The URL can be used to link to this page

8. Prelininary plat Lilac Lane, Teton Lane, Ithilien Addition C ITY O F PC DATE: 4/1/92 O - \� ' CHAAEI � CC DATE: 4/27/92 1 • CASE #: 92-4 SUB I B Olsen:v amis tiammali mmm ommilmonsgamingwarinsiim 1 STAFF REPORT 1 I PROPOSAL: a) Preliminary plat to subdivide 9 Acres in 17 Single Family Lots - 1 ' Ithilien Z b) Wetland Alteration Permit to Alter a Class B Wetland V LOCATION: Southwest corner of Lilac and Teton Lane 1/ a u. p- Cl APPLICANT: Hilloway Corporation I < 16455 Ringer Road Wayzata, MN 55391 ' - - = 4 ./ - .; , 7 - 9 2-- 1 . 1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 9 acres I ` DENSITY: 2.7 units /acre (net -does not include street ROW or wetland) 1.9 units /acre (gross) I ADJACENT ZONING C ONI G AND LAND USE: N - Shorewood; single family 1 Q s_ RSF; single family E - RSF; single family 1 Q , W - RSF; single family NE Corner of Site - Existing single family • 1 W �— WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. 1 PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a Class B wetland. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 1 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 e e c e 8 8 0 ° _ � _ ° $ _ ° °' �' o+ f.- R I � I ! (% C /STMA ' I �, I . .. ,7, �•.. �� LAK£ .E NI ‘‘'I 461111 la' RD,,----' figirrom i '';-- ii•I•A .--. r a ter= 1 4141 , - : s r no ■cam kw toir r • ‘o ) ,,„ o ats mimeo mak - , ,Rw ■--,--.4.j amt. h. hal a m a, A a sa., A-144,7;14s 11111 111 inn r ...d. 22 I .1, wr 1 71:V= 4 .- ra tell• • t L unn 167.4404 _ . 1 I V* e Ili � IP • • `•s►C :42t, .1 AI I c..12u. . 411p K Z , , 10.E�` c4`' him • • Mite- --) a -V11,1 ' 4 ma ii, _Iim..... ,,,,,.... - rairratrukx.::: ...e _. C • - VER 3 [ C"RC"LE DD �II� �� 7 /� . 4i161,&:4 ,- .1 i , , 41 t Wig VOW/ 1 ill aid 11.1 1 iii ...: Mu , P • • I GROUND —IWIA �l 'l, ' o LAKE 1 E3i = 1 opramm VP U �� Mt 11 • 1W ■S -407 l• � r cirri LAKE LUCY - wee � �� '►• ' ■�'� R D N . ::. _ ��,p�vye 8 lir --_, ..._ _ . . IC iii iii 1 1 i P ` t " . mow 1. r soc-- „,.•)\- - REENW • , ag".l 1•1111r, _} - -ARK SHORES � � -y4. ∎. - : � , / r ti _ , -- GEE N ' - ' : �• °u � i LAKE ANN � IA* \ ; ' 'I • m • • - NW 7 T. .)::....: RD ;)t . 1, = \, ,_y ...,..,...___ ........____ R4 IMO dir, 1 Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 2 • PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 1 The applicant is proposing to divide a 9 acre parcel into 17 single family lots. The lots would each be serviced by a new public cul -de -sac that would extend west from Teton Lane. This site is zoned RSF, and the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the Comprehensive Plan. While there is extensive history concerning this parcel and surrounding area, the platting that is currently proposed is relatively simple. Essentially, all lots meet or exceed ordinance and subdivision requirements, although minor alterations are required to three lots to correct small deviations from City Code. Staff believes these changes can be accommodated without the need to significantly revise the plat, and that no variances will be required to support the proposal. Utilities are available near the southwest corner of the property and can be extended to serve each of the home sites. A small poor quality Class B wetland is located in the southeast corner of the site near Teton Lane and Ashton Court. In addition to the platting request, a wetland alteration permit has also been offered for consideration. Plans for the wetland have been prepared by Barr Engineering and are very well developed. A portion of the wetland will be shifted further to the southeast; however, significant improvements in quality and function of the wetland are being offered. Plans call for converting the wetland from a poor quality wet meadow to a shallow water marsh, increasing the diversity of wildlife habitat. In addition, plans include provisions for a NURP pond that will pretreat water prior to entering into the wetland and remove nutrients and other sediment. Access to the site is likely to be the primary issue of concern. The background concerning this parcel is explained more fully in the text of the report. When Curry Farms to the south was approved, residents in the vicinity of Teton Lane objected to the use of Teton Lane to provide access to Curry Farms. Assertions were made regarding the fact that it was their belief this area would never develop and ultimately, the City Council approved provisions for a temporary barricade on Teton Lane. Residents from Curry Farms have appealed to the City Council in the past to have the barricade removed so that access into their neighborhood would be improved and school buses could service their homes, which are otherwise located on a deadend street. In addition, our Fire Department has had difficulty in responding to calls in the area, due to the location of the barricade. It is staff's belief that with this proposed plat, the questions of upgrading Teton Lane and the related question 1 of removing the barricade must be again considered. The applicants have requested . a feasibility study which is was approved by the Council and is currently in process and this document will ultimately allow for the determination of final design of Teton Lane. Staff continues to recommend that the Council consider removal of the barricade to improve access and safety in this area. 1 1 1. Ithilien Addition 1 April 1, 1992 Page 3 1 On Tuesday, March 26, 1992, the applicants held a meeting to describe the project to area residents. 1 " Staff is recommending that the preliminary plat for Ithilien be approved without variances subject to appropriate conditions. Staff is also recommending that the related action for the I wetland alteration permit be approved. BACKGROUND 1 In 1987, the City Council reviewed and approved the subdivision for Curry Farms located south of the proposed site. One of the major issues of the subdivision was whether or not I to improve Teton Lane to public street standards and to allow Curry Farms to connect to Teton Lane for secondary access. Teton Lane could provide an alternative access to Powers Boulevard via Lilac Lane. After much study, including a feasibility study and neighborhood I meetings, the City Council decided to barricade Teton Lane to not allow flow through traffic to or from Curry Farms and to maintain Teton Lane for access only with two existing residences. 1 One of the opponents to improving Teton Lane was James Donovan, who has now since sold the subject property to developers for development. Area residents, including Mr. I Donovan, who protested against the Teton Lane connection, stated that they had no plans to develop their property. Also, since that time, several Curry Farm residents have indicated a desire to have the Teton Lane connection re- established (Attachment #1). I On August 13, 1990, the City Council approved a metes and bounds subdivision request to subdivide the subject parcel (a 10 acre parcel) into two lots owned by James Donovan 1 (Attachment #2). The metes and bounds subdivision split off a one acre parcel, now located in the northeast corner of the subject site, from the remaining 9 acre parcel. The metes and bounds subdivision was approved with the following conditions: I 1. The City of Shorewood shall review ty e the proposed subdivision. 1 2. _ The applicant shall provide right -of -way along Teton and Lilac Lane to maintain a full 50 foot street right -of -way. 1 3. If a future building permit is applied for Parcel B (the 9 acre parcel), it shall be contingent upon connecting into city sewer and water located on Lilac Lane. 1 4. The applicant shall provide typical drainage and utility easements along the external and internal lot lines of Parcel A and B. 1 1 1 1 Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 4 5. The 1000 foot elevation located in the southeast corner of Parcel B will be protected by a drainage easement and designated as a protected wetland. 6. The shed and garage on Parcel B shall either be removed or relocated onto Parcel A where they meet the required setbacks. If relocation is not completed prior to requesting filing of the metes and bounds subdivision, a $1,000 financial guarantee 1 should be provided to the city. 7. Park dedication fees shall be paid at the time a building permit application is requested for Parcel B. The following condition was recommended by staff and the Planning Commission to the City Council but was deleted as a condition of approval by the City Council: If further development or land division is proposed for these two newly created 1 parcels, or if access is desired on Teton Lane, it is recommended that a full street and utility improvement project be conducted for Teton Lane and also the barricade to Teton Lane should be improved. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 9 acres into 17 single family lots. The 17 lots are proposed to be serviced by an internal cul -de -sac off of Teton Lane. There will be no direct access onto either Teton or Lilac Lane. The average lot area is 16,247 square feet (excluding the wetland area). The lot areas range from 22,800 square feet to 15,000 square feet (excluding the wetland area). 1 All of the lots except Lots 4 and 6 meet the ordinance requirements. Lots 4 and 6 must have 90 feet of frontage at the 30 foot front yard setback. The preliminary plat should be adjusted to provide the required 90 foot frontage for Lots 4 and 6 at the 30 foot setback. We believe this change is minor and can be accommodated through shifting lot lines. Lot 10 is a neck lot and can meet the ordinance requirements, but the building pad is an odd shape (Attachment #3). Staff is recommending that the lot be adjusted to provide a better building pad area. Sewer and water are available to the site through connection of existing service at Ashton Court/Teton Lane. The water connection should be provided through the proposed road rather than at the back of Lots 14 -17. Teton Lane will be required to be improved to urban street standards. Improvements to Lilac Lane will also be required. A feasibility study for these improvements has been initiated and should be presented for public hearing in the near future. Part of the proposed improvements includes removal of the barrier at Teton Lane. This barrier has been a hinderance to emergency access and cuts off an appropriate street connection for second access. The proposed wetland alteration 1 1 1 II Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 5 1 meets the intent of the ordinance and will result in an improved wetland area. Staff is recommended approval with appropriate conditions. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT II Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback 1 Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front /rear 10' sides I BLOCK 1 Lot 1 17,000 95' 206' 30' front /rear 10' sides 1 Lot 2 15,900 93' 180' 30' front /rear 10' sides I Lot 3 15,200 100' 162' 30' front /rear 10' sides 1 Lot 4 15,000 86'* 166' 30' front/ rear 10' sides I Lot 5** 17 700 130' 133' 30' front rear I 20' sides Lot 6 15,000 87'* 151' 30' front /rear I 10' sides Lot 7 15,000 120' 155' 30' front /rear I 10' sides Lot 8 15,000 110' 152' 30' front /rear 1 10' sides Lot 9 15,000 108' 148' 30' front /rear I 10' sides Lot 10* a 16,200 122' 158' 30' front /rear I 20' sides 1 1 Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 1 Page 6 Lot 11 15,000 115' 137' 30' front /rear 1 10' sides Lot 12 ** 22,800 145' 161' 30' front /rear 1 20' sides 75' wetland • Lot 13 18,700 105' 198' 30' front /rear 1 10' sides 75' wetland Lot 14 15,100 226' 129' 30' front /rear 1 10' sides Lot 15 15,000 110' 142' 30' front /rear 1 10' sides 75' wetland Lot 16 17,100 110' 365' 30' front /rear 1 10' sides 75' wetland Lot 17 15,500 105' 362' 30' front /rear 1 10' sides 75' wetland * Lot on curve requires 90' at 30' setback - requires variance I ** Flag /neck lots * * * Lot 10 meets minimum requirements but will require special consideration with house design 1 DRAINAGE /GRADING ment proposes to construct a two-pond system to provide water quality I The develo P P P p Y p q ty and storm retention requirements. The Walker pond design is estimated to be approximately I 68% efficient in phosphorus removal which exceeds the NURP requirement of 60% phosphorus removal. The larger pond has been designed for a pair of 100 -year back -to -back storm events as required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The calculated flood I • elevation is 1003.8 feet. In addition, an overflow swale has been constructed between Lots 14 and 15 and Lots 2 and 3 to provide a relief safety valve should storm ponding exceed the predicted levels. The outlet structure for the pond is recommended to be a 12 -inch RCP I pipe with a 4 -inch restriction orifice plate located at the southeast corner of the pond which will connect into an existing storm sewer system at the intersection of Ashton Court and Teton Lane. It has also been recommended that the wetland pond bottom be constructed I with a clay liner and top dressed with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil to provide a medium for plant vegetation. Staff supports this proposal. Although the ponding area is designated as a wetland, it is of very poor quality. Staff believes that the proposal represents a significant 1 1 Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 7 ' improvement in wetland function and value. Refer to the wetland alteration permit discussion for additional details. I A storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an erosion g g P P control plan should be submitted with the final plat. Slope grading on the site shall be limited to 3:1 slopes or less. An erosion control plan should be developed for approval with the final plat. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT The applicant is proposing to alter the existing Class B wetland located in the southeast corner of the site. The existing Class B wetland is a Type II (wet meadow) dominated by golden rod and reed canary grass, and is approximately one acre in area (the 1,000' 1 contour). The applicant is proposing to redesign the wetland to create a shallow water marsh using a two pond system and is proposing to shift the existing wetland area to the south and east. 1 The applicant has hired Barr Engineering to review the existing wetland conditions and to propose the wetland alteration (Attachment #4). The existing wetland is a low quality Class B wetland and the applicant is proposing to improve the quality of the wetland to a Class ' A wetland by creating the shallow marsh. The applicant is using the two pond system so that drainage directed into the smaller shallow marsh area for pretreatment, prior to it entering the larger marsh area. The last page of the Barr Engineering memo illustrates the proposed alteration to the wetland. The smaller open water area located in the northwest corner of the wetland is designed to exceed NURP standards for removing nutrients from 1 the storm water prior to it entering the larger open water area. The plan also provides for landscaping of the buffer area of the wetland with emergent plant species and wetland shrubs. The actual size of the finished wetland is .9 acres. Although the completed wetland ' alteration is .1 acres smaller than what exists today, the applicant is greatly improving the wetland conditions of the site. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed ' replacement plan. The existing wetland ordinance requires a 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland. The edge of the wetland is proposed at the 1,000 foot contour, but the applicant is adding ' a buffer area around the existing wetland up to the 1,001 foot contour. The 75 foot setback will be taken from the 1,000 foot contour. The proposed plat shows that the 75 foot setback is being maintained. Staff is requiring that a conservation easement be granted over the wetland area to the 1,001 foot contour so that the buffer area is included and preserved from any future alteration. 1 1 . 1 Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 8 1 UTILITIES 1 Watermain is proposed to be accessed from its existing stub at the intersection of Teton Lane and Ashton Court and extended north along Teton Lane and further extending west 1 into the site through the rear yards of Lots 14 through 17. For accessibility and • maintenance purposes staff recommends that the watermain be constructed within the right - of -way of the proposed new street. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the Fire Marshal. Lots 1 through 5 are proposed to gain water service from existing stubs located on Lilac Lane. The watermain along Teton Lane is the property of the City of Chanhassen and within the City's 17 feet of right -of -way. Staff recommends that the proposed watermain be looped back to Lilac Lane or to Ashton Court to provide for better water quality, fire flow protection and a secondary source of water in case of a break. 1 Sanitary sewer access is also proposed to be gained from the existing stub located at the intersection of Ashton Court and Teton Lane and extend north along Teton Lane and then ' west into the subdivision through the rear yards of Lots 14 through 17. Apparently a significant amount of fill would be required over a large portion of the southwest quarter of the subdivision in order to extend the sanitary sewer through the proposed road right-of- way and maintain gravity flow. Lots 1 through 5 are currently proposed to be served by sanitary sewer from Lilac Lane. The sanitary sewer maim within Lilac Lane is the property of the City of Shorewood. At this time it is not known whether sanitary sewer stubs were extended to the south when the initial construction was undertaken. As -built information on this sewer line is being ' acquired from the City of Shorewood. If flow is to be directed intq Shorewood's sewage system, a cooperative agreement would have to be established between Chanhassen and Shorewood. Due to the length of the sewer line through the rear yards of Lots 14 through ' 17, it is recommended that a manhole be added between Lots 15 and 16 and that vehicle accessibility be provided for on the common lot line between Lots 15 and 16. STREETS /TETON LANE ISSUES Teton Lane between Lilac Lane and Ashton Court is currently a substandard street lacking 1 curb and gutter, storm sewer and sanitary sewer and watermain. Teton Lane is a city owned right -of -way and is maintained by the city. In addition, there currently exists in -place a barricade on Teton Lane immediately north of Ashton Court to prevent any through traffic ' movement from the south. The history behind the installation of the barricade is extensive. While this barrier may have hgd its place in time, this is no longer an acceptable situation given the imminent development local to the area. Full service is required to provide safety and effective street systems for not only this plat but also the overall neighborhood. The City Fire Marshal has indicated that the barricade hindered the department in responding 1 1 Ithilien Addition 1 April 1, 1992 Page 9 1 to a fire call. The City Council has already heard from Curry Farms residents concerned not only over the lack of access, but also the inability of school buses to pick up their children since the buses will not service a cul -de -sac. It is staff's recommendation that the current traffic needs compounded by development in this area warrant the upgrading of Teton Lane from Lilac Lane to Ashton Court to the current City standard urban roadway section with curb and gutter, storm sewer and utilities and that the barricade be removed. At their regular meeting on Monday, February 10, 1992, the City Council authorized preparation of an update to the original feasibility study for street, utility and drainage • improvements at Teton Lane, Project No. 91-4. This feasibility study update is currently being prepared by Bill Engelhardt. It is recommended that final plat for this subdivision shall not be granted until the results of the feasibility study update for improvements to Teton Lane are known, a public hearing is held and an improvement project is ordered. The subdivision proposes constructing a new road with a 60 -foot wide right -of -way as currently required per City ordinance. The City currently owns 33 feet of right -of -way over Teton Lane between Lilac Lane and Ashton Court. It is recommended that Lots 1 through 5 shall take driveway access from the newly created street within the subdivision. Teton Lane south of Ashton Court has a 50 -foot wide right -of -way platted with the Curry Farms development in accordance with City standards at that time. In addition, the large lot located in the southwest corner of Lilac Lane and Teton Lane granted an additional 17 feet at the time the lot split occurred to yield a 50 -foot total right-of-way width on that segment of Teton Lane. Within the last two years the City has revised its ordinance to now require a 60 -foot wide road right -of -way. However, considering the right -of -way conditions that currently exist with Teton Lane to the north and south of this subdivision, it is recommended that 17 feet of road right -of -way be acquired along the east plat line to yield a total right -of -way of 50 feet consistent with the right -of -way north and south of the plat. EASEMENTS It is recommended that the following easements be provided for on the plat: 1 1. . A 20 -foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 2 and 3. 2. A 20 -foot drainage and utility easement along the common g ty a o g t e co on lot line of Lots 14 and 15. 1 3. A 20 -foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole. 4. A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14. 1 1 1 = Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 ' Page 10 5. A 20 -foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14 through 17 and the side 1 lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer. 6. A drainage easement for the wetland pond boundary at the 1004' contour. • 7. A conservation easement for the wetland over the 1,001' contour. 8. The existing drainage easement over the wetland must be vacated. • PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the lat and determined that park and P P trail fees should be required in lieu of park land. Park facilities are available to Curry Farms to the south. ' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request with a change in Condition ' #8, by removing the words including the removal of the barricade. The Planning Commission felt strongly that the barricade should be removed urged and the City Council to take this into consideration. They did not believe this condition was appropriate for the plat request since removal of the barricade is not something the developer can control. The Council will be asked to act on this issue when the road improvements are considered. ' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: ' "The City Council approves Preliminary Plat #92-4, as shown on the plans dated March 14, 1992, and Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -2, as shown on the plans submitted by Barr ' Engineering dated March 9, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following easements shall be added to the plat: ' a. A 20 -foot drainage and utility along the common lot line of Lots 2 � tY easement g and 3. ' b. A 20 -foot drainage and utility easement along the lot ty g common of lute of Lots 14 ' and 15. c. A 20 -foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole. 1 Ithilien Addition 1 April 1, 1992 Page 11 d. A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14. e. A 20 -foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14 through 17 and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer. f. A drainage easement for the wetland pond for the bohndary at the 1004' 1 contour. g. A conservation easement for the wetland over the 1,001' contour. 1 h. The existing drainage easement over the wetland must be vacated. 2. A 12 -inch RCP storm sewer with a 4 -inch orifice plate shall be constructed as the outlet structure for the wetland pond. The wetland pond bottom shall be lined with clay and top dressed with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil. 3. Storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an erosion control plan shall be submitted with the final plat. Slopes shall not exceed 3:1. 4. The internal watermain system shall be installed within the proposed new street right -of -way and shall be looped to Lilac Lane or to Ashton Court. 5. An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be located along the common lot line of • Lots 15 and 16 and vehicle access shall be provided from the new street along the common property line of Lots 15 and 16. 6. A 60 -foot wide street right -of -way shall be provided for the new street proposed within the subdivision. 17 feet of right -of -way shall be granted along the east plat line to provide a 50 -foot wide road right -of -way for Teton Lane as consistent with 1 right -of -way dedications along Teton Lane north and south of the this area. 7. Lots 1 through 5 shall take driveway access from the proposed new street. 1 8. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the feasibility study update for improvements to Teton Lane are known, a public hearing is held and the improvement project is formally ordered ' . 9. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the 1 necessary securities associated with the development. 1 1 1 1 . I Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 12 1 10. The preliminary plat should be adjusted to provide the required 90 foot frontage at the 30 foot setback for Lots 4 and 6, Block 1. Lot 10 be adjusted to provide a more 1 suitable building pad area. 11. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land dedication. I 12. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the sub - surface soil conditions on the proposed subdivision and recommend corrections at proposed II house pads, if necessary. 13. The location of proposed house pads, the type of dwelling and the lowest floor and 1 garage floor elevations should be indicated on the grading plan. Dwelling type designations should be: R Rambler 1 TU Tuck under WO Walk out 1 SE Split entry SEWO Split entry walk out I 14. The wetland alteration shall be completed exactly as proposed in the Barr Engineering memo dated March 9, 1992, including the two pond system, interspersed with open water and submergent plant species, and landscaping of a mixture of I emergent plant species and wetland shrubs. 15. Disposal of dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area. 1 16. The applicant shall notify staff within 48 hours prior to commencing the alteration to the wetland and shall again notify staff within 48 hours after completion of the 1 wetland alteration for staff review and approval. 17. The letter of credit, as part of the development contract, shall include financial I sureties to guarantee proper mitigation of the wetland, including landscaping and as- built plan." 1 ATTACHMENTS • 1. Letter from David Priem dated March 25, 1992. 1 2. Memo from Charles Folch dated March 24, 1992. 3. Memo from Mark Littfin dated March 26, 1992. 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 9, 1992. 1 5. Lot 10 building pad. 1 1 1 Ithilien Addition 111 April 1, 1992 Page 13 6. Letters from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated March 24, 1992 and March 1 5, 1992. 7. Application and purchase agreement. 1 8. City Council minutes dated August 13, 1990. 9. Proposed wetland design from Barr Engineering dated March 9, 1992. . 10. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated April 15, 1992. 1 11. Planning Commission minutes dated April 1, 1992. 12. Preliminary plat. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • . 1 1 • 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 March 25, 1992 City of Chanhassen ATTN: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner ' 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Jo Ann; ' I am not opposed to the development of the 10 acre.paroel located directly north of Curry Farms by Hilloway Corporation, ' however; I have the following concerns, and request the Planning Commission aooept or reoommend approval of this proposal only if these issues are resolved. i The first being past aotions by the City Council regarding the extension and upgrading of Teton Lane. and removal of the temporary barriers. When this property last was before the Planning ' Commission and City Counoil to subdivide the one acre parcel located in the Northeast oorner on this site, no action vas taken. The Council's position was to defer any change to Teton Lane until such ' time as the balance of the property was to be developed. The situation wan no longer be put off. To upgrade Teton Lane makes sense from a traffic perspective to improve egress and from a safety ' stand point in that fire and police response/protection is improved. The second being the alteration of the Class B wetland area. I ask that careful review be made of the grading /storm drainage plan ' to include surge protection at storm drain outlets, and that any grading alteration be minimal to insure preservation of all existing vegatation, ' Sinoerly; vid Priem /' ' 636 Teton Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 i 1 1 CITYOF „ , .CHANHASSEN 41 5• 10 4 A- 690 COULTER DRIVE • • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 l ff (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer/,/, 1 DATE: March 24, 1992 ll��ff SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 9 Acres of Property into 17 Single - Family Lots Located in the Southwest Corner of the Intersection of Lilac Lane and Teton Lane; Ithilien Addition, Hilloway Corporation File No. 92 -5 LUR Following review of the ro osed Ithilien subdivision, P P I would like to offer the follow comments: 1 DRAINAGE The development proposes to construct a two -pond system to provide 1 water quality and storm retainage requirements. The walker pond design is estimated to be approximately 68% efficient in phosphorus removal which exceeds the NURP requirement of 60% phosphorus removal. The larger pond has been designed for a pair of 100 -year back -to -back storm events as required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The calculated flood elevation is 1003.8 feet. In addition, an overflow swale has been constructed between Lots 14 and 15 and Lots 2 and 3 to provide a relief safety valve should storm ponding exceed the predicted levels. The outlet structure for the pond is recommended to be a 12 -inch RCP pipe with a 4 -inch restriction orifice plate located at the southeast corner of the pond which will connect into an existing storm sewer system at the intersection of Ashton Court and Teton Lane. It has also been 1 recommended that the wetland pond bottom be constructed with.a clay liner and top dressed with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil to provide a medium for plant vegetation. A storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an erosion control plan should be submitted with the final plat. Slope grading on the site shall be limited to 3:1 slopes or less. Is 1 %IP PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Jo Ann Olsen II March 24, 1992 Page 2 11 UTILITIES Watermain is proposed to be accessed from its existing stub at the II intersection of Teton Lane and Ashton Court and extended north along Teton Lane and further extending west into the site through the rear yards of Lots 14 through 17. For accessibility and I maintenance purposes staff recommends that the watermain be constructed within the right -of -way of the proposed new street. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the Fire Marshal. 1 Lots 1 through 5 are proposed to gain water service from existing stubs located on Lilac Lane. The watermain along Teton Lane is the property of the City of Chanhassen and within the City's 17 feet of right -of -way. Staff recommends that the proposed watermain be I looped back to Lilac Lane or to Ashton Court to provide for better water quality, fire flow protection and a secondary source of water in case of a break. • 1 Sanitary sewer access is also proposed to be gained from the existing stub located at the intersection of Ashton Court and Teton Lane and extend north along Teton Lane and then west into the II subdivision through the rear yards of Lots 14 through 17. Apparently a significant amount of fill would be required over a large portion of the southwest quarter of the subdivision in order II to extend the sanitary sewer through the proposed road right -of -way and maintain gravity flow. I Lots 1 through 5 are currently proposed to be served by sanitary sewer from Lilac Lane. The sanitary sewer main within Lilac Lane is the property of the City of Shorewood. At this time it is not known whether sanitary sewer stubs were extended to the south when I the initial construction was undertaken. As -built information on this sewer line is being acquired from the City of Shorewood. If flow is to be directed into Shorewood's sewage system, a I cooperative agreement would have to be established between Chanhassen and Shorewood. Due to the length of the sewer line through the rear yards of Lots 14 through 17, it is recommended I that a manhole be added between Lots 15 and 16 and that vehicle accessibility be provided for on the common lot line between Lots 15 and 16. 1 ,STREETS I The subdivision proposes constructing a new road with a 60 -foot wide right -of -way as currently required per City ordinance. The City currently owns 33 feet of right -of -way over Teton Lane between Lilac Lane and Ashton Court. It is recommended that Lots 1 through I 5 shall take driveway access from the newly created street within the subdivision. Teton Lane south of Ashton Court has a 50 -foot II 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen March 24, 1992 Page 3 wide right-of-way platted with t q y p ith he Curry Farms development in accordance with City standards at that time. In addition, the large lot located in the southwest corner of Lilac Lane and Teton Lane granted an additional 17 feet at the time the lot split occurred to yield a 50 -foot total right -of -way width on that segment of Teton Lane. Within the last two years the City has revised its ordinance to now require a 60 -foot wide road right -of- way. However, considering the right -of -way conditions that currently exist with Teton Lane to the north and south of this subdivision, it is recommended that 17 feet of road right -of -way be acquired along the east plat line to yield a total right -of -way of 50 feet consistent with the right -of -way north and south of the plat. ' • PLAT It is recommended that the following easements be provided for on the plat: 1. A 20 -foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 2 and 3. 2. A 20 -foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 14 and 15. 3. A 20 -foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole. 4. A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14. 1 5. A 20 -foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14 through 17 and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer. ' 6. A drainage easement for the wetland pond boundaried at the 1004' contour. ' TETON LANE ISSUES Teton Lane between Lilac Lane Ashton Court is currently a substandard street lacking curb and gutter, storm sewer and sanitary sewer and watermain. In addition, there currently exists in -place a barricade on Teton Lane immediately north of Ashton Court to prevent any through traffic movement.from the south. The history behind the installation of the barricade is very complicated and extensive. While this barrier may have. had its place in time, this is no longer an acceptable situation given the imminent development local to the area. It is staff's 1 11 Jo Ann Olsen March 24, 1992 Page 4 recommendation that the current traffic needs compounded by ' development in this area warrant the upgrading of Teton Lane from Lilac Lane to Ashton Court to the current City standard urban roadway section with curb and gutter, storm sewer and utilities and that the barricade be removed. ' At their regular meeting on Monday, February 10, 1992, the City Council authorized preparation of an update to the original ' feasibility study for street, utility and drainage improvements at Teton Lane, Project No. 91 -4. This feasibility study update is currently being prepared by Bill Engelhardt. It is recommended that final plat for this subdivision shall not be granted until the results of the feasibility study update for improvements to Teton Lane are known, a public hearing is held and an improvement project is ordered. 11 RECOMMENDATIONS 1 1. The following easements shall be added to the plat: A. A 20 -foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 2 and 3. B. A 20 -foot drainage and utility easement along the common 1 lot line of Lots 14 and 15. C. A 20 -foot drainage and utility easement along the common ' lot line of Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole. ' D. A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14. E. A 20 foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14 through 17 and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer. F. A drainage easement for the wetland pond for the boundary at the 1004' contour. 2. A 12 -inch RCP storm sewer with a 4 -inch orifice plate shall be constructed as the outlet structure for the wetland pond. The wetland pond bottom shall be lined with clay and top dressed with 4 to 6,inches of topsoil. ' 3. Storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an erosion control shall be submitted with the final plat. Slopes shall not exceed 3:1. 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen March 24, 1992 Page 5 4. The internal watermain system shall be installed within the proposed new street right -of -way and shall be looped to Lilac Lane or to Ashton Court. 5. An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be located along 1 the-common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 and vehicle access shall be provided from the new street along the common property line of Lots 15 and 16. 6. A 60 -foot wide street right -of -way shall be provided for the new street proposed within the subdivision. 17 feet of right- of-way shall be granted along the east plat line to provide a 50 -foot wide road right -of -way for Teton Lane as consistent with right -of -way dedications along Teton Lane north and south of the this area. 7. Lots 1 through 5 shall take driveway access from the proposed new street. 8. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the feasibility study update for improvements to Teton Lane are known, a public hearing is held and the improvement project is formally ordered including the removal of the barricade. 9. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary securities associated with the development. 1 ktm Attachment: Letter from Ismael Martinez 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t •MAR- T U E 18 :5 3 B O N E S T R O O r& ASSOC I A T E S P 04 1 Otto G Eonestve PE KrIth A WOO. PE Jame% R. Mauna. Pt Kr,�• ( rum,o; A i A 1 n Bonestroo Jt»rph C Monk. P,E Rieharo W Filter. PE K i fl th P AnrtCrx7 t PI M Pi, ^,t I. MAW L SONitd. PR Jetty A &matelot, PE Matk R RoPS. PE rrrry t aM h 1'E R osene RlRolm E %mei. PE Mirk A 1461,30+. P.E Thomas E Angus t'F t n a,., r,3:„ ,, • r1 ECU GIPnA R. Cook. PE Davie 0 LOSkOp, PE• CAnet 1 EtIgemmn PE Gsy W !Aver re in Anderlik & mows E Nays• PE ROben C RUM. A IA Mark A Se PE &Pen r Wemrn • Robert G &nun.; Pm, PE MOwdtC A Santora• PE 'Nap J °ewe', Pt Ken ?, R r,yK�. Pt Associates "an M Mom PA DOniItl C 5i f 1t. PF IsmxN Martinez PE Nu, n ri ! WA PP Associates 1 K kV. PE Mack D W]1h3. Pr t • hnp�. n .ruv Miel el 7 Raatmenn. PF Tnoma1 R Andrrspt• A I A •t rt M t'.rw -, Architects Robert R. Peeler. PE Gay F Ryta'Grr iF .,„,t,„ M , m.tv� Engineers I rPOmi3 W Pete/Ion, PE Men 8 xnsrn. Pr Mkhdt+ C Lyrxh. PE Ifteltio0avolUPE II MEMO To: Charles Polch, City of Chanhassen Fax No, 937 -5739 1 FROM: ismael Martinez DATE: March 23, 1992 II Re: Ithilien Subdivision File no.: 393Gen t BACKGROUND As per your request on March 10, 1992, we have performed a storm water I and water quality review of the proposed development, Ithilien Subdivision. This analysis was performed based on the proposed development characteristics shown in the Grading Plan maps dated March 2, 1992. 1 The proposed development is located East of Teton the NW 1/4 of Section 2, T 116 N, R 23 W, in theCity of Chanhassen. I The proposed development includes the construction of a Stormwate Retention pond in an existing natural depression between the proposed r I road and Ashton Court. The natural depression n posed pression is landlocked and it receives runoff from a total direct drainage area of approximately Acres. The proposed development will take place in approximately 12 12 p percent of the drainage area. pprximatel 60 II ASSUMPTIONS I The proposed pond as shown in the plans consists of a very large area with an outlet structure at elevation 1002.62. The storm sewer pipe outlet proposed is a 4" PVC. I The City's aerial photographs show the water level in this pond at elevation 999.4 1 RESULTS , We performed an analysis considering the assumptions mentioned above. I The proposed pond can work without any significant modifications. Special attention should be given to the outlet structure due to the II size of the outlet pipe in order to avoid pluging and or clogging. MAR-24-92 T U E 18:53 B O N E S T R O O & ASSOCIATES P.05 1 1 COMMENTS It appears that the pond storage capacity exceeds the necessary storage to handle runoff resulting from a 100 year storm event (6" of precipitation in 24 hours.) The Outlet structure should have an oversized trash rack and have a I submerge inlet to provide for protection against floating debris. For maintenance reasons the outlet should be a 12" pipe controled by a self cleaning 4" orifice located in a manhole at a location with easy access. If you have any questions or comments please give me a call at 636. 4600. ' Have a nice day 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner 1 FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: March 26, 1992 1 SUBJ: Teton Lane Barricade 1 With the proposed development in the Teton Lane area, the Chanhassen Fire Department is recommending that the barricade located at Ashton and Teton Lane be removed. 1 Last June, the Fire Department was responding to a "smell of smoke in the house" call, and was blocked by the barricade. Precious 1 time would have been wasted if they had to go around. Fortunately, there was no fire this time. Therefore, in the Fire Department's opinion, the barricade should 1 be removed so as not delay any police, fire, or ambulance response times. cc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director Jim McMahon, Fire Chief 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 n t«t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 , 1 •.. CITYOF A CHANHASSEN 1 ,,. :, 1 y w 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 DATE (mm/dd /yy): 03/09/92 TO: Jo Ann Olsen TITLE /TO: Senior Planner 1 THROUGH: TITLE /THROUGH: 1 FROM: Steve A. I COO TITLE /FROM: Building Official SUBJECT: Planning Case: 92-4 SUE & 92 -2 WAP (Ithilien Addition) 1 Background: The exis.tcr.ct of low lying area is quite often an indicator of soils that art ur:su1 _ f, Lupbcrt cf buildings. Curry Farms, the development to the scut::, _, _.ircu sDi'_ co- r€cticns on a number of sites to correct- soils prv,'.r":-. As_ :_f_: _ly it is prudent to question the soils or this site at an ear_ ,,._c de\!e'op:::ent process. The .._, _._.- also experienced problems with the type of homes proposed for 1 certain. It t_ . E__idero zomctimes propose to build homes which don't fit the cont :urs cf the lot and would necessitate alter the approved grading plan. Preferr€2 s.•i__ of future homes are not indicated on the submitted plans. 1 Analysis: Th C3. _ .-__.r.ty S _il Survey indicates two probable types of soil on the 1 subject r=__ .Hayden 1, Ha de loam and Glencoe. The Hayden loam is present in varyir:q sl_ :.e_ and is indicated on the enclosure as HaB, HaC and HaD2. These soils are generally suitable for buildings. Glencoe soils, indicated by Ge on the er,cics.:rt_, are generally classified as very poor building sites. Glencoe soils may be present on lots 7, 8, 9, 13 and under the proposed street. The prelirr,ir.a:y grading and utility plan indicates these areas will be filled, but the un erlying soils may have poor shear strength and may be highly susceptible to frost. Additionally, basements on these lots may experience water infiltration and structural problems. Many hcm•__::._rs and builders are unaware that a subdivision is designed to I handle surface w_.tur in a predetermined fashion, and that altering the design c.�: be detrimental to the entire plan. A lot designed for a rambler ma not ha _ a <- :a'.._ut built on it withcut adversely affecting adjoining prop..rt:e,. 71 elevations are also critical on lots where homes are reiativ c'<_a= to, ether. A home built higher than its neighbors' will direct runoff to the adjoining homes. , "* 1 . 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER . 1 Jo Ann Olsen 11 03/09/92 Page 2 I . I also received anonymous information that there is debris buried in the northwest quadrant of the site. The debris may include car bodies and I construction debris. The caller also indicated that underground petroleum storage tanks were located on the site at one time. I should emphasize that this information was relayed anonymously and has not been investigated. 11Recommendation: Based on the foregoing I recommend the following: I 1. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the sub - surface soil conditions on the proposed subdivision and recommend corrections at proposed house pads, if necessary. 2. The location of proposed house pads. the type of dwelling and the lowest floor and garage floor elevations should be indicated on the grading plan. Dwelling type designations should be: R - Rambler I TU - Tuck Under WO - Walk Out SE - Split Entry I SEWO -Split Entry Walk Out enclosure II II II II 1 1 1 le6 I .9 .......