CC Minutes 08-12-2013Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
44.The developer’s engineer shall model the watermain extension for fire flow demand to the
development to ensure the watermain pipe size is adequate.
45.Fire hydrants are required every 400 feet, and gate valves are required every 800 feet.
46.This property has outstanding assessments from previous improvement projects that were
deferred due to the property’s Green Acres status. Altering the zoning for this property will
cause the assessments to come due.
47.Water and sewer trunk and hook-up fees are to be collected with the development contract.
48.A permit is required for any work within the MnDOT or Carver County right-of-way.
49.A temporary construction easement will be required for the installation of utilities within
road right-of-way.
Miscellaneous Conditions:
1.The applicant shall work with staff on minor plan modifications.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Resolution #2013-39: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City
Council approve a Resolution removing property from the Rural Service District. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
TH
PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: SOUTH OF WEST 86 STREET, NORTH OF TH 212 AND
EAST OF TH 101; APPLICANT: J & S VENTURES 1, INC: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE
MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW AND
MEDIUM DENSITY; REZONING FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND
MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R4) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-
RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R); PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 13.22 ACRES INTO 16 LOTS AND 2
OUTLOTS WITH VARIANCES; SITE PLAN REVIEW; AND WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item also was heard by the
th
Planning Commission on July 16 and they did recommend approval. The subject location is actually at
th
the end of West 86 Street, abutting against 212. The existing condition of the site is, it’s encumbered by
a wetland. It’s actually in shoreland district of Rice Marsh Lake which I’ll show in a little bit more detail.
There’s 13 acres of wetland. We did talk about this in the concept, when this came in because it was a
little bit problematic to try to get the lot sizes to work on there so we actually up zoned this property. In
an up zoning we still had to maintain the 4 units an acre and you’ll see how that plays out as we move
through the design of the project itself. So as I mentioned it’s in the shoreland district, so you can see the
different tiers of the shoreland district where it has different requirements for building within, lot size
requirements so again in order to accomplish what the developer wanted to do, we had to go to the
medium density allowed the small lot sizes and allowed some flexibility within the shoreland district
requirements. So anything within that 1,000 square feet, even if it’s a portion of a lot falls within the
shoreland district. So as I stated the existing land use was low density and the zoning then was RSF and
R-4 which did allow the 15,000 square foot lots or for the twinhomes also in the R-4. So to accomplish
again what the developer wanted to do, we have to do an up zone to get to the medium density so this
application, as you just stated Mayor, includes a land use amendment, a rezoning, a subdivision, variance,
27
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
site plan approval and a wetland alteration permit. So what we’ll be doing then is actually changing the
land use to the medium density and then the rezoning would then be for the PUD so again this is an item
that would have to go up to the Met Council then for approval, just as you did tonight approving the
apartment ones. This will have to go through that same process. So the proposed rezoning as I stated
would then be to the PUD. So the PUD in looking at what the, in order to accomplish the goals of the
developer then would be to give the setback variance from Highway 212. We have a longer cul-de-sac
length. Reduced front and side yard setbacks. Reduced road width right-of-way. A 10,000 square foot
lot minimum. A 60 foot lot width. 100 foot lot depth and then a 30% hard surface coverage. Elimination
of a sidewalk and so the developer would get enhanced, provide enhanced environmental features and
then the sound wall along 212 would also then be constructed tying into the Mission Hills subdivision
sound wall.
Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, real quick question if you go back up to that slide. While it calls for a 60
foot lot width and 100 foot lot depth, that’s only 6,000 square feet.
Kate Aanenson: That’s the minimums. They will be 10,000 square foot minimum lot size.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so the lot size would say, there would be no 60 by 100?
Kate Aanenson: I’ll spend a little bit, no there will not. The house plans will not fit on there and I’ll
show a little bit more in detail on that and that’s part of the attributes that we put into the PUD ordinance
to make sure all the houses that were proposed fit on the lots.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: So then this would become then the PUD standards looking again what the developer
wanted to do so we have the setback from the 212. We have perimeter setbacks. Front yard setbacks.
