The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Staff Report 1-10-05 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227,1100 Fax 952,227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227,1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952,227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227,1140 Fax 952,227,1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227,1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952.227.1400 Fax: 952,227,1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.227.1130 Fax: 952,227,1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952,227,1300 Fax: 952,227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952,227.1125 Fax 952,227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 5 - MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: ~. January 10,2005 SUBJ: Planning Case 04-36, Pinehurst EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The developer is requesting Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single-Family Residential (RSF) and preliminary plat approval for a 43-10t Subdivision with Variances for private streets- Pinehurst. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 7, 2004 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to approve the rezoning and proposed subdivision. The summary and verbatim minutes are item 3a of the City Council packet for January 10,2005. The Planning Commission amended conditions 4. d., 5 0., q. and r. and added conditions 4. e. and f. and 6., 7., 8. and 9. as follows: 4. Natural Resources Coordinator Conditions: d. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 09/17/04. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2: 1 diameter inches. The applicant will work with staff to make every effort possible to preserve trees beyond what's in the tree preservation plan. e. Work with City Forester to ensure that the evergreen hedge in the proximity of the retaining wall survives. f. The applicant will replace the arborvitae hedge along Galpin Boulevard if it is lost due to installation of the right turn lane. The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks, A gœat place to live, work, and play, Mr. Todd Gerhardt Pinehurst Rezoning and Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 January 10,2005 Page 2 5. Engineer's Conditions: o. A teæpsf8f)' standard cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the north end of Street B 81søg ,,':i!fi 8 aigø atatiøg tRat !fie FS8S ,,':ill Be eJlteøsBs iø tR8 ~. p. Eliminate Lot 27 and shift the proposed pond to the north to eliminate some of the retaining wall. q. The applicant shall work with staff to further investigate the feasibility of a sewer connection before action is taken to delete the western sanitary sewer line; all sanitary sewer must drain to Manchester Drive. r. Revise Street C to be a standard elil se a88 28-foot width. 6. Geotechnical testing report and recommendation will be required and needs to be provided to the city. 7. A 30-foot wide private easement, cross-access and maintenance agreement must also be submitted for the private street. 8. The applicant will work with staff to incorporate a tot lot or similar playground facility within this development which will help preserve trees. 9. Provide an access trail from this neighborhood to Minnetonka Middle School West at the west end of street A. Staff concurs with the majority of the Planning Commission changes with the exception of conditions 5.0., 5. q., 5. r., and 8. For condition 5. 0., staff believes that Street B shall be connected to Crestview Drive and the condition should remain as originally proposed by staff: "A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the north end of Street B along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future." The City's Comprehensive Plan states: "It is the city's policy to require interconnections between neighborhoods to foster a sense of community, to improve safety, and to provide convenient access for residents." The Planning Commission at their public hearing on January 4,2005 in review of the Crestview development being proposed north of this development reiterated that the street connection should not be made between the two neighborhoods. Instead, a trail connection should be incorporated in the approximate location of the two streets. For condition 5. q., staff met with the applicant's Engineer on January 4,2005, to review the proposed sewer alignment. It remains staff s recommendation that the sewer shall be routed to Manchester Drive, rather then across the western end of the parcel. Mr. Todd Gerhardt Pinehurst Rezoning and Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 January 10,2005 Page 3 The applicant is proposing a second gravity sewer line to serve the western two-thirds of the site. This sewer line, which runs from MH-18 to an existing manhole in Lake Lucy Road, is proposed to go south outside of the pavement and right-of-way, through Lot 17, Block 1 and cross over City-owned property prior to connecting to the existing sewer line in Lake Lucy Road. Staff is recommending that this western sewer line be eliminated for the following reasons. First, the City-owned land that the sewer would run through is very steep. City staff has concerns with access and maintenance of such a line on a steep slope. Short- and long-term restoration of the steep, 3: 1 slope could become problematic in the future. Second, the City-owned property was originally acquired as a possible future well site. The location of the sewer line on the property will limit the possible well locations. Third, the proposed sewer line itself will have a steep slope on the pipe. This can, in turn, create maintenance issues in the downstream manhole. The high velocities of the sanitary waste flows can lead to a premature deterioration of the interior of the concrete manhole. Finally, the existing sanitary line in Manchester Drive was stubbed to this property and was always intended to serve the entire site. For condition 5. r., staff proposes that the developer provide a standard cui-de sac in conformance with the city's standard for public cul-de-sacs, rather than 28 feet wide "eyebrow". The Parks Director recommended that only park fees be collected from this development since the development is within the service area for Pheasant Hills Park, has access to Minnetonka Middle School West athletic facilities and Minnewashta Regional Park. Staff recommends that proposed condition 8. be deleted. UPDATE As part of a court judgement approved on October 17, 2000, the following described property was added to Lot 1, Block 1, Old Slocum Tree Farm: That part of the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 116, Range 23 West described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line thereof distant 1056.5 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence East along the South line thereof 231.5 feet; thence North 2 degrees 55 minutes West a distance of 86.66 feet; thence South 87 degrees 15 minutes West a distance of 138 feet; thence South a distance of 204.7 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies south of a line and its extensions drawn from a point on the East line of the above described property a distance of 6.8 feet North of the Southeast corner of the above described property to a point on the West line of the above described property a distance of 8.2 feet North of the Southwest corner of the above described property. AND, Mr. Todd Gerhardt Pinehurst Rezoning and Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 January 10,2005 Page 4 That part of the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Northwest quarter, on an assumed bearing of south 87 degrees 12 minutes 20 seconds east, a distance of 2,126.74 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence easterly on an extension of the last described line a distance of 261.22 feet; thence north 02 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds east a distance of 204.82 feet to a point thereafter called Point A; thence North 83 degrees 40 minutes 20 seconds west a distance of 197.60 feet to a point hereafter called Point B; thence South 02 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds west a distance of 40 feet; thence south 40 degrees 08 minutes 28 seconds west a distance of 105.50 feet; thence south 02 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds west a distance of 93.13 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. Which lies south of a line and its extension drawn from a point on the east line of the above described property a distance of 8.2 feet north of the southeast corner of the above described property to a point on the west line of the above described property a distance of 7.2 feet north of the southwest corner of the above described property. In order to avoid having a sliver of property which was legally created being separate from the abutting lands, these lands shall be included within the area of the Pinehurst subdivision and be apportioned to the appropriate lots within the development. This will increase the area of some of the lots in Block 2. The applicant disputes condition 5. p. and believes that they can mitigate potential drainage issues. City staff still has concerns regarding runoff volumes and rates from Lots 23-26, Block 1 onto Lot 27, Block 1. The primary concern relates to the expectations of the future owners of Lot 27. Staff has received complaints in many instances where swales are intended to convey runoff through rear or side yards. Issues arise when either the swale is improperly graded by the developer, builder, landscaper or homeowner and impounds water or when property owners do not expect water to pool or flow intermittently in the swales. The lowest portions of swales tend to hold water. This can make it difficult for property owners to mow those areas. Because they expect to have a lawn that can be mowed without causing tire ruts, property owners can become frustrated and contact staff. In addition, the movement of water through residential areas can result in erosion or difficulty in establishing vegetation. According to Section 18-39 of the Chanhassen City Code: "(f) The findings necessary for city council approval of the preliminary plat and the final plat shall be as follows: (4) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter." Mr. Todd Gerhardt Pinehurst Rezoning and Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 January 10,2005 Page 5 The subdivision as proposed does not make adequate provision for storm drainage on Lot 27. Due to these outstanding concerns, the recommendation of City staff continues to be to eliminate Lot 27. However, in the event that Lot 27 is approved, i.e., condition 5. p. is deleted, staff recommends the addition of the following two conditions: 1. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the entire width of the swale on the northwest side of the buildable area on Lot 27, Block 1. No structures shall be allowed within this drainage and utility easement, with the exception of the retaining wall shown on the approved grading plan. 2. To ensure proper drainage, a survey shall be required for Lot 27, Block 1 upon completion of the landscaping. The survey shall be submitted to the City and reviewed by staff to ensure consistency between final grades and the approved grading plan. If discrepancies exist, any inconsistent areas shall be re-graded to match the approved grading plan. Additionally, any property owners should anticipate flowing and/or standing water within the swale on the northwest side of the property (Lot 27, Block 1). This may preclude mowing of the swale during times of above average precipitation." RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends adoption of the motion beginning on page 9 as specified in the staff report dated December 7, 2004 as modified by the Planning Commission with the following modifications to those conditions: 5. Engineer's Conditions: o. A temporary st8ß88f8 cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the north end of Street B along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future. q. The appli@aRt shall ".TOFIí ",~itk s.if to føÂlleF iR'restigate the f8asilJility of a Se",VeF 80RR8@tiOR "efore aeHoR is t.dreR to Delete the western sanitary sewer line; all sanitary sewer must drain to Manchester Drive. r. Revise Street C to be a standard cul-de-sac 18 foot width. Delete proposed condition 8. and add a new condition 8. as follows: The land awarded as part of a court judgement approved on October 17, 2000, to Lot 1, Block 1, Old Slocum Tree Farm shall be included within the area of the Pinehurst subdivision and be apportioned to the appropriate lots within the development. Mr. Todd Gerhardt Pinehurst Rezoning and Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 January 10, 2005 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated December 7, 2004. 2. Schematic CrestviewIPinehurst. 3. Letter from Plowshares Development, LLC, to City Council Members dated 12/30/04. 4. Approximate Location ofthe Land Awarded as Part ofthe Judgement on Oct. 17,2000. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-36 - pinehurst\executive summary. doc ~ z < u ~ ~ ~ ~ < < ~ < Q ~ ~ ~ 00. PC DATE: December 7, 2004 IT] CC DATE: January 10, 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: January 10, 2005 CASE #: 04-36 BY: RE, LH, ML, JS, MS, ST STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single-Family Residential (RSF) and preliminary plat approval for a 43-10t Subdivision with Variances for private streets- Pinehurst. LOCATION: 6620 & 6640 Galpin Boulevard Lots 1 & 2, Old Slocum Tree Farm APPLICANT: Plowshares Development, LLC 1851 Lake Drive West, Suite 550 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 361-0832 PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential (RR) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential- Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 27.62 DENSITY: 1.52 units/acre gross; 1.85 units/acre net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning from Rural Residential to Single- Family Residential to permit a 43-10t subdivision. As part of the subdivision request, the applicant is requesting variances for private streets. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Regulations for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Location Map Pinehurst City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-36 :; ::õ S' ee g: a. JJ o OJ c. Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The developer is proposing a 43-10t single-family residential subdivision. As part of the subdivision, the applicant is requesting the use of two private streets at the western end of the development. These private streets permit the developer to preserve significant areas of woodland. The use of the private street meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance for approving private streets. The developer had previously submitted a subdivision proposal that included variances from the city's street standards as well as front yard setback variances. However, staff worked with the developer to get a plan that complied with city code requirements and provided lot sizes that accommodate most of the housing plans being proposed. In meeting city requirements, additional tree removal occurs. The plan being reviewed complies with the zoning ordinance requirements. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential, but is guided by the comprehensive plan for Residential - Low Density development. The proposed rezoning of the property to Single Family Residential District, RSF, is consistent with the land use designation and is the same zoning as the surrounding residential developments. The site is located north of the W oodridge Heights development, a 46-unit single-family development (net density 1.67 units per acre), and east of Brenden Pond, a 21-unit single family development (net density 1.68 units per acre). To the north are Minnetonka West Junior High and an older neighborhood. The north- south street is being extended to the northerly property and will be extended with the development of the Shively Addition, which has the potential for subdivision into five lots, providing a connection to Crestwood Drive. Water and sewer service were extended to the southerly property line with the development ofWoodridge Heights. This proposed development will extend water and sewer service to the northerly property line as well as looping the water back to Galpin Boulevard. A trail is located on the west side of Galpin Boulevard. Sidewalks will be included on all the public streets within the development. The site's high point with an elevation of 1070 is located in the north-central portion of the property. From there, it falls east to an elevation of 1034, south to an elevation of 1020 and west to an elevation of 1020. There is a drainage ravine and wetlands located in the western portion of the site. The site consists of significant areas of woodlands located primarily on the western portion of the property. Rows of pines run north-south delineating the western 530 feet of the property and along the northern and eastern property lines. Other areas of trees are scattered over the easterly 1300 feet of the property. Staff is recommending approval of the development subject to the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND The easterly 13.5 acres of the property was subdivided into two lots as part of the Old Slocum Tree Farm Addition on April 6, 1987, with lot areas of 4 and 9.5 acres. The rear 14.12 acres were required to be attached to Lot 2, Block 1, Old Slocum Tree Farm as a condition of the plat approval. At that time, the property was zoned Rla, Agricultural residence. Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 3 REZONING The applicant is proposing the rezoning of the property from Rural Residential, RR, to Single-Family Residential, RSF. The RSF zoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, which guides the property for Residential - Low Density use with a net density range of 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre. The proposed subdivision is at a net density of 1.85 units per acre. The RR district requires a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Development using the RR zoning would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. SUBDIVISION REVIEW WETLANDS Existing Wetlands Three aglurban wetlands exist on-site. Wetlands were delineated by Westwood Professional Services on July 15, 2004. The total area of wetlands is 0.14 acres (6,098 square feet). Wetland A located within the southwest corner of the property has been classified as a riverine, intermittent streambed with a mud bottom. The wetland is dominated by garlic mustard, ostrich fern and Jack-in-the-pulpit. No impacts to Wetland A are proposed. Wetland B located in the south-central portion of the property is classified as a Type 1 wetland. The wetland vegetation is dominated by box elder. No impacts to Wetland B are proposed. Wetland C located in the northwestern corner of the property is classified as a Type 1 wetland. The wetland's vegetation is dominated by box elder and Canada clearweed. No impacts to Wetland Care proposed. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet must be maintained around all wetlands on-site. All structures must maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edges. The building pad on Lot 9, Block 1 should be revised to reflect the wetland setback requirements. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The existing site is about 27 acres and has tree cover over approximately 18 acres (65% of the parcel). The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site elevations range from a high of 1070± to a low of 1006±. These severe elevation differences make this site a challenging one to both develop and minimize grading. The plans propose to grade about 75-80% of the site for the 43 new house pads, a proposed street system, three cul-de-sacs and a stormwater pond. The proposed grading will prepare the site for full basement, look-out and walk-out type house pads. Retaining walls are proposed in numerous locations throughout the site. The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the City Building Department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 4 Staff does have a couple areas of concern in regards to the grading. The proposed house pad on Lot 27, Block 1 has steep slopes draining to or away from it on three out of the four sides. In staffs opinion, this grading design makes the lot undesirable at best. Also, there are two retaining walls just south of the lot which are adjacent to the proposed pond. If Lot 27 were eliminated, the pond could be shifted to the north which would eliminate the need for the southerly portions of the retaining walls. Because of the above reasons, staff is recommending that Lot 27, Block 1 be eliminated. In addition, it appears that a large portion of the western end of the site is being filled. This filling requires the use of five retaining walls on the western end of the site. Staff would recommend that the applicant lower the western end of the site in the area of the two private drives. This will help to minimize the overall amount of grading in the area, decrease the size of the retaining walls, and better match the existing topography of the area. The existing site drainage is encompassed within two different drainage areas. Under existing conditions, the western part of the site drains off site to an existing wetland to the west; the eastern part of the site drains off site to the south. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the street drainage, all of the front yard drainage and some rear yard drainage from the interior lots. This stormwater will be conveyed via storm sewer to a proposed pond in the south center of the site for treatment. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL. In addition, the proposed ponding must be sized to accommodate the drainage generated from the property to the north, as shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). Drainage calculations for the site have been submitted and some changes remain. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for lO-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. Storm sewer sizing calculations must be submitted at the time of final plat application. The storm sewer must be sized for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. Proposed erosion control must be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed pond. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3: 1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. Storm Water Management The proposed development is required to maintain the existing runoff rates. Preliminary storm water calculations submitted with the plans illustrate that storm water ponds located on Outlot B have been properly sized to handle post-development 2, 10 and 1OO-year storm events for the site. However, the City's Surface Water Management Plan shows that a regional pond should be constructed to Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 5 accommodate storm water runoff from the Shively Addition. Pond A should be expanded to the northeast to accommodate future development of this site. Final storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the appropriate drainage areas are captured and that proposed storm water ponds meet all requirements. Detailed plans for proposed storm water infrastructure (including catch basins and outlet structures) should be submitted. Erosion Control Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not activelv bein2 worked) Steeper than 3: 1 7 Davs 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10: 1 21 Davs These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man-made systems that discharge to a surface water. Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets should be completed any time construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto a paved surface or street that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system. Construction site access points should be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $1,028/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 23.36 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated to be $24,014. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single-family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,545 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $59,451 for the proposed development. Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 6 SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from off-site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for the provision of outlet structures. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. Based on the proposed developed area of 23.36 acres, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $83,465. OTHER AGENCIES The applicant must apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley- Purgatory-Bluff-Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Manchester Drive and water service is available from Galpin Boulevard. The water and sewer mains will be extended north from Manchester Drive to serve the site. The watermain will then be looped with the existing 12-inch diameter main along Galpin Boulevard. In addition, water will be extended to the north property line for future development of the parcel to the north. The water and sewer is also proposed to be extended within two private streets (D and E) off of Street A. The watermain in Private Drive D is proposed to be connected with the existing watermain from the Brenden Court private street to the west. This watermain extension can be directionally bored which will preserve the existing trees within the western side of the site. The watermain connection will provide a "looped" system for the majority of the western side of the site. The applicant is also proposing a second gravity sewer line to serve the western two-thirds of the site. This sewer line, which runs from MH-18 to an existing manhole in Lake Lucy Road, is proposed to go south outside of the pavement and right-of-way, through Lot 17, Block 1 and cross over City-owned property prior to connecting to the existing sewer line in Lake Lucy Road. Staff is recommending that this western sewer line be eliminated for the following reasons. First, the City-owned land that the sewer would run through is very steep. City staff has concerns with access and maintenance of such a line on a steep slope. Second, the City-owned property was originally acquired as a possible future well site. The location of the sewer line on the property could limit the possible well locations. Finally, the existing sanitary line in Manchester Drive was stubbed to this property to serve the entire site. City Code requires a minimum 30-foot wide public easement over the public sewer and watermain within private streets. Due to the depth of the proposed sanitary sewer from MH-20 to MH-17, however, the required easement width will need to be increased to 50 feet. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements and those assessments have been paid. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814.00 per unit for watermain. The total 2004 Lake Ann Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 7 Interceptor charge is $2,102 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,425.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and water- main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a pre-con meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, and Carver County. STREETS The plans propose two full accesses to the site; one off of Galpin Boulevard from the east side and the other from the extension of Manchester Drive to the south. Additionally, Street B will be extended to the north property line to allow for a future street connection with Crestview Drive when the property to the north is developed. A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the north end of Street B along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future. All of the proposed public streets comply with the minimum required right-of-way and pavement widths. For Street C, the applicant is proposing a very wide right-of-way with a large island in the center. Due to maintenance concerns with such a large right-of-way, staff is recommending that Street C be revised to be a standard cul-de-sac. Also, Galpin Boulevard is designated as an arterial road in the city. Per City Code, arterial roads are required to have 100 feet of total right-of-way or 50 feet from each side of the centerline of the road. As such, this development is required to provide enough additional platted right-of-way which results in 50 feet of right-of-way on the western side of the Galpin Boulevard centerline. As with past developments that access off of Galpin, a right-turn lane into the site will be required to be constructed. The turn-lane must meet Carver County design requirements. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy calculations have been submitted for the Pinehurst development. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 27.48 ac. 65% or 17.92 ac. 46% or 12.64 ac. 26% or 7.23 ac. The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore, the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier 235,660 SF or 5.41 ac. 1.2 Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 8 Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 282,792 SF 260 trees The applicant has proposed 262 trees in their landscape plan. Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the table: Landsca in Item Bufferyard B* - East property line Re uired 12 overstory trees 18 bunderstory trees 30 shrubs Pro osed Existing tree line of white cedars and other trees/shrubs Applicant meets minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings. COMPLIANCE TABLE Area (square feet) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setback (feet) Code 15,000 90,100 on private 125 Front - 30, side - 10, street rear - 30, wetland buffer -40 Lot 1, Block 1 18,413 110 135 30,1O,30,na Lot 2, Block 1 16,485 101 132 30, 10, 30, na Lot 3, Block 1 23,324 105 182 30, 10, na, na Lot 4, Block 1 20,211 186 165 30,1O,30,na Lot 5, Block 1 17,529 119 189 30,1O,30,na Lot 6, Block 1 15,053 115 167 30, 10, 30, na Lot 7, Block 1 20,221 56@ 138 30,1O,30,na Lot 8, Block 1 15,996 49@ 156 30, 10, 30, na Lot 9, Block 1 25,931 123 275 30,10,30,40 Lot 10, Block 1 31,599 100 290 30,1O,30,na Lot 11, Block 1 23,802 76@ 244 30,1O,30,na Lot 12, Block 1 21,114 92 221 30,1O,30,na Lot 13, Block 1 17,180 92 206 30,1O,30,na Lot 14, Block 1 43,181 240 191 30,10,30,40 Lot 15, Block 1 31,534 140 194 30, 10, 30, 40 Lot 16, Block 1 24,583 58# 214 30, 10, 30, na Lot 17, Block 1 26,104 117 167 30, 10, 30, na Lot 18, Block 1 21,345 80@ 198 30,1O,30,na Lot 19, Block 1 17,061 80@ 165 30,1O,30,na Lot 20, Block 1 18,324 80@ 163 30,1O,30,na Lot 21, Block 1 15,059 80@ 150 30, 10, 30, na Lot 22, Block 1 16,238 108 137 30,1O,30,na Lot 23, Block 1 15,452 131 139 30,1O,30,na Lot 24 Block 1 15,133 129 152 30, 10, 30, na Lot 25, Block 1 15,550 110 165 30, 10, 30, na Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 9 Area (square feet) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setback (feet) Code 15,000 90, 100 on private 125 Front - 30, side - 10, street rear - 30, wetland buffer -40 Lot 26, Block 1 18,559 141 169 30, 10, na, na Lot 27, Block 1 18,323 182 179 30, 10, 30, na Lot 1, Block 2 18,008 151 175 30, 10, 30, na Lot 2, Block 2 18,292 117 154 30, 10, na, na Lot 3, Block 2 16,393 88 @ 158 30, 10, 30, na Lot 4, Block 2 15,800 105 138 30,1O,30,na Lot 5, Block 2 15,120 112 135 30,1O,30,na Lot 6, Block 2 15,120 112 135 30,1O,30,na Lot 7, Block 2 15,120 112 135 30, 10, 30, na Lot 8, Block 2 16,485 123 135 30, 10, na, na Lot 1, Block 3 22,728 112 136 30,1O,na,na Lot 2, Block 3 16,102 92 141 30, 10, na, na Lot 3, Block 3 15,287 52@ 143 30,1O,30,na Lot 4, Block 3 21,777 58 @ 180 30,1O,30,na Lot 5, Block 3 20,123 58 @ 177 30, 10, 30, na Lot 6, Block 3 17,745 65 @ 137 30,1O,30,na Lot 7, Block 3 15,552 125 125 30, 10, na, na Lot 8, Block 3 16,619 149 136 30, 10, 30, na Outlot A 127,278 Open Space Outlot B 47,500 Storm Water Pond Outlot C 2,484 Monument Sign ROW 186,437 Total 1,203,127 27.62 Acres Average Lot Size 19,522 # Meets 100 foot width at the building setback. @ Meets 90 foot width at the building setback. RECOMMENDATION ~ The Planning Commission recommends that tR8 PlftftftiRg CsmmÎs8isB adopt the following two motions: A. ''The Chanhassen PltmHiHg CslnB'1issisH f88Smm8R8ß ~pfB':al sf City Council approves the Rezoning of the 27.62 acres located within the Pinehurst subdivision from Rural Residential (RR) to Single-Family Residential (RSF) based on consistency with the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with surrounding development." B. ''The Chanhassen W8.RRiRg CSHU1lÌSSiSH f88SRlm8H88 ~pFEr:al sf City Council approves the preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for the use of private streets, plans prepared by Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 10 Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated 9/17/04, revised 9/22/04 and 11/05/04, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. 2. Outlots A and B shall be dedicated to the city. 3. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shaIl be maintained around all wetlands on-site. b. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edges. c. The building pad on Lot 9, Block 1 shall be revised to reflect the wetland setback requirements. d. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. e. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively bein2 worked) Steeper than 3: 1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10: 1 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man made systems that discharge to a surface water. f. Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed any time construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system. g. Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. h. Based on the proposed developed area of 23.36 acres, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $83,465. 1. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff-Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 11 and comply with their conditions of approval. 4. Natural Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. b. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. d. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 09/17/04. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2: 1 diameter inches. The applicant will work with staff to make every effort possible to preserve trees beyond what's in the tree preservation plan. e. Work with City Forester to ensure that the evergreen hedge in the proximity of the retaining wall survive. f. The applicant will replace the arborvitae hedge along Galpin Boulevard if it is lost due to installation of the right turn lane. 5. Engineer's Conditions: a. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for lO-year and 100-year, 24- hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. In addition, the proposed ponding must be sized to accommodate the drainage generated from the property to the north, as shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). b. The storm sewer must be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing cales and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval. c. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. d. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed pond. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3: 1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. e. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota. f. On the utility plan: Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 12 1. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. 2. Maintain lO-foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm sewer mains. 3. Increase the watermain pipe size in Street D to 8-inches in diameter. 4. Add a storm sewer line between Lots 7 and 8, Block 1 with a catch basin at the north property line for future connection by the property to the north. 5. Extend sanitary manhole #12 to the north property line with an invert elevation of 1049.0. g. On the grading plan: 1. Show all existing and proposed easements. 2. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. 3. Maximum allowable side slope is 3:1; revise in the rearyard of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1 and the rearyard of Lot 3, Block 2. 4. Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows; the elevation must be 1.5' lower than any adjacent house pad elevations. 5. Show the retaining wall top and bottom elevations. 6. Use storm sewer class 5 in roadway; revise note under general grading and drainage notes accordingly. h. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the city building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. 1. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814.00 per unit for watermain. The total 2004 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,102 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,425.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and water- main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit Issuance. J. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. k. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 13 I. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. m. Due to the depth of the proposed sanitary sewer from MH-20 to MH-17, the required easement width will be increased to 50 feet. n. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. o. A teæpsæf)' standard cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the north end of Street B tHSHg '",itk 8 sigH. statiBg tkat !fie £888 l,':ill ~e eJlteHseà iH tke fYtYFe. p. Eliminate Lot 27 and shift the proposed pond to the north to eliminate some of the retaining wall. q. The applicant shall work with staff to further investigate the feasibility of a sewer connection before action is taken to d~lete the western sanitary sewer line; all sanitary sewer must drain to Manchester Drive. r. Revise Street C to be a standard aYl se S8e 28 foot width. s. Lower the western end of the site in the area of the two private drives. t. This development is required to provide enough additional platted right-of-way which results in 50 feet of right-of-way on the western side of the Galpin Boulevard centerline. u. A right-turn lane into the site off of Galpin Boulevard will be required to be constructed. The turn-lane must meet Carver County design requirements. 6. Geotechnical testing report and recommendation will be required and needs to be provided to the city. 7. A 30 foot wide private easement, cross access and maintenance agreement must also be submitted for the private street. 8. The applicant will work with staff to incorporate a tot lot or similar playground facility within this development which will help preserve trees. 9. Provide an access trail from this neighborhood to Minnetonka Middle School West at the west end of street A." Pinehurst Rezoning & Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 04-36 December 7, 2004 Page 14 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced Copy Existing Conditions. 4. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat. 5. Reduced Copy Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan. 6. Reduced Copy Preliminary Utility Plan. 7. Reduced Copy Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan. 8. Reduced Copy Alternate Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan. 9. Preliminary Tree Inventory Results dated September 17, 2004. 10. Memo from Bill Weckman to Bob Generous dated 10/12/04. 11. Crestview Drive Homeowners Petition to City of Chanhassen Planning Commission received 11/10/04. 12. Letter from Paul Tungseth to City of Chanhassen Planning Commission received 11/12/04. 13. Letter from Charles and Beverly Jackson to City of Chanhassen Planning Commission. 