10-19-94 Agenda and Packet FILE
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIC
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1994, 7:30 P.M
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Amendment to the City Code, Article XXVI,regarding the Sign Ordinance.
2. Preliminary plat of 1.87 acres into 4 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and
located at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Hobens Wild Wood Farms 1st Addition, Hoben Corporation.
3. Rezoning of 39 acres of property zoned A2 to RSF,preliminary plat to create 48 single family lots and 3 outlots,
wetland alteration permit for mitigation of ponding areas, and conditional use permit for alteration of areas
within a flood plain on property located north of Twin Cities & Western Railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek and
east of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek, Heritage First Addition, Heritage Development Company.
OLD BUSINESS
4. 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 aF
E N
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: John Rask, Planner I
DATE: October 14, 1994
SUBJ: Sign Ordinance
Background
For well over two years, staff, Planning Commission, and members of the business
community have been working on changes to the sign ordinance. The original draft was
developed with a subcommittee that included a member from the City Council, Planning
Commission, and two Chamber members. Our most recent efforts included three work
sessions with the Planning Commission and Chamber of Commerce to discuss the ordinance
in detail. A number of changes were made to the original draft and have been incorporated
into a draft ordinance. The City Attorney has also reviewed the draft and recommended
changes. All changes are shown in bold on the attached draft ordinance.
Analysis
Several issues came up during the three work sessions which required a legal opinion or
additional research. One issue that was discussed was alcohol and tobacco advertising signs
on bus benches and inflatable devices. The City Attorney indicated that prohibiting alcohol
and tobacco advertising signs is a real gray area as far as what restrictions cities can place on
the advertisement of these products. The City Attorney is recommending that we prohibit
advertising signs on all bus benches and allow alcohol products to be advertised on inflatable
devices.
It was agreed upon at the work sessions that advertising signs should be allowed on bus
benches and shelters located at designated bus stops in conjunction with SW Metro Transit
and that all other advertising signs on benches be prohibited. The City Attorney advised us
not to preclude private individuals from locating benches with advertising signs attached, if
we are going to allow others to sell advertising space on their benches or structures. We
Planning Commission
October 14, 1994
Page 2
have, therefore, changed the ordinance to prohibit advertising signs on all bus benches.
A third issue involved face changes and removal of non-conforming signs. We reviewed the
non-conforming sign section of the ordinance with the City Attorney. He informed us that we
cannot prohibit face changes or require non-conforming signs to be removed after vacation of
an existing business. We have removed these requirements from the ordinance.
The Commission also asked staff to look into the possibility of allowing signs in utility and
drainage easements. After consultation with the city engineering department, it was agreed
that we could allow signs within easements provided the sign does not adversely affect
drainage or utilities, all setback requirements are met, and the applicant sign an encroachment
agreement. All requests will have to be reviewed individually to determine impacts on
drainage and utilities.
One final issue involved the 25' foot setback requirement for a 15' high temporary
development sign. The Commission asked staff to determine what liability issues exist if the
25' requirement is reduced to 15'. This issue was presented to the city building officials for
their review and comment. They did not request the 25' setback•requirement, however, felt
that an additional setback was warranted when you have a large sign, 64 sq. ft., that does not
require any engineering data, soil analysis, footings, or inspections. Staff did not change the
setback requirement for a temporary development sign.
Recommendation
All amendments have been made to the draft ordinance as directed by the Planning
Commission. These changes incorporate a number of compromises reached between staff,
Planning Commission, Chamber of Commerce, and the business community. Staff
recommends the Planning Commission review and make any additional changes and
recommend the City Council adopt the amendment.
Attachments
1. Proposed Sign Ordinance
2. Planning Commission minutes dated April 6, 1994
ARTICLE XXVI. SIGNS
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 20-1251. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.
A. Purpose
The purpose of this sign ordinance is intended to establish an effective means of
communication in the city, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the city's
ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and
traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and
private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign
regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare,
aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to
communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals:
(1) establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity
to advertise;
(2) preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this
objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or
illumination;
(3) ensure that signs do not create safety hazards.
(4) ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner
that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists;
(5) preserve and protect property values;
(6) ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally
compatible with the principal structures;
(7) limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an
opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs
which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way
intersections.
B. Findings
The City of Chanhassen finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the
public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that the construction,
location, size and maintenance of signs be controlled. Further the city finds:
1. permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on, and a relationship, to the
image of the community;
2. the manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public
health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community;
3. an opportunity for a viable identification of community business and institutions
must be established;
4. the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and
property is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that
unduly divert the attention of drivers;
5. installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of
buildings, walks or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods of high
winds and an obstacle to effective fire fighting and other emergency service;
6. uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic
attractiveness of the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and
growth;
7. uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs, which are
commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way, or are located at
driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of
oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also
adversely impacts a logical flow of information.
Sec. 20-1252. Permit and variance fees.
Fees for reviewing and processing sign permit applications and variance requests shall be
imposed in accordance with the fee schedule established by City Council resolution.
2
Sec. 20-1253. Variances.
The City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may grant a
variance from the requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography or
other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship;
provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit
or intent of this article. Written application for a variance shall be filed with the Planning
Department and shall be supplemented with reproducible copies of the proposed sign. The
application shall be processed in conformance with the public hearing requirements dictated for
variances in Section 20-29. No variance shall be granted by the City Council unless it has
received the affirmative vote of at least simple majority of the full City Council.
Sec. 20-1254. Permit generally.
(a) Except as provided in Section 20-1255, no sign or sign structure shall be erected,
constructed, altered, rebuilt or relocated until a permit has first been issued by the
city.
(b) The following information for a sign permit shall be supplied by an applicant if
requested by the city:
(1) Name, address and telephone number of person making application.
(2) A site plan to scale showing the location of lot lines, building structures,
parking areas, existing and proposed signs and any other physical features.
(3) Plans, location, specifications, materials, method of construction and
attachment to the buildings or placement method in the ground.
(4) Copy of stress sheets and calculations.
(5) Written consent of the owner or lessee of any site on which the sign is to
be erected.
(6) Any electrical permit required and issued for the sign.
(7) Such other information as the city shall require to show full compliance
with this chapter and all other laws and ordinances of the city.
Information may include such items as color and material samples.
(8) Receipt of sign permit fee.
3
(9) The Planning Director, upon the filing of any application for a permit,
shall examine such plans, specifications, and other data. If the proposed
sign complies with this article and other applicable ordinances, the city
shall issue a sign permit unless City Council approval is required. If City
Council approval is required, the matter shall be promptly referred to the
council for action.
Sec. 20-1255. Signs allowed without permit.
The following signs are allowed without a permit:
(1) Political Campaign signs: Temporary political campaign signs are permitted
according to the following:
a. Signs may be permitted from August 1, in a state general election
year, until ten (10) days following the state general election.
b. The sign must contain the name of the person responsible for such sign,
and that person shall be responsible for its removal.
c. Signs are not permitted in the public right-of-way.
d. Shall comply with the fair campaign practices act contained in the State
of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 211B.045.
e. The city shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming
to this paragraph.
(2) Directional signs.
a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The
maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground.
The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such
that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site
lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general
appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. Te number of signs
shall not exceed few (1) unless approved by the City Council. No more
than four (4) signs shall be allowed per site. The City Council may
allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic
safety could be jeopardized.
b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is
confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be
4
inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of a sign
shall be approved by the City Council. The size of the sign shall be no
larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the
roadway and shall be approved by the City Council.
c. On-premises signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty (40) acres
shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. The maximum height of the sign
shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of
directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does
not adversely affect adjacent properties or the general appearance of the
site from public right-of-way. The number of signs shall eet exceed four
(I) unless approved by the City Council. No more than four (4) signs
shall be allowed per site. The City Council may allow additional signs
in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be
jeopardized.
d. Bench signs are prohibited.
(3) Community Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a
religious, national, state or local holiday or event and no other matter, and which
are displayed for a period not to exceed forty (40) days in any calendar year.
(4) Motor fuel price signs are permitted on the premises of any automobile service
station or convenience store selling fuel, only if such signs are affixed to the fuel
pumps or are made an integral part of a ground low profile or pylon business sign
otherwise permitted in that zoning district. Motor fuel price signs affixed to a fuel
pump shall not exceed four (4) square feet in sign display area. When such signs
are made an integral part of a freestanding business sign, the sign display area
devoted to the price component shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total
sign display area of the sign.
(5) Nameplate or integral signs not exceeding two (2) square feet per building and
does not include multi-tenant names.
(6) Non-illuminated construction signs confined to the site of the construction,
alteration or repair. Such a sign must be removed within one (1) year from the
date of issuance of the first building permit on the site, and may be extended until
the project is completed. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each street the
project abuts. Commercial and industrial signs may not exceed fifty (50) square
feet in sign area, and residential construction signs may not exceed twenty-four
(24) square feet in sign area.
(7) Signs of a public, non-commercial nature, informational signs erected by a
governmental entity or agency, including safety signs (O.S.H.A.),directional signs
5
to public facilities, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or
historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the like. Signs shall not exceed
sixteen (16) square feet.
(8) Rummage (garage) sale signs. Rummage sale signs shall be removed within two
(2) days after the end of the sale and shall not exceed four (4) square feet.
Rummage sale signs shall not be located in any public rights-of-way. The city
shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming to this paragraph.
The city may assess a fee in the amount established by resolution for each sign
removed by the city.
(9) Temporary development project advertising signs erected for the purpose of selling
or promoting any non-residential project, or any residential project of ten (10) or
more dwelling units, located in the City of Chanhassen, shall be permitted subject
to the following regulations:
a. Not more than two (2) non-illuminated signs or not more than one (1)
non-illuminated sign per street frontage shall be allowed per project.
b. Such signs shall only be located along streets that provide primary access
to the project site.
c. Such sign shall be set back not less than twenty-five (25) feet from any
property line, and shall be firmly anchored to the ground.
d. No such sign shall be located closer than twe-#used-{200}one hundred
(100) feet from an existing residential dwelling unit, church, or school
which is not a part of the project being so advertised.
e. Such signs shall not be located closer than one hundred (100) feet from
any other such sign located on the same side of the street.
f. Sign display area shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet, and the
height of such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet.
g hundred (100)percent completed. In no case shall such signs-be permitted
to exceed three (3) years. For the purpose of this paragraph, the
of units allowed in the approved development plan; and by di'iding the
number of buildings constructed in non residential projects by the total
number of building sites in the approved development plan. Such signs
shall be removed when the project being advertised is completed or
6
after three (3) years. The Planning Director may permit a sign for
longer than 3 years if the project being advertised is not one
hundred(100) percent completed.
(10) Temporary real estate signs which advertise the sale, rental or lease of real estate
subject to the following conditions:
a. On-premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of the
premises upon which the sign is located.
1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per street frontage.
2. Sign display area shall not exceed twelve (12) sixteen (16) square
feet per sign on property containing less than ten (10) acres in area,
and thirty-two (32) square feet per sign on property containing ten
(10) or more acres.
3. No such sign shall exceed ten (10) feet in overall height, nor be
located less than ten (10) feet from any property line.
4. All temporary real estate signs shall be removed within seven (7)
days following sale, lease, or rental of the property.
5. Window signs advertising the sale, rental, or lease of a building
are permitted subject to the conditions of Sec. 20-1265(g).
b. Off-premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of
business and industrial buildings:
1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per building.
2. Such signs shall only be permitted in business and industrial
districts, and on property located within the same subdivision or
development as the building being advertised.
3. Such signs shall not be located closer one
hundred (100) feet from any other such sign located on the same
side of the street.
4. Sign display area shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet, and
the height of such signs shall not exceed ten (10) feet.
5. Such sign shall be setback at least ten (10) feet from any
property line.
7
6. Such signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following the
lease or sale of the building floor space which it is advertising. of
within twelve (1-2) months from the date a d,
7. Provide written permission of property owner.
c. Off-premises directional signs which show direction to new residential
developments in accordance with the following. The intent of this
subparagraph is to allow short term signage, for residential development,
to familiarize the public with the new development.
1. Such sign shall only be permitted along major arterials and
collectors as identified in the comprehensive plan.
2. Only one (1) sign per corner of an intersection per development
shall be permitted. -- - -- - =- --- - - :.- ' - =-
intersection. Signs shall not be located in any site distance
triangle, measured thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of
the property line.
3. Sign display area shall not exceed twenty four (24)thirty-two (32)
square feet and the height of such signs shall not exceed ten (10)
feet.
4. Such sign shall not be located closer than twenty five (25)ten (10)
feet from any street right-of-way line, and shall be firmly anchored
to the ground.
5. •- - _ -- - . . . - . -. -- - - -
sign on their property. Written permission must be obtained
from the property owner upon whose land the proposed sign is
to be located.
6.
. - '. _ . Such sign shall be non-
illuminated and kept in good condition.
7. Such sign shall be removed six (6) twelve (12) months after the
sign has been erected and developer may not apply for a second
off-premises directional sign permit. A sign shall be permitted
for each phase of a development.
8
8. _ - - -- - ._ _ - - - - -- - - - • -
`- .
9. Signs for the "Parade ef 1 3es" shall be limited to-4 square feet
ttnd shall be permitted enly for the duration of the "Parade ef
Homes". Signs for home promotions (Parade of Homes, Spring
Preview, etc.) shall be limited to four (4) square feet and shall
be permitted only for the duration of the event.
Sec. 20.1256. Permit for temporary sign, searchlights, banners, etc.
Temporary signs are permitted as follows:
1. Banners shall not exceed 100 square feet and portable signs shall not exceed 32
square feet and shall meet the following standards:
a. a thirty (30) day display period to coincide with the grand opening of a
business or a new development (business park or shopping center), or a
business may display a banner or portable sign on three occasions per
calendar year with a maximum 10-day display period for each occasion.
b. messages must relate to on-premise products or services, or any non-
commercial message; and
c. banners must be affixed to a principal structure which is owned or leased
by the business which the sign is advertising. Non-profit and
governmental event banners are excluded from this provision.
d. portable signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
e. sign permit issued by city.
2. Inflatable advertising devices are permitted according to the following:
a. for each site or center,two occasions per calendar year, with each occasion
not to exceed seven (7) days;
b. written authorization from the property owner or their designee must be
submitted with the sign permit application.
9
c. sign permit issued by city.
d. maximum height of the inflatable shall be 25 feet.
e. if located on the roof of a structure, the height of the inflatable and the
building shall not exceed the building height permitted in the zoning
district. . . .. . • : • , . . . _ . • •. • . . . . . . . . . . • .
3. Flashing or blinking portable signs, stringers, and pennants are not permitted.
4. Large flags flown in high winds may cause a noise nuisance and are subject to
removal upon complaint.
5. The use of searchlights shall be limited to three (3) occasions per year, with
each occasion not to exceed two (2) days. The use of searchlights shall be
controlled in such a way so as not to become a nuisance.
Sec. 20-1258. Legal Action.
If the City Planning Director or an administrative officer finds that any sign regulated by
this division is prohibited as to size, location, content, type, number, height or method of
construction: or erected without a permit first being granted to the installer of the sign to the
owner of the property upon which the sign has been erected or is improperly maintained, or is
in violation of any other provision of this chapter, he shall give written notice of such violation
to the owner or permittee thereof. If the permittee or owner fails to remove or alter the sign so
as to comply with the provisions set forth in this chapter within (10) calendar days following
receipt of said notice:
(1) Such permittee or owner may be prosecuted for violating this chapter and if
convicted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day a violation exists shall
constitute a separate offense.
Sec. 20-1259. Prohibited signs. •
The following signs are prohibited:
(1) Advertising or business signs on or attached to equipment, such as semi-truck
trailers, where signing is a principal use of the equipment on either a temporary
or permanent basis.
10
(2) Motion signs and flashing signs, except time and temperature signs and barber
poles which may be permitted by conditional use permits (see sections 20-231
through 20-237).
(3) Projecting signs, not including awning or canopies as defined in this ordinance.
(4) Roof signs, except that a business sign may be placed on the roof, facia or
marquee of a building provided it does not extend above the highest elevation of
the building, excluding chimneys, and provided:
a. Roof signs shall be thoroughly secured and anchored to the frames of the
building over which they are constructed and erected.
b. No portion of roof signs shall extend beyond the periphery of the roof.
(5) Wall graphics and design treatments depicting corporate logos and company
symbols.
(6) Temporary signs or banners except as permitted in Section 20-1256.
(7) Signs which are placed or tacked on trees, fences, utility poles or in the public
right-of-way.
(8) Bus bench signs are prohibited. Bench signs are prohibited.
(9) Billboards are prohibited.
Sec. 20-1260. Nonconforming Signs.
When the principal use of land is legally non-conforming under this chapter, all existing
or proposed signs in conjunction with that land, shall be considered conforming if they are in
compliance with the sign provisions for the most restrictive zoning district in which the principal
use is allowed.
Excluding normal maintenance,face changes, and repair, a non-conforming sign shall not
be moved, altered (including face changes/the cs$ -of the sin or enlarged unless it is brought
into compliance with the sign regulations.
11
Prepeft-
y.
Sec. 20-1265. General location restrictions.
(a) No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a distance equal to
one-half (1/2) the minimum required yard setback. No sign shall be placed within
any drainage or utility easement. Sign shall not block site distance triangle from
any private drive or access. Signs shall not be located in any site distance triangle
thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line.
(b) Signs on adjacent non-residential property shall be positioned so that the copy is
not visible from residential uses or districts along adjoining side and rear yard
property lines.
(c) No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be erected or placed upon any public
street, right-of-way or public easement, or project over public property.
Temporary signs may not be erected or placed in a public easement unless
approved by the city.
•
(d) Signs shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or
pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed
as traffic controls, such as "Stop," "Caution," "Warning," unless the sign is
intended to direct traffic on the premises.
(e) No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on
rocks, fences or trees nor, interfere with any electric light, power, telephone or
telegraph wires or the supports thereof.
(f) No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that prevents free ingress
or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall
be attached to a standpipe or fire escape.
(g) Window signs shall not cover more than thirty three (33)fifty (50) percent of the
total window area in which they are located. The area of a window sign shall be
interpreted as the total window area for that face of the building. In no case shall
the total window sign area exceed the permitted wall sign area defined in this
ordinance for said district.
12
Sec. 20-1266. Maintenance and repair.
Signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained and kept in a safe condition. Sign
or sign structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired
or replaced by the licensee, owner or agent of the building upon which the sign stands
immediately upon notification by the city.
Sec. 20-1267. Uniformity of construction, design, etc.
All permanent signs shall be designed and constructed in a uniform manner and, to the
extent possible, as an integral part of the building's architecture. Multi-tenant commercial and
industrial buildings shall have uniform signage. When buildings or developments are presented
for site plan review, proposed signs for the development should be presented concurrently for
staff review. All planned centers and multi-tenant buildings all submit a comprehensive sign plan
for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Signage shall use initiv4f4u.a1,
channelized letters, individual dimensional letters, be back lit if a wall sign is illuminated, and
be architecturally compatible with the building and other signage if in a multi-tenant building.
Corporate logos or company symbols shall not occupy more than fifteen percent (15%) of
the sign display area.
Sec. 20-1268. Noncommercial speech.
Signs containing noncommercial speech are permitted anywhere that signs are permitted,
subject to the same size regulations applicable to such signs.
Sec. 20-1270. Uniform Sign Code.
The design and construction standards as set forth in Chapter 4 of the 1985 Edition
of the Uniform Sign Code as may be amended, are adopted.
13
Sec. 20-1275. Construction Standards.
(a) A free standing sign or sign structure shall be constructed so that if the faces are
not back to back, then they shall not have an angle separating the faces exceeding
twenty (20) forty-five (45) degrees unless the total area of both sides added
together does not exceed the maximum allowable sign area for that district.
ys°triox. aell 4
(b) All on-premise freestanding signs must have structural supports covered or
concealed with pole covers. The actual structural supports should not be exposed,
and the covers should be architecturally and aesthetically designed to match the
building. Pole covers shall be a minimum height of (eight) 8 feet. The exposed
uprights, superstructure and/or backside of all signs shall be painted a neutral color
such as light blue gray, brown, or white, unless it can be illustrated that such part
of the sign designed or painted in another manner is integral to the overall design
of the sign.
litcr_72g GM,
/Crit,
\.bamilil
(c) The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the National Electrical Code
as adopted and amended by the city. Electrical service to such sign shall be
underground.
(d) No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any building until all
necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the building official.
Any canopy or awning sign shall have a minimum of an eight (8) foot clearance.
(e) Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at
oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver. No
such signs shall interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal; this
includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets. Illumination for a sign
or groups of signs shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle in brightness as measured at the
property line.
14
DIVISION 2. SIGNS ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT
Sec. 20-1301. Agricultural and Residential Districts.
The following signs are allowed by permit in the A-2, RR, RSF, R-4, R-8, R-12 and
residential PUD districts:
(1) Public and Institutional Signs. One (1) ground low profile or wall sign, not
exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on
the premises of any public or institutional property giving the name of the facility
and nature of the use and occupancy. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line, and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height
(2) Area Identification/Entrance signs. Only one (1) monument sign may be erected
on a lot, which shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area,
nor be more than five feet high. Any such sign or monument shall be designed
so that it is maintenance free. The adjacent property owner or a Homeowners
Association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification/entrance
sign. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street
maintenance operations, and shall be securely anchored to the ground.
Sec. 20-1302. Neighborhood Business, Fringe Business, and Office & Institutional Districts.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any OI, BF, or BN Districts:
1. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business or
institutional sign not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area
shall be permitted. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any
property line and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
2. Wall business signs. One (1) wall business sign shall be permitted on the street
frontage for each business occupant within a building. Wall business signs shall
not be mounted upon the wall of any building which faces any adjoining
residential district without an intervening public street. The total of all wall
mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage
established in the following table:
15
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Total Square
of Wall Footage of Signs
15% 0-600 90
13% 601-1,200 156
11% 1,201-1,800 198
9% 1,801-2,400 216
7% 2,401-3,200 224
5% 3,201-4,500 230
3% 4,500 + 240
3. Wall signs shall not include product advertising. Wall signs shall only include
tenant identification, tenant logo or registered trademark, center name, or any
combination of the three.
Sec. 20-1303. Highway, General Business Districts and Central Business District.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any BH, BG, or CBD District:
The following table lists the standards for freestanding and ground low profile signs in
the BH, BG, or CBD zone.
PYLON GROUND LOW PROFILE
Principal Height Sign size Height Sign Size
Structure (feet) (sq. ft.) (feet) (sq. ft.)
50,000 sq. ft. 20 80 10 80
or greater
Less than 16 64 8 64
50,000 sq. ft.
1. Pylon business sign. Pylon Signs are permitted on parcels that abut Hiway-5
State Highway corridors only. One (1) pylon identification sign shall be
16
permitted. This sign may identify the name of the center of the major tenants.
The height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the square footage of
the principal structure as shown in the table. Such signs shall be located at least
ten (10) feet from any property line.
2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall
be permitted per each outlot or separate building pad that has street frontage. The
height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the table above. Such
signs shall be located at least 300 feet from any other pylon or ground sign and
at least ten (10) feet from any property line.
3. Wall business signs. Wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for
each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign
display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage established in
the following table:
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
15% 0-600 90
13% 601-1,200 156
11% 1,201-1,800 198
9% 1,801-2,400 216
7% 2,401-3,200 224
5% 3,201-4,500 230
3% 4,500 + 240
4. Menu Board. One (1) menu board sign per restaurant use is permitted with a drive-
through facility. Such sign shall not exceed forty-five (45) square feet in size nor
greater than eight (8) feet in height. Such sign is permitted in addition to any other sign
permitted in the Zoning District.
17
Sec. 20-1304. Industrial Office Park Signs.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP District:
1. Pylon or ground low profile business signs. Pylon signs are permitted on parcels
that abut the Highway 5 corridor only. One (1) pylon or one (1) ground low
profile Industrial Office Park identification sign shall be permitted. A Pylon sign
shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign area and shall not exceed twenty
(20) feet in height. A ground low profile may not exceed eighty (80) square feet
and eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from
any property line.
2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall
be permitted for each individual tenant. Such sign shall not exceed sixty-four (64)
square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five (5) eight (8) feet in
height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line.
3. Wall business signs. Wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for
each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign
display areas shall not exceed the square footage established in the following
table: •
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
159k 0-600 90
13% 601-1,200 156
11% 1,201-1,800 198
9% 1,801-2,400 216
7% 2,401-3,200 224
5% 3,201-4,500 230
3% 4,500 + 240
Secs. 20-1306-20-1350. Reserved.
18
Sec. 20-1 DEFINITIONS
Sign means any object, device, display, or structure, or part thereof situated outdoors, or visible
through a window or door, which is used to advertise, announce, identify, display, direct or
attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business, commodity, product,
service, event or location, by means, including words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fixtures,
pictures, illumination or projected images.
Sign, Advertising means any sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service,
activity or entertainment not conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is
located.
Sign, Awning means a temporary hood or cover
that projects from the wall of a building,
and which can be retracted, folded or collapsed
against the face of the supporting building.
Awning may extend in any required yard
setback a maximum of five (5) feet.
(2.6 feet in the supplementary regulations)
Sign, Banner means a sign which is made out of a paper, cloth or plastic-like consistency,
affixed to a building, vehicle, poles, or other supporting structures by all four (4) corners.
Sign, Business means a sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted, or to
a commodity or service sold, offered or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered on the
premises where the sign is located.
Sign, Business Directory means a sign which
[l
identifies the names of specific businesses j
located in a shopping center, medical center I n—
and professional office and which is located on the premises of the shopping center so identified. vammigultuliv
Sign, Campaign means a temporary sign announcing, promoting, or supporting political
candidates or issues in connection with any national, state, or local election.
Sign, Canopy - Any sign that is affixed to a
projection or extension of a building or structure
of a building, erected in such as manner as to
provide a shelter or cover over the approach to
any entrance of a store, building or place of assembly.
plastic, or structural protective cover over a
19
entrances and exits, circulation direction,
parking areas, and pickup and delivery areas.
Sign, Display Area means the area within a single
continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits
or the actual sign message surface, including any
structural elements outside the limits of each sign
forming an integral part of the sign. The stipulated
maximum sign display area for a sign refers to a
single facing.
Sign, Festive Flag/Banner - a flag or
banner constructed of cloth, canvas or
light fabric, that is hung from a light
pole. The flag/banner shall contain no
advertising except for cultural events,
special holidays/seasons, etc.
Sign, Flag - any fabric banner used as a symbol of a government political subdivision or other
identity. Corporation flags shall not exceed 12 square feet and may be flown in tandem with the
state or national flag. - - ' . • ' : - •• •• - • - - • • • • -• - •• • - •
ubject to removal upon complaint.
Sign, Flashing means any directly or indirectly illuminated sign which exhibits changing natural
or artificial light or color effects by any means what so ever.
Sign,Freestanding/Pole/Pylon, means any non-movable sign not affixed to a building but erected
upon a pole, post or other similar support so that the bottom edge of the sign display area is eight
(8) feet or more above the ground elevation.
Sign, Governmental means a sign erected and maintained pursuant to and in discharge of any
governmental functions, or required by law, ordinance or other governmental regulation.
Sign, Ground low profile business means a hi A A
business sign affixed directly to the ground, 1 T1"j��
with the sign display area standing not
greater than two (2) feet above the ground.
Sign, Holiday decoration means a temporary sign in the nature of decorations, clearly incidental
to and customarily and commonly associated with any national, local or religious holiday.
20
Sign, Home occupation means a sign containing only the name and occupation of a permitted
home occupation not to exceed 2 square feet. This is also a nameplate sign.
Sign, Illuminated means a sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by lights on or
in the sign or directed towards the sign.
Sign,Informational means a sign containing descriptions of major points of interest, government
institutions or other public services such as hospitals, sports facilities, etc.
Sign, Institutional means a sign which identifies the name and other characteristics of a public
or private institution of the site where the sign is located.
Sign, Integral means a sign constructed as
to be an integral portion of the building
of which it forms a part.
Sign, Integral Roof, means any sign
erected or constructed as an integral or
essentially integral part of a normal roof
structure of any design, such that no part
of the sign extends vertically above the — —
highest portion of the roof and such that
noart of the sign is separated from the ! '
pP
rest of the roof by a space of more than
six (6) inches.
Sign, Marquee means a sign which is mounted, painted on, or attached to any projection or
extension of a building that is designated in such a manner as to provide shelter or cover over
the approach to any entrance of the building.
Sign, Menu Board means a sign located adjacent to the drive-through lane that is used to
advertise the product available at a fast food restaurant.
Sign, Motion means any sign or part of a sign which changes physical position by any movement
or rotation of which gives the visual impression of such movement or rotation.
Sign, Nameplate means a sign, located on the premises, which bears the name and/or address of
the occupant of the building or premises.
Sign, Non-Conforming, a sign that does not conform to the requirements of this ordinance.
Sign, Off-Premise, an advertising sign which directs attention to a use, product, commodity or
services not related to the premises on which it is located.
21
Sign, On-Premise, a sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, product, use, service
or other activity which is sold, offered or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is
located.
Sign, Portable, means a sign designed so as to be movable from one (1) location to another, and
that is not permanently affixed to a building, structure, or the ground. Including but not limited
to, signs designed to be transported by means of wheels, sign converted to A-Frames, menu and
sandwich board signs, and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and visible from the
public right-of-way unless said vehicle is used in the normal day-to-day operations.
Sign,Private Sale or Event means a temporary sign advertising private sales or personal property
such as a house sale, garage sale and the like or private nonprofit events such as picnic, carnival,
bazaar, game night, art fair, or craft show.
Sign, Projecting means a sign that is wholly or partly dependent upon a building for support and
which projects more than twelve (12) inches from such building.
Sign, Real Estate means a sign pertaining to the sale or lease of the premises, or a portion of the
premises, on which the sign is located.
.x:44.
Sign, Roof means a sign that is mounted on
the roof of a building or which is wholly ,1`111
dependent upon a building for support and J j which projects above the roof line of a f • 11;
,
building with a flat roof, the eave line ':
of a building with a gambrel, gable or hip .1.j is •
roof or the deck line of a building with a !U; I
mansard roof.
Sign, Temporary means a sign designed or
intended to be displayed for a short period1))
of time. This includes items such as banners,
pennants, flags, beacons, sandwich, or
balloons or other air or gas filled figures. 1.11
Sign, Wall means a sign attached to or
erected against the wall of a building or
structure with the exposed face of the
sign in a plane approximately parallel Qevoy
to the face of the wall, and which - '
does not project more than twelve (12) ' . -
inches from such building or structure.
Wall signs shall not include product
advertising. Wall signs shall include
m Il._ II • , f =
22
tenant identification, tenant logo, center
name, or any combination of the three.
Sign, Window means sign, pictures, symbols,
or combination thereof, designed to
communicate information about an activity,
k•
business, commodity, event, sale or service,
that is placed inside a window or upon the
window panes or glass and is visible from
the exterior of the window.
Site Distance Triangle means no sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a
distance equal to one-half (1/2) the minimum required yard setback. No sign shall be placed
within any drainage or utility easement. Sign shall not block site distance triangle from any
private drive or access. Signs shall not be located in any site distance triangle thirty (30) feet
from the point of intersection of the property line.
10/13194
23
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
as it relates to suggested language changes be made prior to forwarding this ordinance to the
City Council.
Scott: Okay. Any other discussion?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of City Code Amendment to the landscaping and tree preservation sections as shown in
the staff report of March 30, 1994 and amended to reflect the changes discussed. All
voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried.
Scott: And your reason for abstaining?
Conrad: I'm really not comfortable with the minimum canopy requirements chart. And I've
tried to rationalize it because I think those on the Tree Board have done a terrific job here. I
don't buy some of the percentages. I think I would have done it differently but I didn't want
to...well enough. I think there should be a standard per district that you aim for and that may
be 50' coverage in a residential area but what we're doing is we're saying, based on how we
started it, we're going to let one district have a different standard and within the same zoning,
if the farmer cut down all the trees, they really only have to reforest it to a certain percentage.
Whereas if you started with a lot of trees, we're going to keep them up at that high level and
I would have cut it at a standard per zoning district that we're achieving. But I understand
the logic here. I don't know...
Scott: Thanks for your comment.
SIGN ORDINANCE DISCUSSION.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: I think we were talking about allowing pylon signs on property with Highway 5
frontage.
Mancino: But just in the general business district. I mean no in multi family, no in single
family, no in IOP.
Scott: BG.
Mancino: Yeah.
Generous: BH is the only two that would be affected. Highway Business district which is
30
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
right along TH 5 and BG, the general business which ties in with Market Square basically
and...
Harberts: So when you say they're affected Bob, are you saying that perhaps, depending on
what the outcome of the ordinance is, that those signs would have to come down? Or would
they be grandfathered in?
Generous: No. Any existing pylon sign would be...
Harberts: And could you just kind of tell me who they would include?
Generous: Well depending on the district, Town Square possibly.
Scott: What's Town Square?
Generous: On the other side of the bank.
Scott: Oh you mean that little.
Generous: With the two columns. That's what, 19 feet or something like that. Possibly the
Country Suites. Depending on what...That's all I can think of right now. I'd have to...
Anything that's not within whatever distance...
Scott: Sounds like somebody's beachlots.
Mancino: Makes sense to me.
Generous: We also are looking at, we didn't come up with any criteria but for discussion
was rewarding good design. Those criteria that we have...generalized down there. Saying
stuff might be started at a lower percentage and then if they used, include those features, that
they could have monument signs up to whatever the limit was.
Scott: And then also too, if it's kind of the cut outs instead of taking a rectangular square
footage for signage.
Harberts: What about bus signs? Are they informational signs?
Scott: Those would be non-conforming uses I think.
Generous: You mean like bus pick up or bus no parking signs?
31
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Harberts: Bus stop signs.
Generous: Those are directional signs.
Harberts: So they would be directional informational signs?
Generous: Right.
Harberts: We're undertaking a major signage project here folks.
Mancino: So nothing has been changed that we talked about inside the ordinance?
Generous: Not that I'm aware of, no. We would still need to come up with what numbers
you would prefer. Or if you would like to simplify it and say 10% and maybe give notices
for these requirements and drop the percentages that you allow.
Mancino: One of the things that would help me would be drawings. To actually see what is
15%7c of 600 square feet. I mean you know, I probably should have done that on my own but
on some of these, I don't know what that relates to. I don't understand the proportion.
Scott: Kind of like on Highway 5 where, here's a picture. This not this. Something like
that. And also you can visually see, get a concept of scale that's involved. But we won't use
Blockbuster Video as an example.
Mancino: But I would like to see line drawings before I decide percentages even.
Scott: Because it's basically what we want is we want to have a quantitative reflection of
taste call. We want enforceable taste is basically what we're looking for here. So I think
you need for folks like me, pictures are very valuable so.
Generous: We did extend our survey to...We received the information for the inflatable
sign... It's part of the memo, page 4. Number 6. I mean basically...discussion to provide
staff with any additional direction you want and we'll try to do it.
Ledvina: Well, maybe I'll just jump in here. I had a long conversation with Randy Herman
regarding the new sign ordinance and as you may remember, Randy attended some of our
work sessions and he's in the signage business. I mean he lives and breathes this stuff in
terms of having to make it work and we talked about a number of these things and some, I'm
going to just starting going through it and these are some of his concerns and based on our
conversations, some of my concerns as well.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Mancino: Matt, I'm sorry. Is he a manufacturer of signs? He is a designer of signs?
Ledvina: Designs both, yes.
Mancino: And manufacturer. Okay.
Ledvina: So I'm not, we discussed a lot of different things and certainly some points I didn't
agree with him on but I think just in a general way, I think that we have Chanhassen. It's a
developing community. We're concerned about the retail presence and we want to foster a
healthy retail environment and the ability to advertise is crucial in developing and maintaining
an environment. And I think that if we're going to have an ordinance, we should make
certain that, or try to make as certain as we can that the provisions of the ordinance are
enforceable. That they're reasonable and that they're fair to the business community as well.
So with that premise I have some comments you know of the ordinance that we've developed
and I think, there's been some changes. I went back and I looked at a couple of different
things and I was wondering why things weren't changed, and maybe you can go back into
that a little bit. But let's see, where do I want to start. Let's look on page 7. This talks
about, it's actually item 10(a)(2) and it talks about sign display for temporary real estate
signs. And we have two criteria there as it relates to the size of the sign based on the size of
the parcel and I don't know if that really gets to the issue of what we're tying to do there. I
don't know if the size of the parcel has, should really influence the size of the sign.
Essentially we're saying that in, when we have small lots, we want small signs. When we
have large lots, we can have larger signs. But what we're concerned about really and what,
like what real estate people are concerned about is the visibility of the sign. They're not, and
for let's say for example on Highway 5. If they've got a piece of property there. They might
have a 5 acre parcel on Highway 5 and you're requiring them to have essentially a 3 x 4 sign,
that's going to be absolutely useless. So the thing is the visibility and maybe what we're,
maybe the sign, the area of the sign should be tied to the setback distance from the right-of-
way because obviously we don't want big signs in our downtown area on a vacant parcel of
land. So if we say something like, 12 square foot sign. Minimum setback of 20 feet from
the right-of-way. 32 foot square sign minimum 100 feet from the setback. Or setback from
the right-of-way. I think that would be more appropriate. In terms of the size of the parcel.
Mancino: Do you think it's going to be hard to control though? I mean somebody will do a
bigger sign and put it up closer.
Ledvina: Then you won't see it. I mean it will have the perspective that a 3 x 4 sign would
have closer. So it's obviously cheaper to put up a 3 x 4 sign if you can see it.
Mancino: No but I'm saying, I would do the bigger signage allowable. What you're thinking
33
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
of seeing it at a distance so it doesn't read as big, correct?
Ledvina: Right.
Mancino: I would take that bigger sign and I would just more it forward.
Ledvina: Well maybe not the right-of-way. Maybe it should be the center like of the road or
something like that. Because in the business district the center line, you know you have the
roadway, the curb and then whatever. The parcel. But in an environment like a 4 lane
situation you have just a huge chunk of land that's eaten up by the right-of-way so to, you
won't be able to see the sign.
Scott: Does this point out a need to look at either the class of roadway that abuts the
roadway or the zoning of the property?
Ledvina: Well that's the other thing. Maybe it can be done by zoning.
Mack: Mr. Chairman, that is a very common practice on real estate development signs. That
you tie the size of the sign to the roadway classification as well as the speed limit.
Scott: And I'd like to piggy back on top of kind of no brainer stuff because if I have a
parcel I'm trying to sell and I've got a realtor, I'd like the realtor to be able to go...4 lane
highway so I can put it this big and something that you can kind of sit down and figure it out
pretty fast. But they should be calling Bob.
Ledvina: I think this is a new section and I think we need to look at how we refine that. I
think there could be a different criteria there as it relates to that treatment for different sized
signs.
