CAS-31_HIDDEN CREEK MEADOWS (8)701
Minnehaha Creek
IMPROVING QUALITY OF WATER,
18202 Minnetonka Blvd • Deephaven, MN ' I ~ J O$l 17/2005 a
' ' Mailed From55391
C]TY OF CHTNI VDFN
7700 MARII,
CHA CITY700 553173009 1705 16 08/19/05
NOTIFY SENDER OF NEW ADDRESS
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0147
o+ I.I.I11I1I$,gill 111IIIF14III1411IfIIlII•II111Ifill1I,.•I1II18I
MINNEHAHA (IWER�WERSHED DISTRICT
18202 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD-DEEPHAVEN, MN 55391
www.minnehahacreek.ore
Ph.952471-0590 Fax.952-471-0682
COMMENT PERIOD NOTICE
The MCWD is revie following permit application. MCWD Rules require notice
to all property owners withioW of the proposed permitted area as a courtesy, in the event
there are any questions or concerns.
05-373 Pete Thomson and Cindy ,Dean Carlson on behalf of Pete Thomson and Cindy Gess
has applied for a Minnehaha Creek ershed District permit for Rule G: Waterbody Crossing for the
extension of Pipewood Lane across aivedand as part of the proposed Hidden Creek Meadows
development at the location of 4001 Aster Trail in the City of Chanhassen.
Individuals with questions or concerns regarding this permit may contact Renae
Clark at 952471-0590 or rclark(alminnehahacreek.ore. J n lot.
Md�t HI �
Interested parties may request that a public hearing on this permit application be jtl; 0.209
scheduled before the MCWD Board of Managers. Requests for a public hearing must Wo
writing and received at the MCWD offices prior to 4:30 PM, August 30, 2005.
Name and address of local government unit: City of Chanhassen - 7700 Market Boulevard,
Chanhassen, MN 55317
The undersigned certifies on June 9 , 2005 , he/she mailed copies of the
Hidden Creek Meadows Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision to the addressees listed
thereon by depositing the same in the United States Mail in the City of Chanhassen
County of Carver and State of Minnesota, properly enveloped with prepaid
first class postage.
Signature
Water Resources Coordinator
Title
June 9, 2005
Date
Page 1 of 1
Hidden Creek Meadows Notice Mail Decision (April 2003)
Name and Address of Local Government Unit: City of Chanhassen
Name of Applicant: D & G of Chanhassen. LLC Project Name: Hidden Creek Meadows
Application Number: 040431
Type of Application (check one):
Date of Decision: April 25, 2005
❑ Exemption Decision
❑ No Loss Decision
® Replacement Plan Decision
❑ Banking Plan Decision
❑ Wetland Type/Boundary Decision
Check One: ❑ Approved
® Approved with conditions (see note on page 2 regarding use of wetland banking credits)
❑ Denied
Summary of Project/Decision (indicate exemption number per MN Rule 8420.0122, if applicable):
Proposed impacts to the wetland include the filling of 5,756 square feet of wetland to
accommodate a connection to Pipewood Lane and the installation of a 42" culvert within Hidden
Creek, a DNR protected creek. Mitigation of filling activities is planned by creating 7,420 square
feet of created wetland area (New Wetland Credit) and 4,317 square feet of credit for on -site
storm water ponding (Public Value Credit).
The Chanhassen City Council approved the Wetland Alteration Permit on April 25, 2005 subject
to conditions 1 through 6, as stated on pages 33-34 of the City Council meeting minutes
(attached).
List of Addressees:
Landowner:
Dean Carlson, D & G of Chanhassen, LLC
Members of Technical Evaluation Panel:
Brad Wozney, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Greg Graczyk, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District
Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable):
Michael Wyatt, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Department of Natural Resources Regional Office (select appropriate office):
NW Region:
NE Region:
Central Region:
Southern Region:
Regional Director
Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol.
Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol.
Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol.
2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE
Div. Ecol. Services
Div. Ecol. Services
Div. Ecol. Services
Bemidji, MN 56601
1201 E. Hwy. 2
1200 Warner Road
261 Hwy. 15 South
Grand Rapids, MN 55744
St. Paul, MN 55106
New Uhn, MN 56073
- Page
1 of 2
Hidden Creek Meadows Notice
Decision 9/16/04
I
DNR TEP Representative (if different than above)
(none)
United States Army Corp of Engineers:
Joe Yanta, Project Manager
Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only
(none)
You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above -
referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government
Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any appeal of the
decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water
and Soil Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice.
NOTE: Approval of Wetland Replacement Plan Applications involving the use of wetland
banking credits is conditional upon withdrawal of the appropriate credits from the state wetland
bank. No wetland impacts may commence until the applicant receives a copy of the fully signed
and executed "Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits," signed by the BWSR wetland
bank administrator certifying that the wetland bank credits have been debited.
THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Additional approvals or
permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities
before commencing work in or near wetlands.
LOCAL GOVER 1MENT UNIT
June 9.2005
4Siatkure Date
Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator
Name and Title
- Page 2 of 2
Hidden Creek Meadows Notice Decision 9/16/04
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`s to June 15m 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
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not active) be' 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.
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
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
LANE AND CARTWAY LANE, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7, APPLICANT D & G OF
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 15t6, 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 Yobeny 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
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 staffs
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: M. 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
PIA]
City Council Meeting — April 25, 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 corner 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 song. More than that.
`% 1
City Council Meeting — April 25, 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 1/2
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
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 Tjornhom.
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 Tjornhom: 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
OW
City Council Meeting — April 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 — April 25, 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
staff s 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.
01-?
