1 Lake Lucy RidgeCITY OF
PC DATE: 11/20/01
1/15/02
CC DATE: 1/1~/02
1/28/02
Review Deadline: 2/22/02
CASE #: o1-1o SUB 02-4 LUP^
REZ 01-4 WET 01-3
By: A1-Jaff:v
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
· Rezoning of approximately 18.57 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF,
-.
Residential Single Family
· Preliminary Plat to replat a 7.07 acre Outlot and an 11.5 acre lot (18.57 acres) into ~ ~0 ~
Lz3 21 single family lots and ~ae two outlots, Lake Lucy Ridge
· Wetland Alteration Permit to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland
· Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential LOw Density
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
East of Ashling Meadows, Northwest of Lake Lucy, and South of Lake Lucy
Road, Lake Lucy Ridge, Noecker Development
Noecker Development, LLC
8315 Pleasant View Drive
Randy Noecker (763) 786-6387
1.d
PRESENT ZONING:
RR, Rural Residential District
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
ACREAGE:
Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre)
Residential Large Lot (1 unit per 2.5 Acre Minimum)
Approximately 18.57 acres
DENSITY:
2.3 2.4 Units per Acre Net 1.1 Units per Acre Gross
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 18.57 acres into -2-3 21 single-family lots and
one two outlots. Rezoning of approximately 18.57 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential
to RSF, Residential Single Family. Wetland Alteration Permit to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland.
Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density. Notice of
this public heating has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the
proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning
,, , ~ ~'~lre Z.~/ey l..ane
¥o, cy P
Lak9 LucyI Road
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 2
Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a
quasi-judicial decision.
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning because the City is
acting in its legislative or policymaking capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit is limited to whether or
not the proposed alteration meets the standards outlined in the wetland conservation act and the
city's wetland ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the wetland
alteration. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a land use amendment because the
City is acting in its legislative or policymaking capacity. A land use amendment must be
consistent with the City's goals and policies.
On November 20, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on-thJ, s
application. The applicant was directed to revise the plans by implementing the conditions of
approval. This staff report has been amended. All new information appears in bold.
Impertinent information is struck through.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
-
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 18.57 acres into gg 21 single-family lots and one two
outlots. The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential, and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF,
Residential Single Family. The easterly 7.07 acres of the site is guided Residential Large Lot and
the applicant is requesting a Land Use Plan amendment to re-guide it to Residential Low Density.
The applicant is also proposing to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland.
The average lot size is 18,368 18,114 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.1 units per acre
and a net density of 2.3 2.4 units per acre. The site is located south of Lake Lucy Road, northwest
of Lake Lucy, and east of Ashling Meadows. Access to the subdivision will be primarily provided
via Lake Lucy Road. All lots are proposed to be served via internal residential streets.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to the Residential Single Family District, with the exception of one lot;
however, the lot lines can be easily adjusted to meet ordinance requirements. There is one are two
outlots shown on the plat. Outlots A and B contain wetlands, a proposed trail and storm water
pond.
The site consists of two parcels being assembled into one tract of land, and then subdivided. Two
individuals own these parcels. Outlot A is part of Lake Lucy Highlands (a large lot subdivision
served by an individual septic system and well with a minimum area of 2.5 acres). This outlot is
mainly wetIand. The buildable area on the site is physically separated from Lake Lucy Road by a
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novembcr 20, 200 t
January 15, 2002
Page 3
natural wetland. In the past, the owner of the outlot had attempted to replat it and fill a portion of
the wetland to create a connection between the outlot and Lake Lucy Road. As a condition of
approval of the Lake Lucy Highland subdivision, the applicant was required to demonstrate that a
future structure would be able to meet wetland setback requirements. The applicant did not submit
the required surveys to replat the outlot and the plans never materialized. The current plan
assembles the outlot with the parcel to the west. The westerly parcel contains a single family home
that is proposed to be demolished. Two wetlands occupy the site. The site has bluffs and a
meandering topography.
The site has some mature trees, which the applicant is making an effort to preserve. There are is a
retaining walls that extends into required bluff setbacks. Based on staff's measurements, this
wall encroaches two feet into the required setback. Thcsc This walls must be setback a
minimum of 30 feet from the bluff.
In reviewing this plat, staff also had to look at access to the properties to the west and south.
Ashling Meadows, located west of the site, is currently under construction. Emerald Lane will
connect the two subdivisions. Staff has ensured that the surrounding parcels are not landlocked.
During Phase II of Ashling Meadows, Emerald Lane will be stubbed to the eastern property line.
When Lake Lucy Ridge develops, the street will 'extend to the north and eventually hook up with
Lake Lucy Road. Lucy Ridge Lane will be stubbed to the south to provide access to the property
along the south side of the site. Staff is unaware of any interest in developing that property at this
time.
Staff has been working with the applicant for the past year. The plan has gone through several
changes. The critical issues that staff has been working to resolve are: The amount of grading, the
location of thc trail in the wetland buffcr, and retaining walls in the bluff setback and wetland
buffer. There are still some issues that need to be resolved and we believe they are workable.
Revisions are required which may result in the loss of additional lots. Staff is recommending
moving Lucy Ridge Lane to the east, approx. 80-feet, at the intersection of Emerald Lane;
moving the Block 1 house pads to the east with the road; deleting Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 7
& 8, Block 2. Staff believes the major effect of moving Lucy Ridge Lane and the Block 1
house pads to the east is that it will minimize the severity of the slope grades along the
western property line of the site. This would allow the proposed grading in this area to
better match the existing topography, provide additional area for drainage swales along the
western side of Block 1, and eliminate future problems associated with the lack of a usable
backyard.
We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report.
LAND USE PLAN AME~~NT
The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment to re-guide the easterly 7.07 acres (outlot A)
from Large Lot Residential to Residential Low Density. The outlot is part of the Lake Lucy
Highland subdivision which has a minimum area of 2.5 acres per lot. All homes within that
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 4
subdivision are served with individual septic systems and wells. Outlot A is physically separated
from Lake Lucy Highlands by a wetland to the east and Lake Lucy Road to the north. Both these
elements can be considered natural barriers, allowing Outlot A to fit better with uses proposed west
of the subject site (in this case, Residential Low Density). It is a compatible use and allows
transition to be maintained. Staff is recommending approval of this minor land use amendment.
On the other hand, the existing land use designation of the 7.07 acre outlot is for Residential
Large Lot. This area has been developed with single homes on larger lots. Chanhassen is a
high amenity community. One of the amenities is that we have a range of residential land
uses from large lot to high density. Maintaining this mixture is one of the city's goals. In
addition, the community highly regards its natural environment including trees, slopes,
vistas, and uncluttered open spaces. The development, as proposed, significantly impacts
these features. Lake Lucy Highlands was developed as a Large Lot development and has
maintained that character. The 7.07 acre outlot is regarded as a buffer or an undevelopable
site unless it was demonstrated that a future structure would be able to meet wetland setback
requirements. This language clearly demonstrates that at best, this site would accommodate
two home sites, based upon lot area only. While staff believes that the conversion of this lot
might not have significantly impacted the character of the area, ~the proposed Lake Lucy
Ridge maximizes the number of home sites within this area. Therefore, the Planning
Commission may find that conversion of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large Lot
Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
REZONING
The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential
Single Family. The area to the north, east, and south is zoned Rural Residential. The area to the
west is zoned Residential Single Family. All the surrounding property, with the exception of the
area to the north and east of the subject site, is guided for Residential Low Density. The area to the
north and east is guided Residential Large Lot.
If the City approves re-guiding the easterly 7.07 acres to Residential Low Density, the 2020 Land
Use Plan will show this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units
per acre. Appropriate zoning for this land use is RSF, R4 or PUD-R. The applicant's proposal has
a goss density of 1.1 units per acre and 2.3 2.4 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are
taken out.
Rezoning the 11.5 acre parcel, located east of Ashling Meadows, to Residential Single Family,
RSF, is consistent with the 2020 Land Use Plan which shows the area designated for
development as Low Density Residential.
This area is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and finds
that the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the Land Use Plan is amended to re-
guide the outlot to low density residential.
Lake Lucy Ridge
November 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 5
If the City denies re-guiding the easterly 7.07 acres to Residential Low Density, the 2020
Land Use Plan will continue to show this area designated for development as Large Lot
Density Residential, (2.5 acre minimum). Appropriate zoning for this land use is RR. The
applicant's proposal has lots with an area of less than half an acre. The rezoning of the
property will be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and as such, should not be
approved.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide an 18.57 acre site into 33 21 single family lots. The
density of the proposed subdivision is 1.1 units per acre gross, and 2.3 2.4 units per acre net after
removing the roads and wetlands. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with
an average lot size of 18,368 18,114 square feet.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
for the Residential Single Family District with the exception of Lot g 9, Block 3. This lot has a
8v.u 67.93 feet. The applicant is treating this lot as "a lot on a curve," however, the
width of ~ ~
curve is very slight and would not qualify the lot as one. The ordinance requires a minimum
width of 90 feet. The lot lines can be easily adjusted to meet ordinance requirements. There is one
are two outlots shown on the plat. Outlots A and B will contain wetlands, trail, and a storm water
pond.
Lot 1, Block 1, contains a wetland. Staff is recommending the wetland be platted as an outlot,
similar to outlot A. The ordinance requires all structures to maintain a 40-foot setback from the
outside edge of a wetland buffer strip. The ordinance also requires a buffer zone (0-20 feet wide)
with an average of 10 feet for the wetland located northwest of the site and (10-30 feet wide) with
an average of 20 feet from the wetland located east of the site. The plans fail to show the wetland
buffer. The trail located to the east of the property encroaches into parallels the wetland buffer and
will need to be relocated. A retaining wall is also located along the edge of the wetland. This wall
must be shifted as well. These changes may affect the plat configuration.
As mentioned earlier in the report, there are bluffs on the site. One of these bluffs is located along
the northwesterly comer of the site. The plans reflect a retaining wall within _-2-0 28 feet of the bluff.
The ordinance requires all structures to maintain a 30-foot setback from the edge of a bluff. This
wall must be moved to meet ordinance requirements. The second bluff is located along the
southeast comer of the site. The trail appears to encroach into the 30 foot setback of the bluff.
Again, the trail must be shifted to meet bluff setback requirements. Staff notes that the proposal is
generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the amendment is approved and generally
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance with conditions outlined in the staff report.
If the City denies the Land Use amendment, the rezoning of the easterly portion of the site
must then be denied as well. This will make this plat inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan and therefore, should be denied.
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 6
WETLANDS
Existing Wetlands
Two wetlands exist on-site: one natural wetland and one ag/urban wetland. Aquatic
EcoSolutions delineated the wetlands in May 1996 and reexamined the site on April 26, 2001.
Wetland I is a Type 3 wetland located in the northwest comer of the property, just south of Lake
Lucy Road. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and common cattail. The applicant
is proposing to fill a portion of this wetland in conjunction with the widening of the access road
(Lucy Ridge Lane). The total proposed impact to Wetland 1 is 2,297 square feet (0.05 acres).
The applicant is also proposing the construction of new wetland along the .south side of this basin
for replacement purposes.
Wetland 2 is a Type 4 wetland located east of the upland on the parcel. It extends to the south
from Lake Lucy Road to Lake Lucy (OHW=956.1 MSL). It is dominated by reed canary grass
and common cattail with some lake sedge and a few black willow trees. The applicant is
proposing to fill a portion of this wetland in conjunction with the widening of the access road
(Lucy Ridge Lane). The total proposed impact to Wetland 2 is 2,283 square feet (0.05 acres).
On May 7, 2001, City staff conducted an on-site review of a portion of the wetland delineation.
The on-site review raised questions about the accuracy of the delineation of Wetland 1. The City
met the delineator on-site on May 8, 2001. The conclusion of that site visit was that a portion of
the wetland boundary established by the delineator was inaccurate. Staff recommended the
wetland boundary be changed to be consistent with the findings of the delineator and City staff
from May 8. The wetland boundary shown on the plans is consistent with the staff
recommendation.
Wetland Replacement
The applicant is proposing the construction of 4,910 square feet of new wetland credit (NWC)
adjacent to Wetland 1. Plans submitted to the City do not show wetland replacement at the
required 2:1 ratio. The applicant must demonstrate that an additional 4,250 square feet of NWC
or public value credit (PVC) will be provided to achieve the required 2:1 replacement ratio. (The
wetland permit application indicates that it will be provided, but neither it nor the supporting
plan sheets indicate how.) It appears that the applicant is proposing to use wetland buffers
of at least 16.5 feet in width and/or 75% of the surface area of stormwater ponds to achieve
the necessary 4,250 square feet of public value credit (PVC). The applicant should supply a
narrative that explains how this PVC will be provided. (All wetland buffers to be used as
PVC must be located on "upland adjacent and contiguous to replacement wetlands and
adjacent existing wetlands" (Minnesota Rule 8420.0540, Subp. 2 (D) (5).)
Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans should show a fixed photo monitoring point for the
replacement wetland. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan should be submitted.
The applicant should provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmber 20,2001
January 15, 2002
Page 7
for Replacement Wetland. The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland
impacts occurring.
A wctland buffcr 0 to 20 fcct in width (with a minimum avcragc of 10 fcct) must bc maintained
around Wctland 1 and thc wctland mitigation arca. A wctland buffcr 10 to 30 fcc. t in width (with
a minimum avcragc of 20 feet) must bc maintained around Wctland 2. (Thosc buffcrs considcrcd
for PVC must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 fcct.) Wetland buffer areas should be
preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant
must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins
and must pay the City $20 per sign. All retaining walls must bc locatcd outsidc of requircd buffcr
arcas. Proposcd trails must also bc locatcd outsidc of required buffcr arc. as. All other structures
must maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
LAKE LUCY
The proposed project is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lake Lucy
and is therefore within the lake's shoreland district; however, none of the lots proposed are
riparian lots. Lake Lucy is classified as a recreational development lake by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The minimum tot size is 15,000 square feet and the
minimum lot width is 90 feet. The location of thc OI4~~ has not becn included on the. plans. Thc
OHW must be shown on the plans.
BLUFFS
Two areas on the property have been identified as bluff (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30%
and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). These areas must be preserved. In addition,
all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the
bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top or toe of a bluff).
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
Storm Water Management
The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Stormwater calculations
should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the
proposed development.
Eaxemetlts
Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
Erosion Control
Type IH silt fence should be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as
buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Erosion control blanket
should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. Any disturbed wetland areas should
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20,2001
January 15, 2002
Page 8
be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil
conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately
restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two
weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
Surface Water Managetnent Fees
Water Quality Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this
proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $800/acre.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 12.94 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $10,352.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
citywide 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. This
results in a water quantity fee of approximately $25,621 for the proposed development.
SWMP Credits
This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for
water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be
determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be
applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the
provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated
outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas.
At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $35,973.
Oth er Agencies
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
GRADING
Following the 11/20/01 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, staff took a hard look at the
previous layout of the plat. Staff attempted to come up with a revised plat layout that would take
into account the issues and concerns raised at the PC meeting, i.e. lot size, road alignment,
amount of grading. As such, staff proposed the following to the applicant: moving Lucy Ridge
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmber 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 9
Lane to the east, approx. 80-feet, at the intersection of Emerald Lane; moving the Block 1 house
pads to the east with the road; deleting Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 7 & 8, Block 2.
Staff believes the major effect of moving Lucy Ridge Lane and the Block 1 house pads to
the east is that it will minimize the severity of the slope grades along the western property
line of the site. This would allow the proposed grading in this area to better match the
existing topography. It would also provide additional area for drainage swales along the
western side of Block 1.
In addition, staff recommends that Lot 1, Block I be deleted. The severe rear yard slope
and its close proximity to a wetland make this a questionable lot at best. In the past, staff
has seen numerous problems with lots such as this that have severe rear yard slopes.
Inevitably the homebuyer or builder will want to grade in more of a flat backyard area and
then issues arise with the filling of the nearby wetland, setback problems due to a retaining
wall, or both.
The applicant has decided against implementing staff's revisions to the plat. The applicant
believes that the grading necessary for the revised street alignment would be more
detrimental to the site than what is shown on the current plan. Moving Lucy Ridge Lane
farther to the east would decrease the amount of canopy coverage that is proposed to be-
saved. However, it is staff's opinion that the trade off for better lots in Block 1 and the
possible saving of more significant trees would make for a better development and offset
the additional canopy loss.
The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site elevations
range from a high of 1026+ to a low of 960+. These severe elevation differences combined with
a relatively small area (<15 buildable acres) make this site a challenging one to both develop and
minimize grading. As such, the developer is proposing to grade the majority of the site. The
area for the lots in the western portion of the site is proposed to be cut from 5 to 10 feet while the
eastern portion of the site will be filled from 10 to 15 feet for the house pads along the wetland.
Steep slopes are proposed along the southwest and west property lines of the site to match with
the existing topography. Small retaining walls (maximum of 4 feet) could be employed along the
western side of the lots in Block 1 to increase the area provided for drainage swales. Also, staff
recommends that Lots 1-5, Block 3 be designed with more of a usable backyard area. This
could be accomplished by revising the grading plan to provide a 10:1 slope for the first 20-
feet off the back of the house pads in this area.
The applicant is proposing to grade offsite to the west for the construction of Emerald Lane,
which will connect this proposed development with the Ashling Meadows development. Staff
has previously met with the applicant and the Ashling Meadows developer to try and come to
some agreement on both the location and elevation of Emerald Lane. Following the meeting, a
mutual compromise was agreed upon for Emerald Lane and the current plan shows this. In
addition, the Ashling Meadows developer agreed to sign a temporary easement allowing the
applicant to grade on Ashling Meadows property. The proposed and existing contours along the
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 10
common property line within the Ashling Meadows site must bc have been shown on the
grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage will work.
The site contains two existing bluffs; one in the northwest corner and one in the southeast corner
of the site. The structure setback from each bluff is 30 feet. This will require that the retaining
wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or moved. Thcrc is also a grovc of various trocs in
the east central portion of thc site. All trees that arc proposed to bc saved must have tree
prcscrvation fcncing around thcir pcrimetcrs.
The applicant is proposing to grade the entire site at once. If importing or exporting material for
development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with
detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. Staff would also rocommcnd that thc applicant
rcvisc Lot 1, Block 2 from a walkout structure to a lookout. This would help alleviate thc e×tcnt
of thc steep slope in thc rcaryard and promote better drainage.
DRAINAGE
The majority of the existing site drains from a high point in the southwest corner of the property
toward wetlands in the northwesterly and easterly portion of the site. On the drainage plan, the
applicant is proposing to collect all of the street and front yard stormwater and transport it to a
pond in the north central portion of the site. The pond will treat the stormwater before
discharging into the existing wetland. The pond must be has been designed to National Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) standards with 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the normal
water level. Staff recommends that the proposed outlet structure of the pond bc moved to the
easterly cnd of thc pond to prcvcnt short circuiting and to outlet the water to thc castern wetland.
