6. Lotus Glen, 7505 Frontier Trail: Prelim Plat.�Z
a
J
a
IQ
1
1
1
1
�a
1~
0
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 12/06/95
1/3/96
CC DATE: 1/22/96
CASE #: 95 -22 SUB
STAFF REPORT
6
PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval of 9 lots and two outlots to be used for
private streets; a variance to permit five lots to access via a private street;
and a variance from the bluff setback of 30 feet to permit the location of a
structure at the top of a bluff on Lot 9, Block 1, for a project known as Lotus
Glen ACHM,t * City Admf;,;s;rator
D -do
LOCATION: 7505 Frontier Trail
APPLICANT: Ted del-ancey ss;z• �? _� A
7505 Frontier Trailr " r,r t, c ° ;n ,isssori
Chanhassen, MN 55317 yt � �� to u � cii
(612) 934 -7214
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
RSF, Residential Single Family
8.9 acres DENSITY: gross /net: 1.0 units per acre
N - RSF, beach lot
S - RSF, single - family homes
E - RSF, single - family homes
W - RSF, Frontier Trail and proposed Lotus Woods subdivision
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has a significant elevation change that splits the eastern
and western portions of the site. Elevations change from 974 feet in the east to 912 feet in the west.
The rolling topography has approximately 85 percent tree canopy coverage consisting of ash,
balsam, basswood, birch, black willow, cherry, maple, oak, and pines. A wetland runs south to
north in the western portion of the property.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 units per
acre)
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a nine lot subdivision on approximately 8.9 acres of land. The
subdivision will be served by two private drives with no internal public streets; a variance to permit
five lots to access via a private street; and a variance from the bluff setback of 30 feet to permit the
location of a structure at the top of a bluff on Lot 9. The site has significant environmental features
including bluff areas (slopes in excess of 30 percent with elevation changes of 25 feet or more),
extensive canopy coverage (staff estimates in excess of 85 percent), and a wetland system. The use
of large lots with an average area of 38,560 square feet preserves much of the site in its natural
state. The proposed development lies within the shoreland management district. For nonriparian
lots, the minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet which the development exceeds. The proposed
development will be screened from the lake through the preservation of extensive wooded areas.
I Bluff
l�
7
The attached figure delineates the bluff areas and setbacks from both bluffs and wetlands
according to the City's ordinance. Staff recommends that the building pad on Lot 9 be pulled up
and away from the bluffs.
Staff met with the applicant's engineer on Wednesday, November 29, 1995, to discuss the bluff
protection ordinance and staff initial findings. At the meeting, staff agreed on what will be
considered the top and toe of the bluff (City Code defines these points as "the point where there
is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope.... If no break in the slope is
apparent, the toe and top shall be determined to be the lower and upper ends of a 50 foot
segment, measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18 percent "). The
applicant's engineer will prepare the analysis based on this consensus and present their findings
and calculations for review by the Planning Commission.
Staff has discussed the bluff protection ordinance with the city attorney and was advised that the
language in the ordinance is specific to the building setbacks required at the toe and top of the
bluff. There is no reference to required setbacks at the side of a bluff. Staff will initiate a
revision to the ordinance to rectify this error since it was always the city's intent to protect the
bluff area. Based on this information, there is no required setback from the sides of the
delineated bluff area. Staff does recommend that a condition be made that the bluff area be
shown on all building permit applications for this subdivision.
WETLANDS I
There is a jurisdictional wetland on site that is classified as a combination of an intermittent stream
and a palustrine forested wetland. Staff requires a wetland delineation report for this site. The
wetland follows the stream bed at widths of 10 to 20 feet wide covering an area of approximately
0.2 acre. Considering the forested regime with sparse understory and low impact from urban or
agricultural practices, this wetland should be classified as natural. This will allow for maximum '
buffer protection through the City's wetland ordinance. A buffer strip of 10 to 30 feet with an
average of 20 feet should be maintained along the wetland. Type III erosion control is required to
be installed where construction will take place adjacent the wetlands until re- vegetation is '
established. City staff recommends the applicant contact the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (MRCS) for a seeding plan that will be most effective in the wooded areas.
will impacted in three locations if the existing driveway '
It appears that the wetland be mpa ted g y is
reconstructed to access Lots 1 through 5. The State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) allows for a I
'
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
'
Page 3
Trees
'
Staff estimates that the baseline canopy coverage is over 85% as opposed to the applicant's
estimate of 76 %, making the minimum canopy coverage required at 55 %. The applicant has
'
recalculated the baseline canopy coverage based on staffs comments. The baseline canopy
coverage is estimated at 89 percent (7.9 acres) with an estimated tree removal of 3.3 acres leaving a
post development canopy coverage of 4.6 acres or 58 percent which is within the standards
'
established as part of the tree preservation ordinance.
'
The applicant's engineer has submitted to staff a concept grading plan for the proposed common
driveway off Frontier Trail for Lots 1 and 2. Staff has reviewed the concept grading plan and
believes the concept will work according to the drawing submitted. The building on these sites will
'
involve filling up to 10 feet and the construction of retaining walls. Staff s condition regarding
access to these lots should be deleted or modified to allow driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 from
Frontier Trail.
,
Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is an environmentally sensitive way to develop the site
and is recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff report.
,
BACKGROUND
,
ion of the site. An existing sanitary
The deLancey home is located m the north central port g ry sewer
line runs from Erie Avenue, along the southern portion of the property, and then follows the
wetland to the northwest up to Frontier Trail.
'
WETLANDS I
There is a jurisdictional wetland on site that is classified as a combination of an intermittent stream
and a palustrine forested wetland. Staff requires a wetland delineation report for this site. The
wetland follows the stream bed at widths of 10 to 20 feet wide covering an area of approximately
0.2 acre. Considering the forested regime with sparse understory and low impact from urban or
agricultural practices, this wetland should be classified as natural. This will allow for maximum '
buffer protection through the City's wetland ordinance. A buffer strip of 10 to 30 feet with an
average of 20 feet should be maintained along the wetland. Type III erosion control is required to
be installed where construction will take place adjacent the wetlands until re- vegetation is '
established. City staff recommends the applicant contact the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (MRCS) for a seeding plan that will be most effective in the wooded areas.
will impacted in three locations if the existing driveway '
It appears that the wetland be mpa ted g y is
reconstructed to access Lots 1 through 5. The State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) allows for a I
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 4
' maximum of 400 square feet of wetland impact without a replacement plan. Any impacts above
400 square feet will have to follow the WCA guidelines for a wetland replacement plan. This
includes proper sequencing and a replacement ratio of 2:1.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City as adopted a Surface Water Management Plan SWMP that serves as a tool to protect,
tY p g (SWMP) p ,
' preserve, and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the
stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place
and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the
plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for
storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet
model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions
model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and
therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the
optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be
' constructed in accordance with the City's SWMP.
The City may have an opportunity with this development to improve water quality to Lotus Lake.
' The City's SWMP calls for a 4 -cell sediment and nutrient trap which totals about 2 acres of
surface area and 8 acre -feet of pond volume. According to the SWMP, this system was to be
situated along the existing creek bed to treat approximately 56 acres that drains through this area.
' Preliminary review of the ponding areas along the creekbed is a possibility, however, staff needs
to confirm with the homeowners association if they would be open to such a ponding area on
their beachlot. In conjunction with the analysis that has already been completed on the proposed
' Lotus Lake Woods development on the west side of Frontier Trail which was designed to trap
only sediment for an additional 63 acres that drains through that property. Contingent upon
' ponding within the the creekbed, no addiional storm water treatment on the deLancey parcel is
necessary to provide nutrient retention. Staff has retained Cecilio Olivier with Bonestroo,
Rosene & Anderlik Associates to complete a thorough water quality and quantity analysis on the
' deLancey parcel since he is also familiar with the study on the Lotus Lake Woods parcel. The
City will also work with the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association to acquire any necessary
easements outside the plat for down stream ponding facilities.
' Storm Water Quality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on
land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the
phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction
shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
Lotus Glen ,
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996 '
Page 5
calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic '
yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $800 /acre for single
family resident developments. Fees are based on a total developable land area of 8.9 acres minus
the existing wetland of 0.2 acres. Therefore, the applicant is required to pay $6,960 in water quality '
fees. Credits will be given for providing the storm drainage /ponding system required.
Storm Water Quantity Fees ,
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average '
city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single
family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. The '
total gross area of the property is 8.7 acres as discussed above. Therefore, the proposed
development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $17,226. The
oversizing of the regional pond and infrastructure will be credited to the applicant at the time of
final plat. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording.
GRADING & DRAINAGE ,
The site is very difficult to develop due to the bluffs and forested area. Each lot will be custom
graded to minimize tree removal. Individual grading, drainage, erosion control, and tree '
preservation plans will be required for review and approval by the City at time of building permit
application. '
The attached figure delineates the bluff areas and setbacks from both bluffs and wetlands
according to the City's ordinance (a bluff is defined as having a slope of 30 percent or greater '
and having an elevation change of 25 feet or more). The proposed building locations were
sketched on the figure as a reference. Staff recommends that the building pad on Lot 9 be pulled
up and away from the bluffs. Lot 4 can be built on, however, the building pad location will have
to be moved north out of the bluff setback. The applicant's engineer has submitted to staff a
concept grading plan for the proposed common driveway off Frontier Trail for Lots 1 and 2. Staff
has reviewed the concept grading plan and believes the concept will work according to the drawing '
submitted. The building on these sites will involve filling up to 10 feet and the construction of
retaining walls. Staffs condition regarding access to these lots should be deleted or modified to
allow driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 from Frontier Trail. '
The site drains northwesterly via a creek that drains directly into Lotus Lake. Water quality
treatment is a high priority in this area due to the large area that drains through here. The ,
applicant will need to submit to the City detailed storm drainage calculations for the storm
sewers as well as ponding calculations for a 2 -, 10 -, and 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour duration
1
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 6
for both pre- and post - development conditions for staff review and approval. Additional storm
drainage improvement may be required to convey storm runoff from the proposed east private
driveway to the creek. Staff will review this after receipt of the storm drainage calculations.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The final grading plan shall incorporate type I erosion
control around the perimeter of the construction limits and type III erosion control along the
perimeter of the wetland. Rock construction entrance shall be employed and maintained at all
access points until the driveways have been paved with a bituminous surface.
UTILITIES
Utility service for this development is fairly straightforward. The City has an existing 8 -inch
sanitary sewer line which runs through the parcel from Frontier Trail along the creek to Erie
Avenue. The plans propose on extending an 8 -inch sewer line from the existing sewer line along
the easterly private street to service Lots 6 through 9. Water service is proposed by extending an fl-
inch water line from Erie Avenue along the existing sanitary sewer alignment to Frontier Trail. A
6 -inch line will also be extended to service Lots 6 through 9 along the easterly private street.
Individual services will be extended from these lines to service each lot. Some tree canopy loss
should be anticipated with the installation of these utilities. Typically, a strip of 30 to 35 -foot wide
of vegetation will be lost. Fire hydrant placement will be determined by the City's fire marshal in
conjunction with the construction plan review process. Since these utilities will be owned and
maintained by the City upon completion, the improvements shall be constructed in accordance with
the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Since there are public
improvements involved with this development, the developer will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the
public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The final plat shall dedicate drainage
and utility easements over the public utility lines a minimum of 20 -feet wide.
STREETS
' Given the topographic features of the site, staff and the applicant have worked to preserve trees and
reduce grading by the use of private streets versus public streets. There is no further need to
provide access to the adjacent parcels as well. The private streets shall be constructed in
' accordance with the City's private driveway ordinance which requires a 20 -foot wide bituminous
surface capable of supporting 7 -ton per axle weight. Parking will also be prohibited on the private
streets.
PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS
'
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
'
Updated January 3, 1996
'
Page 7
The applicant will need to dedicate cross - access easements and prepare maintenance agreements for
'
the private streets. In addition, turnarounds will have to be constructed to meet the City fire
marshal's requirements.
'
The applicant's engineer has submitted to staff a concept grading plan for the proposed common
driveway off Frontier Trail for Lots 1 and 2. Staff has reviewed the concept grading plan and
,
believes the concept will work according to the drawing submitted. The building on these sites will
'
involve filling up to 10 feet and the construction of retaining walls. Staffs condition regarding
,
access to these lots should be deleted or modified to allow driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 from
Frontier Trail.
PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS
,
In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist:
'
() The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public
street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property
lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands.
'
(2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street
system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street
'
system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources
,
including wetlands and forested areas.
,
Finding: Due to the typography within the area and the extensive trees on the site, the use of
public streets within the project would negatively impact the environment. In
addition, there is no need to provide a street connection to adjacent properties which
,
are currently being accessed from existing streets.
MISCELLANEOUS I
Frontier Trail will be upgraded sometime in the future. The street right -of -way of Frontier Trail is
unidentified with this submittal. Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate on the final plat the '
necessary street right -of -way to achieve a 30 -foot wide strip of land lying east of the existing
centerline of Frontier Trail. This may slightly impact the building setback on Lot 1 but there '
appears to be sufficient room to move the building pad to accommodate this requirement.
