CAS-08_FOX DEN (4)11
City Council Meeting — April , 2005
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 4, 2005
b. Resolution#2005-43: Call Assessment Hearing for 2005 Street Improvement Project 05-
01.
`f- e. Fox Den, 6500 Chanhassen Road, 10 Spring, Inc.:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Approve Construction Plans & Specifications, Project 05-10.
Resolution#2005-44: Approval of Quit Claim Deed, TH 101 Gap Project/7esberg
Property.
g. Approval of City Code Amendment to Chapter 20, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay
District.
i. Arbor Day Proclamation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
H. FINAL APLAT APPROVAL, HIGHCREST MEADOWS 1r, 2No, 3'm ADDITIONS.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I just want to pull that, I didn't want to vote on it with the
consent agenda primarily because I'm going to vote against it on the same basic vote that we did
a few weeks ago that, with the cul-de-sac versus non -cul-de-sac and I again want to vote against
it primarily because I don't think it's in the best interest of our community to have long cul-de-
sacs and I support the comprehensive plan that states that we do try to pull together our
individual communities into one and the cul-de-sac system that we're putting through this 1(h)
tonight does not do that so I'm going to be voting against that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? With that, is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the final plat for
Highcrest Meadows 1", 2nd, 3`d Additions (formerly known as Yoberry Farm). All voted in
favor, except Councilman Peterson and Mayor Furlong who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Dick Mingo: My name is Dick Mingo, 7601 Great Plains Boulevard. 47 year resident here of
Chanhassen. I'm here, I just got back from Florida and, in fact several weeks or maybe even a
month or so ago we got a message from one of our nieces that you folks have decided to drop the
name of a little street down a road here. It was kind of a crumb dropped in my wife's hand. She
worked on this for about a year and a half to establish this where you people now have changed
the name of Pauly Drive to the real original name of Market Avenue. I was up here this
9
Riley
Purgatory
Bluff Creek
Watershed District
Web Site: http//www.rileypurgatorybluffcreek.org
May 4, 2005
Mr. Scott Rosenlund
10 Spring, Inc.
622 West 82od Street
Chaska, MN 55318
Re: Permit #2005-12: Fox Den: Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Rosenlund:
Legal Advisor Krebsbach & Haik
225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4320
Minneapolis, MN 55415
612 333-7400 Fax: 612 333-6959
Engineering Advisor. Barr Engineering
4700 West 77th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55435
952 832-2600 Fax: 952 832-2601
Communication Lexicon Communications
Consultant: 15246 65th Place North
Maple Grove, MN 55311
763-557-5244
off'�tuF�
MAY z 6 Zor5
CITY OF ChhNh, —, _�„
The Board of Managers of the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans
and grading and land alteration permit application as submitted to the District for the Fox Den
development in Chanhassen.
The Managers approve of the grading and land alteration permit subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions as outlined in the attached General Provisions are applicable.
2. If the existing structure on the site to be razed is served by a private domestic water supply well,
the well must be abandoned in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
Minnesota Department of Health criteria. A copy of the well abandonment certification must be
submitted to the District's legal advisor. Otherwise the permittee must certify to the District in
writing that no private domestic water supply wells are located on the property.
If you have any questions regarding the conditions of the District's permit, please call us at
952-832-2600.
Sincerely,
Robert Obermeyer
Y
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
Engineers for the District
eA
oved by the Board of Managers
WEY-PGY-BLUFF' CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
j// ,!.e President
:
c: Paul Ha k
Howard Peterson
Matt Saam
Lori Haak
::0DMA\PCD0(S\D0CS\245753\l
Board of Managers
Howard Peterson Perry Forster Conrad Fiskness Philip Wright Susan Scribner
April 5, 2005
Mayor Tom Furlong
Members the City Council
City of Chanhassen
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Furlong & Members of the City Council:
In a few days, the City Council will consider the Fox Den Preliminary Plat for approval.
As homeowners that will be impacted, we have several concerns and we would like you
and rest of the City Council members to address these as we do not feel that they are
being or will be adequately addressed. We have raised these issues to the Planning
Commission, the City Staff, the developer and his engineer. We believe these are
legitimate concerns. We would like to work with all parties involved but we feel that we
have been the ones reaching out, and the communication back has not necessarily been
reciprocated. We would appreciate it if you could include this information with the
minutes, and we would welcome any additional input from you or the council members.