This would better follow thc proposed drainage pattern shown in the City's Surface Water
Managcmcnt Plan.
Pre- and post-development ponding calculations have been submitted for the site. Staff has
reviewed the calculations and found that additional information and revisions only minor
modifications are necessary. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the
calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and
utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage
system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The
minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type BI
erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the
existing wetlands. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep,
Lake Lucy Ridge
November 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 11
rear yard slopes of those lots in the west and southwesterly portions of the site. In addition, a 75-
foot rock construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road.
UTILITIES
Currently, there is no public sanitary sewer available to the site. The nearest sewer line is
approximately 600 feet west of the site within the Ashling Meadows development. This sanitary
sewer will be extended to the Emerald Lane property line with the second phase of the Ashling
Meadows development. Staff expects this to happen in the summer of 2002. Additionally, the
applicant has previously petitioned the City to extend the sewer as part of a public improvement
project. Staff believes that the sewer extension should be a developer driven project, especially
when the project is planned within a year. In the absence of the sewer, the applicant has
requested to install the sanitary sewer through the Lake Lucy Ridge site and leave a stub pipe for
the Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition development to connect to. Staff has no objections to this
scenario as long as the applicant is aware that no building permits will be allowed until the
sanitary sewer is functional.
The City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan shows the proposed development and. neighboring
properties to the east as being serviced within the same sanitary sewer subdistrict. As such, sm-fi-
is recommending that a sanitary sewer manhole be extended to Lake Lucy Road to service future
development from the cast. In addition, the proposed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed
to serve this development and the neighboring properties to the east. Any oversizing of the sewer
forcemain or lift station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this development, will be a City
cost.
Municipal water is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The applicant is proposing to
connect to the existing water stub and extend watermain throughout the site. In the future, the
watermain from this development will be connected to the watermain from Ashling Meadows 2nd
Addition. Staff will perform a more detailed review of the utility layout at the time of final
platting. Additional hydrants and/or water valves may be required at that time.
The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously assessed for one
water hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not been paid. Staff is
recommending that the two previously assessed connection charges, which total $8,288 $8,670
(200 ! 2002 rates), be respread over the -24 21 newly created lots. In addition, each newly created
lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of $1,322 $1,383 and $1,723 $1,802
(~aa~ 2002 rates), respectively. Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer
interceptor charge of $1,011 $1,057 and a sub-trunk charge of $$28 $866 will also be due on
each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived
contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are
due at the time of building permit issuance.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 12
specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to
enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the
conditions of final plat approval.
STREETS
There is one current access available for the site off of Lake Lucy Road. In the near future, the
proposed stub street to the west, Emerald Lane, will be extended when Ashling Meadows 2nd
Addition develops. This will provide a secondary access to/from the site. In addition, a street
access has been provided for future development to the south.
Ovcrall Except for the previously mentioned revision to Lucy Ridge Lane, the proposed
street layout appears to work well. The entire street system is shown within a 60-foot wide
public right-of-way with 31-foot wide streets. As stated earlier, the site has some major grade
changes. Staff has worked with the applicant to meet the City's maxirnum allowable street grade
of 7%. The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h.
design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed. In addition, a temporary
cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the south end of Lucy Ridge
Lane and the west end of Emerald Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended
in the future.
PARK DEDICATION
PARKS
Neighborhood Park needs for the proposed gg 21-lot subdivision would be served by the existing
Pheasant Hill Park. The park is located just north of the site on Lake Lucy Road. In the future,
residents will have access to Greenwood Shores and Lake Ann Parks.
TRAILS
A trail segment identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan has been included on this plat.
Howcvcr, the alignment as currently depicted, is not acceptable. The following conditions nee~
to be met for describe the trail alignment to be which is acceptable.
o
.
A 20-foot trail easement must be is identified.
The trail alignment cannot be is not within the wetland buffer.
The trail easement may abuts lot lines, but the trail alignment must maintains a
minimum 6-foot separation from lot lines.
The pond berm, which the trail crosses, m'~'st maintains a minimum top width of
12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail.
The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of the trail with reimbursement for
material costs being made from the City's Park and Trail Fund. The trail shall be 8 feet wide and
Lake Lucy Ridge
November 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 13
built of bituminous material to city specifications. Full park fees, with one-third being paid at the
time of platting and two-thirds at the time of the individual building permits, shall also be paid.
An internal sidewalk will be located on Lucy Ridge Lane and Emerald Lane to provide
residents access to the trail system.
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
Tree canopy coverage and prcscrvation calculations havc been submittcd for thc Lakc Lucy
Ridgc dcvclopmcnt. Thcy arc as follows:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposed tree preservation
13.11 ac.
30 % or 3.88 ac.
30% or 3.93 ac.
11% or 1.49 ac.
Dcvcloper does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed by ordinance, therefore thc
difference betwecn thc basclinc and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculatc
the required replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage
Multiplier
Total replacement
Total number of trees to be planted
2.44 ac.
1.2
2.9 ac
117 trees
The applicant has submitted a proposal that states that 114 trees will bc planted. The proposal is
short 3 trees.
Staff has reviewed aerial photographs of the site and based on a visual assessment believes that
the proposed percentage of canopy cover and removal are underestimated. Staff is proposing the
following calculations'
Total upland area (excluding wetlands)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposed tree preservation
13.11 ac.
50% or 6.56 ac.
35 % or 4.6 ac.
11% or 1.38 ac.
The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed by ordinance, therefore the
difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate
the required replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage
Multiplier
Total replacement
Total number of trees to be planted
3.22 ac.
1.2
3.73 ac.
155 trees
If the applicant disagrees with staff's proposal, canopy coverage calculations may be re
submitted. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan showing 157 trees to be planted. The
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 14
plan includes a plant schedule, shows the number of trees to be planted on each lot and includes
the buffer yard plantings.
A writtcn proposal outlining thc number of trees that will bc planted on cach lot and thc total
number of trees to bc planted in the dcvclopmcnt has becn submitted. Howcvcr, no landscape
plan that includcs a plant schedulc or visually idcntifies planting locations was submitted.
Buffer yard requirements are as shown in the table:
Landscaping Item
Buffer yard B* - North
property line, 613'
Required
6 overstory trees
12 understory trees
12 shrubs
Proposed
0 overstory trees
0 understory trees
0 shrubs
Applicant docs not mc, ct minimum requirements for buffer yard plantings. The landscape plan
shall bc revised to show thc minimum number of plantings required. The revised landscape plan
shows the required buffer yard plantings.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot I 49,53~1 16,250 g9-3 119.2' 171170' 30'/50'*/30**
10'
Lot 2 16,356 16,229 99.46' 164' 30'/50'*/30*
10'
Lot 3 15,856 16,215 !02 103.64' 156.5' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 4 15,850 16,213 102 104.60' 155 30'/30'
10'
Lot 5 16,721 16,213 95' comer lot 155'157' 30'/30'
160 10'
Block 2
LOt 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
15,682 16,610 90 97' 175' 30'/30'
10'
16,803 16,608 9-7 92.92' 185 184' 30'/30'
10'
16,8d 1 16,608 -1-14 109.56' 172 171' 30'/30'
10'
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 15
Lot4
Block 3
Lot 1
Lot2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot5
Lot6
Lot 7
18,739 18,040 136 112' corner lot
444 135
17,993 16,792 88' on curvc 162.04
162 corncr lot
15,417 16,541 86.8**** 118.64
15,301 16,561 92.32'
15,020 16,877
17,536 20,855
!~ 65.29 on curve
5-3 96.38'on curve
29,315 16,513 112 201.2'
15,638 20,399 94 197.5' corner lot
44¢ 207.41
142'
444 168'
~ '~ 139'
~ <n 136'
.i....., ,,.,,
449 150'
4--59 208'
220 178'
143'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30760**
10'
30'/30'/60'*
10'/30'***
30'/30'/30'**
10760**
30'/30'
iff
LOt 8
Lot9
Lot 10
Lot 11
Lot 12
Lot 13
Outlot A
Outlot B
21,805 17,016 182 94.3' 156'
......°n" 154.16' comer lot
17,637 16,215 94 67.93'*** 150'
158' corncr lot
15,013 17,698 6-3 79.04'on Curve !43.5 172'
16,301 33,381 ¢9 69.13' on curve 162 239'
32,159 22,561 69 90.01' on curve 239 240'
21,597 90' 2'10'
20,716
279,328
3O'/3O'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'***
10'/60'*
30'/30'***
10'/60'*
30'/30'***
10'
The 50-foot setback includes a 10-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a
40-foot structure setback.
The 60-foot setback includes a 20-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a
40-foot structure setback.
The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone.
**** The width of Lot g 9, Block 3, must be adjusted to maintain 90 feet.
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 16
SUBDIVISION- FINDINGS
(All of these findings assume that the City will approve the Land Use amendment and
Rezoning of the 7.07 acre Outlot, located along the easterly portion of the site.)
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
.
3~
o
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District with the exception of Lot ~ 9, Block 3, which can casily be
corrected. The retaining walls must meet bluff and wetland setback requirements.
Wctland buffer must bc shown on thc plans.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision ordinance
with recommended conditions.
The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report.
The 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 nearest sewer line is approximately 600 feet west of the site within
the Ashling Meadows development. This sanitary sewer will be extended to the
Emerald Lane property line with the second phase of the Ashling Meadows
development. Staff expects this to happen in the summer of 2002. Additionally,
the applicant has previously petitioned the City to extend the sewer as part of a
public improvement project. Staff believes that the sewer extension should be a
developer driven project, especially when the project is planned within a year. In
the absence of the sewer, the applicant has requested to install the sanitary sewer
through the Lake Lucy Ridge site and leave a stub pipe for the Ashling Meadows
2nd Addition development to connect to. Staff has no objections to this scenario as
long as the applicant is aware that no building permits will be allowed until the
sanitary sewer is functional.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Lake Lucy Ridge
November 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 17
Finding: The proposed subdivision will cause some environmental damage,
however, staff is recommending some modification to the plans to minimize
impacts. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate
house pads.
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.
The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
ao
Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
Lack of adequate roads.
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets
subject to finding in 4/4.
REZONING FINDINGS
(These fi~dings assume that the Planning Commissio~ will recommend approval of the Land Use
amendment.)
The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible
adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding
them are:
1.
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area.
.
The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance if conditions outlined in the staff report are met.
.
The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 18
5~
The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity.
Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the
property.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On November 20, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this
application. The applicant was directed to revise the plans by implementing the conditions of
approval. The issues and concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting, included lot
size, road alignment, and amount of grading. The applicant was directed to examine and
comply with the conditions of approval in the staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, and
wetland alteration permit; however, changes based on conditions of approval may alter the design of
the plat. The commission may want to review thcse changes, thercforc recommend tabling this itcm.
Should thc commission wish to approvc thc roqucst, then: (Due to timeline restrictions, the
Planning Commission must act on this application at the January 15, 2002 meeting.)
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motions:
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Land Use Plan Amendment g01-4 to re-guide
Outlot A from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density, for Lake, Lucy Ridge as shown on
thc plans dated rcccived October 2/I, 2001."
Should the Planning Comntission recommend denial of the Land Use Amendment, the
rezoning of the easterly portion of the property becomes inconsistent with the Zoning
Ordinance and the subdivision j~ttdiltgs will change accordingly. Therefore, staff prepared
findings to support denial of the application.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions:
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmber 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 19
"The Planning Commission recommends denial the Land Use Map
Amendment from Residential - Large Lot to Residential Low Density
for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands based on the following:
The existing land use designation of the 7.07 acre outlot is for
Residential Large Lot. This area has been developed with single
homes on larger lots. Chanhassen is a high amenity community. One
of the amenities is that we have a range of residential land uses from
large lot to high density. Maintaining this mixture is one of the city's
goals. In addition, the community highly regards its natural
environment including trees, slopes, vistas, and uncluttered open
spaces. The development, as proposed, significantly impacts these
features. Lake Lucy Highlands was developed as a Large Lot
development and has maintained that character. The 7.07 acre outlot
is regarded as a buffer or an undevelopable site unless it was
demonstrated that a future structure would be able to meet wetland
setback requirements. This language clearly demonstrates that at
best, this site would accommodate two home sites, based upon lot
area only. The proposed Lake Lucy Ridge maximizes the number of
home sites within this area. Therefore, the Planning Commission
may find that conversion of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large
Lot Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent, with the
Comprehensive Plan."
"The Planning Commission denies the rezoning from RR, Rural
Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A,
Lake Lucy Highlands, and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the
following:
1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the
specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be
inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use does not conform to all performance standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The proposed development incorporated the two parcels,
therefore, the proposal can not proceed."
Lake Lucy Ridge
November 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 20
'q'he Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat of Subdivision
01-10 creating twenty one lots for the Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not
complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements."
"The Planning Commission denies the wetland alteration permit 2001-
3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permit being
a part of the Subdivision proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the
Subdivision has been denied due to an inconsistency with the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements."
If the Planning Cotntnission approves the Land Use Atnendment Request, then
REZONING
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #01-4 to rezone 18.57 acres of
property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family, for Lakc Lucy Ridge as
shown on thc plans dated received October 2'I, 2001."
PRELIMINARY PLAT
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision g01-10 for
Lake Lucy Ridge for 42-3 21 lots and one two outlots as shown on the plans received October 2'1
December 19, 2001, subject to the following conditions:
1. Remove retaining wall from the Right of way located north of Lot 8, Block 3.
Shoxv the existing house and accessory structures on the plans.
3. Street lights shall be located at all intersections and at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 1'19 trees to be. planted.
Minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings shall also be met. Applicant shall
rcsubmit canopy coverage calculations if in dispute.
5. Applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the City for approval.
Lake Lucy Ridge
November 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 21
6. A minimum of three overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot.
.
Thc developer shall bc responsible for installing all landscape materials proposc~d in
buffer yard and rear yard areas.
Trees required on each lot:
Block 1, lot 1 9 Block 3, lot 3 10
Block 1, lot 2 6 Block 3, lot 4 11
Block 1, lot 3 7 Block 3, lot 5 8
Block 1, lot 4 10 Block 3, lot 6 5
Block 1, lot 5 8 Block 3, lot 7 13
Block 2, lot 1 11 Block 3, lot 8 5
Block 2, lot 2 8 Block 3, lot 9 5
Block 2, lot 3 8 Block 3, lot 10 4
Block 2, lot 4 10 Block 3, lot 11 4
Block 3, lot 1 12 Block 3, lot 12 6
Block 3, lot 2 9
8,
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 1-2,
Block 1, Lots 1-2, 6 !3 $ through 12, Block 3 prior to any construction.
.
Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a
ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
10.
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the
applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic
control plans.
11.
The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the normal water level.
Staff recommends that the proposed outlet structure of the pond be moved to the
easterly end of the pond to prevent short circuiting and to outlet the treated water to
the eastern wetland. This would better follow the proposed drainage pattern shown in
the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
12.
Staff has reviewed the ponding calculations and found that additional info~rnation and
revisions only minor modifications are necessary. Staff will work with the
applicant's engineer to correct the calculations.
13.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The
storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage
and utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 22
storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the
100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
14.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the
City's Type Ill erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the
areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. In addition, tree preservation fencing should
be denoted on the grading and drainage plan as well. Erosion control matting or
wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rear yard slopes of those lots in the
north and southwesterly portions of the site. A 75-foot rock construction entrance is
required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road.
15.
The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously assessed
for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not
been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously assessed connection
charges, which total $8,288 $8,670 (2001 2002 rates), be respread over the 3-3 21
newly created lots. In addition, each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer
and water hookup charge of $1,322 $1,383 and $1,723 $1,802 (200! 2002 rates),
respectively. Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer
interceptor charge of $1,011 $1,057 and a sub-trunk charge of $828 $866 will also be
due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots will
be waived contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All
of the above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance.
16.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant
will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply
the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to
guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
17.
Increase the amount of platted right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road from 74-feet to
80-feet in width. This is the minimum required right-of-way width for collector
streets, such as Lake Lucy Road, in Chanhassen.
18.
Submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim elevations,
invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing utility lines.
19.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission,
Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corp. of Engineers,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and comply with their conditions of
approval.
Lake Lucy Ridge
November 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 23
20.
The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds or wetlands.
Match thc existing ground e, lcvation (approximately 1011.0) at the south property line
of Lucy Ridge Lane.
22.
The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h.
design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed.
23.
A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the
south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended
in the future.
24.
Submit a temporary easement for the proposed offsite grading on Ashling Meadows
property. The proposed and existing contours for the Ashling Meadows site must be
shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage will work.
25.
The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30-feet. This will require that
the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or moved.
26. Revise Lot 1, Block 2 from a walkout structure to a lookout.
27.
Extend a sanitary sewer manhole to Lake Lucy Road to service future development
from the cast. In addition, The proposed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed
to serve this development and the neighboring properties to the east. Any oversizing
of the sewer forcemain or lift station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this
development, will be a City cost.
28.
Move Lucy Ridge Lane to the east by approximately 80-feet at the intersection of
Emerald Lane.
29. Eliminate Lot 1, Block 1.
30.
Revise the grading plan as follows:
a. Show all existing utilities including the storm sewer and wate~Tnain in Lake Lucy
Road and the existing driveway culvert.
b. Show the proposed NWL & HWL of the pond.
c. Add silt fence along the south property line of Lot 13, Block 3.
d. Revise the contours in the rear yards of Lots 1-3, Block 2 to meet the maximum
allowable side slope of 3:1.
e. Add a legend, survey benchmark, and all proposed and existing easements to the
f. Provide a 10:1 slope for 20-feet off the back of the housepads for Lots 1-5,
Block 3.
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 24
/
31.
32.
33.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420).
A wctland buffcr 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum avcragc of 10 feet) shall bc
maintained around Wctland 1 and thc wctland mitigation area. A wctland buffer 10
to 30 fact in width (with a minimum average of 20 fact) shall bc maintained around
Wctland 2. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance
with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs,
under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20
per sign.
All rctaining walls shall bc located outside of required buffer areas. Proposed trails
shall also bc located outside of required buffer areas. All oth~ structures shall
maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
The ordinary water level (OHW) for Lake Lucy (956.1) shall bc shown on the plans.
All structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading is
permitted within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff).
Stormwatcr calculations shall bc submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond
is sized adequately for thc proposed development.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
Type m silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be
preserved a's buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a
similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas
disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed
and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 12.94 acres, the water quality
fees associated with this project are $10,352; the water quantity fees are
approximately $25,621. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP
basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review
Lake Lucy Ridge
November 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 25
of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this time, the estimated total SWMP
fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $35,973.
42.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of
Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
43.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
g. Submit a plan to the Fire Marshal indicating roads and location of proposed fire
hydrants only for review. The submitted plans: grading, drainage, erosion control
plan and preliminary utility plan are too congested at this time.
ho
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps,
trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This
is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by
firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
i. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and brush must
be either removed from site or chipped.
