10. Preliminary Plat to subdivide at 6720 Glendale Drive, Country Oaks I 101
P.C. DATE: Sept. 7
CITY OF 7, 1988
1 �" C•C. DATE: Sept. 26 , 1988
\� Eft CASE N0: 88-21 SUB
IPrepared by: Olsen/v
I
STAFF REPORT
I
I PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 10 . 75 Acres into 27
Single Family Lots
Iz
Q
IV LOCATION: Part of Lot 5 and Outlot A of Pleasant Acres
(� 6720 Glendale Drive Action by City AdministratOT
I ""` Endorsed V
M APPLICANT: David Johnson Modified
QShorewood Oaks Development Rejected
6100 Auto Club Road, #314 Date 7- 2 -xzS
1 Bloomington, MN 55438 Date Submitted to Commission
Date Submitted to Coup
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
I ACREAGE: 12 . 72 acres
/gross 10 . 75 acres/net
DENSITY: 2 .51 units per acre (net)
IADJACENT ZONING 17,346 s.f. average lot size
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family & cemetery
IS- RSF; single family
IAirt I— E- Minnewashta Parkway & Lake Minnewashta
z - W- RSF; church
IW WATER AND SEWER: City water and sewer is
available to the site.
I Cn PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
The site is fairly level with immature
trees and box elder.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
11
•
0 i� 0 0 0 ''� 0 0 0 0 0 0
rt O_ 0 0 0
0 M M ) 00 M NHS M N 1)
In
. 62ND . �� �wey trik.,---, k d ■ b I: ZO PAID l• • IL %
— 'V /30 0 tal I+IF: 2 k, Aigew- .
Adio, . ,,„, ,v,., ,,, :, ...... 4.,, ,,,,
— , Aft...04mo
...., .4 z ..
0 ir or ..a .a 4,
, c w 1
thiliiiiiiiillif
if osw-
,___ _2/ 101
4,!g-4e-stitscw, _ ,------ -- 1 -- --- _
∎ : a. ' ,��
OW
1 jp,: liv■■ my 07.—...ate:-. -wily iii( i ,
. pr 414.10, ataalr rat.4,11 NS N 1,1 1
41 -- ilicijaz IIIIM Ma ,,
Slilhallil -1. 4w q LAKE . „1
elli
Lot-Alla-A Of O��t',1.u--ti 0” M / N N E
� 4y .4 S H TA 1 I
\.
�a. •INF RD
, 1
1111111111111111
�.,\�, PUD-R -/ -ik- 4
1
I a.j. ifl poll ii,,,,
r. Q LAKE IMs
� _
, .
_
1
!ST✓OE-. 1 iir'
= PON• _ ' �'��pu��lUh��11*
RR
MAPLE SHORES
i j (‘, : 11101111111. ..• . ,--_;- - s --
IL. ,k ignirA \ z .
o
�; �- DRIVE
iw■it- _.,.____N._
I 11111111F . D ,,i__
„ • ___
__
t.1.t4W' 1
, rhIrt ., i
_____ 2
,,, .,,,,,, ,
______
..-A 117/1 tw.4 ' ' ,
al rwr.• ''' s. 7,
, ,
. _
.. *4_‘ ,_ ,
. ,
... _ .
639 _
_____
tea_, 9 :, ---'--------„. 4 , 4.:-*r....AxAwdie.,47- ..1,.....s"..ww.wwwpatiiiii4
` Country Oaks Subdivision
September 7 , 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 15 ,000 square feet , 90
' feet of street frontage, except for lots located on cul-de-sacs,
and 125 feet of lot depth (Attachment #1 ) .
' REFERRAL AGENCIES
Building Department Attachment #2
Public Safety Department Attachment #3
Engineering Department Attachment #4
Watershed District Attachment #5
Fish and Wildlife Service Attachment #6
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to subdivide two lots of the Pleasant
Acres subdivision containing 12 . 72 gross acres into 27 single
family lots. The site is bordered to the north by a row of
single family lots which are part of the Pleasant Acres sub-
division and Glendale Drive and to the south by the Stratford
' Ridge subdivision and Ms. Halgren' s property. The preliminary
plat is subdivided into three blocks with a 50 foot right-of-way
public street accessing Glendale Drive at two locations.
' Lot Layout
The subject site has 12. 72 gross acres and 10. 75 net acres after
removing the 50 foot street right-of-way. All of the proposed
lots meet the minimum requirement of 15 ,000 square feet and have
at least 125 feet of lot depth. The average lot size is 17 , 346
square feet with a net density of 2. 51 units per acre.
Lots 1 through 5 , Block 3 and Lot 8 , Block 2 do not maintain the
minimum requirement of 90 feet of street frontage. Lots 1
' through 4 , Block 3 are located along 'a curve of the proposed
street and Lot 5 , Block 3 , and Lot 8 , Block 2 are located
directly adjacent to the curve in the street. The Zoning
Ordinance permits lots on a cul-de-sac to have reduced street
frontage as long as they maintain 90 feet of width at the
building setback line. Since the lots without 90 feet of street
frontage are not located on a cul-de-sac , they must provide 90
' feet of street frontage along the front lot line. Therefore ,
Lots 1 through 5 , Block 3 and Lot 8, Block 2 would have to
receive variances to the lot frontage requirement to be approved.
' Staff is recommending that the lot lines be adjusted to provide
1
Country Oaks Subdivision
September 7 , 1988
Page 3
required 90 feet of street frontage rather than approving 6 lot
frontage variances. The applicant has suggested creating a
bubble cul-de-sac, but the Engineering Department is not in favor
of this.
Soil '
Staff visited the subject site with wetland experts from the Fish
and Wildlife Service and Corps of Engineers to determine whether
or not a wetland did exist in the south central portion of the
site. After three visits to the site, it was determined that a
wetland does not exist on the site (Attachment #6) . There is
some wetland vegetation but it is minor in comparison to the
dominant upland vegetation.
There are wet soils located on the site as shown from the soils '
survey and past proposals on the site. As stated in Attachment
#2 , the Building Department has pointed out the fact that there
are wet soils located on the site and that soil borings should be
performed for each lot and that at time of building permit appli-
cation, a report on the soils and proposed corrections must be
submitted. The applicant will be performing soil borings for
each lot for FHA approval . Staff is recommending that the appli-
cant provide a copy of a soil report to the city for each lot and
the street prior to final plat approval which can be kept on file
for reference by to the Building Department and any prospective
lot owners. The soil report will provide staff with information
necessary to determine if soil corrections are necessary. If
extensive soil corrections are necessary then the city can
require information on how it will be done to ensure soil
stability.
Park and Recreation Commission ,
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed prelimi-
nary
plat on August 9 , 1988 (Attachment #9 ) . The Park and
Recreation Commission felt that the area was park deficient and
that park land should be reserved as part of the subdivision.
Typically, it has been Park and Recreation policy to request not
less than 5 acres for park land. Since 5 acres would be almost
half of the buildable area of the proposed subdivision, the Park
and Recreation Commission recommended instead that one acre be
acquired along the south boundary of the property which could in
the future be expanded when properties to the south are sub-
divided. The Park and Recreation Commission directed staff to
work with the applicant to locate the one acre parcel. Once a
decision has been made on dedication of parkland, the Park and
Recreation Commission will determine wither park and trail fees
are waived. '
1
Country Oaks Subdivision
' September 7 , 1988
Page 4
' Grading, Drainage and Utilities
The Assistant City Engineer addresses grading, drainage and uti-
lities for the site in his memo (Attachment #4) .
Miscellaneous
' The Public Safety Director has recommended that fire hydrants
must be located on the plan no more than 300 feet apart and that
' the proposed water system must be looped (Attachment #3 ) .
Staff visited the site with the DNR Forester and found that there
were no areas of trees that needed to be preserved or which
' required a tree removal plan.
The Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association has use of a
' recreational beachlot on Lake Minnewashta (Attachment #7) . All
lots that were part of the Pleasant Acres subdivision have the
right to use the recreational beachlot (Attachment #8) . The sub-
' ject site consists of two lots which were part of the Pleasant
Acres subdivision. The Pleasant Acres recreational beachlot
existed prior to the zoning ordinance amendment permitting them
as a conditional use. The recreational beachlot is therefore a
' nonconforming use which cannot be extended or enlarged. Since
the subject lots are part of the Pleasant Acres subdivision, sub-
sequent lot divisions also have the right to use the recreational
beachlot. The city cannot deny the new lot owners the right to
use the Pleasant Acres recreational beachlot but can prevent
additional docking of boats, installation of more docks , canoe
racks, etc. which are an extension or enlargement of the use.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
#88-21 as shown on the plat stamped "Received July 22 , 1988" sub-
ject to the following conditions:
' 1 . Lots 1 through 5 , Block 3 and Lot '8 , Block 2 , be adjusted to
provide 90 feet of width at the street frontage.
' 2 . The applicant will work with the Park and Recreation
Coordinator to provide one acre of park land along the
southerly boundary of the property.
' 3 . The applicant shall provide a soil borings report for each
lot and along the location of the street prior to final plat
approval .
Country Oaks Subdivision
September 7 , 1988
Page 5
4 . The applicant shall provide an amended plan showing fire '
hydrants located not further than 300 feet apart.
5 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract and '
provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to
guarantee the proper installation of these improvements.
6 . The applicant shall service this area by gravity sanitary '
sewer unless their engineers can demonstrate that this entire
parcel cannot be service by gravity sanitary sewer.
7 . The applicant will provide the City with the necessary uti-
lity easements across this parcel to service this parcel by
gravity sanitary sewer unless otherwise demonstrated that a '
lift station is necessary.
8 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
9 . The applicant' s engineer shall provide the City with the
necessary documentation to verify that the 100-year storm
event and emergency overflow conditions for the proposed
ponding site will not affect the adjacent properties .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed pre-
liminary
plat subject to staff' s recommendations with the
following corrections and additions to the conditions of
approval:
1 . Lots 1-5 , Block 3 and Lot 8, Block 2 be adjusted to provide
90 feet of width at the street frontage.
10 . Subject to city approval of language, the applicant shall '
provide restrictions on the Block 3 lots in order to maintain
the ponding site contours .
Dave Headla was opposed to the motion.
STAFF UPDATE
The applicant has submitted revised drawings, stamped "Received
September 21, 1988" , to address the lot frontage issues in Block
3 . The blue line drawings attached to the packet propose a
"bubble" option. The bubble option also proposes a small island
in the center of the bubble. As is described in the updated
memorandum from the Engineering Office, this option is not recom-
mended. The applicant has therefore submitted two additional
options attached as Attachments #12 and #13 representing alter-
nates #1 and #2 . '
I
Country Oaks Subdivision
I September 7 , 1988
Page 6
' Alternate #1 is in fact the original proposal that was presented
to the Planning Commission that dictates a 90 foot setback
' farther back from the front lot line than 30 feet. The developer
prefers this option. Alternate #2 proposes a reconfiguration of
the area such that a "T" intersection and cul-de-sac is created.
Alternate #2 is recommended by staff since all the requirements
' of the ordinance can be met. Therefore, the recommended con-
dition #1 of the City Council' s motion has been amended to
reflect adoption of Alternate #2 instead of the original layout
considered by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission added an additional condition to protect
the stormwater retention pond contours in the northwest corner of
' the site. The Council should be aware that a drainage and
utility easement will be placed over the limits of the pond to
protect the pond contours .
As a point of information, Outlot A will be retained by the
developer as he is working to purchase the adjacent property to
' the east of Outlot A for additional subdivision.
The preliminary plat also shows an accessory building located
along the common boundary line of the subject site and a private
property owner in the northwest corner of the site. It will be
the applicant' s responsibility to work with the property owner to
have this situation resolved.
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the subdivision at
the September 14 , 1988, meeting. The Commission eliminated the
land dedication requirement and instead required payment of park
' dedication fees ( see attached memo and minutes) . Condition #2
has been amended accordingly.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
' It is recommended that the City Council approve Subdivision
Request #88-21 as shown on the plat stamped "Received September
21, 1988" subject to the following conditions :
' 1 . The preliminary plat dated "Received September 21 , 1988"
shall be revised to incorporate Alternate #2 also dated
' "Received September 21, 1988" . All lots must be 15 ,000
square feet.
' 2 . Park dedication fees shall be paid for each lot at time of
building permit application.
II
Country Oaks Subdivision
September 7 , 1988 '
Page 7
3 . The applicant shall provide a soil borings report for each I
lot and along the location of the street prior to final plat
approval.
4 . The applicant shall provide an amended plan showing fire II
hydrants located not further than 300 feet apart.
5 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract and 1
provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to
guarantee the proper installation of these improvements.
II
6 . The applicant shall service this area by gravity sanitary
sewer unless their engineers can demonstrate that this entire
parcel cannot be service by gravity sanitary sewer.
II
7 . The applicant will provide the City with the necessary uti-
lity easements across this parcel to service this parcel by
II
gravity sanitary sewer unless otherwise demonstrated that a
lift station is necessary.
8 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of I
the Watershed District permit.
9 . The applicant' s engineer shall provide the City with the
II
necessary documentation to verify that the 100-year storm
event and emergency overflow conditions for the proposed
ponding site will not affect the adjacent properties .
II
10 . Subject to city approval of language, the applicant shall
provide restrictions on the Block 3 lots in order to maintain
the ponding site contours . I
ATTACHMENTS I
1 . Excerpt from Zoning Ordinance.
2 . Memo from Building Department dated August 3 , 1988 . II 3 . Memo from Public Safety Department dated August 3 , 1988 .
4 . Memo from Engineering Department dated August 31, 1988 .
5 . Letter from Watershed District dated August 5 , 1988 .
6 . Letter from Fish and Wildlife Service dated August 11, 1988 .
II
7 . Site plan showing location of each lot.
8 . Articles of Incorporation of Pleasant Acres Homeowners
Association. II 9 . Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated August 11, 1988 .
10. Planning Commission minutes dated September 7 , 1988 .
11. Preliminary plat dated September 21, 1988 .
12 . Alternate #1 .
II
13 . Alternate #2 .
14 . Memo from Larry Brown dated September 22 , 1988.
15 . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated September 23 , 1988 .
II
II
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector
DATE: August 3 , 1988
' SUBJ: Planning Case 88-21 SUB and 88-13 WAP (Shorewood Oaks
Development)
' Past experience with other buildings in this area indicates that
builders in this proposed subdivision will probably encounter
high water tables . The Carver County Soil Survey shows a large
inclusion of Cordova silty clay loam which typically has a water-
table depth at 1 to 3 feet.
Becuase of past problems in this area, a soils engineer should
' investigate each lot to determine its suitability as a building
site. Soil borings and corrections or recommendations should be
submitted with each permit application.
CITYOF
1
,,,\ 1
N ‘ 1,) CHANHASSEN
i i _ ,
.., ,.
\,,,,... 1
,,, ,,e. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
II
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner II
FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director 1
DATE: August 3 , 1988
SUBJ: Planning Case 88-21 SUB and 88-13 WAP (Shorewood Oaks 1
Development
Fire Chief Dale Gregory and I have reviewed the preliminary plat II
review and wetland alteration permit for subdivision 10 .75 acres
into 27 single family lots. The following changes must be made: 1
1 . The hydrants must be no more than 300 ft. apart.
2 . Locate existing hydrants on the plan.
I
3 . Insure that the system is a complete looped system.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. II
1
1
1
1
•
1
I
.\ 1
I
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff EngineerO '
DATE: August 31 , 1988
' SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Country Oaks Subdivision
Planning File No. 88-21 SUB, David A. Johnson
' This site is located at 6720 Glendale Drive, approximately one-
fourth of a mile west of Minnewashta Parkway. The existing site
is composed of a gentle topography with mature vegetation scat-
, tered throughout the site and an existing creek near the north-
west corner of the subject parcel.
Sanitary Sewer
' Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site by an
existing 8-inch diameter sewer main which exists along Glendale
' Drive. This plan also proposes a lift station and forcemain in
the proximity of Lot 1 , Block 3. As the Commission may recall,
staff had a concept study completed through the platting process
of Stratford Ridge which is located immediately to the southwest
' corner of the subject parcel. This comprehensive study had ana-
lyzed the sanitary sewer versus the topography in this area. The
study concluded that this area could be serviced by gravity sani-
tary sewer. The applicant needs to address this matter by
revising his sanitary sewer plan such that the area may be ser-
viced entirely by gravity flow. This may require additional uti-
lity easements within the proximity of Lot 1 or Lot 2 of Block 3 .
The applicant should submit plans and address this matter prior
to final plat approval.
' Watermain At
The plans propose that watermain be placed throughout the sub-
division via the existing watermain off of Glendale Drive. It
should be noted that the proposed watermain through the right-of-
way shown along Lots 4 , 5 , 6 , 7, 10 , 11 and 12 of Block 3 main-
tains a distance of 1 ,000 feet . Although the length of dead-end
' watermain is less than desirable , it is anticipated that the
number of proposed lots will keep this line from becoming
stagnant. This line will facilitate future development to the
' south if required.