14. Affidavit of Mailing, Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-36 - pinehurst\staff report pinehurst prelim revised. doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC for a Rezoning, Preliminary Plat with Variances - Pinehurst. Planning Case No. 04-36 On December 7, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC for rezoning property from Rural Residential, RR, to Single-Family Residential, RSF, preliminary plat approval for 43 lots, two outlots and right-of-way for public streets with variances for the use of private streets. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning and subdivision with variances preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR). 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lots 1 & 2, Old Slocum Tree Farm 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan, including meeting the net density goal of 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre with a net density of 1.85 units per acre, development within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, residential low density development in appropriate area in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family neighborhoods, providing adequate internal street linkages, and the preservation of natural resources. b. The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the granting of the setback variances to appropriate lots for tree preservation purposes. d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed, but should enhance the residential character of the area. 1 e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; e. The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage; f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record, but will dedicate all required easements; and g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2) Lack of adequate roads. 3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 6. In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: a. The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. Extension of a public street to serve the six homes on the west end of the site would significantly impact an environmental area on the property. 2 b. After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. Public streets are not necessary to access the property to the west, which is currently developed with single-family homes and accessed via Brenden Court. c. The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. The use of limited private streets preserves approximately 2.8 acres of woodlands. 7. VARIANCE FINDINGS - PRIVATE STREET a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience, but provides a means for preserving natural features on site. b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. c. The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. d. The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. 8. The planning report #04-36 dated December 7, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et ai, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDA TION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning and preliminary plat with a variance for private streets. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 7th day of December, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-36 - pinehurst\findings of fact pinehurst.doc 3 oLf- 3(c . em or CJIAIIII8 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 56317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 7 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT APPLICANT: ßh)wshares Deve 1 opm~nt II r. ADDRESS: 1851 Lake Drive Wit1 Suite 550 Chanhassen. MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Daytime) 952-~-0832 OVIINER: S¡¡m JI. N¡:lnry M~nd no JI. .Jim JI. nE'bra , Ronni ng ADDRESS: 6620 & 6640 (';¡¡lpin Rlvrl TELEPHONE: 't5CJ. -414 - gßfe\ eM) C,_ q52-Li1-e-"~~" (R) _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW/Easements - - Interim Use Permit -X- Variance _ Non-oonforming Use Permit - Wètland Alteration Permit _ Planned Unit Development* _ Zoning Appeal ~ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits ~ Sign Plan Review -L Notification Sign ---X.. Site Plan Review* -1L Esaow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost*· ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAPlMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) -L Subdivision· TOTAL FEE $ ~,1--55 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ICAIINID PROJECT NAME PinphlJrc;t LOCATION Galpin Blvd & Lake Lucy LEGAL DESCRIPTION Old Slocum Tree Farm (Lot 1 & 2) TOTAL ACREAGE '?7 5 WETLANDS PRESENT X YES NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING Rura 1 (RR) ~(R-l) (RS,f=) - PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Single Family (R-¡) REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Single Fami ly (R-l) REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Subdivision of Property (R~) - ~Sf) This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearty printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Trtle, Abstrad ofTrtIe or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. ~~ Signature ~ee Owner ~ Application Received on 9 - \ ì -0 y.. Fee Paid "2....íSS ~ . &I, 17. C>1 Date '.11·ðf_ Date Receipt No. Dvv' I ~ The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted. a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicants address. 8CAHNED ~ ~ fU i;¡ ;ff ill I f ~ ì I . r w I ,1f "'~:;¡f r} '.1 ;..f I" "i' f rii I' Ii I! J mr f ",l Õ ~ g) ~ rœ ~~ p;¡ Jõ ~J~ liS ~ .. t""I t""I n z 0 -t "11 f '"d 0 5' :II 0 ~ 0 f z i en -t :II C 0 -t Õ z if. o. ~ (q ~ :2 ° f r ~ d q = ! q .1:-"'- f:~ ~ I !':~ ; ~H. !~!: ~ .oCI~ g,õ';:' 2.g-~ llW ;s:m ~ .. , Po n' . f~; [~~ ~ 'ff;3 --.. ;[>, 0<1 . -~ fï§ S!. ~~~ 3;~ ~:'~ Ö ;: ~ tÐ -, 9. If~ ~~~ "0 " ;!~ :t. 5,.1: 5",1:: 0 ::I 'EJ.)"D"'i'~..~ nHnnPi'~ioœ o~~'OA"'· .~ ."~.<"'~~ ~ Po .~" ".§-~ . ~ i~ ~~ II I ! I I ¡II II ~ I ! I 1 f ¡ j í i iiP:H:np qlssp å~¡ œ..œ>eS@01Oø.1130 nnp~~pq ""2!- ~A..l .ir'A ,,~¡¡Xì i q. . H ~~ !II! ~:;Ii ., ¡fi;~ .[~!;. i ii. ¡. H! ~j :"1 ~ ; ii ~õlt ~~5 }51!S ~ !a.;: ¡.J!i. ;:1 .' õ ~~ -- ! -¡-I I _~i"---- -----_:-.::- ru f IU ¡ I · I if , II f í Wi f þotl' - o ~ ~ II fJ f~ rf < œ.. o .'i 11m ~ r-'I h s J ~ ~ S' I: ~ 8 r a ~ !4. 9 ~ ~J r q Ii ~ a r a ~ ~ u- '11 r J :1' ,,, "¡' fii [. u II ~f ,~ II ...".~ L""\¿'_'~'-"&'-'II'n"""I¡Y1'ÎAI !.\II ~ \ \ ;0.."'51,) rlUL./f I VI Y """'''~~~~1 -< \... l~'~~'n~!n-f !!. ).....: i d H ì U ! ~ l! ! .g'\ ___ .--~. ~ ~ · . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ I a ). .-- ~,¡ ~lJ ~~ "nil i m.. _~I;Q ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. c) ~'~ ¡ 0 ~3.-- ~ ~ J' i'<'j f .. .J()~~ .-- c) :3 ·rl !t S2/5 ¿ \ <ì ¿3ñ -\--{--~ \ \ \ '- \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ....OI::~~¡¡:sèi:s. Etti~ <:It) (¡...~~....~~. i~;n~- ;~ § ~;d ~; ~ t I ~ "P·}í~~ n~~f~¡¡~f ~i ,I- . . i . ¡ . ~ ~~ ! t d J p n ""5. ëi ! i i ~ : <Q ~·i·s. 'i ~ ¡ ; ~ ¡: ! ~ i i i t t ~ ~ ~ ! , , . . . ~ 1 ~ ~ q~ = ì i 1 t ' ~J ~! I! \ .- -~=------=-+~- ":" r \ [, : ~ \ ; i 3: L, ~, f I /~ / - : I I I IJO I' lo~1 -~;..i-- I I _.1 , F f - 1 II 1 f . :'" t: ." ." ~ ~ ~ ~ ! :~i ie £ 1!! 1 ~ . ~ l . ! ¡ 'JI' f ð f!~ J{ .? j ~¡! . ¡; 1 It;;; ~ Ii' fìi ~ ~~r l ä H! f~!} IIi !~ ~ P:~ ~i s :~ ¡~ ~ .~ ~t [ ~~ 'j! :.i ~~ ! h h ;! if CI ~ _ g · .i~ ~ ~~~f~';> I;;~;d ~¡;¡;~:jl~ ih;1ft ~ t~ mgf~~w ~~;¡ ~.i'¡ ~ ~~¡;~ hi !'!; , 1 >'~i~ - ! ~~, ; ~ it; !~ ·ì}t HI ~f' i !t ~ ~ !~i t~! !i~ f-¡ 1 I \ '\ ,<LlC" In c,,'1 ~ '°16 ,~ L/\L_/~ \ \ o ~ I i ,:JC,^v'D /' _--_I -" ~ . ¡ \. . ~, I· ~ ~ .-- J " /' /' - - II / /' /.-- ----",,~ I \ I , I I .. ~\O 'Y\'4' I I f I I ," c5 C) C) ::':.1 (:3 C~ i,; , ~Ij ~'! -, ~ [ ~ < ~. !. -,. ~. -" ~? ::'~ (:) ~~ <, -----J I I I I d~ ;- - -j IL ~ I : I ) I ----J I I I I -,'::- -j i è§ , ::; C) I : CJ I i ::':.1 ') (:3 I G) I " fl" ~I ' I ) I ----- r_Q-1 I I . ;;¡: i-! I" ¡ r. '-1 : I "-- I '-~=:"=:"=-_T " . , cawrr- RoAD ¡ NO.~ --~' ~. L.'fij'l.. j _ _ _ _ ~"'28'T "...." n n ~~ ; 1$ 'B t!~·~ ~(C4:;; ~'ÇiQ,^,' / -\:;0\'-" ,- -, - ¡ I" (I' ~ \, " ",,"if; '~'f/- /~ ~,-', ',~" "RB:i%,t% "o:¡Ef ì " i' '1\ '. " . ~ ~ \\\~ \ " //:.,~,,">,,: / -;. _' ",' 'n "'V'" 0' ¡ \ " " ¡mlllll! /f I ~\' 1\ ' :,/4,):;;,-:;;/;'S.d ---~1 \ \ , \ n(\\:o:~""i¡ ., ! '!" '" ;' I Z~ *' V //' / ;}0- -;;:;0 ~i"*, ~~'--<'-~ ' \ \\ ", '\ \ " '\, II! lIIW \ }:::¿ \fò:: 10 /,:/?~~~4>j,--!::0. \ \' "'~~ \: :I¡ :~äh~~~1 ~~:21 :~IT~\)~,~~i~: ~~/~~t=~~~\;:J1im:f$,7;?s r¡r( . ¡ . , . ¡' " ¡,..;;, e'-':-:t :-I'Æ " r _ ~ ,\\'\\n ~f I I I 'I' ì I" - t ,'" /'f--, IJ )' ::-.~ \ "1' . '" "^ ' ~ / / __ -/1' -\ j .\ \>\~.?J:ji / ." ,,/ ):" 'Sx~ ---1\\, :i' "0 ,-'-ô!í ,~/' ,"." 'II fJl iW , ! " \\;t-, vJ5r,~ ' / ",' · ~." -, [;J /ill ,lii+-\>1WA ~ I.¿-'.' jl In!! :' r:i~;' : '" , ' . · ~í ::.¡¡, . I~ ii ¡¡ala l/ !I/¡!~~ - I ~ -.-So":, .~~' ~",' :¡ iI II,,, f / '" ' . ---- · r~ ' , ~ 'I .' ,. ",, ' ,'~ . l . . I -" ;~ i~ ~ II I~¡ /'1 ~ - ." ,~ 8~ . - , ' ~ ¡ !' ' }~¡Jtiìr/¡;: . n - · -~, '-ePC!J '.--: _ , ~:i nIN/lI'I'''/) V ----- ~~ " ' ~: niIOi!;¡I'Uik:1~:i fC,!IWIII~11 ~1¡;,1;f;, '':,d$.-),,'} .' .~ -.:...f. ~ ~ ': !J 18 i!II.~ ~R ~ i~'fIIf¡ ///; ~ ' '.~ ¡f~ Jt 11. ~ :' ¡it ita 111 o.¡(;i . :lffll¡¡il I í/¡ " Y . ,.~, / - ~~,::Ä"'IJ'í ';g.- í~,'!7 s:;~. .~ ,,1,1,,1/111 ~ ,I¡, ,'" iii "'v - ~ ¡", . " If· "" ' "' ~. ' ~£,.'> ~" / ¡Iii II!!i :,' ~~.' . - ~j ~ 'to~)Jl ~~, X ~ i;é , " "'Y/~"'-'- ~~, ~.YJ :,'~ Ji-' ~~;:I q a. ~:~ ~IIU (, ': . , . ~t;..~. \'f ~ ~~j~:j! 4,,1 ill//, (:1111\\ ',',"'1 " --~ ~·i!i .I! ~\~\~\~~" : .."\/, .::;::.~;: · . .",- ~ ,,]- .I':.~ ",iJ~, iJ.! ,~~\\\'>\I.~ p. .~ :(/' · " ""'.;:. 3" Iî.~\~ _ \ (I! U'. ,- ~_?~. ¡i;II¡JHI~ m di¡ m c~ - ~ :. ' ~ ~;ldi~1 11 ! ;541> ~ : ~ ~ "v ~ 1i!I'í :,: ; '" 'I -- . .'. .~ ~~\" ¡<!i: ,,:-". . ---- . :~;I:i! !I;:! ~171 ~'!1Y .' -t J ~ W/~."\' ,~,..,. -/ '" Iii ;1' , " ~ " ' ' ,x, Vr \' ,,\~" I:',. :; 'i - ,H;¡"-~ !v· t ~ we '1-,,: " " ,1,1e.: Ii i=1 a a 1= ['(¡ ~ ",. . ]X- ( .~ J\~ / I i" ¡¡ r 11 [J~ " - ( , '~: " !,,;v\~;,' ~I! !¡ U" ¡.¡ : ", I ' ,,~~ ¡T'\:., ' , ;;;41:i~j: ~W . ',^, ~ \ ¡ v .-',' il;hmil!I'. ~;t-h~ .' 1)~~ \:;'.3:: i !dj~~dt __ . ' ~ ' . Ii \ ~ I' ! :~l;IJJ~~'I: ,~\ ¡ '1'5 ~.·-M; fr ~- : ; I=h II~! h! ~. ~",I ~ ~ lit: f1i:" ¡i i .;.::s~ ~ I \ I. ~5 i'~+'''' ¡- . ~ I$I~ I I"h I' · I I " , I"'" ' · : ' I ' ~ Jg¡,bll i ~--i:i Û;.. t," ,~ ' · ';f~' ,lll "I ¡ . ~ ! U§ ~ · ~ -,;1,).; \ ~ L I I "";:.. , : f -, ) I zi:~!".,;ì 11 :ê·'{ . .....~~'$.. "VI J ../f;t ~ I 'I . ¡¡'I: __ ,',I ¡ _ ' ~ 17/». . ~. ,., , -I, " 7"'-' ~~ ;¡~J;~' &:-_' \ .. ~ ~,UJ~ ' .':I'oo..~ '"/k': ./ ¡ . ¡, ' V" >< ~, ~" 8 "" W" ,,'? '..;;~ C' '::;>'1 :J¡' - ,- . ! ~~t';1 ^;i\1 Jr~è, ; .,:,ç .,' ,ö, '~--~~ I ~ ~ '" Í'j in, ' ' ~ '&;,;~¡~n ", : f.)~\ '~;::=; flJ r " -.l9J[~1 § I~ '..Iti~ /~~":;'/ -, 8' &! /J)I <:> ," ,'\1J. ~ r --- ,., ';;:>~") I$ !oi I \~ ,'" --- o :<I. >;:;~./ /II;[~ :;. .'. 'f '- -.- \, f..œ)j . ~ ~i. ìr ¡ . ~ 'Ii~' :'~ 0 %\~VJ! ~! ; I ~ I - ~- - . - -~ - - '-~ ~ ~ c . d:h_~~___ - --, - _I ~ ~ h.____l ,}___,-r=+- _--.: ~ _ - -- __ _ <;gJ¿NrY' ~~'~-..... --- - ~ ~ IU I ~H u1 ¡ ( ~ ~ ~. ~ - r IIi Iii J}! f iill is ~Ij "g f I:f r i I I - 1m - f '1:Ir Õ ~ i h~ fr œ.. 1° ! ] ~ .:-r R f ~ r [ .... · ~ I [ ~ i · J · , ¡r~-·~· 1 i I '-,- '- - ~iç' - L-/ J - / .('. , IT"" :r:¡~ ; k. !t-- , IT_ ¡~)I ,,,,~ :1.' .' f¡' ~ n ......,/ . 5' , I ......-'. ... , /' ovR\Ø &!J:t & V ~ /' .... -;i¿ ~... ç: I .... -::~7~'1 /;..:~:i VI > ~... / ~ -t f7 _..-r ....... /: 8~ > . 611 2-"'" y pI! ~~11.':1, M-< Ði~ Q! ROAD -"'T:"~" ,= '1" iii 1 _ ..=NfLJJZ_h_ =- -- ~~ ~ :r, nh___m_m___4. 7~ ~ _n___ ._~ fIii:j IF \.-/ ...... . ;;i./Ï.";i i IÎ..../,..v' Dr\^ ,,.... i ~ Î ~...I IL/ . VI vL.! . . ! :õiIII ~~~ ~ i~ ~~ u f I (.IJ Qj :~~ R ç~ ¡i ~i ::tl ::0 1 (n I CJ C'J ¡ ~ X ~~ a ~ eo ! ~U .~~ " ~ Ii " i~¡ ~ i; ~! !~ c::: ~ H' g¡ -.... ~ J i I ~~g ~ a" 8 ~ ~ -.... ! . . ~~ Ii ~ ~ . ~! ~ i~ qF Z i f g. *J ì ~~ i J IJ ~ '~ a oJ!! i ~ ~¡: i ~~ I ¡ ~~ t' r §~ H~ ¡ ì Ii ~~ n~ ~ a a~ § ~ I ~ ~ I @ ~ f ~ ~ i , II n ¡~!d~U~ i~ ~ , J I ¡ iI~~io ~I i ; I ~"~~i;1 ~ ; I ~ ~~hih f~ 1 ; ~ Fi§~~¡;J·¡¡ h l ~ ~ 1,,iI~S;¡F a~ ~ h ~I §~np è§ ~ ~ïi~~i~ ~~ i C) 0 ~~ i5~ ~ :tl ¡I~ise; ~~ I ('5 -, '!¡.i'1I1<I61 ~. ~- ~~JJ~~ ¡ ~ ili -,- Rn~ig~~ . -- mt FI!, UO C'J ~~~a C1 -, ;: < , :~~S!~ -- ,-( (:) F' ~~ ~,) ~ ~ ~ ': c) f pJiI ¡ "'dJ Õ .iI¡ 1<1":1 < III i H S 8- qll (I œ I II i~ II < J~ pJ~ I .¡¡~ d] 1'1":1 < P 1<1 ,', I'D Ii ~ a. qll ... ~ I II ~ n -,- =cjl ~ ~ -) ~ i :) '"d 'II Ð '" S' ~ .. ~ 8 I ã ~ .... .- ::t" i .... 9 > ~l c) ~ ) ç, C) " :::¡ -,' 0 () ::'i ;~I U r " ~: (:) ('5 m -, .. '- :~ rr1 ¡ô· ~ t: 11 \,j ì ~ r E , ~ ~..._.-... =d:=a:=l__ '..... ; I "':'\" ~ i!. ,'.' ':' -"·'~:';'~:-"-H".'~-:\ ~4º'-'- lfO. . '1fZ. .. - 1:1 ¡ ·-··-···A'ro :n-. ~ ~ P l E ~ 11 J ~ . if .' f 3: "q fU ( ¡ ! ! .. ~ in CI . ~l{ f i ! È i 011 ! If f :: . i' ' ~ I i ~ .!! · ~ t: I- I ~ ~ r ~ ò ~ i i rr m · f Ii £ Ilr .. tr, .. Ll ! f ì!. · J !(l " II 'II I i t II mr f "I:f f Þ" e: fl œ .~ fJ <: 15- .~] (II =' .. .. r""4 r""4 n § f "'tI CS S' III ~ 8 r ~ ~ .... ~ ¡¡ i' q §' ~ ìJ 0 ~ .. r ~ ~~ ::r. 0 ~ :s 0 r ... i ¡ ~ :I . ~ K "IJI " ¡ ; J ! . -~/ . õ § \ /-/ \ ......;J f I \ \ \ "ß~ \ & . \~_ ../ - ~ \ I: ,,~~ . / ~: ~~ _./ - - ~ - ~ - '0 \\ ~ \ ~g ~ f. ) ~'1 / ..... ~ 'ScJ . ~ I é~ / '/ -::.. - - )/ ~ , ..... ÿ- - ..., R'- f ::I \ » '" \ ~ ( h - - ~ r - - ~ ~ / ~~ ¡ ! Z\ , . \ < - ) / . "- \ ~ :- - 0. / ;-.- ".J *. ... - ~- 0 <òy l ...: /~ ; ~-. · ~... ~ ~ ~ / / , ~.... ... .. T~· ..... /, 1< ~ .. I }í¡...~. /~ r>ì ~ .:>. ........ .