMO
1
TO: ampe , City David H 1 Ci of Chanhassen Fax No. 937 -5739
1 FROM: Ismael Martinez
1 DATE: January 15, 1993
RE: Boley Property Development FILE NO.: 3930en
1 Stormwater Review
1 Hi Dave !
1 INTRODUCTION
We have performed a stormwater and water quality review of the proposed development, Boley
1 Property Development. Our review was based on the proposed development characteristics
shown in the Preliminary Grading Plan dated December 28, 1992.
1 As a result of our review we recommend the following capacities and characteristics for the
proposed water quality ponds:
1 Pond A Pond B Pond C Pond D
Wet Volume AF 0.3 0.17 *0.24 0.16
1 Mean Depth Ft 2.7 2.0 2. 2.0
* This wet volume for Pond C assumes the existence of pond D downstream.
1
OBSERVATIONS
1 The proposed development is located in the Southwest corner of Lake St. Joe West of
Minnewashta Parkway in the NE 1/4 of Section 7, T 116 N, R 23 W, in the City of
1 Chanhassen. -
ATTACHMENT 2
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
north and a southerly wetland. Lake St Joe is classified as a Palustrine Lake, with Emergent
Vegetation in the surroundings Classified as a natural+ wetland in the City's wetland
inventory, '
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
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 1
The drainage system shown in sheet 2 of 4 follows the natural topography and most of it drains
directly into the wetlands. ,
RESULTS
went will have to meet basic water i treatment of the runoff collected 1
The proposed development quality
by the stormsewers. Special considerations were made regarding this development as part of our
modeling to estimate practical pollutant concentrations due to the low traffic volume anticipated
and the local topography.
As a result of our review we recommend the following improvements: t
Pond A Pond B Pond C Pond D
Wet Volume AF 0.3 0.17 *0.24 0.16
Mean Depth Ft 2.7 2. 0 2.2 2.0
* This wet volume for Pond C assumes the existence of pond D downstream. 1
COMMENTS 1
The proposed water quality ponds should meet or exceed the wet volume and the mean depth.
The mean depth is particularly important due to the size of the ponds. '
Pond A should be protected against the erosion that can result from overtoping.
Special attention should be paid to the erosion control measures and best management practices
l�
for this development. The topography and the grading proposed in the plans can result in impacts
to the wetlands that could exceed the performance of the ponds in many years.
If you have any comments please call me at 636 -4600.
Have a nice day !
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (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
1 following recommendations:
Parkland: It is recommended that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land
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
1 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.
Arii
1
1
1
t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
C ITY 0 F
CHAHAS5EN PRC DATE: Jan. 26, 1993
CC DATE: 1 I
HOFFMAN:k
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to subdivide 36 acres into 33 single family homes on property
zoned RSF
LOCATION: Located southeast of Lake St. Joe, east of Minnewashta Parkway, and north of
Z Highway 5 (see attached location map -- Attachment A)
U
_J APPLICANT: Lundgren Brothers Construction
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Q
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family
S - City of Victoria
E - RSF, Residential Single Family
W - City of Victoria
Q 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,
0 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
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
(f) Minnewashta was established. Secondly, contacts inquiring about the purchase of property in this area
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
1 Park and Recreation Commission
January 21, 1993
1 Page 2
evening centered upon the designation of the land around Lake St. Joe with the exception of the
1 Malinowski property as park/open space on the city's land use plan (Attachment B). This
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
I space, although of tremendous value, does not lessen the need for a park in this region of the
city, however.
I The question then remains, is the Boley property the appropriate site for a park of at least ten
acres in size west of Lake Minnewashta? I do not believe so for three reasons:
I 1. The topographic constraints confronted on this site would make development of a park,
even one with a high percentage of passive area, difficult.
1 2. The site is removed from the center of the west Lake Minnewashta region. Property
north of this site would be more appropriate for use as a park.
1 3. The site borders the City of Victoria on two sides. As you can see from the preliminary
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
I operation responsibilities of Cathcart Park with the City of Shorewood exemplify the
difficulties which can arise from the acquisition of a second "border" park.
1 RECOMMENDATION
I Upon consideration of these findings, it is recommended that the Park and Recreation
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
I in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family
dwellings is $500 per unit.
1 COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN
I The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies two trail segments on or adjacent to this proposed
development. I will address them separately.
I Minnewashta Parkway: An 8 -ft. bituminous trail is being constructed along Minnewashta
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
I satisfies the designation on the Comprehensive Plan for a trail adjacent to the easterly
border of the applicant's property.
1
1
1
Park and Recreation Commission 1
January 21, 1993
Page 3 1
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 1
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 1
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
that this designation would not be favored by the applicant is of no concern to me. What 1
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
trail was to be located in a large city or regional park, the unique experience offered by
I
a boardwalk entering such an area would be welcomed. In a neighborhood setting,
however, this type of trail is not justifiable.
I
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept 1
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 1
upon building permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is
$167.00 per unit.
•
As explained, this recommendation is in direct conflict with the city's Comprehensive Plan. If 1
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
/
4....._. ---/
/ r".........„ ._____/ __dt u...mi...........
/ ••
OH U O t 1
I z{ '. • El y 5 o I /// o
' .., 04 , 444 * 1 _ : _ - P.
/ r .� C • \ I( cO I!/y
_ 1 } r
/ - r.,
/ ril -
' '` ' '
tti 4 `y ii = SI um 3 _`� 1
1 ( • - . ' ■ : t i "'" 40, 1
/ IO'N
• •
c I 1 w 1 Z .w - 1 Si!1. w° E l.wt L •
ot kl i l NC MONT NO ft li ” :I.."' ''.. 1. 11 —
- x '0 r'
1
O I NY
Z t n `` J ' `I t 3
le ▪ ': ` EUREKA Al
If
_
E I 1 t� 3 PIP
C <
•
'� MA ZELtINE 81-v0 I � 1 ; Z � l � •Y •1•c �'_
. .i 1
1
I
o ! ZdDO • 0 C 1
".*
-\ \� ALP! NBLVO ___ _-- 7 - _ -' . a"0 .V - ....
\ s i I r z _ I.
,t 1.
;; " # G,tP a L
t .---- _ n• _ •
{ _ .. „, I : .ta
. i
4 "(40.• ,1 __ I Z a a i - , ,,. a : 9 \s i„`:i::a::S1I:Z' (w\ 1
mm..Nmmiomimmnm........mm..mm.••••••mmmimimmi.
1 t
[RE- BERGQUIST, INC. 1
BROADWAY • WAYZATA, MN. 55391 • (612) 476 -6000
1
— - • Ile MO. 0 8111
01:•••• .11
111
8 ELMER CARLSON
• .
I 1141 Ilk P MG mtArlt Avtiruf 6/./4 MUG rt.)
i ; OM 04 /Ma
ROBERT C. WILSON 1 Mini.
Z 1 I 1
OK GO, 1 031
. •
•41
1 P ,
4. • . ..... C Comets No
z Car Ignarn —r ...11. • MI ot
0
in
1 .
.. •
X 2 .1 lit 1 IIIMAT •
lei •• •
c COM ( ••
1 si s' t m...• ..... 4,... .
- -
''''■
a w
•
4 .
re ..
11
. ....,,,, m .o.
4 • .. , •44 -
k i
r,I44 .
\\ 1313MAS EARLE WAMPUM
IOC 041114 t .
....‘*) .
•
I
f att 1 ,
z 00.4 MCKIM
DOC MO rIt41 ' ••• 1
412Uji-------- Z .! .' •
Ai.....
i
C O
• • 1 0 tirj
p /I
191fto
•
NMI
/ . L %•••
(
•
•
. •
V
I
.•
t 0
• P1
i 2
I
. I 1 1 JOYCE A OURAU
JOANNE M L ANO i ; • 1 HOWARD S. BOLO'
1-...:, .
1 .. « IIII. 111114
0 ; CTT 110. 1331 •
i
N. V 1 ' . . .
. • r. 1. I
., • .,
' •• .. .. j
t • -
... •
/t : • .
. 3. ..
.
Q• 4
I
g 'E
.. F•
ec 4' r/id
. .
..-
.
1
.
,. ID? INK
- ',.' , ■ - I•11 IA, I lin
‘,.e ,e,./eral a'e El - ::'
.. ._
• ...LIM 40 , ir ■ A . .
, 5 ' ■!.`,-. A — r - C / cc/' /.
1 .
1
I
r C11, Of V.V..•.:.'" .
cue se smell.: .
MM." II Matt
' SIK Oa
. .W - • 7
1 1 =re. z lir
..._
,10.---
•
nu
, .. •
.1 J.? • /
1
Air * 8
• • ANTON KERBER I ' •
HOWARD S. DOLEY
44 44, P )14 4 411, r 4 .1: & •ti '
,..: .
•
- I .
, At • . ---- — LIM •
‘
)1 OUTLOT 3
. • • I
.. Nr i Cf451
•
...• .
0.0
i
...
• . ; ,.., :r t• ;
.........
I i t s
. . I
_77 .. ..-_
i_____ _ pre in -...= 1 _.:____ .1.::.z.l
11
V
i .. "4 . . .4
—1....., 1
1 r! I
• I
AVIIM •
4 %
Int•sows•ol '
* e. . 400..•en
• 11104.•00
v. •
•SW* •00•Sal S lir
I
•e..•.,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 25, 1990 - Page 8
II Hoffman: Only a portion of that $18,000.00 is coming from this block
grant. Another half or two - thirds of that funding for that pier is coming
from another source hrough Paul and the Planning Department •.
' Erhart: Do we lose t at then?
Hoffman: Yeah, we'd to a that... •
•
' Schroers: Actually what e'd be losing is a tots fishing pier at Lake
Susan. Just because it's esignated handicap, • 's for everyone.
Mady: So we're losing $9,00 .db is what we e losing. We're ultimately
going to be putting in a fish . pier in our own expense then.
' Hoffman: Not the City...
Mady: Bottom line.
' Schroers: Alright, if ,hat's he cgs would we like to.
Lash: I'd like to make a otion on this •ne. I would move that we
' recommend to City Counc' that the City Ce•ter Park be the site for the
funding for the handi -p accessible playgro d in the amount of $5,898
Is that all I need • do? _
' Mady: I ' l l seco
' Lash moved, =dy seconded that the Park and Recrea on Commission recommend
to the Cit Council that the City Center Park be th- site for the funding
for the - ndicap accessible playground equipment in t•e amount of
$5,898..O All voted in favor and the motion carried , nanimously.
REVIEW SECTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IDENTIFYING PARKLAND NEAR LAKE ST.
JOE. 1 G )
Public Present: trt
Name Address
Mark Malinowski 7250 Minnewashta Parkway
' Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros., 935 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata
Richard Wing 3481 Shore Drive
Hoffman: Mark was unable to attend tonight... As you can see, the...
comprehensive plan folks came in and said look at the area around Lake St.
Joe that is designated as park or open space, had concern with how that
would affect their...property in that area. Mark Malinowski is in the
audience here tonight. He is the particular property owner that contacted
the city in this regard. As you can see by Mark's report, the property,
the Malinowski property is east of Lake St. Joe... The upcoming look at
Minnewashta Parkway, it will be upgrading that road and the addition of a
trail in that area. There is supposed to be a trail in that area along
Minnewashta Parkway whether it be on the east side of the road or the west
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 25, 1990 - Page 9
1
side of the road, is not known at this time. But that as well...taking not
designating the Malinowski property as open space and designated parkland
for future use or something of that nature. As it states in Mark's report,'
it still would be possible...trail loop around Lake St. Joe and...