I
Planning Commission
August 31 , 1988
Page 2
Access
The applicant is providing for a 50-foot right-of-way which is
consistent with the City standards for urban construction.
Grading and Drainage '
The applicant is proposing a maximum proposed street grade of
6. 0% as compared to the City' s recommended maximum of 7. 0%. We
find that these proposed street grades are acceptable.
The applicant 's engineer is proposing a storm water retention
pond down on the northwest corner of the site. The natural '
drainage for the entire parcel at present flows to the northwest
corner and through the creek located near the northwest corner .
I have received several phone calls from the homeowners asso-
ciation
regarding this proposal and the ponding site. The adja-
cent residents are concerned with drainage and how it is going to
affect their properties. I have assured them that staff will be
reviewing the proposed ponding site further through the plans and
specifications review process to make sure that all emergency
overflow facilities are available such that it does not increase
the runoff onto their properties. Further verification from the
applicant ' s engineer will be required prior to final plat appro-
val to verify that the 100-year storm event maintains adequate
separation from the existing home sites.
Erosion Control
The plan does not address erosion control. A revised grading ,
drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval prior to final plat approval.
Recommended Conditions
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and
provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to
guarantee the proper installation of these improvements.
2 . The applicant shall service this area by gravity sanitary
sewer unless their engineers can demonstrate that this entire
parcel cannot be service by gravity sanitary sewer.
3 . The applicant will provide the City with the necessary uti- '
lity easements across this parcel to service this parcel by
gravity sanitary sewer unless otherwise demonstrated that a
lift station is necessary. '
4 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit. '
Planning Commission
August 31 , 1988
Page 3
' 5 . The applicant ' s engineer shall provide the City with the
necessary documentation to verify that the 100-year storm
' event and emergency overflow conditions for the proposed
ponding site will not affect the adjacent properties.
•
i
1
1
�NAHA Cgs WATERSHED BOUNDARY -
C TIC_illi
/ N
MINNEHAHA CREEK ,, e.;,�F�
LAKE MINNETONKA
WATERSHED DISTRICT
P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 MiNHESOTA RIVER
I
BOARD OF MANAGERS: Camille D.Andre,Pres. • Albert L.Lehman • John E.Thomas
James R.Spensley • Richard R.Miller • Robert D.Erickson • C.Woodrow Love
August 5, 1988 I
Ms . JoAnn Olsen
I
City of Chanhassen
PO Box 147
Chanhassen , Minnesota 55317
I
Dear Ms . Olsen:
We have received the information you forwarded concerning the Country Oaks
I
residential development near Lake Minnewashta.
The development appears feasible and will require a permit review and approval
I
by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Some of the District's concerns in development of this type include that:
I
1 . The quality of stormwater runoff leaving the site after development shall
be equivalent to runoff quality for the existing condition . This
I
criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with a
return frequency of one year.
2 . Appropriate erosion control methods are in place to prevent the transport I
of sediments off site during and after construction .
3 . Prompt restoration of the disturbed area be completed with seed and mulch I
or sod.
4. Requirements listed under Rule D may also apply . I
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions , please
feel free to contact me at 473-4224.
Sincerely ,
•
EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES
I
A Division of James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers
Engineers for the District
141.4,,, (I, _
Kevin C. Larson , Engineer
AUG 0 8 1988
I
cc: Board
L. Smith CITY OF CH gr�;;H�;;EN
R. Brandt, Brandt Engineering i
11
' Subject: Report of Field Investigation of Three Wetland
Sites Within the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Minnesota
' Field Investigator: Paul Burke, St. Paul Field Office
Date: August, 11, 1988
Following our on-site review, Jerry Smith and I have
confirmed the delineation of the wetlands at two sites; one
near Lake Lucy Road, and the other Northwest Nursery Company
(see field investigation dated June 30, 1988) .
' At the Northwest Nursery Company site, Jerry Smith and I
agreed on the location of the wetland boundary. We agreed
' that some fill activity may have already occurred, and we
agreed that wetlands will be impacted should any additional
fill be placed on the two locations we investigated at the
nursery.
At the Lake Lucy Lake/Lake Lucy Road site, Jerry and I
agreed on the boundary around approximately 90% of the
wetland perimeter. The 10% difference lies in a southwest
corner and is not planned for fill activity, so the
difference in our judgments need not be further reduced.
The developer for the site, a Mr. Carderell, arrived on the
scene and we were able to discuss plan modifications for
reducing wetland impacts. Jerry and I closed our
conversation with Mr. Carderell on the conclusion that his
' plans would likely be covered by a nationwide permit, and we
advised him to work out the remaining wetland issues with
Ms. JoAnn Olsen of the City of Chanhassen.
' The field investigation team of Olsen, Smith, and Burke also
visited the proposed location for the Shorewood Oaks
' Development. This wetland call has been clouded by
contradicting judgments over the past year. At first
observation, Jerry and I could quickly see why there were
differences in wetland calls; the site contains several
' species of facultative hydrophytes that are distributed in
clumps around the lower 3 acres at the site. The positive
indicators include topography (the low end of the field) and
the following plant species:
Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)
American elm (Ulmus americanus)
Box elder (Acer negundo)
14(P
11
I
II
However, the field was dominated by grasses and bromes that
were not recognized as members of the wetlands plants list,
and the field contained several examples of Canada goldenrod
(Solidago canadensis) and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) .
Both of these later species are upland plants, and red
cedar, in particular, is intolerant of saturated roots
during the growing season. Due to the lack of obligate
hydrophytes, the lack of dominance by facultative
hydrophytes, and the presence of upland indicator species,
it was determined that the subject site was not a wetland.
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
11
,:i....._
f 1
, . .
. , .
50r„,
.?,
I VELASCO Ao / '4 2 3 'T
,..., 1 Ourtor ,■
,
l 2,P•52 . 'New/Isl./P.4
..‹.- ,„0„-1
''..,
5 I 6
4 CReer 0,, , 64
? 1 •
7..... _.........\cs. 4 '• ,,
- !
BERG / 5 !rn '.4":
-,- ,? to i I ,..•- 400 \
\ 5 IX
, 4 I-Est.E.E. II 2 2
6 .:•%,100-11_01 CI) 3 ' 0 7 f 9 (
,
• 2 . es .C41.t CUPVE , \'‘
4.,,, r 4.7 (, I 17.' 8 (.- • ■\\\\
••■•:-k 8 i -., ' • ■Z ,' ''..t.--__ •' 15 1 \,
e• ,' lo 1 I ;1 •
-4,-is / 4q,,. cRE. t..I; 12 • 2 / ' r „ ' ' ,\\
r'RESTVIEW DRIVE 1 i 16
7 4 2 \\\\
.: rt, . •
4? • . ... -
• • ,ri / —
7 1',
------•-51. sixSAVII --CL MAPLE.2CIR. 4 , 5 17,
' i,•.•-1 ,\
I'
,....C,CL 9 - WILE- • 1 2
r- tfar- 5
. c,...t
--... .
V ' t
i, cr- ,------4_,..___ , 5 • .----____L_GLENDALE DRIVE
r - --
40 /
/ --,-J ___ 50 4 6 2 I .. 9! 1 8 1 7
. 19 h ,
so _
I 4,,.. .3
\, ,
, LOAllot A- 4-' , R MAPLE DRIVE if
4252 (,==.-----T----4`
if—PLEASANT ACRES HOME OWNERS ASSN
•
' L-1,\ , lir , BK 84, P 552
/ 1--TE., CHARLES ANDERS
"4 ,TRUVMES7gTIM7iFA1r7,7, (2_.. .
JAMES BOYLAN
, EIK 110, P 287 ;
OUTLOT A OUTLOT B ex 111,11.•70 CY
1-
\N.A2 rs,
1'
-- •
MILDRED KERTSON
... \
)1.7.
0 SEARLE P STROUP
4
% .
■ /,
4 , ■ .- .," ,
Fr -.
5 ' ,
HOWARD E.
u. HALLGREN CHARLES H LAWSON '
o BK 98 P 651 BK"V' DECREES,P 485 /.s.-'
a, a
a
L Pk 1(
EA
. ' CQ- ,/, • ,
- o ____ (.)-
s ____ _
.
,
. ______,
e. Y.-) ......_ .
. . •
' BARBARA MAY HEADLA BARBARA MAY HEADLA
' '
,
1 BK 7 , P 274 BK 73,P 274 ' 2,.
, ,
--
_
- I '
---i- iir7 _ _
. Th 1 M 1 C77 L - ME M
EMI 11.111' ' Ell
AUG 15 '88 08:45 "` P.3/6
41706995
ARrICLS OF INCORPORATION �
OF
•
Pleasant Acres Home Owners Association
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION entered into this 7th day of March 1968_,
by and between the undersigned subscribers, all adult citizens of the
United States, who hereby associate themselves together as A body
politic under and pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 317, Minnesota
Status Annotated, known as the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act, and they .,
adopt the following proposed Charter:
ARTICLE I
The name of this Corporation shall be Pleasant Acres Home Owners
Association.
ARTICLE II
(A) The purpose of this Corporation shall be: •
1. Recreation facilities for residents of the Pleasant Acres
Community, Chanhassen Village, Carver Ccunty, .Minnesota.
•
2. Tn organize, establish, conduct and maintain facilities and
accommodations to enable its membars to enjoy outdoor recreation
on property owned by this Corporation.
3. To construct, hire, purchase, own, lease, operate, manage, maintain,
• acquire by gift or devise, and to sell and dispose of all real
and personal property necessary, incident or convenient to the
conduct and purpose of this Corporation..
•
4. To assess such dues and maintenance fees to its members as may be
necessary for the furtherance of the purpose of the Corporation.
5.- To borrow money for corporate purposes and to make, accept, indorse,
• execute and isms promissory notes, bills of exchange, bonds, deben-
tures or other obligations from tima to time for the purchase of
property or for any purpose in carrying out the aims and purposes
of the Corporation, and to secure payment of any such obligations
by mortgage, pledge, assignment of deed of trust or otherwise.
(B) The foregoing clauses shall be construed both as objects and powers,
and enumeration of specific purposes therein shall not be held to
limit or restrict in any manner the powers of this Corporation, and
are in furtherance of and in addition to, and not in limitation of,
the general powers°conferred by the laws-of the State of Minnesota, -
and each of the purposes, objects and powers specified in this article
shall be regarded as independent purposes, objects and powers and shall .
in no wise be limited by reference to or inference from the terms of
any other clause, paragraph or statement of this article.
ARTICLE III
This Corporation shall not afford pecuniary gain, incidentally or
otherwise, to its members.
•
I AUG 15 '88 08:45 , _ p.4/6
v1 .`
i- M " 1
ARTICLE Iv '
II _ The period of duration of corporate existence of this Corporation
shall be perpetual.
IARTICLE V .
The location of the registered office of the Corporation in this
state is: Route 1, Box 83G, Excelsior; Minnesota,
- ARTICLE VI
\ti The Corporation shall have no capital stock and shall not have
II a seal.
ARTICLE VII
1 The names and addresses of the present persons who are to act as
incorporators and in the capacity of principal officers (Directors) until
the selection of their successors are as follows:
1 Robert J. Lindahl, President - Route 1, Pleasant Acres, Excelsior, Minn.
William J. Kerber, Vice Pr.a ident - Route 1, Pleasant Acres, Excelsior, Minn.
Karen A. Anderson, Secretary - Route 1, Pleasant Acres, Excelsior, Minn.
James D. Hardy, Treasurer - Route 1, Pleasant Acres, Excelsior, Minn.
James D. Bennyhoff, Representative - Route 1, Pleasant Acres, Excelsior, Minn.
ARTICLE VIII
1 The management of this Corporation shall be vested in a Board of
Directors of not less than three, nor more than ten, all of whom shall be
members of the Corporation. T:.e first Board of Directors is to be composed
of the persons whose names and addresses are set forth in Article Seven
1 hereof. Said persons shall hold office for a term of one (1) year and un it
their respective successors shall be duly elected and qualified.
In the case of a vacancy in the Board of Directors, the tenure in office
1 of a successor shall be the remainder of the term of the director leaving
such vacancy.
ARTICLE IX
There shall be no personal liability of members for corporate obligaT
tions and there shall be no method of enforcement and collection of corpo -
ate obligations against the members.
•
1 .
A.^.TI CLe X
The membership of this Corporation shall be limited to residents of the
Iarea known as Pleasant Acres, Chanhassen Village, Carver County, Minnesot..
r
1 0 .
I . e1
11
___ _ _ _ _____ _ __ ___ __•_ ,___
• AUG 15 '83 08 46 . P.5/6
I
ARTICLE XI
I
The right to repeal, alter' or amend this charter at any time is
hereby expressly reserved, but any alteration, modification, or amendment
made to said charter shall be governed by and shall not conflict with the I
provisions of the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act.
IN TESTI11DNY WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 14th
day of March, 1968 .
Witnesses: g--1---1?), -�e-n&, '%, d f ' . }1/
'1"1 j�,7afIii'•/C /mil l.d L ~.
j
,
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
- COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this 14th day of March,i968
. before me a Notary Public within and for said County,persoaally appeared,
• Robert 3. Lindahl, William 3. Kerber, Karen A. Anderson, James D. Bennyhoff
& James D. Hardy , to me known to be the persons described in and who executed
the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as
their free act and deed.
• Notary Public • y:, ••k • ._ t
JANET K. DOWEL!?;3.: • -.
Nct.n P. - C: Man. j -
Lb Comr..a:.a.,C.y.,u.nsri.•5,;:;:i . • s
• ffQ .l?
• 7 y)'3,,)��..
! c 4,A-r • nc: A.t',r',.1 ,!SO"" (y
i �iip::,i: �!I Of ST ,- / •
I her■by certif. t%?t the w;t^in
instrument W33 iii.d f:,r rec;rd in this I
office on tha /f day of 1 ev
A, 1), 19 47, at 7 o'ciock 47 M.,
[W5 duty recorded in Book )(-- 9 pp�,p i• ncorporations, on page ounx
,p D.F
da De CY''0
Secretary of Stafo (
. .--,....--....-7—A.-.. ..,,,,....„,--
I
1
._�...___...�- ......._-.. ... ... ... . . ..... .. ._
_________________
HUG 15 '88 0847– .r. i''''''"
,
•-- sr. :1'706995 ......
I ,., 401---. .,„,
P.6/6' „f.mo
I
„--- .
. ...
6 99 5 $ 003.00:0 I ' O DE
FF;C:-: or fiEGISTEP OF EDS ' '''(1.\'''' •
I - i
. STATE OF
'
CU y ur.,;,•,-Iw'rr , 01 ko..,4E •
1 , -y,;,s4.1 •
'her.fle f 0,14.h...?'173.L.. ..t
tuttS fl;'.1 l'a' ; -1.;• I;;; .!'.;1•• ::':' , .!:;? 'ne.1,0. • -' •
I -
D. V.: il a ' .1,,d .'
14 a
..,r-• 0. cnd,4„fa::•:,::/i i:1..-•.:.I.:
' OFFICE OF REGISTER OF DEEDS, ..., _.. 7.. ../.7714:44), '..-;r. .6/4-4e
STATE OF MINNESOTA. .Ea, ,.. 44-1. h'am.....1 ,4 *.. .. .,
• County of Hennepin
•;,;i•: ..•n.,:.;11$
I _
, I hereby certify that the within in 1
\ • strurnent wasr-filed in this 'flage for I., •71.TPU rf'ef,1 IQ:.:X j I.'1E PS I
...., 0—.-----1...—='..--I---Z.:ZZ:::"Trt::•:::z:—..."1.':--Z—'
..f, i
,
I record on the_____7dwf
• \
' A. D. 1968, at c•-Vo'cloak .4.
and was duly recorded in Book 68 of cg. •--_TS/.. .5--\7P7t° 1
.
Hennepin County Records ,' -r ,e,..e.-Z". ....7,44"'"r4.";j,e:7• .°'-7......1:i t:
3
I .._
-
h• On Page-. 3706995
• A I I P I
,
I
,r,,2....p,rer of peeds /
aW-2-....- •
By
•
I Deputy •. . :
1.
I ._ • . -
,
. . i
i
it
ori4
. . .
t 7...
,
1,!,,:17.---2.•- )e (
- • .
. 7*: •.
aage
Ca+1-7.1014 .4‘2.1a,ti-'0"•• * P./.',. -., . '—
..
: ICVIP
I • /'(..4e-r-c.,e■ /1
' ,,>2.:',7..?
.. . • . 07; riat,(:). CZo40 62/9.11..44241e;
• A •
Re / /349-‘ P36 .:
I i
''',-.---.'4" . 41- 7:::: /. Ri
L .