The 25 feet. Then we have a 5 and a 10 which we’ve done in some of the other RLM districts. Minimum
15 but some at 5 and a 10. The rear yard allowing some 15 foot for accessory structures. Then each
individual lot be at 30%. Some more detail was actually put to that, in that 30% calculated the different
house plans and how they fit on each lot so that was the one issue that we want to make sure it’s clear to
the developer that not all the house plans presented will fit on all the lots so we want to make sure that the
buyers going into this type of a home, the square footage and the type of home that these are, understand
that there’s limited ability to add to these lots. For example we calculated typically what the driveway
hard cover, because the proposal that was put in by the applicant just included the square footage of the
home so we also have to add for the driveway hard cover and then a back patio or something like that so
those were all contributed to, or added to, to get to what we believe is a reasonable use so taking the
minimum 10,000 square foot lot. Mayor, that’s where that comes in. So that would be the minimum.
And then the minimum 60 foot so some of these may be narrow but then they would be deeper so that
kind of goes into how those different house plans fit on those lots. So then this then becomes the
ordinance that we would be adopting with this. So the subdivision itself includes the 12 lots and, excuse
me. 16 lots. Yeah, 16 single family lots and then the long cul-de-sac which was the variance. Then there
were some other impacts to the wetland but I’m going to turn some of the specific environmental features
over to the city engineer, but these would be the lots themselves and the orange is actually showing the
trail that would connect down to the trail that we’ll be discussing later tonight. But on the typical
setbacks again I just want to show this illustratively how we looked at that. Giving the variance on the 25
foot front yard, and this is a building envelope and I would say that none of those lots out there are perfect
squares. They’re all different shapes but this is illustratively how it would look. So within that we
identified which houses could fit on each and those were shown in your civil plans that were included in
the packet. The different types of houses that would go on those lots. Again we’ve used this before and
then this would, this is what was shown in your packet, the different style homes. Again I just want to
28
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
point out that those square footage that were shown on there do not include what we added for a driveway
and then for additional hard cover so we’ve identified which houses would go on each lot and those again
would be part of the requirements so we just want to make sure that the buyer going in there isn’t thinking
that they have the ability to add a big addition on in the future because there isn’t that much room on
these lots to accomplish that. So with that I’ll turn it over to the city engineer to kind of go through some
of the engineering issues.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Ms. Aanenson. Noise wall will be required by the developer to be constructed
for this development to meet the PCA requirements for residential homes. The proposed noise wall will
be consistent or similar to what’s currently out there today basically on the west property line. It’s a
wood, timber noise wall constructed with the 212 project. The noise wall would be built on an existing
berm that is currently along the south edge of the property which is in MnDOT right-of-way. The City
would have to enter into a cooperative agreement with MnDOT for construction and future maintenance
of this wall, consistent with the walls that were constructed with the 212 project so. As Ms. Aanenson
had indicated, the wetlands on this parcel are significant. About 27% of the property is encumbered by
wetlands. We have worked with the developer to try to minimize the amount of impacts to the wetlands
as much as we can. The impacts currently that only exist for this plan are circled here in the yellow.
Those wetlands would be mitigated, either on site or through a bank process. The City has worked again
with the developer on profiles of the roadway too to try to minimize the impacts to this, to the wetlands as
well. Drainage for this development is probably one of the most challenging that we’ve worked on in the
last couple of years here. With the wetlands in the area, the lack of city infrastructure to facilitate the
storm water conveyance system on and off the property, but we did come up with I think a workable plan
at this time. A majority of the current runoff does head to the, or a large portion of the property currently
heads off to the east to the MnDOT property at this location. With the proposed development a lot more
of the surface runoff will be heading north to a, through private property. Through a culvert that is in
disrepair and across another property and then down to Rice Marsh Lake eventually so there are two
storm sewer ponds proposed for this development. Infiltration basin and again we are trying to work
around the wishes of the developer and try to limit the amount of impacts to this area as much as we can.
Storm water. So one of the conditions that is in your packet for consideration is to obtain that storm
sewer easement through the property just adjacent to the north there to fix the culvert that’s currently in
disrepair. So with that, moving on to ground water. Staff did work with a developer on taking
piezometer readings or water table readings in this area. As we had indicated there’s lot of wetlands out
here. High water tables so we were concerned about what the finished floor elevations would be in
relation to the ground water to meet our 3 foot minimum separation requirement. As indicated again the
developer has raised the road up and some of the lots in this area to try to accommodate the high water
tables in this area. It is our proposal that if, when the buildings are being excavated, the footings
established, that the building officials look at you know where the water tables at that current time and
potentially make adjustments to those final grades if necessary. With that.
Kate Aanenson: With that we’d be happy to answer any questions that you would have on the project
itself.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you for the report. Questions for staff.
