CC Staff Report 8-9-21CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Monday, August 9, 2021
Subject Ordinance XXX: Approve a Request to Rezone Property from Agricultural Estate District (A2)
to SingleFamily Residential (RSF) and Subdivision of Property into 21 SingleFamily Lots with
Variances at 775 West 96th Street
Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: H.1.
Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No:
PROPOSED MOTION
"The Chanhassen City Council approves the following for property located at 775 West 96th Street:
1. An ordinance rezoning the development from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to SingleFamily Residential
District (RSF);
2. Preliminary plat with variances for street width, front yard setback (Lot 1, Block 1), wetland setback (Lot 1,
Block 1) and street frontages (Lots 3 through 9, Block 1), subject to the conditions of the staff report;
And
Adopts the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendation."
Approval requires a Majority Vote of the entire council.
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting rezoning of a portion of 775 West 96th Street from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to
SingleFamily Residential District, RSF; subdivision approval to create 21 singlefamily lots with variances for street
widths, street frontages on some lots in Block 1, and wetland setback on Lot 1, Block 1; seven outlots and rightof
way for public streets.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 20, 2021 to review the proposed development. The Planning
Commission voted 6–0 to recommend approval of the project subject to the conditions of the staff report. While the
Commission was cognizant of the development's potential impact to existing homes on both West 96th Street and
Eagle Ridge Road, they understood that future development generally is done through the extension of existing
infrastructure.
The homeowner at 750 96th Street West expressed concern that the roadway extension would take some of her
property. City staff has contacted her and provided her a copy of the roadway, drainage and utility easement over the
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, August 9, 2021SubjectOrdinance XXX: Approve a Request to Rezone Property from Agricultural Estate District (A2)to SingleFamily Residential (RSF) and Subdivision of Property into 21 SingleFamily Lots withVariances at 775 West 96th StreetSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.1.Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: PROPOSED MOTION"The Chanhassen City Council approves the following for property located at 775 West 96th Street:1. An ordinance rezoning the development from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to SingleFamily ResidentialDistrict (RSF);2. Preliminary plat with variances for street width, front yard setback (Lot 1, Block 1), wetland setback (Lot 1,Block 1) and street frontages (Lots 3 through 9, Block 1), subject to the conditions of the staff report; AndAdopts the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendation."Approval requires a Majority Vote of the entire council.SUMMARYThe applicant is requesting rezoning of a portion of 775 West 96th Street from Agricultural Estate District, A2, toSingleFamily Residential District, RSF; subdivision approval to create 21 singlefamily lots with variances for streetwidths, street frontages on some lots in Block 1, and wetland setback on Lot 1, Block 1; seven outlots and rightofway for public streets.BACKGROUNDThe Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 20, 2021 to review the proposed development. The PlanningCommission voted 6–0 to recommend approval of the project subject to the conditions of the staff report. While theCommission was cognizant of the development's potential impact to existing homes on both West 96th Street andEagle Ridge Road, they understood that future development generally is done through the extension of existinginfrastructure.
The homeowner at 750 96th Street West expressed concern that the roadway extension would take some of her
property. City staff has contacted her and provided her a copy of the roadway, drainage and utility easement over the
northern portion of the the property. The future extension would fall with in this easement.
A resident that lives on Flintlock Trail adjacent to the future development of the Erhart property was concerned about
a potential street connection. Staff requested that the developer draft a development scenario for the western portion
of the site. This included potential water tower sites and street connections.
The Planning Commission minutes for July 20, 2021 are attached.
DISCUSSION
The proposed rezoning to SingleFamily Residential District (RSF) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use designation. The RSF District is the most appropriate zoning district to rezone this property since it is the primary
zoning for singlefamily residential properties, is a standard zoning district, and permits only singlefamily homes. Only
the proposed lots in Phase 1 would be rezoned to RSF.
The proposed development meets the standards of the subdivision ordinance subject to the variance for Eagle Ridge
Way, and the zoning ordinance requirements subject to the variance for the lots on Block 1. Prior to final plat
approval, the developer will need to address the construction plan and infrastructure design issues contained in the
recommended conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project subject to the conditions of the Planning
Commission staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Rezoning Ordinance
Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 20, 2021
Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 20, 2021 Attachments FOF App Narrative
Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 20, 2021 Plan Sheet Set 1 of 2
Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 20, 2021 Plan Sheet Set 2 of 2
Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 20, 2021 Attachments Traffic Impact Analysis Process Affidavit
of Mailing
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 20, 2021
W. 96th Street Concerns
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE,
BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby
amended by rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Single-Family Residential District
(RSF), for all property within the Erhart Farm residential development, with the following legal
description:
Lots 1 through 17, Block 1, and Lots 1 – 5, Block 2,
Erhart Farm Addition, Carver County, Minnesota.
Section 2. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the
aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office
for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the
notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference
and made a part of this ordinance.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August, 2021, by the City Council of the City
of Chanhassen, Minnesota
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ______________________________)
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday,July 20,2021
Subject Consider a Request to Rezone Property from Agricultural Estate District A2)to Single-Family
Residential RSF)and Subdivision of Property into 21 Single-Family Lots with Variances at 775
96th Street W.
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No:B.1.
Prepared By Bob Generous,Senior Planner File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the rezoning of the development
from Agricultural Estate District A2)to Single-Family Residential District RSF)preliminary plat with variances for street
width,front yard setback Lot 1,Block 1),wetland setback Lot 1,Block 1)and street frontages Lots 3 through
9,Block 1)subject to the conditions of the staff report and
adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.SUMMARY
OF REQUEST The
applicant is requesting rezoning of a portion of the property from Agricultural Estate District A2)to Single-Family Residential
District RSF)subdivision approval to create 21 single-family lots with variances for street widths,street frontages on
some lots in Block 1,and wetland setback on Lot 1,Block 1 seven Outlots and right-of-way for public streets.APPLICANT
Black
Cherry
Development,LLC,9611 Meadowlark Lane,Chanhassen,MN 55317 SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING:
Agricultural Estate District A2)LAND USE:
Residential Low Density ACREAGE:117.
4 acres DENSITY:1.
69 units per net acre APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 18,
Subdivisions
PLANNING COMMISSIONSTAFFREPORTTuesday,July 20,2021SubjectConsider a Request to Rezone Property from Agricultural Estate District A2)to Single-FamilyResidentialRSF)and Subdivision of Property into 21 Single-Family Lots with Variances at77596thStreetW.Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No:B.1.Prepared By Bob Generous,Senior Planner File No:PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the rezoning of thedevelopmentfromAgriculturalEstateDistrictA2)to Single-Family Residential District RSF)preliminary plat with variances forstreetwidth,front yard setback Lot 1,Block 1),wetland setback Lot 1,Block 1)and street frontages Lots 3through9,Block 1)subject to the conditions of the staff report andadopttheFindingsofFactandRecommendation.SUMMARYOFREQUESTTheapplicantisrequestingrezoningofaportionoftheproperty from Agricultural Estate District A2)to Single-FamilyResidentialDistrictRSF)subdivision approval to create 21 single-family lots with variances for street widths,streetfrontages onsomelotsinBlock1,and wetland setback on Lot 1,Block 1 seven Outlots and right-of-way for publicstreets.APPLICANTBlackCherryDevelopment,LLC,9611 Meadowlark Lane,Chanhassen,MN 55317SITE INFORMATIONPRESENTZONING:AgriculturalEstateDistrict A2)LAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:117.4acresDENSITY:1.69 units per net acre APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 18,
Subdivisions Chapter 20,
Article II,Division3.Variances Chapter 20,
Article XI,A2”Agricultural Estate District BACKGROUND On
January
25,2021,the City Council approved the Interim Use Permit IUP)to allow site grading to create an open water wetland.
The project began this winter,but due to warm weather,could not be completed.On August
14,2020,the Chanhassen City Council approved the adjustment to the Bluff Creek Overlay District BCOD)Primary
Zone boundary to encompass the additional 3+acre area adjacent to Highway 212 in Outlot G Planning
Case 2020-13).On July
7,2020,the City of Chanhassen received a complete Wetland Delineation Report for the property and a Notice of
Application was sent on July 15,2020.The on-site Technical Evaluation Panel TEP)was held on July 29,2020 in
order to review the wetland boundaries and types.The wetland types that were delineated on the property were Types
1,2,3,5,and 6.The TEP and Local Government Unit LGU)concurred with the boundaries and types and the
Notice of Decision was issued on August 8,2020.As part
of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan adopted on February 10,2020,the City approved a three acre Land Use amendment from
Residential Low Density to Office in the western portion of the parcel encompassing the area adjacent to Highway
212 in Outlot G.In 2008,
as part of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan,the City approved a Land Use amendment of the westerly 10 acres of
the property from Residential-Low Density to Office.On October
23,2006,the Chanhassen City Council approved Wetland Alteration Permit 06-32 for the construction of an
access road and stormwater pond.The wetland mitigation for this is located on Outlot G north of the large wetland complex
On July
10,1995,the City Council approved the preliminary and final plat of Butternut Ridge Addition,Subdivision 95-9,
creating one lot and one outlot.This subdivision permitted the property owner to sell the 2½-acre home site on the property
and keep the balance of the site for the owner’s personal use and future development.The property owner still
owns the home on the property.RECOMMENDATION Staff
recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning of the development from Agricultural Estate
District A2)to Single-Family Residential District RSF)preliminary plat with variances for street width,front yard
setback Lot 1,Block 1),wetland setback Lot 1,Block 1)and street frontages Lots 3 through 9,Block 1)subject
to the staff report conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.ATTACHMENTS:Staff Report
Findings
of Fact
Recommendation Development Review Application
Development Narrative Preliminary
Plat and
Site Development Plans Appendix A:Traffic
Impact Analysis Process Affidavit of Mailing
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: July 20, 2021
CC DATE: August 9, 2021
REVIEW DEADLINE: September 11, 2021
CASE #: 2021-12
BY: RG, EH, JR, DN, JS, ET
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning and subdivision approval
with variances for a single-family residential development.
LOCATION: 775 West 96th Street
APPLICANT: Black Cherry Development, LLC
9611 Meadowlark Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (net density 1.2 – 4 units per acre)/Office
Northwestern 13 acres)
ACREAGE: 117.14 acres DENSITY: 1.69 units per net acres (Phase 1)
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the rezoning of
the development from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Single-Family Residential District
RSF); preliminary plat with variances for street width, front yard setback (Lot 1, Block 1),
wetland setback (Lot 1, Block 1) and street frontages (Lots 3 through 9, Block 1) subject to the
conditions of the staff report and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.”
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 2
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving Rezonings because the City is
acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the
proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning
Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a
quasi-judicial decision.
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a Variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a Variance in conjunction with a subdivision is
limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance
for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the
applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting rezoning of a portion of the property from Agricultural Estate
District, A2, to Single-Family Residential District, RSF; subdivision approval to create 21
single-family lots with variances for street widths, street frontages on some lots in Block 1, and
wetland setback on Lot 1, Block 1; seven Outlots and right-of-way for public streets.
The applicant held neighborhood meetings with the West 96th Street residents on Saturday,
July 10, 2021 and the Foxwood and Pioneer Hills neighborhoods on Wednesday, July 14, 2021.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 18, Subdivisions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article XI, “A2” Agricultural Estate District
BACKGROUND
On January 25, 2021, City Council approved the Interim Use Permit to allow site grading to
create an open water wetland. The project began this winter, but due to warm weather, could not
be completed.
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 3
On August 14, 2020, the Chanhassen City Council approved the adjustment to the Bluff Creek
Overlay District (BCOD) Primary Zone boundary to encompass the additional 3+ acre area
adjacent to Highway 212 in Oultot G. (Planning Case #2020-13)
On July 7, 2020, the City of Chanhassen received a complete Wetland Delineation Report for the
property and a Notice of Application was sent on July 15, 2020. The on-site Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP) was held on July 29, 2020 in order to review the wetland boundaries and
types. The wetland types that were delineated on the property were Types 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. The
TEP and Local Government Unit (LGU) concurred with the boundaries and types and the Notice
of Decision was issued on August 8, 2020.
As part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan adopted on February 10, 2020, the City approved a
three acre Land Use amendment from Residential Low Density to Office in the western portion
of the parcel encompassing the area adjacent to Highway 212 in Outlot G.
In 2008, as part of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the City approved a Land Use
amendment of the westerly 10 acres of the property from Residential-Low Density to Office.
On October 23, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council approved Wetland Alteration Permit #06-32
for the construction of an access road and stormwater pond. The wetland mitigation for this is
located Outlot G north of the large wetland complex
On July 10, 1995, the City Council approved the preliminary and final plat of Butternut Ridge
Addition, Subdivision #95-9, creating one lot and one outlot. This subdivision permitted the
property owner to sell the 2½-acre home site on the property and keep the balance of the site for
the owner’s personal use and future development. The property owner still owns the home on
the property.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The developer provided an existing condition survey of the entire 117.14 acre property which
included the field surveyed area of approximately 17.6 acres proposed to be developed (Blocks 1
and 2, Outlots A, B and C, and all newly dedicated right-of-way) and is in general conformance
with the requirements of Sec. 18-40. The remaining 117.14 acres not surveyed will be field
surveyed at the time of future development.
A single-family residence with a barn exists within the proposed development and is proposed to
remain as Lot 5, Block 2. As such, the developer is proposing to vacate the public drainage and
utility easements (DUE) associated with the existing residence and record adjusted public DUE
with the proposed plat. This public DUE, along with all other easements identified within the
platted area, must be vacated before the City Council considers final plat approval. The
additional easements to be vacated include those identified on the existing condition survey (per
document numbers; A186881, A509111, A94210, A651406, etc.). Additionally, the developer
will be required to obtain any necessary right-of-way easements for the extension of W. 96th
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 4
Street from abutting properties. Lastly, the driveway to the existing residence must be surfaced
with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface materials in accordance with Sec. 20-1122 of
City Ordinance.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Wetland Protection
There is are multiple wetlands located on the property.
Bluff Creek Overlay District
Outlot G is bisected by the Bluff Creek Primary Zone.
Bluff Protection
There are no bluffs on the property.
Shoreland Management
The property is not located within a Shoreland Overlay district.
Floodplain Overlay
This property is not within a floodplain
REZONING
The existing zoning of the property, Agricultural Estate District, is not consistent with the Land
Use designation of the property, Residential Low Density. The Comprehensive Plan allows less
intensive land uses to remain in place. However, any approval by the City for development of
the property must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The following zoning districts are consistent with a Residential Low Density land use:
RSF (Residential Single Family), R4 (Mixed Low Density), RLM (Residential Low and Medium
Density), or PUD-R (Planned Unit Development Residential).
The proposed rezoning to Single-Family Residential District (RSF) is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The RSF District is the most appropriate zoning
district to rezone this property since it is the primary zoning for single-family residential
properties, is a standard zoning district and permits only single-family homes. While the R4
District permits single-family homes, it also permits twin homes which would be inconsistent
with the surrounding development. The RLM District permits single-family homes, as well as
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 5
twin homes, townhouses and attached housing, but the RLM District also requires that large
areas of upland are preserved or created as permanent open space to balance the higher hard
surface coverage permitted on the individual lots. Finally, the PUD-R District can be created for
a single-family subdivision, but the ordinance requires that the use of the PUD zoning also
allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a
potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the
expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more
sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning
districts.
The proposed rezoning assists in the furtherance of the following land use goals of the City of
Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan:
Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line.
The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing
opportunities.
o Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the City to provide
services.
The proposed rezoning assists in the furtherance of the following housing goals of the City of
Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan:
A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels.
A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle.
Staff is recommending the rezoning to RSF be approved.
SUBDIVISION
The applicant is proposing a 21 lot, seven outlot subdivision with dedication of public right-of-
way. Except for Outlots A and B, which will be dedicated for permanent open space, the outlots
will be developed in the future through another subdivision review process.
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 6
STREETS
The proposed subdivision has access to public right-of-way via Eagle Ridge Road to the north
and W. 96th Street to the south. The subdivision to the north, Foxwood, was required to construct
Eagle Ridge Road as a minor collector, which terminated at a temporary cul-de-sac. The
developer of the current subdivision, “Erhart Farms” must remove the temporary cul-de-sac and
restore the area. The developer will be provided the $33,750.00 escrow which was collected
from Foxwood for the removal of the temporary cul-de-sac along with other improvements at
this location. Eagle Ridge Road will ultimately extend to Powers Boulevard as development
continues to the west of the proposed subdivision. Eagle Ridge Road, a minor collector in the
City’s roadway network is designed to provide a mixture of mobility and access, and serves a
vital role by routing traffic from the local roads and funneling them to the arterial networks. The
proposed subdivision, along with the future additions, are bound by Powers Boulevard to the
west and Highway 101 to the east, which are both minor arterials and county roads. The
proposed Erhart Farms subdivision has provided plans for the extension of Eagle Ridge Road
along with providing access from the south via the extension of W. 96th Street, which gives
secondary access to both the newly proposed development and the existing Foxwood
development. The developer has provided a “ghost plat” of the future development, which
conceptually takes into account the connection of Eagle Ridge Road to Powers Boulevard,
highlighted in purple and seen below. The ghost plat adequately illustrates the nature of the
minor collector by providing an equal mixture of mobility and access.
