PC Staff Report 8-1-06 PC DATE:
August 1, 2006
1
CC DATE:
August 28, 2006
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEW DEADLINE:
Waived
CASE #:
06-10
BY:
Al-Jaff
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Rezoning of 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, to
RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District.
APPLICANT
Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide 13.69 Acres into 39 lots and 1 outlot,
Boulder Cove.
Site Plan Approval for the construction of 4 Three-Plex Units
nd
LOCATION:
North of Highway 7, East of Church Road and South of West 62 Street.
APPLICANT:
Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC
7300 Metro Boulevard, #360
Edina, MN 55439
Attn Roger Derrick
(952) 830-0161
roger@chofamerica.com
PRESENT ZONING:
RSF, Single Family Residential District
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre)
ACREAGE:DENSITY:
13.69 Acres Gross 2.8 Units/Ac Net 3.32 Units/Ac
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning, subdivision with variances, and
nd
site plan approval for property located north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62
nd
Street. Access to the site is gained off of a proposed cul-de-sac, south of West 62 Street. Staff is
recommending approval with conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property
SITE DATA
owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving
or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards
outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City
must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning 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 variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed
project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then
approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
L yawkraP athsawenniM evruC eeledni
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
nd St.
W. 62
7
y
W. 62nd St.
w
H
e
t
a
t
S
Cartway Lane
arb
B
C
e
y
r
p
r
ry
e
s
C
s
i
r
D
c
r
l
e
i
v
e
E
7
D
Church Roadl
m
y o
F
t
w
Gg
r
i
re
Cartway Lanew
Meadow
H
r
Lane
t
ee
r
Maplewood Ciro
Crt
e
ee
o
A
e
t
e
n
v
a d
vi
b
r
t
D
A
e
S
r
A
w
i
s
v
a
v
o
e
s
r
e
d
e
A
a
r
v
e
p
e
M
y
C
Ironwood
Shore Drive
S
h
o
t
r
r
e
u
D
o
ri
ve
C
s
e
g
v
i
r
n
D
y
i
s
7
a
dg
n
y
ni
w
d
w
n
a
a
L
k
H
L
r
a
e
e
t
v
P
i
a
r
D
t
S
a
s
g
t
n
i
h
d
w
o
n
k
roa
s
i
KL
d
a
C
w
i
r
e
n
n
i
M
en
dC
n
i
ir
L
c
l
e
n
C
i
r
c
l
e
Joshua
Lake Minnewashta
Cir
Leslee Curve
Maple Drive
Crestview Dr
L
e
s
The applicant is proposing to replat 13.69 acres into 39 lots and one outlot. Eleven of the lots will
house single-family homes, 16 lots will house duplexes, and 12 lots will house three-plexes. The
outlot will contain a storm pond and a gazebo. There are variances attached to the application
dealing with the length of the cul-de-sac serving this development and the construction of a private
street. Both variances deal with eliminating access off of Highway 7 and improving safety.
The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, and the proposal calls for rezoning it
to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. The applicant is also requesting a site plan
approval for the construction of three-plexes.
The gross density of this subdivision is 2.85 units per acre and the net density is 3.32 units per acre
which falls under the low density designation of the comprehensive plan. All lots are proposed to
be served via the proposed cul-de-sac.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 3
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance for the RSF and RLM Districts.
The site consists of two parcels being assembled into one tract of land, and then subdivided. A
single-family home and accessory structures exist on these parcels. Only the single-family home on
Lot 22, Block 1, is intended to remain. The zoning for Lot 22 will remain as RSF.
One issue that needs to be pointed out is the fact that there are currently four driveways accessing
off of Highway 7. All these driveways will be closed off and are proposed to access off of the
proposed cul-de-sac which is an improvement from a safety standpoint. In summary, staff believes
that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are
recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report.
REZONING
The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RSF, Single Family Residential District, to
RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District, except Lot 22, Block 1. The areas to the
north (City of Shorewood), east and west (City of Chanhassen) contain single-family homes and are
zoned Residential
Single Family.
The area to the
south is zoned
Residential
Single Family but
is separated from
the site by
Highway 7. All
the surrounding
property is
guided for
Residential Low
Density. There is
one development
located within
approximately
1,000 feet of the
subject site in the
City of
Shorewood
which contains
four-plexes
totaling 58 units.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 4
The 2020 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential,
1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. Appropriate zoning for this land use is RSF, R4, RLM, or PUD-R.
RSF R-4 RLM PUD-R PUD-R
Attached Detached
Units 24 40 38 54 34
Min. Lot Size 15,000 10,000 Single family - 9,000 N.A. 4 units 11,000 with an
Two-family - 7,260 per acre average of
Townhouse- Avg. 5,445 15,000
Site Coverage 25% 30% Single family – 35% 30% 30%
Two-family – 40%
Townhouse- 50%
The applicant is requesting rezoning to RLM. This proposal has a gross density of 2.85 units per
acre and a net density of 3.32 units per acre after subtracting the area of the streets.
This area is in the MUSA. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RLM and finds that
the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is creating 39 lots with the following breakdown: 11 single family lots, 16 duplex lots,
and 12 three-plex lots. The outlot will contain a storm pond and a gazebo. The total hard surface
coverage of the gazebo and path is 0.3%. There are two variances attached to the application. The
first deals with the length of the cul-de-sac serving this development and the second for a private
street. Both variances will be discussed in detail later in the report. The density of the proposed
subdivision is 2.85 units per acre gross and 3.32 units per acre net after removing the roads.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. There is one outlot shown on the plat. Lot 22 contains a single-family home that is
proposed to remain. The hard surface coverage on this lot exceeds the minimum 30% permitted by
ordinance. The applicant has posted an escrow with the city to guarantee the removal of a gravel
driveway that extends along the east and north portions of the lot. This will bring the hard surface
coverage into compliance.
Lots 11 through 22, Block 1, abut Highway 7. The plans reflect a 50-foot setback from the highway
right-of-way.
Original plans showed the gazebo on Lot 8, Block 1. Staff informed the applicant that the gazebo
should be located on an outlot rather than a private lot. The applicant revised the preliminary plat
(sheet 1 of 5) to contain the gazebo and the path leading to it. Sheets 2, 3, 4, and 5 must be revised
to reflect the new layout for Outlot A. This revision can be easily accomplished.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 5
WETLANDS
EarthTech of MN completed a review of the site for wetlands on January 26, 2006. No wetlands
were found to exist on site.
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
Easements
Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all storm water ponds and storm water
conveyance features outside of the public right-of-way.
Erosion and Sediment Control
The future storm water pond should be constructed prior to mass grading of the site and should
be used as a temporary sediment basin. A temporary outlet should be installed (perforated
standpipe with rock cone)in the temporary sediment basin. A detail should be provided within
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP).
Energy dissipation is needed at the flared-end sectionoutlet of the storm water basin within 24
hours of outlet installation.
Area inlets and curbside inlet control (Wimco or similar) are needed within 24 hours of inlet
installation. A detail should be provided in the SWPPP.
The proposed rock construction entrance should be a minimum 20 feet in width and 75 feet in
length with a filter fabric installed under the rock.
All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil
areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system,
storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed. A pickup broom should be used at a minimum of once per week or as
conditions warrant.
The plans should be revised to include a typical erosion control detail for individual lots and
multifamily lots.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 6
At this time the total estimated SWMP fees payable upon approval of the final plat are estimated
at $67,384. The applicant will receive a water quality credit of 50% of the per-acre water quality
charge for each acre treated by the on-site pond.
Other Agencies
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
GRADING
The 13.69-acre site currently has two single-family homes on flat, partially wooded land. The
existing home on the west side and the gravel driveways to Highway 7 will be removed. The
home on the east side will remain and will be within a platted lot.
The developer proposes to mass grade the site. The grading plan proposes to raise the site to
accommodate development. A storm water quality pond is proposed in the southwest corner of
the site.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The graphics below illustrate the existing and proposed drainage areas within the Boulder Cove
property. Yellow indicates the area draining to the north, pink indicates the area draining to the
south, green indicates the area draining to the west, and blue indicates the area draining to the
pond (proposed condition only).
?
?
N
N
Residents to the north, west and south of the proposed development have indicated that there are
drainage problems within their neighborhoods. The table below summarizes the existing and
proposed surface runoff conditions, which indicate that the area draining off-site, the volume of
runoff and the peak discharge rate will decrease under the post development condition.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 7
Area draining to the north Existing Condition (E1 and E2) Proposed Condition (P1)
Drainage area 3.67 acres 1.45 acres
Drainage volume (100-yr) 0.705 acre-feet 0.284 acre-feet
Peak (100-yr) discharge 5.15 cfs 4.72 cfs
Area draining to the west Existing Condition (E5) Proposed Condition (P8)
Drainage area 5.31 acres 0.28 acres
Drainage volume (100-yr) 1.166 acre-feet 0.074 acre-feet
Peak (100-yr) discharge 14.70 cfs 1.53 cfs
Area draining to the south Existing Condition (E3 and E4) Proposed Condition (P6 and P7)
Drainage area 7.74 acres 3.30 acres
Drainage volume (100-yr) 1.804 acre-feet 0.923 acre-feet
Peak (100-yr) discharge 14.70 cfs 1.53 cfs
The proposed grading plan shows that runoff from the majority of the development will be
directed towards storm sewer and conveyed to the proposed storm water pond in the southwest
corner of the property.
Hydrology calculations have been submitted and reviewed. The calculations were reviewed by a
consulting engineer who is reviewing the drainage for the entire subwatershed. It was
discovered that calculations previously submitted by the applicant did not include the entire area
drained by the north ditch of Trunk Highway 7 (Attachment 5). The revised calculations should
include these areas since concentration points have been established at the inlets of the two
existing culverts heading south underneath Trunk Highway 7. Hydraulic calculations must be
submitted with the final plat application for staff review.
