Preliminary Plat to subdivide south of Tigua Lane, Lake Riley Hills PC DATE: 10/3/900 6
� -1 . CC DATE: 10/22/9
. HCAiriAg
EN
CASE #: 90-10 SUB
By: Olsen/v
II.
I T
S AF'F REPORT
il
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 78 Acres into 75 Single
11 Family Lots and Wetland Alteration Permit to Develop
Within 200 Feet of a Class A Wetland and to Create
Retention Ponds Adjacent to a Class A Wetland
Iz .
Q LOCATION: Northwest corner of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley
V Boulevard
I n
a APPLICANT: John Klingelhutz Bill Engelhardt
II350 E. Hwy. 212 Engelhardt & Associates
Q , Chaska, MN 55318 1107 Hazeltine Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
I
I
1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family/R4, Mixed Low
Density
ACREAGE: 78 acres (gross) 34 acres (net)
IDENSITY: .96 unit/acre (gross) 2.2 u/a (net)
I ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF; single family
Q S - RSF; vacant
IE - R-12; Lakeview Apartments
QW - RSF; single family
WATER AND SEWER: Within MUSA. Water and sewer will have to
1 W be extended through a new watermain.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site is currently vacant except for one
I (f) single family residence. It contains a
large Class A wetland and some areas of
vegetation. The majority of the site is
Ifarmed.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
1
I
r
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
SiNNEM
IRCLE
Ne mu
I 111111 4, LAKE SUSAN N ) 811 czN
J
I \:, /, -
�. •
•
RICE Al A
11,1 \riait„
, ,....
�___ _LI X1111. II Pi P. .t� ;- -
0 emit
I i�ftatA�gm SERVICE
��t.111.1111 .1.nia
011111 AREA � -
I a
i — . «
. / BOULEVARD
trJ
AM 1
(C.R. 181 .. /�,.. .,
.... ...`7"....ji
zo- ;,.mss,
(
►igj, LAKE
I iii4� ig,
w,9 it I, .. R/LEY >.
Ii•-• Z IP), Illt: am (...._
1 1 ;ri- -4041tibp„ - -----.„_;_,‘\
Pave CJ
I 1 2
F -- T_ TR .o ., . W
'. 2k _ .. . .
--- _
11111 e F^Kp +
RI A
•
I
•
Lake Riley Hills I
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
Page 2 ,
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to create 75 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. is
applying for preliminary plat approval and a wetland alteration
permit to allow development within 200 feet of a Class A wetland.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 78 acres into 75 single 1
family lots. The 78 acres contains 34 acres which will contain the
75 single family lots, 23 acres of outlots and 20 acres of street
right-of-way. The outlots are as follows: 1
Outlot A 23, 339 square feet and is a remnant piece with
a large - drainage ditch going through it
located between what is shown as South Road
and Lyman Boulevard.
Outlot B 21,254 square feet and will be used as a
drainageway directing drainage into the Class
A wetland and is located at the end and north
of the South Road cul-de-sac. 1
Outlot C 410, 659 square feet and contains the Class A
wetland located at the southeastern section of
the property.
Outlot D 564,249 square feet and contains the Hwy. 212
right-of-way and remaining property to the
north of Hwy. 212.
The street right-of-ways proposed for the plat contain the internal
streets as part of the subdivision, proposed Hwy. 212, Lake Riley
Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. The single family lots are divided
into 5 blocks. The net density of the proposed subdivision is 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 38,976 square feet with an average lot size of 19,969
square feet. ,
The subdivision has gone through several revisions to meet the
Zoning Ordinance requirements and to accommodate the Class A
wetland. 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 it's
natural state.
I
I
1
1 Lake Riley Hills
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
' Page 3
As part of the preliminary plat, the Park and Recreation Commission
' is recommending dedication of Lots 21-26, Block 3, for park land
and staff is recommending additional right-of-way along the North
Road, West Road, Lake Riley and Lyman Boulevard. As a result of
the additional right-of-way along Lake Riley and Lyman Boulevard,
most likely the 3 lots between South Road and Lyman Boulevard will
be lost and Lot 1, Block 5 will become unbuildable with less than
50 feet of lot depth.
' The Subdivision Ordinance requires a 300 foot offset for any local
street from the intersection. To meet the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance, the South Road would have to be shifted
approximately 60 feet to the north to maintain the 300 foot offset.
With the addition of right-of-way on Lyman Boulevard and shifting
South Road to the north to meet the Subdivision Ordinance, there is
' a possibility that the applicant would also be losing lots north of
South Road and that 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
240 feet that is being provided will still provide enough safe
' access for vehicles entering and leaving the site.
The preliminary plat has several conditions of approval, with the
majority of the conditions are the basic conditions that apply to
all 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 being provided with internal streets for an
east/west future connection 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 50
feet of right-of-way. Staff is recommending that the right-of-way
' for the North Road and the West Road be increased to 60 feet as
they are anticipated to function as collector streets in the
future. This width will also facilitate the installation of a
sidewalk. The preliminary plat should note the right-of-way
dimensions of all streets. The right-of-way for the cul-de-sacs
are a 50 foot radius and the ordinance requires a 60 foot radius
for an urban cul-de-sac. The preliminary plat should be changed to
reflect this.
In comparing the proposed plat submitted with the County half-
sections, staff is unable to determine whether a 33 foot wide
I
t
Lake Riley Hills f
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
Page 4 1
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 street widths provided in the preliminary is shown to be a 32 ,
foot face curb to face curb. This is equivalent to the city
standard of a 35 foot back up curb to back up curb for an urban
collector street. This standard is applicable to the North Road
and West Road. The applicant should be advised that the Loop Road,
South Road and South Cul-de-sac may be reduced in width to a 31
foot back up curb to back up curb if so desired. The intersection
of South Road and West Road is located approximately 240 feet north
of Lyman Boulevard.
The ordinance requires that a minimum centerline offset distance of '
intersections be 300 feet. Therefore, the applicant will have to
shift the intersection of South Road and West Road approximately 60
feet or receive a variance. The location of the South Road
provides lots with adequate area for development without impacting
the wetland. As previously stated, the city will be requiring an
additional 27 feet along Lyman Boulevard to accommodate necessary
road improvements. As a result, the applicant will probably loose
3 lots between Lyman Boulevard and South Road. Most likely
shifting South Road further to the north, in addition to providing
additional right-of-way will result in the loss of more lots and
pushing other lots closer to the wetland. Since it will result in
a more closer impact to the wetland due to the proximity of the
homes and the street has an offset of 240 feet, staff would be in
favor of a variance and allow South Road an offset of at least 240
feet. The City Engineering Department has agreed to support this
alternative. '
Initially, the only access to the site will be from Lyman
Boulevard. When future development occurs around this site, it is
11
11
Lake Riley Hills
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
Page 5
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.
