6. Creekside Addition: Preliminary Plat, Wetland Alteration Permit, and Conditional Use Permit.1
� CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 10/19/94
11/16/94
CC DATE: 1/9/95
CASE #: 94 -4 REZ, 94 -8 SUB
94 -4 WAP, 94 -4 CUP
By: Generous:v
Z
a
IJ
a
IQ
1
1
Q
O
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 39.5 acres of property from A2, Agricultural Estate, to RSF,
Single Family Residential, preliminary plat approval for a proposed 48 lot
single- family development, a wetland alteration permit to fill or alter wetlands
within the development, and a conditional use permit for the placement of fill
and excavation within the flood plain, project called Creekside Addition
LOCATION: North of Twin Cities & Western Railroad tracks, west of Bluff Creek and east
of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek
APPLICANT: Heritage Development
450 East County Road D
Little Canada, Minnesota 55117
(612) 481 -0017
acres
DENSITY: Gross: 1.22 units per acre Net: 1.68 units per acre
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - A2, vacant
S - PUD -IOP, Chanhassen Business Center, Twin Cities & Western RR
E - IOP, vacant
W - RR & RSF, Timberwood Estates & Stone Creek
WATER AND SEWER: Available
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The northern % of the site consists of cultivated and pastured
farm land. The northern 1 /3 of the site has significant topographic changes from a low of 900 feet in
the wetland to a high of 960 feet on top of the knoll. The property is bounded on the north and east
by Bluff Creek. The southern 1 /3 of the side is wooded. A ravine which acts as a temporary stream
traverses the southern 1 /3 of the project from west to east. Two wetlands are located on the property,
one on the east and the other in the south. A third small wetland that is being filled is located near
the high point of the site. A NSP transmission power line runs along the entire western limits of the
site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre)
10
w
=5
W ill ,
Mi l ly
s o .
IL
.j � / • 11� ;.�� _ ` -`:mss /L- �
Ilk t �
—�.� I c
'
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
'
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 2
'
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
' A completed application was received on September 20, 1994. The applicant is proposing a
single - family subdivision consisting of 48 single - family home sites, 4.2 acres of right -of -way,
5.7 acres of wetlands, and 2.0 acres of parkland on 39.5 acres of land located in the central
' portion of the city on the west bank of Bluff Creek north of the Twin Cities and Western
Railroad tracks. The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 15,305 square feet to 44,168
square feet (not including outlots) with an average lot area of 21,143 square feet. The intent
of the development is to create a project that is compatible with the natural elements of the
area, specifically Bluff Creek, the ravine, the wooded area, and the existing topography, as
well as the existing developments to the west and the future development to the north.
Three wetland areas are located within the development, one along Bluff Creek in the central
portion of the project, another in the south adjacent to the railroad tracks, and the third near
the high point of the project.
This plat meets minimum code requirements for a single - family developments. One of the
most important recommendations that the applicant needs to incorporate into the proposal is
the design components for Bluff Creek corridor including maintaining a 100 foot building
setback from Bluff Creek. While staff believes that the roadway alignment for the project
could be adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor in order to provide the community and the
' future home buyers in this development a shared sense of ownership of Bluff Creek and the
open space to be created in the wetland complex, we are willing to compromise with the
developer and support the roadway alignment as proposed, provided the applicant provides a
' trail easement along the edge of the wetland (the rear of Block 1 and the edge of Outlot C)
and dedicates the wooded area located in the southeast corner of the development for
parkland. The parkland dedication proposed by the applicant is unacceptable to the city. The
' city will acquire any of this land in excess of the subdivision dedication requirements by
negotiation or condemnation if necessary.
' Staff is proposing a minimum 50 foot setback from the tributary.
Except for the southerly portion of the property, the proposed grading plan will impact the
topographic features of the site extensively. Existing elevations as high as 962 in the north
part of the parcel would be graded down to approximately 944. This is due to the extreme
elevation changes on the site. Staff believes that extensive earthwork is necessary to prepare
the site for building pads and utility and street construction.
Staff is recommending revisions for the subdivision that will enhance environmental
protection and make the development better for the community and the future residents of this
neighborhood. However, we believe that these corrections can be made prior to final platting
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94 '
Update 12/30/94
Page 3
and therefore are recommending rezoning, preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit, and '
conditional use permit approvals.
The Planning Commission met on October 19, 1994 to review this plat. The item was tabled
so that the applicant and city staff could review and address the following issues:
1. Transition from Timberwood Estates The applicant has provided cross
sectional views of the plat to provide a visual presentation of this
development's relationship to Timberwood Estates. As can be seen in these
diagrams, Timberwood Estates will overlook this development with steep grade
changes which will provide Timberwood residents vistas of the wetland
complex. In addition, the applicant has modified the landscaping plan to
provide groupings of trees to provide a transition from Timberwood into this
project. Staff also believes that the lot depths in excess of 170 feet along this
area will aid in the transition from Timberwood Estates into Creekside. ,
2. Site grading The applicant has revised the grading plan since the last review
as a result of staff recommendations to reduce the grading cuts in the knoll
area of the plat, the northern one -third of the site, between 3 and 4 feet. The
house pad elevations at the end of the northern cul -de -sac have been revised '
from 940 to 944 feet. House pads elevations along the Stone Creek Drive
extension have been increased 3 feet in elevation in the knoll area. Steeps
slopes are being relocated from the middle of the site to both the western and
eastern portions of the development. The limiting factor in relation to the
amount of grading in this area is the street and sanitary sewer elevations.
3. Roadway alignment Staff has reviewed three different roadway alignments for
'
Stone Creek Drive. Option A aligns the roadway adjacent to the Bluff Creek
corridor. While this alignment would provide the community a sense of
'
ownership of the wetland complex, staff believes that the proposed industrial
development to the southeast and east would limit the value of this experience.
Rather, staff believes that a more intimate natural experience will be provided
through the placement of a trail system adjacent to the creek. Option B would
align the southern end of Stone Creek Drive adjacent to the Timberwood Estate
subdivision along the NSP easement. While this alignment would eliminate a
'
swath of tree removal from the middle of the forested portion of the site, there
are several problems with this alternative including a non - symmetrical curve of
Stone Creek Drive that would result in a hazardous corner at the connection of
'
this plat to Stone Creek Addition, the location of a right-of-way at the rear of
lots within Timberwood Estates, creation of a corner lot in Stone Creek
' Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
' Update 12/30/94
Page 4
L am'
F
Addition which was not designated or designed for a corner lot, the possible
replacement or re- engineering of the electrical transmission poles within the
NSP easement, tree loss would still occur within the right -of -way, and the
sanitary sewer location would require depths of 35 plus feet and result in
grading within the Timberwood Estates plat.
4. Parkland location/dedication The applicant has not revised the plat to
accommodate staff recommendations. However, the park location is included
as a condition of approval.
5. What portions of the site meet the Bluff Ordinance definition To meet the
definition of a bluff, a site must have both a 30 percent slope and a minimum
elevation change of 25 feet within the 30 percent slope area. The only portion
of the site that meets both these requirements is the northeast corner of the site
to the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. This area is being shown on the
grading plan to not be disturbed. Additionally, the applicant has complied with
the 100 foot setback from Bluff Creek which would exceed the bluff setback
requirement of city code.
BACKGROUND
The 39.5 acre parcel being submitted for review was formerly contained in a concept PUD
submission for Chanhassen Corporate Center and more recently as a single - family PUD. The
Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend denial of the conceptual single - family PUD.
In their review, the Commission was concerned about the lack of details provided by the
applicant for this stage of the development review, e.g. house pad locations, detailed drainage
and utility plans, grading plans, as well as the numerous issues pointed out in the staff report.
The primary issue of the Commission was the question as to whether this proposal is
premature based on the need for the city to define all the criteria regarding the Bluff Creek
corridor as well as the wetland areas. The Commission was also concerned about the
following issues:
a
1. number of lots under 15,000 square feet in area (21 of 56 lots or 37.5 percent
of gross lot area and 26 of 56 lots or 46.4 percent of net lot area);
(Note: This is no longer an issue)
2. treatment of Bluff Creek, the ravine and the wetlands;
3. drainage patterns, specifically, how the development will impact drainage from
adjacent property;
Heritage First Addition '
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94 ,
Update 12/30/94
Page 5
4. minimizing grading, topographical disruptions and working with and
maintaining some of the steep grades;
5. providing a transition from Timberwood to Heritage, concern about lot size
directly abutting Timberwood;
6. overall density of the development;
7. minimizing tree loss;
8. location of sanitary sewer stub into Timberwood; and
9. timing for the northern extension of the road to the proposed east -west '
collector street.
The City Council granted conceptual approval to the single - family residential PUD on May ,
23, 1994 with the direction to resolve the numerous issues contained in the staff report. The
applicant's conceptual plan originally had 56 lots, but was reduced to 53 lots after initial '
revisions.
Since Council's approval, staff and the applicant met to determine if the direction provided in '
the conceptual PUD approval could be implemented. A sketch plan of the development with
the roadway alignment adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor was provided by the applicant. ,
The Bluff Creek alignment plan showed a total of 44 lots located to the west of the roadway.
Parkland, encompassing the land south of the ravine and east of the roadway, was also
incorporated. The Creekside Addition proposes a total of 48 lots. The four lots south of the '
ravine and east of the roadway are to be dedicated and /or purchased by the city for parkland.
The plat is therefore reduced to 44 lots which is the same number of lots that were provided
as part of the Bluff Creek alignment proposal. ,
The applicant has dropped the idea of proceeding through the PUD process and is requesting
a straight subdivision of the site. The roadway alignment adjacent to Bluff Creek works '
within the context of the PUD. Given the constraints presented by a standard subdivision, the
proposed subdivision design provides a good alternative with its meandering street, trail
easement along the edge of the wetland, and the dedication of a mature, forested area for I
passive park use.
SITE ANALYSIS I
' Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
' Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 6
' The northern two- thirds of the property are currently in an agricultural state with a wooded
area in the southern one -third of the site. Within the southern area, adjacent to the Twin
' Cities & Western Railroad line, is a wetland /ponding area. Bluff Creek is the easterly and
northern border of the site. A tributary to Bluff Creek runs within a ravine located within the
wooded area in the southern third of the site. A large wetland complex is located on the
' eastern part of the development adjacent to Bluff Creek. The property has varied topography
with over a 60 foot change in grade. Timberwood Estates, a large lot subdivision, is located
west of the project. A NSP electrical transmission line and easement runs along the entire
' length of the western border of the site.
REZONING
' The rezoning of the property from A2 to RSF is consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan
designation of the property as Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0
' Units /Acre). Staff supports the rezoning of the site as part of the subdivision process.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
WETLANDS
' The City is committed to the protection and restoration of the Bluff Creek corridor and is
initiating a comprehensive watershed plan to protect the creek and the corridor associated
with it. This site includes the headwaters of Bluff Creek and three wetlands of which two of
' them have high potential for protection and restoration.
This project must meet the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed
' setbacks and replacement requirements as stated in the Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA)
and the City Wetland Ordinance. The City is the Local Governing Unit (LGU) administering
' the WCA. A permit application for a wetland alteration permit from the City and the State
can be obtained at City Hall. The application combines the two permit processes.
' Bluff Creek - An east and west branch of Bluff Creek come together at the northern part of
this proposed development and Bluff Creek continues to run north to south through the site.
The creek discharges into the Lower Minnesota River approximately three miles south of the
' site. The east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek is a DNR protected water.
The City's shoreland ordinance requires that the lowest floor of a structure be placed at least
' three feet above the highest flood of record, the ordinary high water level, or the level of a
technical evaluation conducted to determine the effects of flood stages of the proposed
construction. If there is more than one approach used, the highest flood protection elevation
Wetland A15-150) - Approximately 0.7 acre of an ag/urban wetland is located in the
southwest corner of the site. A small portion of this wetland is proposed to be filled as a '
result of the development. The quality of this wetland, however, is better than some ag/urban
wetlands since the surrounding area is heavily wooded.
Wetland A15-70 - Ap 0.03 acre of an a g / urban wetland is located in the ,
rr y �
northwest corner of the site. This wetland appears to be a perched system and will be filled
as a result of the development. '
Bluff Creek Tributary - There is a creek draining from the property in the southwest corner of '
the property to Bluff Creek. Although this creek is not DNR protected or a designated
wetland it provides a natural resource amenity to the area and contributes to water quantity
and water quality components of Bluff Creek. This creek drains from west to east through a '
heavily wooded area with a marginal understory.
Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban ,
wetlands located on the property. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10
to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. The buffer strip width required for an
ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal '
structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer
strip.
z
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will
charge the applicant $20 per sign. '
The tributary to Bluff Creek located in the southwest portion of the site should be preserved
for the most part. A sanitary sewer line is recommended to be installed along this creek since ,
it is the best location to provide a gravity feed system to service Timberwood Estates in the
future. Soil erosion and sedimentation are of greatest concern to this area especially during
'
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
'
Update 12/30/94
Page 7
determined be
'
shall used for placing structures and other facilities. The watershed district, the
City, and the applicant will have to meet to evaluate the methodologies used to determine
flood elevations in order to establish a flood elevation for the creek based upon the best
'
available information.
Wetland A15-11(l) - Approximately 4 acres of an ag/urban wetland is located along Bluff
'
Creek in the lower two thirds of the site. This wetland extends east off the property and is
approximately 12 acres total in size. The wetland has been drained and altered in the past
and has a high potential for restoration as part of the Bluff Creek Corridor.
'
Wetland A15-150) - Approximately 0.7 acre of an ag/urban wetland is located in the
southwest corner of the site. A small portion of this wetland is proposed to be filled as a '
result of the development. The quality of this wetland, however, is better than some ag/urban
wetlands since the surrounding area is heavily wooded.
Wetland A15-70 - Ap 0.03 acre of an a g / urban wetland is located in the ,
rr y �
northwest corner of the site. This wetland appears to be a perched system and will be filled
as a result of the development. '
Bluff Creek Tributary - There is a creek draining from the property in the southwest corner of '
the property to Bluff Creek. Although this creek is not DNR protected or a designated
wetland it provides a natural resource amenity to the area and contributes to water quantity
and water quality components of Bluff Creek. This creek drains from west to east through a '
heavily wooded area with a marginal understory.
Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban ,
wetlands located on the property. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10
to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. The buffer strip width required for an
ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal '
structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer
strip.
z
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will
charge the applicant $20 per sign. '
The tributary to Bluff Creek located in the southwest portion of the site should be preserved
for the most part. A sanitary sewer line is recommended to be installed along this creek since ,
it is the best location to provide a gravity feed system to service Timberwood Estates in the
future. Soil erosion and sedimentation are of greatest concern to this area especially during
' Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
' Update 12/30/94
Page 8
' the time of construction. Staff recommends that heavy -duty Type III erosion control fencing
be installed and maintained along Bluff Creek/wetlands except adjacent to where ponding
' areas are proposed. In these areas, type I erosion control fencing shall be used. The erosion
control fences shall be maintained until the entire site is fully revegetated and removal is
authorized by the City. Staff also recommends that a drainage and utility easement be
' established along the creek with a minimum width of 30 feet.
Bluff Creek is planned as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge
point at the Minnesota River. Staff has reviewed the upper part of Bluff Creek with the
Design Center at the University of Minnesota and recommends a 100 foot buffer to maintain
a natural resource corridor as well as a recreational and educational trail corridor.
' Wetland Replacement - The Wetland Conservation Act requires that wetland fill be replaced
at a ratio of 2:1. Half of the replacement must be created wetland to provide no net loss,
' however, the other half of the replacement can be completed as restoration. Staff encourages
the developer to assist with the restoration of the large wetland A15 -11(1) as part of the
mitigation efforts. The City is willing to assist the developer with a restoration project for
this wetland. This would then create wetland banking credits as well as an aesthetically
appealing environment to future landowners. The banking credits would be proportioned
between the City and the developer for future use based on the amount of contribution to the
' project. As for the area of wetland that must be created, staff suggests that all of the required
area be an extension of the large wetland rather than including some creation in the wetland
in the southwest corner. The wetland in the southwest corner has a large number of trees and
' it is not worth removing them for wetland creation.
The buffer strip for the upper part of the watershed is a very important issue to address in the
' design of the Bluff Creek Watershed Plan since this will provide a guide to the type and
amount of open space necessary to preserve, enhance, and protect the natural resources of the
basin. The wetland buffer strips in the City ordinance are very liberal protection requirements
and only take into consideration the type of wetland. The following are a few suggestions
from Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness that was written by the Washington State
' Departrrlent of Ecology (February 1992):
a. Studies indicate that buffers from 50 to 150 feet are necessary to protect a wetland
' from direct human disturbance in the form of human encroachment (i.e. trampling,
debris).
I b. 95% of the buffers smaller than 50 feet suffered a direct human impact within the
buffer while only 35% of the buffers wider than 50 feet suffered direct human impact.
Heritage First Addition '
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94 ,
Update 12/30/94
Page 9
C. Wetlands with important wildlife functions in eastern Washington should have a 100
to 200 foot buffer depending on adjacent land use.
d. Buffers widths effective in preventing significant water quality impacts to wetlands are '
generally 100 feet or greater.
STREETS
The plans propose on extending Stone Creek Drive from the southwest corner of the site to '
immediately provide access to the site. The north/south street will eventually tie into the
City's south frontage road project which is currently under construction. There will, however,
be a gap between this development and the frontage road. Staff believes that preliminary and ,
final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the applicant providing a financial escrow with
the City to guarantee completion/connection of the " north/south" road to the frontage road
within three years after the final plat is approved by the City Council to ensure that this ,
development is connected in the future to avoid a "dead -end" street scenario.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate the necessary 60 -foot wide right -of -way for the
north/south street and two cul -de -sacs. Access from the south (Stone Creek Drive) which is
considered a neighborhood collector street has been constructed with the Hans Hagen Stone '
Creek development. The street section was built 35 feet wide back -to -back urban street
section within a 60 -foot wide right -of -way. In addition, a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk was
constructed as well. Staff is recommending that this typical street cross - section be extended '
as well through the Heritage plat up to the future frontage road. The plans appear to propose
this street section including a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along the westerly side of the
north/south street. The applicant's engineer should verify that the sight lines at these '
intersections will meet MnDOT's criteria based on a 35 MPH design speed.
The southerly cul -de -sac is proposed to serve Lots 19, 20 and 21, Block 3. Two of the three '
lots (Lots 20 and 21, Block 3) encroach upon the tree line which will result in tree loss. An
o
alternative t� preserve these trees would be to modify the south cul -de -sac to a private
driveway and reconfigure Lots 19 through 23, Block 3 to pull the home sites up out of the ,
tree line. This would also reduce the applicant's costs for constructing a full City cul -de-
sac /street. The appropriate cross - access easements would then be necessary to preserve access
across the lots and spell out maintenance responsibilities. I
The proposed north /south street will cross the ravine area. The proposed street elevation is
approximately 10 to 12 feet higher than the existing creek. This is necessary to provide '
sufficient cover over the culvert. However, the resulting side slopes will extend 30 feet east
and west from the street right -of -way. The use of retaining walls should be considered in an
n
A
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 10
effort to reduce tree loss on the east side of the street. On the west side, a sanitary sewer line
will be extended along the creek corridor for future service to Timberwood Estates. In this
area retaining walls may not be necessary.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as
a part of the final plat submittal. Street construction plans shall be in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction drawings
are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final plat
approval.
UTILITIES
As a part of the City's Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and watermain project,
sanitary sewer and watermain have been extended to the southwesterly corner of the site. The
City has been working with the developer to extend trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities
through the site and utilize the proposed street alignment. The City has contracted with
Barton - Aschman to prepare the construction plans for this next segment of trunk sanitary
sewer through the development. Barton - Aschman has prepared plans to extend sewer service
through this development. However, the plans follow the previous street alignment which
resulted in sewer lines less than 25 feet deep. The proposed street alignment will result in the
sanitary sewer lines being up to 35 feet deep. Although staff would prefer that the sewer line
be shallower from an economic standpoint, it is much more effective for the City and the
developer if this trunk sanitary sewer line could be utilized to serve both as a lateral and a
trunk benefit to the adjacent property. Staff is willing to compromise on the depth issue since
it is a relatively short distance. Barton- Aschman also reviewed an alternative sewer
alignment running along the wetlands along the east side of the plat. However, due to poor
soil conditions and environmental reasons, this alignment is not feasible. We believe the
roadway alignment as proposed will accommodate the future trunk sanitary sewer needs for
the City.
All utility construction outside the scope of the trunk sanitary sewer lines shall be in
accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction drawings and specifications for the utility improvements will be required for
submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will be subject
to staff review and City Council approval. The City's contract could be expanded to
construct the developer's sanitary sewer laterals and services if so desired.
In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee
installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval.
1
Heritage First Addition ,
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94 '
Update 12/30/94
Page 11
Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide Timberwood Estates with sanitary sewer
'
service in the future. Staff has explored the possibility of extending the sewer line through
Stone Creek 4th Addition to Timberwood Drive. However, there are two low points on
Timberwood Drive where the sanitary sewer will actually be daylighted. Therefore, the only
'
other alternative short of a lift station is to provide service to Timberwood Estates along the
Bluff Creek tributary corridor between Lots 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25, Block 3 (Heritage
'
Preliminary Plat Development). The applicant is responsible for extending sanitary sewer to
the plat boundary along the Bluff Creek tributary which lies just north of Renaissance Court.
This would give sufficient elevation to serve the entire development of Timberwood Estates
'
via a gravity system. Staff will be recommending that the applicant extend an 8 -inch sanitary
sewer line along the Bluff Creek tributary to the westerly boundaries of the plat for future
service to Timberwood Estates. Although this may result in immediate impact along the
'
tributary of Bluff Creek, this is not uncommon for extension of sanitary sewer due to the fact
that streams or lake areas are usually the lowest areas in the City. The extension of Bluff
Creek trunk sanitary sewer already runs adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corridor from Lyman
'
Boulevard. The area will re- vegetate and retain its natural features upon conclusion of the
project.
'
Depending on timing, the applicant may wish to proceed with extending the trunk sanitary
sewer line through the development prior to the City initiating a project. The City would
reimburse the applicant the cost difference between an 8 -inch line versus an, 18 -inch line by
'
issuing a credit against the property assessments.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
'
Except for the southerly portion of the property, the proposed grading plan will impact the
topographic features of the site extensively. Existing elevations as high as 4-57 960 in the
,
north part of the parcel would be graded down to approximately 936 944. This is due to the
extreme elevation changes on the site. Staff believes that extensive earthwork will be
necessary to prepare the site for building pads and utility and street construction.
,
According to the Bluff Creek Corridor Study, Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 in the northern '
portion of the property will have a limited amount of buildable area with the proposed 100 -
foot setback from the creek. This is also true in the southern portion of the site along Lots 8,
9 and 10, Block 2. The southerly portion of the site is heavily wooded and is not proposed to '
be graded at this time except for the roadway. It appears the applicant is desiring to custom
grade each lot as a building permit is issued. The applicant should demonstrate on the
grading plan the proposed house type and elevations of the garage floor and lowest floor '
elevation of each particular lot within the subdivision to determine impact of grading and tree
removal. In addition, the builders of the wooded lots will be required to submit individual
i
I��
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 12
grading, drainage and erosion control plans for each house for staff to review and approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
This development abuts Timberwood Estates to the west. The applicant is providing for
drainage from the Timberwood site to drain between the home sites where storm sewer will
convey storm water runoff to the water quality ponds proposed adjacent to Bluff Creek. A
storm sewer line may be necessary in the rear yards of Lots 14 or 15, Block 3 to convey
runoff away from the houses. This will be further investigated with the plans and
specifications review process.
All floodplain issues shall be discussed with the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed
' District engineer and the City's consultant for the SWMP before final approval on the normal
and high water elevations for Bluff Creek.
' SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages
' of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water
resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and
quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its
' impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a
100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm
sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet
' model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate
conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land
use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to
' determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
' In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require
the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre - developed and post - developed
drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre - development and post - development
' conditions for 10 -year and 100 -year 24 -hour storm events. Storm water runoff from the site
shall be in accordance with the City's SWMP. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal
and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre - developed and
' post - developed conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2 -inch rainfall. In
addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch
' basins will also be required.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 13
One stormwater pond is proposed along the central western edge of Bluff Creek to pretreat
the water according to Walker standards prior to discharge into Bluff Creek. Normal and
high water levels in each of the wetlands should be given on the grading and drainage plan.
This pond should be constructed with the initial stage of grading to provide maximum erosion
control protection.
Another storm pond labeled "proposed temporary pond" located at the north end of the site
will also be constructed to pretreat storm runoff from the northerly portion of the
development. This ponding location is anticipated to be increased in size when the 8 acres to
the north is developed. The grading plans should be modified to show the pond contours and
outlet control structure. Staff questions whether or not there is sufficient cover over the
northerly creek crossing to permit a storm sewer line across the creek to the proposed interim
pond. This should be further explored by the applicant's engineer.
SWMP Water Ouality Fees - The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality
systems. Dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment
of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond
construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use
zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a
value of $2.50 to $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is
proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be waived.
SWMP Water Ouantity Fees - The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different
land uses based on average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This
cost includes all proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for
temporary runoff storage. The single - family low- density developments will have an
assessment rate of $1,980 per acre less any wetlands. The proposed development of 33.8
acres of single - family residential acres would then be responsible for a water quantity
assessment fee of $66,924. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water
quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such
items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. These credits, if any,
will be - #pplied after review of the construction plans.
EASEMENTS
The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and
maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as storm water ponding areas and wetlands.
Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final
plat and construction plan and specification review process. The wetlands or storm ponding
areas (Outlots A, C and D) may also be deeded to the City versus an easement.
7
rl
L
1
'
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 14
'
EROSION CONTROL
' An erosion control plan is required and should be incorporated on the site plan and submitted
to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencement. Staff recommends
the applicant use the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for erosion control
measures. Type III erosion control will be required adjacent to all wetland areas except
where storm ponds will intercept the runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. In these
areas only Type I is recommend.
' All disturbed areas are to be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to
prevent erosion and sedimentation. Protection around catch basins such as hay bales or silt
fence is also required until the pavement is installed (BMPH). If at all possible, construction
of the site in stages is highly recommended to help reduce sedimentation into the City's
infrastructure.
I LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
' The applicant has prepared a tree survey of the site locating all significant trees and canopy
coverage calculations. The base line canopy coverage is 21.9 percent (7.4 acres). City code
requires a post development canopy coverage of 30 percent (10.1 acres). Therefore, the
' applicant would be required to plant 2.66 acres (441,698 - 325,800/ 43,560) as part of their
forestation program for this development. In addition, the applicant has estimated that they
will remove 96,000 square feet of the existing canopy coverage. Since this canopy coverage
' is required to meet the minimum canopy coverage requirement, there is a replacement
requirement of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed. This replacement area
amounts to 2.64 acres (96,000 x 1.2 /43,560). The total tree planting requirement based on
the forestation and replacement requirements is 212 trees (2.66 + 2.64 x 43,560 / 1,089).
' In developing the subdivision design, every effort should be made to preserve existing trees.
Where possible, the applicant should attempt to preserve stands of trees in preference over
individual trees. A woodland management plan shall be prepared for the entire development
' pursuanvto the tree preservation ordinance. The subdivision standards require one tree to be
planted in the front yard of each home. Credit for preserved trees of six inches or larger
caliper can be granted. As part of the final process, the applicant will be required to provide
' a detailed landscaping plan for the development.
PARKS /OPEN SPACE
' The City of Chanhassen is in the beginning stages of preparing a proposal to develop and
begin implementing a comprehensive natural resource management plan in the Bluff Creek
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 15
Watershed that demonstrates prudent development can occur in harmony with protection and
restoration of natural systems and unique resources in an urbanizing watershed connected to
the Lower Minnesota River. As part of this corridor design, the following issues will be
addressed.
- The establishment of a linear park encumbering the entire Bluff Creek Corridor
including adjacent wetlands and areas/lands of significance to the corridor has been
identified as a top priority of the City's Comprehensive Recreation Plan.
A trail will be a part of this park.
The trail will pass under the Twin Cities and Western Railroad at a viaduct located at
the southern terminus of this concept plat.
Public ownership of the entire creek corridor, including lands required for trail
construction, is desired.
The city will require the dedication of the area south of the ravine and east of the roadway
alignment. Dedication of land in excess of that required under the subdivision ordinance will
be compensated at a fair market rate. If the developer and the city can not agree on a fair
market value, then the city will condemn the property. This area provides a unique transition
from the open wetland trail to a small segment of mature wooded forests. An existing farm
path that traverses this area will be incorporated into the trail system. Additionally, a 30
thirty foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the entire length of Bluff Creek. The
developer shall construct the trail and receive trail fees credits in proportion to the costs of
the trail's construction.