An approved turn around shall be designed and installed at the south end of Lucy
Ridge Lane to allow the turning around of fire apparatus. Submit cul-de-sac
design and dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review
and approval. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.4.
k.
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for
fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and
made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to 1997
Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3.
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to
provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code
Section 902.2.2.2.
m. Street names Lucy Ridge Lane, Lake Lucy Court are confusing. The city already
has a number of Lake Lucy Roads, Lakc Lucy Lane with similar street names.
Submit new street names for review and approval.
44. Park and Recreation Conditions:
The following conditions need to be met for describe the trail alignment ia-be-
acceptable:
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novcmbcr 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 26
n. A 20-foot trail easement must bc is identified.
o. The trail alignment cannot bc is not within the wetland buffer.
p. The trail easement may abut lot lines, but the trail alignment must maintain a
minimum 6-foot separation from lot lines.
q. The pond berm, which the trail crosses, must maintain a minimum top width of
12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail.
r. The 8 foot bituminous trail shall be extended to Lake Lucy Road.
The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of the trail with reimbursement
for material costs being made from the City's Park and Trail Fund. The trail shall be
8-feet wide and built of bituminous material to city specifications. Full park fees
($31,500 Park Fees, and $10,500 Trail Fees), with one-third being paid at the time
of platting and two-thirds at the time of the individual building permits, shall also be
paid.
45.
Building Official's Conditions:
s. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
t. A demolition permit will be required prior to removal of the existing structures on
the site.
46. The lot width for Lot g 9, Block 3 shall be adjusted to maintain 90 feet.
47. Thc northwcstcrly wetland shall be platted as an outlot.
48.
Adjust the lot line between Lots 6 and 7, Block 3, to reflect a perpendicular angle
to Lake Lucy Court.
49. All structures shall comply with the following table:
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE- RSF DISTRICT
Home
Setback
Ordinance 30' front/rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
30'/50'*/30'*
10'
30'/50'*/30.
10'
30'/30'
10'
Lake Lucy Ridge
No¥cmber 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 27
Lot4
Lot 5
Block 2
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot3
Lot 4
30'/30'
10'
3O¥30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30¥30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
Block 3
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot3
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 8
Lot 9
Lot 10
Lot 11
Lot 12
30'/30'/60'*
10'
30'/30'/60'*
10'
30¥30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'/30'***
30'/30'
10'
30¥30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'***
10'/60'*
30'/30'***
The 50-foot setback includes a 10-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a
40-foot structure setback.
Lake Lucy Ridge
November 20, 2001
January 15, 2002
Page 28
The 60-foot setback includes a 20-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a
40-foot structure setback.
The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone."
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #2001-3 for Lake
Lucy Ridge as shown on the plans dated received October 24 December 19, 2001 and subject to the
following conditions:
o
To achieve thc required 2:1 replacement ratio, an additional 4,250 square fect of NWC or
PVC shall bc provided. (Thc total amount of wetland rCplaccment (NWC ~ PVC)
required is 9,160 squarc feet and at lcast 4,580 square feet must bc NWC.)
.
Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show a fixed photo monitoring point for
the replacement wetland. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be
submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions
and Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
o
Thc applicant shall demonstrate that a wetland buffer 0 to 20 fect in width (with a
minimum average of 10 feet) shall bc maintained around Wetland 1 and the wetland
mitigation area and a wctland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum avcrage of
20 feet) shall bc maintained around Wetland 2. (Those buffers considered for PVC shall
maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.)
o
All retaining walls shall be located outside of required buffer areas. Proposed trails shall
also be located outside of required buffer areas. All ot~er structures shall maintain a
40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
5. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
6. Type Ill silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be
preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
7. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
8~
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar
seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a
result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched,
Lake Lucy Ridge
Novembcr 20,2001
January 15, 2002
Page 29
covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each
activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
o
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
10. The applicant shall supply a narrative that explains how PVC will be provided.
(All wetland buffers to be used as PVC must be located on "upland adjacent and
contiguous to replacement wetlands and adjacent existing wetlands" (Minnesota
Rule 8420.0540, Subp. 2 (D) (5).)"
ATTACHMENTS
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Memo from DNR dated October 31,2001.
Memo from Matt Saam, Project Engineer dated November 14, 2001.
Memo From Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated October 31,2001.
Memo From Todd Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation, dated November 5, 2001.
Letter to Mr. Noecker extending the 60-day review process.
Application and Notice of Public Hearing.
Petition from neighboring properties dated December 18, 2001.
Memo from Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, dated January 8, 2002.
Planning Commission minutes dated November 20, 2001.
Preliminary plat dated received October 24 December 19, 2001.
g:\planXsa\lk lucy ridge\lk lucy ridge.pc2 saved.doc
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977
October 31,2001
Ms. Sharmin A1-Jaff
City of Chahassen
690 City Center Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
NOV 0 g 2001
CiTY OF CHANHASSEN
RE: Preliminary Plat, Lake Lucy Ridge, City of Chanhassen, Carver County
Dear Ms. A1-Jaff:
Thank you for sending the preliminary plat, received October 29, 2001, for the Lake Lucy Ridge
Development to the DNR for review. The Lake Lucy Ridge development is located in the SE
~¼ of Section 3, Township 116N, Range 23 West, Carver County. After reviewing the preliminary
plat of Lake Lucy Ridge, we have the following comments to offer:
o
2~
3~
.
5~
It appears that a portion of Lake Lucy may extend north along Outlot A, based on the
existing elevations (indicated as a wetland). The Ordinary High Water (OHW) for Lucy
lake is actually 956.1' and not 957.0 as stated on the plan. However, that juridical elevation
is not topographical shown on the plat. Additional ground elevations are needed to clearly
define the northerly extent of the OHW boundary and wetland juridical matters.
The extent of vegetation clearing identified on the grading plan is unclear. The southeast
section of the project area contains bluffs. These areas should not be disturbed and all
structures should be set back at least 30' from the top of the bluff. Other portions of the site
appear to be steep slopes and therefore, major topographic alterations should be avoided to
prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures.
The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan is very busy and difficult to review. The
drainage plan shows a detention pond adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. It is unclear where the
remaining runoff will be routed to.
The 100 year flood elevation of Lake Lucy is 957.0'. All work that is done for this
development must comply with applicable floodplain regulation of both the city and the
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District.
It appears that a retaining wall will be placed around the entire development. It is unclear as
to the need for such a structure.
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TrY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
~,~,,~ .P. dnted on R_e_c_ycl_ed Paper Containing a
Page 2
Ms. Sharmin A1-Jaff
October 31,2001
The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments;
Se
If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons
per year, a DNR appropriation permit is needed. If the application is for less than 50 million
gallons, than it typically takes five days to process the permit.
4
If construction activities disturb five acres of land, or more, the contractor must apply for a
stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Keith Cherryhomes ~
651-296-6945).
Se
The comments in this letter address DNR Waters jurisdictional maters and concerns. These
comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project.
Thank you for submitting the preliminary plat of Lake Lucy Ridge to the DNR for review. Please
contact me at (651) 772-7914 should you have any questions about these comments.
Sincerely,
Travis Germundson
Area Hydrologist
¢:
Tim Gieseke, Carver County SWCD
Bob Obermeyer, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
Keith Cherryhomes, MPCA
Lucy Lake (10-7P) File
City of Chanhassen Shoreland File
CITYOF
CHA EN
690 Ci0, Cemer Drive
I~0 Box 147
Chanhassen. iimmota 55317
Phone
952.937.1900
General Fax
952.937.5739
£,gi,eeri,g Department
952.937.9152
Buildi,g Depar~,e,t
952.934.2524
I[{'b Site
'u'w. cl. cha,hasse,. ,m. us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
Saam, Project Engineer ][~[~
FROM"
Matt
DATE: November 14, 2001
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Lake Lucy Ridge
Project No. 01-03
Upon review of the plans prepared by Mattke Surveying & Engineering dated
October 9, 2001, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
GRADING
The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site
elevations range from a high of 1026+ to a low of 960+. These severe elevation
differences combined with a relatively small area (<15 buildable acres) make this
site a challenging one to both develop and minimize grading. As such, the
developer is proposing to grade the majOrity of the site. The area for the lots in
the western portion of the site is proposed to be cut from 5 to 10 feet while the
eastern portion of the site will be filled from 10 to 15 feet for the housepads along
the wetland. Steep slopes are proposed along the south and west property lines of
the site to match with the existing topography. Small retaining walls (maximum
of 4 feet) could be employed along the western side of the lots in Block 1 to
increase the area provided for drainage swales.
The applicant is proposing to grade offsite to the west for the construction of
Emerald Lane, which will connect this proposed development with the Ashling
Meadows development. Staffhas previously met with the applicant and the
Ashling Meadows developer to try and come to some agreement on both the
location and elevation of Emerald Lane. Following the meeting, a mutual
compromise was agreed upon for Emerald Lane and the current plan shows this.
In addition, the Ashling Meadows developer agreed to sign a temporary easement
allowing the applicant to grade on Ashling Meadows property. The proposed and
existing contours along the common property line within the Ashling Meadows
site must be shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage
will work.
The site contains two existing bluffs; one in the northwest comer and one in the
southeast comer of the site. The structure setback from each bluffis 30 feet. This
will require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or
moved. There is alSo a grove of various trees in the east central portion of the
Sharmin A1-Jaff
November 14, 2001
Page 2
site. All trees that are proposed to be saved must have tree preservation fencing
around their perimeters.
The applicant is proposing to grade the entire site at once. If importing or
exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans.
Staff would also recommend that the applicant revise Lot 1, Block 2 from a
walkout structure to a lookout. This would help alleviate the extent of the steep
slope in the rearyard and promote better drainage.
DRAINAGE
The majority of the existing site drains from a high point in the southwest corner
of the property toward wetlands in the northwesterly and easterly portion of the
site. On the drainage plan, the applicant is proposing to collect all of the street
and front yard stormwater and transport it to a pond in the north central portion of
the site. The pond will treat the stormwater before discharging into the existing
wetland. The pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the normal water
level. Staff recommends that the proposed outlet structure of the pond be moved
to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short circuiting and to outlet the water to
the eastern wetland. This would better follow the proposed drainage pattern
shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
Pre- and post-development ponding calculations have been submitted for the site.
Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that additional information and
revisions are necessary. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct
the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need
to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour
storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the
final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales,
and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall
be 20 feet wide.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends
that the City's Type 11I erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be
used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. Erosion control matting or
wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rearyard slopes of those lots in
the west and southwesterly portions of the site. In addition, a 75-foot rock
construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road.
Sharmin A1-Jaff
November 14, 2001
Page 3
UTILITIES
CurrentlY, there is no public sanitary sewer available to the site. The nearest
sewer line is approximately 600 feet west of the site within the Ashling Meadows
development. This sanitary sewer will be extended to the Emerald Lane property
line with the second phase of the Ashling Meadows development. Staff expects
this to happen in the summer of 2002. Additionally, the applicant has previously
petitioned the City to extend the sewer as part of a public improvement project.
Staff believes that the sewer extension should be a developer driven project,
especially when the project is planned within a year. In the absence of the sewer,
the applicant has requested to install the sanitary sewer through the Lake Lucy
Ridge site and leave a stub pipe for the Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition
development to connect to. Staff'has no objections to this scenario as long as the
applicant is aware that no building permits will be allowed until the sanitary
sewer is functional.
The City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan shows the proposed development and
neighboring properties to the east as being serviced within the same sanitary
sewer subdistrict. As such, staff is recommending that a sanitary sewer manhole
be extended to Lake Lucy Road to service future development from the east. In
addition, the proposed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed to serve this
development and the neighboring properties to the east. Any oversizing of the
sewer forcemain or lift station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this
development, will be a City cost.
Municipal water is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The applicant is
proposing to connect to the existing water stub and extend watermain throughout
the site. In the future, the watermain from this development will be connected to
the watermain from Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition. Staff will perform a more
detailed review of the utility layout at the time of final platting. Additional
hydrants and/or water valves may be required at that time.
The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously
assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments,
however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously
assessed connection charges, which total $8,288 (2001 rates), be respread over the
22 newly created lots. In addition, each newly created lot will be required to pay
a sewer and water hookup charge of $1,322 and $1,723 (2001 rates), respectively.
Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor
charge of $1,011 and a sub-trunk charge of $828 will also be due on each lot. The
sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived
contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the
above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance.
Sharmin A1-Jaff
November 14, 2001
Page 4
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construCtion plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting.
The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the
City and to supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit
or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of
final plat approval.
STREETS
There is one current access available for the site off of Lake Lucy Road. In the
near future, the proposed stub street to the west, Emerald Lane, will be extended
when Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition develops. This will provide a secondary
access to/from the site. In addition, a street access has been provided for future
development to the south.
Overall, the proposed street layout appears to work well. The entire street system
is shown within a 60-foot wide public right-of-way with 31-foot wide streets. As
stated earlier, the site has some major grade changes. Staff has worked with the
applicant to meet the City's maximum allowable street grade of 7%. The
horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h.
design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed. In addition,
a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the
south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be
extended in the future.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary,
the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes
and traffic control plans.
,
The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program
(N-URP) standards with 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the
normal water level. Staff recommends that the proposed outlet structure
of the pond be moved to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short-
circuiting and to outlet the treated water to the eastern wetland. This
would better follow the proposed drainage pattern shown in the City's
Surface Water Management Plan.
o
Staff has reviewed the ponding calculations and found that additional
information and revisions are necessary. Staff will work with the
applicant's engineer to correct the calculations.
Sharmin A1-Jaff
November 14, 2001
Page 5
4,
o
o
.
.
,
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be
submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-
hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be
dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including
ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The
minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH).
Staff recommends that the City's Type 111 erosion control fence, which is a
heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing
wetlands. In addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on the
grading and drainage plan as well. Erosion control matting or wood fiber
blankets will be required for the steep, rearyard slopes of those lots in the
north and southwesterly portions of the site. A 75-foot rock construction
entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road. -
The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously
assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments,
however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two
previously assessed connection charges, which total $8,288 (2001 rates),
be respread over the 22 newly created lots. In addition, each newly
created lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of
$1,322 and $1,723 (2001 rates), respectively. Since the property is within
the-Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1,011 and a
sub-trunk charge of $828 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and
water lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived
contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All
of the above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance
with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time
of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial
security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
Increase the amount of platted right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road from
74-feet to 80-feet in width. This is the minimum required right-of-way
width for collector streets, such as Lake Lucy Road, in Chanhassen.
Submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim
elevations, invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing
I
Sharmin A1-Jaff
November 14, 2001
Page 6
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
utility lines.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate
regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental
Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Army Corp. of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and comply with their conditions of approval.
The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey
sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds or wetlands.
Match the existing ground elevation (approximately 1011.0) at the south
property line of Lucy Ridge Lane.
The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a
30 m.p.h, design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower
speed.
A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be
required at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that
the road will be extended in the future.
Submit a temporary easement for the proposed offsite grading on Ashling
Meadows property. The proposed and existing contours for the Ashling
Meadows site must be shown on the grading plan to ensure that the
grading and drainage will work.
The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30-feet. This will
require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or
moved.
Revise Lot 1, Block 2 from a walkout structure to a lookout.
Extend a sanitary sewer manhole to Lake Lucy Road to service future
development from the east. In addition, the proposed sanitary sewer lift
station shall be designed to serve this development and the neighboring
properties to the east. Any oversizing of the sewer forcemain or lift
station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this development, will be a
City cost.
Revise the grading plan as follows:
a) Show all existing utilities including the storm sewer and watermain
in Lake Lucy Road and the existing driveway culvert.
b) Show the proposed NWL & HWL of the pond.
Sharmin A1-Jaff
November 14, 2001
Page 7
jms
c) Add silt fence along the south property line of Lot 13, BI. 3.
d) Revise the contours in the rear yards of Lots 1-3, BI. 2 to meet the
maximum allowable side slope of 3:1.
e) Add a legend, survey benchmark, and all proposed and existing
easements to the plan.
Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
g:\eng\projectsXlake lucy ridge\preliminary plat review.doc
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
6.00 City Center Drive
?0 Box 147
Cha~zhassvn, Minnesota 55317
]~hoFle
952.937. i900
Ge~wral Fax
952.937.5739
£ngineering Department ]ax
952.937.9152
£uilding Department
952.934.2524
Web Site
www. d.&anhassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin Al-Jarl, Senior Planner
FROM:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE:
October 31,2001
SUBJECT:
Preliminary plat to re-plat 7.05 acre outlot and 11.5 acre lot (18.57 acres)
into 22 single-family lots and one outlet, land use amendment from
residential large lot to residential low density, rezoning from rural
residential to residential single-family dwelling and a wetland alteration
permit for property located south of Lake Lucy Road, west of Lake Lucy
and east of Ashling Meadows Subdivision, Lake Lucy Ridge, Noecker
Development.
Planning Case: 2001-10 SUB.
I have reviewed the plat redevelopment. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention DMsion, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy
requirements. The plan review is done based on the available information supplied at this time.
If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be
addressed.
1. Submit a plan to the Fire Marshal indicating roads and location of proposed fire
hydrants only for review. The submitted plans: grading, drainage, erosion control plan
and preliminary utility plan are too congested at this time.
2. A 1 O-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to
ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
3. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and brush must be
either removed from site or chipped.
4. An approved turn around shall be designed and installed at the south end of Lucy
Ridge Lane to allow the turning around of fire apparatus. Submit cul-de-sac design
and dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.4.
5. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire
Code Section 901.3.
6. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather
driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2.
Shan~in Al-jaff
October 31, 2001
Page 2
Street names Lucy Ridge Lane, Lake Lucy Court are confusing. The city already has a
number of Lake Lucy Roads, Lake Lucy Lane with similar street names. Please
sub~it new street names for review and approval.
g:\safety\ml\plrev2001-10
CITYOF
~90 CiO, Cev~ter Drive
PO aox' !47
Chanhasse,, Mhmesota 55317
952.937.1900
General Fax
952.93Z5739
Eu~,ee~q,g Department Fax
952937.9152
B,iIdi,g Departme,t Fax
952.934.2524
lI~b Site
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
FROM: . Todd Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreatio
DATE:
November 5, 2001
SUBJ:
Preliminary Plat, Lake Lucy Ridge, Noecker Development; Park
and Recreation Department Review
I have received a copy of the preliminary plat for Lake Lucy Ridge. Upon
reviewing the application, I have the following comments:
PARKS
Neighborhood Park needs for the proposed 22-1ot subdivision would be served by
the existing Pheasant Hill Park. The park is located just north of the site on Lake
Lucy Road. In the future, residents will have access to Greenwood Shores and
Lake Ann Parks.
TRAILS
A trail segment identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan has been included on
this plat. However, the alignment as currently depicted, is not acceptable. The
following conditions need to be met for the trail alignment to be acceptable.