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 7
However, in order to limit the unintentional routing of traffic from Eagle Ridge Road, the minor
collector, onto local roads, the proposed 4-way intersection must be redesigned so that the
portion being designated as the minor collector does not require vehicles to stop. As currently
proposed and after ultimate build-out, traffic heading southbound would have to come to a stop
and then turn right to continue on the minor collector roadway, which may be confused with
continuing straight which would route them to a local road. The developer and their design team
have been working with staff to address this concern, and must continue to work with staff to
update the public street layout to be resubmitted for review and approval prior to City Council
considering final plat approval.
A majority of the streets and their right-of-way are proposed to meet City Standards, however the
small ring road abutting Outlot A, “Eagle Ridge Way”, is proposed to be a 26-foot wide back-of-
curb to back-of-curb design within a standard 60-foot right-of-way. The variance from the
City’s 31-foot wide street standard was requested by the developer in order to reduce impervious
surface and save additional trees. As this will be a single-loaded road with homes on only one
side of the road, staff finds that the variance regarding the street width is acceptable, with all
other street section standards being adhered to. However, if the variance for the 26-foot street
design is accepted, plans must incorporate sidewalks along “Eagle Ridge Way” to promote
pedestrian safety along the narrower street section. A sidewalk must also be added along the W.
96th Street corridor extension, as when W. 96th Street is reconstructed sidewalk will be installed
to promote pedestrian connectivity throughout the neighborhoods and to the surrounding the
public trail network.
A “5-foot pervious nature trail” is proposed that connects to “Road A” right-of-way and
terminates at an existing stormwater facility that treats runoff from County Road 101. The
connection point at “Road A” creates a mid-block crossing, i.e. there is no intersection at this
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 8
location. While the developer has not indicated whether the trail will be dedicated to the City or
be owned and maintained by an HOA, mid-block crossings are not ideal locations for pedestrian
crossings and should be avoided when able. The developer’s design team must address this
concern.
Lastly, the proposed street designs show areas that will be stubbed out for future road extensions
when the property to the west develops. These stub outs need to be wholly incorporated in the
right-of-way boundary on the plat. “Future Street Extension” signs attached to barricades must
also be installed at these locations.
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
The preliminary plat provided illustrates mostly typical public drainage and utility easements
DUE) along the proposed subdivision’s lot lines with a five-foot DUE along the side and rear lot
lines and a 10-foot DUE along the front lot lines. Rear lot lines on Lots 1 through 15, Block 1
are atypical to accommodate proposed wetland buffers and conservation easements. DUE
abutting the side lot lines of Lots 13 and 14, Block 1 are five feet wider than the typical 5-foot
side lot DUE (a total of 20 feet wide between the two lots) in order to provide proper widths to
maintain the storm sewer conveyance located between the lots. However, access to the large
stormwater facility, which is partially located on Outlot B and partially located on Lots 14, 15,
and 16, Block 1 needs to be addressed. Ideally, the stormwater facility would be wholly
encompassed within an Outlot, along with the access route to the facility which is necessary to
maintain the BMP. By including the access route within an Outlot, the route would be protected
in perpetuity from encroachments and would require that the City maintain the area to ensure
adequate ingress/egress. The developer and their design team must work with staff to improve
the public stormwater facility’s access route.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 9
A portion of the property was issued Interim Use Permit (IUP) #2021-03 on December 4, 2020
by City Council for grading operations. This grading permit was requested for the dredging of
Wetland 2, north of the subdivision. All terms and conditions of IUP #2021-03 shall remain in
effect until the permit is terminated. While IUP #2021-03 did not directly impact any of the
improvements associated with the Erhart Farms subdivision proposal, there are spoils from the
wetland dredging that will be required to be removed entirely from areas where public
improvements are proposed as wetland soils, or hydric soils, are typically high in organic
materials and do not lend themselves to suitable engineering fill.
A geotechnical report with soil borings conducted by Haugo Geotechnical Services, dated
May 22, 2021 was provided by the developer. Grading plans must be updated to indicate the
location of the borings as it appears there may be an error in the one of the measured surface
elevations (SB-5) based on the provided map in the report. Groundwater was observed at boring
SB-5 so the accuracy of the measured surface elevation must be verified. A geotechnical
engineering firm shall be on-site during grading operations to ensure the City’s Standard
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 10
Specifications and Detail Plates are adhered to along with any Minnesota Building Code
requirements. If groundwater is encountered during grading, the grades shall be adjusted to
maintain a 3-foot separation from the bottom floor elevation and shall adhere to the
recommendations of the soils engineer on site. Changes to grades shall be submitted to the City
for review and approval.
The developer is proposing to mass grade the site in order to construct the public streets, house
pads and stormwater management areas. While grading plans are in general conformance with
City Ordinances, there are multiple driveways that are proposed to be near the maximum 10%
allowed by Ordinance. Plans will be required to show top of curb elevations at the centerline of
each driveway to ensure that individual building permits for each lot are in conformance with the
plans and do not require variances from the 10% maximum. Additionally, the developer’s
engineer shall ensure that the maximum driveway grades shown on the plan are calculated such
that a 10-foot landing is provided where the driveway connects to the street and a 5- to 10-foot
landing is provided at the garage. The recommended grade at these locations is 3%.
Lastly, grading is being proposed on Outlot E that will tie-in to Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2 and
create a 3:1 slope for a maximum of 130 feet which will drain to these backyards. The developer
needs to address this portion of the grading plan as to how the future addition on Outlot E will
account for drainage. Portions of Lots 1, 2, and 3 may need further grading depending on the
future build-out on Outlot E and should be taken into account during this phase of the
development. Per Section 18-40(4)d.2.v. draintile services are required for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4,
Block 2 as these lots are proposed to drain from the back of the lot towards the street.
RETAINING WALLS
The developer is proposing one retaining wall within the subdivision which will be wholly
located on Lot 8, Block 1. The wall is proposed to have a height of over four feet and must be
privately owned and maintained. Walls over four feet in height shall be constructed in
accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer and shall be constructed of a durable
material (smooth face concrete, masonry/mortared, railroad ties and timber are prohibited).
EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
The development will exceed one (1) acre of land disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to
the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction
Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES
Construction Permit). Additionally, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in
accordance with ordinances shall be submitted for the grading operations of the subdivision. The
developer has provided an ESCP along with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
and while overall the plan appears feasible, certain amendments will be required prior to
acceptance of final plans. As such, the developer and their design team must work with staff to
update the ESCP and resubmitted for review and approval with the submission of the final
construction plans.
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 11
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN
The subdivision has access to a 12-inch, C900 PVC trunk water main that was extended by the
development to the north (Foxwood). This trunk main will eventually be looped to a 16-inch
trunk main within Powers Boulevard when the property to the west develops. As such, the
developer will be required to extend the 12-inch trunk water main and the City will reimburse the
developer for the cost of oversizing this extension, as an 8-inch main would have been sufficient
in supplying the subdivision’s water demand. The 12-inch trunk main will follow the street
corridor to the south (“Road A”) as it will eventually connect to the future water tower location
Location A”), as demarcated on plan sheet “Primary Through Road Connection Exhibit”.
Water main stubs will be provided for future extensions when the property to the west develops,
along with a stub leading to W. 96th Street. Any wells located on the property to be developed
must be properly abandoned.
A temporary lift station was installed by the Foxwood development to the north in order to
provide sanitary service for that subdivision. It was anticipated that when future development to
its south (i.e. the currently proposed development, Erhart Farms), the temporary lift station
would be removed and that gravity sewer would be constructed to a planned permanent lift
station on Powers Boulevard. The developer and their engineer have been working with staff
since the pre-application meeting to determine the feasibility of abandoning the temporary lift
station and constructing a new permanent lift station located near Outlot C abutting W. 96th
Street, rather than constructing the gravity system to Powers Boulevard. Furthermore, this
approach would eventually eliminate Lift Station 20 at the end of W. 96th Street, which when
ultimate build-out is complete, would not increase the net number of lift stations that the City
owns and maintains. After iterations of reviews and meeting with the applicant’s engineers, it has
been determined that this approach is feasible. The lift station has been preliminarily designed to
accommodate sewerage flows from Foxwood, the proposed Erhart Farms, portions of the future
development to the west, and flows anticipated along W. 96th Street including the possibility of
future development to the south. As such, any oversizing of the lift station and its components
beyond what would be necessary to accommodate sewerage flows from Foxwood and the future
development associated with Erhart Farms would be reimbursed by the City. Furthermore, the
developer will be provided the $10,000.00 escrow that was obtained from the development to the
north for the abandonment of the temporary lift station. The developer will be required to work
with staff in the final construction plans and details of the proposed lift station along with its
location. Additionally, as the proposed force main will be located on a large section of fill where
the existing lift station is to be abandoned, a geotechnical engineer’s recommendation on proper
back fill and compaction techniques must be provided.
While generally the preliminary utility plans provided do appear feasible, profile views were not
provided in order to conduct a complete review, e.g. checking for conflicts with other utilities or
reviewing cover of mains to meet City Standards. The developer will be required to provide
updated utility plans upon submittal of the final plat and final construction plans that include
profile views. Additionally, sanitary sewer is being proposed at a pipe slope of 0.4%, the
absolute minimum for 8-inch sanitary sewer mains in accordance with Recommended Standards
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 12
for Wastewater Facilities (2014 Edition). It is strongly recommended that plans be updated to
incorporate a slope of 0.5% in order to allow for construction tolerances and promote
constructability, as any sanitary sewer main installed with less than 0.4% slope will be required
to be reconstructed to obtain the minimum slope.
Lastly, prior to commencement of any utility work, a copy of all required permits from the
appropriate regulatory agencies shall be provided to the City which shall include but is not
limited to the Minnesota Department of Health, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services,
and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required stormwater management
development standards. Section 19-141 states that “these development standards shall be
reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of site
plans, subdivisions and water management features.” These standards include water quality
treatment resulting in the removal of 90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total
phosphorous (TP). The applicant will need to work with Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed
District (RPBCWD) and the City in order to meet all the requirements.
General
1. Applicant needs to provide a copy of an approved RPBCWD permit before work is
started.
Water Quality
1. Water quality levels appear to be met with the use of a baffle, sump, and filtration pond;
95% of TSS and 77% of TP is removed from the system, via MIDS modeling.
a. Provide screenshots of BMP inputs to MIDS to confirm calculations.
Volume Control
1. Infiltration was shown not feasible, due to soil type. Filtration is permitted as an alternate
BMP.
Filtration Basin Design
1. Provide an operation and maintenance plan that identifies the maintenance schedule and
responsible party. This should include information on how the system will be cleaned
out.
2. Provide baffle detail for CBMH 102.
3. The ‘Pond/Filtration Basin Section’ detail needs to be changed per the following
comments:
a. A geo-textile fabric should be installed between the natural soil and the filtration
media.
b. It is recommended that the draintile in both basins show a slope of at least 0.5% to
prevent water from sitting in the draintile.
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 13
c. Provide the normal water level elevation for the wet pond section.
d. Provide a detail for the Emergency Overflow Outlet shown on the north side of
the pond/filtration basin.
Civil Plans
1. Confirm if entrance from north will be used during construction. If so, a rock
construction entrance should be shown.
2. On the Grading and Erosion Control plans the “Heavy Duty Silt Fence” detail should be
replaced with a wire-backed silt fence. The wire backed heavy duty silt fence should be
shown where grading extends to within 10 feet of wetland limits.
3. The project SWPPP and NPDES permit must be submitted to the City prior to the start of
any earthwork.
4. The Joint Application for wetland impacts (or no loss) must be submitted to the City, and
a Notice of Decision must be issued by the WCA LGU, prior to the start of any
earthwork.
STORMWATER UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGES
Section 4-30 of City Code sets out the fees associated with Surface Water Management. A water
quality and water quantity fee are collected with a subdivision. These fees are based on land use
type and are intended to reflect the fact that the more intense the development type, the greater
the degradation of surface water.
This fee will be applied to the new lots of record being created. The fees will be assessed at the
rate in effect at that time; 2021 rates are $8,660.00 per acre.
ASSESSMENTS
Water and sewer partial hookups are due at the time of final plat. The partial hookup fees will be
assessed at the rate in effect at that time; 2021 rates for partial hookup fees are $691.00 per unit
for sanitary sewer and $2,476.00 per unit for water. The remaining partial hookup fees are due
with the building permit.
Fees
Based on the proposal, the following fees would be collected with the development contract:
a) Administration fee: If the improvement costs are less than $500,000, 3% of the
improvement costs. If the improvement costs are between $500,000 and $1,000,000, 2%
of the improvement costs. If the improvement costs exceed $1,000,000, 2.5% of the first
1,000,000 plus 1.5% of the remainder.
b) Surface Water Management fee: $8,660.00 per acre
c) A portion of the water hook-up charge: $2,476.00/unit
d) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $691.00/unit
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 14
e) Park Dedication fee: $5,800.00/unit
f) Street lighting charge: $300.00/light
g) GIS fees: $100 for the plat plus $30 per parcel
h) Final plat process (review and recording of Plat and Development Contract): $450.00
WETLANDS AND BUFFERS
Several wetlands were identified and delineated on and near the property. The applicant
submitted a wetland delineation report in July 2020 and the wetland types and boundaries were
approved in August 2020. A summary of the delineated wetlands and types can be seen in the
table below.
The applicant is showing impacting 100% of Wetland 1. The applicant must submit a Joint
Application for wetland impacts for this proposed activity. In addition, a small area northeast of
Lot 5, Bock 1 shows that the 5-foot pervious nature trail encroaching into Wetland 3. The
applicant should clarify if this area would constitute as wetland impacts. If so, it would also need
to be included in the Joint Application submittal. A Wetland Alteration Permit may be necessary
if the proposed wetland impacts are not deemed exempt according to Sec. 20-417 of the City
Code.
The applicant has shown wetland buffers on the property. The applicant is showing to use buffer
averaging to achieve the overall required buffer area. The wetland buffer widths and wetland
buffer monuments appear to be sufficient. However, the plans show that grading is proposed
within the wetland buffer in Lots 1 through 3, Block 1 and Lots 11 and 12, Block 2. The
applicant should submit a landscape plan to ensure that this area sufficiently grows back with
native buffer vegetation.
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 15
The applicant for the Erhart Farm, Phase I development submitted tree canopy coverage and
preservation calculations.
Total upland area (excluding wetlands, bluff) 17.62 acres
Baseline canopy coverage 98% or 17.25 acres
Minimum canopy coverage required 55% or 9.7 acres
Proposed tree preservation 23% or 4.0 acres
The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage for the site; therefore the applicant must
bring the canopy coverage on site up to the 55% minimum. The difference between the required
coverage and the remaining coverage is multiplied by 1.2 for total area to be replaced. One tree
is valued at 1,089 SF.
Minimum required 9.7 acres
Less canopy preserved 4.0 acres
Minimum canopy coverage to be replaced: 5.7 acres
Multiplied by 1.2 6.84 acres or 297,950 SF
Divided by 1089 SF = Total number of trees to be planted 273 trees
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan showing a total of 76 trees to be planted in the
development. The applicant shall increase tree planting in the development to meet minimum
requirements and submit a landscape plan showing 273 trees prior to final plat approval.
Additionally, Northern Pin oak shall be replaced with white, bur, or red oak species. The
alkaline soils of Chanhassen make the northern pin oak selection undesirable for long term
survivability. Additional selections of tree species should expand the breadth of tree types and
take into consideration the City’s requirement for species diversity.
There are no bufferyard landscaping requirements for this development.
Staff has reviewed the tree clearing limits for the development on the plans. There are a number
of trees at the edge of the grading limits that staff would like to consider for preservation. Staff
recommends that the developer conduct a walk-through of the grading limits on site prior to
removals with City staff to inspect for opportunities for additional tree preservation.
Staff supports the proposed conservation easements on Lots 4 through 9, Block 1. The existing
woods in this area contain a diversity of native species such as sugar maples, red oaks, basswood
and ironwood. Many of these trees are significant and provide aesthetic and environmental
benefits within the community. A conservation easement would protect this area in perpetuity.
