The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Report 2-14-05 ObI - ~ / IT] . CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 11/16/01 Revised 02/14/05 CC DATE: 12/13/01 03/14/05 REVIEW DEADLINE: December 14,2004 Extended to March 14, 2005 CASE #: 04-31 BY: RG, LH, ML, MS, IS, ST ~. '.....JIII -,-.- ~ Z < U ~ ~ ~ ~ < < ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ r:J'1 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Hidden Creek Meadows - Subdivision approval for a 21-lot subdivision with Variances. The development proposal includes a Wetland Alteration Permit to permit the crossing of a creek and wetland with a public street. LOCATION: At the ends of Pipewood Lane and Cartway Lane north of Highway 7. APPLICANT: olttTk D & G of Chanhassen, LLC 7820 Terrey Pine Court Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (952) 949-4715 PRESENT ZONING: Single-Family Residential, RSF 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (net density range 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 19.2 acres DENSITY: 1.09 units per acre gross; 2.12 units per acre net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting subdivision approval for a 21-lot development with a variance for one flag lot. In order to cross the creek for the extension of Pipewood Lane, a wetland alteration permit is also being requested. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning 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 Ordinance 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 Hidden Creek Meadows City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-31 W_ 62nd 51. Lake Minnewashta SCANNED Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 2 PROPOSALÆUMMARY The developer is requesting subdivision approval to create a 21-lot subdivision with two outlots containing wetland and creek as well as the proposed storm water pond and right-of-way for the extension of Pipewood Lane and a small cul-de-sac. One lot, located on the eastern edge of the development, is proposed as a flag lot for which a variance is being requested. Previously, the developer submitted a 23-lot subdivision for review, which was tabled by the Planning Commission on November 16,2004 for revisions to the plat. The property is located in an area that is zoned Single-Family Residential, RSF District. The property to the east was developed with single-family homes as part of the Minnewashta Meadows subdivision. The property to the south is being developed with single-family homes as part of the Hidden Creek of Chanhassen development. In the future, the land in the northeast comer of the development has subdivision potential and would provide a public street connection to West 62nd Street. A large wetland complex is located in the southern portion of the property, which is located within proposed Outlot A. A creek from Lake Minnewashta to Lake Virginia traverses the southern portion of the property. The site has scattered areas of woodlands with canopy coverage of only nine percent. The site slopes from the north to the south with a high elevation of 970 in the north- central portion of the project, adjacent to the regional trail, and a low point of 938 at the creek. Sewer and water service is available at the end of Pipewood Lane. The watermain is being looped to Meadow Court. The proposed development complies with all the requirements of the RSF district regulations and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed development subject to the conditions of the staff report. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Article III, Design Standards Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article XII, "RSF" Single-Family Residential District BACKGROUND These properties were originally platted as part of Schmid's Acre Tracts in 1914 at which time the right-of-way for Cmtway Lane was dedicated. There are four existing homes with outbuildings on the site. Three of the homes are currently accessed via Astor Trail in Victoria. The other home is accessed via Cartway Lane. The property to the east of the site, Minnewashta Meadows, was platted in 1988. The property to the southwest of the site, Hidden Creek of Chanhassen, was platted in 2003. On November 16,2004, this project was tabled for revisions to the plat in response to staff and Planning Commission comments. Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 3 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Comprehensive Park Plan The proposed Hidden Creek Meadows is located very near Cathcart Park. Cathcart Park is a neighborhood park owned by the City of Shorewood, but located within the corporate boundaries of Chanhassen. Convenient access to the park is provided by the proposed sidewalk connection along Pipewood Lane connecting with Cartway Lane. No parkland dedication is recommended as a condition of this plat. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat. Park fees for 2005 are $4,000.00 per single-family lot. Since there are currently four single-family homes within the development site, park fees will be required for 17 of the 21 lots. Comprehensive Trail Plan This property abuts the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Light Rail Transit Corridor. Currently this corridor is managed by Three Rivers Park District as a regional trail with an aggregate surface. Access to the trail from Hidden Creek Meadows is provided by the proposed sidewalk connections to Pipewood Court and Cartway Lane. No additional trail construction is recommended as a condition of this plat. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Hidden Creek Estates development. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 13.12 ac or 571,866 SF 1.18 ac or 51,726 SF 9% 25% or 142,967 ac. 0% or 0 ac. Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed and is proposing to remove all trees on site, excluding those located within a wetland or wetland buffer and setback area. The removal of the existing 9% canopy coverage will be penalized by requiring replacement plantings at a rate of 1.2 times the existing coverage. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 51,726 SF 1.2 62,071 SF 57 trees Additionally the developer must bring the total canopy coverage for the site from 9% up to the required 25%. The calculations are as follows. Difference between existing and required coverage 16% or 2.1 acres Number of trees required for 25 % coverage 84 trees Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14, 2005 Page 4 A total of 141 trees are required for this development. The applicant's landscape plan proposes 141 trees, but fails to specify the quantity of each species proposed. The landscape plan plant schedule shall be revised to reflect this. After reviewing the tree inventory and a site visit, staff recommends the following tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Estimated tree preservation 13.12 ac or 571,866 SF 5.9 ac or 258,631 SF 45% 35 % or 200,153 SF 4% or 25,000 SF Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed and is required to calculate replacement plantings at a rate of 1.2 times the existing coverage. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 175,153 SF 1.2 210,184 SF 193 trees This total differs from the applicant's total by 52 trees. Staff recommends that the applicant confirm the tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the table: Landscapin2 Item Bufferyard B* - South property line, 260' Required 3 overstory trees 5 understory trees 5 shrubs Proposed 6 overstory trees 13 understory trees existing vegetation The applicant meets the minimum requirements for the bufferyard. No existing vegetation shall be removed for the planting of the bufferyard. Any existing trees removed shall be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches. Tree preservation within the development, with the exception of Outlot B, is minimal. Lots 2-8, Block 2 require extensive grading to produce walk-out style homes. All of these lots are wooded and within this area are many significant oaks and maples. After reviewing the grading plans, staff has determined that the grading limits on Lot 2, block 2 are incorrect. To match grades the limits would need to expand into the middle of Lot 1. As it is, however, a small group of maples 12" and larger are being saved by the proposed grading plan. Staff recommends that these grading limits remain as is and the developer adapt to the existing plan as necessary. Regarding the proposed landscape plan, staff recommends that any plantings occurring on Outlots A or B be field located and that no existing vegetation be removed or compromised for the planting of new trees. Staff also recommends that landscaping be installed at the end of the Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 5 Pipewood Lane around the cul-de-sac. Evergreens, shrubs and ornamentals shall be installed so as to reduce headlight glare and buffer views of the street from the existing homes. The applicant shall remove Colorado blue spruce from the plant schedule and replace it with white fir or a species of pine. WETLANDS Existing Wetlands One wetland basin was delineated on December 8,2003 by Wetland and Wildlife Consulting, Inc. The delineated wetland located along the southern portion of the property has been classified as a Type 3 wetland with Type 1 characteristics around the wetland perimeter. Vegetation within the wetland boundary included reed canary grass and river bulrush. Proposed Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Proposed impacts to the wetland include the filling of 5,756 square feet of wetland to accommodate a connection to Pipewood Lane and the installation of a 42" culvert within Hidden Creek, a DNR protected creek. There is grading proposed within the wetland on Lot 10, Block 2. This wetland impact is avoidable and should be eliminated. The grading on Lots 10-12, Block 2 should be revised to avoid grading within the wetland. Mitigation of filling activities is planned by creating 7,420 square feet of created wetland area (New Wetland Credit) and 4,317 square feet of credit for on-site storm water ponding (Public Value Credit). The applicant should create a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan for new wetland construction to ensure proposed wetland functions and values are obtained and non-native vegetation does not encroach into the mitigation area. The monitoring plan should include the preparation of annual reports as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland Buffers 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 edge. Wetland buffers and wetland buffer setbacks should be shown on the grading plan. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and signed in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. CREEK The DNR protected creek running from Lake Minnewashta to Lake Virginia runs through the site. This creek was heavily impacted during the course of the Hidden Creek Estates subdivision. The applicant should develop detailed plans (including an erosion and sediment control plan) for the installation of the culvert at Pipewood Lane. A winter installation of this culvert is preferable. A professionally engineered temporary diversion of the stream through a stable Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 6 channel during culvert installation is an acceptable alternative. The applicant should demonstrate that the installation of the 42" proposed culvert at Pipewood Lane will not cause water to back up through the existing 4' by 6' culvert under Highway 7 to the south side of Highway 7 in 10 and 100-year storms. All structures should maintain a minimum 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the creek. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Storm Water Ponding The plan proposes the construction of a storm water pond in the south-central portion of the project. The applicant should submit calculations to ensure that the pond is sufficient to provide water quality treatment to NURP standards for storm water from the development. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) cites regional treatment areas of more than 20 acres and less than 60 acres as the most efficient and cost effective way to keep pollutants and nutrient loading to undeveloped levels. The SWMP shows a portion of a regional pond on this property. The proposed storm water pond should be designed to accommodate storm water from the upstream areas of the MC-A2.6 subwatershed. Credit for ponding and oversizing will be provided as outlined in the "Surface Water Management Credit" section of this report. Easements Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, and storm water infrastructure. Easements must be at least 20 feet in width to allow access for inspection and maintenance. Erosion Control Erosion control blanket should 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: Type of Slope Steeper than 3:1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked) 7 Days 14 Days 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. Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets should be completed anytime construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surfaces or streets that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system. Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14, 2005 Page 7 Surface Water Mana2ement 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 $1,093/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 11.94 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $13,050. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quality 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 $2,705 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $32,298 for the proposed development. Surface Water Management Credit The subdivision will be given a credit for on-site storm water quality improvements that are designed to treat runoff from the subdivision to NURP standards. The credit will be calculated using the following formula: The per acre water quality connection charge will be multiplied by the on-site drainage area for water quality treatment facilities. This value will then be multiplied by 50%. The subdivision will also be given a credit for on-site storm water quality improvements that are oversized to treat runoff from property outside the subdivision to NURP standards. The credit will be calculated using the following formula: The per acre water quality connection charge will be multiplied by the off-site drainage area for water quality treatment facilities. This value will then be multiplied by 50%. Credit will not be granted if the storm water from contributing off-site areas is already treated to NURP standards. The water quality connection charges that correspond to the land uses that contribute to the storm water ponds will be used to calculate credits. Credit will also be given for the installation of outlet control structures. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $45,348. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, United States Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. GRADING. DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade about 75% of the site for the 21 new house pads, proposed street ending with a cul-de-sac, and a storm water pond. The proposed grading will prepare the site for Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 8 full basement, lookout, and walkout-type dwellings. The plan proposes a retaining wall in the back yard of Lot 7, Block 1. It appears the wall will be approximately six feet in height. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall over 4 feet will require a building permit and must be designed by a Minnesota Registered Professional Structural Engineer. Also, the retaining wall must be 20 feet off the back of the building pad to provide adequate area for a backyard and deck. The existing site drains to a wetland along the south side of the parcel. Under developed conditions, the street, front yards and most of the house roofs and rear yard drainage will be conveyed via storm sewer to a proposed storm water pond for treatment prior to discharging to the existing wetland. The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates for the 10- and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The applicant has done a good job of attempting to preserve the existing drainage pattern of the wetland on the site through the use of a storm sewer culvert. Where the proposed street has bisected the wetland, the culvert will act as a conduit and allow the water to flow as it would under existing conditions. According to the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), the proposed culvert must be a minimum size of 36-inches in diameter to facilitate proper drainage through the site. The developer is proposing a 42-inch diameter culvert under the road, which exceeds the minimum size requirement. By oversizing the culvert, the developer is being conservative and helping to ensure that the drainage will flow freely through the site. There is an area in the rear yard of Lot 9, Block 1 that will need to be revised to prevent trapping water behind the curb. Either a catch basin will need to be added or the area will have to be re- graded with a minimum slope of 2% to drain from the rearyard to the street. Also, staff recommends that the existing culvert across the street from Lot 9, Block 2 be incorporated into the storm sewer for Pipewood Lane. Staff has received drainage calculations for the development and only minor revisions are necessary. The proposed pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including the pond, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum utility easement width must be 20 feet wide. To help address concerns raised at the initial Public Hearing for this development, the applicant has submitted a drainage exhibit for the area in and around the development. This exhibit shows topography and critical HWL (high water level) elevations for the ponds and wetlands on the development site and upstream/downstream of the site. The HWL of the wetlands on the exhibit are from the City's SWMP plan. Most importantly, the exhibit shows the HWL of the wetland on the south side of TH 7. This wetland is upstream of the development site and was one of the areas of concern raised by the public at the last Public Hearing. The exhibit lists the HWL of the wetland as 943.4 which, based on the topography on the exhibit, is 4+ feet lower than any of the adjacent homes. In order for any of these homes to flood, the stormwater in the wetland would have to rise up past elevation 948 which would also begin to flood Minnewashta Parkway. The applicant has included silt fence around the grading perimeter. Adjacent to the pond and wetlands, silt fence type II must be used. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance has Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14, 2005 Page 9 been shown at the street entrance to the site. In addition, an erosion control blanket will be required for the steep slopes along the north property line of the site. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas must be sodded or seeded and mulched within two weeks of grading completion. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from existing mains, which run along the eastern property line and from Pipewood Lane on the southwest comer of the parcel. The applicant is proposing to extend sewer and water lines along the proposed streets to service the proposed lots. The watermain will be looped through the site to avoid stagnant water issues. According to the City's Finance Department records, there is a remaining assessment balance of $25,477.05 on the parcel. This balance is required to be paid at the time of final plat recording. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water mains, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. However, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for each lot. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Each of these charges is based on the number of SAC units calculated by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at the time of final plat for staff review. The applicant is required to finance all of the proposed improvements. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MnDOT, etc. STREETS The plans propose to extend Pipewood Lane, as the main road, approximately 1300 feet within the site. The public streets are shown within a 60-foot right-of-way, as per City ordinance along with street pavement widths of 31-feet back-to-back and a 45.5-foot radius on the cul-de-sac. Due to the long length of the proposed cul-de-sac and the practice of having two connections int%ut of developments, staff is recommending that the existing gravel road known as Cartway Lane be connected to the proposed cul-de-sac at the eastern border of the site. This will be an interim connection until the properties to the north develop and Cartway Lane is vacated. Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 10 COMPLIANCE TABLE Area (square feet) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setbacks (feet): front, side, rear, wetland (from buffer edge) Code 15,000 90 125 30,10,30,40 Lot 1, Block 1 25,405 92 192 30,10,30,40 Lot 2 15,908 95 167 30,10, 30, na Lot 3 15,915 95 167 30,1O,30,na Lot 4 15,924 95 167 30,1O,30,na LotS 16,014 95 169 30,1O,30,na Lot 6 17,518 138 155 30,1O,30,na Lot 7 15,307 94 142 30,10,30, na Lot 8 39,245 56 @ 164 30, 10, 30, na Lot 9 15,062 169 144 30, 10, na, na Lot 1, Block 2 20,803 141 172 30, 10, 30, 40 Lot 2 17,593 97 180 30, 10, 30, 40 Lot 3 17,603 97 191 30, 10, 30, na Lot 4 15,694 100 200 30, 10, 30, na Lot 5 16,609 100 214 30, 10, 30, na Lot 6 17,266 100 227 30, 10, 30, na Lot? 21,761 97 230 30,10,30,40 Lot 8 22,331 97 230 30,10,30,40 Lot 9 24,173 105 230 30, 10, na, 40 Lot 10 23,021 100 230 30, 10, na, 40 Lot 11 19,317 133 204 30, 10, 30, 40 Lot 12 39,781 30& 270 30,10,30,40 Outlot A 279,972 Outlot B 37,872 ROW 87,817 Total 832,129 Average Lot Size 20,583 @ Meets 90 feet width at the 30-foot building setback line. & Meets the 100-foot lot width at the flag. Flag lots are appropriate when the configuration of the property, natural features and abutting development make it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. The subdivision regulations, section 18-60 (a) states that "all lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a public street as required by the zoning ordinance; or by a private street; or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of thirty (30) feet of frontage on a public street". Had this property and the property to the east developed concurrently, a public street could have been extended south from Cartway Lane with lots on both the east and west sides of the street. However, the property to the east was developed previously with access from Meadow Lane. The use of the flag lots creates a large lot which can be developed without encroaching in to the wetland area. Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14, 2005 Page 11 In order to more easily preserve wetlands, the City has required that wetlands be included within Outlots. The plat has been revised to include most of the wetland within Outlot A. This reduces the potential for residents to inadvertently impact the wetlands due to alterations to their property. Lot 1, Block 1, has been revised to exclude the creek and adjacent wetland. The wetland that protrudes in to Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, had previously be included in the rear yard of one lot. By splitting the wetland along the side lot line, the building envelop will now permit construction of accessory structures that many residents want including decks, storage sheds, play equipment and pools without encroaching in to the wetland setback. In order to remove individual lot frontage on Highway 7, the southerly portion of Lot 12, Block 2, has been included as part of Outlot A. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following two motions: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends preliminary plat approval for a subdivision with a variance for a flag lot, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated August 20,2004, revised October 14,2004 and January 14,2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 2. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 3. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. 4. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a registered structural engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 5. The sauna on Outlot B must be removed. 6. Outlots A and B shall be dedicated to the City. 7. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 8. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 9. A 20-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure fire Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 12 hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen Ci ty Ordinance #9-1. 10. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat for 17 single- family residential lots. 11. The grading on Lots 10-12, Block 2 shall be revised to avoid grading within the wetland. 12. The applicant shall create a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan for new wetland construction to ensure proposed wetland functions and values are obtained and non-native vegetation does not encroach into the mitigation area. The monitoring plan shall include the preparation of annual reports as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. 13. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on- site. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edge. Wetland buffers and wetland buffer setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and signed 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 will pay the City $20 per sign 14. The applicant shall develop detailed plans (including an erosion and sediment control plan) for the installation of the culvert at Pipewood Lane. A winter installation of this culvert is preferable. A professionally engineered temporary diversion of the stream through a stable channel during culvert installation is an acceptable alternative. 15. The applicant shall demonstrate that the installation of the 42" proposed culvert at Pipewood Lane will not cause water to back up through the existing 4' by 6' culvert under Highway 7 to the south side of Highway 7 in 10 and 100-year storms. 16. All structures shall maintain a minimum 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the creek. 17. The applicant shall submit calculations to ensure that the pond is sufficient to provide water quality treatment to NURP standards for storm water from the development. 18. The proposed stOlID water pond shall be designed to accommodate storm water from the upstream areas of the MC-A2.6 subwatershed. 19. 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: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time {maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked} 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 13 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. 20. Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed anytime construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surfaces or streets that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system. 21. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $45,348. 22. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, United States Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 23. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 24. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data with a drainage map will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100- year flood level. The minimum utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 25. Type II silt fence must be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. In addition, an erosion control blanket is required for the steep slopes along the north property line of the site. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 26. The remaining utility assessment due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $25,477.05. In addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955 per unit for water. Each of these charges is based on the number of SAC units calculated by the Metropolitan Council. 27. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, MNDOT, Department of Health, etc. Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 14 28. Show all of the existing and proposed easements on the plans. 29. Show all of the existing utilities on the plans. 30. The proposed development is required to meet the existing storm water runoff rates for the 10- and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. 31. The walk-out elevation of the proposed homes must be a minimum of 3 feet higher than the adjacent pond or wetland high-water-Ievel. 32. Show the proposed storm manhole rim and invert elevations on the utility plan. 33. Show all emergency overflow elevations on the grading plan. 34. The existing temporary pavement turnaround for Pipewood Lane just south of this site must be removed when Pipewood Lane is extended. Any disturbed area must be sodded and restored. 35. The retaining wall in the rearyard of Lot 7, Block 1 must be 20 feet off the back of the building pad. 36. Revise the rearyard grading of Lot 9, Block 1 to prevent trapping water behind the curb. Either a catch basin will need to be added or the area will have to be re-graded with a minimum slope of 2% to drain from the rearyard to the street. 37. The existing gravel road known as Cartway Lane must be connected to the proposed cul-de- sac at the eastern border of the site. 38. The existing culvert across the street from Lot 9, Block 2 be connected to the storm sewer for Pipewood Lane. 39. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard setback area of each lot. 40. Tree protection fencing is required around all trees proposed to be saved. Any tree lost will be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches. 41. The applicant shall confirm the tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. A total of 193 trees will be required to be planted unless otherwise noted. 42. The following trees are required on each lot as shown on the landscape plan dated 1/14/05: Lot Front yard Rear yard Lot 1, Block 1 2 6 Lot 2, Block 1 2 3 Lot 3, Block 1 2 3 Lot 4, Block 1 2 3 Lot 5, Block 1 2 3 Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 15 Lot Front yard Rear yard Lot 6, Block 1 2 4 Lot 7, Block 1 2 5 Lot 8, Block 1 2 6 Lot 9, Block 1 2 2 Lot 1, Block 2 2 4, 3 side yard Lot 2, Block 2 2 2 Lot 3, Block 2 2 4 Lot 4, Block 2 2 2 Lot 5, Block 2 2 2 Lot 6, Block 2 2 2 Lot 7, Block 2 2 4 Lot 8, Block 2 2 3 Lot 9, Block 2 2 4 Lot 10, Block 2 2 4 Lot 11, Block 2 2 5 Lot 12, Block 2 2 1 Outlot A 30 (buffer plantings included in total) Outlot B 9 43. A landscape plan with a plant schedule that specifies the proposed quantities of each species shall be submitted to the city prior to final plat approval. 44. The developer shall responsible for planting any trees located in the rear or side yards as shown on the landscape plan dated 1/14/05. 45. The applicant shall plant only species adaptable to wet sites near the wetland boundary edge. 46. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the dripline of the tree saved on Lot 6, Block 2 prior to any grading. 47. Any plantings occurring on Outlots A or B be field located and no existing vegetation shall be removed or compromised for the planting of new trees. 48. The applicant shall install landscaping at the end of the Pipewood Lane around the cul-de-sac. Evergreens and ornamentals shall be installed so as to reduce headlight glare and buffer views of the street from the existing homes. A minimum of 9 evergreens and 3 ornamentals shall be planted. 49. The applicant shall remove Colorado blue spruce from the plant schedule and replace it with white fir or a species of pine." Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 16 "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval for a Wetland Alteration Permit, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated August 20,2004, revised October 14, 2004 and January 14,2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. The grading on Lots 10-12, Block 2 shall be revised to avoid grading within the wetland. 2. The applicant shall submit a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan for new wetland construction to ensure proposed wetland functions and values are obtained and non-native vegetation does not encroach into the mitigation area. The monitoring plan shall include the preparation of annual reports as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. 3. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on- site. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edge. Wetland buffers and wetland buffer setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and signed 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 will pay the City $20 per sign. 4 Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, and storm water infrastructure. Easements shall be at least 20 feet in width to allow access for inspection and maintenance. 5. 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: Type of Slope Steeper than 3:1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively bein2 worked) 7 Days 14 Days 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. 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, United States Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval." Planning Commission Hidden Creek Meadows-Planning Case No. 04-31 February 14,2005 Page 17 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Dean Carlson to City of Chanhassen dated October 15, 2004. 4. Reduced Copy Existing Conditions Plan. 5. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat. 6. Reduced Copy Preliminary Site and Utility Plan. 7. Reduced Copy Preliminary Grading Plan. 8. Reduced Copy Tree Replacement and Landscape Plan. 9. Reduced Copy Area Drainage Graphic. 10. Affidavit of Mailing Notice, Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List. 11. Letter from Mary E. Jackson (MnDOT) to Robert Generous dated November 17, 2004. 12. Email from Jeff Jewison to Bob Generous dated November 11, 2004. 13. Planning Commission Minutes of November 16,2004. 14. Letter from Dean Carlson to Planning Department dated January 28,2005. 15. Letter from Perry M. Ryan to Matt Saam dated February 3,2005. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-31 - hidden creek meadows\staff report revised. doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: Application of D & G of Chanhassen, LLC, for subdivision approval for a 21 lot and two outlot residential development with a variance for a flag lot and a wetland alteration permit for the crossing of a wetland with a public street. On November 16, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of D & G of Chanhassen, LLC for preliminary plat approval of property. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision 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 Single-Family Residential, RSF, District. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential- Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: see attached Exhibit A 4. 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 and meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District; 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, 1 and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development subject to the conditions specified in this report.; 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 provide all necessary and 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. 5. In order to permit flag lots, 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. Ideally, a roadway would have been extended straight south from Cartway Lane with half the right-of-way contributed by each property. However, the property to the east was developed previously with access off Meadow Lane. 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. Additional public street access is not required for the property to the east which is already developed. c. The use of the flag lot will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas since the flag lot is sufficiently sized such that any proposed structures can comply with all required wetland setbacks. 6. V ARIANCE FINDINGS - Flag Lot 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. 2 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. 7. The planning report #04-31 dated November 16, 2004, revised February 15, 2005 prepared by Robert Generous, et aI, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat with a variance for the use of a flag lot and wetland alteration permit for the Hidden Creek Meadows development. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of February, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman 3 EXHIBIT A All that portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, lying south of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad Company's right-of-way as now established, Carver County, Minnesota. Records of Carver County Abstract Property Property Address: 4001 Aster Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55331 AND That part of Lot 8, Schmid's Acre Tracts, lying north of a westerly extension across said Lot 8 of the south line of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts; together with an easement for dri veway purposes over and across the east 50 feet of that part of Lot 8, lying northerly of a line parallel with and distant 16.5 feet southerly of a westerly extension of said south line of said lot 6 across said Lot 8, Schmid's Acre Tracts. Propelty Address: 3921 Aster Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55331 And That part of Lot 8, Schmid's Acre Tracts, lying south of a westerly extension across said Lot 8 of the south line of Lot 6, Schmid's Acre Tracts. Established Carver County, Minnesota Records of Carver County Abstract Property Property Address: 3931 Aster Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55331 AND 4 Lot 7, Schmid's Acre Tracts, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Carver County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Property Address: 6301 Cartway Lane, Chanhassen, MN 55331 5 o~ /3 J RECEIVED AUG 2..0' ZOa4 CflY OF CHA_SEN ..,.. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: 'b+<b d- CJ^-úv'\.kc.ss~^-. LLc... 7Z-~2.a 'ì-e-HG r ?"n~ Q.....".....+- "E& -€.^- \dîc..S ^ c=... ,f11....... ÇS-:? ¿¡ .?- TELEPHONE (Day Time) Q52 -C[t.(c¡-c¡ -7-1 S- OWNER: Se-e À-'\kc.(Á~{"º \)fb~{4 ADDRESS: . 6~ vte.-v~ L..'1J.+- , (A ì~A.''''' ~l..LJ~ l:"T" _ ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: %os - c..ca') f 0 û} Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit - Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit ~ Variance;> 2 Gl'l..aÐ.~ Non-conforming Use Permit K Wetland Alteration Permit $ 2:t-S~ - Planned Unit Development" Zoning Appeal . Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review K Notification Sign $/> :7 5-0 ø X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost.... 5'ê. - Site Plan Review" - $50 CUP/SPRN$CNARfWAP/Metes & Bounds (1$400 Minor SUB· K '1 \tl ð TOTAL FEE $-'2.. ut.-lo. ~ ~ J lo&D SlJbdivision" Ci9J 4-(2$'(t~ ::: ~~- Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. _. 'J. -I f { J I / ú. / C€sJ.,~ 0 ,Ç-,D I If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box IiJ'" Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six (26) full-size ~ copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy 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. SCANNED LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~(¡~Øv1. - C!...-reeh ~ ) ft0~' ~ m'~~~-k ~4~ bee lu.& A<,l\i Jt ~ ~ PROJECT NAME: PRESENT ZONING: JC{ t 2- ~ ( :x YES ~2>"F i~ 1) R NO TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: REQUESTED ZONING: REASON FOR REQUEST: ì¡"~~ ?e$1&e",-W (",vJ 4kvc~c,A\J Ll?>R. . {ì.,^~¡ ,?,,-~ (&^ili'V1(.AG--~Ivt ø~ ~J'J¿S)Rft\ º-'I'~ ~ t~ ..J-e.~ PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. 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 maifed 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 Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 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 if development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review, 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. - ~~c-~~ Signature of Applicant r¡t:o/~¿( ate Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on ~/20 I/o?! Date $ . ~ tI Fee Paid J,l" tot) =--- Receipt No. JJw 55c../~ The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. G:\plan\forms\Development Review Application.DOC (;;F~h'l;.:': City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Attn: Planning Department October 15th 2004 Subdivision application for: Hidden Creek Meadows This proposal for Hidden Creek Meadows has a long history of anticipation and preparation by these four property owners and the developers. With the recent completion and development of Hidden Creek Estates, they have joined together cooperatively to facilitate the city of Chanhassen' s plans for its further expansion. The city's vision for Pipewood Lane to someday reach Cartway Lane or 62nd Street West will with this projects approval be one step closer to reality. The redevelopment of this approx. 19.24 acres ofland is in keeping with the city and county's vision to eliminate the ecological damage caused by the active wells, septic systems and hobby farm runoff. These parcels are located on one of the county and cities most important water shed's. Effecting the lakes of Minnewashta, Virginia, Minnetonka and hence the Minnehaha Creek water shed. With the approval of this subdivision plan the benefits can only enhance the areas quality of living for mother-nature and its current and future residents. The plans provide for improved storm water run ()ff collection pÜñds With natural purification before it contaminates the creek running from Lake Minnewashta to Virginia. While creating 23 affordable residential building sites for residents of these adjoining communities Chanhassen, Victoria, Shorewood and even Excelsior. Our application contains only one request for a variance which meets with District Regulations and is compliant with ordinance standards. Variance to create Lot 13 Block 2 via a 30 ft. curb flag lot extension providing access a viable 54,700 SF parcel (over 3.5 times the minimum lot size) with 136 feet of right of way on highway seven. The approval of this lot via the flag/neck provides for a quality use of this large parcel eliminating the need for any access from Hwy 7, while creating an attractive westerly oriented walkout building site. We respectfully thank you in advance for your time and thoughtful consideration for approval for this subdivision plan. ~ . ---- L -., ------.. ~/---~arlso~es~~~;}i---- D & G of Chanhassen, LLC. 7820 Terrey Pine Court Eden Prairie, MN 55347 952-949-4715 8CAHItID 0 ..q~ ~iHr( -t q II l j, ... I :u m ~ m I Ii ~ n G) III III j ... i!i m G) ~pHUPfl m š:;j In z ~ D H nn I ft j. Ð" 9"0. -- II U UU '" - ~ j II qP ~~p~ ~~ ~ . d I§ ~ i ¡- ;1 :"1 tV ) /1 {/ '" '" ',¡-, I ", I "_ I --- I I I I ........................", '" , -- I --------t I I -----ï I I I ~ ~~ I J!()~ II!II" I ~¡ 1 nr moo 9 ~;J;; JJf wn r ~::a ~ 0_. a.::T R' 3-1IIQ. If!il i!¡ , r';i~ ;:)to If' ~ J 1 ~iC) a.Q. , lJ Q.~ Õ III 0 ~ 6" I ;:0:;:) 'r I~Q ~\Q --" õ~ f !!, - -, (hi ~ ~.::I J J JJ J J f , '-¡J ;:) 3D. - æ f!'~ ~- ~ .. to -=F ~ 7' 't! ~ S· Zo '>I aU) PJl¥W(}OD LANI " T -,-",- I I "'.,.. I I I '" I I I I I "-H~_L /, ~~ '/ 22 '/, ~~ ( "i " I \ '" ., ~ 0' .., .,., r ~\ ~ () \ IS I , / / \1 \ .- :¡:.~ u~~ ~ mUi ~ um ~ IUK; I ~II ml Rh~¡ fil~i Hh~ Ii al 6 G ~ nr; Mlr; q~~ ~ I ~ f ""~ f.~~ f ". II ~ r¡ j lig jUit ~ I~I ~ ~ i II I; I 'i li~i; I t! i ~~ )11 ¡I;~~I~! II ~ I ~ ~ ~~l~~ ~ if i Ibll Ii ~ I iN Ii ¡ ! !~l ~ i I'p ¡- . ~,' ai' i ¡tti II ,I ~ " I ¡ ~ ; I'" ~ 0 pi ~ -t i ~ i m..m- ~ i II In > i ~ D ~ 0 ~ ~ > ¡:;~j:S:jõ;:=~¡:!t ~ > -t ij~~un§/¡ > ~ ~ ~ i3:::õ" III.." Qo 'III,a, c..,..,- ~ '} ì ~ t~¡§mii!n ~ ¡i ~~ ~u .. 1=;:' ~~ ~~ !I j~ U~ " ~~ ............, '\, I a. a. (I) :J o ., (I) (I) ^ ~ (I) "- '~, I '------y- I - I -------1 I I I II c? !lit ¡¡ r....rlt ffl ø ,~ /' \ ~ ., I ~~ J f:.t ) / t r I -0-0 ¡!I¡¡I~ ~Innr moo 9 ~J; Iff filii ¡In! I -, a.:r~ et~ ~ ~o ~",a. u!i1 III' a. a. J -0 3' -U"'o Õ ¡ ~ ~ l::lj I :r E!.¡¡- -, <1>",0 IhJ ;, i tv IX! I)))))' j'$ ;0 ii .-.1 ~ '!l ;::F ~ ~ '11 " 20 · J <0 .., " I i ~~ I 11° ~ ni p~ ~~ Ii "~ ' ~II 'i ~~ I .'~ j( ~ I ~ .., J, 11:. ~ ~\ - - ("- ~ - ~::- - '\ \ \ J""/' ,....., c» '1-"- '1-"-, ~ ~, ~ '" '::~ ,,~ I ' ....::,; '-- 'lOft JKXTt)J'Sßt' 4tØ.21· >,---' »~ ~ ~ ~ (' " y -t- ... .. >, .., ... " " "- . "- ii,--- "-,,- ID .. ~ '-= 'r- (/0 :/ L .0<<- r - -. . ---:',oLr- -----. ':::... :.... ---i r ìL I ~i. ~ N ,I I [!"L L R'''- HWH~'I¥ ~ [ ------------------------- CJ 1:1 iij ~ ------------------------ :i I{ 'ì-, I '-, I ',~ I ~" I I I I ~ I)"", ~ I -- '" : ,,' " ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ !1i ~ffl :~ ~~~~:;~ ~~ U !11 I / ^' ~ p§ i I ~ M~ "'§ a§~~"'~¡:¡ U ~§ :Þ // ", ", i~ ~I ; ¡ ~;~ Ii :I~~~d ~l:1 ~ /, ',,~,! p~ ~ ~ h~ ~~ g~;~:iS RH~ S N " ,~~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ¡¡~ I ¡¡:~d~~2 d ~~ z " ' '~I i ¡¡~ 1\ ~ ~ ~K i~I§~g~ ~ij ~ ~ " "- _ :~~ "', : i !! q ! II ¡ ii~;;~! il~ II ¡;¡ d ~~ ~ . m ~1i1 ~ i~§~d~ R i OUTLOT 8 ---- ,,~ B ~~ i ~ i ¡¡~ I ~~!9h§ 2~ R -r - ---, - " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ntR~~ ~¡¡: I I I ' ;; , ~ ~ ~ ~ ;¡ I ~ª ~ ~bli'l ~~ ¡¡ I ,I 'i~1 '¡¡, ", ~ ã g ~"g ; ~¡¡i; ~ ~ R I N I ~~\ ';1: ~", ~ ~ 2 f¡¡~ ~ ~ I I !1i~ '". 'I'. ,....., ." ~ ~ . . . L I ~ i :. ...: " ". ',1 .,¡: to 1 I I',. ~'I."I'j:.i::: ),'/ ~ --=-~~~~~~~rL -'-:'.:' .-~~~~ ;>j. r.·, :'::;-T";:':-";;j,~-~-;¡;;=.æ;="" "" . ;1~~4:"~" .: . ~;(: >,//. I .~. "I .....~ ,~\...' "". I I ~¡: ~. 'I I'~, '\,J' .... ..... '" ," I <If I ~ ~ '/ '" '\ . ~ / : N : ~~il~1 ii' ~ ~>....~. '~~...<' ..J»,.' . I I'~ - '. . , . I , .,' ~,; , ~ ;ia/I I /'.'" ':::' ',,,,! .... ," -~ ' :, ,~./ I Ir-:,I~~.J I . .': . .:/, ", "v' h ~" , ,~r:--.:::~-~l:./ ~ ._.1 r{~{<.:· (',,>x ~ "... ..';:~<': ': . T I :~r'" .. ..... ,I,:. ,1" ~~~_ ,'. ~ .... _:,,/. / . . . I', . .~~. 'v,' .;'. '\!, ,"" '.: " ~ I l; ~Ith '. ',;. r. . /' "",' . '.' . ..:~ " ' ;..' I I ~q~ I \..¡"~ ...,/ .I'" " .. \ \. \, ,/.' , .I~. .r , I ~p . .. ." I' I, "",.~ " ~". '\. ' " , ~~~¡ i I .v'.... "\.<. ,._,¡".,.', ~.\ )-':,.,' . '. ,,~ " , I : ~~~. . ...", ~ : . >. ','" . . \ ~~'. / ~ ./"" . " " -, ~~I~ I t" 'Y·" ~ .... >' \ .'..~ '. ~,,,,, '\. i: ¡~~l I \\ ,': '.- ". /./.\ \. '&' ',,,- ,,;,:', ""1'" , :: Q'~~ ! '~, ,\........,..",..i\... '., ' / \" ,). ' if 3~~1· ~\... .:-~~ .~\ \, \ . ,;. ~'~ ':' . I ~ ", :1 ~....~ ",,,. ~,\ .,' . ",,'''' \:- ~:.\ .,." ~ '\. I' ~~~ 1'\ ..\.", -II.' "" ,. "\"'1/1 ~ o. '\. ,I ~ .', .... ,/ . ",.,' .."'. '. \:. ,..~:....,: <" t'" '" ' I;"~ . , I ~ ~~. , '. ",,,, \ 'I' ~'\'\., \.'. ...' ' " '1.IA'·' \ . ''-:'...1 ./~ J I '" " : : '",!', ".;: '\ ','~ '~ \. r·" ~.~ '. I' œ \. ~I ,~\ . .) ,'j '""""' '; \ q\ i ... '''''''\, '.' '" ", {? I '. ~'" ". I .: '" - :; \ I. I \, ~ "'- ? : : '\ ~\" '. '. \ , ':' ~, ' \ ~.. ", "'" ~\\ 1: -- "\,'" L -l ~~''----~ " «' 1: ~ ~jl ~~ .A g.\ ..,¡ ~ !~ » ¡3 \'¡;.-g ~ ~~. í ~ t'!!, 0 ~'i ~ ¡¡Ii \ I \ / , I, " Jp ~ 1"/ ~ /;/ l\'\ , / y ~ ~ 't- ----------------------- ~~~ ~ ,~ -I ~~~ ~ ¡ ~ ð oS U> ~ ~ :¡ ~~ ~ u~ " U> b'l:) :¡ Uo( H ii ~~ ~~ 11..11 ~i H 00 ~ft :::%. ---'" --e-~,.~ ~~ ""', -------------------------- ~...: ''\., L_ .'/.' " ~ I 1---1 il "'U I c...> I '"UcW'"U ~jit~ IU 3' :::1-' Q.~ ..:! õ ., 9 ~;¡; I!! IDa. 5- a.~ ¡ ~::I g .. Q ~ ~ z iJfJif[ J 'fi~ ) J J J J ~ ~i¡nw m()o a.:T~ ~ ~CJ =?¡o 19- ~F z() ''}, I ", I ", I '-- I I I I r !tlU (fti~ 'hi i-,J f!') 'J! i . ¡ ~!!'~ ~J~ g~f i ~u ~~~ ~.~ ~~~ 0 U> III ~ :¡ ~ c m ¡:: ~ a c c z i ~ ~ CI -I :Þ ~ C ~ ~ -I ~ :Þ ~ S !i ~ i I ~!:SII1 UP ~~~H m n f ã ! 1 I I d 1 Î j~~U ~ ~ ~ e ~~ S 111 ill , ", I -------r- I I -----¡ I I I :::a f1j ::J lCJ " ') ,- IBII j~ d ~~ .~ ~~ ~~ Ii ä~ i~ ~ ~~ ~ ~j a \:. .i' rJ 0\ -<, . °i \ I I q ~ ~ I fJfIil! tlif )¡IIII~ "Uo"U ¡¡r,' :J~~ -,3 :J -. (Q:J ~ III _1 ~ ~~ l ~; 1 /r~1 ¡ moo a.::r~ ~ ~¡;) =\'¡Q. ~:!II $»;> s::¡: Zo ""U I .þ.. I "'. , 1J m ... ¡;;. ~ "'" m 'U ¡. - I i ~ UUn¡n ¡q ~ q q I i!~~. å ~ i i - ~~:¡I~P~I l.iil5BI.¡j~ U s U s tift Off õ' ., 9 s:::;¡; ~~a. ::r ~~ ¡~o 3'"., "s:: ~ Z (j II lijji ¡I!i Ii Iii ~¡ IIi! I ! ~ ~ ~j\ d~lll ~! h~ läl ~ ~ J n I~¡ ~ !iI~ I~ ~n ~ ' ; $ !!i I~;i ~I ~I~ ¡¡;!!; ! ') ~§â ij~q ~~ Îq§ ~a ~~~ ~ : Ii! !ål:1 :I¡ ~I ;~!; ~ dl ~jj q~ ~4 n I~~ ~ ~ ~~¡¡ ~~~ i1lh ~ êði ~ ~ ~~i ~~~ I~ i~l I~ ~II! c¡ ~I! it~ ~~ ¡!i~ ã~ I~~ ~ â; il~ ~ ~~ ~Q ~ ~ i a ! ¡I i ¡¡ Cd,. .<E. ..v~. fa ¡¡~ I~l fl ~ ~ g" c~,~ ~1 ~tz if I ·1 ; , hJiI ~J; if ~ I~ j! ¡!fl In ;¡ ~ .¡ f!l a - I IE '" ""'~ }~~- If! 1. ~ ~ I ~i ill I t I .... ~ :;~::: ~J> 0 h ~I! I. ~ ~mc~,~ ~~I:~ i~i t z "- "''\ Pftl u. i ~ ~. ·Up Hi i (J ...~ ¡;I~ :ltl , , ~ al .: I t2~. a , 1t.. II Q ~ 11!~ I! l ", I~H ii J '..,¡¡~ . "'7~Y t = "" "" ", "- " I '-------r- I - I ------ï I ~ "~ ~ ~~ H ~ I ,I! ¡ q!l¡g : I! I' ~;, ,. ~ . ¡ . ª ~ i i ~!d ~G ~ e ~ ~ M ,,: M ~~ ~ ~~p ~~~ e ~¡ j ~q ~ . I ~ 2 V> r f f ~flH J U!¡i Ih" H¡Jt ì!J m!!'~ ,b ~ir ~ =a í~j ::> u::> .. \i :\ i\ .\ \ ...-2 5~ -¡, of \ 'I " / t :~) !íll.~.1ª I lie [ì c i~;j In H r~~~ ql B J0'" ê <r "0. i I II UU II uqP imp~ ~~ ~ ; ~ ~ § ~ ~ t ~ I ~ ª I: § ~I : i! ¡ I! !~¡i nd ~ø r'~ II: Ui~ ~n 'H 'H 8, ;,~~ Iq Is j f. H~ i:i¡ Ih A a fh I Jóló -I ~ I ~~, Q IX "Ii ~g I ". I~ i i!~ II ~ in P h § ~I' ·SÏä ~.. & § ~ . % I n~ ~i· II ,. - ~_.~ ~.: ~. n I iU- ~ II W a ~ <ö § ~ ~~." ~~ ! I n ¡. i ~ ~ ~i > . . . œ .j~i . -I . ,~ & I t:¡flli i Iq I I -I I I il'I'! ~p I I ! II i ~ I i fM~~~~ ì 11 nllln m ~ ~ :H~f§! I~ ~ ~ ~ ,~I ~~~ Ii ~ I ! I!f ;~I d ~ ! i m!;¡ï !~ 2 2 ~ a ~~ ~E ~ ~ . ~ i~ ai ~ ! i j ~~ i~ ¡¡ 3 §~ -; ¡ ð I~ n ~i~ ~ ~ i~ Xæ i' ~ i ¡ II U . ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ õ. ~ ~ ~ i ~ :;~9 ~ 8 :i ~.U ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ > j§ C\ g§ ~ . ;1 ~ o il 0 '\. '\. ~~"'--, '^', ^'--, I ~------t- I ~-______I Î I I I ''}, I ^', I '-_ I -,~ I I I I ~~ I ::Q¡;§~:;I I'll" ~i ¡ ~r m()o 9 ~;&:; jl !trH j"it ::a. a.::r~ ~Ø>8: If!jl i'~ ;r'~ ~ § :J Q.'U æ ~ ~0 "1J Q. - If f i ~~ g - ~ 4''''0 Ô '" g.~ to p¡ ~~Q 'hi ii ~':S I () () f ~.~- ., o-,J (J p¡ () ¡¡lllif J'- ;> f!l m !!: 'U 3 ;:1= !:: ~ 'd 3- (þ () Z f .~ <D ::J z() .... ~""'''':~''''''''~''''''~''-''-'' .."~__._....,,.;..~..-~z.:--.:;;;..,,.,,-,....,,,...,;.,...;.:~--............---,........~..:.u:~...:._:-_.,--'.M:.o.""'.~.4',::......;....._c.;,.,,"':"'''~.-~~--'''';~~''''''''''''''''''''_~ ì" , / " I' I / I ¡ I /' ""~ {\ .~¡;/ \ i \ I , ¡ ; \; r ~J.') / .: / ,\I/:' > /:/~;î?, .('/ / r \ ~. ¡ '\ ; .; J ~ \,\ , . '-0 " .., \-:~:"\ '\~ ,i. ., \ ¡... ~", \\ \ "\'\ \ \ \ '.~ \ ':. . '\ . ' I, " \ " .i .. .. . ~Ir ."1"1 I .. ,.. " I' . ' " '1 ;! .. " II '. -., i r ... .' " I , _ t - ¡\"~\ I I: I." - , \;Þ I ¡ l "f'·-' ·qJ,F " - ,'7 -'1 . { . ) f J...;;t/ / .'f:r,~- œ· "= ., < "" .' , ' I·, """'~ ' " ;~? ¡·.:.o.t'ï .~,~I" , " \ ..,\ d";;:', " \'~:... \ , ':::';;" \\;\\~,\ \ .-~~~~~~:¡>~, ~'s;,~._- -:, \ ",:v '}"~ \\"-.\_ \ "'~~~~<~~:'- ~\,\\\ d, 'j" \;,\\(, , .. - ~'\..~"-:<:A/"-\ .\1.,\ ,. -'. ...'\\"~ - ':'<Í\'\~~\ '<::\ ':\\~\ \~~\ \' \\ \\ (. (,5 - 'ì v ;v~, jì' i "Ii ,.! i-' . ,~ ¡C~J ., . -:~~ ;~" - , \ \ \ s:r ~~ ~l ~I (Ð ,t :E t~ ~ tn s: \ ~~ \ '. ~ DO:Þ ¡FUH i ", rTi~ PH}) <D 0 lJ -.11' fir ;[~ I 010 -" <D ! ill! ,iJ Ii , I ~ ' ïI moo o š:::r. {' :UH ¡ ~w~ :::a a. :r 111' ~m& ~ ~ ~~r ,1¡1 ~ ' ~a: ~ ~CJ :rQ.@ í¡¡~: i 3U § ~<I§<~j ~;9. Õ '" 0:;) 'Id: ' "OJ 1:1 g¡~o ia:" §Z'< ~ I 1¡ ",[ =ï (') -, <1> "1 !Iii ?D'? ;J @ I ¡ ~. I . . : @ " - ~F .: ^ I <D Z "Zn 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 5, 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 Hidden Creek Meadows - CORRECTION - Planning Case No. 04-31 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 sworn to before me this -X-4 '" day of 17 (7J _'-Ÿ l'IA LJ..LA ./, 2004. .~~ ':O~iÁJUW': , m zt: O~ - 0) 1-0) o:,æ Wt: a:o a: .- O~ 0'- . E mE t: 0 .¡: 0 cam 0) t: ::c: .- CJ t: ._ t: :ëo!!! ~o. o.t: -0) o tn G) tn .~~ +<It: o ca Z.c o m Z.5 Oã) -G) t>:,æ Wt: a:o a: .- O~ 0'- J E mE e 0 .¡: 0 cam G)t: ::c: 'c CJ e :=ca ,a- ~o. o.e -0) o tn G) tn CJ ca ._ .c +<Ie o ca Z.c o (f) Q)"8~ Q) ,¡:;o- ¡ßc¡C3 Q) -..c:"'O O_c¡ C -....c¡ C 0 C\J c¡ ;:,0 ..co Q) c¡.~ ....J - E .¡: g>0) Q) >- ~ ~= ci. ~ëñ'r'" ~ c¡ ;:,'(j) 3 o ..c: (f)o ,!a Ü t::3 0 c.!::: o ·;<:....Q)c c¡ >-Q)c¡ oo"'030;<:Q) 0 E..c:..c: f'o.~ Q)(f)"'O CIi....-O cu aJ §..c: Q):2 "'0 ,!:! .E E () ã5 .- - ..c: I C - C 0 ,¡:; (f) "'" (f) :!::: I- c¡ 0 .- .... _ c. O ~ .- E I C - Q) ....>. Q) UlB-ò>- o c¡ '6 .... ã5 u.. C '- ;:, C (f) C\J :2 ..c Q) Q) C/) c¡.c (f) 0..- 0> cö 0 ;:, c.,þ a: ....J ~'~.£ ã5Q) ,£ 'r"'o(f)B(f)_" "'0 cc:> .... f'o. - _ 0 c¡ o.! .¡: .;;; E 0;> ~ f'o. -9 'Ë ::6 ~ o.t;¡ m 15 () = E(f)(")....;:,Q) 03() ellUI..c:O£.E .... C\J Q) C. 'C Q) Q) c¡ c..- ....J a. ãi ,2 0 0> ~ >.o_cc¡Q)(f) ....Jä: >--c~ o E ell ..c "'0 .¡: - z 0 ,2 £ a: C õ ..;:, C ;:, ..c: " ~ (ij cu '§ ~ () (f) ~ c. c¡ 0 g> o 6 (¡) "'0 'Ë ~ 'C f'o. - .!a t) 0 .....=: C c¡ c¡ C >-5..c: () c3.c ë3C.c¡c¡u.. ..c:Q)c¡UI:::;:'()- C c.'C:¡::; I C Q) 3 - 0 C"'o~ 0> ;:,c¡c()() ctI..c:..c:c()Q)....c o .... c¡ 3 - ..c: - 0> (1 (f) .... o.'¡: ><cü.E:¡::;'C g>cñ ücui:E o_(f) (f) c¡ C=::;;t)~5ü53 õ"'O_coe-ë:.c~ '" ;>'" 0 Q)O-;:'c¡-~ en I ~ ctI ~ ~ 'C ,- ø cu ..c: ñi c.,g "S ,g ~ ~ af"'O æ C ¡g C? 06 0 t:: g Q) 0. 0 .0 I- ë3 a: æ C3 2:2 CS cL3 ê;t ¡:: g.~ à. i1i E .. ¡:: c oð~ .æ ~ ca 0 C..J ñi UI o Q. o . ... c.. (f) Q) ¡ß c¡ C3 0_ c¡ æ°C\!~ E .¡: g> 0) Q) ~. . c¡.- ,- Q) ...... > (f) .... o ..c:(f),!aü o ·;<:e()C .. 'C 3 O:!:: () r--.~ ()(f)'C cuaJ§..c:():2 ã5 '- - ,¡:; I "'" ~ (f):!::: I- o .....s: E . ' Oc¡'6....ã5u.. C\J:2.o()()OO CÖo;:,c.,þa: 'r"'o(f)B(f)....: (¡) f'o. õ:!:::,2.~ .of'o.'E:iSë E cñ (") .... ;:, () .... C\J Q) 0."'0 Q) Q) c¡ c. .- >.o_cc¡¡ß ~ E 0.2 £ a: " ~ (ij cu '§ ~ o 6 (¡)"'O 'Ë .... - C "õ §: ëtš l!! ~ §c¡"'Oã5ch °oæ3Õ) ~ 0 - ~ "'0 .£ cñ C=t):>cC/)3 c¡ () ;> c¡ 0 enI;:,c¡~~'C w ~ C"'C () c¡ ;:)+::'() Q)cQ) l-üa:æo2:2 G.i E .. ¡::c oð~ .æ ~ ca 0 C...J ñi UI o Q. o ... !1. J!! Li:,;.; g æ ï: .~ .ffi-g c..<c .. >c 1:: .S! CII_ c.ca o u ... 0 c....J Q)"8~ ..c:o- Q) -..c:'C C - .... c¡ j E~~ >- c¡ 0>= c¡ ;:,'¡¡; 3 3 t:: 0 C ,!::: c¡ >-()c¡ E..c:'¡:; o CIi....-O "'O.!:!.EEQ)(f) æ õ.£ e £ c. Q) ~B::ò>2 C ,- ;:'c(f) c¡ .c (f) c..- 0> ....J ~ '~.£ æ .£ "8 -8 .§ .£ E ~ ~ .¡¡¡ m ~ () 'õ ü Q) 5:..c: o£- ....J c. ãi .2 0 0> ..c:() ....J ä: ~ :is ~ .§ _ Cõ ";:'c;:,..c: Q)(f) ~o.c¡o§l ~ 'C '" - .!a t) . 0 c¡c>-c..c:Q)_.... ,¡:;Q)c¡~::;:,~£ C Q) 3 Q- 0 C"'o 0> c¡..c:..c: ()()....c ..c: - 0> (1 (f) .... c. '¡: 0cui:E o_(f) (f) c¡ - c 0. - '- Q) o"'O-o....S..c:..c: Q)O-;:'".- ,- 0 cu ..c: ñi o.,g "S ,g C?c6ot::gQ)C.O.o CS 0 .3 ê;t ~ g.~ à. J!! Li:,;.; g æ ï: .~ cë. £~ .. >c 1::.2 CII_ c.ca o u ... 0 !1....J UlC) C C CII._ c.- c.CII ca CII J::iE _CII ca,c ,c- ~-; UlC) C C CII._ c.- c.CII as CII J::iE _CII ca,c ,c- 3:-:ü .... "So Q) (f) c. o'r"'o£ Q) .9 .0(")_ ~ (f) c¡,-Q)o() ;:, () _ () 'r'" (f) ;':2 c3 g (f)É§r-:.gg.6 () '6 m ·()C\J..c:o~ '0....; -O'EC\J"..... ....0 C 0. I ....()_ o..~ 0 - g 0 ~ ::I C == 'Ce ëñ 0>,,(f)0) §;.o 3 ()(f) o.,~.!a .£ "'" 0 - Q) ::= oQ)~E ã5B~c¡=¡¡;.$ o.,¡:;..c E ()E' (ij ~ cñ ,¡:; C/) 0-;:'0 ~-o=!o. e. § ~O ~ c¡ B (¡) C ~ 0> Q) (f) ..c: Q) - 0..c: C E .2 .£ .c:c-..c: Q)O(f)Q) '0.- ::: lQ E ~ 0 å:i '§ ø æ ã5 æ Oo.oc -(f)-~..c(f)(f).c:E 3-c-=c¡ () ~o Q) .0 :; 0 aJ c¡.!a Q) '- Q)"'O"'O (f) 0 >- _ ..c:c: :!::: £ >CI.IQ)Q) c: - c· (¡) Q).... .2:: (/)0 c¡ .c: - ~ c¡ cñ Õ Q) -Q) ._..c:_ 0 > 0. - 0. 0 >- c: 0 C Q)'¡¡; o = ~ 0 Q) ;¡:: c¡ 0....: Q) 0 CI.I C'- .... (f) - 'C 0 0 E C'- 3 .- £ 0 .¡: Q) t;::¡, c¡ E c¡ Q) 0> Q) o>u.. (f) ~(f) E > E ~ ë ~.£ Q) .£.c: c¡ ;:, 0 'C 0 .- ctI (f) ~ ....; (f) .... 0> Q) 0 0 c¡ 0 0>.2 - '" 0 ;:,;:, - .... C c: = ëi. C Q) Q) B "'0 0 0. Q) Q) ,- () 'S C. Q) ..c: '5 -.... - C - - ..c: ;> c¡ E 0 õ.....ë(ij..c:ü 92'E c:Q)_ - E= c¡I-Q)y:> 0 ë¡¡ Q) ..c 3 >- '~.o ;> E - _..c:o;:,~ >-c¡e-:!::t::CI.I 001-00.._ ;:,0:!::'C o.ëü E c¡ Q) o C (f) E.o 0.'0. >- >- 0._ I ;:, Q) 0 ~C\ÏC"5-i =.o:2£Q)(f)"'Oo oð .. UI:! c c o CII :¡:: E m E ::I 0 ou .... "So Q) (f) 0. o'r"'o£ Q) .9 .0(")_ (f) (f) c¡'r"'Q)0Q) (f) Q) Q)'r"'(f);':2 ....; ;:, (f)Ecr-:.oo.> o 0 c¡ 0C\J000 Q) (f) Q)'Q) .c:oe. '0 - '6 ëi. 0. E ":I 0 Q) _ e..~ co - g 0 ~ ;:,0 c: =s: ~ 0>,,(f)0) >-0;> "'0 e .¡¡; .£ "'" 0 _ Q) ::= ()(f)o..,!a ã)o-c¡=>c¡ 0E Q)-~ c¡- 8. Q) ::6 E E' (ij ~ cñ ..c: C/) o£;:,§ -o=!o. c.. c C-ü ~ ctS .s as c:: C) o Q) _ 0..c: C E.2.£ ~ ê £ ~ Q) ~ Æ,~ ¿ .Q. ã5 -E- ....00:):>...... Q) Q)Q) :::~ '7"< ;> (f)..c:E Oo.oc Q;(f)-::I.o(f) 3 ë -= c¡ .0:; 0 S c¡ .!a Q) .92 Q) 'C 'C (f) 0 >- - 'É :!:: £ c. ~(f)Q)Q) c..c:=oc¡-_ Q) ~ ,2:: (f)o lQ Q) ..