10-7-98 Agenda and Packet 1111111110111
FILE
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1998 at 7:00 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
OLD BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Request to operate a fast food restaurant(Subway) at the Seven Forty-one Crossings Center
on property zoned BN,Neighborhood Business District,Fran Fagerstrom.
2. Request to amend conditions of approval of Subdivision #96-8, to subdivide a 7.05 acre
parcel into two single family lots with a variance to allow a wood shed to encroach into the
required rear yard setback located east of Tigua Lane and southwest of Rice Marsh Lake on
Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor(8591 Tigua Lane), Gordon Schaeffer.
3. Request for rezoning of 6.39 acres from A-2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD, Planned
Unit Development;preliminary plat of 6.39 acres into 7 single family lots and 2 outlots; and
vacation of a portion of the drainage and utility easements located on Lot 9, Block 1, Stone
Creek 6th Addition. The property is located east of Galpin Blvd.just north of Stone Creek
Addition,Lynmore Addition, David D. Moore.
4. Request for consolidation and replat of 126,565 sq. ft. into 2 lots and 5 outlots, Medical
Arts Addition, located north of West 78th Street and west of Colonial Square, City of
Chanhassen.
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ONGOING ITEMS
OPEN DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in official by-
laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this
does not appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options.
Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 10/7/98
`\� ClIANIIASSEN CCDATE: 10/12/98
CASE#: 98-4 CUP
By: Kirchoff:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Request for a conditional use permit for the operation of a fast food
restaurant(Subway)at 7/41 Crossings Center on property zoned BN,
Neighborhood Business district.
LOCATION: 2413 West Hwy. 7
Q (7/41 Crossings)
,.,J APPLICANT: Sub-Stantial Sandwiches
CL Fran Fagerstrom
0.. 6905 Alpine Trial
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
949-3786
PRESENT ZONING: BN,Neighborhood Business
ACREAGE: N/A
DENSITY: N/A
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USES: N: City of Shorewood
S: RSF, Single Family Residential
E: RSF, Single Family Residential
r-,. '' W: RSF, Single Family Residential
0
bi WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: This site contains a neighborhood shopping center.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density Residential
C
o 0 0 0 0 0
O O 0 O 0 00 O o o 0 o C
d' trl N 0 0 O O
f*1 Ini M Cr) N N N N N03 1.0 N Nti
0 rn C
N
N f
awash to
tits Park) City of Shorewood
►.�-r.a— —�w www w =• sw.�•w w�r-iw www
r y �T__--_ ' `N,a: ail Orchard L� - I l� �o�a
o /
o` 0�� - -- __�j _ saY % t, 4.- • ,_ .. Fob ; - -_±.414 `��a. .
9- _F may'' i —,\ 42 tf' O /1io r .• Lr Sot
o -D - ..- •� et ',I:7
- - T _ I»» _—__
J r ` Sart) ` Pa
prix / ^ �- Hill
- Herman / \. P
a -}.- 4 .S 4-,a1 lField Park I .
---7—/4 1 :CROSSINGS CENTER ,
0 _ — - i
Ji� — s — ---- --
\ (,,i] _ , / __z_l,c_rs;„----;
Lake
Lake
Minnewash ta J 0 �t;- io,0 , ,- y's.„.\ se----
•,_ i'
shta Regional Q' 1i; oxo fir,
2 Traii_t
Park :Flli,-h-tk.le
La.kE
` - ' t
/ °- -
fre..., F-1-1.1a
i -. -- (County Park)
H.g
Res MarI --u crt s
,l�,�`
� .4504
,,,.._.-____ , / ; -----______
1 -` - lon � . o - �'c
, 'Y'` '
�' •'b'A � ---;^—may �'1-1;77:,' n
Fran Fagerstrom
October 7, 1998
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-694 (7)requires a conditional use permit for a fast food restaurant without a drive-
through window in the BN, Neighborhood Business District (Attachment 2).
Section 20-289 (4) requires that a fast food restaurant be screened and setback 100 feet from a
property designated for residential use in the comprehensive plan(Attachment 3).
BACKGROUND
In 1997, a ordinance amendment was adopted to permit fast food restaurants as part of a
shopping center in the BN, Neighborhood Business District. (A fast food restaurant can be
defined as a business where food is sold in a ready-to-consume state and is purchased at a
counter.) This amendment was requested by Domino's Pizza so that they may occupy space in
the 7/41 Crossings Shopping Center.
During the process, it was discovered that Subway was operating at the shopping center in
violation of the zoning ordinance. In the staff report for Domino's, it was noted that if Subway
wished to expand, a conditional use permit would be required. The conditional use permit will
allow the city to attach any conditions necessary to mitigate or eliminate negative impacts of the
use. Currently, Happy Gardens II, Subway and Domino's Pizza are the only restaurant uses in
the center.
Subway has been operating at 7/41 Crossings Center since 1990. The building permit for the
interior remodeling was approved in error. Subway will be relocating from the west to the east
side of the center. Approval of the conditional use permit will make the restaurant a legal
operation at the shopping center.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to maintain their operation at 7/41 Crossings
Center. The conditional use permit makes the restaurant a legal use, since it has been operating
in violation of the zoning ordinance since 1990. The relocated operation will be adjacent to
Domino's Pizza. It will be approximately 1,100 sq. ft. and have 40 seats. The original restaurant
was 1,450 sq. ft. and had 51 seats. The operation will be permitted to operate during the same
hours as the original location,that is,until 10:00 p.m. on Sunday-Thursday and until 11:00 p.m.
on Friday and Saturday. Happy Gardens II operates until 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and
until 9:00 p.m. Sunday-Thursday. Domino's Pizza is permitted to operate until midnight daily.
The zoning ordinance requires screening and a 100 foot setback from residential property to a
fast food building. The site plan for 7/41 Crossings Center indicates that the building is 100 feet
Fran Fagerstrom
October 7, 1998
Page 3
from the property line. Existing landscaping installed for the center provides screening from the
business and adjacent residential uses.
Staff has been receiving complaints regarding the restaurant smells emitting from the center. The
conditional use permit for Happy Gardens II requires that trash be stored internally. Subway
should be required to do the same.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The Planning Commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the council shall issue
such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location:
1. Will not be detrimental to or damage the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general
welfare of the neighborhood of the city.
Finding: The restaurant will not be detrimental to or damage the public health, safety,
comfort and general welfare of the community. The site is accessed via Hwys. 7
and 41 so adjacent neighborhoods will not experience increased traffic. Also, the
restaurant will be required to store trash indoors to eliminate smells and unnecessary
debris.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter.
Finding: This area of the city is guided medium density residential. As part of the current
comprehensive plan amendment, staff recommends changing the land use to
commercial to make it consistent with the existing approved use of the property.
Staff believes that the proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with
the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential
character of that area.
Finding: The restaurant will be located within an existing building and will not alter the
essential character of the area. The only alteration that will take place is interior
remodeling.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding: The restaurant will not be hazardous to existing or planned neighborhood uses.
Since the restaurant has operated at the site for eight years, it will not create
additional traffic.
Fran Fagerstrom
October 7, 1998
Page 4
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools;
or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies
responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
Finding: The site is adequately served by the essential public facilities and services. The
access and parking is existing.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The proposal will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services
and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
7. Will not involve uses,activities,processes,materials, equipment and condition of operation that
will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive
production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents,or trash.
Finding: The restaurant will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare. Staff is recommending that all trash be stored indoors to minimize the
odors.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The proposal has vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic surrounding public thoroughfares. Access will
be gained via Hwys. 7 and 41.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic
features of major significance.
Finding: The restaurant will not alter the exterior of the building. It will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of
major significance.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: Since the exterior of the existing building will not be altered, the restaurant will be
aesthetically compatible with the area.
Fran Fagerstrom
October 7, 1998
Page 5
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Finding: The proposal will not depreciate surrounding property values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: The proposal meets the standards provided in this article.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval for conditional use permit #98-4 for the
operation of Subway, located at 2413 W. Hwy. 7 (7/41 Crossings Center), based upon the findings
presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. All trash shall be stored internally.
2. The operation shall comply with all conditions of site plan review#86-2."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application
2. Section 20-694, BN Conditional Uses
3. Section 20-289, Fast Food Restaurant Standards
4. Definition of Fast Food Restaurant
5. Site Plan
6. Property Owners List
7. Conditions of Approval, Site Plan Review#86-2
g:\planlck\plan comm\subway 98-4 cup.doc
A TAcH t 1 F.4.4T
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612)937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: SVr
� AA6 fJa/t L[C//.6l OWNER: 10777 RA:e PXOR
/►
ADDRESS: o9°5 A.12-7M: /�/�iC, ADDRESS: 69°S /47'-77( T�?C
Oda/ 553/ 0 2 tee /zip 5-5.3e/6
TELEPHONE(Day time) 49W 2)V 7S9T2V, TELEPHONE: 931/-6b6/
Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
'/ Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit _ Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit — Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal
Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review Notification Sign
Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision*
TOTAL FEE$ 400,a)
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
`Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
" Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE-When multiple applications are processed,the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
FROM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 09. 16. 1998 12: 29 P. 2
j
• NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application,
PROJECT NAME ` f ,, ,_--i
$ LOCATION S v''4/ 0'/t WY 4 7
LiEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRESENT ZONING ,
REQUESTED ZONING .
PRESENT LAND USii DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION _
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Zialf2J /W0',
,e At
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 whh the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certlty that I Ism making application for the described action by the City and that i am responsible for complying
with all City requireme its 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 rbake this application and the fee owner has also signed this applloatlon.
i will keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consuiting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proce4d with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that fitter the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office a d the briginal do ument returned to City Hall Records.
d ! r�✓ , C/
• gnatup of Applice►•`: Date
Si nature Cl Fee n r - ) bate
6)( 11(.0
�
Application Received on ` 11 l! (We) Fee Paid Receipt No. �
• The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
mooting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be malted to the appiicant'a ad!iroas.
ATTAc1-I EMT
ZONING § 20-692
(2) The maximum lot coverage is fifty (50) percent.
(3) The building setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, fifty (50)feet.
b. For rear yards, fifty(50) feet.
c. For side yards, fifty(50) feet.
(4) Parking setbacks shall be twenty-five (25) feet from all property lines.
(5) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
b. For accessory structures, one (1) story/fifteen (15) feet.
(Ord. No. 123, § 1, 3-12-90)
Secs. 20-685-20-690. Reserved.
ARTICLE XVI. 'BN'NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT
Sec. 20-691. Intent.
The intent of the"BN"District is to provide for limited low intensity neighborhood retail and
service establishments to meet daily needs of residents.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-692. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in a "BN" District:
(1) Convenience stores without gas pumps.
(2) Neighborhood oriented retail shops.
(3) Self-service laundries.
(4) Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations.
(5) Day care center.
(6) Personal service establishments.
(7) Professional offices.
(8) Small appliance and shoe repair shops.
(9) Health services.
(10) Veterinary clinics.
(11) Utility services.
(12) Shopping center.
•
Supp. No. 10 1221
§ 20-692 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(13) Private clubs and lodges.
(14) Community center.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 10(5-10-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-693. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BN" District:
(1) Parking lots.
(2) Reserved.
(3) Signs.
(4) Temporary outdoor sales (subject to the requirements of section 20-290).
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-3), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 243, § 3, 2-13-95; Ord. No. 240, § 20,
7-24-95)
Sec. 20-694. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in a "BN" District:
(1) Convenience store with gas pumps.
(2) Reserved.
(3) Drive-in banks including automated kiosks.
(4) Reserved.
(5) Standard restaurants.
/ (6) Bed and breakfast establishments.
I (7) Fast food restaurants without a drive-through as part of a shopping center.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 116, § 5, 1-22-90; Ord. No. 120, § 4(7),
2-12-90; Ord. No. 277, § 1, 1-26-98)
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. 462.3595.
Sec. 20-695. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BN" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum district area is three(3)acres.This paragraph may be waived in the case
of expansion to an existing district.
(2) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet.
(3) The minimum lot frontage is seventy-five (75) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (60) feet in all districts.
(4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (150) feet.
(5) The maximum lot coverage including all structures and paved surfaces is sixty-five
(65) percent.
Supp. No. 10 1222
ACH MI r 3
ZONING § 20-290
(5) No sales,storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles,
snowmobiles, or all-terrain vehicles.
(6) Facilities for the collection of waste oil must be provided.
(7) Gas pumps and/or storage tank vent pipes shall not be located within one hundred
(100)feet of any parcel zoned or guided for residential use.
(8) A minimum separation of two hundred fifty(250)feet is required between the nearest
gas pumps of individual parcels for which a conditional use permit is being requested.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 17(5-17-1(6)), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 116, § 4, 1-22-90)
Y Sec. 20-289. Fast food restaurants.
The following applies to fast food restaurants:
(1) The site shall be located only on sites having direct access to minor arterial streets,
collectors or service roads.
(2) The public address system shall not be audible from any residential parcel.
(3) Stacking areas for drive-through windows shall conform to appropriate parking
setbacks.
(4) Building shall be set back at least one hundred (100) feet and screened from any
adjacent property designated for residential use in the comprehensive plan.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 17(5-17-1(7)), 12-15-86)
ec. 20-290. Temporary outdoor sales.
(a) Purpose.Temporary outdoor promotional and sales activities are subject to issuance of
an administrative permit and the requirements of this section. It is the intent of this section
to provide for temporary outdoor events and sales which are distinguished from permanent
outside business activities that are allowed only by conditional use permit or interim use
permit approved by the city council. It is the intent of this section to promote the health,safety,
general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating temporary outdoor
sales activities [in the following manner:]
(1) Establish standards which permit businesses an opportunity to conduct temporary
outdoor sales;
(2) Ensure that temporary sales do not create safety hazards by occupying required
parking spaces, emergency access, or impede the efficient movement of pedestrian
and vehicular traffic;
(3) Provide standards, guidelines, and procedures for an administrative review of
temporary sales permits;
(4) Provide a means of allowing citywide retail promotions;
(5) Allow certain uses which are seasonal in nature,while providing standards that will
assure compatibility with the underlying zoning district and adjacent property;
Supp. No. 8 1182.1
A wIEr4
§ 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(9) All natural and altered natural watercourses with a total drainage area greater than
two (2) square miles, except that trout streams officially designated by the commis-
sioner of natural resources shall be public waters regardless of the size of their
drainage area.
The public character of water shall not be determined exclusively by the proprietorship of
the underlying, or surrounding land or by whether it is a body or stream of water which was
navigable in fact or susceptible of being used as a highway for commerce at the time this state
was admitted to the union.
Recreational beach lot means land abutting public water which serves as a neighborhood
recreational facility for the subdivision of which is a part.
Recreational vehicle means a vehicle or vehicular unit which can be driven,towed or hauled,
and which is primarily designed as a temporary living accommodation for recreational
camping and travel use. Recreational vehicles include travel trailers, camping trailers, truck
campers, and self-propelled motor homes.
Rehabilitation means to renew the land to a self-sustaining, long-term use which is
compatible with contiguous land uses in accordance with the standards set forth in this
chapter.
Restaurant, fast food means an establishment whose principal business is the sale of food
and/or beverages in a ready-to-consume state for consumption:
(1) Within restaurant building;
(2) Within a motor vehicle parked on the premises; or
(3) Off the premises as carry-out orders;
and whose principal method of operation includes the following characteristics:
(a) Food and/or beverages are usually packaged prior to sale and are served in edible
containers or in paper, plastic, or other disposable containers;
(b) The customer is not served food at his table by an employee,but receives it at a counter
window, or similar facility and carries it to another location on or off the premises for
consumption.
Restaurant, standard means an establishment whose principal business is the sale of food
and/or beverages, including alcohol, to customers in a ready-to-consume state, and whose
principal method of operation includes one (1) or both of the following characteristics:
(1) Customers, normally provided with an individual menu, are served their food and
beverages by a restaurant employee at the same table or counter at which food and
beverages are consumed;
(2) A cafeteria-type operation where food and beverages generally are consumed within
the restaurant building.
Supp. No. 9 1152
A"11 ikC1 1 4T 5
7841 CROSSINGS CENTER
C
----------
'IT' OF C NH\Jt.i ii SOUTHEAST QUADRANT HWY 7 8 HWY
.,rte CHANHASSEN, MN 55331
�1cOEP InAls f r1;c,l�
! w1 ,..J ; .t.i 1..,! ..;1•,
- -.
--
i
.1
•ROeV1fD Nfw DEVFl OvoENT e
1 f00 Sr
I
'
ILL/El AMERKA I i
I
•
1 !
E
J (It 1-- —4-1::(5 — — 1
i - ._
� 111 . , 1 � '
4 ! T
V
L E
II
II x • .
M 0 •
• •
�w �0 ��`
•
1i`�:1.4 �, t4r /
,ro . s
I tt W
V r
► r
t `
�v�-. z..,'p � •g I
�N S' • h
' i
EXISTING LO ATION �=�^'ii, 4�+
s.
or
NEW LOCATION
I1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 7, 1998 , Subway
at 7:00 p.m.
IMP —�` ►.'
City Hall Council Chambers �'r �`°far ,c..6
690 City Center Drive 11
=
igl
I *I; e
AEI
fr
SUBJECT: Request to Operate a Fast
Food Restaurant
APPLICANT: Fran Fagerstrom
LOCATION: Seven Forty-one Crossing
Center 44111..
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, Fran Fagerstrom, to operate a fast food restaurant (Subway) at the Seven
Forty-one Crossings Center on property zoned BN, Neighborhood Business District.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1 . Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 24,
1998.
