CAS-31_HIDDEN CREEK MEADOWS (5)0
0
The contents of this file
have been scanned.
Do not add anything to
it unless it has been
scanned.
w
—
N
C/m
r/1
h
0
G� o
y
OO
L
U
•may �
�
E'er
U
U
n
0
0
0
00
z
ow
00
HO
0 O
mF 0
l
,a H
0a 0
zx m
w M.
0 F
aw t9z
nL E
H 0
XF ZD:
ffCYO
OLJR>a0
31 : w
alno
OQ®X
LL.s.Hw
D:
w
0
z
w
0
0
F
z
F
w
�&
rIM
won
Ing
()Lt-3 j
o
LL
N
06
m
cc cc
W W CO
LL 11J Lr)
Y y��
Cr
z0
¢ U�w
z�
Ir
02
r W
ma �88�Fo�.2At
mm� ems
N o�y ter€
8g
o jEo=$;;Sao
oy i$a$oo
m.
�m
m-
Zam@s-mom �r-
_gtmm�am�=m
m. o�
����mma 2g5m
m-smowo�$��o
`a�osSaE�omt
nno mu�u�'
E
yym EL SSE.
Notice of Hearing
Cha�assen Planning Commission *till
Date & Time:
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for approval of a 21-lot subdivision with variances
and a wetland alteration permit to permit the crossing of a
Proposal:
creek and wetland with a public street. The site is 19.2 acres
zoned Single -Family Residential, RSF - Hidden Creek
Meadows.
Planning File:
04-31
Applicant:
I D & G of Chanhassen, LLC
Property
Located at the ends of Pipewood Lane and Cartway Lane
Location:
north of Highway 7
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
Comments:
e-mail baenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions. Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested parry is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonirgs and land use amendments from residential to commerciaUndustrial.
• Minnesota state statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokespemon/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
protect with any interested pemon(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does no. Minutes are taken and
any corresponderce regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
somethingtobeincluded in the reportplease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
w
g
�$
�(
��w«E
RG
��)If
�toee
�{�2S
\)
��
�
�
\
0
Notice of Hearing anhassen Planning Commission Ating
Date & Time:
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for approval of a 21-lot subdivision with variances
and a wetland alteration permit to permit the crossing of a
Proposal:
creek and wetland with a public street. The site is 19.2 acres
zoned Single -Family Residential, RSF - Hidden Creek
Meadows.
Planning File:
04-31
Applicant:
D & G of Chanhassen, LLC
Property
Located at the ends of Pipewood Lane and Cartway Lane
Location:
north of Highway 7
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to infp��rm you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input fr* the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 5:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about
Questions &
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
Comments:
e-mail boenerous(Rici.chanhassen.mmus. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional aril Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested parry is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaVndustrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokespersontrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Stall personhamed on the notification.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
February 4, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Hearing
for Hidden Creek Meadows — Planning Case No. 04-31 to the persons named on attached
Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and
depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage
fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such
by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate
records.
Sub bed and s orn to before me
this fn day of 2005.
Notary Publi
K en J. En lha • t, Dep Clerk
KIM I MEl11MSSEN
Notary PubZctnnesota
if
y OwwAm ae Fj*" JW 31, 2010
!CANNED
Notice of Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Notice of Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for approval of a 21-lot subdivision with variances
and a wetland alteration permit to permit the crossing of a
Proposal:
creek and wetland with a public street. The site is 19.2 acres
zoned Single -Family Residential, RSF - Hidden Creek
Meadows.
Planning File:
04-31
Applicant:
D & G of Chanhassen, LLC
Property
Located at the ends of Pipewood Lane and Cartway Lane
Location:
north of Highway 7
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
Comments:
e-mail baenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all properly within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation,
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallndustrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Date & Time:
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for approval of a 21-lot subdivision with variances
and a wetland alteration permit to permit the crossing of a
Proposal:
creek and wetland with a public street. The site is 19.2 acres
zoned Single -Family Residential, RSF - Hidden Creek
Meadows.
Planning File:
04-31
Applicant:
D & G of Chanhassen, LLC
Property
Located at the ends of Pipewood Lane and Cartway Lane
Location:
north of Highway 7
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about th
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhA
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
Comments:
e-mail bcenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterstio ,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a pan of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and castle amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaUndustrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included In the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
F
Lake MfnnewaeMe
This map is neither a legally recalled map nor a Survey and is not intended fo be used as one.
This map is a compilation, d records, information and data located in various city, county, stale and
federal offices; and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference
puposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
to prepare this Map are ertar free, and Me City does not represent Mal the GIS Data can be used
for navigational, tradting or any other purpose requiring exacting meamerent of distance or
direcbon or precision in the depiction of geographic features. n errors or dscrepancies are to ind
please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes §466.03, Solid, 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that Me City shall not
be liable for any damages. and expremy waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and
hold harmless Me City from any and all dam brought by User, its employees or agents, or third
pales which arise our of the users access of use of data provided.
Lake Mimewashta
This rrep is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and
federal offices and other sources regarding the area shove, and is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
to prepare this Mi are error free, and Me City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used
for navigational, tracking or any Other purpose requiring exacting measurerncmt of distance or
direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. 0 errors or discrepancies are found
please contact 952-227-1107, The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes §466 03, Subd. 21 (2000), and Me user of this map acknowledges that Me City shall not
be time for any Barrages, and etpressly waives ail darts, and agrees to defend indemnity, and
hold harmless the City from any and all clams brought by User, is employees or agents, or Mird
pintas which arise out of Me users access or use of data provided.
E
r�
u
DALE H COLLINS TONKA DEVELOPMENT LLC
10758 130TH ST 21470 EXCELSIOR BLVD
GLENCOE MN 55336 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
WILLIAM H & KIMBERLY A KOHMAN WILLIAM J & KARI L MCREAVY
3780 MEADOW LN 3790 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PATRICK L & BONNIE C MONAHAN ROBIN S O'MEARA
3801 MEADOW LN 3814 MEADOW CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
BRIAN R CARLSON RANDALL A & LISA M MAYER
3828 MEADOW CT 3831 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
BLAKE L BOGEMA JEFFREY F JEW ISON &
LISAJ WECKWERTH
3841 LINDEN CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 384E MEADOW CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
VINCENT D & BEATRICE E DECKER STEPHEN A & SANTINA CASTER
3861 LESLEE CRV 3861 LINDEN CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
DAVID C & LISA A GAUPP LAUREANA VOUNG BOUALOUANG
3870 MEADOW LN 3884 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PAVEL & OLGA L GLUSHENYA KATHY A SCHURDEVIN
3891 MEADOW LN 3921 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JOSEPH J & CASEY J BERGQUIST LOCH HC LLC
4011 PIPEWOOD LN 4100 BERKSHIRE LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PLYMOUTH MN 55446
RVC HOMES INC TERRANCE LANE TOLL
62 HAMEL RD 6250 CARTWAY LN
HAMEL MN 55340 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MOMCILO SPASOJEVIC &
SMILJANA SPASOJEVIC
3771 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RALPH A & SHIRLEY A NELSON
3800 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
VICTOR Q & DIANE T MORAVEC
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
3821 LINDEN CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
DALE E & LINDA J KEEHL
3841 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JEFFREY R BERGE &
DENISE E ZOELLMER
3856 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PATRICIA B CHARNEY
3861 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
GARY CARLSON
3891 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PETER ALEXANDER THOMSON &
CYNTHIA L GESS
4001 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
LUANN M FALENCZYKOWSKI
6274 GINGER DR
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346
MARK F MACPHERSON
6301 CARTWAY LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CRAIG C MILLER
6450 MINNEWASHTA PKY
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
STEVEN M & MICHELLE L BECKER
6510 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
S JOHN & LISA A JORDAN
6541 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
KEITH R & JODI L KORINKE
6310 CHURCH RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
GREGORY W & JENNIFER
GREENWOOD
6501 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JAMES E & PEGGY A MARKHAM
6520 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RICKY W & HEIDI S HUEFFMEIER
6551 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
WAYNE M HARTUNG &
TONIRJOHNSON
6330 CHURCH RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MICHELE L MUEHLBERG
6508 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MARION A OLIN
6540 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JEANIE ANN SEEHOF
6561 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
STEVEN P & SHEILA A MCSHERRY TJB HOMES INCg100 BALTIMORE ST NE RICH BEAGLE
6571 KIRKWOOD CIR 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 #102 102 MN 55449 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
E
GREGORY A & CYNTHIA L AHLM
6429 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8819
SCOTT D & PAMELA M HOWARD
6384 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8816
DARREN D KAHMEYER &
MONICA M KAHMEYER
755 GRANT ST
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-3026
WARREN D MCLAUGHLIN
CATHERINE C MCLAUGHLIN
6434 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8818
THOMAS G & BRENDA L PALKERT
255 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
JEFFREY P & LINDA S OBERMAN
175 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
DONALD & MONA PETERSON
6414 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8818
WILLIAM A & REGINA R
GREENWOOD
195 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
MICHAEL H & JANET M GILMORE
165 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
MICHAEL & KATHLEEN KERBER MARK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY
27110 62ND ST W INC HENNEPIN CO GOUT CENTER
EXCELSIOR 55331-8907 PO BOX 21327 300 6TH ST S
EAGAN MN 55121-0327 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487-1308
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
November 5, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for Hidden Creek Meadows — CORRECTION — Planning Case No. 04-31 to the
persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope
addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United
States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were
those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and
by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this $-Ih day of ]jrn �Au /x.r �, 2004.
"""T�AAAAAAA
K
MEUWiSSEN
k11�!�r;p�p� e- Minnesota
Notary Pu P,,,ua,
$CANNED
Notice of Public Hearing — CORRECTION
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
TUESDAY MeRday, November 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for approval of a 23-lot subdivision with variances
and a wetland alteration permit to permit the crossing of a
Proposal:
creek and wetland with a public street. The site is 19.2 acres
zoned Single -Family Residential, RSF - Hidden Creek
Meadows.
Planning File:
04-31
Applicant:
D & G of Chanhassen, LLC
Property
Located at the ends of Pipewood Lane and Cartway Lane
Location:
north of Highway 7
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
Comments:
e-mail bqenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party Is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaVindustdal.
• Minnesota State Statute 579.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Notice of Public Hearing - CORRECTION
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
TUESDAY Mianday, November 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for approval of a 23-lot subdivision with variances
and a wetland alteration permit to permit the crossing of a
Proposal:
creek and wetland with a public street, The site is 19.2 acres
zoned Single -Family Residential, RSF - Hidden Creek
Meadows.
Plannin File:
04-31
Applicant:
D & G of Chanhassen, LLC
Property
Located at the ends of Pipewood Lane and Cartway Lane
Location:
north of Highway 7
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborh*
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead th
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
Comments:
e-mail bcenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alters
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application In writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 579.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokespersontrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
lake Mknawa m
This rest, is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not imandetl to be used w one.
This map is a mmplaeon o1 records, information and dale located in various dry, county, slate and
federal offices and other sources regarding Me area shown, and is to be used for reference,
purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Infomation System (GIS) Data used
to prepare this map are error free, "the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used
for navigational, backing or any other pupose requiring exacting measurerrent of distance or
direction or precision in that depiction of geographic featuresd emom or dscrepandes are found
please contact 952-227.1107. This preceding olsciamer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes §466.03, Subtl. 21 (20D0), and the user ot this map acknowledges that the City shall not
be limn for any darnel and erpresaly waives all darts, and agrees to defend, indemndy, and
hold ha nness the City from any and all darts brought by User, ifs errployees or agents. or Mini
parties which arse our of the user's access or use of data provided.
Late MnnswaNls
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, slate and
fedora offices and other sources regardng the area shown, and is M be used for reference
purposes only. The City does not warrant Mat the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent Mat the GIS Data can be used
for navlgif coal, (racking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurairent of distance or
direction or predaon in Me depiction of geographic features. g errors or 6screpandes are found
please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided Wrsuant to Minnesota
Statutes §466.03. Subd. 21 (20g0), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall nth
be liaole for any damages, and elpressly waves all darts, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and
hold harness the City from any and all dams brought by User, bs employees of agents, or third
parries which arise our of the users access or use of data prwided.
171
DALE H COLLINS TONKA DEVELOPMENT LLC MOMCILO SPASOJEVIC &SMILJANA SPASOJEVIC
10758 130TH ST 21470 EXCELSIOR BLVD 3771 MEADOW
GLENCOE MN 55336 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
WILLIAM H & KIMBERLY A KOHMAN
3780 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PATRICK L & BONNIE C MONAHAN
3801 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
BRIAN R CARLSON
3828 MEADOW CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
BLAKE L BOGEMA
3841 LINDEN CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
VINCENT D & BEATRICE E DECKER
3861 LESLEE CRV
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
DAVID C & LISA A GAUPP
3870 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PAVEL & OLGA L GLUSHENYA
3891 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JOSEPH J & CASEY J BERGQUIST
4011 PIPEWOOD LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
WILLIAM J & KARI L MCREAVY
3790 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
ROBIN S O'MEARA
3814 MEADOW CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RANDALL A & LISA M MAYER
3831 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JEFFREY FJEWISON &
LISA J W ECKW ERTH
3842 MEADOW CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
STEPHEN A & SANTINA CASTER
3861 LINDEN CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
LAUREANA VOUNG BOUALOUANG
3884 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
KATHY A SCHURDEVIN
3921 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
LOCH HC LLC
4100 BERKSHIRE LN
PLYMOUTH MN 55446
RALPH A & SHIRLEY A NELSON
3800 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
VICTOR Q & DIANE T MORAVEC
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
3821 LINDEN CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
DALE E & LINDA J KEEHL
3841 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JEFFREY R BERGE &
DENISE E ZOELLMER
3856 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PATRICIA B CHARNEY
3861 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
GARY CARLSON
3891 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PETER ALEXANDER THOMSON &
CYNTHIA L GESS
4001 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RVC HOMES INC TERRANCE LANE TOLL LUANN M FALENCZYKOWSKI
62 HAMEL RD 6250 CARTWAY LN 6274 GINGER DR
HAMEL MN 55340 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346
MARK F MACPHERSON KEITH R & JODI L KORINKE WAYNE M HARTUNG &
6301 CARTWAY LN 6310 CHURCH RD TONI R JOHNSON
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 6330 CHURCH RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CRAIG C MILLER GREGORY W & JENNIFER MICHELE L MUEHLBERG
6450 MINNEWASHTA PKY GREENWOOD 6508 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 6501 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
STEVEN M & MICHELLE L BECKER JAMES E & PEGGY A MARKHAM MARION A OLIN
6510 KIRKWOOD CIR 6520 KIRKWOOD CIR 6540 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
S JOHN & LISA A JORDAN RICKY W & HEIDI S HUEFFMEIER JEANIE ANN SEEHOF
6541 KIRKWOOD CIR 6551 KIRKWOOD CIR 6561 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
STEVEN P & SHEILA A MCSHERRY TJB HOMES INC RICH SLAGLE
6571 KIRKWOOD CIR 9100 BALTIMORE ST NE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 #102 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BLAINE MN 55449
GREGORY A & CYNTHIA L AHLM WARREN D MCLAUGHLIN DONALD & MONA PETERSON
6429 ASTER TRL CATHERINE C MCLAUGHLIN 6414 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8819 6434 ASTER TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8818
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8818
SCOTT D & PAMELA M HOWARD
6384 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8816
DARREN D KAHMEYER &
MONICA M KAHMEYER
755 GRANT ST
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-3026
THOMAS G & BRENDA L PALKERT
255 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
JEFFREY P & LINDA S OBERMAN
175 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
WILLIAM A & REGINA R
GREENWOOD
195 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
MICHAEL H & JANET M GILMORE
165 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
MICHAEL & KATHLEEN KERBER MARK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY
T W INC HENNEPIN CO GOUT CENTER
27110 62ND S
EXCELSIOR 55331-8907 PO BOX 21327 300 6TH ST S
EAGAN MN 55121-0327 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487-1308
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
November 4, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for Hidden Creek Meadows — Planning Case No. 04-31 to the persons named on
attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner,
and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage
fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such
by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate
records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this �+ P) day of % �Gl�rvt r! c �_� , 2004.
I Notary PubTic
KIM T MEic UWISSes
EN
y! RVER COUNTY
�My�Commisslon fxplres 1/31/20DS
SCANNED
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Monday, November 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for approval of a 23-lot subdivision with variances
and a wetland alteration permit to permit the crossing of a
Proposal:
creek and wetland with a public street. The site is 19.2 acres
zoned Single -Family Residential, RSF - Hidden Creek
Meadows.
Planning File:
04-31
Applicant:
D & G of Chanhassen, LLC
Property
Located at the ends of Pipewood Lane and Cartway Lane
Location:
north of Highway 7
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
Comments:
e-mail baenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party Is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industdal.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Date & Time:
Monday, November 16 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for approval of a 23-lot subdivision with variances
and a wetland alteration permit to permit the crossing of a
Proposal:
creek and wetland with a public street. The site is 19.2 acres
zoned Single -Family Residential, RSF - Hidden Creek
Meadows.
Planning File:
04-31
Applicant:
D & G of Chanhassen, LLC
Property
Located at the ends of Pipewood Lane and Cartway Lane
Location:
north of Highway 7
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about t�
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborh
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
Comments:
e-mail baenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterat
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 619.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included In the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Lake Minnewashla
This map is neither a legally recorded MI nor a survey and is not intended to be used as me.
This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and
federal offices and other sources regartkng the area shown, and is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City does not warrant Mat Me Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
to prepare this map are error free, shot Me City does not represent Mat Me GIS Data can ba used
for navigaomal. traclung or any other wrose requiring eaac ing missumeoent of distance or
direction or precision in Me depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found
please contact 952-227.1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
Stan ms; §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that Me City shall not
be liable for my darregas, and expressly waives all claim, and agrees to defame, indemnity, and
hold harmless the City from any and all claim brought by User, 4s employees or agents, or Mid
parties which arise out of Me users access or use of dam provided.
Lake Minnawsalda
This map is neither a legally recorded map non a survey and is not intended to be used as me.
This rtap is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and
federal oHicas and ocher sources regarding Me area shown, and is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City does rot warrant Mat the Geographic Infmretim System (GIS) Data used
to prepare this prep are error hse, and the CM does not represent that Me GIS Data can be used
for navigatlmal. tracking of any other purpose requiring enacting measurement of distance or
direction or precision in the depiction of geogaphic featuresd errors or discrepancies are found
please contest 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that Me City shall not
be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claim and agrees to defend, Indemnify, and
hold harmless the City from any and all darts brought by User, its employees or agents, or Mine
parties which arise out of Me users access or use of data provided.
Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet)
Hidden Creek Meadows
City of Chanhassen
Planning Case No. 04-31
rr �a
Subject Property
Lake Minnewashta
Roundhouse Park
E
is
DALE H COLLINS TONKA DEVELOPMENT LLC
10758 130TH ST 21470 EXCELSIOR BLVD
GLENCOE MN 55336 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
WILLIAM H & KIMBERLY A KOHMAN WILLIAM J & KARI L MCREAVY
3780 MEADOW LN 3790 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PATRICK L & BONNIE C MONAHAN ROBIN S O'MEARA
3801 MEADOW LN 3814 MEADOW CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
BRIAN R CARLSON RANDALL A & LISA M MAYER
3828 MEADOW CT 3831 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
BLAKE L BOGEMA JEFFREY F JEWISON &
LISAJ WECKWERTH
3841 LINDEN CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 384E MEADOW CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
VINCENT D & BEATRICE E DECKER STEPHEN A & SANTINA CASTER
3861 LESLEE CRV 3861 LINDEN CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
DAVID C & LISA A GAUPP LAUREANA VOUNG BOUALOUANG
3870 MEADOW LN 3884 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PAVEL & OLGA L GLUSHENYA KATHY A SCHURDEVIN
3891 MEADOW LN 3921 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JOSEPH J & CASEY J BERGQUIST LOCH HC LLC
4011 PIPEWOOD LN 4100 BERKSHIRE LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PLYMOUTH MN 55446
RVC HOMES INC TERRANCE LANE TOLL
62 HAMEL RD 6250 CARTWAY LN
HAMEL MN 55340 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MOMCILO SPASOJEVIC &
SMILJANA SPASOJEVIC
3771 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RALPH A & SHIRLEY A NELSON
3800 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
VICTOR Q & DIANE T MORAVEC
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
3821 LINDEN CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
DALE E & LINDA J KEEHL
3841 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JEFFREY R BERGE &
DENISE E ZOELLMER
3856 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PATRICIA B CHARNEY
3861 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
GARY CARLSON
3891 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PETER ALEXANDER THOMSON &
CYNTHIA L GESS
4001 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
LUANN M FALENCZYKOWSKI
6274 GINGER DR
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346
MARK F MACPHERSON
6301 CARTWAY LN
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CRAIG C MILLER
6450 MINNEWASHTA PKY
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
STEVEN M & MICHELLE L BECKER
6510 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
S JOHN & LISA A JORDAN
6541 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
KEITH R & JODI L KORINKE
6310 CHURCH RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
GREGORY W & JENNIFER
GREENWOOD
6501 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JAMES E & PEGGY A MARKHAM
6520 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RICKY W & HEIDI S HUEFFMEIER
6551 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
WAYNE M HARTUNG &
TONI R JOHNSON
6330 CHURCH RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MICHELE L MUEHLBERG
6508 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MARION A OLIN
6540 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JEANIE ANN SEEHOF
6561 KIRKWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
STEVEN P & SHEILA A MCSHERRY TJB HOMES INC RICH SLAGLE
6571 KIRKWOOD CIR 9100 BALTIMORE ST NE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 #102 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BLAINE MN 55449
•
GREGORY A & CYNTHIA L AHLM
6429 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8819
SCOTT D & PAMELA M HOWARD
6384 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8816
DARREN D KAHMEYER &
MONICA M KAHMEYER
755 GRANT ST
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-3026
WARREN D MCLAUGHLIN
CATHERINE C MCLAUGHLIN
6434 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8818
THOMAS G & BRENDA L PALKERT
255 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
JEFFREY P & LINDA S OBERMAN
175 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
DONALD & MONA PETERSON
6414 ASTER TRL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8818
WILLIAM A & REGINA R
GREENWOOD
195 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
MICHAEL H & JANET M GILMORE
165 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806
MICHAEL & KATHLEEN KERBER MARK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY
27110 62ND ST W INC HENNEPIN CO GOVT CENTER
EXCELSIOR 55331-8907 PO BOX 21327 300 6TH ST S
EAGAN MN 55121-0327 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487-1308
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Suburban Publishing
State of Minnesota)
)SS.