The applicant is also proposing to preserve a very large oak on Lot 10. The bur oak is 46-inches
in diameter and nearly 12 feet in circumference. This is a signature tree and could provide a
signature landmark along Eagle Ridge Road. The protected area around the tree is tight. Staff
recommends that the applicant explore options to eliminate grading within the dripline to
improve chances of survivability. This is true of all trees proposed to be preserved in front and
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 16
side yards in Block 1. Ensuring the tree root zones are preserved to the greatest extent possible
will assist greatly in the survivability of the trees. Failure to protect the root zones during
construction will jeopardize all efforts invested in preservation.
PARKS & RECREATION
Park Plan
The City’s comprehensive park plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located within one-half
mile of every residence in the City. The park service area of community parks extends to a
distance of 1-2 miles. The proposed Erhart Farm Subdivision is located directly adjacent to the
58-acre Fox Woods Park Preserve and directly across Highway 101 from the 45-acre Bandimere
Community Park. Bandimere Community Park offers a wide and growing array of recreational
amenities and has been open to the public since 1999. Development of public access points to
the Fox Woods Park Preserve, through a combination of vehicle and pedestrian touch points as
well as the installation of a series of nature trails within the preserve, will begin concurrent with
the development of the Erhart property.
Additional acquisition of public open space through the application of park dedication
requirements is not recommended as a condition of the subdivision.
Trail Plan
Residents purchasing homes within the new Erhart Farm subdivision will have convenient
pedestrian access to area public park facilities through careful planning and construction of some
key pedestrian improvements:
Planning and construction of interior sidewalks within the subdivision.
Planning and construction of a Highway 101 trail connection between the current trail
terminus at the Bandimere Park Pedestrian Underpass and the northern terminus of the
plat adjacent to and along Highway 101.
Planning and construction of interior trails within the subdivision from Eagle Ridge Road
to Fox Woods Park Preserve and Powers Boulevard with future phases of the
development.
Park and Trail Conditions of Approval
Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected
as a condition of approval for Erhart Farm for the 21 new housing units. The Park fees will be
collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the
City’s 2021 single-family Park fee of $5,800 per unit, the total Park fees for Erhart Farm would
be $121,800.00.
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 17
MISCELLANEOUS
Building
1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review
3. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
5. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service.
Fire
1. Confirming this will connect to Eagle Ridge Road to the north at what point in
construction?
2. Fire hydrant locations and distancing look to be appropriate. No landscaping (trees,
shrubs, plants) to be done within three feet in all directions around each hydrant.
3. Roads 20-26 feet wide will need to have No Parking Fire Lane signs on both sides of the
road.
4. Roads 26-32 feet will need to be No Parking on one side of the road.
5. Elevation drops and grading for roads will need to meet Fire Access road maximum of
10%.
6. No combustible construction (wood) can begin until fire apparatus access roads are
approved (temporary is ok) and hydrants are installed and active/usable. Foundation work
is acceptable.
7. May not block emergency access or fire hydrants during construction at any time.
Carver County
Preliminary feedback on Erhart Farm Preliminary Plat PID# 251550022
1. Regarding access onto the County Highways
a. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is required based on the number of proposed
units for the full development of the parcel and potential traffic impacts to CSAH 101
and CSAH 17. The TIA will need to evaluate the operations at the following
intersections: CSAH 17/Proposed local road intersection, CSAH 101/W. 96th St., and
CSAH 101/Eagle Ridge Road intersections. See the attachment titled Appendix A:
Traffic Impact Analysis Process for requirements. Based on TIA findings, County
may impose reasonable conditions to mitigate development driven traffic impacts at
these intersections.
b. Future access is proposed at CSAH 17 for the full buildout of the development. The
proposed access to CSAH 17 is located 0.15 miles from the CSAH 17/TH 212 ramp
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 18
intersection to the north and 0.29 miles from the CSAH 17/CSAH 14 intersection to
the south. Turn lanes have already been constructed at the proposed access point.
c. The County’s Access Spacing Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Figure 4.14)
identifies this segment of CSAH 17 as Category 5B, which guides full access
intersection spacing at 1/4 mile intervals and secondary (limited) intersection spacing
at 1/8 mile intervals. As proposed, the distance to the CSAH 17/TH 212 ramp
intersection meets the spacing guidance for secondary (limited) access consideration
and the distance to the CSAH 17/CSAH 14 intersection meets the spacing guidance
for full access consideration. More information and review of operations and safety
analysis from the TIA is needed to determine the recommended and allowable
intersection type at the CSAH 17 connection point.
d. No additional direct access to CSAH 101 is proposed. Additional County review and
approval will be required if this condition changes.
2. Regarding highway right -of-way
a. CSAH 17 at this location is a 4-lane divided urban roadway facility with a trail on
both sides. The existing right-of-way adjacent to the parcel varies but is
approximately 50 feet from the centerline of the roadway plus a State-owned outlot
with a variable width. The right -of-way and combined State-owned outlot for CSAH
17 appear to meet the right-of-way guidance for consistency with the County’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan (Figure B.6), but further review of preliminary plat and survey
documents is required to confirm this.
b. CSAH 101 at this location is a 4-lane divided urban roadway facility with a trail on
both sides. The existing right-of-way adjacent to the parcel varies but is
approximately 75 feet from the centerline of the roadway. The right-of-way for
CSAH 101 appears to meet the right-of-way guidance for consistency with the
County’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Figure B.6), but further review of preliminary
plat and survey documents is required to confirm this.
c. Review of plat documents is needed to ensure existing right-of-way around the two
stormwater ponds adjacent to CSAH 101 is shown on the drawings.
d. County recommends all new, dedicated outlots adjacent to the County right -of-way
be owned by the City.
3. Noise mitigation along CSAH 17 and CSAH 101 is recommended via increased setback,
berm, and/or other screening of planned dwellings adjacent to CSAH 17 or CSAH 101.
4. The County will need to review and approve the final grading plans for properties
adjacent to CSAH 101 and CSAH 17. A grading permit will be required for grading work
within the highway right-of-way.
5. The technical details of the final plat, its boundaries and form(s) will need to be reviewed
and approved by the County surveyor.
6. Prior to any work affecting or on County highways or in County right-of-way, the
applicant shall coordinate plans with the County Engineer and obtain a Utility or
Excavating/Filling/Grading Permit(s) from Carver County Public
Works: (www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/public-works/quick-links/permits). Final
details of locations, grades, and profiles affecting County roads as well as any utility
connections will need to be reviewed and approved prior to any permits.
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 19
7. Any damages, modifications, or changes incurred on County highways from current or
approved conditions will need to remedied or updated at development expense, including
costs incurred by the County.
Planning
When this parcel is platted, it shall be removed from the rural service district in the city of
Chanhassen. Section 2-32 (c) Whenever any parcel of land included in the rural service district
is platted, in whole or in part, or whenever application is made for a permit for the construction
of commercial, industrial or urban residential building or improvement to be situated on such
parcel or any part thereof, or whenever such building or improvement is commenced without a
permit, the City Council shall make and enter an order by resolution transferring such platted or
improved parcel from the rural service district to the urban service district.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Area (sq.
ft.)
Width
ft.)
Depth (ft.) Hard
Cover
sq. ft.
Notes
Code 15,000 90 125 25 / 3,750 0.34 ac
L1 B1 15,333 115 139 25/3,833 0.35 ac. @request front
yard setback and wetland
buffer setback variance,
wetland setback
L2 B1 17,958 95 146 25/4,489 0.41 ac., corner lot, wetland
setback
L3 B1 18,046 77* 178 25/4,511 0.41 ac., 90 ft. at front
setback
L4 B1 29,680 63* 197 25/7,420 0.68 ac., 90 ft. at front
setback, wetland setback
L5 B1 28,614 74* 217 25/7,153 0.66 ac., 91 ft. at front
setback, wetland setback
L6 B1 21,023 87* 217 25/5,255 0.48 ac. 90 ft. at front
setback, wetland setback
L7 B1 20,382 87* 212 25/5,095 0.47 ac., 90 ft. at front
setback, wetland setback
L8 B1 24,737 74* 211 25/6,184 0.57 ac., 90 ft. at front
setback, wetland setback
L9 B1 29,913 63* 204 25/7,478 0.69 ac., 90 ft. at front
setback, wetland setback
L10 B1 23,040 91 182 25/5,760 0.53 ac. Corner lot
L11 B1 21,182 90 197 25/5,295 0.49 ac., wetland setback
L12 B1 15,525 94 178 25/3,881 0.36 ac., wetland setback
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 20
L13 B1 17,885 90 200 25/4,463 0.41 ac., wetland setback
L14 B1 24,884 90 233 25/6,221 0.57 ac.
L15 B1 29,985 90 239 25/7,496 0.69 ac.
L16 B1 16,035 90 187 25/4,008 0.37 ac.
L17 B1 22,162 98 168 25/5,540 0.51 ac., corner lot
L1 B2 15,029 105 173 25/3,757 0.35 ac.
L2 B2 15,288 90 153 25/3,822 0.35 ac.
L3 B2 15,573 108 153 25/3,893 0.36 ac.
L4 B2 15,458 121 141 25/3,864 0.35 ac.
L5 B 2 104,841 209 416 25/26,210 2.41 ac, accessed via
existing easement
Outlot A 28,233 0.65 ac. Open space
Outlot B 1,141,991 26.22, wetlands and open
space
Outlot C 7,844 0.18 ac. Lift station
Outlot D 571,456 13.12 ac. Future
development
Outlot E 890,939 20.45 ac. future
development
Outlot F 874,481 20.08 ac. Future
development
Outlot G 910,403 20.9 ac. Future
development
ROW 134,710 3.09 ac.
Total 5,102,632 117.14 ac
@ Request 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 10-foot wetland buffer setback variance.
Request lot frontage variance (All lots meet the lot width requirement at 30 feet setback.)
Setbacks: 30-Foot Front and Rear; 10-Foot Side; Wetland 20-foot buffer 30-foot buffer setback
VARIANCE
The applicant is requesting the following variances as part of the subdivision:
1. Seven lots with less than 90 feet of frontage (Lots 3 through 9, Block 1).
2. One lot with a front yard setback variance of five feet to permit a 25-foot front yard
setback (Lot 1, Block 1).
3. One lot with a 10-foot wetland buffer setback to permit a setback of 20 feet (Lot 1,
Block)
4. Eagle Ridge Way is proposed to be a 26-foot wide back-of-curb to back-of-curb design
within a standard 60-foot right-of-way. The variance is from the City’s 31-foot wide
street standard.
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 21
Zoning variance findings section 20-58:
Finding: A setback variance to permit the home on Lot 1 to remain in line with those of the
existing development to the north is in harmony with the zoning standards. The lot frontages for
Lots 3 through 9 are slightly below the 90-foot standard, but all lots meet the lot width at the
building setback line.
a. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 22
proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical
difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems.
Finding: The applicant’s proposed setback on Lot 1 is consistent with what is found on other
properties in the neighborhood to the north and is predicated by the location of the existing road
and wetland. The street frontages on Lots 3 through 9 are due to the tight radii on Eagle Ridge
Way and the attempt to minimize the roadway width.
b. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations, but to create a
development in harmony with the environment.
c. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The plight of the landowner is due to the existing development to the north of the
parcel, the wetland located east of the proposed lots, and the design to preserve significant
environmental features on the site.
d. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will be compatible with the existing development to the
north (Foxwood), will create single-family detached homes on lots exceeding those in that
development, and be compliant with City Code.
e. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
Variance findings for subdivision (Street width):
a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience by providing reasonable access to Lots 2
through 10, Block 1 while reducing potential impacts to the natural features on the site;
b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land including trees; a full sized public street is not necessary to provide
access to these properties within the development;
c. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property because of the development design and wetland preservation;
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 23
d. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and
is in accord with the purpose and intent of subdivision regulations, the zoning ordinance
and Comprehensive Plan since it will reduce potentially significant impacts on the site
and within the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning of the
development from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Single-Family Residential District (RSF);
preliminary plat with variances for street width, front yard setback (Lot 1, Block 1), wetland
setback (Lot 1, Block 1) and street frontages (Lots 3 through 9, Block 1) subject to the following
conditions:
Building
1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review
3. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
5. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service.
Fire
1. Confirming this will connect to Eagle Ridge Road to the north.
2. Fire hydrant locations and distancing look to be appropriate. No landscaping (trees,
shrubs, plants) to be done within three feet in all directions around each hydrant
3. Roads 20-26 feet wide will need to have No Parking Fire Lane signs on both sides of the
road.
4. Roads 26-32 feet will be No Parking on one side of the road.
5. Elevation drops and grading for roads will need to meet Fire Access road maximum of
10%.
6. No combustible construction (wood) can begin until fire apparatus access roads are
approved (temporary is ok) and hydrants are installed and active/usable. Foundation work
is acceptable.
7. May not block emergency access or fire hydrants during construction at any time.
Engineering
1. Easements identified within the platted area must be vacated before the City Council
considers final plat approval.
2. The developer will be required to obtain any necessary right-of-way easements for the
extension of W. 96th Street from abutting properties.
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 24
3. The driveway to the existing residence proposed to remain (Lot 5, Block 2) must be
surfaced with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material.
4. The developer and their design team must work with staff to update the public street
layout and design, including sidewalk and trail locations.
5. If the variance for a 26-foot street width design is accepted by City Council, a sidewalk
must be installed along Eagle Ridge Way.
6. Public street sections stubbed-out for future extension must wholly be encumbered by
public right-of-way and updated on the final plat.
7. The developer must work with staff to improve the public stormwater facility’s access
route.
8. All wetland spoils associated with Interim Use Permit #2021-03 must be removed from
areas where public improvements are proposed. A geotechnical engineering firm shall be
on-site during grading operations to ensure the City’s Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates are adhered to along with any Minnesota Building Code requirements.
9. Grading plans must be updated to indicate the location of soil borings.
10. The developer’s engineer shall ensure that the maximum driveway grades shown on the
plan are calculated such that a 10-foot landing is provided where the driveway connects
to the street and a 5- to 10-foot landing is provided at the garage.
11. The future grading and conceptual build-out on Outlot E must be provided due to
concerns regarding drainage associated with Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 2.
12. Drain tile services are required for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 2 as these lots are proposed
to drain from the back of the lot towards the street.
13. Any wells located on the property to be developed must be properly abandoned.
14. The developer must work with staff in the final construction plans and details of the
proposed lift station along with its location.
15. A geotechnical engineer’s recommendation on proper back fill and compaction for the
force main extended through the abandoned lift station location must be provided.
Environmental Resources
1. The developer shall conduct a walk-through of the grading limits on site prior to
removals with City staff to inspect for opportunities for additional tree preservation.
2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any
construction activities and remain installed until completion.
3. All trees shall be planted outside of the street right-of-way.
4. The applicant shall increase tree planting in the development to meet minimum
requirements of 273 trees and submit a landscape plan prior to final plat showing 273
trees to be planted.
5. Northern Pin Oak shall be replaced with white, bur, or red oak species in the plant
schedule.
6. The applicant shall eliminate any grading within the dripline of tree #217.
Planning
1. The developer shall comply with the requirements of Carver County regarding access and
right-of-way to County highways.
Erhart Farm – 775 W. 96th Street
July 20, 2021
Page 25
2. When this parcel is platted, it shall be removed from the rural service district in the City
of Chanhassen.
Water Resources
1. The applicant shall clarify if the 5-foot pervious nature trail is proposed to impact any
parts of Wetland 3 near Lot 5, Block 1.
2. The applicant shall submit information regarding re-seeding any areas where grading is
proposed within the wetland buffer, specifically in Lots 1 through 3, Block 1 and Lots 11
and 12, Block 2.
3. The applicant shall clarify if the proposed stormwater filtration basin is to be used as
treatment for only the current proposed subdivision or if it is to be used for future
additions on the parcel.
4. The applicant shall provide a copy of the approved RPBCWD permit before any
construction can start.
5. The applicant shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Plan for any proposed
privately-owned stormwater facilities.
6. A Wetland Alteration Permit may be necessary if the proposed wetland impacts are not
deemed exempt according to Sec. 20-417 of the City Code.
ATTACHMENTS
Findings of Fact and Recommendation
Development Review Application
Narrative
Preliminary Plat
Site Development Plans
Appendix A: Traffic Impact Analysis Process
Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-12 775 96th street w. rez sub var vac\staff report erhart farm.docx
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE: Application of Black Cherry Development, LLC – Planning Case No. 2021-12, Erhart
Farm.
Request for Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A-2), to Single-Family Residential
District (RSF), Subdivision Approval creating 21 lots and seven outlots with a Variance for a
public street cross section, and Variances for lot frontages, front yard setback and wetland buffer
setback.
On July 20, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Black Cherry Development, LLC for a single-family
residential development. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard
testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A-2).
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential – Low Density uses.
3. The legal description of the property is:
See Exhibit A)
4. REZONING FINDINGS
The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse
affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are:
a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive
Plan;
b. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the
area;
c. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance;
d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed;
2
e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the City's service capacity;
f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the
property.
5. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS
a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance and meets all of the
requirements of the “RSF” Single-Family Residential District;
b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Plan;
c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the
subdivision ordinance;
e. The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to
compliance with conditions of approval;
f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record, but rather will expand
and provide all necessary easements;
g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
1) Lack of adequate stormwater drainage.
2) Lack of adequate roads.
3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
6. VARIANCE FINDINGS WITH A SUBDIVISION
a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience by providing reasonable access to Lots 2 through
10, Block 1 while reducing potential impacts to the natural features on the site and within
existing off-site right-of-way;
b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land including trees; a full sized public street is not necessary to provide
access to these properties within the development, while preserving trees;
3
c. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property because of the development design and wetland preservation;
d. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is
in accord with the purpose and intent of subdivision regulations, the zoning ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan since it will reduce potentially significant impacts on the site and
within the neighborhood.
7. VARIANCE FINDINGS – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for
the granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: A setback variance to permit the home on Lot 1 to remain in line with those of the
existing development to the north is in harmony with the zoning standards. The lot
frontages for Lots 3 through 9 are slightly below the 90-foot standard, but all lots meet the
lot width at the building setback line.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Finding: The applicant’s proposed setback on Lot 1 is consistent with what is found on
other properties in the neighborhood to the north and is predicated by the location of the
existing road and wetland. The street frontages on Lots 3 through 9 are due to the tight radii
on Eagle Ridge Way and the attempt to minimize the roadway width.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations, but to
create a development in harmony with the environment.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The plight of the landowner is due to the existing development to the north of the
parcel, the wetland located east of the proposed lots, and the design to preserve significant
environmental features on the site.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will be compatible with the existing development to the
north (Foxwood), will create single-family detached homes on lots exceeding those in that
development, and is compliant with City Code.
4
f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes
Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
8. The planning report #2021-12 dated July 20, 2021, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the proposed rezoning
from Agricultural Estate District (A-2), to Single-Family Residential District (RSF); Preliminary
Plat approval for 21 lots and seven outlots; a Variance for public street cross-section; and Variances
for lot frontages, front yard setback and wetland buffer setback for a single-family detached
residential subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff report.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 20th day of July, 2021.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Steven Weick, Chairman
5
EXHIBIT A
6
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-12 775 96th street w. rez sub var vac\findings of fact & recommendation.docx
COUUUN]TY DEVELOPUENT DEPARTUENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1 '100 / Fax: (9521227-1'110
subminal oates I l'1 \
CITY OT CHAI{HASSIil
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
ec oate(;l5.1@l-- cc Dat.lLLjLhJ- 6GDay Revien, Date:
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
E Single-Family Residence $325
425EAltottrers
E lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
n ln coniunction rvith Single-Family Residence.. $325nettotners $425
I Rezoning (REZ)
E Planned Unit Develop.nent (PUD) .................. $750
E Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100
E Sign Plan Review................................................... $150
E Site Plan Review (SPR)
f| Adminisa'atue $100
thorsand square feet)
lrdude nunbe. of q!L!!?q e(ndoyees:
lrdude r rnbe. of !e! empbye6:
f| Resioentiat DisticE....-.................................... $500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units)
E Subdivision (SUB)
n Create 3 lots or less ..........................-....-........ $300
E Create over 3 lots .......................$600 + $15 per lot(
25 lots)
E Metes & Bounds (2 lots).................................. $3oo
E Consolidate Lots ................. $150
n Lot Line Adjustnent.........................................$150
n Final P|at........ .........-...........$700
lncludes $450 escrow for atlomey costs)'
Additb.|al Gcrotv may be Equked br otEr apdicdins
ttrqrgh the de\relopaner* cotrhacl.
@ Vacaion of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300
Additiral rccording tues maY aPdY)
600
100
Wetand Alteralion Permit (WAP)
n Single-Family ResidencE..............
Altottrers.......
150
275
100
500
tr
f#Tffi81'll,$f"11,?'i.'1s, ;;;i;iil;;:I r Zonins Appea,
E Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)
qE: When multiplE applicatbns aro Foc€cs€d concu.rEnttl,
tfte .pp.op.iab le€ shall be chrg.d fo. each ep0lication.
E] property Omers' List within 5q)' (City b gcrE ate ane. se.€pdicdoo meetirE).........-...-- ..-. $3 per address
64 addresses)
a Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)
Site Plan Agreement
E Wetland AtterationPermitf| Conditional Use Permit ! lnterim Use Permit
E Vacation E Variance
Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)Easements ( easements ) n Deeds
TOTAL FEE:2467 .OO
50 per document
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of Proposal: Residential suMivision proposing 21 new single family lots
Property Address or Location:
775 96th Si W. Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Parcel 6. 25155{X}22, 25155O010 Legal Description:
Total Acreage:
Present Zoning
I 15.31 Weflands present? ZI yes E No
Agricultural Estate Disfict (A2)
Presenl Land Use Designation:Residenlial Low Density
Requested Zoning:Single.Family Residential Districl (RSF)
Requested Land Use Designation Residential Low Density
See Attached
Existing Use of Pmperty:t homestead
ECnect uox it separate narrative is attached
1lt.al.t
Reter to the ary@Nide Apdicd*rn Choctdid lor requircd sLbmittal inlofiitstioo that mud accdrpany this application)
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWI{ER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization ftom lhe property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only lo
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this applicalion has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
applicatlon. I will keep mlrself informed of lhe 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 procded with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and conect.
Black Cherry Develpment, LLc Contact:Tim Erhart
96'11 Meadowlark Lane
city/state/zip:
Email:
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cell:612.963.0733
terhart@rikor.com
Signature:
tro''
Date: \. i'4 ' / \
Name Tim Erhart
Address:same
City/State/Zip
Email:
Signature:
Alliant
Cell:
Fax:
Cell:
Fax:
Contact:
Phone:
PROJECT EI{GINEER (if applicable)
Name:
Date:.,.
t7.Lt
Mark Rausch
612.767.93i:!9Address
City/Statezip:
Email:
Minneapolis, MN 55402
mrausch@alliant-inc.com
This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before fling this application, refer to the appropdate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made wilhin 15 business da)rs of aPPlication submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business da)rs of application.
Section 4: Notification lnformation
Yllho should receive copies of staff reports?
E Property Owner Ma: E Email
Other Contact lnfomation:
Name: Dan Blake
Address
City/Statezip:
Email:danblake@pemlom.com
E] Applicant Ma:
@ Engineer Ma:
E Mailed Paper Copy
t,taited Paper Copy
E Mailed Paper copy
E Mailed Paper copy
EZ Email
EmailEother-Via: E Email
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT:Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FoRM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along wilh requied documents and payment SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
SAVE FORiI PRIi{I FOR SUB IT FOR
Name:
Address:Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have tull legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. t understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to obiect at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additionalfees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization lo proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitled are true and conect.
Contact: _
Phone:
copy to the city for processing.
Preliminary Subdivision Submittal May 14, 2021
Erhart Farm – Chanhassen, MN Page 1 of 9
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
REZONING, VACATION AND VARIANCE
SUBMITTAL REQUEST NARRATIVE
ERHART FARM”
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
May 14, 2021
PROPERTY / DEVELOPMENT SITE INFORMATION
Legal Description
Parcel 1: Lot 1, Block 1, Butternut Ridge Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of
record in the office of the county recorder, Carver County, Minnesota.
Abstract Property
Parcel 2: Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition, Carver County, Minnesota.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following:
Tract A: Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition, Carver County, Minnesota; which lies westerly
and northwesterly of Line 1 described below:
Line 1: Commencing at the north quarter corner of Section 26, Township 116 North, Range 23
West; thence run east on an azimuth of 89 degrees 58 minutes 40 seconds along the north line of
said section for for 523.29 feet to the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence on an
azimuth of 230 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds for 125.85 feet; thence on an azimuth of 251
degrees 33 minutes 26 seconds for 423.16 feet; thence on an azimuth of 173 degrees 19 minutes
17 seconds for 594.73; thence on an azimuth of 180 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds for 493.70
feet to a point on the south line of said Tract A and there terminating.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following:
That part of Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition, Carver County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the
westerly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 101, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-46, AND 10-47, according to the
recorded plats thereof, Carver County, Minnesota, and easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at point B7 of said right of way plat; thence South 89 degrees 34 minutes 41
seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Outlot A 32.22 feet to the point of
beginning of a line to be described; thence northerly 200.91 feet along a non tangential curve,
concave to the west, central angle 20 degrees 11 minutes 41 seconds, radius 570.00 feet, chord
bearing North 09 degrees 18 minutes 16 seconds West; thence northwesterly 435.88 feet along a
compound curve, concave to the southwest, radius 703.00 feet, central angle 35 degrees 31
minutes 29 seconds; thence North 54 degrees 55 minutes 36 seconds West, along tangent, 516.07
feet to a point on said westerly right of way line and said line there terminating.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following:
Preliminary Subdivision Submittal May 14, 2021
Erhart Farm – Chanhassen, MN Page 2 of 9
That part of Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver
County, Minnesota lying westerly of a line described as follows:
Commencing at the South corner of Lot 2, Block 4, Foxwood, according to the recorded plat
thereof Carver County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 02
minutes 05 seconds West along the East line of said Lot 2 a distance of 189.51 feet to the
Northeast corner of said Lot 2 and the point of beginning of said line; thence South 48 degrees 05
minutes 58 seconds East 61.09 feet; thence South 41 degrees 54 minutes 02 seconds West 134.40
feet to the Southwesterly line of said Lot 2 and said line there terminating.
Also:
That part of Lot 2, Block 4, Foxwood, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County,
Minnesota lying easterly of a line described as follows:
Commencing at the Southerly corner of Lot 2, Block 4, Foxwood, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Carver County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 02
minutes 05 seconds West along the East line of said Lot 2 a distance of 189.51 feet to the
Northeast corner of said Lot 2 and the point of beginning of said line; thence South 48 degrees 05
minutes 58 seconds East 61.09 feet; thence South 41 degrees 54 minutes 02 seconds West 134.40
feet to the Southwesterly line of said Lot 2 and said line there terminating.
Abstract Property
Address: 775 96th St. W, Chanhassen, MN. 55317
PID: 251550010 and 251550022
EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION
The development site includes 2 existing parcels totaling 117.14 acre in size. A single family residence
with barn does exist on a 2.53 acre parcel internal to the property with the majority of the property
currently undeveloped. The property is bound by Powers Boulevard to the west, TH 101 to the east, Fox
Woods Preserve and Foxwood subdivision to the north and existing rural estate residential to the south.
The site has rolling terrain with several wetland areas and wooded areas scattered on the property. The
property does have right of way roadway access to Powers Boulevard, 96th Street and Eagle Ridge Road,
there are also two platted right of way corridor stubs from Flintlock Trail and Homestead Lane (without
constructed roads). The applicant has gathered wetland delineation information for the wetland areas
adjacent to the proposed residential subdivision area, ponded water areas in future development area have
also been surveyed. A portion of the parent property falls within the boundaries of the Bluff Creek Overlay
District, however, no development is proposed near that area in this application.
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, REZONING AND VACATION REQUEST
The proposed subdivision request includes creation of 21 new single family homes lots. The development
proposal requires rezoning of only a portion of the existing Erhart property at this time. There will be a
large remnant of land that will remained undeveloped and is assumed able to remain with current use and
zoning. The proposed subdivision area will require rezoning of the property from A2 - Agricultural Estate
District to RSF – Residential Single Family District. The proposed rezoning of the property from A2 to
Preliminary Subdivision Submittal May 14, 2021
Erhart Farm – Chanhassen, MN Page 3 of 9
RSF will provide a per acre unit density (in developed area), consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan
land use plan for the property.
Comprehensive Plan Designation
The parent property has two 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations within the full boundary.
The property is primary guided as Residential Low Density with a section of land in the northwest corner
along Powers Blvd and TH 212 guided as Office. The proposed residential subdivision area falls within the
area guided for residential low density. Adjacent land uses to the south and north are either guided as
Residential Low Density or Residential Large Lot and a section of land to the north is guided as Parks
Open Space. All adjacent land uses are compatible to the proposed development proposal.
The proposed subdivision consists of 21 new single family lots and 1 existing home to remain. Residential
Low Density land use guides for single family housing density of 1.2 – 4.0 units per acre. The proposed
development plan has a net density of 1.2 units per net acre within the proposed new lots subdivision area.
Land Use Density Calculation
Gross Acreage (Full Property) - [A] 117.14 acres
Delineated Wetland Area (Wetlands 2, 3) 1 - [B] 22.564 acres
Subdivision Related Outlots (A, B, C) 2 - [C] 27.045 acres
Existing Residential Lot (Per proposed plat) -[D] 2.407 acres
Future Development Outlots – [E] 74.547 acres
Approximate Subdivision Net Acreage = A – B – D – E 17.622 acres
Net Density (21 lots) 2 1.2 units per acre
Notes:
1) Wetland 1 is excluded as the development plan proposes to impact this wetland and Wetland 4 is
excluded since it is in a future development area.
2) Calculation includes Outlots A, B and C for density estimate (with wetlands 2 &3 areas deducted)
Zoning Classification and Rezoning Request
The proposed application requests approval for rezoning a portion of the property proposed as new single
family homes from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Residential Single Family District (RSF). The
proposed rezoning is consistent with the guiding land use for the property and consistent with adjacent
uses. The Foxwood development to the north of was zoned Residential Low and Medium Density District
RLM) and the properties to the south are Agricultural Estate District (A2). The development site land not
subdivided as new single family lots can remain as currently zoned, Agricultural Estate District (A2).
There are a few lots that do not meet all the criteria of the RSF District standards and thus this application
does request review and approval of 3 variance requests. See Variance Request section in this narrative for
detailed request.
A summary of required and proposed lot standards criteria for RSF zoning is as follows:
Required Proposed
Lot Area - Minimum 15,000 SF 15,029 SF (0.345 ac)
Average Lot Area N/A 20,844 SF (0.479 ac)
Preliminary Subdivision Submittal May 14, 2021
Erhart Farm – Chanhassen, MN Page 4 of 9
Lot Width – Minimum R/W Frontage 90’ 63.42’ (Variance Requested) 1
Lot Width – Minimum @ Front Setback N/A 90’ 2
Lot Depth – Minimum 125’ 134.4’
Setbacks:
Front 30’ 30’ (25’ min) (Variance Requested)3
Rear – Principal 30’ 30’
Side – Structure 10’ 10’
Wetland Buffer 30’ 30’ (20’min) (Variance Requested) 4
Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage 25% 25%
Maximum Principal Structure Height 35’ 35’
Minimum Right-of-Way Width 60’ 60’
Notes and zoning exceptions requested, also see Variance Request section of narrative:
1) Variance requested for reduced frontage width for 7 lots (Lots 3-9, Block 1).
2) Proposed minimum lot width measured at the front setback.
3) Variance requested for 1 lot (Lot 1, Block 1) to reduce front setback to 25’ (only lot directly
adjacent to Foxwood lots).
4) Variance requested for 1 lot (Lot 1, Block 1) to reduce wetland buffer setback to 20’ (lot
adjacent to Foxwood lots).
Subdivision Features and Benefits
21 new single family homes and inclusion of the existing home to remain
Preservation of onsite wetlands and creation of wetland buffers.
Outlots provided over the preserved wetland area abutting the proposed new single family lots.
Wetland outlot B to be provided to the City after final platting.
Wetland buffer creation in accordance with City and Watershed requirements.
Extension of public watermain south to 96th Street.
Removal of the “temporary” Foxwood lift station and proposal for a new permanent lift station that
can be designed to accommodate future service for the existing homes on 96th Street.
Significant tree preservation in area of development including proposal for a conservation
easement area.
Site plan provides a secondary right of way connection for the existing Foxwood and 96th St.
housing developments.
Extension of public right of way including roadway, sanitary sewer, and watermain to the southern
property boundary.
Installation of stormwater management facilities to provide volume control, water quality and rate
control for runoff from the new roadway surfaces prior to discharging to the existing wetlands.
Site Access and Pedestrian Circulation
The initial phase of the development site has available vehicular right of way access from Eagle Ridge
Road by way of the Foxwood Development and 96th Street. Both Eagle Ridge Road and 96th Street
currently dead-end with temporary style turn-arounds. The development as proposed will provide second
access points to 2 existing developments improving the emergency servicing ability for each development
as well as the proposed Erhart Farm project.
Preliminary Subdivision Submittal May 14, 2021
Erhart Farm – Chanhassen, MN Page 5 of 9
The Eagle Ridge Road and 96th Street roadway extensions are proposed with the City standard 60’ wide
right of way and a 31’ back of curb to back of curb road width. A public sidewalk is proposed along Eagle
Ridge Road from Foxwood southerly to the proposed intersection with 96th St and along 96th St. The
proposed Eagle Ridge Way roadway section is proposed with a modification to City standard. The
development plan proposes the typical 60’ right of way width for Eagle Ridge Way, however, the road
width is proposed at a narrower 26’ back-to-back width. The proposed narrower width is requested to
reduce impervious surface, save additional trees and because this will be a single loaded road with homes
only on 1 side of the street.