//It � ��y
IICHARD&K SCHMIDT 7-41 PARTNERSHIP AGNES ANDERSON
5136 WILLOW LANE 5500 WAYZATA BLVD., SUITE 620 6470 ORIOLE AVE
VIINNETONKA, MN 55345 MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55416 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
MELODY HILL LP
7-41 PARTNERSHIP DALE&KELLY HANCE
C/O SPRINGBROOK CORP
5500 WAYZATA BLVD.,SUITE 1050 6480 ORIOLE AVE
3OLDEN VALLEY, MN 55416 10640 LYNDALE AVE S SUITE 6 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420
\4ARJORIE COLLINS MARK&LORENA FLANNERY PAULETTE/RICK OFTEDAHL
3931 ASTER TRAIL 2350 MELODY HILL ROAD 6461 ORIOLE LANE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
THOMAS RODE MID JENSEN GARY CARLSON
3275 CHASKA ROAD 6354 MELODY LANE 3891 WEST 62ND STREET
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
\LLEN PUTNAM MARJORIE/C.E. WOOSLEY JR S. STEWART/F. BRITZIUS
1285 CHASKA ROAD 2511 HIGHWAY 7 2444 WEST 64TH STREET
EXCELSIOR,MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
3ARY BRUNSVOLD BARBARA PIKE HOWARD &MICHELLE NELSON
287 CHASKA ROAD 6421 ORIOLE AVENUE 2445 WEST 64TH STREET
EXCELSIOR,MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
IOR INC RICK G BATESON MICHELLE CURTIS
!461 WEST 64TH STREET 6440 ORIOLE AVE 2446 WEST 64TH STREET
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
AN REED WILLIAM ZIEGLER RUSSELL&LYNN PAULY
:461 WEST 64TH STREET 6441 ORIOLE AVENUE 2447 WEST 64TH STREET
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
iENJAMIN GOWEN JODY B. MAJERES NANCY JO PERKINS
440 HAZELTINE BLVD 6450 ORIOLE AVE 2448 WEST 64TH STREET
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
;UPER AMERICA 4366 STEVE MACH JOANNE&SHAWN KILLIAN
'O BOX 14004 6451 ORIOLE AVENUE 2449 WEST 64TH STREET
EXINGTON, KY 40512 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
MARK& DANIELLE STEELE
2451 WEST 64TH STREET
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GARY REED
2461 WEST 64TH STREET
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GARY S. REED
2471 WEST 64TH STREET
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
AST-Ui7
City of Chanhassen
C ✓er and Hennepin Counties , _ A.nnesota
In the matter of Chanhassen Planning Case : 86-2 Site Plan Review
Owner: Seven Forty One Partnership Applicant: Roger Zahn
Street Address : P.I .N. : 25-7940020
Legal Description : Lot 2, Block 1, Seven-Forty One Crossing
Purpose: Approval of retail shopping center.
Zoning District: BN, Neighborhood Business District
The above entitled matter was heard before the Planning Ccmnission
on March 16, 1988 and up for final
action before the Chanhassen City Council on April 11, 1988
The City Council ordered that a site plan approval
NRt€9 be granted based upon the documentation contained in
Planning File 86-2 Site Plan Review subject to the conditions on attached
Exhibit A.
State of Minnesota )
)ss
Carver County )
I, Jo Ann Olsen City Planner for the City of Chanhassen,
do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing with the
original record thereof, and have found the same to be a correct
and true summary thereof.
Witness my hand and official seal of Chanhassen, Minnesota, this
day of , 19
Chanhassen Ciyr Planner
NOTE :
EXHIBIT A
I . The site plan shall meet the conditions of the conditional
use permit approval .
2 . The wall signs shall meet the requirements of the ordinance.
3 . No signage will be permitted on the gas canopy.
4 . All rooftop equipment must be screened from view from any
direction.
5 . The trash enclosure must be totally screened.
6 . The applicant shall not receive a building permit until MnDOT
has approved access permits for Hwy. 7 and Hwy. 41 , the access
points have been installed and the final plat and development
contract for HSZ had been recorded with Carver County.
7 . The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation prior to final site
plan review and comply with their conditions .
8 . Storm sewer calculations shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval prior to final site plan review.
9 . A^ erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval prior to final site plan review.
10 . The applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the exe-
cuted roadway easement for the portion of Lot 2 , Block 1
which serves the westerly access for the subject parcel .
11 . Utility service for this property is contingent upon the HSZ
site improvements .
12 . No building permits shall be issued to SuperAmerica until all
building permits have been provided to HSZ and development
starts on the shopping center .
C !TY O F
PC DATE: Oct. 7, 1998
\ •
CC DATE: Oct. 26 1998
CASE#: 96-8 SUB
B : Al-Jaff:v = -
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Amend conditions of approval for subdivision 96-8 to subdivide a 7.05 acre
parcel into two single family lots with a variance to allow a wood shed to
encroach into the required rear yard setback.
LOCATION: Lot 1,Block 1, Rice Lake Manor(8591 Tigua Lane). East of Tigua Lane and
southwest of Rice Marsh Lake
._J APPLICANT: Gordon Schaeffer
Q.. 8591 Tigua Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Q (612)975-3810
PRESENT ZONING: RSF,Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 7.05 acres
DENSITY: 0.28 Units per Acre
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N- RSF; and Rice Marsh Lake
S - RSF; and R-4, Vacant Land
E - R12; City owned Open Space
Q W- RSF; Residential Single Family
QWATER
AND SEWER: Sewer and water are available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a single family residence and a shed. It is
F" heavily wooded and contains wetlands.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
% 51g(j1
isik, Beli1 ' ' V/ �� .,:.1
estates
�esten1 Ra_r110 fc• 'L 111111b,44114-�A• Mini Park
or
NI .A5611 r r
State Hw 5 iy/te!!It
11� i MI� vol.4 �<
1.
� ••'' -�a2 t� to ;iii
e0, •
s� �,''► '';: ��i/� meq , .
• Ibt `"A 014114147111•_,1671-P:: . -. :'-.--'...-....
L �---\\ -wif..5„'"777 pill alP "114C4V• •••••••:'..
r.W■I /w r►��
..firm _ ingliatikt:
k inlay . -� 4
• 1/ RiceMa ' h
kei ...:',;-- ... .,.'. ...-,, ,:::-.-,'.--. '- v:V
l Lake P k
NI Lake Susan . Rice
limiTi
1 •
OS 01 3 ♦; �,� 31 Pr
arsh Lake
p•••• z mzzi- el
At/001 6
At ,4 -if, _
•,•.,
to i CD
i 6u
.. •
I - r *en Nand 7nii ��; -,iiiipaliANS1cri 1 0_ ,
y+• �'
• c f o
1v-,1 *.u'irli ISE i :
is � t- — : . 3 /� _ 1.\47.:v2. -r o U
iii. ■ moi
.= ilk V
i
10
VP Y ##4‘r
r:� �'� �� °it'd C;litiley 8/ i
': r•
Ir
Ch asesn �� I I o
_ ! I I Court °� -
Park =/r r J _I I ,7 i ,'-J:-!..."-, :� 5
/� /FtBandi-,ere Heigh sCe 47 sr,• -1 / Park ro1,011.
--iii=
Bandim<e „�, i : s.
f
�� ►u'elk
. ���� Lake
Community ��, c
it- Id
_IN. Riley
ir
Park "�
U. r' a
m1c
Schaeffer Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On June 26, 1980, the City Council approved a subdivision of 39.8 acres into 8 single family lots,
Rice Lake Manor.
On June 10, 1996, the City Council approved a metes and bounds subdivision to subdivide Lot 1,
Block 1, Rice Lake Manor, a 7.05 acre lot, into 2 single family parcels. Parcel A was made
available for future construction. Parcel B contains a single family home. One of the conditions of
approval for the subdivision concerns an attached accessory structure (wood shed/garage), located
on Parcel B, which encroaches into the required rear yard setback. There was also a dog kennel that
straddled the property line and encroached onto the parcel to the east (city owned land - open
space),however,this structure has since been removed.
When the building permit for the existing house was submitted for approval in 1988, the survey
showed the structure located 10 feet from the rear property line. The zoning ordinance requires a
minimum setback of 30 feet. We speculate that as a result of an oversight, the permit was issued
and the house was built with a 10 feet rear yard setback. The attached wood shed was not part of
the building permit for the house. This section was added on sometime after the building permit
was issued for the main structure. Staff does not have a record of this addition. As a condition of
approval for the subdivision, a condition was placed requiring the applicant remedy the situation by
removing the attached accessory structure. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the
conditions of approval to allow the attached accessory structure to remain.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting an amendment to one of the conditions of approval for subdivision 96-
8 to subdivide a 7.05 acre parcel into two single family lots by requesting a variance to allow an
existing wood shed to be located one (1) foot from the rear property line. The condition the
applicant wishes to amend states"Remove the structure on the east side of the dwelling, or obtain a
permit to alter the structure to meet building and zoning code requirements." The applicant wishes
to keep the wood shed which is located within the east portion of the residence. In order to do so, a
rear yard setback variance must be granted. Variances are granted on hardship basis. On the other
hand, the parcel is large enough to accommodate a shed in a different location, however, this is an
existing structure that is architecturally and esthetically compatible with the main structure. The
land located east of the subject site is currently owned by the city. This land was purchased through
Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF). The land is being held by the city until such time
when MnDOT takes ownership of it. The city is not in a position to trade or sell any of this land.
Therefore, we cannot add land to Parcel A to eliminate the variance. This limits our choices to
either grant or deny the variance.
Schaeffer Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 3
FINDINGS
The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance
unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances but to recognize that and develop neighborhoods pre-existing
standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
* Literal enforcement of the ordinance would require the applicant to remove the
shed, however, the house would still be in violation of the zoning ordinance since it
encroaches into the rear yard setback. As mentioned earlier, we have no record of
the addition, however, the house location was approved by the city. The location of
the shed is logical in relationship to the layout of the house. It is a close walking
distance to the entrance into the home. The applicant uses wood as the primary
source of heat for the home. However, it is still possible to move the shed
somewhere else on the property.
The removal of the shed and reconstruction of it somewhere else on the property
will cost additional funds. Under the state law, financial difficulty does not
constitute a hardship.
The ordinance also mandates that staff survey the surrounding area within 500 feet.
All structures within the area meet the required setback.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally,to
other property within the same zoning classification.
* The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based is not applicable
generally to other properties within the same zoning classification outside of the
immediate area.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Schaeffer Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 4
* The purpose of this variance will allow the property owner to keep the shed in its
present location. The purpose of the variance is not based upon a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship.
* There are two factors that contribute to this situation. The first deals with the
location of the existing home. As mentioned earlier, the building permit for the
house was approved with a 10 foot rear yard setback which is in conflict with
ordinance requirements. The second factor deals with the fact that there is no record
for the shed. If the shed was built without a permit,then the hardship is self created.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
* If the variance was approved, the applicant will be required to change the type of
construction on the easterly wall of the shed to one hour fire resistive construction
with no openings or projections beyond the wall. This is a building code
requirement which is regulated by the state.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
* The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or
increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Should the Planning Commission decide to recommend approval of this variance and amend the
conditions of approval for Metes and Bounds Subdivision #96-8, Rice Lake Manor Estates, as
shown on the plans dated received April 12, 1996, staff recommends the following conditions be
added:
1. The applicant will be required to change the type of construction on the easterly wall of the
shed to one hour fire resistive construction with no openings or projections beyond the wall.
Schaeffer Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 5
2. The registered land survey shall be amended by a Registered Land Surveyor to reflect a
minimum of 1 foot setback from the rear property line."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application.
2. Public hearing and property owners list.
3. Staff report dated June 10, 1998.
4. Site Plan.
Schaeffer Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 5
2. The registered land survey shall be amended by a Registered Land Surveyor to reflect a
minimum of 1 foot setback from the rear property line."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application.
2. Public hearing and property owners list.
3. Staff report dated June 10, 1998.
4. Site Plan.
g:lplan'sa\schaeffer.doc
SOLJLr,*OD
). -eu r C o f Q h u S.Sk4
. ; l-e-f-k r ; 5 Q I- 0, ok 5IT,I►
�r � Nr.tr AA- SS 9 1 T'`5—k ,
c c- std ' j bs /AA'S- JVI..l j 9 P) a•vA cl t.n,'ncx
ok v'gr:-encs w; ( a117,./ Jam- A-O )G2-e(3 Ay c 'c3ar wood sirLecS
tirr.cn+I n nes r �v, C o l a n j p- co---e ✓ln
r-e0. o4
1 1/0 o pc
3keses •\,./o9CrfIA t14 Is r, �� Pr��nna� 50Jrc,.Q
g , -^'‘ L.) hi✓l 1
l5 o ^ QAJ� n5 uNTc 9 eaf . T Sow., 1' s�`"1P1"3(nl I Jnt C l W� cel I"."o✓ZO c 1e
� fraNN
rr
Lt -se. S7�fon t Con S:d4r1f
9 •4+ of c pLe4 o,. /o.t ,ti , •- T✓}j-
le I
S1 1 • ��,'
i ty
8591 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317
1.800.653.4631 • email: djfree@netradio.net !• • •
`�
www. netradio. net /soulfood ,.; ;...•i
a-'� •
•
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: C2Qrc) 0A GA/10,z Tce OWNER: C1---c2j-jo/1
ADDRESS: S I r I v b, Z a1 n 2 ADDRESS: 1 1
,AJ 553� �- /
wr
TELEPHONE (Day time) -3? 1 0 TELEPHONE: / r
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_ Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit \X Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal
Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review Notification Sign
Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost'
($50 CUP/SPR VACNAR'WAPi'Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision' TOTAL FEE$ +- so
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
0 Ai
`Twenty-six-full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
-' Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
• NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME 1/J10 O c k
LOCATION - ck54- S 'd& 1'1ou5_0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lo/►t c4 44 . kcvim.¢ 4- i'S°I i '5 ✓a Ln.e
woo 5 ow/laart 4 0°` 4--
. T�1 is (/JQ O, S h e 1x4t.ref-s 1 1 7 - 1 row1
1 �►n�s� �,.I1-►ic1, ,-+S ; 4- 1 Po o-�- away ?ror,�, U,a.i,�,a5se., G'f A.
PRESENT ZONING P_ F
REQUESTED ZONING SL S De
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Lo v.1 .mac n 1 5 t-.-,
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION L.to l 0,215l�t'`i:Jen fr.l
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To o b 9 rl►1 i4 r` l- 1.JOOd s ti Qd SO t-11^
of 51/4/6 -c1 t), ;pn 0 properi- y cc coo-, pl-eJ
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.
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. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approvepermit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
ignature of Applicant — Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
• The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
c7 k e
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 7, 1998
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers �J� , 2Mc�ondCo
HillcDr
•
690 City Center Drive3Friccort
,1>,44DM;
co
•
•
SUBJECT: Request for an Amendment
to Conditions of Subdivision ;SIGN WAY HILL W Nu
Approval rchland Trail
ACKBI DCRT �
artland Crt
APPLICANT: Gordon Schaeffer iSION WAY HILL E
N K CT ', I
LOCATION: 8591 Tigua Laneo
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, Gordon Schaeffer, is requesting an amendment to conditions of approval of
Subdivision #96-8, to subdivide a 7.05 acre parcel into two single family lots with a variance
to allow a wood shed to encroach into the required rear yard setback located east of Tigua
Lane and southwest of Rice Marsh Lake on Lot 1 , Block 1 , Rice Lake Manor (8591 Tigua Lane).
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.. Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to
submit written comments. it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 24, 1998.
(}' tq'
KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOP CO LAWRENCE&NANCY STEIN
350 EAST HIGHWAY 212 8541 MISSION HILLS LANE
CHASKA, MN 55318 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PAUL LYONS
8571 TIGUA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOE&GAIL HAUTMAN
8551 TIGUA LANE
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
BEVERLY FIEDLER
8521 TIGUA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DAVID NAGEL
8550 TIGUA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RICHARD LARSON
8590 TIGUA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MISSION HILLS VILLAS HOA
C/O CITIES MANAGEMENT
2815 WAYZATA BLVD
WAYZATA, MN 55405
SANDRA&JAMES JONASEN
8581 MISSION HILLS LANE
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
DR. SUNITA GANGOPADHYAY
8571 MISSION HILLS LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ANTHONY& PAULA FARRAJ
8561 MISSION HILLS LANE
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
I TY 0 F i _;DATE: May 15, 1996 11.3--‘
CHANHASSEN'
CC DATE: June 10, 1996
' CASE #: 96-8 SUB
droffliggioSTAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Metes and Bounds approval to subdivide a 7.05 acre parcel into two single
family lots of 2.87 acres, and 4.18 acres, Rice Lake Manor Estates
LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor. East of Tigua Lane and southwest of Rice
Marsh Lake
J
CL APPLICANT: Barry McKee Brenda Schaeffer
Q.. 324 South Main Street 27306 County Road A
Suite 260 Spooner. WI 54801
Stillwater, MN 55082
(612)430-1717 (612(635-9545
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 7.05 acres Auticn try city AINahlnitCa
rr:�ora-' DulA
DENSITY: 0.28 Units per Acre ..q ;;er
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N- RSF; and Rice Marsh Lake Date Submitted to G-11713s*oR
S - RSF; and R-4, Vacant Land
E- RSF; City owned Open Space Date 5u;;• tred to Council'
W- RSF; Residential Single Family " 9
WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water are available to the site.
LU PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a single family residence and a shed. It is
t--- heavily wooded and contains wetlands.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
Y " r- h St. - -1-- -- y%,
�� ���� �� �,�� Chnnhassc
1 �� , Estate
t
',
Wes ern Ra--- = t� ,;� � Mini Par
[1 State �. eV ��,,. ,sein ►w� 3 F
Hw 5 ���e��� ��� � �41�
�e f.. !*o• tym ni. 4
`' 'H± oil ri ol Al° 'Alt 4412 1,
) e°' .
.� hiiIlfii*:64 61A.IA 4� .'
rr �► \ter
A��i�' • •r ije...Iglio
' �, ; Rice Mar=h
!--_,
am mg '3 ' I ; Lake P.-rk
A Lake Susan adios .. o Rice
1 qv.Nosve ,�',7 arsh Lake
I c I CD
•
• t> '-'''.•• k Eli .. ,i .14 2 1 E2-
, ii,vor- P.‘gigil I;- ik, ...,,,, .. . . ..
. . ;,,,,,
., ,..,..,..„,.., MI „, 4.1.1%,..4 03 , Q.
.... .. .,..... . .-. 7 .
alli 41 . .- 4IPPRIIII ,
.,shland Trail 11:11,
...... 7 _
r Ittlriudigliorl 1 .4 '.
4--
,, . ` . . ,,
12 U t..._ ..._, . U2. _
.4.7 41‘,44H--,. pm. s I , _ 0.. -r) -- I
L
PIP (' kw' 40. se= rse '' / g
, .
�D eRileyeyy.,K., -.• H ,
d.
ch= -aspen , I
SAZIs / I (
Park -' _-J ' a
E'
.r d s
/
_aa1
.
