6. Great Plains Golf Estates Preliminary PlatIt I
i1
h
I
Q
U
�a
10T,
�a
to
1W
Cn
CITY OF
CHANHASSH
PC DATE: 8/3/94
CC DATE: 8/22/94
v ' CASE #: 86 -31 SUB
A7 T..rr._.
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide '. 92.53 Acres into 36 rural single family
lots and two outlots, Great Plains Golf Estates
LOCATION: South of County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail), and west and east of Highway 101
(Great Plains Blvd.)
APPLICANT: Don Halla Roger Anderson & Associates
10000 Great Plains Blvd. Suite 107
Chaska, MN 55318 7415 Wayzata Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District
ACREAGE: 102.73 acres
DENSITY: One unit per 2.85 acre gross
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - A2, Agricultural Estate District, & Co. Rd. 14, Pioneer Trail
S - A2, Agricultural Estate District
E - A2, Agricultural Estate District
W - A2, Agricultural Estate District
WATER AND SEWER: Unavailable to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is currently being operated as a nursery. A large number
of different sized trees cover the site. The northern and
northwestern portion of the site is heavily vegetated with mature
trees. The site generally slopes to the south and east. Some steep
slopes are located along the east.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Large Lot
ZO)
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
' Page 2
On August 22, 1994, the City Council reviewed and continued this application and directed
staff to address the following issues:
* Obtain a legal opinion on whether the applicant needed to maintain a 2.5 acre area
' per lot or an overall average density of 2.5 acres.
* Determine if the overall density should include the nursery portion of the site.
* Provide screening for homes located south of the easterly portion of the proposed
' subdivision.
* Resolve the access /private driveway issue for homes located south of the easterly
porion of the proposed subdivision.
' On September 12, 1994, this item appeared before the City Council with a legal opinion
from the City Attorney regarding the lot sizes that needed to be maintained within the
' subdivision. The City Council moved to allow a 21h acre average for the overall density,
including the nursery property, for Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates preliminary plat.
Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn and Councilman Mason voted in favor. Councilwoman
Dockendorf opposed the motion. Councilman Wing abstained. The motion carried.
This staff report has been modified to reflect changes made since the August 22, 1994
' meeting. New information will appear in bold and impertinent information is struck out.
This subdivision has been in the preliminary plat status since 1987. Staff is attempting to
' bring it to the final plat status by giving a completion date. We believe 7 years has been
sufficient time to plat this property. This subdivision has a legal non - conforming status at
the 2.5 units per acre. If the proposal were to be developed today, it would have to be at
' a one unit per 10 acre density. Staff is recommending that the entire plat being final
platted December 1, 1994 or the non - conforming status will be eliminated.
' PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
' The applicant is proposing to subdivide 102.7 92.53 acres into 36 single family lots. The
property is zoned A2, Agricultural Estate District. This plat was originally filed in December,
1986. The density at that time was 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Since that time, city ordinances have
changed to permit 1 unit per 10 acres, although the minimum lot size may be as small as 15,000
square feet as long as septic and wells are accommodated on the lot. This subdivision is being
reviewed under the 1 unit per 2.5 acres based on extensions of the preliminary plat by the City
Council.
The average lot size is 94,320 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1 unit per 2.4 2.57
' acres. The site is located north of Creekwood Drive, east and west of Highway 101, and south
of County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail). Access to the subdivision will be provided via Highway
101, Creekwood Drive, and Pioneer Trail.
I
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 3
All of the propo ed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning '
Ordinance. The�two outlots shown on the plat contain an existing business and a residence.
These outlots must be shown as lots. Allowing the outlots to remain will create a nonconforming I
situation.
The site has a dense concentration of mature trees on the north and northwest corner of the site. '
The plans indicEte that the majority of those trees will be saved. There are trees scattered
throughout the s te. The majority of these trees are nursery stock trees, hence, staff did not
require the applicant ant to show these trees on the plans. Only natural growth was required to be '
shown and sav . A preservation easement over the area where tree concentrations exist will
be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently
preserving the trees. '
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision will require revisions. We are
recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. ,
.0 viIu
This site has been used as a nursery for over 30 years. There is a variety and large number of
trees. '
On December 8, 1986: The applicant filed an application to subdivide 105 acres into 37
single family lots. This application was filed under the 1 unit per
2.5 acre density rule which was still in effect.
On July 6, 1987: The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Great Plains '
Golf Estates.
On March 28, 1988: 88: The City Council approved a one year extension for final plat '
approval for Great Plains Golf Estates subdivision. The deadline
was extended to July 10, 1989.
On June 12, 198: The City Council gave preliminary plat approval for the Great '
Plains Golf Estates. The preliminary plat was given a five year
time frame to be final platted. The expiration day was on June 12,
1994.
On July 10, 1989: The City Council gave final plat approval for Great Plains Golf '
Estates. The final plat approval was for 3 lots located on the east
side of Highway 101 and north of Creekwood Drive. The
remaining portion of Great Plains Golf Estates was shown as '
1
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 4
outlots. These outlots were required to be platted within 5 years
from July 10, 1989.
On March 17, 1994: City staff met with the applicant to provide final guide lines. Over
the past year and a half, the applicant submitted a number of plats.
Staff continuously sent comments explaining changes that needed
to be made to the submittal. The submittal before last showed 36
lots clustered on the west side of Highway 101, with an area of
' approximately one acre per lot. The remainder of the site was
platted as an oudot. The overall density of the site was one unit
per 2.5 acres. Staff had concerns over the septic systems. Staff
agreed to set up an escrow fund using $1,000 received from the
applicant to hire Resource Engineering. The firm was authorized
by the City on March 29, 1994 to begin a preliminary investigation
' of the individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) sites using the
escrow fund. The results of the investigation indicated that the
septic sites were unsuitable.
On April 20, 1994: Staff requested that revised plans be resubmitted no later than July
5, 1994 to the Planning Department. This date allowed Resource
Engineering enough time to complete their soil tests and analysis,
and for the applicant's engineering firm to respond to the requested
revisions.
When this subdivision was originally platted, lots in the rural area had a 2.5 acre lot size
requirement. With the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement in 1987, the Metropolitan Council
required all lots outside of the MUSA to be developed at a 1 unit per 10 acre density. Since that
time, the Met Council has allowed the city to decide what size the lot should be (we have
' adopted the 15,000 square foot requirement) as long as the 1 unit per 10 acres is observed.
The applicant was given direction from city staff to pursue these smaller lots while maintaining
the 1 unit per 2.5 acre requirement. The applicant tried several different plans including a
collective septic system. Plans evolved until finally the current plan was submitted for city
review.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
' The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 402.73 92.53 acre site into 36 single family lots. The
density of the proposed subdivision is 0.35 0.38 units per acre gross, and 0.46 0.49 units per acre
net after removing the roads. The plat proposes leaving the nursery on an 11.45 acre lot. There
are no wetlands found on the site. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet
of area, with an average lot size of 94,320 square feet.
Halla's Great PlAins Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 5
All of the proposed sed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance with the
exception of the two outlots. These outlots contain a business and a single family home. The
zoning ordinance does not allow any structures to be located on an outlot. Staff is recommending
the plans be revised to show a change from outlot to lot.
The applicant has submitted a detailed site grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the
overall development. However, according to city ordinance, the grading plan should show
existing and proposed 2 -foot contours for :street construction, drainage swales, berms and house
pads in order to determine the full impact of the development. The applicant has supplied a
detailed develop ent plan indicating the house floor elevations; however, it does not propose site
grading around 1.he homes. One example is on Lot 4, Block 5, where the home pad is situated
within an existing rainage swale. No provision are made to reroute the drainageway. This type
of adjustment must be taken into consideration with the final grading plan.
It appears that tie site will be broken up ;into six drainage areas. Storm runoff from the site is
proposed to meet predeveloped runoff rates and most ponding areas are designed to the National
Urban Runoff ogram (NURP) standards. There are a few areas that will still need to provide
temporary pretreatment areas such as the area north of Maple Court. Staff believes we can work
this out with the applicant's engineer. In the development on the west side of Trunk Highway
101, approxima ely one -half of the site 'drains west to the existing pond in the west-central
portion the site (behind the nursery building). The existing pond appears to receive storm runoff
from the west (Jolf course) in addition to runoff from the site. The storm drainage calculations
also need to incorporate the existing drainage from outside the development such as the golf
course. The Cit is Surface Water Management Plan proposed the central and southern portions
of the development to drain to a future stormwater /sediment pond BC -P7.1 (Attachment No. 1)
located east of he existing nursery building adjacent to Trunk Highway 101. This pond has a
tributary draina a area of approximately 40 acres. The storage volume is estimated at 2.1 acre
feet with a normal water elevation of 919.0 and a high water level of 924.5. The existing pond
behind the nurse ry may be combined with Pond B. At minimum, the outlet from the existing
pond should be rerouted and directed through Pond B to reduce the number of discharge points
to the east and meath Trunk Highway 101.
Approximately
northeast come
underneath Co
problems. Loc
northern portia
Road 14. The
prior to dischai
ponding easen
►ne- quarter of the westerly site drains north with street drainage carried to the
of the site. According to Carver County Highway Department, there is a culvert
my Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) that has previously experienced some capacity
don of the culvert should be shown on the grading plan. The SWMP shows the
of the site drains to an existing wetland (BC- P5.13) located north of County
asin is an existing ag/urban wetland and therefore runoff needs to be pretreated
ing into the wetland. Since the City has not obtained or acquired the necessary
;nts over the wetland, this development may be considered premature in
I.
i
' Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 6
conjunction with the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Plan. The applicant will be r equired then
-to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate and water quality treatment to NURP standards with
' temporary on -site ponding. The applicant still will be required to pay a cash contribution to the
City Surface Water Management Fund for construction of future downstream water quality and
quantity facilities.
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. Dedication will be
' equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving
the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a
schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market
' values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of
the pond. If the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be
waived.
' The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on average city -wide
rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
' culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Based on
the land use, this development will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. Staff is working
with the applicant on storm drainage plans at which time fees will be reduced in accordance with
the SWMP requirements. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity
fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as
outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc.
Approximately one - quarter of the site drains to the southwest corner of the development. Storm
runoff to the southwest corner on the site is also proposed to be ponded (Pond "A ") and the
runoff controlled at predeveloped rates. The stormwater discharge from pond flows along the
north side of Creekwood Drive west of this development to an existing drainage culvert
underneath Creekwood Drive. The drainage then is conveyed over land through a steep ravine
to Bluff Creek. In the past, this area has been prone to erosion and has been used as a dumping
and filling ground for different parties. The development of this property will only increase the
volume of runoff draining through the ravine. The applicant currently owns property which was
' platted previously as Outlot D, Great Plains Golf Estates. Staff recommends that the developer
convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for future construction of storm
' drainage infrastructures to control erosion and convey storm runoff to Bluff Creek.
Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the plat has
been revised to accommodate staff changes in the plat's street and lot configuration. The
developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed storm sewer
drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on the east side of Trunk
Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat. The revisions are further explored in the
appropriate sections under "Streets /Access."
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 7
Trunk Highway 01 is a temporary state highway with no plans for upgrading. As a result of
the initial platting of Great Plains Golf Estates, additional right -of -way was dedicated for the
- future realignment of Trunk Highway 101: However, actual construction of Trunk Highway 101
is not scheduled and therefore interim safety improvements are recommended along existing
Trunk Highway 101 in the following areas:
1. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery
entrance �, reate visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant is also proposing
to constrict berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff recommends that the
existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to improve sight lines and
berming �e restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
2. The hill 6n Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive shall
be loweriA to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet MnDOT
standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
3. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose sight
distance toblems as well. This should be investigated and documented by the applicant's
engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the posted speeds.
East of Trunk H]
on Lot 3, Block
Engineers and i
sediment trap in
897.1. The app]
that the amount
a makeshift out]
this drainage ba
a portion of the
an appropriate ]
materials that v
recommends tha
with engineer&
maintain the stn
over the mainte:
A couple of sig:
dead trees. TI
removal of all tJ
redesign the sto:
alive.
hway 101 the grading plan proposes utilizing an existing drainage basin located
(Pond D). This basin qualifies as a wetland according to the Army Corps of
.11 need a permit to excavate. This basin is also proposed as a stormwater
he SWMP with a normal water elevation of 892.5 and high water elevation of
;ant's storm calculation is somewhat lower. This is anticipated due to the fact
F contributing area is less than proposed in the SWMP. The existing basin has
L control structure to maintain water levels in the pond. Staff is familiar with
n from past dealings with the applicant in securing a grading permit to fill in
ownstream ravine. It appears the applicant has been filling this ravine without
;rmit and with unacceptable materials such as landscaping debris and other
11 settle over time and create erosion and shear failures on the bluff. Staff
the applicant be required to re- excavate all unacceptable materials and backfill
fill as well as replace the existing storm drainage pipe (24 -inch CMP) to
:tural integrity of the storm drainage lines since the City will no doubt be taking
once responsibilities of the storm sewer system after the project is completed.
ificant trees exist around this same ponding basin. There are also a couple of
grading proposes expanding this ponding basin which would result in the
es immediately adjacent to the existing pond. The applicant's engineer should
n water basin (Pond "D") to accommodate the existing significant trees that are
I.
�J
J
.' Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 8
UTILITIES
The previous preliminary plat submitted clustered the lots on the west side of Trunk Highway
101 with the intent of leaving the remaining site undeveloped. Staff at that time indicated that
the applicant should be required to meet urban standards since the lot sizes and densities
' accounted for these standards being warranted. This means that the City would require that dry
sanitary sewer and water lines be installed for future hookup and the streets constructed to urban
standards. Staff indicated at that time if the lot sizes were increased to one acre in size
' (average), staff would reconsider the requirement for an urban street section and dry utility lines.
As proposed, the lots are well over the one -acre size average and therefore staff will not require
that urban street sections or dry utility lines be installed. Staff recommends that the streets be
rconstructed to meet the City's typical rural street standards (see Attachment No. 2).
Currently the site is outside the MUSA boundary and there is no sanitary sewer or water service
to the site; therefore, the individual lots will be dependent upon on -site septic and well systems.
The City's building department will be performing a review of the plans and preparing the
' appropriate memo regarding well and septic availability.
STREET /ACCESS
' Streets within the development are anticipated to meet the City's rural street standards. However,
the typical street section as proposed does not currently meet the City's rural roadway section.
The applicant's engineer should revise the standard detail to meet the City's standard rural street
section (see Attachment No. 3). The applicant is providing the necessary 60 -foot wide right -of-
way and 60 -foot radiuses in the turnarounds. Street grades range from 0.50% to 4.00% which
' meets City standards.
On the west side of Trunk Highway 101, the applicant has significantly redesigned the street
' layout from the previous preliminary plat submittal. The applicant is proposing two streets,
Golfview Circle and Halla Nursery Vista. Golfview Circle is proposed to access from
Creekwood Drive which is shown as Town Road on the plans. Golfview Circle will be a dead
' end cul -de -sac approximately 1,000 feet long with no secondary access. Halla Nursery Vista
accesses from Trunk Highway 101 and branches off into two separate cul -de -sacs ( Golfview
Court and Vista Court North). Neither one of the street alignments proposed provide for future
' extension through the nursery site and potential looping of the two street systems. Although the
traffic volumes may be low due to the land use, staff policy is to look for a secondary access
whenever feasible. At some point, the nursery may no longer be located on Outlot A which
opens the door for additional residential development. Since no further access will be allowed
off of Trunk Highway 101, provisions for looping the two street systems through Oudot A from
Golfview Circle or Golfview Court should be explored by the applicant.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 9
East of Trunk Highway 101, Halla Nursery Vista is proposed to loop back out to County Road
14. Staff is aware of an existing private road which lies adjacent to the southerly boundary of
this development. The existing road is constructed within a 30 -foot wide easement which serves
the existing home on Outlot C, Great Plains Golf Estates (David Halla) and two other homes.
In addition, two pther home sites are potentially available in the Bursch Development which lies
immediately we i t of Outlot C. - - .
Staff has met with the applicant and discussed access issues to serve the
existing homes ;nd future development: of land south of this development. Staff was open
to two alternatives. One would be to redesign Halla Nursery Vista to follow the existing
gravel (private oad) driveway. The other would be to extend stub streets south from Halla
Nursery Vista o provide access. One stub street would be extended between Lots 4 and
5, Block 4. Thi would pull the roadway proposed as "future road" away from the ravine.
The other stub street would be extended between Lots 1 and 2, Block 4 or Lots 2 and 3,
Block 4 for a secondary access and looped street in the future. Staff recommends that the
applicant go back and revisit the situation and redesign the plat incorporating street access
south of Halla Nursery Vista to serve the parcels south of this development.
When the subdivision immediately to the east of this development ( Deerbrook Addition) was
developed, a stub street was to be provided to access this site (Great Plains Estates development).
Upon review of the final plat of Deerbrook, there is only a 60 -foot wide drainage and utility
easement that as dedicated to the City: for the extension of a roadway. Unfortunately, this
easement does not adequately allow the City to construct a roadway to connect the two
subdivisions. I addition, a very large earth berm has been constructed over the City's 60 -foot
wide drainage and utility easement. Therefore, at this time it appears unfeasible to consider
connecting Dee rook with this proposed subdivision. This is unfortunate because it would have
allowed anotherl access to an extremely long dead -end cul -de -sac on Deerbrook Drive.
County Road 1
roadways in the
Great Plains C
Highway 101.
County Road 1
that appropriat(
minimum 100 -
consideration fi
highway. Stan(
to the interior
and Trunk Highway 101 are functionally classified as minor arterial (Class 2)
Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. During the previous platting of
lfview Estates, the City, has acquired the necessary right -of -way for Trunk
t is unclear from the previous plat if adequate right -of -way was dedicated for
. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County
right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of the
)ot wide corridor for County Road 14. In addition, the County requests
an additional trail easement if a trailway is to be constructed along the County
ird trail easement is 20 feet wide. Access to the individual lots should be limited
Teets and not from County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
I.
J
F_
L''
�I
u
1
•, Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 10
' The applicant is proposing a north/south street named Birch Drive which intersects County Road
14. Upon review of the City's half - section map it appears that Birch Drive is offset
approximately 50 feet from the existing Foxford Road which lies north of County Road 14.
From a continuity standpoint, staff believes that these two streets should be aligned across from
one another. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plat to align Birch Dive to be
' continuous with Foxford Road at the intersection of County Road 14. Access permits will be
required from both MnDOT and Carver County Highway Departments.
' EROSION CONTROL
A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer
' prior to final platting. Staff recommends the applicant use the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be
seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion and sedimentation.
' If at all possible, construction of the site in stages is preferred to help reduce erosion problems.
MISCELLANEOUS
Since development will involve public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into
a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation
of the public improvements and final plat conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and
utility easements shall be shown on the final plat overall drainageways and ponding areas.
' The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way.
The preliminary plat proposes Outlot A which currently has an existing structure. Outlot A is
' currently used as the Nursery business and should be platted into a lot and block. The final plat
should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block
2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview Estates.
PARK DEDICATION
The Park and Recreation Commission eke- xneefing met on August 9, 1994 to discuss the
potential of a future open space referendum. There is a desire to locate a park on this site but
' this is premised on the city's ability to acquire the property. Right -of -way on Hwy. 101 and
Pioneer Trail for future trail purposes wW alse -tie was discussed by the Park Commission.
1 EASEMENTS
Individual Sewage Treatment Sites
I.
Halla's Great Plains
Golf Estates '
August 3, 1994
hes of red, yellow, or gray colors in the soil indicating zones of seasonal soil
Page 11
'
The current proposal
is changed from that of July 1987. These proposed changes from the 1987
plat, for the purposes
of on -site sewage treatment sites, necessitate complete, new evaluations of
the currently proposed
sites. Sites must be' evaluated for depth to mottling, soils, orientation, area ,
and location relafive
to buildings, property lines, wells, etc. Additionally, ISTS evaluations must
comply with other
and future ISTS.
r code requirements designed to assure the integrity and suitability of the sites
Individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) are regulated by Minnesota Rules, '
Chapter 7080, Individual
Sewage Treatment Standards as amended by the City in Chanhassen
City Code, Article
IV.
evaluated
for texture, structure and permeability. These evaluations determine the level '
Acceptance for an ISTS is based,
The following arse
concerns and/or comments concerning the proposed ISTS sites.
Depth to
mottling. Mottles, if present, are indicated on required boring logs. Mottles '
are splo
hes of red, yellow, or gray colors in the soil indicating zones of seasonal soil
saturation.
The bottom of an ISTS must be located three feet above this zone in order
to achieve
required treatment. The code requires that at least one foot of suitable '
(unmottl
d) soil be present at ani ISTS site. Mottles are difficult to detect in topsoil
without
a use of a color chart, therefore all sites indicated as having mottles at one foot
and with
a foot or more of topsoil are subject to close scrutiny prior to being accepted r
as viable
ISTS sites. No boring logs have been received for the currently proposed
sites!
'
Soils. In
addition to requirements for separation from mottles, on -site soils must be
evaluated
for texture, structure and permeability. These evaluations determine the level '
Acceptance for an ISTS is based,
of ability
of the soil to accept and'treat waste. of a site
in part, on
the measurement and evaluation of these soil characteristics, and is predicated
on the assumption
that the soils on a site are undisturbed. Activities such as tree removal '
and field
roads create disturbed areas which may alter the treatment ability of the soil.
The 1986
evaluation report from Resource Engineering indicates that the report is based
"...solely
on data submitted to the City of Chanhassen." There were no field observations '
conduct .
by Resource Engineering, and it is doubtful that they were aware of the use
of the property.
7080 requires that mounds be constructed on original soils. Page nine
of the enclosed
May 1994 report from Resource Engineering, although reporting on a
differen
lot configuration, is for the same general area and casts doubt on the
acceptability
of many of the currently proposed sites. It cannot be determined from
existing
documentation that the proposed sites contain all original soil. ,
Orientation.
It appears that proposed sites are correctly oriented, but field evaluation by
the City
consultant, Resource Engineering is required to confirm this.
Area (lot
evaluation
& site). It appears that adequate area has been provided for ISTS sites, but field
by the City consultants is required to confirm this. '
r
' Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 12
Other requirements. ISTS site evaluation is a complicated process involving specialized
' knowledge. Site Evaluators are required to be licensed by Carver County. The site
evaluator is not licensed in Carver County, nor identified as being certified by the
State.
Because proposed property lines are subject to change as the plat proceeds through the
approval process, borings submitted in relation to property lines cannot be accepted.
Borings and perc tests must be identified with unique numbers not related to lots or
blocks. Staff visited the site on 7/26/94 and was unable to determine property lines, ISTS
sites or boring locations. Accuracy of this information is vital to the correct evaluation
' of the project. Proposed property lines, ISTS sites, perc tests and borings should be
identified in the field by labelled stakes.
' Due to the commercial tree removal activity that has occurred at the site, staff is unable to
approve sites without additional consultation with ISTS and soil experts. Resource Engineering
is the City consultant for ISTS and must be consulted prior to ISTS site approvals. Their
evaluation consists of a preliminary evaluation based on information provided by the developer
and a site evaluation. The preliminary evaluation cannot take place until:
• Two boring and perc test (if peres are required) locations for each site, each with a unique
identification, are shown on the grading and drainage plan.
• Boring logs and perc test logs identified as the peres and borings done at the locations
' shown on the grading and drainage plan are submitted.
• Confirmation that all ISTS work was done by individuals licensed to do such work.
' Preliminary evaluation can be in conjunction with, or followed by, a site evaluation which must
also be conducted by Resource Engineering.
Attempts to evaluate the proposed plat thoroughly have been made, but the applicant's failure
to work with the City ISTS evaluator makes a thorough evaluation impossible at this time.
' Results of these site evaluations can affect all other aspects of this proposed plat.
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 1 70,076 236.1' 290'
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 13
Lot 2
64,636
340.7'
330'
Lot 3
68,474
217'
300'
Lot 4
69,143
64.8' on curve
275'
Lot 4
88,924
90' front setback
243'
Lot 5
56,055
167'
285'
BLOCK 2
74,591
273.4'
300'
Lot 1
85,639
229.8'
320'
Lot 2
68,065
189.9'
254.25'
Lot 3
79,742
212.6'
244.35'
BLOCK 3
Lot 1
72,946
450'
177'
Lot 2
66,758
105.7
257'
Lot 3
65,093
192.9'
257'
Lot 4
88,924
104.8'
243'
Lot 5
83,322
110.6'
261.9'
Lot 6
74,591
273.4'
300'
Lot 7
108,909
155'
245'
Lot 8
184,264
206.2'
310'
Lot 9
69,247
155'
245'
BLOCK 4
Lot 1
132,164
102.4'
262.9'
Lot 2
77,126
277'
260'
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 14
Lot 3 79,201
302.6'
260'
Lot 4 70,594
279'
260'
Lot 5 93,922
237'
260'
BLOCK 5
Lot 1 88,035
274.7'
260'
Lot 2 68,308
264.1'
260'
Lot 3 73,143
281.7'
260.0'
Lot 4 93,770
340'
320'
Lot 5 97,299
314.1'
325.6'
Lot 6 103,713
301.6'
325.6'
Lot 7 126,568
86.1
300'
Lot 8 103,142
193.3'
294.4'
Lot 9 95,359
294.3'
297'
Lot 10 82,933
311.7'
296'
BLOCK 6
Lot 1 138,242
449.4'
320'
Lot 2 102,818
220'
330'
Lot 3 188,769
300'
405'
TREE PRESERVATION
The grading plan shows the vegetated areas and the amount of tree removal. The site contains
significant concentrations of mature trees
along the north and northwest areas of the site that
should be preserved as best possible. The forested areas contain
large, mature hardwoods.
The forested areas are on the steeper elevations of the site. Some of the vegetation is in
locations where extensive grading is required to develop the site.
The grading of the site for
septic system preparation is resulting in
the loss of a number of trees.
Halla's Great P
August 3, 1994
Page 15
Golf Estates
Custom grading on Lots 4, 5, 7, and 8 is required to allow the site to be prepared for the
individual house rather than mass grading the site at the beginning of the project. A tree
preservation plan will be required.
All of the vegetated areas that are being saved shall be preserved by a conservation easement.
Staff is also req a landscaping plan. This plan should show the type and size of trees
proposed to be planted as well as the location of berms along Highway 101. The applicant
should also show the type and size of trees being removed (nursery stock trees are not
included). A reforestation plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost due to grading
and placement of septic sites. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is
recommending that the applicant work with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the
tree removal.
On August 3, 1094, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the preliminary plat
application for this subdivision. Some additional issues were raised. These issues included:
The Planning Commission questioned the use of the nursery parcel as part of the
calculation of the overall density for the proposed plat. This area has always been part
of the overall plat. Consequently, the 11.45 acres are being calculated as part of the
overall plat.
* At the Planning Commission meeting, staff and the Planning Commission were
informed by the applicant that the 10.23 acre parcel, located to the southeast of the
plat, shc1wn as FUTURE DEVELOPMENT is not part of the plat. Staff had calculated
this parcel as part of the overall density. Staff met with the applicant on August 17,
1994 an informed him that the total number of lots may not exceed 37 lots. The 37
lots will include the FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, the nursery site, and Mark Halla's
home site located on the southwest corner of the plat. This will result in reducing the
total number of lots proposed for single family development to 34 lots. It will also
result in a gross density of one unit per 2.7 acres.
* Some n ighbors complained about the noise level from the nursery, generated from the
speaker system and peacocks.
* The
The Planning
changes are s
recommended the lots maintain a minimum 2.5 acre lot size.
nission recommended modifications to the staff recommendation. These
in either bold or overstrike:
t
' Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
' August 3, 1994
Page 16
"The City Council approves of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86 -31 for Great Plains
Golf Estates as shown on the plans dated June 6, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless
the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of
3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
' 2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan
on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their
size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be
' protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning,
removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6"
caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan
which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide
the legal description. This plan shall include a list of all trees and size proposed to
be removed. The plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. Staff shall
' review the need for screening along Lots 1, 29 39 4, and 5, Block 4 as it relates to
the existing single family homes to the south.
3. Lots 4, 5, 7, and 8 Block 3, shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree
preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall
have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving
significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree
preservation easement prior to grading.
4. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with
Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning
' around of fire apparatus. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be
designed and shown on site plan.
5. Fire apparatus access road 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. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings.
This applies to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101.
6. Street names:
' a. Maple Court is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple" in
the name.
H
Halla's Great Pl.
August 3, 1994
Page 17
ins Golf Estates
b. T'. street between Hwy. 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive
9d Halla Nursery. Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla
Vista Drive.
t
11
C. Rename
"Golf View Circle." Submit alternative name.
7. Building
Department conditions:
'
a. U
e Carver County licensed septic site evaluator.
b. Submit
boring logs of borings done on each proposed ISTS site with a unique '
identification
for each to Inspections Division.
C. S�ake
and identify proposed property lines, proposed ISTS sites and perc and ,
b
p ring locations.
d. Provide
a preliminary evaluation report on the ISTS sites from Resource '
Engineering.
is condition has been met).
8. The applicant
will need to provide revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 100 -
�
year storm
in
events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality and quantity
accordance to the City's, Surface Water Management Plan for the City
ponds
Engine
to review and approve.: The applicant shall retain on site the predeveloped r
runoff rate
as well as provided interim water quality and quantity ponds. The applicant
shall provide
detailed pre - developed and post - developed storm water calculations for
existing
'
and proposed storm water basins. In addition, water quality pond design
calculati
ns shall be based on Walker's pondnet model.
'
9. The str
is shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction
plans and
Council
specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City
in conjunction with final; plat approval. The construction plans shall be
designed
in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail
plates.
'
10. The applicant
shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary
security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with fi4l
plat conditions of approval. ,
.' Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 18
' 11. The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in the
PP
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to
or concurrent with wetland fill activity or excavation in future phases of the project.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps
of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their
conditions of approval.
13. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for
all storm water drainageways and ponding areas lying outside the street right -of -ways.
The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be
given for access for maintenance of the storm water ponding areas. Outlot A shall be
platted as a lot and block.
14. The applicant's engineer shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and formal approval.
15. The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk
highway right -of -ways. The berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slopes along
Trunk Highway 101 right -of -ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all
proposed grading as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction.
The applicant's engineer shall work with staff in developing a revised storm drainage
plan to accommodate plat revisions.
' 16. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands
shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100 -year high water level. All storm water
' ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and
no more than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes.
' 17. The outlet from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re- routed and directed
through Pond "B."
t18. Existing wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utilized shall be
properly abandoned in accordance with City or State codes.
19. The applicant shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity
fees based in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The
' requirement for cash fees in lieu of land or permanent pond construction shall be based
upon the schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 19 '
20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain the as directed by the City
Engineers
21. The dev loper shall convey to the; City appropriate drainage and utility easements for
future construction of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Great Plains Golf
Estates.
22. Ponding acilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the
plat has en revised to accommodate staff' changes in the plat's street and lot
configuration. The developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with
revised c etailed storm sewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm
drainage system on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat.
23. The applicant shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety
improvements:
a. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the '
r rsery entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant
i; also proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. ,
Staff recommends that the existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled
back to improve sight lines and berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in
height. i
b. a hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood
rive shall be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does ,
riot meet MnDOT standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
C. oadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may
finpose sight distance problems as well. This should be investigated and
ocumented by the applicant's engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's
standards for the posted speeds.
24. The applicant shall be required to re- excavate all unacceptable materials in the ravine
on Lot 3, Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm '
drainage pipe (24 -inch CMP) with concrete pipe.
25. The a PP licant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D ") to
accomn7date. the existing significant trees that are alive yet.
y' Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 20
26. The applicant shall provide for the future looping of the two street systems through
Outlot A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court. Outlot A shall have no additional
' access granted for TH 101.
27. HaU N y Vista ,a east of T ak 14ig ay 101 sh ld be a i a a t fellew the
' . The plat shall
be redesigned to provide full public street access to the properties south of this
development via two stub streets extended south from Halla Nursery Vista
' between Lots 4 and 5, Block 4 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 4 or Lots 2 and 3, Block 4
or some other alternative acceptable to the city.
1 28. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that
appropriate right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of
the minimum 100 -foot wide corridor for County Road 14.
29. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from County
Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
30. The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford
Road at the intersection of County Road 14.
31. The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way.
32. Outlot A is currently used as the nursery business and should be platted into a lot and
block. The final plat should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show
Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains
Golfview Estates.
' 33. Staff and applicant work together to make sure that the future road in the
southeast corner of the plat not infringe on the bluff and that it adheres to the
new bluff ordinance.
34. The 1 Mit- peF 2.5 -a the - aetual - land -to be platted.
not melude the ffitum development aFea whieh is not owned by Pon Halla. The
' plat shall maintain an average overall density of 2% acres, including the nursery
property, for a 11 a's a Va # Plains Golf Estates preliminary plat.