„ ..„ ...D s N 5 111 0 I ---J- * —r---- • -- , , •-a.. , , , '■ Ai /18, - - - . ... Ile , _ _. - • ._... 7 _ ' , _ " ..,-, •,. .. ..._ — • ,... . n At% .4 .. Ile =1 V (-7— A • Pcf . 1.1 :1 , c , ‘‘I iel 1 _ i! dr . A ' 7 t; j . : , :: ''' . N0 C \ \ \ " - I. 7 1°3 ; ,„ . 1 -4 * / ' t j NA ' t \--. -- .1_ ..--- , - I ) r E c.,.. . , . 70 1116 .- 11 I \o >,■•' ''. . -,,,,. N,. • . . \ \ ______J , _.._/ ..( 0 - ° ( ° n V !3 -1 4* ' ' c % ''.. I i • 1 41 03 1 , 74 , n ) 1 9- o II% 1 d ..,... \ i iv7 I --6 • • 00 . i '''' C c; 44 / PRGIPOSEr5 ° 0. L___ • I , , i s. i I iP i....______Lf • • 1 ..4..i • • . 1 f f / '. -, - ... . , - ,e, _ I I • • f !'. ‘0.9z, i ; I k,i. 1 .1 e •-- .7 / / bi -1.--- L..__ .4 --$ i *,.. % t • . ! • I/ 4 1.7 1 . e , ' et` • st 3 1— *** - * - f ..I l • - ‘ „ -.., 4 sf . be ----"- 1 i - / II ‘ \ 0 . 7 a t,... .... '.0 1 / , 1 t A I ..-#4- 1; i. i ' I L. .07 % Vt ,_ r ../ % f• . 1 I lk ‘ V! -1. lib . ." • ■ :::, i ," #'1, : 0 .. .••• 2%1 0 / : -k ' : v• , is- ,• . te,,, — .- e, —;# • 44 • : — . 4eN. t .. • : r oo 4>i I ', • -. - Sid I , tqf 1 4 - I ■• A ‘ 11 i ' . _2 • i 1 . II f s I er Lk ll -=•• i 1: 7. , 37 I • I t- I • r? • ''' r° i ir - . . . .. I i , 2 . p I 11 ,1 q■ • , 1. 1-1 k •Vo •% 1... • I 0 t _.,- ' saor & i • %till - l b 2 t , # iv 0 . tr . 1.......PA p.. 9 - i ' R : 1 • i . r i 0 • 4 ;,..-- 41 , Ovlli d r ii ..! -, , . ,,,-, • ? 1 :TA:r. p. ' Vim' "'eili 0 ; 41: / P.. .4, t- ‘, ,. : . , # f /..: • , ; • . 4!•,. • e•-•"" die . ' „ ,,,,, 0 0 ;•/. - - • - ..... "' : 40 wee ... I ....J, a / il • 40 Pc7 . -, • -1 1.0 ° A .. N 7 r i -1.---f-• - ser .. .1.,. .. . ..., . . - _ ....-.--.. ...- . ..... 77'' I :TA/ - - - • 42,7,-. , __.. ... .. - , I `` 4 ` 30 ` ` 1 - - - - - - 1 • L , c w ' '► • • l .. ____,...._.7 ° 1i35s ., „s) I 1. i J 1 - - - •- t 30 1 4• 30 I I ' ..- r /S.eieo *yq• It- Y 2 • i � 0:)/// - fi h�' \ ..--- N : \l‘ I 10 - _ _1 ..• 7 _. .4 1 - 1 i r ' , "to tot_ .., .. ...2,-,..... ... ......„.... ".._:_,- I : 1 1 = i t --L _ _ i / ! \ ' __ t / / - / / 1 1 t 1 r i 1.. octal -- Kw4.�' it& 3 r ( , I CiTY OF CHANHASSEN I [1.±...............minimmumimm......................mmimmommi H DEPT. RAWN BY REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION 0 J4: - 9Z. , i(o / Ifo iao/ #‘4.40i(I e. »1 O'4 1 beret) ■ vision, , the ta% ES1GNED BY t Mark g 8 ax III a « . $ Yl' 1 I il j . ;.. g 24 t i . ii1iIihli - ti 1 ti- 14 sg - _ E iq il Il%14 _ _ __ _ I I El 1 I. i 1 I • I. ccs. g r ii c),- �+ •!3 i= i :; j I 1 2- z1:11 1 2121 # I a I i a I , i I Y i } � n i In! t • 1 'N. -. ..... • .. 71 1 1 • i) i . • e •i I - e _ . t —4://i__ . 1 1 1 — : ' i . , Lli,,, 1-T iii i i . , . , ,_......., .. •,__..... _, . L, . . , • : , . ,..,,, L \ _. ., . i • ... z., ,‘ , \ . ,' -, - - ... ‘'.- ' \ .. / • !, i 7 i fir _ . :1 N � , • / hi iI I i rOYt'. //".- r. ./ i ;. ' ; R '/ p i ti r iii," _ . � -- M R i ; s ..........r..? 1 i / • ‘,11 S & Sj 1 ! s ei r. . f 4 I 1 • ' : ■ . °- - 1 - — - , s ol , ' . , ‘ 11 .'-, - :I.:" ''' I ( - -� , , -------- / - �- P' x ■ � �� WATERSHED BOUNDARY ... __....r. I . / w L - IL - � i� YiEO 0 if cEs 1 MINNEHAHA CREEK LAKE MINNETONKA WATERSHED DISTRICT . • ▪ P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 MIN NESOTA RIVER BOARD OF MANAGERS: James R. Spensley, Pres. • John E. Thomas • Richard R. Miller I Robert O. Erickson • C. Woodrow Love • Clarkson Lindley • Thomas Maple, Jr. I Permit Ap No. 92 -40: March 24, 1992 Applicant: Hilloway Corp. 16455 Ringer Road • Wayzata, MN 55391 Location: City of Chanhassen, Sec. 2BA, west of Teton Lane and south of Lilac Lane Purpose: Stormwater management plan for a 17 lot single family residential subdivision called "Ithilien." 1 Dear Mr. Feinting: I At the regularly scheduled March 19, 1992 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was tabled pending receipt of: I l . Delineation of all Type 1 -8 wetlands in accordance with the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (January 1989). 2. Easements to provide access and to prevent future alteration or encroachment on stormwater management facilities. I 3. Erosion control plan including erosion control installation detail, a restoration note, a rock entrance berm installation detail, and specifying use of a rock entrance berm at all construction entrances. I 4. Review and approval by the City of Chanhassen. These items should be received no later than April 6, 1992 to ensure your permit application will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the Board of Managers scheduled for April 16, 1992. I Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 473 -4224. • Sincerely, ' JAMES M. MONGTOMERY, I CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Engineers for the District cc: Board file fi a*0„�.oiJ. City of Chanhassen I Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E. M. Gronberg .1 bt 1 r`e'-1 Y r- D . 1 MAR 2319'2 CITY OF CHANHASCEN � 07,1,A_c�FF � WATERSHED BOUNDARY a I • / N f A,, it . i - .. MINN k 1 °41ED 0 * a' . y" ' c E ir MINNEHAHA CREEK ' LAKE MINNETONKA WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 MINNESOTA RIVER I BOARD OF MANAGERS: James R. Spensley, Pres. • John E. Thomas • Richard R. Miller Robert D. Erickson • C Woodrow Love • Clarkson Lindley • Thomas Maple, Jr. March 5,1992 1 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Hilloway Corporation Subdivision I Dear Ms. Olson: I We have received the information you forwarded concerning the Hilloway Corporation subdivision located west of Teton Lane and north of Ashton Court. The project appears feasible and will require permit review and approval by the Board of Managers of the I Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Some of the District's concerns for a development of this type include : 1. The rate of stormwater runoff from the site shall not increase as a result of the I proposed development. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with return frequencies of from 1 to 100 years. 2. The quality of stormwater runoff leaving the site after development shall be I equivalent to runoff quality for the existing condition. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with return frequency of 1 year. I 3. Appropriate erosion control methods are in place to prevent the transport of sediments off site during and after construction. I 4. Prompt restoration of the difturbed area be completed with seed and mulch 'or sod. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to I contact me at 473 -4224. Sincerely, I JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, . CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Engineers for the District cc: Board file I (4"4.M/f. •244"4"44 Hilloway Corporation Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E. 1 1:- CC1V�J 1 bt MAR 0 9 152 CITY OF CHANHA5Ei 1 1 1 Chanhassen City Council & Planning Commission 3/22/92 II - Regarding the proposed development of 9 acres SW of Teton and Lilac Lanes by Hilloway Corporation: Needless to say, we are not thrilled by the development of this land in the middle of our neighborhood, but we realize development is inevitable. We do have two important concerns. First, the families on three and a half sides (85% of the border) around tht proposed development live on one to three acre lots. Our neighborhood ha: a small town, semi -rural atmosphere, which is one reason we all live .I here The developer proposes about one third acre lots, Of course he d:peen't care about blending his development with the surrounding neighborhood - he wants the best return on his money. But the planning commasion needs to consider how to blend new with existing homes Obviously, 3 or 4 homes and 2 acre lots would be more appropriate, Our second concern is about the upgrading of Lilac and Teton Lanes to 1 accomodate the increased traffic. Upgrading the roads certainly will be of little benefit to those of us already living here - especially in view of the negative results: 6 -8 times more traffic; dangers to our children, noise, loss of privacy, and the very significant loss of usable land and many trees for the road upgrade Hilloway should be required to pay for these upgrades, perhaps along with Curry Farms residents who will also benefit from the use of the roads. Please don't pack 17 houses on tiny lots into the middle of our semi -rural neighborhood You must blend this development with the existing i neighborhood rather than making our part of Chanhassen a mismatched patchwork The roads are fine for those who live here now. If development causes upgrades, let the money for necessary changes come from the developer. Don't ask us to pay for changes we don't want, which benefit us little, and cost us dearly in other ways. yours trul C5 ((1 DOW -1 0 eCV`Cleir Charles H & Donna Jean Piokard 1215 Lilac Lane 1 1 P,S Are you going to let them change that grassy marsh into another stagnant drainage pond like I've seen in other developments? 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' April 1, 1992 - Page 33 • PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 9 II ACRES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION. RELOCATION AND MITIGATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LILAC LANE AND TETON LANE. ITHILIE' ADDITION. HILLOWAY CORPORATION. Public Present: 1 Name Address • David Peters 6421 Bretton Way F. & F. Natoli 6251 Teton Lane Joey Johnson 1275 Lilac Lane _ Jan Wing 1321 Ashton Court _ Jon Guy 6341 Teton Lane Mike Horn 6330 Teton Lane Eric k Jane Denser 21640 Lilac Lane, Shorewood John Breckheirner 21710 Lilac Lane, Shorewood Glenn Geissinger 6140 Mill Street, Shorewood Richard Bloom 14600 Woodruff Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 Paul Krausa.'plesented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. . Richard Bloom: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Richard Bloom. I'm an independent planning consultant. Have been really since 1983. 1976 to 1983 I was the Director' of Planning for the city of Minnetonka so I obviously have some planning background and some sensitivity to some of the issues that are before us this evening. The developer of the property is Hilloway Corporation. Mr. Fenning is here in the audience. Mr. Fenning has developed numerous subdiviE,ions primarily in the city of Minnetonka. More recent projects, h did a project in the city of Medina last year and that's where, if you've heard of the Street of Dreams, that was in the...Farm, a project that Mr. Fenning did in Medina last year. He's also done the Shadowmere Subdivisio in your community on Lotus Lake. My previous experience with your community was back actually in the early 80's.. I worked on the Fox Chase Subdivision, also on Lotus Lake. Maybe if I could just kind of review som of the things that we've done to kind of bring this before you this evening. We held a neighborhood meeting Thursday night of last week. Invited all of the folks that were on that mailing list. I think we had approximately 15 to 20 residents there from the area that were there that evening. Frankly I thought that all things considered the neighborhood meeting went fairly well. We spent a lot of time talking about Teton Lane The barricade. Whether the barricade should be there or not be there. Well talked quite a bit about the upcoming feasibility study that...is preparing. Obviously what the ramifications may or may not be to the residents on that. Obviously they have some concern there as well. I jusil might add parenthetically what we tried to do on all our developments. We tried to design our subdivision to really minimize the area impacts to the n;;l�3j •..,;1': lo i "11 ti : :;i ::xi Jlli: j'�'i'ilb1 1 11 z .slurry those lines, I did receive a e:pecific request from Mr. Natoli, across the street from us. He lives right down in this area here. Mr. Natoli is planning to plant a number of pine trees right along Teton Lane here and is concern he • 1 11 • Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 34 I expressed to me, which I also conveyed to Mr. Engelhardt was that if the roadway's widened or improved, he would like to see it done in a manner that would not disturb those trees and quite frankly we would entirely ' concur with him. In talking to Mr. Engelhardt about that incidentally, I think that the additional right -of -way that was granted off this property, the additional road widening, should be able to occur hopefully entirely on the west side. The existing pavement looks like it's only a foot or two off the east side of the right -of -way so the road widening as I would see it would predominantly have to be done on the west side. So hopefully that issue could be resolved. We've also very carefully gone over your staff ' report. I might add it's a very thorough report. There's 18 stipulations placed on 'the approval. All those are acceptable to us. I guess there's one comment I would make specifically about stipulation number 8 which reads that final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the feasibility update...for Teton Lane are known. A public hearing is held and improvement projects...including removal of the barricade. Frankly we're anxious to get started on the project as quickly as possible. ' We would intend to file our final plat as early as practical. We support the feasibility study update. We were the ones that put up the money basically that Todd, a cash deposit that your staff required in order to ' get that study updated and said we were very willing to cooperate with you in that regard. We're doing everything we can. We feel a little bit though we're kind of caught between an issue here that really didn't affect us. I mean the issue was really kind of there before we came along. We're doing what we can to assist in the re".1ution of the problem but ultimately I'm sure as you're well aware, it's going to take a political decision on the part of the City Council. And in effect what was being told to us and ' we really can't do our final plat until you guys, or the political process winds it's way through and there's an action taken. So I guess I would express that as a concern that we do have. Obviously we're willing to ' cooperate and work...to resolve this matter. I assume there will be some additional neighborhood meetings held specifically with the engineers relative to those improvements hopefully in the near future and we'll certainly do what we can to assist in that process. With that I thank you and I'll answer any questions that you may have. Batzli: How do you pronounce the name of the development? Richard Bloom: Oh, Ithilien. Emmings: Tell us about the name. That's what I was wondering about too. ' Where does the name come from? Richard Bloom: Well actually if you're familiar with the Lord of the ' Rings, that is...character in the Lord of the Rings. All of Mr. Fenning's subdivisions, Shadowmere, Loft Lorien, Ithigard, all of those names came from the Lord of the Rings. He uses that for a name, for a subdivision name. Emmings: Alright. ' Batzli: Alright. I think that we will probably have questions as they arise and until that time thank you very much. Paul, before I ask for public comments, what is the rationale on number 8? Condition number 8. 