1
I I
n
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 8
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
The Lotus Glen development is a heavily wooded site with rolling topography. The primary
species found on site are red oaks and sugar maples, followed by green ash, basswood, and a mix
of lowland hardwoods. Health and productivity of the woods is good represented by a number of
mature, older trees, numerous medium sized trees, and many seedlings. Construction will have
the greatest impact on the large, mature trees and specifically the red oaks, sugar maples, and
basswood. Each of these tend to react quickly and negatively to construction damage making
this site very sensitive to development.
Baseline canopy coverage is over 85 %, making the minimum canopy coverage required 55 %.
Tree removal due to house pads, roads, and pond appears to be underestimated. The applicant
has recalculated the baseline canopy coverage based on staff s comments. The baseline canopy
coverage is estimated at 89 percent (7.9 acres) with an estimated tree removal of 3.3 acres leaving a
post development canopy coverage of 4.6 acres or 58 percent which is within the standards
established as part of the tree preservation ordinance.
Due to the notable quality and beauty of the site's wooded area, staff recommends that a fifteen
foot tree removal limit be placed around all building pads. Builders would not be allowed to
clear more than fifteen extra feet outside the pad. An additional recommendation for retaining
canopy cover and mature trees is to pull the four homes that will be accessed from Erie Avenue
closer to the private drive and away from the slope and reduce the total number of lots.
Staff requests that the applicant clarify the means by which they will install the water line and
potential sewer line. Approximately, a thirty to thirty -five foot swath would need to be cleared in
order to install the line from the top down. The path would clear -cut approximately three -
quarters of an acre of trees in addition to the removals for the pond, drives, and homes. This
removal area has not been included in the applicant's calculations and will have a significant
impact on the appearance of the site. Staff recommends that applicant use a trench box to install
the water line in order to avoid any additional tree removal and protect the aesthetic worth of the
site.
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 9
COMPLIANCE TABLE
AREA (SQ FT) FRONTAGE (FT) DEPTH (FT) WETLAND
SETBACK
CODE
15,000
100
125
20' + 40'
Lot 1
32,238
147
204
20' + 40'
Lot 2
42,100
295
223
20' + 40'
Lot 3
64,435
153
287
20' + 40'
Lot 4
23,266
268
130
NA
Lot 5
27,683
170
177
20' + 40'
Lot 6
30,758
121
200
NA
Lot 7
27,174
115
216
NA
Lot 8
38,612
119
262
NA
Lot 9
60,780
373
291
NA
Outlot A
13,939
Outlot B
24,394
Total
385,942
Minimum building setbacks:
Front - 30 feet, side - 10 feet, rear - 30 feet, bluff - 30 feet, and
wetlands - 20 foot buffer strip
plus 40 foot from the edge
of the buffer strip.
Maximum building height within the shoreland district is 35 feet.
Maximum lot coverage: 25 percent.
It should be noted that there are delineated bluff areas on Lots 4 through 9 and there are required
bluff setback areas on Lots 3 through 9.
PARK AND RECREATION
The Park and Recreation Commission met on November 28, 1995 and recommended that full park
and trail fees be required in lieu of park land dedication.
SUBDIVISION FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single
Family District.
Lotus Glen
' December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 10
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
n
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to
conditions if approved. Due to the severe slopes, extensive forestation, and
wetlands on site, the applicant is proposing lots that exceed the minimum code
requirements, which improve the environmental protection of the property.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems.
Finding The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure.
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 11
VARIANCE FINDINGS
The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre- existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
r
C.
Finding: The applicant is proposing the use of a private drive for the access for five
parcels. However, the use of a private street to access these parcels limits the number of
access points to Frontier Trail which may enhance public safety. The variance request for
the bluff setback, on the other hand, is a convenience to the property owner. Acceptable
housing pads and decks can be located outside of the required bluff setback.
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally,
to other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this petition for a variance are applicable generally
to other properties within the same zoning classification. All single - family homes being
constructed within the city are required to meet the bluff setback ordinance. However,
due to topographic conditions and for safety considerations, it does make sense to permit
access to parcels off Frontier Trail to be accessed via a private street.
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The purpose of the private street variance will permit the owner to build homes
off of Frontier Trail without spacing driveway access close to each other on a sloped area.
The variance for the bluff setback would permit the applicant to build a larger home.
�I
u
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship. I
Finding: The hardship is related to the size, physical surroundings, shape, or typography
of the site.
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 12
' e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance to the private street will not be detrimental or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. By limiting access to
Frontier Trail to one point, public safety should be enhanced. The variance for the bluff
setback may negatively impact the environment through the increase in runoff.
' f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the
' danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
' Finding: The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, endanger the public safety, substantially diminish or impair property
' values within the neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 6, 1995. At the end of the
hearing, the Commission tabled the item to permit the applicant and staff to further review the
proposed subdivision regarding the canopy coverage, bluffs, and private street.
The Planning Commission held a second public hearing on the item due to the addition of the
variance requests for five lots to access a private drive and the bluff setback variance to permit.
The Planning Commission voted 5 for and 0 against to approve the preliminary plat and variance
to permit five lots to be accessed via a private street. (It should be noted that the applicant still
' prefers to access Lots 1 and 2 via a joint driveway from Frontier Trail; however, this variance
permits them the flexibility to access all the lots from the internal private street.) The
Commission added condition 29 which requires the applicant to submit a landscape buffer plan
for the eastern property line of the project and condition 30 requiring staff to develop strict
criteria that would allow for the building of the home on Lot 9 that would negate the impact of
' building on the bluff due to the granting of a variance to the bluff setback.
Staff has developed the following criteria for the protection of the bluff area that, we are
' recommending be incorporated as a condition of approval, whether or not the bluff setback
variance is approved. The conditions are:
Ll
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 13
• The applicant shall establish a no cut zone on each lot, subject to approval by the city, in '
which no vegetation shall be removed, no grading will be permitted, no material may be
stored, and no equipment may enter. '
• Bluff areas shall be protected by the use of double fencing consisting of silt fencing for
erosion control and tree protection fencing. In addition, where excavation or construction is '
close to the bluff or in a critical area, a barrier of staked hay bales shall also be installed.
• The applicant shall provide an on -site forester to assist with and direct the tree preservation
for the development.
• The house shall be equipped with gutters and the down spouts shall be directed toward the I
private street and away from the bluff.
The Planning Commission voted 4 for and 1 against to grant a 30 foot variance to the bluff ,
setback for Lot 9 with the condition that a minimum 20 foot building setback will be maintained
from the eastern property line.
Staff is co granting concerned that the rantin of a variance to the bluff setback variance will establish a '
precedent and continues to recommend denial of the variance request. The site provides ample
opportunity to locate a house pad that complies with the bluff setback requirements.
Staff recommends that the house be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the bluff as required by
City Code. The bluff areas in Chanhassen are highly susceptible to erosion. Adding impervious
area to a lot near the bluff increases the stormwater runoff rates and amounts that flow down the
bluff. The farther the impervious area is from the bluff, the more vegetative area there is for the
stormwater runoff to move through slowing the velocities and allowing time for infiltration in the
process. This will help reduce erosion and the formation of gullies.
Staff has recently met with Bonestroo and the applicant's engineer to discuss storm water ponding ,
alternatives. Based on that meeting Bonestroo recommended that the city pursue acquiring
easements with the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association to construct a regional storm water pond ,
within the existing creekbed versus building a pond on the deLancey development. Therefore, staff
has elminated the conditions recommending the applicant enter into a cost sharing agreement with
the city. ,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
1
Lotus Glen
1
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 14
1
1
I
Preliminary Plat and Private Street Variance
"The City Council approves preliminary plat for Lotus Glen ( #95 -22 SUB) of 8.9 acres into 9 lots
and two outlots for private streets and a variance to permit five lots to be accessed via one private
street subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval.
2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance 9 -1.
3. Approved turn- arounds must be provided for fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150
feet. Re- submit plan and dimensions pursuant to 1991 U.F.C. Sec. 10.204 (d).
4. Additional fire hydrant will be required by Lot 6 and at the entrance off Frontier Trail.
5. Entrance signage must comply with City Code requirements. A separate sign permit must be
submitted for any signage.
6. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
7. Dwellings on slopes exceeding 25% and dwellings with 102" or more of unequal fill will be
required to be designed by a structural engineer.
8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval.
9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed
and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity
in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall contact
the Natural Resource Conservation Service for a seed mixture that will be effective in wooded
areas.
10. The applicant shall field verify and document the bluff areas on site. The applicant shall
relocate the building pads on Lot 9 up away from the bluff to meet setback requirements.
h
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 15
11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year storm
events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's
,
SWMP for the City to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall
provide detailed pre - developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm
,
events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created
basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment
will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water
quality ponding design calculations for the 2 -, 10 -, and 100- year storm shall be based on
'
Walker's Pondnet model. The City will be contracting review of this work to Bonestroo.
,
12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary
,
financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health '
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply
with their conditions of approval. '
14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a
,
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the
utilities and ponding areas.
'
15. The applicant shall have a wetland delineation report prepared p e d for the site. Wetland buffer
areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City
will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant
'
$20.00 per sign.
16. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a
,
minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level.
17. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance
to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations.
'
18. The proposed single family residential development of 8.7 developable acres is responsible for
a water quality connection charge of $6,960 and a water quantity fee of $17,226. These fees are
payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Credits will be given to these fees
'
based on the applicant providing for the City's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from
the totals after final plat review.
'
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 16
19. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
20. The public utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the City utility standards. The
private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city ordinances. Detailed
construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the
City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance
with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval
is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council.
21. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary right -of -way to achieve a 30 -foot
wide strip of land lying east of the existing centerline of Frontier Trail.
22. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required for
each lot at the time of building permit applicant for the City to review and approve.
23. A fifteen foot tree removal limit shall be established around all building pads. Tree
protection fencing shall be installed prior to excavation and grading. Tree removal limits
shall be shown on all building permit surveys.
24. Applicant must use a trench box for the installation of the water line in order to minimize
impact on canopy coverage.
25. Applicant must submit revised canopy coverage and removal calculations as well as a revised
survey showing the appropriate coverage and removal area.
26. Park and trail fees are required per city ordinance in lieu of park land dedication.
27. The bluff area shall be shown on all building permit applications for this subdivision.
agreements for the private streets.
28. The applicant shall prepare and dedicate cross - access easements and prepare maintenance
29. The applicant shall submit a landscape buffer plan for the eastern part of the property
line to protect the neighbors to the east.
30. The applicant shall establish a no cut zone on each lot, subject to approval by the city,
in which no vegetation shall be removed, no grading will be permitted, no material may
be stored, and no equipment may enter.
I�
Lotus Glen
December 6, 1995
Updated January 3, 1996
Page 17
31. Bluff areas shall be protected by the use of double fencing consisting of silt fencing for
erosion control and tree protection fencing. In addition, where excavation or
construction is close to the bluff or in a critical area, a barrier of staked hay bales shall
also be installed.
32. The applicant shall provide an on -site forester to assist with and direct the tree
preservation for the development.
33. The houses shall be equipped with gutters and the down spouts shall be directed toward
the private street and away from the bluff.
Bluff Setback Variance
"The City Council denies the variance to the bluff setback requirement based on the variance
findings contained in the staff report relative to the bluff setback variance request."
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Development Review Application
2. Project Summary and Narrative, Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
3. Letter from Joe Richter to Robert Generous dated 11/22/95
4. Preliminary Plat (reduction)
5. Letter from Ted & Kathy deLancey to neighbors dated 10/22/95
6. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 11/27/95
7. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
8. Lotus Glen Proposed Development Bluff and Wetland Setbacks
9. Tree Removal - Lotus Glen
10. Memo from Bob Generous to Planning Commission dated 12/5/95
11. Memo from Ed Hasek to Bob Generous dated 12/1/95
12. Planning Commission Minutes of 12/6/95
13. Letter to Robert Generous from Dwight K. Jelle dated 12/22/95 with attachments
14. Letter from Catherine & Andrew Hiscox to Chanhassen City Council dated 1/10/96
15. Planning Commission Minutes of 1/3/96
L �
t
APPLICANT: Ted H. de Lancey OWNER: (SAME)
ADDRESS: 7505 Frontier Trail ADDRESS:
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I TELEPHONE (Daytime) ( 612) 934 - 7214 TELEPHONE:
u
1.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
11.
690 COULTER DRIVE
2.
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
'
(612) 937 -1900
3.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Ted H. de Lancey OWNER: (SAME)
ADDRESS: 7505 Frontier Trail ADDRESS:
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I TELEPHONE (Daytime) ( 612) 934 - 7214 TELEPHONE:
u
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11.
Vacation of ROW /Easements
2.
Conditional Use Permit
12.
Variance
3.
Interim Use Permit
13.
Wetland Alteration Permit
4.
Non - conforming Use Permit
14.
Zoning Appeal
5.
Planned Unit Development
15.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6.
Rezoning
7.
Sign Permits
8.
Sign Plan Review
Notification Signs
9. X
Site Plan Review
X
Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost"
($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP /Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
10. X
Subdivision R H
TOTAL FEE $ � S
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
' 8' /z" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
" NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
' "' Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME LOTUS GLEN
LOCATION
7505 FRONTIER TRAIL
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (SEE SURVEY /PRELIMINARY PLAT AND NARRATIVE)
PRESENT ZONING RSF - SINGLE FAMILY RES.