1. A 20-foot trail ease~nent must be identified.
2. The trail alignment cannot be within the wetland buffer.
3. The trail easement may abut lot lines, but the trail alignment must
maintain a minimum 6 foot separation from lot lines.
4. The pond berm, which the trail crosses, must maintain a minimum top
width of 12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail.
The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of the trail with
reimbursement for material costs being made from the City's Park and Trail Fund.
The trail shall be 8 feet wide and built of bituminous material to city
specifications. Full park fees, with one-third being paid at the time of platting and
two-thirds at the time of the individual building permits, shall also be paid.
G :\park\thXPrelimPlatLakeLucyRidge
6)0 Ci~ Center Drive
J~O Box 147
Chanbass~ Minnesota 55317
~hont
952.93Z 1900
G~m'al F~
9~.93Z5739
E,~ned,g iepamnent Far
952.93Z9152
Building Depamnent Fm
952.934.2524
ll3b Site
wu.md, cha,hmse,.m,.~ts
October 26, 2001
Mr. Randy Noecker
8315 Pleasant View Drive
Moundsview, MN 55112
Dear Mr. Noecker:
This letter is to inform you that I am in receipt of your application. The wetland
alteration application materials appear complete at this time; however, six
additional copies are needed to complete review by other agencies (we do not .
need additional copies of the wetland delineation report).
The 60-day review process began on October 24, 2001 (date of receipt of
complete application). The deadline for the November 20, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting was October 19, 2001; nevertheless,, it is our intent to
schedule your application for the November 20, 2001 meeting.
Since there is only one City Council meeting in December, the city may not be
able to process your application within 60 days; therefore,-we are hereby .
notifying you that the City is taking the additional 60 day extension to process
this request as permitted under MN STAT. 15.99.
If you have. any questions, please contact me at (952) 937-I900 ext. 120.
Sincerely,
Sharmin A1-Jaff
Senior Planner
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPLJCANT:
ADDRESS:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
~! ]:PHONE (Day time) '~7(~ ~,. ~ .~ [,..., ._ (~ ~' .~ 7
' . ../~<' Com,orehensive Plan Amendment
,,
;
Conditional Use Permit
TELEPHONE:
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit
Variance
,Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
~ PJanned Unit Development*
,,,i<" Rezoning
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign PJan Review
Notification Sign
Site PJan Review* X
Subdivision*
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUP/SPRIVACNARRVAPIMetes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
:Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
~Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet,
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
~DTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
~ROJECT NAME
~LDCA'T]ON,
.I_EGAL DF_.SCRIPTION
-J'C>TAL ACREAGE
~E'I3_ANDS PRESENT
33RESENT ZONING
]:{.EQUESTED ZONING
/'""/YES
F'RESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
~:IEA$1DN FOR THIS REQUEST
NO
-rh]s 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
:Depadment Io determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
~oZice z)f application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
-l'h]-s ]s 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 applicat, ion should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
1he 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 aj3plicmion and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 w~ keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
~nderstand 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
-~he c'rty hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
exte~ions are~/ved by the ap~
Si.gnmure e[ Applicant Date
Signa~re of Fee Owner Date
7~ppT~...m]on Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
"The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If,not c~)ntacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
NOTICE OF HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Subdivision, Land Use Amendment
Rezoning and Wetland Alteration
Permit
APPLICANT: Noecker Development
LOCATION' Lake Lucy Road
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Noecker
Development, is requesting Preliminary Plat to replat a 7.07 acre Outlot and 11.5 acre lot (18.57 acres) into
22 single family lots and one outlot, land use amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density,
Rezoning from Rural Residential to Residential Single Family District, and a Wetland alteration permit for
property located south of Lake Lucy Road, west of Lake Lucy and east of Ashling Meadow Subdivision, Lake
Lucy Ridge, Noecker Development.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an updated overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments may be received from the public.
4. The Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Sharmin 952-227-1134. 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 was published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 8, 2001.
Road
-I
Lake Lucy Road
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Subdivision, Land Use Amendment
Rezoning and Wetland Alteration
Permit
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Noecker Development
Lake Lucy Road
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Noecker
Development, is requesting Preliminary Plat to replat a 7.07 acre Outlot and 11.5 acre lot (18.57 acres) into
22 single family lots and one outlot, land use amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density,
Rezoning from Rural Residential to Residential Single Family District, and a Wetland alteration permit for
property located south of Lake Lucy Road, west of Lake Lucy and east of Ashling Meadow Subdivision, Lake
Lucy Ridge, Noecker Development.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Sharmin 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the departxnent Jn 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 8, 2001.
Lake Lucy Road
e~"~cY Ro
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST
CIO AUDITOR - DNR WITHHELD
600 4TH ST E
CHASKA MN 55318
WILLIAM D LAMBRECHT &
JOANNE M LAMBRECHT
6990 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROGER M & E ELAINE SAMPSON
6710 POINTE LAKE LUCY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JACK J & KATHRYN K RANDALL
1571 LAKE LUCY RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
HEIDI J CARISCH
7000 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
BONNIE S MCCOSKEY
6720 POINTE LAKE LUCY
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JOSEPH J & D GAYLE MORIN
1441 LAKE LUCY RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALICE L FOWLER
7050 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
ROBERT H MASON INC
1420t EXCELSIOR BLVD
HOPKINS MN
55345
JAMES & CLAUDETTE G SCHLUCK
6800 UTICA TER
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SCOTT E & TAMARA G SATHER
7090 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT H MASON IN_C--
14201 EXCELSIOR IfI_TVD
HOPKINS~ MN
55345
GERALD F HOFFMANN
6830 UTICA TER
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
ROCKFORD R WALDIN
JUDY M CHRISTENSEN
7100 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
PRINCE R NELSON
7801 AUDUB ON~_J~----~-'---
CHANHA-SSEN MN 55317
RONALD C & MARY ELLEN KNUDTE}
6850 UTICA TER
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTC~
690 CITY C/CFA~TER DIO BOX 147
~ASSEN MN 55317
DENNIS E & SUSAN J SCHEPPMANN
16637 NORTH MANOR RD
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346
PATRICK A MOHR &
MAUREEN D LORD MOHR
6890 UTICA TER
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
ALLAN ROBERT & MARY E WEINGAI:~
1685 STELLER CT
EXCELSIOR ....... ' MN'-'"-55331
MATTHEW L & SUZANNE C WOODS
6745 LAKEWAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DALE E & GLORIA J CARLSON
6900 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ERIC MICHAEL RIVKIN
1695 STELLER
EXCELSIOR'"'" MN 55331
LOSCHEIDER CUSTOM HOMES INC
1607 FLORIDA AVE N
GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427
EDWIN & CORRJ~EN G NEWINSKI
693O UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JUDITH A DIRKS
6 PHEASANT LAWN
..
..
OLIVI~...~. -- MN
,,
56277
ALAN ROBERT WEINGART &
MARY E WEINGAt~_ /
1685 STELLER'-~-
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
WILLIAM B & PATRICIA C WARD
6960 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROGER M & E ELAINE SAMPSON
6710 POINTE LAKE LUCY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
REINHOLD & LORRAINE GUTHMILLER
8290 UNION HILL BLVD
BELLE PLAINE MN 56011
ALLAN ROBERT & MARY E WEINGAR~I
1685 STELLER CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTC~R~.......-.-'~
690 CITY~.~alx~gEa~D~O BOX 147
CltdkNttASSEN MN 55317 .
ERIC MICHAEL RIVKIN
1695 STELLER CT
EXCELSIOR MN
55331
JOHN F & MARIELLEN WALDRON
1900 LAKE LUCY RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
ALLEN L & BARBARA J FINSTAD
1701 STELLER CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JOHN W & MELANIE L GORCZYCA
1850 LAKE LUCY RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JUDITH A DIRKS
6 PHEASANT LAWN
OLIVIA
MN 56277
ALAN K PETERSON
1831 LAKE LUCY LN
EXCELSIOR
MN 55331
PRINCE R NELSON
7801 AUDUBON RD
CHANHASSEN
55317
MERLE W & DIANE M STEINKRAUS
1800 LAKE LUCY RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JERRY REUEL GILL &
CYNTHIA MILLER GILL
1760 LAKE LUCY RD
EXCELSIOR MN
55331
PATRICK V JOHNSON &
MARY C CORDELL
1730 LAKE LUCY LN
EXCELSIOR MN
55331
WILLIAM R & PAMELA G ASPLIN
1665 STELLER CT
F_XCELSIOR MN 55331
PHILIP R THIESSE &
KIM B TERNING THIESSE
1675 STELLER CT
EXCELSIOR MN
55331
AI-Jaff, Sharmin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tamara Sather [TSather@edenpr.k12.mn.us]
Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:23 AM
saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Proposal
Sharmin, could you please distribute this to the planning commission.
Thank you.
The following residents of Greenwood Shores are strongly opposed to the
type of development proposed west of Lake Lucy and east of Ashling
Meadows, and request the re-guiding amendment plan for outlot A from
residential large lot to residential low density, be denied for these
reasons:
1) The integrity of the land is in jeopardy and the landscape does not
lend itself to development in an environmentally sound way.
2) The amount of trees that would be lost increases light and noise
pollution.
3) The proposed road encroaches on the delicate wetlands which are
already environmentally sensitive. Wetland replacement is not suitable.
4) The outlot is a natural buffer for the wetlands and Lake Lucy.
5) The number of homes proposed is too high for this topography, and
the destruction to vegetation is great.
6) It appears the objective is to get as many homes in as possible. We
are looking for a development that respects the natural habitat and the
integrity of the land.
If the land amendment is granted, then we request:
1) Reduction in the number of homes allowed be considerable!
2) Increase the number of trees to be preserved.
3) Enlarge the retention pond to ensure proper drainage from runoff.
4) Maintain the integrity of the site by keeping grading to a minimum.
5) The wetland buffer should remain undisturbed.
We strongly recommend you table action and allow the developer to meet
these recommendations.
Sincerely,
Tamara Sather
Scott Sather
Judy Christianson
Rocky Waldin
Alice Fowler
Dick Fowler
Heidi Carisch
Vernon Hall
Gloria Carlson
Dale Carlson
Bill Lambrecht
JoAnn Lambrecht
PETITION
Subject: Lake L.~y Ridge Proposal by Noecker DevelOr)nent LLC
12/18/2001
Whereas Outlot A is a legally designated Outlot platted with Lake Lucy Highlands, and is zoned Large Lot Residential in accordance with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 2020,
Whereas the Comprehensive Plan Policy requires a majority of area residents to approve rezoning in their area, and this petition represents
100% ol Lake Lucy Highlands residents and a 95% majority of Lake Lucy area residents within 100 ft. of the lake,
Whereas 40 Lake Lucy area residents with newly built homes and septic systems petitioned the City in July 1990 during the Comp Plan
Review to leave large sections of land including Lake Lucy Highlands zoned LLR to protect natural amenities around Lake Lucy,
Whereas intentions by Merdll Steller and his real estate agent, Klingelhutz Realty, were made known to all 19 buyers of Lake Lucy Highlands
that Outlot A was a valuable, attractive natural amenity and so designated on plat maps shown or given to buyers,
Whereas area residents feel it is necessary to have a transition area between Ashling Meadows and Lake Lucy Highlands, and to have a
preserved forest canopy along the slopes as an important amenity for the area's natural scenery, abundant wildlife, wetland health, and for
appreciation and enjoyment for all,
Whereas it is practical for the developer and city ordinances can be enforced to protect natural amenities, Sec. 18-60 (d) "Lots shall be
placed to preserve and protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses, and historic areas," Sec. 18.56
'Proposed subdivisions shall conform to the Comprehensive plan, and zoning ordinances...;, Sec. 18.61 (b) "city policy to preserve natural
woodlands and substantial tree stands..."; Sec. 18.61 (d)(1)further Polcy to protect natural amenities where it is practical,
Whereas figures exist from secchi disk readings given to the DNR that may show evidence of water quality degradation over the last 10
years from encroaching developments in Lake Lucy's watershed, and additional nutrient loading from this development as proposed may
accelerate poorer water quality of Lake Lucy and lakes downstream,
Whereas lots under 3/4 of an acre is not consistent with the Lake Lucy area lot sizes within 100 ft of the lake, including those within Lake
Lucy Highlands, Pointe Lake Lucy, Whitetail Cove and Greenwood Shores,
Whereas il is the developer's stated intention on record to build homes with a value of about I million dollars,
Therefore, we, the undersigned members of the Lake Lucy Highlands, Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, and other Lake Lucy area
residents petition the City of Chanhassen the following:
1. Keep Outlot A part of Lake Lucy Highlands, and do not rezone it.
2. Design the City's walking trail primarily along the existing path to minimize tree destruction, with a minimum 20 ft. trail easement outside the
wetland, with additional buffer to the wetlands, and a minimum of 6 ft. separation to any lot lines,
3. Drastically reduce the lot density to 14 as proposed in the attached drawing and increase the size of lots to a minimum of 3/4 acre.
4. Preserve the trees all the way to the top of the ridge line, creating enough deadng in existing open fields for houses, and assure a
replanting plan along the ridge to include restoration of any lost trees there.
5. The developer be held responsible, by his design and a regular water quality monitoring and sediment removal plan by City Engineering, to
prevent additional nutrient and sediment loading beyond what exists today into natural wetlands. This means measuring what there is as a
t)asis.
6. Retaining wall materials be natural boulder, not keystone.
7. Vegetation surrounding new ponds and wetlands be wild and native species, not mowed sod.
8. Eliminate fences visible from Lake Lucy Road and locate the trail so it doesnt need a fence,
9. I3o not disturb wetland buffers except where new retention ponds are created.
10. Rather than cutting out wetlands on the east side of the entrance to Lake Lucy Rd, create an deeper and bigger open water retention
pond at least 6' deep to the west of the road, adjacent to the existing wetland.
11.Move the road going to PRNelson's property so mature hardwood treestands and natural erosion protection can be preserved if
deveJ~3pment should ever happen there.
12. Provide covenants which would prevent chainlink fences and removal of mature trees at least along the slopes facing Lake Lucy and Lake
Lucy Road
13. The City should not pay for installation of utilities to, and inside, this development.
Petitioners
Name
Address
Phone
~7(,
474
&' 70'
~7o--/V35
qTb -
q7q,
q 74. dlS9
Petitioners
Name
Address
Phone
Petitioners
Name
~l I ' ~ ~ "
,
Address
Phone
CITYOF
CHAN EN
690 Ci9, Ce.ret Drive
?0 Box' I47
C/.~a,hasse,, 3'Ii,,esota 55317
])hoile
952.93Z 1900
General F~
952.93Z5739
E,gi,eri,g Depar,nent
952.93E9152
Buildi,g Deparonent
952.934.2524
It3b Site
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
FROM: Matt Saam, Asst. City Engineer ,~
DATE: January 8, 2002
SUB J: Revised Preliminary Plat Review of Lake Lucy Ridge
Project No. 01-03
Upon review of the plans prepared by Mattke Surveying & Engineering dated
December 18, 2001, I offer the following comments and recommendations'
GRADING
Following the 11/20/01 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, staff took a hard
look at the previous layout of the plat. Staff attempted to come up with a
revised plat layout that would take into account the issues and concerns
raised at the PC meeting, i.e. lot size, road alignment, amount of grading. As
such, staff proposed the following to the applicant: moving Lucy Ridge Lane
to the east, approx. 80-feet, at the intersection of Emerald Lane; moving the
Block 1 housepads to the east with the road; deleting Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots
7 & 8, Block 2.
Staff believes the major effect of moving Lucy Ridge Lane and the Block 1
housepads to the east is that it will minimize the severity of the slope grades
along the western property line of the site. This would allow the proposed
grading in this area to better match the existing topography. It would also
provide additional area for drainage swales along the western side of Block 1.
In addition, staff recommends that Lot 1, Block 1 be deleted. The severe
rearyard slope and its close proximity to a wetland make this a questionable
lot at best. In the past, staff has seen numerous problems with lots such as
this that have severe rearyard slopes. Inevitably the homebuyer or builder
will want to grade in more of a flat backyard area and then issues arise with
the filling of the nearby wetland, setback problems due to a retaining wall, or
both.
The applicant has decided against implementing staff's revisions to the plat.
The applicant believes that the grading necessary for the revised street
alignment would be more detrimental to the site than what is shown on the
current plan. While it is true that moving Lucy Ridge Lane farther to the
east would decrease the amount of canopy coverage that is proposed to be
saved. It is staff's opinion that the trade off for better lots in Block 1 and the
Sharmin Al-Jarl
January 8, 2002
Page 2
possible saving of more significant trees would make for a better
development and offset the additional canopy loss.
The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site
elevations range from a high of 1026+ to a low of 960+. These severe elevation
differences combined with a relatively small area (<15 buildable acres) make this
site a challenging one to both develop and minimize grading. As such, the
developer is proposing to grade the majority of the site. The area for the lots in
the western portion of the site is proposed to be cut from 5 to 10 feet while the
eastern portion of the site will be filled from 10 to 15 feet for the housepads along
the wetland. Steep slopes are proposed along the south and west property lines of
the site to match with.the existing topography. Small retaining walls (maximum
of 4 feet) could be employed along the western side of the lots in Block 1 to
increase the area provided for drainage swales. Also, staff recommends that
Lots 1-5, Block 3 be designed with more of a usable backyard area. This
could be accomplished by revising the grading plan to provide a 10:1 slope
for the first 20-feet off the back of the housepads in this area.
The applicant is proposing to grade offsite to the west for the construction of
Emerald Lane, which will connect this proposed development with the Ashling
Meadows development. Staff has previously met with the applicant and the
Ashling Meadows developer to try and come to some agreement on both the
location and elevation of Emerald Lane. Following the meeting, a mutual
compromise was agreed upon for Emerald Lane and the current plan shows this.
In addition, the Ashling Meadows developer agreed to sign a temporary easement
allowing the applicant to grade on Ashling Meadows property. The proposed and
existing contours along the common property line within the Ashling Meadows
site must bc have been shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and
drainage 'work
The site contains two existing bluffs; one in the northwest corner and one in the
southeast corner of the site. The structure setback from each bluff is 30 feet. This
will require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or
moved. Thcrc is also a grovc of various trccs in thc cast ccntral portion of thc
sitc. All trees that arc proposed to bc saved must havc trcc prcscrvation fcncing
around thcir pcrimctcrs.
The applicant is proposing to grade the entire site at once. If importing or
exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans.
Staff would also recommcnd that thc applicant rcvisc Lot 1, Block 2 from a
walkout structurc to a lookout. This would hclp allcviatc thc cxtcnt of thc steep
slopc in thc rcaryard and promote bcttcr drainagc.
Sharmin A1-Jaff
January 8, 2002
Page 3
DRAINAGE
The majority of the existing site drains from a high point in the southwest comer
of the property toward wetlands in the northwesterly and easterly portion of the
site. On the drainage plan, the applicant is proposing to collect all of the street
and front yard stormwater and transport it to a pond in the north central portion of
the site. The pond will treat the stormwater before discharging into the existing
wetland. The pond must bc has been designed to National Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) standards with 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the
normal water level. Staff rccommcnds that thc proposcd outlet structurc of thc
pond bc movcd to thc castcrly end of thc pond to prevcnt short circuiting and to
outlet the water to thc castcrn wctland. This would bcttcr follow thc proposcd
drainage pattern shown in thc City's Surface Water Management Plan.