' 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 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 whole 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
' the subdivision.
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 a watermain and sanitary sewer. A condition of this
authorization was for the applicant to submit a $10,000 letter of
credit or cash escrow to guarantee payment of expenses associated
with the feasibility study. The security required has not yet been
received and as a result, the study has not been initiated. The
applicant does not want to submit a letter of credit or cash escrow
until the application has gone through the Planning Commission in
' case it is recommended for denial or results in such extensive
changes that the project is no longer feasible. Once it is clear
that the project will move ahead, the applicant will submit the
letter of credit for the feasibility study to be initiated and
1
I
Lake Riley Hills I
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
Page 6 '
understands that there will be no final plat approval until such a
feasibility study is completed and it is determined how the
watermain and sanitary sewer will be extended to the site.
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
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 30-35, Block 3,
and Lots 4-8, Block 3. Special slope stabilization methods such as
wood fiber blankets and Type III erosion control will be required
in these areas.
The applicant was requested to obtain and provide information from
MnDOT detailing the current plan elevations for the corresponding
segment of future roadway for the Hwy. 212 improvement. This
information has not been submitted, 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 related to grades and
elevations of these two projects. Staff recommends that the
applicant also provide some sort of noise abatement measures such
as earth berming immediately south of proposed T.H. 212 alignment.
Staff has received a letter from MnDOT stating that the
I
I
11 Lake Riley Hills
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
Page 7
improvements of Hwy. 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 and/or City.
' 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 at all. 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 fact intrude upon some of the existing wetland vegetation.
' 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 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.
11
I
Lake Riley Hills I
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
Page 8 I
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
over (other than species of shrub trees such as box elder) .
PARK AND RECREATION
On September 25, 1990, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed
the Lake Riley Hills project (Attachment #2) . The Park and
Recreation Commission recommended that Lots 21-26, Block 3 be
dedicated as parkland. As part of the dedication, the applicant
will reconfigure lot lines to allow for a contiguous southerly
border and prepare the site according to a grading plan provided by
the City. It was further recommended that the applicant construct
a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along North Road and West Road and
provide a 20 foot wide trail easement along Lake Riley Boulevard
and Lyman Boulevard. In return for these requirements, the
applicant will receive a $410 credit on park fees per unit and 100%
credit on trail fees. The remaining $90 of park fees per unit will
be collected as part of the building permit process. The Park and
Rec Commission also stated that the park and trail requirements
were for the parcel south of Hwy. 212 and that requirements for the
parcel north of Hwy. 212 will be reviewed at the time it is
.developed.
The Park and Rec Commission has not determined which side of the
street the sidewalk should be located and this will be determined
by the Engineering Department. Also, the requirement of a 20 foot
wide trail easement along Lake Riley Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard
will not be necessary if the additional right-of-way, as requested
by staff along both Lyman and Lake Riley Boulevard, is provided.
I
I
II Lake Riley Hills
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
I Page 9
The additional right-of-way requested by staff will also
Iaccommodate any trail improvements along the roads.
The following is a table of the lots and their compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance.
ICOMPLIANCE TABLE - LOT SIZES
II The following are lots which do not comply with the Zoning
Ordinance
AREA WIDTH DEPTH
IREQUIREMENTS (15, 000) (90' ) (125' )
BLOCK 1
Lot 11 26,840 89* 297
I BLOCK Lot 12 26,415 89* 297
4
Lot 5 16,841 147 113**
1 BLOCK 5
Lot 1 28,704 460 50**
* Lot must be adjusted to provide 90' of lot frontage at the lot
IIline
** Lot must be adjusted to provide 125' lot depth.
IILot 5, Block 4 only has a depth of 113 feet which does not meet the
ordinance requirements of a lot depth of 125 feet. The lot
I configuration in Block 4 must be adjusted to provide Lot 5, Block
4 with the required lot depth. Several of the lots do not have the
90 feet of street frontage at the lot line but these are located
along the outside of a curve and the ordinance allows for the 90
I feet width to be provided at the 90 foot setback. All of the lots
in question do meet the 90 feet at the 30 foot setback. Lot 10,
Block 1 is a triangular shaped lot and staff is recommending that
I this lot be reconfigured to provide four sides to prevent any
difficulty in meeting setbacks when the building permit is applied
for. Lot 1, Block 5, contains a 28,704 square foot lot located
U adjacent to Lake Riley. As will be covered in this report, future
improvements to Lake Riley Boulevard requires 27 feet of additional
right-of-way on both sides of the street. The additional 27 feet
taken from Lot 1, Block 5 essentially makes it an unbuildable lot
1 with less than a 50 foot depth. Therefore, Lot 1, Block 5 should
be designated as an outlot.
IWETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
The proposed subdivision contains a large Class A wetland located
in the southeast corner of the site. The wetland is of high
II
I
Lake Riley Hills I
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
Page 10 I
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 I
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. Lots 34 and 35, Block 3 and possibly Lot 36, Block
3 will not have adequate room for a house and a deck. 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 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
111
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. I
1
I
11 Lake Riley Hills
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
Page 11
RECOMMENDATION - PRELIMINARY PLAT
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion:
' "The Planning Commission recommends 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. 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
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.
I
I
Lake Riley Hills I
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
Page 12 '
6. The applicant shall provide the following easements:
a. Easement over the temporary cul-de-sacs. I
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 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 1
outlined on the plan sheets reviewed by the Asst. City
I
I
11
11 Lake Riley Hills
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
' Page 13
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.
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
.' On October 3, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the preliminary plat with staff's conditions and with the addition
of the following conditions:
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.
' All voted in favor except for Erhart who opposed the motion because
he did not believe that we have adequate assurances that services,
both the transportation and sewer are adequate to see this as a
positive development.
I
■
I
I
Lake Riley Hills I
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
Page 14 ,
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Preliminary Plat for Lake
Riley Hills Addition with staff's 15 conditions and the four
additional conditions from the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION - WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
In summary, the proposal will not be negatively impacting the Class I
A wetland located on the site, and in fact, if the existing dirt
driveway bisecting the wetland into 2 is removed, it will actually
ultimately improve the wetland. Therefore, staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of a wetland
alteration permit for Lake Riley Hills subdivision as shown on
plans dated September 4, 1990, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a drainage, utility and a
conservation easement over Outlot C and the proposed ponding
areas and that the 866 contour shall be the edge of the
protected wetland. I
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 these areas. " '
•
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On October 3, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of '
the wetland alteration permit with staff's conditions and added the
following condition:
4. The wetland alteration approval is conditioned upon compliance
with all conditions of the preliminary plat #90-10.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit
request for Lake Riley Hills Addition with staff's 3 conditions and
adding condition #4 as recommended by the Planning Commission.
