1c. Rezoning, Subdivision and Wetland Permit for Minnewashta Meadows it/
IC I T Y O F P.C. DATE: March 16,1988
\ I • CIIMIIIASSEN C.C. DATE: April 11, 1988
I CASE NO: 88-2 SUB
88-1 REZONE
I i ' 88-3 WAP
I STAFF REPORT
I
' PROPOSAL: 1. Rezoning of 3 acres of RSF to R-4
2 . Preliminary Plat to subdivide 4 .7
I gi acres of RSF into 12 single family lots and
Q 3 acres of R-4 into 4 double lots .
0
I ii 3 . Wetland Alteration Permit for development within
200 feet of a Class B wetland.
ILOCATION: Northwest corner of Church Road and State Hwy 7
APPLICANT: Gary Carlson
3831 West 62nd St.
IIT+',vral 4i nr _ MN S5111 ?
I
IPRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 8 . 6 acres
I DENSITY: 2 . 58 units per acre, (net for RSF Dist. )
& 2 .69 units per acre (net for the R-4 Di t. )
IADJACENT ZONING %.^lnri b:r C's• m.0 o . ,;:
< AND LAND USE: N- RSF; City of Shorewood Park
I. S- RSF; Chanhassen Fire Station"".__.__-
1 �cia;t���
E- RSF; single family ti
IW W- RSF; Vacant Wetlands :,._• (/6l:CSr'
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the property. �'`�
Id)
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : This site is fairly level with a wetland
located off site to the southwest.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
II
J I • :
I .- . �� Tii,%N 1 4200
CITY OF HANHASSE �
W.4111■ K 1' ;
/ Ple *74L \
— :,-_----.71 o A, b ` , \ 4000 all 741114, rti
tode kt,z, . Flg :U .: ::";s4 t 1 Elk\
"_t 'Nt`* _12611111,14 rA i� .o /7 iv f•,ice 41y , �'l' 3900 cis =' �� 4, 4,� l —∎ 3 .yam ` ■ U ..
� , � ���r � 'Jr�,�1 - - v\0 11
‘,,Is-r gar' , ,, i %day , 4,---•• 111 I sio 390 )
c v
t , 7U1111mogi___IF, Oii■ , .,e7-40
t *:$14' aysivi ,C -.... N•co*WI ,.....c.
VA= sf.-..."Ns.-'--- '' T
Cr�.Z = ,.'' ni ! . 1r 3600 CD
r•0 16• ,t'
- ,' -elavn3 3500
mulft;• to ow-
m` 4. ���!•/ �.7. —3400•.1. , il
r =CrU
• 1 r �`� 3300 •
/ - , . ,�,►',, .� _ ^, ` ' 3200
;_ ♦ ,
4 Jell I 3100
ciall- MOO 1
EMI MI MN ' MN IME 1.111 111111 411111 11111 • 1 No Mil MIX
1 Minnewashta Meadows
March 16 , 1988
Page 2
' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
' Section 5-5-5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the RSF District requires a
minimum lot area of 15 , 000 square feet, a minimum lot frontage of 90
feet and a lot depth of 125 feet. ( Attachment #1) .
Section 5-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the R-4 District requires a
lot area of 10 ,000 square feet per two family dwellings and a lot
frontage of 50 feet per two family dwelling units and a lot depth of
125 feet.
REFERRAL AGENCIES
' City Engineer Attachment #2
Building Department Attachment #3
' Public Safety Attachment #4
REZONING
The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately three of most
southerly acres of the proposed site from RSF, Residential Single
Family to R-4, Mixed Low Density Residentials (Attachment #5) . The
' proposed rezoning includes Lots 9 , 10 , 11 and 16 . These four lots are
located adjacent to Highway 7 where they are exposed to a higher
amount of traffic and noise. The applicant is proposing to rezone
this portion of the property to R-4 to permit twin homes to be located
adjacent to Hwy 7 . The applicant feels that the lots adjacant to
Highway 7 are more compatible for twin homes .
' The Chanhassen Fire Station is located directly south of the proposed
site and Minnewashta Creek Third Addition, which abuts Highway 7 on
the south side, is southwest of the proposed site. Minnewashta Creek
' Third Addition was approved as a PUD with twin home lots located along
Highway 7 (Attachment #6) . Therefore, the proposed rezoning to R-4 is
in keeping with the surrounding property and will not be a negative
impact to surrounding single family developments.
' RECOMMENDATION
' Staff feels that the lots located along Highway 7 are suitable for
twin home development permitted with R-4 zoning. The proposal of
locating twin home lots adjacent to Highway 7 is similar to what has
' been approved by the City in the past.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #88-1 request
to rezone 3 acres of RSF, Residential Single Family to R-4 , Mixed Low
Density as shown on the preliminary plat dated February 22 , 1988 (Lots
9 , 10, 11 and 16) . "
NOTE: Should the Planning Commission recommend denial of the rezoning
request, the preliminary plat can still be acted on separately and the
double lots will become single family lots .
r
. 1
Minnewashta Meadows
March 16 , 1988
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION '
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the rezoning of 3 acres
of RSF to R-4 District.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Rezoning Request #88-1 as recommended by II
the Planning Commission.
PRELIMINARY PLAT '
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 4 . 7 acres zoned RSF,
Residential Single Family, into 12 single family lots and to subdivide
three acres of R-4, Mixed Low Density Residential into 4 twin home or
two family lots. The property is located at the northwest corner of
Church Road and Hwy. 7, consists of Lots 3 and 4 , Schmids Acres and
contains three single family residences and two sheds. The prelimi-
nary plat proposes access from Church Road to service the lots with an
internal street containing two cul-de-sacs .
Street Options 1
The initial proposal, marked on the plat as Option A, provides an
internal street access from Church Road to service the lots with two
cul-de-sacs and no future street connection to the property to the
west. Staff recommended that the applicant submit an option providing
future access to the property to the west. Option B provides a tem-
porary cul-de-sac at the western edge of the property between Lots 5 ,
Block 1 , and Lot 1, Block 2 , which could be continued to the property
to the west in the future if necessary. Option B resulted in four of I
the lots (Lots 2 - 5 , Block 1 ) having a lot area below the minimum
requirement of 15 , 000 square feet and therefore requiring lot area
variances . In addition to the need for lot area variances , Option B
creates a straight street alignment, which if extended west may pro-
mote higher vehicle speeds . Staff suggested that a compromise between
Option A and Option B be submitted which would maintain the street
alignment of Meadow Lane as shown in Option A but also provide future II
street connection. The applicant submitted Option C which provides a
similar street configuration to Option A and also provides a 50 foot
street easement from the end of Meadow Court. This street pattern is
more curvelinear and would be more appropriate for residential traf-
fic. Option C results in two lots , Lots 4 and 5 , Block 1 , having less
than the required 90 feet of lot width and would require lot width
variances .
The following is a brief outline of the three options:
Option A I
. The lots meet all the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
. Meadow Lane alignment is curvelinear.
I
Minnewashta Meadows
March 16 , 1988
Page 4
' . A future street connection is not provided.
' . Preferred by the applicant.
Option B
. Four lots require lot area variances ( 13 , 900 , 14, 100, 14 ,100 ,
14, 100, vs . 15 , 000 sq. feet)
. Meadow Lane is proposed in a straight alignment.
. A future street connection is provided.
' Option C
• Two lots require lot width variances ( 88 ' , 80 ' wide vs 90 ' ) .
' Meadow Lane is curvelinear.
' . A future street connection is provided.
. Preferred by staff.
' Attachment #7 shows the area around the subdivision. The cartway
services lots to the west, but is not a public street. There is an
area directly to the west of the subject site that could be developed.
' This area to the west will have to depend on access from the cartway
or from the subject property. A wetland and creek separates the prop-
erty from Hwy. 7 and the property to the west (Pipewood Curve) .
' Therefore, a future street connection from the subject property should
be provided to permit improvements to the cartway properties and the
vacant land to the west of the subject site. If Option C is approved
' and the street connection is improved then Lots 4 and 5 could have the
required 90 feet of street frontage (Attachment #8 ) . Until the street
is improved, Lots 4 and 5 will be under the 90 foot requirement by 2
feet and 10 feet.
' Staff believes that resubdivision of the property to the west can
occur in the near future. Option C provides for what staff believes
' will be the ultimate street pattern in this area. Achieving access
to the property on the west via the existing cartway from 62nd Street
would requirement improvements to be made for the already existing
homeowners along the cartway ( similar to Teton Lane issue) . While it
' is agreed that the cartway should be improved in the future, Option C
provides a solution for the "other way out" and the ultimate street p
pattern in this area. Given these facts , granting the two lot width
variances is justified. If the street is extended, both lots would
have the required amount of lot frontage. In effect, the variances
could be viewed as "temporary" , but nonetheless variances must be
' granted. Attachment #9 are the findings required for variances in
the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff feels that the hardship is not a
"mere inconvenience" and unique circumstances exist to grant the
variance.