The project is also proposing a nature trail routed along the rear of several lots adjacent to wetland 3 that
will be placed within a trail easement. The plan is for this trail is to ultimately cross the wetland 2 overflow
outlet to wetland 3 and connect to the TH 101 trail.
Grading and Topography
The site has been designed to fit within the existing natural features and topography. Mass grading will be
required to construct the public roadways, house pads, and stormwater management areas. Some small
retaining walls will be necessary to construct some future home sites, however, they are designed to stay
within individual lots with no cross-lot walls needed and thus will be the responsibility of the future lot
owners. Since the retaining walls are contained within individual lots they will be built as needed with the
home construction and could vary from depiction is subdivision submittal plans. The mass grading
activities do require removal of several onsite trees, however, there are significant tree savings proposed.
The grading plan proposed little to no grading within proposed wetland buffers and existing steeper slope
areas. Per City requirement all proposed graded slopes will not exceed 3 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
The site has limited access to public sanitary sewer via an existing lift station within Foxwood, however,
City Staff has provided direction that no additional homes should be added to the existing Foxwood lift
station. The Foxwood lift station was designed as “temporary” when the Foxwood project was constructed
and the long term plan was to connect the Foxwood gravity sewer to another lift station in the future. The
Erhart Farm development proposes to construct a new permanent lift station in the south end of the
proposed plat near 96th Street. The new lift station would allow for the removal of the Foxwood lift station,
however, the existing forcemain within Foxwood would be used by the new lift station. The proposed lift
station will also be designed with depth to serve the homes along 96th Street and that will allow for the City
to remove the existing lift station servicing the 96th St homes in the future.
The existing 4” forcemain that outlets the Foxwood lift station will be the same outlet for the proposed lift
station. The 4” forcemain does have a capacity for up to 180 homes, assuming the construction of a new
lift station, wet well and pumps to accommodate the additional flow. The existing Foxwood lift station
current serves 48 homes and the current development proposal will add 21 new homes (the existing home is
not included at this time). This will leave additional service capacity for roughly 111 homes with
construction of the new lift station.
The site will connect to public water via a 12” public watermain at the south end of Foxwood within Eagle
Ridge Road. The 12” watermain will be extended southerly through the project within Eagle Ridge Road
and stub for future extension. The project will extend or stub 8” diameter lateral trunk watermains within
the development and easterly in 96th Street for future connection to the homes in 96th St.
Preliminary Subdivision Submittal May 14, 2021
Erhart Farm – Chanhassen, MN Page 6 of 9
Stormwater Management
The development is located within the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District and so is required to
provide stormwater management in accordnance with RPBCWD and City regulations. The proposed
development’s stormwater management plan does provide the required volume control, water quality, and
peak rate control. The development will provide stormwater management via one treatment basin. The
development is also proposing some permanent preservation of upland area within conservation easement.
Runoff to infiltration areas from the proposed roadways will be captured and pretreated in a sump
manholes and forebays prior to discharging into the basins. The basin will provide the required water
quality and rate control of stormwater prior to discharging to the downstream wetland.
Wetland Management
The site’s wetlands were delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES). KES delineated any
wetlands near the proposed single family subdivision area and 4 wetlands (1, 2, 3 and 4) were identified. A
MnRAM analysis has been performed with the delineation to confirm the classifications of the wetlands.
The City of Chanhassen and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District have slight differences in
wetland classification labels and regarding wetland buffers requirements. The following is a summary of
the buffer requirements for the project:
Local Governmental Unit
City of Chanhassen Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
Wetland
Classification
Buffer Strip
Requirement
Principal
Structure
Setback
to Buffer
Accessory
Structure
Setback to
Buffer
Wetland
Classification
Average
Buffer
Width
Required
Min. Buffer
Width
Required
OUTSTANDING 50 50 50 N/A
PRESERVE 40 40 20 EXCEPTIONAL 80 40
MANAGE 1 25 30 15 HIGH 60 30
MANAGE 2 20 30 15 MEDIUM 40 20
MANAGE 3 16.5 30 15 LOW 20 10
The development plan assumes the most conservative buffer application as defined above by proposing
buffers in compliance with RPBCWD with the structure buffer setback in accordance with the City rules.
This combination of buffer and buffer setback that slightly exceeds the City’s standalone requirement. The
project does request variance to reduce the principal structure setback to buffer for one lot (Lot 1, Block 1),
see Variance Request section of narrative. The following is a summary of the proposed wetland buffers:
Wetland Area4 Classification Lineal
Frontage3
Buffer Area
For Avg Calc.4
Minimum
Buffer Width
Average Buffer
Provided
11 2,238 SF MANAGE 1
2 139,758 SF MANAGE 1 986 LF 42,497 SF 20’ 43.1’
3 843,116 SF MANAGE 2 1,871 LF 75,742 SF 20’ 40.5’
42 19,962 SF MANAGE 2
Preliminary Subdivision Submittal May 14, 2021
Erhart Farm – Chanhassen, MN Page 7 of 9
Notes:
1) This wetland is assumed to be fully impacted by development and will require mitigation
permitting.
2) A buffer to wetland 4 is not proposed at this time as there is no development proposed abutting that
wetland.
3) Lineal frontage listed is as assumed for buffer requirement calculation, also refer to wetland
management plan for additional calculation details.
4) Actual wetland buffer to be provided is greater than value used for averaging calculation.
The development plan proposes impact to 1 of the delineated onsite wetlands. The small wetland 1 is to be
impacted because of the necessary road construction and associated grading and changes to existing
hydrology. It is assumed that the necessary wetland mitigation will be done offsite through purchasing
wetland banking credits.
The applicant has previously received an interm use permit (IUP) to excavate within wetland 2 delineated
limits to create water storage areas. The wetland 2 work started in winter 2021 but was not able to be
finished at that time, and that work is proposed for completion in Winter 2021/22. The applicant has also
received no loss permit approval to excavate with a portion of Wetland 3 and plans to complete that
excavation work in winter 2021/22 as well.
Tree Preservation
The estimated baseline tree canopy coverage for the full development site is 60% of the net area (excluding
wetland areas). Per the City code, low density residential is allowed to remove trees to a limit of 35% tree
canopy prior to requirement of replacement mitigation. The development plan proposes to maintain tree
canopy coverage of 47% for the property and thus no tree preservation plan specific tree replacement is
required at this time.
The applicant is proposing a conservation easement over a portion of the rear of lots along Eagle Ridge
Way and abutting the buffer area of wetlands 2 and 3.
Landscaping
The landscape plan for the project includes boulevard trees and seeding of disturbed areas and stormwater
management area. The proposed single family yards will be vegetated with typical residential turf grass,
disturbed outlot areas with native seed mix, and pond and infiltration basin with appropriate seed mixes.
EASEMENT VACATION REQUEST
The proposed subdivision plan does require a lot line adjustment to the existing residential lot that currently
contains 1 home and barn. The home and barn will remain at this time and the dimensions of the lot
containing the existing home will be slightly modified. As a result of needing a modification to the existing
lot, the applicant is request approval to vacate the standard public drainage and utility easements within the
existing lot. The proposed preliminary plat does propose to replace public drainage and utility within the
newly configured lot. It is understood that the vacation will not officially be enacted until the property is
final platted and the proposed easements can be established.
Preliminary Subdivision Submittal May 14, 2021
Erhart Farm – Chanhassen, MN Page 8 of 9
VARIANCE REQUEST
The subdivision as proposed request review and approval of 3 variances including:
1. 7 RSF zoned lots (Lots 3-9, Block 1) with less than 90 lineal feet of right of way frontage.
2. 1 RSF zoned lot (Lot 1, Block 1) with a proposed front setback of 25’
3. 1 RSF zoned lot (Lot 1, Block 1) with a proposed wetland buffer setback of 20’.
Variance Explanation and Justification
1. Variance is requested for 7 lots (Lots 3-9, Block 1) to reduce RSF zoning required minimum lot
frontage from 90 feet to dimensions as proposed per preliminary plat. All 7 lots are along the
internal single loaded loop road called Eagle Ridge Way. The variance request is needed due to the
lineal footage hardship created by ‘tighter’ horizontal roadway curves limiting right of way
frontage. The applicant is proposing a narrower road pavement surface and tighter alignment to
minimize the roadway ‘footprint’ and maximize preservation of trees, yet still create enough lots to
meet the City’s density goals for the area. All 7 lots do meet the typical RSF required lot width at
the front setback and exceed the minimum lot area and depths. There are ways to create irregular
dimensioned right of way to get to a lot frontage calculation equal to 90’ per lot, however, the
applicant prefers to request approval of a variance in this case as the preferred design. Variance
approval would result in lots with:
a. Smallest lot area (Lot 3, Block 1) of 18,046 sf and the average lot size for the 7 lots of
24,628 sf or 64% greater than the RSF minimum of 15,000 SF.
b. 90’ minimum lot width provided at 30’ front setback for all 7 lots.
c. A minimum lot depth of 174’ for the 7 lots and most are well over that depth.
d. Proposed conservation easement on the sloped tree area within a rear portion of most of
these lots.
2. Variance is requested for a reduced front yard setback for Lot 1, Block 1 from the typical RSF
zoning 30’ front yard setback to the typical RLM zoning 25’ front yard setback. This lot is the
only Erhart Farm lot proposed directly adjacent to homes within the Foxwood development. The
Foxwood project was developed with RLM zoning standards including a 25’ front yard setback.
Proposed variance would allow for Lot 1, Block 1 to have same front yard setback as the existing
lot located directly north of the proposed lot. Variance request to reduce the front setback is due to
the shallow lot hardship directly created for the lot by the location of the existing Eagle Ridge Road
right of way (constructed with the Foxwood development) and the proximity to wetland 2.
3. Variance is requested for a reduced principal structure setback to a wetland buffer for Lot 1, Block
1 from the typical 30’ wetland buffer to a 20’ principal structure setback. The variance request to
reduce the setback is due to the shallow lot hardship directly created for the lot by the location of
the existing Eagle Ridge Road right of way (constructed with the Foxwood development) and the
proximity to wetland 2. Wetland 2 has a manage 2 classification with a 20’ minimum buffer
required and an allowed 15’ accessory structure setback to the buffer. The reduction of the
principal structure setback from 30’ to 20’ will better allow for home construction on the lot.
Variance request to reduce the setback is due to shallow lot hardship directly created for lot by the
location of the existing Eagle Ridge Road right of way which was constructed with the Foxwood
development and the proximity to wetland 2. Variance approval of requests 2 and 3 would result in
a developable lot (Lot 1, Block 1) with:
a. Lot area = 15,333 sf
Preliminary Subdivision Submittal May 14, 2021
Erhart Farm – Chanhassen, MN Page 9 of 9
b. Lot width (R/W frontage) = 114.94 ft
c. Min lot depth = 134.4 ft
d. Buildable principal structure pad depth = 55 ft
TIMING/PHASING
If the City approves the preliminary subdivision and rezoning request, it is the Applicant’s desire to
proceed immediately with application for final plat review and plans for a mass grading start in Late
Summer/Fall 2021.
CONCLUSION
The applicant respectfully concludes that the request for a rezoning and preliminary subdivision approval
will allow for a development consistent with City Goals and Objectives for this area. The proposed
development will create a single family subdivision that; meets density goals of the area, is consistent with
the adjacent land uses and upgrades and extends public utilities and right of way to adjacent properties.
EXCEPTIONEAGLE RIDGEROADTEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO. 101(GREAT PLAINS BLVD.)96THSTREETWETLAND3WETLAND211032456789BLOCK
1OUTLOT AWETLAND
41112131415161742315OUTLOT BOUTLOT EOUTLOT DOUTLOT BOUTLOT
BBLOCK 1
BLOCK
TEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACS00°28'49"E
290.40 C.S.A.H.
NO. 17HOMESTEADLANEFLINTLO CKT
R L N00°02'
05"W
201.86 C.Brg=N42°22'13"WC=65.89N89°58'27"
EAGLE RIDGEROADTEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACS00°28'49"E 290.40 S89°34'34"W 633.
00S00°28'49"E 290.40
S89°34'34"W150.00N00°28'49"W290.
40 S89°34'34"W 300.
00S89°53'00"E514.
EXCEPTIONEXCEPTION
EXCEPTIONEAGLE RIDGE ROAD
TEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO.
101(GREATPLAINSBLVD.)C.S.A.H. NO.
17HOMESTEADLANEFLINTL
O C
K
T
R
L
96TH
STREET11032456789BLOCK
1OUTLOT A1112131415161742315OUTLOT
BOUTLOT FOUTLOT EOUTLOT
DOUTLOT
BOUTLOT
BBLOC
K
1BLOCK
2
B
L
O
CK
1 OUTLOT C OUTLOT GEAGLE RIDGE WAY EAGLE RIDGEROADEAG
L E R I
D G
E R O A D96TH STREET1239.
42'S0°17'44"W 279.
90'S0°08'37"W77.44'S68°
55'16"W90.18'S58°13'
57"W95.58'N89°58'27"
E 2271.51'L=66.00'
R=330.00'11°27'
30"N41°54'02"E134.40'
N48°05'58"W61.09'N0°
02'05"W 167.28'S89°
53'00"E 514.
70'L =
1 9
5 .96 'R =6 3
5 .8 3 '1 7 °
3 9 '3 0 "L=237.58'R=358.31'37°59'27"L=138.63'R=1069.13'7°25'46"S64°26'53"E10.91'N54°55' 43"W515.
59'L=
435.88'R=703.00'
35°31'
29"
EAGLE
RIDGE
ROADTEMPORARYCUL-
DE-
SACSTATE
TRUNK
HWY. NO. 101(
GREAT PLAINS BLVD.)11032456789BLOCK
1OUTLOT AOUTLOT
EOUTLOT BB L O C K
1 EAGLE RIDGE WAY EAGLE RIDGE
ROAD====L=66.00'R=330.00'
11°27'30"
N41°54'
02"E134.
40'N48°05'58"W61.
09'N0°02'05"
W
96THSTREET1091112131415161742315OUTLOTEOUTLOTDOUTLOT
BBLO C
K
1
BLOCK
2
BL
O
C
K
1OUTLOT
CEA GL
E
R
I
D
GE
R O A D96TH STREET===N0°
28'49"W 290.40'S89°
34'34"W150.00'S0°28'
49"E
290.40'S89°34'34"
W 633.00'S0°
28'
EXCEPTIONEXCEPTION
EXCEPTIONEAGLE RIDGE ROAD
TEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO.
101(GREATPLAINSBLVD.)C.S.A.H. NO.
17HOMESTEADLANEFLINTL
O C
K
T
R
L
96TH
STREETWETLAND
3WETLAND 2WETLAND
111032456789BLOCK 1OUTLOT AWETLAND
41112131415161742315OUTLOT
BOUTLOT
FOUTLOTEOUTLOT
DOUTLOT
BOUTLOTBBLO
C
K
1
BLOCK
2B
L O
C K 1 OUTLOT C
OUTLOT GEAGLE RIDGE
WAY
EAGLE
RIDGE
ROADTEMPORARYCUL-
DE-
SACSTATE
TRUNK
HWY. NO. 101(
GREAT PLAINS
BLVD.)WETLAND 2WETLAND 111032456789BLOCK 1OUTLOT
AWETLAND 4OUTLOT EOUTLOT BB
L
96THSTREETWETLAND31091112131415161742315OUTLOTEOUTLOT
DOUTLOT BBLO
C
K
1
BLOCK
2B
L
O
C
K
1OUTLOT CEAG
L
E
R
I
DG
E R
O A D96TH STREETPOND/FILTRATION
BASINNWL 882.00HWL 885.
449ERHART
EXCEPTIONEXCEPTION
EXCEPTIONEAGLE RIDGE ROAD
TEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO.
101(GREATPLAINSBLVD.)C.S.A.H. NO.
17HOMESTEADLANEFLINTL
O C
K
T
R
L
96TH
STREETWETLAND
3WETLAND 211032456789BLOCK
1OUTLOT AWETLAND 41112131415161742315OUTLOT
BOUTLOTFOUTLOT
EOUTLOTDOUTLOT
BOUTLOTBBLOC
K
1
BLOCK2
BL
O C
K 1 OUTLOT C OUTLOT
GEAGLE RIDGE WAY EAGLE RIDGE
EAGLE
RIDGE
ROADTEMPORARYCUL-
DE-
SACSTATE
TRUNK
HWY. NO. 101(
GREAT
PLAINS
BLVD.)
