10-5-94 Agenda and Packet FILE
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1994, 7:30 P.M. —
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
OLD BUSINESS
1. Rezone 37.92 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat
to subdivide 37.92 acres into 47 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit located at the intersection of -
Galpin Boulevard and proposed Lake Lucy Road extension, 6730 Galpin Boulevard, Ed and Mary Ryan,
Shamrock Ridge.
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
OPEN DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will
make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be
possible. the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration
will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
CITY 4F
0°;110r. CIIANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
'1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II
DATE: September 28, 1994
SUBJ: Referral of the Shamrock Ridge Preliminary Plat to Planning Commission for
Further Review
At the September 26, 1994 meeting, the City Council remanded the Shamrock Ridge
preliminary plat back to the Planning Commission for further review pursuant to Section 18-
39 (e) (2) of the City Code. The City Council recognized that only four members of the
Planning Commission voted on the motion. (Nancy Mancino had removed herself from
voting on this issue.) The City Council would like to give the remaining members of the
Planning Commission an opportunity to comment on the plat. The Council also felt that the
changes to the plat (elimination of one lot and a private drive in place of the westerly cul-de-
sac) should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. In addition, rather than a denial
motion, City Council would like specific findings for approval or denial with the Planning
Commission recommendation.
Specifically, the City Council requested that the Planning Commission discuss and make
recommendations on the following issues:
1. The Lake Lucy Road alignment and proposed pavement width, i.e. 36 versus
32 foot pavement.
2. The grading plan of the site - the amount of grading and including a better
visual presentation to assist in reviewing the proposed grade changes.
3. The subdivision design relative to the natural features of the site.
This review is a discussion item and not a public hearing. In order to meet the code
requirement for a decision by the City Council within 120 days of acceptance of the plat, the
Planning Commission must complete its discussion at the October 5, 1994 meeting due to
time constraints. The City Attorney has advised us to have the Planning Commission forward
Planning Commission
September 28, 1994
Page 2
their recommendations to the City Council for their meeting on October 10, 1994. The
Council will then have two meetings, if necessary, to formulate their decision with the
appropriate findings of fact.
We have attached the staff report that was prepared for City Council as well as the latest
development plan for your review. Staff has worked out what we believe is an acceptable
design for the plat which is also acceptable to the applicant. While not the optimum design
for this area, the applicant has made compromises in their plat to accommodate staff
recommendations and concerns. We have prepared conditions of approval for to City Council
and would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt these conditions as part of their
recommendation to the City Council. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact me.
Attachments:
1. City Council minutes dated September 26, 1994.
2. Staff report
3. Revised Development Plans
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE
37.92 ACRES INTO 50 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT; LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND
PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED
AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sam & Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd.
Charles Stinson Minnetonka
Peter Davis 6640 Galpin Blvd.
E. Jerome & Linda Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd.
Clarke Nicholson 2051 Crestview Drive
Steve Buresh 6651 Galpin Blvd.
Martin Gustafson 6691 Galpin Blvd.
Debbie Wunderlick 7011 Galpin Blvd.
Break Johnson 6621 Galpin Blvd.
Eric Rivkin 1695 Steller Court
Bret Davidson 7291 Galpin Blvd.
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Frank Kelly 351 2nd Street, Excelsior
Ed & Mary Ryan 6730 Galpin Blvd.
Chuck Plowe Brooklyn Park
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. The applicant has brought in a
residential subdivision for City Council review and preliminary plat approval. We've been
working on this project for a very long time and have been through numerous reiterations and
revisions to the proposed plat. The basic issue involved, well there's 2 of them. The first
one is the Lake Lucy Road extension alignment through this development. And the second,
one is the protection and the preserving of the natural features on the site, specifically the
steep slopes. This project is approximately 38 acres in size. It has a gross density of 1.24
units per acre which is compatible with all the other proposed subdivisions in the area.
Unfortunately for the developer there's a large wetland complex on the site which reduces his
developable area. Therefore he has a net density of 1.83 units per acre, which is still within
the compreh nsive plan designation for this property. Originally as proposed the application
brought in 42 single family lots. In working with staff and revising the plat, they have
reduced that number to 47, which is before you tonight. Part of the reason that they've done
1
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
that is they've tried, originally they had the alignment of the Lake Lucy Road all the way up
to the northern property line. In this configuration they were actually grading on to the
adjacent property so we...that would not be acceptable and they moved the alignment 60 feet
to the south. After further review with staff, we had them move it an additional 20 feet to
the south to permit a 3:1 slope from the northern property line of this development. At the
same time maintaining a 30 foot tree conservation easement along the northern end...of this
plat. The applicant has been pushing all through this process with staff to keep the alignment
to the north in order to maximize the lots that they can put on site. In addition to having a
rear walkout type configuration... we both compromised what we originally wanted. In
looking at the development on the site, staff believes there's one optimal way to develop this
site and that is to provide the western third of property as an outlot so that it can be accessed
from the north. That way we would eliminate all, most the grading on the westerly third of
the property and we would provide some walkout type lots in that area and they would not
have to disturb the slope. However, the applicant is not of the same mind and wants to go
forward with his preliminary platting of the entire property. We therefore looked at two
alternatives. One was using the southern alignment and looking at the development of the
western third of that, of the project with the southerly alignment. If we did this, the applicant
would be required to dig into the hill and we believe that it would be an even worse situation
from the landform standpoint and the proposal that the applicant has in front of you today.
Unfortunately, when you look at the alignment for Lake Lucy Road, the preservation of the
natural pond landform...As I said, the applicant has worked with staff in trying to make this a
better plan and believe we have worked out a compromise with the applicant that is workable
with the city staff and we're recommending that should the city agree with the applicant's
proposal, we have conditions of approval that we think would make...project to consider.
There is one item of clarification under condition 32. This condition says Lake Lucy Road
shall be realigned southerly to be compatible with the intersection proposed in Brendon Pond.
This, Chuck has stated that they would start curving the land within their project...with the
intersection that's to the west there. We have staff supports the rezoning of this property and
conditions as outlined. Additionally they have a...rezoning of this property is consistent with
the comp plan. With this ruling they have a request for a wetland alteration permit...filling in
a wetland within the Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. They will be dedicating this wetland and
the fill on site...should you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions of staff? Richard?
Councilman Wing: Not at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not at this time.
2
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: It's 47 lots, not 48?
Bob Generous: Correct.
Councilman Mason: Not at this time, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess I was going to ask you too. So this is now the plan that we're
dealing with and that is the private driveway on that.
Bob Generous: Well there's two of them. There's one on the west here and then another one
to serve these 3 lots. So there's no direct access onto Lake Lucy Road in this plan.
Councilman Senn: That's it for the moment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't either. Is the applicant here this evening?
Ed Ryan: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Ed Ryan and this is my wife
Mary. We are owners of the property and we are pleased to present our plat and explain it
more fully to the Council. We have met with staff often during the process over the past few
months and we've worked through a lot of challenging issues. We appreciate the comments
that staff has made and the input that we've received not only from staff but also from others.
I think what we have produced is a superior plat that's very thoughtful and now accepted for
approval by staff. I would like to address four key issues regarding our plat that Chuck, our
engineer will get into with more detail. The first issue I want to talk about is the road
alignment. I think as you know, in early June the Council approved the supplemental
feasibility study for Lake Lucy Road granting the flexibility for road locations. That
extended through our property. It illustrated two alignments. One to the north. The
illustration was in this neighborhood and one to the south, which was approximately in this
vicinity. Based on that we proceeded to draft various positions or alignments that would go
through our plat at both the southerly and the northerly alignment, finding that the northerly
alignment was much more favorable to the natural topography that we're trying to maintain.
When this issue was presented to Planning Commission, in both of our meetings, the
northerly alignment was not considered an option. It was as if this northerly alignment did
not exist. After our second planning meeting we requested the denial of the plat rather than
to be tabled once again. As Bob mentioned, the staff indicated that they preferred a southerly
alignment with no development. This preference has been considered not feasible by the city
3
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
attorney as drafted in their report and stated as such. The staff now agrees, and it's written in
the report, that our northerly alignment be proposed. Is preferred over the southerly
alignment with northern cul-de-sacs. Chuck will illustrate why we and staff believe this is a
better alignment. Those reasons are going to include reduced grading. A more workable
slope. We have a large outlot that we've allowed for. We preserved the trees and the
wetland. And we also feel that this roadway is a much safer roadway because a roadway that
is straight and flat invites pedestrians to speed through the neighborhood. With this
alignment we feel that that doesn't offer that option. The second issue I want to talk about is
the topography. The grading issue. Now I know many of you in this room and many of the
Council members have seen our property first hand and would agree that the property does
have tremendous natural beauty with rolling hills and gentle slopes. We have preserved this
topographical uniqueness in terms of the site's characteristics, as Chuck will illustrate, and we
have minimized the grading despite the requirement of having to construct a state aid
collector road through the site. Now several comments have been made, and they've been
made publically as well, that we would bulldoze the property and make it flat. I think what
you'll find is just the opposite is true. Chuck will demonstrate how our plat principally
follows the existing contours to provide for beautiful views, relaxing sight lines and respect
for our natural topography. The third issue is the trees and the wetland issue. Our property
is uniquely situated between the beautiful, dense faceted mature tree line on the north and
wetlands on the south. In recognition of this natural beauty, the layout of our plat has been
designed to preserve the tree line and observe a 30 foot conservation corridor along this
location. In addition, by utilizing this northern alignment we eliminate any roadway
construction that would be taken up along this wetland area and preserve it's natural beauty.
However, between the northern tree line of the southern wetlands there is a sporadic line of
trees that have grown up between these two farm fields. We agree with staff that these trees
cannot be saved. Whether the northern alignment is utilized, the southern alignment is
utilized, or any variation in between. The plat as a whole has successfully preserved the
natural beauty of the property and it retains the special character that the land really has been
blessed with. It is beautiful. The last major issue I want to cover is density. We recognize
that our plan is a neighborhood. It's going to be for new residents as well as existing
residents. It's going to be the neighborhood for this part of Chanhassen. We've designed our
average lots to exceed 23,000 square feet. To create an opportunity to appreciate the beauty
and that residents can enjoy the spacious, beautiful land. Our plat density, as Bob said, fits
well within developments already approved by Council with the Carlson/Song plat at 1.2121.
Our plat is 1.2421 and the Gestach-Paulson plat which you just heard at 1.27. With this as an
outline, I'd like to have Chuck now share some of the specific features of the issues that I've
just talked about.
Councilman Wing: Can I ask one question, just for the record?
4
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
Councilman Wing: Did you say that staff favors or approves the northerly route?
Ed Ryan: Yes.
Councilman Wing: Because that's not in our packet. Is that true?
Kate Aanenson: No, what we're saying is, the first northern route...what we're saying is they
were probably pretty much equal...
Bob Generous: This is a good compromise.
Ed Ryan: Any other questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Ed Ryan: I'll have Chuck.
Chuck Plowe: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. Chuck Plowe, project engineer for Ed and
Mary Ryan. I'd like to start talking about Lake Lucy Road. The feasibility study that was
done, included as it was laid out, two options for the Lake Lucy Road alignment. One of the
options was shown going directly up to the top and actually connected into the north property
line.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we bring that plat just a little bit closer so we can get that on the
monitor. That's better.
Chuck Plowe: Can I move...back?
Mayor Chmiel: Can we pick it up if we put that back farther so everyone can see it? Sure.
Why don't you move it back just a little bit more, but don't go out the door please.
Chuck Plowe: Okay, as I was saying. The option 2 was Lake Lucy Road coming up to the
north property line. That's how it was shown in the feasibility study and what we did was
we extended from there onto the flat to Galpin Boulevard. That was, and we concur was
unacceptable once we got the grading plan drafted, etc realizing the impact on the trees and
the actually encroaching into the north property. So we agreed right away to slide Lake Lucy
Road down and also we were asked to look again at using the southerly alignment, which the
staff was really wanting us to use the southerly alignment in any way that we could get to
5
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
work. So we did look at the southerly, the south alignment prior to coming up with another
drawing showing the northerly alignment. And as staff had indicated...with the three cul-de-
sacs coming off the southerly alignment, the grading into the hill is more severe. Is severe
where this is much more in tune with the slope itself. Let me just show you the latest sketch
that I did from the southerly alignment with the cul-de-sacs coming to the north. Now I did
everything I possibly could, including increasing the grading on this cul-de-sac more than the
prior plan that I had prepared for staff but I still was unable to avoid cutting into the trees.
The area you see in green actually projecting up into the north property a little bit is required
to get, with tuck under lots, to get 3:1 slopes to work. And as you'll also notice, I used as
much open area in the highest point of the hill to try and make it fit. So I'm trying to
demonstrate that the ultimate with the southerly alignment still is not able to preserve the
trees along the north alignment. The plan immediately prior to this one we had shifted Lake
Lucy Road 60 feet south and that alignment was in the last plan I believe Planning
Commission saw. The problem that staff had with that was we didn't provide enough
boulevard on our 80 foot wide right-of-way street on this side. I was pulling to staff that we
put the trail on the other side, utilize this area as much as possible for the slope is the best
way to...most difficult areas to work with for that. We then met with staff after they set the
parameters that they wanted. The 60 foot minimum boulevard and minimum 3:1 slopes. We
then ended up with the plan that's before you tonight. We moved this an additional 25 to 30
feet south so our point closest to the north property line is actually 105 feet from the north
property line. Finally we had a cul-de-sac street here. Shifting this southerly created, pushed
the entire cul-de-sac southerly so we became too close to this wetland edge so with staff we
come up with a private drive scheme taking one lot out and actually moving the toe of the
slope away from the wetland further than it was on the prior plan. We were asked to curve
the street at the end so we could better match in with the Lake Lucy Road... So this is, the
blue color is the link between what we're showing and what is proposed to you on Brendon
Pond, and you can see there's a little transition from the northerly alignment into Brendon
Pond. Another thing that's a plus on this, we have a considerable buffer between the
collector street and Lake Lucy Road and the north property line and I think this is the point
that staff also made that the northerly alignment, it is a positive note to have that large buffer
that we're excluding from any development between Lake Lucy Road and the north property.
So there's no question to us that the northerly alignment is more environmentally favorable
than the southerly alignment. I think the tree preservation has been talked about so I don't
want to repeat what's already been said. As you can see we, the green areas are the areas
that the trees are being saved and a corridor of trees in through here we know are going to be
lost regardless of where the Lake Lucy Road is placed. And the wetlands again have been
also preserved with the exception of the area where Lake Lucy Road has cut through the
wetland... Now for the grading of the site. We always designed to follow the existing
topography as much as possible in designing what we plat. The reason we do this is to save
trees, avoid wetlands and to maintain the character of the existing topography. Which these
6
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
are all environmentally oriented...that we followed in designing this plat. It also saves cost.
More grading, more cost. One of the concerns that's been mentioned is that we are flattening
the land, so I want to get into that a little bit. Let's just take a look at the grading plan first
and let me try to follow through with you a little bit to see if we can kind of picture what the
final topography is going to be. Let's put ourselves down here at Galpin Blvd and Lake Lucy
Road. Elevation 994. Let's take ourselves along Lake Lucy Road to Jennifer Way.
Continue on up Jennifer Way to where it terminates on our plan. Elevation 1020. 26 feet
above the center line of Galpin Boulevard. We continue to come uphill here and here so we
have definitely tried to follow the topography as much as the design of the roadway will
allow it. Elevation of this garage, 1022 is the elevation of this garage is 1012. We're
standing here, we're looking into the roof of that home. This one is 15 feet above this one.
We're looking almost over the roof of that one. I could go on. There's another one up here
where this home is 30 feet above this one. These homes along this corridor are 40 feet above
the existing wetland. What it's doing is in addition to this trying to give you a little better
picture of what the topography looks like on our proposed grading contours and draw some
elevation views. Elevation view one coming from the top of the hill across Lake Lucy Road
through the wetland. This is the top of the hill. This is where the house would be. This is
the back of the house as it's shown as a walkout. This is the garage elevation. So I was
mentioning the 30 feet. The 30 feet is from here down to this house. If you have a physical
graphic look at what I'm trying to tell you on the grading plan. It's pretty difficult to look at
that and visually see and I'm hoping that this will tell you that there is a lot of topography
and a lot of change in elevation happening. Elevation 2. This is the garage I was talking
about. This is the other garage I was saying and looking at and here are the two drawn
graphically so they're...10 feet. Is anyone having trouble following this? Following what I'm
doing. Okay. ...elevation 3. This is the top of the hill. Jennifer Way, this is high up in this
area here. High today and it's going to be high when the road is built. As you can see here
it's sticking way up above the wetland area down here and it's up above the proposed home
elevations... Difference in elevation from this walkout down to the, the difference of that is 40
feet. I could take different elevation views for different parts of the site. Generally you're
going to find the same type thing as you see here regardless of what I do with here. You're
going to see this filling type thing here regardless of what I do so those to me are really
representative of what the site is doing with the final design concept. I guess the idea that
we're flattening the land is far from the truth, as you can see. We have reviewed the staff'
condition for approval with this alignment and with this plan and we have no problems with
those conditions. I have no further comments at this time or if someone.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions of the Council?
Councilman Wing: I want to talk about grading. I don't know if it's appropriate now. As
long as that's up. I guess I can't read this and I really don't understand. It's nice to talk
7
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
about 10 and 20, 30 feet. Usually it doesn't mean anything. Kate or Bob, can we learn
anything off of this right now? Can either one of you or anybody tell me what exists now
and how much dirt's being shoved where to fill in what. I'm pretty lost here.
Bob Generous: We worked with...
Chuck Plowe: Well, if you want me to look at say just go through this.
Kate Aanenson: What he's showing you is the proposed.
Chuck Plowe: I'm showing you the final contours.
Kate Aanenson: Final grading, right. He's not showing you the cuts.
Councilman Wing: That's what I want to see. I need an overlay.
Chuck Plowe: The sense I'm getting is that a lot of people are interested in what the site's
going to look like when it's finally completed and the fear is there that we're going to flatten
this out and it's going to be...You know taking a beautiful site as it is and making it boring.
That's not going to be the way it is. It's going to be beautiful when it's done. Is there
something specific that I need?
Councilman Wing: No I just, I need, I'll talk about it later. I guess I'm standing, I need an
overlay or some other type of picture here but I'll get that later. It's not important.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else? I guess the way it sits right now, unless somebody has
any specific questions. Thank you.
Ed Ryan: Very briefly. I guess as you can see, and I think Kate knows this as staff does,
that we've put a lot of hours into this and we've tried to make it a pleasing plan and I think
we have. We've put a lot of care and sensitivity into it because this is our neighborhood and
the result of working with staff closely and the recommendations of the neighbors and the
Planning Commission have been a superior plat which we're very proud to have done. Our
plat will meet all the conditions, or has met all the conditions that the staff has recommended
so we are requesting, as staff allows for, approval of our plat consistent with what staff has
recommended, subject to the conditions detailed in their report. If you have any questions
throughout the process, please feel free. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay. Let's go to your specific questions that you have.
8
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Councilman Wing: I don't.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what you're, are you trying to determine how much the existing
contours where the roads are...graded or?
Councilman Wing: I don't think we can do that tonight. I guess what I'm saying though is
we have an ordinance on the books now that says there are time that we can impose
additional da, da, da, da. And this is going to be one of them for me. I want to know, I
want a picture and a grading plan that I can understand as a layman of what we have now
and what we're going to have when it's all over because I've been personally stung on the
last 3 we've done. I'm really shocked by what we approved and what I thought was good
and what actually occurred. So I want to know what dirt's being moved where and what hills
aren't going to exist and I'm not saying there isn't a lot of flexibility here and a need to do a
lot of this but I want to make it real clear that I need a 3 dimensional picture or I need a 3
dimensional computer graphics. I need an artist's sketch of the land from a couple angles
with an artist's sketch of what it's going to be after that stuff without homes on it. So maybe
that's part of the final plat, I don't know but I think I've addressed this other times and I
don't know how I can word it better but this grading plan means nothing to me and I don't
want to approve it with the information I have. At least on the final plat.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: How many more rounds do you think we're going to have here on this
tonight?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Speak now instead of...
Councilman Mason: Yeah, because I don't have issues specific to the plan that I'm seeing
here but I do have issues that deal with everything.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I understand that good sign language. Okay.
Councilman Mason: Good. Obviously a whole lot of time has been spent on this. This
latest one is, I certainly view it. I was at the Planning Commission meeting that they
unanimously denied, not this plan but the plan prior to it and I would have been surprised had
9
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
they not unanimously denied it. This looks appreciably different and I'm hearing staff say,
it's a compromise that staff can live with. So in terms of what I see here, I'm done.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Do I take your silence to mean that it's going to be coming around again
for comments and this is just questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Well yes, yeah. I want to open it up to the floor with the adjacent property
owners.
Councilman Senn: I don't have any questions at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to now open this up to anyone wishing to make a
presentation, and I again would ask your indulgence for brief presentations. Indicate your
concerns rather eloquently.
Peter Davis: My name is Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Blvd. I'd like to read a petition
that has 18 signatures on it and represents 14 families. Virtually they've signed it all today.
It represents virtually all of the neighbors surrounding the property of the Ryans. Then in
conclusion, after I read this I'd like to give copies for everyone present. Whereas the Ryans
proposed plat rezoning request from RR to SF1 in an area of the comprehensive plan
designates SF1 increases lot density to 15,000 square feet. It poses massive regrading to
destroy the natural slopes, wetlands and trees. Does not propose a pedestrian trail system. It
proposes storm drainage flow into the Lake Lucy headwaters watershed. Where the City
Code, Section 18-60 states, lots should be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities
such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. Whereas the
rolling hill topography, natural wetlands and open spaces and abundance of wildlife and water
quality to the Lake Lucy headwaters are this community's best assets and should be
preserved. Whereas the city, the trail system, extension planned to Lake Minnewashta Park.
Whereas nutrients from storm water runoff from proposed massive fill abutting the existing
wetland, polluted runoff from the proposed homes abutting the wetland will be a major
environmental disturbance and degrade the wetland ecosystem. Whereas runoff from the
development can be contained entirely on the west side of Galpin Blvd and any additional
runoff into the Lake Lucy watershed would result in further harm to wetland vegetation and
wildlife.... Whereas the natural environment on the Ryan property provides a vital corridor
for wildlife traveling between Lake Minnewashta Park and the Lake Lucy area. Whereas the
Planning Commission also agreed with the above concerns, therefore we the undersigned
request the City Council to (1), deny the proposed plat on the basis it does not meet City
Code, Section 18-60. The required land planning to lower lot density be reconsidered
10
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
accordingly. (2), consider changing the comprehensive plan or require a condition on the plat
to a minimum net lot size of 1 acre for all remaining land north of Harrison Lake, between
Galpin Blvd and Highway 41. (3), as a condition prohibits storm water runoff to the east of
Galpin Blvd. (4), as a condition required of Lake Lucy Road extension to follow the natural
lower land contours winding along the existing wetland with an off road pedestrian trail
which meanders through natural created corridors. (5), keep the area zoned RR until a plan
is submitted that is consistent with the existing topography, and other natural amenities with
less housing density. I don't know if that took 5 minutes.
Mayor Chmiel: Right on time, thank you. Okay, is there anyone else?
Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin Blvd in Chanhassen. I have an overall feeling
that I simply need to express and then I'll try to get a little bit specific in my allowed time. I
feel somewhat tricked by this entire process, to be very frank with everybody here. I think
this plan is very different from the Planning Commission, what they saw. What they debated,
and I'd highly recommend that in the final analysis this entire process be turned back to the
Planning Commission where many suggestions were made and next to nothing was taken
seriously by the developer of this property in terms of what was resubmitted and I certainly
spent some time in this room reviewing both of those plans. Now tonight there is something
significantly different. Still something that I personally object to, but significantly different
that I don't know who's had the time to even review in terms of the neighborhood and people
in the area who would normally be concerned and normally be given the time table allotted
the normal process, which is one of going through the Planning Commission, which I respect.
That's an overall feeling. Staff has made it clear in each of the Planning Commission
meetings that it favors an outlot on the westerly portion of this land for the very reason that
the City Code states. Staff I commend because they have been upholding what I believe the
City Code has indicated very strongly. Lots shall be placed to preserve and protect natural
amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, walker courses and historic sites. I
believe staff has been doing exactly that with this property. I don't think that the city,
whether they be the Planning Commission or this Council, has an obligation to any
landowner, including this one, to make land sellable that just plain shouldn't be sold for
purposes of the dollar. There is an argument I think that can be made that says, if we
preserve wetlands, why would we not also preserve certain steep slopes? What's the
difference? What we're preserving in both cases is something that we ought to preserve.
That's why we do it. That's why it's in the City Code. That's why I believe this city put it
there. And I see a strong effort being made to develop some steep slopes in some areas that
staff has consistently recommended be held as an outlot at least until access from the north
can be had and that the land itself will be allowed to dictate the development of that land and
not boundary lines and not a sense of urgency by current landowners to see that every square
11
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
inch be developed that possibly could be. And so I implore this Council to look carefully and
please consider the preservation of the natural amenities as stated in the Code. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jerome. Is there anyone else?
Linda Carlson: I'm Linda Carlson, 6950 Galpin Blvd and my math is a little rusty and I
don't have a calculator with me tonight but I found myself confused when Ed Ryan was
talking about the density. Comparing this to other developments. When you look at the
Halla one, that's 46 acres into 36 lots. The number of lots was smaller than the number of
acres and the Gestach and Paulson one, they have 26 acres into 21 lots. Again, the number
of lots is smaller than the acreage. However they're proposing 38 acres into 50 lots where
the number of lots is bigger. So I'm not sure how they can compare the density...
Mayor Chmiel: I think there's just a slight typo on the 50 lots. That's 47 lots is what we're
looking at? Okay.
Linda Carlson: The number of lots though is still bigger than the number of acres.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. No, I just wanted to just make that one. There's 3 different sizes of
lots or there's 3 less lots than what was indicated as the 50 on the agenda as we have.
Jerome Carlson: I think Gestach is also not 21. Perhaps it's down to 19 by now so.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Is there anyone else?
Ed Ryan: Can I just make a comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up? I realize you have to.
Ed Ryan: Just as a point of clarification. The information that I stated in my density
comparisons was received from staff. That was the information they provided me so.
Councilman Wing: Can they clarify that? As long as we're on that subject.
Kate Aanenson: We stand by that. The Halla plat is outside the MUSA area and that's not a
fair comparison. What we compared was the surrounding area...platted in the RSF. The
Song/Carlson. Certainly there's larger lots in the area. The Highlands to the east. The
Mancino's haven't been platted...
12
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Councilman Wing: ...on the question of density, if this is 25 acres and 50 houses, it can't be
the same as 25 houses on 25 acres. How does this work out?
Kate Aanenson: Well as Bob said, there's a significant amount of wetland you need to take
out so it reduces your net buildable lots.
Bob Generous: And I believe like the Gestach is at 1.7 is the gross...
Kate Aanenson: You're looking at gross and the net.
Bob Generous: They start out with about the same.
Councilman Wing: I thought we were only dealing with net now. I thought we were getting
rid of these gross numbers long ago. What's the usable, buildable lot?
Kate Aanenson: Net.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, but you have to have your wetlands within that.
Bob Generous: Previous comparisons were based on gross numbers of 1.1 and 1.2 so we
provided that information also.
Councilman Wing: Okay, thank you.
Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. We're the property owners to the north of
this. I'd like to do two things. First I'd like to do a couple of very quick comments relating
to our property and the impact that this development on our's is going...plat request, or have
requested and see some aspects that have been represented in this plan. And then also discuss
some of the feelings that we have as community...I'd like to have Charles Stinson, an
architect who has been working with us, to assist me. This is a photo of about 3 years ago
flying over our property which is, to the west, heavily wooded and it abuts the Gestach-
Paulson property here and up to this point. The Ryan property is along this border. There's
a natural tree line here. There a stand of arborvitae which many of your drive past and are'
familiar with on Galpin Blvd. Here's a private drive that goes through here. That goes past
the Davis' and our house here. So we're quite close to this property line which is...Lake
Lucy Road is going to go through. To help understand some of the vegetation there, I've
done some...coloring on it that separates some of the pines, tall specimen trees and break
those away from some of the... When these two developments were platted and came before
City planning sometime back in July I believe, city staff requested that we look at a long
term plan that would take into account future contingencies of how our property might
13
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
develop. Although we don't intend to develop at this point, we wanted to be prepared to
respond to the neighbors...as to how we might develop in the future. We talked with
developers. We talked to a number of engineers. We talked to architects. Met extensively
with staff to understand the intent of the comprehensive plan and the city's desires and then
tried to look at a long term staged plan that would be environmentally sensitive to the
landforms and the natural amenities and trees. Charles can kind of help walk through quickly
what we intend to do in a staged perspective.
Charles Stinson: Hello. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm an architect. I live in Minnetonka.
Sam and Nancy contacted me a while back and the reason being, I do predominantly
residential architecture in specialty lots. Working on projects that we try to preserve the area
and blend the architecture into the site and respect what's there. So in looking at it, our
approach was first of all just getting familiar with what was there and you know, again Sam
was saying about the arborvitaes going around the perimeter. This area was essentially
unmolested. It's just beautiful with giant, you know having been a tree farm there's just giant
specimen trees. Big ponderosa pines. A natural ravine going through the middle of that.
You have some trail systems. This portion is a large meadow. It's just a beautiful meadow
here. A beautiful meadow here. Again the stand of trees going along the south of the
property. The existing private drive coming in to Peter, I don't know Peter's last name, but
Peter's property. Coming back to the Mancino's residence. So first of all the thought was
well, you know how should we do this? What should we put on the property? Before I
guess I move this. The other thing, to get...with this piece of property and hiking it and
photographing it and setting the topo, also I wanted to get familiar with everything that was
going on around it. So looking at this site. Getting familiar with that development. The plat
and then looking at this and realizing that the property from here to the wetlands falls over 90
feet of drop, you know so it's pretty substantial. We're higher. A nice piece of property.
Quite a bit of vegetation and the wetlands. So the solution in a very cartoony form was just
determining where the homes would want to be and wanting to do it without just bulldozing
it down and taking down the trees. So it became, again coming from the right side, you
know there's some just beautiful spots looking down the valley. A big open meadow that the
Mancino's look across now. This area and a buffer of a stand of trees here and this is just
wild in here to the big trees and then there's a big ravine that continues down to this site.
The problem was, how do you do it without, you know if you run a road in here, you know
we'd be destroying the ravine. We talked to the city about getting, they're proposing a road
up here...property to connect. Either way it just took out a lot of trees so as we looked at it,
and the original development below, Ryan's was grading way back onto this property and
there wasn't a preservation zone so at minimum we started just putting up kind of a
protection zone of 30 feet onto our property and 30 feet onto their property and going all the
way around. And then in look at the road access, we originally were hoping to get two and
kind of settled for one coming in to save this property, and I think that works pretty good.
14
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Utilities, again getting, talking about at some point that there'd be a connection of a street
that would come through here and once this was developed, perhaps there'd be a connection
to that so this would be pretty much self contained here. But having all these lots also
looked over the amenity of these trees in the middle so they can all be left open. Even going
out there early this morning there's, I saw 4 different deer on the piece of property so that
way they can still roam and it's a sensitive area. So I guess that's the approach we had to
that piece of property. The only I guess requirements from below where the, not continuing
the street but stubbing out potentially access and utilities here just because of the working
with engineering and the Mancino's engineer from Schoell and Madson, just because the
elevation that would work out. Another one that wasn't shown on the applicant was getting
an access point here just to serve these lots without something coming up here would destroy
the ravine and those trees. And I guess that kind of sums up our approach and how that
affects us. My only comment about this lower piece of property here, I guess the one in
question about how it connects to the other area. I think, if I could put this up. I guess this
only affects our property indirectly but being a lover of natural terrain, I couldn't help but
notice the question you had about the fill and one half of the grading. What I understand the
drawings, there's an 8, an existing 980 elevation here and with the new homes on it, it's been
filled in about twice as high as the ceiling with earth so it's really creating the walkout sites.
So it's virtually all new soil all the way out so if you added a 2 story house with a steep roof,
and at 20 feet of grade, that would be about 50 feet over the existing grade. It's coming
down pretty steep so it's always tough to try to save the existing environment. I think a
recommendation to do a road study. I think last, at the Planning Commission the applicants
in here did have a cross section showing what was going on and I think that was helpful to
see what was happening. That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Sam Mancino: We wanted to walk you through that so that you'd have some understanding
how this will affect to the other sites. I guess for the record, we would request if you see it,
see parts of it stipulated in the plan that is before us which is a 30 foot tree preservation
easement along this entire property line here. No grading and encroaching into it. All of the
grades have to start from there and no driveway penetration into it. The second thing is we'd
like to understand the status of this outlot. As we understand it, that is forever unbuildable
on the site and who owns title to that? Is that the city's?
Kate Aanenson: We hadn't considered that but there are...
Roger Knutson: I'm not sure I'm understanding. You want a conservation easement?
Kate Aanenson: The Outlot B. The 3:1 slope down to Lake Lucy.
15
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Sam Mancino: Outlot B is stipulated as a not buildable site at this time. We'd like to
understand how that becomes a permanent not buildable site so we don't get surprised in 6
months or a year from now.
Roger Knutson: That's a totally new issue to me. I'll have to look at that.
Sam Mancino: That's fine... The potential, it is stipulated that there would be utilities and a
road brought up to the tree easement line. Constructed. The additional one that we'd like to
request, again as Charles has said, is utilities brought to I believe probably just north of
whatever the trail system is here and then an easement to gain access into this half of the
property. The alternative is to go in through the outlot of the Gestach-Paulson piece... The
last thing is if we could request a buffer of trees, of pines and firs planted along here to
screen off our house from the proximity of the road. That would be along a corridor of
Outlot B. That's really the comments that I have as it relates to our property. As a neighbor
I have...couple of issues. One is the, as is mentioned in the staff report, lack of
environmental sensitivity and the excessive grading and the alteration of the natural landform.
Planning Commission unanimously rejected a plan that was quite a bit similar to this. This is
moved slightly. This road is moved slightly. The cul-de-sac has been changed into a private
drive but in essence the overall concept...remains pretty much unchanged throughout this
entire process. They've been fairly singularly focused with one thing in mind which is get
the maximum number of buildable lots and the maximum number of walkout sites, even
though that means reconfiguring the existing landform. What I'd like to show is the, one of
the things that I was struck with in looking at the Ryan's last plan is the designation it has
here. The orange marks are walkouts. The blue marks are other than walkouts. Anything
that's not a walkout. So it's a fairly remarkable percentage of walkout lots being put into this
site. The land has been conformed to do that but in comparison with a comparable site is the
Gestach-Paulson piece which has similar grade situation and you see a somewhat different
pattern created here and as Bruce commented earlier, not much grading is going on here. So
one of the things that I guess that we see is driving this whole thing is the need to make the
land conform to the maximum density. Several years ago the comprehensive plan was put in
place as a guideline and it was stated to be a guideline for the local decision making process.