I
I
1'
1 Lake Riley Hills
John Klingelhutz
October 3, 1990
' Page 15
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Charles Folch dated September 25, 1990.
2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated September 26, 1990.
3. Letter from DNR dated August 8, 1990.
4. Letter from MnDOT dated August 31, 1990.
5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated July 11, 1990.
6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 9, 1990.
7. Letter to Engelhardt and Associates dated August 17, 1990.
8. Application.
9. Planning Commission minutes dated October 3, 1990.
1
1
I
I
li
CITY of
i
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner
FROM: Charles Folch , Assistant City Engineer I
DATE: September 25 , 1990
II
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for
Lake Riley Hills Subdivision
File No. 90-27 Land Use Review
I
This site encompasses a total of 78. 24 acres of land north of II Lyman Boulevard in the west half of the northeast quarter of
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.
The current zoning for this parcel is mixed low-density II residential and single-family. The proposed zoning would be a
composite of single-family residential for the southern
two-thirds of the property and high-density residential for the II northern one-third. A large strip of land located through the
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
II
two-thirds of the site as residential single-family lots with
the northern portion, in and around the Trunk Highway 212
corridor , being platted as an outlot. I
Grading
The plan submitted proposes to grade the southern two-thirds of I
the site. The grading scheme is proposed to be similar to that
existing which drains primarily southeast into the wetland area.
The steepest resulting slopes will be found on the rear yard
I
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.
II
II
II
1
1 Jo Ann Olsen
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
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 existing 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.
I
I
Jo Ann Olsen
September 25 , 1990
Page 3
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 plan shows this cul-de-sac and the
adjacent westerly 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 through the rear lots of
Lots 10 through 14 of Block 1 .
Erosion Control '
The plans submitted display Type III erosion control over the
entire area bordering the wetland area. Staff is recommending
the addition of erosion control on the easterly end of the site
north of North Road and on the westerly end of the site north of
North Road. As mentioned previously, wood-fiber blankets will be I
required as a slope stabilization measure 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 re-seeded and mulched
immediately following the completion of the grading operation.
Streets
All of the streets within this proposed subdivision have a
right-of-way scale dimension of 50 feet. Staff recommends that
right-of-way for North Road and West Road be increased to 60 feet
as they are anticipated to function as collector streets in the
future. This width will also facilitate the installation of the
required sidewalk. The dimensions for all streets shall be noted
on the plat to confirm this . The right-of-way for the
cul-de-sacs scale to be approximately 50-foot radiuses . Staff
notes that the current radius of right-of-way for an urban
cul-de-sac is to be 60 feet and that the applicant shall make
this appropriate change. 1
A review of the street plan has been performed and corresponding
detail recommendations have been noted on plan set to be
returned to the applicant's engineer for revision. Street widths
on the plans are shown to be 32 feet face-of curb to
face-of-curb. This is equivalent to the City standard of 35 feet
back-of-curb to back-of-curb for an urban collector street.
While this standard is applicable to North Road and West Road,
the applicant should be advised that the Loop Road, South Road
and south cul-de-sac may be reduced in width to 31 feet
back-of-curb to back-of-curb.
I
I
11 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
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
' 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 .
I
I
Jo Ann Olsen
September 25 , 1990
Page 5
Staff recommends that the applicant's engineer submit the flow
calculations for the sanitary sewer system to verify pipe
capacity and minimum score velocities through all the sewer
segments within this proposed subdivision. Staff is also
recommending that the applicant 's engineer verify that the
existing lift station and 4-inch 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
through gravity sewer; however, the connection point for this
system will be in the vicinity of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley
Road immediately upstream from an existing lift station and
4-inch forcemain .
Sidewalk 1
The applicant will be required to install a 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along the boulevard area on the south side of the ,
proposed North Road and east side of West Road. The revised plan
submittal should include this information.
Easements '
All of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer extensions through the
lot areas of the site 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 pertinent easements . Staff also notes that the temporary
cul-de-sacs at both ends of North Road will 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 cul-de-sacs removed.
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. Its
characteristics rank it as a minor arterial, Class II which will
require a 120-foot right-of-way (60 feet on each side of
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 1
trail along Lyman Boulevard.
The aforementioned transportation study designated the segment
of Lake Riley Boulevard north of Lyman Boulevard as also 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.
1
I
11 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
1 provide a temporary access for the existing farmhouse.
Recommended Conditions
1 . 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.
2 . 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) .
' 4 . The applicant ' s engineer shall verify the capacity of the
proposed detention ponds and shall provide adequate access to
these ponds for maintenance purposes .
5 . The storm drainage plan shall be modified to incorporate the
runoff from the westerly temporary cul-de-sac on North Road.
6 . 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 necessary changes as
outlined on the remitted plan sheets reviewed dated September
24 , 1990 .
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.
9 . 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.
10 . 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.
I
I
Jo Ann Olsen
September 25 , 1990 1
Page 7
11 . The temporary cul-de-sacs on North Road shall be barricaded , I
and signed designating them to be temporary in lieu of future
road extensions .
12. 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. I
13 . The applicant shall contact the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources to investigate the possibility of removing
the private driveway dike along the eastern borderline of the
plat.
14 . The applicant shall construct sidewalk along the southern '
boulevard area of North Road and along the eastern boulevard
area of West Road.
15 . The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and i
utility easements for the proposed storm sewer, sanitary
sewer, detention pond and access areas within the plat.
16 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
the City and provide the necessary financial securities
associated with the project. I
ktm
Attachments
1 . Letter to John Klingelhutz dated August 9, 1990 .
2 . Excerpts from Eastern Carver County Transportation Study.
c: Gary Warren , City Engineer
Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician 1
1
I
1
1
I
C ITY OF
"1411 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-19000 FAX (612) 937-5739
1
' August 9, 1990
' Mr. John Klingelhutz
350 Highway 212 East
P.O. Box 89
Chaska , MN 55318
Re: Feasibility Study for Watermain Extension
Project No. 90-10
Dear Mr. Klingelhutz :
This letter is in follow-up to the City Council action of July
23 , 1990 wherein they accepted your request for a feasibility
study to evaluate watermain extension to your property located in
the northeast quarter of Section 24 near Lake Riley. The
feasibility study was also directed to evaluate the extension of
sanitary sewer service to this area. City Council conditioned
their approval upon receipt of a $10,000 letter of credit or cash
1 escrow from you to guarantee payment of the expenses associated
with this study.
In discussion with Mr. Bill Engelhardt, this has verbally been
communicated to you earlier but I thought I would document in
writing that this study will not be initiated until such time as
the City receives the financial security as required. I would
anticipate the study would take from four to six weeks to be
completed so you may want to factor this into your schedule.