REQUESTED ZONING (SAME)
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION LOW DENSITY RES.
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION (SAME)
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST SUBDIVISION TO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS UNDER THE
RSF ZONING DISTRICT.
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my kn wled e. lu
Signature of Applicant Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on Fee Paid 1,? Receipt No. 570
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
n
n
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
W
' 14180 Trunk Hwy. 5
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
612 - 937 -5150
November 6, 1995
FAX 612 - 937 -5822
LOTUS GLEN
Chanhassen, MN
' PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE Ref. No. 95297
' PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT NAME
Lotus Glen (Plat Name)
' LOCATION
East of Frontier Trail at Santa Fe Trail ( see Location Map attached)
' APPLICANT /OWNER
Ted deLancey
PO Box 24
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
phone; 612 - 934 -7214
' PLANNER/ENGINEER/SURVEYOR
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
14180 Trunk Hwy. 5
' Eden Prairie, MN 55344
contact: Ed Hasek
phone: 612- 937 -5150
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Generally - Lot 13 and part of Lots 14 and 16 lying west of a line drawn from a point on the south line of
' Lot 16 189.4 feet west of the Southeast corner to a point on the Northerly line of Lot 14 112.5 feet
Westerly from the Northwest corner of Lot 14, Auditor's Subdivision 92, Carver County, Minnesota(see
sheet 1 of 5 for complete Legal Description).
' EXISTING LAND USE
' The property is currently developed as single large lot single family residents. Structures include the
residence and two small out buildings
Westwood Professional Services. Inc. is an equal opportunity employer.
The property is currently accessed from full frontage along Frontier Trail to the west, and a 33 foot access
on Erie Avenue to the east. Surrounding land uses include_ single family residence to the west, south and
east, and beyond a common outlot to the north.
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Existing Zoning:
RSF, Single Family Residential
Proposed Zoning:
RSF, Single Family Residential
Existing Guide Plan:
Low Density Residential, 1.2 -4.0 un/ac
Proposed Land Use:
Low Density Residential
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site consists of rolling topography covered approximately 76% by mixed overstory canopy. The site
elevations range from a low of 912 feet in the northwest corner to a high of 974 feet along the east central
property boundary. Overstory vegetation varies significantly and includes areas of willow, boxelder, oak,
and maple species. Also, dispersed throughout the property are several cherry, fir, spruce, and
cottonwoods.
Site soils consist of the Hayden Series as described in the Soils Survey for Carver County. The low
depressional area in the northwest corner of the property consists of Glenco Series soils. Slopes in excess
of 30% exist along the north edge of the property adjacent to a drainage way flowing into Lotus Lake to the
east, and in the south central area of the site (see Existing Conditions, sheet 2 of 4).
The property was viewed by a wetlands specialist, and wetlands were staked and surveyed along a drainage
swale running south to north through the west central part of the site. A significant portion of the wetland
as delineated was previously disturbed by the installation of a sanitary line and a driveway crossing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/REQUESTED ACTION
This proposal is for the Subdivision of a single large lot consisting of approximately 8.9 acres into 9 single
family lots under the RSF zoning ordinance. Lots will be accessed via common drives, or private drives off
Frontier Trail and Erie Ave.
It is our understanding that the project will require no variances. We are seeking Preliminary Plat
approval at this time. Final Plat application will follow directly.
Site Data
Total Site Area
Total Lots
Net Density
Gross Density
Minimum Lot Area
Average Lot Area
- 8.9 ac.
- 9 Single Family
-1.1 un. /ac.
-1.0 un. /ac.
- 23,265 ± s.f.
- 38,560 f s.f.
PROJECT SU MMARY AND NARRATIVE
1
C
LOTUS GLEN Page 2 '
Ll
F1
Phasing
With approval of this project it is anticipated that construction could begin in the spring of 1996. Project
completion will be dependent on marketing success and is anticipated to be finalized by the end of 1998.
TREE INVENTORY
All trees 12 inch DBH were surveyed and tagged in May, 1995. Diseased and severely damaged trees were
subsequently noted in the field. A list of all trees surveyed is attached as Exhibit A.
ENGINEERING
Gra
The site ranges in elevation from a low of 912 at the proposed storm pond, to a high of 974 at the east
central edge of the site. Initial grading will be limited to that necessary to construct the utilities and private
road extension. Each lot will be custom graded to suit the home to the lot. It is the intent and desire of the
applicant to protect and preserve the greatest number of the overstory trees possible. Road alignments and
tentative home sites have been located to minimize impacts on slopes, trees, and wetlands as much as
possible.
Water
An 8 inch water line will be looped through the site along an existing sanitary sewer line from Frontier trail
east to Erie Ave. A 6 inch line will be extended north to the end of the private drive to serve lots in the
eastern half of the project. Individual services will be extended to serve each lot.
Storm Water
Storm water will flow along proposed streets in drainage ditches and be directed to the storm pond via the
existing drainage way on site. The proposed storm pond is being designed to handle drainage from beyond
the project boundaries in conjunction with the City's Storm Water Management Plan.
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer will be designed to gravity flow to the existing 8 inch line which flows from east to west
across the property. All residential services will also gravity flow either to the existing line, or to proposed
extensions.
deLancey Residence
The plat has been designed to accommodate the existing deLancey residence within the setbacks of Lot #3.
A redeveloped building pad has been suggested on the Preliminary Plans, but the disposition of
reconstruction of the existing structure is unclear at this time
I�
PROJECT SUMMARY AN NARRATIVE
LOTUS GLEN Page 3
CONCLUSION
As with many properties in this area of Chanhassen, this is a difficult site to develop. Given the canopy
coverage, topographic relief, and the limited opportunities for access to the site, we believe the project, as
proposed, is well suited to the property, and provides the City of Chanhassen with a large lot residential
development it will be proud of.
Lotus Glen is consistent with the comprehensive plan and conforms to the City's zoning ordinances and
subdivision regulations. We respectfully request your favorable review and approval of our proposed
development.
PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE
LOTUS GLEN Page 4 '
4 4
0 fir
Lm
71
Z
Total site area 8.9 ac.
Total canopy cover 6.8 ac. =L 76%
Min. canopy cover requ'd 46%
City of Chanhassen Air Photo, 1989
BASELINE CANOPY COVERAGE
LOTUS GLEN
Scale ; 1"=100'
� {i, � 7s• � r. " ° �]r a • kii�i•�. `+�ti. a-` ;' \+tl"�.�+•''h -�i. �� 7
zL
VIA
'��'•'°'r.'�`+..- � _,� +" �"'"� ni � .,r'�,��� ate _ ~�`�`.
2.1
9 G S. -
6.8 aC.
f
"
�..,; '
SUBJECT PROP
7
'YA
x. 601
t STATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
TRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 -6793
PHONE NO. 772 -7910 FILE NO.
November 22, 1995
Mr. Robert Generous, AICP, Planner II
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Lotus Glen Development, Ted DeLancey, Lotus Lake, City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, (City #95 -22 SUB)
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the site plans (received November 8, 1995) for the above - referenced project
(Section 12, T 116N, R23 W) and have the following comments to offer:
1. The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no
DNR permit is required.
However, there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit
jurisdiction. The project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The
Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of
applications submitted under these other regulatory programs.
2. The site does not appear to be within a FEMA designated floodplain district.
3. It appears that the wetland is being converted into a primary stormwater treatment pond. In
general, we are opposed to the primary treatment of stormwater in wetlands because the
sediments and pollutants in the stormwater will destroy the wetland. We recommend that the
stormwater be treated before it is routed to the wetland, or that the wetland be replaced.
However, the determination of what is best at this particular site should be addressed by the
city and other agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands subject to the Wetland Conservation
Act.
4. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties
adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas
and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits.
REGE! VED
NOV 2 ? 1995
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF CHmHAtbtA
1
fl
1
I I
F
L
n
0
Mr. Robert Generous, AICP, Planner II
November 22, 1995
Page 2
5. The property is located within the 1000 -foot shoreland district of Lotus Lake (10 -6P), which
has a shoreland classification of recreational development. The shoreland district extends
1000 feet from the OHW. The development must be consistent with city shoreland
management regulations. In particular:
a. The development contains bluffs and steep slopes. Topographic alterations should be
minimized in the areas with steep slopes. No work should occur within the setback
from the top of the bluff.
b. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Lotus Lake
using topography, existing vegetation, color, landscaping, and other means approved
by the city.
6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments:
a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period.
The measures described in " Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas - Best
Management Practices for Minnesota MPCA, October 1989, or their equivalent,
should be followed.
b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million
gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It
typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
C. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must
apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan
Sullivan @ 296 - 7203).
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters
and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack
thereof for a particular project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772 -7910 should you have any
questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
6 Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c: Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
Chanhassen Shoreland File
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
— I
I
I
i
1 t
I
I
E,
- ,.
7.66
�
r
r. �,a•a I 1.
swew+ I
� ry
_,g
I
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
— I
I
I
i
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
� �av
Y.iM �. nce
J+9^ �rry .z ._ m.eures Eave v esrwce ur ,U. Ua reer ,. ,re :anr .r
LOCATION MAP
51TE DATA
v'9nE o A wer
Cot tenor
- Re« vvo
' � I Fasement
t
I I I L SerOxt Line
R I
10_ ��Y - Lof O:nASwn
p I R NOroe. cot a
I L_ '
_ _ J °
I
I _ s
T )p/c0/ Lot
. sra.J
LEGEND
b ee.« Vde
e srdm re.« „cede
NORTH
F
IN
v
o:
0
Fait ;
33
i
1� 3
e 4
slS
I
fi ll
o;
Q•
L T,
Z�
�e
O
m
r
s
q 6
� O
i J
5� 5,
October 22,1995
OCT � 6 1995
' Dear Neighbor, G' Y
As a property owner within 500 feet of our property, you will be notified by the city of
our plans to develop our property prior to the planning commission meeting. At that meeting,
expected to be in December or January, you will be invited to give your suggestions and
' comments.
We want to give you an opportunity to view our plans and give us your thinking prior to
' that meeting. We will then be able to take these comments into consideration before meeting
with the city.
' We would like you to come to an open house at our home on
1 Thursday October 26 - 5:00 - 7:00 P.M.
or
Saturday October 28 - 1:00 - 4 :00 P.M.
Our address is 7505 Frontier Trail which is a yellow house on top of the hill.
' If you are unable to make these dates and wish to see our plans please call us at
934 -7214 and we will set up a convenient time.
' Sincerely,
C�
Ted & Kathy de Lanc
YT-
I
��
� 1
h
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: November 27, 1995
SUBJECT: 95 -22 SUB(Lotus Glen, Ted deLancey') ".
Background:
I was asked to review the plans stamped "CITY
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for th
recommendations from the Inspections Division f
Analysis:
Building Pads. Due to the steep slopes'on many of the
many of the foundations will need to' be designed by a
application.
IF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, NOV 061995,
above referenced project. Below are an analysis and
the proposed project.
, staff will note to the developer that
; ineer at the time of building permit
iich will 'be demolished will require demolition
to the City and a permit for septic system
ned prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
G!b foyk,0rt = pIM\I,t h
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, DECEMBER 6,1995
at 7:00 p.m.
Project: Lotus Glen
Developer: Ted deLancey
1
Location: 7505 Frontier Trail
�rnc
Af% n-rInwI
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area.
' The applicant is proposing preliminary plat approval of 8.9 acres into 9 lots on property zoned RSF,
Single Family Residential, and located at 7505 Frontier Trail, Lotus Glen.
1
What Happens at the Meeting The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting,
the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
Chanhassen Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will
then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall
during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about
this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments,
it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 23,
1995.
�J
Nathan & NancyAnn Castens
Michael & Charlene Bogden
Stephen Blaha
,
7616 Frontier Trail
Bernard &Kathy Raidt
Christopher Buck II &
7605 Erie Ave.
7603 Erie Ave.
Emma Carlin
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
7601 Erie Ave.
Thomas Pauly & Lynn Kor
Kevin & Beth Cragg
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Scott & R. Elleras
Robert & Deann Hubert
James & Roseanne Boyum
'
7591 Erie Ave.
7561 Erie Ave.
7531 Erie Ave.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
'
Kelly & Melissa Lynk
Andrew Hiscox
Jeffrey & Joan Thune
7501 Erie Ave.
7500 Erie Ave.
7672 South Shore Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Stanislaus & Jayne Hamerski
Joseph Pfankuch & Margery Morgan
Jeffrey & Lena Tan Otolsi
7668 South Shore Dr.
7664 South Shore Dr.
7660 South Shore Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Robert Crees & Janice Almli
Chris & Nicole Neuharth
Perry Ryan
7656 South Shore Dr.
7652 South Shore Dr.
1000 Devonshire Lane #208A
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bloomington, MN 55431
Roland & Cynthia Potter
Thomas & Pamela Devine
Josephy & Menaka Warrior
7644 South Shore Dr.
PO Box 714
7423 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Bradley Ma Johnson
Y Mary
Susan C. Hoff
William & Iv Kirkvold
Y
7425 Frontier Trail
221 Frontier Court
201 Frontier Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Gregory & Debalee Cray Kennethy & Deborah Ellsworth Colony Point Homeowners Assoc.