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 42" 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.
29
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:
e of Slope
Pe
Time
(manmum ca time an area n remain =vegetated
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.
30
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 WCA, 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 — April 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 and
Rear and
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 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.
OAP
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 $20 per sign.
4. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, and storm water infrastructure. Easements shall be at least 20 feet in width
to allow access for inspection and maintenance.
5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year-round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not active) be' worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1to3:1
14Days
Flatter than 10:1
21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil
areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, United
States Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval."
A►1 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone.
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The City is the applicant on this development proposal. There's
three requests before you tonight. A land use amendment from parks and open space to
commercial, a subdivision of 2 lots and 1 outlot, and site plan review for 12,500 square foot
34
r /
c C.4Z 6Se /
5 i 1'
s 1
ifp 3I9 :9
tit
' rt
30.30
S-
ip
R7
�rip
f� t
�7.8 NI L
•A
l Z$ � m 9 6� qe €Ufi//t Easernsnt � l
r
$3
I!( 9
Ln
r tz
Via°
�i
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 Sawn, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen
7305 Laredo Drive
HIDDEN CREEK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 21 LOT
AND WETLAND WITH A PUBLIC STREET. THE SITE IS 19.2 ACRES ZONED
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 130d' 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?
Planning Commission Meeting —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?
Saam: 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
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°a
Generous: West 62°a
McDonald: 62°d 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.
3
Planning Commission Meeting — 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?
n
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...
5
Planning Commission Meeting — 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.
0
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005
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 corner.
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.
Planning Commission Meeting — 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?
Sum: 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 road.
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
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
0
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 Cartway 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
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.
Swam: 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?
Saam: 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 Meeting —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
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
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 road 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?
1W
Planning Commission Meeting — February 15, 2005
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 corner 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 comer 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 corner.
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: Turn 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?
m
Planning Commission Meeting — 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.
20
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 comer
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 Cartway 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 comer 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 Meeting —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 62nd 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 62nd line Chanhassen or is that Victoria?
Dale Keehl: 62nd is Hennepin County's road.
DeanCarlson: 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 corner 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.
23
Planning Commission Meeting — 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 damning 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 upright onto 7. So that the houses 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.
26
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.
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 42" 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
axim timema an area can rein unvegetated
(maximum
when area is not active) be' 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
m
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 and
Rear and
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 and
Rear yard
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 plantings 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
1T' 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 15th to June 15"' 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 -I 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 1 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:
Type of Slope
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not active be' worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1 to 3:1
14 Days
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
Page 1 of 1
C
Haak, Lori
From: Carlson, Dean [DCarlson@CBBURNET.COMJ
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:21 AM
To: Generous, Bob; Saam, Matt; Haak, Lori
Cc: pryan@ryanengineering.com; gwilkerson@wilkersonhegna.com; Love, Woody; Carlson, Dean
Subject: Hidden Creek Meadows
City of Chanhassen Planning Dept.
As requested we have competed a cross section for the areas south of Hwy 7.
Attached please find our conclusions and a narrative letter describing the home owners
issues and the effected elevation contours.
I hope this information is sufficient in detail for us to proceed to the February 15th meeting.
If you have questions please email or call me ASAP. Thank you in advance for your prompt
attention to this information.
Dean Carlson
Chief Manager
D & G of Chanhassen, LLC
7820 Terrey Pine Court
Eden Prairie, MN. 55347
952-949-4715
www.LotLand.com
Dean Carlson Partners.com at Coldwell Banker
1/31/2005
v
City of Chanhassen January 28`s 2005
7700 Market Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Attn: Planning Department
Subdivision application for: Hidden Creek Meadows
Topic: Water shed cross section
Planning Department:
The recent request for a cross section of the watershed from Lake Minnewashta
through Hidden Creek Meadow, Hidden Creek Estates has been completed to
the best of our ability as documented here by Ryan Engineering.
The Minnewashta Lake HWL of 944.5 and W.L. of 942.1 was clearly established long
before our application for subdivision this area. The box at Minnewashta Parkway is
at a 942.19 flowing into the wetlands behind Kirkwood Circle where the home elevations
clearly show the homes built to within 20 feet of a 944.5 contour which would present a
high risk for these homes. It seems likely that over the years, these homeowners have
encroached upon the creek by clearing rear yard spaces that are located within the
ordinary flood plain and the 944 contour.
The box at Hwy 7 is at 939.85 and was only extended 6 feet by Mn. Dot. with no change
to the elevation during the recent renovation of Hwy 7. Our engineer has provided
hydraulic calculations for the water effects on the proposed subdivision area. If a pre-
existing problem exists in this upland area south of Hwy 7 it is clearly not an issue for
the developer to resolve. The Box approved for Hidden Creek Estates is at 938.5 and thus
we have proposed our box at Pipewood to be at that same 938.5 elevation in keeping with
the cities prior approval. The City of Chanhassen had engineering work done for through
an independent company I believe is named `Bonestroo" ant their work may need to be
looked at again as part of the City of Chanhassen's obligations to the area residents.
The homeowners at the last meeting clearly have personal concerns that would appear to
be confirmed for high water years based on the location of the 944 contour in their lots.
But, these owners may need to address this issue with the prior owners for false or
misleading seller disclosures at the time of their purchase. Steve McSherry purchased his
home at 6571 Kirkwood on May 290 2003 and Rick Hueffineier purchased 6551
Kirkwood on May 2 2002, I believe both of these years to be below normal rain fall.
