79-03 - Sunrise Beach SUB pt 1CITY 0F
7610 LAREDO DRIVEaP.O. BOX 1476CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 15, 1980
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Waibel, Land Use Coordinator
SUBJ: Special Joint Meeting Between City Council and Planning
Commission, February 20, 1980
As you know, the subject meeting was scheduled in order to facilitate
Planning Commission and City Council communication regarding the
downtown redevelopment land use plan, the Comprehensive Plan update,
the Lake Ann PRD, Lake Susan Hills West and South PRDs and the
street grades proposed in a portion of the Sunrise Beach development.
In order to expedite discussion at the subject meeting, I have
attached the planning materials that the planning commission has
reviewed to date in sequence for Lake Ann PRD and Lake Susan Hills
West and South PRDs. Due to the volume of materials, it is anticipated
that there will be no introductory staff overview at Wednesdays
Meeting so that a proper amount of time may be allocated to the
City Council and Planning Commission discussion of the proposal.
As has been previously stated, it is hoped that this joint meeting
will enable the Planning Commission, staff and the applicant to
present the most representative plan to the interested public.
Additionally.'attached is the planning report of February 11, 1980
on the proposed 10% street grades for the Sunrise Beach development.
As you probably know there are intrinsic topographic conditions present
on the Sunrise Beach property, the restrictions of which are already
reflected in the proposal for average lot sizes of 24,000 square feet.
Although the minutes of the Planning Commission discussion at the
February 13, 1980 Planning Commission meeting concerning this 30
grade departure from the 7% standard of ordinance 33 is not presently
available, the discussion mainly revolved around the fact that if
this portion of the property is to develop a decision must be made
as to whether or not the 10% grade is more desirable than extensive
alteration of the terrain to approach the 7% standard. Comments
were also raised that in certain communities with regularly extreme
topography, 10%+ grades are not uncommon and do function reasonably
well. As shown in the attached planning report, this office and the
city engineer's office are recommending that attempts be made to
° Ni.,ayor and Council -2- February 18, 1980
4L
incorporate either softer curves at the bottoi„ of the slope and/or
super elevated curves in order to offset the cold nature of the slope.
The members of the planning commission were polled for their recommenda-
tions concerning the grades and there were no disapprovals made.
This item is being presented for informational purposes only and
no council action is expected unless council members have any severe
reservations to the grades proposed.
7610 LAREDO DRIVE®P.O. BOX 1479CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: February 11, 1980
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Discussion on Sunrise Beach Preliminary Development Plan
APPLICANT: Derrick Land Co.
PLANNING CASE: P-614
As part of the previous review of `the subject proposal, the applicant
was to enter into a feasibility study on the westerly egress from
the subject property as shown in the,attached plans. The applicant
has recently -completed the attached grading and erosion control
plan and based upon such has :_indicated that most likely a 10% grade
would be realized for the westerly egress from the subject property.
They had indicated that 8a.is possible; however, such would involve
a considerably greater amount of grading and alteration of terrain
to achieve this and wou.ld".thus prefer utilizing the 10% grade.
In a.recent meeting with the applicant, the city engineer and myself
had suggested several ways in which this grade problem could be
mitigated which the-' applicant has not included in the plans, however,
can be handled_ -_in: the following :narrative and can be brought
up in discussion -at Wednesday's meeting, which are as follows.
One of the suggestions- was that the' -curve in the>south central portion
of the proper ty`be= softened by starting the curve further to the
north and thus allowing greater momentum for westk�ound traffic and
a softer curve for eastbound traf�f c; JCS ince i `y in all likelihood
reduce the number of lots in the p€ry plat it is quite possible
that this density could be transferred since the proposed development
has an average lot size of 24,850 square feet.
Another recommendation that the city engineer had made was that the
applicant possibly super -elevate the previously mentioned curve in
the south central portion of the plat.
The engineer's report regarding the proposed street grades will be
delivered under separate cover for Wednesday evenings discussion. This
item has also been tentatively scheduled to be reviewed at the joint
Planning Commission and Council session scheduled for February 20th.
.F
1 13
Z2,
Lake Lucy
p7c
Lake
Px
;zF..
_15
------- or
7 UO
or
-:I
10
or
or
ZS,
Lake Susan
Zi.
71
or
*3
or,
M.
-7
LY-IMAN
Lotus . . . . . . . .
Lake
IrEgan-T"
MAN P A 4
PX
Rice
Marsh
Lake
C3
trr
Lake
+1
-
-
=
�
T_
7-
�
v
2
MF
W
JCZ-
If It
1-01 Aj
PIE=
_0
ca *0
0 co Gr7.
co
co
cn
0
0
LL
CL
o
0
(D
cn
0
(D
CD
u
0
At. ic
4)
-x
co
O a, f�/fir~~� ^#, • l 1
-777
14
Dunn & Curry
Real Estate Management Inc.
4940 Kking Drive
Pentagon Office Park
Minneapolis, MN 55435
(612) 835-2808
February 8, 1980
Bob Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Bob:
Enclosed are legal descriptions for publication purposes
for Lake Susan Hills West and Lake Ann for preliminary
plat.
Cordially,
Ed Dunn
Ed: sr
Enc.
2r6/80
DESCRIPTION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAKE
ANN 1ST ADDITION FOR DUNN & CURRY - NOT
FINAL PLAT OR ACQUISITION USE
THAT PART ,OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE WEST
HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, ALL IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 11 6,
RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF.SAID WEST HALF OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE S 0037'28" W, BEARING
ASSUMED, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID WEST HALF OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1471.73 FEET; THENCE
N 89032'41" W, A DISTANCE OF 608.18 FEET; THENCE S 4602310 6" W,
A DISTANCE OF 321.83 FEET; THENCE N 4303654" W, A DISTANCE
OF 197.00 FEET; THENCE is 4003'18" W, A DISTANCE OF 72.26 FEET;
THENCE N 34022,49" W, A DISTANCE OF 170.00 FEET: THENCE
N 55037'11" E, A DISTANCE OF 115.11 FEET; THENCE N 29034'09" E,
A DISTANCE OF 326.48 FEET; THENCE N 47001,47" E, A DISTANCE OF
60.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A NON -TANGENTIAL CURVE,
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 110.00 FEET AND A
CHORD BEARING OF S 66058'07" E, A CHORD DISTANCE OF 89.46 FEET;
THENCE N 0057'21" W, RADIAL TO LAST CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 200.17
FEET; THENCE N 10058'32" W, A DISTANCE OF 168.07 FEET; THENCE
N 24006108" W, A DISTANCE OF 208.15 FEET; THENCE N 8027'50" E,
A DISTANCE OF 169.85 FEET; THENCE N 11040'59" E, A DISTANCE OF
301.24 FEET; THENCE N 51040,47" E, A DISTANCE OF 79.03 FEET;
THENCE N 37048'55"E,A DISTANCE OF 84.81 FEET; THENCE N 26007'51" W,
A DISTANCE OF 118,07 FEET; THENCE N 65023'34" E, A DISTANCE OF
155.38 FEET' THENCE N 22049'36" W, A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET,
THENCE N 67010'24" E, A DISTANCE OF 321.09 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE
OF CO. RD. No. 17;THENCE S 22049'36" E, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO
THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID WEST HALF OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING. ,
2/6/80
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED LAKE SUSAN HILLS
WEST 1ST ADDITION
,THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, THE SOUTHWEST AND
SOUTHEAST QUARTERS OF SECTION 14, AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
23, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE S 2011'01"E,
BEARING ASSUMED ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTON 14, A DISTANCE OF 205.91 FEET; THENCE
S 22045'33" W, A DISTANCE OF 850.89 FEET; THENCE N 87048159" F,
A DISTANCE OF 358.83 FEET; THENCE N 56030' E, A DISTANCE OF
536.00 FEET; THENCE EAST, A DISTANCE OF 245.00 FEET; THENCE
S 1030' E, A DISTANCE OF 125.00 FEET; THENCE S 230E, A DISTANCE
OF 462.00 FEET; THENCE S 20E, A DISTANCE OF 93.o4 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14;
THENCE S 25OW, A DISTANCE OF 75.00 FEET; THENCE S 650E, A
DISTANCE OF 216.07 FEET; THENCE S 270E, A DISTANCE OF 56.57 FEET;
THENCE S 490E, A DISTANCE OF 286.00 FEET; THENCE N 50030'E, A
DISTANCE OF 582.00 FEET; THENCE S 3024'E, A DISTANCE OF 60.00
FEET; THENCE N 890E, A DISTANCE OF 135.21 FEET; THENCE S 10E,
A DISTANCE OF 317.85 FEET; THENCE DEFLECT TO THE LEFT ALONG A
TANGENTIAL CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 90000'00", A RADIUS OF 295.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF
463•38 FEET; THENCE N890E, THANGENT TO LAST DESCRIBED CURVE,
A DISTANCE OF 107.69 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PROPOSED NEW COUNTY ROAD NO. 17; THENCE
NORHTERL". ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE ON A NON-TANGENTIA-, CURVE
CONCAVE 0 THE hFU HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2040'43", A RADIUS
yr 1070 . 92 FF.F,`_i�, A CHORD BEARING OF N :1043 , 4 4" E, AN ARC DISTANCE
OF 50.07 FEET; THENCE S 890 W, A.DISTANCE OF 110.07 FEET; THENCE
DEFLECT TO THE RIGHT ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHEAST HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90000,001,, A RADIUS OF 245.00
FEET, AN ARCH DISTANCE OF 424.12 FEET; THENCE N 10W, TANGENT TO
LAST DESCRIBED CURVE A DISTANCE OF 337.85 FEET; THENCE N 890 E, A
DISTANCE OF 436.61 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF SAID PROPOSED NEW
COUNTY ROAD NO. 17;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALOsdG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE
OF CHANEASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, AS PLATTED AND OF RECORD
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESTOA,
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGIN—
NING. SUBJECT TO OLD COUNTY ROAD NO. 17.
TOGETHER WITH THE SOUTH 100 FEET OF-OUTLOT D, SAID CHANHASSEN
LAKES BUSINESS PARK.
AGENDA
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
7:30 p.m. - City Hall _
Wednesday, February 6, 1980
1. 7:30 p.m. - Approval of Minutes.
2. 7:45 p.m. - Proposed Preliminary Development Plan Review,
Lake Ann PRD, Lake. Susan West PRD, and Lake
Susan South PRD - Dunn and Curry, Inc.
3. 9:45 p.m. - Open Discussion.
4. 10:00 p.m. - Adjournment.
ITY1. OF
7610 LAREDO DRIVE®PA. BOX 1479CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: February 4, 1980
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Bob Waibel, Land.Use Coordinator
SUBJ: Lake Ann PRD, and Lake Susan Hills West and South PRD's
PLANNING CASE: P-645 and 646
APPLICANT: Dunn and Curry
As has been said before, with a plan of this magnitude, new comments
and concerns would arise as the plan review progresses. The following
is a list of such comments and concerns, some of which were delivered
verbally at the last planning commission review of the proposal and
others from specific and general observations made by this office,
staff, and planning commission members. The following list will be
presented on a individual development.,
basis.
Lake Ann PRD
1. As was requested at the last meeting, attached please find
the planning commission.,
and city council review of the Park Drive
access from Highway 5 to the industrial park which is juxtaposed
from the proposed . access-,-to::,the subject development. The official
motion of the planning commission was- to accept or recommend alternate
2 of 14nDOT's Aetter of May 22, 1979, with the provisoothat if at
any time it should prove that this is unacceptable to the City and
a traffic hazard that we. -will have the right of revocation. As
shown in the attached city council minutes -of June 4,.1979, the city
council moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning commission
as far as access on Park Drive. _This will be reviewed within one year
after County Road 17 is operational. As shown in the attached drawing,
alternative 2 showed the construction of deacceleration and
acceleration lanes with a by-pass lane for westbound traffic. The
applicant should be advised to investigate any limitations on flexibility
to incorporate an eastbound by-pass lane should the planning commission
and city council find that. the proposed access on the north side of
Highway 5 should have full access. This office would recommend that
.before any decision on the nature.of the access on the proposed
road from Highway 5 is made, such a decision should be contingent
upon staff having reviewed thoroughly the safety ramifications with
I IV
Planning Commissio -2- { , February 4, 1980
e
regard to the intersection at new County Road 17 and old County Road
17 southwest -of Lake Ann Park.
2). it was brought up verbally at the last review of the subject
_proposal that the possibility of moving the West 78th Street access
onto County Road 17 from the central business district further north,
would allow flexibility as to the space needed for stacking distance
between the intersection of County Road 17 and Highway 5. It is�
anticipated that the present activities of BRW in researching the
downtown redevelopment plan, will bring forth in greater detail the
feasibility of this alignment shift and its phasing. With reference
to this proposed realignment, it had also been discussed that there
is a possible need for a frontage road through the commercial and
apartment area of Lake Ann PRD that would provide alternative
access for the residences east of County Road 17 to Lake Ann Park.
This office strongly endorses the concept of a frontage road for
the said purpose of alternative access and overall circulation,
however, this office feels that the construction of said road will
likely not occur until development is initiated in the commercial
and apartment areas.
3). The applicant should submit information that would substantiate
the adequacy of site distances for all accesses onto the major
roads within and around the development areas-. The City Engineer and
the County Engineer will review this information and make recommendations
as to their adequacy and also to possible realignments and.
construction of by-pass lanes.
4)-- As has been discussed at previous.planning commission meetings,
staff feels that the minimum.local street width of 28 feet is
not adequate for optimum traffic circulation. The planning commission
may make a decision regarding the local street width standards at
"the preliminary development plan review (public hearing).
5). In. order to reduce the impact between residential lots and
the traffic on major roads, a minimum structure setback of 110 feet.
should be considered for adoption.
6). It has been mentioned that there is the possibility of
land use conflicts in the areas where the quadrominium and the
duplex areas adjoin to -single family areas. This office feels that
the only areas where this possibility exists is in the vicinity where
the quadrominiumsproposed in the Highpath Farm site adjoin.onto the
rear yards of the single family units proposed directly north. In
reviewing the subject plans, -it can be noted that the applicant has
utilized either street separation or back yard to back yard facing
to minimize these impacts, however, in this case, the back yard to
back yard facing may not be found adequate in trasitioning from-
quadrominium to single family land uses. This office recommends that
the applicant attempt -to minimally transfer densities to a -pattern
that would enhance the transition from multiple to single family
land uses.
7). The .applicant has indicated to staff that it is presently
within their interest to deed the four acre lake shore parcel on Lake
Atin to the City for the previously discussed purposes.
Planning C�ommissior�`
�-3_ February 4, 1980
Lake Susan Hills West
1). As part of the plan under consideration, vehicular access
to the low land park area proposed south of Lake Susan should be
provided. Since such an access will be utilized exthnsively by
persons using the park, it should be placed so that it will have
a minimum impact on surrounding residences. _
2). Should the park area south of Lake Susan be ultimately
accepted for dedication, the applicant should indicate any contribution
within his ability that might reduce the time and cost of development
of the park area, such as donation of excess fill and/or realignment
of the channel coincident with utility construction and installation:
Acceptance of said park area should be contingent upon city receipt
of all agency approvals for the park development plan.
3). This office has serious reservations regarding the future
adaptability of an active land use for outlot D west of new County 17.
Before preliminary development plan approval of Phase I of Lake
Susan Hills West is awarded, proposed uses for said outlot should be
designated and the use concept endorsed by the planning commission
and city council. From the average width of said outlot D, it appears
that this area is extremely restricted.
4). As brought forth in the first planning report on the subject.
proposal, Lyman Blvd. is to assume and maintain a major collector/
parkway function and identity. The cross section standards for such
road classifications pursuant to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
indicates an 80 to 120 foot right of way. Presently Lyman Blvd.
a right of way of 66 feet and at the preliminary development plan
review, the planning commission should make their recommendation re-
garding either the expansion of right of way of Lyman Blvd. or the
amendment of the Comprehensive_Transportation Plan to reduce the
future functional standard for Lyman Blvd.
5). Items number 3,.4, and 5 stated in the section for Lake
Ann PRD, above, should be deemed applicable to the Lake Susan Hills
West portion of the proposed plans.
Lake Susan Hills -South PUD
.1. Since the last review of the subject proposal, it has been
brought up that further investigation should be made to the possible
land use conflicts between the existing single family residential
area along the southeast shores of Lake Susan and the proposed apartment
and townhouse area on the southwest shores of Lake Susan. As in -the
case of Lake Ann PUD, density transfers may be utilized in this case
in order to enhance land use transition, however, before deciding upon
if density transfer is the method to be utilized,
I believe
that consideration should additionally be made relative to a site
plan that might enhance the transition through creating natural buffer
areas.and no build lines as an.alternative. According to.the June,
1977 Chanhassen land use map, there is only two single family property
holdings which adjoin this area and the bulk of the single family
residences along Lake Susan are situated laterally to the proposed
multiple area on the southwest shores of Lake Susan and thus the.
impact is further minimized.
a
-Planning Commission -4-
.2). Items number 3,4, and 5,
and 5 of Lake Susan Hills West PRD
Lake Susan Hills South portion of.
February 4, 1980
6
of Lake Ann PRD, and items 1, 2, 4
should be deemed applicable to the
the proposed plans.
The following is a snyopsis of comments from the County Engineer
regarding land uses and accesses onto county roads, and general infor-
mational material regarding overall concerns about land uses and
densities.
The County Engineer has determined that all the proposed accesses appear
to be adequate with the exception of the access proposed onto, new
County Road 17 south of the 8-plex area. At this particular intersection,
the County Engineer stated that the County's preference would be that
this access be not included in the plans, however, shouldsufficient
traffic generation numbers warrant such an access, .the p c
e would
be for right in and right out when the four lane divided section is
constructed on new County 17. The least preferential situation for .
this access would be the opening of the median for full left access
and this would be done only upon the finding that considerable problems
exist at the intersection and opening of the median would be the only
effective means to resolve said problems.
The applicant should keep in mind that a minimum of 400 feet of
stacking distance should be incorporated into the development plans
for the previously proposed estate area near Lyman Blvd.
For informational purposes, portions of the text of the Housing
Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide along with policies
have been attached. The closing statements of staff in the previous
review of the subject proposal alluded'to the subjectivity and
judgemental nature of the questions of land use and density and it
is.hoped that this material will aid the planning commission in
exercising their best judgement in reviewing the plans at hand.
The remaining portion of this report is a paraphrase of the closing
comments given by staff at the last review of the subject development.
In various conversations with persons involved in development activities
in dther'-.third ring suburbs, I have found the present proposal not
materially disimilar to what.is being proposed in these other
communities. Zoning Ordinance 47 requires that development proposals
for commercial or industrial developments greater than 10 acres in
size or residential proposals of more than 24 units must be reviewed
under the P district provisions of ordinance 47. The preamble to
the P district section speaks to the spirits and intents of the
district which mainly deal with design with regard to the existing
physiography and creation of affordable market housing.. Additionally,
the Metropolitan Council is reviewing community housing plans with
clear considerations for housing costs.
The present Comprehensive Guide Plan of Chanhassen adopted in 1969
shows almost the entire community, including most of the area under
.review this evening, to develop with a low density single family
Planning Commissior e-5- February 4, 1980
�residential identity. This aspect of the Comprehensive Plan has
in the past been, and in this case in all probability will, need
to be amended to what the planning commission and city council find
to be a suitable and reasonable response to what has occurred in the
art of community design and the evolution of personal housing
preferences and real costs in community development.
T again stress to the planning commission, that now, at the proposed
preliminary.development plan review, it is of utmost importance to
resolve these most sensitive issues of the allocation of densities
and land uses. '
.V
7610 LAREDO DRIVE®P.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, WNNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: City Planner, Mark Koegler
DATE: February 4, 1980
SUBJ: Comprehensive Plan Review
Further review of the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan was
scheduled for this meeting. Due t6la change in scheduling, this item
will be discussed in a joint workfsession with the City Council on
Wednesday, February 20th, 1980 at'7:30 p.m. Upon completing the
Comprehensive Plan discussion, the Planning Commission and City Council
will review the Dunn and Curry residential projects.
F,:
(612) 827-5893
Land Planning
Environmental Planning
Urban Design
Landscape Architecture
Graphic Design
January 17, 1980
Mr. Bob Waibel
Asst. City Mgr./LUC
City of Chanhassen .
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Bob:
Attached are -the materials for the Rezoning. Application
by:Dunn & .Curry. Each of the three is listed below with
its accompanying materials.
ECOOOSE�
of the three PUDs
a description of
LAKE ANN PUD
e Application with Legal Description and Abstractor's Certificate of neighboring
homeowners
e $25500 escrow
e 12 copies of the Proposed Development Plan
e 12 copies of the Preliminary Development. Plan for the 1st Phase
• Also, though not a required material for the application, 12 copies of the
Illustrative.'Site Plan, and a list of lot sizes for the 1st Phase
LAKE SUSAN WEST PRD
e Application with Legal Description and Abstractor's Certificate of neighboring
homeowners
e $2,500 escrow
*.12 copies of the Proposed Development Plan
9 12 copies of.the Proposed Phasing
e 12 copies of the 1st Phase. Preliminary Development Plan
e Again, for general purposes and not part of the application, 12 copies of the
Illustrative.Site Plan, and a list of lot sizes for the 4 st Phase
LAKE SUSAN SOUTH PUD
e Application with Legal Description and Abstractor's Certificate of neighboring
homeowners
e $2,500
e 12 copies of the Proposed Development Plan
e 1Z copies of the Proposed Phasing
e 12 copies of the- 1st Phase Preliminary Development Plan
e And, as in the other two cases, 12 copies of.the Illustrative Site Plan
2614 Nioollet Avenue/ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
a
Mr. Bob Waibel
January 17, 1980
Page Two
I would appreciate hearing from you as soon as your report is typed and will
arrange to have it picked up at that time.
Let me thank you again, Bob, for your continuous assistance in this matter.
Sincerel v yours,
Stelios Aslanidis
President
Urbanscope, Inc.
SA/pc
Attachments
4
CITY OF
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 1476CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: January 21, 1980
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Ass't. City Mgr./LUC, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Proposed Preliminary Development Plan for Lake Ann PUD,
Lake Susan Hills West, and Lake Susan Hills South
APPLICANT: Ed Dunn
PLANNING CASE: P-645 and P-646 "
As you recall, at the previous reviews of the subject proposal,
the Planning Commission agreed that due to the magnitude of the
subject proposal, it would be appropriate to defer any further
review until a park land dedication recommendation was forthcoming
from the Park and Recreation Commission. The Park and Recreation
Commission at its meeting of January 8, 1980, has made such a
recommendation which will be elaborated upon shortly within this
report, however, I would like to discuss first in more detail what
the purpose is of this proposed preliminary development plan review
by the Planning Commission.
By its order in.the plan review process, the proposed preliminary
development'plan`is the stage where staff and the Planning Commission
refine the plari'to a.point where they feel it is presentable for the
preliminary development plan review public hearing. The plan should
be refined to a point where the commission and staff feel comfortable
that.a reasonable development plan, within the guidelines of the
Zoning Ordinance,is to be presented to the interested public. This
office feels that the proposed preliminary development plan review
is probably the most active facet of municipal Planning since it is
the occasion that the most pronounced changes, if any, are to be
made to a particular plan. Due to the aforestated gravity of this stare,
I strongly solicit the Planning Commission's thoughts, comments, and
recommendations on the subject proposals.
Besides the above mentioned park land dedication concerns, the Planning
Commission at its last review was quite concerned about the
Metropolitan Council, and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's
policy towardsthe adopted systems statement for Chanhassen. As you
PLANNING REPORT -2- January 21, 1980
know, the systems statement was a document wherein each community
in the Metropolitan area was given a forecast of population for the
planning period of 1980-2000 and related these to sewer flow projections.
The systems statement for Chanhassen as adopted by the Metro'Council
presently has a population forecast of 11,000 persons in Chanhassen
for 1990. From projections prepared by staff, it is conservatively
estimated that the 1990 population of Chanhassen will be between
15,000 and 19,000 persons. In a meeting with the Metropolitan
Council staff and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission staff, it was
stated to us that they would take this finding under advisement,
however did not guarantee any flow capacity above the present 1990
population estimate of 11,000. Although it is apparent that we will
receive no assurances from the Metropolitan Council within the next
year that adjustments to the systems statement will be made, the City
staff population projections has initiated a process whereby the
physical development committee of the Metropolitan Council is under-
going special review of the proposed comprehensive plans of communities
also in the situation of finding themselves exceeding the projections
as outlined in their systems statement.
As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission postponed any further
review of the subject proposals until the question of park needs and
park dedication was recommended upon by the Park and Recreation
Commission. More specifically, at previous Planning Commission
meetings, it was brought forth by staff that the major areas of
park questions were:
1. If and to what extent Lake Ann Park facility should be expanded?
2. Should a parkway type of facility be planned for around Lake Ann
as part of the Lake Ann PRD proposal?
3. Is the location, type of land, and amount of land of that proposed
for dedication in the Lake Susan Hills portion of the plans
suitable for the city's park needs?
The recommendation of staff to the Park and Recreation commission
was:
1. That the applicant dedicate an approximate 19.9 acre parcel
adjacently east of the existing Lake Ann Park for purposes of
active recreation as shown on the attached park plan;
2. That acquisition in one form or another take place on the
shoreline of Lake Ann within the Lake Ann PRD with such shoreline
area being 80' wide.
(The possible forms of acquisition discussed where outright acquisition
by the City or placement of the same property into an outlot under
ownership of a homeowner's association with a dedicated pedestrian
easement traversing the shoreline;)
3. That the 6.2 acre park proposed on the"High Path Farmstead" not
be accepted as park dedication;
PLANING REPORT -3- January 21, 1980
4. That the 13.8 acre parcel proposed as park in the southeastern
portion of Lake Ann PRD not be accepted as park dedication but
be maintained in a conservation easement status with a pedestrian -
way easement dedicated on portions of this parcel that are suitable
for pedestrian way development;
5. That the areas proposed for park dedication in the Lake Susan Hills
West and South project be accepted at a 50% dedication basis and
that an additional amount of land approximately 5 acres in size
be dedicated in the west central portion of the Lake Susan Hills
West development be additionally dedicated for active play;
(Staff's estimate of park land dedication for the Lake Susan Hills
residential proposals were the land equivalent of 45-66 acres. The
applicant at this meeting agreed to dedicate the total approximate
proposed 80 acres plus the 5 acres in the Lake,Susan Hills West
project as total dedication for the Lake Susan Hills residential
development. Since portions of this land proposed for dedication has
certain questionable soils attributes, staff has preliminarily discussed
these concerns with the City Engineer and Bob Obermeyer of the Riley
Purgatory Creek Watershed District. The City Engineer has stated that
it is quite feasible to develop active play areas upon. the conditions
found in this area and with the number of public improvement projects
throughout the City generating fill for development, it appears that
this area could be developed to any degree that the City deems approp-
riate.. Mr. Obermeyer commented that the Watershed District has
reviewed and approved like proposals within the Watershed District,
however such was contingent upon the submission of overall grading,
fill, and drainage plans. Admittedly there will be the cost
considerations of potential realignment of the drainage channels
within the area and the site preparation of fill and
grading..The proposed dedications can and should be contingent upon
an overall plan and development cost analysis satisfactory to the
Park and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council
along with clearances from all other involved agencies.)
6. That the drainway running east -west between the southern one-
third and the northern two-thirds of Lake Susan Hills South
not.necessarily need be dedicated as part of the dedication
requirements (at the Park and Recreation Commission, the
applicant had indicated that the 5 acre active play area proposed
for Lake Susan Hills West could be dedicated in lieu of dedication
of this drainway for pedestrian -way purposes). Staff comments
at this time were that this particular link is not critical at
.this time based upon the assurances that said link will be maintained
in.a natural and open state. This office would recommend that
this area be investigated further as to potential beneficial
utilization in a pedestrian way system especially with lands to
the east of the subject proposal.
As shown in the attached Park and Recreation Commission minutes, the
Park and Recreation Commission recommended:
1. Acceptance of the Lake Ann Park expansion plan as proposed for
approximately 4 acres of shoreline and trail to be obtained.
Further information on the method of obtaining the shoreline
area is to be brought back to the commission for review.
PLANNING REPORT -4- January 21, 1980
2. That the 13.82 acre parcel in the southeast portion of the Lake:
Ann PRD have a pedestrian easement of 20' upon lands which are
developable for pedestrian way purposes.
3. That the drainway area between the southern one-third and the
northern two-thirds of Lake Susan Hills South be dropped in
favor of the 5 acre parcel located in Lake Susan Hills West.
4. That the green areas on exhibit A as amended by the previous motion
be accepted to satisfy the Park Dedication Ordinance for Lake Susan
Hills South and Lake Susan Hills West.
Attached please find the review reports dated January 9, 1980 from
William Crawford of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, from
Carvery Co. Engineer Pat Murphy, and Donald Ber4�, of the Carver Soil
and Water Conservation District. As to the contents of the letter from Mr.
Crawford, this office has the following comments: 1. For the questions
of direct access to Trunk Highway 5 from the proposed development, this
office will be recommending that only right turn movements be permitted
and that the present access for Lake Ann Park be vacated and the
primary access be provided as shown in the attached park plan. .