Scott: So is class of road and speed limit, do you think that's?
Ledvina: Yes. That would be, that seems reasonable, sure. I was just thinking of some
alternative. I'm not in the sign business but I'm trying to look at some of these things and
try to see what seems to make sense.
Harberts: Do you have any specifics on your comments with regard to enforcement?
Ledvina: With regard to, I'll get to that.
Harberts: Okay.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Ledvina: Let's see. Turning to page 8 for example. Item number 1 under temporary signs.
I think we need to break banners and portable signs into two size categories. For example,
Randy informed me that I believe the city has 6 signs that they use and they rotate the signs.
The banner signs. And each of these signs are 60 feet. 60 square feet so throw away all our
signs right now and start over. So banners are typically 60 square feet and I think that's
reasonable so I would suggest we use that. And for portable signs, a 32 square foot
maximum I think represents, it's a small sign but that's reasonable. So I would suggest a 60
foot maximum for banners.
Conrad: What width does the material come in?
Ledvina: Pardon?
Conrad: Do you know what width the banners would be?
Scott: Or 3 or 4 feet.
Conrad: I'm going to start jumping in I guess. That's about 30 feet expanse right there and
there are very few, if you say Welcome to Chanhassen, you can't fit it in basically. It's
tough. You could go to two levels of letters and then you get your letters down to about 8 or
10 inches and then when you start doing that, then they become tough to read. It's hardly
worth while. So Matt, when you say 60 feet. 60 feet I think there's some smaller widths that
they do but that's even, that's barely enough to do anything. And so the question is, are we,
what do we want to do? 30 feet is a pretty, you know if he says 20, I really don't buy that.
Maybe that's Chanhassen but in terms of what you typically see, a 30 foot banner is real
common. Then I think the issue is really how do you want it. How high do you want it?
Do you want to restrict it to one width of material, which is probably about 24 inches. Is that
what we're trying to do? Or do we want to? You know to me this is the factor. This way,
not necessarily the width so I guess as we come up with our arbitrary numbers, I think we
should think of some practical things. St. Hubert's wouldn't fly and that's sort of a
traditional banner that we typically has that goes across the street. And you know it's bigger
than this and it's not obtrusive. It's only up for a week or so.
Ledvina: That's the important thing. A temporary and.
Conrad: I think you're right on the mark.
Ledvina: Well should we use a larger?
Conrad: I don't know what the number is. I seriously, I get real frustrated by numbers
35
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
because we're just sort of wheeling and dealing. Hey, how about 18? I need somebody that
really says, a typical banner is 30 feet and a typical width is this and that way we can make a
decision.
Scott: Yeah, it's a taste call and if you, you know call St. Hubert's up. Just say how's big
your banner and then that way, because obviously, at least in my case, I think it's great. I
mean I look for them and I think that's another think we're talking about here is that what is,
these are community events that are being sponsored.
Mancino: It's fun to see them.
Conrad: They're nice, yeah.
Scott: I don't think I've seen, I mean the stuff that the Parks department does and St.
Hubert's and all the other stuff that goes on, call around and find out how big they are
because I haven't seen any of those things that I consider to be too big and that's really what
I think we're doing here is quantifying taste so we have, so it's enforceable. So let's just see
what's happening around the community right now, which I think we can use that as a
planning unit.
Ledvina: Okay. Moving to page 11. Looking at the general location restrictions. Item (a).
We say that no sign shall be placed within drainage or utility easement. And Randy and I
talked about this and he indicated that roughly 70% of the existing signs would violate this
requirement. And that says to me that this is going to create a very large hardship for the
standard operating procedure as it relates to this. I can understand that we need to keep signs
out of the way of snow plows and other type of maintenance equipment and previously the
ordinance said, no sign shall be placed within the public right-of-way. But the problem is
that many times drainage easements, drainage and utility easements go far into properties.
They cut across properties...we're going to want, or someone's going to want to put a sign in
an area that is not necessarily a problem from a maintenance perspective but would not meet
the requirements of the ordinance. The one thing that I considered related to building things
within utility easements. That means there's things underground. Well these people, any
time you do anything near a roadway or even for that matter, on any parcel. Any time you
dig, put a footing in or whatever, or even pound a sign in, you're required to go through...to
clear the utilities and they're very conscientious about that. And so in that event, the danger
of public safety, the danger that could be envisioned with that scenario is rather remote so I
guess I would prefer to see this language changed to public right-of-way.
Mancino: I just have a question Matt. I thought the whole reason was to keep the easement
open and not obstructed so that a vehicle or anything that needed to get in could have access.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
So if you put a sign in the middle of this easement, no longer do you have an unobstructed
way for a vehicle to get in and service it.
Scott: Well utility easements usually are not for, but it might say a maintenance easement. I
mean that's a different story. Because those are usually, when I think of a maintenance
easement, I think of like a road that goes to a NURP pond or something like that. So those
are probably a lot fewer and farther between and we all have at least one or two utilities
easements on our property. So I can see, you know I can see, I don't think somebody
sticking a sign on a utility easement to advertise a house for sale or something like that, that's
not going to be deep enough but yeah. I could see where the utility side of it would be a
question but as far as maintenance, I don't know.
Ledvina: I don't have the, I don't claim to have a definitive answer on this but this seems to
be reaching a little too far in terms of restrictions. And I would recommend that staff
research that and see what the status quo is in terms of the situation and I don't know. Do
you have any comments on that Bob?
Generous: Well that is, it's in the current ordinance. If Dave was here I bet he would be
jumping up and down.
Scott: Who?
Generous: Hempel. Because they put the, they really would like to have them open just in
case they need to use them.
Mancino: Yeah, that's what I thought.
Ledvina: Well I understand you know some utility easements but when you have telephone
and power that don't require servicing or very rarely require servicing on individual lines. I
don't know. I guess I wouldn't want to see, I want to be cautious in terms of developing an
ordinance that would have routine non-compliance. I guess that's my strong concern here.
Mancino: I'd like to get Dave's input.
Scott: If you took out the thing that said no sign shall be placed within any drainage or
maintenance easement. Then if you go down to number (e) it says, ...should not interfere
with any electric light, power, telephone, telegraph wires or supports thereof. I think that
kind of gets at that thing. You know we don't want people punching holes in utilities but
there, I could see where there are certain instances and I can think of an instance on my
particular expanse of property where I put signs in the utility easement but then I also know
37
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
that utilities are like 12 inches below the ground and sticking a little sign in there isn't going
to interfere with them but I can see where you're coming from because if somebody's putting
up a big sign, they're going to call. But then I think this item number (e) kind of takes into
consideration protecting the utility thing without restricting people from putting signs in.
Ledvina: Right. Well, just to voice my concern that that specific requirement be carefully
considered.
Generous: ...clarification. Are you talking about all signage or only as temporary?
Ledvina: Well this is general location restrictions.
Scott: That's everything.
Generous: Even the large pylon signs or little signs?
Scott: Yes.
Conrad: I guess I'm interested in what's the impact of that requirement. I don't have a clue.
I don't know if, are 90c7c of our current signs in this area?
Scott: Probably.
Mancino: I keep pulling them out in front of our house. I mean people put 10 signs in the
front drainage and I just keep pulling them out. It bugs the heck out of me.
Conrad: I'm not concerned as much about the temporary.
Mancino: But permanent.
Scott: This is general location restrictions so that applies to everything.
Ledvina: Okay, and just to finish up here. My last item relates to the prohibition on window
signs. I don't know why this is, well we talked about it certainly at length the last time and
I'm looking at your survey which is great. I think if this is a way to do it, to see what other
communities are doing, that's great. But what I'm seeing is that mostly window signage is
permitted to a certain degree. And here we have it not permitted and I think that this is a
huge issue as it relates to the retail people. I think as it relates to permanent window signage,
I would agree with some type of restriction. Whether it be 5% or 50%. I don't know the
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
number and maybe it's a dart board kind of thing but I don't know. But I think that some
window signage should be allowed.
Scott: But are you thinking that definitely less than 50%? More than 25, less than 50?
Mancino: I'd like to see again some drawings to see different percentages.
Scott: I think of public safety. I mean aside from the clutter, there's a public safety issue and
it's got to be less than 50% but then you know, Ladd brought up a point where it's
advertising really you don't have to pay for. You buy the sign and you get the exposure but
then it's also is that Ladd, most window signs are mostly people who have already decided to
go into a retail establishment and this is an attractant from 10 feet away. I mean it's not. I'm
just trying to figure out what we're going to be dealing with here. You're the sign guy this
evening. Less than 50, more than 25.
Conrad: Yeah. I don't know. What you've got to do is go through Market Square and see
what it looks like. You've got to go past your grocery stores in the cities and your drug
stores and they all use them and I don't think anybody here is going to say they're pretty but
they're using them and so the question is, how much do we think is acceptable. Now I'll
throw some other factors in. I think you can go around town and certain people will have 2
or 3 signs in one window block. I don't think you want that. That's clutter. That's really
compounding things so it's beyond just square footage. It's how many times in a one
window frame might be a better way. And then how many of those windows that a store
would have, how many do you want to fill up. And what percent. So you get into some of
that stuff. I think you've got to be looking at a third of the window space in that area. I
think you do. You know and if we're taking a compromise here as I look at it, someplace
around that area. That's where I'm starting from. I don't have a magic key.
Harberts: Well yeah and I think that's a good point Ladd. When I shop at Festival, you go
up to the front door and they'll have today's hot special on the front door. I mean does that
constitute a window?
Mancino: Yeah.
Ledvina: Well that's a temporary sign. I think there's categories here.
Harberts: Well again but, yeah but do they change it every day and second, again what
constitutes a window? Maybe I'm far fetching here but I noticed when I pulled up to the
Americana Bank, where I do my banking, that one of the drive thru windows, teller windows
had a nice Christmas display in it. That's a window. You know it seems to me that was
39
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
50%. Again.
Mancino: But a sign is different than a display. I mean all you've got to do is go down to
Excelsior and it has the older type of buildings with displays in them and they are
welcoming. They bring you into, we know what they sell there, etc.
Harberts: But when something, for instance like Market Square is, the windows are kind on
the interior. They're small. You know more for that pedestrian walk, do we care? Do we
want to care? This is what I'm trying to understand. So you know, what's the intent here?
What are we trying to do? I think Matt's comment though, I think we need to be very
careful of is it reasonable. Can it be enforceable? The question that I have with regard to,
on page 7, number 4. (a)(4). All temporary real estate signs shall be moved within 7 days
following the sale. What's the sale? Is it when the purchase agreement is accepted or when
it's finally closed and who's going to be driving around town, oh okay. So okay, we'll be
back in 7 days. Again, is it enforceable. Is it reasonable but bottom line here is, is it
creating a positive partnership, especially with the business community. The business
community is one of those elements that makes a community. And so again, is this a positive
intent?
Conrad: What do you think?
Harberts: I don't. I don't.
Conrad: So you'd rather take it out? No restrictions?
Harberts: Oh I didn't say no restrictions but I think you said it well Ladd when you said,
we're just kind of 7, 8, 10, 12. I don't know. I don't know but when I apply some of that
rationale, you know the Festival Food store. The Americana drive up. You know those are
all windows with temporary signs. What are we creating? Are we creating more of a
monster?
Conrad: It's a terribly difficult issue. You know to the point where it gets confusing. There
are some things that if you take a look at Market Square. We'll use them because they're the
closest one and more retail than anyplace else but there are things that wouldn't be considered
signage in some of those windows that are real offensive. So what we're going to do, and
you'll figure out what I'm talking about but what we're going to do is we're going to restrict
some folks because they literally have a paper sign that we have words to describe yet there
are some examples of clutter that we won't, we can't control thcre. And so it's a real tough
issue.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Mancino: Well you know and I would like to go further than that, in talking about signs. I
would like to, and all you have to do is go and visit the MGM on TH 101 and TH 7, the new
MGM, and they have windows. Why they ever put glass windows in I don't know because
what you see in those windows is the back of displays. It's white board. So I don't know
why they put windows in the building to begin with, so that's a whole other area.
Harberts: Well are we missing the intent here of what we're trying to achieve? I guess that's
the bottom question.
Scott: And also too we're, personally we're making a recommendation to the City Council
too so I mean, obviously most of the things that we send there get beat up and chewed up
anyway, which is fine. On this window thing, I don't think prohibiting window signs makes
sense. I don't think anybody wants to see anything more than a third so why don't we, let's
throw the dart up in the air and go for a third and if the City Council feels that that's higher
or lower, they can go from there. I don't think we really need to beat it up but at least from
what I'm hearing here is that, you know a full window doesn't make any sense but we want
to allow these folks a chance to advertise.
Mancino: Now is that total window coverage? I mean first of all I'm not for 33. I'd go for
25 but anyway.
Scott: Okay. Sounds good to me.
Mancino: But is that aggregate glass or is that each window itself can have 25%?
Scott: We're talking about sign canopy.
Conrad: I'd like to reinforce somebody who does one nice sign versus two mediocre like that
or brings it all together. I think aggregate or total. So if we've got 1,000 square feet of
windows, they can put 333 square feet of...
Scott: Okay, so this is 25% of total aggregate window area.
Mancino: That would be the average one out of all those. And that includes doors. I mean
doors are glass. And they're windows.
Scott: What about skylights now? Forget it.
Ledvina: The other thing is, on window signs there's, I think there's a distinction between
41
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
permanent and temporary. I think temporary signs should be allowed a higher percentage. I
see that's what they've done in New Brighton and that seems to make sense to me. And I
don't know, maybe 50% for temporary signs.
Generous: What's a temporary sign?
Ledvina: Well a temporary sign is defined in the ordinance I think.
Mack: ...point upon the window signages is very typically one thing that's very difficult to
regulate from the city's standpoint and most communities that I've dealt with do not normally
permit those signs. Those are allowed by right and they can just do them. So it's real tough.
But if you have a standard it's more from an enforcement standpoint. And just to comment
too on the percentage. Typically anything over 33% is going to look pretty cluttered. One
thing I've given a lot of thought to this...when I was in Burnsville working on this particular
issue. One of the things I closely considered suggesting, and would probably do so tonight is
that you consider a sliding scale. For example you have concerns. Where you occupy a
large area, with a higher percentage or even a low percentage. If you have a large window
area, say about 33%, that would be an awful lot of signage if it's a big area. Versus a small
area in one business location. Having that and that's not necessarily a lot so you might want
to consider a sliding scale based upon square footage amount that you have, one applies to a
larger area and perhaps a smaller percentage to a large area and perhaps a slightly larger area
to the smaller total area.
Ledvina: Kind of like the wall sign.
Scott: Yeah. Have that be consistent.
Harberts: Bob, tell me how, if I drive down Kerber Boulevard when I go down and there's a
particular home that has a big daycare sign on the back of their house. They must be a
registered or licensed daycare. Where does that fit in?
Generous: They can't do that. They get 2 square feet I believe for home occupations and the
big sign...
Harberts: Well and from my perspective, if it was any smaller, I wouldn't see it. Again, that
is a person's livelihood.
Mancino: Yeah but that's not their only vehicle to advertise. I mean they've got radio, TV,
newspaper.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Generous: ...32 square foot sign sitting off the kitchen window...
Harberts: Their privilege in terms of...exactly.
Scott: Let's attack the window signage in a similar fashion. Also too, personally I don't
think that we should make any distinction between permanent and temporary window signage
because that's ridiculous from an enforcement standpoint. So we should just go after total
window coverage, permanent or temporary doesn't matter. And this is a guideline and
obviously it's one thing to have an ordinance but I think when you're looking at people's
ability to advertise their business by hanging stuff on their windows, something like this
really needs, or at least a summary of this, really needs to be mailed to all of the businesses
in town so they know what the heck is going on. And at least the business people will know
that there's so if we decide we're going to be something different with their signage, they can
go to their friendly sign person and say, by the way here's the ordinance. But yeah, this is
something that needs to be sent out to everybody.
Conrad: When?
Scott: When it's passed.
Ledvina: Not when it's passed.
Harberts: I think it should be beforehand.
Mancino: They'll have a public hearings?
Ledvina: They'll have the opportunity...
Harberts: But I think this is a notice though that needs to go out as if it was a site plan
review in terms of this is what's on the agenda. Not just counting on the newspaper.
Generous: It says 500 feet of, every commercial building? Every...
Scott: At our board meeting at the Chamber of Commerce we passed this around. All the
board members have got copies of it so.
Conrad: I guess just a footnote. My preference is to keep this window deal simple. So
although...that maybe makes sense, I'd certainly like to see it simple. We're not smart
enough to figure out all these different...and scales.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: No, and we don't want to.
Conrad: I guess I'd like staff to say it makes sense to have a scale but on the other, I really
like one number Joe that covers both temporary and permanent. I really do feel strongly
about how much clutter is in a particular deal. You know I think sometimes it's not square
feet but it's stuff. You can have neon here and then a paper here and then an insignia here
and boy, that is visual pollution. So again, if there's a way to get our hands around that and
if there's not, I really don't want complexity in this thing. Nobody's going to enforce it. It
should be simple and it should be a simple one for merchants to figure out.
Mancino: And I think we should pull in public safety in there. I mean to say why we're
doing it so that he can police whatever can look inside. They want unobstructed views.
Scott: Yeah, and they can't always keep up with the ordinances that come through but I'd
like to do something so when Officer Bob is going around he can say, because he knows it's
up there and those people can kind of, yeah. But yeah, that's a good comment Ladd.
Ledvina: A very minor point on page 20. On the drawing of the building. Please eliminate
the reference to Pizza Hut.
Generous: I mentioned that to Kate...
Ledvina: Make it Taco Shack or whatever but don't make it Pizza Hut.
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Although this is not a public hearing we have,
Randy's here. Councilman Wing. Questions. Comments. Since you're kind enough to sit
here for now coming up on 3 hours.
Randy Schultz: Thanks Joe for allowing me to say a few words. Let me introduce myself.
I'm Randy Schultz, President of the Americana Community Bank and I just want to mention
a few concerns that I had when I looked at this proposed ordinance. I'm really gratified to
hear some of the comments made already regarding my window sign. Our particular building
isn't one that a lot of our tenants have asked about window signs but we have had some
comments made about that already. We do though in every case, and I'm not sure if all of
you are familiar with our building but we do have enough significant amount of tenant space
in the building and we are still looking for tenants for quite a bit of that space over there still
and I do want to tell you that in every case, in every tenant that comes to or perspective
tenant that comes to our building have all talked about signage. It's very important to them.
It's very important where they're going to have signage. And even in our particular building
where we tend to have firms more like law firms and accounting firms and insurance firms,
44
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
that's still a very important item to them so I would submit to you that in our buildings in
your community where you're dealing more with more retail...Signage is going to be even
that much more for them. So it's an important element and I think it needs to be thought
about. In that regard, if you're all familiar with our building, one of the, our main sign that
we have for our tenants is a large monument sign right near the corner of our building. I do
see that the proposed ordinance change for a building our size has that monument maximum
square footage being 36 square feet. Going down from the present ordinance of 80. Am I
right about that Bob? When I looked at the page 15...you're taking that all the way from an
ordinance, a present ordinance of 80 square feet down to 36 square feet.
Generous: What's...
Mancino: 13,000.
Randy Schultz: 11,000.
Generous: That would be 64 square feet.
Conrad: For a pylon or a monument?
Generous: Both.
Randy Schultz: Am I looking at that right? So if you look at our sign you will notice that
the client, the tenants that we do have now, their particular signage isn't that large and in our
particular building, the way the tenant space works out, ideally we'd like to have about 6
tenants. So if you think about a building without a major tenant like an owner tenant like
ourselves, we might have 6 to 8 tenants and you start dividing that up into 36 square feet,
you're going to have a pretty small space for that tenant. It's going to be very hard for most
people to even notice or see. I think you're looking at a square footage there that's very,
very small. The other thing I was going to mention is...window signs and prohibiting them
entirely I think would be very, very difficult with businesses and I'm glad to see you're
thinking about allowing some appropriate percentage. The last thing I wanted to mention is
that we don't have an immediate request that we're going to, wanting to make to the city but
that part on page 10, and I know this was part of the previous ordinance also but to prohibit
motion signs and flashing signs except time and temperature. I'd like to see, I wonder if
there isn't a way to make that a little less restrictive from the standpoint of obviously I don't
think anybody wants a big gawdy flashing Hollywood type of sign but for a bank like
ourselves, we could see ourselves sometime in the future wanting to put some kind of a sign
up on the building there because we don't think our signage is adequate. We'd like to change
it someday but we're not looking to do that...but we'd like to have signage and since we have
45
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
such a good spot down there, we'd like to have signage that not only could we put our name
up on it but we'd like to have some kind of signage we could talk about community events.
We could congratulate people. We could give the markets at noon. What the stock market
did. Things like that we think people would like to see when they'd be coming down TH 5
would be able to see it and if we could do that in a tasteful way and people would, and the
Planning Commission and the City Council would agree with. I think that would be a plus
to the community and not a negative. And so I think to say that unless we're just flashing
time and temperature...prohibit that kind of sign and I think we could do some very nice
things in the community. Not just necessarily the bank but many somebody else. And I
wouldn't want you to see to just prohibit that entirely.
Scott: I've got a question. You know the city rents that sign with the arrow thing on it and
you put movable letters, you put letters on it and it's on a trailer.
Harberts: I think they're called portable.
Scott: A portable. So the city would be prohibited from using that...I'm just trying to think
of things that are kind of in tune. Anyway, just a thought.
Randy Schultz: Just one other thing I did mention. I do think the other thing that I see that's
changed in this ordinance is I believe before a property in the general business district could
have a pylon sign or a ground low profile sign. Or even could have two ground low profile
signs but could not have, could have some combination of those two. Could have two low
profile signs with no pylon. You could have a pylon and a low profile and I think the way
this is worded now, you can only have one of each and I'm not sure that you might want to
make it more flexible than that. I'm not sure that two low profile signs we're going to get a
nicer look than to require somebody to have profile and pylon. Given the flexibility. Thanks.
Harberts: Bob, on page 10, number 2. Why was barber poles in there as not being
prohibited?
Generous: ...I don't know why that was.
Harberts: I would suggest we take that out.
Mancino: I think they're great.
Ledvina: I like barber poles.
Mancino: I do too.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Obviously I wouldn't know.
Harberts: Yeah, is there a definition for barber pole?
Scott: Can I have a motion?
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, give me two seconds. I really have quite a few. Maybe it isn't
covered but I think we have to have it back. We've got sign ordinances are generally
difficult and I'm not ready to pass this on.
Scott: It goes to public hearing.
Conrad: On page 3, we didn't permit requirements. We didn't ask for design or materials in
that...We're missing the words that I would read. Now maybe in...how it's designed. And if
we have a bonus in there, I think you've got to require that up front.
Mancino: Can I add to that? Is there a way that we can see signs when we see a site plan
for a building? I mean it just seems like the appropriate time that when they come in with a
site plan and the architectural specs, that we also kind of integrate the sign in with it. Then
we can see the perspective of the sign to the building.
Generous: Because, for example, Byerly's gave you a picture of the sign and that doesn't
seem to be what you wanted. You want it as part of a drawing?
Mancino: I would have liked to have seen the visual at the time when they brought in the
whole building concept. And you know at that time he said they designed the whole front
entrance so that it would take this big Byerly's sign. Well, at the time when we saw it, I
think it would have been, when it first came in to see where the signage would go and how
they had allowed for it because hopefully an architect will do, will think about signage at the
time when they're designing the building. So it seems to me it would be an appropriate time
to see the signage with.
Generous: The architects usually consider the building only and then it's the tenants that
want the signage later. Yeah, I think that is a requirement for, that they put in the signage. I
thought on Byerly's they had the building sign with the monument.
Mancino: They didn't have any signage.
Harberts: That was a condition.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Well on that rendering when we had that meeting on that Saturday meeting, they did
have the Byerly's sign on there but.
Harberts: There was no signage packet, no. That was a condition.
Conrad: Okay, page 5, point number 3. The word event should be worked in to the
comment there. That's what most signages in the city are about. They're events and we
really didn't, I guess you've got to challenge what I'm thinking. Sometimes the logic, maybe
it's covered some other place but I think the word event is real important. If we want that 40
days to apply to an event. I've seen all sorts of numbers and I get down to 6 and all of a
sudden I see 50 square feet and I haven't seen 50 square feet in any grid anyplace. All of a
sudden it's someplace and I don't know. I won't pick on that one. It's just like geez, it's
another number. Page number 6. I don't know why we give garage sales 2 days to take the
sign down once the garage sale's over. I don't know. Point on page 6 again. Under 9(d). It
says no signs shall be located closer than 200 feet from an existing residential dwelling unit.
Well basically that means you probably can't put a sign very close to any residential area,
and I'm thinking of the Near Mountain area. Trappers Pass area. I can go through, a lot of
these fly in the face of what we've been doing and I look at the real world examples and
they're not offensive to me. That one, yeah. So I guess folks, you've got to challenge some
of this stuff. The Near Mountain stuff is closer than 200 feet from a residential area. It is not
offensive. It's quite nicely done and I don't know where they put the sign. I honestly don't.
It's across the street from a residential area and it's...a problem.
Ledvina: This refers to temporary development projects and...
Conrad: New development saying, yeah the classic would be going out with phase 4 and
such and such and they try to get good access, visibility. But I'd just challenge that one.
Seriously. I don't think we're smart enough, I'm not smart enough to go do it but I need
somebody from staff to say this makes sense or it doesn't or it's, there's good reason for why
that was there but on the other hand, I guess I need somebody to challenge those things. I
agree with Matt's point on page 7. On the 12 square feet versus, the 12 square feet. That's 3
x 4 on a 10 acre deal. If it's on a 55, you can't, when you're going 55 mph, you can't read
things that are smaller than 14 inch letters. You can't. Okay. So if you're going 55 mph on
Highway 5.
Mancino: You should be driving, not trying to read.
Conrad: That's right. Okay.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Cellular phone too.
Conrad: Point number 4 on page 7. All temporary real estate signs shall be removed within
7 days following the sale. Diane you brought this one up. For sale, lease, rental of the
property. That means all the real estate signs that say sold, they've got 7 days for the sold to
be there and somebody's going to take it up. I don't know that there's a problem. If
somebody thinks there's a problem there, then let's leave it in. I don't know there's a
problem. On page 8. We already talked about the banners. I think banners, Matt you said it.
I won't say any more. Banner's different than a portable sign. Going to page 9, letter (c) at
the top of the page. Banners must be affixed to a principle structure which is owned and
leased by the business which the sign is advertising. Well that means St. Hubert's can have
their banner. Okay. They can't. They don't own across the street on the, I think they're on
the telephone pole. Okay. So they can't do it and if they attach it to the church, the church
will fall over. On page 10. Motion signs, flashing signs. Boy.
Scott: Conditional use.
Conrad: It might be. I've got to look at that one again. I don't know that anybody's
complained about the Chanhassen Bank moving sign. I find it interesting. I guess if there
are complaints to that I will listen. A message board, greeter boards, and it's got to be
controlled. There's just no doubt. It's got to be controlled but I don't, you know.
Nutting: Banning it is kind of heavy duty.
Scott: Yeah, I think conditional use. I think there's a scale issue there. Yeah.
Conrad: Point number 3 on that same page. Projecting signs are not allowed. One of the few
historic things we have in this town is the Pony Express sign so when you get rid of that
sign, it's in but I just found that interesting. I think it's a good point but the Pony Express
sign has character. It's one of the few signs in Chan that really has character and we're
saying don't do it anymore. Okay. There has to be a bonus way in this whole deal. There
has to be a way to motivate good signage. Absolutely. Got to be in there. Somehow figure
out how to do it but it will be arbitrary as can be but let's say we care. If nothing else...we
care about good signage and we're going to, even if it's only for 5% increase in something,
let's say we care. Okay, you talked about most of these. Page 13. Bottom of the page, point
number 2. Area identification. Entrance signs. Only one monument sign may be erected on
a lot.
Scott: Yeah this is though RSF. You're thinking about entrance monumentation?
49
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Generous: Yeah, that's what..
Scott: Oh wow. Aren't those usually on an outlot? Or an island.
Conrad: That word is wrong. Get the right terminology in there.
Ledvina: That's, just while we're talking about that, that's a small area. The sign, the
Winfield entrance.
Scott: That's like a huge sign.
Ledvina: It's done very nicely.
Conrad: Right. I'd like to reinforce a developer who wants to do this. Now I don't know if
the city staff does but sense of place. Entry into an area is so critical. Get rid of all the
other signs and turn away, let them have a nice, reward then for a nice sign that says you
have now entered...or whatever it might be. 24 feet is not very big. I wish somebody would
look and see if we've got nicer signs that are bigger than that but boy, that's real important.
That's people oriented and I think we may be restricting that. Page 14. Under point (c), and
maybe it's not the right place but we didn't talk about the 24 Hour issue there. Now 24
hours sounds like we, the City Council just allowed it on Byerly's so I guess we've got to
deal with that. That is not identification, logo, center name...so what is it? That's an issue
that we have to resolve. I don't know that city staff solves it but we have to deal with it and
I guess we have to take a lead from the City Council's approval of Byerly's that they don't
mind it.
Mancino: But they didn't approve it. They didn't have 4/5 approval.
Richard Wing: It was not approved but I would support the commission on that one. I think
we have an ordinance and...
Conrad: I'm not saying pro or con. I didn't think it was right but I think let's just figure it
out and get it in the ordinance.
Mancino: So what do you think of the percentages? All these percentages.
Conrad: On page 15?
Mancino: 14, 15, 16.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Conrad: They're probably okay. They're probably okay.
Mancino: Did you do any drawings?
Conrad: No I didn't. That's just so much work. I spent a lot of time going through this
ordinance because I tell you, if we don't do a good job, we're going to hurt people. We're
going to hurt their livelihood. Signage works for business and for government and we've
really got to be careful on this thing. So I spent some time going through it but yeah, I really
should have spent more. I know something about it and that's why I felt more compelled to
go through it. But I think Randy's right. I'm not sure that some of these numbers on
monument signs are the right numbers. If he's got 6 tenants down there, all we're doing. He
doesn't even have the tenant names on the side of the building...
Mancino: I was just going to ask about that. What if you have 15 tenants? How do you
ever have a big enough sign to cover all those tenants?
Conrad: Well that's the point. If somebody doesn't put it up on the wall Nancy, why don't
we give them a sign, a monument sign that let's them have it outside? It's very, if you run a
business, it's a real personal thing. You want your name there.
Mancino: I'm downtown so we don't have monument signs.
Conrad: So I'm not sure that this, I don't. It seems like a small number. I think for
somebody that didn't put the names up on the building. I think there's some trade offs here.
I think if you do, you know and that's why it gets complicated. If you don't put the signs up,
or the names on the side of the building, I think somebody should get rewarded and that
reward might be for a monument sign that's a little bit bigger. But I'm not smart enough to
figure it out...So and then I got back to the bottom of the page 15. Do we get one pylon,
they're going to get one pylon and one low ground profile sign? Is that what we're saying?
Do you get those automatically? Do you get both? Or just one. It doesn't say.
Generous: No it doesn't, you're right.
Conrad: I think those are my comments. You Bob and staff, if you can go through some of
those things for me. Seriously I'm not smart enough to figure some of that out but I think...
and not penalize a business to make this a well maintained sign area but not to really be a
heavy burden on it.
Scott: Can I have a motion?
51
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Harberts: I'll move that we table the sign ordinance.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the ordinance. Any discussion?
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to table the sign ordinance for further review. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: We'd like to see that as soon as possible and then also too, since this will probably be
in it's final form, I think it's appropriate that it's a public hearing.
Generous: You want it to come back as a public hearing?
Scott: I would think so.
Generous: ...wanted to see the proportions on the sign.
Mancino: Maybe I can do that individually.
Scott: When it gets into it's final form. Of course then it will go onto the City Council.
Ledvina: Hold it. There's two public hearings at our level, is that what I read in here? Or
no? One public hearing. Okay.
Mancino: So do we need to see it before a public hearing?
Scott: Yeah. Because we'll probably have...Thank you for your tons of work on this.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ledvina: Just a question. Last time we were going through the Minutes and there was a vote
as it related to my motion and I don't know, did you read this in the Minutes at all?
Conrad: I can't stand to read them over.
Ledvina: Okay. But I just wanted to try to get it straight for the record. I made a motion
52
CITY OF
PC DATE: 10/19/94
\\� ' CIIAHACE CCDATE:11/14/94
r
CASE #: 94-15 SUB
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 1.87 Acres into 4 single family lots, Hobens
Wild Wood Farms First Addition
F— LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Sommer Gate
z
Q APPLICANT: Hoben Corporation C. Halgren
V 18285 Minnetonka Boulevard 6320 Murray Hill Road
Deephaven, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
.J 473-2700
11
Q.
4
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District
ACREAGE: 1.87 acres
DENSITY: 2.1 Units per Acre-Gross 2.1 Units per Acre-Net
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family
S - RSF, Residential Single Family
E - RSF, Residential Single Family
QW - RSF, Residential Single Family
QWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
W PHYSICAL CHARACTER. The site contains a single family home and a detached garage.
L. One of the most significant features on the site is a 50 inch diameter cottonwood tree. The entire
L. site is bordered by mature trees of different species.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre)
J., D
0 0 0
✓ O
OaO 8
8 OOUOS O
NN ON ON cw N N ' co
co I • O I
J_____ IN+ D I .
1 ITY I • . • , • • p
X*0 VIllsOW' - k .
1
_ 5� � �� r
:' Cil`ltitf . rl �ii,. � 1
s.
/te t- TA riaff _ 44 1���lb Alai P ME. so EN ST
•• .•_ • •(a7 t���
�u •' �"�t�r, r�11 G 1 R C LE
H.trot. I MIIIIDOIA% ii 4.4 c, tfr 4 II.{
ERMAN jF/ELD �► ..______
, E� ! ���"$
o, a
PARK , I .. wN'TE-., 1447g/ill'
447 � U ,wsALql p ` . 44 PARK i
;, 4,
�-, A. E ` r .•
j L•N
____.:) * ' \ ri, I 4
1101
M/NNEWASHTA eW L A KE �J
Ii '` _
C. tiV
J C
I l�
I
yAKE i,PARK - - -, NARRl,SON ` '' LAK.Cl
4 01
Ct
7
Ft
m ��
; ', LAKE
-
StV .,,,11„'l ' ‘ i .r i
-...may,.. �� I \c
Z .
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
This is a straight forward subdivision. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.875 acres
into 4 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family.
The average lot size is 20,402 square feet with a resulting net density of 2.1 units per acre.
The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and
Sommer Gate. Access to the subdivision will be provided via a private driveway which will
serve all four lots. There is a home with a detached garage on the existing parcel.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The site has a dense concentration of mature trees along its parameters. A 50 inch diameter
cottonwood tree is located at the center of the site. Staff believes this tree can be saved even
with the proximity of the drive since cottonwoods are relatively tolerant of compaction and
root severance. A 20 inch maple tree is located south of the existing residence. This tree is
dying and will be removed. The applicant must submit a landscaping/reforestation plan prior
to final plat approval. A 40 foot preservation easement over the wooded areas along the
north property line will be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking
place and subsequently preserving the trees. Additionally, the two black walnut trees located
in the northwest quarter of Lot 3, Block 1 shall be preserved.
A letter was received from the McFarlands, who live across the street. They are opposed to
the subdivision (see attached letter).
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions
will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the
staff report.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.87 acre site into four single-family lots. The
density of the proposed subdivision is 2.1 units per acre net. All the lots meet or exceed the
minimum 15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 20,402 square feet. All of
the proposed lots meet the minimum lot width and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
A single-family residence currently occupies proposed Lot 2, and a detached garage occupies
proposed Lot 4. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits the building of accessory structures prior
to a primary structure. In this case, the subdivision of the parcel will create a nonconforming
situation. Staff discussed this with the applicant, Mr. Hoben, and informed him that the
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 3
garage must be removed prior to final plat approval. Mr. Hoben will not own the property
until after the final plat has been approved, consequently, he will not be able to remove the
garage until he closes on the property. We suggested that he escrows funds with the City to
guarantee the removal of the structure no later than December 1, 1994. If he fails to remove
the structure, the City would contract to have the structure removed. This solution was
acceptable to the applicant.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with
the Zoning Ordinance.
WETLANDS
There does not appear to be any wetlands present on-site, however, staff recommends that the
site be assessed by a wetland delineator to verify the City's planning maps.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The city has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages
of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water
resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and
quality improvements 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 the 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.
Storm Water Quality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based
on land use. Dedication shall 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 market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus
a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the water quality basin for
this site is already in place these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding
needed for the site. A credit for the one existing house/lot has been applied. The proposed
SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $791/acre for single-family residential
developments. This proposed development of 1.4 acres would then be responsible for a water
quality connection charge of $1,107.00.
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 4
Storm Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an
average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land
acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for
runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of
$1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single-family residential development of 1.4 acres
would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $2,772.00.
DRAINAGE
Most of lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 drain naturally toward Sommer Gate Road. The runoff will be
collected and discharged into the water quality pond north of Sommer Gate Road. The runoff
is then conveyed via storm sewers off site.
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-development and post-development
conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. The grading and drainage plan
shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the existing stormwater pond just
north of Sommer Gate Road. The specifications of the existing pond must be reviewed and
calculations provided to show that the pond is capable of providing water quality treatment
and meet the capacity of the existing 15-inch pipe that is already in place at the outlet of the
pond. City records indicate that the pond is 30 feet wide at an elevation of 1043.1 feet and 6
feet wide at an elevation of 1039 feet. The pond was designed to provide a bounce of 0.1
acre feet as per the watershed district requirement. This 15-inch pipe leading from the pond
appears to discharge into a natural wetland on the City's northern boundary adjacent to
Chaska Road.
GRADING
A grading and development plan shall be provided to the City prior to City Council action.
Additional information is required on the plans for the four lots associated with the project.,
The plan should show the proposed house pad locations, type of dwelling and the lowest floor
and garage floor elevations. Proposed grading elevations should be shown over the existing
topography if there are grade changes. The plans should also delineate which trees are to be
saved or removed as a part of construction. The appropriate tree preservation easements may
be useful here in attempt to preserve some of the significant trees.
There are two existing buildings located on lots 2 and 4. It appears these buildings are to be
razed. The appropriate demolition permits from the City will be necessary prior to removal.
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 5
EROSION CONTROL
Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the grading and development
plan and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to City Council review. Staff
also recommends that the applicant use the city's Best Management Practices Handbook for
erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and
mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
UTILITIES
Lot 2 contains an existing dwelling that is connected to city sewer and water. There are two
additional sanitary sewer and water services stubbed to this proposed development. One to
Lot 1 and the other to Lot 4. Municipal service to Lot 3 is proposed to be extended by the
applicant from Murray Hill Road along the proposed private driveway. The applicant will be
tapping into the city sewer and water lines and extending a 6-inch sewer line and a 1-inch
water line to the property line of Lot 3. At that point the sewer line may be reduced to a 4-
inch line. The applicant's contractor will be responsible for applying for and receiving a
construction in right-of-way permit from the City. The contractor will need to supply the city
with a $2,000 performance bond to guarantee the restoration of Murray Hill Road upon
completion. The sewer line outside of Murray Hill Road will be considered private upon
completion of the construction. The City's Building Department will be inspecting the
extension of municipal service to Lot 3.