' 35. Covenants be provided for the new property owners informing of the days and
hours of operation of the retail commercial site and if any changes are made to
those hours and days, that the property owners be informed of such changes.
Halla's Great PI
August 3, 1994
Page 21
Golf Estates
36. The tota number of lots shall not exceed 37 lots. This number includes the parcel
owned b V Mark Halla, the parcel owned by David Halla, the nursery site, and all
lots prol osed for single family development.
37. Unless t e applicant final plats the property by December 1, 1994, the preliminary
plat app oval will be void and the applicant will have to comply with the 1 unit
per 10 a re density requirement."
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
City Council minutes dated August 22, and September 12, 1994.
Reduced preliminary plat approved July 6, 1987.
Reduced final plat approved July 110, 1989.
Letter from Paul and Deborah Graffunder dated August 9, 1994.
Letter from m G. R. Mundale dated !July 21, 1994.
Letter from Wendell Schott dated' August 1, 1994.
Letter from Jim and Jan Sabinski dated August 3, 1994.
Letter from Resource Engineering dated July 27, 1994.
Memo f'om MNDOT dated March 16, 1994.
Memo from Carver County Engineering Department dated August 2, 1994.
Memo from Dave Hempel dated July 28, 1994.
Memo f{om Steve Kirchman dated July 27, 1994.
Memo from Mark Littfin dated July 22, 1994.
Planning Commission minutes dated August 3, 1994.
Preliminary plat dated June 6, 1994.
I.
F_
L
11
1
11
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
' word garbage and you have dumpsters around and it's just ugly. There's no way around it. I guess that's my
main concern. Maybe there needs to be a better selling job on this or maybe the city should do a little more
work because I think, I think like I said, it could be possibly a good use for the property but all the language
' we've heard so far and what the lawyer'was talking about, he said the dumpsters are empty. The dumpsters are
used for this but I don't hear anything about the future. What's to say that after one year they start storing
dumpsters full of material in there. Or what's to say they don't start cleaning the dumpsters on the property and
' there's toxic waste and it runs into the soil or whatever. I don't see that in the language of the staff report and I
haven't heard anything about that mentioned so I think more emphasize needs to be placed on enforcement and
maybe inspection of the site. And I understand it's a 10 year permit ... and that seems awfully long to me. I
believe there should be some way we can review that every year. I understand the investment they've put into it
' and I want to make sure they get their money back from that. Personally I think a lot of the camouflaging is not
really money well spent on the fence if you think about it. You know the foot and a half trees and the wood
fence, that's almost ugly by some nature. I guess I'd maybe rather see a smaller time period unless there's a
trade off that we could work something out. I think that's about all of the comments that I have. I would like
to see more emphasize placed on enforcement and the future use of the property and I've been to the Planning
Commission several times. Well, it seems like several times. I've always commented to them how I feel the
south part of Chanhassen is being ignored and like I said to Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, pay a little more
attention to the southern part of the city. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Verne. Anyone else?
Jim Sulerud: Jim Sulerud again, 730 Vogelsburg Trail. This is the item that I did come for ...hike and jog and
bike along there plus we just live up the road a little bit on TH 101. And I think the trail as you've heard the
snowmobile people talk about, it's a major resource in the community.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. The Interim Use Permit for Admiral Waste
' Management was tabled by the City Council.)
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.5 ACRES INTO 36 RURAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND
' ONE OUTLOT, HALLA'S GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES, LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER
TRAIL AND WEST AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 101, DON HALLA.
(Taping of the meeting began again at this point.)
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Did you write all those down? I mean I sort of got lost in the pros and cons and yeahs and
nays. Of their request versus these recommendations.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Sharmin and Dave have met with them and were aware of the issues that they had.
Councilman Wing: Is there anything to be said? I mean are we going to move ahead and try to put this thing
together?
Kate Aanenson: The storm water issue obviously... the lot size and we may have to look at that... outside the
MUSA...
33
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
1
Roger Anderson: TI
iat's correct—to make some adjustment for that but we have to make sure that we have some
mechanism in place
that if the property or the entire area was, if it ever becomes in the MUSA in this future
subdivision, that we
have some mechanism to recover the additional storm water...picked up at this time.
Councilman Wing:
The Planning Commission picked up on this future road on the southeast corner and looking
at the gradient, it appears
'
to me the road would run into or right along the bluff. How can that road be there
and still be compatitjle
with the bluff ordinance?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa W
'
met with the applicant. We requested that it be realigned.
in :
Councilman Wing:
� west?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct.
Councilman Wing:
So this wouldn't be acceptable as it's showing here?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa N).
Councilman Wing:
Okay.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa It
would move slightly.
Don Haller Sharmin,
you might move it all the way over to the next property to the left. Next one.
Councilman Wing:
Now we're surrounding Timberwood with an entire different type of house and lot. An
entire different thi
ng and our standard subdivision. If we guide this thing to 1 to 2.5, how do we keep it
there? What if the
MUSA line shifted tomorrow? If Paul was here, it'd be down to the river already.
Kate Aanenson: W
11 we have options when we bring that in. We look at the MUSA line expansion, just like '
Timberwood and they
have to be ... and said this will always remain large lot.
Councilman Wing:
Says who? What keeps them, once the MUSA line, why can't they just go and develop this,
break it up immediately?
Kate Aanenson: W-,H
I think as we go through that process and you as a Council have to decide whether or not
what you want to gi
jide it for. '
Councilman Wing:
At that time.
be from sewer and
Kate Aanenson: A
that time, right. If you want to exclude them and say they'll exempt
they can make it not
just for Timberwood.
Councilman Wing:
'
But if we're going to develop this large lot now, it'd be nice to protect it for the future. I
mean we re appro
to home or whatever.
t, large
g this based on large g ,
34
s
L
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
Kate Aanenson: That is why it's gone through several different, the Halla's have made a good faith effort based
on the fact that we've looked at 15,000 square foot lot and they tried to come forward with a plat clustering that
and we found out that even on a temporary basis they'd have to provide on -site septic. It just didn't work so
they came back with even trying to do cluster systems. So they have tried to cluster that in case we did bring it
in and said we want this to be small lots. It just didn't seem to work. So we went back to ... go back to larger
lots. That doesn't mean that they still couldn't in the future, if they locate the house in such a way, they could
come back and ask to be included. You have to work with the homeowners now... subdivide. That's something
you have to look at.
Councilman Wing: Alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Before we get any more comments from Council, is there anyone wanting to address this
proposal at this time? Go ahead. If you could just, I'd request, because of the time, that the presentation be
limited to a few minutes.
Paul Graffunder. Well I'll do my best but I'm majorly affected by this development so a few minutes might not
be enough. But maybe it is. That's my parcel of property that Sharmin drawing in. I keep seeing TH 101 go
right through my garage. I don't know where that comes from but nobody's asked me about it but it keeps
getting dotted lines through my garage and I'm not sure, something like that. How that's going to affect me in
the future. I'm also concerned that if my road and house appear to have an easement of some sort over that
road. Not a total easement for unlimited use but some sort. Are they going to be able to give an easement then
to all those other lots so those people can bring their lumber wagons down that road and park all their wood
piles and whatever they want there? And I also have a problem, I think, with the way the roads are set up. That
way, all those 2 1/2 acre mini estates, their back yards become my front yard. Or my front yard becomes their
back yards and everybody knows the dog kennels go back there. The old boats and all that junk, which I have
myself but I store them where nobody can see it. Well, that's going to be in my front door when they put that
in their back yard. Is that a consideration that is given to something like that? I happen to have another
question as, I don't think this is platted now and I don't know how this all works but Halla's has kind of hidden
behind the agricultural zoning for decades. They've done things the city hasn't felt were correct and then the
Halla's have said, well we can do that because we're agricultural. The latest thing I can think of is they have a
building there that they're using for commercial retail sales that I don't believe they got proper permits for and
they said, well we can build that because we're an agricultural. Is this going to change their agricultural zoning
for every lot on there as soon as this is said and done or are they going to still be able to hide under the
agricultural umbrella and keep dump trucks that haven't moved for a year down along that road. That type of
thing. They say they're agricultural trucks and yes, I guess they are but they don't use them. Who can they
give an easement? Did I ask that? Are they going to give those lots an easement? All those people to use my
property. I don't know if they can. In the deed it says that...I'd like some protection against that. At this time
there's my home and David Halla's home but Shannin, maybe you can outline the area where two other homes
were built this summer I believe. Yeah, right down in there. Do you know that? I thought one was in front
and one was behind. I think the way I'm recalling. This easement comes down along this road and comes
down in here and one home is to be built in the front and one home in the back.
Sharmin Al -7aff. Something like that.
Paul Graffunder. Yes. These two lots here are going to be built. This one here is ... told me that it's
unbuildable. I don't know if it is or not, or how many people can have an easement on that easement. How
many homes can be served. We've had problems there for 15 years. Who's going to plow? Who's going to
35
City Council
put rock in there?
drive their snowmot
6 years ago, maybe
property...60 feet of
adamantly oppose tt
Teich's were separa
needed for road woi
been fine for me ha
anywhere else when
possible way to get
I haven't seen any c
The easement isn't
be way more proble
like to be answered
Councilman Wing:
Paul Graffunder. I
finger and then I h,
Councilman Wing:
- August 22, 1994
ho's going to fill the holes? Who can do what with it? Who can park on it? Who can
le on there ... or whatever. I'd kind of like the easement to go away. Don Halls, about 5 or
was in '86, submitted proposals to use that easement for a road plus take 30 feet into my
ny front yard. Bring the road within about 30 feet of my door for this development and I
t plan. He had an agreement that he had with Teich, or his parents ... back in the 60's when
ng their property and built my home that said something to the effect where property
d come from the Teich's side of the fence. And that was fine for Teich's and would have
I wanted to develop but Don Halla wants to develop. I think in the, I don't know of
those lots can be served other than down the easement that we have now. There's just no
i on the back side. I don't know if those stub streets are adequate. Those are news to me.
that. Those stub streets are not going to solve the problem that the other lot holders today.
problem but everybody keeps adding one more onto it and sooner or later there's going to
is than what we've already experienced. So those are all the questions that I really would
efore anything is...
does your home sit? On that, would you put that back up.
n 5 acres here. This is two separate parcels but my house is right about there under my
a rather large garage to the west of that
looks like your garage is safe.
Councilman Senn: Four house isn't safe then.
1 Graffunder. What do you mean? For TH 101?
Pau y
Councilman Senn: I Yeah.
Paul Graffunder.
got to move when
Mayor Chmiel:
Boyd Peterson: Ye
septic, I think Cour
had mine pumped r
were taken in '87 c
that area? And the
but other than that
hold to it. Mound
system work, just t
because it may be o
of water runs throu
Mayor Chmiel:
, they're going to, they go right through my swimming pool. Somewhere in there. We've
happens.
thank you. Anyone else?
h, I'm Boyd Peterson. I live directly to the east of this property. And going back on the
it and the city generally should hold to that septic system requirement. I personally have
any times and we're having trouble with it and I'm right next door. The 70 boring sites that
whatever, are they available to look at? Were they okayed? I mean is there that many in
rees, they're kind of down around that southeast zone. There's kind of an issue to protect...
mean, it's not a bad project.! It's just that my issue is that septic and I think the city should
ystems are real ugly. I don't lmow what you can do landscape wise to make a mound
get that second system but Ijwould say let's just not let this thing go by with that septic
long time before the city. And they're with big houses and everybody's life now days, a lot
h those septics. Thank you.
else?
I.
I.
1
36 1
1 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
' David Gatto: Hello again Mayor, Council and staff. Again, my name is David Gatto. I'm here to represent the
37 homeowners of the Lake Riley Woods Homeowners Association. We, for everybody's information, this is
' Lake Riley Woods. It's well ... Foxford Road. That cul -de -sac and there's a cul -de -sac here. That's Lake Riley
Woods. I have a petition from 28 of the people that live there and it says, we respectfully petition that Halla
Nursery should not be allowed to redevelop their property into anything smaller than 2 1/2 acres and that the
minimum square footage requirement of 1,400 square feet be established in order to preserve the value of the
properties surrounding Halla and maintain the aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood at the level adhered to
when our homes were built. So we'll leave that with you Mr. Mayor. We don't oppose the development that
they have but like we signed up there, we really think that the lots ought to be at least 2 1/2 acres. Some of the
lots on that plat are small and I believe there's a 1.8 acres and that's what troubles us. The City Attorney there,
or at least one of the city attorneys... When I was at the Planning Commission meeting a couple of weeks ago we
were told that this grandfather extension had since expired. Can you answer that for me?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Tom, go ahead.
Tom Scott: Has since expired?
David Gatto: That's what I was told.
Tom Scott: No. That's not my understanding.
David Gatto: It has not expired?
Tom Scott: It has not expired.
David Gatto: Because in looking at the ordinance as it applies today, there isn't of course any 2 1/2 acre
density. It's all 10 acre density.
Tom Scott: That's correct.
' David Gano: Okay. Well, if I add up the dates that Sharmin just went over, I don't understand how 5 years
from 1987 equals August of 1984.
' Kate Aanenson: We can answer that. He had a plat. Came in here and was working on it and it was put before
the Planning Commission or the City Council, we believe we're making a good faith effort to try to provide him
with the requirements and direction he was given by the staff and so we are trying to get this through the
process. Give him an opportunity to go forward. We were giving him the direction to try to give an alternative
so in our opinion he hasn't expired...
David Gatto: Okay. Well that's different than what you told me 2 weeks ago but okay. That's fine. We've got
a couple other things to talk about then. In the staff report they talk about the outlots create a non - conforming
situation. And so I don't understand how they can't allow, especially the one outlot that has the retail
establishment there. How can you calculate that outlot in the entire density of this plat and tell me that it does
' indeed meet the overall density of 2.6 acres? I need that question answered and I also would like to see the
mathematical calculations because when I divide 102, if we assume the 102 is right, by 36, Sharmin what was
that number? You've got a calculator there.
1 37
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
Sharmin Al -Jaffa 218 units.
David Gano: That' 2.8 acres. Does that include that Oudot D which we established at the Planning
Commission?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa
David Gatto: Okay. So you established at the Planning Commission that he doesn't even own Outlot D so can
we take that away?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. So it was 92.
David Gano: Is that what it is? I don't know.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. That would be, if you 'divide it by 36 units that would be 2.5.
David Gatto: 2.5.. ? Okay. And that's assuming that you allow the retail establishment outlot to be calculated.
Audience: That's what they're saying.
David Gatto: Well yeah. You know I don't understand that so I hope that Council takes that into account
here ... as I carry on my discussion. I'm trying to finish. This trunk sewer is extremely troublesome to us. In
our development. We heard some encouraging words a minute ago that you might grant this plat a sewer
exemption. We only hope if something like that is possible, that we could be granted the same thing across the
street. We all have septic systems. We all have wells. You have to have a water treatment system on the wells
but I know that all he neighbors say it works very well, Mine works very well. My mound is so efficient I
have to water the p of it every couple days or the grass dies. It's, as I'm saying, so efficient that everything
drains down. Not only through the mound but into the earth it's built on that was supposedly not able to bear
the burden of the effluent but I have to water it every couple days. So it works fine. I paid $10,000.00 for my
mound and my well and I know everybody else in our development did. I know everybody else in this new
development is gob ig to and are we ... and I can assure you, if that you people let that happen here in Chanhassen
I'll be right here at your desk again. I'll bring all 37 of my neighbors with me and I'm sure that people from
Deerbrook will con ie along with us. That's the development that's directly to the east of this and I think some
of these other folksy have septics too so take care of us. I'm not going to take any more time. I know it's
getting late and I think that was really our concern. ...development but we're going to be watching very
carefully what you allow and what you don't allow and what you calculate for acreage is in there. Thank you
very much.
Mayor Chmiel: �
Councilman Wing:
push your calcuaab
Mayor Chmiel: O
Councilwoman Do
means preliminary
else? If not, Richard do you have any other questions?
No. Just when, however this comes back, when you clean it up, 2.5. I mean when you
it ought to say 2.5 and I think we should stick with that.
Colleen.
ndorf: Well I always struggle with preliminary plats. I try to keep in mind preliminary
I get too caught up in the detail. But overall I do have some problems, even with the
38
it
1
11
7
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
preliminary concept and that is I'm so lost in the mass at this point so let me just tell you what I would like and
you can tell me if it exists. I'm not really keyed on this overall density. I want to see 2.5 lots.
Kate Aanenson: Minimum lot size?
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yes. I don't want averages. I want to see 2.5 lots. I realize that there's a lot of
unfortunate history with this platting and the city needs to be held responsible for past actions but I'm frankly
disappointed that it can't be 10 acre lots. So I guess I don't have any, if we get to that point, the 2.5 minimum
acres, I don't have a lot of problems. I mean everything else needs to be resolved and that has been discussed. I
would like Scott, I'm glad you're still here. In reading through all the Minutes and notes, there is a problem that
may fall under noise ordinance in terms of these facility. The speaker system, the peacocks. That's a
completely separate issue but I wanted to bring it up because it does seem to be a problem.
Scott Harr: We do have complaints on it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. And what can we do?
Scott Harr: We issue permits for the loud speakers. For the PA system and what not ... housing in the area is
taken into consideration.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it is something that we have looked into?
Scott Harr: And that we do control.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything more?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, see I'm not so certain that we can give even preliminary. There seem to be
too many changes necessary so I guess I'm finished.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: I'm okay with averaging. As long as it does in fact come out to 2.5 when everything is
said and done here. You and I, I mean we'll have, we'll continue to have discussions, maybe even arguments
over that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Maybe even fist to cuff.
Councilman Mason: Oh, I don't think that will happen. I don't think that will happen. But I guess my view of
this is that, if it averages out to 2 1/2, I think the intent of the ordinance is still there. You know 10 acres or not
I think is, for me at any rate is kind of water over the dam and I only half jokingly wrote down the times they
are a changing but you know, what are you going to do. I'm concerned about the easement issue. That sounds
like a real valid point to me. I see that as this, what's going to happen with those homes? What is going to
happen with that road? And the go carts and that whole issue has got to get cleared up somehow and I'm not
quite sure how to clear that up. But, and I know.
Kate Aanenson: ...that is not part of this plat. We don't intend to do anything nor with this plat do anything
with it. We wouldn't allow access onto it as part of this plat. The intention was, there's 4 existing lots or 5 that
39
City Council
- August 22, 1994
have access onto that. It's a private drive. It will continue to act as a private drive for those homes and this plat
will have access off of a public street which is required by ordinance.
Councilman Senn: Which 4 or 5 because he'd have to have a variance.
Councilman Mason: But that's, I'm sorry. But that doesn't have, what you're telling me is that that doesn't
have anything to do with this plat.
Kate Aanenson: Nq. He's asking a legitimate question. He wants to make sure that those people don't have
access off of that as a part of the plat.
Councilman Mason: Right.
Kate Aanenson: And we'll make sure that doesn't happen. They want access off of a public street, which is an
ordinance requirem nt. Those who live along that will continue to use it as their private drive and maintain it
however they're doing.
Councilman Mason Okay, okay. And how about that issue of, and I know we've talked about this before and
it is getting late and I quite honestly don't remember what. What does happen when all of a sudden somebody's
back yard is all of u sudden now facing somebody's front yard?
Councilman Wing: Ask Colleen.
Councilman Mason I mean that's, yeah. I'd be concerned about that.
Councilman Senn: I have 4 back yards along my front yard.
Councilman Mason: Well, is all that stuff stored', back in there?
Councilman Senn: Yeah and it's a pain in the butt. There's sheds. There's garbage piles and everything, yeah.
And the ordinances don't prohibit any of it.
Councilman Masora: So when final plat comes up or whatever, can something be put in there about landscaping?
Screening. I mean I hate to use the word screening with the past discussion that got tabled but I mean we've
done that before with what, landscaping.
Kate Aanenson: e do that all the time with different subdivisions—lots which are less desirable and maybe
there's a way to dill the landscaping...
Roger Anderson: Can I interject here?
Mayor Chmiel: Tune's getting late. We're just trying to keep going here.
Councilman Masc
about landscaping
people to develop
with going ahead
You know I don't know how all the neighbors feel about it but if I can see something
the sight lines are protected because that is an issue but yet I don't think we can deny
t because of that but how can we reach some sort of compromise. I don't have any trouble
h preliminary plat but I will go on record as saying there's a whole lot of stuff that has to
40
0
ICity Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
' be taken care of before I would give fmal plat approval. I mean we've got to, I think maybe it is time to get
this off of square one but I share a whole lot of the concerns that have been mentioned.
Resident: Future Councils are going to have problems with that street if you don't take care of it today.
' Councilman Mason: But, you know you're right but I think that's a separate issue. I mean that's not connected
with this plat. I mean you're right. You're right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark go ahead.
' Resident: But you've got the opportunity now. You're not going to have the opportunity years from now.
' Mayor Chmiel: I could rule you out of order because this is a discussion up here at Council. Thank you.
Councilman Senn: Right now what that easement serves nothing in the Halla development, correct?
' Kate Aanenson: No. They're using it right now their...
Councilman Senn: I'm not saying using it. I'm just saying that that easement specifically.
' Kate Aanenson: When this is developed?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: No, it will not...
Councilman Senn: Okay, so that easement will, there's nothing to the north?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
' Councilman Senn: Okay. So that easement will only serve the properties then to the south of it?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Which are the current properties that have an easement over it. They'd be land locked
otherwise, correct?
' Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: To provide access to the ... property. That's, we were talking about moving that road.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I understand but besides from that, the land locked properties that are in there to the
west ... need that easement to get in and out.
41
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
Kate Aanenson: They have that easement and they will continue to have that easement. They're using it as a
private drive, correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And none of that is in the ownership of the Halla's or under ... right now?
Kate Aanenson: Its my understanding they have an easement. '
Councilman Senn: ey have an easement but they don't, I mean an easement is very different. Okay. So
even if Halla got ri of that easement, all those other people would still maintain that easement and we have
absolutely nothing tb do for it? Okay. Alright. The other thing I'll just ask you real quick. On the road over '
here, the future roa you're talking about.
Kate Aanenson: Tle realignment of TH 101.
Councilman Senn: No, not TH 101 but this future road.
Kate Aanenson: Oh, yes. If the nursery property was ever to be platted, we would block that, instead of having
direct access onto TH 101... '
Councilman Senn: So they put the public systems in.
Kate Aanenson: They would just throw a stub street...
Councilman Senn: Okay. And then I saw the comment in here or I saw the Outlot A shall have no additional
access granted to TH 101. That's more or less additional over what's there now.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Alright. Last question. Item 35 really confuses me and I think you're missing the point.
What are we trying to do? Covenants be provided for the new property owners informing the days and hours of '
the retail commercifl site and if changes are made to those hours and days, the property owners be informed of
such change. You lose me there. I mean if we're informing them all we're going to do is start the fight, we
haven't provided ail mechanism for the ability to (fight. It seems like a bottomless pit where we're going
nowhere and why is it even in there.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa It was ... by the Planning Commission to let new homeowners that will be buying into the
subdivision know that there is a nursery...
(There was a tape hange at this point in the discussion.)
Kate Aane nson: We'll use the 2.5...
,
Councilman Masori: Well so that's the issue right?
Councilman Senn: And you said 2.5 minimum. You said 2.5 minimum and Richard, did you say 2.5 minimum?
I thought so. Well, there, I guess it means we deny.
42
' City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: That's what we're looking at. Okay, do we need a motion to do that? Or should we give it
back to staff and let staff see if they can work with them.
Tom Scott: You can just continue it and I mean you've expressed your sentiments to staff, if staff's comfortable
with that.
' Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Does everybody understand? It's back in staffs lap to continue to work.
Don Halla: We're back to the conceptual drawing basically. That's what you're back to is the 1987.
' Mayor Chmiel: If it takes longer and another Council comes in, they might make another change.
Kate Aanenson: I guess the other issue too is we've kind of passed that time frame and we'd like to get, keep it
moving so that either a plat goes forward or it dies. You know we keep extending this, extending this so if you
want to give him the 2.5, I'd recommend you make that in a motion and have them come back within such a
time period because otherwise we're back in the same window. Was there a time frame for them to come back?
Mayor Chmiel: But with all the uncertainties that are there yet, things that are still not answered, I think if staff
works back with that, knowing that the maximum is 2.5. Or I should say minimum is 2.5, I think you can work
' that out to come back and bring it back again to Council for the final. Or for the preliminary portion of this.
Don Halla: Can you put those side by side?
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I can't see a thing on this.
Councilman Mason: Well.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa How about if you compare the easterly side or the westerly side.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. I think the point is moot because the 2.5 doesn't necessarily mean it has to be that
configuration.
Kate Aanenson: Right, it could be something totally different.
Tom Scott: I believe what Kate is saying is that Council set some deadline as to when this plat would come
back so we don't put ourselves in a limbo type situation. Potentially it could be another year or two years
' before the plat actually comes back in a reconfigured form. Maybe we could get some input from the applicant
as to timing on presenting everything in the plat. That might be helpful here.
Roger Anderson: The timing for a reconfigured plat may be secondary. I feel that through the process here Don
has rights, if I understand the rules correctly, to develop that piece into 37 lots. And making allowance I believe
that he has to meet the 2 1/2 acre minimum, which was in effect back at that time and that's what has driven
this thing forward is the number of lots actually. Not the 2 1/2 acre requirement. The 2 1/2 acres is to obtain a
' certain neighborhood characteristic I believe and to meet the individual soil treatment site provisions, which we
fully intend to meet. But this doesn't fall under the current ordinances, the way we understand it and admittedly
it's a complicated situation but if there is a requirement now that each of these lots be 2 1/2 acres, I think that
throws a whole different skew on it. It's not just a reconfiguration issue that our engineer can do. It's the legal
' 43
r
'
City Council Meeting
- August 22, 1994
'
and the planning qu
' n' it as just a black and white
stion I think that's going to take more than that. I don't see �
situation.
'
Kate Aanenson: How
about if we table this for the next City Council meeting and we get a legal opinion and
resolve that issue an
I then also maybe come back with a time frame where we can resolve another plat...
I have to table?
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
I don't see that as a problem. Can a motion
Councilman Mason:
So moved I'll move to table.
'
Councilman Wing:
Second.
Mayor Chmiel: O
y, moved and seconded.
'
Councilman Mason
Wing seconded to table action on the preliminary plat for Halla's
moved, Councilman W g sec P
Great Plains Golf
Estates until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Councilman Mason:.
I guess if I could just add. I think we also need to continue this discussion about why
every lot should be,
what the rationale is and what the rationale isn't for averaging so it comes out to 2 1/2 acres
'
or maintaining eve
lot. I mean we average PUD's. We average a lot of things and I'm, I don't personally
don't think tonight's
the night to have that discussion but.
'
Mayor Chmiel: And
I think we can continue that probably at the next meeting.
Councilman Mason•
Okay.
'
Councilman Senn:
Since we're bringing it back, I think it becomes an interesting question because it's one we
have to keep asking
ourselves all the time and I think the neighbors should ask themselves the question. What's
more important to you.
The configuration, design layout or this absolute number and that's something that we
'
have to deal with c�
nstantly up here. And just to say magically 2.5 can give you a nice, wonderful square lot
boxed neighborhood
subdivision that in our eyes sometimes we've looked at and kind of gone yukk. Okay.
And so we try not
-o just simply etch in those numbers and say that's it. We look more at overall design
that looks nicer. So all it is is a
configuration and
y, well if you give a little bit there, you get to something
question and something
to look at.
Councilman Wing:
And don't forget the TH 101 issues of grading and sight line and what the responsibilities
'
are.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay,
I'm going to suggest that we do 10 and 11 and cut it off after that.
Councilman Mason:
No argument there.
as to whatever it
Mayor Chmiel: A�d
I'd like to get the approval, of 1(b) and 10) with a quick explanation
might be.
Councilman Senn:
The thing on 1.
ICity Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Well no, we'll just come back to that but I'm just putting it in the proper sequence.
' Councilman Mason: Do we need to make a motion to amend the agenda now or do we wait?
Councilman Senn: Well and that's what I was going to ask. I thought some of these people were kind of
' sticking around here for 1(b).
Mayor Chmiel: Is there somebody sticking around here for 1(b)?
' Councilman Senn: There were people that were here on the business fringe. Item 1(b).
Mayor Chmiel: City Code amendment to BF district. Additional permitted and conditional use final reading.
We went through the process of this with the fast and now this is the final. With the recommendations as to
what.
Councilman Senn: I'm just asking, should we move that up to take care of them?
' Mayor Chmiel: Well, I think what we'll do is just continue with what we have. We'll go to item 10. That item
10 I don't think is much of a problem.
tANNEXATION /DEANNEXATION REQUEST, CITY OF CHASKA.
Councilman Senn: I move approval.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Resolution #94 -86: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
annexation/deannexation request for the southwest corner of West 82nd Street and Highway 41 between
Chaska and Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
DISCUSS CONCEPT OF ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX, REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
CHANHASSEN BOWL FACILITY, LOTUS REALTY.
' Councilman Senn: The one I feel bad about is I'd love to spend some time on this and we aren't going to have
it tonight for number 11. So I'd really, if we're going to push something off, and I know that's not fair because
they've been sitting around all night.
Mayor Chmiel: They've been here so let's bring in number 11. Brad Johnson, you're on deck.
Councilman Senn: Let's come up with a time we can get together and do this. I mean right now to rush
through this.
Mayor Chmiel: You've only sat here half the night and waited.
Councilman Senn: Do you want to stay for a few more hours and go through it?
Mayor Chmiel: How long of a presentation will this take?
' 45
City Council
1. A final land
maximum n
6 feet in hei
10% of the
October 22,
2. Hours of
p.m. on
- September 12, 1994
ing plan shall be approved by staff. This plan shall include a site diagram showing the
-r and location of dumpster and made part of the conditions of approval. The fence shall be
not to exceed 8 feet with 42 trees of varying height from 1 1/2 feet to 6 feet. Minimum of
shall be 6 feet height at the time of planting. The landscaping shall be planted prior to
shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a..m. to 6:00
Work on Sundays and the 6 standard holidays, as determined by staff, is not permitted.
3. There shall be o outdoor speaker system.
4. The a licant s, all comply with all conditions of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
PP P Y
5. The number of dumpsters shall be limited to'a number that can be adequately screened, not to exceed 100
dumpsters. The screen shall be designed to provide effective visual barrier during all seasons. Only empty
dumpsters may be stored on the site. This interim use permit shall apply specifically to the storage of empty
dumpsters own -,d by Admiral Waste. No expansion of the site, unspecified uses, or ancillary uses shall be
allowed unless a separate interim use permit is granted by the City Council. There will also be no
motorized vehii les stored on the site or stacking of dumpsters.
6. There shall be la yearly review of this site to ensure compliance.
7. The length of a term shall not exceed 5 years. The use shall be terminated within one year of inclusion of
the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area or if conditions of approval have been violated,
whichever comes first. The applicant may request an extension for the interim use permit prior to it's
expiration.
8. The applicant gliall replace any of the new trees that die within two years.
All voted in favor except Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Senn who opposed. The motion carried with a
vote of3to2.
Public Present:
Sandy & Don Hal
Sharon Gatto
Dale & Peggy Gu
Claire and Anne r
B. L. Janssen
. Vogel
A
6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina
9631 Foxford Road
945 Creekwood
815 Creekwood
500 Lyman
21
III
0
7
I�
.1 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
' Sharmin Al -7aff. Mr. Mayor, members of City Council. At your last meeting you tabled this item and directed
staff to give a legal opinion on whether Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates plat had to maintain the 2 1/2 acre
' minimum as was approved in 1987. Or if they could average them over all the lot area of 2 1/2 acre. The City
Attorney concluded that the applicant should proceed with the 1987 plat which requires 2 1/2 acre minimum lot
area and we hope that this answers the question. Thank you.
' Roger Knutson: Mayor, could I just make one addition comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger.
' Roger Knutson: To explain what I have not done. I have not tried to make any judgment as to whether the
1987 preliminary plat was a good idea or a bad idea. I have not made any judgment as to whether changes in
that preliminary plat could make it better or make it worse because that was not the issue I was addressed. In
' 1987 or 1988 as a result of a ... from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. You went in that area to a
density requirement of 1 per 10. At that time certain landowners asked to have their preliminary plats approved
and be given a substantial length of time to bring those in for final platting. That's what happened in '87 and
'88. So because of that special provision that he was granted in '88, he is now able to bring in a 2 1/2 acre plat
without regards to the current requirements regarding density. So Mr. Halla has really, in my judgment, three
choices. First, he can pursue and finalize what was started in 1987, in the configuration that was approved in
' '87. You can drop that and go to the current standards or he cannot plat. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I was putting down what you just got through saying. Alright. Don, do you have
anything to say in regards to just what the City Attorney has just said?