The cornerstone identified with this higher quality for the community and it set out values
and goals which reduced the number of lots stated...the entire comprehensive plan by saying
Chanhassen is a high amenity residential community that takes large amounts of open space
and natural tree cover, wetlands and variable topography. It is the city's overall goal that the
amenities and qualities be maximized and preserved while allowing for...comprehensive plan...
A little later on it says, as it would discourage the alteration of steep slope areas and bluffs to
minimize soil washing and erosion and minimize tree loss when appropriate...amenities such
as those found flowing...wetlands. It has a number of premises, five premises that go into the
land use and one of them is that the land, that development be consistent with the
16
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
preservation and enhance the natural features and amenities. It is our belief that you have a
conflict between the guidelines in the comprehensive plan and the zoning single family
residential that encourages maximizing the number of lots at the expense of reconforming the
land. We think that it's a conflict that needs to be resolved by re-examining the
comprehensive plan and trying to find within that the language such as this. A way to
discourage this maximum density and we believe that by going to slightly lower density,
better use of the surrounding community can be achieved. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Steve Buresh: Steve Buresh again from 6651 Galpin Blvd. My major concern with this
property, which has been the same all along. I attended the Planning Commission meeting
and there is, nothing has been done with any of the changes in the plan here to take away
from my hardest concern which is the wildlife in the area. I live diagonally across from the
property on the east side of Galpin Blvd and frequently, and I've seen them, I have observed
on some mornings up to 14 deer on my property. They go right across the road and follow
the Ryan property and I assume that they're heading over towards TH 41. Probably into the
park area there on the other side. No concern has been, or nothing has been added into this
plan to take precautions to protect them. If this development goes in the density that is
proposed, even as we speak now, there's not going to be any deer in this area. And the
whole reason that I moved in this area and I can't speak for anybody else except myself, but
I wanted a large lot area. Having been raised up on a farm and I wanted to be in an area
where there was some wildlife. My 4 year daughter can look out in the morning and see
deer, pheasants, all types of wildlife. What I would, although what I'd like to see is that it
not be developed but that's unfair to the landowner and that's, you can't expect something
like that to happen. What I would like to see, and what I'd like the land owner to consider
is, they're looking at themselves as compared to what's on the other side of the hill. Or
what's considerably down the road a piece towards Highway 5. The area that this
development is in is all large lots. I probably have one of the smallest lots in the area at 2
1/2 acres. And if you put this high density housing in this area, it totally detracts from what
this area looks like because it doesn't fit in with the lay of the land. It may fit in with the
property adjacent there, which is on the other side of the hill which we won't be seeing from
our side of the road.. I guess what I'd like to see is that the area that's on the Galpin side,
the Galpin Blvd side. The base of the hill there. That the developer and the applicant would
take into consideration what's in the area right now. How the property owners are situated as
far as the large lots and that and try to maintain the look of this area. It's very unique. It's
very peaceful to live in this area. But I do see that as you would cross over the hill, since
you're getting into larger, higher density housing, to gradually increase it. Now to some
extent they've done that but it still is quite dense compared to the rest of the houses in the
area. And so I guess in closing I'd like you to consider that nothing has been done to take
17
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
into account the wildlife in the area. The plan as it sits, if it goes in, there isn't going to be
any wildlife in the area and that they go back and come up with a plan that fits better with
the surrounding neighbors, not just with what's on the other side of the hill which us, as
neighbors in that area, will never be able to see anyway unless you go over the hill so that's.
And also I wasn't able to get my name on the petition but I totally agree with what was
submitted to you by Mr. Davis so thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Chuck Plowe: I'd just like to clarify a statement about elevations and flexibility and so on. I
guess I was confused about the 50 foot dimension and I don't know of any 50 foot cut, fill or
whatever the case might have been but just to give you a feel if someone is questioning what
the cut and fill of the roadway up in here. Actually there's fill here. We ended up with
getting zero here. There's a cut in through here and a cut that maxes out at about 10 1/2-11
feet right there. So that's the extent of the large cut here. Of course the slope continues up
so that's why we have to continue the 3:1 slope up to match grade here. Incidentally we do
have ample room with the top of that slope. We're not even at the tree line with the top of
that 3:1 slope. As far as being environmentally sensitive. I think that we are. We're using
the existing topography as best as we can. As I've demonstrated, there's going to be a lot of
relief in this topography. Extreme relief in this topography in the final design. The density
that we're trying to achieve and that I think is what everybody is looking at us to do.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Mason: Can I ask a question? The comment was made Chuck on that private
drive on the left side there that you're going to be bringing in a couple stories of fill. 50 feet
I believe you said.
Chuck Plowe: Okay, I can respond to that.
Councilman Mason: I mean you said a couple, 50 feet right?
Charles Stinson: No, the 50 feet was.
Councilman Mason: Well that's what was said.
Charles Stinson: ...in the back including that 30 feet of building and 20 feet of fill. But I
think said 20 feet or more of fill.
18
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Councilman Mason: Well okay but you said 50 feet of fill before so let's, well okay. I just
want to make sure. Okay.
Chuck Plowe: I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a misunderstanding because.
Charles Stinson: I mean are we correct that there's going to be 20 feet of fill here across the
back?
Chuck Plowe: No, across the back there's going to be about 10 feet. Very little. Along the
front there will be about 17 at the maximum point. This Lake Lucy Road as constructed
down here, it's going to be 10-13 feet of fill through here with the road. We're exceeding
that by maybe 3 or 4 feet at the front of the pad...
Councilman Mason: So what's the difference then, if the road goes down along the wetland,
what's getting taken out there? I'm just trying to get a picture of all this here.
Kate Aanenson: There's more fill going in.
Councilman Mason: There's going to be, see this is what I'm having trouble with. I mean
somebody's saying one thing and somebody's saying another and I just want to get it straight
in my own mind here.
Chuck Plowe: Okay...
Councilman Mason: Well my only question right now is, I'm hearing a couple of different
things on if the road goes next to the wetland. Kate, what's your impression if the road goes
next to the wetland, or Bob. What are we talking in feet here? Give or take.
Bob Generous: It was 987 at one of the other cul-de-sacs...and with this they're at now 998.
So what is that, it'd be 7 feet in the wetland with the southern alignment and what you'd say.
Councilman Mason: So there's going to be significant fill no matter which way it goes? I
mean just, okay. Alright. Thank you. '
Kate Aanenson: That's how we arrived at the original plat. No matter which the road goes...
Councilman Mason: Right, right. Thank you. That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Joe.
19
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Joe Scott: Joe Scott, 7091 Pimlico Lane. I just have a couple questions for staff. This is the
existing topography. Okay. We recently passed a bluff ordinance and if you can tell me, it's
a 30% grade, or excuse me. 30% change in elevation over.
Bob Generous: 30% slope with a 25 foot change in elevation.
Joe Scott: Okay. Well I'm looking at the tree plan that happens to have existing topography
on it and I come up with at least a half a dozen areas that qualifies as being a bluff and the
northwest portion of the project, Block 1 in between Lots 1 and 14 and 12 and 13. 6 and 14.
And I can understand why when many years ago when the roadway was proposed with the
two different alignments, and we didn't have that ordinance. Now that we do have the
ordinance, it appears to me anyway doing some real simple work here that given our bluff
ordinance we can't the road in here. So that might be something that requires some
consideration. But I was just sitting there kind of looking at this plan and listening to what
everybody is talking about and started doing some figuring. Somebody else is going to have
to take a look at that but that was just something I wanted to throw out.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. Thank you Joe.
Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 Steller Court. I represent also I'm the Co- President
of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. I'm within sight of this property to the west of
my house. I am a member of the Lake Lucy Homeowners. We're concerned about the water
quality of Lake Lucy and it's watershed. There's approximately a 10:1 ratio of surface area
to watershed. It's a very large one and that's why the lake is very eutrophic because it has a
lot of nutrients in it. One of the reasons that you see on the petition before you that it's
mentioned about the runoff situation here is that according to the watershed district's current
map, there's a tiny portion of the northeast corner of this plat, right about here, that drains
underneath Galpin Road into the Lake Lucy watershed. I think that there's enough property
here and enough proposals, wetland mitigation that that tiny portion could be contained here
and drained into the Harrison Lake watershed. We need to keep away the pollutants that are
coming from this development and...pollution stress on the Lake Lucy area. Getting back to
the petition, I want to underscore the importance of a city probe and this is a very special
area of Chanhassen. The plan, as I see it, I agree with Mr. Carlson and all the previous
speakers. That the plan as it stands right now, it does not go far enough to preserve the
natural amenities. There is too much grading. The amount of fill that goes in here, whether
it's 17 feet or 20 feet, it doesn't make any difference. It's a huge amount of fill. The
landforms, there's all new soil here pretty much. Here's Lake Lucy Road. That's that tree
line. Okay. Lake Minnewashta Park, this Lake Lucy area. Two great natural areas. There's
lots and lots of wildlife here. I'm not just talking about 14 deer. We've got many different
birds. There are some tree corridors. There's a flow of water going through. There's
20
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
rolling hills. There's giant meadows. This I think, this property here is, the developer has
done an excellent job and has my full blessings. He's not destroying the contours of this
land. This is a special area and the contours need to be preserved. You have great views up
on top of this large hill up here and this corridor needs to be preserved. In this plan it has
been preserved on this property. I think it should be taken into account, and can be taken
into account very easily that here, because these wetlands work, where's the existing.
Anyway, there's a lot of natural areas right here that's going up to the southern property and
I think if you take away the need for a collector road, you eliminate a lot of problems with
the environmental sensitivity here...problem up with this cut and fill...first road in. Follow the
contour below part of the land without any, hardly any cuts at all and end with the cul-de-sac
here. I don't think it's a given that we have to assume that there has to be a collector road
going through one way or the other. There's, I mean it could be argued that there really isn't
a need for one. That collector road proposal was done years and years ago before we had all
these ordinances about bluffs and environmental preservation. I think if you limit it here, you
have preserved this big slope up here and you have houses around here without some of the
great views, tuck under. It has some lots abutting the wetlands here and have a road come in
without any disturbance of the trail system and come up here and... The wildlife corridor
could be maintained throughout here with this perhaps terminating here and this wildlife
corridor could be maintained. It's pretty difficult for deer to go across roads and yards and
start eating up everybody's plants. I don't think the neighbors, new neighbors here would
appreciate that. So I think this would be maintained. There'd also be a natural amenity to
the city to put in a trail system that would meander through a naturalized area. Like
Anderson Lakes. Like Minnetonka's trying to do. Like Jonathan has done. The trail does
not have to go along the street. That's just a sidewalk. I think we need to go, have a leap of
faith and try to do what other cities have tried to do with a real trail system. You're going
up a major natural amenity. Lake Minnewashta Park is another one and this is something
that makes up for the
bad design that the current Lake Lucy Road trail which is dangerous and pretty boring. I
agree with keeping the road narrow. If you didn't make it a collector street. It would also
reduce the cost of the development. You wouldn't have to have all those collector width and
the utilities that go along with it. I think that the bluff ordinance, we could get around that.
We can preserve that without having to put in a road here. This means we preserve the bluff.
I think the density should conform to the land and not the other way around. I agree with
Mrs. Carlson and everybody who stated the comments about that. As far as zoning, I want to
clarify my position, personal position about zoning on this. I think that the density that you
see on the property to the west, I think it's a good example of the kind of density we expect
in here too. The land follows the lot, the development follows all the natural contours.
There's no reason why you can't here. No reason at all. It's not an economic hardship issue.
They'll do just fine economically putting 20 houses in as they would with more you know,
40. And in fact I think they'd do a lot better because then the community would be
21
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
consistent with what's in the entire community and the amenities would be... And if the
density has to change because of the comprehensive plan has changed, then change the comp
plan. The density might go to RSF where you have 1.24 units per acre. Maybe 1 unit per
acre net. I agree with going with net on that because it would preserve everything that we
need, that we'd like to see preserved. That's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Al Klingelhutz: Al Klingelhutz, 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Probably wonder why I'm up here.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a good question, thank you Al.
Al Klingelhutz: I'll give you an answer. About 10 or 12 years I listed this property for Ray
Brandon and sold part of it to the Gestach-Paulson and part of it to Ed Ryan and I believe
there was a fellow by the name of Mr. Olson I think his name was, if I remember right,
bought about 20 acres of the total farm there. I walked the farm many times showing it.
Most of this land that you're looking at was under cultivation. Growing corn, soybeans.
You're talking about bluffs. When you talk about bluffs that's untillable land and as I recall,
this farm was all tillable on the high ground. There was wetland on the bottom...steep slopes
but I don't believe there is a 18% slope on the property. My legs were younger then. Today
I could tell better. But after looking at this plan, and I went over it quite thoroughly this
morning, it seems that we're talking about walkout lots and the roads are going in on the
crest of the hills and the north/south streets almost perfectly on the crest of the hills so you
naturally have a walkout on each side. If you put the road on what we call the south
corridor, I noticed that when the people before were expressing a beautiful walkout lots
looking over a meadow, you'll be destroying that part of a good share of these lots if the road
follows along the wetland because it's going to have to be filled 8, 9, 10 feet down in there.
You won't even be able to see the wetland anymore. Whereas if you put the road through
the middle of the property, you're up towards the north, you'll be having back walkouts
instead of tuck under walkouts for the front. I don't like to talk about value. I've been in the
real estate business for nearly 25 years now but I can tell you it would make a heck of a lot
of difference in tax base for the city of Chanhassen to have read walkout lots instead of front
walkout lots. I understand that Lake Lucy Road was a given. When this developer came in,
Lake Lucy Road was a given and he designed the property around Lake Lucy Road.
Originally I couldn't understand why Lake Lucy Road, like Mr. Wing said, could be a
collector street through this property. But it's been a given in the city of Chanhassen for the
last 15 years. And this is what the developer has to work with. Collector street going
through the property...down to Highway 41. I can't see putting any blame on the developer
for developing his property the way it's been developed to get the most feasible way of
getting good lots, instead of not so good lots. Plus the fact that the city ordinance, I think it
22
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
still says 15,000 square feet for single family residence and these lots are 23,000 square feet.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Al. Yes.
Marty Gustafson: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Marty Gustafson. I live at 6691
Galpin. Notwithstanding the comments that have been made to the Council so far, I have not
seen, not seen it delineated very well the trail system we're talking about or I keep hearing
about or sidewalks even. My property is adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. It's supposedly a bike
trail on either side of it. What happens, the cars wind up throwing all the rocks into the bike
trail. The bike trail's full of rocks and all the bikes of course ride in the traffic lanes. It's
treacherous to even walk down Lake Lucy on the bike trail. It's really, you know that creates
quite a traffic problem. Notwithstanding speeding or whatever else is involved. I have a 1
year old daughter and I envision in time she'll be walking to school and I'm not really sure I
want her walking along the trail system...walking out in the open where other parents can be
watching her as she's going to school. I would love to have a trail system...children comes
first in my mind and I would like to see that on the trail and it's approval with the city plus
the approval of the nearby landowners...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Kate.
Kate Aanenson: There is a sidewalk planned for this. Clarification. We do have, the city
does have off street trails...one of them that's just been built in the last 2 weeks is Lake
Susan Hills No. 9...Meadows at Long Acres also has some off road trail systems. We do try
to coordinate those where they work. In this instance because it's a collector road, we do
believe that a sidewalk is appropriate...to service this area. It's a separate sidewalk on the
street. It's now shown on the plan but that's part of the specs for the 80 foot right-of-way is
a sidewalk will go all the way over to TH 41 and will also provide access up to the junior
high...
Councilman Wing: This is the 8 foot bituminous trail, is their recommendation.
Kate Aanenson: Adjacent to the road but there will be a land strip inbetween separating it so
you won't have that problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate.
Bret Davidson: My name is Bret Davidson. I live at 7291 Galpin Blvd. I guess I feel a
little bit like the odd man out tonight because I don't have a direct interest on anything that's
going on. It's just as an interested neighbor. I was originally approached by Ed Ryan more
23
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
than 6 months ago because I had a little bit of background in development and working with
the city and working with the Planning Commission and the Rec Commission. He asked if
he could pick my brain and give him some ideas on where to start and how to work with it
and he promised me that if I'd come down and talk to him for a couple hours, he'd give me a
cup of coffee. And as Richard Wing can attest, as a pilot, it's hard to refuse a good cup of
coffee.
Councilman Wing: If it's free.
Bret Davidson: If it's free, right. So anyways, I went. So my opinion is tonight is a little
bit from an outsiders point of view. I don't have a direct interest like Ed Ryan. I don't have
a financial interest in the property that says I'd like to see it develop with this and this. Or
see a road go...this. I don't have any emotional interests like the landowners that surround it
because they're concerned about a street being on their property...as a resident of Chanhassen
and as someone who's looked over the plan. So I talked to Ed for a couple hours that night
and kind of gave him some guidelines on how to start working with the city. Who to contact
first. Kind of get started down the road to develop it and basically just about forgot about it
until recently Ed called me and said hey, you know I'm well...come take a look at it. I went
and took a look at it and have to say that I was impressed with what he had done so far. He
showed me the iterations and some of the work that he had gone through and as you know,
and as anybody who's ever done it knows, it takes a lot of time and effort and from a
developer's point of view, obviously there's two ends of the spectrum. If the piece is
completely flat, that has no character. Just a flat piece of farmland and if you have that you
have to develop that. On the other hand if you have a beautiful piece of property and you
have rolling hills and character...because you have to grade it. There's no way to get around
grading a piece of property that's...it's not perfect because you have to remove some of the
trees. It's an impossibility not to remove the trees. You have to save the good trees...and I
guess that's why I was impressed with the job that Ed and Mary and his engineers have done
because they addressed every concern they could address. They have realigned the road.
They have worked hard to save the good trees. They worked hard to save the wetland and
something that's even more important and that is that I feel maybe we're overlooking a thing,
that it's not a bad deal to have somebody's back yard be a wetland. I have lots that are for
sale now that people love because they have a back yard that's a wetland. Why do they like
the back yard as a wetland? Because people take care of their back yard and they know if
they're going to sit there and look at it for 20 or 30 years, that they'd better take care of the
wetlands. They better protect the natural resources because it is their back yard and
development does not have to drive away animals. I've been in Chanhassen for 7 or 8 years
and people used to came on my doorstep before hunting season and beg to hunt on my
property because we had some of the highest concentrations of deer around off Galpin
Boulevard. Since then I have had over 50 or 55 homes surrounding my property and I still
24
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
wake up in the morning upset because I have deer munching on my grass in the front yard.
We have kids along the back, when they were dozing the property, we had deer within 20 or
30 feet of the dozers. So the development does not necessarily drive away the natural
resources of deer by what we see there today. So as a, maybe not a completely unbiased
viewpoint but it's a viewpoint from a resident who's not surrounding the neighborhood. Has
no interest in the neighborhood other than as a resident of Chanhassen, this neighbor's
opinion is that it's a good development. That it's good for the city. It's good for an
alignment that is forced through the city which was the Lake Lucy extension. It's good for
the neighbors who eventually will be there and so I would urge the City Council to
recommend approving the preliminary plat. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? One more time quickly.
Nancy Mancino: I'm Nancy Mancino, 6620 Galpin. A couple things I wanted to review and
say for the public record. One of them was, as Ed Ryan has stated earlier tonight that staff
believes that the northern road alignment of Lake Lucy Road is the right now and I think
Dick Wing had to ask a little bit about that. On page 3 of the staff report, the last paragraph,
line 2 it says, while staff still believes that the southern alignment for Lake Lucy Road is a
better alignment for the community. Should the City Council approve the applicant's
proposal, we have developed revisions that improve the development. I would like to go on
public record as saying what the staff had put in their staff report. My other consideration
that I'd like you to think about..also in the staff report on page 18. It has to do with City
Code, Section 18-39 and it also seems to be something that the staff feels concerned about
and that is number 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage.
Finding. The proposed subdivision will impact the land form and existing wetlands and
vegetation by the amount of grading. Staff is recommending changes to minimize the impact.
And there are questions that I know that Councilman Wing...and Councilman Wing asked
about grading and...all I am asking is before you do...and pass this, that you really do
understand the grading plan. From what I can see, from the staff's...plan, is that there will be
grading over the entire site. They will be adding 10 to 7 feet in the fill area. They will be
taking away 10 feet...if you stand on CR 117, or Galpin facing west, they will be taking away
hills. They'll be taking away 16 feet on this high hill. They will be taking away 8 feet over
here. They will also be going in and making sure that these are walkouts...fill back in but I
just strongly stress that you do take some time in reviewing and understanding what's going
on with the grading because I think it will be...thank you.
Chuck Plowe: Just wanted to clarify the comments, clarify a couple of things. We have an
existing...it's not very large but it stands up above the rest of the site and it is true that there
is a, at least to have a 14 or 15 foot cut going through that, but that's an isolated area.
Again, it is Lake Lucy Road and the Lake Lucy Road is going to go through whether it's
25
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
going up or down so that is going to happen here and that's not something that this plat can
control. Thank you.
Ed Ryan: Just very briefly. In the staff report that Nancy was referring to, in the paragraph
directly above that. When the staff is responding to the southerly and northerly alignments.
Our first issue about the southerly alignment is whether it's feasible to outlot this. And the
response from the City Attorney was that if it could provide a feasible alternative that met the
code, it would be acceptable. The second point. The last sentence said, based on the review
of the southern alignment and the northerly alignment, staff felt that the applicant's proposal
was a better alternative and would result in less grading and tree preservation along this
northern line. So point of clarification.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Anyone else?
Peter Davis: Since I had to read the petition, I didn't really get a chance to...comments. It
seems to me that the...aside from a lot of nuances and details, really the premise of this plat is
driven by one of two things. One is it's driving by a zoning...that is really typically pursued
over farmland that's really flat in nature. And the second is driven by the Lake Lucy Road.
I heard a suggestion made just recently because there's been a lot of active dialogue and
suggestions from a lot of neighbors that spoke here, challenging the premise of the road and
wouldn't it be great if this...didn't even have to exist because there'd be a lot of things that
people could do. I'm sure that Ed and Mary could even do from a real estate standpoint that
would make the thing a more attractive development. It's on that basis that there will be an
opportunity to consider perhaps creating a new category for something that would be more
flexible. You may not like this but there are a lot of other places in and around Chanhassen
where these issues are going to be become prevalent and...developed. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. It doesn't look like anyone else is coming up. I'll bring it back
to Council. Richard. Do you have anything you'd like to say?
Councilman Wing: With all due respect to Ryans, this isn't a simple one. It's been kind of a
scathing response from the neighbors and I guess even the Planning Commission which
unanimously denied the plan citing excessive grading, unacceptable discretion, da, da, da, da,
da, da, da, then we had pros and cons of that. I think that the Ryans and their engineer have
been very clear. I think they've been honest and I think they've made a real effort here and I
won't down play that at all. But I think that we're caught in the middle of something that
just isn't ripe for picking yet. The oranges aren't orange yet and I guess this is just absolute
the easiest one to send back to Planning Commission I've ever seen. There's too many issues
to really act on it. Even the preliminary. I think it needs to go back to the Planning
Commission but specifically the Planning Commission, I think zoning is something that ought
26
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
to be discussed. What is appropriate zoning. What is legal zoning. What are our rights. I
mean maybe there is only one way to go here. Al has commented that this is farmland.
Others suggest it's not farmland. Well it has been agricultural so I'm not sure what the
proper zoning is but I'd like them to address that issue. The 32 foot max road would be
involved in the process. And for myself personally, whenever we see it again, I want a
clearly defined grading diagram. I don't know how to best accomplish that Kate. I've got to
rely on your background but this, the blueprint is unusable. I simply can't pick out what's
happening here. I need some type of a picture. Some type of a model or a computer graphic
that shows where they're going from A to B and what A is going to look like and then what
B is going to look like. And then I think that will also help defend their position so they can
actually show what is and isn't being done and counter some of the problems here. So rather
than belabor this, I'm not ready to move on it and I'd recommend for myself, just getting it
back to Planning with the idea that it's not going to go away. We might as well deal with it
and do the best we can here. Get it back to us with a lot of these questions answered.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make that as a motion?
Councilman Wing: Well no, I'd like.
Mayor Chmiel: And I'm saying that if we do get a second, I still want some opinions back
from Council on this.
Councilman Wing: Well I'll be happy to do that unless Council, just make the motion that it
be turned back to Planning Commission with subsequent suggestions from Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second it and if I could.
Kate Aanenson: Could I get a clarification...reconsideration of the zoning?
Councilman Wing: Well, the motion only states that it be returned to Planning Commission
for review but there's going to be several stipulations and my ones that were specific with me
that the road, the trail, the grading issues, better clarification of grading and the zoning issues
that were brought up by several people. What's the proper zoning for this?
Kate Aanenson: My point...they had recommended denial of the plan...
Mayor Chmiel: Well because there are other things that have been interjected into this such
as the bluff ordinance which was never looked at.
27
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Kate Aanenson: Yes, we looked at it. It doesn't meet the criteria. We already gave that
analysis.
Mayor Chmiel: That was contained in the staff, within the report?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I missed it somewhere along the line.
Kate Aanenson: We didn't have an opportunity to respond to that.
Bob Generous: I don't think I addressed that specifically...
Councilman Wing: I asked about that.
Kate Aanenson: We didn't respond when that came up before.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And this plan is different than the one the Planning Commission
reviewed, that's my.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. That's part of the full picture of it as far as review of that.
Kate Aanenson: There's also a time frame running too.
Roger Knutson: How are we doing on the clock?
Bob Generous: We received it July 5th. In October sometime. It was pushed back 2 weeks
originally because we had some...
Roger Knutson: You have 120 days to act on the preliminary plat unless the applicant gives
you an extension.
Bob Generous: We had them revise the plan once so I don't know if that counts. An
incomplete submission and we'd have to look at that. The time period...
Roger Knutson: July 5th is when they put it in?
Kate Aanenson: Right...
28
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Roger Knutson: We have to look at the exact date. You have 120 days after the applicant
has completed the application for you to act on.
Councilman Wing: If we denied it, would we accomplish the same thing? I mean they'd
simply have to come back in and start the process and I don't know if anything's won or lost
at that point.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you'd go through the complete process as to what we've done anyway.
So what does that really give us?
Roger Knutson: I think what we want to do is take a look at the, if you want it to go back to
the Planning Commission, we want to give them the record of when the 120 days is up and if
the applicant does not want to give you an extension, we'll just bring the plat back here and
you can act on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You're saying by the next Council?
Don Ashworth: If necessary. If we have to bring it back, we will. If we can't get
cooperation, we might have to bring it back.
Roger Knutson: You're sending it to the Planning Commission unless we look at it and
advise to you that you should be acting on it at your next meeting, in which case it doesn't
go to the Planning Commission. It comes back here and that's the end on the timing. If
that's what you want. I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, no. I guess I was looking for clarification. Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well forgive me for the jumping around I'll be doing in the next
few minutes. I've worked hours and hours and hours on this. Walking it. Talking to
property owners surrounding and the applicant. Looking at my own and I want to send it
back to the Planning Commission but I want to give them some direction and some feedback
as to where I'm coming from. First thing I want to talk about is the surrounding area.
Looking at densities, I think Ryan's have a very good point. They are consistent with the
surrounding areas. Right here I'm looking at the Song property, Long Acres and it's just as
dense. Same thing. If you look at Gestach-Paulson, that piece is the same density.
However, having said that, this piece of land was developed very well. Taking into
consideration the surrounding property and the trees. I'm not seeing that kind of sensitivity
with this piece of property so I want that looked at. I want it sent back to the Planning
Commission, another reason is we do have a different plan than what Planning Commission
saw and I would like the opportunity for the surrounding property owners, neighbors to get a
29
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
look at it so they can form their opinions instead of seeing it, having to react to it right away.
Another reason is looking at the Minutes, there were 4 commissioners available to vote on it
at that night. I'd like the full Planning Commission, with the exception of Nancy who will
want to step down. Doesn't need to but who will want to, look at it. Get a couple more
heads together on it. In trying to give direction, and realizing that a lot of the grading has to
do with the road alignment. That's requiring a lot of the cutting and filling into it and I don't
know how we achieve, I don't know. Maybe narrowing the roadway will help some. Or will
have some affect on it.
Kate Aanenson: ...the depth of the utilities. Whether or not the road goes through, we still
intend to loop the utilities so believe me, as much time as you've spent on it, we've spent ten
times the amount of time so it is a complex issue. But we still want the utilities looped so
that would ultimately cause trenching...and in some areas it's very deep.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: In giving it, when I walked the property, there seemed to be
some inconsistencies with the plan in terms of where the blocks of trees were. And I guess
I'd like that relooked at. It didn't seem the trees were kind of right in the place where, and
when we were looking around the barn and we couldn't figure out what block of trees were
represented so I guess I'd like that relooked at and there are a lot of trees being taken out
because of the grading. Not because homes will be sitting on top of them but because the
grading makes it that way. I wish we could, in the best of all possible worlds, I would like
to see the access from the north to that slope but we don't have a legal leg to stand on and
perhaps that's not the best word. I guess that's all I have to say right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: With everything that's been discussed tonight, I think tabling is
probably in the best interest to all involved. And I do mean to all involved to send this back
to the Planning Commission. I think the drainage issues that Mr. Rivkin raised are serious.
The nutrient stress and the SWMP issues I think are very important and I'm not sure that
they've been.
Kate Aanenson: Yes he did...presentation at the Planning Commission as part...but the plan is
consistent with their proposal...storm water management and we've always intended to pick
up some of that on the other side. Yes we could...
Councilman Mason: Okay, okay. Good. I think that basically, yeah. I think this proposal is
certainly it's doable. I mean like it or not, it's a doable proposal. But there are some issues
of grading that I would like a little more clarified. You know as I was sitting listening to
everyone here, this is a pretty emotional issue and there a lot of big hitters tonight you know
30
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
stating their opinions, as they should be. I said earlier, and I don't remember, I'm sure it was
over a land issue like this. I said I really try and get my brain and heart to be kind of in sync
when I vote on something this important. And this is an important issue. I've said to more
than one of the people involved here, I see this area as one of the nicest areas in the city of
Chanhassen right now and I do want it done right. But it does amaze me a little bit how
cavalier people are with other people's money. You know 100 years ago, none of that stuff
was there and you know when I first moved to Chanhassen 8 years ago, there were 2 homes
on Carver Beach. On my road. Well that's all been developed and I was here at every dog
gone meeting saying you can't build on Woodhill Road. Well, you can and they did. And
not as much care was put in as what went on their's as what's going in here. Property
owners do have rights in this, well they have rights anywhere and I'm almost in kind of an
uncomfortable position saying that but I'm going to. It's clear to me that it will get
developed. I think, I have some concerns about the grading and I would quite honestly, I
don't share the feelings quite as strongly as Councilman Wing about what I want to see but I
would, I'd like to know a little bit. I also have trouble seeing what's going to be graded
here. In terms of the road going through, there was quite a lawsuit about Nez Perce going
through and that road's going through. I think in the overall plan of the city it makes sense
to have Lake Lucy Road go through. Does it make sense for the people that live right around
it? It may not. It may not. And I've said it before and I'll say it again, that there are times
that people sitting up here have to weigh what they think is best for the city and you know,
hopefully most of the time what's best for the city is also best for all the neighborhoods.
That's not always true and that's something we all have to live with so I think going back to
Planning Commission and having more members look at this. I was disappointed that night
that there were only 4 members there when it was denied. I would like to see grading very
seriously addressed. And I would like to see it come back here and I'm sure we'll have
many of these same discussions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I think I share a lot of Michael's feelings on this. At the same time I
think the road's a given. The utilities are a given and the property owners rights are also a
given. I have to compliment the Ryans because I think the Ryans and their consultant have
done a real thorough and I'm going to say responsible job in terms of their plan. There's
obviously, when you read through all the details, a lot of compromise has already occurred on
the project. There's a great deal of it. You know I can't fault what I'm hearing but I heard
quite a few people tonight get up and say that they'd really like to see this stay a natural area.
And you know that's a tough one any way you look at it because it seems to me there's only
two ways that happens. Either the neighborhood buys it and keeps it that way or the city
buys it and keeps it that way. We know we don't have the money. Maybe the neighborhood
does, I don't know. That's the only way it's going to stay that way. You know beyond that,
31
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
you know I think our job is to make sure that it's responsibly developed. I heard a lot about
density issues tonight. Again I'm intrigued that, I find very little fault at all with the
densities I'm seeing here. In fact I'm actually even intrigued because unless my eyes have
failed me on the plan there that the Mancino's brought in, if you look at their proposed and
future lots, it's the same density as the Ryan's are going to develop. Almost identically.
That they're proposing on their property. And it's really consistent no matter where you look
in the entire area there. So I don't see that really being a major part of the issue. Now
connecting that back to the natural area argument, you know is another thing but again, any
way you look at this, I think you run into dead ends because the dead ends are there no
matter which way you turn. I guess I'm not sure what all we're going to find by tabling it or
sending it back other than more time but I think the issues are well identified and I think the
road blocks aren't going to go away. I think there's just hard decisions over those road
blocks that are going to have to be made and what I'm hearing I guess is the rest of the
Council would like to wait to make them so, so be it. But at the same time I think we
should get on with it and give the applicant an answer.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think that there's still enough concerns here listed and a lot of
things that should be clarified and relooked at and going back to the Planning Commission
would be probably one of those. More things meet the eye and I just wanted to say too that I
think everybody's walked the particular site. I've also walked it. I've looked at it and know
exactly what's there. In fact when Al I think was selling that property, he was considering at
one time moving my present location to looking at some of that property that's there so I
know what's there. But I would like to continue on with this and move it ahead and we have
a motion on the floor with a second. Send it back to Planning Commission with all the
additional clarifications that have been looked at and come back to the Planning Commission
with some recommendation in regard.
Kate Aanenson: We can try. We looked at the timeframe. We have July 28th was...which
would be the 19th, which I'm not sure you'd have the Minutes from.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to somehow see this get back at the earliest possible
convenience to the Planning Commission. That would be what, prior to the 19th.
Kate Aanenson: Can we get a point of order. Do we need...public hearing now?
Roger Knutson: No.
Kate Aanenson: Okay. We can put it on the next.
Roger Knutson: You can go through the full advertisements but wouldn't be required.
