4. Preliminary plat subdivide John Klingelhutz C ITY 0 F PC DATE: iel
\I cHANHAssrx CC DATE: 2/25/91
I ∎1.7- - CASE #: 90-10 SUB
By: Olsen/v
I -
1. 4 go vo,. . /v
ISTAFF REPORT 3° °O° 1.Z 6b 2,'X3= `°
zoo soe "0�oAo 90 '0-
IPROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 78 Acres into 68 Single
IFamily Lots
Wetland Alteration Permit to Develop Within 200 feet of
Z a Class A Wetland and to Create Retention Ponds Adjacent
1 Q to a Class A Wetland
V
IIJ LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley
a. Boulevard
a_
IIQ APPLICANT: John Klingelhutz Engelhardt & Associates _
350 East Hwy. 212 1107 Hazeltine Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 -
IPRESENT ZONING. RSF, Residential Single Family/R4, Mixed Low
Density Aran +..v i. ,..,, .-,.,c
IACREAGE: 78 acres (gross) 31 acres (net) r .
DENSITY: .87 units per acre (gross) r, .. --I T
I2 .2 units per acre (net) r::tA �_, : - -_
ADJACENT ZONING AND °.....-~_--. --~--:
LAND USE: N - RSF; single family
1 Q rare : rf
S - RSF; vacant -z -w a 1.
E - R12 ; Lakeview Hills Apartments
0 W - RSF; single family
• WATER AND SEWER: Within the MUSA area. Water and sewer will
1.11.1 have to be extended to the site.
II-
7 PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : Currently vacant except for one single family
residence. The site contains a large Class A
wetland and some areas of vegetation. The
majority of the site is farmed.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
I
I
M ti ,' 1 -
SINNER
IRCLE
�L A �E SUSAN ` ��
r R/CE M R
r____:_iiatit \
a __ \. _. ._...._.) ,_...
r r,40 _ _
ii *11�. II ' 'cam
4 44PireAh az SERVICE _
4Mb IRIv "nal ± ,
������t.���1e u, AREA
I � _
Q A
•°* POND r _ �7ULLY -D
Q ■= _�.
'T-
/76e?
` '�. Vi 1 BOt1�EYA,RD ` (C.R. 181 _ 1� f i .
ii j.- .. J
RN
sr
,
I I
1 �'
11
w:// .
� 11IIIJ �p , LAKE
4 !. �'( V` R/LEY
�� * i j >-,
1 . a` ,k
zz
i.1 .moo '�` v
\ ., , . 410 4p. --ii- - _ ___
1 ,_____________ _I
1 . . —
FA-iW 2
_um M ESL! i E r 4411111 P is
ill.r: TL-7-.111116' a1
■ _, W
1 isrf" __ ,
. ii-, * e _ -.. rifi. , ':;------ -
I
Lake Riley Hills r
February 25, 1991
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On October 3, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the
preliminary plat for Lake Riley Hills. At that time, the
preliminary plat was for 75 single family lots versus the currently
proposed 68 lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the preliminary plat with the following conditions (Attachment #1) :
1. Revised the preliminary plat to provide the following:
a. Lot 5, Block 4 shall have a depth of at least 125 feet.
b. Lot 10, Block 1, shall have four sides. '
c. Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 shall have lot frontages of 90
feet.
d. Lot 1, Block 5 shall have a lot depth of 125 feet.
2. The right-of-way dimensions for North Road and West Road shall 11 be 60 feet in width and the right-of-way dimensions for the
cul-de-sac shall be a 60 radius. The applicant shall grant a
60 foot wide right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard along the
southern border of the plat and a 120 foot wide right-of-way
along Lake Riley Boulevard. The temporary cul-de-sacs on
North Road shall be barricaded and signed designating them to
be temporary in lieu of future road extensions and will be
provided with easements over the cul-de-sacs beyond the
dedicated right-of-way.
3 . The applicant shall remove the gravel road bisecting the Class '
A wetland into 2 wetland areas coordinated with City staff,
Department of Natural Resources, Corps of Engineers and Fish
and Wildlife Service.
4 . Final plat approval will not be granted until the applicant
has submitted the letter of credit for the feasibility study
to be performed and not until the findings of the feasible
study are known and the City Council takes appropriate action
to provide municipal water service to the site. '
5. The applicant shall submit flow calculations for the sanitary
sewer system to verify pipe capacity and minimum score
velocities through all the sewer segments within the proposed
subdivision.
6. The applicant shall provide the following easements: '
a. Easement over the temporary cul-de-sacs.
b. Easements over all sanitary and storm sewer extensions.
1
11
Lake Riley Hills
February 25, 1991
Page 3
' c. Easements over detention ponds.
d. Standard drainage and utility easements.
e. dedication of all right-of-ways.
The applicant's engineer review the total capacity of the
ponding basins needed to meet the predicted retaining
' requirements and verification that the proposed ponding areas
can be accessed for city maintenance. Provide existing
drainage facility information to and from the site
' (specifically, the culvert under Lyman Boulevard) . The storm
drainage plan shall be modified to incorporate runoff from the
westerly temporary cul-de-sac on North Road.
7. Lots 30-35, Block 3 and Lot 4-8, Block 3, shall be provided
with special slope stabilization methods such as wood fiber
blankets and Type III erosion control. Type III erosion
control shall be provided over the entire area bordering the
wetland and along the north side of North Road. Wood fiber
blankets shall be required as slope stabilization for all of
the rear lots bordering the wetland area and on all the areas
where the slopes are 3: 1 or greater. Silt fence erosion
control shall be installed around any and all proposed
detention ponds on the project and the entire site shall be
seeded and mulched immediately following completion of the
grading operation.
8. The applicant shall provide current planned right-of-way grade
and elevation information for the future Trunk Highway 212
Improvements for the segment of roadway through this
' subdivision. Noise abatement measures such as earth berming
shall be shown on the plan along the southern border of the
Hwy. 212 corridor.
' 9. The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan with detailed
information on the size and type of trees being removed and
with a landscaped plan provided for the replacement of over 4
caliper inch being removed.
10. The applicant receive Watershed District, Pollution Control
Agency and Health Department and any other applicable agencies
or permits.
11. The applicant's engineer shall make the necessary changes as
Ioutlined on the plan sheets reviewed by the Asst. City
Engineer dated September 24, 1990, and submitted back to the
applicant for the proper changes.
12. The applicant shall provide a registered engineer's report on
soils, footings and structural design and certification of a
I
Lake Riley Hills I
February 25, 1991
Page 4
registered engineer verifying that the grading and drainage
has been constructed according to the approved plans prior to
the issuance of building permits. I
13 . The applicant shall dedicate Lots 21-26, Block 3 for park land
dedication and shall construct a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk
along the southern boulevard area of North Road and along the
eastern boulevard area of West Road.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the
city and provide the necessary financial securities associated
with the project.
15. Lot 5, Block 1, shall be designated as an outlot and '
unbuildable.
16. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of
the Wetland Alteration Permit.
17 . The applicant shall look into the feasibility of turn lanes
and turn lanes shall be added if city staff feels it is
appropriate and necessary for safety to get people in and out
of the new subdivision.
18 . Outlot A in Block 3 shall be under ownership of adjoining
properties.
19 . Plans shall be drawn and submitted to city staff for approval
to get a berm and screening along Lyman Boulevard between Lot
1, Block 1 and between Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. '
Conditions of the Planning Commission approval resulted in
revisions to the preliminary plat. In addition staff requested the
applicant provide right-of-way for future improvements to Lyman
Boulevard as proposed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation
Study and includes the removal of lots to provide park land as
required by the Park and Recreation Commission. The result was a
reduction of 7 single family lots.
The new preliminary plat maintains the same lot configuration that
was approved by the Planning Commission. The most significant
changes occur through Lots 1-8, Block 3, adjacent to Lyman
Boulevard. The lots have been rearranged in this location along
with the south road cul-de-sac to accommodate the additional right-
of-way for Lyman Boulevard. The other significant change includes
Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, where they are reconfigured to accommodate
the new Lyman Boulevard right-of-way. The revised preliminary plat
has addressed several of the conditions from the original staff
report such as the plat now provides 60 feet of right-of-way along
I
rLake Riley Hills
February 25, 1991
' Page 5
the streets, provides adequate setback from the wetland and
provides for the park land.
The following staff report has been revised to reflect the current
preliminary plat proposal.
' PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to create 68 single family lots on
property zoned RSF and located at the northwest corner of Lake
Riley and Lyman Boulevard. The parcel contains a large Class A
wetland and part of the Hwy. 212 right-of-way. The applicant has
' applied for preliminary plat approval and a weland alteration
permit to allow development within 200 feet of a Class A wetland.
The 78 acres contains 31 acres which will contain the 68 single
family lots, 24 acres of outlots and 24 acres of street right-of-
111 way. The outlots are as follows:
Outlot A 564,249 square feet and contains the Hwy. 212
ROW and the remaining property to the north of
Hwy. 212
Outlot B Park land containing 82,592 square feet
Outlot C 356,843 square feet and is the Class A wetland
Outlot D 13, 364 square feet and is a remnant parcel for
the Lyman Blvd./Lake Riley Blvd. right-of-way
' Outlot E 25, 007 square feet and is a remnant piece
located between Lyman Boulevard and the South
road cul-de-sac
The street right-of-ways proposed for the plat contain the internal
streets as part of the subdivision, the proposed Hwy. 212, Lake
Riley Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. The single family lots are
' divided into 5 blocks with a net density of 2.2 units per acre
which meets the maximum of 3.4 units per acre for residential low
density. The lot sizes range from 15, 000 square feet to 41,803
square feet with an average lot size of 19,772 square feet.
The subdivision has gone through several revisions to meet the
' zoning ordinance requirements and to accommodate the Class A
wetland and additional right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard. With the
exception of 3 lots, all of the lots meet the zoning ordinance
requirements and there will be no detrimental impact to the Class
A wetland which will be preserved in its natural state.
As part of the preliminary plat, the Park and Recreation Commission
recommended dedication of park land. Outlot B (park land)
I
Lake Riley Hills I
February 25, 1991
Page 6
represents 75% of the total park land required of this subdivision.
Therefore, the remaining 25% or $125 per lot will be charged at the
time of building permit applications.
The subdivision ordinance requires a 300 foot offset for any local
streets from the intersection. To meet the requirements of the
subdivision ordinance, the South road would have to be shifted
approximately 80 feet to the north to maintain the 300 foot offset.
With the addition of right-of-way on Lyman Boulevard and shifting
the South road to the north to meet the subdivision ordinance,
there is the possibility that the applicant would also be losing
lots north of the South road and any remaining lots in that area
would have the building pads shifted closer to the wetland and the
75 foot setback. Due to the potential of the 300 foot offset
requirement pushing development closer to the wetland, staff is in
favor of granting a variance to the ordinance requirement and feels
that the 220 feet that is being provided will still provide enough
safe access for vehicles entering and leaving the site.
The revised plat has provided 120 feet of right-of-way for future
improvements to Lyman Boulevard. Until Lyman Boulevard is improved
and existing right-of-way no longer necessary is vacated, Lots 1
and 2, Block 5 are not buildable due to lack of minimum lot area
and lot depth. Therefore, they should be platted as an outlot and
combined with Outlot D. The existing Lake Riley Boulevard right-
of-way crossing. The lots can be maintained by an easement across
the outlot. Staff is also recommending the South road cul-de-sac
be pulled back so that it does not directly abut Lyman Boulevard
right-of-way and will provide more buildable area for Lots 2 and 3,
Block 3 . Staff is also recommending that Outlot E be combined with
Lot 1, Block 3 . Outlot E is an unusable strip of ground that will
have no clear purpose. As an orphaned parcel it is not likely to
be maintained. Lot 1 is impacted by proximity to Lyman Boulevard.
Combination of the two will improve both situations.
The preliminary plat has serveral conditions of approval, but the
majority of the conditions as basic conditions that apply to plats '
and will not result in significant change to the preliminary plat.
Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat
and wetland alteration permit with conditions provided by staff. '
Streets
The subdivision is designed with internal streets that will '
ultimately provide for an east/west future connection over
adjoining parcels and access from Lyman Boulevard. The subdivision
also proposes 3 cul-de-sacs to access lots adjacent to the Class A
wetland. All of the streets provide the required 60 feet of right-
of-way and the 60 foot radius for an urban cul-de-sac.
1
1
I
Lake Riley Hills
February 25, 1991
Page 7
In comparing the proposed plat submitted with the County half-
sections, staff is unable to determine whether a 33 foot wide
' segment of land along the north half of Lyman Boulevard has been
previously acquired as right-of-way or acquired by easement.
Nevertheless, preliminary results contained in the Eastern Carver
county Transportation Study (excerpts attached) point to traffic
' volumes in excess of 7,400 ADT for this roadway. It's
characteristics rank it as a minor arterial, Class II which will
require a 120 foot right-of-way (60 feet on each side of the
' centerline) . It is therefore necessary that a 60 foot wide right-
of-way be granted along the southern border of the proposed plat.
This width would also allow incorporation of the future trail along
' Lyman Boulevard.
The aforementioned transportation study designated the segment of
Lake Riley Boulevard north of Lyman Boulevard also as a minor
arterial, Class II roadway. Therefore, a 120 foot wide right-of-
way will also be required for this road segment. This width would
incorporate the future trail. Thus a separate trail easement would
' not be necessary. The applicant has provided the 120 foot wide
right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard improvements. This right-of-way
will also accommodate safety improvements at the Lyman
Boulevard/west road intersection in the form of a right turn lane
' and bypass lane.
The ordinance requires that a minimum center line offset distance
' of intersections be 300 feet. Therefore, the applicant will have
to shift the intersection of South road and west road approximately
80 feet to the north or receive a variance. The location of the
' South road provides lots with adequate area for development without
impacting the wetland. Since shifting the intersection to the
north would result in a more closer impact to the wetland, staff
would be in favor of a variance to allow the South road to have an
' offset of 220 feet.
Initially, the only access to the site will be from Lyman
' Boulevard. When future development occurs around this site, it is
anticipated that North Road will be extended both to the east and
west and provide additional access points to the subdivision.
Until the North Road is extended in the future, temporary cul-de-
sacs will be required to be installed at the ends of the North
Road. Barricades will also be required to be installed at the
temporary cul-de-sacs and they will be signed designating them to
be only temporary and a future road extension. Outlot D, which is
being separated from the rest of the property by the improvements
for Hwy. 212, is currently designated as unbuildable and will be
platted in the future. At that time street connections to the site
will be reviewed.
Lake Riley Hills I
February 25, 1991
Page 8 '
There currently exists a private driveway along the easterly
boundary of the proposed plat which services a house located in the
northeast corner of the site. The residence's driveway was
constructed via a dike which bisects the wetland area. It is
anticipated that the proposed Trunk Highway 212 improvement will
require the removal of this house. In order to convert the wetland
area back to it's original state as one contiguous wetland, staff
is recommending that the gravel driveway be removed. Such efforts
should be coordinated between the Department of Natural Resources,
Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service and with the City
of Chanhassen. In preliminary discussions with DNR and Fish and
Wildlife, it was stated that it would be preferred to have the
original wetland re-established as one complete wetland. The plat
is proposing to continue to service the house with the existing
driveway through what is now being proposed as Lot 14, Block 2 .
A driveway easement shall have to be provided over Lot 14, Block 2
for access to the existing house. Since the driveway will be
crossing over the end of North Road, the removal of the current
dirt 'road through the wetland will not remove access to the house
since access can now be obtained from the new North Road as part of 11
the subdivision.