' Don Halla: Thank you. Don Halla. Thank you for the opportunity members of Council to address you briefly
here. Roger, my big question is, I understand ... the city has changed it's requirements for rural lots to be
anywhere from a third of an acre or larger. So if the ordinance within the city hadn't changed, would that not
affect our program on our site when we were granted 37 lots? Definitely it was based on 2 1/2 acres at that
time but now the city ordinance has changed in the meantime. Instead it has to be 1/3 of an acre with also the
requirement that ... septic sites on site. In this latest one, that's why ... We originally asked to do smaller ones...
changed it on staff's request..
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Roger.
Roger Knutson: In '87 or '88 the City Council, if you will for lack of a better term, grandfathered in that
preliminary plat and said you can do this plat if you bring it back within 5 years. Even though the rules are
1 changing. So they gave you that right. If you don't choose to follow up on that right, and you are under the
current rules, the current rules are smaller lots but the density is 1 per 10.
Don Halla: ...somebody asked the question, why were we requested by the city to bring in a lot closer density
' if that wasn't true? And why were we asked then, when that was density was requested to be larger ... than we
brought back another one that the city has asked ... Why were we put through spending all these thousands of
dollars in these particular... when I went in and asked, what would you as the city planner, for Paul Krauss, what
would you like us to do? What would you like to see in this program and I was requested to bring in all
clustered home sites on the west side of Highway 101. 9 months that sat in the city offices until it was
requested that we bring it back and make them all a minimum of 1 acre. The minimum acreage we came back
with was 1 1/2 acres. I guess I don't understand why I should have been put through all these different design
22
City Council
- September 12, 1994
changes if we then g o back to a ..that says no, you have to do 1987. Everything we have done in the last year
and a half has been at the city's request.
Roger Knutson: Is that a question? Paul Krauss was obviously trying to bring forth the best plat he thought for
the area. That's wb at planners do. It's not the question put to me. The question put to me was not, I'm not
competent to answei the question. What is the best plat? I don't decide, nor am I competent to decide. Is a 1
acre better or 15,00 square feet better or 2 1/2 acres. That's not my job. I was asked a specific question about
grandfather rights. gave my best judgment. I think it's unfortunate you've been put that. But I was just asked
my judgment as to hat your grandfather rights ate and that's my judgment.
Don Halla: Is it that Council has the ability to make a different decision than going with the 2 1/2 acres if
they so choose? ey do not necessarily have to follow that...
Roger Knutson: The Council makes the decision.
Don Halla: Thank
Mayor Chmiel: Right. ht. Okay. Richard, do you have any specific questions?
Councilman Wing: Sharmin the last I saw was the lot sizes ran from 1.64, is that the right number, up to 4
acres. And the net average was 2.5 in this plat.
I
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. However, that included the area of the nursery. The nursery area was averaged...
Councilman Wing: And I talked to Don last night. Because I went back to my notes. I noted that I thought we
had pretty much suited that the nursery wasn't part of this plat and that it had to be platted without the nursery.
That's what my thoughts and my understanding was way back when. So I guess I wouldn't have any problem
with the compromi 3e but it would be deleting the nursery portion of it for now. Because that's not part of the
plat. It's a separa business.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa we delete the nursery, the applicant will be permitted a maximum of 32 lots. To average 2
1/2 acre for each o e.
Councilman Wing: Okay, and the total number here was 35. Okay, well I guess that's the only question I've
got then is, if you're, staff is comfortable with this averaging, it would be, I guess I would see what planning
and everybody else that I've heard discussing this and that the nursery is an included part of it so the lot sizes, if
we delete the 32 aid then the adjustment of the net average. But I thought that's where I wound up last time.
That's all I've got
Mayor Chmiel:
Councilwoman Dc
any property in th
been put through
there are four cho
just sit on it for a
decent developme
. Colleen.
kendorf. Well, I'll be quite honest. How do I say this diplomatically. I just as soon not see
city develop. That's where I'm coming from. Just as a basis. But I see the Halla's have
e ringer and invested a lot of money and time into the various iterations of plats. I guess
es here. We could hold him; to the '87 plat. They could do the 1 per 10 acre. They could
chile. Or we could hold them to the 2 1/2 acre average minimum and come through with a
And I'm not sure where to go right now. I'll pass.
t
re
1
L
n
[I
23 1
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
' Councilman Mason: Oh sure.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sorry.
' Councilman Mason: That's alright. I think on the face of it I certainly hear what the City Attorney said and this
may be a situation of regardless of whether it's right or wrong, that's the way it is because this has been going
on for 7 years. I did have a rather amenable chat with Mr. Halla yesterday about all of this and I understand
' that at some point there was an interim plan produced by the Halla's that talked about 1 acre lot sizes. And on
the fact of it gee, that sounds kind of interesting to me. But then, and it still does and maybe that's worth some
chatting about but then that definitely flies against everything else that's going on in that area and if we were to
do that for them, I suspect anyone else that wanted to develop there would say the same thing and I wonder if
we would then have rampant development at that end of the city or not. I don't know. I don't know if that's
worth talking about or not. I really don't. I think this is a real tough one. I think at some point, and I don't
know if tonight's the night or not. We've been kind of banding about how big lots should be in the city of
Chanhassen. Maybe this is one of those issues. Again, I really don't know. But I think this interim plan has
the potential to be an interesting one with this 1 acre lot size but then that does fly in the face of any other kind
of development that is or isn't available in that area. I don't know if we want to discuss that or talk about that
' or not.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Are you talking about 1 acre with an average of 2.5?
Councilman Mason: No. No, no. I understand that there was an interim plan.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa May I?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa This was the plan that was submitted. It had two lots that averaged approximately 1 acre but
when you take both sides, what the applicant would have done would be to plat this side and oudot the westerly
side and what would happen then is you would have an average density of 2 1/2 acres. He would not be
' permitted to plat the outlot until such time when sewer and water is out there available. It was always made
clear to the applicant that the only way he would be permitted to proceed with this plat is if he could
demonstrate that there is a septic site, acceptable septic site on each and every single one of those parcels. And
we went through and analyzed this site and it was determined that this plat could not proceed. And it's mainly
' because of, that was one of the main issues.
Councilman Wing: I don't have a big problem with this other than the 32 to 35. What's the ramifications of the
nursery being included or not included? The nursery portion, and the issue here is 32 versus 35 lots. What do
we care whether the nursery is platted now or not? What's the ramifications of including that or not including
that?
' Sharmin Al -Jaffa It's just mainly the density.
Councilman Wing: Right, you can't achieve the 2.5 without it.
24
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And you can't make it into an outlot because there's existing buildings on it.
Councilman Wing: Okay. And if that's the case, pretty cut and dry then on that issue. Okay. I don't have, I'm
really cutting in on Mark here. Excuse me. I was starting on his questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Alr fight. Mark, do you have anything more?
Councilman Senn: 3o you're saying staff's evaluation of the interim plan is it's not possible because they can't
possibly or technica ly provide the septic systems.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa They won't work. And we have a staff report specifying that. Staff put together...
Don Halla: What was discussed at that time, to give you a little picture and I don't want to confuse you but
what was discussed ..we've been looking at a process of... (Most of what Don Halla was saying could not be
heard on the tape.)
Don Ashworth: I tally agree with the concept and it is highly feasible type of thing. Probably almost the best
way to go. The on'y problem with it is it would never be approved by Metro Council. It's an expansion... You
have to go through the whole MUSA expansion process and what I tried to relay to Don is that we have two
areas right now tha, are currently under study and I doubt very much that we're going to get a designation on
those two parcels within the next 10 years and to consider that they would allow the expansion into Mr. Halla's
property, it's just not t feasible. If he'd like to take and pursue that with them, you know fine because I think it is
a good solution. B Lit I just, it's not going to occur in the foreseeable future that they will allow an expansion of
that system, however it was designed.
Councilman Senn: So with eliminating that one, it only goes to one that gets... Having that answer I guess what
I'd like to do is, I was a little intrigued by that ultimate proposal because I mean that area there that is fairly
well segregated where you could pick up acre lots and provide a little different style of housing than we could in
the rest of the area without really affecting the area plus at the same time you've got the area over to the east
that you could still require pretty much larger lots to conform with the area over there so that's why I was
mainly asking wh a we could go with that. But it sounds like absolutely nowhere. As far as the proposal that I
guess then we hav( before us, I have no problemi, with staff's recommendation from before with a couple
alterations and that was that I thought item 35 should be deleted. I see that as really being something that's
going to create mo a controversy than it solves. And that was about it.
Councilman Wing: This is your current recommendation. The Planning Commission's.
Councilwoman Do�kendorf: But we're not moving on this this evening.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, no.
Sharmin Al -Jaff *Ou wanted clarification front the City Attorney's office and the clarification was that the 2
1/2 acre per lot. However the City Attorney stated that you have three choices. Finalize the '87 plat or have 1
unit per 10 acres... I However, we would recommend that the nursery would not be included in the overall density.
Councilman Win.
reasonable. This
This is where I thought we wound up. And this is what I thought Planning found to be
Id to the 2.5.
25
I.
h
.1
1
I
f,
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Shannin Al -Jaffa Correct.
Councilman Wing: And I was comfortable with this. I didn't have any problem with this. I wanted to ask Don
where he stood on this one because this is where I had wound up and this is what I thought we were going to
recommend.
Don Halla: I've been aware of this although I kind of question if you leave the nursery as an outlot, which it is
at this point, then I guess it makes sense if you require it be plotted and then why isn't the acreage of the
nursery averaged into it. It's still only ... and then that acreage becomes part of the average. If we don't leave it
an outlot...
Mayor Chmiel: The terminology of the outlot purely and specifically indicates that there cannot be any buildings
on that outlot where those buildings are on that particular piece of property.
Don Halla: It's presently an outlot. Why would it change because that's what it is presently?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa It shouldn't have been an outlot.
Don Halla: It's recorded as an outlot right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Recorded as an outlot?
Don Halla: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: On the existing plat that you have.
Don Halla: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Outlot A. The whole thing.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa It shouldn't have been and now we have a chance to correct that mistake.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't know how they could have done that in the fast place but so be it. Okay. Is
there anything more Mark?
Councilman Senn: No. Just to clarify. I guess though I mean, this is the proposal we have in front of us.
Okay, one way or the other. What I've heard Roger say is, is that we can pass this if we want to.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But we have a legal basis not to.
Councilman Senn: And we have a legal basis not to. Okay, but this is the proposal in front of us tonight you
know and my comments were directed, in fact it was to that.
Councilman Wing: And what was your position Mark?
26
City Council
3 - September 12, 1994
Councilman Senn: have no problems with where staff's recommendation is on this except I don't like 35. I
don't think it's going to solve anything... problem.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa We're not going to vote on the plat today. The only thing we're going to look at is whether...
2 1/2 acres or if eac parcel should maintain a minimum acreage of...that he goes one way or the other, then
that's what we wou d proceed with.
Councilman Senn: o we're not expected.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Y u're not acting on the plat at all.
Councilman Senn: On the preliminary plat.
Mayor Chmiel: No
Sharmin Al -Jaffa You're just giving us direction.
Councilman Wing: Each parcel should maintain a 2.5 independently, correct?
Councilman Mason: We're deciding that.
Councilman Wing: Okay. That's where I thought we were.
Councilman Masontt I am very comfortable with the overall average being 2.5. I think we need to look at the
big picture and if ohe lot's less, one lot's more, I', think that gives more flexibility to the development. I think it
attends to the topography better. I think if you go, if you maintain everything has to be 2 1/2 acres, then I think
lines just get draw regardless of where they area. So I'm in favor of, with everything else being said and done,
I'm in favor of the averaging.
Councilman Senn: Now are you looking for, you know I agree with the averaging but are you also looking for,
is that averaging with or without the nursery thing? I mean is that something we have to resolve or can we just
leave it the way it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger.
Roger Knutson: Yes sir.
Mayor Chmiel: The question is, in coming up with this, with the averaging, the existing part that is the
commercial aspect of it, of their business, can that be included in with that? Is that your question?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Well maybe I should ask staff a question first. Does the current plat meet the 2 1/2
without the nursery included?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa o.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So it has to be redone?
27
I I
I
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct.
- Councilman Senn: So with the nursery included it does meet the 2 1/2 standard?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct.
Councilman Wing: With 35 lots.
Councilman Senn: With 35 lots and the smallest lot is? Just under 2 acres, correct?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. It was definitely more than an acre.
Don Halla: 1.5.
Councilman Wing: And if you exclude the nursery, to maintain that density we'd go to 32 lots.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa It still means that he goes with the configuration of 11.45 acres for the nursery.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is everyone understanding what we're doing?
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Alight. I just want to make sure. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Can you represent Planning on this?
Matt Ledvina: I'm Matt Ledvina with the Planning Commission. I did not receive a whole packet so I didn't
really have a good opportunity to review this prior to tonight so, and we reviewed it I think about 2 weeks ago
so I might be ... specific questions but, from City Council questions but.
Councilman Wing: Where'd your group wind up here?
Matt Ledvina: Pardon.
Councilman Wing: Did your group wind up holding to the 2.5 density?
Matt Ledvina: We didn't really look at that per se. I think we were looking at it from a perspective of what
made sense in terms of where the roads were. That the general layout of the site. I don't believe we were
looking at it specifically from a given number in terms of density. That's my recollection of how we approached
it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Did you recommend approval?
Matt Ledvina: Yes we did. Subject to the conditions and we added additional items as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks.
28
City Council
Sharmin Al -Jaffa
- September 12, 1994
Mayor, may I add?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Commissioner Mancino recommended that the applicant maintain 2 1/2 acres per lot. There
was some confusion I did contact her before she left and asked her exactly what she meant by the 2 1/2 acre.
Whether it was av ging or if it was specifically per lot and she said it was specifically per lot.
Councilman Mason: What was her rationale?
Sharmin AI -Jaffa That the surrounding area had 2,1/2 acres per lot and would have maintained that overall.
Councilman Mason: Sure. I think you could argue just as effectively that that is being maintained overall by
averaging. I mean is tit for tat perhaps.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. And my position remains the same as it was at our last meeting. 2.5 minimum.
We've allowed them a grandfathering status. This area is zoned 1 for every 10 acres. If they want to proceed
with the 2.5, then let's go with the '87 plat.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I would then entertain a motion.
Councilman Mason: I don't think we're looking for a motion tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: W ll no. Basically to whether or not we approve the plat. Whether you go to the averaging of
2.5 or if you go die 35 lots as opposed to 321otsi which would equal the 2.5 acres. Strictly. Or the averaging
aspects of it.
Councilman Senn: Okay, well I'll move that we go with the 2.5 averaging including the nursery property and
the reason I'm going to say that is, you know we can sit up here and get involved in nth degrees of design and I
don't think that's appropriate. I think the applicant has come in with a responsible plan. Gone out and looked at
about every square foot of this town. It makes sense if it's topography. I mean I don't know. I can find very
little wrong with it and I see nice big lots. You know every way you look at it it seems to me it meets most
every standard that we'd ever look to have it meet and I just can't see why we keep dragging this out. So I
guess that would b-, my motion.
Councilman Mason: I'll second that motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, moved and seconded. Any other discussion? We're talking roughly the averaging of the
total acreage to 2 1/2.
Councihnan Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council would consider a 2 1/2 acre
average for the o erall density, including the nursery property, for Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
preliminary plat. Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn and Councilman Mason voted in favor.
Councilwoman D, kendorf opposed the motion. Councilman Wing abstained. The motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel:
you want to clarify on your reason?
29
fl
t
�I
.1 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Wing: Well, yes I'll state my.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. And I'm saying no for the reasons I stated prior.
Councilman Wing: And I'm just stating, because I don't support this. On the other hand I don't disagree with
' Mark's position. I'm sort of in the middle. I'd like to maintain our density in the 2.5 or go by our existing
rules. I don't like changing things and we're certainly in the middle here and it kind of leaves us nowhere on
the next one so.
I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but I think there's one point that's made is because of what's existing with that
topography, this blends in and I think that's our decision portion for that part of it. Colleen.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I mean as we've talked about numerous times amongst ourselves, we're
looking for a balance of different types of neighborhoods and residential areas in our community and granted, 2
1/2 acres is a large lot. However, our 1 in 10 are going to disappear eventually and if we can get 1 in 10 on this
piece of land, I would be more content. And I realize that's a pretty hard nosed position but that's how I feel.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Thanks.
AMENDMENT TO THE BF. FRINGE BUSINESS SECTION OF CITY CODE BY ADDING
ADDITIONAL PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, FINAL READING.
' Sharmin Al -Jaff: This item was tabled from your August 22nd meeting. Some Council members felt that some
of the uses such as the motor fuel station without car washes and cold storage and warehousing are not ... in
nature and should not be permitted in the BF district. Staff did propose an amendment to the conditional uses
taking out the motor fuel stations without car washes and the cold storage and warehousing. If the City Council
approves this amendment, we are going to create two non - conforming uses. Legal non - conforming uses. This
would be the Sorenson Cold Storage Warehouse and the Progress Valley Mini- Storage. Now when this was...
just recently, they would be non - conforming. They would not be permitted to expand if in the future they should
' discontinue the use for a length of one year, then the use would be permitted. And with that we are
recommending approval of the...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess what you're saying is, by eliminating those two, then they become non-
' conforming uses. Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Seeing none, Richard. I think
this is really what we basically have asked staff to come back with.
' Councilman Wing: Yeah, I just didn't before now, I don't know why we're deleting some of these. I'd much
rather have a SuperAmerica station without no outdoor storage providing service down there than a used car lot
and we're allowing some rather interesting truck trailer, auto, sporting goods and boat sales and rental. Talk
about screening. Talk about neighbors. And we have no standards really to necessarily control them. Cold
storage and warehousing. They already exist. I just don't know why we're deleting them. I'm more worried
about standards down there than I am deleting so I guess I don't agree with this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well we're allowing the cold storage and warehouse to continue. Truck trailer, all
' of that is already an existing use as well. And why did we decide to delete number 1?
30
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
CITY OF
cHaNHassEN ;�
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ,
Aftn try Cit;y /Administrator
Nodillr�. --
j 1
Do
D n Ashworth, City Manager bb submitted to commission ,
Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director Date Submitted to Council
_ 9-
September 8, 1994
Pr limina ry Plat to Subdivide 92.53 acres into 36 Rural Single Family Lots and ,
Die Outlot , Halla's Great Plains elf Estates, located South of County Road
14 (Pioneer Trail), and West and�l~ast of Hwy. 101, Don Halla '
At the last City Council meeting on Augi
City Attorney give a legal opinion on the
council raised was whether the plat had b
find attached the City Attorney's opinion
legal right to lot size and design is bas'
1. Legal opi ion , z
2. City Cou c0.xiunu ,4ateid;A xigusi
19
of
'bile the
the Dreli
item was tabled in order that the '
liminary plat. The question the
i acre minimum lot size. Please '
plat may be better designed, his
ry plat approved in 1987.
tE
4�4
x
�' aw
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Sep 8,94 15:26 No.004 P.02
'
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUC,HS, PA.
Arc <�rncys ar i.aw
' Thojni< J. C iimphdl (612) 452.5000
Roger N. Knut.on E:ia (612) 452-5550
'I honmti N1. Scott
( i:ir� G. hic'11s
J1 m-N R W.loon
1'.11iort B. E:11t` sch
Eli_;dvi i A. Lun:c•r
' Andrru McDow,:I1 Polder September 8, 1994
BY FAX AND MAIL
' Ms. Kate Aanenson
' Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: IIalla Great Plains Addition
Dear Kate:
You asked me if the City Council could require a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres
in Halla's new preliminary plat. The answer is yes.
On July 6, 1987, the City Council approved the preliminary plat attached hereto
as Exhibit "A ". On June 12, 1989, the City Council gave Halla five (5) years to final plat
the entire preliminary plat, Without the extension Halla's preliminary plat would have to
' be revised to comply with the new density requirements of one unit per ten (10) acres.
The City can insist that the final plat of Halla Addition be consistent with the preliminary
plat approval in 1987. if Halla proposes something that is not consistent with the
' previously approved preliminary plat, then Halla must comply with the current zoning
ordinance requirements of one unit per ten (10) acres.
The five (5) year extension on the preliminary plat expired in July 1994. I suggest
that the owner be informed that unless he final plats the property by December 1, 1994,
the preliminary plat approval in 1987 will be void.
very truly y rs,
MPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
CHS, P. A.
BY.
oger N. Knutson
RNK;srn
Enclosure
`quite 317 • 1.iigandi lc Office (:enter • 1380 ('011ter (.,tlrVC • Egan, MN 55121
-F
eel
14
6 If
Tl
I J,
12 10
LA
I-V -ow
10
71
12
17�
13
14
PROPOSED-* GREAT PLAINS
GOLF ESTATES
1
r
u
1
k
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
word garbage and you have dumpsters around and it's just ugly. There's no way around it. I guess that's my
main concern. Maybe there needs to be a better selling job on this or maybe the city should do a little more
work because I think, I think like I said, it could be possibly a good use for the property but all the language
we've heard so far and what the lawyer was talking about, he said the dumpsters are empty. The dumpsters are
used for this but I don't hear anything about the future. What's to say that after one year they start storing
dumpsters full of material in there. Or what's to say they don't start cleaning the dumpsters on the property and
there's toxic waste and it runs into the soil or whatever. I don't see that in the language of the staff report and I
haven't heard anything about that mentioned so I think more emphasize needs to be placed on enforcement and
maybe inspection of the site. And I understand it's a 10 year permit ... and that seems awfully long to me. I
believe there should be some way we can review that every year. I understand the investment they've put into it
and I want to make sure they get their money back from that. Personally I think a lot of the camouflaging is not
really money well spent on the fence if you think about it. You know the foot and a half trees and the wood
fence, that's almost ugly by some nature. I guess I'd maybe rather see a smaller time period unless there's a
trade off that we could work something out. I think that's about all of the comments that I have. I would like
to see more emphasize placed on enforcement and the future use of the property and I've been to the Planning
Commission several times. Well, it seems like several times. I've always commented to them how I feel the
south part of Chanhassen is being ignored and like I said to Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, pay a little more
attention to the southern part of the city. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Verne. Anyone else?
Jim Sulerud: Jim Sulerud again, 730 Vogelsburg Trail. This is the item that I did come for ... hike and jog and
bike along there plus we just live up the road a little bit on TH 101. And I think the trail as you've heard the
snowmobile people talk about, it's a major resource in the community.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. The Interim Use Permit for Admiral Waste
Management was tabled by the City Council.)
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.5 ACRES INTO 36 RURAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND
ONE OUTLOT, HALLA'S GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES, LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER
TRAIL AND WEST AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 101, DON HALLA.
(Taping of the meeting began again at this point.)
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Did you write all those down? I mean I sort of got lost in the pros and cons and yeahs and
nays. Of their request versus these recommendations.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Sharmin and Dave have met with them and were aware of the issues that they had.
Councilman Wing: Is there anything to be said? I mean are we going to move ahead and try to put this thing
together?
Kate Aanenson: The storm water issue obviously... the lot size and we may have to look at that... outside the
MUSA...
33
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
Roger Anderson: at's correct ... to make some adjustment for that but we have to make sure that we have some
mechanism in place that if the property or the entire area was, if it ever becomes in the MUSA in this future
subdivision, that we have some mechanism to recover the additional storm water ... picked up at this time.
Councilman Wing: The Planning Commission picked up on this future road on the southeast corner and looking
at the gradient, it a .)pears to me the road would run into or right along the bluff. How can that road be there
and still be compatible with the bluff ordinance?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa We met with the applicant. We requested that it be realigned.
Councilman Wing: I Further west?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct.
Councilman Wing: Sothis wouldn't be acceptable as it's showing here?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa
Councilman Wing: Okay.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa It would move slightly.
Don Halla: Sharmin, you might move it all the way over to the next property to the left. Next one.
Councilman Wing: Now we're surrounding Timberwood with an entire different type of house and lot. An
entire different thOcing and our standard subdivision. If we guide this thing to 1 to 2.5, how do we keep it
there? What if the, MUSA line shifted tomorrow? If Paul was here, it'd be down to the river already.
Kate Aanenson:
Timberwood and
Councilman Wind
break it up immec
Kate Aanenson: '
what you want to
Councihnan Winl
Kate Aanenson: .
they can make it i
Councilman Wind
mean we're annrc
Jl we have options when we; bring that in. We look at the MUSA line expansion, just like
,y have to be ... and said this will always remain large lot.
Says who? What keeps them, once the MUSA line, why can't they just go and develop this,
tely?
,111 think as we go through that process and you as a Council have to decide whether or not
Me it for.
At that time.
that time, right. If you want to exclude them and say they'll be exempt from sewer and
just for Timberwood.
But if we're going to develop this large lot now, it'd be nice to protect it for the future. I
ig this based on large lot, large home, or whatever.
34
11
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
Kate Aanenson: That is why it's gone through several different, the Halla's have made a good faith effort based
on the fact that we've looked at 15,000 square foot lot and they tried to come forward with a plat clustering that
and we found out that even on a temporary basis they'd have to provide on -site septic. It just didn't work so
' they came back with even trying to do cluster systems. So they have tried to cluster that in case we did bring it
in and said we want this to be small lots. It just didn't seem to work. So we went back to—go back to larger
lots. That doesn't mean that they still couldn't in the future, if they locate the house in such a way, they could
' come back and ask to be included. You have to work with the homeowners now... subdivide. That's something
you have to look at.
Councilman Wing: Alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Before we get any more comments from Council, is there anyone wanting to address this
proposal at this time? Go ahead. If you could just, I'd request, because of the time, that the presentation be
1 limited to a few minutes.
Paul Graffunder. Well I'll do my best but I'm majorly affected by this development so a few minutes might not
' be enough. But maybe it is. That's my parcel of property that Sharmin drawing in. I keep seeing TH 101 go
right through my garage. I don't know where that comes from but nobody's asked me about it but it keeps
getting dotted lines through my garage and I'm not sure, something like that. How that's going to affect me in
' the future. I'm also concerned that if my road and house appear to have an easement of some sort over that
road. Not a total easement for unlimited use but some sort. Are they going to be able to give an easement then
to all those other lots so those people can bring their lumber wagons down that road and park all their wood
piles and whatever they want there? And I also have a problem, I think, with the way the roads are set up. That
way, all those 2 1/2 acre mini estates, their back yards become my front yard. Or my front yard becomes their
back yards and everybody knows the dog kennels go back there. The old boats and all that junk, which I have
myself but I store them where nobody can see it. Well, that's going to be in my front door when they put that
1 in their back yard. Is that a consideration that is given to something like that? I happen to have another
question as, I don't think this is platted now and I don't know how this all works but Halla's has kind of hidden
behind the agricultural zoning for decades. They've done things the city hasn't felt were correct and then the
Halla's have said, well we can do that because we're agricultural. The latest thing I can think of is they have a
' building there that they're using for commercial retail sales that I don't believe they got proper permits for and
they said, well we can build that because we're an agricultural. Is this going to change their agricultural zoning
for every lot on there as soon as this is said and done or are they going to still be able to hide under the
agricultural umbrella and keep dump trucks that haven't moved for a year down along that road. That type of
thing. They say they're agricultural trucks and yes, I guess they are but they don't use them. Who can they
give an easement? Did I ask that? Are they going to give those lots an easement? All those people to use my
' property. I don't know if they can. In the deed it says that...I'd like some protection against that. At this time
there's my home and David Halla's home but Sharmin, maybe you can outline the area where two other homes
were built this summer I believe. Yeah, right down in there. Do you know that? I thought one was in front
and one was behind. I think the way I'm recalling. This easement comes down along this road and comes
down in here and one home is to be built in the front and one home in the back.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Something like that.
Paul Graffunder. Yes. These two lots here are going to be built. This one here is...told me that it's
unbuildable. I don't know if it is or not, or how many people can have an easement on that easement. How
many homes can be served. We've had problems there for 15 years. Who's going to plow? Who's going to
35
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
'
put rock in there?
Who's going to fill the holes? Who can do what with it? Who can park on it? Who can
drive their snowmobile
on there ... or whatever. I'd kind of like the easement to go away. Don Halla, about 5 or
6 years ago, maybe
it was in '86, submitted proposals to use that easement for a road plus take 30 feet into my
property ... 60 feet o
my front yard. Bring the road within about 30 feet of my door for this development and I
adamantly oppose
at plan. He had an agreement that he had with Teich, or his parents ... back in the 60's when
Teich's were sep
Ling their property and built my home that said something to the effect where property
needed for road w
uld come from the Teich's side of the fence. And that was fine for Teich's and would have '
been fine for me had
I wanted to develop but Don Halla wants to develop. I think in the, I don't know of
anywhere else where
those lots can be served other than down the easement that we have now. There's just no
possible way to get
in on the back side. I don't know if those stub streets are adequate. Those are news to me.
I haven't seen any
'
of that. Those stub streets are not going to solve the problem that the other lot holders today.
The easement isn't
a problem but everybody keeps adding one more onto it and sooner or later there's going to
be way more problems
than what we've already experienced. So those are all the questions that I really would
like to be answered
before anything is...
Councilman Wing:
Where does your home sit? On that, would you put that back up.
house is t
Paul Graffunder. I
own 5 acres here. This is two separate parcels but my right about there under my
finger and then I have
a rather large garage to the west of that.
Councilman Wing:
It looks like your garage is safe. '
Councilman Senn:
Your house isn't safe then.
Paul Graffunder.
at do you mean? For TH 101?
Councilman Senn:
Yeah. ,
Paul Graffunder.
Well, they're going to, they go right through my swimming pool. Somewhere in there. We've
got to move when
that happens. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay,
thank you. Anyone else?
Boyd Peterson: Yeah,
I'm Boyd Peterson. I live directly to the east of this property. And going back on the
septic, I think Cou
icil and the city generally should hold to that septic system requirement. I personally have
had mine pumped
many times and we're having, trouble with it and I'm right next door. The 70 boring sites that
were taken in '87
that area? And the
or whatever, are they available to look at? Were they okayed? I mean is there that many in '
trees, they're kind of down around that southeast zone. There's kind of an issue to protect...
but other than that
I mean, it's not a bad project. It's just that my issue is that septic and I think the city should
hold to it. Mound
systems are real ugly. I don't know what you can do landscape wise to make a mound
system work, just
o get that second system but I would say let's just not let this thing go by with that septic
because it may be
a long time before the city. And they're with big houses and everybody's life now days, a lot
of water runs through
those septics. Thank your
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone
else?
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
tDavid Gatto: Hello again Mayor, Council and staff. Again, my name is David Gatto. I'm here to represent the
37 homeowners of the Lake Riley Woods Homeowners Association. We, for everybody's information, this is
Lake Riley Woods. It's well ... Foxford. Road. That cul -de -sac and there's a cul -de -sac here. That's Lake Riley
Woods. I have a petition from 28 of the people that live there and it says, we respectfully petition that Halla
Nursery should not be allowed to redevelop their property into anything smaller than 2 1/2 acres and that the
minimum square footage requirement of 1,400 square feet be established in order to preserve the value of the
properties surrounding Halla and maintain the aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood at'the level adhered to
when our homes were built. So we'll leave that with you Mr. Mayor. We don't oppose the development that
they have but like we signed up there, we really think that the lots ought to be at least 2 1/2 acres. Some of the
lots on that plat are small and I believe there's a 1.8 acres and that's what troubles us. The City Attorney there,
or at least one of the city attorneys... When I was at the Planning Commission meeting a couple of weeks ago we
were told that this grandfather extension had since expired. Can you answer that for me?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes Tom, go ahead.
Tom Scott: Has since expired?
David Gatto: That's what I was told.
Tom Scott: No. That's not my understanding.
David Gatto: It has not expired?
' Tom Scott: It has not expired
David Gatto: Because in looking at the ordinance as it applies today, there isn't of course any 2 1/2 acre
density. It's all 10 acre density.
Tom Scott: That's correct.
David Gatto: Okay. Well, if I add up the dates that Sharmin just went over, I don't understand how 5 years
from 1987 equals August of 1984.
' Kate Aanenson: We can answer that. He had a plat. Came in here and was working on it and it was put before
the Planning Commission or the City Council, we believe we're making a good faith effort to try to provide him
with the requirements and direction he was given by the staff and so we are trying to get this through the
' process. Give him an opportunity to go forward. We were giving him the direction to try to give an alternative
so in our opinion he hasn't expired...
David Gatto: Okay. Well that's different than what you told me 2 weeks ago but okay. That's fine. We've got
a couple other things to talk about then. In the staff report they talk about the outlots create a non - conforming
situation. And so I don't understand how they can't allow, especially the one oudot that has the retail
establishment there. How can you calculate that oudot in the entire density of this plat and tell me that it does
' indeed meet the overall density of 2.6 acres? I need that question answered and I also would like to see the
mathematical calculations because when I divide 102, if we assume the 102 is right, by 36, Sharmin what was
that number? You've got a calculator there.
37
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
Sharmin Al -Jaff 2.8 units.
David Gatto: That's 2.8 acres. Does that include that Outlot D which we established at the Planning
Commission?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa
David Gatto: Okay. So you established at the Planning Commission that he doesn't even own Outlot D so can
we take that away?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. So it was 92.
David Gatto: Is th#t what it is? I don't know.