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 35 • Waiting for that. Is it a question of we don't want the development to go, in until we're sure the roads are adequate and everything's designed? Krauss: Well fundamentally, yes. For example the Hans Hagen plat, we would not allow that plat to be filed until the project is ordered in and II we had some certainty that we weren't going to be creating lots with no means of serving them. Most of that, this condition addresses that. Now arguably we go a little bit further than that here dealing with the barricade which isn't specifically an issue that the developer has any control over. But we are looking to have the improvements ordered in in• whatever way, shape or form the Council so wishes ,concurrently with this ., plat. Batzli: This is a normal condition isn't it? Or is it a timing issue developer? I mean he can't get, like for example, if he could file the final plat or the final plat be granted approval before the development... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Batzli: I'm going to ask the developer or the representative. The questi asked and I was kind of hoping Steve would ask this. I thought he was going to, on the value of the homes. Proposed value of the homes that arel going in. Can you respond to that? Richard Bloom: Yeah, we discussed that at the neighborhood meeting and I' sorry I failed to mention that earlier. We would expect in the range of probably $140,000.00 to $200,000.00. Fairly comparable with the newer homes that were built in the Curry Farms subdivision. Also the question on covenE.ntE. That also came up in the neighborhood meeting as well. Our intention is to take a look at the Curry Farms covenants that they have an we haven't looked at them yet so I can't say we'll .do exactly what those are without seeing them but our intent is to take a look at those. If those appear reasonable, we'll probably do basically the same thing. Batzli: As far as you mentioned the development of the road would occur mostly to the west. Have you talked about that with our staff or is that just kind of your feeling that it could be done that way? Richard Bloom: Well that was through my discussions with Mr. Engelhardt 's' staff over there. Basically the existing pavement is there. The right -of -way, you've only got about a foot of right -of -way between the east edge of the existing pavement and the right -of -way. ' Batzli: So the trees aren't in the -of -way at all? Richard Bloom: Right. They're on Mr. Natoli's property so all the roadway, plus the earlier action you took back in 1990 was that corner parcel was to bite off, you took 17 feet along there so there's probably • actually, probably well in excess of 20 feet of available right -of -way well of the existing pavement where that widening's going to occur. I suggeste� that to the engineers and they seemed to think that widening would occur on the west side. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 36 • ' Batzli: Thank you. Jeff? Farmakes: I have a couple of questions, and I'll start off I guess with ' the barricade since that seems to be popular. I'm not sure whether or not this was thrown in along with this as an issue. Having read some of, I did not get a chance to read all of the previous City Council meetings in 1990 ' but I read some of it. It seems to me that the barrier issue is a separate issue and it seems punitive to the developer to throw this in with that based on the amount of homes that are going in there. If there is a ' problem, I'm not sure whether that's a critical mass that's going to tip .it either way. I agree with staff and I think that if we just dealt with this again when we were talking about Timberwood. This is an age old problem . that comes along with cul -de -sacs and people wanting to have, be the only ' ones driving to their house and the only ones leaving. That just isn't safe. There are cases where people are going to need, at the very least a break away barrier that they're going to be able to access in cases of ' emergency. We live in one of the most active weather pattern areas in the world. A tornado around Chanhassen is not an uncommon site. There are people who have to access for emergency vehicles. There are police vehicles. You don't always know what's going to happen and you can't build ' or empty out or take away a barrier while your house is burning down. There are a lot of unexpected things that happen and the city tries to provide services to everyone that are reasonable. And one of the reasonable things to ask is that you have a multiple access to an area of high concentrated homes. It may be that it adds to your traffic level but you have to ask yourself if the common good does not supersede that and that's ' what the city's making that argument. It's not a stupid argument and it's not one that's based on other occurrences. There are existing statistical eveidence and I would hope that you can look at that unemotionally. I realize when there's traffic in front of your house and you're being irritated by it, or there's somebody gunning their engine, that you think about that. And not for me. I don't want it. I don't care, I'll take my chances and we've had people come in here and say that. I don't know I whether that's the prudent thing to do for the city. That they should take that attitude. I think a lot of that has to do with how many homes you're talking about on a cul -de -sac. But I'm rambling on here. I'll get back to this development. I think it should be a separate issue. I think the development should be looked on the basis of what it is. That development. And I think things reasonable to me, actually 3/4 of an acre is quite a large lot size comparatively. It's not for your property but where it's ' zoned you're simply not, the economics are simply not going to get a 2 acre lot. It's not out there. And particular for this price of a house. There's simply not a market for it. And I'm struck I guess by the comment ' previously, the meeting that took place back 2 years ago. The person who's selling this property now claimed that he would not be developing his property. And we also see that here by people who are coming in who are complaining about these types of developments. I wish that we were talking ' about a buffer type situation. If we could come up with something like that, it would help these types of situations because they happen over and over and over again. Unfortunately, one person's castle is not always the same. Your vision of a utopia out in the suburbs is not necessarily shared by your neighbor. I hope we have some common sense to this whole thing. That's my comments. 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 37 Batzli: Joan. 1 Ahrens: Well first of all I...Street of Dreams...straight forward. I don't have any questions. I understand the neighbors' concerns. They don't want more people. They don't want development but we can't prevent somebody from selling their land to a developer. If they have land, they II can subdi \Aide it...We have no say in that. Resident: He didn't sell the land... • Ahrens: At any rate. The barrier issue strikes me so odd anyway that you II would have two improved roads that the city maintains with a barrier acros them so people can't drive. The concept of that is very odd to me. That the City would even engage in that kind of isolation... I read through th notes in the City Council meeting and to tell you the truth, I still don't understand the reasoning behind that decision. The cul -de -sac that ends u with Curry Farms at the top of that hili...end of a cul- de- sec....goes on and on and on and ends up, I don't know .,..To me it just makes sense that the barrier should be removed...Teton Lane. Batzli: But do you agree with Steve's position that we should just eliminate it from the conditions or would you like to see it remain in the conditions? 1 Ahrens: I think it's...that we put it in as a condition of this development. Batzli: But pHilosophically you'd like to see it removed? Ahrens: Absolutely. I think it should be removed. I don't think that's II going to bring anymore traffic into Curry Farms. Certainly the people in this Ithilien development, they're not going to drive through Curry Farms to get to CR 17... It's too long a route to take. Actually the benefits II to the Curry Farms residents will be able to get to CR 17 faster. Mrs. Natoli: That's the idea. That's why. You made the statement exactl why we wanted it 3 years ago. Ahrens: Well at any rate, that's my opinion. Mr. Natoli: That was supposed to be a break away put in there but they didn't come along with a break away. They put those big pillars in. Now I maintain there still should be break away for more than one reason. We've had a number of small tornadoes go through that area and if a big on went through there once, you'd need'ambulances and fire engines and. everything else coming from both sides. So break sways would be the clear thing because then your fire trucks and your ambulances can go through it. ' I don't want to, I'd hate to see anybody get hampered where they can't get an ambulance or fire truck in. But that fell through. I don't know what happened. 1 • Batzli: Thank you. 1 1 II Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 38 Ahrens: Well I just don't think the developer should have to get involved in this. 1 Batzli: Is that it? Okay. I guess Joan kind of covered it as did Jeff and there's a lot of concern and rightly so as the development moves into II an established neighborhood with different sized lots. In this instance the development meets our standards so that we can't stop them. We can make them conform to our ordinances, which they're doing and in a market capitalist society, unfortunately they took advantage of the sale to the ' bank or however they got the property and we don't get involved with that so I mean it is too bad for the neighborhood. If they would have had you - know an inkling and would have been able to purchase it and had the money to do so and to maintain it, that would have been very nice. But unfortunately the City isn't involved in that part of the process so. We are at least trying to make them conform to our ordinance and make it a safe development for the residents surrounding. Paul, several of these lots are listed at exactly 15,000 square feet. Is there some sort of opinion by the Planning Department that these things actually measure up correctly? 1 Krauss,: We took the information that was provided by the surveyor who prepared this said it was accurate. We asked for clarification of that with signed dc- cunentation under the final plat. Ahrens: ...plus or minus. 1 Kr&usE: Yeah They've got to make sure they're all plus. Batzli: Okay. For the purposes of Lots 12, 13, 15, 16, 17. When we're calculating lots as far as the minimum lot size, refresh my memory. Are we taking out those areas that are wetland? Are we using a gross or net or are those people given credit for the 39,000 squ feet? ' Krauss: Under current ordinances we do not subtract wetland areas. This is what we've talked about on several occasions that we may want to look at an ordinance change that does that. ' Emming.=: For density calculations we do. Krauss: For density, yes. Right. Batzli: But not for minimum lot? Krauss: No. But what we have done here and what we've done in the recent years iE we've made sure that they lay out as buildable lots and I think in the packet you'll see that there is a fair amount of information provided. There's in fact a detail of one of the lots that we interpretted the setbacks and there's information provided on how those lots around the wetland LI07 k. 1 Batzli: And what was the net density of this development? It was well within our allowed density as I recall. .1 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 39 Krauss.: Yeah. It was, the net is 2.7 units an acre and gross is 1.9. Thil Comp Plan allows anything less than 4. We seem to average about 2 in single family neighborhoods. Batzli: I would like to, as a general rule of thumb I would say that the II barricade shouldn't be in there. However, there's a lot of history with the barricade and it was a political decision and the neighbors fought lon and hard and they got that and I don't know whether the City Council wants to relook at that but I don't want to relook at it unless the City Council tells me to relook at it. From a policy standpoint of the Planning Commission, I would say it shouldn't be in there but they've already made - that decision. So I would like to remove that from the conditions and if II the Council wants to revisit it, they may. I don't think it's up to this develop€r though. So I'm on record anyway. I'd like to see the trees saved and the only thing that we haven't talked about I guess is the drainage. That didn't seem to be a concern except for one resident so I guess I would encourage that resident to talk off line with our people if that is a large concern. And I'm sorry sir, did you have a? 1 Resident: Yes, I have a quick...related question. On that wetland, is the city respon=sible for maintenance of that or is that the... Just to make sure that it's upgraded and kept... Hempel: That will be maintained by the city and there will be a drainage easement over it. I should point out, the city as far as mowing these areas, obviously it's a wetland. We're not going to be mowing it and so forth. By maintenance we mean by cleaning out sediment that accumulates at these storm sewer inlets and so forth. 1 ResidF -nt : How about...? Hempel: I'll defer that one to Planning I guess. We typically have not II done that to any of our wetlands yet. Kra s,.: Just because he punted doesn't mean we have the answer. Frankly, I moan w:. have had these problems crop up. There are city weed inspector, if I can punt again is, yes. We do have a city weed inspector. He was nominally, no, it was the City Manager but he passed it down to the Public" Safety Director. He is the officially designated, I mean by State law, he's the weed inspector. And purple loosestrife is one of those noxious weeds that he's responsible for and I know they do, they had operated in some wetlands in conjunction with the DNR but I don't know how extensive that program is. We can ask him. Farmakes: We did it at Lake Lucy. The DNR provides you with equipment. II You walk through your wetlands and for each individual plant, if you want to spend a great Saturday sometime in the middle of July, I would highly recommend it. ' Batzli: I thought they were supposed to pull it. Farmakes: They give you Rodeo and you spray it. 1 Ahrens: You can't pull it out. 1 II Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 40 Farmakes: But it's just a maintenance type thing. Apparently this plant lays down it's seed supply that will last 10,000 years from now so it's pretty much cosmetic. Batzli:. Okay. That's all the comments I had. If someone would like to make a motion. ' Ahrens: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #92 -4 as shown on the plans dated March 14, 1992 and... Emmings: The date on the plans is March 16th. I think. Batzli: Yes. ' Ahrens: March 16, 1992 and Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -2 as shown on the plans submitted by Barr Engineering dated, is it March 9,•1992, subject to the following conditions. As the Commission stated, condition number 8 shall remove the words, including the removal of the barricade. Emmings: I'll second that motion. ' Batzli: Paul, are we covered, or Dave. Whoever can answer this question. As far as where the road is located to save the trees. Is that something? ' Emmings: Are the trees threatened? Krauss: I don't think they will be. I mean we have not seen the final construction proposal. There could theoretically be something we're not sure of but there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why we can't save those. ' Batzli• Ok&y. ' Emmings: Are we discussing? Batzli: We're discussing. ' Emmings: As far as the discussion goes, I want to be on record also, if it isn't already clear that I would be for removing the barricade and connecting those roads up. For all of the same reasons that we just did it ' on the last one. And Jeff went through the litany. Ahrens: One quick question. Condition number...more outlots? Krauss: Well theoretically though those lots could access Lilac. They have a double frontage situation so we just wanted to make sure we're clear and that would not occur. • ' Batzli: Is there any more discussion? ' Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat *92 -4 as shown on the plans dated March 16, 1992 and Wetland Alteration Permit *92 -2 as shown on the plans submitted by Barr Engineering dated March 9, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 April 1, 1992 - Page 41 1. The following easements shall be added to the plat: a. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line 11 of Lots 2 and 3. b. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 14 and 15. 1 c. A 20 , foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole. • II d. A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14. e. A 20 foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14 through 17 and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer. f. A drainage eaesment for the wetland pond for the boundary at the II 1004' contour. g. P. conservation easement for the wetland over the 1001' contour. i h. The existing drainage easement over the wetland must be vacated. 2. A 12 inch RCP storm sewer with a 4 inch orifice plate shall be constructed as the outlet structure for the wetland pond. The wetlandll pond bottom shall be lined with clay and top dressed with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil. 1 3. Storrs drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an erosion control plan shall be submitted with the final plat. Slope, shall not exceed 3:1. - 4. The internal watermain system shall be installed within the proposed nt street right -of -way and shall be looped to Lilac Lane or to Ashton!' Court. 5. An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be located along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 and vehicle access shall be provided from the new street along the common property line of Lots 15 and 16. • 6. A 60 foot wide street right -of -way shall be provided for the new stree ll proposed within the subdivision. 17 feet of right -of -way shall be granted along the east plat line to provide a 50 foot wide road right -of -way for Teton Lane as consistent with right -of -way dedication" along Teton Lane north and south of this area. 7. Lots 1 through 5 shall take driveway access from the proposed new street. R. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the feasibility study update for improvements to Teton Lane are known, a II public hearing is held and the improvement project is formally ordered. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 42 9. The developer shall enter into a development control with the City and provide the necessary securities associated with the development. ' 10. The preliminary plat should be adjusted to provide the required 90 foot frontage at the 30 foot setback for Lots 4 and 6, Block 1. Lot 1Q be adjusted to provide a more suitable building pad area. 11. The applicant shall receive all required permits. 12. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land dedication. 13. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the sub - surface soil conditions on the proposed subdivision -and recommend corrections at proposed house pads, if necessary. 14. The location of the proposed house pads, the type of dwelling and the lowest floor and garage floor elevations should be indicated on the grading plan. Dwelling type designations should be: R Rambler ' TU Tuck Under WO Walk out SE Split Entry SEWO Split Entry Walk out ' 15. The wetland alteration shall be completed exactly as proposed in the Barr Engineering memo dated March 9, 1992, including the two pond ' system, interspersed with open water and submergent plant species, and landscaping of a mixture of emergent plant species and wetland shurbs. 16. Disposal of dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area. ' 17. The applicant shall notify staff within 48 hours prior to commencing the alteration to the wetland and shall again notify staff within 48 hours after completion of the wetland alteration for staff review and approval. ' 18. The letter of credit, as part of the development contract, shall include financial sureties to guarantee proper mitigation of the wetland, including landscaping and as -built plans. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: Paul, when will this go in front of the City Council? 1 Krauss: 27th of April. The feasibility study though, like on the other one, the feasibility study is going on the 13th. 1 Hempel: I believe it's on the 13th, yes. Batzli: Okay thank you. • 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - lgust 13, 1990 1. The plat shall show the typical easements 10 foot south (front) and 5 feet on the north, east and west (sides). The applicant shall show the 20 foot wide preservation easement. 2. Park and trail fees must be submitted to the City in lieu of parkland at the time building permit is requested. 3. The applicant shall enter into a' development contract with the City. ' and approval of Site Plan Request 890 -6 as shown on the plans dated June 18, 1990 subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of trash storage enclosure for all outside trash storage. All trash will be stored internally. Plans for outdoor storage and rooftop screening shall be submitted to staff for approval. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with conditions of the Watershed District permit. 3. All disturbed areas should be seeded and Type III erosion control blanket installed. The detail should be incorporated into the new grading plan. The applicant must provide retaining walls to protect the existing tree as shown on Attachment #1. 4. Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City at the ' time of building permit application. 5. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and must demonstrate that there is no more than .5 foot candles of light from fixtures at the property line. The applicant shall submit signage plans for City approval. 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the conservation easement located on the northerly 20 feet of the property. 7. All trees designated for preservation are to be marked at their dripline 1 with a snow fence prior to any grading and approved by staff. All trees lost due to construction shall be replaced by suitably sized and located material approved by city staff. 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 10 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS. .375 LILAC LANE. JAMES DONOVAN. Jo Ann Olsen: This is a metes and bounds subdivision dividing 1 acre parcel - separating off a 1 acre parcel from a 10 acre piece. The 1 acre parcel has an existing single family residence on it. We did find out that it is hooked up to sewer and water so one of our conditions that they have to hook up, condition number 7 can be removed. That parcel already is connected to the City sewer and water. Also in condition 8 where the second line, second from the end where it says improvement project be conducted for Lilac Lane, that should be Teton Lane. The subdivision is a simple one but one of the issues surrounding it is the 44 1 City Council Meeting - gust 13, 1990 improvement to Teton Lane. We are not recommending that Teton be improved at ' this time but what we do with any subdivision is if there is the need to acquire right -of -way, if that street ever had to be improved in the future, we'd do it as part of the subdivision which we are requiring as condition of approval for I this subdivision. So not only along Parcel A but both Parcel A and 8 we would like to acquire that right -of -way. Again, not to pursue the improvements at this time but just so we have the right -of -way available. II 1ayor Chmiel: Is Mr. Donovan here? Jim Donovan: Yes. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything you'd like to add to what Jo Ann has said? ' Jim Donovan: Well on number 8 it says if further development or land division is proposed for these two newly created parcels or if access is desired on Teton, it is recommended that a full street and utility. I guess I don't understand what they're talking about. What they're saying there. In other ' words, if someone on Teton Lane decides to put their driveway from their house down onto Teton Lane, is that considered an improvement or are you just talking about my two parcels of property? Not anybody else's parcels of property there? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Strictly your two parcels but I'd like to make sort of a clarification of this. I also sort of highlighted that particular one. From ' what's here in the staff's report, what I have here, Teton remains as a private street at this particular time. We have not, nor will we accept Teton as a public road. Further subdivision may trigger upgrading Teton but not required now. We are asking for 14 right -of -way and only to protect future options for that additional and any home built on a new lot should, if possible, use Lilac. Jo Ann Olsen: One of the reasons that that was pointed out was also just with engineer was looking at that. It would be the preferable access. Don Ashworth: I think it's 17. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think it's 17. I said 14 but it should be 17. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. It wasn't real clear on the half sections exactly what ' the amount is but it looks close to 17 feet. I think engineering can address whether or not. We felt that we did want to have some say in where access did actually occur, if it does, on Parcel B. That could possibly trigger ' improvement. Councilman Johnson: Jim, are you building another house? Jim Donovan: No. There's a residence on Parcel A. Councilman Johnson: What do you live on? Jim Donovan: I live on, well I don't live on, I live on Parcel C I guess. I live to the east of there. Councilman Johnson: Oh, okay. So nobody's living there now? 45 1 . ' City Council Meeting - AuA t 13, 1990 ' Jim Donovan: No. There's a farmhouse there now and these people who are II proposing to buy it are from Connecticut and they want to restore it. It's been rented for years and years and years and I bought the property approximately 3 years ago. Councilman Johnson: And you're doing this in order for the farmhouse to be sold? Jim Donovan: Yes. Councilman Johnson: That's the purpose of this? Jim Donovan: That's the whole thing, yes. Councilman Johnson: And they've already got access? ' Jim Donovan: They've already got a driveway there. They have city sewer and city water and it's all connected already. , Councilman Johnson: That's where the deer hang out at night. And during the day actually in the tall weeds right behind there and they head over to your place in the evening. ' Jim Donovan: Because we feed them. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I was sitting out there with the radar, the City's radar one day on Teton radaring people and looked out and there were about 6 deer just stand up maybe 50 feet from me. Jim Donovan: If you're looking on Teton and you look straight west then, you'd see my place there. I'm up on a hill there. Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann that parcel A, what is the total footage on that? It shows here 142.07 by 239. Is that correct? Jo Ann Olsen: It's just over, it's just an acre. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so a little over an acre. Okay. Councilman Workman: There's no. future proposed use for the rest of it? Jim Donovan: No. ' Councilman Workman: And I know there's some people in here that are concerned about a barricade and I'm getting to know them as close friends. Jim Donovan: I want the barricade kept there because if that Teton Lane is made into a city street, I'm the person that's going to suffer. When Centex was doing their development there, the City did an appraisal of the amount of money it would take for city sewer and water there and on my property alone would cost me over $33,000.00. ` 11 46 ' II City Council Meeting - Auyust 13, 1990 ' - Councilman Workman: Well somebody in those proceedings stated there's a 99 year covenant on this piece that can't be developed and that was a premise for barricading. That was part of the premise for barricading in that it wouldn't be developed. Do you remember that? Jo Ann Olsen: It was stated. I don't know if it was ever. ' Councilman Workman: I don't doubt that but I'm just saying. Councilman Johnson: They said they would put a 99 year, if we wanted to I think somebody said they would put a 99 year thing on their property. I don't think there was. Councilman Workman: That would be this gentleman. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Jim Donovan: There is not a trust on it. ' Councilman Johnson: We never asked him to. Councilman Workman: No, I'm not going to ask him to but I'm just saying, somebody used that in the argument that that's why the barricade should be up ' because. Jim Donovan:. I'm not proposing to develop anything here. ' Councilman Workman: I know that but anytime activity happens in this area, that barricade becomes. ' Jim Donovan: We're not really asking for any activity as such. I mean this property prior to this has been rented. It has not been improved by renters. These people are willing to upgrade this property and do a lot of things to make ' it more beautiful and to upgrade the whole thing. As some of the conditions for selling it, I've had to do some upgrading of the property itself in order to make it for the appraisals so overall it's to benefit the entire piece of ' property there. Mayor Chmiel: Tom, that's one of the reasons indicated before. Make sure everything is as is and we're not changing Anything.' Jim Donovan: I'd like to ask a question on number 5 there. The last part. Designated as a protected wetland part of my property there. That is not a wetland. I mean we've had a lot of rain this year, much more than usual, and it's as dry as can be in there. I'm mowing in there and to arbitrarily designate part of my property as a wetland I don't feel is really fair. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any reason from staff? Jo Ann Olsen: We did go out when I had one of the Fish and Wildlife people out and we were looking at Curry Farms and we drove them up there. It's another marginal wetland but it's got wetland vegetation. One of the reasons we were looking, so we are protecting it as a wetland as it is now and also if that land ' 47 1 • City Council Meeting - AL st 13, 1990 ' is ever developed, that's where the water drains to and that should be ' protected. I'm learning from past experience, I just want to make it clear that those are wetlands and not necessarily completely be subdivided into lots. We want them to be protected. Councilman Johnson: A wetland does not have to have water on top of the ' surface. Jim Donovan: I understand. Councilman Johnson: If you've got within a few inches of the surface the water table, then your normal Bermudas, or not Bermudas. I'm back in Alabama. Kentucky's and whatever, cannot grow and you get wetlan0 vegetation. That's what you've got in that corner is wetland vegetation. Jim Donovan: Well you said that you at one time stopped on Teton there and looked across. Then you've seen how I've cleared off about 6 1/2 -7 acres of that property. Mowed it off there. ' Councilman Johnson: At that time it wasn't. A year ago or something. At least not where I think they're talking about here in the southeast corner. 1 Jim Donovan: That part is not yet. I mean but what I'm saying is that the part of Parcel B at one time was like this and that I've cleared it and made it the same way. 1 Councilman Johnson: We have people that mow wetlands. Jim Donovan: Pardon me. I know, it looks like a lawn now. ' Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That doesn't mean it's not a wetland because it looks like a lawn. Jim Donovan: My contention is that there are other parts of the property where the elevations are the same as what you're showing there in that wetland, or supposed wetland there and that part is... Councilman Johnson: Not by your survey. 1 Jim Donovan: Toward the western part of the property there where it connects with my...property. Paul Krauss: That's about 8 feet higher. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, 6 to 8 feet. 4 feet. It's going down. Everything else drains into this area. There is not outlet here is there? It's almost been shown as a depression. That's about where the deer came out of. There were tall weeds in there. 1 Jim Donovan: Well I guess what I'm asking is, is this approval by the Commission contingent upon this piece of property, this part of my property being designated as a wetland? I'm not clear from what it says. 1 48 1 1 ' City Council Meeting - ..ugust 13, 1990 Councilman Johnson: We could designate it as a wetland anyway. Without approval. If it's got wetland, by our wetland ordinance, if there's wetland vegetation growing in it, it's a wetland. No matter what you did with it, it'd get designated, it's a wetland. If you tried to develop it, i. would then. Jim Donovan: No, I'm not talking about developing it but what I'm saying is that part of my other property that I've mowed down had the same type as here and that could just as well have been, and still can be wetland. Jo Ann Olsen: There's definitely a low spot right there. Councilman Johnson: Explain to Jim what the impact of us designating this as a wetland, what does that do to him? What can he or can he not do now with that property. Jo Ann Olsen: If and when or if he ever does subdivide Parcel B, it's just letting everyone know ahead of time that that is a wetland and it will have to ' be protected. Most likely if that property is developed into 15,000 square foot lots, we have to get a few of them in there so it would have to be used as a drainage pond similar to Curry Farms. Councilman Johnson: But at this time he can mow it? Jo Ann Olsen: He can't fill it in. Councilman Johnson: He can run horses on it. I mean Jensen ran horses on her wetlands. Jim Donovan: I rented to her. ' Councilman Johnson: Yeah. See designating this as a wetland at this time has almost no effect on you. Only when you subdivide it it has an impact. Jim Donovan: I got you. I'm planting trees and things like that in there. ' Jo Ann Olsen: Right. ' Councilman Johnson: Just make sure that they can live in wetlands or you're going to waste your money. Jim Donovan: Yeah. Okay, that's, I didn't know what that meant. That's fine ' then. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Councilman Johnson: There's a couple hands up in the audience. ' Mayor Chmiel: Do you have something? State your name and your address please. Randy Carl: I'm Randy Carl at 6391 Teton which is a public street as far as I know since you guys come up and plow it and maintain it and service it and all of that. The barricade was put into place and all of that a couple -3 years ago when you guys approved the new Curry Farms development and it looks like since ' 49 City Council Meeting - Au,...st 13, 1990 ' there won't be any development on this, that there wouldn't be any reason to change that. I can understand that. But since there's been some talk about beautification and improvements and things have been done, since the City closed off that road here this year, all they've done is piled up concrcte barricades, wooded barricades, hurricane fences and all kinds of stuff across there and it was supposed to be a barricade that would be able to be knocked down by fire trucks and emergency vehicles to provide proper access. As long as you're looking at that property and you're saying you're 'not going to do anything any II different or change that road and that access, we ought to at least then go ahead and fulfill the requirement. In my discussions with some of the people at the City on this, the reason they weren't doing it is because they knew this issue was coming up and they thought that this road might be opened up and improved but if it's not, then let's get the proper barricade in there so if a fire truck or emergency vehicle comes up, happens to come up the wrong side, they don't have to spend a couple minutes going back around because that could be a potential hazard to both the people that live on the older side and the people that live on the new side so I think the City needs to follow through now if they're going to leave this this way and fulfill that requirement. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Good point. ' Marc Simcox: Marc Simcox. I live at 21600 Lilac Lane in Shorewood and I'm here representing two people that do live in Chanhassen. The Ware's and the Pickard's and the only concern•that we had on this entire thing is something that the Mayor brought up earlier and it's item 8. What it seems to do in item 8, and I think you reworded it and I didn't understand it completely but what this does is this said that if there is, or. It says if further development or land subdivision is proposed for these two newly created parcels, or if access is desired on Teton Lane then it opens it all up. The only thing that we would like to have that changed to read, if full development or land division or full land subdivision is proposed for these two newly created parcels and if access is desired on Teton Lane, rather than say or because the way it's worded now, if the new property owner decides because of the lay of the land they're going to build a new garage and so forth and if they decide. to move it around and come on Teton or if the Ware's decide that they don't want to continue to drive over the Pickard's property on that easement, they'd like to go out to Teton Lane. That opens it up and it just really takes off all the other original, I think the original intent that was put on this restriction for Teton Lane when it was first upgrading. And that's the only concern that there is. If that could be clarified so that would state, and I mean we don't, you can't ever say never. We know that. We don't know, maybe Jim might develop it in a year but until that time, which I think was the original intent of the original proposal with Teton Lane, if we could just make sure that that's echoed here. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I think the clarifications that I had addressed that. Marc Simcox: Okay. Well if we could have that reread again so we understand ' that. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Let me just go through it one more time. Teton remains as II a private street. We have not nor will we accept Teton as a public road. I 50 ' II • Council Meeting - , gust 13, 1990 Marc Simcox: And we don't disagree with that. It probably will. The only thing is that we want to do is have that addressed at that time. If that can be addressed, there's nothing wrong with addressing it at that time. Absolutely • ' nothing. To acquire the right -of -way is fine and to address thy± rest of it when that happens. We don't want to put in some kind of conditions in what we expect or think might happen in the future because nobody knows and to go and open this up as soon as somebody hiccups, be able to open that road up, that's what we're II concerned with. Those are our concerns and that's all. Dave Priest: It's less than a year since the public hearing when nobody said nothing was going to be developed and here we are. The property's being split now. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to state your name and your address please. Dave Priest: Dave Priest, 6360 Teton Lane. ' Marc Simcox: If I could just like to address that. A lot of people have been here since long before Centex ever dug a first scoop of dirt out of there and the whole proposal for closing Teton Lane never came from that neighborhood. 11 That came from Centex as an alternative to spending a hundred and some thousand dollars to putting another access out onto CR 17 over city property over by where the machine shops are and losing Lot 15 so whether or not Teton Lane was closed off has absolutely nothing to do. That was one of the parts was that that property wasn't going to be developed but the major part of that came from Centex when Centex wanted to save the money and it was their proposal that we close it off and we agreed to that and we just want to stick with that. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any further discussion? ' Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to clarify one of the conditions that's in there. I think condition 1 is misleading. We wanted to voluntarily have Shorewood review this plat to know that we've taken sufficient right -of -way to expand. We've indicated in condition 1 that we'd like Shorewood to be made ' aware of the fact that we've got sufficient right -of -way on Lilac to improve this street but it's misleading. We do not want nor do we think we need to have Shorewood approve this plat so I would ask you to delete the approval. ' Councilman Workman: Paul would it help us to somehow say, if further development, number 8. If further development or land division is proposed for these two newly created lots and if access is desired on Teton Lane by the City of Chanhassen? Why is it or? Jo Ann Olsen: We were leaving it so that even 'now if this Parcel B is developed ' into one lot and that they are proposing to use Teton. I mean the situation right now is that there should not be even one more access onto Teton Lane. We just want to leave it open that as each case comes in, we can look at it and ' review it. Councilman Johnson: So if somebody builds on that Lot B I guess they're calling it. 1 r 52 1 City Council Meeting - AL .st 13, 1990 Councilman Workman: One more driveway onto Teton on Lot B is going to overload .Teton? , Jo Ann Olsen: Right now it should be improved. Councilman Workman: If we deleted number 8, would that leave it wide open? , Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Tom, could I make a recommendation? That we pull 8 and , substitute what I had for clarifications. Councilman Workman: I don't think we need the substitution either do we? ' Councilman Johnson: Just pull 8 altogether? Mayor Chmiel: Just pull 8 completely is what you're saying? Okay. Councilman Johnson: Handle it when it happens. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I agree with that. Jo Ann Olsen: I guess one reason why we had that in there was because the ' building permit does not come in front of you. Councilman Johnson: So basically you want to say if a home is developed on Parcel B, it shall have access to Lilac versus Teton. That's one thing we're trying to say. Right now there's basically only one person using Teton. Jo Ann Olsen: We're going to recommend that it's improved .t has to come back ' in front of you anyway so. Dave Hempel: Also if I just may comment. Sewer and water is only available ' on Lilac, not Teton 5o most likely building pad would be up off of Lilac versus Teton. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Workman: So we can take 8 out and we'll still be covered? Mayor Chmiel: I think we can drop 8. Yes sir. 11 • Jim Donovan: I'd like to address the question of the barricade from Mr. Carlisle here. I asked, I called the city and asked the city to put up the hurricane fence there because of people driving over my property and because they weren't able to get through the barricades there, they decided to drive over my property. Now that is my property and that's my right to not have people drive over it. Now if we have, as Mr. Carlisle wants, if we have the break away ones or the knock down ones I'm sure, I mean it's nobody from our area that is going south on Teton over my property. It's the people coming from Centex development, from there coming onto my property and if we have that type of barricade, then they're going to just disregard where they shouldn't be going. They're just going to disregard the knock down barricades and go through ' 53 1 II City Council Meeting - A.,ust 13, 1990 • it anyway and not have it just be used for the emergency vehicles. I understand the importance of having something for the emergency vehicles but I also understand that I shouldn't be subjected to having people drive around and on my ' property just because the road is barricaded there. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something we can have staff look at to come up ' with what's basically needed within that location. Making sure access isn't off to the sides of those. Councilman Johnson: I think what he's asking for is to have the proper ' barricade situation put up which means that people can't go across there and they can't go across your property either. You know a fire truck's got a bumper about yea big. That's going to take out those barricades versus my Horizon. Jim Donovan: I appreciate that, yeah. What I'm saying is that the people from Centex now have been disregarding the permanent barricades and going across my property. What's to stop them from doing the same when you have the temporary, ' when you have the knock down. They have a fence there now because the City put it up for me. Resident: Why is the City providing fences for private citizens? Jim Donovan: Because you people are going over my property, that's why. 1 Resident: Can you prove it was somebody from Centex? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that's the point or the issue. ' Resident: He's making that. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's correct but I think we should bring this back to the Council and come up with a motion on this specific item. II Councilman Workman: I would move approval of the metes and bounds subdivision for Mr. Donovan with staff's recommendations minus number 8. Mayor Chmiel: And 1. 11 Councilman Workman: And 1. Councilman Johnson: Changing 1. Leave 1 in there but just remove the,words and approved. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Jo Ann Olsen: And taking out number 7, right. Councilman Workman: And number 7. • Jo Ann Olsen: They do have sewer and water. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? ' 54 • City Council Meeting ,august 13, 1990 Councilwoman Dialer: Second. , Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the Metes and Bounds Subdivision *90 -11 to create Parcels A and B as shown the plans dated , July 16, 1990 with the following conditions: I. The City of Shorewood shall review the proposed subdivision. 2. The applicant shall ' provide right -of -way along Teton and Lilac Lane to maintain full 50 foot street right -of -way. • 3. If a future building permit is applied for Parcel B, it shall be contingent upon connecting into City sewer and water located on Lilac Lane. 4. The applicant shall provide typical drainage and utility easements along the external and internal lot lines of Parcel A and 8. 5. The 1,000 foot elevation located in the southeast corner of Parcel B will be protected by a drainage easement and designated as a protected wetland. 6. The shed and garage on Parcel B shall either be removed or relocated , onto Parcel A where they meet the required setbacks. If relocation is not completed prior to requesting filing of the metes and bounds subdivision, a $1,000.00 financial guaratee should be provided to the City. ' • 7. Deleted. 8. Deleted. 1 9. Park dedication fees shall be paid at the time a building permit application is requested for Parcel B. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: 1 Mayor Chmiel: The only thing that I'd like to bring up on the plastic situation. Jo Ann I'd like you to reiterate a little bit more what's the potential about plastics being recycled within the City. Jo Ann Olsen: Well we had last Tuesday a recycling commission meeting which we invited haulers to come to discuss whether or not we should initiate curbside recycling of plastic and if we do, what the ramifications were. We had 3 of the major haulers, BFI and Waste Management and Aagard come and they could all accomodate curbside recycling but it's costly. It takes up a lot of space versus cans that can be crushed and that cost would be passed onto the resident. Our other concern was that the smaller haulers can't accommodate it. We're talking the 3 big ones that do have it and there's pilot programs going on with other cities and a lot of cities are doing just drop off centers for plastic. So we kind of left it at that to look into whether or not we could do a drop off center to start something or whether or not to push for curbside so we are pursuing it. There will be something. Exactly what form, we don't know yet. 55 1 CITYOF 1 . CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM ' • TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner • 1 FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: April 15, 1992 • SUBJ: Ithilien Subdivision 1 The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary plat for Ithilien on March 1 24, 1992. A copy of the report presented to the Commission is attached for your use in reviewing their action. The applicant did not have representation at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. 1 Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, Lash moved and Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept full park dedication 1 fees in lieu of taking parkland, and trail dedication fees in lieu of trail construction and /or trail easement for Ithilien subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 • C 1 T T OF PtIC DATE: March 24, 1992 • \ CHANHASE CCDATE: HOFFMAN:k `l STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat to subdivide 9 acres of property into 17 single family lots on property zoned RSF and located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Lilac Lane and Teton Lane; and wetland alteration permit for alteration, relocation, and mitigation of a Class B wetland, Ithilien Addition, Hilloway Corporation. Z V LOCATION: North of Curry Farms Park at the Shorewood border (see vicinity map) a. APPUCANT: Hilloway Corporation 16455 Ringer Road Q Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family, Residential ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - City of Shorewood S - RSF, Single Family Residential E - RSF, Single Family Residential W - RSF, Single Family Residential i m , C E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site lies wholly within the neighborhood park service area (lh mile radius) Park. 0 Curry Farms Park and partially within the service area of Pheasant Hill W COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: Trails, trail segments, easements or connections are not called for in the Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan in the vicinity of this site. The proposed ithilien subdivision is within 14 mile walking distance of Curry Farms Park via a trail connection on Teton Lane. Admittedly, however, this trail connection is a poor one due to its severe slope. This trail was installed with minimal input from the city during the second phase of Curry Farms. Access can also be gained via the residential streets in Curry Farms 1st and 2nd Additions. This subdivision can assuredly be served by Curry Farms Park. Hiiloway Subdivision March 24, 1992 Pa0e 2 �. RECOMMENDATION: It Is recommended the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council make the payment of ' full park fees (1500.00 per unit) and full trail fees ($167.00 per unit) a condition of approval for the Ithilien subdivision. These fees are to be paid on all 17 units as part of the building permit application. 1. 1 1 •1 1 • 1 1 1 1 .1 1 • 1 1 1 .. 1 I f F• ��.i ' . s a • pv % , �'� Val - -2200 In 111 k 1111,1417) �1---�ggt 1111111 V P.Iligh 27 1 i i monwin citi ager 0177gfoilliMITL 0 1 - illb . ■t - e F 1 - � � 0- 1900 .....„...p. „Ai !M� E' �w �: 18 0 1010P (3 .41_32 II „,,;4 P ;_ --_-- _b , x r ' g Rte I' i . c 11110111046 150 1 n � .� .yam Adif ill■ 1, .3, c. --in.,- ,: N. A • 7 m a i NI un r --- ( k ' N yosemlibl IN HIM : 6 `: PI 111, i ) ( . r.- J..; f A -N -g a •�! , f�. a LSI TIFILL4:1 `- 1400 11.43111 jig I! ? _ -1300 ty. � lli pIs�� ■ pat -1200 ■awl � e� �� ,. \ ,, ► s �� 1 1 111, z ail /', a �100 61. la ^'r , " � c4� �� Le 1 p �, E ms . all -. _ � //I� , a. - _...y , '` �, a ■., ©' \ �� ■ ■∎ a I s s lo.co i �� /I ��U' :I I P voroa i f -900 00 t 1 Niri.LA:z ,� . fi t , ` , ■ a MI " 41, ■ - y m 40 ma ■ . , 14 r 2 L 0:77 . . - t ' il ; I. -a tz 6 . 4 ' 10, re ii . .,,.: , 4... ..__, ,,......... I -' P te• P` �°6�- \_ • ��` % 1/ p 700 .. . a .. _ � * i I _ • ' • . ' • — � "_: it • ■ •�`.`. :115\ w • i �/ �� ,t pi. � 1 •" t I s. -� + 1 ' - • :. ♦ 1e .1 1 i i I: i i ... • • • . i i! iii • •ice I L _ L I: , ____. ire -, s � ' i -•� • ; % 1 �• ......... a . _.. 111 f 4 •i • i I t \ t t, 1 41 i • ti _ T. ' il. ' I T ■......\.. ' 1 .. • 1 Ct" 1 . _ • i - ,..•.- --, . ; . ;..:..". . \ '• G sa - _ - .. . • . i • .......:::,...1....-1..:„/"..,:,.. . • f . - �' ' —� '., fi , 4 . • ' I i .. . -. .1 • r _ _ • 1 • - , • 1 •• ' 1 ' 1-p . - if o i 1 � • 4 1 1 i 1 ' = i {{Fi Z i 1 I ... . i t ni . .. - 11 11 r 1 Sg ,. * • • . ff�h } II I I • , • * a +ii - s •ea - v►r .�� . • 1 � � . • 1 • 1 • • 1 1 N . • ' il • .... 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: k t o w a-..\ Cor P • OWNER: 10N- `^^ s . F e h ; g ADDRESS: 1(=>'-{.S5 R v`ser. Rao ADDRESS: 1 W a 2,rlk,t.... v...v.1 .553°11 LeMell p tew� w� v, e� Co .erg v t TELEPHONE (Day time) L i 3 - 1 t i 9 TELEPHONE: R . �C ka.wdl 14 • 6 t o w. o.4. boo y15-9o05 wa� zavieek fov"L SS3q I - 1 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. X Subdivision 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW /Easements 3. Grading /Excavation Permit 13. Variance 1 4. Interim Use Permit 14._4_ Wetland Alteration Permit 5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal . 1 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees /Attorney Cost - (Collected after 1 approval of item) 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees • 1 9. Sign Plan Review 10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 1 81" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 1 PROJECT NAME = ■ e" h LOCATION t aid Tr_ 0 I LEGAL DESCRIPTION Sc.t e eA. pv �c/l�o�.Se 1 1 PRESENT ZONING res 1 �. , REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION '-� �d�'"'`''� °k.k. 1 REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 1 REASON FOR THIS REQUEST p ro AoSe 5i welr2 � ,..,,�: ‘ �`�eS:�t Svbd�: StO '-J I This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the .- Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. 1 This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party 1 whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. 1 have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 1 further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best I of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded 1 against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. �tgi r .�,,_ 3 - ? -r1 Z I Signature o Appli ant Date Date nature of Fee Owner D 9 ae 1 Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. This application will be considered by the Planning Commission /Board of Adjustments and Appeals on 1 1 N 15I7A I /� �` T �a Copy , Co. fi STANDARD YELLOW - Boyles COPY .a w Npyr MIN OREF.NSelId. copy DO NOT COPY a.Ml.tm�vr.arhtL.. PURCHASE AGREEMENT A Receipt Waymotn ,Minnesota. 11ACamhpr 1R ,1991_ - 7 RECEIVED OF Hi11oWas CorDOration — 3 the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred 2,500.00 _check. boilers (• .: by e se earnest money to be deposited the next business day after acceptance in trust account end in part payment for the purchase of the promises legally described es See attached R located at (Street Address) g. City of Chanhassen County d Carver Stated Min 10 including all plants, shrubs and trees, all storm windows and/o inserts, storm doors, screens, awnings, window shades, blinds, curtain- 11 traverse - drapery rods, attached lighting flxtueswIth bulbs, plumbing f auras, water heater, heating system, humidifier, central air conditioning, 12. electronic air fitter, automatic garage door opener with controls, water softener, cable television outlets and cabling, BUILT -INS to inch 13 dishwasher, garbage disposal, trash compactor, oven(s), cooktop stove, microwave oven, hood- fan, intercom, installed carpeting. W 14. located on the premises which are the property of Seller and else the following personal property: 15 0/a 16 17 all of which property Seiler has this day and to Buyer for the sum of: 8 10 , 000.00 18 Ten Thousand Dal 19 20 which Buyer agrees to pay in the following manner: Earnest mooney of 8 2 fhflfl _ 00 and 21 • . 7,500.00 tlseh on «bd «e 90 days from date of acce) t t 22 ars by financing as follows: 23 24 I 25 2f> 27 28 I 29 30 31. Method are addendum' which ere made a pert of this agreement. tit 1 t G7 aim V0 32 SUBJECT TO psA« Buyer, ma by , Seiler agrees to execute and deliver a q 33 to be joined in by spouse, if an conveying mariunabte title to the promises subject only to the following exceptions: '14 (11 Building and zoning laws, ordinances, State and Federai regulations. (2) Restrictions relati ng to use or improvement of the premises 3b effective forfeiture provision. (3) Reservation of any minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota. (4) Utility and drainage 36. which do not interfere with present improvements. (6) Rights of tenants, if any. 37 REAL ESTATE TAXES Seller agrees to pay -/ 12th and Buyer egress to pay 9 / 12ths of taxes due and payable In the year 38 19 92 es Seiler egress to 0 / 12ths and Buyer agrees_ to �" / 12ths d annual Installment d special assessments 39 and payable in the year 18 8 Bu agrees to ' e on the date of closing all geoid aaeesanetts levied and par 40 Buyer shall pay taxes due and payable in t h e year 19 Q . and any unpaid installments of special assessments payable therewith 41 and thereafter, Seller warrants that taxes due and payable in the year 19 92 wilt be Don "'"• ""` , • `• • • homestead 47 classification. Neither Seller nor Seller's Agent makes any represantado + concerning the amount of future real estate taxes. 43. WARRA , Seller that buildings. 1 a are entirely in the boa lines of the s. Seller is 44 applies heating and sir Boning, wiring and umbingused ontha mises are in working order d 45 B s right to irhpec ern fsas prior to alai . uyer shall sat hkrwN/ at hfs/Mr that all op ,heating and a 46 toning, wiring a numbing are in pr n9 order dosing. Sal warrants that are to: city sewer 47 es - 0 no; city ter 0 yes - 13 no. if premises are or malty Tiro or any cause bet« 48 ing date, this cement shell become N and void at a option, earnest Ube rata Buyer. 49 POSSESSiON Seller agrees to deliver possession not later than dosing. 50 Al interest, city weir end sewer charges. ieity an charges, natural gas erges, fuel oil and liquid petroleum gas shell be pro-rated 51 as of n na ng , $altar agrees to remove all debris and all personal property not included herein from the 52 premises before possession date. 53 TITLE & EXAMINATION Seiler shall, within a rsasonabie time after acceptance of ihls furnish en Abstract of Title, 54 Registered Pr Abstract. certified Iodate to Inducts proper searches covering bankruptcies, tale and Federal judgments and liens. 55 shall be allowed business days after receipt for examination of title and making any objections, which shall be made in writing or 56 waived. If any objection is so made, Seller shall be allowet1120days to make title marketable. Pending correction article, payments hereu 57 required shall be pwOoned, but upon correction of the and within 10 days after written notice to Buyer. the parties shell perform this 58 agreement adng to its tarns. if tide is not corrected within 120 days from the data of written objection. this agreement shall be null and 59 void, a option of Buyer, neither party shwa be liable for damages hereunder to the other, and samest money shell be refunded to Buys p e , i 0 n 50 DEFAULT If tide Ismarkatabls« is corrected within ssidtims, and Buyer defaults ' nerrryryd the agreements herein, Seller mayterminate 61 agreementandon such termledoneml payments made hereunder shell be retained bySellsrand gputtast eirrespectiveinterestsmay t 67. as Neuidateddamages, ilmebeingdtheesasrhahereof .Thlsprevisionsh MIntdspriwait er earrttyyoft herlgtttof enforoirgthespedfic 63. of this agreement. pray)dsd this agreement is not terminated and action to enforce specific is commenced within six months after 64 such right of action arises. In the event Buyer defaults in his performance of the teens of this Agreement, and Notice of Cancellation is 65 served upon the Buyer pursuant to MSA 559.21, the termination period shall be thirty (30) days as permitted by Subdivision 4 of A 66 559.21• 67 ACCEPTANCE n account is ag except return « a for the tt money. by Seiler in westing. Agent is not liable « • HP VI AGENCY DISCLOSURE .......•,, ".' • ‚ v ' ° " K. stipulates he or she le amounting the 1t) In this transecton. The listing semi or broker stipulates he or else is representing the meet to this transaction. 71 1, the owner o f the premises, accept this agreement and l agree to purchase thS premiss f« the tries and on the terms a� 77 the sale above made. /� r conditions ass forth 73 SELLER h J. / 1 BtIyER i1 �' Cor • • •� ton . 74 SELLER I. 1wYER 1 ,Z• ,�j' esident 7 Delivery of all papers and monies shall be at office cl: Tri Company Selling Agent I 71 Address , City VP -a ...LAO SO A I craws iv RINn1NA CONTRACT. IF NOT UNDERSTOOD. SEEK COMPETENT ADVICE. 1