-'- ~ · f'; !.,. ~ ./. · · / ....: /1 t/ · ~. . ..... J ., .. : .... I ::I i /. .. ,... ..... ,. tJ ~ / ;- t, W IØ_,' ..- · · '/'*~;¡ Itl I / ; .. ..Y-I: · : J I I ~~ · ,,1 ,. · :.;. ~~ ~¡ I I "', ~ . · ~. .:r:< \:\ /,L/_/ .. ~ ~ ~\~.. _~ -/)f~·,/~W:~"" . 'i / / ~~.... ~ ~ 1-· / / I I ¡ It ~{d~~~---- ~ V ' ! L.!. ¡ ..f':--'" 7.l' ..¡JJ ~~./Þ.~ / ,UP / iiJi~ .~~;& . ') \~~::J :Dj~~ /2£ / ~ · '/J?¡ \If ~ CO ~~~. f:;:08Y~: I ~¿ / ¡ .)¡; c :e (.. .. )~~*,' I - > I t,í I · .. ~ ':;¡i, ~ :....::~ > ! /~¡I ,II ' i?'Þ" --~" ~~\..--¡: -, Hr-- -j Ii'I -... ~ - ~-- I ç,. ,~. ~ ,) \ :::}. -T/ - -r ~~- \ l'fyo !.\ Þ .. ',7} -:....--; /_.: - þ? Ù'J - - 1.1\1· \\. ·í · .,NT A';:' · /- ' \ 1: i..-o A "r ~./ ì'\ \.. ... ~ ~ '____ ~ ~ ~·Woì\~·~ -- ~~ ~ )1.'" .... \ ' -;;;r- ~~ " '\ .~ ~. ...... ~ ~ y. 1 ~ -[\ :..-__---- ~: rtf. ~ ~ . ~ \ J. r~--·~ '-" ~~...9~~ 7 'VI'\ \ .....- 'r..: ~ ~ ~r.t"':IiJ~ \\-. l" ~ ~ ':' \-~~~ ÒI¡) ~ .!1l 'i · ~¥.; \ S"'I","~,"I ~ ~1\J~ \ ~ ô~( / I' µ ¡,<D 7' ~ ~,\.." )~ _. ,~ ~ .... W :\'\Þ '. \ ) .~ '-, , --. ~,. '·'.1_.. : 'lL. 4 I 7' r . . . : 'Ó' fì - . ,..- ----.--- " \ ."';;U '.fJ)~~ ;' ~~ ~../ '"\ 1~/ ~''''j -N.// .~ ~ . '" ",/ ._ \ . h \~ \ ~. lf~ /;-:;~::. ~ ~~( I~\~ ~ ~~, ~~\.~ ..: rà '; ~: / : c) \ 1"1\\~ ~ -;~ ""'..... I ;w ~".~~ '\~¡;·V -~ )/ ~0~\. ìL ~()7 '~.. ~ .4 d ! ~ _ ' f i _ _ _'" _ U!Q. '..;¡ '(IU .do. ,J. 7 -- - --- ,.... -i, COf..N7':'J: ROAD NO. 117 - - ';.., i~F/é.}\./Dé.-,^v~ ,DC,^../D \ ~!ti\ I .....~.. Ng~ - -- - - -+-,.L - - --JE _4, / .,~ . ._, - / f I L z Ii: w .... w (/) <=> 0 (/) <=> " <0 '" z IW 'if z> C!'> .~ <- :rW 00 C'> &:L Z "-w a... w oa: \..LJ I fi V) r--- I ----,-,--- I '" I I:¡ I 1-· I - I I I ~~ I ¡ I ß I I I f'¡ I L___ ~ A- I ----I V \ \ / ,-...... L ~ ~ 8 . i I~.II¡ I I ~ I ',. I ., I ~ ,IIII~ :d Z 11'-'.' !III ) 1";111. ' . ~ ~! ! ~ '." f 1"-1 '1=1; ilt:'I-II,;: ; ~ '1"1 .11121 ~ !I~J¡¡! :!~II; _.1 !. !H!I:I J ~~ II I II.p. ~~ il ; i lelfi! lJ ~ ¡I ,I11 ;1= I!: ·1 !. I;Uf~ I II' 11'1;;- ;iø~ld~ 131 . .... ....,. 1=-- · =11 Iii ,I i:i !I I~ ,;; ;1 I'~ If I !!I ,I; ~!~ - ,!;fl"'~ c ~ u~ ~ ! ! o ~ Ilj ... ] ~ J u :J 4' æ ø...ii o liJ aq d~ i·' f .9 JiØ-t I JJJj ~ I d g" _ ~,i I ~I ~~ I';I~~ ill I; å~ II~¡:J :]J I ~l· ~~ ~ rtl~h ~! j e I!!! . .lit!1 :ij .11 IEJ m ... it! ill ru II I !it ! J:! I ~ ~ææ Ii I ¡ ~ ~~ I J ! ...- 1~§i~II~~ ~ i ...-/\ ! I ...- \ §;~UIIUdl I \ \ J I'i \ \ Uu;uUlul I \ \ h, \ \ II J \ ~~HUII¡ ~H \ ~ ~ - September 17, 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Robert Generous City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 SEP 1 7 2004 CHANHASSEN PLA"NNING DEPT Re: Pinehurst Tree Inventory Results Ref.: 20041064.00 Dear Robert: Westwood Professional Services, Inc. tagged trees during June and July 2004, and estimated the total number oftrees located in the preservation area on August 9, 2004. Four plots were set up within the approximately 3.0-acre tree preservation area in order to estimate the total number of significant trees and diameter inches located within the tree preservation area. Tree diameters were also recorded. The table below indicates the mensuration survey findings. Acres Plot # # of Trees DBH 0.10 1 16 194 0.10 . 2 7 75 0.10 3 17 265 0.10 4 14 143 0.4 4 54 677 Using basic sampling methodology, an expansion estimator was used to estimate the total nwnber of trees within the tree preservation area. The following formulas were used: Average number oftrees per plot = nwnber oftrees/number of plots = [54/4] = 14 trees per 0.10.:. acre plot Total number of plots within the 3.0-acre area = 30 plots Total estimated number oftrees within the preservation area is [14 X 30] = 420 trees Total diameter inches within the preservation area is then [420 X 12.5] = 5,250 inches The mensuration survey results indicate there are an estimated 420 significant trees totaling 5,250 diameter inches within the tree preservation area. SCANNED Nathan Franzen Pinehurst Tree Inventory ResultS Page 2 The mensuration survey resulted in 140 trees per acre. As a comparison to the accuracy ofthe mensuration survey, the density of trees west of the preservation line (and east ofthe row of white cedars) were calculated at 145 trees per acre. Trees outside of the preservation area were individually tagged. Tree tagging resulted in 1,984 healthy significant trees totaling 22,841 diameter inches. Additionally, 103 dead/dying significant trees were tagged totaling 1,179 diameter inches. Results of the tree inventory are listed in the table below. Survey Method Number of Total Diameter Trees Inches Tagging Healthy 1,978 22,793 DyinglDiseased 107 1,245 Mensuration 420 5,2500 Total Trees 2,505 29,288 If you have questions, please call me at (952) 906-7428. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. Shannon Hansen, Environmental Scientist (jj CD u.. Z~;~ ~ Q == cu u t ,; E-o ...... CI.2 1-4 = ..c Q) = ...... ~ ~ ~ :; if ~ ..c § ..c u g Iri ¡¡¡ !? ;; 8 < íñ ;¡: I ~ 0 ¡¡¡ ~ è::' C\I ª Jr! '" .. .. ,..: ~ 'C ~ H~ c: « š::;¡ " ,., c: u::;¡:;¡ 0 c. 0 '" 0 ~ £'Q, r-t- ~ c: ..CO) .' ~ .. ~'i1 ~.t~ CI> '" Ü " -0 U~ ~ µ- 'C ê" CI> $ ~'t ~ Q) C D- r- ~ :::; "'" ~ JD 0 g8 0", ~~ ~ ::;¡õ; c ~ CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 11360 Highway 212 West PO Box 300 Cologne, MN 55322-0300 Phone (952) 466-5200 Fax (952) 466-5223 Administration Parks Engineering Highway Maintenance Surveying & Mapping To: From: Subject: Bob Generous, Senior Planner - City of Chanhassen Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer Of:XIÙ Preliminary. Plat and Request for Rezoning '-1w- Pinehurst - Planning Case 04-36 RECEIVED OCT 1 5 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN October 12, 2004 Following are comments regarding the Pinehurst Preliminary Plat and Rezoning request transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated September 22, 2004. These comments are not all inclusive and further comments and concerns may evolve as this project progresses and changes. Galpin Boulevard in the location of this proposed development is presently on the County road system and is identified as County Road 117. The long term plans for this portion of County Road 117 include a turn back of this roadway to the City of Chanhassen. Initial conversations concerning thi~ potential turn back had begun five or six years ago but have been discontinued at this time. The comments that folloW would be our commentsconcerningthis'þroposalifthis roadway is to remain on the County system. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are: Urban Undivided 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Recommended 80' 100' Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway Minimum 110' 120' Urban Undivided 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Recommended 1 00' 110' Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway Minimum 140' 170' ',.!,-,'" County Road 117 (Galpin Boulevard) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 50 foot from centerline corridor shown on, the preliminary plat would þr"òvidefora. þotemtialminimuni 100 foot corridor fora two.lé;me urban roadway. . ". The city maywish to consider an evenwider'highwaycorridofalbng the proposed subdivision if 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 from Carver County will be required for the proposed street entrance onto CR 117. Construction of a right turn lane off of CR 117 into the development will be a requirement included in the access permit. 3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of Carver County. 5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-of-way (including tree removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the County and the City. 6. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the CR 117 intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right-of-way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. 7. As this area develops, traffic volumes will increase. Carver County considers any potential noise abatement improvements to be the responsibility of the developer. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plat for the proposed development. ~ ~ I I Ii' city of Chanhassen Attention: Planning Commission 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED NOV r02004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN City of Chanhassen PI,.nning Commission, This letter is intended to address the proposed development of the "SIoÐUD1 Tree Farm". The city has indicated that it intends that the aforemœtioned development must affect the neighborhood situated on Crestview Drive, in Chanh,ssen. This is primarily due to a proposed road that would connect the new development with the Crestview Drive neighborhood now or in the future, Introduction The Crestview Drive neighborhood was created during the Jate Fdlies. The area is around 25 acres. The road began as private. Over the course of20 years, the road was extended and a cul-de-sac was added. During the Jate 70's, the city took control of the road when paving, water and sewer where added. A total of 8 houses exist on this cu1-de- sac. The yards are Jarge and private. Only two properties are Jarger than 1.25 acres. They are the Jackson property and the rooently. sold Shultz property. AD the properties on Crestview Drive are fàirly well kept up. A simple review of permits granted over the years demonstrates this. Simply put, this neighborhood has seen Jitt1e change/development. There are few like it ~ especially in this city. It is fair to say that a sound majority of the folks here (the Crestview Drive neighborhood) like the road the way it is and would like to see it continue in its current form. It is not a zone of transition or even close to one (as a geographer would put it). This area is not run down, in need of change, not unattractive or a hazard in any way. Several Crestview Drive homeowners have inquired on the city's intentions. Each time some one asks about the proposed road that connects "our" property to the Slooum Development, a new reason appears. The city has cited the following: 1. Parts of the Crestview Drive neighborhood might be developed and that requires a connecting road. 2. Crestview Drive needs to be something other than a cul-de-sac so school buses can use.it. 3. Utilities need to be oonnected. 4. It would be in everyone's interest to get rid of that "ugly" cul-de-sac. 5. People on Crestview Drive need access to the new development or visa versa. ~ Eadi of the above items needs to be addressed. It stIutik a number of people that the reasons given were somewhat "superficial". Hopefully, the planning commission has left room for discussion. Parts or the Crestview Drive neighborhood might be developed and that requires a conneding road. Pòint number one suggests that without a road, no other development can take place on Crestview Drive. The Jackson family (one of the two lots that potentially might be divided) inquired about the needs. Interestingly, the city said that water would need to- be extended up the street at a cost of$8000 per household. At no time did anyone suggest that additional streets would be needed. At this time no one, or at least, a majority of people doesn't want an organized development. Sure, folks an understand that a few houses (2-5) might~beadded someday. Anything beyond that (a development) is not wanted. The argument against the proposed road can also be tied to neighborhood size. Crestview Drive currently has 8 houses on it. If the two larger lots are split and rezoned (another distasteful thought) some homes might be added. For arguments sake, let us assume an additional 5 houses. The resulting total of 12 houses shouldn't require anything more than a cul-de-sac. The current Slocum development supports this. The proposed neighborhood actually has 15 or 16 houses on a cul-d~sacf This makes people ask why a road is needed. If this comes down to a development at the end of Crestview Drive, then make it part of Pinehurst. If this is done Crestview remains a cul-d~sac and bears no burden. Nothing changes for the area. Here any and all questions are addressed separately ftom Crestview Drive. The proposed road would need to be moved further west so it doesn't affect the Abblett property. This is reasonable. Maybe the road has nothing to do with developing Crestview Drive. Perhaps the Slocum development needs the road. If this is the case, reduce their development. Crestview Drive doesn't need to be burdened with their shortcomings. Didn't past discussions put a road throup the BreJÍdenPond, ~ addition, thoop the "outlot A" of Pinehurst (see Pinehurst drawing)? The 'connecting road 'Should not be Crestview's concern. If the above statement is true, why force another neighborhood to support an unwanted violation. How could the Crestview neighborhood be compensated? It affects every family on Crestview. It adds traffic that otherwise wouIdn't be there. When is the City of Chanhassen. going to force dianges to the existing streets? Does Crestview have to pay for that? Is the city going to take property to make the streets wider? Where does the harassment end? In the past, Chanhassen has stated that, neighborhood improvements won't be made unless every family agrees. Is this no longer the case? Why does the 8looum (Pinehurst) development need three aooess poÎDts? Other neighborhoods have hundreds offàmi1ies and three access pOÎDts. Several examples can be found aU the way up County Road 17! What is special here? Crestview Drive needs to be something other than a ~ul-de-sa~ so school buses ~an use it. A city employee did indicate that there was conœm about school bus acooss. In the first place, no one has dilldren on Crestview at this time. Seoondly, other neighborhoods (with multiple access points and connecting roads) seem to have their school age children pi"ked up, not in the neighborhood, but along the main road. Interestingly eno~ other neighborhoods aren't affected in the same way as ours is. A fabulous example of this is on Lake Lucy Road in between CR17 and Powers Blvd. Again, people ask why does Crestview Drive need to be conœmed with this? Why is Crestview so special? Utilities need to be connected. The city has indicated that it wants to "connect" utilities. We know this is not a problem. The folks developing the Slooum Tree Farm (Pinehurst) have acooss to utilities via Woodridge Heights, Brenden Pond and CR. 17. Crestview Drive has water and sewer. If it needs to be extended it can be done reasonably ($8000 per family aooording to the Ja"kson family). Again, the CrestView neighborhood is being burdened. Why? It would be in everyone's interest to get rid of that "ugly" ~ul-de-sac. This is this the weakest argument of all. Personally, we like the large wl-~sa". It has served Crestview and the City for plowing purposes. We aU have mature trees and don't have to see eadt other, mudt less the wI-de-sa". Our so-œIled "ugly wI-de-sa,," has never 'come up at neigb:boIh'OOd ptherings or polite disœssion. 