Sharmin AI -Jaffa Correct. That would be, if you divide it by 36 units that would be 2.5.
David Gano: 2.5..�? Okay. And that's assuming that you allow the retail establishment outlot to be calculated.
Audience: That's *hat they're saying.
David Gatto: Well yeah. You know I don't understand that so I hope that Council takes that into account
here ... as I carry on my discussion. I'm trying to!finish. This trunk sewer is extremely troublesome to us. In
our development. 'We heard some encouraging words a minute ago that you might grant this plat a sewer
exemption. We only hope if something like that is possible, that we could be granted the same thing across the
street. We all have septic systems. We all have wells. You have to have a water treatment system on the wells
but I know that all the neighbors say it works very well, Mine works very well. My mound is so efficient I
have to water the top of it every couple days or the grass dies. It's, as I'm saying, so efficient that everything
drains down. Not only through the mound but into the earth it's built on that was supposedly not able to bear
the burden of the affluent but I have to water it every couple days. So it works fine. I paid $10,000.00 for my
mound and my well and I know everybody else in our development did. I know everybody else in this new
development is gong to and are we ... and I can assure you, if that you people let that happen here in Chanhassen
I'll be right here a your desk again. I'll bring all 37 of my neighbors with me and I'm sure that people from
Deerbrook will coi►e along with us. That's the development that's directly to the east of this and I think some
of these other folks have septics too so take care of us. I'm not going to take any more time. I know it's
getting late and I t6A that was really our concern. ...development but we're going to be watching very
carefully what you allow and what you don't allow and what you calculate for acreage is in there. Thank you
very much.
Mayor Chmiel:
Councilman W
push your calci
Mayor Chmiel:
Councilwoman
means prelimin
else? If not, Richard do you have any other questions?
No. Just when, however this comes back, when you clean it up, 2.5. I mean when you
it ought to say 2.5 and I think we should stick with that.
. Colleen.
ckendorf. Well I always struggle with preliminary plats. I try to keep in mind preliminary
so I get too caught up in the detail. But overall I do have some problems, even with the
38
t
n
L
. 1 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
preliminary concept and that is I'm so lost in the mass at this point so let me just tell you what I would like and
you can tell me if it exists. I'm not really keyed on this overall density. I want to see 2.5 lots.
' Kate Aanenson: Minimum lot size?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. I don't want averages. I want to see 2.5 lots. I realize that there's a lot of
unfortunate history with this platting and the city needs to be held responsible for past actions but I'm frankly
disappointed that it can't be 10 acre lots. So I guess I don't have any, if we get to that point, the 2.5 minimum
acres, I don't have a lot of problems. I mean everything else needs to be resolved and that has been discussed. I
' would like Scott, I'm glad you're still here. In reading through all the Minutes and notes, there is a problem that
may fall under noise ordinance in terms of these facility. The speaker system, the peacocks. That's a
completely separate issue but I wanted to bring it up because it does seem to be a problem.
Scott Harr: We do have complaints on it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what can we do?
' Scott Harr: We issue permits for the loud speakers. For the PA system and what not ... housing in the area is
taken into consideration.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it is something that we have looked into?
Scott Harr: And that we do control.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything more?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, see I'm not so certain that we can give even preliminary. There seem to be
too many changes necessary so I guess I'm finished.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: I'm okay with averaging. As long as it does in fact come out to 2.5 when everything is
said and done here. You and I, I mean we'll have, we'll continue to have discussions, maybe even arguments
' over that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Maybe even fist to cuff.
' Councilman Mason: Oh, I don't think that will happen. I don't think that will happen. But I guess my view of
this is that, if it averages out to 2 1/2, I think the intent of the ordinance is still there. You know 10 acres or not
I think is, for me at any rate is kind of water over the dam and I only half jokingly wrote down the times they
are a changing but you know, what are you going to do. I'm concerned about the easement issue. That sounds
like a real valid point to me. I see that as this, what's going to happen with those homes? What is going to
happen with that road? And the go carts and that whole issue has got to get cleared up somehow and I'm not
' quite sure how to clear that up. But, and I know.
Kate Aanenson: ...that is not part of this plat. We don't intend to do anything nor with this plat do anything
with it. We wouldn't allow access onto it as part of this plat. The intention was, there's 4 existing lots or 5 that
39
City Council
- August 22, 1994
have access onto if It's a private drive. It will continue to act as a private drive for those homes and this plat
will have access a public street which is required by ordinance.
Councilman Senn: Which 4 or 5 because he'd have to have a variance.
Councilman Mason: But that's, I'm song. But that doesn't have, what you're telling me is that that doesn't
have anything to do with this plat.
Kate Aanenson: No. He's asking a legitimate question. He wants to make sure that those people don't have
access off of that as a part of the plat.
Councilman Mason: Right.
a g
Kate Aanenson: And we'll make sure that doesn't happen. They want access off of a public street, which is an
ordinance requirement. Those who live along that will continue to use it as their private drive and maintain it
however they're doing.
Councilman Mason: Okay, okay. And how about that issue of, and I know we've talked about this before and
it is getting late anil I quite honestly don't remember what. What does happen when all of a sudden somebody's
back yard is all of a sudden now facing somebody's front yard?
i;
Councilman Wing:l Ask Colleen.
Councilman Mason: I mean that's, yeah. I'd be concerned about that.
Councilman Senn: I have 4 back yards along my front yard.
Councilman Mason: Well, is all that stuff stored back in there?
Councilman Senn: Yeah and it's a pain in the butt. There's sheds. There's garbage piles and everything, yeah.
And the ordinanc don't prohibit any of it.
Councilman Mason: So when final plat comes up or whatever, can something be put in there about landscaping?
Screening. I mean I hate to use the word screening with the past discussion that got tabled but I mean we've
done that before with what, landscaping.
Kate Aanenson: We do that all the time with different subdivisions ... lots which are less desirable and maybe
there's a way to dD the landscaping...
Roger Anderson: Can I interject here?
Mayor Chmiel: pore's getting late. We're just trying to keep going here.
Councilman Mason: You know I don't know how all the neighbors feel about it but if I can see something
about landscaping so the sight lines are protected because that is an issue but yet I don't think we can deny
people to develop just because of that but how can we reach some sort of compromise. I don't have any trouble
with going ahead with preliminary plat but I will go on record as saying there's a whole lot of stuff that has to
ie
n
�1
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
be taken care of before I would give final plat approval. I mean we've got to, I think maybe it is time to get
this off of square one but I share a whole lot of the concerns that have been mentioned.
Resident: Future Councils are going to have problems with that street if you don't take care of it today.
Councilman Mason: But, you know you're right but I think that's a separate issue. I mean that's not connected
with this plat. I mean you're right. You're right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark go ahead.
Resident: But you've got the opportunity now. You're not going to have the opportunity years from now.
Mayor Chmiel: I could rule you out of order because this is a discussion up here at Council. Thank you.
Councilman Senn: Right now what that easement serves nothing in the Halla development, correct?
Kate Aanenson: No. They're using it right now their...
Councilman Senn: I'm not saying using it. I'm just saying that that easement specifically.
Kate Aanenson: When this is developed?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: No, it will not...
Councilman Senn: Okay, so that easement will, there's nothing to the north?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So that easement will only serve the properties then to the south of it?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Which are the current properties that have an easement over it. They'd be land locked
otherwise, correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: To provide access to the—property. That's, we were talking about moving that road.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I understand but besides from that, the land locked properties that are in there to the
west ... need that easement to get in and out.
41
City Council Meetiing - August 22, 1994 '
Kate Aanenson: They have that easement and they will continue to have that easement. They're using it as a
private drive, correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And none of that is in the ownership of the Halla's or under..xight now? '
Kate Aanenson: It s my understanding they have an easement.
Councilman Senn: They have an easement but they don't, I mean an easement is very different. Okay. So
even if Halla got rind of that easement, all those other people would still maintain that easement and we have
absolutely nothing D do for it? Okay. Alright. The other thing I'll just ask you real quick. On the road over '
here, the future roa I you're talking about.
Kate Aanenson: Tie realignment of TH 101.
Councilman Senn: No, not TH 101 but this future road.
Kate Aanenson: Oh, yes. If the nursery property was ever to be platted, we would block that, instead of having '
direct access onto 101...
Councilman Senn:
So they put the public systems in. '
Kate Aanenson:
ey would just throw a stub street...
Councilman Senn:
Okay. And then I saw the comment in here or I saw the Oudot A shall have no additional
access granted to TH
101. That's more or less additional over what's there now.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
'
Councilman Senn:
Alright. Last question. Item. 35 really confuses me and I think you're missing the point.
What are we tryin
to do? Covenants be provided for the new property owners informing the days and hours of
the retail commercial
site and if changes are made to those hours and days, the property owners be informed of
such change. You
lose me there. I mean if we're informing them all we're going to do is start the fight, we
haven't provided a
i mechanism for the ability to fight. It seems like a bottomless pit where we're going
nowhere and why
it even in there. '
Sharmin Al -Jaffa It
was ... by the Planning Commission to let new homeowners that will be buying into the
subdivision know chat
there is a nursery... ,
(There was a tape
change at this point in the discussion.)
Kate Aanenson: We'll
use the 2.5...
Councilman Mason:
Well so that's the issue right?
'
Councilman Senn:
And you said 2.5 minimum. You said 2.5 minimum and Richard, did you say 2.5 minimum?
I thought so. Wel
I there, I guess it means we deny.
42
1 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: That's what we're looking at. Okay, do we need a motion to do that? Or should we give it
back to staff and let staff see if they can work with them.
' Tom Scott: You can just continue it and I mean you've expressed your sentiments to staff, if staff's comfortable
with that.
' Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Does everybody understand? It's back in staff's lap to continue to work.
Don Halla: We're back to the conceptual drawing basically. That's what you're back to is the 1987.
' Mayor Chmiel: If it takes longer and another Council comes in, they might make another change.
' Kate Aanenson: I guess the other issue too is we've kind of passed that time frame and we'd like to get, keep it
moving so that either a plat goes forward or it dies. You know we keep extending this, extending this so if you
want to give him the 2.5, I'd recommend you make that in a motion and have them come back within such a
time period because otherwise we're back in the same window. Was there a time frame for them to come back?
Mayor Chmiel: But with all the uncertainties that are there yet, things that are still not answered, I think if staff
works back with that, knowing that the maximum is 2.5. Or I should say minimum is 2.5, I think you can work
' that out to come back and bring it back again to Council for the final. Or for the preliminary portion of this.
Don Halla: Can you put those side by side?
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I can't see a thing on this.
Councilman Mason: Well.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa How about if you compare the easterly side or the westerly side.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I think the point is moot because the 2.5 doesn't necessarily mean it has to be that
configuration.
Kate Aanenson: Right, it could be something totally different.
Tom Scott: I believe what Kate is saying is that Council set some deadline as to when this plat would come
back so we don't put ourselves in a limbo type situation. potentially it could be another year or two years
before the plat actually comes back in a reconfigured form. Maybe we could get some input from the applicant
as to timing on presenting everything in the plat. That might be helpful here.
' Roger Anderson: The timing for a reconfigured plat may be secondary. I feel that through the process here Don
has rights, if I understand the rules correctly, to develop that piece into 37 lots. And making allowance I believe
that he has to meet the 2 1/2 acre minimum, which was in effect back at that time and that's what has driven
this thing forward is the number of lots actually. Not the 2 1/2 acre requirement. The 2 1/2 acres is to obtain a
' certain neighborhood characteristic I believe and to meet the individual soil treatment site provisions, which we
fully intend to meet. But this doesn't fall under the current ordinances, the way we understand it and admittedly
it's a complicated situation but if there is a requirement now that each of these lots be 2 1/2 acres, I think that
' throws a whole different skew on it. It's not just a reconfiguration issue that our engineer can do. It's the legal
' 43
City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
and the planning q estion I think that's going to take more than that. I don't see it as just a black and white
situation.
Kate Aanenson: Hbw about if we table this for the next City Council meeting and we get a legal opinion and
resolve that issue and then also maybe come back with a time frame where we can resolve another plat...
Mayor Chmiel: 04y. I don't see that as a problem. Can I have a motion to table?
Councilman Masoo: So moved. I'll move to table.
Councilman Wing Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, moved and seconded.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing! seconded to table action on the preliminary plat for Halla's
Great Plains Golf Estates until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Councilman Maso : I guess if I could just add. :_I think we also need to continue this discussion about why
every lot should b, what the rationale is and what the rationale isn't for averaging so it comes out to 2 1/2 acres
or maintaining eve lot. I mean we average PUD's. We average a lot of things and I'm, I don't personally
don't think tonight's the night to have that discussion but.
Mayor Chmiel: id I think we can continue that probably at the next meeting.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Since we're bringing it back; I think it becomes an interesting question because it's one we
have to keep asking ourselves all the time and I think the neighbors should ask themselves the question. What's
more important to you. The configuration, design layout or this absolute number and that's something that we
have to deal with nstandy up here. And just to say magically 2.5 can give you a nice, wonderful square lot
boxed neighborhood subdivision that in our eyes, sometimes we've looked at and kind of gone yukk. Okay.
And so we try not to just simply etch in those numbers and say that's it. We look more at overall design
configuration and y, well if you give a little bit there, you get to something that looks nicer. So all it is is a
question and something to look at.
Councilman W
are.
Mayor Chmiel:
Councilman M
Mayor Chmiel:
might be.
Councilman Se
And don't forget the TH 101 issues of grading and sight line and what the responsibilities
I'm going to suggest that we do 10 and 11 and cut it off after that.
No argument there.
I'd like to get the approval of 1(b) and 10) with a quick explanation as to whatever it
The thing on 1.
Ell
Ll
Inl
1I
u
It
L
' City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Well no, we'll just come back to that but I'm just putting it in the proper sequence.
Councilman Mason: Do we need to make a motion to amend the agenda now or do we wait?
1 Councilman Senn: Well and that's what I was going to ask. I thought some of these people were kind of
sticking around here for 1(b).
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there somebody sticking around here for 1(b)?
Councilman Senn: There were people that were here on the business fringe. Item 1(b).
Mayor Chmiel: City Code amendment to BF district. Additional permitted and conditional use final reading.
We went through the process of this with the first and now this is the final. With the recommendations as to
' what.
Councilman Senn: I'm just asking, should we move that up to take care of them?
' Mayor Chmiel: Well, I think what we'll do is just continue with what we have. We'll go to item 10. That item
10 I don't think is much of a problem.
' ANNEXATION /DEANNEXATION REQUEST, CITY OF CHASKA.
Councilman Senn: I move approval.
' Councilman Wing: Second.
' Resolution #94 -86: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
annexation/deannexation request for the southwest corner of West 82nd Street and Highway 41 between
Chaska and Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
DISCUSS CONCEPT OF ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX, REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
CHANHASSEN BOWL FACILITY, LOTUS REALTY.
' Councilman Senn: The one I feel bad about is I'd love to spend some time on this and we aren't going to have
it tonight for number 11. So I'd really, if we're going to push something off, and I know that's not fair because
they've been sitting around all night.
Mayor Chmiel: They've been here so let's bring in number 11. Brad Johnson, you're on deck.
Councilman Senn: Let's come up with a time we can get together and do this. I mean right now to rush
tthrough this.
Mayor Chmiel: You've only sat here half the night and waited.
Councilman Senn: Do you want to stay for a few more hours and go through it?
' Mayor Chmiel: How long of a presentation will this take?
45
City Council
Public Present:
g - September 12, 1994
Sandy & Don Hall i
Sharon Gatto
Dale & Peggy Gurderson
Claire and Anne IVI. Vogel
B. L. Janssen
A
6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina
9631 Foxford Road
945 Creekwood
815 Creekwood
500 Lyman
21
1
t
fl
n
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Mr. Mayor, members of City Council. At your last meeting you tabled this item and directed
staff to give a legal opinion on whether Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates plat had to maintain the 2 12 acre
minimum as was approved in 1987. Or if they could average them over all the lot area of 2 12 acre. The City
Attorney concluded that the applicant should proceed with the 1987 plat which requires 2 12 acre minimum lot
area and we hope that this answers the question. Thank you.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, could I just make one addition comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger.
Roger Knutson: To explain what I have not done. I have not tried to make any judgment as to whether the
1987 preliminary plat was a good idea or a bad idea. I have not made any judgment as to whether changes in
that preliminary plat could make it better or make it worse because that was not the issue I was addressed. In
1987 or 1988 as a result of a ... from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. You went in that area to a
density requirement of 1 per 10. At that time certain landowners asked to have their preliminary plats approved
and be given a substantial length of time to bring those in for final platting. That's what happened in '87 and
'88. So because of that special provision that he was granted in '88, he is now able to bring in a 2 12 acre plat
without regards to the current requirements regarding density. So Mr. Halla has really, in my judgment, three
choices. First, he can pursue and finalize what was started in 1987, in the configuration that was approved in
'87. You can drop that and go to the current standards or he cannot plat. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I was putting down what you just got through saying. Alright. Don, do you have
anything to say in regards to just what the City Attorney has just said?
Don Halla: Thank you. Don Halla. Thank you for the opportunity members of Council to address you briefly
here. Roger, my big question is, I understand... the city has changed it's requirements for rural lots to be
anywhere from a third of an acre or larger. So if the ordinance within the city hadn't changed, would that not
affect our program on our site when we were granted 37 lots? Definitely it was based on 2 12 acres at that
time but now the city ordinance has changed in the meantime. Instead it has to be 1/3 of an acre with also the
requirement that ... septic sites on site. In this latest one, that's why ... We originally asked to do smaller ones...
changed it on staff's request...
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Roger.
Roger Knutson: In '87 or '88 the City Council, if you will for lack of a better term, grandfathered in that
preliminary plat and said you can do this plat if you bring it back within 5 years. Even though the rules are
changing. So they gave you that right. If you don't choose to follow up on that right, and you are under the
current rules, the current rules are smaller lots but the density is 1 per 10.
Don Halla: ...somebody asked the question, why were we requested by the city to bring in a lot closer density
if that wasn't true? And why were we asked then, when that was density was requested to be larger ... than we
brought back another one that the city has asked ... Why were we put through spending all these thousands of
dollars in these particular—when I went in and asked, what would you as the city planner, for Paul Krauss, what
would you like us to do? What would you like to see in this program and I was requested to bring in all
clustered home sites on the west side of Highway 101. 9 months that sat in the city offices until it was
requested that we bring it back and make them all a minimum of 1 acre. The minimum acreage we came back
with was 1 12 acres. I guess I don't understand why I should have been put through all these different design
22
I.
City Council Meetii1 g - September 12, 1994 '
changes if we then go back to a ..that says no, you have to do 1987. Everything we have done in the last year
and a half has bees at the city's request.
Roger Knutson: I$ that a question? Paul Krauss was obviously > 8 to bring forth the best plat he thought for
the area. That's w at planners do. It's not the question put to me. The question put to me was not, I'm not
competent to answgr the question. What is the best plat? I don't decide, nor am I competent to decide. Is a 1 1
acre better or 15, square feet better or 2 1/2 acres. That's not my job. I was asked a specific question about
grandfather rights. I gave my best judgment. I think it's unfortunate you've been put that. But I was just asked
my judgment as to what your grandfather rights are and that's my judgment.
Don Halla: Is it triie that Council has the ability to make a different decision than going with the 2 1/2 acres if
they so choose? They do not necessarily have to follow that...
Roger Knutson: The Council makes the decision,
Don Halla: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. Richard, do you have any specific questions?
Councilman Wing: Sharmin the last I saw was the lot sizes ran from 1.64, is that the right number, up to 4 I
acres. And the net average was 2.5 in this plat.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. However, that included the area of the nursery. The nursery area was averaged...
Councilman Wing: And I talked to Don last night. Because I went back to my notes. I noted that I thought we
had pretty much stited that the nursery wasn't part of this plat and that it had to be platted without the nursery.
That's what my thoughts and my understanding was way back when. So I guess I wouldn't have any problem
with the compromise but it would be deleting the nursery portion of it for now. Because that's not part of the
plat. It's a separa , business.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa
1/2 acre for each
Councilman Wing
got then is, if you
and everybody els
we delete the 32
That's all I've aoi
Mayor Chmiel:
Councilwoman Dc
any property in the
been put through 1
there are four choi
just sit on it for a
decent developmei
we delete the nursery, the applicant will be permitted a maximum of 32 lots. To average 2
Okay, and the total number here was 35. Okay, well I guess that's the only question I've
staff is comfortable with this averaging, it would be, I guess I would see what planning
that I've heard discussing this and that the nursery is an included part of it so the lot sizes, if
i then the adjustment of the net average. But I thought that's where I wound up last time.
. Colleen.
:kendorf. Well, I'll be quite honest. How do I say this diplomatically. I just as soon not see
city develop. That's where I,'m coming from. Just as a basis. But I see the Halla's have
ie ringer and invested a lot of money and time into the various iterations of plats. I guess
:es here. We could hold him io the '87 plat. They could do the 1 per 10 acre. They could
vhile. Or we could hold them to the 2 1/2 acre average minimum and come through with a
L And I'm not sure where to. go right now. I'll pass.
J
23 1
I - t
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Oh sure.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sorry.
' Councilman Mason: That's alright. I think on the face of it I certainly hear what the City Attorney said and this
may be a situation of regardless of whether it's right or wrong, that's the way it is because this has been going
on for 7 years. I did have a rather amenable chat with Mr. Halla yesterday about all of this and I understand
t that at some point there was an interim plan produced by the Halla's that talked about 1 acre lot sizes. And on
the fact of it gee, that sounds kind of interesting to me. But then, and it still does and maybe that's worth some
chatting about but then that definitely flies against everything else that's going on in that area and if we were to
do that for them, I suspect anyone else that wanted to develop there would say the same thing and I wonder if
' we would then have rampant development at that end of the city or not. I don't know. I don't know if that's
worth talking about or not. I really don't. I think this is a real tough one. I think at some point, and I don't
know if tonight's the night or not. We've been kind of banding about how big lots should be in the city of
Chanhassen. Maybe this is one of those issues. Again, I really don't know. But I think this interim plan has
the potential to be an interesting one with this 1 acre lot size but then that does fly in the face of any other kind
of development that is or isn't available in that area. I don't know if we want to discuss that or talk about that
or not.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Are you talking about 1 acre with an average of 2.5?
Councilman Mason: No. No, no. I understand that there was an interim plan.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa May I?
' Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Sharmin AI -Jaffa This was the plan that was submitted. It had two lots that averaged approximately 1 acre but
when you take both sides, what the applicant would have done would be to plat this side and outlot the westerly
side and what would happen then is you would have an average density of 2 1/2 acres. He would not be
permitted to plat the outlot until such time when sewer and water is out there available. It was always made
clear to the applicant that the only way he would be permitted to proceed with this plat is if he could
demonstrate that there is a septic site, acceptable septic site on each and every single one of those parcels. And
we went through and analyzed this site and it was determined that this plat could not proceed. And it's mainly
because of, that was one of the main issues.
Councilman Wing: I don't have a big problem with this other than the 32 to 35. What's the ramifications of the
nursery being included or not included? The nursery portion, and the issue here is 32 versus 35 lots. What do
we care whether the nursery is platted now or not? What's the ramifications of including that or not including
that?
' Sharmin Al -Jaffa It's just mainly the density.
Councilman Wing: Right, you can't achieve the 2.5 without it.
r
24
I.
City Council Meet I g - September 12, 1994 1
Mayor Chmiel: Ri�ht. And you can't make it into an outlot because there's existing buildings on it. 1
Councilman Wing: I Okay. And if that's the case, pretty cut and dry then on that issue. Okay. I don't have, I'm '
really cutting in onlMark here. Excuse me. I was starting on his questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Alight. Mark, do you have anything more?
Councilman Senn: So you're saying staff's evaluation of the interim plan is it's not possible because they can't
possibly or technically provide the septic systems.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa `lbey won't work. And we have a staff report specifying that. Staff put together...
Don Halla: What as discussed at that time, to give you a little picture and I don't want to confuse you but
what was discuss& ..we've been looking at a process of... (Most of what Don Halla was saying could not be
heard on the tape.)
Don Ashworth: I lotally agree with the concept and it is highly feasible type of thing. Probably almost the best
way to go. The o fly problem with it is it would, never be approved by Metro Council. It's an expansion... You
have to go through the whole MUSA expansion process and what I tried to relay to Don is that we have two
areas right now tht are currently under study and I doubt very much that we're going to get a designation on
those two parcels ithin the next 10 years and to consider that they would allow the expansion into Mr. Halla 's
property, it's just not feasible. If he'd like to take and pursue that with them, you know fine because I think it is
a good solution. But I just, it's not going to occur in the foreseeable future that they will allow an expansion of
that system, however it was designed
Councilman Senn: So with eliminating that one, it only goes to one that gets... Having that answer I guess what
I'd like to do is, I as a little intrigued by that ultimate proposal because I mean that area there that is fairly
well segregated wl ere you could pick up acre lots and provide a little different style of housing than we could in
the rest of the area without really affecting the area plus at the same time you've got the area over to the east
that you could still require pretty much larger lots to conform with the area over there so that's why I was
mainly asking where we could go with that. But it sounds like absolutely nowhere. As far as the proposal that I
guess then we hav before us, I have no problem with staffs recommendation from before with a couple
alterations and thal was that I thought item 35 should be deleted. I see that as really being something that's
going to create more controversy than it solves. And that was about it.
Councilman Wing:1 This is your current recommendation. The Planning Commission's.
Councilwoman D&kendorf: But we're not moving on this this evening.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, no.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa You wanted clarification from the City Attorney's office and the clarification was that the 2
1/2 acre per lot. I owever the City Attorney stated that you have three choices. Finalize the '87 plat or have 1
unit per 10 acres... However, we would recommend that the nursery would not be included in the overall density.
Councilman Win.
reasonable. This
This is where I thought we wound up. And this is what I thought Planning found to be
Id to the 2.5.
25
C
11
[11
r
i
LJ
I�
L
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct.
_ Councilman Wing: And I was comfortable with this. I didn't have any problem with this. I wanted to ask Don
where he stood on this one because this is where I had wound up and this is what I thought we were going to
recommend.
Don Halla: I've been aware of this although I kind of question if you leave the nursery as an oudot, which it is
at this point, then I guess it makes sense if you require it be plotted and then why isn't the acreage of the
nursery averaged into it. It's still only ... and then that acreage becomes part of the average. If we don't leave it
an oudot...
Mayor Chmiel: The terminology of the outlot purely and specifically indicates that there cannot be any buildings
on that outlot where those buildings are on that particular piece of property.
Don Halla: It's presently an outlot. Why would it change because that's what it is presently?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa It shouldn't have been an outlot.
Don Halla: It's recorded as an outlot right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Recorded as an oudot?
Don Halla: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: On the existing plat that you have.
Don Halla: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Outlot A. The whole thing.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa It shouldn't have been and now we have a chance to correct that mistake.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't know how they could have done that in the first place but so be it. Okay. Is
there anything more Mark?
Councilman Senn: No. Just to clarify. I guess though I mean, this is the proposal we have in front of us.
Okay, one way or the other. What I've heard Roger say is, is that we can pass this if we want to.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. But we have a legal basis not to.
Councilman Senn: And we have a legal basis not to. Okay, but this is the proposal in front of us tonight you
know and my comments were directed, in fact it was to that.
Councilman Wing: And what was your position Mark?
26
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Senn: have no problems with where staff's recommendation is on this except I don't like 35. 1
don't think it's going to solve anything... problem.1
Sharmin Al -Jaffa We're not going to vote on the (plat today. The only thing we're going to look at is whether...
2 1/2 acres or if eacih parcel should maintain a minimum acreage of...that he goes one way or the other, then
that's what we would proceed with.
Councilman Senn: �So we're not expected.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa You're not acting on the plat at all.
Councilman Senn: �n the GY plat.
lat.
P
Mayor Chmiel: No
Sharmin Al -Jaffa You're just giving us direction.
Councilman Wing: Each parcel should maintain a 2.5 independently, correct?
Councilman Mason: We're deciding that.
Councilman Wing: Okay. That's where I thought we were.
Councilman Mason: I am very comfortable with the overall average being 2.5. 1 think we need to look at the
big picture and if one lot's less, one lot's more, I think that gives more flexibility to the development. I think it
attends to the topography better. I think if you go, if you maintain everything has to be 2 1/2 acres, then I think
lines just get drawn regardless of where they are. So I'm in favor of, with everything else being said and done,
I'm in favor of the averaging.
Councilman Senn: Now are you looking for, you'know I agree with the averaging but are you also looking for,
is that averaging wish or without the nursery thing? I mean is that something we have to resolve or can we just
leave it the way it is?
Mayor Chmiel: Roger.
Roger Knutson: Ye� sir.
Mayor Chmiel: They question is, in coming up with this, with the averaging, the existing part that is the
commercial aspect of it, of their business, can that be included in with that? Is that your question?
Councilman Senn: . eah. Well maybe I should ask staff a question first. Does the current plat meet the 2 1/2
without the nursery included?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa No.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So it has to be redone?
27
I I
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct.
Councilman Senn: So with the nursery included it does meet the 2 1/2 standard?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct.
Councilman Wing: With 35 lots.
Councilman Senn: With 35 lots and the smallest lot is? Just under 2 acres, correct?
Sharmin Al -Jaff Correct. It was definitely more than an acre.
Don Halla: 1.5.
Councilman Wing: And if you exclude the nursery, to maintain that density we'd go to 32 lots.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa It still means that he goes with the configuration of 11.45 acres for the nursery.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is everyone understanding what we're doing?
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I just want to make sure. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Can you represent Planning on this?
Matt Ledvina: I'm Matt Ledvina with the Planning Commission. I did not receive a whole packet so I didn't
really have a good opportunity to review this prior to tonight so, and we reviewed it I think about 2 weeks ago
so I might be ... specific questions but, from City Council questions but.
Councilman Wing: Where'd your group wind up here?
Matt Ledvina: Pardon.
Councilman Wing: Did your group wind up holding to the 2.5 density?
Matt Ledvina: We didn't really look at that per se. I think we were looking at it from a perspective of what
made sense in terms of where the roads were. That the general layout of the site. I don't believe we were
looking at it specifically from a given number in terms of density. That's my recollection of how we approached
it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Did you recommend approval?
Matt Ledvina: Yes we did. Subject to the conditions and we added additional items as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks.
28
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Mr. Mayor, may I add?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Commissioner Mancino recommended that the applicant maintain 2 1/2 acres per lot. There
was some confusion. I did contact her before she left and asked her exactly what she meant by the 2 1/2 acre.
Whether it was averaging or if it was specifically per lot and she said it was specifically per lot.
Councilman Mason What was her rationale?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa . at the surrounding area had 2 1/2 acres per lot and would have maintained that overall.
i in maintained overall b
Councilman Mason Sure. I think you could argue just as effectively that that s being y
averaging. I mean is tit for tat perhaps.
Councilwoman kendorf. And my position remains the same as it was at our last meeting. 2.5 minimum.
We've allowed theip a grandfathering status. This area is zoned 1 for every 10 acres. If they want to proceed
with the 2.5, then let's go with the '87 plat.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I would then entertain a motion.
Councilman Mason; I don't think we're looking for a motion tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Well no. Basically to whether or not we approve the plat. Whether you go to the averaging of
2.5 or if you go the 35 lots as opposed to 32 lots which would equal the 2.5 acres. Strictly. Or the averaging
aspects of it.
Councilman Senn: Okay, well I'll move that we go with the 2.5 averaging including the nursery property and
the reason I'm going to say that is, you know we. can sit up here and get involved in nth degrees of design and I
don't think that's appropriate. p I think the applicant has come in with a responsible plan. Gone out and looked at
about every square foot of this town. It makes sense if it's topography. I mean I don't know. I can find very
little wrong with it and I see nice big lots. You know every way you look at it it seems to me it meets most
every standard that 7 e'd ever look to have it meet and I just can't see why we keep dragging this out. So I
guess that would be my motion.
Councilman Masoni I'll second that motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Ol Iay, moved and seconded. Any other discussion? We're talking roughly the averaging of the
total acreage to 2 1h.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council would consider a 2 112 acre
average for the ovirall density, including the nursery property, for Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
preliminary plat. Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn and Councilman Mason voted in favor.
Councilwoman D kendorf opposed the motion. Councilman Wing abstained. The motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel:
you want to clarify on your reason?
29
t
� i
ICity Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Wing: Well, yes I'll state my.
t Councilwoman Dockendorf. And I'm .saying no for the reasons I stated prior.
Councilman Wing: And I'm just stating, because I don't support this. On the other hand I don't disagree with
Mark's position. I'm sort of in the middle. I'd like to maintain our density in the 2.5 or go by our existing
' rules. I don't like changing things and we're certainly in the middle here and it kind of leaves us nowhere on
the next one so.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but I think there's one point that's made is because of what's existing with that
topography, this blends in and I think that's our decision portion for that part of it. Colleen.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, I mean as we've talked about numerous times amongst ourselves, we're
looking for a balance of different types of neighborhoods and residential areas in our community and granted, 2
1/2 acres is a large lot. However, our 1 in 10 are going to disappear eventually and if we can get 1 in 10 on this
piece of land, I would be more content. And I realize that's a pretty hard nosed position but that's how I feel.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Thanks.