The area shown on the plat as Outlot D and Lots 1 and 2, Block 5
should all be platted as one outlot at this time. Outlot D and
Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, as shown on the preliminary plat, will only
exist after the new right-of-way provided for Lyman Boulevard is
constructed with the new street and existing right-of-way, which is
then no longer necessary, has been vacated. Until then, Lots 1 and
2, Block 5 are not buildable lots and should be included with
Outlot D as one outlot. This outlot can then be replatted once the
new street has been constructed and the underlying existing rights-
of-way have been vacated.
Utilities '
A study has been authorized by the City Council at the request of
the applicant to determine the feasibility of servicing this area
with the water main and sanitary sewer. The applicant has
submitted a $10,000 letter of credit to guarantee payment of
expenses associated with the feasibility study and the feasibility
study should be completed some time this spring.
Staff is recommending that the applicant's engineer submit the flow
calculations for the sanitary sewer system to verify pipe capacity
and minimum score velocities through all of the sewer segments
within the proposed subdivision. Staff is also recommending that
the applicant's engineer verify that the existing lift station and
4" forcemain sewer to facilitate this subdivision is adequate in
size and capacity. It should be noted that the entire development
is proposed to be serviced by gravity sewer, however, the
I
M Lake Riley Hills
February 25, 1991
Page 9
' connection point for this system will be in the vicinity of Lyman
Boulevard and Lake Riley Road and immediately upstream from an
existing lift station and 4" forcemain.
EASEMENTS
' All of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer extensions, will require
the respective drainage and utility easements and shall be denoted
as such on the plat. The proposed detention ponds and
' corresponding access ways will require easements. The temporary
cul-de-sac at both ends of North Road will also require temporary
easements to cover the portions outside of the platted right-of-way
and shall exist until such time that the road extensions are
constructed and the cul-de-sacs are removed.
GRADING
The plan is proposing to grade the southern two thirds of the site.
The final grading will be similar to the existing topography on the
' site which drains primarily southeast into the wetland area. The
steepest slopes will be found in the rear yard areas of the lots
surrounding the wetland area, specifically, Lots 23-28, Block 3,
and Lots 2-6, Block 3 . Special slope stabilization methods such as
wood fiber blankets and Type III erosion control will be required
in these areas.
' The applicant shall be required to provide noise abatement measures
such as earth berming immediately south of the proposed TH 212
alignment. Staff has received a letter from MnDOT stating that the
' improvements of Highway 212 and the subsequent proposal for a
single family lot subdivision adjacent to it will require some form
of noise abatement. MnDOT further stated that such improvements
would not be paid for by MnDOT and are the responsibility of the
' applicant.
DRAINAGE
' The majority of the site drains southeast into the wetland area.
Detention ponds are proposed to be constructed in an effort to
' maintain the pre-developed runoff rate for the site. Staff is
requesting that the applicant's engineer review the total capacity
of these ponding basins needed to meet the predicted retaining
requirements. Also, the configuration and location of the pond are
such that access to the pond by the city for maintenance appears to
be very difficult, if not impossible. Staff is recommending that
the applicant provide a plan showing designated access points to
these ponding basin areas and verifying that they will be able to
be serviced by the city crews when necessary. Staff has also asked
the applicant to verify the location of these ponding areas on site
since they appear to be very close to the wetland edge and may in
1
I
Lake Riley Hills I
February 25, 1991
Page 10
fact intrude upon some of the existing wetland vegetation. Lastly,
the use of small ponds constitutes a maintenance problem. If such
is the case, staff would be recommending that the ponding areas be
relocated so that there is no disturbance to the existing wetland
area. One suggestion would be to relocate the ponding area to a
more central location such as between the South cul-de-sac and the
loop cul-de-sac where they can be more easily accessed and maintain
more distance from the wetland rather than being located completely
around the wetland edge. Staff further recommends the two ponding
areas be combined into one. The detention pond in Lots 22 and 23,
Block 3 is very small and could be combined with the one behind
Lots 11 and 12, Block 3. Staff is also requesting that the
applicant provide information on the existing drainage facilities
such as culverts to and from the site. Specifically, the culvert
under Lyman Boulevard which will intersect the South Road cul-de-
sac and the outlet culvert to the wetland under Lake Riley Road.
Staff anticipates a potential drainage problem with the westerly
temporary cul-de-sac for North Road. This portion of the existing
site did not previously drain off site to the west. The proposed
street grading plans shows this cul-de-sac and the adjacent 100
feet of North Road to not be serviced by storm sewer. Staff
recommends that this area be reviewed for storm sewer service. If
storm sewer is not feasible, some sort of interim drainage proposal
must be submitted that facilitates this lower area not being
serviced by storm sewer. Staff suggests one alternative being a
temporary overland drainage, via a swale, to the proposed ditch
swale to. the rear of Lots 10-14, Block 1.
EROSION CONTROL ,
The plans submitted display Type III erosion control over the
entire area bordering the wetland area. Staff is recommending
additional erosion control north of North Road. As mentioned
previously, wood fiber blankets will be required as slope
stabilization measures for all of the rear lots bordering the
wetland area and on all the areas where slopes are 3: 1 or greater.
Silt fence erosion control should be installed around any and all
proposed detention ponds on the project. The entire site should be
reseeded and mulched immediately following completion of the
grading operation.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant has shown on Sheet 2 of the plans areas of
vegetation. Staff has requested that the applicant provide
detailed information on the areas of vegetation as to the type of
tree and size. The City will require tree removal plans for those
lots with significant vegetation such as Lots 10-16, Block 3 and
the city will require replacement for trees with a caliper of 4 and
I
Lake Riley Hills
February 25, 1991
' Page 11
over (other than species of shrub trees such as box elder) . The
applicant has stated that the owner may be planting up to three
trees per lot within the subdivision as replacement of trees being
removed. In addition to this, staff is requiring the applicant to
provide berming and landscaping along Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 3
and along Lot 1, Block 1. The applicant should submit a new
grading and landscaping plan providing for such berming and
landscaping. The purpose of this berming and landscaping is to
provide noise abatement and screening for the lots adjacent to
Lyman Boulevard which will become a minor arterial with a high
amount of traffic. Berming and landscaping will also be required
adjacent to Hwy. 212.
PARK AND RECREATION
' The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the Lake Riley Hills
project on September 25, 1990 (Attachment #3) . The Park and
Recreation Commission recommended the provision of park land, which
the applicant has provided with Outlot B. Outlot B closely
•
corresponds with the Commission's request for park land; however,
the reduction in size of the area requested for park requires an
increase in recommended park fees for this subdivision. Outlot B
represents 75% of the total park land required of the subdivision.
Therefore, the remaining 25% or $125 per lot will be charged at the
time of building permit application. The remainder of the
September 25, 1990 recommendations remain essentially unchanged.
As a part of the park dedication, the applicant will prepare the
site according to a grading plan provided by the city. The
applicant will construct a 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalk along North
' Road and West Road in lieu of trail dedication fees. It is
important to note that these requirements pertain only to the 78.32
acres that are proposed for development at this time.
1
COMPLIANCE TABLE - LOT SIZES
tThe following are lots which do not comply with the Zoning
Ordinance
AREA WIDTH DEPTH
REQUIREMENTS (15, 000) (90' ) (125' )
BLOCK 4
Lot 5 16,467 157 111*
BLOCK 5
' Lot 1 16,000 80** 190
Lot 2 12, 000** 100 120
' * Lot must be adjusted to provide a mean lot depth of 125 feet.
I
Lake Riley Hills
February 25, 1991
Page 12
** Until Lake Riley Road is realigned with the new Lyman
Boulevard and existing Lake Riley Boulevard right-of-way is
vacated, Lots 1 and 2, Block 5 do not meet the lot depth and
lot area requirements to be buildable lots. Therefore, these
lots must be platted as an outlot until the new street
improvements are made for Lyman Boulevard along with the new
connection to Lyman Boulevard from Lake Riley Boulevard and
the existing rights-of-way are vacated. Staff also questions
whether there is a buildable site on Lot 1, Block 5 due to the
drainage ditch going through the middle of the lot. In the
future when the outlots are replatted, staff will look further
into whether or not Lot 1 is actually buildable.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT ,
The proposed subdivision contains a large Class A wetland located
in the southeast corner of the site. The wetland is of high
quality and is approximately 91 acres in size. The Class A wetland
is also a protected wetland by the DNR. Any activity below the
ordinary high water elevation, which alters the course, current or
cross section of protected waters or wetland is under the
jurisdiction of the DNR and may require DNR protected water permit.
The applicant met on site with the DNR to determine the OHW, which
is now set at 864 .7. Upon site inspection, it was determined that
there was a fringe of wetland vegetation beyond the ordinary high
water mark at approximately 866 elevation. Therefore, the wetland
boundary shall be determined as the 866 elevation and will be
protected by a drainage and utility and conservation easement and
also shown as a "wetland" on the final plat.
The applicant is providing a storm water sedimentation basins to '
prevent storm water from being directed directly to the wetland.
This will prevent sedimentation and water level bounces that are
detrimental to the basin's wildlife values and water quality. As
mentioned previously, staff is recommending that the applicant
stake the extent of the ponding areas on site to verify that the
wetland fringe vegetation is not being altered or disturbed by the
proposed ponding areas. Once it is ensured that the ponding areas
are not impacting the wetland vegetation, staff is comfortable with
the subdivision in that the proposal will not be impacting the
wetland and will actually be resulting in some improvement once the
gravel driveway dividing the wetland in two is removed.
The applicant has adjusted the lot areas adjacent to the wetland
since the original submittal to provide for the 75 foot wetland
setback. The majority of the lots adjacent to the wetland do
provide adequate area for a single family residence and an attached
deck or porch. As done with previous subdivisions with wetlands,
staff will recommend a condition that the applicant, as part of the
development contract, record restrictions against each lot stating
1
Lake Riley Hills
February 25, 1991
Page 13
that there is a 75 foot setback from the wetland elevation of 866
contour and that this elevation shall be shown on all lot surveys
when a building permit is submitted. If porch or patio doors are
' provided on the house plans, the lot survey will show how a deck
can meet the required wetland setback. The proposed ponding areas
adjacent to the wetland will be shallow ditches which will most
likely take on a wetland quality with wetland vegetation.
Therefore, staff is recommending that in addition to the drainage
easement that will be covering the ponding areas, a conservation
' easement be located over the ponding areas and wetland to ensure
that the areas are not altered.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve
Preliminary Plat Request #90-10 for Lake Riley Hills as shown on
' the plans dated January 10, 1991, with a variance to permit a 220
ft. offset between the intersection of South Road and Lyman
Boulevard with the following conditions:
1. Review the preliminary plat to provide for the following:
a. Lot 5, Block 4 shall have a depth of at least 125 feet.
' b. Lots 1 & 2, Block 5 be platted as an outlot (combined
with Outlot D) with roadway easement across the outlot
for Lake Riley Boulevard.
2. The applicant shall remove the gravel road bisecting the Class
A wetland into 2 wetland areas coordinated with City staff,
Department of Natural Resources, Corps of Engineers and Fish
and Wildlife Service.
' 3 . The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan with detailed
information on the size and type of trees being removed and
with a landscaped plan provided for the replacement of over 4
caliper inch being removed.
4 . Approval is conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of
the Wetland Alteration Permit.
5. Outlot E in Block 3 shall be combined with Lot 1, Block 3 .
6. Plans shall be drawn and submitted to the staff for approval
for a berm and screening along Lyman Boulevard and between Lot
1, Block 1 (combined with Outlot E) and Lot 1, Block 3 and
along Highway 212.
Lake Riley Hills
February 25, 1991
Page 14
7. Final plat approval will not be granted until the findings of '
the feasibility study being prepared by OSM, Inc. are known
and the City Council takes appropriate action to provide
municipal water and sewer service to the site.
8. The developer shall provide current planned right-of-way grade
and elevation information for the future Trunk Highway 212
improvements for the segment of roadway through the
subdivision. Noise abatement measures such as earth berming
shall be shown on the plan along the southern border of the
Highway 212 corridor.
9. The developer shall submit plans and specifications for the
street and utility improvements for City Council approval. In
addition, supplementary information such as flow calculations
for the sanitary sewer and storm sewer segments verifying pipe
capacity shall also be submitted. Temporary cul-de-sacs on
North Road shall be barricaded and signed designating them to
be temporary in lieu of future road extensions.
10. The developer shall provide the following easements: 1
a. Easements over the temporary cul-de-sacs.
b. Easements over all sanitary and storm sewer extensions
outside of dedicated right-of-way.
c. Easements over the detention ponds and the corresponding
maintenance accesses.
d. Standard drainage and utility easements.
e. Dedication of all rights-of-way.
The developer's engineer shall review the total capacity of
the ponding basin needed to meet the predicted retainage
requirements and verify that the proposed poinding area can be
accessed for City maintenance. '
11. Wood fiber blankets will be required for slope stabilization
on all rear lots bordering the wetland area and on all areas
where slopes are 3 : 1 or greater. Type III erosion control
shall be installed around the wetland and all proposed
detention ponds on the project. The entire site shall be
seeded and mulched immediately following completion of the
grading operation.
12 . The developer shall provide a registered engineer's report on
soil. footings and structural design and certification
verifying that the grading and drainage has been constructed
according to the approved plans prior to the issuance of
building permits.
I
Lake Riley Hills
February 25, 1991
Page 15
13. The developer shall work with staff on refining the South Road
cul-de-sac location and configuration in an effort to improve
' the buildability of the adjacent lots. The developer shall
also prepare plans for city approval and construct safety
improvements on Lyman Boulevard at the intersection with West
Road. The improvements to Lyman Boulevard will involve a
right turn lane for west bound traffic and a by-pass lane for
east bound traffic.
' 14 . The developer shall receive Watershed District, Pollution
Control Agency, Health Department and other applicable agency
permits.
15. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract with the
city and provide the necessary financial securities associated
with the project.
16. Dedication of Outlot B as park. For this dedication, the
applicant will receive 75% park fee credit. The remaining 25%
' or $125. 00 per lot will be paid at the time of building permit
applications.
17. The developer shall construct a 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalk
along the southern boulevard area on North Road and along the
eastern boulevard area of West Road in lieu of trail fees.
' 18 . Applicant will grade Outlot B according to a grading plan
provided by the city.
' Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve Wetland Alternation Permit for Lake Riley Hills
Subdivision as shown on the plans dated January 10, 1991 with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a drainage, utility and
construction easement over Outlot C and the proposed ponding
areas and the 866 contour shall be the edge of the protected
wetland.
' 2 . Any surveys for lots adjacent to the Class A wetland will
provide the 866 elevation with verification that the home and
any further improvements such as porches or decks will
maintain the 75 ft. setback from the 866 contour.
' 3 . A development contract will be recorded against the property
and will protect both the Class A wetland and the ponding
' areas adjacent to the wetland with a conservation easement and
not allow any alteration to these areas.
1
I
Lake Riley Hills
February 25, 1991
Page 16
4. This approval is conditioned upon compliance with all '
conditions of Preliminary Plat #90-10.
ATTACHMENTS '
1. Planning Commission minutes dated October 3, 1990.
2 . Memo from Charles Folch dated February 19, 1991.
3 . Memo from Todd Hoffman dated February 19, 1991.
4. Letter from Roger Gustafson dated December 21, 1990.
5. Letter from Evan Green dated October 29, 1990.
6. Staff report dated October 3, 1990.
7. Preliminary plat dated January 10, 1991.
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 12
somebody 's going to lose their life and then it will be too late .