1 If you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free to
call .
Sincerely,
• CITY OF n CHANHASSEN
. Warren, P.E.
Engineer
GGW:ktm
c: Engelhardt & Associates
ATTACHMENT� 1
♦.
.00"ows-
I
I-. :I "")11'''' I....1
811111111111•1•1•1111113111111°— • I •••. 0
I
- / ••.
' O
.} -. % I�. O
2300 °O 2700
O O' N O
I
() 7500 O
6 672 ••
O
r O/ �• N
O •
4200 % -
,� 4400/ •. O
' O
I
00/
o "/
n.•
o'
0
18200 5500 __ _6_000 c 0 .••�
•^ _a�'u•_a'•�=� ��a��27600 oT _ --�'�--`Y�5200 6500 5400 4��,, 47500
a•.• aaa�a.a I
Cu ooz 27400 O 30000 .�•� -1 �`. �Ia�lr•ma.
a' coo' •,�t�?960 �; b� v •�Np0
"lift 6p0
_ 2
7900 5300 960 0:
0 0 m
O O
C. •,,,, •
11400
co
11500 7 ^� •. `1O`.
1 t., I e ?.`•'•
I
....
il o ♦♦1 o
••••. .o o? 4 40 100
I 1 1 ••0190. oC 9400 '1�400 .•• �••....a.,
�•�•, 16600 15500 el �` `•�•
I t! I ArneO..a.a.•a..•a.aaaaa••
t I o: 's o= bYMAN giLVO
P° P r o:
I
m m 77 0 • O: OO..
f:
-'� 9 r m : g� tt.
O -a Z :
z ID .
r r > > T : : •a•
• 4
N
1
(Np r• r•
Dr • •
= - r y - : ..�
1
♦♦ :Ql OQ
13 " A o ,0000,p•.� naa••••,afa���6500un.u•n6500�� 3400 ,3'OO�p�o�..••��
Don D O C �•. ♦ �,,
0 2D < D o: ♦♦♦ •1001••.
Z m ,'9200 ■ •e -
I
T N m 0 p Imo ♦�� ' ° `w°e
oC yDm CZP�I �` C
m D _IZ Z S'
11
• ,
HD TT HMEN 2
I i
so > Z Zz �!.�-
m . -t •'
Ti
0
TABLE 5
URBAN ROADWAY ROW WIDTHS
Undivided Roadway Divided Roadway
Functional (20' Median)
Classification Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
IMinor Arterial
(Class I)
* 4-lanes 130' 150' 150' 180'
* 6-lanes 150' 180' 180' 200'
(Class II) •
* 2-lanes 100' 110' --- ---
I * 4-lanes 100' 120' 120' 150'
Collector
I (Class I)
* 2-lanes 80' 100' --- ---
* 4-lanes 100' 110' 120' 140'
I (Class II)
* 2-lanes 80' 100' --- ---
* 4-lanes 100' 110' 120' 140'
1
I TABLE 6
RURAL ROADWAY ROW WIDTHS
Undivided Roadway Divided Roadway
I Functional (20' Median)
Classification Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
I Minor Arterial
(Class I)
* 2-lanes 120' 150' --- ---
* ,,..,-z 140' 170' 170' 200'
I (Class II)
* -lanes --- ---
* 4- anes 140' 17 170' 200'
ICollector
(Class I)
I * 2-lanes 110' 120' --- ---
* 4-lanes 160' 190'
(Class II)
* 2-lanes 100' 110' --- ---
I * 4-lanes -- -- 150' ' 180'
I .
I 17
I
CITY OF
of-,#;41 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 1 47• CHANHASSEN, M INN ESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor
DATE: September 26 , 1990 1
SUBJ: Lake Riley Hills Project
Park and trail needs in the Lake Riley Hills Addition were
discussed at the September 25 , 1990 Park and Recreation Com-
mission meeting. Mr. John Klingelhutz , the applicant for this
plat, was present at this meeting. Upon conclusion of their
discussion the Commission took the following action.
Commissioner Mady moved, Commissioner Robinson seconded '
to require Lots 21, 22 , 23 , 24, 25 and 26, Block 3 , Parcel
2 be dedicated as park land. As part of the dedication,
the applicant will reconfigure lot lines to allow for a
contiguous southerly border and prepare the site according
to a grading plan provided by the City. It is further
recommended that the applicant construct a 5 ft. wide
concrete sidewalk along North Road and West Road and provide
a 20 ft. wide trail easement along Lake Riley Road and Lyman
Boulevard. In return for these requirements the applicant
will receive a $410. 00 credit on park fees per unit and a
100% credit on trail fees. The remaining $90. 00 of the park
fee per unit will be collected as part of the building permit
process. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
I have attached a copy of the report presented to the Commission
for this item. Your assistance in seeing that the wishes of the
Park and Recreation Commission are fulfilled is appreciated.
Lastly, it is important for all parties involved to realize that
these park and trail requirements are for Parcel 2 only.
Requirements for Parcel 1 would be addressed at the time it is
developed.
. 1
I
CITY OF PRC DATE: 9-25-90
CC DATE:
CUAHAEH r
.' � �I STAFF REPORT
il ,
PROPOSAL:P L: To subdivide 78.24 acres into 75 single family lots and
4 outlots.
II 1
Ii LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Lyman Boulevard/Lake
V Riley Boulevard and south of Tigua Lane.
Cl.I 64:171
APPLICANT: John Klingelhutz
I �L 350 E. Highway 212
Q ' Chaska, MN 55318
I PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Fa
� g Family Residential
I PROPOSED ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential and R-12, High
Density Residential
II ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Rice Lake Manor
S - A2 (Ag. Estate) , Unplatted Residential
II E - R-12 (high density) , Lakeview Hills Apts.
W - RSF and A2, Unplatted Residential
QCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Identifies this area as park deficient.
0
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN:
Il The current draft of the plan update
identifies the sections of Lyman Blvd.
I w and Lake Riley Blvd. along the southern
border of this plat as Phase III (2000-
2010) additions to the city's trail
system.
IEXISTING PARKS: This property lies within a p ark
deficient area as defined in both the
I 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the current
draft of the plan update. Bandimere
II
f
Park and Recreation Commission
September 25, 1990
Page 3
dedication. Mr. John Klingelhutz, the applicant, has also been in
contact with me concerning this subdivision. Mr. Klingelhutz
initially was somewhat opposed to the dedication of park land. In
concluding our conversation, he said he would like to review the
proposal , but seemed open to the issue of land dedication.