GROUNDWATER
Soil boring information has been submitted and indicates that groundwater elevations fluctuate
from approximately 962’ on Lot 7 to approximately 971’ on Lot 33. The lowest floor elevations
of the proposed buildings are at least three feet above the groundwater elevation.
Due to the topography of the site, the storm water pond is located in the southwest corner of the
site and the emergency overflow elevation of 971.5’ is fixed due to the elevations within the
Highway 7drainage ditch. Barr Engineering completed an analysis and determined that the
proposed high water elevation would not significantly increase the groundwater elevation near
the existing homes west of the site. The developer will reimburse the City the cost of the Barr
analysis upon final plat approval.
The developer will install a French drain system on the west side of the pond to lower the
groundwater elevation to approximately 966’, which would provide a three-foot separation
between the groundwater elevation and the lowest floor elevations of the adjacent homes. This
French drain system will be a significant benefit from the existing condition and will allow for
the properties to the west of the project to connect sump pumps to the French drain system.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 8
RETAINING WALLS
The developer proposes to construct a retaining wall between Lots 22 and 23 to accommodate
the existing building on Lot 22. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the
final grading plan. If the retaining wall is four feet high or taller, it must be designed by an
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and requires a building permit.
UTILITIES
Sanitary sewer service to the proposed development will be extended from the Metropolitan
nd
Council trunk sewer at the intersection of West 62 Street and Strawberry Lane. The developer
is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection
permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and the street must be restored.
Rim and invert elevations of all sanitary and storm sewers must be shown on the final utility
plan.
Watermain for the project will be directionally bored under Highway 7 and will wet tap into the
existing 12” trunk watermain on the south side of Highway 7. Eight inch watermain will be
installed within the proposed street.
Watermain will also be extended between Lots 7 and 8, north of the pond, and west through the
nd
drainage utility easements within 6311 Church Road (Miller property) and 3751 62 Street West
(Navratil property) and connect to the existing 6” watermain. The looping is critical since the
existing service area north of Highway 7 is currently served by only one watermain crossing
under Highway 7. Looping the watermain will minimize service disruptions should a watermain
break occur north of Highway 7.
The plans do not accurately show the drainage and utility easements on these two properties.
The drainage and utility easement on the southern portion of the Navratil property is 10 feet
wide. The drainage and utility easement on the northern portion of the Miller property is 5 feet
wide. The developer shall be responsible for any damage to the Miller’s fence as a result of the
watermain installation.
The developer will extend water service to 3520 Highway 7, which is located east of the
development and currently uses a private well. Six-inch watermain will be extended along the
south side of Lot 22 and shall terminate at the east property line of Lot 22 at a hydrant.
The existing homes within the development area are not connected to City sewer or City water.
The existing wells and septic systems must be properly removed/abandoned.
Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications must be submitted at time of final plat.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 9
The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not
limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District.
STREETS
The developer proposes to extend a 1,200-foot long public cul-de-sac from the existing
nd
intersection of West 62 Street and Strawberry Lane. Staff supports the variance for the cul-de-
nd
sac length due to the safety benefits associated with only accessing from West 62 Street and
since the watermain for the majority of the project will be in a looped system. Access to
Highway 7 is not proposed for the following reasons:
1. MNDOT classifies Highway 7 as a high-priority regional corridor and will not allow
access to Highway 7 if there is an alternative access from a local street,
2. MNDOT is minimizing the number and controlling the spacing of accesses along
Highway 7, and
3. City Code requires minimum ¼ mile (1320-foot) access spacing along Highway 7. The
distance between Church Road and Shorewood Oaks Drive is only approximately 2,100
feet, therefore, an access from the Boulder Cove development to Highway 7 would not
meet City requirements.
Recent developments within the Highway 7 corridor include Hidden Creek, Hidden Creek
Meadows and Boyer Lake Minnewashta Addition, as shown below. Access to Hidden Creek
extends from Highway 7 at Pipewood Curve. The old access was removed due to poor sight
lines.
Accesses to Hidden Creek Meadows and Boyer Lake Minnewashta were extended from existing
local streets adjacent to these developments.
In December, 2005 MnDOT determined that the Church Road intersection at Highway 7 did not
meet warrants for the installation of a traffic control signal.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 10
Four driveway accesses to Highway 7 will be removed with this project – two from the house
that will be demolished, one from the home that will remain within Lot 22 and the one from
3520 Highway 7. Access to Lot 22 and 3520 Highway 7 will be from a 20-foot wide private
street that will extend from the cul-de-sac to the northeastern edge of the driveway on Lot 22.
This private street must be constructed to a 7-ton design.
Residents in the area are concerned that the proposed RLM zoning will generate higher traffic
volumes than a single-family development. The current proposal would generate traffic from 38
twinhome/townhome/detached units and one existing single-family home in the plat and one
existing single-family home east of the plat. If the property were developed as a single-family
development, traffic would generate from 24 single-family homes (23 new and one existing)
within the plat, and one existing single-family home east of the plat.
th
Based on the 6 Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, the
traffic generated from the Boulder Cove project would be as follows:
Current Proposal: Single family only: Difference
38 twinhome/townhome/detached and 23 new homes and 2 (current proposal -
2 existing single familyexistingsingle family only)
5.86 trips/unit x 38 units = 222.68 trips
9.57 trips/unit x 25
9.57 trips/unit x 2 units = 19.14 trips
Total Daily Trips + 2.57 trips
units = 239.25 trips
Total = 241.82 trips
0.44 trips/unit x 38 units = 16.72 trips
Peak A.M. Trips 0.75 trips/unit x 25
0.75 trips/unit x 2 units = 1.50 trips - 0.53 trips
7 a.m. – 9 a.m. units = 18.75 trips
Total = 18.22 trips
0.54 trips/unit x 38 units = 20.52 trips
Peak P.M. Trips 1.01 trips/unit x 25
1.01 trips/unit x 2 units = 2.02 trips
- 2.71 trips
4 p.m. – 6 p.m. units = 25.25 trips
Total = 22.54 trips
MISCELLANEOUS
A high-tension power line exists along Highway 7. Any work or landscaping must be approved
by Xcel Energy.
PARK DEDICATION
PARKS
This property is located within the neighborhood park service area for Cathcart Park. Future
nd
residents of Boulder Cove will have convenient access to the park from West 62 Street. Cathcart
Neighborhood Park is unique in that the park is owned and operated by the City of Shorewood, but
is located in the City of Chanhassen. The two cities operate the park with an agreement that
Shorewood provides for all capital improvements and daily operations and Chanhassen mows the
lawn and trims the trees and bushes.
Cathcart Park is 4.75 acres in size and features a playground, basketball court, hockey rink with
shelter, tennis court, and a ballfield. Ample off-street parking is available at the park. The
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 11
amenities at the park have been updated within the past 10 years. No additional parkland
acquisition is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision.
The 2006 park dedication fees are $5,800 per single family dwelling, $5,000 for each unit in a
duplex, and $3,800 for each unit within a three-plex.
TRAILS
The subject site does not have direct access to a trail; however, convenient access to the Southwest
nd
LRT Trail is available from West 62 Street. The Southwest LRT Trail is situated within a corridor
owned by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA). Three Rivers Park District
manages the corridor as a multi-use trail through an agreement with HCRRA. This particular
section of the trail travels west to the City of Victoria and to the east to Minneapolis. Access to this
trail is a very desirable recreational amenity and will be widely utilized by the future residents of
Boulder Cove. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this
subdivision.
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
The applicant for the Boulder Cove development has submitted tree canopy coverage and
preservation calculations. They are as follows:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 13.69 ac. or 596,336 SF
Baseline canopy coverage 50% or 298,665 SF
Minimum canopy coverage allowed 35% or 208,717 SF
Proposed tree preservation 8.5% or 51,059 SF
Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore, the difference between
the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required
replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage 157,658 SF
Multiplier 1.2
Total replacement 189,189 SF
Total number of trees to be planted 173 trees
The total number of trees required for the development is 173. Applicant has proposed a total of
174 trees.
Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the table:
Landscaping Item Required Proposed
Bufferyard B – South 23 overstory trees 25 overstory trees
property line 45 understory trees 45 understory trees
1140’, 15’ width 68 shrubs 108 shrubs
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 12
Applicant meets total minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings. The applicant has also
provided bufferyard plantings along the north and west property lines. The land uses along each
of these property lines is low density and matches the proposed land use of this development.