32
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Councilman Wing: I think one point here Don. I think your comments about dead ends no
matter where we turn and they're not going to resolve themselves, I think that's fact. I think
they need to do a review. Clarify, clean up and then get it back because we're going to have
to act on it as it is pretty much. With just additional comments so I think for Planning to
deny it is not going to help us. I think what they need to do is review it carefully, add the
recommendations they suggest and then get it up here. Denial isn't going to help us.
Because the dead ends I agree aren't going to go away.
Mayor Chmiel: One other clarification, just a minor one. Harrison Lake is really considered
Harrison Pond because we really don't consider that as a lake. Just a point of clarification.
So that too is another thing that we do have to make sure.
Councilman Mason: I just want to make one more quick comment. One of the reasons I'm
voting for it going back to Planning Commission is, while I don't think anyone got tricked, I
think that is a legitimate concern and I do believe in the process in this city and whether you
"win or lose", when you go through the processes in this city, I think they're there for a
reason. And I guess if for no other reason than I can say, well you know, it did go back to
the Planning Commission. I mean if they deny this plan again, so be it. I will feel
comfortable in saying, this plan has gone through the process and I guess I think that's fair.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think as was just already said, Ryans have really looked at what
they thought was really best and by requiring an engineer to go through this. Often times
I've thought after I've left your place, whether or not there really was a developer behind you
but I think you're really being that developer here, very honest and very factual with it and I
think if we go through the process and get that done, I think we can probably get something
really tied in. So with that I would call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council
direct staff to return the rezoning and preliminary plat for Shamrock Development to
the Planning Commission for review of the plan taking into consideration the comments
made by the City Council members. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: When will this go to Planning Commission and when will it come back?
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to see this at their first meeting which is what, the 5th.
Kate Aanenson: Which means we have to get a report out Thursday and I'm not sure we can
get everything that you want...
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to strongly recommend that it gets onto the 5th agenda.
33
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1994
Kate Aanenson: What if they don't have all the answers?
Councilman Mason: Well maybe that portion of the packet can get delivered to Planning
Commission later or something. I mean that's happened to Council packet before. You know
I mean I know.
Mayor Chmiel: And I'm not trying to give them enough time to review this. You'll be able
to make that particular meeting on the 5th? Okay, good. Sounds good. Thank you. We're
going to take a 5 minute recess.
34
CITY OF PC DATE: August 17, 1994
`� � � September 7, 1994
CC DATE: September 26, 1994
—1,- October 10, 1994
CASE # 94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ,
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 37.92 acres of property from Rural Residential, RR, to Single
Family Residential, RSF, preliminary plat approval to subdivide 37.92 acres
F" into 47 single-family lots, 2 outlot and 7 acres of right-of-way, and a wetland
Z alteration permit to fill and dredge wetlands located on site.
4
V LOCATION: West side of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) at the intersection of Lake
Lucy Road - a portion of the SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 116 North, Range
23 West.
Q— APPLICANT: Ed and Mary Ryan Charles W. Plowe Consulting Engineer
Q 6730 Galpin Boulevard 9180 Lexington Avenue NE
Excelsior, MN 55331 Circle Pines, MN 55014
(61,1 943-1410
PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential
ACREAGE: 37.92 Acres
DENSITY: gross: 1.24 units per acre net: 1.83 units per acre
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - RR, single-family homes
5 S - RR, single-family home
E - RR, Galpin Blvd. and single-family homes
Cy'
W - RR, vacant
WATER AND SEWER: Not available. Pending Lake Lucy Road extension approval.
W
I, PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is partially cultivated for hay. There are severe slopes
throughout the site with elevation changes from 1046 feet to 980 feet, a natural wetland in the
v/ southwest corner of the development and two ag/urban wetlands along the eastern edge of the
development. There are concentrations of trees to the north and east of the natural wetland, within
the wetland, along the west and north boundary of the site, and around the existing homestead. The
Lake Lucy Road extension is proposed through the site.
•
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range - 1.2 - 4.0 units per acie)
3 NE/SPITS SAR
/LnXiNTS ,vr
fl K ca N 1 z Q
- = nma.•.AC I 1
,,,,s;7::zr,20 illOvi I 1 i if. 0 NIV:' irjywd 2:azza sr'.. -Lam!me WIMIIIIIIT-Y- 6,!kti.tir auniamply
ikV-1.1 ..EL:.zeii;10.. ,L..11__ __; ' \ k . i i Alirt,A•‘,..ni,. veer lir TIMM ift ._.1__,.......... 41.gErAir_--aera-lisfl.. ..•ir7., ; L\ ,
a �►_ , .: .aCf�LL -_- ���E .74,,A;',SA � !.,.■ py■ 1�r�Fa
d GItiil' f_[ ��j< !
plailio :.. ._r, f... 1 P • �����' mai 3Iir j s . ��ri ■s- ifrg +t
•
�! a: '"'Z-Amin �, kry nu a a.skarr�a�jae:-•
A.
lig:
) la
rr � ,�� f4--
.i...\.. . .tAKE
7 ill .
A K E ia ME '� al
o: - 110 , II!. 1 i
MP-
REGIONAL _ _ iv
/• f-- \� ,0/1111
PAR* i`r -- kr t�_Itraria■
4. : a HAIMt0r z. \ LAKE wcr HE el:
�' ` /1111 It i in
�� � �
i A atk a Illp;
w
i ■' _ » -•.•
404 cv
..."' (..\ ./
f ,, a r[ y 0I , CAKE ANN �Ea s
ME
\ /1 ga
C.) mg,
/�MI?! .
`` , PARK
IANN i
•�a IM
I .
� IM kg
_ r..'_ .
(T.F. IM MI6. , pl._
1 .. Ntob.,411
% iv iwsk v7.•1
1 . pivi,,,vra torao -A-_-_--_
,. _____1 1 rio,„00,61,,,:. .,.
,-,111111 Sw ----------"V
a1 112 NC
OP 1111111 tra
. , , 0 _,,„,trip,. se'
/ a
i
lrMAh lVDJIRI$Ij
1"ilk • � R.
-I
I oggj - i.4 S�
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting the rezoning of 37.92 acres of property from RR, Rural
Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat approval to subdivide 37.92
acres into 47 single-family lots, 2 outlots and 7 acres of right-of-way, and a wetland alteration
permit to dredge and fill wetlands located on site. Rezoning of the property to RSF is
consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan designation of the property as Residential - Low
Density.
The Ryans contacted the city about the prospect of developing their property when the City
Council was determining the location of Lake Lucy Road extension. They indicated to staff
that they had no immediate plan to develop, but wanted to ensure that the location of Lake
Lucy Road through their property works the best for development of their property. Because
the city does not have a conceptual approval process for a subdivision, they decided to gain
preliminary plat approval from the city. Since beginning the process, the applicants have
revised their intentions, stating that they will develop the property in the immediate future.
This property has some significant issues involved in its development including the Lake
Lucy Road extension alignment, severe slopes, grading and drainage concerns, wetlands, tree
preservation, and the interrelationship of this plat with the future development of surrounding
lands. Staff believes that the subdivision, as proposed, is inconsistent with the existing land
form. The steep slopes on the western half of the development make the development of this
area problematic at best based on the development proposal due to the severe slopes. From a
land use and site design standpoint, this portion of the property would be better accessed from
the north, eliminating the need for excessive grading of the site. The proposed alignment for
Lake Lucy Road does not correspond to staff's preferred alignment adjacent to the wetland
located in the southwest corner of the site.
Meanwhile, Gestach and Paulson have proposed a subdivision (Brenden Pond) to the west of
the Ryans. The Mancinos, who own the property to the north, are also concerned about the
impacts of these developments and how their property can be best accessed. Staff asked all
these property owners to meet to try and resolve how each development is best designed.
Access between and through each parcel is a critical issue and it is the city's job to ensure
that the subdivisions do not land lock other parcels. In addition, access needs to be provided
in a location that takes into consideration the natural features of the land. This has been a
very difficult process for staff. We have spent numerous hours exploring design options. All
three affected parcels have been working with the city.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 3
The Lake Lucy Road alignment is such a significant issue and impacts this and adjoining
developments to such an extent, that its alignment must be resolved. The city's preferred
alignment for Lake Lucy Road is the southern alignment. Not only does this alignment
provide a community view of the open space/wetland, but it also provides better access to the
required stormwater ponding areas that will be provided adjacent to the wetland, it eliminates
front facing lots on Lake Lucy Road in Shamrock Ridge and the Brenden Pond development
to the west, and it reduces the amount of filling adjacent to the wetland by 10 feet (private
road elevation 998 vs. Lake Lucy Road southern alignment station 13+75 elevation 987.93).
The southern alignment provides the applicant with two alternatives for the development of
the western third of the project. Alternate 1 permits two cul-de-sacs running north from Lake
Lucy Road. While allowing the development to be completed on its own time, it does not
minimize the grading of the western part of the development. However, it does eliminate lots
fronting directly onto the collector road. The use of private roads, which permits up to a 10
percent grade, to access to the north may alleviate some of the grading that would be
necessary. Alternate 2 would outlot the western third of the development north of the Lake
Lucy Road alignment until access could be provided from the property to the north. The
southern alternative minimizes grading, protects trees, and provides spectacular home sites at
the top of the hill. However, the development time frame for this portion of the property is
indefinite and dependent on the development of the property to the north.
Staff has discussed with the City Attorney the possibility of requiring the applicant to outlot
the western third of the property until access could be provided from the north. His response
was that if the applicant could provide a feasible alternative for development that met code
requirements, then the city could not require this area to be an outlot. Based on this decision,
staff reviewed both the applicant's development proposal and an alternative providing cul-de-
sacs to the north of a southern Lake Lucy Road alignment. Based on this review, staff felt
that the applicant's proposal was a better alternative and would result in less grading, tree
preservation along the northern property line and a buffer from Lake Lucy Road for the
property to the north.
Staff is recommending numerous revisions for the subdivision that will make the development
acceptable, if not optimal, based on the applicant's proposal. While staff still believes that
the southern alignment for Lake Lucy Road is a better alignment for the community, should
the City Council approve the applicant's proposal, we have developed revisions that improve
the development. The approximate 546 feet of open space north of the proposed alignment
(Outlot B) does offer the city some benefit from the northern alignment of Lake Lucy Road,
including landscape enhancement and buffering the impacts of Lake Lucy Road from the
property to the north.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 4
BACKGROUND
This property is currently being used as a farmstead by the applicant. Their home is located
in the southeastern portion of the property with the remainder being farmed. Staff has met
individually with the applicant's consulting engineer and surveyor to express our concerns
about the initially proposed alignment of Lake Lucy Road which bisected the site and
connected to the property to the west at the northwest corner of the property. At that time,
staff advised the engineer that the preferred alignment of Lake Lucy Road was at the bottom
of the slope adjacent to the natural wetland. Staff met on August 2, 1994 with the applicant
and the abutting property owners in order to determine the appropriate locations for street
connections and to discuss the issues involved in this development. Of special concern is the
Lake Lucy Road extension location and providing convenient and feasible street access to the
property to the north. Since these meetings, the applicant has revised the plat by moving the
Lake Lucy Road extension first sixty feet and then an additional 20 feet south of the northern
property line.
On August 17, 1994, the Planning Commission tabled the proposed development in order to
permit the applicant to revise the plans consistent with staff recommendations. At that time,
the Planning Commission appeared to be of a consensus that the Lake Lucy Road alignment
be revised to the south. While meeting some of the conditions of the original report, the
applicant continued to provide a northerly alignment for Lake Lucy Road.
Staff discussed the following recommendations with the applicant's engineer, Chuck Plowe,
on Tuesday, August 30, 1994. Staff believes that as a compromise, the incorporation of these
recommendations as well as the other conditions of approval, would make the proposed plat
acceptable. The revised plans based on a portion of these recommendations were presented to
the Planning Commission at their September 7, 1994.
1. Extend Jennifer Way and utilities to the north property line (James Court is only the
cul-de-sac). Condition met at time of public hearing.
2. Provide a private drive easement for Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 2. (If such an access
is not feasible for Lot 14, Block 2, then Lot 14 should be eliminated and Lots 12 and
13 made larger.) Condition met at time of public hearing.
3. Provide a 3 to 1 slope on the north side of the Lake Riley Road right-of-way in the
western third of the project. May require the realignment of the right-of-way 20 feet
to the south. Condition not met at time of public hearing.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 5
4. Align the Lake Lucy Road and begin curve to the southwest to match the alignment in
Brenden Pond to the west. Condition not met at time of public hearing.
5. Provide 60 foot right-of-way for Mary Bay and Gwendolen Court. Condition met at
time of public hearing.
6. Provide a 4 to 1 slope to access the stormwater pond between Mary Bay and
Gwendolen Court. Condition not met at time of public hearing.
7. Combine the drainage discharge pipe for Mary Bay and Gwendolen Courts into one
discharge pipe. Condition not met at time of public hearing.
9. Delete ponding area on Lots 33 and 34, Block 1 and replace with a berm. Condition
met at time of public hearing.
10. Look at the grading for Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 to promote stormwater drainage
from the front to the rear, rather than concentrating stormwater flows to the rear of
Lot 4. Condition not met at time of public hearing.
11. Verify the proper sizing of the stormwater ponds on site based on the surface water
management plan. Condition not met at time of public hearing.
The applicant has incorporated additional revisions into the plat that is being presented for
City Council review and approval. Specifically, the applicant has curved the Lake Lucy Road
alignment to meet the proposed alignment within the Brenden Pond development being
proposed to the west. In addition, the applicant has replaced the western most cul-de-sac with
a private road, reduced the total number of lots by one to 48, and moved the northern private
road outside the 30 foot conservation easement.
REZONING
The property is designated as Residential - Low Density (net density range 1.2 - 4.0
units/ac.). The proposed rezoning of the property to Single Family Residential is consistent
with this land use designation. Staff supports the requested rezoning.
WETLANDS
According to the wetland delineation performed by Arlig Environmental, Inc., three wetlands
have been identified on-site and they are described as follows:
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 6
Basin 1 is the large wetland located on the western boundary of the site. The wetland
extends off-site to the west; approximately 4.7 acres of wetland is on-site. The wetland is
classified as a natural wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance.
Basin 2 is located along the eastern edge of the property. The wetland is approximately 0.8
acre in size. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. It
appears that this basin will be eliminated and converted into a stormwater treatment pond as a
result of the proposed development and the extension of Lake Lucy Road. As a result, the
area filled will require mitigation. The Army Corps of Engineers will require mitigation for
fill and excavation at a ratio of 1:1. However, in accordance to state and local regulations, a
ratio of 2:1 is required.
Basin 3 is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the
south; approximately 0.4 acre of wetland is on-site. This wetland is part of a wetland
complex and it drains south into Basin 1. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the
City's Wetland Ordinance.
Regulations
A replacement plan will be required as part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)
and Wetland City Ordinance (CWO) requirements. The City administers the WCA. In
addition to the replacement plan requirements, staff would like the following information as
part of the wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at
least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. The Army
Corps of Engineers will also require a permit application for the alteration of wetlands. They
should be contacted for their requirements.
The WCA and the CWO require a wetland replacement ratio of 2:1 for wetlands filled. The
wetland replacement plan should be designed to meet the existing functions and values that
have been removed as a result of filling in other wetlands. It is possible to replace the
wetlands at a ratio of 1:1 in upland and a ratio of 1:1 as wetland restoration. The City is
going to start a wetland bank in the near future by restoring wetlands that have been drained.
It may be possible to purchase banking points as part of the mitigation for this site. Staff
thinks that wetland replacement should occur in the large wetland to the west rather than
creating a small wetland adjacent to a large stormwater pond.
The WCA was written to replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or
prudent. Alternatives for avoiding wetland impacts should be considered as part of the
wetland alteration permit process.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 7
In addition, to the requirements of the WCA, the CWO requires a buffer strip and buffer strip
monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is
10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for
an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal
structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The proposed
grading plan will have to show the buffer strip and the appropriate house setbacks.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP
will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies
the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to
allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies.
In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for
ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality
portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus
concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at
each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of
improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus
reduction in priority water bodies.
In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require
the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post developed
drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-developed and post-developed
conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for
a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2.5-inch rainfall. In
addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch
basins will also be required. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water
elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre-developed and post-developed
conditions.
Water Quality
The SWMP has established a user fee for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be
equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be
based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 8
per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. If the applicant constructs the water quality
basins, these fees will be waived and credit given for any oversizing.
Water Quantity
The SWMP has established a user fee for different land uses based on an average, city-wide
rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff
storage. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per
acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment
fee of $63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to the
applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with
the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes,
ponding, etc. The exact fees will be determined after final review and approval of the
construction plans and specifications and Lake Lucy Road assessment methodology if
applicable.
DRAINAGE
The development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed. The SWMP should be
reviewed by the applicant's engineer and the site designed in accordance with the SWMP
design to the extent feasibly possible. All runoff shall be pretreated before discharge to any
of the existing wetlands. Similar to Brenden Pond, Lake Lucy Road will intersect this parcel.
The applicant's plans have included a segment of Lake Lucy Road; however, it does not
correspond to the City's feasibility study. The Lake Lucy Road alignment is shifted northerly
to facilitate two cul-de-sacs on the south side of Lake Lucy Road adjacent to wetlands. A
storm water retention pond to pretreat runoff from the cul-de-sacs and part of Lake Lucy
Road is proposed adjacent to the wetland. Another storm water treatment pond is proposed
adjacent to Galpin Boulevard lying both north and south of Lake Lucy Road. Staff has
recommended to the applicant's engineer to delete the southerly pond and extend storm sewer
to the existing culvert underneath Galpin Boulevard.
Depending on the applicant's timing, they may petition the City, similar to the Brenden Ponds
developer, for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the parcel. This would be a 429
public improvement project whereby the drainage, utility and street improvements would be
partially assessed back to the benefitting property owners. This alignment is also a State-Aid
route where State-Aid funding may play a role to assist in the funding on the project.
Unfortunately, state aid funds have been encumbered for the next three years. Another option
would be for the applicant to construct the entire segment of Lake Lucy Road and be given
credit for oversizing any utility lines and credit for the trail system along Lake Lucy Road.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 9
According to the City's SWMP, three storm water pretreatment ponds (Walker ponds) are
proposed on the site. One is located just east of Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of Lake
Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard. Another one is located just northerly of the wetland areas.
The applicant has proposed constructing two of the three ponding areas. The SWMP also
proposes a third water quality basin at the end of the ravine in the southwest corner of this
development and extends westerly into Brenden Pond. It may be feasible to consider
combining the proposed pond between Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay with the proposed
SWMP pond in the southwest corner and Brenden Pond. This area then could be utilized as a
mitigation area. The applicant may be given credit for the oversizing of the storm water
treatment ponds and any trunk storm sewer facilities they install in conjunction with the
overall development. This will be further reviewed upon the final plat and construction plan
and specification review process. Staff encourages the applicant's engineer to review the
City's SWMP plan for appropriate sizing of the ponding areas and trunk storm sewers. The
storm ponds should be designed with access in mind. A 4:1 side slope is required along/over
the storm pipe which discharges into the pond. The pond should be designed and constructed
with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL) for the first one foot (depth) of water and
the remaining at 3:1. Another alternative would be to design the pond with 4:1 slopes
overall.
The plans have combined the storm sewer lines from Mary Bay and the westerly private
driveway. However, staff is not satisfied with this proposal from a maintenance standpoint
and believe better alternatives exist. Staff is confident with the upgrade of Lake Lucy Road
and prior to final plat approval, this issue can be resolved.
GRADING
The site contains very steep slopes in the northwesterly portion of the site as well as a small
ravine area. The slopes along the northerly portion are in the range of 20% to 30%. With
these types of slopes it is very difficult to prepare a site for streets and house pads without
significant grading. Staff has reviewed the plan and has prepared a few options with what we
believe would be a more feasible approach to developing the steeper part of the site (westerly
1/3). We believe if the parcel to the north (Mancino) was to develop prior to this
development we would require that a street be extended to the northerly line of this plat for a
future cul-de-sac to extend lots off of this high ridge. This would make use of the existing
topographic features of the property without substantially altering the grades. This would also
allow for Lake Lucy Road to be extended along the southerly portion of the site to maintain a
sufficient buffer and setback below the proposed homes along the northerly portion of the
development. It would also allow for sufficient wetland mitigation and storm water treatment
ponds adjacent to the wetland. One of the drawbacks with regards to this approach would be
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 10
the lack of benefit that this development would receive from Lake Lucy Road. It is the
City's intent to partially assess the benefitting properties for the construction of Lake Lucy
Road; however, in this segment where no direct benefit is received the City would have
difficulty assessing a portion of Lake Lucy Road. However, the City may have alternative
financing methods such as State Aid to assist in developing the roadway system.
Unfortunately, these funds are encumbered for the next three years.
The grading plan as revised with the Lake Lucy roadway alignment to the north has flattened
the backslopes from 2.5:1 to 3:1 with a boulevard area. The plans have also realigned Lake
Lucy Road in an attempt to be compatible with Lake Lucy Road proposed within the Brenden
Pond subdivision directly to the west. This should be made a condition of approval should
this alignment still need to be adjusted. In addition, this alignment will not match with the
development to the west (Brenden Pond). Staff has been working with the applicant's
engineer in realigning Lake Lucy Road to match to the west and provide appropriate
boulevards and backslopes. This appears to have been achieved by slightly curving Lake
Lucy Road southwesterly and shifting the street southerly. Lots 4, 5 and 13, Block 4 are
proposed to be serviced off a private driveway off of Jennifer Way. The plans propose a
street stub north towards the Mancino's from Jennifer Way. The street could terminate at a
point short of the tree line which would provide access to the last Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 4
and future extension to Mancino's if desired.
Staff is concerned with sight lines when exiting the westerly private driveway onto Lake Lucy
Road due to a proposed berm. Staff recommends that the berm be relocated westerly to
improve sight distance.
The applicant is proposing water quality ponds adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. Galpin
Boulevard is classified as a local collector street and will need additional right-of-way
dedicated with this plat. According to Carver County, a minimum corridor of 100 feet should
be reserved for future upgrading to a four-lane street. The applicant is to dedicating an
additional 17 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard to fulfill the County's requirement.
The backyard drainage from Lots 1 through 11, Block 3 will be directed to a wetland located
in the southeast corner of the site. An interim sediment pond is proposed to treat runoff prior
to entering the wetland. The sediment pond may be removed once the lots are revegetated.
Staff is concerned about the grading behind Lots 4 through 8, Block 2. The proposed grade
directs runoff extremely close to the house pad on Lot 4, Block 2. Staff has recommended to
the applicant's engineer that this needs to be revised to promote a rear yard to front yard
drainage pattern. The engineer has proposed a storm sewer to convey runoff from these rear
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 11
yards to address this. However, staff still encourages the applicant's engineer to rear design
the grade to promote a back to front drainage pattern. If the catch basin becomes plugged,
the home will be subject to flooding.
UTILITIES
As part of the City's Lake Lucy Road extension, the utilities will be brought to the
intersection of proposed Pond View Court and Lake Lucy Road approximately 400 feet west
of this development. Utilities are proposed to be extended along Lake Lucy Road. However,
since there will be a gap between the plats, it will be necessary for the City and/or developer
to extend Lake Lucy Road to service this development. Without that project, this
development is premature.
Staff has reviewed the access and utility service needs to the Mancino parcel and believes it
is prudent, at this time, to require extension of utilities and street access north along Jennifer
Way to potentially serve a portion of Mancino's. The applicant has extended Jennifer Way
with utilities north for future service of the Mancino parcel.
The existing home on Lot 14, Block 3 (Ryan's) is currently on a septic and well system. The
house should be connected to the new sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes
operational. The well may be utilized as long as it is on the same lot and functioning
properly. Once the well fails or the property owner sells, the property shall be required to
connect to city water per city ordinance.
EROSION CONTROL
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will
be required around all wetlands being preserved. The steep slopes may also require some
form of terraced erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review
and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the
applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process.
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Another
access will also be extended from the west if the City continues with the extension of Lake
Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road may be built under the City's improvement project program if
so petitioned by the applicant and authorized by the City Council. Lake Lucy Road is
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 12
considered a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also
part of the City's Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance,
direct driveway access onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever
feasible. No lots are proposed to have direct access onto Lake Lucy Road.
The alignment of Lake Lucy Road west of this development has not been finalized. The City
has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41
to Galpin Boulevard. There are two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the
future alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The first parcel is located just west of this development
and proceeding ahead with a preliminary plat (Gestach parcel - Brenden Ponds). The other
parcel (Mancino) is located to the north of this development. Staff has reviewed with the
property owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel from the Brenden Pond
development and this development. Brenden Pond will be providing the Mancino parcel
access to the westerly portion via private driveway. Staff has also met with the Ryans to
discuss two potential alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact this development. There
is no clear-cut alignment of Lake Lucy Road that satisfies all of the property owners in this
situation. The preliminary plat of Shamrock Ridge has utilized a northerly alignment of Lake
Lucy Road through their parcel. Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and is unclear from
a design standpoint if Lake Lucy Road will be compatible with the plat to the west (Brenden
Pond). Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through this
parcel which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep
slopes. However, this alignment works well with the existing terrain and minimizes impacts
to the wetlands. The resulting impact from the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road
requires short, steep cul-de-sacs as well as tuck-under type homes to the north of Lake Lucy
Road unless access is from the north (Mancinos). Staff still believes that the southerly
alignment is the preferred alignment for Lake Lucy Road.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80-foot wide right-of-way for the construction of
Lake Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60-foot wide right-of-
way on all the streets and construction of the City's standard roadway section for the interior
streets. Street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which is the City's maximum grade allowed.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as
part of the final plat submittal. Access to the Mancino parcel shall be provided by extending
Jennifer Way to the north of James Court and conditions stipulated in the development
contract that this street may be extended in the future. A temporary cul-de-sac will be
necessary at the end of Jennifer Way. No additional easements will be necessary and the
turnaround can be built within the proposed right-of-way.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 13
Conclusion
Staff has reviewed this plat submittal and still believes that the southerly alignment (Lake
Lucy Road) should be followed. However, as a compromise, staff would be open to a
northerly Lake Lucy Road alignment if the applicant can revise Lake Lucy Road to match
with the intersection proposed in Brenden Pond. Jennifer Way has been extended to the north
to provide access to the Mancino parcel. This leaves development flexibility to the Mancino
parcel and still allows both parcels (Brenden Pond and Ryan) to develop. Staff believes it is
an appropriate way to develop the westerly one-third of the Ryan development by accessing
from Mancinos. Due to steep grades, we believe that this site should be accessed from the
north to retain its topographic features. If the Mancino parcel was the first to be developed,
we would recommend that the Mancinos provide a street access to the south for development
of this area due to the steep grades. Similarly, staff has required the Ryans to provide access
to the Carlson parcel (south of Jennifer Way) due to the isolated parcel of land (surrounded
by wetland). We feel that it is in the best interest of the City and property owners to make a
development proposal which utilizes the existing topography.
Private Drives
The applicant is proposing the use of two private roads to provide access to seven
proposed lots. City Code, Section 18-57 (o) permits up to four (4) lots to be served by a
private road if the city finds the following to exist:
(1) The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to
construct a public street. In making this determination the city may
consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or
geographic conditions, and the existence of wetlands.
FINDING: The prevailing development make it infeasible for the construction of
a public street. The city is requiring as a condition of plat approval that the
applicant provide a tree preservation along the northerly property line. This
precludes a road being extended to Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 4. The use of a
private drive in place of the westerly cul-de-sac reduces the number of lots by one
and moves the housing pads to the north away from the wetland area.
(2) After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of
the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area,
improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 14
FINDING: The extension of the public street system is not required to service
the other parcels, to improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
(3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and
mature trees.
FINDING: The proposed private drives do enhance the protection of wetlands
and trees. The westerly private drive permits the house pads to be pulled to the
north, away from the wetland area. The northern private drive permits the trees
adjacent to the northern property line to be preserved.
Staff believes that the use of private roads as proposed within this development is
justified and consistent with City Code requirements.
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
A landscape buffer shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard,
and along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18-61 (a) (5). This buffer
landscaping shall be developed as part of the preliminary and final plat submittal for city
approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. A
woodland management plan must also be prepared as part of the platting process. In addition,
a landscape plan including the landscape buffer and forestation and replacement planting must
be prepared and approved by the city. The choice of species in the preliminary landscaping
plan are appropriate and acceptable, but small monocultures of trees have been created by
grouping the similar species. Mixing a variety of species allows for diversity within your
urban forest, thereby, increasing the overall health of it and reducing the chances of
widespread outbreaks of disease. Symmetry along boulevards need not be lost by using
diversity. Aesthetic avenues can be attained without the disadvantages associated with
monocultures. Choosing trees of different species that will attain similar heights or have '
similar branching characteristics is an excellent alternative.
The landscaping plan requires an additional 42 trees based on staff's analysis of the tree
preservation, forestation, and replacement requirements for a total of 284 trees. Staff
recommends that the additional 42 trees be incorporated in the landscaping plan as follows:
1. Nine trees staggered for a windbreak along the western property lines of Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1. Windbreak trees shall include spruce (Black Hills, Norway, White).
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 15
2. Five trees grouped near the corners of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 1; 10 trees grouped
along the rear lot lines of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1; and 18 trees in groupings
along the rear lot lines of Lots 2 through 11, Block 3. Rear yard tree selection shall
be River Birch, Ohio Buckeye, Catalpa, Silver Queen Maple, White or Bur Oak,
Hawthorne, Aspen, Arborvitae, and Balsam or White Fir.
In addition, the following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of
the final plat: a 30 foot easement along the northern boundary of the site; a thirty foot
easement along the western lot lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; the southern 100 feet of the
eastern 30 feet of Lot 4, Block 1; the southern 30 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 5, Block
1; the northern 70 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 6, Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of Lots 8
and 9, Block 1; the western 30 feet of Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of
Lots 2 through 7, Block 3; and the western 30 feet of Lots 8 through 11, Block 3. (Note:
only the 30 foot easement along the northern property line is a conservation easement. The
remaining easement areas are for forestation and replacement purposes.)
To provide slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road on Oudot B, Sumac shall be planted
7 feet on center. Such plantings shall be staggered to provide better stabilization and
aesthetic appeal. Additionally, this areas must be mulched and seeded after grading.
As proposed, there is very little tree preservation being done except for within the wetland
area. Staff does not concur with the applicant's designation of trees to be saved. By viewing
the landscaping plan and the grading plan, it is obvious that some of the trees in Lots 2, 3, 7,
and 8, Block 1, Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, and Lots 6, 7, 9, and 13, Block 3 will not be "saved."
Staff estimates that approximately one-third of the existing tree canopy is being preserved. In
reviewing the applicant's tree preservation plans and baseline canopy coverage calculations,
staff believes that the calculations are in error. In reviewing the tree plan, staff estimates that
there is a 13 percent baseline canopy coverage (4.25 acres or 185,346 square feet in 32.63
acres of net developable land). Tree canopy within a designated wetland is excluded from
calculation. The required post development canopy coverage is 25 percent or a total of 8.16
acres of tree canopy. To meet the minimum canopy coverage requirements, the developer
would need to develop a forestation plan for 3.91 acres (8.16 - 4.25) which would require the
planting of 156 trees (3.91 x 43,560 / 1,089). In addition, because the developer is removing
canopy coverage that is required to meet their minimum canopy coverage, they must replace
the removed canopy area at a rate of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed.
Since the applicant did not provide these calculations, staff has estimated that the removed
canopy coverage area is approximately 116,546 square feet. The replacement planting is then
calculated at 139,855 square feet (116,564 x 1.2). The number of trees required for
replacement planting is calculated at 128 trees (139,855/1089). The total tree planting
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 16
requirement as part of the development's forestation and tree replacement plantings is 284
trees.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The Park and Recreation Commission met on July 26, 1994 to review this proposal. The
Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council require the following
conditions of approval in regard to park and trails for the Shamrock Ridge plat:
1. Full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance.
2. An 8 ft. bituminous trail be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. This construction
to be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road Extension Project. The developer shall be
reimbursed for the cost of said trail from the city's trail fund.
3. Sufficient county road right-of-way/easements be maintained along County Road 117
(Galpin Boulevard) to accommodate possible future trail construction.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Block Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Frontage (ft.) Depth (Ft.)
1 1 21,915 87.61# 186
2 39,294 182 228
3 38,439 212 258
4 24,769 87.61# 205
5 21,998 124 192
6 21,411 55.64* 181
7 25,749 55.64* 197
8 23,892 55.64* 163
9 18,906 124 157
10 18,827 116 143
11 15,637 90 174
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 17
12 16,975 90 189
13 21,111 80.84* 194
14 20,218 81.02* 200
15 22,213 83.03* 212
16 21,749 88* 226
17 15,000 101 246
2 1 18,165 105 156
2 15,333 102 141
3 42,178 207 211
4 43,591 97 183
5 27,632 69.42* 166
6 15,000 93 156
7 15,000 95 156
8 15,910 102 156
3 1 15,566 92 177
2 16,787 92 191
3 17,541 90 198
4 15,107 113 189
5 15,831 103 176
6 15,013 92 163
7 19,500 123 145
8 18,414 115 158
9 18,273 95 192
10 20,229 145 192
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 18
11 25,420 56.74* 197
12 54,993 77.99* 238
13 30,910 60.45* 217
14 26,217 120 185
15 19,148 95 201
16 24,463 115 212
4 1 20,104 14561* 141
2 15,000 109 162
3 20,096 136 177
4 26,698 104 278
5 20,816 102 227
6 18,547 100 179
Outlot A 216,049
Outlot B 59,701
Total Lots 47 1,055,682
Avg. Lot 22,461
NOTES: *Meets minimum lot width at building setback line. #Does not met code
requirements.
FINDINGS
Subdivision, Section 18-39 (f)
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets the minimum lot area requirements of the
RSF, Residential Single Family District. Section 18-60 (d) of the City Code
requires that lots be placed to protect natural amenities such as vegetation,
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 19
wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. While alternate site
designs may provide additional protection of natural resources, the proposal has
been revised to lessen the impacts of the development on the site. Wetland
mitigation areas and stormwater ponding areas shall be provided within the
plat. Section 18-57 (1) states that where a proposed subdivision is adjacent to a
limited access highway, arterial or collector street, there shall be no direct
vehicular or pedestrian access form individual lots to such highways or streets.
Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 4 shall be served by a private road from Jennifer Way
and not via direct access to Lake Lucy Road.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the city's land use plan.