Schroers: So that would be kind of just a horseshoe shaped loop around the
lake?
Hoffman: Correct. I believe Larry..., and you're probably the person mosti
familiar with that area...nature trail back in that area. And again, the
comprehensive plan is just a tool. We're not talking about particular
trail segments in this area...
Mady: I guess I'd prefer the Comprehensive Plan being more of a verbal
document stating that we need property, open space property in an area.
Until we actually we do site plans and go out and walk spaces and have an II
opportunity to obtain specific sites, it's very difficult for us to
designate some individual's property as a site. By the same token, I hate
to rule somebody else's site out because we're not in the position now to III
anything or to get anything but if we open right now and say okay,
because this individual doesn't want his site to be part of the selection
process, that's fine for him but then what do we do with the *other 11,000
people in this city who own property and come in front of us and say, I II don't want you to take my property. All of a sudden we have 12, 25, 150
different sites that we're not supposed to look at. I think what happens
is we all of a sudden have a problem.‘ Right now we don't have a problem. 41
The situation is we're probably never going to take this site. Although w
need an area in Minnewashta Parkway badly, we need an open ballfield. Your
site isn't probably conducive to doing that. By stepping in now with the •
very first one saying this site we're not going to ever take and we're
going to say that right on the plan, we're going to have more and more
people coming in here saying I want you to take my property off the plan.
Then all of a sudden we do have a problem I think. I would rather us not I
get site specific, either pro or con in the plan if we can help it.
Hoffman: To address your first comment about just being verbage and not
being a piece of paper. As you may recall, in looking different segments
of the comprehensive plan as Mark is doing, he has...visual aid more or
less than the last comprehensive plan was developed in 1980 and prior to
that time...just use those as visual aids in that document and realize II that... They're trying to look into the future but the comments are very
valid. We don't want to start picking apart the comprehensive plan...
Schroers: I agree with that statement Todd and also with what Jim has ,
said. Setting a precedent could cause acquisition problems for us down the
road. What I see here with the 6.5 acres that Mr. Malinowski's property, II
the portion of it that we could acquire for park dedication wouldn't help
us in that area anyway. It's not large enough. So I think in that, Mr.
Malinowski could have some reassurance that we wouldn't be considering his
property for parkland. ,
Erhart: Is there also mature woods on that site Todd?
Hoffman: On this site? ,
II .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 25, 1990 - Page 10
Erhart: Yeah, on the 6.5 acres of your property. Is it very wooded?
(The answer could not be heard on the tape.
' Hoffman: As stated in Mark's report, the house on that would be real close
to the lake... I guess Mark's interpretation is the original intent of
acquiring some parkland in this area...natural setting that was there...
' Mady: We did about a year and a half ago or there abouts, Carol Watson was
still on the panel at that time, look at the area on the back side of Lake
' St. Joe. There was someone who was looking to subdivide and at that time
we looked real closely and determined that the marsh area was simply too
dense and too wet. Too soft to even really consider putting a nature trail
in at that time so if I remember correctly, we were thinking more on the
' nature of Lake St. Joe's a nice item and these would be wonderful in the
future but we're not going to be able to go in some areas real close to it
anyway so it's just more when it gets developed, maybe we can put a path
' around the outside edge of it possibly but an active use through the area
is going to be very difficult anyway so it probably wasn't smart so I don't
know. Unless something changes drastically between now and then, I don't
' know how that's going to happen. I just don't foresee anything if it
happens.
Hoffman: ...Mark to look at the natural area in there. More so it'd be
' the acquisition of some land...taking a look at the parkland and
distribution...there's a real void there. The only think we could come up
with is a small neighborhood park on the south side...real small area.
' Schroers: If we decide not to designate this property as single family
residential, will that impair Mr. Malinowski's ability to obtain a building
permit?
Hoffman: That's currently what it is. It's just a single family
residential that's unplatted.
' Schroers: Oh, it's unplatted. I thought reading this it seemed to me like
it indicated that it was designated park and open space.
Hoffman: It's designated as a potential site on the comprehensive plan
for.
Schroers: Oh, but it's not zoned that way?
Hoffman: If Mr. Malinowski decided to subdivide, at that time you'd take
it with the tools that we use in our department, we take a look at
comprehensive plan to see, is there anything designated in this area which
we could take a look at. And yes, there is, under the current plan, that
is park and open space. Then it would come back to the commission and
start taking a look at...area similar to what we were doing tonight and
really all we're doing this evening is pre - determining that even if that
area is subdivided...
' Schroers: Are you looking for some kind of a motion on this?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 25, 1990 - Page 11
Hoffman: Correct. A motion to approve Mark's recommendations...that that
property be dropped from the comprehensive plan. ,
Andrews: Could I ask an odd question? Is the reason why we're dropping
this from the Plan because it's not suitable to be developed as an active I
park? Is that why we're making this request or decision?
Hoffman: That would be one of the main...
Andrews: My point would be, why is that every park that we look at has to I
be considered as an active park. Currently we do not have any, or very
little wild, natural areas in the city and I have been to one park where an
elevated wood walkway was built over a marshy area and it's a very
beautiful way to walk through a marshy area. I guess I'm hesitant to say
that this is unuseable land. Maybe unuseable as a ballfield or a tennis
court but I guess I look at natural wild spaces as having a value on their 11
own.
Schroers: I don't think that this is too much of a, I agree with what you
say Jim but I think this particular property is not a real natural area an
wild spaces. He stated there's already a house sitting on it . and there's
neighborhoods. It's all residential in that area. '
Andrews: How many acres is Lake St. Joe?
( Hoffman: 33. '
Andrews: 33?
Lash: I think this is kind of a, this is more of a two fold item in the I
fact that Mr. Malinowski brought it to our attention but then Mark gave it
his attention and I think from his, looking at his opinion, it isn't II something that would suit our needs in that particular area and then the
other half, I mean although I agree that you don't like to set a precedent
on these kinds of things and I also agree that maybe instead of being so
specific we should just sort of in the plan say in a certain area, you know'
near Lake St. Joe we're looking for park property or something instead of
designating. If I looked at a map and on top of my house I saw that the
city had stamped it park /open space, it would make me real nervous that
something was going on that I didn't know about so I think this is kind of II
two fold. I wasn't aware of the fact that there was a home there and I
can't imagine that we'd ever go in and bulldoze down somebody's house and II condemn their property and take it for a natural park. That just doesn't
even make sense so you know Mark is recommending it's not, it doesn't fill
our needs out there. There's a home there. It's creating anxiety for the
property owner and you put it altogether and I guess I just think we need
to reword or redesignate our site and maybe just put it in, like Jim said, II
in the verbage that in the Lake St. Joe area and then any time something
comes, a large scale development or something in that area, we'd be able
to. Can we do that or not? Do we have to pick a specific site?
Hoffman: Again, we can put in the verbage but then the map or the diagram
is just put in there as an aid. If the comprehensive plan was all words, I
it's fairly dry so...show the intent. •
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 25, 1990 - Page 12
lash: Or are you going to be specific, as specific as Mark was in saying
' that the northwest area or the southern area didn't he, would be the two
prime? I can't remember where he had that now.
Mady: I think you've missed the point though. Lake St. Joe area was put
in the map as a possible open space area by the Park Commission long before
I was here, back when they were very natural area oriented. The reason was
Lake St. Joe was a very natural type of setting, especially the back side
of it. This area is no different than what we're trying to do, like
putting in the comp plan that we'd like to gain all the property around
Lake Ann. There's absolutely no difference between this and that. And we
' all know that with Prince living there, it's probably going to be, that
might be a pipe dream but it's still nice to leave it in the plan, in the
comp plan as a potential so it's always there. So we always know about
it. Whether it happens or not in 20 years, we won't know that but at least
we have designated the areas as natural areas that should be looked at and
reviewed and this is an area that should be looked at and reviewed.
There's no one saying we're going to bulldoze the house and buy the
' property but it's still, an opportunity comes in that we should be aware of
it and future commissions should be aware of it and future staff should be
aware of it because as we've seen, commission changes from year to year.
' Staff changes and we're not going to be here maybe 10 years from now to
remember that maybe that was the way it should have been.
Lash: So you're saying that you think our goal would be to someday
' eventually acquire all of the property. I mean all of this area that's
shown around here on the map?
Mady: I don't know if it's a goal. I think it's just something that we
should, it's been designated as something we should be looking at if an
opportunity presents itself. That's all it is. I guess I'm on the nature
- thet we haven't done anything at this point in time. Taken no steps to
I doing anything and until the owner or a developer comes in and does
something, we're not going to be taking steps on it because we just simply
don't do it that way.
Hoffman: We have somebody here that would like to give us an insight on
that issue.
Terry Forbord: I think I can answer a lot of your questions or at least
give you some insight. My name is Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of
Lundgren Bros. and this is kind of a hasty appearance for me because I just
found out you were meeting today when I met with Mr. Koegler. We own about
100 acres of land around Lake St. Joe, or we have the option to secure the
property for 3 years. We have met informally with city staff oh, probably
' 2 -3 times about properties that we do control in the area. We began the
assembly of some of these parcels about 2 years ago. We tend to try to
work as quietly as possible for a number of reasons but for those of you
11 who are familiar with the area, this is really one of the toughest areas
that I've ever, ever tried to assemble land because from a land use
standpoint, there's really a mish mash of development and small, really
oddly configured parcels and physical constraints that are very difficult
to work with from purely just a planning perspective. By physical
constraints I mean topography, wetlands. Now our company, maybe we're
masticistic but we tend to look for sites like that. The workload is twice
1 •
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 25, 1990 - Page 13 '
as much, sometimes 3 or 4 times as much because of all the governmental
agencies you need to work with but we find that it's a successful formula
for us in what we try to do so we look for sites like that. The problem i
this area with trying to make all this work from a master planning
standpoint, is the economics. Because there are so many small little
parcels and structures on them, the economics become almost impossible froml
a development standpoint. Remember structures are a liability when it
comes to land development from an economic standpoint. Raw land is much I/ more easy to deal with but when somebody's home in on there, they have a
value in that home whether it be emotional or physical or whatever and so
when you try to master plan an area, 100, 200 acres or whatever, obviously
we're trying to make it make economic sense first to determine if it's even'
workable. Then try to work with the city to meet the city's goals and
obiectives as well. Now I've been following the Comp Plan process. It's
been underway off and on for 3 years, or even longer than that I guess but
we've been following it and watching and in the last year it's really
stepPeci up and I've been in contact with the consultants and city staff an
to let them know informally because we haven't made a formal application.