There is a row of existing evergreens along the west property line that the applicant is proposing
to remove for grading and utility installation purposes. The grading and the storm sewer
alignment shall be shifted as far east as needed in order to protect and save these trees.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth Setbacks: front, side,
(feet) Garage, rear, Highway 7
Code Single 15,000 90 125 30, 10, 30, 50
Family
Lot 22, Block 1 30,419 166 130 40, 40, 120, 50
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RLM DISTRICT
Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth Setbacks: front, side,
(feet) Garage, rear, Highway 7
Code Single 9,000 50 110 25, 5, 25, 50
Family
Lot 21, Block 1 19,066 237 140 25, 10, 5, 25, 50
Lot 23, Block 1 9,398 51 159 25, 10, 5, 25, na
Lot 24, Block 1 9,517 56 168.5 25, 10, 5, 25, na
Lot 25, Block 1 9,592 59 171.5 25, 10, 5, 25, na
Lot 26, Block 1 9,202 55 167.5 25, 10, 5, 25, na
Lot 27, Block 1 9,682 54 168.5 25, 10, 5, 25, na
Lot 28, Block 1 11,139 51 176 25, 10, 5, 25, na
Lot 37, Block 1 11,856 56 215.5 25, 10, 5, 25, na
Lot 38, Block 1 11,943 55 213.5 25, 10, 5, 25, na
Lot 39, Block 1 17,414 130 212.5 25, 10, 5, 25, na
Code Two 7,260 30 100 25, 10, 30, 50
Family
Lot 1, Block 1 24,134 78 204 25/25, 10/10, na
Lot 2, Block 1 9,691 50 194 25, 10, 30, na
Lot 3, Block 1 9,920 50 198 25, 10, 30, na
Lot 4, Block 1 10,083 50 201 25, 10, 30, na
Lot 8, Block 1 8,387 52 158 25, 10, 30, na
Lot 9, Block 1 10,021 40 153.5 25, 10, 30, na
Lot 19, Block 1 10,512 52 209 25, 10, 30, 50
Lot 20, Block 1 9,729 54 190 25, 10, 30, 50
Lot 29, Block 1 11,557 45 192.5 25, 10, 30, na
Lot 30, Block 1 12,866 46 221 25, 10, 30, na
Lot 31, Block 1 14,289 48 257 25, 10, 30, na
Lot 32, Block 1 14,567 50 291 25, 10, 30, na
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 13
Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth Setbacks: front, side,
(feet) Garage, rear, Highway 7
Lot 33, Block 1 8,332 51 164.5 25, 10, 30, na
Lot 34, Block 1 8,930 57 169.5 25, 10, 30, na
Lot 35, Block 1 8,620 50 171 25, 10, 30, na
Lot 36, Block 1 11,403 72 165 25/25, 10/10, na
Code Three Average of 5,445 30 100 25, 10, 25, 50
Family
Lot 5, Block 1 10,105 Avg. 50201 25, 10, 25, na
10,297
Lot 6, Block 1 6,848 34 201 25, 0, 25, na
Lot 7, Block 1 13,939 60 185 25, 10, 25, na
Lot 10, Block 1 10,309 Avg. 32 156 25, 0, 25, na
10,403
Lot 11, Block 1 7,622 34 225 25, 10, 25, na
Lot 12, Block 1 13,280 46 218 25, 10, 25, na
Lot 13, Block 1 11,576 Avg. 48 214 25, 0, 25, 50
9,860
Lot 14, Block 1 7,260 34 213.5 25, 10, 25, 50
Lot 15, Block 1 10,745 50 215 25, 10, 25, 50
Lot 16, Block 1 10,829 Avg. 50 216.5 25, 0, 25, 50
9,724
Lot 17, Block 1 7,411 34 218 25, 10, 25, 50
Lot 18, Block 1 10,933 50 218 25, 10, 25, 50
Outlot A 1.33 AC 25, 0, 25, 50
R-o-W 1.96 AC 25, 10, 25, 50
Total 13.69 AC
na Not Applicable
SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RLM and RSF Districts and
the zoning ordinance if the private street and length of cul-de-sac variances are approved.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is
guided for a density ranging between 1.2 – 4 units per acre. The subject site is proposed
to have a gross density of 2.85 and a net density of 3.32 units per acre.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified
in this report.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 14
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental damage
subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas
to accommodate house pads.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather
will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The three-plexes must comply with the design standards established in Division 9 of the Zoning
Ordinance for multi-family units. This division addresses items such as signs, gathering places,
curb appeal, architecture, lighting, etc. Section 20-108 exempts the single-family and duplexes
from this review. Samples of the single-family and duplex facades will be shown at the meeting.
Proposed Three-Plex Front Building Elevation
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 15
The main building materials on the single-story three-plex units are brick, stucco, and vinyl lap
siding. The brick will be used at the base of columns and the front of the buildings. The stucco is
proposed along the upper half of the front elevation, and the vinyl lap siding will be used along the
rear and side elevations.
Although these materials are permitted by ordinance, staff believes there is room for improvement.
The proposed overall façade appears to be dated. Staff is recommending the applicant utilize
cultured stone in a variety of elevations, i.e. an entire garage elevation or an entire entryway
elevation, rather than stopping at the midpoint of a wall. Staff also recommends the use of Hardie
board siding versus stucco.
Example of Cultured Stone used on the entire entryway elevation and Hardie board on the
garage elevation
The buildings have defined entryways, and an interesting roof line. The architecture provides visual
interest. The roof line provides a variety in pitch while the building provides variety in height,
articulation and materials. Each unit has a two-car garage and a patio.
The proposed building maintains a minimum setback of 50 feet from Highway 7 right-of-way.
The city code requires a minimum setback of 25 feet from local public right-of-way. The
building maintains a 30-foot setback from proposed Strawberry Court right-of-way. The
buildings are proposed to maintain an average height of 15 feet. The RLM district allows a
maximum height of 35 feet.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 16
The gazebo area is proposed to be located under an oak tree.
ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE
Sec. 20-1088. Architectural style.
?
Architectural style shall not be restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall
be based on the quality of its design and in relationship to its surroundings, guided by the
provisions of this section. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include
building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building
components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. Designs that are
incompatible with their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotic are not acceptable.
?
Monotony of design, both within projects and between adjacent projects and its
surroundings, is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and sighting shall provide visual
interest. Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and
landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and
detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation.
?
All building shall have a minimum of 20 percent of accent material. Accent material may
include brick, stone cut face block or shakes. The use of any EFIS shall not be on the first
story of any building or one story in height.
Findings:
The proposed development has been well situated within the site. It attempts to
fit into the environment in which it is located including incorporating primarily single-family
and two-plex units along the north portion of the property and two- and three-plexes along
the south and west portion of the site. The buildings offer much variety including colors,
finishes, roof lines and materials.
Sec. 20-1089. Land use.
All development shall create a unified design of internal order that provides desirable
environments for site uses, visitors and the community. The following design elements shall be
incorporated into a project:
?
The project shall create a unique neighborhood identity.
?
Creation of interconnecting neighborhoods in collaboration with adjoining landowners
(street, walkways, preservation of natural features, parks and gathering places).
?
Each neighborhood has a focal point or gathering place including parks, greens, squares,
entrance monuments, historic structures (silos/barns) or public furniture (gazebos,
benches, pergolas). Community features may include: landscaping, lighting, benches,
tables.
?
Recreation facilities (playgrounds, tot lots, swimming pools and gardens).
?
Diversity of product type and design to accommodate different age groups and
individuals in different socio-economic circumstances.
?
Broad variety of housing choices--twin homes, row houses, town homes, flats above
garages, apartments over shops, garden apartments, senior living opportunities and
condominiums.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 17
Findings:
This project creates its own little unique setting. It offers a variety of houses to
meet the different needs of the community. The common area consist of a path that leads to
a gazebo which will be located on Outlot A.
Sec. 20-1090. Curb appeal.
To encourage roadway image or curb appeal projects shall create a variety of building orientation
along the roadways; attractive streetscape and architectural detail. All projects shall incorporate
two or more of the following design elements:
?
Orientation to the street or access road:
?Setbacks
?Spacing between buildings and view sheds.
?
Architectural detail/decorative features.
?Windows.
?Flower boxes.
?Porches, balconies, private spaces.
?Location and treatment of entryway.
?Surface materials, finish and texture.
?Roof pitch.
?Building height and orientation.
?
Location of garages.
?
Landscaping including fencing and berming.
?
Street lighting.
?
Screening of parking, especially in apartment and condominium developments.
?
Variations/differentiations in units including, but not limited to, color, material,
articulation etc.
Findings:
The homes have elements such as windows, shutters, entry stoops, landscaping,
patios, panel garage doors, decorative lighting and articulated fronts.
Sec. 20-1091. Transportation diversity.
All developments shall incorporate multi-modal transportation including two or more of the
following elements:
?
Streets with trails incorporated.
?
Off-road trails and bike paths.
?
Provisions for mass transit with bus stops and shelters incorporated into the
developments.
?
Sidewalk connecting internal developments.
?Undulating sidewalks. Use of pavers or stamped concrete.
?On-street parking and use of roundabouts.
?Landscaped boulevards or medians.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 18
Findings:
Due to the fact that the surrounding area is developed and does not contain any
sidewalks, staff did not require the applicant to provide a sidewalk along the cul-de-sac. The
boulevard will be landscaped.
Sec. 20-1092. Integration of parks, open space, natural historic or cultural resources.
?
Integrate nature and wildlife with urban environment.
?Trails and sidewalks.
?Vistas.
?Historic features.
?
Preservation of natural features that support wildlife and native plants (slopes, trees,
wetlands).
Findings:
The proposed development will preserve some of the trees on the site and
provides ample green space.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
1.Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the
comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
2.Consistency with this division;
3.Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and
soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the
neighboring developed or developing areas;
4.Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features
and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development;
5.Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special
attention to the following:
a.An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a
desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community;
b.The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c.Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design
concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and
uses; and
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 19
d.Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in
terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior
drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking.
6.Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface
water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects
of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land uses.
Finding:
The proposed development is consistent with the City's design requirements, the
comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements with the
exception of the length of the cul-de-sac and the private street, which will require a variance.
Staff is recommending approval of both. The site design is compatible with the surrounding
developments. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area.
The overall design is sensitive to the City’s image based on location. Based upon the foregoing,
staff is recommending approval of the site plan with conditions outlined in the staff report.
VARIANCE
There are two variances attached to this subdivision. Both variances are related. The first deals
with a private street across Lot 22, Block 1. Access to Lot 22 and 3520 Highway 7 will be from
a 20-foot wide private street that will extend from the cul-de-sac to the northeastern edge of the
driveway on Lot 22. This private street must be constructed to a 7-ton design.