1. Fox Drive Paved Road Width. The applicant and the City believe that a 31 foot back
of curb to back of curb road can safely and aesthetically fit between our property line and
the pond. I disagree. We've had our property surveyed and if the road starts 9.5 feet
off of our property line (according to our survey) then a 31 foot back of curb to back
of curb runs over the western slope of the pond. The survey which the applicant did,
does not place my property line correctly. In fact, their survey indicates that my
eastern property line dissects my wooden fence and crosses over into the right of
9.5 feet from the correct point before anything begins. Furthermore, with the grading
plans submitted for the western side of the pond, it will be impossible to get the 31 foot
wide road in there. The City engineer may tell you something different, but I live there
and I've measured the space many times. It Just does not fit. Additionally, even though
it is consistent with the other street widths, it looks out of place. Sometimes consistency
is a good thing, but we've got to use good judgment, solemnly weigh the impacts on the
aesthetics, and not be afraid to advocate a 24 foot wide road with an after the fact
variance.
2. Boulevard Plantings. We believe that it is vitally important with all of the City owned
and large evergreen tress to the north of the pond facing removal, that boulevard
plantings along Fox Drive take place. The Staff Report speaks to this. The City Forrester
and the Planning Commission also believe this notion. Commissioner Sacchet stated on
page 27 of the March 15, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes, [we need tol "explore
Possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north of the pond." He went on to say,
"work with staff to evaluate placement of evergreen versus deciduous for buffering
purposes." On page 30 of the minutes, condition 121 & L, M speak to these
desires. The point here is that the entire partial tree buffer to the north of the pond is
being lost. There are some very mature evergreens that do provide a buffer from noise,
headlights, and other impacts of 101—not to mention help to make our community and
homes more aesthetically appealing. We can all plant some sort of buffering in our
yard but it will never make up for the City owned, mature and natural buffering
that is proposed to be lost. With a 31 foot wide road proposed, it will be impossible
to do almost any boulevard plantings. There will not be enough room. However, we
do need those plantings there. We would like to see the species of evergreens in the
boulevard that are currently to the north of the pond. If not that species, then a fast
growing species like Norway Spruce. They have to be big enough to provide a buffer.
Evergreens that only grow to 7 or 8 feet will not provide enough buffer from the impacts
of 101.
3. Boulevard Planting Width. In regard to the spacing of the boulevard trees. The City
Forrester recommended 30 feet. When the City Planner was asked repeatedly by a couple
of the Commission members at the public hearing on 3/15/05, she stated on page 3, "We
have guidelines, we need to follow those guidelines... which is 30 feet." However, this is
misleading. The city code is specific. Section 20-1182 states, "boulevard plantings are
at a minimum of one tree for every 30 feet required." This is the minimum
standard. Not a maximum standard as the City planner was alluding to. I pointed
this out to the commission. It is not a maximum of one tree per 30 feet, but a
minimum. The impression that the City Planner was given the commissioners was
this was a maximum planting distance. We believe that this information provided by
the City employee was misleading and incorrect and influenced some commission
members not to advocate tree plantings closer such as 6, 14, or 20 feet. Planting trees 30
feet apart will not provide much of a buffer, considering the trees planted there now to
the north of the pond are 8-10 feet apart. We would like to appeal the Commission's
decision based, in part, on this misleading information provided by the City
employee. We would also like to recommend that the City Planner and Commissions
have a copy of the City code in front of them for all future meetings so that issues that
like can be resolved quickly and accurately, without ambiguities.
4. Retaining Wall. The City is proposing a retaining wall along the western right of way
along Fox Drive. We would like to explore this option and we made this clear to the
Commission, the developer, and his engineer. We'd like to see how the retaining wall
would look as opposed to regular grading and raising the street. To date, we have not
heard from the City, the developer or his entdneer on this issue after it was initially
discussed in early March. Since the putting in of a street clearly impacts our property, we
would strongly urge the City, the developer, his engineer, and landscape architect to
contact us immediately before proceeding.
5. Pond Expansion. Although ponds do not have to be designed perfectly, they have to
be designed correctly. We must do this the right way. Even with the proposed changes,
this area is not addressed adequately. More study needs to be done. There are several
contradictory statements made by the City engineer on this subject at the public hearing.