Pre- and post-development ponding calculations have been submitted for the site.
Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that additional information and
revisions only minor modifications are necessary. Staffwill work with the
applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm
sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to
be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements
will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system
including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level.
The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends
that the City's Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be
used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. Erosion control matting or
wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rearyard slopes of those lots in
the west and southwesterly portions of the site. In addition, a 75-foot rock
construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road.
UTILITIES
Currently, there is no public sanitary sewer available to the site. The nearest
sewer line is approximately 600 feet west of the site within the Ashling Meadows
development. This sanitary sewer will be extended to the Emerald Lane property
line with the second phase of the Ashling Meadows development. Staff expects
this to happen in the summer of 2002. Additionally, the applicant has previously
petitioned the City to extend the sewer as part of a public improvement project.
Staff believes that the sewer extension should be a developer driven project,
especially when the project is planned within a year. In the absence of the sewer,
Sharmin A1-Jaff
January 8, 2002
Page 4
the applicant has requested to install the sanitary sewer through the ~Lake Lucy
Ridge site and leave a stub pipe for the Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition
development to connect to. Staff has no objections to this scenario as long as the
applicant is aware that no building permits will be allowed until the sanitary
sewer is functional.
The City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan shows the proposed development and
neighboring properties to the east as being serviced within the same sanitary
sewer subdistrict. As such, staff is rccommcnding that a sanitary scwcr manholc
bc cxtcndcd to Lakc Lucy Road to scrvicc futurc dcvclopmcnt from thc cast. In
addition, the proposed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed to serve this
development and the neighboring properties to the east. Any oversizing of the
sewer forcemain or lift station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this
development, will be a City cost.
Municipal water is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road.- The applicant is
proposing to connect to the existing water stub and extend watermain throughout
the site. In the future, the watermain from this development will be connected to
thewatermain from Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition.. Staff will perform a mOre
detailed review of the utility layout at the time of final platting. Additional
hydrants and/or water valves may be required at that time.
The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously
assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments,
however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously
assessed connection charges, which total $8,288 $8,670 (2001 2002 rates), be
respread over the ~ 21 newly created lots. In addition, each newly created lot
will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of $1,322 $1,383 and
$1,723 $1,802 (2091 2002 rates), respectively. Since the property is within the
Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1,011 $1,057 and a sub-
trunk charge of $828 $866 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and water
lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived contingent on the
developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due
at the time of building permit issuance.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting.
The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the
City and to supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit
or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of
final plat approval.
Sharmin A1-Jaff
January 8, 2002
Page 5
STREETS
There is one current access available for the site off of Lake Lucy Road. In the
near future, the proposed stub street to the west, Emerald Lane, will be extended
when Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition develops. This will provide a secondary
access to/from the site. In addition, a street access has been provided for future
development to the south.
Overall Except for the previously mentioned revision to Lucy Ridge Lane, the
proposed street layout appears to work well. The entire street system is shown
within a 60-foot wide public right-of-way with 31-foot wide streets. As stated
earlier, the site has some major grade changes. Staff has worked with the
applicant to meet the City's maximum allowable street grade of 7%. The
horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h.
design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed. In addition,
a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the
south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be
extended in the future.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary,
the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes
and traffic control plans.
Thc proposcd pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) standards with 3:1 side slopcs and a-t0:l slope bcnch bclow thc
normal watcr lcvcl. Staff rccommends that thc proposed outlet structurc
of the pond bc moved to thc castcrly end of the pond to prcvent short
circuiting and to outlct thc trcatcd water to thc castcrn wetland. This
would bettcr follow thc proposed drainage pattcrn shown in thc City's
Surface Watcr Managcmcnt Plan.
o
Staff has reviewed the ponding calculations and found that additional
information and revisions only minor modifications are necessary. Staff
will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations.
,
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be
submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10~year, 24-
hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be
dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including
ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The
minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
Sharmin A1-Jaff
January 8, 2002
Page 6
o
.
o
o
,
10.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH).
Staff recommends that the City's Type 1II erosion control fence, which is a
heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing
wetlands. In addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on the
grading and drainage plan as well. Erosion control matting or wood fiber
blankets will be required for the steep, rearyard slopes of those lots in the
north and southwesterly portions of the site. A 75-foot rock construction
entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road.
The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously
assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments,
however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two
previously assessed connection charges, which total $8,288 $8,670 (200 !
2002 rates), be respread over the 2--3 21 newly created lots. In addition,
each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup
charge of $1,322 $1,383 and $1,723 $1,802 (200! 2002 rates),
respectively. Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a
sewer interceptor charge of$1,011 $1,057 and a sub-trunk charge of $828
$866 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection
charges for the new lots will be waived contingent on the developer
installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due at
the time of building permit issuance.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance
with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time
of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial
security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
Increase the amount of platted right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road from
74-feet to 80-feet in width. This is the minimum required right-of-way
width for collector streets, such as Lake Lucy Road, in Chanhassen.
Submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim
elevations, invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing
utility lines.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate
regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental
Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Army Corp. of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural
Sharmin A1-Jaff
January 8, 2002
Page 7
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Resources, and comply with their conditions of approval.
The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey
sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds or wetlands.
Match thc c>~isting ground clcvation (approximately 1011.0) at thc south
property line of Lucy Ridge Lanc.
The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a
30 m.p.h, design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower
speed.
A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be
required at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that
the road will be extended in the future.
Submit a telnporary easement for the proposed offsite grading on Ashling
Meadows property. The proposed and existing contours for the Ashling
Meadows site must be shown on the grading plan to. ensure that the
grading and drainage will work.
The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30-feet. This will
require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or
moved.
Revise Lot 1, Block 2 from a walkout structurc to a lookout.
Extend a sanitary sewcr manhole to Lakc Lucy Road to scrvicc future
dcvelopmcnt from thc cast. In addition, The proposed sanitary sewer lift
station shall be designed to serve this development and the neighboring
properties to the east. Any oversizing of the sewer forcemain or lift
station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this development, will be a
City cost.
Move Lucy Ridge Lane to the east by approximately 80-feet at the
intersection of Emerald Lane.
Eliminate Lot 1, Block 1.
Revise the grading plan as follows:
a) Show all cxisting utilities including thc storm sewcr and watcrmain
in Lake Lucy Road and thc existing drivcway culvcrt.
b) Show the proposcd NWL & HWL of thc pond.
c) Add silt fence along thc south property linc of Lot 13, B1.3.
Sharmin A1-Jaff
January 8, 2002
Page 8
jrns
c~
d) Revise the contours in the rear yards of Lots 1-3, BI. 2 to meet the
maximum allowable side slope of 3:1.
c) Add a lcgcnd, survcy bcnchmark, and all proposc, d and cxisting
cascmcnts to thc plan.
f) Provide a 10:1 slope for 20-feet off the back of the housepads
for Lots 1-5, Block 3.
Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
g:\eng\projects\lake lucy ridge~revised ppr.doc
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 20, 2001
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave an introduction to the
audience on how the meeting would proceed.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik, Deb
Kind and Craig Claybaugh
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT: Mayor Linda Jansen
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior
Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen
7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A 7.07 ACRE OUTLOT
AND 11.5 ACRE LOT (18.57 ACRES) INTO 22 FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, LAND
USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY,
REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT,
AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE
LUCY ROAD, WEST OF LAKE LUCY AND EAST OF ASHLING MEADOW SUBDIVISION,
LAKE LUCY RIDGE, NOECKER DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Bill & Joanne Lambrecht 6990
Gloria & Dale Carlson 6900
Scott Reinertson 6801
Jim Schluck 6800
Dennis Scheppmann 6740
Jack & Melanie Gorczyca 1850
Tamara Sather 7090
Eric Rivkin 1695
John & Mariellen Waldron
Tedd Mattke
Randall Noecker
Utica Lane
Utica Lane
Utica Terrace
Utica Terrace
Lakeway Drive
Lake Lucy Road
Utica Lane
Steller Court
1900 Lake Lucy Road
Mattke Surveying and Engineering
8315 Pleasant View Drive, Moundsview
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Rich, any?
Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001
Slagle: Sharmin if I may. There's more than just the first two I'm going to mention but as I read through
this, what came across to me was a number of things that were not in the plan. And understanding that
there were then clarification that this could be worked on, it could be da, da, da, da, da. My simple
question is, is there a reason that we can't sit with the applicant and get all of these done and presented to
the commission as a, either a complete or an almost complete proposal? As one commissioner I just want
to say I don't feel comfortable with as many of these numbers of, and I've only mentioned two, or I could
talk about two. I know there's 4 or 5 that we could just have that worked on and then present it again.
And Kate you're going to address that it looks like.
Aanenson: Sure. We've worked with the applicant. Sharmin has extensively over the last several
months to make the changes. Eventually get to the point where it needs to come to a different arena to
get those changes made.
Slagle: Understand. So maybe it's a question to the applicant.
Aanenson: Correct. So I guess that's why we're saying, if you feel like those changes are significant
enough that you want to see it again, then it may make sense to table it to see what the changes are but at
this point the direction needs to come from the Planning Commission because the staff' s taken it to the
level they can to get the changes made.
Slagle: Fair enough. That's all I have.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn?
Sidney: Questions for staff. I see that the applicant will need to apply for other permits from regulatorY
agencies such as Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers. What type of permits would
those entail? Can you give us any idea of, will they be a show stopper or are these just routine permits?
Al-Jarl: These are permits that are required of every project that goes through the city. The wetland
alteration will require DNR approval. Watershed, any subdivision that comes through the city would
need to receive a watershed permit.
Aanenson: Just to add onto that. The Watershed District generally doesn't give approval until the city's
given a preliminary approval so this is the first step. Obviously if the other permits are not granted, then
that project stops.
Sidney: Okay. Do you see any problem with that or any red flags at this point?
Aanenson: It has been sent around for comments as part of the original application it has been sent out
and those comments that we've received to date are included in your packet.
Sidney: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Any questions?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. I mostly have comments but I would like to clarify a few points
at this point. In the staff report it mentions that some mature trees might be saved. That the applicant's
making an effort to save those trees. Do we know where they are? Which trees it is?
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
A1-Jaff: What you see highlighted in green is area proposed to be saved. This is a bluff right here and
them are a few trees surrounding it within the 20 foot no touch zone that's being saved. The majority of
this is bluff and again you've got the 20 foot impact zone that cannot be graded or touched. And of
course this area. There are a few scattered trees here and there that we questioned whether they can be
saved. Our experience when you have trees within a front yard, they don't always survive but this is the
main area that is proposed to be saved.
Sacchet: Okay. Thanks Sharmin. Then we're talking, you mentioned that too in your summary, that
revisions that are required based on the conditions may lead to the loss of some lives or a reconfiguration
to some extent of the plat. Do we have some sort of an understanding how many lots would be less or
what the reconfiguration is? That's totally open at this point? Okay. Then staff report also points out
that wetland mitigation is only about half as much as it should be. Do we have any discussion or idea
where the other half of the mitigation could be accommodated?
A1-Jaff: There are different options. Different alternatives that the applicant could pursue. The first,
wetlands are required to be replaced at a ratio of 2 to 1. The first one of the two has to be a wetland. The
second one of the two will have, can be, let me point to that one. And this is based upon the Wetland
Conservation Act. For instance, this storm pond, 75% of the storm pond could be calculated as wetland
replacement. Another option would be to provide a 16 1/2 foot wetland buffer around the replacement
section, so again there are different options that the applicant could pursue.
Sacchet: But they haven't been clarified at this point?
A1-Jaff: No. We haven't, and again. Looking at-it we think it's doable but we don't know how it will be
done yet.
Sacchet: And then with the trees, I was a little confused about the numbers in the staff report. In one
place it says the minimum coverage, canopy coverage allowed is 30% and then on the next page it says
it's 35%. Is there, like if you look on page 11 it says minimum canopy coverage allowed is 30% and then
on page 12, in the second block of their information it says minimum canopy coverage allowed is 35.
Al-Jaff: Okay. In our opinion we looked at some aerial photos and we believe that there may be more
trees than is shown on the plans. Based upon your existing canopy, that percentage changes.
Sacchet: Then that also changes the number of trees to be planted from 117 to 1557
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: So we still have, would have to determine which one is actually accurate then?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: So that's an open ended thing too still. And then my final question is actually 2 questions.
That area is considered environmentally sensitive, correct?
A14aff: Yes.
Sacchet: Reasonably so.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
A14aff: You've got the wetlands, the natural wetland and bluffs.
Sacchet: Is the alignment of the road, does it follow somewhat the natural contours or is just plowed in
there?
Al-Jaff: If you follow contours, there's potential that you may lose some lots.
Sacchet: Okay, that answers the question. Thank you. That's all my questions.
Blackowiak: Thanks. Bruce, any questions?
Feik: Yeah, I had one. If all the regulations regarding the retaining walls and the walking paths, and then
all the necessary setbacks and the buffer zones were imposed, how many lots specifically if you know
that, are in jeopardy? If you were to take the map that we just saw and overlay exact, and forced the
retaining walls and the walkways to conform to the codes, how many lots would be in jeopardy?
A1-Jaff: You can reconfigure things.
Feik: I'm just, as configured.
Aanenson: I don't think, we've worked this so many different ways and I guess we're uncomfortable
saying that.
Feik: I guess where I'm leading to is if those were to be enforced, does the plan in it's entirety materially
change? In which case we would be looking at a very different project. I don't know. I'm trying to, I
look at the one sidewalk which goes along the entire east side and the retaining wall on the second lot
coming from the north side, and I'm trying to understand how much of this project.
Aanenson: This one?
Feik: Yes. How much of this project is in jeopardy if those buffers and codes are enforced?
Aanenson: Well if you look at the one I just pointed to, that may be one lot that needs to be combined.
Feik: And that's the only one that.
Aanenson: Well I'm not sure. We're not sure what the implications of moving the trail out would be and
how much things shift so, it could be another 1 or 2 possibly.
Feik: Okay. I was just wondering if the plan would materially change. In which case we would want to
see it again. The public may want to see it again.
Aanenson: The applicant may be able to answer that more specifically too, yeah.
Feik: That's my big question for now, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, any questions from you?
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Kind: Madam Chair. The Lake Lucy Highlands, the large lot portion of this parcel is currently
landlocked, is that correct?
A1-Jaff: That's a fair statement.
Kind: So the only access to it really is this access point up here, and if that was to be developed in the
future you would need to get some sort of cross access agreement or something like that. An easement.
Okay. Let me see what else I have. Oh! The grading is quite extensive on here. I was wondering how
this compares to other subdivisions that we've approved recently. Does any come to mind that has had
this much grading?
Aanenson: Yes, this has some other encumbrances with it, wetlands and trees but yes. We've got other
projects that do to make it work.
Kind: The only one I could think of would be maybe the Pulte project which has extensive grading but
the trade off there was that we were preserving a lot of open. space and that sort of thing but there' s really
no trade off here for this grading.
A1-Jaff:: Ashling Meadow to the west of this site had some grading on it as well. The vegetation, many
of the trees were moved from one area to the other. That site, the Ashling Meadows site was initially a
landscape business. But again a lot of the trees were moved from one area to the other.
Kind: What was the net density of Ashling Meadows? Do you remember?
Aanenson: I think the average lot size was a little bigger.
AI-Jaff: Yeah. The average lot size in that subdivision was around 18.
Kind: Well that's what it is here too though.
A1-Jaff: I don't recall, I'm sorry.
Kind: Okay. On Lot 1, Block 3, this is the lot right next to the one that's too narrow. That one also
appears to me to be too narrow and I'm wondering if the calculations are based on it being on a curve.
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Kind: And to me that curve seems pretty much of a joke. To be calling that a curve. I mean isn't it
reasonable to require the frontage to be 90 feet on something like that?
Aanenson: ...by sliding different lot lines.
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Kind: We already talked about the wetlands. Where would they go? Oh, the retaining wall by the pond,
the newly created retention pond, what is the height of that? I tried to, I think my calculations, just based
on the topographical map here, plat, shows the trail at 968 and then the wetland is at 960 so am I to
assume it's about an 8 foot wall?
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Saam: Yeah, 8 to 9 feet.
Kind: Okay. And that is higher than our 4 foot requirement so that they would need to be engineered.
Saarm Exactly.
Kind: Yeah. And we've got a condition about that. I was just curious what the height was because the
chain link fence that is being proposed to be at the top of it, is that a city requirement or is that?
Saam: Yes, I believe where pedestrians could potentially harm themselves so where it's shown along a
trail, I believe that is a building department requirement.
Kind: So if the trail moves then that chain link fence at the top of that retaining wall would not be
necessary.
Saam: Exactly, yep.
Kind: And do we know what the material for the retaining wall is proposed to be?
Saam: No. I'd suggest that you ask the applicant.
Kind: I will. The utilities on page 9 of the staff report it talks about, there's no public sanitary sewer
available to the site so could a case be made that this development is premature?
Saam: It could be. As I stated in the staff report, we have received an application, or a petition I should
say from the applicant to extend sewer to his site as a public improvement project. It has received
council approval for the feasibility stage so we' ve been approved to go out and have a feasibility study
done on doing that. One of the conditions of that approval was that this preliminary plat be brought
before the Planning Commission. Have a public hearing heard on it so we're still working with the
applicant on the sewer issue as I refer to in the staff report.
Kind: Thank you. One piece I could not find in my packet was a lighting plan. Is that proposed?
Al-Jaff: We've added a condition.
Aanenson: Three conditions.
A1-Jaff: Three conditions actually. I put them in front of you and I'm sorry I did not mention them
earlier. We've added 3 conditions. First one, remove retaining wall from the right-of-way.
Kind: On the back of that? Sorry, sorry. Here we go.
A1-Jaff: Located north of Lot 8, Block 3. I'll point to it. There's a retaining wall proposed within the
right-of-way. Staff is recommending it be removed. There's an existing house on the site as well as
accessory structures, they need to be shown on the plan. And then street lights shall be located at all
intersections and at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Kind: Okay. And I'm assuming it shall comply with our rules as far as 90 degree cut off?
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
A1-Jaff: Correct. If I may, an earlier question was the average lot size for Ashling Meadow. I said
18,000. It's actually 28,000.
Kind: And the reason for the bigger lots in Ashling Meadows is to accommodate 3 car garages or?
A1-Jaff: Most developments have, what we see is typically a 3 car garage and the type of home that they
design requires the additional width, additional depth on the lots.
Kind: So is it safe to assume that the developers for this project is envisioning a different type of home
than what would be in Ashling Meadows?
Aanenson: Well the ordinance requires a 60 x 60 pad. That's what they have to show and if it meets that
then it's demonstrated to be a lot. It meets the 15,000.