But informally that we will be making a formal application for this area
for part of it in the very, very near future. But because it's a shorelan
district and there are certain guidelines that one has to operate in that,
it affects property within 1,000 feet of an environmental lake which Lake _
St. Joe is and we're totally cognizant of the fact that the consultant and ,
the City would like to see some type of park, active in that area. What
I'd ask you to do tonight, being that all of this is kind of in the procesal
and it has been in the process for some time. We haven't completed the
land assembly. We're attempting to and we don't know if we will be able
to. As I said, because of the configuration of the parcels and the value
that home of the parcels have affixed to them from a sale standpoint, it II
really makes it. When you add all these things together and you figure can
I subdivide and can anybody even afford to buy the lots because the raw
land price was so high, and that's what we're working on now. If a
particular parcel or a certain acreage was designated well this is where
the park's going to be, that could skew the master planning for that whole
area. What we're trying to do, like I say, is master plan the entire area
which is a benefit to the City. Benefit to the County. Benefit for what
you're attempting to do and it's certainly a benefit for the people who en
up living there and building their homes there. So if we could just kind
of, we know there needs to be a park there. We won't know where it best II
works until we're done doing what needs to be done there. And hopefully
that sheds a little bit of light on what you're trying to do. The way we
envision it. I've walked every inch of the land there so I'm real familiar
with it. The physical constraints there with the wetland areas is a real
. sensitive area and it needs to be dealt with accordingly. I guess what we
envision ideally, and unfortunately it never works out that way but ideally.
where you could have a passive and an active area somewhat hopefully 1
contiguous with one another so maybe you have some of your active areas
over here or maybe you have some soccer fields or whatever and then you
have some nature trails that you could walk off into. Now that's ideal ands
all of that obviously is dictated by how you're able to put the correct
parcels together. So maybe that will give you a little insight of what's
occurring in the area. There will be some type of park in the area and
where exactly it ends up, we don't know yet. But hopefully within the next"
6 months I'll have a much, much clearer idea of what's occuring. We
probably will be submitting a conceptual plat to staff for at least part of
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 25, 1990 - Page 14
the area oh I would imagine for sure within the next 3 months or so but we
have the property on the south side and some property on the north side.
So there's about 100 acres total.
Hoffman: Could you expand just a little bit, or explain to us on the south
side of the area?
Terry Forbord: Well it used to be referred to as the Bollie property for
those of you who are familiar with the city. If you look at your map, all
of the land that's on the very south side of Lake St. Joe, all the way down
to TH 5 and part of that land is in the city of Victoria.
' Schroers: It's a low area in the corner there right?
Terry Forbord: In the northwest corner of the property, I can't remember
of it. Mrs. Brickley told me the name of that lake. It escapes
m-� but t hei e's .
Schroers: No, right down by TH 5.
' Terry Forbord: Oh, correct. That's correct. Right down by TH 5 there is
a wet)and area that goes northwest over towards Lake, is it Wasserman?
Over in Victoria, is that the name of it?
Hoffman: Not this particular one.
Schroers: No, that would be Steiger but there's another little lake back
behind St Joe called Tamarack and it would be going up to the farm.
Tow:zrr's I think that was.
' Terry Forbord: Mr. Thomas' farm. It goes all the way up towards Mr.
Thomas' farm. That little lake behind it. Some people call it the Swiss
Mountain Farm on 13 there.
Schroers: Yeah.
' Terry Forbord: Yeah, that wetland you're correct, it does go northwesterly
all the way up to that lake. I guess is that Tamarack?
Schroers: Tamarack. The railroad tracks run along the side of it.
Terry Forbord: But it's just a very, very special area and we've spent a
11 lot of time.
Schroers: How much of that property are you looking at now? From TH 5,
how far west do you go?
Terry Forbord: To the city limits.
Schroers: Isn't that Victoria right there?
Terry Forbord: That's correct. To the city limits.
' Hoffman: Do you have your map...?
1
•
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
Sept( -riber 25, 1990 - Page 15
Schroers: Yeah. 1
Lash: Put TH 5 is below that. Is that what you're thinking Larry?
5chroers: Well there's quite a bit of agricultural land up in there isn't
there?
TE°rry Forbord: In which part? 1
Schroers: It would be in the south part from TH 5.
Hoffman: This area contains agricultural, wooded and lowland wetlands. 1
Terry Forbord: Yeah. It's a real mix of different vegetation types.
There's a lot of Army Corps, DNR regulated wetlands in there. That's
aburic'=nt with it. And I've already met with both agencies or we deal with
thsriIli the time anyway so they know us real well but, they're all aware
of what we're doing. But like I say, the only reason I wanted to get up J1
and jut let you know, because I could tell it was a concern for you and i
should be. I mean that's what your charge is and it's certainly a concern
to us because we want to make any neighborhood, community that we create w
want the people who live there to be able to have access to all the things
that anybody that lives in the city should and that area is in need of some
type of area because they have to go WP to Minnewashta Shores I believe no
is the closest park. The difficulty with this is trying to make it work
economically because the land value that the people have set on their
procerties in that area, and I don't know if any of you have looked, is
ust phenomenal. It almost is to the point where that even if one was able!'
to subdivide, even if we are able to pull this off and who knows. Maybe w
won't be able to, that who'd be able to buy homes in there? I mean the
lots may end up being $75,000.00- $80,000.00 lots and that certainly isn't
the real world for everybody. What we're trying to do is make some sense i
out of it so that's where, we're fully cognizant of the fact that a park is
guided to be in that area.
La-h: Can you provide Todd with a map or a little more defined area of thil
property that you are working with?
Terry Forbord: ..going to develop within 12 months. The earliest we'd b1
in there on the first phase would be probably the spring of 1991.
Hoffman: 1992. 1
Terry Forbord: My, it's going by awfully fast isn't it? But and that
would be for, or we tend to do small phases. We don't just go in and blow!'
everything. We're not like that so.
Lash: There's no sewer and water out there is there?
Terry Forbord: There is sewer and water in Minnewashta Parkway. And there
is enough capacity, the preliminary estimates and until you actually get
into the hard, hard, hard work, the technical detail, the preliminary
estimates are there's plenty of capacity there to service the area but I
mean I may be speaking a little too soon to guarantee that.
•
1
i Daniel and Brenda Roy Timothy and Lisa Braff
7400 Minnewashta Pkwy. 7410 Minnewashta Pkwy. Lynn & Kae Hall
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 3980 Hawthorne Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
1
Jerry and K. Kortgard Terrance W. Rixe David & Lori Free
I 3901 Glendale Drive 7456 Minnewashta Pkwy. 3921 Maple Shores
Excelsior. MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Mark and Donna Malinowski Jerome Tschimperle Timothy & Laurie Jenzer
7250 Minnewashta Pkwy. 8121 Bavaria Road 3920 Maple Shores Drive
I Excelsior, MN 55331 Victoria, MN 55386 Excelsior, MN 55331
1 Stephen & Sandra Bainbridge David and M. Boorsma Thomas & Sandra Giessen
7351 Minnewashta Pkwy. 185 Arboretum Boulevard 3930 Maple Shores Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331 Chaska, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331
I
I James and Frances Borchart Bryan & Melia Pike Propertele, Inc.
7331 Minnewashta Pkwy. 7411 Minnewashta Pkwy. c/o Ellie Schwaba
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 3603 Red Cedar Point
I Exzcelsior, MN 55331
Susan L. Jasin Oscar Anderson Robert & Shelly Lenzen
I 7301 Minnewashta Pkwy. 7115 Kings Road 2463 Minnewashta Pkwy.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
I Alec D. Wilson Leo Janus Mark C. Robinson
4030 Kings Road 3980 Hawthorne Circle 7371 Minnewashta Pkwy.
1 Excelsior. MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
1 Mitchell & Brenda Miller Edward & Judith Oathout Kenneth & K. Steinmetz
7200 Kings Road 3940 Hawthorne Circle , 3931 Minnewashta Ct.
' Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ! Excelsior, MN 55331
1 Jerold & Jeanette Boley John & Marianne Merz David & M.A. Tester
7414 Minnewashta Pkwy. 3900 Lone Cedar Circle 3897 Lone Cedar Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
1
Joyce A Burau and David & Sally Peterjohn Michael Cornelison
Joanne M. Lano 3921 Hawthorne Circle 7512 77th Street W
1225 78th Street Excelsior, MN 55331
Victoria, MN 55386 a S &L- Li 5 5 3lg
1
Wilmer & M. Larson Craig & Pamela Lamb
7380 Minnewashta Pkwy. 7514 77th Street
Excelsior, MN 55331 Chaska, MN 55318
1
Levin Seacer John & Verna Peterjohn
3510 77th Street 3892 Lone Cedar Lane
C Chaska, MN 55318
ahA_SICr MC S53►S'
Joseph & Paula Epping Nelson & Susan Odt
7508 77th Street W 7518 77th Street
1 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
Robert & Faye Corson Peter & Linda Fichuk
7504 77th Strete W 7513 77th Street
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
Verona C. Gordon Dennis & Ronda Zattera
7511 77th Street 7515 77th Street W
Chaska, MN 55318 P. O. Box 190
Victoria, MN 55386
David & Amy Busch Geoffrey & S. Schiefelbein
7509 77th Street 3920 Hawthorne Circle
Chaska. MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331
1
Craig & Vicky Anderson David & Diane Zamjahn
7507 77th Street 7506 77th Street
Chaska. MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
Don and Bonnie Holman
3887 Forest Ridge Circle
Chaska, MN 55318
Willard & Rhoda Anenson
3885 Forest Ridge Circle
Chaska, MN 55318
1
Gregory W. Bernhardt 1
3883 Forest Ridge Circle
Chaska, MN 55318
1
' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
1 A joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the Park and Recreation
Commission was held prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting.
' Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7 :40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, Brian Batzli,
Jeff Farmakes and Nancy Mancino
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering
Technician
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF 36 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 33 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON
' PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE
OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND SOUTH OF LAKE ST. JOE,
BOLEY PROPERTY, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION.
' Public Present:
' Name Address
Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros Construction
Rick Eat I Sathre-Berquist, 150 So. Broadway, Wayzata
Terry & Lisa Rixe 7456 Minnewasht.a Parkway, Victoria
Joane Burau 7225 - 78th Street, Victoria
Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Batzli: T thought I read in here at some point or another, and I don't
believe you mentioned something about annexing certain.
Aanenson: It's their desire to annex the rest of Mr. Boley's property
into the city because it can be serviced and.
' Batzli: Who's they?
Aanenson: Lundgren Bros.
Batzli: Yeah, but we do the annexing, do we not?
Aanenson: Yes.
Batzli: It's their desire that we annex. What do we think about it?
Aanenson: Well we've asked them to look at the whole super area and we've
asked Victoria the same question. Can they get access to the road.
There's a significant amount of wetland in this whole area. You're
looking at Lake Tamarack. There's a significant wetlands around that
whole area. We're wondering how they intend to get roads down in there to
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 2 ,
get access to the property. That's what we've asked them to arrive. Can
they get access to it. If they can, maybe they can serve it. If they
can't, maybe it makes more sense topographically to belong to the City of
Chanhassen.
Krauss: All we can tell you is what the staff's position is right now
because the Council hasn't had a chance to develop one. We've worked on
this property with Lundgren Company for 6 months and we've had some
conversations with Victoria as well. We're talking about a piece of land ll
that's inaccessible to Victoria. That functionally is a part of
Chanhassen. They'll use Chanhassen parks. They'll use Chanhassen roads.
Our fire department is closer. We get better use of it. There really is ll
no connection to Victoria in a real sense. At a staff level we said the
only way we're going to serve that area outside of the subdivision is if
it's part of Chanhassen.
Batzli: You're talking about the park to the south?
Krauss: The park to the south and the park to the, the park to the west II
is really nominal.
Batzli: An extra 40 feet or whatever.
Aanenson: 90 feet x 1000.
Batzli: So our position is we want to annex it and it's an issue of
whether Victoria feels they can service it?
Krauss: Well, there's a pretty tough legal issue involved. You have two
willing parties and possibly one unwilling one. And you also have,
there's a couple of exceptions. Some of the existing homes that are
technically in Victoria. I mean if you're going to do an annexation it
should be a clean line straight up and down so there's a lot of things
that would have to fall into place but we've got lawyers working on that.
What they've told us is it usually takes a...
Batzli: Willing party, meaning Victoria willing?
Krauss: Yeah. Apparently what...is relunctant to do contested
annexations. But we're still working out some opportunities.
Batzli: Were we just wimps when Chaska was taking stuff from us or what?"