,..
I
_
:I t'i.t '1.1.1•'°'
--
.0
I •
.
.
. ,
I .
.
I _ .. ,-• —_.._ ... ...
I
1
I Iniiimir- . .
•
CITY OF
II
_.
1
\\I A CHANHASSEN
1 i„ =. .
\,, ,,‘ 1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator 1
DATE: August 11, 1988
SUBJ: Country Estates 1
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for 1
Country Estates at the their last meeting. The Commission
generally has a policy to request parkland of not less than 5
II
acres in size. In this case, however, they feel that a smaller
request of parkland is appropriate because this area is so defi-
cient of such.
Realizing that a request of 5 acres from this 10 acre site would II
be unreasonable, the Commission would like approximatley 1 acre
along the south boundary of this development. The rationale for I
this location is that additional parkland can be added when
development occurs to the south.
The Park and Recreation Commission has directed staff to work 1
with the developer to identify a parcel along the south boundary
of the site for parkland. They have asked that this item be
brought back to them before going to the City Council. 1
1
II
1
1
#9 1
1
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
r a - � -
APPLICANT: D 4- th c) .4 i \_.) liLl--scti-- OWNER: �1�r P cvc c�, aI S e �PGt "t
ADDRESS 14 ;44 ADDRESS ( yg
/O() u to el6, >e(' */7
3//t..
I .5' 36P
Cp Zip Code FF,,
Zip Code
111 TELEPHONE (Daytime ) O 3S �''c 006,51-0 TELEPHONE
FS -3� 2 L- 6(`''
.067- .76-6o /H6 e;/
REQUEST: g3/.... 3to / Re,/9 d Fl;ce
' Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
IFinal Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Plan
)(--
i
IIZoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
II Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review �,(
I \ Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME
, I 'L.()
I PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION /j ''afit'o id '` ; ! +.
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION '() "
PRESENT ZONING 12S:-:----
II REQUESTED ZONING ;6,(,k,j__
tie
�'
! USES PROPOSED %
°Z �'6 �
in
SIZE OF PROPERTY / �� , •/ Z a- _-_i _--"t
LOCATION F/, 5ci, 4-, ■^E'-,-/
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST
That part of Government Lot 5, Section 5, Township 116, Range 23 lying South
of the South line of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 6, PLEASANT ACRES and lying West
of the extension Southerly of the West line of Outlot A, PLEASANT ACRES.
and
That part of the south 396 feet of said Government Lot 5 lying East of the
extension Southerly of the West line of said Outlot A, and lying West of
a line described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the South line of said Government Lot 5, distant
594.2 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence North perpendicular
to said South line 396 feet and there terminating.
1 \ and
Outlot B, PLEASANT ACRES, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver
County, Minnesota.
r . I
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application I
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS : I
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and I
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before
filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application .
II
FILING CERTIFICATION:
II
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all I
applicable City Ordinances .
/
I
Signed B __mmalleftAgi Date -7 — — e
. ppli .nt .
II
' The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been II
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
II
At
Signed B ` .4 Date 7 `" ,1-,2 — (f(�
-
II
- Owner
11/`i alt
dal 2� 3
Date Application Rec ved 7 • [06-i-
- " �s v ' 3 `1
X76 t��
Application Fee Pal �
Ci ty Receipt No. C9413 6t)
_ i
11:111W* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ v
II
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting.
1
/ 1
PHONE.(61 2)884-3882
Shorewood Oaks Development, Inc.
6100 AUTO CLUB ROAD • SUITE 314 • BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438
I
July 25, 1988
' To: Neighbors of Proposed Country Oaks Development
Regarding: Meeting - 7:00 p.m. Thursday, August 4, 1988
Dear Neighbors:
' I have reserved the chambers in the lower level of the Chanhassen
city hall so that we may get together and discuss any questions and
concerns that you might have regarding the pending project. It will
' be helpful to everyone to have your input prior to the upcoming
public hearings at the planning commission and city council .
' I am enclosing a copy of the letter submitted to the city
giving information about myself and my companies.
Please attend this meeting or call me at my home office 884-3882
' or my construction office 835-5400.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David A. Johnson
' President
Encl .
;i/c(c: Barb Dacy - City of Chanhassen
PHONE. (61 2)884-3882
Shorewood Oaks Development, Inc. I
6100 AUTO CLUB ROAD • SUITE 314 • BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438
INFORMATION REGARDING: '
David A. Johnson
Real Estate Broker, Land Developer, Builder '
1-1-68 to 5-1-69: Real Estate Agent - Bloomington Realty
5-1-69 to 1970: Real Estate Agent - The Realty House, Inc.
1970 to 1972: Real Estate Broker - The Realty House, Inc. '
1972 thru 1975: Real Estate Broker - Johnson-Laden Co. , Inc.
Also 2/3 Stockholder and President ,
1976 thru present: Broker and 1/25 Stockholder -The Realty House, Inc.
1988: President of The Realty House, Inc. '
1975 to 1986: Vice President and 50% Stockholder, Johnson-Reiland
Construction, Inc. '
1980 to 1986: President and 50% Stockholder, Shorewood Oaks Development,
Inc.
1987 to present: President and 100% Stockholder, Shorewood Oaks
Development, Inc.
1988 to present: President and 100% Stockholder, Johnson-Johnson &
Johnson, Inc.
Because of health reasons, Dan Reiland and I swapped our 50% stock '
ownership so that he now owns 100% of Johnson-Reiland Construction, Inc. and
I now own 100% of Shorewood Oaks Development, Inc. and 100% of a new
construction company, Johnson-Johnson & Johnson, Inc. '
Shorewood Oaks Development, Inc. has developed the following projects :
1 . Southcross Woods - Burnsville: consisting of 77 single family
lots and' 32 townhome sites.
2. Highland V Estates - Burnsville: 30 townhomes ,
3. Shorewood Oaks - Shorewood: 73 single family lots sold and
optioned to Lundgren Brothers Construction. '
4. Summit Oaks - Burnsville: 149 single family executive lots for
homes $200,000.00 and up with homes currently being built by
Johnson-Reiland Construction, Inc. and 4 other builders, plus
a 4 acre strip retail center in Burnsville.
1
1
1
Page 2 - Information Regarding - David A. Johnson
1
5. Brentridge - Shorewood: 24 single family lots, Johnson-Johnson &
1 Johnson, Inc. is building the homes here. As of July 1988, there
are 8 homes under construction ranging from $185,000.00 to
over $300,000.00.
1 My next project is just now being presented to the city of Chanhassen.
It will be called "Country Oaks" and consists of 27 lots, one of which
' has an existing home on it at 6720 Maple Road. I intend to have protective
covenants governing both the size of the homes and the construction design
and materials. At this point, I anticipate the homes selling for a price
of $150,000.00 to $200,000.00. I have not decided if Johnson-Johnson &
1 Johnson, Inc. will be the only builder or if I will sell lots to other
builders. In either case the architectural control committee will make
sure that this is a quality project.
i
1 David A. Johnson
Presi dent
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7, 1988 - Page 3 I
C
5. A fire lane must be installed for the entire length on either the east II
or west side of the building. The fire lane, at least 20 feet in
width , must comply with the City of Chanhassen' s requirement for an
all weather surface meeting urban standards. Whichever side is
chosen, a clear access must be maintained by designation of a "Fire
Lane" .
6. The main driveway shall have "No Parking Fire Lane" signs installed . 1
7. The applicant shall provide a revised grading plan with storm sewer
calculations which verify the preservation of the predeveloped runoff II
rate and all storm sewer capacities as part of the final review
process .
8. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit.
9. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all '
disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1.
10. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off site clean-up II
caused by the construction of this site.
11. All erosion controls shall be in place prior to the commencement of
any grading, and once in place, shall remain in place throughout the
duration of construction. The developer shall be responsible for
periodic checks of the erosion controls and shall make all repairs
promptly. All erosion controls shall remain intact until an
established vegetative cover has been produced.
12. A revised plan which shows bituminous parking and curbing shall be
submitted as part of the final review process.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 10. 75 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6270 GLENDALE
DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, COUNTRY OAKS ,
DAVE JOHNSON. ,
Public Present :
Name Address
Don Brandt 3801 Leslee Curve
Tom Poppitz 4000 Glendale Drive
J. Hallgren 6860 Minnewashta
Elaine Dunn 3820 Leslee Curve
Ralph & Carol Kant 3820 Lone Cedar Circle
Vern Isham 4030 Leslee Curve
Dick Kinsman 3920 Crestview Drive
`-
1
Planning Commission Meeting
I • September 7, 1988 - Page 4
' Paul Nitzke 4010 Glendale Drive
Mike Ryan 3850 Maple Circle
Peter & Lola Warhol 3831 Leslee Curve
' Craig Courtney 3901 Crestview Drive
Rick & Mae Vanderbruggen 4010 Glendale Drive
' Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report.
Ladd Conrad arrived during this item.
Vice Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order .
Dave Johnson : I 'm Dave Johnson with Shorewood Oaks Development. My
' understanding, to bring up the first thing that was brought up was the
setback. My understanding is that we need a 90 foot setback at the
setback line, not at the street line. Perhaps I was misinformed earlier
but that' s my understanding of it. If that ' s the case , there are only two
lots that that doesn 't work on and they are very large lots in the corner .
Emmings : Let ' s stop right here. Is his understanding correct or
incorrect?
Dacy: The 90 foot width at the setback line is only for cul-de-sac lots
I and the lots on that curve, the City in the past has not considered lots
on curves as cul-de-sac lots . When you had earlier brought up that it may
be an option to create a bubble on the street. We reviewed the plans
based on what was submitted and that would be the recommendation that
' somehow that that issue would be resolved.
Dave Johnson: I ' ve had some discussions with your engineer here about the
bubble effect. We could easily cure that problem by putting a bubble in.
He has reservations about, if reservations is the right word , about
putting a bubble on a curve. I didn' t see that as significant a problem
' myself. One of the things that with those lots in the corner , the ones
that have the narrower setback up front , there ' s no logical reason why the
house would be set that far forward anyway. I 'm a builder also. I may or
may not be building all the houses in this subdivision but we wouldn' t
' have a problem with stipulating a setback farther back so the 100 foot
would work and not put the bubble in if that would resolve the issue
because the lot is plenty big enough . It will have a substantial rear
' yard. Those are two of the biggest lots.. in there. There' s got to be some
way to resolve that issue. Whether it' s with a bubble, which doesn ' t
appear to be acceptable or getting variance on where the lot lines would
go . With respect to the sewer issue and the lift station, we did a little
' further looking into that but we haven' t had time to get back with Larry
on it but it would appear to us as though when this mini-subdivision of
those several smaller parcels there were calculated, the gravity flow
' system will work if everybody develops their property at once. Our
problem is that the property to the south of us is where the gravity sewer
would flow through is not being developed so until it does , it appears to
I be necessary to put in a lift station to temporarily push it out towards
the east . Then when the property immediately to the south is developed ,
then that lift station could be removed and the property would work
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 - Page 5 ,
gravity along with everything else . Now that ' s , as Larry said, is an
issue that will be addressed later but it' s my understanding that that' s
the reason for a lift station and it would be a temporary problem. Other
than that, I don' t know what to tell you. I have my engineer Ray Brandt II
is here if you' ve got any questions that are of a technical nature that I
can' t answer .
Emmings : Okay. I ' ll tell you what we ' ll do , if there are people that
have concerns here, we' ll let them raise their concerns and if you want
another opportunity to respond to their comments , we' ll give you that
opportunity.
Craig Courtney: I live at 3901 Crestview in Pleasant Acres . I 'm also the
President of the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association. There are 66
members in the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association and they are all
quite against this development. The main reason that most of them are
against it is , in 1968 Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association was given a
deeded lake access lot. Now this land that' s being developed as Outlot A II
and Government Lot 5 is listed as part of this property that would get
deeded lake home access but it was deeded to Pleasant Acres Homeowners
Association. The deed states that . This is not going to be Pleasant
Acres. This is going to be Country Oaks. Even though they' re deeded that
property, there' s going to be some sort of conflict , we feel , in the fact
that Pleasant Acres owns the property. We maintain it through all of our
taxes . We pay the taxes on it. What is going to be done to the residents '
that buy this property in Country Oaks? Hereto the policy that we have
with the Lake Association Beachlot. It states in our corporation papers ,
the people who use this will be members of Pleasant Acres Homeowners
Association. We feel that
these 27 additional lots along with the 66 will put the number , out of 100
people that could have and will use that deeded lake access lot. We feel I
it ' s very overcrowding that small 1 acre or 1/2 acre lot.
Emmings: Is there anything in your By-laws or in the papers under which
you' re organized that forces you to permit these people in your
organization?
Craig Courtney: The only thing that we see that would force him is , this II
Quit Claim deed was given to Pleasant Acres Addition 1 and Addition 2 and
on unplotted lands now owned by me in Sections 6, Township 116 , Range 23
and Government Lot 5, Township 116, Range 23 so in essence, if it is legal II
that they are getting deeded lake access to this property, that would be
the only thing that would say that they can have it because the Quit Claim
Deed is in Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association ' s name. Our Articles of
Incorporation state that members of this corporation shall be limited to
residents of the area known as Pleasant Acres , Chanhassen Village, Carver
County, Minnesota.
Emmings: This particular issue sounds like it might be a legal issue
between you and the developer of this property and later on the homeowners
of that property. It probably isn ' t something that we can get involved
in.
Planning Commission Meeting
• September 7, 1988 - Page 6
C
Craig Courtney: Then I ' ll drop that point. I also have a concern. The
Pleasant Acres is stated as all large, people consider them 1/2 acre lots
and Country Oaks is coming in and half of the lots are just barely the
minimum size. We don' t feel that this is going to do Pleasant Acres any
good at all . There was mention of the size of the homes and the price
range of the homes and this land is, in my own view of the land, is not
' land that you would develop homes of this size and price range of homes is
going to be developed . My personal objection is to the size of the lots
and I guess that was it. Then if we may ask for some direction for
the Homeowners Association and may be something we can ' t be helped. It
will be ironed out between the developer and Pleasant Acres.
Emmings: It seems to me that what you ' re talking about there is private
' legal rights as opposed to anything that the City could address in this
application.
' Craig Courtney: Let me ask you how you interpretted your Section 5 of
your Zoning Regulations as far as the use of non-conforming use property?
It states that non-conforming use property, which this lot is , shall not
be expanded or enlarged. You ' re not expanding or enlarging the property
but you' re expanding the use tremendously.
Emmings : You ' re talking about the beachlot now?
II ( Craig Courtney: Right .
Emmings : You can ' t expand a non-conforming use and I guess I had a
' question about that too. In the Staff Report it seemed primarily to
address whether or not they would be allowed to have more boats down there
but it would seem to me that having more people using it , 27 families or
' whatever , would expand the use of the property. Why does it affect the
docking of boats and not the use of the property by more people?
' Dacy: Just to make clear that the Pleasant Acres beachlot, whatever
existed when we adopted the Beachlot Ordinance in 1982, the number of
boats , the number of docks and the number of canoe racks and so on, all of
that existing use is grandfathered in. When we talked to the City
Attorney about that he said , you can ' t authorize another dock or another
boat or anything that the City had on record occuring on the Pleasant
Acres Beachlot . The City really could not tell the Pleasant Acres
Homeowners Association that property owner A could not use the beachlot
versus property owner B. His feeling was that because part of the
property was legally described as part of Pleasant Acres Subdivision, that
that ' s going to have to be a matter between the developer and the existing
Homeowners Association to work out who uses it or if they get to use it or
whatever . It ' s part of that private Restrictions and Covenants which the
City does not have a party to. What we do have a party to is that we will
' not allow more boats or docks located on that beachlot .
Craig Courtney: If you adopted that as non-conformance use, the number of
boats , docks and you do not adopt the number of parcels of land that were
to use that property at that time? At that time there was Pleasant Acres
1 and 2. There was Outlot A and there was Government Lot B. That ' s two
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 - Page 7 ,
extra other than Pleasant Acres 1 and 2 and now you ' re going to have 27
more.
Dacy: That ' s where I 'm saying that the City Attorney is saying that the I
private property owners and the Pleasant Acres homeowners have to work
that out . The Zoning Ordinance is only pertaining to the Conditional Use
for a beachlot. What happens there? The number of docks. The number of
boats . The City' s regulations do not apply to who gets to use that , what
lots get to use that. That is contained in your document and is a private
document between you and whoever owns the property as part of the Pleasant
Acres Subdivision. Again, part of this property is described as a part of
the Pleasant Acres. Part of it is not so just from me looking at it,
there's no question whether 27 lots would have the ability to use that
because only half of the subject property is legally described as part of II
Pleasant Acres .
Emmings : It would sound like your Homeowners Association should have an
Attorney go through your papers and this situation and let you know what
your options are.