J
The annual rain falls would effect any owner's perceptions and cause one to believe that
there is a direct correlation to these developments and the renovations to Hwy 7 in 2003
The rains of 2004 would have created quite a dramatic visual effect on their back yard
areas, which I would propose are normal and have occurred in the years prior to their
purchases. Lisa and John Jordan at 6541 Kirkwood have owned since 1993 and are
concerned about tree losses, these issues may be due to old age or the improper
placement of new trees within the 944 HW contour during low water years since their
purchase. A visit from the city forester may help the city better understand their concerns.
Vic Moravec also purchased in 1993 at 3821 Linden Circle and describes changes from 2
foot to a 4 foot width with the creek. I have no doubt that the creek has expanded during
these high water periods as it has for many years prior to today. Vic did not voice
concerns of water consuming his rear yard because his elevation and distance from the
944 contour is greater than the homes on Kirkwood.
I hope this research and information gives a more detailed summary of these homeowner
issues and there relevance to the effects these projects have on the area. We hope that our
efforts have given the City the peace of mind needed to proceed with approval at our next
scheduled planning commission meeting on February 15m 2005.
Thank you all in advance for your timely consideration of this information and all your
efforts to help us resolve these issues.
Dean Carlson
Development Manager
D & G of Chanhassen, LLC.
7820 Terrey Pine Court
Eden Prairie MN 55347
952-949-4715
r
R an
YEngineerii
SERVICES
February 3, 2005
Mr. Matt Saam
Assistant City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd., Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Hidden Creek Meadows
Single Family Subdivision
Dear Matt:
434 lake Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
Tel 952-380-5000
Fax 952-380-5010
w ..ryanengineenngxom
VIA MESSENGER
Enclosed, please find a copy of a plan titled "Area Drainage Graphic" which shows in plan and
profile view the above referenced project as well as the area south of Highway 7 and a portion of
Lake Minnewashta.
Per your request, we have labeled the culverts at the various creek crossings. We are also showing,
by shading, the area behind the Kirkwood Circle homes confined by the 944.5 elevation. We feel
this elevation is pertinent because it is the OHW of Lake Minnewashta and shows potential flooding
limits from the Lake Alone without any downstream effects.
You mentioned in your email that you thought shading of the 943.4 elevation which is the HWL of
this wetland would be more appropriate. Either way, both of these elevations are above the 14WL of
the wetland within our proposed subdivision which is at 942.8.
My understanding is that these HWL and OHW elevations were derived from the City's Storm
Water Management plan which was put together by the City's consultant, Bonestroo.
In your email on 1/25/05 you stated `what we want is for you to revise your drainage calc's and
model for your site to show that the wetland will not rise above the box culvert elevation under TH
7. " As you know, this would be impossible to show given the fact that the City's consultant has
already determined that the HWL of the wetland on our site is at 942.8, which IS ALREADY
ABOVE THIS CULVERT elevation of 939.85.
We have shown, with the submitted Hydrocad modeling, that we are maintaining our flows to the
wetland at or below the pre -developed condition with our proposed development. Therefore, we
will not be changing the HWL of this wetland within our site. It seems appropriate to then conclude
that this will not impact any "backup" of water to the south of Highway 7.
Page 2
Mr. Matt Saam
February 3, 2005
It seems what the City's concern is the proposed sizing of the pipe we are proposing under
Pipewood Lane. We are simply using the same sizing that the City and Watershed District approved
for the development to the south, Hidden Creek, used at the crossing at Pipewood Court. This is a
42" culvert.
If you recall, this sizing was derived by the above mentioned Storm Water Management Plan
prepared by the City's consultant. This plan showed a proposed 36" pipe sizing for this area. The
reason for the installation of the 42" crossing was that the Watershed District wanted this upsized by
6" for what they refer to as "critter crossings". This additional sizing allows small animals to go
through the structure during a high water event.
With this graphic, multiple emails, and the above description, we feel that as the Developer's
engineer, we have exhausted our efforts to display our case. To go beyond this would demand input
from the City's consultant if your department wants any further conclusion as to the proposed pipe
sizing.
If you have any further questions or comments, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
RYAN
Perry M. Ryan, P.E.
President
Enclosures
Cc: Mr. Dean Carlson — D & G of Chanhassen, LLC
Mr. Paul Oehme — City Engineer
Ms. Kate Aanenson - Community Development Director
Mr. Woody Love
Hydraulic Grade Line of Creek
Not to Scale
525'
938.5
EXIS77NG 420
CULVERT AT
PIPEWOOD COURT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
JAN 2 1 2005
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
125'
.o
939.85
EX. 4'x 6' BOX
CULVERT
HWY.. 7
PROPOSED 42"
CULVERT AT
PIPEWOOD LANE Hidden Creek
Meadows
Chanhassen, MN
Ryj0007ineering
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
SCANNED
m►OF
Date: January 21, 2005
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
Subject: iFlidden 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. Applicant: D & G of Chanhassen, LLC.
Planning Case
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department
on October 15, 2004. The plans were revised and received January 21, 2005. The 60-day review period has been extended to
February 28, 2005.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate
your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future
utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or
improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the
agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on February 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than February 4, 2005.
You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
1. City Departments
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
e. Building Official
f. Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
2. Watershed District Engineer
3. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
8. Telephone Company
(Qwest or United)
9. Electric Company
(Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
10. Medicom
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
12. Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
13. City of Shorewood
14.
I
FAX COVER SHEET
nit Date: IICfff ZS�OS
Company: S�
,tti
Attention: Kr1�2�1 ey►
7700 Market Blvd. L q
P.O. Box 147 Fax Number:
Chanhassen, MN 55317
General Phone: 952-227-1100 Sent By: Lori Haak
Administrative Fax: 952-227-1110
Phone:
952.227.1135
Bldg/Inspeclions Fax: 952-227-1190
Engineering Fax: 952-227-1170
Direct Fax:
952.227.1935
Park/Recreation Fax: 952-227-1110
Planning Fax: 952-227-1110
Public Works Fax: 952-227-7310
Sending
pages, including cover page.