Furthermore, the logic given for pond expansion isn't valid. The real problem is drainage
and pond design. Not the size of the pond. On page 7 of the 3/15/05 Public Hearing,
Assistant City Engineer Matt Saam states, "The current pond is sized for the developed
area of Fox Hollow that's going there." Commissioner Sacchet asked, "It's properly sized
for that?" Saam states: "Yes, we are not asking this developer to increase it or to bring it
up to cover the existing area. He's being asked to increase it for his area and then the 912
contour area is for additional area to the north. A regional area to the north... We're not
asking him to brine the current fpondl up to any code." However, if the area to the
north is going to be addressed by making the pond two feet deeper, and Fox Hollow is
already been taken into consideration, are you meaning to tell us that 1 acre of
impervious surface for Fox Den would warrant an expansion of the Pond by such as
large size? Basically, the area to the north is already factored in and the City has no
immediate plans to address that area. Fox Hollow is already factored in. So all we are
really talking about is 1 acre of additional impervious surface. Logically, expanding the
pond by such as large size does not make common sense. Sure, there are always water
quality issues but textbooks and formulas are only as good if they are applied correctly
and address the real problem.
The real problem is not pond size, but drainage and correct pond design. Specifically on
the drainage issue, look at what happened in southern Minnesota two weeks ago. A
blocked culvert caused ponds and creeks to overflow. A blocked culvert. No matter how
big a pond is, if the drainage is blocked, it is not going to help one bit. If a bathtub keeps
filling with water and the drain is plugged, it is going to overflow. If there is a flood,
there is nothing that that stormwater pond can do. The point here is that on page 5 of the
Public Hearing minutes, Saam stated "No, I didn't look downstream and the reason why
is the outlet goes under 101 into Eden Prairie so drainage from this area goes into Eden
Prairie and out of county so."
Has anyone taken a look at the eastern side of 101 opposite this pond? I would
encourage you to take a look. The water has no where to go. There is no drainage.
not addressing it here. Creating a bigger pond will not address the fundamental issue
here which is drainage on the other side of 101. Now, I don't know if this is an issue
Eden Prairie wants to deal with or Chanhassen but it is a problem now and it will only get
worse. We don't want another southern Minnesota with a ditch or culvert being blocked.
If we addressed the real issue here, then some of the buffer to the north of the pond could
be saved. We need to re -run the numbers and use common sense on this area.
6. Land Surveys. On page 18 of the Planning Commission Public Hearing, Cara Otto
states, "I have not been brought up to any, know of anything that were you know;
ambiguous with any of the property lines ... I'm not sure what the stakes are." On page
21, Cara Otto states, "I wouldn't want it [loss of trees] if I were Jason sitting there too." I
want to emphasize again that tree numbers 142 & 143 could be considered boundary line
trees and do have certain special legal issues before someone decides to cut them down.
We would like 142, 143, & 144 and the tree to the right of 144 (not shown on the
inventory) preserved through a modified grading scheme. On March le, I met with Cara
Otto and the developer. I showed Ms. Otto my survey. It clearly indicated that the
property line my surveyor established for me on my eastern side was different that the
one that Otto Engineering came up with. So, Ms. Otto did know and was made aware of
irregularities of the survey. We just have one more point on this, on January 11, 2005,
when we returned home, we found footsteps in our fenced in back yard. Footsteps in our
front yard, a hole in the southeast corner of our front yard. We thought there was a
prowler. A couple of days later, the same things. I went to ask a neighbor and he said
there were surveyors. I called the City and the City referred me to Otto Engineering. I
received a call from Otto Engineering on January 24 and they admitted that they were
performing survey work for 6500 Chanhassen Rd and on my property. My point is that
there is a state law that requires surveyors to let landowners know before they can
enter Your property. This is contained in Minnesota State Statute 505.31. We were
not given any verbal or written notice by Otto Enzineering that they wanted to
survey. Therefore, we believe they wrongfully trespassed on our property. We would
respectfully ask that if Otto Engineering would like to V_aLaccess to our property
for any reason, that we be notified in advance by writing so that we can consider
their request.
In closing, thank you for your consideration. There are problems with this proposal which
we feel the City Staff and Planning Commission overlooked. The City Code provides for
protections from impacts, and we do not feel that these were adequately adhered to.