2. For noise abatement, it will be recommended that the applicant include
in his final plans noise abatement methods to be utilized between the
residential developments and Trunk Highway 5, old and new Co. Rd. 17,
Lyman Blvd., and new and old Trunk Highway 101.
3. With concern to the proposed Trunk Highway 212 alignment, staff has
notified the MnDOT staff on project 212 and final alignment of said
212 may be adjusted in consideration of such.
4. As to the policy of MnDOT on the temporary status of 101, the applicant
should be aware that the proposed alignment of 101 will probably be
required to be.designed in accordance with MnDOT standards with
construction costs to be born in whole or part by the development.
With regard to the comments of County Engineer Pat Murphy-, th's-of Tice
finds that.many-of the comments have beeniaken into. account in the.
revised plans -with the exception of the following.
1. Access to the commercial area in the southeast portion of the lake and
PRD will not be considered until such has been indicated in plans of
the applicant. The County Engineer's comments with regard to the
location of said access will be held for reference when this parcel
is reviewed for actual development and until such time this area will
be required to remain as' outlot. Likewise access to the 13.8 acre
parcel previously -designated as park will not be considered until
specific development plans are submitted for the southern portion of
Lake Ann PRD.
2. The City Engineer should review the adequacy of site distances for north
bound traffic as the proposed Lake Susan Hills West intersects with
old Co. Rd. 17.
PLANNING REPORT -5- January 21, 1980
3. The applicant has eliminated the westerly access onto new Co. Rd. 17
previously located on what is now -called Outlot D however the access
directly across new Co. Rd. 17 has not been eliminated. The applicant
should elaborate on this at Wednesday evenings meeting and the
recommendations regarding this intersection should be forwarded to the
Co. Engineer for further review-.
4. The large estate lots previously indicated near the northwest quadrant
of the intersection of new -Co. Rd. 17 and Lyman Blvd. have been
eliminated from the presently proposed plans. However, the applicant
should keep in mind the future access constraints- on this area and
incorporate as much flexibility for this area through the present
proposal.
5. The applicant has rearranged the circulation for the previously
proposed apartment area in the southwest quadrant of the intersection
of Creek Drive and new- Co. Rd. 17 by the change of land use fromtoshouses
to quadrominium.with.dedicated public streets. This modification
of plans should likewise be reviewed by the County Engineer for further
comments.
G. Since Lyman Blvd. is to assume and maintain a parkway standard in the
future, this office would be supportive to elminate as many accesses
onto Lyman Blvd. as: practicable. This as of yet has not been incorpor-
ated into the applicant's plans.
The attached evaluation of the Soil Conservation District recommends
plans for erosion control and drainage water management. As required
by ordinance and Watershed District regulations, these plans will be
part of the overall final development plans to be reviewed by both the
Watershed District and the City of Chanhassen.
In anticipation of questions regarding the overall density of the subject
proposals, I have contacted the cities of Eagan, Woodbury, Burnsville,
and Maple Grove in order to estimate the compatability of the densities
proposed to what other cities are experiencing. In comparing densities
it is quite difficult to find identical conditions however one thing in
common is that each of the cities have certain flexibilities for
density through the planned unit development process wherein the overall
development is considered with regard to its response to terrain and
surrounding land uses. The following is a compilation of information
received from the above mentioned cities.
Eagan — Person spoken to Dale Runkle
The City of Eagan has a limit of quad density of 7.2 units per acre.
6 units per acre is at the. high end of the desirable range. The City
also has a criteria of 20a maximum coverage ratio of building to lot.
Mr: Runkle noted that the apartment density proposed of 13.95 units per
acre is considered a very good density for apartment uses. The standard
single family lot size requirement for Eagan is 15,000 sq. ft., however
like Chanhassen,there is the planned unit development flexibility where-
in these lot sizes are reduced.
Woodbury - Person spoken to Sara McComm
k1s. McComm stated that the New Horizon and Orrin Thompson developments
within the City of Woodbury were at an overall approximate density
of 3 units per acre with portions of the New Horizon Development as
high as 7 units per acre. The classifications for Woodbury are 2'.5
to 3.0 units per acre as low density, 3-7 units per acre medium density
and 7-10 units per acre high density.
Burnsville - Person spoken to John Heald
Mr. Heald stated that Burnsville has an award winning townhome project
at a density of 5 units per -acre and also stated that there are good
townhome developments as high as 8 units per acre. According to Mr.
Heald Burnsville has projects of multiple residential units at con-
siderably higher density than those proposed on the plans at hand.
Maple Grove - Person spoken to Sam VanTassel
Mr. VanTassel stated that the single family planned unit developments
in Maple Grove range from generally 2.4 to 2.8 units per acre and that
the density for quads and doubles ranges from 3-4 units per acre.
Many of the developments presently under review in Maple Grove have
as much as 50% of its units in quadraminium.
The following is a list of changes in the land use data from the
previous plans reviewed to the present ones submitted.
Lake Ann P RD
1. There is an increase of 3 single family dwelling units and a change
of density from 2.19 units per acre to 2.31 units per acre.
2. There is a reduction of 26 duplex units from a density of 5.55
units per acre to 4.0 units per acre.
3. There has been a change of density from the quadrominium units
from 6.64 units per acre to 9 units per acre.
4. There has been an increase of 17 apartment units from a density
of 13.95 units per acre to 10 units per acre (this is probably
attributable to the inclusion of what was previously deemed as
park into the overall apartment area thus a reduction of overall
density could be realized with a net increase in number of units
proposed).
5. The commercial district has expanded to 12.7 acres from 10.7
(as in the expansion of the apartment proposal, this is also
probably attributable to inclusion of additional lands in the
previously proposed park area to the commercial area).
6. The overall density of residential land use.has been increased
from 2.93 units per acre to 3.57 units per acre.
Lake Susan.Hills West
1. The present data sheet is only addressing those lots proposed' in
phase I of the subject development. The minimum lot size for
single family is proposed at 11,700 sq. ft., for doubles 15,000
sq. ft. and for quads 18,000.
Lake Susan Hills South
1. No changes registered with the exception that the net acreage. for
the residential developments has been corrected to 130.0 acres.
Albeit that the question of density, is significantly subjective, this
office feels that the overall densities proposed are considerably in
line with what the thinking of the Planning Commission is on the land
use section of the comprehensive plan update and reasonably within the dersi` y
Of projects that have been previously approved within the. City.
The densities for the quads, eight-plexes, townhomes, and apartments
should only be considered for action after receipt of a site plan
detailing the individual multiple development area. Until such, time
as site plans are made available, these areas should be designated.
only as outlots and no absolute density endorsed. As part of the
preliminary development plan review, however the land uses may be
endorsed.
The following is a synopsis of comments this office has on the three
manned residential develonments at hand.
Lake Alin PRD
1. At this time this office recommends that the. Planning Commission
endorse. the park dedication policy as set forth_by the Park and
Recreation Commission for Lake Ann PRD pending upon receipt of
comments at the public hearing. It appears that the most reasonable
method to acquire the parkway easement on the shores of Lake Ann
is to place the 80" strip in a homeowners organization ownership with
a pedestrian easement of adequate size within this area. Since the
last Planning Commission reviiew, staff has extensively discussed
the issue of separation of residential to park usage along the shore
of Lake Ann. It is presently felt by staff that the separation of
the uses..via a roadway may be physically and economically prohibitive
and that potential conflicts will be diminished individually by
adjoining_ property owners-through.construction of fences, hedges,
or other barriers and that the illusion of private lake ownership
will still be present.
2. The. Planning Commission should consider requiring the applicant to
provide pedestrian access to the lakeshore easement area along the
side property lines -of certain lots adjoining the parkway area.
These accesses- should be located to be equally convenient for the
entire development.
3. Presently Lake Ann Park has only single access capability and with
the newly proposed access for Lake Ann Park this situation is
intensified. Upon the development of future park -plans., special
attention should be made to supplying a secondary access that would
Provide emergency access at any time.
4. A pedestrian easement to the pedestrian way located .in the southeast
portion of Lake Ann PRD should be dedicated so as not to require
access to be gotten to said pedestrian way by means of Co. Rd. 17
only. Said access should be dedicated in the vicinity of Lot
12 Block 1 as shown on the preliminary development plan of Phase I.
5. As part of the review for this proposal, plans to have sidewalk
and or bicycle trail as planned for Kerber Drive should be considered
for adoption so that when Co. Rd. 17 is brought up to urban section,
these facilities can be constructed.
6. The City Engineer should review and comment on the sight distances
for the southbound traffic on Co. Rd. 17 to the southerly access
of the proposed development and the access to the commercial
property with regard to the comments of the County Engineer. All
other sites distances for accesses into the subject development
appear to be adequate.
7- The proposed access from the subject development to HighY-ray 5,
should be considered for right -in and right -out movement only
at.this time and that design for this intersection shoulO be
subject to MnDOT approval.
8- The present access to Lake Ann Park should be vacated when a
primary access can be located as shown in the attached plans.
9 The roadways throughout the quadrominium areas of the proposed
development should_ be a minimal 32' in width. The roadway on
the north side of the 25 acre multiple area should be 36'-in
width including the extensions from Highway 5 and to 17. The
roadway from the northern access to the subject property from
Co. Rd. 17 to the southerly access to 17 should be 36' in width.
10: The City Engineer should verify the adequacy of grades upon
receipt of the final development plans for the northerly
proposed access to the subject development from Co. Rd. 17.
11. The applicant should prepare and submit as part of the final development
plans, methods upon which noise abatement will be provided along Co.
Rd. 17 and Highway 5.
12. According to the Chanhassen Soils and Landscape Analysis Map, --
there are pockets of soils with a poorly drained depressional
characteristic. Although these particular soils should be paid
attention to in the final development plan stage, they have not
necessarily prohibited development in previous developments within
the City.
13. The proposed phase I indicates a single ac,-ess exceeding the amount
prescribed in Subdivision Ordinance 33 of 500'. The applicant
should prepare and submit plans in how this situation may be
mitigated.
14. The quad lots proposed as Lots 10, 11, and 12 of Block 1 will
need to be considered in more detail due to the dramatic local
relief on the rear yard portions. These lots may be deficient
as to active yard area for some of the units, however, this may
be offset by the open space amenity to the southeast. It is
quite possible that one of these lots may need to be removed from
the plans presently under consideration.
15. It has been found that in certain planning requests similar to the
one in hand wherein residential lots were platted along the relatively
steep slopes alongside lakes and drainways, thst the applicant, after
platting has had to make variance requests to the City due to the
encroachment of the street onto the slope or the availability of
gravity to the sewer lines. In order to assure that proper investigation
of these areas has been done, I would recommend that a no variance
provision be considered as part of :the development contract.
16. As part of the review of the subject request, the Planning
Commission should restrict any approvals for the apartment areas
to land use only and reserve overall density approval until a
detailed site plan is available.
17.. The City Engineer should designate the appropriate areas of the
previously proposed-13 acre park area within the development into
outlot for conservation easement.pursuant to the comprehensive plan.
Lake Susan Hills West
1. The City Engineer should review the access from the subject
development to old Co. Rd. 17 for northbound traffic and verify
adequacy of such. All other site distances at major intersections
appear to be adequate. The roadways through the quadrominium
areas should be 32' in width, and the roadway from the northerly
access on Creek Drive to the southerly access on Co. Rd. 17 should
be 36' wide and the roadway extending from Old Co. Rd. 17 to
the T-intersection at its easterly terminus should be 36' wide.
The applicant should consider the possibility of aligning the
cul-de-sac on Block 7 with the cul-de-sac indicated on Block 6.
The roadway egressing onto Co. Rd. 17 on the east side of new
Co. Rd. 17 should be 36' in width and the roadway southeast of
the eight-plex portion of the development through the -duplex area
should be 32' in width. Approval of the intersection at new Co.
Rd. 17 south of the eight-plex area should be contingent upon
the recommendation of the County Engineer.
2. With the plan as proposed, it appears that it is quite possible
for the area noted as Outlot D west of new Co. Rd. 17 to be land-
locked should limited or no access to this area be awarded in the
future. The applicant should respond to this concern at this time.
The applicant should also be advised to assure the future ability
to utilize the area as shown as Outlot C since it too might be
limited in access to new Co. Rd. 17 in the future.
3. The applicant
accesses along
proposed park
should be prepared
the side property
area and Outlot F.
to provide as many as 5 pedestrian
lines on properties adjoining the
4. The southerly most cul-de-sac on the development proposal west of
Co. Rd. 17 exceeds the subdivision ordinance standard of length
by 1501. It is quite possible that grades in this situation may
limit the remediation of this situation.
5. As part of the overall review of the subject plans, consideration of
plans to provide pedestrian mobility along new Co. Rd. 17 should be
entered into the record.
6. As partof the final development plans, the applicant should
demonstrate how noise abatement along old.Co. Rd. 17, new Co.
Rd. 17, Creek Drive, and Lyman Blvd. will be provided.
7. For reasons stated in the Lake Ann PRD section, this office
recommends that a no variance provision be included as part of
the subject proposals development contract.
8. As stated in -the section on Lake Ann PRD, this office recommends
that only -endorsement of land use be given for the townhome,
apartments, and eight-plex portion of the plan, and that overall
density approval be contingent upon review of a detailed site
and development plan.
Bake Susan Hills South
1. The applicant should be prepared to provide as many as four
pedestrian accesses to Outlot A through the residential properties
adjoining said Outlot A.
2. The proposed accesses along existing Hwy 101 appear to be adequate,
however the City Engineer should verify the adequacy of the accesses
onto proposed Hwy 101 for sight distances.including the northerly
intersection of the proposed Hwy 101 to existing Hwy 101.
3. This office has reservations for the development of the duplex lots
in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of existing Hwy 101
and Lyman Blvd. Since existing Hwy. 101 will in all likelihood
maintain a collector status, I would like to investigate development
alternatives for this particular area.
4. The -applicant should eliminate the middle access onto Lyman Blvd.
west of Hwy 101 as per the County Engineer's recommendation. I would
recommend that the applicant consider connecting this street to the
cul de sac directly to the East.
5. The construction of proposed Hwy 101 will need to be constructed
to specifications of Mndot and existing Hwy 101 will need to be
brought up to urban section as the surrounding area develops.
6. The Planning Commission should enter their comments into the record
regarding the validity of the east/west drainway through the
southern 1/3 of the subject development for utilization and
neccessity as a pedestrian way..
7. The Planning Commission should reserve any endorsement of the
apartment and townhouse area to land use only and defer any
approval of densities until a detailed site and development plan
is submitted.
8. The applicant should address in the final development plans,the
methods in which noiselabatement will be provided along existing
and proposed Hwy's. 101 and Lyman Blvd.
9. The applicant, due to reasons stated in the comments on Lake Ann
PRD, should be bound to a no variance condition in --the development
contract for the subject proposal.
10. This office recommends that consideration of construction of
pedestrian facilities along existing and proposed Hwy.'s 101 and.
Lyman Blvd. at -time .of development be given by the Planning
Commission.
CONCLUSION
As previously mentioned, at this stage of the development review,
the most substantative changes to the proposals is anticipated. The
Planning Commission essentially has two options at this point which
are ; 1),If the materials furnished and the extent of critical anal-
ysis is not found to be adequate, the Planning Commission may extend
the proposed preliminary development plan review stage to subsequent
meetings and direct the applicant and staff to provide -any additional
requested information and analysis; and 2) Should the Planning
Commission find the above mentioned items to be adequate, the Planning
Commission may order a public hearing conditioned upon the applicant's
timely submission of all recommended modifications to plans and all
items and materials designated in subsection 4 of section 14.05 of
Ordinance 47 titled Preliminary Development Plan Review.
CITY'OF
7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 147oCHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 21, 1980
To: Planning Commission and Staff
From: Asst. City Manager/ Bob Waibel
Subject: Exhibits for P-645 and P-646
Please include the attached enclosure with your copy of Exhibit P-645
Lake Ann PRD and Exhibit P-646 Lake Susan Hills Residential Development.
-es
Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
January 8., 1980
A regular meeting of the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission was
called to order on January 8, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. with the following
members present: Joe Betz, Phyllis Pope, Walter Coudron, Ellis
Thomas and Mary Muehlhausen. Mark Koegler, Bob Waibel, Ed Dunn and
Stelios Aslanidis were also present
MINUTES: A motion was made by Phyllis Pope and seconded by Ellis
Thomas to approve the minutes of December 4, 1979. Motion carried.
No negative votes.
A motion was made by Ellis Thomas and seconded by Walter Coudron to
approve the minutes of December 11, 1979. Motion carried. No negative
votes.
PARK CONCEPT PLAN: Mark Koegler, City Planner, reviewed a conceptual
park dedication plan for the enlargement of Lake Ann Park and also
depicting an 80 foot pedestrian way connecting Lake Ann Park with
Greenwood Shores Park. Mr. Dunn commented on his thoughts about this
conceptual plan. This was his first viewing of the conceptual expansion
to the east of Lake Ann Park.
A motion was made by Ellis Thomas and seconded by Phyllis Pope to
accept the conceptual Lake Ann Park expansion plan as proposed at the
January, 1980 meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission for 19.9 acres of
of active play area and,with approximately 4 acres of shoreline, & trail
to be obtained. Acquisition options for the shoreline are to be investi-
gated by staff and be brought back to the commission for review.
,Ellis Thomas amended his motion to include an easement for pedestrian trai=
through the 13.82 acre parcel to connect with the existing trail. The
easement shall be 20 feet wide, above the high water level and permanent
in nature. Motion carried. No negative votes.
PARKLAND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5: Mr. Dunn reviewed the proposed park land
dedication south of Highway 5. Mark Koegler reviewed the formula
proposed by the Park Dedication Ordinance. Mark explained that a
small neighborhood park was necessary west of Highway 17 due to traffic
flow which is projected.
A motion was made by Walter Coudron and seconded by Ellis Thomas to
drop the eastern leg between Lake Susan South parcel 2 and 3 in favor of
a 5 acre parcel located in Lake Susan West. Motion carried., No
negative votes.
A motion was made by Walter Coudron and seconded by Phyllis Pope
to accept the dedication of the green area of Exhibit A, as amended
with the previous motion, as the developers dedication to satisfy
the Park dedication ordinance for Lake Susan South and Lake Susan West.
Motion carried. No negative votes.
COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN POLICY: Mark Koegler reviewed goals and policy
'elements of the Park and Open Space System of the City Comprehensive
Plan.
A'.motion was made by Ellis Thomas and seconded by Walter Coudron to
adjourn the meeting. Motion carried: No negative votes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Francis Callahan
Community Services Director
(612) 827-5893
Land Planning o O O o
Environmental Planning
Urban Design
Landscape Architecture
Graphic Design
January.3, 1980
(REVISED: February 4, 1980) _
LAKE ANN PUD
LAND USE DATA
LAND USE
NET
AC.*
UNITS
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL:
15i:0
S.F. (11,700 sq.
ft.
min/lot)
72.3
170
2.35
u/a
2X's (151000 sq.
ft.
min/10t)
10.7
42 (21)
3.93
u/a
4X's (18,000 sq.
ft.
-min/lot)
43.0
328 (82)
7.63
u/a
AFAMENT
25.0
250
10.00
u/a
COMMERCIAL: Neighborhood Shopping
Center
12.3
ROAD R/W: (Including R/W
of #17)
28.9
GREEN AREAS:
23.4
TOTAL
+216.0
790
3.66
u/a
*To nearest acre
Avenua Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
N
AA A
INN °
WEB SPECIALISTS
May 23, 1980
Mr. Ed Dunn
DUNN & CURRY REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT,'INC.
4940 Viking Drive, Suite No. 608
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435
Dear Ed:
571 WEST 78TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(61 2) 474n1151
V
�Ise r j
I read with interest the informative packet entitled, "You
Are Entitled to Know Your Neighbor Better".
I was particularly pleased to see that you have included
apartments in all three plan developments. Many of our
employees need this type of housing; either they cannot
afford to own their own home, or they are single. It
seems logical that as the industrial park develops, there
will be many people employed who will live in apartments
rather than in houses or quads.
I sincerely hope the City recognizes the need for a balance
in housing designed to support the industrial growth in
Chanhassen.
If -you are interested in renting some of these apartments
prior to or during the construction, I am sure that we can
be of help with a little advertising within our company.
Kindest regards,
INSTANT WEB, INC.
. Jerome Carlson 2718�
President
EJC/dal %A i98Q
cc/Frank Beddor, , Jr.
Walt Hobbs / RECEIVED
Don Ashworth
Bill Gullickson CHANHASSZN,MINN.
Clark Horn _ `�`c+,. _, G,�%
E
4
2
. . I
MEMORANDUM
� CITY(JF
7610 LAREDO DRIVEeP.O. BOX 1476CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Planning Department
DATE: May 9, 1980
SUBJ: Discussion Topics - Dunn & Curry Proposal.
For the purpose of organizing discussion on the Lake Ann, Lake
Susan, and Lake Susan West PUD's, the following list of topics was
established. This list has been broken down into four major head-
ings with specific topics being placed within the appropriate areas.
Under each topic, a set of suggested sub -categories has been listed
as well as the allowance of additional space to accommodate comments
by the Planning Commission, Staff, developer, public, etc. It is
anticipated that preliminary discussion on this list will occur on
May 14th with detailed comments by Planning Commission members on
the 21st and 28th.
A. Land Use
1. Housing
a. types
b. ratio or mix
C. low and moderate income
d .
e. _
2. Density
a
b.
3. Transportation
a. 101
b. 5
C. Co. 17
d. proposed 212
e.
f.
4. MUSA Line
a. identified in proposed comprehensive plan
b.
C.
5. Commercial Development
a. desirable? not desirable?
b. scale of facilities
C.
C1_
Planning Commission �d Staff
May 9, 1980 (►�
..-- 2-
B. COMMUNITY IMPACT
1. Environment
a. topography
b. design considerations
c. water resources
d. tree cover
e.
f.
g-
2. Economics
a. tax base
b. public expenditures
C. housing affordability
d.
e.
3. Public Facilities
a. schools
b. police/fire
c. maintenance/municipal operations
d.
e.
4. Recreation and Open Space
c
a. adequacy of existing and proposed facilities
b. timing of improvements - pedestrian facilities
C. private facilities in higher density areas
d. preservation of significant amenities
e. lakeshore areas
f.
g-
5. Metropolitan Council Policies
a. agreement, disagreement
b.
C.
6. Timing Relative to Comprehensive Planning
a.
b.
7. Residential Impact
a. project area
b. surrounding neighborhoods
C. community -wide
d. sub -regional
e.
f.
8. Infastructure - Existing and Proposed
a. sewer
b. water
C. storm runoff
d. looping of water connections affecting
e.
f.
Process
adjacent properties
Planning Commission( id Staff
May 9, 1980
-3-
C. DESIGN FEATURES
1. Street Widths 4L
a. within detahced residential areas
b. within attached residential areas
C. -
d.
2. Phasing
a.
b.
3. Outlots
a.
b.
4. Structures
a.
b.
D. IMPLEMENTATION (LEGAL TOOLS)
1. Development Contract
a.
b.
2. Covenants and Restrictions
a.
b.
3. Relationship to Existing Ordinances
a.
b.
4, E ►5
�a
G
z . f
7610 LAREDO DRIVE®P.O BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 6, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Additional Materials on Dunn & Curry's Residential Proposal
Attached please find copies of additional petition signatures,
updated status sheets, and excerpts from the Urban Land Institute
publication titled PUD (submitted by the developer), which may be
useful in the forthcoming discussion on the Lake Ann PUD, Lake
Susan West PRD, and the Lake Susan South PUD.
We, the undersigned, -request that the Chanhassen Planning Commission &
Chanhassen City Council reject the development of Lake Susan & Lake Ann
as submitted by Dunn &Curry. 41YV
We support_ the Lake Susan Homeowner -'I position on the development; as Ga��erryy ��
outlined in -their petition. s h`o'�s`
NAME
_ _ ADDRESS
U �_
-317
76
tA
' E
r
I
We, the undersigned,- request that the Chanhassen Planning Commission &
Chanhassen City Council reject the development of Lake Susan & Lake Ann.
as submitted by Dunn & Curry.
We support the Lake Susan Homeowner's position on the development, as
outlined in their petition.
NAME
ADDRESS
000
i
fir � ��� ��•�G��% ��z�j/_'�Z-r-r�-''`�'-�!. -
.
1,; T9.7 i
C �_:���
�1
Vr/
We, the undersigned, -request that the Chanhassen Planning Commission &
Chanhassen City Council.reject the development of Lake Susan & Lake Ann
as submitted by Dunn & Curry. cl `Qi-cz
We support the Lake Susan Homeowner's- osition on the development, as
Outlinedin their petition.
7
NAME
11011
ADDRESS
P, VY-
'_�c,70
14
We, the undersigned, -request that the Chanhassen Planning Commission &
Chanhassen City Council reject the development of Lake Susan ,& Lake Ann
as submitted .by Dunn & Curry.
We support the Lake Susan Homeowner's position on the development, as
outlined in -their petition.
NAME
ADDRESS
12
X21
-f7-L,
fe CITY OF
7610 LAREDO DRIVE®P.O. BOX 147oCHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
May 2, 1980
Mr. Roger Amundson, Sup't.,
School. District #112
Highway #41
Chaska, Mn. 55318
Dear Mr. Amundson:
As you recall from our discussion on the Lake Ann and the Lake
Susan West and South residential development proposals on March
21, 1980, it had been scheduled that the public hearing on the
proposals were to be held during the latter part of march and
the remainder of April. Everything so far has proceeded on
that schedule, and the Planning Commission is intending .to
devote most of this month to review information presented at
the public hearings, obtain `answers to many of the questions
raised at the public hearings, and to prepare and submit recom-
mendations on the proposals to the City Council for their action.
As you might expect, there were some questions that arose at the
public hearings that were directed towards matters that we dis-
cussed. In an effort to allow the Chanhassen Planning Commission
and Staff to relay the best possible information and answers to
the citizens concerned with this development and its impact upon
the school system, this office would be most appreciative of your
written summary. of the information we went over at our previous
meeting.
Please do not' hesitate to contact me at your earliest possible
convenience should you have any comments regarding the above.
Thank you for your cooperation. .
Sincerely,
Bob Waibel
Ass't. City Mgr./Land Use Coordinator
BW.-nw
'KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY
DEVELOPMENT • LEASING *MANAGEMENT
April 15, 1930
Mr. Clark Horn, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
P.O. Box 14.7
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Dear Mr. Horn,
We appreciate the support of the Planning Commission
for our downtown redevelopment project.
There are other noteworthy concurrent proposals before
the commission, some residential and some commercial.
We encourage you to consider these favorably when they
promote the orderly growth of Chanhassen.
While we can set no standard for any city, we hope
that the other kinds of development in Chanhassen
will be allowed for Chanhassen to continue to attradt
qualified developers like Dunn and Curry, Orr3'-n
Thompson, Centex, and others who have already Dade a.
substantial investment in the community.
It is increasingly important for residential growth to
be located near commercial growth; people need to be
close to their jobs and their supply of goods and
services. By meeting the basic needs -of the people we
will have fulfilled our responsibility to the City.
KRAUS—ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY
Dennis J. Spa114;
Vice President
DJS/js �V `
aPR 1�so
cc:-- D. Ashworth RFC1-1VF.D
co VILLPL439 CIO
C' C:HANHAS9t141
mINK.
523 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET & MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55404 9 (6I2—)-tF 4Z
CITY '-DF
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 1479CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: City Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel
DATE: April 8, 1980
SUBJ: Lake Ann PUD, Public Hearing
APPLICANT: Dunn and Curry
PLANNING CASE: P-645
As you recall the Planning Commission at its special meeting of
April 2, 1980, agreed to postpone the recommendation formulation
portion of the preliminary development plan for Lake Ann PUD, Lake
Susan West PRD, and Lake Susan South PUD to a time to be announced.
Due to this action, there has been no additional staff reports
included as a part of this agenda packet, and the only attached
materials are the responses received since the public hearing on the
Lake Susan West PRD on March 26, 1980 and various minutes for
notation and approval.
i
w';
VV.tlA� 6. SCHOELL
9
CAROSLE MADSON
14CK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON
JACK E. GILL
RODNEY B. GORDON
THEODORE O. KEMNA
JOHN W. EMOND
KENNETH E. ADOLF
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT
BRUCE C. SUNDING
R. SCOTT HARRI
DENNIS W. SAARI
GERALD L. BACKMAN
0
Mr. Bob Waibel, Assistant
Manager
City of Chanhassen
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Bob:
SCHOEL.L & MAOSON, INC.
E
ENGINEERS ANO SURVEYORS
38-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA.55343
OFFICES AT HURON, SOUTH UAKUTA ANU UtNIUN. ItxAt�
April 4, 1980.
�} r
RS I D -3;
VILLAGE D7, -.•
cxAHtaASSK9-
MWN. c� /
Subject: Erosion Control Measures,
Trunk Sewer'Project
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
We are writing in regards to the erosion control measures on
the subject project per your request of April 2, 1980.
The project was started in February, 1979, by clearing and
grubbing within the sewer easement along Lake Susan. After the
area was cleared and grubbed, the Contractor removed the snow by
blading it to the lake side of the easement: He then placed the
hay bales and snow fence barrier to prevent siltation into the
lake.