At their meeting on August 9, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission moved
unanimously to recommend to the City Council the following conditions in regard to parks,
trail and open space and to bring back a redesigned plan incorporating their recommendation:
1. The land bound by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the extension of
Stone Creek Drive on the west, and the arm of Bluff Creek on the north be shown as
parkland. Said property to be purchased through a combination of park dedication fee
credit and cash.
2. The open space corridor along the creek shall lie adjacent to the road. Compensation
for any open space lying between the wetland and the subject road's right of way
would be made under this scenario.
1
n
7
C
0
0
0
I
' Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
' Update 12/30/94
Page 16
3. The alignment of the 8 ft. bituminous trail be amended to reflect the direction given
the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek corridor enter the
parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland prior to its connection
' with the railroad underpass. Said trail to be constructed with the first phase of
improvements completed by the applicant with a lump sum cost for the trail being
reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall supply the city with three quotes
for the construction of said trail with the final alignment being staked for approval by
the City's Park and Recreation and Engineering Departments prior to construction.
TRAILS
The Park and Recreation Department is requesting an 8 -foot wide trail around the wetlands on
the east side of the plat. Staff has learned from previous projects that soil conditions in these
areas are far from desirable for constructing trails. Additional costs are incurred for soil
' corrections and increased gravel and/or bituminous materials to support the trail. Staff
recommends that the exact alignment be determined in the field after consulting with a soils
engineer.
' COMPLIANCE TABLE
' CODE MINIMUMS: Lot area: 15,000 square feet; Frontage: 90 feet; Lot depth: 125 feet:
Setbacks: Front - 30 feet, side - 10 feet; rear - 30 feet.
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 17
LOT
BLOCK
AREA (SQ.
FT.)
FRONTAGE
(FT.)
DEPTH (FT.)
1
1
28,849
229
156
2
1
20,001
110
153.5
3
1
20,296
87*
181
4
1
25,215
83*
226.5
5
1
25,401
83*
225.5
6
1
22,309
82*
205
7
1
20,263
96
189.5
8
1
15,363
102
151
9
1
15,305
110
139
10
1
16,921
125
168
11
1
17,982
119
183
1
2
16,007
100
160
2
2
18,339
149
158
3
2
15,882
131
144.5
4
2
15,310
99
138.5
5
2
20,868
118
150
6
2
20,861
119
151.5
7
2
20,562
148
139
8
2
22,683
106
142
9
2
23,039
90
211.5
10
2
36,527
298
133.3
11
2
20,008
126
159.5
1
3
28,763
135
131.5
L
L
' Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
' Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 18
1
1
2
3
20,237
105
164
3
3
18,437
125
148
4
3
18,553
229
168.5
5
3
130160
130
146.5
6
3
15,557
78*
142
7
3
44,168
88*
200.5
8
3
25,943
92
142.5
9
3
16,490
105
154
10
3
16,490
96
173.5
11
3
29,546
90
259
12
3
21,283
85*
200.5
13
3
17,484
91
177
14
3
16,106
95
169.5
15
3
15,862
87*
166.5
16
3
16,360
96
176.5
17
3
21,033
124
219.5
18
3
17,450
148
138
19
3
21,665
59*
133.5
20
3
17,598
63*
138
21
3
19,382
71*
131.5
22
3
16,671
120
130.5
23
3
19,585
187
167.5
24
3
20,921
175
127.5
25
3
32,724
162
140
26
3
24,921
240
150
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 19
A
230,868
B
64,033
C
63,162
Park
87,120
Notes: * Meets Minimum Frontage at the Building Setback Line
Section 18 -60 (d) states that lots shall be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities,
such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. The plat shall be
revised to locate rear property lines along the Bluff Creek tributary which will improve the
placement of homes adjacent to the Bluff Creek Tributary and reduce the amount of trees that
will be lost.. Additionally, staff believes that there is a remanent of land north of Lot 1,
Block 3 that is not included as part of the plat. This remanent should either be combined
with the abutting lot or designated as an outlot for entry signage purposes.
SUBDIVISION FINDINGS
Subdivision, Section 18 -39 (f)
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets the lot area requirements of the RSF,
Residential Single Family District.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the city's land use plan.
3. 'the physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the
conditions specified in this report.
I �
7
' Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
' Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 20
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
' Finding: The proposed subdivision will impact the land form and existing
wetlands and vegetation. While wetlands will be impacted, the proposed
mitigation should improve the quality of the remaining wetland.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
' Finding The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,
but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
' 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
' a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems.
' Finding The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure.
' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/FLOOD PLAIN ALTERATION
The appjicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit the alteration and excavation of
land within the Bluff Creek flood plain. When approving a conditional use permit, the City
must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses.
' The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20 -232, include the following
12 items:
I 1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience
or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Heritage First Addition ,
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94 ,
Update 12/30/94
Page 21
Finding: Before final plat approval, the applicant's design will have to meet the
'
standards set for water quantity, water quality, erosion control, and general
construction by the City, the watershed district, and the state.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
,
Finding: The development of the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan and
the stormwater management plan. Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor
'
(Outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands,
the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural
environment.
'
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not
'
change the essential character of that area.
Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural '
appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek
Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering
the wetland.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area
by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Open space in conjunction
with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. '
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, '
police. and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer
systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed ,
use.
Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within '
the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The proposed wetland
mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the
wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be
provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction
with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
' Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
' Update 12/30/94
Page 22
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: Restoration and enhancement of the surrounding natural resources is
considered an asset to the community.
' 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare
' because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents,
or trash.
Finding: The wetland areas that remain will be used as open space and a park
corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to
entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the
existing and planned neighboring uses.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion
' or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The proposed realignment of the north -south road adjacent to the Bluff
' Creek wetland complex will reduce the number of access points directly onto the road.
This roadway will improve traffic circulation in the area.
' 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
' Finding: The alteration project will protect and preserve natural and scenic features
of major significance. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater
prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will
' serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: The wetland project will protect and preserve natural and scenic features of
' major significance and improve the aesthetics of the area. Open space in conjunction
with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
' 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Heritage First Addition '
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94 '
Update 12/30/94
Page 23
Finding: The development's design will provide flood protection as well as aesthetic ,
improvements to the area which should enhance the property values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: Will comply with federal, state and local requirements. ,
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT '
Wetland Alteration Permit (Section 20 -407)
When approving a wetland alteration permit the following principals shall be adhered toe '
1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity may destroy or diminish the ,
wetland.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high point
of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during
agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also
receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek '
Development. This wetland has been impacted by human intervention, but should be
protected and preserved to the extent possible. Both wetlands will be mitigated
through enhancement and extension of the wetland complex along Bluff Creek and the
southern wetland. There will be no net loss of wetlands.
2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and '
its implementation.
The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also receive some fill as a ,
result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek Development. The proposal
minimizes the impact of the development while at the same time replacing and
Finding: Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (Outlot C) and the ,
enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is
implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. The ,
applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high point of the site.
This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices.
enhancing the wetland complexes. I
L�
i
' Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
' Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 24
' 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland
activity and its implementation.
' Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek
' Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering
the wetland.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the activity.
' Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area
by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the dedication of
the Bluff Creek Corridor (Outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of
' the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as
improving the natural environment.
' 5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute
wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules
8420.0530 to 8420.0630.
' Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within
the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. Through the dedication
of the Bluff Creek Corridor (Outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection
of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as
improving the natural environment. The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched
' wetland on the high point of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in
the past during agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of
the site will also receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the
' Stone Creek Development. The proposal minimizes the impact of the development
while 'at the same time replacing and enhancing the wetland complexes. The proposed
' wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of
the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will
be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
' PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
' The Planning Commission met on October 19, 1994 and opened the public hearing on the
project. The Commission tabled this item to permit staff and the applicant to address the
following issues:
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 25
1. Transition from Timberwood Estates
2. Site grading
3. Roadway alignment
4. Parkland location and dedication requirements
5. Bluff Ordinance compliance (see discussion under proposal summary)
The Commission met again on November 16, 1994 to review the project. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously to approve Creekside Addition subject to the conditions
contained in the recommendations for approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
Rezoning
"The City Council approves rezoning #94 -4, rezoning 39.5 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate
to RSF, Residential Single Family Residential, consistent with the City of Chanhassen Land
Use Plan."
Subdivision
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat of subdivision #94 -7, Creekside Addition,
subdividing 39.5 acres of land into 44 lots and 4 outlots subject to the plans dated November
8, 1994 and the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the
rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan.
2. A woodland management plan will be required as part of the platting process.
3. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of
foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. Revise the Grading and Drainage
Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final
plat approval.
4. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review
prior to final plat approval.
5. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval.
0
n
U
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 26
6. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1.
7. Submit plans to Fire Marshal showing the connection to either existing or proposed
streets at the north end or south end of the proposed road.
8. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
9. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. The land bound by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the
extension of Stone Creek Drive and Outlot B on the west, and the arm of Bluff
Creek on the north be shown as parkland. Said property to be purchased
through a combination of park dedication, fee credit and cash.
b. A 30 foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the Bluff Creek
Corridor /wetland complex along the north and east portions of the plat.
C. The alignment of the 8 ft. bituminous trail be amended to reflect the direction
given the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek
corridor enter the parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland
prior to its connection with the railroad underpass. Said trail to be constructed
with the first phase of improvements completed by the applicant with a lump
sum cost for the trail being reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall
supply the city with three quotes for the construction of said trail with the final
alignment being staked for approval by the City's Park and Recreation and
Engineering Departments prior to construction.
10. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 100 -foot setback buffer
!Found Bluff Creek and a 50 foot setback buffer along the tributary to Bluff Creek.
11. All .areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface
Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City Council. Type III
Heritage First Addition
'
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
'
Page 27
erosion control will be required adjacent to all wetlands except where storm ponds will
,
intercept runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. In these areas Type I erosion
control is required.
'
12. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
'
approval.
'
13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality /quantity ponds
in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer
'
to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post -
developed storm water calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer
'
calculations for a 10 -year storm event between each catch basin segment will also be
required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water
quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
'
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
'
development contract.
15. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
,
agencies, i.e. Carver County Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA,
DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of
'
approval.
16. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring '
information. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-
lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be
provided to the Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot. '
17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width '
shall be a minimum of 20 feet. Consideration should also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right -of -way areas.
' Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
' Update 12/30/94
Page 28
' 19. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the
high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines.
20. The proposed storm water ponds shall be designed with side slopes of 10:1 for the
first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1
throughout for safety purposes. The storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial
site grading.
21. Individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each
wooded lot prior to issuance of a building permit.
22. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. If the
applicant constructs the water quality ponds as proposed these fees will be waived.
23. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer
trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design
requirements. The fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction
plans.
24. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain file as directed by the City
Engineer.
25. The southerly cul -de -sac shall be re- evaluated for a private driveway in an effort to
pull the house pads away from the tree line. A turnaround in accordance to the Fire
Marshal's recommendations shall be provided.
26. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8 -inch sanitary sewer line to the westerly
edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary (Lots 21, 21, 23, 24 and 25, Block 3).
27. The northerly proposed interim storm pond shall be shown on the grading plan.
Petails such as contour lines and the outlet control structure shall be included.
28. The north/south street shall be extended through to the frontage road within three
years after the final plat is approved. The applicant shall provide the city with a
financial security to guarantee the roadway extension will be completed. A
temporary cul -de -sac (42 foot radius) shall be constructed until such time as the
roadway is extended. At that time, the temporary cul -de -sac shall be removed. A
barrier shall be erected at the end of the paved right -of -way. A sign indicating
that "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" will be erected
Heritage First Addition
August 10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
Update 12/30/94
Page 29
upon the barrier. The developer shall file a notice in the chain -of -title of each lot
notifying each owner that the north/south road is to be extended in the future.
29. The trail alignment around the wetlands (Bluff Creek corridor) shall be determined in '
the field after walking the site and consulting a soils engineer.
30. The final plat shall dedicate the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access
and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas and wetlands. The
wetlands and ponding areas may be deeded to the City as outlots as well.
31. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls along the east side of the
southerly creek crossing to minimize tree loss.
32. Adjust the lot lines for those properties that abut the Bluff Creek tributary to use the
tributary/bottom of ravine as the lot line."
33. The applicant shall investigate modification of the landscaping plans to further
intensify planting along the northern Timberwood property line to enhance the
screening effect from existing Timberwood development, particularly those
dwellings at 8001 Acorn Avenue and 2050 Oakwood Ridge.
34. Applicant shall adjust the alignment of the roadway at the southern end of the
parcel within the right -of -way to minimize the impact to the existing wetland in
that area.
Conditional Use Permit
"The City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #94 -4 to permit the placement of fill and
excavations and alterations within the flood plain subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant shall comply with the wetland fill/excavation and wetland mitigation
Onditions as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Mitigation work shall
be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in future phases of the
project. All mitigation work shall be limited to the Bluff Creek corridor and not in
the wetland located at the southwest corner of the site."
Wetland Alteration Permit
"The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #94 -4 to permit filling and replacing
wetlands on the site subject to the following conditions:
t
Heritage First Addition
August
10, 1994
Revised 11/10/94
'
Update
12/30/94
Page
30
'
1.
All buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked by the applicant in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before
'
construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
2.
Wetland buffer areas are required around the wetlands in accordance with the City
'
Wetland Ordinance. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 50-
foot buffer around Bluff Creek with a 100 foot building setback and a 10 to 30 foot
buffer with a minimum average of 20 feet around the tributary to Bluff Creek with a
'
50 foot building setback."
ATTACHMENTS
'
1.
Wetland Map
2.
Development Review Application
'
3.
Letter from RLK to Planning Commission dated 9/19/94
4.
Land Use Plan Map
5.
Heritage First Addition of Chanhassen Preliminary Plat
6.
Memo from Mark Littfin to Bob Generous dated 9/30/94
'
7.
Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 10/3/94
8.
Letter from Richard J. Pilon (Minnegasco) to Robert Generous dated 9/28/94
9.
Letter from Joe Richter (DNR) to Robert Generous dated 9/26/94
10.
Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
11.
Bluff Creek Corridor Street Alignment Option
'
12.
City Council Minutes of May 23, 1994 (Heritage PUD)
13.
City Council Minutes of April 11, 1994 (Heritage PUD)
14.
Park and Recreation Minutes of March 22, 1994 (Heritage PUD)
'
15.
Planning Commission Minutes of March 16, 1994 (Heritage PUD)
16.
Preliminary Woodland Management Plan dated 11/4/94
17.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 19, 1994
'
18.
Planning Commission Minutes of November 16, 1994
19.
Letter from Robert Generous to John Dobbs dated 12/5/94
20
Utter from John Dobbs to Robert Generous dated 12/7194
*I *
Em
............ ...........
-------- ----- A10 I(I
10-12P
16. Allj
A10V(27P
Al J1 3(1
Al
........
A10 ....... '
..........
10
Al —15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .
Al 0— 1 4(1)
(A)
A)�t
IA
(A)
(U)
(A)
Al 6 .2(3)
ND
Alb -12
..4..
..........
AV
.......... ......
n
41 ,10(3)
i � ..........
(U)
Lymiiw B LV D
j j . .......... ..............
A22 - L(1)
(A) A22-1(2)
A22-6(1)
(A)
-f � V"Vp
LEGEND
vmr---"
L j DENOTES WETLAND 4
1)
4 - 1 .3( 1 )
. ... . ...... ......... ......
...........
..... ... ................
rE
J
........... . . .....
....... .....
................. . .
-* .............. ... . ..................... ......
RMENT I
' CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 56317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT Heritacre Development OWNER: Fee Owner Heritage Devejopmnt
ADDRESS: 450 East County Road n ADDRESS: 450 East County Road D
' St. Paul, M 55117 St. Paul, M 55117
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 481 -0017 TELEPHONE:
0
0
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11. Vacation of ROW/Easemerds
2. X
Conditional Use Permit b
12. Variance
3.
Grading/Excavation Permit
13. __X_ Wetland Alteration Pemlit
4.
Interim Use Permit
14. Zoning Appeal
5.
Planned Onit Development
15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. X
Rezoning
OD
7.
Sign Permits
8.
Sign Plan Review
r— Notification Signs
9.
Site Plan Review
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"
$100 CUP /SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. _ Y Subdivision
TOTAL FEE $ 2,325.00
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
SIA" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
• NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, N appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen First Addition of ChanhacsPn
LOCATION East of Timberwond Fczt -atgs, wart GE Bluff. 8iveek
LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the cout hPact
Tow 116, north, range 23 w est of the 5th principal meridian
west of the centerline of the cree
PRESENT ZONING A7
REQUESTED ZONING
RSP
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Acrricultural
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION qi nqt r- Pa mi 1 IZ Rc� i r7����}
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Preliminary plat per subdivision code r`ha= i 1
refer to plans and narrative document.
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Tile, Abstract of Tile or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the origi al doc ent returned to ' Hall Records.
Fl
Signs ure Apple ant Date
:3
Signature of Fee Owner
Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
n
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the I
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address°
922 Mainstreet
RLK
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933 -0972
ASSOCIATES LTD. fax: (612) 933 -1153
September 19, 1994
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I Re: Preliminary Plat of "Heritage First Addition of Chanhassen" for Heritage Development
I This submittal is consistent with previous submittals in it's request for the following approvals:
1 �
I
1. Rezoning of 39.5 acres from A22 (Agricultural Estate) to RSF (Single Family Residential).
2. Preliminary Plat of "Heritage First Addition of Chanhassen" for 48 Single Family Lots and 3
outlots.
3. Wetland Alteration Permit to fill or alter wetlands within the development.
4. Conditional Use Permit for the placement of fill and excavations within the flood plain.
The intent of this submittal is to provide appropriate responses to concerns raised at previous Planning
Commission meetings through well thought out and detailed plan revisions and specific statements
which can be incorporated into an acceptable Developers Agreement that will be agreeable with the
City Council.
SENSE OF COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Locating the trail alignment adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor is a highly desirable and effective method
to provide the community and future home buyers in this neighborhood with a shared sense of
ownership of the Bluff Creek corridor. The placement of an eight foot wide community trail instead of
a sixty foot wide public road along the Bluff Creek corridor is also a cost effective way for the City to
provide public access while retaining the unique natural topographic features of the site and preserve
the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics of this significant natural feature. Combined with
the Shoreland Ordinance and the Wetland Conservation Act, this approach will maximize
environmental protection of the Bluff Creek corridor.
. Civil Engineering . Transportation . Infrastructure Redevelopment
. Landscape Architecture . Construction Management
Heritage First Addition '
September 19, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
The details provided in this submittal for completion of this stage of the development review can be
separated into three broad categories which are as follows: i
1. Findings for approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit/Flood I
Plain Alteration.
2. Specific plan revisions (organized by plan sheet). I
3. Conditions which should be incorporated into the City's Developers Agreement.
Based upon a thorough review of the City's Ordinances, policies and Comprehensive Plan, the
following findings can be made regarding the proposed Preliminary Plat of "Heritage First Addition of
Chanhassen ":
a. REZONING
FINDING: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan ,
designation of the property as Residential - Low Density, with a net density range of
1.2 to 4.0 dwellings per acre. 1
b. PRELIMINARY PLAT
'
FINDING: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and
meets the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage at the building setback line.
FINDING: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county
and regional plans including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
'
proposed alignment of the north -south street generally complies with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan's suggested alternative (not required) alignment.
'
FINDING: The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to
topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to
flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development. The
proposed design attempts to minimize grading of this site and maximize preservation of
existing trees.
Q
FINDING: The ro osed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply,
P P
storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements
J
u
Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 3
required by this chapter. The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban
infrastructure.
FINDING: The proposed subdivision works with the existing landform, existing
wetlands and vegetation by preserving existing trees and various locations in the
development.
FINDING: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
C. PRIVATE STREETS
Two private streets are proposed to provide access for two proposed lots along the
southern portion of the property. These lots are in the wooded portion of the
development and access to one of the lots is restricted by the location of an existing
wetland.
' FINDING: The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate
to construct a public street. In making this determination, the main considerations are
that this portion of the development is wooded, access is restricted by the location of
' an existing wetland and construction of a public street in this area would result in the
loss of a significant number of trees.
u
rJ
J
FINDING: The proposed north -south street is consistent with the comprehensive
plan and that an extension of that public street is not required to serve other lots
adjacent to the development.
FINDING: The use of a private street will allow for the enhanced protection of
wetlands and mature trees (see preliminary grading plan and tree survey).
d. CONDITIONAL USE PERK UT/FLOOD PLAIN ALTERATION
FINDING: The proposed subdivision design will not be detrimental to or enhance
the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood
or the city.
FINDING: The development of the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan
and the stormwater management plan. Through the enhancement and long term
protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as
well as improving the natural environment.
Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 4
FINDING: The proposed wetland mitigation will enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek
Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided- to filter stormwater prior to entering
the wetland.
FINDING: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the
area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Open space in
conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
FINDING: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities
within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The proposed
wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of
the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will
be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in
conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
FINDING: Restoration and enhancement of the surrounding natural resources is
considered an asset to the community.
FINDING: The existing and proposed wetland areas will be used as open space
and a park corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior
to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the
existing and planned neighboring uses.
FINDING: The proposed alignment of the north -south road will improve traffic
circulation in the area.
FINDING: The alteration project will protect and preserve natural and scenic
features of major significance. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter
stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail
3 system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
FINDING: The wetland project will protect and preserve natural and scenic
features of major significance and improve the aesthetics of the area. Open space in
conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses.
FINDING: The development's design will provide flood protection as well as
aesthetic improvements to the area which should enhance the property values.
' Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 5
' FINDING: The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high
point of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during
agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also
1 receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek
Development. This wetland has been impacted by human intervention, but should be
protected and preserved to the extent possible. Both wetlands will be mitigated
through enhancement and extension of the wetland complex along Bluff Creek and the
southern wetland. There will be no net loss of wetlands.
' FINDING: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek
Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering
the wetland.
FINDING: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the
area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the
dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (outlot C) and the enhancement and long term
protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as
well as improving the natural environment.
' The following plan revisions have been made based upon the Staff report and Planning Commission
input:
a. Site Plan/Preliminary Plat
1. Lot areas were revised to the following: 1) 6 of 48 lots for 12.5% of lots
t ranging in size from 15,000 to 16,000 square feet; 2) 16 of 48 lots for 33% of
lots ranging in size from 16,0001 to 20,000 square feet; and, 3) 26 of 48 lots
for 45.5% of lots greater than 20,000 square feet. The average lot size is
21,017 square feet.
' 2. Bluff Creek, the ravine and the wetlands have all been incorporated into outlots
and/or easements which will protect the integrity of these areas.
3. Overall density of the development has been reduced from 1.28 to 1.21
dwelling units per acre.
I 4. Street names to be submitted to the Chanhassen Fire Marshall, Public Safety
Department and Inspection Division for review and approval prior to final plat
Heritage First Addition '
September 19, 1994
Page 6
approval or the issuance of any building permits (this includes the private '
drive).
b. Gradiniz Plan i
1. Revisions to the grading plan have included minimizing grading, tree loss,
topographical disruptions and working with and maintaining some of the
existing steep slopes.
2. Building pads have been delineated with building type (FB -Full Basement; '
FBWO -Full Basement Walk Out; and, FBLO -Full Basement Look Out),
Lowest floor elevations, garage floor elevations and typical top of foundation
elevations indicated.
3.
All wooded lots will be individually graded and a grading, drainage and erosion
'
control plans will be individually submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits for these lots.
'
4.
Drainage calculations are available and will be provided upon request or at the
time of final platting and the construction plan review process.
5.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities will be immediately
restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two
weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook. A sediment and erosion control plan will be
designed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook
and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments.
The plan will be submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the
City Council.
C. Utility Plan The following notes should be considered part of the plan set:
1.
A ten foot clear space will be maintained around the fire hydrants (i.e., street
lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable Television transformer
boxes) pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Section 9 -1 to insure that fire
'
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated.
2.
Maximum fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet.
'
d. Landscape Plan
' Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 7
Comments regarding species selection were taken into account when revising
the street tree plan. In addition, lack of nursery cultivation for some of the
' suggested species created availability concerns and other nursery-grown
species were substituted for some of the suggested species.
' 2. The proposed landscape quantities were revised to reflect the more accurate
existing quantities. (See Tree Survey notes).
' 3. A woodland management plan will be prepared for the entire development in
accordance with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance.
' 4. This project meets the requirement for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and
proposed setbacks and replacement requirements as stated in the Wetland
' Conservation Act and the City 's Wetland Ordinance. In addition, wetland
buffer areas will be staked in accordance with the City's Wetland Ordinance.
' e. Tree Survey
A detailed tree survey was prepared locating all existing significant trees and defining
canopy coverage. In addition, the Tree Survey was overlayed on the Grading Plan in
order to get an accurate count of all existing trees to be removed.
' f. Detailed Tree Inventory
A 50 scale drawing of the tree survey has been provided in order to properly identify all
' of the species and sizes of existing trees.
' Items of review which are more appropriately located in the Developers Agreement are as follows:
a. A financial escrow will be provided to the City to guarantee completion/connection of
_ the north/south road to the frontage road within three years after the final plat is
approved by the City Council in order to avoid a "dead end" street scenario.
b. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be
provided to the City as a part of the final plat approval. Street construction plans shall
be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail
I Plates. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council
approval.
Heritage First Addition
September 19, 1994
Page 8
C. A Soils report will be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any
building permit.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
n
mV=4ciwj3wjm
. . . . . . . . . ...
..........
.......................
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .. . . . . . . . ..
2;
.... ........ ..
... .......
,\\\I �XA ; � �, \\�ll �
922 Mainsirmt
Hopkins. Mn.
RLK 55343
ASSOpATES LTD. (612) 933
f= (612) 933-1153
HERIV
�,!R,-A,q
Pt<
CITY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE 1
YEAR 2000
LAND USE PLAN 7/18/94
m = = = m r m = m = m = = = m m
7
fi
r
Lr.
/ I /
e i d' / � t / F /Loa l0 /. / \� •� 11., ..
/ : �/ L —__J ` L_!•/1MSO, /// ,�A9
I II 1I{%• 56aa' 1
'� / / r • 9x1T� 1 Loe n j r — •N�
/ -1 x 7 /•'_ —_- � /` % •/ /(/ r '1'F - - -7 1 '12107] 511 �Y�Y //�
\\ \.i ma `' `r: / BI.00R 8 1 ; I I In 1 Let 16116 1 ' Loa 19
T' Irra '' 116` I:N I te366s lfr L1 Sr r/ L9a YD
// /a: r 1 In r I r 1>390 Ss
Lea i i Ile< 1 LS 1
•N / .1i66 S6 1 71 riW3 Y / / 293 Sr' / "t t 12 j >4W ST111161M i g� i Lsebt ssl _ — J
./ ,1 1 / L21ze3 SF.IL t - __
-_r ��
> - ° - - - -- — - --
'--------- --JIL' -_� S -
I
5.3 AC
P h UUfIDT A 1
] \� \\ III > � qF
7 / 1 \ q \ OUILOT C LOt 3 2 , Y 1
1 . lee) I'
/xexb] SE / // \a 1.45 AC 'S�i ^ \ \ \s eY J L____J:l 2C�6x ]I �
/ te< x > i; — ..._ $ ` `� IS a> �� — us / �� < u) \ T _ L'@, 1 (BLOCK
• � � - /_ \@ ` // La 9 / / ,!' - 1 Iro _ \r Nos ] � $� \
• i i h` `�' i J � / / ) :
/ / ` /l:`'°' 9' ' 1 1 - - - T�r' ^ < \ISeex s.� i I � •.
/1 f ry ,''J /Le< 5 ,• V / ` 1 1 i ' 1 I
49x). W / . ` '� `.. `16u110Yi 11 a✓ S 1;$ \\ :
/ ry 1166)1
^ 3 % LoeOT 1lee1 I;I Letx \ y �.l III Lot Z9 \ � / �\
/ ]39
( % % ! \� / • /17982 41 11600) Sfl 1 16 � 19%5 Y
J 11 . i . J J i
/ toa 3 / 4+ e`5 /Let 9 / / / $ \ -` 09 fro ] .9 / (. I �_>
/IW77 TF/ �� / �'� DW9'1 SP r�.ot %
/ Lvt 6/ / \ I n �. �._ ... b i ^� 174308 i20921
_ . s
MIi1GA>ED WETLAND .03 AC
., /:1TIAND
OUIl01 D
E AI
0'r ^ 200'
HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION OF
CHANHASSEN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
•�
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
150 EAST COUNTY ROAD D
TYPICAL LOT ONIENSKmM
We 0. �- FAMILY SIfE
A
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA. 5518 ' M014'a w' 1� pm w
PREA MR6ARY PLAWSITE PLAR
1a
A LOT SO. FT. 207181
S IID ,, G+V!'FM
If DOerARE
ROV 'l/17
— 1.