30
j
... ..•♦.. � r .. wro. .a ��.
•r . • -. .. ._.. .............. ..
aC-
-� I •O � �•���, w • S r NN •w •w - J / /
10
Yrelir�,�z��t�jlai� of�proVe� Tt�y 6�1`18�1
1V
•rte•
•
17
lf+.
-.::
•�
PROPOSED GREAT PLAINS
-
• '
GOLF ESTATES'
Yrelir�,�z��t�jlai� of�proVe� Tt�y 6�1`18�1
GREAT Pi6.AINS GOLF ESTATES-.0't ? �_.
THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, HAS
AN ASSUMED BEARING OF S.89030'39"W.
-DENOTES 1/2—INCH X 14—INCH SET IRON PIPE MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 17253
SCALE IN FEET:
260 460 660 860 1060 Rli
:SW •
Y4 It $CC -No, tk G.. of the 5.W, Ili .,r See. 25 -------
ce.fC, Gno •1
ct, Pload At.. ....... 25-01
__PL_ " L
7.7
HIGHWAY N0. 14
5T
COLON T Y 1NTATE AID 3%
O -&at
of, q
B1.376 'JA
K
A
. 4er
5.89*08'00-E.
130 ff. Road Ease-e-t
y
to
'M
TU
SIR-,
2
RIVE,
Cot EEKWOOD D
-86
A9.w."
A
50�wth line of the
)• 0 5-" ES
.I& b 1 4` r w.
F
SEE
DETA L
—7 7—
'16
st :T
46
Hr),il T\A\v �()jI9&q
L
I
O
CIE
Z
f
X,
Q
r
B1.376 'JA
K
A
. 4er
5.89*08'00-E.
130 ff. Road Ease-e-t
y
to
'M
TU
SIR-,
2
RIVE,
Cot EEKWOOD D
-86
A9.w."
A
50�wth line of the
)• 0 5-" ES
.I& b 1 4` r w.
F
SEE
DETA L
—7 7—
'16
st :T
46
Hr),il T\A\v �()jI9&q
L
I
I
F
IJE Cl cl` U n
n
r jq�4, p� I r nc,
C:) (T
C? is
Pla! n n Der.r t rr, I=., ;-I
L.. 4- 4!
r? - -n T.- rr. %--ml F" rn ;:�. n T... T m
r jq�4, p� I r nc,
C:) (T
:n r n en r m r.;
L.. 4- 4!
T,
' U:
rt i7
I- i- 17, 47 f: M r I
f"I e p.i H';:t 11 p c.: r..n ri I I r- =ri 1 1 n r--. rn T- 1
r7 1 - mn i. nr, t h a i-. F, tiny I, i af r.2 n f. kn,z e f: h�.,
s
r:: -:J !-1;i.1.•^ - -. h e 4. r dRve o - -n
a r rj f nr% E.,
I"I A 'i rz r p
7� cz r�..
c 3 r) fr, r- n t o vot..t He h a d i nc 'I k- i rl F_-cl ni kr 60 f ee t
C � T F� T ii
one r� f h i. f i rst p r -m o5�,2. I s t o yni.t I A j7 t F, 4- + i In=
7 n a s We tail 1.1 c on t i nue to o0mosc= 1-he us- of
i n H, R 1 1: 2 rl e v 1 C 0 M v.- -7) !l rl
F3
::....-:r! , -r! r
- fr.. 1 (-,n SU QQPF t F? d that OLjr oroner -tv . b� u;�l
m -,8 i i r- m rn, S i H in T- f- i r, n
T- n r Z �7 n mi k S: t i. n
1. I d f t I -ii
1. S ass wau of eC OUr procjt--?r-tv v a u e
T:ne5 p r rh;-,ncE, cotOrl, in oti o i l T-
F +
:_ti.ldahle.
e
'
r" n n rn r m rn (-• r ri r m . t
71 t h (7j i; r-... n
("s r. m t: rl Id ra f: rl n r; r-, r., 4: ;n
tf-le T_ 0 N! T
h i T_ a 4 1- t. F.7A r rjr 'd th -,J; v
J.. i cz A h�ru i t i ind trl m. rl r rN
RECEIVED
C.) o c It; d e e r, sh c�i_t 1 i. F—a F.? r, t: .1 i7
•!'.t
i.! rij i.... c. -. t A _y5, '� h;-.k is f:'',(=-v w;!�rvr: i i; ". r'. 5.:;,:r.-::
1994
n T, h i. s is to a i. v Fm t [-I em rr, In r R+ p-.e:
#.A I Y Ut UhAlm-
A& ronnycif''lly i:viv+ +hpt u.e h- ,r+nrmpH we'l in p—nrc rr
amv of v70r meetinPs that the use of our oroperty will be
discessen in.
WP a?sn oi'e forewarninn nf vn./, Prrpptanre nf any of Hal]as
ni°n= in the oast these oeoole have proven to us, over aM
Ove.' that anyti'ino is fair. '/nIes= they gmr ra'/oht.
~
st
1
e
BAND /MERE
rs
P.dRK�
J ; . �
�' P� N
N E A
AIL imp. I 0
0. OF 41414f
//// „
I 4p
T
l
m IQ+- 1
9 '
' o
r RECEIVED
AL 2 f 1994
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
• �/�
�� /�� � ��'t G��.¢�a iZ�:.1c -ui� ' � �'l�C —o GcA" --e C� � ✓lYJ /r�:""�y
v
6'Z �.� -ter^ ✓� �-a.� .� �( ._ _C..c.�.r.� /1.t
-a-ft
jt, 64l'J
a-'eCleeo
�y
66e V r,
rv� ct
_I —
t
�c'`'r� d %�c�2.�'' J - �Y-•f � Qtr -�-a�' �c.v� L1- 1'...¢�.
U
;AAL'el&l
S /�Ci4 -��; c /,�yr a �•C�H - �� -�r-� — ..CS•r�.�,• �t l�c�,y /p�
C -c�z�� — GM�o,��1..¢ -r o�c-✓ � -C.o�► �tca. -u.f- �•c� �, �ic��i' -t aza►1
7.
LI,-- `t�f� 44—)f 7%L w
G�
��� 'f', 1
z AA".C�
. f
1
U L��
1
-3-
. �J
Lam'^ G�•t �a'�'�tl- - - - - --
W 4
�T
C
I
�`�.e.`� �o�' c (S�t. �`�,° c.� -�•� -etc.)
✓LLlL aFs� iii ,C-(' ,��f" �,�9�- 2c.//�' �G' �iJ � �G��4.Gli�i C�
C
U
op
oll
--�
� r-� /�G�LZ�^�j G.'c�c� � c�•Go C.�/b� -c.�� 2.�i� C�c�
L
yl
Auk11st 1, 1994
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55318
Ppgarding: Don Halla's Great, Plains Golf Estates
Dear Sir /Madam:
Your recent! Notice of Public Hearing regarding the above project
prompts me to communicate my "concerns. I have been told that
this acreage was approved for development in the past at a
density of 2.5 acres per lot.. The proposed preliminary plat
would provide for more lotg,at only 1.25 acres per lot on
average.
This density would dramatically differ from the less dense
housing in the immediate area. Our family moved to this area to
avoid the congestion which takes place in areas developed as
smaller lots. The present ordinance requires 10 acres per single
family lot when sewer and water are not available. This kind of
project is counter to the trend to develop larger lots for areas
wit.haut sewer service.
we also own a lot in Lake Riley Woods Subdivision which is over 4
acres, does this mean the City Council could potentially approve
developments with more than a.single:homesite? .
In summary our family would;be very much against this proposed
project fo the reasons stated above.
Sincerely,
Wendell A.
9350 Foxfol
Chanhassen
Schott
MN
ISSUES REGARDING THE PROPOSED HALLA .IDDITION
!. Leave the street name, Creekwood
2. Don't issue building permits until the roads and street are done
3. No construction traffic on Creekwood
4. No out traffic on Creekwood.
5. The paving of Creekwood was paid primarily by home owners. Hall& paid
only for .three lots.
6._ Creekwood is only 20' wide. It's'too narrow for hook and ladder fire trucks.
7. Water run off from Creekwood into the ravine. Halla's pond run off goes
under Creekwood into ravine.
B. The traffic is backed up on County road 14 at least a mile between
5 and 6 PM.
9. Halla intercom system is on at 7 am and is on until 10 pm or later.
10. They sometimes run a bobcat from 7 am to 10 pm or later.
11. Koisy peacocks (Halla's) screech all day long.
12. Lack of a fire station /equipment on south side for the size houses that
are being proposed.
13. Fo parks or place for neighborhood children to walk or ride bikes on
narrow Creekwood street. -
14. Commercial property mixed with a residential neighborhood.
15. Concerned about the chemicals that have been used by .1611a running off into
neighborhood wells
16. Noxious weeds growing among the "wild flowers" on both sides of Creekwood
and ravine area.
17. Would like to see Creekwood closed from 101 and make a new access on south
side of Halia's new sheds.
18. Why weren't the homeowners notified of the change in plans for only three
houses previously planned for coming onto creekwood.
19. Let us
20. Any up
homeowners in on the Park issue mentioned in the staff report.
late on plans by the,Golf course to develop.
RESOURCE ENGINEERING
Ro„_rr F. Marhnteier. P.E.
`29665 Neal Avenue
Lindstrom. MN 55045
(612) 257 -3019
July 27, 1994
Steve Kirchman, Building Official
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Planning Case 86 -31
Dear Steve:
James L. Anderson. C.P.S.S.
3541 Ensi�_n Avenue. North
New Hope. MN 55427
(612) 593 -5338
We are responding to your questions regarding the
information submitted on individual sewage treatment systems
for the proposed Great Plains Golf Estates subdivision. The
information which we received from you is incomplete
relative to what is required for a review of subdivision
lots to determine if the proposed sites are suitable for the
soil treatment units of an onsite sewage treatment system.
Therefore, we cannot proceed at this time with any
further evaluation of this proposed subdivision. The soil
treatment unit sites which have been marked on the submitted
plat map of the proposed subdivision appear to be of
adequate size. We would note that all field procedures for
the evaluation of soil treatment unit sites and submitted
data must follow the subdivision ordinance of the City of
Chanhassen.
The sites proposed for the soil treatment units must be
clearly staked in the field.with soil boring locations and
lot lines clearly identified for us to proceed with any
further evaluation of the proposed subdivision.
When additional data and information are received from
you, we will proceed with an evaluation of the propo -sed
subdivision. The time schedule of our evaluation will be
subject to prior commitments which we may have made at the
time additional information is received.
Sincerely,
gr M6L RECEIVED
Roger E. Machmeier, P.E. JUL 281994
CffA HASS"LIh' F01 SAFETY
SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT
�,1NN�OT4
16
OF TR
March 16, 1
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge Building
150OVest County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chaitllassen MN 55317
Dear Sharmin Al -Jaffa
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review
Pon Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates "
West of TH 101, South of CSAH 14
Chanhassen, Carver County
CS 1009
R t.. �.
LN
The Minnesota ]Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed. the Don Halla's Great Plains
Golf Estates site plan. We have the following comments.
• No additional access may be allowed to TH 101 in this area. Access for this property should
be provi ed elsewhere.
• StormwEter run -off to TH 101 right of way must not increase. Current drainage patterns and
rates of tun -off should be perpetuated. Approval from Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District may be necessary. Questions may be directed to Brian Kelly of our
Hydraulics Section at 593 -8571.
•
Mn/DO 'I' recommends that platting of the property include dedication of 60 feet of right of
way from the in -place centerline to TH 101.
If you have any I uestions regarding this review please call.
Sincerely,
d
Cyrus Knutson
Transportation 1
cc: Roger C
John Fri
stafson, Carver County Engineer
.myer, Carver County Surveyor
An Equal Opportunity Employer
h
LJ
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(612) 361 -1010
FAX (612) 361 -1025
August 2, 1994
To:
' From:
Subject:
COUNTY OF CAQVEQ
Sharmin AI -Jaff, Chanhassen Planner II
Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
Preliminary Plat
Great Plains Golf Estates (86-31 Subdivision)
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
The following are comments regarding the conceptual plan for the proposed Great Plains Golf
Estates on County State Aid Highway (CSAH 14), Pioneer Trail transmitted to Carver County by
your memorandum dated July 12, 1994. _
Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are:
Urban Undivided
2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
100' 110'
Rural Undivided
2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
120' 150'
' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
4 -lane Roadway 4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 120' 140' 170'
Pioneer Trail east of TH 101 was reconstructed in 1986 as a rural section. The existing
100 foot corridor just meets the minimum right of way width. The existing easement width
of CSAH 14 west of TH 101 is only 90 feet and does not meet this criteria. CSAH 14 is
classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study. It would appear that as a minimum, a 100 foot corridor should be
established for a potential 4 lane urban roadway. The proposal should at least meet that
minimum.
' The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed area
R a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width
' may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
2. An access permit will need to be obtained from Carver County for construction of the
proposed access to CSAH 14. No additional accesses will be allowed onto CSAH 14.
3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 14 right -of -way are subject
' to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste
4. Any prc
CSAH 1
5. Develor
to serve
of -way (i
to be co
than wh;
in the de
the final
city.
6. Any tre4
County.
maintair
7. The est,
TH 101
Departn
Thank you for tl
1.1
or landscaping completed within the right -of -way must be approved by the '
P 9
Vhen locating proposed shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to
g an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. '
ishment of the lots as shown greatly restricts options for improvements to the
SAH 14 intersection. This detail_ should be reviewed with the Minnesota '
it of Transportation.
opportunity to comment'on the conceptual plan for the proposed development. I
'r
used grading and installation of drainage structures within the right -of -way of
is subject to review and iapproval of the county highway department.
ent activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
'
ie development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right -
cluding turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need
ipleted in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition"
'
existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision
eloper's agreement that 'requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for
:ondition of the county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this
'
ility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the
or landscaping completed within the right -of -way must be approved by the '
P 9
Vhen locating proposed shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to
g an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. '
ishment of the lots as shown greatly restricts options for improvements to the
SAH 14 intersection. This detail_ should be reviewed with the Minnesota '
it of Transportation.
opportunity to comment'on the conceptual plan for the proposed development. I
0
IMEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
' Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
DATE: July 27, 1994
' SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Halla's Great Plains Addition
LUR File No. 94- 15/LUR File N6..,$9 -14
Upon review of the site grading, drainage and. erosion control plan dated July 1, 1994, prepared
by Roger Anderson & Associates along with the preliminary plat prepared by Egan, Field &
Nowak, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations:
GRADING & DRAINAGE '
The applicant has submitted a detailed site grading, draitsge and erosion control plan for the
' overall development. However, `according to city ordinance, the grading plan should show
existing and proposed 2 -foot contours for street constructio t drainage swales, berms and house
pads in order to determine.theI,full impact of the developm*t. The applicant has supplied a
' detailed development,plan indicating the house floor elevation* however, it does not propose site
grading around the homes: M ine;examplests :ot:� ,Blo0k., where the home pad is situated
within an existing drainage Swale,% proysion ere made to reroute the clrvnageway. This type
of adjustment must be taken into consideration with the fin grading plan x
It appears that the site will be broken"
pp �up�:�nto,. <six drainage zareas �5torm runoff from the site is
proposed to meet predeveloped runoff rates and mast p ording areas are designed to the National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. There "are a few areas that still will need to provide
temporary pretreatment areas such as the area forth of Maple Court. Staff believes we can work
' this out with the applicant's engineer. In the development on the west side of Trunk Highway
101, approximately one -half of the site drains west to the existing pond in the west - central
portion the site (behind the nursery building). The existing pond appears to receive storm runoff
from the west (golf course) in addition to runoff from the site. The storm drainage calculations
also need to incorporate the existing drainage from outside the development such as the golf
course. The City's Surface Water Management Plan proposed the central and southern portions
of the development to drain to a future stormwater /sediment pond BC -P7.1 (Attachment No. 1)
t13
I.
Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 2
located east of the existing nursery building adjacent to Trunk Highway 101. This pond has a
tributary drainage area of approximately 40 acres. The storage volume is estimated at 2.1 acre ,
feet with a normal water elevation of 919.0 and a high water level of 924.5. The existing pond
behind the.nursery may be combined with Pond B. At minimum, the outlet from the existing
pond should be rerouted and directed through Pond B to reduce the number of discharge points '
to the east underneath Trunk Highway 101.
Approximately a quarter of the westerly site drains north with street drainage carried to the '
northeast .corner of the site. According to Carver County Highway Department, there is a culvert
underneath County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) that has previously experienced some capacity
problems. Looation of the culvert should be shown on the grading plan. The SWMP,shows the ,
northern portion of the site drains to an existing wetland (BC- P5.13) located north of County
Road 14. The basin is an existing ag/urban wetland and therefore runoff needs to be pretreated '
prior to discharging into the wetland. Since the City has not obtained or acquired the necessary
ponding ease ents over the wetland,, this development may be considered premature in
conjunction wih the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Plan. The applicant will be required then
to maintain th predeveloped runoff rate and water quality treatment to NURP standards with ,
temporary on- ite ponding. The applicant still will be required to pay a cash contribution to the
City Surface Water Management Fund for construction of future downstream water quality and '
quantity facilities.
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. Dedication will be
equal to the cot of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving
the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a
schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market ,
values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a.value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of
the pond. If 1he applicant is proposing. to construct water quality basins, these fees will be
waived. '
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on average city -wide
rate for the installation . of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWNT '
culverts, open hannels and storm water; ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Based on
the land use, this development will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. Staff is working
with the applicant on storm drainage plans at which time fees will be reduced in accordance with
the SWMP re I irements. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity
fees for cons"ction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as
outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. ,
Approximately one- quarter of the site drains to the southwest corner of the development. Storm '
runoff to the southwest corner on the site is also proposed to be ponded (Pond "A ")and the runoff
controlled at pr developed rates. The stormwater discharge from pond flows along the north side
of Creekwood Drive west of this development to an existing drainage culvert underneath
Creekwood Drive. The drainage then is conveyed over land through a steep ravine to Bluff ,
Creek. In the past, this area has been prone to erosion and has been used as a dumping and
1
Sharmin A] -Jaff
July 27, 1994
' Page 3
filling ground for different parties. The development of this property will only increase the
volume of runoff draining through the ravine. The applicant currently owns property which was
platted previously as Outlot D, Great Plains Golf Estates. Staff recommends that the developer
convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for future construction of storm
drainage infrastructures to control erosion and convey storm runoff to Bluff Creek.
' Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered_- after the plat has
been revised to accommodate staff changes in the plat's street and lot configuration. The
developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed storm sewer
drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on the east side of Trunk
Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat. The revisions are further explored in the
appropriate sections under "Streets /Access ".
' Trunk Highway 101 is a temporary state highway with no plans for upgrading. As a result of
the initial platting of Great Plains Golf Estates, additional right -of -way was dedicated for the
' future realignment of Trunk Highway 101. However, actual construction of Trunk Highway 101
is not scheduled and therefore interim safety improvements are recommended along existing
Trunk Highway 101 in the following areas:
1. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery
entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant is also proposing
' to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff recommends that the
existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to improve sight lines and
berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
' 2. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive shall
be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet MnDOT
standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
' 3. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose sight
distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented* the applicant's
engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT'S standards for the posted'speeds.
iEast of Trunk Highway 101 the grading plan proposes utilizing an existing drainage basin located
on Lot 3, Block 6 (Pond D). This basin qualifies as a wetland according to the Army Corps of
' Engineers and will need a permit to excavate. This basin is also proposed as a stormwater
sediment trap in the SWMP with a normal water elevation of 892.5 and high water elevation of
897.1. The applicant's storm calculation is somewhat lower. This is anticipated due to the fact
' that the amount of contributing area is less than proposed in the SWMP. The existing basin has
a makeshift outlet control structure to maintain water levels in the pond. Staff is familiar with
this drainage basin from past dealings with the applicant in securing a grading permit to fill in
' a portion of the downstream ravine. It appears the applicant has been filling this ravine without
an appropriate permit and with unacceptable materials such as landscaping debris and other
materials that will settle over time and create erosion and shear failures on the bluff. Staff
J
Sharmin AI-J f `
July 27, 1994
Page 4 '
recommends that the applicant be required to re- excavate all unacceptable materials and backfill '
with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm drainage pipe (24 -inch CMP) to
maintain the s ctural integrity of the storm drainage lines since the City will no doubt be taking
over the maint nance responsibilities of the storm sewer system after the project is completed.
A couple of significant trees exists around this same ponding basin. There are also a couple of '
dead trees. Tie grading proposes expanding this ponding basin which would result in the
removal of all trees immediately adjacent to the existing pond. The applicant's engineer should ,
redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D ") to accommodate the existing significant trees that are
alive yet.
UTILrIM
The previous preliminary plat submitted clustered the lots on the west side of Trunk Highway '
101 with the ir tent of leaving the remaining site undeveloped. Staff at that time indicated that
the applicant hould be required to meet urban standards since the lot sizes and densities
accounted for wese standards being warranted. This means that the City would require that dry '
sanitary sewer Lnd water lines be installed for future hookup and the streets constructed to urban
standards. Staff indicated at that time if the lot sizes were increased to one acre in size (average),
staff would reconsider the requirement for an urban street section and dry utility lines. As ,
proposed, the lots are well over the one -acre size average and therefore staff will not require that
urban street se tions or dry utility line'.s be installed. Staff recommends that the streets be
constructed to meet the City's typical rural street standards (see Attachment No. 2). '
Currently the site is outside the MUSA boundary and there is no sanitary sewer or water service
to the site; therefore, the individual lots will be dependent upon on -site septic and well systems. ,
The City's building department will ,be'; performing a review of the plans and preparing the
appropriate memo regarding well and septic availability.
Streets within the development are anticipated .to meet the City's rural street standards. However, '
the typical street section as proposed does not currently meet the City's rural roadway section.
The applicant's engineer should revise the standard detail to meet the City's standard rural street
section (see Att chment No. 3). The applicant is providing the necessary 60 -foot wide right -of- i
way and 60 -foot radiuses in the turnarounds. Street grades range from 0.50% to 4.00% which
meets City standards. '
On the west side e of Trunk Highway 101, the applicant has significantly redesigned the street
layout from the previous preliminary plat submittal. The applicant is proposing two streets, '
Golfview Circle and Halla Nursery Vista. Golfview Circle is proposed to access from
Creekwood Drive which is shown as Town Road on the plans. Golfview Circle will be a
deadend cul -de ac approximately 1,000 feet long with no secondary access. Halla Nursery Vista '
accesses from Trunk Highway 101 and jbranches off into two separate cul -de -sacs ( Golfview
Court and Vista Court North). Neither one of the street alignments proposed provide for future
1' Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 5
extension through the nursery site and potential looping of the two street systems. Although the
' traffic volumes may be low due to the land use, staffs' policy is to look for a secondary access
whenever feasible. At some point, the nursery may no longer be located on Outlot A which
opens the door for additional residential development. Since no further access will be allowed
' off of Trunk Highway 101, provisions for looping the two street systems through Outlot A from
Golfview Circle or Golfview Court should be explored by the applicant.
' East of Trunk Highway 101, Halla Nursery Vista is proposed to loop back 'o t'to- County Road
14. Staff is aware of an existing private road which lies adjacent to the southerly boundary of
' this development. The existing road is constructed within a 30 -foot wide easement which serves
the existing home on Outlot C, Great Plains Golf Estates (David Halla) and two other homes.
In addition, two other home sites are potentially available in the Bursch Development which lies
immediately west of Outlot C. Staff believes that the Halla Nursery Vista road should be
realigned to follow this private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
Upon review of the file staff has found previous concept or preliminary plats showing this
roadway alignment which we believe is more feasible from an engineering and transportation
standpoint. We recommend that the applicant go back and revisit the situation and redesign the
plat incorporating the existing roadway.
' When the subdivision immediately to the east of this development ( Deerbrook Addition) was
developed, a stub street was to be provided to access this site (Great Plains Estates development).
' Upon review of the final plat of Deerbrook, there is only a 60 -foot wide drainage and utility
easement that was dedicated to the City for the extension of a roadway. Unfortunately, this
easement does not adequately allow the City to construct a roadway to connect the two
' subdivisions. In addition, a very large earth berm has been constructed over the City's 60 -foot
wide drainage and utility easement. Therefore, at this time it appears unfeasible to consider
connecting Deerbrook with this proposed subdivision. This is unfortunate because it would have
' allowed another access to an extremely long dead -end cul -de -sac on Deerbrook Drive.
County Road 14 and Trunk Highway 101 are functionally classified as minor arterial (Class 2)
roadways in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. During the previous platting of
Great Plains Golfview Estates, the City has acquired the necessary right of -way for Trunk
Highway 101. It is unclear from the previous plat if adequate right -of -way was dedicated for
' County Road 14. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County
that appropriate right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of the
minimum 100 -foot wide corridor for County Road 14. In addition, the County requests
consideration for an additional trail easement if a trailway is to be constructed along the County
highway. Standard trail easement is 20 feet wide. Access to the individual lots should be limited
to the interior streets and not from County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
The applicant is proposing a north/south street named Birch Drive which intersects County Road
14. Upon review of the City's half - section map it appears that Birch Drive is offset
approximately 50 feet from the existing Foxford Road which lies north of County Road 14.
From a continuity standpoint, staff believes that these two streets should be aligned across from
u
Sharmin Al -Jaf
July 27, 1994
Page 6 '
one another. �taff recommends that the applicant revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be ,
continuous with Foxford Road at the intersection of County Road 14. Access permits will be
required from oth MnDOT and Carver County Highway Departments.
EROSION CONTROL '
A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer ,
prior to final patting. Staff recommends the applicant use the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook for erosion control measures.; All disturbed areas are the result of construction shall
be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion and sedimentation. ,
If at all possible, construction of the site in stages is preferred to help reduce erosion problems.
MISCELLAN90US '
Since development will involve . public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into
a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation
of the public i provements and final plat conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and '
utility easemen s shall be shown on the final plat overall drainageways and ponding areas.
The final plat should show the new dedicated .Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way.
'
Y
The preliminary plat proposes Outlot A which currently has an existing structure. Outlot A is '
currently used I the Nursery business and should be platted into a lot and block. The final plat
should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot 1, Block 1. and Lot 1, Block
2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview Estates. '
iWJ�t.V ll l•1 X ;OIN"LL:/L yVl \Li11V1 \V Vl' A111 \V V AL '
1. The applicant will need to provide! revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 100 -year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality and quantity ponds
in accordance to the .City's Surface Water -Management Plan for the City Engineer to '
review d approve. The applicant shall retain on site the predeveloped runoff rate as
well as provided interim water quality and quantity ponds. The applicant shall provide '
detailed pre - developed and post - developed storm water calculations for existing and
propose storm water basins. In addition, water quality pond design calculations shall be
based on Walker's pondnet model. '
2. The streets shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City '
Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans shall be designed
in accorc ance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates.
1
Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 7
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
' necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with final plat conditions of approval.
' 4. The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in the
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to
or concurrent with wetland fill activity or excavation in future phases-,of the project.
' 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of
' Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their
conditions of approval.
6. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
storm water drainageways and ponding areas lying outside the street right -of -ways. The
minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for
' access for maintenance of the storm water ponding areas. Outlot A shall be platted as a
lot and block.
' 7. The applicant's engineer shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be submitted to the
' City for review and formal approval.
8. The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk highway
' right -of -ways. The berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slopes along Trunk
Highway 101 right -of -ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all proposed grading
as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction. The applicant's
engineer shall work with staff in developing a revised storm drainage plan to
accommodate plat revisions.
' 9. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water pondvor wetlands shall
be a minimum of three feet above the 100 -year high water level. All storm water ponds
shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more
' than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes.
10. The outlet from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re- routed and directed
' through Pond "B ".
11. Existing wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utilized shall be properly
abandoned in accordance with City or State codes.
12. The applicant shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity
fees based in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The requirement
Sharmin Al -Jaif
July 27, 1994
Page 8 ,
for cash fees in lieu of land orf permanent pond construction shall be based upon the '
schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
13. The ap licant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
constru, tion and shall relocate or abandon the drain file as directed by the City Engineer. '
14. The developer
shall convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for
future
'
construction of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Great Plains Golf
Estates
15. Pondin�
facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the plat
has been
revised to accommodate staff changes in the plat's street and lot configuration.
The developer's
engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed '
storm
ewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on
the east
side of Trunk Highway .101 as a result of revising the plat.
'
16. The applicant
shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety improvements:
A. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the ,
The
entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant
is also proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff
recommends that the existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to '
improve sight lines and berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
B. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive
shall be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet
MnDOT standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
C. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose
sight distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by
e applicant's engineer that the intersection meets NInDOT'S standards for the '
posted speeds.
17. The applicant shall be required to re- excavate all unacceptable materials in the ravine on '
Lot 3, (Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm
drainage pipe (24 -inch CUT) with concrete pipe. '
18. The applicant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D ") to
accommodate the existing significant trees that are alive yet. ,
19. The applicant shall provide for the future looping of the two street systems through Outlot
A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court. '
Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 9
20. Halla Nursery Vista road east of Trunk Highway 101 should be realigned to follow the
private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
21. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that
appropriate right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of the
minimum 100 -foot wide corridor for County Road 14.
22. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from County
Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
23. The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford
Road at the intersection of County Road 14.
24. The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way.
25. Outlot A is currently used as the Nursery business and should be platted into a lot and
block. The final plat should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot
1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview
Estates.
jms/ktm
Attachments: 1. Surface Water Management Plan.
2. Typical rural street detail.
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g Aeng\dav e\projects%aIIa \ppr
1
oil; saw 2
.
LR2. 3
RILL
Ire
R31
Alf
,
4 M. 4 14. U' Z.
.5 "0.3
L 1 12' 2.
R3.'
■ BC5.28 1.82.7
4. .
C. F6 to 24' 57 p�sv
'0 r13.2 LR3.5
i.Y 3.5 24 LR-PS.8
*log
x98.6 898
LR3.1
LE A4
LR ft. 3
W4. 7 I
sbe
I
.0 4Z'
76.0/978.5
LR-
2" 4-1
it
1669.; M7,248
17
7
PSJ �C5.31
s 958 0 962.1 BC5. VLR4.2. 74 a -LR- .0
BC5.34- BC5
ZR-W.4
4.
"C; lr_.
C5.36
2 BC5.29
OC-PS.18
C5.35 8-6-2478-".,
W-ps.ff N7
%WAM Ole 4'1027%�O�
17, 713TV --m
I�Jg 43 0471 ., 1 c.:-: : - -4
T BC7.9
BC7. ag A
m P? f 2;- 7.
3C6.21 BC--
0.0 92a.s 241 01
. . . . ........ -1 . ....... ........... . ..... . .. . . ..........
9M.24
--4
;866.6 8693
LOM I
9 24:R
5
Bc- C7.2 7.11
BC6.27*- 925.0 931.0
211,
OBC7.6 12
.3 BC7.5
BC6.25 24!,,PBC6.28
PC7.7 778A 7893
wrgAf P,�BC7.4 lk*7
• XR2.811
Ft2
CIA
3F
-- I .
II
.692.0 8945
w. fl
BC7.15Z
2r,*
2�BCTI. 74k�, _
BC7.18 P BC7.
367
N4k
t '
21ft
W
-
■
N
F a
W p
ca
J O O
a ul oc �
V J �
il
ccrry or, TYPICAL STREET
'` CHANHASSEN
� RURAL
11EVISED 2 -23 DATE � PLATE NO.
5202
,�4�,WwV7 dX-
"'
CITY OF
HANHASSEN
Ii
I
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: charmin
Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Steve
A. Kirchman,, Building Official
of July 19
7. These propo�s`ed xanges from a 1987 plat, for the
DATE: July
27, 1994
1
SUBJECT: #86
-31 SUB (Don Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates)
evaluated
Eor depth to mottlii soils, orientation, area and
I have been
asked to comment on the -above referenced application, 1
stamped "CiTY
OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JUL 06 1994, -CHANHASSEN
PLANNING DEFT".
Many of the concern's expressed_ in my previous memos
(December
13, 1993 & February 71994) have not been addressed.
Specifically,
requirements for the 11STS sites included in my memos 1
and reiterated
to Mr. Halla in y,&r * ril 20, 1994 letter have not
been met.
Additionally, house pa designations and elevation
� .>
requirements
have not been mete °The Utest proposed plat has also
created additional
problems wi`t`h street names.