When the snow was removed, some debris was deposited on the
ice. The debris included some branches, grass and topsoil_ The
presence of this debris was of concern to the Watershed District,
City of Chanhassen, the Lake Susan Homeowners Association, -the
Contractor, and ourselves. A meeting was therefore held on the
project site with representatives of all the above mentioned
organizations present. One of those present was Mr. Murphy of the
Homeowners Association. It was decided at that meeting that any
large items of debris should be removed by the Contractor. This
mainly included the large branches as there was very little topsoil
and grass present. This was agreed to by all present, and the
Contractor later removed these items as instructed.
During the course of construction, there were some problems
with dirt piled against the bales. This was monitored by us and
when this happened, the Contractor was instructed to maintain the
bales and sometimes add more, making the barrier two bales high.
• i 'SCHOELL & MAOSON,1Nr_.�
a
Mr. Bob Waibel, Assistant
Manager
City of Chanhassen
Page Two April 4, 1980
The Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District's representatives also
visited the site regularly and made suggestions that were put into
use.
There was some siltation into Lake Susan from the project as
with most construction projects, but it is our opinion that it was
kept to a minimum.
If you have any questions, please let us know
RBGordon:mkr
CC: Mr. Ed Dunn
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
7
CITY OF
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885 _
April 4, 1980
Dear Property Owner:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission has received.a request from
Dunn and Curry to have the final decision portion on the
preliminary development plans for.Lake Susan Hills West PRD,
Lake Ann PUD, and Lake Susan South PUD proposals, temporarily
postponed. The reasons for this request, as explained by Dunn
and Curry, is to allow more time for deliberation on the points
raised at the initial public hearing and also for the possibility
to arrange for field trips of the subject property with the
surrounding residents, the Planning Commission, staff, and the
developer. The Planning Commission has found this request to
be acceptable and has agreed to defer the final preliminary
development plan recommendation portion to a date to be announced
shortly. However, the Planning Commission will conduct the
public hearing portions for the Lake Ann PUD, and the Lake Susan
Hills South PUD as previously scheduled.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate
to contact staff at City Hall (937-1900).
Cordially,
The Chanhassen Planning Commission
PC:k
(fit) 827-589i i :•
Land Planning
Environmental Planning -
Urban Design
Landscape Architecture
Graphic Design
April 2, 1980 (Revised April 16, 1980)
LAKE SUSAN WEST PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LAND USE DATA
LAND USE
R-3. 0-2 5--u,44 ,
SINGLE FAMILY
S--S . 0-- u/ a c )
DUPLEXES
R-Y (-5.0-7,2--ufac)
QUADS
8X's
TOWNHOUSES
S,y-%Q.
R-6' Q--2- 5-ti a c )
APARTMENTS
OUTLOTS ESTATES
1 u/2.5 ac
ROAD
R/W
Local
Streets
New n17
31 d #
17 '7.
reek
Drive
-X.man_Bouleva_rd
.47ee11;treas
NET AC.
00
/5
go
/Q O
d
208.00
33.00
17.00
.90
3.90
_ 1. 40
56.20
41.00
NET DENSITY",
UNITS ALLO;lED UNITS PROPOSED PROPOSED
��- 4j4j
irg-I/6
33- 67
33--�7
Rom
(7
169
TOTAL 365.2 qlljl170/'S ! I .
* Net Density = Total number of units divided by their total acreage
** Cross Density = Total numbers of units divided by -total number of acreage which
includes Road ROW' and Open Space
2614 Mcollet Avenue iNAIn en apalis, N innesota 55403
r
(612) 627-5893 iJ
f Y Lard Pianrring .,.I� ;? p Q
f i _
Environmental Planning ,
Urban Design �
Landscape Architecture -
Graphic Design ��
April 2,.1980(Revised April 16, 1980)
LAKE SUSAN WEST PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP IMENT
-� �
LAND USE DATA r
LAND USE
.g
R-1 (1-2. 5 u/ac.)
SINGLE FAMILY &-654J
j - 2-
R- 2 U :-5--5.0 u/ a c )
DUPLEXES
R-3 u/ac)
QUADS
8X's
TOWNHOUSES
S-.K-y0
R-4 (7.2 15-u/ac)
APARTMENTS
OUTLOTS ESTATES
1 u/2.5 ac
ROAD
R/W
Local
Streets
New n17
)1 d n
17
reek
Drive
Oman
Boulevar
green Areas
TOTAL
NET AC.
,-� 00
/5
=` UNITS ALLOWED UNITS PROPOSED NET DEtNSTTY*PROPOSED
L
a�
5F -- 116
91y
5 . S
6
33 -- 67
5-6
s. S
7,�0
5g-90
77
268.00
3 7 l
33.00
17.00
.90
3.90
1.40
56.2(1
-41.
00 -
- ---
365.2
* Net Density = Total number of units divided by their total acreage
** Gross Density = Total numbers of units divided by total number of acreage which
includes Road ROW and Open Space
2614 Nicollet Avenue Minrle-aaPolis, N innesota 55408
f (612) 827-5893
(Li ff-
ter' Land Planning
• Fnvirnnmenla) €'tannin
_ 9
Urban Design
Landscape Architecture
Graphic Design
f
5,i'
Apri 1 2, 1980 (Revised April 16, 1980)
- --�
f
( 0,/HGEe�e9 =.
LAKE SUSAN WEST PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
/ �-7
`"�"
': W—
LAND USE DATA
A,
6. %'�
LAND USE
r-a:"
R-1
SINGLE FAMILY dc�fc4
R-2 ( v/ac)
DUPLEXES
R-3
QUADS
8x's
TOWNHOUSES
R-4 ( )
APARTMENTS ,
OUTLOTS ESTATES
1 u/2.5 ac
ROAD R/W
Local Streets
New #17
Old #17
Creek Drive
Lyman Boulevard
NET AC.
17
:�
/o
UNITS ALLOWED
/S �/4/ .- F7
c
268.00
33.00
17.00
.90
3.90
1.40
56.20
Green Areas ii 1.00 - -
59 - V
UNITS PROPOSED NET DENSITY*'
PROPOSED
1-
d
70
'7,2 7
TOTAL 355.2 4,J_ �- �, — — -- -- - - - ------__�
* Net Density = Total number of units divided by tfiei r total acreage
** Gross Density = Total numbers of units divided by total number of acreage which
includes Road ROW and Open Space
2614 Nicollet Avenu Minnel-apolis, Hinnesol a 55403
„ .� _ . ,�. , ,. - . .:fit • � , ..,;.:.
\ (612) 827-v$93
Land Planning
Environmental Manning
Urban Design
Landscape Architecture
Graphic Design
April 2,. 1980 (Revised April 16, 1980)
LAKE SUSAN WES'E PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LAND USE DATA
NET DENSITY*
I ANC. IISF NFT Ar IIMTTC ni I niapr) IrNTTc oDnDnCr7 A nc-r-R
-
- - ---
•VI %.1 L.V
R-I (1-2.5 u/ac)t:
SINGLE FAMILY
111.00
111 - 278
278 r
2.5 u/ac.
R-2 2.5-5.0 u/ac)
!,
DUPLEXES
37.50
94 e 187
',-7 .> 1.72 (86) `;:,r
4..6 u/ac
R-3 (5.0-7.2 u/ac)
QUADS
37.00
185 - 266
216 (54)' x-
5.8 u/ac -7
8X's
17.00
85 - 122 `.
- 120 (15) .f_4.
7.0 u/acf
TOWNHOUSES
18.50-
90 - 130 f,
109 }tom.-
5.9 u/ac 7,31
R-4 (7.2-15 u/ac)
-..
APARTMENTS
10.00 -�
72 - 150
'-` I28 lllr'
12.8 u/ac 3�
OUTLOTS ESTATES
I u/2.5 ac
37.00
15 _
15 ",.r
3 u/2.5 a'c
268.00
652 - 1148
1,038
ROAD R/W
Local Streets
33.00
New #17
17.00
Old #17'�.
.90
Creek Drive.
3.90
Lyman Boulevard
1.40 ,
56.20
Green Areas
_ _41.00_--
TOTAL 365.2 652 - 1148 1,038 2-84 u/ac**
Gross Density
* Net Density = Total number of units divided by their total acreage
** Gross Density = Total numbers of units divided by total number of acreage which
includes Road ROW and Open Space
2614 Nicollet Avenue/ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408 �,
April 2, 1980
Mr. Robert Waibel
Chanhassen City Planner
Chanhassen City Hall
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mr. Waibel:
Pursuant to our conversation following the Lake Susan
public hearing on March 26, we feel that the planning commission
should not consider the Lake Susan West and Lake Susan South
developments separately. Lake Sfasan South and Lake Susan West
are separated only by a small creek; the issues facing the
development on the West and South are intricately tied together.
Therefore, we request that any recommendation concerning Lake
Susan West be postponed until the public hearing on Lake Susan
South is concluded, and action be taken on the two proposals
concurrently.
Sincerely,
('3 _4
V-J-5�
Wayne &Kathy Holtmeier
cc: Chairman of Planning Commission
Mayor Walt Hobbs
John Neveaux
Dick Pearson
Pat Swenson
Dale Geving
234$U��,
A R� 1980
VILLA
yASSOF � 'r
Rgq L� ,
April 1, 1980
Planning Commission
City o-f Chanhassen
Chanhassen, iinresota. 55317
ie: Lake Susan dills West PRD Public Fearing
sentlemen:
It is my !.3r_derstar_ding that written co ment's pertaining to the
s,ibject hearinP mq.y be sabrnitted until April 2. 1980.
,'rom the commen'-s and m1s1)n?erstan;1ings that developed daring
the hearing, T believe that it is Important to provide the
Commission wi th varlo,is plans that depict the �L SSA. line in
several con'1g,ira.tions in the vicinity o'5- Lake S,isan. The
a.ttac+ied maps ill istrating the �-73A line were obtained over the
past several years =rom .he City or City Developers, except
or the [',letropoli tan ;taste Control Con,niss.ion (I:dCC) rap.
An inspection o-4 the t'o,zr ;naps reveals considerable dif'erences
In the locations o�' the ,,,rba.n sanitary sewer service boundaries.
Ir_ every instance the City and Developer map bo+indaries lie
outside of the TCC 1990 irba.n service area boundary as shown
on their Getober, 1976 map. Contrary to the statements o-' 1"Ir. D°znn
at the hearing, it is well Known that the developers hro,igh the
City provide the impet is -or Fj. SA line expansion. Letro Council
and f WCC policies act to restrict j+i ?SA expansion, promote
centralization and prevent leapfrog develop -Tent as being proposed.
Since I was +inable to reprodl.ice the enclosed ma erials, I wo,.,ld
appreciate their ret-urn after yo-ir perusal.
Sincerely,
James C,. Fijiirphy
8500 srea.t Plains i_
Chanhassen, mInnesota 55317 RECEIVED �=-+
Enclos-ires 1 thr-1 4 �:-� MANHASSEN, �!
ti MINN. \t:,
>_ r
Arm ®a �a�. tuaiaaTaSi ,,�v� ��
via
■ 4ililts
c
l p
Y t
.77
sanitary sewer o I
Hakta Susan,
by Inky Susan hi113 oa
Chanhassen
,
�october 1974
s
€J
sew eyes area (19)
sever capacity approved (1977)
transitional area
Lake Aran Interceptor l
iti / G.Yr't h.. Fp.rY.
l
-
-
tz
live 47,
- -x-- a.• -�• ' � -3" : tr. � - � � S �-+�d'..i l _ I .5y. _ �' Y _ '� � �`�n" -."L _s _
lit
CITY OF
MINNESOTA
,vs rww MUSA. Line
Residential
Industrial
t_ Commercial
Agricultural
M_:__ � -,: Public
t Linear Open
Arterial Hi -'_
Collector Street-- f�
k Protection Area
- Interceptor
Sewer-
_�'
COUNTY
OR' � SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES
IZ--- "` EXISTING INTERCEPTORS
MA rw�MiA PROPOSED INTERCEPTORS ( DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM)
EXISTING TREATMENT PLANTS
El PROPOSED TREATMENT PLANTS (DEVLPMT. PROGRAM)
0 LIFT STATIONS
ii!!i!1!i!iliti PROPOSED 1990 MUSA BOUNDARY
e ndence
LL PlYm th 9
r
Ma.ple Plain ry
494
Medi e kel-
L Lake.
Long ake
A
----- -----
a
C-1 ayz
12 Orono
h trista
Wo d and
n I etonka r
L
h c
Deep
( t. n Min tonka,
Ho in,,
7
Toni Gre rj
Sh grewood
Vic ta,
Chanhasse
ETOWN A
r__j Eden Prairie
L
% I
41
w C h
k a
16
AQ?l
............
CHASM`
I J Shakopee,
L
Car- r �7 ;_ ACKSON
.GREN i ,/ ►' 16
17
40 f
L ISVI IE Prior L ke
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 147•CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Land Use -Coordinator, Bob Waibel
DATE: June 9, 1980
SUBJ: Lake Ann PUD, Preliminary Development Plan Review
APPLICANT: Dunn and Curry
PLANNING CASE: P-646
As you are aware, the Planning Commission and staff have compiled
a list of major concerns for the review of the Lake Ann PUD, and the
Lake Susan West and South PUD's and has discussed this list at its
last two regular meetings. In light of the above, the purpose of
this report is to capsualize into recommendation form, applicable
portions of. the Planning Report of January 21, 1980 and February 4,
1980 and other specific areas of concern that have been noted
since the public hearing had been ordered.
The following portion of this report attempts to list these items in
entirety with a brief staff comment on each.
1. The -question had been asked why the proposed park dedication
consisted of the four acre parkway along Lake Ann, the 19.4
park portion adjacently east of Lake Ann Park and the 20 foot
pedestrianway easement through the prominent drainage swale
in the southeastern portion of the development. Staff has
repeatedly commented that this proposal was the result of
numerous meetings and study as to how the needs of community
park and neighborhood park may be allocated. As such, the
Park and Recreation Commission and the staff felt that the
present park land proposal is the most cost effective proposal
for meeting these needs. Due to the indepth analysis that
has been done on this, it is felt that if there are any questions
regarding the park proposals,.that such would be best handled
by direct reference to the research material itself. There
has been the comment that the proposed park area east of Lake
Ann Park be amended to extend this park land to the southeast
shores of Lake Ann in a more continuous fashion. This office
feels that from a design standpoint, this addition would be
optimal, however, before a firm recommendation would be made,
Planning Report -2- June 9, 1980
I believe that a directive from the Planning Commission and City
Council to investigate the fiscal feasibility of this addition is
necessary.
2. As has been stated several times throughout the review, this office
has concerns about the maintaining of the conservation easement
as described in the 1968 Comprehensive Plan. With respect to this,
the applicant should be apprized that it may have a significant
impact in the southeasterly -most quad portion of the development.
Albeit that the following needs qualification, a preliminary
review of the proposed grading plan leads me to recommend a no
grade/no build line be established for all areas at or below
the 980 above sea level elevation.
3. Therewas mentioned concern about the alignment of the frontage
road along Highway 5. This office recommends that the eastern
egress for this road be aligned to be juxtaposed of the realignment
of West 78th Street as per the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, and
that the westerly egress of the frontage road and the access to
proposed Lake Ann Park be realigned to juxtapose each other
approximately 200 feet north of Trunk Highway 5.
4. Concern was mentioned about the differentiation between the proposed
single family lots and the existing single family lots forming
the northern common border of the proposed development. Albeit
that this is part of the lowest denisty portion of the proposal,
the applicant should remove two or three of the lots in this
area to enhance this transition.
5. The May 27, 1980, Planning report contains a brief summary of this
office's recommendation on the proposed commercial area in
the southeast portion of the proposed development. This office
essentially feels, for the reasons stated in the May 27th report,
that this area is most intrisically condusive to very minimal
commercial activity. As like the apartment portion of the plan,
I strongly recommend that any explicit land use approval remain
contingent upon successful site plan review.
6. At the public hearing and in meetings with the residents, concern
was mentioned about the extensive use of quadrominium units along
County Road 17, also about the overall density of the proposal.
In a recent meeting with the developer, he has stated that
he is ameanable to reducing the number of units in the proposed
apartment area by approximately 50 units, and changing the use
of the quadrominium area allowing County Road 17 to duplex with
the ability to transfer the density in the form of duplexes
in the central single family portion of the development. (This
will be graphically displayed at the meeting Wednesday night).
This office feels that such a proposal would be an overall improve-
ment in the plan, however, it is also contingent upon successful
site plan review in the case of the apartments and also successful
preliminary plat review in the case of the duplexes.
7. In light of discussions about the existing neighborhood swimming
beach located at the southwest corner of Greenwood Shores, it was
mentioned in a planning report several months ago that this
particular facility may undergo a change in its current usage.
Planning Report -3- June 9, 1980
There are various alternatives to remedy any problems that may
exist, however, any changes that might occur would be more
site specific and design oriented in nature.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the rezoning, and
the preliminary development plan for Lake Ann PUD, and the subdivision
of the first phase thereof, contingent upon the following:
1. That all densities approved for future phases be contingent
upon successful site plan review.
2. That site plan review of future phases additionally require
preliminary development review information required by
Ordinance 47 not submitted for the present overall review of
Lake Ann PUD including, but not excluded to any proposed
covenants and restrictions, development contracts, architectural
renderings, and nature of ownership and management.
3. That the applicant make reasonable attempts to address the
Planning Commission concerns regarding the arrangement and
architecture of the quadrominium areas.
4. That should
disclose to
Lake Ann PUD
active play
activities) .
the Park dedication be accepted, that the applicant
the City any work incidental to the development of
which may minimize municipal costs in developing �e'PV
areas (such could include grading and landscaping 46-t?IIA
5. That as part of the preliminary. plat, that all accesses onto
major roads within and around the development area be verified
by the City and County Engineers for adequate sight distances
and need for acceleration, deceleration and bypass lanes.
6. That a negotiable no build/no grading line be established
roughly along the 980 elevation isopleth on the drainage swale
in the southeast portion of Lake Ann PUD. (Due to the greatly
varying terrain in this area, this standard may need to be
changed considerably and these changes are most appropriately
done during the preliminary plat review).
7. Albeit that the Park Road access directly opposite of the proposed
access to Lake Ann PUD from Highway 5 is a temporary full left
access, this office recommends that only right turn movements
be permitted for this intersection and that the design of said
intersection be approved by the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation.
Also, if and when Lake Ann Park expands and when the access
from Highway 5 to Lake Ann PUD is activated, the present access
to Lake Ann Park should be vacated.
8. That at the time of development, the frontage road be aligned
in a fashion in conformance with number 3 of the comments section
above.
i N C a.i !For^ 0..... Ct
a
IX ./
Planning Report
-4- ^) June 9, 1980
.9. That the applicant include in his final plans, noise abatement
methods to be utilized along MTH 5, & County Road 17. That the
applicant provide pedestrian access to the park areas along
side property lines as recommended by staff. That a pedestrian
easement to the pedestrianway located in the southeast portion
of Lake Ann PUD should be dedicated in the vicinity of Lot 12,
Block 1.
r11
ar„�s
10.
That the roadways throughout the quadrominium areas of the
proposed development be a minimal 32 feet, and that the major
"o
roadway running north and south throughout the development
and Lake Ann Blvd. be 36 feet in width.
11.
That the applicant design building sites on slope areas so
that setback variance requests will not be needed for gravity
sewer.
12.
That a minimum structural setback of 110 feet be adopted for
properties adjoining MTH 5 and County Road 17.
13.
That the applicant dedicate the approximate 4 acre parcel along
the shore of Lake Ann as per previous discussions.
14. That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to
direct staff to further investigate the fiscal feasibility
of the addition of park lands as discussed in point number 1
of the above comments section.
15. That the applicant remove two or three of the lots along the
northern tier of the proposed development to enhance the
transition from Greenwood Shores to Lake Ann PUD.
16. That approval of the subject preliminary development plan
be contingent upon successful completion of an environmental
assessment worksheet review, watershed district review,
Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources review and Soil Conservation
District review.
17. That the proposed covenants and restrictions are found to be
acceptable by the City Attorney's office, the Planning Commission
and City Council.
;"" . / y .314r +.Z 43 ) O ,- tF
4A.ta -PA a.44-J
FR0Me: William R. Johnson
TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission
RE: Lake Susan West PRD
Following is a summary of my comments on the Propose
Dunn & Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. These are
format as the outline viewed during the May 21, 1980
A. Land Use
d
Lake Susan West, PRD by
presented in the same
work session..
In discussing the housing types for this proposal and in general for
Chanhassen, it has often been stated that (1) the city is required to
provide housing for all levels of need, and that (2) we must provide
housing for the entire proposed industrial base that will be created
by the new business parks. -These statements all relate to the now
proposed Comprehensive plan. Though I do not disagree with either
concept generally,.I do feel that it would not serve the city well to
attempt to meet.these needs immediately.
The Lake Susan West proposal offers as stage one a mix of single family,
duplexes and four-plexes, all to be built south of the business park.,,
with the second phase being primarily single family. I would propose
to recommend to the developer that he would concentrate his planning
process on multiple use of neighborhoods in order to perserve both the
integrity of the terrain and to allow for more orderly growth. The
ancillary effect of this type of planning shall also allow for some
cost reductions in development of the land through some efficiencies.
in streets and.utilities.
The specific housing types need more direction than a blanket density
ratio due primarily to the impact of the size of the development on
Chanhassen°s existing housing stock. This can be approached through
lot size. Single family proposals seem adequate in that they do not
deviate materially from existing subdivision standards.. I would propose
that the duplexes and four-plexes represent a more efficient land use
than is presently desired by the City of Chanhassen at this time.
Therefore, I would ask the developer to keep in mind in his future
planning that a more appropriate land utilization would be an 18,000
square foot minimum lot size for the duplexes and a 21,000 square foot
minimum lot size for the four-plexes.
I believe the eight-plex concept to be adverse to the housing that
Chanhassen desires to be added to its stock. This is an attempt to
reach a market between the low density attached housing and the high
density townhouse or apartment that is speculative. Therefore, I propose
to the developer that he delete consideration of eight-plexes units from
his future plans.
Chanhassen Plannin g Commission
May, A 980
Page 2
t
In the area of townhouse and perhaps apartments, I believe the land developer
can be most creative and yet cost effective. His proposal is yet again
agressive in land utilization but I feel it is close to workable. These types
will be addressed below.
In summarys I believe the developer should look towards a multi -use development
in each stage or phase and should be advised that the city will require this
multiple concept to be applied consistently throughout the maturity of the
project. The developer should also be advised that the standards he sets
for the home builders he solicits should be towards a greater ratio of
lot to building in order -to meet approval by the city.
B. Density
This seems to be the most controversial issue of the entire proposal. It
appears that density is often equated with single family subdivisions with
little or no open space. In all fairness to the PUD concept, I believe
this is an area that allows both the developer and the home builders to
be creative. Therefore, I,believe it is in the city`s best interest to
have as few constraints in this area as possible. In this light, I
propose a density calculation based upon the following:
A. The larger minimum lot sizes for the duplexes and
four-plexes outlined above.
B. The elimination of the eight-plex acreage and the
re -utilization of this 17 acres in single family
development.
C. .The elimination of the outlots from the density
calculation.
D. The reduction of the proposed apartment density from
12.8 units per acre to 10 units per acre.
Using the above criteria, the overall net density would be 2.8 units per acre.
If the outlots were included, the density would be 2.5 units per acre.
In summary, the developer should be aware that the city does not feel compelled
to reach for existing or comparable subdivision construction. Being a "third
tier" suburb allows us the flexibility to control our growth both in size
and quantity of housing stock and also to set quality standards higher than
some of our neighbors.
C. MUSA Line and Transportation_
These items are important to both the city and the future development. However,
I believe my comments in past meetings, which are of public record, are sufficient.
a
Chanhassen -Planning Commission
May, •1980
Page 3
D. Commercial Developpment
Though there is no commercial development proposed at this time, I believe
that this option for such areas as the outlots would be a service to the
area. Being that it is geographically separated from major trade areas
by one or more major roads, it seems plausible that the residents of this
area will need some commercial support services in the future. By allowing
this to be a part of the overall plan, a more orderly growth of commercial
activity in the area of the city may take place.
E. Community Impact
It seems to be of utmost importance that the development be blended into
the existing community with minimal trauma. Critical areas to be addressed
are: (a) relationship to existing residents, (b) relationship to existing
terrain, and (c) relationship to existing ancillary services.
The primary residents of Chanhassen affected by this proposal would be the -
lake front home owners on the east shore of Lake Susan. Of primary concern
to them is the higher density that is proposed on the west shore of the lake.
I believe that the multiple use concept outlined above along with the lower
density proposal would allow for a higher probability of new residents who
would take an interest in maintaining the lake without prohibiting those
whadid not wish to own or maintain a single family residence from having
lakeshore property.
The proposed land development has several rolling hills and a great many
trees that are considered to be an asset to Chanhassen and a contribution
to its quality of life. I believe it to be very important that the, developer
understand that the city will endeavor to maintain this standard of "country
living". -Such proposals as requiring permits for removal of trees over a
certain size illustrate this desire. His future plans should incorporate
methods of maintaining existing landscaping and in some instances reclaiming
it.
A major asset of the PUD concept is to allow the city to have certain
standards and requirements, but still allow the developer and home builders
some room for creativity. Many of the above comments -have simply been asking
for a higher quality of construction and a lower consumption of land. The
PUD concept allows this problem to be approached from several different
directions. The developer has isolated several areas along with other local
agencies that are designated "open space". This open space preserves the
"country flavor" desired by both Chanhassen and Cover County- From this
point the remaining land to be developed can be orchestrated within the
confines of market demands, topography and within the ranges set out by
the city.
Chanhassen Planning Commissioi.
May,.1980
Page 4
I would strongly urge the developer to incorporate into the development
of this remaining land additional localized open spaces;. to include such
things as tot -lots, playgrounds and some major ancillary recreational
areas such as swimming pools and tennis courts. By utilizing a cluster
concept, open areas of a neighborhood nature will open up allowing for
residents to have recreational benefits without driving or crossing
major roadways. The developer should realize that the city feels that
this is an important responsibility as is providing such services as
streets, water and sewer.
In summary, the developer should be aware that Chanhassen, will cooperate
with those proposing growth opportunities only to the extent that the
goals are the same, i.e. stabilized growth with an appropriate mix of
housing at all times, continued with the "open spaces" and "'green areas"
that are the assets to the community.
N A
c-C)
C-j�j)vv,
cvtd-
tc�
(C-1- CA
dvc�+
rvYv\- Z) Tee-- awl
c�y C)p
1213
CO
MAY
RECSIVSD
Cc)
vjLLAGV-'O'f"
�04p,NHASSEM,
MINK. A
.R
^.ITY JF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
September 17, 1981
Mr. Gregory Frank
New Horizon Homes, Inc.
3131 Fernbrook Lane North
P.O. Box 1367
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Dear Greg:
Pursuant to our field inspection of the Chaparral developments with
Bob Obermeyer on September 14, I will expect grading and restabilization
work to occur within the week in efforts to control the areas of
existing erosion. Your immediate attention to correction of
these problem areas is appreciated.
Sincerely,
William Monk
City Engineer
WM : k/
i
cc: Bob Obermeyer, Barr Engineering
■
Tk
LAKE- OUTLET
ENERGY DISSI PATOR `
NO SCALE
J
millOki
3999IMilt
r
m
z
m r-
�D
vm
Cf)o
u --I
a r-
o m
--i
Z
9
PRIVATE COMMON DRIVEWAY EASEMENTS
(Each being a 14 foot strip, 7 feet on either side of the indicated center line,
including such extensions as may be required to reach angular or curved lot lines.
All lot references are to lots in Chaparral 2nd Addition, unless otherwise specifi-
cally designated.)
Column I
Column II
SERVIEN-T PARCEL(S) CENTER LINE OF EASEMENT STRIP
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 Commencing at a point on the Easterly lot
line of Lot 2, Block 1, at a point which
is the point of intersection of said lot
line and a line which is parallel to and
47 feet Northwesterly of the Southeasterly
lot lines of Lots 2 and 1, Block 1, said
point of intersection being the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence Southwesterly along said
parallel line a distance of 115 feet and
there terminating.
Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Commencing at the Northeasterly corner of
Block 1 Lot 6, Block 1, being the POINT OF BEGIN-
NING; thence Southwesterly along the
Northwesterly lot lines of Lots 6 and 5,
Block 1, a distance of 105 feet and
there terminating.
Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, Commencing at the most Southerly corner of
Ulock 1 Lot 7, Block 1, being the POINT OF BEGIN-
NING; thence Northwesterly along the
Southwesterly lot lines of Lots 7 and 8,
Block 1, a distance of 120 feet and
there terminating.
Lots 11, 12, 13 and Commencing at the most Northerly corner
14, Block 1 of Lot 14, Block 1, being the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence Southwesterly along
the Northwesterly lot lines of Lots 14
and 13, Block 1, a distance of 125 feet
and there terminating.
Lots 15, 16, 17 and Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot
18, Block 1 15, Block 1 (which is also the Northwest
corner of Lot 18, Block 1), being the
POINT OF BEGINNING; thence Southerly
along the Easterly lot lines of Lots 15
and 16, Block 1, a distance of 135 feet
and there terminating.