Sincerely,
Jason & Tonia Ashline
10 Fox Hollow Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PLfiA&4NI' VMW RD
x
Subject Site
O �
O Cfi
rr �
ti 0 CD
y CD
FOX AOLL�
DR
CITY OF
7700 Markel Boulevard
PC Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952,227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning 3
Natural Resources
Phone: 952,227.1130
Fax: 952.2271110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web She
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
lul u � C : ►Ig lu
TO: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner
FROM: Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer M
DATE: April 18, 2005
SUBJ: Final Plat Review of Fox Den
Project No. 05-10
Upon review of the plans submitted by Otto Associates dated March 25, 2005, I offer
the following comments and recommendations:
GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL
The existing site has tree cover over approximately 1.5 acre of area. The plans
propose to grade about 80% of the site for the new house pads, public street and cul-
de-sac. The proposed grading will prepare the site for two look -out and four full
basement house pads. The grading plan shows that, on average, the pad areas are
being filled three to five feet for the new homes. Also, additional grading will take
place south of the parcel to connect the proposed street with Fox Hollow Drive and to
expand the existing storm pond. The applicant must be aware that any grading on
privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. If importing or
exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
The existing site drains from the northwestem corner to the southeastern corner of the
parcel. Under developed conditions, all of the drainage from the house roofs,
driveways and the cul-de-sac will be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing
stormwater pond off the southeasterly corner of the site for treatment. The applicant
will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been
completed. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) standards.
The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site and only minor changes
remain. Storm sewer design data has also been submitted for staff review. Drainage
and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm
drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level.
The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
UTILITIES
The plans propose on extending the sanitary sewer from an existing sanitary manhole
in Fox Drive. Water will be extended from an existing watermain along the east side
of the site and looped with the watermain in Fox Hollow Drive. The sanitary sewer
and watermains will be considered public utility lines since they will serve more than
one lot. As such, a minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the
The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff
April 18, 2005
Page 2
watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. Installation of the private service
utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building
Department.
According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously
assessed for one sanitary sewer hookup and that assessment has been paid. As such,
the sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots.
However, the water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots.
Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service
to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The
2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees are due at the time of building permit
issuance and may be specially assessed against the parcel. All of these charges are
based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council.
All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is
also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to
guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a
preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the
appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of
Health, MnDOT, and Watershed District.
STREETS
The plans propose to extend Fox Drive from the south side approximately 370-feet
ending with a cul-de-sac. The required right-of-way for a new public street is 60-feet
wide with a 60-foot radius for cul-de-sacs. The existing platted right-of-way for Fox
Drive south of the site is 50-feet. For continuity with the existing Fox Drive right-of-
way, the applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide street right-of-way and a 60-foot wide
cul-de-sac radius. Staff is in favor of the applicant's proposal for this right-of-way
variance.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The existing water service to the site from Highway 101 must be removed to the
existing watermain.
c: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director
Mak Sweidan, Project Engineer
gAeng\projectstfox den\fpr.doc
qWwa"k- Z 25D9
10 Spring, Inc. Roger Bongard
622 West 8VW Street 18195 County Road #30
Chaska, MN 55318 New Germany, MN 55367
Dear
This letter is to confirm that on April 11, 2005, the City Council approved the Preliminary
Plat for Planning Case #05-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of-
way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto Associates stamped "Received February
11, 2005", subject to the following conditions:
1. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and
volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures
on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced.
2. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm
water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C,
Subsection 1D, Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A,
Fox Hollow.
3. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for
dewatering. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving
waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the
plan. A detailed dewatering plan with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control
considerations, such as energy dissipation, shall be provided.
4. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the
existing outlet of the
pond on the east side of Hwy 101.
5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of SloW
Time
Steeper than 3:1
7 days
10:1 to 3:1
14 days
Flatter than 10:1
21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
Pws ktH c ,. e,J
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as
a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
6. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB
between Lots 2 and 3
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as -needed.
8. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021.
9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
10. Building Department conditions:
a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections
Division before building permits will be issued.
b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the
site.
c. Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and
City Code.
11. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must
either be removed from site or chipped.
b. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This
is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by
firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be
installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and
during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of
protection are provided.
d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when
construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002
Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
12. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be
planted.
b. A minimum of two 2 I/V deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front
yard of each lot.
c. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species.
d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around
all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading.
e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction
activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised
landscape plan will be required prior to final approval.
g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum, 5
overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs.
h. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along
the south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved.
i. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive
to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30
feet except within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the
city.
j. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss
to the north of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using
available space.
k. Developer will work with staff to consider buffer plantings around the pond.
1. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the
north of the cul-de-sac on Lot 4.
m. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens
versus deciduous for buffering purposes.
13.On the Utility plan:
a. Show all easements.
b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled.
14: etail pates: 1
15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the
applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic
control plan.
16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots.
The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the
�CL developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots,
the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk
hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water -main. Sanitary
sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the
time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are base mb on the nur of
SAC units assigned by the Met Council. °t- 8' W � �u
17. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is
also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to
guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a
preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the
appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT,
Watershed District and MDH.
d� � ss�onal e m He a mus
19. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will
require a temporary easement.
20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after
enlargements have been completed.
1. ortewer design to will need t sub 'tted for staff
f�- review. The storm sewer will have to �esi"gned r ear, 24 hodr storm event.
- _
22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the
public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year
1,� �, , j� _,flood evel. The 'nimum easement w�id�t�h�s9h be 20 feet wide.
23. Stiff is rec ending that a ss�mrall�(lh'-3') ret mg w�stalle long tw�asterr
ri t-of- ay o ox Drive o e site. Th' ill leviat a st s tl�
of th�rb for snow storage.
24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is
outside of the right-of-way.
25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees."
The final plat, construction plans and Development Contract have been scheduled for
review and approval on the April 25, 2005, City Council meeting. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me at 952.227.1134 or e-mail at
saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Sincerely,
Sharmeen Al-Jaff
Senior Planner
Location Map
Fox Den
6500 Chanhassen Road
Planning Case No. 05-08
Pleaunt View Road
Subject Property k
O
.. 3
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
Date: February 14, 2005
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner
Subject: Fox Den — Subdivision with variances on property located north of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway
101, and south of Pleasant View Road. Applicant: 10 SPRING, INC.
Planning Case: 05-08
The above -described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on February 11, 2005. The 60day review period ends April 12, 2005.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m in
the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than March 4,
2005. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is
greatly appreciated.
1. City Departments:
a.
City Engineer
b.
City Attorney
c.
City Park Director
d.
Fire Marshal
e.
Building Official
f.
Water Resources Coordinator
g.
Forester
2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District
3. MN Dept. of Transportation
4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
7. Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
8. Watershed District Engineer
a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek
b. Lower Minnesota River
c. Minnehaha Creek
9. Telephone Company (Qwest or SprintfUnited)
10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
11. Mediacom
12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
13. Other -
14. Other -
Answers to Mr
Page 4 of 4
on my eastern side was different that the one that Otto Engineering came up with. So, Ms. Otto did
know and was made aware of irregularities of the survey. We just have one more point on this, on
January 11, 2005, when we returned home, we found footsteps in our fenced in back yard. Footsteps in
our front yard, a hole in the southeast corner of our front yard. We thought there was a prowler. A
couple of days later, the same things. I went to ask a neighbor and he said there were surveyors. I called
the City and the City referred me to Otto Engineering. I received a call from Otto Engineering on
January 24 and they admitted that they were performing survey work for 6500 Chanhassen Rd and on
my property. My point is that there is a state law that requires surveyors to let landowners know
before they can enter your property. This is contained in Minnesota State Statute 505.31. We were
not given any verbal or written notice by Otto Engineering that they wanted to survM. Therefore,
we believe they wrongfully trespassed on our property. We would respectfully ask that if Otto
Engineering would like to gain access to our property for any reason, that we be notified in
Staffs Rely After reviewing the two surveys, the only difference that staff can discern is the location
of Mr. Ashline's fence and the type of material the fence is constructed from (wood vs.
` wire).
4/11/2005
Answers to Mr
Page 3 of 4
the north. A regional area to the north... We're not asking him to bring the current [pond] up to any
code." However, if the area to the north is going to be addressed by making the pond two feet deeper,
and Fox Hollow is already been taken into consideration, are you meaning to tell us that 1 acre of
Basically, the area to the north is already factored in and the City has no immediate plans to address that
area. Fox Hollow is already factored in. So all we are really talking about is 1 acre of additional
impervious surface. Logically, expanding the pond by such as large size does not make common sense.