The parcel has been previously assessed for two sanitary sewer and water hookups and
connection charges. Since the applicant will essentially be providing lateral service to Lot 3,
staff believes it would be appropriate to only charge two hookup charges for the two
additional lots being created. The hookup charges are $2,425 for each new lot (Lots 1 and 3).
These fees are payable at time of building permit issuance. These fees may be assessed as
well. The existing home is to be razed on Lot 2. The sewer and water lines shall be
disconnected from the existing home pursuant to city policy. The applicant shall coordinate
with the City's Building Department for appropriate disconnection procedures.
STREETS
The site is proposed to be serviced from Murray Hill Road via private driveway access points.
There currently exists two driveway accesses which loop through parcels 2 and 4. Staff
recommends that the existing access points be utilized and no new driveway curb cuts be
allowed. Therefore, Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall gain access through the proposed 20-foot wide
private driveway and Lot 4 may utilize the existing driveway access point. The access point
on Lot 4 may be widened to accommodate desired driveway width. The appropriate cross-
access easement agreement will be necessary to preserve access to Lots 1 and 3. At the end
of the 20-foot wide private driveway, the applicant shall provide the necessary turnaround to
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 6
meet the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. In addition, the City will order and install
the appropriate private street sign and bill the developer for the cost of materials upon
completion. Staff recommends that an escrow account be provided by the applicant to the
City in the amount of $800 for review and filing of the final plat documents as well as to
guarantee boulevard restoration and street sign costs.
PARK DEDICATION
The Park and Recreation Director recommends full park and trail fees be collected per city
ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 20,094 155' 129' 30'/10'
10'
Lot 2 20,547 153.49' 132' 30'/10'
10'
Lot 3 20,104 155' 129' 30'/10'
10'
Lot 4 20,847 158' 133' 30'/10'
10'
It should also be noted that Lots 1 and 2 are considered corner lots and have 30 foot setbacks
from Murray Hill Road and Sommer Gate. The remaining sides are 10 foot setbacks.
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
Near the center of the parcel, a very large (50" dbh) Eastern cottonwood has been scheduled
for removal. Based on the fact that cottonwoods are tolerant of root severance and
compaction, the decision to remove this stately tree appears unnecessary. The tree is not
within the building area of any of the houses, nor is it interfering with the private drive. From
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 7
the development plans, it appears possible to avoid additional damage to the tree's root
system besides what will be impacted by the drive. There are no large visible pockets of
decay in the trunk or branches and very little dead wood throughout the crown of the tree. It
appears to be a healthy, mature tree worth preserving.
I would also recommend the preservation of the sloped area along the north side of the
development. This area includes a number of significant trees as well as an abundance of
diverse species and ages. It will provide a beautiful backdrop to the future homes and allow
for privacy from Sommer Gate road. A forty (40) foot preservation area would still allow for
a large building site while retaining the natural beauty and screening for the development.
The applicant shall dedicate the following conservation easements for the protection of trees:
1. A conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
2. A conservation easement over the northern 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 2,
Block 1.
In addition, the two black walnut trees in the northwest quarter of Lot 3, Block 1, shall also be
protected and saved as part of the development of the site.
The baseline canopy coverage is 38,444 or 47 percent of the site. City Code requires a post-
development canopy coverage of 35 percent or 28,563 square feet. The applicant has
estimated a canopy coverage removal of 6,512 square feet (not including the cottonwood)
which would provide a canopy coverage of 31,932 square feet or 39 percent of the site.
However, since there are large open areas on the site that could be developed, staff is
recommending that addition tree canopy be preserved. Specifically, three 10 inch elms in the
northwest corner of Lot 1 will be included within the tree conservation easement. Based on
the conditions of approval, the proposed canopy coverage being maintained shall be increased
to over 40 percent of the site without impacting the developability of the site.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District.
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 all applicable plans.
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 8
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 site is fairly level and will require minimal
alteration for development.
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 proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage
subject to conditions of approved. The proposed subdivision contains adequate
open areas to accommodate house pads. Only minimal tree removal shall be
required.
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.
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 9
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
PRELIMINARY PLAT
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-
15 for Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans
dated October 7, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless
the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of
3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan
on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their
size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be
protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning,
removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6"
caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan
which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide
the legal description.
3. Building Department conditions:
a. Applicant shall obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed
before their removal.
b. Applicant shall construct a private driveway complying with Chanhassen City
Code section 18-57(o) prior to issuance of the building permit for the second
dwelling to be served by the driveway.
4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with final plat conditions of approval.
5. Access to all lots shall be limited to the interior private street. The existing "U" shaped
driveway shall be removed prior to issuance of any building permits for the site.
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 10
6. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and/or trail construction.
7. The existing garage shall be removed no later than December 31, 1994. Financial
guarantees shall be posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition.
8. The applicant shall dedicate the following conservation easements for the protection of
trees:
a. A conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
b. A conservation easement over the northern 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot
2, Block 1.
9. The two black walnut trees in the northwest quarter of Lot 3, Block 1, shall be
preserved. A tree protection fence at the canopy dripline for these trees shall be
installed prior to any construction on Lot 3, Block 1. The tree protection fence shall
remain in place until the home is completed on Lot 3, Block 1.
10. The 50 inch dbh eastern cottonwood located in the northwest corner of Lot 4, Block 1
shall be saved. A tree protection fence shall be installed at the dripline of the tree. An
exception to this placement shall be to the north of the tree where the tree protection
fencing may be placed at the edge of the driveway easement. The tree protection fence
shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 1.
11. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
the City for review and formal approval.
12. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
13. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Issuance of permits and
inspection of the utility lines will be performed by the city's Building Department.
Utilities outside the City's right-of-way shall be owned and maintained by the
homeowner.
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 11
14. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events. The applicant shall also provide detailed pre-developed and post
developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing storm water basins for the City Engineer to
review and approve.
15. The applicant shall provide the City with an $800 escrow prior to the City signing the
final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents and guarantee boulevard
restoration and street signs.
16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies for demolition of the existing buildings and disconnection of the utility lines
for Lots 2 and 4.
17. No berming, landscaping or retaining walls will be allowed within the right-of-way or
utility and drainage easements without approval by the city and the applicant shall enter
into an encroachment agreement.
18. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
19. A grading and development plan shall be provided to the City for review and approval
prior to City Council action. The plan shall include the following items:
a) Proposed house pad location.
b) Standard Building Type, i.e. rambler, walkout, etc.
c) Elevation of lowest floor and garage floor.
d) Erosion control measures.
e) Proposed grading, if any.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for extending municipal sanitary sewer and water
service to Lot 3 in lieu of a connection charge. Lots 1 and 3 will still be charged at
time of building permit a hookup charge in the amount of $2,425 each lot.
21. The applicant and/or contractor shall receive the necessary construction in right-of-way
permit from the City and provide a performance bond in the amount of $2,000 for
extension of utility service to Lot 3.
22. Direct access to Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be limited to the proposed private driveway. A
cross-access easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access
to Lots 1, 2 and 3 via the proposed private driveway. Lot 4 may also be included
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 12
within the private driveway agreement. If access for Lot 4 is via the private driveway,
the existing access to Murray Hill Road shall be removed. Alternately, access to Lot 4
may be from the existing access point on Murray Hill Road.
23. The applicant shall pay the City a SWMP water quality and quantity fee in the amount
of $3,879.00 in lieu of on-site ponding facilities. These fees are payable prior to the
City signing the final plat."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Richard D. McFarland to Chanhassen Planning Department dated 10/11/94.
2. Application
3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated October 4, 1994.
4. Public hearing and property owners list.
5. Preliminary plat dated October 7, 1994.
RENTE
GIONRAL
RICHARD ARD D. McFARLAND
'Z!i ChWRMAN OF 71-E BOARD
October 11, 1994
Chanhassen Planning Department
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I would like to register a strong objection to the Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Edition
proposed for 6330 Murray Hill Road. My wife and I have lived at 6330 Murray Hill Road for 24
years, and my wife's family originally bought the property in 1938. For those of you who have
been through the neighborhood it is a delightful area with many small and large homes on
wonderful pieces of property. The possibility of putting four homes on the property across the
street from us at 6330 Murray Hill Road would definitely change the spirit and environment of
the neighborhood. Two homes would be appropriate-- certainly not four.
Thank you for hearing my complaint and our son David McFarland will be representing us on
Wednesday, October 19, 1994.
Si ely,
,
Ri ar cF land
RDM:rrh
DAIN BOSWORTH INCORPORATED/RAUSO-ER PIERCE REFSNES. INC/INSIGHT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT/REGIONAL OPERATIONS GROUP, INC
DA1N BOSWORTH PLAZA / 60 SOUTH SIXTH STREET / PO BOX 1160 / MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1160
612-371-7750 / RX: 612-371-7755
•
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CITY OF CHANHASSEN ld30 JNINNV1d N39SVHNVH3
690 COULTER DRIVE
- � CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -
(612) 937-1900
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT?EVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
/ -- - N3SSVHNVH3 3O A1ID
APPLICANT: /7 G 'E N r�j� og./5- /ON/ OWNER: (2//Wf C f. /Y
V
ADDRESS: /e?,2 EL !/I] ADDRESS: 3fe17 l�
V�N til/tip � 747
TELEPHONE (Day time) V 73 — .2-74%0 TELEPHONE: 17‘%' ------/?D?
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit
4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal
5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. Rezoning
7. Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review L' Notification Signs
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$1 QO_C,UP/SPRNACNARJWAP
`
( O0 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. V Subdivision � — TOTAL FEE $ /O rO t
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 go,B6/i '5 Ce,/ Z. D F A- F 015 F/i2S7— 4- d(eZ.7I /o.f/
LOCATION 3-D — 6 3 3 0 49...„6....07 per_ a - 2-1„,....1-a-o-re-r_A---1.--
LEGAL
--
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRESENT ZONING ( � �/ d . N-7"/.4-L-
REQUESTED ZONING "2 S id 6, 4/7/f- L---
PRESENT
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST p/v/ 2:::, 4.-72/iPO}C , - 4 ck_e S /?�-
4
/ / F a 0 (2 ) L e,72.5"This application must be completed in ull 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.
I also understand that atter the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
4
e-el '°';e---tt----- y ;5-- 9
Sifture o� Applicant D e
- / ---?. ' -r- Cil
. --- --z_. z _________ ,/a`,/ ,
Signature of Fee Owner l Date r-
Application Received on °/ 2X q 4Fee Paid /C^' /C.) , Receipt No. S1�I, .
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.
CITY OF
H01;11
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official4s.akc•
DATE: October 4, 1994
SUBJECT: 94-15 SUB(Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition, Hoben Corp. )
I was asked to review the development plans for Heritage Development
stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; SEP 20, 1994 ; CHANHASSEN
PLANNING DEPT. "
Analysis:
Demolition. There appears to be at least one 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 (if applicable) is required
prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
Private Driveways. The developer should be aware that City Code (18-
57 (o) ) provides standards for the construction of private driveways
serving two or more dwellings. These standards become enforceable when
the building permit for the second dwelling is issued. These standards
include a minimum width of 20 . feet, a maximum grade of 10 percent,
construction to a 7 ton design, and a turnaround acceptable to the Fire
Marshal .
Recommendations:
The following items should be added to the conditions of approval.
1. Applicant shall obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be
removed before their removal.
2 . Applicant shall construct a private driveway complying with
Chanhassen City Code 18-57 (o) prior to issuance of the building
permit for the second dwelling to be served by the driveway.
g:\safety\sak\marcs\plan\wildvds.sjl
S a g v Q
' ii;
, N' N N O
....----- ,
_ aoITY
NOTICE OF PUBLICHEARINGoIL Mr mar
,
PLANNING COMMISSION ;.-., =MEETING r�iE _ MI4� - i E
Wednesday, OCTOBER 19, 1994 ��_ Il t N`''ii�Fi`
Wed y, ,.
iiiiiii �.r.r:fl
at 7:30 p.m. ' ��.,.�cT:p.
City Hall Council Chambers Sib ,��� � 'r
690 Coulter Drive 5 �,���� n• • ®•IjL,
CR: 4
Project: Hobens Wild Wood Farms =/ 'a _
-�
1st Addition -
Developer: Hoben Corporation
Location: 6330 Murray Hill Road -
LAKE
11 --T
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat of 1.87 acres into 4 single family lots on
property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Hobens
Wild Wood Farms 1st Addition.
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 Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. 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.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 6, 1994.
1#-
- le
„,,,,tce-; --)
Robert & Delores Aman Steven & Denise Artley Harry & Lynn Baert
2250 Melody Hill Road 2098 Melody Hill Road 6300 Hummingbird Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas Baurle Claude & Kaye Benson Philip & Susan Bonthius
2231 Sommergate 2211 Sommergate 2300 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Gary Brunsvold David Brush and Erin Kerans Paul & Agnes Burkholder
6287 Chaska Road 6257 Chaska Road 6370 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Shirley Butcher & Lorraine Clark Robert & Margaret Cristofono
Rosemary Fruehling 2161 Melody Hill Road 2210 Sommergate
2240 Sommergate Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Lea Foli & Marilyn Zupnik Wayne & Barbara Fransdal Terry & Vicki Franzen
6200 Hummingbird 6200 Murray Hill Road 6260 Hummingbird Rd.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas & Kimberly Gallogly Greg Golmen Steven & Carol Good
2230 Sommergate Junie Hoff-Golmen 6245 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 2220 Melody Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
John & June Hamsher Perry Harrison Ind. School Dist. 276
2081 Melody Hill 2221 Sommergate 261 School Ave.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
James & Michele Infanger David & Christine Johns Craig & Catherine Johnson
2080 Melody Hill Road 2220 Sommergate 2071 Melody Hill RoAd
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Harlan & Eleanor Johnson Lennart & Deadra Johnson Glenn, Jr. & Sherry Johnston
6340 Hummingbird Road 7605 Hyde 6263 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Excelsior, MN 55331
Randy & Jennifer Merry Koski Frank & Lynda Kuzma Robert E. Lee
6231 Murray Hill Road 2241 Sommergate 6261 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
John & Diane Lenertz John & Nancy Liberg Evelyn Lohr Trust
6269 Chaska Road 2091 Melody Hill Road c/o Evelyn Hohr & C. J. Hasse
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 6240 Hummingbird Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Richard & Joyce McFarland Kenneth & Nancy Meyer Richard & Linda Nicoli
6341 Murray Hill Road 6251 Chaska Road 2280 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas H. Parker Arthur & Jane Partridge Karen Signe Peterson
6235 Chaska Road 6280 Hummingbird Road 2240 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Wayne & Joyce Slater Poppe Ward Allen & Sandra Putnam Frank & Greta Reese
2090 Melody Hill Road 6285 Chaska Road 6200 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas & Virginia Rode Todd Rowe Robert F. Sommer
6275 Chaska Road 6270 Murray Hill Road 6239 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Peter & Lisa Staudohar Robert J. Stone III & William Swearengen
2204 Sommergate Joan M. Stone P. 0. Box 756
Excelsior, MN 55331 6201 Murray Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Jon & Laura Williamschen Clifford & Patricia Woida
6230 Murray Hill Road 6398 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
,
KCG� RICHARD D. McFARLAND
ri OUP CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
INC.........)
October 13, 1994
Chanhassen Planning Department
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55347
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
It has been brought to my attention the letter I wrote to you dated
October 11, 1994 contained a typographical error. My address was mis-
stated. I reside at 6341 Murray Hill Road,not 6330 Murray Hill road as
erroneously expressed in my earlier correspondence. I thought I should
clarify this matter.
Sincerely yours,
\()
lit‘,..,........, _
Ri ard P . McFarland
RDM:dlg
DAIN BOSWORTH INCORPORATED/RAUSCHER PIERCE REFSNES,INC./INSIGHT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT/IFG INFORMATION SERVICES,INC.
DAIN BOSWORTH PLAZA/60 SOUTH SIXTH STREET/P.O.BOX 1160/MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55440-1160
612-371-7750/ FAX: 612-371-7755
CITY O F PC DATE: 10/1994
\\�
CIIAHAE1I CC DATE: 11/14/94
CASE #: 94-4 REZ, 94-8 SUB
_ 1
e • . •
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 39.5 acres of property from A2, Agricultural Estate, to RSF,
Single Family Residential, preliminary Plat approval for a proposed 48 lot
F— single-family development, a wetland alteration permit to fill or alter wetlands
Z within the development, and a conditional use permit for the placement of fill
Q and excavation within the flood plain
LOCATION: North of Twin Cities & Western Railroad tracks, west of Bluff Creek and east
of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek
CL
a_ APPLICANT: Heritage Development
Q 450 East County Road D
Little Canada, Minnesota 55117
(612) 481-0017
PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2
ACREAGE: 39.5 acres
DENSITY: Gross: 1.22 units per acre Net: 1.68 units per acre
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - A2, vacant
S - PUD-IOP, Chanhassen Business Center, Twin Cities & Western RR
E - IOP, vacant
QW - RR & RSF, Timberwood Estates & Stone Creek
QWATER AND SEWER: Available
11.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The northern 2/3 of the site consists of cultivated and pastured
I"' farm land. The northern 1/3 of the site has severe topographic changes from a low of 900 feet to a
high of 960 feet. The property is bounded on the north and east by Bluff Creek. The southern 1/3 of
the side is wooded. A ravine which acts as a temporary stream traverses the southern 1/3 of the
project from west to east. Two wetlands are located on the property, one on the east and the other in
the south. A third small wetland that is being filled is located near the high point of the site. A
NSP transmission power line runs along the entire western limits of the site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre)
I I ~• AIM
tit i _�&,
►S Q �� fl .:Nh' VE�Dq
1' , Q
lbw
..e•ill I
t Thbutt?„1•-• •
/s1
11/ i II
,4,i—I
, -........,.,*
rill
czar,. _,.e.i. j .
1111A!1 Ilk Mei I
A .„...,,..."cliii\,,;17.:.3
•
v/
_ ��
11,14Witi: afloti4 Of
Airsip. .--.. Irs- . 1112:0011---4------...rr
'. d 11,W
lile
iAL.; ., • „.....1
//111hano.umbimiallbollaniiin ii,.11:,...,,,I:
1 it Isii a ". 41PP--PillimallIlltlr-ir;*;4': -
I / ■-r� is _,,,/-- ---4'."----. 4--4116. 11t. ., .„„„„17.,'7:
��
1011„„v 1._
ii lk TT_civ I.•.:
•.� ` t�, •� 4Tru1 •� -moi ,` /(CJ •YIN RVD — ��w� � ,, M♦ S :�- ycS;my. -. _—_ �e _. I II_
1 n
$100—1 Noill117.1:".
"...' iff • WM -.Ng... s,-4`.:(":;-:-.1 i .7;-.e
IARir rilinigirl t;a. •le.er. ; %IP
.1P SWIM 77
...\\__
•1100 8
o
*4111111111rt:;.11111
I sow— \__• ■' ai` ik •
F I
•
11100 wt/
E'f4 ,_.. I,
,4 .N.,
11lig - .41
11 / r
••
iiit. I
11400 -1
A.Nr,I
II MO MI rr,
I IP° 4 411111111111111dif--- x
. ) Si, ,
/4
10000
114 10
•Rl►vr, nrpr _. - ._ .
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a single-family subdivision consisting of 48 single-family home
sites, 4.2 acres of right-of-way, 5.7 acres of wetlands, and 2.0 acres of parkland on 39.5 acres
of land located in the central portion of the city on the west bank of Bluff Creek north of the
Twin Cities and Western Railroad tracks. The proposal provides lot areas ranging from
15,305 square feet to 44,168 square feet (not including outlots) with an average lot area of
21,143 square feet. The intent of the development is to create a project that is compatible
with the natural elements of the area, specifically Bluff Creek, the ravine, the wooded area,
and the existing topography, as well as the existing developments to the west and the future
development to the north. Three wetland areas are located within the development, one
along Bluff Creek in the central portion of the project, another in the south adjacent to the
railroad tracks, and the third near the high point of the project.
This plat meets minimum code requirements for a single-family developments, but falls short
of ordinance requirements for the preservation of site characteristics including topography,
creeks and scenic views. One of the most important recommendations that the applicant
needs to incorporate into the proposal is the design components for Bluff Creek corridor
including maintaining a 100 foot building setback from Bluff Creek. While staff believes that
the roadway alignment for the project should be adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor, in order
to provide the community and the future home buyers in this development a shared sense of
ownership of Bluff Creek and the open space to be created in the wetland complex, we are
willing to compromise with the developer and support the roadway alignment as proposed,
provided the applicant provides a trail easement along the edge of the wetland (the rear of
Block 1 and the edge of Outlot C) and dedicates the wooded area located in the southeast
corner of the development for park land. The park land dedication proposed by the applicant
is unacceptable to the city. The city will acquire any of this land in excess of the subdivision
dedication requirements by negotiation or condemnation if necessary.
Staff is proposing that Lot 25, Block 3, be eliminated to provide tree preservation and to
provide some protection to the ravine and Bluff Creek tributary. A minimum 50 foot setback
from the tributary will be required.
Except for the southerly portion of the property, the proposed grading plan will impact the '
topographic features of the site extensively. Existing elevations as high as 957 in the north
part of the parcel would be graded down to approximately 936. This is due to the extreme
elevation changes on the site. Staff believes that extensive earthwork will be necessary to
prepare the site for building pads and utility and street construction.
Staff is recommending revisions for the subdivision that will enhance environmental
protection and make the development better for the community and the future residents of this
neighborhood. However, we believe that these corrections can be made prior to final platting
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 3
and therefore are recommending rezoning, preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit, and
conditional use permit approvals.
BACKGROUND
The 39.5 acre parcel being submitted for review was formerly contained in a concept PUD
submission for Chanhassen Corporate Center and more recently as a single-family PUD. The
Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend denial of the conceptual single-family PUD.
In their review, the Commission was concerned about the lack of details provided by the
applicant for this stage of the development review, e.g. house pad locations, detailed drainage
and utility plans, grading plans, as well as the numerous issues pointed out in the staff report.
The primary issue of the Commission was the question as to whether this proposal is
premature based on the need for the city to define all the criteria regarding the Bluff Creek
corridor as well as the wetland areas. The Commission was also concerned about the
following issues:
1. number of lots under 15,000 square feet in area (21 of 56 lots or 37.5 percent
of gross lot area and 26 of 56 lots or 46.4 percent of net lot area);
(Note: This is no longer an issue)
2. treatment of Bluff Creek, the ravine and the wetlands;
3. drainage patterns, specifically, how the development will impact drainage from
adjacent property;
4. minimizing grading, topographical disruptions and working with and
maintaining some of the steep grades;
5. providing a transition from Timberwood to Heritage, concern about lot size
directly abutting Timberwood;
6. overall density of the development;
7. minimizing tree loss;
8. location of sanitary sewer stub into Timberwood; and
9. timing for the northern extension of the road to the proposed east-west
collector street.
The City Council granted conceptual approval to the single-family residential PUD on May
23, 1994 with the direction to resolve the numerous issues contained in the staff report. The
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 4
applicant's conceptual plan originally had 56 lots, but was reduced to 53 lots after initial
revisions.
Since Council's approval, staff and the applicant met to determine if the direction provided in
the conceptual PUD approval could be implemented. A sketch plan of the development with
the roadway alignment adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor was provided by the applicant.
The Bluff Creek alignment plan showed a total of 44 lots located to the west of the roadway.
Park land, encompassing the land south of the ravine and east of the roadway, was also
dedicated. The Heritage First Addition proposes a total of 48 lots. Also, the four lots south
of the ravine and east of the roadway are to be dedicated and/or purchased by the city for
parkland. The plat is therefore reduced to 44 lots which is the same number of lots that were
provided as part of the Bluff Creek alignment proposal.
The applicant has dropped the idea of proceeding through the PUD process and is requesting
a straight subdivision of the site. The roadway alignment adjacent to Bluff Creek works
within the context of the PUD. Given the constraints presented by a standard subdivision, the
proposed subdivision design provides a good alternative with its meandering street, trail
easement along the edge of the wetland, and the dedication of a mature, forested area for
passive park use.
SITE ANALYSIS
The northern two-thirds of the property are currently in an agricultural state with a wooded
area in the southern one-third of the site. Within the southern area, adjacent to the Twin
Cities & Western Railroad line, is a wetland/ponding area. Bluff Creek is the easterly and
northern border of the site. A tributary to Bluff Creek runs within a ravine located within the
wooded area in the southern third of the site. A large wetland complex is located on the
eastern part of the development adjacent to Bluff Creek. The property has varied topography
with over a 60 foot change in grade. Timberwood Estates, a large lot subdivision, is located
west of the project. A NSP electrical transmission line and easement runs along the entire
length of the western border of the site.
REZONING
The rezoning of the property from A2 to RSF is consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan
designation of the property as Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0
Units/Acre). Staff supports the rezoning of the site as part of the subdivision process.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 5
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
WETLANDS
The City is committed to the protection and restoration of the Bluff Creek corridor and is
initiating a comprehensive watershed plan to protect the creek and the corridor associated
with it. This site includes the headwaters of Bluff Creek and three wetlands of which two of
them have high potential for protection and restoration.
This project must meet the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed
setbacks and replacement requirements as stated in the Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA)
and the City Wetland Ordinance. The City is the Local Governing Unit (LGU) administering
the WCA. A permit application for a wetland alteration permit from the City and the State
can be obtained at City Hall. The application combines the two permit processes.
Bluff Creek - An east and west branch of Bluff Creek come together at the northern part of
this proposed development and Bluff Creek continues to run north to south through the site.
The creek discharges into the Lower Minnesota River approximately three miles south of the
site. The east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek is a DNR protected water.
The City's shoreland ordinance requires that the lowest floor of a structure be placed at least
three feet above the highest flood of record, the ordinary high water level, or the level of a
technical evaluation conducted to determine the effects of flood stages of the proposed
construction. If there is more than one approach used, the highest flood protection elevation
determined shall be used for placing structures and other facilities. The watershed district, the
City, and the applicant will have to meet to evaluate the methodologies used to determine
flood elevations in order to establish a flood elevation for the creek based upon the best
available information.
Wetland A15-11(1) - Approximately 4 acres of an ag/urban wetland is located along Bluff
Creek in the lower two thirds of the site. This wetland extends east off the property and is
approximately 12 acres total in size. The wetland has been drained and altered in the past
and has a high potential for restoration as part of the Bluff Creek Corridor.
Wetland A15-15(1) - Approximately 0.7 acre of an ag/urban wetland is located in the
southwest corner of the site. A small portion of this wetland is proposed to be filled as a
result of the development. The quality of this wetland, however, is better than some ag/urban
wetlands since the surrounding area is heavily wooded.
Wetland A15-7(1) - Approximately 0.03 acre of an ag/urban wetland is located in the
northwest corner of the site. This wetland appears to be a perched system and will be filled
as a result of the development.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 6
Bluff Creek Tributary - There is a creek draining from the property in the southwest corner of
the property to Bluff Creek. Although this creek is not DNR protected or a designated
wetland it provides a natural resource amenity to the area and contributes to water quantity
and water quality components of Bluff Creek. This creek drains from west to east through a
heavily wooded area with a marginal understory.
Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban
wetlands located on the property. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10
to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. 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 for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer
strip.
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 tributary to Bluff Creek located in the southwest portion of the site should be preserved
for the most part. A sanitary sewer line is recommended to be installed along this creek since
it is the best location to provide a gravity feed system to service Timberwood Estates in the
future. Soil erosion and sedimentation are of greatest concern to this area especially during
the time of construction. Staff recommends that heavy-duty Type HI erosion control fencing
be installed and maintained along Bluff Creek/wetlands adjacent to where ponding areas are
proposed. The erosion control fences shall be maintained until the entire site is fully
revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. Staff also recommends that a drainage
and utility easement be established along the creek with a minimum width of 30 feet.
Bluff Creek is planned as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge
point at the Minnesota River. Staff has reviewed the upper part of Bluff Creek with the
Design Center at the University of Minnesota and recommends a 100 foot buffer to maintain
a natural resource corridor as well as a recreational and educational trail corridor.
Wetland Replacement - The Wetland Conservation Act requires that wetland fill be replaced
at a ratio of 2:1. Half of the replacement must be created wetland to provide no net loss,
however, the other half of the replacement can be completed as restoration. Staff encourages
the developer to assist with the restoration of the large wetland A15-11(1) as part of the
mitigation efforts. The City is willing to assist the developer with a restoration project for
this wetland. This would then create wetland banking credits as well as an aesthetically
appealing environment to future landowners. The banking credits would be proportioned
between the City and the developer for future use based on the amount of contribution to the
project. As for the area of wetland that must be created, staff suggests that all of the required
area be an extension of the large wetland rather than including some creation in the wetland
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 7
in the southwest corner. The wetland in the southwest corner has a large number of trees and
it is not worth removing them for wetland creation.
The buffer strip for the upper part of the watershed is a very important issue to address in the
design of the Bluff Creek Watershed Plan since this will provide a guide to the type and
amount of open space necessary to preserve, enhance, and protect the natural resources of the
basin. The wetland buffer strips in the City ordinance are very liberal protection requirements
and only take into consideration the type of wetland. The following are a few suggestions
from Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness that was written by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (February 1992):
a. Studies indicate that buffers from 50 to 150 feet are necessary to protect a wetland
from direct human disturbance in the form of human encroachment (i.e. trampling,
debris).
b. 95% of the buffers smaller than 50 feet suffered a direct human impact within the
buffer while only 35% of the buffers wider than 50 feet suffered direct human impact.
c. Wetlands with important wildlife functions in eastern Washington should have a 100
to 200 foot buffer depending on adjacent land use.
d. Buffers widths effective in preventing significant water quality impacts to wetlands are
generally 100 feet or greater.
STREETS
The plans propose on extending Stone Creek Drive from the southwest corner of the site to
immediately provide access to the site. The north/south street will eventually tie into the
City's south frontage road project which is currently under construction. There will, however,
be a gap between this development and the frontage road. Staff believes that preliminary and
final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the applicant providing a financial escrow with
the City to guarantee completion/connection of the north/south road to the frontage road ,
within three years after the final plat is approved by the City Council to ensure that this
development is connected in the future to avoid a "dead-end" street scenario.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate the necessary 60-foot wide right-of-way for the
north/south street and two cul-de-sacs. Access from the south (Stone Creek Drive) which is
considered a neighborhood collector street has been constructed with the Hans Hagen Stone
Creek development. The street section was built 35 feet wide back-to-back urban street
section within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. In addition, a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk was
constructed as well. Staff is recommending that this typical street cross-section be extended
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 8
as well through the Heritage plat up to the future frontage road. The plans appear to propose
this street section including a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the westerly side of the
north/south street. The applicant's engineer should verify that the sight lines at these
intersections will meet MnDOT's criteria based on a 35 MPH design speed.
The applicant is also proposing two private driveways to service lots back into the wooded
areas (Lot 25, Block 1 and Lot 10, Block 2). Staff believes that Lots 24 and 25, Block 1 are
not buildable lots due to the close proximity of the ravine/creek. Staff is concerned with
regards to flood protection of these two proposed house sites. We believe that Lot 25 should
be deleted and Lot 24, Block 1 shifted southerly away from the ravine/creek area. This
would also preserve additional trees along the creek corridor and limit disruption to the
slopes.
The southerly cul-de-sac is proposed to serve Lots 19, 20 and 21, Block 1. Two of the three
lots (Lots 20 and 21, Block 1) encroach upon the tree line which will result in tree loss. An
alternative to preserve these trees would be to modify the south cul-de-sac to a private
driveway and reconfigure Lots 19 through 23, Block 3 to pull the home sites up out of the
tree line. This would also reduce the applicant's costs for constructing a full City cul-de-
sac/street. The appropriate cross-access easements would then be necessary to preserve access
across the lots and spell out maintenance responsibilities.
The proposed north/south street will cross the ravine area. The proposed street elevation is
approximately 10 to 12 feet higher than the existing creek. This is necessary to provide
sufficient cover over the culvert. However, the resulting side slopes will extend 30 feet east
and west from the street right-of-way. The use of retaining walls should be considered in an
effort to reduce tree loss on the east side of the street. On the west side, a sanitary sewer line
will be extended along the creek corridor for future service to Timberwood Estates. In this
area retaining walls may not be necessary.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as
a part of the final plat submittal. Street construction plans shall be in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction drawings
are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final plat
approval.
UTILITIES
As a part of the City's Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and watermain project,
sanitary sewer and watermain have been extended to the southwesterly corner of the site. The
City has been working with the developer to extend trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities
through the site and utilize the proposed street alignment. The City has contracted with
Barton-Aschman to prepare the construction plans for this next segment of trunk sanitary
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 9
sewer through the development. Barton-Aschman has prepared plans to extend sewer service
through this development. However, the plans follow the previous street alignment which
resulted in sewer lines less than 25 feet deep. The proposed street alignment will result in the
sanitary sewer lines being up to 35 feet deep. Although staff would prefer that the sewer line
be shallower from an economic standpoint, it is much more effective for the City and the
developer if this trunk sanitary sewer line could be utilized to serve both as a lateral and a
trunk benefit to the adjacent property. Staff is willing to compromise on the depth issue since
it is a relatively short distance. Barton-Aschman also reviewed an alternative sewer
alignment running along the wetlands along the east side of the plat. However, due to poor
soil conditions and environmental reasons, this alignment is not feasible. We believe the
roadway alignment as proposed will accommodate the future trunk sanitary sewer needs for
the City.
All utility construction outside the scope of the trunk sanitary sewer lines shall be in
accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction drawings and specifications for the utility improvements will be required for
submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will be subject
to staff review and City Council approval. The City's contract could be expanded to
construct the developer's sanitary sewer laterals and services if so desired.
In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee
installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval.
Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide Timberwood Estates with sanitary sewer
service in the future. Staff has explored the possibility of extending the sewer line through
Stone Creek 4th Addition to Timberwood Drive. However, there are two low points on
Timberwood Drive where the sanitary sewer will actually be daylighted. Therefore, the only
other alternative short of a lift station is to provide service to Timberwood Estates along the
Bluff Creek tributary corridor between Lots 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25, Block 3 (Heritage
Preliminary Plat Development). The applicant is responsible for extending sanitary sewer to
the plat boundary along the Bluff Creek tributary which lies just north of Renaissance Court.
This would give sufficient elevation to serve the entire development of Timberwood Estates
via a gravity system. Staff will be recommending that the applicant extend an 8-inch sanitary
sewer line along the Bluff Creek tributary to the westerly boundaries of the plat for future
service to Timberwood Estates. Although this may result in immediate impact along the
tributary of Bluff Creek, this is not uncommon for extension of sanitary sewer due to the fact
that streams or lake areas are usually the lowest areas in the City. The extension of Bluff
Creek trunk sanitary sewer already runs adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corridor from Lyman
Boulevard. The area will re-vegetate and retain its natural features upon conclusion of the
project.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 10
Depending on timing, the applicant may wish to proceed with extending the trunk sanitary
sewer line through the development prior to the City initiating a project. The City would
reimburse the applicant the cost difference between an 8-inch line versus an 18-inch line by
issuing a credit against the property assessments.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Except for the southerly portion of the property, the proposed grading plan will impact the
topographic features of the site extensively. Existing elevations as high as 957 in the north
part of the parcel would be graded down to approximately 936. This is due to the extreme
elevation changes on the site. Staff believes that extensive earthwork will be necessary to
prepare the site for building pads and utility and street construction.
According to the Bluff Creek Corridor Study, Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 in the northern
portion of the property will have a limited amount of buildable area with the proposed 100-
foot setback from the creek. This is also true in the southern portion of the site along Lots 8,
9 and 10, Block 2. The southerly portion of the site is heavily wooded and is not proposed to
be graded at this time except for the roadway. It appears the applicant is desiring to custom
grade each lot as a building permit is issued. The applicant should demonstrate on the
grading plan the proposed house type and elevations of the garage floor and lowest floor
elevation of each particular lot within the subdivision to determine impact of grading and tree
removal. In addition, the builders of the wooded lots will be required to submit individual
grading, drainage and erosion control plans for each house for staff to review and approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
This development abuts Timberwood Estates to the west. The applicant is providing for
drainage from the Timberwood site to drain between the home sites where storm sewer will
convey storm water runoff to the water quality ponds proposed adjacent to Bluff Creek. A
storm sewer line may be necessary in the rear yards of Lots 14 or 15, Block 3 to convey
runoff away from the houses. This will be further investigated with the plans and
specifications review process.
All floodplain issues shall be discussed with the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
District engineer and the City's consultant for the SWMP before final approval on the normal
and high water elevations for Bluff Creek.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages
of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water
resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and
quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 11
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 the 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-development and post-development
conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. Storm water runoff from the site
shall be in accordance with the City's SWMP. 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 ponds shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 22-inch rainfall. In
addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch
basins will also be required.
One stormwater pond is proposed along the central western edge of Bluff Creek to pretreat
the water according to Walker standards prior to discharge into Bluff Creek. Normal and
high water levels in each of the wetlands should be given on the grading and drainage plan.
This pond should be constructed with the initial stage of grading to provide maximum erosion
control protection.
Another storm pond labeled "proposed temporary pond" located at the north end of the site
will also be constructed to pretreat storm runoff from the northerly portion of the
development. This ponding location is anticipated to be increased in size when the 8 acres to
the north is developed. The grading plans should be modified to show the pond contours and
outlet control structure. Staff questions whether or not there is sufficient cover over the
northerly creek crossing to permit a storm sewer line across the creek to the proposed interim
pond. This should be further explored by the applicant's engineer.
SWMP Water Quality Fees - The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality
systems. 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 market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a
value of $2.50 to $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is
proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be waived.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 12
SWMP Water Quantity Fees - The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different
land uses based on average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This
cost includes all proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for
temporary runoff storage. The single-family low-density developments will have an
assessment rate of $1,980 per acre less any wetlands. The proposed development of 33.8
acres of single-family residential acres would then be responsible for a water quantity
assessment fee of $66,924. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water
quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such
items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. These credits, if any,
will be applied after review of the construction plans.
EASEMENTS
The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and
maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as storm water ponding areas and wetlands.
Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final
plat and construction plan and specification review process. The wetlands or storm ponding
areas (Outlots A, C and D) may also be deeded to the City versus an easement.
EROSION CONTROL
An erosion control plan is required and should be incorporated on the site plan and submitted
to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencement. Staff recommends
the applicant use the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for erosion control
measures. Type III erosion control will be required adjacent to all wetland areas except
where storm ponds will intercept the runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. In these
areas only Type I is recommend.