Craig Courtney: Thank you . '
Erhart : Didn ' t we recently pass an ordinance limiting the number of lots
that can use any particular beachlot? '
Dacy: The ordinance reads that there ' s a 1,000 foot radius from the
beachlot but again, that ordinance applies to newly created beachlots and
this is a grandfathered beachlot.
Erhart : But that does limit the number of users to a beachlot . What is
that number? Do you remember? '
Dacy: For the rural subdivisions I think we had 40 and that was based on
80% of the lots . . . '
Erhart : But this is residential . It would seem to me that it may or may
not.
Dick Kinsman: I live at 3920 Crestview Drive and knowing that
developments of this type sometimes run into problems , have trouble and
aren ' t always completed as planned , I 'm wondering what the bonding
situation is or what type of guarantee you impose on the developer to know
for the City' s sake as well as ours that the thing is going to look and we
see it as planned?
Emmings : I think the thing the City is worried about are the public
improvements that the developer has to put in as part of that development .
We get some financial security on those items but that ' s all . Is that
right?
Brown: Normally when a contractor goes in , they' ll bid the entire job.
That means grading for the entire subdivision and the earth work involved
in constructing street and utilities . They' ll bid that as one lump sum
1
Planning Commission Meeting
I • September 7, 1988 - Page 8
C
' package . The City in turn will require the developer to post a letter of
credit for the amount of 1100 of the amount that it costs for the entire
project. That extra 10o is to give the City some leeway as far as
' administrative costs to get a contractor in there to complete the work if
the contractor fails to do so.
' Batzli : Those are just for the public improvements?
Brown: Usually it ' s for the entire subdivision because it ' s bid as one
entire package so it would include grading for the lots, construction of
the ponding site and landscaping .
Emmings: Does that answer your question sir?
Dick Kinsman : Yes .
Jo Ann Hallgren : I live at 6860 Minnewashta Parkway which is the property
south of Country Oaks . I guess there isn' t a representative from the Park
and Recreation here this evening? There was mention made about a piece of
Country Oaks being designated for parkland and then in the future
' development of the property to the south , that parkland would be extended .
I don ' t know if I want you to do that. It seems to me Mr. Johnson has a
choice of where he wants his piece of parkland to be but if it ' s supposed
I to connect up with development to the south, which is me, and I have a lot
of prime buildable property, I guess I wouldn ' t care to have that
designated as parkland if it doesn' t have to be. I understood there were
some questions about the parkland and I don ' t know how it works . If you
' have to donate land or pay fees or what, I have no idea on that. That ' s
why I wanted a rep from the Park.
' Emmings: We don' t know either .
Jo Ann Hallgren : Has Mr . Johnson picked an area for the park?
' Emmings: Just a minute. I think the thing is that the functions of the
Park and Rec Commission and ours don' t overlap. Your comments probably
should have been addressed to them but they' ll become a part of our
' Minutes and go onto the City Council . We don ' t ordinarily get involved
with the things in their domain .
Jo Ann Hallgren : But no one was notified . I was not notified that it was
going to be designated parkland .
Headla : Can I say something Steve? This is a public hearing and this is
the first chance anybody has had to say anything on it. Isn ' t that
appropriate?
' Emmings : Doesn ' t Park and Rec have a public hearing when an item like
this comes in front of them?
Dacy: Technically no but let me explain a little more about this issue.
I The Park and Rec Commission identified this general area as being park
deficient and they identified a need for parkland . Typically the Park and
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 - Page 9 I
Rec Commission notifies the applicant about this . I know that the
applicant had objected to the reservation of the one acre park area. The
Park and Rec Commission ' s recommendation goes onto Council and the
applicant has the ability to appeal that decision to the Council . The
Council can decide whether or not to accept the Park and Rec Commission ' s
recommendation. I guess in one instance it ' s good to hear these comments
now.
Emmings: I want you to put your comments on record and anybody else who
has and wants to because the City Council looks at what happens here and
looks at your comments . '
Jo Ann Hallgren : As I understand , I don ' t go to many of these meetings
but Park and Rec land, I don' t know what they have in mind. How big a II park? Usually 5 acres is supposed to be a park. I certainly don' t want 5
acres taken, or 4 acres taken off my 11 acre piece and where else are they
going to go? Stratford Ridge is to the east and there' s 400 feet to get II to the south of me. I don' t understand where they think they' re going to
go with their 5 acres . It would be that I would have no choice in the
development of my property where I would like designated parkland or if I
would rather pay fees , if that' s the choice. I don ' t know. The other 1
thing is, Lake Little Joe, I don ' t know if you' re familiar with it but
it' s down the road a few blocks , there is a lot of low land there which
I 'm sure is unbuildable because it' s a water table. To me a park in that
area would be much more feasible . You would have wildlife and area for a I
larger park than you would in this particular spot.
Emmings: I think that when it comes to you developing your property, that I
issue will be negotiated anew between you and the Park and Recreation
Commission and the Planning Commission. I don' t think that anything that
Park and Rec is doing , they may be making plans but it ' s not going to I
think constrain your development in any way. Am I right Barbara?
Jo Ann Hallgren : They said that additional parkland can be added when
development occurs to the south.
Emmings : I think that ' s wishful thinking . That ' s what they hope to do
and whethey they do it or not , that' s a question for the future. '
Jo Ann Hallgren : But that ' s what you say.
Erhart: I have a question for later on but it might be an appropriate '
time to ask it . What .is the legal requirement for the developer regarding
supplying any land to the Parks and Rec?
Dacy: I think it' s Chapter 17 or 18 of our City Code does enable the City
to require a certain amount of land dedication for Park and Recreation
purposes . In lieu of that , the City can also impose park and trail fees . I
Erhart: What is the amount of land as a percent of total land being
developed or is it not measured like that?
I
Panning Commission Meeting -
September 7, 1988 - Page 10
' Dacy: Most communities use a 10% figure and Chanhassen goes by the amount
of population that' s going to be generated from a service area of the
subdivisions . As Lori noted in her report , how many folks could be
' anticipated to use that park and to use persons per lot and crank that
into a formula to determine the number of acres .
Erhart: What ' s the ordinance specifically. . .
Dacy: The ordinance is based on that . If you can give me a minute, I can
find it.
' Erhart : No . The report' s a little scarey I think. First let me ask you
this. What do you suppose the average size, in terms of acres , of the
' typical subdivision that we ' ve seen here in the last 12 to 24 months?
Dacy: Let ' s answer your question this way. A 5 acre park for a
' neighborhood park is the standard but for this size subdivision, to
require 5 acres out of this size subdivision is excessive.
Erhart : Right, and Lori admits that . I don ' t think the Park and
' Recreation Commissioners stated that. The one that I find a little
awestruck by is the sentence, typically it is in the Park and Rec policy
to request not less than 5 acres and I can insert the words , of a
I subdivision , for parkland . I look at this subdivision and I look at this
and I say this is very typical of subdivisions we' ve seen here since I 've
been on the Planning Commission and they' re all generally around 10 acres .
I think out there they' re all around 10 acres and to state that 5 acres is
' typical when the average subdivision is 10 acres somehow I question that .
It just appears that we ' re, to keep kind of going back to the developers
and asking for more, it gets to the point where it is a little
' intimidating for the developer .
Dacy: Don ' t misunderstand what she ' s saying . She ' s saying 5 acres for
this park deficient area which includes the western half of the west side
of Minnewashta Parkway there .
Erhart : Okay, maybe I am misinterpretting it . I read that. . .
' Dacy: She ' s not saying , 5 acres out of this 10. That' s where Mrs .
Hallgren is saying , I don ' t want 4 acres being taken out of mine.
Erhart: I see. I read that to say that typically we take a minimum of 5
acres for any subdivision . Okay, I take back everything I just said .
Pete Warhol : Pete Warhol , 3831 Leslee Curve and I guess I 'm a little
opposed to the size of those lots . I don ' t think they conform to the
area. My lot ' s an acre and a fourth. I know my neighbor ' s lots are
decent size.
Emmings : Where do you live?
tPete Warhol : 3831 Leslee Curve. I don ' t think that ' s going to help our
properties that are decent sized. That' s my comment.
11
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 -- Page 11 II
C
Tom Poppitz : I live at 4000 Glendale Drive and my main concern is the
lowland behind my house with the amount of water that sits back there and
getting rid of it after a normal winter with the spring thaw and with the 1
rains that do come in the summer. I have a couple pictures I 'd like to
pass around and have you people look at. The first one I will pass around
is after the spring thaw, where the water sits and the second one is after I
a normal rain in the summertime.
Headla : Why don' t you tell them the time you took that.
Tom Poppitz : These were back in 1978 .
Emmings: Are these taken in the area where we've been talking about
having the holding pond?
Tom Poppitz: Yes . The water closest would be where the holding pond II would be. Before that and the back part would be where the two lots would
be.
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in '
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Headla : I ' ve got a question of Mr . Johnson. Would you go over again i
about the sewer and how it affects the property to the south?
Dave Johnson : I would have my engineer Ray Brandt . ,
Ray Brandt: Right now my plans shows a lift station in this area that
would take it up to Glendale Drive but after talking with Mr . Brown, the
best way to do this is to put the lift station at this end of the property II
such that at some time in the future when the land to the south does
develop, then the gravity sewer can, I would drain the whole project down
to this point and then pump from here back up to here or maybe even over
at Stratford Ridge but when development occurs to the south such that this
roadway gets extended , at that point then the sanitary sewer with gravity
flow out and the lift station would be abandoned or removed . '
Brown: Again, we' ll be looking at that further through the plans and
specs review. If I may make a brief comment. The concept study that was
done through the Stratford Ridge did not have the precise topography, if
you will . It was loolk•ing at in a concept sort of manner. Again, the task
put back to the developer is to support his conclusions with data through
the plans and specs review proving to the City that this can not be served
by gravity flow. If he does that , then we will accept the lift station
concept.
Headla : By that , we' re really saying that if the person to the south
sells her property, damn well better put a road in there. So you ' re
predesigning something . You' re taking many perogatives away from that
land owner to the south. The land owner to the south, they may not want II
to go out that way so now, what happens?
11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 - Page 12
Brown: I don' t see the problem.
Headla : What are you going to do about the lift station?
Brown: We have at the present time 23 lift stations within the City. It' s
not desirable to have another lift station added to the system. However,
we can ' t deny that .
Headla: So the Village assumes the cost of the lift station and the
builder goes away Scott free.
Brown: In maintenance costs , yes . Much like we would a public street.
Headla: What impact does that street ending there have on the future
development of the property to the south?
' Dacy: If you recall during the Stratford Ridge subdivision, that' s when
we did take a broader look at the properties under separate ownership in
this area. There' s no question that we have properties developing in
these small chunks . We are predisposing the street pattern onto that
adjacent property but we have looked at the overall picture at least in
general kind of concepts and have provided a logical street extension to
II the property to the south .
Headla : But if neither Stratford Ridge or this one follows the plan that
was presented before. It seems like a builder comes in and makes his
' pitch and then that ' s the way it starts going .
Dacy: Another consideration also is the topography of the site. Physical
' features in this particular case , there was the street connection up at
Glendale that made good sense to connect that in. We wanted to make sure
there were two ways to get into the subdivision as well as providing some
type of access to the south. When the land to the south. . .
Headla : If we' re going that way, why aren ' t we consistent? On Stratford
Ridge we put in a cul-de-sac. Now we deadend the street. That isn' t
' consistent.
Dacy: On the Stratford Ridge property there was along the southern
' boundary, there was an outlot reserved for further extension to the west.
It was a cul-de-sac in the northeast corner . When we looked at that
entrance onto Mi.nnewashta Parkway versus other entrances and we did
reserve an outlot for future extension to the west .
Headla: I 'm really opposed to having this coming right up to another
person ' s property. That ' s a really sad thing . At the builder ' s
convenience, this is the way it ' s going to be period. Like it or not. To
me that ' s wrong . . . that ' s anarchy. I ' ve got a question on why the so
c small a lot. Why do you want to go 25% to 30% smaller on your lots than
what ' s in the rest of the area?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 - Page 13 I
Dave Johnson : The rest of those lots were developed back at a time when
land was cheap and so was development. The zoning for this area is 15, 000
square foot minimum size. We attempted to get as many lots as we could
get taking topography into consideration and staying within the guidelines II
of your ordinance .
Headla : But you had no concern for the neighborhood whatsoever . You
wanted to go for the maximum buck. People invest a lot of money into
their property. If you use the same size property, you still got good
value in your property.
Dave Johnson : I think before anybody considers that we' re coming in there II
and just going for the biggest bang for the buck without regard to the
neighborhood , I think they should perhaps check out some of the projects
that we've been involved in before. I heard the same sort of comments
just across TH 7 on that project called Brentridge in the City of
Shorewood and all the people along Howards Point Road, in this particular
case they' re all sitting on lots that are approximately 20, 000 square feet
and the area on that side of a large marsh, Boulder Bridge Farms is on the
other side of Howards Point Road and you know, or maybe you don' t but
that' s $500, 000. 00 and up neighborhood and it ' s zoned for 40, 000 square
foot lots . Now east of the marsh , on the other side of the marsh it ' s
zoned for 20,000 square foot lots . Now meanwhile you' ve got a strip of
existing houses in there that , all those neighbors raised a lot of cane
and complained that you' re going to hurt the value of our houses if you
put in , in this case they changed the zoning to 20, 000 and we put in an
average of 26, 000 plus for a lot. But the neighbors were all up in arms
yet now that the project is in there , the quality of the house , the sizes II
of the house and the layout, it' s going to be a nice addition to the
community. Everybody' s scared when land that ' s been sitting there vacant
and they've had the beautiful views of the raw land and potentially in I
some cases the use of it , that this developer is just going to come in and
rack the area. That doesn' t happen to be the case. We intend to put in a
nice subdivision with nice houses . We' re conforming to the City' s
requirements and then some. I guess I don ' t share the view that the
difference of 3, 000 square foot per lot is a significant enough difference
to say that it' s going to be a crummy development.
Headla : It ' s more than 3, 000. You' re talking 15,000 lots and the others
are 22, 000 to over 40, 000.
Dave Johnson : The figures I heard up here were , mine are. . .
•
Headla: Let me ask some other questions will you please. The
sedimentation pond , why is that so close to the neighbors? Why didn ' t you II
put it back in your own land?
Dave Johnson : I ' ll defer that to my engineer . I
Headla: I see a common thread through this whole thing and I 'm really
disturbed about it.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
ISeptember 7, 1988 - Page 14
Ray Brandt : You' ve got to put the ponding area in the low end of the
project. You can' t put it in the high end of the project. The low end of
the project is right here. This is where the drainage goes . This whole
' property, except for possibly a little corner down here, drains today
right through to this low area , through this drainage swale. This ponding
area can do nothing but improve the situation because all the storm water
' goes into the pond and has a chance to settle out which it doesn ' t do now.
There' s capacity here in this pond for almost 8 inches of rain in a 24
hour period . If we get more than that, maybe 10 inches of rain like we
had last year in July, there' s an overflow from the dike at 964. 5 which
' would go over the dike, down into the swale that' s there now.
Headla: I disagree with your reasoning. Why you've put that off in a
' corner where it' s minimum disturbance to the rest of the land . You can
move it up further and catch probably 75% to 80% of the water coming in
off of there.
' Ray Brandt: Where should I move it to?
Headla : Where that one right angle in the road is . The point is , you ' re
getting all this . . .
Ray Brandt: You can ' t put it uphill . You put it at the low end of the
' C project.
Headla : But you don' t have to put it at the bottom end either . You want
' to catch 100% , maybe . . . I see this , you ' re totally coming in, you ' re
going to have water in that pond, a lot more than it is now. If they've
got kids or pets going in there , it' s going to be another mess . You can ' t
help but get away from that.
Ray Brandt: There will be no water standing there except after a rain for
a day until it drains out.
' Headla : I don' t think it ' s going to be just a day. Another common thread
I see is the builder wants to be part of the Pleasant Acres . He wants
access to the lake . Pleasant Acres concern to be placed but when it comes
to providing park area for that whole Pleasant Acres , he doesn ' t want to
do that . He wants to back away and make them give up an acre of that . If
you ' re part of Pleasant Acres, you ' re part of the problem damnit, but why
' give park area . Somebody should provide- it . Right now the way it ' s laid
out , just like that road, the people to the south are going to have to
bury that and that ' s wrong . Pleasant Acres created the problem, I think
' that whole thing should be solved by Pleasant Acres . Another common
thread I see is when you had your meeting , the developer , when you talked
to the neighbors , it was on a week night. Now the neighbors that I talked
to , most of them were gone. If you called it on a weekend , you would have
had a lot better attendance.
Dave Johnson : I don ' t follow that logic at all .