1
REAR euEURC SETBACK
BLOCK 2 BUX2(2
AVO. NOT 50. Ff. 20817
�gf
�y1, RST 7K CFNIflE Oi
SL MiR.
BLOCK 3 BLOCK 3
AV G. S0. FT. 21418
BDI{7 CTBF,IL
INITIAL 618 AO61A6L 39.5 AC.
AOAK AMA 4.2 AC.
Bl��/&IE Plw1NEM
RM[ A680FMm Lm
97? MANISIPELT
36343
,
BIAD<BlE AREA e
AYLRA*a Lei BOB[ 21017 SE
1K11A14D A� 5.7 AC.
IIOP10115, 1884500/
'
LOT MAW AND NBA
AAA
MMC 8!•ICA11011 ARYA 2.0 At
su@w T® TO
'
ONLOT A si AC
0111LeT B 1.Q AC
18E AIM P1ATto 27A AG
� �ONLA "m
Let 16
I 15239 SE 1
7YPKlL WT OAIETISKIK
PA. BDK 147
AN.SSVL YNIR30TA 35319
1
TOTAL
e0T1AT 6.77 AC
5' 5'
{qpj
10' FAOM iRONf�PRO�fY Il6)
17�SIDE
IQ
' I
BULOWO SETBACK
I P P RIVAT T E D�RNES) By
- _-�'
10' I (--�
m ff WID1N AT BU1lDIRO
'
t0 . �.
1ALIIMUM /ROW BULOW SETBACK
CL7BEnlME OF CAEE Y UK
57 SETBACK FROM CREEK
EDGE OF lFi5;i
- ' 1 '-- --- -i
AS STNfE - - -- --- ----
I DO' SETBACK FRDM CREEK
-- - - -- --
I
5.3 AC
P h UUfIDT A 1
] \� \\ III > � qF
7 / 1 \ q \ OUILOT C LOt 3 2 , Y 1
1 . lee) I'
/xexb] SE / // \a 1.45 AC 'S�i ^ \ \ \s eY J L____J:l 2C�6x ]I �
/ te< x > i; — ..._ $ ` `� IS a> �� — us / �� < u) \ T _ L'@, 1 (BLOCK
• � � - /_ \@ ` // La 9 / / ,!' - 1 Iro _ \r Nos ] � $� \
• i i h` `�' i J � / / ) :
/ / ` /l:`'°' 9' ' 1 1 - - - T�r' ^ < \ISeex s.� i I � •.
/1 f ry ,''J /Le< 5 ,• V / ` 1 1 i ' 1 I
49x). W / . ` '� `.. `16u110Yi 11 a✓ S 1;$ \\ :
/ ry 1166)1
^ 3 % LoeOT 1lee1 I;I Letx \ y �.l III Lot Z9 \ � / �\
/ ]39
( % % ! \� / • /17982 41 11600) Sfl 1 16 � 19%5 Y
J 11 . i . J J i
/ toa 3 / 4+ e`5 /Let 9 / / / $ \ -` 09 fro ] .9 / (. I �_>
/IW77 TF/ �� / �'� DW9'1 SP r�.ot %
/ Lvt 6/ / \ I n �. �._ ... b i ^� 174308 i20921
_ . s
MIi1GA>ED WETLAND .03 AC
., /:1TIAND
OUIl01 D
E AI
0'r ^ 200'
J00'
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
•�
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
150 EAST COUNTY ROAD D
® w,;�
1.>.,
:i
We 0. �- FAMILY SIfE
A
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA. 5518 ' M014'a w' 1� pm w
PREA MR6ARY PLAWSITE PLAR
y7
7ir,/e1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner H
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: September 30, 1994
SUBJ: Heritage First Addition - Heritage Development Company
Planning Case: 94 -8 Sub, 94 -4 RE2, 94 -4 WAP and 94 -4 CUP
I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed single family dwelling concept and have the
following requirements:q..
1. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Mar §,hal for approval. This would also include
the private drive. a
2. A ten foot clear space must be rria'ntained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell amble television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely og�'rated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance Sec. 9 -1.
3. Submit plans to Fire ,Marshal showing the connection either existing or proposed streets
at the north f 'south end of the proposed road. 0 1
4. Fire h:
g-:�safetyNEnMeritagIptr
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Bob Generous, Planner II
Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
October 3, 1994
94 -8 SUB, 94 -4 REZ,
Development)
94 -4 WAP & 94 -4 CUP (Heritage I
I was asked to review the development plans for Heritage
Development stamped "CITY OF CHASSEN; RECEIVED SEP 20, 1994;
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." ,g
Analysis , �:
�:
1- Z
Elevations. Proposed lowest ,floor level elevations, top of
foundation elevations and garage flo(# elevations are required in
order to insure adequate pl n revi*` by the Public Safety and
Engineering Departments.
Dwelling Type. The propo'ed type of �
necessary to enable the spections Dive
and Engineering Departme it to perform a s
the structure at theAlE me of building p
designations (FLO o ��' RLO, R, SE, SEWO, 7
proposed dwelli.nctypes. These standard
chance for efors�drtl1rw
the 1993 memQ,_.which,.lt� „anc,.expins _tr
yelling designations are
ion, Planning Department
-isfactory plan review of
omit issuance. Standard
, WO) must be used for
t esignations lessen the
rcess . I have included
ese designations.
Soils Report. ddition, a soils report showing, btails and
locations of houseMsand verifying suitabilito natural and
�..,
fill soil is required for pnjev ie�w�upOes
Street Names. In order to avoid .conflicts and confusion, street
names, public and private, must- e reviewed by the Public Safety
Department. Proposed street ames are not included with the
submitted documents,
' Bob Generous
August 5, 1994
Page 2
' Recommendations:
' 1. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor
level, elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor
elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
' 2. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard
designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to
final plat approval.
3. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should
' be done prior to issuance of any building permits.
4. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department,
Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval.
' enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo
g: \safety \sak \memos \plan \heritage.bg2
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
..............
}
690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
s (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 '
MEMORATI UM
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff '
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official I '
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
'
g YP g
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of ,
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.° '
F'. O or Rio Designates Front Lnokout or Rear •Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' ,
above the basement floor level
R Designates Rambkr. This includes dwellings with: the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. ,
SL Designates Split Fatty. This includes dwellings with.ehe basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' ,
below grade at its.deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates -Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below ,
grade.-at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling "-
WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the,basement floor_leyel approxi mately 8' below grade ,
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level to the rear of the dwelling.
TU
R SEWO w0 FLO i
,SE -.V or RLO
Inspections staff u ,
p f uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed. to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all ,
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
4r*
: ii«r� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER '
J
'
Minnegasco®
A Division of Arkla, Inc.
Re: 94 -8 SUB, 94 -4 REZ, 94 -4 WAP, 94 -4 CUP
' Heritage First Addition
Single - Family Site
Heritage Development Company
' Dear Mr. Generous:
' Enclosed are your prints for this project indicating that
Minnegasco does not have natural gas mains within the development
area. Natural gas service is available to this property from a gas
main to the south of the railroad tracks at the south edge of this
' project. No addition work is anticipated at this time unless
requested by a developer /builder/ owner.
The developer /builder should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco's
Residential Energy Services, 525 -7607, to make application for
natural gas service.
' Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal.
'
Sincerely,
September p 28, 1994
'
Richard J. lon, P.E.
Mr. Robert Generous
Planner II
'
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen,
Minnesota 55317
Minnegasco®
A Division of Arkla, Inc.
Re: 94 -8 SUB, 94 -4 REZ, 94 -4 WAP, 94 -4 CUP
' Heritage First Addition
Single - Family Site
Heritage Development Company
' Dear Mr. Generous:
' Enclosed are your prints for this project indicating that
Minnegasco does not have natural gas mains within the development
area. Natural gas service is available to this property from a gas
main to the south of the railroad tracks at the south edge of this
' project. No addition work is anticipated at this time unless
requested by a developer /builder/ owner.
The developer /builder should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco's
Residential Energy Services, 525 -7607, to make application for
natural gas service.
' Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal.
'
Sincerely,
'
Richard J. lon, P.E.
Senior Administration Engineer
Engineering Services
'
612 -342 -5426
I cc: Mary Palkovich
Terry Jencks
c'L : E: =D
1 ��4
CITY OF CH/wir,;,. Jti�y
700 West Linden Avenue
P.O. Box 1165
Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1165
PHONE NO.
METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILENO.
772 -7910
September 26, 1994
Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION, BLUFF CREEK, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER
COUNTY (City 94 -8 SUB, 94 -4 REZ, 94 -4 WAP, 94 -4 CUP)
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the site plans (received September 21, 1994) for the above -
referenced project (Section 15, T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to
offer:
1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water, is on the proposed site. Any activity, such
as placing a stormwater outfall, below the top of the bank of the channel
of Bluff Creek which alters its course, current, or cross - section, is
under the jurisdiction of the DNR. It appears that the wetland mitigation
proposed for this project will involve work in Bluff Creek and require a
permit from the DNR.
2. It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins,
which is good. All the stormwater from the development should be treated.
We object to having untreated stormwater routed directly to Bluff Creek
because it will cause erosion, sedimentation and water level bounces that
would adversely affect water quality and wildlife values.
3. Portions of the project site occur in the 100 -year floodplain. All the
work that is done for this project must comply with applicable floodplain
regulations of both the city and the Riley- Purgatory - Bluff Creek Watershed
District.
4. Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of tributary /urban. The
shoreland district extends 300 feet from the top of the bank of the
channel, or the width of the floodplain, which ever is greater. The
development must be consistent with the city shoreland management
regulations. In particular you should note:
aa The northern half of the project area contains bluffs (i.e. slopes
that average 30 percent or greater and rise 25 feet above the (OHW)
top of the bank) along Bluff Creek. The bluffs should not be
disturbed and all structures should be set back at least 30' from
the top of the bluff.
b. Steep slopes exist within the project area. Topographic alterations
should be minimized in this area.
C. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural
state in the shore and bluff impact zones. The minimum shore
impact zone is a 25 -foot strip along both sides of the creek.
The bluff impact zone is an area within 20 feet of the top of
the bluff.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
tr � l STATEE OF
EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II
' September 26, 1994
Page 2
' d. The structures in the development should be screened from view from
Bluff Creek using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other
means approved by the city.
' 5. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments:
a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the
construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and
' Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources
and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation
Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed.
' JR /cds
c: Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer
Chanhassen Shoreland File
' Chanhassen Floodplain File
Bluff Creek File
b.
If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per
'
day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to
obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it
typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit
'
application.
C.
If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the
contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296 - 7203).
d.
The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters
jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be
'
construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project.
Thank you
for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772 -7910 should
you have
any questions regarding these comments.
'
Sincerely,
'
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
' JR /cds
c: Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer
Chanhassen Shoreland File
' Chanhassen Floodplain File
Bluff Creek File
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, OCTOBER 19, 1994
at 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Heritage First Addition
Developer: Heritage Development Co.
Location: North of railroad, west of
Bluff Creek and east of
Timberwood Estates and
Stone Creek
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of 39 acres of property zoned A2 to RSF,
preliminary plat to create 48 single family lots and 3 outlots, wetland alteration permit for
mitigation of ponding areas, and conditional use permit for alteration of areas within a flood plain
on property located north of Twin Cities & Western Railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek and east
of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek, Heritage First Addition, Heritage Development
Company.
What Happens at the Meeting The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you
about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project.
During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4 Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900 ext. 141. If you choose
to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
1
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 6, 1994. ° f q�l
j�1
L � 6 .,'
1
' McGlynn Bakeries, Inc.
c/o Grand Met Tax Dept.
MS: 1843
200 S. 6th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
,T. Lars Conway
4415 Fremont Ave. S.
'Minneapolis, MN 55409
' Betty O'Shaughnessy
1000 Hesse Farm Rd.
Chaska, MN 55318
Merle D. & Jane Volk
' 16925 Co. Rd. 40
Carver, MN 55315
1 jay C. D 1 ' i
o ens
6961 Chaparral Ln.
'Chanhassen, MN 55317
James L. & Linda J. Leirdahl
2350 Timberwood Dr.
'Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Curtis & Janice Olson
1961 130th Ln.
Coon Rapids, MN 55448
Richard D. & Marry Frasch
1 8000 Acorn Ln.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Debra Ann Lano
2060 Oakwood Rdg.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'Alva Bruce & Kristina Johnson
2051 Oakwood Rdg.
,Chanhassen, MN 55317
Shamrock Property Partners
7350 Commerce Lane
Fridley, MN 55432
Michael J. Gorra
1680 Arboretum Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dale F. & Marcia Wanninger
8170 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard Hartung & Wallace Otto
400 Oak St. S.
Waconia, MN 55387
Audubon I Limited Partnership
c/o Lars Akerberg
P.O. Box 158
Chaska, MN 55318
Mark & J. Taintor
7481 Saratoga Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gregory & J. Maaxum
7480 Longview Cir.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David Gestach
8001 Acorn Ln.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 -9662
Stephen McCurry &
Bridget Haefner
16780 North Manor Rd.
Eden Prairie, MN 55345
James & Colleen Dockendorf
2061 Oakwood Rdg.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
J.P.'s Links Inc.
c/o John Przymus
642 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chan-Land Partners
200 Hwy. 13 W.
Burnsville, MN 55337
Lawrence & F. Raser
8210 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire
4890 C. Rd. 10 E.
Chaska, MN 55318
Mitchel & Mary Krause
2380 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Layton & Linda Zellman
2290 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark J. Foster & Karen S. Olsson
8020 Acorn Ln.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard M. Czeck
8011 Acorn Ln.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Sracey R. Rickert &
Michelle Rheault
2040 Oakwood Rdg.
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
James & Joann Jancik
2050 Timberwood Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 -9666
David & Gail McCollum Agha Thir Khan & Stanley & Christine Rud
2048 Timberwood Dr. Patricia Khan 2030 Renaissance Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 2040 Renaissance Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & Roberta Lawson
2041 Renaissance Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gerard & Bonnie Murkpwski
2051 Renaissance Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & Lana Miller
8121 Pinewood Cir.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
.James & Bonita Roeder Gregory & Jill Perrill Craig & Mary Harrington
8108 Pinewood Cir. 2102 Timberwood Dr. 8140 Maplewood Ter.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR STREET ALIGNMENT OPTION
t •... .. Yom¢ ; j
;h , "
00 11.,
X�
m = = == m r m m m= m m == m
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 '
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATES TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY S. EAST OF
TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, RLK ASSOCIATES.
t
Bob Generous: The applicant was last before the City Council on April 11th of this year. At that time they
were requesting the conceptual approval for a PUD for a planned unit development for a 56 lot subdivision.
'
This is the basic plan that they have. Staff had concerns about this plan, and so did City Council. Specifically
how they were going to treat the wetlands in the Bluff CreFk corridor. The use of cul-de -sacs rather than private
driveways and the small lots that abutted Timberwood. A that meeting Council tabled the concept plan for
further work by the applicant and they came in with these revisions. The old.. show their treatment of the
'
wetland areas. The installation, the purple area represents some ponding areas that they provided on the site to
help with storm water runoff. The little red dashed line that I put on the overhead shows the realignment of the
road to provide some curvalinear atmosphere to the subdivision and to put in that last cul-de -sac. The solid red
'
lines are the use of private drives. We believe that they're moving in the right direction with these revisions.
However staff took this concept a little bit farther and looked at having the applicant possibly revise this plan to
include additional... into the development. To permit the siting of some larger lots around the westem boundary
of the site. If they're going to group any smaller lots, to have them be on the inside curve of the development
and along that eastern part of the project. Proposing an open space that provides connection down to the trail
system and as an overlook for the wetland area or the wetland complex that will be in the middle of the project.
The applicant also showed a little park setting at the convergence of the east and west banks of the Bluff Creek.
t
Staff still believes that the planned unit development is the most appropriate way for the city to handle this
development and conceptually we agree that a single family subdivision is appropriate land use for this site. We
believe also that the conditions that we outlined in the staff report and that we included in this memo will
,
provide the applicant with sufficient direction to the city to the next level of review and we're requesting that the
City Council give conceptual approval to them.
r
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Bob. Is there anyone from RLK Associates that would like to say something at
this time? Are you basically in agreement with what staff has pulled together?
John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development. John Dietrich from '
RLK is...The second one is that after meeting with the staff and talking about a number of issues off the
presentation that we came to before, we as a group, RLK and myself. Three planners from RLK and I went out
and took the old plans and walked the site. Actually spent most of a morning out there looking at it and it was '
interesting to look at the staff's sketched concept plan and to think about new ways to approach this site. The
topography and natural resources on this particular piece are rather difficult to work with. And I guess going
through the staff recommendations, there's a number of issues that I'll let W. Dietrich speak to specifically, but
I guess in general I'd like to say that although this is perhaps one particular way to align the road in staffs
concept sketch, one we put up was basically based on two things. One of them is trying to salvage as many
trees as we possibly could and meet the existing connection of Stone Creek. And the second one was, we
actually tried to not push the topography around on the hills ... part of the plat the best that we could. Staff's
concept sketch does begin to push out what is a somewhat steep slope and then push everything then further
- towards the creek and to Bluff Creek corridor to try and establish. The other solution then was also to push the
road to the westerly side upon that very steep hill which then presented a very large problems for the sewer '
main ... So in general I guess what I'd like Mr. Dietrich to just kind of go through and again address the issues in
general, I think that we spent a number of hours talking about and sketching in my office and in RLK's...
We've lost a number of lots to try to get it down to the point where ... And I'll be here to answer any questions. I
14 1
�7
J
1
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich, RLK Associates. I would just like to go through the
recommendation that staff has ... and the overall concept, I would say we are in agreement with them. However
there are just a few issues that we would like to raise in terms of some of the staff recommendations that are in
the report beginning on page 5. The fast one was the design charette that will be coming up. We have again
requested that the developer, Heritage Development be involved in the design charette so that.-combination of
public and private input into that process. Secondly, the item number 4 with regards to the pre- treatment of the
storm water pond that we will be taking and treating all storm water ponds and we will keep all ponding to a
minimum. It is in our best interest to have the minimum number of ponds and we will submit all storm water
calculations through the engineer for their review. 'Secondly, the ability to take stone water from the north side
of the site and also from the Chanhassen Corporate Center site, across the creek bed would result in storm sewer
pipes anywhere from 35 to 40 feet deep ... ponding area. I think the storm water ponding on the Chanhassen
Corporate Center site should remain on the site and not cut across the creek. Item number 7, we have no
problems with. Item number 8. The trunk sanitary sewer line be utilized that it be a lateral stubbed towards the
Timberwood Estates. We feel that Lots 3 and 4 would not be the proper location to stub that. That is right in
the low lying area of the creek and within the area of...tree masses and feel that would be contrary to the concept
of trying to preserve that natural wooded land to the south of the property. The north, item number 9 would be
no problem. Item number 10. A curvalinear street that's shown on the concept plan by W. Generous did not
look closely at the grades that are on the site. And in walking the site, if you look at grades, the oaks that are to
the center of the site, we feel we have tried to provide at keeping that ... as possible based on that concept grading
plan. And still provide public access to the park. Access to the park where it was suggested in the staff concept
plan would require an extensive grade to climb up and feel it would be very difficult to make a trail of ADA
compatibility in that area. We will comply with number 12, number 13, number 14, number 15. Item number
16, we have utilized a private drive in order to try to maximize the site and retain the natural features and the
woods and wetlands. We feel the use of the private drives on the west side of the roadway do not allow the site
to be kept in it's most natural setting and we have tried to minimize the amount of roadway structures, roadway
grading that we go through to get to the areas to the south. Number 17, trail or sidewalk on the west side of the
roadway. Number 18, we will do a tree survey. Number 19, we would like to investigate the setbacks in order
to have a little variance to the setbacks and to ... 20, 21, 22, 23, will be no problem. 24, 25, 26. 26, the southern
terminus of the trail shall not parallel the railroad tracks. Again, after walking the site and going along the
southern wetland that has been identified, that is by far one of the most pristine and natural areas of that entire
site. We would highly recommend that the trail stay along the railroad tracks and on the southerly side of that
wetland without trying to cross and come back up ... next to the public roadway system... Number 27, a 50 foot
wide trail strip be preserved along the western boundary between Stone Creek Drive and the raiUoad tracks. Our
concern is that the 50 foot area will be exclusively on Heritage development and not... Hans Hagen side. We'd
Me to just be treated fairly between the two developers instead of having all of the access on one side of the
property line. There are NSP lines in that area so that area would be ..Number 281 spoke to about ADA codes
on the trail. And 29, the trail crossing the creek in it's entirety, saying on the west side of the creek in it's
entirety ... branches. Again, after walking the site, the trail would not be graded and made to ADA standards
along that northwest, northeast corner of the site. Based on site review, we would highly recommend that the
trail cross the creek on some much flatter land and preserve that slope that the DNR has said should be
protected. 30 will be fine. 31. There are a number of spaces and quality environments along this trail corridor
between the open creek, parkland, picnic areas and utilization of buffer areas along ponding areas for that trail
corridor. That we have ... very strong trail plan that offers a variety of environments and we'd be happy to point
those out in a little bit more detail. Number 32, 100 foot building setback. That's been maintained on all lots
except for one at this time and we would gladly work with that. Number 33, we will try to keep the ponds
15
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1
down to a minimum and ... Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Bob referenced some of the questions in regards to each of those specific items that ,
have been mentioned. Regarding low lying areas. Some of the grades on 8 and 10. Some of the others. I
don't know if you were taking notes at the time. But I can understand some of your questions. Can you address
some of those? And the reasoning for it.
Kate Aanenson: I was going to say a lot of these, some of the later ones are conditions of the Park and Rec
Commission or the Director would like to look at. Again, this is part of the concept. These are things that we
see that need to be articulated as the next phase develops. We're saying ... need to be resolved. Some of these '
are kind of unresolved issues as far as the staff level. That as part of the charette process we're trying to decide
what would be appropriate. I think some of his points may be legitimate. As this evolves and we get further
details on the grading and... '
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm hopeful we're going to address a lot of those questions and indicate our concerns as
to why we even came up with those. One of the others is to share between properties, as he mentioned
something between Hans Hagen and their properties. The only question I have with Hans Hagen, I'm sure they '
have provided different things within their proposal.
Kate Aanenson: I think Todd maybe better, could answer those...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I did take notes throughout John's presentation. The ,
issues which they presented are not difficult for staff to resolve through this. Issues such as the ADA
accessibility and those type of things. We may not be able to meet them in their entirety. It's our intention to
do that where we can. But there are other issues as well. Every time you cross the creek, it's a $15,000.00 or '
$20,000.00 project to make the creek crossovers as well so we weigh those alternatives. As far as the 50 foot
buffer zone for the trail crossing underneath the viaduct which is underneath the railroad tracks, that's an
important link for the entire north/south Bluff Creek trail segment and the suggestion that...easement for the '
power lines and investigate that is a good one as well. So not only I'll take a look at the Hans Hagen plat but
that has been approved. From this point we ... It's also in an area down there where—that pond, we're not
affecting ... so those issues are all fairly insignificant. We can work with the applicant.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Council have any questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I would certainly like to use this as an opportunity to once again address density. A ,
question I would have. At the conceptual level is how many cars is this going to bring in and do we have the
roads and the infrastructure to handle them. Right now we can't get cars onto Highway 5 onto Galpin Road.
And now we're, density. We never want to talk about density so I go back to my request that we look at going '
to 22,000 square foot lots with PUD's down to no lower limit with an average of 18. Mainly out of density.
I'm looking at this conceptually now. And we've tried to kind of protect Timberwood. Not that they
necessarily deserve protecting nor am I their buddy. I mean they're there and they're their little island and I
think their development. But they have low density so I happen to like them because they're low density. I
can't afford to live there but they offer me low density so they're not impacting my lifestyle as much. But now
we've got these 13,000, 13,000, 16, 26, 17. We've got these small lots bordering these large lot homes. That
doesn't, that to me conceptually is not acceptable. So the fast comment I will make is to abut and put this type
16
7
Ll
i
0
I
17
U
I�
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
of density on the lot lines of the existing Timberwood is not an appropriate development. I think it ought to be
buffered and if we're going to have small lots, they ought to be on the east and we ought to have the larger lots
abutting Timberwood. Or frankly I'd rather see this go to industrial with a quality type industrial building
coming in. Rather than this high density housing. We've talked about that in the past. Who would be better off
or better served. The other thing is that as you get going conceptually, I would like to have a layman's
description of the grading. On Oak Ponds you could have just told me they're going to destroy the hill. Flatten
it out and I could have bought that. Here I'd like to know what they're going to do to our landforms, and
layman terms would be, they're going to cut the blazes out of it or they're going to trim a little off the top and
move a little to the bottom. I mean I just, I'd like to know what's going to happen. Or if they're going to
flatten it, I want to know that. Those are layman terms that I can work with. So the density bothers me. The
density with the infrastructure bothers me. The amount of cars and traffic troubles me greatly. I don't like it.
This is really impacting this area in a very negative way and it's not even, I mean it's agricultural zoning right
now so I think we want to look at that. See the grading. The abutting to the existing, the buffering. This type
of density as it buffers Timberwood. If I lived there, I would be here tonight. I guess that's all.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Dick stole my thunder once again.
Councilman Wing: Oh, go fast. You should go fast. Excuse me.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. That's alright. No, no. As always you articulate better than me anyway. I too
have concerns about the density. Obviously on the Timberwood side but even more so on the Bluff Creek side.
This is a really neat tract of land and I'm very disappointed when I look at their roads that RLK has put in.
We're practically obliterating the largest stand of trees and it will be cornfield so staff's recommendation to push
that further to the east makes sense. This does need a lot of work. I am prepared to give it conceptual approval
with the caveat that we need larger lots abutting Timberwood Estates. Particularly I'm looking at up towards the
north where you've got 1, 2, 3, 4 and then around that cul-de -sac you've got a density of homes right next to
basically two homes on the Timberwood side. You know you've got like 15. It needs a lot of work. I would
agree with the applicant that the trails near the railroad tracks should be as it is. That's pretty steep grades there
and we don't want to impact that any more than we have to. The sewer stub between Lots 3 and 4 does not
make sense. That's where a creek is. I guess those are my biggest issues. Basically the density. I like the lot
sizes towards the southern side of proposal but that's where you're getting to Stone Creek which equals pretty
much those densities. Where you've got your higher densities of 11,000, it's up towards your large lots near
Timberwood. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, it sounds to me like the charette may take care of a lot of the issues. I'm hearing
that both sides, if you will, are talking and things are getting to roll. I'm a little concerned when I hear low
density versus high density. We're talking about affordable housing and we're also talking about urban sprawl.