All disturbed areas are to be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to
prevent erosion and sedimentation. Protection around catch basins such as hay bales or silt
fence is also required until the pavement is installed (BMPH). If at all possible, construction
of the site in stages is highly recommended to help reduce sedimentation into the City's
infrastructure.
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
The applicant has prepared a tree survey of the site locating all significant trees and canopy
coverage calculations. The base line canopy coverage is 21.9 percent (7.4 acres). City code
requires a post development canopy coverage of 30 percent (10.1 acres). Therefore, the
applicant would be required to plant 2.66 acres (441,698 - 325,800/ 43,560) as part of their
forestation program for this development. In addition, the applicant has estimated that they
will remove 54,540 square feet of the existing canopy coverage. Since this canopy coverage
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 13
is required to meet the minimum canopy coverage requirement, there is a replacement
requirement of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed. This replacement area
amounts to 1.5 acres (54,540 x 1.2 / 43,560). The total tree planting requirement based on
the forestation and replacement requirements is 166 trees (2.66 + 1.5 x 43,560 /1,089). The
landscaping plan needs to be revised to reflect these tree planting requirements. In order to
permit staff to verify the tree preservation calculations, the tree survey/canopy coverage areas
need to be overlaid on the grading plan.
However, staff believes that the applicant has undercounted the tree removal that will be done
as part of the development. Staff estimates that approximately 76,000 square feet of canopy
area will be removed as part of the development. With a replacement requirement of 1.2
times the area being removed, the total replacement area would be 91,200 square feet. Staff
estimates that the total tree planting requirement for this project would be 190 trees. Staff is
requesting that the applicant review the canopy coverage calculations as part of the woodland
management plan to verify tree planting requirements.
In developing the subdivision design, every effort should be made to preserve existing trees.
Where possible, the applicant should attempt to preserve stands of trees in preference over
individual trees. A woodland management plan shall be prepared for the entire development
pursuant to the tree preservation ordinance. The subdivision standards require one tree to be
planted in the front yard of each home. Credit for preserved trees of six inches or larger
caliper can be granted. As part of the final process, the applicant will be required to provide
a detailed landscaping plan for the development.
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
The City of Chanhassen is in the beginning stages of preparing a proposal to develop and
begin implementing a comprehensive natural resource management plan in the Bluff Creek
Watershed that demonstrates prudent development can occur in harmony with protection and
restoration of natural systems and unique resources in an urbanizing watershed connected to
the Lower Minnesota River. As part of this corridor design, the following issues will be
addressed.
The establishment of a linear park encumbering the entire Bluff Creek Corridor
including adjacent wetlands and areas/lands of significance to the corridor has been
identified as a top priority of the City's Comprehensive Recreation Plan.
- A trail will be a part of this park.
The trail will pass under the Twin Cities and Western Railroad at a viaduct located at
the southern terminus of this concept plat.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 14
Public ownership of the entire creek corridor, including lands required for trail
construction, is desired.
The city will require the dedication of the area south of the ravine and east of the roadway
alignment. Dedication of land in excess of that required under the subdivision ordinance will
be compensated at a fair market rate. If the developer and the city can not agree on a fair
market value, then the city will condemn the property. This area provides a unique transition
from the open wetland trail to a small segment of mature wooded forests. An existing farm
path that traverses this area will be incorporated into the trail system. Additionally, a 30
thirty foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the entire length of Bluff Creek. The
developer shall construct the trail and receive trail fees credits in proportion to the costs of
the trail's construction.
At their meeting on August 9, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission moved
unanimously to recommend to the City Council the following conditions in regard to parks,
trail and open space and to bring back a redesigned plan incorporating their recommendation:
1. The land bound by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the extension of
Stone Creek Drive on the west, and the arm of Bluff Creek on the north be shown as
parkland. Said property to be purchased through a combination of park dedication fee
credit and cash.
2. The open space corridor along the creek shall lie adjacent to the road. Compensation
for any open space lying between the wetland and the subject road's right of way
would be made under this scenario.
3. The alignment of the 8 ft. bituminous trail be amended to reflect the direction given
the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek corridor enter the
parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland prior to its connection
with the railroad underpass. Said trail to be constructed with the first phase of
improvements completed by the applicant with a lump sum cost for the trail being
reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall supply the city with three quotes
for the construction of said trail with the final alignment being staked for approval by
the City's Park and Recreation and Engineering Departments prior to construction.
TRAILS
The Park and Recreation Department is requesting an 8-foot wide trail around the wetlands on
the east side of the plat. Staff has learned from previous projects that soil conditions in these
areas are far from desirable for constructing trails. Additional costs are incurred for soil
corrections and increased gravel and/or bituminous materials to support the trail. Staff
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 15
recommends that the exact alignment be determined in the field after consulting with a soils
engineer.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
CODE MINIMUMS: Lot area: 15,000 square feet; Frontage: 90 feet; Lot depth: 125 feet:
Setbacks: Front - 30 feet, side - 10 feet; rear - 30 feet.
LOT BLOCK AREA (SQ. FRONTAGE DEPTH (FT.)
FT.) (FT.)
1 1 28,849 229 156
2 1 20,001 110 153.5
3 1 20,296 87* 181
4 1 25,215 83* 226.5
5 1 25,401 83* 225.5
6 1 22,309 82* 205
7 1 20,263 96 189.5
8 1 15,363 102 151
9 1 15,305 110 139
10 1 16,921 125 168
11 1 17,982 119 183
1 2 16,007 100 160
2 2 18,339 149 158
3 2 15,882 131 144.5
4 2 15,310 99 138.5
5 2 20,868 118 150
6 2 20,861 119 151.5
7 2 20,562 148 139
8 2 22,683 106 142
9 2 23,039 90 211.5
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 16
10 2 36,527 298 133.3
11 2 20,008 126 159.5
1 3 28,763 135 131.5
2 3 20,237 105 164
3 3 18,437 125 148
4 3 18,553 229 168.5
5 3 130160 130 146.5
6 3 15,557 78* 142
7 3 44,168 88* 200.5
8 3 25,943 92 142.5
9 3 16,490 105 154
10 3 16,490 96 173.5
11 3 29,546 90 259
12 3 21,283 85* 200.5
13 3 17,484 91 177
14 3 16,106 95 169.5
15 3 15,862 87* 166.5
16 3 16,360 96 176.5
17 3 21,033 124 219.5
18 3 17,450 148 138
19 3 21,665 59* 133.5
20 3 17,598 63* 138
21 3 19,382 71* 131.5
22 3 16,671 120 130.5
23 3 19,585 187 167.5
24 3 20,921 175 127.5
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 17
25 3 32,724 162 140
26 3 24,921 240 150
A 230,868
B 64,033
C 63,162
Park 87,120
Notes: * Meets Minimum Frontage at the Building Setback Line
Section 18-60 (d) states that lots shall be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities,
such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas . Lot 25 Block 3
violates Section 18-60 (d). The plat shall be revised to eliminate Lot 25, Block 3, which will
improve the placement of homes adjacent to the Bluff Creek Tributary and reduce the amount
of trees that will be lost.. Additionally, staff believes that there is a remanent of land north of
Lot 1, Block 3 that is not included as part of the plat. This remanent should either be
combined with the abutting lot or designated as an outlot for entry signage purposes.
SUBDIVISION FINDINGS
Subdivision, Section 18-39 (f)
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets the lot area requirements of the RSF,
Residential Single Family District. Lots 24 and 25, Block 3, violate Section
18-60 (d) and should be combined into one lot to preserve trees and move the
house pads away from the ravine and the Bluff Creek Tributary.
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.
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;
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 18
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the
conditions specified in this report. Tree preservation and protection of the
ravine and Bluff Creek tributary would be enhanced with the elimination of Lot
25, Block 3.
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 proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will impact the land form and existing
wetlands and vegetation. The elimination of Lot 25, Block 3 will improve
natural feature preservation. While wetlands will be impacted, the proposed
mitigation should improve the quality of the remaining wetland.
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.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/FLOOD PLAIN ALTERATION
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit the alteration and excavation of
land within the Bluff Creek flood plain. When approving a conditional use permit, the City
must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses.
The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following
12 items:
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 19
1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience
or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Finding: Before final plat approval, the applicant's design will have to meet the
standards set for water quantity, water quality, erosion control, and general
construction by the City, the watershed district, and the state.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
Finding: The development of the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan and
the stormwater management plan. Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor
(Outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands,
the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural
environment.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not
change the essential character of that area.
Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek
Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering
the wetland.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area
by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Open space in conjunction
with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer
systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed
use.
Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within
the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The proposed wetland
mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the
wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 20
provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction
with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: Restoration and enhancement of the surrounding natural resources is
considered an asset to the community.
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents,
or trash.
Finding: The wetland areas that remain will be used as open space and a park
corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to
entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the
existing and planned neighboring uses.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion
or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The proposed realignment of the north-south road adjacent to the Bluff
Creek wetland complex will reduce the number of access points directly onto the road.
This roadway will improve traffic circulation in the area.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
Finding: The alteration project will protect and preserve natural and scenic features
of major significance. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater
prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will
serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: The wetland project will protect and preserve natural and scenic features of
major significance and improve the aesthetics of the area. Open space in conjunction
with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 21
Finding: The development's design will provide flood protection as well as aesthetic
improvements to the area which should enhance the property values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: Will comply with federal, state and local requirements.
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 high point
of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during
agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also
receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek
Development. This wetland has been impacted by human intervention, but should be
protected and preserved to the extent possible. Both wetlands will be mitigated
through enhancement and extension of the wetland complex along Bluff Creek and the
southern wetland. There will be no net loss of wetlands.
2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and
its implementation.
Finding: Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (Oudot C) and the
enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is
implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. The
applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high point of the site.
This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices.
The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also receive some fill as a
result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek Development. 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.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 22
Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek
Corridor. 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 dedication of
the Bluff Creek Corridor (Outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of
the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as
improving the natural environment.
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. Through the dedication
of the Bluff Creek Corridor (Outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection
of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as
improving the natural environment. The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched
wetland on the high point of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in
the past during agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of
the site will also receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the
Stone Creek Development. The proposal minimizes the impact of the development
while at the same time replacing and enhancing the wetland complexes. The proposed
wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of
the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will
be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions:
Rezoning
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning #94-4, rezoning 39.5 acres
from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family Residential, consistent with
the City of Chanhassen Land Use Plan."
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 23
Subdivision
"The Planning Commission recommends preliminary plat approval of subdivision #94-7
subdividing 39.5 acres of land into 47 Lots and 4 outlots subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall incorporate design components from the proposed Bluff Creek
Watershed Plan that are being initiated in the upcoming month.
2. The applicant shall attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the
rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan.
3. A woodland management plan will be required as part of the platting process. The
tree survey shall be overlaid on the grading plan to verify the preservation of trees.
The applicant shall review the canopy coverage calculations as part of the woodland
management plan. The landscaping plan shall be revised to incorporate the correct
forestation and replacement planting calculations. These calculations may be revised
subject to park land dedication. Additional trees shall be incorporated in tree
groupings along the NSP easement on the western portion of the development.
4. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of
foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. Revise the Grading and Drainage
Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final
plat approval.
5. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance
of any building permits.
6. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review
prior to final plat approval.
7. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval.
8. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
9. Submit plans to Fire Marshal showing the connection to either existing or proposed
streets at the north end or south end of the proposed road.
10. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 24
11. The applicant shall revise the plat to eliminate Lot 25, Block 3, bringing the total
number of lots to 47.
12. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. The land bound by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the
extension of Stone Creek Drive and Outlot B on the west, and the arm of Bluff
Creek on the north be shown as parkland. Said property to be purchased
through a combination of park dedication fee credit and cash.
b. A 30 foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the Bluff Creek
Corridor/wetland complex along the north and east portions of the plat.
c. The alignment of the 8 ft. bituminous trail be amended to reflect the direction
given the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek
corridor enter the parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland
prior to its connection with the railroad underpass. Said trail to be constructed
with the first phase of improvements completed by the applicant with a lump
sum cost for the trail being reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall
supply the city with three quotes for the construction of said trail with the final
alignment being staked for approval by the City's Park and Recreation and
Engineering Departments prior to construction.
13. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 100-foot setback buffer
around Bluff Creek and a 50 foot setback buffer along the tributary to Bluff Creek.
14. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface
Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City Council. Type III
erosion control will be required adjacent to all wetlands except where storm ponds will
intercept runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. In these areas Type I erosion
control is required.
15. 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 plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
approval.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 25
16. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water 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 predeveloped and post-
developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer
calculations for a 10-year storm event 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.
17. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
18. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA,
DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of
approval.
19. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring
information. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-
lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be
provided to the Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot.
20. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width
shall be a minimum of 20 feet. Consideration should also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
21. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right-of-way areas.
22. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the
high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines.
23. The proposed storm water ponds shall be designed with side slopes of 10:1 for the
first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1
throughout for safety purposes. The storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial
site grading.
24. Individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each
wooded lot prior to issuance of a building permit.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 26
25. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. If the
applicant constructs the water quality ponds as proposed these fees will be waived.
26. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer
trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design
requirements. The fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction
plans.
27. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
28. The southerly cul-de-sac shall be re-evaluated for a private driveway in an effort to
pull the house pads away from the tree line. A turnaround in accordance to the Fire
Marshal's recommendations shall be provided.
29. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8-inch sanitary sewer line to the westerly
edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary (Lots 21, 21, 23, 24 and 25, Block 1).
30. The northerly proposed interim storm pond shall be shown on the grading plan.
Details such as contour lines and the outlet control structure shall be included.
31. The north/south street shall be extended through to the frontage road within three
years after the final plat is approved. The applicant shall provide the city with a
financial security to guarantee the roadway extension will be completed.
32. The developers and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or
substantive objections to the special assessment resulting from the City's public
improvement project (93-26) including but not limited to hearing requirements and
claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
33. The trail alignment around the wetlands (Bluff Creek corridor) shall be determined in
the field after walking the site and consulting a soils engineer.
34. The final plat shall dedicate the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access
and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas and wetlands. The
wetlands and ponding areas may be deeded to the City as outlots as well.
35. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls along the east side of the
southerly creek crossing to minimize tree loss.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 27
36. Adjust the lot lines for those properties that abut the Bluff Creek tributary to use the
tributary/bottom of ravine as the lot line."
Conditional Use Permit
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #94-4 to permit
the placement of fill and excavations within the flood plain alterations subject to the
following condition:
1. The applicant shall comply with the wetland fill/excavation and wetland mitigation
conditions as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Mitigation work shall
be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in future phases of the
project. All mitigation work shall be limited to the Bluff Creek corridor and not in
the wetland located at the southwest corner of the site."
Wetland Alteration Permit
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #94-4 to
permit filling and replacing wetlands on the site subject to the following conditions:
1. All buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked by the applicant 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.
2. Wetland buffer areas are required around the wetlands in accordance with the City
Wetland Ordinance. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 50-
foot buffer around Bluff Creek with a 100 foot building setback and a 10 to 30 foot
buffer with a minimum average of 20 feet around the tributary to Bluff Creek with a
50 foot building setback."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Wetland Map
2. Development Review Application
3. Letter from RLK to Planning Commission dated 9/19/94
4. Land Use Plan Map
5. Heritage First Addition of Chanhassen Preliminary Plat
6. Memo from Mark Littfin to Bob Generous dated 9/30/94
7. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 10/3/94
8. Letter from Richard J. Pilon (Minnegasco) to Robert Generous dated 9/28/94
9. Letter from Joe Richter (DNR) to Robert Generous dated 9/26/94
10. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Page 28
11. Bluff Creek Corridor Street Alignment Option
12. City Council Minutes of May 23, 1994 (Heritage PUD)
13. City Council Minutes of April 11, 1994 (Heritage PUD)
14. Park and Recreation Minutes of March 22, 1994 (Heritage PUD)
15. Planning Commission Minutes of March 16, 1994 (Heritage PUD)
•
• • . . • •
. . „ I A10 '2(1) . . • .
•• ‘4`14V.r.:i-„,4--- (A)
i I f % , •
is.
10-12P
- 1)1t, „ Al 1-9(1;
ta. :-•—fl - • .
,•1".k'''';'• -;.-- A911. 2 ik.• ,
••••,‘.,‘ .*
\-os----'•w-114.,,-.•'••r•4*4 . I/ (N)
i •
A9-11(1) :-0•....4%-Airi.4; +,•,..,
. ......,.• •..... • . ..-.... . .
f-.7. ,6,.._.,... .."•---...Al 0_1"12(23.1,A'ir:14.1.,'!•1:-..:it:•-•',:•:...4.....,,,'...".
!'.?'••-lz•.k (N) z:,. ?,- . ,,.......„..-J.i.k•ilsott,s4- 11111r
s..V: -,.. ,..., Al ••
-se-. T:-.7-WFP.• c -= .,,—,•,- I ,_, , ......:,
% ..
1 0*—• 3(2) 1 l -15(1 •-'1•!!-.1:. --A''%-4',",..;.? i ,::-.....,',1;%Nis: -.•••--.'.•:,,;•?:,,
•' -- -- 10-209W
...., ..•.......:_,t..±. •.,-„,.-. • -- • •
,i•t, ••••:,,-._:: A)
%)) • ',...-:.'-!:'• :•;-•-,..',.-:r...i:s, •,... -. , -• - =A11-13(1)
A10-13 2 A10-14(1)
(A) - „. (A) .r14.c .'•••• •;-4.-::;V-:-.7.';5, ....-,.,-..-11:4- 1 ...4'.-,-.I
•.,5'• 7r_-'...;''''.'' . :.-,..*:".'1 " l.'''. ' —N .6:
A9-12(1)
Al i a
..,.... -,--,..---__•_ --.:_-_____ -TFriS —;.gm Al-°—
'',.. .` '• ''' . ''''' . . .. ••
(A) .• .
,:!.7",'":•:::-..st'—'1-A,',.. A15-2(2PIP . .
N Al 3(1) .,. . .. . .
...
)
SCHOOL SITE .
-
_ ,s,...,--...:.-, ......;:,..-i:
. •
._ :.
* A15-2(1) CO ...- _ :7 :'-': —1(3)
't. — . (N) ..st
1 \
* * VcI3 (A) :•.... .,(";... i , ! ..,41••••••• , _,......„,, . Allr' .
,.,.
''i i 1 1 1
\te,'4'-
11 I I _r .
,s,,,,„.... .
,...._ OJECT LOCATION
; 1
I A s:'-• 1)
7(3) t"'-'•=:--..`4(A .t4,-,--4-is„• ,V).4,-', 11 ! 1 0 A15-8(1)
I
:!---..----::,,-.-,--::-v 1 ,
%. A16-7(2) --,-,-,, : - . . xit- 1 i 1 t
•i•-#: 1 ..... 1 I , 1
7 ., • • ... . '
i
ps,-.--r• ' • Al 6-70) -;e: ."-A1.5--'k(1) - ''.
'-if A16-7(4
Sefuvio
-. (A) _ . ' • "-. (A)\ __e':
4
1 44
1 ----- i A4 44001).,74eA , A1 -5 )
w -'h..cc..-,
;e- .,r•-•,,,t•-er.-- ; i A
4:d
(U) , -. 14„ , ,, / :90
,
....si, .6,....,t;":#24..,
1.
Al 6 2(3)
11/1 l'(A)4r. 2,..',....••*•••
L v/ \ (
1 ',.,__-, ,:
\ :70
. .
i Al 6-12(2) i E. ---41.-.' . 1 1'''
k * 40.(A .il ! .---I,
Z--cRE IC., _ .-- it, . i
:._ ..•
03 _,,, !I ! /p.oe: / /i/"- 'Ail4-13(1)
%?
ii.* Al5=10(2) . 1
II (A)
... :.
1.t.
--K.
E:. (A)._ ,I.........1 Al 1 /
II f7
„ , ,.-•7
.1,'••• * 0 I .---.. „,-- el4 "2' ,f' • 1 -••-' ''''4
< ,:••-• 1— „ _, •ks• /---y
\••-. 01 , _. ..-- ,. ,/- ifi). _ A__, •
_41 >). jt.
,/...44,._
I * 4
\\
. _1 ii, 1.......,..., 1..,,,., \
i ''''''''4'/
it ,--;-..K.7,-.171-7
...-.
gi;
./ ':'. ''I i”.
it I k
1..,.%,-----,--.:--..._,(/.iif.i./k-.-..•.,.L-!„J-.-
. .. .a ,s_-4",,,7.-//
tu.i..)
LYMAN BLVD ,.., __ ' *
\ \ ,
. .
A221(1) , --y.—f_4''•,.
W i
. \\ ,/ ”' • 14,7..V7F.,.•T.p. : i 1 :
1 • ‘‘,'ApetP
i,'• • ' ) /77.
VA ;V i / ,A , i 1 ,,,-'" ,, 0, iRX)47'• ,:- / i n ! .• i ,- -
• i .,/,' i
ea Mir' itkr*
•\-: i\
\ \-
.• -4,-;
4 . 'V)- - • • :-/r. I :1 i -- • ,
A21—4(1)
IV: A22-1(2)
, V. .., •-:,'•. ( \ ----. •- 'I ;
' ,1•1•••,,,..4P-_--"'•:-. "..• • ' (A) 44°4 ...
/-
-4..'.*;-...••--..- 4 (A) _ . rt'•-.tA ...L_.., \.___.[1..1,1\ i I
-.4.-i,..1.:., -......it• ,4
1,v
• .4 0 ,..0,1, ?
1 k
0, A22- (1)
-0\4
.k.„ :\
1,_, IA i,.
I tA) .i."' •"; 1.4'=,‘• /iC\"--/ : /..-1/
..t.4:eLA,2".tti. ' ,I.- ...:// .........711 — -i
/.....' im.."e;'64i t 4.4: 75,w,e4.
LEGEND lik -"tr..;,..- 1,. - -ti •,..- .,......- •
,t, , .A, ,,.•-• '1, ..f.j. • " ' ii
-..„....,w'r••,.,. ../ftv, ,'II.:.-;*. " : .'-i;.'-. -, ...11„„tv_ 1 1
1...4., ....
1.77-7 DENOTES WETLAND 114
Atittb, j,•74444..- ,...
, ..,, — ,,,,-,..L....,:.,2f...a .
i . /4
ry';;4(- ''-'1.-".''''• ' A:
. . . _ s' ""/L '-e-'..::: ''-
'1. — 4. f I— —
* I *
• \
A22-12(1) I
i
RMENT 1
. • ,..; .
•
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Heritage Development OWNER: Fee Owner Heritage Development
ADDRESS: 450 East County Road n ADDRESS: 450 East County Road D
St. Paul, MN 55117 S . Paul, MN 55117
TELEPHONE (Day time) 481-0017 TELEPHONE:
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements
2. X Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
Y
3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. x Wetland Alteration Permit
7r
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 = Notification Signs --
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. y Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 2,325.00
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.
8'/" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet-
' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed,'t,'ie appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen First Addition of Chanhassen
LOCATION East of Timherwnnd wast of Bluff Greek
LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the southeast q martar of X1.5,
Township 116, north, range 23 west of the 5th principal meridian,
west of the centerline of the creek.
PRESENT ZONING A?
REQUESTED ZONING RSP
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Aoriculturat
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Si ngl P Fami 1 y Pc1SiAcintial
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Preliminary plat per subdivision cndP C'haptar 18,
refer to plans and narrative document.
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 Trtle, Abstract of Trtle 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.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the origi al doc,- ent returned to Hall Records.
4I.Yr 7//git
J
Signa ure • Appli ant ' ' Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. It not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
[RUC 922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933-0972
ASSOCIATES LTD. fax: (612) 933-1153
September 19, 1994
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Preliminary Plat of"Heritage First Addition of Chanhassen" for Heritage Development
This submittal is consistent with previous submittals in it's request for the following approvals:
1. Rezoning of 39.5 acres from A2 (Agricultural Estate) to RSF (Single Family Residential).
2. Preliminary Plat of "Heritage First Addition of Chanhassen" for 48 Single Family Lots and 3
outlots.
3. Wetland Alteration Permit to fill or alter wetlands within the development.
4. Conditional Use Permit for the placement of fill and excavations within the flood plain.
The intent of this submittal is to provide appropriate responses to concerns raised at previous Planning
Commission meetings through well thought out and detailed plan revisions and specific statements
which can be incorporated into an acceptable Developers Agreement that will be agreeable with the
City Council.
SENSE OF COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Locating the trail alignment adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor is a highly desirable and effective method
to provide the community and future home buyers in this neighborhood with a shared sense of
ownership of the Bluff Creek corridor. The placement of an eight foot wide community trail instead of
a sixty foot wide public road along the Bluff Creek corridor is also a cost effective way for the City to
provide public access while retaining the unique natural topographic features of the site and preserve
the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics of this significant natural feature. Combined with
the Shoreland Ordinance and the Wetland Conservation Act, this approach will maximize
environmental protection of the Bluff Creek corridor.
.Civil Engineering .Transportation . Infrastructure Redevelopment
. Landscape Architecture • Construction Management
Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
The details provided in this submittal for completion of this stage of the development review can be
separated into three broad categories which are as follows:
1. Findings for approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit/Flood
Plain Alteration.
2. Specific plan revisions (organized by plan sheet).
3. Conditions which should be incorporated into the City's Developers Agreement.
Based upon a thorough review of the City's Ordinances, policies and Comprehensive Plan, the
following findings can be made regarding the proposed Preliminary Plat of"Heritage First Addition of
Chanhassen":
a. REZOXIN G
FINDING: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan
designation of the property as Residential - Low Density, with a net density range of
1.2 to 4.0 dwellings per acre.
b. PRELIMINARY PLAT
FINDING: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and
meets the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage at the building setback line.
FINDING: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county
and regional plans including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed alignment of the north-south street generally complies with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan's suggested alternative (not required) alignment.
FINDING: 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. The
proposed design attempts to minimize grading of this site and maximize preservation of
existing trees.
FINDING: The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply,
storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements
Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 3
required by this chapter. The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban
infrastructure.
FLNDING: The proposed subdivision works•with the existing landform, existing
wetlands and vegetation by preserving existing trees and various locations in the
development.
FINDING: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
c. PRIVATE STREETS
Two private streets are proposed to provide access for two proposed lots along the
southern portion of the property. These lots are in the wooded portion of the
development and access to one of the lots is restricted by the location of an existing
wetland.
FINDING: The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate
to construct a public street. In making this determination, the main considerations are
that this portion of the development is wooded, access is restricted by the location of
an existing wetland and construction of a public street in this area would result in the
loss of a significant number of trees.
FI DING: The proposed north-south street is consistent with the comprehensive
plan and that an extension of that public street is not required to serve other lots
adjacent to the development.
FINDING: The use of a private street will allow for the enhanced protection of
wetlands and mature trees (see preliminary grading plan and tree survey).
d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/FLOOD PLAIN ALTERATION
FINDING: The proposed subdivision design will not be detrimental to or enhance
the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood
or the city.
FINDING: The development of the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan
and the stormwater management plan. 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.
Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 4
FINDING: The proposed wetland mitigation will enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek
Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering
the wetland.
FINDING: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the
area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Open space in
conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
FINDING: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities
within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The proposed
wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of
the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will
be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in
conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
FINDING: Restoration and enhancement of the surrounding natural resources is
considered an asset to the community.
FINDING: The existing and proposed wetland areas will be used as open space
and a park corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior
to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the
existing and planned neighboring uses.
FINDING: The proposed alignment of the north-south road will improve traffic
circulation in the area.
FINDING: The alteration project will protect and preserve natural and scenic
features of major significance. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter
stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail
system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
FINDING: The wetland project will protect and preserve natural and scenic
features of major significance and improve the aesthetics of the area. Open space in
conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
ENDING: The development's design will provide flood protection as well as
aesthetic improvements to the area which should enhance the property values.
Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 5
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high
point of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during
agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also
receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek
Development. This wetland has been impacted by human intervention, but should be
protected and preserved to the extent possible. Both wetlands will be mitigated
through enhancement and extension of the wetland complex along Bluff Creek and the
southern wetland. There will be no net loss of wetlands.
FINDING: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek
Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering
the wetland.
FINDING: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the
area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the
dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (outlot C) and the enhancement and long term
protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as
well as improving the natural environment.
The following plan revisions have been made based upon the Staff report and Planning Commission
input:
a. Site Plan/Preliminary Plat.
1. Lot areas were revised to the following: 1) 6 of 48 lots for 12.5% of lots
ranging in size from 15,000 to 16,000 square feet; 2) 16 of 48 lots for 33% of
lots ranging in size from 16,0001 to 20,000 square feet; and, 3) 26 of 48 lots
for 45.5% of lots greater than 20,000 square feet. The average lot size is
21,017 square feet.
2. Bluff Creek, the ravine and the wetlands have all been incorporated into outlots
and/or easements which will protect the integrity of these areas.
3. Overall density of the development has been reduced from 1.28 to 1.21
dwelling units per acre.
4. Street names to be submitted to the Chanhassen Fire Marshall, Public Safety
Department and Inspection Division for review and approval prior to final plat
Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 6
approval or the issuance of any building permits (this includes the private
drive).
b. Grading Plan.
1. Revisions to the grading plan have included minimizing grading, tree loss,
topographical disruptions and working with and maintaining some of the
existing steep slopes.
2. Building pads have been delineated with building type (1-B-Full Basement;
FBWO-Full Basement Walk Out; and, FBLO-Full Basement Look Out),
Lowest floor elevations, garage floor elevations and typical top of foundation
elevations indicated.
3. All wooded lots will be individually graded and a grading, drainage and erosion
control plans will be individually submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits for these lots.
4. Drainage calculations are available and will be provided upon request or at the
time of final platting and the construction plan review process.
5. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities will be immediately
restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two
weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook. A sediment and erosion control plan will be
designed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook
and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments.
The plan will be submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the
City Council.
c. Utility Plan. The following notes should be considered part of the plan set:
1. A ten foot clear space will be maintained around the fire hydrants (i.e., street
lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable Television transformer
boxes) pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Section 9-1 to insure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated.
2. Maximum fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet.
d. Landscape Plan.
Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 7
1. Comments regarding species selection were taken into account when revising
the street tree plan. In addition, lack of nursery cultivation for some of the
suggested species created availability concerns and other nursery-grown
species were substituted for some of the suggested species.
2. The proposed landscape quantities were revised to reflect the more accurate
existing quantities. (See Tree Survey notes).
3. A woodland management plan will be prepared for the entire development in
accordance with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance.
4. This project meets the requirement for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and
proposed setbacks and replacement requirements as stated in the Wetland
Conservation Act and the City 's Wetland Ordinance. In addition, wetland
buffer areas will be staked in accordance with the City's Wetland Ordinance.
e. Tree Survey:.
A detailed tree survey was prepared locating all existing significant trees and defining
canopy coverage. In addition, the Tree Survey was overlayed on the Grading Plan in
order to get an accurate count of all existing trees to be removed.
f. Detailed Tree Inventory.
A 50 scale drawing of the tree survey has been provided in order to properly identify all
of the species and sizes of existing trees.
Items of review which are more appropriately located in the Developers Agreement are as follows:
a. A financial escrow will be provided to the City to guarantee completion/connectidn of
the north/south road to the frontage road within three years after the final plat is
approved by the City Council in order to avoid a "dead end" street scenario.
b. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be
provided to the City as a part of the final plat approval. Street construction plans shall
be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council
approval.
Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 8
c. A Soils report will be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any
building permit.
•
a ---�I/1l�lii i • r>. .
;Ai, ..r- -.)-:, ' -*`-' '-`c
1111111A111;4A -
* ---
••••••••••• It,t.:•..,;7?.....,;(:.;,1,,t,...i..c.,•::::..,....F,::::A:.....iw.,H,....;:..sot..-c,'(,
/ I •:-:•:•:•:•:•:::•:"•
z _tirlinitYV Z �' s E,Nt -
—..-7■1111 -1111\t‘
:::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::....
:::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::„:
.:-,...
:::::.::::.:,::.::::„.... ,
' 4 :„.. ri HERITAGE . .'��
. •.'.--tilr.`, • ` ` • `, \`
ITE \ g,,..
-..s..7:•- N•"-C. ...-Vi. C1,.. 4,V1::\t, 1*-
: \\ r / ....'7- ' ' :LPTE \I, -1 \\..ikci4 ,
- a \\ . -
g
40 - _ _ 1r,...T....... ipp, .,..,.i...- c„,
-...... ..c. \ . ..--.:j
de
• • ..::
\ . sio .., \
- ,\;k•4*
•,__— . , oct: 1\.:-• arnar‘ • , -1.:48.e. ,
1k2. ----: '
Bit
Mairstreet CITY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE 1
RLK Hcipiuns.Mn-
53343
72 YEAR 2000
`ASSOCAT:S LTD., tar( 12)9612)93353 LAND USE PLAN . 7/18/94
! TrIlle
r
■
•
111 II II i I I ISI �it......7., \.....
.. ,:', ()
i
s ss 111 I II
\
}� • .gi ,N 4 p.p� ! e1rii!ii,,. . ..._ ,iR*:` "At ' % `' 1L r---' \ ' 11 di
, Ts ; , ,.... ' --...„/, it., ;
lM
1.1
[i ; 4; / ' ,., , t . A as g
INIMMIMINIVit,,+Y //r.;o t -
s /�1 �
MI
fo > 'a i;ifirilt s,6 ;, 5 ' i,
I i rC4
, ! ;411 ni 1
rn
1/4\N' 1 11 tog 1 CI
'
n y � \*;V'S, m
O ; � \ rji,
, eel -� o$
--...r 14 /,„ lilt \ r_iii 'r, :' it; 1 § ; 11 II 41 It;
L.J 4,, ,/,',f_ L_AJ 1 r
,rt. .ay,e %, , '! ! , / 110
So
,N_ 1- L / //•' , •.-,//LI i ' I Z
Ol?fi 0
a^ �- �` ' n
0 Iii ,,y/ •, ' ' 4 R D
i O `j} ( � '
rro
4tia CD
rn
L • a4 z
1 =I ,4 I i 1 l g l 5 I I I
, a~a
liPi ;i 1 1 ii
� ry
y �
CITY 4F
i
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: September 30, 1994
SUBJ: Heritage First Addition - Heritage Development Company
Planning Case: 94-8 Sub, 94-4 RE2, 94-4 WAP and 94-4 CUP
1 have reviewed the site plan for the proposed single family dwelling concept and have the
following requirements:
1. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. This would also include
the private drive.
2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
3. Submit plans to Fire Marshal showing the connection to either existing or proposed streets
at the north end or south end of the proposed road.
4. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
g:'afely'ml\hentag2.plr
CITY OF
r
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official'4 'IX
DATE: October 3 , 1994
SUBJ: 94-8 SUB, 94-4 REZ, 94-4 WAP & 94-4 CUP (Heritage
Development)
I was asked to review the development plans for Heritage
Development stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; SEP 20, 1994;
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. "
Analysis :
Elevations . 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 .
Dwelling Type. 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 .
Soils Report. In addition, a soils report showing details and
locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and
fill soil is required for plan review purposes .
Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street
names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety
Department . Proposed street names are not included with the
submitted documents .
Bob Generous
August 5, 1994
Page 2
Recommendations :
1 . Revise Grading and 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 and Drainage Plan to show standard
designations for dwellings . This should be done prior to
final plat approval .
3 . Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should
be done prior to issuance of any building permits .
4 . Submit street names to the Public Safety Department,
Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval .
enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo
g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\heritage.bg2
CITY OF
S
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORAN i UM
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
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.
tc.,U o: RLO Designates Froot Lookout or Rear Lookout. This includes dwellings with tete 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 Rambkr. 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 many4 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
— - -- RLO
---'—"ter-
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.
is
.$ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Minnegasco‘
A Division of Arkla, Inc.
September 28 , 1994
Mr. Robert Generous
Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P .O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: 94 -8 SUB, 94-4 REZ, 94-4 WAP, 94-4 CUP
Heritage First Addition
Single-Family Site
Heritage Development Company
Dear Mr. Generous :
Enclosed are your prints for this project indicating that
Minnegasco does not have natural gas mains within the development
area. Natural gas service is available to this property from a gas
main to the south of the railroad tracks at the south edge of this
project . No addition work is anticipated at this time unless
requested by a developer/builder/ owner.
The developer/builder should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco' s
Residential Energy Services, 525-7607, to make application for
natural gas service.
Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal .
Sincerely,
drab_
, .,,Aet-e w
Richard J. = lon, P.E.
Senior Administration Engineer
Engineering Services
612-342 -5426
cc: Mary Palkovich
Terry Jencks R`-CEi ED
OILY OF CHA,'.r.,A E'
700 West Linden Avenue
P.O.Box 1165
Minneapolis,MN 55440-1165
STATE OF /�
IH[ C ZOO4Q
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO
September 26, 1994
Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION, BLUFF CREEK, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER
COUNTY (City 94-8 SUB, 94-4 REZ, 94-4 WAP, 94-4 CUP)
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the site plans (received September 21, 1994) for the above-
referenced project (Section 15, T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to
offer:
1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water, is on the proposed site. Any activity, such
as placing a stormwater outfall, below the top of the bank of the channel
of Bluff Creek which alters its course, current, or cross-section, is
under the jurisdiction of the DNR. It appears that the wetland mitigation
proposed for this project will involve work in Bluff Creek and require a
permit from the DNR.
2. It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins,
which is good. All the stormwater from the development should be treated.
We object to having untreated stormwater routed directly to Bluff Creek
because it will cause erosion, sedimentation and water level bounces that
would adversely affect water quality and wildlife values.
3. Portions of the project site occur in the 100-year floodplain. All the
work that is done for this project must comply with applicable floodplain
regulations of both the city and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
District.
4. Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of tributary/urban. The
shoreland district extends 300 feet from the top of the bank of the
channel, or the width of the floodplain, which ever is greater. The
development must be consistent with the city shoreland management
regulations. In particular you should note:
a. The northern half of the project area contains bluffs (i.e. slopes
that average 30 percent or greater and rise 25 feet above the (OHW)
top of the bank) along Bluff Creek. The bluffs should not be
disturbed and all structures should be set back at least 30' from
the top of the bluff.
b. Steep slopes exist within the project area. Topographic alterations
should be minimized in this area.
c. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural
state in the shore and bluff impact zones. The minimum shore
impact zone is a 25-foot strip along both sides of the creek. - 17,n4
The bluff impact zone is an area within 20 feet of the top of • + r
the bluff.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II
September 26, 1994
Page 2
d. The structures in the development should be screened from view from
Bluff Creek using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other
means approved by the city.
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,
j Joe Richter
Hydrologist
JR/cds
c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer
Chanhassen Shoreland File
Chanhassen Floodplain File
Bluff Creek File
L ....,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC -
0.,,47.,_.