Column III
DOMINANT
(SERVED) PARCEL(S)
Lots 1 and 2, Block
Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6,
Block 1
Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10,
Block 1
Lots 11, 12, 13 and
14, Block 1
Lots 15, 16, 17 and
18, Block 1
EXHIBIT B
c_RVIENT ?A_RCTT(S) CENTER LI?1E OF EASEMENT STRIP
DOMI,4-LNT
(SERVED) PARCEL(S)
Lots 19 and 20, Corrnmencing at the most 'N'ortherly corner of Lots 19 and 20,
Block 1 Lot 20, Block 1, being the POINT OF BEG!!!- Block 1
NI'+G; thence Southwesterly along the \orth-
westerly lot line of Lot 20, Block 1, a
distance of 37 -feet and there terminating.
Lots 21 and 22, Cc=encing at the Southeasterly corner of Lots 21 and 22,
Block 1 Lot 21, Block 1, being the POINT OF BEGIN- Block 1
NING; thence :;orthwesterly along the South-
westerly lot line of Lot 21, Block 1, a
distance of 37 feet and there terminating.
Lots 23, 24, 25 and Commencing at the most Southerly corner of
26, Block 1 Lot 26, Block 1, being the POINT OF BEGI'.-
NING; thence Northeasterly along the South-
easterly lot lines of Lots 26 and 25, Block
1, a distance of 140 feet and there termi-
nating.
Lots 27, 28, 29 and Commencing at the most Easterly corner of
30, Block 1 Lot 30, Block 1, being the POINT OF BEGIN-
NING; thence Northwesterly along the North-
easterly lot lines of Lots 30 and 29, Block
1, a distance of 140 feet and there te ^ni-
nating.
Lots 31, 32, 33 and Commencing at the Northeasterly* corner of
�4, Block 1 Lot 34, Block 1, being the POINT OF BEGIN-
NING; thence Southwesterly along the North-
westerly lot lines of Lots 34 and 33, Block
1, a distance of 135 feet and there termi-
nating.
Lots 23, 24, 25 and
26, Block 1
Lots 27, 23, 29 and
30, Block 1
Lots 31, 32, 33 and
34, Block 1
Lots 1 Bad 2, Block 6 Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot Lots 1 and 2, Block
2, Block 6, being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence Southeasterly along the Northeast-.
erly lot line of Lot 2, Block 6, a distance
of 37 feet and there terminating.
Lots 3, �, 5 and 6, Commencing -at the Northeast corner of Lot Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6
Block 6 4, Block 6, being the POINT OF BEGI;-NINIG; Block 6
thence Southwesterly along the Southeast-
erly lot lines of Lots 4 and 3, Block 6,
a distance of 175 feet and there terminating.
Lots 7, S, 9 and 10, Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot rots 7, 8, 9 and i,
Bled; 6 8, Block 6, being the POINT OF BEG:YNNI_`NG; 3lock 6
thence Southwesterly along the Southeast-
erly lot lines of Lots 8 and 7, Block 6,
a distance of 105 feet and there termi-
nating.
-2-
SERVIENT PARCEL(S) CENTER LIVE OF EASEMENT STRIP
DOMINANT
(SERVED) PARCEL(S)
Lots 11, 12, 13 and Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot Lots 11, 12, 13 and
14, Block 6 12, Block 6, being the POINT OF BEGINrNIN'G; Block 6
thence Southwesterly along the Southeast-
erly lot lines of Lots 12 and 11, Block 6,
a distance of 110 feet and there terminating.
Lots 15 and 16, Commencing at a point along the Northeast -
Block 6 erly lot line of Lot 16, Block 6, at a
point which is the point of intersection
of said lot line and a line which is
parallel to and 7 feet Northwesterly of
the Southeasterly lot lines of Lots 16
and 15, Block 6, said point of intersec-
tion being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence
Southwesterly along said parallel line a
distance of 115 feet and there terminating.
Lots 15 and 16,
Block 6
-3-
UTILITY EASEMENTS
(Each being a 14 foot strip, 7 feet on either side of the indi-
cated center line, including such extensions as may be required
to reach angular or Curved lot lines. All lot references are to
lots in Chaparral 2nd Addition, unless otherwise specifically
designated.)
Commencing at a point on the Easterly lot line of Lot 2, Block 1,
at a point whic:Z is the point of intersection of said lot line
and a lire which is parallel to and 34 feet Northwesterly of the
Southeasterly lot lines of Lots 2 and 1, Block 1, said point of
intersection being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence Westerly along
said parallel line a distance of 115 feet and there terminating.
EXHIBIT C
a v m� o
a Z
m v�_
rn a
CO
m - rn
7C'
m O
3 -n
N
� C �
�3r'
y m
7 W
Planning Report
Chapparal on Lake Ann
Page 2
recommendations and finds the proposal acceptable from a planning
standpoint.
In discussions with representatives of New Horizon Homes, it
has been indicated that the 8x's_per unit square footage W1 11 vary
between 841 square feet to 1,273 square feet depending on the
optional floor plans selected by the prospective buyers.
The uniform building code does not have any per unit square
footage minimums, however the applicant will be required to
meet a certain minimum square footages for aspects of interior floor
plan.
The 8-plex units are proposed to have common ownership of
surrounding lands as shown in the outlots indicated on the
attached plans. Each unit is proposed to have a single garage
with one additional parking space on the asphalt apron between
structures. Additionally two additional spaces per structure
are proposed to be provided at the rear of said asphalt apron.
In reviewing the landscape plan for the 8-plex, it was noted
that the parking areas are approximately 8 feet deficient in
clear isle width. The applicant has indicated that they plan
to place the structures such to provide for a separation of
a minimum of 115 feet between center lines of structures. This
should offset the deficiency noted above and will
provide for an additional parking space per unit at the rear
of the parking apron.
Attached you will find the report from the City Engineer dis-
cussing several of the Engineering concerns yet to be resolved.
Previous Staff Condition for Approval (Continued to be recommended as
part of any approvals)
1. Inclusion of right turn lanes along Route 17/Powers Blvd.
2. Satisfactory compliance with recommendations of City
Engineer.
3. Subject to signing of Developers Agreement & review
of the covenants by the attorney.
4. Satisfactory review and approval of the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet.
5. Satisfactory review and approval of the Watershed District.
6. Review of building placement and design by the City Planner
is recommended.
7. Agreement as development occurs, no single access street
no longer than 600 feet will be created.
Planning Report
Chapparal on Lake Ann
Page 3
8. Recognition that development on outlots A & B is con-
tingent upon satisfactory site plan review.
Previous Planning Commission Conditions for Approval (Con't decision
regarding inclusio
1. Compliance with conditions 1-8 from the BRW/Staff Report
dated March 18, 1981.
2. Minimum setback of 100 feet for all units.
3. Subject to approval of housing types i.e. product changes
4. That50o of the units constructed be single family as
presented by the developer.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Bill Monk, City Engineer
DATE: June 18, 1981
SUBJ: Chaparral on Lake Ann
The following comments and conditions are listed to identify
the engineering aspect of the proposed preliminary plat:
1. A feasibility study dated March, 1980 was the result
of petitions from area property owners to extend a
sanitary sewer trunk to serve their properties. The
City Council made no commitment to construct this
project municipally, but extension of these trunk
lines is required to service much of the proposed
plat.
2. A question has arisen concerning the City's partici-
pation in assuming a portion of the cost to construct
Aztec Drive adjacent to the park.
3. The City shall require that construction inspection
and staking be controlled by the City and performed
by its agent.
4. Utility and drainage easements must be platted where
utilities cross lots or follow lot lines as well as
easements for the ponding areas. Also, an easement
shall be provided across Outlots A and C for extension
of sanitary sewer to the Brose property.
5. Trunk watermains are to be constructed within the plat
but responsibility for the ovexsiz ing costs has not
yet been -determined.
6. Final construction plans shall be reviewed and approved
by this office.
Chaparral on Lake Ann
June 18, 1981
Page 2
7. Access permits must be secured by the developer from
MND®T and Carver County. Right turn lanes shall be
constructed at all access road locations.
8. The developer shall be responsible to secure all re-
quired agency approvals and comply with their conditions
prior to commencement of construction.
9. Aztec Drive from T.H. 5 to Pueblo Drive, Pueblo
Drive, and Aztec Drive from C.R. 17 to Pawnee Drive
shall be constructed to a width of 32 feet.
10. A grading plan detailing erosion control shall be
submitted for approval with the platting of each
phase.
79
114h x/c.
lip
LARSON & MERTZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1900 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
RUSSELL H. LARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
CRAIG M. MERTZ
OF COUNSEL May 29, 1981
HARVEY E. SKAAR
MARK C. McCULLOUGH
Don Ashworth
Chanhassen City Manager
Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
Re: Chaparral
Dear Don:
Enclosed you will find the -original copy of the
Chaparral Development ..Contract for the lst, 2nd,
The City Council authorized you and the Mayor to
on Januar•A° 5, 1981. I had previously submitted
Rust for purposes of obtaining your signature.
not done prior to her leaving the employ of the
TELEPHONE
(6.2) 335-9565
First Amendment to
3rd and 4th Additions.
sign this contract
the document to Nancy
That apparently was
City.
In any event, I re -submit this document to you for your signature.
Please note that the contract has been signed by New Horizon Homes, Inc.
I have asked Dunn & Curry to also join in the First Amendment. They
have refused to do so. I have attached to the document the original
copy of their letter dated February 24, 1981, declining to sign the
contract. I am not concerned by this refusal. Dunn & Curry did join
in in the original contract. The First Amendment relates only to the
use of the developer's various letters of credit for the purpose of
paying pending assessments. I su��est_that-you affix the__ncsry
si�.;original and place the oricopy of the document in the City
vault. Please ask your secretary to provide me with a'photocopy of the
document after the City has signed. ---
�_�j S� Very truly yours,
'r I
CRAIG M. MERTZ
Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney
CMM:ner
enc
RECEIVED
,JUN 2 1981
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NEW HORIZON HOMES, INC.
BUILDING TOMORROWS DREAMS TODAY
3131 FERNBROOK LANE NORTH
P.O. BOX 1367
o ❑
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55440
-
612-559-5770
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Attn: Bob Waibel
Gentlemen:
May 29, 1981
Re: Chaparral on Lake Ann
As a result of the continued discussion and negotiation at the
City Council meeting of May 11, we have revised our proposed plat and
are presenting copies herewith. As agreed, we have increased the
number of single family detached home sites from 140 to 170. We have
reduced the number of twinhomes from 168 to 78 and the townhomes from
178 to 158. The balance of the 600 units or 200 units will be multiple
in the form of 8 unit condominium buildings. We are furnishing pre-
liminary drawings of this new product.
Due to the restraints of topography and desired setback from
TH #5 on the previously identified Outlot "A", we are siting 8 of these
buildings north of Pawnee Drive in an area previously planned for
townhomes. This will provide a broad green area between the residences
and the highway.
A number of other improvements were made as a part of this revision.
Two cul de sacs were eliminated off of Pawnee Drive reducing the number
of feet of public street and increasing the rear yard open space. This
also provides for a minimum setback of 100 feet from Powers Blvd. The
alignment of Nachos Drive was modified allowing for greater solar access
and reducing the amount of grading required to place townhomes. The
street grades will also be more moderate.
We are of the opinion that the changes incorporated are beneficial
to the City as well as ourselves and we look forward to progress on
this project.
GJF:mlz
Encs.
Very truly yours,
NE'ly 0
1C1, ON HOMES,
Gregor J. Frank
Vice President
3
�Pu O
CITY 0v CMANH�Q %
INC. tISCEIV
JI_IN 2198,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT-
` MMSTATEEE
4 U V
DEPARTMENT
CENTENNIAL OFFICE
Mr. Robert Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
BUILDING • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155
May 26, 1981
RE: Lake Ann PUD Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Mr. Waibel:
The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the above referenced
document and offers the following comments for your consideration.
The Lake Ann PUD appears to be well designed in terms of maintaining
some of the existing environmental values of the area. Methods for
prevention of soil erosion during construction, maintenance of 12-14
acres of non -shoreline woodlands, and provision of permanent stormwater
retention ponds are all favorable environmental considerations incorporated
in the project.
Because this project is a planned unit development in a shoreland area,
our Department must approve of the plans before construction may begin.
Area Hydrologist David Leuthe (296-7523) should continue to be contacted
in this regard. Any revised design plans should be sent to him.
We have been unable to determine if the storm sewer discharge will be
directly to the lake through an outlet structure or if water will flow
overland through rip -rap. If an outf all structure is placed below the
ordinary high water mark of the lake, the developer will have to obtain
a DNR public waters permit. Mr. Leuthe can assist with information
in that regard, if necessary.
Our evaluation of maps of the project and surrounding area indicates
the presence of wetlands on both the north and southeast edges of the
site. If these wetlands are to be used as detention ponds, we recommend
that they be surrounded with a 30 foot wide strip of undisturbed upland
vegetation to increase their value as habitat. Also, we recomemnd
maintaining a minimum depth of 2 feet of water in the detention ponds
in order to enchance their value for waterfowl.
CITY Of CHANHASSEN
RECelV D
MAY 2 81981
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPt,
Mr. Robert Waibel
May 26, 1981
Page Two
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Z44,t--, J,61,
Susan S.G. Wierman, Acting
Environmental Review Coordinator
SSGW:DB:mp
cc: Karen Loechler
Ron Harnack
Earl Huber
Dave Leuthe
Dunn & Curry Real Estate Management, Inc.
P- 64(
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 1981
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Bob Waibel, City Planner
SUBJ: Chaparrel West
PLANNING CASE: P-646
Attached please find the minutes of the August 11, 1980
City Council Meeting whereat the subject development was
rezoned from R-lA to P-1. (This action excepted the south-
easterly most 12.7 acres) Since this action had already
been taken at Preliminary Development Review, such was not
submitted as a required action for the Final Development Plan
Review.
1 oV4, ;r
a y 1
r,2_3 c s.. . r. C f►,
`SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 11, 1980
Mayor Hobbs called the meeting to order with the following members present: Councilmen
Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson.
LAKE ANN PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPYOU, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REZONING:
Ed Dunn was present. The Council held a public meeting on July 28, 1980, to receive
public testimony regarding this proposed development.
Councilman Neveaux moved to rezone proposed lake Ann PRD to P-1 excluding the 12.7 acres
designated as. � hatched red and green and solid red on Exhibit lA of Planning
Camlission meeting June 11, 1980, drawn by Urbanscope. Motion seconded by Councilman
Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux,
Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Neveaux moved to grant preliminary plan approval for Lake Ann PUD as shown
on the Urbanscope drawing of June 11, 1980, and.referring to the Planning Caninission
recarmendation of June 11, 1980, with attention also to be paid, during the next step
of the development process, to staff recommendations #1, 4, 7, 10, and 15 and that a
density of 2.9 units per acre within the overall 203.3 acres of the project yielding
a total dwelling unit count not to exceed 600 units on the property. Motion seconded
by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson,
Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried.
SHORT SLEEVE SESSION, 1980 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: Jim Orr and Dale Campbell
were present project costs and the methodology used in the proposed assessments.
- 1980 ELECTION EQUIPMENT:
RESOLUTION #80-24: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution setting forth
the need to switch from paper ballots to punch -card voting system. Resolution seconded
by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson,
Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Notion carried.
Councilman Pearson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and
Swenson. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
OIL
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
UZY
May 18, 1981
Bob Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mr. Waibel:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has reviewed the environ-
mental assessment worksheet (EAW) on the proposed Lake Ann.pro-
posed residential development. This Agency's primary concern
with this type of project is.in the areas of.air quality, noise,
surface water and ground water impacts. We understand that since
this project will have HUD mortgage insurance, a federal environ-
mental impact statement must be prepared.. Our concerns can be
more fully addressed at that time. In general, some of our con-
cerns are: 1) the control of.construction runoff, 2) surface
runoff control after the project is completed, 3) protection of
ground water, 4) noise levels generated by construction vehicles
and general traffic noise once the project is completed, and 5)
air quality impact from traffic.
If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me at any
time.
S'ks-"
y,
0— Wd
Douglas A. Hall
Environmental Review Coordinator
Office of Planning & Review
bf301N3Wd013/13a AliNf1WW03
186161VA
C]3AI303a
N3SStlHN'dH0 JO A110
Phone: (ti'12)?ati-7293
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
RECEIVED
�j TIJIff,iFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD
11 JJ vv ,, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CITY OF CHANHASSEId1500 HWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER
r�lgl 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55431
�r TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800
4324 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE (6121 835-3800
May 14, 1981
Robert Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota
IIOI CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
TELEPHONE 1202) 223-9398
55317
Re: Lake Ann EAW;
Our File No. 5962-20
Dear Bob:
JAM ES P. LARKIN
STEVEN G. LEVIN
ROBERT L. HOFFMAN
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
JACK F. DALY
PETER K. BECK
D. KENNETH LINDGREN
RI CHARD I. DIAMOND
AN DREW W. DANIELSON
JOHN R. BEATTIE
WENDELL R. ANDERSON
JON S. SWIERZEWSKI
GERALD H. FRIEDELL
MICHAEL S. MARGULIES
ROBERT B. WHITLOCK
SAMUEL L. STERN
ALLAN E."PAT"MULLIGAN
STEVEN J. SHAPIRO
ROBERT J. HENNESSEY
THOMAS J. FLYNN
RONALD R. FLETCHER
RODERICK I. MACKENZIE
JAMES C. ERICKSON
MICHAEL D. SCHWARTZ
EDWARD J. DRISCOLL
FORREST O."DICK" NOWLI N
JAM ES P. MILEY
JAMES P. OUINN
GENE N. FULLER
MICHAEL C. JACKMAN
STEPHEN B. SOLOMON
MARY E. CURTIN
JOSEPH W. ANTHONY
DANIEL A. OUINLAN
DAVID C. SELLER G REN
JEROME H. KAHNKE
JOHN D. FULLMER
TOOD I. FREEMAN
ROBERT E. BOYLE
CATHY E. GORLIN
FRANK I. HARVEY
JOSEPH T. GREEN
ROBERT T. MONTAGUE, JR.+
ANDREW J. MITCHELL
JAMES M. STROTHER
EMBER D. REICHGOTT
CHARLES S. MODELL
RICHARD A. FORSCHLER
OF CO U NSEL
LINOA H. FISHER
JOSEPH GITIS
THOMAS P."TIM" STOLTMAN
LINN J. FIRESTONE
,PRESENTLY ADMITTED ONLY IN PENNSYLVANIA
This letter is to confirm our conversation of May 14, 1981.
The comment period on the Lake Ann EAW ended midnight, May 13, 1981. You will
send me a copy of all the comments received. To your recollection, no agency
or group of 500 petitioners requested the preparation of an EIS. Nevertheless,
the comments of the Minnesota Historical Society and Minnesota Department of
Transportation may, in your opinion, may warrant some response or action on the
part of the project's sponsor. As soon as I receive a copy of the comments, I
will discuss this with Ed Dunn and then with you.
In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments, please give me a call.
Sincerely yours,
David C. Se Plergrer,for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
sjg
cc: Ed Dunn
Greg Ingraham
Council Meeting May 11, )81
-2-
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CHAPARRAL ON LAKE ANN: The Council discussed this proposed
plan on April 13, 1981, and tabled action to this meeting. Council members generally
agreed that the number of single family homes in the development should be
increased. Councilman Geving suggested a compromise of 170 single family homes,
78 twin homes, 152 quads, and 200 8-plexes. Greg Frank stated New Horizon would
study this proposal.
Councilman Geving moved that the changes discussed this evening are more in
agreement with standards of development for this particular piece of property
than the presented plan but that before final development plan approval can be
given the Council needs to look at that configuration put into a plan. Action
be tabled to June 1, 1981. A conceptual drawing will be presented including
Outlot A depicting the 200 units as well as a display or elevation drawings
of what an 8-plex will look like. Park dedication and%or park charge will be
discussed on June 1. Motion seconded by Acting Mayor Neveaux. The following voted
in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE:
the committee.
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT:
development contracts.
Council members discussed possible charges of
The City Manager reviewed the progress of the
Councilwoman Swenson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The
following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 12:00.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
3.
CITY OF � 'L
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: May 8, 1981
SUBJ: Final Development Plan Review, Chaparral on Lake Ann,
Dunn and Curry
The enclosures for this item have been broken into two parts -
"Enclosures from April 13, 1981 Council Meeting" and "Enclosures
Received Since April 13, 1981".
Minutes of the April 13th meeting are not included. The tapes for
this meeting are totally inaudible (meeting held at Chanhassen
Elementary). Bob and Jean will be jointly working to attempt to
reconstruct those minutes; however, that reconstruction was impossible
recognizing that Jean has been on vacation up to this week. It is
my recollection that the action taken by the City Council was to
table action on this item until this meeting to attempt to resolve
issues in regards to clustering, density, lot sizes, etc.
I asked Bob to contact Dunn and Curry and New Horizon and request any
additional information they desired included as a part of this packet.
They have indicated that they have no additional information to submit.
e
I—�6����0
3
INVOICE
PL I ANN i I I NG /TRANSPORTATION I ENGI NEERI NG /ARCH ITECTU RE N2 29006
Mr. Don Ashworth DATE: Apriij;lj 30-- 1981
CMty Manager,
7610 Laredo Driiive
P.O. Box 147 JOB NO: 62-8032
Chanhassen; MN 55317
For, Professlionaili P'lianniiing Serivilices rienderied durilng the Month of Apr*11; 1981.
(::I,:.-�-Chap�arrali West
Work performed iincjluded prepariatilon of a rev-1ised project memoriandUm and atten-:-
dance at a Ciijty Councifili meetlijng.
cj!ass 111 f illca+q,on Hou rs Rate Mou n'+
Prjofesslonal, .11! 6.50 $37.50 $ 243.75
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 243.75
0.\(,
Lat.
A
BATHER. RINGROSE, WOLSFELD, JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. 2829 UNIVERSITY AVE- S.E. MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55414 PHONE 612 1379-7878
�ojr yo Minnesota
I a Department of Transportation
-� Transportation Building
�Q0 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
r OF T
April 28, 1981
Mr. Bob Wa i be
City Planner `�
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota
�''uu►fl
APR 1981
RECEIVED
VILLAGE OF
CHANKASSEN,
MINN.
In Reply Refer to: 702
Lake Ann Planned Residential Development
Environmental Assessment L'lorksheet
Dear "Ar. lqa i be I :
Phonc296-1635
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (J'An/DOT) has completed a review
of the above referenced document. !','e offer the following comments for your
consideration.
We agree that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on our
transportation facilities. We are particularly concerned with the 4125
vehicle trips which will be generated by the proposed project at full dev-
elopment. Although construction of the Trunk Highway (TH) 212/169 realign-
ment is planned for the late 1980's, current funding levels for highway pro-
jects in this state necessitate that time schedules for highway construction
activities remain flexible. The City should not, in other words, depend upon
completion of T.H.- 2.12 to occur prior to full development of the project which,
as you have indicated, may take place between 1985 and 1987. Alleviation of
traffic congestion on T.N. 5 through the TH 212/169 realignment, therefor,
might not take place until a much later date.
Page 19 of the EAV1 states that of the 4125 vehicle trips generated daily by
the development, only 1206 would be added to vehicle trips already occurring
on TH 5 east of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17, and 301 to those west of
CSAIJ 17. Pin/DOT would be interested in what assumptions served as a basis for
calculating these trip ends as well as other trip end assignments.
In addition we would like to repeat comments provided to the city following our
review of Lake Ann plat. In our letter of January 9, 1980, Mn/DOT recommended
the following:
- Direct access to TH 5 should be limited to the CSAH 17 intersection
and the proposed intersection at Park Drive. Turn lanes will be re-
quired for the latter intersection as part of the entrance permit.
- It would be desirable to incorporate the Lake Ann Park access from
TH 5 with the proposed access for this development. If the TH 5
An Equal Opportunity Employer
-QW(@
A
7 e r
Mr. Bob l-,la i be I
April 28, 1981
Page Two
access to the park is its only entrance, there will be manv short
unnecessary trips on TH 5. This could create a hazard as use of
the park is increased.
- Residential development is a very noise sensitive land use. The
City and the developer should be aware that Mn/DOT will not provide
any type of noise abatement for new development adjacent to existing
highways. Ile suggest every effort be made in design of the develop-
ment to lesson the impact highway noise might have on it.
Finally for your information, the City must apply for an entrance
permit for any access roads leading from the proposed development to
TH 5. Permit application can be made through our District Office in
Golden Valley. Mn/DOT has also noted that the City has not yet prey
sented a Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for review.
As a reviewing agency, Mn/DOT would like the City to be aware that we
will again be repeating our comments at that time.
If you have any questions regarding our comments or would like additional informa-
tion from 1%9n/DOT, please contact Robert Morast, Transportation Analysis Engineer,
at lln/DOT'S District Office in Golden Valley, phone number (612)545-3761.
Sincerely,
David S. Ekern
Director
Environmental Planning
P 6� b
April 20, 1981
Mr. Robert Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Lake Ann Planned Residential Development
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 9647-1
Dear Mr. Waibel:
300 Metro Square Building
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone 612/291-6359
At its meeting on April 9, 1981, the Metropolitan Council
considered the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the
Lake Ann Planned Residential Development.
Although Chanhassen will not be submitting its Comprehensive Plan
until June of this year, the development site has been approved
for rezoning from R-1A Agricultural Residential District to P-1
Planned Residential District, and is within the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area (MUSA). The anticipated sewage flow is consistent
with the interim Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and although increased
traffic flow will soon exceed capacity on T.H. 5, it is a minor
arterial which has no effect on the metropolitan transportation
system. The proposed land use, is therefore, consistent with
Development Framework policies and regional system plans.
The Council concurs with the negative declaration contained in the
EAW:
Attached are copies of letters from the Carver Soil and Water Con-
servation District and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
commenting on this project.
Sincerely,
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
C"42U'V' a L.e
Charles R. Weaver
Chairman
MEMO
CRW:vv
cc: Tom Rulland, Manager, Environmental Review Section, EQB
Donald C. Berg, Dist., Conser., Carver Soil & Water Con. Dist.
Romi Slowiak, Metropolitan Council Staff
An Agency CreaLCa co %,00rainaLe Lne Planning ana Development of the 10win Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Anoka County O Carver County 0 Dakota County O Hennepin County O Ramsey County O Scott County O Washington County
IETROPOLITnn
�JnJTE`
66TROL
o nmiffion
,,in Cities Areo
April 9, 1981
Mr. John Rutford
Referral Coordinator
Metropolitan Council
800 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
RE: Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 9647-1
Dear Mr. Rutford:
The Metropolitan -Waste Control Commission has reviewed the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed Lake
Ann Planned Residential Development to be located in the
City of Chanhassen
Because there is adequate capacity within the Metropolitan
Disposal System, the Commission has no objection to this
subdivision provided it is indicated in the City's full
comprehensive plan.
Sincerely,
Bernard J. rington
Director o Engineering
BJH:DAE:cll
550 METROlOUARE BLDG.
7TH 6 ROBERTlTREET/
lAInT PAUL Mn 55101
612 222.8423
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
FOUNDED IN 1 849 690 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 296-6126
Mr. Bob Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Waibel:
16 April 1981
RE: Review of the E.A.W. for the Lake Ann
Planned Residential Development in the
Section 11, T116 R23, Carver County.
MHS Referral File Number: M 769
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project.
It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State His-
toric Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 and the Procedures of the National Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (36CFR800).
This review reveals that there is a recorded prehistoric archaeological
site located on the west shore of Lake Ann. Although the site is not
located within the proposed project area, the area east of the lake has
not yet been surveyed, and the presence of a known site on Lake Ann
indicates prehistoric activity. This leads us to the conclusion that
there is a high probability for additional sites within the project area.
Moreover, we believe that this project, by its nature, is likely to
affect any archaeological sites that may exist.
Consequently, we recommend that an archaeological survey of the project
area be conducted. Such a survey would determine the existence
of any sites, their eligibility to the National Register, and the specific
effects on them from the proposed activity. I have enclosed for your
reference a list of archaeological consultants who have indicated an
interest in performing such surveys. The archaeologist hired will need
a map of the project area and an explanation of the kind of development
proposed. Upon the completion of the survey and before work on the
project begins, a copy of the survey results should be submitted to this
office for final review.
I should add, however, that if you are aware of any extensive altera-
tions to the project area and feel that the need for a survey should be
reevaluated, you should not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Hedin, Envi-
r
Bob Waibel
City of Chanhassen
16 April 1981
Page 2 of 2
M 769
ronmental Assessment Officer, State Historic Preservation Office, James
J. Hill House, 240 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55102, (612) 296-0103,
with that information.
Thank you for your participation in this important effort to preserve
Minnesota's cultural resources.
RWF/sl
Encl.