Sure, there are always water quality issues but textbooks and formulas are only as good if they are
applied correctly and address the real problem.
The real problem is not pond size, but drainage and correct pond design. Specifically on the drainage
issue, look at what happened in southern Minnesota two weeks ago. A blocked culvert caused ponds and
creeks to overflow. A blocked culvert. No matter how big a pond is, if the drainage is blocked, it is not
going to help one bit. If a bathtub keeps filling with water and the drain is plugged, it is going to
overflow. If there is a flood, there is nothing that that stormwater pond can do. The point here is that on
page 5 of the Public Hearing minutes, Saam stated "No, I didn't look downstream and the reason why is
the outlet goes under 101 into Eden Prairie so drainage from this area goes into Eden Prairie and out of
county so."
standing water. This is the real problem and we are not addressing it here Creating a bigger pond
will not address the fundamental issue here which is drainage on the other side of 101. Now, I don't
know if this is an issue Eden Prairie wants to deal with or Chanhassen but it is a problem now and it will
only get worse. We don't want another southern Minnesota with a ditch or culvert being blocked. If we
addressed the real issue here, then some of the buffer to the north of the pond could be saved. We need
to re -run the numbers and use common sense on this area.
1�Staff s Reply Staff has reviewed the pond expansion design and is in agreement with the proposed
VVVVVV layout of the pond. Our only comment is to add an additional contour elevation line
(912) at the bottom of the pond for additional water quality purposes. The pond, as it
currently exists, is not sized for the entire developed drainage area that will be going to
the pond. As such, the pond must be enlar¢ed in order to meet the water quality
requirements of NUU.Additionally the pond will stpm-the.storm water during a rain
even so at —the ratwof water leaving the pond is less �hat the current runoff
rate -is. This is how the pond will meet the water quantity requirement of the City.
Finall ,the developer will be installinga nPw n ,t_u IPt rn„+*.L * - per Eitydetail
plate #31 , to control the outlet rate. The City will takeover owners pmain nance of
the pond and storm.sewer.at-the conclusion of a pmlect and after the warranty period.
The app cant has incorporated the above recommendations in the final
construction plans which are scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council on April
25, 2005.
6. Land Surveys. On page 18 of the Planning Commission Public Hearing, Cara Otto states, "I have not
been brought up to any, know of anything that were you know; ambiguous with any of the property
lines ... I'm not sure what the stakes are." On page 21, Cara Otto states, "I wouldn't want it [loss of
trees] if I were Jason sitting there too." I want to emphasize again that tree numbers 142 & 143 could be
considered boundary line trees and do have certain special legal issues before someone decides to cut
them down. We would like 142, 143, & 144 and the tree to the right of 144 (not shown on the inventory)
preserved through a modified grading scheme. On March IOd', I met with Cara Otto and the developer. I
showed Ms. Otto my survey. It clearly indicated that the property line my surveyor established for me
4/11/2005
Answers to Mr
Page 2 of 4
plantings there. We would like to see the species of evergreens in the boulevard that are currently to the
north of the pond. If not that species, then a fast growing species like Norway Spruce. They have to be
big enough to provide a buffer. Evergreens that only grow to 7 or 8 feet will not provide enough buffer
from the impacts of 101.
Ataff's Reply: Evergreen Boulevard Trees may be acceptable although the City has never planted
evergreens for boulevard trees before. Only pines, 8 feet in height will be permitted.
Staff strongly recommends against spruce trees. They are wide at the bottom of the tree
which cause sight line and snow removal problems.
3. Boulevard Planting Width In regard to the spacing of the boulevard trees. The City Forrester
recommended 30 feet. When the City Planner was asked repeatedly by a couple of the Commission
members at the public hearing on 3/15/05, she stated on page 3, "We have guidelines, we need to follow
those guidelines... which is 30 feet." However, this is misleading. The city code is specific. Section 20-
1182 states, "boulevard plantings are at a minimum of one tree for every 30 feet required." This is
the minimum standard Not a maximum standard as the City planner was alluding to I pointed
this out to the commission It is not a maximum of one tree per 30 feet, but a minimum. The
impression that the City Planner was given the commissioners was this was a maximum planting
distance. We believe that this information provided by the City employee was misleading and incorrect
and influenced some commission members not to advocate tree plantings closer such as 6, 14, or 20 feet.