HEARING 7 k ��
vol
PLANNING COMMISSION i; -� �`
MEETING , `�- 4wal &��
Wednesday, OCTOBER 19, 1994 -',,`< ��lk lit��
at 7:30 p.m. Pipes; ; -N
City Hall Council Chambers =34';.r:a/�`I1 410:-r ,,
690 Coulter Drive /IIIII0mooa.��--�./ < / ?t
I i
Project: Heritage First Addition i 4k '
. 11s.. %. ey ARK t .Iri:
Developer: Heritage Development Co. - '+1:r :��- - .• ,.,MI►®- ,#
Location: North of railroad, west of 1 ,Y' 4 :; , ,i
Bluff Creek and east of - ' _ '
Timberwood Estates and :9 I
Stone Creek
r 1 I 0 I i —k
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of 39 acres of property zoned A2 to RSF,
preliminary plat to create 48 single family lots and 3 outlots, wetland alteration permit for
mitigation of ponding areas, and conditional use permit for alteration of areas within a flood plain
on property located north of Twin Cities &Western Railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek and east
of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek, Heritage First Addition, Heritage Development
Company.
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.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 6, 1994. q
McGlynn Bakeries, Inc.
c/o Grand Met Tax Dept. Shamrock Property Partners J.P.'s Links Inc.
MS: 1843 7350 Commerce Lane c/o John Przymus
200 S. 6th St. Fridley, MN 55432 642 Santa Vera Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55402 Chanhassen, MN 55317
T. Lars Conway Michael J. Gorra Chan-Land Partners
4415 Fremont Ave. S. 1680 Arboretum Dr. 200 Hwy. 13 W.
Minneapolis, MN 55409 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Burnsville, MN 55337
Betty O'Shaughnessy Dale F. & Marcia Wanninger Lawrence & F. Raser
1000 Hesse Farm Rd. 8170 Galpin Blvd. 8210 Galpin Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Merle D. & Jane Volk Richard Hartung & Wallace Otto Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire
16925 Co. Rd. 40 400 Oak St. S. 4890 C. Rd. 10 E.
Carver, MN 55315 Waconia, MN 55387 Chaska, MN 55318
Jay C. Dolejsi Audubon I Limited Partnership Mitchel & Mary Krause
6961 Chaparral Ln. c/o Lars Akerberg 2380 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 P.O. Box 158 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chaska, MN 55318
James L. & Linda J. Leirdahl Mark & J. Taintor Layton & Linda Zellman
2350 Timberwood Dr. 7481 Saratoga Drive 2290 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Curtis & Janice Olson Gregory & J. Maaxum Mark J. Foster & Karen S. Olsson
1961 130th Ln. 7480 Longview Cir. 8020 Acorn Ln.
Coon Rapids, MN 55448 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard D. & Marry Frasch David Gestach Richard M. Czeck
8000 Acorn Ln. 8001 Acorn Ln. 8011 Acorn Ln.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317-9662 Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Debra Ann Lano Stephen McCurry & Sracey R. Rickert &
2060 Oakwood Rdg. Bridget Haefner Michelle Rheault
Chanhassen, MN 55317 16780 North Manor Rd. 2040 Oakwood Rdg.
Eden Prairie, MN 55345 Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Alva Bruce & Kristina Johnson James & Colleen Dockendorf James & Joann Jancik
2051 Oakwood Rdg. 2061 Oakwood Rdg. 2050 Timberwood Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317-9666
David & Gail McCollum Agha Thir Khan & Stanley & Christine Rud
2048 Timberwood Dr. Patricia Khan 2030 Renaissance Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 2040 Renaissance Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & Roberta Lawson Gerard & Bonnie Murkpwski William & Lana Miller
2041 Renaissance Ct. 2051 Renaissance Ct. 8121 Pinewood Cir.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Bonita Roeder Gregory & Jill Perrill Craig & Mary Harrington
8108 Pinewood Cir. 2102 Timberwood Dr. 8140 Maplewood Ter.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
V''' .
r •
• N Sat
,.... -diSil *Nip,
*4/444
w
hi; - *AI - . C
., . - or?",,iiiri,,„ „. 0
,„ .,.:
4 ,4 4ff0
��r
Illm
feP.'. j• ,AV . X
--1 'S N --.:-... . CI
I
pr r.- ;J I ,,- 0
T
V � it �,.:-- ,6 .�il�
`` .,l r 'A
Alb ` { V I
il
sill ,, `. ,_ �►Vii,, , fili
(...) -1
bs- -., -0--A, \
o „ ,.\-, - , ell 5r
111A .IM--.A'VH974‘41A",. \ `\\z--:\- \\\
�t�
ii� - :7,71.4.
i \
;, -7” WIO
,()), d I � Z
ir� \.i -
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATES TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF
TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, RLK ASSOCIATES.
Bob Generous: The applicant was last before the City Council on April 11th of this year. At that time they
were requesting the conceptual approval for a PUD for a planned unit development for a 56 lot subdivision.
This is the basic plan that they have. Staff had concerns about this plan, and so did City Council. Specifically
how they were going to neat the wetlands in the Bluff Creek corridor. The use of cul-de-sacs rather than private
driveways and the small lots that abutted Timberwood. At that meeting Council tabled the concept plan for
further work by the applicant and they came in with these revisions. The old...show their treatment of the
wetland areas. The installation, the purple area represents some ponding areas that they provided on the site to
help with storm water runoff. The little red dashed line that I put on the overhead shows the realignment of the
road to provide some curvalinear atmosphere to the subdivision and to put in that last cul-de-sac. The solid red
lines are the use of private drives. We believe that they're moving in the right direction with these revisions.
However staff took this concept a little bit farther and looked at having the applicant possibly revise this plan to
include additional...into the development. To permit the siting of some larger lots around the western boundary
of the site. If they're going to group any smaller lots, to have them be on the inside curve of the development
and along that eastern part of the project. Proposing an open space that provides connection down to the trail
system and as an overlook for the wetland area or the wetland complex that will be in the middle of the project.
The applicant also showed a little park setting at the convergence of the east and west banks of the Bluff Creek.
Staff still believes that the planned unit development is the most appropriate way for the city to handle this
development and conceptually we agree that a single family subdivision is appropriate land use for this site. We
believe also that the conditions that we outlined in the staff report and that we included in this memo will
provide the applicant with sufficient direction to the city to the next level of review and we're requesting that the
City Council give conceptual approval to them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Bob. Is there anyone from RLK Associates that would like to say something at
this time? Are you basically in agreement with what staff has pulled together?
John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development. John Dietrich from
RLK is...The second one is that after meeting with the staff and talking about a number of issues off the
presentation that we came to before, we as a group, RLK and myself. Three planners from RLK and I went out
and took the old plans and walked the site. Actually spent most of a morning out there looking at it and it was
interesting to look at the staffs sketched concept plan and to think about new ways to approach this site. The
topography and natural resources on this particular piece are rather difficult to work with. And I guess going
through the staff recommendations, there's a number of issues that I'll let Mr. Dietrich speak to specifically, but
I guess in general I'd like to say that although this is perhaps one particular way to align the road in staffs
concept sketch, the one we put up was basically based on two things. One of them is trying to salvage as many
trees as we possibly could and meet the existing connection of Stone Creek. And the second one was, we
actually tried to not push the topography around on the hills...part of the plat the best that we could. Staff s
concept sketch does begin to push out what is a somewhat steep slope and then push everything then further
towards the creek and to Bluff Creek corridor to try and establish. The other solution then was also to push the
road to the westerly side upon that very steep hill which then presented a very large problems for the sewer
main...So in general I guess what I'd like Mr. Dietrich to just kind of go through and again address the issues in
general, I think that we spent a number of hours talking about and sketching in my office and in RLK's...
We've lost a number of lots to try to get it down to the point where...And I'll be here to answer any questions.
14
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich, RLK Associates. I would just like to go through the
recommendation that staff has...and the overall concept, I would say we are in agreement with them. However
there are just a few issues that we would like to raise in terms of some of the staff recommendations that are in
the report beginning on page 5. The first one was the design charette that will be coming up. We have again
requested that the developer, Heritage Development be involved in the design charette so that...combination of
public and private input into that process. Secondly, the item number 4 with regards to the pre-treatment of the
storm water pond that we will be taking and treating all storm water ponds and we will keep all ponding to a
minimum. It is in our best interest to have the minimum number of ponds and we will submit all storm water
calculations through the engineer for their review. Secondly, the ability to take storm water from the north side
of the site and also from the Chanhassen Corporate Center site, across the creek bed would result in storm sewer
pipes anywhere from 35 to 40 feet deep...ponding area. I think the storm water ponding on the Chanhassen
Corporate Center site should remain on the site and not cut across the creek. Item number 7, we have no
problems with. Item number 8. The trunk sanitary sewer line be utilized that it be a lateral stubbed towards the
Timberwood Estates. We feel that Lots 3 and 4 would not be the proper location to stub that. That is right in
the low lying area of the creek and within the area of...tree masses and feel that would be contrary to the concept
of trying to preserve that natural wooded land to the south of the property. The north, item number 9 would be
no problem. Item number 10. A curvalinear street that's shown on the concept plan by Mr. Generous did not
look closely at the grades that are on the site. And in walking the site, if you look at grades, the oaks that are to
the center of the site, we feel we have tried to provide at keeping that...as possible based on that concept grading
plan. And still provide public access to the park. Access to the park where it was suggested in the staff concept
plan would require an extensive grade to climb up and feel it would be very difficult to make a trail of ADA
compatibility in that area. We will comply with number 12, number 13, number 14, number 15. Item number
16, we have utilized a private drive in order to try to maximize the site and retain the natural features and the
woods and wetlands. We feel the use of the private drives on the west side of the roadway do not allow the site
to be kept in it's most natural setting and we have tried to minimize the amount of roadway structures, roadway
grading that we go through to get to the areas to the south. Number 17, trail or sidewalk on the west side of the
roadway. Number 18, we will do a tree survey. Number 19, we would like to investigate the setbacks in order
to have a little variance to the setbacks and to...20, 21, 22, 23, will be no problem. 24, 25, 26. 26, the southern
terminus of the trail shall not parallel the railroad tracks. Again, after walking the site and going along the
southern wetland that has been identified, that is by far one of the most pristine and natural areas of that entire
site. We would highly recommend that the trail stay along the railroad tracks and on the southerly side of that
wetland without trying to cross and come back up...next to the public roadway system... Number 27, a 50 foot
wide trail snip be preserved along the western boundary between Stone Creek Drive and the railroad tracks. Our
concern is that the 50 foot area will be exclusively on Heritage development and not... Hans Hagen side. We'd
like to just be treated fairly between the two developers instead of having all of the access on one side of the
property line. There are NSP lines in that area so that area would be..Number 28 I spoke to about ADA codes
on the trail. And 29, the trail crossing the creek in it's entirety, saying on the west side of the creek in it's
entirety...branches. Again, after walking the site, the trail would not be graded and made to ADA standards
along that northwest, northeast corner of the site. Based on site review, we would highly recommend that the
trail cross the creek on some much flatter land and preserve that slope that the DNR has said should be
protected. 30 will be fine. 31. There are a number of spaces and quality environments along this trail corridor
between the open creek, parkland, picnic areas and utilization of buffer areas along ponding areas for that trail
corridor. That we have...very strong trail plan that offers a variety of environments and we'd be happy to point
those out in a little bit more detail. Number 32, 100 foot building setback. That's been maintained on all lots
except for one at this time and we would gladly work with that. Number 33, we will try to keep the ponds
15
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
down to a minimum and...Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Bob referenced some of the questions in regards to each of those specific items that
have been mentioned. Regarding low lying areas. Some of the grades on 8 and 10. Some of the others. I
don't know if you were taking notes at the time. But I can understand some of your questions. Can you address
some of those? And the reasoning for it.
Kate Aanenson: I was going to say a lot of these, some of the later ones are conditions of the Park and Rec
Commission or the Director would like to look at. Again, this is part of the concept. These are things that we
see that need to be articulated as the next phase develops. We're saying...need to be resolved. Some of these
are kind of unresolved issues as far as the staff level. That as part of the charette process we're trying to decide
what would be appropriate. I think some of his points may be legitimate. As this evolves and we get further
details on the grading and...
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm hopeful we're going to address a lot of those questions and indicate our concerns as
to why we even came up with those. One of the others is to share between properties, as he mentioned
something between Hans Hagen and their properties. The only question I have with Hans Hagen, I'm sure they
have provided different things within their proposal.
Kate Aanenson: I think Todd maybe better, could answer those...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor. members of the City Council. I did take notes throughout John's presentation. The
issues which they presented are not difficult for staff to resolve through this. Issues such as the ADA
accessibility and those type of things. We may not be able to meet them in their entirety. It's our intention to
do that where we can. But there are other issues as well. Every time you cross the creek, it's a $15,000.00 or
$20,000.00 project to make the creek crossovers as well so we weigh those alternatives. As far as the 50 foot
buffer zone for the trail crossing underneath the viaduct which is underneath the railroad tracks, that's an
important link for the entire north/south Bluff Creek trail segment and the suggestion that...easement for the
power lines and investigate that is a good one as well. So not only I'll take a look at the Hans Hagen plat but
that has been approved. From this point we...It's also in an area down there where...that pond, we're not
affecting...so those issues are all fairly insignificant. We can work with the applicant.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Council have any questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I would certainly like to use this as an opportunity to once again address density. A
question I would have. At the conceptual level is how many cars is this going to bring in and do we have the
roads and the infrastructure to handle them. Right now we can't get cars onto Highway 5 onto Galpin Road.
And now we're, density. We never want to talk about density so I go back to my request that we look at going
to 22,000 square foot lots with PUD's down to no lower limit with an average of 18. Mainly out of density.
I'm looking at this conceptually now. And we've tried to kind of protect Timberwood. Not that they
necessarily deserve protecting nor am I their buddy. I mean they're there and they're their little island and I
think their development. But they have low density so I happen to like them because they're low density. I
can't afford to live there but they offer me low density so they're not impacting my lifestyle as much. But now
we've got these 13,000, 13,000, 16, 26, 17. We've got these small lots bordering these large lot homes. That
doesn't, that to me conceptually is not acceptable. So the first comment I will make is to abut and put this type
16
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
of density on the lot lines of the existing Timberwood is not an appropriate development. I think it ought to be
buffered and if we're going to have small lots, they ought to be on the east and we ought to have the larger lots
abutting Timberwood. Or frankly I'd rather see this go to industrial with a quality type industrial building
coming in. Rather than this high density housing. We've talked about that in the past. Who would be better off
or better served. The other thing is that as you get going conceptually, I would like to have a layman's
description of the grading. On Oak Ponds you could have just told me they're going to destroy the hill. Flatten
it out and I could have bought that. Here I'd like to know what they're going to do to our landforms, and
layman terms would be, they're going to cut the blazes out of it or they're going to trim a little off the top and
move a little to the bottom. I mean I just, I'd like to know what's going to happen. Or if they're going to
flatten it, I want to know that. Those are layman terms that I can work with. So the density bothers me. The
density with the infrastructure bothers me. The amount of cars and traffic troubles me greatly. I don't like it.
This is really impacting this area in a very negative way and it's not even, I mean it's agricultural zoning right
now so I think we want to look at that. See the grading. The abutting to the existing, the buffering. This type
of density as it buffers Timberwood. If I lived there, I would be here tonight. I guess that's all.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Dick stole my thunder once again.
Councilman Wing: Oh, go fust. You should go first. Excuse me.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's alright. No, no. As always you articulate better than me anyway. I too
have concerns about the density. Obviously on the Timberwood side but even more so on the Bluff Creek side.
This is a really neat tract of land and I'm very disappointed when I look at their roads that RLK has put in.
We're practically obliterating the largest stand of trees and it will be cornfield so staff's recommendation to push
that further to the east makes sense. This does need a lot of work. I am prepared to give it conceptual approval
with the caveat that we need larger lots abutting Timberwood Estates. Particularly I'm looking at up towards the
north where you've got 1, 2, 3, 4 and then around that cul-de-sac you've got a density of homes right next to
basically two homes on the Timberwood side. You know you've got like 15. It needs a lot of work. I would
agree with the applicant that the trails near the railroad tracks should be as it is. That's pretty steep grades there
and we don't want to impact that any more than we have to. The sewer stub between Lots 3 and 4 does not
make sense. That's where a creek is. I guess those are my biggest issues. Basically the density. I like the lot
sizes towards the southern side of proposal but that's where you're getting to Stone Creek which equals pretty
much those densities. Where you've got your higher densities of 11,000, it's up towards your large lots near
Timberwood. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, it sounds to me like the charette may take care of a lot of the issues. I'm hearing
that both sides, if you will, are talking and things are getting to roll. I'm a little concerned when I hear low
density versus high density. We're talking about affordable housing and we're also talking about urban sprawl.
If we knock out x number of lots, what does that do to jack up the prices for people that want to live in
Chanhassen? I understand Council's concern about high density. The other side of that point is, for every lot
we take out here, a lot's going to go somewhere else and how about Morrish and urban sprawl and those kinds
of issues. I think we, it's real easy to talk this stuff but I think there's some other issues we also need to
discuss. And I'm not saying some lots can't be changed around and I'm not completely disagreeing with what's
being said but not only do we have to look at high and low density but we do also have to look at things like
17
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
affordable housing and urban sprawl. And every time you make the lot size bigger, you're jacking up the price
and it's making it that much harder for people to live in Chanhassen. And I think those are some issues that we
also have to take into account too. I'll admit to a little concern about the 15,000 square foot lots abutting
Timberwood. However, there are a number. I mean I think of Carver Beach where I live. I have a much larger
lot as do the neighbors on my street but right over in Triple Crown, they're much smaller lots and we've got
trees and there's all kinds of stuff between the two. So, you know so be it. Sorry about that. I do think we
need to look at the other side of low density and high density and putting in affordable housing and urban
sprawl. I've seen plans that are a lot higher density than this for the same amount so I think we need a little bit
more of a balance there with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: It sounds like it's going the right way as far as between applicant and staff. Getting some of
the questions worked out. Going out and looking at the site, I think there are some valid points that the
applicant has over the topography but again, I'm not sure what all the issues are both ways on that, one way or
the other. I think it'd be nice to really see that kind of analysis in front of us so we know what we're giving up
or getting one way or the other. Given which way you go on that decision. Conceptually I don't see a problem
with the direction it's headed. I think there's some good points both sides. I too get a little concerned when I
hear the term high density because I mean this is a half acre lot average basically which to me seems fairly low
density in relationship to a lot of things we've done. You're kind of, it seems to me we're kind of catching the
• applicant here between the rock and the hard place. A neighborhood on one side and Bluff Creek on the other
side and I'm not sure both sides are going to end up being happy or dealt with in a manner that I think we'd like
to see the creek dealt with or the way that the neighborhood would like to see dealt with on the other side but at
the same time I get a little fearful that depending on how far you push this, you get down to density numbers on
single family that are, that's going to do exactly what I would like not to see happen there and that is force them
to take a different direction other than single family there and look at something else and I just, I can't agree
with the potential or possibility of sticking industrial or whatever in that particular site. I think it is single
family. For one single family and that's what ought to be pursued there.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, with that I guess everybody's really expressed some of the concerns that I have.
On either issue or each one of these and there's no sense in continuing on with the discussion from my
standpoint. I would then bring this back to Council. See if there is a motion for the revised plans for the
conceptual plans at this time.
Councilman Senn: Kate, what are you looking for?
Kate Aanenson: Concept approval at this time.
Councilman Senn: With the caveat that you're going to continue to work.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Now this has no,as far as legal standing. These are the marching orders. This is what
they need to come back with preliminary so the preliminary will go back to the Planning Commission and... site
elevations. You get...grading and the tree survey. All that stuff will come back in the next round and be very
detailed. For right now we just want to know whether or not they need to go forward...and do that detail.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I'd move conceptual approval based on staff and the applicant going ahead and
working those things out. But also when it comes back next round, I'd really like to see that analysis because I
18
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
think there's some very definitive issues here that if we isolate and look at individually, it's going to get very
complicated. I think we need to look at them side by side and know what the trade-offs are on one versus the
other. More or less how's this decision going to affect the creek? How's it going to affect the neighborhood or
how is it going to affect the cluster of trees? I mean I hate to say it but in this tight of area where you are,
there's going to be a lot of affects that way and I would just like, I mean we're going to have to sort those out
and I think it'd be a little easier for us to do that.
Kate Aanenson: That's why the staff supports the PUD...that in a cornfield we go with 11,000 square foot lots.
Up in the trees we do...3/4 or 1 acre lots. So unfortunately there was a concern about not averaging out the lots
in a traditional subdivision. And this is an answer again is a balancing act...you've got Tirnberwood and you've
got the creek and somewhere there's an appropriate mix and where's the balancing here. But there is a place to
have some of the small lots and places where...and I think those are only accomplished with a PUD. Doing a
straight subdivision I don't think does the best job on the site...it's a balancing act and that's why I think the
charette we'll find out...
Mayor Chmiel: I think you can do that direction as you've done before with your Q and A's in relationship to
each of those concerns and addressing those concerns so we at least know where it's coming from.
Councilman Senn: I'd just like to see the Q and A's organized a little differently on this one in the sense that, if
you make them separately it's going to be real hard to follow. I'd kind of like to really almost see a cross
section and say here's the affect on A, B and C.
Kate Aanenson: There's a lot of layers...
Councilman Mason: That's a good idea. That would be helpful to see it like that.
Councilman Wing: Okay that Boyer, we were kind of sold a bill of goods on the Boyer conceptual plan that we
were going to have all these wonderful things happen and it turns out when they go back to the standard
subdivision, they couldn't get the density thought they could. It sort of seemed to start to work to our
advantage. What if we take this charette and all our tree preservation and all our setbacks that we've developed
over the last few years and apply it with a standard subdivision on this narrow strip. Would we win or lose
here?
Kate Aanenson: I think on the Boyer's you have to go back and look at, they were trying to do a different type
of project. They were trying to do a zero lot line which is a lot different.
Councilman Wing: I understand.
Councilman Senn: I think if you, Dick I mean looking at this strip and if running a typical subdivision through
it, I don't think anything that's been presented is even close to that. I mean I view that as a mild disaster. I
mean if you're trying to do that.
Kate Aanenson: I understand. I think you still have the tree preservation, you still have certain setbacks but I
think it'd be much more sterile. I think this is probably a little bit more creative.
Mayor Chmiel: I think staff has direction as to what we're looking for. To accomplish this particular proposal.
So with that we have a motion on the floor. Was there a second?
19
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have a comment to what Mike was saying about affordable housing. You
know that's an issue that we have put on our agenda to address, and I don't think it's being ignored in this. I
think we were looking at the specific topography and the constraints of this piece of land and saying, it's not
appropriate here.
Councilman Senn: I don't think Mike was saying that though, was he? I mean he wasn't saying put affordable
housing here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. He was, well.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what he's really relating to, and correct me if I'm wrong to what you were saying, was
that you saw housing costs raising, whether it be affordable or not.
Councilman Mason: Yes. Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Just the automatic overall.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, thanks. Yeah.
Councilman Senn: The larger the lot size.
Councilman Wing: But the larger the lot, the smaller the lot is the greater the density so people we get in and
then are we dealing with those issues. If we want to talk, density keeps coming up. Planning doesn't want to
mess with it. I mean they can't get off dead center with density. They haven't for 10 years but yet density is
the issue and I don't mind small lots, and I don't mind affordable housing. I don't see those as relevant issues
at all. I mean let's talk affordable housing. Let's talk small lots. Density is what concerns me because I can't
get on Highway 7 anymore. I can't get across Galpin Road on TH 5. These densities are really troubling me
because they're making life unbearable.
Councilman Senn: But Dick there's other parts of Chan that are better.
Mayor Chmiel: With that we have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call the question.
Resolution #94-55: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Conceptual PUD
of 39.64 acres of property to create a single family development subject to the following conditions:
1. r.. .. .. .. _ :: ••• .. . :-:•• _ - ... . ._
The City's recommendations will remain pending on the design
components for the Bluff Creek Watershed Plan. A charette will be held on May 26, 1994 concerning the
design issues for the creek north of Lyman Boulevard. Buffer strip widths and areas will be addressed at
this time as a guidance for planning.
20
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
r•- . .._ _. ::•::" .. _. . • - ... . ._.. _. . _ ._ • .... . , • _...
(Revised)
(Completed) _ . .
•• .- .. -.- . . ._- •• - -- . Two regional stormwater ponds for water
retention and pretreatment are recommended. One in the southwest corner and one in the east central
section of the property to retain and pretreat stormwater prior to discharge to the wetlands. The southwest
pond is in the process of being constructed in conjunction with Stone Creek 4th Addition (Hans Hagen) to
take runoff from portions of the Hans Hagen property and the southern third of the Heritage property. The
east central pond should be designed to take runoff from the northern two-thirds of the property in addition
to portions of the Chanhassen Corporate Center property. Fees for trunk storm sewer will be evaluated
based on the applicant's contribution to the stormwater infrastructure.
.
.
.
etland "'5 1'"`. (Revised)
w
•
(Revised)
7. The SWMP requires the applicant to pay stormwater quality/quantity fees and trunk storm sewer charges as
appropriate. The applicant may be entitled to some credit or compensation if they provide the necessary on-
site stormwater quality/quantity improvements as outlined or modified in the SWMP. This will be
determined upon review of the storm drainage/ponding calculations.
8. The trunk sanitary sewer line be utilized to serve both a lateral and a trunk to benefit the adjacent property
(staff recommends that the applicant provide a sewer service in the general location of Lots 3 and 4 for
future extension into Timberwood Estates). The best location for the sanitary sewer will be further
investigated during the grading and utility plan preparation process.
9. The north/south street shall be extended through the outlot to connect to a future east/west frontage road
within three years after the final plat is approved for the first phase.
10. Curvilinear streets are recommended to add aesthetics and character to the neighborhood as well as deter
speeding motorists. The attached diagram suggests a street cut that will retain the stand of oaks in the
central area of the property, provide public access to the park and allow for larger lot sizes along the
western border.
11. r.. . . .. • - !..- ...: .• ... -
(Revised)
- •- :.•:
-
(
21
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
12. Detailed construction drawings and specifications will be required for submittal with final plat approval. All
street and utility construction should be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications
and detail plates.
13. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval.
14. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval.
15. Trail easements connecting the interior of the development with the Bluff Creek Corridor trail system will
need to be developed.
16. The applicant should investigate the use of private driveways to serve up to four lots from the proposed
north/south local street in order to minimize impacts on wooded areas and the wetlands. There are a number
of private drives on the east side of the road. It is recommended that these alternate between the east and
west sides of the road.
17. The north/south street should provide a sidewalk on the east west side of the roadway to match the typical
cross section for Stone Creek Drive. This sidewalk will make the roadway pedestrian friendly as well as
permit school children to walk to the school site once the future frontage road is constructed.
18. A tree survey must be prepared as part of the development preliminary plat review process. In addition, a
woodland management plan will be required .
19. The applicant may wish to investigate the use of setback variances to accommodate the siting of housing in
the vicinity of wetlands or to preserve existed wooded or topographical features on the site.
20. Submit utility plans for review and approval. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet maximum.
21. Street names shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for approval.
22. Submit turning radius dimensions to the Fire Marshal for review and approval.
23. Applicant shall address the comments enumerated in the letter from Joe Richter of the DNR dated 3/2/94."
24. A ten (10) foot clear zone must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes,
NSP, NW Bell, cable TV. transformer boxes.
25. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval.
26. The southern terminus of the trail shall not parallel the railroad tracks. It should be located between Lot 53
and the wetland with sufficient buffer to protect both.
27. A 50 ft. wide trail strip shall be identified along the westerly border of the plat from the Stone Creek Drive
extension south to the railroad tracks. This corridor is for the future Bluff Creek trail which will pass under
the railroad tracks at this location.
22
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
28. The mid-way trail connection shall be relocated to the vicinity of Lots 35, 36 and 37. This easement shall
maintain the 30 ft. buffer distance consistent with the remainder of the site. This is accommodated as part
of the staff sketch plan.
29. The trail shall remain on the west side of the creek in its entirety, crossing the west branch at the
convergence of the east and west branches, then continuing on to the collector road.
30. Trail fee credit shall be granted for the construction of the trail. Buffer areas are required for wetland
protection and shall not be considered for park fee credit.
31. One of the goals of the Bluff Creek Corridor plan is to provide a quality outdoor experience along the
corridor. A necessary component of such an experience are open space areas which provide views and
allow for the placement of picnic tables, etc. Such spaces are not represented on this plan.
32. A minimum one hundred (100) building setback should be maintained from Bluff Creek. This may be
revised based on the outcome of the Bluff Creek charrette.
33. The two small ponds that are not required for stormwater retention or pretreatment should be removed from
the proposed plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING CHRIST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,560
SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING CHRIST ON
PROPERTY ZONED OI, OFFICE INDUSTRIAL AND LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1,
CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, 820 LAKE DRIVE.
Kate Aanenson: (A portion of the staff report did not get picked up by the microphone.) ...one of the additional
things that we asked for is that they place a berm facing the proximity to Highway 5. A berm in the parking
between Highway 5 and the church itself. If you've driven across that, you're right on grade...south of Highway
5. We are...getting MnDot approval. They are reviewing it right now. There's also a power line in the area.
The Planning Commission wanted me to review this project...berm could not be placed so they wanted to see
some alternatives because they felt that that soften the building. They are doing landscaping out in front of the
church and that does help soften...In addition we feel that there's additional areas that are outside the MnDot
right-of-way that additional plantings can be done and also along the driveway easement even though... in that
area. Other than that we feel like the church has met the requirements of the Highway 5 overlay and would
recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Kate. I like the looks of that myself. It's really quite outstanding. Would the
applicant like to come forward and go through your formal presentation with this.
Jim Dewalter: My name is Jim Dewalter. I'm Chairman of the Building Committee. Don Wagner is here as
well. He's the architectural firm that we're working with and if you'd like me to go through the changes we're
going to make or the details of the plan?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you would. Just lightly.
23
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Kate Aanenson: I wish I had a perspective. I should have given you that.
Councilman Senn: I mean, aren't we talking the same thing?
Kate Aanenson: ...what we're trying to do is there shouldn't be any, a lot of these are going to have
vegetation...and I should have attached a copy of the specs so you could see how high...
Councilman Mason: How high is the sign?
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, I can't remember now. Diane put this together but if you want to table this, we can
provide....
Councilman Senn: I mean the ones I've seen marking other things they're like 4 to 5 feet in height and they are
just ugly.
Councilman Mason: I think tabling it's a good idea because I agree with Mark. We've got so many doggone
signs up all over, you little green post signs all over.
Kate Aanenson: ...so people can't take it out and mow but yet people can see it and I agree...
Councilman Mason: I'd move that we table this until we can see those specs.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor to table. Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table action on the Wetland Buffer
Monumentation fees for further documentation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONING 39 ACRES FROM Ali
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, RLK
ASSOCIATES.
Kate Aanenson: ...it's currently zoned A2. It is bordered...The applicants are proposing a 56 single family
housing site. There are two existing wetlands on the property. One included the Bluff Creek. As you're aware
the City is working to get this segment of the road as it goes over to the school. Highway 5 is up here. This is
Timberwood. And the subdivision will tie into Stone Creek. Right now here's the extension. I would just like
to address the issue as far as how we feel it merits the PUD. There's a significant amount of varied topography
in the area as well as a creek corridor... This is concept at this point and staff certainly feels it merits the PUD
as far as preservation of the natural features. We feel at this point this proposal that you're looking at tonight
falls short of mark. If you look at the conditions, we do have a lengthy conditions...The Planning Commission
had recommended...conceptual approval be given at this time for the reasons outlined in the report. Given the
number of lots that are under 15,000 square feet. The treatment of Bluff Creek. The grades...preserve the
topography. Provide a transition for Timberwood to Heritage to the south. There is a utility line, a power line
that runs along the back of these lots and you can see that some of, these are quite a bit smaller lots, especially
when you look against adjacent to Timberwood. There's a significant change in the lots and the number of
49
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
homes that...Minimizing the tree loss. And then the tying of the extension road. The east/west tying into that.
Right now it appears that this road needs to be carried all the way over to McGlynn's. Otherwise we need to get
the extension down from this street. Otherwise they're dependent upon the extension of the Fourth Phase of
Stone Creek in order to get access to this. One of the big issues that the staff brought out. As you're aware, the
city is pursuing the LCMR grant with Bluff Creek study and we do have an ad hoc committee with that.
Unfortunately even if we do get funding for that, it's a year away. What we had recommended throughout this
report is that we put together a design charette with Bill Morrish. I had contacted him and he said he was too
busy to do that but recommended Lance Neckar from the Landscape School. Lance did send me back a proposal
for doing a design charette and looking at the issues of Bluff Creek. We not only have this project going
forward but we also have the project...which is north of Highway 5 which the creek also goes through. That
property we talked about as far as where the frontage road should be crossing the creek or whether it should stay
to the south. We do have a lot of issues and we feel like this is kind of getting ahead of what we're doing
which is kind of the same situation when Opus came forward on the Highway 5 corridor. We don't have the
standards in place and that was the whole intent of securing the LCMR grant is to come up with some designs.
We know we want to protect the Bluff Creek corridor and we want some elevations but we're not sure as far as
where we should provide the recreational opportunities and the revegetation and basically enhance...itself. So
what we have recommended in this report is that we...come back, if conceptual approval is given for this, to
come back with final approval, that we allow a design charette to happen. Lance Neckar did tell me that Bill
Morrish has freed up some time and feels really committed to this project and they're looking at the end of May
for doing the design charette. It will be coming back...to approve funding for that charette but I think that's...and
what we recommended in this report is before it would come back again, that they incorporate some of those
issues. And what we're talking about as far as the corridor, is just flushing out some major issues...starting at
TH 41. Going all the way down at least to Lyman Boulevard because that's where all the pending development
is happening. And what we don't want to do is allow subdivisions to go in and then find out we haven't
provided the proper setbacks and.. But we do feel this merits a PUD. As outlined, as I read through the
Planning Commission and there are some concerns as far as the amount of grading. The lot sizes. And the
applicants are aware that there may be a lot of change between this plan and the preliminary plan. The Planning
Commission, when they recommended denial. We have this problem every time we do the concept PUD. It's
not ready for concept. If you go back and look at the ordinance, what is required for conceptual. It really is just
a general statement and we've always felt like it's really just their marching orders before they come back and
we did the same thing with Opus. We asked them not to come back until we got the Highway 5 in place...So
what the applicant is looking for is some direction. Just to point out the salient issues and this is what we need
to go back and address. Now obviously we did go...recommended denial but what we've given in the conditions
of approval is substantial direction and as I said, marching orders that they need to...So staff is comfortable
although the Planning Commission recommended denial, we had conceptual approval with the conditions in the
staff report, and there's quite a few of them.
John Dietrich: I'm John Dietrich from RLK Associates...John Dobbs from Heritage Development regrettably had
a conflict tonight...l appreciate the comments that we received from staff with regard to the conditions of
approval. We realize this is a concept plan and there is additional work that needs to be done on this site...We
have also tried to work closely with the engineering department...that's also one reason that we also went
forward with the concept plan is that we can start to look at that alignment and be able to start...that sight
accordingly. We realize there are a number of issues that need to be addressed and we'll start working on
them. We are currently getting surveys. Wetlands delineated and those items being picked up so that we'll be
able to have a much better handle on the overall development of the site. We do realize there will be a
combination of lots, both over the 15,000 and under the 15,000. The plan as it sits today has an average lot size
of approximately 20,000 square feet, not counting the wetlands that are on the site. So it's, in order to preserve
50
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
some of the topography. The trees along the southern part of the second wetland. The two wetlands that are
identified on the site. It's going to take a challenging plan and it's going to take some flexibility from the city
and that's why we were requesting the PUD. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I think the Bluff Creek issue stands alone. The only comment I had, I think which came
first, the chicken or the egg and was Timberwood there first or second and although I don't have any great needs
to defend Timberwood, we have tended to protect them and they've kind of been a group that came in and
established a neighborhood that they wanted and we did separate them from Stone Creek. We didn't tie those
together for a reason and I wouldn't even entertain the thought of them taking the Timberwood residents and
tying them to 5 homes in their backyards so I think this western border or the eastern border of Timberwood
with 16 homes is totally incompatible with the existing land use and I wouldn't even want to address that. I'm
not even interested in looking at it. I don't think that's fair to them. I don't think it ties the areas together and
that would have to be the large lots there and small lots someplace else if there's going to be any. I'm not
interested in seeing this area because that's. These lot sizes Kate, they're not just the buildable numbers right
now? These large lots still include wetlands and may not be buildable, is that right?
Kate Aanenson: You mean some of these lots?
Councilman Wing: No, the average lot size is 20. Did you mention that still includes non buildable areas
possibly?
John Dietrich: That has deducted out the wetland areas.
Councilman Wing: Deducted out, okay.
Councilman Senn: All the lots were meeting the ordinance requirements.
Kate Aanenson: Well the PUD, the smallest lot size you can go up to is 11,000.
John Dietrich: And the smallest lot size I think was 12,500 and then 13,500.
Councilman Wing: My only comment was the 16 lots bordering Timberwood and putting 5 homes in someone's
backyard. They kind of didn't move there for that reason. Or moved there to avoid that. Is that what I wanted
to say?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. That's what I want to say. Since it's two homes away from mine.
Councilman Senn: So what's somebody supposed to do?
Mayor Chmiel: He's just making general comments.
Councilman Wing: I don't think we need that density abating those houses.
Mayor Chmiel: In and adjacent. Even though it's a PUD. I didn't like the size of those lots that bother there
either but Colleen.
51
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: There are two things I like about this proposal. One is that it's coming in as
PUD. I think that's certainly appropriate. And the other thing is the builder. I think they, I mean the developer.
You've shown great willingness to work with the city. I just think this is premature at this time. There are too
many outstanding items and I think staff has really outlined what needs to be worked on. So I'm not prepared to
give concept approval tonight. Go back. Work on some of the issues and then come back and we'll take a look
at it. You know going in residential, I think that's the appropriate use for this piece of land. But it just, there
are too many things left out right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well, I'll admit when I first read through this I thought huh, you've got to be kidding.
Well just because I think clearly and I think everyone's admitting that there are some things that need to be
worked out. The reason I would vote approval tonight is just because of the, what Kate had just said about a
concept plan and the underlying portion here where it says, approval of the concept statement shall not obligate
the city to approve the final plat or any part thereof or to rezone the property to planned unit development
district. And I think with this rather lengthy list of recommendations and I would concur with what Richard said
about the homes abutting, regardless of what property they're abutting, I don't, that size I don't think is
compatible to the size of the Timberwood homes. I'm sure the developer understands. There's quite a bit of
work that needs to get done before they would come back to us again. So I can go along with it with those
conditions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I mean as far as preliminary concept goes, once you superimpose and inject staff's points and
comments, I think it's an early stage and there's a lot to be done...but I think if you incorporate and work out the
things that staff wants to work out, I think it brings it pretty much in par with what we're looking for normally.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I too feel that it's a little premature to even give the conceptual because I want to see a
little bit more and I'd like to see staff work back with the developer to come back with something other than
what's basically shown. And I think it's a good proposal, having residential in and adjacent to what's there and
would serve the area rather well. But the sizes, I still have some real concern with, even though it's PUD. So
with that, would someone like to make a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move to deny the concept approval.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say.