The second variance addresses Section 18-57 (k) of the City Code which requires the length of a
street terminating in a cul-de-sac not to exceed 800 feet. The length of the proposed Strawberry
Court is approximately 1,200 feet. Staff supports these variances due to the following:
1.MNDOT classifies Highway 7 as a high-priority regional corridor and will not allow
access to Highway 7 if there is an alternative access from a local street,
2.MNDOT is minimizing the number and controlling the spacing of accesses along
Highway 7, and
3.City Code requires minimum ¼ mile (1320-foot) access spacing along Highway 7. The
distance between Church Road and Shorewood Oaks drive is only approximately 2,100
feet; therefore, an access from the Boulder Cove development to Highway 7 would not
meet City requirements.
Providing access to the two existing single-family homes is forcing a longer cul-de-sac. In
addition, there is no other alternative to provide access to these properties since the surrounding
area is developed.
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-10
August 1, 2006
Page 20
PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS
Section 18-57. Streets. (r) Private streets serving up to four (4) lots may be permitted in the A2,
RR, RSF and R4 if the criteria in variance section 18-22 are met and upon consideration of the
following:
(1)The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a
public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of
existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of
wetlands.
(2)After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public
street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to
provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(3)The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural
resources, including wetlands and protected areas.
There is an existing single-family home on Lot 22, Block 1 that is proposed to remain.
Extending the cul-de-sac across Lot 22 is not a viable option nor is it warranted. Staff received a
request from the owner of 3520 Highway 7 to incorporate their access into the proposed
subdivision. They expressed concern with the volume of traffic on Highway 7 and difficulty
accessing their property from the highway. The applicant of Boulder Cove agreed to grant
access over Lot 22, Block 1. Elimination of the access points to Highway 7 is a safety
improvement.
Staff is recommending approval of the variances.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
Sec. 18-22. Variances.
The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the
plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
VARIANCE FINDINGS WITHIN SUBDIVISONS
The city may grant a variance from the regulations of the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat
approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
1)The hardship is not a mere inconvenience.
Finding:
The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street and cul-
de-sac length promote public safety.
2)The hardship is due to the removal of access to Highway 7.
Finding:
The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and
topographical conditions of the land.
Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC.
i(t::r'~~"'1
AP~ 0 5 2006
en" OF CH, < f.SSEN
7300 Metro Boulevard #360
Edina, MN 55439
TEL: (952) 830-0161
FAX (952) 831-1215
E-mail: info@chofamerica.com
March 28, 2006
Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SENT VIA FAX AND US MAIL
FAX: 952-227-1110
Dear Sharmeen:
Please accept this letter as our request to waive the 120-day deadline for the City to
review plans for Boulder Cove.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Roger erric
Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC.
Planning Case No.
CITY OF C~1ANHASSE~\A
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, M N 55317 - (952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
PLEASE PRINT
Applicant Name and Address:
r~lJt\o..3e \1{)mP::;~s, o...-\- ~()u.\A<< (' f\Ve ) L.~
1~Dt) Me--1ib ~\v clq ~ 3~f)
f--A, '("\(ll N ~ 58 ~,~Cf
Contact: ~~~~e((i( ~ '
Phone~'S -" Fax:(C{f):L) ~~\- \?\~
Email: Yr~:~f.(@c..-...rR-c.lf.cY/f \ C Q I LDrY-t
Owner Name and Address:
~ SAHF~
Contact:
Phone:
Email:
Fax:
NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temp orary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (yAC)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Variance (VAR)
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
~ Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Notification Sign - $200
(City to install and remove)
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
X Escrow for Filing F ees/Attorney Cost**
- $50 CUP/SPRNACNARIWAP/Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $~)5()D,~~
"f Subdivision*
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
*Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11"
reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a diQital copy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format.
**Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material sarIlples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
PROJECT NAME: "ht:>U \cle f CJ:JV~
LOCA TI ON: ?-J ~ Ib lli ~ 'h, Nl--'i 'I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~t' ~W}..('Xte.d
TOTAL ACREAGE: \3\1 Ac___'Ces
WETLANDS PRESENT: YES
PRESENT ZONING: ~es\ den-t16-\
REQUESTED ZONING: ~. L\ H
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: L , D~ ~ .
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: L, \'), ~ ~
REASON FOR REQUEST: D\'\e, ~ J. '\f') ) Q.J\~ -l'n{e~ \ 1'()\\- ~\i:)\\ 'nD\'J"'\e
~Dm~un'\~
'X NO l&<:. ~6S\c. \-e-\\-ef)
S, F.
This application must be completed in full and be typevvritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to 1his application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
e.. ~e.. Lc...
rt'D.2. JDDlo
Date
Signature of Fee Owner
Date
G:\pLAN\forms\Development Review Application.DOC
Rev. 12/05
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SSe
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on July
20, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that
on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for
Boulder Cove - Planning Case No. 06-10 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by
enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the
envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the
records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
thi~+1"- day O~{ , 2006.
"C
C
co
01
c
'':
CO
Ql
J:
.~
jj
:::I
a.
-
o
Ql
U
=
o
Z
"CQ)
Q)0.e
..... ..co.....
- 0 (/) -.e"C
CO <! Ql -~co
:;=.....::+:; :> :JOQ)
c~ _ :> 0.0_
~ -I ~ '0 ~ -5,=
'en fS 0 .e :J'Q) ;::
Q) E CO "S 0 c .=
.a: ~ 0 >-Q)co
- "C E'~ 0 (/) E ..c .e
VI ~"C- "C ai~-U
c caOO)C Uc uOEQ)
.;; -~~,g -I CO ;::'E o.e (/)
~ 0)>-060. -I"C o._~_c..
-= ~ 15:> Ql Q)- CO ; 0::: 0;2
"::Ecoc..i):t:: >oa:o :c-:Jc(/)
g ci ~ e -I en :: .!!2 g- ~ g'
.- 0 c..Cii co U i3 0 g>'- Q).~
~ g R '0 :;= "C ~ Q;:5 -8 'L:'~ E 0
'E r:..: t-- 01 ffi @ 'c "C ..c Ui m15 Q) '5
E~(/).532enE:J :i() 5:.e0:S-
W~c(/)Ql ~-...u Q)
oCD]goQ)uE ......0 CIl=.8g'..c
o 0 N a: ~ 0 co 'In iii .0 "C 'L: -
_oEQlo._u (/)co ...:JC:J..c
i::C\Jcoa:-;aQ) "co) ~c..coog>
'2 ..... B .. u.:- > E co r--: -.!!2 - 0
c - Woo 0 Q) >- c:S ~t5~
l'Cl (/)'0 > a: :S ..c 'In co 0 _ :J 0) _
- 2 cO..........~ c Q);:: !! 0 C".~ Ol
o.~:Jo~ ;:: E.e QQ)O)ec
c ;::. 0 .- c 0 C) l'lI (/) ~ c..'L:
Ql.......ua:E.2- ~IQ)EO_(/)(/)co
en:>: Wcoen:t:: Q)ce-"E:c..cO)
en coCiiCU.'S; 5 ~'O.t::;.5!:J co-
~ -g I :::! ~:c cb 0 co ..c CJ) -; 0..2 '5 .2
c Q) >- oJ OlJ:l Q) ,.... :::: t:::"E u Q) c.. 0 ::0
l'Cl :J :t:: O.~ :::I .e~ cD 0 0 C\J oS! ..c 0..0 :J
~l-umooen_OUZCD<l-coCOc..
o
Ql
E ..
j::c
06:8
s B
l'Cl 0
C..J
~
ii:.;.;
g~
c .~
~8
o.<t
>-c
t:o
Ql=
o.l'Cl
o U
... 0
o...J
ili
en
o
a.
o
...
a.
01
c
'':
l'Cl
Ql
J:
.~
jj
:::I
a.
-
o
Ql
U
=
o
Z
"C
@ Q)-g~
..co-
o 'In - ..c "C
;rg.....::~ ~ "Sam
c~ _ :> 0.0_
0) -I Q) '0 ~ -5,=
~ fS 5 ..c :J'Q) ;::
0) E co "S 0 c.=
.a: ~ 0 >-Q)CO
g ~ E~.2 (/) E:SG
~ ffioO)c u-g 80EO)
= -~~,g -I co '-'E o..c en
Ql 0) >- 06 a. -I "C '0 .- ~ - 0.
~ ~t::: Ql -co co:::0l-2
..:: coO);::_ Q)o CIl_:JC(/)
E"<::c..o'- 0>a::E(/)
g ci.o:::; e -I en - 0.:;= Ol
.- 0 0. Cii co U ..c 'O'o,'~:R .~
~ g R '0 :;= "C ~ Q; e CIl 'E.S E ~
'-E r:..: t-- 01 ffi@'c:Q E ~ co ~ Q) =
c"C :J :JU O).o..c 0
E co (/) .- .- enQl E 0 _ 5: ..c 0 - -
~c(/) cao "'UOOlQ)
88]gEla~~~ co'ln ~i5;'E:S
010 Qlo._U co ...:JC:J..c
cC\Jcoa:-;aQ) (/)0) CIlc..coOOl
._ ..c -> E "C. .r:. (/) _ :J
C ..... U .. LL co t-- - .- (/) . 0
c- w>OO..co 2>- s:SO)t5~
l'Cl (/) '0 a: :t:: ..c (/) co CIl _ :J 0) -
- 2 cO.........:iS: cO);:: - 0 C".~ Ol
a. ;S' :J 0 ~ ;:: E ..c Ql'lI Q) ~ e c
c <x: 0 .- coo C) (/) 0. 'L:
Ql U a: E.2 - I I'- -0) Eo.(/) (/) co
en-. Wcoen:t:: 0.- Q)
en-"'-cu.'-c Q)_O)c~c:C.e
COco >:J ;;o~o:Jco-
l'Cl"CI..JQ)'- I '-' ",- U U
~(/) ~-~O)Oco..c~~c..='5=
c Q) ~ 0 g'-e Q) ";' ::::0 t:::o"E g Q) 0. 0 .0
l'Cl :J .- .-........ CD C\J - ..c 0..0 :J
~I-Umooen:SOUZCD<l-cococ..
o
Ql
E
j::c
.2
06_
S B
l'Cl 0
C..J
~
ii:
-
g ~
'2 .~
co.