Recreation Center Fax: 952-227-1404
Web Address: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us ❑
1-1
For your information.
Please find the information you requested.
Please review and call me.
T-4-� vr\�
i s Ae to o ri
i� Yo�1 �0.-ve �roble�-t S
FBI Leo 4-�D cc-H
o(y L)s-,'oviS .
If you do not receive all pages, or are experiencing other problems in transmission, please call Lori at the number listed.
to db
Yee
VIRGINIA '
iucl ] y
c s■yam
—T's
,use
i
n
_ wz2
t•
LAKE MINNEWAB I
WO YC3 ]] II ®y—WAI.l1
9_62 z
W,.9� x x�•}W?1
0
11 � W 1 �1.• ;W
1 �1Y1.16 *y�
' WIf Yn
21- 9r ;� 21
LAKE �9+L }Y:.6 4t �\
W 9; L� 1% � a
•I , MINNEWA$FTA - PP
o, r Wz. 1 '�I42� OW.,
4.
z! lu].] V I °s• l
°
LM
ti
17.3� 1 RI � ILS.IU �� CI♦ �' � �zu�
r t W43
ILAB l`z'. N yY
z%z J-
bWsz ). l�c, si
aLl.la •y �
' fY ace.,w2 2z 9 4.
>w� u�" z C„ o a�13
pr yfir_-
z�'0 a wzs aclsF
R
n 3° i r •• ux BC3.aa'] l BCI.I4•�
✓ 1 oc �—
/� O ° �zr
_3//�/{�(' reuslpYR�iaL'9s,1♦. 3�YdTAyR K� §�'•�C1.19 � .`.iY
13a
LH—Al
jze
SLAKE HAZELTINE DISTRICT]
nee
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Attn: Planning Department
Subdivision application for: Hidden Creek Meadows
RECEIVED
DEC 0 2 2004
CITY OFCHANHASSEN
November 230s 2004
D & G of Chanhassen, LLC., formally grants at the request of the city a 60 day
extension to the 60 day review period for the project application for the
"Hidden Creek Meadow" development.
It is our intention to update the application with the requested revisions from
The city prior to December 10`h 2004 in keeping with the scheduled meeting
for January 4`h 2005.
Sincerely
Dean Carlson
Development Manager
D & G of Chanhassen, LLC.
7820 Terrey Pine Court
Eden Prairie MN 55347
952-949-4715
Haak, Lori
From: Graczyk, Greg - Waconia, MN [greg.graczyk@mn.nacdnet.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:55 PM
To: Haak, Lori
Subject: Hidden Creek Meadows
Lori,
Initial thoughts on the Preliminary Plans for Hidden Creek Meadows
- I do not like having created wetlands in areas other then outlots
- I also do not like the idea that there is a good majority of some lots (especially Lot
10) that have PVC areas close to the back side of house pads. I feel that these areas in
the long run are not going to end up being what they where suppose to be.
- Also the wetland setbacks in areas are overlapping some house pads.
Give me a shout with further questions and/or if there is a revision of plans.
Thanks,
Greg Graczyk
Program Coordinator
Carver Soil and Water Conservation District
219 East Frontage Rd.
Waconia, MN 55387
Phone (952) 442-5101
Fax (952) 442-5497
1
945.0
940.0
oo 935.0
W
930.0
925.0
920.0
0
Gradient of Hidden Creek
U�64 U�
60 Distance from Lake Virginia_
NWL
HWL
11 /17/2004
TYCN o'f'K li 41*cS
- pfA�,. e
�� �.�), ha,�,��rd
Dea,�elof'P+�S cf�l,'Ja-1-1'0�
�—
�,
Jr- �
LAKE
VIRGINIA
MC1
MINNEHAHA CREEK DIS',
b` 24
1 MC2.19 �MC24 VC2.
or
5s�' re rea 13d
MC2. 24" /• ftM871
2-�r J 24" 24
8A
t.s/ 4 2 "
12"12"
1C-PE!
976.Q/9E0.7
t 24•
C_A1 ti
�;W l 2 s!
�24" f 96"/970A
t �\ ice'
MC1.1. 1
W7.6 4"
2t `
71 7�3
lM7 7 1
1 ,
M A7 i� AMR
LA E
MlNNE
MINNEHAHA C.%R;=;:V Mal I
MCZ 1� M ,2J.9
jf i C- PML 7
LAKEC- -'.I
VIRGINIA A74- —o.'o
W- mc
a34.O 93&5
ow 00%
eoo�l YJCT. 1 x:�713!*Yr!MC--Al
5t,:Z,( C:1.2
M�- 247 &AM%0
93o
24•
-
LM7.6
-2
2 Lhf7.7
2
47.
3 i&IL .A/
71
2
2C
UR RA
LAW
M.NNEWAS
MINNEHAHA CREEK migi
24,E
NC2.19 �NC2.3 yC2. �I
��
/ J AV-Pt7 •x fi• M
bA 939.t
LAKE
VIRGINIA '� '��' 33
3 9s7.0/9soo
NC2.
s �-
93t.0 9]a3 MC A2 2
_ ZTYO�*_/"urn—e�'� 21
�MC1.3!MC—Al ti
NC1.5 12" !*3G' K7 12i
IQ A.2 K-A.f 24 1.2 9li0 970.0
"Mao930.5� 97p.0/990.7 1 J 1
21' •
do,1 Nc,.,. c ,.