County of Carver )
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Laurie A. Hartmann, beingdu] swam, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized
PLANNING CASE ASSE 31 agent of the publisher of te newspapers known as the Chaska Herad and the Chanhassen Vil-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN ag P P�
NOTICE ISHEREBY GIVENthat lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
the Chanhassen Planning
Commission will hold a public (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
hearing on Tuesday, November 16, newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as
2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council amended.
Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, / /
this Market Blvd. The purpose of g The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 7a9
this hearing is to consider s request ( ) P
forapprovalofa231otsufx0visionwith was published on the daze or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said
variances and a wetland alteration Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of
permittopermitthectnssingofacreek the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both
and wetland with a public street, The inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition
site is 192 acres zoned Single -Family and publication of the Notice:
Residential, RSF, locatedat the ends of
Pipewood Lane and Cartway Lane abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
north of Highway 7 - Hidden Creek
Meadows. Applicant: D & G of
Chanhacvnn, LLC.
A plan showing the location of the
proposal is available for public review y
i� _4m��
at City Hall during regular business Laurie A. Hartmann
hours. All interested persons are
invited to attend this public hearing
andexpresstheiropinionswithrrspect Subscribed and sworn before me on
to this proposal -
Robert
Generous, Senior Planner
Email: J /_ A
been ro r i an]r a n n ,s this day of t � �tf 2004
Phone: 952-227- -,. GYIEN M. RADUENZ
1131 NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA
(Published in the Chanhassen �';.�.
Villager on Thursday, November 4, g,---n My Commission ExF�res Jan 31, 2D05
2004; No. 4293)
Notary Public
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ............................... $22.00 per column inch
Raze actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $10.85 per column inch
SCANNED
0 M
The contents of this file
have been scanned.
Do not add anything to
it unless it has been
scanned.
• r
City Council Meeting — June 13, 2005
oy- 3/
e. Approval of Temporary On -Sale Liquor License, August 20-21, St. Hubert's Catholic
Community Harvest Festival.
f. Resolution#2005-53: Approve Resolution for TH 101 GAP Municipal Consent, Project
04-06.
h. Resolution#2005-54: Order TH 101 GAP Project 04-06.
j. Hidden Creek Meadows:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract
k. Resolution#2005-55: Approve Resolution Amending the 2004 Fund Transfers.
M. Approve Concrete Quote, 2005 Playground Projects.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
I. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION COMBINING 1MPROVEMENT PRO_TE
04-05, 03-09-3. AND 04-06.
Rick Dorsey: Thank you Mayor, council. I'd like to get some clarification. The wording in the
resolution suggests that everything dealing with Project 04-05 has been, you know no one has
any public comments to make about it. I believe that's the way it's worded. My understanding
is, from talking to Paul is they're referring to the items related to the 212 project as there's a
number of items that are included in the feasibility study as presented back in September that
aren't part of that assessment that they needed, but it's binding projects together and it appears
the way it's, the verbiage that's in the resolution is that it's saying that we as land holders and
neighbors have had our chance to speak everything we want to say about the project and are in
agreement with it, which is not necessarily the case.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members, I can address this issue. What we're doing here
is consolidating the 2005 MUSA improvement project along with the 101 GAP and the 212
project that we've ordered. We're combining those all into one project and thus being able to
use the 20% assessments from the 2005 MUSA. That would make this project qualify for
general obligation bonds for, through the State of Minnesota. As they stood alone, Mary Ippel
had difficulty in giving an opinion as stand alone projects so what this resolution is doing is
combining all three projects and using at least 20% of the assessibility from the 2005 MUSA
area to meet that general obligation authority ruling. This is not precluding anybody in the 2005
MUSA area from contesting their assessments. At the final assessment hearing I think we're
planning on having in September of 2005, but for us to qualify for the State loan program we
have to meet the general obligation statute and by combining these three projects that allows us
to do that. I think Roger has also had some conversations with Mary Ippel regarding the
consolidation of those three projects. Roger?
2
by-31
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
CHANHASSEN, LLC: PLANNING CASE 04-31.
Public Present:
Name Address
Perry Ryan
Excelsior
Dean Carlson
Eden Prairie
Cindy Gee
4001 Aster Trail
Jenni & Peter Thomsen
4001 Aster Trail
Jeff & Lisa Jewison
3842 Meadow Court
John & Dale Collins
Glencoe
Kathy Schurdevin
3921 Aster Trail
Don Rodriguez
700 Shadyview Lane, Plymouth
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant is requesting a 21 lot subdivision with 2 outlots. The
subject site is located north of Highway 7 on the very northern limits of the city adjacent to the
City of Shorewood and Victoria. It's an extension of existing plat. This subdivision of this
application actually has 3 requests. Subdivision approval, a variance with a wetland alteration
permit. This item first appeared before the Planning Commission back in November. At that
time there was some additional lots that were, 23 lots. In reviewing it it appeared that maybe the
lots were a little narrow and the staff had recommended some revisions to the plat so the
subdivision you see today is actually 21 lots. That item we re -heard before the Planning
Commission on February 15a', 2005 and they did recommend approval with some modifications.
One being the cul-de-sac being moved back from Cathcart Drive which I'll go through in a
minute, and providing a buffer. So when the subdivision first came in, Outlot D, which was a
lot, the creek goes through that property. It has been eliminated as a lot. It will now be an
outlot, which we think is the best way to preserve that area with the creek through it. The other
outlot is where the storm water pond and the existing large wetland, and again this will help, and
staff always tries to connect streets and in looking at kind of creating a puzzle and tying
properties together, when this subdivision came forward, which is just immediately on the east
side, there was a recommendation for a stub street. Because this is a continuation of the existing
Hidden Creek, it does present a long cul-de-sac so we did want to give it a secondary access.
There is potential future development to the north on the Schmidt's Acres parcel but we do want
to provide a secondary access, which would be via Cathcart Way. Therefore the staff is
recommending, had recommended that the cul-de-sac touch down at that point so there is a
secondary access out that street is maintained, Cathcart Way. Again it's not the intent for the
residents use but it does provide an emergency access now. There is a 10 foot buffer similar to
what we have just approved tonight, cul-de-sac with a 10 foot buffer between and also most
recently on the Yoberry plat. Again it's our interpretation that it does not meet the double
20
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
frontage lot. I think for the most part that's the main points of it. We're not requesting parks.
There's Cathcart Park located in the area so there will be fees taken for that. The other thing that
I think this subdivision also provides is there is, because the two subdivision in this area, the
subdivision in this area are older. The storm water quantity and quality for this area is also
picking up additional runoff so they're providing a greater area, treatment area so the city is
giving them credit for providing a larger treatment area. Again because of the creek and the
sensitivity to the area. That's a plus, providing larger treatment. Again, it does have a longer
cul-de-sac is why we're recommending the secondary access out, but with that the Planning
Commission is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. I'd be happy to
answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, can you do a little more detail on the road. Where it's at now and
the secondary access. You had me until the part about residents not using it.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. There's some residents, I'm sorry. Hidden Creek would not use it.
There are some homes on the Cathcart Way that do use that, it's a gravel road. Sorry, I grew up
in Excelsior. I don't know that area very well so, so this cul-de-sac would not, these people
wouldn't use that street. But the intent is that it would be used for emergency access only. If
you follow me.
Mayor Furlong: I guess with regard to location of the cul-de-sac, that's one of the reasons why
the cul-de-sac is located there in the development?
Kate Aanenson: That is correct. So we have, so we're maintaining plowing that so we have an
access for emergency, if we had to come down that way or go out that way.
Councilman Lundquist: And then your comments about connecting the neighborhoods would
be.
Kate Aanenson: The original goal when this was platted, and I can pull that out. Again it was
done by Mr. Carlson who lives in that area. If you look at the conditions of approval, this was
the letter I've attached, was intended to be a street dedicated. That would have been our first
choice, is to push the street through as shown on the dedication, which is also on this one. But
utility and drainage easement on this plat was recorded but not the street. That was one of the
recommendations that now the City Attorney over the last number of years has recorded all
documents to make sure that they're recorded correctly. At this time it goes back a number of
years. It may have been recorded by the developer and not the attorney as we do those now, but
that was how we provided the recommended access be provided to this piece of property to the
east. So again we always look at two access points. Could it be further subdivided to the north
as I indicated where there would be a public street, and that would be looked at if Mr. Carlson
further subdivided that property.
Councilman Lundquist: So that's what you've got shown in there to the north of that?
21
oe�„a�a
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Again, we're providing, showing that there is another way as we
always do on every piece, how could that piece get access if it wanted to be further subdivided.
Councilman Lundquist: Then one of the issues we have now with current residents concern is
they back up to that cul-de-sac where that was supposed to go through at one time.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, and there was a question on the interpretation of the double
fronted lots, right, and again we've had that 2 or 3 times, and there's a 10 foot buffer in there.
And that wasn't on the original. That was one of the recommendations of the Planning
Commission so that has been changed on the plat.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff? Kate I think also coming out of the Planning
Commission on that same issue with the, moving the end of the right-of-way of the cul-de-sac to
the west, and then planting some landscaping. Can you, just so I'm clear, how much landscaping
was being recommended? I know at the end of the cul-de-sac itself, or the eastern end of the cul-
de-sac there was some recommendation.
Kate Aanenson: Right, a minimum of 9 evergreens and 3 ornamental trees be planted at the end
of that cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: And those would be in the.
Kate Aanenson: The 10 foot.
Mayor Furlong: The 10 foot area which is part property, or Lot 12?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then was there also some request for planting along Lot 12 as well
as it goes.
Kate Aanenson: Well that would be that portion of Lot 12. Again there was a recommendation
to flip this so the flag would be the other way. Again it doesn't resolve the conflict of still trying
to get a public street to the cartway. In addition, putting the flag on there, there's a large wetland
there. Lot 12 is almost 1 acre in size. It's a pretty big lot so at that point you have to look at the
reasonableness and it seems reasonable to give a variance when you've got that large a piece.
Again, we had intended that street to go through.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess to summarize just for my clarification, the recommendation
coming as it went through the process of the Planning Commission was to move the end of the
right-of-way to the west 10 feet.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
22
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005 •
Mayor Furlong: To provide not only the private property there but also then to provide a means
to do some planting.
Kate Aanenson: A buffer area, correct.
Mayor Furlong: A buffer area, okay. Thank you. Okay. Good. Any other questions for staff at
this point? If not, is the applicant here this evening? If there's anything you'd like to address to
the council.
Dean Carlson: Hello. My name's Dean Carlson with D&G of Chanhassen, the applicant on this
plat. We are in complete agreement with the planning having gone back and forth quite a few
times on this for many months to make it right so we feel pretty good about the staff's
recommendations and being able to accommodate those requests and we're here for questions
and comments if you have them.
Mayor Furlong: Appreciate that. Any questions for the applicant? No? Okay. Very good,
thank you. There was a public hearing on this project at the Planning Commission. Some things
have changed. Been modified since then. I guess just to make sure if there's some comment that
members of the public would like to make on this, again we've reviewed the Planning
Commission minutes and are familiar with the issues raised there so, but if there's any changes,
we certainly would like to listen to any public comment if there's a desire to do so. If they'd like
to come forward to the council. Sure, why don't you come on to the podium if you could state
your name and address.
Jenni Thomsen: My name is Jenni Thomsen and I live at 4001 Aster Trail and I'm wondering
what action will be taken to protect the trees that will be in the Outlot B? Or if they will be
replanted or.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, I'd be happy to answer that. That was one of the recommendations that
the forester had made, and that's that we actually kind of walked that site. They had originally
proposed it as a lot. We felt that wasn't a good lot and preserve the trees, so as with any
construction project before they begin, there's a stake field marked so that is our intent. Our
forester is recommending that we actually try to save as many of those and we'd actually fence
that area off with tree fencing so they're not in, try to save as many of those trees.
Mayor Furlong: And our city staff goes out to the site and does that?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Before construction begins on any project, after the pre -con.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Good question. Is there any other public comment?
Jeff Jewison: Hi. My name is Jeff Jewison at 3842 Meadow Court and our issue has been kind
of stated fairly clearly so I won't go into those but I did have a question regarding the double
frontage on how that's defined. It makes sense to me that double frontage is two frontages and
we have a cul-de-sac in our front yard and one in our back. The first time we raised it we were
told that it wasn't double frontage because of the cartway that would touch our property so
23
City Council Meeting — Apri125' 2005
there's existing double frontage. But once we proved that, that our lot doesn't touch that, then
we got okay, our lot is technically a comer lot because of that right-of-way between our house
and the northern house, but we proved that that doesn't exist either so I'm kind of wondering
why it's not considered a double frontage lot. I guess that's my question.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Could you put the map back up again so he can show me exactly
where his house is and show me everything?
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Jeff Jewison: Yeah, this house right here. So our front yard is along this part right here, and
then our back yard would be along this part right here. So I'm not sure why that wouldn't be
double frontage, and since we're not a corner lot and this ... doesn't exist, and the cartway doesn't
touch our property. It's about 10-20 feet off.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, fair question. Do you want to address that? The question is, with the
plan, why his lot is not, would not be considered double frontage.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Again, our interpretation of a double fronted lot is they're not
touching so there's a 10 foot buffer inbetween is our definition.
Todd Gerhardt: Which would be the ownership of Lot 12.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Todd Gerhardt: There's a lot, that flag part of the lot, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. And that's 10 foot property to the right-of-way.
Kate Aanenson: He's actually a little bit more than that. The flag is about 30 foot.
Todd Gerhardt: Kate, could you just show me that area on the plat.
Kate Aanenson: It's actually the neck of the flag right here, which is this part is 30 feet, as it
gets closer up here. You know it's down on the back side of the bulb to 10 foot.
Mayor Furlong: And that's to the right-of-way. How much is the distance between the outer
portion of the right-of-way and where you'll see the curb? Of that cul-de-sac. What's the
distance in.
Kate Aanenson: Between this property line and the back of the curb? 10 feet.
Mayor Furlong: I thought the 10 foot was to the right-of-way. Isn't the.
Kate Aanenson: Oh it'd be more than that, I'm sorry. More than that.
24
City Council Meeting — 125, 2005 •
Paul Oehme: If there's 10 foot of frontage for Lot 12. it's going to be about 25 feet from his
property line to the back of that curb there.
Kate Aanenson: So if I can clarify that. There's a right-of-way line and actually the asphalt
stops short of the right-of-way line, so typically when you go out there it appears greater. So
while, if you measure from property line to property line, it's 10 feet but if you measure from the
asphalt to the property line it's approximately 25 feet.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: And how far from the back of the property line to the back of Mr.
Jewison's house?
Kate Aanenson: I was just scaling that off. It's at least 50 feet it looks like.
Mayor Furlong: I thought I saw 70 something number.
Kate Aanenson: 75, okay yeah. I'm just scaling it off and it was at least 50, right so.
Todd Gerhardt: And Kate just to add, that will be where those 9 trees are going to be planted?
Kate Aanenson: Right, in this area of the back of the cul-de-sac because the issue was the lights,
from my understanding.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, alright. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the public?
Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. As you know I follow a lot of
these cases and this is not an unusual situation. We've seen double frontage come up in the last
few months and I feel like people of Chanhassen are being cheated. There isn't a standard. It
says in the code that double frontage should not be created unless there's a collector street or an
artery street, and there's a standard of 10 feet there or something, but you know in Yoberry you
applied 130 foot yard setback for that neighborhood and tonight in Fox Den you applied a 16 %
foot setback, but yet for these folks you apply a 10 foot setback. I just don't think it's fair and I
want to point that out. Thank you for listening.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Kate Aanenson: My only comment again, the first choice was to bring that street through the
subdivision and unfortunately we don't have that choice, but that was a decision made a number
of years ago to have that street extended that way. That would have been our first choice.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay thank you. Any other comments from the public? We appreciate
those. Okay, let me bring it back to council for discussion or additional questions. Councilman
Lundquist, you had a question or point of clarification.
25
.I
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: I was going to ask a similar to what Mrs. Lloyd brought up about the
recent ones. I couldn't remember the distance between Harrison Hill and the cul-de-sac in
Yoberry. But got that clarified in her comment so.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions then? We'll move into discussion.
Comments. Thoughts. Councilman Lundquist, you want to, first comments, thoughts.
Councilman Lundquist: I think as Kate said, representing the staff, it sounds like an unfortunate
oversight a number of years ago kind of got us into this situation and got to have some access
into this development to allow it to be developed. So I think some things have been done and
attempts to mitigate some of the infractions to mitigate some of the potential issues there.
Probably in making the best out of a situation so is it perfect? Probably not but dealing with the
situation as it is, I feel comfortable with where we're at and the steps taken to work with what we
were given.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Labatt. Thoughts.
Councilman Labatt: I would agree with the comments of Mr. Lundquist. I think that staff has
obviously taken the opportunity here to look in the future of connecting this road up to the north
or east. And in addition also mitigating the impact on the end of the cul-de-sac so, and a couple
would maintain the trees in the outlot and protecting those and I think other than that I'm fully
supportive of it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Tjomhom.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: No, you know I sometimes, it's no secret... neighborhoods
connecting to other neighborhoods. I always honestly do feel for the people that are going to
have their roads changed and their neighborhoods changed. When you talk about double
frontages and numbers, you know I think you work with what you have. With Yoberry I think
we had that space to work with. I think here, due to decisions that were made a long time ago
that we weren't a part of, this is what we have to work with and I think it's unfortunate but that's
just where we are right now. And I think the developer, I mean he's, I was on the Planning
Commission when this came through in November I believe, and it's a lot better than it was. I
think we had 64 conditions or something and so really it's been whittled down and shaped and he
gave up 2 lots so far, as far as I, correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: And so I've got to hand it to him for trying to work with the
neighbors and staff and do the right thing and have a good development.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think that what I'm challenged by is the inconsistencies and
I know that inconsistencies are a part of what we do at this council. However, I guess in my
comments I'd just ask for support from staff that there isn't anything we can do to push it out
26
City Council Meeting — pr l 25, 2005 •
farther without losing another lot. I'm not motivated to lose another lot for the developer and
owner, but there's nothing we can do to pull it farther away without losing a lot? Does it come
down to are we talking inches? Feet now or.
Kate Aanenson: No, I think we spent the last few months working on actually between
November and when it went back in February, but we spent a lot of time looking at that. Again
they did drop 2 lots because we originally felt they were a little narrow. So really I don't think
the other recommendation was, as I mentioned, turning that neck around, and it doesn't work
with that large wetland and that is almost a one acre lot. We did really spend a lot of time with
the applicant's engineer to find a better solution. I would agree it's not the best but.
Councilman Lundquist: Craig, are you asking about pushing the cul-de-sac further to the west?
Councilman Peterson: That would be an obvious question, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it was pretty thoroughly explored.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Aside from that struggle Mr. Mayor, I think it's a very good
development and it would be a nice asset for that area. It's always unfortunate when you can't
have everything you want. In this case I obviously look to staff to have the creative solutions
above my meager technical knowledge so I think this is pretty ... that we can't find a solution for
it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well thank you. I enjoy hearing those comments. I think one thing, just
as a, I'm in concurrence with my fellow council members. The one thing that they come up, just
to say how these things happen. Tonight prior to the meeting the council met in joint session
with our Planning Commission and some of these issues came up and we were talking about the
process and the role of the process, and I guess this is one of those examples Mr. Jewison and
Mrs. Jewison came up and started questioning, are we meeting the ordinance? Are we meeting
the, and indeed what some assumptions that existed didn't exist and so while it takes a lot of
effort, there may not be an ideal resolve, I guess I take a little bit of comfort in the fact that
we've made some improvements in terms of that distance. You know the distances from the
back of homes is a function of the distance between the back of the home and that homeowners
back property line, as much as anything else so if there's an inconsistency or if there's something
we can look at in these types of situations on from the property line to the right-of-way, is that an
issue that we need to look at for consistency because we're never going to find consistency
between, and the way we as a city developed when you look at the new development that's going
in, and some of the older developments I think in Carver Beach. You know there's
inconsistencies between setbacks and how far homes are from property lines so that may not be a
workable distance but maybe something from the property line and something for consistency
that we can look at, so.