Minnewashta Meadows
II
March 16, 1988
Page 5
II
Should the city feel the variances are not justified, then one
lot will have to be removed. In either case, staff recommends I
Option C.
Lot Layout
II
The proposed RSF lots (except those impacted by street Options B
and C) , meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The R-4
lots meet the requirements of the R-4 District. The plat pro- '
poses a berm and landscaping as a buffer between the rear yards
and Hwy. 7 . The net density for the RSF lots is 2.58 units per
acre and the net density for the R-4 lots is 2 .69 units per acre.
I
Both densities are within the residential low density requirements.
There are three single family residences on the site and two
sheds. Two homes are on Lot 4 of Schmid' s Acres and one is I
located on Lot 3 , Schmid' s Acres (Attachment #10 ) . The homes
existed prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant is proposing to preserve the large home on Lot 15 and
I
the home on Lot 13 . The remaining home on Lot 15 and two sheds
will be removed at the time of site improvements ( street and
utilities) . All of the debris from the demolition of the
II
buildings must be removed from the site.
Park and Recreation Commission
The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that a 20 foot I
trail easement be provided along the west side of Church Road to
continue a trail easement from Minnewashta Parkway. Park and
I
trail dedication fees will also be required (Attachment #11) .
Street, Utilities, Grading and Drainage
I
The City Engineer' s memorandum, Attachment #2 , addresses streets,
utilities, grading and drainage.
RECOMMENDATION I
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
II
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
#88-2 , as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received March II
3 , 1988 (Option C) " , and street and utility plans as shown on the
plans stamped "Received February 22 , 1988" and subject to the
following conditions:
I
1 . Lots 4 and 5 , Block 1, shall receive a lot width variance.
2 . The two sheds on Lot 14, Block 1 and the street right-of-way I
and the small one story single family residence on Lot 15,
Block 1 , shall be removed prior to completion of site
improvements ( i .e. , street construction and installation of II
II
Minnewashta Meadows
March 16 , 1988
' Page 6
utilities) . The demolition debris from the home and shed
' shall be trucked off the site and disposed of properly.
3 . A 20 foot trail easement shall be provided along the west
' side of Church Road and park and trail dedication fees
shall be required.
4 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
' the City and provide the necessary financial sureties as part
of this agreement for completion of the improvements .
' 5 . All utility improvements shall conform to the City standards
for urban construction.
' 6 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions
required by the DNR, Watershed District and any other regula-
tory agencies.
' 7 . A gate valve shall be located three feet behind each hydrant
as in accordance with the City' s detail for hydrant construc-
tion.
' 8 . All demolition debris shall be removed, trucked off site and
disposed of properly.
' 9 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
initiation of any grading and once in place they shall remain
in place throughout the duration of construction. The deve-
loper is required to review erosion control and make the
necessary repairs promptly. All erosion control measures
shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has
' been produced at which time removal should be the respon-
sibility of the developer.
10 . Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used on all slopes
greater than 3 to 1 .
11. The proper utility and drainage easements shall be provided
' for the proposed retention/sedimentation basin located at the
south of Lots 9 and 10 of Block 1 prior to final plat appro-
val review process .
' 12 . The sanitary sewer along Church Road shall be installed at a
deep enough level to be able to provide gravity service to
the Frizzell and Kerber property.
' 13 . Construction of sanitary sewer along Church Road shall take
all necessary precautions to protect existing City utility
and roadway improvements.
Minnewashta Meadows
March 16, 1988
Page 7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION '
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the preliminary plat
request for #88-2 with staff' s conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 ,
10, 11, 12, and 13 and adding the following:
14 . The driveway located on Lot 16 , Block 1 , shall be located at
the most northerly location.
The Commission approved the preliminary plat with Option C but
did not approve of the two lot width variances. Therefore, they '
approved the preliminary plat with Option C without the lot width
variances . The applicant has since submitted a new plan similar
to Option C which also provides Lots 4 , 5 and 6 with adequate
street frontage (Option D) . The City Engineer has reviewed and
approved the new plan. The widened roadway easement does not
impact the buildable areas of Lots 5 or 6 . Staff therefore
accepts the proposed amendment.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the City Council adopt the following
motion:
"The City Council approves Subdivision #88-2 as shown on the pre- '
liminary plat stamped "Received March 28 , 1988" (Option D) and
subject to the following conditions:
1 . The two sheds on Lot 14, Block 1 and the street right-of-way
and the small one story single family residence on Lot 15 ,
Block 1, shall be removed prior to completion of site
improvements ( i .e. , street construction and installation of
utilities ) . The demolition debris from the home and shed
shall be trucked off the site and disposed of properly.
2 . A 20 foot trail easement shall be provided along the west
side of Church Road and park and trail dedication fees
shall be required. '
3 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
the City and provide the necessary financial sureties as part
of this agreement for completion of the improvements .
4 . All utility improvements shall conform to the City standards
for urban construction.
5 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions
required by the DNR, Watershed District and any other regula-
tory agencies .
Minriewashta Meadows
March 16 , 1988
Page 8
' 6 . A gate valve shall be located three feet behind each hydrant
as in accordance with the City' s detail for hydrant construc-
tion.
' 7 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
initiation of any grading and once in place they shall remain
in place throughout the duration of construction. The deve-
loper is required to review erosion control and make the
necessary repairs promptly. All erosion control measures
shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has
' been produced at which time removal should be the respon-
sibility of the developer.
' 8 . Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used on all slopes
greater than 3 to 1 .
9 . The proper utility and drainage easements shall be provided
' for the proposed retention/sedimentation basin located at the
south of Lots 9 and 10 of Block 1 prior to final plat appro-
val review process.
10 . The sanitary sewer along Church Road shall be installed at a
deep enough level to be able to provide gravity service to
the Frizzell and Kerber property.
' 11. Construction of sanitary sewer along Church Road shall take
all necessary precautions to protect existing City utility
' and roadway improvements .
12 . The driveway located on Lot 16, Block 1, shall be located at
the most northerly location.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit for
development within 200 feet of a Class B wetland. There is a
Class B wetland located southwest of the subject property
' (Attachment #12 ) . The Class B wetland consists primarily of
canary grass and does not serve as an important habitat refuge
(Attachment #13 ) . The Class B wetland has a small creek that
' runs through it. The proposal will not result in any direct
alteration to the Class B wetland.
The applicant is providing a storage pond in the southwest corner
' of Lot 10, Block 1, which will contain drainage from the site at
the predevelopment rate. Any drainage from the storage pond to
the Class B wetland will be contained in the storage pond where
' it promotes settlement of suspended particles . A baffled outlet
structure will control the discharge of oil and other floating
material from entering the Class B wetland.
Minnewashta Meadows
March 16 , 1988
Page 9
By providing the storage pond, the applicant is preserving the
wetland by not permitting any direct runoff from the site to the
wetland. The applicant is also providing Type 2 erosion control
to further protect the wetland during the development of the site
along with the establishment of the berm and landscaping on Lots
9 and 10 . The approximate location of the wetland as shown on
page 1 of the preliminary plat shows that any structures on Lots
8 and 9 , Block 1, will be outside of the 75 foot setback.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff feels that the Class B wetland southwest of the subject '
property will not be negatively impacted by the development and
will not be physically altered.
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #88-3 as shown on page 1 of the preliminary
plat stamped "Received March 28 , 1988" and subject to the
following condition:
1 . There shall be no construction activity beyond the erosion
control fence adjacent to the Class B wetland. "
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the '
wetland alteration permit as recommended by staff .
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION '
Planning staff recommends the City Council adopt the following
motion: '
"The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #88-3 as
shown on page 1 of the preliminary plat stamped "Received
February 22, 1988" and subject to the following condition:
1 . There shall be no construction activity beyond the erosion
control fence adjacent to the Class B wetland. "
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Section 5-5-5 and 5-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2 . Memo from City Engineer dated March 10, 1988 .
3 . Memo from Building Department dated March 2 , 1988
4 . Memo from Public Safety dated March 1 , 1988 .
5 . Map showing areas of rezoning ( 3 acres) .
6 . Map of Minnewashta Creek Third Addition twin homes .
Minnewashta Meadows
March 16 , 1988
IPage 10
Attachments ( continued)
7 . Map showing area surrounding proposed subdivision.
8 . Lots 4 and 5 with Meadow Court extended.
I 9 . Excerpt from Subdivision Ordinance.
10 . Existing homes and lots .
11. Memo from Park and Recreation dated March 10 , 1988 .
12 . Aerial with wetland.
I 13 . Wetland description.
14 . DNR response.
15 . Application.
I 16 . Memo from Larry Brown dated April 7 , 1988 .
17 . Option A, preliminary plat dated February 22 , 1988 .
18 . Option B, preliminary plat dated February 22, 1988 .
19 . Option C, preliminary plat dated February 22 , 1988 .
I 20 . Planning Comission minutes dated March 16, 1988 .