The alignment for the Lake Lucy Road does not comply with the city's
preferred alignment. However, the alternative proposed is a feasible alignment.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the
conditions specified in this report. The applicant's proposed stormwater
ponding system must be revised and a final design will be determined prior to
final platting. The steep slopes on the western half of the development make
the development of this area problematic at best based on the development
proposal due to the severe slopes. While alternate site designs may provide
additional protection of natural resources, the proposal has been revised to
lessen the impacts of the development on the site.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The stormwater ponding must be revised. This can be resolved based
on staff recommendations prior to final platting. If the applicant does not
intend to construct Lake Lucy Road, then the applicant needs to petition the
city for extension of Lake Lucy Road and utilities.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 20
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will impact the land form and existing
wetlands and vegetation by the amount of grading. Staff is recommending
changes to minimize the impact.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,
but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure provided the utilities are extended from the west. Final
calculations for the provision of on site stormwater ponding, a final decision on
the alignment of Lake Lucy Road and providing access to the northwest third
of the development must be made prior to final platting.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Wetland Alteration Permit (Section 20-407)
When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following principals shall be adhered to:
1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity may destroy or diminish the
wetland.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the eastern
end of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during
agricultural practices. The applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland either
through the enhancement of a wetland within the site or another within the watershed
district as part of the city's wetland banking system.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 21
2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and
its implementation.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland within the
required alignment for Lake Lucy Road extension. This wetland is isolated and has
been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposal minimizes the
impact of the development while at the same time replacing and enhancing the
wetland complexes.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland
activity and its implementation.
Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water
quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the activity.
Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area
by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the enhancement
and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its
stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. Water quality ponding
will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute
wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules
8420.0530 to 8420.0630.
Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within
the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The applicant is
proposing to fill a small parched wetland within the Lake Lucy Road extension
alignment. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural
practices. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands in the area. Water quality ponding will be
provided to filter storm water.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 22
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission met on August 17 and September 7, 1994 to review the proposed
development. On August 17, 1994, the Planning Commission tabled the proposed
development in order to permit the applicant to revise the plans consistent with staff
recommendations. At that time, the Planning Commission appeared to be of a consensus that
the Lake Lucy Road alignment be revised to the south. The Planning Commission was also
concerned that the site development be environmentally sensitive, especially in regards to the
steep slopes, the treed areas, and the wetland. At the September 7, 1994 meeting, the
Planning Commission again reviewed the proposed development. This review was of a plan
that the applicant had prepared based upon a compromise with staff that incorporated the
northern alignment of the Lake Lucy Road extension.
The Planning Commission voted 4 for and 0 against to recommend denial of the rezoning
(#94-3), denial of preliminary plat (#94-7), and denial of wetland alteration permit (#94-3).
The Planning Commission treated the entire development approval, rezoning, preliminary plat,
and wetland alteration permit, as one package and therefore denied each element of the
approval. The following issues were the basis of the Planning Commissions recommendation
for denial:
1. Lack of sensitivity to the surrounding community.
2. Lack of environmental sensitivity: e.g. excessive grading, minimal tree preservation,
alteration of natural land form, not taking advantage of the natural assets of the land,
and elimination of natural resource corridors.
3. Failure to incorporate primary location for Lake Lucy Road, i.e., the southern
alignment.
4. Potential alternate site designs that could better protect natural amenities such as
vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, and water courses pursuant to Section 18-60.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 23
RECOMMENDATION
Should the City Council approve the applicant's proposal, staff recommends that the City
Council adopt the following motions:
Rezoning
"The City Council approves case #94-3 rezoning 37.92 acres from RR, Rural Residential to
RSF, Single Family Residential."
Subdivision
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat case #94-7 subdivision subject to the
following conditions:
1. Revise the lot lines for Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, to provide a minimum of 90 feet of
frontage for Lots 1 and 4.
2. Submit revised utility plans for approval of fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant
spacing is 300 feet maximum. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details.
3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
4. A turn-around acceptable to the city's Fire Marshal shall be provided at the end of the
private road off of Jennifer Way.
5. The common portion of the private roads shall be signed "No Parking Fire Lane."
6. Either a monument sign or street sign shall be provided for the private roads to aid in
the location of homes on private roads for emergency vehicles.
7. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal
for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203.
8. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 24
9. An 8 foot bituminous trail shall be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. The
construction will be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road extension project. The
developer shall be reimbursed for the full cost of said trail from the city's trail fund if
the developer constructs said trail as part of their project.
10. Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal.
11. A landscape buffer shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin
Boulevard, and along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18-61 (a)
(5). This buffer landscaping shall be developed as part of the preliminary and final
plat submittal for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the
city shall be required. A woodland management plan must also be prepared as part of
the platting process. A landscape plan including the landscape buffer, forestation and
replacement planting must be prepared and approved by the city. The landscape plan
and woodland management plan must be prepared by a landscape professional.
12. Prepare baseline canopy coverage calculations and estimated canopy coverage removal
area. Overlay the tree plan on the grading plan in order to verify tree preservation.
13. Boulevard trees along Lake Lucy Road, Jennifer Way, James Court, and Anne Alcove
must be diverse with no more than two trees of the same species in a row. Mary Bay
may be planting with one species considering the trees may provide a theme for the
short cul-de-sac.
14. Non-deciduous evergreens shall be incorporated into the tamaracks on the north
side of Lake Lucy Road and the west side of County Road 117. are-being-used-as
screening from traffic or noise. Since tamaracks lose their needles i die winter,
-- - - • -- - - - -- .. - - - - -- -- - . A minimum of nine non-
deciduous evergreens shall be used to create diversity, provide additional
screening, and add interest. The evergreens planted on the south side of Lot 1,
Block 2, shall be extended east to the rear lot line.
15. The landscaping plan requires an additional 42 trees based on staff's analysis of the
tree preservation, forestation, and replacement requirements for a total of 284 trees.
Staff recommends that the additional 42 trees be incorporated in the landscaping plan
as follows:
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 25
a. Nine trees staggered for a windbreak along the western property lines of Lots 1
and 2, Block 1. Windbreak trees shall include spruce (Black Hills, Norway,
White).
b. Five trees grouped near the corners of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 1; 10 trees
grouped along the rear lot lines of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1; and 18
trees in groupings along the rear lot lines of Lots 2 through 11, Block 3. Rear
yard tree selection shall be River Birch, Ohio Buckeye, Catalpa, Silver Queen
Maple, White or Bur Oak, Hawthorne, Aspen, Arborvitae, and Balsam or
White Fir.
16. The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the
final plat: a 30 foot easement along the northern boundary of the site; a 30 foot
easement along the western lot lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; the southern 100 feet of
the eastern 30 feet of Lot 4, Block 1; the southern 30 feet of the western 30 feet of
Lot 5, Block 1; the northern 70 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 6, Block 1; the
eastern 30 feet of Lots 8 and 9, Block 1; the western 30 feet of Lots 10, 11, and 12,
Block 1; the eastern 30 feet of Lots 2 through 7, Block 3; and the western 30 feet of
Lots 8 through 11, Block 3.
17. To provide slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road on Outlot B, Sumac shall be
planted 7 feet on center. Such plantings shall be staggered to provide better
stabilization and aesthetic appeal. Additionally, this areas must be seeded.
18. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-
developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. Normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch
basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall
be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
19. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee of $63,360
assuming 32 acres of developable land. Water quantity and quality fees may or may
not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment
methodology. These fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to
the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 26
formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the
fees, they will be changed prior to final plat.
20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found
during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City
Engineer.
21. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be
abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. The existing house on Lot 14,
Block 3 shall be connected to the new sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line
becomes available. The well may be utilized as long as the well is on the lot and
functional. Once the well fails or the property is sold the property owner shall
connect to city water.
22. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat.
The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the ponding
areas shall be provided. Slopes shall not exceed 4:1 over the easement areas.
23. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public
improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval.
24. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and
formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration.
25. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed
District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies
and comply with their conditions of approval.
26. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and
disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading
unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate
otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 27
27. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
28. The existing home shall change its address to be compatible with the City's addressing
system once the street has been constructed adjacent the house.
29. The grading plan shall be revised as follows: 1) provide for 2% boulevards and 3:1
side slopes adjacent to all streets in accordance to the City's typical street standards;
2) berming shall be prohibited from all street right-of-ways; 3) the proposed pond
between Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be combined/relocated to the west of
Gwendolen Court; 4) grading in the rear yards of Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 shall be
revised to drain rear to front; 5) an interim sediment pond shall be provided on Lot
12, Block 3 until Lots 1 through 12, Block 3 are fully revegetated; 6) storm ponds
shall be designed and constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL)
for the first one foot (depth) of water and then 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 slopes overall.
7) the proposed berm west of the westerly private driveway shall be relocated westerly
to improve sight distance on Lake Lucy Road from the private driveway.
30. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet State-Aid standards.
31. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon utilities being extended
from Brenden Pond unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for
review and approval.
32. Lake Lucy Road shall be realigned southerly to be compatible with the intersection
proposed in Brenden Pond (Lake Lucy Road and Pondview Court).
33. Direct driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road shall be prohibited. A private driveway
shall be required to access Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 4 in accordance to the City's
private driveway ordinance."
Wetland Alteration Permit
"The City Council approves wetland alteration permit #94-3 subject to the following
conditions:
1. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
Shamrock Ridge
August 17, 1994
Revised September 1, 1994
Update 9/21/94
Revised 9/28/94
Page 28
begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be
shown on the grading plan.
2. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans,
wetland delineation report, a map with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for
each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the soils."
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Development Review Application
2. Preliminary Plat, Original Submittal
3. Preliminary Plat, Revised Submittal #1, reviewed by Planning Commission 8/17/94
4. Preliminary Plat, Revised Submittal #2, reviewed by Planning Commission 9/7/94
5. Preliminary Plat, Revised Submittal #3
6. Tree Plan
7. Landscaping Plan
8. Memo from Bill Weckman to Chanhassen Planning Department dated 8/2/94
9. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 7/20/94
10. Memo from Mark Littfin to Bob Generous dated 7/7/94
11. Letter from Joe Richter to Bob Generous dated 7/18/94
12. Lake Lucy Road Alignment, Alternate 1
13. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
14. Planning Commission Minutes of 8/17/94
15. Letter from Charles W. Plowe to Bob Generous dated 8/26/94
16. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel to Bob Generous dated 8/31/94
17. Proposed Street Changes
18. Planning Commission Minutes of 9/7/94
19. Letter from Charles Plowe to Bob Generous dated 9/14/94
20. Letter from Nancy and Sam Mancino to Planning Commission
21. Letter from Nancy and Sam Mancino to City Council
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937.1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Ed & Mary Ryan OWNER: Ed & Mary Ryan
ADDRESS: 6730 Galpin Boulevard ADDRESS:
Excelsior, MN 55331
TELEPHONE (Day time) 943-1410 TELEPHONE: 474-1013
•
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. X Wetland Alteration Permit 1;00
4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal
5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. X Rezoning
7. Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs /56
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"
$100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. X Subdivision TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
" Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME Shamrock Ridge
LOCATION 6730 Galpin Blvd Excelsior, MN 55331
LEGAL DESCRIPTION see enclosed
PRESENT ZONING RR
REQUESTED ZONING RSF
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Single Family AG
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Single Family Residential
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Prelimary Plat
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies. etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
7Th
i Isolunderstand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
.against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
opt e and the original docurr►ent retu a to City Hall Records.
)///
1)
• i atu re pf ic.3�t
L Dat:
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on 7- � Fee Paid /r).DC Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
r- - 0 .
:0mmm E •
OCI-0 z 1R
.I-r «r
.y1m xi A a
s--< c ,' 1 I I
u
0
:in,9, �� $ I{{i
_ �z
S4 D 0 ,,,3z p#
ONm Z ii—
gE1
s.m M
Vm n $y A
IP L e
A
9.0 O
Iii! �'k D O 00
q o. •
•
I �i R ' N ;YO TE R; ..n ___` _ ,r
s 1 s X4 O EE RR . , 4,,o0)0\
i . j'.0,k r 249 ,-- 33
R I.
2 3i ..4,,_° t• . / ; c"o
- rs,u,.o rs, w [ , u 1„rt b. `��qa�'e, 044 %�'O -.. 0
\ ; 1441//7V7/iY a ,l $ iL:
-1 -!I,I, ) , 1
jliRD R, ..— 1 P A, i f,,t , i ! I! !,7 i . f - U . fib A it
r
� 'tot 0 �� I9ii .AI i" –. 00 1.11°
apo --^�. � 9 :� ,�►�.`0. e t�• � !
A \ :y `,\. !:1,
4-91/1 ' . _ 1 recoffiSPAli
� i�~ „
z„:,...- ly a A11
A 70._,,,,,r,_,, ,,..411,__::.yam .�� ��/ 4 '� TT
• is ..z Z 0•1 b �'-` rn- � � � A
# 990 �l...,, . �—.� �k
'a 6 980 mo, �� Ir�II ''1 ,O`3O --
s6360. 4, 4,*1-47„,400_000-.--ata_ ,iiti, _k,, 0, :.,!
,..;_for ii!!•fgtmtr-47-- '''s'i W t , I,- : 1 V� 6'� �t •
xta,-=tea'` i' '' r te
14" 42111111k , •
•
-------- --- '�"_....-G ST mane
irie
A O�!\RR: €X000
n !CI 0 pRLpr m►Vxr�L�/c_nI P -
f 5ae1I\ I O ;-•'(:rr .
g jitr
!1 Xc Nnzi i 'ili
s 111
- Awa
eoZotirt
rZ
i O4
U
W-
i
J g `
WA6 70
(
? a6_! i c0 Li��ti, O I � � ,
OSO
rt
!��o `g i i i
i4 r r 7r i 1 r.�p O`
as O
,_.
. ..
if f2 �: fat,
: ,_•
9Ba Ie Rai 9q
p R 1 [• -�-� 4c.
a E'Ja O.tf.•”[S•V.061,5.4.! i ... l'" O
/ .tl1 "-
S aT,�s E •'�� ..
_. ._ it ,
()
.1 __ ____ ,.,,,e, , :, - ‘., p) ti 1p33
40, — ,--s, ____ ..,e,_-__41 , L.:,,,-, , 7 ! , ,,,, ,
' ASSX_a �° .� fir:_{
Iiift.L.Z -a ip, • j 3E1
r,-, .60 V111111w74,01-e. -...:—'. 4 ' is 0
2 „0- 1 , -7 '11" 4vAlitap;;. - - ig ' 1 CC 0
/ '°7',*-=i1 s • - 4 • ''A 1 1'r ibor - ,),
i ..\(:), . -, ..,.. i 0.,, - .,,,, -NA/ pr _ -_• .
- t ' t -;- '_,4° t)1 -4' *• t -' ''' ‘ ''1 1-:' 1 ' 't 6 X* 1 A
, F.I, "6,3 42, z , . • A. 0 '''
I: I- 1 , ,- ' , ' , - # re —_ PP 11 A
101 .., / ,j,..._ Ai` �'' J, ,L, °1 ,1
Ai, .6 /. ' , NAV litial . . ,,,,A,A,, . _,...-
..,
tl 990 - _ f ?__T.. t. itia V, 7
• 41` ' 980 _- '~ `_'�L. • _---. Q'Q 1 '• s;•:. �- - .. .. 1-411401 ' )O ` ,
1111 1 tif ''''' .! t
_1 1 - ..- a "'D t 1 ip,......_ ....,-- --..., i, ' - in
ii _ 0___,,ib, A ,:,''' '!": - 1% -'-
i 's .rte so
.966 ij-1--1--17— .:.-‘,_,
=•: - m_- x
- s�� c •
i
I
n I
I i • t� ss
a.
Fr
Onom O
_.V'3 z i i
r
pm" , i wA ( t — t
I1JX< C g D ,
in
I� o = o;
x(5,83 .. t
0-3
r
J
G•
V'
d,0 Oo
f fi=`i• til 1 Al to o
t ;114 SEB; 11 t.
10 a� °.IbIl
iii; I
!tIaIE
a� :� d1�,� �1 \2\
i g • •,
ianMifiri.� % A
- - 1 ' - 1 ' 1/4fir tlik —
iiii/plinm....„^„.0 % __, .,,,,. . ',NI . \.
v :,,,, (1), xi
rri
VIA 07
PR '
i fir
0 o
r <
;,c.g — , ii r I'1 \ V ri A
ALI tikr ...�. 4) 'r 0
,....� ,� = �;.� ' „! •
�l I'I'Ia4IM 980 i`= �~ .•ri�k �p ' 1�11� ►`� _ \\`
.ingreill .%------4,4*-1 030 — 110
aWiq
Via. ,��i ii 67 N...Ks a......... .AAl1/4,10741044::141'
-. DI
((,) C
�� ::11!!!!!!!!"11111114111111111111111111b?
Ca
�� � ��, �: cC1[. 1li � k, + ---
.111-11•11-11tokill c;..keia.... .agifillnipmaimmosmommir.211 ,44k :-_-
1 A ET,.101Lcri-#11.-- adi --"AiNsigiiit- Til ;_; i ,
PI
0 ,00/ijit,JJ
i:t,ft,
__, 7
-8. ____...try._24 .,4. ,:q--- , �
a� • ,teit --
A
$ A OWsgR: [ OOO
m P
6 W ii 1 i
Bp FTS. I �§ .. ..
a I + I I F
L-1—J hy', I ,
:0010-. 111 2is
pr &P 111 •
En"
rteliq
?� � 16,- ALyp ! F
k
'-idz •♦=m<Z 0 e
i> ; 2
0 O
'OT w
�m 111
lt,' 0 •
R 1 a
cn
Mani
e $i 3•,47 a!s (0 , ' O Ci f
•t : i1LE-½J
iI1il • 2 `i . .t R 4N` i-' 'V
31••
g /
u.o rr+nora.1Nr a�w.m 1 I, Slt, Aor --1 i
__- _ ...
, i & :.. 1
/co or
tom,) t -' Lv _i- t/! r •
....--' k —
ii't
s A
q.2kiwi
r xi
,,. . . 1 , . , , , „ 1 I
li
m,..,,, qtt
SiR
i 'L, t _ , --3 a ,,,,
-sx;. 980: - j P `'`-~ '' ' :�'. _.
e+ —=y . . AIL. /01-i4”. e r ._._t - o m
9 Y_ t n K 1 `< �t rlv+ '' fir. QJQ ..7
ft! It
•
I R Cir • J «on. -114-71111P �I . ,M-�,., ‘;--------‘4^,•..„;„. -- . ., I. - 1L 0 co
n - �m ..r.
_„ A E
•4JIc a
z- ,CtV a� a/ per o� dy :.•' .(r '�1 .- ':.�a `as i
MIN
d e f� N• n 4:11 ! 1 ! M -,gip, .7.;� off...-_ a-
- a' t r -'! `!' ,. �e'r, a I� • '`h1`�a�. '�_ ]r2�2.,I
mi
Al 110.1.
101Q • 1�''^..1 Ile - .±.< %84,.lj' V.A.. ' ,R ' £i ..r- .4 _ WAY
S r
• etc.< - ,.• ,. !t_ ..i _ ."'.. i - • X..
•I 3 1 990- Acilt a� -R • - - • ; :`, _ - Q \�A:
P'••• a 9 �4
. , LI .,.•
pi ' 1 I yv was , -- Q 3.
11 A ••1 , L. m
• 066 - - _ '•:+s
------ -- ♦v.. ..� _ -, s • 1.t x - O7-11 1
tt »►rr
- f oo0
ii
orra.:a...,.co.ezmc. ; S..
01
•
1.
•
P i
rT —1
•
i' I e-s I tet.i
gni/LA a I l I al I I IIs I l= a :,
fi.fiftifisaasaa..gait.itfifitlili.iiffi m it iiifi£itst mluafi-iiftififl.._...k afiftiltfftsi
r p Gt ill ,iiiiitiitiiitiiiiiii'iii iiiiiiii"iii i iFiiiFiiiiFiii"' Ft i lflet iiiiiifii ��I�`tl
!_,X TE m I iiaiitiiiiiifi-iii•iirt iii ";i•iiiiiv...s wtii iilvi""tiiii4ii�i44 iiiliii l?4iiiiiiiii
ri o n Q
y Z atiitiiitiittltili 'atttttti,:tat'•Vttitil ilAW.ATt4i+i•••aLiiiii••t••i4alttiitaiiitiii if'
$ .i„ ••g,.i....a"I"a. ' ''• i..-i.,i,'' 'ji 1. 'II a''a a„ ' ' I q.I, 1
i a`b o
JOLJT.
gm I
H
N t A ,
to
Filo C.
C i l•ll-
IR ii
O ��tflQ\1-1 E o00
ii
•
'a#i' is •' \< j iitzjiiiiir„00J• `o`
:___
10,14.. ...,...,,.,:4_,:, ,..,.::... 1....„... ,_.
,..,
, __1
,..,.......„.................. . ., •„, b -: :'.;
7• PC55.: ' AV i .9‘'''.i: 'ifj 4-
yr 14k0-` qy . ''
. —-.._ .... 6.1...__----A...
.„: ,:s, —
• CD t141/
:...mss ,t ••�::C 1` a, u i:PfHp!'„
::: . 3
...*i t' 7-*-I;1 Amr-AL- Netir-Nitic %minjr0"4,4 . .4 -.: ii a Ai
o ,,4v..,..,......,..,„.„,
V = - 7030
.1t3.1 ns; -_ ---10 WrraNlif railipAi. b.,ie; . . I____.' i .:-:; ll
K irl,...r.:.
� T g� -11.3: b
,4;45.i.lizit_iiiiiiii :. rj
•
o� 10 _._moi
-0nt V �o�a. �4
;51
,... ,. Ai
(
0 Z 980. ::::::.-..'-1:1---;5;:7- 73011 �;i - _to` . _i i 1 demo -- iihaii:::till,'" 740 1 \a�0
Ai
:-..::4-: ,:-.-4---,,,
-......_,..s. -. Ns.; ..,,
98 ,.__--;.....1/T7-,ijil li („4".. .::1: fel 1:Fillillb' 1 1 Or:11111117 i 1::::41111:.:\‘ ''''''. .-C2 ::: In°
"- A,7:__,:-,‘ :- --'":-.--/.1 Rp111,:wb'.• t. ! 4 _.a.
4_17 _kkill'-' -'' ‘‘...‘.
6::5-741".
066 �, �r� a{ /� ='—
I
------- ----- - --- .`, aa rt
, . r amv
I/ 0o
i O ,...
rT —1 & T -j; ..
it I- -I lit, I
11I % ISI a
(--- ,.
.• ..
VI GP IriT,
4 ,
ill_.
i' � r -i{� ;i ,R Iii=. It% I
• posss.s I o --I--�
;F> � rrt �7v 8II
01 { lyL+ , U'
c Tiff
1U ;
, o _t go WA ± T... �
c • IT ":1-1,:l''1', ,'-.=
0 • 4a /C\ it' /
444 J ;,/
� a
../ N01,,,,',. . i Q'cyff f ,,.
ill7/
- _ - •-- ,o
a40,40 0,40�` i
amob
I
6\: \ a /i------74.. /c. ,
•r":0 /4
i%
, ..n emoverAwinv-.4.-,47:44 4ipt 7.-.. i..-3 No‘ ir,' (5-- '40 .
at -1.,--I°- __0 oit:_,ZZ-2-4.., '4b-:0 4.,' . /4.p=--* /7 40
[I loss oh..0,7_,--\ 'Li a --74,0.4k ""tb. 4- 110:0 / fill pt. ip-
it A.. . -*-. NO' i t
--1., '\.-- is) 46- V,'.,4, +,./ riv
/Mr 15.- li
— 1/.)// 444i.4 7;' -ZOO:1`'''‘ _- ', k i
vie _40 aim.iWf ,..„ ,:, i
` '
� ' �
'
o
t' �
C •_ � 1 E r•s 1r ;
C
N r JV ' _ ly 11!..._. ?- ...R..,,� "'_ ,-. 1 _ �" �'- r� y.z;r -���.�s61)- . W ,. ` , 1
te. - if na ';4.r--Ytitif tk.,--Air., Ob.,. _r
el et ti ., mg %
........".....
COUNTY, -� _ . I. t, :.; h11I
_0.4D 14IP, 111
i$ :c
�‘;.R Coo
.t.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT „ „ CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
(612)361-1010 ` f 600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6
FAX(612)361-1025 �/ CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318
f N N E$C°
COUNTY OF C QV LQ
August 2, 1994
TO: Chanhassen Planning Department
FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat
Shamrock Ridge (94-3 Rezoning and 94-7 Subdivision)
Following are comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Shamrock Ridge subdivision
transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated July 5, 1994.
1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are:
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
80' 100' 110' 120'
Urban Undivided Rural Divided
4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 110' 190' 200'
County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway
in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 33 foot from centerline corridor
shown would provide for a potential 66 foot corridor. This corridor would not meet the
• needs for an urban-roadway. -
• • The city may wish to consider a wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision
if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width '
may also be needed to accommodate public 'utilities and landscaping.' ,
2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject
to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
• 3. Any proposed access construction, grading, or installation of drainage•structures within •
the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of.the county highway •
department.
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
Contains Minimum 10%Post Consumer Waste
4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-
of-way (including turn removal,trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need
to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition"
than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision
in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for
the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this
responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the
city.
5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the
County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining
an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs
overhanging into theright of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead
utility consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed
development.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official (V
DATE: July 20, 1994
SUBJ: 94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ & 94-3 WAP (Shamrock Ridge)
I was asked to review the plans for the proposed Shamrock Ridge Subdivision
stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; JUL 5, 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. "
Analysis:
Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage
floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the
Public Safety and Engineering Departments.
The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the
Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform
a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit
issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used
for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for
errors during the plan review process. I have included the 1993 memo which lists
and explains these designations.
There appears to be a number of building within the proposed subdivision which
will be demolished. Demolition permits are required before the removal of any
buildings. Proof of well abandonment and onsite sewage treatment system
abandonment is required prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
Recommendations:
1 . Revise Grading/Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top
of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done
prior to final plat approval.
2. Revise the Grading/Drainage Plan to show standard designations for
dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
3 . Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their
removal.
enclosure: 01/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo
g:\safety\sak.\memos\plan\shamrock.tgl
CITY QF
CHANEASSZN
\ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
T (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 6_
C47.k-
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might he helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
PLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
• WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
SE SEWO WO F�O
1- RLO
-tea
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
rs
�i`r• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner H
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: July 7, 1994
SUBJ: Shamrock Ridge
Planning Case #94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ, 94-3 WAP
1 have reviewed the site plan for the proposed single family dwelling concept and have the
following requirements:
1. The submitted street names are acceptable.
2. Submit revised utility plans for approval of fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant
spacing is 300 feet maximum. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details.
3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to
insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
4. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire
Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and
10.203.
g:\cafely\mr\94.7
STATE OF
1 [NI C z
. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
PHONE
772-7910
July 18, 1994
(CdT), Ur .
Mr. Bob Generous, Planner II v
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: SHAMROCK RIDGE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY (City
#94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ, 94-3 WAP)
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the site plans (received July 7, 1994) for the
above-referenced project (SW1/4 , Section 3 , T116N-R23W) and have
the following comments to offer:
1. The project site does not contain, or appear to directly
impact, any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands;
therefore, no Protected Waters DNR permit is required.
You should be aware that the project may be subject to
federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may
provide additional comments on your project through our review
of applications submitted under these other regulatory
programs.
2 . The site does not appear to be within a shoreland or
floodplain district.
3 . It appears that the stormwater is treated in non-DNR protected
wetlands. In general, we are opposed to the primary treatment
of stormwater in wetlands. Sedimentation/treatment facilities
should be used to protect the wetland from sedimentation and
water level bounces which are detrimental to the basins
wildlife values and water quality. The determination of what
is best at this particular site should be addressed by the
city and other agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands
subject to the Wetland Conservation Act.
4 . There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed
restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas.
This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen
have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot
be altered without appropriate permits.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. Bob Generous
July 18 , 1994
Page 2
5 . The following comments are general and apply to all proposed
developments:
a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken
during the construction period. The Minnesota
Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association
of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts)
guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed.
b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000
gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the
contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations
permit. You are advised that it typically takes
approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres
of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater
permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott
Thompson @ 296-7203) .
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of
Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These
comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack
thereof for a particular project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed, Ellen Sones
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
City of Chanhassen General File
•
D
on
?2
fl.,
-
£ i
'4a
a F.
\
z .,_L cB ; P ,
ii;
II 'Ilii I ---,.,....
9 iii —
y l
k:.....,ii
, , 4
ill
4.
. . „, „ „ ..._..,„„ .
: :, ,, _
„ , .. ., \, ,,_,.„.
A ‘, . \ ;
•
1, ,,,, ,, . .,„ , , .... .,
i / -,‘
,...
IIIII Po ;
Pi' !I aIF
,i il
l{ I�IIi E € E I
1l ,
F O
Q F
Q t r
Z '
S i% `1l:
a E �I li ' 1`.
La n
Z fF
E ” Pi:
t
'
X19. iii ; c 4
-Ci \ _ •
-________
> _ t.______ 0. RD. 117 I
In
IA
C
Z I < 1 +
I
D
,
t
R .
o a
F
'< = ii �-
S
P
I
f0: t
Y c _
l ' -
i
I,
1 -
***This item has been rescheduled for
Wednesday, August 17
at 7:30 p.m.***
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING _11 �► - ..��� �= -_ E
PLANNING COMMISSION v * ' ar
MEETING /' ►'yr4;„zgew
Wednesday, August 3, 1994 , ' i/ r
Jo--
at 7:30 p.m. _ ! —~ - :'EN
City Hall Council Chambers ;"�
690 Coulter Drive �� �. , fla
Project: Shamrock Ridge •=� I 17.1 acac
►•1r
Developer: Ed and Mary Ryan ; % 1
1111
to
Location: Galpin Boulevard and -
Proposed Lake Lucy Road ' w.',
Extension 1 ' I ' t^cam' L'
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing to rezone 37.92 acres of property zoned RR, Rural
Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat to subdivide 37.92 acres into
52 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit located at the intersection of Galpin
Boulevard and proposed Lake Lucy Road extension, 6730 Galpin Boulevard, Shamrock
Ridge.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about
the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During
the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will
provide copies to the Commission.
, 1
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 21, 1994.
Kathy A. Gavin John & Mariellen Waldron Breck & Marliese Johnson
1851 Lake Lucy Lane 1900 Lake Lucy Road 6621 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Steven & Wendy Lame Buresh Lynn & Susan Rothberger Martin & Karen Gustafson
6651 Galpin Blvd. 6681 Galpin Blvd. 6691 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Greenery Co./Don Mezzenga Earl Gilbert III Martin & Beth Kuder
C/O Scott Mezzenga 6901 Galpin Blvd. 6831 Galpin Blvd.
6931 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Brian Klingelhutz, D. Gestach, E. Jerome & Linda Carlson Dennis & Joan Clark
& Leland Paulson 6950 Galpin Lake Road 6651 Hazeltine Blvd.
2031 Timberwood Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Chanhassen, MN 55331
Kristen A. Struyk Sam & Nancy Mancino Peter & Mary Davis
1941 Crestview Circle 6620 Galpin Blvd. 6640 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92
ACRES INTO 52 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND
PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED
AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay
David Gestach 8001 Acorn Lane
Lee Paulson St. Bonifacius
John & Mariellen Waldron 1900 Lake Lucy Road
Martin Kuder 6831 Galpin Blvd.
Steve Buresh 6651 Galpin Blvd.
Peter & Marg Davis 6640 Galpin Lake Road
Sam & Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Questions?
Harberts: I just have a point of discussion. You know I certainly respect the amount of
time that staff and the applicant put on this. I know it takes a lot of work on the staff's time
and I respect the time that the people have taken to come here to make comments. I feel, I
guess I'm just looking at, in terms of time and good use of time, with all of those issues and
not really having a complete packet. I guess I'm a little concerned about spinning my wheels
because I don't know, I see some of these aren't maybe requirements with regards to lots.
Things like that. I don't know if that's then going to change this drastically and it's just, I
guess I just don't like spinning my wheels with other things going on with my time. But
anyway, that's just a point of discussion.
Scott: Okay. Can I just ask a question? How many residents are here for this particular
issue? Okay. Well we are scheduled to have a public hearing and we will have a public
hearing.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Aanenson: Can I make a point of clarification?
Scott: Sure.
Aanenson: We had the same issue at staff. These are three properties are very, very
complex. The reason we put it on, even though there's a lot of issues unresolved, we need to
give them some direction... We came forward with our recommendation. There was no
concurrence so we felt the best thing to do was to put it in front of the public and give them
some marching orders so they know so they're not spending their time...so we are trying to
make that, give them some clear direction on where to go with their plat so that's...
Harberts: That's a good point. Thank you Kate.
Scott: Okay, good.
Harberts: I still think I'm spinning my wheels.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions from the commissioners for staff. Would the applicant
like to make, or their representative like to make a presentation? Please state your name and
your address.
Chuck Plowman: My name is Chuck Plowman, the project engineer representing the Ryans.
Mary Ryan is here this evening if there are any questions that I am unable to answer. Ed
would have loved to be here but he was involved in an accident and he's still recuperating so
he's not able to attend the meeting at this time. Let me start with just a little bit of the
project background. Lake Lucy Road, can you just put that map up there that shows the
outlot. I'd like to see the one where Lake Lucy Road ends...specifically to give the Ryans an
opportunity to evaluate their plat. See what might be most feasible and practical
and...involved with the properties. So we've been spending the last 3 months going over
different plans and different options and looking at exactly that. So what I'd like, I gave
Dave a copy of something yesterday which is a modification for a lot of the things that we're
talking about tonight and I think if you could just bear with me, I'll shed some light on a lot
of things involved with bringing up some major issues. Let me just start with, the initial plat
was submitted, let me call it Plan A showing Lake Lucy Road up at the top. Staff told us
that this was not a good plan because of the impacts on the environment and the excessive
grade, actual grading up into the property north of us. So we came back with trying to
address those concerns. We did another plan, without much input from staff but just giving
some, they gave us some direction and we just come up with a second drawing that we
submitted to them prior to the last scheduled meeting that we were going to be on. That
showed Lake Lucy coming right down the center of that corridor. And what I liked about
25
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
this one so much was that it was the most sensitive to the environment. ...all the trees along
the north. Gave us long lots this way. Long lots this way. Stayed out of the wetlands. It
was just the most favorable as far as environmentally concerned. It gave us some nice
walkout lots here and some liveable lots here because we've got a lot of room in the back to
do some grading. This was bumped down because staff said that we don't want all of these
driveways connecting to Lake Lucy Road. So that brings us to the plan that we have before
you tonight. This is almost identical to the one in your packet but there was a couple things
done to it to address some issues...Here we're 60 feet south of the property line with the
beginning of the right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road. That enabled us to construct the road
width along...boulevard and also a 3 to 1 slope and if we do get into the trees, it's very, very
minor. And it also allows us to have two cul-de-sacs, one to the south and some very
desirable lots looking over a wetland. This is what we're really studying the entire plat for
what's economically favorable to the plat and also what's favorable to the environment. So
we've come up with this plan. We are not encroaching on the wetlands. We're not taking
out the trees. We're coming up with a favorable plan for development and we feel this is the
plan that's best. Let me just talk a little bit about this. This is with the Lake Lucy Road
going with this original alignment to the south. With the cul-de-sacs going to the north. We
end up with tuck under lots. Two for sure, possibly more. We end up with destroying
another tree...because of the elevation of the road. The slope will require some wetland...so
this one's not favorable from a development standpoint. It is definitely not favorable from
the environment standpoint. Let me just back up a little bit to the staff report. Let me just
talk about Options A, B and C. Option A I believe was the one I just showed you. Option A
was the... Okay, I really just went over that and described to you why that's not a good
choice. Option B, which is the one that we just talked about, which we like. As far as the
location of Lake Lucy Road. Option C is not at all favorable to the Ryan's because it's going
to, this number of lots are going to be getting up here plus they're ready to develop now.