✓ Ban -ere
m
Q, NNW
Heigh s1
WI
Park /`
I
i .M1111
Bandimere
� 11i
1rr ,� S. LakeI u �
C
—fCommuaity Ira Riley +r U
Pkra\ ;
s . _
ca
\\
U .• _
n 1----71), / 1 1 1
Rice Lake Manor Estates
June 10, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting approval for a metes and bounds subdivision to subdivide a 7.05 acre
site into 2 single family parcels. Parcel A will be available for future construction. Parcel B
contains a single family home. The site is located southwest of Rice Marsh Lake and west of Tigua
Lane. The site will be accessed via Tigua Lane off of a private driveway which will be shared by
three homes. The proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance.
The site generally slopes to the northeast. The natural drainage of the site will be maintained with
this subdivision.
The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that park and trail fees be paid in lieu of
park land.
Staff believes that this plat request is a reasonable one and consistent with guidelines established by
the city Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We find it to be well designed. We are
recommending that it be approved with conditions as outlined in the report.
BACKGROUND
On June 26, 1980, the City Council approved a subdivision of 39.8 acres into 8 single family lots,
Rice Lake Manor. With this proposal, the applicant is proposing to subdivide Lot 1, Block 1, Rice
Lake Manor, into two lots.
SUBDIVISION
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 7.05 acre site into 2 single family lots. The density of the
proposed subdivision is 0.28 units per acre. Both lots far exceed the minimum 15,000 square foot
of area. Parcel A is proposed to have an area of 2.87 acres, and Parcel B, 4.18 acres. Parcel A will
be reserved for future development. A shed is located on proposed Parcel A and needs to be
removed prior to recording of the final plat.
A section of the existing home which is located on proposed Parcel B, straddles the property line
and encroaches onto the parcel to the east (City owned land- Open Space). This section was added
on sometime after the building permit was issued for the main structure. Staff does not have a
record of this addition (a lean-to and a kennel) but we recommend that the applicant remedy the
situation by removing these structures.
Rice Lake Manor Estates
June 10, 1996
Page 3
A fence which appears to belong to a neighbor is shown on the north property line. There is no
record of a permit for this fence. Permits are required for fences (CCC 20-1017), and a fence may
not be built on adjoining property(CCC 20-1019). Staff has no way of determining when the fence
was built or if the applicant was aware of the encroachment. The property to be split must meet
code requirements, necessitating, at a minimum, removal of the section of fence violating the code.
The applicant may wish to work with the neighbor in the removal of the noncomplying portion of
the fence.
What appears to be a deck is shown on the northwest corner of the house. Although the original
permit appears to include a deck, it was not shown in its current location. It may have been built
differently at the time of original construction or added later. A deck added later would have
required a building permit. The applicant should determine when the deck was built and obtain an
after the fact permit if a permit would have been required at the time of its construction.
A structure is shown extending over the east property line. No structure regulated by the building
code may cross a property line. This structure was not shown on the original survey, nor is there a
record of a building permit for its construction. Any structure regulated by the code will require a
permit and must be altered to comply with the building code and city code.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance.
WETLANDS
According to the wetland delineation performed by William Engelhardt and Associates, three
wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows:
North Basin is part of the Rice Marsh Lake wetland basin and is Type 1, 2, 3 at different points
along the shoreline. This wetland is on the Chanhassen Wetland Classification Map, the NWI Map,
and the DNR Protected Waters Map.
West Basin is an ag/urban wetland located along the western boundary of the site. The wetland
extends off-site to the southwest; approximately 3/4 acres of wetland is on site. This wetland is part
of City Wetland A24-3(1)and is mapped as PEMCd. This wetland has been delineated as Type 1/2
and drains to a ditch wetland that eventually drains into Rice Marsh Lake.
Southeast Basin is also an ag/urban wetland part of the drainage system that connects the West
Basin to Rice Marsh Lake. It has also been identified as Type 1/2.
Rice Lake Manor Estates
June 10, 1996
Page 4
Regulations
The City administers the 1991 version of the Wetland Conservation Act(WCA). It does not appear
that a wetland replacement plan will be necessary for this project; however, improvements or
changes to the existing drainage ditch will require mitigation and permits. In addition to the
requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation
around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a
minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0
to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these
wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Only minor grading is anticipated for utility installation and driveway construction for the new
home site. This work will most likely occur when a building permit is issued for the new lot.
Staff recommends that a detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan be
submitted for review and approval by staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
The site contains wetlands and drainage swales which conveys runoff from the surrounding
parcels through this site. A drainage easement should be dedicated over the wetlands and
drainage ditches on both parcels to preserve the neighborhood drainage pattern. The drainage
easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The City's Surface Water Management Plan
(SWMP) proposes a trunk storm sewer system in the future (24-inch RCP)to replace portions of
the drainage ditch. There are currently some existing storm sewers/culverts, as well as a small
sediment basin, in place. According to records,this system was constructed in the early 1980s in
an attempt to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into Rice Marsh Lake. In conjunction with the
Mission Hills development directly east of the site, a series of storm water ponds were
constructed to pretreat some of the runoff prior to discharging into the site. Staff is not
recommending at this time that any new improvements be constructed with this subdivision
proposal. Therefore, the applicant shall be responsible for SWMP fees pursuant to City
ordinance. Currently, the SWMP fees for water quality and quantity are $800 and $1,980 per
acre, respectively. Wetlands are subtracted out from the gross acreage. These fees are payable to
the City at the time of final plat recording.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The water service is located in the east
boulevard of Tigua Lane. The water service will have to be extended from the main line to the
home by the applicant or future property owner. Sanitary sewer will have to be extended up
from the existing main adjacent to Rice Marsh Lake to service the home. This will also be
Rice Lake Manor Estates
June 10, 1996
Page 5
required in conjunction with the building on the new lot. A permit will be required for the
extension of sewer and water service to the house through the City's Building Department. The
new lot will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges in accordance to City
ordinances. Currently, these hookup fees are $1,115 for sewer and $1,460 for water(per unit).
These fees are payable to the City at time of building permit issuance.
STREETS
Staff has been working with the applicant to look at future development potential of this site.
Given the sensitive nature of the site, i.e. trees, wetlands, drainage ditches, future development
may be limited to a private driveway until such time as the parcel to the south develops. At that
time the easterly portion of the site may have the potential to access a public street. During the
interim, a private driveway is proposed to be shared with Lot 2, Block 1 and the existing resident
on Lot 1, Block 1 in addition to the new proposed lot. The existing driveway is proposed to be
upgraded to meet the City's private driveway ordinance. Cross-access easements should be
prepared and recorded.
PARK AND RECREATION
The Park and Recreation Commission recommended the City Council require full park and trail
fees be paid as a condition of approval.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE- RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Home Home Wetland
Area Width Depth Setback Setback
+Buffer
Ordinance 40,000 sq. ft. 125' 125' 30' front/rear 40' +(0-20)
10' side/150'lake
Parcel A 125,262.84 sq. ft. 186.95' 1007.93' 30' front/rear 40' +(0-20)
10' sides/150'
Parcel B 182,169.97 sq. ft. 137' 1099.67' 30' front/rear 40' +(0-20)
10' sides/150'
Rice Lake Manor Estates
June 10, 1996
Page 6
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
The applicant has submitted a tree inventory for the Rice Lake Manor development and
according to plans tree removal for the proposed building pad and utilities will be within
maximum removal allowed for a large lot residential site. The development has about an 85%
existing canopy coverage and approximate removal for the development is 7,100 sq. ft. including
building site and sewer installation.
PRIVATE STREETS - FINDINGS
The applicant is proposing the use of an existing private street to provide access to the new
parcel in this development. City Code, Section 18-57 (o) permits up to four(4) lots to be served
by a private street if the city finds the following to exist:
(1) The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible 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.
(2) 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.
(3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature
trees.
FINDING: The prevailing development makes it infeasible for the construction of a
public street. It is heavily wooded and contains wetlands. There is an existing private
street that does not meet ordinance requirements. The shared portion of that driveway
must be built up to a 7 ton design and meet all requirements of the private street
ordinance.
Staff is recommending that the private streets as proposed by the applicant be approved for
reasons outlined above.
Rice Lake Manor Estates
June 10, 1996
Page 7
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On May 15, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application unanimously.
The one condition that was amended at the meeting was #10 relating to the location of a fence that
encroaches onto the subject property. Staff had recommended the fence be removed, and the
Planning Commission amended the condition to require the applicant to bring the fence into
compliance with City Code.
Also, following the meeting, staff received a letter from the Department of Natural Resources
pointing out that Rice Marsh Lake is classified as Natural Environment and all structures must
maintain a setback of 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water mark of the lake. The applicant is
showing a lake setback line located 125 feet from the Ordinary High Water mark of the lake. This
can easily be corrected and will still allow a large building pad.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Metes and Bounds Subdivision #96-8, Rice Lake
Manor Estates, as shown on the plans dated received April 12, 1996, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Tree Preservation fencing must be installed around the perimeter of the building site, 20
feet from the proposed pad, before grading or excavation begins. No trees will be
permitted to be removed except those within the building pad and 20 feet from the pad.
Also one tree will be required in the front yard setback area.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Parcel A. a detailed grading, drainage, erosion
control and tree removal plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
3. The applicant shall dedicate to the City drainage easements over all wetlands and
drainage ditches. The drainage easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management fees pursuant to City
ordinance.
5. Extension of sewer and water service to the new lot will require a permit from the City's
building department.
Rice Lake Manor Estates
June 10, 1996
Page 8
6. The new lot will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges pursuant to City
ordinance.
7. The private driveway should be upgraded to meet City ordinance. Cross-access
easements shall be conveyed to benefiting properties.
8. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with City ordinance.
9. The applicant shall remove all structures that encroach onto the city property located east
of the subject site.
10. The neighbor's fence located north of the subject property which encroaches onto Parcel
A must be removed brought into compliance with City Code.
11. Building Official's conditions:
a. Determine construction period for structure at the northwest corner of the property
and work with Inspections Division staff to obtained permits and inspections, if any
are required.
b. Remove the structure on the east side of the dwelling, or obtain a permit to alter the
structure to meet building and zoning code requirements.
12. All structures shall maintain a 150 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water mark of Rice
Marsh Lake."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application
2. Public hearing and property owners list.
3. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer and Phillip Elkin, Water Resources
Coordinator,dated May 8, 1996.
4. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal,dated April 26, 1996.
5. Wetland report prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates Inc.
6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated May 6, 1996.
7. Letter from DNR dated May 16, 1996.
8. Planning Commission minutes dated May 15, 1996.
9. Preliminary plat dated received April 12, 1996.
_ .
__.. CITY OF
„.
.i,
CHANHASSEN
i.
: ,_
,,,.... ,
.,.. .. .„ ,,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
. .: ,.
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
June 14, 1996
Barry McKee
Suite 260
324 South Main Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mr. McKee:
On June 10, 1996, the City Council approved Metes and Bounds Subdivision #96-8, Rice Lake
Manor Estates, as shown on the plans dated received April 12, 1996, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Tree Preservation fencing must be installed around the perimeter of the building site, 20
feet from the proposed pad, before grading or excavation begins. No trees will be
permitted to be removed except those within the building pad and 20 feet from the pad.
Also one tree will be required in the front yard setback area.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Parcel A, a detailed grading, drainage, erosion
control and tree removal plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
3. The applicant shall dedicate to the City drainage easements over all wetlands and
drainage ditches. The drainage easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management fees pursuant to City
ordinance.
5. Extension of sewer and water service to the new lot will require a permit from the City's
building department.
6. The new lot will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges pursuant to City
ordinance.
7. The private driveway should be upgraded to meet City ordinance. Cross-access
easements shall be conveyed to benefiting properties.
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612)937-1900
Date: 4/19/96
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department By: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
Subject: Request for rreliminary plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Rice Lake N..mor intc tv, ; single family lots on
property zoned RSF, and located at 8591 Tigua Circle, Rice Lake Manor Estates, Barry McKee.
Planning Case: 96-8 SUB and 96-1 WAP
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on April 12, 1996.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and
City Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on May 15, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 6, 1996.
You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly
appreciated.
1. City Departments 8.Telephone Company
Ca City Engineer (US West or United)
,b.City Attorney
(City Park Director 9. Electric Company
d. Fire Marshal (NSP or MN Valley)
e.Building Official
f Water Resources Coordinator 10. Triax Cable System
porester
2. Watershed District Engineer 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
3.Soil Conservation Service 12. Carver County
a. Engineer
4.MN Dept.of Transportation b. Environmental Services
5. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 13. Bonestroo Engineering
6. Minnegasco 14. Other-
C'silN
7. Dept of Natural Resources
S •..-:.•'..,:;(..44.115 -?'� v• s,^L ^1'. mit ipit , a ,; P ' ';'t''� 5 .;;M '..'1,-:;;;;
'may`,/iYy3, ., .•f Y•W.•.tj�4- • i � 4 -. W 4. r ' 1, "--•‘:.,,,.. e r.
L n c •. (t's i a �'f. r
- - - .,:•.•:.:r:.-;i-7'4.,-.;-:..71t:14•-rr ( fli,r fes.
Pr.yi' +-�t31.`.• L,..Hw Y ,
.1:_•,,;r
at rk4
i'• . n
GiJ
i. i r; ty ...4 ti:
t`_-��-� /iT 1. +�3t r•�
N 16.'aw��,`. fun _, •
7q rL
` �� ` 7 1•
'-��[j�Qs
li
i" 4 s..=. fit, }
rist12,..21vi
, P.: (1,0 3°`, X!i 1 \ 1 .'.. i I 1\ I 'Aril 4,1 114.111141:!'itio l'-:, - -V....,-"V ',,;_i4li';!
!! o
,t,, .11` 3 s \,, sin _ ii i !,! i t1t • Vie
reilli;
1 g: .‘:...f
.ti.. k . M J1 .;' ``\` -! llPfl
b1 • dI6 I 1 i=4211; •
,te �' • `\,. • Is X1 a 1slififtlIglgtill -) Y,
. /4 •-> • (4;irile.!.. , 1 g?i ), X 3 s - .. .
ill* t
`... cc
_ yfx �./ .1. ', I i' i 1 Ltii'`i dI 1 111=ji:O`as'1•+'^ala
giittp
..-_,...---4.\,\ • •.J ,Y\ !h _,I � 3+"RSS !p i 1iiflh1iI1tiiit1
1 31., R: - 1
14 '1i 1 � 121 "6 I
• 4r`:, p,• :; eora= # d16 ! ,f = si, _
wif!'" s jI
ji 0•� ,�....‘..:'' •� '� I: `•. ;3_ „§ .E, sil�1ff A � Oai +�1��kii.8j! j
,,,
1 if
F1's!! f Ili il..,.., Y !s lid!!• t p(1 s.,,„
....,,
%
VAX
At\
' ..4 s � � SBC !
., �} - 111!
\dam1 i 1 5;r
..411,1 iiii\t.l:
4. " ..
. ix.
y
_. 1{ i•.
•
? •
r f 'f�- t Y } *r, ---1`.+.'..-..7.;:"...'t,1 t:'3? 1.
.-, .,-;`,41..1.1'"'',". ►yl t '4'4 ,1.)17.. 4 .'fie .li - a �
e ,•••-•--9.1,,,:.;'•'• sY'"r•! E •= . fi S1+ 1; 4v'3.s 7t��L�' "'•' • ��T " •e€ �-4 ;.
ii ^ '.frY, ,,,....F."-).' . ::s ' .. ky l,! r y1�ii .''!: 'a*rhi .' ::- . err_. ,....44-1...-€,-.:,!1-4->-44-4'.-.
-a'. r,.
-,.}4: '-.Y. `�C': ;�' ;.� v s 3 .. ;R.ter..,..: .S + -
CITY 4F
11AUA E PC DATE: Oct. 7, 1998
CC DATE: Oct. 26, 1998
CASE#: 98-11 SUB
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: 1) Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide 6.39 acres into 7 single
family lots and 2 outlots.
1 2) Rezoning of 6.39 acres from A-2, Agricultural Estate District to
RSF, Residential Single Family District
3) Vacation of a portion of a Utility and Drainage easement located on
V Lot 9, Block 1, Stone Creek 6th Addition.
LOCATION: East of Galpin Boulevard,just north of Stone Creek Addition.
a. APPLICANT: David D. Moore Gil Vander Ham
7815 Market Boulevard 12905 44`h Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Plymouth, MN 55442
906-2416 391-8001
PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate District
ACREAGE: 6.39 acres
DENSITY: 1.09 units per acre gross density
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N -A-2, Single Family Home and Bluff Creek
S - RSF, Stone Creek Addition
W-PUD-R, Trotters Ridge Addition
Q E-RSF, Stone Creek Park
QI- WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
11.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The highest elevation on the site is 980. The site generally slopes to
the north and northeast. A residential single family and a detached
accessory structure occupy the site. Bluff Creek runs to the north of
(f) the subject site. There are scattered woods on the site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density(Net Density Range 1.2 - 4 units per acre)
int minalMilir 11.111
U.N..-iiivo,T
gla Ilin --ie-i julyr/___________I
H.
. . ... .
.15N MI
111)11Aria '
-ogrw"
.a.„44, se• As.4)i. a Aficwelim
c .„. „.4; . .
Ann
MIL NMI
„...,::',
'' '''.1'- .4.
-...-
4111 '11, 'VIM ilar--.W.Z7 IPPROAlglitiOA - '-'
,4, ,.
vilp itik r7iZftc-- 1110111111111b1
1
WP '-:11
_
wiliiii lvd Park ip:. Nui Arifij me ,.-i. ..,..., 2„
: ._ ..,... .
\
:,...._, ..„ _..... _..„.„..„.„.,_.,....
111,00mumpiiii \ ,,,...:......„...,. „...,,,,...n.-„, ,
Silk •
. 11111111/4 ;a 19111 i
11111111110 I
1'4''ariakeTclVi‘n:-
,5!,04;,,,,,.......,•,.,1-7.1.-i4,.. ,:ga:,.:::. .s..,
$1 . .,..,.,.‘:,.....,1-"Y.."-VO,',?-'•-.1-''''''''' -'
bi. _AV .. 4,011-911.1.1110,,miSS I
411166:(?(> #1111111 W91,, \ 0.-Z" :::'ft..Attia414at: '4
-ri....:,.,,,Jannv...±,..,m-....,-,-*4,* •:-.:::
• #4;175* .f:ii,‘Or9:g a I I i 1 •,z,...T.A. -.;,.-,,,-,*te,,,z,-;,.-_,--ii,e- --i.:,3.,,,
Inip irAti mu; f. ‘
...Z.4.1.-,...4.:&t.t I
. 0.!, .
'
. --:'5.,.....--7 --park.;-_,=1--. .,.