Kate Aanenson: Sure, well and at that time Meadow Court was built with a 50 foot right-of-way.
Now we go with 60 so there's a lot of.
Mayor Furlong: Things change.
27
City Council Meeting — Apt, 2005 •
Kate Aanenson: Things change, right. So it's figuring how to blend those two together is the
challenge.
Mayor Furlong: And again, how far, what I'm hearing here from the council, and it's the issue
that the developer and the staff were working with, is how far west can that cul-de-sac go and
still make, still kind of make the best of what we've got and what I'm hearing is, we've got now
the best of what we've got. We want to hear from Councilwoman Tjornhom how much
improved it is from the Planning Commission, that gives me some comfort too. That tells me
you know we're getting the best result we can so.
Kate Aanenson: Or if Mr. Carlson would have participated in the subdivision we would have
had a different way out. There's a lot of variables but you have to go with what's presented in
front of you and try to make the best of it.
Mayor Furlong: So I guess with those comments, not reiterating what's been said before, I'm
comfortable going forward with this. Any other discussion? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Labatt: Mayor, I'd move that we approve the recommendation for the plan per
staffs recommendation with the conditions 48 and 56 being amended too as per the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second,
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, we'll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
preliminary plat for a subdivision with a variance for a flag lot, plans prepared by Ryan
Engineering, dated August 20, 2004, revised October 14, 2004 and January 14, 2005, subject
to the following conditions:
1. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
2. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
3. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
4. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a registered structural engineer
and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The sauna on Outlot B must be removed.
6. Outlots A and B shall be dedicated to the City.
W
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
7. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
8. 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. Temporary
street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of new roadways
allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
9. A 20-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 fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance #9-1.
10. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat for 17 single-
family residential lots.
11. The grading on Lots 10-12, Block 2 shall be revised to avoid grading within the wetland.
12. The applicant shall create a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan for new wetland
construction to ensure proposed wetland functions and values are obtained and non-native
vegetation does not encroach into the mitigation area. The monitoring plan shall include the
preparation of annual reports as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
13. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on -
site. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edge. Wetland
buffers and wetland buffer setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan. Wetland buffer areas
shall be preserved, surveyed and signed in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign.
14. The applicant shall develop detailed plans (including an erosion and sediment control plan)
for the installation of the culvert at Pipewood Lane. A winter installation of this culvert is
preferable. A professionally engineered temporary diversion of the stream through a stable
channel during culvert installation is an acceptable alternative.
15. The applicant shall demonstrate that the installation of the 4T' proposed culvert at Pipewood
Lane will not cause water to back up through the existing 4' by 6' culvert under Highway 7
to the south side of Highway 7 in 10 and 100-year storms.
16. All structures shall maintain a minimum 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level
of the creek.
17. The applicant shall submit calculations to ensure that the pond is sufficient to provide water
quality treatment to NURP standards for storm water from the development.
W
U
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
18. The proposed storm water pond shall be designed to accommodate storm water from the
upstream areas of the MC-A2.6 subwatershed.
19. 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 Slope
Time
)maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Days
Flatter than 10:1
21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, 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 man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
20. Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed anytime construction site
soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surfaces or streets that would allow
tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system.
21. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording is $45,348.
22. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, United
States Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
23. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota
must sign all plans.
24. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data with a drainage map will need to be submitted
for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm
event. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the
public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-
year flood level. The minimum utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
25. Type H silt fence must be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. In addition, an erosion
control blanket is required for the steep slopes along the north property line of the site. The
applicant should be aware that any off -site grading would require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
9
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
26. The remaining utility assessment due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is
$25,477.05. In addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for
each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary
sewer and $2,955 per unit for water. Each of these charges is based on the number of SAC
units calculated by the Metropolitan Council.
27. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be
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. Permits from the appropriate
regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, MNDOT,
Department of Health, etc.
28. Show all of the existing and proposed easements on the plans.
29. Show all of the existing utilities on the plans.
30. The proposed development is required to meet the existing storm water runoff rates for the
10- and 100-year, 24-hour storm events.
31. The walk -out elevation of the proposed homes must be a minimum of 3 feet higher than the
adjacent pond or wetland high -water -level.
32. Show the proposed storm manhole rim and invert elevations on the utility plan.
33. Show all emergency overflow elevations on the grading plan.
34. The existing temporary pavement turnaround for Pipewood Lane just south of this site must
be removed when Pipewood Lane is extended. Any disturbed area must be sodded and
restored.
35. The retaining wall in the rearyard of Lot 7, Block 1 must be 20 feet off the back of the
building pad.
36. Revise the rearyard grading of Lot 9, Block 1 to prevent trapping water behind the curb.
Either a catch basin will need to be added or the area will have to be re -graded with a
minimum slope of 2% to drain from the rearyard to the street.
37. The existing gravel road known as Cartway Lane must be connected to the proposed cul-de-
sac at the eastern border of the site.
38. The existing culvert across the street from Lot 9, Block 2 be connected to the storm sewer for
Pipewood Lane.
31
City Council Meeting — Apn'I 25, 2005 •
39. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard setback area of each lot.
40. Tree protection fencing is required around all trees proposed to be saved. Any tree lost will be
replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
41. The applicant shall confirm the tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. A total of
193 trees will be required to be planted unless otherwise noted.
42. The following trees are required on each lot as shown on the landscape plan dated 1/14/05:
Lot
Front yard
Rear yard
Lot 1, Block 1
2
6
Lot 2, Block 1
2
3
Lot 3, Block 1
2
3
Lot 4, Block 1
2
3
Lot 5, Block 1
2
3
Lot 6, Block 1
2
4
Lot 7, Block 1
2
5
Lot 8, Block 1
2
6
Lot 9, Block 1
2
2
Lot 1, Block 2
2
4, 3 side yard
Lot 2, Block 2
2
2
Lot 3, Block 2
2
4
Lot 4, Block 2
2
2
Lot 5, Block 2
2
2
Lot 6, Block 2
2
2
Lot 7, Block 2
2
4
Lot 8, Block 2
2
3
Lot 9, Block 2
2
4
Lot 10, Block 2
2
4
Lot 11, Block 2
2
5
Lot 12, Block 2
2
1
Outlot A
30
(buffer plantin s included in total)
Outlot B
9
43. A landscape plan with a plant schedule that specifies the proposed quantities of each species
shall be submitted to the city prior to final plat approval.
44. The developer shall responsible for planting any trees located in the rear or side yards as shown
on the landscape plan dated 1/14/05.
45. The applicant shall plant only species adaptable to wet sites near the wetland boundary edge.
32
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
46. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the dripline of the tree saved on Lot 6, Block 2
prior to any grading.
47. Any plantings occurring on Outlots A or B be field located and no existing vegetation shall be
removed or compromised for the planting of new trees.
48. The applicant shall install landscaping at the end of the Pipewood Lane and along the east
boundary of Lot 12, Block 2 around the cul-de-sac. Evergreens and ornamentals shall be
installed so as to reduce headlight glare and buffer views of the street from the existing homes.
A minimum of 9 evergreens and 3 ornamentals shall be planted along the cul-de-sac and along
the east side of the flag lot maintaining planting density of the cul-de-sac along the east
border.
49. The applicant shall remove Colorado blue spruce from the plant schedule and replace it with
white fir or a species of pine.
50. The grading limits shown on the grading plan for Lot 2, Block 2, shall remain as is and the
developer shall adapt to the existing plan as necessary to preserve a small group of maples
12" and larger.
51. Temporary rock fords should not be used; and crossing the stream with flowing water and no
established stable crossing must be avoided. No work shall take place in the creek between
the dates of March 15'" to June 15`s to minimize sediment impacts to spawning fish species.
52. MN DOT category 3 erosion blanket and seed should be applied to exposed creek slopes
near / around Pipewood Lane within 24 hours of final grade.
53. Following stormwater inlet installation Wimco-type (or equal) inlet sediment controls should
be installed and regularly maintained.
54. Following street and utility installation, Chanhassen -specification Type-1 silt fence or other
approved perimeter sediment control is needed for all positive slopes curbside.
55. The silt fence proposed across the existing and proposed Pipewood Lane is not practical due
to site access needs."
56. The applicant will work with staff to resolve the access issues on Cartway Lane.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
Wetland Alteration Permit, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated August 20, 2004,
revised October 14, 2004 and January 14, 2005, subject to the following conditions:
1. The grading on Lots 10-12, Block 2 shall be revised to avoid grading within the wetland.
33
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
2. The applicant shall submit a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan for new wetland
construction to ensure proposed wetland functions and values are obtained and non-native
vegetation does not encroach into the mitigation area. The monitoring plan shall include the
preparation of annual reports as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
3. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on -
site. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edge. Wetland
buffers and wetland buffer setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan. Wetland buffer areas
shall be preserved, surveyed and signed in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign.
4. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, and storm water infrastructure. Easements shall be at least 20 feet in width
to allow access for inspection and maintenance.
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 Slope
Time
(ms'mnu time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Das
Flatter than 10:1
21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, 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 man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, United
States Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone.
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The City is the applicant on this development proposal. There's
three requests before you tonight. A land use amendment from parks and open space to
commercial, a subdivision of 2 lots and 1 outlot, and site plan review for 12,500 square foot
34
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Dan Keefe, Debbie Larson, Kurt Papke, and Jerry
McDonald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Lillehaug and Rich Slagle
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and
Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen
7305 Laredo Drive
HIDDEN CREEK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 21 LOT
SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES. THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES A
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CROSSING OF A CREEK
AND WETLAND WITH A PUBLIC STREET. THE SITE IS 19.2 ACRES ZONED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF, LOCATED AT THE ENDS OF PIPEWOOD
LANE AND CARTWAY LANE, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7, D & G OF CHANHASSEN
LLC, PLANNING CASE NO.04-31.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff & Lisa Jewison
Dean Carlson
Perry Ryan
Dale & John Collins
Kathy Schurdevin
Dale Keehl
Cindy Gess
Peter Thomson
3842 Meadow Court
7820 Terrey Pine Court
Excelsior, MN
10758 130a' Street, Glencoe
3921 Aster Trail, Excelsior
3841 West 62°d Street, Excelsior
4001 Aster Trail, Excelsior
4001 Aster Trail, Excelsior
Bob Generous and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions of staff? Any questions from staff?
Papke: I'll start. Yeah, question on the drainage from the wetland there. The lines you showed
on your drawing on the north side, that will be the 948 lane. 948 line I believe you said. The
948 elevation. Was that the number you were using there?
SCANNED
Planning Commission Mee• — February 15, 2005 •
Saam: On the north side, yes. I had shown the 948 which would be the flood elevation for the
houses on the south side.
Papke: Right.
Saam: I just wanted to show what the amount of area that we have to store water in before it
could even flood these houses. Essentially we have a large amount of area.
Papke: And that's with the grading as proposed right now, not the alternative grading or the
existing conditions?
Saam: No. This line is showing the proposed grading. What this site would be like if it's
approved basically as is and graded as proposed.
Keefe: Just for clarification on that, sorry. The 948, I mean the blue line is your 100 year mark
right?
Saam: Yeah. The blue line is the 100 year high water level.
Papke: This 948 one is if it's lapping at the doors of the buildings on the south side, that's how
far it will come up on the north side.
Saam: In the 100 year case I gave you both elevations. They're both approximately 943.
They're 4 to 5 feet below the houses. There's really no issue at the 100 year.
Papke: Okay. Kind of a related question on page 6 of the staff report you're asking that the
applicant demonstrate that the installation of the 42 inch proposed culvert will not cause water to
back up, etc, etc. I'm a little curious here, given the background letter from Ryan. Given your
analysis, what's the deliverable there? I mean what is the developer going to have to provide
that will satisfy that request?
Snam: Yeah this, the recommendation you're referring to came from our Water Resources
Coordinator. Not myself. I guess I would say that they're basically at where we need, they've
given us what we need to see, other than tweaking some storm calculations, which I think is a
condition in here. We're basically, I'm satisfied that the 42 inch is going to be sufficient.
Papke: Okay. So in your opinion that's a done deal.
Saam: Yes.
Papke: Okay. Next question on the tree coverage discrepancy between what the developer
submitted and what city staff is recommending. First question is there's a difference in the
percentage of the minimum canopy coverage allowed. The applicant's analysis requires a 25%
minimum of, or 142,000 acres which would probably be square feet by the way, and your
2
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
recommendation is 35% minimum or 200,000 square feet minimum canopy coverage. How did
we arrive at, is that just as a percentage of the total canopy area that you feel is there?
Generous: Yes. Based on the existing conditions, our assumption is that there's more canopy
coverage than they stated in their tree survey because we count lower story trees and he was
saying that these are just the big trees. And so if you have a different starting point, there's
different target preservation.
Papke: Okay. And that was my next question was how could we be so far off between the
developer and what we recommended so the basic difference is the inclusion of the understory
trees in the calculation.
Generous: Correct.
Papke: Okay. Those are my primary questions, thank you.
Sacchet: Any questions Debra?
Larson: He stole my questions.
Sacchet: That does happen.
McDonald: Okay, I've got a couple questions for you. To the west, just so I understand this, on
Piperwood Court, the culvert that is currently there, that is a 42 inch so that's the same size we're
talking about going in on the other road, right?
Saam: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. And also just so I'm clear, because I guess I'm a little confused about this
flooding. Water does flow from Lake Minnewashta into Lake Victoria, is that right? It's
flowing. Or Virginia, I'm sorry. It is flowing in a northerly direction.
Saam: Yes, northwest.
McDonald: Okay. So that the, well okay. Then on the Cathcart Lane, you have a list of
questions about that and some have been answered but currently what the plan would be is that
that will remain just basically the path that it is, and at some point in the future as the other land
is developed, a new access off of, is it 62 or 92°d.
Generous: West 62°d.
McDonald: 621d Street. A new access will then be developed down from that and Cathcart Lane
just kind of goes away.
Saam: Yes. We vacate that at that time.
Planning Commission Mee• — February 15, 2005 •
McDonald: Okay. And an issue was also raised about a break away gate. Now I take it that
that's something that you would not be in favor of.
Saam: Yeah. We talked about that today. We kind of, the city's kind of gotten away from
doing that. I know there was a time in the recent past where barricades and that sort of thing
were put up. More in a general nature. But we don't feel that's necessary. It's a public road
now while it's not improved, it's a gravel type road. You know it can still be used and I guess we
want that for basically emergency access. We don't see a lot of traffic from this development
unless they're going to that park maybe and they could even walk there. Using that road. They
could, to go to Highway 7 they're more than likely going to take the paved road to the south.
McDonald: Okay, the city maintains that road then at this time?
Saam: I don't believe so but I'm not certain. I was told last time by a neighbor that we don't so
I'll take his word.
McDonald: Okay. I guess at this time, that's all the questions I have right now. Thank you.
Sacchet: Dan.
Keefe: Just a quick follow-up on my question. The Cartway Lane or is it Cathcart, which comes
north/south? Cartway Lane right? And that's going to remain gravel, is that correct? And then
cul-de-sac is going to be paved right to where the terminus, the north/south terminus at the
southern end of, where it takes a 90 degree there? Just so.
Saam: Yeah, basically. Where it starts to turn, the plans show the... so you will be able to drive
over the curb to get to the basically the gravel road like a driveway.
Keefe: Okay, but it's really not going to act like a regular street.
Saam: No.
Keefe: So it isn't going to feel like oh well here's a great way to go.
Saam: No. And yeah, that kind of leads to why we don't think it's going to be used as a major
access. At least to get to Highway 7, the main you know road to this development into the metro
SO.
Keefe: Sure. Question, sidewalks. Is there a sidewalk in this? It's on the north side? And does
that go all the way to the cul-de-sac then so that people would, if they were going to walk to the
park...
Saam: Yes. We would terminate it basically at the road.
Keefe: Okay. And that goes all the way from really where the bridge is, correct? And does that
connect up to the existing?
4
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
Saam: Existing side line, yes.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. You know when I was out there I was looking at the wetland, and maybe
you can just speak a little bit to this. It seemed like there was a lot of stuff in the wetland and
really on the property out there and I know as a part of the re -grading, they're going to be
cleaning up a lot. What happens to the wetland because I know it's going to be more, we're
doing some mitigation of wetlands. Taking out some wetland and then we're mitigating some of
the wetland. In terms of any clean-up and I don't know, I wasn't actually in the wetland so I
don't know but it sure seemed like along the shoreline of it, you know, can you speak to that at
all? ...of it and what would we do if anything.
Saam: Yeah, during construction we have inspection. If we, the same thing happened in the first
phase. There was a lot of trash. It was used by some as a dumping area. Appliances, that sort of
thing. We'll expect that to be cleaned up and taken away and we'll make sure it happens through
inspection. So basically the finish product will be cleaned up. That's our intent.
Keefe: And is that for the entire wetland or is that just kind of along the shoreline or how does
that work?
Saam: Well I guess whatever we can see we'll make them do, if that's what you're getting at.
Keefe: You know just curious to know.
Saam: ... if we can see trash related, we'll make sure that gets cleaned up prior to full
acceptance.
Keefe: Yeah, okay good. And then let me see. I'm just going to, let me re -visit the high water.
I mean this, when I was reading through this I thought, okay you're going to put in a culvert, 42
inch culvert. There's potential that the water could back up stream from maybe even like
Virginia. I'm not sure if that's true or not but potentially back up there. You're going to add a
lot of homes, some potential hard space that you're going to have runoff coming from the north
down into this wetland. You may not have anywhere else to go. You're comfortable that the
945, which is the 100 year high water?
Dean Carlson: 942.
Keefe: 942?
Saam: Yeah, it's more around 943.
Keefe: Okay, so with the addition of putting in the, both putting in the culvert. Putting in these
additional homes with the additional runoff that may be created that would go into that wetland,
the alterations of the wetland as we're proposing, that pond on that north side or that wetland on
the north side, it will have the capacity...
Planning Commission Mee• — February 15, 2005
Saam: Yes, definitely. Yep.
Keefe: Okay.
Saam: I mean from the development area, most of that water will be treated and stored in the
pond and released at a slower rate than what the water under the existing condition goes into the
wetland at, if you follow me. They have to meet that existing rate. Typically they hold it back
even more. Plus with the filling of the wetland, they're mitigating so they're creating additional
wetland. Basically additional storage area.
Keefe: There's like 2,000 square feet or something, right.
Saam: Yeah, I'm not sure of the exact square footage but basically more than what was filled, so
with those two items and the over sizing of the culvert, again our SWMP plan which basically
modeled the whole city for a 100 year storm, said the minimum pipe size there required would be
a 36 inch. They're proposing 42 inch which is a little more conservative. It gives us additional
capacity. That sort of thing so water won't be backed up so I think with all of that, all of those
items, we're not going to have a problem.
Keefe: Okay. Yeah I guess, my concern is, I don't know exactly what happened on the south
side as to why the water is where it is. I just would not like us to go forward and have the same
situation on this side. That we're well planned for that.
Saam: We don't want to either. Most of the problems we encountered in the first phase of this
development was more related to construction procedures. At least in my opinion, versus like
pipe sizing and that sort of thing. And we've tried to address that with a number of conditions
here. The ones Bob gave you tonight so, we're going to be watching this one closed based on
the mistakes that happened in the first one so.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. That's it.
Sacchet: Okay, I've got a few questions also. Little more about trees. So you feel you've pretty
exhaustively looked at that with changing some house styles we couldn't save any of the
significant trees because I find it very disappointing. There's really basically no tree saving
except at the very edges.
Generous: We ran, had Matt run the numbers.
Saam: And we sat down with Jill, the City Forester.
Sacchet: And I agree that the place that you showed you there is no significant trees in there, I
mean.
Saam: That was her thoughts exactly so.
Sacchet: Okay.
i Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 1*
Saam: And she shared your disappointment too so yeah, we have looked at it.
Sacchet: Okay. Little more about trees. In the conditions, condition number 42. Actually lists
trees pretty specifically for lot, however by my math it adds up to 156 when in the condition
number 41 we say they're asking for 193 trees so how much, how does that get reconciled?
Generous: Well we have some will go with the end of the.
Sacchet: Some are not in lots basically.
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: So that's not.
Generous: They may be in the outlots too.
Sacchet: Okay, so that's understood. And then another tree thing, condition 46 talks about one
tree that's being saved on Lot, which is really the only tree in the whole development that's
getting saved per se. On Lot 6, Block 2. That's that tree next to the street.
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Is that, okay. The grading plan shows another couple of trees circled as if they would
be saved but they're outside of the grading limits, like on the western edge.
Generous: It'd be Outlot B I think it is.