Councilman Senn: Wait, wait.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Did you want to say something?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean it seems to me that if you think it needs more work past the concept approval,
why don't we table it and let them go through the work. I mean I don't know why we're denying it. It seems
to be inconsistent with what we would normally do. Usually we table it and let them go to work on it some
more.
52
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: That would be up to the motionee and with the second to make that change to either table.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That does make more sense because we're not saying we don't like the concept in
general. Yeah, I would withdraw my motion and make a new one to table.
Mayor Chmiel: Would the second also?
Councilman Wing: That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll entertain the motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I already made it to table, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table concept approval for a Planned
Unit Development for Heritage Development for further work. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT COMPUTER AIDED
GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND SUBDIVISIONS.
Kate Aanenson: I did hand out a couple additional letters that staff had received...concern about this item. This
directive came from the Planning Commission who was concerned about being able to really get a grasp of the
scale and scope of the projects. And the City Council's discussed that also. It also came out of the fact that we
saw the photo imaging for the bridge for the ISTEA project. It helped to visnati7e the scope and the scale of
that project. So the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment. So what we've
done is prepared an amendment that would, our subdivision requirements for application and site plan review to
add language that would say, computer image enhancements. If you look at the definition that we put in there,
there was a discussion about whether or not the...would be sufficient or enhanced photos like you say tonight
with Byerly's. And I think that's probably sufficient for a lot of projects. But there are projects when computer
imaging is more appropriate so there is, under subdivision and site plan application there is a requirement that
says other information as deemed necessary by the staff. Well lot's of times, that's where we do ask for just
renderings and that may be sufficient but we did want language specifically that talked about the generated photo
composite imaging and...So we amended the code in two places. The subdivision regulations where we're
looking at large subdivisions and again this may be a multi-family project along Highway 5 where we're trying
to capture the visual and what the impacts would be of the roof lines, the...of the buildings...So it does make
sense in subdivisions. And it may not in all subdivisions. I think when we put it in there saying they may be. I
think that's a concern a lot of people have...and then also when a site plan, it may be a simple site plan and it be
required but...it may be a small one that has significant impact...The other issue that came up is the cost. People
had a concern about that. In looking at the Planning Commission Minutes, Bob did discuss that and he called
and found out, he felt the standard right now was about 53,000.00...it was our understanding that that would be
the high end and that the cost, depending on once you put the original information in, then duplications are
alterations from that...Of course this is a new technology that's rapidly catching on and it's our understanding
that the cost of this, there's more people doing it...So with that, we'd recommend approval of the two ordinance
53
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF
TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeannene Krone RLK Associates
Steve Schwanke RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet
Richard Frasch 8000 Acorn Lane
David Gestach 8001 Acorn Lane
Tahir Khan 2040 Renaissance Court
Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Jeannene Krone: I had two requests from John Dobbs who is of Heritage Development and
the first is that the trail easement that you are looking at would be a 30 foot easement.
Hoffman: Would you please introduce yourself.
Jeannene Krone: My name's Jeannene Krone from RLK. I'm landscape architect. So
Heritage requests that they be granted a 20 foot easement along the wetland instead of the 30
foot to provide the trail. And there were some changes. We discussed them with the
Planning Commission that where we originally wanted the pond is a wetland and they will
need to be doing some ponding outside this wetland to the east. So this would be a storm
water pond around here and I drew a quick section that shows right through here that the
back of the lots would come down. There'd be a narrow pond then I had a 20 foot trail
bench and then the wetlands start and eventually go to the creek. And now they're doing a
20 foot easement instead of a 30 foot. John Dobbs wanted to say that he would be willing to
put in the trail as requested as long as he was fairly compensated...
Andrews: Do you know what the average lot size is you're proposing here?
Jeannene Krone: The average lot size is 20,000 square feet. That includes property, this part
of the wetland.
Andrews: The outlots?
19
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Jeannene Krone: The outlots. And other than that, there's still a 15,000 square foot
minimum beyond the wetland.
Manders: The trail you're talking would be on the bottom side of the water retention?
Jeannene Krone: It would be, no. It would be between this pond and the wetland.
Manders: Right.
Jeannene Krone: So it would, it's proposed to come up this part of the creek but it can't go
up here because of the wetland. So it'd be between the pond and wetland here and stay just
outside the wetland until it gets back to the creek. And the main reason for the 20 foot
easement is there were some lots that wouldn't work if it had to be a 30 foot trail.
Andrews: Todd, usually we are looking at 20 foot easements. Why were we looking at the
extra 10 feet?
Hoffman: In conversation with Diane Desotelle and other members of the planning and
engineering staff, there's a requirement for a 20 foot buffer inbetween that wetland the
developed property and that buffer is to allow the natural vegetation to collect sedimentation...
etc, etc before they drain into the wetland. So if we...
Manders: What constitutes the definition of that wetland? Is it just elevation or is it just.
Hoffman: It's a mapped wetland. The elevation and the aerial underneath that is also it's an
elevation.
Jeannene Krone: And we will be having the wetland staked as soon as the ground thaws, and
delineated...were taken from maps from aerial photos where the wetlands are.
Lash: When you're saying some of the lots won't work with the 30 foot easement, are you
saying they're too small?
Jeannene Krone: Yeah, they'll be too small.
Berg: What's too small?
Jeannene Krone: Less than 11,000 square feet in a PUD.
Lash: Yeah, that's too small.
20
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Jeannene Krone: And then it's too narrow. Too narrow for the house and stuff.
Manders: That's assuming that the current road structure is approved or is that finalized?
Jeannene Krone: That's assuming the road structure is approved.
Lash: This is all still under the conceptual plan. So if we stick with the 30 feet, the plan can
be redone so it would be workable. Could it not?
Jeannene Krone: Sure...
Andrews: Is there anyone else here from the audience that has any questions or comments
about this proposal? If so, please state your name and address please?
Richard Frasch: Okay. Do I have to stand up or can I sit down here?
Andrews: If you could approach the podium.
Hoffman: You're on record here.
Richard Frasch: Big audience here. My name is Richard Frasch. I'm at 8000 Acorn Lane in
Timberwood. From my perspective, just so I understand where we're talking about here. Is
this Timberwood right here?
Jeannene Krone: Right. At the bottom.
Richard Frasch: Okay, and then this road here, is that.
Jeannene Krone: That's the proposed frontage road.
Richard Frasch: Okay, so that would be connecting toTimberwood?
Jeannene Krone: No. It would go along with the school opening. It would be just north of
Timberwood.
Richard Frasch: Right at the north of Timberwood.
Hoffman: This is north. This is Acorn. This is north. This would be the new frontage road.
The new school, park site and then Highway 5 runs vertically here.
21
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Andrews: I'll have to say personally as a Park Board member here that I cannot support
reducing that easement. I think that this particular corridor is absolutely critical to the city
and it's future beauty and I just feel that we can't give an inch here. I just don't think we
should. I feel that the houses in these price ranges, you know a few lots may be sacrificed
but I just don't think that we should be asking for anything less than top quality. Here we
have one of our most valuable pieces of property and it's a PUD coming in asking for lot
sizes that are actually below standard if they were not under PUD and I just don't think we
should support anything but the type of quality that our city should demand. That's where I
stand.
Roeser: I agree.
Lash: I agree.
Berg: Absolutely.
Manders: The ordinance was put in place for a reason. To keep the fertilizers out and all of
those things so I agree.
Andrews: Yeah. Do you need a motion here Todd or, I mean I think you're getting some
feedback right there where we're standing, which is that we're not supportive of any change
in that setback.
Hoffman: If you're prepared to make a motion, the motion outlined in the...
Andrews: Well I move that we would, that the Park Board resolutely is in favor of
maintaining the 30 foot easement necessary for the trail and the proper amount of distance for
protecting the creek. And therefore would ask that the applicant resubmit a plan that would
meet that requirement.
Lash: Second.
Andrews: Any discussion?
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
that the applicant maintain the 30 foot easement necessary for the trail and to resubmit
a plan that would meet that requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Hoffman: ...you need to compensate the applicant or the developer for the cost...in
23
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
developing that trail and that's always been the city's policy...
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 82.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD; INCLUDING 19.3 ACRES FOR
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, 52.9 ACRES FOR MULTI-FAMILY, 3.4 ACRES FOR
PONDLNG AREA, AND 7 ACRES FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, LOCATED SOUTH
OF HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD, AND ABUTTING THE NEW
CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE/RECREATION CENTER AND PARK
SITE; CHANHASSEN CORPORATE CENTRE, HIGHWAY 5 PARTNERSHIP, RYAN
COMPANIES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, BOISCLAIR CORPORATION AND
RLK ASSOCIATES.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Steve Schwanke: Members of the commission, thank you Todd. My name is Steve
Schwanke with RLK Associates and I've been working on this particular project here for
probably the last 6 to 7 months. Jeannene Krone who was here just a few minutes ago was
assisting with some specific design of some of those particular areas. As Mr. Hoffman has
mentioned, we view this very much as a concept stage. A lot of the designs that we have
submitted, we have 5 plan sheets as part of this. A lot of the design work that we've put
together for that really is, in terms of a concept, we want to really make sure that we begin to
identify some specific land uses and some specific densities that will be allowed for the
access points. And actually when we begun with all of this, probably 5 or 6 months ago, it's
been in a very fundamental point. We began working with the city and the city's consultants
actually 5 or 6 months ago working with design and some of the major infrastructures in this
area here. Barton-Aschman has been very cooperative as well as the engineering department
and the planning departments and of course the parks and recreation department in assisting
us in designing a lot of the infrastructure for this particular area here so when the feasibility
study for example for the east/west collector road came out, it was principally based on the
design that we had created for that in a way that we were able to maximize the land uses
both to the north and to the south as well as being able to...corridor here that Todd was
talking about. The east/west corridor as it snakes up from the north here and goes west a
little bit and then goes up to the north again. So a lot of that work we actually have been
doing in September and October. We've also been working in this particular area here in
conjunction with the School District and their consultants HGA. As well as the city's
consultant Bonestroo who's been doing some of the storm water planning for this particular
area here...in conversations with the school and the city for the design of this pond area here
as well as just the size of it and you know what areas should be brought into it and things of
that nature. We've actually been involved in this project for some time working with the city
24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall
account for the removal of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text.
11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad and Ron Nutting who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
Scott: The motion carries 4 to 2 and Ron, if you could summarize your thoughts on your nay
vote.
Nutting: In my earlier comments I basically agreed with the east elevation signage. I guess
I'm new to this game and I still haven't fully figured out the process but I'm less a tinkerer
and more along the lines with what Ladd was saying. I don't, I'm not comfortable with
picking everything apart to what I see as opposed to what the developers have spent a lot of
time working on.
Scott: Okay. And Ladd, your comments.
Conrad: I've made them already.
Scott: Good. And this goes to City Council?
Generous: March 28th.
(Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and was not present to vote on any of the
remaining items.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE
DEVELOPMENT, RLK ASSOCIATES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tahir Khan 2040 Renaissance Court
John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
16
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
John Dobbs 450 East Co. Rd. D, Little Canada
Colleen Dockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge
Bob Generous, Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for staff? Hearing none, would the applicant or
their representatives wish to address the Planning Commission? Please identify yourself.
John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development. I
guess I'd just briefly like to give an overview and let John Dietrich from RLK will go
through some of the concerns. I guess I'd just briefly like to tell you a little bit about me.
I'm a trained landscape architect and interestingly enough, a number of the people who show
up on your...community across the corridor, study of urban design studies, one of my
professors in landscape architecture department and Bill Morrish did some...urban design and
Lars...who is a professional landscape architect who was my advisor at one point. Not only
that but I happen to run Heritage Development at the moment...so it gives me an interesting
and unique perspective I think on what's going to come up and I'm actually looking forward
to it I think. ...make a difference and do some different things. The reason we put together
the preliminary and put it out as a PUD was, as Kate mentioned, there are a lot of concerns
staff has and that we have about the property and it seemed like a very good way to
keep...and the staff and the Planning Commission and City Council. A number of issues have
been addressed as in the preliminary meetings that I've had, as Dave mentioned, with storm
water management. The landscape is, that we're addressing here is very narrow and also very
rolling. There's a future park corridor running down the Bluff Creek...idea for the entire city
itself. And the future sewer line that's coming from Stone Creek running out to the future
school site. Had meetings with Kate and Diane, Dave and Charles, the City Engineer. I've
also been over to...Bill Morrish and Tom...and just trying to be as much a part of this as I
possibly can so. We're coming to the...meeting at 2:00 tomorrow and I'm pretty excited
about the process and I think we'll pass along...With that, we do have some concerns with the
storm water is a real issue. That's changing as we speak in terms of drainage, Stone Creek
and new runoff that we're going to generate, park corridors and trails along it so
obviously...So John Dietrich who represents RLK will...
John Dietrich: John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We are the landscape architects and civil
engineers preparing the findings for Heritage Development. I have just some clarifications
that I'd like to put to each of the I guess 23 recommendations that we have with you.
Address those. We've had a chance to discuss it. We are basically in approval with the
recommendations as they are stated. Some minor clarifications that...Should we speak to
those now or would you like to discuss the plan first?
17
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: I guess I think probably what we'd like to do is have you go through the
recommendations and then do your clarifications so we can understand what your position is
and so forth.
John Dietrich: Thank you. I'm on page 15 of the staff report...The first one, the applicant
incorporate design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed plan that are being
initiated in the upcoming month. Yes, we definitely want to include those. We just want it
to be clear that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed in this corridor. Open
space, land use. The access needs. The need for development of the residential property so
that they all have to be tied in so we are a quality park and open space and have..individuals
come down and use that space. Secondly is timing. We are interested in moving forward
with a final PUD and then into a preliminary platting procedure so that we can look at an
opportunity for development on this site this coming year, 1994. So we are looking to do,
trying to move along quickly but also incorporating the concerns. Number 2, the proposed
ponding area in the southern portion should be relocated to lessen impact on wetlands,
wooded areas and natural features. If indeed the ponding area that we have...talked about
with Heritage and...is going to be an issue, we feel that there's an opportunity to have a pre-
treatment of the storm water between the wetlands to the east and the lots up the roadway
that would necessitate some...and possibly the roadway and possibly some negotiation
between the square footages of all the lots but we feel that would be a doable process and we
would definitely adhere to the pre-treatment of any storm water...wetland areas. Number 3,
that's a yes. We will definitely be working with Frank Svoboda and Associates for wetland
delineation. Number 4, attempt to retain the natural topographic features. Again, we will be
looking closer at the grading plan and design and in concert with these...trunk line, sanitary
sewer and watermain to this site, we want to try and have an equal balance for good
engineering and good site design for all parties involved. Number 5. Pretreatment of the
storm water. Basically we go back to comment number 2. The City has suggested removing
Lots 50, 51, and 52 and building a storm water retention pond for the pretreatment area. We
feel we can modify the location of that pretreatment area so that we will not lose 3 lots
outright for pretreatment. That is again a...modification that would have to be. Number 6.
Wetland 15-15-1 should remain in it's current condition. If in fact it does remain in that
condition and you would like to have us work with the city as to potentially looking at that as
some unique housing sites on the edge of that pond area where they would have a much
higher tree count within the lots. So if it's not going to be for ponding, there should be
another use that is estimated to stay exactly like it is. It would have to be some type of
credits...
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. Is that the wetland that is drained by a
culvert?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Hempel: That's correct.
Ledvina: Okay. So are, do you have any specific proposals as it relates to that? Do you
need to take that culvert out or is that what you're thinking or modify that? Resize it or.
John Dietrich: This is the ponding area that we have a specific, we had anticipated utilizing
as a storm water pretreatment before it would flow into the wetland. Currently there's a
creek and in the creek...site from the Timberwood Estates area. We would propose that that
would be in it's current location. That with a street crossing.
Ledvina: Okay.
John Dietrich: Did I answer your question?
Ledvina: Well.
Hempel: One of the issues I guess that staff had before was this, this is the location of the
wetland that's currently being drained through an existing culvert that goes underneath the
railroad tracks in this location here. Based on the surface water management plan, we did
propose...the use of this wetland but as the storm water quantity...as of today right now. A
lot of the Stone Creek development as well as the southerly...drain through a ravine down to
the wetland to this location here and...It is our belief that somewhere in this area here, this
flat area with the trees...for water quality improvements is adjusted in this point. So we feel
there's probably a location here where a pretreatment pond can be developed prior to a storm
sewer to go in prior to discharging into the wetland...continue the drainage patterns of the
neighborhood. That's something we want to be looking at here when we get the grading
plans and so forth.
Ledvina: Thank you.
John Dietrich: Item number 7. The SWMP report, the storm water quality/quantity fees and
trunk storm sewer charges as appropriate. Yes we will be looking to provide that on site and
the credit that comes with that report and providing that service. That would be great. We
also are concerned about what those fees are and that report is in it's final draft form so we
have not had an opportunity to actually see the report. Number 8, sanitary, trunk sanitary
sewer lines to be used as both lateral and trunk. We intend to work with the city and have
those within the public right-of-ways of the site so that we have an opportunity to maintain
the creek corridor in it's natural state which we think both parties will benefit from. Number
9. The north/south street shall be extended through the outlot to connect to the future
east/west frontage road. Between Galpin and Audubon Road. We fully intend that that
19
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
connection would be critical to servicing this site and as that roadway is developed, this one
would also be extended. That outlot is part of the Chanhassen Corporate Center PUD concept
plan submission which was submitted I believe 2 weeks ago to the city. Number 10,
curvilinear streets are recommended to add aesthetics. We will work with the city and try to
come in with as quality of a plan as possible with the understanding that it is a long narrow,
highly topographical site so we're trying to balance a number of issues at this time. Number
11, to make the north/south roadway the major traffic flow. Yes, we will modify that.
Number 12, detailed construction drawings and specifications. Yes, we will submit to that.
13, final construction drawings. Absolutely. 14, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security. We assume
that will be based on the standard criteria that has been used on other platting procedures for
securing the escrow. We will submit that. Trail easements connecting the interior of the
development to the Bluff Creek, absolutely. 16, the applicant shall investigate the use of
private driveways to serve up to four lots. We will look at that issue to try and minimize the
amount of right-of-way for individual lots if we have the opportunity to do so. Number 17,
north/south street should provide a sidewalk on the east side of the roadway to match the
typical cross section for Stone Creek Drive. Provided the sidewalk that is being proposed
does connect into another sidewalk, we would agree to this condition. Our concern is that it
ends at our property line and goes nowhere else, then we should not be required to put it in.
A tree survey, number 18. Yes, we will take care of that. Number 19. We will look at
setbacks of variances to accommodate the siting and maintain that...Number 20, 21 and 22.
Yes we will submit all of those approvals. And 23 addresses the issue of the DNR letter by
Mr. Richter to Kate Aanenson. Although we're concerned with the classification of this as a
protected tributary, it is the distance of 300 feet from the creek center line or bluff that it has
the shoreland overlay district provide to it which requires 20,000 square foot of...lot area. We
would ask that you look at a combination of lot areas would have an average of 20,000
square feet across the development in order to make this entire site work with the strong site
constraints and...
Scott: Okay, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience
who would like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Can I have a motion to open the
public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Those who would like to speak, please come forward. State your name and address.
Tahir Khan: I am Tahir Khan and I live in Timberwood Estates. I read over the details on
drainage and I want to go on record stating that it is a drainage that is occurring from my
20
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
property which is 2040 Renaissance Court. Which if you could put a map up. This is the lot
and there's natural drainage to the pond here that's not shown but it drains up and goes, the
water drains east and not towards the creek but it goes east, straight across and drains into the
creek that runs north and south. The way I see this platted out it's going to be running right
through the back yard until it hits the road. And I'm wondering if.
Farmakes: Excuse me just a minute. I saw you move the pencil back and forth to the east
and west. North I believe is facing, so which way does it drain, east or west or north and
south?
Generous: It drains from west to east.
Scott: Towards Bluff Creek.
Generous: Yes. To the wetland.
Tahir Khan: It's a natural area. It just happens to be draining right from this corner. It goes
right to the creek and I'm wondering if there's any provisions that you have thought of so
they don't end up with a...pond where the water has no place to go except...go south.
Hempel: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to address that at this time if you'd like. Down here is
Renaissance Court. This is the lot that, he lives on right here. This drainage ravine that goes
right through here is the one that carries the runoff from west to east. To the Timberwood
Estates down to Bluff Creek, which is down here in this area. We will be requiring that this
drainageway be left open with the appropriate sized drainage culvert similar to what's in to...
Estates up here. We will maintain that flow through there. Will not be compounding...
Tahir Khan: On the one you had up where the current drainage is occurring towards, there's
a slight depression on the top northwest corner and it serves two homes. One is my house
and the one north of my house. And the natural flow of the ground as it is, where that
drainage occurs, goes right through the property to the east. And unless there is some
grading that could occur so as to divert, there's also a power line that runs north and south.
So unless from that top northeast corner there's a new ditch section be done north and south,
for any house that goes...is left not only it's own back yard but also cause flooding in the
northeast corner of my house and the southeast corner of the Johnson home.
Hempel: Once we get a formal grading plan we'll be reviewing that to make sure that the
neighborhood drainage patterns are compatible. That we're not breeding any kind of ponding
onto the properties outside of the plat. It's part of our review process.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Tahir Khan: This side of the concept where they show the street layout and the lot lines.
Hempel: We don't have a grading plan at this time or a utilities layout so when that step
during the preliminary plat approval process is what they supply in the piecemeal information.
This will address that further.
Farmakes: Which lots would we be talking about here in relationship to the comment?
Hempel: It'd be up along this corridor here. It would be the east lot line of the plat. These
back yards of the Timberwood development in here.
Scott: Which lot numbers?
Farmakes: So we're not talking about 4, 3, 55 or 54?
Hempel: I would say you're looking at Lots 4 thru 12 in this area. Address the back yard
drainage.
John Dietrich: It appears that it might be running through the proposed Lot 7?
Scott: Right.
John Dietrich: We will take a closer look at that and it may necessitate a pipe out to that
side or a definite swale or some type of drain tile along the property line...
Tahir Khan: Also for the record, if your architects care to go and see it right now...that pond
is about 50 feet in diameter. And it has not gone over the slight hump before it starts to
drain so it's collecting right now between my property and the property north of me and I
think as the spring thaw progresses, it eventually will top itself off and start heading across
the, start draining eastward now.
John Dietrich: Would there be a problem to drain that all the time without having the water.
Tahir Khan: We would prefer, looking from our point of view, to have it drain all the time
because there is some very mature oak trees that momentarily do get submerged. Then once
in a while when the plow used to plow the cornfield, it would leave ridges. 6 inches to 8
inches worth of ridges and that would be like a dam. And eventually the ridge would break
and the flow would be very rapid across the cornfield so preferably it would be, if there's a
road going by and it can be graded so that the lots and the road are lower, by only even a
foot, then that water would probably drain normally into the sewer anyways. That's all I
22
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
have, thank you.
Colleen Dockendorf: Hi. Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge. Is that the exact area
we're talking about where the sewer stub will go in?
Hempel: The sewer stub for servicing the future Timberwood Estates, we're looking at this
corridor through here. It would be the lowest portion.
Colleen Dockendorf: As with all conceptual approvals there's, it's hard to give comments
when it's not final but my other concern is the time line that you guys are trying to meet and
are we putting the cart before the horse...Bluff Creek corridor done this summer. I'm not
sure if all...and if we give conceptual approval at this point, are we forcing ourselves to a
time line that we don't want to be subject to.
Tahir Khan: I have one more point. I read about the stub also for the sewer. If it has to run
into the Timberwood Estates, I would personally oppose to having it run next to the creek or
the drainage creek because it's very heavily wooded and it meanders back and forth
sufficiently through my property as well as properties through the west of my property. And
it would require a lot of trees going down. The sewer line would have to go across. Now
there is a drainage and utility easement on the northern edge of my property that takes a
straight shot towards Galpin Boulevard. If the trunk has to go and get stubbed in between the
creek and the existing easement, I would recommend the existing easement because the
existing easement also is part of this pond that I'm describing and consequently there's not as
many trees. And also access, like I said, straight to Galpin but I would be opposed to having
my property detreed...in order to facilitate the stub going in.
Hempel: We'll be looking at that in greater detail in the upcoming preliminary plat submittal
in determining the best alternative to extending sewer, sanitary sewer in the future for
Timberwood Estates. Where the creek runs in the lowest portion of the Timberwood area
though it's typically, well there's...to extend sanitary sewer so you can service the entire
development through a gravity system...and no need for an additional lift station and so forth
but we can certainly review that in greater detail in the upcoming month here so.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the general public? Okay, could I have
a motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: I'll make it short and sweet. First of all, Bob I want to thank you for doing such
an extensive job of bringing up so many issues. It's just a very good report and thanks. I'm
having a hard time, actually Colleen kind of took the words out of my mouth. Saying yeah
to this conceptual plan because I think conceptual plan sets the tone of the development and I
think the tone of this development, and it says in our staff report on page 2. The intent of the
development is to create a project that is compatible with the natural elements of the area,
specifically Bluff Creek, the ravine, the wooded area and the existing topography. And it
goes on. And because of that I would like to wait until the shirette is done on the Bluff
Creek corridor and those design components the developer can work with. Until that is done,
because I think it will set the tone of this development. And I would like to wait and I could
not give conceptual approval right now until that Bluff Creek shirette is done and see how the
developer takes those design components, guidelines, and works with them in this
development. Because it is the whole part of this development. The Bluff Creek and the
natural topography.
Scott: Okay, good. Jeff.
Farmakes: A couple of general comments. I get uncomfortable when a high percentage or
we start hovering close to 40-50% of substandard in a PUD. I don't know why that is but it
seems to be a target that we shoot for. There always seems to be that there's a bunch of little
lots and then there's some tree top lots that make up the rest that have extensive square
footage but what it does is it equalizes out the other lot. But the problem I have with that is
that a lot of that square footage that we're using isn't buildable under normal development
process and I keep on bringing this up. This is a difficult area to develop, granted and I
don't see a problem with the PUD. I see a problem with some disseparate lots, in particular
where some of these drainage patterns are where there's deep ravines. Very limiting as to
where those pads are going to go and the lot looks much more spacious than it truly is. And
without seeing building pads on this particular review, it makes it kind of dangerous from the
concept standpoint to give approval to this type of thing. Or really review the design of it.
Drainage issue is a concern in particular with this type of property and it's essentially that's
what this is. It's a big drainage field and I would be concerned about that if I was an
adjacent property owner or potential owner of this property. And I think it's sort of the cart
before the horse here in this development, I'd agree with Nancy. And I would vote to deny it
at this point.
Scott: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: I have a couple of questions for Dave. On condition number 9. Talking about the
north/south street shall be extended through that outlot to connect to a future east/west
frontage road within three years of the final plat. I'm concerned about the connective you
24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
know road scenario and what would be the time line for the east/west frontage road going in?
This is part of that south frontage road construction. What are we looking at there?
Hempel: That's correct. The east/west frontage road will serve the school site and eventually
multiple residential sites there east of the school site. The city project will be commencing
this spring with the site grading of the school. Utilities later on in the summer with the street
construction in the fall. Completion date of I believe July of 1995.
Ledvina: Okay. Doesn't it make sense to just, so this, the roads in this subdivision would
actually be done this year, is that what we're shooting for? Is that what the developer is
shooting for?
Hempel: I don't want to speak for the developer but my interpretation of their plan here is to
show you the entire development with anticipation of doing a phased approach. The outlot to
the north is actually under a different PUD development and it will be coming in in the next
couple of weeks. Chan Corporate Center I believe it's called. I don't know, maybe the
developer can address their phasing...of this parcel. Maybe they are proceeding to develop 56
lots.
John Dobbs: It would depend on a number of issues...the one that's the most glaring and that
is this trunk sewer coming up. Whether that would follow the road line or not. If it does
follow along the proposed alignment that we have, there would be some drainage that would
have to be...in preparation for the sewer...Then our intention after that, after the sewer would
go in, if there's enough time this year...put in streets as far as weather...
Ledvina: Okay. Well I'm concerned about a 3 year time period. The issue as I see it relates
to safety and maybe 3 years is too long...to delay that connection so I guess I wouldn't
change that recommendation specifically but I would request that staff review that
recommendation again to see what might be appropriate as it relates to that time frame. It
may be an as soon as possible type of thing, you know would be appropriate. On item
number 17, Dave. Would you clarify the situation with the sidewalks there? How do you
see that?
Hempel: Certainly. Currently Stone Creek, the Hans Hagen development to the southwest of
this site, is proposing to extend Stone Creek Drive to where it exists today in the first phase
of Stone Creek. There currently is a sidewalk I believe on the south side of Stone Creek
Drive...which will terminate at the westerly property line of the subdivision. Their street,
typical section does include the construction of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk as well so it
would be completing the sidewalk.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Ledvina: Okay so that, so we wouldn't have a situation where we would have a sidewalk
ending? It would connect to the existing sidewalk? Or the proposed sidewalk in that area.
Hempel: That's correct in that location and eventually there is a sidewalk/trail in harmony
with each of those...
Ledvina: Okay. And getting, stepping back a little bit on this whole development. I guess
generally I support, certainly support the development of this site using the PUD approach.
We certainly do have a very sensitive area that we're dealing with. We have the extreme
topography on the northern part of this site and then also the ravine on the southern part of
the site. I would want to see those elements treated very carefully and to that extent I would
strongly support staff's recommendation that the private driveways be looked at in great
detail. Not necessarily to reduce the right-of-way but in an effort to minimize the disruption
to the topography. Also, it may make sense to increase the distance or just to eliminate
grading from those very steep areas and just pull the extent of the development back on the
northern part of the site to essentially leave those areas alone. And similarly to the, as it
relates to the ravine on the southern end, I understand of course you have to cross that but as
it relates to minimizing and perhaps even eliminating the grading associated with the
preparation of pads, building pads in that area. I think the street alignment certainly can be
changed to maybe provide a little more curvilinear aspect as the staff has pointed out. And I
think things can be perhaps readjusted in terms of the locations of the private, potentially
private drives to be sensitive to the topography. Let's see. I guess I would support this
conceptual approach. I think even though we don't have the guidelines for the Bluff Creek
corridor, I think that the developer is certainly aware that that is the reason that we're, that
we want to evaluate this or the reason it should be evaluated using the PUD approach. And
although things may not be specific as it relates to the standards, I think staff has probably a
pretty good idea of some of the things that can be done at this point to minimize the impact
on the corridor. To provide the access that we want to. The open space, etc so I think we're
pretty far away from making decisions that really dictate how the corridor will be impacted at
this point so I think that knowing what our goal is going to be I think is enough. And I think
we can move this forward from this point. So again I would support this proposal with the
staff changes. I've got some other conditions that I would add to address some of the
neighborhood concerns.
Farmakes: Could I ask a question? How do you feel about so many undersized lots? And
adjacent to the property.
Ledvina: Well, we're looking at it as a PUD so some of the things that we can do for the
developer relate to the undersized lots and the setbacks. The roadway setbacks in exchange
for added sensitivity as it relates to the area surrounding the corridor. But specifically I don't
26
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
know if 24 lots averaging 13,500 square feet, you know that might be acceptable.
Farmakes: My point on that though is if you look at Lot 37 and you see Lot 38, those lots
are a third of those lots are buildable.
Ledvina: Right. I understand your point. Exactly.
Farmakes: So if you count those and the ones that are already substandard, if you get to 40-
509c. 60%. 70%. At what point does the trade off for sensitivity become, really go beyond
the zone of single family and start encroaching elsewhere. Just because it's a wetland
doesn't, you couldn't build a traditional development on it.
Ledvina: Right. Well if it's a wetland it can't be included in the total, is that correct Kate?
Aanenson: There's a compliance table in the plat that shows the lots without the
wetland...We check out the net and the gross...
Ledvina: You might think it's not buildable because of the topography but you know they
have some rights in terms of being able to grade that area. We don't want them to.
Farmakes: Well no, but what I'm saying, even as total square foot. Not usable square foot
but if you look at total. 21 of the 56 lots are undersized. That's, if you look at the usable, I
did count the usable square foot because we don't really have a criteria for that but it seems
like we get all these somewhere around 50% being undersized. And when they go in
adjacent to properties that are large lot, how are we dealing with a transition of development.
Ledvina: That's always an issue, certainly. And some of the things that actually, now I
wasn't able to walk that whole line there. I didn't want to because I'd be trespassing, or at
least I thought I would be. But I see a lot of topographic changes there that, and there's a lot
of vegetation there along that line. There is a, is there a power easement right on that line?
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: I think that also provides a buffer. And I don't know. You raise a very valid point
and there's a red flag that goes up when I see the backs of 5 lots, more than that, 6 lots
abutting one lot. So that's always a concern. But I think the gains that can be made relative
to the creek may outweigh that given the specifics for the site.
Farmakes: So you think that more homes, I'm not here to beat up on your logic but you
think that more homes, when you're saying the site benefits. Does the site benefit from more
27
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
homes or higher density within the site or?
Ledvina: Well, coming in here and just grading it all out, you could put more lots in here.
Farmakes: But there's a substantial amount of it you couldn't grade out.
Ledvina: Right, and the wetlands you can't.
Farmakes: In other words, the houses are lined up in a row so at least a substantial amount
of them are sort of lined up in a linear line so I.
Ledvina: I would change that certainly.
Farmakes: But there's not a lot of room to play around there before you get into the wetland.
Ledvina: No, you're right. I will say this. I don't know that whatever number of lots, 59
lots. I don't know. Maybe that probably seems like there's too many lots on the
development. So if, I don't know what the total number of lots will be but when you do start
changing the road alignments and taking a close look at areas, very steep contoured areas that
you don't want to grade, maybe the number of lots will go down. I'm hoping it will.
Mancino: Then conceptually, would you go with more clustering of the houses and have
more open area where we wouldn't do, there wouldn't be as much grading and keeping the
ravine, etc?
Ledvina: Well they suggested looking at the use of private drives with homes serviced off of
private drives. Several. 3-4 homes. That's a technique. Clustering houses. I guess that's
kind of a clustering type of thing...I'm done.
Farmakes: I just had a question.
Ledvina: Those are my comments.
Scott: Okay. Ron.
Nutting: Very good comments. I guess my issue comes down to giving conceptual approval
now versus deferring you know until the corridor or watershed plan is done contrasted with
the fact that the recommendation number 1 says they incorporate design components from
that. Is it 6 and 1, half a dozen of the other. I'm not sure. In terms of everything may
change or have to change because of that. So that point seems to suggest that I can live with
28
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
the recommendation but I agree with, I do agree with Jeff's concerns and also other
comments that have been made and so the question is, do you move it forward by deferring
or do you move it forward by approving subject to. And that's where my confusion comes
into the process.
Ledvina: Well we will see this again. I mean this is a conceptual.
Nutting: Yeah, so I guess from that standpoint I would tend to lean to say that subject to the
various comments that we could approve then the conceptual plan and move it forward. But
there's a lot of issues that are going to have to be resolved before it gets past that next stage.
I think Jeff's comments are appropriate.
Scott: Good, thank you. I was kind of surprised when we had two residents come up. One
who lived or has a lot adjacent to this property and they didn't say anything about the density
or the number of lots and so forth. I agree with Jeff on the kind of the false sense that we
get when we see very large average lot sizes but that's dictated primarily because of non-
usable space and so it kind of gives us a false sense. This to me looks extremely dense. I
don't support moving this forward. I guess even though it's from a conceptual standpoint, I
still think that we're saying something stronger than perhaps we are when I say I approve this
conceptually. I can't approve this conceptually. I think it's too dense. I think there are,
when I think about the work that we did on Al Klingelhutz's multi-family. We had a
situation where we had some large lot people with 15,000 square foot lots abutting, I think
there were seven 15,000 square foot lots abutting a fellow who I think had a 2 or 3 acre
parcel. The developer came back and reduced the density but basically worked with the
adjacent residents. Also too, is it topographic or topographic? I'll say topographically and
when I take a look at the northern extension of the street and I think Matt had a good point
about maybe doing something different. I see from Lot 22, I see an elevation of 910 going
up within, to Lot 19. We've got a 40 foot change in elevation and obviously that probably
exceeds our, was it 6%? 7%? So I think we're talking about some horrendous grading. I
can't pass this on right now. I think there's such a, there's a large component here where we
have to be sensitive to Bluff Creek and so I would recommend denying this conceptual plan.
I don't have any further comments. Do we need more discussion or would someone like to
make a motion?
Mancino: I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of this
conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development subject to the
applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed Plan.
They're being initiated next month and when those get incorporated, that we see a new
conceptual plan and I would also like to add that many of the issues that are in this
recommendation that Bob has put together for us, be incorporated into the conceptual plan
29
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
too.
Scott: Is there a second please?
Farmakes: I'll second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the applicant's request. Is there any
discussion?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial
of this conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development
subject to the applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek
Watershed Plan and that the applicant incorporate the conditions outlined by the staff
report into their conceptual plan. All voted in favor, except Ron Nutting and Matt
Ledvina who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Scott: By a vote of 3 to 2 the applicant's request is denied and this goes to City Council on
the 28th?
Generous: The April 11th.
Scott: April 1 lth? Okay. And what will be accomplished relative to the, at least the design
or the shirette or some input. Will there be some facts that will be available or some city
guidance...time to rework their plan prior to presentation to the City Council?
Aanenson: I don't think so. We didn't intend for that..What we'll try to do now is...so they
know what to do when they come back the next round. They may not get 56 units. They
may get less than that but we have to resolve all these issues...that's fine but obviously we
hadn't intended for this shirette or this focus group to meet before they go to Council. But
we certainly will communicate with them and with you so you know what the issues are
when it comes back.
Scott: Yeah, that's what I'm kind of thinking. If there's probably going to be some new
information available, okay.
Ledvina: Joe?
Scott: Yeah.
Ledvina: I'd like to clarify two points that were discussed in addition to the things in the
30
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
staff report. I would like to see the staff evaluate the drainage patterns within the
Timberwood Estates neighborhood to make sure that the patterns of drainage are maintained
and specifically in the vicinity of Lots 4 thru 12. And I'd also like to add that the
consideration for the sanitary sewer stub for Timberwood Estates, the siting of that stub
minimize topography disruption and tree loss to the extent possible.
Scott: Do you guys want to take a 5 minute break before we do the next?
(The Planning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT
COMPUTER AIDED GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND
SUBDIVISIONS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Vernelle Clayton 425 Santa Fe Circle
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments?
Mancino: Is this a public hearing?