In conversations with both Mr. Klingelhutz and Engelhardt and
Associates, the topic of sidewalks along North Road and West Road
was discussed. It is apparent that pedestrian walkways in these
locations would prove beneficial . Mark Koegler also mentioned the
need for sidewalks along these routes when reviewing this new
location for the proposed park.
RECOMMENDATION
Progress in solidifying negotiations to meet the recreational needs
created by this development is significant. City Code allows for
a requirement of 2 . 76 acres of land be dedicated for park purposes
in the development of parcel II. Parcel I will be considered
separately in the event of future development. Lots 21, 22 , 23 ,
24 , 25 and 26 consist of 2 . 26 acres which represents 82% of the
requirement. Therefore, it is recommended that the Park and
Recreation Commission require Lots 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 and 26, Block
3 , Parcel II be dedicated as park land. As part of this
dedication, the applicant will prepare the site according to a
grading plan provided by the city. In return for this dedication,
the applicant will receive a $410. 00 credit on park fees for each
lot. The remaining $90. 00 per lot to be collected as part of the -
building permit process. It is further recommended that the
applicant construct a 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalk along North Road
and West Road in lieu of trail fees.
1
1
1
I
II ..
STATE OF
creekit*----- /
7Ezscrn,DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES °
METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
' PHONE NO. 296-7523 FILE NO.
IAugust 8, 1990
IMs. JoAnn Olsen
City of Chanhassen
1 690 Coulter Drive Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
II Dear Ms. Olsen:
RE: LAKE RILEY HILLS, LAKE RILEY (10-2P) ,2P) , CITY OF CHANHASSEN,
CARVER COUNTY
IIWe have reviewed the site plans (received July 9, 1990) for the
above-referenced project (WZ NE4, Section 24, Township 116 North,
iRange 23 West). and have the following comments to offer:
1) Protected wetland 10-213W (shown as outlot B) is on the
1 proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water
elevation (OHW) , which alters the course, current, or
cross-section of protected waters or wetlands, is under the
jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR protected waters
II permit. No official OHW has been established for wetland
10-213W. Please contact this office if there is any question
about whether proposed activities will be within protected
I wetland 10-213W and we can make arrangements to estimate or
officially determine, if necessary, the OHW.
2) DNR protected wetland 10-213W should be labeled as such in
I future plans or plats and the OHW, if available, should be
noted.
I 3) The project is within the shoreland district of Lake Riley
(10-2P) , which is classified as recreational development. The
City should ensure that the project is consistent with the
I local shoreland management ordinance. It does appear that the
minimum lot sizes are met in the proposed plan.
4) There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed
I restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas.
This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that
the DNR and the Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over the
II area and that the wetlands cannot be altered without
appropriate permits.
IIRECEIVED
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AUG 1 0 1990
ICITY OF CHANHASSEN
I
JoAnn Olsen
August 8, 1990
Page Two
1
5) It appears that the stormwater is being routed directly to
wetland 10-213W. Stormwater sedimentation/treatment basins,
or other appropriate stormwater treatment features, should be
included in the plan. If stormwater is routed directly to the
wetland it can cause sedimentation and water level bounces that
are detrimental to the basin's wildlife values and water
quality.
6) If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons
per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need
to obtain a DNR appropriation permit. You are advised that it
typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit
application.
7) Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the
construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion
and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & •Soil
Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water
Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should
be followed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
296-7523 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Ceil Strauss
Area Hydrologist
C280:kap
cc : B. Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD
Wetland 10-213W file
1
04"ES°,. Minnesota Department of Transportation
2
Metropolitan District
Q Transportation Building
1. Qo St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Of 1 40F Tat•‘%cj Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128
Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
August 31, 1990 Reply to
Telephone No. 593-8523
I Ms. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
I 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
I C.S. 1017 (New TH 212)
Lake Riley Hills, Preliminary Plat
IDear Ms. Olsen:
We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with
I Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the plat acceptable
for further development with consideration of the following comments:
•I - We request the developer to dedicate access control along the proposed
CSAH 212 corridor prior to approval of the final plat.
I - Residential development is a very sensitive land use. Future noise levels
are expected to violate state standards. The Minnesota.Pollution Control
Agency will most likely require that noise abatement be constructed to
Imitigate noise pollution from TH 212. The City and developer should be
aware that Mn/DOT will not provide noise abatement for new development
I adjacent to corridorsthat have been officially mapped. We believe the City
and developer should plan to provide noise abatement along TH 212 for this
development.
I - The proposed letting date for TH 212 in this area is fall of 1996.
I - This development impacts DNR wetlands. DNR, Corps of Engineer and
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District permits will be required.
IIf you have any questions in regard to our review of the plat please call me.
Sincerely,
I cc: Steve Keefe, Metro Council
fa...6.4.* �,�,� - Roger Gustafson, Carver Co.
•
IRick Dalton, P.E.
Project Manager RECEIVED
Ie SEP 0 41990
,;�MINNESOTA i 11‘...
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
IAn Equal Opportunity Employer
,.
CITYOF
I
kV -:. CHANHASSEN
'Itill.. „13,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
I
DATE: July 11 , 1990
SUBJ : 90-1 S .L .B. John Klingelhutz Division 1
1 ) The Fire Department needs the following information:
II
a. Fire Hydrants shown with 300 ' spacing
b. City approved street names 1
c . Through streets with relation to West 86th Street .
I
1
I
I
1
. 1
I
1
I
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
• (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
' - MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official '
' DATE: July 9 . 1990 •
SUBJ : Planning Case 90-10 SUB (Lake Riley Hills )
1 ) Official copy of Grading Plan showing proposed contours .
' house pads . and permitted type of house must be submitted to
Inspections Department prior to issuance of any building
permits .
2) Earthwork observation reports and compaction reports must be
submitted for each lot where applicable. Reports should show
1 location and depth of excavations, soils encountered, depth
and type of fill , weather and site conditions , number and
results of compaction tests , and conclusions and recommendations
of geotechnical engineer . These reports must be submitted to
' the Inspections Department prior to issuance of any building
permits .
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF
110 ,
Oif CHANHASSEN
t
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1
August 17, 1990 1
t 1
Mr. Owen Carlson
Engelhardt and Associates
1107 Hazeltine Boulevard
Chaska, MN 55318 1
Dear Owen:
The Planning and Engineering staff have made a review of the 1
amended plans for Lake Riley Hills. Previously, staff submitted
comments on the first draft requiring additional information. The
following is a list of items which still need to be provided before
a complete plan reveiw can be conducted:
1. The ordinary high water mark of the wetland must be
determined. The DNR can work with you to determine the OHWM.