Sacchet: I hope they're going to save more than just those out there. Yeah, I find it very
disappointing that one tree is being saved and that one is questionable, not that we have to have a
condition in it. Then the wetland. Yeah, we talk about proposed wetland grading can be avoided
in Lots 10 through 12, Block 2. How much grading is actually in the wetland? With the
proposal that's in front of us.
Generous: If you can zoom in, it's this little comer.
Sacchet: Can you slide it a little more Bob please. There, okay.
Generous: So it's this area right in here. They can just pull that contour over.
Sacchet: Okay. That's it?
Generous: That was it.
Sacchet: Oh boy.
7
Planning Commission Meet• — February 15, 2005 •
Generous: That's all that they intruded into it.
Sacchet: Okay, well that's trivial. That's easy to fix. Lot 7, Block 1. I'm still struggling with
that. It seems kind of sandwiched in there to put it mildly. We put in, there's a condition that
there must be 20 feet between the building pad and the retaining wall. Is there currently that
much?
Saam: No, it's slightly under that. It's in the 15ish area.
Sacchet: Well 5 feet is not insignificant in this type of squeeze.
Saam: No, we think it can be done. It may require a taller retaining wall though to do that.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, because that's an area where we're wiping out the whole buffer tree
cover there in order to squeeze in that retaining wall, right? One more specific thing. We had a
couple questions about Cartway Lane and I'm still not clear. Is Cartway Lane going to, what is
Cartway Lane now? When it goes away, when there's another access from the north side, from
62°d or what it is, is that going to connect to this, whatever this road is called, the cul-de-sac? Or
is there not going to be connection anymore? I don't think we clarified if there's going to be a
connection or not. Do we know?
Saam: Yeah, in the. Yeah again hard to see on this plan. What we've envisioned right here, it
says possible future right-of-way. I'm on the site and utility plan. So what we're envisioning is
a street connection. It doesn't have to be exactly right here.
Sacchet: Okay, so it would connect to the mad.
Saam: ...somewhere in there lots could come off each side. It would come up and eventually tie
into.
Sacchet: So there will be a connection in other words?
Saam: Yes. Yes.
Sacchet: The answer is yes. Okay.
Generous: And then they vacate the Cartway right-of-way that exists. And those will become
rear yards.
Sacchet: Excellent. Clear answer. I like clear answers, thank you. That's all the questions I
have.
Keefe: Is there a tie in directly to the regional trail off of this phase or is it off, just off the other
one?
Generous: Not off of this phase, no.
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 0
Keefe: Okay. So residents in order to get to the Hennepin County Regional Trail would, I don't
know what it's called. It's the main trail which goes sort of northeast to southwest, yeah. They
would go through the development to the other stub in or...
Generous: Well there's two ways. They could walk up Cartway and then get on it from the
north, or they can go to the south and come in it through Hidden Creek, there's a trail connection
and a sidewalk system that connects into that.
Keefe: And that was, the sidewalk will tie into.
Generous: Yeah, the sidewalks all tie together. It's up that little cul-de-sac just to the west of
Pipewood Lane.
Keefe: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Is that all the questions? Alright, with that I'd like to invite the applicant to come
forward. If you want to add anything to what we're looking at here, and maybe we'll have some
questions as well for you. It's your turn. Do you want to state your name for the record and you
can pull the microphone your way so we can hear you better.
Dean Carlson: Good evening. My name's Dean Carlson with D&G of Chanhassen. I wasn't
able to be here in November. I missed all the fun of that first meeting, but I think everybody
handled it as gracefully as possible with some of the original issues we were dealing with.
Planning and ourselves felt that we had put together a pretty comprehensive package at that time
and as with any first presentation you run into a few items. For addressing just some quick
topics from the conversations that you've had this evening, and I'll go back to one that just is
fresh in mind. The Lot 7, Block 1. Setback in the back. We've designed all the pad sites on the
property at a 60 foot depth. The predominant home depth, and even with a triple car garage is
around 40 feet. We would assume a buyer and/or the builder for this particular site will you
know weigh the location on the limits of the site, so currently on the current design, if you look
at your P-1 layout, it would show you that on Lot 7 we reduced it from 60 to 50 depth. And
we're pretty sure our engineering is on the 20 foot setback from the rear and it should actually
give that lot about a 30 foot rear yard space.
Sacchet: So you reduced the pad a little bit to balance it as well.
Dean Carlson: Based on the design we showed a 50 foot reduction down to 50 feet on that site
because of it's, pinning it down into that property line. But I will point out too, on that lot in
particular and 6 and 5 where some of the trees will be cleared to the lot line, the rear lot line,
we're not going into the tree line that is part of the railway bike trail. There is still a substantial
contingency of trees in that corridor that run along the old railway bed which will still keep that
property buffered from the trail and I think give it a nice seclusion. There's a lot of pines that
run through there that we didn't do a calc on but there are a lot of trees in that area. The other
thing in the staff recommendations with regards to the comments on trees. In our November
proposal we had less salvage of trees on the site based on our canopy coverage and calculations
W
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
but in the revision from 23 lots to 21 we created basically, by eliminating one lot in Block 1, the
outlot B which is the majority of the forestation in that section. That's where a majority of the
trees are so we do not have any recommendation a zero salvage of trees. We've got a substantial
amount of trees being saved in Outlot B, the back of Lot 8, Block 1 and the attempt to salvage
with proper grading in Lot 1, Block 2. So to say that we have a zero tree salvage in our plan is
incorrect I think if you look at.
Sacchet: Yeah, I should have said except on the periphery.
Dean Carlson: Well I think the Planning Commission statements actually infer it's a zero and
it's actually not so that maybe was misleading. So just a correction there. I think that covers 7.
It's my understanding that the connection to Camvay is in fact for emergency vehicles only. I'm
not sure what the planning department and finish design plans will entail but I'm assuming we'll
just continue the gravel type environment that's somewhat ridged to eliminate just immediate
runoff or run through to the cul-de-sac. Hopefully we'll probably have to put some signs up
there that just say emergency vehicles only to eliminate residents from trying to do short cuts
through that location. And I think a break away fence would be disappointing to plug into the
equation. I'm not sure in the recommendations and the tree canopy of course after this evening
with an approval we can sit down with Jill St. Clair and try to attest to our numbers but I mean
the original canopy coverage was estimated based on aerial photography. We've done a tree
count to attempt to identify the highest, best growth of trees to salvage those and we think that
the Outlot B and potentially the salvage of those trees in the back of Lot 1 and 2 in Block 2
addresses at least some of the trees that are of a quality type that really warrant being attentive to.
Did we not salvage a tree between, I don't know if we could...
Sacchet: There's some behind 3 also.
Dean Carlson: I don't see it in here so maybe it's. It is in there? So is that between 6 and 7?
Perry Ryan: On the grading plan.
Dean Carlson: Yeah, that's the one tree that has a condition actually. On Block 2 right?
Generous; Yes.
Dean Carlson: We're hoping to position that in an offset front yard location so that we can keep
it intact.
Sacchet: Yeah, that was the one tree I was referring to. The one tree that is within the
development. So we speak the same language.
Dean Carlson: Well within the developed lots, yes. The outlots still would give us additional
coverage. I would raise one question for the Planning Commission and the City this evening
with regards to a condition that was talked about and that's under utilities. Some time ago, and
I'm not sure when, I have not researched the history of this site back to the dates of this
assessment of utilities went into place but on the McPherson property there is an existing
10
Jc
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
$25,477 utility assessment that is being recommended for payment at final plat. I'm not sure
really what that came from. Most of the people in this room weren't in city hall at the time it
was issued. To me it seems like an unwarranted expense given the extent of what we're doing.
If there is an old sewer main or an old water pipe in this location it was never utilized over the
last 20 plus years that it might have been in existence. It would be under sized and really not
useful to the existing subdivision. The only connection charge that I think we're having a waiver
of in lieu of a $25,000 payment is the connection at that location at Cartway then to the
watermain that comes from Hidden Creek Meadows. I think that's right. Not Hidden Creek
Meadows but.
Generous; Hidden Creek Estates.
Dean Carlson: Meadow Court. So I would like to have at least the option to look at that
potentially as a waived item in the future if we can. I mean I'm not sure what it's for. I don't
know if anybody in the room is aware of what it's for. It seems to have been put in place when
Cartway Lane was just made into a gravel road extension.
Sacchet: Are you talking about the thing in condition 26?
Dean Carlson: No, if you go back to page 9 under utilities.
Keefe: I think it's the same thing.
Saam: Same thing, yeah.
Sacchet: Oh, same amount yeah.
Dean Carlson: In this parcel the $25,000, I mean that parcel that that assessment is against has
about I think 5 lots total being created out of it's reed development. The hook-up charges would
be still being charged. They're recommending for still charging for hook-up charges to the water
and sewer mains which occurs each time a house is built on one of those new lots. But I guess
I'm looking for relief of an old assessment that seems unwarranted at this stage.
Sacchet: Do we know, is it an old assessment?
Swam: Yeah, yeah. It's an, I believe it's an old utility assessment for the sewer that serves the
whole area. It's basically an area charge because there's a lift station right there which serves
the, so we typically when these areas or parcels are platted then, that have existing assessments,
we want them paid in full at time of final plat. Now to what the developer said, if there are any
lots or houses, buildings that are currently connected to sewer, then those, the hook-up charges,
which you referred to that every new house pays, could be waived for the same amount of houses
that are currently on the site. For example, if there's 5 lots or 5 homes say that are hooked up to
sewer, then he could get a credit for say his first 5 lots in this property. They wouldn't have to
pay a hook-up charge.
Sacchet: Is that the type of thing you're asking for?
11
Planning Commission Mee• — February 15, 2005 •
Dean Carlson: Well I mean to my knowledge the 4 parcels that we're acquiring to make this
development possible, none of the 4 existing structures are connected to any sewer utilities of
any sort so, and to my knowledge there's no line or watermain coming from the end of the
existing Cartway Lane to even the house that's part of this primary parcel that the assessment's
against which is, I'm sorry I don't have the address. But it is the Cartway Lane address. 65011
think is the house number.
Sacchet: Yeah, we normally don't go to the nitty gritty of these charges because they're usually
pretty standard so it's probably something that.
Saam: Yeah, we can review it before this goes to council. I'll get in contact with the developer
but I believe the large, the $25,000 number is for an area assessment. There's a benefit for
having sewer in your area that you can connect to. Whether you're connected to it or not doesn't
matter. You still have that benefit. That's what the 25 is for. In addition there's hook-up
charges if you are connected and that's what I'm saying you get a credit for. But we can meet
with them and discuss it before council.
Sacchet: Okay, we heard you.
Dean Carlson: Just wanted to touch on that topic. No other comments at this point unless you
have any questions of me.
Sacchet: Questions from the applicant. Kurt, you're grabbing a mic.
Papke: Yeah, on the city recommendation for 193 trees to be planted, do you have any issue
with adhering to that recommendation?
Dean Carlson: We have concerns on the basis of the original submission in November and
between then and today we were, it was a request of the city to obtain a tree survey or a complete
count. That our calc's for the canopy coverage could still be utilized and we just have not since
received the recommendations of the Planning Commission tonight been able to go back and re-
do the calc. So we're not necessarily in agreement with the new number but we would hope to
meet with Jill St. Clair and reconfirm what that number should be. The over story trees is of
question. If you read this it says 190 I think 3 trees now. But does that also include the trees
being requested at the end of the new cul-de-sac at Pipewood Lane and Cartway? Or not include
those or are those in addition to the 193.
Papke: Do we know?
Generous: Yes. It would, any tree you provide on site would go towards meeting the total, even
those buffer trees at the end of the street. Condition 41 says we want to work with you and
confirm these numbers.
12
Planning Commission Meeting —February 15, 2005 Is
Dean Carlson: Yes, and we're in agreement there. The only other question would be on the
over story trees and if those were also in that count, and we assume that that would be the case.
It's just finding what that real number should be at the end of the day.
Larson: I just have a brief question regarding the species or the type of trees that ... there was no
specification at the top of page 4... Is there going to be a variety of I mean hardwoods or pine
or?
Dean Carlson: We haven't compiled that list. Of course we would look to the City Forester
before we go to final plat and planning to make sure that we're creating a replacement schedule
that is acceptable to the city. It's what's there is a mix. There are some beautiful trees on the
property which we're trying to address but a lot of this location also is very old growth trees.
The assessment was done in the middle of winter and having been on the property during the
summer months I know that there's a lot of dead fall that hasn't been taken into account. We just
calculated what was standing.
Larson: Sort of weedy type trees and scrubby trees and stuff in old farmland type?
Dean Carlson: It's very old farmland. A lot of boxelders and the example that was proposed on
re -changing the grades behind the walkout proposed lots in Block 2, the Forester went out and
identified that that section of potential salvage was in fact a lot of the scrubby stuff that really is
tired and basically half dead anyway. So I think when we're done with the tree canopy
replacement calcs that we will have reforested you know a very nice new subdivision for 21
residents.
Larson: Alright, that's all I have.
Sacchet: Thanks. Jerry, any questions? Dan?
Keefe: I just want to place a similar question of you that I placed on Matt. Are you comfortable
that you know with the placement of the culvert and with the runoff that's going to be coming
into the development from the hardscape that you'll be putting in place, and you know the
creation of the new wetland and the movement of the wetland that the placement of these homes
will be unaffected by the height of the water in that area.
Dean Carlson: Well first let me ask, I'm not sure if my documentation of my summary of this
concerns was forwarded to you members. It's a letter, kind of an essay of the history of that site
that addresses, yes it was attached to your packages. If I start from the top to the bottom, and I
don't claim to be an engineer. Perry's my guy. We have city engineers, Matt and his
supervisors to look at this. You also have the city outsourcing wetland estimates for water from
SHW I think or I'm not sure who the city's engineering consultant is but that's been also looked
at. They gave us calculations for the flow under 7. But if you look at the 948 being this massive
threshold that we would have to meet in order to flood these homes, the 100 year water mark for
Minnewashta is 944, which is shown on the example. That would mean Minnewashta would
have to be a massive lake to be at 948 feet, a 4 feet higher elevation. Minnewashta Parkway
would be overrun with water and impassible in my estimation based on that elevation. What is
13
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
in existence today sets the stage for a 943.5 in the southerly wetlands and a 942 in the south for
the high water marks at 110 year flood event. So I think we've met those criteria as best we can.
God forbid we all run into a massive 100 year flood event sometime after this is developed, but I
think we've taken those estimates into account. The 42 inch culvert at the recommendation of
the engineer, who was a participant also, my engineer, Perry Ryan, in the Hidden Creek Estates
development. The placement of both culverts and the up sizing in the original development of
Hidden Creek Estates to Hidden Creek Meadows, went from 36 inches which was recommended
to a 42 inch. We put it at the same elevation from this subdivision and location as it is in Hidden
Creek. And the change in grade is obviously minimal. From one site to the next. It's a very
slow flow through to Lake Virginia, so equally I'm concerned but I think the engineers have
addressed it as best that it can be. So I feel confident in the experts. If that's a response.
Keefe: That is. That's all I have.
Sacchet: Well you heard a little bit some of my concerns and you addressed them to some
extent. My main concern is the amount of grading and that really there's, and I want to thank
you for having made the tree survey right away. That helps a lot. In looking at the tree survey, I
mean there are some significant trees sprinkled around, more in the central part of this property
and a little bit on the western side. And I was hoping that it would be possible to save a couple
more except just those on the very periphery. You feel you've exhausted all possibilities because
I mean it's in your interest in the end too. I mean people like having trees and yes you plan on
planting a lot but they'll be little trees. At least for a while.
Dean Carlson: And I would agree. I'd love to save them all if I could, but I mean with the
requirements for pad site creation, with the 60 foot design pad width, depth, the reality of a 60
foot road right-of-way. If we could minimize that to 50 feet we might be able to save a few more
trees but I don't think that will happen. So given the extensive amount of work that it takes to
put this new road in, I don't think that there's a way that we can focus on trees centrally located
through the subdivision in order to facilitate putting in the right-of-way and getting the right
widths to allow for emergency vehicles and everything else. And believe me, I've walked the
site. I know there's a lot of beautiful trees yet on it that aren't dead fall, as we've talked about
earlier.
Sacchet: Right. You have to distinguish between them.
Dean Carlson: Yeah. But I think we've attempted, as best we can to salvage everything that's
salvageable.
Sacchet: And then my other concern was the Lot 7 in Block 2. Block 1. So same thing. You, I
would think you've probably tried all kinds of alternatives trying to.
Dean Carlson: Well, if you can recall, if you were here in November the original site plan there
had 10 lots. By reducing it to 9 on Block 1 we, you know reconfigured the lots to create Outlot
B to expand that tree preservation.
Sacchet: Right, the main difference is that Outlot B got created, right?
14
A
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
Dean Carlson: Yes. Outlot B being created, but also you know to not allow 8 to be some
monster parcel, the bubble cul-de-sac made sense. Made sense to the planning and so that's the
way we stuck with our design since November until today. So 7 being a little shallow, I
understand your concern but at the same time I don't think we're eliminating any trees in that
location.
Sacchet: Yeah, and as you pointed out you have a nice buffer beyond you.
Dean Carlson: Well beyond it, yes. The railway authority has set aside, I'm not sure the
distance from our back lines to the center of the park, or the trail, but I know there's still
probably I would assume a 30 foot. Perry, what is our right-of-way setback? I think it's 50 feet
actually. So there should be a strip of trees remaining in that corridor of 30 to 50 feet. Behind
these lots along Block 1. All to the north up against the trail.
Sacchet: Closer to 30 feet in looking at it. I would like to invite the residents, if you have
something to add beyond what was mentioned last time and what's new in front of us here, if
you want to comment, this is your opportunity to do so. If anybody wants to speak up, please
come forward. Seeing yes, I see somebody standing up. Please state your name and address for
the record.
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I have a main
question about this cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: The easterly cul-de-sac.
Janet Paulsen: Yes. According to my reading of the code, this creates double frontage lots here
which according to Chapter 18 isn't allowed by code. And so it would require a very strict
variance. It's one thing to have a development have a double frontage lot within it and the
person who's buying the lot knows what they're getting into but for someone who's already been
living on a single frontage lot and suddenly be faced with a double frontage lot, this is hardly
fair. Not what I want our code to ignore. So that's my main point. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Janet. I like that point because I'm in the same boat with my own lot right now
but that's a different story. Actually I'm going to be triple fronted. Okay. Is that something
staff can address? I mean are we, I mean this cul-de-sac does touch the other property line so is
this.
Generous: We could pull it away. The alternative was to run the mad through there. I don't
think they'd be pleased with having a corner lot there. Yeah, we can shift it so that they're .
technically not touching. We can revise that so that the right-of-way meets at the right-of-way.
Sacchet: So basically, you're saying that one alternative is to actually pull it through there. I
don't know whether that's realistic. I mean it would basically touch the corner of the house there
to the north, wouldn't it?
15
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 0
Generous: And that house is built on next to the right-of-way.
McDonald: Yeah, currently isn't there already a double frontage there? The house at 3828
Dean Carlson: Touches Cartway Lane.
McDonald: Right. There's already a double frontage there, and there is a right-of-way
supposedly that was put in at one time and I agree with you, you can't put a street in there.
Because at that point the distance between the houses, that's unacceptable. But I think all this
was in the plans. It's nothing different than what's currently there. Am I wrong on this?
Generous: Except for we're creating a bigger bubble in that back yard, and yes we could pull the
right-of-way to the west slightly so that the property lines sides up. If that is a design issue that
we want to resolve.
Sacchet: So are you saying we're not really creating a new double frontage. It already was
double frontage.
Generous: Well it's already, we're creating a bulb behind that one lot. It's already a comer lot.
We're connecting the right-of-way basically that's there. But instead of.
Sacchet: So technically we'd say, based on the planning in place, this was actually a corner lot
and it's kind of being shifted more into a double frontage type of situation through this.
Generous: Well it has a little bit of frontage on that comer.
Sacchet: Right.
Dean Carlson: There's also an existing structure there that I mean we abandoned going through
between those residents and doing a bubble cul-de-sac to eliminate a lot of.
Sacchet: Do you want to come up to the microphone?
Dean Carlson: When we, my name's Dean again. When we originally designed or expected to
design this plan, the Pipewood Lane would come through to Meadow Court and be a direct
access/exit to Church and to Highway 7. At staff's recommendation we terminated that
expectation of the original city planner in lieu of the positioning of these existing structures on an
old right-of-way that was only 50 feet. We're touching here the back of one lot that, I don't
know what our distance there�is. Maybe 6 feet but I'm not sure what the legal right-of-way
would have to be to even put a driveway would I'm sure exceed that so I'm not so sure we're
creating a double frontage that gives legal access for another driveway. Plus the grade change
here just for purposes of calculation. The cul-de-sac that we're building is almost 15 feet below
Meadow Court, so the reality of someone reversing the layout from that lot instead of from
Meadow Court to our new cul-de-sac would mean demo'ing a lot and building it into an uphill
environment.
16
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
McDonald: At that point it's not going to work because of the elevation. The garage up on the
court above is, as you say, it's about 15 feet above the back yard.