IHeadla : When did you have your meeting?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 - Page 15 1
Dave Johnson: We had it on a week night . Either Wednesday or Thursday. I
Headla: Right and people. . . I think some were concerned, they wanted to
hear that . The drainage concern there, there shouldn ' t be any real effect II
on that should there?
Dacy: The drainage? I
Headla: Yes .
Dacy: Larry? I
Brown: Again , there' s concern from the homeowners regarding the potential
flooding of it and we' re working to make sure that that doesn' t happen. I
Headla : Then I have one last comment. This letter from the forester .
I 'd like to have the forester come over to my house and take a look to the II
north and tell me he confirmed to see the land that ' s straight bare rather
than a bunch of Box Elder on it. On his wording there, Box Elder is trash
trees but when you look at that land now, there are trees on it . There is il
something green. Now if they want to take those trees down, okay, maybe
II
that makes sense but I think they should replace the equivalent number of
wood that they take down. I think they ought to replace the equivalent
somewhere along with the development of that . That ' s all I have.
I
Batzli : I 'd like to say one thing about the park issue. As I understand
it, for a single family detached dwelling lots , you consider an average of
3 persons per lot and you need 1 acre for 76 people. That ' s what the Park II
and Recreation Commission goes for so it appears here there ' s what , 27
lots. 1 acre does, in theory obtain what they recommend or it comes very
close . Within the guidelines of what our ordinance says for that so I
II
think more than 1 acre is outrageous and 1 acre is probably about right
on. I was interested in those pictures that were passed around in that
that appears to me to be where we' re going to put the drainage swale and II the holding pond . You said earlier that you ' re going to put the swale so
if there is overflow, if there is an event greater than the 100 year
storm, it ' s going to overflow into the creek? That ' s what you' re working
on now with their engineer to come up with something like that? 1
Brown: That ' s correct .
Batzli : It appears from those pictures that that ' s standing water and I 'm II
going to assume that i:•t' s there more than a day after the rains take place
so when you construct a holding pond like this , you normally redo the II bottom of it or something in order to have it drain properly? Right now
the engineer indicated something you could do there for a short while . Is
that the case or is this thing going to collect water and hold water?
IIBrown: Most of our ponds within the City are constructed as what we call
a dry pond, usually drain out within a day so there shouldn' t be standing
water if the pond is constructed correctly. i
II
Pl'anning Commission Meeting
ISeptember 7, 1988 - Page 16
C
' Batzli : Did we not impose restrictions on grading within drainage pond
areas that were located within areas that weren' t outlots in previous
developments? I thought for some reason , I can ' t remember the name of it ,
' that we did a big drainage swale and there were going to be Covenants
imposed on the homeowners that they couldn ' t adjust that grading .
Brown: That' s correct. That was in Stratford Ridge. Staff' s concern
obviously, as you eluded to, is that a builder not come in and alter that
sort of ponding configuration.
Batzli : Or the private individual that moves in there if they don' t want
a swale in their backyard.
' Brown: Correct .
Batzli : I 'd like to see something like that put into the recommendations
' here personally. I disagree with, -somewhat, not with the City Attorney' s
opinion necessarily but that by adding 15 more lots that are able to use a
beachlot does not increase it ' s use. I think it ' s ludicrous to say that.
That ' s just a comment that I ' ll make and I don ' t think we can really
' address it but I think that' s a silly thing to say and I can' t imagine why
we can ' t address that . If we ' re told we can ' t address it. . . A question
for Larry. Do we not need easements if a lift station is necessary?
I ( Brown: The lift station , and I ' ll simply check here. . .
Batzli : I was referring in particular to the staff report condition 7.
The applicant will provide the City with easements to service this parcel
by gravity sewer unless otherwise demonstrated that a lift station is
necessary. That seems to me to say that we don ' t need any easements if a
' lift station is necessary.
Brown : Okay, maybe my condition was unclear . Going back to this concept
' plan that was done a while ago showed sanitary sewer running down the
proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 in Block 3. Excuse me , that' s Lot 2 and Lot 3 of
Block 3. That common lot line. Obviously, I talked with Mr. Poppitz, one
of the adjacent lot owners there. There is a potential that sanitary
' sewer might run down that lot line that I mentioned and through the
Pleasant Acre lots there to Glendale Avenue if sufficient easements exist .
Obviously the City can not go back through the Pleasant Acres subdivision
' and require more easements unless we condemn and we certainly don ' t want
to do that at this point so we'd rather have the applicant provide an
additional easement through possibly Lot 2 or 3 to accomodate the existing
easement within the Pleasant Acres if this becomes necessary. Again, the
task is back to the developer to provide us with that data .
Batzli : I thought he was indicating that he may put in a temporary lift
station and then go to the gravity.
Brown: It has the potential to be resolved later .
Batzli : So the condition may change at the City Council depending upon
what you two decide?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 - Page 17 ' II
Brown: That ' s correct . The easement again that I 'd be lookin g for would
be along Lots 2 and 3 of Block 3 .
Batzli : Barb, I want to ask the question that I think Dave asked and I
don ' t think you quite answered it. Why isn ' t there a cul-de-sac at the
end of that road that gets to the eastern border? What is that? South? II
Brown: Southwestern.
Batzli : Even if it' s a temporary cul-de-sac. Whatever . ,
Dacy: The City has the perogative to require a temporary turn around at
that point. That' s fine. Larry, I don ' t know if you wanted to address
that.
Brown: The basis for the cul-de-sacs, giving it a long deadend road is II basically for fire protection vehicles so they don' t have to back all the
way out. Given like our aerial truck or a hook and ladder or whatever .
Public Safety, we confronted Public Safety regarding this and Jim Chaffee,
the Public Safety Director stated that it was not required in this . He 11
felt that the length which I will bring to the Commission' s attention, I
mentioned was 1,000 feet . My error , it is only 500 feet . He stated that
it was not required in that instance. i
Batzli : That ' s interesting , but that' s his decision . I guess I 'd prefer
to see. . . Last two comments , one is, I would prefer to see the developer
rearrange Lots 1, 2 and 3 with 3 and 4 . Whichever the ones are that don ' t
have the required frontage rather than going for a variance. I don ' t
think the lots in this case deserve a variance . I think he ' s packing them
in there and he can rearrange them a little bit to get the required
footage . It ' s his hardship to developing around this corner . I also
would like to ask the question that we talked about before regarding
blending neighborhoods . I think we talked about amending the ordinance to ,
blend. Any comments?
Conrad : This is a fun one, because that ' s a concern of mine. In this
particular case we' re not that far different than, I 'm sure the residents II
don ' t care to hear that but at least we' re within 25% . I get real upset
when new developments are coming in at 15, 000, all at 15, 000 square feet
and they' re in areas where the other houses that are there are over an
acre. There we' re talking about 300%-400%. This is really quite minor
compared to what we' ve seen over the past several years .
Headla: . . .when you consider all the Pleasant Acres or/and Stratford ,
Ridge.
Conrad : Bottom line is , the ordinance says 15 , 000 Dave and we' ve gone
through that and what the ordinance says is what the developer has to meet
L and we don ' t have any control over that unless we change the ordinance.
Flat out. Period. End of sentence. End of whatever. The developer only II
has to meet the minimum and when we chanced ordinances a couple years ago,
we didn' t have too many people in this chamber saying we need bigger lot
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' September 7, 1988 - Page 18
sizes. We had very few people show up for those meetings. We had a
section in there where we proposed a 40, 000 square foot zoning district.
We proposed that . Nobody showed up for that meeting . Nobody showed .
Therefore, the City had the chance and right now the developer has the
option to come in at 15, 000. This developer is coming in more than that .
It' s less than the neighborhood but it' s sure far closer than most of the
developments we' ve seen.
Batzli : I agree that the ordinance says 15 ,000 but I would like to
' proceed post haste with taking a look at that blending .
Conrad : Can you do that in the next couple of days Barbara?
Dacy: Sure.
Conrad : I agree with that Brian. This is a real problem area because I
think we want new developments to blend in. We just really do and there
are definite economics that are imposed on developers right now versus
developers 10 years ago or 20 years ago and that can be incorporated into
our ordinance and our thinking . Lot sizes may never be as big as they
' used to be but that doesn' t mean that we can' t try to match neighborhoods
and new developments into the old neighborhoods . We just haven ' t gotten
there yet. We don' t have an ordinance that we can move back on to say
II ( this is not in concert with the existing development . Our ordinance
doesn' t do that.
Emmings : I just noticed one thing here . On recommendation 1, it says
' Lots 1 through 5, Block 2 and that should say Block 3 I take it.
Dacy: That ' s correct .
1 Conrad : I agree with a lot of the comments . Larry, just a quick question
that this issue brings up. When we put a pond in on a piece of property,
you kind of want that to take care of the drainage obviously but you kind
of want it to be an asset at the same time, if you can. A lot of
developments and the neighborhoods can be upset if you put a pond in or
don ' t put a pond in. Different people have different perspectives . A lot
of the ponding that we put up, that capture drainage from subdivisions ,
can be permanent ponds . Attractive and whatever. In this particular case
it ' s meant to be a dry pond . Do we do anything to make it attractive?
' Does that mean that the land stays as ibis and it is our posture that
that is good because it can be good? Or do we try to make things pretty
with that pond? What'••s our posture in the City?
' Brown: I think you laid it out well . There ' s two possibilities . Either
you construct the dry pond which is going to add probably the, I call it
the meadow grass . That ' s probably not a very good term but it' s the
' meadow grass that' s out there now along the edge of the pond. Obviously
the edge of that vegetation is going to depend on how many successive
rains you get. The water will potentially stand in that for a day and
then maybe drain off . If we have 14 continuous days , we slowly start to
deteriorate the vegetation but if it' s a dry pond, usually the banks and
the area that ' s not directly affected will be a meadow grass . If on the
t
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7, 1988 - Page 19
other hand you decide that you want to enhance the wildlife aspect, create I
a wet pond and then you create another concern, at least from my past
experience with neighborhoods, of safety versus small children in your
pond. To create a cattail situation which would enhance a lot of wildlife II
and you' re looking at a minimum of about 3 feet of water which residents
often times don' t like because of the safety problems .
Conrad : I think it comes down to some preferences and priorities of
developers and neighborhoods . I have my preference on what I would want
and I think there' s not always total agreement on what I believe would be
best to improve the value of the neighborhood. I think I ' ll just leave
that alone. I wanted to raise the issue. Dave, you were concerned that
they' re putting the ponding close to neighbors. On the other hand, that
can be an asset too . I think you can cut this thing a couple different II ways . It all depends on your perspective. Barbara , for you basically, if
the folks to the south, two questions . One, why are we looking at a plat
without a park on it? '
Dacy: Maybe the applicant may want to comment on that also . We talked
about that. That was the recommendation from the Park and Rec Commission.
There were other issues regarding preliminary plat that had to be
discussed. Final decision would be up to the Council as to whether or not
they would go along with the Park and Rec Commission' s action.
Conrad: So the applicant said that I prefer not to have a park? Not to
show where it would be?
Dave Johnson : I received a letter from Lori Sietsema with her I
recommendations on it basically as it related to a park. It said that
they prefer to get a 5 acre park. They didn ' t feel they could take 5
acres from this project. That would be considered a taking, I believe is II
the word she used . She said in light of that , it was her recommendation
that they look for parkland closer to Lake Joe and that they require a
cash park dedication fee from me in lieu of taking any land . Then she
went on to state that they wanted, because there was a through street in
there, they wanted a trail put along the side of the through street. When
I discussed what that entailed, I said well that sounds fine with me if
that ' s your recommendation . I had a prior commitment and I didn ' t go to
the Park and Rec meeting because I felt they would probably listen to what
the staff suggested and what the staff suggested was fine with me. After
the Park and Rec meeting, I was contacted and told that they wanted two
lots . It doesn ' t show the trail system on the one that you have . We
haven' t put it in. I .don' t have a problem with that and I prefer the cash
donation rather than the land. I 'm not particularly in favor of a 1 acre
park. I don ' t think it does much for the project and Mrs . Hallgren may or
may not develop her land in the near future and it may or may not work out
so that you' re able to get more land there with 11 acres . I doubt you
could get much more than an acre there and I 'm not so sure that a 2 acre
park is , if there is more land not very far away where a 5 acre one could
be gotten, I think that would make more sense. I don' t know. I intend to
have a Park and Rec meeting this Tuesday which I will attend . It ' s going II
to be discussed here.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
ISeptember 7, 1988 - Page 20
' Conrad : I 'm kind of lost a little bit . So what did Park and Rec say?
They want an acre maybe here but maybe they want a different park some
other place? That ' s what I just heard . What are they looking for and
' it ' s not even our business except as to how it affects this plat and I
don ' t like to see a plat that doesn ' t have a park that somebody says you
should have and send it to City Council . I 'm kind of lost.
Dacy: If the Council comes back and agrees with the Park and Rec
Commission action to locate a park in the plat , the applicant will be
required to submit a revised plat. We felt uncomfortable delaying the
' applicant's hearing in front of the Planning Commission based on a couple
of options that the Park and Rec Commission , obviously we' re looking at a
variety of options on this piece of property, and make a recommendation
to Council . So we have three different bodies maybe saying three
different things .
Conrad : On the Park and Rec target map, where they want to put parks , do
we have a little bullseye over this parcel? Have you seen that map?
Dacy: They don ' t have a specific plan . They' re reacting to this area in
general as being park deficient.
Headla : Ladd , where you ' re just looking at the . . . , the park being
' expanded to the south. That paragraph before it, that kind of preempts
it .
Conrad : In terms of running a road into an adjacent property, that is
' good planning Dave. The first group comes in, you can ' t just say don' t
put any roads anyplace because we never know when the next property
develops . We just don ' t know. The best planners can do is say hey,
' we' re going to take a wild stab at it and we could force cul-de-sacs too .
Headla : Cul-de-sacs would be much more tolerable.
' Conrad : Then you' ve got access problems . Then you ' ve safety problems .
I bring this up not that we haven' t gone through this before but I think
you should hear some of the things we talk about . You put a cul-de-sac
' in there, which specifically the lady with the property to the south, we
put a cul-de-sac in, we have additional safety problems . Typically you
try not to have cul-de-sacs but the neighbors say we like cul-de-sacs
because it gives a sense of community. 'So there' s a lot of things that
go into some of this stuff but back to something kind of real. By having
a road that abuts up to a neighboring property, does that absolutely mean
we' re going to connect to it or does that mean that in the future, the
next landowner may say, hey I don ' t want to connect? For the lady that
has that property, what are we saying to them?
' Dacy: Absolutely, 100% , of course we can ' t guarantee that but it
provides for a logical extension. When we look at the half section, this
is the Stratford Ridge property and we reserved an easement all along
there and the road comes in like this . It would be natural to make that
some kind of connection back up to Minnewashta Parkway. Maybe a
cul-de-sac back in here and on down. I think your previous comment was
11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 - Page 21
47
right . We' re doing the best that we can knowing the factors that we know II
now and we had a previous guide with the overall by BRW when we were
trying our best to reserve all possible options .
Conrad: I do agree with the staff report and the staff report talks
about , and basically I don' t agree with any variances . I think the
developer should live with the Chanhassen ordinances as they are and we
don ' t create subdivisions and have a variety of variances created by that
subdivision. You' ve got a big block of property that can be divided a lot
of different ways and I don ' t think we allow variances . At least I
don' t feel comfortable with that. The balance of the staff report looks
pretty good to me.
Emmings : I was just going to follow up on his comment . His last
comment. Just like the developer is allowed to develop lots as small as
15, 000, he gets the benefit of that . He gets a burden here, it seems to
me, of having to develop that corner in compliance with our ordinance
too . We don' t just give him a variance because it doesn ' t fit his plan .
He doesn ' t get a variance to the things that don ' t fit his plan when he' s
using the ordinance to develop rather small lots . I think particularly
in this case we don' t grant variances . ,
Ellson: I agree , I don' t like granting a variance so I wouldn' t go along
with a variance for any of the setbacks less than 90 feet. I don' t
think, I 'm probably more along the lines of Ladd . I don ' t really think
there' s a disadvantage to having a holding pond. I don' t see that as a
negative. I see that as an undeveloped land and these people wanted as
much undeveloped as they could have and this is more or less designating
that as never being developed . If they didn ' t want to have it developed ,
if they had water standing 10 years ago in the back there now, I don' t
see that it' s going to look a whole lot different only now it ' s going to II be designated. If you can clear off the run-off of the 100 year storm or
whatever , I think it' s actually an improvement. I don ' t like the idea of
temporary things like the lift station. I know that we can' t like not do
it or whatever but if there was a way around something like that , I 'd
like to see it. I think once you say temporary, I 'd like to have an
ending date . As of when will it stop being temporary versus an ongoing
thing. I prefer to stay away from anything that' s temporary. I like the
designation of a park and from Brian ' s reasoning , it makes sense that 1
acre should be sufficient. I think it' s nice to have a neighborhood
where you can walk to a park and at least have some swings or a slide or
something for young children and that and I also think that a bike trail
is nice for anyone within Chanhassen . Especially a new development that
you can bike around it. It ' s a nice addition to any development so I 'd
like to see both the park and the 1 acre park. I agree 5 acres is a bit
much but I really would advise the Homeowners Association to check into
your legal options as your deed goes . You may certainly have quite a lot
of ground to stand on that maybe you haven' t explored and I would really
recommend that they do that as far as the beachlot . I probably would go
along with it. Again, I 'm not thrilled with the size of the lots either
but we can ' t change the law just because we don' t like it. We' ve already II
agreed that this is going to be the law and I can' t then say, but I don' t
agree with it for you and I do agree with it for you so I think as long
I
Planning Commission Meeting
ISeptember 7 , 1988 - Page 22
as he' s meeting that ordinance , whether I like it necessarily or not , I
can' t really choose that. I would really be able to do much about the
size of that law. I think he ' s meeting our requirements and that ' s all
he can do. That' s all we can hold him to.