Scott: It will be. I don't know, I just have one comment. In the section 1(4) where you
talked, item number (m) where you talk about computer generated photocomposite images or
artistic renderings. I personally would like to see computer generated photocomposite images
only and the reason, I was quite struck by the pedestrian bridge. I mean that, I think as a
Planning Commission we were able to make some decisions based upon some fairly minute
differences I think in the pylon size and different materials and then also they were able to do
a time progression and say well here's what it's going to look like now and here's what it's
going to look like in x number of years. From an artistic rendering standpoint, I don't see
that as being as valuable. So I would rather not have both. The question does come in
though, do you have an idea of what this costs somebody to do a photocomposite versus an
artistic rendering?
Generous: I don't know the artistic rendering. Now they gave me some examples of the
31
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
\ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
• (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II
DATE: October 13, 1994
SUBJ: Addendum to Referral Package of September 28, 1994, Shamrock Ridge
Staff has contracted with William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. to analyze the Shamrock
Ridge preliminary grading plan and to look at a development alternative for the site. They
have provided the city with cut and fill contours for review as well as a brief sketch plan for
alternative development of the site.
Following is a summary of their findings:
1. It is estimated there will be a net embankment of approximately 110,000 cubic yards
of fill to the site.
2. From an engineering standpoint, the proposed development prepared for the Ryans is a
feasible alternative.
3. Extension of roadways to the north from the southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road
does not work to preserve the slopes.
4. An optimal alternative would incorporate the western third of the Ryan property in a
development in conjunction with the Mancino property in order to preserve the slope.
As can be seen from these findings, Engelhardt Associates' conclusion basically concur with
staff's analysis of the project. Staff stands by the report recommendations.
Attachments:
1. Letter from William R. Engelhardt to City of Chanhassen dated 10/12/94
2. Letter from Kathryn R. Aanenson to Bill Engelhardt dated 10/3/94
3. Petition
4. Cut fill contour map and alternate development design
5. Referral memo dated 9/28/94 and staff report
LUI1DGREII
BROS.
CONSTRUCTION October 6, 1994
INC. _
Mayor Don Chmiel
Members of the City Council
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
935 E.Wayzata Blvd. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Wayzata
It has been brought to my attention that the City Council is presently reviewing a
Minnesota 55391 plat for a parcel of land ("Ryan Property") in.northern Chanhassen that includes
(612)473-1231 the proposed right-of-way for the future extension of Lake Lucy Road to State
Highway 41.
Apparently it has been suggested by someone to not extend Lake Lucy Road from
Galpin Boulevard to Highway 41. This proposal is not consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan and it will cause increased traffic onto other
roads in the area.
The elimination of the Lake Lucy Road connection to Highway 41 would cause a
significantly higher vehicle traffic load onto Longacres Drive within the
Longacres PUD by Lundgren Bros. Longacres Drive was never contemplated or
designed to carry this increased traffic load. Lundgren Bros. is strongly opposed
to such a proposal and urges you to not deviate from the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
Thank you for your consideration with this matter.
Very truly yours,
Terry-M-Fc bord
Vice President
TMF:bw
cc: Don Ashworth
Charles Floch
Kate Aanenson
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC.
Yensufling enyineei
1107 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
(612) 448-8838
October 12 , 1994
City of Chanhassen
Attn: Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
RE: Shamrock Ridge Subdivision
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
Pursuant to your request, we have completed the grading analysis of
the Shamrock Ridge subdivision. The analysis was completed based
on the issues outlined in your letter dated October 3 , 1994 . With
regard to these issues, we offer the following comments.
ESTIMATED DIRTWORK QUANTITIES:
The grading plan prepared by Charles W. Plowe Consulting Engineers
dated 8/31/94 was used to complete a site dirtwork analysis. This
analysis indicates 97, 700 cubic yards of excavation and 208 , 800
cubic yards of embankment are required to complete the project as
proposed. The embankment number includes 30% shrinkage to account
for compaction. These numbers indicate a net required embankment
of 111 , 100 cubic yards. Due to the characteristics and layout of
the site, this amount of material will be difficult to generate on
site and thus, may have to be imported.
To assist in your evaluation, we have prepared cut and fill
contours for the site. These contours indicate in two foot
intervals the difference between the existing and proposed ground
elevations and are shown in Figure 1. The red contours indicate
areas of cut while the blue contours indicate the areas of fill.
An analysis of the contours show the proposed grading plan calls
for up to 16 foot cuts and several fills of up to 16 feet. As the
cut and fill contours indicate, mass site grading is required to
develop the number of lots proposed.
City of Chanhassen
RE: Shamrock Ridge Subdivision
October 12 , 1994
Page 2
SOUTHERLY ALIGNMENT OF LAKE LUCY ROAD (SKETCH ONLY) :
The alignment of Lake Lucy Road proposed on the Shamrock Ridge plat
is approximately 190 feet north of the southerly alignment
previously considered by the City. Due to the nature of the
topography of the combined Ryan and Mancino properties, we feel the
development north of Lake Lucy Road should be planned as a
development combining both Ryan and Mancino. Planning the
development in this way would allow maximum use of natural
topographical features and minimize the grading required for site
development.
Figure 2 shows a sketch plan of the area incorporating the Ryan
property and portions of the Mancino and Carlson properties. While
site grading will be required to construct the development shown in
Figure 2 , the extent of site grading will be considerably less than
the extent of the site grading currently proposed.
If you have any questions regarding this report please contact our
office.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Engelh rdt
WRE/kjs
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
October 3, 1994
Mr. Bill Engelhardt
Engelhardt and Associates
1107 Hazeltine Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
Dear Bill:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation today, I am enclosing a copy of the Shamrock
subdivision plat and grading plan, as well as the city's contour map.
These are the following issues that need to be addressed:
1. Layout of the alternative alignment, this alignment places Lake Lucy to the south with
cul-de-sac/private streets extending north to the Mancino property.
2. A comparison of the grading including the amount of cuts and fills for both
alternatives; the Shamrock proposal and the City (Engelhardt/southern alignment).
3. An analysis of the site balancing including importing versus on-site relocation of
material.
Your subdivision design should be a rough sketch. Don Ashworth is under the assumption
that this should be limited in cost. If you believe the scope of this work will cost more than
$2,000, please contact me. If you have any questions, please contact Bob or myself.
Sincerely,
esi-
Kck: -
Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP
Planning Director
KA:v
PETITION o b
Whereas the Ryan's proposed plat and rezoning request from RR to SF1 in an area the
Comprehensive Plan currently designates SF1, increases lot density to 15,000 sq ft, proposes
massive regrading to destroy the natural slopes, wetlands and trees, does not propose a
pedestrian trail system, and proposes storm drainage flow into the Lake Lucy headwaters
watershed,
Whereas the City Code, section 18-60 states, " Lots shall 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, open spaces, abundance of wildlife, and
water quality in the Lake Lucy headwaters, are this community's best assets and should be
preserved,
Whereas the City has a trail system extension plan to Lake Minnewashta Park,
Whereas nutrients from storm water runoff from proposed massive fill abutting the existing
wetland, and polluted runoff from proposed homes abutting the wetland, would 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, wildlife, and water quality there,
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 that the City Council:
1. Deny the proposed plat on the basis it does not meet City Code, section 18-60, and
require land planning and lower lot density be reconsidered accordingly.
2. Consider changing the Comprehensive Plan or requiring a condition on the plat to a
minimum net lot size of one acre for all remaining land north of Harrison Lake, between
Galpin Blvd. and Hwy 41.
3. As a condition, prohibit storm water runoff to the east of Galpin Blvd.
4. As a condition, require the 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 created natural 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.
Signature Printed Name AddressC / Date
Ll/4)1,7;t..a A.-4,_, l/-0,1z./4,:,., ct-
,(-z,,,
CCCC�CC���GGG --,4_, ,"/-zl C , ,„.,,, „,_i C
���',L ,� ��; L(DD_I 1��(\ 1ua � � �
,,,,i ) -)-..,-/J-67-2,-,__, C,,-X1,3 L'i��/5�-/'1 `5 sem, C zvf,,, u C' 2/_-
-C Ao ? .T/Roes C�, mot✓ , .
Z , ' LLQ„a`.. &A,,a,'G1„4,./c,.- os lair G4 .,;, 4/,-,r 9/
4rdi5 -- AN,...) 1- 4191,4e6Liz_ bb cI QA Gpi✓ 6L✓10 ^7,L L
lti��x<litic.0 TMc*� v� ��l r�ta4.4.lJ � 1.c�4c% .lY R/1(o
(/w��j - 1� �, t
' (Sal CIANLA /3oz) e56N 1 8 1( (ph Lucy 6)1 c7/-:G.
_. , .,...: 1/2 1 0.-5 0 l'--) /E 3/ 1-4, e Lac AAJ 9/7
0 a.2g / i, A/ LI L 'rf.,L iG . Ati,-4 1 1._ “5 &,4,1,44 st i,:zL 1;2(
g_Ae/ -00z-r-zi,,,,..e,,_ 8,, 7 „Li,fo-L, (X.)/ riZ/,'A., 15'7 Pc7.- X,2 6
-1-1- (-% /`'t 1( sew )--a p i e€374,:e cru U/2, % 6
*_ L_ l ti 5--Itd 7 N (if(7 20 CS( C.. lvl -rt4) _)r /l -2_,6
74& C l l cl.A_ c menti ! (L fit a 6L o( i PT G Z4, 20 6.0/pin 1 72-4
i 4`� Sq 3 AVVIO CI A) O 6,6 a-0 Gal fill y4c
by (+v 3./5C, C�es�'' cr bkc
/i ^ Wi 'ULc cA 4 �c ��� �cc u_
1�/V 1/, � 1/
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
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 t 2 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 gp
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's
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 lice
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 O F PC DATE: August 17, 1994
` L
September 7, 1994
IIANHAEII p
\�1 , Y CC DATE: September 26, 1994
�� 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
I 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.
Q
U 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
.1 23 West.
0-
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
(612) 941-141
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
< S - RR, single-family home
E - RR, Galpin Blvd. and single-family homes
d W - RR, vacant
WATER AND SEWER: Not available. Pending Lake Lucy Road extension approval.
w 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
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)
g/E?iNT3 /ij'RK
C D
1 A 1 1 11 1 1 /- 1 1 $ P 1 1_ _ § I 1 I § 1 1
.r... mc I ``__\\
ILK Lean ,
piPP--„,:,,,,,,:;174.I-. ,• wriziftz.T.,-,..... -.rim!.z-,.is mr•r7,..-...
NM or.
01111
i. IN `' 010 .M C. r5� trt . i M K MuLE0 : ; i„ "II
- rr ;� <�' � may; " . .� Z.111.11:111::::='—:':,'� :�" 1 =1000_
I _ '
iSAN r-, 4 �iLa.. vows ,-• -- •-..___J-•, - _
CP -
. .. /Ir -&-_srm..
416k.:Th;T
stirci vatkir
•
LAKE •I. ♦ �s, 1,;;',,,,Is
LAKE �� i i . � � r� %� ar'� �1
v E w A S N T A ' ♦ J :::
�
::jmmis �No.
4iiii
) REGIONAL
,, ill
_ =
PARK I are.-
_ +Nal*,Wit . LAK£ wcr H!A*
c
,40. :
qua
1 AIN ---
�` o ;� n� €� 1 LAKE ANN / �Ea(
- / g
Z i
WIN
111 /MOW
'pa! .....____Ai,
gm
aA ___ Ohl Aim,
Li•. .,
4.
7 1.1,711(4711.
de
,, 11M776._�:
IMO ,1011111.-04-
iii&‘?i 400)
1M .1ML "'Ulf/ .GIC _,I -�r�% IT*,
•r .. ",*110 '
..,
Pita .-, 1 .!..MEd
I 4v
i � &A -,-
N„,...•*".-----
I
A.. � 1t
.„-..,== i
!. 1'3=
(CA ii
I ..7.....77,/,,---. i 1i1! ,,;IVMAN RvD _sAIWA`
'gI \ r�'V •..Witw. . =i I I t M � .
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 bearing.
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 bearing.
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 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 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 8.1,6
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.
FLN'DINGS
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-uuseds
-- - - • -- - . :_ . __ . _. - . . .. _ 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 9/1/94
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: 4 7 4-1 0 1 3
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. X Wetland Alteration Permit a':2U
4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal
5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. X Rezoning
ScO
7. Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs l/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 $ � �
( cct 'c� 2.030
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 accompanies 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.
If alsorunderstand 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
Offj�e d the original docuent retu ed to City Hall Records.
V /
- yC' . Dat•
ig atto Q�pptiUJ L /
Signature of Fee Owner Date
r
Application Received on 7 Fee Paid 1�)QQ3 � Receipt No.60
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.
(--
y 0
"0 OLD E
ti
AOQ Z gni
A <1ASX p i !
11 •
r� `s0? : i 1tw
o c -t
n m
....zzZ to A
V. n
t
''s A .o O
N qq
Isla 1 1 A k O to ;; r e; 1 r'— ---"' 4� (0`O�
t 6igi � it t Pr :° E
1 _t t . a lit_ 177 L' 1 ( '
,,,,,,,
.wrr a...r, � �� �.�''/� ' f//I I.IfRrr�',4,,:i -IN,/ rp� i/O t(
FA?: _
/•\;'-; (1't*„,„\- -A. liPtifir;iVeltilir 1 <3\
a f (1). 0
a ,„2 .------zox .
Rr ,i i
1- J Xi
Yy1:2 P A ,,1E [[ ��� ]� /� C
2 i 0„,....,,.... .„._— 41broPtilig;:l., 1
�. . ` (]y
119. aaE 980 /AFIN Jtr.�----L-4—_--:-
,._ � ' f i i�4 '' ply _, lV
t'h
l
FF-- �F L 6� �!! 0.C ' ?,,..li s �'SSI%Niiics. 111pildk
totilatitan„,, 4!:',1.,A iir„,Mtres 1 V410.4it `t. r; -1 [ W
4.11" --/4.4r041 fvOlow-Plailie :my 2- (c , c
ici e '. P' 'kw-44forp, -- Ire-./sIttvir 4id,
0 • - ;7 .„,,„e, 4*eit,•40(1,011. ..„,.....,.. „*.;•-, •
lj A 02,
, , 1 _, AN- le ,ir‘ - t -i)V 'A.--4,- 46 :
'M�F -:,--1.21_,. ----114119--1i _
I
A 1010 , e +aI1,\
ii I V 100• to �rn
K 7 9 r
�� g 6 980 wi' 1& to y IVIS/ Mi t LitIt ,'2,1, -- 10
rj-wkit laSii440. Me•LimintArIVIAILs„,-N,,',11 b 0 r
Ft. ,6rem.b: 4,,toarstiomPVISID.isi '0 "-' .
:_sm
98. r
��i41--ori 1—.� ,,t:i1,1, : , i.-- i : 1 � +
.........„,,..,......_
•taws
Ri
r ,
3z ,ii
rT}r—�� SA -s- i1:
.....: •
L-1-J
;p � � IIIi h;r——Ili
1
_1
: AAS 1 t a
g a
•. b 1)0
8V
FT ii
e i
/pico 1 ° o�
(
11{� -r - cp o.. e \ I !
?.111 •• c '} _ ' [
\\:'_, • .I 1 i
' i• i
'IP•-.-
n3'S �.- /
sorry[ -y_ , t ,. • ir i • .;i •
()1 I \\lithe 4 ,, ,:
� \
V` � ' o
- Sa
Y '
0 '-' '- -- )/P, e----41. L'‘, i • r ! • 2;
6117. - - — ' ; -- akit'-'1•:: diteC•.. . '44 i 1 .0 . 3
tt_rtt,, g. 40:-. 101rEama a g.,,,, ,,r ,,,ii„...„, • _:. „.. ... , ,_ _ 70
• . ._. .. ,c,„,
0,..r
Is , ,.._ .,,....,,Iir j,
Ai,: —_,.. , -. _ .1.. .111g—Ls. r ------- :Ir.*, A . . "' i*t C —. 0
0 g - f -0 ' 1 . /101- 441,V.„ d %.--.*, fr,:f"le.. ' .ikig 4. * -.1 E: '
I . No 4 .4 . t -- ' - li if' ill...\.. I- ' -,- :=.-‘ > li A
r n.
I pip: �� ``d' ' fi I • I--" 4... , '1 . fe • -
._ '',„..N....L.e., 1.ii. i '' .. ‘-...:4 latiii .. . V'seel.‘ . .••••••-
Iii 70
.1
. la i. ....._ •
. .e- 1 •, ''1,11 fil:,, 1
ga : 91tAlaffi.-- YO •,.. 0
980.4,1 _ ---7.7.--*,.„.. ,H' - -N ,ate �°
. 0
i M } M ,
,, , , /
.\,\,,., .
: p , ,,,,, : „ , .1 ,41 94\ .
066 _ - [ , �.-s� '
-- = - -
, _4E31r -
s 005011'[ .
MAY/
II wait: 1
F
! !
i—1
! 'li l! - -IN'1 1 1
i a"
I
omom O
a'0; « 12iA<• i t t
' g �m
AAAl z
m
Ai
0
-,tom 1
r•a1 .e o
li 11 0111
gv
? _ i,1 Bila to `s •Ifr
,iAllyrr _,
10 I
A sa.f.r 1t./..M N N.tl 1+.,tI I Q' i- � I�i( "/�, IT
ts; 1y`' �`
.Aft c jam_ — •
l\' ft 4 1 I 1#/q/ ..rA '' \I \ II
. F
,:.,:1
a „ 0,1°111.111.111110O/ ;i '', I' ' ' 1;
Atmo:6:1 , lio
Iv: 1.11.1" )..) i el
, i. ' 1 4 I A14 Q'
2 _, 4,1_il,-4, i it ''-' -9
t.
, iima�! " _ 7 rill
�. .w� __ fes iylrn
/ �� a � i f h. . :r O
_ '/ �A ! 1 30 / l0:11,..� r•n ` 1; � _
99 %T, iYz2., ,.,Ar t: -••
0 , t..--,„.....--- -----...---..,.... 11 iiitrrokt..,:-..s \00 J.---------------- , ripor----17.____A-6-4' -1 ... 01 0 5
4 f• k oftereir.rgirrp--.--np-t.,....t. -0010-4iretv4•-4 ifik - il Cc 0
In \c) leiNe400, /61,Y0,19r ,t,,r0117,41
lX44 - AR -
,i; 1 1010 Akivoi..i_4_/ tror�' � � ! % i� ,, ...-
i i 990 -. � 4twAAL 1% '
4,i-All, lk -Iket-:#41froklIatli - t-ti, ';,-,:, a, *-
--)1
1"4411
t J ,(v7-- ''r ffn +
I (I
SD
•
11
� � ' ��rw���+mow: I ..7-WI .41111 �• _
out R: t °OD
nI ii 1O .
it
to i
j' .. air a £
i i--,
01. _Is o i __,
C--I
•h
i\IEE
I
? _mm_ 1_04_
FP, 0 m 11 NMI I' .
m m S Xn on,w>,A) d
:z RI] n'g00 E i` F
-I wAb;a• thb E't A 0 • E
O :Zany
alb ; 1U6x
n137 cu 0
'g 0 0 .
ir..m A
n q Al
1
p lg•�e- a:a} n a 0 1
I
I. t i _ �, o ssWiN•t i , i
S 7t i� ikt! !a F. iE \\,...
t.
131; x"11 I I 1 1 s4 i
Ai- = \ •: V - /��O
IA ill i i � r -: - ^ ma
as•W O..stl..O.rs v..x..,nam V` !Is �A 1—i- Q�
1 Atli"1 ���/// i<
------- — -----+ 4— 1 , t 1 1 .
9 . ., , . .,,
'tail' ,... ',,2' 1,j, .../ 11 ..'• f",,S • .1)Tit.) ; .
,,,,.,,,, ,
. „ . ,,,,,,. ,, _
„ ,. f y 7 , i . ,It,1
r xl
0-rAl WItt 91'
'' — , W?....4__ ..1111Inktv , Nir -_z. ,.. - — )13
- ..,6, : _ a” ',;.e.'' V i p= " )'-, '- ‘4/' i ,Eva,„ itawilopir.
.*s; 12 ;. I -11 ' /ft 1 ' ..? '" 4‘,' 0 "'-' i it,'
.i. i
iQ)p /a._� ' :e. �` .,. (3; . =wily. L --fi= r a
�i 100 .E • ; : JOIlO 1 t •1y4�,.� sap t 7.'980 x _•
All milloP
' i ' ? \_ a • ,.. 1'^R,- _ r_-__--.. ---:-..1. .:;..-L,L.-. ....-‘.."---i..-
1. ----• ,I W:..J -"
, 0
YI r• s'ti .. 1 m
_� L 3 • ' w • 1 Q of \ ` e+•'1 .
S ! \
y.�iY _4,..... !7 i i • ti JI -• 1 \
066 _ / 1 __-4.1--- `= =" :- _
---— � ---- - -L.r. .,_ s wwl.�
. - St
---- -NO—In--
MAI
I i I -•
• • I • j
al
s f
1.t.--r- � � S L €7�
g& imilflim......113milismillmilifimiliElmEzmiwilgliwimmIsilw..tmilii€111/#1141
. — _ _
tp 0 co iiiiiviiiimileviimicluilimitii"mpitiimilimii"reilimillinititsifivviny
irmiCirje
Lo
co ggit
1 1
2 ..
_
•2..6$ 13 rn
rTh .
•=_. 1. 4%44014 41001x1A4,001k..4.41(410tik:kkkkk 41014ki".444.4,01A‘t,,iiikk444.144444(444/1
70
-.< I 1 2 'Is' ''''1""1"11' ''''fuli .to 4 'R a '11SZ a 1
0
8 us A
_i get
1
ip
f Tp!i
,I: tIll
;Ii!I
i140
i 4 I
C...
• .
i; 1,04....._cpt?. .........,
A
•- I
II
sk
-
if-
to
.1
s .
ti 1g
s Xs
co
. I
0 .4.• ,_01..v..... CP
o N.
. .f-;11_ kIP Iiit4.
Pe •
0
6.• ',OM Illt' •••.-
111
11114•7-41"-' /7; t kL-::'N .
,.XIV f 4, ;
°',g -,;:,;i 7:4.:.,:: .• 4-77, . ,", C .
7--- , - , 4 0 N : t •,
40 a/
rt° •,.y /
.....----- /.._,,. _A
rsi. 2 tl -
rf
43 1 •,.
'-."'''' -.. .---- ,.•
c: 3,c-...,....,„...„. _
k-EC.it7; V Nekr4irtet
c3:0C.)1•"'.,-'----;:-..—frik:.:01#55F:Wij...Jgle- :::"-lgr 411141>"—,.-1411714441.‘ -'-;:; ''''': '..---------.: -i 11
i24 '
-... , -. - 4 . • 1 -.4--—
i
:
. .
. .,
_...
. ,. .r"--• , Ori g le I. '..... 1r
,, .
z,?..•,.--. •
al
•?•°ct ris 7070' .' . N.
....,,,s..i
Xi
- ' :-_• '. ..e...,1.1: _ \,.
mi."-ilii ..- " ----'., --., 1
..0,5,___.„-- __ ::::-..,-2_,---._--.... --.. • ,. ien-0, , ....
;.--].,, /000--._-- :---- -:: -.7.--: ,... §
\ gme.-----
....,0
...„,.. 990:;--..:::;:i-a--..,,..:1_i_-;.-::: ,--,,, • 44* _ ..,,armesti 1 ,iiiitti,‘ ,s,
(
(
1 , to,
zst
-:--
980.---:;1:::-:-, .- „, ;i N.! • -4°--IR "1.1"-.-- - --. , ..„. _ .'s: ,,,, TDO \•!
.:..•::.7...: :1,. vi ,,k ,A... .•alleen ' it,.11r II L._ _
.n.„
--i. ,
... .. 400 ,
98• .--_-_-_t-__- E..(4) -
- --rft-
to• 1414-'kCifi--U. _
„,fill i •A:: ,•„y' .. N
• ' . . . ...•
Nai,' • 0 , -
. 0
:. 0 -;- m
t ) 1 \
gm t
.
i2 ar orflic- /:”. :rill- rillilli \7 \ "
1K,11
--__-
- 066 •----_:.- .... _ 4 _____ .0_
1:?..z.,„....
-—-—----a-s•---- - '""- - -=-
s i-...
$gnaw c __s
maw
000
i kA,
,•-,
-T-
„
.-.
''' ' ,' i I! I- -I,..11 • . --1.
...s::
1 I •::Ii - ; : ;-• .
1 A. 'ts - •• •.-t7 :. '•-•a
IL-J---J . •-..:', •••;: ; • ....„
. ...„,---, •••, --
1
(--
•a
4_7
I Z i -0 I- Str„ I
eiliC . ,
-4g 00....6 ! o
iOO 1 1 1 V,
gt11 NU : ! { r
i
LC
i g
ti'r1 XII t�41
O C;1 /
6% e414f i'
0) 111
-'4'J- irrif / ,,,i 1
_______
.. s
,N. :.-,:'''..- / lak.ipp
ID
6_1 _, u a / I: c, \\..r."t' /Aft" I A
.,,,.. "„,„,;„, 4p, we,/ , 4%
Nisi
vii ill .
V :i0. 4
' •0*Pal 1111 Eli '006 t- 6..'W" OP:W 'ir 14110181110 II
OP:1° 0 C* %EtiA eft*
II 1r
tb) l'• 40p‘'N. • ilrg) Plif 6 Ai
6,4 -.410111P irt;'74.:f..._..._ • ,:iiii.,--nio‘i... l. ..;
ip
...v im ..,,,, _ l_ ...._.,,,,,,,. ...i, „5.,,,:_ ..z
,i.b..4 / / 41 marlpv.t....
Di
., MIL 7....
C G IL• -- 5g* vr- o3 ft
1 1 ti '
Pal;-
, 111 III
l • ...:., 11,
tlikr
LSry ,C G ( 3 -yamdMf/!� SLiG/il� J ' , �lO •=w . yE
lf-'7V�gL' 7'! .(4F� , w v �1.' .1::
i9
L O ( 481"1---,,,
�y 4 �p
,-.14V.A:4":...9.-%.
ILO E N ' q , A ; 4 .- ;i-
14606-'111 ell tp ,i1 • I . . 1.-1-% i
''.... '41.4.:•.. 'I i:
1811111110418
111411111111 .11Wai•'..- .4..4E, I: ....-, ....! ,. .i.v. al
4;•z -1-111HL.C ...i, .:. - -7,17.1:.z. ..;
..1111111111.111111111.111.
_D4D
111•. iii
5: i� �E
iPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
\i \\„ CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
(612)361-1010 1 / 600 EAST 4TH STREET.BOX 6
FAX(612)361-1025 � CHASKA.MINNESOTA 55318
NN E 0
COUNTY Of CAQVEQ
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official Ck'�
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:\eefety\sak\memoe\plan\abamrock.bgl
CITY OF
•,
CHANHASSEN
\ _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317•
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORAIN,r UM •
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
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.
FL.O or RID 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 dawn 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 R SEWO WOF�
RLO
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.
if,
;I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: July 7, 1994
SUBJ: Shamrock Ridge
Planning Case #94-7 SUB, 94-3 REZ, 94-3 WAP
I 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:\cafety\nf\94.7
• STATE OF
Q
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
EN0
772-7910
July 18 , 1994 JOL
Mr. Bob Generous, Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: SHAMROCK RIDGE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CPRVEP. 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,
;./741f11
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed, Ellen Sones
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
City of Chanhassen General File
Z
r:2;
4 z i
g; i5 ,
n
s
I
I ,3f.
r . .........„
, ,
� 1a•, 1 F
._
e:::
ft
`1 !,I P 44114, Ii
I II i y . '�\:
Y i
II ii. . iil
�►I, �i. _ = i4i. 1 -- 1
I m
!Wil 1J
% p o
n
it
z /yrotiIn
m1�z TT,:
C
x
7.11
c ." r�� E E
`" irk `r'
c
`� &1,p VII O
s
-< jt 3
z f CO. RD. 117
rn yx I� i r
M o; A
= Ir
rn
z I C
g o ,
..-t
z 't
0
•I
0 0
* r
E: y _
o
R
D
I—
II ! : A
I1 _ � m
c • G 1
1 _
***This item has been rescheduled for
Wednesday, August 17
at 7:30 p.m.***
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING �_'- c } -i t- } !—� E
L -:I a _�� - .�Ovral A- [T-�fr��7"_
PLANNING COMMISSION ��"
MEETING d o �� AlW-..W'..-- _
-- '= a ;
_ n -
Wednesday, August 3, 1994 ;/
at 7:30 p.m. --— ;_ _.. � __
; .
City Hall Council Chambers v . _____4_,. 4! _�
690 Coulter Drive 3 Mr .. ' • nn
a J•
Project: Shamrock Ridge --� at. law. -
Developer: Ed and Mary Ryan -� �_�
divwo
'
0--- - - �APAiVii... • ...-�.
Location: Galpin Boulevard and - - 1,-:
Proposed Lake Lucy Road =-Iilate, to
Extension
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.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 21, 1994.
p . \.
, `✓
•
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 coming 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
9180 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,
)1/4,4,e'
Charles W. Plowe, P.E.
CWP/zs
enc.
cc: Ed & Mary Ryan
CITY OF
C 11 AN I1ASSEN
690 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 "1241,14r—
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 (SWMP)
The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP hill
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 assessment 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 is proposes to 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 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.
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
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 southedy pond and extend storm sewer to the existing culvert underneath Galpin
Boulevard. -- . .. . ... - - - - - .. . . . - . _ az-- . - - . -- - - - --
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) .. . - • • • • - - • - . . - . 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
8 and 13 9 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 illancino'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. - ., • ' • - - . 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
Boulevard. This will not provide enough stacking distance for turning vehicles onto Galpin
center line of Galin Boulevard. This will also play a demo effect to the other two
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 comer 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 County Road 117 and Lake Lucy Road. All
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 32, 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 4-8, Block 2 located north of Lake Lucy Road, is not a buildable lot; however, Lots 12
g 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 .. _• - • - •• .. _ • • ., . .
• .. - •• -• • - .. - . ': • :, .. ..• :.• . 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. Shetild Access to the Mancino parcel shall be provided by extending
Jennifer Way to the north . - . . • - - • • . - - - . of James Court through Lot 9, Block
2, -- • .• .. : . . . • - . . . 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. - .. . . . •- • - . . .
street to Mancinos.
Option A Pres—(See Attacchmc___'-#_)
• . - _. 9 -- . . . .
dio
Gestach plat for future access. This access is much less severe in grade, involves some tree loss
Bob Generous
August 31, 1994
Page 9
- _. I .
. .. . .... . . ' . . . . • ... r.
of the ridge.
measures and storm ponding issues.
A '
_. • ... . - - • . . . . . t- • . . • - - -. - _. • .. .
. - - .. _ .. - . • - - - • - • . •. . . . e • - • , ! •.• .
via James Court from the Ryan's plat.
. •
_ . .. . . .
- • . . ..
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. - - - . . :.• . . . . ! . . . . - . - -- -
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. In
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL_ . • , 7 „ __ .. - • ! • _ ! 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 assessment 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 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 first 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. The
• - . .• .. . . - - . - . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . -
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 kng\diane\planning\sham rock pct
i
I --.••••\
i(lIDur
ne &GIW
F-rn m A1 •
n
rn ; l• ��E
a2QD t
!. 1,-z § 0 V Z ...,,.
i.
0 134
�m _ a
em z A
m
Iia _ _ i two„ _ 11
mo 00
.; \ O
girl �� o:ems"x 1c
S i > r.
A XS
WI
f ..111
" 4 4 0`0
aQtd = _ : 9 a �# i. 71
I.
!f:5 Q` I, f T -■ �v
f5'X6YYv.a.rs.•,.ers ...
Cii g
—
N=CB u \-� -1 ' -/ ' ♦ .
vt
IP
•
F.-,
° y` ii. s n�.4- S„ f I t I/ y�`.
L ^ f - ��
t .10 '', '' • ! ' ' ,IF' lik ; "..., P
t- 01
a
, „ , .43 , _ . - . __ .
-0 . .........
o-- _ 1�L t
... , . ,,, ...7106111.10 ____akk,.,..
.",,t - a
...:._. ail i n,, ,
to
. siliki.
,,,, _ . ....__,...., _
1-•T I •-,i•,' 4). r \ill• - : 7: a Ri
fr TLl....!: . a i i �' - -.___
3
E:;; .57: �` = E S �' i ! `.1 110 0O
A '
, 4 . ,,d, APir::\ff
_. ...;', ! :1., (2
i .-,. s ." -1." ' ;t4 A il4* fil:r1.1: 4'1'4-,44117:4:°. 4' ' -. 1 42 r . ,. I
or - . . Cis— I‘
d • . i . _
__, ,.r__ ...., ... .. ,,,,
.' {( R i • ..i
S
olio
VVV 9 .:.: �� r� til ,
8 :1,—;-;:'.
p :::
•
II k
'-s G3111
'a�'.�l .._`++ .' - t` t • _ �' ; - T `�� !Fp m /O
T t .
id
,.11SAIII il
T .o � _
T'. • 066 - ;- I - . .m
411.111111111111
US SC
Ou1�ol: X00 t
It vi I
n i`
j .2 :i , I
. .i
-SP .I i•
-
i rT —,
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 /th�the views without getting into anything, was that one of the studies?
LiL:CTctiCifatr
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... 1 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 landforrns 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 Oudot 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 make 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
Bob Generous !TY °'r- " '._„;;.;:_
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 staff's 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.
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 south.
The grading of the slopes on the northwesterly section should be
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,
cy-
Nancy & Sam Mancino
P.S. Attached is a copy of our letter written to Planning Commission on
September 7th.
• 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,
444, d, ),/ 1
P.S. Speaking as affected property owners to the north, if in spite of
staffs 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 Planning Commission: c.s
1,1
is
Joe Scott, Chairperson Matthew Ledvina fX kio
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.
Mr. Generous
page 2
September 14, 1994
Based on our September 12th meeting ardthe 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,
/ / &IA,_i _____
Charles W. Plowe, P.E.
CWP/zs
enc.
cc: Ed Ryan
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 fine.
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...
Farmakes: 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. Dun 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. Dun 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 things
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
CITY QF
i
‘- C ANIIASSEN
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: October 13, 1994
SUBJ: Report from the Director
At the October 10, 1994 City Council meeting, the following actions were taken:
1 Preliminary and Final Plat for the Chanhassen Retail Second Addition and the Site
Plan Review for the Taco Bell and Perkins were given approval. The council
approved the Taco Bell site plan without the 3 color bans along the top of the soffit.
Instead the soffit will be stucco and the same color as the rest of the building.
The council approved the Perkins with the yellow awnings but they are not allowed to
be back lighted.
2. The council approved the beachlot for the Minnewashta Landings. They are
recommending the Planning Commission review a code amendment for a gazebo to be
located on beachlot. This is scheduled for the November 2, 1994 Planning
Commission.
3. The Diseased Tree ordinance was tabled to review some issues raised by the council.
Removal of trees under a financial hardship was a concern. Staff is working to
resolve this issue.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN690 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.
CITY OF
40:111CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director
DATE: October 13, 1994
SUBJ: 1995 Goals
On November 1, 1994, I will be meeting with the City Council to review the Planning Department's
goals for 1995 as well as the department budget presentation. I would like to review with you what I
perceive the goals to be for next year. As you know, we have committed to doing the study of the
Business Fringe District as well as the 1995 Study Area. What this encompasses is everything that is
outside of the MUSA. We will be looking at potential land use and I believe this study will take a
number of years. At the conclusion of the study or somewhere in the process we will have to
determine if additional land should be brought into the MUSA area. As I indicated earlier, a portion
of the study will include the Business Fringe District and hopefully, we will make modifications to the
district itself aside from the fact that it will not be brought into the MUSA for some time.
One of the other areas that we will be wrapping up is the Highway 5 Corridor Study. This is
tentatively set for the City Council for the end of November, next phase of the study will be to rezone
some of the properties and go through a comprehensive plan amendment with the Metropolitan
Council.
One of the other issues that we will be working on will be affordable housing by actively pursuing
sites and working with Carver County HRA and local agencies to assist in location and provision of
affordable housing within the community. Staff is also working on the location and development of
senior housing.
As always, one of the other goals is updating the development code. One of the things I would like to
see improved is the PUD Ordinance. One of the issues that came out of the charrette of the Bluff
Creek Corridor was that our PUD ordinance needs to be revised. While it gives general goals, it
doesn't have specific design standards and we will be working to change that.
I would like input from the Planning Commission to see if there is any other specific issues they
would like to see staff work on during the 1995 year.
The Park and Recreation Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council to pursue a
referendum to preserve active and passive park sites in the future. A significant amount of these areas
would be in the southern portion of the city which is outside of the MUSA area. One of the 1994
Planning Commission goals was to have a joint meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission on
Planning Commission
October 13, 1994
Page 2
natural area preservation. I think this is a very timely topic and the City Council has set up a work
session to meet with the Park Commission to decide whether or not to put the referendum in place.
As this issue develops, I think it would be important for the Planning Commission to meet with the
Park Commission to see what areas they have in mind as far as preservation, and should be something
that we put on our 1995 goals. In conjunction with that, the Planning Commission also requested an
open space zoning district. I think these tie into the preservation discussion. Direction may be given
to staff as to how you would like to see this pursued.
This past year has been a very busy year as far as development review and I am hoping that in 1995
that we have the ability to have the framework in place as far as ordinances and development
standards to guide our development into the future.
Tasks Completed in 1994
• The 1995 Corridor Study draft document is complete. What needs to be determined is the
location of the frontage road. Previously, during the environmental assessment document
recommended the southern alignment but it appears now that the Council is leaning toward the
northern alignment. Once that hearing takes place and the EA is approved, we will begin the
process of rezoning and comp plan modifications.
• We are drawing a conclusion to the sign ordinance and hopefully that will be adopted by the
end of the year.
• Tree protection. We have drafted a new tree preservation ordinance as well as a diseased tree
ordinance. We will be working with our forestry intern during the winter with the CAD
system to map all the significant stands of trees within the city so that this information is
available when plats come in.
• The Shoreland Ordinance was recently adopted by the city.
• Staff was working on the Legion site as far as transit hub and it seems to be hold right now as
far as the ability of Southwest Metro to be a participant in that site.
• Another item that was on the Planning Commission goals was a temporary sales ordinance.
This had gone to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Council did not make any
modifications. Staff has asked the business community to come forward with their own
recommendations on the issue.
• Adoption and implementation of the Storm Water Management Plan has taken place. We are
continuing to work to improve the quality of lakes and wetlands.
If you do have additional areas that you would like staff to be working on, please forward that on to
me so that I can make that as part of our request to the City Council on November 1.