Dean Carlson: Yeah, it's between 10 and 15 feet to the next cul-de-sac elevation. Cartway Lane
was in existence long before I came tonight and I think we've eliminated any concerns and hap
hazards for the neighbors, the residents of Meadow Court and I'm not sure Bob, if you feel we
need to pull it off 6 inches, we can always do that but it seems that a double frontage here, in my
opinion, doesn't exist because what's the driveway width requirements just to put a driveway for
access to a street?
Generous: Well minimum's 10 feet.
Dean Carlson: But don't you have to have so many feet of frontage on that right-of-way in order
to create a street or an access?
Generous: Not as long as it touches but they already have a driveway. They would need a
variance for a second driveway.
Sacchet: So it wouldn't be straight forward definitely. And I guess you could also argue that,
having asked, being asked by staff to make a cul-de-sac you're actually have to use more space
to make a cul-de-sac in terms of grading.
Dean Carlson: It does create a larger radius and moving it at this point would create a lot of
changes in our calculations at this end of the street.
Sacchet: Yeah, I mean we're just exploring and doing justice to the comments we're getting.
We're not asking you to change this.
Keefe: Can I just ask a question in regards to the cul-de-sac? If we're going to have access up
the road going north, and I'm sorry it's Cartway or Cathcart, whatever that north/south one is,
what is the sort of functionality of that cul-de-sac? Is that there for emergency reasons or
because I'm thinking if somebody's actually going to drive up there to turn around and they see
this road there, are they just going to continue up that road?
Generous: That road would look like someone's driveway. It's not...
Keefe: Okay. Are we going to have any signage?
Saam: Yeah, I agree with the earlier comments. We can sign that. Emergency vehicles only,
yeah.
McDonald: Okay, I have a question about that because you've got residents living on that road.
You're going to have car traffic on there that is not emergency vehicle. You're going to create a
situation that becomes confusing as to who needs to get on there or not because I'd suggest do
not put the sign up. If the whole point is that that's going to go away and then become a trail,
17
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
leave it the way it is because it's not much of a road right now. It looks as though it's
somebody's driveway.
Saam: Yeah, those are good points and something we'll have to look at. I know currently the
residents they access, the only way they can to the north so I guess with this potentially yeah,
they may want to come from the south, I don't know but it's a good point that we'll have to look
into.
Keefe: And the question is why cul-de-sac versus just making it a road?
Saam: Tom around. We require a turn around.
Sacchet: At this point you need a turn around.
McDonald: For the plows?
Saam: Exactly.
Dean Carlson: Cartway Lane too is not, as spoken earlier, is not being maintained by the city
because of it's width. It's a 30 foot gravel, almost a private street, which would bring back
another topic for me is to, if it isn't maintained by the city and it isn't a public right-of-way, how
that $25,000 assessment would still be applicable but I just thought I'd touch on that.
Sacchet: We'll leave that one alone for now
Dean Carlson: Was that good?
Sacchet: That was good.
Dean Carlson: Anyway, have we addressed the frontage? Double frontage.
Sacchet: Yes. Yes, thank you for your comment. Anybody else want to make a comment at this
point? Please state your name and address for the record.
Lisa Jewison: I'm Lisa Jewison and I live in the house that's going to be bound by the two cul-
de-sacs so we've heard of these concerns before that we're not happy with that layout. I guess
the question that I have, if we don't pull the cul-de-sac further west, and there's going to be trees
around this cul-de-sac, where are the trees going to be planted?
Sacchet: That's a good question. I wondered about that too. Can you address that? In the right-
of-way.
Generous: In the boulevard. They'd have to go in the boulevard...
Sacchet: In the boulevard. In the right-of-way. I mean the cul-de-sac doesn't come to the
property line. It's the right-of-way that comes to the property, so how much space is between?
IU
Planning Commission Mee — February 15, 2005 •
Lisa Jewison: Because it doesn't really look like there's, it doesn't look like there's trees
necessarily planted within that boulevard anywhere else in that property so I guess I'm a little
confused about that.
Sacchet: Do you have a picture?
Dean Carlson: This graphic might be able to be zoomed in on. Right here if you see in a color
format there is quite a green space that would be within that boulevard between the actual hard
surface and the end of the lot line. Is that visible?
Sacchet: Yeah. Do you want to zoom in a little more Nann please.
Lisa Jewison: So it would be right in this...
Sacchet: Yeah, in that little strip.
Lisa Jewison: Alright. And the plan is to plant 9 trees in that little area? Is that, plus 3
ornamental. 9 evergreens and 3 ornamental right inbetween here and here?
Generous: Well along that edge, yes. We would work out the exact location in the field when
they get to that stage.
Lisa Jewison: Okay. Then the other question I have is, supposedly there's a right-of-way that
goes into the flat lot from there so where do the trees fall in relation to where the driveway's
going to be built along with the small little area here for about 12 trees to be planted. I'm
confused by that. Because it looks like...
Sacchet: Do we actually have plantings along the flag lot driveway? Do we get involved with
that?
Generous: You can if you want to add a condition.
Sacchet: At this point we don't have something but we could add something.
Generous: We could add something if that was something that you wanted to approve the
variance for the flag. It's a reasonable condition. I know for Hidden Creek we did on the private
street that served two lots, we provided landscaping between the paved surface and the edge of
the property. Remember this is only a driveway for a single home so it's a minimum 10 feet and
a maximum, what is it? 30 feet wide but it has to maintain some setbacks from the side so there
is area to do it.
Sacchet: So there is room to plant and we could potentially ask for it as part of the flag lot
variance.
Generous: Right.
19
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005
Sacchet: Okay. That's a good answer.
Lisa Jewison: And then I guess the last point is on the gravel road here.
Sacchet: Cartway.
Lisa Jewison: Yeah, Cartway. That is not going to be looked as a driveway to somebody's
home. I mean it's a through street. You can see straight down that street. You can see it
connects to the park and people are going to be using that so if there's any opening there, you
know you talked about the break away gate and how you didn't want to go that route, but people
will be using it to get to the north side. We see a lot of shortcuts going through our residential
streets already so I just wanted to make that point.
Sacchet: Okay. Question of staff. I mean it could be signed not through or not a through way or
what are our options?
Saam: It's going to be tough with the local traffic there, which Commissioner McDonald
brought up. We'll have to think about that one.
Sacchet: Okay, so something to work with staff basically.
Saam: Yeah.
Larson: I mean could they come up with some sort of a break away post or something that just
discourages people that like if they were walking or something, they could cut through there. I
mean do you have a problem with pedestrian type traffic or it's more the cars?
Lisa Jewison: No, more the cars yeah.
Sacchet: We have a family gathering. Did you want to add something too?
Jeff Jewison: Yeah, I just wanted to add my two cents on the one point. I'm glad Mrs. Paulson
brought that up because I brought it up a number of times and it didn't seem to go anywhere so I
thought maybe I was wrong but yeah, with the cul-de-sac being on, or our property then being on
two cul-de-sacs, it just kind of you end up with two front yards. Just kind of seemed weird. You
lose that privacy or the feel of a back yard.
Larson: How long have you been there?
Jeff Jewison: Just about 2 years.
Lisa Jewison: Yeah, not even.
Jeff Jewison: Not even. Year and a half.
fall
F
Planning Commission Meeting —February 15, 2005 •
Lisa Jewison: Little bit over a year. We moved in November, 2003.
Jeff Jewison: Yeah, we were told that that land back there could not get developed ever. We
were obviously lied to but.
Larson: You might want to talk to that person.
Jeff Jewison: Yeah I know but yeah, it's my only two cents. But we would rather, obviously
have that than the road connecting the two cul-de-sacs but if that cul-de-sac can get moved back
or obviously anything would be better than having two front yards.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Lisa Jewison: Thank you.
Sacchet: Question. I mean is it possible to pull that cul-de-sac back a little bit? I mean be a
relatively small tweak or would that be a big deal?
Saam: It could be done. We'd have to look at the issues.
Sacchet: I mean we're not talking about.
Saam: You have the existing right-of-way there so, and to keep the uniform radius we'll have to
look.
Sacchet: And it could be pulled back and still give adequate connection to the flag lot on
Cartway?
Saam: Yeah.
Sacchet: That seems to be possible. You want to add something to this? Go ahead.
Dean Carlson: I appreciate the couple's concerns. Mrs. Jewison, I'm sorry? If we looked at the
tree canopy coverage. I'm not sure which one that is. I would focus again up in this corner
where the existing cul-de-sac is being proposed. Where the new cul-de-sac is being proposed. I
mean the alternative here is, again reminding everyone present that the city's design was for this
road to connect to Meadow Court. And staff and myself and Perry of Ryan Engineering looked
at this quite extensively. We're dealing with a 50 foot right-of-way which will now be
abandoned to the benefit of both property owners that are affected. We're not proposing going
through to Meadow Court which would be the ultimate alternative for the city. If you look at the
tree coverage in this area, currently there are no trees in existence for several hundred feet and so
I'm not in disagreement that when we get to replanting the 193 trees, or whatever the count is,
that we consider reforesting this portion of the site with some of that tree count. I'd hate to be
held to a higher standard where we're increasing that to create a buffer that doesn't currently
exist or to replace something that doesn't exist.
21
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
Sacchet: Well yeah we could argue that right now it's not a street so you're not buffering
because you see...
Dean Carlson: Well there is a street here currently. Don't forget the Camvay Lane does come
through it, only it does service the one property, which has had minimal use for many years with
it's existing owners and residents.
Sacchet: Okay, I see your point.
Dean Carlson: The artery has always been in place. What we're doing is redirecting traffic.
We're creating a dead end rather than a through street that is part of the original city's plan.
Sacchet: And you are adding significant buffer plantings, I hear you.
Dean Carlson: And our grade elevation is well below the elevation of street at Meadow Court so
headlights and things hitting that cul-de-sac for 2 or 3 residents that are at the end should be
minimized just based on the elevation. It's not that we're at the same plane or where those will
be coming in to windows and that kind of environment.
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else want to address this from the resident side?
Dale Keehl: My name is Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62°d Street which is right up here on
the corner of Cartway and 62nd. And I guess my concern is traffic again. That people will try
and use it but if this is going to be used for emergency, the city doesn't maintain it or plow it and
this last lot here, the driveway is about here so there's going to be 60-70 feet that won't be
plowed. So if we have a lot of snow, how is an emergency vehicle going to get to that cul-de-sac
if it isn't plowed? Right now we have people that live on there that plow it, but like I say, it's the
city sewer runs under the street but they don't maintain it and it's, I don't know what the width
it's supposed to be but it's, two cars can't meet on it.
Sacchet: So are you suggesting it'd be better if the city would maintain?
Dale Keehl: Well I'm just saying if they're going to want it for emergency use, it's going to
have to be so a truck can, a fire truck can get through it. Or a police or an ambulance.
Sacchet: It's hard enough to drive with a small car when I tried it.
Dale Keehl: So they're going to have to connect somehow so they can get through there. And if
it's connected for an emergency vehicle to get through, people are going to use it to go out that
north end because that, to get onto Highway 7 sometimes is ridiculous and if you were going to
go towards Yellowstone Trail or to the elementary school or whatever, they're going to use that
road because it's easier than going out on Highway 7. So that's my main concern is I have 3
families that live, that pass by my house and now there's going to be a lot more traffic. Plus the
people come down to use the park. They come down that road and park on the grass. They
don't park up in the parking lot when they're going to use the tennis courts and stuff but, or the
basketball courts and that. They always park along the street on the grass, which it's park land I
22
Planning Commission Mee — February 15, 2005 •
guess. Nothing we can say but our road already gets used for that. So it's just a concern that
there is going to be more usage on that road, whether you think so or not.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. You want to address that please?
Dean Carlson: I guess I would go back to, it would appear that all the neighbors in the area
would agree that Cartway Lane has been the abandoned street in this part of Chanhassen. Part of
that is maybe that from 62°d Street I believe the city transitions to another city, so it is a dead end
street that is in Chanhassen but isn't serviced by streets in Chanhassen, am I correct?
Dale Keehl: Right.
Dean Carlson: The 62'd line Chanhassen or is that Victoria?
Dale Keehl: 62°d is Hennepin County's road.
Keefe: Shorewood.
Dean Carlson: It's the transition between two cities. I guess in just a brief conversation and
maybe the simplest thing to do here is to create a termination. I think most people generally who
drive on asphalt streets wouldn't bypass emergency vehicle signs posted at either side of this
bridge type gravel event that would take you from the cul-de-sac to Cartway Lane but if need be
we could design two 6 by 6 posts with a break away plastic chain. Creates a buffer on something
that the city then would have to maintain but it was also pointed out to me very recently, the fire
department that would service this location is just on the south side of 7 and the comer of
Minnewashta Parkway and when an emergency vehicle goes into Highway 7 they have the right-
of-way and they will probably take the asphalt road in if there were a fire in this subdivision, so
they're going to take a left on 7 and enter on Pipewood Lane off of 7 logically. The only time
this might be used is if an emergency vehicle, ambulance or other you know got lost. Realized
that there was a point of access maybe coming down Cartway Lane and feeling the need to get to
Pipewood in the reverse fashion rather than as an exit. So it's of interest. I think this is
something that we can address with the Planning Commission after this evening and design
something that is a, not maybe a break away gate that would be obstruction ominous kind of
looking and not appealing.
Sacchet: Something a little more.
Dean Carlson: But something that's going to keep a pedestrian vehicle from trying to migrate
over that location. Okay?
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you. Alright, anybody else want to address that before we move on?
Seeing nobody I'll bring it back to the commission. Discussion. Comments. Kurt, you want to
start?
Papke: You seem to be going left to right tonight so what the heck.
NAJ
Planning Commission Meet• — February 15, 2005 •
Sacchet: Might as well keep that pattern here one more time.
Papke: In general I'm very supportive of this. I think the developer has made a very good effort
with the elimination of the 2 lots. The change in the drainage situation. The way the lots been
laid out so I think this is a much improved plan. I'm very happy to see, when we saw this for the
first time, this was just ripe with issues and I think we've addressed most the issues so. I'd be in
support of this as long as we address some of the screening and, you know landscape screening
on the east side. I'm good to go.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Anything you want to add Debra?
Larson: No. Basically it does look like this developer has really gone to a lot of trouble to make
this very nice neighborhood. As far as the flood issues, I think those have been addressed to my
satisfaction. You know as far as Cartway Road goes, the bit that I did read about I guess from
your previous meeting, the minutes, the gentleman that owns the property adjacent to that, I think
it's over here.
Sacchet: On the north, yeah.
Larson: You know he's willing to work with the city as well to try and work out whatever will
be best for that road in the future so I guess, you know I think that I'm basically.
Sacchet: You're fine with it?
Larson: Thank you. Been a long day.
Sacchet: I know how that goes. Thanks Debra. Jerry.
McDonald: Well I actually went out to the site on this one and I went from the east to the west,
north to the south. I walked up and down the trail. Did go back on Cartway. Looked at that area
back there. Went up on the circle above. You know did the look through all that. I'm in favor
of the plan as is. A lot of what's come up today about Cartway I would not want to see in there
as a condition but I do think it needs to be addressed. The developer has expressed a willingness
to address it with us but the thing is right now I'm afraid that we're looking at too quick of a fix
to a problem that may or may not be there and there may be a better solution that with time we
can come up with. I also believe that in looking through all this, that's not going to be a problem
much longer. It is going to go away. The gentleman did bring up a good point about if that's
going to be an emergency egress, what about snow plows. Again that's why I think it needs to
be looked at separately. We're not going to solve that today but I think the plan that's in there is
very good. And I did go back and look at Outlot B and I wasn't here in November but I don't
see how you could have put a house back there because it looks like all the water funnels in that
area back there and anybody that would have been living back there would have been very, very
wet. Because I followed the creek all the way back through there and it was kind of wet this
weekend so, that was a good solution to do what you ended up doing there. Other than that, the
issues to the south I think some of that may lie with the state about the culvert under Highway 7.
I'm not sure who's responsible for that. If that were to get clogged up. It does become a dam
24
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
and at that point you could probably reach the high water mark rather quickly. You wouldn't
need a 100 year flood so I'm not sure who's responsible but that is a concern but I don't think
it's the developer's. And then looking at the rest of this, again the flow of the water through the
development. The 42 inch culvert. I did look at that. You've got grates over it right now. That
does seem to be adequate as far as letting water through there. The size of the culverts
themselves were fairly large and you've got the metal grates to protect against debris coming in
there. Unless trees start falling down, we start you know damming it up that way but I don't
think that's going to happen. So the possibility of that becoming stuck I think isn't going to
happen. I'd like to see the same culvert as you put into the development. Same design and I
think it will solve the problem. And with going with 42 inch, I believe you're probably going to
do that. Some of the other comments about the closeness to the road. I actually went out there
and 3891, whatever that road is right there. That backs up right onto 7. So that therhouses in the
development to the east are a lot closer to 7 than the development here. I mean otherwise I think
they put together a good plan that addressed all the issues from November and I would be in
favor of it as is. That's all I have.
Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. Dan.
Keefe: Brief comments. I'm in support of this plan. I would like to see the, I think the
developer's done a great job in working through the issues. I would have liked to see him or
them work with the residents in regards to buffering and to make sure the buffering, particularly
on that east side works out to their satisfaction. It seems like we've got some pretty good
discussion going on here and I'd like to see that continued so that they get comfortable. And I'm
nervous about the wetlands and all the changes which are going on there and the potential for
you know it seems like you know we're getting greater and greater swings in regards to the
amount of water which affects areas and I'm concerned about that but I have to go with the
professionals who really looked at this and the developer who's also you know stated his case in
regards to that. But overall I'm in support of this.
Sacchet: Thanks Dan. I don't have too much more to add ... to my questions and concerns
earlier. It's a little bit bittersweet. I do want to thank you for having some certainly due
diligence. We gave up 2 lots to accommodate our concerns that we mentioned in November
when you were here. And at that time I went out there and looked at it and I have to agree that a
lot of these trees are probably better taken out. And at the same time I do regret that it isn't
possible to save a few more and it looks like staff made an additional effort today to look at
whether something could be changed with the type of houses, and it turned out that's not the case
which I find disappointing. But I would think that it would help to have like a planting schedule
or a landscape plan before this goes to council, like we had the question that came up about what
kind of species. I think Debra you asked about that. To have a little bit an idea where those goes
also in the context of the buffering to the east side. The east neighbors. I really can feel the
concern of those east neighbors being sort of sandwiched between two cul-de-sacs, which is far
better though I would think than having the road go through and getting good accommodation
with buffering I think will help the issue. I would suggest for us as a Planning Commission to
put in a condition that the developer work with staff to add some additional buffering also along
the driveway to the flag lots, since the flag lot is a concession that we're making from the city
side, so I think it's balanced to ask for something extra in that context to help mitigate that
25
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
aspect. It's a bit of a give and take there. I think that's not more than fair, which again will
benefit the immediate neighbors there to the east. Which we want to do what we can to keep
everybody happy obviously. And the same thing with Cartway Lane. I don't see that we should
be specific as you expressed Jerry, in terms of making of conditions. Basically ask that the
applicant work with staff to further look at the situation with Cartway Lane in terms of the
maintenance issue. In terms of the traffic concern that was mentioned by some of the residents
there. And also in terms of the width. I mean I drove it in November and I mean it's, you have
bushes scratching your car even if it's not a truck so it's something that needs to be looked at. I
mean that doesn't quite add up right yet and it may not have to add up totally again because it's a
temporary solution so don't think it's something that we have to go too far with but it needs to be
looked at a little bit further. So that's my comments and I support it in that framework so I'd like
to ask whether somebody wants to venture a motion here please.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary plat
approval for a subdivision with a variance for a flag lot, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering
dated August 20, 2004, revised October 14, 2004, and January 14, 2005, subject to conditions 1
through 55 as amended by staff, with one change to condition number 48. I'd like condition
number 48 changed, after the words Pipewood Lane, and along the east boundary of Lot 12,
Block 2. And at the end of this condition I would like to add, along the cul-de-sac and along the
east side of the flag lot maintaining planting density of the cul-de-sac along the east border.
Sacchet: Excellent. Any second for this?
Keefe: Second.
Sacchet: Do we have any friendly amendments? So you covered the plantings. Do we say
something that asks for a landscaping plan before this goes to council?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Is that in there?
Generous: Well not before council. It says before final plat approval.
Keefe: That's number 43.
Sacchet: 43. A landscape plan.
Generous: On page 15.
Sacchet: Yeah, I guess that covers that concern. Do you want to say something about work with
staff on Cartway Lane? Something to the effect, developer will work with staff to further
establish the functionality of Cartway Lane. Is that acceptable?
Papke: That's pretty fuzzy.
91
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
Sacchet: Well I'm not trying to be very specific on purpose here.
Papke: Okay, to resolve access.
Sacchet: Resolve access to Cartway Lane.
Papke: Yeah. Yes, that's acceptable.
Sacchet: Issues in the context of access to Cartway Lane. Okay. Alright. That would take care
of that one as far as I'm concerned. We have a motion, we have a second.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
preliminary plat approval for a subdivision with a variance for a flag lot, plans prepared by
Ryan Engineering, dated August 20, 2004, revised October 14, 2004 and January 14, 2005,
subject to the following conditions:
1. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
2. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
3. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
4. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a registered structural engineer
and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The sauna on Outlot B must be removed.