Erhart : Let me ask you something here Barb. The Planning Commission is
' a required body by the State?
Dacy: Yes .
' Erhart: Is the Park and Rec?
Dacy: By State Statute? I can' t say for sure. . .
Erhart : I guess I heard a couple statements here tonight that I disagree
with and that is that parks are not our business . I 've heard that as we
' go along here over the years . I think, I might be wrong , I ' ve been wrong
once before. In fact once already tonight, but I think parks are our
business . I venture to say that Parks and Recs are not a required body
and I might come and state that I 'm all for Parks and Recs and
' I encourage their work. They' re needed and everything but I think it is
our work to review Park and Rec recommendations. It is a land planning
subject . There ' s a purpose that they meet prior to us . I think the
' purpose is so we can review their recommendations and see how it fits
into the broader view of land planning . I guess maybe we should take it
up afterwards in a discussion but I think we all ought to make a decision
whether it ' s our job or find out whether it ' s our job because I think it
is. I think I 'd like to have us deal with that issue when we go along .
Emmings : Let me interrupt you. Barb, can you comment on that? How do
the Planning Commission and Park and Rec relate to one another? Are they
parallel bodies both making recommendations to the City Council?
' Dacy: That' s the way the flow chart works .
Emmings : So are we supposed to review park issues? Are we supposed to
review their recommendations because they meet before us? Can we if we
' want to?
Dacy: That has not been the policy in the past . Tim' s right from the
standpoint that it is a land planning issue and the Commission in the
past actions have made comments one way or the other on parks and trails
or whatever. Just in 'general things . We have not specifically made a
' point of each item to review the appropriateness of Park and Rec ' s
recommendation because they report directly to the Council . Maybe what
we could do in the future is maybe get the Chairman from each body
together to talk about that issue.
' Emmings : You can see on the one hand that it is a planning issue and it
seems appropriate for us to address it and I don ' t see why we should say
' we can ' t but on the other hand , if they' re meeting and looking at the
whole thing, there' s no sense in duplicating effort either and winding up
with contrary proposals .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 - Page 23 ' II
Erhart : I 'm not suggesting that . I suggest
gg g ggest that we should certainly use
their input but using the precedence that we have commented , I ' ll
comment . I think the issue regarding the confusion of this 1 acre versus
fee and so forth. It seems to me it makes more sense to have the Park
and Rec Commission, if there are deficient areas , and I know there are a
lot of deficient areas, somehow they should take and look at the city and II
find those areas and put them in the land plan some 5 acre parcels. I
don ' t think you can take in the middle of the process where you take a 5
or 10 acre subdivisions and somehow expect to come out ever with some 5
acre parks. I think it makes good sense, if you' re going to have a park, II
you make it 5 acres . That sounds very logical . If you' re going to have
swings and baseball , softball fields but it seemed to me rather than
trying to sort of take a half hearted account from this developer and say
well we'd like 5 acre so then back off. We kind of look foolish. Let ' s
make the plan for 5 acre parks and let ' s get them on the Comp Plan so
people are notified years in advance that we think we' re going to look
for a park. Anyway, that' s enough said on that . I think we should do
the trails. I think it ' s too bad we don ' t have a 5 acre plan here. It ' s
too late to try to fit in 1 acre here and 4 acres from the lady to the
south. It think it' s too late. Let' s get the fees and trails in there
now so that ' s my comment . I 'm against , very much against the variance
coinciding with the comments that have been made. You haven' t got a
chance of getting the variance and you ought to go back and change your
plan. I do have, as we watched this go along here though, empathy for
the situation where we do have sharp curves and we attempt to put lots on
them and we require the 90 foot frontage at the street line. I would be
interested in getting involved in looking at the ordinance to allow on ,
curves , that on the outside portion of the curve, that we use another way
to measure. One would be the setback line . A couple things so you end
up building here, otherwise you ' re always going to have a couple lots on
a curve that are going to be 50% bigger than the other lots . What it
does is it ends up skewing your data so when you look at this
subdivision , it says 17, 000 square foot average lot but 90% of the lots
are 15, 000 square feet. It' s because you ' ve got curve lots that are
larger . I think if you would give, just in the same way we change the
ordinance to reduce the minimum lot depth to 125 feet to give the
developer more flexibility in doing a design, I think reviewing the
ordinance as far as curve- lots and frontage, if we have the energy and
want to do that , I think it' s a good idea .
Batzli : Wouldn' t that impact just putting in more small lots? Where '
there ' s a couple big lots . . .
Erhart : No , it would have no affect on the overall lot size. It would
only have affect on how much frontage is required .
Batzli. : Then you could make the outside radius lot smaller . '
Erhart: You could make them smaller.
Batzli. : That doesn' t mean you ' re going to make that always bigger .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' September 7, 1988 - Page 24
C
Erhart: That ' s not my purpose.
Batzli : What ' s the purpose?
' Erhart : The purpose of it is to give the developer more flexibility in
designing a better plan.
' Conrad : I think the logic would be, do we like curves in our streets or
do we like the grid of streets? Intersecting and whatever? Why
penalize a developer for putting in some curves and I 'm not specifically
' talking about this plan at all. Should we encourage sharp curves?
Erhart : Being that nobody' s interested in it, that ' s fine. The
' ponding, I 've got a question on it. My preference is to encourage
permanent in ponds. I 'd like to ask the engineer why, or the developer ,
why make the decision to go basically with a temporary holding pond as
opposed to a permanent pond?
' Ray Brandt: I believe, unless you can have a larger pond ,p , thzs really
isn ' t that big of a pond to have water standing in it. If it was . . . it
might be better for the wildlife . I don ' t have a 2 acre pond . I have a
1. 6 acre per foot capacity. I have a large capacity. . . , somewhat large
capacity but it ' s not 1. 6 acres of water . A half acre of water is 3 feet
deep. Something like that.
Erhart: How big are those , as defined in the map here , how big are those
ponds in surface area?
' Ray Brandt : I don ' t know. I 'm guessing they' re half maybe 6/lath ' s of
an acre. Maybe 7/l0th' s of an acre of water at the top.
' Erhart: Both ponds combined or is that one pond?
' Ray Brandt: It' s all one pond .
Erhart : And your feeling is that in a half an acre pond , as the pond
gets smaller , the less likelihood that it ' s going to retain water on a
' permanent basis?
Ray Brandt : No , you can make it retain water but I don ' t know, if you
had a couple acres of wetland, I would think that would be better than
having say a half acre of wetland . A long narrow half acre of wetland .
Erhart: I don't know. It' s probably down to, again you say who ' s
' opinion it is , but if I guess if I was looking for a lot and had an
opportunity to buy one and not having kids , again, I think you ' ve got a
lot of choices . The comments about neighbors on kids , if people
1 have kids they don't have to buy the lot on a pond because there aren' t
that many lots with ponds . As a person who would buy a lot , I don ' t find
having a permanent ponded lot, it 'd be worth some money to me because
' I like ducks and frogs I guess . Anyway, my preference is to have
permanent water if possible.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7, 1988 - Page 25 1
Ray Brandt : I see this pond as one that will end up being . . . It is a
benefit. . .
Erhart : Well , you could make it that way. '
Ray Brandt. You could, yes you could.
Erhart : If the objective was to have a pond , that ' s what you' re trying '
to figure out.
Emmings : Larry, did you have a comment on this? '
Brown: Just a point of clarification. I 'm not sure if the dated plans
that was sent out to the Commission versus the most recent. My concern
in addressing the ponding issue was to go back to the engineer and say,
let ' s create one larger pond versus three tiny ponds which have more
potential to fail so the engineer has revised that on my set and
I apologize that the revision on the pond , if yours shows three .
Erhart: Yes , mine shows smaller ones . The cul-de-sac thing is kind of
another issue . I guess I 'd leave that to the judgment of staff and
engineering and other. The problem is , if you run it right up to the end
and you don ' t ever use it, then you ' ve created a permanent problem. On
the other hand, if you got a 90% chance that someone is goign to use it II as an extension to put a cul-de-sac in, then you ' ve got 4 houses that end
up building at an angle to the street. How do you get rid of it? You
can ' t so I guess it comes down to a judgment thing . If you think there ' s '
a 90% chance it' s going to be extended, I guess I 'd favor running to the
end so the houses end up being along the street parallel . The lot sizes
thing, the last issue to comment on, again, as you know I 'm somewhat of
a proponent of smaller lot sizes . On the other hand , the citizens I '
think over the last year in many of these subdivisions have expressed
their desire for us to create a solution where we take into consideration
existing homeowners in Chanhassen. I do think it' s time we do address
this . I don ' t think it will be that difficult if we just sit down , and
I 'd volunteer to spend some time outside of the Planning Commission
meeting and I know Bill on the Council has commented to try and come up
with the formula approach to solving the problem of blending . I think
the citizens have been in here over and over again asking us to do it and
I think we ought to do it. That' s my last comment .
Headla : I 'd like to talk about that pond some more. Where ' s the
drainage of that pond?. Where do you drain the water out of the
sedimentation pond?
Ray Brandt : To the swale in the back.
Headla : Where is the pipe located from the bottom of the pond? Is it at I
4, 10 feet?
Ray Brandt : It' s at the bottom of the pond .
Planning Commission Meeting
' September 7, 1988 - Page 26
Headla : Now that' s got a real high water level . That whole land . We' re
going to be draining that thing continuously. However , if you raise the
level of that pipe , maybe you would have a very attractive pond in that
' area. Still have enough in reserve so when you have that heavy rain, it
won ' t go . . .overflow. I think there' s a good possibility because that
place is wet. It' s been wet as long as I can remember . For many, many
' years . You don' t ride your horse over that. It ' s just too wet. If
there were some way we could work that with the neighbors and them, maybe
it could be turned into a real asset .
' Emmings : The woman sitting underneath the TV raised her hand at one
point. Did you have a comment that you wanted to make?
Mae Vanderbruggen , 4010 Glendale Drive: The pond, it is wet, as Dave
knows . All of us and you said that , the gentleman to the left , I 'm sorry
I don' t remember your name.
' Emmings : The guy who likes the frogs?
Mae Vanderbruggen: Yes . How would we keep this? I like wildlife myself
' and I love the ducks on our yards, the deer in the back and all that but
I can understand we can not keep it from developing. How can we keep
this pond , or get this pond and with x number of neighbors in this new
I development, how will the deer and the ducks and all of this
beautification come to this particular pond?
Erhart: How would you guarantee that a duck ' s going to nest there? I
don ' t know that you can .
Mae Vanderbruggen : I say it because we ' ve lived there a long time and we
' do have ducks that nest there. This year we had the ducks but they left
early.
Erhart : I know what I 'd do. I have a pond like this , in fact it' s in my
yard and I go down to the Robbinsdale Farm Store and I buy 8 ducklings
every year that are wild . They stay there all year . I feed them.
They' re beautiful . They quack in the late summer and in the fall they
' leave. It ' s very convenient . If the pond wasn ' t there, I wouldn' t be
able to do that.
' Mae Vanderbruggen : The grade will be definitely a problem. Like I say,
just so we at Pleasant Acres in the end, if this lift pump doesn ' t handle
the situation as it should or when , are we going to get storm sewer in
there? Because when it rains , it gushes down into that , this way, down
to the south . Right down to Lake Virginia you see . That ' s the
drainageway plus the road into Lake Virginia and it does, we do have a
nice roaring creek .
' Emmings : I 've got a few comments here myself . Having a 1 acre park in
this area seems to me to be a nice idea . I 'd like to see a park in
I there . I think there are going to be families with children in here that
can use a park like that. It' s not big enough maybe to do some things
but it ' s big enough certainly to have a nice play area and maybe some
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 - Page 27
playground equipment and stuff like that and I think that ' s a nice '
amenity in any neighborhood. As far as the pond goes, I think the
location is right and I think the location is right because I think it
does the least violence to what presently exists . The water, according
to the pictures we were shown, collects there now. It may be they' re
containing the area that it flows to a little bit and that' s fine with
me. Whether or not there' s a pond , whether it' s a dry pond or a wet
pond, it seems to me on the one hand, the important thing is from an
engineering point of view, is that the water gets handled and whether
that' s best handled by a wet pond or a dry pond, I surely don' t know but
I trust that our City Engineer will know by the time this thing gets
approved and it will have some good method of handling water. From the
standpoint of whether there' s a wet or a dry pond , as to whether it' s a
nice amenity, it seems to me that' s strictly in the hands of the
developer . If he thinks it will raise the value of the property he ' s
going to sell , to have a permanent pond there, then that' s what he' ll do .
If he doesn ' t think it will raise the value or if he doesn ' t care , then
he won' t. It seems to me it' s appropriate that he gets to make that
decision so I don ' t care what he does . I care that the water gets into
the holding pond. I agree that there shouldn' t be any variance and that
he should have to adjust his lots to meet the ordinance. On the road
that deadends to the south there, it seems to me that somehow there ought
to be a turn around there and I 'm really kind of surprised that our
Public Safety Director doesn' t want the turn around there for emergency
vehicles or that our people who plow the roads don ' t want it as a turn
around for snowplows. I don' t understand that but I guess they' ve spoken
and if they don' t want to do it, fine. The rest of it , the size of the
lots doesn' t bother me that much. When I look at how the lots line up,
it doesn ' t bother me too much . I don ' t think we ' re that far off . I do
have to take a little bit of issue with some of the comments and frankly
I 've got to tell you I 'm surprised to hear myself say this but this guy
owns a piece of property and he has a right to develop that property and
as long as he ' s meeting our ordinance , it' s inappropriate for us , I
think, to sit up here and say you can' t develop your land pretty much the II
way he wants to as long as he meets the ordinance that we ' ve got and he ' s
done that. I know that neighbors get used to looking at empty land and
they prefer to see it that way and prefer to see deer walking through
there and everything else. That guy owns a piece of land, your land that II
you ' re on before you had houses on there and probably there were some
neighbors that came in and didn' t want to see all your houses going in
there at that time. This is a thing we -face over and over again here but
basically he' s put together a project that fits. Having that road going
to the south toward the Haligren property there , again and again Dave, on
that issue in particular , when we' ve had neighboring parcels developing
at or close to the same time, we' ve tried to preserve options so they can
come in. I think that' s been planned in here and I think if that hadn ' t
been the rule, we would have said how are you going to connect this one
to the south because that' s what we' ve done on every other one again and
again and we ' ve been real consistent about that . I think in fact we ' ve
gone eout of our way to find ways to hook them together . I spoke my
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' September 7, 1988 - Page 28
ci
' Erhart: Larry, do we take the position on these drainage ponds , whether
we want them wet or dry or is that totally up to the discretion of the
developer?
Brown: There' s a couple of things that I haven ' t mentioned yet that may
come into play. Bear with me if you will. I ' ll try to make this as
' brief as possible . A short scenario . Think of these ponds as a bowl . If
you put 5 feet of water in that bowl , that reduces the capacity of that
pond to store water . That 5 feet is no longer there to store additional
1 water .
Erhart : Unless you make it 5 feet deeper .
Brown: Unless you make it 5 feet deeper or what more often happens is 5
feet higher because you run into ground water in this area , which we
suspect because of the poor soil conditions. The developer will dig
' down, run into the water plus the fact that he has to match into the
elevation of the existing creek so he can get enough slope to have it
flow properly to this channel . You can ' t go below the creek or the creek
will flow back into the pond. Create a back flow situation so in asking
' the developer to create a wet pond where he wants a dry pond , I 'm afraid
what he'd end up doing is having to create a berm up to get the required
ponding storage. Right now to address engineering ' s concern regarding
I the storage, he's provided more than the storage for the 100 year event
and I guess in that aspect I 'm satisfied .
Erhart : But if somebody comes in and wants a wet pond, you don' t try to
discourage them do you?