Kind: Gotch ya. The horizontal curves on the south end of Lake, let's see. Of Lucy Ridge Lane, with
the sharp curve that would need to be posted at a lower speed. I've never seen that in a staff report
before that we allow having a slower speed area.
Saam: If you remember Marsh Glen, that development just north of Mission Hills. As you come into it,
there's a sharp curve there. I believe we had a sign posted there. That's the only one that comes to mind.
We would post it 25 probably.
Kind: So we do allow it?
Saam: Yes.
Kind: Page 11, they're talking about trails. The trail that goes along the wetland. There's really no good
way to access that trail on the south side of this development. I'm assuming that there will be in the
future if the parcel to the south develops.
A1-Jaff: If you look at this area, you truly have some steep slopes. So there isn't a logical place to
extend that connection, but as it extends in the future, most probably. Yes there will be.
Kind: In the comp plan it shows further south that there would be a future trail. Okay. And then I'm
assuming that based on the land cost that none of these lots would meet affordable criteria for owner
occupied homes, which our comp plan calls for I believe it's 30% of owner occupied, yeah.
Aanenson: No.
Kind: So that would need to be made up in a multi-family development somewhere else. And there's
one other quick question. Condition number 20 on page 18 talks about discharge and having a drain tile
system behind the curbs. That's the first time I've seen that in a staff report.
Saam: That's standard, yep. In all the low points within streets under the curbs we require.
Kind: Is it normally on the builder's plans and that's why I've never seen it as a condition before?
Saam: Yeah, it may not have been shown on a preliminary plat before but we require it on the final plat.
We consider it a minor detail so.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Kind: I think it's great, I just never saw it before on any others. And that's all.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, do you have any questions at this time?
Claybaugh: Yes I do. I'd like to come back and revisit the statement that you've been working with the
developer for probably a little better than a year. It seems like there's quite a number of outstanding
issues after 12 months of negotiation and dialogue to be coming in front of us right now. That's a
substantial concern. Question for engineering. The storm water calc's, any concern that those aren't
forth coming yet?
Saam: We've received some pond calculations. However they do not meet the NURP criteria which we
require in town. That's why I said we'll require additional storm water calc's. I have no reason to
believe that we won't obtain those.
Claybaugh: It seems like there's a lot of smaller items or things being portrayed as smaller issues that by
the sheer quantity of then have the ability to greatly affect the overall layout of the subdivision. You' ve
got substantial calc's for the NURP pond. I don't know how that affects in terms of the size of the
retention pond.
Saam: That could potentially be a major issue.
Claybaugh: You've got a number of buffer areas that potentially are going to encroach on the lots. The
fact that they've been in negotiation for over a year, I'm assuming, tell me if I'm assuming incorrectly
that this has been revised and the number of lots have come down since the original plans have come into
the city or is this pretty similar to what came in the door the first go around?
A1-Jaff: Initially when we met with the applicant, and I have to go through some paperwork to find when
we started this process...not part of this development. And then at a later point the applicant acquired
this Outlot A. But it's always been 22.
Claybaugh: It has always been 22? I was just wondering from the development cost standpoint divided
by the number of lots how they're being affected there. Has the forester been out to take a look at the
property?
Aanenson: (Yes).
Claybaugh: Okay. Most the questions have been asked. I'd just like to reiterate the concern that this
amount of time has passed and there's still quite a few issues outstanding yet that should be incorporated
at this point in my opinion in the preliminary.
Blackowiak: Okay. And I don't think I have too many additional questions. Wetland replacement
sheets. We don't have sheets yet. I still haven't seen anything tonight, okay. And you said the forester
had been out to the site so the numbers that are in here, the staff numbers are her numbers? She's
comfortable with them?
Aanenson: That's her recommendation.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
l~lackowiak: Her recommendation, okay. And how bout the Water Resources Coordinator? I didn't see
any specific I guess conditions from her. That had her name on them I guess.
A1-Jaff: They're under the wetland alteration.
Blackowiak: Okay. Are those all.
A1-Jaff: Page 22 and they came out a, b, c, d through i.
Blackowiak: Okay, so those are all from her? From Lori?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
7Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, that's it. Those are the questions I have at this point. Uli.
Sacchet: May I add one more question?
Blackowiak: Sure. We've got a couple more here. Uli, go ahead.
Sacchet: Real quick. The grading is relatively extensive. Now you pointed out those areas where the
trees are supposed to be preserved as part of this color green on the drawing up on the table. There is no
grading happening in those areas that are colored green?
AI-Jaff: Not according to the grading plan.
Sacchet: Okay, because I had a little hard time with the grading plan has so much on it. It was really
hard for me to decipher where the grading takes place. So as far as your understanding there's no
grading in those areas?
A1-Jaff: Not according to the plans that were submitted.
Sacchet: Okay, that's my question. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay Rich, do you have another question?
Slagle: ...question Chairman. Since the applicant made their original intent known to staff, how many
plans have you seen? I mean is a lot or are we looking at just a few?
A1-Jaff: 4 or 5. I would have to go through the file.
Slagle: And the reason I'm asking is, per Craig's question you stated that it stayed at 22 basically from
the onset. Number of sites.
A1-Jaff: When we first met with the applicant Outlot A was not part of it.
Slagle: I understand. I got that part.
A1-Jaff: At that point I believe the number of lots were 17.
Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001
Slagle: Okay, so Outlot, that addition of land in addition to Outlot A is that it's added 5?
Al-Jaff.' Yeah.
Slagle: Okay. Since that point, what I'm trying to gauge is what kind of conversations and
communications and let's just call it partnering has happened since that point, and I need your viewpoint
as well because we're going to ask the applicant that, and I think it's fair to hear both sides.
Aanenson: Okay. I think our staff report speaks to what we believe is to make it work. Okay, and we've
laid those out in conditions that we say the retaining walls have to come out. We need better storm water
calc's. Looking at if those things can be addressed then we believe we have a site plan that meets city
ordinance. What the implications of those, we're not all sure yet. I think if we listen to the applicant's
presentation they may be able to address those but if we can, if these changes were incorporated into the
plan, the subdivision, then we would have a project that meets city ordinance.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Now would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so,
please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
Randy Noecker: My name is Randy Noecker.
Blackowiak: Excuse me, do you want to just grab the microphone and so we can all hear. Thank you.
Randy Noecker: My name is Randy Noecker and I live at 8315 Pleasant View Drive in Moundsview,
Minnesota and I am the applicant. I'm going to be highlighting a number of things about the plan and
then for more detail I'm going to introduce my engineer, Tedd Mattke...in this process. To begin with
let me make a few general comments. One of them being that this is a, has been a very complex site and
because of it's nature, basically rising about, I think it's 59 or 60 feet above Lake Lucy Road, it makes it
extremely difficult to develop. And we've brought revisions to the staff on numerous occasions, like
Sharmin indicates, and I' ye had several conversations with Teresa and other staff members concerning
this site. Some of the main issues that we ran into were road alignment because initially before we even
brought a concept plan to the city we had looked at a different road alignment but it just caused such a
hug amount of tree loss that we basically stuck with the plan that we've had, and although there is a
significant amount of tree loss on this site, we've tried to minimize it as much as possible given the
conditions that we've been working with on the huge topography changes. Also we've had one of the
things that I approached, I live on a street that has teenagers and I'm the ninth house in on the street and
it's nothing for teenagers in my community to be hitting 50 miles an hour before they get to the stop sign.
And with a, we basically are maxed out at a 7% grade on this site to make things work and we even then
couldn't achieve the desired flatness of the close to stop signs that we would like to have achieved. And
so I approached Matt one day and I said hey, would it be possible that we minimize these curves
somewhat because it will help slow down traffic. And if you've got a 700 foot run at the top of that hill
down to the stop sign, dime to donuts somebody's going to go sliding through that stop sign in the
wintertime so that's one of the, I know one of the comments were made about those curves and that was
why we had done that. The other thing also is we had looked at, in one of the, in some of the previous
plans we had looked at bringing the trail up through the cul-de-sac and trying to minimize the impact on
the wetlands. So the trail and the associated home ownership of the people that were living there by
having that trail come up through the cul-de-sac. Todd Hoffman indicated that that just was something
that they would prefer not to see. They'd like to keep the trail along the wetlands. And in so doing it's,
10
Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001
maybe I can summarize this a little bit by saying, if you check my track history you'll find that my
developments are a little bit above neighboring developments if you will, and I'm somewhat particular
about the land that I purchase and in so doing, try to achieve and create developments that are upscale if
you will. And I've already met with several builders for this development. Charles Cudd and just a
number of them without naming a whole bunch of names, but they are very interested in acquiring this
property, or acquiring the lots in the property and would be building homes probably in the 700 plus
range. And there has been discussions about having a model at 1.1 with one of the builders. So it's a
very high caliber neighborhood if you will and we're very, we tried to save as many trees as we possibly
could. We originally identified that we had about 98 trees to replace and I made a proposal that we put in
114 and then calculations that Sharmin has come up with is different than what we had. One of the, and
I'm not saying that it's even my engineer or Sharmin is off but I will say this. One of the problems in
looking at aerial topography is that when you do that you pick up shadows of trees instead of the trees
themselves and sometimes you calculate different amounts than you would really if you did not look at
the shadows of the trees. So this may or may not be a problem at this point, I don't know but whatever
the case, we're in agreement to conform to what we need to to achieve this development. I've literally
practically got it all sold out before it's even built. There's a high demand for this area. There will be
many beautiful lots overlooking the lake and be able to have that many beautiful homes associated
therewith. I'm going to let Tedd go into a little bit more detail here on the plan. And feel free if you
have any questions now or later if you'd like to ask me and glad to answer.
Blackowiak: I think we'll hear the entire presentation and then maybe we'll call you back up if that's
alright. Thanks.
Randy Noecker: Alright.
Tedd Mattke: My name is Tedd Mattke. Mattke Surveying and Engineering. There are I think 3 parts
that we probably should talk about. The reason why we don't have the buffer that we're supposed to have
along the wetland is that we didn't understand what we were required to do. What we have shown is an
8 foot wide bituminous trail that' s right along the side of the property lines of the lots that would be
created and then between the bituminous trail and the wetland we're showing something in the ranges
between 10 feet and about 50 feet that we thought was considered buffer. We now understand that the
requirement is that there be a 20 foot trail easement that does not count as the buffer and that the trail is
supposed to go down the middle of that and apparently the city is going to be mowing it or something
like that on both sides and then the buffer is outside of that. So in order to create the trail according to
the requirements, we will have to lose a lot, 1 lot from those 6 lots that are facing towards the wetland on
the east. We looked at that earlier and that's the number that we come up with in order to have the area
that meets the city requirements there. As far as the wetland mitigation, we're showing wetland
mitigation in the northwest corner of the site. We can also provide the public value credits with the pond
and the buffer area. So as far as how you want to designate that, which part goes to achieve the wetland
mitigation public value credits, we're going to have more than what we need with this project as it is
right now and with the trail we'll have even more beyond what is required. As far as the pond sizing
goes, we do meet, in my opinion, meet the NURP size requirements but we don't have the 10 foot bench
in there right now and that's a requirement but that would increase the size of the pond in the, also be
using up some of that area of that lot that we're going to lose so we're going to end up with a project here
that's 21 lots, not 22 and we can accommodate the requirements for the NURP requirements and also the
trail setback requirements for the buffer along side the wetland as we now understand it to be.
Discussion about the trees is I guess the other issue. The shading that you see on there that shows trees, a
lot of those trees are buckthorn and box elder and small 3 inch, 2 inch diameter trees that provide canopy
right now but they're not significant trees and there's a lot of open space on that site too. And a majority
11
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
of our grading is in that open space and taking out those small trees and then we have to replace them.
Randy pointed out that in looking at the aerial photos you may over judge the area that is canopy based
on shadows and so forth. We had discussions at the time of what we were supposed to include as canopy
and some of the discussion included, well do you want the little brushy trees? The willows that are down
next to the wetland and so forth, are they supposed to count? And our understanding was that they
weren't supposed to count but if the forester wants to count them, Randy' s willing to accept that too. It' s
not a deal breaker I guess. Nothing in this project is a deal breaker. We'd been working with staff as
Sharmin has said, and Randy has noted also and we're willing to continue to do that to meet these latest
things that staff has come up with. I point out that this is the first real full scale review we've had
because in the past we've been dealing with issues such as will you allow a steeper grade than 7% to save
some more trees? And it was decided by staff, no we want to stick to 7%. The question came up about
those retaining walls. The retaining walls are far enough away from the pads right now that we can move
them so that, and meet the 30 foot setback. We didn't understand that the retaining walls were
considered structures when it came to the setback from the wetland buffer. So it's another
misunderstanding on our part and we'll just move them. The reason we have a retaining wall shown right
now, I believe it's shown on the edge of the right-of-way rather than in the right-of-way. If it's shown in
the right-of-way, then it has to be moved or eliminated and the reason for that retaining wall is to save a
large white pine. As far as grades go, this site is, I don't think it's that difficult a site other than you've
got a lot of topography going across it and so you have to make flat areas for the pads and staff takes a
conservative view in calculating what we're losing in terms of trees by saying that anything that's within,
I think she said 10 feet Sharmin, of the pad area we considered as a lost tree?
A1-Jaff: What we've done in the past is looked at 20 feet. Based upon our experience those are the trees
that typically get removed.
Tedd Mattke: Okay, so we accept that calculation. It's our intent when we go out on the site and begin
grading to try to save more than that. We don't get credit for those that we save but it's our intent to save
them and let the homeowners take them out if they have to. After they see how their house sits on a lot,
so this is a worst case scenario that you're looking at in terms of the trees that will be lost. One final
thing I guess is that the Lake Lucy has riparian rights and the initial intent was to try to get a couple lots
that could have lake frontage and docks and so forth and the city wants to have a trail that goes along the
wetlands. They didn't want the trail to go up to the cul-de-sac. They wanted the trail down along the
lake and so the city acquires those riparian rights which are significantly valuable, let's put it that way.
And so the public gets to use that trail and if there's a dock or something put in there, down there on that
southeast comer, it's a public dock. It's not a dock that is owned by the person on the last lot down there.
I think there's been, and one final thing I guess. In crossing the wetland on the north end where, we're
filling above the area of a house, about 4,000 square feet, and it's a requirement that we go out to Lake
Lucy Road by the city. We have to go out there and that's the only place we can cross without filling
more than 4,000 square feet so we're doing the minimum, or holding it to a minimum that we can and
we're trying to do it in a way that the city wants us to do it. And now I guess, unless Randy has
something more to add, I'm done.
Blackowiak: Okay. Mr. Noecker, do you have anything else you'd like to add right now?
Randy Noecker: Not right now unless you have any questions.
Blackowiak: No. Well why don't we start with Mr. Mattke then. Any questions, engineering type I'm
assuming. If anybody has any.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Slagle: Just a couple questions. Randy mentioned that there was an alternative route you looked at.
Blackowiak: Say Rick, can we just leave him up there. We'll do, for Mr. Mattke the engineering
questions first.
Slagle: I think he can answer it but Randy's the one that mentioned it.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Slagle: There was an alternative route that you guys discussed that you looked at first. My question is
where would that have gone?
Tedd Mattke: The city indicated they wanted a road that went around the wetland and Randy indicated
that he would like it to come up to the cul-de-sac and follow.
Slagle: No, road.
Tedd Mattke: The road?
Slagle: Yeah.
Tedd Mattke: We had, one of our originally...a road coining like straight across.
Slagle: On that road that goes into Ashling Meadows? The road.
Tedd Mattke: Correct. And staff didn't like that. Staff decided that it would be better to have a T
intersection here. Make this one come through with the curves. We also considered having a cul-de-sac
here. It was desired that this road continue on through. We didn't want to get into the bluffs so there's
been shifting back and forth here in this way to avoid the trees and to hold the houses back away from the
significant trees. There's been shifting of the road in through here and curving of the road to avoid the
significant trees that are in here and that make the grades work and still avoid the bluff and have
buildable lots in there. This road here has had some shifting in through here. In the end it's been pulled
back as a result of comments and to avoid the bluff and a number of things. To basically fine tuning this
thing as far as we could go so. We've been, there's only one way really to develop this property in the
manner that is being proposed and that's like it's shown right here. If you want to achieve the things that
the staff wants to achieve and Randy wants to achieve.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Sorry Rich. I just want us to keep one up at a time. Any other questions for him? No?
Feik: No engineering.
Blackowiak: No engineering. Deb?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Is Sharmin's recollection that before Outlot A was included that there were
about 17 lots and that the addition of Outlot A allowed the addition of 5?
13
Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001
Tedd Mattke: I wasn't involved in it at that time so I couldn't comment on what happened back before
Ontlot A was added.
Kind: I'I1 ask when Randy's back up there.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Kind: Yeah, that's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, any engineering questions?
Claybaugh: Yeah I had one question. The alignment for the proposed road off Lake Lucy, how
consistent is that with the existing drive that's there now serving the property2
Tedd Mattke: It's pretty much laying right over the top of it.
Claybaugh: Okay. So there's no, that's already substantially degraded in that area so, okay. That was
my only question.
Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. And I don't have any questions of you right now, thanks. Your turn.
Alright, questions of the applicant. Rich, go ahead.
Slagle: Randy you had mentioned that you had developments that you've done before. Just a couple
examples of those just for my own frame of mind.
Randy Noecker: Eden Prairie, Mitchell Bay Townhomes. Foxbriar Ridge in Maple Grove. Wildwood
Village in Blaine. Goodview Ridge in Wyoming, which is a couple miles north of Forest Lake.
Slagle: Okay.
Randy Noecker: And I' ve got some preliminary stuff on 80 acres in Shakopee and I have another 20
house, 20 townhome house development unnamed in Blaine that's going on, and another 10 acre parcel
in Blaine.
Slagle: Okay. That's all for right now.
Blackowiak: Okay. Questions Uli, questions?
Sacchet: Yes, one question from the applicant. I'm very perplexed about this, I have to admit. How can
you fit a million dollar house on a 15,000 square foot lot please?
Randy Noecker: I should probably have Charles Cudd here. From a square footage perspective it's very
easy. The ones, some of the requirements inside my development are 3 car garages. I am debating
between requiring a 10:12 pitch on all roof lines, but I think I'm going to go back to 8:12. In previous
developments I required ramblers to be at 6:12 and 2 stories, especially gables that face the street to be
8:12 or higher. In a development like this you're going to see a lot of 10:12's and 12:12 pitch roofs.
Then you'll have, it will almost, I have about 25 residents from Chanhassen that are waiting for this
approval because ! have one advantage that other developers may or may not have. I can sell a lot to a
private party and they can use their own builder and there's a fair number of people that don't want to
14
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
build with the national builders if you will because they force you to build with them on their land so I
don't build with sticks. I create developments and put in the infrastructure and sell the lots and it's not a,
I have met with almost 2 handfuls of builders and not one of them has talked'about putting a model up
less than 700.
Sacchet: On the 15,000 square feet roughly?