200 Frontier Court Rt 1, Box 68D c/o William Kirkvold
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Couderay, WI 54828 201 Frontier Trail ,
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Frederick & Sandra Coulter
Michael & Charlene Bogden
Stephen Blaha
,
7616 Frontier Trail
7617 Frontier Trail
7606 Erie Ave.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Thomas Pauly & Lynn Kor
Kevin & Beth Cragg
James & Arlene Zimmerman
7604 Erie Ave.
222 77th Street W.
7602 Frontier Trail
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
C
r onald & Mary Goetze
7610 Frontier Trail
f hanhassen, MN 55317
William P. Hanson
7607 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
C aul & Rita Ro'J ina
t 20 W. 77th Street
hanhassen, MN 55317
t ienn & June Mattson
7406 Frontier Trail
C hanhassen, MN 55317
t orothy M. Bongard
551 Great Plains Blvd.
I hanhassen, MN 55317
James Hall
1 561 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
l arvey Kruse & H. Forcier
O. Box 67
hanhassen, MN 55317
t ontier Trail Assoc.
c/o William Kirkvold
t 1 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I ichard Gillespie
415 Frontier Trail
r anhassen, MN 55317
trick M. Fitzimons
4 W. 77th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
wsa: tea.
Linda L. Keeler Richard & Rose Mingo
304 West 77th Street 7601 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Clark D. Horn
7608 Erie Ave.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & Wendy Pollock
7603 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Douglas & Wendy Suedbeck
7605 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Anthony & Mary Doppler
7508 Erie Ave.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Thomas & Nancy Manarin
7552 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Steven M. Rogers
7520 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Thomas Harold
7411 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Klingelhutz Development
PO Box 89
Chaska, MN 55318
Paul, Sr. & Mary Jane Kausch
7554 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Earl & M McAllister
7510 Erie Ave.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Vernon R. Sullivan
7522 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Rober & Lillian Somers
7409 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & P. Dahl & K. Wagner
220 Frontier Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Roger & Marjorie Kadalahti
7413 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Curtis & Nancy Robinson
202 W. 77th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Walter & Pamela Czerminski
7417 Frontier Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Donald & Judith Schmieg
P. O. Box 397
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert C. Blad
7602 Erie Ave.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
t f':4�Pk f
TYM
Richard Corwine & Roxann Keyes
Wick & Lorali Linder
Corwin
7550 Great Plains Blvd.
7600 Erie Ave.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
r
r
t
r
TREE PRESERVATION SUMMA
I vy,
F.
NOM
9,lEtAbV4j-- J.OTUS (-3LE-p4
o
o.
iii
E '
m m m = = = m = = m = m = = m = = = m
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Generous, Planner 11
DATE:
' SUBJ:
BLUFF
December 5, 1995
Review of the Bluff Area and Woodlands for Lotus Glen - deLancey Property
Staff has reviewed Westwood's revised version of the
memorandum dated December 1, 1995 for the deLanc
okay according to the definition of bluff and the bluff
bluff area to the south should be stretched at least 101
ordinance, the average slope has to meet a 30% slope.
measurements to take when determining the average,
rounded to the nearest whole number. Therefore, ave
in the bluff area.
bluff area and setback zones from a plan and
- property. The bluff area to the north is
irotection ordinance (Article XXVIII). The
.et to the north and south. According to the
It is difficult to determine how many
iowever, any average calculation should be
ages of 29.5% or greater should be included
The ordinance states the structure setback from the top of the bluff and toe of the bluff shall be at
least 30 feet. There is no discussion about the sides of the bluff. , This is probably the City's first
encounter on this issue. If the bluff protection ordinance is to protect slopes, prevent erosion, and
protect the natural character of the area, it seems that the sides should be protected with the setback
rules.
Staff is recommending that the bluff area be revised to extend 10 feet
F F,•
for the southerly bluff area based on the slope analysis. In addition, a 11
required from the perimeter of the bluff area'.
TREES
ten (10) feet
ck shall be
The southeastern corner of the site needs to be included in canopy coverage calculations. The
small diameter of the trees do not exclude them from the calculations since according to
ordinance definition, "A tree shall mean any woody plant which at maturity is 13 - 20 feet or
more in height, with a single trunk, unbranched for at least several feet above the ground, and
MEMORANDUM
1�
Planning Commission '
December 5, 1995
Page 2 '
having a more or less definite crown." This means a tree does not have to be a certain diameter '
or height to be considered a tree, but it does need to have the characteristics to meet the
qualifications. Clearly, an elm that is only 1 inch in diameter can be called a `tree'. As for their
inclusion in the calculations, canopy coverage include the area under the crowns of all trees, not '
just those with 6 inches diameter or more.
The wooded area in the southeastern corner is a young stand that has grown up from a grassy
field. The oldest trees in the area are probably about 7 or 8 years old and ages range down to
mere months. It's true that the up and coming forest does not have a closed canopy and because
of that the grass below continues to survive. '
Staff reiterates its recommendation that the applicant prepare revised calculations for canopy
coverage and tree removal prior to final plat approval. '
RECOMMENDATION
recommends that condition number 10 of the staff report be modified as follows: ,
Staff reco p
The applicant shall incorporate the revised slope analysis perimeters as the bluff area on the site. '
A thirty (30) foot bluff setback shall be maintained from the perimeter of the bluff area. The
applicant shall meet bluff setback requirements and submit compliance information at the time '
of building permit application. The applicant shall verify that there is a buildable area without
variances from the bluff setback on Lot 5. The driveway access to Lot 1 shall be relocated from
Frontier Trail to the private driveway and shift the driveway access to Lot 2 approximately 180 I
feet north to run parallel with the grade.
Staff recommends that condition number 26 remain as is. I
Attachments
1. Memorandum from Ed Hasek to Bob Generous dated 12/1/95
2. Slope Analysis prepared by Westwood
3. Revised Slope Analysis prepared by staff I
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL
].n Cll A 2
- 307
30% "
LEGEND
\ _
5luffe
Toe of Slope
I I i % — —_� mr l l � ._' �/ ]'.� m? .� �1• .�W� `_. \ ® 30' 510pe Setback
I
�° a4MZ'1- -- -•�
\� x._ 1 �,- j ,. i �,��, �-- ;�(3✓0 �.� _ �3.0_ -5 ask
i
� ti , ��� ��:. a � �, I =�° � " � �� o . • f�/.. =" � /,� `� Top ... of'. Slope
%r / `' w�
\ r a. �•',''.\,'` �;4' Top of Slope i
0
de of " �I,/J569 /
o 4 Toe, o'
��a
iii` 4+r
Iop . �f Slop
I I 'ra° � I Q
V EL 954.0
q iv % \ 1
At F `
L
El. J 2.0 )
i - 1n
IL
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
IN ,
14180 West Trunk Highway 5
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
6121937 -515
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
DEC 01 1995
DATE: December 1, 1995
TO: Bob Generous
FROM: Ed Hasek
RE: Lotus Glen -Slope and Canopy Cover Analysis
CHANHA68LN PLANNING DEPT
Per our discussions of November 29 I am forwarding the attached Slope Analysis for your review
and consideration. Note that we have included the Top and Toe of Slope as agreed to, and have
also shown percent of slope at various locations to indicate where Bluffs are located. We have also
indicated the 30 foot setbacks at the top and toe of the bluffs as required by ordinance.
It appears that two areas of the bluff setback are being impacted by our current plans. The
proposed homesite on Lot 9 in the northeast corner is currently shown as partially located within
the bluff setback, but outside the bluff area. A variance may be required if this location is
ultimately desired as the construction site. Also, the access drive to Lot 5 cannot be relocated so
that it would not impact either the bluff setback or the setback to the wetland. As discussed, we do
not feel that the wetland at this location can be considered natural because of the disturbance
caused when the sanitary sewer was installed through the site. Not withstanding this, a variance
may be required for the driveway to this building site.
This A.M. I revisited the site to verify the Tree Canopy Cover. At this point I will have to stand by
the Base Canopy Cover as indicated in our application. The open area shown in the east and
southern comer of the site is in the process of overgrowing with a mixture of elm, boxelder, maple
and several cedars, the vast majority of which are under 2 inches in DBH (many under 1 inch
DBI) and under 10 feet in height. The entire ground plain is also covered with long grass, a clear
indication that the vegetation does not shade the ground sufficiently enough to preclude its growth.
We agree that some consideration must be given to the canopy and tree removal associated with
utility installations and road and building construction. These calculations will be resubmitted
once we receive some clear direction as to how the entire development is to proceed.
If possible, please forward this additional information to your staff and the Commission for their
review and comments prior to our meeting before the Planning Commission next week.
cc; deLancey, Stinson
REVISED SLOPE ANALYSIS GIY ly STATE OW
Yln� erw !. -
. ,al r... - eoo -z }z -nee
30'/
"
;\& \ ' - LEGEND
I NN 9
1 B s
T oe 51 luff
T
o q/ � opt
EC 30 Slope Setback
i
y p
Oro
T , O R
, , i %�° i
,
S x 1 J31 Top of" 51 ope
E • 60.0
\.. �� I I \ \' \\ 1 V�Y i.aM j • ' y�� / J w� er•55 ' � � . � 1
1
� .\
5" ..'�' ;, ,� i �f`•''�_
I.� » ' > �\ ` J U �• y .4J �e p of e,' ! ; Ail 56.0 -
�
rv -
1
�� 7 PK,'
`I..�� \°6�e06 9 ]x„ I• 1IO{i✓
El 2Cp'O
I
941
` ' sw \� a�l I> � cxi I � "\ - D
I /// / 111
W". 441 IO`y� Q)
Top bf `glop
,, � � �,. o �►.: ..954.0
1 a�i 1 Vii% y d' asl: I° ° /q \
. In 11
I
1 r'
s '
tW
µ� X.
of
�'yji� I
e]JA' UiY. Y ll
�o �f , es� 1 \ �NY • \ ' \ I _ ' _ ..
\' r El-\.J 2.0
I
•
NORTH
` \I J
� I
Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 '
1
17. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required
for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. '
18. Neighborhood identification monument signs require a separate permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
Mancino: When will this go in front of City Council. I
Generous: January 8th.
PUBLIC HEARING:
TED DELANCEY FOR A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.9 '
ACRES INTO 9 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
AND LOCATED AT 7505 FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS GLEN.
Public Present:
Name Address I
Ted & Cathy deLancey
Applicants
Charles Stinson
Architect
'
Don Streeter
Streeter and Associates
Dr. James Erland
Rick Corwine
Chanhassen
7600 Erie Avenue
,
Tom Pauley
7604 Erie Avenue
Kelly Lang
7501 Erie Avenue
Andrew Hiscox
7500 Erie Avenue
'
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. I
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners at this point?
(Due to a taping error, a portion of the public hearing was not recorded on this item. Taping
of the discussion began again at this point after the applicant and the applicant's architect had
presented their plan and the public hearing had been opened.) '
Mancino: Bob, for Mr. Corwine. How wide is the ... going to be and how close will these...
19 1
L
Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995
Generous: I believe that the easement or the area is 30 feet and the private drive is 20 feet?
Rick Corwine: I guess my specific question is, is there a limitation into how far a private
driveway can be from a property line? Or from a structure.
Hempel: No, there isn't. Typically the private drive would be centered in the 30 foot wide
easement.
Rick Corwine: Would there be a problem, okay.
Mancino: So you would have 10 feet from the private drive to your property line.
Rick Corwine: Right, okay. I would like to see some efforts made to offset that. The
property to the north of that access strip. Their house sits quite a bit to the north end of that
property and they have some trees in that area that would be a buffer. I'd like to see some
' efforts made to move that a little bit farther to the north of that 30 foot strip there. Especially
seeing as there's no particular restrictions on it's specific location to the property line...
7
L-1
Mancino: Is the northern neighbor here tonight?
Rick Corwine: No, they're not. And I know that it's somewhat of a concern of their's. Well
I guess I can't speak for them. Those are my primary questions tonight.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission?
Tom Pauley: My name is Tom Pauley. I live at 7604 Erie Avenue. Just south of Rick. My
concern is, I probably live on the lowest part of Erie Avenue and there's a tremendous amount
of water drainage that goes through. That ponds in my yard and goes down this creek... and
when you get the 1 and 2 inch rains, there's a lake in my yard. It goes over to Rick's yard
and the neighbor's yard and as long as that water's allowed to keep moving, we don't have a
problem. But that's my concern that when you're doing all this, you consider that because if
that water is interrupted somehow, I mean it hasn't gotten to my house yet but I can see it
coming at my door.
Mancino: Dave, could you ... what's coming in now and will that change after development?
Hempel: Certainly Madam Chair.
(Dave Hempel went over to the overhead projector to answer Mr. Pauley's question and his
comments were not picked up by the microphone.)
20
Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995
Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission.
Kelly Lang: Good evening. My name is Kelly Lang. I live at 7501 Erie Avenue, which is
lake property on Lotus Lake. Two doors down from the proposed development to the east.