Erhart: Thank you . Is there any other discussion?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit *90-4 for PJ's Restaurant with the
following conditions:
1 . A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing additional
coniferous trees and other vegetation south of the shopping center and
a letter of credit covering the cost and installation of trees will be
required and held for one year after the planting . It is understood
that the object here is to provide a visual buffer to the south.
2 . The proof of parking plan is accepted with the following conditions:
a . Calculations shall be provided verifying internal parking lot
landscaping meets the parking ordinance requirements .
b . A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing description
of internal parking lot landscaping.
c . The 9 stalls on the east side of the building shall be constructed
prior to the opening of P3 's Restaurant.
d . No additional restaurants will be permitted in the Seven Forty-One
ICrossing Shopping Center .
e . The additional parking shown on the proof of parking plan will be
constructed within 6 months of being required by Planning Staff .
3. All trash shall be stored internally.
4 . Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy , there shall be
compliance with all conditions previously attached to other approvals
on this site .
iAll voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
•
' PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 78.37 ACRES INTO 76 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF TIGUA LANE, LAKE RILEY
' HILLS. JOHN KLINGELHUTZ.
Public Present:
' Name Address
Raymond Lewis 9701 Lake Riley Blvd.
Al Iverson 1500 Park Drive
Richard Helstrom 1500 Park Drive
Sue Krienke 1500 Park Drive
11 Hugh Jaeger 320 West 76th Street, 8201
John Klingelhutz 350 East Hwy . 42, Chaska
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
' October 3 , 1990 - Page 13
1
Bill Engelhardt 1107 Hazeltine Blvd . , Suite 400
Bill Rudnicki 1107 Hazeltine Blvd. , Suite 400
Don Sitter 9249 Lake -Riley Blvd .
Joe Hautman 8551 Tigua Circle
Dave Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle
Norm Grant 9201 Lake Riley Blvd.
Dale Boyer 9005 Lake Riley Blvd .
Dennis Baker 9219 Lake Riley Blvd.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chairman Erhart
called the public hearing to order .
' Erhart: Is the applicant here?
Bill Engelhardt: Mr . Chairman , members of the Planning Commission, I 'm
' Bill Engelhardt . I 'm representing John Klingelhutz tonight on a project
he 's proposed.
Erhart: Bill , can you hang on just one minute. Steve , what 's your
question?
Emmings: I guess I 've got a problem looking at a new plan tonight . Unless
you tell me that everything else in the staff report stays exactly the same
except for 1 or 2 items .
Olsen: I think what they 're just showing you is that they 've adjusted the
lot lines to meet those requirements .
Emmings: When we do a motion here , are we going to do it based on this
plan? So we 'll do it on the old plan?
Olsen: Correct .
Emmings: And then you'll show the City Council that he's figured out a way
to do it?
' Olsen: Right .
Emmings: Fine. It 's with the same conditions of approval .
Bill Engelhardt: I think it should be pointed out right up front, the
conditions , the 15 conditions that the planning staff's put together and
t the engineering staff , we have absolutely no problem with those. What
we 're talking about is not adjusting lots hudreds of feet or anything like
that . The problem came up in this particular area. When we laid this out
and you calculate it out, it comes out to 89.58 feet. It didn't meet the
90 feet so we had 3 lots that were 89.58 feet wide and we had to adjust the
lots down so when we 're talking about lot adjustments, we're talking about
tenths of a foot in some cases. We have the same number of lots . They all
1 ' meet the requirements . They all meet the 15,000 square feet . It 's just a
matter of getting those adjusted to the 90 feet. The other thing that came
up is an issue that came up after the fact after we had submitted all the
plans and the staff was going to reviewing them, was the Carver County or
Southwest Corridor road study . In that road study they're recommending the
right-of-way widths for Lyman Blvd . being 120 feet. 60 feet on each side
Planning Commission Meeting r
October 3 , 1990 - Page 14
of the right-of-way . We have 33 feet on our property which meant we had tJI
dedicate another 27 feet which caused a problem for these lots so we 've
taken care of that . We 're going to dedicate the 27 feet along Lyman Blvd.
It also called out wider right-of-way on Lake Riley Road. We're dedicatin.
the 27 feet on east side of Lake Riley Road and that was after the fact .
After everything had been submitted which meant that we use Lot 5 and that 'll
will be an outlot and then that will be an unbuildable lot. It doesn't
meet the square footage requirements and doesn't meet the width. . . Down
on Lyman Blvd. where we had to make the adjustment here , we're still able •
to maintain two lots which . . . The lot areas again are way over the 15 ,000 11
In fact in meeting with the staff it was discussed that maybe Lot 1 could
be bigger and Lot �2 . . .instead of having an outlot . Whatever the Planning
Commission and the staff would like is fine with us. The Park Commission II
met and their discussion centered around taking Lots 21 thru 26 . It 's a
straight line park . We have now done that which meant that we had to
adjust again the lot lines on 20 and 19 in order to conform with the II park . . .so we met the park need requirements and again we still met the
minimum lot sizes . We 're over lot sizes on 20 and 19 . One of the
requirements was to show easements and typically those easements are shown
on the final plat . There 's a graphic I wanted to ,use in talking about , al
�
of these 'easements will be granted on the final plat . The green ones are
for sanitary sewer . The yellow ones , excuse me are for sanitary sewer .
Green is for storm sewer . The orange ones you see are for access into the "
ponding area so the City has access to them if they have to do any
maintenance . And the blue area shows where the ponding areas or the
sedimentation areas are going to be and those easements have been platted
through the wetlands so that you 'll have conservation all the way up to thil
wetlands in those particular properties . We 're not touching the wetlands .
We 're not going into the wetlands . We're not going into the fringe
vegetation or whatever . We're staying right on the outside .
I
Wildermuth: On the previous map, what land is dedicated for park? The
green?
Bill Engelhardt: It 's Lots 21 , 22, 23, 24 , 25 and 26. What they wanted, I
what the Park Commission wanted was a straight line across here or a square
in there and so what we did is we cut 21 in half and then we divied the '
land up , balanced the land between 19 and 20 so again, that was the
adjustment we 're talking about . This is an exhibit of the tree cover on
the property . What you see in yellow to the areas that are going to be II removed due to the grading.. We've gone out and catalogued all the trees .
There are some areas that are not going to be disturbed. This area in
particular is not going to be disturbed. The major area of disruption for in
the trees is down around this cul-de-sac area. What we've done to
II
catalogue those , we have 20 elm trees in this grove, 126 box elder , 42 ash
and 42 oak . Then down in this area we have 22 elm, 126 box elder and 40
ash. We will be losing a 29 inch oak tree up in this area but the other II
oaks will be preserved, 4 of them. We're going to be losing box elder and •
a 4 inch oak in this area, 4 inch cedar and 2 box elders up in the roadway
area . This little run of trees in here will be disturbed. . .6 inch apple
tree , box elder , ash, 12 inch elm, box elder , box elder and a 16 inch ash.
So what we 're proposing to do, we have a total of 126 what we'll call
significant trees and not meaning the box elder are no more significant bu
of the oak and the ash and the cedar and the apple , 126 trees that are
going to. be removed and Mr . Klingelhutz has agreed that he will plant 3
II
Planning Commission Meeting
•
October 3 , 1990 - Page 15
trees on every lot to balance that off . So we're talking about 3 times 73
or 210 .
Emmings: And those won't be box elders?
Bill Engelhardt: Actually the project needs some trees . This area has no
tree cover and it benefits the developer to have the trees planted. He has
his own tree spade and that type of stuff and he can do that so. . . Another
11 concern that came up was the TH 212 right-of-way. This is not an easy
piece of property to develop . As Jo Ann pointed out , we have TH 212
corridor cutting across the •north half . We have a large wetland area that
needs to be preserved and we have to work around and in order to get the
grades , there 's a lot of grading on this but actually to minimize the
grading on it , the best layout we could come up with is what you see on the
street configuration. The concern on the north side was how does the
TH 212 corridor tie into the back of these lots . You have to understand
that this center line is 400 feet across here so from the center line to
the edge is over 200 feet and then you have another oh 100 feet of lot
' depth so you 're probably talking about a good 300 feet to the highway
right-of-way . But what happens is in order to show this to you , as you
come through from the east and go west , the highway grade is a little above
the subdivision . Then there 's a very deep cut right through the middle and
in fact this 15 feet , there's 15 feet difference of elevation from the
center line of the highway to the lot pads straight through the middle of
the property and then you come out of that cut towards the west edge.. SO
' what I 've done is drawn 3 cross sections , AA , BB , and CC understanding that
A is on the eastern edge , B is through the middle and C is through the
west . Those cross sections look like this . The question comes up on
berming and noise abatement for the residential properties . On the Section
AA which is on the east property line we have an elevation , proposed
elevation of TH 212 of 904 .3 at the right-of-way line this 897 so you can
see that the highway is actually going to be higher than the property is in
' that particular area but then as you move west, you get to about the middle
of the property , we have an elevation of the highway at 901 .5 and the
elevation at the right-of-way is 915.2 so there 's almost 15 feet difference
in elevation . The house is going to be sitting here and the highway's
going to be way down here. As we go to the west, we come into a situation
where you have an 898 at the center line of the highway and 902 which means
that this property is a little bit higher but not as much as through the
middle of the cut . What we propose to do on that is as it affects Lots 11 ,
12, 13, and 14 on the east end and we can very simply berm that. We have
plenty of material in this particular project. We'll berm that so we get a
sound barrier for those 3 lots. Then we get into that deep cut again and
we don 't need the sound barrier . Then when we get into Lots 1 , 2, and 3 on
this end we 're putting a berm in and we can utilize the tree planting, the
II ' operation that we have for some tree plantings and plant trees on top of
that too . I 'd anticipate that that berm in those areas will probably be
about 8 feet high but we don't want to gtt it such that it's not going to
be a straight up and down berm. It's going to have to be something that
gives you .rolling slopes that these property owners will be able to work
with and have a nice back yard too. So the screening of the highway I
think can be accomplished. That was a concern that Paul and Jo Ann had but
until they actually saw what those cross sections were like through this
particular piece of property, berming is not as significant as what they
had I think first imagined. Again, we have no problems with the 15
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
October 3 , 1990 - Page 16
conditions . The conditions that are in your staff report , they're no II
P t
significant and I hope you understand that we 're not bringing forward a
plat that 's completely reconfigured. It 's a matter of adjusting some of II
these preliminary lot lines in order to meet the letter of the law in this
case so we don't have to come and ask you for a variance and that 's not our
intent with this particular plat . We 're not asking for any variances on II
it . We agree to all the conditions that the staff has recommended and
we 're more than willing to work with them and hopefully we'll have a good
development for the City of Chanhassen.
II
Erhart: Thanks Bill . Would you just remain up here . Maybe if you 'd sit
in the front and save some time . Okay , we 'll open this up to public input
at this time . If you 'd come on up . Ray? I
Ray Lewis: My name is Ray Lewis . I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. and I
have some .
II
Erhart : Excuse me . The location of that is on Lake Riley. Can you point
it out there?
Ray Lewis: Right here . This shows the area around the development . Firs
of all I 'd like to say that in general I 'm in favor of the subdivision .
I do have some concerns about some of the effects on the surrounding area
that . . . I live approximately one block south of Lyman Blvd . on Lake Riley '
Blvd . . The concerns I have , first of all the first one is traffic . The
traffic from the additional 76 or I guess 75 units is going to add
significantly to the traffic that 's already carried by Lyman Blvd . and Lek"'
Riley Blvd . and what I mean by this . Currently Lake Riley Hills is right
here . The Lake View Hills , excuse me . Those of us that live on the south
part of Lake Riley Blvd. south of Lyman Blvd . , the deadend down here for II
the Sunnyslope people , are forced to go up and use one of two choices for
egress in this area . Either we can use Lyman Blvd . and go to the west or
we can go around Lake Riley and then go the perimeter . Right here is the 41
approximate location of the entrance to .Lake Riley Hills, this half sectio
and Lyman Blvd . in this area up here, is actually an undeveloped road that
has , it 's narrow . It has a lot of undulations , patches, bumps. It's not
very well developed road and also Lake Riley Blvd. as it goes around the
north part of the lake is also undeveloped. So I have a very big concern
about the additional traffic flow that this is going to be putting on these
undeveloped roads . The second thing is , and it's somewhat related, is the ll
intersection of TH 101 and Lyman Blvd. . If any of you are familiar with
that intersection or aware of it, it's a very dangerous intersection. It 's
a very sharp turn here. There's very often crops that hide the view and II
we 're just . . .use that intersection are waiting for a serious accident to
happen there . What the subdivision is going to do is place an additional
traffic load on that already dangerous intersection. The third thing is
the storm water runoff . Now I read through the staff report and I noticed "
that a provision is made for holding ponds but the thing that concerns me
is that there isn't, as the subdivision is very close to the wetlands area
and I want to make sure that the ponds are properly designed so that no
water runoff is allowed to go into either the wetlands area or into Lake II
Riley itself . And I guess the last thing I 'd like to bring up is
recreational load on Lake Riley. Currently there's already some
subdivisions that have outlot lake access. Lake Riley is kind of unique ir`
the area because it is each year receiving considerably additional
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 17
recreational load from the . . .and from further development around the area .
It 's not a very big lake as far as recreational lakes go . It 's only 290
acres and I 'm very concerned that additional , significant additional
recreational load is going to decrease the quality of use for those who
access it both from the lakeshore owners and from the landing. So the
following recommendations . Lyman Blvd . upgrade plan and schedule should be
completed and approved with all assessments being fully disclosed prior to
the development of this property . And I think since the main reason for
upgrading Lyman Blvd. will be the development . I think the development
itself should bear a substantial part of the cost . Whatever cost is being
assessed . The second thing , I think there should be a plan that's
' scheduled for the improvement of the TH 101/Lyman Blvd . intersection . I
think that 's essential regardless of whether the development goes in. It 's
going to become even more critical if the Lake Riley Hills goes in . The
third item is that I think the concept of holding ponds is a viable concept
but I feel that the details that need to be carefully worked out along with
civil engineering calculations and should be submitted prior to approval .
That includes calculations on flow, pond capacity and runoff . Then lastly
' I think that it 's important that there should be no special lake access
priviledges , that is priviledges beyond those that are afforded to normal
non-lakeshore residents of the city on an outlot basis to the subdivision .
I know that in talking with Jo Ann I know that that comes on under a
separate permit but -I feel that it should be coveted in this approval of
the subdivision that there be no special . . .
Erhart: Is that it Ray?
Ray Lewis: Yeah .
Erhart: Okay . Would you leave that first one up on the screen then? The
issues and I 'd ask , Paul could you maybe address those quickly?
Krauss: Well actually , Ray could you put your suggestions and we can deal
with it a little bit better that way .
Erhart: Appreciate your bringing that in in that format Ray.
Krauss: As to the question of Lyman Blvd. upgrading, clearly there 's a
' problem on Lyman Blvd. . We recognize it. The County recognizes it and
it 's being dealt with in the eastern Carver County Transportation Study
which as a result we're taking substantial right-of-way from this project .
This project is not the problem or the sole problem or the majority of the
problem on Lyman Blvd. . The problem on Lyman Blvd. is that traffic is
passing east/west through Eden Prairie and Chanhassen and those volumes are
expected to grow particular when the Dell Road interchange opens up on TH
111 212 . This project is giving up a substantial value in terms of lots that
they will not be able to utilize in giving or in the City's taking of the
right-of-way . At some point in the future there may well be an area wide
assessment to accommodate improvements to this road. We 're not certain how
that project 's going to be done . We 're in the process of developing a
capital improvements plan to try to program improvements to Lyman but you
have to coordinate with two counties and two cities to do that. We want to
expedite that as much as possible and clearly this project is part of the
problem but it is certainly not the sole problem.