1
How a City Grows: On the Frontier of Urban Space
BY GARY SHALLCROSS
Oyer recent months, Dennis Cassano lar-powered car in their garage by can- will not be realized simply by having a
and others have reported in the Star dlelight,but as even a dead dinosaur frugal attitude,though that often
Tribune on a complex set of issues af- knows: there's no fuel like an old fuel. helps. Plans and laws and the authority
fecting life on the urban frontier,an A third resource, made known by the to carry them out must be newly
area whose geographic description is aswrought with all the collective wisdom
dismal science of economics, is the op-
murky as the legal framework govern- portunity cost of land. This cost is con -
ing its development,and where the stantly declining in relative terms as sure that future development at a hu-
shape of a neighborhood is increasingly the rate of change in agricultural pro- man scale is not sacrificed inadvert-
a function of its method of,and capac-- duction,what Jane Jacobs called the ently to the infrastructure gods on the
its,for, sewage disposal. Of course, sentimental value of open space,and altar of sewer availability A one-di-
there is no law which can dictate the the desire to feel that one is living in mensional policy (sewer extension)will
absolute limits of an urban area,andthe country(though actually located often have skewed and perhaps mal-
resources far more valuable than sew- on the urban frontier) all increase Si- adaptive outcomes in other dimensions
age must be considered when giving multaneously.As the opportunity cost (time, fuel,readability,etc.).
form to human settlement. for land on the urban frontier falls,and I do not mean to suggest that the free-
One obvious resource is time.Time as the gulf between the Metropolitan dom to own a large lot (say,2 acres)
was when two kids who wanted to play Council's control over sewer extensions betaken away,only that any subdivi-
together did not have to make recre- and lack of control over land subdivi- sion of land that is, for all practical
ational appointments and work out sions widens, the propensity of aging purposes,permanent,containing lots
travel arrangements through their par- farmers and obsequious townships to
ents.They just met casually in the convert rural parcels to unsevered, continued on page 4
street or on the sidewalk or play- large lot,residential subdivisions grows
ground.Time was when people could apace. PLANNING MINNESOTA
walk to work or to a reliable public Although such subdivisions are often
conveyance that got them close to it accompanied by the vague promise Published jointly by the Minnesota
without being thought odd,or quaint, that they will be re-subdivided at ur- Planning Association(MPA) and the
or even cheap.Time was when an en- ban densities when sewers become Minnesota Chapter,American Plan-
joyable shopping trip or a stop at the available,it will never happen.There ning Association (MnAPA).
grocery store did not require you to will then be multiple owners of the CHANGES OF ADDRESS:
bring the trunk of a car with you to land with no established mechanism or
carry home what you had purchased. incentive to act in concert,each indi Please do not send to the newsletter
There was time before cars. We just vidual property owner. in effect,pos editor. For APA members,send to:
measured it differently. It was parceled sessing a veto over the plans of others. APA
in steps, not taken on a treadmill,but Failure to achieve urban densities on 1313 E. 60th Street
on terra firma itself! Not in miles,but today's urban frontier,moreover,will Chicago, IL 60637
in blocks. Not in TV listings,but in likely cut off the land beyond from the For MPA members.send to:
actual conversation with another per- option of ever developing at reasonably
son. Our wealth has burdened us with compact urban density,thus locking MPA, d o Tim Magnusson
estrangement. Space and time are no the next frontier into the kind of 807 North 11th Street
longer personal,but technological,in sprawling pattern of development Moorhead, MN 56560
their relationship. which necessitates ever increasing ex planning Minnesota welcomes articles,
Another resource,often mentioned not Penditure of time and fuel resources— announcements, letters,pictures and adver-
resourcestoo long ago, is fuel. If one does resort that are finite and all too rap using(call for specifics). Deadline for the
to a motor-powered vehicle,one must idly dwindling. November issue is October 20. Please
buy fuel.The farther one travels,the This unintended but inescapable tyran- send longer articles on an IBM-compatible
more fuel one must buy: Living far ny over resource allocation brought on diskette, which we will return to you.
from everything we need so we can be by our undying desire for"greener pas- Suzanne S. Rhees,Editor
close to everything we want requires us tures" (and we all know who's chasing 109 West Rustic Lodge
to be positively fuelish in our consump- what green and why) reminds me of Minneapolis, MM 55409
tion patterns. Some would endeavor to my church's liturgical confession,"we phone or fax modem(call first):
outwit this dilemma by building a so- are in bondage to sin and cannot free 612/823-5896
ourselves." The virtue of stewardship
'4�.
tanning - . = ~�
•
. 112 =,M!. Y�L;.i.e0f�. AS�ei.4- .t.W.4''. -1.{eds - ,, . .,, - - / _ . .,
WORKS IN PROGRESS
Exurban Counties Plan for quarter section (40 acres),and a mini- changes giving areas of Chisago Coun-
Coming Growth mum lot size of 2.5 acres. In the higher ty free calling to the metro area are
BY BOB PATTON,AICP density district,the county presently now driving growth. Significant devel-
This month's column will focus on two intends to encourage clustering,using opment activity has already been felt
adjacent counties currently putting 2.5 acre minimum lots.The mechanics in the metro phone area established
together comprehensive plans—lsanti of the clustering concept,which would south of Chisago Lakes,according to
and Chisago. Both counties lie just probably use an overall density limit, Environmental Services Director Mari-
outside the Twin Cities metropolitan still must be worked out. One concern on Heemsbergen.
area,and both are faced with a similar is the potential scale of development in An element of the growth issue is how
basic challenge of maintaining charac- the rural area if large parcels of land to treat the rural areas.An initial ret
ter in the face of rapid change. are involved and clustering is used. ommendation,intended to preserve
Motivated primarily by perceived prob- The plan also addresses urban expan- agricultural land,used a density stan-
lems with its zoning ordinance, Isanti sion areas around the cities of Cam- dard of four dwellings per quarter-quar-
County has been working on its com- bridge and lsanti.The strategy may ter section, and allowed clustered de-
prehensive plan for about a year. The involve creation of a joint county/city velopment as an option instead of ten
process started+lith several public fo- development review task force.This acre lots.The concept has been re-
rums around the county,followed by a task force would address issues of pub- tamed, but the density has been in-
series of monthly planning commission lic services and annexation. Lots that creased to eight dwellings per quarter-
work sessions.A rough draft of plan cannot be served at the time of devel- quarter section. Instead of five acre
policies+vas issued in early summer.A opment might be required to be config- lots, clustering of residential lots (with
second,more complete.draft of the ured so that they may be resubdivided a minimum buildable area of one acre)
plan was recently issued,and will be when services are available. would be allowed as an option.The
the subject of the commission's Octo- For further information,contact Chuck one acre minimum buildable area is
ber meeting.Adoption of the plan is Pettipiece,Community Planning and felt to be necessary to accommodate a
expected by March or April of next Development Associates,at 507/625- residence,an on-site sewage treatment
year. If the plan stays on schedule,the 6076,or Joe Basta, lsanti Counts' system,and a replacement septic sys-
County's consultant,Chuck Pettipiece, Planning and Zoning at 612/689- tem should the original system fail.
expects that the zoning ordinance can 5165. Again, as with isanti County.the treat-
be done as soon as next summer. ment of development around cities is a
Chisago Counts'began its planning
Due to expected growth pressure from process last November.A kick-off ses- concern. In Chisago County,there is
the Twin Cities,the dominant issues - sion was held in March to identify pri- an additional twist—much of the ur-
have been development in rural areas oritv issues,facilitated bV the County's ban expansion area for Stacy and Wvo-
and coordinating development around consultant, Resource Strategies Corpo- ming is in close proximity to the Carlos
cities. Rural development and the level ration. Subsequently,the county corn- Avery Wildlife Preserve,an area which
of protection afforded agricultural land missioners appointed township officials the county would like to protect from
•
have been the focus of intense debate. and other members of the public to a the impacts of adjoining development.
Participants in this debate have been a task force. Three planning commission Other major concerns are protection of
group called The Environmental Coali- workshops,attended by task force several corridors:along U.S. Highway .
tion,developers,and property owners/ members,were held on topics of the 8.the St Croix River,and the Sunrise
farmers.The property owners have environment,land use development, River. It appears that protection of the
been of two camps—one group desiring and township issues.At this point, Highway 8 corridor may run into di-
protection for an agricultural economy both the planning commission and rect conflict with desires of some for
it still believes to be viable,and the board of counts'commissioners have additional commercial development
other viewing the development poten- reviewed initial drafts,and a public along that stretch of highway.
tial of the land as retirement income. review draft has been issued. For further information,contact Jeff
For now,the solution consists of two As in Isanti County,the main impetus Connell or Dean Johnson,Resource
types of agricultural districts:a low for the planning effort was the zoning . .Strategies Corporation,at 612/942-
density district in the northern part of ordinance,and the major issue is met- 8010,or Marion Heemsbergen,Chisa-
the county,and a higher density dis- ropolitan area-induced development go County Environmental Services,at
trict in the south. The low density agri- and its potential impact on local char- - 612/462-7999.
cultural district is presently set at two atter and resources. Interestingly,re- Bob Patton is Agricultural Land Presen'a-
nonfarm dwelling units per quarter- cent modifications to telephone ex- tion Coordinator for the Department of Ag-
riculture -
October 1994
t.
•
n: -� planning
I H ; - =ham
k..........,.......4.—.1t
MnAPA DIRECTORY How a CityGrows—cont'dfrompage2 MEMBER NEWS
less than 10 acres (a minimal size for Dan Cornejo,formerly the Director of
OFFICERS re-subdivision)must be equipped with Planning and Design for Saint Paul's
President urban (including sewer) services. Such Department of Planning and Economic
Thomas B. Campbell, AICP, 612/473- a firm statutory requirement,coupled Development,has been appointed De-
with a somewhat more flexible and re
7050, 473-7062 fax velopment Director for the City of
sponsive MUSA(Metropolitan Urban Robbinsdale.
Vice-President Service Area) extension policy,and fre-
Will Neumeister, AICP, 612/784-6700, er(though not entirely unregulated) New members: the following people
784-3844 fax market forces would result in develop- have either joined MnAPA in recent
Secretary ment densities more sustainable over months or have transferred here from
Sarah 1. Smith, 612/955-2681,446- the long run than those likely to other states.We would like to extend a
emerge under the weak structure of warm welcome to all new members;if
1711 (Metro),446 1701 fax authority presently governing regional you are new to MnAPA or to the area
Treasurer land use. and your name is not on this list,
Jay Blake,AICP, 218/828-3964 please contact the editor(see page 2).
Perhaps then our kids could find each
other more easily without always hay- Alfred Babington-Johnson
DISTRICT DIRECTORS in to rely on an adult to drive them.
Central District g Walter C. Carlson
And even some adult destinations
Tom Salkowski, AICP, 612/682-7330, might be close enough to forego burn- Sara Anne E. Dames
339-6881 (Metro). 682-6178 fax ing the remains of dead (and imperti transfer from Iowa
Southern District nent) dinosaurs in getting there.We R. Glenn Low
VACANT mustn't prove our mastery over the David McConell
Northern District landscape by taking more of it than we
need for our various purposes,but by Ken Morris
Jill Fisher, A1CP, 218/738-3328, 800/ arranging our affairs within its finite Steven C. Peaslee
777-8510, 218/723-3400 fax space in congenial deference to its po-
Metro District tential for meaning. Lord willing,our loyce L. Pruitt
J. Leslie Bell, 612/835-6120, humanity will find a way to get us to John Rask
835-5370 fax 'the place just right," whether or not transfer from Wisconsin
Student Director we need a parking space when we ar-
Beth Malaby, 612/871-0402 rive. Sharon Sayles Belton
Gary Shallcross is a planner, with the City H. Roger Smith
COMMITTEE CHAIRS of Brooklyn Center for 14 years and now in transfer from Massachusetts
Program Committee transition. Robert F.VanHoef
Mark Grimes, AICP, 612/593-8097, transfer from Florida
593-8109 fax • Chuck Winkler
Legislative Committee "POISE UNDER FIRE" Cynthia M. Ziolko'vski
BNairTremere, 612/544-9542 SUMMARY AVAILABLE transfer from California
Membership Committee
Dan Cornejo, 612/537-4534, Remember the training session MnA-
537-7344 fax PA's Professional Development Com AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Public Information Committee mittee organized in May,on"Poise
Joyce Levine, AICP, 612/827-7501, Under Fire,"led by management con- SEMINAR PLANNED
827 7359 fax sultant Catherine Schendel. If you
couldn't attend,you can still gain some MnAPA Professional Development
Awards Committee of the benefits.Will Neumeister has Committee Chair Meg McMonigal
Barbara Senness, AICP, 612/550-5052 compiled the worksheets and notes notes that a half-day seminar is
Professional Development Comm. from the session and will make them planned for November 18,on"Innova-
Meg McMonigal, 507/645-3005, available to interested members.Send tions in Affordable Housing."Watch
645-3055 fax an SASE to him at City of Blaine, for further notice in next month's
Conference Committee 9150 Central Ave. NE,Blaine,MN newsletter.
Tom Harmening, 612/935-8474 55434.
L. t.;
planning * -,F .: 34 -m~
•
In
0
�?eKie clE� g ki'E g. '`c > " - -dg D.m t t. eV S F d� a '.m g,O , '" -1'•
Fg — Aga -��SA8 gn5-. .g 0.2,�4 .. wgs O
• ^R 3. Rn f _ Wn 5 o .5s oE� c ao . . -r• s �r e
15^ ; A IIhH1
jJ
�7 � �% li � fg .QBE 4WEirliPSys• g 5K
ff G 5 Fl -H �' � � OOc G5S-■ E � S
sna i� i ?- r s S ..�R5gQ' Q - S
�^ T
51-k v laRlid a g1 go g o dci . .- FElD,47 c— i `c �if-2.5• rWR6' g (D ---.7*.
g.5 - . 5REd` , E r 6 g- - s �_gi gI �E. �St- . 0
' tgr $81IE gra ngiie ii
1iIIiIFii {
b iIIh
Ilbil
hW K r Kls t . sc. hI . 1 0 cn
31,retivitt:21111,91ii. ,,.± . . Ilq4rAll.FR-1.0.17veilliFil =-2-+ vii.-
fp - ila gIclilieReEk01 a) I.. -
1 S la.c,it11E - - g M 511' `c is i i;I . 6 CD
1 gg l'il n 1: 3'; k s - E to
ii - '-?1 R . (:)
bkvai5f .49Eljzig
1 -4-§ Egiii0Ag 0 --
•,c=10 • 5s . =a8 "-r-i iki. A) .- - ili Its. Ikg318. 5- Ritil
11E119 g a. -F 13' R•-+ ii U Q
i 147.13rgerg*42-11_sr
95ifV411;IE -rw igj.°44[,:ket.FiRto41§1 B :arl
a "l* gl ! R: li3 1 IT' lli EDI 3
rr -El e. .- - -. Z"Bil g; ilk fa
i ill EU. D6g 'Tig -
- �� . lv1�1hht-.
• d�. OC
i!i:
cc,��a -- - ' __ . a - `� . t via•4A•�:iYy .-..,,--
i
•.-T- - . - _ 3
•
. .
.-•
-
... .
- -i?Fzi•:.._.;'?...a.„-ace--': .Y:
, -V: Ft-- •... 4. - 1 i . . . i....:., ... - .;
—-- J '; _ 3 -� - ate.. -4.z.. -z -0
i.44 ..,.. t ilex, ...„. .... • • -. ._ - . .;. .7 . s-... .. • •, -: il)
k -''' - - . . - -Z.,_77"-:-.--,..., , - ,:.4.--- - - —14 -11.64',. ..- : !.- ,./ a)
....... _ -,,, ...-e"V..,_._gsgx!'"" :- T.:. - i • CL
MM.• 3
•_. ..„ • .,..., ....r • i
.!4.... ,.. •.__.: : . ..;,. _ _ ___ ...._ -7:2710-iiecar.---SIV..-.1":0C‘mo:-"-- ‘,..1t.........1 - i- CO
. . IINElii
• . 413-70-p- --...-e:7-71:7Zin:7 Z ....e, .f.:::=.,---- . 017.; ....--,-4:i.e.AV --I CT; CD
- ` 'r-- r ; tat s r�
,.,-,:t.,:•,;,, ' e. , w.„..
Y E` i 1 7 rs*-*r__!u. L . is
•...,,.. ,.. moi. �''• ,_ lC�- .. -y M sa- ig- `4 ":"7 -.+ � `• -"-f CD
Finding affordable housing • .
with income under $50,000
By Jeaaliar Eldredge she pointed out that right now
Face are fags. wbo wart for an bonny wage have a
Lod in the wee difftailt time rutting an apartmtat to
is wash about 240,000 an oat on the rent within their price range. The
average.And lard in the western pets average worker makes about S8 ao
of the musty,such ea in Cologne,is hour.If he apeada ene{hid of his lo-
worth about$4,000 an afire,accmrd- cue on rent,that limits him to$415
seg to Julie Frick,exeo.ttive director a north for real,Frick said.
of the Housing and Redevelopment It would be a challenge to find a
Authority of Carty County. one-bedroom apartment fa that
That's why it's nor surprising that amount,rot to mention an apartment
people, especially young making fora family.
couples with a family,can find more Frick said the dry has many good
affadabk housing west of Chaska j} fa le, but it also need•
than in the city,she raid bO ng for the people who wort
"Typically,Is pretty hard to find■ here.
place for people with an income of The data lode grim,she said,but
$50,000 or km,"she said. she's determined not to get diamur-
HRA instigated a 47-home devel- aged 'We're working on it," she
Featfa single-family units in said.
tort,worth S13,225 to Shirley Boers,Coity Devil-
, on the market Mardi ailment(ode -Administrator 1hr
1, and only two are unclaimed to Chaska, said a"substantial amount
date,Prick said. r a epi:called
HRA offered fast-tyre buyer in- ..its -Chaska especially in-lower
arrives and some families in(boiler Chaska."
jumped at the opaornmtty. But she said six does understand
In our mads it win a sumer fa the problems people with as income
the city and county:she said of about 150,000 face when looking
Frick said HRA wants to create for a new bore.
some similar developments in the "There are oat that many develop-
future because there appears to bC a meats currently that have what wallet
market in this area fa loa in that be considered affordable homes,"she
price range. said."1 understand what people are
But seating housing options for saying if they want something new."
people with moderate incomes is only She said the city is scheduled to
a small pan of the housing problem. bold a workshop on the subject d
Loaning at the 1990=ants data, affordable housing in the near future.
1_.____R-I__'4...
. X16_- I- r Jh'.. .. --. - -
Vi• ctoria is growing quickly
Land is becoming scarce, prices are climbing
By Jennifer Eldredge rally within the last few years.
The population of Viacria is about Developer Terry Hartman of Via •:,-1,r: '--: -as,.
3,200. - tai: said land prices have "quad- : .'ir"° -e ... . - "� . .• '
But ask in another few months and rupled" in the last few years. And --i..." I : ;it*a' .<. -; `
that number might be higher. that land,he said,includes wetlands, - - ''' -. s• a,.
Figures released by the Metropoli- slopes and woods,which art diffimIt -, .- ~ `_-t. �C �'"
tan Council jibe with the city's to develop. - • ,'..: __.'v614# .):
- - _.
numbers on growth from 1990 to He said his company is committed �`
1993:The city has gained 225 to 250 to building homes in the$120,000 to •: _ • . • ' ', , ,,: /
people per year (or the past three $140,000 price range.That's where .-.,T -4 • . '' . . - .
years,according to Bill 7hiheult,the the biggest demand for homes h he - ;
city planning consultant. said. Buyers arc usually younger l. -` e--
That calculates to about a 10 per- .couples who want to start a family. ,c. :s_,.', -yk- • , .
cent increase a year,over a 10-year But the high prices, with fees fir...-.
period.Thibault said Victoria bas the imposed by the city,make t difficult - E
potential to double its population in to mea that demand.There are also ; 0� t
10years. restrictions on land use to the
p s r.: 1.5li Ds .
That makes Viacria a leader among natural assets of the area. '+ ,. l:
cities in the muro area fa household "When you maple it all together, h•- . Eel�. t '..S-r- ?-
tt's about impossible to build afford- ``- r '
While the town imavn as"toe cry able housing,"Hartman said ; r "' ' . _ . -
• of parte and lakes,"is gaining rest- This year,he has built 32 homes in ".4..1., -. _ res .
dents by the handful,in two or three Victoria ranging from $100,000 to - - .
ars growth may comhe e to an abrupt $180,000.Last year built 30 homes
' �"""; "' •" t.
-cars
Hartman's honks are on the lower be less and leer the case..- The city staff and council deal
The reason is that land available end of the price scale for homes in Thibault agreed: "k's not may to regularly with issues that come hand-
for urban development is becoming Viacria. coaurua housing for(people with) it-hand with a growing community.
sarce. According to the Met Council re- lower inmatas People aren't going They recently adopted a policy far
'That isn't much out there any- port,homes range from$150,000 to to sell land for las than it's worth. the placement of street signs.
more,"Thibault said.'"Thcre's neva 1400000(some aro higher and some The city council will art the Met Paler said[he city has to Junk the
ban less MUSA(Metropolitan Ur- are lower). Council to extend the MUSA line in budget to aooanmodate fa the in-
born Service Area)land." City manager Miriam Pater said at Victoria.City staff a working on a aeric in city diturea that result
Land within the MUSA line pa- those prices, affordable housing is proposal to present to the notal from the growth.She said the city
Mu urban aervicea, such as sewer becoming a thing of the past. next year. - won't reap the benefits of a higher
and water,to be available. "We do feel we have a diversity of Until then,about 70 percent of the tax base for a few years.And mean-
The result of the shortage is tlx housing static," six said. "But as available laid has been claimed by while the bills have to be paid,she
price of land has increased Marti- land brooms more scarce,that will developorra. said.
Carver housing boom may
double city housing units
By Itfool aSebettler Carver to services
s ove
t not yet been dimmed, Carver tens papa 11 -
•
But the speed at whichgry g+. EAGL.)t RIDGE ADDITION pill. city sewer and weer lines.
ie taking place has wrpcbed macy Propped by developer John Klin- Those homes with an area mess- Although aaseasments were never ;
local rani• dcata. gelhutz,the neigaborbood will even- anent,receiving benefit from the trunk mailed to the county authorities,mob
This past spring aid mummer,piano tally include 80 tomes on keenly 40 extension,will pay$406 for water of the Ricagrafs received a notice in
were either mttvducnd or approved acres along Skyview Lane in north services Tbe same residents will pay the mail that their lands would be • •
for three new residential neighbor- Carver.The lots will be bordered by an a iditietal 1555 for sewer aero- messed for thousands of dollars.If
bonds to be developed in Carver: Mount Hope Road on the southwest ices. much mesmeats had been made,
Hilltop Estates, Can= Bluffs,aid Plettrnpoi at coaetruaioo already Lou with property directly abut- they would have been cannery to
Eagle Ridge. has begun at the Eagle Ridge site as ting the sewer or water lines received law. - 1
"]n the 1990 sesta we bad 268 well. a lateral assessment Those icon with Carver Bluffs development is not I
housing units in Carver,"aan
id Patty Sewer d water uervics are being property shirting as the water pipes were without its problemswell.
Plekkeopol,city treasurerkkrk."Aid installed by the developer at the Io- assessed $1,355. Residents whose Preliminary plats for Carver Bluth
there are about 350 new unix being cation with no Dear shifted to area ry
prabutting operty water pipes was without its problem=as well. i
proposal There could be a lot of residents a Doming out of city oaf- assessed S1,355.
Rau whose Preliminary plats for Carver Biu i
growing pains here." fere. . ,. property abuts the sewer main were all for■portion of Lid to be air
Construction has already begun at If all goes to pan,Plel teapol acid charged $2,293 axed from Dahlgren Towiahip.
two of the sites. the developer would like to have In addition,all residents using Sixth At the August Carver City Council
HILLTOP ESTATES houses ax struned yet this fall.Homes Street as their primary access route emoting,developer Willard Merton
A neighborhood of modest priced in this development will be in the were sassed S1,000 to pry kr street asked C]rver alfxaab to go ahead
housing nae been approved and coo- intermediate range,tabs:maid. construction- with plans to annex 64 aces of his
struaim has already began t the sin 'We are ,seating the entire area Lad to Carver.Morton aped the in
of the new neighborhood Hilltop because they have good arias,"said order to receive financing from the
Estates. Progress doesn't Cover engineer Jeff Rana at the July bank for tlx cadre project,he needed
As the name suggests,the 35-acre come chss amassment hearing. "They abound to-prove that the land was indeed •
site is lotted atop a hill at the west- p spin the oast." annexed and there would be no profs
ern edge of Carver forth of Fourth While moat residents in the all Some residents were upset with the kms when it was time to build.
Street.A model home has been built river town view the new neighbor- high price tag ohm accompanies Fog. 'Now,it seems like a big deal to •
at the site. hoods as pogrom,each development toss, tan,'Mottos said.If I was a hanker
Gold Nugget Development Com- is not without its detractors. "That's a hunch of bull,"said Cava I would ay:What is this?Either tis
pany has received approval for the Largely to accommodate the cin- resident Joe Mahowald at the July (annexed)or it lam't.",
first plum of oorocoodoo.50 hones, mtruwoi of the new Hilltop Estates assent hearing."Well there's no But,Carver officials c s.l d ao l weer
with the remaining 26 lots to be borbood Carver o5c318 paned way I can pay that.What if a person the land until ofSdals from Dahlgren .
approved later. n t pro)ea this pea July can't afford its Sen your property had agreedto the procedure.
In May estimates were made as to to extend sewn and water aerviae to get the hell out,that's what." In s July lana to Carver uaf,Janos
the cost of the Hilltop Estates prof- the area, at well a upgrade Sixth The assessments for the Sixth Street Buctrntiie,Dahlgtm Tbwnship Berk,
ea.Installation of sewer,water,tam Street,the major access road- Improvement Project will be spread said animation ma not needed
drains,and street curbs end gutters Preliminary estimates went made over a 20-est period with an interest immediately. .
will cast 5549,600. In addition, a floe the mss until the actual casts rate no higher than 7.5 percent- "Ibiswould be in Rae 4
300-foot pathway will be constructed could be determined.The yo Such growth is new to the small of the Devebpment Project.Pessihk r
near the homes at a cot of$24,600. not cheap but necessary,aa3d I�Se town,and lexal officials are called to annexation wouldn't be needed until •
Plekkenpol estimated the homes Tom°rap perform tasks and understand laws 1996. Nothing was decided at this
will Dost between 580,000.5110,000 The water main will cat$144,000 they have neva had to deal with. time."
at the site. to build, down from an estimated Brothers Bernard aid Roman Piekkenpol said the Carver Attu-
CARVER BLUFFS $196,660. Sewer mtntruaion will Riesgraf protested being assessed at try and Dahlgren officials ate"tat-
Pisa were also introduced this pat cost$142,300,up from the first fig- all on the basis their land was in Ag ing on a orderly arsiexatioi agree-
summer for a beigbbcxbood to be we of SL38,500.And construction of Preserve.Land declared as Ag Pre- meat that would be contingent on the
lotted south of Carver along(atony Sixth Street will ant S769,100,up serve land canna by law be assessed amount of development at the time •
Road 40, and to be caned Carver from the initial estimate of$653,040 for city improvements,even though .of eitentioa
Bluffs Tb finance the improvemena,arra the ply may Ix in the pith of
Developed by Willard Morton,the residents were area ed for the costs
neighborhood will contain 175 homes For some,It may have meant a hefty
in a range of sizes and prices.
Plans for supplying water and sewer CARVE In PIP 12
J
Chaska residential lot availability dwindling,
industrial building sites are in short supply
By Lavoaae Barsc 200 units per year. MUSA line, which has yet to be where idose amenities are present
Residereial aid Industrial lad,ready Therefore, the lots being devel- developed, city annexe auggeaa a and the prices mike it.
Br development, is running out in oped now provide a little over a two- total potential of just under 700 angle Other costs,not at apparent,also
Chaska.The supply has dwindled to yen auppiy and,assuming ooc�aoge family lots, with as many as 800 are driving prices upward to One in-
the point that the residential supplyin the farmed km, there art only townhouse lots.About half this land nation.As overall 0303 go up,an do
will las for only a few years,t about three years'worth of possible is being actively farmed at this time lot and house prices. Also Chaska
ing to Kermit Ovuds,city planner. los beyond that. with no indication owners are about officials have teen increasing fees
And city officials are beginning to One meigating factor is that as new to develop their land. associated with development plan
moot the commercial and industrial botrsing Paces Gave risen in Chaska, Lot prices art going up h Chaska. review fees,pert land dedication and
lots on their fingers. exawaron starts taut begun to drop. Many kits going on the menet are in similar ants.Recently,another wet
Coach also panes out that not every the$40000-$50,000 range.One of increase was approved and yet the
Residential development kit will be built upon. As to any the factors driving up the price of lots city fees,by and large,remain lower
When h comes to residential de- immunity, afar lea will tit for is their quality.Lots on rno takers because thee is in wocch,whertve theavinesandthen in many similar emmunitiea.
.elopn>ent don't loot fa a sudden something ideal stout them. offers sane beauty, sell at h1gher Administrator David However, it should �Potorney
noted the
trout to expand the dry a its bounds Price, location, terrain — all are prices tem bare,Be lots.South Ridge earthy ted the coxxil,d.x1ng a budget
ries No one at the sty council is
masons a lot may remain unclaimed. Amen Palls,Aen Wands East and Cortina discussion, that the planning and
anxious to we the cit s population Of the 539 acres if hod within the Woods are examples of developments C HASKA to pegs 12
`row any faster than ft has been.
There are a couple of possible • •
eruptions, however. The city is -• ---
geuing very imeretsted in annexation - .k,,,' _.,•=+�•- "
of all a pert of Chaska Townships •% ••• ' - i 1,:,1,^• _ 0
a way ofincreasing the population j Y....:o 1.)i._,.. •
base likely to use downtown ani-
mus.
c f .++."7! •l "►-l.ei
assess. And, while it may act at- 4• -J_'"11-4...__,r__---
• tempt to rush the process,it will look ..4,44_,....-44. t•1�. • -ay. ", --
favorably a a move to plea an area ie 't' .m.'` .' in..
between Tuscany Hills and Lake • - •tee f." •a,.• 1 _
Bavaria within the MUSA line if t ' • s•:. l'''' +, -r�'
golf course is developed there. -f `r.�{ a\,t - I• 'N-
According to an August report by ;-,..„-et. S�s' r tj -,fyt` _ ,' pk'*`"
. Crouch,there are about 520 maiden- ' • ,. ,- - 4,,,,,:.:-..se,,
tial lots that have either been cep- --r -- •r i. - • , ‘7t,t.$7. - .• -.
proved a are to some Step of the Y� o. -- •• t .� ¢ }f "
approval process.Of 135 are ` !1 r ., `,.
being marketed at present. + � '_ � f h �-,
Estimates also indicate there are r..`-` ' a ` 4a— � -• - : • : -a , -�a it
another 700 potential single family ?1`•. .o. -At .. .4E t . 7 k! Y.,..-L,+1",:.
las yet to be developed within the !t.' - s...: .4,•• !..f rz.",:e' ' �.'c. .g .„....:" -' -
city'a MUSA line.The MUSA line, + • f slat: '`
short for Metropo]itan Urban Say- ' `"'; '"'`. •�''''r. f„-* •• :T
ice Area,delineates arras within w ' •1;'.! ",,R• ",.''' r;". -,...-f",
s�eek r • •3.' .t+. 1 .,,,
cities may offer urban services — • - -- "- • ' ;+ r- ' . t.st
h
sty sewer and water.Without these -, •-1,-,•`,-•=.--2.1i•' � •-•1",o-•-•••-,�� �. �� �
city services,housing must be ext- y - z • .-+ i f f i•
eructed on larger lou and be served ' '.t `S•' . •. II�� ' 7-,.....V.1:14�,,
by septic systems and private wells. -,j'r' • cry,---^':i s '# `1'` "F
To put these figures in perspective, : - sem' ._j.fr•- ..0 . A OVA* . f.'"�•s
'S• 'i , , .,. .Kis R -
a atmparisar with the tmeot con- = i;r• a••� ..
struaion rates is helpful.In the lax •
eight yen,1,278 single family bane Pnoba by taverne tr.•
have been built in Chaska. During Kermit Crouch, Chaska city planner, hes been overseeing the eRlls development plans — frit ea a
the '9(h,the average has exceeded consultand,now as an employee—for two decades.
`
Chaska from s tl
pep
inspection department'arc virtually large site is being considered by as appear to be any scramble to land a mark extension and new Hwy.212
self-supported by the fees charges established Chaska business,FSL tort. also it earmarked fa commercial,at
foe those services. By comparison Consider the property tax support Other commercial interest ala] is is the poly filled southwest ix-
police and street maintenance mats • industries provide and the elcaricity being shown,but Chaska does ewe nen of Hwy.41 and Engles.Another
are borne acres the board by prop- moat of them consume, and it be- undeveloped commercial sites. potential commercial spa is adja-
enY =PiYo• - comes evident why the city has sup- Among them are a aaotinuation of ant to Brandondale at Engler aid
ported strong industrial�wth. development at Jonathan Square,pita County Road 17.
Industrial development Now, Carver County � teat retail development that eventually- Interest also las picked up in down-
be plans to extend Engler will include a supermarket Baas the town sites,age s
Kevin Ma ,
land is running out
to the west are reroute highway over
on both aides of Pic eaoomic dove coordinator.
There is a large triangle of land in County Road 11,moves which will Trail.A spot between the Huaden-
southwest Chaska(west of County provide•new sterns for the Indus-
Road 11 and mostly north of pro- trial triangle yet to be developal.
posed Hwy.212)that has been ear- As Crouch joked., Administrator
marked for future industrial devel- Morley is looking at the site bun-
opment.Two factors are prompting grily.Crouch added,"When Engler
some city officials and an to begin 'goes through,we'll have to recce-
. looking at the site key. aides" the timing for its develop-
Fru the city is clearly • gg out melt
of industrial development space.Scar e
land remains between Peavey Rood commercial
and the Chicago Northwestern nal development Blas several
in northern Chaska,and there P
art small parcels near the County possible locations
1Roa el and
liwyains.2 2 juA s op.Hut', h„Kra art hungry'for ix i,dal
that
One large parcel elect Hwy. 41 ft hie been nwillin to movbut not so emoun-
hs been claimed by Fluomvware, tains to find a krcatioa fora Flea
which is now reviewing whether the Farm start.The=piny,unable to
site is large enough.And that pas- build Oct pry it owns at Hwy.41
CMS the city with a problem, said and ca5,has come k., ng to rh.b■
Crouch,because as much s the city Nothig the Cily has to offer ce Hwy.
wants to rutin the ampaoy,h sur- 41 meets the retailer's swam,atxxsd-
ready doesn't have a lager site avail- to crouch. Acid that doeadt
shit to'ride,Fluaowarr. Another
. ,i._ ' -•• .
Breaking barriers f .
.,
..
MICAH enlists St. Hubert's help
in quest for affordable housing
By Kathy Nelson
Affordable housing is an issue for `1To address the racism issue, ' like a transitional housing project built
both the cities and suburbs in the TWin Kingsley said that partnering predom- right next to the community college
Cities metropolitan area. inaptly white churches with predomi- in White Bear Lake. Women live in
That was one of the points made nantly black churches help create the housing and attend college cours-
by Karen Kingsley, associate direr- those bridges. MICAH staff also try es.Or,a group of churches in Dakota
for of Metropolitan Interfaith Coun- . and work to break down some of the County have subsidized and main-
cil on Affordable Housing(MICAH) cultural barriers as well. tained two houses that people who
while addressing members of the St. She pointed out that Minneapolis have been homeless live in.
Hubert Justice and Peace Committee and St.Paul,while there is a growing Kingsley encouraged the group to
and other community members Mon- minority population, continue to be begin forming study groups to look
day night. The parish justice and predominantly white cities.About 75 at this issue and discuss the informs-
peace committee deals with a variety percent of the poor people in the met- tion on the topic.She said this could
of issues including children's issues, ropolitan area are white. Kingsley serve as an organizing tool in the
Amnesty International,and affordable addressed some of these issues of not Chanhassen area.
housing. wanting certain people in a commu- After more discussion about the
Kingsley pointed out that the af- , nity. - ... ' . issue, Kingsley stated that the cities
fordable housing issue is really an Some people are stuck in bad sit- and suburbs issue will probably be the
urban and suburban issue. uations. They have to live in crime- most important issue in the 1990s for
"Studies have shown that if afford- infested areas,even though they don't the Twin Cities area.
able housing is distributed through- want to. Some people think they are "It comes down to'what do I want
out the metro area, the whole area going to bring that here. It's not at- my community values to be based
does better. Studies have also shown tached to the person. It's attached to on?' We need to confront some of the
that if there are less disparities be- the area and a way of living,"she said. fears,many of which are based on ste-
tween the core cities and suburbs,the Many of the problems in the core reotypes. We need to ask 'what do
area does better economically," she cities have to do with absentee land- want my community to look
said. t lords and neglect of properties. An- like?'...Arc we just Chanhassen or are
Kingsley described how MICAH other factor is the urban sprawl, like we part of a bigger metro area?"
is working on the issue.The group is )what is happening in the southwest Kingsley asked. .
working to educate congregations suburbs.As more farm land is devel- . She encouraged them that
about affordable housing.get congre- oped into suburban space,there is less ' MICAH is becoming a known force
gations involved in projects to break money likely to be invested in the core ' in this issue and that more support
down some of the urban/suburban cities. She suggested that the issues from suburban congregations will
barriers, and stay active in political of wetlands and preserving habitats in only provide them a better position in
advocacy on this subject. this area is related to moving out in- their efforts.
For example, she said that some stead of investing within the core cit-
congregations have paired up with ies
congregations in the core cities to cre- Kingsley shared some statistics
ate relationships and confront some about this reverse investing. For ex-
of the fears. Their organization also ample, in the last 20 years, 158
works to lobby legislators and the schools were closed in the cities and
Metropolitan Council about the af- inner ring suburbs while 58 new
fordable housing issue. schools were built on the periphery.
Kingsley asked members to share
what some of the fears of affordable The group also discussed the spe-
housing coming to a suburb like Chan- cific barriers in a city like Chanhas-
hassen. Some of the fears mentioned sen to getting affordable housing con-
were a possible decrease in property structed. The city has strict building
values, fear that a"ghetto" situation codes that deal with lot size and house
would be created, and a fear of rac- size.The minimum lot size is roughly
ism. half an acre.This would keep a small-
Bruce Koprucki, who has been er sized house,which would be afford-
spearheading the affordable housing able housing for someone of a lower
part of the committee,pointed out the income,from ever being built.Kings-
property value issue. Icy said that perhaps the justice and
"Most of people's incomes are peace committee and other commu-
tied up in their homes. If the values nity members should research what
decline,there's a fear that what hap- the barriers are and try to see if ex-
pened to farms in the 1970s will hap- ceptions or compromises could be
pen in their neighborhoods,"he said. made with city officials.
Joe Betz, chairman of the justice She shared some success stories,
and peace committee, said that the
fear of affordable housing becoming '
- like a"ghetto"comes from building
the actual minimum and creating a
less-than-standard building.
Thursday, October 13, 1994—Chanhassen Villager—Page 11