WETLAND 211032456789BLOCK
1OUTLOT AWETLAND 4OUTLOT EOUTLOT BB
L O C K 1 EAGLE
RIDGE
96THSTREETWETLAND31112131415161742315OUTLOTDOUTLOT
BBLO C
K
1
BLOCK
2
OUTLOTCEAG
L
E
R
I
DG
E
R
O
A
D96TH
STREETPOND/
FILTRATION
BASINNWL
882.
00HWL 885.
44W F F F F
W W W WWW 12ERHART FARM
PRELIMINARY
EAGLE RIDGE
ROAD PROFILEEAGLE RIDGE ROAD PROFILE13ERHART
FARM PRELIMINARY
EAGLE RIDGE
WAY PROFILE96TH STREET PROFILE14ERHART FARM
PRELIMINARY PLAT
WWWW
15ERHART FARM
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD SUBMITTAL
POND AND DRAINAGE DETAIL
733
EXCEPTIONEAGLE RIDGEROADTEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO. 101(GREAT PLAINS BLVD.)96THSTREETWETLAND3WETLAND211032456789BLOCK
1OUTLOT AWETLAND
41112131415161742315OUTLOT BOUTLOT BOUTLOT BBLOCK 1
BLOCK 2 BLOCK 1OUTLOT C
EAGLE
RIDGE
ROCK CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCEWASHED ROCK ORWOOD/MULCH PERSPECIFICATIONS18"
MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM TOMINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM
SITENOTES:
EXCEPTIONEXCEPTION
EXCEPTIONEAGLE RIDGE ROAD
TEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO.
101(GREATPLAINSBLVD.)C.S.A.H. NO.
17HOMESTEADLANEFLINTL
O C
K
T
R
L
96TH
STREETWETLAND
3WETLAND 211032456789BLOCK
1OUTLOT AWETLAND 41112131415161742315OUTLOT
BOUTLOT
FOUTLOT
EOUTLOTDOUTLOT
BOUTLOT
BBLOC
K
1
BLOCK
2
BL
O C
K 1 OUTLOT C OUTLOT
GEAGLE RIDGE WAY EAGLE RIDGE
ROADEA
EAGLE
RIDGE
ROADTEMPORARYCUL-
DE-
SACSTATE
TRUNK
HWY. NO. 101(
GREAT PLAINS
BLVD.)WETLAND 211032456789BLOCK 1OUTLOT AWETLAND
4OUTLOT EOUTLOT BB L O C
96THSTREETWETLAND31091112131415161742315OUTLOTEOUTLOT
DOUTLOT BBLO
C
K
1
BLOCK
2B
L
O
C
K
1OUTLOT CEAG
L
E
R
I
DG
E R
O A D96TH STREETPOND/FILTRATION
BASINNWL 882.00HWL 885.44LS20ERHART FARM
EXCEPTIONEXCEPTION
EXCEPTIONEAGLE RIDGE ROAD
TEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO.
101(GREATPLAINSBLVD.)C.S.A.H. NO.
17HOMESTEADLANEFLINTL
O C
K
T
R
L
96TH
STREETWETLAND
3WETLAND 211032456789BLOCK
1OUTLOT AWETLAND 41112131415161742315OUTLOT
BOUTLOT
FOUTLOT
EOUTLOTDOUTLOT
BOUTLOT
BBLOC
K
1
BLOCK
2
BL
O C
K 1 OUTLOT C OUTLOT
GEAGLE RIDGE WAY EAGLE
RIDGE
EAGLE
RIDGE
ROADTEMPORARYCUL-
DE-
SACSTATE
TRUNK
HWY. NO. 101(
GREAT PLAINS
BLVD.)WETLAND 211032456789BLOCK 1OUTLOT AWETLAND
4OUTLOT EOUTLOT BB L O
C
96THSTREETWETLAND31091112131415161742315OUTLOTEOUTLOT
DOUTLOT BBLO
C
K
1
BLOCK
2B
L
O
C
K
1OUTLOT CEAG
L
E
R
I
DG
E R
O A D96TH STREETPOND/FILTRATION
BASINNWL 882.00HWL 885.44LS23ERHART
FARM
11032456789BLOCK1OUTLOTA11121314151617423INF/PONDINF/
PONDINF/PONDPONDINF/
POND15OUTLOT
BOUTLOT
FOUTLOT
EOUTLOT
DOUTLOT
BOUTLOT
BBLO C
K 1 BLOCK
2
B
L
OC
K 1
OUTLOT
C OUTLOT
GEAGLE RIDGE
WAY EAGLE RIDGE ROADR O
A D A96TH
11032456789BLOCK
1OUTLOT
AOUTLOT
EOUTLOT
BB
L
O C K
1 EAGLE
RIDGE WAY
EAGLE RIDGE ROADEAGLE RIDGE ROADROAD
A 25ERHART FARM PRELIMINARY
10911121314151617423INF/POND15OUTLOTEOUTLOTDOUTLOT
BBLO C
K
1
BLOCK
2
BL
O
C
K
1OUTLOTCR
O A
D A96TH
STREETPOND/FILTRATION BASINNWL 882.00HWL
885.44ROAD A 26ERHART
EXCEPTIONEXCEPTION
EXCEPTIONEAGLE RIDGE ROAD
TEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO.
101(GREATPLAINSBLVD.)C.S.A.H. NO.
17HOMESTEADLANEFLINTL
O C
K
T
R
L
96TH
STREETWETLAND
3WETLAND 211032456789BLOCK
1OUTLOT AWETLAND 41112131415161742315OUTLOT
BOUTLOT
FOUTLOT
EOUTLOT
DOUTLOTBOUTLOT
BBLO C
K
1 BLOCK
2 B
L O C K 1
OUTLOT C OUTLOT GEAGLE
EAGLE
RIDGE
ROADTEMPORARYCUL-
DE-
SACSTATE
TRUNK
HWY. NO. 101(
GREAT PLAINS
BLVD.)WETLAND
211032456789BLOCK 1OUTLOT AWETLAND 4OUTLOT EOUTLOT
BB L O C K
96THSTREETWETLAND31112131415161742315OUTLOTDOUTLOT
BBLO C
K
1
BLOCK
2OUTLOT
CR O
A D A96TH STREETPOND/FILTRATION
BASINNWL 882.00HWL 885.4429ERHART
30ERHART FARM
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD SUBMITTAL
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN - DETAILS 1
31ERHART FARM
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD SUBMITTAL
SHEET NAME
EXCEPTIONEAGLE RIDGEROADTEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO. 101(GREAT PLAINS BLVD.)WETLAND3WETLAND2WETLAND111032456789BLOCK
1OUTLOT AWETLAND
41112131415161742315OUTLOT BOUTLOT BOUTLOT BBLOCK 1
BLOCK 2 BLOCK
1OUTLOT
Appendix A
Traffic Impact Analysis Process
I. Introduction
The purpose of this process is to provide guidance to applicants assessing the potential transportation
impacts of a new development or a redevelopment.The following guidelines have been developed to
provide a clear,orderly,and consistent analysis by establishing minimum standards for all Traffic Impact
Analysis TIA).County staff will review the TIAs based on these criteria.
II. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA)
A TIA is a study which assesses the effects that a particular development will have on the transportation
network in the community.These studies vary in their range of detail and complexity depending on the
type,size and location of the development.TIAs should accompany developments which have the
potential to impact the transportation network.It will be determined in the early review meeting if a TIA
is necessary.These studies can be used to help evaluate whether the development is appropriate for a
site and what type of transportation improvements may be necessary.For the purposes of the TIA,all
land at one location,including existing developments or available land for building development under
common ownership or control by an applicant shall be considered when determining if required criteria
are met.An application shall not avoid the intent of this criterion by submitting a partial or segmented
application or approval request for building permits,development plans,subdivision,etc.
III. Transportation Impact Analysis Triggers
a) A TIA is required for any development meeting any of the following criteria:
i) generating approximately 750 or more vehicle trips per day.
ii) generating approximately 100 or more vehicle trips in any one hour period.
iii) if associated roadway traffic is increased by 50%or more.
iv) development will likely create a hazard to public safety.
v) development traffic will substantially affect an intersection or roadway segment already
identified as operating at an unacceptable level of service as determined by the County.
The trip rates in the most current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE)Trip
Generation should be used in determining the amount of traffic a particular development will generate.
If the proposed use is an expansion of an existing facility then existing traffic patterns should be
extrapolated to the proposed improvement.If no ITE rates exist for a particular type of development or
there is some uncertainty regarding the need to conduct a study,the County Traffic Engineer will
determine if a TIA is required.If an applicant believes a TIA is not necessary then a written justification
will be required.County staff will review the document and determine how to proceed.
b) A TIA is not required when a development falls below the above mentioned threshold.
A traffic study may be required in lieu of a TIA.
Carver County will consider the following effects in the evaluation of traffic studies that are
warranted by certain zoning,land use,conditional use permits and final development plan
applications prior to the application being submitted:
i) Does the development significantly affect the operation and congestion of the adjacent
roadways or intersections and/or result in a traffic hazard?
ii) Does the development significantly affect pedestrian safety?
iii) Does the development provide feasible opportunities to address an existing traffic issue or
safety problem?
c) Sound engineering practices and applicable regulatory standards shall be used to evaluate any
development proposal,regardless of the development size or scope.
d) Developments adjacent to another jurisdictional entity shall submit the traffic study to the
respective agency for their information.
IV. Transportation Impact Analysis Study Area
a) The transportation consultant and project manager shall meet with the County Traffic Engineer to
establish the study area,to discuss critical issues,and to determine the complexity of the report to
be submitted.A preliminary site plan showing the planned development,internal circulation,and
connection to the public roadway system shall be provided to the County at the initial meeting.The
study area shall be approved by County staff.
b) All site access drives,adjacent roadways,and adjacent major intersections,plus the first affected
signalized intersection in each direction from the site shall be analyzed.Additional areas may be
added based on development size and specific site or local issues and policies.A general guideline
for setting the project study boundary will be when a development’s traffic using any particular
intersection falls below 20%.
V. Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements
A TIA shall be completed by a qualified Professional Engineer P.E.).All traffic analysis shall utilize
software consistent with MnDOT practice such as the latest versions of Synchro/SimTraffic and for
roundabouts SIDRA or ARCADY.The TIA report will usually include the following:
a) Report Letter
i) Identify the person(s)to whom the report is addressed.
ii) Summarize the findings and recommendations.
iii) Clearly define peak traffic periods.
b) Proposed Development and Study Area.
i) Describe proposed development.
ii) Map of site and street network.
iii) Identify intersections/highway links to be analyzed.
c) Existing Traffic Conditions
i) Figures showing ADTs,peak hour turning movements and levels of service for all applicable
peak hour and peak hour of development unless otherwise directed by the County Traffic
Engineer).
ii) Indicate roadway/intersection geometrics,street right of way,type of traffic control at
intersections,traffic regulations i.e.no parking zones,posted speed limit),and bus stops.
iii) Determine queue lengths at controlled intersections that may affect project.
d) Future Projected Traffic Conditions Without Development Utilize County Travel Demand Model or
historical growth information)
i) Figures showing future projected ADTs,peak hour turning movements and level of service.
ii) Identify changes in road network and land use expected under full development conditions.
iii) Determine queue lengths at controlled intersections that may affect project.
e) Existing Site Traffic
i) Site generated traffic ADT and peak hours.
ii) Figure showing distribution by direction of approach.
iii) Figure showing assignment volumes and turning movements)to each link in the network
analyzed.
f) Proposed Site Traffic
i) Site generated traffic ADT and peak hours if development is to be completed in phases,show
cumulative traffic for each phase added)
ii) Figure showing distribution by direction of approach.
iii) Figure showing assignment volumes and turning movements)to each link in the network
analyzed.
iv) "Pass by"trip assumptions,distribution and assignment.
g) Traffic Impact of Proposed Development
i) Figures showing ADTs,peak hour turning movements and level of service for present conditions
with proposed development.
ii) Figures showing ADTs,peak hour turning movements and level of service for future projected
conditions with proposed development.
iii) Determine queue lengths at controlled intersections that may affect the project.
iv) Review ingress/egress sight distance,capacity and safety.
v) Review on site circulation for vehicles and pedestrians.
h) Problem Areas
i) Identify congestion or safety problems for present conditions with proposed development.
ii) Identify congestion or safety problems under full development conditions with proposed
development.
iii) Identify crash experience and expectancy.
i) Travel Demand Management Plan
i) A travel demand management plan shall be included as part of the analysis
ii) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities provide for access to,from and through development for
bicyclists and pedestrians;recommend designated bicycle paths,lanes and facilities)
j) Recommended Improvements and Mitigation Measures
i) Identify possible short term improvements and mitigation measures.
ii) Identify possible long term improvements and mitigation measures
iii) Recommended improvements and mitigation measures
k) Appendices
i) Capacity analysis calculations,data and assumptions provide sufficient information for reviewer
to follow analysis and to be able to spot check results).
ii) Queue length analysis calculations,data and assumptions.
iii) Provide other pertinent information that may be needed to explain or justify data used in the
report i.e.,if data from an actual field study of sites in the metro area is used in place of ITE trip
generation rates,then a report of the field study results should be included in the appendix)
The TIA must be submitted at the same time as the appropriate development application to the City.
However,the developer may find it advantageous to have the TIA completed and submitted to the County
several weeks prior to the submittal of the development application in order to incorporate
recommendations from the traffic report on the development plan.The completed TIA meeting the above
requirements will be reviewed by County staff and written comments will be provided within 30 days.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
COUNTYOFCARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
July 8,2021, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen, Minnesota;
that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice ofa Public Hearing to
consider a request to rezone property from Agricultural Estate (A2) to Single-Family
Residential (RSF) and subdivision of property into 2l single-family lots with variances at
775 96'b Street W., Planning Case No. 2021-12' to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A",
by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the
envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the
records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County,innesota, and by other ap priate recordt
swom to before me
f
Kim T.euwssen,Deputy Cl
N otary Public
k
Subscribed and
rhist{" day o ,2021.
Seal)
JEAI{M
Efai tt st,&1
L
elD
d
I
@ \
r"
a"
aa$ st
II
rElo|ora5
ac
3 !€
fRf
Disclairner
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a suNey and is not antended to be used
as one. This map is a @mpilation of records, information and data located in varjous city
county, stale and federaloffices and olher souaces regarding the area shown, and is to
be ufu for refercnce purposes only. The City does not \0arant that lhe GeogBphic
lnformation Syslem (GlS) Oata used to prepaG this map are enor lree, and the Crty does
not represent lhat the GIS Data can be used for navigational tracking or any other
purpose rcquiing exacting measurement ol distanc€ or di@(iion oa precision in lhe
depiction of geographic features The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to
Minnesota statules s466.03. Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of tnis map acknowledges
that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims and
agrees to defend, indemnify. and hold hamless the city from any and all daams broughl
by User, its employees or agents, or lhid parties which adse out of the useis access or
use of data provided
Di!claimor
This map is neather a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map as a compilatron of records. information aod data located in various city,
coun9, state and tederal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to
be used ,or reference purposes only. The City does not wanant that the Geog6phic
lnbrmation System (GlS) Oata used to prepare thas map are eror free, and the City does
not represent that the GIS Oata can be used for navigational, tracking or any other
purpose rcquiring exacting measuemenl of distance or directlon or prccision in lhe
depictron ol geographic features The pre'cedang disclaimer is provided pursuant to
Manoesota statut* s466 03, Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowiedges
that the City shall not be liable lor any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and
agrees to debnd. indemnify. and hold harnless the City from any and all claims brolght
by User. its employees or agents, or thid parlies which adse oul of the useis access or
use of data provided
TAX_NAMEI
aTAX_ADD_Llr
tTAX ADD L2u
Next Record,'(TAX_NAMET
ITAX-ADD_Llr
tTAX_ADD_L2r
i Stto
trt
9I
o
rsE\ st
I
stt^oo
i
I
I
LOCATION
PROJECT
6h
F/
FI
1
qr
I
90,
0,
EPo.3o.cc:
l.- o
6P
r!
8Ec\r d'
Rg
E
eo:o-
gE
F-q
o
9lod)
q)
o
ooF.
N
ut
o
o
Eo-
c
cfo
IEI
o
Ng
9
9o
q)
o
ul
E
l'-
o)
a9.9!.
9
TUE d
ofo5U'N
E6B
PFEctr (!E:>
E.:9=
5E;
E3gx6-9i&=
q >.
EbEE3Ed
g;
Ei;*
re€
N >.
L<ro-rDpii *
E;XooE
oJJ
c
c)
Eo.
6
q)
o
a
oE
gd)
o
oc
9
E,
o
oE
og.