Councilman McDonald: I’ve got just one question. You had mentioned during the presentation that you
know the buyers of the home would be informed that you know they’re not going to be able to add a lot
because, add additional features to the home. How are we going to do that because we’ve had trouble
before in other areas of the city and getting that word across.
Kate Aanenson: That’s a challenge. If you look at the house plans that are on here, these are very nice
homes on lots that you know can accommodate the houses but not a lot of extra so we were hoping that
29
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
certainly the developer, the builder would communicate that well, as we would on the permit when they
come through and that’s the best thing that we can do to try to communicate that. Not all of the applicants
look at the builders but we try to communicate to them.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions. Ms. Aanenson, there were modifications to this plan that’s before us
this evening since we saw it in concept and also since the Planning Commission. Could you just
summarize for us those changes.
Kate Aanenson: I believe the.
Mayor Furlong: At least since the Planning Commission if we can’t compare it to the concept.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. This is probably the best one to look at. There was actually a sidewalk proposed
on the site that I think was causing a lot of consternation of access to that. Because of the length of the
cul-de-sac and the actual maintenance, when you get up into this area as you’re not going past any houses
and the fact that it may not be maintained, we decided to eliminate that sidewalk so that would be one of
the biggest changes. I think some of the.
Paul Oehme: The trail location.
Kate Aanenson: The trail, yes. Sorry, the trail location. That moved too and I think that’s probably more
illustratively at this one too.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So again there is a long list of things that need to be done yet before this project go
forward the least of which needs to be the Comp Plan amendment to accomplish this goal and then just all
the other permitting things. There’s, the developer has some work to do just kind of crossing the t’s,
dotting the I’s to make this go forward so, it can be accomplished but.
Todd Gerhardt: Over 42?
Kate Aanenson: I think so. I think we beat that one.
Mayor Furlong: Is there, the variance relates to the length of the street being proposed, the cul-de-sac, is
that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a reasonable way to service this property without doing that?
Kate Aanenson: No, we looked at, you’ve got a single property owner to the north you know and so it
would be problematic. Those are long, large lots but they’re going to have trail on the back sides of those
so there really is no good way to service those. Again looking at the density, we think that it should be
okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so it’s not just a preference to design it this way. There really is no reasonable.
30
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
Kate Aanenson: Correct. If there was another reasonable way then we would certainly have tried to
make that happen.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here this
evening? Mr. Knoblauch, if you’d like to address the council. Good evening.
John Knoblauch: Good evening council, Mayor. I’m John Knoblauch, 1450 Knob Hill Lane,
Chanhassen. I’m developer and builder of, working on the Preserve with staff here. Just a couple
comments. The, unfortunately this drawing I kind of giggle about. There’s actually only, if you look at
the actual standing water is really only where that Outlot A is. The other wetlands are seasonal wetlands.
C and D on the south end. There’s also a wetland, a significant wetland on the east side right at the
MnDOT property on the east side. Just a mention on the borings that were done. We’ve been watching
the piezometer readings for ground water. 14 and 7 have shown higher levels than any of the other
piezometers that have been on site. Fortunately 1 through 12 are all full walkout lots. At least proposed
full walkouts. Typically when I build houses, full walkouts are not as likely to have water issues as a
lookout or a full basement so I believe with exterior drain tiling, interior drain tiling, I don’t see any
issues there on those lots. We have raised 4 of the lots to make dang sure that we got the 3 foot ground
separation right now and we did test right after our, I think we had a 4 inch and then we had 5 1/2 in 3
days and we did test right after that too so we’re pretty comfortable with our ground water information
that we have at this point. The only wetland impact, or the only wetland alteration is the road entry.