If we knock out x number of lots, what does that do to jack up the prices for people that want to live in
Chanhassen? I understand Council's concern about high density. The other side of that point is, for every lot
we take out here, a lot's going to go somewhere else and how about Morrish and urban sprawl and those kinds
of issues. I think we, it's real easy to talk this stuff but I think there's some other issues we also need to
discuss. And I'm not saying some lots can't be changed around and I'm not completely disagreeing with what's
being said but not only do we have to look at high and low density but we do also have to look at things like
17
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1
Kate Aanenson: Concept approval at this time. ,
Councilman Senn: With the caveat that you're going to continue to work.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Now this has no, as far as legal standing. These are the marching orders. This is what
they need to come back with preliminary so the preliminary will go back to the Planning Commission and.. site
elevations. You get...grading and the tree survey. All that stuff will come back in the next round and be very
detailed. For right now we just want to know whether or not they need to go forward ... and do that detail. ,
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I'd move conceptual approval based on staff and the applicant going ahead and
working those things out. But also when it comes back next round, I'd really like to see that analysis because I
18
affordable housing and urban sprawl. And every time you make the lot size bigger, you're jacking up the price
and it's making it that much harder for people to live in Chanhassen. And I think those are some issues that we
also have to take into account too. I'll admit to a little concern about the 15,000 square foot lots abutting
Timberwood. However, there are a number. I mean I think of Carver Beach where I live. I have a much larger
,
lot as do the neighbors on my street but right over in Triple Crown, they're much smaller lots and we've got
trees and there's all kinds of stuff between the two. So, you know so be it. Sony about that. I do think we
need to look at the other side of low density and high density and putting in affordable housing and urban
,
sprawl. I've seen plans that are a lot higher density than this for the same amount so I think we need a little bit
more of a balance there with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
'
Councilman Senn: It sounds like it's going the right way as far as between applicant and staff. Getting some of
the questions worked out. Going out and looking at the site, I think there are some valid points that the
,
applicant has over the topography but again, I'm not sure what all the issues are both ways on that, one way or
the other. I think it'd be nice to really see that kind of analysis in front of us so we know what we're giving up
or getting one way or the other. Given which way you go on that decision. Conceptually I don't see a problem
with the direction it's headed. I think there's some good points both sides. I too get a little concerned when I
'
hear the term high density because I mean this is a half acre lot average basically which to me seems fairly low
density in relationship to a lot of things we've done. You're kind of, it seems to me we're kind of catching the
applicant here between the rock and the hard place. A neighborhood on one side and Bluff Creek on the other
'
side and I'm not sure both sides are going to end up being happy or dealt with in a manner that I think we'd like
to see the creek dealt with or the way that the neighborhood would like to see dealt with on the other side but at
the same time I get a little fearful that depending on how far you push this, you get down to density numbers on
,
single family that are, that's going to do exactly what I would like not to see happen there and that is force them
to take a different direction other than single family there and look at something else and I just, I can't agree
with the potential or possibility of sticking industrial or whatever in that particular site. I think it is single
family. For one single family and that's what ought to be pursued there.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, with that I guess everybody's really expressed some of the concerns that I have.
On either issue or each one of these and there's no sense in continuing on with the discussion from my
'
standpoint. I would then bring this back to Council. See if there is a motion for the revised plans for the
conceptual plans at this time.
'
Councilman Senn: Kate, what are you looking for?
Kate Aanenson: Concept approval at this time. ,
Councilman Senn: With the caveat that you're going to continue to work.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Now this has no, as far as legal standing. These are the marching orders. This is what
they need to come back with preliminary so the preliminary will go back to the Planning Commission and.. site
elevations. You get...grading and the tree survey. All that stuff will come back in the next round and be very
detailed. For right now we just want to know whether or not they need to go forward ... and do that detail. ,
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I'd move conceptual approval based on staff and the applicant going ahead and
working those things out. But also when it comes back next round, I'd really like to see that analysis because I
18
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
think there's some very definitive issues here that if we isolate and look at individually, it's going to get very
complicated. I think we need to look at them side by side and know what the trade -offs are on one versus the
other. More or less how's this decision going to affect the creek? How's it going to affect the neighborhood or
how is it going to affect the cluster of trees? I mean I hate to say it but in this tight of area where you are,
there's going to be a lot of affects that way and I would just like, I mean we're going to have to sort those out
and I think it'd be a little easier for us to do that.
Kate Aanenson: That's why the staff supports the PUD ... that in a cornfield we go with 11,000 square foot lots.
Up in the trees we do ... 3 /4 or 1 acre lots. So unfortunately there was a concern about not averaging out the lots
in a traditional subdivision. And this is an answer again is a balancing act...you've got Timberwood and you've
got the creek and somewhere there's an appropriate mix and where's the balancing here. But there is a place to
have some of the small lots and places where—and I think those are only accomplished with a PUD. Doing a
straight subdivision I don't think does the best job on the site-it's a balancing act and that's why I think the
charette we'll find out...
Mayor Chmiel: I think you can do that direction as you've done before with your Q and A's in relationship to
each of those concerns and addressing those concerns so we at least know where it's coming from.
Councilman Senn: I'd just like to see the Q and A's organized a little differently on this one in the sense that, if
you make them separately it's going to be real hard to follow. I'd kind of like to really almost see a cross
section and say here's the affect on A, B and C.
Kate Aanenson: There's a lot of layers...
' Councilman Mason: That's a good idea. That would be helpful to see it like that.
' Councilman Wing: Okay that Boyer, we were kind of sold a bill of goods on the Boyer conceptual plan that we
were going to have all these wonderful things happen and it turns out when they go back to the standard
subdivision, they couldn't get the density thought they could. It sort of seemed to start to work to our
advantage. What if we take this charette and all our tree preservation and all our setbacks that we've developed
' over the last few years and apply it with a standard subdivision on this narrow strip. Would we win or lose
here?
1
Kate Aanenson: I think on the Boyer's you have to go back and look at, they were trying to do a different type
of project. They were trying to do a zero lot line which is a lot different.
Councilman Wing: I understand.
Councilman Senn: I think if you, Dick I mean looking at this strip and if running a typical subdivision through
it, I don't think anything that's been presented is even close to that. I mean I view that as a mild disaster. I
mean if you're trying to do that.
Kate Aanenson: I understand. I think you still have the tree preservation, you still have certain setbacks but I
think it'd be much more sterile. I think this is probably a little bit more creative.
Mayor Chmiel: I think staff has direction as to what we're looking for. To accomplish this particular proposal.
So with that we have a motion on the floor. Was there a second?
19
n
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have a comment to what Mike was saying about affordable housing. You
know that's an issue that we have put on our agenda to address, and I don't think it's being ignored in this. I
think we were looking at the specific topography and the constraints of this piece of land and saying, it's not
appropriate here.
Councilman Senn: I don't think Mike was saying that thol gh, was he? I mean he wasn't saying put affordable
housing here. I
Councilwoman Dockendorf. No. He was, well.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what he's really relating to, and correct me if I'm wrong to what you were saying, was
that you saw housing costs raising, whether it be affordable or not.
Councilman Mason: Yes. Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Just the automatic overall.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, thanks. Yeah.
Councilman Senn: The larger the lot size.
Councilman Wing: But the larger the lot, the smaller the lot is the greater the density so people we get in and
then are we dealing with those issues. If we want to talk, density keeps coming up. Planning doesn't want to
mess with it. I mean they can't get off dead center with density. They haven't for 10 years but yet density is
the issue and I don't mind small lots, and I don't mind affordable housing. I don't see those as relevant issues
at all. I mean let's talk affordable housing. Let's talk small lots. Density is what concerns me because I can't
get on Highway 7 anymore. I can't get across Galpin Road on TH 5. These densities are really troubling me
because they're making life unbearable.
Councilman Senn: But Dick there's other parts of Chan that are better.
Mayor Chmiel: With that we have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call the question.
Resolution #94 -55: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Conceptual PUD
of 39.64 acres -of property to create a single family development subject to the following conditions:
1.
The City's recommendations will remain pending on the design
components for the Bluff Creek Watershed Plan. A charette will be held on May 26, 1994 concerning the
design issues for the creek north of Lyman Boulevard. Buffer strip widths and areas will be addressed at
this time as a guidance for planning.
20
0
1
1
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
I The PiFePesed pending wea in the seethem p"an should be Feleested to lesson Wpm en wedmds, wee"
(Revised)
,
Resessmy. (Completed)
• . Two regional stormwater ponds for water
retention and pretreatment are recommended. One in the southwest corner and one in the east central
section of the property to retain and pretreat stormwater prior to discharge to the wetlands. The southwest
pond is in the process of being constructed in coniunction with Stone Creek 4th Addition (Hans Hagen) to
take runoff from portions of the Hans Hagen property and the southern third of the Heritage tnopetty. The
east central pond should be designed to take runoff from the northern two- thirds of the property in addition
to portions of the Chanhassen Corporate Center property. Fees for trunk storm sewer will be evaluated
based on the applicant's contribution to the stormwater infrastructure.
a PNOMMent Pond in the Southwest SOMOF ef wedmd AIS !!(I) (Lots 90, 51, and &2)—.
wetted A 15 t4o), (Revised)
(Revised)
7. The SWMP requires the applicant to pay stormwater quality/quantity fees and trunk storm sewer charges as
appropriate. The applicant may be entitled to some credit or compensation if they provide the necessary on-
site stormwater quality/quantity improvements as outlined or modified in the SWMP. This will be
determined upon review of the storm drainage/ponding calculations.
8. The trunk sanitary sewer line be utilized to serve both a lateral and a trunk to benefit the adjacent property
(staff recommends that the applicant provide a sewer service in the general location of Lots 3 and 4 for
future extension into Timberwood Estates). The best location for the sanitary sewer will be further
investigated during the grading and utility plan preparation process.
' 9. The north/south street shall be extended through the outlot to connect to a future cast/west frontage road
within three years after the final plat is approved for the fast phase.
10. Curvilinear streets are recommended to add aesthetics and character to the neighborhood as well as deter
' speeding motorists. The attached diagram suggests a street cut that will retain the stand of oaks in the
central area of the property, provide public access to the park, and allow for larger lot sizes along the
western border.
' 11.
am—ffie mlwl fim-m- Aeaf-h te- rue-A-Wh —ARd- iaiRef aeffie movemeat en ihe dead and e---I- de s--AA $ AA Agra
(Revised)
21
City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 '
12. Detailed construction drawings and specifications will be required for submittal with final plat approval. All '
street and utility construction should be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications
and detail plates. '
13. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval.
14. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary '
financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval.
15. Trail easements connecting the interior of the development with the Bluff Creek Corridor tra system will
need to be developed.
'
16. The applicant should investigate the use of private driveways to serve up to four lots from the proposed
north/south local street in order to minimize impacts on wooded areas and the wetlands. There are a number
,
of private drives on the east side of the mad. It is recommended that these alternate between the east and
west sides of the road.
17. The north/south street should provide a sidewalk on the east west side of the roadway to match the typical
'
cross section for Stone Creek Drive. This sidewalk will make the roadway pedestrian friendly as well as
permit school children to walk to the school site once the future frontage road is constructed.
,
18. A tree survey must be prepared as part of the develepmen! preliminary plat review process. In addition, a
woodland management plan will be required as pan of the p1mling pfesesrn
'
19. The applicant may wish to investigate the use of setback variances to accommodate the siting of housing in
the vicinity of wetlands or to preserve existed wooded or topographical features on the site.
20. Submit utility plans for review and approval. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet maximum.
,
21. Street names shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for approval.
'
22. Submit turning radius dimensions to the Fire Marshal for review and approval.
23. Applicant shall address the comments enumerated in the letter from Joe Richter of the DNR dated 32/94•"
,
24. A ten (10) foot clear zone must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes,
NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes.
'
25. Submit turning radius and cul -de -sac dimensions to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval.
26. The - southern terminus of the trail shall not parallel the railroad tracks. It should be located between Lot 53
,
and the wetland with sufficient buffer to protect both.
27. A 50 ft wide trail strip shall be identified along the westerly border of the plat from the Stone Creek Drive
extension south to the railroad tracks. This corridor is for the future Bluff Creek trail which will pass under
'
the railroad tracks at this location.
22
'
I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994
' 28. The mid -way trail connection shall be relocated to the vicinity of Lots 35 36 and 37 This easement shall
maintain the 30 ft. buffer distance consistent with the remainder of the site. This is accommodated as Hart
of the staff sketch plan.
' 29. The trail shall remain on the west side of the creek in its entirety, crossing the west branch at the
convergence of the east and west branches, then continuing on to the collector road
' 30. Trail fee credit shall be granted for the construction of the trail Buffer areas are required for wetland
protection and shall not be considered for park fee credit.
' 31. One of the goals of the Bluff Creek Corridor plan is to provide a quality outdoor experience along the
corridor. A necessary component of such an experience are open space areas which provide views and
allow for the placement of Picnic tables etc. Such spaces are not represented on this elan
' 32. A minimum one hundred (100) building setback should be maintained from Bluff Creek This may be
revised based on the outcome of the Bluff Creek charrette.
' 33. The two small ponds that are not required for stormwater retention or pretreatment should be removed from
the proposed Dlan.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried.
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING CHRIST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,560
SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING CHRIST ON
PROPERTY ZONED OI, OFFICE INDUSTRIAL AND LOCATED ON LOT 2. BLOCK 1.
CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, 820 LAKE DRIVE.
Kate Aanenson: (A portion of the staff report did not get picked up by the microphone.) ...one of the additional
things that we asked for is that they place a berm facing the proximity to Highway 5. A berm in the parking
between Highway 5 and the church itself. If you've driven across that, you're right on grade ...south of Highway
5. We are ... getting MnDot approval. They are reviewing it right now. There's also a power line in the area.
The Planning Commission wanted me to review this project.-berm could not be placed so they wanted to see
some alternatives because they felt that that soften the building. They are doing landscaping out in front of the
church and that does help soften ... In addition we feel that there's additional areas that are outside the MnDot
right -of -way that additional plantings can be done and also along the driveway easement even though... in that
area. Other than that we feel like the church has met the requirements of the Highway 5 overlay and would
recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: - Good, thank you Kate. I like the looks of that myself. It's really quite outstanding. Would the
applicant like to come forward and go through your formal presentation with this.
Jim Dewalter. My name is Jim Dewalter. I'm Chairman of the Building Committee. Don Wagner is here as
well. He's the architectural firm that we're working with and if you'd like me to go through the changes we're
going to make or the details of the plan?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you would. Just lightly.
23
J
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Kate Aanenson: I wish I had a perspective. I should have given you that.
Councilman Senn: I mean, aren't we talking the same thing?
Kate Aanenson: :..what we're trying to do is there shouldn't be any, a lot of these are going to have
vegetation—and I should have attached a copy of the specs so you could see how high...
Councilman Mason: How high is the sign?
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, I can't remember now. Diane put this together but if you want to table this, we can
provide....
Councilman Senn: I mean the ones I've seen marking other things they're like 4 to 5 feet in height and they are
just ugly.
Councilman Mason: I think tabling it's a good idea because I agree with Mark. We've got so many doggone
signs up all over, you little green post signs all over.
Kate Aanenson: ...so people can't take it out and mow but yet people can see it and I agree...
Councilman Mason: I'd move that we table this until we can see those specs.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor to table. Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table action on the Wetland Buffer
Monumentation fees for further documentation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONING 39 ACRES FROM A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, RLK
ASSOCIATES.
Kate Aanenson: ...it's currently zoned A2. It is bordered ... The applicants are proposing a 56 single family
housing site. There are two existing wetlands on the property. One included the Bluff Creek. As you're aware
the City is working to get this segment of the road as it goes over to the school. Highway 5 is up here. This is
Timberwood. And the subdivision will tie into Stone Creek. Right now here's the extension. I would just like
to address the issue as far as how we feel it merits the PUD. There's a significant amount of varied topography
in the area as well as a creek corridor... This is concept at this point and staff certainly feels it merits the PUD
as far as preservation of the natural features. We feel at this point this proposal that you're looking at tonight
falls short of mark. If you look at the conditions, we do have a lengthy conditions... The Planning Commission
had recommended... conceptual approval be given at this time for the reasons outlined in the report. Given the
number of lots that are under 15,000 square feet. The treatment of Bluff Creek. The grades... preserve the
topography. Provide a transition for Timberwood to Heritage to the south. There is a utility line, a power line
that runs along the back of these lots and you can see that some of, these are quite a bit smaller lots, especially
when you look against adjacent to Timberwood. There's a significant change in the lots and the number of
i•
I
0
1
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
homes that... Minimizing the tree loss. And then the tying of the extension road. The east/west tying into that.
Right now it appears that this road needs to be carried all the way over to McGlynn's. Otherwise we need to get
the extension down from this street. Otherwise they're dependent upon the extension of the Fourth Phase of
Stone Creek in order to get access to this. One of the big issues that the staff brought out. As you're aware, the
city is pursuing the LCMR grant with Bluff Creek study and we do have an ad hoc committee with that.
Unfortunately even if we do get funding for that, it's a year away. What we had recommended throughout this
report is that we put together a design charette with Bill Morrish. I had contacted him and he said he was too
busy to do that but recommended Lance Neckar from the Landscape School. Lance did send me back a proposal
for doing a design charette and looking at the issues of Bluff Creek. We not only have this project going
forward but we also have the project...which is north of Highway 5 which the creek also goes through. That
property we talked about as far as where the frontage road should be crossing the creek or whether it should stay
to the south. We do have a lot of issues and we feel like this is kind of getting ahead of what we're doing
which is kind of the same situation when Opus came forward on the Highway 5 corridor. We don't have the
standards in place and that was the whole intent of securing the LCMR grant is to come up with some designs.
We know we want to protect the Bluff Creek corridor and we want some elevations but we're not sure as far as
where we should provide the recreational opportunities and the revegetation and basically enhance... itself. So
what we have recommended in this report is that we ... come back, if conceptual approval is given for this, to
come back with final approval, that we allow a design charette to happen. Lance Neckar did tell me that Bill
Morrish has freed up some time and feels really committed to this project and they're looking at the end of May
for doing the design charette. It will be coming back ... to approve funding for that charette but I think that's—and
what we recommended in this report is before it would come back again, that they incorporate some of those
issues. And what we're talking about as far as the corridor, is just flushing out some major issues... starting at
TH 41. Going all the way down at least to Lyman Boulevard because that's where all the pending development
is happening. And what we don't want to do is allow subdivisions to go in and then find out we haven't
provided the proper setbacks and... But we do feel this merits a PUD. As outlined, as I read through the
Planning Commission and there are some concerns as far as the amount of grading. The lot sizes. And the
applicants are aware that there may be a lot of change between this plan and the preliminary plan. The Planning
Commission, when they recommended denial. We have this problem every time we do the concept PUD. It's
not ready for concept. If you go back and look at the ordinance, what is required for conceptual. It really is just
a general statement and we've always felt like it's really just their marching orders before they come back and
we did the same thing with Opus. We asked them not to come back until we got the Highway 5 in place ... So
what the applicant is looking for is some direction. Just to point out the salient issues and this is what we need
to go back and address. Now obviously we did go ... recommended denial but what we've given in the conditions
of approval is substantial direction and as I said, marching orders that they need to...So staff is comfortable
although the Planning Commission recommended denial, we had conceptual approval with the conditions in the
staff report, and there's quite a few of them.
John Dietrich: I'm John Dietrich from RLK Associates...John Dobbs from Heritage Development regrettably had
a conflict tonight ..I appreciate the comments that we received from staff with regard to the conditions of
approval. We realize this is a concept plan and there is additional work that needs to be done on this site ... We
have alsoiried to work closely with the engineering department... that's also one reason that we also went
forward with the concept plan is that we can start to look at that alignment and be able to start ... that sight
accordingly. We realize there are a number of issues that need to be addressed and we'll start working on
them. We are currently getting surveys. Wetlands delineated and those items being picked up so that we'll be
able to have a much better handle on the overall development of the site. We do realize there will be a
combination of lots, both over the 15,000 and under the 15,000. The plan as it sits today has an average lot size
of approximately 20,000 square feet, not counting the wetlands that are on the site. So it's, in order to preserve
50
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
some of the topography. The trees along the southern part of the second wetland. The two wetlands that are
identified on the site. It's going to take a challenging plan and it's going to take some flexibility from the city
and that's why we were requesting the PUD. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I think the Bluff Creek issue stands alone. The only comment I had, I think which came
first, the chicken or the egg and was Timberwood there first or second and although I don't have any great needs
to defend Timberwood, we have tended to protect them anal they've kind of been a group that came in and
established a neighborhood that they wanted and we did separate them from Stone Creek. We didn't tie those
together for a reason and I wouldn't even entertain the thought of them taking the Timberwood residents and
tying them to 5 homes in their backyards so I think this western border or the eastern border of Timberwood
with 16 homes is totally incompatible with the existing land use and I wouldn't even want to address that. I'm
not even interested in looking at it. I don't think that's fair to them. I don't think it ties the areas together and
that would have to be the large lots there and small lots someplace else if there's going to be any. I'm not
interested in seeing this area because that's. These lot sizes Kate, they're not just the buildable numbers right
now? These large lots still include wetlands and may not be buildable, is that right?
Kate Aanenson: You mean some of these lots?
Councilman Wing: No, the average lot size is 20. Did you mention that still includes non buildable areas
possibly?
John Dietrich: That has deducted out the wetland areas.
Councilman Wing: Deducted out, okay.
Councilman Senn: All the lots were meeting the ordinance requirements.
Kate Aanenson: Well the PUD, the smallest lot size you can go up to is 11,000.
John Dietrich: And the smallest lot size I think was 12,500 and then 13,500.
Councilman Wing: My only comment was the 16 lots bordering Timberwood and putting 5 homes in someone's
backyard. They kind of didn't move there for that reason. Or moved there to avoid that. Is that what I wanted
to say?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. That's what I want to say. Since it's two homes away from mine.
Councilman Senn: So what's somebody supposed to do?
a
Maya Chmiel: He's just making general comments.
Councilman Wing: I don't think we need that density abating those houses.
Maya Chmiel: In and adjacent. Even though it's a PUD. I didn't like the size of those lots that bother there
either but Colleen.
51
fl
r
r
C
F1
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: There are two things I like about this proposal. One is that it's coming in as
PUD. I think that's certainly appropriate. And the other thing is the builder. I think they, I mean the developer.
You've shown great willingness to work with the city. I just think this is premature at this time. There are too
many outstanding items and I think staff has really outlined what needs to be worked on. So I'm not prepared to
give concept approval tonight. Go back. Work on some of the issues and then come back and we'll take a look
at it. You know going in residential, I think that's the appropriate use for this piece of land. But it just, there
are too many things left out right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well, I'll admit when I first read through this I thought huh, you've got to be kidding.
Well just because I think clearly and I think everyone's admitting that there are some things that need to be
worked out. The reason I would vote approval tonight is just because of the, what Kate had just said about a
concept plan and the underlying portion here where it says, approval of the concept statement shall not obligate
the city to approve the final plat or any part thereof or to rezone the property to planned unit development
district. And I think with this rather lengthy list of recommendations and I would concur with what Richard said
about the homes abutting, regardless of what property they're abutting, I don't, that size I don't think is
compatible to the size of the Timberwood homes. I'm sure the developer understands. There's quite a bit of
work that needs to get done before they would come back to us again. So I can go along with it with those
conditions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I mean as far as preliminary concept goes, once you superimpose and inject staff's points and
comments, I think it's an early stage and there's a lot to be done ... but I think if you incorporate and work out the
things that staff wants to work out, I think it brings it pretty much in par with what we're looking for normally.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I too feel that it's a little premature to even give the conceptual because I want to see a
little bit more and I'd like to see staff work back with the developer to come back with something other than
what's basically shown. And I think it's a good proposal, having residential in and adjacent to what's there and
would serve the area rather well. But the sizes, I still have some real concern with, even though it's PUD. So
with that, would someone like to make a motion?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move to deny the concept approval.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded All those in favor say.
Councilman Senn: Wait, wait.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Did you want to say something?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean it seems to me that if you think it needs more work past the concept approval,
why don't we table it and let them go through the work. I mean I don't know why we're denying it. It seems
to be inconsistent with what we would normally do. Usually we table it and let them go to work on it some
more.
52
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: That would be up to the motionee and with the second to make that change to either table.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. That does make more sense because we're not saying we don't like the concept in
general. Yeah, I would withdraw my motion and make a new one to table.
Mayor Chmiel: Would the second also?
Councilman Wing: Tbat's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll entertain the motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I already made it to table, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table concept approval for a Planned
Unit Development for Heritage Development for further work. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT COMPUTER AIDED
GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND SUBDIVISIONS.
Kate Aanenson: I did hand out a couple additional letters that staff had received... concern about this item. This
directive came from the Planning Commission who was concerned about being able to really get a grasp of the
scale and scope of the projects. And the City Council's discussed that also. It also came out of the fact that we
saw the photo imaging for the bridge for the ISTEA project. It helped to visualize the scope and the scale of
that project. So the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment. So what we've
done is prepared an amendment that would, our subdivision requirements for application and site plan review to
add language that would say, computer image enhancements. If you look at the definition that we put in there,
there was a discussion about whether or not the—would be sufficient or enhanced photos like you say tonight
with Byerly's. And I think that's probably sufficient for a lot of projects. But there are projects when computer
imaging is more appropriate so there is, under subdivision and site plan application there is a requirement that
says other information as deemed necessary by the staff. Well lot's of times, that's where we do ask for just
renderings and that may be sufficient but we did want language specifically that talked about the generated photo
composite imaging and ... So we amended the code in two places. The subdivision regulations where we're
looking at large subdivisions and again this may be a multi- family project along Highway 5 where we're trying
to capture the visual and what the impacts would be of the roof lines, the ... of the buildings ... So it does make
sense in subdivisions. And it may not in all subdivisions. I think when we put it in there saying they may be. I
think thie -s a concern a lot of people have ... and then also when a site plan, it may be a simple site plan and it be
required but...it may be a small one that has significant impact...The other issue that came up is the cost. People
had a concern about that. In looking at the Planning Commission Minutes, Bob did discuss that and he called
and found out, he felt the standard right now was about S3,000.00..at was our understanding that that would be
the high end and that the cost, depending on once you put the original information in, then duplications are
alterations from thaL..Of course this is a new technology that's rapidly catching on and it's our understanding
that the cost of this, there's more people doing it...So with that, we'd recommend approval of the two ordinance
53
u
U
u
I
I
1
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
' LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56
' SINGLE FAMELY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5. EAST OF
TBOERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT.
' Public Present:
Name Address
' Jeannene Krone RLK Associates
Steve Schwanke RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet
' Richard Frasch 8000 Acorn Lane
David Gestach 8001 Acorn Lane
' Tahir Khan 2040 Renaissance Court
Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane
' Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Jeannene Krone: I had two requests from John Dobbs who is of Heritage Development and
' the first is that the trail easement that you are looking at would be a 30 foot easement.
Hoffman: Would you please introduce yourself.
' Jeannene Krone: My name's Jeannene Krone from RLK. I'm landscape architect. So
Heritage requests that they be granted a 20 foot easement along the wetland instead of the 30
' foot to provide the trail. And there were some changes. We discussed them with the
Planning Commission that where we originally wanted the pond is a wetland and they will
need to be doing some ponding outside this wetland to the east. So this would be a storm
' water pond around here and I drew a quick section that shows right through here that the
back of the lots would come down. There'd be a narrow pond then I had a 20 foot trail
bench and then the wetlands start and eventually go to the creek. And now they're doing a
' 20 foot easement instead of a 30 foot. John Dobbs wanted to say that he would be willing to
put in the trail as requested as long as he was fairly compensated...
' Andrews: Do you know what the average lot size is you're proposing here?
Jeannene Krone: The average lot size is 20,000 square feet. That includes property, this part
' of the wetland.
Andrews: The outlots?
1
19
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 '
Jeannene Krone: The outlots. And other than that, there's still a 15,000 square foot
minimum beyond the wetland. '
Manders: We trail you're talking would be on the bottom side of the water retention?
Jeannene Krone: It would be, no. It would be between this pond and the wetland. '
Manders: Right. I
Jeannene Krone: So it would, it's proposed to come up this part of the creek but it can't go
up here because of the wetland. So it'd be between the pond and wetland here and stay just '
outside the wetland until it gets back to the creek. And the main reason for the 20 foot
easement is there were some lots that wouldn't work if it had to be a 30 foot trail.
Andrews: Todd, usually we are looking at 20 foot easements. Why were we looking at the '
extra 10 feet?
Hoffman: In conversation with Diane Desotelle and other members of the planning and '
engineering staff, there's a requirement for a 20 foot buffer inbetween that wetland the
developed property and that buffer is to allow the natural vegetation to collect sedimentation... '
etc, etc before they drain into the wetland. So if we...
Manders: What constitutes the definition of that wetland? Is it just elevation or is it just. '
Hoffman: It's a mapped wetland. The elevation and the aerial underneath that is also it's an
elevation. '
Jeannene Krone: And we will be having the wetland staked as soon as the ground thaws, and
delineated... were taken from maps from aerial photos where the wetlands are. '
Lash: When you're saying some of the lots won't work with the 30 foot easement, are you '
saying they're too small?
Jeannene Krone: Yeah, they'll be too small.
Berg: What's .too small?
Jeannene Krone: Less than 11,000 square feet in a PUD. '
Lash: Yeah, that's too small. I
20 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
i
Jeannene Krone: And then it's too narrow. Too narrow for the house and stuff.
Manders: That's assuming that the current road structure is approved or is that finalized?
Jeannene Krone: That's assuming the road structure is approved.
Lash: This is all still under the conceptual plan. So if we stick with the 30 feet, the plan can
be redone so it would be workable. Could it note?
Jeannene Krone: Sure...
Andrews: Is there anyone else here from the audience that has any questions or comments
about this proposal? If so, please state your name and address please?