E
E
E
E3o;
50(
oEor3
ra) o
F-<
PEEEAEE= q
0.o > -i ;iAE - oiioo)o .!L =
AgE g:E ;
Etfr aE P g
gSEflsgE
Es<e.<cr6;o
SqEEg H:q
EEEE!;*fi
29 9-orb E lPSpEBe-oHio65-E cE Y.9
EE;-e[ i H c
E sFE:E* E
q€c€€E
EEEog5d-(/,Fo(L -o do -..E O- -OyFoo=FNa")\'
E,l
ctr!
d
0,
o
o
Cl.
i!
too
Eo
otDEC
orDttoGE
otroo]
6o.9gE
c.=6
o
Eg= gE
5t€dE;
raE rei:
iEE:E(! {
l - E o!
EEIEsBE
S:IE;EE
EIEEEE
E€]€E E i!
Ela "-iocl >' o- aD -€
8l= 8 +;
6-ol- 6 [!
FEiEeg
EENHA;(,oNoo,g
o
o
o
c,
fo
i
N0N
o
E
oot!
o5
t
o
5
lt)
o.
eic
E6ttt,
o6-
c o,
qrob=
De,
ocePbgtrlJ
o)
5E
aEoo48.
iE', :"
oiFc)6it;
c!
lc.
9
o
o
E
oc
3
aq
c
o)
oEcoEq
6;;;
liooc
0)
c',(!
orocg'EO
ovEO
EE
Eg
9. -aEa
ooiE -c'Er
8e
x6l9lt-
ooOEtrcJoE'
6o
cao6oro.=
t8pE6
eEo<)
c
EEotL6i
9lllHzd
EEiEiiEEgEaliiia
ljiiiEiiElisesgil
liiEEESa;iiiEEEEEE;
E
P
P
a
E
3
o
i=
06
0,
t!o
o
o(,
oJ
joooCIo
o-
6'
o
t
a,
CLoc
EtooEct- t!
eto-J
oa ..
o9CEo0,
o=.,E=
ogo
E
Eq,(,
9.9.=
ok.EiEErE
9oEo:.
D4.E
oEot!.
9d
OEz3
o6
lE
t)
Btr
oo
gE
a!oo=-
EoE
o€o,.-
o
ot
eEEo.
za
oo(!
EE
GIEo
E -CgEg
nJO',; Oo6 > f€.-
E H E
f ob ---,s.:h ru 5
E56 eE q B€
Ee*Ht*Ee!feq:-aFe]gETUSpiP=B=ti=E
EEEEE;:E
i: gsEgEgqGSE:= p;
E-ati; E * e
sEi,g€EaiTtEFe:
6!9h e =€*=
f o- u) r- o o-o do -.-c o- -oYF (! (l,=-Nd)t
o)
d
d
c!
c:EE -
E; EE.T
cr: E ED=;.*i< iE., ;.OEIciro.bocCE-E
EE';Pe
IEfiiEi!Foo.
E E5Eg
siTIEoE! E5Rru69
eggs:;
ee= Po >.o il Cl>o,ll, -
lt= o'= E o
IBEiE-'
9 tE j
ir H tE=
o
f
a
Eio
Ec
C'
Eq
oe
J
eo,c
IDo-
o
o
o
Eq)
t !9o -gq3ob-
e :o
d, =8.= ,-: i-,; oaJx (! >(E
c tD= c-oroo (!Nto5 *El qr
sEsl6E9Slo.
o c ot --:
e P ll3
Ee"HBgE $l€
J - El=
EEI€
3 E.9le
ET 3E
PEIIE
N(
oo,
o
ocoEo-
0
di
oo
E
o
9.
E
Eoo
6
o
c;,
5
E
2
F
cio9F.
o
C!oN
oN
l
oE
o)
F
E
o
9f
0
q)
o
oot-
t-
i
o)-
o
Eo-
c
ocaoo
I
o
c9.9
UJE 6
ocoro5U,N
66!)
3hEcd6b:>
E.g 5.>
E ;
E9 o
Eor-o-t2q >Eb=eBEd!EOtod.E
ano9tilBeE
EN >.-<
Eo-oat-o-;=
IE"--o(
5i5E
g
9
9o
o
E
trJ
6
a
J
o)
9J
D
Edo
c,
q,
o
E.
oE
g.
o
o
ocg
E
o
e
E
7o
@;
EO(
oEo,3rroF--t-<
o
o)
E
oc
C
E
c(,
5Ec(!
EI'6
i
o
oo
oIt)
3
o)c
o
oEoo
o-:
o)
5
oil)p
a(
I,
c.,)
g
E
tri
o)
ooo-
coo,(
o
CDc
n)
o)
Ec()
E
3
c
9
o
oc
o
o
Eco
o
Eil)
It)
o(.)
E
o
o-
aco,
6
uJz
af
c
q
U;
o
e;g EffiE ;E,EEEi
iEEEiEiEEiEiiE:e
EEIEiEIEEEEEgE;E
EliieiilgsiglEia
EEE$EEigiEg[iEEE
t,;
i5
t
6g
3
q
E
9g,t
dr .=
tL :io-Hf=
o.t
06..
o9CEo0,
o=
OE50oo
o,
F
oo
ll,o
9
GooJ lll6oILIr
o
o
o)
oo
o-
EE.9
o- t!
eto-J
I ii)
o.=
at!+ atf=
eOE5}
E
O O A O o O O O -{ O O o Q o O O O O O O rrl Q Q O o o O O O O O,-r o o o O O.! .Y) q) @ ol qr O O ol O .r i- O !-r o o O O O O ..r O O O O .r O O 6 ; l".1 \o F o' < 6 !nr\r rlr o < !i Q'! !9 Q.n ir o m L,l H \o Lt) N @ @ r-r \o c) N or .! r{ $ <l c| o.n (n - .iJ + c\iooooooooo .r o o .n .{ m r{ (n .r rn .r o m .! .n d rn r\t rn N o o o o 6 o 6oOrOrOOOOO (O Lt) lrl q,l Cl !n ln l/l lJl v'! l,,t Ln .n rrl !n !n lrl '
Jr r/l ra L,l !n !n !/r Ol 6 ort ort .rroltOlOldrrn -. "! il !,t q.l Ol (l) r\,1 C.,lNNN6lNa!4.,1 qJ C.,t N.!.!.\| N N(O(OOr ot Ot o) dl Ot, .\l .! (O \O \O (O \O O .r O N O O O O O A A O O O O O O O O O O O an .n c! N N N N
i= ln Ln rn ra r^ rrl lrl '/l ra rn rn ut ra l^ 6 !'| rn rn !/t rn rn ul lrl rn lrr L/t !/1 !/) .n !n rn rn ra !r) !r| L/l .n6-a!c{c{a!a!a!NNa!a\la!N^tNa\ta!NNNNa\a!a\la!a{a.la{a!a!a\tNa.l.\iN.\i^jc\j
e
a ; oooLo-e u1 e. G. c.6.r.G
J!, 9ee60aiP =: :: t t l B B B B 3 3 3 = I ? ? B 3EE =; ;> hhEE; h k eh hEhhhh hE I - ur * Lu v
A tr r r > r - - - - - yr r r - r r r r - - -,idd td
a ur sl (o rr) (o ro ro ro (o lo (9 \0'o \o @ ro ro (o (o \o @ ts Lri ui I ui I
o 9 9 E 9 6 O (h Or Ch,-.r Or or Or Or Or Ot (h (h O 6 or .n rn r\ r. i\.r @ e Q r: O Fr O ir o !-{ rt O .{ O !r O i o -r A O ql + (O (g F- F.9.! e Q \9 n <.!.! .o (r1 <t A O.{.{.! N rn m rJt (o i-r N N N c! N( (h (o (o or (o (o (o (o @ (o ot F- F F N F. F. l.. a- r.\ r\ ch ol o) o) ot (
r\<
t st (llN(n r-r o ..1 (\l .{ N.{ a! anfnarlanmlrrman(ntn F.<t 11) -{.! -r ^ < OO oo<)OO OOOoooAOOO o.l \o (o \o ro !Q ur Q@ (!r \o (o (o (o (o (o (o \o \o \o \o (o 6 (o F.
R-,09 ?09?E Y ?09 09090909T ogogg?0Pog???? n<
t r-: F- F F F- a5 d F F. F. l.. r- i\ t\ F t\ F F- F. i\ tr l.r r\ i\ F- F- F F\ N Fr r\ l.\ t\ t\Ln.:H HHH ' O !-{ d r{ !-r F,l6:l.l1 rn (n 6 f! Q m ai aY) (Y) (Y) li an m arl rn rn rn rD an m m (n (n an an lll lll fit ao (rt m anrorrlulI^ t.{ rll rrl 4 .rl f) to tr tt r/l !,) r/1 !n !n !/) !n rn rn t^ ra t,., Ln !a !/r !n Ln rn !/)
a.,' - rn ra r^ l:; ra lrr !n !n !') !/r vr ur l,l l/l r/t !a La !,1 L/r rn !/) l,) r^ tn !n La !/t L,t !n urlrtzzZ6ZZzl^ t^ Z t^ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z z
f c!. ,2 2 i i> l ri i i i i i i i 2 i i ) i i i 2 i i 2 2 2 i i i i 2 2)-=
tu ?ututuJ,.i=uJ- ur r! rr.rslri (J !4 - (4 (4 4'- > q Z q q q q q q q\ q \i t \ \t) vt vt v\ a vt \^ \^ \h t4 q1 t^ a a ut \h2o- vl ..'ul u! u] = - (4 q .4 v1 v1 v1 vl 14 14 th .n .h \/\ v1 .,h v\ a th \h \h \h t1 .tt \h \h a ti
IIJ UJ T - I I - - ) - .. T - - I I I I I I I - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I-
to z z v z z 2 = < z = 2 z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z z z z z z z z z z zzg3=5e885Eh8e56588566655555566556556865
z
e,
F
8o EY l
9H=\=== { : -'.6P6Eg
HHg=EEEiIEEEEEEEEEEI:IgEE6EEEEEHHHgHg.
tr o o o ri.r.,r; = <,i E 6 3 i B I I I E: E E E E 3 E E E E 3 H I - ".. - n>< o Q !,t rO ao ( ot (o L/t = gl O O n O -{ O H O r< .\ C, H O.r O -{ O -r o o (h <t \o (o F. F.< O O O O .r -{ i-r (n Or O Ol O O O -r -{ a{ a\l dt rn (n O O r-{ H .\l N (n tn rn (O H.t .! .{ .! a!F !-{ -{ !-r N mt ut(o(o(o(o (o(o(otOrO(O F N F N N F. F. F-NNOrOr Ot Or O) (,1
Q+zzzzzr(JJJJJJ
Foo6oolxsssss*F
dl-FFFFEE(J(^6
UYUJUJdB>>>>>zo=<ooooo!2C)LiIIII-Id3on o.r.ro.r.rfPNrn!nF-6<h<hF-
o(, Or Or F{
2rEtE- - sH-
eEE ==si
i Eq
t*
H5 E"=gE E
EEEE=EEEg=EEEEEEEEE3sEiEEEEEEEE*EEEsE
iE=iEEiliE EE cE
EE
EEffi i
E=fEE=EFEE: 2i4AA' 2
UEEEEHEE ='Ai
z.Eqrl
26)
vc
s€3B88888EEE333E33SSSS98g8tBE5B8t38Ui633S3eE
E E * 9 E E E E F E F E E
88883EEEBaEE==n=n=n=n=
iiiisSE 3 3 ; 3 6 - s :e: s !si R'?:?
V= ;; a9e9e 9e 9e
z2
oooor)oo(1.)r)r)oooooor)ooooIII--A----II-I-IIII---
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzr----------:-rrr--r-rr
a 6l^ It tt ut ltr L^ L tn tn a tn a a ut t, atJMtJ1tj1aitiiit, t vt V1 t, tt\ tn a an a v\ V, tt\ U1ammmmmrnmmmmmmmtnmmmmzzzzz2z2zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
2 Z ZZ ZZ Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 Z Z Z Z
ur ur 9r (,r (, (, (n (, (^ (,l lJ! (n (n ( ur irr (n (/l ur l, (n ((
n lJr (n (, ur (,r (,r (n (n (n (^ (n ( ul (^ (n (,r t, (n ur (^ ul(,
uJ uJ (, (, (, ir,, ir, q, qJ (, u, (, u, u| u, lr, Lr} (D u, u, q)
IJIJPtsP}J|JP PFPrJrJIJ..J { } : : { : } }l }l \l..t { \.J ! { { r.r { { \.r \l
@@@ (p@@@ & iJAaho) o\ or o\ o\ or o1 \rao0o6 (0600 P 0(n( (r@ (,l @ (/' (r! (D @(O
o @ @ (o (o (o\.1 (o (o (o ro (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o lo (.,\
l \l ch ch (n F r.J (h ('r or (, (, gJ gJ gJ (! u, u, N t\J l\J N,
o o (/1 ur (, (o ur p o o (0 { (o N, F. P o o (o (o @@aOrJIQ { (o o rJ o o o o (^ ! ut { (n { ul \I (^
2222* E ? * e E E E E E E F E E
Ei Ei d Ei 9\19a a I I - I 6 I 6 I 6 I 6I6.16.,l0=-0ooo(.x x x x ; P - ; x x ; i' c' m (' m o r'r o m o;;;;
68 6e;cd-A!9:9:S:n:?14 a ?" e9e 9A9e9e
N' NJ N, NJ N N N N I\'| N) N) A) I\.) A.) I! N I\J iJ N NI I\.} I.)
ur (, {.n (, ur (, ur (r (^ u! (^ (,r (,! ( (,(,r(rur(,r(,r( (,(
h <h ah <tr 5 0rr 5 0r (h 5 5lvN)l\)NNl\.)l\, 19 l\) N.)
ts a p i o N ur o ts tJ o o (h (o to lo (O (o (o (o (o (o.
i. a G a. arr (., (6 (6 (o (E, (., (o (o (l,
66666000000000000000006660F (b O ts O O P Fr O (JJ l! (' hJ 5 l\J 5 I\,' 5UnL! an (o ts p 6 A u! \r th A rJ (O O (b q, { N., Ottsoo600r- ooooooo(r)oooooooo
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 20, 2021
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Erik Johnson, Doug
Reeder, and Kelsey Alto
MEMBERS ABSENT: Steven Weick
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; Erik Henrickson, Project Engineer.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Robert Boecker 610 W. 96th Street
Gary & Lane Burdick 731 W. 96th Street
Dr. Carissa Haverly 750 W. 96th Street
Roger & Kim Lee 600 W. 96th Street
Elaine & Johnnie Meyering 1050 Homestead Lane
Andrew Riegert 620 W. 96th Street
Martin Schutrop, Schutrop Building & Dev. Corp. 540 Lakota Lane, Chaska
Chairman von Oven reviewed guidelines for conducting the Planning Commission meeting.
Vice Chair von Oven stated both Public Hearings will go before the City Council on Monday,
August 9, 2021.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND
SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO 21 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES
AT 775 96TH STREET W.
Senior Planner Generous presented the staff report on this item, noting the applicant is requesting
the rezoning of the property, which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
subdivision approval to create 21 single-family lots and several outlots with dedication of public
right-of-way. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) which is really a holding
district in the community and is guided for residential low-density uses which permits densities
of 1.2 to 4 units/acre. The proposed density of the part they are platting with the first phase
would be 1.69 units/acre and is within the density range permitted by the Comprehensive Plan.
There is a large wetland complex on the eastern portion of the property and a portion of the site
is heavily wooded; the applicant has allowed the neighbors to use the wooded area as a walking
area and permitted horse trails. Mr. Generous noted the RSF district is consistent with the
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
2
Comprehensive Plan and looked at other districts but none were really appropriate. Staff is in
support of rezoning to RSF which is consistent with the land use and is also one of the most
common for single-family homes in Chanhassen. The subdivision would create 21 single-family
homes on the eastern part of the subdivision and replat the farm site; access would be via public
streets from Eagle Ridge Road to the north and 96th Street to the south. City sewer and water
would be extended into the project and would move the current lift station on the north side of
the project to the very south side of the project and it will be sized sufficiently to handle
additional sanitary sewer. As part of the development, the applicant is also providing stormwater
treatment. As part of the first phase of development, there is not a lot of tree preservation as there
is a huge knoll (shown onscreen) and to bring it down and make it suitable for development they
will have to do quite a bit of grading so that entire area will be disturbed. Mr. Generous also
noted another area to be disturbed to provide stormwater ponding. There is a significant amount
of tree replacement that needs to be done and current analysis says that is 273 trees.
Project Engineer, Erik Henricksen, presented and noted staff conducted a review of the grading
and drainage plan and found that it is in general conformance with ordinances and standards.