Brown: Not as long as they' re providing the adequate storage, no.
Emmings : I ' ve got one more comment and that is on the beachlot thing .
I 'm familiar with this beachlot . I live on Lake Minnewashta and there is
' no way that you' re going to convince me that this isn' t an extension of
the use , enlarging the use of that property. Not only that but I think
it' s a real awkward situation because I can see the people who are used
to using it and used to using it together , there' s going to be some
' resentment with 27 new families coming in who are eager to have access to
the lake and a group of people who are used to using it together having a
whole bunch of new people coming in to use it. I too would encourage you
' to find out exactly what your rights are, for that . What documents there
are that establish it.
•
' Batzli : That raises the issue of if it is actually an enlargement of the
use, what are the City' s remedies to limit the use? Anything? I think
that was the City Attorney' s point , is that do we go in and take a
physical counting of people?
Emmings : I think what the City Attorney is saying is that the thing that
created this took in a certain amount of land. It didn' t take in a
' certain number of people and however that land may be developed ,
intensively or not intensively, but however it ' s developed , whoever ' s on
that land has a right to use that access . We can limit the boats and
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7 , 1988 - Page 29 '
docks and permits but we can ' t limit the number of people . I think
that' s what he' s saying . I think that' s probably right but if it feels
wrong .
Batzli : Because it is enlarging the use technically. Maybe not legally.
Emmings: If there's not anything else on this , do you want to make a
motion?
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision #88-21 as shown on the plat stamped "Received July 22 , 1988"
subject to the following conditions . Conditions 1 through 9 as provided
by the staff with the change in condition 1. It reads , is there a change
in the numbering? 1
Emmings: Block 3.
Batzli : Okay. And I propose a condition 10 reading , subject to City '
approval of language, the applicant shall provide restrictions on the
Block 3 lots in order to maintain the ponding site contours and I think
also it should be noted that, is the plat that you have Larry stamped a
different date that shows the pond?
Brown: No, my revision was for the grading plan . '
Conrad : I ' ll second the motion.
Batzli moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #88-21 as shown on the plat stamped "Received
July 22, 1988" subject to the following conditions : '
1. Lots 1 through 5, Block 3 and Lot 8, Block 3 be adjusted to provide
90 feet of width at the street frontage.
2. The applicant will work with the Park and Recreation Coordinator to
provide one acre of park land along the southerly boundary of the
property. '
3. The applicant shall provide a soil borings report for each lot and
along the location of the street prior to final plat approval .
4. The applicant shall provide an amended plan showing fire hydrants
located not further than 300 feet apart.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the
City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper
installation of these improvements . '
6. The applicant shall service this area by gravity sanitary sewer
unless their engineers can demonstrate that this entire parcel cannot
be serviced by gravity sanitary sewer .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 7, 1988 - Page 30
' 7. The applicant will provide the City with the necessary utility
easements across this parcel to service this parcel by gravity
sanitary sewer unless otherwise demonstrated that a lift station is
' necessary.
8 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit.
9 . The applicant' s engineer shall provide the City with the necessary
documentation to verify that the 100 year storm event and emergency
overflow conditions for the proposed ponding site will not affect the
adjacent properties .
' 10. Subject to City approval of language, the applicant shall provide
restrictions on the Block 3 lots in order to maintain the ponding
site contours .
' All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried .
' Emmings: Do you want to briefly set out your concerns? I think we know
what they are.
I ( Headla : What do you mean , briefly?
Emmings : Just give us a list of what your objections are .
Headla : The lot sizes are not consistent with the area to the southeast .
The road going to the south should be a cul-de-sac or an easement
eventually going through in case the road does go. . . . I think there
should be a barrier so people don' t drive onto the property to the south.
I disagree, I don ' t think there should be any acre of parkland . I think
Mr. Johnson is correct there. It ' s just too small for that area. If you
have bigger lot sizes , then you wouldn ' t need any parkland either .
PUBLIC HEARING:
MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HWY. 7 AND CHURCH
ROAD, GARY CARLSON:
' A. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE• FAMILY.
' B. REZONING FROM RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-8 , MIXED
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
' Public Present :
Name Address
1 Gary Carlson Applicant
Harry Carlson 6241 Church Road
II
1
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I
RE ,=1 ED
SEF211988 I
1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
J19° 4 7' 1 1
• 2 I
268,44 9 E
N S86° 55' 37'� E
237,34 1 1
21 0 .41
cl .1 0 59,09 1 01 .25
�o
3
I
ko
OG o 2 m 1 F.•• (37,176) Efl v rn I
(15,110) (16,348)
.o �Q 3 `30.0 0' S
.90..00'
h � o 379 °Cf)
0 9 "� 76.12 82.63 I
r) � �' 4 .
. 1 (23,1 60) X25 0 cb
c D SO.- S 3 tn
I
In - 6- � •.
0 1 42.41 . 27,9y
z 1 0 il
0 5 0 m (17,187) ��
m (1 5,0 0 0) o �: 65 I
a` 1 50.0 2
1 67.02 -96
. I
8)
r,
0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
0 6 0 o a I 6
o (15,032) m (15,002) 9
1 50.0 2 (20,652)
1 67.02
I
0
°0 7 0 0 12 m
0 0 N I .
m (1 5,031 ) co CD (15,000)5,000) m co i
• 167.02 So 0 150.02 90.01 1
1
• 61 5,28
. A ALTI1aNAT& . /N89 09' 1
4* /6-- 1
A
. , , , ,
**
• ,_
^90 •
/53 qO •. • —1=3 . .
61'
1\0 • 0
40 '
o,
1a / 0
---------2
1
1
, ,
0. ,,
Kh
1 ,7 S 90
CITY OF CHANHASSEN 9a •
Rr t=t:•'LL� a.
r� QQ Q a 0 N ‘cf
E E P 21 1'958 Os
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. .i S
167
o
a 0'
0
a
O n S O O 167 90 90
MI liall MI 111111 ME OM ME r lift LITIERIMAU ZIP I OM MN MN MN RIO
CITY OF . 1
, 1
�j
`
f `y CHANHASSEN
1
�" 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDb
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
I
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer h/
DATE: September 22, 1988 /
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review For Country Oaks Subdivision
Planning file 88-21, David Johnson.
The applicant has revised the preliminary plat dated Received
September 21, 1988 such that lots 2, 3, and 4, block 3, maintain
II
adequate frontage at the setbacks . This revision included the
creation of the "bubble" adjacent to the above referenced lots .
The applicant was previously notified that the location of the I
bubble as shown on the plan set would not be desirable . The
location of the bubble on a 90 degree curve leads to confusion by
drivers at night due to the lack of definition of direction
II
associated by the curbing or surrounding features thru the 90
degree turn. In light of Staff 's comments, the applicant has
resubmitted two attachments for revisions to the plat to be I
considered.
Alternate number 1 (attachment 1) indicates a simple 90 degree
turn with no cul-de-sac. This is by far the best alternative from
an engineering view point, however, Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3
required variances for the street frontages . This alternative was
the option that was presented to the Planning Commission. The
II
Planning Commission stated that a variance for the street frontage
was not warranted.
The second alternative (attachment 2) shows a cul-de-sac with a I
"T" intersection. This alternative meets the engineering
criteria necessary, and is the alternative that is recommended for
approval . I
It is therefore recommended that the preliminary plat for the
Country Oaks Subdivision be approved with the 5 conditions stated II in my August 31, 1988 staff memorandum with the following
addition:
1. The preliminary plat dated "Received September 21, 1988" shall 1
be revised to incorporate Alternate number 2 also dated
"Received September 21, 1988" .
Attachments : As noted. II
II
II-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
R E:Z7 =D
SEP 21 188
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
f9a2 4 7' 29/• E- /I i
68'44 S86° 55' 37J E
N 237.34 /
21 0 .41 I
Q. t1 .1 0 59.09 1 01 .25 •
go
VD
M
I 9•\061-
i\0G 3
(37,176) u°-) 2 - 1
E^" <1 5,1 1 0) (1 6,348)
cis
c'>
3 N- A 3 .....90.0 0•' .. . 90.0 0' S•
OO •
. ° 79 7 6.12
co (Ni 4 .9�� N o-
82.63
(23,1 60) , - • cp2� O 0
00 co o S v,
o q) °I ' •• .36, �Q
b 1 42.41 .• 27 97
o
,� 10 N�
°• 5 0 M (17,187) D
m (1 5,000) o v °� 51
aN o0 1 50.02
167.02 96
.65
° 11 °
0 0 ° °
° 6 0 ° o
m <15,032) (1 5,002) 9
1 67.02 1 50.02 (20,652)
•
7 ° 0 12 0,
m (1 5,1331 ) m cp o a` ICT
(15,000) m co I
• 0 1 67.02 So 1 50.02 90.01 I
o 0
61 5.28
ALTr.NAT 1N89° 09' 18 W
I
cp 1
x
a
z c5
x rJ 4
I
� t'l o
z i
f j N ryk N !
a
_' •' Z
a 1
`�' C1 m
m z
1
90 90 90 1
I
_ ono w 1
J J J
N H
C3•••
sO6 19
90 90 90 I
�� 0 1
90 90
i; ‘ __.........
1
0 ...-- .
all in 1
* \ O — . 1_-90 129 1
o _ 1o'°
1
•
•
0 0 C::::if • • • _
•
C7 O
I
• •
. • 1
I N y C
CITYOF
0 t ANHASSEN
1 N ./ . '
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDA
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer
IDATE: September 22, 1988 i}/
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review For Country Oaks Subdivision
IPlanning file 88-21, David Johnson.
The applicant has revised the preliminary plat dated Received
I September 21, 1988 such that lots 2, 3, and 4, block 3, maintain
adequate frontage at the setbacks . This revision included the
creation of the "bubble" adjacent to the above referenced lots .
IThe applicant was previously notified that the location of the
bubble as shown on the plan set would not be desirable . The
location of the bubble on a 90 degree curve leads to confusion by
I drivers at night due to the lack of definition of direction
associated by the curbing or surrounding features thru the 90
degree turn. In light of Staff 's comments, the applicant has
I resubmitted two attachments for revisions to the plat to be
considered.
Alternate number 1 (attachment 1) indicates a simple 90 degree
I turn with no cul-de-sac . This is by far the best alternative from
an engineering view point, however, Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3
required variances for the street frontages . This alternative was
I the option that was presented to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission stated that a variance for the street frontage
was not warranted.
IThe second alternative (attachment 2 ) shows a cul-de-sac with a
"T" intersection. This alternative is meets the engineering
criteria necessary, and is the alternative that is recommended for
Iapproval .
It is therefore recommended that the preliminary plat for the
I Country Oaks Subdivision be approved with the 5 conditions stated
in my August 31, 1988 staff memorandum with the following
addition:
1. The preliminary plat dated "Received September 21, 1988" shall
be revised to incorporate Alternate number 2 also dated
"Received September 21, 1988" .
IAttachments : As noted.
_ CITYOF • I
N." k _), 1,.
_ .
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
-\.;, t• (612) 937-1900
1
MEMORANDUM II TO: Barb Dacy , City Planner
FROM: Lori Sietsema , Park and Recreation Coordinator
II
DATE: September 23 , 1988
1.,5
SUBJ: Country Oaks I
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for I
Country Oaks at their last meeting to determine if park dedica-
tion should be required. The Commission felt that two lots would
be too small to serve as parkland and that the beachlot would
II
serve the area to some extent. It was decided that the area
around Lake St. Joe should be acquired to serve the area west of
Lake Minnewashta.
II
The Park and Recreation Commission unanimously moved to recommend
accepting park dedication fees in lieu of parkland, and to
require trail construction along the through street and the
II
street that would eventually connect to the south, in lieu of
trail fees ( see attached minutes) .
II
II
II
II
I
II
4::k i 5 I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14 , 1988 - Page 18
Mady moved , Watson seconded that the ar
P k and Recreation Commission
recommend to support the ordinance and to accept the City Attorney' s
opinion . If ordinance allows latitude, then deduct 25% off . In not,
require Gary Brown to pay the full amount. Mady voted in favor and the
rest voted in opposition . The motion failed .
Mady moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table
' action on this item has been referred to the City Attorney for his opinion
regarding the previous discussion. All voted in favor of tabling the item
and the motion carried .
' REVIEW PARK DEDICATION, COUNTRY OAKS .
Sietsema: As you may recall , we reviewed the site plan proposed for
Country Oaks at our last meeting. The Park and Recreation Commission had
a lot of discussion about requiring two lots of the development to meet
park needs within that development. That that development would be
' creating the need and asked staff to work with the developer to identify
two lots that would favorably be along the southern border so that when
the area to the south develops , we could acquire additional property
' there. I did talk to Mr. Johnson. He' s not in favor of dedicating two
lots because it is such a small development that he feels that there would
be a definite economical impact on the development. One of the other
' things that the Park and Recreation Commission discussed was providing
private parkland or open space and he pointed out that there is a beachlot
on Lake Mi.nnewashta which will serve this area . There ' s 31 , 080 square
feet within this beachlot and I believe it ' s 150 feet of lakeshore. He
' feels that that will meet the park needs of this area .
Boyt: Is it adjacent to the property?
Sietsema : No .
Schroers : It would be across the frontage road .
Dave Johnson: It ' s across Lake Minnewashta. It ' s the Pleasant Acres .
' Schroers : Is that where that plane used' to be moored down there?
Jo Ann Hallgren: He' s further north then where the plane used to be .
Schroers : And it' s a pretty steep hill going down to the lake there.
Then is there a flat recreation area down by the lake? Is there enough
room to set up a volleyball net or something on the flat area down there,
would you say?
Dave Johnson : It depends on how many cars and stuff you ' ve got down there
too because they park, depending upon how many people are coming down
there, they park all over the place . My guess is that it would hold about
10 or 12 cars and room for the people who came in them to be down there.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14 , 1988 - Page 19 I
If it wasn ' t a full day and you didn' t have 10 or 12 cars there , there'd I
be plenty of room to play volleyball .
Boyt: How many units have access to this beachlot right now? I
Dave Johnson: There' s a deeded access to that lot that was given to quite
a few acres of land , some of which has been developed . It' s my II understanding that there' s about 60 families there now. I would add, this
is a 27 lot subdivision but I will add 26 families because there' s a house
already on this property that will be on one of those lots. There' s been I
some resistence from the people , which is probably what you' re referring
to, from the people up there in the Homeowner ' s Association but I guess
everyone figures when they get there first , it' s our period . That land
was deeded, has deeded right from the beginning of the whole thing and the II
people who got there first don' t have any more or any less rights than the
people who get there last. For some reason they have chosen, they didn' t
come to my neighborhood meeting that I held . They didn' t call at my
invitation on the letters that I sent announcing the neighborhood meeting .
I gave them my home phone number and my office phone number and I don' t
think I gave them my car phone but I made it plenty easy for them to do II that. Even after the meeting , no one called . They were fairly well
represented at the Planning Commission meeting but even since then when it
was pointed out to them that it had been researched by the City' s Attorney
and those rights go with the land , no one has called me. I haven' t called
them because I wanted to see what transpired here. I figure it ' s not my
position to be going and negotiating and getting something that I have a
right to . I
Watson : Is there any particular reason why people park down there?
Mady: They don' t have a place to park? I
Schroers : You can ' t park along Minnewashta Parkway.
Watson: And they have a driveway? II
Dave Johnson : No more than they have to . It ' s pretty close .
II
Watson: If you took the 10 to 12 cars out of there, you have a
significant more park to make use of rather than parking.
IISchroers: There are a lot of arguments there. Do you expect us to carry
our coolers and everything down this steep hill?
Dave Johnson: Additionally, some of the people who have rights there are II
on the other side of TH 7. On Pipe Wood Curve and so on.
Watson: So they are quite a distance away? I
Dave Johnson : Some of them are quite a distance away. If you covered the
land on both sides, they owned, I don' t remember the exact figure but
something in excess of 100 acres at one time and I presume all of that got
deeded lake rights or most of it. I 'm not sure but it' s certainly
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14 , 1988 - Page 20
scattered out . I know I was sending letters to people on the other side
of TH 7 and I know Pipe Wood Curve. I know that area is , it ' s Pleasant
Acres 2nd or 3rd or something over there and all of Pleasant Acres has
those rights .
Mady: I think we recognize the need for parkland on the west side of Lake
' Minnewashta.
Watson : I would have to agree with him, taking 2 acres out of a 10 acre
parcel .
Sietsema: Not 2 acres , 2 lots .
' Watson: How much area is 2 lots?
Dave Johnson : It was a little less than an acre.
Sietsema : It was more than three-quarters of an acre I think. Roughly
three-quarters of an acre.
' Dave Johnson : One of the problems with it is , it' s not only the land
donation but I can ' t run my street and my sewer and water from the lots on
the west side of it to the lots on the east side of it without going past
' this land so I have the same development costs going into the park unless
I were to give the land and the City were to pay the proportionate share
of that development. I still wouldn' t want to do that but that would make
it more equitable .