Richard Frasch: Okay. Do I have to stand up or can I sit down here?
Andrews: If you could approach the podium.
Hoffman: You're on record here.
Richard Frasch: Big audience here. My name is Richard Frasch. I'm at 8000 Acorn Lane in
Timberwood. From my perspective, just so I understand where we're talking about here. Is
this Timberwood right here?
Jeannene Krone: Right. At the bottom.
Richard Frasch: Okay, and then this road here, is that.
Jeannene Krone: That's the proposed frontage road.
Richard Frasch: Okay, so that would be connecting toTimberwood?
Jeannene Krone: No. It would go along with the school opening. It would be just north of
Timberwood.
Richard Frasch: Right at the north of Timberwood.
Hoffman: This is north. This is Acorn. This is north. This would be the new frontage road.
The new school, park site and then Highway 5 runs vertically here.
21
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 ,
• a Park Board member here that I cannot support
'
Andrews. I'll have to say personally as pp ort
reducing that. easement. I think that this particular corridor is absolutely critical to the city '
and it's future beauty and I just feel that we can't give an inch here. I just don't think we
should. I feel -that the houses in these price ranges, you know a few lots may be sacrificed
but I just don't think that we should be asking for anything less than top quality. Here we '
have one of our most valuable pieces of property and it's a PUD coming in asking for lot
sizes that are actually below standard if they were not under PUD and I just don't think we
should support anything but the type of quality that our city should demand. That's where I ,
stand.
Roeser: I agree. '
Lash: I agree.
Berg: Absolutely.
Manders: The ordinance was put in place for a reason. To keep the fertilizers out and all of I
those things so I agree.
Andrews: Yeah. Do you need a motion here Todd or, I mean I think you're getting some ,
feedback right there where we're standing, which is that we're not supportive of any change
in that setback.
Hoffman: If you're prepared to make a motion, the motion outlined in the... '
Andrews: Well I move that we would, that the Park Board resolutely is in favor of '
maintaining the 30 foot easement necessary for the trail and the proper amount of distance for
protecting the creek. And therefore would-ask that the applicant resubmit a plan that would
meet that requirement. '
Lash: Second.
Andrews: Any discussion.
Andrews`-moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend '
that the applicant maintain the 30 foot easement necessary for the trail and to resubmit
a plan that would meet that requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried '
unanimously.
Hoffman: ...you need to compensate the applicant or the developer for the cost-in I
23 1
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
' developing that trail and that's always been the city's policy...
' LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 82.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD; INCLUDING 19.3 ACRES FOR
' OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, 52.9 ACRES FOR MULTI- FAMILY, 3.4 ACRES FOR
PONDING AREA, AND 7 ACRES FOR ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY, LOCATED SOUTH
OF HIGHWAY 5. WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD, AND ABUTTING THE NEW
' CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE/RECREATION CENTER AND PARK
SITE; CHANHASSEN CORPORATE CENTRE, HIGHWAY 5 PARTNERSHIP, RYAN
COMPANIES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, BOISCLAIR CORPORATION AND
RLK ASSOCIATES.
PJ
r
J
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Steve Schwanke: Members of the commission, thank you Todd. My name is Steve
Schwanke with RLK Associates and I've been working on this particular project here for
probably the last 6 to 7 months. Jeannene Krone who was here just a few minutes ago was
assisting with some speck design of some of those particular areas. As Mr. Hoffman has
mentioned, we view this very much as a concept stage. A lot of the designs that we have
submitted, we have 5 plan sheets as part of this. A lot of the design work that we've put
together for that really is, in terms of a concept, we want to really make sure that we begin to
identify some specific land uses and some specific densities that will be allowed for the
access points. And actually when we begun with all of this, probably 5 or 6 months ago, it's
been in a very fundamental point. We began working with the city and the city's consultants
actually 5 or 6 months ago working with design and some of the major infrastructures in this
area here. Barton - Aschman has been very cooperative as well as the engineering department
and the planning departments and of course the parks and recreation department in assisting
us in designing a lot of the infrastructure for this particular area here so when the feasibility
study for example for the east/west collector road came out, it was principally based on the
design that we had created for that in a way that we were able to maximize the land uses
both to the north and to the south as well as being able to ... corridor here that Todd was
talking about` The east/west corridor as it snakes up from the north here and goes west a
little bit and, goes up to the north again. So a lot of that work we actually have been
doing in September and October. We've also been working in this particular area here in
conjunction with the School District and their consultants HGA. As well as the city's
consultant Bonestroo who's been doing some of the storm water planning for this particular
area here ... in conversations with the school and the city for the design of this pond area here
as well as just the size of it and you know what areas should be brought into it and things of
that nature. We've actually been involved in this project for some time working with the city
24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 '
10. The r f for h signage stated in the f h recommendation '
aqua a ootages o the s gnag tat a body o the eco endatron shall
account_ for the removal of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text. ,
11. Byerly' i name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad and Ron Nutting who opposed, and the motion '
carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
Scott: The motion carries 4 to 2 and Ron, if you could summarize your thoughts on your nay ,
vote.
Nutting: In my earlier comments I basically agreed with the east elevation signage. I guess '
I'm new to this game and I still haven't fully figured out the process but I'm less a tinkerer
and more along the lines with what Ladd was saying. I don't, I'm not comfortable with '
picking everything apart to what I see as opposed to what the developers have spent a lot of
time working on.
Scott: Okay. And Ladd, your comments.
Conrad: I've made them already. '
Scott: Good. And this goes to City Council?
Generous: March 28th. '
(Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and was not present to vote on any of the
'
remaining items.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
'
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2.
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5. EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES. HERITAGE
'
DEVELOPMENT. RLK ASSOCIATES.
Public Present:
,
Name Address
Tahir Khan 2040 Renaissance Court
John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
'
16
,
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
John Dobbs
Colleen Dockendorf
450 East Co. Rd. D, Little Canada
2061 Oakwood Ridge
1
Bob Generous, Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay: Any questions or comments for staff? Hearing none, would the applicant or
their representatives wish to address the Planning Commission? Please identify yourself.
John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development. I
guess I'd just briefly like to give an overview and let John Dietrich from RLK will go
through some of the concerns. I guess I'd just briefly like to tell you a little bit about me.
I'm a trained landscape architect and interestingly enough, a number of the people who show
up on your—community across the corridor, study of urban design studies, one of my
professors in landscape architecture department and Bill Morrish did some ... urban design and
Lars...who is a professional landscape architect who was my advisor at one point. Not only
that but I happen to run Heritage Development at the moment...so it gives me an interesting
and unique perspective I think on what's going to come up and I'm actually looking forward
to it I think. ...make a difference and do some different things. The reason we put together
the preliminary and put it out as a PUD was, as Kate mentioned, there are a lot of concerns
staff has and that we have about the property and it seemed like a very good way to
keep ... and the staff and the Planning Commission and City Council. A number of issues have
been addressed as in the preliminary meetings that I've had, as Dave mentioned, with storm
water management. The landscape is, that we're addressing here is very narrow and also very
rolling. There's a future park corridor running down the Bluff Creek ... idea for the entire city
itself. And the future sewer line that's coming from Stone Creek running out to the future
school site. Had meetings with Kate and Diane, Dave and Charles, the City Engineer. I've
also been over to ... Bill Morrish and Tom ... and just trying to be as much a part of this as I
possibly can so. We're coming to the ... meeting at 2:00 tomorrow and I'm pretty excited
about the process and I think we'll pass along ... With that, we do have some concerns with the
storm water is a real issue. That's changing as we speak in terms of drainage, Stone Creek
and new runoff that we're going to generate, park corridors and trails along it so
obviously ... So John Dietrich who represents RLK will...
�_,
John Dietrich: John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We are the landscape architects and civil
engineers preparing the findings for Heritage Development. I have just some clarifications
that I'd like to put to each of the I guess 23 recommendations that we have with you.
Address those. We've had a chance to discuss it. We are basically in approval with the
recommendations as they are stated. Some minor clarifications that ... Should we speak to
those now or would you like to discuss the plan first?
17
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: I guess I think probably what we'd like to do is have you go through the
recommendations and then do your clarifications so we can understand what your position is
and so forth. r
,
John Dietrich: Thank you. I'm on page 15 of the staff report ... The first one, the applicant
incorporate design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed plan that are being
initiated in the upcoming month. Yes, we definitely want to include those. We just want it
to be clear that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed in this corridor. Open
space, land use. The access needs. The need for development of the residential property so
that they all have to be tied in so we are a quality park and open space and have-individuals
come down and use that space. Secondly is timing. We are interested in moving forward
with a final PUD and then into a preliminary platting procedure so that we can look at an
opportunity for development on this site this coming year, 1994. So we are looking to do,
trying to move along quickly but also incorporating the concerns. Number 2, the proposed
ponding area in the southern portion should be relocated to lessen impact on wetlands,
wooded areas and natural features. If indeed the ponding area that we have ... talked about
with Heritage and ... is going to be an issue, we feel that there's an opportunity to have a pre-
treatment of the storm water between the wetlands to the east and the lots up the roadway
that would necessitate some ... and possibly the roadway and possibly some negotiation
between the square footages of all the lots but we feel that would be a doable process and we
would definitely adhere to the pre - treatment of any storm water ... wetland areas. Number 3,
that's a yes. We will definitely be working with Frank Svoboda and Associates for wetland
delineation. Number 4, attempt to retain the natural topographic features. Again, we will be
looking closer at the grading plan and design and in concert with these ... trunk line, sanitary
sewer and watermain to this site, we want to try and have an equal balance for good
engineering and good site design for all parties involved. Number 5. Pretreatment of the
storm water. Basically we go back to comment number 2. The City has suggested removing
Lots 50, 51, and 52 and building a storm water retention pond for the pretreatment area. We
feel we can modify the location of that pretreatment area so that we will not lose 3 lots
outright for pretreatment. That is again a...modification that would have to be. Number 6.
Wetland 15 -15 -1 should remain in it's current condition. If in fact it does remain in that
condition and-you would like to have us work with the city as to potentially looking at that as
some unique'fiousing sites on the edge of that pond area where they would have a much
higher tree count within the lots. So if it's not going to be for ponding, there should be
another use that is estimated to stay exactly like it is. It would have to be some type of
credits...
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. Is that the wetland that is drained by a
culvert?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Hempel: That's correct.
I
' Ledvina: Okay. So are, do you have any specific proposals as it relates to that? Do you
need to take 'that culvert out or is that what you're thinking or modify that? Resize it or.
John Dietrich: This is the ponding area that we have a specific, we had anticipated utilizing
as a storm water pretreatment before it would flow into the wetland. Currently there's a
creek and in the creek ... site from the Timberwoo6 Estates area. We would propose that that
would be in it's current location. That with a street crossing.
Ledvina: Okay.
John Dietrich: Did I answer ur question?
Y
Ledvina: Well.
Hempel: One of the issues I guess that staff had before was this, this is the location of the
wetland that's currently being drained through an existing culvert that goes underneath the
railroad tracks in this location here. Based on the surface water management plan, we did
'
propose ... the use of this wetland but as the storm water quantity ... as of today right now. A
lot of the Stone Creek development as well as the southerly... drain through a ravine down to
the wetland to this location here and...It is our belief that somewhere in this area here, this
flat area with the trees ... for water quality improvements is adjusted in this point. So we feel
there's probably a location here where a pretreatment pond can be developed prior to a storm
sewer to go in prior to discharging into the wetland... continue the drainage patterns of the
neighborhood. That's something we want to be looking at here when we get the grading
plans and so forth.
' Ledvina: Thank you.
John Dietrich: Item number 7. The SWMP report, the storm water quality/quantity fees and
' trunk storm sewer charges as appropriate. Yes we will be looking to provide that on site and
the credit that comes with that report and providing that service. That would be great. We
also are concerned about what those fees are and that report is in it's final draft form so we
' have not'had an opportunity to actually see the report. Number 8, sanitary, trunk sanitary
sewer lines to be used as both lateral and trunk. We intend to work with the city and have
those within the public right -of -ways of the site so that we have an opportunity to maintain
' the creek corridor in it's natural state which we think both parties will benefit from. Number
9. The north/south street shall be extended through the outlot to connect to the future
' east/west frontage road. Between Galpin and Audubon Road. We fully intend that that
19
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Scott: Those4ho would like to speak, please come forward. State your name and address.
Tahir Khan: I am Tahir Khan and I live in Timberwood Estates. I read over the details on
drainage and I want to go on record stating that it is a drainage that is occurring from my '
20 '
,
connection would be critical to servicing his site and as that roadway is developed, this one
g Y P
would also be extended. That outlot is part of the Chanhassen Corporate Center PUD concept
plan submission which was submitted I believe 2 weeks ago to the city. Number 10,
,
curvilinear sheets are recommended to add aesthetics. We will work with the city and try to
come in with as quality of a plan as possible with the understanding that it is a long narrow,
highly topographical site so we're trying to balance a number of issues at this time. Number
'
11, to make the north/south roadway the major traffic flow. Yes, we will modify that.
Number 12, detailed construction drawings and specifications. Yes, we will submit to that.
13, final construction drawings. Absolutely. 14, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security. We assume
that will be based on the standard criteria that has been used on other platting procedures for
securing the escrow. We will submit that. Trail easements connecting the interior of the
development to the Bluff Creek, absolutely. 16, the applicant shall investigate the use of
private driveways to serve up to four lots. We will look at that issue to try and minimize the
amount of right -of -way for individual lots if we have the opportunity to do so. Number 17,
north/south street should provide a sidewalk on the east side of the roadway to match the
typical cross section for Stone Creek Drive. Provided the sidewalk that is being proposed
does connect into another sidewalk, we would agree to this condition. Our concern is that it
ends at our property line and goes nowhere else, then we should not be required to put it in.
A tree survey, number 18. Yes, we will take care of that. Number 19. We will look at
'
setbacks of variances to accommodate the siting and maintain that ... Number 20, 21 and 22.
Yes we will submit all of those approvals. And 23 addresses the issue of the DNR letter by
Mr. Richter to Kate Aanenson. Although we're concerned with the classification of this as a
protected tributary, it is the distance of 300 feet from the creek center line or bluff that it has
the shoreland overlay district provide to it which requires 20,000 square foot of...lot area. We
would ask that you look at a combination of lot areas would have an average of 20,000
,
square feet across the development in order to make this entire site work with the strong site
constraints and...
Scott: Okay, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience
who would like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Can I have a motion to open the
public hearing please?
'
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
,
Scott: Those4ho would like to speak, please come forward. State your name and address.
Tahir Khan: I am Tahir Khan and I live in Timberwood Estates. I read over the details on
drainage and I want to go on record stating that it is a drainage that is occurring from my '
20 '
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
property which is 2040 Renaissance Court. Which if you could put a map up. This is the lot
and there's natural drainage to the pond here that's not shown but it drains up and goes, the
water drains east and not towards the creek but it goes east, straight across and drains into the
creek that runs north and south. The way I see this platted out it's going to be running right
through the back yard until it hits the road. And I'm wondering if.
Farmakes: Excuse me just a minute. I saw you move the pencil back and forth to the east
and west. North I believe is facing, so which way does it drain, east or west or north and
south?
Generous: It drains from west to east.
Scott: Towards Bluff Creek.
Generous: Yes. To the wetland.
' Tahir Khan: It's a natural area. It just happens to be draining right from this corner. It goes
right to the creek and I'm wondering if there's any provisions that you have thought of so
they don't end up with a ... pond where the water has no place to go except ... go south.
Hempel: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to address that at this time if you'd like. Down here is
Renaissance Court. This is the lot that, he lives on right here. This drainage ravine that goes
' right through here is the one that carries the runoff from west to east. To the Timberwood
Estates down to Bluff Creek, which is down here in this area. We will be requiring that this
drainageway be left open with the appropriate sized drainage culvert similar to what's in to...
' Estates up here. We will maintain that flow through there. Will not be compounding...
Tahir Khan: On the one you had up where the current drainage is occurring towards, there's
' a slight depression on the top northwest corner and it serves two homes. One is my house
and the one north of my house. And the natural flow of the ground as it is, where that
drainage occurs, goes right through the property to the east. And unless there is some
grading that could occur so as to divert, there's also a power line that runs north and south.
So unless fr om that top northeast corner there's a new ditch section be done north and south,
for any house that goes ... is left not only it's own back yard but also cause flooding in the
' northeast - corner of my house and the southeast corner of the Johnson home.
Hempel: Once we get a formal grading plan we'll be reviewing that to make sure that the
' neighborhood drainage patterns are compatible. That we're not breeding any kind of ponding
onto the properties outside of the plat. It's part of our review process.
' 21
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Tahir Khan: This side of the concept where they show the street layout and the lot lines.
Hempel: Wq� don't have a grading plan at this time or a utilities layout so when that step '
during the preliminary plat approval process is what they supply in the piecemeal information.
This will address that further. '
Farmakes: Which lots would we be talking about here in relationship to the comment?
Hempel: It'd be up along this corridor here. It would be the east lot line of the plat. These
back yards of the Timberwood development in here.
Scott: Which lot numbers?
Farmakes: So we're not talking about 4, 3, 55 or 54? '
Hempel: I would say you're looking at Lots 4 thru 12 in this area. Address the back yard
drainage. '
John Dietrich: It appears that it might be running through the proposed Lot 7?
Scott: Right.
John Dietrich: We will take a closer look at that and it may necessitate a pipe out to that '
side or a definite Swale or some type of drain tile along the property line...
Tahir Khan: Also for the record, if your architects care to go and see it right now ... that pond '
is about 50 feet in diameter. And it has not gone over the slight hump before it starts to
drain so it's collecting right now between my property and the property north of me and I '
think as the spring thaw progresses, it eventually will top itself off and start heading across
the, start draining eastward now.
John Dietrich:, Would there be a problem to drain that all the time without having the water.
Tahir Khan: ; We would prefer, looking from our point of view, to have it drain all the time
because there is some very mature oak trees that momentarily do get submerged. Then once '
in a while when the plow used to plow the cornfield, it would leave ridges. 6 inches to 8
inches worth of ridges and that would be like a dam. And eventually the ridge would break '
and the flow would be very rapid across the cornfield so preferably it would be, if there's a
road going by and it can be graded so that the lots and the road are lower, by only even a
foot, then that water would probably drain normally into the sewer anyways. That's all I
22 1
7
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
have, thank you.
Colleen Dockendorf. Hi. Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge. Is that the exact area
we're talking about where the sewer stub will go in?
Hempel: The sewer stub for servicing the future Timberwood Estates, we're looking at this
corridor through here. It would be the lowest portion.
Colleen Dockendorf. As with all conceptual approvals there's, it's hard to give comments
when it's not final but my other concern is the time line that you guys are trying to meet and
are we putting the cart before the horse ... Bluff Creek corridor done this summer. I'm not
sure if all ... and if we give conceptual approval at this point, are we forcing ourselves to a
time line that we don't want to be subject to.
Tahir Khan: I have one more point. I read about the stub also for the sewer. If it has to run
into the Timberwood Estates, I would personally oppose to having it run next to the creek or
the drainage creek because it's very heavily wooded and it meanders back and forth
sufficiently through my property as well as properties through the west of my property. And
it would require a lot of trees going down. The sewer line would have to go across. Now
there is a drainage and utility easement on the northern edge of my property that takes a
straight shot towards Galpin Boulevard. If the trunk has to go and get stubbed in between the
creek and the existing easement, I would recommend the existing easement because the
existing easement also is part of this pond that I'm describing and consequently there's not as
many trees. And also access, like I said, straight to Galpin but I would be opposed to having
my property detreed ... in order to facilitate the stub going in.
Hempel: We'll be looking at that in greater detail in the upcoming preliminary plat submittal
in determining the best alternative to extending sewer, sanitary sewer in the future for
Timberwood Estates. Where the creek runs in the lowest portion of the Timberwood area
though it's typically, well there's ... to extend sanitary sewer so you can service the entire
development through a gravity system —and no need for an additional lift station and so forth
but we can certainly review that in greater detail in the upcoming month here so.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the general public? Okay, could I have
a motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 ,
' F' f Bob
Mancino: I'll make it short and sweet. First o all, ob I ant to thank you for doing such
an extensive job of bringing up so many issues. It's just a very good report and thanks. I'm
having a hard time, actually Colleen kind of took the words out of my mouth. Saying yeah
'
to this conceptual plan because I think conceptual plan sets the tone of the development and I
think the tone of this development, and it says in our staff report on page 2. The intent of the
development "is to create a project that is compatible with the natural elements of the area,
'
specifically Bluff Creek, the ravine, the wooded area and the existing topography. And it
goes on. And because of that I would like to wait until the shirette is done on the Bluff
Creek corridor and those design components the developer can work with. Until that is done,
'
because I think it will set the tone of this development. And I would like to wait and I could
not give conceptual approval right now until that Bluff Creek shirette is done and see how the
,
developer takes those design components, guidelines, and works with them in this
development. Because it is the whole part of this development. The Bluff Creek and the
natural topography.
'
Scott: Okay, good. Jeff.
'
Farmakes: A couple of general comments. I get uncomfortable when a high percentage or
we start hovering close to 40 -50% of substandard in a PUD. I don't know why that is but it
seems to be a target that we shoot for. There always seems to be that there's a bunch of little
'
lots and then there's some tree top lots that make up the rest that have extensive square
footage but what it does is it equalizes out the other lot. But the problem I have with that is
that a lot of that square footage that we're using isn't buildable under normal development
,
process and I keep on bringing this up. This is a difficult area to develop, granted and I
don't see a problem with the PUD. I see a problem with some disseparate lots, in particular
where some of these drainage patterns are where there's deep ravines. Very limiting as to
where those pads are going to go and the lot looks much more spacious than it truly is. And
without seeing building pads on this particular review, it makes it kind of dangerous from the
concept standpoint to give approval to this type of thing. Or really review the design of it.
'
Drainage issue is a concern in particular with this type of property and it's essentially that's
what this is. It's a big drainage field and I would be concerned about that if I was an
adjacent property owner or potential owner of this property. And I think it's sort of the cart
,
before the h6se here in this development, I'd agree with Nancy. And I would vote to deny it
at this point. , .
'
Scott: Okay, .Matt.
Ledvina: I have a couple of questions for Dave. On condition number 9. Talking about the
'
north/south street shall be extended through that oudot to connect to a future east/west
frontage road within three years of the final plat. I'm concerned about the connective you
,
24
'
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
know road scenario and what would be the time line for the east/west frontage road going in?
This is part of that south frontage road construction. What are we looking at there?
Hempel: That's correct. The east/west frontage road will serve the school site and eventually
multiple residential sites there east of the school site. The city project will be commencing
' this spring with the site grading of the school. Utilities later on in the summer with the street
construction in the fall. Completion date of I believe July of 1995.
' Ledvina: Okay. Doesn't it make sense to just, so this, the roads in this subdivision would
actually be done this year, is that what we're shooting for? Is that what the developer is
shooting for?
Hempel: I don't want to speak for the developer but my interpretation of their plan here is to
' show you the entire development with anticipation of doing a phased approach. The outlot to
the north is actually under a different PUD development and it will be coming in in the next
couple of weeks. Chan Corporate Center I believe it's called. I don't know, maybe the
' developer can address their phasing ... of this parcel. Maybe they are proceeding to develop 56
lots.
' John Dobbs: It would depend on a number of issues ... the one that's the most glaring and that
is this trunk sewer coming up. Whether that would follow the road line or not. If it does
follow along the proposed alignment that we have, there would be some drainage that would
' have to be ... in preparation for the sewer ... Then our intention after that, after the sewer would
go in, if there's enough time this year ... put in streets as far as weather...
Ledvina: Okay. Well I'm concerned about a 3 year time period. The issue as I see it relates
to safety and maybe 3 years is too long ... to delay that connection so I guess I wouldn't
change that recommendation specifically but I would request that staff review that
' recommendation again to see what might be appropriate as it relates to that time frame. It
may be an as soon as possible type of thing, you know would be appropriate. On item
number 17, Dave. Would you clarify the situation with the sidewalks there? How do you
' see that?
Hempel: Certainly. Currently Stone Creek, the Hans Hagen development to the southwest of
' this site, is - proposing to extend Stone Creek Drive to where it exists today in the first phase
of Stone Creek. There currently is a sidewalk I believe on the south side of Stone Creek
Drive ... which will terminate at the westerly property line of the subdivision. Their street,
' typical section does include the construction of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk as well so it
would be completing the sidewalk.
25
J
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 '
for added sensitivity as it relates to the area surrounding the corridor. But specifically I don't I
26 '
J-
Ledvina: Okay so that, so we wouldn't have a situation where we would have a sidewalk
ending? It would connect to the existing sidewalk? Or the proposed sidewalk in that area.
,
Hempel: That's correct in that location and eventually there is a sidewalk/trail in harmony
with each of those...
'
Ledvina: Okay. And getting, stepping back a little bit on this whole development. I guess
generally I support, certainly support the development of this site using the PUD approach.
We certainly do have a very sensitive area that we're dealing with. We have the extreme
'
topography on the northern part of this site and then also the ravine on the southern part of
the site. I would want to see those elements treated very carefully and to that extent I would
,
strongly support staff's recommendation that the private driveways be looked at in great
detail. Not necessarily to reduce the right -of -way but in an effort to minimize the disruption
to the topography. Also, it may make sense to increase the distance or just to eliminate
'
grading from those very steep areas and just pull the extent of the development back on the
northern part of the site to essentially leave those areas alone. And similarly to the, as it
relates to the ravine on the southern end, I understand of course you have to cross that but as
'
it relates to minimizing and perhaps even eliminating the grading associated with the
preparation of pads, building pads in that area. I think the street alignment certainly can be
changed to maybe provide a little more curvilinear aspect as the staff has pointed out. And I
'
think things can be perhaps readjusted in terms of the locations of the private, potentially
private drives to be sensitive to the topography. Let's see. I guess I would support this
conceptual approach. I think even though we don't have the guidelines for the Bluff Creek
corridor, I think that the developer is certainly aware that that is the reason that we're, that
we want to evaluate this or the reason it should be evaluated using the PUD approach. And
although things may not be specific as it relates to the standards, I think staff has probably a
pretty good idea of some of the things that can be done at this point to minimize the impact
on the corridor. To provide the access that we want to. The open space, etc so I think we're
pretty far away from making decisions that really dictate how the corridor will be impacted at
'
this point so I think that knowing what our goal is going to be I think is enough. And I think
we can move this forward from this point. So again I would support this proposal with the
staff changes. -- I've got some other conditions that I would add to address some of the
'
neighborhood
Farmakes Could I ask a question? How do you feel about so many undersized lots? And
'
adjacent to the property.
Ledvina: Well, we're looking at it as a PUD so some of the things that we can do for the
'
developer relate to the undersized lots and the setbacks. The roadway setbacks in exchange
for added sensitivity as it relates to the area surrounding the corridor. But specifically I don't I
26 '
J-
E
�I
i
IJ
I i I i I
J
J
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
know if 24 lots averaging 13,500 square feet, you know that might be acceptable.
Farmakes: My point on that though is if you look at Lot 37 and you see Lot 38, those lots
are a third of `those lots are buildable.
Ledvina: Right. I understand your point. Exactly.
Farmakes: So if you count those and the ones that are already substandard, if you get to 40-
50 %. 60 %. 70 %. At what point does the trade off for sensitivity become, really go beyond
the zone of single family and start encroaching elsewhere. Just because it's a wetland
doesn't, you couldn't build a traditional development on it.
Ledvina: Right. Well if it's a wetland it can't be included in the total, is that correct Kate?
Aanenson: There's a compliance table in the plat that shows the lots without the
wetland ... We check out the net and the gross...
Ledvina: You might think it's not buildable because of the topography but you know they
have some rights in terms of being able to grade that area. We don't want them to.
Farmakes: Well no, but what I'm saying, even as total square foot. Not usable square foot
but if you look at total. 21 of the 56 lots are undersized. That's, if you look at the usable, I
did count the usable square foot because we don't really have a criteria for that but it seems
like we get all these somewhere around 50% being undersized. And when they go in
adjacent to properties that are large lot, how are we dealing with a transition of development.
Ledvina: That's always an issue, certainly. And some of the things that actually, now I
wasn't able to walk that whole line there. I didn't want to because I'd be trespassing, or at
least I thought I would be. But I see a lot of topographic changes there that, and there's a lot
of vegetation there along that line. There is a, is there a power easement right on that line?
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: I think that also provides a buffer. And I don't know. You raise a very valid point
and there's a red flag that goes up when I see the backs of 5 lots, more than that, 6 lots
abutting one .lot. So that's always a concern. But I think the gains that can be made relative
to the creek may outweigh that given the specifics for the site.