~9:
>-c
t:o
Ql=
o.l'Cl
o U
... 0
0.-1
l'Cl
en
o
a.
o
...
a.
.8 :!::: Ql
CQ). ~
(/) - .eQ)C(/)- -
0) '(ij (/) Q) 0 - 0 c c 0
~ .~ .~ ~ -a ~ g.~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ g,.e E E CO.!!2 ~ '':
'e t5 ~ '*- = ~ a 8 ~ ~ g ~
0. .9? 0 - co (/) C C 0 Ql l'Cl
"C e '(ij g> .s"E ~ 2 .- U jj -g
3l 0. cS .!!2 :;= .e 0 c 'E "E Q) l'Cl ...
oQ)=E :R c;jUE;;::~:s~.E
c...c.c E E ~ ~ c: ~ 0 > I-
O-:Jo CDco3lE'S-l'ClQl
c..5~U Q) ~~(/).oc..(/)Ql~
Q) (/)..c Q) :S C 0. co ;;:l Q).!:E J:I -
.e _ ..c co . ..c "C 0. _ Ql
-@E- ~ ]5-CO 0->",:,
'O-c..o"C 0 ---~co-Q)u'io~'
C Q) ~ ~ 'o~..cu Q)(/) :S Q) E.c .5
;:: - ~ co .0 'u Q)...... 0 "C l'Cl Ci)
.!:E ffi ~ "C (/) Q) ~ 0.'0 g - .;;: S ~ Ql
~ (/) > Q) C ~ ~ .!!2 @..c ~ e .- s E
~ ~'Q).Q III c..c:S:::: U 0 c...!!! en c
o uO)u c...oE-~5u=oS==0
c:=,-w Q)Q) .5ca>.Q)~...Cl).iii
co ;:: Q) .;:: :S;:: ffi.o (/) = 5:::: o:t:: en
_........n Q)(/) co- co_en.-
Q)ccoc O)-~ CO..,fQ)-t:J:lE
.:::: ~ (/) .~ ....; (/) ~ co ~ ~ C") ~ CJ) 0 Ql E
Ol = "E 0) U o.o.e 0 ......e a.;:: 0
= 0. Q) .e .~ - ..... @ 0) ~ ";' 0 ci> Ql - 0
;::c..Eue"Ec....cE t--_c"'U
co .-::::... (/) U 0 >- C\J - :;= - Ql gi
::::Q)E:cU.w-. .oC\J:JO)~'-c
ell .e 0 :J 0) :is: ~'o (/) _ . 'E.. 0) - e .-
U51-()a..:S:Ji:33.8Cti~Q)Eeno.2
g,Q);::~70').eQ)~Qll'Cl
..... C\i ct) ..,f =:S;:: ~ <( co .!!2 :S I- oS ii:
cni:n
~.5
0.-
o.Ql
l'Cl Ql
J::E
-Ql
l'Cl~
~-
3:16
06..
en:!
c c
o Ql
=E
~ E
:::I 0
00
o _ Ql
.....cQ) .. .c
(/) :t:: .eO)C(/)- -
(/) (/)O)o-oc'co
3l .;;: .~ E..c ffi Q) 0 -
(/) Q) .....c..EUoQl...
:J :J co c'en 0
t5 U ~ 065EECO(/).5..:
0) :6 0) ~ ..... 0 -6 'E c a.
'0""; c.. t5oUcoEO>-
.....u c -co(/) Cc OQll'Cl
0. .9? 0 Ol E"E ~ 2 .- U jj -g
"C e 'en .~ 1: 0 c 'E "E Q) l'Cl ...
3l 0. cS .!!2 Q) 0 u E :is: 0) ..c = :::I
oQ)=E Q) .....Q). E-l'Cl~
c....c.o E E ,:'" (/) c :t:: t::: 0 > I-
o-:Jo .....coQ)E -l'ClQl
c.. c c..u Q) ~ ~ ~ .0 ~ (/) Ql ~
o Q) :S c 0. ell ~ O).!:E.c -
Q) (/)..c Q) 0) co..e "C 0._ Ql
:Sc-..c ..... :e:t5@.8Q)8~>QI
-lllE; .2":>0)..cQ)..c ;>oc
o c. 0 Q) ..... [.. "--. ..... Q) .c .-
",. .....c .ocoQ)e~(/)o"CEl'Cl-
a; c:; co (/) Q) ~ 0.'0 g - .;;: Ql ~ ~
'S 0) 0) ~ c ~ ~ .!!2@..c ~ e :t:: _Ql E
.... ~ > (/) III 0. ...c:::: u 0 c...!!! en
~ c..'Q) .Q 0..0 C ::: ~ :J U = ~ == c
o = ~ u Q) 0) E; 6 'cii g, Q) .~ -: Ql'~
c .~ ..... .!!2 :S:is: ffi .0 (/) - 5 :::: o:t:: en
co_~C) Q)(/) co- co-en,-
Q) Q)-~ CO..,fQ)-t:.cE
> @ co 'E (/) ~ co ~ ~ C") ~ CJ) 0 Ql E
'o,g -E m t5 0 '0-2 0 E ;::.e . CoQl :: 0
=0. 0)-..... 0) I 00l -0
:is: 0. O)E ..c '6 "E 0. ~ E Q) t-- _ .~ ... U _
:: co .~ = co.(/) U 0 >- C\J :i - == .!a ...
- Q) E :0 u. :is: ~.~ (/).0 ~ - :R oS 0.5
~ .e 0 :J Q) .- ~ 0 :::: C\J ..9- E en ... c
CJ)l-ua..:S:J()~-COLOo) o.c
g,Q) ~70')..cQ)~Qll'Cl
..... C\i ct) ..,f = :S ~ <( co .!!2 :S I- oS ii:
enOl
c c
Ql.-
0.-
o.Ql
III Ql
J::E
-Ql
l'Cl~
~-
3:16
06..
en:!
c c
o Ql
:;:::E
~ E
:::I 0
00
Ql
~ m .~~ .~m ~ ~
~ : .9 ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~ Q) ~ B
~ <l>u n;'~ t"G a: ~ ~~.~ o~ c:.r::. C
~5.~ ~~~ <l>~ ~.E J~ ji.Q
~:E Q) 0 _ :; > o.,! ns ~.~ g =' ~
~~g ~~mns~~ ro~g c:~ <l>O~
~ ~ ~ 0 e 8.~ ~ 'g ca ~ ~ .:: ~ 0 ~ ~~
",.mo ~~~nso.'~E~OCQl 0 ",-c:
>c_ ~nso.E~Ew~oE -; 4> '(1)
.. 'C CD m CD C1>"O 0 Q) -6 ~ .9 t::: _>.~ -g g:5
"'Ql"'Ql~ - .r::.C~ c c:
w.r;:.W ~.~_m~a~~~~ 'O~ ~~o
~uU ",mSE~E",,,,SQl!~ ,0-0
E :B .~ c ~ ~ Q) 3: '00'0 ~ 5 0 - 0 0 >. Q)
~~~ :8::::m~~mQjuEg o~ cuE
~m<1> ~~~S~~~g!'~ ~ns ~Q)~
"O~= 0 -8.~E;o.s~~ n:J'~ .g:5a
C:",'5-0 E._gw~~_u.r::.<1>~ Eo~ ~u-.9!Ql
c- .- O~ocO'5cn
OjQlQioEQi-.-c:Ql::,"Ql! U(/) 5150
c '- <1> c QJ Q).2"C.;: E.~ "C ..:::.:: - m ~ 0 0.:::=
gE;~~E~~~~~~~E ~~ o~~
u wo Q) Q) c: o.m ..aJu Q) ca:: 'S; 0 z.Q)~
C:E~E~~Qlm~~~uE~ eR BS~
8~~~~.~=~Qj<1>~K>.~ a.~ Q)C~
~~~;~~~m~~E<1>!~ .9.~ ~~~
~ <{ >. ~ -g 0"0 ~ >-~.g ~"Q.:!2 -g:; g-o (l.
'5<1>i=uo~:B~cs-Eg ~o 'c~~
~ -g 0. ~ .S g' 8. a= : ffi ~ 8 -55 :; :6 m .S ::
coe-~'eo<1>gcnEg~cn 8~ .r::.<1>~
~~~js~!=g~~~~~~~~ ~~~
~ : :.~ g CL == ~ () @ (1) 0...9 e..s .~ ~ 5.:: 8
~E.~~~~~E~~~~IDQ~IDO IDg~
~ID~~g=~~5~~~~~~~~ s~~
l'J E ~ 1: ~ <I: "'" '5 Ql.S:J '" - .- _ 0 '" U-:=
c'U ctIQ . =>..ec: C/Jc:..eUC.o '0="-
mi~Q~~~~~2~~~g~~~.~R~
KEgi~~~'~~m~~~e8~~~..ectl8
o<ctI-~u.wgOC'Um.Q..c~nc:~gIDw
~c:.5~~mC:'~~ ,c:~a--~mo'~S~
a; ~ 'E Q; W ~.g E 0 5 ctI ~ ~ ~ 5 C: :5 e? .~ 0> ~
D~O~Ql~goo=&~ ~Qlo~QlEE-
_m~.-SIDc:O~ctIc~IDEc:..e~~QE'Uc
'2.~~~c~IDID~~'2~ ctI~ID~'UO~'-
.. => g? 0 ~ 0 ~ E..e 0 Q) 2 $ ~ ~ J2 g.Ci) '* (J f? ~
ei~~ .~'~~~~E~~ .g~~m~~~~
~c:~.Q~Qctlu~o~-SES~&E2'E~~
'E c: Q ~'.o= ~ Q) ~ ~ - u g.(f) {g 0 ~ UJ.9.f: c c.5
8~E'~'~ctI~ctIg~~~2C:~Q)'U'U~~~!