6. Outlots A and B shall be dedicated to the City.
7. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
8. 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. Temporary
street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of new roadways
allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
9. A 20-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 fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance #9-1.
10. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat for 17 single-
family residential lots.
27
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005
11. The grading on Lots 10-12, Block 2 shall be revised to avoid grading within the wetland.
12. The applicant shall create a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan for new wetland
construction to ensure proposed wetland functions and values are obtained and non-native
vegetation does not encroach into the mitigation area. The monitoring plan shall include the
preparation of annual reports as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
13. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on -
site. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edge. Wetland
buffers and wetland buffer setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan. Wetland buffer areas
shall be preserved, surveyed and signed in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign.
14. The applicant shall develop detailed plans (including an erosion and sediment control plan)
for the installation of the culvert at Pipewood Lane. A winter installation of this culvert is
preferable. A professionally engineered temporary diversion of the stream through a stable
channel during culvert installation is an acceptable alternative.
15. The applicant shall demonstrate that the installation of the 4T' proposed culvert at Pipewood
Lane will not cause water to back up through the existing 4' by 6' culvert under Highway 7
to the south side of Highway 7 in 10 and 100-year storms.
16. All structures shall maintain a minimum 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level
of the creek.
17. The applicant shall submit calculations to ensure that the pond is sufficient to provide water
quality treatment to NURP standards for storm water from the development.
18. The proposed storm water pond shall be designed to accommodate storm water from the
upstream areas of the MC-A2.6 subwatershed.
19. 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 Slope
Time
(ma�m time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
SteepeT than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Days
Flatter than 10:1
21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil
areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
28
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005 •
system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
20. Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed anytime construction site
soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surfaces or streets that would allow
tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system.
21. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording is $45,348.
22. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, United
States Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
23. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota
must sign all plans.
24. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data with a drainage map will need to be submitted
for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm
event. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the
public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-
year flood level. The minimum utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
25. Type II silt fence must be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. In addition, an erosion
control blanket is required for the steep slopes along the north property line of the site. The
applicant should be aware that any off -site grading would require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
26. The remaining utility assessment due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is
$25,477.05. In addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for
each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary
sewer and $2,955 per unit for water. Each of these charges is based on the number of SAC
units calculated by the Metropolitan Council.
27. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be
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. Permits from the appropriate
regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, MNDOT,
Department of Health, etc.
28. Show all of the existing and proposed easements on the plans.
29
• •
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005
29. Show all of the existing utilities on the plans.
30. The proposed development is required to meet the existing storm water runoff rates for the
10- and 100-year, 24-hour storm events.
31. The walk -out elevation of the proposed homes must be a minimum of 3 feet higher than the
adjacent pond or wetland high -water -level.
32. Show the proposed storm manhole rim and invert elevations on the utility plan.
33. Show all emergency overflow elevations on the grading plan.
34. The existing temporary pavement turnaround for Pipewood Lane just south of this site must
be removed when Pipewood Lane is extended. Any disturbed area must be sodded and
restored.
35. The retaining wall in the rearyard of Lot 7, Block 1 must be 20 feet off the back of the
building pad.
36. Revise the rearyard grading of Lot 9, Block 1 to prevent trapping water behind the curb.
Either a catch basin will need to be added or the area will have to be re -graded with a
minimum slope of 2% to drain from the rearyard to the street.
37. The existing gravel road known as Cartway Lane must be connected to the proposed cul-de-
sac at the eastern border of the site.
38. The existing culvert across the street from Lot 9, Block 2 be connected to the storm sewer for
Pipewood Lane.
39. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard setback area of each lot.
40. Tree protection fencing is required around all trees proposed to be saved. Any tree lost will be
replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
41. The applicant shall confirm the tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. A total of
193 trees will be required to be planted unless otherwise noted.
42. The following trees are required on each lot as shown on the landscape plan dated 1/14/05:
Lot
Front yard
Rear yard
Lot 1, Block 1
2
6
Lot 2, Block 1
2
3
Lot 3, Block 1
2
3
Lot 4, Block 1
2
3
Lot 5, Block 1
2
3
Lot 6, Block 1
2
4
30
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005
Lot
Front yard
Rear and
Lot 7, Block 1
2
5
Lot 8, Block 1
2
6
Lot 9, Block 1
2
2
Lot 1, Block 2
2
4, 3 side yard
Lot 2, Block 2
2
2
Lot 3, Block 2
2
4
Lot 4, Block 2
2
2
Lot 5, Block 2
2
2
Lot 6, Block 2
2
2
Lot 7, Block 2
2
4
Lot 8, Block 2
2
3
Lot 9, Block 2
2
4
Lot 10, Block 2
2
4
Lot 11, Block 2
2
5
Lot 12, Block 2
2
1
Outlot A
30
(buffer lantin s included in total)
Outlot B
9
43. A landscape plan with a plant schedule that specifies the proposed quantities of each species
shall be submitted to the city prior to final plat approval.
44. The developer shall responsible for planting any trees located in the rear or side yards as shown
on the landscape plan dated 1/14/05.
45. The applicant shall plant only species adaptable to wet sites near the wetland boundary edge.
46. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the dripline of the tree saved on Lot 6, Block 2
prior to any grading.
47. Any plantings occurring on Outlots A or B be field located and no existing vegetation shall be
removed or compromised for the planting of new trees.
48. The applicant shall install landscaping at the end of the Pipewood Lane and along the east
boundary of Lot 12, Block 2 around the cul-de-sac. Evergreens and ornamentals shall be
installed so as to reduce headlight glare and buffer views of the street from the existing homes.
A minimum of 9 evergreens and 3 ornamentals shall be planted along the cul-de-sac and
along the east side of the flag lot maintaining planting density of the cul-de-sac along
the east border.
49. The applicant shall remove Colorado blue spruce from the plant schedule and replace it with
white fir or a species of pine.
31
• •
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005
50. The grading limits shown on the grading plan for Lot 2, Block 2, shall remain as is and the
developer shall adapt to the existing plan as necessary to preserve a small group of maples
12" and larger.
51. Temporary rock fords should not be used; and crossing the stream with flowing water and no
established stable crossing must be avoided. No work shall take place in the creek between
the dates of March 15`s to June 15`s to minimize sediment impacts to spawning fish species.
52. MN DOT category 3 erosion blanket and seed should be applied to exposed creek slopes
near / around Pipewood Lane within 24 hours of final grade.
53. Following stormwater inlet installation Wimco-type (or equal) inlet sediment controls should
be installed and regularly maintained.
54. Following street and utility installation, Chanhassen -specification Type-1 silt fence or other
approved perimeter sediment control is needed for all positive slopes curbside.
55. The silt fence proposed across the existing and proposed Pipewood Lane is not practical due
to site access needs."
56. The applicant will work with staff to resolve the access issues on Cartway Lane.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Sacchet: Now we have a second motion about the wetland. Somebody want to take that? Page
16.
Papke: I'm on a roll. I make a motion that we recommend approval for a wetland alteration
permit plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated August 20, 2004, revised October 14, 2004
and January 14, 2005, subject to conditions I through 6 as stated in the staff report.
Sacchet: Do we have a second?
McDonald: I second.
Sacchet: Any comments?
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
for a Wetland Alteration Permit, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated August 20,
2004, revised October 14, 2004 and January 14, 2005, subject to the following conditions:
1. The grading on Lots 10-12, Block 2 shall be revised to avoid grading within the wetland.
2. The applicant shall submit a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan for new wetland
construction to ensure proposed wetland functions and values are obtained and non-native
32
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005
vegetation does not encroach into the mitigation area. The monitoring plan shall include the
preparation of annual reports as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
3. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on -
site. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edge. Wetland
buffers and wetland buffer setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan. Wetland buffer areas
shall be preserved, surveyed and signed in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign.
4. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, and storm water infrastructure. Easements shall be at least 20 feet in width
to allow access for inspection and maintenance.
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:
TTof Slope
ype Ire
Time
(maximum time an arm mo remain unvegetated
when area is not actively worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Days
Flatter than 10:1
21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, 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 man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, United
States Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Sacchet: Do we need to summarize for council or are we clear enough? I think we were pretty
clear. I think we discussed this sufficient that we don't need to further summarize it. If you'll
bear with us ... all this paper before we get to the next item.
33
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 2004
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Bethany Tjornhom, Kurt Papke, Rich
Slagle, and Dan Keefe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, and Matt Sawn, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
HIDDEN CREEK MEADOWS, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 23 LOT
Public Present:
Name Address
Lisa & Jeff Jewison
Don Peterson
Steve McSherry
Vic Moravec
Rick Hueffineier
Gary Carlson
Kathy Schurdevin
Dale Keehl
3842 Meadow Court
6414 Aster Trail
6571 Kirkwood Circle
3821 Linden Circle
6551 Kirkwood Circle
3891 West 620d Street
3921 Aster Trail
3841 West 62°d Street
Cindy & Peter Thomson
4001 Aster Trail
Perry Ryan
Ryan Engineering
Lisa & John Jordan
6541 Kirkwood Circle
Casey & Joe Bergquist
4011 Pipewood Lane
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Want to start Dan?
Keefe: Sure. A couple questions. The typical housing plan for this, can you speak to that? Is it
similar to the houses in the adjacent or is it, are they larger or smaller?
Generous: I would, if the developer could answer that.
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
Keefe: Okay. Alright. Can you speak a little bit to the trees? It looked like they were going to
take out most of them. The grading is such that they're going to take out pretty much all of the.
Generous: Basically all the upland area, or the majority of the upland area will be altered, and so
every tree that's outside of the wetland, and except for a couple corners will be removed.
Keefe: Okay. I'm just confirming that. And I didn't understand the discussion around the
retaining wall behind 8. When I looked at Lot 8 on Block 1, it looked like there was a 6 to 8 foot
retaining wall I think behind there. But it was just behind that particular lot and I was curious
how that worked with you know drainage and why it was just behind that particular. Matt on
that?
Saam: Yeah, sure. The drainage will come around both sides of the lot. I can go up there. One
of our recommendations by the way was to move the retaining wall further to the north to
provide more of a back yard area. Something to what Bob spoke about, about having a deck and
shed and those sorts of things so, we do want to provide the 20 foot flatter area in that back yard
for the future residents. The way the drainage will work is basically it will be split around both
sides of the house and it will drain out, there will be a swale here and then also one on this side
so.
Keefe: So it goes out to what, catch basins in that cul-de-sac or something?
Saam: There are no catch basins in the cul-de-sac. It will drain to the street which will then
drain down to catch basins right here.
Keefe: Okay. Alright.
Sacchet: Anything else Dan?
Keefe: Just the one last question as in regards to the, there was some discussion around Cartway
Lane and the cul-de-sac, you know the street terminates in a cul-de-sac and then there's going to
be utilization of the road that goes, the gravel road that goes to the east from there. Is that, would
the developer then be responsible for maintaining that road? Who maintains that dirt road if
we're actually thinking that it might be utilized. Are we thinking it might be utilized? Or, and at
least when I looked at it, I'm not sure, I'm curious to know who would maintain that. Is that a
city maintained road or is that?
Saam: Since it's gravel I don't believe the city plows it right now, even though it is in city right-
of-way. I was just talking to a resident prior to the meeting and he was saying that they
maintain, the residents who access off it directly maintain it right now as in plowing and that sort
of thing. And the reason, just to give a little history on that, the subdivision to the east of the
property, when that came in in the 80's, I forget what year, staff at that time was looking ahead
to a future connection to that plat, and so they had an easement dedicated for roadway purposes
which is shown right here. Now when this plat came in, we looked at basically the same thing.
You know do we eliminate the long cul-de-sac's. We want an alternate access, that sort of thing,
so we looked at the feasibility of coming through here. It didn't take too long to see that this
house is basically right on the easement line and then the one to the south is just a few feet off,
about 15 feet. Typically we have a 30 foot setback so we didn't think that was a real good
a":ux 2
s • •
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
situation to put in a road through there. So we had the applicant show how a future whole city
street could come to fruition with the development of this property to the north. And we also use
as our out, so to speak, is that we do have Cartway Lane right now for emergency type access.
Or if the road is closed down, maybe down here, people can still get out this way to the public
street up here and get down to Highway 7. So it's going to be a temporary thing until the
development to the north, when they, when the property to the north develops, we can then
vacate Cartway and get a public street through some sort of fashion.
Keefe: Just for reference purposes, Cartway Lane comes down, goes north to the south and then
does like a 90 degree turn. Where on the map does it make it's 90 degree turn? Is that right at
the corner of the cul-de-sac there?
Saam: Pretty much, yeah. Right in here. So there might be, to get it to connect to the curb line,
you know they may have to feather that out a little but it won't take a lot of work to connect it.
Keefe: Okay, that's it.
Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Any questions Rich? No? Kurt?
Papke: Yeah, I've got two. The first one I'm not sure if it's for staff or the developer. Lot 1,
Block 1, one of the lots that you're proposing to eliminate here. I'm a little confused as to how
the driveway access is with all the wetlands and the culverts there. Is there a proper spacing for a
driveway to access the building pad there? Are there any issues with that? You know I would
think there wouldn't be but it just.
Saam: Yeah, none that we saw. I mean driveways, we do allow them to go down to 10 feet in
tight spaces. Typically we see about 20 but for something like that it might start at 10 and then
widen out.
Papke: When was this, how long has this been zoned residential single family?
Generous: At least since the 80's.
Papke: So at the time the Meadow Court development went in, it was zoned residential single
family? So any of the residents in that neighborhood should have had knowledge of the RSF
zoning at that point.
Generous: Correct.
Papke: Okay.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany.
Tjomhom: I read through this and I guess the first thing that comes to my mind, and maybe staff
can clarify this for me, it seems like there's a lot of extreme things happening. A lot of trees
being taken down. Wetlands being filled in. Streets being tampered with. Was there any other
way to go about this? Without having to do all this. And maybe that's not an easy question,
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
because I realize the developer wants to get as many lots in as possible and get as many homes in
but it just seems that, I don't know. It seems kind of extreme.
Generous: At least for the wetland filling, that's the minimum that we could do. We, with the
extension of Pipewood Lane to provide access to the property, we basically said that. We're
going to cross the creek there, and that's the only wetland impact that they have is for the road
crossing. The rest of the development avoids that. They are providing mitigation adjacent to it
but that's just part of creating it. As far as grading, I don't know. I don't know if Matt looked at
it. Is there alternatives to not grading this site? I don't know.
Saam: We did mention, it's not a big deal but in the rear yard of Lot 9, I guess it's Block 1 on
the north there, there's something they can do there to minimize the extent of clearing into the
trees. Other than that, I think that's more a question for their engineer. I know they're trying to
balance the dirt work on site so they don't have to truck in or truck out. So I think that's more a
question for him as to the other options in terms of the grading. Yeah, that's a good point. They
have revised it since we originally looked at it on the north side of the plat where the slope
comes down into the rear yards. Previously they had walkouts there which would have required
larger retaining walls, more severe grading, so we have had them revise that so I think they did a
good job in that respect to minimize.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: What is the schedule as far as the deadline that this must be forwarded to the council
for a recommendation and approval?
Aanenson: 1P9
Generous: Yeah, it's scheduled for the December 13a' meeting. The deadline is December 10.
Lillehaug: Okay. Question number 2. What is staff's opinions on the condition and type of
trees? Obviously most of them are being wiped out. What is staff's position on those trees? Are
they significant? Significant trees or are they you know described mostly as scrub trees or?
Generous: Yeah, Jill didn't mention that she noticed any significant trees out there per se. It was
more an older farmed area. So not a good example of big woods. Some box elder. Trees like
that.
Lillehaug: And my final question would be, do we not have in our city code the requirement that
they must demonstrate a 60 by 60 pad? I mean I know we went back and forth on this but is that
not applicable here?
Generous: The specific language for a 60 by 60 pad is not in there. It says for tree removal we
estimate at least 105 feet. But we're looking at existing, what kind of housing we have out in the
community and we're trying to make these sizes acceptable to that. We're finding out that it's
really a wider lot, not a deeper lot that's important for this and so that's sort of what we're
moving to with the recommendation. That they add additional width to the lots.
11
i
• i
Planning Commission Meeting —November 16, 2004
Lillehaug: So I wasn't successful in getting that in city code I guess was I? Okay, that's all the
questions I have, thanks.
Sacchet: I have a few questions too. Let me try to keep it to the ones that are really essential.
So basically we're saying that staff recommends that lot lines for Block 2, for Lot 1 and 13 will
be revised to include most of the wetland. I'm not quite sure still what that means.
Generous: Well Lot 1 is on the north side.
Sacchet: No, I'm talking about, yeah. That one will be eliminated. The other one.
Generous: Here, this line would shift over so it picks up the wetland area.
Sacchet: So it would.
Generous: It would shift to the northeast basically. What I was trying to do is keep these at
radial to the curve so that they come almost straight out.
Sacchet: Okay.
Generous: And then over on the west, or on the east end for Lot 13, what I drew was a line that
just continued the west lot line of Lot 12, but it picks up all this additional wetland area.
Sacchet: So that would become then a part of the outlot.
Generous: Part of Outlot A which has the majority of the wetland.
Sacchet: Okay, we would also crop it not to border Highway 5?
Generous: Yes. This is, and there's a lift station about in this location and then they have a
manhole and that's what I suggested that we go up to that manhole area.
Sacchet: That answers that. Thank you. There is no tree inventory that comes with this.
Generous: No specific individual trees.
Sacchet: We don't know what significant trees are there at this point?
Generous: Not by, no, by what they submitted, no.
Sacchet: Is that something, usually we get a tree inventory. That's not a required component?
Generous: Well I think the, we accepted this for the area. They were removing everything that
was in the upland, so we say, I don't know that it, that we would get any more information out of
having the specific trees in there.
Sacchet: Well, we know they remove pretty much everything. I'm just curious what everything
is. I mean I went out there looking at it but it's a little hard to make heads and tails. I mean it
9 •
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
really, better to have an inventory. Now, when we say they revised some of these lots, we say
that, like on condition 8. To incorporate more of the wetland so you have an idea of what more
is. You would be able to quantify that specifically. By eliminating some of the lots that you've
pointed out, this space will be proportioned to the other lots. Do we have any idea how they
would be proportioned?
Generous: I don't know. The applicant was going to look at that...
Sacchet: Okay, we can ask the applicant to that. Yeah, only my big question is, why is this not
worked a little more into detail before he comes here but that's not a fair question to ask so I
leave it at that. You have two more Steve, go ahead.
Lillehaug: Two quick ones. What does staff anticipate as far as ownership of the outlots?
Generous: That they would be donated to the city.
Lillehaug: Okay. And one specific question. What would be the radius of the roadway curve
where it is extended from Pipewood Lane, or better yet does that meet city standards?
Saam: Yeah, and we brought that up with the applicant on a previous submittal and you can ask
his engineer, or the applicant when he comes up there, but it does meet our minimum radius.
Lillehaug: It does meet it, okay.
Sawn: Yes.
Lillehaug: Okay, that's it.
Sacchet: I have two quick questions. I mean you already addressed but I want to be real clear
about that. You said the deadline to get a decision for this in place is the 14`s of December,
unless we get an extension?
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: So we really either have, we have to make a decision tonight on that basis. If we don't
get an extension on this.
Generous: Or actually continue it to December 7`° and then turn it around for the following
Monday.
Sacchet: Okay. And then my last question real quick here, because that's something that I think
we'll be seeing more in the near future than here. Lot 12, Block 2. We have a side yard
bordering back yards to the east. How's the city, I mean there's a little bit of buffer here but still,
what's the city's position of composing side yards against back yards of another development. Is
there anything we do in terms of buffering or mitigating?
Aanenson: Well I think that's one of the criteria you should look at with your variance request
on that. If you want to attach specific conditions with that lot of how the house should be
6
Planning Commission Meeting —November 16, 2004
oriented or buffering, because they are requesting a variance so you can attach a reasonable
conditions to mitigate what you think would be appropriate orientation or buffer.
Sacchet: Okay, well there isn't really much play room because it's already bumping into the
wetland there. But alright, anyhow. I think that's enough of questions. Yes, one more question
Rich. Go ahead.
Slagle: Actually two if I may. To Matt, Lots 4, 5 and 6 on the southern side, any guesstimate as
to the width of those lots at about halfway into them as you go southbound? I'm just getting,
trying to get an idea of what kind of houses.
Saam: Roughly 70 feet.
Slagle: 70 feet.
Saam: 65-70 feet.
Slagle: Okay. And in discussions, if I can ask with staff and the developer, I mean they were
comfortable with side yard setbacks.
Aanenson: No, we're not.
Slagle: I understand. I understand, but I mean even if we eliminate one lot, I'm trying to figure
out my math as I apply it to 12, potentially 13 other lots. Okay. And then last question is, on
the flat lot, was there discussion initially from the staff as to perhaps discouraging.
Aanenson: Just to be clear, this is the second draft of this project. It did come in. Substantial
changes were made. We're still requesting some more, but that was discussed, yes.
Slagle: Okay. That's all.