1981 ' j
Sincerely`,
(Russell W. Fridley
State Historic Preservation Officer
�-1
MINNESOTA CONTRACT ARCHAEOLOGI
Alan BREW
Department of Anthropology
Bemidji State College
Bemidji, MN 56001
(218) 755-2801 or
(218) 551-8723
COMMONWEALTH ASSOCIATES
209 E. Washington Street
Jackson, Michigan 49201
(519) 788-3551 or
(519) 788-3561
James P. GALLAGHER, Archaeologist
Dept. of Sociology & Archaeology
University of Wisconsin/La Crosse
La Crosse, WI 54601
(608) 784-8042/home
(608) 785-8457/work
(608) 785-8463/work
Guy GIBBON
Department of Anthropology
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 376-3256
Michael L. GREGG
Research Director
University of North Dakota
Archaeological Research
Anthropology - Archaeology
Box 8242, University Station
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
(701) 777-3009
Christina HARRISON
410 Winona Street
Northfield, MN 55057
(507) 645-4246
Vernon HELMEN
15330 Lynn Terrace
Minnetonka, MN 55343
(612) 934-3845/home
(612) 830-9300/work
G. Joseph HUDAK, President
Archaeological Field Services, Inc.
421 South Main Street/Suite 421F
Stillwater, MN 55082
(612) 439-6782/office
(612) 436-7444/home
Richard LANE
Department of Anthropology
St. Cloud State College
St. Cloud, MN 56301
(612) 255-3010
or
P.O. Box 687
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(612) 363-8411
Paul W. McALLISTER
Gove Associates Inc.
1601 Portage Street
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001
(616) 385-0011
Mike MICHLOVIC
Department of Anthropology
Moorhead State College
Moorhead, MN 56560
(218) 236-2632
Kathleen ROETZEL
and
Richard STRACHAN
Impact Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 3224
Mankato State College
Mankato, MN 56701
(507) 388-4543
Philip H. SALKIN
1649 Park Street
Middleton, WI 53562
(608) 831-2093
(414) 472-1965
Clifford WATSON
1830 James Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105
(612) 298-7164/office
(612) 690-4683/home
Alan WOOLWORTH
3719 Sun Terrace
JNVEA-iNTC3RY AND EVALUATION
FOR THE
CARVER SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
WACONIA, MINNESOTA 55387
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
LAKE ANN PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REFERRAL FILE NO. 9647-1
REQUESTED BY:
JOHN RUTFORD, REFERRAL COORDINATOR
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
7TH AND ROBERT STREETS
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
REVIEWED BY:
DONALD C. BERG, DISTRICT CONSERVATIONIST
USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
WACONIA, MINNESOTA 55.387
Fto U Tl<J.. .--
APRIL 13, 1981
APR 1,14 A.M.
:tl�1VLu COUNCIL
Attach. t:upi�d L� Not Copied ❑ No��e
I
SCS-CONS-S U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
10-75 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
FILE ^ODE CONS-14-5
INVENTORY & EVALUATION
OF LAND, WATER, AND RELATED RESOURCES
JOHN RUTFORD, REFERRAL COORDINATOR ,*
REQUESTED BY
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LOCATION ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
_
DONALD C. BERG, DISTRICT CONSERVATIONIST
ASSISTED BY SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE DATE APRIL 13, 1981
* ❑ INDIVIDUAL ❑ GROUP ® UNIT OF GOVERNMENT
SITUATION: John Rutford, Referral Coordinator for Metro;,olitan Council, re ,uested -
4,d .
the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District to review the Dunn & Curry --_Lake Ann--�:
Planned Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet The plan covers
77
approximately 20 ; acres of land in Section 11 T116 R2aW _iie attached soy I silrvev L.• .
map is color coded to show building site limitations. Also attached are soil inter-
pretation sheets that outline the soil characteristics -enerally affecting the pro-
posed construction work The soil map and interpretation sheets can -be added to the
SVGgSy�SnSJLVOW(STection II-A-7, Exhibit 6 - Slopes/Soils of the assessment sheet.
SOLUTIONS: The soils information provided with this report shows a potential for
very severe erosion problems (areas colored blue on the soils map), severe erosion
problems (areas colored red on the soils map), and moderate erosion problems (areas
colored yellow on the soils map) To protect the water quality in Lake Ann, a care
The soils map and interpretation sheets also show that there are areas of wet
soils distributed throughout the property. The wetness limitation ranges from severe
red lines on the soils map), to very severe (blue lines on the soils map). The land
use plan for wet soils is very important. These areas can be either ponded or drained.
If the areas are drained, provisions for both surface and sub -surface water management
is re.uired. _
*Check a ropriote cote ory
8�her problems are shown, on the attached soil interpretation sheets.
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA - SHEET NUMBER 20
I
; -NEPIN COUNTY
e �p j Ir.
H a C ,=G-e
C' Oil
HaC',,'
)c
rHa"D ::I �dj
i6 -
3 ks.
L07rr
LAi
Chanhassen
Ge
6-
0 112 Mite 0 3000 Feet
Scale 1:15 840 L---.:;;
MN00 0 S U 1 L I N T E R P R E T A T I O N S R E C O R D
MLRA(:.): 103
REV. EL8. 4-80
TYPIC HAPLUDALFS. FINE -LOAMY. MIXED. MESIC
HaB, HaC, HaC2,
HaD, HaD2, HaE2,
HaF, HcD3
HAYDEN SERIES
THE HAYDEN SERIES CONSISTS Of- DEEP WELL DRAINED SOILS FORMED IN GLACIAL TILL UNDER DECIDUOUS FOREST Oh GROUND AND
TLRMINAL MORAINES. THE SURFACE LAYER IS VERY DARK GRAY LOAM 2 INCHES THICK. THE SUBSURFACE LAVER IS DARK GRAYISH BROWN
LOAM 7 INCHES THICK. THE SUBSUIL..IS BROWN AND YLLLOWISH BROWN LOAM AND CLAY LOAM 34 INCHES THICK. THE SUdSTRATUM 15
LIGHT OLIVE DROWN LOAM. SLJPES RANGE FROM 2 TO 35 PERCENT. AREAS ARE USED FOR CRUPLAND. PASTURELAND AND WOODLAND.
1---_-- ---_
—_ ESTIMATED
SOIL PROPERTIES
I
(A) -_ ---_ --- --
IFRACTIPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS ILIOUID IPLAS-
(DEPTHI
I
I
UNIFIED
I AASHTO
1>3 INI THAIU__J^ ?&SSING+__.�j_FVE NS1t_I LIMIT ITICITYI
I(IN-)1 USDA TEXTURE
I---
1{PCT11 4___1-141 _.40 1 200 I I1N0[X I
I 0-9 IL. SIL
)
IML.
-
CL-ML, CL
IA-4
1 0 1 100 98-100 85-98 50-80 1 20-30 1 4-10 1
1 0-9 JFSL. SL
ISM.
SM-SC. SC
IA-4
1 0 1 too 95-100 65-85 35-50;1 20-30 INP-8
9-431CL. L
ICL
IA-7• A-6
1 0 195-100 90-98 80-95 55-75 130-50 115-26 I
143-60IL. SL. FSL
ICL.
SC
IA-6. A-4
j O-5 195-100 90-98 75-90 35-70 i 20-35.i 8-15
—
IDEPTHICLAY 114075T BULKI
PERMS A-
I AVAILABLE
.I SOIL I SALINITY
I SHRINK- ILROSIONIWIND 10RGANICI CORROSIVITY I
IF&�,T4RSIEROU.IMATTER I_
1(IN.lI(PCT I UF_NSITY I
BILITY
IWATER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMHOS/CM)I
I (PH) I
SWELL
IPOTENTIALI K I T IGRDUPI Pj CT) I STEEL IEUNCR-TEI
1�<2NM)I (G/CM3) _I
jjN/HR)
1 JIN/INI
15.6-7.3 1
- 1 LOW 1.32I 5 1 a I •5-1 I LOW 1MODERAig1
1 0-9 110-2511.40-1.60 1
0.6-2.0
1 0.20-0.22
15.6-7.3 1
- I LOW 1.321 5 I 3 1 •5-1 I
1 0-9 1 5-1511.45-1.70 12.0-0.0
1 0.14-0.18
15.1-7.3 1
- IMODERATE 1.321. 1 L I
19-43118-3511.50-1.65 1
0.6-2.0
1 0.15-0.19
- 1 LOW 1.321
143-60115-2711.65-I.80 1
0.6-2.0
1 0.14-0.19
17.4-8.4 I
I I
I I
I I I I
I
—1-
I BEOROC!j ISUBSiDEN4E_IHYDIPO TE NT-LI
1 FLOODING
I HIGH
DEPTH I
WATER TABLE
KIND IMONTHS
j CEMENTED PAN
I DEPTH I HARDNESS I DEPTH IHARDNESS I INIT. I TOTAL IGRPI FROST I
I
1(IN) 1 I (IN) I 1"N) I(INI I I — LON I
1_ FREQUENCY _ I DURATION
IMUNLS
-
I (FT) 1
man I 1 1 1_0 IM4DER AI&1
CUNETRUC 7I ON MATERIAL —_—
_ SAN�IAHY FACjL{,Tj�F
I
1 2-8%:' MODERATE-PERCS SLOWLY
II 1
2-15%: GOOD
I
ISEPTIC TANK
1 8-159: MODERATE-PERCS SLOWLY.SLOPE
II 115-25X:
FAIR -SLOPE
ABSORPTION
115+%. SEVERE -SLOPE
II ROADFILL 125+X:
POOR -SLOPE
1 FIELDS
I
I. 2-7X: MOOERATE-SEEPAGE.SLOPE
II I
IMPROBABLE -EXCESS FINES
I SEWAGE
17+X: SEVERE -SLOPE
I1 I
1
LAGOON
I
11 SAND 1
I AREAS
1
II I
I
I
12-8%: MODERATE-TOU CLAYEY
If I
------
IMPROBABLE -EXCESS FINES j
1 SANITARY
I 6-15%: MODERATE-SLOPE.TOO CLAYEY
11 I
1
1 LANDFILL
115+%: SEVERE -SLOPE
II GRAVEL 1
1
I (TRENCH)
I
II I
11
I
1 2-8X: SLIGHT
II 1
2-8%. FAIR -SMALL STONES 1
II 18-15%:
FAIR -SMALL STCNES.SLOPE I
SANITARY
j 8-15%: MODERATE -SLOPE
II TOPSOIL 115+X:
POOR -SLOPE
I, LANDFILL
1 15+%: SEVERE -SLOPE
I (AREA)
I
II I
1
1
12-8X: FAIR -TOO CLAYEY
II
11
WATER MANAGEM_E NT --
--'-
DAILY
1 8-15X: FAIR -TOO CLAYEY.SLOPE
II 12-3%:
-
MODERATE -SEEPAGE 1
1 COVER FOR
( 15+X: POOR -SLOPE
II POND 13-B%:
MODERATE-SEEPAGE.SLOPL I
I LANDFILL
I
RESERVOIR (
8+%: SEVERE -SLOPE
AREA I
--1
V 1 OpM„NT
I I I
--- --
___jLDIN�-,SjTFO
1
2-8%: SLIGHT
j1 I
SLIGHT
1
SHALLOW
1 8-15%: MODERATE -SLOPE
IIEMBANKMENTS I
1
1EXCAVATIONS
( 15+%: SEVERE -SLOPE
11 DIKES AND I
LEVEES
1 ----
I
I _ —I--
I
12-8%: MODERATE -SHRINK -SWELL
11
I SEVERE -NO WATER
DWELLINGS
1 8-15%: MODERATE-SHRINK-SWELL.SLOPE
II EXCAVATED
I I
WITHOUT
I 15+X: S.E�„VRE-SLOPE
I I PONDS
1
1
IIAOUIFER FED
1
I BASEMENTS
I
it
I
-
12-BX: MODERATE -SHRINK -SWELL
II
I DEEP TO WATER
I, DWELLINGS
1 8-15%:. MODERATE-SLOPE.SHRINK-SWELL
11
1 1
WITH
I 15� X„7�,�!f RE -SLOP r-
1 I DRAINAGE
I 1
I BASEMENTS
1
If
11
)
I
I
)
1 2-4%: MODERATE -SHRINK -SWELL
11
12-3X L.SIL: FAVORABLE 1
I/ SMALL
14-8%: MODERATE-SHRINK-SWELL.SLOPE
11
13+% L.SIL: SLOPE
COMMERCIAL
I BtX:_SEj!Fr„fj, �-,5�. PFy
11 IRRIGATION
I 2-3% FSL.SL: SOIL BLOWING
1 BUILDINGS
I
II
13+X'FSL.SL: SOIL BLOWING.SLOPE
—
2�,,1 SX:,�,<SEVERE�LOW ZTR,FHCgTH
I I
12-8% L.SIL: FAVORABLE 1
1
i< LOCAL
115+%: SEVERE-LQM STRE1�,1(.c OP
(I TERRACES
18+X L.SIL: SLOPE
II AND
12-89 FSL.SL: SOIL BLOWING
yI ROADS AND
I
II DIVERSIONS
18+X FSL.SL: SLOPE.SOIL BLOWING
STREETS
I
--
I
---
�I
1 2-8%: FAVORABLE
I LAWNS.
12-8X: SLIGHT
If GRASSED
18+X: SLOPE
ILANDSCAPING
18-15%: MUDERATE-SLOPE
y1 AND GOLF
I I5+%: SEEMR,E�a,,SLQP,�F
I 1 WATERWAYS
1 1
I FAIRWAYS
i
11
_ REGIONAL INIERPRETATIONS
MAY 13 1980
IPASTURE AND I O-l8%: GROUP 1 i
IHAYLAND 118-25%: GROUP 2 I
1 25+X: GROUP 8
I I
.-
HAYDEN SERIES
MN0060
_ RECREATIONAL DDVLIQPMENT
I 12-BX: SLIGHT--- II 12-6%: MODERATE -SLOPE — I
1 18-15%: MODERATE -SLOPE 11 1 6+%: SEVERE -SLOPE 1
1 CAMP AREAS J 15+%: SEVERE -SLOPE JIPLAYGRDUNDS I I
I I 11 I I
I 1 2-8%: SLIGHT II 1 2-15%: SLIGHT
I. 8-15X: MODERATE -SLOPE JI PATHS 115-25X: MODERATE -SLOPE I
IP[CN[C AREASI 15+X: SEVERE -SLOPE II AND ] 25+%: SEVERE -SLOPE I
I I II TRAILS I I
_ CAP ABILITY ANU--LIELOS PER ACEF-OF CROP` AND PASTURE (HIGH LEVEL MANAGEMENT)
CLASS- I CAPA- I COHN I SOYBEANS I OATS I' GRASS- IBRCMEGRASS-1 KENTUCKY I I
I. DETERMINING I BILITY I I I ILEGUME HAY I ALFALFA I BLUEGRASS I 1
PHASE I I (OU) I (BU) 1 (By)- I (TONS) I (AUM)
jH.INIRR IIRRz1NIRg liRj2. INIRR IIRR 1N1 R IIRR, INIR$ IIRR. JNIRR I RR, INI IIRR•
12-6% 1 2E ] 1 100 1 1 30 I 175 I 14.5 1 16.5 I 13.5 J { I I
16-12% 13E I 185 I 126 I 1 70 I J 4.5 1 16.5 I 1 3.5 I I I I
112-18% 14E 1 1 65 J ] 22 J i 60 ] 14.0 ( 16.0 I 1 3.0 I I I I
118-25X 16E I !- I I- I I- I 13.0 I J 4.5 I i 3.0 I I I I
125-35X 17E I I- I I- I I- 1 I- I I- I 11.5 I I I I
1 I I I I I I I ! I I ! I 1 I I ! 1
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I ] I I I
1 I I I i I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
I I 1 i 1 I I I I I I I I i i I I I
I I I I I I { 1 I I I I I I I I I I
_ WDOOL A(jQ SUITABILITY _-
1 CLASS- I ORD I MANAGEMENT PRQP& EMS 1 POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY J I
DETERMINING I SYM I EROS)ONI EQUIP. ISEEDLINGI WINOTH.1 PLANT I COMMON TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT I
PHASE I I HAZARD I LI M.1j_-1_1'�QR7�Y.1 HAZARD I COMPET.I 1,1NOXI - - ---I
12-12% 120 1 SLIGHT I SLIGHT I SLIGHT 1 SLIGHT I SLIGHT INORTHERN RED OAK 169 IBLACK WALNUT 1
112+% 12R IMOOERATEIMODERATEI SLIGHT I SLIGHT I SLIGHT JAMERICAN BASSWOOD 169 INORTHERN RED OAK I
I I I 1 I I I ISUGAR MAPLE I IAMERICAN BASSWOOD ]
I I I I I I I IBLACK WALNUT 162 (SILVER MAPLE 1
I I I I 1 ] I ]EASTERN WH17E PINE 164 IWHITE OAK 1
I I 1 i I IWHITE OAK 162 1, I
I 1 I i I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I 1 I I I I 1
I I i 1 i I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1
I I I I I I I I I C I I
__ IINDBREAKS (B)
ICI_A5S-DETERMTN'S1 PH ►SEI SPEC 55 IHTI--apEcTFS IHTI SPECIES IHTI SPECIES — IHTI
12-IPX JEASTERN WHITE PINE 1281GREEN ASH 1351COMMON HACKBERRY 134JEASTERN COTTONWOOD 1601
1 IPONDEROSA PINE 1261SIBERIAN CRABAPPLE. I18IAMUR MAPLE 1231GRAY DOGWOOD 1121
I ITATARIAN HONEYSUCKLEIIIILILAC 11,21NORTHERN WHITE-CEDAR1201WHIIL SPRUCE 1221
I I I I I l I I I I
WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY _
1 CLASS- ( POTENTIAL FOR HABITAT FL cMENTS __ i POTENT1r�_A�HAQ11AT FOR; —1
I DETERMINING IGRAIN SIGRASS LI WILD IHARDWD ICONIFERISHRUBS IWETLANDISHALLOWIOPENLD IWODDLD IWETLANDIRANGELDI
PHASE 1 SFFD ILEGUME 1 HE$Q:I-TREES IPLAITS I (PLANTS I WATER IWILDLF IWILULF IWILDLE_IWILOLF
12-6% I GOOD I GOOD I GOOD I GOOD GOOD I - IV. POORIV. POORI GOOD- I GOOD IV. POORI - I
16-18% I FAIR I GOOD 1 GOOD I GOOD 1 GOOD I - IV. POORIV. POORI GOOD I GOOD IV. POORI - 1
118+% I POUR i FAIR f GOOD 1 GOOD 1 GOOD 1 - IV. POORIV. POORI FAIR I GOOD IV. POORI - I
I I I I i 1 I I I I I I I I
POTENTIAL NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITY_(RANGELAND_RRFOREST UNOERSTORY' VEGETATION)
PLANT 1 PERCFNTe« COMPOSITION (DRY WEIGHT) BY CLASS DETERMINING PHASE I
I COMMON PLANT NAME I SYMBOL
I I (NLSPN)—
I I I I I I I I
1 { I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I { I
I I I I I I i I
I I I I I 1 I 1
1 I I I I i I 1
1 I I I I I I I
1 1 I I I I 1 1
I I i I I I I I
I POTENTIAL PRODUCTION (LBS./AC. DRY WTI:-
1 FAVORABLE YEARS I I I I I I
NORMAL YEARS I
I UNFAVORABLE YEARS I ( _—
FOOTNOTES
BASED ON TEST DATA OF 7 PEDONS.
0-12X: WINDBREAK GROUP 1: 12+X: WINDBREAK GROUP 3..
LaB
LaC2
•MN0061, S O I L I N T E F P k 8 I A I 1 C N 5 R E C C F O
LESTER SSf lE5
M LRA(S): 103
REV. AEJ-ELS. 8-79
MCLLIC HAPLUDALFS, FINE-LCAMY. MIXED- MESIC
IHE LESTER SERIES CONSISTS OF DEEP. WELL DRAINED £CILS FORMED IN GLACIAL TILL UNDER MIXED HARD%CUU FOREST AND GRASS
INCHES THICK. TFE SUBSURFACE
PRAIRIE ON GROUND OR TERMINAL MORAINES. THE SURFACE LAYER
15 VERY DARK GRAY CLAY LCAM 6
BRCWN AND DARK YELLCWISH BRCWN CLAY LCAM
LAYER IS VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN CLAY LOAM 3 INCHES THICK.
UNDERLYING MATERIAL.
THE SUBSOIL 15 DARK
SLCPES RANGE FROM 2 TO 35 FERCENI. MOST CF MCRE GENTLY
27 INCHES THICK: ANG LIGHT OLIVE BROWN LOAM
SLQpSNG A$FAS ARE 2ZO FOR COB"elyr,_.*QYQF.Ad S l OTHER ARREAS USED FOR PASildflL_ANNG-EQEEsSs_------------ `-_I
I ----ESTIMATED SOIL-PBLEEfiI.[ES_.SA1__—_-------------- -- -
I IFRACIIPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS ILIDUI.D IFLAS-
IDEPTHj I -
AASHTO
1>3 IN1 THANE^_QP165L;i3�Y�_tlLi_I LIMIT ITICITYI
1(iN.)I USDA TEXTURE I UNIFIED I
1
lf"I.L1--4_--1 16 1 40-134y__L---11
I--1—_ --1_-----^—_-,-
IL. SIL IML. CL IA-6. A-4
1 0 IS5-100 90-100 80-SS 30-70 1 30-40 1 5-15 1
1 0-9
JCL JA-7
1 0-5 IS5-100 90-100 80-95 70-60 1 4U-50 115-2E I
j 0-9 ICL
ISL. FSL ISM. SM-SC JA-4
1 0 195-100 90-100 70-S0 35-50 1 <25 INP-5 1
j 0-9
9-361CL. L ICL JA-7. A-6
1 0-5 195-100 90-100 SO-9E 55-75 1 3E-50 115-25 I
j
136-601L. CL ICL. CL-ML JA-6. A-4
1 0-5 IS5-1O0 9C-100 75-50 50-70 i 20-00 ; 5-20
10EPTHICLAY jMGIST BULK( PERMEA- IAVAILABLE ( SOIL
I SALINITY 1 £MFINK- IEFCSlCNIWINC 1CFGANICJ CCFFCSIV[TY I
'I(IN.)I(PCT I DENSITY I BILITY IWATER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMNOS/CM)I
SWELL JFACTOF_§IEROO.IMATTER
J— I<2MM)I���sr 1 LSINIH.F�-1 (INIIJ��_(PH�
L -- _LeLjgNTIA I K I T�C�RQSI�_-� a SZ•J-1_"I�i:L 1CL�CFE7EJ
1 0-9 115-2711.30-1.40 1 0.6-2.0 1 0.20-0.22 15.6-6.5
1 - I LOW 1.281 5 1 6 1 2-4 J__Jes.$—_111S7lilFP1E1
1 0-9 128-3511.35-1.50 1 0.6-2.0 I 0.17-0.19 15.6-6.5
1 - JMGOERATE 1.281 5 1 6 1 1-3 1
LOW 1.201_1_1—a3-1-1ce— 1
1 0-9 110-2011.35-1.50 1 2.0-6.0 I 0.13-0.16 15.6-6.5
1 1
1.281.
19-3Ej20-3511.45-1.55 1 0.6-2.0 I 0.25-0.19 15.1-6.5
1 - IMCDERATE
1.371
136-60126-3011.55-1.75 1 0.6-2.0 i_ 0.14-0.19 16.6-7.8
I - I LCW
1 1 1-------------------
__
1_FLOODING I_Njr.H WATER TABLE
LSEHEtIEaPl�tl-1—lEQ"S—_IZVFiSQinSE_1FYc1PCTENT'LI
1
DEPTH I KIND IMONTHS.jDEPTHIHARCN£SSjDEFTF INARCNESSIINIT.ITOTALIGRPI FROST .I
1 _—J
- --__ ----- 1
I
II INI I----^��Stll-I -Li1L] 1sStlLl---1_9sii I
1 FREQUENS,�—L.—DSIBAIlON IMONIHS jEj,j-�
I— NONE_(-—
C— N�SIILnLlIdIEeldL_-----------
__ sANlZdgy�dt-'LiTIEs _
_
II --- 12-15%: GOOD 1
1 1 2-8%: MODERATE-PERCS SLOWLY
115-25X: FAIR -SLOPE 1
ISEPTIC TANK 18-15X: MODERATE-PERCS SLOWLY.SLCPE
11
II ROADFILL 125+X: POLR-SLOPE
I ABSORPTION 115+X: SEVERE -SLOPE
1 FIELDS
----
I 1 2-7X: MODERATE -SEEPAGE.SLOPE
II I IMPROBABLE -EXCESS FINES
J SEWAGE 1 7+x: SEVERE -SLOPE
J LAGCCN 1
II SAND 1 j
i AREAS
--
i 12-8X: MODERATE -TOO CLAYEY
JI 11NFRCBABI E-EXCESS FINES
J SANITARY 1 8-151: MODERATE-SLOPE.TDO CLAYEY
1J I j
1 LANDFILL 115+X: SEVERE -SLOPE
ii GRAVEL
1 (TRENCH) I
1 2-8% L.SIL.SL .FSL: FAIR -SMALL E7LN[S
II j
1 1 2-8%: SLIGHT
II 18-15% L.SiL.SL.FSL: FAIR -SMALL STLNES.SLCFL 1
1 SANITARY J 8-15%: MCDERATE-SLOPE
IJ TOPSOIL J 2-BX CL: FAIR-TOC CLAYEY.SMALL STONES I
1 LANDFILL 1 15+%: SEVERE -SLOPE
II 1 8-15% CL: FAIR-TCD CLAYEY.SMALL STCNES.SLCFEj
J (AREA) I
1 1 2-8%: FAIR-TOC CLAYEY
II
I J
1 DAILY 1 8-15%: FAIR -TOO CLAYEY.SLCPE
11 12-3X: MOCF_RATE-SEEPAGE 1
1 COVER FOR 1 15+%: POOR -SLOPE
II POND j 3-8%: MODERATE-SEEPAGE.SLOPE I
1 LANDFILL 1
RESERVOIR 18+X: SEVERE -SLOPE
11 AREA 1
—_
II I SEVERE -THIN LAYER I
I 1 2-8X: SLIGHT
1 SHALLOW 18-15%: MCDERATE-SLOPE
IJEMBANKMENTS I
(EXCAVATIONS 1 154X: SEVERE -SLOPE
II DIKES AND 1
j
1 (
11 LEVEES J
j 1 2-8%: MODERATE -SHRINK -SWELL
II 1 SEVERE -NO WATER
1 DWELLINGS 1 8-15X: MCDERATE-SHRINK-SWELL.SLOPE
II EXCAVATED
WITHOUT
PONDS ( ,
1
'j
IJACUIFEA FED J
BASEMENTS 1
---
I 12-8X: MODERATE -SHRINK -SWELL
II I DEEP TC WATER I
1 DWELLINGS 1 8-15%: MODERATE-SLOPE.SHRINK-SWELL
JI I
WITHT, 115+X: SEVERE -SLOPE -
II DRAINAGE 1
I 1
)It
1 BASEMENS 1
II
I 1 2-4X: MCDERATE-SHRINK-SWELL
JI 12-iX L.SIL.CL: FAVCFABLS
1
1 SMALL j 4-8%: MODERATE-SHRINK-SWELL.SLCPE
JI 13+2 L.SIL.CL: SLOPE
I
I G+X: SEVERE -SLOPE
11 IRRIGATION 1 2-3X SL.FSL: SL1L ELCWING
COMMERCIAL
II 3+X SL.FSL: SOIL BLCW1hG.SLOPE j
1 BUILDINGS I
;
1 1 2-15X: SEVERE -LOW STRENGTH
11 12-8% L.SIL.CL: ERCCES EASILY I
(1 TERRACES. 1 8+X L.SIL.CL: SLCPE.ERCDE5 EASILY
1y LOCAL J 15+%: SEVERE -LOW STREIJGTM!SLDPE
j1 AND 12-8% SL.FSL: ERCCES FASILY.SCIL ELCWING I
Jj ROADS AND j
IJ DIVERSIONS I d+% SL.FSL: SLOPE.ERCDL-S EASILY.SCIL SLCWING
1 STREETS j ----
---..... —........ —.........
j" LAWNS. 1 2-8X: SLIGHT
11 J 2-E%: ERODES EASILY 1
I
j LANDSCAPING J 6-15X: MCDERATE-SLCFE
IJ GRASSED J S+X: SLOPE.ERCCtS EASILY
1
yJf AND GOLF 1 N R- PF
WATERWAYS 1
I
I FAIRWAYS I
II
_ REG ICNA(`INTERpBLTATIONS
JPASTURE AND 1 2-18%: GRCUP 1 I
1HAYLAND 118-25X: GROUP 2'
I 1 25+%: GROUP 8 J
off 1 1979
EWA►.C.`
...`.!. _.. •;t '•ti _. ._ :, '*"t._.,.�,.,....nr".rA.. �'S:?nS'r. _. �cx,T �'•"`; j};_t;`,.I,.; "". e��,l'�t""..*� - ._t.�+..',. �..� - '.`f'. �.`�,... _ �y^���_w ___.0
LaB
LaC2
MN0061
S O I L" I N T E A P R E TA T 1 0 N S R E C C R 0
IES
,
MLRA(Si: 103
.—LEST-SE,
REV. AEJ-ELB. 8-79
MCLLIC HAPLUDALFS• FINE-LCAMY. MIXED.