Krauss: Well that's a question I keep raising. But that was, well.
Batzli: That was then, this is now? 1
Krauss: Well it took place before my tenure here but that was more in the
nature of swaps. That's when Chanhassen picked up Gedney Pickle.
Mancino: Paul, what does Victoria get in annexing to us? What...benefit.
Aanenson: That's exactly what their question to us is. ,
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 3
Krauss: Victoria has no functional way of serving this property. It
' would be very expensive for them to serve it.
Batzli: I thought that was enough under the old rules. If they can't
serve it and we can.
Krauss: I thought so too but apparently that's not the case.
Batzli: Okay.
Harberts: I just have a question with regards to the annexing of that
' area. Is that area currently in the MUSA line?
Krauss: Well that's kind of curious. In Victoria it is not.
' Harberts: Well yeah, but would the MUSA line move out?
Batzli: We would have to amend it.
' Krauss: We would have to make it all coincide.
Harberts: Is that a Met Council decision?
Paul Krauss' answer was not audible.
Harberts: Would the taxing district, the transit taxing district also be
pushed out too?
' Kraua�: I hadn't thought of that.
Harberts: I did. Well, isn't that part of the same question then?
r Krauss: Well yeah. The taxing jurisdictions would align. In fact we're
looking at ways of working that out with Victoria now.
Harberts: So that's the concern I suppose from Victoria.
Krauss: Well Victoria's clearly, I mean they're losing potential tax
' revenue. There's very little real tax revenue there right now.
Harberts: What's the cost to the city of Chanhassen to annex it? Is it
in our benefit to do it?
Krauss: We've already got the utilities in the streets in place.
Harberts: So it'd be a minimal charge compared to what Victoria would...
Aanenson: ...where the service is now, all the way east. We're right
there.
Harberts: Are they forced to service it? If they're the unwilling party,
are they forced to service it?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 4 1
Krauss: Well no community's ever forced to anything. I mean they can be
petitioned to bring utilities in and to relocate the MUSA line. But this II
is the last party in a very long chain of properties that would have to
come first.
Harberts: I'm just surprised that they're unwilling. Something's drivinJ
them.
Krauss: Yeah, I mean it's the Carver County... '
Batzli: Don't want to give up something for nothing. Okay, thank you for
that report. This is a public hearing. Normally, for those of you who II
have not attended a Planning Commission meeting before, we normally allow
the applicant to make a presentation. Then we'll open it up for public
comment. When we do so, I ask that you come up to the microphone and giv
your name and address for the record. I also should mention that what we
here is make recommendations to the Council so it's important for you
to follow your issue on up to the City Council level. Having said that,
do you want to give a presentation for Lundgren Brothers?
Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Rick
Sathre. I'm with Sathre - Berquist in Wayzata. We're the planners and ,
engineers on the project. Also here tonight is Mr. Terry Forbord with
Lundgren Brothers. Vice President of Lundgren Brothers and he's going to
let me do most of the work and he's going to relax. Just sit there and
worry, right Terry? I'd like to go back and help you with a few issues ort
the map. Staff's written a very concise report and I don't think I have
to go through all that but I'd like to overview a few things for you and
stop me if you already know all this and don't need it. I'll speak louder
because I'm going to come over here. Can I use the preliminary plat
drawing? The big one that shows everything. The one that you did. I'll
turn it so north is up. First of all I want you to fully understand what'll
the situation is with where the boundary lines of the site are and whethe
the municipal boundaries are. The property lines of the Boley property go
like this. I'm drawing down in Victoria now but I'll show you where the
boundary line is. The property line comes up over here. I'm making a bi.
mess here but. Now I'm going to dash in another line here which is the
municipal boundary. This portion of the land right here is Chanhassen.
The land, this little strip of land along the west side of the property 111
Victoria and so is this land down to the south. This is Highway 5 and
this is Minnewashta Parkway. Minnewashta Parkway used to line the city of
Victoria but through friendly annexation was brought into Chanhassen.
There are exemption properties here that front on Minnewashta Parkway
owned by others other than Lundgren Bros and Boley that are in Victoria as
well. This parcel is the Chanhassen parcel. The other ones to the south
are Victoria. What we're before you at present for is seeking preliminar
plat approval for this northern portion. That land is already zoned RSF.
It's been ready, ripe for development for many years. It's only been the
fact that the Boley's weren't ready to sell that kept it out of the
marketplace. Certainly there are many issues yet to be resolved with the
southerly piece. The annexation issue is very separate from the platting
action that we're really pursuing at this moment. At this point in time
what we're doing with this strip of land that's in Victoria but is in the 11
back of the lots that are with old homes in Chanhassen, is what we're
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 5
1
really proposing to them and to you is that we would cut it up. Cut that
strip of land up into backyard spaces and it would just become a passive
part of that lot. What we set out to do, I don't know, what should I use.
Maybe I'll go to, what we've set out to do is create a neighborhood that's
very nice. We didn't want to do small lots on this site because of the
' wonderful views. Terry just put up the colored version of the same
drawing. On that big board the blue area is the open water and the light,
the yellowish or light green color is the lake basin that's actually in
I the DNR's jurisdiction. The darker green on that map is wetland that's
under city jurisdiction but not under DNR jurisdiction. Then you see the
upland area that's got the houses on it. The little blue splotches on
there are the NURP ponds or the, we should probably have a quiz. What
' does NURP stand for?
Aanenson: National Urban Runoff Program.
Rick Sathre: Good job. I used to call them Walker ponds the last time we
came through with a project because it didn't sound so much like burp.
Anyway, we're showing, because the property lies at the peak of a hill,
water runs every different direction. We can't efficiently collect the
water and put it in one pond so we've shown four and the idea is to catch
all of the street runoff in the storm sewer system and discharge it to one
of those four ponds before it gets to the wetland system. Either the lake
or the southwest corner of the piece. In the design of the project we set
out to create the 40,000 square foot lots for all the riparian lots. All
lakeshore lots and we set up all 20,000 square foot lots for the
non-lakeshore lots. The City's RSF zoning district requires 90 foot wide
lots whereas the shoreline district requires 125 foot wide lots. We're
asking for variances for the lots that aren't tributary to the lake
' directly anymore. Once the subdivision is created and we have street
system=. and NURP ponds and the roads there, we can accomplish the goals
I think that the shoreland district was set out to accomplish. That being
more green space, less degregation of the resource by using the NURP pond
approach. So we're showing lots, you've got a table in your report that
actually lists all the lot widths. We downsized the lots to less than the
11 shoreland district's standards where the water from those lots would be
treated by a NURP pond. So then staff is recommending approval of the
variances for those lot widths. What we intend here is to seek approval
or achieve approvals from Chanhassen and Victoria as well for this
'
platting and proceed with a final plat request and development in 1993.
As rapidly as we can. I guess one other point that I'd make. This ghost
plat that we have in the Victoria portion of the property. The southerly
11 portion. You'll see on this drawing the cul -de -sac and lots fanning out
which have to be served by coming through Victoria and we think it's
better to. We're leaving an outlot in this initial platting which would
later be subdivided once streets can be brought from the south side of the
hill. It's a wonderful wooded knoll and those lots would remain heavily
wooded, even after development. So we've chosen to set aside this hilltop
for now so that we can do the best job later. A better job later with the
subdivision. I think that pretty well covers it. Appreciate your time
and I'll answer any questions.
Batzli: I'm sure we'll have some once we start going from Commissioner to
Commissioner. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there any public
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting II February 3, 1993 - Page 6
comment or someone who would like to address the Commission? After you
give us your name and address, step up to the microphone if there is. Is
there a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Before we ask Nancy to lead off here, has there been any
neighborhood meetings? Okay. So a lot of these issues have been talked
about with the neighbors already?
Terry Forbord: On the 27th I held a neighborhood meeting here in the II
Council chambers.
Batzli: Okay. And do you have something that I don't know that you 1
really covered. Do you have any problems with any of the conditions in
the staff report?
Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Brothers. We've gone through,
the conditions with the staff today and there were a few outstanding
issues that, where there was a little confusion such as what is the flood
plain elevation and there's no 3 governmental agencies that say it's
different and so the way we choose to leave that is we'll just work with
the staff and whatever those agencies all concur that it is, is what it
will be. And the remainder of the items we worked through prior to this I
meeting
Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Nancy, do you want to start out?
Blanc i roc» : Mr. Forbord, I've got a question for you. If you were to
describe this subdivision once it's all done in a few words, how would yo
describe it? Just for example, I'm thinking of your, I go by your is it
Willow Ridge subdivision? And you have a positioning line under the word
Willow Ridge. It says, unique environemtnally sensitive neighborhood.
And that has caught my eye every time I've gone by it and one of the ways
it cauT,ht my eye was saying to myself, is this kind of a positioning line
for this company in the differentiation from the other neighborhood...
subdivisions. How would you describe this new subdivision if you were to
give me three words that you would like to say? Would you use those
three? Would you use other ones?
Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. Willow Ridge, if you'v l
followed that project. I'm not sure if you did, but for the City of
Chanhassen and certainly I think it's fair to say for the development
community as a whole. Not just Lundgren Bros, although I think it's fair
to say that we've always been environmentally conscience. But the world'
changed a lot in just the last few years. What was acceptable as little
as 2-3 years ago is not acceptable anymore and we've all learned a little
bit. And the idea, I guess we're paying for the sins of the past a littl
bit but the idea is that we try to get better at what we do and not stay
the same. Now for those of who have worked in the city for a long time,
Chanhassen is certainly acknowledged to be kind of a forerunner in it's
pursuit in the environmentally sensitive legislation or ordinances to
protect the many complexes of wetlands and water bodies that they have
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 7
1
within this city. And we've always applauded that and we think that's
what makes Chanhassen kind of a nice place to live. Willow Ridge kind of
happened to fall into the process, the governmental process right at a
point in time when Chanhassen was kind of rethinking how they went about
some of those things, and it was a very difficult piece of property
because it was a land assembly involving two parcels. And because of a
wetland that was there and a couple other complexes and other situations,
how do you work around it. And then how do you create this preservation
' zone. The biggest issue was, how do you create a zone around a sensitive
environmental, physical sensitive environment that in perpetuity it won't
be hopefully... regardless of what conditions you impose on the developer.
Once the homeowner moved in, the homeowner could do whatever they wanted
to do, and that still occurs. Well staff, in collusion with staff we
developed a methodology where we think we've accomplished it. Only time
will tell but that was to create preservation zones and deed restrictions
that actually is on the deed of every home. The title of every home that
people buy as well as covenants that are part of, that emcumber the
property as well. And there's also an informational packet in every
1 purchase agreement that the people buy. If they buy a home in there so
there's all this stuff. So I'm not trying to pontificate here but the
point I'm trying to make is, that's why we chose those words. Is because
it was really something that probably hadn't been done before so we tried,
we thought it was unique and we thought it was environmentally sensitive.
What 3 words would we use on the Boley property? It's an entirely
different set of circumstances. We would like to think that it will be
equally as environmentally sensitive as Willow Ridge and we will have the
same type of deed restrictions and we will work through city staff to have
these preservation areas because we don't want people going down and
cutting down the cattails and riprapping the shoreline of Lake St. Joe. We
don't want that either so forgive me for not having 3 words to come up
with but the intent is pretty much the same.
Rick Sathre: I've got 3 words. Dramatic long views.
Terry Fcrbord: It does have exceptional views. I think it's even pointed
out in the staff report that Minnewashta, Lake Minnewashta and I think
ever portions of the Minnetonka area can be seen from the property.
Mancino: Thank you. What is the name of the proposed subdivision?