W7.6 4"
i19 ni 2
5
2 W7.7
2 LY—A7
LJ'�
♦K 2
RECEIVED
SEP 2 0 2004
GROF MANHASSEN
Dean Carlson Project
Wetland Delineation Report
for
Mr. Perry Ryan, PE
Ryan Engineering
434 Lake Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
By
Michael B. Whitt
Professional Wetland Scientist
Wetland and Wildlife Consulting, Inc.
February 2, 2004
Introduction
I delineated one wetland edge on a property located in the NW I /4 of the NW I/4 Section 5,
T 116 N, R 23 W, Carver County, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. This delineation was
necessary because Mr. Dean Carlson is investigating the feasibility of developing the site for
housing. I conducted this delineation on December 8, 2003. Although I performed this work
outside the growing season, soils were not frozen, and early snows had mostly melted. Ryan
Engineering staff surveyed the pin flags that I used to mark the wetland boundary, and the
boundary indicated on the figures included with this report is an approximate location. I have
included three figures with this report. Figure 1 is the USGS Topographic map for the subject
property. Figure 2 is a aerial photograph of the subject property that was taken in 2000. Figure
3 is the National Wetland Inventory map overlain onto the digital orthophoto. I used ArcView
GIS to create all figures in this report. I have included detailed information on vegetation, soils,
and hydrology on field datasheets that I appended to this report. Precipitation amounts for the
season were below normal.
Technical Criteria
I delineated wetlands described in this report using 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (hereafter, 198 7 Manual) combined with Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in
the United States (Version 4.0, March 1998). The 1987 Manual (Part II, paragraph 26a) defines
wetlands:
Definition. The CE (Federal Register 1982) and the EPA (Federal Register 1980) jointly define wetlands as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas.
The technical approach for identification and delineation of wetlands (1987 Manual, Part H,
paragraph 26c) requires a minimum of one positive indicator from each of three parameters:
vegetation, soils, an d hydrology. Areas that meet these requirements are called jurisdictional
wetlands. The three requirements are dominance by hydrophytic vegetation, presence of hydric
soils, and presence of hydrology. Each of the three parameters are described below. When
delineating wetlands, I record information onto a hand-held tape recorder, and then transcribe
this information into reports when I return to the office.
Vezebtian A national interagency panel has prepared a National List of Plant Species that
occur in wetlands. Listings of plants and their wetland habitat dependencies are compiled in the
National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). The 1987 11anual requires
that more than 50 percent of the dominant species are OBL, FACei , or FAC on lists of _Plant
species that occur in weriands. The wetland habitat dependence of some plants are further
narrowed by using a positive or negative sign after the indicator which identifies plants on the
higher or lower portion of the range, respectively. A FAC- plant is not a hydrophyte because it
occurs less than 50-percent of the time in wetlands. I assessed dominants using the 50-20 Rule
detailed in the 1987 Manual.
Table 1. Wetland Habitat Dependence of Plants
Indicator
Abbreviation
Wetland_ Frequencyof Occurrence
Obligate
OBL
>990/0
Facultative Wetland
FACW
670/o- 99%
Facultative
FAC
34 - 66%
Facultative Upland
FACU
1%- 33%
Upland
UPL
<1 %
Soils. Hydric soils are those soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or
ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper
part (1998 NRCS Field Indicators). The following criteria reflect soils that meet the hydric soils
definition.
1 All Histosols except Folists
2. Soils in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Aquisalids, Pachic subgroups, or
Cumulic subgroups that are:
a. Somewhat poorly drained with a water table equal to 0.0 foot from the surface during the
growing season, or
b. poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either:
(1) water table equal to 0.0 ft during the growing season if textures are coarse and, sand,
or fine sand in all layers within 20 inches; or for other soils
(2) water table at less than or equal to 0.5 ft from the surface during the growing season if
permeability is equal to or greater than 6.0 in/hour in all layers within 20 in, or
(3) water table at less than or equal to 1.0 ft from the surface during the growing season if
permeability is less than 6.0 in/hr in any layer within 20 in, or
3. Soils that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season, or
4. Soils that are frequently flooded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season.
The hydric soil definition is difficult to apply in the field, and therefore, wetland delineators use
field indicators of hydric soils which relate to the criteria which in turn relate to the hydric soil
definition. Field indicators of hydric soils in the 1987 Manual have been superseded by Field
% Mr ach t�_a _1998), The field indicators
are based on the fact that:
Nearly all hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from the repeated periods of saturation
and/or inundation for more than a few days. Saturation or inundation when combined with anaerobic
microbiological activity in the soil causes a depletion of oxygen. This anaerobiosis promotes
biogeochemical processes such as the accumulation of organic matter and the reduction, translocation,
and/or accumulation of iron and other reducible elements. These processes result in characteristic
morphologies which persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods, making them particularly useful for
identifying hydric soils.
Hydrology. Hydrology is often the most difficult of the three parameters to evaluate because
some wetland types may only display hydrology for a short period of time. Areas with evident
characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding in-
fluence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions,
respectively (1987 Manual, Partin, paragraph 46). The minimum hydrologic requirement is
inundated or saturated to the surface continuously for at least 5 % of the growing season in
most years (50% probability of recurrence). These areas are wetlands if they also meet
hydrophytie vegetation and hydric soil requirements (HQUSACE, 7 Oct 91 and 6 Mar 92x1987
Manual, Part III, Table 5). The 1987 Manual also permits identification of two secondary
indicators of hydrology as evidence of saturation to the surface. Secondary indicators include
oxidized rhizospheres within the uppermost 10-inches, undisturbed soils in Aquic moisture
regimes, and a predominance of hydrophytes in the FAC neutral test.