Randy Noecker: Yeah. Most of the time, you're basically not going to have any problem when you get
to about 16,000 square feet. You may have a little problem depending on the width of the sidewalk and
how much blacktop they want to put in, and maybe the size of the patio in the back, but you're, the
impervious area does create a factor because you've got that 25% rule here in Chanhassen.
Sacchet: Okay. I'I1 have comments.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions Bruce?
Feik: Yes. Have you read the staff report yourself?
Randy Noecker: I've glanced through it. I did not have a chance to read it in detail.
Feik: Have you read each and every one of the staff recommendations for approval that would be
required for approval?
Randy Noecker: No.
Feik: I guess I'm wondering from your perspective then, based upon staff's recommendations, how
doable those recommendations are and to what degree it would change the project. But if you haven't
reviewed them.
Randy Noecker: I kind of handed the football off to Tedd and when I delivered the comments to him and
I said go over this and let me know where we are in detail and he's basically indicated to me that we are,
because of the increase in the pond and the trail issues that we would likely lose 1 lot. It's based on what
the other comments are in the staff report that I saw and that he commented on, it doesn't appear that
we're going to lose more than 1 lot. I may be wrong on that but.
Aanenson: Can staff comment on that?
Feik: Please.
Aanenson: Just to make sure something's not being misrepresented, because we've been trying to
articulate this over the last couple of months. The trail impact issue. I'm not sure the engineer still has
the setback correct. We're not sure that only i lot is going to solve that problem.
Feik: Okay.
Aanenson: And he's still not interpreting it correctly, although we've been trying over several months
through written correspondence documented to explain to him what the setback is. That's why we're at
this point tonight.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Feik: Thank you. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, any questions?
Kind: Yes. The retaining wall near the entrance, what's the proposed material for that and did I
calculate the height right at about 8 feet?
Randy Noecker: I thought it was about 6 but maybe it is higher than that. And the material would be
Keystone more than likely.
Kind: And if the trail is moved to be not along that retaining wall, I'm assuming the chainlink fence
would go away? That's on top of that retaining wall.
Randy Noecker: I don't know about that for certain. I would, depending on the situation. I assume the
premise that the city doesn't want kids playing in the wetlands so I kind of assume that nobody should be
there but there is a safety issue involved that we'd have to look at you know and if in fact the wall is 8 or
9 feet high, I think just for sheer safety issues I would have some kind of fence up there.
Kind: Even if there is no trail?
Randy Noecker: Yeah. You'd have to think of public safety.
Kind: Okay. I guess that's it.
Blackowiak: Okay. Craig do you have any questions for the applicant?
Claybaugh: Yeah I did. You commented on some of the previous subdivisions you've done. Do you
typically do infill type subdivisions? Is that what you'd considered your nitch or?
Randy Noecker: I guess I don't sense it that way. I'm real sensitive about the parcel that I acquire. I
look at it in detail. This one here I happened to pick up in 1996 under an option agreement and I
currently am the fee owner on Outlot A.
Claybaugh: I guess I'd like you to try and comment if you can, I understand it may be difficult about
some of the miscommunications that seem to have taken place between the correspondence and yourself
and your representative over the course of the last year, and if you can, go ahead.
Randy Noecker: I don't know if it's, let me say that every community does things a little bit differently.
Tedd has been with me for a number of projects and we are used to, and that's our fault. Don't
misunderstand what I'm saying but we're used to putting a plan into the city and then in a short time
thereafter we get comments and we revise those plans and then it goes onto a first planning commission
so we have an opportunity to get, I say clean up the plan, but the city of Chanhassen chooses to do it
without that step in it. And so when I sensed that I ended up having 1 or 2 more plans submissions trying
to get comments from the staff as much as possible. But seeing that they preferred to do the methodology
in this fashion we ended up submitting as best we could based on the conditions that we understand and
from there we're basically getting our first full blown report back. We haven't had that opportunity to
get that back before.
Aanenson: May I comment on that?
16
Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001
Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead Kate.
Aanenson: I think we've given them written comments. We've met with them numerous times.
Engineering, the forester, the wetland to try to give them direction. It wasn't a complete application. We
will not bring a project to you until it's a complete application. And whether it does or doesn't meet all
the design things, often the applicant' s looking for a recommendation of approval to go forward so we
have to have at least a subdivision that's close to meeting it. Again, even looking at this, with the
numerous numbers of modifications that we're recommending, you can see that there's some differences
of interpretation of the city ordinances. And how they impact. Although we have tried diligently to
explain that. I'm not sure it's been communicated what those standards are.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: And again it's complex because of the slopes, the trees, the wetlands. Those are limiting
factors that affect the layout and that's what we're trying to work on. What the city ordinances are.
Where the Park and Rec wants the trail, which they direct and those sort of things.
Blackowiak: Yeah, thank you. Craig, any other questions?
Claybaugh: No.
Kind: Madam Chair, I forgot to ask my question about the before Outlot A and after Outlot A, how many
more lots were you able to work into your plan?
Randy Noecker: In my original plan that I, my concept plan that I put together prior to acquiring Outlot
A, and I might add without even contacting the city other than the only 2 factors that I knew were that
you needed to have a 90 foot frontage and you needed to have 15,000 square feet and I just went off of a
blow-up on a half section map and I acquired I think 21 or 22 lots there. Then I acquired the 6 or 7 acre
parcel of Outlot A, which only has about an acre, acre and a half buildable, but by acquiring that Outlot
A I was then able to basically put in a cul-de-sac, which I really wanted to do from the beginning, and I
had negotiated for several years on Outlot A but was unsuccessful until recently.
Kind: So in your opinion Outlot A did not allow you to add any more lots?
Randy Noecker: No.
Aanenson: We would concur with that. I think his objective has always been to try to get 22 lots. But as
he stated, when he came in he ignored the topography, the wetland issues and that sort of thing. He just
went with the minimum lot requirements.
Kind: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Thanks. Okay, and at this point I don't have any questions of the applicant so what I will
do, unless anybody has more questions, I will open the public hearing. This is a time when public can get
up and make comments on this project, so step up to the microphone. State your name and address for
the record please and like I said, we may ask a question or two so we fully understand your concerns but
feel free to come up to the microphone.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Tamara Sather: My name is Tamara Sather. I live at 7090 Utica Lane, and I'm representing for the
members of Greenwood Shores and I have read this report several times myself since getting it last
Friday and I guess a red flag came up to me immediately with the amount of recommendations that are
still not met after months and months since this proposal has been made. And I think that we feel the
main goal here, if you read my e-mail that I sent out today, is that it appears the objective is to get as
many homes in as is possible and the topography of this land, as the applicant stated himself, this land is
laid out in such a way that it is difficult to develop and I think that screams in itself to keep it' s integrity
as it is. And the amount of trees that are on the lots aren't as numerous. I' walked back there last
weekend. It' s a beautiful site and I think that the amount of trees that will be lost is significant and will
increase light and noise pollution and the amount of lots is just too great. The amount of vegetation loss
is too gmat, so I think we would like the request for large lot residential to Iow density be denied to
preserve the integrity of that land and perhaps limit the amount of lots that we could be developed.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And Sharmin, can I just ask that a copy of this go to the council in the
packet when this does move forward. Okay, thank you.
John Waldron: Hi. My name is John Waldron. I live at 1900 Lake Lucy Road, just to the west and on
the north side of Lake Lucy. When I went through the report from staff I thought it'd be awful hard
to...whole lot of public comment because if you make all these changes or recommendations that it calls
for in here, I don't think this is all going to look the same way. And so it's kind of hard to say and give a
comment on what the end result's going to end up looking like so I would hope that you...table it this
evening and have it re-worked and brought back. And the other thing is when I look at the plat I have a
visual of coming down Lake Lucy Road going to the west and right now you see lots of trees and some
big white pine and a lot of more wooded areas...coming down Lake Lucy Road and now if you come
around that curve, right where you see this property, you could end up seeing this 8-9 foot retaining wall
right in the middle of the wetlands. Then you're going to have a 6 foot chainlink fence right on top of it,
and with the amount of grading that you've got from one side of this parcel to the other, I think we've got
about 66 feet and so it's getting scraped off one side and pushed over on the other side and I think it's in,
I guess this is Block 1, Lot 1 over here. If I look right it's about 18 feet. Probably mitigated wetland up
to the pad and so that's awful dam steep in my book for having a house sitting right out them. So you're
going to have not only this retaining wall and a chainlink fence sitting right there as you drive down Lake
Lucy Road. You're going to have a couple of these houses sitting right out there that's going to be right
on the edge of a steep bluff and the amount of grading that's going to happen in there, you'll have a hard
time seeing how you're going to save a whole lot of trees so. So I would ask that the city end up having
the plat, something at least all the different buffers for the slopes and wetlands. And I'm not against
somebody developing the site but I think ...development this drastic that having any trees saved is such a
hard thing to do. Plus the fact, on small lots like that, homeowners have lots of choices and the house
they buy and I heard the number for some of the lots of $300,000 for a lot. Well you can usually figure
that the lot's 25% of the price of the house. That's a million 2 house and there's a lot of people, there are
a lot of places somebody can go to get a million 2 house rather than on this size lot with possibly only a 2
car garage so my request would be that, you have...and have it fit into the area it is and save as many
trees as you can. And table it for now, bring it back so we can give public comment on what something's
really going to look like. The way it's actually going to be built. Thanks.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Dale Carlson: Hi. I'm Dale Carlson, 6900 Utica Lane. Certainly there's a lot of things that disturb me
about this, having lived on Lake Lucy for 30 years. But I guess a couple of questions I have and I don't
'know if you can answer them necessarily for me but they're questions. When we moved there, all that
18
Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001
:property around Lake Lucy was in fact zoned as residential large lot. Why do we bother doing this
sometimes if all we're going to do is turn it into residential low density? When we bought out there we
thought our lots were going to be good sized and now somebody comes along and says I can't develop
this property and make 10 million dollars off of it so you've got to make it low density so I can develop.
I don't understand. I'm confused about that. Secondly is that, if I'm understanding this right, there is no
sewer going through there so I assume it's septic. Is that true?
Blackowiak: No. Well Kate, go ahead.
Aanenson: Let me answer both questions. That property is guided for low density residential. The
sewer just came through, or will be coming through as Lundgren also which was zoned similarly large lot
because there was no sewer in that area. Those in the Steller Addition because they're larger lots will
remain septic and well, but this area was guided for low density. It was left rural or large lot because
Ihere is no sewer and water. This project anticipates bringing sewer and water to it.
Dale Carlson: At what time will that happen?
Aanenson: With the subdivision. When it's approved. They have to wait for it to come. It's on the
eastern side, adjacent to Galpin as it's coming across with the second phase of the Lundgren subdivision.
Dale Carlson: Okay that answers my question because I know that when the sewer went through in '75
on the east side, we had no choice. We had just put in a new septic system 2 years earlier. We had no
choice but to hook up to sewer. Why? Lake Lucy so that's going to happen I guess, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Eric Rivkin: I'm Eric Rivkin and I live at 1695 Steller Court. My property on the plan, if it's possible to
show where my lot is here. This gray shaded area is this outlot and this here is the lot that's up for
review tonight. My lot is this one. Right here this 10 acre parcel. So I'm quite affected by the outcome
of this. In past life, when I first moved here 13 years ago, when I built my house there, I got together
with the lake homeowners and helped form the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. With Dale Carlson
being a co-chair person. I can't speak for the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association tonight because we
didn't have a meeting but I do want to historically say that in all the years we have been having issues
come and go, that we've all concur one sure thing and that is we would like to see the outlot there remain
a natural amenity for the lake. There was a proposal 9 years ago by the Hennepin County Lakes Board to
try and clean up the chain of lakes and this issue came up in public meetings. What to do with this
outlot. The city was going to toy around buying it but they didn't have any money at the time the debate
was going on whether they should put on a dock. And the trail seemed to be a sure thing and nobody
seemed to object to that. I don't object to it personally now. The lot itself, it's my understanding, is this
dotted line, where is the edge of the outlot on the western edge? Can you explain that to me on this plan?
Al-Jaff: It's right here,
Eric Riv 'kin: So there are some houses.
A1-Jaff: There are 2 houses proposed within this area. There is a corner of a house in this area and
another corner in that area.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Eric Rivkin: Okay, thank you. As Mr. Waldron has indicated, and I also know from historical history
that when we first were buying these lots 14-15 years ago the Lake Lucy Highlands had 19 homeowners
there. That we were all sold on the basis that this outlot would remain an outlot. That' s, you know it's
designated legally as an outlot and here we are looking at a zoning variance and I oppose any change in
doing anything to this as an outlot. There are trees that grew up and yes there are 2 inch trees. There
was nothing there before but now nature's taken over, as it gloriously does and provided lots of buffer
visually and naturally to help build up grasses, savannah and natural woods that allow you know
prevention of your erosion and sedimentation and nutrient loading into the lake coming down from,
washed out from the slope. There's already considerable amount of, I did a lot of research with the
homeowners association regarding lake water quality and always come to these meetings whenever
there's a development going around the lake to try and preserve what I can of the lake water quality.
Lake Lucy, as you know, is a headwaters and the water clarity is cleaner than Lake Ann from time to
time. Most of the time actually, according to the records. We have a lot of springs that are around the
lake that feed into there naturally and this wetland here is fed by at least 2 natural springs year round.
And it' s clean water coming out of the ground. By adding nutrients from runoff, storms, rooftops,
whatever, streets, we're stressing it already. There's already rakish water that is on a sedimentation pond
located right here that the city has not cleaned out according to an agreement by the Merle Steller, the
land developer when it was developed and that should be taken care of. As a result, the vegetation
around here in this area as large just kind of gOes down. It's kind of a filter. Kind of like the Everglades.
Just kind of filters right through. And we're going to add to that and there's a lot of weed growth right
here right now that hasn't come up in past years. It used to be fairly clean here and now it's becoming.
stressed because of the nutrient loading coming off these developments all the way to Galpin. Galpin
Boulevard to the west. So anyway, I think that because the number of houses here really severely
stresses the landform and stresses the amount of trees and natural amenities, this kind of thing to me
belongs on a flat lot. It doesn't belong on something that's very hilly, difficult to grade and to try to keep
natural amenities. It seems to be very forced. I agree with Mr. Waldron about the million dollar houses
on small lots. I don't think it's going to, it just is incongruous there. I think in my opinion that these
houses along here should be eliminated. This road should be eliminated and the remaining 17 houses be
spread out and relaxed in such a way that fits the land. Fits the natural amenity of the area. There's
already high density going on to the west. We've got 2 ½ acre to 10 acre large lot going on over here. I
think it would be best to compromise and do something inbetween the density so that things are relaxed
here. It's just too tense, so I think that it should be tabled and I think that the plan come back and have
less density. I also want to thank the lady here for mustering up a petition. That's the kind of thing I
used to do all the time on things like this, Ms. Sather, and Mr. Waldron for coming to speak up. And I
concur. I signed Ms. Sather's petition which she circulated this evening. Thank you very much and I
concur with everything on it and so I wanted to add some, a little bit of historical perspective as to why in
my own personal opinion why it should be tabled.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: Madam Chair, can I just bring up a point of clarification on the outlot.
Blackowiak: Certainly.
Aanenson: The outlot that we're talking about as a part of the Steller Addition, was given outlot status
until such time that the infill sites could be determined. I've been with the city 10 years. The first few
years ! was here we, Mr. Herbst did try to develop this property working out a wetland alteration permit.
Whether you choose not to rezone this, we would still make this develop, provide access. There is
buildable area on this site. Whether it' s a septic, I guess our preference would be that if it can be
20
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
provided sewer and water, that would be our first choice. Whether it's one lot, or if it's included in this,
but for this to get access, and that's part of our job is to make sure that instead of having 2 access points
on Lake Lucy, the better planning way would be again, regardless if this was included in the plat, that
this project provide access, I hate to use the word, possibly a driveway. Private drive to provide access to
that lot. So when we added to it, the mix, that' s some of the discussion that we had with the applicant.
How do we make that work because there is development of an area up there. It was just a matter of
getting access and that was part of the issue to come across this. Now we'd have 2 close driveways on
Lake Lucy which would not be our preference.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Vernon Hall: Hi. My name is Vernon Hall and I would just like to speak from an integrity standpoint.
I'm hearing the applicant come in here with a lot of conflict it sounds like with the city and hearing that
and also I mean I'm here and I agree with what's being addressed. I'm on the petition here. But from the
fact that if I from a business perspective was an issue, he' s coming here and not even knowing clearly
what the city has made amendments and those who don't, even aren't on this today that I don't
understand how that it could even be any more than tabled and looked at further down the road. How can
we progress with any plan in progress when there's not even anything complete or near accurate to look
at from my understanding without even looking at the complete report. So that concerns me as being a
neighbor, and a neighbor but the builders building there with what I perceive as a lack of strong integrity
and especially again in a wetlands area with concerns of the lake and the issues that surround that. Thank
you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, is there anyone who would like to speak? Okay seeing no one, I am
going to close the public hearing. Now's the time for the commissioners to make comments. Craig, do
you want to start?
Claybaugh: Why don't you go ahead and start with Rich.
Slagle: I can start.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Slagle: I have a quick question if I may to staff. The comment was brought up that we had to go through
or the recommendation by staff was to go through Lake Lucy Road.
Aanenson: Yes.
Slagle: If I can have a little clarification as to why that is. And let me preface that question by saying
this. I live in a development, Forest Meadows that we have to go through Longacres to get to our 18-19-
20 homes. My question is, why wouldn't we have just gone through Ashling Meadows to get to here.
Aanenson: It's vice versa. Ashling Meadows does not have the access point. You remember they
wanted the one lot that had the wetland in front that we said no. That they wanted that lot adjacent to.
This is an access point also for Ashling Meadows to come out this way.
Slagle: Okay, but I guess I'm asking why couldn't everything come out Galpin.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Al-Jaff: You will have an extremely long cul-de-sac. There are 50 plus home sites on the Ashling
Meadows site. Add another potentially 20, 22, whatever that number. That's a large number and a fairly
long cul-de-sac. You need a second access.
Slagle: I might concur. The intent though when we're stopping the road down at the south end of this
property, is your intent to take Lucy Ridge Lane further south and to the land that's going to be at some
point developed maybe?
Aanenson: Yes.
Slagle: So you're going to have sort of a curvy road.
Aanenson: Yes.
Slagle: Okay. I just wanted to have that answered since that came up. Here's my thoughts. First of all I
think this is premature. I don't think it's complete, and I would just ask as best you can as a staff to try
and do everything you can to prevent this, these situations from coming up.where there's just numerous
questions. I just wouldn't feel, as this gentleman alluded to earlier, I wouldn't feel comfortable voting
yes or no on this proposal given what's come before us. And I'll mention a few things. Septic system.