2. Soil boring information is still required.
3. Erosion control should be shown as Type III, not Type I.
4. Temporary cul-de-sacs should be shown on all street ends.
5. Storm water calculations verifying surface water discharge is
retained to predeveloped rate for 100 year, 24 hour storm. 1
6. Tie the site into Highway 212 improvement.
7. The Fire Department needs the following information: 1
a. Fire hydrants shown with '300 foot spacing.
b. City approved street names. 1
c. Through streets with relation to West 86th Street.
8. Need record information on all existing city utilities that 1
are proposed to be connected to.
9. Provide information on all existing drainage facilities and
1
1
I
Mr. Owen Carlson
11 August 17, 1990
Page 2
culverts on and immediately adjacent to the site.
10. Provide tree removal plan detailing what type and size of
trees which will be removed. There is a stand of trees around
the south and southeast side of the wetland which need to be
included.
General comments:
1. The slopes around the ponding areas and wetland are very steep
' and will require slope stabilization including wood fiber
blanket. Staff feels the slope is too steep and lots are too
close to the wetland resulting in back yards which cannot be
' used by the homeowner. For example, Lots 34 and 35, Block 3,
will not be permitted decks due to the wetland setback.
2. The proposed ponding areas do not provide the City access
points for maintenance. Combining the ponding areas into a
more central accessible site might be preferred.
Please submit revised plans with the above information and the City
will then proceed with the application.
Sincerely,
,�.,�
Jo Ann Olsen Charles Folch
Senior Planner Assistant City Engineer
1
1
1
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ,
APPLICANT: d C /0 e(-- /A-16'€6lle-rilOWNER: -10 E1 r1-5 Rj L.. /X t1 G 4-/L4-4 i
ADDRESS: 5-0 I-4 5 ! At-`1 w/f-/_ ADDRESS: 3So 4 S 7" v_1 •�
Y45k'4. Yl,rL' zi z f(,4S �� ,24 ,U
TELEPHONE (Day time) y y W 3 TELEPHONE: �u8 -3 3 3 d ,
REQUEST I
♦ Conditional Use Permit - $150 ♦ Subdivision:
♦ Interim Use Permit - $150 Preliminary Plat: 1
♦ Land Use Plan Amendment - $100 - Sketch Plan - $200
♦ Planned Unit Development: - Create less than 3 lots - $100 I
- Sketch Plan - $200 Create more than 3 lots - II
$100 + acre + $5 per lot
- Preliminary Development Plan lot created
$300 + $15 acre
le Final Plat - $100
Final Development Plan - $200
- Metes and Bounds - $100
- Amendment to Final Development
Plan - $300 + $15 acre - Consolidate Lots - $100
TOTAL PUD TOTAL SUBDIVISION 1> I ! 51(*b0 II
♦ Site Plan Review - $150 ♦ Wetland Alteration Permit:
- Individual Single Family 1
♦ Vacation of Utility or Lots - $25
Street Easement - $100
- All Others - $150
♦ Variance - $75
♦ Rezoning - $250 T '
♦ Zoning Appeal - $75 ♦ Zoning Ordinance Amendment -
No Charge '
* NOTE - When multiple applications are � appropriate rocessed the a ro riate fee shall
P
be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME L .4 X e "e / L e y vv D S
ILOCATION L n'?410 R t v l) ED tU f
LEGAL DESCRIPTION S e e 4�
IPRESENT ZONING MAX Lo V FW 5 f 7--"/ '`1 F
REQUESTED ZONING S r s fi47 54141 ,. ,e/ Z
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION C
IREQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 1Q e 5 / P e-&' 1- 'l L_
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST S "113 Di 0 r D e
I
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly
printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you
should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific
ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
IIThis is to certify that I am making application for the described action by
the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements
with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name
I and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter
pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or
I purchase agreement) , or I am the authorized person to make this application
and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and
the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees
may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an
estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents
I and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
I I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such
permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the
property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the
Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City
Hall Records.
I // 7j /3 Y7
4 7
nature of A - cant Date
• 7 g PP
I
Si�gnature of Fee Owner Date y/
N" ,7242,4rvt.„.; Q+f�1
Application Received on i.c ix,' I
Fee Paid T)/9(1/ Receipt No. 3.
be s d the Planning Commission Bo
This application will cod i eyed by th q / and of
Adjustments and Appeals on (4(1 f /‘?it'
1
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
1
I
I
1
1
I
' LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL I:
THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 116 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST,
ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF
AND SITUATE IN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA, EXCEPT THE
' NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF.
PARCEL II:
GOVERNMENT LOT 2 AND THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP
116 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST, ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF AND SITUATE IN CARVER C.OUNTY;
MINNESOTA.
•
•
•
•
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1 .
I
' 1:1 1 i Fe( i I V g
ill 11111
I
•
: 11S..al A( .4.i 4?"-- 1011111 I J
. , • =-_-
lit I
',Igo' . g
bz: F , _
... -,i-44,,.. -6 loici 1
, ,, .,,,.,„
/,,I) ,,....,..,t,.
N likrgim -P• IP
I
(i. I - - —1111Eirl : bac gigs
vitir.57744=tftt,- ___-_-172Pirilli 111-1),A \
I .* 0 •' /// -4 � '3s !. 1; i�,l FI All Ru I,_
,..., f.,,. ,1,: j� DUI . ,i:�� ` k A &ligi! g I
.• .-,•?. ,,,,., T
o
.Pf I :I 1-4 ......,....,' '/yr,' / ,••/VP I- 'I • (--\ .0 i 1 II I
----5-/'-'t")'# '*:-"=, 7..1-'1 ,i ,,44.,,.fcc,-) . , RV I g
-4 i I .", _ . _ fr--.''.4/1/!+;41SW ' -) V...11
< , `: • • J ` ! ji b,�. �
r� � )r' F I J/ 1! I ! li u a.._...... 1...,,,,:;q 1 ‘ -,.._1 ..t„. j, ,j 1 61-0firtl.„.1.2._-:irii:. f.,Pitlis=afaii._,Hi=. 15..----,---k._, i
,7L'.0//4:1 —( .4/4I, titravi, -,IN-",1. -74 i l',, fw-IV., ,
•:::-- '11 t' *0--tripm, ki--„,-.i..:, -i- 1 A.F..,.... ...,%-_;-:-.-2:,::::: 1
-.;'-'1,-:::—:'':L.,2.. -F!, & . ..., 1 , , ,., Ita.„,,,ord,.... „,bges)...,----0-2-4,7,-4-7 ) ono§ i I! 1 i 1 I t) -
�\\ps,..-r ,
i q NN r u\; j jj\^1 (((///� 1111§§§ § Y� i1i
;I , Y/,'',•;, . . -t--$ ,..-it s ■ € \�•, i `�1 '
i.1�i'r� V:- \ -, ) : p .. iiii:∎:: iiiiiii 1 3f ,
.P x'1..1 \-�,.3C7� ; t ‘!":: / \ I�`\\ r�� pfd2ww i14"i"4"1 1" tit
1 �.{/ 1� /���i_`_ 1 I \~-;" _-/`' ( •••ACRQ^RSeAAAiAA7lAARAA Ilit W 41– ;/r Q - ' r .� ate► 11`.\ §§§§§§§§§§§1111§§§§§§§§ j
, \\, . , ,,i3 , /----:.;.401,,,„..._ " ,g,,,A1111,,A 1 \ 11
id 1 � . — -i • ! �jMN .��•r 11.44%vs" ii ii
�,�
... i R
"��! 1•; m =1111§§ 1111§§§§§s=1111§§§ss iiii. ..2/-
ii i I I'll :
\(1� i I.