Descriptions of Sample Points
Wetland 1 occurred in the western portion of the property. The U.S.G.S. topographic map
revealed a low, wetland area with a stream channel that flows northwest (Figure 1). The aerial
photo reveals an indistinct stream channel and an area with scattered shrubs and grass -like
vegetation that grades into emergent vegetation (Figure 2). The NWI map revealed seasonal
emergent wetland and broad-leaved, deciduous forest seasonal wetland (Figure 3). I determined
that the area in proximity to my delineated wetland boundary is temporarily flooded wetland
which corresponds to Tv
pe 1 wetland and this area grades into Tv into 3 wetland and seasonal
inundation. The wetiand extends to the west, off the subject property. I sampled soils,
vegetation, and hydrology at two sample points.
I determined that sample point I UP failed to meet wetland criteria. and I marked this point with
an orange 36-inch pin flag. Dominant vegetation consisted of 100% Kentucky bluegrass (Poa
pratensis. FAC-) with 15% Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis. FACU) as a nondominant
plant species. Soils consisted of a fine sandy clay loam of color 10YR 2/I underlain by similar
soil of color 101R 3/1 to 28-inches. This soil meets 1987 Manual hydric indicators because it
has a chroma equal to 1. This soil does not meet NRCS protocol because it does not contain any
rCOOKin'iorphic 'ak�rcs. I did not observe any hydrological indicators. and this site did not ,,,cct
a positive indicator m the i tiC.-Ncutrai test.
Tplaccd samo c point Vt'i TonTowcr grouna w st of Point 1 U'i . Dominant vegetation
cons:
stcd of reed canary Gass (Phalaris arundinacea, FAC V:) and river bulrush 0R4'- ncc
iitr ...N-Us. OBU in the herbaceous stratum. Soils consisted of fine sandy clay loam of color
2.5%N uom the surface to 20-inches underlain by ciay loam of ww .salute colter. TM;s soil meets
hvdric criteria identified in the 1987 Manual. but it tray not fit a hvdrologic indicator by MRCS
protocol. I determined that this site likely has hvdric Stlils because of the color change from the
upiand sample point. I dia not observe free water or saturation to the surface at the sample point
but this site does test positive in the FAC-Neutral test and also occurred at a relatively low
landscape position from obvious upland locations.
Conclas%n
This wetland delineation report is intended to support a decision regarding the costs and benefits
of developing the subject property for housing. Please note that the boundaries presented in
figures on this report are approximate based on visual interpretation from a recent aerial
photograph My client is aware that surveyed locations of my pin flags will be necessary for site
level planning and eventual final plat approval. I marked both sampling points with orange pin
flags. I flagged wetland boundaries with sequentially --numbered flourescent pink flags with the
words, "i 'etiand i3oundary - Michael B. -Whitt." Flag numbering started at "1 Start" in
proximi to bVI, -crt at Highway 7, and went north and then west. ending off the subject
Prott pe ' y•
1 weicome any questions regarding technical details of this report, and 1 also affirm that the
material in this report represents my best professional judgement:
Michaei B. Whitt, Profession[ 117etian Scieflust, Wetland and Wildlife Consulting, inc.,
7u33 Newant Avenue South, (612j 869-4898, emaii: mbwhitt7trilra�msn.com
NN
oil IwRV
ar
to Wetl
' �kpurOxndaZ 0
I&
a
L7,
"Al
7
kt.
L
700 0 700 1400 2100 2800 Feet
a
Figure 1. U.S.G.S. Topographic Map With Approximate Location of Delineated Wedand Boundary
A
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DE T ERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project'Site: 11
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator: (V
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? * Yes
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dom�iinant Plant Spec,,, Stratum Indicator
1-_CC1 D� DU-'GTtD w SI C �,r6 Flic[.-
2-?��l
0
5
7
1
Date: _
County:
State:
Community ID:
TfansectID:
Plot ID: �p
Dominant Plant Soecias Stratum Indicator
15.
is.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC `/
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks: 9111 D;1hLINAjk3 '
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Irrficators:
Aerial Photographs
Inundated
Other
_
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
rded Data Available
_
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
tions:
_ Drainage Panarns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
urface Water:
(in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
kObsa�ations:
Water -Stained Leaves
ee Water in Pit:
_
(in.) _ Local Soil Survey Date
FAC-Neutral Test
turated Soil:
(in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
a ��%9(L(�IO�s
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecVSite: I�cyN (Qt, SN P✓o�2Q— Date:
Applicant/Owner: R`lctA '1E:V\ ljM_{•VMq County:
ML[et
Investigator: (,1 W� tktF v
State: f
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes CommunityID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes IV Plot ID: 2 W�
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
V EGETATI O N
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
W
2-_��i���UVIQ�IIIS
3.
7
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks: 01 AN9 02 Q�11Nf��
HYDROLOGY
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I
11
12
13
1
1
�06
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators: -
_ Aerial Photographs
Inundated
_ Other
_
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available
_
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations:
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth at Surface Water: (in.)
_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water -Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
_
_ Local Soil Survey Data
V FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
✓Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: L-ow L t'j4>,Cp� 0S (�lDfV
Map Print
Page 1 of 1
Carver County GIS Mapping Application
v
aw a
Map �ner Cp mtys QS F
RAT
LeKend
RuaJ 7-1
11Vf WeleMf
4a>r
o Map Created on:
9-20-2004
Carver
�..� County
Nnel P�po NN
This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information
Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City,
County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally
recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is
not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein.
http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel_intemet_recap/Map.asp 9/20/2004
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
Date: October 18, 2004
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
Please return plans to Planning
Secretary when finished.