80 if the city doesn't mind, we'd like to Jœepit1 People -on Cn:IJtview Drive need access to the new development or visa versa. May we say, '110 thank you to Pinehurst aooess''? Crestview Drive will remain mum safer as a cu1-~sa". All conœmed feel that it keeps us safer, secluded and buffered ftom the bland, "cookie wtter" houses or JDini..mansions this city seems to prefer. The Crestview neighborhood likes it's large sooluded lots and it's priva"y. Conduøion The homeowners on Crestview Drive would like you to reoonsider the proposed. road. We would prefer to be an ''independent'' neighborhood as we have been for years. May we respootfully decline the privilege of serving a developers needs? If the Pinehurst Devdopmœt:(SJoœm TrœFJß'm) œa'11111.ppR'rt.tkeir proposed development, then reduœ· tlië ïffiw.bëï õfhõñìëš. Other arguments do not seem uedible fur a road. The size -of -our road is fine as it stands, it can support Crestview Drive's ami the City'-snœdsJIDW ami in tire future. We aren't oonœmed about school buses (apparent1y other neighborhoods aren't either). .Homeowners know they have aœess to utilities and are satisfied~ We like our œl-de-sac. It is not ugly. It has served us wen and will continue to. No benefits seem to exist for Crestview Drive. Thank you for your time andoo1)sideratiøn, , Crestview Drive Homeowners (See eodosed petition) .. ~ ..... ~ .. ·d ... . ,"'....,.1 .. . · '->1 estvlew ·U11ve reSt entsagatnst a fVöUconnectmg the Pinehurst Development {Slocum Tree Farm) to Crestview 'Drive. Name Address L ~ I ~1!R Ih .. ;{') S- / cpr-fl/,'c...J [)/. .£:. .. ,,)1 . .1"~-,-,,,h-. 2. ~. ~- -, ;;¡J..ò it ~Æ/'¡ eµ; Ll.t 3. &' )~4r~' Cf7¿J ~ ,¿þß-,( 4. 4...t<ð_~/~tf"'--. Ç)'Zc4d,.,ln $/v¿ 5. _f~Ä.~ ~øí50 ~ ~ 6. ~~¥~, ao~ CRêSÎUIELv 4 ::~~ 9. 1· - 12. ~~ ~~ . 13./.v~.Ml# 14. ~~ "r 15. Zoso Cees1v1.av 1:)z.- ~ JI D é £E.sr( /£.f1.J ~ (' ... ~//¿) (l/,eL1/le¿,u· Dr: ~O~) CJreg(v,e_Lù ~ é).é)~O 6-e~Vtè2w~ ~r5Zo ~ 1Âr; c9. /Y<f'1 (! /l£sj t/ / er.~ 2:\.. '11 10 cres f- Vl e u Dv City .of Chanhassen Attention: PJann.ìng .commìssion 7700MarkaßôUlê\,~a 1'.:0. Dux 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED NOV r 2 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN City .of Chanbassen Plann.ìng Commission, Additionalquesti.ons and ,concerns have been arisenconcernin,gthe .proposed Pinehusrt Development (Slocwn Tree Farm) road .that would .connectto Crestview Driv.e.- The ,city notified most Crestview Drive .residents about the proposed development. Because .af this, some homeovvners ha.~.done some mvestigating. Ãdditional information thatconcetnS .Crestview Drive, Pinehurst and potentially the City .af Chanhassenhas been f.ound. NQtification of the pnJID~ devellJlment The City of Chanhassen planning commission may nat have notified the entire Crestview Drive ne:i¡hborhood. It is .currently understood that r.esidents withìn a .certain distance of proposed changes need t.oOO notified. At least two families appear to oot he aware .af the situation. The,proposed .change to Cr.estview affects .every .one .on Crestview Drive. ThepÖwérs .that be may want tacheck. The scope .af the no,tification really should change as well. Areather neìghboIhoodsin .dose proximity'goingto be ,cónnectedtoo? What about traffic where none :existed.? Far example, Crestvie.w Cìr.cle .is affected in ,two ways. First, additìöìlal traffic at the mtersèction where ,CR 17, .crestview Drive and their road come together might he an issue. Secondly ,due ta the :euttent attitude ,.of theplann.úÏg ,commissio~ thcir road may 1lOt remain a .coL· de.-saceither. They may want to vaicetheìr .opinions now. Perhaps the previous ,commentS aretnaccurate.Other înfonnation res.identshã-vepoints tg·tliåt. New·,ooiJOOroS'.in ·addilion to· Pinehurst Concerns .over .pr<>posed road, the developer, partners .ofthe ,developer and the City of Chanhassenhave arisen with additional information. It ¡snow the reSidents understandìng that a personar group associated with the .. Pinehurst .development has intentionsof.developing the 3+ acres at the .end ,.of ,the Crestview Drivecùbd~sac. Accordinsly,.the Shultz property has been a1ready split ìnto l.ots. It appears that thë 'City .may want tõ "fOrcê" the Pinehurst connection to Crestview to favor some ,one .or a .$W"!P associated with PilwIîurst. Frankly,. no one is' interested in being associated with Pinehurst in any way. In fact,. there would be no reason far the connection ,other than to favor .the people associated with the Shultz ,ptOpmy (at the end .of the cul-de-sac). :Coñunents from homeowners suggest .ailier· motiveslconcemsmay be m play. Relocating the road west .of its proposed position (see enclosed :dráwing) would- seemt.o,efimi113teth~ isSUes at -hand. It 'shauld never be connected in any way t.o Crestview Drive. This is the easiest solution .that bas no j]},effecfon any party involved. Residents are not against one .or ,two houses. It would aIl.ow us to keep our cul~&sac. Our style of neighborhood with large lots wouldn't change .either. We .don'tèare for afulbblowndevelopînent. If the is the .case, m.ove the road. It is ooderstood that the Pinehmst,. and any additionaldeve1opment ,connected t.o it,. would be 'servìced in an acceptable way with .outdisturbing us (no connecting road). Examples .oftmsexist allover .ourcity. Access to two m~or roads is beyond what most,. l~ neijbhorhoods have. .Conêlusìon Several things have happened. Residents ha.ve,.conveniently~ not'been fully informed.Ño discuss10nbas ,ensued ,on a .development at tbe end of . ·CrêStvîeW DtiV'~: I'ni SUt~' that mall 1óts and "-éoOkiê.éUttef" Pinehûrst houses are the ",,'Ì5Il: Thìsis not of~ tothehómeô-vvneiS on,CreštvieW Drive. Property .owners here like their large city lots and privacy. Achange in ,our situåtiori is not ,of interest. Certaìnly, .ouT neighborS andris are .not - ..obligated to share in a .developers "Vision". This wou1dbe~pecial1y true .bectiuseof the oost and ~thåt wOUld be'~ . One would hope thatcollusiOD is not something ,occurring between the people asSùciàted with Pinehurst and anyone at the city. -Forcing the residentsofCrestvìew Drive down an Wlwantedpath for no concrete purpose,tmderprotest,. makes every one ask more and deeper questions. This is~peciaIly true when s~le solutions exist. Certainly this is not a test of wills .either. I lo1òw that most our .city .employees are .exceptionaland in.-tune tothecommuni~. The tóad.C01.Ûd 00 moved west· so it.does·not influence .cremriew Drive in. any way. The sitnpJicity and .e:fIecfiveness,of thìs should be obvious. No change to .crestvìewDriveeliminateshomeownerconcerns. The ,devclopment:can ,continue un.opposed for the most part. Thank .you for .yourtime andconsìderatio~ .;, ~ 1:....' 'I) . '" .~-.- ,,,~,'~~ '.,' ; , i , ,I Ii ·1 _I I. lIft.,.. ; 11 r: ,.I:Ill -, ..: "'1': ' '1,+. " "I.'. J. I.' ,1;'. '. ....: _,I J - ...iII , , " "11,4.:.... t-I'1 -. ............ . _."'y ....-... '!íí' 'j" , ¡:. ~ 1 . .....:;: ~!1 I' ~a .' H~r~ .~--: fit City of Chanhassen Attention: Planning Commission 7700 Market Blvd. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission: This letter is to give additional support to Mr. Tungseths letter that has been presented to you. We were unaware, until Thursday, November 11, that Lecy Bros. Development is planning a development at the top end of Crestview Drive. No notification was ever sent to us, and we feel we have the right to be given notice of any changes to our street and/or properties. We know of the proposed Pinehurst development and have concerns about the projected extension of our road to tie i~ to that development. As in Mr. Tungseths letter, we strongly agree that there is no reason to join the neighborhood of Crestview Drive to the Pinehurst Development. With the Lecy Brothers development planned for the end of Crestview Drive. it makes much more sense to connect this new development to the Pinehurst Development. 'This will leave Crestview Drive residents to not have to undergo any changes to our street and neighborhood, that we feel are not needed. This in no way improves our neighborhood. As indicated by the petition signed by the majority of the residents of Crestview Drive, which you have already received, we as a neighborhood, do not wish to have our neighborhood or our quiet dead end eliminated, or changed. Concerns: I. Will Crestview Drive be widened? 2. Will City Water have to be extended to the end of Crestview Drive? 3. Will sidewalks be put in? For us personally, if Crestview is widened, we will lose a large amount of mature trees that add value and beauty to our property. These potential changes will lead to an assessment to the residents of Crestview Drive, which we feel is an unnecessary expense. None of these proposed changes benefit our neighborhood. Do what you will with the new developments, but don't include them into our established neighborhood. We specifically sought out this home because it was on a dead end street and in a long established neighborhood, all homes being on larger private properties that give all of us a setting that is hard to fIQØ. We enjoy the quiet and solitude that tbis\1eighborhood offers, and don't want to see it destroyed. Charles & Bever y Jackson 21lO .crestview Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDA VIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 24, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Pinehurst Subdivision, Rezoning & Variances - Planning Case No. 04-36 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and s~ to before me thisA«-I4-l(1ay of >k/Y}~r- , 2004. cti~'-:--T ~ '!oo!! 4~. ~ Notary Pù c m c ¡ Q) ::æ: ms c·- .- 0 "'0 CIS._ Q)E :l:E .20 :ä0 ::::1m D.c -'- Oc C Q)ca ()- :¡::D. Oc ZQ) o o CIS .c c CIS .c o g» i ::æ: c mo c'- ._ 0 "'0 CIS·- Q)E :l:E ()o ,a0 ::::1m D.c õg Q)CIS ()- -D. - oc ZQ) o o as .c c as .c o I cu ()'8l? ~... ..c:o- 0>0 -..c:"C c- -...cu ëi5 -æ C::J 0 () > 'i5. 0.0_ o 0 0 -æ -§~:= ::::"c.~ (!J ::Jei);: a: a.() 0 OC.: .a:«~ "<t >.()cu "C -- - (0 E ..c: ..c: >-CU(/) (0,-0 m:mã:2 oð ~OE() ã)55~~ 0 õ:Še£~ E ~ "C cu 'L;: C\ CUI _0::: ..;. 2 ci cu "ëi).£: a. (0 _ ::J c' (/) 8 ~ £ ~ .E ~:5 .~ a.:;:; 0) .. 0 _ () (/) E õ o>.£: ~ .£: " 0 CU a....... Q) . êã Q) &2·£; E ~ (¡j":; 0 Ou. '0 CU·O "a:"Cc ..JQ) Üim-Q)= ~ f!? E æ .¡g ..J Q) 31 ..c: .g £ .E o CD 0'-" as ..-c" .= æ .Q 0 C) ..c:() C\D ...u.> .- >-- C E- ()E GJD"C'L;:- r-: o>en..c: E "'::JC::J..c: ...CUca:·'!::: ª::J GJo.cuoo> () ..c: '- - ;: 0 0 :5 (/) _ ::J DO§-æc (j).Q c:E(/)()...:e E'-N:;:;O >en 0- o..c: Q)O()C"ëi) ()"C UI-::J()- o § a: ~'S; 0 0- -::: 0 g'õ' 0> Q) "".- ¡¡¡ ()...... C o Uo _0 (i) "C (/) ~ _ E (/) a. 'L;: ()D_ ~c\"C o_(/)(/)cu ..:: a:::J(/) - "'co.-·-(I) ~-æü) en:; ..ë:oð~.2:;æ£..c: "CJ: () >'-..c:'''' (/)..- ().. 0.0- 0 (/) ::J=o(l)M;: -B =::J= Q)~O"E,c 0 o~::JoQ)o.OD ::J.- (I) cu M -- "<t - 0 0 - ..c: 0..0 ::J .-oa:u."<ta..oa....Jmct.-cucuo. å) E '- ë ~o ~:;:: sB Cas 0 ..J .!! ¡¡:.. .~~ c- j~ Q,cI: >-c t:o CI):;:: Q,B 20 Q,..J "i en o Q, o ... Q, o CU () '8..c:Q) ()... 0 "'0 ..c: - ..." -..c: '?'O c- -"'ãí ëi5 -æ C::J 0 Q) > 'i5. 0.0_ B e (/). -æ -§ ~:= _0._ (!J ::J(i);: a: a.() 0 OC.: .a:«~ "<t >'Q)CU ~:::'(¡j ü) (0 E..c:..c: m~ã:2 ~ alO-EO ...c:~as wu 8'Eo~ü) E~~ fij-'È: 0 0__...._ a. !...: .... .- C a. ~; B::: ci) 2 ,....CU(/).- (0 - ::Jc(/) 8 ~ æ ~ .E -:5 (/) a.:;:; 0> .. 0 _ () (/) E õ ·Õ.£: ~ .£: ~R~a:~ ü.f ~'§'~E~ "a:"CC ..JQ) Üim~Q)=o "<t~ cCU ..J ¡~..c: of!? ECU'L;: Q) ..c:o_- 0C\ ~ 0.... -u. >cu 'Ê ~ .Q B 0) l? ~ Q)E ~:Õ"C'§- r-: E -;en..c: E ... ::J C::J..c: ....cuca::!::: ¡o;¡::J GJo.cuoO> Q)..c:._-;: ÕO :5(/)_ ::J DO §-æ C (j).Q c:E~...: e E'-N:;:;O >en 0- o..c: () 0 (I) c·- Q)"C UI-::JQ)- o C a: Q).~ 0 - -= 0 O"'õ' 0> Q)5 "C.~ (/)0 ¡¡¡m~c..£: °0.E·~:8_ ~t\Î=ÕE o_(/) (/) cu ..:: -a:::J(/) - ....cO'-·-(I) ;:;;'-=(/) en.... ..c:"'oðCUo....c..c:..c: ........Q)>.::J >-::JCU- "CJ: ::J=-..c:(O (/)..- Q)'tij 0.0- 0 ~~ O"E~ Q)C'? ;:~Su Q)'5.5:E ::J.'!::: Q) cu M .£: "<t .Q 0 0.2 ..c: 0..0 ::J .-oa:u."<ta..oQ....Jmct.