MESIC
kME LESTER SERIES CQNS"ISTS OF DEEP. WELL DRAINED,SCILS FORMED IN GLACIAL TILL UNDER MIXED HARD%COU FOREST ANO GRASS
PRAIRIE ON GROUND OR TERMINAL MORAINES. THE SURFACE LAYER 15 VERY DARK GRAY CLAY LCAM 6 INCHES THICK. THE SUBS
LAYER IS VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN
CLAY LOAM 3 INCHES THICK• THE SUBSOIL 15 DARK BRCWN AMC DARK YELLCWISH BRCWN CLAY LCAM
27 INCHES THICK; AND LIGHT OLIVE
BRGWN LOAM UNDERLYING MATERIAL. SLOPES RANGE FROM 2 TO 35 PERCENT.. NCST CFMCRE GENTLY
SLDPINGHFPS_eRE SFO FOR COBCLBNfi_:10i9Eell;siJ.THER AREAS USED FOR PASJjU_aNr'_fOREa`js___—_—___—
ESTIMATED
I---
IDEPTHI I
I IFAAC7IPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS (LIQUID IFLA5- I_
1CIN•)I USDA TEXTURE I
UNIFIEQ 1 AASHTO 1>3 INI�D�_'_BE�SIhS:_SIrYE_Ilss_I LIM1T ITiCITY1
10 1 40��Qp__j_--�IpGLx_)
1 0-9 IL. S1L IML.
CL IA-6. A-4 ( 0 I95-100 90-100 80-SE 50-70 130-40 1 5-15
I 0-9 ICL ICL
IA-7 I 0-5 I55-300 90-100 SO -GE 70-60 14U-EO I15-2: 1
I 0-9 ISL. FSL ISM•
SM-SC IA-4 I 0 195-ACO 90-100 70-90 25-50 I <25 INP-5
1 9-361CL. L ICL
IA-7. A-6 1 0-5 195-100 90-100 60-SE 55-75 3E-EC 115-25 1
-
136-601L. CL ICL.
CL-ML IA-6. A-4 I 0-5 ISS-100 9C-100 75-SO 50-70 1 E0-40 I E-20 I
IOEPTHICLAY IMCIST BULKI PERMEA-
I AVAILABLE I SOIL I SALINITY I SHRINK- IEACSICNIWIND ICRGANICI CCRRCSIVITY 1
ICIN.)I(PCT I DENSITY I BILITY
IWATER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMHOS/CM)1 SWELL 1EACTOR§J EROD.IMATTER
(IN/IN) 1 (PH) 1- IPSIENTIAL.L K 1 T IGROQ1_AeSTI 1_s` gtih—IM9RETtFI
I 0-9 1 0.6-2.0
( 0.20-0.22 15.6-6.5 1 - 1 LOW 1.281 ` 1 6 1 2-4 1—Lll`—_111571'eLEL_Lf.I
Lqrw
.115-2711.30-1.40
1 0-9 128-3511.35-1.50 1 0.6-2.0
I 0.17-0.19 15.6-6.5 I - IMGDERATE 1.281 5.1 6 1 1-3
1 0-9 110-2011.35-1.50. 1 2.0-6.0
I 0.13-0.16 15.6-6.5 I - 1 LOW 1.201 e1_1�1=9— I"y'
1 9-36120-3511.45-1.55.I 0.6-2.0
I 0-15-0.19 15.1-6.5 I - IMGDERATE 1.281
136-60120-3011.55-1.75 I.0.6-2.0
I 0.14-0.19 16.6-7.6 1 - 1 LCW 1.371
fff
1 FLOODING
HIGH WATER TABLE D_CEMENjF,Q_gAAp_j-111ECL41S--I.SVtSj2ENSE_IFYDIPCTEhT•LI
DEPTH I KIND IMONTHS IDEPTHIMARCNESSIDEFTF IHARCNESSIINIT.ITOTALIGRPI FROST I
)
I FREOUENLY- 2URATION IMONTM;ZI jFT) I I/1N1 11_cIn) I _liihl_1s1bLl___1_9slis� I
�,
I— NONE 1 — 1
1 >'SIA9-1___--�—_ 1 I---_I�tiO I _I___—I--1_P-1L�91iFEEIF I
.
SANI"RY ACIL1IlE$--
I
12-8X:
MODERATE-PERCS SLOWLY
II---
12-15%: GOOD I
ISEPTIC TANK
1 8-15%:
MODERATE-PERCS SLOWLY.SLCPE
11
1 15=25X: FAIR -SLOPE
1 ABSORPTION
115+%:
SEVERE -SLOPE
II ROADFILL
125+X: PZLR-SLGPE
1 FIELDS
I
12-7X:
MODERATE-SEEPAGE.SLOPE
II
I IMPAGBABLE-EXCESS FINES
I SEWAGE
17+%: SEVERE
-SLOPE
II
1 LAGCON
1
II SAND
I 1
1 AREAS
I
1
{ 2-BX:
MODERATE-TDO CLAYEY
II
I IMFRC'BABLE-EXCESS FINES I
1 SANITARY
18-15X:
MODERATE-SLOPE.TOO CLAYEY
II
I
I LANDFILL
1 15+%:
SEVERE -SLOPE
II GRAVEL
I
I
I (TRENCH)
I
II
I
1
L
a
1---_--------------------------- I
1
12-6%:
______
SLIGHT
II
) 2-8% L.SIL.SL.FSL: FAIR -SMALL ETLNES I
SANITARY
1 6-15%:
MGDERATE-SLOPE
II -
18-15X L.SIL.SL.FSL: FAIR -SMALL STCNES.SLCFE I
1 LANDFILL
115+%:
SEVERE -SLOPE
II TOPSOIL
12-8% CL: FAIR-TOC CLAYEY.SMALL STCNES I
II
I B-15% CL: FAIR-TCO CLAYEY.SMALL STCNES.SLCFEI.
I (AREA)
I
I
I-
_
11 — 1 15+5:
I
1 2-8%:
FAIR-TOC CLAYEY
II
DAILY
1 8-15X:
FAIR-TCO, CLAYEY.SLCPE
I I
Wg1€-B�A-ME�--------�----
i COVER FOR
1 15+%:
POOR-SLGPE
II
12-3X: MOCF-RATE-SEEPAC-E i
II POND
13-8X: MODERATE-SEEPAGE.SLOFE I
1 LANDFILL
I
RESERVOIR
I B+X: SEVERE -SLOPE 1
II AREA
I
I
12-8X:`SLIGHT
II
I SEVERE -THIN LAYER 1
{ SHALLOW
18-15%:
MGDERATE-SLOFE
IIEMBANKMENTS
I 1
1EXCAVATIONS
115.%:
SEVERE -SLOPE
11 DIKES AND
I
I
11 LEVEES
I
)
I
12-8%:
------ -
MODERATE -SHRINK -SWELL
11
11
— --------------- _I
).SEVERE -NC YATER I
{ DWELLINGS
18-15%:
MODERATE-SHRINK-SIIELL.SLOPE
II EXCAVATED
I
WITHOUT
I I5+%•
uakRF.�..$,1&eF_
11 PONDS
I
{
.1/
I BASEMENTS
I
11AGUIFER FED
I
i
12-EX:
MCDERATE-SHRINK-SWELL
11
I DEEP TC WATER j
{ DWELLINGS
18-15%:
MGDERATE-SLOPE.SHRINK-SWELL
.II
I
WITH
115+%:
SEVERE -SLOPE
II DRAINAGE
I {
1
I BASEMENTS
I
II
I
1
1 2-4X:
MODERATE -SHRINK -SWELL
II
12-3X L.SIL.CL: FAVCRA6L5 1
{ SMALL
14-SX:
MODERATE-SHRINK-SWELL.SLCPE
II
1 3♦2 L.SIL.CL: SLGPE I
COMMERCIAL
I B+X: SEVERE
-SLOPE
II IRRIGATION
12-3X SL.FSL: SLIL ELCW ING I
I BUILDINGS
I
II
' 3+X SL.FSL: FOIL BLCWING.SLOPE
----_-----
I
12-15%:
SEVERE -LOW STRENGTH
II
12-8% L.SIL.CL: ERCCES EASILY I
LOCAL
I IS+X:
SEVERE -LOW STREt H.�•�SLOPE
II TERRACES
18+% L.SIL.CL: SLCPE.ERLDES EASILY I
y" .
YI ROADS AND
I
II AND
12-8% SL.FSL: ERCCES FASILV.SCIL ELCWING I
I' STREETS.
I
{I DIVERSIONS
I a+% SL.FSL: SLOPE.ERCOLS EASILY.SCIL BLCIINGI
{ LAWNS.
12-8X:
SLIGHT
II
12-E%: ERODES EASILY I
I ANDSCAPING
1 8-15%:
MCDERATE-SLOFE
{I GRASSED
I e+%: SLOPE.ERCOES EASILY I
ANDGOLF
11S+%'
EV R - P
ji WATERWAYS
1 FAIRWAYS
I
1
-it
I --___—_—_ - ---_
_ REGICN 61_1NTERPRETATIONS
IPASTURE AND 12-18X: GRCUP 1� I
1HAVLAND 118-25X: GROUP 2 I
I 1 254X: GROUP 8 1
off 1 1819
P
;nM.. bi _ r'•t' ,y+t'd' �YI•Sh'4`.'n:I,N^�' "�,, 'iE�yu"'[k ` '+4X.'}'*`9"yp ".},T'U1+.+,E,it. » +�: - ,r rAr
�y*..sa��.c^ w"� r. a i, r;,w,, .'F';.. ti, w.. , ,.. .. ;,+•. '-Y'...t�• -c' r, :,�". ,�„ . _ .��?�n�A,�, . �r..ea'�"1:,�=res;�r
LESTER 3ERIE3
MNOOEI
RE C,REATIOJye!<_1)EYELStELIL— -----
I•
12-8X: SLIGHT
___
11 12-6%: MCCERAIE-SLOPE
16-15%: MCDERATE-SLOPE
II ( E+%: SEVERE -=LOPE J
1 CAMP
I
AREAS 1 15+%: SEVERE -SLOPE
IIPLAYGRCUNDS I I
I
�-
II I I
---
I
J 2-8X: SLIGHT
1J J 2-15X: SLIGHT
J 8-15X: MODERATE -SLOPE
IJ PATHS 1 15-2.5X: MOLERATE-SLCFE I
IPICNIC
AREASI 15+X: SEVERE -SLOPE
Ii AND 125+X: SEVERE -SLOPE 1
I
I_
I
L_—_—
II TRAILS I 1
CAPABILITY AND YIELDS PER ACRE CF
CROPS ANC PASTURE IFjyH LEVEL MAb AGEMENTI_
I
CLASS- I CAPA- I CORN I SOYBEANS
I OATS 1 GRASS- IBRCMEGRASS-1 KENTUCKY I i
I
DETERMINING I BILITY I I
I ILEGUME HAY I ALFALFA I BLUEGRASS I 1
I
PHASE I— I Iala- I CHU)
I (Bu) I (TrN]_��e�1L12_-1_._teuMl
I
INI RIIRR,INIRR Ij$,_INIRR IIRRR,
_I
INIRR IIRR. J�jRp IIRR. INIBE_Lial3:INlas-I_l6Bijy!RR 1jRR._I
12-6%
1 2E I 1105 I 1 25 I
1 80 J 14.5 I 16•E I 1 2 s 1 I 1 I
16-12%
1 3E 1 195 1 133 I
115 J 1 4.5 i I E.E I 13.5 1 I I
112-18X
14E I 175 I 130 I
165 I 14.6 J 16.0 I 13.o I I I I
118-25X
16E I' 1- I I- I
J- 'I i 3.0 1 14.5
425-35X
1 7E I i- I I- I
I- 1 I- 1 1- I 11.5 1 I I I
16-12%
ERODED 13E J 1 90 1 1 31 1
170 I 1 4.3 1 16.3 J 1 3.3 1 I 1 I
112-ISX
ERODED I ♦E I J 70 I i 28 1
1 60 5.2 1 12.9 1 I I I
118-25z
I
ERODED i 6E 1 I- I I- I
I I I I I I
I- I 12.8 1 I a.2 ! 12.5
I I
J
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I 1 1 I I I I J I I
�-1 I I
► L—_L-- t" I i_-1___—L 1 —l-- I
_ — WOODLAND
5UITABIL17Y
I
CLASS- I ORD I KANAGEMEN'T PROBLEMS
_ 1 POTENTIAL pFcuc�jyjsr-j---------J
DETERMINING I SYM I EROSION( EQUIP. ISEEDLINGI
WINDTH.1 PLANT 1 CCMMON TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT J
I
PRASE —_I I HAZARD I LIMIL1 MGRT'Y.1
HAZARD I COMPT.1 --�libDA I
12-12%
120 1 SLIGHT I SLIGHT I SLIGHT I
SLIGHT I. SLIGHT INCRTHERN RED CAK IES 18LACK WALNUT I
112+X
12R IMODERATEIMODERATEI SLIGHT I
SLIGHT I SLIGHT JAMERICAN BASSWGCD IES INCRTHERN RED CAK 1
I
I I I I i
I ISLACK WALNUT IE2 JAMERICAN EASSWOCD I
I 1 I 1
I JEASTERN CLTTONWCOC IS2 ISILVER MAPLE 1
1
1 I I J I
I JEASTERN WNITE PINE 164 IWHITE LAX J
J
J
I
1
I I J J I
I I I 1 1
I I I I 1
I I I I I
1 IYHITE OAK IE2 I I
I I 1 I I
1 I I I I
I 1 I I I
I
I
1
i
----
I I I I i I I I I I
I I I 1 I 1 I I I I
I l I I I i I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
_____ rTNnwoFers rw1
IH71 SP IES TI SPECIE_ IH �
J2-12X (EASTERN WHITE PINE I28IGREEN ASH I35ICCMMGN HACKEERRY I341RELOSIER LCGWCCD 1121
1 INCRTHERN WHITE-CEDAR1201SIBERIAN CRABAPPLE 1181AMUR MAPLE 1231SCOTCH FINE 1261
1 ITATARIAN HONEYSUCKLEIIIILILAC IL21WHITE SPRUCE 1221SILVER MAPLE 14el
1 I I I I I I I I I
I CLASS-
I
.Jyvi.rc nllo. •w1 ,�11Mp1L11T_--
POTENTIAL FOR HABjUj )fEMENTS
_1—P9TENTjAL_A� HAEITAT 1
I DETERMINING
IGRAIN GIGRASS &I
WILD IHAROWD ICONIFERISHRUBS
IWETLANOISHALLCWIOPENLD IWCDDLO IWETLANDIRANGELOI
I__PHASE
I SEED ILECUMEEI
HEU I-IREES IPLANTS 1---!,PLANTS
I WATER
IWILOLF 1WILOLF LjyFLF-1WIL"F-I
12-6%
1 GOOD I GOOD I
GOCD I GOOD I GOOD 1 -
IV.
PCCRIV.
POCRJ GGCD I GCCD IV. FCCRI - I
16-18X
J FAIR .I GOOD I
GOOD I GOOD I GOOD I -
IV.
POCRIV.
POCRI GOOD I GOOD IV. FCCRI - I
118+%
1
J POOR I FAIR I
I I I
GOOD I GOOD I GOOD I -
1 I 1
IV.
I
POCRIV.
I
FOCRI FAIR I GOOD IV. FCCRI
i I I J I
1
I J I
I I I
I
1
i I I I I
POTENIje"ATIVE PLANT COMMUNITY (RANGELANQ_9R FOREST YNDERSTLRY VEcGETAT IFEI--_--__—__-_—__--
I PLANT J PERCENTAGE COMPOUTICN (O&T-kL"jHT)L Y CLAS,S__2ETERMINIV_9 PHASE —__I
i COMMON PLANT NAME I SYMBOL I I I I I
(NLSPNJ 1
1 1 J I ! t ! I
I 1 1 I I I 1 I
I I 1 I I I I I
I I I J I I I I
I 1 I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I I
I I I I J I I I
I J I I I I I 1
I 1 I I I J J J
J POTENTIAL PRODUCTION (LBS./AC. DRY WTI:
—_I
I FAVORABLE YEARS
I NORMAL YEARS
I _ UNFAVORABLE YEARS I 1_ _---► 1 _---------1 —
FOCTNCTES
A BASED ON TEST DATA CF S PEOGNS FROM CARVER SCOTT AND-STEELE COUNTIES.
8 0-12X: WINDBREAK GROUP 1: 12+X: WINDBREAK GROUP 3.
P
f
"I', - - CG."t'"YY'�: '�,ry �A ., Rv'°."I "�a'�' '� :+, ,.•..,.-. -----..... •--- .L ..,,.-I ix,1"i„x'.at*-.n <� �n.'b^,;, ;r'CR+�-`' r
IA0224 S C I L I N T E R P R L T A T I G N S H E C C R Q
TeB
MLRA (S ): 10213. 103. 104. 107
REV. JON.-3-79
CUMULI`C HAPLUOLLLS. FINE-LCANY. MIXED. MESIC
TERRIL SERIES
SANDY SRVNT.ATUIT
THE TERRIL SERIES. STRATIFIED SUBSTRATUM. ARE MCOERATELY WELL-O[iAINED SOILS FORMED IN LOCAL ALLUVIUM UhULR PRAIRIE VEGE-`
TATIC'N CN FOOTSLCPES AND ALLUVIAL FANS. THE SURFACE LAYS IS ELACK AND VERY OARK BR
CWh LOAM • 31 1hCHE5 THICK. THE [(1
SUBSOIL Is UAHK GROWN LOAM. 14 INCHES THICK. THE UNDERLYING MATERIAL 1S YELLOW BROWN SAND. SLOPES RANGE FRCM
0 TC 14 PERCENT. MOST AREAS ARE CULTIVATED.
—__— ---------- --__—_-__—_--__--__—____—_-___—___—__—____—___—_______—____ __--___----,-
I---------------__S3L31�eIELSIIjI_PBSPEHIIES----_---------------------------------- I
IDEPTHI I — — I IFRACTIPERCENT CF MATERIAL LESS ILIOUID IPLAS- I
I(IN.11 USDA TEXTURE I UNIFIED I AASHTO 1>3 INI_IbAN-3" PPd` jn$t-a�jF.YF._�i91_I LIMIT I7ICITVI
10-311L ICL IA-4♦ A-6 1 0-5 1 100 95-100 70-90 60-80 125-40 .1 8-15 1
131-451L. CL - ICL IA-4. A-6 1 0-5 1 100 90-100 70-90 60-60 125-40 18-15 1
145-601S. GR-S ISP-SM. SM IA-2-4 1 0-25190-100 75-SO 60-SO 10-35 1 - 1 NP 1
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
IDEPTHICLAY 1MDIST BULK) PERMEA- I —AVAILABLE
--
I SCIL -I SALINITY I SHRINK- IEROSIONIWINO ICRGANICICCPRCEIVITY I
I(IN,)I(PCT I DENSITY I BILITY IWATER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMHOS/CM)1 SWELL IfA5I9R§1EROD.IMAT TER I_— ----- 1•
— -------
LLlGRc 1P1_SPsi1_LSIl:St^1S9SS5FIE
10-31120-2611.35-1.40 1 0.6-2.0 1
0.20-0.22 16.1-7,7 i - I LOW 1.321 5 1 6 I Ill999EAI el__1.9I1___1'
131-40127-3211.40-1.65 1 0.6-2.0 1
0.16-0.18 16.6-7.3 1 - I LOW 1.321 1 1 1
145-601 2-8 11.65-1.75 1 6.0-20 1
.
0.05-0.07 16.6-6.4 1 - I LOW 1.101—J—_-1_______I
I I I I I
1 I 1 I I
•
�r
I I I 1 I
I 1 i I 1
I-1--�
---------
1 FLOODING
I--JYj�_ilAlf.B-IA�� �_—LSibE79Ii.Q�dn_1—__P P.9PSSS—__laSSiEa9jlll hSE_ I H V D I PO T E N T- L I
�W.�..�•-
1— ------
I DEPTH I KIND IMONTHS IDEPTH IHARDNESS IDEPTH IHARDNES311NIT.ITCTALIGRPI FROST 1
1__EHE95ls�L__L_45�E�II9n___1�4nIHL,LSEI1-1_____—_L_—___lijitt�--_-1�jhL1________ljtnl_lij�l_1__�_,4I3SL I
•�'•'
a1SIj17iL1ldIEBiAL___—_--- -------
1_—____— 1 0-69: SLIGHT
II I GOGO
SEPT IC TANK .i 6-14X: MODERATE -SLOPE
11 1 1
ABSCRPTION 1
- II ROADFILL 1. 1
c
1 FIELDS
1 1 0-7X: 5EVERE-SEEPAGE,
II 1 PRCBABLE 1
.
1 SEWAGE 1 7+X: SEVERE-SEEPAGE.SLOPE 11 I 1
LAGOON I
II SAND I I
AREAS i
II 1 I
I.S€VERE-SEEPAGE
II I IMPROBABLE-TCO SANDY 1
1 SANITARY I
II 1 I
I LANDFILL I
11 GRAVEL ) I
I-
I (TRENCH) I
11 I I
1--------1—------------
---- ) 1 _—=-----------------------------------1
I 1 0-Bx: SLIGHT
II I O-B%: GOOD 1
1 SANITARY 18-14X: MCDERATE-SLOPE
11 1 8-14%: FAIR -SLOPE 1
LAhOFILL I
11 TOPSOIL 1 I
4
I (AREA)
1 1 0-8%: GCCO
11
F-y
DAILY8-14%: FAIR -SLOPE
1 CL FOR
11—_----- I 0-3%: MOD A7 E-SEEPAGEnl--_---_-----_M
I LANDFILL I
II POND J 3-8%. MCDERATE-SEEPAGE.SLOPE I
,
RESERVOIR 1 B+%: SEVERE -SLOPE 1
11 AREA I 1
-_____—__—_..—il__—_.—__—_.1_—_—_---_-----'-_---_-----__-__--_--__ I
SEVERE-CUTBANKS CAVE
II I MGOEAA7E-THth LAYBR.PIPJNG I
re....
1 SHALLOW I
IIEMEANKMENTS I
IEXCAVA7[ONS I
II DIKES AND
1 I
II LEVEES 1 I
ti
1 1 0-62: SLIGHT
II 1 SEVERE -NC WATER I
1 DWELLINGS 1 B-142: M43DLRA7E-SLOPE
II EXCAVATED 1 I
OfC3:w
I WITHCUT I
II PONDS-
BASEMENTS 1
11AOUIFER FED I 1
.-�•-._-
1 10-6X: SLIGHT
11 I DEEP 70 WATER 1
f
1 DWELLINGS 18-14X: MCDERATE-SLOPE
II 1 I
1 WITH I
II DRAINAGE
1 BASEMENTS
--I— --
------_--�1------1----------- ..... __I
.
-_----_
i 10-4X: SLIGHT
II 10-3%: FAVCRAELE -_-----
I,; SMALL 14-SX: MGCEFATE-SLGPE
II 13+X: SLOPE 1
✓�('.�r
yf CCMNERCIAL 1 8!3_SEVERE-SLOPE
11 IRRIGATION
I BUILDINGS 1
II I I
I I O-B%: MCCERATE-LOW STRENGTH.FRCST ACTION II 1 0-81A: FAVORAELE 1"
1. LOCAL 1 B.1�%:_ MODERATE -LOW STRENGTH.SLOPE. 11 TERRACES 18+%: SLOPE 1
I/•Q ROACS AND I FROST -
1 1 ANC
_ACti710N,
I STREETS I
II DIVERSIONS
--------- -----_---____—___--11__--____1_—_--_—__—___—_
--__---_-_--
1 LAWNS. 1 0-BX: SLIGHT
II 1 0-8%: FAVORABLE
ILANDSCAPING 1 8-14%: MODERATE -SLOPE
II GRASSED 1 842: SLOPE
I AND GOLF 1
I I WATERWAYS 1 1
I FAIRWAYS I
II I I
�,��y,,^•�'
• �•'
_—_--- — REGICNhL 119APREIA j9n5
I
1 I
I
I
..ram ------r----�—�y--��- .,,�,�1+.
``i'.,`�.-`Y�-t'R.
t
� - �--_-- --- �-cx^'_--f ^ ��,. >,;.�:.?�.--�sr-�- �-c.-- yr. ?; _ ,.T� .,-k-•+•.Y
(Y!'^-•R,w'•Mtr.r' 1"
�.y�'�'1°�y:,
^r..aJ.r.+al'v'-•NN^'H.^- -;T'
•'. ..Y'iF: .JK-fIF``{•,
�..�7. i+�+eti _ •�`4 . `L"',.•—c>
TERFIL SERIES + 1A0224
SANDY SUBSTRATUM
,--- ---------------- ---- --------- —_&iSBEdSSS1NdL_rF..YELQEllEfJ1--------- —--- —-------- ---------- ---------
_ o-ax: sL 1cHT � I) 1 0-2 x,: SLIGHT 1
1 J 8-14X: MODERATE -SLOPE 11 12-62: MCOEFA7E-SLOPE I
CAMP AREAS i 11PLAYGROUNDS 1 6♦%: SEVERE -SLOPE I
11 1 1
1-------1----------- —-------- ------------------ —--- 1--------1------- —=----------------------- !
0-8%: SLIGHT 11 1 SLIGHT
Ia-14%: NGDERATE-SLOPE 11 PATOIS 1
IPICNIC AREASI 11 AND J 1
I
i I JJ TRAILS
L--------1---------------- --------------11---------- --1----------------------------- --
_—_SeEe91L1IY_AN Q_Yi.ELQ.�_PEB-ASBE OF sRDPS_dNG_Pe�ISIflE__St35lf-LEYFL�+dndSEldEnIl_—______—____________
CLASS- I CAPA- I CORN J SOYBEANS I .'OATS 1 GRASS- J KENTUCKY I SMCCTI• JERCMEGRASS-1
1 DETERMINING J BILITY 1 I ( ILEGUME HAY I BLUEGRASS IBRCMEGRASS I ALFALFA I
PHASE I1_—iris!L-1—_sBst1—sasu--1ti.Qt�;;i-1---seyn.l---1--_iAAl___1_—sesull--- I
-----------__1N1Bfl11f38a12118E_119Bi_119ifl8_11BBaJn188—liP8a-1n3E8_118ei1nifiE_1iB8._1NI81�11Bs�_1NiE8_1188._
10-2X 11 I 1120 1 146 1 1 95 I 1 5.0 1 14.2 I 1 7.0 1 ! 6.3 I !
12-5X 12E I I lie 1 1 45 1 1 94 I I 5.0 1 14.2 I 17.0 1 i e.3 I 1
15-9% 1 3E 1 1 113 1 1 43 1 ) 91 I J 4.8 1 J 4.2 J J 6.7 1 18.0 I I
19-14% 1 3E 1 1 104 1 1 40 1 1 83 I 14.4 1 13•6 I 16.2 1 17.3 I I
I I I I 1 i I I I 1 I i I I 1 I i
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I
1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I i
1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I
I-- --—1----1---1-----1..-1---1...—J...__1_--1---1---1-----1----1----1----1--1-----1
-------=--------- ------ — --------- ------ 10rQLAND syllerlLtss--_--=-------------------------------
I CLASS- I ORo I__—___--_McNeSEL+ENI_PBQI9LElI5__--_____I_�9IEJyI1d1_PBQLySI1Y1IY_ I
I DETERMINING I SYM EROSION EQUIP. JSEEOLINGI %INDTH.1 PLANT I COMMON TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT J
PHA SE---1_--LtldSdSD_1L121IT Ltl98IYi1_tld1ARg I lIPEIal___— _______11N➢�Sl_—____—_---___F
I I I I I I I 1 "NE I I
1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I !
1 I I I I 1 I I I I I
J 1 I I 1 1 I I I I i
J t 1 I I I I I ! I I
1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I t I I I
J I I I I I I I ! 1 1
1 I i I I I I I I I I
1 I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I 1 I I I I !
1------------1----1-------1 1----1—__—L---------------1----1------------------1
--------------------------------------------_Jl1rJQEBEAES------------------------------------------ n T
ISLa rE]EBM1N�i_EEd5E1--- iiEd �_—__-1r71__ SPELIES
bSL—�PislE�------1--I
I MART>50 IREDOSIER OOGWO00 17 ISILVER MAPLE 136JEASTERN RECCECAF I20IRED PINE 1301
1 IGFAY DOGWOOD 17 ITATARIAN MONEYSUCKLEI121NCAWAY SPRUCE 130JEASTERN COTTCNWOOD 1401
1 ISIBERIAN. DOGWOOD 1121AMUR MAPLE 1201CCMMON HACKBERRY 1301, 1 .1
IMAAT<50 INOATHERN WHITE-CEOAA1201CCMMCN HACKEERRY 1341WhITE SPRUCE
1221BUR OAK I301
1 1EASTERN WHITE PINE 12aIS1BERIAN CRABAPPLE JIBIPCNDEFGSA PINE 1261AMUR MAPLE 1231
I__—ISlLYEB_BdPLE—_l_1A1TATARIAN Ha NEYSUCKLE1111yEEF.l_e51>r— ......