Farmakes: So you think that more homes, I'm not here to beat up on your logic but you
think that more homes, when you're saying the site benefits. Does the site benefit from more
27
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 '
homes or higher density within the site or?
it lots in here.
'
Ledvina: Well, coming in here and just grading all out, you could put more
Farmakes: But there's a substantial amount of it you couldn't grade out.
I
Ledvina: Right, and the wetlands you can't.
'
Farmakes: In other words, the houses are lined up in a row so at least a substantial amount
of them are sort of lined up in a linear line so I.
Ledvina: I would change that certainly.
Farmakes: But there's not a lot of room to play around there before you get into the wetland.
,
Ledvina: No, you're right. I will say this. I don't know that whatever number of lots, 59
lots. I don't know. Maybe that probably seems like there's too many lots on the
development. So if, I don't know what the total number of lots will be but when you do start
changing the road alignments and taking a close look at areas, very steep contoured areas that
you don't want to grade, maybe the number of lots will go down. I'm hoping it will.
Mancino: Then conceptually, would you go with more clustering of the houses and have
more open area where we wouldn't do, there wouldn't be as much grading and keeping the
,
ravine, etc?
Ledvina: Well they suggested looking at the use of private drives with homes serviced off of
private drives. Several. 3 -4 homes. That's a technique. Clustering houses. I guess that's
kind of a clustering type of thing ... I'm done.
Farmakes: I just had a question.
Ledvina: Those
'
are my comments.
Scott: Okay;, Ron.
'
Nutting: Very good comments. I guess my issue comes down to giving conceptual approval
now versus deferring you know until the corridor or watershed plan is done contrasted with
'
the fact that the recommendation number 1 says they incorporate design components from
that. Is it 6 and 1, half a dozen of the other. I'm not sure. In terms of everything may
change or have to change because of that. So that point seems to suggest that I can live with
'
28 1
H
7
L
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
the recommendation but I agree with, I do agree with Jeff's concerns and also other
comments that have been made and so the question is, do you move it forward by deferring
or do you move it forward by approving subject to. And that's where my confusion comes
into the process.
Ledvina: Well we will see this again. I mean this is a conceptual.
Nutting: Yeah, so I guess from that standpoint I would tend to lean to say that subject to the
various comments that we could approve then the conceptual plan and move it forward. But
there's a lot of issues that are going to have to be resolved before it gets past that next stage.
I think Jeff's comments are appropriate.
Scott: Good, thank you. I was kind of surprised when we had two residents come up. One
who lived or has a lot adjacent to this property and they didn't say anything about the density
or the number of lots and so forth. I agree with Jeff on the kind of the false sense that we
get when we see very large average lot sizes but that's dictated primarily because of non -
usable space and so it kind of gives us a false sense. This to me looks extremely dense. I
don't support moving this forward. I guess even though it's from a conceptual standpoint, I
still think that we're saying something stronger than perhaps we are when I say I approve this
conceptually. I can't approve this conceptually. I think it's too dense. I think there are,
when I think about the work that we did on Al Klingelhutz's multi- family. We had a
situation where we had some large lot people with 15,000 square foot lots abutting, I think
there were seven 15,000 square foot lots abutting a fellow who I think had a 2 or 3 acre
parcel. The developer came back and reduced the density but basically worked with the
adjacent residents. Also too, is it topographic or topographic? I'll say topographically and
when I take a look at the northern extension of the street and I think Matt had a good point
about maybe doing something different. I see from Lot 22, I see an elevation of 910 going
up within, to Lot 19. We've got a 40 foot change in elevation and obviously that probably
exceeds our, was it 6 %? 7 %? So I think we're talking about some horrendous grading. I
can't pass this on right now. I think there's such a, there's a large component here where we
have to be sensitive to Bluff Creek and so I would recommend denying this conceptual plan.
I don't have further comments. Do we need more discussion or would someone like to
make a motion?
Mancino ' I. like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of this
conceptual PJD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development subject to the
applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed Plan.
They're being initiated next month and when those get incorporated, that we see a new
conceptual plan and I would also like to add that many of the issues that are in this
recommendation that Bob has put together for us, be incorporated into the conceptual plan
29
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 '
too.
Scott: Is there a second please? ,
Farmakes: I'll second. '
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the applicant's request. Is there any
discussion? '
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial
of this conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development '
subject to the applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek
Watershed Plan and that the applicant incorporate the conditions outlined by the staff
report into their conceptual plan. All voted in favor, except Ron Nutting and Matt '
Ledvina who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Scott: By a vote of 3 to 2 the applicant's request is denied and this goes to City Council on I
the 28th?
Generous: The April 11th. I
Scott: April 11th? Okay. And what will be accomplished relative to the, at least the design
or the shirette or some input. Will there be some facts that will be available or some city ,
guidance ... time to rework their plan prior to presentation to the City Council?
Aanenson: I don't think so. We didn't intend for that ...What we'll try to do now is ... so they '
know what to do when they come back the next round. They may not get 56 units. They
may get less than that but we have to resolve all these issues... that's fine but obviously we
hadn't intended for this shirette or this focus group to meet before they go to Council. But '
we certainly will communicate with them and with you so you know what the issues are
when it comes back. '
Scott: Yeah; that's what I'm kind of thinking. If there's probably going to be some new
information available, okay. 1
Ledvina: Joel
Scott: Yeah. '
Ledvina: I'd like to clarify two points that were discussed in addition to the things in the I
30 ,
11
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
staff report. I would like to see the staff evaluate the drainage patterns within the
Timberwood Estates neighborhood to make sure that the patterns of drainage are maintained
' and specifically in the vicinity of Lots 4 thru 12. And I'd also like to add that the
consideration`' for the sanitary sewer stub for Timberwood Estates, the siting of that stub
minimi topography disruption and tree loss to the extent possible.
' Scott: Do g
ou guys want to take a 5 minute break before we do the next?
y
(The Planning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.)
' PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT
COMPUTER AIDED GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND
SUBDIVISIONS.
Public Present:
' Name Address
I Vemelle Clayton
425 Santa Fe Circle
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments?
' Mancino: Is this a public hearing?
Scott: It will be. I don't know, I just have one comment. In the section 1(4) where you
' talked, item number (m) where you talk about computer generated photocomposite images or
artistic renderings. I personally would like to see computer generated photocomposite images
only and the reason, I was quite struck by the pedestrian bridge. I mean that, I think as a
' Planning Commission we were able to make some decisions based upon some fairly minute
differences I -think in the pylon size and different materials and then also they were able to do
a time progression and say well here's what it's going to look like now and here's what it's
' going to look like in x number of years. From an artistic rendering standpoint, I don't see
that as being valuable. So I would rather not have both. The question does come in
though, do you have an idea of what this costs somebody to do a photocomposite versus an
' artistic rendering?
' Generous: I don't know the artistic rendering. Now they gave me some examples of the
31
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933-72
ASSOCIATES LTD. fax: (612) 933 -0953
November 4, 1994
PRELIMINARY WOODLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION
(Formerly Heritage First Addition)
Existing Acreage 39.5 1,472,328 s.f.
Base Line Acreage (39.5 - 5.7 AC Wetland) = 33..8 AC
Minimum Requirements of Tree Canopy Coverage 30% of Base Line Acreage
.30x33.8 AC =10.14 AC=
Existing Tree Canopy 7.4 Acre = 21.9% Coverage =
Existing Tree Canopy Deficiencies 441,698 - 325,800 =
Required for 30% coverage 115,898 + 1,089 =
Proposed Tree Canopy Removal Per Lot:
BLOCK 3
Lot 20
1,700 s.f.
Lot 21
4.000 s.f.
Lot 23
2,000 s.f.
Lot 24
4,500 s.f.
Lot 25
5,100 s.f.
Lot 26
4,100 s.f.
BLOCK 2
Lot 7
600 s.f
Lot 8
4,500 s.f.
Lot 9
4,300 s.f.
'Lot 10
6,700 s.f.
Lot 11
4,300 s.f.
MIGHT -OF -WAY SOUTH
32,400 s.f.
.RIGHT -OF -WAY NORTH
7,800 s.f.
'BLOCK 3
Lot 10
8,000 s.f.
Lot 11
6,000s. .
tOTAL CANOPY REMOVED
1 96,000 s.f.
Total Square Feet Canopy Removal
Replacement at 1.2 time removal:
96,000 x 1.2 = 115,200 s.f.
115,200 + 1,089 = 106 trees
441,698 s.f.
322,344 s.f.
115,898 s.f.
106 Trees
CITY OF CRANE" r.S I ,
O '
C. ",; HA$SEN PLANINING DFPI
• Civil Engineering • Transportation . Infrastructure Redevelopment
. Landscape Architecture • Construction Management '
'
CANOPY
In order to achieve the 30% canopy coverage for the Creekside Subdivision, following is
PS mg n, g
provided on the revised Landscape Plan dated November 2, 1994:
30% Coverage of Tree Canopy = 441,698 s.f.
'
Existing Tree Canopy Coverage = 325,800 s.f
Existing Tree Canopy Deficiencies 441,698 - 325,800 = 115,898 s.f.
'
Required for 30% coverage 115,898 + 1,089 = 106 Trees
Replacement Tree Canopy
'
96,000 x 1.2 = 115,200 + 1,089 = 106 Trees
RESULTING TREE REPLACEMENT TOTAL 212 Trees
'
The proposed tree canopy removal is assumed to be a worst case scenario of tree canopy removal.
The grading plan was utilized as a limit of impact for the roadway improvements and each lot
'
.identified in the schedule assumed a 20' driveway, and complete clearance of the 60'x 60' or (3,600
s.f.) home pad. As each woodland lot is developed, it is assumed the homes will take advantage of
the woodland characteristics and not clear cut the entire home site. The tree replacement
'
(preliminary woodland management plan) will allow the wooded lots to remove the tree canopy as
outlined on the landscape plan.
A}
V
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
(Diane Harberts left the meeting at this point and was not present to vote on any of the
remaining items.)
^ V M.
PUBLIC HEARING: ,
REZONING OF 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2 TO RSF, PRELIMINARY
PLAT TO CREATE 48 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS, WETLAND '
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR MITIGATION OF PONDING AREAS, AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF AREAS WITHIN A FLOOD
PLAIN ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TWIN CITIES & WESTERN '
RAILROAD TRACKS WEST OF BLUFF CREEK AND EAST OF TIMBERWOOD
ESTATES AND STONE CREEK, HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION, HERITAGE
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. ,
Public Present: ,
Name Address
John Dietrich RLK Associates '
Michael Duffy 30E 7th Street, St. Paul, MN 55101
John Dobbs 450 E Co. Rd D '
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item and asked if there were any
questions from the commission. '
Mancino: Bob I do, just a couple. Just to help me remember a little bit of what came to us
before because quite frankly I've forgotten. What I want to know is why staff has changed '
it's mind about the placement of the roadway and not wanted the road closer to the wetland
which would reduce the grading in that northern third of the steep slopes and it would also, as
you say, give it more of a public kind of a roadway and in looking out at Bluff Creek and the '
whole area a*l we're very concerned with Bluff Creek and having it be a community area.
So why is it that the staff has said this is okay instead of keeping the road alignment the way
it was and- pulling off cul -de -sacs. I don't understand what we're getting for giving that up. '
Generous: We'd rather have the diversity and the ... trail on the rear of those lots to give the
public access to the wetland complex and then have the dedicated land in that forested area. '
40
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: But couldn't we still get, have the forested area and move the road closer to the
wetland and have the trail on the other side of the road?
' Generous: I suppose that's an option. I don't know...
' Mancino: Okay. I just wondered background.
Generous: We still think that we give a lot of the same benefits. We will have view
corridors between the housing pads so that people can see into that. We believe with the
access that will be provided to the trail easement... We wanted to have the sewer system go
through the, either along that corridor and the city road because of the soil conditions down
there and so we believe in looking at this development, that curvalinear street does have a lot
of benefits to it...
' Mancino: Instead of going straight through it. Now we are buying, the Park Board is
buying these lots, correct?
Generous: Well they would buy the land in excess of the dedication requirement. They have
to provide 2 acres of dedication.
Mancino: So we are paying for it. It's not being dedicated to the city.
Generous: Right, for the excess.
Mancino: Yes, you.
okay. Thank
Y Y
Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments.
Ledvina: The NSP easement along the west side of the property. How far does that go into
the property?
Generous: I believe it's a 40 foot easement.
Ledvina: Okay, so there's 40 feet in Timberwood and 40 feet in Heritage, is that correct?
Applicant: According to our research, it is an 80 foot easement.
Ledvina: Okay. Has there been any measurement of EMF that you're aware of? Okay,
maybe I'll ask the developer to review that when he does make his presentation. The Outlot
D area, what's the fate of that? What's the rationale for that? It's toward the southerly.
41
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
Generous: 1.47 acres? That was a ... provided as part of the Stone Creek development... I
Hempel: That's a water quality and treatment project which was developed with the Hans '
.Hagen Stone Creek development. It will also provide some treatment for a portion of this
development.
Ledvina: Okay, so it's adjacent to the wetland then? '
Hempel: That's correct. I believe Outlot D does cover the wetland and the storm pond.
Ledvina: Okay. Thank you.
r questions? Oka thank y ou for the staff report. Would the re
Scott: Any other comments o q y, y P
development team like to make a presentation? Please identify yourself and let us know what ,
you have to say.
Michael Duffy: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, good evening. My name is Michael Duffy and
I'm an attorney with... I'm here representing Heritage Development. Also on behalf of
Heritage Development is Mr. John Dietrich. Specifically he is the land design architect with
RLK and Associates and Mr. Dietrich has prepared the plat that is before you this evening.
Also on behalf of Heritage, Mr. John Dobbs. Mr. Dobbs is Director of Development with
Heritage. First off I'd like to express Heritage who'd like to express it's appreciation for the
staff acceptance of the road realignment and express it's appreciation for the staffs
recommendation as this preliminary plat...approved. Mr. Dietrich and I however have a few
comments with respect to the staff report. After Mr. Dietrich and I have made our comments,
we are going to ask that the staff approve the plat as submitted this evening... With that I'm
going to step aside and Mr. Dietrich is going to give his comments with respect to the
conditions set forth in the staff report and then I will be making some more comments after
that. I
John Dietrich: Thank you. My name is John Dietrich, RLK Associates. I would like to
briefly talk a little bit about the history of the site and then go into some of the details and
the characteristics and components of this site that we are pleased to present in the
preliminary plat format. In order to do that I will be walking between the overhead projector
and the microphone... can be heard well enough from the overhead projector, I'm going to just '
stand there. As Mr. Generous had mentioned, is that loud enough?
Ledvina: That's fine. '
42
0
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
John Dietrich: Had mentioned, the site itself is a 39 acre parcel and it's bounded on the west
by the Timberwood Estates. On the north by the property that's currently defined as
Chanhassen Corporate Center. On the west, or excuse me, on the east by a large extended
wetland that does go into the site. And on the south, Stone Creek Subdivision essentially on
the southwest corner. Along the southern border is the Twin Cities and Western Railroad
tracks. Approximately in a location parallel with the north/south line along the west is the
underpass under the railroad tracks that is to be included as a part of the comprehensive trail
corridor for the city of Chanhassen. It is the intent of this subdivision to meet the
requirements of the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance for the site as it would be
rezoned from A2 to a residential single family. The lot minimum for residential single family
is 15,000 square foot lots. The lots that are proposed average 21,000 square feet. That was
very important that we wanted to increase that size based on some of the comments when we
received when this came through in the preliminary PUD last spring. Just to redefine some
of the edges. Timberwood Estates is along the edge with tree cover and large single family
lots. They currently do not have sanitary sewer located in this subdivision. Bluff Creek
comes down and forms the northerly border as well as the eastern tributary of Bluff Creek
and then the creek runs along the eastern property edge. The red line identifies the delineated
wetlands that are existing on site. The green area identifies an area of overstory mature
growth which principally occupies the southern one -third of the site. There's a cluster of
overstory trees in the center and one isolated wetland up in the top portion of the slope. This
entire area has been pasture land and is currently farmed for a portion of it The development
will have the opportunity to meet the storm water ponding and wetland protection so the
opportunity for Bluff Creek and the entire Bluff Creek corridor includes water quality will be
greatly enhanced through the development of this 39 acres. Lastly, this little wetland to the
south will also be protected and there is currently a pond down on the very southwestern
corner that will take runoff from approximately the lower portion of the site and the Hans
Hagen site into that pond, pretreated before it would be discharged into the wetland.
Secondly, there will be a pond area to the east of the wetland area which the majority of the
site will flow into and that again will be pretreated according to the city's standards of Best
Management Practices before discharging into the wetland corridor. We propose a storm
water pond north of the creek to handle the northern portion of the site and that would also
be developed in conjunction with the development to the north of Bluff Creek. The roadway
system will extend from Stone Creek and through the site so that the roadway system will
extend from Stone Creek subdivision, meander through the site. Have two public cul -de -sacs
and then it', s proposed to extend north across the creek into Chanhassen Corporate Center to
the east/west frontage road which is currently under development by the city. That will be
serving the school site and discussions as to how far east that will be extended will impact
the timing and development of this roadway connection to the north. If I may briefly touch
upon the comprehensive plan. This site has utilized the comprehensive plan as it's basis.
This year 2000 land use plan, taken from your ordinance, identifies the site outlined in red. It
43
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
'
is scheduled for residential single family density of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Our development
is proposing a acreage or net density of 1.6, which is close to the lower end of the
residential range. The designated open space development principally lies entirely east of this
1
site, except fob this northern knob, the entire site is programmed in your comprehensive plan
to have residential single family on it. And the park and open space development will occur
to the east. As part of our development we are proposing that the parkland dedication extend
the comprehensive trail system from the south, under the underpass and would allow trail
access around the site to bridge an area between the wetland, the ponding and the residential
it's
single family development. It is our proposal that that 2 acre park dedication, as
'
identified on this site plan in green, complies with the ordinance and meets the objectives of
the park dedication requirements. It will also protect the slopes that are along the steep
corridor of Bluff Creek while providing a sense of variety of spaces ... open space, ponding
areas and along the wooded areas to the south of the site.
Mancino: John, could you give me a description of that park dedication area as far as
physical as elevation. What people would do there, etc.
John Dietrich: In terms of the park dedication, the topography has a low point at the
'
southwest corner. Comes across the wetland and then we would anticipate it raising up in the
range of 8 to 10 feet along the southern, southeastern corner. Coming back down along the
east side of the creek and then from this point it is in the wooded area. It would then be
'
fairly flat as it would go through the ponding and wetland area. We anticipate it to be a 8
foot trail within a 20 foot buffer area that would have wetland and ponding along side. It is
'
this segment of the trail that would be fairly flat. It would have a rise of a couple of feet as
it would need too to have access up to the north/south roadway. And as it would start to ring
around the site to the northeast, the elevation has an opportunity to go up along the slope or
'
follow the creek which is quite a bit down the side of the slope. There are very steep slopes
along this side and we would definitely want to work with the city and Park and Recreation
Director to place that trail appropriately. We have even talked at one time that we would
,
suggest a trail physically crossing the creek in this location and move the trail on the other
side of the creek. You may have an opportunity for a better trail here. In terms of the site
itself, the city .would be looking at grading the northern portion of the site and taking that
'
down. We ae concerned about the Timberwood Estates and the transition that will occur
between them. The large lots to the west would allow those items to have very little impact
from this - _development. By taking the slope from the property line down, we would allow the
views from Timberwood Estates to basically remain as they are today. The pads coming west
of the north/south roadway would have elevations of anywhere from 20 to 25 to 50 feet
below the elevations that are currently on that knoll. We are taking this hill down and
t
anticipating moving it south so that we have an undulating roadway experience. As part of
the contours that are anticipated to be shown on, we've put together a 3D model of the site.
44
ri
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
This is looking at the site, essentially a bird's eye view if we are southeast of the site. With
this it would allow the existing knoll on the north and it shows how the bank is running
through the site. The proposal with the roadway wrapping through would maintain the
western edge.: Hopefully come down and we will have a bench for the homesites. Roadway.
Another bench for the homesites and then the slope would project a bit closer to the wetland
on the northeast corner and then taper back in around the ponding area and as we would
reach the tributary to Bluff Creek, which extends up into Timberwood Estates, we would try
to match grades as close as possible and as we would move into the wooded area on the
southern one -third of the site, we will keep grading to a minimum so that it will have a
minimal impact to the trees. There will be trees removed on this site. We understand that is
part of the development process. However we want to make sure that we have the correct
number of trees calculated when this roadway project goes in ... and we will work with staff to
make sure that we compensate any tree removal according to the woodland management plan.
With the site itself, we are looking forward to an approval that would talk to the merits of
this project. The sensitivity that we are providing for this site and the opportunity of
providing 48 home sites in the Bluff Creek corridor while maintaining a public presence with
the trail which comes along the east side of the road. East side of the homes and the public
nature of the wetlands and the ponding area. Both on the east and on the west side.
Mancino: John, could I ask you a couple more questions?
John Dietrich: Certainly.
Mancino: First of all I'd like to thank you for presenting this and having it for us. I'd just
like to ask a couple questions on it and make sure I'm looking at it right and understanding
it. As I go from the existing view to proposed view, where you're putting the road north and
south, you're actually building up a ridge, especially towards the middle and going north, that
the road sits on and then on each side are walkouts. Is that correct?
John Dietrich: Not on each side.
Mancino: Jusi on the wetland side?
John Dietrich: Walkouts would only be on the east side of the roadway.
Mancino: Okay. So that's why the ridge is, you kind of built up that area?
John Dietrich: Yes.
Mancino: You filled in.
45
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 '
John Dietrich: We have filled in east of the roadway in that northeast section. Not on the
north side where the steep slopes are from the Bluff Creek but as we start to round. As we
begin to round the site more to the east, this area is fill. Along the north we are making the '
grades match for those walkouts because.
Mancino: It works that way? '
John Dietrich: We need to stay 50 feet away from their center line from the creek for
grading and 100 feet away for any structure and this plan achieves that. '
Mancino: When you get up to the northern edge of a property and to the west of that road it,
to me, looking at the existing view, it looks like mountains you know and then when I look at
the proposed view, it looks like there aren't too many mountains to the west there anymore.
Are you looping off, how many feet? 20 -30 feet of those slopes? '
John Dietrich: We are taking the slope down approximately 20 feet in a couple of locations
and on the average it would probably be in the range of 8 to 12 feet across that. '
Mancino: And have you done anything to protect and preserve those? I mean have you
thought about instead of going in with regular sized cul -de -sacs? Doing private drives.
Placing the lots a little differently.
John Dietrich: We have gone through a number of design alternatives. We previously have
looked at a plan with the private drives trying to service the lots so we would have an
opportunity to have the steeper slope going up the hillside. That was basically rejected by
staff when we discussed it previously. We feel we have looked at the alternatives. We have
tried to work with the slopes. Work with the engineering department to have the slope as low
as possible for the sanitary sewer but yet try and minimize the cuts and fills on the site.
Mancino: What's the balance? I mean what is cut and fill? What do you come up with over
the whole project?
John Dietrich':;,- Over the whole project right now we are a little long. When I say we're a '
little long, we're in the range of I would say 20 to 25,000 yards long. We anticipate trying to
work with_ the grades along this center portion. Bring those up a little bit so we can have a '
balanced site.
Mancino: Thank you. '
46
11
F - 1
L
J
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
John Dietrich: It's getting late here. I'll try to quickly go through a few items that I would
like to touch on. The items that were, that begin on page 23 of the staff report, that being the
conditions of approval. And for the most part we are in agreement with a great majority of
them. However I... To begin with on page 23 of the staff report. Number 1, Michael will
address that one on his closure. Number 2, we will definitely attempt and retain the natural
character of the slopes and the site wherever possible. We will have to work with the grades
to make this site balance. Especially on the north side. The woodland management plan will
be provided. We have submitted a landscape plan that staff has counted and said we are
maybe about 30 trees off in terms of replacement. We will work with staff to make sure that
we are in concurrence with that woodland management plan for the tree removal. In order
for that roadway to go through, there will have to be trees removed. In order to have home
sites in the wooded area, there will be trees removed. We would like this woodland
management plan to be comprehensive and address even the individual lots and right -of -way
so that when this plan is finally approved, those individual lots will already have the
calculation of trees that would be anticipated removed when the private development moves
forward on this. Item number 4. The revise the grading plan. We will not have a problem
revising the grading plan to try and keep a balance site. We will also make sure we identify
each and every floor elevation according to the City of Chanhassen Code. We use a different
numerical numbering system... Item number 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, we would have no problem
with. Item number 11. The applicant shall revise the plat to eliminate Lot 25, Block 3 and
bring the total number of lots to 47. For an overall site plan I'm going to show a detailed
area of this area that talks about Lot 24 and 25, that are essentially along the tributary of
Bluff Creek. As part of the approval or the plan that was submitted did not identify
easements for the tributary of the Bluff Creek and the property line was defined by this line
here. Staff has recommended that the property line center along the Bluff Creek tributary
center line, which is this heavily dashed line. The red hash areas would represent a 30 foot
easement centered on the tributary center line. The green line represents a 50 foot setback
from the center line of the creek that has been suggested to be added as a buffer to the
tributary for water clarity issues. The Lot 25 is this shape with a private drive coming in.
We suggest that based on the tree survey, there is an opening of significant trees in this area
of Lot 25. We previously had identified the house pad within this area. We would propose,
without changing the property lines up to the center line adjustment, the home pads could
move to the south and still have more than 4,000 square feet of space for that house to be
placed. It would be a bit askew. However, we would anticipate any of the home sites within
the woodland"area would be of a higher quality and individually placed within the site.
Additionally Block 24, had the opportunity to move that home pad 60 feet to the south and
still be well within the boundaries and setback requirements whereas also Lot 26 could
possibly shift down... By adjusting the home sites within this wooded area we feel we still
have the opportunity to have those floor elevations. A minimum of 3 feet above the flood
stage and still have adequate home sites without unduly, or without sacrificing the natural
47
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 '
amenities that this creek corridor does have and we would also not lose any other significant
trees by maintaining these two sites.
Mancino: Would you be custom grading those? ,
John Dietrich:. Yes. These would be custom graded and also, for example Lot 24. I identify '
3 trees that are within that 60 x 60 foot pad. I also know the right -of- way... identified this
cluster of trees to be removed. We would work with staff so that any trees within the home
pads and access to them would be included as part of the woodland management plan to '
allow a development to proceed and we would anticipate that would be a worse case scenario
on these individual lots and ideally as they would be initially graded and designed, more of
the trees could and would be saved. Such as the home site could wrap around the site and '
definitely save these... Those would have to be addressed on a lot by lot basis but we wanted
you to have the tree calculation figures into the final plat of the process. ,
Scott: How would that lot be serviced? Would that come off of, would it be a driveway off
of the private drive? ,
John Dietrich: Lot 24 would come directly off the access. They would have to have their
own driveway. A private drive only allows one lot to be served. This is really not a private '
driveway. It's almost like a flag lot. So only one residential unit may be served to
accommodate the flag lot.
Mancino: That area isn't covered in our grading plan.
John Dietrich: On the grading plan that is part of the package, we did not put the grades on I
there.
Mancino: So we can't tell how many of the trees will stay or go. I
John Dietrich: At this time, in order to make a calculation we would say the trees that are
within the designated home pads that were put into the calculations as removable. '
Generous: That's what my estimates come from...