Sacchet. Alright, with that I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and present what you
have to tell us. And if you can please state your name and address for the record. Please move
the microphone towards you, thank you.
Gary Wilkerson: Commission members, staff. I'm Gary Wilkerson, one of the partners in the
applicant. I have with me Mr. Ryan who is our engineer and also here to answer your questions.
I've heard the staff comments. We haven't had a comprehensive chance to review them and
integrate them into our design. We're sensitive to the comments however and understand the
city's concerns here. And you know, under the way that I understand the comments, we would
lose several lots in our development, but it might make it a better development in the end and
I'm not saying that we're opposed to those changes, but we haven't had a chance to really
analyze their impact. I've heard a lot of questions about width of lots and so on. I think this
would allow us probably an extra 5 foot of width on those lots, and it might allow us a little
better building product, so it could be an improvement to our lots. But we have to look at the
economics of it and we have to look at the product types that would go on it and that's a process
we're still going through. Comments are fairly recent and our reaction is kind of ongoing to it.
But I would envision just kind of reacting to some of the questions I heard as I sat in the
7
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
audience, probably 95 foot lots if we were to lose the two lots that we're talking about. Similar
price range product to the existing development, but I think a little different type of single family
home. We would hope for maybe a little more of a community feel. We've talked about prairie
style homes with porches and maybe some more comprehensive covenants that are in place on
the first subdivision that's already there. That's kind of my generic comment and either I or the
engineer would be happy to answer any further questions.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant? Do you have questions? Rich.
Slagle: If I could ask a couple. The development to the south, the one that we approved in '90,
what year was it Bob? Help me out.
Generous: 2000.
Slagle: 2003, excuse me. 2003. What are the frontage footage, if you will, on those lots? Are
they in excess of 100?
Gary Wilkerson: Some of them are but not, I don't think on the overall average they aren't.
don't have those off the top of my head.
Slagle: Okay. Do we know?
Generous: I was going to look, grab that tonight and I forgot.
Slagle: Okay.
Generous: I know they're not all over 100 though.
Slagle: Okay. Next question. On the flag lot, tell me your thoughts on that.
Perry Ryan: Our thoughts as we took a look with the developer, and you've got a lot there that's
in excess of an acre and I think it's actually 54,000 square feet. And that may come down a little
bit. I'm just looking at Bob's notes here. It would come down to about 48,000 square feet with
some of the modifications that he's suggesting. It's just, it's a tremendous you know land area
that's sitting back there that has no real good access to it and we're able to give a tremendous
amount of buffer space still to Highway 7 and a tremendous amount, he's even got some
distances on here. Those homes to the east are 118 feet away from our property line. It's just a,
you know you've got almost, just shy of an acre and a half. 1.3 acre site sitting there. You know
when you look at the overall density I think we're down to 1.2 and I'd like to speak a little bit, as
Gary suggested, we're still kind of looking at what the ramifications of staffs recommendations
are on the possibility of deleting those two lots and maybe after your other...
Slagle: And the last question, thank you for that. Is this gentleman, you mentioned that you're
still sort of sorting things out. Would that lead one to believe that, and I don't want to speak out
of turn Mr. Chair but would that lead us to believe that a continuance if you will might be
something you'd be open to.
8
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
Gary Wilkerson: Well we certainly would do that if it's in the best interest of reaching the best
project for everybody. On the other hand, the land owners who have agreed to sell the land to us
have waited a long time for this project to go forward. I'm reluctant to delay it just on their
behalf.
Slagle: Okay. That's all.
Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? Alright, thank you very much. Did you want
to add anything?
Perry Ryan: Yeah, let me just add a little bit on what we were looking at on the setbacks. We'll
look at the lot that they're talking about, specifically Lot 10, you can see we've got kind of two
different, three different shaded areas that kind of go back to your question Steve on that 60 by
60 foot pad ... show a 60 by 60 pad. On this one originally we did and staff appropriately noted
the change. We're actually showing this entire band through here which we call the building pad
corridor, and that is at 60 foot deep. So what you're seeing here on Lot 10 where we've got the
dotted shaded area which is the 16 �/z foot wetland buffer and then the 40 foot beyond the
wetland setback, that is encroaching by about 10 feet at the very southwest corner of Lot 10. All
that's saying is that, at that particular point in that lot you couldn't build a 60 foot deep home,
and so that may be the garage side but it's still certainly a viable lot. Lot 10, I'm not sure what
the areas, obviously they're all over 15,000. The other one that kind of came up, and I don't,
was Lot 1, Block 1. And that one there we've actually got, at the front setback, it's actually 45
feet wide and at the rear 60 foot wide and that's a 60 foot deep pad. And again it's still a very
viable lot. Staff has pointed out that they'd like to see the outlot over the wetland there. The
wetland is a fairly thin band here. It gets a little confusing on this graphic showing all the
setbacks but the wetland is really about as thick as my finger shows there. We would certainly
be open and again this is if we are attempting to move forward with not removing the lots, but
we'd be open to placing an outlot or easement over that. The lot would still be sufficient in size
to meet the size requirements and I think that Matt pointed out as well, we did take a look at
what the driveway access would be, and the driveway access is still sufficiently far away from
that wetland to put in an appropriate driveway so that was kind of our thoughts on those two and
the same thing with Lot 1, Block 1. You can see, it encroaches into a portion of it. It's just the,
you know that that pad I think still is, I think that one actually, I'm not sure if it is 50-70 feet
wide in the back there, so certainly sufficient too.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I just comment just for clarity on this issue.
Sacchet: Please do.
Aanenson: I think we're not talking about, we're splitting hairs here but the issue the staff has is,
this goes back to Steve's point. This 60 by 60 pad. As we've indicated, we've looked at the
houses in that area. They're not 60. They're larger than that, so herein lies the problem. You
have a house that may fit on the pad. That may be true but when you get a homeowner in and
the developer's gone and they come in to put a deck, they're going to be back to see you for a
variance because in this buffer area you cannot put a structure and we don't think that's a service
for the resident or the homeowner to buy a lot that has no opportunity to do any additions as
lifestyle change needs, and that's the issue we're raising. Same with this. Yes, you may be able
0
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
to carve a home in there but you're really constricting the buildability of that lot and that's the
issue that we have.
Keefe: How about Lot 8 on the north side there where the retaining wall is. Do they have the
same issue?
Aanenson: You know you're going to have some lots that some people are going to discount and
to give different choices, and that I think is a little you know, but when you've got that much
wetland behind you, it's hard for a homeowner to understand. When you see a wall behind you,
that's a little bit clearer line so.
Perry Ryan: Yeah, that's a good point.
Sacchet: Thanks Kate, appreciate it.
Slagle: Mr. Chair, one last question for Mr. Ryan. Getting back Nann, if we can look again at
that overview. Your building pad area that you show in each of the lots, if I can just ask on the
southern side, what would be the average setback from the front of, from the road to the front of
the homes. I mean it looks like they're fairly close to the street.
Perry Ryan: They're all at 30 feet from the right-of-way.
Slagle: Okay, 30 feet. Okay.
Perry Ryan: From standard required setback.
Slagle: Okay. And my guess is with some of these lots that we're talking about, you would
probably be having those homes.
Perry Ryan: Yeah, most of them really. I've seen a lot of the certificates of survey that came
through on the stuff to the south. I mean Kate's right. I mean no matter how wide the lot is,
people are going to build all the way up to the setback. They're going to start right at the front
setback and just capitalize on it. It doesn't matter if it's a 9 foot lot or 120 foot lot.
Slagle: So one last question, are you cognizant to staffs concern that in the back of these homes
where people would typically want to put things, this current plan would pose some issues?
Perry Ryan: Yeah, it would certainly pose an issue I think on Lot 10. It doesn't quite so much
on Lot 1 and 8 does. I think we drew that retaining wall at 20 feet back and I think there's
certainly some room if it can move back another 10 feet, and again that's a 60 foot pad but
you're right. I mean there you've got a real visible barrier so.
Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. With that, do you want, you didn't want to add
anything? Okay.
Gary Wilkerson: Thank you.
10
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
Sacchet: You're welcome. With that I'd like to open the public hearing, so if anybody wants to
come forward and comment to this proposal in front of us, this is your turn. And if I don't see
anybody getting up, I will close it. No, there's somebody getting up. Alright. Please come
forward. State your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say please.
And move the microphone. Thank you.
Jeff Jewison: My name is Jeff Jewison. I actually live in the property east of the development,
right behind the cul-de-sac. And just had a few items. One, I might have missed it as far as the
access to Lot 13, I think it's Block, he knows what I'm talking about, yeah.
Sacchet: Block 2?
Jeff Jewison: Yeah, the access to the house. As far as would they be using the cul-de-sac?
Sacchet: Yes.
Jeff Jewison: And then I envision some sort of sidewalk.
Sacchet: That's the term flag lot. There is a little sliver of land that connects the cul-de-sac to
that lot.
Jeff Jewison: Okay, so...
Sacchet: Do you want to point it out for him Bob? Just to make sure he's clear.
Jeff Jewison: Yeah, I think I see it. Like a long sidewalk?
Aanenson: Driveway.
Slagle: Right behind your yard.
Jeff Jewison: Perfect. And then the other concerns we had was one, this was mentioned already
too is the back lot to the side lot, or building. They seem to be fairly close. Granted we're used
to these open wetlands and backs so anything's going to be a lot closer than desired but if those
could be pushed back. And then the other, I guess just strange issue I guess I wasn't familiar
with, or I haven't seen before but with the cul-de-sac bordering most of the back yard of our
property and then basically the other cul-de-sac bordering the whole front yard of our property is
just kind of strange having that surrounding front and back yards but that was my concerns.
Questions?
Sacchet: Thanks for bringing it up. Anybody else? Yeah, alright. You can come one at a time
or you can come both.
Rick Hueffineier: We're neighbors.
Sacchet: You're a team, alright. Alright, want to state your name and address for the record
please.
11
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
Rick Hueffineier: Rick Hueffineier at 6551 Kirkwood Circle. We're on the south side of
Highway 7.
Sacchet: Okay.
John Jordan: And I'm John Jordan. I'm at 6541 Kirkwood Circle and we abut right up to the
creek where it runs across on the south.
Rick Hueffineier: I'm just curious, how much is wetland there now? I mean what is it? What
does it look like?
Generous: Basically most of Outlot A and part of Outlot C on the property to the south are
wetland. There's a creek that runs through the middle of this.
John Jordan: And that overflows.
Generous; Yes. These are the wetlands.
John Jordan: See something that we have that we've been running into, you know you put the
Hidden Creek project down.
Rick Hueffineier: And now our water's not running.
John Jordan: It's not running out. It's flooding into our property and we've lost probably close
to about 20 trees so far on our property.
Rick Hueffineier: And I'm going to lose another couple here in the next.
John Jordan: I talked to, I think it's Lori over there.
Aanenson: Yes, Lori.
John Jordan: And she said that they were going to watch it for a year and they weren't going to
be doing anything... and I haven't seen anything done yet. And now they're talking about
putting a culvert in that's only 42 inches in for the road. How do you calculate the number of
gallons that are going to be coming in through the lake? Because when that lake is full, I mean
that's a full force and we got that this year. And I had to go over to Hidden Creek to clean that
culvert out umpteen times this last year just to keep it open. We've got.
Rick Hueffineier: Yeah, well we are concerned about the flow because we don't have enough,
having carp swimming up to your back door kind of gets...
Sacchet: Do you want to address that Matt?
Saam: Sure, yeah. There's modeling that's done based on rainfall that we see in Minnesota and
based on the drainage area that goes through there, and that's how they calculate the size
required for the culvert.
12
„f,
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
John Jordan: It seems like there's got to be something, not to interrupt you but that's a huge
culvert. If you look at it, it's at least 6 feet wide and now you're going to 42 inches. That tells
you, and what they put underneath Highway 7 how much water can go through there at one time.
There's no restriction at the lake to stop the water. There's no dam. It's strictly open. So if you
get a huge flow through there, I'm a mathematician so I know how to calculate that stuff out and
I know that you're not right.
Aanenson: Well I think there's some other issues that were during construction and Lori may
have talked to you about that. There was some construction issues that the DNR was involved in,
and also there's other jurisdictions that have approval on that too.
John Jordan: Well they, I talked to the DNR and they did comment that there was a possibility
of having a problem here. They did not totally agree with us, but they said that you guys came
up with the proper calculations so if I have a problem to come back to you guys, and that's what
I'm doing...
Sacchet: Is there not a DNR approval or a state agency approval step involved?
Aanenson: Yes. He's saying that there is. I'd have to follow up on that.
Saam: We can review it again too, but Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also looks at this
and gives approval so.
Sacchet: Okay. Ahight. Good point.
John Jordan: So I mean the other thing too, I want to know what are you guys going to do with
the stuff that we're losing in our back yard. Our trees are dying. We've had multiple problems
back there.
Sacchet: You're talking about right to the south here?
John Jordan: Yep, we're Lot 31 and you're Lot 30, right? So.
Aanenson: We will follow up on that. I'm not prepared to answer that question...
Lillehaug: You're on the south side of Highway 7?
John Jordan: Yeah, opposite side.
Lillehaug: Opposite side of Highway 7.
John Jordan: Yeah, and we're getting really hit hard. And by looking at these plans here, I've
seen another plan down at Carver County and it does show this whole area back here as being a
wetland. I don't know how they zone that residential. I never signed anything where they
changed that over.
Aanenson: It's still being left as a wetland. The only part that can be developed is if it's upland.
13
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
John Jordan: But they want to go over the creek though too.
Generous: Include a street crossing.
Aanenson: Just for the street crossing.
John Jordan: Street crossing?
Aanenson: Correct.
John Jordan: So if they could get that corrected for us, I think we'd...
Aanenson: We'd be happy to look at it. If we can get your name.
John Jordan: Okay, yep. That'd be great.
Sacchet: Thank you. Yes, please come forward. State your name and address.
Vic Moravec: Vic Moravec, 3821 Linden Circle. I'm about 5 houses from these guys. But what
I wanted to bring up was how much fill you're going to fill into this wetland here. I have their
same concern where my back yard, the creek 5 years ago was 2 feet wide and since they've
changed this, it's become 4 feet wide and it's flowing through a lot faster so I think we're
restricting the water flow and I've got concerns about filling in the watershed here to get down to
that smaller culvert so I just want to reiterate what these guys are saying that we really need to
look at that. And I'd like to see more information on it if I could. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Steve, you have a question for him or.
Lillehaug: Bob, can you talk about the mitigation of the wetland and the ratio. Filling in that
wetland portion. Is it a 2 to 1 ratio? And are they mitigating that on site to answer the
gentleman's question there.
Generous: Yes they are mitigating it on site. They're actually creating additional wetland. We
are just saying that we want to relocate it. We think there's a better location for the wetland
mitigation adjacent to the storm water pond, and that the pond be elongated so that we'd have
ponding in the back yard and then the wetland mitigation behind that. The mitigation
requirements are 2 to 1. You get one acre of new wetland created for each acre that you impact
and then the other acre can be through storm water ponding, preservation of upland area. You
get what's called public value credit. And so they're meeting all the requirements. The filling
that they're doing is the minimum to get the roadway in and across. And then it's just looking at
the sizing for the pipe to make sure that's adequate.
Sacchet: Thanks Bob.
Vic Moravec: Can I add a little something to make sure...
Sacchet: Sure, go ahead. Yes, you can come back more than once if you really have something
to say.
14
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
Vic Moravec: Thank you. He talks about the pond in here. Creating an additional pond.
Generous: The storm water pond.
Vic Moravec: What's happened since the development north of 7 where they changed the
wetland, the pond in the lot next to my lot has increased in size as well. So my neighbors are all
losing property to the pond, the wetland which is fine. It's beautiful but why are we paying for
what they're getting, what developments are doing.
Sacchet: Alright, thank you. Alright, next. Your turn.
Steve McSherry: My name is Steve McSheny and I live at 6571 Kirkwood Circle and I'd like to
start off by thanking the members of the commission for doing your due diligence and staff, as
well as the owners of the property or future owners of the property. I'd also like to thank my
neighbors for stealing my thunder here. Thank you very much guys. Essentially what I'd like to
do is echo what they've just said. I mean we've got our neighborhood on the south side of the
highway and we're losing property. We came to the meetings last time. We took a look at
altering wetlands and building back there and everything looks great on paper. Unfortunately we
alter this and we alter that and certainly I have a lot of respect for the understanding of the people
in this room as far as drainage and that type of thing, and appreciate the fact that you're doing
your due diligence. However, where the rubber meets the road for me is we're seeing the fallout
from the construction on the other side of the road and we get these little flyers in the mail and
the first thing I see on here is, wetland alteration permit and a red flag goes up. I'd much rather
be watching TV or working with the kids doing homework but certainly something, this is a
concern to us because what I need to look out for is what's in my best interest as you're looking
out for my best interest and the developers are looking out for their best interest. Everyone
wants a good product but by the same token, once this is in and it's gone and everyone's moved
on to the next one, you know we're bailing out our basements and losing property. Thank you
very much.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to come forward?
Dale Keehl: My name's Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62nd Street. I happen to be, if you
want to, this lot right here. We're right on the comer of Cartway and I'm real concerned about,
being our road isn't maintained by the city, and we do our own plowing. We just luckily have
people that live on that road that plow. And the traffic that's going to be, if they use that road.
I'm just real concerned about connecting that road for use. There could be something done if it
needs to be for emergency but we already get a lot of traffic down there to the tennis courts and
they come down our road and I just love the park there. That's one reason I bought there and I
don't mind the traffic going to the tennis courts and the hockey rink and the, you know we love
watching the kids but I really don't want the traffic from that development going out past my
house. That road is very narrow and like I say, we maintain it and really don't want it for public
use.
Sacchet: Thank you. Yeah, I actually drove it. I know it's very narrow. I have a hard time
imaging it would be used very heavily. Does staff want to comment about the purpose of the
connection?
fR
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
Saam: Yeah. The purpose is to have an alternate access for emergency vehicles and emergency
times if the paved road is shut down, something like that for an interim basis. And I agree. I
don't foresee, at least I know I wouldn't want to if I was a new resident in here, going out to
Highway 7. I'd much rather go on the nice new paved road than the thinner gravel road. So I
guess I don't foresee a lot of traffic wanting to go out that way.
Sacchet: It could be regulated too.
Saam: Yeah, we could, yeah. And we intend to do that.
Sacchet: Okay. Ahight, do we have anybody else? Yes we do.
Gary Carlson: Can we bring up.
Slagle: You are?
Gary Carlson: I'm sorry. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62°d Street. I'm the anchor of the city up in
that area. My home was built in 1886. It has 15 bedrooms, 9 complete bathrooms. My garage
heated 5 stalls. I have indoor parking for another 13 cars. And I've been there myself since
1967. And at that time it was a township. Not too long afterwards they came around and said
well Mr. Carlson, you're now in the city. I went wow. Fantastic. Not too long after that they
said well you're RI. Wow. Fantastic. Right now I apply for a horse permit annually. I apply
and receive apartment permit to occupy the apartments that are within my home. I apply and
receive a beachlot permit. I'm, I keep the same hobby farm however that my dad grew up next
to and he worked at these two farms that are now being developed. I guess to start, I need to go
back to the first print which shows just the undeveloped property. I guess that will show up.
Sacchet: Yeah, we can see it.
Gary Carlson: You can see it?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Gary Carlson: Okay. There are already some mistakes that have occurred within my short time
of holding down the anchor. The anchor property I'm talking about where I live is this whole
tract here and it includes this home site here which I divided off. This property here. There is,
right here where I'm drawing my stylus, there's already another lot off, and that's already a
platted lot, so that is somehow here in 2004, it hasn't gotten on the city maps yet but there is
another lot right here. It's right along here. It's a long line there. I developed Minnewashta
Meadows over here on the east side where some of these neighbors spoke. I developed that
property and over the years I've had a good relationship with the city of Chanhassen. I can't
thank you enough for what you've done and what your predecessors have done through the
years, and I worked with city staff many times and even on my project. It's not an easy job and
they've done you know, they've brought this project a long ways along. This particular property
is extremely hard to develop. Extremely hard to develop because it has the problem of the only
creek in this whole area of the city is Minnewashta Creek. It drains all of Lake Minnewashta. I
can't stress how important that is. Drainage, drainage, drainage. And if it was a 6 foot culvert
16
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
under Highway 7, every culvert from there to Lake Virginia should be 6 feet. It can go
completely dry, and it's been years where it will flow where you can put a canoe and hey, why
aren't we canoeing this every year. That's how much water can come out of Lake Minnewashta.