Planning Commission Meeting 11
October 3 , 1990 - Page 18
Erhart: Wait a minute here. Dell Road's going to intersect with Rile
Y
Lake Blvd . at some point or why is Dell Road an issue?
Krauss: Well if you continue east through Eden Prairie ultimately, ,
I believe you 'll be able to approach Dell Road which will have a new , Dell
Road will have an interchange on TH 212. 1
Erhart: Okay , but I mean without going down to Pioneer Trail?
Krauss: Right . The plan is scheduled for TH 101 . Again, that 's a fairly '
far removed from this project . It is a significant problem .
Ray Lewis: Excuse me . Could I just answer number one? In talking with 11
Ann , I did understand that there was what I would call an indefined
schedule plan to do that . My point here is that what we 're going to be
doing with the development is we 're going to be adding 76 or 75 units wort
of people turning right and left onto Lake Riley Blvd . in a very short
period of time without a definite schedule of when the road's going to be
upgraded and I feel that the two should be tied together .
Erhart: Say Ray , what I 'd like to do here is give Paul the floor and let II
him , if you would just take a seat for a second and let him respond to all
the issues at once and then if we need to go , if you need to speak some
more , we 'll go after that then .
Krauss: As far as the TH 101/Lyman Blvd . intersection goes , that entire '
intersection's going to be rebuilt with TH 212. Plans call for that
construction to begin in 1993 so that 's a program improving that entire
intersection will be coming out . TH 101 will be realigned and it should
remove the problems in that area . Details of the storm water collection II
system . We do have calculations. Their engineers prepared it. Our
engineer will be reviewing it . The storm water system there calls for
storm water to be discharged into sedimentation basins which would then
overflow into the wetlands which will then overflow into Lake Riley so
there 's kind of a 3 level system to protect Lake Riley water quality in
there and that 's all in the project as proposed and as reviewed in the
planning report . As to lake access, there is no lake access being proposer'
from this development . I 'd be concerned that these residents be afforded
the same rights to pursue lake access as anybody else would as allowed by
the ordinance but they are not proposing any outlots as lake access.
Ray Lewis: At this time?
Krauss: Right . '
Erhart: What do envision where these would get favored treatment over any .
other resident Ray? I
Ray Lewis: Well for example in the case of Sunny Slope there was a outlot
purchased on the shore and the residents. . .were promised lake access and
there 's been a long term running dispute as to what that lake access should
be . In other words, they have priviledges that other city residents do not
have in terms of lake access through that lot .
Erhart: Yeah , we 're real familiar with that.
Planning Commission Meeting
11 October 3 , 1990 - Page 19
Emmings: Do they have lakeshore here on this property?
Olsen: Right .
Emmings: How much do they have? That outlot?
' Olsen: The width on that?
Emmings: How much of it is lakeshore?
Krauss: That 's something that we need to have clarified . I was talking to
the engineer about that tonight . It appears as though the lot located to
the east of this site intervenes along the lakeshore but it's a meander
line so it 's kind of tough to say . To actually find out what we need for
that southeast corner of that lot to be staked . If it 's in from the lake ,
then it has no frontage .
' Emmings: And it 's not clear from looking at the survey . You should know
too , to set your mind at ease somewhat , the beachlot ordinance we have now
which wasn 't there I think at the time of that little lot was set aside
' down there on Lake Riley that 's been such a thorn in everybody's side , is
much more restrictive . They have to have a minimum of 200 feet of
lakeshore . They have to have minimum depths and then they can only have
one dock with 3 boats . So we 've got a much more restrictive ordinance now
than has ever been there before .
Erhart : Okay . Is there any other public comments on the proposed
11 subdivision?
Dennis Baker : My name is Dennis Baker and I live at 9219 Lake Riley Blvd .
which is a couple hundred yards from the intersection in question at Lyman
and Lake Riley Blvd . . I 've lived there for 11 years and through that
entire 11 years I have been taking segidisk readings for the PCA measuring
' the water quality of Lake Riley. I've worked with the U.S. Geological
Survey , Metropolitan Council , the Association. A number of groups studying
the water quality . The water quality of Lake Riley has improved almost
very , very little over the course of 11 years in spite of the fact that ii
' years ago the sewer project was completed around the lake and we
anticipated a lot more improvement than we got. One reason for that lack
of improvement is the U.S. Geological Survey determined that the
eutrophication of Lake Riley was 95% caused by runoff. I contend that a
holding pond during a heavy rain that will hold the excess water for
whatever , even if it's 24-48 hours, is not going to absorb or have enough
vegetation to absorb the additional phospherous, etc. from lawn fertilizers
that will come off of 75 15,000 foot lots so I would like to propose to the
City Council that they ask the Department of Natural Resources to
investigate what the environmental impact is of this project because that
particular holding pond is one of only 3 on the lake and I think it can
pretty easily be proven that there 's precious few wetlands protecting Lake
Riley now . I think that a further study needs to be done in order to
1 determine, the engineer of the project had I don't think is sufficient to
determine the environmental impact of this 75 unit subdivision. Another
comment I 'd like to make is the intersection of TH 101 and Lyman Blvd . is
an extraordinary concern. There 's a lot of accidents there already . A lot
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 20
of single car accidents . There's been many cars that didn't make that
curve and fortunately did not collide with another car . Right now it 's
extremely dangerous because of farm crops which happen to be Klingelhutz '
farm crops . Expressing their concern for the safety of the intersection o�
that intersection . The City hasn 't done anything about it and I know
people have called the City about the danger on that intersection . I mean
you have to go, my wife just is scared everytime she comes through that II
intersection because you have to actually accelerate to come from TH 101
going south onto Lyman Blvd. and hope that there's not a car speeding
coming into that intersection from the south because if there is , you 're II
going to get nailed and the only way you get through it safely is to
accelerate up that hill and onto Lyman Blvd . I don't think that , we talk
about this particular issue and the previous issue, what we 're going to doll
ultimately relative to traffic on these projects . I know Chanhassen is
eager to develop and I 'm as eager as everybody else in here to see
Chanhassen grow but we 've got to be careful that we don 't outgrow our
britches to the point where we make the community dangerous for it 's
residents . Thank you .
Erhart: Thanks Dennis. Paul , would you respond to that first issue there
Krauss: Well the water ualit
q y one is one that we 've become increasingly
aware of over the last year or two. Lake Riley has a series of problems
that aren 't stemming exactly from the lake itself but as water is flushed II
into the lake . One of the problems that the Metro Council Hydrologist ,
Dick Osgood has identified is that storm water as it passes through Rice
Marsh Lake is picking up sediments on the bottom of that lake that. were
deposited when there used to be a sewage treatment plant there and
I believe a chicken farm or something like that and everytime it rains ,
that 's flushed into Lake Riley with some pretty disasterous results . Wate
quality is a sensitive issue throughout the city and the City Council has
been working with staff and the City Council recently adopted a surface
water utility program which is designed to deal with water quality issues
in the city . To allow us to do planning to understand what exactly the JI
problems are and to actually address solutions with capital improvements o
treatment or weed harvesting and street sweeping and everything else . And
we are also participating with a number of other governments on water
quality issues-. I 've been asked to serve on a technical advisory committejl
for the Metro Council that is trying to work with local governments to
establish new regulations for runoff. That doesn't specifically deal with
this particular subdivision. However , this particular subdivision is usin
the best availble technology that we have at this time. The water .is bein
flushed into sedimentation basins. That's designed to capture the heavier
materials . It does not do a very effective job on capturing nutrients .
The water will then pass through the wetland. Wetlands do have an abilityll
to filter nutrients to a large extent . Then it will pass out through into
the lake . Possibly that is not enough but that is the best technology the"'
we have to offer at this time . The reason why we're going through the
surface water utility district and participating with the other governments
as well is that we want to address this to a better extent . We want to
address it comprehensively , not just for Lake Riley but for all the other II
water bodies in the city as well .
Erhart: currently you 're adding how many holding ponds? '
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 21
Krauss: There 's two .
Erhart: And what percentage of the water currently goes into the current
pond off the site would you estimate?
Folch: The predicted increase that needed to be retained back was 1 .75
acre feet of storage . I should have the calculations here on the existing .
Erhart: I guess what I 'm trying to get a feel for , are we taking the
holding pond , is the holding pond is going to keep the amount of direct '
flow into that existing wetland the same as what it is currently?
Bill Englehardt: Yes . Yes it will . But the big difference is that before
it goes into the wetland and before it goes into Lake Riley, you 're going
' to be polishing it almost like a treatment pond before it . gets to Lake
Riley . I just want to point out that we 're sensitive to the issue of the
loading on Lake Riley and that 's why we did put the holding ponds in there
but your best cleaning agent for the water going into Lake Riley is your
' wetlands . Your wetlands pick up most of the phospherous and most of the
nutrients . The only thing they don 't get is nitrates and it 's very seldom
that the wetlands themselves , the vegetation will pull the nitrates out so
those will pass through but I think what you have to remember in this
particular subdivision is we 're converting farmland now that is probably
more heavily concentrated with nitrates due to farming than a residential
subdivision would . Albeit you 're going to have grass in there and they 're
going to be fertilizing their lawns but I think it can be shown by studies
that the heaviest loadings that you have is from the farm operation itself .
So I think that if you really wanted to get down and look at the loading in
this particular thing , you 're probably going to see less nitrate loading
which is the most detrimental to Lake Riley than what you 're going to see
with the subdivision .
Dennis Baker : Can you tell what percentage of that land is currently in
crops?
Bill Engelhardt: I don't know. John, can you?
John Klingelhutz: I think about 60% .
Bill Engelhardt: Okay, about 60% of it. So I think we're helping, we 're
going to help the situation . I really don't think we're going to hurt it
' and we are channeling our storm water runoff into the ponds prior to
entering wetlands . Prior to entering Lake Riley and as Paul said, that 's
the best we can do right now.
IDennis Baker : Is there any other alternative for drainage?
Bill Engelhardt: Not really . On this particular piece of property just
the way it is . You have your wetlands with everything coming, the slopes
all coming down to it .
•
Dennis Baker : It 's a basin.
Bill Engelhardt: Right . It 's a big basin and we're preserving and
maintaining easements all around that so those wetlands aren't going to be
1 a
Planning Commission Meeting ,
October 3 , 1990 - Page 22
touched. They 're going to stay there in their condition the way they are II
today .
Erhart: Thanks Bill . Any other comments? • I
Dave Nickolay: My name is Dave Nickolay . I live at 8500 Tigua Circle .
I 'm curious why we were invited to the meeting when it appears that the
development is all to the south of the new Hwy. 212 right-of-way .
Krauss: All property owners within 500 feet of the property boundary are- "
notified . The property boundary goes up to Tigua . It's going to be outlo
correct . Nothing's being proposed up there but you 're on the notification
list because you 're within that 500 foot circle . '
Dave Nickolay: Okay , and I guess then my concern would be originally on
the map that was sent , which was a very rough , it showed the property as
I think was just shown here a little bit ago by the first gentleman , what II
is the plan for the land which would be north then of the proposed TH 212?
Olsen: There are no plans at this time. They are showing it as R-12
zoning but that would require a rezoning and a lot of other public hearing
but at this time it's an outlot. They'd have to go through a whole other -
process .
Erhart: And R-12 is what Jo Ann?
Olsen: High density , apartments . Again, that's just what they showed on
their plan . It 's not even on the official application.
Dave Nickolay: Was it in the original because this was a delayed process II
because I think it was up about a month or so ago and almost all the
residents from Tigua were here at that meeting and was that a change in the
plan?
Olsen: Oh , no . It was tabled at that time because of the issues that we
had on the single family lots but no , there has not been anything proposed
throughout this application. II
Dave Nickolay: Is the land owned by the same people who are developing the
land to the north?
Olsen: It 's all one piece.
•
Dave Nickolay: Okay . Are there plans to do something with the land to the,
north of that?
John Klingelhutz: ' At this time, no.- '
Dave Nickolay: That 's all I have . Thanks.
Erhart: Okay, thank you . Another person here? '
Don Sitter : My name is Don Sitter . I live at the end of Lake Riley Blvd .
and I 'm going to pretty much echo the same concerns we've heard before but I
ask a few more questions . Regarding the holding ponds , if those are
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' October 3 , 1990 - Page 23
capable of handling the runoff now, are there plans or ordinances or any
kind of maintenance items that would take care of making sure that they
stay in effect or that they are effective both today and 50 or however , 100
years from now so we make sure that the water quality of Lake Riley is
maintained? I appreciate that they're at least concerned about the water
quality . I want to make sure it stays that way forever and I guess I 'll
finish my other comments and maybe you can get some reaction. With regards
to the Lyman Blvd . situation . I hear that we 're admitting that it 's
already a problem and the traffic is already too much for that road and the
State and we 're going to further compound the problem and yet there 's no
plans in place to rectify the problem. That really bothers me . I don't
know why we can 't stop somewhere along the line and say before we add more
problems to an already existing problem, that we can take care of it . I
agree with the concerns about TH 101 and Lyman but at least you 've got a
1 date . 1993 there will be some resolution. That 's a plan. That 's some
action being taken . I can live with that . Maybe we can do something
temporary until 1993 comes along but are there any plans for Lyman Blvd .
' right now? That 's a pretty bad situation . And the other thing , on the
lakeshore access . I 'm very much afraid that they're going to end up with
some type of a beachlot or an outlot on there and have 75 homes being
accessed to the lake and I understand there 's ordinances in place but I
' also remember a little while ago when Lake Riley Woods was being developed
and the ordinances were just changed because they didn't meet that
development . They required the houses to be so close to the beachlot
' itself and they said, well these houses aren't close enough so let 's just
change the ordinance and I 've seen those ordinances changed through the
years and I think you spend a lot of time making the ordinances and if you
stick by them , I think we could handle the situation . I 'm afraid that
' there 's going to be pressure on this one when that actually comes up and
ordinances may be changed and then they 're going to have another 75 homes
with access to Lake Riley and the lake just can't handle anymore. We 're
already in trouble as it is . Other than that, I understand the City 's
growing and we have to have developments and I guess all and all I don't
think it 's a bad development . I think there are some real concerns to make
1 sure that the lake is protected but are we really looking at it for the
long run . Thank you .
Erhart: Thanks Don. I 'll respond again. As Paul indicated, that City
Council here just passed an ordinance to create a utility for maintaining
holding ponds and wetlands and use for storm water control .
1 Don Sitter : And that includes money for maintaining on an ongoing basis?
Erhart: Right . Number two, I think the Lyman Blvd. thing is going to be a
big issue and I 'm sure the commissioners will address that here in the
questioning . Three , I guess maybe I can speak for the current Planning
Commissioners . I don't think we're, I doubt seriously whether we're going
to relax any time soon the requirements for beachlots. As Steve pointed
out , it's pretty severe and this one wouldn't qualify as it is now .
Ellson: They don't have the 200 feet.
1 Erhart: According to what I see here, there is no shoreline . Jo Ann , do
you have any additional thing to tell?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 24
Olsen: We got some half sections that show that it does have shoreline an
then the survey here doesn 't really actually show where the ordinary high
water mark of Lake Riley is so there'd have to be , but even if it does , it
doesn 't meet the square footage . It doesn't have the lot depth and it
would require a lot of variances which I don't think that we would be
granting . '
Don Sitter : . . .variances is a piece of cake in Chanhassen.