.„-___:,-,- :••,..:.--,,.5._,-.2.,,,,,,-
-,;,,, ,7-1 ,-,-!'"'"77-. ..:','''''''.7-7-t.:`-'
---,7i.Y5';:.';t'.,.:.,..,.7.'.-'..:-.,',:.-z. ._,:-:,.J.
rd --,
_- ------.
:-...;.::.4.:..,:, -....:;.;:.:..-2— ...:.. ., ..
Th
I
.:... .
..,
. _
-.!=..,-. ..t.,.....-.4.---_.....-. .:...,:::._ ‘...,.::„,,
: • 1 .,
:
7.--,-',`74.---: Park --.. , •.r
MaClynn Rd !-..
-t-'7'7.7.-s- , :v 11/V •
Ef
Jk --"- -4,-,'....,:>-•--; : -
-41-5".-..,.:4-,:,.., r....- .
1-7-"3-7::.:17-,c--,:!.:.i-
e.,,,, --. ---
,_
' jilirif.
• ,... ..,.. ...toi At_ - U :,..;.-4:,:.,..,.1-4;,,,_,-
-.-- .,,±:::--,,,,--.7Pr-7,f-r: r
. _,._,,. .. 14. •4,.., •:jar
:z:;T $
•--- CU . i
Coulter :iva7-'-' --'1' ' — Oite Blvd
____----- [ c
'--7". -4:•-4.4--.;_---. //i,„ '-'
4 ,.
Br ,„,, °u her Blvd :1.1111111W
.
- .L.p._-.-Park•---
It be cod Dr ....y.,- :
0-.0 , :_-_
,,k-:,,-.43•tfl'i,-.:.-..%;.,:;i0_,
- :-;;›,g... -..'t• ..',-*- : 't) 1 :
:-L.-f-.4-.1-*:..'• -:--1)•!-I?SteP•.4.--,-
11111, +a,, i 1111111117•7.
..;147..V1-475.740..,;;,..;:*-717, .•* , N• .
:,,,...:-,...f,4":!`j'.-:..Fr :,:,,,....'•• ••. -t, 111011PIP.. i 1"--_L'
,.:7,-..o.i4-',15-.ii:•,•'..!-'',"..r.:•$":---1 . '''..•
•,..,5, -.41:,..i...4- 7,!..%.?ctii.:.-.. :..:: -".* •'' WA Ni 0
Allil
--.,---.,:, -,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,„ 1111.041, - 11111 •.,,,,..,.„,,,,. ARA
...
- -I .. mre
Rici '
0,
,.. ,..,....,
, ,
..., Lama il
MEI
k7 - Al.fiNFrii ‘.;
aka., ,t-• IAN it -., NI rl. 1
II aif* i p- \Willeild NM -...4
iiiL NP"
III Inlikla ' _ .... , ,PA Is 10
J .,,.. is , to,e Creek-•ark—lip
..._
, ilos
.... . •
ill
ittrinter4: -
rialkhr
Ilk ,miongt_or :17111111pr ,
ifc-i gaga Wu .111r 4.3 \
lamer:: -mor :IV'
VOIR,4#160'
$ IIMIIP
oll $ , ______,
, )_"6
-
.S too Tsit-p! AiW 4
isi _
.ke D 1` :ira,1*,sivirmia n
who soli I: .r,AS.
s woo Atizil-p-443
-'0,si'''"--7=-:.
,," „„„. ,..,„........., ... 1r%Itivra.vif
q 00/_.0ofiliik -
•,-.
-Lyman B f0 w m5 ti- -;„,,,wd,_i.4-.•-.i. _ . ataimliU, rA4d.l l1.k1167. wy&1'1P1.--,I”.i4.1.
__ IP milla,i m,,Inarri Ns wir•-•
: c#col1110'410*-ip - - •- - -7------- --- _,„:-..,____
0
\<\ ,.
'i ::::•.:2- --,--,--„..,---..y. 14.-4-,-.1- fAi rilif--ii-1111:---4741-77-°;.4:‘'E:mi . -t7a--'---
1 '1.3 - .._ .,...,,•:,:.--•, -,,,,,-- -. Aet .a -
Vii I i*% 4,•s
:-,.'S.--.14•., et-Z--."'- 't& I.- 4: 1"4 '.211
•, , ,kiit'4,;, .757:47.1117Ah. 111160,15 ilL". MI 4 ht::4‘411
ili...! a2M1 g t - 1.10
• - •,',,. .....74--;.W-:.-7711,
g •
\ . :-..-r-ai.4 .-tr-, 4
r /17011rWa1
v1.}..i.ga ,V-Avi V VP
'4
•
1 . - /
*.• r. i-..• /.
F`'.).- .-,:.:ri"'-'.:1,---1-4--- 14- AS iiiii 1
" '4.CArY lialifr VirELT, 111
-•"-",-;: ..:,...'.2 .•:.;AIR jaliZillikw 1 11. :_,.?,Hpitrillic- .4..--,..1,..441
•
• • •
\ \
r 7
1 V
I s
- •
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 2
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide 6.39 acres into 7 single family lots and 2 outlots,
rezone 6.39 acres from A-2,Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Residential Single Family, and
vacation of a portion of a utility and drainage easement located on Lot 9, Block 1, Stone Creek 6th
Addition.
The average lot size is 35,948 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.09 units per acre. The
site is located east of Galpin Boulevard,just north of Stone Creek Addition and west of Stone
Creek Park. The site contains clusters of wooded areas, as well as open spaces, and a terrain that
generally slopes down to the north. It contains a single family home and a detached accessory
structure. Bluff Creek runs approximately 200+ feet north of the subject site. Access to the
subdivision will be provided via a cul-de-sac connecting the subdivision with Galpin Boulevard.
As the Planning Commission may recall, this application appeared on August 5, 1998, in the
form of a Planned Unit Development. Staff worked closely with the applicant and offered some
suggestions to save the natural features the property offers. It was explained that the most
effective way of developing the site would be to cluster the homes along the western portion of
the site and preserve the eastern portion. The easterly half of property was shown as an outlot
intended as park land. The resulting plan provided the least impact to the site. With all the
natural features, meandering terrain, and close proximity to Bluff Creek, the site was an excellent
candidate for a Planned Unit Development. One of the conditions of approval stated "Outlot A
shall be reserved through park dedication and fee title to Outlot A shall be granted to the city in
exchange for full park fee credit. Park dedication shall be established through an agreement with
the city. If agreement cannot be reached, the item will come back before the Planning
Commission." As you may have concluded, an agreement was not reached and the applicant has
elected to proceed with a regular subdivision.
The overall preliminary plat appears to be in order as related to lot size, depth, and width. The lots
are clustered within the westerly portion of the property, while Outlot A is reserved for future
development. An issue of concern is the fact that Outlot A is a land locked parcel. If the
applicant's intention is to develop this piece in the future,then access should be provided to it via
an extension of the proposed cul-de-sac. The other option which is recommended and favored by
staff is to dedicate Outlot A as park land.
In reviewing this plat, staff also had to look at access to the property to the north. While the
property owner(Mr. Schmidt) is not ready to develop or subdivide at this time, we need to ensure
that the parcel is not land locked. Currently,the subject site and the property to the north share a
private driveway. With the Lynmore subdivision, the existing house will gain access via Bridle
Creek Court. If and when Mr. Schmidt decides to subdivide his property, access should be gained
through the Lynmore subdivision. Staff is recommending this access be in the form of a private
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 3
driveway through Outlot B. Through rough sketches and field surveys,we believe that Mr.
Schmidt could potentially get 3 additional lots. The private driveway ordinance allows a maximum
of 4 lots to be served via a private driveway and this parcel meets the criteria for private driveways.
Should Mr. Schmidt demonstrate that he could gain 4 additional lots,then staff would strongly
recommend a variance be granted to allow 5 homes to be served via a private driveway.
The subdivision request is straight forward. The Subdivision Ordinance allow a minimum lot size
of 15,000 square feet. All parcels exceed the minimum area requirements with an average lot size
of 22,367 square feet excluding the area of Outlots A and B.
The westerly 95 feet of the site is actually part of Lot 9,Block 1, Stone Creek 9th Addition. The
applicant has combined that part of Lot 9 with the subject site,which is the logical thing to do.
There is an existing drainage and utility easement that runs along the exterior lot lines of Lot 9. The
applicant is requesting to vacate the easements portion that are part of the current subdivision and
dedicate new easements that run along the interior lot lines of Lot 1, Block 1, Lynmore Addition.
Staff is recommending approval of the vacation.
Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report.
REZONING
The applicant is requesting to rezone 6.39 acres from A-2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF.
Residential Single Family. The property is guided low density residential and the request is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
SUBDIVISION
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6.39 acres into 7 single family lots and 2 outlots. The
density of the proposed subdivision is 1.09 units per acre gross, and 2.15 units per acre net after
removing the roads and wetlands. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of
area,with an average lot size of 22,367 square feet. The average lot size is 35,948 square feet when
the area of Outlots A and B are added to the equation.
The site is located east of Galpin Boulevard,just north of Stone Creek Addition and west of Stone
Creek Park. The site contains clusters of wooded areas,as well as open spaces, and a terrain that
generally slopes down to the north. It contains a single family home and a detached accessory
structure. Bluff Creek runs approximately 200+feet north of the subject site. Access to the
subdivision will be provided via a cul-de-sac connecting the subdivision with Galpin Boulevard.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. There are two outlots shown on the plat. Outlot A is reserved for future development,
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 4
however, if this subdivision layout is approved, Outlot A will become a land locked parcel. The
applicant should provide access via an extension of the cul-de-sac or deed Outlot A to the city as
park land. This outlot is located within the primary zone of Bluff Creek and it will provide
protection of the creek.
Outlot B is a remnant lot. The property to the north owns a portion of this outlot. Staff is
recommending the easterly 30 feet of Outlot B be dedicated for a private driveway purposes, to
provide access to the property to the north. This issue will be discussed in more detail under
"STREETS"later in the report.
There is an existing detached structure located on proposed lot 6. This structure will create a non-
conforming situation since the ordinance does not allow accessory structures without the
construction of a primary structure. Therefore,the detached accessory structure must be removed
prior to recording of the plat.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance.
WETLANDS
There are no wetlands on site.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
Storm Water Quality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on
land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the
phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction
shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic
yard for excavation of the pond. The city has had discussions with the applicant's engineer on the
water quality ponding. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$800/acre, (or$3,400 for the
4.25 acres) for single-family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides
water quality treatment according to the city's SWMP standards. To date this development plan has
no on site treatment pond.
Storm Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 5
proposed SWMP culverts,open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single
family residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The
total gross area of the property is 4.25 acres. Therefore,the proposed development would then be
responsible for 4.25 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of$8,415. This fee will
be due payable to the city at time of final plat recording.
GRADING
Approximately half the site is proposed to be graded to prepare the house pads and street
subgrade. Outlot A is to remain as an open area. A small stormwater pond is proposed in the
backyard area of Lot 4.
The quantity of earthwork is unknown at this time; however, the applicant should be advised if
exporting or importing of material is necessary,a detailed haul route and traffic control plan will
be required prior to site grading commencing. In addition, if material is being exported or
imported from another Chanhassen site, that property will also be required to obtain the
necessary earthwork permits in accordance with city ordinance.
Retaining walls are proposed with the home construction on Lots 2 and 3 to maintain drainage
and minimize tree loss along the south property line.
The existing home utilizes a well and septic system. The well and septic system is not located on
the grading plan and therefore it is difficult to determine whether the site grading will impact
either of the utilities. The well and septic site needs to be preserved on the site until municipal
city sewer and water have been extended along Bridle Creek Court and tested and accepted by
the city.
DRAINAGE
The majority of the site sheet drains north, east and south. The proposed grading will maintain
the pre-developed drainage pattern in the area for the most part. The drainage area to the south
of the property will be reduced. The plans propose to drain the street and front yard areas of the
lots into Bridle Creek Court where a proposed storm sewer will convey runoff to a proposed
pond for treatment and storage prior to discharging into downstream wetlands. Staff and the
applicant looked for an on-site stormwater treatment pond and determined the existing ravine
area on Lot 4 would be appropriate. Drainage from the southerly half of the site and the
backyard areas of Stone Creek drains along the south property line into the existing ravine
through Lots 3 and 4. The proposed house pad on Lot 3 could experience wet areas on both sides
of the house due to drainage through the area. These drainage constraints should be considered
and resolved in conjunction with the design of the home for Lot 3.
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 6
A storm sewer is proposed to convey storm runoff from the street and outlet into the existing
ravine on Lot 4. Staff believes it is important to limit disruption to the existing ravine area to
minimize erosion and keep the nature of the ravine intact on Lots 3 and 4. Staff recommends
that the storm sewer be extended across Lot 4 to the proposed pond adjacent to the ravine. The
existing ravine also carries the neighborhood runoff from the south. The city's SWMP does not
require a stormwater pond within the development; however, state law requires pretreatment of
stormwater runoff prior to discharging into wetlands. The city's SWMP proposes a trunk storm
sewer to convey runoff from this site to a future downstream regional stormwater pond. These
improvements are not planned for yet. Therefore, the applicant will not be entitled to credits
against their SWMP fees for construction of the pond. The proposed pond shall be sized and
built to NURP standards and maintain predevelopment runoff rates. This includes an outlet
control structure to maintain predevelopment runoff rates for 10-year and 100-year storm events.
Drainage and utility easements will be required over all utilities and the pond on the final plat.
The minimum width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access to the
pond for maintenance purposes.
The plans incorporated a drain tile system behind the curbs to address household sump pump
discharge for those lots not adjacent to a stormwater pond or wetland. Drain tile is also
beneficial in absorbing subgrade moisture from the street.
UTILITIES
Municipal utility service is indirectly available to the site. Water service is available along
Galpin Boulevard; however, sanitary sewer is located approximately 750 feet north of the site
east of Galpin Boulevard near Lukewood Drive. The applicant will need to obtain permanent
and temporary easements from the adjacent property owner(Schmidt) to extend the utilities to
service this development.
The applicant has designed an alternative plan for provide the site with sanitary sewer service.
The applicant is now proposing to extend a sanitary sewer parallel to Galpin Boulevard along the
west side and crossing just north of Bridle Creek Trail into the site. Upon review, this plan
appears feasible from an engineering standpoint, however, staff has several concerns. The
proposed sewer line will only serve this development. The existing sanitary sewer service is
approximately 10 feet behind the west curbline of Galpin Boulevard located within the trail.
Given the depth needed to excavate to extend the sewer line along Galpin Boulevard, staff is
concerned that the street's structural integrity may be jeopardized. In addition, the existing trail
and some residents' landscaping will need to be removed and replaced. Another concern is that
the city has planned to service this site and the adjacent parcel to the north(Schmidt) through the
existing sanitary sewer line provided along the east side of Galpin Boulevard which is
approximately 750 feet north of the site. Apparently the applicant has had difficulties in
negotiating easement rights to extend the sewer to service this site. By extending another sewer
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 7
line parallel to Galpin Boulevard(west side)requires that the Schmidt's or future property owner
to the north be responsible for extending the line along the eastside of Galpin Boulevard.
Parallel sewer lines along Galpin Boulevard will also create more maintenance responsibilities
for the city's utility department.
Given the topographic features of the area,the sanitary sewer will only service the preliminary
plat as shown. Outlot A would not be able to be served via gravity. With the extension of the
sanitary sewer along the east side of Galpin Boulevard through the Schmidt property,both
parcels, Schmidt's and this proposal,would utilize the same sewer system including Outlot A.
Staff also has another concern with the crossing of the sewer line underneath Galpin Boulevard.
The existing utilities along the east side of Galpin Boulevard which is a 10" forcemain and 12"
watermain are at approximately the same depth as the proposed sewer crossing. Both the
forcemain and trunk watermain serve a very large portion of the surrounding developments. Any
damage to these infrastructures during construction would significantly impact the residents and
possibly Bluff Creek Elementary.
Since Galpin Boulevard is a county road, all construction activities within the right-of-way would
require a right-of-way permit through Carver County Public Works. It is not known whether or
not Carver County Public Works would even grant a permit to extend the sewer along the west
side and underneath Galpin Boulevard.
All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the city's Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will
be turned over the city for maintenance and ownership. Detailed utility and street construction
plans and specifications in accordance with the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates will be required in conjunction with final plat consideration. Construction drawings
will need to be submitted to staff at least three weeks prior to final plat consideration. The
construction plans and specifications for the project will be subject to staff review and City
Council approval. The developer will be required to enter into a development contract with the
city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of approval. The
financial security shall be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. The existing house on
Lot 5 will be required to hook up to the new sewer and water lines within 12 months after the
utilities have been accepted by the city unless the existing septic or well is damaged or is no
longer functional due to construction of the site improvements. The property will also be subject
to deferred assessments as a result of the city's Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Improvement Project
No. 91-17B. The parcel was previously assessed for only one trunk unit. Upon final platting of
the property, six additional trunk unit charges shall be assessed against the property or collected
at time of building permit issuance. The 1998 trunk sewer utility hook-up charge is $1,216 per
unit. The parcel will also be subject to trunk watermain hook-up charges (6 units) at $1,584.
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 8
Should Outlots A and B become buildable in the future, these parcels will also be subject to
sewer and water hook-up charges.
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Galpin Boulevard/County Road 19 except to Outlot
A. This road is classified in the city's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. The minimum
right-of-way width of Galpin Boulevard shall be 100 feet wide. The preliminary plat indicates 50
feet of right-of-way exists adjacent to this development; however, the city, through a previous
project, acquired a trail and utility easement for the extension of the utilities and existing trail
along the parcel. Staff does not believe that additional right-of-way was purchased in the
easement acquisition process. Staff will be reviewing this and may result in the applicant
dedicating a total of 27 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard. The preliminary plat at this
time indicates the proper right-of-way dedication; however, the actual right-of-way dedication
needs to be further verified by staff. Additional right-of-way taking would not affect the lot sizes
in the preliminary plat submittal.
The preliminary plat proposes a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 60-foot radius for the cul-de-
sac in accordance with City Code. However, the street alignment for the cul-de-sac is too severe
to accommodate emergency vehicles and therefore needs to be revised.