We’ve moved the cul-de-sac to the north to avoid any impact at all that, so really it’s just basically to
access the property we literally have to impact that wetland on the west side. The sound wall that is
proposed, we’re working with Shirley Walker who is the engineer who did the wall on the, she did the
3,000 foot wall on the townhome site and so she is very good at what she does and she’s working with
ITCO to finish the wall design, which actually we did get a final plan today on that and that will be
submitted to MnDOT shortly. I believe this week. One of our disappointing things with MnDOT right
now is that they reneged on allowing us to landscape the north side of the berms that are there. I would
hopefully encourage Jill Sinclair, the City Forester to, I would ask them to try to reconsider to allow us to
put some plantings. We had a number of plantings we wanted to move on site. There’s about 60 cedar
trees that we’d like to save that are anywhere from 6 to 10 feet and I was going to hire a tree mover to
save those and put them on the berm. Instead we had to kind of incorporate them in the rest of the project
but we would like to landscape the berms if we could get MnDOT to agree to that but I don’t know how
hopeful that is. As far as the single family lots that are proposed here, I just think it’s a very good use for
the site. Twinhomes, townhomes, you know more pressure in this area. This is a dead end area. The
acreage site to the north are bigger lots. You’ve got Mission Hills with nice homes. You’ve got the
townhomes there. This is a good use of this parcel. As far as the 10,000 square foot lots, I’ve been
building in Shakopee for about 22 years now. We’re very accustomed to 10,000 square foot lots. We
build mostly in Shakopee from 8,800 to 10,000. They actually don’t have, one subdivision we were in
there is 400 lots and there was nothing over 11,000 square feet so we’re very comfortable building in this
square footage. These lots are, the pad areas are 55 to 60 and will support a decent three car garage. I
believe our drawings show a 30 foot 3 car. A lot of the national builders build 28 foot 3 cars so we
definitely feel there’s adequate space on all these lots and they do vary a little bit and we’ll bring in some
different architecture if we, on the different type of lots that are there. There’s some longer ones up front
there that will be real nice homes. We’ll be able to show a lot of house on those instead of garage, which
a lot of folks don’t like as much garage to see so. You know as far as you know Chanhassen is
concerned, the neighbors are definitely in favor of this. It really more was a twinhome site but with the
lack of single family lots we feel this would be a great time for this project to move forward. Any
questions?
Mayor Furlong: Questions for Mr. Knoblauch? No. Thank you.
31
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
John Knoblauch: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Comments or questions for staff? Okay, let’s bring it to council for discussion.
Thoughts and comments. Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, no questions but I just, my observations are that staff and Mr.
Knoblauch have worked very hard to prepare this property for what I think will be a very, very good
addition for homes and I just think it’s going to be wonderful. I’m assuming Mr. Oehme that that cul-de-
sac is going to have a large enough range so that you could turn around an emergency vehicle or anything
like that.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct. It will be our standard cul-de-sac diameter.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, I think it’s just going to be wonderful and certainly the noise wall will
be necessary. I was going to ask Mr. Knoblauch, is that berm, is the berm, is it cyclone fence across the
top of the berm right now?
John Knoblauch: There’s just a regular 6 foot chain link.
Councilman Laufenburger: Chain link fence, okay.
John Knoblauch: It’s now a black chain link that I think was provided originally by MnDOT.
Councilman Laufenburger: And you would replace that with a noise wall, is that correct?
John Knoblauch: Yeah, that’s correct. Varies from.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knoblauch, if you could come up to the microphone for people watching at home.
John Knoblauch: Yeah, the noise wall, the plan that’s proposed right now varies on the west berm it’s 8
foot tall which puts the height of it at 926 elevation and right at this point it actually goes up 2 feet from
the 7 foot off the townhome wall and you know the nice thing about that is right now the homes, if they
don’t get any higher, that’s why we don’t, I don’t want the homes to get too high because right now on
the first I think 8 lots, if they were two story style homes the upper windows wouldn’t be able to see over
the wall and that’d be a nice feature for those folks. And this will be a huge help for the townhomes that
get a little bit of noise from, coming from the east to the west. I think that’s where there’s going to be a
huge benefit. We’re also closing up, a lot of people call it the hole but we’re closing up the hole with
about a 20 foot wall between the two berms and that’s where we seem to get a lot of noise kind of
shooting through there. We think that’s going to be a huge benefit. You know as far as to the east, the
trail’s really going to be a big plus for a lot of the folks. You know I can see some folks making a nice
loop off that trail, looping back around. I think Todd would refer to that more later but the Mission Hills
folks will have a really nice, about a mile loop to make to get, from their homes to go around. I think it’s
going to be a huge benefit for everybody involved over there.
Councilman Laufenburger: Well let me just continue. Thank you Mr. Knoblauch. My observations are
that you’ve done a good job to prepare this and thought of everything and looks like the adjustments that
you’ve made have been very accommodating so I think this is a good project. Look forward to it.
John Knoblauch: Thank you.
32
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
Mayor Furlong: Good. Thank you. Any other comments? Ms. Aanenson, if I could follow up, or Mr.