My gosh, if we have a situation next to this lake and we are advocating some homes having a septic
system, and I understand the logistics behind it, my recommendation would be that this needs to wait for
sewer. Next, the assessments have not been paid, at least from what I read. I don't need to get into that,
the assessments based upon what's been happening so far and I don't need an answer for that but I just
have concerns about that when I first see that assessments have not been paid. Tree preservation plan is
sort of, we heard some thoughts but I don't see anything definitive in that. The areas retaining wall, bluff
setback, absence of wetland buffer. The question about Outlot A, and there's a lot. I mean this is a
mouthful or handful, however you want to describe it, of things that come up in front of this group that I
think in some respects I don't think it should come before us to be quite honest. I think it should have
been addressed and if the need was to come to us to ask the applicant to modify some of these things,
then great. I mean you're hearing us. We hope you build and I hope this is a desirable development but
there's just a lot of questions I don't think as a commissioner or a citizen that I could vote on so with
that, that's my thoughts.
Blackowiak: Thank you. LuAnn.
Saam: Madam Chair, could I add just a point of clarification?
Blackowiak: Yeah, on the septic.
Saam: Yeah.
Blackowiak: Go ahead.
Saam: Every lot is intended to be on city sewer and water so there will be no septic out there. The only
question is whether it's a city project that brings the sewer to his lot line or whether he waits for
Lundgren to extend it through Ashling Meadows. That's the only issue right now.
Slagle: But is, if I can ask Matt, is the concept though that there would be homes built with septic until
sewer came?
22
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Aanenson: No.
Saam: No.
Al-Jaff: No.
Slagle: Okay, so there's no septic's planned to be built at all.
AI-Jaff: No.
Saam: No.
Aanenson: Let me, the point of clarification was the one lot that was originally owned by Mr. Dirks, that
was the outlot. When they acquired the rights to include that in the plat, Mr. Rivkin brought up the point
that those were left to be large lot. Our recommendation is if we would provide, ask that this developer
provide access to it, and because he's doing that, we'd also recommend that sewer be extended to that lot
rather than, if it being left in it' s current large lot and given septic and well, we think it' s better
environmentally to put it on municipal services.
Slagle: Absolutely, so basically you're agreeing with me.
Aanenson: Right. Right. I just want to make' sure it's clear because there is the one large lot that we had
included in the rezoning.
Slagle: Fair enough.
Blackowiak: Thanks. LuAnn.
Sidney: Okay, I agree it's a complex site. It's environmentally sensitive so it does need special
treatment. I' do concur with the comments that I heard that we have a large number of conditions
assigned to this application and it seems like a very large number for the type and size of development so
it does point to the fact that we have a lot of outstanding issues. And I think looking at the number of
recommendations we're supposed to make, the preliminary plat stands out as the one which needs the
most work obviously and needs to be addressed. And I would hope that if we table this that whoever
makes that motion that we really call out all of the conditions which we would like addressed. And I
checked off a number of these, you know starting from retaining walt, number one to remove the
retaining wall to also have a canopy coverage calculations completed and on and on and on. And I think
that needs to be delineated specifically for the applicant to address. And if those things can be shown
and put into a form which resembles an application that we could review again, I guess I'd entertain that
but I don't feel it should move forWard at this point.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli.
Sacchet: As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't work. It doesn't work at all. It has no credibility. It's
full of holes. It says the applicant makes an effort to preserve mature trees, but then on the other hand we
have massive grading going on. We're cutting to 15 feet on the one side. We are in 15 feet on the other.
We have retaining walls that are 6, 9 feet tall. We have several retaining walls. We don't have enough
buffer. We don't have enough wetland mitigation. And in terms of the credibility Mr. Noecker, I really
23
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
appreciate your intent to be real sensitive about your parcel, but I don't see any evidence in here of that.
I'm sorry. I don't see any credibility for that. I consider this an extremely insensitive, environmentally
insensitive proposal. Besides the fact that it's totally incomplete. I agree with Commissioner Slagle that
this shouldn't even come in front of us. This is not even nearly cooked and I find it very disturbing
hearing from the presentation that you seem not to really pay attention to what staff is asking from you.
You say well they're misunderstandings and, given. I mean everybody has misunderstandings and wants
to clear those up, but it looks like these misunderstandings have been going on for something in the
neighborhood of a year and there's just way too many in there. Staff finding on page 15 to the
subdivision, staff finding number 5. The proposed subdivision will cause environmental damage.
However, staff is recommending some modification to help to minimize impacts. I don't think that
mitigation that's proposed comes even close to make this anything near environmentally sensitive as far
as I'm concerned. There is way too much damage being done to that environment and the main thing that
why I say this is not credible, in all due respect, I cannot envision how you can put a house that's more
than a million dollars or even a million dollar or in the neighborhood of a million dollar on a 15,000
square foot lot, or 16,000 for that matter. It doesn't make a difference. I just recently built a house in a
neighborhood where the average lot size is around 30-40,000 square feet and the price range around 4 to
maybe $600,000 of those houses. It does incredible impact on the nature of place. It' s, the forest, nature
is extremely reduced. If you want to have houses twice as expensive on lots that are half the size, there's
no space for anything natural. Based on how I see this. You want to do a neighborhood that is above
standards of neighboring neighborhoods. Ashling Meadows, with 28,000 square foot average per lot, I
cannot believe how you want to be in a higher standard if you make your lots that much smaller and at
the same time expect to put an expensive structure on it. The road alignment, I don't know how sensitive
it is to the contour of the environment. I don't think it is. On that basis, I would want to deny this. The
land use amendment for the outlot, I think that outlot is a wonderful buffer towards the large lot on the
other side. The naturally sensitive area of the wetlands. I do think it makes sense to include it to have
sewer but I don't think it makes sense to include it to ram in 22 minimally sized lots to put huge
structures on. The land use therefore I would recommend to deny. The rezoning I would deny because
of the environmental damage. I think it's way too much and that's a finding that could be positive to
move that forward. The preliminary plat I would want to deny because there's just way too many loose
ends. There are at least 20 items that are blatantly unresolved. That have not been paid attention to and
therefore I don't think it should be even tabled. It should be denied. The wetland alteration permit, I
think that needs to be worked out in more detail that it shows the sensitivity and where all these things
are. It's wide open loose ends so also there I would want to deny. That's my comment.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty Craig, your turn.
Claybaugh: I concur with the other fellow commissioners that it is premature. I don't feel as strongly as
Commissioner Sacchet does that it's as environmentally insensitive as he does but I do feel that it's
premature at this time and as such would move to table the issue. I think it's imperative that the
developer get together with the city staff and really communicate and listen to one another and try and
incorporate those things in a timely fashion and bring a completed package in front of the commission so
we can take action on it in the future.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb.
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I agree that this should be tabled for many of the outstanding issues. I'd like
to see a plan that incorporates all of these conditions because I think they're going to really impact what
we're looking at and have another opportunity for the public to comment on what the new plan looks
like. And those, my favorites that I would like to see addressed are the bluff setbacks, the wetland
24
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
setbacks, the retention pond. Where would it be and what size would it be. A lighting plan. Lot widths
need to comply. Tree canopy calculations per the city forester's calculations. I think that's what we
need to go by. And retaining walls and I would also like to see the existing house and driveway shown
on these plans so we can get our bearings a little bit more Clearly. And I would like knowing that this
technically meets ordinance and all of our rules for square footage and such, I would like the applicant to
consider larger lot sizes that are more fitting with neighboring Ashling Meadows and really take into
consideration the topography of the land and see if it can be improved and less grading. And my hot
button, which I'm sure you could tell is that entry feature. Consider maybe using a natural material,
boulders versus a Keystone and see if there' s a way to avoid having a chainlink fence at that entry area. I
think we need to table it and I think we need to table all 3. I think we need to keep this bundled together.
Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce.
Feik: I will be brief. I agree with much of what was said tonight. It is a beautiful site, I'll give you that.
It will not ever be able to be developed without significant alterations to the site, and I agree. You cannot
develop that in any way, shape or form. I've walked it at length without knocking down a significant
number of trees and moving a lot of dirt. Be that said though, I am very uncomfortable with approving a
plan then having the staff have to work out this many details after the fact. I don't think that's fair to
staff or the process and based on that I would also agree that we should table this tonight.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I really have nothing new to add. I agree with my commissioners who were
kind of tending towards tabling it. I believe that we've got a lot of direction for you and some of the key
issues that we feel the need to be addressed before we see it again. One thing Mr. Noecker you said that
you wanted an opportunity to clean up the plan and I think you're going to get it so I hope you've gotten
adequate direction. Please take the time to review staff's report, and I'm assuming Kate you will supply,
or Sharmin will supply minutes with specific directions and comments.
Aanenson: Just for point of clarification. I think Commissioner Sidney alluded to it. We would like
specific direction given to the applicant and I think that's where she was going and that's part of why
we're here tonight. To make sure that you've all given comments but we want to make sure that that's
articulated exactly what your expectations are so we're not back at this same juncture in a future meeting.
So if you can summarize that in a motion, that would be helpful for us.
Blackowiak: I think we can but also if we can just refer to the minutes and in our comments I think take
a look at what everybody has said because I think among us all we have hit most of the issues, and I
wrote you 'know mine were specifically, let me go back. Grading, trail, buffers, fence, retaining walls,
wetland issues, canopy coverage, storm water calculations, no wetland replacement documentation. So
those, and a couple...
Aanenson: ...for the record and make sure it's clear on the record because it's still not being understood.
That it was where the location of the trail should be. Can we read that for the record? Just to make sure
they understand. The trail location outside the wetland buffer language.
Blackowiak: Okay now, is that in a condition?
A1-Jaff: It is as a condition.
Aanenson: But I'm not sure they understand the implications of that.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Al-Jaff: There will be a wetland buffer that is an average of 20 feet so it can be 10 feet, it could be 30
feet. The average is 20 feet. The trail will be outside the buffer. The other thing that I wanted to point
out is, and it depends on what method of replacement, wetland replacement they follow. One of the
options that are available to them is creating a 16 ½ foot natural buffer and then from that point, so 16 ½
feet and then from that point you'd take the setback. So the setback, the wetland setback will be in
addition to the buffer. I just wanted to clarify.
Aanenson: We wanted that on the record, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Slagle: Madam Chair. If I can ask a question to the applicant. Is there anything that we're saying that
needs more specificity? I mean I'm hoping that based upon what we've talked about, the opportunity to
work with staff in a real partnership is here. Is that, may I ask that? I mean I just want to make sure, staff
is asking that. I just want to make sure I hear it from the applicant. One way or the other.
Randy Noecker: One of the things that I'm, I guess I'm not grasping is they're talking about the trail
being outside the buffer. We've recognized that and by, keep in mind we just found out about all these
issues on Friday. We weren't aware that we had to move the retaining wall out. We weren't aware of
any of this stuff until last Friday, okay.
Aanenson: You know what, I have to say something on that.
Blackowiak: I understand but, okay Kate.
Aanenson'. It was given to you in writing on a letter dated September l0th and that's why we're at this
juncture.
Randy Noecker: Okay well, if we had a retaining wall in the right-of-way marked it was unintended,
alright. We thought we had on the edge of the right-of-way. Apparently we had it inside according to
your calculations. But as it be, if you have a trail between the pond and the wetland, is not the pond
defined as wetland? So then does the trail go on the south side of the pond or is it okay to leave the trail
them?
$1agle: I don't know the answer to that question. I'll defer to these folks but here's my just question to
all of you. Is could we take this plan, along with Matt and the planning group and just provide them
where it could go, and then you can sort of say yeah/nay. I mean because if there' s still some questions
as to where it has to go, I think staff could show you.where it could go and hopefully that would be the
beginning, if not the end of sort of the placement of that path. Or at least a start. I mean there shouldn't
be after the folks, all you meet, there shouldn't be a lot of ambiguities after that meeting, is that safe to
say?
Randy Noecker: Yeah, if we have caused confusion or in any way caused a problem, we were unaware
of it on our side. I mean I had made calls after I submitted this plat to see if there were any changes
you'd like to see made but we received no respgnse along those lines so I just thought that was the
methodology that Chanhassen chose to work their plan through.
Blackowiak: Well I think at this point you've got lots of responses and some direction and.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Randy Noecker: I would like to say, we're going to try to accommodate all of them.
Blackowiak: Good, okay. We'd like to see that. So at this point we'd like to have a motion please. And
good luck to whoever makes it because we're going to have to muddle through this but I want to try to
get all the hot buttons and all the direction for the applicant that we possibly can in this motion. I'm
assuming it will be a motion to table and LuAnn, are you? I thought you were volunteering.
Sidney: I will. I have a question about whether or not we need 4 motions or not?
Blackowiak: Kate what's the?
Aanenson: You can make it all in one.
Blackowiak: Motion to table.
Aanenson: ...all requests.
Blackowiak: All requests and then direction to the applicant specifically, you know but not limited to
these items.
Sidney: Well help me out. I'I1 take a shot at it here. Okay I'I1 make the motion that Planning
Commission recommends tabling the request for rezoning of the 18.57 acres of property as shown in the
staff report. Also to table the request for preliminary plat to replat a 7.07 acre outlot, as shown on the
staff report. Also to table the wetland alteration permit to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. And also to
table the land use plan amendment from residential large lot to residential low density. In terms of the
preliminary plat, I'd like to give direction to the applicant to work on several points and as I said, I think
it's important to be very specific about this in terms of the conditions that are outlined in the staff report.
I would welcome friendly amendments as we go along here. I'm going to go down the list because this is
very important so that we have a clean proposal next time around. Recommendation 1. One of the
conditions is to remove the retaining wall. I'd like to see that done. As Deb pointed out, we need to
show the existing house and accessory structures on the plans. A condition 4. We need the applicant to
resubmit canopy coverage calculations. As shown in condition 5, the applicant shall submit a landscape
plan for the city for approval. And I'm going to move to condition 11. We have a recommendation from
staff, and I concur I should say, that the proposed outlot structure of the pond be moved to the easterly
end of the pond to prevent short circuiting and etc as shown in that condition. Also condition 12. We do
need some ponding calculations and we need storm sewer design calculations as shown on condition 13.
Okay, and condition 18. We'd like to see a preliminary utility plan. And also let's see, condition 25.
The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30 feet. We'll need to have the retaining wall
eliminated or moved as indicated in that condition. 28. A big one in my book. We'd like to see revised
grading plans as shown. We've got several points here. Show all existing utilities. Show the proposed
NWL and HWL of the pond and silt fence. Revise the contours. Add a legend, etc. Also condition 30.
We have a wetland buffer issue here that needs to be worked on and that impacts the trail alignment.
And I guess the big one that really is going to affect the plat itself is that the retaining walls be located
outside the buffer areas. That's condition 31. And we have storm water calculations that need to be
submitted. Condition 34. And also following the park and rec conditions to make sure that the trail
alignment meets the requirements suggested in that condition. So I'll leave it at that I guess.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
27
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
Kind: I'll second that motion.
Blackowiak: Okay, moved and seconded and do we have any amendments to the motion?
Kind: I might have a friendly amendment or two. I'm not sure. Did you touch on the wetland '
replacement documentation? Was that one of those?
Sidney: No, you can add that.
Kind: I would add that we'd like that documentation provided. And condition number, where'd it go?
Let's see, 44. I'd like that one added to make sure that all of the lots maintain that 90 foot width. I
question, especially I would add Lot number 1 on Block 3 to that condition. So it'd be lots 1 and 2 on
Block 3. I think just a minor curve in the road does not put a lot on the curve. That's it.
Blackowiak: Okay. Amendment accepted?
Sidney: Accepted.
Blackowiak: Okay. It's been moved and seconded.
Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission table the Land Use Plan Amendment
4/01-4; Rezoning #01-4 to rezone 18.57 acres; Wetland Alteration Permit #~)1-3; and the
Preliminary Plat for Subdivision/fl)l-10 for Lake Lucy Ridge as shown on the plans received
October 24, 2001, with the following direction to the applicant before the item is brought back
before the Planning Commission:
1. The retaining wall be removed.
2. Show the existing house and accessory structures on the plans.
3. The applicant shall resubmit the tree canopy coverage calculations.
4. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the City for approval.
5. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with
a 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the normal water level. The proposed outlet
structure of the pond shall be moved to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short-circuiting
and to outlet the treated water to the eastern wetland. This would better follow the proposed
drainage pattern shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
6. The applicant shall provide additional information and revision for the ponding calculations.
7. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations need to be submitted. The storm sewer
will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will
need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds,
drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width
shall be 20 feet wide.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
.
9~
I0.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
The applicant shall submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim
elevations, invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing utility lines.
The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30 feet. This will require that the
retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or moved.
Revise the grading plan as follows:
Show all existing utilities including the storm sewer and watermain in Lake Lucy Road
and the existing driveway culvert.
b. Show the proposed NWL & HWL of the pond.
c. Add silt fence along the south property line of Lot 13, Block 3.
do
Revise the contours in the rear yards of Lots 1-3, Block 2 to meet the maximum
allowable side slope of 3:1.
e. Add a legend, survey benchmark, and ail proposed and existing easements to the plan.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained
around Wetland 1 and the wetland mitigation area. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with
a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 2. Wetland buffer areas shall
be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before
construction begins and shall pay the city $20 per sign.
All retaining walls shall be located outside of required buffer areas. Proposed trails shall also be
located outside of required buffer areas. All other structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback
from the edge of the wetland buffer.
Stormwater calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized
adequately for the proposed development.
Park and Recreation conditions: The following conditions need to be met for the trail alignment
to be acceptable.
a. A 20 foot trail easement must be identified.
b. The trail alignment cannot be within the wetland buffer.
The trail easement may abut lot lines, but the trail alignment must maintain a minimum 6
foot separation from lot lines.
do
The pond berm, which the trail crosses, must maintain a minimum top width of 12 feet to
allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail.
Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show a fixed photo monitoring point for the
29
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001
16.
replacement wetland. A five year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The
applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for
Replacement Wetland.
The lot width for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 shall be adjusted to maintain 90 feet.
All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Blackowiak: I would like to add to the applicant that I would like you to please take a look at all the
conditions, not just the ones that we outlined. The ones that we outlined I think are very special, but they
all have merit so please don't ignore the other conditions. This item will be placed on the next available
Planning Commission agenda, which will be?
Aanenson: Whenever they get the changes made.
Blackowiak: Whenever they, okay. So probably not in December.
Aanenson: Probably January.
Blackowiak: Probably January, okay. I just want to say thank you to the neighbors and residents for
coming and I urge you to follow this item. We will be getting another mailing out to you when the next
meeting will occur. It will be similar to the one that you received. And also I'd like to recommend that
for those of you who are members of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, have a meeting before the
next, before our next meeting so you can kind of get a feet for what the majority of the residents in that
area, what their wishes are and that would help us too. So thanks again for coming.
The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
TO ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK TO REVISE THE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO THE PERMITTED USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL OFFICE
PARK DISTRICT, STEINER DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
J. Polster
Joe Smith
Fred Richter
681 August Drive, Chaska
3610 County Road 101, Minnetonka
3601 County Road 101, Minnetonka
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff?.
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question and a haiti One is specific to the vocational school. Why would we
want to make that an exclusion? Could we specify that.
30