The site is currently accessed through a shared driveway off of Galpin Boulevard with the
Schmidt property to the north. As a result of platting the property a public street will be extended
to service the existing home as well as 6 additional lots with the potential future subdivision of
Outlot B as well. Staff is concerned about future street access to the Schmidt parcel and Outlot
A. Given the location of the existing driveway, the additional turning movements and sight lines
to the Schmidt property is not desirable. Staff looked at the possibility of a future private
driveway through Outlot B to service future subdivision of the Schmidt parcel. The Carver
County Public Works Department has the jurisdiction to approve additional access points or
modify existing access points along Galpin Boulevard. Staff believes that the Schmidt parcel
should access Bridle Creek Court through Outlot B with a private driveway in the future. Staff
also believes the Schmidt parcel does not have the capability to subdivide into more than four
single-family lots based on current ordinances and topographic features. Outlot B as currently
proposed is not a buildable lot. Staff recommends that a 30-foot wide strip of land be deeded or
easement dedicated to the city over Outlot B for future access (private driveway) to the Schmidt
parcel to serve up four residential homes. The exact location of this easement can be modified
through negotiations with staff and the applicant. Outlot A as proposed will become a land
locked parcel. The applicant needs to provide sanitary sewer and street access to Outlot A in
order to plat it into lots. Bridle Creek Court is proposed to be constructed to city urban street
standards within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. Detailed street construction plans and
specifications will be required prior to final plat consideration. The public street shall be
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 9
constructed in accordance with the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates. There are city-owned street lights along Galpin Boulevard that may be impacted with the
street connection. This must be verified and street lights relocated in accordance with city
standards. A street light will also be required at the end of the cul-de-sac. The developer shall
also coordinate with the appropriate utility companies for the installation of small utilities, i.e.
NSP, Minnesota Valley Electric, Minnegasco, Triax Cable and U.S. West.
Access to the existing house on Lot 5 must be maintained during construction from both a public
safety standpoint and a resident standpoint. Once the public street(Bridle Creek Court) has been
constructed, the existing home will be required to change their address to Bridle Creek Court and
eliminate the existing access through the private driveway.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control fence is proposed along the grading limits on Lots 3 through 7. Erosion control
fence needs to be extended along the south side of Lot 3 and downstream of the pond. Tree
protection fencing also needs to be denoted around the trees to be preserved on the site. Tree
protection fencing shall be incorporated onto the final grading, drainage and erosion control plan.
PARK AND TRAIL
On July 28, 1998, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this application. They
recommended that Outlot A be reserved through park dedication and that fee title to Outlot A be
granted to the city in exchange for full park fee credit. In requiring these conditions of approval,
it would be the city's intent to preserve Outlot A. Should the applicant maintain ownership of
this parcel, park and trail fees will be required in accordance with ordinance requirements.
LANDSCAPING
Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Lynmore development are as follows:
Total upland area (including outlots) 278,348 SF or 6.39 ac.
Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) 130,680 SF or 3.0 ac.
Baseline canopy coverage 47%
Minimum canopy coverage allowed 35% or 97,422 SF
Proposed tree removal 37,848 SF or 0.87 ac.
Proposed tree preservation 33% or 92,832 SF
Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is
multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage 4,590 SF
Multiplier 1.2
Total replacement 5,508 SF
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 10
Total number of trees to be planted 5 trees
A replacement planting plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan
shall be location, species and size of replacements. All replacements must meet minimum size
requirements.
The applicant is proposing to transplant 15 trees ranging in size from 3-9 inches in diameter. The
variety of trees include 7 ash, 6 maple, 1 apple and 1 spruce. These trees could be counted as
replacement plantings provided they are guaranteed for at least one year.
Buffer yard plantings will be required along the approximately 400' of frontage of Galpin
Boulevard. Assuming a 25' buffer yard, minimum requirements include 4 overstory trees, 8
understory trees and 16 shrubs. Due to grading needs, a substantial existing buffer along Galpin
Blvd. will be removed on Lot 1. Staff recommends applicant consider preserving some of the
trees at the rear of Lot 1 to provide a more substantial buffer from the road.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT ISSUES
Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require a
demolition permit. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the city and a permit for septic
system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a
demolition permit. A house moving permit is required if a structure is to be moved to another
location within the city. House moving permits must be approved by the City Council. A road use
permit is required to move a structure over city roads.
Subdivision Findings:
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the city code subject to the
conditions of the staff report.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans, subject to
approval of the rezoning to RSF.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 11
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply,storm drainage,
sewage disposal,streets,erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision could be deemed as immature development
without sewer extension along the east side of Galpin Boulevard.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to
conditions if approved.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision could be deemed as immature development
without sewer extension along the east side of Galpin Boulevard.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 12
Ordinance 15,000 90 @ setback line 125' 30'front/30' rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 21,785 77'&190' 190' 30'130'
corner lot 10'/10'
Lot 2 18,229 60'on curve 142.5' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 3 28,663 32' on curve 340' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 4 28,934 63' on curve 240' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 5 28,826 104' on curve 153' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 6 15,130 80' on curve 135' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 7 15,005 106 135' 30'/30'
10'
Outlot A 89,403
Outlot B 12,810
VACATION
The westerly 95 feet of the site is actually part of Lot 9, Block 1, Stone Creek 91h Addition. The
applicant has combined that part of Lot 9 with the subject site, which is the logical thing to do.
There is an existing drainage and utility easement that runs along the exterior lot lines of Lot 9. The
applicant is requesting to vacate the easements portion that are part of the current subdivision and
dedicate new easements that run along the interior lot lines of Lot 1, Block 1, Lynmore Addition.
Staff is recommending approval of the vacation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
Rezoning and Subdivision
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 6.39 acres
into 7 single family lots and 2 outlots, and Rezoning of 6.39 acres from A-2, Agricultural Estate
District to RSF, Residential Single Family District, as shown in plans dated September 4, 1998,
with the following conditions:
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 13
1. The applicant shall guarantee any transplanted trees for a minimum of one year.
Transplanted trees shall be counted as replacement plantings.
2. Buffer yard plantings shall be installed along Galpin Boulevard. Minimum planting
requirements are 4 over story trees, 8 under story trees, and 16 shrubs.
3. Install tree protection fencing at grading limits prior to construction.
4. The accessory structure located on proposed Lot 6 shall be removed prior to recording of
the plat.
5. Outlot A shall be reserved through park dedication and fee title to Outlot A shall be
granted to the city in exchange for full park fee credit. Should the applicant decide to
maintain ownership of the parcel, park and trail fees shall be paid in accordance with City
Ordinance
6. Building Official Conditions:
a. Obtain demolition, moving and/or road use permits for existing buildings to be
relocated. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
7. The proposed single family residential development of 4.25 net developable acres is
responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,400 and a water quantity fee of
S8,415. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
8. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. Install a fire hydrant at the intersection of Bridle Creek Court and Galpin Blvd.
b. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to
insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The
cul-de-sac as currently designed will not allow proper turning around of fire
apparatus. Submit redesigned dimensions to Fire Marshal and City Engineer for
review and approval. Fire Marshal will not approve building permits until
redesign of cul-de-sac is submitted.
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 14
d. If trees are to be felled on site, they must either be chipped or hauled off site. No
burning permits will be issued.
9. The plans shall be revised to include the following:
a. Show existing well and septic site with provisions for protection.
b. Show sanitary sewer extension from Lukewood Drive including existing
topographic features.
c. Extend erosion control fence along the south side of Lot 3 and downstream of the
pond. Add tree preservation fencing.
d. The cul-de-sac configuration/alignment shall be revised to accommodate turning
movements of the City's emergency vehicles.
e. Revise storm sewer through Lot 3 to extend to pond outside of ravine area.
f. Add outlet control structure in pond.
g. Provide traffic signage and street light locations.
10. The existing home on Lot 5 shall connect to city sewer and water within 12 months after
the utilities are accepted by the city. If the existing well and/or septic system fails sooner
or is damaged during construction, the home shall be connected within 30 days after city
acceptance.
11. During design and construction of a home for Lot 3 the surface water runoff must be
managed to avoid flooding of the home. The location of doors and windows should be
two feet above the existing/proposed grade along the south side of the home.
12. At time of building permit issuance each lot except Lot 5 will be charged a sewer and
water hook-up charge. Should Outlots A and B be platted in the future, these parcels will
also be subject to sewer and water hook-up charges.
13. The existing home on Lot 5 shall change their street address once Bridle Creek Court is
paved with bituminous. In addition, the existing driveway access shall be removed
through Lots 5, 6 and 7, and restored with topsoil, seed and mulch.
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 15
14. If the exporting or importing of earthwork material is required, the developer shall supply
staff with a haul route and traffic control plan for review and approval.
15. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City on the final
plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The minimum
easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
16. The developer shall be responsible for the extension of sanitary sewer service to the site
utilizing the existing sanitary sewer east of Galpin Boulevard south of Lukewood Drive
approximately 750 feet north of the site. If the developer is unable to acquire the
necessary utility easements, the plat shall be considered premature for development.
17. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management
Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for
review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal.
18. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
19. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted three weeks prior to final plat consideration
for staff review and City Council approval.
20. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-
developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
21. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
Lynmore Subdivision
October 7, 1998
Page 16
22. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
23. A 30-foot wide strip of land shall be dedicated or deeded to the City over Outlot B for
future driveway access to the property to the north.
24. Utility service and street access needs to be incorporated into the plans for Outlot A prior
to final plat consideration."
Vacation
"The City Council approves of vacation of a portion of a utility and frainage easement located on
Lot 9, Block 1, Stone Creek 6`h Addition, as shown in plans dated received September 4, 1998, with
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a legal description of the Utility and Drainage easement
proposed to be vacated."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from David Hempel dated September 30, 1998
2. Public hearing notice and property owners list
3. Planning Commission minutes dated August 5, 1998
4. Plat.
\\cfs 1\vol2\plan\sa\Iynmore.sub.doc
101
CITY OF MEMORANDUM
CHANHASSEN TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
690 Cir)Center Drive,PO Box 147 FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer sv1�
Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900 DATE: September 30, 1998
General Fax 612.937539
Engineering Fax 612.93-.9152 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Lynmore Addition
Public Safety Fax 612.934.25 24 Land Use Review File No. 98-19
11'e61rueu:ci.clranl assen.nn.us
Upon review of the construction drawings prepared by TEC Design dated June 21,
1998, stamped September 4, 1998, I offer the following comments and
recommendations:
GRADING
Approximately half the site is proposed to be graded to prepare the house pads and
street subgrade. Outlot A is to remain as an open area. A small stormwater pond is
proposed in the backyard area of Lot 4.
The quantity of earthwork is unknown at this time; however,the applicant should be
advised if exporting or importing of material is necessary,a detailed haul route and
traffic control plan will be required prior to site grading commencing. In addition, if
material is being exported or imported from another Chanhassen site, that property
will also be required to obtain the necessary earthwork permits in accordance with
City ordinance.
Retaining walls are proposed with the home construction on Lots 2 and 3 to maintain
drainage and minimize tree loss along the south property line.
The existing home utilizes a well and septic system. The well and septic system is not
located on the grading plan and therefore it is difficult to determine whether the site
grading will impact either of the utilities. The well and septic site needs to be
preserved on the site until municipal city sewer and water have been extended along
Bridle Creek Court and tested and accepted by the city.
DRAINAGE
The majority of the site sheet drains north,east and south. The proposed grading will
maintain the pre-developed drainage pattern in the area for the most part. The
drainage area to the south of the property will be reduced. The plans propose to drain
the street and front yard areas of the lots into Bridle Creek Court where a proposed
storm sewer will convey runoff to a proposed pond for treatment and storage prior to
The City of Chanhassen.A growing community with clean likes.quali%)schools,a channing downtown,thriving businesses,and beatrtif rl parks.A great place to lire,work,and pla)
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Lynmore Addition Preliminary Plat Review
September 30, 1998
Page 2
discharging into downstream wetlands. Staff and the applicant looked for an on-site
stormwater treatment pond and determined the existing ravine area on Lot 4 would be
appropriate. Drainage from the southerly half of the site and the backyard areas of
Stone Creek drains along the south property line into the existing ravine through Lots
3 and 4. The proposed house pad on Lot 3 could experience wet areas on both sides
of the house due to drainage through the area. These drainage constraints should be
considered and resolved in conjunction with the design of the home for Lot 3.
A storm sewer is proposed to convey storm runoff from the street and outlet into the
existing ravine on Lot 4. Staff believes it is important to limit disruption to the
existing ravine area to minimize erosion and keep the nature of the ravine in tact on
Lots 3 and 4. Staff recommends that the storm sewer be extended across Lot 4 to the
proposed pond adjacent to the ravine. The existing ravine also carries the
neighborhood runoff from the south. The City's SWMP does not require a
stormwater pond within the development; however, state law requires pretreatment of
stormwater runoff prior to discharging into wetlands. The City's SWMP proposes a
trunk storm sewer to convey runoff from this site to a future downstream regional
stormwater pond. These improvements are not planned for yet. Therefore, the
applicant will not be entitled to credits against their SWMP fees for construction of the
pond. The proposed pond shall be sized and built to NURP standards and maintain
predevelopment runoff rates. This includes an outlet control structure to maintain
predevelopment runoff rates for 10-year and 100-year storm events. Drainage and
utility easements will be required over all utilities and the pond on the final plat. The
minimum width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access to
the pond for maintenance purposes.
The plans incorporated a drain tile system behind the curbs to address household sump
pump discharge for those lots not adjacent to a stormwater pond or wetland. Drain
tile is also beneficial in absorbing subgrade moisture from the street.
UTILITIES
Municipal utility service is indirectly available to the site. Water service is available
along Galpin Boulevard; however, sanitary sewer is located approximately 750 feet
north of the site east of Galpin Boulevard near Lukewood Drive. The applicant will
need to obtain permanent and temporary easements from the adjacent property owner
(Schmidt) to extend the utilities to service this development.
The applicant has designed an alternative plan for provide the site with sanitary sewer
service. The applicant is now proposing to extend a sanitary sewer parallel to Galpin
Boulevard along the west side and crossing just north of Bridle Creek Trail into the
site. Upon review,this plan appears feasible from an engineering standpoint,however,
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Lynmore Addition Preliminary Plat Review
September 30, 1998
Page 3
staff has several concerns. The proposed sewer line will only serve this development.
The existing sanitary sewer service is approximately 10 feet behind the west curbline
of Galpin Boulevard located within the trail. Given the depth needed to excavate to
extend the sewer line along Galpin Boulevard, staff is concerned that the street's
structural integrity may be jeopardized. In addition, the existing trail and some
residents' landscaping will need to be removed and replaced. Another concern is that
the City has planned to service this site and the adjacent parcel to the north (Schmidt)
through the existing sanitary sewer line provided along the east side of Galpin
Boulevard which is approximately 750 feet north of the site. Apparently the applicant
has had difficulties in negotiating easement rights to extend the sewer to service this
site. By extending another sewer line parallel to Galpin Boulevard (west side) requires
that the Schmidt's or future property owner to the north be responsible for extending
the line along the eastside of Galpin Boulevard. Parallel sewer lines along Galpin
Boulevard will also create more maintenance responsibilities for the City's Utility
Department.
Given the topographic features of the area, the sanitary sewer will only service the
preliminary plat as shown. Outlot A would not be able to be served via gravity. With
the extension of the sanitary sewer along the east side of Galpin Boulevard through the
Schmidt property, both parcels, Schmidt's and this proposal, would utilize the same
sewer system including Outlot A.
Staff also has another concern with the crossing of the sewer line underneath Galpin
Boulevard. The existing utilities along the east side of Galpin Boulevard which is a
10" forcemain and 12" watermain are at approximately the same depth as the
proposed sewer crossing. Both the forcemain and trunk watermain serve a very large
portion of the surrounding developments. Any damage to these infrastructures during
construction would significantly impact the residents and possibly Bluff Creek
Elementary.
Since Galpin Boulevard is a county road, all construction activities within the right-of-
way would require a right-of-way permit through Carver County Public Works. It is
not known whether or not Carver County Public Works would even grant a permit to
extend the sewer along the west side and underneath Galpin Boulevard.
All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the
utilities will be turned over the City for maintenance and ownership. Detailed utility
and street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required in conjunction
with final plat consideration. Construction drawings will need to be submitted to staff
at least three weeks prior to final plat consideration. The construction plans and
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Lynmore Addition Preliminary Plat Review
September 30, 1998
Page 4
specifications for the project will be subject to staff review and City Council approval.
The developer will be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract
with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of
approval. The financial security shall be in the form of a letter of credit or cash
escrow. The existing house on Lot 5 will be required to hook up to the new sewer
and water lines within 12 months after the utilities have been accepted by the City
unless the existing septic or well is damaged or is no longer functional due to
construction of the site improvements. The property will also be subject to deferred
assessments as a result of the City's Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Improvement Project
No. 91-17B. The parcel was previously assessed for only one trunk unit. Upon final
platting of the property, six additional trunk unit charges shall be assessed against the
property or collected at time of building permit issuance. The 1998 trunk sewer utility
hook-up charge is $1,216 per unit. The parcel will also be subject to trunk watermain
hook-up charges (6 units) at$1,584. Should Outlots A and B become buildable in the
future, these parcels will also be subject to sewer and water hook-up charges.
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Galpin Boulevard/County Road 19
except to Outlot A. This road is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a
collector street. The minimum right-of-way width of Galpin Boulevard shall be 100
feet wide. The preliminary plat indicates 50 feet of right-of-way exists adjacent to this
development; however, the City, through a previous project, acquired a trail and utility
easement for the extension of the utilities and existing trail along the parcel. Staff does
not believe that additional right-of-way was purchased in the easement acquisition
process. Staff will be reviewing this and may result in the applicant dedicating a total
of 27 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard. The preliminary plat at this time
indicates the proper right-of-way dedication; however, the actual right-of-way
dedication needs to be further verified by staff. Additional right-of-way taking would
not affect the lot sizes in the preliminary plat submittal.
The preliminary plat proposes a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 60-foot radius for
the cul-de-sac in accordance with City Code. However,the street alignment for the
cul-de-sac is too severe to accommodate emergency vehicles and therefore needs to be
revised.