~~8Ec~~~~~~Q)~~~tig&~~~o
c ..0.-.... 0 ctI 0>"0 013 C/J..e UJ-E~..e..e a.:::
::.Q ~o 5 [Qt.f: i'~ c: g:E,~-g o~:s: - ~ ~
,!:e ,~ C ~+: ~ ~ 0 ~ E ,~ 5 g - ctI ~ 8 ~ ~ t::c
~:€j'g'E.~ a.~ g.~ E Eo ~ ~ a ~.QJi~ ~ 8m
~~~~a~~~Q)8~~~'~~~!~~~~~
~(f)~~~(f)~=s~ou~~a.~<ctIo.mctlw
0.. ...
Ql
~ ~ ,~~ .~Q) ~ ~
.Q ~~i C..e _ C/J Q) -g..e
~ 0 ._Q)a.~:: c:~'~ a.~ ctI.9
W 0.> 'U tU'~ ctI c: ~ rl < .5 .Q _ c: ..e C
~=,~ ~~~ IDE ~,E ~Ql~ ~",ig
'U ~ ~ ID 0 - = > 0.2 rn 'U'S: _ ~ ~
c.E c E "@ ~ ctI >-z. ctI ~ ~ c: Q) Q) 0;,;::
:rJQl ~ ~ ~ € 8.~ ~'g ca ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ m~:g
",. m 0 ~ ~ e ctI a. '(ij':E ::: 0 cQl 0 - UJ - c:
>c:_ ~ctIa.E~EUJ~uE -Q) Q).o.>
"'Ql- ''''Qlt:: .~ ctI Q) (l) -g ~ Q) -5 ~ .9 t:: i-~ ~ g ~
C/J..eC/J -g.~Sctl~a~~C/J[ 'O~ ~5g
~uu ",m~E~E",,,,SQl CD> .0-0
.-: c:=om~'~'0>-5o..ecu 0>.<1>
.~:g~ g~fa'~~CUw~Eg> ~~ ='o"",E",
~o.~ ctI~~..e~Q)Eo-,- -ct1 ~Q)C:
EcuQ) ~~m;~~E~~~ ~.~ o..ec
-oc:.~_5 .Ec:~~~~_C/J8~>Ql~ -~ '0-0
~ c 0 - ~ C:cu 13.9~
~5f2 .~~.9.~ i.9';:~(l) 8U) S;t::02i
ctI~Q)~Q)Q)(}'UEE~'U~= ctI 00.=
~~2~.5E~~E~~~S€ Q)"@ UQ)ct1
:6 i 8 Q) ~ c ~ ctI ctI.. Q) ~ ~ ~';: ~ ~ >.:n en
C:E~E~gQlm~E~uE~ ~R BSQc:
O'UC:Q)=~..e~~~Q)e () a.~
~~~5ct1.~~~~~~a.~~ o~ ~~~
;E'~~~ES~~8~B~~ ;'ffi ~Q)~
.!Y:~~.28~g~-g;.9~""5 &5 .~-g~
~'UQ)cug~~~Ecuc002 ~~ rngS
a: 8 g..9 :=.5 a. 0.13 Q) Q) ~ ~ (/) 5 ~ ~.:;: t5
c ~ ctICOQ)cUJE+:._C/J u~ u~m
~~~~5~~=5~-g~~m~~~ =-c
~::'~~~2~o~Q)~~~i~~ ~j8
~c~'-~~~.Q~~~~Q)~~Q)o a.CQ)
(f)Q)~,~u-Eu5UJQ)=~Q)E.~B ~~~
~EQ)>-a<Q)= ~C/JctI~=_~~ -ctlQ)
c -g ;;; ~ a. ."t:: ~ ~'c ~ C/J g? ..e '0 c .8 {J g c
Q)Q)Q)a.~~!C:~2-g~.Qg~~..e .~R~
KEgi~~~~~ID~~~e8~.~~..ecu8
.Q<ctI-~u.(/)g~~Q).~~>-o.c~~Q)Q)
Q)c:.5~~~g~~ .c:....li-~~Q)o.~s....
ijj ~ 'E C5 (j) >-~ E 0 ~ cu ~ g. ~ 0 c S ~ .~ ~~
O~OEQ)D~OO+:~~ ~Q)0..eQ)E.5-
~Q)z..-5~c(JZ.{g.5~~c5~~o.E'E.5
C:'~5~CDQ)EQ)5cc~0~~&~io~~
., => c < 0 ~ ..e Q) 22 (f) ~ S (/) Ci) t;) 0 g (l)
~ ~ ~ ~ . ~.~ ~ ~ :5 E ~.2 . g ~~ Q) ~ ~ ~ ~
~c:~~gQcuu~o~-SES=&E2~~U
~ c: a. C/J ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ - u g.(f) ~ 0 -5 UJ.9.~ c c.5
8~E~'~ctI~~g~~~$C:~Q)'U~>-~~!
~~8Ec:m~~~~~~~~.5tig&i~go
c: .0.-.... 0 (iJ O>~ 0'0 UJ..e C/J-E e..e..e 0.:::-
~oUJU~[Qt::cc:.~c:m~.~uo~~-~~
~:~F~+:~~0'~~.~g~-~~~8~mt:~
~:€jg'E~a.~~~EEo~~g~g~~~8~
~~~~a~~Q)Q)8~~.5~~~~~'~~~~
~(f)a:~~oo~55~OO~~a.t;)<ctIo.mroC/J
0.. ...
lak.Minnewashla
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This
map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal
offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only.
The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this
map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational,
tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in
the depiction of gecgraphic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227.1107.
The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 9466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and
the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly
waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims
brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the use~s access or use of
data provided.
lak.Minn..ashla
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This
map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal
offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only.
The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this
map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational,
tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in
the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952.227.1107.
The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 9466.03, Subd, 21 (2000), and
the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly
waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harness the City from any and all claims
brought by User, its empioyees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the use~s access or use of
data provided.
CRAIG ALAN KOUBA
3520 HWY 7
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8872
COTTAGE HSTDS AT BOULDER COVE
7300 METRO BLVD
#360
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439 -2302
WADE A NAVRATIL
3751 62ND ST W
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -6401
MERL YN H & BETTY WANOUS
6231 CHURCH RD
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8836
STEPHEN R MARBEN &
ROSALIE A DEHN
6201 FIR TREE AVE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8856
HILDEGARD E & MILDRED A FORNER
6200 FIR TREE AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8855
BRYAN N & ARANA F PETERS
6236 FIR TREE AVE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8855
THOMAS & ROSE RUHLAND
6211 GREENBRIAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8861
EDWARD J & JUDY A EVANS
6220 FIR TREE AVE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8855
JAMES & PAULA HAGAN
6221 FIR TREE AVE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8856
HAYLEY FORREST
3502 MAPLEWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8886
SEAN G MATCHAN &
JAYNE A BAUMAN
6241 CHURCH RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8836
MICHAEL MAXWELL
6230 FIR TREE AVE
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8855
MARVIN G & PATRICIA S ONKEN
6221 GREENBRIAR
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8861
SHAWN D & DENISE J HEITZ
3510 MAPLEWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886
MICHAEL L & CARRIE L MILLER
6311 CHURCH RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8838
CHRISTOPHER M STEINKRAUS
NICOLE R JOL Y
3520 MAPLEWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886
DAVID E THOMAS IV
6240 FIR TREE AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8855
JAMES A & ELIZABETH A THOMPSON
6231 GREENBRIAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8861
DONALD J & WENDIE A SEAMANS
6301 CHURCH RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8838
VINCENT D TURK
3530 MAPLEWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8886
JOEL A MELLENTHIN &
KATHARINE M KOCINA
6301 GREENBRIAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8863
ROBERT J & PAULA A CRIPPA
3503 MAPLEWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886
JULIE A HIRSCH
6321 CHURCH RD
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8838
KENNETH C DURR
4830 WESTGATE RD
HOPKINS, MN 55345 -3931
CHARLES & PAMELA E RIENSTRA
3511 MAPLEWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8886
STEINKRAUS CHURCH RD STORAGE
CIO COURTLAND REAL ESTATE
1107 HAZELTINE BLVD
SUITE 535
CHASKA. MN 55318 -1063
WILLIAM S & DANIELLE J MODELL
3521 MAPLEWOOD CIR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886
PHILIP B WARTMAN JR
3531 MAPLEWOOD CIA
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886
VERLAN J WISSINK
6401 LANDINGS CT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9713
JAMES 0 JR & CHRISTAN GINTHER
3611 IRONWOOD RD
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -8890
STEVEN A SAARELA &
BARBARAJBOERBOON
6415 LANDINGS CT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9713
WILLIAM H & KIMBERLY A KOHMAN
3780 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7840
MOMCILO SPASOJEVIC &
SMILJANA SPASOJEVIC
3771 MEADOW LN
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7840
KEITH R KORINKE
6310 CHURCH RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8837
WAYNE M HARTUNG &
TONIRJOHNSON
2306 RUSSELL AVE N
MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55411 -2443
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8927
M & K HOFFMAN
6195 STRAWBERRY LANE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
D & L BECKER
6165 STRAWBERRY LANE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
K & L LEVINE
26325 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
D & T CROSKEY
26265 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
B & M THORSON
26205 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
T & L WAGNER
26145 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
J & B HUGO
26110 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
B & A PALM
26170 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
J & M JIBBEN
26300 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
B & L THOLEN
26175 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
D TORGERSON
6185 STRAWBERRY LANE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
D & S HALBMAIER
26395 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
M & M BARGA
26305 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
J & J TUTTLE
26245 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
D WYDMAN
26185 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
J & J GAGNON
26125 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
CABARELLO LLC
26130 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
R & K WILLOCK
26190 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
W & M COLOPOULOS
26215 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
J SCHNEIDER
26420 62ND STREET WEST
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
S & S BRADLEY
6175 STRAWBERRY LANE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
J & PTUMA
26345 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
T & J BIATCK
26285 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
J & E HAESLER
26225 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
K & J TAYLOR
26165 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
P & H SNEDE
26105 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
D MARTIN & D COLE
26150 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
P & L STEFFENS
26250 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
P & M HODAPP
26195 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
R FASCHING
26450 62ND STREET WEST
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
M HEILANE
26510 62ND STREET WEST
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
P & P HALGESEN
6120 STRAWBERRY LANE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
G KOEHNEN
26505 MAPLE AVENUE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
J &J BLUM
6155 CHURCH ROAD
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
R ZUEHL
6180 CHURCH ROAD
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
M & B MORFORD