Erhart: I don 't think that 's true at all . Okay , we can deal again with ,
the beachlot . Go ahead. Come on up.
Norm Grant: I 'm Norm Grant . I live at 9021 Lake Riley Blvd . and I 'm just 41
stone 's throw from the project. Two ideas really. One is Lyman Blvd. as
I understand it and like you say , it 's going to be a big problem . Land has
been dedicated for the widening of that , if I 'm understanding all of this '
right . but that 's something that 's down the road . A tentative or a
preliminary solution, something we could do right now,: I was talking with
Pao? earlier , was turn lanes . Something like that that would just make
that a little bit safer area . If you 've driven Lyman Blvd. you know that II
it 's bad shape . It 's hilly . It 's in rough shape and I think turn lanes
could be a solution at least , a temporary one for when ultimately there 's
enough development there that almost demands that something be done . Okay
And by the way , I think that 'd it be wise that that be part of the
development plan or the platting of the proposal or however you describe
that . Another idea I guess is the outlot . I sense that there 's something
c'ping on there that in the future could be trouble for Lake Riley . '
When I first saw that it appeared that it was a lot and probably a
buildable one at that although with variances . Now because of dedication
of lands for the widening of Lake Riley Blvd. , it appears that that 's II destined to be some kind of an outlot and I guess I feel that in a couple
years when there 's 75 families there demanding that they have lake access ,
their wishes probably will be met one way or another . If I saw the
drawings accurately earlier , the widening was done on both sides of Lake II
Riley Blvd . . 27 feet I think into that outlot . What if the whole distance
was taken from the other side of the road? Okay, leaving that lot
basically intact and then potentially buildable . In my mind's eye , I 'd.
rather see a single family home there. Okay? Somebody living there rathe
than having 75 potential families utilizing that property. Ideas I guess .
Erhart: Okay , thanks Norm. Jo Ann, is there any comments on the TH 101 I
intersection turn lane idea?
Olsen: That 's something that could be part of this development and we werl
just discussing it . That actually is a good idea . Turn lanes on Lyman .
Krauss: On Lyman and leaving the site. I
Erhart: At the intersection?
Olsen: Of the development. '
Erhart: Norm, that 's what you were talking about is turn lanes at the
entrance? '
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 25
Norm Grant : Yeah .
Erhart: Okay . Any other public comment?
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: Okay , let 's talk this one around a little bit . Joan, do you want
to start down on your end?
Ahrens: Back to the Lyman/TH 101 intersection. It seems to me, I drive
that by there all the time and you can 't see around the corn . That 's the
biggest problem and John Klingelhutz owns the corner lots on there?
Olsen: It might be another Klingelhutz .
' Ahrens: Oh , someone said that earlier . Can't the City somehow require the
lot owners to cut down the corn on those intersections to improve sight
1 lanes based on public safety?
Krauss: We may be able to declare it a public nuisance . That ordinance is
' not very tight but we could look at that .
Ahrens: It wouldn't cost the City much money I wouldn't think to solve
t`:e , temporarily solve the problem until 1993 when the intersection_there
is completed .
Erhart: Excuse me a second. I guess I 'd like to point out, I don 't think
11 there 's , let 's clarify that Jo Ann or Paul . When do you realistically see
this TH 101 intersection being put in, or even start construction?
Krauss: Well it 's going to be tied to the realignment of TH 101 which is
tied to Hwy . 212 . The State has committed funds to start construction
of TH 212 in 1993 . They 're not specific on when that gets it out here .
It 's probably going to be in 1994 by the time the work comes out this far .
We 've been trying , the City 's been trying to expedite that project for
years and at least there 's finally funding for it.
Erhart: I just didn't want to leave the impression with anybody that 1993
work was going to begin at improving those intersection. Go ahead Joan.
Ahrens: Maybe cutting the corn down is a more viable solution. As far as
the holding ponds go, I 'm going to have to go along with the City
'
recommendation on that. . .that the holding ponds that are proposed . . . In
going through the report, there 's a mention of sidewalks here along the
1 north road and west road . I -know the City has had problems before in other
developments . Curry Farms for one, stating that there may be sidewalks
there but not putting it onto the plat so the residents after the fact say
we don 't want sidewalks there . We didn't know about it.
' Olsen: Right . I believe what we do now is that's part of the construction
of the street . The sidewalks are installed so whenever anyone purchases a
lot , it 's there .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 26
Ahrens: And install . . .and they will be put in for the north road
and west
road?
Olsen: Yes .
Ahrens: I had a question about the utilities. There seemed to be a II ouestion about the calculations for the sanitary sewer system to verify
site capacity and maybe . . . no idea what 's going on with that. A plan right
now because of . . .
Folch: Maybe I could just , I 'll briefly address that. That's just a
normal requirement that we have as one of the items we want to see for
submittal at the time of final approval of construction plan documents . III
was not a requirement at this time but we like to make the applicant aware
that it is needed for the final stage .
Erhart : I think to expand on that . I think there is an issue here with
whether the existing sewer has the capacity , whether the existing pump
station and force feed has the capacity service area; That's the
impression I get . • 1
Ah'-ens: That 's the reason I brought it up is because I think . . .
Bill Engelhardt: That was a question that came up . This particular land I
is served by a lift station and we checked the pumping records and the
maintenance records of that lift station . That lift station runs 2 hours
day out of 24 which means that there 's adequate capacity . It 's not runnin
anywhere near what it probably could be running to operate at a normal
rate . As far as the 4 inch force main goes, for this particular type of
development and number of units that go in there , what happens is that you
4 inch force main will see a little bit more velocity in it if anything .
And if your pumps are going to generate , if you 're generating more flow ,
your pumps are going to be pumping a little bit more and they might pump all
a little higher head which means you're going to see a little bit more
velocity but the flow is still going to get through there. It's a pressure
situation . It 's not a gravity flow where it's going to get clogged so it'
going to get pushed through there. The bottom line is that the lift
station has capacity for this particular development. It's only running 2
hours a day.
Ahrens: Do you agree with that? 1
Bill Engelhardt: That came right from the pumping records of the City. ,
Erhart: Okay , thanks 8i11 . What is the City's position?
Folch: Well I guess we'd have to take a closer look at that. That may .beil
an issue that would be addressed in the feasibility report that is propose
to be conducted for servicing watermain and utilities to this subdivision .
Bill Engelhardt: That really doesn't answer the question. The feasibility'
study that 's being proposed is to provide water service and Mr . Klingelhutz
has agreed to pay for the feasibility study for the water service . When w
get into the final design for the utilities in this particular property .
you look at the heads and the design capacity of the pumps. If your pumps ,
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 27 -
1
if it appears that your pumps are going to have a problem with capacity ,
it 's a very simple matter of increasing the horse power or dropping a
different pump to increase the horsepower and we would have to do that as
part of the approval of the final construction plans for the" sewer and
water . What I 'm telling you is I don't anticipate that because the lift
station right now is only running 2 hours out of the day, out of 24 hours
which means that there 's plenty of capacity in those pumps and I really
don 't see it as being a problem . But if it does become a problem during
the final design, then we change the pumps over to a different pump . The
issue then becomes is the force main big enough with a bigger pump . It 's
not that it 's big enough. It 's just that it's going to go through there
faster is all .
' Ahrens: I understood they . . .be a problem. My question was whether the
City thought it was a problem .
iolch: Well it 's my understanding from the City Engineer that the initial
request for the study was strictly for the watermain service but that Gary
had mentioned that they also added on the scope of that report was to
include sanitary also specifically related to that lift station .
Erhart : That 's the way I read the report. While we 're on the subject , do
' any other commissioners have any comments on this particular or concerns
about this sewer issue? I guess if you don't mind Joan , it just seems to
me , whether it 's 2 hours or 4 hours , I don 't know what 's standard . It just
' seems to me that the question that I would have, are we trying to tap into
a system that just wasn 't designed to essentially a development like this
or are we tapping into a system essentially was to bandaid a problem we had
out on Lake Riley "with sewers? With septic systems .
Krauss: If I could, that 's basically one of the questions the feasibility
study is designed to answered . That line down Lake Riley was initially
' installed basically -to serve the lakeshore homes but there is a lot of
.
capacity left in it . . .determine how much capacity there is . This site
is within the MUSA line today. They are going to be petitioning the city
1 for improvements . At that point we do the feasibility study which is on
line to be done and the city determines the best way of serving this and
other properties . The cost to them develop , the developer then decides if
' the cost benefit is there . You know they can still walk away from a
project at that point . The improvements that would be installed, the water
improvements certainly are going to serve a number of other properties
beyond the Klingelhutz site . Those properties may be subject to some area
' assessments or something else where they'd be brought into the process but
they 're certainly a wide spread benefit that could potentially be had . But
that 's a normal process. They petition. The feasibility study. The City
Council acts on the best way of serving it and the developer decides if
they want to do the project.
•
Erhart: Okay , well I guess I 'd sure like to see that that be looked at in
' a little more comprehensive manner than just this item for this particular
development . We 're just trying to tap into something that 's already
undersized or wasn 't intended for this, that it be looked at
comprehensively because certainly that whole area around that intersection
is going to require services .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 28
Ahrens: I don 't have anything else .
Y g
Erhart: That 's it? I
Ahrens: Yep .
Erhart : Okay. Jim? ,
Wildermuth: What is planned for the land west of the current development?
Krauss: In terms of the Land Use Plan? '
Wildermuth: Right . '
Krauss: The draft Land Use Plan shows single family development immediately
west of the site . It blends into I think medium density or commercial at
the TH 101/212 interchange .
Wildermuth: I was wondering why the park group chose Lots 24 , 25 , 26 , 22 ,
23 and why they wouldn 't come down to roughly where Block 1 lettering is 011
the map so that any future development to the west could benefit?
Krauss: One of the things this would also be serving is existing and
Potential development to the east . Ultimately that east/west road labeled '
north road would be extended in both directions . There 's another high
density site adjacent to the existing apartment complex and the thinking
that we 'd have this road extended over through there looping back out to
Lake Riley Blvd. so they would have access to the park as well .
Olsen: There 's also the Bandimere Park to the southwest . That 's going toll
be a larger community park .
Wildermuth: That 's the undeveloped? i
•
Olsen: Yeah , to the south of Lyman so they were looking at locating the
park more to the east of this subdivision .
Wildermuth: As you look to the east, how much of that wetland extends
east? Does the wetland fade out?
Krauss: No . It does extend to the east. In fact, one of the benefits of l
this development is that wetland is currently bisected by a driveway that
was filled. Placed on fill right across the middle of the wetland. As a
condition of approval for this project, that driveway is going to be
pulled out of there and the wetland can function as a whole unit again and
not a bisected water body.
Wildermuth: That sounds pretty desireable but if that wetland, a good
portion of that wetland lies to the east, it 's going to be a long hike down
to the parklands. I mean I don't know, this doesn't seem too logical to II
think that that parkland is going to serve much to the east . But that
aside , moving on. Where are these proposed turn lanes Jo Ann that you were
just referring to a few moments ago that you thought were a good idea?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 29
Krauss: What we 'd probably be looking at is something along those
g 9 g lines .
Possibly being able to widened it out on this side as well so you can make
a turn in this way and out that way .
• Wildermuth: Who 'd stand the expense for that? A developer?
jKrauss: Yes .
Wildermuth: Is Lyman Blvd. a county road or a city?
Olsen: At this point it 's not a city road . The County jurisdiction ends
at TH 101 and then it becomes City jurisdiction.
Wildermuth: Does the City have any plans for upgrading that?
11 Krauss: Not at this point .
Wildermuth: Everybody that spoke from the area has a concern there about
' Lyman Blvd . .
Krauss: The way that road improvements that benefit an area or a
neighborhood typically occur is the City Council 's petitioned to do a
feasibilty study on what the road upgrading might accomplish. We 'd be
happy to receive a petition . . .City Council to take action on that .
Wildermuth: So it behooves the residents in the area now to petition the
Council?
Krauss: Yeah . One of the other issues we deal with too with Carver County
and they with us , is jurisdiction . This road is carrying a substantial
amount of traffic that 's generated from not only Chanhassen but around the
area that 's just passing through . It's projected that it will carry more
11 in the future and we may wish, and we 've talked with Carver County about
this , to have the jurisdictional problems resolved that may ultimately
become a county road.
Wildermuth: Okay , so that would be one way for the area residents to
address this Lyman Blvd. issue? Other than that, I like the proposed
berming for TH 212. That looks like a good solution for the highway noise
pavement problem and it seems like holding ponds on the perimeter of the
wetland are the State of the Art answer for storm water at this point .
I don 't think there 's anything, there isn't anything better on the horizon
' is there?
Krauss: Well there's more active programs that a city could undertake and
that we would intend on to take with the funding provided by the service
water utility .
Wildermuth: What would that be?
rKrauss: Well it 's a range of things that would be considered from
something as simple as making sure the streets are swept frequently ,
particularly before you have the first flush of organic material in the
spring to the possibility of weed harvesting. The wetland capture through
the weeds capture the nutrients but in the fall the cattails, which absorb
1
Planning Commission Meeting '
October 3 , 1990 - Page 30
so me of it but the cattails die off and introduce the nutrients to some
extent back into the system . Weed harvesting is something that 's being
done . 1
Wildermuth: These are largely city responsibilities then?
Krauss: Well these would become city programs and responsibilities in the l
future . That 's what's envisioned. Right now nobody's doing it. Right now
nobody has .
Wildermuth: There 's nothing here that we could logically expect from the II
developer in addition to what he's outlined?
Krauss: No . Right . '
Wildermuth: Okay, I support the staff recommendation.
Erhart : Okay , thanks Jim . Annette?
Ellson: I like the idea of adding the turn lanes . I like the idea of II asking the property owner to cut back the corn . I don't know that we can
put that into the thing here but as far as solving these short range
problems that people have on these streets . The park is dedicated and I 'vll
often wondered this , doesn't mean it 's necessarily going to be built is
that right? It 's just set aside at this point?
Olsen: Right . And then there 's a separate fund. In addition to giving
parkland they also have to give money and they 're trying to work it so tha
ss the homes are built , that a park is there.
Ellson: That seems to be a concern and a complaint continually from peopl1
in new developments. So that 's what I was just wondering . There's no way
because it 's us building it , basically the city, that we can put anything
in here that says it has to be paid in a year or something like that?
T know it 's a continual problem that the parkland is set aside and then
nobody has but that was just for my own info. I would go along with the
staff 's recommendations. '
Erhart: Thanks Annette. Steve?
Emmings: Let's see . Outlot A in Block 3, Bill mentioned the possibility II
of connecting that to one of the other lots. I think that should be done
so that somebody 's responsible for the maintenance and maybe the east end
of it ought to be joined up to one lot and the west end of it should be •
joined up to another but otherwise we've got a piece of ground sitting
there that nobody will be responsible for . So I think you've got to get
rid of that outlot and join it up to other properties. As far as Lyman
• Blvd . goes, I guess I look at that a little bit/ the way, we have the same II
exact discussion on another scale with TH 5 all the time. We shouldn 't be
building all these houses out here because TH 5 can't handle the traffic
but it 's sort of like cranking a car . You wind up getting the road becaus�
you 've got all the people living out here screaming about the fact that
they don 't have decent roads and to some extent I think you're going to
wind up with your improvements on Lyman Blvd. faster as a result of
projects like this. I don't think it's good planning but I think that's II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3., 1990 - Page 31
kind of the way the world works . As far as the beachlot issue is
1 concerned , I 'm confident that the Planning Commission as is presently
constituted , will never weakened the beachlot but you know , it won't be the
• same Planning Commission here in a few months . Maybe who knows and that
ordinance has been changed and changed and changed. The last changes we
did I think were good ones and the fact is , if they meet the requirements
of that ordinance they get the beachlot. We can 't stop them from having it
if they meet the requirements . We 've got to treat everybody the same , but
' if they don't , they won't get it from us at least as we 're presently
constituted . That should give you at least 5 minutes worth of comfort .
