2016 Response to Erhart request for boundary changeMay 19, 2015
Mr. Tim Erhart
RE: Bluff Creek Overlay District
Dear Mr. Earhart,
This letter is meant to be illustrative of the purpose and delineation of the Bluff Creek Overlay District,
especially as it pertains to your property located east of Powers Boulevard and north of Pioneer Trail.
The Bluff Creek Overlay District first came into existence in March of 1997 as the end product of the
Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. The plan identified five primary goals and
these goals were further resolved based upon a variety of factors. They are as follows:
1. Protection, restoration and enhancement of natural resources. This goal sought to divide the
watershed into regions and set management goals and techniques for these regions to protect
habitat and water quality.
2. Acquire and develop a continuous greenway corridor for aesthetics, recreation, water quality
protection and wildlife habitat preservation.
3. Minimize and/or avoid the impacts of development pressures.
4. Provide educational opportunities for all ages.
5. Development of a Natural Resources Management Plan that spans multiple jurisdictions.
These realizations were supported and/or expounded upon in the 1997 Bluff Creek Corridor Feasibility
Study and then again in the 2009 Bluff Creek TMDL Biological Stressor Identification Report, the 2013
Bluff Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Report: Turbidity and Fish Bioassessment
Impairments and Implementation Plan. All these reports supported the basic underlying premise that
the cause for the degradation of Bluff Creek is the urbanization of the contributing watershed and
subsequent alterations to the flow regime. The last identified
The map currently maintained by the City as a GIS layer as well as contained within the Bluff Creek
Natural Resources Management Plan is prima facie evidence but is not considered the definitive
boundary. A landowner, developer, city representative or other may present evidence as to why the
boundary should be placed in a specific location. This argument must consider the following:
1. Drainage boundaries. If the site does not drain into the Bluff Creek than it should not be
included in the BCOD. Drainage does not need to be a direct connection but must simply have a
hydraulic nexus — culvert, ditch, overland sheet flow or other conveyance.
2. Existence of native communities. Does the area have a unique or protected natural resource
that serves to meet the objectives of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan?
a. Wetlands provide surface water detention, water quality, flood abatement, habitat and
educational opportunities.
b. Woodlands provide abstraction and decrease runoff to Bluff Creek. They limit erosion
and promote infiltration which can benefit base flows within the creek. They also
provide habitat and aesthetic value.
c. Prairie and meadow areas also promote infiltration thereby decreasing runoff, scour,
erosion, flashiness within the channel and other benefits such as base flow within Bluff
Creek.
3. Topography. Are bluffs, steep slopes or other land that are susceptible to erosion and mass soil
movement present?
4. Connectivity. Will this site serve continuation of the green corridor, a trail corridor or other
recreational or educational purpose?
With the original 1996 plan, the BCOD was approximately as show in red in Figure 1. The shaded green
shows the current BCOD per the proposed Fairview limits. These boundaries are overlaid upon the 1991
aerial photograph showing the conditions that existed at the time the BCOD was created.
Figure 1. Site conditions in 1991 with current BCOD area in
green, original western limit of BCOD in red and proposed
boundary from Westwood exhibit in yellow.
I
Figure 2. Site conditions in 2014 with current BCOD area in
green, original western limit of BCOD in red and proposed
boundary from Westwood exhibit in yellow.
Given the criteria set forth for establishing the boundary, I do not see the justification for moving the
western boundary as shown.
-
ry
TO
i
I
n
$ �o�9 ��I�pj 0 0 I �_-�y1yi1JJ1LLLJ I ' ji
-
i9a� _
�4�retum Bo`u,evad fig L _ J = C- tT
Tf
I
IM
�L
}
L
LYma,, "� - t� n
�c
iL V
F
,,an 77 _
Y 7
City
of
f:
Chanhassen
,
!I
Bluff Creek vy®1
OverlayDistrict , T R,4)
—LLLJ,L
r
0
Primary Corridor a
Vill
SO' Buffer Secondary Corridor
^- Bluff Creek
_ fP
i
February 27, 2012
�ww
BM1pIUc`3! $73�bF
CIA -19 SN3MG- bOO13 LUO.I;
4401
.a- Y
t fi
,C _.`!,r •t,..i _— '7 F. F' o9�r:;yJ ,� 4 � I ,�.r # ! ��,f,
` .•1 � _ ,r IIT . ♦ !•rflli�ll � f • n , s,y •
'YXh
Y '
s
9
- - �I � � �• v its.;
T
FAIRVIEW MEDICAL CENTER
�3 REVISED BC01)
* • 'm 2008 AERIAL
n
Minor Arterial
Minor Collector
Street Connection 3 0
1
N....................................... Trail
s
View Corridor
3
x
NJ
Jobi5978
pats 08MM
Plan A; Connected
Erhart Property Conceptual Site Plans
City of Chanhassen, MN
Figure 9
+J
co U z —
U -�e 'L s
N+J _ �m
V)
N
+J
EI -
U
Q�CO a oEy a S,
L)
L _ - E E
L `
rn o ac i
X.
CD
o
... , ! 0--m
yrs,
IML
d z
FLL ,
rGro"'' 4- �•y,O r t FjAIR SNIVld 1V3a9:.
e L W ti �• L-- yi ,V� �'
'47 •! Q
rrte�,
i ' .,"'`'�;. � �'- �•:I � r. It r vii 1.a` yd 41
r
Li
+J
U
� 4-J .co w 1
L 0 N L zl
c r
L 9 811
+-U CO
(ateca
0�
:3 LO
Co N
O
5
ti L 1
,_� I � � ���\.. :+ t'.•�+` ��RQR Via+ `�
FIN
l �� � _• •� `�5 '� may.
�a•b: Al -'� _ ,. -' • f,-' -'.
1�f - ` .i.'i' • -S.• '+r s +,•+?,- `� Oq SII
' ti "�'` ! a sYnir3'tg +ry+�?� �.f '�•"3��Y�jiT����i=—•:�'�'�. �"�' •rp�l
ow
r n
AP
♦i y" ;M►+k s ry of i4 •
•
vv
34 �d ��,� d►' „•�l, � �i\��E� w kms,
• iiit °�• ,,. `t .tT, ys S ; Ilk Y'..
. �� _' �Y q+��'' ;•S .. � ��' ��• �• t?7lj 4y ��5� 'YY 'ff 3 S € i
r '„� s': +
'IV
vp Its
rf. •,. -, moi 'ms s �. y ..
k• t�j� '"4,� �t -fie .i
• • ..- �."tin'f��i•'f�''•�r.,j�'�a% 'i{� w4 t. ,s_�` ,'�f a'% .� � � Rei
�• M i
S•i yIn inr s �y y. � � k.