My concern is driven from the whole reason that we moved to Chanhassen and that was the
Lotus Lake and the quality that it has. We've spent, we've only been there on the lake for
two summers but have spent some time recreationally on the lake enjoying it and enjoyed the
quality of the lake and over just the three, last three years we've seen the quality of the lake
diminish. Felt good last winter when the city came out with their plans for the surface water
plan and the preservation of the other lakes as well as Lotus Lake in the city and I am
concerned that on the plan, as I've picked it up from the city last week, they're asking that the
Surface Water Management Plan be developed prior to asking for your approval and would
ask if the city planners and commission feel comfortable with the development as proposed
that will not impact adversely the quality of the lake because not only are you dealing with
the neighbors, but everybody that's around the lake.
Hempel: Madam Chair, I can address that. The city has another opportunity here with this
development, as we did with the Lotus Lake Woods project to do our surface water
management on the property in conjunction with development. Any easements... the surface
water management plan does ... to take the runoff and by -pass the...
Kelly Lang: There is a drainage ditch coming out of there right now. In fact going into the
left... Is what you're saying less water will likely be coming from there?
Hempel: ...pre- treated before it discharges into Lotus Lake...
Mancino: And right now that isn't being done.
Hempel: That's correct. Right now it's an open ditch...
Kelly Lang: Yeah but the development will bring more fertilizer and other types of lawn
treatments that has been shown by the water plan or the people that were involved in the
water plan, that that has ... and what I just heard you say is that this pond will gather some of
that in most instances but in major storms, that runoff will potentially increase the ... and that
type of thing through the ditch area.
Hempel: That's partially correct...
21
1
Planning Commission Meeting December 6 1995
g ,
Mancino: Dave, isn't the city right now doing an education process with the Lotus Lake
' residents about fertilizer and when to use and which ones are the best and not to use, and
especially in an area like this, I'm sure there isn't much grass anyway but.
iJ
1
Li
1
Kelly Lang: Yes, the city's doing I think an exemplary job on a lot of the things that have
involved maintaining the quality of the lake and adhere to the non fertilizer use on my own
lawn, but I also suspect that, I believe that families living off the lake, but near the lake, they
will have less reason to feel like they are part of the problem and maybe would ask that the
commission ask that the water level or the ponding level be increased to a 4 inch to 6 inch
rain runoff into the lake because 3 years ago when we were waterskiing on the lake, I
remember there were three very small patches of milfoil. Today it's 100% surrounded by
milfoil around the lake. It's one of the degrees of quality that I've seen deteriorate rapidly.
Based upon Diane Desotelle and the outside firm that they had come in and do some of the
educational things last year, she indicated that it is the runoff and fertilizer. The lack of,
currently the lack of ponding and that type of thing has created that type of degregation in the
quality. And that if we protect it for the 2 to 4 inch rainfall, that's better than what we have
today but with the amount of, I think not knowing what the amount of effort you have in
creating a pond, it may be a small, additional effort to raise the level of the ponding and the
wall prior to it entering into the ditch to protect a 6 inch level of rainfall. So we have a
chance to prevent further degregation of the lake quality.
Mancino: Is that ever done?
Hempel: Madam Chair. This site here is an environmentally sensitive area. We will be
working with the developer to size the pond as large as we can and yet preserve the trees and
natural terrain out there. I'm not aware of any ponding areas that are sized, from an economic
standpoint, for a 6 inch rainfall. That's like a 100 year storm event. More typical for a 2 1/2
inch rainfall is the standard set forth.
Mancino: 6 inches is a 100 year?
Hempel: Storm event which happened a couple times in the last year.
Mancino: Wouldn't you know it. Thank you. Appreciate your comments and your concerns.
Anyone else?
Andrew Hiscox: My name's Andrew Hiscox. I live at 7500 Erie Avenue. I'm the property
that's directly east of the deLancey property and I think this is great. I think Ted's done a
great job of drawing a plan up but I do have a couple of concerns to go over. If you look at,
if that's north, as you're looking at that rendering right there, I'm a little concerned about the
0%
Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995
private drive and how close it is to the property line. It's already been brought up tonight that
there's really no code or ordinance that says how far a driveway has to be from a property
line. But I've lived in the house for about 7 years. I look out the back of my house and it's
all woods. I see deer out there and rabbits and raccoons and things like that and it'd be sort
of nice to sort of keep that ambience. I know nothing lasts forever. However I'm wondering
if there might be some way to suggest that we put in some sort of buffer between the existing
homes and the new development. I don't think that's, again it's not an ordinance but I guess
I'd like to solicit your opinion on that and see if that's something we might be able to get put
into the plan.
Mancino: Okay. Bob, do we have any ordinances right now when we abut single family to
single family to buffer it?
Generous: No. I believe as part of their design they're looking for separation. I don't think
it's more for, it's for the benefit of the new subdivision rather than for the existing
development there. Like he said, they're looking at higher valued lots out here and that
equates to higher value homes. They're going to think that they should have a screen from
the existing homes in the neighborhood.
Andrew Hiscox: I think that's great. How do we formalize that?
Mancino: I think the Planning Commission will talk about during their comments. So what
I'm saying is we will not give you an answer right now but we will discuss, as we discuss
comments and make a recommendation or not to do that.
Andrew Hiscox: Do we get to re -open that for discussion after you've had your discussion?
Mancino: Ah, no you don't.
Andrew Hiscox: Well then let's continue right now. I guess what I'm saying is.
Mancino: This is not a discussion period. This is for us to get the...
Andrew Hiscox: I understand.
Mancino: And I will bring that back to the Planning Commission once the public hearing is
closed. We will make comments and we will discuss it and we will take a vote. And if you
would like further discussion, you may certainly do that at the City Council.
Andrew Hiscox: Okay, thanks.
23
1
h
I '� J
C!
I Planning ommission Meeting -
g et g December 6, 1995
Mancino: Is there any other area that you wanted us to?
Andrew Hiscox: Well, not at this time.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Seeing
none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
' Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
1 Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. Comments. Discussion.
Peterson: I think all and all that the plan as it's been presented has been obviously thoroughly
thought out over quite an expansive period of time and I think all the major areas have been
addressed and it seems as though they've worked with the city and accommodated the wishes
1 of the city into many of the design factors. Dave, I guess I'd like to talk a little bit more, get
a better understanding again and it's been 20 or 30 minutes now. I guess I'd like to go over
again the primary rationale for separating and then changing the road system as it's currently
being presented on the chart here. So if you could just briefly walk through it again for me,
I'd appreciate it.
Hempel: Commissioner Peterson, the only consideration...
Peterson: Thanks. I think that basically the plan, as it's presented, I think can be worked out
between the developer and the city. I'm comfortable with it as the way it is. As presented by
staff.
Mancino: And would you like to see the applicant and staff work together on the suggestions
and have it come back to see how it works out?
Peterson: I think as ... really hasn't had a great deal of opportunity to respond to the most
recent city request so I think that'd be certainly appropriate.
Mancino: Mr. Farmakes.
' Farmakes: This is kind of a unique development. A little bit different than what we're used
to seeing. Typically we're used to seeing farmland being subdivided and being filled up with
development and then of course we get people coming in from the development next to it
who are upset because they want to continue seeing what they moved out for, which is cows
and horses and whatever. We have a different area here. This is an area that's sort of been
i1!
f�
u
L]
Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 1
7
L
insulated or surrounded by development for many years and it simply hasn't developed
because it's owners chose not to develop. In fact the property that we purchased was a ,
similar situation. When development started in the 50's and the developer held onto it for 20
years before they sold it. I agree that Frontier Trail is a unique situation. I'd like to see
limited access. I'd like to see Lots 1 and 2 perhaps access off of that same drive rather than '
add an additional drive. Possibly rearrange these homes a bit to set them back from the road,
if possible. Obviously the development's high quality. I think considerations for the property
have been well taken into consideration by the architect. Other than the issue of Frontier
Trail, it's quite a quality addition...
Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Skubic. I
Skubic: I also think that it's a very fine proposal here. They're certainly developing this with
large lots minimizes the amount of traffic on ... topography and the trees quite efficiently. I '
would like to see the applicant and staff work together to try to buffer the private roadway to
the east to see what can be done with that. There's also some alterations that need to be
made in regards to the bluff lines and certainly that needs to be worked through and with the
uncertainties, I'm not sure that this should be moved up to the City Council. I don't know,
maybe it should. I don't know. I just have a little uncertainty about that. There might be a
little more work that I'd like to be done with those things before it moves on. I can be
persuaded otherwise.
Mancino: Commissioner Meyer.
Meyer: I'd like to know, this shows a 9 lot ... to the land, could they come in and do quite a I
few more? I know we had heard 23...
Generous: Sure, you could do 15,000 square foot lots. I
Meyer: Okay, so what they're doing right now is really trying to develop something that's...
Generous: Yes... especially on the top part of—planned unit development and then it's more
lots. Put larger lots down here. They could have done twin homes development.
Meyer: Okay. Also Andrew Hiscox had talked about buffering the private drive but actually ,
the way I look at this, I mean there will be a driveway but they won't even be going past, it
will be a driveway for the house but it won't be going. ,
Andrew Hiscox: Excuse me, it will be about 16 feet from my back door.
25 1
i
I�
Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995
Meyer: The building pad, yes.
Andrew Hiscox: No, the driveway.
Meyer: What I was speaking of was a private drive for serving all the houses and that won't.
I believe that's all the questions I have.
Mancino: I think it's a real quality development. I'd like to see it come back and I'd like to
see it come back after the applicant and their engineer and architect have looked at the city's
request for how to approach Lots 1 and 2. Take that into consideration and work together
with staff on that. I'd also like to see it come back with the particulars for Lot 4 and 5 and
where the housepads can go on that according to our bluff ordinance. And I would like to
have the applicant respond to the homeowners on the east side and what kind of buffering can
be done and what you would suggest doing. Bob, I had a question for you on the amount of
money in their storm water quantity fees. It is $1,980.00 per developable acre and in the city
we have calculated it as 8.7 acres. If they can't develop in the bluff area, should those be
considered as developable acres? And what is the city's position on that and if the city
doesn't have one right now, you can certainly get back to us.
Hempel: I guess first what jumps out for me I guess Madam Chair is it still generates runoff
as the other property does and it should be included. Maybe because it's a bluff and the lots
are larger, maybe some credit rate that we've applied as a residential single family rate, about
$800.00 per acre plus $1,980.00 per acre. They may be given some credit for that bluff... We
can take a look at that.
Mancino: Okay. I would hope that we do
question. What is a trench box? Dave?
Those are all my comments. Oh, one more
Hempel: Excuse me?
Mancino: What is a trench box? On 25, and I brought it up earlier tonight and asked a
question about it and I don't even know what one is.
Hempel: That is a metal box that is used to preserve the cave in of the side walls when they
excavate the trench if they're in an unsuitable material or high water table area. The soils will
move on them and cave in. What this box does, it limits the trench width. Instead of having
to be a 1:1 slope or 1:1.5 slope, it can virtually go sheer up and down with it. You just move
this trench box along to protect the workers from cave in's.
Mancino: You mean you just use that for water lines?
26
Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 '
I
Hempel: It can be used for sewer and water lines. The biggest piece of equipment though
that disturbs the area is the backhoe itself running through there and turning and that's where
you'll get the area of a 30 foot wide swath essentially being impacted by construction.
Mancino: Okay and it's written down that they're leaving a 40 to 45 foot swath and is there, I
is it 30 to 35 feet?
Hempel: If it's just a water line going in, which is very shallow, 7 foot deep, 30 to 35 foot
would be the limit of the impact.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Can I entertain a motion? I
Farmakes: Yeah, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table the Lotus Glen #95-
22 SUB.
Mancino: Can you wait until the motion is done please.
Farmakes: For the following reasons, as listed in the Minutes by the chair.
Mancino: Okay, is there a second?
Skubic: I second it.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
i
preliminary plat 495 -22 SUB for- Lotus Glen for further review between staff and the
applicant. All voted in favor- and the motion canied unanimously.
'
A question was asked from someone in the audience which was not picked up by the
microphone.
Mancino: Well and Bob, we need a guide here... I haven't read it completely because we just
received it so I feel uncomfortable giving you my thoughts on it not reading it. Have you I
had time to read it?
Farmakes: I was given it just after the beginning of the meeting and I do not have the bluff '
ordinance memorized, although I was involved and helped put it together but I cannot, off the
top of my head, along with 15 other ordinances that we're dealing with here tonight, make a
comment on that...
27 1
u
t
Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995
Mancino: ...we certainly will at the next Planning Commission meeting and I know that that
doesn't help you because you want to go ahead with your plan.
Another comment was made from the audience at this point.
Mancino: And you may also work with the staff on a variance for a certain lot also having to
do with Lot I ... we would certainly entertain that. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12
LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED
RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10 1 /o;
AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12•
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE
CHANHASSEN - SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB
HILL.
[I
LI
Public Present:
Name Address
Marc Simcox
Diane & Randall Schwartz
Joanne Dake
Bob Hansen
Michael Reid
Jim Donovan
Jim Emmer
Tom Wilder
Mike Prebble
21600 Lilac Lane, Shorewood
1377 Ithilien
1336 Ithilien
1344 Ithilien
1328 Ithilien
Chanhassen
Chanhassen
Shorewood
1352 Ithilien
Bob Generous presented the staff iiepoit on this item.