Lake Riley is a recreational development lake is it not?
Olsen: Exactly .
Emmings: And it has a public access?
' Olsen: On the Eden Prairie side .
Emmings: I always like to tie together approvals and to do that with this
one I would tie the preliminary plat approval . I 'd add a condition to that
it is conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of the wetland
alteration permit and similarly add a condition to the wetland alteration
permit . That it 's conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of the
preliminary plat approval so those are tied together . Is something going
to be recorded against each lot that borders the wetland?
Ells'-n: Yes .
Emmings: Okay , is that in here already?
Olsen : I didn 't make it a specific condition but we do do that now . We
record it against each lot .
Emmings: That 's a development contract and that doesn't record it against
each lot . Something should be recorded against every lot to tell them
' there are prohibitions or we're going to wind up with another , which one
was it?
Olsen: Yeah , with the wetland permit, the permit itself is recorded
' against each lot and yeah , we could make that a condition. What happened
in Curry Farms , it didn't go to all the adjacent lots. We do that now .
Emmings: Should it be on here as a condition or will that automatically
happen?
' Olsen: We automatically do it but you can make it as a condition.
Emmings: And the reason it didn't happen on Curry Farms was , if it's
automatic?
Olsen: Well we 've learned our lesson. We went with only along the Class A
wetland . We didn 't go along all the Class B.
1 Emmings: So should I be comfortable that it's going to happen or should I
write it in as a condition?
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 32
Olsen: 'v
I e learned my lesson , yes . I think you could be comfortable .
Emmings: Otherwise I agree with the conditions in the staff report . '
Erhart: Okay . A couple questions here. Is it clear in the conditions
that we are requiring the berming along the future Interstate 212 that Bil
described?
Olsen: We do in condition number 8 state that noise abatement measures
such as earth berming shall be shown on the plan. That they do have to
provide something like that. Again, their plans have been. . .
Erhart: Okay , do you feel that 's strong enough language? '
Krauss : They will have it resolved before final plat .
Erhart : Yeah , I was going to suggest that maybe the way to word it would I
be to some height above freeway center line at any point . I think Bill
had mentioned 8 feet . You may want to use that kind of wording or
somFt.hing to but as long as you 're satisfied there, I won't dig into it ani
longr . We 're saying in the future Lyman Blvd . 's going to be a collector , -
or is it an arterial?
Folch: I believe it 's designated or proposed to be a minor arterial Class"
2 I believe . Yeah , that 's correct .
Erhart : Well I think on Audubon Road where Lake Susan Hills West , 3rd 1
Addition or 10th Addition or whatever it is where we have these houses
right on Audubon Road without any berming or screening in the back of thos
lots , back to the yards , I think we were , somehow we overlooked something
there because I 'm just aghasted at driving down there and seeing the backs
of these houses essentially which are on a street which is going to be
major .
Emmings: We put a berm in there.
Erhart: It isn 't there now. '
Emmings: I remember , if we 're talking about the same place, there was a
berm on that plan.
Olsen: By the wetland I believe.
Emmings: Between the road and the houses . ,
Olsen: By the wetland?
Emmings: Yeah , well the exit from that division goes out onto there .
Erhart: We talked about this before and I just , it 's hard for me to I
believe that we approved that the way it 's going in and I would ask that
the staff review the permit on that subdivision. Have you seen it?
Emmings: I feel like I remember it when it was in here. 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 33
I
Erhart : But anyway .
Krauss: You point though is well taken Mr . Chairman because there 's
probably an analogous situation with having what may become a 4 lane street
at some point .
Erhart: You 're taking the words right out of my mouth. If you would look
at that , it only affects two lots now the way you 're proposing it .
Emmings: Three really.
' Erhart: They 're eliminating, Lot 3 is eliminated .
Emmings: Yeah, but then there 's. . .
Bill Engelhardt: It 'd be three lots .
Erhart: Oh , oh okay yeah. The one Block 1 so three lots and I think we
' should put some kind of a barrier between the road . What would you
propose? A berm? Screening? Okay. The names of the streets bothers me .
Are we going to leave them that way?
Olsen: Those are just there .
Bill Engelhardt : I hope not . -
' Erhart : Thank you . Loop cul-de-sac . Have we considered , what 's
controlling the elevation of hte wetland currently? What controls the
water level?
Bill Engelhardt: .The DNR has got a high water mark set on that . We 've got
it shown on the plan .
' Erhart: What 's the control structure?
Olsen: There 's a culvert .
Erhart: Under TH 101?
Olsen: Lyman . Or under Lake Riley .
Erhart: Has anybody considered raising the water level in that? From a
lot sellability standpoint , just increasing the water a foot would make
that not only a more aesthetically pleasing wetland but it also would
improve it 's nesting habitat without really taking up additional space or
' if we could take into special consideration, to use at it 's existing high
water level and increase the level of the water in that wetland to improve
it. I think it also would improve it 's ability to filter .
Bill Engelhardt: Mr . Chairman , my experience always has been that the ONR
does not look favorably upon changing those elevations, either by culvert
or overland swale or whatever it is . My guess is that they probably aren't
I- going to let you touch that. They set that elevation , in fact that wetland
was singled out as being purchased at one time by the DNR and those
elevations were set so I don't think there's anything we can do about it .
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 34
Olsen: And it is a really, I think it does have a pretty good depth right II
now and it 's a high functioning wetland .
Erhart: I guess that's not my experience Bill . My experience is that if
there is way to improve wetlands , the DNR has been not only willing to talk
about it but will actually fund some of it.
Olsen: I don 't know that this one needs to be improved . In going out
there with the DNR and the Fish and Wildlife Service , it was don't touch
you know . It's fine the way it is . I
Erhart: So you think that's a waste of time to pursue that?
Olsen: Well we could look into it . I don't know that it needs that 1
imorovement .
Erhart: Okay . Why is Lot 5, Block 1 or am I reading that wrong? One of I
the conditions is that Lot 5 , Block 1 is not buildable?
Olsen: It should be Lot 1 , Block 5 . '
E-hart : -Lot 5 , Block 1 shall be designated as an outlot and unbuildable? _
Olsen: Yeah. I 've got it . I
Erhart: Okay , Lot 1 , Block 5 . We are requiring that the developer replace
trees over , good trees over 4 inches . Is that an ordinance? Is that in I
our what , clear cutting ordinance? Is that the ordinance or what is the
ordinance that we 're using there?
Olsen: I 'm sorry, what?
Erhart : We 're requiring the builder to replace all trees with caliper over.
4 inches . All good trees over caliper of 4 inches . I
Olsen: The ordinance does allow for the replacement per caliper inch under
the landscaping for tree removal . I
Erhart: Which ordinance?
Olsen: It 's under the landscaping? I believe it's in the Zoning Ordinance"
under the landscaping section. Under tree removal .
Erhart: In what Section? i
Olsen: Do you have the pages? It 's 1253, page 1253 , Section 1179 .
Erhart: In the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance? 1
O_ en: Zoning Ordinance . Page 1253, Section 20-1179. Tree Removal
Regulations . I
Erhart: And does that include, let me see.
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
9
October 3, 1990 - Page 35
Olsen: It says that the City may require replacement of removed trees on a
caliper inch per caliper inch basis . At a minimum however , replacement
trees shall conform to the planting requirements set in the . . . That 's
where you have to do exterior landscaping and such and shade trees of 6
inches or more caliper shall be saved unless it can be demonstrated that
there is no other feasible way .
Erhart: Essentially aren't we talking about replaced trees where he 's
putting in the streets and everything?
Olsen: What we usually do, we never go the caliper per caliper inch. I
mean you would get 1 ,000 . He was saying if there was 170 trees being
removed but the caliper inches is you know, so what we usually do is work
with the DNR forester and go out to the site and determine , you know what
is being lost and how it 's best to replace those. We never go caliper per
I caliper inch replacement but it does give us flexibility to provide
something in the future that will replace what 's been lost .
' Erhart: Okay. Would we consider on this outlot , Block 5 , Lot 1 , would we
consider turning that now unbuildable lot over to the City?
,, Olsen: No , we haven 't considered that . I don't know actually what we
would use it for .
Erhart: For example down on Bluff Creek for example, and that was
subdivided south of the golf course there . A lot of the , all the area in
the bluff land was turned over to the city for future whatever .
Olsen: For nature and trails .
Erhart: Nature and whatever . It would seem to me that would give the City
control over this lot . Also it would provide maybe some potential future
again comprehensive use of what is a long unuseable , I shouldn't say
unuseable . Now it 's unuseable shoreline . It could be something . I mean
you could put a walking path through there or something .
Olsen: It 's real , well .
' Erhart: Well you 'd be surprised what somebody, at some day when that area
all gets developed, you know you could just like the Lake of the Isles
thing where it 's just a walking area . Not a beach but something useable
' and at this point it becomes an outlot that somebody , John will be paying
taxes on it which he probably doesn't want to do if it 's of no economic
value to him and this point might be an appropriate time to look at simply
turning it over to the City. So any other comments from the Commissioners
on the idea? No? Okay . No positive ideas?
Emmings: I don't think it 's a bad idea .
Erhart: You do?
Emmings: I do not think it 's a bad idea. I 'm sitting here looking at that
piece of property and thinking he wouldn 't have to buy much to the east and
add a little something to it to have what he needs to put in a beachlot .
The other thing is , maybe the neighbors who don't want to see that happer
r
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 36
may want to go together and buy it themselves . That's what occurred to me .i
Bill Engelhardt: Yeah Mr . Chairman , that 's a valuable piece of property .
We don 't want to give it to the City. We 'll hang onto it. ,
Emmings: As long as we 're talking about it , is there any plans to do
anything with that at this time?
Bill Engelhardt: Not at all and there is none. There's nothing you can do
with it .
Emmings: Have you considered making it a beachlot?
Bill Engelhardt: No . We haven't .. You can't do anything with it but it 's II
still a valuable piece of property. Mr . Klingelhutz wants to own that
piece of property . If the City wants to buy it at it 's market rate , I 'm
sure he would sell it to you but we aren't going to give it to you . ,
Emmings: What 's the value Bill?
Bill Engelhardt: I don't know.
Emmings: No , no . I mean what 's the , how does it have value if he can 't
use it for anything? I 'm just curious. 1
Bill Engelhardt: The value is that he wants to own a piece of property on
Lake Riley .
Don Sitter : Who maintains that?
Emmings: The owner .
Don Sitter : The owner has . . .
Erhart: Okay . I like the sidewalk plan and I agree with, as much as I just
stated that I don't think we give variances liberally , I think this one
makes good sense I support the agreement with agreeing the variance. My
overall comment on this plan is that I think what we're doing here is that I/
we 're developing this piece of property a little bit in advance of where
our services are at the time . Not that doesn't mean that every
development , that doesn't mean that developers don't have every right to do,
that but on the other hand, we have some mechanisms that allows them to
contribute their share when they do that. I really think that as this gets
moved on to Council , that we ought to take a look at two things here in a
more comprehensive manner before this gets approved. One is the sewer , and 11
I really think we ought to look at a plan for that whole area . The area
south of essentially south of Lake Ann Interceptor down to where the end of
the proposed addition to the MUSA line is to see what that sewer system
would look like. And I think this developer ought to be made to contribute
to that plan at this time . Secondly, I think the City should proceed with
the feasibility study for. Lyman Blvd. . I think the one shocking thing on
this whole development is that we 're going to put , not only are we going of II
put 75 additional households on a street that simply is not designed to do
that . Not adequate to do that , but we 're going to put essentially for up '
to 10 years , perhaps even longer than 10 years, a cul-de-sac . If you
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 37
measure it from Lyman Blvd. to the east end of North Road, how long is it?
2 ,000-3 ,000 feet?
Olsen: Close to it .
' Erhart: 2,000 feet? I 've been here 4 years and anything over 1 ,000 feet
is . we've used that as a reason to force developers to come up with
alternative access. And I 'm not against this plan. I think it's a good
II . plan . I think they 're using the land wisely. I think they 've addressed
the runoff issues to the best , say to the same level as other developers
are doing . I don't think that we should, I think now is the time to go in
and collect monies to improve Lyman Blvd. . I really think it should be
' tied together because it 's not reasonable to put this house on there
on Lyman Blvd. in it 's current condition I don't think.
' Wildermuth: But the adjacent property owners petitioned the Council to do
that , then that will be addressed? If they don't petition the Council to
do that , it won 't be addressed.
' Erhart: The City can proceed with this on their own . It doesn't require a
petition . Correct me if I 'm wrong . It doesn 't require a petition of
anybody .
Olsen: The City can initiate it.
' Erhart: Yeah , we can initiate the feasibility study .
Krauss: Yeah, the City can but you know the City likes to know that a
' neighborhood honestly wants a road to be improved before we go to the
exoense of figuring out how it 's done.
+w ldermuth: You have all the adjacent property owners .
rErhart: But the neighborhood is the developer today.
' Krauss: I think it would not be unreasonable to ask the developer to
commission the City to undertake that feasibility study in conjunction with
the neighbors signing onto that but there are many instances where we hear
that, and obviously we agree that there 's a road improvement needed at some
point and we do agree with that here but when the plans are actually
developed for the road improvement , the neighborhood turns out and says
that we don 't want this and you know . It puts the city staff in an
uncomfortable position of taking the lead on a project that 's to benefit
for a neighborhood . We 'd like to know that at least the neighborhood 's
behind us looking into that improvement.
' Erhart: There is no neighborhood . The developer is the neighborhood and
he has access to the funds today.
' w_ldermuth: The neighbors that we 've heard from tonight . One of the
things that we see, the more expense we tack on to a development like this
for the developer , I think the lower quality, the lower caliber development
wza get in the end . if you look around town and look at the costs of land
and costs of some of these developments , I think we 're diluting the
developer 's efforts by tagging him with a lot of additional expense .
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
October 3, 1990 - Page 38
Erhart: Yeah , I understand that but some day someone 's going to pay for II
Lyman Blvd . improvement . Either you're going to go in.
Wildermuth: That's right. The property owners are going to pay for it . II
Adjacent property owners.
Erhart: And the thing is that that serves 75 lots here and if you let this'
go in without doing that today, then you 're never going to be able to
collect from 75 lots . You 're going to go at .
Emmings: Why not? '
Erhart: Well you could but I 'm just saying it's easier to.
Ellson: That 's how . . .you have 75 more people who want it and hopefully
we ' ll be . . .
Erhart : Are you?
Ellson: Your comment before was the 75 will be more clout to get it . I
Ray '_ewes: How many people want it now?
Erhart: Well that 's not the issue . I 'm just trying to get some things in II
the Minutes here Ray and we 're not going to decide that here . So anyway ,
those are my comments. Is there any other discussion?
Emmings: Yeah . I have one other question . Bill , I think last time , 1
didn 't you engineer Timberwood? Didn't you present Timberwood to us?
Bill Engelhardt: Timberwood Estates , yes. '
Emmings: I 'm just wondering if you 're going to come and help us when we
have to face all those folks in the hearings on the Comprehensive Plan .
Bill Engelhardt: As far as sewer goes?
Emmings: No .
Ellson: Development around it.