Boyt : I think it ' s pretty typical that most developers don ' t p n t want to give
up land because it does take away from the profit. Especially on a small
' development. I don ' t think the beachlot though would be adequate in
meeting the needs of the people of the development. That ' s just my point
of view. It might not necessarily be the point of view of the Commission.
' Dave Johnson: I haven' t read your trail ordinance, my engineer has and
I 'm not exactly sure what bearing that has on but I know that it was
recommended, the first letter that I got a copy of from Lori there,
' indicated that it was staff ' s recommendation that I be required to put a
trail in on the through street and pay cash instead of any additional
land . I 'm not sure what your ordinance spells out as far as how much cash
you' re looking for and so on too. If I 'put in trail , I know that people
just to the southeast of me in there, Pierce and that development , I
believe just put in a trail and no cash and no land.
Sietsema : He had to pay park dedication fees but not trail dedication
fees. Just as you would if you were not required to give land. You would
be required , you would not have to pay the trail dedication fees but you
' would still be required . . .
Dave Johnson : Is there a trail dedication fee and an installation of
trail that I would be obligated to do?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14 , 1988 - Page 21 '
Sietsema : No , you do one or the other . Just as you either give land or
pay the park dedication fees .
Dave Johnson: Okay, what is the trail dedication fee .
Sietsema: It ' s $142. 00 per acre .
Dave Johnson : For the net acreage?
Sietsema: Not an acre, a lot. Excuse me. $142. 00 a lot .
Dave Johnson: And the park fee is?
Sietsema: $425. 00.
Dave Johnson : $425. 00. So if there were not a trail put in there, it
would be $567 . 00 total which would be somewheres in the neighborhood of
$15, 000. 00 I believe. If I didn ' t put in a trail or give land?
Sietsema: Unfortunately, it ' s not your decision.
Mady: We need to continue discussion here and get everyone' s thoughts on
this item. Sue' s given hers . Carol?
Watson: I think the 31, 000 square feet for a potential , especially if
people can drive down there and half of it turned into a parking lot . . .
That isn ' t a park space . Now whether we would prefer to take the money to
develop a park around Lake St. Joe and we would develop a real park or
whether want to take a couple lots and have a very small isolated area , I
guess in a way I 'd rather have the money so we could start to develop that
Lake St . Joe property and make something that would be of significance to
a large number of people but I don' t think 30, 000 square feet on that
beach with half of it parking lot is providing a parkland . If we ' re
looking to really provide virtually on-site recreation for these people ,
that ' s not going to solve it .
Jo Ann Hallgren : I 'm Jo Ann Hallgren and I am the property to the south
of Mr . Johnson' s property where you say you ' re going to take some of my
land for the park when it' s developed . That doesn ' t leave me any choice
of what land you ' re taking because you' re certainly not going to take
anything that isn ' t adjacent to his . I -have 11 acres and a part of it is II
unbuidable and part of it is very low land right across from the church .
Why would you want to take good buildable property away from me for a
park? I went around my neighborhood and I was trying to get information
out to people about parks and they what? Another park? This is what you
hear . Another little park. Who wants to go to a little park when you' ve
got all those parks around the lake. If I want to pack a picnic , I 'm sure
not going to go to a little park inside of a little neighborhood when I
can be on Lake Minnewashta or Lake Ann or something .
Mady: To answer your question, at our last meeting we almost had this
place full of people waiting for just a little park because they have
nothing within walking distance. The closest park to them is three-
'
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14 , 1988 - Page 22
Iquarters of a mile away. That isn ' t neighborhood access to a park. The
same situation exists on Lake Minnewashta . We ' ve had a number of people
come in here and ask us for parkland . One of our commission members who
I isn ' t here tonight lives on Lake Minnewashta . He has the support of the
neighborhood. We want to get a park over there.
I Jo Ann Hallgren : I did talk to people who live on Minnewashta and that ' s
what they told me. I agree that parks are very nice but St. Joe has got a
lot of condo property. . .because it ' s really marshy. To me it would be an
I ideal place for a larger park because of the wildlife that you could find
there. Whatever is there in the lake.
Mady: One of the goals we have though is , when we put a park in in that
I area , that they have no active play area . The park has to be useable and
it' s in a marshy area. We'd lose it whenever it' s wet so we haven' t
really provided a service to the people who live there . Our goal has been
to attempt to at least gain active area that's useable. Personally I 'm
not sure that this proposal is going to meet that need because my personal
opinion is we need more than just that.
IJo Ann Hallgren : If I had my druthers , a trail is more important to me I
think because you can ' t even drive down Minnewashta Parkway because of the
people. I had my horse trailer and truck last night or the night before
I and I just literally stopped. There were bikers , joggers , women with
babies in strollers . They have no place .
IBoyt: It ' s too bad they didn ' t support the trail system.
Jo Ann Hallgren : I don ' t know why they didn' t because it ' s very dangerous
to drive, walk or ride on Minnewashta Parkway. The trail system to me is
Isomething that needs to be done .
Dave Johnson : I guess I agree with one of the things you said about not
I taking all wetland but there are large enough parcels that you could get 4
or 5 acres and you wouldn ' t hurt the development that much . In fact , if
you have a large enough parcel , well , they didn ' t take any parkland
I because we were bordered by a park. In Shorewood I had 44 acres and I had
93 acres in Burnsville that were just south of a park so there was no
parkland taken but I ' ve seen other areas where if you ' ve got a large
enough parcel , it 'd be advantageous to the builder to put a park in there
I and have houses that abut up to it . That could be a real selling point
and you could recapture some of the costs of the land that you gave away
because it would increase the value of the adjacent lots but that ' s not
I the case here. A little two-thirds or a three-quarters of an acre park
wouldn ' t , to start with , there' d only be probably, I don ' t remember
exactly how it lays out. I think there ' s just one lot adjacent to it but
I think it goes up to the street . Maybe there ' s lots on either side of
I it, but that ' s only two lots and if it ' s a totlot or something of that
nature that has very little service , it would definitely not increase the
value of the adjacent lots either because it would be a nuisance to the
Ipeople who live next to it .
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,
September 14 , 1988 - Page 23 I
Schroers : We have a real problem out in that area . According to the city I
standards, that western Minnewashta area is park deficient. We do not
have enough park space. We don ' t really know what ' s going to be available
to us in the future as far as developments are concerned and in a II
development like yours , if we look around at other parts of the City, we
see what, the people that are moving in are basically young people raising
a family with younger children and they like to have an area immediately II
adjacent to their residence where they can walk and take their children so
they don ' t have to load them up in a care and haul them around to the
other side of the lake to a larger public regional facility or something.
They like a place in their neighborhood where they can just walk. Even if '
there' s just a swingset or a roughed in ballfield or whatever , they need
an open space where they can actually get to from the neighborhood . I
guess we have looked at this Minnewashta area before and we've considered
trying to earmark funds and maybe purchase some land in the area
specifically for a park and I guess we' re still in the planning and
discussing stages that we really don' t know what it is that we want to do II
in that area. My point is that I think the people from your development
very likely will show up here and say, why don' t we have park space? All
the other neighborhoods in town do, why don' t we?
Dave Johnson : I wouldn ' t be as opposed to this if when Pierce had II
developed his property you would have taken a couple of lots from him in
the corner. There ' s potentially 3 developments that all come together in II
one corner . You ' ve got my property along the north , then kind of half
ways between my property to the south it splits. She owns the western
half and Pierce owned the eastern half. If you had taken a couple of lots II
from him or equivalent space in the corner over there, then I could
understand the logic of adding a couple of lots for that size area , mine
to his and then eventually when she does it, get another little bit from
her . Then you'd wind up with 2 1/2-3 acres for the park but this way, the II
maximum. . .
Boyt : Is the size of the park across the street that serves 60 homes .
I
30, 000 square feet which is the same as the size that' s serving 60 homes
and this would serve 26 homes and they'd be much better off .
Dave Johnson: I think you ' ll have to admit that a beachlot serves a
II
totally different purpose than this type of a park.
Watson: How big are the lots in your development?
I
Dave Johnson : The average is 17, 000 and some square feet. The minimum is
15, 000. The average lot size is 17 , 346 square feet. I
Watson: Okay, which is a little over a third of an acre. I live on
somewhere between three-quarters of an acre of land. All the lots in
Greenwood Shores are at least three-quarters of an acre. I really have
II
trouble seeing my yard as a park. I 'm not saying that it couldn ' t be.
We ' ve developed very carefully. We ' re not going to provide a lot of
services on that amount of land. Three-fourths when you live on a third
II
of an acre, that ' s not a real big lot .
II
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14 , 1988 - Page 24
Sietsema : But people in Pheasant Hills would die for it .
Mady: You also want more than that though. They' re going to need
' ballfields.
Boyt : We talked about in the future though trying to acquire land south
of this but we ' re not going for just three-quarters of an acre. We ' re
trying to plan ahead .
Mady: A third of an acre is not going to solve our problem. It ' s not
' even going to begin to try and solve it. My opinion was, the first time
we reviewed it and still is , that we ' re not gaining anything by taking
land from this developer . We still have to pursue the answer to the
' problem. We need to solve the problem on the west side of Lake
Minnewashta which is acquire at least a parcel of at least 5 acres so we
can a balifield in there . We can have a totlot in there. We can have
' tennis courts . Whatever we need to put there, we need at least that much
land to do it . Getting 30, 000 square feet here and 30, 000 square feet
from the adjacent property will still only give us 1 1/2 acres , that ' s not
large enough to do anything more than a totlot and a place to catch. We
' need something better than that . I don ' t like doing things piecemeal . I
want to get it done right.
' Boyt : The Planning Commission supports us in this . They would like to
see more small neighborhood parks . They see the need within our community
for small neighborhood parks . You see the need when people come in here.
Schroers : But are we talking 5 acres? Is that a small neighborhood park?
Jo Ann Hallgren : I was at the Planning Commission meeting and that is not
' what they said at all .
Boyt : This was a private discussion with the Planning Commission .
' Jo Ann Hallgren: That ' s not what they said to all the people that were
sitting around .
Dave Johnson : Especially David Headla had some very strong objections .
Jo Ann Hallgren: And the guy who sits in the middle, was sort of the
' monitor?
Mady: Ladd?
' Jo Ann Hallgren : Conrad . He said , why piecemeal it? Get 5 acres from
someplace and make a decent park.
' Boyt : That ' s what we need to do if we ' re going to do it but we ' ve been
sitting here for 2 years talking about it and not doing it and losing 10
acre here , 20 acres there. We' re going to lose it all . _
' Mady: We need to put it on the Comp Plan and we need to do it .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14 , 1988 - Page 25
Sietsema: The problem with it is , if you ' re going to get 5 acres from a I
developer , you have to have a big development . All that' s left up there
is 10-15 acre parcels. If you take 5 acres out of a 10 acre parcel ,
you ' re going to have a taking on your hands and that ' s not going to be. . . I
Watson: You' re going to have to buy it.
Mady: We' re going to have to buy it. We have to come to grips with the II
fact that that ' s what we have to do. We have to go out and buy a park.
We know it. I 'm sure we know it. We' ve got to do it. That' s our only
reasonable solution to the entire area .
Sietsema: Then it should be put in the Comp Plan.
Schroers : From my personal point of view, if I were moving into Country
Oaks and I had rights that gave me access to a beachlot, when I had time,
that' s where I would go and I would bet that because I didn' t have x II amount of space around me, I would still go to that beachlot. But that ' s
just a personal thing and it' s besides the point here actually. My
question is , if we waive the park and trail fees , how much is that going
to help us in terms of being able to purchase parkland in the area? Is it
enough money that it' s really going to do us any good?
Mady: This development is going to generate roughly $15, 000. 00. '
Dave Johnson : If we don ' t put in the trails .
Mady: And the Pierce development is roughly the same size. '
Jo Ann Hallgren : I talked to Bob Pierce today and he said that he did not
pay any cash.
Sietsema : No , it ' s cnarged to your building permits .
Mady: When you go and make your permit with the City, you then pay the
fee . The developer doesn ' t pay it all up front .
Dave Johnson: Oh, he doesn' t? That ' s different. I was expecting to
shell out 15 grand in order to file the plat .
Sietsema: You can do it that way but you don' t have to. We get it as you
develop it.
•
Jo Ann Hallgren : If half of the place never gets developed , you never get II
that?
Watson: That ' s right .
Sietsema : We ' ve had such big development that it was a substantial amount
of money. We' ve had some developments that it would be $100,000. 00.
Dave Johnson : In this particular case , I guess speaking for myself , I 'd
just like to get the issue resolved. If I did not have to put in a trail ,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14 , 1988 - Page 26
' which that ' s a fairly short street . It doesn ' t go anywhere for people
walking on it. It ' s also not a high traffic thing . They can walk on the
street. It ' s not like Minnewashta but if I did not have to give up any
' land or did not have to put in the trail , and only had to pay the fees, I
guess if you were to ask that I pay them up front then maybe that part of
the issue there, not up front but when I filed the plat. I would be
willing to accept that particular condition . I don' t know what your rules
or ordinances or anything else are. I , quite frankly, I 'm surprised to
find out that I didn ' t have to pay them up front because I expected that.
I have yet to do a development where I haven ' t had to pay it before they
gave me the plat back signed .
Mady: I have a question for you. What ' s this property run? Undeveloped
' property in the sewered area , that ' s what you have there, if you were
going to buy just 5 open acres out there undeveloped?
Dave Johnson: I happened to get a fairly good buy on that. A fair price
would have been about $10, 000. 00 an acre. I 'm not sure. It depends on
the soil conditions and everything because you ' ve got some soil problems
in that area . I paid less than that for the 7 acres that I bought
' from Lee Anderson and the house and land that I bought from her son is yet
to be determined what I paid for that until I split the house off and see
what I get for it. I guess if I were looking for a piece of land and you
had one to sell that had a few trees on it , that was decent topography and
a decent area, similar area to that, I would snap it up at $10, 000. 00 an
acre or close to it .
Mady: We need to move on this thing . Anybody have any thoughts , a motion
is in order.
' Watson: I make a motion that we take park dedication fees and trail fees
in lieu of.
' Boyt : You don ' t want the trail constructed?
Watson: We didn' t really talk about that .
Mady: We did before . To construct it on the through street .
Watson: So we want park dedication fees in lieu of the land. We want the
' trail constructed on the through street .'
Sietsema : Do you want me to read you your motion?
1 Watson : Yes please .
Sietsema : Carol moved to recommend accepting the park dedication fees in
lieu of parkland and to request the developer to construct an off street
trail along the streets in lieu of trail fees .
Mady: Second.
.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14 , 1988 - Page 27 1
Dave Johnson : Did that say, here ' s the plat , does that say you want this II
trail going in here and one going down here?
Sietsema : Yes . i
Mady: Yes . Our intention is when that other loop, there' s going to be
another development coming in there and you would possibly. . . 1
Jo Ann Hallgren : Not as far as I 'm concerned .
Mady: Not right now but some time. 1
Boyt : There might be a deadend sign.
Mady: You' re aware of that situation but it' s our purpose to have a trail II
feed out to Minnewashta to hopefully gain to another park or if we can
feed out to the . . .park. 1
Watson moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend accepting the park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to
request the developer to construct an off street trail along the streets
in lieu of trail fees . All voted in favor and motion carried .
1
SITE PLAN REVIEW, OAK VIEW APARTMENTS .
Sietsema: We' re missing having a large scale plan down here. If you want
I can go up and get one but otherwise if we want to refer to the one that
I put in the packet. I think that pretty much is self explanatory. It
covers it . What this is is a subdivision proposing to subdivide 18 . 9
acres into 4 R-12 lots and 2 outlots and to develop 17 8-plex buildings .
The R-12 would be high density. 12 units per acre. It' s located just to
the west of West Village Apartments along West Village Road. In looking
through the Comprehensive Plan , there are existing parks in the area being
Chan Pond Park and City Center Park. This property lies within the
service area of those two parks . There are trails along Kerber Blvd . and
on the trail plan there are trails called for along Powers Blvd . .
Therefore , the Comprehensive Plan does not identify this as a park
deficient area or call for parkland within this development. It ' s the
recommendation of myself to accept park dedication fees in lieu of
parkland and to require the construction of a trail along West Village
Road be requested and also a 20 foot trail easement along the east side of
Powers Blvd. in lieu of trail dedication fees . We would attempt to build II
that trail along Powers within the road right-of-way if at all possible
but requesting the trail easement gives us some leeway in case there ' s a
problem with the pond .
Mady: Through this development , this is the west side of that thing being
developed. Isn' t there a street running in through the middle there?
Sietsema: It would connect through so that would be a through street.
West Village Road would be a through street.
i