21. Option D dated March 28 , 1988 .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
f1111
2 . Lot Frontage: 200 feet (except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall be 200 feet in width at the building
setback line) .
3 . Lot Depth: 200 feet.
4 . Maximum Lot Coverage: 20%. I
5. Setbacks:
A. Front yard: 50 feet.
B. Rear yard: 50 feet. i
C. Side yard: 10 feet.
6. Maximum Height:
A. Principal Structure: three stories/40 feet.
B. Accessory structure: three stories/40 feet.
I i
7 . Minimum Driveway Separation:
-
A. Collector: 400 feet jii!
B. Arterial: 1,250 feet
SECTION 5. "RSF" SINGLE-F
AMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
5-5-1 Intent. Single-family residential subdivisions.
Iii!
5-5-2 The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" district:
1. Single-family dwellings
2 . Public and private open space
3 . State licensed day care center for twelve or fewer
children
4 . State licensed group home serving six or fewer persons
5. Utility services
6. Temporary real estate office and model home
5-5-3 The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF"
district:
1. Garage
2 . Storage building
3 . Swimming pool
4 . Tennis court
5. Signs
ill!
6. Home occupations
7 . One dock
8 . Private kennel
I
-39-
• !II!
P5-5-4 The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" district:
1. Churches
2 . Private stables, subject to provisions of the horse
ordinance
3 . Recreational beach lots
4 . Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of five
acres.
5-5-5 Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following minimum
requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject
to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications
set forth in this Ordinance.
ill
1. Lot Area: 15, 000 square feet.
2 . Lot Frontage: 90 feet (except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall be 90 feet in width at the building
setback line) .
3 . Lot Depth: 150 feet.
4 . Maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved
surfaces: 25%.
5. Setbacks:
A. Front yard: 30 feet.
B. Rear yard: 30 feet.
C. Side yard: 10 feet.
I 6. Maximum Height:
A. Principal Structure: three stories/40 feet.
il B. Accessory Structure: three stories/40 feet.
SECTION 6. "R-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
II 5-6-1 Intent. Single-family and attached residential development
at a maximum net density of four dwelling units per acre.
5-6-2 The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" district:
1. Single-family dwellings
2 . Two-family dwellings
3 . Public and private parks and open space
4 . Group home serving six or fewer persons
5. State licensed day care center for twelve or fewer
children
6. Utility services
7 . Temporary real estate office and model home
-40-
1
5-6-3 The following are permitted accessory uses in an "R-4"
district:
1. Garage 11
2 . Storage building
3 . Swimming pool
4 . Tennis court
5. Signs
6. Home occupations
7. One dock J
5-6-4 The following are conditional uses in an "R-4" district:
1. Churches
2 . Boarding houses
3 . Recreational beach lots
4 . Private kennel
IIPT
5-6-5 Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following minimum
requirements shall be observed in an "R-4" District subject 11P
to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications
set forth in this Ordinance.
1. Lot Area: 15, 000 sq. ft. per detached single-family
!II
dwelling unit;
10, 000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for two-
family dwellings.
2 . Lot Frontage: 80 feet for single-family dwelling; 50
feet per dwelling unit for two-family
dwellings (except that lots fronting on
a cul-de-sac shall be 80 feet in width
at the building setback lines for
single-family dwellings and 50 feet for
two-family dwellings. !II
3 . Lot Depth: 150 feet.
4 . Maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved
surfaces: 30%.
!I!5. Setbacks:
A. Front yard: 30 feet.
B. Rear yard: 30 feet.
C. Side yard: 10 feet.
!IP
6. Maximum Height:
-41-
1
CITYOF
if,
CHANHASSEN
., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer j
"
' DATE: March 10, 1988
' SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review - Minnewashta Meadows
Planning File No. 88-2 Sub, Gary D. Carlson
' This 8 . 59 acre site is located on the northwest corner of the
intersection of State Trunk Highway 7 and Church Road. This site
' is composed of an open field with three existing single family
homes and two accessory sheds. Municipal sanitary sewer is
available to the site by an existing eight inch PVC sanitary
sewer line which runs north and south along the west property
' boundary. The plans propose that an eight inch PVC sanitary
sewer line be extended east to the proposed Meadow Lane and from
there to Church Road. At Church Road the sewer is to be
1 installed along the roadway to service Lots 14 , 15 and 16 .
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) is constructing
' the Lake Virginia force main this year along the west side of
Church Road. As a result of negotiations with the MWCC the
Commission will be restoring the existing road surface of Church
Road with a full city standard urban section including concrete
' curb and gutter.
Sanitary Sewer
' As you may be aware the Frizzel and Kerber properties on the
southeast side of Church Road were not in favor of sewer service
at the time the Council authorized the MWCC project. The Council
' did authorize sanitary sewer service to be provided to the Wanous
property and Campbell property to the north. The proposed sani-
tary sewer and water main along Church Road has been proposed
' along the west side of Church Road to allow jacking of utility
services underneath Church Road in the event that the Frizzell
and Kerber properties require service in the future without
disturbing the new road surface.
There is an existing 6-inch sanitary sewer and 2-inch watermain
which is to be abandoned on this property.
� �a
. 1
Planning Commission
March 10 , 1988 1
Page 2
WATER MAIN 1
The plans propose that a six inch DIP water main be extended
throughout the public right-of-way and be looped from Church Road
to the existing six inch water main which also extends along the
west property boundary.
The proposed fire hydrants should have a gate valve between the
proposed hydrant and supplying water main.
ROADWAY 1
The applicant has provided for a 50 foot right-of-way which is in
accordance to the City standards for urban construction. An
additional 17 feet of right-of-way is being provided along Church
Road to provide the City with a 50 foot right-of-way. The maxi-
mum proposed street grade is approximately 2 .0 percent as com-
pared
to the City' s recommended maximum grade of 7 . 0 percent.
The preferred plan calls for a 50 foot wide street easement to be
provided for future extension, if necessary, of Meadow Court to
the west.
GRADING
The proposed grading plan calls for the construction of a
retention/sedimentation pond on the southwest corner of the site
as well as construction of berms along the south side of the site
and minimal amounts of lot grading with construction of the road
bed.
The plans propose to remove both accessory shed structures along '
with the single family home located at the rear of Lot 15 , Block
1 . All debris shall be removed off site and disposed of pro-
perly. 1
EROSION CONTROL
The plans adequately address both Type I and Type II of erosion 1
control.
EASEMENTS
Drainage and utility easements will be required for the
sedimentation/retention base located on the south side of Lots 9
and 10 of Block 1 .
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
the City and provide the necessary financial sureties as part
of this agreement for completion of the improvements. 1
1
Planning Commission
' March 10 , 1988
Page 3
2 . All utility improvements shall conform to the City standards
for urban construction.
' 3 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions
required by the DNR, Watershed District and any other regula-
tory agencies.
4 . A gate valve shall be located three feet behind each hydrant
as in accordance with the City' s detail for hydrant construc-
tion.
' 5 . All demolition debris shall be removed, trucked off site and
disposed of properly.
6 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
initiation of any grading and once in place they shall remain
' in place throughout the duration of construction. The deve-
loper is required to review erosion control and make the
necessary repairs promptly. All erosion control measures
shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has
' been produced at which time removal should be the respon-
sibility of the developer.
' 7 . Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used on all slopes
greater than 3 to 1.
' 8 . The proper utility and drainage easements shall be provided
for the proposed retention/sedimentation basin located at the
south of Lots 9 and 10 of Block 1 prior to final plat appro-
val review process.
9 . The sanitary sewer along Church Road shall be installed at a
deep enough level to be able to provide gravity service to
' the Frizzell and Kerber property.
10. Construction of sanitary sewer along Church Road shall take
all necessary precautions to protect existing City utility
' and roadway improvements .
Attachments: 1. Location Map
1
CITYOF
1
G CUANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 1
MEMORANDUM '
TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
FROM: Inspections 4_0- k
DATE: March 2 , 1988 '
SUBJ: Planning Case: 88-2 SUB, 88-1 Rezoning
88-3 WAP, Minnewashta Meadows
It is the opinion of the Inspections Department that lots of this
size should show the location of the building pad on the plat.
The type of residence acceptable for each lot should be noted on
the pad and proper compaction at each pad should be verified.
I
I
I
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
I ,
I � -
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
MEMO
TO : Barbara Dacy, City Planner
FROM: Steve Madden , Fire Inspector
Date : March 1 ,1988
1 Subject : Minnewashta Meadows ( 88-2 SUB, 88-1 REZONING
88-3 WAP )
' Upon review of the site plan for Minnewashta Meadows ,
I have found them in complaince with the fire code .
1
c. c . Scott Harr
Jim Chaffee
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 i-4
1
ST
r,,....,....„.041 : {1% W. 62ND III -. -
tad till .., R-I
� •i_ 1.--. i at ,,
4 „.. ELI at:
: olio ,, ■L
whom itt
Pi; -I _--evil*. / _ ...