Rick Sathre: There hasn't been a marketing name chosen. Lundgren Bros
typically doesn't, they don't spend the considerable time necessary to
1 pick the name, the right name until farther through the design process
when the exact market of housing is determined and the exact features to
go into the neighborhood are decided. For instance the Willow Ridge name
11 came very late in that planning process. That was Ortenblat /Ersbo forever
and that's pretty typical but I would assure that this wouldn't be platted
as the Boley Addition either. Or at least I don't think it will be.
Mancino: Do you choose the name before the final plat approval?
Rick Sathre: Yes.
Mancino: Okay. Also, do you choose the name of the public streets?
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 8
I
Rick Sathre: Yes.
I
Mancino: At that time?
Rick Sathre: Yes. 1
Mancino: Is there any proposal for street lighting? Are you going to
have lighting inside, interior in the loop? In the cul -de -sac area?
II
Hempel: Mr. Chair, maybe I can answer that one a little bit better. The
City does require city street lights be installed. Locations to be II determined between staff and the developer. Typically they're placed at
intersections, dead ends, the cul -de -sacs and usually spaced 400 to 600
feet apart. The street lights are required. The developer's required to
escrow a fee of $200.00 per street light for electricity it costs for thell
first 2 years. After that the street lights are put on the city's monthlil
bill for electricity and maintenance. So every residential and commercial
development does have street lights put in with it.
II
Mancino: Okay, and then the design is approved by?
Hempel: The street light design of the lighting standard or the location,
or both?
Mancino: Both.
II
Hempel: Oka;. We're somewhat limited on the design type. We purchase
the, cr I should say we actually lease the street lights from NSP. They
have I think 3 or 4 different designs that are utilized. Typically we us
�
the colonial style that you'll see pretty much around town in newer
subdivisions. Location again, that's normally determined by staff and the
develoFer. 1
Manc i n An; proposal for sidewalks?
Rick Sathre No. No. We typically don't advocate them. It's been our 1
experience in the.
Aanenson: I was just going to say. There is a new trail going on
II
Minnewashta Parkway.
Mancino: To the east. On the east side of the road. Yeah.
II
Rick Sathre: We would install sidewalks where there was a problem with
conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. If a street was heavily
traveled, there was a safety issue but typically we don't advocate
sidewalks on local neighborhood streets. Because of personal opinion. W
don't think that sidewalks necessarily are typical of suburbia, at least
in our view. 1
Mancino: Another question that I have, and I guess that this is more for
Kate. One of the things that I was thinking about is, you get all these II
homes and families and kids and they're all going to want to go down to
the lake. How do they get down to the lake?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
g
February 3, 1993 - Page 9
Aanenson: There is an access. A DNR access off of Minnewashta Parkway.
1 Mancino: But aren't they going to cut through everybody's backyards and
aren't we going to destroy some of the wetland that are surrounding the
1 lake?
Aanenson: Well, they are private yards you know.
' Mancino: Okay. Does any development that has the wetlands around the
lake like that, do they ever have one path that everybody takes? There's
a common area? Whatever it's called so that families don't use all
different trails.
Aanenson: The Parks Board did look at that issue because that was
discussed and they felt that there is an access that is provided right now
11
and the thought that was a more desireable than to impose that upon the
lots adjoining. So their desire is for people to go onto Minnewashta
Parkway and use that access. They did discuss that and they felt that
1 access, to the subdivision wasn't appropriate.
Mancino: And how's that communicated to the families in the
subdivision?
Aanenson: In the covenants, as Terry mentioned earlier. We'll mark the
landscaping vegetation and when they get their covenants, that they're not
' to go in there and mow that and it's supposed to be left natural state of
vegetation. Not to be disturbed, yeah. And no structures.
KrE;u r: The odd person working in there isn't going to hurt anything.
There's unlikely to be a real beaten down path. It is all private
property. It doesn't go anywhere. I mean there's no place to go once
you're down there.
Aanenr n: You mean if you wanted to walk a dog or something or go down in
there?
Mancino: Well you know how kids are. They want to go down...
Aanenson: Sure, I don't see that as, yeah.
Mancino: There was also a dock down there when I walked the property.
There is an existing dock by the hockey or the ice skating rink that was
made so does that come out? Are property owners allowed to put docks down
into the lake?
Aanenson: I believe that's Mr. Boley's right now, if I'm correct. Well
we recommended as part of the staff report that Mr. Boley's house would
have to be...platted and we can add that to the condition. That the dock
11 come out.
Rick Sathre: We're not proposing any community dock structure for all the
residents but each of the homeowners that own the lot that adjoined the
lake would have the rights of typical lake owners. Although this lake
isn't a prime recreational lake. It's really a, it's something beautiful
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 10
II
to look at more than it is to use. But there would be some, I'm sure
there would be differences in how people would enjoy the lake. Some woul
want to go down there and canoe and others would never probably canoe. 0
go in the lake and fish. But you are right I'm sure about the kids. They
would tend to, some of the kids would run around out in the wetland and II
they don't see property lines like adults do. But I'd hope they'd be
typically good children.
Mancino: Typically good. II
Aanenson: Above average.
Mancino: Yes. Street width. You have proposed a 60 foot wide right -of -
way with a 31 foot wide street pavement. Now this is an urban residential
local street correct? Is that the right specification?
II
Hempel: That's correct.
Mancino: So that you are required to do a 60 foot wide right -of -way and II
your pavement width can be between 28 and 32 feet. And my question was,
wanting to keep as much green space as possible, why did you go for the 31
foot instead of 28 foot?
II
.
Rick Eathre: I think it'd be safe to say that we would choose to install
the narrowest street that the engineering department would be comfortable
with. So we're guessing what the standard would be but we don't want to
ovErLui1d the road as far as width.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman. The 31 foot back to back street width is a
standard, street standard for urban section that we use. We've typically
maintained that width unless we are preserving trees. We, in the cases
have narrowed it down to 28 but generally speaking we've maintained a 31
foot wide back to back curb street.
Mancino: I'd love to see a 28, if that meets the guidelines, and II supposedly, from what I've read it does.
Hempel: It may come down to a parking issue. Some of the city streets i
we continue to narrow it. Right now your children and so forth are going
to he playing or accessing Minnewashta Parkway via the street. By
narrowing it up, you're taking some of the room away for them to travel
with their bicycles or walk. Then if the next question is, if we narrow
it up and then provide a space for the children to walk, then we're losin
that green space by putting in sidewalks. So we've held pretty, generally
pretty tight with the 31 foot wide street for the last 4 years. And agai
the only times we've really narrowed them up is if we can save trees and
in some instances, like the Summit at Near Mountain. The developer
incorporated boulder retaining walls and so forth in an effort to save
trees and maintain the street width so we're pretty standard with that 31
foot wide for the two lanes of traffic and to be able to park a vehicle
and still maintain the two lanes of traffic by that parked car.
Mancino: I see where city landscaping plan or the ordinance requires 1 II
tree per lot. I would like you to consider something unique and that is
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 11
putting boulevard planted trees into the entrance of the subdivision on
' both sides of the street. I'd just like to hear your thoughts on that.
You have gorgeous oaks at the beginning on that northeastern corner.
They're big and beautiful.
Rick Sathre: Lundgren Bros is the developer of the Near Mountain
neighborhood in northeastern Chanhassen and I think, I'm sure you've been
through there. Maybe you even live there, I'm not sure. I don't know
where you live but I think what you'll find in their neighborhoods that
have been developed to date is that there's a great many more plantings,
trees and shrubs planted than any city ordinance ever requires because
they try to create an image. They try to excite a buyer. What separates
a good subdivision from a poor one, it's a lot of times it's attention to
detail and Lundgren is magnificent at their attention to detail. Their
signage and their landscape treatments. Your taste and their's may be
different on any given project but I would hope that you would be very
pleased with the end result. To date there is not a landscape, a detailed
landscaped plan put together. It generally doesn't come until the final
development phase. But there would be a coordination between the entrance
signaae and the landscaping around the entrance area and they tend to
cluster plantings where there will be more drama to it than just planting
a tree every 50 feet or 100 feet or whatever. One in each yard generally
doesn't create as much drama as clustering. As we go forward you'll see
more information.
1 Batzli: I know you're itching to tell us why we can't do boulevard trees.
Hempel: M. Chairman, typically with the boulevards they're expressly for
utilities. We have the gas company. Telephone. NSP and so forth. It
really limits the areas where a boulevard tree can go. The boulevard tree
has actually become a real maintenance problem. Even though they are
I beautiful in the boulevard areas when they get mature, they do take a lot
of maintenance with tree trimming and watering and if they die, they end
up having to be replaced and so forth. They may even become a public
safety hazard with vehicles running into them.
I Batzli: You and Dick need to talk about that too. There's some history
to that whole thing. Go ahead, please.
' Mancino: I'm done.
11 Batzli: Oh, okay. On the landscaping issue. When are they required to
do landscaping? Detailed landscaping plan. At what point?
Aanenson: Before they go for final plat. Yeah. We put that as one of
the conditions. They need streetscape. That's a requirement of the
landscaping ordinance, along Minnewashta Parkway.
11 Batzli: Okay. Jeff.
Farmakes: I have a couple of questions for city staff before I ask my
questions that may or may not make any sense. On the wetland area that we
have on the map here, it says edge of wetland. Inside here we have a
notation there is no vegetation or this area is farmed and you're talking
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 12 1
about fill that will go, you want to make sure that the fill stays back oll
setback from that within a certain area. It says 10 to 30 feet, 20 on th
average. Is that back from that line or does that include that line?
Aanenson: Yeah. No, you have 40 foot of building setback and then from II
the edge of the wetland you'll have an average of 20 feet of native
plantings brought in.
Farmakes: Okay, and there is no native planting at this time according tII
your assessment?
Aanenson: Correct.
II
Farmakes: So in looking at that, and going back to the ordinary high
water mark, and then looking that there's a 4.3 difference between the
II
ordinary high water mark and the flood stage where they're going to be
dumping fill, or you don't want them to be dumping fill. Isn't that past
that setback then? Are they going to be dumping fill past that setback? II
Aanenson: Yeah. That's what Dave raised part of that in one of his
conditions. Number 4. That's the one we're talking about we need to get
clarification of.
Farmakes: Okay, but there's only 4 feet difference in elevation. I can't
tell on the map exactly where the 4.3 feet would be in elevation
difference between the first line we see, ordinary high water level mark II
and the flood stage.
Rick c:athre: This line right here is 945.2. That's the DNR's ordinary II
high water mark and that drawing that Terry had up before, that's the line
between the light green or the yellow area and the dark green. That's th
DNR jurisdiction line. Where the dark green meets the white, that's the
wetland edge. The actual city wetland edge as field located by the
biologist and then we surveyed that line.
Aanenson: So from that line you'll go the extra vegetation. II
Ric Sathre: ...10 or 20 feet uphill from that, uphill from where the II dark green is would be that buffer strip that's no touch. Then the next
40 feet up above that is backyard but you can't build in it.
Farmakes: Okay, but when you say no touch, you're talking about the
II
consumer because I'm looking, I'm having a hard time resolving the
elevation maps. Seeing exactly where that 4.3 difference is and I'm
looking on 5 where it says the applicant should not place fill material 11
below the 100 year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe which is at 949.5 and
that's where I'm getting the 4.3 difference in feet.
Rick Sathre: There is 4.3 feet difference between the 945.2 line. The 11
yellow green boundary and that arbitrary elevation that the Watershed
District came up with. What was stated earlier in the meeting was that
the real 100 year flood elevation is probably halfway through the green II
area.