^----;.._0 \ � iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiaiig 1
I
),J ( n ( t` ) - E i ii:tlidl.'R lair i g---get.
�( rc
1{�, j,• - �. i 1111§§111§111§ Y§§1§§§§
/ -.3 •.. . suvi coat
I-
•
Ik1.,
'f,l l d, ,
11 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
11 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 PJ 's Restaurant .
' d. No additional restaurants will be permitted in the Seven Forty-One
Crossing 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 .
' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 78,37 ACRES INTO 76 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
1 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
Hugh Jaeger 320 West 76th Street , *201
John Klingelhutz 350 East Hwy. 42, Chaska
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 13
II
Bill Engelhardt 1107 Hazeltine Blvd . , Suite 400
Bill Rudnicki 1107 Hazeltine Blvd . , Suite 400 1
Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd .
Joe Hautman 8551 Tigua Circle
Dave Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle
Norm Grant 9201 Lake Riley Blvd. II
Dale Boyer 9005 Lake Riley Blvd .
Dennis Baker 9219 Lake Riley Blvd.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chairman ErharII
called the public hearing to order ..
Erhart: Is the applicant here? I
Bill Engelhardt: Mr . Chairman, members of the Planning Commission , I 'm I
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
I
question?
Emmings: I guess I 've got a problem looking at a new plan tonight . Unles
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 II
plan? So we 'll do it on the old plan?
Olsen: Correct . i
Emmings: And then you 'll show the City 'Council that he 's figured out a way
to do it?
Olsen: Right . I
Emmings: Fine . It 's with the same conditions of approval . I
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 II
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 J1
90 feet so we had 3 lots that were 89.58 feet wide and we had to adjust th
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'
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 th
right-of-way widths for Lyman Blvd. being 120 feet . 60 feet on each side
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 14
of the right-of-way . We have 33 feet on our property which meant we had to
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 dedicating
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
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 .
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
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
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 , all
of these easements will be granted on the final plat . The green ones are
1 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
1 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 the
wetlands in those particular properties . We 're not touching the wetlands .
1 We 're not going into the wetlands . We're not going into the fringe
vegetation or whatever . We 're staying right on the outside .
' 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,
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
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
the trees is down around this cul-de-sac area. What we've done to
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
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 but
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
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 15 i
trees on every lot to balance that off . So we're talking about 3 times 73
or 210 . 1
Emmings: And those won't be box elders?
Bill Engelhardt: Actually the project needs some trees . This area has no t
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 . . . Anothell
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 II
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 an
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 tha
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 Sectiol
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
that particular area but then as you move west, you get to about the middl
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 differencil
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
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
operation that we have for some tree plantings and plant trees on top of II
that too . I 'd anticipate that that berm in those areas will probably be
about 8 feet high but we don't want to get 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 bu
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
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 16
conditions . The conditions that are in your staff report , they 're not
' 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
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
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.
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?
Ray Lewis: My name is Ray Lewis . I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd . and I
have some .
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 . First
1 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 Lake
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
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
approximate location of the entrance to .Lake Riley Hills , this half section
' 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 a
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
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
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
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 in
the area because it is each year receiving considerably additional
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 17 I
recreational load from the . . .and from further development around the area . II
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 II
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 concep
but I feel that the details that need to be carefully worked out along wit
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? 11
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 ll
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 II 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 ho
�
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 til
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
9
October 3 , 1990 - Page 18
Erhart: Wait a minute here. Dell Road's going to intersect with Riley
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.
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 Jo
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 worth
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
' 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
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 proposed
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?
' 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.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 19 1
Emmings: Do they have lakeshore here on this property? I
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 til
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
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 studyinil
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 11
years ago the sewer project was completed around the lake and we II 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 phosphorous, etc. from lawn fertilizer
that will come off of 75 15,000 foot lots so I would like to propose to th
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
• 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 Lymah Blvd . is II
an extraordinary concern. There's a lot of accidents there already . A lot
11
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 on
' 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
' 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
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 do
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 .
11 Erhart: Thanks Dennis . Paul , would you respond to that first issue there?
' Krauss: Well the water quality 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
' 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 . Water
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
' problems are and to actually address solutions with capital improvements or
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 committee
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 using
' the best availble technology that we have at this time . The water is being
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 ability
' 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 that
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
' water bodies in the city as well .
Erhart: Currently you 're adding how many holding ponds?
I
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 1
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 beforil
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 II 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 I
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 i
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 I
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 I
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 I
entering wetlands . Prior to entering Lake Riley and as Paul said, that 's
the best we can do right now.
Dennis Baker: Is there any other alternative for drainage? 1
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 im
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 22
touched. They 're going to stay there in their condition the way they are
today .
Erhart: Thanks Bill . Any other comments?
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 outlot
' 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
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 ether public hearings
' 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
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.
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
ask a few more questions. Regarding the holding ponds , if those are
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 23 1
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 , 10
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 I
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 thll
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 morel
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
date . 1993 there will be some resolution . That 's a plan . That 's some I
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 II
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
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 .
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 II 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.
Erhart: According to what I see here , there is no shoreline . Jo Ann , do II
you have any additional thing to tell?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 24
I
Olsen: We got some half sections that show that it does have shoreline and
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 a
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
' Fa:' 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
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
11
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-)ing 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
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
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 rather
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
intersection turn lane idea?
Olsen: That 's something that could be part of this development and we were
just discussing it . That actually is a good idea . Turn lanes on Lyman .
' Krauss: On Lyman and leaving 'the site.
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 I
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 III
biggest problem and John Klingelhutz owns the corner lots on there?
Olsen: It might be another Klingelhutz . I
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
lanes based on public safety? I
Krauss: We may be able to declare it a public nuisance. That ordinance is
not very tight but we could look at that . I
AJ-,rens: 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
there 's , let 's clarify that Jo Ann or Paul . When do you realistically see I
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 I
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 19931
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
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. I
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 all
lot , it 's there .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 26
I
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
question 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 . It
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 . •
' Ahrens: That 's the reason I brought it up is because I think . . .