And because it lies, a lot of this development lies along the creek, every, you're looking at a little
part of this development and you're looking at a little part of the city but all of Shorewood drains
down toward the creek. All of Victoria drains down toward the creek. My property, when I say
it's always the anchor because I'm on a tri city border. So I have, I've met with Shorewood City
Council and I deal with Victoria because they're all looking for where their water's going and
why it's going, why it's not getting there. And so I want the City of Chanhassen's engineering
department to really look at how much water's coming. And not only is it getting to the creek
but all of these lots across here have to have water across them. From up land and if you look at
the elevations, this developer does not have that much elevation to work with. It's not like he's
got rolling hills and high lands. He's down at the bottom of the flowage in this area because this
whole area drains into the creek. The creek drains into Lake Virginia. Goes into Minnetonka
and down the old Minnehaha Watershed District, which everyone's concerned with. My
concerns on drainage are down my west property line, right down here which is also my border
with the new development. Right now we split that drainage. The drainage comes under the
railroad right there. It drains all of this area up here. There's a new development up here,
Hidden Creek. They've already put a catch basin here and now I'm going to use the same
culvert. After it leaves the railroad, it comes open. It's open swale that's between my property
and the previous Collin's property but it's now the new development. And if those big
bulldozers are out there pushing the soil around and they push it right over to the edge of their
property because they're shaping a new home pad, they're going to move that flowage that's in
a swale now, all onto my property. I need to have them work with me. I will give them a
construction easement, and we can create a proper swale so all that, it's draining all of that area
of Shorewood and it drains the whole corner of West 62°d and Cathcart. It goes all the railroad
right-of-way. Railroads do not have a water stand under their beds and so that's been graded for
years that it goes to catch under and down into the natural flowage and then I don't know west of
me where the next flowage comes out but it's going to the east. So I don't know if there's more
issues along the railroad right-of-way. If there's more ... concerns me. That flowage has to be
dealt with and if this development has to put in a silt fence, my fencing was put in for the horses
all along this property and along the Cartway. Along, on the Cartway I have a horse fence. And
when Schmidt divided this up into Schmidt's Acre tracts, Mort Grace already lived here and he
had his driveway here. And that's why it was turned into a cartway because Schmidt wanted to
divide off his lot so each daughter and son could have 8 or 9 acres. But he already had Mort
Grace there so the cartway was then established on a piece of paper, but it was already a cartway.
So it wanders and my horse fence, which has been there for 20 some years or more, also wanders
so. In the process of silt fencing, if you want to come in and set the silt fence, you know they put
in the post and silt on the bottom and you can put one more wire on then it can be a temporary
horse fence, which is fine with me. And then we can work our two borders properly, and then
when it's all done we can just, if you'll replace my fence back to the proper setback that the city
requires. I'd love to work with them in that matter.
Sacchet: Excuse me for interrupting but I think all that would not touch your property. I meant
all the development has to take place on the property where the development takes place.
Gary Carlson: I know but these lines and fences on the cartway wandered off the property lines.
They weren't even on, they weren't set by a surveyor when they were put in.
17
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
Sacchet: Oh you're concerned that the lines are not accurate?
Gary Carlson: This is my horse fence on the west. Dale Collins saw it go in. You know he's
my neighbor to the west. He says, yeah. That seems like about the right place but.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, maybe I can resolve this issue. I think this is appropriate discussion one,
in a pre -con meeting and two, typically we walk a site and I think this is an appropriate
application that we walk with both property owners before we begin construction and try to work
out these issues. Not in this arena but in that type of arena where we try to work those things
out.
Sacchet: Right, we won't be able to settle these things.
Aanenson: But I think that we're certainly willing, the staff is certainly willing to you know
facilitate that and...
Gary Carlson: Yeah, I am, I've worked really great with the city. I would gladly allow... The
next issue is also the flowage issue, and that's on the cartway. Cartway Lane, which I named. It
was always called the cartway and never named for years so I finally said let's name our street.
It got named the Cartway. Cartway Lane. That accepts all the water out of the park called
Cathcart Park. All that water comes out the southwest corner of the park and goes onto that
cartway and it comes down and you cannot, you can canoe down it when we've had some rain
events there in the park. The park has never been required to manage their own water. I mean
they just let it, go right out. And I've been before the City of Chanhassen and the City of
Shorewood on that water problem. And we've got, that water is crossing this property now and
it's just so that again we're aware of that volume of water's going to come down that cartway. It
will wash a pile of gravel as high as that chair out of the cartway. It completely washes all the
gravel off the cartway. I've got a video of it. So that's an issue again, getting back to drainage.
Sacchet: So it basically would go across the area where the cul-de-sac is planned?
Gary Carlson: It will hit this corner of the cul-de-sac ... and affect all the people in Minnewashta
Meadows. All their back yards drain into the property. As I said, if you go back to the previous
map and it was small hobby farms set back from the creek during all these years. And if the
developer has that kind of kahuna's that wants to tackle a wetland developing into homes, I say
more power. I mean I'm glad he's doing it. But the city and all you folks have to make sure that
these new homes and the way these pads are created, there's space between each one of them for
that water to get down there because the creek is the lowest in the whole city and all of the other
neighbors around here, all drain through that property.
Aanenson: Can I just give clarification of that. This issue's been going on with Mr. Carlson and
the city for a while. We're trying to resolve those issues, just for your edification. Meeting with
the City of Shorewood. There's a lot of drainage that is coming onto his property that is not in
the city. There is the ... earlier subdivision going in, Schmidt's Acres. There was not a
requirement for ponding so there's some pre-existing conditions so trying to separate what the
obligation of this application is. Certainly we don't, as people... said, there's some problems.
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
There was a permit stop for a while. There was problems out there. We worked to resolve them.
Certainly but we recognize the need to go back and make sure that we're in a good spot, but...
Sacchet: So in other words we're aware of this.
Aanenson: Correct, and we've been working with Mr. Carlson so just so you know, we forward
this and we're working on that issue.
Sacchet: That's important. Important to know, thank you Kate.
Aanenson: And we did put a condition in here which is reflected in the staff report on page 14
regarding a catch basin on the cartway. That was a condition that was added to address
specifically Mr. Carlson's drainage issue. So we are aware of that.
Sacchet: Thank you. Alright Mr. Carlson, what else?
Gary Carlson: Thank you for your patience. On the 51, maybe on page, which is on page 14.
(g). The first issue. (g). Add a catch basin on the north side of the cul-de-sac at the eastern end
of the project and how that it will be adequate to accept the runoff that now occurs from Cartway
Lane. I'd like to see them put this in here. It's a tremendous amount of water so I just can't tell
you how much it is.
Sacchet: Yep, and there's certainly other neighbors made a similar comment of the importance
of that.
Aanenson: Again I just want to separate that there's two jurisdictions involved and so we're
trying to sort that out as a city staff that some of it's coming from Shorewood.
Sacchet: If it's somewhat Shorewood related.
Aanenson: We certainly understand that we need to work to resolve the problem.
Gary Carlson: And the last issue is 51. The existing gravel road known as Cartway Lane. To be
connected to the cul-de-sac to, you know that's, yes. You have emergency somewhere in that
development. There's a house explosion. A huge accident and then there's a fire call. And the
fire, yes. You have to have a way in. I am wondering, I have heard of it, that there is a break
away emergency gate that can be placed at the edge of that cul-de-sac. In other words, a fire
truck can run, hit it and it falls over. I mean, but to leave that as an accessible and yes, it's a
good idea to connect that to the cul-de-sac so that the folks in the new development can walk up
there and get to their park. Otherwise they're going to have to be going through someone's back
yard.
Sacchet: More for pedestrian use basically.
Gary Carlson: Yeah, pedestrian use but some sort of emergency break away. You know unless
the city's going to start plowing the road and, it just isn't going to happen. It's just a narrow,
little gravel access that was just originally put in as driveways and.
19
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
Sacchet: Good point.
Gary Carlson: And if it can be an emergency break away gate, that is all just emergency vehicles
need to know about it and we've got a fire department that's educated. They can yes, if we get a
call in there, we can't get in. Come in this way.
Sacchet: Good point, thank you.
Audience: Who would take the liability of going across there?
Sacchet: If you want to come up in a minute, you can do so please. Okay.
Gary Carlson: Good question. They'll be on public road all the time.
Sacchet: Excuse me. We cannot have discussion amongst yourselves. We'll never get done that
way. We have 3 more items to do that other people are waiting that we get to.
Gary Carlson: My father reached into his 80's worked for these gentlemen and their homesteads
are still there. I think a tree inventory would be, there are some, unless there's no value in saving
huge trees like this, but if there is, I think that would be a good request in here. It would put
more burden on the developer but I mean he's jumped through a ton of hoops to get here. It's a
difficult property to develop and I appreciate your time and working so hard on this. And the
staff too has done a great job. I mean it's just a ton of little things you have to think about
because each one of these lots is another wetland problem because we're right at the edge of the
creek. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you sir.
Lillehaug: Mr. Carlson, before you leave I have to ask you a question. I hate to do it but I have
to. You own the big lot there and staff is making a, I'm an assumption that this will be
developed in the future and looking at an interim connection of a roadway. What is your plans
with that lot? Do you plan on developing it within the next couple years or what are you
thinking?
Gary Carlson: Well the developer's approached me. He's done the best he could, it's just how
do you replace that large a home.
Lillehaug: So you don't have any immediate plans?
Gary Carlson: I mean I'm ready to do more permits with the city. I mean I'm really thankful
having all these permits but I'm willing to go through those hoops too. Yes, I don't know. I've
been there, I haven't changed that property in, you know other than keeping it improved. The
layout, and either have my neighbors in 30 years so this is going to change and then again when I
might change, it depends. My children are ready to take over the home and so then there may
not be a change, and these other neighbors, Mr. Keehl was up here and Mr. Toll. He has the
same concerns that Dale does and I own this end home here. But you have to tear down 4 homes
to put in the new road and build up 12 more. I don't know. You know I could argue either side
of this. These neighbors to the west, these neighbors to the north, these neighbors to the east,
P701
• •
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
these neighbors to the south would all like to continue to look at the wetland just the way it is.
They're not jumping up and down to have 25 homes so that they can say the creek is over there
between that brown home and that, whatever. No, we would just as soon leave it. To us it's
always looked like wetland. But now that they've brought in the delineators and they said there
is room to squeeze in some homes. I'd rather see the city go and say, I'd rather see the city say
it's not time to develop that. Go find a nice farm that's square, has some rolling acres and put in
a nice development. Leave the creek the way it is. If you want to continue a hobby farm, there
is your 4 acres and a home. If you want to continue the hobby farm, here's your 4 or 5
acres ... sell it as that.
Sacchet: Thank you sir.
Gary Carlson: I would rather see that but.
Sacchet: You definitely answered his question.
Gary Carlson: You really did. I could argue either side of this question because there are pros
and cons to both sides.
Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Gary Carlson: I'm glad to work with you.
Sacchet: I see somebody else standing up. I assume you want to speak up. Please come
forward. State your name and address and let us hear what you have to say please. If you can
get the microphone.
Casey Bergquist: I'm Casey Bergquist and I live at 4011 Pipewood Lane. The new
development that just went in and I guess my biggest concern is because of the new development
that we live in and then the old existing development that was there, we have right now 35 lots
that access Highway 7 and then adding 23 more will add 58 lots accessing Highway 7 through
the same access. Is that typical for a neighborhood?
Sacchet: Good questions. Matt, do you want to say something about that?
Saam: I don't know if typical's the right word but we do have other subdivisions with more lots
than 50. Well Ashling Meadows is about 50 but Longacres. They have two accesses.
Springfield. There are other subdivisions.
Sacchet: There are, so there's really only one access to Highway 5 at this point.
Saam: 7.
Aanenson: Highway 7.
Sacchet: 7 not 5, sorry.
21
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
Saam: And that's incidentally one of the concerns MnDot had too is to make sure that there is
another access so it's just another reason we really want to keep another alternate access.
Whether just for emergency or what.
Sacchet: Now obviously Cartway I would not call another access. I mean the road is this wide.
It's for emergency, yeah. And we yeah, but we're not at discussion yet. Do you want to add
anything else to this?
Casey Bergquist: No, I was just then, and I mean and if the plan was to go through, what would
be done to slow down the speed because right now we already have people speeding down
Pipewood Lane to get to their back neighborhood, so now people are going to be turning onto
our road and speeding down our road to get to their neighborhood and we're expecting our first
baby in January and it's like, we're going to have cars speeding down our road so I'm wondering
what's going to be done. You know stop signs put in. Maybe a little speed bumps. What can be
done to slow down.
Sacchet: I don't think we do speed bumps in our city yet so far but what's.
Aanenson: It's your neighbors. You know we just have education programs. Be happy to
discuss that with you or get the sheriff's office.
Casey Bergquist: Okay.
Slagle: I have a quick question for you. Were you aware that the road was going to go through?
Casey Bergquist: When we developed, our builder told us that possibly it would continue on but
it probably wouldn't happen for a significant amount of years. He said probably about 10 years
so that's what we were told when we bought the house.
Sacchet: That's pretty standard.
Casey Bergquist: We moved in in June.
Sacchet: So that's a pretty quick 10 years huh.
Casey Bergquist: Yeah, real quick 10 years. So yeah.
Sacchet: Well appreciate your comment, thank you.
Casey Bergquist: Thank you.
Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item. If I don't see anybody getting up, yes Mr.
Carlson has a follow-up.
Gary Carlson: Well when you live out there for so many years, you can't cover everything in
one short time. But I won't take another 40 minutes. That flag lot, you know the City of
Chanhassen plows and maintains this pump station down here. Very important pump station. It
pumps all of Minnewashta sewage up the cartway. It's all pumped up by, in a force... Anyway,
22
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
why can't that flag, I mean there's a lot of residents that have a driveway on 7. Further west.
Further east. There's a lot of residents that's the only way they can get to 7. That's how it was
created originally. And the city has got a nice tum-off. It's paved. Why can't 13 have access...
Sacchet: I don't think MnDot does not allow driveways on Highway 7. Is that accurate
statement to make?
Gary Carlson: It's not a new driveway. It's not a new driveway.
Aanenson: It's a different type of turn movement as far as the frequency the city would be in
there as opposed to a residential use. It's not recommended.
Sacchet: Okay? Good try. Thank you Mr. Carlson. Alright, last call. Anybody else? Seeing
nobody, I'm closing the public hearing. I want to thank you all for all your comments. Very
good range of comments. Good concerns. I'd like to bring it back to the commission for
discussion. And to make a decision. Rich.
Slagle: I'll make mine fairly quick. I would suggest to all of us that we consider, this is not a
motion but consider asking for a stay on this and the reason being is one, I do think that a tree
survey should be done. I'm surprised there isn't one. Secondly, I think the amount of lots that
the developer is trying to implement are too many. I have serious concerns about the flag lot.
And I understand and this developer I'm aware of, seems like a solid citizen but gosh, one of
these days I'm really going to be delighted when someone comes in with a parcel like 13 and
says, you know we've decided to make that a private park for our community. Or something.
The trail area, something other than let's put a house close to Highway 7 and, or I shouldn't say
close but closer than the rest of them. And then lastly, the lot sizes I think need to be re -worked.
Totally. The idea that someone can't put a deck or a playground because their lot stops, and
given the quality, and I have to say on a positive note the quality that this developer is known
for, I would be surprised that people would buy the homes and not want to put those types of
things in, because you do build very nice homes so. I would at this point be open to passing on
this and seeing if they would be open to it.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Anybody else? Steve?
Lillehaug: A couple quick questions. I agree with everything Rich said. A couple others. I
don't see any sidewalks in this project, and I know we don't have a huge amount of traffic but
wondering why.
Slagle: It's on the north side.
Lillehaug: Am I just not seeing it?
Sacchet: Yeah, there is on the north side Steve.
Lillehaug: Sorry, I'm looking at the wrong one. Okay, there it is. Scratch that. Well, I totally
agree. My concerns, I mean we have 51 some conditions in here and there's probably about 20
in here that should really already be addressed and I realize that you've been working with the
applicant but there's just too much fine tuning in here for us to really look at a quality
i1
0
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
development and really put an approval on anything. There's too much tweaking to go on. And
then I want to read something in the report real quick like here. Quote, it says these building
envelopes would not accommodate the types of housing the city has typically seen in adjacent
development, nor will the building envelopes permit construction of accessory structures, etc,
etc. When we reviewed codes I fought pretty hard to get a 60 by 60 pad in the codes and I
finally conceded and said forget it. That would have addressed this and now I mean it's evident
that we should have something in the codes on that. If we wouldn't need this in here, we would
have had the proper size lots in here and I think us as a Planning Commission should recommend
to staff to re -address that and look at modifying the code to add that in there. So other than that I
also agree that I think this should be tabled. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve.
Tjornhom: I agree.
Sacchet: Any other comments Kurt?
Papke: I was very surprised by the, and pleased by the people that came in from the other side of
Highway 7 tonight. I didn't expect that volume of input from people that far away from the
development, and I don't know, I'm not completely convinced that we have the full impact of the
hydrology situation here. If there is that much water flow down into this area, I don't know.
The size of the culvert there, the 42 inch culvert just seems like we should take a look at it, and
that certainly has an impact on the decision on Ut 1. That could certainly force that one to
disappear. So I just think it's premature.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Do you want to add something Dan?
Keefe: Just a question. What does tabling do? I mean what is the process and what's the time
frame and impacts.
Sacchet: We established that with the current time line we have til the 14th of December for a
decision, which is the 60 day rule, and it would have to go to council on the 13a'. That's the
original plan. However, we can ask the applicant for an extension to fit into 120 days. We
probably would want to get that formally from the applicant. It's my understanding from the
applicant's comments that he's willing to consider that and we would probably need to ask you
that more formally. And that would allow us to table it, send them back to take care of some of
these issues. Because there's quite a list of them.
Keefe: Was it 120 days.
Sacchet: From when the application was complete. Which would be 60 days back from the
December 14t° date so we'd have another 60 days on top of that.
Keefe: So approximately February 10.
Sacchet: Right. Which doesn't mean it would have to take that long. As a matter of fact, things
that we table come back as quickly as possible. It's really up to the applicant to fulfill the
requests that are made and work with staff on the issues that we point out and we see them come
24
` Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
back within 2 weeks sometimes. Sometimes they even still make the same council meeting that
was originally planned so.
Keefe: I think it's a fair solution.
Sacchet: Okay. I feel very strongly that this needs to be tabled. I don't think this proposal is
cooked enough. There are too many very significant items. The lot lines are being shifted
around. There's wetland issues that are sort of, there's an idea there but it's not really specific
and how to reassign wetland to the lots is sort of clear but not totally. I'd like to see these things
really specific in order to have a clear picture. The tree inventory, the tree plans, there's what,
141 trees that we're requiring to be planted. We don't know where they're going to be. We
don't know what kind of trees are there now. There are way too many conditions about grading
fixes, about hydrology, about the cul-de-sac radius, you name it. Things that can be taken care
of that can be focused. That can be to the point. That we can look at and know what we have in
front of us. Right now I don't think we have that. A whole list of issues that came up is the
importance of the flooding issue. I mean the importance of looking at the drainage issue, the
grading and all that. I think it's a very valid concern that really in terms of what, watershed
aspect, it may have to be looked at in a large context than just the immediate neighborhood. I
mean that was a very good aspect that I think we have a responsibility to whether it goes across
city borders or not. I mean we have to look at the whole picture. And as far as that's practical
and possible, within the framework of course. And I would look to staff to balance that aspect.
Now there are several smaller aspects like the access to Highway 7. The access to who has
access or what would be the restriction to the access to Cartway North. Things like that are more
detailed. I mean that wouldn't be a reason to hold it up but it certainly can be addressed too. I
think the conditions could be significantly cut down and this be more specific so on that vein I'm
ready to get a motion please. Should we ask, now before we do that. Could I ask the applicant
point blank, are you willing to give an extension?
Gary Wilkerson: I've heard the concerns of neighbors as well as commission and I do
understand them. We have some contractual obligations with the people selling to us to proceed
in front of the council. So I'm reluctant to have this delayed too long. On the other hand, it
makes no sense to go forward with an application that you're not comfortable with, you're not
going to approve. So you know, is there some middle ground short of 60 days or do we have to
ask for 60 days?
Sacchet: No, it is a 60 day for the formal part. However, there is a possibility even that you
could address these issues within the 2 weeks frame. If you can address these issues within a
week, get it back to staff, it's very possible that you could be on our agenda at the beginning of
December and still make the council's 13a' date. Maybe if that's not possible to slip, but there
isn't another council meeting later in December. It'd slip into early January but we're not
talking about holding you up til February. I mean that's in your hand how quickly you can be
addressing these things and your assumption's correct that if we don't get an extension, we
would probably end up recommending denial.
Gary Wilkerson: Right, and I understand that. I do appreciate and I've heard the concerns of the
neighbors to the south and if I lived in a home where the creek was rising and I was losing trees,
I would have those concerns too. I would point out that they exist independent of our
development. That we didn't create those problems. I understand their concern is that we not
25
Planning Commission Meeting — November 16, 2004
make them worst, and that's our responsibility but I would hope not to have to pay for the
previous developer.
Sacchet: No, it has to be fair in this overall, absolutely.
Gary Wilkerson: But given what you're saying, I would petition for a 60 day extension.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. So with that I think we have a good foundation
to make a motion.
Slagle: I'll make a motion. I recommend that the Chanhassen Planning Commission table the
preliminary plat approval request for a subdivision with a variance for a flag lot, plans prepared
by Ryan Engineering dated August 20, 2004, revised October 14, 2004, subject to the numerous
conditions.
Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Lillehaug: Second.
Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Hidden
Creek Meadows to allow the applicant time to address the concerns raised by the residents
and commission members. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 6 to 0.
26