They want to develop now. And initially we had hoped when we started a few months ago,
they were looking only at the alignment and wanting to get some location or connecting point
set. That has changed. They spent the money to have all this work done, and research done
and they've got a different mind set They do want to develop. They don't want to wait 2
years, 5 years, whatever. So they're here. They're here to get your approval so they can
develop. So Option C is not a good option. And I was understanding it also is not very
good for the future plans for a cul-de-sac to come down into this property through the trees
so that to me would be another reason to not go with that one. Let me just touch on some of
the issues. I know Dave's aware of some of them that I addressed. Things have been
happening so fast. I get a short notice about some things that need attention and then Dave
gets a short time to look at it so again, it's kind of works both ways. The 300 foot spacing
from Galpin Blvd to the first street. The initial thought by staff was that this was going to
have a ripple effect. It's going to change all these intersections. When in fact it didn't. This
intersection moved I figure about more like 100 feet. 110 feet or something like that. But
26
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
this one really didn't change all except for that moving over making these lots deeper and
these were excessive before so they fit the plan. What we did also with that is, instead of
having, see how the street is moving up and in fact it's going to the right. Once we switch
this street over, it was not workable doing it that way. Now we had a previous plan that
showed it coming this way so this is going back to that plan...Plan B so we kind of referred it
back to that on this plan and we think it works much better. We did lose another lot. Now
we're down to 49. We're moving in the wrong direction. So I guess the effect of the 300
feet was not a major issue, and I know that's...not only your's but mine. But that
wasn't...everything stayed the same... Along with this reconfiguration right here, the 17 foot
by the way was also added to Galpin. The wetland setbacks. There was a drafting error on a
couple lots which showed this pad down here so it was...and was obvious that it was too
close to the wetland but when in fact there is room there so that's not... The storm water
treatment ponding area was also an issue and before we turned the configuration things, we
had no choices where the inlet and outlet was going but since then we reconfigured this,
which allowed us to construct a pond in this fashion. And also discharging the storm sewer
at this end of the pond. Outlets at this end of the pond. We have plenty of volume. As you
can see it's quite large. So we do have an ideal situation with the discharge and the outlets
being offset into the pond and that's what Dave was looking for. Something in that fashion.
On the wetlands itself, can you differentiate between the green and the yellow? Okay, the
yellow is actually fill that's going into the wetland. This area is not filled because we're
actually excavating in here. But wherever fill is taking place, you have to follow rules to
mitigate for that. The green areas are mitigation areas. And those areas sum up to a little
shy of being 2 to 1. So we need to confer with Diane about what our options might be.
There's no credit given for storm water ponds according to the rules, even though we're
creating wet ponds, it doesn't apply for mitigation. The option I was looking at was...the cul-
de-sac a little bit. Reducing the fill so it is workable because I did...find where I can do that.
Lower it down and reduce the...that 2 to 1 ratio. Time is running short so this is what I came
with. I looked at the canopy coverage, because that was one of the things that they were
looking for, and I count 10%. So there was an error made by one of the fellows...came up
with, what was it?
Generous: 75.
Chuck Plowman: Yeah, so 10%. We do have the issue of these lots fronting on Lake Lucy
Road. The idea of private drives is real negative for the same reasons that were mentioned
before because who wants to live with a private drive, even if it's facing out, a private drive
between these homes is just not good. And we certainly don't want to do that. I guess what
I would like to ask is that separation would be given a common drive for 2 of them instead of
one for each because I know the city does allow access to collector roads where there's not a
good alternative. I think this is the case where there is not a good alternative. We've done
27
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
real well in keeping everything off Lake Lucy Road. I think this is a piece of property that',
no matter how you slice this up, it happens. You can't get away from it. Again I think I'm
just going to reiterate but I feel this is the best plan. This is the plan we want and we want
you to consider this for approval tonight contrary to what staff is recommending so all the
actions from here are taken into account with some items I've clarified and addressed. Not to
make it any lighter, I wanted to also mention the fact about the potential of using 50 foot
right-of-ways. Staff discussed with us...about doing that. I forget which layout we were
looking at. But the advantage to 50 foot right-of-ways, for example here. We could use the
10 feet and pull this right-of-way in. Along with that we pulled the grading slope 10 feet in.
It's a plus as far as... 60 foot right-of-ways are really something that have been used for many
years and more and more we're going to 50 because the utilities are now going in a common
trench so we don't need that room we used to have in the boulevards and the easements that
they used to have for gas, telephone and electric. They're all going in one trench so the 50
foot right-of-way's working well. We can live with the 60 but I think if it's possible, we'd
like the 50. I really had no further comments unless there's any other questions, I'd be
happy to answer them.
Scott: Good. Any questions for the applicant?
Harberts: Could you just take one more minute and just kind of resummarize why you prefer
the alignment of Lake Lucy? You know your preference as to why again.
Chuck Plowman: Sure. This location of Lake Lucy Road was pulled away from the north
property line so that we could preserve this tree line along this north property line, and I
know the Mancino's are very concerned about that and... So this location allows us to build a
road with the boulevard and...it's very tight but I'm saying we can get...in here and preserve
the boulevard and save trees. On the other side, we're not encroaching onto the wetland with
any fill. We do have a nice location here for a treatment pond and discharging runoff before
it goes into the wetland. As far as the talk of there being mass grading, I've been involved
with a few sites that are like this. There's going to be mass grading, I don't care how you
look at it. And it's not a problem. You know we need to be sensitive to the trees. The
wetlands. We can move a lot of dirt. It doesn't cost that much when it comes to developing
land. I mean it's, there's a limit obviously but this isn't a problem as far as, you know if you
move 2 feet of dirt, the tree's gone. If you move 10 feet, the tree's gone. It doesn't make
any difference.
Harberts: Thank you.
Chuck Plowman: Do you want to hear the reasons why I don't like the other one?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Harberts: No. I got those down. I just wanted to again, just make sure I clearly understood
the preference of why on that one. Thank you.
Chuck Plowman: Well obviously from a developer's standpoint, we have lots that we can
sell for a good price. If we put the cul-de-sacs up to the north, we lose lots or value.
Scott: Good, any other comments or questions? Good, thank you sir. This is a public
hearing and can I have a motion please.
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: The public hearing is now open. If you'd like to speak about this particular item,
please step forward and give us your name and your address. Don't all stand up at once.
Thank you sir.
Steve Buresh: Steve Buresh again from 6651 Galpin Blvd. One small question. Now this is
also a proposed approval of a preliminary plat drawing for the area.
Scott: Yeah. And then a rezone from RR to RSF.
Steve Buresh: Right. Well that in fact is what I had the biggest problem with. This
particular asking for, which I guess has been revised down to 50 now, single family homes,
may fit in with the residential single family but the residential single family rezone does not
fit in with this area at all. The area is large lot. The lots on Lake Lucy Highlands area are 2
1/2 acres. That is probably some of the smallest lots in the area. And I think that if we
allow it to be subdivided as it is currently, we're totally going to destroy the look of the area.
That's probably something that we want to attain at some point. I think we have to strongly
look at the people that are in the area now. What their wants and needs are but also consider
the future obviously. We can't have all this land if it's not going to be developed at some
point in time. That's just not feasible to believe that that can happen. But I guess my
recommendation is not to rezone it as residential single family but in fact keep it as rural
residential and work out some kind of agreement like we've done in the Lake Lucy Highlands
area and I guess I wouldn't see a problem with it being even 1 1/2 acres per lot. This would
fit, still fit in with the aesthetics of the area and this particular location of this proposed
development is right in the middle of the deer migration path. I know in fact because I wake
up every morning and have deer crossing my property. They go right into this area. This is
going to destroy the wildlife in the area, but I'd like to reiterate that it's just destroys the
aesthetic value of that area. So I strongly recommend that you do not rezone this as
residential single family. Thank you.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Scott: Okay. Kate, RSF. 15,000 square foot lots. This is approximately what, averages 20.
Generous: 22.
Scott: 22, okay. The reason why I brought that up is that, and this has been guided in our
comprehensive plan as a RSF area. What the applicant could have done is put in 15,000
square foot lots and would have met the minimum requirement for lot size in a residential
single family. So we feel that this is preferable. It's beyond what the minimum would be
but your comments are appreciated. I think that development is going to happen and
basically what we see, our position is that we try to get the best that we can for the city and
it's very rare and I think since, in the last 2 years that I've been involved here, I don't think
that we've put through a development that met the minimums. I don't think we really accept
the minimums. We try to encourage better but no, you're comments are well taken because
you know you're used to a certain type of lifestyle and what we're trying to do is trying to
manage the land use as best we can but they always have to be subject to the ordinances that
we deal with but thank you very much. Would anybody else like to speak at the public
hearing? Yes sir.
Peter Davis: Yes, I'm Peter Davis, 6640 Galpin Blvd. Could I ask that that map be put back
up which showed the two different properties. I wanted to speak to several items, specifically
I was encouraged to hear that there is a concern over the aesthetics and the ambience of the
area. We just recently moved into the area. We knew that this development was about to
take place. What I wanted to point out, and since some of you have started to walk the
property and is generally aware of the aesthetics and what some of the unique features are.
This gentlemen spoke of some of the migratory habits. There are a lot of ecosystems that are
really coming into play here. Not only the deer but we have snow owls and bat populations.
Pheasant runs that are taking place from across Galpin Lake Road where actually coming up
from other wildlife areas to the northeast corning through this property and out into these
wetlands and then going and spreading out back across Galpin in both directions. So what I
wanted to point out was the fact there are actually quite a number of different ecosystems,
both plant and wildlife that are going to be impacted by this development with all of the rapid
that has been taking place in Chanhassen. I think it's very important that there's some
considerations being made. We're very encouraged by the Mancino's efforts to set up some
buffer zones and we would like to recommend that you actually consider some of the other
effects of grading, as I understand it, some of the mitigation land that would enable some of
the protection for these migratory patterns that exist and cutting from the northeast to the
southwest. Secondly I wanted to recommend that from an ambience standpoint in the area,
the use of private drives. We currently share a private drive with the Mancino's that was, has
subject to a lot of easements and what not and are finding that the arrangement to be quite
workable. We want to encourage some of that kind of development because I think it adds to
30
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
the area. It promotes somewhat of a lower density which is why we actually chose to move
out to this area. And lastly I wanted to speak to the nature of the development in terms of
the overall road and density and I wanted to encourage the city to do anything it could to
accelerate any traffic work that was going to go on as was mentioned tonight to us earlier
about the light at TH 5. Since that, there is quite a bit more traffic that is already coming
into some of the developments on the south. Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Yes sir.
Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. To get back to a point we made earlier.
We know that this...potential to develop but we would like to revisit this plan for a moment
because we are going to... What I'd like to borrow these for a minute if I could. To remind
you of the configuration of our property. The lines okay start immediately south of our
property line. And there's a stand of trees along here that straddles either side of the line on
that property and there's some bluffs here. When we first became aware of the Ryan's intent
to develop, we went out and tried to understand the impact that that was going to have on us
and understand it from an access point of view and a utility point of view, from land use
point of view, and from conservation and things like that. One of the things we had to
understand first, what was going to go on next to us and what basically was the land use
intent and a lot of the first things that we found was the original design pushed Lake Lucy
Road up to the property line. That the intent was to grade basically all the way through the
tree line and on this site plan that would put that grading about here where our house is. So
that concerned us to begin with. Just a little concern. Throughout the process of seeing the
plans start to evolve here, what we've seen is a continual kind of a paradon that was drawn
originally on a flat piece of property but has ultimately translated itself into turning the land
into a flat land. They're trying to take all of the ground from here and transpose it over on
this side by grading all the way up. And I think that what we've heard is just basically to
maximize the number of lots, which is not our point to comment on other than it does tell us
about the size, the shape and configuration of that and that it no way is that compatible with
what we see going on up here. That we would like to argue against forcing any penetration
at this point because we think we can access our property through here, ultimately migrate
out through here...for a connection at this point. We are concerned on a few other things. As
their grading plan started to evolve, even their latest version which pushes the road down 60
feet, still has severe grading and as their engineer has said, we won't lose too many trees here
but as he's also said, if you grade 2 feet you lose trees anyway. So what we would like to
request is a 30 foot easement, conservation easement along here. The consequence of their
grading, any of the remaining trees on their property, which are indicated through this section
and show up on some of these plans, will all go away. They're not preserving a single tree
that I'm aware of in this section of the property so at minimum we'd like to be able to
request that this be a buffer be provided and that we be given an appropriate utility easement
31
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
for the lot to the edge of the conservation easement for future access. We also agree with
staff that in their current plan, I'm not sure if it will show it on here but what is shown as
Lot 10 is an unbuildable lot and they're trying to build some very, very steep retaining walls
and do some severe grading again on the premise that more lots equals more money and I'm
not certain that that's an acceptable premise. It's possible but I'm not sure that I believe that.
And that I think as another by product of this 60 foot piece, if you look at the grades here,
it's probably very doubtful whether they'll be able to grade out and...encroaching on the
required conservation land. Charles, is there anything that you'd like to add?
Charles Stinson: I'd like to add to if I could. I think a lot of it, Charles Stinson.
Minnetonka. I think the point being that we're real concerned about anything that happens
across there, just as we're, I thought your comments on the last project were just very good
as far as taking the time to identify really what's happening here because I think just having
hiked this site and I think the same thing across there and I'd suggest that maybe if
everybody could, it'd be really helpful because I think you can really see how the lay of the
land is and what's going on and how both access. How important it is for the access points
here without disturbing the change of topography here as well as down here. That if you
brought the utility lines, the utilities up here and here to the tree zone, we could have access
here. But leaving everything unmolested so to speak, especially the road coming up. One
thought I had and this isn't I talked to the Mancino's and I'm not having these comments
representing them. They're just my own as a citizen but could you put that back up on the
screen. Just a thought I had is that I believe there's always a winning solution for everybody,
including the land owners and all the neighbors but it always takes a long time to get there. I
think Sam had a great quote from Mark Twain that was, if I had more time I would have
written a shorter letter, and I think it really applies to development. The longer you think
about it, you can always find a simpler way of doing it than makes everybody happy. But I
think one of the thoughts is, I think one nice thing about having a road at this point was the
fact that, and I liked the other idea about the road coming up here instead of right here. I
guess I'll do one thing at a time. I think the engineer's idea of coming up here I think was a
good idea. Cul-de-sac this so you don't have a road here and I was just wondering if you
could do the same thing with that one. Cul-de-sac from here so you don't have anything so
close to the intersection there, just as far as safety to that corner and you're just having the
streets, two openings here. But the thought over here, the nice thing about having a little, and
just for the citizens driving by as you're looking across the wetland and you're not doing
anything to it and it's kind of a pleasant drive in the midst of a lot of development. The
ideal thing for here would be perhaps some private drives or do some as private drives going
up here. But the other thought is, I just whispered to the Mancino's to see if they'd be
interested but you know there's a value that you put on on this piece of property that you're
going to get from developing and selling it and if you back out the cost of what it costs for
the roads and utilities, maybe there's a land value that the Mancino's would just buy from
32
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
you and then you wouldn't have to worry about developing it. I know you still have the
pheasants running around and the deer and everybody'd be happy but I don't know if there's
any, if that's possible to discuss about that but it just seems like there's a lot of development
happening in a small area and that's it.
Sam Mancino: One other thing that I'd like to add. Throughout this process I've appreciated
the difficulty that staff has gone through in trying to put all these pieces together. They've
worked awfully hard at it. They have made an alternative suggestion about C, about exactly
a variation on their point which is as much as this area relates to development from that site,
given sequencing, yes. This area up here does actually relate more to development but
there's a definite sequencing issue. We have had very little time since the report came out to
think about how C would work. I know this was a sketch but when I actually put the pen
and the ruler on it, we found that our house was actually right here and so we, before we
comment on that we'd like to have a little time to understand the engineering implications of
that kind of a plan. So we'd like to reserve comment on that at this particular time, if that
would be okay.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Okay,
seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please.
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: Okay, where do I start? Mr. Buresh made some comments as it relates to the
zoning and the zone change and I think you made some good points as it related to that but
the other thing that I, another important factor we look at when dealing with zone changes
and looking at the comprehensive plan for how this is developed in the ultimate relates to
how is this going to fit in with the other parcels and as I look at this parcel, the Shamrock
Ridge, you look at County Road, or Galpin here and in the future that area, or that road will
be a 4 lane road. So you have that as somewhat of a buffer between the other land use to the
east. And then also I think the developer has done a reasonably good job of orienting the ,
ponds, etc to provide some open space beyond that to the west before you actually get into
the development area with the lots that are indicated. And even the lots along that side are
fairly large size lots in comparison. They're above the average in size. So we understand the
residents concerns as they relate to transition with density and I think we're trying to do as
good a job as we can as it relates to the ultimate development for this area. So we try to
work that into account. Looking at the staff report and walking the area and kind of getting
a feel for the relationship of this parcel with the other two parcels. This is, they're definitely
33
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
all together and really you have to look at how it's going to work. I think the staff is pretty
close in terms of their ideas on this. I would choose, or I feel that the Lake Lucy Road
alignment as originally proposed by the city along the southern portion of the parcel, is the
best alignment. The other major point that staff makes relates to the western 1/3 of the
property. That essentially that arm west of the wetland area there. That appears to be
premature in terms of the development of this area at this time and I would support that area
being platted as an outlot at this time. I mentioned it with the other plat. I look at this
extremely steep hill and it's, the views to the south over the wetland are really actually breath
taking. It's a very beautiful area. I can, from my perspective, if I could see this whole area
being graded flat and I don't know, I just can't see what would be gained by that process. So
I think the road probably has the least impact on the area in it's proposed alignment. I did
have one question for you Bob. As it relates to the tree stand on that western portion. I look
at the tree inventory. I think it's, let's see. Something like 621. Is there 648? Somewhere
in there. There's quite a few reasonably sized trees. Do you know if those trees will be
saved with the alignment? The proposed alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The city's
alignment. I know, I don't want to put you on the spot but I.
Generous: No, I haven't really...
Ledvina: Right, right. Well whatever. I think the possibilities of those trees being saved
increase. I don't know for a fact but I think the possibilities increase there so, and that's
something that I'd like to see looked at. I had a question about trails and that recreational
opportunities. We have a trail proposed along Lake Lucy. Lake Lucy Drive. Is that on the
south side or?
Generous: North side.
Ledvina: North side, okay. Are we proposing any trail or easement along the west side of
the wetland area which you've identified as Outlot A? I know in the past we've done a lot of
trails around wetlands and I'm just wondering, this is a pretty large wetland and I don't know
if there's a good chance or an opportunity to have a trail around there and how that would fit
into our trail needs.
Generous: I don't believe the Parks Department has looked at that. That's actually on the
Carlson property so that hasn't been proposed with the development. This wetland continues
over to the west.
Ledvina: Right. Well, continues to the south where Outlot A is, yeah. Just a thought. I
don't know if you would take a look at how that fits into the overall scheme because I know
in the parcels further to the south towards TH 5, we've got trails that are along our wetlands
34
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
there and those are nice amenities and if we could do something like that here, at least get an
easement there, that might make some sense. Let's see. I guess I'm not going to look at a
lot of the details but I would support the staff recommendation of generally I think they've
done a good job of evaluating this and I think that this thing, this plat would need some work
before it could really be considered tying into the overall development of this area.
Scott: What kind of direction would you give?
Ledvina: Well, I would give I think, just as I mentioned, I would prefer the feasibility study
alignment. I would prefer that the western 1/3 of the parcel be platted as an outlot. And that
area, that very steep slope area be developed somehow. I know Mr. Mancino mentioned that
the street goes right through his house. Obviously we don't want that but maybe there's
another alignment to the west that might work there. I definitely think that area should be
served via access from the north. And as I look at it, maybe there's a possibility of serving it
from the east somehow but by private drive as Mr. Stinson has mentioned. So I think those
are the most important things. I generally see a lot of grading that I don't think is necessary
but it's not as critical in the eastern portion of the property as it is on the western portion of
the property so maybe some, a little more sensitivity can be used in the grading processes if
this is redeveloped.
Scott: Good, Ladd.
Conrad: I ask a question of Dave. Is it real clear to you that Lake Lucy Road shouldn't be
shifted to the north? Is there any solution?
Hempel: I believe the City Council's already made that determination with the approval of...
on June 13, 1994. They approved the feasibility study and authorized preparation of
construction plans and specifications for Phase 1 which is only up to that intersection of the
Brenden Pond but the intent is to continue with future phases on the southern realignment.
Conrad: It sure seems like that portion on the western part of this plat relates more to the
Mancino development than to this one. I support the staff recommendations. I think the
developer should, has to work. There's obviously a difference of opinion and I think staff
brought up some, a lot of good points. I think they have to be ironed out before it comes
back.
Scott: Good, Ron.
Nutting: I also support staff recommendation. The applicant has attempted to address some
of the issues tonight. I need to see staff's response to those items before responding to them.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
I can't act in a vacuum and so I would support tabling this application and addressing it. It
also, when you've got a key issue with just the southerly versus the northerly route of the
road and it seems to, it appears from what was said here tonight that the southerly route is
somewhat cast in.
Aanenson: I don't want to differ with Dave but the Council did, they did leave an option on
the Gestach-Paulson piece. That Outlot A that showed a portion over to the south so in
deference to what the Ryan's are trying to do. There was some flexibility. We know it has
to touch down on a certain point on Galpin Boulevard. There were two proposals shown. A
northerly and southerly one in the original, in the original Lake Lucy alignment. A northerly
and southerly alignment and they gave feasibility for the supplementary phase, they left the
option out whether it goes to the north or to the south so I think their response that they were
trying to decide what works best for them and they pushed it to the north. That's what they
originally came in with. And we said it just didn't work because they're grading into the
Mancino's property... Then we started moving up and down the property trying to figure out
where it works best. And going back to what Matt said, you can see the dilemma we were
in. Throwing out property lines. You just look at, how should this property best be served.
That's what we came up with and that's, the problem is that the property lines don't follow
the natural topography and as Mr. Plowman indicated, once you...2 feet, what's the difference.
Well that's the problem. There are some unique natural features there that we're trying our
best to try to maintain. And it's not a flat, square piece of property that you can lot out
15,000 square foot lots. It's got some unique features but they will respond to the option of,
there are two options showed in the...study for Lake Lucy. One to the north and one south so
that's what they were responding to and I just want to make sure that that was clear. And
that's what we were asking your direction to give to them. Do you want to go to the north or
to the south and our preference was, to keep it south. That's what...keep it towards the
middle.
Nutting: The impact if it was to the north on the previous applicant's proposal, just looking
back at that. Do you have any drawings? If the road was to the north.
Hempel: I'm sorry, which development?
Aanenson: The Ryan's?
Scott: Gestach?
Nutting: No.
Scott: Gestach-Paulson?
36
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Nutting: Paulson.
Aanenson: Yes.
Generous: You'd have lots on the south side of the Lake Lucy Road and on the north side of
Lake Lucy Road.
Aanenson: Street front facing lots.
Nutting: Okay. So you'd have the issue of private drive.
Aanenson: Front facing lots on a collector street, yeah. Right.
Nutting: I guess I would concur with staff's recommendation and Matt's observations as well
in terms of the southerly route so I don't have any other comments.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table Case #94-7 SUB, is that right?
Scott: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. The Shamrock Ridge subdivision plan.
Scott: Do we need to table 94-3 and then the rezoning and the wetland alteration permit?
Okay, why don't you add that.
Ledvina: And I would add those under the items as well.
Scott: Good. Can I have a second?
Conrad: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the issue. Or all three of them. Is there
any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on
Subdivision #94-7, Rezoning #94-3 and Wetland Alteration Permit #94-3. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994
Scott: Okay, thank you all for coming.
38
CHARLES W. PLO WE, CONSULTING ENGINEER
9780 LEXINGTON AVE. N.E. CIRCLE PINES, MN 55014
(612) 785-1043 FAX 786-6007
August 26, 1994
Bob Generous, Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: SHAMROCK RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT-single family residential
Dear Mr. Generous,
Enclosed are copies of the revised preliminary plat drawings for your review.
As we have discussed the alignment of Lake Lucy Road at the west end of
Shamrock Ridge has not been changed from the northerly locations as shown on
the previously submitted preliminary plat.
The southerly alignment (option 1 of the feasibility report dated May 25,
1994) does not allow development of the westerly portion of Shamrock Ridge in
a practical manner. To develop culdesac lots off of Lake Lucy Road with the
southerly alignment would result in significant loss of trees along the north
property line, require retaining wall construction and provide tuck under type
lots of lower value than walkout lots overlooking the treed wetland area.
In addition, some wetland fill would occur to construct Lake Lucy Road along
the wetland.
We feel the northerly alignment (option 2 of the feasibility report) , as
modified to sixty feet south of the north property line, is the location
needed to provide a more feasible lot layout and reduces environmental impacts
by preserving trees and avoiding wetland fill.
We have made revisions and additions to the attached preliminary plans to
address the items in your staff report.
Please call me with any questions or comments regarding the above.
Sincere y,
X)14,/t0
Charles W. Plowe, P.E.
CWP/zs
enc.
cc: Ed & Mary Ryan
CITY OF
rCHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer '73244._
DATE: August 31, 1994
SUBJ: Updated Preliminary Plat Review for Shamrock Ridge
File No. 94-18 Land Use Review
Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings stamped "August 8, 1994", revised August 25,
1994 and prepared by Charles W. Plowe Consulting Engineer, we offer the following comments:
WETLANDS
According to the wetland delineation performed by Arlig Environmental,Inc. three wetlands have
been identified on-site and they are described as follows:
Basin 1 is the large wetland located on the western boundary of the site. The wetland extends
off-site to the west; approximately 4.7 acres of wetland is on-site. The wetland is classified as
a natural wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance.
Basin 2 is located along the eastern edge of the property. The wetland is approximately 0.8 acre
in size. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland Ordinance. It appears
that this basin will be eliminated and converted into a stormwater treatment pond as a result of
the proposed development and the extension of Lake Lucy Road. As a result,the area filled will
require mitigation. The Army Corps of Engineers will require mitigation for fill and excavation
at a ratio of 1:1. However, in accordance to state and local regulations, a ratio of 2:1 is required.
Basin 3 is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the
south; approximately 0.4 acre of wetland is on-site. This wetland is part of a wetland complex
and it drains south into Basin 1. The wetland is classified as ag/urban under the City's Wetland
Ordinance.
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 2
Regulations
A replacement plan will be required as part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and
Wetland City Ordinance (CWO) requirements. The City administers the WCA. In addition to
the replacement plan requirements, staff would like the following information as part of the
wetland delineation report: a map with the locations of the wetland data points, at least one data
sheet for each wetland identifying upland, and a map of the soils. The Army Corps of Engineers
will also require a permit application for the alteration of wetlands. They should be contacted
for their requirements.
The WCA and the CWO require a wetland replacement ratio of 2:1 for wetlands filled. The
wetland replacement plan should be designed to meet the existing functions and values that have
been removed as a result of filling in other wetlands. It is possible to replace the wetlands at a
ratio of 1:1 in upland and a ratio of 1:1 as wetland restoration. The City is going to start a
wetland bank in the near future by restoring wetlands that have been drained. It may be possible
to purchase banking points as part of the mitigation for this site. Staff thinks that wetland
replacement should occur in the large wetland to the west rather than creating a small wetland
adjacent to a large stormwater pond.
The WCA was written to replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or
prudent. Alternatives for avoiding wetland impacts should be considered as part of the wetland
alteration permit process.
In addition, to the requirements of the WCA, the CWO requires a buffer strip and buffer strip
monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10
to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an
ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal
structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The proposed
grading plan will have to show the buffer strip and the appropriate house setbacks.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP1
The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will
serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the
stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow
future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In
general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding
and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan
uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow
water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on
projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development
were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
•
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 3
In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the
applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post developed drainage areas
along with runoff calculations for pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Storm water
runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm
duration. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker
Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2.5-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and
calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. The grading plan
shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for
both pre-developed and post-developed conditions.
Water Quality
The SWMP has established a user fee an rate for water quality systems. The cash
dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the
phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction
shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per
cubic yard for excavation of the pond. If the applicant ' constructs the water quality
basins, these fees will be waived and credit given for any oveisizing.
Water Quantity
The SWMP has established a user fee an-assessment-Fate for different land uses based on an
average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all
proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for
temporary runoff storage. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate of
$1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity as-
sessment fee of$63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. The City will apply credits to
the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with
the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding,
etc. The exact fees will be determined after final review and approval of the construction plans
and specifications and Lake Lucy Road assessment methodology if applicable.
DRA!NAGE
The development is located within the Lake Lucy Watershed. The SWMP should be reviewed
by the applicant's engineer and the site designed in accordance with the SWMP design to the
extent feasibly possible. All runoff shall be pretreated before discharge to any of the existing
wetlands. Similar to Brenden Pond, Lake Lucy Road will intersect this parcel. The applicant's
plans have included a segment of Lake Lucy Road; however, it does not correspond to the City's
feasibility study. The Lake Lucy Road alignment is shifted northerly to facilitate two cul-de-sacs
on the south side of Lake Lucy Road adjacent to wetlands. A storm water retention pond to
pretreat runoff from the cul-de-sacs and part of Lake Lucy Road is proposed adjacent to the
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 4
wetland. Another storm water treatment pond is proposed adjacent to Galpin Boulevard lying
both north and south of Lake Lucy Road. Staff has recommended to the applicant's engineer to
delete the southerly pond and extend storm sewer to the existing culvert underneath Galpin
Boulevard. -- . .. . ... - - •- - .. . . . - . . _ _ .. - . ..
solids to settle out.
Depending on the applicant's timing, they may petition the City, similar to the Brenden Ponds
developer, for the construction of Lake Lucy Road through the parcel. This would be a 429
public improvement project whereby the drainage, utility and street improvements would be
partially assessed back to the benefitting property owners. This alignment is also a State-Aid
route where State-Aid funding may play a role to assist in the funding on the project.
Unfortunately, state aid funds have been encumbered for the next three years. Another option
would be for the applicant to construct the entire segment of Lake Lucy Road and be given credit
for oversizing any utility lines and credit for the trail system along Lake Lucy Road. According
to the City's SWMP, three storm water pretreatment ponds (Walker ponds) are proposed on the
site. One is located just east of Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and
Galpin Boulevard. Another one is The other two are located just northerly of the wetland areas.
The applicant has proposed constructing two of the three ponding areas. The SWMP also
proposes a third water quality basin at the end of the ravine in the southwest corner of this
development and extends westerly into Brenden Pond. It may be feasible to consider combining
the proposed pond between Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay with the proposed SWMP pond in
the southwest corner and Brenden Pond. This area then could be utilized as a mitigation area.
The applicant may be given credit for the oversizing of the storm water treatment ponds and any
trunk storm sewer facilities they install in conjunction with the overall development. This will
be further reviewed upon the final plat and construction plan and specification review process.
Staff encourages the applicant's engineer to review the City's SWMP plan for appropriate sizing
of the ponding areas and trunk storm sewers. The storm ponds should be designed with access
in mind. A 4:1 side slope is required along/over the storm pipe which discharges into the pond.
The pond should be designed and constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL)
for the first one foot (depth) of water and the remaining at 3:1. Another alternative would be to
design the pond with 4:1 slopes overall.
GRADING
The site contains very steep slopes in the northwesterly portion of the site as well as a small
ravine area. The slopes along the northerly portion are in the range of 20% to 30%. With these
types of slopes it is very difficult to prepare a site for streets and house pads without significant
grading. Staff has reviewed the plan and has prepared a few options with what we believe would
be a more feasible approach to developing the steeper part of the site (westerly 1/3). We believe
if the parcel to the north (Mancino) was to develop prior to this development we would require
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 5
that a street be extended to the northerly line of this plat for a future cul-de-sac to extend lots
off of this high ridge. This would make use of the existing topographic features of the property
without substantially altering the grades. This would also allow for Lake Lucy Road to be
extended along the southerly portion of the site to maintain a sufficient buffer and setback below
the proposed homes along the northerly portion of the development. It would also allow for
sufficient wetland mitigation and storm water treatment ponds adjacent to the wetland. One of
the drawbacks with regards to this approach would be the lack of benefit that this development
would receive from Lake Lucy Road. It is the City's intent to partially assess the benefitting
properties for the construction of Lake Lucy Road; however, in this segment where no direct
benefit is received the City would have difficulty assessing a portion of Lake Lucy Road.
However, the City may lees have alternative financing methods such as State Aid to assist in
developing the roadway system. Unfortunately, these funds are encumbered for the next three
years.
The grading plan as proposed with the Lake Lucy roadway alignment to the north has very steep
backslopes (2.5:1) adjacent to the curb which arc not acceptable. The City's typical street section
requires a boulevard area and then 3:1 slopes. In addition, this alignment will not match with
the development to the west (Brenden Pond). Staff has been working with the applicant's
engineer in realigning Lake Lucy Road to match to the west and provide appropriate boulevards
and backslopes. This appears achievable by slightly curving Lake Lucy Road southwesterly and
shifting the street south by approximately 20 feet. The southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road
is still preferred by staff. • - . .. . • - - _. . . : .. •.. -• . . - • . - . ..