-cucuo. å) E .. ¡:c ~:B sB as 0 c..J .!! ¡¡:.. - I~ B c- jã Q,cI: ~8 CI):;:: Q,B 20 Q,..J 'ii en o Q, o ... Q, .... '50 Q) (/) a. 0..- o£ () B DM- ¡g (/) cu..-()B() ::J Q) _ (1)"- (/) >.]2 ...: 0 (/) ·c~Oo.> o (/) cuEoC\ooe .~ '6 ~ c:i. Q) C\ ..c:o 0 a. e'ri a. Eo (1)_ 0.(1) § ~go~::Jc= 'õ' .- 0>.. (/) en g, 0 ;: -g.... . ¡g .£:"<t 0__ (I):t:: 8~g'E $B~CU-~.s o...c:DE ·-æ(/)cñ..c:en O-::Jo EE_5::J0 C. C 0.0 Q) ctÌ 0 .... c - c» 0(1) ..c: -Q) - ()(/)..c:Q) -0..c:cE.2.£: £ C - ..c: (I) ~ (/),~ c· a. ã) cu E - 0 ex> '§ ~ (I) (j) (I) Õõ.o-g -() (/)~_D (/)(/)..c: E ;:-c.:=cu ....0 (/) .0 :; 0 m cu._ () .5Q (I) "C(I) "C (/) 0 >. _ "É :!::: £ C:(/»() c..c::!::ocu ~_c ()~'-8 ~(I) ..s..c:~00 >o.()- o.O>'COC(I)(i) o=~o ():ECUO....:()O(/) c·s;.....~ ..c:0]200Ec·E- CU>Q) - ....Q)@Ecu - .... 0> () o>u. (/) (/) > E g? C cu .£: Q) .£: ..c: cu ::J g -g 0 ._cu(/)=...:(/)....O)Q)o ....0 O).Q - .... 0 ::J::J - .... C C =õ.C () () B"C 0 a.() Q)'- Q) '- (I)..c:.:::, -.... ~C=-..c: ;: 9- E 0 e 'E -æ ..c: Õ. () 'L;: C - .... ·-c.CUJ:-(I)~>()O :t:: Q) E:ë > >"-.0 > E _ .s..c:o::JQ»>.cue_:!:::t:::(/) en .- 0 a.. £ ::J 'o'!::: "C a. ('ij E cu.5Q o c(/)EDo.'ª >'>.0._ I ::J () 0 ~C\Ìcw:i..t :!::D~£()(/)"CO en 0) c c CD_ Q,- Q,~ :1!:æ _CD as.c .c- ~ãi ~.. en,:! c c OCD :;::E :: E :so 00 .... '50 Q) (/) a. 0..- o£ Q) B DM-O (/) (/) cu..-()_~ ~ () ~ ê '7 8 ~.s; 'ri g ~Eol:\iooe () '6 ~c:i.()C\'fi0o. 'P'o. 'ri a. 0 E c:\¡ () - -(I) C ~MOLO::JC= ._ 0 0>.. (/)en g,o;: "Ce ïñ .£:"<to__():t:: mo.e,)·~ â)B~cu-~.s OQ)=E Q) '-(/)cñ..c:en §-£ .g ~ E e; .s 5 =! 0 . c. C 0.0 l? cu B ø C ::: 0> Q) (/)0 ..c:Q) Q) - 0 ..c: C E .2 .£: Q)O(/)Q) '0.- £æË£ oëö'§(!J55ã)~ Õõ.o-g Q)u)::JD¡g..c:E ;:'E':=cu D:;OSCU.~Q) .5QQ)"CQ)"C (/)0>'_"É:!:::£ C:(/»() c..c::!::ocu --c Q) ~.- (/)0 ~ Q) ..s..c:~ 0 0 >o.Q)- o.O>'coCQ)"ëi) o=~o Q):ECUO·~Q)O(/) c·-.... (/) ..c: 0]2 O&;, E C'-E ;: .- - ....Q)~Ecu cu Q) 0> Q) 0> U. CI) (/) > E g?'Ecuc ().§..c:cu::Jg-go .- ~. (/) .~ ...: (/) ::J g>~ e C cO 0>= 'E () ~ B "C 0 a. Q) Q)'_ Q) := ~Q)..c:·;;::o-'S.2.r55:1::ë£ ;:.....Eo....C...._O;::.....Q) :t:: cu E = a ~ J: >..!..è ;: E B cu~o.gQ) ~cue=:!:::t:::(/) éi5 .- 0 a.. £ 5 õ -g a. CUE E cu .~ >'>.o.~ I .g g-õ ~C\Ìcw:i..t :!::D~£()(/)"CO en .. cO) CD.S 8:¡ :1!:æ _CD as.c .c- ~ãi ~.. en,:! Cc OCD =e ::e :so 00 Q) o -0 0 > c! o~ ,£Q) e '" ~ :; .~~[ ~= ë~~ 8. CD is d)4J êiï~cu ã:0 asC::? .2£ CJ:¿ ~=i ~Q)0 ~ gC~ Q)~ Q)~o CQ)~ ~~~ !g ~~a ~~ ~~B -g50 Eëiš"''''>'~ "'åíbD ~~ Q)5'- .!!! ]¡; E e 8. Q) 'E 'c....: Q) ëi .... ~.... a :>o~ åío'o ~~o~[%,t!!=~E õg 0:=g ~~g ...."'~E....E~~ ~ ~ ~~Æ gi~ CU~CD~:~~~S~ ~j ~~c 0.s: 0 -g '61:6 '" 15 a.~ '" 2 a. () .¡;¡ ::E 8'" ° ~g~ ~=~~~~"'~§~ ~~ ~:>oi ,E ,0 75' ,Q ~,o "" ,.. '" ~ ~ EO.... 0 c "" E C~~ -=aJCD~· 4J C 0° 0'" 10.0 "'S..::c:.s:~Q)Eo-- -ëiš 0 c -~! E0æ~OE~E~;š g~ ~~c 1J~_ .e ..~U) (l)8'->~ _= -c 0 ~~~ S~0~5Eo~m~ C8S ~g~ -[6-'ÒlE'äjg.!!!S::Q)':::~Q)! (/) c~c '" .... :B c CD Q) () ~ t: E '" ~ ..::c: - "', 8'" 8.= 60-~cE~~=-gE3!S.s: Q)ëiš Q)'" ~~~:B~C~~~Q)Q)0:>oj ~~ ~:oo 8c E E a.~ Q) ~ 51 ~ ~ ~ ~ 'ð e ~ u:6 g ~fil~!~~iCDe~þ! :~ 4JSi ~~~~~Eg~!!!'8EB~() -~ ~i.!!! $ C c ~ 0 ~ :>0 () e ëi ~ i 1: ~~ ~ lQ)f~io~I"'E-g¡gE¡ ~~ ~i! Q)~ 'ucOQ)", "'c~o.s: o:c "'c- a: ° g. 0 ,- c a. 0.= 51 Q) () 0 '" ~ Q) - õ ~~~ir§~~§"'-5~'i~ .g& ~Bs ~~~¡c£:Q)8-g~g~~g:!!! ~~c8 CD 0 Q) c 0 .- 0 '" E a.g .... åí ,- ~ a. ~E~~~!~O~~aJiCD~CDCDO 4Jg~ (/)Q)~-()-~~b0Q)="'CDE~º ~~'" -E~:>o=-a;= Ot/)"'~:6 -t ""'Q) t~!!!~~C""~!~"'0~.s:~~~ 3g~ Q)C0["'~Q)C~o~Q)oocQ)~ -a. EQ)E8 r,~.s:,Q ,NC'Š~"'8"'t/).s!''''-',ga.,~~ c. cia):)"-U):-Q)liCTCUe !(þfl) as oC"'-=~,0~a:~m~.s:,..a.cycoQ) - c:ø-œc-_ c:~--~-CD - 5 ~~~!~~.oE:)¿cuœREð~~g~ ~ ~~51Q)~~~8~a::ÆQ)o ~lg:6 "" Q) ~'- :6 ~ C 0 ~~ s ~ E C = e ~ E ~ ,£ c2U~C,OCDQ)Ucc~o"'''''8.~i8~~ ..~~ co.!!!E.s: Q)2~(/)~g0åí~ bDQ) "~Q),", ~'¡;¡E~.21EQ)'" 0o!Q))o....'E "Q).s:.... '8.>~ '""E....- ,= -E....C - .gC!!!,Q~ '" 0oo-S'Eg:§¡8. ~ï:8~ .C:c.~~!4J~-oiooaso:)(I)Oc:c:c:.5 U£E~¡"'~"'86!!!~~-g~i~;~.!!!~~ o 0e (I)(I)~~~(I)4JCUCUc:~OCDC:~c:- t~ooSQ)~ca."'~_oo~-~,g~"'Q)8.0 ~ 6 ~o C ~ 8. '" ~-g,Q'g s,!!!jj~ 5 s= = 0-2 .!! ,ñ ~ o~ 5!'!!! ~8.'c Q)E :g '" 0:6 ~ ¡¡¡ .¡;¡ 8'~ Q) !!! ,£ >~-c:cu~ co -OU)cnc - ~U)~8.s: .~6~ga.m!!!~EEO~~g~.~a;~ åí a:",~ja.~!Q)Q)R~~Sëiš""EC!!!~~~E ~øa:~~(/)~=:6~00::E~8.0c"'a.m",g o . . . . . o ø -õ ~ ¡ 6 :6 ¿~~~! 0 e ~.s: 1ð ~ ~ ,91 [ :¡¡ :: E:>o"" 8. CD ~ g :¡;!i ~C:'" ~o B~~ .2= c.s:¿ ~;~ ~~~ Q)~ ~,~ ¡~ ~i~ -g,Eg E~~ "';,~ H¡ ~ ~.~ ; 5,g cu ! Œ> E € Q. CD 1: ·c....: G) ë. .... i '- ¡~:¡:: 1io'o ~~e~[,~~=e;E Õg ~:=g ~ig ...."'a.E5E~:g8~ ~ ~~Q) ~'" Q) '" Q) Q)~ CD~ ~g~ .2:-'º c.:::6 3! ! ~ -g .è!: :6 ¡¡¡ ~ëi~ § 2 g'" 'õ ~ ~ 5 6 ~()r, ",o~E.ç:E"'0_ Q» o~ E~~ 6~~Æ$~~~6 =~ ~:>oCD ·c",.g "" 7â ~"'Q)~E:? 50 C""~ 1:;0 "'~~~'8~E~-ï= -ëiš 0';C i!!!~ 1~8.~ESgs;j ~: 1:6~ ",'~~ .£:?~.?¡sto?i~ C8s '¡3g:¡; -Q)- '-1!"¡¡;s::CD-'~CD!!! (/) '::~Q ~;jrj~I;~I~~~= ¡. ~I~ :ei~¡'5ìc~'" .CDQ)0~~ ">8. ~ (/) 8-g-5cE~IQ):?~~I~E* ee oÆ2 c~!ëiš-=iQ)Q)""kl~ a.~ Q)S~ t~ji~ê,E!~8êB~~ ~~ ~~j .91-:;~::g "'8'2g ~'E- g 0."5 8.õ r",~ ~'88.",g~~.gE"'t~8~ !'!.£ ",g= a:oeg;~~~'I~O~ §'E !~õ j~~i~~Q)Æ"''''~~!IÒI~~ g~~ ~~ëiš~6~:Q)8-g~ëiÕ2~0~ 'oJ8 Ætl~~~~~~~~~;a.:~~ !6i (/)Q)"'-~ E~U01-"'Q)E~~ ~""œ ~-5~~~<Æ~!r"':~~~~B 3,~~ CD~0["'~!C~o~!!!60§~.s: õR~1 iE~i~~~.2~~j~1ð~8!~~~'" .2<t!!~75'~¿.~!i!a:~ ~g= iCC.§CD.... ~~~!!!"'!!!~E"'¿~œ~E~~CDo0:6Q) Q)-"'Q)0:>o=E8o œ"'Q)0",:6g¡0o.s: a~OE!'o~8 ..amCD""Q)º~&~S- := CD >..- _ CD c: ~ ca c:: .- E C:::S ~. § -e c 'c .¡¡ C3 ~ C :is ~ CD b -g'ë ~ ð '" .... §. 'i Õ '" ~ ..::J~ ,oC(O~Er=CD~2~(/)~gQ)if$D~-ð !!~~~I~RI'~~iEE2E&Ei~B~ II Ca.0;g ".,~ -ìj¡CD(/)"'g'" 0g", Ci'~ 8£~~~",a", f....~I'E i'8'2i£-gB t ~o ~,£ !!!~~ a.~-;;.!oo~·~~.2 ~œ! Rg ~.§ go 6 ~ 8.~.go 5i -i g s! i 'E .8 ~ ~ - B~ .!! 0 c: ~"" at!!! 8.:¡¡ E 0 5 ° '" .s: 51 t: ¡; ~~~~!J~5!!!!!E~0~=6~g ~"'8!!! ¡~~II~!~Æ~~ð~lii!;I!i~ CJ.. ... Disclaimer - This map Is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and Is not intended to be used as one, This map is a cOO'pilation 01 records, Information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only, The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of dstance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features, ff errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107, The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466,03, Subd, 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowtedges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expreSSly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indermify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, ~s employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the use~s access or use of deta provided, Dlsclalmer- This map Is neither a 1ega/1y recorded map nor a survey and Is not Intended to be used as one. This map is a cOO'pilation 0I18COI'ds, Infonnation and data located In various city, county, state and federal offtces and other sources regarclng the area shown, and is to be used for refer8nce purposes only, The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare INs map are error free, and the City does nol represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of dstance or drection or precision In the depiction 01 geographic features, ff errors or clscrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107, The prececlng disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466,03, Subd, 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defand, indermify, and hold harmess the City from any and all claims brought by User, Its ~OY99S or agents, or INri! parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided, Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Pinehurst City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-36 ALEXNORTHWOODS LLC JOHN F & MAR I ELLEN WALDRON MARY TRIPPLER C/O UPTOWN PROPERTIES 1900 LAKE LUCY RD 1931 CRESTVIEW CIR PO BOX 16314 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 CHARLES CHICKS & KRISTIN F PAUL KENNETH W & NANCY C EATO VICKY R SHERMAN 1941 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1950 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1941 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICIA HELENE STAMP & TROY PAPPAS & GESTACH & PAULSON GORDON L STAMP KARl ABRACKELSBERG CONSTRUCTION 1960 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1961 CRESTVIEW CIR 200 CHESTNUT ST N EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA MN 55318 BRUCE A & JEAN A MATTSON BRIAN J HABAS & JEFFREY A JORGENSEN & SUSAN BLAINE HELENA B STAFKO 2020 CRESTVIEW DR 2021 HIGHGATE CIR 2028 HIGHGATE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 COURTNEY W & CHRISTINE WILLIAM C & JUDITH J ASHENBACH MICHAEL J STACHOWSKI CLAFLIN 2041 65TH ST W 2050 CRESTVIEW DR 2040 HIGHGATE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL S TUNGSETH 2051 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BERNARD C JR & SANDRA BENZ 2061 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN S & LORI A ABBLETT 2081 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JUDITH E ALEXANDER 2122 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL G SCHULTZ 2150 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL A & CHERIE M WITYNSKI 2051 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY M & LAURA J ELDER 2076 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES R & BEVERLY J JACKSON 2110 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JIANPING MEI & RUOPEICAO 2135 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLKAS E & DEBRA A LANASA 2151 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VINCENT G & DONNA CIGNARELLA 2058 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARNON & PATRICIA M REESE 2080 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LARRY A & SUE A MARTY 2117 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AUBREY WEATHERLY & ROBIN WEATHERLY 2144 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY S LOHRENZ 2165 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN J & LAURIE A KERKVLlET 2201 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TROY A BADER & GINA SAUER 2244 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALLEN R & ELIZABETH ANN TAYLOR TRUSTEES OF TRUST 2340 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD E & KAREN HERRBOLDT 6464 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANA F NICHOLSON & DEBRA A PITTMAN 6500 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN A & DEBORAH S MASCHOFF 6613 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRECK 0 & MARLlESE JOHNSON 6621 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES M & DEBRA I RONNING 6640 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM 0 & KRISTEN K FLANAGAN 6653 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIMBERLY KRAMER GOERS 6673 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KENNETH F & KRISTEN L THATCHER 2219 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARY L SINN 2249 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IND SCHOOL DIST 276 5621 HIGHWAY 101 MINNETONKA MN 55345 . DOUGLAS E & MARY K JOHNSON 6474 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DORIS L NIKOLAI REV TRUST 6570 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID L & HOLLY J JESSEN 6618 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK CONRAD GREGERSON 6633 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN W & WENDY LAM BURESH 6651 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL L & AMY C DEGENEFFE 6654 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRADLEY D HIMLE 6681 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KEITH A & ERIN E RADEN 2237 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CLEONE B FOSTER 2275 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT G & LISA B CHRISTIAN 5450 TAMARACK CIR HOPKINS MN 55345 CAROL ASLESEN CHILD 6482 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHARLES R & KATHLEEN J MOWREY 6610 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NANCY K MANCINO 6620 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL J & KRISTI L BORCHERT 6636 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS M & JOAN E CLARK 6651 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH R COOK & KATHLEEN L HUNTINGTON 6672 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC M & PATRICIA E BURDON 6690 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JASON P & TINA M SCHREUR 6691 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KIMBERLY K GOERS 6709 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DRU N & HIMAN SHU RAI 6724 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN MARK & JANICE RAE MOBERG 6738 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & JULIE A FUECKER 6751 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD A & JUDITH LINDELL RENO R LINDELL 8433 39TH AVE N NEW HOPE MN 55427 THOMAS & MARY KUHN 6693 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HERBERT M & DONNA M HILLMAN 6716 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SANG C & NHI T KY 6729 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM F & JEANNE A KRAKE 6739 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL D & DENISE A OLSON 6776 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE S & HELEN TERESA SMITH 9 HAWKINS DR NORTHPORT NY 11768 DON W & CHRISTINE A ANTHONY 6700 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LESTER A COYER & ANNETTE D MCEWAN-COYER 6719 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANE S & LISA D DOESCHER 6732 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN M & HEATHER L PINT 6750 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD M & CHERYL A BLACKFORD 6788 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~~ J /) ~ -,~ / <---t-:- . -- ~ ~~ ~ ~ J' '-' \JJ~ I ( J , C "'J r. I '" I ,) l ¡:¿t J (::!; I () ~ I p~ r-E..:. I I 1 J ,-- I ~ ----- -.:~ _ ...L-::~_ _ _ ,- ...