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 13
Farmakes: And there's three differences of opinion on this sort of thing.
So does any of the fill go within that green area is my question?
Rick Sathre: No. None of the fill goes into that green area and in fact
the first 10 or 20 or 30 feet of the white area on there would be planted
in some native type grass that would be not maintained. It would not be
mowed. It would be like at Willow Ridge where we have established the
same sort of a buffer zone.
Aanenson: It'd be like this...edge of the wetland and it tapers down.
That's the wetland edge. So it won't go past that.
Farmakes: Now this brings me to my next question. In trying to calculate
and look at these types of things, and we're looking at the area that
would be facing to the north. Towards the lake and I think we went
through this the last time with Lundgren on Lake Lucy. You have kind of a
tendency to develop difficult types of property next to wetlands and we
were looking at square footage and again on our calculations we have
square footage as actual and area above wetlands but I still, without
taking a ruler or a calculator, I still don't know what the buildable
square footage is. And that, it seems to me that they're all above 20,000
square feet but again, they're all different shapes of property so I'm
trying to, it would be helpful if, and we've talked about this before,
seeing buildable square footage. Because from a practical standpoint,
obviously everybody on here knows when we get these types of complaints or
variances, it's because somebody can't put a deck in or whatever. It
doesn't fit in the property. And it doesn't do any good to look at
121,000 square feet of property when there's really only 20,000 square
feet there.
KYsu :r: Jeff, there is a table we asked them to provide...being flashed
up here. I think you can see that all the lots, when you eliminate the
wetland, some of them have very substantial wetlands but when you
eliminate the wetlands they're still all bigger than we normally require
for flat and on a cornfield anyway.
Farmakes: Yes. But I'm also looking at some of the contours of these
properties and trying to evaluate how they would fit into traffic
patterns, things of that nature. It gets difficult when you have to go
and re calculate it yourself with the setbacks and setback back from the
edge of the wetlands.
11 Aanenson: Well I did that with the Attachment #1. I went through each of
those lots and gave you the area above the wetland plus the wetland
setback in trying to figure out how close they would be.
Farmakes: Is there a reason that somewhere on this chart that we can't
see buildable square footage?
Aanenson: Isn't that area above wetlands?
11 Krauss: Well no. I think what Jeff is getting at is that you've got to
knock out the wetland setback.
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 14
II
Farmakes: Yes.
II
Batzli: Does the area above wetlands include the dark green strip?
Aanenson: No. 1
Batzli: No? Okay. What can you build within the 40 foot setback from
the dark green strip?
II
Krauss: Nothing.
Batzli: Can you put a deck back there?
II
Farmakes: See, and that's my point.
Krauss: It's your backyard. 1
Batzli: Yeah, but I mean most people can put a deck in their backyard. ,
We've got a building setback and then, well no you can't.
Aanenson: You can't. It's got to be outside of that wetland.
Batzli: There are some structures that can go back there and most can't.'
AanEnson: Swingset. ,
H,arbe A swingset can go back there? In the green?
Aanen_cn: what did we say in the final ordinance. I'm not sure I
II
remem':er. Accessory structures.
Olsen: It depends on how we define structure. It gets back into that
whsle. II
Batzli: I thought we did that at one point.
II
Aanenson: Yeah, right. We did.
Batzli: I thought we said 10 feet for sandboxes, swingsets, stuff like II
that. Is that right? In the back. Okay.
Farmakes: The point that I'm trying to make here is that it would be
beneficial if we know what is buildable and what is not.
Rick Sathre: I can't help you with square footage right off the top of m
head but what we've allowed for is the house area and the deck area on
each lot. The absolute minimum is 65 feet and a lot of them are 75 or 85
feet.
II Farmaes: Yes. I see that on here but I'm, I am not actually addressing
your particular development. This is a problem that we've had with other
developments. One of them happened to be the one on Lake Lucy and it
would be a lot easier to concept this if we know what is buildable and
what is not. In other words, what can a homeowner build on. Put a deck
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 15
out. Put a swingset. Where would they have to stop? And then eliminate
that so we can see what is a true building pad. Going to the extended in
the future on the street. Is that a temporary sign then? Would that be
categorized as a temporary sign? Does it have a time limit or is that
left up until that street changes?
Aanenson: So that people are aware that there's a possibility that street
can go through.
Farmakes: Are we going to require, if it has more of a longevity than a
temporary sign, are we going to require?
Krauss: Well it's not a temporary sign.
Farmakes: It will be a permanent sign?
Krauss: It's a metal sign affixed to a barricade that will come down if
and when the street's extended. It becomes our sign. It's part of our
improvement,
Farmakes: So it will be a good enough sign that won't become an eyesore?
Aanenson: Right,
Farmakes: On the two corner areas to the west, I believe it would be.
Those little loops there? I'm not familiar with those type of traffic
loops that come out where the sort of cul -de -sac comes right up to the
thru traffic. Is that sort of a fielder's choice when you're coming out
of your hnus €- which way you're going to go?
Kraus -_: They're a real common technique. I don't particularly care for
them for that reason and it's a lot of blacktop but it's often times the
only way, they're called eyebrows. The only way to service a series of
lots that you can avoid private drives.
Farmakes: Is Public Safety comfortable with that sort of thing? It seems
to me that even coming into your house, that you'll have a lot of cross
traffic patterns.
Krauss: There's so little traffic on it.
1 Aanenson: The same with a cul -de -sac.
Batzli: 90% of the time you're going to have kids playing street hockey
in there. There's never any traffic.
Farmakes: Alright. That's the extent of my questions. Oh, by the way.
I have no problem with not having access to that lake. Anybody who has a
few hundred feet of cattails in their backyard between them and the lake
knows that it would be $10,000.00 to dig out a hole to get to the lake so,
from a practical standpoint you're probably not going to get a lot of
people applying to do that. Although I can think of one.
Batzli: Thanks Jeff. Joe.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 -- Page 16
Scott: Just a question. When you're talking about, I think it was
Attachment #4 that talks about the maximum 3:1 slope. If we've got a
potential 4 foot difference between jurisdictions A, B and 0, does that
mean that conceiveably we could in effect lose 12 feet, or 13 feet,
depending upon?
Aanenson: No.
Hempel: No Mr. Chairman, because the wetland edge is the actual...for 1
filling.
Scott: Okay. Kate, where's that access for Lake St. Joe that you were II
talking about?
Aanenson: Pardon me, the what?
Scott: You said there was an access to Lake St. Joe.
Aanenson: It's further up. 1
Scott: It doesn't show.
Rick Sathre: About halfway up the eastern side. 2/3 of the way up the 1
eastern side.
Krauss: It's a signed DNR access. 1
Aanenson: It's up in this area. Up in I believe it's up in this area
here. The parking area right there. It's a flat area that's marked DNR
with a brown sign there. Lake access.
Scott: And then according to the Park and Rec group, they were quite
happy just to take the park fee per lot and not try to turn that into a
recreational.?
Aanenson: Yeah, as trail. That was discussed. Trails around the lake
and they felt the quality and because there was access already to the
lake.
Krauss: Yeah, I did. Joe, I did have the opportunity to speak to Todd 1
about that again this afternoon. What was discussed, and it's been
discussed in the past is the possibility of doing a boardwalk type of set"
up around the west side of the lake. I guess it's fair to say that
everybody on staff thought it would be a dandy idea to do it. That it
would be very attractive. On the other hand, it's extraordinarily
expensive and what Todd pointed out is that it's tough to justify that
kind of expense with a park in that location. If this were in the center
of town on a main trail system where people, as some parks I'm familiar
with in Minnetonka. Hundreds of people would use it everyday, it may be
worth it. Todd didn't feel that in this instance you could justify it
being that it's on the far western edge of the city and pretty isolated.
Scott: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions. 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 February 3, 1993 - Page 17
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: Rick, what do you think of our new wetland ordinance?
Rick Sathre: I think it's creative. I think the idea of a buffer strip
and setback in combination is much more effective than just a greater
distance and having mowed grass right up to the edge of the wetland.
Conrad: It shows the flexibility that we're striving for Any criticisms?
Rick Sathre: Not yet. It's pretty new. I don't have many experience
with it yet.
Batzli: Ladd, I think you've got a criticism out in the audience there.
Conrad: Yes Terry, I'm interested.
Terry Forbord: I think it's a great ordinance. I just think that the
preservation zone should be inclusive in the setback.
Batzli: The 10 to 30 feet should be part of the 40 foot setback?
r Terry Forbord: ...problems in plats as they come before you. A lot of
problems making sites very difficult to develop.
11 Batzli: From an economic standpoint?
Terry Forbord: Not just an economic but some cases, logistics. Because
there might be distances between wetlands. You're trying to get streets,
home sites and you're trying to do all these other things. There may be a
slope There may be some trees. There may be all kinds of other things
but I think the quest is noble. If that's not the issue. But I think
there needs to be, it's like in a PUD ordinance. The reason you have a
PUD ordinance is to provide flexibility because you're going to run into
that unique situation that's going to make it so you can't do it. And
I just think it should be inclusive. That's my personal opinion.
Aanenson: Let me just add. This is a natural classification wetland. We
haven't got that many so it's the most restrictive. But it's still less
restrictive than what we had before so. He's allowed to be build closer
than we would have on the old ordinance but yet it's still one of our most
11 restrictive wetlands.
Batzli: Let me ask one question before, while Ladd's shuffling his
papers. I'll let him get ready here. If the ordinary high water mark
changes so that the fill, the edge of the wetland doesn't change but the
100 year flood line may. Is that right?
Aanenson: Yes.
Batzli: So if you look at Attachment #4, the slope that they've got
currently goes all the way down to the edge of the wetland? Now is that
what's going to change because they can't put fill in the ordinary high
water mark so that that slope will change?
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 18 II
Rick Sathre: Let me take a run at that. If the 100 year flood elevation"
is really determined to be 4.3 feet higher than the DNR's, what the DNR
thinks the ordinary high water level is, which is think is wrong. I don'
think it is that high. But if it is, we would either have to seek an
approval to fill some of the flood plain area that isn't in the wetland. _
What that 949.5 elevation actually goes outside the wetland.
Batzli: Right. II
Rick Sathre: And we don't think that's correct. But if it was, then our
choices would be to seek approval to fill some of the flood fringe or to
fill it. And the second choice would be to fill some and excavate
elsewhere so we didn't change the overall volume of flood area. Or a
third option would be to pull away. But I don't think any of those
options will be necessary to be played out because in reality I'm sure th
real 100 year flood elevation is downhill farther somewhere.
Batzli: Now when you petition to fill within the ordinary high water
II
mark, who do you petition? You don't petition us. We don't control that.
Do we Dave?
Hempel: The ordinary high is DNR but in this jurisdiction it would be th1
Watershed District because it's within the flood fringe or flood plain
area. That's the area above the ordinary high water mark.
Batzli: Now do we care whether they do that other than it potentially
effects the slopes of these backyards.
II
Hempel: I don't think it would effect, it wouldn't effect us from a city
standpoint other than the flood storage. If in fact as Rick mentioned,
that that elevation was accurate from the Watershed District. 1
Batzli: Okay. Go ahead Ladd.
Conrad: Stay up there Rick. What do you think of islands? 11
Rick Sathre: Islands in cul -de -sacs?
Conrad: Yes. II
Rick Sathre: Islands in the lakes are nice. Islands in cul -de -sacs are ll
nice.
Conrad: What do you think of eyebrows? We've got a new term here. I
don't like eyebrows. I think they're terrible. Why? Are you staying
away from putting an island in these because of your own design or becaus
of a concern about city?