The site is currently accessed through a shared driveway off of Galpin Boulevard with
the Schmidt property to the north. As a result of platting the property a public street
will be extended to service the existing home as well as 6 additional lots with the
potential future subdivision of Outlot B as well. Staff is concerned about future street
access to the Schmidt parcel and Outlot A. Given the location of the existing
driveway, the additional turning movements and sight lines to the Schmidt property is
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Lynmore Addition Preliminary Plat Review
September 30, 1998
Page 5
not desirable. Staff looked at the possibility of a future private driveway through
Outlot B to service future subdivision of the Schmidt parcel. The Carver County
Public Works Department has the jurisdiction to approve additional access points or
modify existing access points along Galpin Boulevard. Staff believes that the Schmidt
parcel should access Bridle Creek Court through Outlot B with a private driveway in
the future. Staff also believes the Schmidt parcel does not have the capability to
subdivide into more than four single-family lots based on current ordinances and
topographic features. Outlot B as currently proposed is not a buildable lot. There is a
parcel of land that is owned by the Schmidt's that would need to be acquired by the
developer to develop Outlot B into a buildable parcel. Staff recommends that a 30-
foot wide strip of land be deeded or easement dedicated to the City over Outlot B for
future access (private driveway)to the Schmidt parcel to serve up four residential
homes. The exact location of this easement can be modified through negotiations with
staff and the applicant. Outlot A as proposed will become a land locked parcel. The
applicant needs to provide sanitary sewer and street access to Outlot A in order to plat
it into lots. Bridle Creek Court is proposed to be constructed to City urban street
standards within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. Detailed street construction plans and
specifications will be required prior to final plat consideration. The public street shall
be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications
and Detail Plates. There are city-owned street lights along Galpin Boulevard that may
be impacted with the street connection. This must be verified and street lights
relocated in accordance with City standards. A street light will also be required at the
end of the cul-de-sac. The developer shall also coordinate with the appropriate utility
companies for the installation of small utilities, i.e. NSP,Minnesota Valley Electric,
Minnegasco,Triax Cable and U.S. West.
Access to the existing house on Lot 5 must be maintained during construction from
both a public safety standpoint and a resident standpoint. Once the public street
(Bridle Creek Court) has been constructed,the existing home will be required to
change their address to Bridle Creek Court and eliminate the existing access through
the private driveway.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control fence is proposed along the grading limits on Lots 3 through 7.
Erosion control fence needs to be extended along the south side of Lot 3 and
downstream of the pond. Tree protection fencing also needs to be denoted around the
trees to be preserved on the site. Tree protection fencing shall be incorporated onto
the final grading,drainage and erosion control plan.
Sharnvn Al-Jaff
Lynmore Addition Preliminary Plat Review
September 30, 1998
Page 6
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The plans shall be revised to include the following:
a. Show existing well and septic site with provisions for protection.
b. Show sanitary sewer extension from Lukewood Drive including
existing topographic features.
c. Extend erosion control fence along the south side of Lot 3 and
downstream of the pond. Add tree preservation fencing.
d. The cul-de-sac configuration/alignment shall be revised to
accommodate turning movements of the City's emergency vehicles.
e. Revise storm sewer through Lot 3 to extend to pond outside of ravine
area.
f. Add outlet control structure in pond.
g. Provide traffic signage and street light locations.
2. The existing home on Lot 5 shall connect to City sewer and water within 12
months after the utilities are accepted by the City. If the existing well and/or
septic system fails sooner or is damaged during construction, the home shall be
connected within 30 days after City acceptance.
3. During design and construction of a home for Lot 3 the surface water runoff
must be managed to avoid flooding of the home. The location of doors and
windows should be two feet above the existing/proposed grade along the south
side of the home.
4. At time of building permit issuance each lot except Lot 5 will be charged a
sewer and water hook-up charge. Should Outlots A and B be platted in the
future, these parcels will also be subject to sewer and water hook-up charges.
5. The existing home on Lot 5 shall change their street address once Bridle Creek
Court is paved with bituminous. In addition, the existing driveway access shall
be removed through Lots 5, 6 and 7, and restored with topsoil, seed and
mulch.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Lynmore Addition Preliminary Plat Review
September 30, 1998
Page 7
6. If the exporting or importing of earthwork material is required, the developer
shall supply staff with a haul route and traffic control plan for review and
approval.
7. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City
on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-
way. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
8. The developer shall be responsible for the extension of sanitary sewer service
to the site utilizing the existing sanitary sewer east of Galpin Boulevard south
of Lukewood Drive approximately 750 feet north of the site. If the developer
is unable to acquire the necessary utility easements, the plat shall be considered
premature for development.
9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the
Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The
plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in
conjunction with final plat submittal.
10. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately
restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two
weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
11. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the
latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted three weeks prior
to final plat consideration for staff review and City Council approval.
12. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and
100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater
quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water
Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant
shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater
calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water
level calculations in existing basins,created basin, and/or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be
required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition,
water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet
model.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Lynmore Addition Preliminary Plat Review
September 30, 1998
Page 8
13. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the
City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with
the terms of the development contract.
14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate
regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County,Watershed District, Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission, Health Department and , Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
15. A 30-foot wide strip of land shall be dedicated or deeded to the City over
Outlot B for future driveway access to the property to the north.
16. Utility service and street access needs to be incorporated into the plans for
Outlot A prior to final plat consideration.
Jms
c: Anita Benson, City Engineer
g:\enedavepc\lyninore2.ppr.doc
14 Autumn Ridge
5 Autumn Ridge Ln � bar voo. Dr
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 6 Autumn Ridge Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 7, 1998
at 7:00 p.m. o
City Hall Council Chambers ''�:'��I� a Q:d
690 City Center Drive
irave g
%oar a.
1111111kfilln Ea
SUBJECT: Lynmore Addition ; tiMlgM• ape' , imps.
aile APPLICANT: David D. Moore VOW,. Ieer 9 OW
0, •
LOCATION: East of Galpin Blvd., just ./ 10 2 7,777
ag111,���,�v'�S►
north of Stone Creek Addition Lyman BI vo,r•1iresiodi
1A .
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, David D. Moore, is requesting Rezoning of 6.39 acres from Rural Residential to Planned
Unit Development-Residential and Preliminary plat approval to subdivide 6.39 acres into 7 single
family lots and 2 outlots, and vacation of a portion of the drainage and utility easements
located on Lot 9, Block 1 , Stone Creek 6th Addition. The property is located east of Galpin Blvd.
just north of Stone Creek Addition, Lynmore Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1 . Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 24, 1998.
BRIAN&JEAN LEBAHN MIKE MINEAR DONNA&GILBERT VANDERHAM
8275 BENWOOD CIRCLE 2421 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 12905 44TH AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PLYMOUTH, MN 55442
CRAIG EVANS PETER SIDNEY VOLK MINGER PROPERTIES
8281 BENWOOD CIRCLE 2431 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 790 CARVER BEACH ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CRAIG & PATTY JEAN MAKI ROBERT BUCHLER JOHN & ELIZABETH MASEK
8250 BENWOOD DRIVE 2542 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2200 LUKEWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHARLES& DIANA KIRCHOFF JAMES& KATHRYN LIDDELL KEVIN &SUSAN O'BRIEN
8260 BENWOOD DRIVE 2550 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2201 LUKEWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
THOMAS& AILEEN TIETJEN SCOTT P. LOEHRER CINDY SKACK
12810 PRIMROSE#310 2551 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2209 LUKEWOOD DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARK PRECHT JEFF NELSON JEANETTE SCHMIDT
2403 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2557 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2215 LUKEWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARK& CHRISTINE FISCHER MICHAEL& KRIS MATTSON JERRY& NANCY PARTEN
2407 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2560 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2301 LUKEWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
EDWARD & MELINDA SAMMIS STEVE WATTS BRIAN HOESE
2410 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2563 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2305 LUKEWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RODNEY MELTON WILLIAM LOOMIS ALLAN & LORI BROWN
2413 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2567 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 3283 LAKESHORE COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHASKA, MN 55318
DENNIS &CAROL MEDO GENE HERMES SON THANH NGUYEN
2420 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2571 BRIDLE CREEK TRAIL 2294 STONE CREEK DRIVE
L'HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JEFF FINCH STEVEN&TAMI BRIELMAIER JOHN SWISHER
2304 STONE CREEK DRIVE 2239 STONE CREEK LANE EAST 8420 STONE CREEK ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MURSHID KHAN MICHAEL&LORI JUELICH CHIN NGUYEN
2318 STONE CREEK DRIVE 2246 STONE CREEK LANE EAST 8433 STONE CREEK ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PETE CUNNINGHAM PAUL&SARA MULLANEY RANDY CORFMAN
2332 STONE CREEK DRIVE 2251 STONE CREEK LANE EAST 2031 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOHN& LAURIE SULLIVAN C. PRESTON BROWN DAVE MAENKE
2346 STONE CREEK DRIVE 2260 STONE CREEK LANE EA 2041 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
LISA KIRKPATRICK WILLIAM WYFFELS SCOTT& PEGGY KLEIN
2360 STONE CREEK DRIVE 2263 STONE CREEK LANE EA 2051 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOHN STAPLES MICHAEL& REBECCA GLEASON BRADLEY FOLEY
2374 STONE CREEK DRIVE 2272 STONE CREEK LANE EAST 2061 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
KEVIN&CATHLEEN DILORENZO MICHAEL&LYNNE ALLISON
2382 STONE CREEK 2275 STONE CREEK LANE EAST
LANE W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
MICHAEL&SHERRI VIKESLAND CHRIS&MARY RUMBLE
2227 STONE CREEK LANE EAST 2321 STONE CREEK LANE WEST
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DEAN HELD DOUG & MARIE OUSDIGIAN
2230 STONE CREEK LANE EA 8429 STONE CREEK ROAD
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
DAVID& KATHY FISHER PETER&CLAIRE MITCHELL
2236 STONE CREEK LANE EAST 8430 STONE CREEK ROAD
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
Current Resident Current Resident
2329 LUKEWOOD DR 2357 Stone Creek LN W
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317
Current Resident Current Resident
2351 LUKEWOOD DR 2369 Stone Creek LN W
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Resident Current Resident
2284 Stone Creek LN W 2370 Stone Creek LN W
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Resident Current Resident
2300 Stone Creek LN W 2370 Stone Creek LN W
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Resident Current Resident
2314 Stone Creek LN W 2381 Stone Creek LN W
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Resident Current Resident
2321 Stone Creek LN W 2382 Stone Creek LN W
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 5531
Current Resident
2328 Stone Creek LN W
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Resident
2333 Stone Creek LN W
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Resident
2342 Stone Creek LN W
Chanhassen,MN 55303
Current Resident
2345 Stone Creek LN W
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 5, 1998
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad,Alyson Brooks, Craig Peterson, Matt Burton, and
LuAnn Sidney
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce and Alison Blackowiak
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Cynthia
Kirchoff, Planner I; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Phillip Elkin, Water Resources
Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF 6.39 ACRES FROM A-2,AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
6.39 AACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS; AND VACATION
OF A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ON
LOT 9, BLOCK 1, STONE CREEK 6TH ADDITION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED
EAST OF GALPIN BLVD. JUST NORTH OF STONE CREEK ADDITION,LYNMORE
ADDITION,DAVID D. MOORE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Slutner Tech Design
Mr. & Mrs. Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd.
Laurie Juelich 2246 Stone Creek Lane East
Mrs. DeLorenzo Stone Creek Lane West
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this issue.
Peterson: Thank you. Questions of staff. Sharmin, can you put up for me, I need some help
thoroughly understanding where the private drive is going to go now and in the future. You
spoke of potentially four homes but yet you think five potential. You can do four private homes.
Four homes on a private driveway and you're asking...now,five. That it does go to five.
Al-Jaff: We believe that Mr. Schmidt's property located,we don't have the survey of his
property. We don't have a survey of his property which makes it very difficult for us to prepare
an accurate plan. However,Bluff Creek runs through this property and there are some very steep
slopes. We believe that you could potentially get three additional homes. There is an existing
house. There are three,potentially three additional homes that could be placed on this parcel.
Planning Commission Meeting- August 5, 1998
Now if our calculations are wrong and they could squeeze a fifth parcel on this site, then rather
than putting in a full city street, we're recommending a variance to the private driveway
ordinance to allow sites to be served via private driveway.
Peterson: Is that appropriate to grant that variance now or when that's...?
Al-Jaff: When that subdivision comes in.
Peterson: So really it's relevant to today's?
Al-Jaff: No. We just wanted to bring to your attention and we thought we should address it
now. That in the future when this subdivision comes in, it won't be a surprise to anyone.
Peterson: My understanding, more for my own edification than anything else, condition number
1 we talk about guaranteeing transplanting trees for a minimum of one year. I haven't seen
that... Is that something that's...
Al-Jaff: Whenever we require any type of plantings, we require the applicant to guarantee them
for two growing seasons, which means two years. We wanted to make sure that the same rule
applies for transplanted trees as well. Chances of survival for grown trees is a lot less.
Peterson: ...
Al-Jaff: I said two didn't I. It's one year. It's one full growing seasons.
Peterson: Other questions of staff?
Sidney: Any comments? I guess I had mentioned this. I didn't see the notification and the list of
people notified in the packet so we need that for Council I'm sure.
Peterson: Any questions or comments?
Conrad: Just one. What are the two outlots for?
Al-Jaff: Outlot B is for future development. Outlot A is for parkland.
Conrad: And B, what could be on B?
Al-Jaff: Staff is recommending a private driveway to serve the property to the north and
potentially another building site.
Peterson: Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission?
Steve Slutner: Thank you. My name is Steve Slutner. I'm President of Tech Design, the
engineering firm to represent the parties,the owners. That would be Gil Vander Ham and Dave
2
Planning Commission Meeting-August 5, 1998
Moore are owners of this project. Reviewed significantly I think maybe I should start out your
question about the Schmidt property. One of the things, as we went through the process and we
did meet several times with staff. We met with them. Dave met with them several times before I
ever got involved. We met with staff on December 11th,January 15`h,February 20`h, 24th, 25`h,
27`h So it went through a lot of iterations and I could show you all those iterations but
essentially we started out showing a private drive in the portion of Outlot A. A private drive that
came back through here and serviced four lots in that area. What we were then told by staff, is
that before we were allotted a private drive we had to prove that we could get a public street in
there first and then environmentally if it made more sense to go to a private drive, because we
have to take out a lot of trees or the terrain didn't,that didn't work very well on the terrain,then
what we would do at that point would be able to get a private drive essentially. What we've done
in that case since then too,through that whole process is the Bluff Creek watershed protection,
which you guys are very familiar with, came into light at that point. At first we thought we had
to stay 150 feet from Bluff Creek. Since then obviously it's in the primary zone. Even though
the ordinance hasn't become part of city code yet,we're still saying you know that's fine. We'll
move things to the front but through those determinations it was found that we could potentially
fit 11 lots on this site. I think that's critical because according to that we could fit 11. We could
cluster up to 11 up in front. We're not asking for that by any means. According to that we're
asking for, as you can see, a lot less lots. So when we talk about the Schmidt property, when
that's brought up, I guess it would be my understanding that they would have to show physically
that,because what we did,had to show that they could get a public street in there to serve it first
before they would be allowed a private street. So we would expect the same thing. To answer
your question,and I probably am not in charge of focus here but, get it centered like that. Thank
you. There's a very light line that's shown on here. This is the Schmidt's northern and easterly
property lines right here. It comes from here over to there. And I've overlaid the project onto the
aerial map. The red line that shows right here is actual Bluff Creek. The center line of the creek
essentially. The other red line that I show right here is a 150 foot offset from Bluff Creek. If you
notice their home currently sits in right here and the home actually is within 150 feet at this point.
The green line, which shows up right here, is a 30 foot offset line from the Lynmore subdivision
property line. So you can see there's a very, very narrow band that by ordinance essentially
would be able to be developed. In this area, the band is only about 20 feet wide. So in this area
you can see proportionately it's about 30 to 40 feet wide. So a reason we bring that up is because
there's been a lot of attention. We really came tonight to focus on this subdivision but because a
lot of the recommendations affect this subdivision with relationship to the northern property, we
thought that we should come in and at least address those things. With respect to that,there's
about, if I might go through staffs recommendations and just let you know where we concur and
where we don't concur because I think that's important to you. I agree, we worked with staff
quite extensively and through the process here, Dave also went and talked to all the people in
Stone Creek 6th Addition and talked to a lot of those folks, as many as he could. One of the
promises he made to those people is that, in Dave's words, I'm not going to put a lot of little,
dinky houses in that area. We're going to keep it consistent with Stone Creek. If you look at the
lot sizes, the lot sizes are consistent with more of what you would consider for a normal
subdivision rather than a PUD. The lot sizes are almost all of them are over 15,000 square feet
so even though we're considered by putting it forward in the PUD,we're still staying a lot with
what the R-1 recommendations are. One of the things with Outlot B, if I might focus on that for
3
Planning Commission Meeting- August 5, 1998
a minute. Is this portion is owned by Mr. Schmidt, or by the Schmidts, excuse me. I don't know
who that is in title on. And the rest of this is owned by Mr. Moore and Mr. Vander Ham. The
issue that you have is that there's also a common easement, exit and entrance easement for a
shared driveway. That shared driveway is right at that point. What happens is that that driveway
easement is 60 feet wide, north to south, 200 feet long. And so it actually comes over to about
here and it's shaped like that, the driveway easement. And it's a shared easement. Through that,
and I think that's real critical that that's what's happening with Outlot B. There's been ongoing
negotiations to try to come to some resolve. Nothing's happened to date. The discussions I
believe started in about mid-April and to date there's nothing's that happened. That's why it's
listed as Outlot B. So we go through the staff's recommendations, and especially the
engineering's recommendations. We think we have some solutions that will help with Outlot B.