Bill Engelhardt : That was a question that came up . This particular land
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 a
day out of 24 which means that there 's adequate capacity . It 's not running
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 your
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 at
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 's
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?
Bill Engelhardt: That came right from the pumping records of the City .
Erhart: Okay , thanks Bill . What is the City's position?
' Folch: Well I guess we'd have to take a closer look at that. That may be
an issue that would be addressed in the feasibility report that is proposed
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 we
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
1
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 . '
�olch: Well it 's my understanding from the City Engineer that the initial
reouest 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 , dol
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 jus
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
cr are we tapping into a system essentially was to bandaid a problem we ha
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 1
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
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 watell
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 I
they want to do the project.
Erhart: Okay , well I guess I 'd sure like to see that that be looked at
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 .
11
11 Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 28
Ahrens : I don 't have anything else .
Y 9
' Erhart : That 's it?
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 .
1 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 on
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 is
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 to
be a larger community park .
' Wildermuth: That 's the undeveloped?
•
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
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
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?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 29
Krauss: What we 'd probably be looking at is something along those 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? '
Krauss: Yes .
Wildermuth: Is Lyman Blvd. a county road or a city? 1
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?
Krat•ss: Not at this point . '
Wildermuth: Everybody that spoke from the area has a concern there about
Lyman Blvd . . I
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 I
Council?
Krauss: Yeah . One of the other issues we deal with too with Carver Count"
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
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 l
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? I
Krauss: 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
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 30
i
some of it but the cattails die off and introduce the nutrients to some
U extent back into the system . Weed harvesting is something that 's being
done .
Wildermuth: These are largely city responsibilities then?
' Krauss: Well these would become city programs and responsibilities in the
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
developer in addition to what he 's outlined?
Krauss: No . Right .
' Wildermuth: Okay , I support the staff recommendation .
Erhart : Okay , thanks Jim . Annette?
11 Ellson: I like the idea of adding the turn lanes . I like the idea of
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 've
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 that
' ss the homes are built , that a park is there.
Ellson: That seems to be a concern and a complaint continually from people
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?
I 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
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
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 because
you 've got all the people living out here screaming about the fact that
I/ 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
11
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 31
kind of the way the world works . As far as the beachiot issue is
concerned , I 'm confident that the Planning Commission as is presently
constituted , will never weakened the beachiot but you know , it won't be th
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 II
did I think were good ones and the fact is , if they meet the requirements II
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? i
Olsen: On the Eden Prairie side .
Emmings: I always like to tie together approvals and to do that with this'll
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 II 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?
Eilse-n: Yes .
Emmings: Okay , is that in here already? 1
Clser: 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 II 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 1
happen?
Olsen: we automatically do it but you can make it as a condition. I
•
Emmings: And the reason it didn't happen on Curry Farms was , if it's
automatic? I
Olsen: Well we 've learned our lesson. We went with only along the Class A
wetland . We didn 't go along all the Class 8.
Emmings: So should I be comfortable that it's going to happen or should I
write it in as a condition?
11 Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 32
I
Olsen: I 've 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 Bill
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. . .
tErhart: Okay , do you feel that's strong enough language?
Krauss : They will have it resolved before final plat .
IErhart : Yeah , I was going to suggest that maybe the way to word it would
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
something to but as long as you 're satisfied there , I won't dig into it any
longer . 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
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 those
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.
1 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
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.
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 . 1
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?
Sill 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 . I
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 DNR
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
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
now and it 's a high functioning wetland .
1 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 .
Erhart: So you think that 's a waste of time to pursue that?
' Oiaen: Well we could look into it . I don 't know that it needs that
improvement .
' Erhart : Okay . Why is Lot 5, Block 1 or am I reading that wrong? One of
the conditions is that Lot 5 , Block 1 is not buildable?
Owen: 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 .
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
our what , clear cutting ordinance? Is that the ordinance or what is the
ordinance that we 're using there?
c)lsen: 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 .
Olsen: The ordinance does allow for the replacement per caliper inch under
the landscaping for tree removal .
Erhart: Which ordinance?
rOlsen: It 's under the landscaping? I believe it 's in the Zoning Ordinance
under the landscaping section . Under tree removal .
' Erhart: In what Section?
Olsen: Do you have the pages? It 's 1253, page 1253, Section 1179 .
Erhart: In the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance?
' 0. n: Zoning Ordinance . Page 1253, Section 20-1179. Tree Removal
Regulations .
Erhart: And does that include, let me see .
Planning Commission Meeting
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 II 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
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 well
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 II
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 areal
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 II
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? I
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 happen
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 36
may want to go together and buy it themselves . That 's what occurred to me .
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
' 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 .
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
' 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
' 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
l 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
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
I
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? I
Olsen: Close to it .
Erhart: 2,000 feet? I 've been here 4 years and anything over 1 ,000 feet I
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
plan . I think they 're using the land wisely . I think they've addressed I
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 II
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 all
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
expense of figuring out how it 's done .
Wildermuth: You have all the adjacent property owners .
Erhart: 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 I
he has access to the funds today .
Wildermuth: 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
w get in the end . If you look around town and look at the costs of land II
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
October 3 , 1990 - Page 38
Erhart: Yeah , I understand that but some day someone's going to pay for
Lyman Blvd . improvement . Either you 're going to go in .
Wildermuth: That 's right. The property owners are going to pay for it .
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 .
Elison: 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 .
11 Ray Lewis: How many people want it now?
Erhart: Well that 's not the issue . I 'm just trying to get some things in
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 ,
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 .
' 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
I . 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
forth in the staff report changing to 15 so that we 've got Lot 1 , Block 5 .
1
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 I
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 I
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
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 feasibility study are known
and the City Council takes appropriate action to provide municipal
water service to the site .
1
11
planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 40
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.
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
' storm drainage plan shall be modified to incorporate runoff from the
westerly temporary cul-de-sac on North Road .
? . '_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
1 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 .
1 i0 . 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
or 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
I
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.
14 . 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 .
17 . 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 . I
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 II Services , both the transportation and sewer are adequate to see this as a
positive development .
Emmings: 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
a?oroval 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 . 1
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 II
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
adding condition 4 . Steve , what were those words?
Emmings: It would just be conditioned upon compliance with all conditions
of the preliminary plat approval . i
Wildermuth: Those words .
4
Planning Commission Meeting
11 October 3, 1990 - Page 42
Erhart: Okay, is there a second?
' Ellson: Second.
' Wildermuth moved, Elison seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for Lake Riley Hills Subdivision as
shown on plans dated September 4, 1990 with the following conditions:
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
these areas .
1 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
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
' 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
place that because we have a lot of excess material , we would provide the
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1