This will not allow for The proposed 8-foot wide bike trail along the north side of the road may
be realigned to assist in improving the side slopes as well. The use of retaining walls may also
be employed to lessen the grading impacts; however, if this is done as a part of the City project
it will increase costs significantly for the construction of these retaining walls and limit future
street widening if so desired. The applicant is also proposing three lots to access off of Lake
Lucy Road immediately across from Mary Bay Court. Staff believes that Lot 14 1-0 is an
unbuildable lot due to the steepness of the grades and proximity of Lake Lucy Road. Lots 12
g and 13 4 may be serviced off a private driveway off of James Court which would modify the
house design from a tuck-under which is not desirable to a walkout which is more valuable.
Staff is also recommending extending a street stub north towards the Mancino's from James
Court The street could terminate at a point short of the tree line which would provide access
to the last lot (9) and future extension to Mancino's if desired.
The applicant is proposing water quality ponds adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. Galpin Boulevard
is classified as a local collector street and will need additional right-of-way dedicated with this
plat. According to Carver County, a minimum corridor of 100 feet should be reserved for future
upgrading to a four-lane street. Therefore, it is necessary for The applicant is to dedicating an
additional 17 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard to fulfill the County's requirement.
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 6
design and therefore should recommend tabling to see the ramifications from these major
changes.
The backyard drainage from Lots 19 through 30, Block 1 will be directed to a wetland located
in the southeast corner of the site. Staff recommends that an interim sediment pond be
constructed prior to runoff entering the wetland. The sediment pond may be removed once the
lots are revegetated.
Staff is concerned about the grading behind Lots 4 through 8, Block 2. The proposed grade
directs runoff extremely close to the house pad on Lot 4, Block 2. Staff has recommended to
the applicant's engineer that this needs to be revised to promote a rearyard to front yard drainage
pattern.
The City requires a streetscape plan for lots abutting the collector type streets. Therefore,
berming and landscaping will be required along Coun ' :.: . . _. _. • : .•.
berming should be outside the City and County right of way areas.
UTILITIES
As part of the City's Lake Lucy Road extension, the utilities will be brought to the intersection
of proposed Pond View Court and Lake Lucy Road approximately 400 feet west of this
development. Utilities are proposed to be extended along Lake Lucy Road. However, since there
will be a gap between the plats, it will be necessary for the City and/or developer to extend Lake
Lucy Road to service this development. Without that project, this development is premature.
! -- . . . . . .• . - • - . .. .. . - . . ' ' - • -
•- • .. - • . ': • . . • - .. •• •- . Staff has reviewed the access
and utility service needs to the Mancino parcel and believes it is prudent, at this time, to require
extension of utilities and street access north along James Court (through Lot 9, Block 2) to
potentially serve a portion of Mancino's.
The existing home on Lot 14 3-2, Block 3 (Ryan's) is currently on a septic and well system. The
house should be connected to the new sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes
operational. The well may be utilized as long as it is on the same lot and functioning properly.
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 7
Once the well fails or the property owner sells, the property shall be required to connect to city
water per city ordinance.
EROSION CONTROL
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be
required around all the-natural wetlands being preserved. The steep slopes may also require some
form of terraced erosion control fencing. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the
applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process.
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Another
access will also be extended from the west if the City continues with the extension of Lake Lucy
Road. Lake Lucy Road may be built under the City's improvement project program if so
petitioned by the applicant and authorized by the City Council. Lake Lucy Road is considered
a collector street based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Use Plan. It is also part of the City's
Municipal State-Aid Route. According to the City's subdivision ordinance,direct driveway access
onto a collector street should be restricted or controlled whenever feasible. Staff believes that
Lot 14 44, Block 2 located north of Lake Lucy Road, is not a buildable lot; however, Lots 12
8 and 13 9, Block 2 should have a driveway access from James Court which would eliminate any
driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff believes this is a feasible alternative to having
direct access on to Lake Lucy Road and should be required as a Condition of Approval.
The alignment of Lake Lucy Road west of this development has not been finalized. The City
has prepared a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41
to Galpin Boulevard. There are two other parcels of land that are directly impacted by the future
alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The first parcel is located just west of this development and
proceeding ahead with a preliminary plat (Gestach parcel - Brenden Ponds). The other parcel
(Mancino) is located to the north of this development. Staff has reviewed with the property
owners several options for access to the Mancino parcel from the Brenden Pond development and
this development. Brenden Pond will be providing the Mancino parcel access to the westerly
portion via private driveway. Staff has also met with the Ryans to discuss two potential
alignments for Lake Lucy Road which impact this development. There is no clear-cut alignment
of Lake Lucy Road that satisfies all of the property owners in this situation. The preliminary plat
of Shamrock Ridge has utilized a northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through their parcel.
Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat and finds numerous problems from a design standpoint
which will have to be resolved,which may or may not thus-potentially reduce the number of lots.
The applicant's engineer will be supplying staff with a revised plat that addresses most of these
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 8
problems. Staff has also reviewed the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road through this parcel
which leaves the westerly portion of the site very difficult to develop due to very steep slopes.
However, this alignment works well with the existing terrain and minimizes impacts to the
wetlands. The resulting impact from the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road requires short,
steep cul-de-sacs as well as tuck-under type homes to the north of Lake Lucy Road unless access
is from the north (Mancinos). Staff • _ . . _• - - • -- . • _ _ -- . .
- ,- . -. - - - -- .. - . 6: :, .. :. : • •. . still believes that the
southerly alignment is the preferred alignment for Lake Lucy Road. The proposed plan at this
time still needs some minor alignment changes in order to achieve 3:1 backslopes along Lake
Lucy Road and match the touchdown point on Brenden Pond (Gestach Paulson). The applicant's
engineer and City staff believe this can be accomplished if the northerly alignment is acceptable
to the Planning Commission and City Council.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 80-foot wide right-of-way for the construction of Lake
Lucy Road through the development. The plans also propose a 60-foot wide right-of-way on all
the streets except for Mary Bay and Gwendolen Court, and construction of the City's standard
roadway section for the interior streets. The right-of-way for Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay
shall be widened to 60 feet vs. 50 feet unless the applicant can demonstrate some benefits to the
City. Street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which is the City's maximum grade allowed.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as part
of the final plat submittal. Should Access to the Mancino parcel shall be provided by extending
Jennifer Way to the north _ : • . • • • -- - - - : of James Court through Lot 9, Block
2, then the road right of way shall be dedicated with the final plat and conditions stipulated in
the development contract that this street may be extended in the future. Staff also recommends
that if the road is extended to the north for future extension, the street north/south portion of
James Court name should be changed to Jennifer Way. • _- . . . - • - • . - •stre
et t,, M.
•
•
. - - . . .. .. .. . . - • • - .. 2 . .
interior access versus access from Lake Lucy Road. One access would be through the southerly
• - - . .. . .. . • - ... . . --
and filling of a portion of the ravine and has single loaded lots in the Mancino's parcel. The
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 9
Option Cons
The Lake Lucy Road alignment is not conducive with the Ryan's proposed plat. This option
of the ridge.
This alignment is conducive to the Ryan's preliminary plat although the Ryan's preliminary plat
measures and storm ponding issues.
0064m-8—Cons
This roadway alignment does not follow the City's feasibility study. This alignment will push
Lake Lucy Road further north resulting in steep slopes along the north side of Lake Lucy Road
and mass grading which will significantly alter the existing terrain. This option will also limit
-- '
O .
via James Court from the Ryan's plat.
This alignment follows the City's feasibility study. This alignment will also maintain the existing
flexibility to the Mancino parcel
This option would delay development of the westerly portion of the Ryan's plat until access is
Conclusion
Staff has reviewed this plat submittal and still believes that the southerly alignment (Lake Lucy
Road) should be followed. However, as a compromise, staff would be open to a northerly Lake
Lucy Road alignment if the applicant can provide for 3:1 side slopes outside the right-of-way and
revise Lake Lucy Road to match with the intersection proposed in Brenden Pond. In addition,
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 10
the plat should be revised to extend Jennifer Way to the north through Lot 9, Block 2 to provide
access to the Mancino parcel. - - . .. .. . . . . e . . . . • - . - ••-
This leaves development flexibility to the Mancino parcel and still allows both parcels (Brenden
Pond and Ryan) to develop. Staff believes it is an appropriate way to develop the westerly one-
third of the Ryan development by accessing from Mancinos. Due to steep grades, we believe that
this site should be accessed from the north to retain its topographic features. If the Mancino
parcel was the first to be developed, we would recommend that the Mancinos provide a street
access to the south for development of this area due to the steep grades. Similarly, staff has
required the Ryans to provide access to the Carlson parcel (south of Jennifer Way) due to the
isolated parcel of land (surrounded by wetland). We feel that it is in the best interest of the City
and property owners to make a development proposal which utilizes the existing topography. la
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. , • e _ • •' • e. T_
1. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-
developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. Normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch
basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be
based on Walker's Pondnet model.
2. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee
of $63,360 assuming 32 acres of developable land. Water quantity and quality fees may
or may not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project
assessment methodology.assessments will be waived if the applicant constructs an on site
Walker pretreatment basin. These fees will be negotiated based on the developers
contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality
are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any
modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat.
3. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during
construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer.
4. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned
in accordance with City and/or State codes. The existing house on Lot 14, Block 3 shall
be connected to the new sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 11
available. The well may be utilized as long as the well is on the lot and functional.
Once the well fails or the property is sold the property owner shall connect to city water.
5. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The
minimum easement width should be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the ponding areas
shall be provided. Slopes shall not exceed 4:1 over the easement areas.
6. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public
improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval.
7. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal
approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration.
8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed
District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies
and comply with their conditions of approval.
9. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All
erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
10. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
11. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and
will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be shown on the
grading plan.
12. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans,
wetland delineation report, a map with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for
each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the soils.
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 12
13. The existing home shall change its address to be compatible with the City's addressing
system once the street has been constructed adjacent the house.
14. The grading plan shall be revised as follows: to 1) provide for 2% boulevards and 3:1
side slopes adjacent to all streets in accordance to the City's typical street standards; 2)
berming shall be prohibited from all street right-of-ways; 3) the proposed pond between
Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be combined/relocated to the west of Gwendolen
Court; 4) grading in the rearyards of Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 shall be revised to drain
rear to front; 5) an interim sediment pond shall be provided on Lot 12, Block 3 until Lots
1 through 12, Block 3 are fully revegetated; 6) storm ponds shall be designed and
constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL) for the fust one foot
(depth) of water and then 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 slopes overall.
15. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet State-Aid standards. Thhe
- - . . !! -- . .. . _ • • _. - _. • .. _
accordance to City design standards.
16. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon utilities being extended from
Brenden Pond unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for review and
approval.
17. Lake Lucy Road shall be realigned southerly to be compatible with the intersection
proposed in Brenden Pond (Lake Lucy Road and Pondview Court).
18. Right-of-way for Gwendolen Court and Mary Bay shall be increased to 60 feet.
19. The applicant shall provide potential street access and utility service to the Mancino
parcel by extending Jennifer Way north of Lake Lucy Road through Lot 9, Block 2.
20. Direct driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road shall be prohibited. A private driveway
shall be required to access Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 2 in accordance to the City's
private driveway ordinance.
ktm/j ms
Attachments: 1 Option A.
2. Option B.
3. Option C.
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g•eng,diane planning,shamrock.pc!
I
°"'Xg)70 ? - ......4..\
WI
=YA ,i�3
a.a)o� G D 0 n p lid
z p Z p _51,0
• 0
9 a 1 ��
i.m IP A
am n A
std 8 V ¢¢At
` 1 p`
R 0 N.% CO an 3q,
.; I "..--VI
¢Fpe i :/ :
= L
7
••S,Of CI YY,.- •C s.,•O YC 3,W.HJ
EAn.r N___ - , s ,Ar r„
_ _
, .., , /
, , ,s,„ 1 i .,, 0/1 _e
- , I- 7 ‘! j .; i ' i 1
ter:P/9 , 1 / - , ) I ,
r
II
to
i` _ _.
f , i
• I 1 P i,:.
-, 3
,......., , .
,:-.....---i_211060.1-.....0.'r - _.... ....„ ...„.., iiP - ,1 s 4 •Z.'$''' ID r
-0 .t„ ,...,1 - 3G--9 _.1.01111.6. t_. , . - --4.‘' , ..,
All
- , 4-4.--,... '. 1,,,,_ --"zor ''. .,..,; a,-- 4.,,P,': to i ilm ... ..... (i)
; 1.r6 4yra_��`. 'L; ' ` •1 • '' pP -....;41.4-4,...91/ -11
• 1147 --_ -r`� 3 c ; �_ a I!1'I - --- IC
atj
itt
_ ..
, .... „
11 A
LTA .
, ,.... 0 _.
ri I ---- -)-4' Ain;9
E, atal ii ili
. 2 ,.. '3 .• _ s„,,....,V,t,', i '--- - II ,,,
.r Mail 3,./.14 E.. • : t-
- S
._,_ - _ Wk_:.--7_,_ _1%7:. ...... .......t. , ,;..::_ : -
1:11 -: "' 14:: i cz., •- Ul"'°.--
, . 011
01 ,I .....1.‘ `48. _--,-,,6-:- -1 7,-,T,-. 7-1,4 4,-E,2:1 ‘ 1 I Ilki‘---.‘. 41- 1 : ".4.:.- ' la-
^ B` - Sw__it y. �' / - ' ' - . y (
+- -__ - _ , .a E
— ` ..., - -� liti
066
Z -- ---- — saocciet
•m. S 221111C
..
;
1
•:1
i—7
i i 11. f- -i Its II
I_i, ' �
\ • t
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino and Ron
Nutting
MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts and Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Bob
Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
(Nancy Mancino removed herself from the Planning Commission for the first two items on
the agenda due to conflict of interest.)
REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92
ACRES INTO 50 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND
PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED
AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE.
Public Present:
Name Address
David Struyk 1941 Crestview Circle
David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd.
Martin Gustafson 6691 Galpin Blvd.
Lynn Rothberger 6681 Galpin Blvd.
Chuck Plowe 2725 94th Avenue No, Brooklyn Park
Frank Kelly 351 2nd Street, Excelsior
Sam & Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd.
Charles R. Stinson Architect, Minnetonka
Clarke Nickolson 2051 Crestview Drive '
Eric M. Rivkin 1695 Steller Court
Mark Williams 1655 Lake Lucy Road
Peter A. Davis 6640 Galpin Blvd.
Debbi & Neal Wunderlick 7011 Galpin Blvd.
Jerome Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Scott: Questions for staff.
Ledvina: Bob, what led you to change your opinion as it related to the Lake Lucy alignment?
What now makes this an acceptable proposal in terms of the alignment?
Generous: It's the best we can get. Since they're not willing to go along with, the preferred
development pattern would be to outlot that property but you cannot force them to do that
provided they provide us with a feasible alternative. This way they at least leave in some of
the topography whereas if they go in and have the southern alignment, they're going to...so
they can put their housing pads in and then we'll either have large retaining walls on that side
or a steep slope there.
Aanenson: If I could just expand upon that. The intent was always to preserve the natural
topography as much as possible and our first choice would be to...property to the north. ...so
this way we felt, at least we're getting preservation of that area by swinging the road to the
south. Whatever you need to maintain the 3:1 slopes, that would give you the preservation
area along the northern boundary...So if they would be willing to wait until that did change,
that would be the best way to do that but we can't force the issue.
Generous: And we couldn't persuade them.
Ledvina: Okay, thank you.
Scott: I'm just taking a look at some of the preliminary grading plan and my big concern is
we just had sent on a bluff protection ordinance and from visiting the site and from viewing
this, it appears to me that there are some steep grades that fall within our bluff ordinance here
and that's, I didn't go out and measure them but I'm going to need somebody to tell me that
they have been measured and they don't, the bluff ordinance does not apply to the northerly
section of this property.
Generous: I did a cursory review. I did not measure all of it and at least the places where
I...it didn't meet the...It has the elevation change but not the slopes.
Scott: Okay. Questions? Comments? Would the applicant or their representative wish to
make some comments? If yes, please identify yourself and give us your name and your
address.
Ed Ryan: My name is Ed Ryan and I'm the owner-developer of the property. And my wife
Mary. I'm sorry I missed the last meeting. I had an accident on my property which I'm
recovering from now and that's why I missed the last meeting so I apologize for that. Mary
2
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
and I have taken great care in developing our property. I mean we've been in Chanhassen for
many years. We appreciate our property very much. And in working with staff and
suggestions from our neighbors, during this whole process we've been focusing on a number
of issues when we put our plans together, which have been revised many times. Tree
preservation has always been a concern of our's, especially up along the north line. We have,
from the original proposal that we had a few weeks ago, we have dropped the road significant
to the south to accommodate those grades and the sloping of the road. We've also in our
proposal have tried to preserve the wetlands to the south. That whole wetland in there is a
natural wetland and by having the road to the north we don't do any disturbing of that
roadway during the building process or the grading process so we felt that was important.
We have large lot sizes and we tried to preserve the rolling topography of our property. It's
a beautiful piece. Mr. Chair, I think you've seen it. It's very pretty, rolling type farm
acreage. It has significant trees to the north and it has trees, significant concentration of trees
in front of our property which we have preserved. We've also tried to take into account how
Lake Lucy current is. This is going to be an extension of Lake Lucy and if you drive Lake
Lucy from Powers to Galpin, you'll notice how that road curves and winds sort of gently and
it rolls with the topography. It's not flat. It's not straight. That kind of roadway would be I
think a disturbance to the neighborhood so I think this plan accommodates that. As the staff
has outlined, they would recommend approval of our plat, which would include the northern
alignment if we would agree to all their recommendations. Chuck, our engineer, will be
addressing some of those issues after I speak and we have met those or in the process of
meeting all of those conditions. Still though we find that there is I think some general
confusion regarding this whole city original feasibility study. And I think through the process
that we've gone through, we feel that the original feasibility study that was addressed, it takes
on a different light. The study was prepared by Bill Engelhardt, as you know, and he's an
independent consultant. An engineer that was asked to design a roadway from TH 41 to the
touchdown spot where Lake Lucy is now. That's what he was asked to do. Now Bill was
not charged with developing a developable plan for the western property or for our property.
He wasn't asked to do that. He was asked to find a way to connect these two. And he did
so, and he did a fine job. However, as the western plat developed, this alignment changed
and the reason it changed is because ownership changed with that western section. And so
the road had to be configured. Had to be changed. There were some modifications there.
The original feasibility study was reviewed by the City Council on June 13th. And at that
meeting the sole southern alignment proposed for the property was changed to include the
northern alignment. This was called the supplemental feasibility study. That's what was
approved by the City Council. At the Council meeting the city approved the study. Not the
original feasibility study which showed a northern route and a southern route. And it
outlotted the eastern section of the western development so that, in their words, this will give
maximum flexibility to the Ryans when their property would come to be platted. This is the
history of that feasibility study. I'm sure Bill did a fine job but he did not have a
3
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
development in mind. He couldn't have. And we have. And with that development we've
taken input from staff and our neighbors and other input to try to accommodate and make it a
pleaseable plat and a nice development. Chuck, our engineer will share with you why the
northern alignment is preferred. We feel it's preferred. And let me turn the podium over to
him.
Scott: Okay, thank you.
Chuck Plowe: Mr. Chair, fellow members of the Commission, my name is Chuck Plowe and
I'm the project engineer for Shamrock here representing Mr. and Mrs. Ryan. Do you want
this just out front?
Scott: I think you put that right in front of the podium or over to the side.
Chuck Plowe: Allow me to hand out something that I jotted down in writing in regards to
the reasons for the alignment that we prefer. Anyone else that wants copies, you're welcome
to grab one. I think most of this has been covered in some fashion or another in this report
but let me just reiterate a little bit, and basically I've put down something in writing that I
believe I've stated...That southerly alignment we feel is not the appropriate location for the
following reasons...Filling of the wetland will occur. The trees along the north, on the north
property line will not be preserved. The final lot configuration, as you see these red lines on
this particular plan here, which show Lake Lucy Road to the south, is less pleasing for the
residential development within the community of Chanhassen. The residents would not enjoy
the view of their backyards abutting the...wetlands, and I think that's important. For the
community I think it's important. The proposed northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road,
which is underlined here, will preserve the trees along the north and also will not impact the
wetland in any way. And we've met all the staff conditions for their approval of the
northerly route with the exception of a couple things Bob has mentioned that we need to look
at a couple items as he has indicated tonight. But let me further go into this item with Lake
Lucy Road to the south. I've drawn a line, you can see here. I call it Section DD. What
I've done is along that line I'm showing on another drawing the existing ground line and the
final ground line after development with the elevation of Lake Lucy Road being
approximately like what staff had indicated in their report that it would be if it were along the
southerly route. Existing ground line is the blue line. And proposed ground line is the, I call
it the orange line. The bottom of the hill, being wetland area down here. Top of the hill
being the treed area up here. Generally what happens here is we do encroach into the
wetland with the roadway. But to construct a roadway with Lake Lucy Road being there,
there's definitely going to be some fill into the wetland. In fact I shorten the boulevard up to
10 feet and there's still fill into the wetland. With 3:1 slope, which is... At the other end
where we come up the hill with the lots, I've tried to show you, again to kind of give you a
4
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
physical feel for where things are. This is the center of the cul-de-sac street. The curb would
be about here and then the right-of-way, front yard lot line and then the approximate location
of the house pad. And then the back yard with the 3:1 slope. As you can see, it extends up
into the trees and it probably would be much worse than what I've even shown because I
haven't really given that...back yards at all. It just immediately starts going up to the trees.
So this is, I'm trying to demonstrate to you in a more physical view, other than us just talking
about it, how this fits.
Scott: Can I ask you a question? On the, you see where the tree line is. And the existing, it
appears to me that you're planning on grading into the trees on the north side of the property.
Is that, or am I reading that incorrectly?
Chuck Plowe: Here?
Scott: Yeah.
Chuck Plowe: That would be correct. In order to avoid that we would have to raise this
street up, fill into the wetland further. Some things would have to give someplace. Because
we're using our maximum slopes at both ends. This is going to probably require retaining
walls to even do this. So I'm looking at a combination of retaining walls and going into the
trees with the grading because we're probably going across the property lines into the
property, although I haven't shown the property line on here. It's approximately right there.
I guess that's about it. This is the tree line that I'm trying to show you there. The property
line's not going to...and it continues to rise. Any more questions on this?
Scott: No.
Chuck Plowe: This is the northerly alignment which is the plan that I changed or resubmitted
just before the last week. And we did do some curvature of the street to try and align it
better with the future road that would connect it down here. As Bob indicated, it needs to be
curved a little more than what we've shown it and I've discussed it with Dave. There is
flexibility to do that. We didn't do a detailed study of exactly how everything hooked
together but we did start curving it where before it was straight. This lot is large enough
where we can do this. When I compare it to the one we just looked at, I've drawn a line
through the cul-de-sac again. Generally falling the same location. Showing existing ground
lines and proposed. Again the wetland is at the bottom of the hill. Trees up here. We are
able to extend a cul-de-sac here. Lake Lucy Road up on the hill. We are able to maintain
actually from the curb...to where we begin our 3:1 slope, we're 110 feet so we do have a
pretty nice lot and we do not encroach into the wetland with the bottom of the slope. We
don't impact the wetland with any fill. And again on this end we're not encroaching into the
5
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
trees as well. Now as Bob indicated, there was a problem with this that didn't quite fit. As I
understand you were saying there was still some problems here. Can I ask what those are? I
guess what maybe you're getting at was that the boulevard wasn't the full 20 feet or 21 feet
here. Okay. And that's true. I have about a 12 foot boulevard which allows...a trail if it
has to be on that side. But this street will meet State Aid standards. I did discuss with Dave
the possibility of having the trail on the other side and that was a possibility and I think it
would, appropriate decisions do that because when we're dealing with this kind of terrain and
this kind of design, why not put it where there's less resistance. Why not go with the flow
but in trying to put it up here would certainly be more difficult than putting it on the other
side. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when we compared the two, the north to the
south, this is the environmentally favorable plan. I guess I can say it all I want but I was
hoping I could show you. I don't know whether there's any real need to go into the items
that Bob mentioned but we do have two pipes discharging into this pond here as we indicated
and staff, we can combine those into one discharge pipe. That's not a problem. A 4:1 slope
getting from the cul-de-sac down to the access there, would simply be a matter of adjusting a
couple...here so there's plenty of lining up from top to bottom to achieve a 4:1 slope and
that's not a problem either. We've had, as you can see, gone along with a private drive in
lieu of the lots fronting on Lake Lucy Road. We feel that...and the lots are not going to be
impacted doing it that way. As a matter of fact, Lot 14 is better than it was before as far as
the grading's concerned. We eliminated some retaining walls which were difficult to fit a
pad on that lot...because it was a driveway coming off of Lake Lucy Road in the back
yard...and difficult to work with. We've now eliminated the retaining wall so it's much better
in that respect so Lot 14 actually became a more viable lot. That was my comments unless
someone else had a question.
Ledvina: I have a question Mr. Chair. Under staff recommendations related to eliminating
driveways onto Lake Lucy Road. I guess how were we going to do that for Lots 4, 5 and 6
that you relabeled on, what block is that? Oh, just that area that you were talking about.
Where does the private drive come from?
Chuck Plowe: We are now extending, rather than having a cul-de-sac in here, we've been
asked to extend the street for the future extension to the north. So we've done that and that
actually made it a little easier for us to do what staff is asking us to look at. And so what we
are proposing is to weave the driveway through the 130 feet of lots. Whatever that is.
Ledvina: Oh, that didn't show up very well on my plan.
Chuck Plowe: It is hard to see.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Ledvina: Yes.
Chuck Plowe: That, in most cases, is not fixed by any means. It would be...minimum
amount of trees...That's what would happen there. This is only a concept.
Ledvina: But that represents about the only alternative for accessing those 3 lots then, is that
right?
Chuck Plowe: In lieu of going onto Lake Lucy Road. That was felt that that was a better
option...
Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments? Excuse me sir, are you a member of the
applicant team?
Frank Kelly: Yes. Good evening. My name is Frank Kelly. I'm the attorney for the
developer. First of all I wish to thank the members of your planning staff for working with
us in trying to find solutions for the problems with this development. This is very complex
and there's many problems connected with it and we appreciate the efforts that they have
given us. We feel that we are ready to accept, and will accept all the suggestions and
recommendations as set out by the Planning Department as shown on page 4 as well as the
additional ones that were called to our attention, at our last meeting. And by accepting those
recommendations, the planner indicates that...conditions would make the applicant's proposal
acceptable. Now we're not asking for any variances or changes or special privileges in
platting the property...of the city ordinance and in so doing, the plat, as far as the planner is
concerned, would be acceptable to the plat. And if there are any required changes which the
Planning Department deems necessary during the course of development of the plat, we
certainly will be working with them...to meet those and will meet those, whatever...
However, we do ask that you consider this plat and make your recommendation on the plat to
the Council favorably. There's nothing more that we can do than meet the requirements as
recommended by the Planning Department, and we have done that. We only ask that you
approve it subject to those recommendations. Without any reservation whatsoever. Thank
you very much.
Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on behalf of the applicant? This is a
public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Scott: Can I see a show of hands for people who have come to speak at this particular public
hearing? Okay, great. Step up. Identify yourself. Name and address and we'd like to hear
your comments.
Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. We are the neighbors immediately to the
north. I'd like to make a couple of comments...whichever way the plan is finally
recommended. The first point has to do with the fact that with the grading here there are
only a very few number of trees being preserved the way it's presently situation. There is a
recommendation for a 30 foot tree preservation easement along the north property line. I
want to just clarify that that is to be a 30 foot from the northern property line extending south
for the full width, east to west, on that property line. The request that we would have is that
any private drive that is intended to service the other lots, does not encroach on that...whether
that is...right-of-way for that private drive. Second point I'd like to raise is that we've been
advised by a consulting engineer that a utility hook-up will be necessary to service our
property if we ever choose to develop it, which we don't at this particular time. The easterly
portion that will be shown as a right-of-way and utility hook-up will serve the eastern portion
of our property as well but our western edge there is a requirement for another utility hook-up
to avoid trenching the center of the ravine that goes through our property. We're told there
are other ways to be able to do that but we haven't had a formal...survey but we're requesting
that. Perhaps Dave, you could help clarify whether that would be feasible.
Hempel: The plan before you this evening show a street and utility extension over the
eastern portion of the Mancino parcel with the extension of Jennifer Way. The Mancino
parcel does have a high point at right about Lot 6 there's a high mound. Then it starts to
gradually break off there...westerly boundary of the development. The existing ravine takes
storm water drainage across the north, right to the west of this development.
Actually...development and that area there is the low point of the neighborhood. And we
envision seeing extension of storm sewer along the ravine area and possibly sanitary sewer to
service the adjacent parcel to the north. The Mancino parcel also will be serviced from the
future sewer and water line provided in the subdivision before you here tonight called
Brendon Ponds, which is the westerly portion of this site. We're providing at this time 2 out
of the 3, what we believe are utility service connection points.
Ledvina: Dave, with this development then, are we providing that western utility stub? I
don't see it here.
Hempel: No we are not. We're providing an easterly connection. At this point we believe
the appropriate time and place would be with the future development of the outlot that you'll
see on the next subdivision called Brendon Ponds. At that time that parcel develops, that
would be extended northerly.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Ledvina: So when that develops, that should provide adequate utility service that's needed
here for this portion of the Mancino property?
Hempel: That's correct.
Sam Mancino: The issue, again we're not engineers but whether you trench through the
middle of a wetland...or whether you take it off of another area that wouldn't violate that
ravine quite so badly...The third technical point that we'd like to question is that the future
potential for road connection, which will also serve to be our utility hook-up, which I believe
comes in through Jennifer Way, will terminate at the edge of their private drive and will not
be paved completely up to the edge...is that correct at this point?
Hempel: That's our intent as long as we extend the street service from the edge of that 30
foot easement at this point and leave the option open. Whether to extend that street in the
future...or connect a street to service that...lot and private driveway. Provide both options.
Sam Mancino: A couple of other points. One, moving the road 60 feet south from where it
was originally intended. 60 feet from the 30 foot tree easement. We understand but don't
believe it will hold 3:1 slopes and be able to do what was originally intended, which is to
provide the road bed, the right-of-way and a trail system. And I guess the question of the
trail system is that as this area develops, more kids are there. Their natural route would be to
the north to the school and to put that roadway to the south would probably require to cross a
major collector road. So that's a point that we would like to have considered because it bears
on the grading and the setbacks...There was a request by staff for some planting of sumac and
seeding of the graded property. I guess in addition to that we would request, because I'm not
sure how effective this seeding would be or how quickly that will take root. The sumac will
be a very good idea but we'd like to request some spruce and other conifers near the top of
the slope to hold the soil. Also to be able to, there's a sound and visual buffer...Those are
really the technical points I think that we'd like to mention at this time. I think there are
some broader questions that we have. The thing that seems to be driving this development is
the density. The need to get as many lots as possible and more density seems to get more
grading and we don't believe that., the intent of the comprehensive plan probably took into
account average situations. Didn't particularly take into account this topographical situation.
I don't believe that this has the creativity applied to it to develop it to the sensitivity of the
rest of the land. Another global, broader point is that we'd like to see Planning Commission
recommend to City Council, in light of the development that we're going to see in this area,
particularly with this development, with the Gestach-Paulson, a noise and construction activity
limitation that limits it to weekdays so that there would be no noise generated weekends.
That could either the form of an ordinance or as a development contract because that would
be good for all of the neighbors. I think that I'd like to invite our architect to help us do
9
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
some thinking about this. Charles Stinson to address some of the things that we've seen at
this presentation by their engineer.
Charles Stinson: Hello. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm the architect working with the
Mancino's. I specialize in custom homes on unique property and I get involved with some
land planning on certain properties that, in which we're trying to save the trees and respond
to the topography. I wonder if I could use the, your demonstration board for a minute. Just
to clarify. I think Sam commented, covered everything about technically pretty well as far as
the trying to keep the 30 foot preservation zone from the top and in doing so, and whatever
we have on private drives here skate off of that zone because right now as private drives, if
they went over it, would wipe out all the trees in that area, which would mean that this
property would have to come down this last lot. I guess Lot 1. I guess the other thing, just
trying to clarify, and this is aside from that project. This being a guy that tries to save the
natural topography whenever I can. Just to clarify the study that was shown as the bad
alternative here I think the, what the city was actually recommending or the staff was that I
think the southerly drive came up just a little bit higher so it wouldn't be quite as steep as
this. And I think in showing this process here, I think if the road was a little bit over here, as
they proposed, the grading wouldn't be quite so steep going down to the wetlands. There
would be some fill here but I think this whole cut is just based on if there's a cul-de-sac
going up there. If you're trying to put a road out there, then you're digging out the whole
site but I think there's perhaps a whole nother option there that if we could save all that, save
that and do some filling where the roadwork is here, then I'm just curious if the owners,
developers and the engineer considered the fact that the possibility, if a road went on the
southern area and you left all the wetlands the way we have and then at that point we perhaps
this cul-de-sac came over this way to service the homes around here and then the private
drives just went to the remainder of the out parcel and then leaving the natural topography
and the views without getting into anything, was that one of the studies?
Ed-Ryan(?): Not that I'm aware of.
Chuck Plowe: Let me, I couldn't see exactly what you were just.
Charles Stinson: Okay. Well, and maybe I'll go to the, some of the concern, on the plan
that's proposed right now, there is a cut here which is substantial and pretty substantial going
up to the trees. Does this show your property line or is this the property line?
Chuck Plowe: This is the property line here.
Charles Stinson: Okay. So you're saving the first 30 feet and then dropping down from
there?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Chuck Plowe: Yes.
Charles Stinson: So there's a cut there but at the bottom of the property, the way it's
proposed, or that road area. Not the entire property but this area we're concerned with. The
fill that we're talking about is perhaps 8 feet higher than the ceiling. About 20 feet of fill
that would occur here?
Chuck Plowe: At the maximum point, that'd be in the very front of the house near the
wetland...11 feet which is about where the road grade is when you...
Charles Stinson: So here would be cutting about 12 feet. Here you'd be putting back about
20 feet... I guess the thought I had was, and I'm not speaking for the Mancino's but I'm just
on my own here. Thinking about the environment. If the road went to the south, kind of
curving up here a little bit so there's enough grade for that wetland, would it be possible to
take this cul-de-sac. Leave everything the way you have it here. There's maybe 10 feet of
fill at this point but just taking this cul-de-sac over, feeding the lots here, here, here and here
and then just have a private drive go in to more homes over here. Wouldn't that give you
pretty close to your density or if this perhaps makes a few more valuable because they such
views?