BACKGROUND:
1
Proposed treatment
sites were evaluated *y Resource Engineering in
1986 when the
application was originall�� submitted. The 'original
lot configuration
and proposed treatmena. areas are shown on the 1
proposed plat
stampe,1-1' OFFICIAL COPY" a".d dated as approved by
Council on
July 6,x`587.
i 1
ANALYSIS:
_ .,
The current
e
proposaDnce again completely changed from that
of July 19
7. These propo�s`ed xanges from a 1987 plat, for the
purposes o
onsite sewage treatmt en sites, necessitate complete, 1
new evaluations
of the currently proposed sites. Sites must be
evaluated
Eor depth to mottlii soils, orientation, area and
location relative
to building; property lines, wells, etc. 1
Additionally,
ISTS evaluations must comply with other code
requirements
designed to assure the integrity and suitability of
the sites
and future ISTS. Individual sewage treatment systems '
(ISTS) are
regulated by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080, Individual
i
4' Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 2
Sewage Treatment Standards as amended by the City in Chanhassen
City Code, Article IV.
The following are concerns and /or comments concerning the proposed
ISTS sites.
I Depth to mottling. Mottles, if present, are indicated on
required boring logs. Mottles are splotches of red, yellow,
or gray colors in the soil indicating zones of seasonal soil
' saturation. The bottom of an ISTS must be located -three feet
above this zone in order to achieve required treatment. The
code requires that at least one foot of suitable (unmottled)
' soil be present at an ISTS site. Mottles are difficult to
detect in topsoil without the use of a color chart, therefore
all sites indicated as having mottles at one foot and with a
foot or more of topsoil are subject to close scrutiny prior to
' being accepted as viable ISTS sites. No boring logs have been
received for the currently proposed sites!
Soils. In addition to requirements for separation from
mottles, onsite soils must be evaluated for texture, structure
and permeability. These evaluations determine the level of
ability of the soil to accept and treat waste. Acceptance of
a site for an ISTS is based, in part, on the measurement and
evaluation of these soil characteristics, and is predicated on
the assumption that the soils on a site are undisturbed.
Activities such as tree removal and field roads create
disturbed areas which may alter the treatment ability of the
soil. The 1986 evaluation report from Resource Engineering
' indicates that the report is based "...solely on data
submitted to the City of Chanhassen ". There were no field
observations conducted by Resource. Engineering, and it is
doubtful that they were aware of the use of the property.
7080 requires that mounds be constructed on original soils.
Page nine of the enclosed May 1994 report from Resource
Engineering, although reporting on a different lot
1 configuration, is for the same general area and casts doubt on
the acceptability of many of the currently proposed sites.
it cannot be determined from existing documentation that the
proposed sites contain all original soil.
orientation. It appears that proposed sites are correctly
oriented, but field evaluation by the City consultant,
Resource Engineering is required to confirm this.
Area (lot & site). It appears that adequate area has been
provided for ISTS sites, but field evaluation by the City
consultant is required to confirm this.
Sharmin Al -Jaff
,y
July 27, 1994
Page 3
required to be licensed, by Carver County. The site evaluator
is not licensed in Carver County, nor identified as being
certified by the-State., '
Because proposed property lines are subject to change as the
plat proceeds through the approval process, borings submitted
in relation to property lines cannot be accepted. Borings and
perc tests must be identified with unique numbers not related
to lots or blocks. Staff visited the site on 7/26/94 and was ,
unable to..determine property lines, ISTS sites or boring
locations. Accuracy of this information is vital to the
correct evaluation of the project. Proposed property lines,
ISTS bites, perc tests and borings should be identified in the
field by labelled stakes.
Due to the
commercial tree removal activity that has occurred at
the site,
'
staff is unable to approve sites without additional
consultation
with ISTS and soil experts. Resource Engineering is
the City consultant
site approvals.
for ISTS and must be consulted prior to ISTS
Their evaluation consists of a preliminary
evaluation
based on informal ion provided by the developer and a
site evalu
tion. The preliminary evaluation cannot take place
until:
• Two boring
and perc test (if peres are required) locations for
each site,
each with a unique identification, are shown on the
gradiiig
'
and drainage plan.
• Boring
logs and perc test logs identified as the peres and
borings
done at the locations shown on the grading and
drain
ge plan are submitted. '
• Confirmation
that all' ISTS work was done by individuals
licensed
to do such work.
Prelimina4
evaluation can be in conjunction with, or followed by, '
a site evaluation
which must also be conducted by Resource
Engineering.
street Names
Concerns w�.
th street names have been addressed in Mark Littfin's '
memo to yo,
Dwelling Type
The type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections
Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan
review of the structure at'the time of building permit issuance.
For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevations as well
as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the
proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE,
.' Sharmin Al -Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 4
SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These
standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan
' review process. I have enclosed my January 29, 1993 memo explaining
these standard designations.
' I have attempted to evaluate the proposed plat thoroughly, but the
applicants, failure to work with the City ISTS evaluator makes a
thorough evaluation impossible at this time. Results of these site
evaluations can affect all other aspects of this proposed plat.
2"OOO MENDATIONS
' Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the
following conditions:
' 1. Use Carver County licensed site,evaluator.
2. Submit boring logs of borings done on each proposed ISTS site
with a unique identification for each to Inspections Division.
3. Stake and identify proposed property lines, proposed ISTS
sites and perc and boring locations.
4. Provide a preliminary evaluation report on the ISIS sites from
Resource Engineering.
5. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show standard dwelling
type designations for proposed house pads.
renclosures: Dwelling type designation memo dated January 29,
1993
' Resource Engineering report dated May 1994
1
I!
cg:\ safety \sak \memos \plan \hla- glf.sa4
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Inspections, Planning, & ;Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: uary 29, 1993
SUBJ: welling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that i; acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be hefipful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
FW o:
R
SE
SEWO
TU
wo
TU
J
Designates Front Lookout or Rear Imokou . This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
Designates Split Eat ty walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling. .
Designates Watt Out Mds includes dwellings with_the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the tear of the dwelling.
R SEWO wp FLO
« RLO
1
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
41V
to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
then passed 'to the
to proposed building
must be used on all
I.
I�
RESJURCE ENGINEEnING
Roger F:. Maehmeier. P.E. James L. Anderson. C.P.S.S.
29665 Neal Avenue 3541 Ensign Avenuc. North
Lindstrom. MN 55045 Ncw Hopc. MN 55427
(612) 257 -2019 (612) 593 -5338
REVIEW OF PLANNING CASE NO. 86 -31
PROPOSED GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES SUBDIVISION
SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS
for the
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
by
JAMES L. ANDERSON, C.P.S.S.
ROGER E. MACHMEIER, P.E.
May, 1994
SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT
0
I
CASE NO. 86 -31
,<
REVIEW OF PLANNING
1. Introduction
i
A
review and assessment of a portion of the proposed
plat uner
consideration.was made in December, 1986 and
'
January,
1987. In 1987, -there was a deadline for the
submission
of subdivisions. Therefore, we were asked to
'
review
the proposed Great Plains Golf Estates subdivision
based of
the soil boring Jogs and other data submitted to
'
the City
of Chanhassen to determine if each of the proposed
lots apleared
to be adequate for the installation of two
'
onsite -sewage
treatment systems on each lot. We did not
conduct
a lot by lot field review of the sites submitted by
the dev�loper
because it was in £he winter. Based on the
,
submitted
soil boring data and lot plats, we did prepare and
submit a
table with our report indicating the type of soil
absorption
unit needed.
It
is possible that some of the proposed sites for soil
absorpt
on systems in the original plat may not have been
suitabl�.
At the time of the 1987 review, we were not
advised
of the extent of the nursery field operations
conducted
at the site. Adverse effects that.the nursery
cultural
practices may have had on the soils, such as
removing
and replacing part of the soil profile, compaction
'
in field
roads, compaction by tree moving equipment, root
pruning
techniques, etc, were not considered. Before any
current
subdivision planl,is approved, these effects must be
,
taken illtD
account. We did address the possibility of tile
drainagee
on the property and the effect on the development
'
of the lots.
It is important•to note that considerations
other than
just total lot area are needed in order to
'
evaluate
if the lots in a proposed subdivision are suitable
for onsite
sewage treatment systems.
Review of Planning Case No. 66 -31 Page 2 of 13
'
This report will discuss important criteria to consider
'
for the development of a lot with individual sewage
treatment systems, such as orientation of soil absorption
units, area necessary for construction of mounds and houses,
'
location of mounds with respect to low areas and
drainageways, location of water supply well, accessibility
'
of onsite sewage treatment system for future maintenance,
future accessibility of proposed secondary site for soil
'
absorption unit, and effect of nursery operation orrthe
suitability of soils for onsite sewage treatment.
tSteve
Kirchman, City of Chanhassen Building Official,
made a lot by lot analysis of the present proposed
subdivision. He evaluated orientation of soil absorption
units with respect to land slope and drainageways,_location
tof
improvements, total area required, etc. In addition,
water supply wells need to be located so that they are
'
adequately separated from all soil absorption sites, both
primary and secondary, and those sites that exist or may be
needed on abutting lots. After a careful review of the lot
'
by lot comments made by Steve Kirchman, we concur with his
analysis that based on the submitted information there is
'
inadequate area for individual onsite sewage treatment
systems as presented on the proposed plat. There are other
'
factors which are equally important, leading to the
conclusion that none of the lots as presented in the
proposed plat are suitable. This report will discuss some
'
of the important issues which must be resolved before each
lot, and subsequently a subdivision, can be approved.
'
2. Size of area needed for sewage treatment system
Each lot must have an adequate and suitable area
'
available for two soil absorption units of the onsite sewage
t
treatment system. Two areas are required for the onsite
for If the
soil absorption unit a number of reasons.
location of the lot is such that onsite sewage treatment
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 3 of 13
will continue to be used,; then there is a need to have two
areas available for the soil treatment unit. Occasionally
the primary site is destroyed in the process of developing a
lot. Unless a secondary site is available, there is little
recourse) but to haul the generated sewage off the lot, at
great expense. In today's housing market, large houses are
being cinstructed which will likely generate daily sewage
flows greater than the amounts upon which the historic water
use data. and design factors are based. When the actual
daily sewage flow is greater than the design flow, there
will be hydraulic overloading of the soil absorption unit.
The alternate area allows for expansion of the soil
absorption unit in order; %to treat the extra flow of sewage.
Today's water -using devices are quite different in many
respecti from the basic water -using appliances upon which
the design flows were determined. Hot tubs and Jacuzzis
dischar�e large quantities of water in short periods of
time. $uch rapid discharges into a septic tank can result
in solids being flushed out of the tank into the soil
treatmler-using n system. Until ithe plumbing code reflects the
large devices' and the rapid discharges of waste
water which require two or more septic tanks in series, it
is desirable to have an alternate soil absorption area
availab�e in the event of absorption unit failure.
By the size of the homes specified on the proposed
plat, it is assumed that ':the homes will be at the minimum a
Type I, 4- bedroom which according to Minnesota Rules Chapter
7080, will generate an estimated average sewage flow of 600
gallons per day. Mottled soils at shallow depths
predomi ate in the area as shown in the Carver County Soil
Survey nd as confirmed by submitted soil boring data. A
review f the soils informati-on from the Carver County Soil
Survey as made in our report of January, 1987, presented to
the City of Chanhassen. Because of the mottled soils
ri
1
. I
C
r
I
Ii Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 4 of 13
indicated by the soil boring logs submitted with the
' subdivision proposal, each lot must be carefully evaluated
to determine if two suitable sites with adequate separation
are available for the installation of sewage treatment
mounds.
'
The rock layer in a mound designed to treat 600 gallons
of sewage per day should be 10 feet wide and 50 feet long.
'
In soils which are seasonally saturated to a depth of one
foot, mound construction must begin with a minimum of two
'
feet of clean sand at the upslope edge of the rock layer.
The absorption area under the mound required to treat the
liquid flow should be 50 feet wide, 10 feet of which is
-
under the rock layer. Thus, the downslope dike must be 40
feet wide. The upslope dike should have a slope of 4 to 1
'
or shallower for maintenance purposes. The height of the
mound at the upslope edge of the rock layer will be four
feet. Thus, the upslope dike will be 13 feet wide before it
contacts the original soil on a 5 percent land slope. The
end slopes of the mound dikes should also be on 4 to 1
slopes and will extend out at least 16 feet at the upslope
edge of the rock layer and 20 feet at the downslope edge of
the rock layer.
The total width of the constructed mound from toe of
upslope dike to toe of downslope dike will be 50 plus 13 or
63 feet on a 5 percent land slope. The total constructed
length the be 50 20
of mound will plus plus 20 or 90 feet.
In the 1987 review of the proposed subdivision, which
had 2.5 -acre lots, the proposed sites for the soil
absorption units were separated and were not abutting. It
is necessary to have at least a 20 -foot separation distance
between the two proposed sites since the construction of one
mound will require construction traffic that would tend to
compact the adjacent soil. Also, if the mound on the
1
Review of Planning Case No. 86 =31 Page 5 of 13
upslopeisite is constructed first and the secondary site is
used later, it will be virtually impossible to construct the ,
secondaiy site because of the proximity of the first mound.
Adding
10 feet
to the 63 7foot
width and to the 90 -foot
'
length
dimensions results in
a total area of 103 by 130 feet
separation
between the bottom of-the drainfield rock layer
and limiting
soil characteristics . . ." Original soil is
which should
be
reserved for
each mound and its
been moved,
construction.
This is a total
area of 13,390 square feet
'
for one
mound,
which is more
than one -half the area of the
that mound would not meet those criteria.
proposed
lots.
of the two proposed sites for the sewage treatment
,
An
important provision of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080
that shluld
be noted is that mounds must be constructed on
t
"original
soils so that there is at least 36 inches of
separation
between the bottom of-the drainfield rock layer
and limiting
soil characteristics . . ." Original soil is
defined
as "naturally occurring inorganic soil that has not
,
been moved,
smeared, compacted, nor manipulated with
construction
equipment." The soil around the periphery of
an instilled
mound where construction equipment has operated
to instill
that mound would not meet those criteria.
Many
of the two proposed sites for the sewage treatment
systems
are located side -by -side along the long axis.of the
'
sites.
While this arrangement apparently has been presented
to meet
the alternate site requirement, it will be
impossible
to construct a mound on the primary site without
'
adverse
y affecting the soils on the secondary site. Thus,
two abutting
areas do not provide an adequate secondary site
'
for the
onsite sewage treatment system. Also, the proposed
sites a
e not large enough for the size mounds that will
likely be
constructed.
3. Orientation and location of mound sites
Th long dimension (axis) of the mound must be located
approxiately parallel to the existing ground contour lines.
The purpose is to spread the effluent along the slope. The
IThe mound must be located on natural soils and on
slopes not exceeding 12 percent.
Absolutely no grading to
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 6 of 13
'
done prior to mound
effluent percolates downward into the soil and down the
'
alnpa of tha Arioinal sail. Pressure distribution of
little as 1 foot of unsaturated
effluent in the rock layer assures that the length of the
'
rock layer will be uniformly loaded. With the long axis
to the the
to placement of the
parallel original ground slope, percolating
drainfield rock layer.
liquid will not accumulate in greater volume than the
'
loading rate. Conversely, mounds constructed with their
in low areas subject to
long axis perpendicular to the original ground slope--will
'
allow accumulation of percolating liquid along the length of
the mound resulting in mound failure.
IThe mound must be located on natural soils and on
4. Accessibility of sewage system for service
Septic tanks must be accessible for cleaning and
possibly other service. The pump tank must also be
accessible for maintenance and service. If a septic tank or
pump tank need to be replaced, a backhoe would be needed for
t
slopes not exceeding 12 percent.
Absolutely no grading to
'
modify the natural slope can be
done prior to mound
construction. A mound can be located
on a soil having as
little as 1 foot of unsaturated
soil. Such soil requires a
2 -foot depth of clean sand prior
to placement of the
drainfield rock layer.
Mounds must not be located
in low areas subject to
flooding or in natural swales or
drainageways. It is
important that the site for the
sewage treatment system not
be located in areas where runoff
water collects since excess
surface water will interfere with
the hydraulic performance.
Therefore, sewage systems cannot
be located in drainageways,
depressions in low
the landscape
or other areas
of that
collect or concentrate water. The
natural collection of
water flowing to the center of a
drainageway will cause the
mound to fail hydraulically.
= '
4. Accessibility of sewage system for service
Septic tanks must be accessible for cleaning and
possibly other service. The pump tank must also be
accessible for maintenance and service. If a septic tank or
pump tank need to be replaced, a backhoe would be needed for
t
Review If Planning Case No. 86-31
I-
Page 7 of 13 11 I
excavation and a large truck would be needed to transport
the new tank to the location. I
e
No other improvements on the lot such as the house, the
sewage treatment mound, or other buildings can be
constructed and located so as to block access to the septic
tanks and the pump tank. '
Both the primary and secondary sites must, of course, '
be acce sible for construction of sewage'treatment mounds. -
This ac essibility must be maintained in the future for the '
second site against encroachment by any other lot
improve ents.
A Qot is likely to need a yard living area for family
activities and green space. The area reserved for the
secondary site for the soil absorption unit can be utilized '
as lawn area but must be reserved for replacement of the
soil absorption unit. This alternate area must have
suitable soil, must be adequately separated from the water
supply aell, and must not be used as the location for any
other improvements or structures on the lot.
5. Watell supply well location '
Thle water supply well must be located at least 50 feet
from an� part of the sewage treatment system such as the
septic �tanks, pump tank and absorption area of the mound.
The same 50 -foot separation distance must be maintained for '
sewage Treatment systems on adjacent lots. There will need
to be careful coordination of water supply well locations on
adjacent lots, so that the water well location on one lot I
does not eliminate a potential sewage treatment site on an
adjacent lot.
Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725, Rules Relating to Wells
and Borings states that the water supply well shall be '
located at a point of the lot higher than potential sources
' Mound design and construction specifications are based
on original, undisturbed soil. Original, soil is defined in
' Chapter 7080.0020, Subp. 24c as "naturally occurring
inorganic soil that has not been moved, smeared, compacted,
nor manipulated with construction equipment." Any soil
which has been smeared or compacted by any type of
construction activity likely will not be suitable for the
' location of a sewage treatment mound.
' If borings indicate soil compaction, percolation tests
must be performed at a depth of 12 inches to determine if
the percolation rate at that depth is faster than 60 minutes
per inch.
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 8 of 13
of pollution. Wells should not be located in low areas,
swales or drainageajays.
The well location must be suitable for the well
drilling rig to operate. The location must remain
accessible in the future for equipment to travel to the well
'
for maintenance.
6. Soil and site evaluation
'
Soil boring data must be collected from the actual
sites which are proposed for the location of the primary and
secondary mounds. The sites must be accurately located on a
scale map of the lot and the soil borings taken within the
areas of the specified sites. Soil boring data taken at
locations
other on a lot are not suitable to evaluate the
suitability of sites. The number of soil borings needed for
each site proposed for the soil absorption unit will vary
depending on the soil and the prior activities on that site.
Sufficient borings must be taken to assure that the soil
over the entire absorption area of the mound has original
'
characteristics and has sufficient permeability to allow
liquid to percolate downward.
' Mound design and construction specifications are based
on original, undisturbed soil. Original, soil is defined in
' Chapter 7080.0020, Subp. 24c as "naturally occurring
inorganic soil that has not been moved, smeared, compacted,
nor manipulated with construction equipment." Any soil
which has been smeared or compacted by any type of
construction activity likely will not be suitable for the
' location of a sewage treatment mound.
' If borings indicate soil compaction, percolation tests
must be performed at a depth of 12 inches to determine if
the percolation rate at that depth is faster than 60 minutes
per inch.
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31
7. Nurse
Page 9 of 13
All
sizing criteria for soil
absorption units are based
'
on the
assumption that the soils
are
in their natural state
field where
when septic
tank effluent is applied.
'
To the extent that
harvested. If the soil profile to a depth
nursery
activities have disturbed
the
soils will determine
'
whether
an area remains :suitable
for
the installation of the
,
soil absorption
unit.
,
Sandy
'
The
operation of a nursery may have much more
for the
concentrated
equipment and machinery travel than a farm
Transplanting
'
field where
crops such as corn, soybeans, hay, etc.,
are
'
grown and
harvested. If the soil profile to a depth
of one
'
to two
feet has been graded, windrowed, or removed,
that
if the soil is fine textured_ such as a clay
location
likely is not suitable for the installation
of a
,
sewage
treatment mound.
,
Sandy
Areas where original soil has been removed and replaced
I
by tree
transplanting activities likely will not be suitable
for the
installation of 'a sewage treatment mound.
'
Transplanting
sizable trees requires that a considerable
ball oi
soil be removed with the root system. The weight of
'
the soil
and the tree will be on the wheels of the
equipment.
This weight will cause soil compaction,
partic�llarly
if the soil is fine textured_ such as a clay
'
loam aId
if the soil is relatively wet.
,
Sandy
soils have very little structure and poor
construction
practices often do not have major effects on
that soil's
ability to absorb liquid. The same is not true
'
of loan
and clay loam soils. For example, construction and
equipment
traffic can cause severe compaction of a loam or
'
clay loam
soil. To illustrate the effect of vehicle
traffic,
a study was recently made by the Minnesota Onsite
'
Sewage
Treatment Contractors' Association on a loam soil
with a� percolation rate,of 6.3 minutes per inch in the upper I
12 in2s of soil. After four passes with a single axle
J
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 10 of 13
'
truck loaded with 5 cubic_yards,of sand, the same soil
showed a percolation rate of 53 minutes per inch at the
'
12 -inch depth. If a clay loam soil with an original
percolation rate in the 46 to 60 minutes per inch range were
'
subjected to similar traffic, the result would likely be a
soil unsuitable for the installation of a soil absorption
'
unit. Also, most construction traffic is considerably
heavier than the loads used in this study. If there is only
one site available for the soil absorption unit and this is
by improper
ruined construction activities, a serious
economic burden will be placed upon the lot owner. An
'
alternate site being available is a necessary insurance
policy.
Areas have been
which used for the storage and
stockpiling of nursery materials such as soil, rock,
'
landscaping timbers, etc., may also have compacted soil.
The vehicular traffic to bring the materials to the site
would have compacted the soil. The vehicular traffic to
remove amounts of the stored materials would also cause soil
'
compaction.
If there has been heavy vehicular traffic as in field
'
roads or around existing buildings, these areas likely will
not be suitable for the installation of soil absorption
'
units. The field roads of the nursery and other areas with
heavy traffic will likely have severely compacted soils.
Such locations can not be used as proposed sites for the .
sewage treatment mounds because the compacted soils : :have a
severely reduced soil permeability. Severity and depth of
'
compaction depend upon the soil texture and the moisture
content at the time of compaction. If the traffic was more
'
or less continuous, then it is almost certain that the,
moisture content of the soil was such that maximum
'
compaction occurred at some time during the traffic
activity. Soil borings should be made to determine the
Review
of
Planning Case No. 86 -31
Page 11 of 13
specific
amount
detailed
of
compaction as well as soil
site investigation must be
texture and color. A
made of each proposed
,
site blth
+
Q
primary and secondary, to
Y Y,
determine if the soil
destroyed
is orig nal and is suitable for the installation of a sewage ,
treatment mound.
Construction
of shallow drainageways needed for the '
operation
of the nursery will also impact the suitability of
specific
sites. Drainageways that direct or concentrate
water i
certain areas of the proposed subdivision may '
render
those areas unsuitable due to the presence of excess
water.
In those areas where the actual drainageways were '
construltad,
the original soil, structure may-have been
destroyed
by compaction and amearinQ %n thdt the si.Ml w M '
npt qrr
pt 4epttir_ tank effluent as required by the State
Standar
s.
It
has been reported that one nursery operation is to
draw a
evice through the soil at a 3 -foot depth to prune '
the roo
s of trees. This operation could also provide
channel
for the movement of soil water. Should such a '
channel
lead from an upslope area into a mound, the downhill
movemen� of soil water through this channel would likely '
cause the mound to fail at an early date. The locations of
the use of the root pruning device should be delineated on '
the proposed plat of the subdivision.
8. Arealreouired for house construction '
Hose sizes have been shown on the maps of the proposed
subdivision. Some are 60 by 60 feet, 50 by 70 feet, etc. '
Of conc rn is the amount of construction area needed to
build h uses of this size. This question was posed to a
building official and to a contractor. Both responded that '
at least an additional 30 feet is needed on all sides of the
house under construction for the soil spoil bank, temporary '
lumber storage, access roads for the cement trucks, parking
_7
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 12 of 13
'
for construction workers, etc. And none of the area used
for construction activities on the house can be used for the
'
soil absorption unit of the onsite sewage system. The area
for the 60 by 60 house becomes 120 feet by 120 feet or
14,400 feet.
square This is about half of the total area of
many of the proposed lots.
9. Additional considerations
'
After the preliminary plat is approved, there will be
considerable earth moving involved with the construction of
streets and the surface drainage system. Design criteria
for
construction of onsite sewage treatment systems are
based on the use of the natural undisturbed soil profile.
'
If a site is graded, compacted or smeared, it is not
suitable for the installation of the soil absorption unit of
'
the onsite treatment system. Therefore, it is important
that the sites established are in areas that will remain
undisturbed during any other construction activities. They
should be clearly marked and protected.
'
When an area is to be subdivided into lots, soil
borings should be made in selected locations prior to any.
'
lot lines being drawn. Soil borings should be used to
complement existing soil survey informa.tion. Also, a field
inspection of the area should note any severely compacted
'
sites, low areas, drainageways, excavations, etc. Only
after the soil texture and all of the physical features are
'
noted and evaluated, should the proposed lot lines be drawn
and then in such a manner that each lot has two separate
areas of original soil suitable for the installation of
either a trench system or a mound system for the soil
absorption unit. This procedure is particularly critical
when dealing with a proposed plat which has had many
activities which could have changed or damaged the original
'
soil characteristics. Drawing lot lines without benefit of
_7
Review of Planning Case No. 86 -31 Page 13 of 13
this information often raises unrealistic expectations for
the number of lots that will be suitable.
Some of the sites on a lot which may be judged to be
suitable for -the installation of an onsite soil treatment
unit might conflict with the desires of a potential
purchaser as the prime building site. This situation will
need to be reconciled at the time of lot purchase and
certainly no later than the issuance of a building permit.
A point to note here is that no permits should be issued for
any construction on any lot until a scale map of the lot has
been sumitted showing the two suitable sites for the sewage
treatment system, the proposed site for the house and other
improvements, and the site for the water supply well.
.1
MEMORANDUM
=i
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner Il
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: July 22, 1994
SUBJ: Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates = •Planning Case 86 -31 S.U.B.
I have reviewed the submitted preliminary plot for Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates and made
the following continents:
1. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be designed; shown on site plan;
and, approved by the Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department.
2. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with Chanhassen
Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning around of fire
apparatus.
3. Fire apparatus access road 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. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings. This
applies to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101.
4. Street names.°
a. Maple C6" ri is'not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple "' in the
name.
b. The street between Hwy 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive and
Halla Nursery Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla Vista
Drive.
C. Rename "Golf View Circle ". Submit alternative name.
g:�tafety�nl�halagolLptr
Planning Co 'ssion Meeting - August 3, 1994
Public
Address '
Mike Lynch
17003 Sherwood Road, Millac, MN
LaVi Lynch
925 Creekwood
Paul Martin
9610 Foxford Road
Wayne Kinion
9451 Foxford Road
Steve McMeen
9391 Foxford Road
Doug Rynda.
9411 Foxford Road.
David & Sharo
Gatto
9631 Foxford Road
Mark D. Halla
770 Creekwood
Sandy and Don
Hall
6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina
Roger Anderson
7415 Wayzata Blvd, Mp1s.
Dale & Peggy
underson
845 Creekwood
Deborah Graffiinder
10001 Great Plains Blvd.
Jim & Jan Sab"
ski
775 Creekwood
Rick Schuelke
10251 Great Plains Blvd.
James Dingel
9351 Foxford Road
Karen Hasse
630 West 96th Street
Claire & Anne
Vogel
815 Creekwood
Spencer Boynton
777 Creekwood
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report.
Mancino:
this is, it
does that
Al -Jaffa The
use.
Mancino: An
subdivision?
I ask one more question' that even if it's in a mixed use area? Because
to be a residential subdivision around a commercial retail area So does, how
area is an existing use. It's grandfathered in. They're not expanding the
that area, the acreage that that takes up is part of the aggregate of the
that included in the aggregate because you've got two different uses? Okay.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
' Al -Jaff: That's part of the 102.
' Scott: Because I know the smallest lot I think is 60, 30,000 square feet. Something like that.
Mancino: Well I just thought the whole aggregate would just have to do with the
' subdivision. The residential and wouldn't include a retail/commercial area with inside.
' Scott: Well that raises a question. So basically the existing use will continue and then there
will be 60,000 to however many thousand square foot lots around it. Is kind of what you're.
Mancino: Yeah. My question is, can you really consider, both because we've never used it
as one whole unit when part of it's residential subdivision. And another part's a retail. A
whole different kind of use. And isn't the aggregate for the 1 unit per 2.5 acres a residential
subdivision requirement which has nothing to do with the retail area. Commercial area.
Don Halla: I'm sorry but I'm Don Halla. I think you're interpreting it backwards. Your
' ordinance 2 1/2 lots per 1 acre rather than 1 lot per 2 1/2 acres which comes to 15,000 square
foot is the minimum lot size. Then there's other restrictions. I believe that's in the
ordinance.
David Gatto: May I say, I'm David Gatto and I represent the.
Scott: Well, wait a second. Wait a second. No. Planning Commission staff.
Al -Jaff: Okay. The ordinance right now allows an overall density of 2 1/2 acres. One unit
' per 2 1/2 acres. You may reduce the size of the lot, as long as they would maintain the
overall density.
' Scott: Then in the calculations the lot that will contain the existing retail, I'll say retail
business is included as a lot.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Scott: The outlots are also included as a lot from a standpoint of density calculations.
Al- ff: Right.
Ja
Mancino: It doesn't matter what their uses are?
Al -Jaff: Convect.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Mancino: Okay. Thank you.
Sharmin AI-J continued with her staff report. '
Mancino: I just have one more, if I can ask. Thank you Sharmin. And that is, this is guided '
for residential large lot. So that means residential large lot is 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Is that
correct?
Al -Jaff: That's correct. ,
Scott: The question is, is that the density? Are we talking guided for a specific density or '
guided for a m�nimum lot size or both.
Al -Jaffa That' i grandfathered in. _ I
Aanenson: Right now it's currently, as you recall, we have not... -Right now we say 1 per 10.
If you recall that in 1987 we changed, based on the Met Council, they didn't want urban ,
sprawl, to allow 2 1/2 acre lots. So we'went back and changed that based on the Met
Council's 1 per 10. Recently the Met Council said, that's creating some sprawl in a different
way so what we said is you can have, you can go as small as 15,000 square feet as long as '
you could provide 2 drainfield sites in that septic. So if you have 40 acres and wanted to
cluster 4 units, you could do that. As small as 15,000 square foot lots as long as you provide
services. So then services do become available, we don't have the sprawl. And that's a '
separate issue from this. What Shamwi' is saying is we're going by the grandfather rights
that were give to them by the City Council at the 1 per 2.5 so that's what we're operating
under. He wa! given extensions by the' City Council. So they're two separate things. The 1
per 2, the old re -'87 which he is operating under. ,
P 1? Pe
Mancino: Anc now my question is, in the future we have several large lot developments. ,
We have Timberwood and we have lots of them around the city and we passed an ordinance
that says that those must stay 2 1/2 acres. They can't subdivide into 15,000 square feet.
se ,
Aanenson: The reason for that is preserving the integrity o f those rural areas.- If they all
want to come in and petition the city as a group to change. What we don't want is to have
individuals within there splitting off where people have bought into a rural atmosphere and '
that sort of thing. So that's the intent of this.
Mancino: And you need 100% participation? Or close to. '
Aanenson: W I hatever the Council decides is appropriate. '
15 ,
' Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
' Mancino: Okay. And is that the same here?
' Aanenson: No. Again, we want underneath, what he was given as an extension from the city
and that's what he's still pushing to...Again, the rule change. He still was given an extension
of the old rules and that's what we're operating under.
Mancino: So you could go in and subdivide at the time the MUSA line moves, you could
subdivide this further?
' Aanenson: Yes. If sewer and water is available... Part of why this got delayed is we were
looking at, there was the small lots and the 15,000 and we did look at that ...looking at some
' other ways that this could be platted under small lots and clustering could be provided. That
was one reason why...
Mancino: So this is the only large lot subdivision that could be further divided into 15,000
square foot?
' Aanenson: Well all of them could if they petitioned the city and it's inside the MUSA.
Outside, I mean if there were other subdivisions in the city that have larger lot and sewer and
water becomes available and they request the city, can we go smaller. Could we split up our
' property when sewer and water becomes available, we certainly would look at :it.
1
Mancino: My only concern about this is, is you have a subdivision and it's right now 1 to
2.5 acres and you have some people obviously who want to. further subdivide and some who
don't and they bought into it thinking it was very rural and large lot, etc. And then you have,
I mean we'll hear years and years here, you have some homeowners who want to come in
and subdivide.