Oehme. One of the two. One of the comments that Mr. Knoblauch made, and I forgot to ask questions
when I asked if there were any questions and that relates to the plantings that he wanted to do on the, I
guess north side of the wall. Is that strictly a MnDOT?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. We worked, if you go, the one on Lakeside that was also adjacent to, we actually
changed our PUD standards on that because we had a greater setback and we said why are we setting this
so back, far back from the wall if they landscape it so we were able to work with that. It really comes
down to, they want the City in the first position. We don’t necessarily want to be in the first position on
some of that responsibility so it’s just something.
Mayor Furlong: First position with regards to?
Kate Aanenson: They would transfer the ownership to the City to maintain that and we would want to
transfer it to the HOA so those are some of the concerns we just need to work through.
Mayor Furlong: So it’s the maintenance of the landscaping?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So if I understand, MnDOT’s willing to allow it if the City takes responsibility
for it?
Paul Oehme: I have not had that conversation with MnDOT but I’m assuming that’s what they’ve said in
the past. Typically they don’t like to enter into agreements with third parties, developers, HOA’s. They
like to deal with the cities directly so we can make calls to MnDOT and see if they’d be willing to work
with us on additional plantings out there.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah we’ll work, similar to what we did on the other one. We’ll see where it goes.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sorry for that interruption. Comments from the council. Other comments?
No, Mr. Laufenburger I think said it well and recognized the hard work on both the part of Mr. Knoblauch
and the staff. I know this has been many meetings and many people have been involved trying to do
what’s best for this site and this looks like a very good result from that and so I think for all the reasons
that were stated tonight and considered the last time this came forward through the Planning Commission
and council, I think it’s a good project and deserves our support. If there are no other comments, would
somebody be interested in making a motion? Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor I move that the Chanhassen City Council
approves the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Low and Medium
Density, rezoning from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R-4) to
Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R), subdivision of the 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots
with variances, site plan review and wetland alteration permit subject to the conditions of the staff report
and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Oh, Mr. Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: Just one modification to that. Instead of subdivision can you replace that with
Preliminary Plat?
Councilman Laufenburger: So moved.
33
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
Mayor Furlong: So replace?
Todd Gerhardt: Subdivision of 13.22 acres.
Mayor Furlong: It would be.
Todd Gerhardt: Preliminary Plat of 13.22 acres.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. The motion’s been made with a substitution or the alternate language
suggested by Mr. Gerhardt. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Resolution #2013-40: Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the
the land use map amendment from Residential – Low Density to
City Council approve
Residential – Low and Medium Density with the following condition, and adoption of the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to Metropolitan Council determination of
consistency with system plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve
the rezoning from Residential – Low Density (R4) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4)
to Planned Unit Development – Residential (PUD-R) with the following condition; and
adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation and attached ordinance
rezoning the property.
1.Approval of the Rezoning is contingent upon approval of the final plat and execution of the
development contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve
the preliminary plat to subdivide 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots as shown in plans
dated received August 5, 2013with the following conditions, and adoption of the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1. All lots must comply with the following table:
34
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Maximum
Area Width Depth
Hardcover Notes
(square feet) (feet) (feet)
(square feet)
60 at
PUD 10,000 building 100 30 percent
setback
L1 B1 10,085 126 122 3,025 Wetland
L2 B1 10,001 90 108 3,000 Wetland
L3 B1 11,324 148 109 3,397 Wetland
L4 B1 10,281 76 143 3,084 Wetland
L5 B1 10,103 70 146 3,031
L6 B1 10,301 63 134 3,090
L7 B1 10,017 62 128 3,005
L8 B1 10,000 62 124 3,000 Wetland
L9 B1 10,187 62 129 3,056 Wetland
L10 B1 10,024 63 123 3,007 Wetland
L11 B1 65 (building Wetland
12,083 116 3,625
setback)
L12 B1 65 (building Wetland
10,017 118 3,005
setback)
L1 B2 108 Wetland, * area of neck
14,085* (building 132 4,225 (4,961 sq. ft.) excluded
setback) from lot area calculations
L2 B2 10,781 85 106 3,234 Corner lot
L3 B2 10,000 106 127 3,000
L4 B2 10,003 91 148 3,001
Outlot A 6.47 acres open
282,031
space/wetlands
Outlot B 1.09 acres open
47,560
space/wetlands
ROW 72,309 1.66 acres
TOTAL 576,299 13.23 acres
Wetland setback:
20 ft. buffer, 30 ft. principal structure, 15 ft. accessory structure.