-œp.1 ~J '~ ~ -a.~ ...... III -'-1 -. ~~ ë:¡ ..... (::! "'" ~? '-, ¡ , ~~ .~ I (i) I t;: ;§ 1 ª ï! LJ L-o I '-, .. (:) ¡:¿ (:) C) ~~ i ,I I I \ '" ! \ " I \ C,"':Cd 1,"~':3f\je A.I ,t. 1 ,\'C(:./CC';' "(>Jr \ ...,...,...\1 ..~",.,.....,....., , il tll :1 1:; ~~ ill ", ri~ ~~jl I! ,ì'~ ~, i I ~ " ~ll n~J II ·¡~I I) J'III ,Ibi lu t '1IJ~hl 6·:16 11fl~ IUJu z l' R II '~~ !~ ~; ~t ~ ~t 11 1 ~i '!ÎI i ~1 ,Ì:i ] J 11$ ! III JI !U 1 f HI' 1 - ¡ ! ~ ill Ii ! . -..-:¡;-:¡?; :~ I l ..' r: /./ I ,I 1"1' o $I! ~ 'I \ _ I II" , ..t "' ·~---":=~-1 \ I !' , , I I " \ ! I I i · jlli.' ~h!H::~! ~ I 1 : : n I Ii i - . ¡ , · i1..rtì 5,1 ~ tJ; H h II ¡ ¡ ~ 1~ if} h h 11 ! l~ ¡' j I! I ¡ .. '~ 11 I}: ~c!li~c!c:c:~~~~ t!!!!~'¡:;t!!It!!~~p¡., --- ~ l 'I ! ~ ! !IUl! t g.ln1j!Ujlut ~ rH3..1U ..~h ö ",... t......, PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC December 30, 2004 City Council Member City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Pinehurst Preliminary Plat Dear City Council Member, On January 10th, 2005 we will be presenting our Preliminary Plat for the Pinehurst Subdivision. We have worked hard with City Staff and the Planning Commission to create a quality neighborhood that will be a wonderful addition to the city. Below you will find an explanation of a few of the remaining items for discussion onJan 10th. We appreciate your time consideration and look forward to a successful project. Condition 0: A standard cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the north end of Street B. 111Ìs recommendation by the Planning Commission eliminates the connection between the Pinehurst and Shively neighborhoods. City Staff and Plowshares Development believe the connection should be made and is vital for the following reasons: (Exhibit A) 1. City Staff is requiring a road connection to the Shively Addition based upon the Transportation policy in the Comprehensive Plan: a. "As part 0/ platting, each ckvelopment should provick ckdication and improvement 0/ public streets consistent with the standards found in city ordinances. The city will promote the provision 0/ street and peckstrian connection to maximum saftty and ease 0/ access." P. 55 b. "It is the city's poliry to require interconnections between neighborhoods to foster a sense 0/ community, to improve saft!) and to provick convenient access for resicknts." P. 76 2. It makes sense to plan for the future. Eventually, the properties along Crestview Drive will redevelop into a more intensive use - at which time the road connection will be important to the City in order for it to provide essential city services. 3. If the City Council detennines that a connection is not justified, Plowshares would ask that the desjgn alternative (Exhibit B) with a private street and cul-de-sac be approved in its place. This design eliminates a road connection, but incorporates the trail connection and an easement for a sewer connection. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED I DEC 3 0 2004 In the business of buying, selling, and developing land PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC Condition P: Eliminate Lot 27 and shift proposed pond to the north to eliminate some of the retaining wall. Plowshares Development disagrees with Staff and the Planning Commission on this recommendation for the following reasons: 1. Lot 27 conforms to all city ordinances and does not require a variance. a. Lot size 18,232 sq ft - City ordinance requires a 15,000 sq ft minimum. Lot 27 is roughly 20% larger than City requirements. b. Front, rear and side setback meet or exceed City requirements. c. Drainage and slope ratios meet or exceed City engineering standards. 2. The site has been designed to maximize tree preservation and to provide for regional ponding. Eliminating Lot 27 does not significantly reduce the retaining walls and saves no additional trees. At City Staffs request, the proposed pond has already been oversized to incorporate both the Pinehurst and Shively addition developments. 3. Plowshares Development and Lundgren Brothers have a long history of quality home building. We would not propose a lot that had potential liability issues. We are confident in the design and stand behind our proposal. In additional we are proposing the following to alleviate staff's concerns: a. Westwood Professional Services (the project engineer) has finalized an engineering report and illustration that demonstrates how site drainage will work. This will alleviate Staff's concerns related to drainage. See Exhibit C &D. b. Plowshares proposes to have the sodded and landscaped lot surveyed to ensure compliance with the final engineered plan. Condition Q: The applicant shall work with staff to further investigate the feasibility of a sewer connection before action is taken to delete the western sanitary line; all sanitary sewer must drain to Manchester Drive. Plowshares Development agrees with the Planning Commission on this recommendation for the following reasons: 1. Without the sewer connection to Lake Lucy, the depth of the sewer in the Pinehurst development will be excessively deep (40-45'). Under this scenario the proposed sewer line will be difficult to access and expensive to maintain. 2. Staff had raised concerns about accessibility of the proposed line for cleanout and maintenance. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Plowshares has worked with staff to provide an alternative that alleviates their concerns. 'lms alternative avoids 40-45' deep sanitary sewer and provides easily accessible maintenance of the sewer line. t [ In the business of buying, selling, and developing land PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC Condition 8: The applicant will work with staff to incorporate a tot lot or similar playground facility within this development which will help preserve trees: Plowshares Development disagrees with the Planning Commission recommendation for the following reasons: 1. City Staff and the Park Board did not recommend a tot lot or park in the Pinehurst neighborhood. Therefore, City Staff has indicated that they are not interested in providing a parkland dedication credit for the Pinehurst Development. 2. The City's Park Plan does not indicate a park in the location of the Pinehurst neighborhood. This is primarily due to the close proximity of the following park and recreation areas: a. Minnetonka West Middle School is immediately adjacent to the Pinehurst Development. The middle school provides ample ball fields and tennis courts. b. Pheasant Hill Park is within a V4 mile of the neighborhood and within the Vz mile standard of city park spacing. Pheasant Hill provides a large open space and tot loti playground equipment. c. Lake Minnewashta &gional Park is within a % mile of the neighborhood. 3. Plowshares Development and Lundgren Brothers have a long history of building quality neighborhoods within the City of Chanhassen and have a deep understanding of our buyer profile. Our combined experiences suggest that the families of the Pinehurst neighborhood will prefer private backyard playground equipment over a tot lot. 4. Plowshares Development is willing to donating 2.8 acres (Outlot A) to the City that could be used for parkland or tot lot at a future date. Condition 9. Provide an access trail from this neighborhood to Minnetonka West Middle School. Plowshares Development agrees with the Planning Commission and Staff recommendation. Staff and Minnetonka School District have indicated that the best location for the trail access is through the Shively addition to the north. 11Us connection will provide excellent access to the middle school amenities and furthers the rational of connecting the Shively and Pinehurst neighborhoods. See Exhibit A & B. Thank you for your time and consideration, Plowshares Development, LLC 1851 Lake Drive West, Suite 550 Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-361-0832 In the business of buying, seUing, and developing land ~,,> ':E-. ~i<C ~. Ill' ; ~ if tJ;¿ z o H ~ ~ ~ Z' o ~ u ~ CI') CI') CI') ~ U ~ ("'I f-4 3 U ~ 1-4 ~ 1-4 ~ '" M f-< _ 0 ..:1m h--- g: t:; .~~- :¡¡:3 -- .. ~ ""2 f-<.: §~ o~ o ~ .... M f-< S ~ , ,~ '.' < -< Z o 6~ ~ I Cf.) "' ~~ ~B Uti} Westwood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING. ENGINEERING. SURVEYING '" December 30,2004 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 EXHIBIT D Phone: 952-937·5150 Fax: 952-937-5822 Toll free: 1-888-937-5150 E-mail: wps@westwoodps.com TWIN CITIE5/METRO 5T. CLOUD City Council City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Bvld, P.G.Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 BRAINERD Re: Lot 27, Block 1 Engineering Perfonnance Review Pinehurst Development Ref: 20041064 Dear Chanhassen City Council Members: Based on discussions with staff and comments made at the Planning Commission meeting, the main concern on lot 27 is drainage and more specifically drainage from the back yards of lots 24-26. The CityIWatershed requires that the lowest opening of structures adjacent to a pond, as is the case with Lot 27, be a minimum on feet above the 100-year high water level of the pond. Lot 27's lowest opening exceeds the city's requirements at 3.1 feet above the 100-year high water level mark. Lowest openings also need to be set a minimum of 2 feet above the emergency overflow of the pond. Lot 27 is proposed to be 3 feet above the emergency overflow which exceeds the requirements of the City and Watershed. To facilitate proper drainage, a catch basin is proposed on the side lot line. Intercepting water from the swale will be the primary function of the inlet to prevent runoff across the driveway, over the curb and gutter, and over sidewalk within the street right-of-way. Since the Planning Commission meeting, a check on the depth of water that would be in the swale on the side lot line of Lot 27 was made. The approach was conservative. It was assumed that the front and back halves of the building areas from lots 24, 25, and 26 would enter the proposed swale on the side of Lot 27. Typically, the front half of homes drain to the street. The drainage area used for the calculation is overstated by incorporating additional area not nonnally included. Based on the conservative approach, the computed depth of water during a 100-year event flowing in the swale would be less than 2 inches based on a 3' wide swale. Staff had a concern in previous meetings that the swale on the side of Lot 27 would not get constructed properly. Nonnally, a record grading plan would be required after the mass grading operation is complete and then once again immediately after the home is constructed, In addition to this requirement, Plowshares and Lundgren Brothers have asked Westwood to survey the lot after the landscaping and sodding is complete to ensure to the homeowner and the City that the drainage will not be altered from the design on the grading plan. The grades around the building pad are designed to convey all surface water away from the building. This is standard practice for grading design and prevents surface water from infiltrating down a foundation wall and into a basement. Lot '1.7 is proposed as a properly functioning and desirable lot based on solid design and drainage verification. The lot is in confonnance with City codes for area, setbacks, elevations above the 100-year high water level of the pond, and general drainage away from the building pad. From an engineering perspective, Lot 27 meets and exceeds City requirements and standard engineering practices, Westwood has designed and overseen the construction of many lots with similar design and sees no cause for alarm related to this lot. As Project Manager for the Pinehurst Designing the Future Today..,since 1972 Chanhassen City Council Members December 30, 2004 Page 2 Development, I am confident that the combined experience of Plowshares Development, Lundgren Brothers, and ourselves will ensure that Lot 27 is properly designed and constructed. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INe. c4~~ Chris Moehrl, PE, LSIT Project Manager ~ ~~.:. ~.F 7.:. 441/, ~'. 36,:-' I 001 6:, :ñ .,,,. :~~'~"I' :; A._ -.... /r_ Oo -'u ~ ~c .., -' ¡C¡. r/' ~",,' ,. '.r -", 'I~-Y Î -, - - ., .. -\ . ' , '-/', 9 " 2 tq, WALDR IPS "2>, 2 2 SECOND ADDITION 8 ) 3 t-/tOL\!'tË ("pG.) 65TH S l:=v~ 0.,) I () ST. -. I ":';,.., '.,(" > -'\,' ISo::x, '" I""¡l-ÌÜ <.:~ /.;¡..~ ,. "j. iY'" d (::<'') i 3 ADO\ \ON2 2 3<.."4/ N 8!>~~,2"E c~ /50 z - 0.. 2 I 0E[):,) '1.'I~':~ ,- .-; -~.:. 'EET "'"4 :1 ., _ ', ~ Qì .n.. . -0 NO r ~' B iR·S. r ~o. A "3\ ~ t '"= ju..~ E..n . r '.~ .-/....F-( '" t: (,·lit ". ',C'N J ::-; .... h", " ", ',;- ~ '¡r~' ; ," ,-, - /I " L. ~ '. ::-: -:.: .-.... . ; -.:,:..;>, f.~ (' \. .-;- r..=- \. .~: ." -..- -.- - I! :' ../ . I I , ,- Aft,~i ~e. I rxc. -+ """'- ~ p~ ~Ji øs ~+- tß d"';f ~ IT'-. Dd-, /7 ¿oDD I . ~ '. - - ~ -. ,- /. - '- , " , ~ ,. .' , , ,1 ."- I \ ; " 1/";,,, ~~ \1 /. ,\ 1\\'" ........./ 'OJ .... /~ i , .-,' .'; ~" . ,-. .., -, '/"" "-, ........ '.... ......'..:::.; , / -- ~ . ~ ...-...... -~""'j-~- -.r_ ~_.____ .......-- --~. lr......~_-..~ .-'a...... . '-" .... ---- -