Rick Sathre: We stayed away from, well we did this technique so that it II
would be obvious to the Planning Commission and City Council that these
lots met the RSF standards or exceeded them. I think it would be nicer i
those, if that street bubble wasn't out there so far and the driveways,
the houses stayed where they were and maybe just had longer driveways. I
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 February 3, 1993 - Page 19
like that. Or I'd like an island in the middle of the cul -de -sac. We
haven't proposed them yet.
Conrad: I wish you would. And we'll stop the conversation there. I wish
you would. Maybe city staff will reject it. Maybe City Council would but
120 foot little bubble here is basically, it's a lot of pavement and I
guess I just don't see the point when we could put an island in. There's
120 feet there. Our standard for an island is 48 feet, if we approve our
ordinance tonight. Plenty of room for that. Anyway. Just a thought.
Batzli: Paul.
Krauss: Well if I could just touch on the idea of the island. I mean
this has come up before at Planning Commission meetings and frankly
Planning staff has agreed with it. This came up, we brought it up to the
City Council probably, I don't know, 5 -6 months ago. The City Council
said that they agreed with you and instructed the City Engineer to come up
with some standards that would allow islands to exist. Now that hasn't
been done yet but I think everybody's starting to fall into place on that.
But I think Rick proposed something in there that I think we would go
along with. Having demonstrated the case that no variances are required
here, there'd probably a preference to eliminate the eyebrows, get rid of
the blacktop and just extend the driveways down. So we'll have a few
funny front yard lot lines but effectively the lots don't change. You
just extend the lines out closer to the street. And that eliminates the
problem in it's entirety. There is one question that results, and our
enryinF_eiing department would have to look at it but it occurs on curves.
And what_ you'd have is you'd have 3 driveways coming together on one curve
and then when the snowplow comes around, they get innudated. But that
probably could be worked out if the Planning Commission's comfortable with
that approach.
Conrad: Well I'd just like to challenge your thinking on that and I know
Lundgren Bros wants to do a nice design and something that's sellable. I
guess what I'm looking at is really just not attractive and it's a lot of
asphalt so however you want to work that out between staff. I think you
should just challenge yourself on that design. Terry, I'm trying to move
along here. We're beating a lot of things into the ground. Yeah.
r Batzli: Go ahead Terry.
11 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. I don't want to confuse the Planning
Commission because often times we come forth with proposals that include
some of the items that Planning Commissioner Conrad has just raised. And
if I was in your shoes, you're probably saying well, geez. Why does
Lundgren Bros do that on this proposal but they don't do it on that
proposal? I can summarize for you very quickly why that occurs. We would
prefer narrower streets. We would prefer more green space. We would
always prefer islands but in certain types of projects, the scope of the
project or the scale of the project is no longer worth the battle.
Fighting the countless tabled actions by either the Planning Commission or
the Council over things that, I mean they're just not worth the fight. We
do believe and agree exactly with what you have said. But it's not worth
championing the cause every time, even though it may be right. And so
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 20
II
there are times when we may take a step back and just say, we're coming i
with a standard subdivision. It's not a PUD. We're trying to make a
simple decision for the city but it may not make the nicest development.
But after a while you get tired of fighting the battle.
Conrad: Well I wish you'd revisit this issue. It's sort of your call. I/
It's your call. In my mind, what you think is appropriate should go in
there. It's just a terrific amount of concrete. My last point, wetland
ordinance states that a monument is required every 300 feet on the wetlan
edge and it's kind of fun to take a look at the new ordinance and see how
it applies. Basically it says that that monument goes every other lot. I
Surprise. Surprise.
Krauss: No, actually there's two sections to that. It says, and I don't
have it in front of me. It sounds like you might. But it says that
either you put it on every property line, every property corner where the
wetland buffer exists. But if there's a huge amount of space, then it's
got to be every 300 feet.
II
Conrad: So will this go on every property?
Krauss: Yes. 1
Conrad: Okay. That's all.
Batzli: Okay, thank you Ladd. Diane. II
HarbertE: I just have a comment with regard to the green and the light II
green as it deals with wetlands. Is it communicated to the potential
owners then where the limitations are for building?
Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Harberts? 1
Harherts: Harberts, yes.
Rick Sathre: Yes. The Lundgren Bros constantly evolves their product in1
both their house and also the documents they provide the owners. Each one
of them will receive a small drawing that shows on paper that there's thi
buffer strip and the wetland beyond it. But also on the ground, as
Commissioner Conrad eluded to, there would be a sign on the ground as wel
that defines the buffer area and the wetlands. So both in paper.
Harberts: But they're going to understand this when they purchase the II
property?
Rick Sathre: Right. They have to review those documents before they can l
sign the purchase agreement. They can't, Lundgren Bros does not let them
buy before they've done that.
Harherts: But they will understand though what those markers are all I
about. What the wetlands policy is, or whatever ordinance for Chanhassen.
That's the point coming from just purchasing a home that had a designated"
wetland there that was not stipulatedin the purchase agreement.
II
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 21
Rick Sathre: I can't stand here and say, tell you absolutely that the
husband and wife would always read everything and fully understand it. I
certainly hope they do. It's there for them and certainly not something
that Lundgren Bros hides or wants to hide. They want to fully disclose
all of this information. But some people may scan over it or. That's the
purpose of that sign out there too. To say, hey. Wake up.
Harberts: Right, exactly. That's why I'm just wondering, does the
average public person understand what wetlands issues are all about. What
the ordinances are. I mean it's something new to the typical laymen so
it'-s just a comment, from that perspective. Second thing, again it's just
a comment. As it deals with the wetland, and I'm familiar with the
different classes or levels of wetlands. I think Kate made a comment that
11 this is a natural setting. And it has to do with boat docks. Help me
here to understand that, it was my understanding that in the wetland you
couldn't go in and build anything in there but yet they're talking about
11 the opportunity to go in and put a boat dock in there if they want to?
Aanenson: Mr. Boley has a dock right now.
Harberts: Right.
Aanenson: Currently, if you wanted to put a dock across the wetland, you
11 have to get a wetland alteration permit.
Harbert: Okay. Yeah, I read about that.
Aanenson That's a process you can go through. I think it is
circumstance. What they're envisioning is.
Harberts: Because of the excessive cost.
Aanenson: Well, it's a long ways. It's a substantial, a couple hundred
feed to get all the way across that and I'm not sure anybody, it would
have to be the elevated boardwalk type to get all the way down is the only
way we'd allow it to go in. Or you would allow a variance. Allow the
vegetation to grow underneath and we just don't envision it. And because
there's one on the other side, I think that meets the needs.
Harberts: That's it.
r Batzli: Okay, thank you. I don't have a lot of questions here. I've
kind of snuck them in as we've gone. Hope I didn't tick off too many
people up here. I wanted to note that Lundgren Bros was masticistic
rather than masacistic. I figured that means that they just eat a lot or
something in our Minutes from the Park and Rec Committee. Anyway. In
answer to your question. Comment. Nobody understands about wetlands
that's not probably in this room, or something. And so the first thing
they want to do is, the first thing they'll do is they'll try and figure
out what they can do with the wetlands to mow it or do something like
that. That's an educational process that the city's going through as part
of it's wetlands SWMP committee. Publishing informational items. Things
like that.. Trying to get it in the newspapers. Trying to make people
more aware of those issues. Not to use fertilizers, things like that in
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 22
their backyard. The one question I guess I had left was on the variances
What is our regular, not to talk about the variances for a minute but wha
is our regular lot frontage on a road?
Aanenson: 90 feet. 1
Batzli: 90? So for example, if you look at Lot 23, Block 1, which is 88.
Darn close to 90. 1
Rick Sathre: The width is measured at the building setback.
Aanenson: At the 30 foot setback. 5o that would be, I scaled that one till
be about 100.
Batzli: Okay. What about Lot 13? That's going to be filled way back as 11
well.
Aanenson: That's a flag lot. That would meet the standard at the 30 foo
setback.
Batzli: Okay. Now on the analysis for the variance, what is the upshot
of us getting this particular variance from the standpoint of, does the
State not like us? Does the State not give us money? Do we not, are we
not in compliance with their rules? What are we doing here by giving the
variance on the shoreland regulations?
Krau._s: Well Jo Ann can throw in on this too, but we've had a lot of
dialogue with the DNR over that particular standard for a number of years
In fact I think we even had them on this property. The DNR regulations,
and we put a comment in the staff report about it. The DNR regulations
were really designed for statewide perspective and just don't work very
well in the metro area. In fact the DNR has a new shoreland set of regs
that we're supposed to be working on that we're going to be looking at
giving ourselves a little latitude with that. The DNR reserves the right
to re. the variance and theoretically they have the right to deny it.
I think. We've never been quite sure on that but.
Olsen: They can, if they don't agree they can even take us to court.
Krauss: But we've examined this issue with them before and they have
agreed with us. Especially when we're doing, going to the lengths of
tipping the site back so that it flows in the other direction into NURP II
basins. We're doing everything they want you to do. They've agreed withll
us in the past. We expect they'll agree with us on this one too.
Batzli: Are we prepared to give this variance on every single other 1
development that comes through?
Krauss: To be honest, I'm probably willing to recommend that you do. Whe
we rewrite the shoreland regs, we want to eliminate having this problem. II
Batzli: And how can we write the shoreland regs to comply with the
Minnesota requirements and eliminate this problem?
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 23
Krauss: Well, there's a new State law in effect and then a community,
what they do is they write sort of a model and the communities are
obligated to adopt something like it. And we'll adopt something like it,
it just won't have that in there.
Batzli: I thought they had to approve what we did and look at it.
Krauss: They do, and this is an ongoing dialogue that we've been having
with them for literally a year.
Olsen: We even applied for flexibility. But we have to provide
11 justification. They have a separate form that we have to fill out. You
have to convince them that those regulations do not apply to.
Batzli: So what lot width do we end up with? What do we feel comfortable
with? Or do we just care about the within 1,000 feet aspect?
Olsen: Well this is the within 1,000 feet that you're talking about.
Aanenson: What we're saying with the square footage requirements, we're
not, by making the lot narrower at the street frontage, it's not effecting
the density so it's really a moot issue. I mean what difference does it
make as far as lot frontage?
Olsen: It's not the street frontage. It's just the lake frontage.
Krauss: They're most concerned with.
Batzli: I'm concerned that
Krauss: On longer lakeshore. We're not changing that.
Batzli: Well, I'm not concerned about your reasoning so much as there is
no basis that I can see to grant the variance in here other than, there's
no rational to get it here that it seems like we have to give it
everywhere else because there is no analysis of why it's proper here and
would not be proper somewhere else, and that's what I'm concerned about.
Krauss: I'm not sure if you'll buy this argument but it's one I've
taken...is that the hardship here is an inappropriate State law. Or State
rule. It just did not consider this situation. There's no hardship of
the property here. It's not in your typical sense a variance. But the
hardship is an inappropriate standard.
Batzli: You're right, I don't buy it because every time you need a
variance it's because of a statute and it's your opinion in this instance
that it's improper but you're not presenting me with a reason.
Aanenson: You don't understand. Paul doesn't agree with it period. Not
in this instance.
Batzli: But that's subjective. You're giving me your subjective analysis
of, that this is improper and what I'm saying is, everybody that comes in
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 24
here is now going to get this variance and I guess you're telling me,
don't worry about it.
Krauss: There is not a lake in the Twin Cities metro area that complies
with that standard.
Aanenson: We've done it on other lakeshore lots on Minnewashta that don'
have the.
Krauss: And it's something the DNR staff has agreed with so. Well, some
DNR staff.