Emmings: A whole bunch of other issues. I think that was the last time I
saw you was on Timberwood and it kind of scares me when I see you now for
some reason . I
Bill Engelhardt: At that time there were no plans for anything around
there . '
Erhart: Okay, if there aren't any more comments, I 'll entertain a motion.
Emmings: I 'm going to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval'
of Preliminary Plat #90-10 for Lake Riley Hills as shown on the plans dated
September 4 , 1990 with a variance to permit a 240 foot offset between the
intersection of South Road and Lyman Boulevard with the conditions as set II
forth in the staff report changing to 15 so that we 've got Lot 1 , Block 5 .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 39
Adding 16 which
will state that approval is conditioned upon compliance
' with all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit . Adding a 17th
condition that says that the applicant should look into the feasibility of
turn lanes and turn lanes should be added if the City staff feels that it 's
appropriate and necessary for safety to get people in and out of that new
' subdivision . Adding an 18th condition that would say that Outlot A in
Block 3 shall be under ownership of adjoining properties in some manner .
However the developer wants to divide it up. Adding a 19th condition that
' plans shall be drawn and submitted to the staff for approval to get a berm
and screening along Lyman Boulevard and between Block 1 , Lot 1 and Lots 1
and 2 in Block 3.
Erhart: Is there a second?
Wildermuth: Second.
' Erhart : Any discussion?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat #90-10 for Lake Riley Hills as shown on the
plans dated September 4, 1990 with a variance to permit a 240 foot offset
between the intersection of South Road and Lyman Boulevard with the
' following conditions:
1 . Revise the preliminary plat to provide for the following:
a . Lot 5 , Block 4 shall have a depth of at least 125 feet .
b . Lot 10 , Block 1 shall have four sides .
c . Lots 11 and 12 , Block 1 shall have lot frontages of 90 feet .
' d . Lot 5 , Block 4 shall have a lot depth of 125 feet .
2 . The right-of-way dimensions for North Road and West Road shall be 60
feet in width and the right-of-way dimensions for the cul-de-sac shall
be a 60 foot radius . The applicant shall grant a 60 foot wide
right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard along the southern border of the plat
and a 120 foot wide right-of-way along Lake Riley Boulevard . The
temporary cul-de-sacs on North Road shall be barricaded and signed
designating them to be temporary in lieu of future road extensions and
will be provided with easements over the cul-de-sacs beyond the
dedicated right-of-way.
3 . The applicant shall remove the gravel road bisecting the Class A
1 wetland into 2 wetland areas coordinated with City staff , Department of
Natural Resources , Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service.
4 . Final plat approval will not be granted until the applicant has
' submitted the letter of credit for the feasibility study to be
perforthed and not until the findings of the feasibility study are known
and the City Council takes appropriate action to provide municipal
water service to the site .
Planning Commission Meeting "
October 3, 1990 - Page 40
S . The applicant shall submit flow calculations for the sanitary sewer
system to verify pipe capacity and minimum score velocities through all
the sewer segments within the proposed subdivision.
_ S . The applicant shall provide the following easements:
a . Easement over the temporary cul-de-sacs. "
b . Easements over all sanitary and storm sewer extensions .
c . Easements over detention ponds.
d . Standard drainage and utility easements .
e . Dedication of all right-of-ways.
The applicant 's engineer shall review the total capacity of the ponding"
basins needed to meet the predicted retaining requirements and
verification that the proposed ponding areas can be accessed for city
maintenance. Provide existing drainage facility information to and
from the site ( specifically , the culvert under Lyman Boulevard ) . The II
storm drainage plan shall be modified to incorporate runoff from the
westerly temporary cul-de-sac on North Road.
7 . !_c.ts 30-35 , Block 3 and Lot 4-8 , Block 3 shall be provided with special"
slope stabilization methods such as wood fiber blankets and Type
III erosion control . Type III erosion control shall be provided over
the entire area bordering the wetland and along the north side of North"
Road . Wood fiber blankets shall be required as slope stabilization for
all of the rear lots bordering the wetland area and on all the areas
where the slopes are 3: 1 or greater . Silt fence erosion control shall II
be installed around any and all proposed detention ponds on the project
and the entire site shall be seeded and mulched immediately following
completion of the grading operation .
8 . The applicant shall provide current planned right-of-way grade and
elevation information for the future Trunk Highway 212 Improvements for
the segment of roadway through this subdivision. Noise abatement "
measures such as earth berming shall be shown on the plan along the
southern border of the Hwy. 212 corridor .
9 . The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan with detailed I
information on the size and type of trees being removed and with a
landscaped plan provided for the replacement of over 4 caliper inch
being removed .
[0. The applicant shall receive Watershed District, Pollution Control
Agency and Health Department and any other applicable agencies or
permits.
11 The applicant 's engineer shall make the necessary changes as outlined
on the plan sheets reviewed by the Asst . City Engineer dated September
24 , 1990 and submitted back to the applicant for the proper changes .
12 . The applicant shall provide a registered engineer 's report on soils ,
footings and structural design and certification of a registered
engineer verifying that the grading and drainage has been constructed
according to the approved plans prior to the issuance of building
permits .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 41
' 13 . The applicant shall dedicate Lots 21-26 , Block 3 for parkland
dedication and shall construct a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along
the southern boulevard area of North Road and along the eastern
boulevard area of West Road.
.:4 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and
provide the necessary financial securities associated with the project .
15 . Lot 1 , Block 5 shall be designated as an outlot and unbuildable .
16 . Approval is conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of the
Wetland Alteration Permit .
.'.7 . The applicant should look into the feasibility of turn lanes and turn
lanes should be added if the City staff feels it 's appropriate and
necessary for safety to get people in and out of that new subdivision.
18 . Outlot A in Block 3 shall be under ownership of adjoining properties .
19. Plans shall be drawn and submitted to the staff for approval to get a
berm and screening along Lyman Boulevard and between Block 1 , Lot 1 and
' Lots 1 and 2 in Block 3.
All voted in favor except Tim Erhart who opposed and the motion carried
' with a vote of 4 to 1 .
Erhart: I oppose it on the basis that I don't believe that even though I .
like the plan , I don 't believe that we 've done adequate assurances that
services , both the transportation and sewer are adequate to see this as a
ocsitive development .
E• mings: I 'd like to ask a question to follow up on what he just said .
We 're doing a preliminary plat here . Before this is a done deal you 've got
a feasibility study to do and you 've got to do , there has to be final plat
' aPProval also by the City Council and now if deficiencies were found in the
feasibility study.
' Krauss: They would be addressed prior to final plat approval .
Emmings: See there 's another plat of this . Just want to be sure .
' Erhart: Okay , now we have to deal with the wetland alteration permit. Is
there any discussion on that from the Planning Commission members? If not .
would someone make a motion to deal with the wetland alteration?
' Wildermuth: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the Wetland Alteration Permit for Lake Riley Hills Subdivision as shown on
plans dated September 4 , 1990 with the following conditions 1 thru 3 and
Iadding condition 4 . Steve, what were those words?
Emmings: It would just be conditioned upon compliance with all conditions
' of the preliminary plat approval .
Wildermuth: Those words.
1
Planning Commission Meeting I
October 3, 1990 - Page 42
Erhart: Okay , is there a second?
Ellson: Second. ,
Wildermuth moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for Lake Riley Hills Subdivision as
shown on plans dated Se with the following conditions: I
1 . The applicant shall provide a drainage , utility and a conservation
easement over Outlot C and the proposed ponding areas and the 866
contour shall be the edge of the protected wetland .
2 . Any surveys for lots adjacent to the Class A wetland will provide the
866 elevation with verification that the home and any further
improvements such as porches or decks will maintain the 75 foot setback
from the 866 contour .
3 . A development contract will be recorded against the property and will
protect both the Class A wetland and the ponding areas adjacent to the
wetland with a conservation easement and not allow any alteration to II
these areas .
4 . This approval is conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of
Preliminary Plat #90-10 .
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A 4.260 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING II BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 7870 PARK DRIVE. INDUSTRIAL
INFORMATION CONTROLS.
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman '
Erhart called the public hearing to order .
Erhart: Is the developer here, the building owner? Okay, do you have all
the conditions? Have you seen all the conditions?
Tom Ryan: Can I speak to a couple of them?
Erhart: Alright . Go ahead .
Tom Ryan: My name is Tom Ryan and I represent R.J. Ryan Construction, the II
general contractor for the building. There's two issues that we 'd like to ,
a couple issues we 'd like to address. The first regards the drainage
problem which exists with the neighbor to the north. We feel it 's
important that we go on record as stating that Industrial Information
Controls and R .J . Ryan Construction did not cause the drainage problem
which exists. The drainage problem which exists is a result of the failure "
of the previous engineering staff of the City of Chanhassen as well as the
contractor for the Component Engineering building which allowed the water
to run up against our property. In the interest of solving the problem we
agreed with Component Engineering and the City staff that's presently in 11
place that because we have a lot of excess material , we would provide the
1
CITYOF
1 011ANIIASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
T0: Jo Ann Olson, Senior Planner
FROM: Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer
DATE: February 19, 1991
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Lake Riley Hills Subdivision
' Land Use Review File No. 90-27
I would like to offer the following recarmended conditions for plat approval:
I1. Final plat approval will not be granted until the findings of the
feasibility study being prepared by OSM Inc., are known and the
City Council takes appropriate action to provide municipal water
and sewer service to the site.
2. The developer shall provide current planned right-of-way grade and
' elevation information for the future Trunk Highway 212 improvements
for the segment of roadway through the subdivision. Noise
abatement measures such as earth berming shall be shown on the plan
along the southern border of the Highway 212 corridor.
1 3. The developer shall submit plans and specifications for the street
and utility improvements for City Council approval. In addition
' supplementary information such as flow calculations for the
sanitary sewer and storm sewer sesements verifying pipe capacity
shall also be submitted. Temporary cul-de-sacs on North Road shall
be barricaded and signed designating them to be temporary in lieu
of future road extensions.
4. The developer shall provide the following easements:
a) Easements over the temporary cul-de-sacs.
b) Easements over all sanitary and storm sewer extensions.
outside of dedicated right-of-way.
c) Easements over the detention ponds and the corresponding
maintenance accesses.
d) Standard drainage and utility easements.
e) Dedication of all right-of-ways.
. The developers engineer shall review the total capacity of the
ponding basin needed to meet the predicted retainage requirements
' and verify that the proposed ponding area can be accessed for City
maintenance.
Jo Ann Olson, Senior Planner
February 19, 1991
Page 2 ,
5. Wood fiber blankets will be required for slope stabilization on all
rear lots bordering the wetland area and on all areas where slopes
are 3 to 1 or greater. Type III erosion control shall be installed
around the wetland and all proposed detention ponds on the project.
The entire site shall be seeded and mulched immediately
following completion of the grading operation.
6. The developer shall provide a registered engineer's report on soil,
footings and structural design and certification verifying that the
grading and drainage has been constructed according to the approved
plans prior to the issuance of building permits.
7. The developer shall work with staff on refining the south road
cul-de-sac location and configuration in an effort to improve the
buildability of the adjacent lots. The developer shall also
prepare plans for City approval and construct safety improvements
on Lyman Boulevard at the intersection with West Road. The
improvements to Lyman Boulevard will involve a right turn lane for
• west bound traffic and a by-pass lane for east bound traffic. The
developer shall construct a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along the
southern boulevard area on North Road and along eastern boulevard
area of West Road.
8. The developer shall receive Watershed District, Pollution Control
Agency, Health Department and any other applicable agency permits. I
9. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract with the
City and provide the necessary financial securities associated with
the project.
lap
c: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Paul Krauss, City Planner
Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
John Klinglehutz
Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt & Associates
Attachment: 1. Memo dated September 25, 1990 '
I
1
I - CITYOF
_...._
„.....,..„
II . ,. .
4. ,_,--,
,„,„ . '-._ •-a+,-
I690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317
' s, - - (612) 937-1900 • FAX(612) 937-5739
1 MEMORANDUM
ITO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer 4
DATE: September 25 , 1990
II SUBJ: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for
Lake Riley Hills Subdivision
File No. 90-27 Land Use Review
IThis site encompasses a total of 78.24 acres of land north of
Lyman Boulevard in the west half of the northeast quarter of
1 Section 24 . This parcel of land is characterized by a rolling
terrain , randomly spersed stands of trees and a large wetland _
area located in the southeast corner. ' The present use of this
land is agricultural with field grasses and some row crops.
IThe current zoning for this parcel is nixed low-density
_ residential and single-family. The proposed zoning would be a
I composite of single-family residential for the southern
two-thirds of the property and high-density residential for the
northern one-third. A large strip of land located through the
I northern half of the site has been designated as a corridor for
the future Trunk Highway 212 improvement project. The
preliminary plat submitted proposes to plat the southern
two-thirds of the site as residential single-family lots with
II the northern portion, in and around the Trunk Highway 212
corridor, being platted as an antipt x -
f:r I Grading `
The plan submitted proposes- to''gradlr e-"koiithern two-thirds of
II the site. The grading scheme is proposed to be similar to that
existing which drains primarilyoutheast into the wetland area.
The steepest resulting slopes will be found on the rear yard
areas of the lots surrounding the wetland area. Special slope
stabilization methods such as wood-fiber blankets and Type III
erosion control will be required in these areas.
1 .
I .
II
•
Jo Ann Olsen I
September 25, 1990 •
Page 2
In reviewing the grading plan, one major area of concern has
arisen. This concern relates to the interfacing of this .
development with the proposed future Trunk Highway 212 highway
improvement. The applicant was requested to obtain and provide
information from MnDOT detailing the current right-of-way and
plan elevations for this corresponding segment of future roadway.
This information has not been submitted to date; however, some
slope grading is shown on the plan. Staff stresses the need for
the applicant to submit the requested information on the future
Trunk Highway 212 project to verify the compatibility of these
two projects related to right-of-way, grades and elevations.-
Staff recommends that the applicant also provide some sort of
noise abatement measures such as earth berming immediately south
of the proposed Trunk Highway 212 alignment.
• The property lying north of the Trunk Highway 212 corridor, as 1
mentioned previously, will be platted as an outlot and proposed
for future high-density residential zoning. No grading is
proposed in this area at this time. A complete site plan review
of this area will be made when a future proposal is submitted.
Drainage _
As mentioned previously, the majority of the existin g site and
the proposed site drains southeast into the wetland area. A
preliminary storm sewer plan has been submitted for this
subdivision. A review has been made and the corresponding detail
comments and corrections have been outlined on a plan set to be
returned to the applicant's engineer for revisions. Storm sewer
calculations and runoff rate requirements have also been
submitted for review. The applicant will also need to submit
these grading plans and drainage information to the Watershed
District for review and approval.
Detention ponds are proposed to be constructed in an effort to
maintain the predeveloped runoff rate for the site. From
preliminary review, staff is requesting the applicant's engineer
to review the total capacity of these ponding basins needed to
meet the predicted retainage requirements. Another very
important area of concern related to the detention ponds involves
acquiring access to these ponds and their corresponding outlet
structures for maintenance purposes. Staff recommends that the
applicant provide a plan showing designated access points to
these ponding basin areas. •
Staff also requests that the applicant provide information on
existing drainage facilities such as culverts to and from the
site. Specifically, the culvert under Lyman Boulevard which will
intersect with the South Road cul-de-sac and the outlet culvert
for the wetland area under Lake Riley Road.
•
•
1
•
Jo Ann Olsen
September 25, 1990
Page 4
•
' Staff would also like to note that the intersection of South Road
and West Road will have to be shifted approximately 60 feet to
the north. The centerline for South Road is located
l approximately 240 feet north of Lyman Boulevard. City Ordinance
requires that the minimum centerline offset distance between
intersections be 300 feet.