Aanenson: You're talking about the people that He in the Golf Estates?
Mancino: Yeah.
Aanenson: Well again the same issue. We did put the same condition. You know the
Council ... looking at a rural ... and leave it that way until the entire subdivision to further
subdivide.
Mancino: Okay.
Farmakes: Do some of these developments have private covenants that preclude subdivision.
Is this particular one in front of us considering that or is that?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 '
Al -Jaff: We're not aware of any private covenants.
Farmakes: We talked at one time about looking at this problem and looking at ghost platting '
in the event tha these are subdivided. So what type of development we'd actually wind up
with rather th having piecemeal. Wondering if that went anywhere. '
Aanenson: Well that was one of the options. We looked at doing clustering septic systems
with this plat al i d we looked at doing 15,000. Whether or not you could find acceptable '
drainfield sites. So some lots ... as far as maintaining the density that was given to him and
trying to cluster it. It seems like this would be the best way to go.
Scott: Any other questions? Okay. Dave, do you have any comments?
David Gatto: Yes, we have quite a few.
Scott: Excuse me, Dave Hempel. Sorry.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, not really at this point. I'm open for questions. The staff report ,
should explain :)ur concerns.
Al -Jaff: Mr. airman? Steve Kirchman is with us today if there are any questions on the '
septic systems and how they operate. He will be available to answer your questions.
Scott: Okay. teve would you, we've received some letters from, well why don't I just say, ,
do you have at y'comments you'd like to make at this time about the project?
• N . Staff report re much says all I need to say so, if all those conditions that '
Kuchman. o Sta p pretty y y
were requested in the staff report are met, then we're going to be okay with it.
'
Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing p lease?
Mancino mov�d, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted- in favor and '
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If anybody would like to speak about this particular issue. Or excuse me, we need to '
hear from the applicant first. I'm sorryl'about that. Would the applicant like to speak? And
please give your name and your address and have at it. '
Don Halla: 71ank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission.
Neighbors and members of the community. I'm Don Halla. I live at 6601 Mohawk Trail,
17 '
t
.1
1
t
n
J
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Edina, Minnesota. I have been in business since 1962 on the property in question. We
purchased the property back in 1962 as a family landscape nursery operation and grew trees
to sell them retail to the public. And we have been serving the community of Chanhassen
ever since then. It is a family business. We support many of the families in the community
who work for us. Some in landscaping and raising plant material. Back in 1986 we came to
the city to discuss I guess the changes in the ordinance which was taking us from 2 1/2 acres
for 1 lot to 10 acres. They put a period of time there for people to bring their plans and plots
in order to meet this criteria :and we did. We had the benefit ever since then to follow all the
directions of the city and -to maintain that window that we ... that they left open and be
accepted and subdivided their property at that point in time. Based on that subdivision that
took place in 1987, I purchased all the property from my brother... nursery business. And I
have been the sole owner of the property and the nursery since then. I've been working on
the premise though since 1962. Back in 1972 we also moved our total operation which was
located in Edina out to this. site and have been operating 100% of the total business, from this
site. Back in 19, we were approved for 37 lots to be put on this site. We do have that on
preliminary _ approval still standing. I guess that preliminary approval, which was shown
earlier, could in fact be enacted today and we could go to that layout. But back in 1992 I
was ready to do something and I came into the city staff and talked to Paul Krauss and we
were working with Jo Ann Olsen and Paul requested us to change what we had approved. He
said that he felt that it was very poor land use for the city. He didn't think that the two
developments that had developed to the north and east of us were working well as far as the
city was concerned for use of land. So at that time he said that he would like to see us
change the size of the lots and do it for 1/3 of one acre size. We hired Roger Anderson and
we redeveloped this property and came in with a plot that we presented to staff.. To meet the
criteria that the then plan person asked us to do. By going through the city staff, they
decided they didn't want that. They decided they wanted the lots. to be bigger for many
different reasons. So now we're back to really a 2 1/2 acre plan again. I believe it...that was
pre - approved or we could go with this new one. We have had communications with the city
saying we want to maintain it but we can still do that originally approved 2 1/2 acre _lot plan.
...good use as the one we had basically a year ago now. I don't think it's...being in the
landscape business and being involved in landscape architecture and in fact I have a daughter
in law who was involved with city planning and :park commissions out in Baltimore who is a
landscape architect ...I do not feel that we're necessarily using the best use of this land but we
have been farming it as a nursery business for many, many years. But we. are now meeting
that criteria of larger lots. The 2 1/2 acres. I personally... There's become a question about
septic sites and that's why we're back to 2 1/2 acres. I don't believe there's been any
failures of septic sites on this land or any other land right adjacent to us. We have irrigated
this land in growing nursery stock and so on and yes, we have ... certain areas. They also
found in the unirrigated areas that the ... model was somewhere between 4 and 7 feet. So
where we haven't caused the modeling by our growing of nursery stock which changed the
18
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
chemical make up of the soil, it appeared there is very good septic sites throughout the site.
Anyway, this i4. where we're at. We're back to the 2 1/2 acres. We're back to where we
were in basic y 1987 with a little bit different layout. And we want to do what's fair for
the community, That's what I've always said. That's why I went to talk to Paul. What
would the community like? What would the city like? And he asked us to make those
changes. ' We were asked to make a change again so now we're back at this point. And if
this is what the city wants, then that's what we'll do. If it's the first 2 1/2 acres that's
approved, then that's what we'll do. We're not trying to plague anybody. We're not trying
to create any p oblems. This is my retirement. I still plan to be in the nursery2business there
for a period of time. I don't plan on moving out. That's why we're keeping that 11 1/2
acres in the center. We will continue to grow plants and continue in the nursery business
there. That is our intention. "There are many things though that are-requested in this go
around which make the development—cost prohibitive... From my standpoint, in farming the
land for this length of time, there's a few things that would be impossible to do. "Pushing
water uphill. C hanging and redoing Highway 101. Some of the things like that which'I
believe are req ested by the State before. ...personally seen the reports that say... In any case,
if this is the u that the community would like to see, and it is over 2 1/2 acres per lot at
this point, the we're happy to go along with that ...but in all sincerity, I don't think it's what
any of us ... Thank you.
Scott: Any qu stions for the applicant ?; Is there anyone else on your development team or
anyone else you would like to have speak?
Don Halla: Yes, Mr. Roger Anderson. I just would like to show the layout that was done if I
may, sorry. T iat was done for the interim one we were requested to do... This was the ..
design that we were requested to do by', Paul and basically was a clustering type design. At
this point in time we had also explored with him the fact that the lots would be close enough
so that you cold put in the small sewer system to approve and meet EPA. Hook these
people up to sewer and have the system work as kind of a community sewer system. Paul
was in; he said he had seen it work and was in favor of that idea but I believe other members
of the staff we e not in favor of that so' therefore this design was scrapped and we went on
to ... subdivisioi . This was clustering only using the west half of the property and still meeting
all the criteria of lot size and so forth required by the city with the exception that what was
asked for was considerably larger septic systems between this development and what we have
now.
Mancino: I I
happening on
Don Halla:
a question Mr. Halla. On the west side you were clustering. What was
east side then?
east side was going to remain open. The east side was going to be open
1 11
t
19 1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
land that would be used for nursery business for umpteen years... Somewhere in the
scuttlebutt too they wanted to develop it for a park. So it seemed like we were making,
working with the city and handling their situations and desire for putting a park in there and
at the same time obtaining the number of lots that could give me my retirement that I was
hoping for.
IMancino: Thank you.
1 Roger Anderson: Chairman and Planning Commission, staff and residents. My name is
Roger Anderson and I've done the design work for Don on this revised plat and the earlier
one that was submitted. The staff report that we received is very comprehensive and fairly
lengthy. There are quite a few issues regarding this property that needed to be addressed and
as indicated by the planning staff, we have been in discussions over quite a period of time
regarding all of these issues. Many of the things we talked about and the things we had to
look at regarding this plat were the results of those comments and suggestions from staff and
the input from Paul Krauss, who is not here right now but the plat has moved forward and I
think we've made good progress in coming to a result that we feel is good for the city. As
Don indicated, we think it gives us a little more land than would necessarily be required but
we're here tonight to present the plat and discuss it and deal with the issues that are before
us. To keep, since there are so many issues in the report, I wrote down our comments and
some broad categories that I will discuss. Hopefully briefly. If anyone has any questions
during the discussion of those categories, I'll be glad to answer questions. I think the history
and what I'll call the planning issues have been addressed fairly thoroughly. The history goes
' back to when Don bought it in '62 and through the various changes in the plats that have
come since that time. I believe the report does say we're at 2.83 gross acres per lot and if
my math is correct, if we subtract out that outlot, we still are at almost 2.6 acres. If we take
out the nursery property which is about 11 1/2 acres, we're still in excess _of that 2 1/2 acre
minimum. Also in the report I believe we meet the lot area, the setback requirements. There
are no various. No other requirements that we saw in the report that we did not meet. The
' next issue that I'd like to address is the street layout. With the number of go arounds we've
had on this plat, we've had an opportunity to do quite a few things with the street layout and
look at several options. The plat Don showed you earlier showed the 35 lots on the westerly
side of the property -and it showed that area connected to the road. With this presentation we
have not shown the connection on the north, from the south half. On the west side of TH
' 101 connected because staff has suggested that that probably would be a good idea. I believe
that is something we can incorporate into the plat. There are some other street issues though
that I think we are concerned about. The primary one being a suggestion that a portion of
Highway 101 be reconstructed as a part of our platting process here and the development of
the land. Highway 101 through that area has some substantial curves and visibility problems.
There are a number of things there. And from the developer's standpoint, one particular issue
20
Planning Comri"ission Meeting - August 3, 1994
is brought up
a hill just north of Creekwood Drive. Our concern is that we're being asked
to correct a single
problem. A stretch of road that has a substantial number of problems. It
is not our, it's
inclear if we can have access to that to even repair that road if it's still ,
house immediately to the
designated as al
State trunk highway. There's a resident, there's a
east of that hill
and you can see the reason the hill is there because they did not want to
cause problem
for that residence. If we go in or if anybody does, I believe there will be '
some implications
there. The whole issue of whether or not we can go in and work on TH
1011 think is
qne that needs to be resolved. In addition on the east side of the property, the
suggestion wa;
made that the private road along the south side of that parcel be the preferred
Mr. Halla's I believe the suggestion was made based
route for the road
to serve property and
on the fact tha
� there are a number of individual lots all served by this private road. We feel
our property b¢st
lays out the way that we've shown it with some possible minor revisions '
and that forcini
us to put the road in that location, where the private road is now, is certainly
not in our best
interest.
Scott: Excuse
me, where is that? You're talking about the private road. You're not talking
about Creekw
od?
Mancino: Right
here. I think it's on his property.
Don Halla: It
goes right through here. On the south side.
Roger Anderson:
And if I understand correctly, there are parcels south of that private road
now that are s
rued by that. A seems the best use of the property that we have to work with ,
is to put the roads
in the locations that we've shown. We feel that obviously needs more
discussion and
would involve a major revision to the plat obviously since the road ... about 300
feet. A furth4
issue that I'd like to discuss briefly is the trees on the property. As Mr. Halla
indicated, its
been an active nursery for 32 years. There is some natural forested area on the
northerly pro
should be gen
line against the county load and the staff has suggested that that area
rally preserved as a tree preservation area With the exception of the fact that '
we feel there
a some houses that should be placed in there, we can still maintain very
adequate buff�r
between the county road of those houses. That seems to be an appropriate
use there. W
louses
do have and we do show grading in there to allow the construction of I
believe it's 4
along that bluff. They would be walkout houses encroaching no more
than they ht
to obtain that walkout and with minimal impact on the natural vegetation in
that area.
remainder of the site is ,predominantly remnant trees from Mr. Halla's ,
operations an�
they're a wide variety of trees and sizes and some are pretty rough. Many of
them are beautiful
trees and it's our intention to save and protect as many of those as we can.
One comment
the staff made was that we didn't show any site grading on this particular site,
and there are
a couple of reasons. One is the soil treatment systems that need to go in. And
21
' Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
' the other was that we don't want to disturb any more of those trees than we have to. We
wanted to keep the grading hopefully confined to the streets and the drainage areas and
restrict it pretty much to just those locations.
Mancino: I have a question Mr. Anderson. The staff has requested about the tree
' conservation along the northwest side here. Along County Road 14. Is there any other area
in the subdivision that the staff has requested you preserve trees? Or is that the only tree
preservation area that staff has directed?
Roger Anderson: The only other area I'm aware of is to preserve I believe it's 3 trees in the
area of Pond B which is on the easterly end of the site. The storm sewer discharge. The
' pond as I've shown it would impact those trees and they've asked that we make an
adjustment on that pond to save the trees and well be glad to look at that.
' Mancino: Okay. So out of the whole 102 acres, stiff has been pretty flexible about the
nursery stock but have asked that that one strip be part of the conservation?
' Roger Anderson: That's my understanding.
Mancino:, Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I have one other question about the private
road. Who owns that private road? Is that property that the parties on the north own and the
parties on the south? Who owns. the private road that goes through there right now that is
accessing the other homes to the south?
Roger Anderson: I believe Mr. Halls has.-the best information on that.
g e t
' Don Halla: That is owned by several properties on the south. We actually have a private
easement to use that strip of property which is 30 feet wide. It was granted to us in the
purchase of our property that we have a 30 foot easement on the south side, not on our
property but on another property which then has been subdivided since then and it's really
been they've had to get our permission to use that since it was a project given at that time.
' There has been granted subject to restrictions within that easement that they have to do
maintenance. It also says in that easement that if it ever goes to a public road, that they have
to give up the additional 30 feet for it to be a public road. That's what the easement says.'
' On the south side. So it's all south of our property. That was a term in our buying the
property. They gave us 30 feet. If it ever went to a public road, they would get another 30
feet for it to be a public road. That's public record.
' Mancino: Thank you.
22
Planning Comrr}ission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Roger Anderso : The next area I'd like, to address briefly is on the individual soil treatment
sites. A substaitial amount of the information provided is regarding how this site would be
served. How we'd get mound systems in there. What the requirements may be and some of
this gets back t the history of where we've been and where we are now. The plat that was
submitted back in March with the 1 acre sites was reviewed by the staff and it was
determined at t iat time that the lots were a little bit too confined. They didn't allow the
flexibility orien lion of access and a few other things that staff requested. And at that time
Mr. Halla sugg�sted and requested that the city's consultant, Resource Engineering give us
some advice on where do we go with this plat. How can we get these mound systems in
here. They pr ared a report in May of '94 and based on that report, we prepared the revised
plat that you s here. Their suggestions were basically to be very careful with- orientation of
the mound systems. To allow for proper access. To allow adequate space for water supply
and wells that (an't be too close to these systems. And they also pointed out particularly that
soils and site evaluation needed to be done for these sites. And that would include soil
borings and a look at the site by a soil evaluator. Site evaluator. As of this date, for this
specific plat we have not included those: borings and that site evaluation: And our
reasoning is that we have redone this plat several times. There was a substantial expense in
having an eval ator go out and determine that these sites are adequate. And we've also got
some history out here. We had 70 borings approximately throughout the site in '86 and based
on that information all of the borings, with minor exception, show that the site was adequate
for the mound systems. And again in the fall of last year we had approximately 70 borings
done based on the previous plat you saw and with minor exceptions again, those borings
indicated that the site was acceptable. So based on that overall representation we felt fairly
comfortable with providing this plat forthe city's review subject to a final review of these
sites and some potential adjustments, we expect there will be some, as a site evaluation is
done. But we idn't feel it appropriate,': since it's changed a number of times, to spend that
money and thiicular. find, like we are finding right now, that.-potential for a major redesign of the
east side in p So we're prepared to go ahead with that and Mr. Kirchman may have
some input on
Kirchman: ...getting done right. +
Roger Anders(
ground. We'v
city's requiren
I came up wit]
water flow an(
significant iml
and an upgrad,
improvements
v The last issue is the drainage issue on this site. 102 acres- is- a big piece of
got many types of drainage going on here and many different outlets. The
lent refers to approximately 6 outlets. In my evaluation of the runoff, I believe
i about 15. Many of them flows around the perimeter... flow off by surface
I they will continue to do that after the plat is constructed. But also there are
rovements on the interior of the plat including 4 additional, 3 additional ponds
to the one pond on the east end. Many culvert and surface drainage
and also we've included the ponds to treat the water to NURP standards as
23
I
.1
Planning Commission Meeting - August. 3, 1994
suggested by the staff, which is a requirement to remove some of the nutrients and control the
runoff. So I think we've done a reasonably good job of addressing the runoff considerations
with the eye towards treat the water for phosphorous and no more of the water will run off
now than, or in the future than has right now and that's generally the guidelines we follow.
There are a couple of particular issues with the drainage that we're concerned about. The
existing nursery site, or the retained nursery site would be about 11 1/2 acres and I believe
indicated in the report, approximately 40 acres of the golf course to the west drains easterly
across Mr. Halla's property and into a pond that is behind the nursery and then under TH 101
and into a fairly deep ravine east of the highway. That's a substantial amount of water and
the city's storm water management plan reviews that information and layout and provides
storm water ponding there. But it seems to us the suggestion in the report that we reroute
that water and retain it and treat it as a part of this plat may be stretching things a bit. I
think that needs a look also where such a good portion of the golf course is coming through,
is it a reasonable expectation for Mr. Halla to have to provide for that with this platting. We
don't think so but we think there's some questions can be answered there. In addition, at the
northerly portion of this site, we're providing a pond for nutrient reduction that we feel can
stay in place and the staff had suggested. Now I'll point it out over here.
Mancino: What do you mean the existing one?
Roger Anderson: The water from that pond flows northerly into the wetland on the north
side of the county road. We provided a NURP pond there to treat the available runoff and
we feel that will do a reasonably good job up to NURP standards. The staff is suggesting
that Mr. Halla contribute to the long range pond construction fund of the city and we think
that needs a look to see what his actual obligation should be. And the other area is the red
circle which is Pond B on the right hand side which is the pond that was actually created,
how long ago Don?
Don Halla: Probably back at about 1970 through design and so forth the... stabilization work.
' Roger Anderson: Both the Pond B and the pond in the nursery were created as part of the
soil conservation service or the agricultural stabilization people and they have outlets in
design and parameters based on the information that they use and those ponds are in and
' working fine. The city has asked for some upgrades. I think we need, that was another
question we had. Just what has to happen there. So there are a lot of issues here. I haven't
hit all of them but hopefully as briefly as I could, hit the predominant things that we're
' concerned with and some of the things we're trying to do to get a good quality plat for the
city. With that I'll answer any questions that the Planning Commission members may have.
IScott: Good, thank you.
L
24
Planning
Ledvina: Mr.
haven't been
discrepancy?
Roger Anderso:
there are 140 si
have right now
the site evaluat
enough change,
soil borings in
size, if we do s
that will functii
the Planning C
happy to provi(
Meeting - August 3, 1994
The staff report indicates that the borings for the proposed sites
You've indicated that the borings have done. Can you clarify this
: The borings have been done for two previous layouts and those are the,
me borings that we have; out on the site. For the exact configuration that we
we did not have a site evaluator go out and take brand new borings and do
)n for the reasons I explained earlier. We felt that we've been-,through
where if we spent the $5,000.00, whatever it was, already knowing that the
;eneral indicated there is a problem, and also knowing that the lots of this
Mme minor adjustments iri the location, extremely likely that well find a spot
n satisfactorily. We felt it was best to wait until we get the feedback from
mmission that we're on the right track as far as layout goes. Then we'd be
the information. _
Scott: ...what %our answer was. The information exists but it has not been presented?
Roger Anderson: The requirement of the code is that the borings be taken at a certain
location with two borings in each one of the sites. And we have taken, as I indicated, 140
borings out there. Not precisely at that location but enough to get a good general feel for the
whole site.
Scott: So are a borings that have been taken that you have the information on, because the
lot lines have s ' ted or something like that inbetween plats, they no longer apply to the plat
that we have � front of us tonight.
Roger Anderso�: That's correct.
Scott: Okay. t just wanted to make sure I understood that. Do you have any other
questions? Good. Is anyone else from the applicant wish to speak? Okay. Thank you.
Well we'll, ca I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Mancino n
the motion
Scott: If
yourself.
David Gatto:
representing
Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing.. AU voted in favor and
:d. The public hearing was opened.
y would like to speak about this issue, please step forward. Identify
and address and let us know what's on your mind.
lank you Mr. Chairman, members. My name is David Gatto and I'm here
Lake Riley Woods Homeowners Association. I've got some question and
1
25 1
i
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
some comments. I've got, there's a, I guess we want to make it clear to Mr. Halla that we
don't oppose the development of the area but we've got a fairly unanimous petition here that
says that we absolutely want the lots to be 2 1/2 acres absent of all the funny math and all
' the outlots and the various things going on. One can easily see, without even pulling out a
calculator, that some of those lots are not 2 1/2 acres. And as a matter of fact, I did some
arithmetic and the average lot size, if you add up the lot square feet and divide by the number
' of lots, you get 2.04 acres per lot,. So not only can you just simply see that some of them
aren't 2 1/2 acres but the average is substantially less than 2 1/2 acres.
' Scott: Just the ordinance allows for outlots and.
Aanenson: Well there's a gross and net. We may need to get some additional—but again
' we're falling into ... was given so many units under that preliminary plat. Since that time
we've allowed some flexibility as far as lot sizes got He's got the same'number of lots.
What he's done is he's clustered them differently.
Scott: The ordinance allows for a minimum of 15,000 square foot lot. But the average
density is.
Aanenson: He's still maintaining at. And that's what we're saying. He's still maintaining
g g
' the average density. It's just the.
Scott: And the calculations allowed by the ordinance allow for the inclusion of outlots and
then the existing, the retail area as well as the growing range that will exist until some further
time. I just wanted to make sure that we all understand what the ordinance is.
David Gatto: When you speak ordinances, are you talking about the present ordinance?
Let's clarify that now.
Aanenson: Okay, what we're saying is that he was given under this 1987 plat or '86 plat, he
was given so many units on so much acreage. Okay, that hasn't changed.
David Gatto: Alright, that's good because that first plat we were showed, that we showed up
there from 1987 shows the outlot developed and my guess is that has a minimum lot size of 2
1/2 acres. That's all we're, in fact we've got petitions. We have petitions from 29 people in
Lake Riley Woods that we can submit and it says we respectfully petition that Halla Nursery
should not be allowed to redevelop their property any smaller than 2.5 acres and that the
minimum square footage requirements of 14,000 square feet, that's housing, be established in
order to preserve the value of the properties surrounding Halla and maintaining aesthetic
appearance of the neighborhood at the level adhered to when our homes were built. Okay, so
26
7
L
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
we've got that signed. And that's just the people in our association. Since then we've heard
of other folks aid I believe some of them are here tonight. -talk to you, that live outside of
Lake Riley Woi ds. Lake Riley Woodsiis east of Highway 101, north of Pioneer Trail and
there's a horses ioe shaped road called Foxford Road. That's, and then there's a couple cul-
de- sacs. Also I'd like to know, and maybe the City Attorney's assistant can help me. How
long was the extension valid that Halla was given when the city grandfathered him in in
1986? How log was the extension valid for?
Al -Jaff: 5 year .
David Gatto: Okay, thanks. And I'd also like to comment that during, well just recently here
in 1994 this oullot that his retail establishment's on they did, I don't know if you want to call
it an expansion or an improvement but an additional retail outlet was built on that in 1994 so
I don't know the particulars behind this grandfathering business but those folks have
improved that wring that time and added a substantial development on there, what they're
calling their ou lot and these folks are using that to determine some sort of an average density
and like I'm sa ring, there's some funny 'inumbers going on there and we don't like that.
Okay. So and en I just want to move on. The staff report actually speaks to that problem
on page 2. Thi folks say that the two outlots shown on the plan contain the existing
businesses and - esidence. These oudots'must be shown as lots. Allowing the outlots to
remain will cre Lte a non - conforming situation. I appreciate staff pointing that out, Septic
systems on a ni rsery, in Resource Engineering's report they've, I want to just, I know we all
got this report probably on Monday. Maybe some other people had it on Friday. I want to
point out some things. In Lake Riley Woods we are held to very strict standards on these
septic systems. As a matter of fact, some of us made the mistake of planting some trees not
right on the septic systems but near enough to septic systems where we raised some eyebrows
with the inspec ors. And we had to moi±e our trees, some trees as small, we had to move
some trees one foot in order to comply with the city ordinances. And so we appreciate the
strict controls diat Steve and his people have on those septic systems. I heard Mr. Anderson
talk a little wh#e ago and kind of pooh pooh some of Resource Engineering's report saying
well this is all ' there and we've got information that says these septic systems will work
and what not. ut Resource Recoveries got a couple good comments in here, -On page 2 of
13 they say, th e is adequate area for individual on site sewage treatment systems as
presented on e proposed plat. There are other factors which are equally important leading
to the conclusi n that none of the lots as presented in the proposed plat are suitable. This is
in their initial ummary. Summary and 11introduction part. On page 9 of 13, they talk about
the operations hat the nursery had and they say the operation of the nursery may have much
more concentri ted and machinery travel f than a farm field would cross it such as corn,
soybean, hay, tc. are grown and harvested. If the soil profiles at a depth of 1 or 2 feet has
been ... or remoz, that location is likely not suitable for installation of a sewage treatment
27
t
t
11
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
' mound. Areas where original soil have been removed and replaced by tree transplanting
activities likely will not be suitable for the installation of -a sewage treatment mound. And
they had another comment that, and I don't know whether Halla does this or not but where a
' nursery operation can ... soil to a 3 foot depth to prune the roots of the trees, and they talked
about that as creating a channel for the movement of soil water which isn't acceptable and .
' again I want to point out that when we had to establish the locations for our mounds and our
lots, the city was absolutely adamant that that land was virgin land. It's never been touched. .
and to this day we can't plant, by ordinance, any trees or anything else on a secondary
' sewage systems that have been planted and that's a tough deal to live by when you have a lot
out there and you're trying to shield yourself from Pioneer Trail and Highway 101 and some
of the other areas that are really clogging themselves up with traffic. It seems as though that
Halla has a history of ignoring some simple environmental conservation rules. Here on page
6 staff talks about Halla putting, and if the staff was familiar with this drainage basin.
Apparently on the east side there's a drainage basin_ In past dealings with the applicant in ,
' securing a grading permit to fill in a portion of the downstream ravine, it appears the
applicant has been filling this ravine without the appropriate permit and. with unacceptable
materials such as landscaping debris and other_ materials that will settle over time and create
' erosion and shear failures on the bluff. That's kind of damaging to Mother Earth and I guess
we're kind of surprised that a business such as Halla would engage in such a practice.
There's another disturbing thing on page 11 where it talks about these folks haven't been,
' they haven't been cooperating with some of the city staff. Attempts to evaluate the proposed
plat clearly have been made but the applicant's failure to work with the City ISTS evaluator
makes thorough evaluation impossible at. this time. You know, and I've heard what Mr.
Anderson said. Who is Paul Krauss? What's his position?
Scott: Well he was the Planning Director.
' David Gatto: Oh so he's g one now?
' Scott: Correct.
David Gatto: That's- good. Because I was going to write a letter to the Mayor tomorrow. I
think it's absolutely outrageous what he asked these people to do and if he made that dense
development on the west side of Highway 101, I'm going to, well he's gone but I think that's
' absolutely outrageous that he told these folks to do that dense development. That had total
disregard for what all the other homeowners wanted in the area. That would have been, I
don't know how many other people you would have here but I mean you can see how
interested we are when there's just the 2.04 acres. I suspect that in listening to what Mr.
Anderson was saying about all the reports and the hoops that he's had to jump through, that
maybe this comment is because that happened. Also I haven't seen any comments in here
28
Planning Commission Meeting - August ,3, 1994
with regards to
any kind of traffic studies or traffic impacts that may take place on Highway
101 and Pioneer
Trail. I know that in the morning especially when everybody in our
development has
to turn east on Pioneer !Trail, it's quite a chore because all the cars will stop ,
at the stop light
on Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail and I don't know what they're doing but
it's really quite
a chore to turn east there. If they were to keep that one road that's across '
from our association
not aligned the way, they have it, I think that will complicate the
situation. So m
a appreciate the comment, if they do a development at all, to align their road
with Foxford R
Dad. I think that's a real necessary thing but in addition, I'm surprised there's '
no comments about
a traffic study or impact in here. We think that we see in here that the
applicant has p
ovided $1,000.00 in escrow to pay for Resource Engineering and this process
has gone on sir
ce '87. Not only with the city but Resource Engineering and I guess we'd
like to know how
much Resource Engineering has cost the city now and how much additional
it may cost the
city and maybe the applicant should be asked to pay additional funds if more
studies are reqi
iced. We would like thetity Attorney to look into this oudot business. -It '
doesn't seem t
be a valid use, as Nancy said, that an outlot can be used as a commercial
business in a r
to determine th-,
sidential area. That's kind of odd. It's clear additional exploration is needed
suitability of the land for septic systems and again, just in summary, the ,
Planning Commission
should really table this issue while we clear up what this minimum 2
1/2 acre per to
opposed to dev
business and get these funny numbers all out of the way. Again, we're not
lopment but we really would like to see that the 2 1/2 acre minimum per lot '
upheld here.
ank you.
Scott: Thank you.
Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes ma'am.
Deborah Graf
nder: Hi. My name is Deborah Graffunder and I am the property owner that
is directly east
'
iof Halla Nursery.
Scott: Could you give us your street address too please? I
Deborah Graff nder: Sure. 10001 Great Plains Blvd. I've lived across from the nursery for
15 years. It's my property where TH 101 has a sharp turn. I'm feeling, I wish my husband
was here tong it. He's in Canada fishing and I can't even contact him but bear with me.
Mancino: Ex c se me, could you show us where you live?
Scott: Just poi t it out.
Deborah Gr nder: That's my property. We purchased the home 15 years ago ... privacy
and the space .. extensively landscaped our home and our gardens. It's quite lovely. It's quite
park like. I h1 e a big concern here. I've heard Don make reference as to this is his 1
29 '
t
i
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, -1994._,
retirement. Well this is our home. We plan on staying there another 5 years. All of our
three boys have been born and raised there and I'm concerned that TH 101 is going to go
through part of my property or this private road is my road. It is on our property. There are
3 property owners. My husband and myself for the first stretch of the road. The next stretch,
' David Teich which farms his 5 acres next to us. And ... property owner. The Halla nursery
has an easement to use the road. I again don't mind having development either. I would
actually rather have some nice 2 1/2 acre home sites be there rather than living with the
' nursery and all that. - I'm -tired of the big trucks going down the road and the loud speaker.
You know I mean I just am. I just am. And so I'm not here to say I don't want this
development. Actually I wouldn't want mind it at all as long as it's done very tastefully.
' Lake Riley Woods is gorgeous. We wanted to move over there but we'd lose some of our
privacy and such. I just want to maintain my property and not have a public street bulldozed
by I think 70 some huge, gigantic Norway pines in front of my home that I've babied for 15
' years. Clipped around and ... I just had to get up here and say you know, who I am and my
situation. I guess that's it.
' Scott: Thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak? Yes ma'am.
Jan Sabinsky: My name is Jan Sabinsky and my husband Jim and I live on 775 Creekwood.
' And I just wanted to take this opportunity also to list some of the issues we have regarding
the proposed Halla addition. We too are not against the development if it's done in the
proper way and if the lot size is at least 2.5 acres. But we have some other concerns and we
' would just like those to be stated here tonight so that the Planning Commission can take them
into consideration. We would like'to leave the street named Creekwood that we live on.
Since we've moved there about 21 years ago we've changed our. address, or they've changed
' the address on us about 4 times and we don't, we're tired of...all the people that send us mail,
that our address is being changed again. We would not like you to issue the building permits
until the roads and streets are done. No construction traffic on Creekwood. I don't know if
you know the size of the Creekwood street but it's only about 20 feet wide. And there have
been big trucks that have made the wrong turn on that road. There have been other
' construction trucks on that road and that road isn't meant to take that kind of traffic. We
would not like to have any more out traffic on Creekwood. The Creek-wood going out onto
TH 101 is very dangerous. Every morning any given person that comes off Mandan or
' Creekwood could get hit. It's very difficult to see towards your left when you're coming out
because of that hill. The paving of Creekwood was paid primarily by the homeowners. Halla
paid only for 3 lots. And if he's going to be putting some more property on there, I would
like to see the other property owners get some refund on that. As I said before, Creekwood
is only 20 feet wide. It's too narrow for any hook and ladder fire trucks, if there should be
any fires. The water runoff from Creekwood goes into the ravine. Halla's have a pond
across the road from us and I believe it goes under Creekwood into the ravine. The traffic is
1 30
t
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Jan Sabinsky: okay. And then is there any update on the plans for the golf course to
31
'
backed up on County
4 Y mentioned the traffic in the morning and you can't et
Road 1 You g Y g
out onto CR 14.