Chuck Plowe: Well I think we avoid private drives as much as possible...and that's a totally
different concept than what we're looking at. If we did go along with private drives and
eliminate the frontage on Lake Lucy Road, and we did look at several options too. As a
matter of fact, we went through them with staff. We showed how they wouldn't work.
Taking the road up into here and leaving Lake Lucy Road down there and that ended up
getting a lot of drainage and also some lots with streets on both sides of them so that just
didn't work out.
Charles Stinson: Okay that, again I guess most of the developments I get I end up doing
private drives, or a fair amount of private drives. The reason we do it, and many
communities are getting more receptive to it, it's a way of saving more of the topography.
More of the natural grades etc. And that's again, just to go over that again, keeping it low;
there would be very little grading going down to the wetland. This would all be saved and
the cul-de-sac coming here and private drives. Perhaps this is a different concept of private
drives and I'm not sure how you feel about it. We've done it quite successfully and if
anybody's interested, I guess...there's one on Oakland Road in Minnetonka that I did with
Streeter and Associates and it has worked out quite well. And that's it. Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing?
11
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Eric Rivkin: Hi. My name is Eric Rivkin, 6095 Steller Court. I'm about, I don't know,
1,000 yards east of the property and I look out onto it into the sunset. Beautiful sunset. It
sets over the hills that they want to take down 80 feet or whatever. And I also am not
opposed to the development but I think that it could, the Ryans could have maybe hired this
wonderful architect here as an adjunct to their team, this planning team because I don't think
it has enough regard for the natural landforms and I'm opposed to the massive earth moving.
I like you to favor the alignment for the road to the south. I think it should, I agree with
them completely that the road could meander up a little ways so it isn't so straight but I don't
think the plan has got, I don't think the plan's compatible with the surrounding developments.
Lake Lucy Commons and these other large estates which have gone to great lengths in the
community to maintain natural landforms and preserve forested areas, open spaces and
wetlands. I think this is a butchering of the land, just plain and simple and I think much
more sensitivity needs to be applied here. If they have to go back to the drawing board, I
think maybe they should employ on their team an environmental designer because we have
city codes that in my opinion, and I think maybe your opinion, would require them to meet
these philosophies and I was one of the people that helped develop the comprehensive plan 5
years ago to try and get laws that would preserve, prevent this kind of thing from happening.
The area between TH 41 and Galpin is a recognized natural resource corridor for wildlife
who regularly travel in all seasons of the year between two great naturally preserved areas.
Lake Minnewashta Park and the Lake Lucy area. And we all enjoy that in this northern part
of Chanhassen and we want to see that preserved. I represent, as a Co-Chair of the Lake
Lucy Homeowners Association and we enjoy wildlife. We have osprey. We have bald
eagles. We have great blue herons. All kinds of wildlife. Fox and even an occasional, the
DNR said a cougar. But anyway there's no natural corridor between these planned in this
development and it will be too greatly disturbed and devastating. I don't think any
authorization should be given to this development that destroys the natural features of land,
be it corridor, wetlands, wildlife habitat or vegetation lowland form. I think the developer
should be required to propose and concept to a plan which meets the city codes and
protection of environmental features and relates to the site's natural resources. And above all
gets respect as to the existing development pattern set in the community. I favor those...lot
sizes. I think that their, the access alternative from the north or this long private drive, I
think it's a good alternative to consider to preserve that hillside, the top. I don't think it
needs to be destroyed... I was at the top of that hill last night. I walked the site with the
Mancino's and I don't think that there is any economical hardship in doing that. I would
result in a lot less grading problems and if you look at Fox Hollow, there's plenty of
examples of tuck under houses on top of hills that sell for a half a million dollars that have
spectacular views of the Lotus Lake area. Here you can see 2 miles from the top of that hill.
It's one of the highest points in Chanhassen...and it's absolutely magnificent and I don't think
they'll have any problem with maybe even cutting down the lot density up there just to
preserve that and get their money of the property. The trail system. I paid $660.00 for a trail
12
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
system which I don't have and I expected with the Lake Lucy extension to have a really nice
trail, a real trail. Not a sidewalk on a street and not a sidewalk, but a real trail through
natural area like they have in Minnetonka. Anderson Lakes and in Jonathan where people
will walk in peace and harmony with nature. Enjoy the wildlife and everything. It's much
more an amenity to the community and will increase the lot values I think considerably if
they do that approach rather than just blow it off as an afterthought. I think that by aligning
the Lake Lucy Road to winding around the southern portion gives it more opportunity to
connect with the property to the west. Also for this corridor to, the trail system connect up
with Lake Minnewashta would be perfect. So you could have spots to enjoy the wildlife
areas which would be given to the public as conservation easements and sell this thing with
the natural corridors and sell this thing with the trail system that people want and I think it
would satisfy the community and needs and wants and desires for this that we've been having
for years...at this podium many times complaining about Let's see. Trees. I don't know
what kind of tree planting program they have but I think it's pretty clear in the code that we
should have a restoration that should have native species only that is native to this area. I
don't mean Douglas fir or Colorado spruce and things that are not suitable for the soil
and...conditions. If there are, and I don't mean like army landscaping where you've got just
rows and rows of sumac but take the groves of trees and replant them and restore these
corridors so they're intact and that the disturbance is at a minimum, both to the wetlands and
to the tree cover. One question that I have for the developer, and the engineer. Is there any
drainage intended to go east of Lake Lucy Road from there? Either under the road or over
the road. Or excuse me, Galpin.
Chuck Plowe: Yes, to the Lake Lucy watershed...
Eric Rivkin: Is there the surface area of water area, is there estimates of how much surface
water there is...to the Lake Lucy watershed? Is it existing? Plans for existing or go beyond
that.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that The applicant's original design...the city
is in the process of adopting the Surface Water Management Program which will provide city
wide comprehensive storm drainage which has water quality...to preserve wetland areas as a
comprehensive plan. We're trying to implement that plan with this ponding. This is the first
year that we're implementing this program and this development is providing storm water
quality basins to treat storm water runoff and will better discharge the water underneath
County Road 117 to Galpin Blvd to drain towards Lake Lucy basin area. The volume of
water will increase the velocity of water but will not restrict the impact to the culvert
underneath Galpin Blvd. Potentially there will be a trunk storm sewer system from Galpin
down to Lake Lucy with the remaining part...
13
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Eric Rivkin: Okay. I'd like to propose, I have a map that shows the watershed to Lake
Lucy, okay. Can I put that up?
Scott: Sure, go ahead.
Eric Rivkin: ...I want to show the engineer first. This shows the Lake Lucy watershed area.
This is Galpin Road right here, CR 117. This is all the...
Aanenson: I really think the questions are best directed to our engineer.
Eric Rivkin: Okay, this is Lake Harrison. There's Galpin Blvd here. You could pass this
map around while I'm talking. The point I'm trying to make here is that, the western part of
Lake Lucy Highlands development runs into wetlands which are on my property and Prince's
property and Class A wetlands and they're very sensitive. They've got rare plants in there.
There's already a sedimentation problem now where the culvert is overflowing with sediments
from the existing driveways and streets, whatever, sand you know from salting and stuff, and
I want, as a representative of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, we would like to have
a condition that prevents any additional water runoff from this development into the Lake
Lucy watershed. You have plenty of mitigation area planned for this development and I think
every bit of this water is going to carry pollutants from fertilizers from lawns and the nutrient
runoff from development which is going to pollute the wetlands like you wouldn't believe.
It's already over loaded. The culvert every spring, which is always full and has not been
cleaned out by the city as it should have been and...storm water management program and the
conditions of the development, the Steller Court development which was passed in 1986.
There's not supposed to be an increase more than 2 tons of sediment coming out of that
culvert and I'm going to make sure that that is upheld. I don't think that engineering wise
it's going to work by having any additional runoff, other than what is naturally occurring
right now. And what is going off right now, even though there's fertilizers from the farms
that are farming now, it is filtered by dirt and plants and vegetative material. If you're
adding street runoff and we all know that that stuff is highly polluting and I do not want to
see any more water coming from this development into the Lake Lucy Watershed. We've
already got enough stress as it is. The Walker Ponds over at Willow Ridge do not work
because you do not have natural vegetative areas surrounding the wetlands. The storm water
just ran through the holding pond and then overflowed right into that big pond by Lake Lucy
Road. And then into the Lake Lucy through an outlet through a massive 10 acre wetland and
still caused algae growth. That's how much pollution there was from the development and
it's still going on today. So I think it needs to be taken from a preventive stance and I
recommend that no water or all the water in that development stay there and be dealt with
and conclusively. Another thing about the wetlands, the material...man made wetlands must
be sure to make up for the ones that you're replacing. I noticed the mitigation areas with this
14
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
plan. Is that correct? Okay. I think whatever standards there are to help make sure that they
are completely natural in development of...thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
Jerome Carlson: My name is Jerome Carlson. I live at 6950 Galpin Blvd or Road,
depending upon which post office you talk to. In following the proposal to date, I'm struck
over and over again by the feeling that there is nature and the development are not in sync.
As I look around at development that's going around that area, Lundgren Bros as you know
purchased the Song property and this is 100 plus acres...and I believe the density that they
achieved on that very interesting piece of property, which I think is fairly well known to this
commission, was about 1.1 houses per acre. We have 25 acres bordering TH 41, part of
which the new Lake Lucy Road would come through, which is the old Westside Baptist
parcel. And in reviewing that with a few different developers we have again arrived in terms
of preserving the naturalness of the land, which is one of the perquisites frankly before I'm
going to sell that property to anybody. You end up with about 1.1 houses per acre in the
final analysis. You look at the Gestach and Paulson, all this terrain is the same. It's different
but it's the same. It's very hilly and it's very interesting and it's very beautiful. The Gestach
and Paulson, which is right on the north side, so I've talked about the south, the west and
now the north side of where we live. They have 25.85 acres with 3 outlots. They're looking
at 21 single family lots. So you throw in the 3 outlots and maybe that will bring it up to
about 1.1 houses per acre in the final analysis. It feels like there is almost some agreement
that exists somewhere that dictates x number of lots and on and on and I submit to the Ryans
and to this commission that there does not need to be an economic hardship concern in my
view at all. I think that the property, if developed in a manner which fights nature less and
leaves the natural beauty present, for a potential homeowner in fact increases the value of that
property enormously for someone who desires that kind of a setting for a family home. And
therefore I would really suggest that this commission take a look at what has been transpiring
and what is transpiring, if you will, right around that area as far as the type of land, the
topography and how that has ended up equating to actual lots in the final analysis and I think
you'll find that 1.1 is probably a fairly accurate number and the reason is because of the
topography. And I submit that these other folks have worked hard at protecting it. I can tell
you that the Lundgren Bros have to the south of us because I've been a big part of that
process with the Song's. I don't really want to live right next door to, having spent the
money and the time and the effort to protect the environment with our home site area there,
which is substantial. We've protected it I think as well as anyone can. And then have the
adjacent field leveled off and fill with houses is destroying the flow and the rthym of that
particular area. I just, I don't think it's necessary. I don't think there's an economic hardship
question at stake at all. That there are buyers out there who will enjoy and will pay the price
for that natural beauty. And there are other areas that simply don't have that kind of terrain
15
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
to that extent. Severity that exists in that area. So I would ask that the commission give that
some thought and consider the ratio that has been working for other people in the immediate
area as a maximum. And I don't know that that property even, I don't know what the ratio
should be on this particular piece. 1.1 there may not be absolutely accurate. I haven't sat
down and figured it out because it's not...Relative to the views from our property looking
north. Until there is more of a plan that exists and this commission and others perhaps are
seriously interested in approving, I don't think I need to spend your time talking about
whether or not some sort of tree barrier or some sort of screening is necessary or not from
my point of view. But I don't know that that's been discussed at all up to this point and I
would simply like to be on record as saying that may or may not be an issue...spills down
into something specific. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
Peter Davis: My name is Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Blvd. I'd like to reiterate
several of the points that have been raised by Sam Mancino and some of the others who
spoke here tonight. I'm representing myself as well as several neighbors who weren't able to
make it to the hearing tonight who all have a deep concern over the original concept or
design of this proposed subdivision. No one has an interest in standing in the way of the
development because we all know it's coming. But it seems like in the case of some of the
sections of the City Code, particularly when I call out Section 1860, which specifically says,
it talks about the lots should be placed...to protect natural amenities such as vegetation,
wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. I believe the intent of that, and I
really kind of look at the intent as being lots should be placed. Not we'll take some land and
we'll put as many lots on it. And I wanted to reiterate a deep concern that this seems to be
driven from the standpoint of trying to increase the density for the number of homes rather
than really trying to preserve that land and all of the other constituencies that represent an
ecosystem or the wildlife as well as the aesthetics of the area that this...represents. That was
really the extent of my comment. Was to reiterate the one section of the code as it related to
sort of are lots and topography and coming in which order...subdivision.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Yes sir.
Marty Gustafson: Good evening. My name is Marty Gustafson. I live at 6691 Galpin,
which is right on the northeast corner of Lake Lucy and Galpin Blvd. I'd just like to restate
what the previous speakers have said. That the beauty of the land that the Ryan's own is in
the rolling topography. And to go in and bulldoze that and just kind of level it all off, to me
is just like raping the land. If you look at the development south. I can't recall the name of
it but south of Prince's property, that land was pretty much flat to begin with and it just, it's
not unpleasant but it's just boring. You know you've got a difference in elevation of 20 or
16
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
30 feet probably in the whole development and everybody can look out their front window
into their neighbor's front window and right on down the street. And it just, to me is boring.
And most every night I can watch the deer walk through the Ryan's property and it's just the
roll is just beautiful to watch the sunset through the trees and I would hate to see that get
leveled. My other concern is drainage. If the wetlands are filled in, where's that water going
to go? I imagine it's either going to go through my property or through Mezzenga's. Both
of us abut Lake Lucy Road. Is there going to be massive trenching or digging? And if it is,
it's all going down into Lake Lucy. You know that swamp is filling up fast. The lake is
filling up fast just because of all the vegetation. You can watch it from year to year. And
pretty soon that's, there isn't going to be any water showing at all. So I would like to see
whatever drainage is required stays on the property and not get drained off and create
problems for someone else. Thank you very much.
Scott: Would anybody else like to make any comments? Yes sir.
Lynn Rothberger: Lynn Rotherberger. I'm at 6681 Galpin and really only had just one
comment to make. I've heard a lot of the speakers tonight speak of the surrounding
properties. Lake Lucy Highlands, etc and matching the topography that is there. It seems to
me that there is minimum acreage requirement on that land of something about 2 1/2 acres
and the plans that I've seen, I don't see any attempts at all to be a match of that in the
proposed development and I just would have a concern about the density or the amount of
density and population of housing that's going to come into that property. I too very much
enjoy the wildlife and the sunsets and the topography itself and I guess I have to agree with
all the rest of the speakers that you're going to have to pretty well flatten that out to put
housing in there and that concerns me.
Scott: And your comment, part of the matter in front of us is the rezoning of the property
from RR to RSF, which means Rural Residential which is big lots. RSF is 15,000 square
foot minimums so that's part of the process. Good, thank you. Any other comments?
Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: I think it's, I don't want to get into details tonight. I think there are a lot of details
here. Staff has covered them. The applicant has covered them. There are a lot of things that
can be tweaked with lots. A lot of things that can be tweaked based on staff report and I
guess I'm not going to spend my time going through item by item because that would take
quite a while. I think when you note what the property looks like, you know what a real
natural asset it is out there, and I don't see this plan really taking advantage of the natural
17
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
assets so you know really bottom line, I have to turn it down. I'm not getting into the details
in terms of the individual plan tonight. They preserve very few trees. There's massive
grading. They did not fit with the surrounding neighbors. And you know, those three things
just all by itself Mr. Chairman make this, I don't think this is an appropriate subdivision at
this time. The other thing that I'm concerned with, and I want to make it a natural. amenity.
The area is just so beautiful. I want to make sure that when it does develop, that our trail
system is taken advantage of that throughout. That's real important so I think we not only
have, the developer has an opportunity to not only make the money and not only do it well
fitting with the natural environment, but also to give the community something in the process.
And again, a lot of us have been out there. It is just a terrific area. It is one of those unique
spots in Chanhassen and I don't think we, this plan meets any of our base criteria for a
subdivision fitting with the natural surroundings so Mr. Chairman I'm going to be as brief as
I can and say this subdivision should be turned down.
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: Thank you. I have some questions for staff. Last time we met we discussed the
feasibility study and I heard the applicant talk about a supplement feasibility study and
preferred northerly route. Dave, could you give us a little more background and what was the
actual feasibility recommendation. I don't want to get into it in real detail but I just want to
understand exactly what was the preferred alternative.
Hempel: The feasibility study looked at two alternatives for extending Lake Lucy Road from
Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard through what was called the Westside Baptist Church
site which is on the far west side immediately adjacent to Trunk Highway 41. That was the
particular parcel that was, the two alignments were discussed. The southerly alignment and
northerly alignment. The southerly alignment was closer to Mr. Carlson's property and had a
base and a slope and significant trees to the south of it. There was also a graded wetland that
was... The northerly alignment through that parcel with the existing driveway access on the
site, it tended to meander the road a little bit more. The only alignment that I'm aware of
through the Ryan parcel is a southerly alignment but potential for the northerly alignment was
also given through this outlot of this Gestach-Paulson development, Brendon Pond to leave
the flexibility for Lake Lucy Road to be extended through the Ryan parcel somewhere in this
area. It wasn't officially mapped but the consulting engineer reviewed it and the proposal for
the feasibility study showed the southerly alignment for the Ryan parcel. The two alignments
that were reviewed by the City Council was the northerly and southerly alignment across and
into the Westside Baptist site and the Gestach-Paulson site. It's leaving the opportunity open
as you continue to the east.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Ledvina: So there really wasn't two alignments that were mapped out for this property, is
that correct? There was only this southerly alignment?
Hempel: As far as I'm aware...
Ledvina: Okay. And then as it relates to the alignment, the applicant has suggested that that
would amount to a wetland filling. Was that also identified in the feasibility study?
Hempel: My understanding, based on the conversations with Bill Engelhardt that there was
no intention of filling the wetland with the southerly.
Ledvina: Okay. So in other words, it would be relatively easy to realign that roadway
slightly to the north, whatever it takes, 10 or 15 feet or 20 feet, to avoid that wetland filling.
So we're really not talking about trading off wetland filling in choosing that alignment, is that
correct?
Hempel: That's correct.
Ledvina: Okay. Now I want to understand the conservation easement. You've got quite a
long description here Bob and does it cover, does it indeed describe the northerly 30 feet of
the plan?
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: It does, okay. That's really all I need to know. Okay. Because it talks about a lot
of different chunks here and that's the legalese of describing which lot that covers I'm sure.
Your recommendation number 16, it says plat the land west of Lot 14, Block 2 as an outlot.
Are you talking about, now I know this relates to the western portion of Outlot 6 as they've
hand drawn it here. Now you're saying put a property line and make that long narrow chunk
an outlot, is that correct?
Generous: Correct.
Ledvina: Okay. I wanted to make sure that was clear. Let's see. I think overall, I'm
leaning towards some of the core issue as it relates to the development of the site as
proposed. I would agree with the commentors from the public. Also Ladd's comments. I
feel that as we discussed and recommended the applicant pursue last time, we all agreed that
the Lake Lucy Road alignment provide the most sensitive course for this road through this
parcel of this site. We suggested that the applicant go ahead and look at alternative ways of
preserving that hill in that western portion of the property. And I do like the idea of going in
19
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
with a street off of Jennifer Way with potentially some private drives. That way I think that
could provide access to that area and again preserve that. I don't know procedurally how I
would propose to do this. If we would add conditions and send it along or that in such a
condition that we'd want to see it tabled or I'm just thinking out loud here a little bit on
procedurally how this might be handled. But I think overall we need to have some work
done on this plat before it can really be viewed as an acceptable environmentally sensitive
proposal.
Scott: What would you like to see? What would you suggest for the applicant?
Ledvina: Well I don't, I'm suggesting that we table this and see a rework of the design for
this western portion and we've made that suggestion previously and I don't know where the
applicant is at with that but I'd be willing to look at it one more time.
Scott: Ron.
Nutting: Some of Matt's questions answered some of mine. I think there are a lot of details.
I think the plan we're looking at is, I think counsel for the applicant has indicated that you
know we're being asked to approve what staff has recommended and I don't think staff has
recommended this as their first choice. They've done a second choice because there was not
a willingness to look at the preferred southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road. Having been
to the site and looking at it and from our recommendations last meeting, the southerly
alignment seems to make the most sense to me. With that in mind, and I guess I echo Ladd's
comments and I think that of a lot of the citizens here. I don't think this development does
the best job of dealing with the existing topography or the surrounding developments so
whether it's a tabling issue or a chance to rework or that we deny it, I think that's maybe a
procedural question that I'd put to my other members but I'm not ready to go forward with
this plan. I am open to seeing a rework of the plan.
Scott: And what sort of direction would you give?
Nutting: Well, I can't develop it for them. I'm not a developer but what I see is not
consistent with surrounding developments and topography. There have been some
suggestions put forth but that's really for the developer and their advisors to look at. If it's
an extension of James Court into the westerly portion of the land, I can't say for sure and I
can't sit here and try to visualize it and say do this and all will be well. So I guess the main
concern is just that it doesn't make sense with the land and the surrounding development.
Scott: So you're thinking primarily make better use of the existing topography? Is that one
that you're getting?
20
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Nutting: Absolutely.
Scott: Okay.
Nutting: Which will impact density. There's a lot of issues there.
Scott: Okay. Just a question. Kate, when was this preliminary plat and rezoning, when was
that presented to staff because I know we've got a, we have two different timeframes that we
deal with.
Aanenson: The ordinance states that you have 45 days to make a recommendation to the City
Council...and I believe that date was August 17th. So accordingly...you have one more
chance to review which is September 21st...
Scott: Okay. I'm not going to echo any comments. I'd like to have a motion please.
Unless you want to discuss. Obviously tabling we'd get it back. We may see the same thing
all over again. Denying it automatically sends it to the City Council with our comments on
why we're denying it so.
Nutting: I would be open to tabling it. I think the property is going to be developed. I
mean it's not an issue of developing it or not. It's a question of getting something that makes
sense so.
Scott: Okay. You're thinking tabling?
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, why don't you ask the developer what his choice is.
Ed Ryan: Do you want me to step up to the podium?
Scott: No, that won't be necessary.
Ed Ryan: I guess I would prefer you approve it obviously but if you're not willing to
approve it, I guess I'd prefer you deny and then we have the opportunity to go forward and
that's what we want.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please?
Conrad: We do have a rezoning. I'll makc the motion to deny the preliminary plat but do
we need to discuss the rezoning issue?
21
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Aanenson: Yeah.
Scott: Yeah, we could not, this preliminary plat would not fit RR zoning so.
Aanenson: If you don't approve the plat, then the Council wouldn't have. If the Council
chooses to approve it, you haven't recommended on the rezoning...
Conrad: Why should I recommend approval on the rezoning if I don't like what's going to
go on it?
Aanenson: You can make a different motion to...whether you choose to approve or deny the
Council's still going to make their own decision so in principal, if you want to go on record
and make some recommendations...but not to make any recommendation.
Conrad: I'm not sure what signal I'm sending when. I not saying that this shouldn't be
rezoned. It's just that this particular plat is not what I want to see so that's always been
confusing to me. You know it's like what signal am I sending.
Scott: Usually it's more consistent if both are acted upon the same way.
Ledvina: Well if you look at as a package, I guess. Is that how you would prefer it?
Aanenson: Yes. If you don't...no matter what motion you state, whether you approve or
deny the rezoning, Council still has the right to...
Conrad: Well we'll just administratively go through this. I make a motion that we deny the
rezoning of Case #94-3 rezoning 37.92 acres from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single
Family Residential.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second?
Nutting: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the rezoning. Is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council deny Rezoning #94-3 rezoning 37.92 acres from RR to RSF. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Scott: Can I have another please?
22
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Conrad: Yes, I make a recommendation the Planning Commission denies approval of
Preliminary Plat #94-7 based on our previous comments in terms of the plat's lack of
sensitivity to the surrounding, which includes the mass grading. It's lack of sensitivity to the
neighboring community and it's non, and the fact that it didn't incorporate our primary
location for Lake Lucy Road.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second?
Nutting: Second.
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council deny Preliminary Plat #94-7 based on the previous comments regarding the
plat's lack of sensitivity to the surrounding area, mass grading and the location of Lake
Lucy Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: Councilman Mason, thank you for taking notes. Just a.
Generous: There's a WAP, wetland alteration permit.
Scott: Don't use that acronym in that way again.
Ledvina: I move that we deny, or we recommend denial of Wetland Alteration Permit
Section 20-407.
Scott: Okay, is there a second?
Nutting: Second.
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council deny Wetland Alternation Permit #94-3. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Scott: Editorial comment. The reason why we're denying this and passing this on is that we
did not believe that we're going to get anything better back from the applicant so we're
basically dumping it on our colleagues in the City Council and I would encourage any of you
to follow the issue because the final decision is not made here. It's made at the Council level
and I'd like to thank you all for coming for this issue.
23
CHARLES W. PLOWE, CONSULTING ENGINEER
9180 LEXINGTON AVE. N.E. CIRCLE PINES, MN 55014
(612) 785-1043 FAX 786-6007
September 14, 1994 z
Bob Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Shamrock Ridge, Preliminary Plat
Dear Mr. Generous,
Per our meeting on Monday, September 12, at your office we have made further
changes to the plans for preliminary plat approval.
It was staffs concern that the north boulevard area on Lake Lucy Road was not
wide enough to comfortably provide space for the proposed 8 foot wide trail. To
allow ample room it was agreed that the roadway would be shifted southerly.
The roadway has been revised from 60 feet to 85 feet at it's closest point from
the north property line.
In conjunction with moving the roadway it was also agreed that a private drive in
place of Gwendolen Court would be used. This will remove one lot and allow
more room for spacing of four lots in this area and pull the toe of slope further
away from the wetland.
The connection of Lake Lucy Road to Brendon Pond was reviewed and a curved
alignment as shown on the revised plan will provide an easy connection.
The private road serving Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 4 has been moved outside of the
tree preservation area along the north property line.
The storm sewer discharge into the westerly treatment pond has been combined
into one discharge pipe. A maximum 4:1 access slope to pond is being provided.
There have been numerous changes made to the preliminary plat and grading
plan to address requirements and concerns by staff. Enviromental concerns
have been a priority as the process has progressed to this plan. Preservation of
trees, wetlands and maintaining some of the large variations in elevation
throughout the site has been a part of the present design.
Mr. Generous
page 2
September 14, 1994
Based on our September 12th meeting andthe attached revised plans it is our
understanding that staff will recommend approval of the proposed preliminary
plat.
Please call with any questions or comments regarding the above.
Sincerely,
' / f
Charles W. Plowe, P.E.
CWP/zs
enc.
cc: Ed Ryan
To the members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission: c.f
!s
Joe Scott, Chairperson Matthew Ledvina k
Diane Harberts Ladd Conrad
Ronald Nutting Jeff Farmakes
Dear Commissioner,
"As far as the talk of there being mass grading, I've been involved
with a few sites that are like this. There's going to be mass grading, I
don't care how you look at it. And it's not a problem. You know we
need to be sensitive to the trees. The wetlands. We can move a lot of
dirt. It doesn't cost much when it comes to developing land. I mean
it's, there's a limit obviously but this isn't a problem as far as, you
know if you move 2 feet of dirt, the trees gone. If you move 10 feet,
the trees gone. It doesn't make any difference."
Chuck Plowman, engineer for Shamrock Ridge
(extracted from the August 17th Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes)
It's quite apparent that the values driving this development, as expressed
by the Shamrock Ridge engineer are markedly different than the values
the city of Chanhassen has chosen to incorporate into our city codes.
Our ordinances clearly state that as a city, we value saving and protecting
our natural amenities such as existing topography, steep slopes &
vegetation. These values are contained in the subdivision chapter of the
Chanhassen City Code, which include:
Section 18-60 Lots.
d). Lots shall be placed to preserve and protect natural
amenities, such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water
courses, and historic areas.
Section 18-62 Erosion and sediment control.
a). A development shall conform to the topography and soils to
create the least potential for soil erosion.
Section 18-39 Preliminary Plat,
f). The findings necessary for city council approval of the
preliminary plat and the final plat shall be as follows:
(3.) The physical characteristics of the site, including but
not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility
to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and
storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed
development;
(5). The proposed subdivision will not cause
environmental damage.
This proposed subdivision does not meet the city's stated values for good
development. The site will be mass-graded, where rolling terrain stands
today. This massive grading will occur, not just in one isolated area, but
throughout the entirety of the site.
Throughout the process of planning, the Ryan's and their engineers have
resisted reasonable suggestions regarding more environmentally sensitive
development approaches. Their standard response has been..."We looked at
that approach and it doesn't work". The owners and the engineers are
focused on the total number of lots and the ability to build walk-outs
rather than being open to alternative development concepts.
We are very concerned that the approval of this preliminary plat with the
proposed grading plan will set an important precedent for the city of
Chanhassen - the destruction of this area's existing rolling topography and
land form and the loss of mature trees.
Are we going to hope that only environmentally sensitive developers buy
up the Carlsons', Prince's, Mancinos' and other large parcels? Or shall we
act now, by defending the intent of our city codes? What you recommend
to the City Council will have ramifications on what undeveloped land we
have left.
With specific regard to the Shamrock Ridge preliminary plat, we feel that
one can develop this area more prudently by doing the following:
• Develop the western slope area less densely.
The mass-grading on the steep western slopes is being driven
by a persistent attempt to force as many lots into this area as
possible. One way to minimize the need for grading is to
develop this area less densely.
• Move the Lake Lucy Road to the southerly alignment, as
recommended by staff.
By using a series of private drives off a stub street that extends
north, larger lots could be well served, with minimum intrusion
or grading.
The city's preferred alignment of Lake Lucy Road was prepared
in February, 1993 by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. as a
feasibility study for the purpose of establishing an alignment of
Lake Lucy Road between Highway 41 and Galpin Blvd. The
report states as one of its advantages that "The geometric
design conforms to existing topography for alignments and
grades."
At the time the city's study was conducted and the report was written,
there was no proposed subdivision of the Ryan property. However, the
landforms which formed the basis of the recommendation have existed
long before there was a Chanhassen. It seems inappropriate to obliterate
them because one engineer can't see another way to conduct business.
Sincerely,
P.S. Speaking as affected property owners to the north, if in spite of
staff's recommendations, it's determined that the road will be developed
per the northerly alignment we would like to request a modification to the
seeding and planting plans contained in the slope stabilization north of
Lake Lucy Road west of Lot 14, Block 2 (see staff condition #15, page 25).
In addition to the sumac, we'd like to see coniferous trees such as spruce
and balsam planted near the top of the slope to stabilize erosion and to be
compatible with the mature trees in the adjacent property. These
coniferous trees will also act as a visual and sound buffer in the winter. We
are also concerned that seeding a 3 to 1 slope may not be sufficient to
manage erosion potential. Our existing landscaping and tree preservation
ordinance requires that "coniferous trees planted shall average 7 feet and
shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height."
To the members of the Chanhassen City Council:
Mayor Don Chmiel Richard Wing
Mike Mason Colleen Dockendorf
Mark Senn
Dear Council Member,
This letter is in regards to the proposed Ryan Shamrock Ridge
development, currently before you. We have followed the planning of this
development with considerable interest, as it abuts our property along our
southern property line.
•
As you know, the developers of this property have submitted a plan which
City Staff has reviewed several times, and Staff has recommended a
southerly road alignment. The developers have continuously resisted
following the City's request for this alignment.
City Planning Commission has unanimously denied the plan, citing
excessive grading and unacceptable destruction to the natural topography.
Yet the developers have expressed their unwillingness to design an
alternative plan which would be more sensitive to the existing landform.
Several Chanhassen residents spoke out at the public meetings, expressing
their concern that the planned density of the Ryan development was not in
keeping with other comparable sites in this area. Others pointed out that
the proposed plan would have a devastating effect on the natural land
features unique to this property, and would result in a net loss for the
surrounding community.
We agree with Staff, the City Planning Commission, and the community
residents. The current plan is badly flawed. The road should move youth.
The grading of the slopes on the northwesterly section should bg
minimized. The development should be less dense, in sensitivity with the
existing landforms, and in harmony with other comparable developments
in the area, such as the Lundgren-Carlson-Song development, Lake Lucy
Highlands, etc.
We hope that you deny this request for rezoning and deny this
development plan until such time when the developers submit a plan
which can be viewed as a positive contribution to Chanhassen and its
residents.
On a more personal, technical front, as you instruct the Ryans on the
appropriate way to develop, we request a couple of considerations, which
Staff has heard, and which we believe they endorse:
Since it is quite possible that most existing trees on the Ryan property will
be destroyed, we are requesting that the City require a 30 foot_ tree
preservation easement along the Ryan's entire north property line, and
that no grading nor driveway right-of-ways violate this easement. There
are currently mature trees running this entire length, and it is crucial to
keep them intact.
Staff has recommended a location, currently shown as Jennifer Way, for
utilities to be brought up to our property. Staff has also recommended that
potential for future road access be provided in the same location, but that
the actual paving stop short of the 30 foot tree preservation easement. We
agree with this location for the utilities, and agree that the potential for
this future road access may be appropriate.
We would also appreciate directing the Ryans to plant evergreens near the
top of the slopes as a buffer for noise, as visual buffer in the winter, and as
erosion control, since all of their plans have shown severe grading up to
the tree easement.
As a request for the general preservation of community lifestyle, we would
appreciate it if the City Council would require as a development contract
item with both the Ryan's and the Gestach-Paulson's developments to limit
the construction hours to weekdays only from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. With
the number of homes being built in this area, the neighbors will be
subjected to construction noise for the next 2 to 3 years. At least they
should have some peace & quiet on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
Sincerely,
Glut C,cU� � �GLLt�.- Jk
C Ltc
Nancy & Sam Mancino
P.S. Attached is a copy of our letter written to Planning Commission on
September 7th.
CITY CF
10'4°1‘1 . CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director
DATE: September 29, 1994
SUBJ: Report from Director
At the September 26, 1994 City Council meeting, the following actions were taken:
1. Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates was approved with the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission with the requirement that the applicant appear before the
City Council in December to show that he has made substantial progress in obtaining
final plat approval.
2. Brenden Pond, Gestach-Paulson, was given preliminary plat approval as recommended.
3. Shamrock Ridge, Ed and Mary Ryan, was remanded back the Planning Commission
for additional input and review.