Mancino: I have a couple very quickly. The accepted grading is due to dwelling type? Is
due to what?
Hempel: Well the street is proposed right up through the hill there to preserve the topography
as well as 10% street grade and ... There's not going to be as much grading probably... staffs
28
1
Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I
December 22, 1995 ,
14180 Trunk Hwy. 5
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
612 - 937 -5150
FAX 612- 937 -5822 ,
Robert Generous, Planner II
City of Chanhassen '
690 Coulter Drive, P.O.Box 147
Chanhassen, Mn 55317 ( F' Q X' 937- 5739
Re: de Lancey Subdivision (Lotus Glen), Chanhassen, Mn Ref: 95297
Dear Robert: I
Based on our telephone conversation, the following information has been discussed:
1. We have agreed to include the additional 10' bluff zone on Lots 4 and 5 even though the
gradient does not meet the 30% ordinance requirements.
2. Thcre will not be an additional 30' setback on the sides of the bluff zone.
3. We are requesting a variance to place a home within the 30' bluff setback on lot 9. The main
reason for this request to separate this proposed home from the existing adjacent house.
4. We request to have the drives for lot 1 and 2 as shown on our submittal. Attached, please find
a grading plan (concept) for those two drives. We have reviewed the horizontal and vertical
site distances, and find that they meet 30 mph state standards. Frontier Trail is horizontally on
an tangent, and the vertical profile is at the top of a slight vertical curve. (see attached aerial '
photo).
5. We have re- calculated the proposed tree loss on the site (including the S.E. corner as canopy
cover) and conclude that we are at approximately 57 %. This is approx. 2% above the 55%
required (see the attached graphic). '
I have spoken to Dave Hemple about the pond design process. Dave has indicated that the City would like
to construct a two stage pond that may extend off the subject property. He is going to follow up on that
information. If you need any other information from us prior to the January 3rd meeting, please give me a
call. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. ,
Dwight K. Jellc
Principal
RECEIVED
copy: Ted do Lancey
Ed Hasek, WPS r g , ,
901] 1995
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Westwood Professional Services. Inc. is an eaual 0Do0rtani1V emolover
0 1:1
Z
iL
A
I&
V
b._
1 1 � � 1 '•yl� 'II 2 'K ♦ ,,� ? \1
4
we
SUBJECT PROPERTY
`9
we,
"
*4
- low
City of Chanhassen Air Ph— -1 989
Total site area — b-1049 I
Total canopy cover— 1.94c. C �
Min. canopy cover requ'd—
BASELINE CANOPY COVERAGE
LOTUS GLEN
Scale ; 1*=100'
X.
VIC v
. r�} \ ' �.� ��a'd��a�k �. " �1��1 _ R
N
UNT
�
777`:77:�,lf
4'
V
' �a �y�� �" t��jX' � �� \��� �✓i�ti� � fa d � ice'" w �� ,�c���L e �„� 4 \�.�� r � .
4N
SUBJECT PROPERTY
A
LY
Total site area —
Total canopy cover
Canopy removal —
Canopy remaining —
V
M
fi�e,, � � \ � ��
0 • City of Chanhassen Air Photo, 1989
7. Ca9�� �
3.�AG. ��}7.`i�s�
4• C�aG • 5 �
LPANVrT REMOVAL
LOTUS GLEN
Scale ; 1-100'
9
ST
SEME EL x O
0
Ox 1 1 (3AVH 114
t 1
-K
x B '.;S 4.
;SKI
x
x (71 CH
x ' �G SIFI
942
x
GA. I 'l 5
ASH I
944
x
x MAA 1,3
946 GA 11 3
C SH - 1
n I �� X
AP 24 G 'H 1 e'
GfSH 16
x
SH
'Z>9 4. PB p
IM / x GA
G
Ile
950— t BA j gL. �Z G SHF
A J .1
�j, x
S X GAS H 1
'1 2 REDOAK 20
X)At
Ft .DOAK 5
R. DOAK V
W Westwood
W-t—d Pl.f-li—1 S.rA..,, 1- 1000
14180 West Trunk Hwy. 5
Eden Prafric. MN 55311
612 93-5150 1 /-\ -1 . 17 ^'I C, I
Catherine & Andrew Hiscox
7500 Erie Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
January 10, 1996 1
2. When looking at the preliminary plat, it is clear that lot nine has a proposed pad that is too close to the
existing structure at 7500 Erie Avenue. At the last planning commission meeting, the preliminary plat was
approved with conditions that the side setback closest to 7500 Erie will be 20 feet (instead of 10 feet),
and that a variance to the bluff protection ordinance be granted for lot nine. We are concerned that the
setback ordinance only considers whether the orientation is a side or rear setback from the perspective
of a new property, not an existing property. In other words, the new property's east - facing side yard
setback, is 7500 Erie's west - facing rear yard setback. We can't change our backyard, but the city could
approve a solution to this problem by requiring a comfortable setback on lot nine. Rear yard setbacks are
30 feet, and we would ask that the city consider this requirement for the east -side setback on lot nine.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
Catherine & Andrew Hiscox I
cc Ted DeLancey I
Chanhassen City Council
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Dear Mayor Chmiel and City Council Members:
We are writing with regard to the DeLancey preliminary plat that is to be considered by the council in the
near future. At the first two planning commission meetings that considered this plan, we verbally raised
the following two concerns. We thought it might be helpful for the council to see our concerns in writing:
1. The eastern portion of the plat shows a private drive that runs along the western boundaries of three
existing properties. By making this a private drive, all of the setback requirements for a public road are
avoided. We have asked for a "buffer zone" from the existing properties' back yards, as this road could
potentially come within 15 feet of an existing structure, if it was positioned directly on the property line.
Evergreen trees of some sort would make an appropriate buffer along the backyards of the properties.
There is a ten foot Northern States Power utility easement that runs along this boundary. We assume that
the planting of a vegetation buffer is not recommended within an overhead utility easement. Therefore,
we think a ten foot vegetation buffer that is planted to the west of the ten foot utility easement seems
very reasonable. This is also consistent with the developers stated intent to blend in with the existing
neighborhoods and topology.
2. When looking at the preliminary plat, it is clear that lot nine has a proposed pad that is too close to the
existing structure at 7500 Erie Avenue. At the last planning commission meeting, the preliminary plat was
approved with conditions that the side setback closest to 7500 Erie will be 20 feet (instead of 10 feet),
and that a variance to the bluff protection ordinance be granted for lot nine. We are concerned that the
setback ordinance only considers whether the orientation is a side or rear setback from the perspective
of a new property, not an existing property. In other words, the new property's east - facing side yard
setback, is 7500 Erie's west - facing rear yard setback. We can't change our backyard, but the city could
approve a solution to this problem by requiring a comfortable setback on lot nine. Rear yard setbacks are
30 feet, and we would ask that the city consider this requirement for the east -side setback on lot nine.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
Catherine & Andrew Hiscox I
cc Ted DeLancey I
I
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
Skubic: Yeah, I just would feel that terracing it should be explored a little bit under the
remote chance that we could come up with a plan here that preserves the tree and also
provides for a safer environment.
Farmakes: Alright, thank you.
Drew Clausen: I know maybe I'm not supposed to say anything but what was just approved?
Farmakes: What was just approved was that we made a recommendation to the City Council,
based on the staff report. We have 3 to 1, with 1 abstention voted on the second issue of the
recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend the approval for the request to
remove the 29 inch oak. We modified 2 to, you'll have to check the exact Minutes. Off the
top of my head explaining to you that the mix of plantings be modified than what is
recommended here and that staff work that out to basically mix some evergreen situation with
the deciduous trees. This issue will go before the City Council then with our
recommendation and then they have the final decision. If you want to check with that, check
with staff as to when that's going to City Council, we'll let you know.
[J I
n
u
TED DELANCEY FOR A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.9
ACRES INTO 9 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
AND LOCATED AT 7505 FRONTIER TRAIL LOTUS GLEN.
Public Present:
Name Address
Andrew Hiscox
Ted & Kathy deLancey
Charles R. Stinson
Dwight Jelle
7500 Erie Avenue
7505 Frontier Trail
Minnetonka
Eden Prairie
Bob Generous presented the staff repot on this item.
Farmakes: Does anyone have any questions of staff?
Peterson: How substantially would the houses have to be moved away from the bluff...?
Generous: It was just a quarter of that one on Lot 4, is it? This lot right here, that was in
the setback area so they couldn't ... And otherwise, all the other building pads were outside of
that side area.
1
19
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1
Farmakes: Anyone have any further questions of staff? Alright, this is a continuation of a
public hearing. Comments have already been made but we'll hear further comments if anyone
wishes to make any. From the applicant.
Ted deLancey: I'm Ted deLancey and we'd like to make some brief comments here if we
may. In trying to prepare for tonight's presentation, we were here the first week in December
and there are two members on the Planning Commission who were not here at that time so
they were not able to hear what we had to say at that time. So I thought well this is no
problem. They'll just review the notes. The Minutes and I have done that and all of the
comments that were made by our team are not there because there was a mechanical failure
so if you'll excuse me, the three that are here, I won't belabor it but I want to make a few
quick comments if I may. First of all, what I want you to know is that we are not
commercial developers. We are landowners just like yourselves. We want to stay here.
We've been here. My parents bought this piece of property in 1939. I bought it from them.
As I pointed out in the original meeting, my father was a great tree lover and he originally set
the first dimensions of the property by I'll take that tree and that tree so we drew incorrect
lines to get it. So our interest in the trees and our interest in the property goes back a long
'
time. We, Kathy and myself, who is here, it is our intention to stay on this piece of property.
Now Ladd Conrad said earlier, it seems that it all comes around sometime. People with land
develop their property and there's a stimulus to do that. And our stimulus is that we have to
do something in repair work for the property that we have and it could be substantial so I
said, if we can trade the land for a new home with a, in a perfect world, zero increase in
expenditures, that's what we would like to do. So that's what we're trying to do and I wanted
you to know that we are going to stay here whether we get approval or not, we'll just leave it
the way it is. Now I would like to, we've got part of the reason this piece of property is
unique is the topography and the trees that are on it. It has been my feeling for a number of
years, this is a piece of property that requires somebody who has a deep appreciation for the
aesthetics of the property rather than just coming in and developing a piece of, a flat farm
field. So what we have done is, we've looked around for years and we liked this particular
architect but we're not choosing him to be involved with the land because of the homes we
like so much as the fact that we were very impressed a few years ago when we saw a piece
'
of property that he did and how he nestled and gently built the property right into the
topography of the land. And right adjacent to it, at the same time where they came in and
just clear cutted and brought a bulldozer and put up a very, very nice home, but certainly not
the appreciation for the land. When we saw that we said, we've got to get in touch with this
man and have him try and develop our property. So with that as a brief introduction, I'd like
to turn the meeting over at this time to Chuck Stinson, who is the architect and have him
carry the ball. And then also Dwight Jelle, who is a principle in Westwood, will follow up
on technical questions and if I may, after they are through, I would like the opportunity to
address you again for just a moment. Is that possible?
20 1
r.
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
Farmakes: That's fine.
Ted deLancey: Thank you.
Charles Stinson: Hello. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm an architect and ... as a land
planner. My office is in Deephaven. Just to kind of go back. As Ted had mentioned, we
started working together, and some of you know that. I think it was 3 or 4 years ago, in
working with the city along the way and we've had several meetings. Some very preliminary
meetings some time ago. The unique thing about the project I get involved in a number of
different projects in Minnesota and some occasionally out of state. And it is rare to have a
project that it isn't, what do you do to get maximum density out of the project, and the only
time I don't do that is when someone's, or when I have a chance not to do that, I'm not forced
to it, it's when someone has a real identity to the project, that's going to stay there, which in
this case the deLancey's do, if we can make it work out. But financially to do that, the plans
that he had before that, with the density where I think they are trying to put 23 lots on there
and Ted and Kathy didn't like that because of what it did to the property and the respect they
had. So we took, we really took our time here and I don't know how many hikes going out
there and coffee and donuts you know at the house and with realtors and with builders
because it really, it has to work from a lot of different ways. It has to work financially
because the other way was a no brainer. Getting the lots in... Doing it this way, it had to be
a consistency of architecture. A clientele that's a small client base that kind of follows the
work that I do with Streeter and Associates, but there had to be a continuity and they had to
know that there's going to be control of all the neighborhood and that there's going to be a
real consistency and respect for the nature and for the site. So after hiking it for a long, long
time, and being that we had the meeting Frontier Trail at the bottom. Access at the top. And
the topography, this being, if I stand away can everybody hear me? Is this being kind of a
natural low area here. This being quite a bit higher on the top and as, you know we had
roads going through here. For a long time we tried to get a road going through here and it
was just so devastating because... created a catch area here for the retention area ... and along
the site can actually slope so as studying this, I started thinking of it not just from the
engineering and how do you get the lots, etc, but from the point of view of the architecture so
I created architectural small houses actually of different variations that I've done before just
because I knew how they would work. Where the public areas were. Private areas in
relationship to the garage. Living areas, kitchen and light and the views. Trying to create a,
like every house was the complete house even whether there are any neighbors or not. When
it was completely built and everybody showed a privacy. So entering the site was a sense of
kind of a, not a monument but a change in the pattern of the pavement going across a couple
small fins and stone to have a, to work with the architecture. It seemed, this is the site that
Ted and Kathy live on now and they're connected to it so that's where their house would be.