Planting trees 30 feet apart will not provide much of a buffer, considering the trees planted there now to
the north of the pond are 8-10 feet the Commission's decision based
is Dart. on this misleading reformation provided by the Citv emn o e would also like to
lrecommend that the City Plann ve a cop—y -oTthe City code in front of them for all
future meetings so that issues that like can be resolved quickly and accurately, without ambiguities.
4;Staff's Reply The city code states "A minimum of one tree for every 30 feet of frontage is required." It
is staffs interpretation of the ordinance that trees that are planted 30 feet apart meet the
ordinance requirements. The City will insure that the development complies with the
buffer ordinance requirements.
4. Retaining W . The City is proposing a retaining wall along the western right of way along Fox
ve. We would ' e to explore this option and we made this clear to the Commission, the developer,
and e'd like to see how the retaining wall would look as opposed to regular grading and
raising the street. To date, we have not heard from the City, the developer or his engineer on this
issue after it was initially discussed in early March. Since the putting in of a street clearly impacts our
property, we would strongly urge the City, the developer, his engineer, and landscape architect to
contact us immediately before proceeding.
Staff's Reply The applicant has revised the proposed street grades to eliminate the need for a retaining
VI wall.
5 Pond l xpansio lthough ponds do not have to be designed perfectly, they have to be designed
ctly. We mus o this the right way. Even with the proposed changes, this area is not addressed
adequa re study needs to be done. There are several contradictory statements made by the City
engineer on this subject at the public hearing. Furthermore, the logic given for pond expansion isn't
valid. The real problem is drainage and pond design. Not the size of the pond. On page 7 of the 3/15/05
Public Hearing, Assistant City Engineer Matt Saam states, "The current pond is sized for the developed
area of Fox Hollow that's going there." Commissioner Sacchet asked, "It's properly sized for that?"
Saam states: "Yes, we are not asking this developer to increase it or to bring it up to cover the existing
area. He's being asked to increase it for his area and then the 912 contour area is for additional area to
4/11/2005
Answers to Mr
Page 1 of 4
Aanenson, Kate
From: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 2:44 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Answers to M Ashlines comments.doc
Answers 0
Mr. Ashlines pril 5, 2005 Letter to Mayor and City Council
1. Fox Drive Paved Road Width The applicant and the City believe that a 31 foot back of curb to back
of curb road can safely and aesthetically fit between our property line and the pond. I disagree.We've
survey which the applicant did, does not place my property line correctly. In fact, their survey
indicates that my eastern property line dissects my wooden fence and crosses over into the right of
way. However, this is not true We need to be absolutely sure that we are measuring 9.5 feet from
the correct point before anything begins Furthermore, with the grading plans submitted for the
western side of the pond, it will be impossible to get the 31 foot wide road in there. The City engineer
may tell you something different, but I live there and I've measured the space many times. Dust does
not fit. Additionally, even though it is consistent with the other street widths, it looks out of place.
Sometimes consistency is a good thing, but we've got ment, solemnly weigh the
impacts on the aesthetics, and not be afraid to adv ate a 24 foot wide ad with an after the fact
variance.
Staffs Reply Staff would be against a variance to decrease the street width C24'for the following
reasons.
a) It would limit the street to parking on only one side or prohibit on -street parking
all together. This would conflict with all other public residential streets in town
that allow parking on both sides.
b) There is no major environmental reason why a street meeting current design
requirements (31' wide) cannot be constructed; in other words, staff does not see
a hardship why the street width needs to be decreased.
c) The City's standard of 31' paved road will fit within the existing 50 foot right-of-
way. The road will be 9.5 feet east of Mr. Ashline's eastern property line.
2 Boulevard Plantings We believe that it is vitally important with all of the City owned and large
evergreen tress to the north of the pond facing removal, that boulevard plantings along Fox Drive take
place. The Staff Report speaks to this. The City Forrester and the Planning Commission also believe this
notion. Commissioner Sacchet stated on page 27 of the March 15, 2005 Planning Commission
purposes." On page 30 of the minutes, condition 12 f, K, L, M speak to these desires. The point
here is that the entire partial tree buffer to the north of the pond is being lost. There are some very
mature evergreens that do provide a buffer from noise, headlights, and other impacts of 101—not to
mention help to make our community and homes more aesthetically appealing. We can all plant some
4/11/2005