When we come home between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., that traffic is backed up
for at least a '
e. Or more sometimes. I too have a concern about the intercom system
The intercom system
is on at 7:00 a.m. every morning and is on until 10:00 p.m. or later.
They play music
on the intercom system, which I don't appreciate. They have on occasion
run Bobcats right
outside of our property, from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 or later. They have ,
some noisy peacocks
that screech like a cat who's got their tail caught in a vice. It's very
annoying. Lack
of fire station or equipment on the south side of Chanhassen for: the size
houses that are
ing proposed. I understand that if there were any fires there, that they
would bring a f
e truck with water tanks; on them.. And we don't believe that for those size
houses that are
being proposed, that that's going to be adequate. There are no parks or place
for neighborhood
children to walk or ride bikes on that narrow Creekwood street. A lot of us '
walk on that road
and it's very, very dangerous from the traffic from the golf course. I know
that's not Don's
issue there but that road ds, you can't have two way traffic on that street.
The commercial
'
property, we're concerned, is mixed up with the residential area. I can't
believe that tffih
s allowable. I mean to have that size of a commercial property and built up
all around with
houses. They're going to back right up onto that property. I wouldn't want '
to buy a house
here. Concern about the chemicals that have been used by Halla running off
into the neighborhood
wells. There are noxious weeds growing along the wildflowers on both
sides of Creekwood
and the ravine area. I mean there's thistles and who knows what other '
TH 101
kinds of weeds
growing there. We would like to see Creekwood closed from and
make a new access
on the south side of Halla's new shed. Why weren't the homeowners
notified of the change
in plans for only 3 houses previously planned for coming onto '
Creekwood? There
have been several references to the park issue. I saw a sign on the staff
report that a little
area that was indicated to say that it was a park. Is there anything more
that you can tell
us about the park issue?: Is there going to be some property designated for '
parks, or a park
Al -Jaff: The Park
and Recreation Commission will be meeting on Tuesday to discuss this '
specific issue.
Jan Sabinsky:
Okay, Tuesday when? {� '
Al -Jaff: Augus
9th. I'm sorry, tomorrow. No, this August 9th. Tuesday, yes.
Jan Sabinsky:
Here at 7:30?
'
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Jan Sabinsky: okay. And then is there any update on the plans for the golf course to
31
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
develop? We haven't heard anything about that. I know that might impact the development
and the current people that live in that area right now. Oh, okay. So you don't know what
they're planning on? No word whether they're going to do anything with that property? Sell
it or keep it or, okay. Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Okay.
David Gatto: Yeah Joe. You know I represent a lot of the people that are here.
Scott: Can you step up to the microphone so we can get it on the public record.
David Gatto: Joe, once again, I'm representing an association of Lake Riley Woods
homeowners and a lot of those people are the people that are out here in the audience and we
just wanted one speaker. _
' Scott: We appreciate that.
David Gatto: So if you look around and people aren't saying anything.
Scott: Yeah, we appreciate that.
' David Gatto: And if I. didn't say enough for anybody, but go ahead.
Scott: Well we appreciate that. It's important that we get citizen comment and we
obviously hear from applicants. We like to hear from citizens and it's especially appreciated
when it makes sense to have people speak on behalf of an association. Obviously people may
or may not be within an association that are always welcome to come in. I'd like to thank
you all for doing that. If there's no one else who would like to speak.
Roger Anderson: Could I briefly summarize for the applicant?
Scott: No. No. No. Please sit. Could I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Comments, Jeff.
' Farmakes: I had some concerns about the drainfields and—seemed a little open ended to me.
I'd like to see those closed up.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Audience: Could you use the loudspeaker, we can't hear you.
Farmakes: Can you hear me?
Audience: No.
Scott: You're ai loud as it can go? Okay.
Farmakes: I'll j ist try to speak louder. I'm not quite certain, as I understand it, the 2 1/2
acres is the aver ige, correct? That's the way it's works. Maybe that could be explained or
that, you're referring to them as funny nnfmbers. Sometimes they do appear to be funny
numbers but the way that the ordinances are set up and the way that the situation with the
development of the city between the applicant and the city, they use a formula.
David Gatto: Jiff, I read the ordinance...
Scott: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed.
David Gatto: Well then the City Attorney ought to speak to it because the city ordinance
says minimum 2 1/2 acres per lot. I read it the day before yesterday.
Farmakes: That's correct but as I understand, there's also a commitment to the city and the
applicant. Is th it correct? Perhaps what'I'm saying is, perhaps you should discuss that with
city staff so that you're understanding of'' that also.
David Gatto: Well city staff also explained their extension expired 5 years after 1987...
Scott: Excuse rne, the public hearing is closed.
David Gatto: I understand but your commissioner is addressing me Chairman.
Farmakes: I'm not expecting a response. I'm just making a suggestion that you" and the city
are comfortable with the information that you have.
David Gatto: Pm not comfortable.
Farmakes:
didn't seem
left out to ii
about the is
�y. Getting back to the drainfields, I'm still uncomfortable with that report. It
lusive to me. There's a lot of things that this development seems to be still
pretation or subject to taking out. I'm not sure if there's that much concern
of 2 1/2 acres or 2.2 or 2.4 or so I'm not sure how that formulation works
33
t
t
i
IPlanning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
out and when the come u with it. The have a very large lot and then of course it adds to
Y P Y rY g
' these smaller lots that ... and we've been through that before on a lot of these different
developments. I'm not sure on the TH 101, I believe that the State will determine how that
lays out. Do we not make a suggestion on how we would like to see it? MnDot makes that
' decision. Is that how that works?
Scott: I think you can talk about the special status of Highway 101, again.
Mancino: And who pays for it and.
' Scott: Yeah, and how that works.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Trunk Highway 101 is classified
' as ... the applicant and/or city to petition MnDot to provide the funding for safety
improvements ... we've done similar improvements along TH 101 north of Highway 5 where
we have added on turn lanes. Right turn lanes on Cheyenne and Pleasant View. Those types
of intersections. MnDot does fund those 100%. The problem that, and so you're looking-at a
minimum of 2 years out right now for MnDot to consider that. They get all these requests
from different communities for safety improvements on the trunk highways. Throw them in a
kitty. Prioritize them based on safety and let each community know each year which qualify
and which don't. Right now ... minimum of 2 years out.
' Scott: Okay, and those we have already petitioned MnDot for those improvements?
Hempel: No, we have not.
Scott: Okay. So that's something that perhaps we would want to do? Soon.
' Hempel: ...appropriate with the plat approval.
Scott: Okay. So that's, okay.
' Farmakes: I'll P ass it on...
' Scott: Nancy.
' Mancino: I have a few questions and I may need to come back too. I guess I have some
questions about, this is for Sharmin. When we are doing a subdivision around a retail
commercial area.
' 34
�I
Planning
Meeting - August 3, 1994
Audience: Excuie me ... talk louder.
Mancino: Can you hear me?
Audience: No.
Mancino: Can }Io�u hear me? I feel like I'm screaming. Okay. When you, Halla has grown.
It has a new bui ing this year. Now I'm not saying it hasn't grown in acreage but it has
upgraded it's building. It is doing a good retail business. And then we put a subdivision
around it. Lots �f people who want to live in their homes and they want it to be quiet, as
we've all heard tonight. How do those two go together in the future? I mean we're talking
about, we've heard about outdoor speakers going on at 10:00 at night. We hear about 7:00 in
the morning and I've heard the music there because I was over visiting and actually took a
ride through the property. And it's not classical—or anything. I mean it's pretty hip music.
Don't we, I me we're going to get citizens in. We're going to get homeowners. We're
going to get peo le just like you and me in here all the time asking or requesting some sort
of a limitation oh hours. And does that need to be part of this or.
Aanenson: ...th nursery was there first. 'They're a grandfathered in here. If people want to
buy ... they have been grandfathered in.
Mancino: But are these hours grandfathered in? I mean we have asked other commercial
areas. I'm thinking about the one that was here earlier, Admiral Waste. We have them hours
from Monday th�ru Friday.
Aanenson: The
Mancino: Sod,
Aanenson: The
Mancino: So v
Aanenson: We
Scott: But ther
Mancino: Wel:
establish some
know what it v
asked for an interim use permit so we have control over...
a grandfathered use mean that you can have any hours anytime?
limited to what they had when they were established.
is that?
trying to determine some of that right now.
there's also noise ordinances and that sort of thing.
I think it would be wise for Halla to work with the homeowners around and
>ort of, and have it written down and have it in the covenants so that people
ill be and get that straighten out before because I can see this becoming a
35
f
f
E'
i
1
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
bigger problem. Dave, I have a question for you about the Block 6. This is between Block 4
and Block 6 there is a future road in that southeast corner that abuts the bluff. And I know
that this isn't final roadway. You know exactly where it will go but I just wanted to share
my concern with where that roadway goes to the southern property which says future
development. It seems to cut into the bluff area. And I would like that to be studied and
made sure of the grading so that we keep, I think we have a new ordinance that says what, 40
feet away from top of the bluff.
Hempel: He's going to take a look at that. It does appear to encroach on the...
Mancino: So I'd like that added to our recommendations. Secondly Dave, how are we going
to be accessing in the future, and I see staff's concerns, the property to the south of Block 4.
I understand that future road going to the future development which leads to this but coming
a little more west but still east of TH 101 we have those 3 property owners and part of that
question is, their easement goes out to TH 101, is there room between the new Halla Nursery
Vista Road on TH 101 and the easement that these people live off of? And is there enough
distance between the two? Is there 300 feet? Doesn't it have to be 300 feet?
Hempel: It appears based on this drawing that there is the 300 foot separation on the access
point. MnDot does have control on accesses onto trunk highways.. jurisdiction to grant this
access ... and that's why, if I could back up to your first concem.with access to the property
south of Block 4 and south of that private driveway, that's where in the staff report we
thought it was prudent to make use of the current road alignment. That it's better to expand
on it to serve properties to the south as well as the subdivision for Halla. The plat
configuration on the east side can very easily be rearranged to accommodate this and to just
circle ... We'd be happy to look at the applicant to demonstrate... that access that private road.::
We have received numerous complaints as far as maintenance goes :on that road. It's kind of
a ... not even a city road.
Mancino: Well I agree with that recommendation. I think that has to be looked at. And I do
support keeping that slope for the conservation easement and allowing no penetration into
there without a lot of grading. I think that is the one area and it is the only area that we're
asking to keep in it's natural state with the trees there. Sharmin, are we applying the tree
preservation ordinance on this? I mean what percentage needs to be?
Al -Jaff: ...landscaping plan has not been submitted with the application and that is one, of the
conditions of approval.
Mancino: Thank you. Again I'd like to thank staff for a very, very comprehensive report
and good recommendations. Thank you.
36
Planning
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: Okay,
outlots I believe
identified future
B?
Meeting - August 3, 1994
following up on the outlot situation. You mentioned that there are two
in the report. But I don it see, I only see Outlot A as identified. Is this area
development in the southeast corner of the parcel, is that considered Outlot
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Ledvina: Is tha right? Am I misreading that or is that labeled on the plan? Or I didn't find
it.
Al -Jaff: ...as an outlot and we're recommending that it be...
Ledvina: Okay, so.
Don Halla: I don't own that property.
Scott: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed.
Ledvina: So that's not part of the plat?
Don Halla:
Ledvina: It's not part of the plat. Future development.
Scott: Could you direct that question to staff please?
Al -Jaff: It was ..part of the plat...
Ledvina: I thought it was part of the plat too. It's indicated here on our drawings as part of
the-plat. So it's not part of the plat?
Al -Jaff: Well the 102 acres includes that piece of property.
Ledvina: Okay. And they don't own it and it's not part of the plat.
Scott.
• Well then has it been used in the density calculations? ...okay, wait a second.
Ledvina: But �ere's an error in the density calculations then if that's not part of the plan.
37
17�
IJ
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: They don't own it and it's not part of the plat yet it was used to calculate density?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Scott: Correct, okay.
Ledvina: Going onto the southeast comer of the development. There's a small area. It's
about, a little more than 2 acres. What is that area? It's not identified as a lot but it's
identified within the plat.
Al -Jaff: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question.
Ledvina: The area in the very southwest corner of the parcel. It's not identified as a lot yet,
what is that?
Al -Jaff: There's an existing single family home.
Ledvina: Okay. Is the—to identify that as' part of that in terms of the Block and Lot numbers
and such?
Al -Jaff: It is part of the overall plat. It was approved on July 9th, 1989. This parcel right
here.
Ledvina: Alright. It wasn't clear to me what was on there. The, I'm going to jump around a
little bit but the situation with Creekwood. I know for one of the residents that spoke, one of
the staff recommendations is that the name of Creekwood remain the same so we're tracking
with the residents on that. The situation with the widening of Creekwood, is that going to be
required as part of this development? Where we are bringing more traffic out into that area.
How are we dealing with that?
Hempel: As with this staff report now we did not recommend upgrading of Creekwood.
...last week it appears to be about 22 feet wide and a normal rural street is 24 feet wide
which would be the streets built within the Halla plat... There are grading and those type of
issues that would be ... with the plat.
Scott: But isn't the majority of the traffic, at least during the summer months, has to do with
Bluff Creek and not with any residents? The golf course. That's the access to Bluff Creek.
So adding 3 more homes is probably not going to change, I mean in the winter it will have a
slight impact but during the summer, it probably won't.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - August 39 1994
Hempel: ...probably add 8 more homes.
Ledvina: Yeah, 8 homes. All of Block 2. Actually Block 1 and Block 2. So essentially ,
your view of the situation though is that the existing situation is adequate in terms of the
width of the pavement. You did mention that there will be some grading and drainage '
improvements ori the north side of that road?
Hempel: That's correct—but we have not` proposed to do widening or improving—what's '
there. ...an improvement at the intersection of Trunk Highway 101. F•
Ledvina: Okay. I had a question in the staff report and maybe I didn't read this properly but '
it seems to say that if Outlot A is planed as a lot, they would not have access to TH 101.
Now I've got to maybe go back to the staff report and maybe if I could point this out.
Maybe I'm just not interpreting this correctly. Page 7 on the bottom of the last full '
paragraph. It say s since no further access will be allowed off of Trunk Highway 101,
provisions for 1 oping two street systems i through Outlot A from Golfview Circle or Golfview
Court should be explored by the applicant. Does that mean that you're closing the access to
TH 101 from O tlot A?
Hempel: The intent there was to provide a looped street in the future when you subdivide the '
nursery by itself. Maybe 10 years down 'the road if they ever decided to replat.
Scott: Well tha 's not going to affect their ability to do business or anything like that. '
Hempel: Not at this time, no. '
Ledvina: Okay Well I noted that that was one of your ideas in terms of the future
development but it wasn't identified as a';' condition. Do you think it's appropriate as a
condition? As t relates to future development. Maybe MnDot would take care of that by '
their review of my future development in saying that you've got on here. You've got one
here. There's n�o way you can, you know everything's going to have to be internal after that.
But is there so ething that we should do here? '
ml _ -.
Hempel: I believe condition number 27 ,on page 18. '
Ledvina: Okay, there it is. I guess through Oudot A. Maybe you should make it a little
more emphatic terms of the no further access will be allowed off of TH 101. I think that '
really gets to the point of what we're trying to say right there, right? I mean you're saying
that it can loop through there but you're! not saying that you can't have the outlot.
39 1
.1
1
L�
Planning Commission Meeting - August .3, 1994
Hempel: That's what we're predicting...
Ledvina: I know that's what you mean in the condition but maybe it can be a lot clearer. A
little more clear. Now I'm a little bit unclear as to being on the road issue. TH 101 itself,
where that hairpin curve is. What's shown on the plat is essentially a straightening of that
curve. Now, and you seem to indicate that the city has right -of -way now for that
improvement of that curve. What's the situation there?
Hempel: That's correct. The previous plat submitted back in '89, the city did require that
the applicant dedicate future road right -of -way for the upgrade of TH 101. 120 foot wide
strip of land. That has been dedicated.
Ledvina: That's from the property owner from the east?
Hempel: That's from the Halla's. From the property ... plat has not been dedicated yet.
Ledvina: So half of that. Half of that area is dedicated.
Hempel: Right, the north half through the proposed plat.
Ledvina: Alright, okay. And when would th at upgrade occur? I mean if you could look into
your crystal ball, is that 10 years? 5 years? What are you saying?
Hempel: It depends on the.-..development pressure. As traffic increases with development.
Ledvina: Is this going to be another one of those safety kind of things? Because this looks
like a more serious alignment issue.
Hempel: That's correct. This was not going to be...
Ledvina: Okay. The system for, the situation with the individual soil treatment systems, the
information that's provided in the staff report certainly leads one to believe that there's a lot
of work to be done here. And it's kind of a catch -22 scenario with the developer and I
understand that because he's got to spend the money to go out and do the soil borings and all
the evaluations but then he's got to go back and then set the property lines and it's kind of a
back and forth process and if those don't quite work, you know he ends up going back out in
the field again. But I think, and I know that's a bad situation but I think this isn't your
normal site in terms of that scenario. Or a normal scenario for siting septic systems. You
have all the pre - existing uses here that have disturbed the soils. Poor soils generally to start
out with, as I understand. And I guess I know we have in the conditions, condition number 8
0
Planning
Meeting - August 31 1994
essentially cover the requirements here. ,I think, I don't know. Do we have essentially 5
conditions but I uess the last situation isl if you've got a platted lot and you can't find the
septic site on it, ado you just go ahead and say, all of a sudden the lot is, or not all of a
sudden but you y that the lot is unbuildable.
Aanenson: We on't give preliminary plat approval. We never give final plat approval until
all these conditi 1 ns are demonstrated to our satisfaction. So what we're, the position that
we're saying is -hat yes, there's a lot of conditions. There's a lot of work to do:= What we're
saying, based on the fact that he has done a lot of septic site exploration based on the two
previous...give preliminary plat approval until he demonstrates that he can meet all these
conditions... Wg wouldn't create a lot unless he can meet...
Ledvina: Okay, I didn't know that. I thought this was going to be carried all the way
through until the time when the lot would be.
Aanenson: No no. And then until these conditions are met, we wouldn't go forward.
That's why ther6's a lot of conditions.
Ledvina: Okay Just a point of clarification for condition number 22. It says Outlot D. I
think you mean Pond D, is that correct? As it relates, you're talking about the drainage and.
Condition number 22, page 17. Fourth condition here.
Hempel: Actually the point of clarification ... I guess, this is the previous plat that was
approved back in '89. The development will retain ownership of the piece that's right
adjacent to the avine where the storm water drains underneath Creekwood. It drains off a
ravine. They ould like to acquire or have the applicant dedicate to the city a drainage
utility easement sometime in the future when we need to develop a storm sewer system to
resolve that erosion that's occurring down in the ravine...
Ledvina: Oka. So this is near Creekwood. It's not by Pond A necessarily?
Hempel: I'll show you on the map. * Ak
Ledvina: I might ht have misread my map but.
Hempel: Actu, ly...down here...
Ledvina: Do
Hempel: Yes.
have that map? Is it an 1 :8 1/2 x 11 map?
41
11�
n
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Ledvina: But if it's not identified on our plans here, how do we deal with that?
Hempel: It's still a lot of record...
Ledvina: But if these are our reference documents here.
Hempel: Basically what I'm trying to say is ... runoff or the volume of runoff will increase.
Therefore causing downstream drainage improvements ...eventually constructed.
Ledvina: Yeah, I'm tracking with you. I guess just in terms of the nuts and bolts of this
thing I'm just wondering, because I didn't really take a look at that. I didn't, well I'll let that
go. The situation with Resource Engineering and the reimbursement. Is that reimbursement
to the city, is that a typical thing and should that be done in this case maybe for future
thoughts associated with evaluation of those sites? What's your reaction to that?
Kirchman: We've had Mr. Halla establish an escrow fund and if his escrow fund is depleted
we add additional funds to it to pay for Resources Engineering.
Ledvina: So in the past he has been reimbursing the expenses of Resource Engineering?
Kirchman: That's correct.
Ledvina: Okay. And that's standard operating procedures?
Kirchman: That's correct.
Ledvina: Well I think overall this is a very complicated plat and there's a lot of specific
things that are going on here. It's a very beautiful piece of property :and it's going to be a
very nice area to live in certainly for the new residents here. I think that I would like to see
this thing moved forward but in my opinion, at this point, I think we need a little more work
with getting closer on some of these conditions. I'm a little bit uncomfortable in terms of our
calculations and I think many of these things can be resolved.
Scott: Dave, can I put you on the spot for a second? That piece of property that's slated or
identified as future development looks like it's about 450 by I don't know, 600 or something.
If that piece of property is 14 acres, maybe 13 acres. If it's 15 acres, that makes the density
2.3 so I guess in my mind too, I mean that can obviously be changed. They can take out a
couple of lots and make some of them larger to meet it but as this stands right now, just from
my rough mathematics, it doesn't meet the density requirement. But I mean that's, once
again, that's something that can be changed. But can I have a motion please?
42
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Ledvina: I would move that we table the preliminary plat, Case # 86 -31 SUB to subdivide
102.73 acres mt 36 rural single-family lots and two outlots, Great Plains Golf Estates. ,
Scott: Is there a second? Would you like to second that? Okay, I'll second that motion. Is
there any discussion? i
Mancino: Yeah I think my discussion would be that we send it on with our various
recommendation and if for any reason it,:does not meet the individual sewer, septic, that it '
will come back ause it will have to be redrawn. The plat will have to be redrawn so that
those mounds ca i be installed and will be here. If there's any significant changes, it will
come back in front of the Planning Commission. ,
Farmakes: I agree. I think the conditions cover the open ended parts with preliminary. I
think it gives staff the idea what information we're looking for I guess when it comes back as i
a final plat.
Ledvina: Well initially thought that when I was looking at this and I know that staff has
worked hard in developing these conditions. I don't think that's unreasonable. I guess I
would withdraw my motion at this time.
Scott: Okay. C?an I have a new motion please?
Mancino: I mi
approve the pry
on the plans d�
a, b, c, 8, a, b,
26, 27, 28, 29,
work together
on the bluff.
1 unit per 2.5
future develop:
Ledvina: A
Mancino: Yes.
with a little support from others, I move that the Planning Commission
ninary plat for Subdivision #86 -31 for Great Plains Golf Estates as shown
I June 6, 1994 subject to the following conditions. As is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
d, e, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, a, b, c, 25,
), 31, 32, 33. And I'd like to add condition 34. That staff and applicant
make sure that the future road in the southeast corner of the plat not. infringe
at it adheres the new bluff ordinance. Number 35. Recommendation. that the
e is based on the actual land to be platted. Specifically does not include the
:nt area which is not owned by Don Halla: And have I missed anything?
amendment?
Ledvina: I would like to amend condition number 27 to indicate that, to add that for future
development of currently identified Outlot A, there shall be no additional access granted for
Trunk Highway, 101.
43
I]
U
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: Do you accept that?
Mancino: I do. And I would like to add another recommendation. 37, that the retail
commercial area have covenants with the proposed new landowners and it tells the opening
and closing times so that people up front know when the opening and closing times is of the
retail commercial area. What days of the week. The hours. What kind of activity will go on
and if those are changed, it has to meet the.approval of the landowners in the subdivision.
Scott: Especially with the loudspeaker and equipment operation. Okay. It's been moved and
seconded that we act on the motion. Is there any discussion? Any additional discussion. All
those in favor of the motion.
Ledvina: Excuse me Mr. Chairman. I don't know that, did we second the motion?
Mancino: I don't know.
Farmakes: I'll second the motion.
Scott: Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86 -31 for Great Plains Golf Estates as
shown on the plans dated June 6, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the
city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or
greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
2. The applicant shall work with the . City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size.
The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a
conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead
or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall
not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of
the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
3. Lot 4, 5, 7, and 8 Block 3, shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation
plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to
require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation.
44
Planning Commit
Meeting - August 3, 1994
A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to
grading.
4. The turning iadius of a fire apparatus iaccess road shall be designed; shown on site plan;
and, approved by the Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department.
5. Dead end access ess roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with Chanhassen
Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning around -of fire
apparatus.
6. Fire apparatus access road 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. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings. This
applies to h mes which are in excess''of 150 feet of State Hwy 101.
7. Street name
a.
Maple(
name.
b.
The strc
Halla N
Drive.
c.
Renamc
8. Building D
a.
Use Ca
b.
Submit
identiif
c.
Stake a
locatio
d.
Provide
f e. Revise
)urt is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple" in the
.t between Hwy. 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive and
rsery Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla Vista
"Golf View Circle." Submit alternative name.
partment conditions:
ier County licensed septic site evaluator.
ioring logs of borings done on each proposed ISTS site with a unique .
ation for each to Inspections Division.
�d identify proposed property lines, proposed ISTS sites and pert: and boring
a preliminary evaluation report on the ISTS sites from Resource Engineering.
he preliminary grading plan to show standard dwelling type designations for
I house pads.
45
t
iPlanning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
9. The applicant will need to provide revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 100-year
PP P Y
' storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality and quantity ponds
in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall retain on site the predeveloped runoff rate as
' well as provided interim water quality and quantity ponds. The applicant shall provide
detailed pre - developed and post - developed storm water calculations for existing and
proposed storm water basins. In addition, water quality pond design calculations shall be
1 based on Walker's pondnet model.
10. The streets shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City
Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans shall be
designed in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail
plates.
11. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
' necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with final plat conditions of approval.
12. The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in the
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior
to or concurrent with wetland fill activity or excavation in future phases of the project.
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army
Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply
with their conditions of approval.
14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for
all storm water drainageways and ponding areas lying outside the street right -of -ways.
The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be
given for access for maintenance of the storm water ponding areas.. Outlot A shall be
platted as a lot and block.
' 15. The applicant's engineer shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be
' submitted to the City for review and formal approval.
16. The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk
highway right -of -ways. The berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slopes along
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Trunk Highway 101 right -of -ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all
proposed grading as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction. '
The applicant's engineer shall work with staff in developing a revised storm drainage
plan to accommodate plat revisions.
17. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands ,
shall be minimum of three feet above the 100 -year high water level. All storm
water po ids shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water
level anc no more than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety
a. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery
47
18.
The The outl
t from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re- routed and directed
through
and "B."
,
19.
Existing
g
wells and septic stems'; on the site which are not to be utilized shall be
P Y
properly
abandoned in accordance with City or State codes.
'
20.
The applicant
t shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity
sp
fees bas
in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The
fees in lieu of land or construction shall be
requiren
ent for cash permanent pond
based upon
the schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
21.
The app
icant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction
and shall relocate or abandon the drain file as directed by the City
Engine
.
'
22.
The developer
shall convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for
future construction
of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Great Plains Golf
'
Estates.
23.
Ponding
facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the
plat has
been revised to accommodate staff' changes in the plat's street and lot
configuration.
The developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with
revised
detailed storm sewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm
,
drainage
system on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat.
24.
The applicant
shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety
,
a.aw�iav
w�nnfe•
a. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery
47
L
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant is also
proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff
' recommends that the existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to
improve sight lines and berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
' b. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive
shall be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet
MnDOT standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
1 c. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose
sight distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by the
' applicant's engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the posted
speeds.
25. The applicant shall be required to re- excavate all unacceptable materials in the ravine
on Lot 3, Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing
storm drainage pipe (24 -inch CMP) with concrete pipe.
26. The applicant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D ") to
' accommodate the existing significant trees that are alive yet.
27. The applicant shall provide for the future looping of the two street systems through
Outlot A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court. Outlot A shall have no
' additional access granted for TH 101.
I 28. Halla Nursery Vista road east of Trunk Highway 101 should be realigned to follow the
private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
' 29. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that
appropriate right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of
the minimum 100 -foot wide corridor for County Road 14.
t30. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from
County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
' 31. The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford
Road at the intersection of County Road 14.
' 32. The final P lat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way.
i
48
1
Planning
Meeting - August 3, 1994
33. Outlot A is currently used as the nursery business and should be platted into a lot and
block. a final plat should also'rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show
Lot 1, B ock 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3. Block 1, Great Plains
Golfvie Estates.
34. That W ff and applicant work together to make sure that the future road in the
southeast corner of the plat notL infringe on the bluff. That it adheres the new
bluff ortlinance.
35. The 1 unit per 2.5 acre is based on the actual land to be platted. Specifically
does no include the future development area which is not owned by Don Halla.
36. Covena is be provided for the new property owners informing of the days and
hours of operation of the retail commercial site and if any changes are made to
those hours and days, that the property owners be informed of such changes.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: Any pecple who are here tonight, please follow your issue. You'll have the
opportunity to xpress your concerns, ideas, comments to the City Council. And once again,
this is not final approval of the project at all. This is the first phase. Basically what it does
is it gives the developers a little bit more certainty that the project is moving ahead so they
can then invest additional dollars to answer some of the additional questions that we have.
Thank you all very much for coming.
49
F
0
t
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, August 3, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Don Halla's Great Plains
Golf Estates
Developer: Don Halla
Location: East. of Hwy. 101 and South
of Pioneer Trail
.PUFF
REEK
4RK
foe
It, q1; rll��o
AUTHOR[
01
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to subdivide 46.5 acres into 36 rural
single family lots and one outlot, Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates, located south of County
Road 14 (Pioneer Trail), and west and east of Highway 101 (Great Plains Blvd.).
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sham-dn at 937 -1900, ext. 120. If
you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning
Department in advance of the meeting Staff will provide copies to the Commission
RR
1
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 21, 1994. Jq
I
I
PAUL ZAKARIASEN
600 WEST 96TH STR
CHANHASSEN, MN
KYLE L. COLVIN
701 WEST 96TH STl
CHANHASSEN, MN
CHUCK E. WORM
760 WEST 96TH STl
CHANHASSEN, MN
CLIFFORD SIMONS
601 WEST 96TH STl
CHANHASSEN, MN
RONALD LANDIN
710 WEST 96TH STl
CHANHASSEN, MN
MARK HALLA
770 CREEKWOOD
Chaska, MN 55318
STEPHEN WILKER
621 WEST 96TH STl
CHANHASSEN, MN
WESLEY DUNSMORE
730 WEST 96TH STRE
CHANHASSEN, MN
GARY E. ANDERSON
725 CREEKWOOD
Chaska, MN 55318
DALE GUNDERSON
845 CREEKWOOD
Chaska, MN 55318
JAMES CHURCH
611 WEST 96TH STREET
17 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROLLIN FAHNING
720 WEST 96TH STREET
17 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DON HALLA
670 CREEKWOOD
17 CHASKA,l MN 55318
KEN PUNG
620 WEST 96TH STREET
17 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLIAM! HEINLEIN
721 WEST 96TH STREET
17 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
17
317
C.A. VOGEL
815 CREEKWOOD
Chaska, MN - 55318
JIM AND TERI BYRNE
700 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PAUL JEURISSEN
750 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES W SABINSKI
774 CREEKWOOD
Chaska, MN 55318
DANIEL SCHATTBERGER
10241 MANDAN CIRCLE
Chaska, MN 55318
THEODORE HASSE
630 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
Chaska, ,MN . 55318 '
RALPH FREUDENBERG
631 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TIM ERHART
775 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
,
GARY BENDZICK
731 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
'
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
SPENCER L. BOYNTON
'
777 Creekwood
Chaska, ,MN . 55318 '
RALPH FREUDENBERG
631 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TIM ERHART
775 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
HARRY E NIEMELA
2901 WASHTA BAY ROAD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
WALTER WARREN
610 WEST 96TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES PEDERSEN
RICHARD DERHAAG
711 WEST 96TH STREET
Chaska, MN 55318
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
HARRY E NIEMELA
2901 WASHTA BAY ROAD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
DAVID S. JOHNSON
511 LAREDO LANE
PO BOX 492
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES PEDERSEN
10300 MANDAN CIRCLE
'
Chaska, MN 55318
'
LAVERNE A LYNCH
GUY RONALD MUNDALE
MAGDY EBRAHIM
925 CREEKWOOD
10260 MANDAN CIRCLE
4617 GRAND AVENUE SO
Chaska, MN 55318
Chaska, MN 55318
MR4NEAPOLIS, MN 55409
'
ROGER NOVOTNY
CHARLES LEFLAR
JAMES BECKER
18430 HARROGATE DR
10220 MANDAN CIRCLE
10291 MANDAN CIRCLE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
Chaska, MN 55318
Chaska, MN 55318
'DAVID
R ERICKSON
520 PINEVIEW COURT
CHARLES FRAZER
540 PINEVIEW COURT
RICHARD ASPLIN
541 PINEVIEW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
David Halla
Boyd Peterson
Current Resident
Great Plains Blvd.
325 Pioneer Trail
305 Pioneer Trail
'10095
Chaska, MN 55318
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Scott E. Fiedler
Jeffrey Dypwick
Sharon Gatto
#21 Briarwood
10300 Great Plains Blvd.
9631 Foxford Road
1
3670 Gettysburg Ave. S.
Chaska, MN 55318
Chanhassen, MN 55317
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
1
I
t