I/
Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman?
Batzli: Yes. 1
Rick Sathre: I think the two important issues here, I don't know if you'd
hang your hat on them or not but number one, we aren't increasing the
density. We're configuring the lots so they're more efficient from a
street cost standpoint. We've still got the 20,000 square foot lots. We
just made them deeper and narrower instead of wider and shorter. So
they're just a different shaped rectangle. The other, but more
importantly I think from the DNR standpoint or from a public environmenta
benefit standpoint is the fact that the shoreland standards were drafted
with, to number one, control density and lakeshore or this shoreland
district use. Also, I think the reason they were controlling density was
sc that there'd be less hard cover and less polluted runoff reaching the
wate: bodies. Well what Chanhassen has done here, in your city, you've
decided we're going to protect our wetlands. We're going to do
NUR ponds. Where we're gathering all this urbanized runoff and treating
it, we accomplish the same goal that the strict adherence to the shorelan -
standards would, in fact you're bettering it. You're doing better than
the shoreland standard would ask you to. So I think you do have terrific
justification to vary from the standard because you've already bettered
the situation that the DNR foresaw. 1
Batzli: I have a difficult conceptional time with that. The eyebrows,
I kind of like the eyebrows from the standpoint that it gives the kids
someplace to play other than the street and there's no park right here.
And so I wouldn't mind an eyebrow. You can put an island in the other
one. Having said that, is there a motion?
Conrad: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of
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, wits
variances and the following conditions. Conditions per the staff report
except in number 4. If staff agrees, I'd eliminate the one line that
says, which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. I don'
know how else to word it so just eliminating those words knowing that
everybody will come to some kind of consensus as to what it actually is.
Point number 14, eliminating 8, 9, 10, 11 from the variance. Lots needin
the variance but also in that same point, Brian I'm a little bit with you
and a little bit concerned in terms of rational. I think Rick and Terry
and staff were meeting, I think we're doing what's right. Yet on the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 25
other hand, I have a real hard time saying, well we know it's right but we
haven't, I haven't justified it. And I don't know that I don't want to,
two double negatives. I don't want to put in a position of setting a
precedent. I want the rational for these variances to be very specific in
terms of, it can't be duplicated again. I don't want to be forced into
granting variances in the future subdivision because of what we just did
here. I don't mind what we're trying to do but it's got to be worded so
when somebody presses me, I can say it was specifically because of this
and right now I hear general terms but I'm not comfortable with the
general terms that I could defend it the next time through. You don't
11 need to respond Paul but I need that.
Krauss: Well I think we can certainly add an intent for the variance.
Conrad: No, but what you're saying is we don't believe in what the
ordinance.
Krauss: Well I don't believe it but the fact is the rationale, I can't
tell you it can't be duplicated elsewhere but the rationale, the ric
outline that we felt strongly about that we're doing the job that the
state approached with a meat ax.
Conrad: But simply say that you said because we're using NURP ponds to
catch this, I think that will get me off.
11 Krauss: Right, and we'd be happy to do that but it is a situation that
could be replicated elsewhere.
Conrad: If somebody put. Well, give me enough of those that it probably
won't.
Rick Sathre: One observation that I have. This lot width in this
shoreland district is different than most places in town where this is a
natural environment lake. It has the 20,000 square foot standard and the
125 foot lot width. I don't know that you have another lake like that in
town. Mostly you have recreational development lakes which are 15,000
square foot minimum and what, 100 foot width? I forget what the width is.
Olsen: 75.
Rick Sathre: 75. So you already exceed those standards with your RSF
zone. You probably won't see this.
Conrad: We see everything.
Rick Sathre: Yeah, you probably will.
Conrad: That's my motion Mr. Chairman.
Batzli: Is there a second?
11 Mancino: I second.
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 26
II
Batzli: Discussion. Boy I was going to say something and I lost it ther
in that last exchange. I was actually going to ask you to amend this.
What was I going to say?
Conrad: I think you were, I don't know.
II
Batzli: You're not psychic tonight.
Conrad: Don't want to be. We don't need your vote Brian. 1
Batzli: Oh. Well, it doesn't matter. What I would like to see is
approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria, in condition 12.
guess I would like to see us, rather than just say that is if we feel tha
this is a case where we don't want people to have backyards split 50 feet,
that we direct the staff to proceed towards annexing that area. I don't,
it bothers me that we're approving something where the lots are split lik�
that personally. I don't know how the rest of you feel but I would like
to see 12 amended. But I don't know if that's the applicant's job. It
seems like that's our job to do that. Is that our job? It doesn't realli
seem l i k e a condition.
Krauss: Having the intent of the Planning Commission backed up by the
II
City Council certainly would help us push the issue.
Batzli: But is that appropriate for a condition or is that something tha
we should just direct you after we approve this that we want to see that
happenT'
That would be preferable because it's not something that they.
il
Batzli: I don't think the applicant can do it. Although does the
applicant have to petition us formally to get the process rolling? 1
Kraus: The applicant's already indicated willingness to do that.
Batzli: Well willingness and following through are sometimes two
different things. Do you want to see that happen Ladd? It's your motion.
Oka >. Any more discussion?
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommends II
approval of 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 the following conditions: II
1. The applicaat shall enter into a development contract with the City
and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the
II
installation of the public improvements.
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.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 3, 1993 - Page 27
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 predeveloped
runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed
to NRUP 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. 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, as outlined in his memo dated January
15, 1993,
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 where the side
i 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
disturbed 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 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. 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 prependicular to each other.
8. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore
the potential for future street extensions to the west to serve the
City of 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
lot= in this phase of the development.
STATE OF
IMMIESOIT
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 551 NO 1
Ei
772 -7910
.
January 15, 1993
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: LUNDGREN BROS., BOLEY PROPERTY, CITY #93 -1 SUB, LAKE ST. JOE
(10 -11P), CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY
Dear Ms. Olsen:
We have reviewed the site plans dated December 28, 1992 (received
January 6, 1993) for the above - referenced project (S.7, T.116N,
R.23W) and have the following comments to offer:
1. Public water Lake St. Joe ( #10 -11P) is on the proposed site.
Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation,
which alters the course, current or cross - section of public
waters or public waters wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of
the DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit.
2. The OHW for Lake St. Joe is correctly shown as 945.2' on the
site plans.
3. Portions of the site are within the Lake St. Joe Shoreland 1
District. The project must be consistent with the city's
current shoreland ordinance standards.
Lake St. Joe has a Natural Environment shoreland
classification. Current City and state shoreland standards
require minimum lot sizes of 40,000 square feet for riparian
lots, and 20,000 square feet for non - riparian lots, with
minimum lot widths of 125 feet. It appears that several of
the proposed lots would not meet either the area (lots 3,5,&
6), or the width (lots 15 -19) standards.
4. It appears that the intent is to route most of the stormwater _
through settling basins, which is good. We would object to — -
having the stormwater routed directly to Lake St. Joe.
5. It appears that there are wetlands on the site that are not
under DNR jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations
for activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER =?'''
1
1
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen (Lundgren Bros. /Boley Property)
January 15, 1993
Page 2
1
wetlands should be evaluated by the city in accordance with
' the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991.
6. There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or
deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland
1 areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are
aware that various agencies (including the city, watershed
district, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) have
1 jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be
altered without appropriate permits.
7. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during
' the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water
& Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and
Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent,
should be followed.
' 8. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000
gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR
appropriations permit is required. You are advised that it
typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit
application.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
772 -7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Ceil Strauss
1 Area Hydrologist
cc: Bob Obermeyer, Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek WSD
Gary Elftmann, USCOE
City of Chanhassen shoreland file
1
1
1
1
1
CARVER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
219 East Frontage Road 1
Waconia, Minnesota 55387 -1862
Telephone (612) 442 -5101
FAX (612) 442-5102
MINNESOTA
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS „;:
C!TY
TO: Jo Ann Olsen. Senior Planner
FROM: Chip Hentoes, District Technician 1
DATE: January 12,1993
RE: Review of proposed land development by Lundgren
Bros., for Bcley Properties.
o
Staff
from the Carver SWCD has reviewed the above referenced
project. The following comments and recommendations to
control erosion and water quality are offered for your
consideration.
1. One of cur main ccnce is the question of the
wetland boundaries that were celineatec oy the staff
from Satire - Berggt:ist Inc. It appears the
boundaries of the wetland were identified cry by the
hydric vegetation and dad not take in account the
other parameters of delineating a wetland, which
ircluce horology and soils. Tne fact that .,•. ^,n you
loo K a. the gracing plan anc follow the or :cirai
= elevatior 9f:, which almost eeps in line
with the edge of the wetland as par - ed on the map, you
have to wonder what :actors ha4e chanced the
characteristics in lot 6,7 and ° to be able to fill
down to elevation 94. Is hydric ves;etatior soils and
hydrolccv all missinc in that area to be defined as
upland, and not a wetland? 1
2. As proposed in this preliminary review, fall is going
to be places along the north east wetland, in some
places as steep as 3:1, which in case of a storm event,
silt fences would not be adequate for erosion control.
Either mulch netting or straw mulch, anchored by a
mulching c.;sk should be required on a majority of the
steep grades surrounding the wetlanc.
�. Is runoff going to increase after development? will it
meet the cities policy?
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1
1
1
. 4. Are the ponds that are being proposed for storm water
detention meet the requirements of the cities policy of
a storm event?
1 Any questions or comments regarding this plat review, please
feel free to call me.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
1
i 1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II 1
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: January 8, 1993 1
SUBJ: Planning Case # 93 -1 SUB. Preliminary plat to subdivide 36
acres into 33 single family homes on property zoned RSF and
I
located southeast of Lake St. Joe, east of Minnewashta
Parkway and north of Highway 5.
1
I have reviewed the site plan and have made the following
requirements: 1
1. Developer must submit street names for Fire Department
approval.
2. 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire 1
hydrants, (i.e. street lamps, NSP, telephone cable boxes,
trees, plantings, etc.). Pursuant to City Ordinance. 1
3. Add one additional fire hydrant at the corner of
Lot 1 (one) and Minnewashta Parkway. II
4. No housing construction beyond Lot 1 may start until fire
apparatus access roads are provided. These access roads
shall be designed to the City of Chanhassen Engineering 1
Standards and meet the approval of the Chanhassen Fire
Department. Pursuant to UFC 1988 Sec. 10.207 (f).
1
1
1
1
Is
II
el
� l w PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
w—vafrAvA `. . . ���,-�`
1 __. -21,4
.. ., _
...____.. . ._. :it. • J.;,„- _ ,.... „, ..
/
.ME. 0�,
J � �
N OTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • ; ;t t r t !
1
WO
AVM _ . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - i l •• � -
Wednesday, February 3, 1993 t�ov, =// LAKE
7:30 P.M. d it at INN E WA S HT,
C ity Hall Council Chambers -��
is \ \.
690 Coulter Drive
Pro Bole Property '�� :� �
7200 1 o p.
1 _ rrte�'`` "' � V 4' • €` �� Developer: Lundgren Bros. Construction � ., _
7700 % P 11 a
Location: West of Minnewashta / „�`� 61 ` P('
Parkway, south of Lake St. „o, /Q'� `'_�
Joe and north of Hwy. 5 ��_ wai,-,-
\ s tit°
7700
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. Lundgren Bros. Construction proposes to subdivide 36 acres of property into 33
1 single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located on
the west side of Minnewashta Parkway, north of Hwy. 5 and south of Lake St. Joe.
I What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
I project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
I 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
1 Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937 -1900. If you choose to
I submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
1 Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 21,
1993.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1