Then breaking off the higher lots, all houses going across here. This one sliding in the, kind
21
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1
Charles Stinson: The recommendation to turn down the variance. Where we see what's been
determined as the bluff, we've moved it back to respect the actual bluff line. What we'd like
to do is build that point of the architecture into the bluff setback area. That gets us beyond
22
1
of the inbetween but having private areas. Looking out here and across the property and
these being a high ground, there's existing fill that's been here for years. In coming up here
allowed this house to look towards the pond, up into all the trees we're saving here. This one
is a well series of drives, coming in and hooking here and to the back undeveloped area. And
we looked at very seriously, from our last commission meeting, what it would be like coming
in through the bottom. It could be the amount of trees we left and the fact that these homes
then would be looking onto another driveway and reflection of the cars coming and going,
and we looked seriously at the extra cost of doing a pre -cast garage so we could raise up the
grade and we wouldn't have to manipulate the ground very much. We came back and feel
ever stronger that this is what we like. I think it's great that we have a flexibility in case
someone may feel different about it in the future but I think this is the most sensitive to the
piece of property. Again, you know given the zone that we have with a bluff line here,
which we do, we are respecting that and with everything said and done, the houses will just
slide in ... undisturbed. Up at the top piece of the property, we'd like to do some landscaping
here. Leaving a natural buffer for the homes here and then into the last one, the sensitive
one. When we did the studies and as we were involved in the earlier meetings with the city,
each of our plans actually had the house in this location which to me was actually another 30
feet down the hill, which probably would be, excuse me. This is a little hard to see but this
is a drawing that shows the, if I can get the orientation the same way. This is that same lot
showing the property... back in here. There is a neighbor here with a house that's very close
to that property line and there's a lot that's been approved that actually is probably about 15
feet farther down the bluff line than where we're proposing to do it here. Maybe off a little
bit but that idea. The concern we have about moving it off, as part of it is the value of the
property, it's a fine line to try to make this all fall off and these are the most valuable. The
other thing is by moving the house, because of the shape back to that point, and if it would
just go to the bluff line and not exceeding it but just using the setback area, we keep more of
'
a distance away from this piece of property. We do it within architecture sites that I do all
the time. And we've never had any erosion problem and actually instead of having the house
sitting out kind of jammed in this triangle, closer to this, we're doing a house that's kind of
sitting out in the middle of this area looking towards the woods instead of trying to do natural
architecture where the architecture and the woods really integrate together. So it actually it
will disappear from the neighbors and be a much more desirable piece of property. And I
guess that's about it. If you have any questions about any of the land planning or locations.
Conrad: I like what you said Charles but based on what you said, does that put you at odds
with any of the recommendations in the staff report?
Charles Stinson: The recommendation to turn down the variance. Where we see what's been
determined as the bluff, we've moved it back to respect the actual bluff line. What we'd like
to do is build that point of the architecture into the bluff setback area. That gets us beyond
22
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
the neighbor's houses, the lot lines, etc. And there's a ton of trees there and what we'd be
adding in front of it and around it, at least there would be a transition of heights ... new ones.
Big ones...
Peterson: If you moved it back to what the staff is recommending, do you have any sense of
how far you'd be from that current house?
1
Charles Stinson: Well, the amount that we have left over, and you can see it from this one, is
a relatively small triangle. It would be forced to put it very close to that property line. I
think our setback, we're only required 10 feet or something. And that house, I believe the
neighbor's here, but do you know how far your house is from that property line?
Andrew Hiscox: It depends on which part. Part of it's 20 feet, part of it's about, it comes in
at an angle so it's hard to tell.
Charles Stinson: The closest point it looks like about 7 to 10 feet.
Andrew Hiscox: Yeah.
Charles Stinson: So it's very close. And I think from both, it's a win /win for both parties to
get the living spaces away from each other. In this case, you know to back in. And again
we will still be farther up the hill than the house, than the lot that's just been approved this, I
think this last year.
Ted deLancey: If I may. Andrew has a piece of property right adjacent to the home which
cleared Planning and Council in February of '94 and had an extension. The last extension
was in August of '95 and at that time there was no bluff consideration. My understanding, if
I may, there was a bluff ordinance but what I was told was, that the staff and city was not
enforcing the bluff ordinance north of Highway 5 at that time. They are now enforcing the
ordinance north of Highway 5. What we're asking for is simply to be able to place that house
in exactly the same location that Andrew has his building pad that has not gone ahead as far
as building the final plat is supposedly...
Farmakes: Ted, if you have comments we need to have you come to the podium so that we
can, we're recording these issues and it makes it much easier for us to make the Minutes if
we follow that criteria.
Ted deLancey: I'm sorry. Okay. I apologize.
Farmakes: Continue if you have a comment.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1
Charles Stinson: No. Any more questions?
Farmakes: Any comments from the commissioners?
Peterson: One more question. One of the items we brought up last time was the buffering on
the northerly edge there. Between the houses. The current houses and the new ones off the
road. Has any discussions been made relative to that point?
Charles Stinson: No. I think it was, the comment was brought up by staff and the Council
last time that it's going to be obvious that whoever builds here is going to want to do
something. I think it's a very difficult thing to try to say, do this type of-when they may
want to do something else. I think... landscaping is a large project that doesn't get thrown out
at the end. I think we can clearly say that something will be done and it will be substantial
and that's all.
Farmakes: Thank you.
Charles Stinson: Thank you.
Farmakes: Does the applicant have anything further to present?
Ted deLancey: Yes. As I said I want to, and actually I apologize for making it so long but
that was one of the comments that I wanted to make but the fact that we are asking to locate
the home on that Lot 9 at the same level as the home which is 80 feet to the east of this
which was approved, as I said, Andrews property was approved in August of last year. The
property on the other side of us, which is right, where am I? Yeah, right here. The old
Forcier property. If you will recall that property. That also was approved for final plat in
August of '95 and there was no bluff situation taken into consideration there and the
topography would indicate there's a bluff. I would also like to say, just for your information,
in the many revisions we've had on this, between Lot 4 and 5, which is in question because
of the bluff as Bob pointed out to you. We dropped a home in this area because of that
'
consideration and of course as you know, those get to be a costly project. The home that
Andrew has at 958, the instructions from the city, you people, was not to build below 958
and that's what we're asking for so we can move away from his. If I may, I'd like to just say
one thing while I have the opportunity and I know this is going to sound like I'm trying to
sell too hard. I'm asking Ladd Conrad to back me up. The only time I was ever, that I
recall, in front of the Planning Commission, and I know Ladd's been on it as long as I've
t
been here almost... quite a length of time. It's when I was representing the city when Kate
was handling the lake access thing and I made the statement then, as I do now, and that is
that I really want to express my appreciation and our appreciation, as well as I think the other
24 1
Planning _
a nmg Commission Meeting January 3, 1996
people's appreciation, for the time that you people spend which is not compensated and I
really think that those of us who are member of the community owe you a big debt. Now I
will say that even if you don't grant us the variance but that's what I ... meeting some years
ago. Okay, thank you.
Farmakes: Thank you. Are there any members from the public who wish to come forward
and make any comments on this?
Andrew Hiscox: Sure. My name's Andrew Hiscox. I've been referenced here a couple times
this evening as the sort of approved lot that's 80 feet away from where one of the houses is.
As I said last time at the school building, I think this is a great plan. I think they've done an
excellent job. They've obviously spent a lot of time trying to make it aesthetically pleasing...
I applaud their efforts, as they could have done something quite a bit different and probably
gotten it approved. That may not... I do however have an issue and that is the same one I
referenced last time and that is, if you look at these houses, they all look really nice. They
all fit in very well with the topography except for one and that's the one next to my house. If
you look at all the other setbacks and where they are compared to the lot lines, they're all
pretty far away. Look nice. There's lots of room except for right here and this corner, my
house is literally right there. I mean we're 20 feet away. Or I should ask, how far do you
think the house...?
Charles Stinson: This corner probably would be 20 feet from the property line plus whatever
distance your's is. That's just the corner. And the other way, the whole house would be 10
feet away.
Andrew Hiscox: ...variance.
Charles Stinson: But the other thing just, again this is Charles Stinson talking again. This is,
originally we wanted the house, over the last few years to be down the hill another 30 feet.
This is the biggest parcel that we have on the property with the tightest restrictions. So it is
the largest piece of property.
Andrew Hiscox: Okay, thanks. Can I get maybe staffs comments on this? How do you feel
about it, and I guess I'm talking about... where you think that house should go because, and I
have a personal interest here. I'm trying to figure out, can we make this happen so that I
don't have to look at this house where I didn't have to look at it before and they don't have to
look at me. And if it means giving them the variance they're asking for, I guess I'd say let's
do that. I've got a vested interest, right?
r
25
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
1
Aanenson: I'll try to separate my opinion from fact but when you build a house in this
community it's pretty rare that you can build a house without looking at somebody else. I
mean that's just the way it is. I think they've gone extra measures to try to prevent that but if
the two property is zoned compatibility, technically they can be 10 feet along, as Mr. Stinson
indicated, be 10 feet parallel. So we'd have 20 foot separation. That's standard throughout
the city if you go through normal subdivisions. I think they've gone through, gone the extra
effort to try to minimize the impact to you and to themselves too by angling the house. The
concern that we would have, obviously is what that does to the slope setback. As Dave
indicated, they're not in the slope itself but they're into the setback. Is it better to have the
homes closer together? Again this is the largest lot. Or is it better to try to push it away
from one property owner and into the slope protection area. That's a hard one to gauge.
Obviously our preference was to try to keep it away. And certainly they want to minimize
the impact because there's price and value associated with trying to minimize the impact to
you and to everybody else. Just to clarify one thing. I know Bob wanted to clarify too what
Mr. deLancey said. When we extend a plat, preliminary plat such as the Forcier, and your's
included, any new conditions that, or any new ordinances that are passed, they are bound to.
So even though those two plats were approved, when they were extended, there's a condition
that says any new ordinance, that they would have to be in compliance with. So they do
have the same conditions that this plat would have as far as the setback. That's something
that the staff is bringing to the Planning Commission for consideration. What do you think is
more important? Protection of the slope or the impact and maybe, you know again we're
back to that square peg in a round hole. Maybe that style house doesn't necessarily work and
as a representation, who's to say that someone buying that is going to do that exact house.
And again unless you put a condition on there that says the setbacks are 10 feet. Okay,
unless there's an agreement mutually acceptable that says we agree that we're going to put it
20 feet, if some homeowner comes in and that lot's approved and they want to put it 10 foot
from the property line, there's nothing we can do to prevent it as long as they're not in the
setback requirement. You would have to have mutually acceptable covenants or something
that said we, under a covenant agreement, are agreeing to go beyond that. If they come in for
a building permit and they meet the underlying standards, we approve it. And that's when the
problem comes in and you with expectations that this is what the house is going to look like.
There's no guarantee that that's, whoever buys that lot is going to build that home. So I think
you have to be aware of that.
Andrew Hiscox: That's kind of interesting. You brought something up that I guess I'd like to
clarify. It's a little bit off the subject. I'm approved... What I just heard you say was, I haven't
gotten the final yet. I'm supposed to do it in February, and we might actually have to ask for
another extension based on some legal issues. Am I understanding that I can't build it on...?
26 1
I
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
Generous: Well we'd have to review it to determine that you meet the bluff ordinance, which
is now in effect city wide.
Andrew Hiscox: Where, if the bluff ordinance, I didn't meet it or whatever. If it went the
wrong way for me let's say, what would happen?
Generous: You may be required to have a bigger setback from that 952. It might be, you
might not meet the, the technical definition is that 30% slope and at 25 foot of grade or
elevation change. You have to have both of those conditions in place before our bluff
protection ordinance kicks in. At the time that your plat originally came in, that ordinance
didn't apply to your property. Now it does.
Aanenson: Right. That's the problem if you don't, you've got one year where the rules apply.
After one year, you know that's kind of your grace period you need to record it by. Back to
this issue, does everybody understand what I was saying on that as far as, unless there's
mutual acceptability, unless there's restrictive covenants, they go with the underlying zoning.
The underlying zoning on the RSF on the side yard setback is 10 feet. So unless there's some
other mechanism to insure that that's the representation on the bluff, you would give the bluff
setback so I just wanted to make sure that that's clear.
Andrew Hiscox: How would you propose then that you protect the intention? If their intent
is, it's a plan like this that is not...
Aanenson: Sure, there's two tools. One is if they wanted to do some covenants or secondly,
if they're mutually acceptable that say we agree on this lot as a minimum, as long as it's
mutually acceptable, we can put it in the conditions of approval.
Andrew Hiscox: Mutually acceptable to which parties?
Aanenson: To the Planning Commission and the applicant.
Farmakes: Are you finished? Alright, thank you. The applicant's architect would like to
make an additional comment?