6150 CHURCH ROAD
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
A & K BURMEISTER
26155 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
BOB GAGNE
24850 AMLEE ROAD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
M PLEWKA
26450 62ND STREET WEST
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
J LINDER
6150 STRAWBERRY LANE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
A & A THILL
6185 CHURCH ROAD
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
R & V WETHERALL
6135 CHURCH ROAD
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
T & S LENZEN
6170 CHURCH ROAD
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
A HAAS
26085 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
S & D KLIMOWICZ
26135 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
E CAMERON
26580 62ND STREET WEST
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
W & J OELFKE
6170 STRAWBERRY LANE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
R & S SELL
6175 STRAWBERRY LANE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
R & L DETRUDE
26620 62ND STREET WEST
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
JP KLICK & SJ COOL
3703 CASCO AVENUE
WAYZATA MN 55391
D & M SETTERHOLM
26090 OAK LEAF TRAIL
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
S CHARBONNET
26115 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet)
Boulder Cove
Planning Case No. 06-1 0
3670 Highway 7
City of Chanhassen
Lake Minnewashta
1.1"-" /'
. I Engiqe~ring fiSurveying
~ l) ~~~.cisc~.p~A.:~.~;i:,t.~cture
July 25, 2006
Lori Haak
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd.
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147
Re: Boulder Cove
Dear Lori:
Per your request, we have reviewed the provided drainage
plan and calculations for the Boulder Cove development.
Our investigation concludes that the proposed
improvements will not adversely affect the existing drainage
patterns in the area or neighboring property. An item not
addressed in the plans, however, is the ditch flow on the
north side of State Highway 7 (TH7) that comes from the
east. This flow should be modeled in conjunction with the
overall subdivision modeling since concentration points
have been established at the inlets of the two existing
culverts heading south underneath TH7.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns
you may have.
Sincerely,
P 2RP PELLlNEN OLSON, INC.
Charles J. Howley, P.E.
Project Manager
7510 Market Place Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
952-829-0700
952-829-7806 fax
5~ . .. ... ... . HANSEN THORPPELLlNEN OLSON,INC.. . . .
~'~ J' '" . '> . _ - ~ ~ ~ ,,' ~ ,
.-':, ~. .
~E\l'\"NEISO/;q 1-g.
l ,.,
~ ~
;, ff
"'1). ~
OF T"~"
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville MN 55113-3174
March 6, 2006
REceiVED
MAR 0 7 2006
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Sharmeen AI-Jaff
Senior Planner - City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SUBJECT:
Boulder Cove, MnlDOT Review #P06-016
North side ofTH 7, east of Church Road
Chanhassen, Hennepin County
Control Section 1005
Dear Ms. AI-Jaff:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced plat, in compliance with Minnesota
Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. MnlDOT's staff has reviewed the plans and has the
following comments. Please address these comments prior to further development.
Traffic:
Our agency is very pleased to see the elimination of three access points on TH 7 and local
roadway utilized for access to this development. As you are aware, MnlDOT is working hard
to inform local communities of the benefits of access management as well as our new access
guidelines. TH 7 is an important principal arterial through this area of the metro, with high
traffic volumes and high speeds. As such, the highway is classified as a high-priority
regional corridor, and private access to the highway is allowed only if reasonably convenient
and suitable access is not available from the local street network. The city has properly
utilized the local street network for access for this development.
If feasible, our agency would recommend that the one remaining private access on the east
side of the development be provided access through this development and this access closed
as well.
In a recent phone conversation you had requested information on the request for a signal at
Church Road. This intersection had a warrant analysis completed in December of2005, and
does not meet warrants for a signal installation. Consolidating access, as this development
has, is one way to improve the traffic counts for an intersection to meet warrants. For more
information on this issue please contact Lars Impola in MnlDOT's Traffic section at (651)
634-2379.
Drainage:
A MnlDOT Drainage permit will be required. The proposed construction will need to
maintain existing drainage rates to MnlDOT right-of-way. The following information will
need to accompany the permit:
1) A grading Plan of the existing & proposed project.
An equal opportunity employer
2) Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing both existing and proposed
drainage areas and flows (with flow arrows)
3) Hydrologic, and hydraulic computations/modeling before and after proposed
reconstructions (ie., Hydro-CAD input assumptions, calibration data, results for 10,
50 and 100 year storm events).
Please submit any further documentation electronically as Adobe Acrobat (.pdt), and
HydroCAD (.hc) files. Ifplans change, you must resubmit for review. The electronic model
and pdf file can be emailedtoThomasMitchell@dot.state.mn.us. Please direct questions
concerning these issues to Thomas Mitchel 651) 634-2403 ofMnlDOT's Water Resources
section.
Permits:
The city will need to submit a long form permit for the water lines crossing TH 7. The
developer will need to submit a short form permit for the removal of the three access points.
In addition, the developer will need to submit a drainage permit, as noted above. Any use of
or work impacting MnlDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from
MnDOT's utility web site at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/utility . Please direct any questions
regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-582-1447) of MnDOT's Metro Permits
Section.
Plat:
The southerly line of Boulder Cove adjacent to TH 7 shows a circular curve, a tangent section
and part of a spiral curve. Boulder Cove shows a tangent distance of 446.54 ft between the
PT of the circular curve and the TS of the spiral. This does not agree with the distance of
495.1 ft as shown on MnDOT R/W map no. 12-28. The southerly plat boundary of Boulder
Cove needs to be revised to agree with the northerly R/W line ofTH 7. Please contact Rick
Bruss in MnlDOT's Survey section at (763) 797-3113 with questions regarding this issue.
MnlDOT's Access control needs to be shown on the plat. We request that the existing
openings to the highway be dedicated as access control, in which access control would be
across the entire site. Please indicate the 75-foot offset from the centerline of the highway.
Please send a copy of the final plat for MnlDOT's files and review to the following address:
David Torfin
Mn/DOT - Metro West Surveys
2055 N. Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Phone: (763) 797-3113
Noise:
Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use
and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about
traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states
that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use
activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of
the land use would result in violations of established noise standards.
- -
Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project
proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize
the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise
policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582-1293.
As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as
plats and site plans to:
Development Reviews
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2)
copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a
plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay
Mn/DOT's 30-day review and response process to development proposals. We appreciate your
anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from
having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals.
If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582-
1378.
Sincerely, 9-.r
~~i(l ~t&JtcL
Brigid ~ld
Senior Transportation Planner
Copy: Rob Wied / Hennepon County Surveyors Section
Bob Byers / Transportation Planning Section
Cara Schwahn Otto / Otto Associates
~\"g c~
... '&
0.) 1946 ..
a .
o""ty S\(ii
219 East Frontage Road
Waconia, MN 55387
Phone: 952-442-5101
Fax: 952-442-5497
CORSERVATIOII DISTRICT
http://www.c:o.carver.mn.uslSWCD/SWCDmain.html
Mission Statement: To provide leadership in conservation and teach stewardship of the soil, water, and related
resources throuJ!h a balanced, cooperative proJ!ram that protects, restores, and improves those resources.
February 22, 2006
Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Boulder Cove
Ms. Al-Jaff:
The SWCD has taken the opportunity to review the Boulder Cove plan. The plan reviewed is dated with
revisions on 01/23/06 and a City stamp of 02/08/06. Please review and consider the following comments
and suggestions regarding erosion and sediment controls. A NPDES permit and SWPPP will be needed
for this development. The developer / owner should apply for and receive the permit; the engineer should
develop a SWPPP in accordance with the NPDES permit.
Erosion Control
1. Seed and erosion control blanket should be applied within 24 hours of final grade in the areas
where culverts and accesses are being removed.
2. Erosion control blanket must be applied from the energy dissipation at the FES to the ditch along
Hwy7.
3. Energy dissipation is needed at the FES inlet and outlet of the storm water basin within 24 hours
of installation.
Sediment Control
1. Perimeter control is needed to contain disturbed areas in the ditch for removal of accesses and
culverts during the work.