-z-----otW) I
lit4 w � �.� a.- •i�! ,r ` 1 MIN.NEWASHTA MEADOWS
Ottrv • m�� " T Ada - EXISTING ZONING : R - F I
ICi�II1� A-1/ �V)
i) 4 ___ t! PROPOSED -
ZONING RSF R 4
•
QPe- { . 1
R-IA /,"°: h1 / dv N E A S f�/ T A
r,, RD I
KINGS ROAD t ,. ; ,
; -
o
Q• i �.,.
, iL A IIE ----; ' .41, - ":&'412 s'
CZ
.ST JOE- ;r� -b .4' s'it.��� /
= #PONI\s I ' al . * alk.‘ PP rilliiMi- "\ / .' I
>- pPONI'\N '° R-I - 1 • 1
D / fog �0• • I� . . o:�� , tit
■ 1_ ■
ar6 w .1°'''
r„,y4m\b,,,,k.,, -,
CO • i
Z 0 NEL . 1Ik
v. i .--
...
(--jr\_,
•
U: z
F.
N y 3 Z
N \
cv yt .\
1 A N?4 z
D N v - ,100 Goy r-•-„s ------■ Ilir .
y
ZW ' cn m yF2
n1 m _ s �� m m °�O.
n� 2 I \ o °.` �r�O
I
to_� mT. • . D �y°9 ��
Ni V I Z v C
N y —IA p p 'Pi? 5�9�
rrl
D- 5° w ,
I • yU
I
(T� O, °JAMES M. C
1 - n `N ` 3� • \ \{
1 ,N t
_ U U -�T
. D �0 (0' \ M •70 (� (1 N
D i_29_ '0::,-,' \ ;
v f---- gas N N \ U' § q�
Z .9
1 , _ ,oy� No J
ora
\ o
1 �� — IS o �H��
N
• -iK „ • v 7`
m x • am
xm
u',z \ �x 7,
U
N� A
m \ um ooz
I � N °P T _
.°..J• • 9y61 .1
co S °° 4' w`OSVV
■
\ BOc 5i2°E �� Oa7
N N
1 itc0 x F V O
-
i
1
ii). / .�rnn Co ccC/o .fJCQGF 5. 2
n
-----gym._.--_.,9.--- 1 n I+ N A -I m
, �,;, �s I IIf
,y (_ �>� �_ YI_ �rs.aeg0
'�. .�Y CITY W VIC T0F1n ri�40• _ •• , �•f ..
.I o' .I I I
1 F ROY W. WASSOM POPO pt o - 5 A
o-,,
`'y.. BK 91,Pa22 P'���' <NIx4 9��0° A
I a PAP+90 P-N dspf = O
R oP.t a p i¢ B is
' xT. PF'1'\a�0�6 Y� QPJ� 9 ` STCI T 1
Z c/• p
`�' gty..P w m 1 'V
1 7� G0,opa sy�. a Ib 5 C/s O
i1 �,4,�.0`;t o° TIC IV '
1 ?SI..� __. 165 .C441'W4Y•
•� Qv WARREN R. SCHRAM (T�J� //� �� °u III
�� / �' 1 cs / B1f 59,P 3B9 x -xr 1�'� IS' - - -y4
V—�
` So ® ® h`Q KE 1:.��.r
P\ xN o. a. NuN STER C. AND �� I
\a \ -- -- - m�ax,.xanyc e ® CTF NO 3874 - ^ R�
��'� 5 /rG 2 `
S I�1 i
\ �c ac E ,/ N / 30 / 1 Z�
p,te • I z
/ • LEST - . ANDERS• ,0 DP' / al
al , N0. 3879 ® ®• Jw ° . 8ot, A �//
��� ®• I y REEK/ e.. KlRi °O - 1= /. ; 1� _/
✓.�evr cnrtgo�� ' o ao J .D
,I Q= I • • ,0 11 S0
;�pQOe
s vcLA„c0 •o. •• 2 QG`_ W 2 . • 0. / k 1-
e,=e 3 (9 P I I'
Qy , I ,
,2 gv / 3 o T \r ,�I
�1 Z` ° N I I
moo.. — `ate GASP 7
.b:N. 'c s o 5 Qti CURyF
=�a p o
,.x
2 tv 2 ES
”' Q Q `P� vy 7 PCRy 2 CARLISLE
CO COUNTY
_ CARVE_R CC
FDRAWN BY�E
AU4U+T 1910
M•Y 19B•R4T
1 iii
�- I
' \ - I / 1
1 , r- }
..........,----:;---
z. ,� -� i ,
,.
CVO i
\ x _ \/1 m
rr
0 \s {
I - _
- - - �
���c, ..
------ \ _
i------ .:.
,. .
> ? 6,
..
ro
I r
1 '� T , S 9
k -=1-- _
._._.__,_
At•
, M0avgE1
il - _ _... ,
I ` o / \� h
. O / v 1 . p 7
J d' Doti _ r_ _
m �- - � -
�c. ; /
ti k4,Se
LI �. N. _ Y ' .
, . _i L _,_-_-_--. _ _ 3,94.. 9, . N -
_N
91 vo N_T _I v bow 59 9� 9 L - - - 3o9' • N -
- - I - E5 S6I ---N\- — �--I — _
�— -- ri• . 7T, 10 0,-,/•, n. �y _J,-06 Is
r/ T JdMlf 0 - - /�
I/ x—80dor— - — — — - — —
--
Ji
I " - -
95°
1
■ / \
S
O I
/ ,/ _J Q
/ ti I
�� Q I Cr 1 iits 1---.
.. . c„ I
D .
II
l , in favor of the City for the
y purpose of protecting its hydraulic
II
efficiency and natural character and beauty. There shall also
i then be granted to the City the right of ingress to and egress
from the dedicated land.
I
11 . Public Utility Lines. All utility lines for telephone
and electrical service, shall be placed underground or where
this is not feasible shall be placed in rear lot line easements
II
when carried on overhead poles .
1 9 . 3 Financial Security. Prior to the City signing the final plat
and prior to the construction of any improvements, the developer II
Ishall provide the City with a letter of credit or cash escrow
to insure that all improvements required by this Ordinance II will be installed and paid for at no City expense.
1 1 . For improvements to be installed by the developer, the
developer is obligated to install and complete all such I
improvements at his own expense and under the supervision
Iand inspection of the City Engineer.
2 . For improvements which the City agrees to install , the II
developer shall pay the cost of such improvements through
payment of special assessments.
3 . As security to the City for installation of the improve-
II
] ments or the payment of the special assessments , the Developer
J shall be required to file a cash escrow or letter of credit
II
in an amount and form acceptable to the City to cover the
Icost of all public improvements and special assessments .
SECTION 10. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
II �
Before the City signs a final plat and before the developer constructs
any of the required improvements set forth in Section 9 of this
I
Ordinance , the developer shall enter into a development contract
1 with the City. The contract shall delineate the conditions under
which approval is given.
' '
SECTION 11 . VARIANCES
The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained II
in this Ordinance as part of the plat approval process following
a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
11 . 1 The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; II
I11 .2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings,shape or topographical conditions of the land;
111
1 11 . 3 . The condition or conditions upon which the request is based
t
are unique and not generally applicable to other property; ''
I
II
I -16- 49
it
_ Ti
4
il
il 11 .4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detri-
mental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose
and intent of the Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 12. RESTRICTIONS ON FILING AND RECORDING CONVEYANCES
12. 1 Except as provided in Section 4. 2 , no conveyances of land
shall be filed or recorded if the land is described in the
il conveyance by metes and bounds or by reference to an unapproved
Registered Land Survey or to an unapproved plat. The foregoing
provision does not apply to a conveyance if the land described:
il 1 . Was a separate parcel of record on February 20 , 1969 ,
the date of adoption of subdivision regulations by the City;
2. Was the subject of a written agreement to convey entered
into prior to such time; or
il 3 . Was a separate parcel of not less than 22 acres in area
and 150 feet in width on January 1 , 1966 ; or
4. Was a separate parcel not less than five ( 5 ) acres in
ill area and 300 feet in width on July 1 , 1980; or
5. Is a single parcel of commercial or industrial land of
il not less than five acres and having a width of not less than
300 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division
of the parcel into two or more lots or parcels , any one of
which is less than five acres in area or 300 feet in width ;
or
6 . Is a single parcel of residential or agricultural land
of not less than 20 acres having a width of not less than
500 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division
of the parcel into two or more lots or parcels, any one of
ill which is less than 20 acres in area or 500 feet in width .
12.2 Any owner or agent of the owner of land who conveys a lot
ill or a parcel in violation of the provisions of this Section
13 shall pay the City a penalty of not less than One Hundred
Dollars ($100 . 00) for each parcel so conveyed. The City may
enjoin such conveyance or may recover such penalty by civil
1111 action.