The other thing that I think has been important and when we saw the letter here essentially is
under Finding number 2. Finding 2 talks about park dedication. Dave clearly has remembered
that he never said that he would dedicate that to the city. He said that he would not develop it
and would move everything out of there. He also said that he would allow, and it's shown on the
plat a trail easement between Lots 3 and 4 and that that trail easement would be allowed all the
way across to join into the park area. That's what Mr. Moore, we don't obviously, you know he
has said through the records now. Now the park people are concerned about the steep slope in
here as far as a trail system and a bridge. So with that we would be removing the trail easement
if they so deemed that they would not desire that at this time. So that is something I guess and
when Dave talked, what he was saying, and what he said is that he would like in exchange for
Outlot A not being developed, that there'd be, and also with the allowance of a trail across there,
that there be some thoughts and consideration towards a park dedication fees. And so that's
probably where things are a little different than what Mr. Moore had stated. And again, you
know we are, we do feel that we're offering something that's going to blend well with the
neighborhoods. Be the same types of homes and that type of thing. Under number 6 in the
Findings. This is on page 5 of the report. Because they're concerned, again just to reiterate that
the no trail easement would be required, we'd drop that between Lots 3 and 4. On page 6,
number 9. The access is from Galpin Road. Eventually the driveway would be eliminated as the
property to the north develops. The way we feel about that is I guess stated that right now the
Schmidt's have access through the land they own to their property and through the easement
that's there currently. If they wish to develop, then they have to get up to what's labeled as
Bridle Creek Circle. That would be across Mr. Moore's land. We're not denying them access
right now. I think that's very important. They have access that's being maintained. If they want
to subdivide, they need to consciously make that decision and enter into negotiations for access
across Outlot B. I think at that point the city will say, okay if you want to subdivide, essentially
we aren't going to allow you access where it is now. You're going to have to somehow get
access up to Bridle Creek Circle. Therefore they should have to negotiate. Dave shouldn't have
to dedicate the land for their potential negotiations. Or for their potential development. We
understand the implications of several entrances, you know from a traffic standpoint. We agree
with that but we feel that right now as it sits, they have access. If they in the future want to look
at subdividing, then they would need to negotiate for access across Outlot 1. So we do differ as
far as dedication versus that, and I think that's very important. That's probably the thing we feel
most strongly about. With regard to the rest of the issues, we really only have two things. Our
resolution that we've come up with, we have a couple different alternates but the one alternate
4
Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998
that we feel would work would be that it's recognized that Lot 7 needs some more width. That's
this lot right here. What we would like to do,we would like to take this line right here, which is
the property line. Extend it out to Bridle Creek Circle and then we would split the area in there
between Lots 6 and 7 to make all those lots so they are acceptable as far as frontage and then all
the lots in the subdivision would also be over 15,000 square feet. The other portion of Outlot B
that lies in front, or along the road frontage here,we think would be a very good place to address
the city engineering department's issues with the potential site for on site storage for storm water
management. We think that that's the best place to do it. With the drainage, the roadway is
designed so that it all comes from here and drains down. We can catch it off the side there and
then take it into the system, you know and size it properly for the standards that the city requires
so those are the things that we would propose. And if you have any questions at this time.
Peterson: Questions of the applicant?
Brooks: I have... What kind of legal guarantees for the park dedication. If they don't dedicate
that land as a park, is there kind of a legal agreement you're going to come into with the city to
say that the area won't be developed. That it will be maintained as a park. I'm not sure,by
doing it this way what we're going to get out of it.
Steve Slutner: I think Mr. Moore, in all honesty you know when we talked prior to the meeting
and on several other occasions, the park dedication fees in this case I think add up to $10,200.00.
For the acreage involved there I think what we're looking at is that he'd be more than happy to
dedicate that but at an appraised value. And even if you took the appraised value and deducted
off the park dedication fees from that, that that would be an appropriate mechanism to dedicate
rather than to dedicate this land for essentially$10,200.00. It's just not, it's not a value that
really, from an appraised standpoint, is very reasonable.
Brooks: I guess what I wonder,you know if he ever sells the property.
Steve Slutner: He's willing at this point to dedicate it but not in lieu of park dedication fees.
Does that make sense?
Sidney: You want additional compensation.
Steve Slutner: Yeah, and at appraised value. You know have the city come out with an appraiser
and you know then Mr. Moore could potentially have it appraised too and come to some terms.
But just in lieu of park dedication fees I think is by all realistic terms is what dollar values go
with land space is probably low. So that's,he's willing to dedicate but it would be at an
appraised value and the city would have the ability to come out and appraise.
Peterson: ...certainly sounds logical. Is that something that we've done before?
Al-Jaff: That's something that we need to talk to the Park Director about.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998
Steve Slutner: Before we talked about just the trail and that's why, you know give you a trail
easement. That's no problem. And then at that point what Dave's thoughts were was, that each
one of the property owners would own one portion of this. It would be kind of essentially
become common area with no ability to put any improvements on it essentially and write that in
the covenants but it would have the trail easement across that. In lieu of that, being where it's
proximity here, we think that the dedication at an appraised value would be a viable opportunity
for the city. That's the other option is just to take it to common area and put restrictions on it.
So it's not like he wants to necessarily do something with it.
Peterson: ...mean you can work with staff prior to the Council.
Steve Slutner: Sure, sure. We just wanted to bring it up since the recommendation was to go on
record for that.
Peterson: Understand. Other questions?
Conrad: Yeah, I need a recap. You talked about their findings but really in terms of the staff
recommendations, can you rego, can you go back through the staff recommendations and tell me
the issues that you have? And are they resolvable tonight?
Steve Slutner: Sure. Go right through, right down the line. Would that work for you? Okay.
Conrad: You had three or four so go through the recommendations.
Steve Slutner: Sure. Number 1 is no problem.
Conrad: Don't talk to me about the ones you're okay with. Go to the ones that you have...
Steve Slutner: Okay. I don't have these highlighted sir so I'm going to have to just go down. I
highlighted the findings.
Conrad: Okay. I assume 5 is a problem.
Steve Slutner: Correct. 5 is the one that we just discussed.
Conrad: Can you resolve that tonight?
Steve Slutner: Can we resolve that tonight?
Conrad: Yes.
Steve Slutner: It sounds like not necessarily. We're willing to work with the city. We just want
to let you know our position.
Conrad: Okay.
6
Planning Commission Meeting-August 5, 1998
Steve Slutner: And it's willing to dedicate but it's at a different value.
Conrad: Yeah. Okay.
Steve Slutner: The other option would be to, you know it's a little harder because it's out of
public works and stuff but you've got your SAC and WAC and all that but those are,I
understand those are different pots so that's probably not really a viable option. Lot, or number
8. Lot 7. We've addressed that. That we would make it wider. So that's okay. We've come up
with number 9 I didn't address sir and that would be with regard to the grading of the cul-de-sac.
If you could zoom in in this area right here. The Fire Marshal's concern is this,essentially I
believe Dave would be this inside radius here. Is really the issue. And what we think is,Dave
made a presentation in the package which they've discussed and would work. I just saw that this
afternoon so I haven't had a lot of time to think about it. The other issue is that you know we
could extend, get rid of this little, I guess this little point of right-of-way right here. We could
bring that across like this and then put a larger radius in here to, came in and did something like
that. That would also work as well. So we're willing to work with the city on that. Okay. I just
wanted to bring that back up. It's something that we need to talk to Dave and the Fire folks
about so. One of the things is with number 18. With utility easements. We think we have a
route that works better and one of the issues that was brought up is that we go out and do more
survey work that encompasses the whole area. We have included that,or completed that study
and come down, right now there's a stub down here on Lukewood. Is where the stub is but also
across the way there is an existing manhole. This stretch from here to here is about 750 feet I
believe Dave. Somewhere in there. And you've got several issues there. You've got the bike
path. You've got a chain link fence right at the top of a slope. The slope is probably a 2 to 1. At
the bottom of it you can see you've got significant plantings and you have Bluff Creek. What
we're proposing, and we obviously need to talk to the engineering staff about this, is that from
the last manhole here would be to bore underneath Galpin and then come down and connect into
this existing manhole here. We think that environmentally it's much more feasible to do that.
Less disruption to this area along here,which is a pretty sensitive area. With the bike path and
with the creek and there's also wetlands in there too so we think that this is a much better
solution over here. Again we have to take care with them so that kind of takes care of point 18.
And the last point,point 25 is the other one that we disagree with. We don't disagree that from
an access standpoint that it might be the best thing to do in the future. We just kind of, if there's
some negotiations to be had,they should be negotiated. It shouldn't be dedicated. Okay. And I
will tell you that I know Dave has spent lots of time discussing things with the Schmidt's and
trying to come to some resolve...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Al-Jaff: One simple example...was Lake Lucy Estates. The Randall's property. Future
development of that parcel. We required that the applicant... Now in this case, one of the
things...having this subdivision provide the public right-of-way. However, that's...and you
would have additional setbacks from the right-of-way. With a private drive...but again we've
7
Planning Commission Meeting- August 5, 1998
already looked at future access to the adjoining property... There are many examples around the
city that reflect that.
Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please.
Burton moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state
your name and address please.
Roger Schmidt: Good evening. My name is Roger Schmidt. I'm at 8301 Galpin Boulevard and
that's the property directly to the north of the property under consideration tonight. And I have
read the staff report and my concerns, I'm just going to go over some of the concerns in the staff
report. Some of them have already been discussed here so I don't know when things may change
but I'd probably take them in the order that I consider of importance, if that's okay. First of all
the request for an easement, the 20 foot easement along the westerly side of my property for
additional sewer. Now again, we go back when they put the sewer in along Galpin Boulevard.
They got a 27 foot easement at the time and now they're asking for another 20 foot over and
above that and that would be pretty difficult for me to consider because I've done an awful lot of
plantings down there and it's pretty much mature trees and things like this that are shielding me
from the road and I'd have to look very closely at that but again, at this point I don't know
exactly where that easement would lie. I mean that 20 foot would lie. It would have to be staked
out and looked at to make that decision. So and I'd like to get, have an idea of what the total
impact of that could be. Okay. The second one probably would be the road easement that we
just got done discussing. Again there I think I'd have to see a layout to see how that would work
coming into my drive area that I'm using right now. I sometimes if we're talking, you know for
the size, for the amount of easement that they're asking there, would they be able to get you
know fire trucks and so forth to negotiate some of those sharp curves that are necessary to go
from Galpin into that easement area and then down into my drive area. But that you know would
have to be looked at. I think too I prefer what I have right now from the standpoint of
maintenance and everything else. When it comes winter time and I'm blowing snow and so
forth, I think that as long as I am there, I would prefer that the driveway stays the same because if
my driveway stays I wouldn't have to use a north/south which would probably be much more
subject to drifting and things like this. It'd be a little bit more of a chore for me to try to keep up
with. Let's see. Another, along there is a utility easement that was also brought up on the south
side of our present drive that runs up into the property that's going to be developed and I guess
I'm, you know some of that utility easement serves my property, electrical and I guess I'd like to
know how that would be handled. At this point where it is right now is you know is fine for me.
I mean I'd prefer it there. If it were to be moved,you know depending upon where it would be
moved, and how that would be handled and things like that. I would have to know that.
Drainage. I'm looking at the staff report. They talk about drainage and they address, I think they
say the drainage is primarily to the east, south and west. East, south and north I guess and
they've kind of addressed the drainage to the south and the drainage to the east but there's
nothing in the report to say what would happen to the drainage north, which I would be
8
Planning Commission Meeting-August 5, 1998
concerned about and their slope is down towards my property and I guess I'd like a little bit more
definition of what the drainage might be there. One question in reading the report and maybe
that can be answered now but they were talking about, they use the term grading limits and I
don't know what that term means and where those grading limits are located. They define some
things that can be done within the grading limits and I don't quite understand that. Another
question I would have is what the intentions are, if any or if there's been any consideration given
to the trees along the southern, or the northern. Well my southern boundary. The northern
boundary of the property to be developed. I mean has anybody considered that? Are those trees
subject to removal as long as they're on that property or has there been some consideration
saying that we'd like to maintain,they're pretty mature trees. Deciduous trees. Maintain that for
some screening. And then the Bluff Creek overlay. I might make a correction here. The
drainage area down that's on my property has been referred to a couple times tonight as Bluff
Creek. It really isn't Bluff Creek. It's in the drainage area but Bluff Creek is substantially,you
know is quite east of us so that's just a correction. But I guess the Bluff Creek overlay certainly
does affect, the way,the last I heard... certainly does affect the property but I again,I guess I
can't make any kind of decisions on what can be done or not done until that is resolved I guess is
what it turns out to be. I've heard,when I,just a little bit of background. When they put the
sewer in, and incidentally I thought when they put the sewer in that that was going to be ready for
hook-up but obviously that's not the case. I mean I thought that all the property along there
could hook directly into sewer but that I found out in the last month or so that you have to run an
extra line and then you know, to hook in to get down to a pumping station. But with,I lost my
train of thought there but with oh. When they put, I was assessed for 7 lots when they put the
sewer in and I questioned that at the time and then you know,now in the meantime we're
thinking there's only maybe one more developable lot on the property. Now staff comes up with
3,you know make another 3 or 4 so I really don't know and it...a lot on what that Bluff Creek
overlay, how that turns out. But the thing is is that I think there's at least two additional
developable lots on that property. And again, I would like to, I would very much, from what I
know right now, I would like to service those through the existing drive that's been there for 30
years or more, you know which has worked out pretty fine obviously. I know staff has told me,
you know to limit the exits onto Galpin but I would prefer to keep that. I believe that's all I have
at this point. Thank you.
Peterson: ...trees and the driveway...highlighted questions.
Al-Jaff: As far as the trees go, in the rear of the property to the north. The trees are in this area
that Mr. Schmidt is referring to and these are the grades right here. The applicant is staying
outside those,the grading limits are outside. They will not be impacting the trees.
Hempel: If I could just add onto that maybe though. Those are the grading plans to prepare the
house pad sites. Now if a house comes in that's larger than that house pad or a different
configuration, it could alter those grading limits a little bit. There is a setback on the property
that's 30 feet that would limit the building area to that. So whatever trees within that 30 feet
most likely would stay unless there was additional grading required for a foundation,walk out
type home whatever.
9
Planning Commission Meeting-August 5, 1998
Al-Jaff: ...require a preservation easement. However...
Peterson: How about the driveway? Does the existing driveway service two lots...
Hempel: Mr. Chairman,planning commissioners. The existing driveway currently shares both
residents come out onto Galpin Boulevard which is a county road, under county jurisdiction.
They have to approve any modifications, intensifying the use. Changing locations, all that.
Given the location's sight lines for the driveway are acceptable for one or two residents at this
time but knowing that there's this additional access proposed to make a four way intersection
with Bridle Creek...turning movements of two driveways into one intersection is a much
preferred alignment. As far as the north/south alignment grade wise...but it does look feasible.
Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission?
Laurie Juelich: I'm Laurie Juelich and I live at 2246 Stone Creek Lane East. I'm President of
the homeowners association. We had a brief discussion about this and I'd just like to make a few
comments on it. First of all we have some questions on the notification of this meeting tonight.
Several people on Stone Creek Lane West did not receive the letter or notification of the meeting
tonight. Mainly the DeLorenzo's who have the, I don't know if you have that map here but they
have the main easement to, of the drawing that we have here, of the cul-de-sac that you need to
come through on. Unfortunately he had to be out of state tonight so we had this discussion. He
did not receive this letter so I don't know what your notification process is but he would have
appreciated knowing about it. First of all our first concern is property values. From what was
going to be in there. Again it does seem to be fairly consistent with us at Stone Creek. Second
of our concern is the drainage. There's several problems with drainage alone in Stone Creek.
Unfortunately we were left with grades that were not to survey so that's going to, however this
builder does it, is going to have to take in some half grades on Stone Creek so that we don't have
drainage problems into the Stone Creek development. The third thing we have a concern about is
the tree conservation and we would like to see some type of commitment to maintaining...Outlot
B, or A. So that the trees, is that A? We'd really like to see a commitment to keeping that treed
and preserved. Chanhassen is very strong in it's commitment to preservation. I myself have a
wooded lot and I can only go back 30 feet on my lot so I would, we would prefer that. All the
lots that border this development did pay a premium lots for the trees. The treed lots so they
would appreciate them staying there. Also that's a beautiful area. Wonderful ravine if you
haven't had a chance to take a walk back there. Deer live back there. Lots of wildlife. It would
be nice to keep that. The other thing is the trail that you have noted in here would be very
redundant to the trail that is being broken right now in that area. I don't know if you're familiar,
if we need to talk to Todd Hoffman. They are, it's part of the trail system...two trails coming
into a park which would be very redundant. But again we would like to, I would like to stress,
you need to talk to Mr. DeLorenzo who has that access that you will need. He would like to be
contacted on that. But if we can see some commitment into conservation of trees and that
wooded area, it would be much appreciated by the homeowners of Stone Creek. Thank you.
Peterson: Can I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please.
10
Planning Commission Meeting-August 5, 1998
Brooks moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. LuAnn,your thoughts and comments.
Sidney: Well I'll start off. I really appreciate the comments from the applicant and also from
the neighbors and I really commend the developer for looking out for the best interest of the city
in preserving Outlot A. I think that's an important asset that the city will really be able to use as
a passive park and I know that's a subject of a lot of discussion about how to increase the number
of those types of parks in Chanhassen. One comment, I noticed that bridal,the other kind of
bridal and I saw that a lot on the plan. And that always comes up. And I guess just basically I
have no problem with the concept of the development. However, I guess I feel like there's a lot
of loose ends in this proposal and I see the issue of Outlot A as one of them. The cul-de-sac
design and Outlot B and I guess if it's consistent with what has been done in the past, I'd be okay
with sending this to Council but I still feel like we could clean this applicant up more if the other
commissioners feel that way so I'll leave it at that.
Burton: I pretty much mirror what LuAnn said. The staff report notes that the development is
consistent with all plans and ordinances. Preserves natural conditions to the greatest extent
feasible. ...balance between the amount and arrangement of open space...internal circulation.
That and the comments tonight. The only issue I think is still out there is Outlot A. I don't know
if we can resolve that tonight but I think that it should be preserved as a park or...I don't know
how to articulate that as a condition but...comments that I have. Otherwise...
Peterson: Allyson.
Brooks: I agree with LuAnn and Matt. I think it's a good project. I like the fact that it's
environmentally sensitive and that we're clustering and keeping the Bluff Creek area,which
we've talked about a lot. I also agree with LuAnn,there are loose ends. The applicant way
saying he talked to the neighbor. Mr. Schmidt had a lot of questions so I'm not sure what was
discussed. I'd like to see,maybe a few more discussions for Mr. Schmidt's comfort and also for
the homeowner's comfort. It sounds like that they're resolvable issues. They're just out there
and they haven't been taken care of. Maybe even a presentation from the engineering consultant
to help resolve some of these issues. I know Mr. Schmidt's issues could probably be resolvable.
It sounded like what's my property going to look like after I give you some of these easements.
Trees are going to be lost. I think probably easy answers and you guys should be able to take
care of that. Otherwise I mean I like the concept as a whole and as for the Outlot A issue,I think
that's probably not for us here tonight. That's probably something to work out with the city and
we may be able to, maybe we can redo a condition. I don't know if we can redo a condition to
sort of say, Outlot A shall be granted to the city in accordance with an agreement to be
established later. Something that will at least keep the project going but allow... And that's it.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: Yeah,my only issue, I think staff can resolve some of the comments that were made
tonight. They're valid comments and it appears that they're taken care of. Item number 5, Outlot
11
Planning Commission Meeting -August 5, 1998
A is a big deal and I don't know that I can go ahead and say fix it. It is...the leverage is if it's
dedicated, then that's one thing. There's something wrong with the agreement right now. The
applicant is thinking one thing. Staff is thinking another and I don't believe that it's been
resolved so I'm not sure I want it to go ahead.