John Dietrich: If I could continue so we can get out of here. Item number 12, Mr. Duffy ,
will address. . number 13, the site plan does identify the 100 foot setback from the center
line of the creek and all structures will be beyond that 100 foot setback line, and that is ,
identified both the 50 foot setback for grading and ... setback on the site plan. Items number
14 and 15 we will happily comply with. Item number 16 we will comply with and the pond
48
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
' has been designed to provide slopes of 10 to 1 at the high water ... proper water elevation. I
need my engineer to tell me those and with the remainder at 3:1 slope. Item number 17 will
be fine. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 we will all comply with. Item number 24. Individual
grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each wooded lot prior to
issuance of the building permit. We will show a grading plan that will be minimal for those
' lots. We want those trees to be saved wherever possible and work with the contours that are
in there. We will include the potential for those individual home buyers to know what trees
and the conditions of development are on those individual sites instead of leaving that up to
' the individual home buyer after the site is... The 60 x 60 pads is probably a worst case
scenario. That's 3,600 square feet. If we start building homes that are 3,600 square feet
floor area, it's going to be tough. We anticipate these to be two story homes and the floor
plan be quite a bit less than 3,600 square feet. Item number 25 and 26 and 27, we will
comply with. Item number 28, the southerly cul -de -sac shall be re- evaluated for a private
driveway. We have looked at a private driveway in an earlier submission that we did pull
' because of items that were not fully addressed. One of the issues staff brought up was the
number of units that were serviced off the private drive access and serviceability to fire
safety. We have not redesigned this site to incorporate public drives in both of the cul-de-
sacs so that we will have a better and we feel the best plan that can be put together on this
site. The public service and fire safety and not meeting conditions of approval or
encumbrances and cross easements, will make this a much more sellable and attractive
' subdivision. Item number 29. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8 inch sanitary
sewer line to the westerly edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary. If I could go back
' to this item. The Bluff Creek tributary is centered right here. There would have to be
significant tree removal along this easement that's outlined in red in order for that sanitary
sewer stub to be taken to the eastern, western property line for potential servicing of the
' Timberwood Estates development. The need for moving the lots and home pads on Lots 24
and 25 was to retain the natural character and amenities and tree cover along this tributary. It
is our desire that sanitary sewer not go in for the disruption that it would put on that area and
we feel that the trees that would be removed will not grow back easily. The trees that will be
removed, they have to be replaced with smaller trees and that's why we're trying to minimize
the number that we would have on this site.
' Scott: Dave "pn that particular point. Is the rationale for that stub, is that to service another
or future development?
Hempel: Yes Mr. Chairman, that's one of the viable routes to provide gravity sanitary sewer
service to the -Timberwood Estates development at some future date when those larger lots
' reconfigure down into smaller lots. Short of installing a lift station or two in that area to
service it, which is a great cost and maintenance problem for the city. That would be the
alternative.
49
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: Dave, we've done that though in other areas like Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition
because of the preservation of trees and other things. We went in and did a couple lift
stations.
Hempel: I am not recalling any off hand. I can use an example of the sewer line, one of the
existing street areas. In fact there's one in the Bighorn Shadow Ridge development which you
couldn't even tell that we were in there. That was done about 6 years ago.
Mancino: But how long does it take to get back natural? I mean is that a 5 -6 year? I mean
it's not really natural.
Hempel: The life of the sanitary sewer is determined in the field based on the existing trees.
They can be, the sewer line doesn't have to go perfectly straight. It can meander along there
to avoid significant trees if it stays within this corridor. The depth of the sanitary sewer line
will be relatively shallow. Less than 10 feet because we don't need the great depth that we
put in...
Mancino: The shallower the less wide you go.
Hempel: That's exactly right.
Mancino: What about coming up from Stone Creek? I mean why wasn't there, when that
was developed.
Hempel: We did explore that avenue as well. There are two low points on ... drive where
sanitary sewer would actually daylight with the gravity system. Short of the lift station... We
did look at, when Hans Hagen was developing Stone Creek and felt the only other alternative
was this corridor through this tributary to service it.
Scott: Okay, thanks.
John Dietrich:_ Item number 30, we will definitely show grading contours for the storm sewer
plan proposed} in a temporary fashion on the north side of the creek and we will also look
closely at the need for the elevations of that crossing in order to accommodate a storm sewer
as it would cross the creek in order to maintain the proper flow. The extension of, number
31. Extension of the north/south street be extended through to the frontage road within 3
years. We would have no problem with that condition on that the city has also extended the
roadway to that point and to the east. Currently that roadway is not there and we would need
a roadway to hook up into. But it is our desire to have that as an access for the anticipated
traffic flow and circulation for this entire area. Number 33, the trail alignment around the
50
0
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
wetland along the Bluff Creek corridor. We would definitely work with staff to have that
placement within the defined park dedication area that we are proposing. Item number 34
we will concur. with. Item number 35 we will use retaining walls. We anticipate they will be
field stone qu4lity from boulders and rocks unearthed during the excavation. And item
number 36, we would adjust the property lines along the Bluff Creek tributary as we had
shown on the-overhead as necessary. And we still feel we have the opportunity to maintain
that number of lots and maintain the natural amenities and significant tree population for
those two lots. And lastly I'd like to point out the sketch plan that was identified in your
planning commission packets was a discussion of the plan that Heritage Development
presented to the city a number of months ago for discussion only. That plan was never
officially submitted and the plan that we are proposing at this time we feel is the best plan
that is available and meets the objectives of the subdivision code and the concerns that the
Planning Commission did address when this was initially proposed as a concept PUD plat.
And conditional use permit and wetland permit alteration, items number 1 and 2, we will also
concur with. And with that I'd like to turn it over briefly to Mr. Duffy for a couple points in
closing.
Michael Duffy: Thank you John for your presentation. Members of the commission, as
you've heard from Mr. Dietrich's presentation, this preliminary plat complies with...with all
code requirements and ordinance requirements that have also been established by staff in the
staff report... There are a number of things however, and conditions that the staff has set forth
that are not requirements set forth in the subdivision ordinance which I'd like to go over at
this time. The first one of these set forth is number 1 on page 23. This is the condition that
the staff has put with respect to approval of the plat. This is in respect to. incorporating
design components for the proposed Bluff Creek watershed plan. It's Heritage's position that
simply put, it's Heritage's position that it is unreasonable for Heritage to have to comply with
a watershed plan that is not yet enacted. It's unreasonable. We do not know what the
watershed plan is so for us to agree to comply with this plan would be unreasonable. We do
not know what the plan is. It does not exist and in fact would be retroactive. In effect
requiring us to comply with this would be retroactive application of law. Another condition
I'd like to refer you to is condition number 12 on the next page. This is in respect to the
condition that,the staff has asked for that more property be dedicated for park purposes. At
this time as Mr. Dietrich has explained, the plat as it has been submitted to you does comply
with subdivision ordinances... ordinances such that Ordinance 18- 79(i). The formula there
when you apply that formula it requires that there be 1.92 acres of dedication in this
subdivision. As Mr. Dietrich has explained, there are 2 acres that have already been
dedicated. If the city so desires to buy the property that the staff has recommended be
dedicated, there is nothing that Heritage can do to stop the city's powers of eminent domain
but Heritage will not agree to dedicate any more than what is required by the park dedication
ordinance. I'd like to turn your attention lastly to condition number 32. This is a condition
51
u
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 '
that states that the an developer and property owners will waive any and all procedural and '
P YP P Y
substantive objections in respect to special assessments for the city's public improvement
project #93 -26; including claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. ,
Heritage is willing to pay it's fair share. Fair and equitable share with respect to these
assessments but is unwilling and is unreasonable without knowing what these assessments are,
to waive rights, especially when those assessments may exceed the benefits to the property. ,
In this case this is unacceptable to Heritage. In sum, these 3 conditions that I talked about
are conditions that are not required by the subdivision ordinance. They do not have a '
rational ... with respect to approving the plat that is before you today. What we ask that you
do this evening is approve the plat as submitted in accordance with the comments that both
Mr. Dietrich and I have made. We hope that you're prepared to approve the plat tonight as it '
has been submitted. The one thing that we ultimately ask is that this not be tabled this
evening. You have a couple of proposals in front of you. You have a proposal with
conditions from the staff. You've heard our comments in respect to the staff conditions and ,
the way we would like it approved. And we hope, I think that's enough information for you
tonight ... and we respectfully request that you would make a decision this evening. If you
have any further questions, I have nothing further. Thank you. '
Scott: Any questions or comments?
Mancino: I have a couple questions, unless somebody else does first. To Bob. It must be '
getting late... Explain to me again, and I'm looking on sheet 2 of 7. Do you have that in
front of you? Okay. I see in the eastern, northeast corner it says park dedication, 2 acres. ,
And it's also Outlot C also?
Generous: No. I
Mancino: Would you take a few minutes and explain to me where this strip goes and what
Outlot C is? Outlot C becomes a NURP pond? '
Generous: Yeah, that's a ponding, storm water pond.
Mancino: OIEa . And the ark dedication starts at the northern ti of the roadway and comes '
Y P P
all the way around to, it ends at, between Lot 11 and Lot 1. Correct? Lot 11 of Block 1 and
Lot 1 of Block 2. '
Generous: No; it actually ends at the western property line in the southeast corner.
Mancino: Oh okay. But you can access it between those two lots.
52 '
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
I Generous: Between 11 and 1, yes.
' Mancino: And how wide is that? Again is it.
Generous: I don't know.
' John Dietrich: It's a minimum of 20 feet.
' Mancino: Thank you. Make sure I understood that. Thank you very much.
' Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Ledvina: As it relates to measurements of EMF from the NSP line, has there been any effort
' to do that or can you comment on concerns that you would have as it relates to the power
lines in that area.
' John Dobbs: My name is John Dobbs, Director of Development for Heritage. I have ... we'll
probably do it in the course of...extremely high tension lines that we've asked for and
received a number of issues from NSP supporting that but we'll probably do it subject to the
' people who will consider moving there... We'll probably do it as part of the marketing...
Ledvina: Okay. But in terms of the voltage that's going through those lines, what are you
' looking at there for voltage?
John Dobbs: I have no idea what the voltage that runs through that particular set of lines. I
' know that the ... from 345,000 volts ... and also they had a number of different levels of lines
that go back. The amount of voltage is not necessarily a geometric ratio to the amount of
EMF that comes out of that.
Ledvina: It's the current essentially.
' John Dobbs: : Height and as well the current...
John Dietrich: If I may add commissioner. The larger, I'm going to say the larger
transmission ` Tines, the ones that have holes that run along the tracks, comes to the site and
then heads south, north of the tracks is a much lower voltage line. It is on wood poles,
double standards that come all the way up to Highway 5. So I know the larger ones carry
' much higher, greater number of lines but the ones along the western line are of lower caliber.
53
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
Scott: Anything else? Would anybody from the development team wish to add anything '
else? Okay. This is an item for public hearing. Is anybody here from the general public
wish to speakabout this project? Seeing none, can I have a motion to open the public '
hearing pleaso
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and ,
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and '
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I missed the meeting where this was at before. Can you explain to me in regards '
to the park why that particular site was considered the 2 acres up above. I believe it was 2
acres for the park. To the exclusion of the wooded area down below by the wetland ... the '
south end.
Generous: Because the applicant wants those wooded sites for home sites... '
Farmakes: So this is the area that we're considering?
Generous: The city would have the wooded land. He wants to dedicate the land along the '
wetland.
Farmakes: Is that discussion at a state of maturity or are you positioning here? '
Generous: Well the Parks Commission wants to have more land. '
Farmakes: Okay. So is the city's position aggressive in pursuing that, I guess that's my
question. '
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: Ca ' ii I follow up on that? Is it a trade off between the trails or that other wooded ,
area to the suth? Is that what we're looking at? I mean could you say.
Generous: Well that's what we were looking t. That trail alignment as proposed '
$ Y
in this plat...dnd we would do the dedication of the parkland in the southeast corner.
' dedicating that strip as '
Ledvina: But as it exists now, they're ded g p , and that's where the trail is
going to go, is that correct? '
54
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: Yes. That's, they're dedicating that for their 2 acre requirement...
' Ledvina: Okay. But we could say that area is not acceptable and not have the trail in there
and then get the 2 acres in that southerly portion. Is that the other option? I mean would
that, I mean we have a question of the ordinance here in terms of the amount of dedication.
Am I making sense?
Generous: Yes. I don't know how to answer. I don't know if, we would like to have an
easement for that on top of the drainage and utilities ... so we can have our trail system down
around the wetland corridor and into...
' Ledvina: Okay, so what we're requesting that the developer do is not dedicate that strip
along the corridor as a park but get us an easement to build us a trail in that area.
' Generous: Correct.
' Ledvina: Okay.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
' Scott: That was my concern too. Is the difference between easement for a trail and a park
and I see what you're saying. So this is not as aggressive as we would like to be to develop
that resource.
Ledvina: But if we did it that way, then we would, the city would be in accordance with
their ordinance in terms of the park dedication. But at the same time we have the ability to
have them provide an easement for that trail. Okay.
Scott: Do you have a question for the development team?
Farmakes: I still have another question in regards to the park. Does this encompass all of
' Block 2 or is this a portion of Block 2?
Generous: It's just those lots. The area where those 4 lots are.
' Farmakes: That would be Lots 8, 9, 11 and 10?
' Scott: 9, 10 and 11.
' Farmakes: ...24, 26 and 25?
55
Chanhassen Planning Commission e October 19, 1994 1
Mancino: Just east of the road. ,
Generous: No, along the east side of the road. 8, 9, 10 and 11. And we would require, '
whatever the Code requires in dedication and the city would purchase the remainder.
Farmakes: Okay. Then so, in looking at the pads then for everything to the west of the road, '
then they would follow, those trees would be removed then, correct?
Generous: Yes.
Farmakes: There isn't a distribution of quality of the trees in the report that are on the
schematic here. It doesn't talk about percentage is oak or elm. Not being a forester, the i
quality of the woodland there.
Generous: Is very good.
Farmakes: It's very good or are we talking more oak than box elder then? I would '
encourage the city to pursue that to fall in line with what's going on with Bluff Creek and
I'm not sure, not having benefitted from the presentation of the developer in the past
meeting... making judgments based on the staff report, other than the issue of parkland. I'll
pass on the rest.
Scott: Okay, Ron. I
Nutting: I guess some of my questions with regards to the park dedication have been
answered. Is the city able to, listening to the developer's comments, I'm not sure if I heard '
them saying that the maximum they are required to give up by ordinance is 2 acres?
Generous: Yes. 1.92.
Nutting: And what is the Lots 8 thru 11 encompass?
Generous: I believe the P ark...is 2.7 in that area. ,
Nutting: .So -the city is proposing that they would purchase the additional .7 thru whatever
means. Condemnation if necessary. Okay. I'm not sure, in terms of the issues that the
applicant is not in favor of in staff recommendations number 1. Incorporating the design for
the proposed Bluff Creek. Again, I'm a little bit of a novice of this game but I've listened ,
to us incorporate this as it relates to the Highway 5 corridor. As it relates to Bluff Creek. As
it Telates to numerous other issues that are in progress. I don't know the legalities of that but '
56
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
I don't think I would depart from our present approach in terms of making sure that we have
developments that doesn't incorporate the future planning that's going on right now. Number
28. I don't know Bob, I'm hearing the developer say that they had originally proposed a
private driveNi ay concept which staff was not in favor of. And now staff has turned around
and said give us a private driveway. Where does that all fall?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman and commissioner, maybe I can address that. That came out of my
staff report. I don't think it's the same, exact location or the same number of lots being
serviced by the cul -de -sac. I do recall trying put the... previously but I think this is a different
scenario. This has two of the lots, the house pads back into the wooded areas which results
in tree loss. My thought is to try and eliminate the tree loss as well as help reduce cost... the
developer, some of them prefer actually the private driveway versus the public street as well
so it provides some diversity out there on those lots. I thought it was a win/win/win solution
but maybe I'm not hearing that from what the developer is saying so I guess I'm open just
from the standpoint that this is the ... save us some additional trees and pulling those house
pads down from the wooded...
' Generous: ...this vicinity. The other one the housing...
Nutting: I'm not an attorney. I'm not going to touch number 32. Where that one goes. I
' guess I'd like to listen to the comments of the other members before pulling together my final
thoughts.
Scott: Nancy.
Mancino: I have a few questions. Bob, in your report on page 2 you have a couple of
sentences that I'm reading here. Paragraph 2, sentence number one. This plat meets
minimum code requirements for a single family development but falls short of ordinance
requirements for the preservation of site characteristics including topography, creeks and
scenic views. Can you talk about that a little bit?
' Generous: That's part of the conditions. The 100 foot setback and the 50 foot setback as a
buffer area. With the recommendations in the staff report ... that's primarily what we were
looking at.
Mancino: And are we doing mass grading on this?
Bob Generous' answer could not be heard on the tape.
1
57
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: And how are we preserving topography? If we're doing mass grading and
especially in the northern part where there's steep slopes.
Hempel: Corrimissioner Mancino, I'd be happy to address that one. The variety in
elevations... balance earth work to develop house pad elevations. And also provide streets that
meet our city code for street ... Or provide a bench for a house to go on and...
Mancino: But if we have said in our ordinances that we're preserving and protecting... those
areas, shouldn't be less densely developed? Isn't that how you preserve and protect?
Hempel: That would be one alternative to it I guess.
Mancino: Is there any other alternative?
Hempel: By trying to reconfigure the street alignment through there would be one method
but again... increase the grade elevations.
Mancino: And haven't we gone to 10% street grades for special areas like this?
Hempel: In some areas we have. I haven't felt the need to do that to this road. To maintain
a variety of slope... grading plan, they are still trying to reproduce the rolling terrain effect that
you have out there today. Not to the extent that you have out there...
Mancino: Would that northern cul -de -sac do less grading if it were a private? I mean if it
were a smaller. Would that help at all Dave? Because that's where you have some of the
steep slopes on that northern area.
Hempel: The driveway grade, or I should say the street grade already is proposed at
approximately 7 %. 10% street grade ... little bit of elevation off the top of the hill there but I
don't know if it would be significant enough to warrant a private driveway.
Mancino: Okay. Secondly Bob, oh I'm sorry. I have another question. Bob on that same
paragraph. You said while staff believes that the road alignment for the project should be
adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor in order to provide the community and the future home
buyers in -this "development a shared sense of ownership. Is that still the thinking of staff?
That is the preferred route? That is still the preferred route, okay.
Generous: We are compromising to get this to move forward.
Mancino: So we're compromising really where we want the road just to move it forward?
58
r
1
1
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: And take a good look. We also want to work it out so, the developer's agreeable
for our parkland dedication area.
Mancino: But -the developer isn't.
Generous: We'll find out.
Mancino: But according to what I see in front of me the developer isn't.
Generous: What you see in front of you and what the conditions of approval are aren't the
same thing.
Mancino: Okay. My last few points, questions are, when we saw this before on page 3 of
the staff report we asked for 4 things. Or the Planning Commission denied it. It was just I
think the sketch plan. On 4 points and I just want to bring those up again. Number 4 was,
we wanted them to minimize grading. Topographical disruptions and working with and
maintaining some of the steep slopes. Number 5, provide a transition from Timberwood to
Heritage. We were concerned about lot size directing abutting Timberwood. 6, we were
concerned about the overall density of the development and we were also concerned about
minimizing tree loss. And I have concerns about all 4 of those and actually whether they've
been done with this new plan. The minimizing tree loss, we have a road going through the
only place where we have trees. Mature trees. And we have lots going in there and I think
this is pretty much what we saw the first time that we looked at it so I don't see a big
improvement on that area. Overall density. Bob, what has that done?
' Generous: What did we do? I don't remember what it was the last time. Under the concept
plan for the PUD they were able to go down to 11,000 square feet and average 15. They are
averaging 21,000 now so.
Mancino: So that has happened.
Generous: Yes.
Mancino: Good, good. And the lots that abut Timberwood, have those also increased in
size?
Generous: We� believe so. They have the flare now back sides on the cul -de -sac.
Mancino: Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you.
59
J
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Ledvina: On the plan, let's see sheet 2. Looking at Lot 1, Block 1. We have 100 foot
setback from the creek and I see the line and it essentially cuts right through a buildable area
on that lot and I'm wondering can we still get a house pad in that area?
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. So you can get in a 60 x 60 foot area into that?
Generous: At this time ... about 4,000 square feet.
Ledvina: 4,000 square feet within the triangle? But people don't build houses in a triangular
form.
Generous: They can make it L shape. They also don't have to build a 60 x 60 house.
Ledvina: No. That's true but that's the standard for providing the house pad. Okay. So
you're satisfied that we can meet the requirements and also provide a buildable area in that
lot. Okay. I guess I would like to hear from the developer specifically as it relates to the
park situation. You mentioned you were anxious to make a comment and I'll let you do that
now John if it's okay with the Chairman here.
John Dietrich: Thank you commissioner. In regards to the park dedication area, we are
proposing we'll meet the intent of, we will meet the code requirements of the 2 acres which
will essentially be a minimum of a 20 foot buffer strip running along the entire eastern side
of this development to provide access up to the east/west roadway and then run along Bluff
Creek to the southern portion of the site and then west along the southern boundary of this
development towards the underpass. Go to your comprehensive trail plan, which is stated,
your trail would be in conformance with the comprehensive trail plan. That is the area that
we proposed for park dedication and we feel meets the most closely intent for the comp plan.
Secondly in terms of, if I may address a couple of the other issues that were also brought up
in terms of this private drive. We will propose to maintain the public drive access in order to
have proper frontage and access that would be of a public nature. We feel it would be best
for all citizens and homeowners in this area to have public driveways. Or public cul -de -sacs.
The 50 and 100 foot setback is met on every lot north and south in terms of grading within
50 feet of the` creek and the structure setback within 100 feet. In order to preserve the
topography of this site we are not grading along the entire northern area of the site where the
steep slopes are along Bluff Creek. We anticipate there would not be any grading within this
area so that steep corridor will be maintained in a steep nature and present condition. The
slope will be projected out along this area and we will maintain the elevations along the
entire rear of the property. In terms of transitions to Timberwood, the existing plant material
No
1
7
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
will provide a buffer that is already on the site and would be stepping down. We will have a
transition so that the homes will not be right back up against the property line. With the NSP
' easement of 46. feet, we will be at a minimum of 40 feet. Most cases more than 40 feet off
of that property line.
' Ledvina: Thank you. The area along that north high point, have we evaluated those areas in
relation to the bluff ordinance and do they need any requirements there?
Generous: The closest point is in the northeast corner of the lot along the trees.
Ledvina: Okay. Okay. I did want to speak to some of the issues that were raised as part of
' the conditions. I guess number 1. Condition number 1. Generally I feel that we want the
developer to deal with those elements of the design but I can definitely see their point in
terms of making them accept something that doesn't exist and I guess I wouldn't support
' condition number 1 as it reads in the staff report. Maybe we can soften that to say the
applicant shall attempt to incorporate design components. I don't think we should make it a
' definite condition and I think the developers have worked to provide some amenities and be
sensitive to the Bluff Creek in their design as it exists right now. Especially with the
setbacks. I think that they've demonstrated that so I don't know that we should hold their
feet to the fire as it relates to that. So I see some nodding heads over there that that maybe is
a way to go with that.
' Mancino: Matt, what if we put a date on it and said that in the next month or two, if this
plan is done with and they're still in the preliminary going to the final, they could incorporate
it. And have it some way.
' Ledvina: Well, if there's something that we have as a standard and that we can look at and
compare it to the plan that we have, then I would say yes. But I don't like these interim kind
of things. I realize that that's a transition but I don't think that that works for me. I feel
that that trail should be looked at in terms of an easement and I believe that the city is
justified in that perspective. And the specific parkland dedication should be as the staff has
' indicated in terms of that southerly area so I would support that. Going to, let's see there
was another here as it related to the assessments. Can you speak to that Dave in terms of
asking them.to waive their due process on something that doesn't exist yet.
Hempel: The project has actually ' been petitioned by the property owners. Feasibility study's
P P Y
been looked at and I was going to touch on that a little bit ... Without the extension of the
' trunk sanitary sewer lines the development doesn't have sewer capability so we've left it
optional for the developer. If he wishes to proceed extending this trunk sanitary sewer line to
the development, then we'd reimburse him the cost of the lateral line and the trunk line. The
61
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
city has to put it in. We have to go through... public hearing and ordering the project, calling
for plans and. specs and ordering and so forth. What happens in the process, the property gets
platted. It gets 40 some lots out here. You've got 40 some potential owners that could be
closing on the - property at the time we're holding the assessment hearing and where the
language comes from is from the attorney's office. All these new property owners weren't
notified of the public improvement project before and ... problem with the public hearing
process and the appeals and so forth that would occur from it. The project would not proceed
ahead without a feasibility study that laid out the assessments for these parcels. The
assessments may vary but they can only vary at a rate of 10 % ... So that would probably clarify
what..
Ledvina: Well essentially it's for the developer's good, right? To benefit in terms of keeping
things moving.
Hempel: Yes. From that approach, yeah ... I think this came from the hearing standpoint...
Ledvina: Alright. That's the extent of my comments at this time.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: Bob, tell me about the transition between Timberwood and Heritage. ...Last time we
talked about what's the transition. We're concerned with it and I see all the vegetation and
the landscape plan going on the road. I don't see anything going between the two areas so
obviously you must feel that we don't need a transition. That's taken care of. I don't...
Generous: Except ... for all the additional landscaping...
Conrad: And we don't have that? We don't know what that is.
Generous: We don't know...
Conrad: So we're moving from 8 houses in Timberwood as I count to 14 houses in Heritage
that they abut °each other, and I guess that's okay. But I am specifically concerned about
houses that are close. I see a couple close houses in Timberwood that I'd be concerned with
and I just - don't know that we really got a good buffering plan. Maybe it is Bob. Maybe in
the future it is. I don't see it right now. That's an issue that I'm concerned about. We
talked about grading and that was a concern we had and it looks to me like we're really
doing a lot of grading here. Balancing the site. Dave says that that's what we've got to do
to make it usable. Boy. Bob, what's the Bluff Creek watershed plan? What is it and where
is it?
62
n
F 7
L
r
1
1
F1
I
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: It's still in the process.
Conrad: And who's doing it?
Generous: The city...We lost out on the grant money to pay for
Conrad: So it's not even close to being done?
Bob Generous' answer could not be heard on the tape.
Conrad: What could the potential impact of that plan be on this?
Generous: Larger setbacks. Maybe they'd say 200...We don't know.
Conrad: So it's really we don't know. Okay, then if we're not even close. Usually
developers that we work with are usually pretty, even though we're doing things in the future
we want them to support what we're doing and if, you know I think it's just a good
cooperative spirit. I didn't notice that when you were talking. But on the other hand if we're
not close, there's nothing that you can pay attention to so I guess I have to take number 1 out
and that's not what I thought I was going to do. But if we're not close, I'm not going to, I'll
test this plan on other issues and not waiting for something that's really not close to
finalization. The difference really from the concept stage to the sketch stage is, we've
reduced some houses and we've curved the street and staff is hopeful that we'll get a park out
of the thing. Do we know what trees are going down? We don't know what trees have to be
cut at this point in time, do we. We know what trees are there but.
Generous: Approximately. We estimated it ... reduce their building pads in that wooded area...
Conrad: So how sensitive is this plan to the trees that we have there? Is this the only plan
that will work Bob?
Generous: The alignment of the road in the southern end... Then the rest of the site ... there's a
stand of trees -in the middle. Whether or not they can or can't save those. Even under the
PUD we want to show...
Conrad: Nancy, I agree with all your comments. I don't know, I don't think our comments
from the first around have been really incorporated and maybe we were just sort of being
real nice and philosophical. Practically speaking there's got to be a road going through there.
Scott: Where do you think that road should go?
M
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 ,
Conrad: Well, I don't know. There's trees down there and you've got to bring a road '
through and I just don't see any solution.
Scott: I'm ththkin g once it gets to the point when it's the wooded area, and I was quite taken ,
by the initial kind of thumbnail sketch of having that road go along the Bluff Creek area and
then having the grading effect of that road be very close to the 100 foot setback. Something '
in that. Roads are rarely amenities. But if they can be placed in proximity to a natural
resource. So you do have the views and it performs it's traffic function and a trail can be
incorporated. I mean that was kind of what my vision was of this particular piece. And now '
it's...
Mancino: It's kind of like going down Lake Lucy Road and being able to see the view ,
because of the wetlands. You know one ... going from Galpin east and then the closer when
you get to Powers. One of the nice parts about that is that you have some wetland views. ,
And this is such a gorgeous area.
Scott: I'm not going to speak for the Parks Department, parks group. Just a thought that '
there seems to be a lot of push and pull at the parkland dedication as a trail. And maybe one
of the points we could discuss, not at this forum. Okay, if it's going to be 2 acres, talk about
relocating the road and then have that dedication right along side the road and they'll have
their, they'll be able to develop the higher buck lots down in the wooded area. The roadway
I think would, that would be pretty spectacular and even as a thought process but I was, you
take a look at where the road is now and I'm kind of going, well. We can do much better. '
Mancino: Which is what staff came up originally.
Scott: Yeah. So that's my. What do the other commissioners think about the road position? '
Nutting: I guess I'm just trying to resolve staff getting from the original proposal to where '
we are now. I hear staff saying, or in the report it says to compromise to obtain the easement
for the trail. Is that.
Mancino: Fo theP arkland.
Generous. ,Park dedication.
Nutting: Butthen staff says in the next sentence they're going to, that parkland is it
regardless. Whatever means is necessary. ,
1
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: We looked at the idea, we can't get... We want our 2 acres in the woods. Let's
push the road back over. The developer is not willing to work with the city. Then we have
' our public access for the ... roadway alignment and the sidewalk going along there. But they
were willing to compromise that and let him get his walkout in the Bluff Creek corridor...