SECTION 13 . REGISTERED LAND SURVEYS
All registered land surveys shall be presented to the City in the
form of a preliminary plat in accordance with the standards set forth
in this Ordinance. Tracts to be used as easements or roads shall t.
be designated thereon.
f
ill! -17-
.1 1
I iL ,
J
I
. LAr.
;:bconos
,---
3uN-rf
- I S MAP
I
CE 1
AGENTS
,z1N.
I
---0
1 111
16.5 e.1\'c,N- : I S 1;4 cor i f
.c\XC)rQ`k t t
7/-(5)-s-2-
7-77757777-77R IA
I65 A
I
i \
V. WASSOM cr4-c''' • 1- i
*0
\/.1'\•S9 .1:' < ' 's, ''•• 1
, P 422
\ lb <
P./.ck‘-'9' I-- c(;,' 2 . B I
tp• '4( - . 1'A i I
\o,s-c ( , 0 a, g;
‘... Oil-.
9f'
4,/,0 Lu co
16 5
C , . •40
247 5 ,
\ 2.45-
6:4■10 \''. 11
)'<
far
,..poot,i'er_k-\-- 0
6 '- Ap■Ftirl 8° °
, CT
, /1
5 .-
,. • -
-
--t--:,-- -----
I ,
i--- ----II-
i I
4
08-5
. 1 cr--_J--1 c....E Co ROA ZD"
8 % r* o
../
7 SC\A\4\ ,.; mc.c.vv.\•v'. 9 I.-
3 , t.
-- - ,
; -_ ---,A
------ * _---:-. s ,
- _.- -
I
-- -- ---- - _ __ •_ _ ._ ____ _ __
..0.-
. --
_
- -
.•. ......„ __ __ __
,.
.: __ ............ _ ... ., - ■■1:1°
6 3 4
WEST
.--•
: se
■
, .
' BK 125, it
C. ANDERSON . ,
_- -
L ---...-1,---
..... 1 i
41.' 0 1
\ ...,'. .
7 k,-t-S.)
1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900
1 MEMORANDUM
1 TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator .
1 DATE: March 10, 1988
RE: : Park and Recreation Commission Action on Minnewashta
1 Meadows
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the Minnewashta
' Meadows site plan at their last meeting. As this area is served
by Cathcart Park to the north, it was determined that additional
parkland was not needed.
' The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail alignment along
Minnewashta Parkway. The Commission felt that this alignment
should be continued to the north of Highway 7, along Church Road,
1 to provide safe access to Cathcart Park.
It is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to
request a 20 foot trail easement along the west side of Church
Road, to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland, and to
accept trail dedication fees in lieu of trail construction.
At
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
s s•
t. P ♦ �h _.- sty' a y 1' Pr.' r.y. - , t at ° k• .►o. i., - .
•
•.l {. �- ' '"♦. t o-. - ies.7.c: > w . � OF*
t .,
_.2� . ■ '" �' ��� Vic. i :u" .s ;� �;T lt� '. ? t + ,jf � !� � ,Ti,T s - , F t•- { a % v '� f T•
li
s } • � Y •t . 5 s ♦ t. ' jC •y '- r V f ' L {+ -AI y/. � j s 1 ' 1 i -`t a�t� .f.,»''t . ► t ...s.;s u # r3y {t � ? ` � _ ' MI� v4 s t ' tr. _ ' • .R ,•••• -•r ♦ y . ;. 4 mit A; T
,� i6� ,r;t wF; � r 1 . aS 1' *' S ;
A y .'' ' .A, :•- a raj ♦ .4a . -. :4.-4-; - -F, ,,: ! . =w F x <� "
sk `}` " {yui� �` r � y r l .0 ji L
Y.>' -► .f'1�• �• t �. .t z.- _ ^•t1a'�' yi,�.: �' ar` �•ir�r aE'iysh•'' --r saf. .� -
.�; • •: �'-:r ' - 'c T' 'y, a?. 1k '!. sR _ • L'Ji_ At 4,'x.t`3 4 -- ;'."a ., 4 7.
tk � .: ; _ �f -731�'. t��`�. +v.tj. 'd'y ly �' ...,„ } _ .. :a' '
ticLtK 1 t* r , k�" ti r, '4` y' '�;-t'+3; f". +- ,k . ;tom'
,' •4. '. ` ''' _i 1V ;< 64 ` SF' s :R�}.r.t5 #- vY ,.,,7'+,,khy-.}j'S}•s ' . / ' -a J t.
-' r
:� _ _ -._•.t.,,,',4,-"4":.w f._--�. ,':',&-
+ '. „,‘,.:0•-,,, ,�j F fits a .yR. •'' -- t• ,1
•f+ ��•♦ ,�.. LYE _ y t'^•-k J° 1 4 ;--'•-4--:-.4'-'-'•••-..' ti $ �i
1 r3r3:t. 7.....t.......,„. Qi ,4 y'a frf.3 a fit!/itr k '? it • t. .s li '
-s,.�+ryw.� ' 't` u r - c . r.r' Lct-t+.£}'si -- . _ r - -N yj 1t.•Y._ V•�'_” �` i i_y11e•- 4....;I.4,2 ^It t ,•¢: i y'? } '1'] _ T•,.+""At'.. ,,,-,•-:',
- _ ,•.-rYt/�J rr�.^r .'f,��•t �'' `„�+ - f+..t - ' • - tk� r 'e'�`f ` 1 "{'+1dG7 --S.f.-----...-4,:: „440.,..,- , ?. -,- ,:-,.,.....,..' .--iii , , -;-, -., ,4--, ?:,,:.,-_,: a.„7 1 ,,. low,: - ..r_.. . ,..1, .; Nil: - ....... . .
- �{.` T t`� i1 -' , n.,, t a -.'.�.
1 k _ S a.-, -. �'+' ter .��y A �cx• e f : , . t . � w1t s' ✓— 'Y- `:%} ., ,... , , r` :' 1`� s ",r-,:7 � r - /�M i -. "T -• it✓'+�l ,. -.1 i#1 f J / 6 C ,r"'''' . t y. ice - _ _ �0 7 t+F y a f ? '; .sr;. - /;^ �:f..�yt 1 _ -.:YF r,x_'^ a:"g ,. i� ; ^4 7_ f S -1......,-1.1. s*- ..--;- + r f .' r " i, . ,J•. •e l -;--:
•;.. %v M J 4 , q x nr / t ,., '-f r w :;y.'
./07.5.1.67 '4-'-`,'-!.t.' "L e
a ;•
't_`. t _ �.2:4.*r_. c•"...•#it ♦r.-a .,i....:,-"4"..,••:" ,.e;si _ 2.:y zx , 5 ",. —4, ..� , - :,,1�. .`
'.C\ 'i S� .' „i+ r• r -jdx y.,s� fi s '6 - r r • *. k. '-'.;.1..-_•.f .rp�F.�'7ys`- �./ f Q , �y_i♦ P3 F 1yir�l:
�1t a. 'tia -yi`+r..s.a� 4 4.144=?.,';"... "
'.' ..- ,-1,,,a -Fa, j _ ; • ._
f� .-;4--t•- .-46-4- '-' sue'` _ 't -� ',y e• v ( i �y, „e ryr ..•
‘t.i...,
.0114.
. . . . t v 11• _ •, _,,,.0. 'fi 3_IL ,; 4,...e , .a s --Jx•rt 4 t .r�:�•- � mo ...;;111' , 0
• y 1, K + `v
;� w t yr r
Preliminary Plat
Minnewashta Meadows
"Chanhassen, MN.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
EVALUATION WORKSHEET
' To Be Completed By Applicant and Submitted with Application
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
' 1 . WETLAND DESCRIPTION:
Size: Approximately 21 acres, including drainage channel.
Class : B Type: 2
' Location: Lakeside Streamside Upland x
Watershed District: Minnehaha Watershed District
' Area of Open Water: Non-observably
Drainage Flows To: Lake Virginia to Lake Minnetonka
' Vegetation Types: Principally canary grass
Pm (Peat and muck) , Ge (Glencoe silty clay loam) ,
Soil Types : HaB2 (Hayden loam) , 2--6% slopes , graded)
' No proposed direct alteration.
2 . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: The existing wetlands will receive
drainage from the proposed development after the majority of the drainage
has passed thru a storm water dentention (storage) pond. The storm
water detention pond will control the rate of runoff to pre-development
' conditions . The detention pond will also allow settlement of suspended
particles . A baffled outlet structure will control the discharge of
oil and other floc ;ng material .
3 . PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION:
4 . APPLICABLE WETLAND ORDINANCE SECTION:
' 5 , A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF NO
ALTERATION IS MADE:
S . B. IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO WETLAND
ALTERATION:
C. IDENTIFY THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED
ALTERATION:
6 . USING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE ,
DINANCE STANDARDS AS A GUIDE, DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE
AND PROPOSED ALTERATION: '
I
-2-
Ir- l- City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
II (61Chanhassen, MN 55317 IRCERVETTI
2)937-1900
Date: FEO 29 1983 ``
II To: Development Plan Referral Agencies .
REGION VI
V ATE!)