There are a few areas that would be “Do Not Disturb” areas, one being on Outlot A, a small
portion on Lot 10, Block 1, to save an old, very significant oak tree, and some other preserved
areas. Grading is proposed on Outlot E and the City is working with the developer’s engineers to
see an exhibit of the ultimate build-out and grading plan for the area to be sure there is no
adverse drainage impacts to the lots located on Block 2. Earlier this year, the property was issued
grading Interim Use Permit #2021-03 for the dredging of a wetland north of the proposed
development and the applicant is about midway through completion and there is a stockpile of
wetland spoils which are not conducive to engineering fill or house pad support and they will
want to ensure that is relocated or removed. Mr. Henricksen walked the Commissioners through
public sanitary and water mains including 8” sanitary sewer, 12” trunk main, and relocation of an
existing temporary lift station. Lift Station #20 at the end of W. 96th Street would be removed
and all of the sanitary sewer after W. 96th Street is reconstructed would be accommodated with
the oversizing of the new lift station. The applicant has provided preliminary designs for that lift
station and it does prove feasible. The City is still working through plans to get a final location
for the lift station. Finally, the oversizing of all of the public utilities required would be
reimbursed by the City, including the 12” PVC trunk main and the lift station. Mr. Henricksen
walked the Commissioners through public storm sewer and said the applicant’s approach to
stormwater management is feasible through the use of a baffle, catch basin sumps, and filtration
pond. Staff is working with the applicant to find a more ideal access to this public facility as
right now it is located in backyards which can sometimes prove difficult to get access to for
maintenance dredging. Street connectivity goes from the termination of Eagle Ridge Road with
W. 96th Street which was a requirement from Public Works and Fire for emergency vehicle
access. The applicant is asking for a variance from the typical street width which is proposed to
be 26 feet wide rather than 31 feet wide because it is single loaded with houses on one side and
to save additional trees. Staff recommends approval of that with the condition of a sidewalk
installed on that portion. A nature trail is proposed with a mid-block crossing and staff is
working with the developer to find a different location. Mr. Henricksen walked the
Commissioners through potential street collector roads and design alternatives to improve the
traffic flow. An ideal water tower location was noted on screen and spoke about as a W. 96th
Street improvement tentatively scheduled for 2026.
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
3
Mr. Generous said there are four variance requests, of which three are from the Zoning
ordinance. First, seven lots have less than 90 feet of frontage, however when they go back to the
building point they all meet or exceed the 90 foot requirement so staff is in support of that.
Second, they are requesting setback variances for Lot 1 which is the most northerly lot and is
directly next to the Foxwood development and the front setback would match the smaller
setbacks of that development; because it is between the roadway and the wetland they are also
requesting a variance from the wetland setback on the back. Eagle Ridge Way is proposed to be a
26-foot wide road and staff is in support of all the variance requests with this development. Staff
believes the applicant will be able to preserve wetlands in their current conditions. Staff is
recommending approval of the rezoning, approval of the Preliminary Plat with variances for the
street width and front yard setback, wetland setback, and street frontages subject to the
conditions in the staff report, and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Commissioner Reeder asked the City’s frontage requirement.
Mr. Generous replied it is 90 feet.
Commissioner Reeder asked how small the lots are that are being asked for variances.
Mr. Generous replied the smallest width was approximately 87 feet. He reiterated once they get
to the 30-foot setback they meet or exceed the 90 feet of width.
Vice Chairman von Oven asked on the proposed width of the street that needs the variance, are
there any concerns with fire trucks or ambulances getting through that area?
Mr. Henricksen noted there are no concerns from the Fire Department, and Fire Code does state
the minimum width for private streets is about 20 feet. There are certain requirements that must
be met, Fire performed a review, and there were no flags raised. Public Works and Engineering
does not have a concern other than keeping pedestrians on a sidewalk and out of the street.
Mr. Generous stated one side of the street will be signed as “no parking.”
Vice Chairman von Oven asked to see the slide with concerns about water. He asked if staff
could predict what the applicant will come back with for drainage and where the water will go.
Mr. Henricksen noted the applicant provided sheets that show the detail of the high point in the
back and demonstrated some routes on screen and stated they do want to ensure feasibility and
ensure everything has been checked so there are no impacts to the existing lots.
Vice Chairman von Oven asked, regarding the oversizing of the lift station, will that choice have
any negative impacts on the residents of W. 96th Street, whether it is a temporary shutdown or
changeover?
Mr. Henricksen stated sewer and water should and will always be provided during construction
and reconstruction of the W. 96th Street corridor. The oversizing of the lift station will be
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
4
oversized and built to accommodate when that construction occurs. He explained more about
gravity, current lots, and future lots and the future lift station.
Commissioner Reeder asked if there was a tree survey done and if he can see where the trees are
currently and where they will be taken down.
Mr. Generous explained the trees are all throughout the area. Mr. Henricksen showed a satellite
view and explained tree coverage.
Commissioner Reeder asked if there will be any trees left in the area they are currently
developing.
Mr. Generous replied, yes, and pointed out the areas on screen, including a large oak that they
want to preserve.
Commissioner Alto noted it was mentioned that the rezoning fits into the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan and asked how many other areas there are in Chanhassen that could be up for development
for that plan.
Mr. Generous stated Residential Low Density (RLM) is the largest land use; west of Highway
101 is guided for RLM as well so once sewer and water becomes available they could redevelop.
Commissioner Alto said it looks like the W. 96th Street neighborhood is older than Eagle Ridge.
She asked if the developer knew the price point of the proposed development versus the price
point of the houses below and above.
Mr. Generous believes the same developer that did Foxwood is interested in this and the
applicant could speak about that.
A representative from Black Cherry Development, Tim Erhart, approached the podium and said
he and his wife bought the property when they moved to Chanhassen in 1980 and moved onto
the old farm site and rebuilt the house. He got into the hobby of growing, cultivating, and
straightening trees, and building trails; they also built or restored seven ponds on the property
and it has been a beautiful and fun nature project. He wants to see it properly incorporated into
the enclave of south Chanhassen with trails and further pond development. He shared the history
of how the project came to be and noted two years ago he had no notion of selling any of the
land and a friend from Gonyea stated they had excess sewer capacity on the temporary lift station
and were out of lots so asked if he would be willing to sell some land. He feels very comfortable
about the project as it is today. He pointed out the last wetland that he wanted to restore is about
halfway done. He noted, regarding trees, it was submitted that they would clear out all of the
trees for the houses and that is not the case. Now that tree preserve will allow individual lot
owners to optimize their lot, he believes that will lead to a lot less tree removal than shown on
the plan. He loves trees and is working very hard to make it good. Regarding the prices of the
homes, he believes other homes in Foxwood are going for $800,000-$950,000 although it is a
tough question.
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
5
Vice Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Dr. Carissa Haverly, 750 W. 96th Street, had some concerns. First, she would ask the Planning
Commission to understand that hooking up W. 96th Street to Eagle Ridge is because of the Fire
Department requirement, but will drastically change the character of the neighborhood and
traffic that flows through. It is a tight-knit community and everyone knows one another; she
asked that the City be mindful of the decisions they are making and the way it will affect
residents. Second, she had a grave concern in being forced to hook up to sewer and water and
being charged a hefty assessment fee. She works three part-time jobs, her husband works full-
time and part-time and if the City requires them to no longer use their well and sewer, it will cost
them a lot of money. She is concerned that there may be others in the neighborhood that also fall
into that category. Finally, Dr. Haverly said regarding the reconstruction of W. 96th Street to
include sidewalks, her property is one of the end properties on the development and W. 96th
Street goes onto her property and uses part of the utility easement. In looking through City Code,
Section 18-64 through 18-77, Article 4 describes easements as the front 10 feet of one’s property
provided for utilities. Division 5 Section 20-379 defines utilities as sewer, gas, electrical, and
water systems but it does not say that the City may use her property for roads and sidewalks. She
then did a search on eminent domain and could not find it. She wonders what recourse the City
has for using her property for this street and sidewalks and every single resident will be giving
up a hunk of their front yards in order to accommodate this, which is eminent domain and
requires some fiscal compensation.
Vice Chairman von Oven noted she keeps referring to 76th Street and he does not know what that
is.
Dr. Haverly replied she is nervous and she meant W. 96th Street. She asked to show the ghost
plat of the subdivision and pointed out her property and utility easement; this does infringe on
her property and they can definitely come to some kind of agreement or conclusion.
Elaine Meyering, 1050 Homestead Lane, saw on the map that they are proposing a road through
their cul-de-sac and stated they are against that and do not want that to go through. She noted on
the map showing the future that a road may go through the cul-de-sac on Homestead Lane and
on Flintlock Trail for future development of the area. If that happens, she wonders when and if
they would be assessed fees for City sewer and water, as well as curb and gutter. She also asked
if the properties would stay the way they are on Homestead Lane or rezoned into smaller lots.
Commissioner Noyes asked to clarify in extending W. 96th Street to the west it appears that
would potentially connect with Flintlock Trails and Homestead Lane both coming in from the
south.
Ms. Meyering replied yes. When looking at the map A, B, C, D, she asked if those are water
towers.
Mr. Henricksen said from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan this property was analyzed to have a
water tower on it at some location and the developer’s engineer has provided three locations that
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
6
would meet the requirements. There will not be a need to install three water towers but there are
three possible locations identified. He showed the most ideal location from staff’s point of view.
Ms. Aanenson, Community Development Director, noted one of the first things staff does is to
show a potential alignment for the street because it is in the Comprehensive Plan that the street
must connect. The intention here is that it is transparent that there is a potential for connection.
Will it happen? They will have to decide as the rest of the street comes in, and they know there is
a potential for water sites so people can plan for that in the future. It is not the City’s intention to
rezone the property on W. 96th Street nor to rezone the property south. The goal in moving
forward is as systems fail (septic and sewer) there is another alternative to provide for those
houses, as there have been situations where systems fail and people cannot sell their home. They
are always planning for other options but does not mean that it has to go through at that time;
they are saying there are options to provide sewer and water access to those and some of those
decisions are also made by the Fire Department. She clarified today they are looking at this
project to show what could happen over there.
Kim Lee, 600 W. 96th Street, noted four bullet points on a document, regarding construction
traffic on W. 96th Street. Included is further deterioration of the road, and she noted they would
like to maintain the current cul-de-sac with no through traffic. The proposed construction access
from Powers Boulevard in line with the current ghost plat, they know the construction is not just
the first 21 houses but will eventually extend and all of that traffic will go on for 3-5 years as this
is not something short-lived. If it was at least looked at through Powers, there is no one there,
and then W. 96th Street won’t be affected until possibly 2026. She noted they know it is
eventually coming, but none of those homes would be interrupted until that time.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Alto asked if it is determined that all construction traffic would enter through W.
96th Street or would it be split between Eagle Ridge.
Mr. Henricksen replied ideally it would be split. It is not atypical for public right-of-ways to be
used for construction access when they see developments extending from existing right-of-ways.
Through construction planning to have two routes and access points to the development would
be sought after. With W. 96th Street being slated for reconstruction in the future, it is an ideal
location to have construction traffic.
Commissioner Alto asked if it is possible to ask the developer to use the Powers connection as a
construction road.
Mr. Henricksen noted they looked at that possibility but found it infeasible with the proposed
development and not necessarily prudent or reasonable.
Commissioner Reeder asked what made it infeasible.
Mr. Henricksen replied it comes into construction means and methods in looking at getting a
delivery when there is a road that is unplatted and does not have addresses.
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
7
Assistant City Engineer, George Bender stated it is someone’s property and to make the
requirement – rather than request – as a condition of the development goes to the reasonability of
the request.
Commissioner Noyes asked if the western part was being developed now, would the access come
down W. 96th Street for construction?
Mr. Henricksen replied no. It would come off Powers Boulevard. He noted reconstruction of W.
96th Street is highly contingent on the future developments.
Mr. Generous clarified the westernmost portion is guided for office development; it is really
market-driven and if someone wanted to come in and do that they would probably require
making the connection from Powers Boulevard. He clarified there is a large ridge right there that
will have to come down to meet the 7% slope requirements of the City.
Commissioner Skistad asked if W. 96th Street is currently a mound and well system for sewer
and water.
Mr. Generous clarified they have sewer connection, but not everyone has water.
Mr. Henricksen replied they have tanks in their backyard which then flow to the gravity system
in W. 96th and then goes to Lift Station 20 and gets pumped across Highway 101 to another
gravity system. It would be ideal to have a normal sewer pipe there as the tanks are an area of
Infiltration and Inflow (I and I) so they are seeing surface water and ground water leeching into
the sanitary system. It is an issue the City is dealing with as a whole but W. 96th Street has
exhibited a higher I and I than normal and it is believed to be tied to the tank system tied in there.
Commissioner Reeder asked what the policy is if and when they put that pipe in. Do they require
a hook-up?
Mr. Generous replied if one is within 150 feet of the sewer line, they are required to connect. A
well may be maintained until it fails and then one cannot drill a new well but would have to
connect.
Mr. Henricksen believes the 150-foot requirement is also linked to new construction.
Vice Chairman von Oven noted this Commission has approved two variances in the last six
months in his neighborhood which has resulted in a ton of construction traffic and drives him
nuts. However, it was the right thing to do because the variances followed the City plan and it is
the right of the property owner to do with their property what is allowed by the City. From his
point of view, the Commission has a set of plans and variances before it that do not vary widely
from what the City expects and that a property owner is not going beyond their rights. He does
not see anything on the map that City Code gives reason to say one cannot do that, which is also
why he believes staff is recommending approval for City Council.
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
8
Commissioner Reeder thinks the construction traffic on W. 96th will be outrageous. He has lived
with this in the past and he thinks it will be a large problem for the City for the five years it takes
for things to be built.
Vice Chairman von Oven does not disagree but he does not feel it is within their rights to force
the property owner to go in through Powers.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of the
development from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Single-Family Residential District
(RSF); preliminary plat with variances for street width, front yard setback (Lot 1, Block 1),
wetland setback (Lot 1, Block 1) and street frontages (Lots 3 through 9, Block 1) subject to
the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF) AND
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT WITH VARIANCES
FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND PRIVATE STREET WIDTH AT 9197 EAGLE RIDGE
ROAD
Mr. Generous presented the staff report and said Planning Case #2021-15 is a rezoning and
subdivision approval to create two lots, one for the existing home and the other for a new
building site. The approval comes with variance requests for a private street, as currently the lot
is accessed via a private street and they would extend that to serve the two lots. There is also a
request to have less than a 20-foot wide private street because of retaining walls on site in the
wetland. The site is guided for residential low density which permits densities of 1.2 to 4
units/acre. Sewer and water are stubbed to the end of the private street but are not connected to
the homes. There are wetlands in the northeast and south side of the property. Mr. Generous
spoke about utilities and tree removal.
Mr. Henricksen reported there are no public utilities or street connections. As presented and
shown, the grading plan is feasible and meets the ordinances. Construction plans will require
some updates and will be reviewed during the building permit process.
Mr. Generous stated City Code permits the use of private streets for up to four single-family
homes. He advised the applicant that they need the Fire Marshal to sign off on the variance for
design standards for a private street. The applicant is proposing to use wetland buffering which
the Watershed District must approve. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning and the
subdivision with the variance for the private street and private street width subject to the
conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Commissioner Skistad asked how long the private road would be.
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
9
Mr. Generous replied about 200-300 feet.
Commissioner Alto asked if the trail across Highway 101 that plans to connect to Bandimere
Park will be constructed.
Mr. Generous replied not as part of this development. Currently, there is an underpass under
Highway 101 and they would be looking for the connection in the future.
Commissioner Noyes asked if that connection is in an easement or on an outlot that the City
would own.
Mr. Generous noted that is up to the developer. The City would prefer it as an outlot that the City
would own, but if the developer wanted to keep it, then they could and place a drainage, utility,
and trail easement for a future trail alignment.
The Council discussed trail crossings and their preference is not to have trail crossings mid-
block.
Mr. Henricksen noted the newly formed Traffic Safety Committee developed earlier this year is
developing a safe crosswalk policy which deals directly with mid-block crossings to have certain
criteria for when and if they are installed and what type of improvement.
Martin Schutrop, Schutrop Building, noted there will be a shared agreement on the driveway for
maintenance and plowing. The current house has already been sold and will be remodeled and
updated.
Vice Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Vice Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Skistad seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning from
Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Single-Family Residential District (RSF), a two-lot, one
outlot subdivision with a variance for the use of a private street and private street width
subject to the conditions of the staff report; and adoption of Findings of Fact and Decision.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Noyes noted the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated July 6, 2021 as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Ms. Aanenson presented highlights of action taken by the City Council on planning matters. At
the last Council meeting, the Avienda Final Plat was approved, and there was a Metes and
Bounds subdivision for a salon. Regarding the interim use for the driving range, the City sent out
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
10
for jurisdictional review and received a response from the DNR that they had no comments from
the Biology and Wildlife person. During the City Council meeting out of the blue, someone from
the DNR Wildlife got up and noted he had no problems and had met with the applicant the
previous Friday. The City sent a letter that it would have been nice if they had communicated
that with them.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Noyes moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director