Peterson: I too, I think it's a good project. My only concern with again moving ahead is I don't
like to give Council...and that's a big dangling, point number 5. Outlot A. Sharmin, I look for
your guidance. If you feel as though we can send something tonight in the form of an action and
we can move ahead, I can be convinced but right now...without that being resolved.
Al-Jaff: How about if we couldn't reach an agreement, we would bring it back to the Planning
Commission? But Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director would meet with the applicant. They
could find some middle ground where they could agree to move it forward... Basically coming in
with a new concept rather than, because it wouldn't be what you approved tonight.
Conrad: That's giving up control. That's okay. I'm not sure the negotiations, when the
applicant dedicates something and park it means they're giving us that and what are we giving up
so the Park and Rec is going to negotiate something else. I'm not sure.
Al-Jaff: Could I add one thing? This parcel will be landlocked so as far as future development
of the parcel,just briefly looking at the plan, I don't believe they will have access to this parcel to
develop it. To be an active park. You could put a condition on there that it shall be used for an
open space.
Peterson: Essentially what we're doing here is a simple tax plan...and if they couldn't, bring it
back...less than a full dedication. All right, with that discussion may I have a motion?
Brooks: ...on 5 so guide me Ladd. No? You're no help. Okay. I move the Planning
Commission recommends approval of general concept and preliminary PUD Development Plan
Approval of 6.39 acres from Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development
Residential, Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide 6.39 acres into 7 single family lots and two
outlots as shown in the plans dated June 22, 1998 with the following conditions 1 through 25
with an amendment to number 5. And the amendment being, Outlot A shall be reserved through
park dedication in accordance with an agreement with the city to be established. To be
established if agreement is not reached, the plan comes back before the Planning...
Conrad: Say that one more time?
Brooks: Oh yeah,thanks.
Al-Jaff: If the parcel wasn't dedicated as parkland, basically it comes back.
Peterson: With that is there a second?
Burton: Well, if it wasn't dedicated as parkland...
12
Planning Commission Meeting-August 5, 1998
Brooks: Do we want to go that far or do we want to just let them negotiate whatever...they want
to come to and if they don't want to negotiate. Leave it open...
Peterson: Discussion.
Brooks moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
General Concept and Preliminary PUD Development Plan Approval for Rezoning of 6.39
acres from A-2,Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-
Residential and Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide 6.39 acres into 7 single family lots
and 2 outlots as shown on the plans dated June 22, 1998,with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall guarantee any transplanted trees for a minimum of one year.
Transplanted trees shall be counted as replacement plantings.
2. Buffer yard plantings shall be installed along Galpin Boulevard. Minimum planting
requirements are 4 over story trees, 8 under story trees, and 16 shrubs.
3. Install tree protection fencing at grading limits prior to construction.
4. The accessory structure located on proposed Lot 6 shall be removed prior to recording of
the plat.
5. Outlot A shall be reserved through park dedication and fee title to Outlot A shall be
granted to the city in exchange for full park fee credit. Park dedication shall be
established through an agreement with the City. If agreement cannot be reached,
the item will come back before the Planning Commission.
6. Building Official Conditions:
a. Revise the preliminary grading & utility plan to show the proposed dwelling pads with
standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage floor
elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
b. Obtain demolition, moving and/or road use permits for existing buildings to be relocated.
This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
7. The proposed single family residential development of 4.25 net developable acres is
responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,400 and a water quantity fee of
$8,415. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
8. Lot 7 shall maintain a 90 foot lot width. If the 90 feet can not be achieved, staff
recommends the applicant be granted a variance.
9. Fire Marshal Conditions:
13
Planning Commission Meeting-August 5, 1998
a. Install a fire hydrant at the intersection of Bridle Creek Court and Galpin Blvd.
b. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to
insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The
cul-de-sac as currently designed will not allow proper turning around of fire
apparatus. Submit redesigned dimensions to Fire Marshal and City Engineer for
review and approval. Fire Marshal will not approve building permits until
redesign of cul-de-sac is submitted.
d. If trees are to be felled on site, they must either be chipped or hauled off site. No
burning permits will be issued.
10. The plans shall be revised to include the following:
a. The grading plans shall include the type of dwelling, lowest floor and garage floor
elevations.
b. Show existing well and septic site with provisions for protection.
c. Drain tile behind the curb in accordance with City detail plates 5232 and 5234 to
address household sump pump discharge.
d. Show sanitary sewer extension from Lukewood Drive including existing
topographic features.
e. Extend erosion control fence along the west side of Lot 5 and add tree
preservation fencing.
f. The cul-de-sac configuration/alignment shall be revised to accommodate turning
movements of the City's emergency vehicles.
g. Provide traffic signage and street light locations.
11. The existing home on Lot 5 shall connect to City sewer and water within 12 months after
the utilities are accepted by the City. If the existing well and/or septic system fails sooner
or is damaged during construction, the home shall be connected within 30 days after City
acceptance.
14
Planning Commission Meeting-August 5, 1998
12. The applicant's engineer shall verify that the existing storm sewer system in Galpin
Boulevard is designed to accommodate the additional runoff generated by this
development. In addition,the downstream water quality pond shall be increased in size
to handle the additional runoff generated from the site.
13. During design and construction of a home for Lot 3 the surface water runoff must be
managed to avoid flooding of the home. The location of doors and windows should be
two feet above the existing/proposed grade along the south side of the home.
14. At time of building permit issuance each lot except Lot 5 will be charged a sewer and
water hook-up charge. Should Outlot B be platted in the future, this parcel will also be
subject to sewer and water hook-up charges.
15. The existing home on Lot 5 shall change their street address once Bridle Creek Court is
paved with bituminous. In addition, the existing driveway access shall be removed and
restored with topsoil, seed and mulch.
16. If the exporting or importing of earthwork material is required, the developer shall supply
staff with a haul route and traffic control plan for review and approval.
17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City on the final
plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The minimum
easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
18. The developer shall be responsible for the extension of sanitary sewer service to the site
and acquisition of the necessary temporary and/or permanent utility easements. If the
developer is unable to acquire the necessary utility easements, the plat shall be considered
premature for development.
19. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management
Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for
review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal.
20. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
21. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted three weeks prior to final plat consideration
for staff review and City Council approval.
22. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
15
Planning Commission Meeting- August 5, 1998
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-
developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
23. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
24. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department and , Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
25. A 30-foot wide strip of land shall be dedicated or deeded to the City over Outlot B for
future driveway access to the property to the north."
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Peterson: ...that's more of a side discussion and I think they'd be happy...
Conrad: Do we have the mailing list of where we sent notification?
Al-Jaff: I don't have it in the file but I will have it for City Council.
Conrad: We always have that...
Peterson: ...
Burton moved, Brooks seconded to recommend approval of Vacation of a portion of a
utility and drainage easement located on Lot 9, Block 1, Stone Creek 6th Addition, as shown
in the plans dated received June 22, 1998,with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a legal description of the Utility and Drainage easement
proposed to be vacated.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 8,249.5 SO. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL BUILDING
WITH THE MAJOR TENANT BEING VIDEO UPDATE ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SEVEN
16
CITY O F
PC DATE: Oct. 7, 1998
ClIANIIASSEN CC DATE: Oct. 26, 1998
CASE#: 97-10 SUB
By: Al-Jaff:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat Approval to Consolidate and replat 126,565 square feet
into 2 lots and.5 outlots, with a variance to the depth requirements,
Medical Arts Addition
Z LOCATION: North of West 78th Street and west of Colonial Square.
a
U
J APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen
a 690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen,MN 55317 I 1111
PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business Distnct
ACREAGE: 126,565 square feet
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N- PUD; Heritage Apartments
S -CBD; commercial
E-CBD; commercial
W- CBD; commercial
Q
WATER AND SEWER: Available
In
ji PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Property is developed and contains two buildings.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
Medical Arts Facility Phase II
September 28, 1992
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On May 22, 1989, the City Council approved the preliminary plat and site plan application for the
Medical Arts Building (Attachment # 5). Preliminary plats are valid for one year. If within one
year the subdivision has not been final platted, the subdivision becomes void, which is the case
here. Therefore, staff must process the subdivision again. The site plan review was approved with
two buildings to be built in two phases. Phase I building was completed in the fall of 1990. As a
part of phase I, the applicant negotiated with the HRA and the two parties came to an agreement
that the city perform all public improvements on the site as well as replat the property. The city has
performed all of the work such as building a parking lot, sidewalks, installing lights, landscaping,
etc. The city completed the public improvements with phase II. The plans for phase II were
approved by the City Council on September 28, 1992. The proposed application will complete the
platting of the property.
SUBDIVISION
This request is for preliminary plat approval to consolidate and replat 126,565 square feet into 2
lots and 5 outlots, Medical Arts Addition. Attached is a map with Parcel Identification Numbers
(PID) and an ownership list showing the area proposed lot for consolidation and replat. The site
is located north of West 78`h Street and west of Colonial Square. Lots 1 and 2 contain Phase I
and II of the Chanhassen Medical Arts Buildings while the outlots contain parking lots and
driveways. Access to the site is gained via two access points on West 78th Street through a right-
in/right-out only and one on Great Plains Boulevard.
The lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance with the exception of the lot
depth. The ordinance requires a 100 foot depth. Both lots maintain a depth of 97 feet. Staff
considered adjusting the depth to meet ordinance requirements, however, this will result in the lot
line encroaching into the parking lot. The buildings are existing with no future expansions to the
north. We do not foresee any adverse affects in approving this variance.
Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the
preliminary plat with a variance to the lot depth requirements and subject to conditions.
PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION
The overall parking for the project was completed with Phase I which amounts to 299 stalls. An
additional 18 stalls was built with Phase II. The main entrance to the project is located between
Phase I and II. The second access is located in front of the Riviera parking lot, the third access is
gained off of Great Plains Boulevard into the Colonial Shopping Center, to the Professional
Building area.
Medical Arts Facility Phase II
September 28, 1992
Page 3
LANDSCAPING/LIGHTING
All landscaping and lighting was placed by the city with Phase I.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES
All work was performed by the city as part of a public improvement project.
PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION
All fees have been paid at the time when the building permits were requested.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Ordinance Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 2
Building Height No Max. Height 2 stories 1 story
Building Setback N-0' E-0' N-20'E-8.65' N-20' E-8'
S-0' W-0' S-3' W-8.65' S-3' W-8'
Hard surface No Max. Coverage
Coverage
Lot Area 10,000 S.F. 19,594 20,176
Lot Frontage 100 Feet 202 Feet 208 Feet
Lot Depth 100 Feet 97 Feet* 97 Feet*
Outlot A 4,004 S.F.
Outlot B 5,520 S.F.
Outlot C 38,373 S.F.
Outlot D 19,586 S.F.
Outlot E 3,977 S.F.
West 78th St. R/W 15,335 S.F.
* The ordinance requires a minimum lot depth of 100 feet. Both lots have a depth of 97
feet. Staff is recommending approval of the depth variance.
Medical Arts Facility Phase II
September 28, 1992
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to consolidate and replat
126,565 square feet into 2 lots and 5 outlots, with a variance to the depth requirements, Medical
Arts Addition, as shown in plans dated September 4, 1998."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Existing layout of parcels.
2. Public Hearing Notice.
3. Plat.
0
Posoic
il,
•••?s
•eo,
N->>
00
25-7900280 111 1
-'s �sO 25-0121710
%76,0
'moo
00
N i
01
O iiftior �
Ni
0
CO
O
O
cc) 25-0121800
Film
25-0121100
Aim - immAjr. :il is
11
I
COMPANY ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 OCCADDR1 OCCADDR2 PIN
CHANHASSEN MEDICAL BLDG PO BOX 250 470 WEST PID# 25-0121900 25-0121900
CITY OF CHANHASSEN HRA 690 COULTER DRIVE 484 WEST 78TH 25-0121300
CHANHASSEN MEDICAL BLDG PO BOX 250 470 WEST 78TH 25-0121800
CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS II 470 WEST 78TH PO BOX 250 480 WEST 78TH 25-0121500
CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS 470 WEST 78TH STR. 510 WEST 78TH 25-0121700
AXEL'S OF CHANHASSEN ATTN: CHARLIE 1318_ 560 WEST 78TH 25-1720020
CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS II 470 WEST 78TH ST. PID# 25-7900280 25-7900280
CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS II 470 WEST 78TH ST. PID# 25-0121400 25-0121400
AREA PERIMETER PID ADDR_NO ST_NAME TYPE SUFI
8983.62992 392.47949 690
105.00065 44.00027 0
5943.60103 318.21182 25-0121100 0
1395.00863 216.00134 25-0121300 0
7043.39872 340.86982 25-0121400 0
10686.33014 413.74693 25-0121500 480 78TH ST W
35515.73799 778.62823 25-0121700 500 78TH ST
509.58574 159.60947 25-0121710 0
6013.22338 319.78584 25-0121800 0
38840.06128 861.83508 25-0121900 0
14006.86738 487.11421 25-1720020 560 78TH ST
16180.91741 733.79403 25-1720030 0
9205.37831 384.09622 25-1730020 440 78TH ST 44
23930.24411 628.87480 25-1730040 0
7789.61663 546.62781 25-7900280 0
2..1
AUG 27 '92 08:54 BRW INC ` p "' -s= 20-•-z--
3 ,I 'i,Z0d10 S N1` • 1 •
of� ZO'98 J 0018 \i :- 9..- ' __0,. rc of$
f�. 4.....;
LI' :n
• 4 f a w U— = U l
wN `�1.;
a `� M cv
hi hi
wn 1
ra
ru aon+ °°' + — Hl�!0!\„
1, 00.09 _
I 1.. b
t} J
1I r,?_--4?-tN PJ M/71UA Ow J7rAppJ -1/4„,‘ *:,3:.A, trl� ::• `013
\ ii;
° i
I (\IS a1
i r-
1 I1
` \ \ t•. H
1'
00 S 1' " N 3 „1'1,8;200 S
2____,.°L1-1 1� .---•••-•-. 00 Inc
CI
-
s
Lan n
_4-”" sfit
I •
••
01 il a
k.iLLI .
4-_
p
� zn
1.•-'-.,:•4 y .v
ar k-cO4
f.`I. ....,;"F .•.tom. *.J k n
14
w 5�4� ...4":1%�'e.,` wk r hI
M ' ,...
IS�J
7 1i 11^ I
noi
a _
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 1 nia FeT-ail .o�
PLANNING COMMISSION • est 76 h S I
Wednesday, October 7, 1998
MI r- _
at 7:00 p.m. Q •G - w
City Hall Council Chambers wH Y �� — 1 ..
690 City Center Drive ii. 11Pgftra 7
n--- C I
wil ill% _ (
El -
I l 0_11 W 78th St
SUBJECT: Request for Consolidation g,' W ----i'
and Replat Lots 7 0 1 I � ESE
S
APPLICANT: :::::a:::
OCATION: west 0 1 gir
LAW
of Colonial Square ) L I
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, City of Chanhassen, is requesting consolidation and replat of 126,565 sq. ft. into
2 lots and 5 outlots, Medical Arts Addition, located north of West 78th Street and west of
Colonial Square.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1 , Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 24, 1998.
CHANHASSEN MEDICAL BLDG DEAN WALLENTINE ROBERT& DAWN BRASCH
PO BOX 250 507 CHAN VIEW 7610 IROQUOIS
470 WEST 78TH STREET CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY CHARLES R WICHTERMAN LISA&SCOTT BRADY
ATTN: TERRY 509 CHAN VIEW 7611 IROQUOIS
308 W 78TH STREET CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
BLOOMBERG COMPANIES ART KERBER JOHN R. RYAN
•;�.;. -M �. .:�r��IVA,CVt. AR.'y-A,41;1!c
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,IAN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
JAMES M MARTIN JOHN HAVLIK LAURA A LARSON
3740 UNION TERRACE LANE 513 CHAN VIEW 7615 IROQUOIS
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55441 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
HERITAGE APARTMENTS JAMES M MARTIN MARIETTA LITTFIN
425 CHAN VIEW 3740 UNION TERRACE LANE PO BOX 214
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55441 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHAN VIEW ESTATES 1-111 COUNTRY CLEAN DENIS SCHMIEG
PHILLIP HILLMAN P.O. BOX 162 7610 KIOWA
4900 NINE MILE CREEK PK CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437
MIKE KERBER LINDA ORWOLL BETTY MANTEUFFEL
500 CHAN VIEW 7610 HURON, P.O. BOX 883 7611 KIOWA
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
MARK SCHLENK CHANHASSEN GUEST SUITES IVAN PAYNE
501 CHAN VIEW P.O. BOX 64 7612 KIOWA
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
RICHARD RASMUSSEN DAVE BOETTCHER THOMAS BALLALATAK
503 CHAN VIEW 7608 IROQUOIS 7613 KIOWA
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GAIL BECK THOMAS KURTZ RALPH FUHRMANN
505 CHAN VIEW 7609 IROQUOIS 7614 KIOWA
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
FRANK KOHMAN CITY OF CHANHASSEN HRA
7615 KIOWA, PO BOX 285 690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
FAYE HEDTKE BLOOMBERG COMPANIES INC.
7611 LAREDO DRIVE P.O. BOX 730
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
SHARON EISCHENS AXEL'S OF CHANHASSEN
ATTN: CHARLIE BURROWS
vY*X
CHANHASSEN,MN 553117 ti��us��ues irsitaiti>42ri\�
MENDOTA,MN 55150
GEORGE HASSMAN NATIONAL LODGING COMPANIES, INC
7615 LAREDO DRIVE 9855 WEST 78TH STR.
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
WEIS ASSET MGMT INC CHANHASSEN BOWL
CHANHASSEN RETAIL LTMD PARTNERSHIP 581 WEST 78TH STREET
PO BOX 386056 CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438-6056
CAMEO CLEANERS
400 WEST 78TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH
7801 PARK DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
COLONIAL SQUARE, LLC
C/O LOTUS REALTY SERVICES, INC.
P.O. BOX 235
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN REALTY CO
C/O PEGGY RILEY
3700 ZENITH AVE.SO.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55410
CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS II
470 WEST 78TH STREET#260
PO BOX 250
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317