From: Planning Department By: Jo Ann Olsen
I
Subject: Proposed Subdivision (Lake Riley Woods) to create 16 - 2.5 acre lots and
a Wetland Alteration Permit for development within 2UU' of a Class B
I wetland on property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate and located south of
Co. Rd. 14 (Pioneer Trail) 1 mile east of TH 101.
Planning Case: 87-2 Subdivision
IIThe above described application for approval of a land development proposal was
filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on 2/22
I In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission
and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations
concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and pro-
' posed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring
public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and
utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a
II written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a
recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning
I Commission on 3/16 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later
than 3/9 . You may also appear at the Planning Commission
meeting if you so desire.
IYour cooperation and assistance is r
g eatly appreciated.
I1. City Departments 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
II a. City Engineer 8. Telephone Company
b. City Attorney (NW Bell or United)
C. City Park Director
d. Public Safety Director 9. Electric Company
I e. Building Inspector (NSP or MN Valley)
MAR 81988
II 2. Watershed District Engineer 10. DOWDEN Cable System CITY OF CHANhAi
3. Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Machmeier/Jim Anderson t
I4. MN Dept. of Transportation 12. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Carver County Engineer
I6. Minnegasco 14.
Other
i - � -
ov , h,� D ti'R-- tip-, . '7� �-14--is ,
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: Gary Carlson OWNER: Same
ADDRESS 3831 West 62nd Street ADDRESS '
Excelsior . MN. 55331
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 474-3354 TELEPHONE
REQUEST:
ICZoning District Change Planned Unit Development
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment X Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
XWetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME Minnewashta Meadows
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Residential - Low Density
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Residential - Low Density
PRESENT ZONING RSF Single Family Residential District
Lot 1-8 , 12-15 , Block 1 RSF Single Family
REQUESTED ZONING Lot 9-11 & 16, Block 1 R-4 Two Family
USES PROPOSED Residential
SIZE OF PROPERTY 8 . 6 acres
LOCATION Northwest Quandrant of State Highway 7 and Church Road '
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Subdivision development
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) Lot 3 and 4 '
Schmid ' s Acre Tracts
NZ Sec. 5 , T116 , R. 23
Carver County
il '
c
City of Chanhassen
I Land Development Application
Page 2
IFILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
I clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before
filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
I applicable to your application .
IFILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
I applicable City Ordinances .
ISigned By 2OAL-/ ;. ; CAISAin-vv. Date ea,- .3 7 g
plicant _
I
I The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described .
1
Signed By ���t2 fi\. i\ , \ p - cry
1 -,..-�—tA Date / ,al_ 0s
I Fee Owner
0 -, . 01 'II .--c-ot
I ® 1I
- . C-. i R• ' / 5.44kti-s IYrk
IDate Application Received 2-- 4 A .... 4 Q-.¢ �.i-6p
Application Fee Paid r�, ( � fjfU! l `` `
City Receipt No. (9„y, g?- 6k-
I
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
I Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting.
I
I . _
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC.
loxseelll�re� �xyiueelS
1107 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
1612) 448-8838
March 4, 1988
Ms . JoAnn Olson
Assistant City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
RE: Preliminary Plat of Minnewashta Meadows
Additional Information Requested
Dear Ms . Olson:
Attached is a map showing the existing and proposed zoning
around the proposed Minnewashta Meadows plat , stormwater calculations, II
and revised preliminary plat of Minnewashta Meadows . The revised
preliminary plat of Minnewashta Meadows provides a 50 ' right-of-
way
easement to the west property line .
If you have any additional questions please contact us .
Sincerely, '
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES , INC .
Dennis W. Saari
DWS/las
encl . (3)
CITY TF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer
DATE: April 7, 1988
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review, Staff Update to the March 10 ,
1988 Memorandum, Planning Case No. 88-2, Subdivision,
Gary D. Carlson
On March 16 , 1988, the Planning Commission approved the prelimi-
nary plat for Minnewashta Meadows, Planning File No. 88-2 , dated
' "Received February 22, 1988" , subject to twelve conditions from
staff. Since that time, the applicant has resubmitted a new plan
which eliminates the need for a variance to meet the 90 ft. lot
frontage requirement.
The plans do provide for the 50 ft. roadway easement for Meadow
Court, as requested, such that future access from Cartway may be
facilitated.
We have reviewed this plan and find it acceptable.
' It is therefore recommended that the preliminary plat for
Minnewashta Meadows dated "Received March 28 , 1988" be approved
with the ten conditions as stated in my March 10, 1988 memoran-
dum ( included in the staff report) .
1
I
I
I
I
r
Planning Commission Meeting
March 16, 1988 - Page 51
Olsen : It ' s being preserved as a wetland . They have certain setbacks r
that they have to maintain. They can not alter it without receiving a
wetland alteration permit. They can not make it into a lawn area .
Brown: I think we have a similar item where someone in the community had
altered a wetland alteration permit and even though their construction
wiped it out and they are being made to go back through the process and II
give compensation to restore the wetland .
Emmings moves, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend r
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-4 for development within 200
feet of a Class B wetland subject to the following conditions: r
1. No construction traffic will be permitted beyond the erosion control
fence to the south of the wetland.
2. The structure on Lot 2, Block 1 must maintain a 75 foot setback from r
the edge of the wetland and the septic system must maintain a 150
foot setback from the edge of the wetland . r
All voted in favor and motion carried .
GARY CARLSON, MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS , PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY
r
RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CHURCH ROAD AND TH 7 :
A. REZONING OF FOUR LOTS TO R-4 , MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR TWIN HOMES (8 UNITS) .
B. SUBDIVISION OF 8 . 6 ACRES (LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 3 AND 4, SCHMID' S II
ACRE TRACTS) INTO 12 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 4 TWO FAMILY LOTS (8
UNITS) .
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DEVELOP A SUBDIVISION WITHIN 200 FEET
OF A CLASS B WETLAND.
i
Public Present :
Name Address r
Gary Carlson Applicant
Dennis Story William R. Engelhardt & Associates
Paul Palmer 1930 Whitetail Ridge Court, Excelsior II
Merlyn & Betty Wanous 6231 Church Road
Harry Campbell 6251 Church Road r
Clinton B. Shager 6320 Church Road
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. r
r
Planning Commission n Meetzng
March 16 , 1988 - Page 52
111:-
1 Dennis Story: I'm with William R. Engelhardt and Associates and I 'm
representing the applicant, Gary Carlson. The applicant is in agreement
with the staff' s recommendations . I ' ll be happy to answer any questions .
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the ublic hearing.rzng. All voted in
favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
1 Headla: Larry, on the recommendation 7, I don' t think I 've ever seen
that before. Why here? A gate valve shall be located three feet behind
1 each hydrant in accordance with the City' s detail for hydrant
construction.
Brown: Typically the gate valves are always proposed there. On this
1 plan they were left out and that standard is in accordance with the
City' s standards . We have a detail for that .
' Headla: So they just left it out? That' s the main reason you put it in?
Brown: Yes , it ' s just so we know we have a positive place that we know
the gate valves exist in the case of an emergency.
Headla : Which way, when you say the gate valve behind each hydrant. Is
IF that towards . . .
Brown: Towards the supplying watermain .
1 Headla: On the Option C, I don' t see where we even should consider it
since there are two variances there . I think we ought to go with A. At
first I didn' t like A but I sure don ' t like variances and it looks like
1 recommend approval of a variance just because it ' s kind of convenient for
now. Is there any overwhelming thing for why we should go with C and not
A?
1 Olsen: It provides future street access .
Headla: That may or may not happen down through a wetland .
1 Olsen : There is area there to be developed as residential in that
property.
1 Emmings : There is developable land west .
Headla : Is that the way you really see that land being developed and a
road going into through there as in Option C? Is that the most logical
way?
Olsen : A developer that I 've spoken with was looking at
possibly servicing it from the west but it would have to cross a wetland
and they wouldn ' t get staff approval for that . We would prefer that it
be serviced from the east.
1
1
•
Planning o
g C mmxsszon Meeting
March 16 , 1988 - Page 53
111
C
Headla : I don' t think we ought to go with Option C and the variances . 1
If we do that we' re saying we aren' t really serious about the numbers
that we try to impose on other people. That ' s all .
Batzli : Same theme, different song. I don' t necessarily agree that the
imposition of a second access is a hardship. I don' t like that reasoning
at all and for that reason I don' t like granting variances and imposing a
second access because I don' t think it should be a hardship. I think it
should be planned into the site plans being given to the City. I had a
question on the difference between conditions 2 and 8 .
Olsen: There isn't. One was my condition and one was Larry' s. It' s I
just a repeat.
Batzli : 8 is broader and I like the fact that it' s disposed of properly I
in 8. I guess when it comes time to make a motion, I 'd kind of like to
clean that up. That was all I had .
Conrad: What alternative do you like?