Charles Stinson: Yeah, Charles Stinson again. Well if we could get the approved variance
on the top one, we'd be willing to put it that we would keep the, with that variance, that our
house would be at least 20 feet away from that neighboring setback.
Farmakes: Okay.
1
27
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
Aanenson: Did you want to make that a condition of the variance?
Farmakes: Is that an acceptable situation to the city?
Aanenson: Yes.
Farmakes: Is there anyone else that wishes to make comments at this time? Seeing none,
can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Peterson moved, Comad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Farmakes: Comments. Bob.
Skubic: I'm not going to start with the bluff area because I'm not, I haven't digested that and
haven't formed my feelings on that yet.
Farmakes: Before you start Bob. We're actually voting on two issues I believe here. One is
the preliminary plat and private street, is that correct?
Generous: For a private street, correct.
Farmakes: And there's a bluff setback variance also. So if you can comment on both. If you
have any comments. I won't make you.
Skubic: I favor the private drive, the second private off Frontier Trail. I think it fits the
topography nice and I think it works out well. It's a good plan there. And I think that versus
having a private drive run across the lowland there. And also I wish I had more assurance
that there will be buffering between a private drive on the eastern property line and the
adjacent development there.
Aanenson: I think you can probably make it a condition.
Generous: You may add conditions that a landscape buffer be provided along the eastern
property line.
Skubic: That's all I have.
Farmakes: Okay, Don.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
Mehl: I wasn't here in attendance at the last meeting and I'm still trying to figure this out.
I'd like to pass.
Farmakes: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: Well I think it's a real good plat. I like it. I like what staff has done. The issues
that we've been talking about. And boy, that's a tough one. To tell you the truth, 10 to 20
feet is, there's still going to be a house real close and I suppose 10 -15 feet additional would
help but boy, it's still close so we could probably do that before it set in but, what I'm
struggling with because I haven't really dealt with the bluff ordinance, is criteria to move that
house, keep that house away and I don't know what I'm giving up when I allow a variance to
that bluff ordinance. I really have a tough time on that one and I don't know if Kate or Bob,
if you can help me on that one.
Generous: The bluff ordinance basically is protection for erosion control is the biggest issue.
When you build right up to that line, there's a potential, we find out that generally 15 feet
beyond the edge of the house, you're doing construction so you're digging that area and taking
vegetation up. He's probably right. There probably are techniques that they can do to control
that and special construction technique.
Conrad: So potentially, given the purpose of the bluff ordinance, we could put some real
tough constraints in on developing Lot 9?
Aanenson: Sure. If you are leaning towards the variance, then that certainly would be
something you should consider.
Conrad: Yeah. Do you think that these lots, again I, for some reason have a good sense as
to how they're trying to work this as a sensitive developer, architect, what have you, planner,
and that sort of counts with me. But could you see any lot lines changing to solve any
' problems?
Generous: You can change the house style. That's the round peg in the square hole. What
happens if that house gets smaller? You get the separation from the adjacent property. It
moves out of the bluff setback line. But if that second house in moves to the end and that
house moves to that spot. There are alternatives that comply with code.
Aanenson: I guess that's what we're trying to say. Be careful not to be too caught up into
the individual house plans because there is a building envelope and each homeowner as they
buy those lots is going to try to slide within that envelope to maximize their individual needs.
Now if they've done their best to represent what they think what home works best to site and
29
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1
views and that sort of thing but again, when you get individual homeowners, they're going to
have specific needs and they're going to push to the envelope that they can. That's why we
would be concerned to make sure, if you are leaning towards the variance, that there is
specific criteria to mitigate any impact that would be, even though we're not in the slope or in
that setback area.
Conrad: Yeah. If we don't grant the variance, it will pull the house pad back, of course and
so what do we gain? We gain, we didn't grant the variance. We put the houses closer
together.
Aanenson: Correct. +�
Generous: Potentially.
Conrad: Potentially, yeah.
Aanenson: Even if you didn't do it at this point, I mean certainly if a homeowner comes in at
a future date and has a specific plan and then you're looking at a specific plan, that's always a
potential in the future too. I mean they're going forward with it now. r
Conrad: I won't take any more time Mr. Chairman. Tough one for me. I think the plan, the
plat overall is really neat. It's really integrated. I think staff and the applicant have done a
good job. The issue is Lot number 9 and you know, I'm not sure how to handle that. They
certainly can build on that lot and build it within the ordinance. It's just whether the trade off
for allowing a variance is worth it.
Farmakes: Thank you. Craig.
Peterson: I, as it relates to the preliminary plat... I agree with the staff recommendations. As
it relates to the setback, I'm more biased towards I guess keeping the homes farther apart. I
think granting the variances would, as we've discussed earlier, would put restrictions on the
f
building of the home as it relates to potential erosion problems that might occur and putting
those into the motion.
Farmakes: Alright, thank you. M comments are I like this development. I think we're
Y p
looking at I think conceptual homes than we are looking at real homes at this point. I think
that's fine. That's what this is. I think some of the problems that occur here, we're arguing
I
these concepts, or conceptual homes. In talking about 10 foot variances and setbacks and so
on, it disturbs me a little bit that we would create some sort of precedent for that. Ladd had
an idea perhaps for a solution to this. This is a, some of that could be dealt with at the time
30 1
a
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
that these homes are looked at or they come in for an actual ... in looking at the criteria for
some of these variances, usually we look at those when there is no solution or no common
sense solution. So I don't see that in this case, although I like this development a lot. I'm
still concerned about the rationale that we're using for a second entry area off of Frontier
Trail. I'm still not certain as to, we kind of glossed over the explanation of why we don't
need that or why that one would be preferable and it was pretty much, which view comes out
of the house and I'm, Dave do you want to make a comment on that at all before I continue
on here with my comments?
1
t
r
Hempel: Well the applicant's engineer has supplied us with some more information and
looked at the location of the driveway. It is, we feel a safe location for a driveway and the
access onto Frontier Trail. And from this point as you to continue to the north, the slope on
Frontier does increase. So I was comfortable with having a shared or common driveway
access point at this particular location to minimize the access points and due to the slope of
Frontier Trail, this was a much preferred location. I was comfortable with this design.
Farmakes: Alright. On the issue of the bluff, the variance itself. The same comments that I
made pertains to that as well. That being said, does anybody have a motion as a wonderful
solution to this?
Conrad: Oh sure.
Farmakes: Excuse me. Don, did you want to make any further comments on this? Did you
want me to come back to you?
Mehl: Well the only comment is that I went out there and I stopped on Frontier and I spent
some time looking over the area. There's some tremendous contours and changes... going to
be a beautiful area. Really nice development. I guess I also have to agree hearing the points
and so on, I would recommend denial of the variance to the bluff setback.
Farmakes: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion?
Conrad: I will. Let's see where this goes. I'll make a motion the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Lotus Glen, Case #95 -22 SUB of 8.9 acres
into 9 lots, two outlots, a private street and a variance to permit 5 lots to be accessed via one
private street subject to the conditions in the staff report, 1 through 28 with the addition of
two other conditions. Number 29. That the applicant submit a plan for the eastern part of the
property line to protect the neighbor to the east. Boy, that's real open but that's the way it's
going to be. Number 30. Staff to develop strict criteria that would allow for building a home
31
L�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
on Lot 9 that would negate the impact of building on the bluff due to our granting a variance
to the bluff setback requirement.
Farmakes: Motion's been made. Do I hear a second?
Skubic: Second.
Farmakes: Second being made. We'll vote.
Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
piieliminaiy plat foi• Lotus Glen ( 05 -22 SUB) of 8.9 acres into 9 lots and two outlots foc-
private streets and a valiance to permit five lots to be accessed via one private street subject
to the following conditions:
1. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval.
2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance 9 -1.
3. Approved turn arounds must be provided for fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150
feet. Re- submit plan and dimensions pursuant to 1991 U.F.C. Sec. 10.204(d).
4. Additional fire hydrant will be required by Lot 6 and at the entrance off Frontier Trail.
5. Entrance signage must comply with City Code requirements. A separate sign permit
must be submitted for any signage.
6. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property
7. Dwellings on slopes exceeding 25% and dwellings with 102" or more of unequal fill
will be required to be designed by a structure engineer.
8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
the city for review and formal approval.
9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
32
F 1 1
Planning Commission on Meeting - January 3, 1996
Handbook. The applicant shall contact the Natural Resource Conservation Service for a
seed mixture that will be effective in wooded areas.
10. The applicant shall field verify and document the bluff areas on site. The applicant shall
relocate the buildings pads on Lot 9 up away from the bluff to meet setback
requirements.
11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with
the City's SWMP for the City to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The
applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post developed stormwater
calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if
sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design
calculations for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm shall be based on Walker's Pondnet
model. The city will be contracting review of this work to Bonestroo.
12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
13. The applicant shall apply or and obtain permits from Y p o the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources Arm Corps of
Army p Engineers and Minnesota Department
of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
14. The appropriate drain
age and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the utilities and ponding areas.
15. The applicant shall have a wetland delineation report prepared for the site. Wetland
buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland
ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities
and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign.
16. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be
I a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level.
1 33
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
T
19. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
20. The public utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the city utility
standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city
ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review
and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The
plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the city's standard
specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the
construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council.
21. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary right -of -way to achieve a 30
foot wide strip of land lying east of the existing centerline of Frontier Trail. I
22. The applicant shall enter into a cost sharing agreement with the City for reimbursement
of the ponding improvements.
23. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required
for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve.
24. A fifteen foot tree removal limit shall be established around all building pads. Tree
protection fencing shall be installed prior to excavation and grading. Tree removal
limits shall be shown on all building permit surveys. _
25. Applicant must use a trench box for the installation of the water line in order to
minimize impact on canopy coverage.
26. Applicant must submit revised cano pY coverage and removal calculations as well as a
g
revised survey showing the appropriate coverage and removal area.
34 1
17. Existing wells and /or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in
accordance to city and Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations.
18. The proposed single family residential development of 8.7 developable acres is
responsible for a water quality connection charge of $6,960.00 and a water quantity fee
of $17,226.00. These fees are payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat.
Credits will be given to these fees based on the applicant providing for the city's SWMP
requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final plat review.
19. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
20. The public utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the city utility
standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city
ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review
and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The
plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the city's standard
specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the
construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council.
21. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary right -of -way to achieve a 30
foot wide strip of land lying east of the existing centerline of Frontier Trail. I
22. The applicant shall enter into a cost sharing agreement with the City for reimbursement
of the ponding improvements.
23. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required
for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve.
24. A fifteen foot tree removal limit shall be established around all building pads. Tree
protection fencing shall be installed prior to excavation and grading. Tree removal
limits shall be shown on all building permit surveys. _
25. Applicant must use a trench box for the installation of the water line in order to
minimize impact on canopy coverage.
26. Applicant must submit revised cano pY coverage and removal calculations as well as a
g
revised survey showing the appropriate coverage and removal area.
34 1
r
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
27. Park and trail fees are required per city ordinance in lieu of parkland dedication.
28. The bluff area shall be shown on all building permit applications for this subdivision.
29. That the applicant submit a plan for the eastern part of the property line to protect the
neighbor to the east.
30. Staff to develop strict criteria that would allow for building a home on Lot 9 that would
negate the impact of building on the bluff due to our granting a variance to the bluff
setback requirement.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Farmakes: We'll now vote on the bluff setback variance. Do we have to do this as two
issues or just group it as one?
Conrad: I incorporated something that would negate to vote on it.
Generous: Well I had it as a separate motion but he added. Just to clarify you might want to
take. To clarify it you might want to address the second motion or the variance for the bluff
setback separately.
Farmakes: Alright. Would you like to make a motion separately for the bluff setback
variance itself?
Conrad: Could your friendly amendment be attached to that?
Farmakes: Sure.
Conrad: Okay. I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the variance to the bluff setback requirement on this particular case.
Skubic: And I would like to make an amendment to that. That the whole setback on the
eastern side of Lot 9 be 20 feet.
Conrad: Minimum of 20 feet.
Skubic: Minimum of 20 feet.
Farmakes: Is that acceptable?
35
r
Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996
Conrad: Yeah, that is.
Farmakes: Okay. Motion's been made. Is there a second?
Peterson: Second.
Conrad: Discussion? Can we have discussion?
Farmakes: Sure.
Conrad: And probably this is discussion that reflects back on the first motion too.
Aanenson: We'll integrate them.
Conrad: What?
Aanenson: We'll integrate the two.
Conrad: Okay. Just so the staff understands. It's sort of a, I'm looking for no impact.
Aanenson: Right. And I think we wanted that criteria before it goes to Council. Make it
stricken from the motion.
Conrad: Okay. Hey, they can build without the variance and they're not penalized. I'm
looking for your wisdom and if it's not there, you know, then they shouldn't be allowed to do
it so that's sort of the underlining thought that I've got.
Farmakes: Alright. Motion's been made with an amendment. We'll vote on it now.
Com -ad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend appivval of the
valiance to the bluff setback requirement based on the variance findings contained in the staff
report relative to the bluff setback variance request, and subject to the following condition:
1. The setback on the whole eastern side of Lot 9 be a minimum of 20 feet.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
36