Thank you!
By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
Subject: Hidden Creek Meadows - Subdivision approval for a 23-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. Applicant: D & G of Chanhassen, LLC.
Planning Case: 04-31
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department
on October 15, 2004. The 60-day review period ends December 14, 2004.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate
your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future
utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or
improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the
agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on November 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than No 3, 2004.
You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
1. City Departments
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
e. Building Official
f. Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
2. Watershed District Engineer
3. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
8. Telephone Company
(Qwest or United)
9. Electric Company
(Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
10. Medicom
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
12. Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
13. City of Shorewood
14.
Name of Local Government Unit: City of Chanhassen - 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box
147 - Chanhassen, MN 55317
Name of Applicant: D+G of Chanhassen LLC
Application Number: SUB 04-31
Type of Application (check one):
Date of Application: 10/15/04
❑ Exemption Decision
❑No Loss Decision
❑ Wetland Boundary and Type Determination
® Replacement Plan Decision
❑ Banking Plan Decision
Location of Project: NW NW 5 116N 23W
1/4 'A 1/4 Sec. Twp. Range
Summary of Project: Project proposes a 23 lot subdivision which will include a public road that will cross
a DNR protected Creek. Project proposes to install a 42" culvert under roadway to minimize public road
impact to stream. Impact of activity will be 5.756 square feet of wetland fill. Mitigation is proposed by
construction of 7.420 square feet of new wetland credit and 4.317 square feet of storm water pondine.
You are hereby notified that the above -referenced application was made to the Local Government Unit
on the date stated above. Comments on this application will be accepted until 11/24/04. A decision on this
matter will be made 11/26/04 . Contact Lori Haak (Water Resources Coordinator) at 952.227.1135 for
details or changes to decision- making schedule.
•I'`A
I ill �/ �
Water Resources Coordinator
Title
List of Addressees:
Landowner
D+G of Chanhassen LLC
Members of Technical Evaluation Panel
Chip Hentges - Carver SWCD
Brad Wozney - BWSR
11/5/04
Date
Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable)
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Page 1 of 2
Hidden Creek Notice of Impacts
(April 2002)
Department of Natural Resources Regional Office
Julie Ekman, Area Hydrologist
DNR Wetlands Coordinator @
Ecological. Services Section
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55155
Corp of Engineers Project Manager @
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East
St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
Individual members of the public who requested a copy
(none)
Page 2 of 2
Hidden Creek Notice of Impacts
(April 2002)
NA-026620-03B (V.2.02 for MS WORD) 08/12/04
Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects
For Internal Use Only
Application No. Field Office Code Date Initial Application Received Date initial Application Deemed Complete
PART I: BASIC APPLICATION
"See HELP" directs you to important additional information and assistance in Instructions, Page 1.
1. LANDOWNER/APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION (See Help 1)
Name: ri1-to c+✓-(:.lt�n\9aSScA LC C Phone: q r2-`Tcl5-W1 -5—
Complete mailing address: zU �-4- �`/`C, Trfre..i-
IA. AUTHORIZED AGENT (See Help IA) (Only if applicable: an agent is not required)
Name: ?ILVA Phone: R 5 Z- ago -S-0a0
Complete mailing address: 00 p.,
Li3LIL C44�84fcek F-k"v'C:rM^5S331
2. NAME, TYPE AND SIZE OF PUBLIC WATERS or WETLANDS BHPACTED (Attach Additional Project Area sheets if needed)
Name or I.D. # of Waters Impacted (if applicable; if known):
(Check all that apply): ❑ Lake ❑ River hWetland type ® 1 ❑ IL ❑ 2 9 3 04 ❑ 5 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ 8
Indicate size of entire lake or wetland (check one): 54 Less than 10 acres (indicate sin: 7, S ) ❑ 10 to 40 acres ❑ Cr to than 40 acres
AcjeS
3. PROJECT LOCATION (information can be found on property tax statement, property title or title insurance):
City (if applicable): C I A Ak4Y4'r n
County: C-A PLA-
Project street address: Fire #:
Y. Section: 014,13ai Section: S Township #: l (& N Range #. 2_S
Lot #: Block: Subdivision: Watershed (name or #)
Attach a simple site locator map. If needed, include on the map written directions to the site from a known Q location or landmark, and
provide distances from known locations. Label the sheet SITE LOCATOR MAP. SGG A-A-,c kk4c-kCA;.rb aw^
4. TYPE OF PROJECT: Describe the type of proposed work. Attach TYPE OFPROJECT sheet if needed.
5. PROJECT PURPOSE, DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS: Describe what you plan to do and why it is needed, how you plan to
construct the project with dimensions (length, width, depth), area of impact, and when you propose to construct the project. This is the
most important part of your application. See HELP 5 before completing this section; see What To Include on Plans (Instructions,
Pagel). Attach PROJECTDESCR/PTION sheet. LX`t Gr�Sjd:�O��v�JtLa.3GC7es( L4a1�, SeG 3.
Footprint of project: a1,3 acres or 5'7$�,stptare feet drain filled excavated.
6. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: What alternatives to this proposed project have you considered that would avoid or minimize impacts
to wetlands or waters? List at least TWO additional alternatives to your project in Section 5 that avoid wetlands (one of which may be "no
build" or "do nothing"), and explain why you chose to pursue the option described in this application over these alternatives. Attach
PROJECTALTERNATI{'ES sheet ifneeded. '�cj tic+ •1 ��C,t7-lbp 2 n&k Aec c P-V%-U3CrA> L"E-
�o-IJo�1r-Jntt� wi�ic�t.soV-�tx�l`c5.yitx�QCC-cS3'�Coe`iw4y-tx,nc:
7. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: For projects that impact more than 10,000 square feet of water or wetlands, list the complete
mailing addresses of adjacent property owners on an attached separate sheet. (See HELP 7) Allier-
8. PORTION OF WORK COMPLETED: Is any portion of the work in wetland or water areas already completed? ❑ Yes CqNo. If
yes, describe the completed work on a separate sheet of paper labeled WORK ALREADY COMPLETED. (See HELP 8)
9. STATUS OF OTHER APPROVALS: List any other permits, reviews or approvals related to this proposed roject that are eitherFendimg or
have already been approved or denied on a separate attached sheet See HELP 9. Go- {ti.� TEP
C�AC+..rrgncG 1
10. 1 am applying for state and local authorization to conduct the work described in this application. 1 am familiar with the infatuation
contained in this application. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all information in Part I is true, complete, and accurate. I possess
the authority to undertake the work described, or I au acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant.
Signature of applicant (Landowner) Date Signature ofagent ffapplicable) Date
This block must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity and has the necessaryproperty rights to do so. If only the Agent has signed,
please attach a separate sheet signed by the landowner, giving necessary authorization to the Agent.
Minnesota Locat/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects
Page I
APPLICATION FORDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT (33 CFR 325) OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003 Expires Dee 31, 2004
The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to avenge 10 hours per response, although the majority ofapplications should require 5 hunts or Iese. This includes
the time for reviewing instructions, searchingexisting data sources,gathering and maintaining the dam needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington
Headquarters Service Dimctomw of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlingmn, VA 222024302; and w the Office ofManagement
and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Pmject (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision oflaw,ropastnshallbe
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to
either ofthese addresses. Completed applications must be submitted in the District engineer having jurisdiction over the location ofthe proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACr STATEMENT: Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and
Sancri aries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Routine uses: This
information maybe shared with the Department of Justice and other Federal, sat, and local government agencies. Submission ofrequested information is vulunmry; however, if
information is not Provided, the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued.
ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4 TO BE FH LED IN BY THE CORPS
1. APPLICATION NO. 1 2, FIELD OFFICE CODE 1 3. DATE RECEIVED 1 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
YOU DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE ITEMS 6-10 and 12-25 in the SHADED AREAS.
All applicants must complete non -shaded items 5 and 26. If an agent is used, also complete items 8 and 11. This optional Federal form is valid
for use only when included as Dart of this entire state application packet.
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
(— c-C L4.�.. hciSen LL L I-Ic4 c il'`v <A 11,' cn F. 'Aee,(s
,4!,APPLIC4NT'S ADDRESS '} 3 zu Tcaae..I P:nc
EsE vtn Nv PAS
AGENT'S ADD ESS 5S3
4'3,1 L:4., S4. F keel Iby(MA 3
?. APPLIC'ANT'S PHONE NO. n1 S 2,-Ci Iigy u9A S
10. AGENT'S PHONE NO. q $ L —.366 - ,$ UCJo
It. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION (if applicablc; romplefe onh ifauthwising ml n,;ent)
I hereby authorize to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to famish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
J
APPLICANT"S SIGNATURE: 1 __., t-- ,-ZifiL e_ DATE: b f /-r- l
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) HJ&eA 0 f re-LL Y -e q it O43
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT CK U FJL A-
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE C �,ncC_
l8. NATURE OF ACTIVITY
19. PROJECT PURPOSE (j k - ..1CA
20. REASON(S) FOR DISCHARGE /V I A
21. TYPES OF MATERIAL BEING DISCHARGED AND THE AMOUNT OF EACH TYPE IN CUBIC YARDS AjAA
22. SURFACE AREA 1N ACRES OF WETLANDS OR OTHER WATERS FILLED 'S 7 S(a C. �-' . . >, 3 " en!)
23. IS ANY PORTION OF THE WORK ALREADY COMPLETE? YES NO _&IF YES, DESCRIBE COMPLETED WORK.
24. ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, N % A�-
25. LIST OF OTHER CERTIFICATIONS OR APPROVALS/DENIALS RECEIVED FROM OTHER FEDERAL. STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES FOR
WORK DESCRIBED IN THIS APPLICATION. afa +TF-
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize•the work described in this application: I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly
authorized agents of the applicant..
3d u!�/fiCi /o/
Signature of applicant + n `4A' a� Signature of agent (if any Date
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant), or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if
the statement in Block 11 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, inany manner within lhejurisdicUmofarry
department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up with any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or
makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or usesany false writirgordocwlmrt knowing same tocontain any false,
fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR)
Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Forms for Water/Wetland Projects
Page 2
Page 1
1
Haak, Lori
From: Renae Clark [rclark@minnehahacreek.org]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:41 AM
To: Haak, Lori
Subject: Hidden Creek Meadows
Lori,
The District has received a set of plans for review and comment for the above mentioned project. Our
comments are as follows:
• 35-foot wetland buffer is required
• Stormwater management requirements are runoff rate control (rates for the 1, 10, and 100 year
events may not increase) and best management practices which are permanent in nature and good
for water quality.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Renae Clark
District Technician
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391
Ph. 952-471-0590 Fx. 952-471-0682
I 0*eLL C� V 4eM5 ;/' 1Uot .
_ a loolt� ti top
OWL -
11/5/2004