---_ _111LrL1Eg HAjIAI_"jIABIL1IY;L
I— CLnss- (_______ ___—__Q9IESlItdl_E93_J 1Td_T_ELEMI--__-- —_1__ pQIESI1dl_dS_rdQ1SdLF58i__ 1
I DETERMINING IGRAlN-6JGRASS EI MILD IHARDWO ICONIFERISHRUBS i WETLAND I SHALLOW I OPENLO IWCCOLD IWETLANOIRANGELOI
—_1_,SEEQ__1l.ESSIi�E_Lt1E9l3s_1_IEEE,SIPLe.NI-�-1—___-1P1dNI3_Ll1lIEP_1Sl1Ll?LE_1SYSL12LE_1b1LBL1=1W31QLE_ i
12-5X I GO00 I GOOD I LOCO I GOOD I G000 I - I POOR I POOR I GOOD I G000 I FCCF 1 1
15-14X J FAIR I GOOD I GOOD I GOOD I G000 1 - IV. POORIV. POGRI G00D I GOOD IV. PC•ORI I
I I I I I i I I 1 I i I I I
I I I I I I I 1 t 1 ! ( I I
!------1-----1------1------1-----J-------1�.---1-----1------1------1—1-----1----- I
POTENTIAL t;�jiyP,�L$NI_Sil!!tlSln1IY_.SfldtlSiLdn1'i�8_P99Ca5I_SINLE83I17HY_YF.S€[eSl9h1-------------------
1 I PLANT (_ PEBSp.NIBS§E_S9MEfl.51I3SSL 1Q9Y-llElyiIl_EYSLe�y_IIEIEBrlNiDSLPi+e�E_- ___ I
1 COMMCN PLANT NAME I SYMBOL 1 ( 1 I 1 1
1 I I I I I I I
i I I I 1 I I I
1 1 1 I I I I 1
t I I I I I I I
J I 1 i I I 1 I
I I 1 I I 1 I 1
J 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I i I
t I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I
J I I I I I I I
IPOTENTIAL PRODUCTION [LBS./AC. DRY WT):(----------__—---- ------- ----- ---------------------------__--I
1 FAVORABLE.YEARS 1 1 1 1 1 I
I NORMAL YEARS I I 1 I I I
I _—_ynEeYQBerLE_YEee;----1-----------1--------1-------1-------1-------------
FCCTNOTES
A DANGER CF CONTAMINATION OF GROUND WATER.
1 SUBJECT TO LOCAL RUNOFF FROM UPSLOPE AND OCCASIONAL LATERAL MOVEMENT OF WATER FROM UPSLOPE IN SOIL PROFILE. F[[
1
Ft
•..;sa_+V•.s�°``x.` ''�; s.+rrds'+Y1 .„.•"r, •y,.: � .c.• ,� �. �R't.. +'� �y�.,1R'1w ."-•y mk^-�_`kT': �.. y1w �.. ar.-...;� •r �"�.-y w„ �^t a,'4 sw.. - tr
�Y+"�-, .,l i.�-, •, ..:!�r:,, iT"'•+F .s.,� J:+'^i: .�',�� -a.,r' .,. a.i.T. �� .."".`w`. rr+Ha.��� sa* .Y • ,� .�-..'i t �y,: fy..„
Ge
MNO0,26 S O I L I NTERPRE
TAT I ONS RSCUND
MLRA(S): 103
GL EIICUE SERIES
REV. ARG-ELB. 12-78
CUMULIC HAPLAOUOLLS. FINE-LUAMY. MIXED. MESIC
THE GLENCOE SERIES CONSISTS OF DEEP VERY POORLY DRAINED SOILS
FORMED IN GLACIAL TILL IN DEPRESSIONS AND SWALES IN THEI
Wu_.+
UPLANDS. THE SURFACE LAYER IS BLACK AND VERY DARK -GRAY CLAY
LOAM 35 INCHES THICK. THE SUBSOIL IS MOTTLED OLIVE-GRAY.
FRIABLE LOAM 13 INCHES TH.ICK. THE UNDERLYING MATERIAL 15 GRAYISH -BROWN AND LIGHT CLi VE BROWN LOAM. SLOPES ARE LESS
THAN 1 PERCENT. MOST AREAS ARE DRAINEC AND CROPPED.
I _-- ESTIMATED SQ1L
PROPERTIES_1
IOEPTHI 1 I
IFRACTIPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS ILIOUID IPLAS- I
I(IN.)I USUA TEXTURE I UNIFIED I AASHTO 1>3 INI_THAN 3- PASSING SIEVE lQA_1 LIMIT ITICITYI
I I 1 1
l (P C I I l 4 1 10 1 40 1-goo I 1 l NDFA-1
I 0-351SICL. CL. L 1OL. OH. MH. ML IA-7
1 O 1 100 95-100 85-98 75-90 1 45-00 110-20 1
•.
135-4EIL. CL. SICL _ ICL IA-7. A-6
I 0 1 100 95-100 85-98 75-90 1 35-50 115-25 1
148-601L. CL ICL IA-6. A-7
I I I I
I' O 198-100 90-98 80-98 70-85 1 35-50 115-25 1
I I 1 I I
I I I I
I I 1 1 I
IDEPTHICLAY IMOIST BULK) PERMEA- I AVAILABLE I SOIL
I SALINITY I SHRINK- IEROSIONIWINO ICRGANICI CORROSIVITY I
VWrr
I(1N.)I(PCT I DENSITY 113ILITY IWATER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMHOSiCM)I SWELL IF-6CTORSIEROO.IMATTER 1
1---1 MM J_C9j/CM3) I (IN/HR1 1 (IN/IN) I (PH)-
_1
1 1P01ENTIALI K I T I jOUP1-IPCTI I STEEL ICE NC$I FJ
I 0-35125-3511 .35 -1.45 10.2-2.0 1 0.18-0.22 16.1-7.8
1 - IMODERATE 1.281 5 1 6 1 5-10 1 HIGH j_ LOW _1
'
135-48125-3511.05-1. 50 1 0.2-2.0 1 0.15-O.19 16.6-7.8
1 - IMODERATE 11281 1 1 1
148-60122-3211.35-1.50 1 0.6-2.0 1 0.15-O.19 17.4-7.8
I I• I I I I
1 ' - IMODERATE 1.281_ 1 1 1
I I I I
M�*
I
I FL ODD ING I HIGtI yATER 1e��
1 RFD PAN DEOROCK ISUBSIOF_NCE 1HYOIPOTE.NT•LI
EWIM
I I DEPTH I KIND IMONTHS 1OP TH I HARDNESS I DEPTH IHARDNESSI INIT. ITOTALI GAP I FROST I
1 FREUUENCI—�I-_DURATION IMONTHS 1 1FT) 1 1
I —NONE -RARE I_ I 1 t1-1.0_IAPPARENiIOCT-.IUNI
l(IN1 1 _ I (INI 1 I(INj�(INj_1_ AL Qy_1
- I 1 >60 I 1 - I IN/nl HMI
_SANITARY FACILITIES
ONSTRUCT"b-BgTERIAL _
I 1 SEVERE-PERCS SLOWLY.PONDING
II I POOR-WETNESS.LOW STRENGTH I
ISEP TIC TANK 1
11 1 1
^�
I ABSORPTION 1
11 ROADFILL 1 1
I FIELDS 1
1I 1
«
1 1 SEVERE -PENDING
11 I IMPROBABLE -EXCESS FINES 1
I SEWAGE 1
i LAGOON 1
If I
11 SAND I I
I
I AREAS I
11 I I
i
1---�_—
11 1
I I SEVERE-PONOING.EXCESS HUMUS
_I
II I IMPRCBABLE-EXCESS FINES. —1
1 SANITARY 1
I1 I I
'
I LANDFILL I
11 GRAVEL I'
I (TRENCH) i
I I SEVERE -PENDING
11 I POOR -WETNESS
I SANITARY I
11 1 I
1 LANDFILL 1
I (AREA) 1
11 TOPSOIL I
If 1 i
1 I POOH-PONDING.HARD TO PACK
DAILY 1'
11 WATER MANAGF,MENT_
I COVER FOR 1
II I MODERATE -SEEPAGE I
1 LANDFILL I
I1 POND 1pw
I
I--_
11 RESERVOIR 1 1
11 AREA 1 I
BUILDING SITF IgXQ O_ PMEHT
I I SEVERE -PENDING
II I SEVERE -HARD TO PACK.EXCESS HUMUS. PONDING 1
SHALLOW I
IIEMBANKMENTS I
{•
)EXCAVATIONS 1
11 DIKES AND 1 i
I 1
I1 LEVEES 1
r
I I SAS SEVERE-PONOING.LOW STRENGTH
11 I MODERATE -SLOW REFILL
1 DWELLINGS 1 NNOW SyEy FAR -FLOODS.-P ONOI�NG.)LOW
11 EXCAVATED 1 I
-STRENGTH
WITHOUT 1
II PONDS 1
V�
I' BASEMENTS 1
(!AQUIFER FED I
F
1 1 �: SF,VER-QOND It1G
II I FROST ACTION.PONDING
1 DWELLINGS 1100M SEVERE-FLOOOSrPONOING
11 I
11" WITH I
11 DRAINAGE
1 BASEMENTS I
11 1 1
r
I 1 4�e SEVERE-PONOING.LOW STRENGTH
If 1 POND( NG
I SMALL I POW SEVERE-FI.TODS.PONDIN6.LOW-STRENGTH
y1 COMMERCIAL I
11
II IRRIGATION 1 1
G'•.
1 UUILDINGS 1
1 1 S(�VEHE-POND! NGyLOW rSTR_EJ4GL11tE.QAzS7 L�1 �11N
1I I PENDING 1
I LOCAL I�
1I TERRACES 1 I
ROADS AND 1
11 AND 1 I
1 STREETS I
If DIVERSIONS I
I LAWNS. 1 A•F.,VFRF--9DNplH9
—I
11 1 WETNESS411
ILANDSCAPING I
11 GRASSED 1 14`
J.( ANDGOLF 1
II WATERWAYS 1 1
FAIRWAYS
1 FAIRWAYS 1
11 1 1
REGIONAL INTERPRETATIONS
IFASTURC ANC I GROUP 6
1 4 JAN 1979""
1HAYL AND I
I I
I
I
1 1
1
1 .
W4s
� ., , �, ilk' .y'Y y '.�'�"'�,"�j�'ye.� 'ib^r.1►�1L�.T".�Tjla�� �Tvc—,•rrr: v-�
��.4 i4�
h xiY+ �
�.1 : r �, 'R'
�.
14� •S'»`k'?�+ .d.��,x _ { :r �:�'�rr :� 4•� Y+,y., ,
�'.a -.
.. a :?..f� .'..-+ yr•_,. .t. . , :..
MN0026
GLENCDE SERIES
_
I I NONE:
SEVERE-PONDING
RECREAyLQNAL_j_P.VELUPMENT
II
I SEVERE-PUNDING Y
1
1 1 RARE:
SEVERE-P(JNDING.FLOUDS
II
I
I CAMP AREAS I
((PLAYGROUNDS
J I
1
1 I
-�
J I SEVERE -PENDING
II
I SEVERE -PENDING i
I I
II PATHS
J I
IPICNIC AREASI
II AND
1 I
1 I
II TRAILS
I I
CAPABILITY AND JILLDSPER
ACRE OF CROPS AND PAST4Jn_
(HIGH LEVEL MANAkEM.,tj T) �
_
J CLASS-
I CAPA- I CORN
! SOYBEANS I CATS I
GRASS- 18ROMEGRASS-1 REED I I
DETERMINING
- I BILITY I
1 I (LEGUME MAY I ALFALFA ICANARYGRASSI I
J PHASE
IOU)
I-NIRRIIHR.INIRR IIRR,
1 (BUI 1 (BU) 1_(TONS)
INIRR IIRR, INIRR_IIRR,I
I (AQN) 1 (AUM) j_ 1
NIRR IIRR, 1U"-p_IIRR. INI$$_jIRR• INJ HE IIRR.
(DRAINED
I
J
J
J
1 3Y 1 1 65 J
I I I I
I I I I
1 I I I
t I I I
! 34 I i 75 ,J (
i I I I I
I I 1 I I
i I I 1 1
I I I I 1
3.5 1 1 5.2 1 1 5.5 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I 1 I I
i
I
I
I
I
1 I I I
I I I I
I I I I
1 1 I 1
I I I I
I I I I I
I 1 I I I
I I I 1 1
I I I 1 I
I I I 1 I
I I I 1 I I I I
I 1 I I I I I
1 ! I I I I I I
I I I I I i I I
I I I I I I I I
rOODt AND SUITABILITY
J+ CLASS-
_
I ORD I jj ANAGEMENT
PROBLEMS I
POTENTIAL PROQUCTIVITY I
J DETERMINING
I SYM I EROSIGNI EQUIP.
ISEEOLINGI WINDTH.J PLANT I
COMMON TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT J
PHASE
1 I HAZARD I LIMIT
I tlORT�Y,I HAZARD 1 COMPET.I
IINDXI _
I
I
1
I
I
I
1 1 1
I I 1
I I I
I I I
I I I
I 1 I
1 I 1 I
1 1 I I
1 I I I
I ! I I
I I I I
I i I I
NONE I I I
i I I
I i I
1 I I
I 1 I
I I 1
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
1 I 1
I I I
I I ! I
I 1 I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I 1
I I I I
1 1 I
1 I I
I I 1
1 I I
! 1 I
ICLAS5=DETERfS N'G PHASEI — SPECIES IHTI SPECIES IHTI SPECIES IHTI SULIE;L,_._ IHTI
JORAINED IEASTERN COTTONWOOD 1601GREEN ASH 1301SIBERIAN CRABAPPLE 1201PLOOSIER uOGWUOD 115I
I 151LVER MAPLE 135JEASTERN WHITE PINE 1251AMUR MAPLE 116IMEDIUM PURPLE WILLOW114I
1 (GOLDEN WILLOW 1351WHITE SPRUCE 1221NORTHERN rHITE-CEDAR1151TATARIAN HONEYSUCKLE110J
_ WILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY _�_ __—_
CLASS- 1�__ PSIIt NTIAL FOR HABITAT ELEMENTS I PUTFNTIAL A5 IMBITAT FOR: _I
I DETERMINING (GRAIN GIGRASS 6I WILD JHARDWD ICONIFERISHRUSS IWETLAND ISHALLOW IOPENLQ IWOODLO JWETLANDJRANG,ELDJ
PHASE_ 1 SELO IIEGUME J HERB, I TREES (PLANTS I 1PLANTS I WATER IIVI LOLF IWILDLF WjLO W(LOLF_1
JALL 1 GOOD GOOD I FAIR I FAIR 1 FAIR 1 - I. GOOD I GOOD J GOOD 1 FAIR I GOOD I I
! I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I
I 1 I I 1 i I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I i I
_ _UTENTIAL NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITY (RAN F AND OR FOREST UNDERSTORY_V99iFa UQlU_—r__-___--_
PLANT i PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION (DRY WEIGHT) BY CLASS DEJULA _Njllfj-PHASE
J CGMMUN PLANT NAME I SYMBOL 1 I I I 1 I
(NLSPN) I -
J 1 I I I I I 1
1 I I I I I 1
j 1 I 1 I I i I
I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
J I I I 1 I I I
J I I I 1 I I I
J I I I I I I I
J POTENTIAL PRODUCTION (LBS./AC. DRY WTI:
I FAVORABLE YEARS 1 I ( Iv I I
I NORMA6 YEARS I 1 1 1 I I
J UNflAVORABLE YEARS
FOOTNOTES
EXTENSIVE DIKING REQUIRED FOR STORAGE
UNDRAINED: WINDBREAK GROUP 108. ON SITE ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO DETERMINE SPECIES: DRAINED: GROUP B. MN.
L
_.�9.. —. _ _. ...
.J� •''i, "r';►�4'r�;��°"'.�
M L0023 SO I LA-'\\ IN T E R P R E T h IONSS R E C C R L') Pm
MLRA(S1: 95- 97. 98. 99. 103. 105. 108. 110
;,EV. GHE. 4-75
:TERL:IC NEOISAPRISTS. LOAMY. MIXED. EUIC. MESIC
PALMS SEArIJS,
THE PALMS ,SERIES CUNSI"STS OF .VERY PUORLY'ORAI NED SUILS FU.RMEU Ity DEPOS,I,T,S .,UF_GRGA .I C.-MAT tR.iAl.-•_1.6 TO _SO,INCMES THICK#
IOVER LOAMY MINERAL DEPCSITS IN OEPkESSIONAL AREAS WITHIN LAKE PLAINS: TILL PLAINS AND MCRAINES. THE SURFACE SOIL IS
BLACK MUCK 3S INCHES THICK. THE SUBSTRATUM IS GRAY MOTTLED CLAY LOAM. SLOPES RANGE FROM 0 TO E PERCENT. DRAINED AREAS
ARE USBC FCR CROPLAND AND UNORAINEC AREAS ARE USED MAINLY AS WETLAND WILDLIFE HABITAT.
I--------------------------=----� _e ubeiF4_sail-QacP tiE se1�----------LESS---------------I
IOEPTHI I I IFFACTIAERCENT CF.MATERIAL LESS ILIO.UIO IPLAS- 1
I(IN. II USDA TEXTURE I UNIFIED I AASHTO 1>3 LNI_Ir.,n_3" E!m= S_�lEYb_nS�_I LIMIT ITTCITYI
1-19__L__1_3D9__L__—_�3hIlE1S- I
I 0-351SP (PT 1 1
135-601CL. SICL. FSL JCL-ML• CL - IA-4. A-6 I 0 JaS-100 80-100 70-95 50-90 i 25-40 i 5-20
I I I I I I
! I 1 I ( I 1 I I
I I 1 I I I I J 1
1--1-----1-----------------1--------------1---1----- --- ------1-------1------!
J DEPTHICLAV IMDIST BULK(, PEFMEA- I AVAILABLE I SOIL I SALINITY I SHRINK- JEROSIONIWIhD ICPGANICI CCPRGSIVITY I
OD.IMATTER I____ -_____—______I
I(I.N.)I(PCT .1 DENSITY I BILITY IWA7ER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMHOS/CM)I SWELL IE,8f. QQy�IER
I___-1_<3EL+11_SStSrll__.LSlnlij92__1_-1Sntlnl--LSEbl—L___—____IESIinI1B11_15_1_S_lyB➢SIELSESILL;iS€FL__1SSnSEE]E
1 0-351 - 10.25-0.45 1 0.2-6.0 1 0.35-0.45 15.1-7.8 1 : ( - I - I 3 1 >75 I__ri3S+n__1MQQEPeIEI
135-601 7-3511.45-1.75..1 0.2-2.0 I 0.14-0.22 16.1-8.4 1 - ! LOw
1 I I I 1 I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I I
I--L-1-------1------1----------1------1--=-------1-------=-1---1------- ------ —--------- -------
1 FLOCDING I NIGH WATF.Q�ABLB 1_SGbFnYE4_Een�—_HESBSSIS--_1�`SlE�1SFbSE-IHYDIPOTENT -LI
I DEPTH I KIND (MONTHS IOEPTHIHARDNESSICEPTH IHARONESSIINIT.ITOTALIGRPI FROST I
I—E�ssr�NsY--L_QUEATI h_-1bQnIn1A_1_1El1__1------_-----ls1nt-1 __lstnil _1Slni�ilb2�---1_e5iisb_I
lit 5------ --- -----
----------------Seb1IeSY-EdSIL1
I SEVERE-FLOOOS.SUBSIDES.PONOIhG
II I POCK -WETNESS
ISEPTIC TANK(
ASSCRPTION
I
1i ROADFILL I J
J FIELDS
I
II 1
I
I SEVERE-SEEPAGE.EXCESS HUMUS.POhDING
II I IMPROBAELE-EXCESS HUMUS -EXCESS FINES
I SEWAGE
I
II I
I LAGOON
1
IJ SAND I I
J AREAS
I
II
-----------1--------------------- —_,�
I I SEVERE-PONDING.FLOODS.EXCESS HUMUS
11 _----1-------------------------------------
II I IMPROBABLE -EXCESS FUMUS.EXCESS,FINES
5Ah1TAkY
1
II I
LANDFILL
I
1I GRAVEL I I
1 (TkENCH)
I
I1
I
I
I SEVERE-PDNO[NG.FL0o05.5EEPAGE
ij i PCCR-WEThESS.EXCESS HUMUS
SANITARY
1
I
J LANDFILL
I
II TOPSOIL I
1
1 (AREA)
i
II I
I POCK-PCNOING.EXCESS FUMUS
II
II-----__________---_IIe3sP_nnneSEeEnL----------------
1 DAILY
J
II I SEVERE -SEEPAGE 1
I CCVER FOR
1
1
I LANDFILL
I
If POND I
I_____--_--L-_---------__
,__I( RESERVOIR
I
11 AREA I
_J1-- _-1�__-_-___----------__-_-----_--_--I
J SEVERE -EXCESS HUMUS•FONDING
II I SEVERE -EXCESS HUMUS.FONOING
I SHALLOW
I
((EMBANKMENTS I 1
1EXCAVATIONS
I -
II DIKES AND I
I
II LEVEES I
I--------------------------------_-__ll---
---- J-------------------- ----------------- I
-----
I $E VERB✓-..PC.,NO,1Ji G,•,LOJI,.TfI;F NC•TH.FLGaas
II I SEVERE -SLOW REFILL
DWELLINGS
I
EXCAVATED
I
I WITHOUT
I
11 I
1
i BASEMENTS
I
IIAOUIPER FED I
----- --------- -----I
I
----------L------------------------------__-Ll-----------1--------
I
I §F�1ERE-PONDING.LUW STRi•,N_GTH-FLOODS
II I FLCODS.PONDING.SUBSIDES
J�DWELLINGS
I
II I
i
WITH
I
11 DRAINAGE I
BASEMENTS
(
----11---_.:_
If -
------ 1-------------------------------------- I
--------=-1-----------
I
-------------
I SE_V_ERF-EgN NRL �1.F.S+S4.CS�5t,�QW SJR�f 7H
11 I POhDING.SOIL BLOWIhG.FLGCOS
1 SMALL
I
II I
>( CCMMERCIAL
I
11 IRRIGATION I
BUILDINGS
I
11 1
---------------- --------------11--
-----1------------,------------------------
--------1---
1
I SEVERE-PCNOING.FL000S.FROST ACTION
II 1 POhOING.501L BLOWING
I; LOCAL
I -
II TERRACES I I
1.RCADS AND
I
II AND
I
I STREETS
1
II DIVERSIONS I
I ---1- ------_---------------------
-----__--'
I LAWNS.
EX1-----------------------------------'--"-1
1 9EVEREF- CESS HUMUS
..
I I WETNESS
.(LANDSCAPING
.CND�NG.PLRS.
1
1I GRASSED I
j AND GOLF
I
I1 WATERWAYS J i
I' FAIRWAYS I
1-----1--_------------__-.------
II 1
----11------_1—�--------------------1
PALMS SERIES MI0023
--------------- —------------- ------- ------ — -------------------------------------------
I I SEVERE-PCNOING.FLOCOS.EXCESS HUMUS II I SEVERE-PCNOIhG•FLCCDS.EXCESS HUMUS 1
I I II I t
I CAMP AREAS ! IIPLAYGACUNDS I I
I I 11 I I
-------1------------------- -------------11--------1---------- --------------------------1
I I SEVERE-PCNOING.6XCESS HUMUS II I 5EVERE-PCNDIhG.EXCE55 HUMUS J
1 I !I PATHS I I
(PICNIC AREASI II AND ( I
I I II TRAILS I I
1--------1------------------- —--- ---------=---11—---1--- --- J
___---__--SeE9131L3IY_dn1LY1ELR8_El:B�SE JvSE_S9fl!?�en G�A�ISl9E—tt35 l.EYSl�IAhA.jf ME�I1------------.........
I CLASS- I CAPA- I CORN I CORN I SOYBEANS I GRASS HAY I CATS I I I
I, DETERMINING I BILITY 1 I SILAGE I J ! I I I
I PHASE 1---------1iEld2_—LSL4nL1---i�Sll----L_SISn_---t134L--1-----------1---------_-I
Itas,_1nie�l tse�_ 1nt13J�liae �lntl�e_Li513 r�lr�i eb_ltBs,_ 1n1B13_1t5Q�_1b19�1in Fes_ I
JCRAIhEO 13W.I I lot 1 1 17 1 142 1 ! 3.0 1 165 I I I 1 t I
IUNORAINED J 5w
I I i I I I I I I I I I i I 1 1 I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I !
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i
i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 11 I 1 I I I
I 1 I I II I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 1 ! I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
I---------------------.L__1--1--L--1-----1-----1----1_----1-----1-----1---�.1 L--1-----1----1-----1
---------------------------------�sssLdn>zssule�iLSIY--------___._—_--------------------------
I CLASS- I ORoJbeneyEEEnI_E99ESEbA____--_-1_-E9IEhalt L_EEDL"IIYSII-
DETERMINING I SYM I EROSIONI EQUIP. ISEEDLINGI WINDTH.1 PLANT I COMMON TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT 1
I.-----Prid�1'-----1----1 di9B9_1_LibiT_1_bf�kI:1, 1 HAZAaL_LSlabM_.l----------13n42i1--____------------1
IMAAT<50 13W 1 SLIGHT J SE,VERE I SEVERE I SEYEAt I SEVERE IREC MAPLE 15` I I
ISILVER MAPLE 176 1 1
i I I I I I I (WHITE ASH 151 1 1
I I 1 I I I I IDUAKING ASPEN- .-156 1 1
I I 1 I ! ( 1 INOATHEAN WHITE-CEDAR127 I I
I 1 I I I I I JTAMAAACK 145 1 1
I I I I I I I IBLACK ASH I- I I
IMAAT>50 14W I SLIGHT I SEVERE i_ SEVERE I SEVEAE I SEVERE- (WHITE ASH 151 1 I
I I ! I I 1 I IRED MAPLE 151 1 I
I 1 I I I ( I (QUAKING ASPEN ISO 1 I
I I I I i I 1 JBLACK WILLOW I- I I
I I I I I I I ISILVER MAPLE 176 1 1
I I ! I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I l I I I
--------------------------------------------9i1146@BdlSS-------- --------- ------------- --- ------------
ISLe§Y_QEllcflbin'_S:_PHe"1------ �EES1L�--_1lill------ SE13SIlv5--__�rIL;aEESiES __-1-------1f11
IMAAT<50 INCRTHERN WHITE-CEDAR129JEASTERN WHITE PINE I22INGEWAY SPRUCE 1271SILKY OCGWCCO IS I
I IGREEN ASH 1371TATARIAN HONEYSUCKLE1151AU5TAIAN PINE 1221VANHOUTTE SPIREA 17 1
I ITAMAAACK 1161SCOTCH PINE 1311AMER CRANBEARYBUSH 1101WHITE SPRUCE 1131
IMAAT>50 ILCMBARDY POPLAR 145INCRTHERN WHITE-CEOAR1251TALL PURPLE WILLOW 1231MEDIUM PURPLE WIL1,OWIlE1
I JAMUR HONEYSUCKLE 1121REDOSIEA DOGWOOD 19 ISILKY DOGWOOD 19 IGRAY OOGWaLC 17 1
I _-----------_—�51tie.9f_PLSELE�1LLsW_1s�1--------------1--1----------1--1---------_------1-- I
------------------------------------S11LP Ll EE_
-----------------
I cLAss- —____—______�4IlrnI1LL�S9_n9EtIdI_ELEIIEtlI�---------1—_P9IEbIi9L_P�_�l3iIALfS---I
I DETERMINING IGRAII_h 6IGRASS 61 WILD JHAROWC ICONIFERISHRUSS IWETLANDISHALLCWIOPENLO JWCOULO IWETLANDIRANGELDI
I__—__�e�si--__1_�I:€Q__1Lf&SIME_L+1�P13�LIflE��_1PLdnI�_J__--1f1dbI 1_jAIEP_11LLSLf_ll9 iLQLi_1�1.Ll�Lf_1tiiLSLE_ I
JALL I G000 I PCLA I.POOR I POOR I POOR I - I GCOO I GCCD I FAIR I PCOR I POOR I - I
I I I I I I I I I I I i I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I i I I I
I I i I I I I I I I I I I
I__.--------------1----1----�.1-----1_----1-------1-----1-----1-----1------1------1------1------- J
SYIo_RLj8N7 CM
I PLANT I______PERCENTAGE ,CUMPOSITICN (DRY WEIGHu &YSLd3� GEIE.glljnl�Sj_PiE,yE I
I COMMON
IRUSH
I SECGE
IREEDGRASS
ICANARYGRASS
(SPECKLED ALDLA
IWILLCW
PLANT NAME I SYMBOL
IRECOSIER DOGWOOD
IQUAKING ASPEN
JUNCO
CARER
CALAM
PHALA2
ALAU3
SALYX
CCS74
POTRS
I POTENTIAL PRCOUCTION (LBS./AC. DAY WT): Ir.__—-------- —---- —____--_--_—_—____________—__I
I FAVORABLE YEARS 1 1 I I I 1
I NORMAL YEARS I 1 I I 1
--------1----------1----------1------- ----- 1-------=------
FOOTNOTES
A SUBSIDENCE ON GRAINED AND CULTIVATED AREAS 1S 1 FOOT PER 10 YEARS
Sk
• MN0100 S O I L S U P V E Y I N T E P P R E T A T I O N S
'
LAKE BEACHES
MLRA(S): 102 ..,,
HLH•CRS• 4-T5
FLUVAOUENTS AND UDIFLUVENTS
BEACHES CONSIST OF BEACHES AND SAND BARS OF LAKES AND PONDS. NATURAL SOIL DRAINAGE TYPICALLY IS POOR BUT RANGES TO p
i.....+.