2. Silt fence is needed around the pond at or above HWL within 24 hours of outlet installation.
3. The future storm water pond should be used as a temporary sediment basin and a temporary outlet
should be installed (perforated standpipe with rock cone). A detail is needed within the SWPPP.
4. Area inlets and curbside inlet control are needed within 24 hours of installation. A detail is
needed in the SWPPP.
5. The FES inlet in Block 1, near Lot 35 and 34 needs temporary protection within 24 hours of
installation. A detail is needed. A rock weeper or biorolls could be used.
6. Individual home control-typical details are needed for building lots. A typical is needed for
individual lots and multifamily lots.
Storm water Management
The storm water basin could be designed to short circuit. It is recommended to install a baffle / diversion
to increase the flow distance threw the pond to prevent short-circuiting the treatment potential of the
basin.
If there are any questions or if I can be of further assistance please contact the SWCD office.
Sincerely,
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Aaron Mlynek, CPESC
Urban Conservation Technician
c. Lori Haak, City of Chanhassen (email)
RECEIVED
CITY OF MAR 08 20DB
SHOREWOOD CITYOFCIiANHAs
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. ~~~) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006
March 3, 2006
Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317-0147
Re: Proposed Boulder Cove Development
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
The City of Chanhassen is considering a development application, which would include rezoning, for
the proposed Boulder Cove development. It is located immediately south of our common city
boundary, and roughly centered on the intersection of West 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane.
This matter was on the agenda of the February 27,2006 meeting of the Shorewood City Council, and
we heard comments by from City staff and 13 area residents who addressed the Council. The
Council wants to use this letter as its comments for Chanhassen's public hearing on this matter on
March 7, 2006.
A number of concerns were raised by our staff and the residents that attended the meeting. Most
significant were drainage and traffic/circulation in the area. You are no doubt aware that the area in
question is relatively poorly drained and characterized by heavy clay soils and a high water table.
The Shorewood Oaks development to the north of the subject property has a rather sensitive drainage
system that will not support additional storm water runoff. We believe that this issue can be managed
with very careful engineering and request that we be kept apprised of proposed grading, drainage and
erosion control solutions.
Traffic and circulation are undoubtedly our greatest concern. Boulder Cove will be served by West
62nd Street, which lies half in Shorewood and half in Chanhassen, and by Strawberry Lane. Both of
these streets are relatively narrow local streets. Strawberry Lane, which leads directly north to the
Minnewashta Elementary School is as narrow as 22 feet, with no sidewalk. This /route has
considerable pedestrian traffic to and from the school. Similarly, area residents walk to Cathcart Park
~long West 62nd Street.
#.
~ . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
Re: Boulder Cove Development
March 3, 2006
Page two
We understand that Boulder Cove is within the density range prescribed by your Comprehensive
Plan; due to the concerns relative to traffic, however, we would hope that something more in the
middle ofthe range (i.e. two units per acre net) would be approved, as it would be more consistent
with the existing surrounding development in both Chanhassen and Shorewood.
Weare concerned that the development as proposed will have an undue impact on the infrastructure
in Shorewood. We urge the City of Chanhassen to consider zoning on the proposed Boulder Cove
property that is consistent with its neighborhood as well as Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan. This
good, sensitive planning will result in desirable, complementary development throughout the
immediate area.
Thank you for the opportunity to include Shorewood's comments in the record.
Woody Love
Mayor
On behalf ofthe City Council
Christine Lizee, Ward 1
Laura Turgeon, Ward 2
Paula Callies, Ward 3
Martin R. Wellens, Ward 4
... ,:.; -: _ t._ Stacey E
_ _...::.... ~~~. ,:..."d Klein/Minneapolis/IBM
... ... --~,,"''''~~...
. 02128/2006 03:39 PM
Custom expiration date of
02/28/2008
To tfurlong@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
cc
bcc
Subject Opposed to current plans for Boulder Cove Development
Tom,
I am a resident of the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood and a member of the Shorewood Oaks.Strawberry
lanelWest 62nd Street Association (SOSlWSS). Although I am not a city of Chanhassen resident, I
consider myself a good neighbor. A good neighbor who will be negatively affected if you and your council
approve the current plans for the Boulder Cove Development along Hwy 7.
I am not opposed to development. Single family homes on this site could compliment and blend in with
the surrounding area's current demographics. But I am opposed to townhomes or other such
development that is more dense than the adjoining neighborhoods.
In addition to the density factor, I'm also concerned about drainage. Basic reasoning says that drainage
won't be toward Hwy 7, which means that it will be toward the existing Shorewood Oaks neighborhood.
This land is already at a high water table and additional drainage would result in damage to our homes
and property.
Traffic is also another serious concern. We are the first house off of Hwy 7 on Shorewood Oaks Drive and
I do not welcome additional traffic at this intersection. In addition, Strawberry land and 62nd Streets are
substandard roads and would not bear additional flow of traffic without reconstruction.
The larger, more dense, the plans are for Boulder Cove Development, the greater the negative impacts on
our neighborhood in terms of:
1) safety of our children in the neighborhood due to increased traffic,
2) drainage of water off of the proposed development onto ours,
3) impact to class size at Minnewashta Elementary.
Please restrict the zoning of this development to single family homes that are comparable to your
immediate neighbors. It is unfair to the existing community and City of Shorewood to build townhomes or
multi-unit homes, which will potentially decrease our property values and require the City to address
issues stemming from this development.
I look forward to the March 7th City of Chanhassen meeting where you have an opportunity to restrict the
Boulder Cove Development to single family homes - like the adjoining neighborhoods. I will be there to
express my concerns and ask for your support.
Sta~MBA
IBM Certified Managing Consultant
IBM PM & PGM Supporting AXP Project Services Delivery
Phone: (612) 656-8830
E-mail: staceyk@us.ibm.com
RECE" ~::: '^;
,1 I., JJ
Stacey Klein
26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
MAR 0 9 20{J6
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
March 6, 2006
Sharmeen AI-Jaff
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
PO Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
Dear Sharmeen,
I am a resident of the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood and a member of the Shorewood
Oaks/Strawberry LanelWest 62nd Street Association. Our neighborhood directly borders
the proposed site for the Boulder Cove Development along Highway 7.
Although I am not a city of Chanhassen resident, I consider myself a good neighbor who
will be negatively affected if the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the
. current plans for the Boulder Cove Development. My primary concerns are about
zoning, drainage and traffic.
Zonina
When the d~veloper purchased this land in the spring of 2005 he was aware that it was
zoned as Single Family Residential but is now asking for it to be rezoned to Medium
Density Residential. This rezoning request only benefits the developer.
If the city deviates from their plan and permits a densely populated development, it will
be inconsistent with the immediate surrounding area and negatively impact the adjoining
neighborhoods. The drainage and traffic issues will be compounded if the rezoning
request is granted.
Drainaae
The proposed site and surrounding land drain poorly due to soil conditions and a high
water table. This problem is made worse by the existing storm sewers, which struggle to
carry even normal amounts of runoff. The general area drains to the North, meaning
that the homes in the Shorewood Oaks/Strawberry LanelWest 62nd Street
neighborhoods will be at greater risk of flood damage.
Restricting the zoning to single family homes would increase the permeable land surface
and improve water absorption versus run off to some degree. Regardless of how this
parcel of land is zoned, please work closely with the developer and the City of
Shorewood to engineer proper storm sewer capacity, grading, drainage and erosion
control.
1
Traffic
The proposed main entrance to the Boulder Cove Development is on the corner of
Strawberry Lane and West 62nd Street. Both of these streets are substandard residential
streets that will not support a significant increase in traffic. There are numerous children
that live and play along these narrow streets. Many of these children either ride the bus
or walk to Minnewashta Elementary, which is at the North end of Strawberry Lane.
The surrounding residential streets will likely experience an increase in through traffic
and excessive congestion. Other, safer, alternatives could be considered such as
dedicated Highway 7 access or other entrances (such as Church Road) into the new
development.
I believe that the intentions of the Shorewood Oaks/Strawberry LanelWest 6200 Street
Association are consistent with those of the city. My neighbors and I are not asking for
special consideration. Our request is simple and straightforward - that on March 21st
you rule in accordance with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan, which
states:
. Land will be developed "... in a manner that reinforces the character and
integrity of existing single family neighborhoods...."
. "Designing storm drainage facilities as an integral part of the development
plan...."
. "Residential street systems should be designated to discourage through
traffic and to be compatible with other transportation modes including transit,
bicycle and walking."
Thank you for your time, attention and consideration to these matters.
Sincerely,
~P(c~
Stacey Klein
Isjek
2
;~I
,~~r
, ~. -". ~ . " .
~ ...
~
\
J -
..
- -----...,
~~..
~
..
r
--"
L~>;':'p:)~~~~~~1-':~'f Jn~"
I
,~~,..--,,~,,:..,~ !
~!
- .......,.~
''',.. '. ' "A ; ~
, . _~i~,~t~~\;,~,~:;:~<'~~~~J~;~;~~~~l
. ."'4-' - "",\,~,~~~~'~~~ ~
. i'~~~, ';~~l~;,~~:!i;i}~~r:~~
__-Ji~--"', #>1<<~~d
.
, .
\~IJ~
~;"'1
~_,~ ,\..A .~. .~.~;~r__.:
C~-~ I \ .
1
, J
!{t.t...~~}rff~~;~lff~
I , ~ , . ,. I ~-
~.. J 'A~i J ~ ... ~ I
'~:~~~> '
I ~~- ,~-
I
i-:: -~_.. ::-'-
G'
, . t.' ....
..;:"'. : " ~~/~..{':'"~'-' -,
'. . .~.,,~ "~~.: -'.. ~- :-":
l.-.~