Initially, the only access to the site will be via Lyman
Boulevard. When future development occurs around this site, it
is anticipated that North Road will be extended both to the east
' and to the west and provide additional access points to this
subdivision. As mentioned previously, temporary cul-de-sacs will
be installed at the current limits to North Road. Staff also
recommends that barricades be installed at the ends of these
cul-de-sacs and that they be signed designating them to be
temporary pending future road extensions.
The portion of the property north of the Trunk Highway 212
corridor to be platted at this time as an outlot will have future
access from Tigua Lane.
There currently exists a private driveway along the easterly
boundary of this subdivision which services a farmhouse located
in the northeast corner of the site. This driveway was
constructed via a dike which bisects the wetland area. It is
anticipated that the proposed Trunk Highway 212 improvement will
require the removal of this farmhouse. In an effort to reunite
the two wetland areas on either side of this private driveway,
staff is recommending that the applicant pursue the possibility
of removing this driveway and dike barrier by contacting and
coordinating with the Department of Natural Resources. A
temporary access to this farmhouse could be acquired along the
property line between Lot 14 and Lot 13 of Block 2 until such
' time that the Trunk Highway 212 improvement project removes these
structures.
Utilities
A review has been made of the sanitary sewer and watermain plans
submitted in conjunction with the proposed subdivision. At the
present time, a feasibility study has been authorized by the City
Council, at the request of the applicant, . to determine the
feasibility of servicing this area with watermain and sanitary
I sewer. A condition of this authorization was for the applicant •
to submit to the City a $10,000 letter of credit or cash escrow
to guarantee payment of expenses associated with this study (see
attachment) .
This security has not been received to date and as a result the
study has not been initiated. Until the results of this study
are known, it will be inappropriate to make any final approval of
the subdivision proposal.
r -
•
i
Jo Ann Olsen
September 25 , 1990
Page 6
As mentioned previously, a-temporary driveway easement will need
to be acquired between Lots 13 and 14 of Block 2 in order to
provide a temporary access for the existing farmhouse.
Recommended Conditions r
tom• Further processing of this application cannot be made until
the findings of the feasibility study are known and the City
Council takes appropriate action to provide municipal water
service to the site.
v2. The applicant shall provide current plan right-of-way, grade
and elevation information for the future Trunk Highway 212
improvement for the segment of roadway through this
subdivision. ./Noise abatement measures such as earth berming
shall be shown on the plan along the southern _border of the
corridor.
3. The applicant shall provide existing drainage facility
� information to and from the site (specifically the culvert
under Lyman Boulevard) .
II
•
..40,,eir. The applicant's engineer shall verify the capacity of the
proposed detention ponds and shall provide adequate access to
,�� these ponds for maintenance purposes.
N S. The storm drainage plan shall be modified to incorporate the
runoff from the westerly temporary cul-de-sac on North Road.
fie. The applicant shall submit these plans to the Watershed
District, PCA and Health Department for review and approval.
/7 . The applicant's engineer shall make the
v' ' necessary ry cha rages as
outlined on the remitted •plan sheets reviewed dated September
24 , 1990. '
4'8. The applicant shall provide a registered engineer's report on
�%� soils , footings and structural design and certification of a
registered engineer verifying that the grading and drainage
has been constructed according to the approved plans prior to
the issuance of building permits.
Wood fiber blankets and Type III erosion control will be
required for slope stabilization of all the rear lots
bordering the wetland area and on all other areas where '
slopes are 3:1 or greater.
•
40. The right-of-way dimension for North Road and West Road shall
be 60 feet in width and the right-of-way dimension for the
cul-de-sacs shall be a 60-foot radius.
r
CITYOF
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1 MEMORANDUM •
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator
' DATE: February 19 , 1991
SUBJ: Park and Trail Dedication and Fees - Lake Riley Hills,
Planning Case 90-10 SUB
This proposed subdivision was reviewed by the Park and Recreation
Commission on August 21 and September 25, 1990. A recommendation
was made to the City Council on September 25 in relation to park
and trail dedication and fees. Action taken that evening remains
valid; however, changes to the preliminary plat require an
adjustment in the park fees.
The preliminary plat dated January, 1991 designates Outlot B as
parkland which closely corresponds with the Commisssion's
request. However, the reduction in size of the area requested
1 for park requires an increase in recommended park fees for this
subdivision. Outlot B represents 75% of the total parkland
required of this subdivision. Therefore, the remaining 25%, or
$125. 00 per lot, will be charged at the time of building permit
applications.
The remainder of the September 25, 1990 recommendation remains
essentially unchanged. As part of the park dedication, the
applicant will prepare the site according to a grading plan provided
by the City. The applicant will construct a 5 foot wide concrete
sidewalk along North Road and West Road in lieu of trail dedica-
tion fees. it is important to note that these requirements
pertain only to the 78.32 acres proposed for development at this
time.
As previously discussed, the changes in park and trail requirements
outlined in this memo are subject to the approval of the Park and
Recreation Commission. The Commission will review this amendment
at their February 26 , 1991 meeting.
1
K( 01i
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
" " ' A ^ " 600 EAST 4TH STREET
(612)448-1213
t `fi` / CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318
vt-
COUNTY OF CAIWEQ
December 21, 1990
1
Owen M. Carlson
•
William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc.
1107 Hazeltine Boulevard
Chaska, Minnesota 55318
Re: Lake Riley Hills Preliminary Plat
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Owens:
Your transmittal dated December 12, 1990, of the preliminary plat I
for Lake Riley Hills has been received. Initial comments are:
1. Carver County has no jurisdictional responsibility for the 1
roads abutting this preliminary plat. However, the recently
completed Eastern Carver County Comprehensive Transportation
Planning Study does assign the functional classification of
"minor arterial" to the segment of Lyman Boulevard located
along the south limits of the proposed plat. If this
functional assignment is accepted by both Carver County and
the City of Chanhassen at some future date, it is conceivable
that the road could become a county highway. I believe this
is why the city asked you to send me a copy of this preliminary
plat.
2. The 120 foot wide corridor being proposed for Lyman Boulevard
has my support. The alignment of this corridor appears
reasonable. The proposed curve will meet Mn/DOT rural
design specifications for 45 mph if the road is constructed
with a 6% superelevation. This same curve will exceed the
urban design specifications for 40 mph even if constructed
with normal crown. The proposed alignment appears to
provide adequate flexibility for future design considerations.
3. If the South Road cul-de-sac is to be constructed as proposed,
serious consideration should be given to creating a buffer
between the cul-de-sac and Lyman Boulevard. Every attempt
should be made to minimize potential day and night
confusion between motorists driving on these two roadways.
Head lights at night are a particular concern.
4. If a new Lyman Boulevard is not to be constructed in
II
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
1 12-21-90 Letter
Owen M. Carlson
conjunction with the platting of this property, it appears
that Block 5 may have to be platted as an outlot with the
existing roadway corridor retained across both this outlot
' and Outlot D. I would presume the city would want to retain
the present roadway corridor until the construction of a
new roadway was completed.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a few initial comments
• about this preliminary plat. If you have any questions about the
contents of this letter, please contact me at your convenience.
Sin ly,
ástafon, p.E.
County Enginee
cc: Gary Warren, Chanhassen City Engineer
•
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
w•- fr MUM crime I renspor<
n ° Metropolitan District
5 = Transportation Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
OF TFte Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55
, y 55128
Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Reply to Golden Valley Office
Telephone No. 59 3 - 8 53 7 1
October 29, 1990
Mr. Paul Krauss, A.I.C.P.
Director of Planning
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
RE: S. P. 1017-07 T.H. 212 '
Development by John Klingelhutz
Proposed Lake Riley Hills
Noise Analysis
Dear Paul:
The above referenced plat was reviewed by Mn/DOT and comments were I
sent to the City on August 31, 1990. Our main concern with the
plat was how noise from future T.H. 212 might impact the proposed
development.
In September, I had HNTB study the plat in regard to noise impacts
from future T.H. 212. I have attached a copy of the results of
that study for your information. It should be noted it is not
practicable to construct noise walls in excess of 25 ft in height.
Also, as stated in the plat review, it is Mn/DOT's policy that we
will NOT provide noise abatement for new development adjacent to
the T.H. 212 corridor that has been officially mapped. Every
effort should be made in the design of the proposed development to
make it compatible with the future highway.
If you have any questions in regard to this matter - please feel
free to call me. I
Sincerely, I
Evan R. Green I
Project Manager
cc: J.Povich
C.Robinson
R.Dalton
M.Spielmann
_ RECEIVED
Pi? ���- NOV 01 1990
�%`rMINNESOTA 1 .0/
1990 CITY OF CHANHASSEti
An Equal Opportunity Employer
1
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF (—Iir1 h-a,Z i•
•
HNTBARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS 4rc7+ueSouth
• .Suite 260
I tlinne�Z/ iS,
September 7, 1990 tlinnesotu
is„�
(612) 920-1666
Mr. Evan Green
Mn/DOT - Golden Valley Office
2055 North Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
RE: Noise Analysis at Proposed Lake Riley Hills
Development by John Klingelhutz
' Dear Mr. Green:
- ' We have analyzed the affect of highway noise in the vicinity of a proposed development
which would border on the south right-of-way line for T.H. 212 from Station 1180+00 to
Station 1193+00. We note the developer shows a break in the alignment at Station 1188
while our layouts show a continuous tangent. The development also appears to encroach
on the official map boundaries. This section of the highway will be in a cut about 10 feet
below the proposed back yards of the first row of homes south of the right-of-way. Five
1 receptor sites were picked along the back side of the homes about 250 feet from the
centerline of the T.H. 212 eastbound lanes. With no noise abatement, noise levels at these
homes will be about 68-70 DBA during the day and 65 to 68 DBA during the 0600-0700
' night time hour. The remaining seven receptors were within MPCA daytime standards. All
receptors even as much as 800 feet away from the centerline had night time noise levels
exceeding the standards.
' Other than a moving the development further south, two alternatives for noise abatement
were investigated. One alternate provides all the abatement features along the north
boundary with no extension east or west. This has the problem of exposing the homes
bordering the east or west boundary to more noise, thus requiring substantially higher walls
along the ends. Alternate two would extend abatement features beyond the boundaries east-
west for about 500 feet on each end. This would be done along the Mn/DOT right-of-way
line.
For daytime noise levels the alternate 1 boundary wall would need to be 14 to 18 feet high
along most of its length and 26 to 34 feet high along the west 400 feet. For night time noise
1 levels, a 35 foot wall was used the entire boundary length. This still left homes along the
eastern and western border exposed to noise levels of 56-63 DBA, above the 55 DBA night
standard. (401 r ect //rig c -Iry Gt. o A 14 2 S t 10,0
•
' P__s - e ts. a es 9- _oe_- -e .1 S'D•pa P.-C^ n Cct:e^Pc G.a'•!.s Y._a PE Pla0. t S CC-+.PC.^aTa.o A C_o•es Pc.w.y-Lc.e GA.A
Pc _• rePE.••.. n e Sc^ PE.C C Oc_e^a^a A. S en ... PE.e•. •^e^•e. Pe,Stnn.- S 0ceea^c CE.
A••o...t.a P -^_ E nE^Ca T LCCO•^=PA Pogrts w S.'t^enn CE. 5e-t:esa PE Ga'en E PC0,.on PE.C.: P =C_nt.P£.Sta^cv Magt PE
___ ..• A a=_.'..a:ec E. a C _._a-+as C P_sae PE.P . - A.A.e .-La^'-P- :naa w Aa^a^s A.A.- ..ero•-.B.:e^P£.Oa. e V Ca•^a^e CE.
I M-=_e =c v-'aa ` Pe--a c- Po•.ce CE.S:eane^C 0..nn PC.Se�eA~.egeca CE. a 'V•e^GA,A Oc--rag Cc.^re PE.Ca^.,;Me....PE Oa^.e G 3ei`ar PE
A.0-a'C ^ eC P Ke.:n CE.Oc..B:as£ P^eg:C::PE.Penao• .+a-:e c t w L..sca'.0 P -^a^aa L w.•g-s A;A .':e.na c ••CE
K_c.a G'E.Pcc-e.P e c PE.Ste e V Frss AlA,Pcce-:A _ PE.O•e Sac.aPE.Be t0 %I^A w^a•er Pe PCCer S A_s:^PE.jo^.n;e-c:-era PE.
o••ie••A..a^c^a .A Ate-to CA.A.,a:.^TX.Soto^Po....._L Scsto^MA O_ner.estc■N',C^.c•gc 4.C e..e a^a.0••0.es.'S.Oen..^=O v..rne•c t..:. • a C-
^- .: -• '-.0 a^e=C S. \ -v e.CA.Kr..s C•tr.MO.Le•rpt:.^ K`� _la.n;5Cn.V.A.�a A^pe a*.5A,M.n-..-GL.M•..a..... w' V.^nea D..g.MN.%* "_ • N V
.. r_. ._v.! +-a Pa-n KS On..oe.0^••e.Pa P^oe^a.AZ.Pa.r^.C.Scary.*A.Ta•^:a.GL.r_...OK.W.'.^ngta^::E
September 7, 1990
Mr. Evan Green
Page 2
On alternate 2 an extended wall 14 to 16 feet high would control daytime noise levels. I
However, an extended wall 35 feet high is necessary to control night time levels.
This residential development is difficult to shield because of its location on a hill generally I
at or above much of the surrounding area. The developer could pull the row of houses
nearest the highway to the south to help daytime noise, but, night time noise level would
still be exceeded.
An important consideration in determining protection needed is the noise from traffic
generated in the development. The noise generated by traffic in the development should
not exceed the night standard when added to noise existing from the highway.. For example,
if the developer provides shielding to hold night time (0600-0700) noise levels to 53 DBA
from the highway, the additional local traffic could produce 51 DBA: The additive effect
would be 55 DBA. Given the location in the metro area, significant night time traffic is
generated from these developments. Much of the traffic generated exits on one or two
collector streets so that homes near the lower end will receive significant noise from local
traffic.
On review of this development and the number of residences proposed, I estimate local
night time noise levels to be 51 to 52 DBA at homes along West Road from the center of
the area to Lyman Boulevard. Consequently, shielding along the north border should
reduce noise levels along the West Road homes to below 53 DBA from highway
contribution. This can, be done most effectively if the developer were to extend shielding
westward from his northwest corner about 500 feet along the future Mn/DOT right-of-way 11.
or map line.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or Hai Nguyen. I
Sincerely, -
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF
qaa/mu
mew
mes C. Knutson, P.E. I
JCK/mst
I
Iravc;,•c -IcK
I
I
..y..-.,• •.
t J pc /,•//..•..,,1',1,.Q) Z f \ ' 1 icy/' - 1
. 00,- \:i\.‘\._____-_1////r'' -" \ ,----:.--// .:-___-_- ____/_--.F.-;--------'--.- ' '. (7.t.---''.----`---., \, ',...‘__________-----..\ 0_, -J meD ------'r- '- c ± = ;a::1,� - `1 `, 1 I .(,/ '1 iK' ',t1 '1 t i' t i ii 1;c;��'
v' pq1} \� l*�'\ pp +,1\& I°fi��::-=�-�',. �J,- i. �- _/ - r,<.^ -! rte'`' / , ' _ _�'i '. �� �U,"_ '�s.,\ I X o tt r w� \ °eb•9 "ns�' .'"111,, / \i y_`_''/ ,''
---�.��1 `� , 114''��"-% �� 1 =