4. Chanhassen Retail Second Addition, Taco Bell and Perkins, was tabled. The Council
wanted to see material samples for both buildings and requested the Taco Bell either
eliminate the color bands or work with staff to make the colors more subdued.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Jeff Farmakes, Ron Nutting and Matt Ledvina
MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts, Nancy Mancino and Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; John Rask, Planner I; and Jill
Kimsal, Forestry Intern
ADOPT RESOLUTION FINDING MODIFIED PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Scott: What that really means is that we've created a tax increment district to fund by the
use of selling bonds a roadway and some other public improvements in the area that's near
the new elementary school, which is that thing that's being built on Highway 5. So staff
report please.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: I think perhaps the one question would be, why are we, I mean we've already seen
this and the reason why we're doing this is so that we can make sure that we have enough
bonding capability to cover what we believe the expenditures to be for the improvements,
land acquisition and administrative costs. We may or may not sell that many bonds but we're
just trying to cover ourselves on the high side. Is that in essence what we're doing here?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Scott: Okay. Comments, questions from commissioners.
Ledvina: Your opening or the second paragraph says, the only reason this item is before you
is that our bonding attorney requires the city to modify the plan by documenting that the
projects are moving ahead and the city is selling bonds to pay for them. What are the
modifications? I guess I.
Aanenson: Well the thing that we're approving is to include it as part of the tax increment
district is...we're calling a recreation center.
Scott: Oh, we're going to own it too?
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: As part of the school.
Aanenson: Right. In that package. And part of that we also included the construction for th
frontage road that will access it.
Ledvina: Okay, that's fme.
Farmakes: But that's the gym and pool that you're talking about.
Ledvina: No. No pool.
Scott: No, no. This is basketball courts, racquetball courts, meeting rooms. Yeah, so it's.
No ice. No pool, no ice. Okay. Any other questions?
Ledvina: Was that essentially the modification?
Aanenson: That was the modification.
Ledvina: And the attorney, this is driven by the attorney, is that correct?
Aanenson: ...it was in the original plan...
Ledvina: That's fine, thanks.
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay. Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission, are we adopting this resolution?
Aanenson: Correct.
Ledvina: Okay. I would move that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 94-3
finding the modification to the tax increment financing district No. 2-1 and 2-2 and
development district No. 2 are consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan.
Scott: Can I have a second please?
Farmakes: Second.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt this resolution. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
#94-3 (Attachment #2) finding the modification to Tax Increment Financing District No.
2-1 and 2-2; and Development District No. 2 are consistent with the City of
Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW SIGNAGE FOR THE CHANHASSEN RETAIL SITE, PERKINS AND TACO
BELL.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Farmakes: I have some questions. I missed the previous meeting when this came up. On
the third page of the packet. There's a schematic elevation for the right side, left side
elevations. Also front and rear. Typically these buildings have large stripes on them. I
don't see that indicated.
Aanenson: We did ask them to bring a color rendering showing that...Are you talking about
Perkins?
Farmakes: No. I'm talking about Taco Bell. Also the colorations. I've seen some of the
new Taco Bell stuff that's kind of a purple and magenta and I'm seeing this as yellow and
red. Have the colors been specified in the original one or is this part of the PUD?
Aanenson: It's part of, I don't believe we...
Don Palmquist: Good evening. My name is Don Palmquist with Ryan Companies. I am
representing this development. I don't know that I can specifically answer your question
regarding the color but I can answer questions regarding which of the faces will contain the
signage on the Taco Bell parcel. What's shown in your packet is signage on four faces.
They have agreed to reduce that to two faces... They will be showing signs on the north and
east faces of that building...
Farmakes: So that would be the right side elevation and the.
Don Palmquist: The right side and the front side. We will not have signage on the rear or
the left side.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Farmakes: Do you have a schematic of some sort with the striping and how you are planning
on painting the paint and...stucco.
Don Palmquist: I don't have color renderings. I guess I wasn't aware that that was a
requirement for this evening. The only elevations I would have available would be the full
sized blue line drawings of the reductions that you have...
Farmakes: The reason I bring it up is because we've had discussions in regards to the typical
addition to signage on franchises where the large banning of striped colors have been added
to the facia to these buildings and there's been some discussion in regards to the Highway 5
issue and I think in regards to signage. Whether or not these constitute signage additions or
whether or not it's architecture. Typically examples are Amoco, Holiday. To a lesser extent
say Target where they I think substituted tile for the paint stripe or plexiglass... Some of the
other Taco Bells I've seen in town have large striping additions and I would like to find out
what their intentions are with that.
Don Palmquist: Well...answer that question. My understanding though is that the materials
used on the wall...
Farmakes: So it's...stucco that's being described then? It covers the entire, except for the
back of the signage itself.
Aanenson: Yeah. There is stucco...
Scott: Are you talking about the pre-fab...area here?
Farmakes: Yeah. Typically...
Scott: How do we proceed on that? Can we put a condition in and move it along or?
Aanenson: ...these colors were consistent with the colors that were...
Farmakes: Okay, so if this thing is erected and they add these stripings that are typically part
of Taco Bell, is that a fielder's choice on the part of the developer or is this something that
then is not allowed under the PUD? In other words, is this signage that's being proposed?
Aanenson: Right. This is the signage...
Farmakes: So there is no striping?
4
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Aanenson: Correct.
Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Ledvina: I had one question now. I know that we're reviewing the Perkins and Taco Bell.
In the staff report it says one free standing pole sign shall be permitted for Target. You're
just talking about the Target PUD? You're not.
Aanenson: Yeah. This PUD...lots. The Target and the three outlots. One...
Ledvina: Okay, these are the other buildings, right?
Aanenson: Right.
Ledvina: Okay.
Aanenson: So there's an unknown one that...
Ledvina: So there's no more Target, there will be no more Target signage?
Aanenson: Correct.
Ledvina: Okay. And then the rock faced CMU. Could you describe that a little bit or what
is that type of material? I guess I'm not familiar with that...
Farmakes: That was something else. That was a fancy word for stucco.
Ledvina: Okay. Is this another fancy word for stucco, CMU?
Don Palmquist: I'm not sure what the acronym stands for.
Ledvina: Do you know?
Scott: Would that be, when I think of rock face, instead of putting brick on, it's some sort of
a...or something like that.
Ledvina: I don't know. I don't know what that is. I mean rockface CMU, I have no idea.
Aanenson: It's our understanding that it will be...
5
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Ledvina: Similar material to the Target sign? I mean the pylon.
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. So that was the intent that this material is tying into the other material.
Don Palmquist: ...I'm not sure what that really stands for.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I think we should, if that's the intent, then I think we should say that
since nobody knows what this stuff is.
Scott: Put that in as a condition?
Ledvina: Yeah. Well how do we say that? The base of the signage shall be consistent with,
the base material shall be consistent with the other signage with the PUD. Is that adequate?
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay.
Scott: Okay, any other?
Ledvina: Well I guess just to talk about Jeff's concern as it relates to the band. The color
band and things like that.
Farmakes: She addressed that.
Ledvina: Okay. I guess you know whether that represents signage or not, I don't know.
Farmakes: I'm still wrestling with that but since I wasn't here for the previous meetings I
question whether or not it...
Ledvina: So the bands are not going to be there? The color bands are not on this building?
Farmakes: They're not part of the elevations that were submitted.
Ledvina: Okay.
Farmakes: Is Perkins.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Aanenson: They have...
Farmakes: Okay. Do they also have, are we talking backlit awnings? I believe on the
Perkins over in Minnetonka they have backlit awnings where Perkins is on the awnings itself.
Backlit at night and I'm wondering if that's part of this.
Don Palmquist: No, that is not part of what they're contemplating.
Farmakes: On your sign the coloration is shown like an off cream. Is that white?
Don Palmquist: On the pylon sign?
Farmakes: Yeah, I'm looking at both the pylon and monument. It appears to be the same
color. I'm just wondering is that white flex or is that a cream or what is it?
Don Palmquist: It's more of a cream as opposed to a white.
Farmakes: Is the third restaurant in that PUD agreement fast food or sit down?
Kate Aanenson's answer was not picked up on the tape.
Farmakes: Can be. There was a cap on two?
Aanenson: Two fast foods...
Scott: With the issue that we had about aligning the ingress and egress point into the three
restaurant area, was that resolved? Did you see plans that lined it up with the Target?
Ledvina: It's right here.
Scott: Well I'm looking at that and I was going.
Ledvina: Does that depict the parking and the entrance arrangement or is it different from
that? ...that issue is resolved, okay.
Scott: Okay, fine.
Ledvina: I don't want to complicate. Okay, I would move that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of signage package for the Chanhassen Retail Center as presented by the
applicant with the conditions specified as part of the PUD and an additional condition
7
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
identifying that the base materials of the signage shall be consistent with other monument and
pylon signs within the PUD.
Scott: Is there a second?
Farmakes: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the staff recommendation. Now is there
any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the signage package for the Chanhassen Retail Center as presented by the applicant
with the conditions specified as part of the PUD and an additional condition identifying
that the base materials of the signage shall be consistent with other monument and
pylon signs within the PUD. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR
MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KENNETH DURR.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Carlson 3831 West 62nd Street
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay. When we have beachlots in front of us, probably the number one concern that
we hear is obviously additional traffic on the lake. Just for purposes of public record, this is
not a landing so these boats will not be, I don't have one so I don't know what...but they
have to be launched from the public launch facility on Lake Minnewashta. They will not be
taken out there and the only, the total number of boats that will be allowed, what 3 boats, 1
sailboat overnight.
Aanenson: If you want more during the day and tie them off...
8
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Scott: Right. So all the people who have lots on the lake are certainly free to own boats but
they're going to have to take them to the landing and put them on and off so. If there is any
concern about additional traffic on the lake, it looks like they're only going to be able to put
4 more boats on the lake. Or whatever anybody would care to, so the big factors is not
necessarily this conditional use permit. The big factor is how many people choose to use the
boat landing on a given day, whether or not they live on the lake. Okay. Does the applicant
wish to make any comments? You're not obligated to do so. If we have some questions,
okay. Questions or comments from anybody from the commission?
Farmakes: Can you tell me why the city considers structures, but why would the city prohibit
shelters?
Aanenson: Well we looked at that and this being...I think at that time there was concern
about garages. People storing boats on the property. Storing docks. Storing snowmobiles.
Storing their boats on trailers on the beachlot. I think that was...
Farmakes: When we define structure or shelter, or we define them differently? In other
words, if it's a roof but no walls, is that a shelter? And a structure is with walls or what is?
Aanenson: ...a structure.
Farmakes: Okay, well typically like a 50 foot gazebo is more like a landscape element where
you know maybe it's a couple sitting there or 3 or 4 people. It's not like a picnic shelter or
something like that. Is there a way to, it's really an enhancement. What I see here is that we
can approve the biff...but we can't approve the gazebo so.
Aanenson: ...we looked at that as trying to find a reasonable...because the way our ordinance
reads as far as structures...
Farmakes: Does this have potential as a variance?
Kate Aanenson's answer could not be heard on the tape.
Kenneth Dun: We can construct a...
Fannakes: What kind of room have you got?
Nutting: If the structure has to be removed after Labor Day, is it therefore a structure? Is it.
Kate Aanenson's answer could not be heard on the tape.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Farmakes: Okay. This would be beyond the 75 foot setback. It looks like 100. It could be
over 100 feet back.
Ledvina: If we have a lot on the city, I mean if I own a lot in the city, I can't just put a
garage on it. Is that right?
Aanenson: You can have an accessory structure...
Ledvina: Right. But I mean the basic requirement is there. You can't have an accessory
structure without a primary structure or a residence. Which I think is an excellent...right. I
mean certainly it's a reasonable...
Scott: Probably the variance process would be the appropriate way to deal with that.
Farmakes: I would be open to that.
Aanenson: Or amending the code.
Scott: Yeah, I think we can do that. We don't need to make a motion but I think that that
would make sense to further define structures versus shelter and use the structure would be
something that's with walls and shelter is something that's without. This is a public hearing.
Is there anyone who would like to speak at the public hearing? Can I have a motion to open
the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: The public hearing is not open. If anybody would like to speak, please feel free to
step up. Give us your name and your address and we'd like to hear what's on your mind.
Gary Carlson: Good evening. My name is Gary Carlson and I usually come and speak on
any matters that concern our beachlot which is the next one to the south. I don't know, is
that park illustrated on this plan?
Scott: Well we know that you have this 50 foot reservation that's just on the side, sure.
Gary Carlson: Yeah. There's a 50 foot reservation. And as far as the gazebo item is, I've
seen structures go up in the city where there's no principle structure. I'm talking about on
Cathcart Park, all of a sudden somebody moved in another building on there and they called
it an ice warming house. We've been watching this old house slowly fall down. They try
10
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
and paint it up and they try and paint it up each year but it's still a falling down house that
all of us neighbors have to look at and somehow that goes right around all these ordinances.
But being on a beachlot myself I know what lightning and rain and when you have your
family down on the dock situation and there's no place for safety for them to go. And for
Mr. Durr not to be able to build, not necessarily build but to have the finest beachlot on, as
far as I can see with this plan, and the size of it and his landscaping, it will be the finest
beachlot on the lake. Why it cannot have a gazebo is beyond me. There's a few too many
rules that don't make sense and you gentlemen are here to just say, aye. Let's pass it and
then let the Council solve it. You don't have to follow every little ordinance that happens to
be up here because there's a lot of them on the city books that have never been enforced... So
I think you should allow him to have the gazebo for safety and for the appearance and for the
fact that it's the smallest beachlot in the whole lake. There's only 27 residents in that
development and I think if you traced each beachlot around Lake Minnewashta you'll find
that that is also the smallest. One of the smallest beachlots on the whole lake so they should
be able to have those type of simple safety structures that are for the residents to find shelter
if they have their family at the beach. Especially when lightning storms. The only concern
we have is that you allow Mr. Durr to erect that find beachlot next to our's because it will
also enhance our's. So that's all I have to say.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to make any comments? Seeing none, can
I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Farmakes moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ledvina: I was wondering about off street parking. I know in your compliance table you've
indicated that the standard prohibits off street parking. I guess I, I don't know. The
alternative would be the cars parked along the roadway. Can you expand on the rationale for
no off street parking?
Rask: Sure. There really is no spot for off street parking here. However, all the lots are
within 1,000 feet of the beachlot so it's kind of the assumption that people will be walking to
the beachlot. There will be a path in, actually access. You know the people using the
beachlot are all within that subdivision and we would just as soon that they would walk to the
beachlot as opposed to drive a block or half a block.
Ledvina: So you feel it would be a walking situation, sure. There would be cars parked all
along. I would walk but I don't know about everybody else.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Aanenson: We may have instances where families may drive down with a picnic basket and
children and... The intention is not to have you go parking down there...
Ledvina: And I know situations with other recreational beachlots where off street parking
creates some additional problems with after hour activities and things like that with other
people so I guess I can see it but I just wanted to just get a little better perspective on that. I
guess as far as the gazebo is concerned, I think it's an amenity for the beachlot but I think
the process would call for a variance of the ordinance and we don't have the analysis for a
variance here. The variance process is pretty well defined and I don't know that we can do
that. Maybe one of the, as far as condition number 5 is concerned. Maybe we can suggest
that variance process be initiated for the gazebo. I don't know.
Aanenson: Or Jeff had a good suggestion too. Amend the code under the beachlot section
that says if it was just a roofed building and that would constitute a structure...
Ledvina: Well, then we're monkeying with the definition of structure then, aren't we?
Aanenson: Only in the beachlot section.
Ledvina: Oh! Only in the beachlot section. Okay.
Aanenson: We'd just be amending the beachlot ordinance to say certain of these types of...
gazebo and then put a cap on it.
Ledvina: So you're saying amend the ordinance?
Aanenson: Yeah. That would be the two options you would have...
Scott: The definition section.
Aanenson: Or just amend the beachlot section. Whichever.
Ledvina: Okay. Well, I don't know. I guess we can just leave that alone then in terms of
the conditions.
Aanenson: You may want to just...and forward those onto Council.
Ledvina: Okay. Well maybe just a however on number 5. Whoever makes the motion then.
And then just for semantics purposes here. With condition number 2. I guess I would
change the wording of the second sentence just to make sure that we're talking about on
12
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
shore storage of the canoes and how I would say that would be, with the maximum on shore
storage of 18 canoes and just take out the word slips because I think slips implies water kind
of thing and we know that the canoes are intended to be stored on the land, right? Okay. So
I would just clarify that.
Scott: Like 18 rack spaces.
Ledvina: Or whatever. Just maximum on shore storage. How they do it I.
Scott: I can talk about horses but not boats.
Ledvina: Okay, that's it.
Scott: Jeff.
Farmakes: I'd like to see what we can do to get to allow the gazebo. I think it'd be an
enhancement also, even from the lake viewing an enhancement. One of the things I'm
concerned about, we have a, I live next to a park where, a small park probably about this size
and we have about 80 homes and it's on a curve and there isn't much parking there but there
is an opportunity to get off of the main part of traffic on Utica. Just to drop stuff off.
Coolers. Chairs. Things of that nature for one car. For the park there. They get the kids
out of the car. They take their cooler or whatever down to the beach. They have boats.
They can load it up. It allows them to get out of the lane of traffic and it's a no parking
situation so they drop off their stuff and then they go park wherever and they come back. It
would seem to me that for people with children or people who have to transport items, that
maybe up there just past the island you could cut in enough space to get a car out of the lane
of traffic so when...but not enough to constitute a parking problem. Anyway, this is a matter
of practicality. I see it every day on our park and it would be very beneficial I think to see.
Other than that I think it's very nice. High quality. I even like the landscaping so, that's it.
Scott: Good, Ron.
Nutting: I don't have anything substance to add to the record. I'm also in support of the
gazebo. It adds to the site so whatever mechanism, whether it's the variance process or
amendment to the ordinance for the beachlot, I think that would be a worthwhile venture. I
have nothing more to add...
Scott: Okay, can I have a motion please.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Nutting: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional
Use Permit #94-5 to allow a recreational beachlot on Outlot A in Minnewashta Landings
Subdivision with the conditions stated in the staff report.
Scott: Corrections as made.
Nutting: With the correction as noted in number 2. With the on shore storage.
Scott: Good, second?
Farmakes: I'd like to make a friendly amendment. To add consideration for the turn out for
a car so as not to create a traffic problem there.
Scott: Is that acceptable to you Ron?
Nutting: Sure.
Scott: Okay, good. Can we have a second to that motion as amended please?
Ledvina: I would second that.
Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any more discussion?
Nutting moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #94-5 to allow a recreational beachlot on Outlot A in
Minnewashta Landings Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. All provision of Section 20-263 pertaining to recreational beachlots shall be adhered to.
2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock. The dock must be
within the dock wetback zone. The dock shall have a maximum of three (3) boats docked
overnight with a maximum of 18 canoes stored on shore.
3. The applicant shall apply for a permit from the city on an annual basis prior to installation
of the portable chemical toilet. The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from
Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of
the year. The width of the trail and location of landscape plantings shall be designed to
allow for the annual removal of the toilet facility.
4. No gazebo or shelters shall be allowed on the beachlot.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
5. The applicant shall supply a turn out space for a vehicle so as not to cause traffic
problems.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE CONTROL AND
PREVENTION OF DUTCH ELM AND OTHER ARBOREAL DISEASES WITHIN
THE CITY.
Scott: I'd like to welcome Jill Kimsal to our meeting and I can say we had Jill come out to
our property and look at some trees and she was very knowledgeable and very courteous and
that comment was made to your boss. So now that you're totally embarrassed and stuff, let's
hear your report.
Jill Kimsal presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Good, thank you very much. Any questions? Comments.
Nutting: Are you conflicted in this? Is there any monetary future benefit to be gained?
Scott: Conflict of interest here.
Aanenson: The ordinance does require that we have someone that's available on a part time
basis. It isn't full time. Just so you know, we're going through the budget process with this.
Jill's done a great job for the city this summer and what we've done is, what we're proposing
in the budget is to keep her on 3 days during the winter...some of the stuff that Diane
Desotelle is working on with storm water and lake management inventory and looking at trees
and some of those sorts of things so then we'll have Jill on again next summer. But what
this does require, and we talked about this in the budget last year is having someone available
all summer. We're just at that level with the environmental issues that the city has and trees
is one of those things.
Ledvina: Tree preservation.
Aanenson: So we need someone available and Jill has done a great job helping us manage
that. And also she...erosion control, the solid waste element of vegetation. Those sort of
things.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Scott: May I just ask you a question. Just a question for Jill. In the last issue of Planning
magazine that we get, there was a specific issue, did you see that?
Aanenson: Yeah, we read that. I was going to include that in your packet about tree
ordinances.
Scott: Yeah. But to increase, I think it was they wanted, if you have a grade level of the
root system, the top of the root system, and then you have to fill in around, I think they were
recommending going from what, like 5 times the root ball or something like that which is, it
exceeds.
Aanenson: We looked at that ordinance but one of the things that I think Bob and I were
talking about too is that our ordinance is a little bit different. We went back with the
significant in the canopy. Again your...closer to matching individual trees which we found.
Scott: And we're doing canopy instead.
Aanenson: So we're looking at, yeah. We're looking at the bigger picture which we think,
we think it works a lot better. ...plats where we had individual trees...
Kimsal: Yeah, and just my experience throughout the summer dealing with developments.
You know saving single trees was just really hard to do because the developers, the
contractors, the builders don't really see the significance of a single tree in the front yard.
It's a lot easier for them to infringe on that, the root system of that tree rather than a whole
grove.
Aanenson: Going back to this ordinance and conflict, let me answer that question.
Nutting: I was in jest.
Aanenson: What this does in part is someone that's available. Now you don't have to keep
that person on full time but we've committed in last year's budget that we do have an intern
available to do this. The good news though is that Jill will be working on too as a part of
this is there's money available to become a Tree City USA and that's one of the first thing's
she'd be working on and there's quite a bit in that.
Scott: Hey alright. Can we put that on a sign?
Aanenson: There's money available for that and also going back to this, if there are diseased
trees, we can work out a program to help reduce the cost to the homeowner and so that's
being introduced. The purpose really is to get rid of diseased trees that are a problem and not
16
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
to necessarily penalize the homeowner. To try and get those taken care of so we think this is
a way to do that's not punitive. It's again, matching a resource that we have...
Farmakes: What potentially could happen to a homeowner that may have 20 acres and they
have, I want to say a farm area where they may have 10-12 acres of heavy forests. In that
heavy forests maybe several trees that maybe require eradication. Which could be several
thousand dollars.
Kimsal: Not necessarily. I believe it was kept in the ordinance that one of the procedures
for removal or elimination of diseased tree is girdling within an area where there's no safety
concerns whatsoever. So if somebody did have 20 acres and they had, and usually in that
case we're going to have elms that are 6 inches or less. It's usually a small diameter tree
that's going to have this situation. And in that case, it's easy enough for them just to go
around and girdle up the trees. There'd be no cost to them.
Farmakes: Okay, what's girdle?
Kimsal: Oh girdle is to take at least 2 inches of bark off entirely around the diameter of the
tree. The circumference of the tree.
Ledvina: From the bottom?
Kimsal: Just take the bark off, yeah.
Ledvina: All the bark on the tree?
Kimsal: No, no. A minimum of 2 inches.
Ledvina: What does that do?
Kimsal: It's killing off all the water. The conducting vessels are within that area and if you
take that away, nothing can move up and nothing can move down.
Ledvina: So that prevents the spread of the disease?
Kimsal: Well that kills the tree. Once the tree dies, it is a possible site of beetle breeding
grounds. However, if you get trees that small, they're going to dry out faster and once the
tree dries, the bark separates from the wood and in order for it to be a hospitable beetle
breeding site, the bark needs to be tight to the tree. So once the tree dries out, the bark
expands off the tree. You don't have to worry about it.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Farmakes: Okay, so they wouldn't necessarily have to eradicate it?
Kimsal: Right.
Farmakes: Okay. In surrounding communities with oak wilt. Now we have a lot of red oak
here. Don't they eradicate that by trenching or something or is that, are we looking at
creating barriers from that coming in here or do we just wait until the trees die and then we
eradicate them?
Kimsal: Yeah. No, we don't want to build a trench around the city or anything like that.
Usually you just wait until you find a suspected case of oak wilt. In that case the
recommended procedure is to take samples of it. Send it to the Department of Ag and based
on the results you get from that, that person would either use trenching or removal on white
oak or red oak...which can transmit the disease. Otherwise, in all cases of oak wilt you
would recommend trenching around that infected tree.
Farmakes: Okay. I've seen, is part of this program, I've seen red marks on the trees say
over between Greenwood Shores and the park where the city put in those roads there and
then they finally killed off those trees by putting in the PVC pipes so they didn't have to put
plumbing into the shelter at Lake Ann. So they could run it over to the pumping station on
the Greenwood Shores side. They must have killed 10 or more trees. Large mature trees by
doing that. This is off of this ordinance but that, it would be a good thing to evaluate how
those trees were killed by that type of construction so that the city doesn't do that again. It
was counter productive and the construction methods that were used by the subcontractor
killed those trees. I was there and observed their construction methods. They operated in the
summer. They were using tractor trends on cats that were depressing the ground about 12
inches at the base of those oak trees with no regard.
Aanenson: That's part of what you would have done is review the plans as far as
construction management and then she's out in the field making sure that it's done...and that's
why in the summer months at a minimum we get someone to do that. And as she was out in
inspections to find diseased trees, we realized we...ordinance in place.
Farmakes: And when I discussed that with the city personnel I was told that well, it was the
lowest bid that they went with and my response was, well then we have to have a criteria for
the bid that requests these construction methods then because it was really sad to see that type
of trail through those type of trees and then to kill the trees. And also when they decided to
put the PVC pipe and run it all the way to the other side of the lake, how many trees they
were killing with a 5 inch piece of PVC pipe. Maybe if that was part of the consideration for
the plumbing, they may have decided not to do that so anyway.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Scott: Also too, I know when we get, one of the big things that we have to deal with is
when we have developments come in is that you have, the person who provides us with the
information as to where the trees are, what kind they are and whether or not they're going to
be around after the development starts is not really objective. So I'm sure that there's ample
opportunity for your expertise to be applied to a few of those babies. Okay. Could I have a
motion please?
Ledvina: I have a few more questions.
Scott: Inquiring minds.
Ledvina: Sorry. Just on the language I guess. Now we were talking about this forester
position. Have we not created that yet?
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: So are we duplicating this section?
Aanenson: No. What it's saying is that the model language we could adopt came right out
of the State statute so you looked at doing that.
Ledvina: Kind of like the shoreland ordinance?
Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so what we did is we spoke with the City Attorney's office
and said, yes but there were penalties and things in there we didn't want and so what they
said is you have to get commission approval yeah if we wanted to amend or have a little bit
different ordinance. So what we do need to have in order...we do need to have language that
says we do have a city forester and that's qualified and Jill and Jeff, our intent last year also
qualify.
Ledvina: Okay. I didn't know if this was redundant. I thought we had done this but I can,
it just reinforces what's already on the books, right?
Aanenson: Right. Again, it's out of State statutes a lot of this. Some of the language we
did...straight out of the...
Ledvina: Okay. Can someone interpret this language for me? On page 2, Section 13-2.
Elm and oak wood storage. Okay. Here we go. Let's try to do this. On the second line
there. Is prohibited except during the period September 15th through April 1st of the
19
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
following year during which period such storage shall be permitted. Whew. How the hell do
you? What does that mean?
Kimsal: Well all that's trying to say is, elm logs and infected trees from the red oak group,
you can store those, if you're using them for firewood or something like that, between
September 15th and April 1st. If it's between that time, neither elm bark beetles are
reproducing nor oak wilt spoor mats are forming. Therefore, the wood that is infected is
relatively safe at that time. So you could store it on your property.
Ledvina: Okay. But what's of the following year? What does that have to do with it?
Kimsal: Well April 1st the following year because you have September 15th of say 1994 to
April 1st of 1995. It covers the winter.
Ledvina: Okay. September 15th through April 1st of the following year. So it doesn't have
anything relating to do when the tree was cut down or anything like that?
Kimsal: No.
Ledvina: Because that's what I was thinking it was relating. The following year.
Aanenson: If you're going to cut it down and store it.
Scott: Just think, those are the months that you can't golf.
Ledvina: Okay. Think of it that way. Well I don't know. That's kind of weird.
Aanenson: And we can put you know during whatever month period that is. A 9 month
period of whatever.
Ledvina: Why is it so confusing? Am I stupid or.
Scott: No you're not. You're very intelligent and well educated.
Aanenson: ...calendar year so you can say the whole consecutive whatever, 8-9 months.
Scott: That means if you're going to cut something like that down, you got to burn it. You'd
better burn it so if it's laying around, then you're in violation of the code. We have the wood
pile police now.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Ledvina: Okay. Would you fix that language if you want? I mean I guess these state
ordinances you don't want to monkey with those too much.
Aanenson: Right.
Ledvina: And then also just one other thing on page 4. Item (e). You're talking specifically
about diseased elms and oaks. Do we want to say, and other trees? I mean I know we, but
why are we specific to that? Is that intentional or no?
Kimsal: That's only intentional because as of right now those are the only diseases we know
of that would be a problem.
Ledvina: Right. But we want to, but I mean this is the thing that talks about stumps and if
we need to deal with stumps from other types of diseases let's say. Let's throw that in there.
Because you know it's a specific thing on stumps.
Scott: Also in Section 13-36 we must have his/her in there. By the way. You don't think
we read these things do you?
Nutting: Our hour is up.
Ledvina: Yeah, hour's up. Okay.
Scott: Okay, let's have a motion then.
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
adoption of the proposed Diseased Tree Ordinance as shown in the attachment of our staff
report with some helpful modifications to the language to clarify and enhance as discussed
here.
Scott: Good. Can I have a second please?
Nutting: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council adoption of the proposed Diseased Tree Ordinance as shown in the
attachment of our staff report with some helpful modifications to the language to clarify
and enhance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Scott: And let the record show that although this was a public hearing item, no members
from the general public are in the audience so we dispensed with that.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meetings dated August 17, 1994 and September 7, 1994 as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Aanenson: They approved the Interim Use for Admiral Waste. I think Council made some
good modifications as far as capping the number of dumpsters and also making sure that they
were only Admiral Waste. They couldn't sublet their space. And I think that was a good
compromise. Again, we kept to the same number of years that you had recommended which
was 5 so that was...I think that was a good compromise. When Halla went before the City
Council they had recommended...attorney's office on whether or not they could go on the
averaging or whether they had to go back to the original plat. Roger gave a legal opinion
that said, really their old grandfathered right was to pursue the original plat. And again that
was the legal opinion and the City Council went ahead and gave him the average so.
Ledvina: Which is how we passed it forward, is that correct?
Aanenson: Correct. What they'll be seeing Monday night is the exact motion that you had
forwarded to them. But what we are...that is a recommendation because this has been going
for 7 years. I mean he's proceeding with a right that nobody else has which is, you know if
he was to come in today he'd have to go at 1 per 10.
Ledvina: Did the Council at that point approve that plat?
Aanenson: No, it's going Monday night.
Ledvina: But it almost seemed like they were approving the.
Aanenson: No. They didn't have the plat in front of them or the conditions so that's really,
but the condition that we're adding in as well as your recommendation...is we're adding a
drop dead date because he has to final plat the whole thing. That was one of the conditions
so we're saying that there's so many lots that have to be final platted or he no longer has the
preliminary plat status. Because this has continued for 7 years and it's either got to go
forward or drop so that would be our recommendation on that. Business fringe district. We
talked about, we added some permitted uses. Those we thought that were easily converted to
22
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
a higher or better uses such as the miniature golf. The Council was still concerned about
some of the conditional uses, which are in place right now. That may not be quite so
transitory in nature such as the cold storage. If somebody has a mortgage on a piece of
property, based on a large facility, it may be hard to convert that type of use. So we do have
one down there right now that they're recommending now that that be taken off the
conditional use so really what we're looking as far as conditional uses is the car lot...
Ledvina: Wasn't the purpose of that ordinance to expand the uses and what we really ended
up doing was narrowing them, in the end right?
Aanenson: No, we didn't have any permitted uses. So what we did is we did add some
permitted uses...would change in the future. But we did revisit the conditional uses and take
out some of them that maybe weren't quite so palatable as long term uses. Again going back,
if someone's going to put a big building on there and then a mortgage, he's not going to turn
over as quickly as a miniature golf course. So I think it was a good compromise.
Ledvina: Yeah, I think so too.
Aanenson: Shadow Ridge was given final plat approval. If you've driven out there, they're
up there working away. They've done a good job as far as staking their trees and...pretty
conscious effort to try and preserve... And then they also approved, the Council approved the
Wetland Alteration Permit for Highway 5 and Lyman Blvd.
Scott: Good, thank you. Planning Commission terms, speaking for myself. I would like to
be re-appointed. I'm interested in being re-appointed so you can pass that on to.
Aanenson: What I wanted to do was just forward this on to the City Council just so you
know because what happens is...at the end of the year and then we've got to make sure we've
got people in the chairs so we can keep the agendas going so I'll forward this onto the
Council. So if we do need to advertise, maybe we do need to...Ladd and Diane so we have
people here ready to serve.
Nutting: What do you do if Nancy gets elected to the Council?
Scott: Well we'll know and then we'll have a seat.
Nutting: You'll advertise at that point in time?
Scott: Right.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Ledvina: I don't understand this, these terms. I was appointed before.
Aanenson: Some people are filling out like Brian Batzli's so there are some people that are
filling out other people's terms...
Ledvina: So how come Jeff has a 5 year term?
Farmakes: He's obviously more valuable than we are.
Scott: Oh by the way, I would like to announce that Matt Ledvina has been awarded the
Brian Batzli Memorial Attendance Award. Unfortunately Brian couldn't be here tonight to
give it to you so you'll have to call him at his office.
Ledvina: I guess we're going to share that award with, I share it with Nancy and yourself so.
Scott: Well, I don't know how that happened.
Ledvina: And you two over there, shape up.
Nutting: Is my 69% based on the number of meetings I was eligible to attend or all the
meetings?
Farmakes: 81% is a B-. I'll take that.
Aanenson: ...City Council decided to interview so you weren't even appointed until March
and that's, we've got 3 people out.
Scott: So it looks pretty nasty there. Well that's the problem when you have a young child.
I certainly wouldn't want to do that. Okay. Could I have a, wait a second here. There's a.
Ledvina: Shoreland ordinance. We don't talk about that.
Scott: Yeah. This is just attached for our information?
Aanenson: Yes.
Scott: May I have a motion to adjourn please?
24
Planning Commission Meeting - September 21, 1994
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
25