Batzli : I like redrawing it without one of the lots somehow to get a
second access . Whether that' s to an unimproved thing to the cartway.
That seems to be our tune tonight but I don ' t think it ' s a hardship.
Jr
Ellson: So you' re saying , maybe don' t have a separate lot. Just make 7 II
really big and make it 15 or something like that?
Emmings : Just find a way. This is a passing comment. I always think
it ' s funny we plan , you take the lots along the highway, they' re not as
desirable so we put more people on them. Because there's a noisy
highway, we put more people on those lots and I understand that ' s the way 1
it goes but it just seems perverse. We' ve got to be in favor of a
connection over to the west it seems to me. They' re never going to be
able to cross that wetland. That wetland is a connection between Lake
Minnewashta and Lake Virginia , is it not? It runs all the way through
there. They' re not going to be building over that thing and there is
going to be development to the west . I think that' s inevitable so
I think there should be a connection there. The Fire Department is right
here on this corner and if they had to go anywhere in that area, that
would be the way they would want to go rather than going all the way up
and coming back. I 'm in favor of the connection and I agree with Dave
that we want to stay away from variances, trivial as these are and I
agree with Brian that maybe they ought to just look at it and try and
design a way to have that connection in there without needing the
variances . I don' t know if it ' s impossible . If they've tried to do it II
and they can tell me it's impossible. That's one thing but . . .
Dennis Story: We have tried to do it and the size of the lots involved
just prohibits from shifting anymore. We tried to shift all the lots
around to make that additional room there. The area to the west can be
developed and have access from the north and from the northwest without
an access in this area . This basically is a short cul-de-sac, 500 feet. II
That little bubble provides access to those two corner lots. The lots ,
r
Planning Commission Meeting
' March 16 , 1988 - Page 54
' as they sit in the Option A, meet the requirements as far as the square
footage goes and that type of thing. The land to the west can be
developed by alternate access . So this parcel actually stands by itself.
' The other parcels can be developed to the west with access from the north
and northwest .
Emmings : Would you just point out to me the two lots that need
variances? Would need variances under Option C.
Olsen: Lots 4 and 5 . One of them has 88 feet of frontage at the 30 foot
setback and one of them has 80 feet.
Emmings : That' s what they have but are you saying that with the street
' in, going to the west that' s what they would have?
Olsen: With the street going in, they could possibly have 90 feet and
that is why staff was saying it might be justified because right now they
do not meet the requirements .
Emmings : They don' t?
tOlsen : No , pushing this easement , no they don' t.
It: Emmings : Because you can' t measure into the easement?
Olsen : They' re pushing these lot lines over to provide for the easement
so right now, no I measured into the easement and they still don't have
it.
Emmings : So 4 and 5 are short right now but if the street when in, then
' they would have sufficient frontage?
Dennis Story: Yes , if the street went in, they would .
' Batzli : I 'm sure it' s Lots 4 and 5 .
Headla : Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 shall receive a lot width variance so
' we' re talking 4 and 5.
Emmings : So once the street was in , only 4 would be?
' Olsen: We rough drafted a street coming in
There would be the street frontage P-
there . Then the street would be coming in
' like this so Lot 5 might go straight up like that and 4, then they would
both have enough street frontage. That 's why staff was justifying those
variances because if the street goes through, it would be resolved . The
street frontage problem.
Batzli : One of them would be resolved .
Olsen: Possibly both could be .
11 Plannin
g Commzss�on Meeting
March 16, 1988 - Page 55
r
Dennis Story: Under Option A, it meets the requirements . Under Option II
C, if the street goes in, it meets the requirements if the line is
suggested .
Conrad : Why didn' t staff like B? '
Olsen : It was the street configuration
of south, we felt that this would become a real straight through street.,
We liked the configuration of the curve .
Conrad : But you' re forgetting about the lots and how many lots there
are. If you take that issue out, you still don't like that road
configuration because it' s not curvy.
Olsen: That' s pretty much our position. The engineering staff too.
Conrad : I guess from an engineering standpoint , it looks like the
easiest one right there. They may have to drop a lot but engineering
wise, isn ' t that the easiest one to do? '
Olsen: And a temporary cul-de-sac too, we don' t like.
Conrad : But we have that on C right? Isn' t that a temporary cul-de-sac? I
Olsen: No, it' s really a permanent cul-de-sac but then they' ve got an
easement for future roads . '
Conrad : And we' re going to assume that road connection will go through
so then we' ll have a pretty strange, we' ll have a lumpy road won' t we?
That ' s always bothered me. To have a cul-de-sac turned into a road
because for sure, you' ve got a big loop. I don' t know what that does .
Brown: I think basically from a planning standpoint , they requested us II
to take a look at the other site plan, aesthetic, whatever , planning
issues , the other site plan was preferred . There is no problem with this
type of configuration. Certainly both of them lend themselves from an
engineering standpoint as far as right-of-way width, as far as grades and II
access, what have you. I think it boils back down to planning issues and
aesthetics . Both of them from an engineering standpoint will achieve the I
access that may need to be facilitated to the cartway.
Paul Palmer : It just seems like the logical solution was combining B and
C. Take the design of C with the extension and use the B where you don' t II
put the circle at the end of it. Now you 've accomplished your objective.
You have a circle drive but you don' t put the circle at the end. I agree
wholeheartedly that putting a circle in there with curb and gutter and
everything else and then putting a street through as part of a future
purpose having a natural development of the land . Anybody that knows
anything about it is going to see what you did and that' s always going to
be that sore spot . Plus it ' s going to be a problem when it comes to
building on those lots because of setback requirements. By having a
I
Planning Commission sion Meetzng
March 16 , 1988 - Page 56
' temporary put in at an angle like that , you could probably achieve what
you ' re after.
' Dennis Story: Typically what is done is the road on the other
alternatives or options where the road was extended, the wings on that
cul-de-sac would be removed and a straight curve would be put in.
Conrad: From a zoning standpoint Jo Ann, how do we justify this? It's
not spot zoning , you tell us . It ' s acceptable zoning to change it
because. . .
' Olsen : We reviewed it as to what the zoning district permits and is it
compatible with adjacent uses and we felt that it is appropriate.
' Conrad : And we' re not setting a precedent? The density is not real
high. It looks good in that regard.
' Olsen: No, it ' s not . We not setting a precedence . It has been done
before.
' Emmings : Right across TH 7.
Conrad : Okay, I 'm comfortable with how this particular applicant wants
to develop that property. That looks good. I 'm in concurrence with the
'- zoning . I think it ' s pot luck, I guess I don ' t know what to do on the A,
B or C. I don' t have a clear vision and I hope somebody here on the
Planning Commission does . Can make a recommendation for us tonight . Any
' other comments? Would somebody like to make a motion first of all on the
zoning issue? If you feel in concurrence with that , we' d be rezoning it
from RSF to R-4.
Olsen : The motion is on that other attachment .
' Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Rezoning #88-1, request to rezone 3 acres of RSF, Residential
Single Family to R-4, Mixed Low Density as shown on the preliminary plat
' dated February 22, 1988 , Lots 9 , 10, 11 and 16 . All voted in favor and
motion carried.
' Conrad : In terms of the preliminary plat , is there a motion?
Ellson: What do you want to see Brian?
Batzli : For Option A, B or C?
Ellson : I think you should make the motion or whatever , so we make sure
we get it right. What would you like to see?
Batzli : I didn' t get a clear direction on proposal B, first of all , as
to why it was rejected out of hand. I heard crossfire from the staff
kind of . I don ' t know, I kind of like B but no one else seems to.
Plannin g Commission Commissio ,
Meeting
March 16 , 1988 - Page 57
C
Headla: I liked B.
Batzli : But it doesn' t seem like the developer or the staff likes it so
I don' t know why I should like it because I 'm probably the least trained
to look at it and decide whether I like it or not from an aesthetic point '
of view.
Conrad : Anybody want to make a motion now that we know where Brian '
stands.
Headla moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #88-2 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped
"Received March 3, 1988" (Option B) and street and utility plans as shown
on the plans stamped "Received February 22, 1988 and subject to the
staff ' s conditions . This motion was later withdrawn.
Headla: A question on the trail easement. When we go up to the
parkland , Shorewood ' s parkland , is that what that Park and Recreation '
thing is?
Olsen: The Park and Recreation Commission wanted to continue the trail
along Minnewashta Parkway.
Batzli : I 'd like to propose a friendly amendment that we clean up where
this shed actually is if we' re going with Option B. I think it' s on a
different lot number .
Gary Carlson : I know I 'm not in order with your order of parlimentary
procedure but I 'm the developer on the property, Gary Carlson. I can
appreciate that we' re wrestling with concerns about the City and staff
has done an excellent job of putting together actually three proposals .