Front:
25 ft.
Rear:
30 ft., accessory structure 15 ft.
Side:
10 ft. house, 5 ft. garage
35
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
2.All relocated trees shall be warranted for two seasons and replaced by developer if dead or
dying within that time period.
3.Advanced warning and speed advisory signs are required where the design speed is less than
30 mph.
4.The site plan and HydroCAD model must be revised to address the following comments:
a.Peak discharge rates are proposed to increase at the following locations:
i.Runoff leaving the overall site for the snowmelt events.
ii.Runoff leaving the western portion of Wetland A for the 2, 10 and 100 year design
events.
iii.Runoff leaving the site to the north of the eastern portion of Wetland A for the
snowmelt event.
iv.Runoff leaving the site to the north of the western portion of Wetland A for all events.
b.The drainage areas and/or curve number in the HydroCAD model must correspond to the
Drainage Area and Curve Number Table.
c.Directly connected impervious areas must be modeled separately rather than included in
the composite Curve Number computation.
d.The applicant must provide calculations (or submit a model) demonstrating that the city’s
requirements for water quality are satisfied.
i.If the event-based NURP standard cannot be achieved by dead pool storage, then (P8
or other) calculations should be based on equivalent annual removal efficiencies.
ii.If an iron-enhanced filtration system is included in the design, calculations should be
provided demonstrating the water quality treatment benefits of the BMP. Detailed
plans of the system should be submitted for review with the calculations.
iii.The report notes that the east pond is able to remove 87.8% of the phosphorus load.
This removal efficiency appears excessively high. It is anticipated that there is either
an error with the model inputs or the calculation was performed for a particular
rainfall event rather than annualized removal efficiency.
5.The developer shall obtain off-site easements over the existing swale and 18” culvert.
6.The developer agreed to replace the 18” culvert north of the site with a new pipe that
provides the same capacity.
36
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
7.The HydroCAD model must be revised so that the impervious surface of the lots is 30%.
8.If groundwater is encountered during site construction the lowest floor elevations must be
adjusted so that there is a minimum three-foot separation.
9.The grading plan must be revised to address the following comments:
a.The developer must obtain a MnDOT permit for the proposed grading within the
MnDOT right-of-way.
b.It is difficult to discern between the proposed contours, lot lines and setback lines. The
developer’s engineer is requested to change the drawing line weights.
10.Some homes may choose to install a privately-owned and maintained booster to provide a
higher water pressure.
11.The watermain shall be 8-inch PVC (C-900).
s
12.Prior to final submittal the developer must obtain allnecessary easement to install the
sanitary sewer off-site, to the north.
13.A portion of the trunk sewer and water hookup fees must be paid in cash with the final plat in
the rate in effect at that time.
14.The proposed location of the catch basin on the east side of the cul de sac must be shifted so
that it will not conflict with the pedestrian ramp to the trail between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1.
15.Street and utility plan and profile construction plans must be submitted with the final plat.
16.Outfalls into the easterly pond must be minimized to the greatest extent practicable.
17.Plan shall show proposed pond maintenance access and landscaping must not interfere with
pond maintenance access.
18.The applicant must apply for and receive an NPDES permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and provide evidence to the city prior to grading the site.
19.The Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared as a standalone
document and submitted to engineering for review and comment prior to final plat approval.
This SWPPP shall include a narrative, plan set and applicable details.
20.The SWPPP must include the required elements as listed in Part III of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater
Associated with Construction Activity (NPDES Construction Permit) and in the MPCA
SWPPP checklist.
21.A detailed erosion prevention and sediment control plan must be submitted for review and
approval per the requirements of Section 19-145 of Chanhassen City Code and the NPDES
37
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
Construction Permit. This should include, among the other listed requirements, all temporary
and permanent best management practices.
22.There is significant evidence of gully erosion at both off-site discharge locations. Rates must
be reduced below existing discharge rates or efforts must be taken to stabilize these discharge
points to prevent further channel incision and head cutting.
23.Wetland buffers are required around all wetlands on site. Extend buffer around wetland E.
24.Wetland buffer must be extended through all disturbed areas. A detailed vegetation
management plan must be developed showing how these areas will be permanently
stabilized.
25.A vegetation establishment and management plan must be developed and submitted for
review for all areas preserved as open space including those areas graded for the construction
of stormwater management practices and the installation of utilities that are above the normal
water level prior to final plat approval.