$..c: $ 0 0 > c. Q) _ 0. 0 >- C 0 C Q)'¡¡; o = 0Q) 0 Q) ;¡:: c¡ 0 ....: Q) 0 (f) - 'C 0 0 E C'- C '§ .....!a. £ o.¡: () © c¡ E c¡ Q) 0> Q) o>u.. (f) (f) E > E Q) ë ~ C Q) .£ ..c: c¡ ;:, 8 -g 0 .2:: c¡ (f) .~....; (f) :; g>.92 e C c Ü o>,g ë () 0 B "'0 0 0. () Q)'- Q) == c.. Q) ..c .~ ..... = '- ..-- c: == .....c .c: 3 0. Eo c c¡..c: 0 9:>'¡: - c¡ .2 õ..... c¡ I - Q) .... :> Q) 0 ::= Q) E :is 3 >- '0.0 ;> E - c¡..c:o;:,Q) Z'c¡....=:!:::t::(f) ü5 I- 0 0.. £ ð ë3 -g 0. c¡ E c¡ .~ >- >- 0 ,!a ~.g ar ~ 'r"'C\JC"5-i =.o:2:5()(f)"'Oo oð.. UI:! c c o CII :¡::S m E ::I 0 00 ~ ~_~ ~~ .~~ 0 ~ .9 ¿~~ c~ ~ ~ ~! êü õ ..g.~ Co fij = ë ~.~ a. aJ æ .9 æCl>~ "'~'" KO ",co o~ ~5.~ ~ID0 S ,Q<~ ~i ~~g ~~~ m~~ ~g ~m~ ~~ ~~; š~g E~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ -~~ 'U ___ m E ..c 0 \U t ~ . ø ã. ~ :fi ~ ~ _§t::o= :m.o.o 8:vg.-æ[,Q.~=Eë -0 0-C: >°0 Cl»>..E "'::'(J)OQ 0 >c_ >.."'~ >"E~~uE -; 2~Cl> ~(~ :ê ~ ~ ~ -g ~~ -5 ~ .s 1:: ~~ ê 'g-S U) .c en C .- - CO - 0..5 ::¡ en CI3 "õ :æ ~:J t:: ~o~ ~~~E~E~0£~ ø> .-00 E '" Cl> C ::: 0 Cl> :;: ,ñ'- '" c 0 ~ '" --' 0 'C ,-~~ .9~~=~co~mo -0 O~~ ¡~i êü~~!~~æ~~.~ ~~ ~ð~ ECI3m êø~-o~E~~t:: õø øØc "C !!:! £: .g - ~ ~ E - 0 .5 ~ ~ g :.: .g £: § ~'5~ ~.~øa~~~~m~ g3 ~S~ (ij 5f Qj d> ë Qj .9 .!!1 E Q):: :;: Q) 1! u (f) c 1: ¡g c~øCIDIDO"C~Em"C~_ m ~o ° 2 - "" .s E 15 'C == 'C "" Cl>!!! ~ Cl> c;j 8~:¡¡¡ ~~8~~cfiæm:fiæ~~j ~~ ~!!:!ø c E LO E ~.Q Cl> ° Q;' E:2 ~ "'E "" ~ ~ "" 1! º 0~CID-cn~c~ro00 U ~o ü-c ~i~£~'~='~~~~~~! ~~ !.s~ (J)E~'CIE0Cl>Cl>oECl>XU -- -'Ci ~ >C"C -~~oo~ø"C "Cø -m- Cl> « '" Cl> :;¡ ,9. 'C U "''C .: ° ã.- Cl>:5 g>'C 11. '5ID1::~-~W=~C0-E~ ~~ '-~ID Q)"C~ctJgO)ãi.gEro'E~o.,g ~c: Cãg£ c:c ,c¿ ° .9 :;: _'= ~ ~= Cl> Cl> § U ~ '" '6 Cl> .- _ c~~ Cl3cOQ)gØE;·~Ø 8~ .cwU ~~~~£:æ~£~~"C~~~óc~ g~E ~cam~c~~Q)8~~=-ocaJ~ ~~o oS ~ !!:!.5 ..g (l) ~ 2 >-~ E &.9 [~ .~ "8 5. c: ~ ~~·5.~~5E~ð~ca~~Ø~.20 ID.2OO øE5f"'~~Cl>=Cl>g>~(ij'C:5_~€ :5~æ ë "C ~ æ Co :!: ~ .c ·ë :s (f.I ~ J: 'õ ë .8 i3 .Q 13 ~~~a.~~!c~o~.~.Qg§~.c ~~~ a.E g~ ~ ~1-'~=~.!2 6-m e 0 ~.~,*.c ~Q £<ê~~a¿.~gœ"C~gS~ic~§m~ ~~~~~!!:!.QE~¿~m&E~~~o~5~ ø-~ø~~-Eoo œ U~S~.~O)~ oll.°ëCl>~8oü",,&~"'ICl>o~Cl>E.s:5 ~~~,-S~CÜ~~.5~æc5!~~EE,5 c~ð~C~æCl>ðcCLOo"'>..!:;:io"''C ~~~ ·<~~E~ø~2~oo~2~æ~O~~ ~Q,)~§ '0>0 .SE~- '=g'~ØE~~ ;:, ~cø._~~~u~oo_$Eo._o ø._~~ -g æ 5..~:e ~ ~ ~ rß - (J g. CJ) ~ -; ª g..s.š 2 c .5 8æ§E~~m~eg~~~æ;~~~~£~~ ~~ü~.5~~~~m~~~~.5~2~mv§s ;: § ~ ü c: [8. ~ g> -g .Q'g ro.~ ~ -c C5 ~ É £: 5r 9 Q,) "iñ OJ OJ.2 Q) Q) 'C aJ <n ~ Õ S ~ C .CJ 0 :1: Q) ~.5 ·$·5£c:~~~&~E·~0<n~ m~u_~~~ ø~§·~g~~~!EEü~~§~.~~~~8~ ~~~~~E~ØID8~~.5·æ~~cQ)·~~~E ~(f)C:C~~(f)~:5:5~üü~:;:!ø<æ~mæg 0.. ... ø ID ÕO ~ ~ g 5 g~¡ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ro Õ .- ø 0. (t1 _ 'E >..- a. aJ m _ ãi w -c 1ii .~ CI3 ã: 0 (Q c ~ ..Q -5 c.c ¿ ~£ø "CQ,)~ ø .9<·- ID~ ø<no <Q)§ ~~~ ~õ ~~~ ~.~ t·§~ ~šg E~mm~~ ~~~ ~~ ;5~ ~ ~ ø ~ € 8.~ t·~ ñi ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~~:g øO).CJ oQ)oca~._.__Ec Õ- UJ-C ~~£ ~~~EC5~¡~8~ ~ ~~! ~Cã2 CdQ)Q)"'C mª~.91:: ~~ ªg_ ~!~ ~,~~~~~~§!X 'ß~ ~~§ ;:'uu "'_"'E~Em~-Cl> Cl» ü'C E = .!!!. c 's: ° 2 :;: ,ñ ,3 ~ § 0 :5 '" ê5 '" Cl> ._~~ ~>~'->'Cd~"'CEOJ ~o c~E ~~~ ~~~!~Q)~o_.5 .g~ øÜ~ smID §~m;o~E~~ê ~.~ ~!c: '0 ~ -5 0 ~ ~ UJ E - 0 .5 ~ ro .æ _ "'C - 0 ~'5~ ~.~~B~~~~~~ §! ~B~ - 5f - - ë Qj - _!!1 E Cl> - :;: Q) Cl> U (f) c 1: ~ ~~Q)~Q,)Q,)o'O~Em"'C~5 Cd, ~O= .º~~~.5E~~~~~~S£ ~~ 8~s :6 ~ 8 ø ~ C ~ Cd _ ID ~ ~ ~.~ 'S; 0 ~ ø (jJ CELOE~£Q)oCl>E-uE"" o~ "~º 0-cc _<n~c:~CdUJo 0 ~e ~-c ~c~~m~='i~~~~~! ~~ !.5·~ ~Cl>E~'CIE0Cl>Cl>oECl>XU -~ -'C", 3: >c: -.c~CJo.cQ.l"'C '0 -Q)- .~ < >. Q) -g,~ ~.Q ~"C -= 0 Q."3 ~£ ~-g a. >~~=-~c-Ec:ø-Eo ~~ ·c-w ø"U~<ug~ø.g cuë<no.c ~c: nfg:e æ8og=.5~a.~WID§~~ §~ !'-u c ~ mCOøcøE~,-0 Om øm ~~~25~~=5~~~~~ci~~ ~~ë ~::~§~~~ü~~~~~i.~; ~'~8 =E,~·;~~:1:..Q~~~~ø~~øo ~§~ ~m~·-.~=E~üaQ,)=~!E~B 5~~ ~EQ)"'ã.<Cl>:::Cl>C0~'C__"'>.. "'Cl> E"U"'1ij ~ ~ :1:.c:·ë ~ (f) rnJ:'õë.,g ~.~c Ø~~~~~!§~2~·~~~§~ã.al~ [Eg~g~~'æ~ø~~~e8~~~~Cda 2~·ê*~g¿~gæ~~~£~ic~.~!e ~~'6~~~gê5¿"'m~Eð~1!g~~Q) ~æ~~!~~oug~ci:jw£~ãi'ª.s5 _ CD ~.- _ CD c l> ~ Cd C ..- E c.c: ...."!:::: Co E ~ c ~.~~>'c~Q)ø~~·2~ ~=ø~~o~'- .. ::J ~ ü ~ o!!! E ~ u ãi 2 2 ~ ~.g g-ãí ~ ü ~-g ei~¿ .~·~~I-!E~2 .~~Iw~~...g ~c~.º~~mQ~o~_S~o.5&Em~8~ ¡~~~;~we~~oioo~~~øg~c~.5 gæ~'ê'~~~Cd~g~~I~~!~-g~£~B à: ujü §.S ~ -ê -g ~ t\J..~ ~ êi) (j) ~ ~ ~ ~ ctS cD 8..8 ~ a cñ ü c: ~ 8.. ~ ~ -g.2 g ~ .~ .~"C 0 :; § = ~'g ~:~.~~g~~o~~lg~5~~~8~$~~ >2c-~~Cl>~Cl>EEOCl>I~~ocu",oQj Æ~2§==~~.c:oE~c>~~·æø·~~~e ~Ææ£~~~!!~8õ~~ii~~[Æ~ß õ.. ... i ! ) 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 compilation of records, information and dala located in various city, county, stale 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 G IS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If 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 acknowledges Ihat the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the use(s access or use of data provided. Lake Minnewashta 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 compilation of 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 Cily does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found 31ease contact 952·227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of Ihis map acknowledges that the City shall not be hable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and nold harmless Ihe City from any and all claims brought by User, ils e~oyees or agents, or third parties v.i1ich arise out of the use(s access or use of dafa provided. DALE H COLLINS 10758 130TH ST GLENCOE MN 55336 WILLIAM H & KIMBERLY A KOHMAN 3780 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICK L & BONNIE C MONAHAN 3801 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRIAN R CARLSON 3828 MEADOW CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BLAKE L BOG EMA 3841 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 VINCENT D & BEATRICE E DECKER 3861 LESLEE CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID C & LISA A GAUPP 3870 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAVEL & OLGA L GLUSHENYA 3891 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH J & CASEY J BERGQUIST 4011 PIPEWOOD LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RVC HOMES INC 62 HAMEL RD HAMELMN 55340 TONKA DEVELOPMENT LLC 21470 EXCELSIOR BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM J & KARl L MCREAVY 3790 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBIN S O'MEARA 3814 MEADOW CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RANDALL A & LISA M MAYER 3831 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JEFFREY F JEWISON & LISA J WECKWERTH 3842 MEADOW CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN A & SANTINA CASTER 3861 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LAUREANA VOUNG BOUALOUANG 3884 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KATHY A SCHURDEVIN 3921 ASTER TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOCH HC LLC 4100 BERKSHIRE LN PLYMOUTH MN 55446 TERRANCE LANE TOLL 6250 CARTWAY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MOMCILO SPASOJEVIC & SMILJANA SPASOJEVIC 3771 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RALPH A & SHIRLEY A NELSON 3800 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 VICTOR Q & DIANE T MORAVEC TRUSTEES OF TRUST 3821 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DALE E & LINDA J KEEHL 3841 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JEFFREY R BERGE & DENISE E ZOELLMER 3856 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICIA B CHARNEY 3861 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY CARLSON 3891 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PETER ALEXANDER THOMSON & CYNTHIA L GESS 4001 ASTER TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LUANN M FALENCZVKOWSKI 6274 GINGER DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 MARK F MACPHERSON 6301 CARTWAY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CRAIG C MILLER 6450 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN M & MICHELLE L BECKER 6510 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 S JOHN & LISA A JORDAN 6541 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN P & SHEILA A MCSHERRY 6571 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KEITH R & JODI L KORINKE 6310 CHURCH RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GREGORY W & JENNIFER GREENWOOD 6501 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES E & PEGGY A MARKHAM 6520 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICKY W & HEIDI S HUEFFMEIER 6551 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 T JB HOMES INC 91 00 BALTIMORE ST NE #102 BLAINE MN 55449 WAYNE M HARTUNG & TONI R JOHNSON 6330 CHURCH RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHELE L MUEHLBERG 6508 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARION A OLIN 6540 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JEANIE ANN SEEHOF 6561 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY A & CYNTHIA L AHLM 6429 ASTER TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8819 SCOTT D & PAMELA M HOWARD 6384 ASTER TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8816 DARREN D KAHMEYER & MONICA M KAHMEYER 755 GRANT ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331-3026 MICHAEL & KATHLEEN KERBER 27110 62ND STW EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8907 WARREN D MCLAUGHLIN CATHERINE C MCLAUGHLIN 6434 ASTER TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8818 THOMAS G & BRENDA L PALKERT 255 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806 JEFFREY P & LINDA S OBERMAN 175 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806 MARK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION INC PO BOX 21327 EAGAN MN 55121-0327 DONALD & MONA PETERSON 6414 ASTER TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8818 WILLIAM A & REGINA R GREENWOOD 195 62ND STW EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8806 MICHAEL H & JANET M GILMORE 165 62ND STW EXCELSIOR MN 55331·8806 HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY HENNEPIN CO GOVT CENTER 300 6TH ST S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487-1308 ~l"'\~tlEISOl:q 1& l ¡:: ~ i! ~ g ¡O"'J- 4- OF TP.Þ-" Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 REceiVED NOV 1 8 2004 C\TY OF CHANHASSEN November 17,2004 Mr. Robert Generous City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Hidden Creek Meadows MnlDOT Review # P04-l 07 North ofTH 7 between Pipewood and Cartway Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section: 1004 Dear Mr, Generous: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnlDOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following issues: · We recommend that the existing gravel road, Cartway Lane, stay open until such time as other access is developed, as shown on the plans as "Possible Future Right of Way." The opening would be off of the northeast end of the cuI de sac shown which is just north of lot 12 block two. · To accommodate future TH 7 traffic, the access from Pipewood Curve to TH 7 may be restricted in the future to either a right turn in and right turn out only, or a complete removal of the access, This would be similar to the traffic control measures that had to be instituted on TH 7, east ofTH 41, as traffic volumes increased on that section of the highway. Please call Paul Kachelmyer, TH 7 Manager, at 651-582-1298 if you have any questions about this issue. · The plat does not adequately identify Trunk Highway 7 right of way, The final plat should identify the right of way by reference to the appropriate plates) and in place monuments, The offset dimension from the TH 7 centerline to the edge of the plat should also be identified, Please direct questions concerning these issues to John Isackson (651- 582-1273) in MnlDOT's Right of Way section, · The right of way map indicates that a permit was secured to change the course of the creek. If a permanent channel change was secured, it needs to be shown on the plat. · Please send a copy of the final plat for Mn/DOT review to the following address: David Torfin MnlDOT - Metro West Surveys 2055 N. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 Phone: (763) 797-3113 An equal opportunity employer · Any use of or work within MnlDOT right of way requires a pennit. Pennit fonus are available from MnlDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/utility . Please direct any questions regarding pennit requirements to Keith Van Wagner (651-582- 1443), or Buck Craig (651-582-1447) of MnDOT's Metro Pennits Section. · MnlDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. MnlDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnlDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582- 1293. · More infonnation is needed to determine whether a MnlDOT drainage pennit will be required for the project. The plans show drainage to an existing stonn sewer network. If this network drains to MnDOT right of way, a drainage pennit will be required. Current drainage rates to MnlDOT right of way must be maintained and applications for a drainage pennit should include hydrologic computations for 10 and 100 year stonus, drainage area maps and any other relevant infonnation for pre and post construction conditions. Please contact Thomas Mitchell at MnlDOT Water Resources Engineering (651-634-2403) or (thomas.mitchell@dot.state.mn.us) with any questions regarding drainage pennits. · As our request, could you please send an electronic .pdf file copy of your plan submittal for our record keeping purposes to mary.jackson@dot.state.mn.us Please refer to MnlDOT Review #P04-107 when emailing the .pdffile. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Review Coordinator MnlDOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 MnlDOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay MnlDOT's 30-day review and response process to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 651-582-1724, or Tod Shennan at 651- 582-1548. Sincerely, ~ni Cfc4{S/VL Intermediate Planner Copy: Roger Gustafson, Carver County D & G of Chanhassen, LLC. Ryan Engineering Generous. Bob From: Sent: To: Subject: JefCJewison @cargill.com Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:19 AM Generous, Bob 23-lot sub-div proposal, planning file: 04-31 My wife and I live at 3842 Meadow CT, Chanhassen, and are VERY disappointed to hear of this proposal behind our house. The wetlands that are being replaced with this new development were the primary reason we purchased the house. We were told they were "protected" wetlands and could not be developed. Apparently "protected" doesn't mean much if there is enough money involved. We see deer and other wildlife out there nearly every day looking out our windows and from our deck. This development will significantly impact the value of our house in a negative way (both market value and personal value). There is a BIG difference between having a property that looks out to wetlands and a property that looks out to an obnoxiously large, cookie- cutout house and cul-de-sac. Besides these general concerns, here are specific concerns we have with the plans: - The plans call for a cul-de-sac on the northeast corner of the development which borders our backyard. As if this development isn't going to lower the value of our property enough¡ who in their right mind wants to buy a house with a cul-de-sac bordering their front yard AND their backyard? Does there really HAVE to be a cul-de-sac back there? - Drainage I runoff - runoff from existing properties drains into those wetlands. Depending on how much that land is built up, the new development runoff may go into our yard or at best, prevent the runoff from our yards from draining properly and cause an accumulation. - The properties are slated to run north and south which also puts a house very close to our backyard (instead of having our back yard border another property's backyard). This is an obvious attempt to cram as many units onto this land as possible without any regard to property values, privacy, and ambiance. Again, if this development ABSOLUTELY MUST proceed, we should at least be compensated for the reduction in our property value. There is a BIG difference between having a property that looks out to wetlands and a property that looks out to an obnoxiously large, cookie- cutout house and bordered by cul-de-sacs in the front and back. Quite frankly and honestly, we would have NEVER purchased this property if we new there could be a development back there. Please take this into consideration when approving this proposal and we plan on attending the public hearing. We think it is a bad idea in general, but at a minimum, the specific plans are terrible - it's all about getting as much money as possible from a little chunk of land. regards, **************************************************** Jeff Jewison, Senior IT Business Analyst Cargill's Corporate Financial Reporting (CFR) Mpls, MN - USA Office Center, MIS 5 phone 952-742-7973, fax 952-742-5231 **************************************************** 1 o Lf- - 7:>1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Bethany Tjornhom, Kurt Papke, Rich Slagle, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner, and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: HIDDEN CREEK MEADOWS. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 23 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES. THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES A WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CROSSING OF A CREEK AND WETLAND WITH A PUBLIC STREET. THE SITE IS 19.2 ACRES ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. RSF. LOCATED AT THE ENDS OF PIPEWOOD LANE AND CARTWAY LANE. NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7. Public Present: Name Address Lisa &: Jeff Jewison Don Peterson Steve McSherry Vic Moravec Rick Hueffmeier Gary Carlson Kathy Schurdevin Dale Keehl Cindy & Peter Thomson Perry Ryan Lisa & John Jordan Casey & Joe Bergquist 3842 Meadow Court 6414 Aster Trail 6571 Kirkwood Circle 3821 Linden Circle 6551 Kirkwood Circle 3891 West 62nd Street 3921 Aster Trail 3841 West 62nd Street 4001 Aster Trail Ryan Engineering 6541 Kirkwood Circle 4011 Pipewood Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Want to start Dan? Keefe: Sure. A couple questions. The typical housing plan for this, can you speak to that? Is it similar to the houses in the adjacent or is it, are they larger or smaller? Generous: I would, if the developer could answer that. ICANHED .. Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 Keefe: Okay. Alright. Can you speak a little bit to the trees? It looked like they were going to take out most of them. The grading is such that they're going to take out pretty much all of the. Generous: Basically all the upland area, or the majority of the upland area will be altered, and so every tree that's outside of the wetland, and except for a couple comers will be removed. Keefe: Okay. I'm just confirming that. And I didn't understand the discussion around the retaining wall behind 8. When I looked at Lot 8 on Block 1, it looked like there was a 6 to 8 foot retaining wall I think behind there. But it was just behind that particular lot and I was curious how that worked with you know drainage and why it was just behind that particular. Matt on that? Saam: Yeah, sure. The drainage will come around both sides of the lot. I can go up there. One of our recommendations by the way was to move the retaining wall further to the north to provide more of a back yard area. Something to what Bob spoke about, about having a deck and shed and those sorts of things so, we do want to provide the 20 foot flatter area in that back yard for the future residents. The way the drainage will work is basically it will be split around both sides of the house and it will drain out, there will be a swale here and then also one on this side so. Keefe: So it goes out to what, catch basins in that cul-de-sac or something? Saam: There are no catch basins in the cul-de-sac. It will drain to the street which will then drain down to catch basins right here. "---- Keefe: Okay. Alright. Sacchet: Anything else Dan? Keefe: Just the one last question as in regards to the, there was some discussion around Cartway Lane and the cul-de-sac, you know the street terminates in a cul-de-sac and then there's going to be utilization of the road that goes, the gravel road that goes to the east from there. Is that, would the developer then be responsible for maintaining that road? Who maintains that dirt road if we're actually thinking that it might be utilized. Are we thinking it might be utilized? Or, and at least when I looked at it, I'm not sure, I'm curious to know who would maintain that. Is that a city maintained road or is that? Saam: Since it's gravel I don't believe the city plows it right now, even though it is in city right- of-way. I was just talking to a resident prior to the meeting and he was saying that they maintain, the residents who access off it directly maintain it right now as in plowing and that sort of thing. And the reason, just to give a little history on that, the subdivision to the east of the property, when that came in in the 80's, I forget what year, staff at that time was looking ahead to a future connection to that plat, and so they had an easement dedicated for roadway purposes which is shown right here. Now when this plat came in, we looked at basically the same thing. You know do we eliminate the long cul-de-sac's. We want an alternate access, that sort ofthing, so we looked at the feasibility of coming through here. It didn't take too long to see that this house is basically right on the easement line and then the one to the south is just a few feet off, about 15 feet. Typically we have a 30 foot setback so we didn't think that was a real good 2 ~nìhti':~ij! Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 situation to put in a road through there. So we had the applicant show how a future whole city street could come to fruition with the development of this property to the north. And we also use as our out, so to speak, is that we do have Cartway Lane right now for emergency type access. Or if the road is closed down, maybe down here, people can still get out this way to the public street up here and get down to Highway 7. So it's going to be a temporary thing until the development to the north, when they, when the property to the north develops, we can then vacate Cartway and get a public street through some sort of fashion. Keefe: Just for reference purposes, Cartway Lane comes down, goes north to the south and then does like a 90 degree turn. Where on the map does it make it's 90 degree turn? Is that right at the comer of the cul-de-sac there? Saam: Pretty much, yeah. Right in here. S9 there might be, to get it to connect to the curb line, you know they may have to feather that out a little but it won't take a lot of work to connect it. Keefe: Okay, that's it. Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Any questions Rich? No? Kurt? Papke: Yeah, I've got two. The first one I'm not sure if it's for staff or the developer. Lot 1, Block 1, one of the lots that you're proposing to eliminate here. I'm a little confused as to how the driveway access is with all the wetlands and the culverts there. Is there a proper spacing for a driveway to access the building pad there? Are there any issues with that? You know I would think there wouldn't be but it just. Saam: Yeah, none that we saw. I mean driveways, we do allow them to go down to 10 feet in tight spaces. Typically we see about 20 but for something like that it might start at 10 and then widen out. Papke: When was this, how long has this been zoned residential single family? Generous: At least since the 80' s. Papke: So at the time the Meadow Court development went in, it was zoned residential single family? So any of the residents in that neighborhood should have had knowledge of the RSF zoning at that point. Generous: Correct. Papke: Okay. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany. Tjornhom: I read through this and I guess the first thing that comes to my mind, and maybe staff can clarify this for me, it seems like there's a lot of extreme things happening. A lot oftrees being taken down. Wetlands being fil1ed in. Streets being tampered with. Was there any other way to go about this? Without having to do all this. And maybe that's not an easy question, 3 . Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 because I realize the developer wants to get as many lots in as possible and get as many homes in but it just seems that, I don't know. It seems kind of extreme. Generous: At least for the wetland filling, that's the minimum that we could do. We, with the extension of Pipewood Lane to provide access to the property, we basically said that. We're going to cross the creek there, and that's the only wetland impact that they have is for the road crossing. The rest of the development avoids that. They are providing mitigation adjacent to it but that's just part of creating it. As far as grading, I don't know. I don't know if Matt looked at it. Is there alternatives to not grading this site? I don't know. Saam: We did mention, it's not a big deal but in the rear yard of Lot 9, I guess it's Block Ion the north there, there's something they can do there to minimize the extent of clearing into the trees. Other than that, I think that's more a question for their engineer. I know they're trying to balance the dirt work on site so they don't have to truck in or truck out. So I think that's more a question for him as to the other options in terms of the grading. Yeah, that's a good point. They have revised it since we originally looked at it on the north side of the plat where the slope comes down into the rear yards. Previously they had walkouts there which would have required larger retaining walls, more severe grading, so we have had them revise that so I think they did a good job in that respect to minimize. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: What is the schedule as far as the deadline that this must be forwarded to the council for a recommendation and approval? Aanenson: 13th? Generous: Yeah, it's scheduled for the December 13th meeting. The deadline is December 14th. Lillehaug: Okay. Question number 2. What is staff's opinÌons on the condition and type of trees? Obviously most of them are being wiped out. What is staff's position on those trees? Are they significant? Significant trees or are they you know described mostly as scrub trees or? Generous: Yeah, Jill didn't mention that she noticed any significant trees out there per se. It was more an older farmed area. So not a good example of big woods. Some box elder. Trees like that. Lillehaug: And my final question would be, do we not have in our city code the requirement that they must demonstrate a 60 by 60 pad? I mean I know we went back and forth on this but is that not applicable here? Generous: The specific language for a 60 by 60 pad is not in there. It says for tree removal we estimate at least 105 feet. But we're looking at existing, what kind of housing we have out in the community and we're trying to make these sizes acceptable to that. We're finding out that it's really a wider lot, not a deeper lot that's important for this and so that's sort of what we're moving to with the recommendation. That they add additional width to the lots. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Lillehaug: So I wasn't successful in getting that in city code I guess was I? Okay, that's all the questions I have, thanks. Sacchet: I have a few questions too. Let me try to keep it to the ones that are really essential. So basically we're saying that staff recommends that lot lines for Block 2, for Lot 1 and 13 will be revised to include most of the wetland. I'm not quite sure still what that means. Generous: Well Lot 1 is on the north side. Sacchet: No, I'm talking about, yeah. That one will be eliminated. The other one. Generous: Here, this line would shift over so it picks up the wetland area. Sacchet: So it would. Generous: It would shift to the northeast basically. What I was trying to do is keep these at radial to the curve so that they come almost straight out. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: And then over on the west, or on the east end for Lot 13, what I drew was a line that just continued the west lot line of Lot 12, but it picks up all this additional wetland area. Sacchet: So that would become then a part of the outlot. Generous: Part of Outlot A which has the majority of the wetland. Sacchet: Okay, we would also crop it not to border Highway 5? Generous: Yes. This is, and there's a lift station about in this location and then they have a manhole and that's what I suggested that we go up to that manhole area. Sacchet: That answers that. Thank you. There is no tree inventory that comes with this. Generous: No specific individual trees. Sacchet: We don't know what significant trees are there at this point? Generous: Not by, no, by what they submitted, no. Sacchet: Is that something, usually we get a tree inventory. That's not a required component? Generous: Well I think the, we accepted this for the area. They were removing everything that was in the upland, so we say, I don't know that it, that we would get any more information out of having the specific trees in there. Sacchet: Well, we know they remove pretty much everything. I'm just curious what everything IS. I mean I went out there looking at it but it's a little hard to make heads and tails. I mean it 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 really, better to have an inventory. Now, when we say they revised some of these lots, we say that, like on condition 8. To incorporate more of the wetland so you have an idea of what more is. You would be able to quantify that specifically. By eliminating some of the lots that you've pointed out, this space will be proportioned to the other lots. Do we have any idea how they would be proportioned? Generous: I don't know. The applicant was going to look at that... Sacchet: Okay, we can ask the applicant to that. Yeah, only my big question is, why is this not worked a little more into detail before he comes here but that's not a fair question to ask so I leave it at that. Y ouhave two more Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: Two quick ones. What does staff anticipate as far as ownership of the outlots? Generous: That they would be donated to the city. Lillehaug: Okay. And one specific question. What would be the radius of the roadway curve where it is extended from Pipewood Lane, or better yet does that meet city standards? Saam: Yeah, and we brought that up with the applicant on a previous submittal and you can ask his engineer, or the applicant when he comes up there, but it does meet our minimum radius. Lillehaug: It does meet it, okay. Saam: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay, that's it. Sacchet: I have two quick questions. I mean you already addressed but I want to be real clear about that. You said the deadline to get a decision for this in place is the 14th of December, unless we get an extension? Generous: Right. Sacchet: So we really either have, we have to make a decision tonight on that basis. If we don't get an extension on this. Generous: Or actually continue it to December 7th and then turn it around for the following Monday. Sacchet: Okay. And then my last question real quick here, because that's something that I think we'll be seeing more in the near future than here. Lot 12, Block 2. We have a side yard bordering back yards to the east. How's the city, I mean there's a little bit of buffer here but still, what's the city's position of composing side yards against back yards of another development. Is there anything we do in terms of buffering or mitigating? Aanenson: Well I think that's one of the criteria you should look at with your variance request on that. If you want to attach specific conditions with that lot of how the house should be 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 oriented or buffering, because they are requesting a variance so you can attach a reasonable conditions to mitigate what you think would be appropriate orientation or buffer. Sacchet: Okay, well there isn't really much play room because it's already bumping into the wetland there. But alright, anyhow. I think that's enough of questions. Yes, one more question Rich. Go ahead. Slagle: Actually two if I may. To Matt, Lots 4, 5 and 6 on the southern side, any guesstimate as -to the width of those lots at about halfway into them as you go southbound? I'm just getting, trying to get an idea of what kind of houses. Saam: Roughly 70 feet. Slagle: 70 feet. Saam: 65-70 feet. Slagle: Okay. And in discussions, if I can ask with staff and the developer, I mean they were comfortable with side yard setbacks. Aanenson: No, we're not. Slagle: I understand. I understand, but I mean even if we eliminate one lot, I'm trying to figure out my math as I apply it to 12, potentially 13 other lots. Okay. And then last question is, on the flat lot, was there discussion initially from the staff as to perhaps discouraging. Aanenson: Just to be clear, this is the second draft of this project. It did come in. Substantial changes were made. We're still requesting some more, but that was discussed, yes. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Sacchet: Alright, with that I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and present what you have to tell us. And if you can please state your name and address for the record. Please move the microphone towards you, thank you. Gary Wilkerson: Commission members, stafC I'm Gary Wilkerson, one of the partners in the applicant. I have with me Mr. Ryan who is our engineer and also here to answer your questions. I've heard the staff comments. We haven't had a comprehensive chance to review them and integrate them into our design. We're sensitive to the comments however and understand the city's concerns here. And you know, under the way that I understand the comments, we would lose several lots in our development, but it might make it a better development in the end and I'm not saying that we're opposed to those changes, but we haven't had a chance to really analyze their impact. I've heard a lot of questions about width of lots and so on. I think this would allow us probably an extra 5 foot of width on those lots, and it might allow us a little better building product, so it could be an improvement to our lots. But we have to look at the economics of it and we have to look at the product types that would go on it and that's a process we're still going through. Comments are fairly recent and our reaction is kind of ongoing to it. But I would envision just kind of reacting to some of the questions I heard as I sat in the 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 audience, probably 95 foot lots if we were to lose the two lots that we're talking about. Similar price range product to the existing development, but I think a little different type of single family home. We would hope for maybe a little more of a community feel. We've talked about prairie style homes with porches and maybe some more comprehensive covenants that are in place on the first subdivision that's already there. That's kind of my generic comment and either I or the engineer would be happy to answer any further questions. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant? Do you have questions? Rich. Slagle: If I could ask a couple. The development to the south, the one that we approved in '90, what year was it Bob? Help me out. Generous: 2000. Slagle: 2003, excuse me. 2003. What are the frontage footage, if you will, on those lots? Are they in excess of 100? Gary Wilkerson: Some of them are but not, I don't think on the overall average they aren't. I don't have those off the top of my head. Slagle: Okay. Do we know? Generous: I was going to look, grab that tonight and I forgot. Slagle: Okay. Generous: I know they're not all over 100 though. Slagle: Okay. Next question. On the flag lot, tell me your thoughts on that. Perry Ryan: Our thoughts as we took a look with the developer, and you've got a lot there that's in excess of an acre and I think it's actually 54,000 square feet. And that may come down a little bit. I'm just looking at Bob's notes here. It would come down to about 48,000 square feet with some of the modificati ons that he's suggesting. It's just, it's a tremendous you know land area that's sitting back there that has no real good access to it and we're able to give a tremendous amount of buffer space still to Highway 7 and a tremendous amount, he's even got some distances on here. Those homes to the east are 118 feet away from our property line. It's just a, you know you've got almost, just shy of an acre and a half. 1.3 acre site sitting there. You know when you look at the overall density I think we're down to 1.2 and I'd like to speak a little bit, as Gary suggested, we're still kind of looking at what the ramifications of staff's recommendations are on the possibility of deleting those two lots and maybe after your other... Slagle: And the last question, thank you for that. Is this gentleman, you mentioned that you're still sort of sorting things out. Would that lead one to believe that, and I don't want to speak out of turn Mr. Chair but would that lead us to believe that a continuance if you will might be something you'd be open to. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Gary Wilkerson: Well we certainly would do that if it's in the best interest of reaching the best project for everybody. On the other hand, the land owners who have agreed to sell the land to us have waited a long time for this project to go forward. I'm reluctant to delay it just on their behalf. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? Alright, thank you very much. Did you want to add anything? Perry Ryan: Yeah, let me just add a little bit on what we were looking at on the setbacks. We'll look at the lot that they're talking about, specifically Lot 10, you can see we've got kind of two different, three different shaded areas that kind of go back to your question Steve on that 60 by 60 foot pad.. .show a 60 by 60 pad. On this one originally we did and staff appropriately noted the change. We're actually showing this entire band through here which we call the building pad corridor, and that is at 60 foot deep. So what you're seeing here on Lot 10 where we've got the dotted shaded area which is the 16 Yz foot wetland buffer and then the 40 foot beyond the wetland setback, that is encroaching by about 10 feet at the very southwest corner of Lot 10. All that's saying is that, at that particular pointin that lot you couldn't build a 60 foot deep home, and so that may be the garage side but it's still certainly a viable lot. Lot 10, I'm not sure what the areas, obviously they're all over 15,000. The other one that kind of came up, and I don't, was Lot 1, Block 1. And that one there we've actually got, at the front setback, it's actually 45 feet wide and at the rear 60 foot wide and that's a 60 foot deep pad. And again it's still a very viable lot. Staff has pointed out that they'd like to see the outlot over the wetland there. The wetland is a fairly thin band here. It gets a little confusing on this graphic showing all the setbacks but the wetland is really about as thick as my finger shows there. We would certainly be open and again this is if we are attempting to move forward with not removing the lots, but we'd be open to placing an outlot or easement over that. The lot would still be sufficient in size to meet the size requirements and I think that Matt pointed out as well, we did take a look at what the driveway access would be, and the driveway access is still sufficiently far away from that wetland to put in an appropriate driveway so that was kind of our thoughts on those two and the same thing with Lot 1, Block 1. You can see, it encroaches into a portion of it. It's just the, you know that that pad I think still is, I think that one actually, I'm not sure if it is 50-70 feet wide in the back there, so certainly sufficient too. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I just comment just for clarity on this issue. Sacchet: Please do. Aanenson: I think we're not talking about, we're splitting hairs here but the issue the staff has is, this goes back to Steve's point. This 60 by 60 pad. As we've indicated, we've looked at the houses in that area. They're not 60. They're larger than that, so herein lies the problem. You have a house that may fit on the pad. That may be true but when you get a homeowner in and the developer's gone and they come in to put a deck, they're going to be back to see you for a variance because in this buffer area you cannot put a structure and we don't think that's a service for the resident or the homeowner to buy a lot that has no opportunity to do any additions as lifestyle change needs, and that's the issue we're raising. Same with this. Yes, you may be able 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 to carve a home in there but you're really constricting the buildability of that lot and that's the issue that we have. Keefe: How about Lot 8 on the north side there where the retaining wall is. Do they have the same issue? Aanenson: You know you're going to have some lots that some people are going to discount and to give different choices, and that I think is a little you know, but when you've got that much wetland behind you, it's hard for a homeowner to understand. When you see a wall behind you, that's a little bit clearer line so. Perry Ryan: Yeah, that's a good point. Sacchet: Thanks Kate, appreciate it. Slagle: Mr. Chair, one last question for Mr. Ryan. Getting back Nann, if we can look again at that overview. Your building pad area that you show in each of the lots, if I can just ask on the southern side, what would be the average setback from the front of, from the road to the front of the homes. I mean it looks like they're fairly close to the street. Perry Ryan: They're all at 30 feet from the right-of-way. Slagle: Okay, 30 feet. Okay. Perry Ryan: From standard required setback. Slagle: Okay. And my guess is with some of these lots that we're talking about, you would probably be having those homes. Perry Ryan: Yeah, most of them really. I've seen a lot of the certificates of survey that came through on the stuff to the south. I mean Kate's right. I mean no matter how wide the lot is, people are going to build all the way up to the setback. They're going to start right at the front setback and just capitalize on it. It doesn't matter ifit's a 9 foot lot or 120 foot lot. Slagle: So one last question, are you cognizant to staff's concern that in the back of these homes where people would typically want to put things, this current plan would pose some issues? Perry Ryan: Yeah, it would certainly pose an issue I think on Lot 10. It doesn't quite so much on Lot 1 and 8 does. I think we drew that retaining wall at 20 feet back and I think there's certainl y some room if it can move back another 10 feet, and again that's a 60 foot pad but you're right. I mean there you've got a real visible harrier so. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. With that, do you want, you didn't want to add anything? Okay. Gary Wilkerson: Thank you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Sacchet: You're welcome. With that I'd like to open the public hearing, so if anybody wants to come forward and comment to this proposal in front of us, this is your turn. And if I don't see anybody getting up, I will close it. No, there's somebody getting up. Alright. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say please. And move the microphone. Thank you. Jeff Jewison: My name is Jeff Jewison. I actually live in the property east of the development, right behind the cul-de-sac. And just had a few items. One, I might have missed it as far as the access to Lot 13, I think it's Block, he knows what I'm talking about, yeah. Sacchet: Block 2? Jeff Jewison: Yeah, the access to the house. As far as would they be using the cul-de-sac? Sacchet: Yes. Jeff Jewison: And then I envision some sort of sidewalk. Sacchet: That's the term flag lot. There is a little sliver of land that connects the cul-de-sac to that lot. Jeff Jewison: Okay, so... Sacchet: Do you want to point it out for him Bob? Just to make sure he's clear. Jeff Jewison: Yeah, I think I see it. Like a long sidewalk? Aanenson: Driveway. Slagle: Right behind your yard. Jeff Jewison: Perfect. And then the other concerns we had was one, this was mentioned already too is the back lot to the side lot, or building. They seem to be fairly close. Granted we're used to these open wetlands and backs so anything's going to be a lot closer than desired but if those could be pushed back. And then the other, I guess just strange issue I guess I wasn't familiar with, or Ihaven't seen before but with the cul-de-sac bordering most of the back yard of our property and then basically the other cul-de-sac bordering the whole front yard of our property is just kind of strange having that surrounding front and back yards but that was my concerns. Questions? Sacchet: Thanks for bringing it up. Anybody else? Yeah, alright. You can come one at a time or you can come both. Rick Hueffmeier: We're neighbors. Sacchet: You're a team, alright. Alright, want to state your name and address for the record please. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Rick Hueffmeier: Rick Hueffmeier at 6551 Kirkwood Circle. We're on the south side of Highway 7. Sacchet: Okay. John Jordan: And I'm John Jordan. I'm at 6541 Kirkwood Circle and we abut right up to the creek where it runs across on the south. Rick Hueffmeier: 1'm just curious, how much is wetland there now? I mean what is it? What does it look like? Generous: Basically most of Outlot A and part of Outlot C on the property to the south are wetland. There's a creek that runs through the middle of this. John Jordan: And that overflows. Generous; Yes. These are the wetlands. John Jordan: See something that we have that we've been running into, you know you put the Hidden Creek project down. Rick Hueffmeier: And now our water's not running. John Jordan: It's not running out. It's flooding into our property and we've lost probably close to about 20 trees so far on our property. Rick Hueffmeier: And I'm going to lose another couple here in the next. John Jordan: I talked to, I think it's Lori over there. Aanenson: Yes, Lori. John Jordan: And she said that they were going to watch it for a year and they weren't going to be doing anything.. . and I haven't seen anything done yet. And now they're talking about putting a culvert in that's only 42 inches in for the road. How do you calculate the number of gallons that are going to be coming in through the lake? Because when that lake is full, I mean that's a full force and we got that this year. And I had to go over to Hidden Creek to clean that culvert out umpteen times this last year just to keep it open. We've got. Rick Hueffmeier: Yeah, well we are concerned about the flow because we don't have enough, having carp swimming up to your back door kind of gets... Sacchet: Do you want to address that Matt? Saam: Sure, yeah. There's modeling that's done based on rainfall that we see in Minnesota and based on the drainage area that goes through there, and that's how they calculate the size required for the culvert. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 John Jordan: It seems like there's got to be something, not to interrupt you but that's a huge culvert. If you look at it, it's at least 6 feet wide and now you're going to 42 inches. That tells you, and what they put underneath Highway 7 how much water can go through there at one time. There's no restriction at the lake to stop the water. There's no dam. It's strictly open. So if you get a huge flow through there, I'm a mathematician so I know how to calculate that stuff out and Iknow that you're not right. Aanenson: Well I think there's some other issues that were during construction and Lori may have talked to you about that. There was some construction issues that the DNR was involved in, and also there's other jurisdictions that have approval on that too. John Jordan: Well they, I talked to the DNR and they did comment that there was a possibility of having a problem here. They did not totally agree with us, but they said that you guys came up with the proper calculations so if I have a problem to come back to you guys, and that's what I'm doing... Sacchet: Is there not a DNR approval or a state agency approval step involved? Aanenson: Yes. He's saying that there is. I'd have to follow up on that. Saam: We can review it again too, but Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also looks at this and gives approval so. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Good point. John Jordan: So I mean the other thing too, I want to know what are you guys going to do with the stuff that we're losing in our back yard. Our trees are dying. We've had multiple problems back there. Sacchet: You're talking about right to the south here? John Jordan: Yep, we're Lot 31 and you're Lot 30, right? So. Aanenson: We will follow up on that. I'm not prepared to answer that question... Lillehaug: You're on the south side of Highway 7? John Jordan: Yeah, opposite side. Lillehaug: Opposite side of Highway 7. John Jordan: Yeah, and we're getting really hit hard. And by looking atthese plans here, I've seen another plan down at Carver County and it does show this whole area back here as being a wetland. I don't know how they zone that residential. I never signed anything where they changed that over. Aanenson: It's still being left as a wetland. The only part that can be developed is if it's upland. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 John Jordan: But they want to go over the creek though too. Generous: Include a street crossing. Aanenson: Just for the street crossing. John Jordan: Street crossing? Aanenson: Correct. John Jordan: So if they could get that corrected for us, I think we'd... Aanenson: We'd be happy to look at it. If we can get your name. John Jordan: Okay, yep. That'd be great. Sacchet: Thank you. Yes, please come forward. State your name and address. Vic Moravec: Vic Moravec, 3821 Linden Circle. I'm about 5 houses from these guys. But what I wanted to bring up was how much fill you're going to fill into this wetland here. I have their same concern where my back yard, the creek 5 years ago was 2 feet wide and since they've changed this, it's become 4 feet wide and it's flowing through a lot faster so I think we're restricting the water flow and I've got concerns about filling in the watershed here to get down to that smaller culvert so I just want to reiterate what these guys are saying that we really need to look at that. And I'd like to see more information on it if I could. Thanks. Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Steve, you have a question for him or. Lillehaug: Bob, can you talk about the mitigation of the wetland and the ratio. Filling in that wetland portion. Is it a 2 to 1 ratio? And are they mitigating that on site to answer the gentleman's question there. Generous: Yes they are mitigating it on site. They're actually creating additional wetland. We are just saying that we want to relocate it. We think there' sa better location for the wetland mitigation adjacent to the storm water pond, and that the pond be elongated so that we'd have ponding in the back yard and then the wetland mitigation behind that. The mitigation requirements are 2 to 1. You get one acre of new wetland created for each acre that you impact and then the other acre can be through storm water ponding, preservation of upland area. You get what's called public value credit. And so they're meeting all the requirements. The filling that they're doing is the minimum to get the roadway in and across. And then it's just looking at the sizing for the pipe to make sure that's adequate. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Vic Moravec: Can I add a little something to make sure... Sacchet: Sure, go ahead. Yes, you can come back more than once if you really have something to say. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Vic Moravec: Thank you. He talks about the pond in here. Creating an additional pond. Generous: The storm water pond. Vic Moravec: What's happened since the development north of 7 where they changed the wetland, the pond in the lot next to my lot has increased in size as well. So my neighbors are all losing property to the pond, the wetland which is fine. It's beautiful but why are we paying for what they're getting, what developments are doing. Sacchet: Alright, thank you. Alright, next. Your turn. Steve McSherry: My name is Steve McSherry and I live at 6571 Kirkwood Circle and I'd like to start off by thanking the members of the commission for doing your due diligence and staff, as well as the owners of the property or future owners of the property. I'd also like to thank my neighbors for stealing my thunder here. Thank you very much guys. Essentially what I'd like to do is echo what they've just said. I mean we've got our neighborhood on the south side of the highway and we're losing property. We came to the meetings last time. We took a look at altering wetlands and building back there and everything looks great on paper. Unfortunately we alter this and we alter that and certainly I have a lot of respect for the understanding of the people in this room as far as drainage and that type of thing, and appreciate the fact that you're doing your due diligence. However, where the rubber meets the road for me is we're seeing the fallout from the construction on the other side of the road and we get these little flyers in the mail and the first thing I see on here is, wetland alteration permit and a red flag goes up. I'd much rather be watching TV or working with the kids doing homework but certainly something, this is a concern to us because what I need to look out for is what's in my best interest as you're looking out for my best interest and the developers are looking out for their best interest. Everyone wants a good product but by the same token, once this is in and it's gone and everyone's moved on to the next one, you know we're bailing out our basements and losing property. Thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to come forward? Dale Keehl: My name's Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62nd Street. I happen to be, if you want to, this lot right here. We're right on the comer of Cartway and I'm real concerned about, being our road isn't maintained by the city, and we do our own plowing. We just luckily have people that live on that road that plow. And the traffic that's going to be, if they use that road. I'm just real concerned about connecting that road for use. There could be something done if it needs to be for emergency but we already get a lot of traffic down there to the tennis courts and they come down our road and I just love the park there. That's one reason I bought there and I don't mind the traffic going to the tennis courts and the hockey rink and the, you know we love watching the kids but I really don't want the traffic from that development going out past my house. That road is very narrow and like I say, we maintain it and really don't want it for public use. Sacchet: Thank you. Yeah, I actually drove it. I know it's very narrow. I have a hard time imaging it would be used very heavily. Does staff want to comment about the purpose of the connection? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Saam: Yeah. The purpose is to have an alternate access for emergency vehicles and emergency times if the paved road is shut down, something like that for an interim basis. And I agree. I don't foresee, at least I know I wouldn't want to if! was a new resident in here, going out to Highway 7. I'd much rather go on the nice new paved road than the thinner gravel road. So I guess I don't foresee a lot oftraffic wanting to go out that way. Sacchet: It could be regulated too. Saam: Yeah, we could, yeah. And we intend to do that. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, do we have anybody else? Yes we do. Gary Carlson: Can we bring up. Slagle: You are? Gary Carlson: I'm sorry. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street. I'm the anchor of the city up in that area. My home was built in 1886. It has 15 bedrooms, 9 complete bathrooms. My garage heated 5 stalls. I have indoor parking for another 13 cars. And I'vebeen there myself since 1967. And at that time it was a township. Not too long afterwards they came around and said well Mr. Carlson, you're now in the city. I went wow. Fantastic. Not too long after that they said well you're R1. Wow. Fantastic. Right now I apply for a horse permit annually. I apply and receive apartment permit to occupy the apartments that are within my home. I apply and receive a beachlot permit. I'm, I keep the same hobby farm however that my dad grew up next to and he worked at these two farms that are now being developed. Iguess to start, I need to go back to the first print which shows just the undeveloped property. I guess that will show up. Sacchet: Yeah, we can see it. Gary Carlson: You can see it? Sacchet: Yeah. Gary Carlson: Okay. There are already some mistakes that have occurred within my short time of holding down the anchor. The anchor property I'm talking about where I live is this whole tract here and it includes this home site here which I divided off. This property here. There is, right here where I'm drawing my stylus, there's already another lot off, and that's already a platted lot, so that is somehow here in 2004, it hasn't gotten on the city maps yet but thère is another lot right here. It's right along here. It's a long line there. I developed Minnewashta Meadows over here on the east side where some of these neighbors spoke. I developed that property and over the years I've had a good relationship with the city of Chanhassen. I can't thank you enough for what you've done and what your predecessors have done through the years, and I worked with city staff many times and even on my project. It's not an easy job and they'v~ done you know, they've brought this project a long ways along. This particular property is extremely hard to develop. Extremely hard to develop because it has the problem of the only creek in this whole area of the city is Minnewashta Creek. It drains all of Lake Minnewashta. I can't stress how important that is. Drainage, drainage, drainage. And if it was a 6foot culvert 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 under Highway 7, every culvert from there to Lake Virginia should be 6 feet. It can go completely dry, and it's been years where it will flow where you can put a canoe and hey, why aren't we canoeing this every year. That's how much water can come out of Lake Minnewashta. And because it lies, a lot of this development lies along the creek, every, you're looking at a little part of this development and you're looking at a little part of the city but all of Shorewood drains down toward the creek. All of Victoria drains down toward the creek. My property, when I say it's always the anchor because I'm on a tri city border. So I have, I've met with Shorewood City Council and I deal with Victoria because they're alllookingforwhere their water's going and why it's going, why it's not getting there. And so I want the City of Chanhassen's engineering department to really look at how much water's coming. And not only is it getting to the creek but all of these lots across here have to have water across them. From up land and if you look at the elevations, this developer does not have that much elevation to work with. It's not like he's got rolling hills and high lands. He's down at the bottom of the flowage in this area because this whole area drains into the creek. The creek drains into Lake Virginia. Goes into Minnetonka and down the old Minnehaha Watershed District, which everyone's concerned with. My concerns on drainage are down my west property line, right down here which is also my border with the new development. Right now we split that drainage. The drainage comes under the railroad right there. It drains all of this area up here. There's a new development up here, Hidden Creek. They've already put a catch basin here and now I'm going to use the same culvert. After it leaves the railroad, it comes open. It's open swale that's between my property and the previous Collin's property but it's now the new development. And if those big bulldozers are out there pushing the soil around and they push it right over to the edge of their property because they're shaping a new home pad, they're going to move that flowage that's in a swale now, all onto my property. I need to have them work with me. I will give them a construction easement, and we can create a proper swale so all that, it's draining all of that area of Shorewood and it drains the whole corner of West 62nd and Cathcart. It goes· all the railroad right-of-way. Railroads do not have a water stand under their beds and so that's been graded for years that it goes to catch under and down into the natural flowage and then I don't know west of me where the next flowage comes out but it's going to the east. So I don't know if there's more issues along the railroad right-of-way. If there's more.. . concerns me. That flowage has to be dealt with and if this development has to put in a silt fence, my fencing was put in for the horses all along this property and along the Cartway. Along, on the Cartway I have a horse fence. And when Schmidt divided this up into Schmidt's Acre tracts, Mort Grace already lived here and he had his driveway here. And that's why it was turned into a cartway because Schmidt wanted to divide off his lot so each daughter and son could have 8 or 9 acres. But he already had Mort Grace there so the cartway was then established on a piece of paper, but it was already a cartway. So it wanders and my horse fence, which has been there for 20 some years or more, also wanders so. In the process of silt fencing, if you wantto come in and set the silt fence, you know they put in the post and silt on the bottom and you can put one more wire on then it can be a temporary horse fence, which is fine with me. And then we can work our two borders properly, and then when it's all done we can just, if you'll replace my fence back to the proper setback that the city requires. I'd love to work with them in that matter. Sacchet: Excuse me for interrupting but I think all that would not touch your property. I meant all the development has to take place on the property where the development takes place. Gary Carlson: I know but these lines and fences on the cartway wandered off the property lines. They weren't even on, they weren't set by a surveyor when they were put in. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Oh you're concerned that the lines are not accurate? Gary Carlson: This is my horse fence on the west. Dale Collins saw it go in. You know he's my neighbor to the west. He says, yeah. That seems like about the right place but. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, maybe I can resolve this issue. I think this is appropriate discussion one, in a pre-con meeting and two, typically we walk a site and I think this is an appropriate application that we walk with both property owners before we begin construction and try to work out these issues. Not in this arena but in that type of arena where we try to work those things out. Sacchet: Right, we won't be able to settle these things. Aanenson: But I think that we're certainly willing, the staff is certainly willing to you know facilitate that and. . . Gary Carlson: Yeah, I am, I've worked really great with the city. I would gladly allow... The next issue is also the flowage issue, and that's on the cartway. Cartway Lane, which I named. It was always called the cartway and never named for years so I finally said let's name our street. It got named the Cartway. Cartway Lane. That accepts all the water out of the park called Cathcart Park. All that water comes out the southwest comer of the park and goes onto that cartway and it comes down and you cannot, you can canoe down it when we've had some rain events there in the park. The park has never been required to manage their own water. I mean they just let it, go right out. And I've been before the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood on that water problem. And we've got, that water is crossing this property now and it's just so that again we're aware of that volume of water's going to come down that cartway. It will wash a pile of gravel as high as that chair out of the cartway. It completely washes all the gravel off the cartway. I've got a video of it. So that's an issue again, getting back to drainage. Sacchet: So it basically would go across the area where the cul-de-sac is planned? Gary Carlson: It will hit this comer of the cul-de-sac.. . and affect all the people in Minnewashta Meadows. All their back yards drain into the property. As I said, if you go back to the previous map and it was small hobby farms set back from the creek during all these years. And if the developer has that kind of kahuna's that wants to tackle a wetland devéloping into homes, I say more power. I mean I'm glad he's doing it. But the city and all you folks have to make sure that these new homes and the way these pads are created, there's space between each one of them for that water to get down there because the creek is the lowest in the whole city and all of the other neighbors around here, all drain through that property. Aanenson: Can Ijust give clarification ofthat. This issue's been going on with Mr. Carlson and the city for a while. We're trying to resolve those issues, just for your edification. Meeting with the City of Shorewood. There's a lot of drainage that is coming onto his property that is not in the city. There is the...earlier subdivision going in, Schmidt's Acres. There was not a requirement for ponding so there's some pre-existing conditions so trying to separate what the obligation of this application is. Certainly we don't, as people...said, there's some problems. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 There was a permit stop for a while. There was problems out there. We worked to resolve them. Certainly but we recognize the need to go back and make sure that we're in a good spot, but... Sacchet: So in other words we're aware of this. Aanenson: Correct, and we've been working with Mr. Carlson so just so you know, we forward this and we're working on that issue. Sacchet: That's important. Important to know, thank you Kate. Aanenson: And we did put a condition in here which is reflected in the staff report on page 14 regarding a catch basin on the cartway. That was a condition that was added to address specifically Mr. Carlson's drainage issue. So we are aware of that. Sacchet: Thank you. Alright Mr. Carlson, what else? Gary Carlson: Thank you for your patience. On the 51, maybe on page, which is on page 14. (g). The first issue. (g). Add a catch basin on the north side of the cul-de-sac at the eastern end of the project and how that it will be adequate to accept the runoff that now occurs from Cartway Lane. I'd like to see them put this in here. It's a tremendous amount of water so I just can't tell you how much it is. Sacchet: Yep, and there's certainly other neighbors made a similar comment of the importance of that. Aanenson: Again Ijust want to separate that there's two jurisdictions involved and so we're trying to sort that out as a city staff that some of it's coming from Shorewood. Sacchet: If it's somewhat Shorewood related. Aanenson: We certainly understand that we need to work to resolve the problem. Gary Carlson: And the last issue is 51. The existing gravel road known as Cartway Lane. To be connected to the cul-de-sac to, you know that's, yes. You have emergency somewhere in that development. There's a house explosion. A huge accident and then there's a fire call. And the fire, yes. You have to have a way in. I am wondering, I have heard of it, that there is a break away emergency gate that can be placed at the edge of that cul-de-sac. In other words, a fire truck can run, hit it and it falls over. I mean, but to leave that as an accessible and yes, it's a good idea to connect that to the cul-de-sac so that the folks in the new development can walk up there and get to their park. Otherwise they're going to have to be going through someone's back yard. Sacchet: More for pedestrian use basically. Gary Carlson: Yeah, pedestrian use but some sort of emergency break away. You know unless the city's going to start plowing the road and, it just isn't going to happen. It's just a narrow, little gravel access that was just originally put in as driveways and. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Good point. Gary Carlson: And if it can be an emergency break away gate, that is all just emergency vehicles need to know about it and we've got a fire department that's educated. They can yes, if we get a call in there, we can't get in. Come in this way. Sacchet: Good point, thank you. Audience: Who would take the liability of going across there? Sacchet: If you want to come up in a minute, you can do so please. Okay. Gary Carlson: Good question. They'll be on public road all the time. Sacchet: Excuse me. We cannot have discussion amongst yourselves. We'll never get done that way. We have 3 more items to do that other people are waiting that we get to. Gary Carlson: My father reached into his 80's worked for these gentlemen and their homesteads are still there. I think a tree inventory would be, there are some, unless there's no value in saving huge trees like this, but if there is, I think that would be a good request in here. It would put more burden on the developer but I mean he's jumped through a ton of hoops to get here. It's a difficult property to develop and I appreciate your time and working so hard on this. And the staff too has done a great job. I mean it's just a ton oflittle things you have tothink about because each one of these lots is another wetland problem because we're right at the edge of the creek. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you sir. Lillehaug: Mr. Carlson, before you leave I have to ask you a question. I hate to do it but I have to. You own the big lot there and staff is making a, I'm an assumption that this will be developed in the future and looking at an interim connection of a roadway. What is your plans with that lot? Do you plan on developing it within the next couple years or what are you thinking? Gary Carlson: Well the developer's approached me. He's done the best he could, it's just how do you replace that large a home. Lillehaug: So you don't have any immediate plans? Gary Carlson: I mean I'm ready to do more permits with the city. I mean I'm really thankful having all these permits but I'm willing to go through those hoops too. Yes, I don't know. I've been there, I haven't changed that property in, you know other than keeping it improved. The layout, and either have my neighbors in 30 years so this is going to change and then again when I might change, it depends. My children are ready to take over the home and so then there may not be a change, and these other neighbors, Mr. Keehl was up here and Mr. Toll. He has the same concerns that Dale does and I own this end home here. But you have to tear down 4 homes to put in the new road and build up 12 more. I don't know. You know I could argue either side of this. These neighbors to the west, these neighbors to the north, these neighbors to the east, 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 these neighbors to the south would all like to continue to look at the wetland just the way it is. They're not jumping up and down to have 25 homes so that they can say the creek is over there between that brown home and that, whatever. No, we would just as soon leave it. To us it's always looked like wetland. But now that they've brought in the delineators and they said there is room to squeeze in some homes. I'd rather see the city go and say, I'd rather see the city say it's not time to develop that. Go find a nice farm that's square, has some rolling acres and put in a nice development. Leave the creek the way it is. If you want to continue a hobby farm, there is your 4 acres and a home. If you want to continue the hobby farm, here's your 4 or 5 acres. .. sell it as that. Sacchet: Thank you sir. Gary Carlson: I would rather see that but. Sacchet: You definitely answered his question. Gary Carlson: You really did. I could argue either side of this question because there are pros and cons to both sides. Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Gary Carlson: I'm glad to work with you. Sacchet: I see somebody else standing up. I assume you want to speak up. Please come forward. State your name and address and let us hear what you have to say please. If you can get the microphone. Casey Bergquist: I'm Casey Bergquist and I live at 4011 Pipewood Lane. The new development that just went in and I guess my biggest concern is because of the new development that we live in and then the old existing development that was there, we have right now 35 lots that access Highway 7 and then adding 23 more will add 58 lots accessing Highway 7 through the same access. Is that typical for a neighborhood? Sacchet: Good questions. Matt, do you want to say something about that? Saam: I don't know if typical's the right word but we do have other subdivisions with more lots than 50. Well Ashling Meadows is about 50 but Longacres. They have two accesses. Springfield. There are other subdivisions. Sacchet: There are, so there's really only one access to Highway 5 at this point. Saam: 7. Aanenson: Highway 7. Sacchet: 7 not 5, sorry. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Saam: And that's incidentally one of the concerns MnDot had too is to make sure that there is another access so it's just another reason we really want to keep another alternate access. Whether just for emergency or what. Sacchet: Now obviously Cartway I would not call another access. I mean the road is this wide. It's for emergency, yeah. And we yeah, but we're not at discussion yet. Do you want to add anything else to this? Casey Bergquist: No, I was just then, and I mean and if the plan was to go through, what would be done to slow down the speed because right now we already have people speeding down Pipewood Lane to get to their back neighborhood, so now people are going to be turning onto our road and speeding down our road to get to their neighborhood and we're expecting our first baby in January and it's like, we're going to have cars speeding down our road so I'm wondering what's going to be done. You know stop signs put in. Maybe a little speed bumps. What can be done to slow down. Sacchet: I don't think we do speed bumps in our city yet so far but what's. Aanenson: It's your neighbors. You know we just have education programs. Be happy to discuss that with you or get the sheriff's office. Casey Bergquist: Okay. Slagle: I have a quick question for you. Were you aware that the road was going to go through? Casey Bergquist: When we developed, our builder told us that possibly it would continue on but it probably wouldn't happen for a significant amount of years. He said probably about 10 years so that's what we were told when we bought the house. Sacchet: That's pretty standard. Casey Bergquist: We moved in in June. Sacchet: So that's a pretty quick 10 years huh. Casey Bergquist: Yeah, real quick 10 years. So yeah. Sacchet: Well appreciate your comment, thank you. Casey Bergquist: Thank you. Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item. If I don't see anybody getting up, yes Mr. Carlson has a follow-up. Gary Carlson: Well when you live out there for so many years, you can't cover everything in one short time. But I won't take another 40 minutes. That flag lot, you know the City of Chanhassen plows and maintains this pump station down here. Very important pump station. It pumps all of Minnewashta sewage up the cartway. It's all pumped up by, in a force... Anyway, 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 why can't that flag, I mean there's a lot of residents that have a driveway on 7. Further west. Further east. There's a lot of residents that's the only way they can get to 7. That's how it was created originally. And the city has got a nice turn-off. It's paved. Why can't 13 have access... Sacchet: I don't think MnDot does not allow driveways on Highway 7. Is that accurate statement to make? Gary Carlson: It's not a new driveway. It's not a new driveway. Aanenson: It's a different type of turn movement as far as the frequency the city would be in there as opposed to a residential use. It's not recommended. Sacchet: Okay? Good try. Thank you Mr. Carlson. Alright, last call. Anybodyelse? Seeing nobody, I'm closing the public hearing. I want to thank you all for all your comments. Very good range of comments. Good concerns. I'd like to bring it back to the commission for discussion. And to make a decision. Rich. Slagle: I'll make mine fairly quick. I would suggest to all of us that we consider, this is not a motion but consider asking for a stay on this and the reason being is one, I do think that a tree survey should be done. I'm surprised there isn't one. Secondly, I think the amount of lots that the developer is trying to implement are too many. I have serious concerns about the flag lot. And I understand and this developer I'm aware of, seems like a solid citizen but gosh, one of these days I'm really going to be delighted when someone comes in with a parcel like 13 and says, you know we've decided to make that a private park for our community. Or something. The trail area, something other than let's put a house close to Highway 7 and, or I shouldn't say close but closer than the rest of them. And then lastly, the lot sizes I think need to be re-worked. Totally. The idea that someone can't put a deck or a playground because their lot stops, and given the quality, and I have to say on a positive note the quality that this developer is known for, I would be surprised that people would buy the homes and not want to put those types of things in, because you do build very nice homes so. I would at this point be open to passing on this and seeing if they would be open to it. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Anybodyelse? Steve? Lillehaug: A couple quick questions. I agree with everything Rich said. A couple others. I don't see any sidewalks in this project, and I know we don't have a huge amount of traffic but wondering why. Slagle: It's on the north side. Lillehaug: Am I just not seeing it? Sacchet: Yeah, there is on the north side Steve. Lillehaug: Sorry, I'm looking at the wrong one. Okay, there it is. Scratch that. Well, I totally agree. My concerns, I mean we have 51 some conditions in here and there's probably about 20 in here that should really already be addressed and I realize that you've been working with the applicant but there's just too much fine tuning in here for us to really look at a quality 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 development and really put an approval on anything. There's too much tweaking to go on. And then I want to read something in the report real quick like here. Quote, it says these building envelopes would not accommodate the types of housing the city has typically seen in adjacent development, nor will the building envelopes permit construction of accessory structures, etc, etc. When we reviewed codes I fought pretty hard to get a 60 by 60 pad in the codes and I finally conceded and said forget it. That would have addressed this and now I mean it's evident that we should have something in the codes on that. If we wouldn't need this in here, we would have had the proper size lots in here and I think us as a Planning Commission should recommend to staff to re-address that and look at modifying the code to add that in there. So other than that I also agree that I think this should be tabled. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Tjornhom: I agree. Sacchet: Any other comments Kurt? Papke: I was very surprised by the, and pleased by the people that came in from the other side of Highway 7 tonight. I didn't expect that volume of input from people that far away from the development, and I don't know, I'm not completely convinced that we have the full impact of the hydrology situation here. If there is that much water flow down into this area, I don't know. The size of the culvert there, the 42 inch culvert just seems like we should take a look at it, and that certainly has an impact on the decision on Lot 1. That could certainly force that one to disappear. So I just think it's premature. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Do you want to add something Dan? Keefe: Just a question. What does tabling do? I mean what is the process and what's the time frame and impacts. Sacchet: We established that with the current time line we have til the 14th of December for a decision, which is the 60 day rule, and it would have to go to council on the 13th. That's the original plan. However, we can ask the applicant for an extension to fit into 120 days. We probably would want to get that formally from the applicant. It's my understanding from the applicant's comments that he's willing to consider that and we would probably need to ask you that more formally. And that would allow us to table it, send them back to take care of some of these issues. Because there's quite a list of them. Keefe: Was it 120 days. Sacchet: From when the application was complete. Which would be 60 days back from the December 14th date so we'd have another 60 days on top ofthat. Keefe: So approximately February 14th. Sacchet: Right. Which doesn't mean it would have to take that long. As a matter of fact, things that we table come back as quickly as possible. It's really up to the applicant to fulfill the requests that are made and work with staff on the issues that we point out and we see them come 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 back within 2 weeks sometimes. Sometimes they even still make the same council meeting that was originally planned so. Keefe: I think it's a fair solution. Sacchet: Okay. I feel very strongly that this needs to be tabled. I don't think this proposal is cooked enough. There are too many very significant items. The lot lines are being shifted around. There's wetland issues that are sort of, there's an idea there but it's not really specific and how to reassign wetland to the lots is sort of clear but not totally. I'd like to see these things really specific in order to have a clear picture. The tree inventory, the tree plans, there's what, 141 trees that we're requiring to be planted. We don't know where they're going to be. We don't know what kind of trees are there now. There are way too many conditions about grading fixes, about hydrology, about the cul-de-sac radius, you name it. Things that can be taken care of that can be focused. That can be to the point. That we can look at and know what we have in front of us. Right now I don't think we have that. A whole list of issues that came up is the importance of the flooding issue. I mean the importance of looking at the drainage issue, the grading and all that. I think it's a very valid concern that really in terms of what, watershed aspect, it may have to be looked at in a large context than just the immediate neighborhood. I mean that was a very good aspect that I think we have a responsibility to whether it goes across city borders or not. I mean we have to look at the whole picture. And as far as that's practical and possible, within the framework of course. And I would look to staff to balance that aspect. Now there are several smaller aspects like the access to Highway 7. The access to who has access or what would be the restriction to the access to Cartway North. Things like that are more detailed. I mean that wouldn't be a reason to hold it up but it certainly can be addressed too. I think the conditions could be significantly cut down and this be more specific so on that vein I'm ready to get a motion please. Should we ask, now before we do that. Could I ask the applican~ point blank, are you willing to give an extension? Gary Wilkerson: I've heard the concerns of neighbors as well as commission and I do understand them. We have some contractual obligations with the people selling to us to proceed in front of the council. So I'm reluctant to have this delayed too long. On the other hand, it makes no sense to go forward with an application that you're not comfortable with, you're not going to approve. So you know, is there some middle ground short of 60 days or do we have to ask for 60 days? Sacchet: No, it is a 60 day for the formal part. However, there is a possibility even that you could address these issues within the 2 weeks frame. If you can address these issues within a week, get it back to staff, it's very possible that you could be on our agenda at the beginning of December and still make the council's 13th date. Maybe if that's not possible to slip, but there isn't another council meeting later in December. It'd slip into early January but we're not talking about holding you up til February. I mean that's in your hand how quickly you can be addressing these things and your assumption's correct that if we don't get an extension, we would probably end up recommending denial. Gary Wilkerson: Right, and I understand that. I do appreciate and I've heard the concerns of the neighbors to the south and if I lived in a home where the creek was rising and I was losing trees, I would have those concerns töo. I would point out that they exist independent of our development. That we didn't create those problems. I understand their concern is thatwe not 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 make them worst, and that's our responsibility but I would hope not to have to pay for the previous developer. Sacchet: No, it has to be fair in this overall, absolutely. Gary Wilkerson: But given what you're saying, I would petition for a 60 day extension. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. So with that I think we have a good foundation to make a motion. Slagle: I'll make a motion. I recommend that the Chanhassen Planning Commission table the preliminary plat approval request for a subdivision with a variance for a flag lot, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated August 20,2004, revised October 14, 2004, subject to the numerous conditions. Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Hidden Creek Meadows to allow the applicant time to address the concerns raised by the residents and commission members. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. 26 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Attn: Planning Department January 28th 2005 Subdivision application for: Hidden Creek Meadows Topic: Water shed cross section Planning Department: The recent request for a cross section of the watershed from Lake Minnewashta through Hidden Creek Meadow, Hidden Creek Estates has been completed to the best of our ability as documented here by Ryan Engineering. The Minnewashta Lake HWL of 944.5 and W.L. of 942.1 was clearly established long before our application for subdivision this area. The box at Minnewashta Parkway is at a 942.19 flowing into the wetlands behind Kirkwood Circle where the home elevations clearly show the homes built to within 20 feet of a 944.5 contour which would present a high risk for these homes. It seems likely that over the years, these homeowners have encroached upon the creek by clearing rear yard spaces that are located within the ordinary flood plain and the 944 contour. The box at Hwy 7 is at 939.85 and was only extended 6 feet by Mn. Dot. with no change to the elevation during the recent renovation of Hwy 7. Our engineer has provided hydraulic calculations for the water effects on the proposed subdivision area. If a pre- existing problem exists in this upland area south of Hwy 7 it is clearly not an issue for the developer to resolve. The Box approved for Hidden Creek Estates is at 938.5 and thus we have proposed our box at Pipewood to be at that same 938.5 elevation in keeping with the cities prior approval. The City of Chanhassen had engineering work done for through an independent company I believe is named "Bonestroo" ant their work may need to be looked at again as part of the City of Chanhassen' s obligations to the area residents. The homeowners at the last meeting clearly have personal concerns that would appear to be confirmed for high water years based on the location of the 944 contour in their lots. But, these owners may need to address this issue with the prior owners for false or misleading seller disclosures at the time of their purchase. Steve McSherry purchased his home at 6571 Kirkwood on May 29th 2003 and Rick Hueffmeier purchased 6551 Kirkwood on May 2 2002, I believe both of these years to be below normal rain fall. The annual rain falls would effect any owner's perceptions and cause one to believe that there is a direct correlation to these developments and the renovations to Hwy 7 in 2003 The rains of 2004 would have created quite a dramatic visual effect on their back yard areas, which I would propose are normal and have occurred in the years prior to their purchases. Lisa and John Jordan at 6541 Kirkwood have owned since 1993 and are concerned about tree losses, these issues may be due to old age or the improper placement of new trees within the 944 HW contour during low water years since their purchase. A visit from the city forester may help the city better understand their concerns. Vic Moravec also purchased in 1993 at 3821 Linden Circle and describes changes from 2 foot to a 4 foot width with the creek. I have no doubt that the creek has expanded during these high water periods as it has for many years prior to today. Vic did not voice concerns of water consuming his rear yard because his elevation and distance from the 944 contour is greater than the homes on Kirkwood. I hope this research and information gives a more detailed summary of these homeowner issues and there relevance to the effects these projects have on the area. We hope that our efforts have given the City the peace of mind needed to proceed with approval at our next scheduled planning commission meeting on February 15th 2005. Thank you all in advance for your timely consideration of this information and all your efforts to help us resolve these issues. Dean Carlson Development Manager D & G of Chanhassen, LLC. 7820 Terrey Pine Court Eden Prairie MN 55347 952-949-4715 R~€ng LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES )) " tJ «-/"; \,-,¡).j1,j~. 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Tel 952-380-5000 Fax 952-380-5010 www.ryanengineering.com February 3, 2005 Mr. Matt Saam Assistant City Engineer City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd., Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 VIA MESSENGER· Re: Hidden Creek Meadows Single Family Subdivision Dear Matt: Enclosed, please find a copy of a plan titled "Area Drainage Graphic" which shows in plan and profile view the above referenced project as well as the area south of Highway 7 and a portion of Lake Minnewashta. Per your request, we have labeled the culverts at the various creek crossings. We are also showing, by shading, the area behind the Kirkwood Circle homes confmed by the 944.5 elevation. We feel this elevation is pertinent because it is the OHW of Lake Minnewashta and shows potential flooding limits from the Lake Alone without any downstream effects. You mentioned in your email that you thought shading of the 943.4 elevation which is the HWL of this wetland would be more appropriate. Either way;bÓflioftliese elevationsareaDovelheHWLüy----- the wetland within our proposed subdivision which is at 942.8. My understanding is that these HWL and OHW elevations were derived from the City's Storm Water Management plan which was put together by the City's consultant, Bonestroo. In your email on 1/25/05 you stated "what we want is for you to revise your drainage calc's and model for your site to show that the wetland will not rise above the box culvert elevation under TH 7. " As you know, this would be impossible to show given the fact that the City's consultant has already determined that the HWL of the wetland on our site is at 942.8, which IS ALREADY ABOVE THIS CULVERT elevation of939.85. We have shown, with the submitted Hydrocad modeling, that we are maintaining our flows to the wetland at or below the pre-developed condition with our proposed development. Therefore, we will not be changing the HWL of this wetland within our site. It seems appropriate to then conclude that this will not impact any "backup" of water to the south of Highway 7. Page 2 Mr. Matt Saam February 3,2005 It seems what the City's concern is the proposed sizing of the pipe we are proposing under Pipewood Lane. We are simply using the same sizing that the City and Watershed District approved for the development to the south, Hidden Creek, used at the crossing at Pipewood Court. This is a 42" culvert. If you recall, this sizing was derived by the above mentioned Storm Water Management Plan prepared by the City's consultant. This plan showed a proposed 36" pipe sizing for this area. The reason for the installation of the 42" crossing was that the Watershed District wanted this upsized by 6" for what they refer to as "critter crossings". This additional sizing allows small animals to go through the structure during a high water event. With this graphic, multiple emails, and the above description, we feel that as the Developer's engineer, we have exhausted our efforts to display our case. To go beyond this would demand input from the City's consultant if your department wants any further conclusion as to the proposed pipe sIzmg. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact our office. Sincerely, ~7: P rryM. Ryan, P.? -.- President Enclosures Cc: Mr. Dean Carlson - D & G of Chanhassen, LLC Mr. Paul Oehme - City Engineer Ms. Kate Aanenson - Community Development Director Mr. Woody Love G 6 » ~ I ~ , . . "~ !ê' '~ ...:" " ..;,~ .~' 1'í . _,j "'~ .'r;C .., " 1 ~I ;¡ ~ i ß. 8. ¡¡ ~~ ~ 1\ Q~~ \I'iñ'\ \ \ 111W r~ r\ \\\ ~t\ii I ¡¡ 01 ¡~ ;1(1 ~æ,$ [0- \ *t¡ !J¡1~ :::Tj . ¡ I ¡' .' !\~ ô i~ Jflil _.~ '" CDO ¡hI ~~~ ":;-::1 °CD \\\\\\f ~ I i-If mS g ro f!'} _ ",ro ¡$I ~ ::!, ! ã~ ~