The reason that B was frowned on was we' re not trying to set up city
blocks here in a straight line development. It' s a small area with only
16 lots on TH 7. What I 've tried to do, I own 5 homes in the area and
all of them are affected by this plat. I 've lived in the area for 17
years and I tried to bring together something that will be simple, look
the nicest. I have a lot of neighbors here supporting me. As they know,
I want the nicest neighborhood in the area . It has to be medium priced
because it ' s close to TH 7. It' s not on any range or wild oaks . What
we have is a small single block area and now you want us to put the
straight streets through, if I hear this motion. If you press ahead with
B I ' ll probably withdraw and not develop at this time because you' ve It
ruined 1 through 5 as just straight block lots . The pontential for
having a street all along and no privacy. You do open up to the west but
as I say, we' ve been out there for 18 years and nothing has changed. If I
it does , they have a cartway and I own one of the houses on the cartway
and I ' ve given the City a 50 foot easement. I 've asked the City to
maintain the street . I 'm willing to accept assessments to improve that I
to a curb and gutter street. There are only two other residents there
besides the park and the park someday has got to have curb and gutter .
They can't go with a gravel road forever . The cartway is the natural
way. I 'm willing to go with Option C or Option A would be preferable
because it keeps the lots in that small area close to TH 7, it gives the
•
Planning Commission Meeting
March 16 , 1988 - Page 58
IC
' people some privacy. If you go with B with a straight through road , all
those lots are small and see what it does to 8. It makes a big square
lot and there ' s a house on there already. At least a $50 , 000.00 house.
It' s way at the back corner of the property whereas on the curvature
design , the home can be added to make it up to the medium priced home
that is being proposed. You have to look at what homes are there and
they' re asking me to take down a home. Either demolition it , removing it
so I only have one home per lot. I 'm doing all that I can. Right now on
that whole parcel , I pay $150. 00 in taxes . I 'm giving that up. I'm
turning over to the City, when those 16 lots develop, the potential
' between $24, 000. 00 and $32, 000. 00 in taxes a year . So all I 'm asking you
to do is look at every lot owner who' s going to own in there. What are
we, as a City doing to provide them with the nicest , private
neighborhood. Taking into consideration for emergency vehicles. Taking
into consideration the property to the west , he only has a little strip,
you can barely get four lots in there. Then you run right into the creek
and a huge swamp area . So you want me to provide street , walk and out to
' four lots . He' s going to have to come in with a cul-de-sac to develop
anyway. He ' s not going to go through and he ' s got the cartway which
should be improved. It' s got a fire hydrant on there. The whole north
' end of Shorewood has to come down the cartway to get to that fire
hydrant. Now I have to call the City of Chanhassen every year to come.
It' s a public cartway by the way. It ' s publicly dedicated . We along the
cartway pay the same taxes that everybody else in the City does and we
get no street maintenance.
Conrad : We' re trying to, let me jump in here , it ' s real late . Here ' s
' what we' re trying to do and I guess we didn ' t see anything that was
really perfect up there in the three alternatives . We don ' t like
variances. Especially when you have a lot of acres to develop.
' Gary Carlson : Those variances are only. . .
Conrad : But when you have 7 acres or whatever you have, you don' t need
' any. You have enough land to put in something without any variances .
Really you do. If you' re tight and you had one acre or whatever, I think
we can see situations where there are constraints . We' re changing the
' zoning. I think we' re sensitive to what you want to do there. I think
the way I read the Planning Commission is , not that we like straight
roads. I really like the curve that you had in there before but you
didn ' t solve our problems . The problem being access to the west and you
' didn' t solve a variance problem. This particular alternative, and I 'm
not sure what the variances involved in that . I wouldn' t want variances
in that road alignment . I guess I would not be approving that particular
' plat or subdivision . What I want to make sure of is that there aren ' t
any variances and I want to make sure that there' s a potential access for
those to the west , unless you can sell us that we don ' t need access to
the west. But there's land there and you know that area there fairly
well yourself. I haven ' t heard a case made that there should be an
access from some other direction.
Gary Carlson : C provides access to the west . Our planner and the city
staff has worked together to make an aesthetic neighborhood and yet
' ' II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 16, 1988 - Page 59
provide an access to the west and C does that . I don ' t know why you' re II
building on B.
Headla : From what I hear , B is not an option. '
Conrad: It may be an option for us but not for the developer .
Headla : I think we ought to withdrawn and table this thing until we find '
out what they really want and look for that second road.
Ellson: I'm all for C. I like the way that you did that especially if II
that road goes through, then you' re really talking about just one lot
with that problem. It' s not like four variances and what have you. In
fact, we could take the curve back and eliminate the look of a cul-de-sac "
that went bad , or whatever . If you added that kind of thing in there,
wording, I 'd like to see it and go ahead and move this along rather than
just tabling it.
Emmings : I think what I hear , I would vote for B or C if they eliminate
the variance. Either B or C or some other one that hasn' t been presented
as long as it connected to the west and eliminated the variances , I 'd
vote for it.
c Headla : Like I just said, I think we ought to just table this thing and
let him come in again.
Emmings : I wouldn ' t have voted for your motion on B because it included
four variances . '
Batzli : Are you withdrawing your motion?
Headla: Yes .
Batzli : I ' ll withdraw my second.
Emmings : If the applicant doesn' t want B.
Headla : And A doesn ' t really fit . '
Conrad : A doesn ' t solve our problem. The only alternative is C and what
I 've heard is that, you ' re concerned with the small variances to two lots_�
on C.
Headla : I don ' t think they've worked C good enough. I think there is
some design work that could be done there to fix that up. '
Ellson : Such as , what do you mean? Just move them around or whatever ,
is that what you ' re saying? '
Headla : I don ' t see why there has to be that real curvy road right in
there. If you plan on a road going through there and work it that way.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 16, 1988 - Page 60
IC
' Ellson : I think they' ve done an awful lot . We don ' t get a lot of three
choices type plans before us . I think they've shown that they have been
willing to do whatever they can.
Headla : He withdrew B so we only have two and one of those two requires
variances and the other one doesn ' t fit the Village's plans .
' Olsen : You can approve C without any variances and that would solve i.t.
Conrad: If somebody makes a motion for C but eliminates the variances,
that would send a signal to the developer that we like the road
configuration but that something has to be done with the lot lines to
eliminate the variances and he would probably have to solve it before he
got to City Council. If he chose not to solve it, City Council could
' vote to grant variances .
Ellson : You guys weren ' t satisified with her reasoning behind allowing
' this one being whatever see called a hardship, because of aesthetics .
You' re worried that this will set a precedence so people will say, you
let it happen on Church Road whereas she seems to have a really good
' argument where you could say that was the exception because the Church
Road instance was thus, thus and thus .
Batzli : It ' s not a hardship. I view it as they planned their own
hardship. That ' s not a hardship.
' Ellson moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision #88-2 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received
March 3, 1988" (Option C) , and street and utility plans as shown on the
' plan stamped "Received February 22, 1988" and subject to the conditions
in the staff report. There was no second and motion failed for lack of a
second .
' Conrad : And as a part of that motion , you do feel they should be granted
the variances?
' Ellson : Yes .
Batzli moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
' approval of Subdivision #88-2 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped
"Received March 3, 1988 (Option C) " , and street and utility
shown on the plan stamped "Received February 22, 1988" subjectato the
' following conditions :
1. The two sheds on Lot 14 , Block 1 and the street right-of-way and the
It- small one story single family residence on Lot 15, Block 1, shall be
removed prior to completion of site improvements (i .e. , street
construction and installation of utilities) . The demolition debris
from the home and shed shall be removed, trucked off from the site
and disposed of properly.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 16 , 1988 - Page 61
t
2. A 20 foot trail easement shall be provided along the west side of
Church Road and park and trail dedication fees shall be required.
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City II
and provide the necessary financial sureties as part of this
agreement for completion of the improvements .
4. All utility improvements shall conform to the City standards for
urban construction .
5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions required by II
the DNR, Watershed District and any other regulatory agencies .
6. A gate valve shall be located three feet behind each hydrant as in
accordance with the City' s detail for hydrant construction.
7 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
initiation of any grading and once in place they shall remain in
place throughout the duration of construction. The developer is
required to review erosion control and make the necessary repairs
promptly. All erosion control measures shall remain intact until an II
established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal
should be the repsonsibility of the developer .
8. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used on all slopes greater II
than 3 to 1.
9. The property utility and drainage easements shall be provided for the I
proposed retention/sedimentation basin located at the south of Lots 9
and 10 of Block 1 prior to final plat approval review process .
10. The sanitary sewer along Church Road shall be installed at a deep
enough level to be able to provide gravity service to the Frizzell
and Kerber property.
11. Construction of sanitary sewer along Church Road shall take all
necessary precautions to protect existing City utility and roadway
improvements . '
12. Lot 16, Block 2, the driveway access onto Church Road shall be at the
northerly most point to allow for proper traffic stacking movement .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Ellson moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-3 as shown on page 1 of the
preliminary plat stamped "Received February 22 , 1988" and subject to the
following condition: '
1. There shall be no construction activity beyond the erosion control
fence adjacent to the Class B wetland.
All voted in favor and motion carried .
1