26.Minnesota Department of Transportation right-of-way is outside of the City of Chanhassen’s
WCA jurisdiction as MnDOT is their own LGU. Chanhassen’s review of wetland
boundaries ended at the property limits. The applicant must get all appropriate approvals
from MnDOT for work on the sound wall.
27.The development must comply with the MN Rules Chapter 6120 and the DNR must issue
their concurrence to this effect.
28.Estimated Surface Water Management Connection charges due at the time of final plat are
$69,983.50. Provide area of wetland buffer and preservation/volume reduction area after
development to accurately calculate credit.
29.Fifty-percent (50%) of park fees shall be collected in consideration for the dedication of Outlots
A and B. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission
and approval. At today’s rate these fees would total $46,400 (16 lots X $5,800 per lot/2).
30.Wetland nomenclature on plan set shall be amended to correspond with HydroCAD drainage
report and wetland replacement application.
31.The land owner and the selected contractor must provide a Landowner Statement and
Contractor Responsibility for Work in Wetlands or Public Waters form to the City prior to
working on the road crossing into the site. This form is available on the Board of Soil and
Water Resources website.
32.A detailed planting schedule and maintenance plan must be provided for the
preservation/volume reduction area.
33.Preservation/volume reduction area shall be protected from construction traffic, material
stockpiling and other construction related activities during site development. These
protection measures shall be shown in plans.
38
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
34.Signs shall be placed along the preservation/volume reduction area to protect the area from
encroachment after build out.
35.Seeded areas within the outlots shall be established and managed according to guidelines and
policies developed by the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources as are available on
their website.
36.Construction of the 8-foot wide neighborhood trail connection from the public street to the
southeast corner of the property.
37.The applicant shall comply with all MnDOT requirements for any work within their right-of-
way, i.e. noise wall, landscaping, etc.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
approve the Variances to allow a reduced setback from Highway 212 and a cul-de-sac that
exceeds 800 feet in length as shown in plans dated received August 5, 2013 with the
following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the variances is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment,
Subdivision, Site Plan Review, Rezoning and Wetland Alteration Permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
approve the site plan for a medium density development as shown in plans dated received
August 5, 2013 with the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact
and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of
consistency with system plan.
2.Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and
design standards.
3.Execution of the Site Plan Permit.
4.Approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
approve the wetland alteration permit as shown in plans dated received August 5, 2013
with the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation:
39
Chanhassen City Council – August 12, 2013
1.Wetland buffers are required around all wetlands on site.
2.A plan should be provided showing the location of all wetland buffer signs. These signs
shall be placed concurrent to the installation of erosion prevention and sediment control
BMPs except when grading is proposed at a buffer monument location.
3.The plan must meet the sequencing requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act. This can be accomplished by locating the sidewalk to the north side of the proposed
road and extending the regional connection between lots 11 and 12 of Block 1.
4.A completed Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form shall be provided with the
Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application for Water/Wetland Projects as well as a signed
and executed purchase agreement between the applicant and the bank holder.
5.Wetland nomenclature on plan set shall be amended to correspond with HydroCAD drainage
report and wetland replacement application.
6.
Approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan
Amendment, variances, Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Final Plat, and execution of the
Development Contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much everyone. Appreciate your continued hard work. Let’s
move now to the next item on our agenda.
RICE MARSH LAKE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS: CONSIDER AWARD OF BID.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Tonight we bring you good news
on two separate park projects. The first being the Rice Marsh Lake trail. The photo we see
there is the current connection point within the city of Eden Prairie. This is a bridge right down
at Highway 212 within the city of Eden Prairie and this was the last segment that they completed
two summers ago.
Mayor Furlong: Is that a back of a sign that says.
Todd Hoffman: Trail to be continued in the future.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Todd Hoffman: And the immediate segment coming directly at us will be another Eden Prairie
segment of trail which they are currently under contract with, with another contractor and so both
the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Chanhassen will be working simultaneously to complete
these final segments of the Rice Marsh Lake trail, which when complete will be a 3 mile trail
loop around Rice Marsh and will really just be one of the nicest trail experiences in the
southwest metro, if not in the metropolitan area in it’s entirety and so we’re very happy about the
bid award. So the City of Chanhassen project is to construct 4,200 feet of pedestrian trail and it
starts at our current terminus point near Mission Hills Drive. And so we have a trail at this
40