EXCESSIVE. SOIL MATERIALS ARE MOSTLY SANDY BUT RANGE FROM LOAMY SAND TO GRAVELLY LOAM. TYPICALLY THE SANDY MAT-
ERIAL IS 20 TO 40 INCHES THICK AND'CVEPLIES FINER -TEXTURED MATERIAL SLOPES ARE LESS THAN 2 PERCENT. MOST AREAS OF THIS
�y{{.4...
ILAKE
UNIT ARE FAPMED WITH ADJACENT SOILS BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL AREAS LAYS IN BANDS TO NARROW TO FARM SEPARATELY. SOME AREAS PRO
V1QES9YEriEIIEJIiLIILiEE---___-_------- — ------------------------------ —--------- ------- ------
POP
ESTIM6IEII_54IL_PEQPEEIIES_i91--------------- —_------ — ---I
1—_--+.-
-,-__^---__---
IDEPTHI I I IFRACTIPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS ILIOUID IPLAS- I
low
I(IN.)USCA TEXTURE I UNIFIED 1 AASHTO 1>3 INI_ICaN_;_PA551tlfi_HlEYE_tlQ._I LIMIT (TICiTYI
(—__1—_-'--_-- L—__ 1 ——__11PSL21__i---1--12_-1--�--L2II4__L-----11C{QES_i
! I I
1
10-601VAR ! !
I I
1 I I 1 1 1 ! ! I
! 1 I I I I I I !
I I I ! I I I I I
1 I I I ! 1 ! I I
------ ----1— I---------1-----1---------------------------1-------1----!
----1----
I OEPTHIPERMEABILITYI AVAILABLE I SOIL I SALINITY I SHRINK- I CORROSIVITY IERDSIONIWINO I
!.
I[IN01 (IN/HR) IWATER CAPACITY IREACTIGNI �MMHOS/CM)I SWELL I—_—............ IEALIQESIEROD.I
'
1P1+J-1_ lP2UNTIALl_STEEL-1GQtlfaFX9I_K_I T-LG&Q1J2I
I--1— __!— I—L_--_L------1---- =---1-------- I --- I-------
I LR4p�dG .. I HIGH WATER TABL I CEMUMML-EAN I_—_flEQBSlGK_--laL!951BEtlSE_I HYp IPOTENT' LI
I_--_--_------_--- I DEPTH 1 KIND IMONTHS I DEPTH I HARDNESS I DEPTH IHARONESSIINIT•ITOTALIGRPI FROST I
I__EELQUENCY___l_—QS18AI12B—IMONTHS I (FT)
I �,LQMMON Iva@BLEErI.QN,S�IMAE=•ISIs�.Lli9�s!1.AEPAeENL11AC�QESL-1-----1_2i4st--l-------1--=-1-----1---1------I
..
,--SANIIPEY_EALILI7[ES_
—_----------------S0WEIrFAAIEEIAL
I I SEVERE-WETNESS.FL000S
II !
ISFPTIC TANK I
II I
I ABSORPTICN 1
11 ROADFILL I
I
I FIELDS
-------1-1----- ----
ll----Z-1-------------------- -------------- —
-I. 1 SEVERE
I SEWAGE I
II I POOR -EXCESS FINES.EXCESS HUMUS'.THIN LAYER
II I
Ii
I LAGOON I
II SAND
AREAS I
II I
!----------1-----------
iI ------- —----- —-------------------------- ----
!
1 I SCVERE-WETNFSSrFLDODS
II I POOR -EXCESS FINES.EXCESS HUMUS.THIN LAYER
I
r7
1 SANITARY I
II I
I
I LANDFILL I
II GRAVEL 1
1 (TRENCH) 1
11 I
I I SEVERE-WETNESS.FLOODS
II I POOR -WETNESS
!
I SANITARY
I LANDFILL 1
II TOPSOIL
1 (AREA)
----ll----------- 1----------- —---- ---- -------I
I I FAIR -THIN LAYER
1 DAILY I
II--- —_--_— --------- IIAIEa_MUMEBENT
COVER FOR I
I I I SEEPAGE
LANDFILL 1
II POND
RESERVOIR
II AREA I
-
GQI,MUNI�TX,.R Y�L!>�bT
—11 1-----------------
I
I SEVERE -WETNESS
II I
!
I SHALLOW 1
11EMBANKMENTS I
I
I EXCAVATIONS I
11 DIKES AND 1
1
1 I
II LEVEES I
1 1 2J.—--------- ------ -------- ------------
,
I I jEVERE-WETNESS.FLOODS'
II I FAVORABLE
! I
i
I DWELLINGS I
II EXCAVATED
WITHOUT I
I I PONDS I
�/t`
"' BASEMENTS I
11AQUIFIER FEDI
1---__---1---.�— __---_
----__ ! I--•-----------------------_---_—_—i
I 1 SEVERE-
II I FLOODS
I
1 DWELLINGS
WITH !
I1 DRAINAGE
I EASEMENTS 1
11 I
! Er.•
i--�_ —
—____—u--------- 1----------- ------ -
_
—!
�"
1 { SEVERE-WETN�F SSFLOODS
II I FAST INTAKE.FLOODS.WETNESS
I
SMALL
I'l COMMERCIAL 1
I1 IRRIGATION
! BUILDINGS
I SEVER-WETNESS.FLOODS
E
11 I NOT NEEDED
1, LOCAL I
II TERRACES
ROADS AND- 1
I I AND
i STREETS I
II DIVERSIONS 1
I
—
-i1---------1— — --1
--------------------
-----�---
LAWNS. I
11 I NOT NEEDED
! ,
ILANDSCAPING I
II GRASSED
II WATERWAYS
I AND GOLF i
I
FAIRWAYS I
11 __ -------------------------
'
—_EE SIIStNA"hjF.FPPE T A TI�Q
(PASTURE AND I GROUP 4
IHAYLAND I
I
I
i
*�,.,;•�"�`�r+!,zr �..r"':'-'`�r'-.'.,.,,.:�ti;�+-+�'.'����" �.. `";��'�x"';3''�'..:ooa.";;a;�d......,..�++�'��d✓ .,� ,+'s Rt ',T'a'R.. �j�N....-.,�:':,t-wk,:�;r,�"'�.r•�,_
M1,.iic'4.:'e=i`�,a"r s_"�:y�W.� «'R- ... ..:...,.. '.y'lyr.-.a�,l' r-a��5y,�-�;4•"Y'� `._=�s�;"-".•frl-:.._.�e._,....�ti-�ui�`7��i'rra.z,s �',"_ai
V { '
--�I:sEeaund—______________________________
-------------------- -------------=-------
1 — I SEVERE-�E7NE55. FLOODS II I SEVERE-WETNESS.FLOODS I
I I 11 I I
I CAMP AREAS I [[PLAYGROUNDS 1 I
1 11 I 1
1-------1------------ ------_----- —__-11____—------
L--------------------
1 SEVERE-wETNESS.FLOODS II I SEVERE-rETNESS.FLDOoS I
II PATHS I 1
IPICNIC AREAS) 11 AND 1 1
1 I 11 TRAILS 1 1
----11— --------- 1___________--_—___�
___—cAeAfl TY ANDPREDILIEI2_YIELDs -- jC,ROPs AIYQ_PABII!@E__LrlS:tl_LEYEL_tlAC1A5EtlECiI2________________ _
I CLASS- I CAPA- I CORN I SOYBEANS I OATS I GRASS- IBROMEGRASS-I I I
I
DETERMINING I BILI TY I 1 1 ILEGUME MAY I ALFALFA I 1 1
Sral_ I PHASE I---1 (BUD I tB�--_1..___lfli!]._—_1__LI4tlH}.---1--- LAUNI---1--------1-- —I
1—_11YIHHlIHB�INi@$_lIEHt-INIRR IIE@:_IIHB IIRR,_LuL@ALL@BL_ltlte@_Lm._INIRR III B1_1dIEe-lI&@�_I
`N_ IALL ----_--- ( Or I- 125 1 1 12 1 130 I 1 2.5 I 13.7 1
I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I
-----------------------�--1-- I 1 1 L 1 1�—_1_ wl----_1--=--1----1----_1-----1-----1-----1
IIABLLZIY_____--_—_________________________________—
I CLASS- IORDI--E1ANAGEMENT PROBLEMS__ _—_-2QIENUAL_E@ODUCTIVITY-1 I
I DETERMINING ISYMI EROSIONI EQUIP. ISEEDLINGI WINDTH.1 PLANT I IMPORTANT TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT I
—PtiA.if —_—L H ZARD 1 LIMIT i MO@j!Y.J_IfAZA812-1 CO EF.Itl___
t I I I 1 i I I NONE I I I
I ! I I 1 I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I I I 1 1 I
1 I I I I I I I I I I
i 1 I i I I i I 1 I I
I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I
y I I I I 1 I i Ii I I
• i I I t 1 I I I I 1 1
--L------1-------1---- ----------
- --1 - l------------1
__ ______
IE�EEtlSl LASQEILtl__PHASELS g"cs IHTI SeEQIEs—_1tl11—____S2EGiE5__M___ltill___—S2EGIE5—_ IHTI
aril I I 1 I 1 I I i I I
I 1 1 1 I I I I I I
-------1--1--------------1--1----------- ---1--1--------
_ __9=L I_ FF )jAUTAT SU ITABILjII[
I---- CLASS- --- I� POTENTIAL FOR-HABITAT__v---�l--- eQIEMILAL_AS_LA@LIAT FOR: ---
I
I DETERMINING [GRAIN GIGRASS EI WILD IHAROWD I CONIFER I SHRUBS I WETLAND I SHALLOW IOPENLD JVOODLD IWETLANDIRANGELDI
�- 1_--PbAEE____—_-_.L_=ED ILEGUME I HER ELI TREES (PLANTS 1,___LPa.AN2�_1_h'!>IEH_L)IILQLE_114ALQLE_11tlLLQLE_1'�iLQLF
IALL I POOR I FAIR I FAIR I FAIR 1 FAIR 1 - 1 GOOD ! FAIR I FAIR I FAIR I FAIR
1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 I I I i I I I
I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I
I_— I 1 1 l I----L_---1---:__-1_-----=1-------1------1---1- 1
----POTENTIAL NATIVE PLANT CCMMUNSTV (RANGELAND OR FOREST UNQE@$,IQ@Y VEGETAUQtl.L..iGL-__—___�._—
I PLANT I PER--- coMPosZIiOf�i.Q@ILItEIStfZLflT=6LAHB_Qt.IEBtlLL1Idfl_EtIASE__._-1
- 0 I COMMON PLANT NAME I SYMBOL
-------_------_ I _INLSPNI 1 ---1-—_---1---------- —--- -----------1------
j I 1 I 1 I I 1
9 i 1 I 1 I I I I
I 1 I I I I I I
,• � i I I I 1 1 I I
I 1 I I I I 1 1
i 1 I I 1 I F I
I 1 I t 1 1 1 I
I I I 1 I 1 1 I
•'3 I POTENTIAL PRODUCTION (LBS./AC. DRY WT): I _ ---- ------- --�'—I
FAVORABLE YEARS
*' I NORMAL YEARS I I 1
----_--- UNFAVQSABLEYEARs 1 1 -L--------=--=--1-------=-----1--
FOOTNOTES
A ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES ARE TOO VARIABLE TO -RATE. ON -SITE INVESTIGATIONS ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE SUITABILITY.
I SEEPAGE AND RAPID PERMEABILITY MAY CAUSE POLLUTION OF LAKES AND GROUND WATER.
B WINDBREAK GFOUP 11 ON -SITE ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO DETERMINE SPECIES.
2 ON -SITE INVESTIGATION NEEDED TO DETERMINE, SUITABILITY.
Council Meeting April ] ^11981
-2-
Councilman Geving moved for official council reconsideration of the Instant Web
rent.issue to allow for a 15-month rent-free period from date of closing of the
sale, with $30,000 rent per month after the 15-month period expires. Motion
seconded by Councilman Neveaux. Councilman Neveaux felt that a 12 month period for
IW to be in their new facility would be in the best interests of both parties.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen
Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton instructed the City Attorney to prepare the revised IW for
execution by both parties by May 4, 1981.
Frank Beddor stated that he would agree to sign the purchase agreement as revised
and accepted by the City Council in their motion.
Scott -Martin presented a report on the Kraus -Anderson Agreement.
Councilman Geving felt that the City should stand firm on requiring KA to share in
the courtyard maintenance costs.
Councilman Neveaux asked if the City Manager had prepared any cost estimates for city
maintenance of the courtyard. Don Ashworth replied that such figures had not been
generated. The City Manager recommended council approval of the KA agreement
contingent upon signing of the IW agreement, in order to avoid having to being the
KA agreement back for more discussion. Loren Knott, Attorney for KA, said that KA
has consistently resisted the idea of picking up courtyard maintenance costs due to
the overall rental costs that their tenants will be faced with in their project.
Councilman Geving suggested a lump sum payment as an incentive to KA in exchange
for maintenance of the courtyard. Mr. Knott said that they are open to a redesign
of the courtyard to make it easier to maintain. Bill McRostie of Bloomberg
Companies, agreed to consider a redesign if _necessary.
Councilman Neveaux moved to accept KA agreement dated March 25, 1981, signed by
KA, subject to execution of IW agreement and Bloomberg Companies agreement.
(Maintenance clause not included in final KA agreement.) Motion seconded by
Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman
Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Horn, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Scott Martin presented a report on the Bloomberg Companies Agreement.
Councilman Geving moved to accept Bloomberg Companies agr.eement_.dated_April_13,
19.81,. signed by BC, contingent upon limiting Section 3.7 to a hotel and subject
to execution of IW agreement and KA agreement. Motion seconded by Councilman
Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson,
Councilman Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CHAPARRAL ON LAKE ANN: Ed Dunn, Greg Frank, Bill Jensen,
and Paul Krauss were present. Bob Waibel presented the staff report. Paul Krauss
of BRW explained the proposed changes to the plan. Setbacks have been varied
throughout the development. Clustering does exist in parts of the development
to the extent that it is possible. Aztec Drive and Potomac Drive are proposed
to be 32 feet in width with the remainder of the streets at 28 feet. The
developer has indicated that lakeshore lots will likely be sold to independent
developers or will be used for spec homes erected by New Horizon.
Several council members expressed concern about the low percentage of single
family homes proposed in this development. Greg Frank stated that single family
homes are not selling at this time.
Council Meeting April 3, 1981 -3-
Mayor Hamilton moved to table action to May 11, 1981. Motion seconded by Councilman
Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Geving and Horn.
Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Neveaux voted no. Motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved to adjourn.. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux,
Geving, and Horn. Meeting adjourned.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
' ® UBURBAN
rj❑ NQINEERINO
��JJ INC.
Main Office 571.6066
6875 Highway No. 65 N. E.
— Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432
South Office 890-6510
® a Civil, Municipal & Environmental Engineering 1101 Cliff Road
❑ Land Surveying 0 Land Planning • Soil Testing Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
April 10, 1981
Mr. Bob Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Chaparral on Lake Ann
Dear Bob:
This letter is being written to address specifically the Planning
Commission condition requiring that one half of the dwellings be
single family detached homes. It is the position of New Horizon
Homes that this requirement is not reasonable for them or the City.
We assume from the discussion at the meeting that the intent
is to force development of 480' 2 = 240 single family detached
lots. The proposed plot includes 140 units covering a net area of
56.7 Acres. Assuming that the density of these units is appropriate
and expanding to 240 units (56.7 ; 140 x 240 = 97.2) the net area
required is 97.2 Acres.
The following areas are then fixed.
Single family 97.2
Park 34.4
Street and Highway 33.6
O.L. "A" 27.8
O.L. "B" 12.5
Total 205.5
Gross Area 219.9-205.5 = 14.4 Acres.
The balance of the approved units or 240 would then be compressed
into 14.4 Acres or a density of 240 14.4 = 16.6 units per acre. This
is no longer medium density as is being proposed but is high density
requiring apartment type dwellings. This is contrary to all presen-
tations and negotiations made to date.
Robert Minder, Reg. Eng. E.A. Rathbun, Reg. Suru. Wm. E. Price, Reg. Eng. Gary R. Harris, Reg. Suru. Peter J. Molinaro, Reg. Eng.
UBURBAN
NQINEERINQ
-- INC.
aCivil, Municipal & Environmental Engineering
❑ Land Surveying • Land Planning * Soil Testing
Page 2
Re: Chaparral on Lake Ann
Main Office 571-6066
6875 Highway No. 65 N. E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432
South Office 890-6510
1101 Cliff Road
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
We also submit that if types of dwellings are to be isolated
for specific consideration we should place single family and duplexes
in the same category as is done in the draft of the Chanhassen Com-
prehensive Plan. The following paragraphs are from pages lu 48
and lu 49.
"Residential - Low Density .(.R-LD) - Low density consists of
units ranging from 1 to 3.4 dwelling units per gross acre. The
predominate development type within this category is expected to
be single family detached housing. An average density of 2.2
dwelling units per gross acre will be used as a guide in the
review of development proposals that occur within this zone.
Residential - Medium Density (R-MD) - The residential - Medium
Density designation is intended to accommodate multiple uses and
more specifically, townhouses and quadrominium units. A gross
density range of 3.5 - 6.9 dwelling units per acre is covered by
this category and the average density is estimated at 4 dwelling
units per acre."
If our assumption is correct that the two dwelling types should
be grouped in R-LD then the totals become 308 units R-LD, 172 units
R-MD and 120 units R-HD. The percentages are 51%, 29% and 20%
respecti vely.
The overall density is 600 ; 220 = 2.7 which is well within
the low density range and in keeping with past directives of the
City Council.
Sincerely,
SUBURBAN ENGINEERING, INC.
William E. Je sen, E.
WEJ/cae
Robert Minder, Reg. Eng. E.A. Rathbun, Reg. Suru. Wm. E. Price, Reg. Eng. Gary R. Harris, Reg. Suru. Peter J. Molinaro, Reg. Eng.
NEW HORIZON HOMES, INC.
BUILDING TOMORROWS DREAMS TODAY
3131 FERNBROOK LANE NORTH
P.O. BOX 1367
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55440
612-559-5770
April 9, 1981
Bob Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Subject: Chaparral on Lake Ann
Chanhassen, MN
Dear Mr. Waibel:
As a follow-up to our meeting of April 8, 1981, please note the
following schedule of monthly principal and interest payments (not including
taxes) for various mortgage amounts and interest rates:
30-year Mortgage Amount
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
Interest Rate: 9%
$483/mo.
$548/mo.
$627/mo.
11%
$571/mo.
$666/mo.
$761/mo.
13%
$663/mo.
$774/mo.
$884/mo.
15%
$754/mo.
$879/mo.
$1005/mo.
The current FHA203b rate is 14%, with a maximum loan amount of $71,000.00.
Assuming a 30-year mortgage, this results in a monthly principal and interest
payment (not including taxes) of $841/month.
If you should have any questions, please advise.
Very truly yours,
Gregory J. Frank,
Vice President of Land Development
GJF/cr
n4h
o�
�w
k�A-
N cizt�5
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359
April 7, 1981
Bob Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: City of Chanhassen
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for
Lake Ann Planned Residential Development
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Received 03/31/81
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 9647-1
Dear Mr. Waibel:
This is to acknowledge that the Metropolitan Council has received
the above Environmental Assessment 'vTorksheet.
If there are any questions or if further information is needed, the
Council will contact your office.
Thank you.
JR/ ch
cc: Metropolitan Council District 16
Sincgrel ,
j,
Jp, n Rutford
R erral Coordinator
OR, 1981
RECEIVED
V—ILLAZK 09 �1
An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Minnesota
Environmental
Quality Board
100 Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Phone � 6- 25V I
April 1, 1981
Mr. Robert Waibel
Chanhassen City Hall
7610 Larado Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Lake Ann P.R.D.
Dear Mr. Waibel:
This letter acknowledges receipt of the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) on the above project. Notice of the EAW's conclusions
that no environmental impact statement (EIS) is needed will be published
in the EQB Monitor on April 13, 1981.
Publication in the EQB Monitor commences the 30-day review period for
the decision. You will be notified if any challenges to the decision
are filed and EQB action is necessary. You will also be notified if no
objections are filed during the review period.
Please note that no final actions to approve or commence the project
should be taken until the 30 days after publication of a Negative
Declaration (a decision that no EIS is needed), or, if an EIS Completion
Notice (a decision that an EIS is needed) is published, until after the
EIS is completed. This is in accord with the Minnesota Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) and the Minnesota Environmental Review Program Rules
(6 MCAR §3.031).
Sincerely,
Mary Enley/, Staff
Environmental Quality Board
•,;�2�303t!1�
ME: je
cc: Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. ' 1"^ CP
06 UO
' �"
5
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
April 1, 1981
Bob Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
SUBJECT: Lake Ann Planned Residential Development, Chanhassen,
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Sir/Madam:
The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt of the above
referenced document. The staff is currently reviewing this docu-
ment and will transmit any significant comments in an additional
letter.
We appreciate receiving this document.
any questions regarding our review.
S' ce ly,
Douglas A. Ha 1
EIS Coordinator
Environmental Planning
Phone:(612) 296-7293
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
Please contact me concerning
& Review Unit
APR 1981
MCENED
VILLAGE OF
CHpNHA8SEN,
MINN. y
TZ
j.
ie
Lf-
jai,
_71
�77
_T
Figure
Prelwnmary Analysis
C 14� ASS =--4, -
NA-1
WIT IMP
IV
PLANNINGI TRANSPORTATION lENGINEERING/ARCHITECTURE
Mr. Don Ashworth
City Manager
7610 Laredo Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen Project Review
INVOICE
N2 28860
DATE: March 51, 1981
JOB NO: 62-8032
For Professional Planning Services rendered during the Month of March, 1981.
I z�
I. Chaparral West
rk performed included meetings with the developer. and City Staff, preparation
of a revised project memorandum and attendance at a regular meeting of.the
Planning Commission.
Professional II -
20.5 hours x $37.50/hour:
Word Processor
2.0 hours x $18.00/hour
Technician 11
3.0 hours x $16.00/hour
II. Lake Susan Hills West
$ 768.75
36.00
48.00 $ 852.75
Work performed included several meetings with the developer: and City Staff and
a visit to a similar development in Eagan.
Principal
3.0 hours x $60.00/hour $ 180.00
Professional 11
10.5 hours x $37.50/hour 393.75 $ 573.75
TOTAL DUE $1,426.50
Z.
4P 1
CO 981.
CO
4q'
BATHER. RINGROSE.
pK.
INC. 2829 UNIVERSITY AVE. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55414 PHONE 612 1379-7878
l & CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
Bob Waibel, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says
that he is and was on March 30, 1981, the duly qualified and
acting City Clerk -Administrator of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date he caused to be mailed a copy of.
the attached.E.A.W. for Lake Ann Planned Residential Development
in the City to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A.`°, by
enclosing a copy(s) of said E.A.W. in an envelope addressed to
such and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such
partiesin the United States mails with postage fully prepaid
thereon.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _��OT _day of 19 d_/
l /
Notary Public
• _
NOT.<.`
.'... - . ., dESOTA
rrY
,
'
11, 1985
tliur Sidner, Chairman
101, Capitol Sq. Bldg.
550 Fedar St.
Wit. Paul, MN 55101
Tom Harren
State Planning.Agency
Rn. 101, Capitol Sq. Bldg.
550 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MR 55101
Richard Braun, Cam.
MDOT
Fan. 411, Transp. Bldg.
Jonn Ireland Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Hardy Halvorson
Rn. 807, Transp. Bldg.
John Ireland Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Terry Hoffman
MiV Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. Co. Rd. B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
Janet Cain
M Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. C. Rd. B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
Joe Alexander., Co -cm.
Department of Nat. Resources
Third Floor Cent. Bldg.
658 Cedar St.
St. Paul, PIN 55155
Tan Balcm
Dept. of Natural Resources
2nd Floor Space Center Bldg.
444 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55101
Mary Sullivan, Atln.
Envir. Quality Bd. Staff
Rn. 100, Capitol Sq. Bldg.
550 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Environmental Review Program
Rn. 100, Capitol Sq. Bldg.
550 Cedar St.
St. Paul, i,V 55101
Dept. of Agriculture
90 West Plato Blvd.:
�- Paul, ASV 55107
1
J .
Geo. Pettersen, Comm..
Dept. of Health
717 Delaware St.
Minneapolis, MN 55440
J -•
Laura Oatman
Dept. of Health
717 Delaware St.
Minneapolis, M 55440
i'
Mark Mason, Director
MN Energy Agency
980 American Centex Bldg.
150 E. Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, IMI 55101
' !
Karen Cole
i
`.;
MN Energy Agency
150 E. Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Kermit McRae
Special Ass't. to Governor
Fan. 130, State Capitol.
St. Paul, MN 55155
r
Russell W. Fridley
!
Main Historical Bldg.
690 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dave Parsons, Chief
Environmental Reg. Division
1135 U.S. Post Office
St. Paul, MN 55101
f
Environmental Conser. Library !
300 Nicollet Mall
!
Minneapolis
MN 55401
Zona DeWitt
111 State Capitol
St. Paul
MN 55155
anis list caatea -i/Gb/ui
Mark Seetin, Corm.
Dept. of Agriculture
90 W. Plato Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55107
Metropolitan Council
Roan 300 Metro Sq. Bldg.
7th & Robert Streets
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
Don Ashworth _ , being first duly sworn, on oath deposes
and says that he is and was on March 27 , 19 81 the duly qualified and
acting City Clerk -Administrator of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said
date he caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of hearing on a
EAW for Lake Ann Planned Residential Develooment in the
City 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 mails 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 of Carver County, Minnesota, and by other
appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of , 19
Notary Public
State Planning Agency
Arthur Sidner, Chairman
R-,L. 1101, Capitol Sq. Bldg.
550 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Tor_ Harren
State Planning.Agency
kn. 101, Capitol Sq. Bldg.
550 Cedar St.
St. Paul, Mkt 55101
Richard Braun, Comm.
I=
Rm. 411, Transp. Bldg.
Joan Ireland Blvd.
St_ Paul, NN 55155
Randy Halvorson
MDOT
Rm. 807, Transp. Bldg.
John Ireland Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Terry Hoffman
YN Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. Co. Rd. B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
Janet Cain
MiT Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. C. Rd. B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
Joe Alexander, Conan.
Department of Nat. Resources
Third Floor Cent. Bldg.
658 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Tom Balcom
Dept. of Natural Resources
2nd Floor Space Center Bldg.
444 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, M 55101
Mary Sullivan, Ad<n.
Envir. Quality Bd. Staff
Rm. 100, Capitol Sq. Bldg.
550 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Environmental Review Program
Rm. 100, Capitol Sq. Bldg.
550 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Mark Seetin, Comm.
Dept. of Agriculture
90 w. Plato Blvd.
1
Dave McGinnis
Dept. of Agriculture
0 West Plato Blvd.
�• Paul, 1,V 55107
Geo. Pettersen, Conm..
Dept. of Health
717 Delaware St.
Minneapolis, Nei 55440
Laura Oatman
Dept. of Health
717 Delaware St.
Minneapolis, M 55440
I
Mark Mason, Director
f�-
NN Energy Agency
980 American Center Bldg.
150 E. Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MiT 55101
Karen Cole
'-..j
MN Energy Agency
f�
150 E. Kellogg Blvd.
;
St. Paul, M 55101
�I
•
Kermit McRae
i
Special Ass't. to Governor
Rm. 130, State Capitol
St. Paul., NCI 55155
sl
Russell W. Fridley
i
Main Historical Bldg.
690 Cedar St.
St. Paul, N21 55101
`-
it
Dave Parsons, -Chief
` I
Environmental Reg. Division
I
1135 U.S. Post Office
St. Paul, M 55101
f
I
Environmental Conser. Library I
300 Nicollet Mall
it
Minneapolis
`
MCV 55401
Zona DeWitt
Ill State Capitol
St. Paul
MN 55155
i;
;I
Metropolitan Council
Roan 300 Metro Sq. Bldg.
7th & Robert Streets
This list dated 3/26/81
CITY OF
� � S
7610 LuAREDO DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 "A CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
(612) 937-1900
March 20, 1981
Mr. Ed Dunn
Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, inc.
4940 Viking Drive, Suite 608
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Re: Park Locations in Lake Susan West/South and Chaparral `lest
Development Plans
Dear Mr. Dunn:
I have met with Don Ashworth and.Fran Callahan concerning the need for
additional review of the above referenced development plans by the.
Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission, as we discussed during
our recent meeting.
Based on the documentation provided by Mr. Callahan relative to the.
numerous reviews of your plans by the Commission, we have concluded
that additional review by the Commission is not warranted at this time.
According to. City records, the proposed park locations indicated on
the most recently revised development plans are in accordance with
the recommendations of the Park Commission-. Therefore, additional
review would serve no purpose unless you wish to revise these plans.
You should keep in mind,. however, that the issue of park dedication
and park fees is yet to be resolved through discussions with the
City Council,.as provided:by.City ordinance.
A copy of Fran Callahan's memorandum to me concerning the Park and
Recreation• Commission's review of your development plans is enclosed
for your information. If.you disagree with this' information or have
any questions or concerns relative to this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Martin
Community Development Director
cc: Rod Hardy, Dunn and Curry
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Bob Waibel, City Planner