' Nutting: The only other comment I have is I would amend my original comments with
regards to number 1. Perhaps it's the hour but as I sit and think about the Highway 5
corridor, we at least had a document which had some direction. It wasn't finalized. It has
been approved by Council and I guess I, sitting and listening to Matt and Ladd, I'm saying
yeah. I mean I don't see how I can suggest that we put restriction number 1 in this
document.
' Conrad: What's our vision of Bluff Creek? It's a, who knows. What is Bluff Creek? I
don't know what it is. I honestly done. It's too bad. It's hard to tell whether the plan's
good or bad when you don't know what the... The amenity is that you're trying to preserve
' and what you're trying to do with it and I don't know what that is. You know if Bluff
Creek, we're just going to have a trail down there. I really wish we had a view, a vision of
this or maybe somebody, I wish I had it. I don't. Therefore it's hard for me to preserve
something that I don't have that vision for.
Farmakes: Some of that is covered though Ladd in the preservation ordinance...
Conrad: Tell me what Bluff Creek is? Do you envision Bluff Creek as a public walkway?
Farmakes: Probably a part of that is presentation when we're talking about that. We're
talking about trails going to the north/south. The creek goes down to the Minnesota bluff
' area.
Conrad: Do you envision it as an isolated experience or one with traffic next to it?
Farmakes: Well as I understood it, with the trail going through it, obviously there's public
access to it. And again, that trail system coming up from the south crossing over TH 5 and
coming into the north. It's been a while since we went over that stuff. As I understood it,
the slide show was brought in here and they went through the trees and so on and the locale
and obviously it gets wilder as it heads down towards the river. But at some point in time it
' seems to me thhat that is where the trail is.
Conrad: And who endorses this concept? Is that Park and Rec? Is that their vision right
' now?
W11
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Farmakes: Well it's MnDot's vision. We've got a connection going under the highway
there.
Mancino: A wonderful bridge culvert.
Conrad: I don't want to drag this out any further but I'm looking for, so Park and Rec
basically said they want a trail going through there. They didn't say they cared if there was a
road next to it or not.
Mancino: And the roadway I can see, you know I don't know what happens down south but
it meanders and it can come close to it at times and other times you know ... so it's more of a
trail in the woods effect.
Farmakes: From what I've seen in some of the more wild areas of that creek, some of it you
never can put a road next to it. Some of it just goes down vertical for a considerable ways
SO.
Conrad: Okay. I'm having a tough time dealing with it because I don't know if it's an
isolated experience where you try to get somebody away or you're just having a trail next to
a little stream so I'm not sure what it is. I'm going to stop talking. I guess I don't have a
real good feel for this project. It looks like moving a lot of earth around. It didn't seem like
we were real sensitive to the environment. The developer on the other hand has reduced the
number of lots. My only issue right now, I think in terms of the staff report. Number 1's
got to be out. Number 32, which the developer had some problems with. I don't have a clue
how to handle that one. Again, it seems like something that, if I were them, I'd want it out.
I don't know how they can run their business with the way that was worded. Maybe there's
a better way to express it. My biggest concern is transition from Timberwood. I don't know
what it looks like. How it's done. I don't know how certain houses are protected. I think
somebody should know that.
Mancino: Do you want to see it back again?
Conrad: For that one issue, I don't know. I guess if there are other issues. For that one
issue, I mighk able to say send it to City Council with a staff recommendation or a report.
If it's just that one issue. If there are issues tagged on to that that we're concerned with.
Road alignm6 maybe. Park. Maybe we want to see how the park works or something else.
Maybe if there are other issues, then we should table it and bring it back. We haven't passed
anything tonight yet. I see no reason to change it. Just work until 2:00 in 2 weeks. If there
are other issues, then it should probably come back.
..
I
L�
� I
1
1 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: Yeah, I think there's some specific issues. I mean I don't see compromising the
road alignment. I'd like to see it come back and move the road alignment. What the staff
' had originally asked for. And it would be meandering and follow the bluff line. And also I
share Ladd's comments, which I kind of brought up earlier too about the Timberwood
transition. And I'd like to see also if that can minimize some grading.
Scott: Can we have a motion?
' Conrad: Joe, where are you at on the street? I don't want to send something back and
screwing around with if we're not going to move it someplace.
' Scott: My major issue was the road alignment. And I was, there's intent of ordinances with
regards to park dedication and then there's the letter and my thought is that, I think when
most people think of a park dedication, they're thinking of something that is not straw
shaped. I think when the Park and Rec or when that ordinance was put together, I think we
were thinking of something kind of like a square. Something that was contained so I mean
that to me looks like a by the, very by the book interpretation of our parkland dedication
ordinance. Which is perfectly legal. Perfectly legal. But to me that doesn't seem like that's
the intent. I think what the Park and Rec people were looking for is more the intent. It's an
' amenity and it's very nice to see them as, they've moved I think in the last two years I think
that I've personally been working with them, moved from thinking of parks as an active
scheduled, flat situation and now they're looking very seriously at doing what we see here as
preservation of wooded areas and so forth. And I think that's the intent of that particular
ordinance. So I'm looking at those two things are my major issues. Then also too, we were
just looking at our bluff ordinance. In the two pages that I see here, I don't see anything in
' here that says 30% slope over 25 feet.
Ledvina: Because that's the old version.
' Scott: This is the old version, okay. Well that makes sense. So I took a look at a couple of
areas up here on the hill and there's a number of areas in a 25 foot stand. There are 8 foot
' changes and I'm just, I'm looking here at the topographic map. The thing that was very
striking to me was to see that 3 dimensional view and so yeah, I have a lot of...what I believe
from looking at the topographic map. From doing the measurements and using the scale
' provided me `and using the bluff ordinance, there are bluff areas in the northern part of this
thing and somebody's going to have to prove that I'm incorrect before I'm going to move off
of that point.' `So that's where I'm coming from. And we've got another 2 hours tonight so.
' That's where I'm at. ...that based upon our bluff ordinance, cannot be graded. Plain and
simple.
67
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Nutting: When are we going to move this forward? I mean your comments about the park.
Staff has made recommendations which are supportive of your direction. It comes down to
the issue of the road, is the biggest one I'm hearing which throws this whole thing back to
the drawing Board basically.
Scott: My major concern is the major topographic changes up on the north side and I think
that some of those areas are protected by ordinance.
Nutting: But staff, Bob you said you have looked at that?
Generous: Yes. When I was using the 30% and 25 ... elevation change.
Scott: Yeah, I was doing the same. I was using an 8 foot change in a 25 foot span and I
came up with.
Generous: You've got to have a 25 foot change in...
Scott: No, I was just using the 25 foot span and the 8 foot change. So it's basically 33% or
32%.
Generous: That's not far enough down. It's not a large enough change that way. It has to
be a total of 25 feet in...
Scott: Alright.
Nutting: So if that addresses the bluff issue, then we're down to the road.
Mancino: Well and transition between Timberwood. I move that we table.
Michael Duffy: Excuse me. I'm sorry to speak out of order.
Scott: Excuser me. Public hearing is closed. We're considering a motion so.
Mancino: We can say no to it.
Scott: Yeah, which we can say no to. So, it's been moved that we table this. Is there a
second?
Farmakes: I'll second.
::
L
1
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table. Is there any discussion?
Conrad: Yeah, the road issue. Nancy, what would you expect back?
:V
Mancino: I would expect back to see a different road alignment and one that meanders with
the bluff, the natural topography and it's something that I think the staff has and the applicant
talked about, meandering through here and seeing what kind of development proceeds from
that. Actually I ... on page 2 of what the staff has written for the advantages to that.
Conrad: So you would ask the developer to move the road next to?
Mancino: I haven't seen it, yeah. I mean I'm sure that they have done some of this. While
the staff believes road alignments of the project should be adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor in
order to provide the community and the future home buyers in this development a shared
sense of ownership of Bluff Creek and the open space to be created in the wetland complex.
I think the only, the sense I got from Bob was the only reason that they were still behind this
and still think it's the best road alignment.
Scott: Then also too, I think that road alignment in conjunction with the park dedication
along that road alignment, I think it would be a good trade off versus having the dedication
of the wooded area plus having the city buy 7 /10ths.
Nutting: So you're saying give up the south area then?
Scott: I think that would be.
Ledvina: I wouldn't support that. I would like to see that area incorporated as a park. I
think that's important for this development. Just my thoughts on the road is, as I look at the
road, there aren't a whole lot of opportunities to change the character of the road. We do
have ordinances as it relates to the maximum grades and such that we have to deal with here
so I don't think that there are a lot of options with this road. I know we want to be sensitive
to topographyin that instance but if you're going to put a road through it, you're going to
have to grade
Mancino : -But don't you have to where it is now too?
Ledvina: Pardon?
Mancino: You're saying there would be a difference between putting it along here versus
where it is?
�.
Chanhassen Planning Commission a October 19, 1994 1
Ledvina: Not much of a difference. I
Mancino: Okay. Grading wise.
,
Ledvina: That's what I'm seeing from some of the topography that I'm looking at here.
'
Mancino: So it couldn't change fairly easily.
g Y . Y
Ledvina: No.
'
Mancino: Oh!
Ledvina: It can be changed but you're still going to have the grading to meet the slope
requirement. So the value.
,
Mancino: It's more of a community value.
Ledvina: Yeah, right. That's the kind of thing you're looking at. It's not an and or, it's not
i
a real clear cut option in terms of put the road down here and you don't grade this area.
That's not the trade off. So I guess it gets back to, what does the road do in this area. I
mean does it provide a scenic view off to the east of the bluff area which is quite, goes quite
steeply down and then steeply back up so what do you see. I mean I don't know. You don't
see that much. In terms of being able to view the whole bluff. I mean I don't, it's not, it
doesn't have a real good visual for me right now in terms of seeing exactly how the road.
'
Driving along this road in it's easterly position is going to be such a huge amenity.
Mancino: It won't have a natural amenity to it. I mean much like you would.
Ledvina: Well the area from the other side of the, the areas on the other side of the bluff '
won't be developed.
Mancino: But again, that will be 100 feet away so you have a couple hundred. '
Ledvina: Yeah, 200 feet actually. Right, but you're not going to have a vista type of
situation.:_
Mancino: It won't go on and on.
h I guess I see the trail as providing that ex ,
Ledvma: Right. So g p g experience with the bluff area p
and the Bluff Creek area and I don't know. As I look at the site, I see that the position of
70
F1,
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
the road as reasonable. In terms of that view amenity or whatever we're considering there.
So that's my thought on it.
Nutting: Unl6ss you've got views of substance that are coming from that road, it's going to
be a local amenity as opposed to one that's an attraction. You know that's going to
bring ... the trail or the road I guess is where I'm coming at it. I think if we've got the trail, if
we have the trail and we also have that park down to the south. The trail through the
easement with the staff's conditions. I guess I'm not having as much of a problem with that
as maybe some of the other members. Maybe...
Scott: We've got a motion on the floor. Discussing a motion. Do you want to?
Conrad: Yeah. Well this is important because if we don't know where we're going with this
road, then there's no point pulling it back. The developer doesn't want to change it.
Obviously he's not going to. If we had that vision of what we wanted, then we could stick to
it. Joe you're concerned with bluffs and grading. Was that tempered by anything or are you
still concerned with the bluffs and grading at the north end of the project?
Scott: It concerns me. I think that's, if there's anything I think we're real clear on is
preservation of features, topographic and vegetation and that's a concern. However you have
to ... that the developer and staff have worked hard enough to come up with the best possible
solution so what we can do, why don't we vote on the motion and see where that goes and.
Conrad: Well again, I'm trying to understand if we have some real valid things that we can
send staff back to do. I know they can show us, and the developer can show us the transition
stuff. We need that. I don't know, you're working next to the biggest area subdivision
we've got. I don't know why this place isn't packed. They've been packed for every other
thing that we've done close to them. They've been here. They're not here tonight so maybe
it's because it's 10 after 12:00 but again.
Mancino: Was there a neighborhood meeting?
' Conrad: I' lust amazed that they're not concerned and maybe they've worn me down after
all the public:: hearings but you know, I think that's significant and maybe this is just fine but
we don't know right now. I don't have a clue on it.
Ledvina: Cari I just say something to that? I think one of the things with the grading in this
' area is that you take the pad elevations down and the Timberwood people are seeing well
over these roofs and it's not affecting them.
71
n
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Conrad: Yeah, see I think that's true. I think there's some real validity to that, but I don't
know. Again that's one of those, I don't know.
Ledvina: And also, with the NSP line in there, I think that creates a buffer. It's a strange
buffer but.
Conrad: Just don't walk under the power lines.
Ledvina: Yeah. Well it's there and there is that easement and it does create a separation.
Mancino: Matt, how do we know that? How do we know that they can't see because these
things go up 35 feet? 20 feet.
Ledvina: The houses? Two levels is what?
Mancino: Yeah, but most peaks of the roofs have ... so I don't know what Timberwood is.
Ledvina: Well okay. Most of these buildings are at 950 or roughly. The northern one half
of this lot in here and well, we can be looking at probably 930. I don't know. I guess you're
right. You can't really say but you know that there's 20 feet of difference and if you have 20
feet, that's quite a bit in terms of providing a visual buffer and also a physical buffer too.
Combined with NSP. I don't know. I just feel that the separation issue is there. It's been
addressed by this plan.
Conrad: Might be.
Ledvina: That's my thoughts.
Conrad: Yeah, might be. I don't have a clue. I see some houses that are real close. And
here they've got 2 1/2 acres and we've got a house going up to, 2 or 3 in fact abutting that.
So Joe you're still concerned about the bluff grading. That's still a valid issue. You want
Bob to be going back and looking at that?
Scott: Yeah.
Conrad: And then street wise, you want a different plan?
Scott: Well I think in my mind that would be preferable to have a different street location.
Conrad: Putting it next to the creek?
72
0
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
I Scott: Yeah.
' Conrad: Yourf intent is not to reduce the number of houses. Your intent is to move.
Scott: No, I don't have a problem with the density at all. Especially because they've got
' larger square footage lots on the western side. But we have a motion on the floor to table
and let's vote on that.
' Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission table the Rezoning,
Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditional Use Permit for Heritage First Addition. All
voted in favor, except Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to
1.
Scott: The development is tabled. Now specific directions for staff and the developer.
' Zeroing in on the transition plan. Very specifically what do you want to see?
Conrad: I just want to see the transition between the two areas. How they show it.
' Scott: What about when Byerly's was in they showed the top of the Byerly's building. The
development behind. Something like that.
Conrad: We need some kind of schematic.
' Scott: Yeah, cross section to say here's the houses in Timberwood. The closest house, how's
it going to line up. Because that's, something like that's a quick view.
' Nutting: From my perspective that's the issue from my support of tabling, that's the one
issue that I guess I could come to terms with is saying we're giving that a lot of consideration
' for other developments that are coming through. I think it's only appropriate that we give it
the same here.
' Scott: Yeah. My major concern is the grading on the north side. You talked about private
drives and s946rth but that seems to be custom grading private drives are about the only tools
that we haver
Mancino: Steeper grades.
' Scott: Which as far as the cul -de -sacs, I know that, of course it's mostly the south cul -de-
sacs or streets that run north and south, we're more willing to allow steeper grades because in
73
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
the winter and so forth. The way this property is set up, I don't think we quite have that
opportunity so.
Mancino: I think we were all in consensus on parkland. We really feel that that area should
be incorporated into it.
Conrad: And I think Bob and staff should review points. The ones that the developer has
cared about. Point number 1. It just shouldn't be there when this comes back unless there's
something on the horizon. Number 32 should be taken care of.
Scott: Now if there's something with the Bluff Creek group that is to the form that the
Highway 5 document was, that was something that people could use very, very easily but if
it's not there, it doesn't make sense.
REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92
ACRES INTO 47 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND
PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED
AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE.
Staff Present:
Name Address
Martin Kuder
6831 Galpin Blvd.
Jerome Carlson
6950 Galpin Blvd.
Peter Davis
6640 Galpin Blvd.
Sam Mancino
6620 Galpin Blvd.
Tom Owens
Minneapolis
Bill Engelhardt
Engelhardt and Associates
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Now do we have another grading plan that was submitted today?
Generous: Yes. The applicant's engineer provided that ... We did hire Bill Engelhardt to
review this...
74
17
U
I I
I Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Aanenson: It will be on the 12th.
Scott: The 1 I'd like to thank the members of the Chamber of Commerce for coming in
and assisting yet once again. I don't suppose you'll be at the City Council meeting. Thanks
' very much. --
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING OF 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 48 SINGLE
' FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS, A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR
MITIGATION OF PONDING AREAS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATION OF AREAS WITHIN A FLOOD PLAIN ON PROPERTY LOCATED
NORTH OF TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILROAD TRACKS WEST OF BLUFF
CREEK AND EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES AND STONE CREEK, CREEKSIDE
ADDITION (FORMERLY HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION), HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT
' COMPANY.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Dobbs
645 5th Avenue
Lloyd Grooms
1691 Lincoln Avenue
John Dietrich
922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
Steve McCurry
2050 Oakwood Ridge
Stan Rud
2030 Renaissance Court
Bob Generous presented the staff mpoit on this item.
Harberts: Question. On what page, 25, under subdivision. That number 2. What is that
telling me ?Number 2 that has a line through it.
Generous: 'Oh, I started to renumber this whole thing and then I redecided not to. How you
were going "to "vote and then...
Harberts: So 2 is included?
Generous: Yes.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Aanenson: What we attempted to do is for your edification is to show you how this has
changed. When it goes to Council, then we ...so you can see where...
Scott: Okay. Would any of the other members from city staff like to make any comments
about this development?
Hempel: I did want to make a point of clarification Mr. Chairman ... the applicant with regards
to condition number 32 ... At this point I guess I'm open to deleting the condition with the
understanding that the condition may be brought back and put in the development contract
once it reaches the final plat stage. When the numbers are a little more...
Scott: So instead of having a blank check, which is essentially what that is.
Hempel: That's correct.
Ledvina: So you can do it at that point?
Hempel: That's correct.
Scott: So basically the condition would be used when the specific numbers or when the
developers or the applicant's exposure to special assessments is quantified by the city, then
those numbers will be included as part of the development agreement.
Hempel: In the... deleted at this point.
Scott: Okay. Do you have any comments Todd?
Hoffman: Chairman Scott, members of the commission. Last night at the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting the members did discuss the applicant's unwillingness to
show the additional park property which they had requested. They instructed me to bring a
message to the Planning Commission that they felt very strongly in that regard and that they
would uphold that requirement...
Scott: Okay. I also, I had a conversation with Jim Andrews regarding the subject of double
credit for the trail and then the ... if you could perhaps. I don't know if the other
commissioners are aware what the concern was for that.
Hoffman: The Park Commission had asked for an easement, a trail easement. The applicant
is showing that as a long, linear piece of park property which may have some merits as far as
37
Plannin g Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
the dedication process and determined through the negotiation process once it reaches that
point....
Scott: So was the concern that the easement for the trail was also counted as park?
' Hoffman: Correct.
' Scott: Okay. And the position is that an easement's an easement and a park is a park and
they're not the same thing.
' Hoffman: Typically, in past developments when an easement has been required or asked for,
they've been given to the city and not counted as park dedication.
' Scott: Okay. Can you think of a reason why, since that appears to have been the mode of
operations with easements versus parkland, do you see any reason why this development
' should be different?
Hoffman: No, I do not.
' Scott: Okay. Do you have any other comments?
' Hoffman: No, other than I just happened to have a photograph which shows the triangular
shaped piece of property of trees which is of interest to the park commission. Members of
the commission and staff and members of the staff and the applicant walked this area. It's
' somewhat unique in that the Bluff Creek corridor is in a location which is defined ... from
Highway 41 south... Throughout that experience if offers a variety of environments. One
thing which is beneficial to a trail corridor. Does not just have one type of experience... open
areas and wooded areas, is one of the aspirations of the Park and Recreation Commission in
acquiring this particular triangular shaped piece of woods would allow for that...
' Harberts: Todd, am I understanding then that the applicant, and 1 don't know if I'm
understanding the process here, would prefer to pay park dedication fees instead of providing
the land?
Hoffman: No. What they're showing is the park dedication as the long linear strip along here
to accommodate the trail. And if indeed that was determined to be a taking, we'd be willing
to go ahead and give them credit for that. But then we would also like to negotiate a
purchase, and which we have communicated with the applicant, for the remainder of the
property.
38
i
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Harberts: Okay. So what they're proposing is that the trail easement be considered as land
dedication without any additional park fees.
Hoffman: Correct.
Harberts: Okay. And the question that Joe had asked you was that in previous developments,
that there have been situations when there's easements given for trails as well as either land
for the park or park dedication. Has there ever been a request that you're aware of, similar in
nature to this one?
Hoffman: ...full park and trail fees. And then also providing... around the wetlands which is
very similar to this one.
Harberts: Fine, thanks.
Conrad: A question on wetland classification. Wetland A15 -15. That's the one that you hit
right when you dump off of Stone Creek I think. This is designated as an ag urban wetland?
That is really a pretty wetland and we have a street running. I guess I'm kind of amazed that
we have a street coming right to it and obviously to continue that we're going to fill, and
that's what the applicant has to do, but I'm not sure I have a problem with the road. It's got
to go where it's got to go but I'm really kind of miffed that we allowed a road to get to this
quite nice wetland. If you took a look at it, you'd just be amazed and I guess when I see it
classified as an ag urban, I'm amazed.
Aanenson: Can you clarify that...
Hempel: Sure. The roadway alignment, the initial view of that is ... Stone Creek platted when
Hans Hagen ... sort of set in stone. In order to make the design curve to maintain the
standards... small portion of this wetland area. There has been, created a storm water pond
adjacent to this for the wetland area to pretreat the storm water runoff portion of this
particular development as well as the development of Stone Creek. We have tried to
minimize the impact to this wetland and continue that with a future road for this plat.
Aanenson: -If .I could just add to that. That was part of the reason we ... and the applicant got
caught up in: that whole process ... we see this whole Bluff Creek corridor and adjacent to
wetlands ... and as Todd indicated, it gives different opportunities...
Conrad: Dave, help me again with what went wrong. Did we anticipate the road really
missing the wetland? I'm not really pointed at this issue. I just guess when I do get out to a
site and I see something happening like this, I'm wanting to figure out what my role should
39
I
ri
r
1
0
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
be and what you told me was when it really got delineated where the road went. Start me
there. When you saw where that road really went, it was too late to change it because.
Hempel: We were aware of the wetland outside of the Stone Creek plat and at some point
we knew we were going to have to run a road adjacent to it or try to minimize the impact to
it. And based on the topography is how this was explored. We actually got out, it was
probably a drier year when ... than actually it is t�is year. But the applicant with this
proposal... roadway itself. Normally within the right -of- way...
Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff?
Harberts: I do. Again, going back to page 25. That number 2. When it says that shall
attempt to retain. That doesn't give me a good comfort level. Although this certainly isn't my
area of expertise, I'm just in terms of what kind of guarantee or is that giving us. I don't have
a comfortable level with that. If we were to consider shall retain, is that too restrictive given
what needs to happen? I don't know but this shall attempt. Who's going to make that
determination where that level of attempt is?
Hempel: Well that condition itself, you're right ... may not be appropriate. This goes back to
previous plats that have been before you. The issue of what is considered excessive grading
on this site. What are natural features? To what extent are we trying to retain them. When
we put in streets, utilities and so forth, there is some compromise. There is ... involved. I
guess staff has reviewed the plan. The applicant has made suggestions. The applicant has
not yet made those changes to improve, maintaining the knolls, the higher areas. He's still
not sacrificing or compromising on the street widths ... in that approach.
Harberts: What if we took the word attempt. You know attempt to. Take that out and just
say, shall retain. Does it still achieve what you're speaking to with regard to the discussion
staff has had with the applicant or again, is it too restrictive given what you reviewed on the
plans?
Hempel: Ibelieve it's restrictive and it's also interpretative...
Aanenson I think what Dave is saying is correct is that we've moved in this direction.
We've made recommendations ... street grades. Try to bring up the street grades... I think
we're... compromising on those issues ... This was targeted to that point and we think it's pretty
much ... as Dave indicated... pretty vague. Maybe at this point it may help...
Harberts: But is it better off then that we leave it in to give I guess the city the opportunity
for interpretation on that, or not? I don't know. I'm just, again I was just uncomfortable.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Hempel: Or should we rephrase it to say that the applicant shall for the most feasible
engineering practices or something like that, retain the natural topographic features.
Scott: Well what about, it seems like the major disturbance is going to be caused when the
streets and utilities goes in. I mean that's a given. Perhaps what it is, the applicant shall
retain the natural topographic features undisturbed by street and utility construction to
preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan.
Then at least there's that, we know there's a given that's going to happen. I mean obviously
pads have to be put in, etc, etc but what we don't want is, you know unnecessary grading.
We're dancing around this thing but I know where you're coming from is that that's
meaningless. Well we tried, you know.
Harberts: Right.
Conrad: But Joe, they're moving a lot of earth.
Scott: Oh yeah, I understand.
Conrad: So I kind of like the vagueness at this point. You know bottom line is, they're
moving a ton of earth here and it's just like, this is, and the staff represented this very well.
This was some perspectives that we wanted in the very early parts and gave that direction. I
think the applicant has tried but they basically are saying we've got to move a lot of stuff to
fit our houses in there.
Harberts: And I'm understanding that the staff has understood that and you've reached
agreement.
Aanenson: As Ladd indicated it may not hurt if you wanted...
Harberts: Right.
Scott: This =is superior to the one that came to us the first time. And that's what the job is.
Alright, any other questions or comments for staff? No? Would the applicant like to make a
presentation?
John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich, RLK Associates representing Heritage
Development. I would like to thank Bob for going over the number of issues that we did
work on based on the comments that you had indicated last time. And we have addressed the
concerns we feel to the best possible solution within the confines of the city code
requirements as far as road grades, house pads, yards, side slopes that need to be addressed if
41
0
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
this site is to go a residential single family development according to the comprehensive plan.
The issue of'site grading and cross sections, I have graphics and overheads if anyone has any
further questions, we can go over those so ... hit on a couple of the other issues. The roadway
alignment, we are going to maintain the roadway alignment as it is proposed. I think Mr.
Conrad makes a good point on this wetland. We have to do a delineation as part of the site
preliminary plat requirements and with that we would like to avoid that as much as possible.
With the roadway alignment where it is, it will be shifted a little bit within the right -of -way
to try and minimize that. We will definitely do that. As we would move through the wooded
area on the south, this alignment does make the most efficient use of coming through that
wooded area in order to minimize the tree loss which we also want to do. And with the
curvalinear fashion running through the site with the undulating topography, we feel that has
a ... set of aesthetics for both the users and the residential access would be placed on either side
of the street. In terms of the overall improvements to the site, we have a great opportunity
for the storm water ponding areas, identified as Outlot C and Outlot D to capture storm runoff
prior to it's discharging into the wetland itself and the wetland in the center portion of the
site. The opportunity to have a higher water quality element for this site will be one strong
outgrowth of the platting and development of this site. In turning to the parkland dedication I
would like to touch on that for just a minute. First off I would like to go towards the final
recommendations that are in the staff report. On page 28 of the staff report. Just a couple of
clarifications in terms of the recommendations. The first one is item number 28. Staff
recommends that the cul -de -sac at the southern end of the site be a private drive. We've
looked at it in terms of a public drive. We feel it functions best as a complete public system
roadway but we will be willing to look at that as a private drive to try and close down the
space and a little less impact to the trees. Number 29. The extension of an 8 inch sanitary
sewer along the creek. We are still not convinced that that is the absolute best location. I
know that engineering wise it would be great if we could work it ... creek preservation
elements that would have to be looked at with that sanitary sewer line runs along the center
line of the creek. Thirdly the item number 24. Individual grading, drainage and erosion
control plans will be required for each of the wooded lots. We fully would intend that to be
the case because these will be custom graded homes and they have been designed as shown
on the grading plan submitted that the building plans will work with the grading out there. It
should be noted that the woodland management plan which increased the number of
replacement trees... did account for the areas within the building pads and the driveways to be
removed_ so]1hat as an application would come in to those individual lots, they would have the
right to remove the trees within that area because the replacement trees are being taken care
of at the time' of the approval and are being replaced as part of the landscape plan and
woodland management plan. Item number 33, with the trail alignment along the wetlands and
Bluff Creek corridor. The proposal is that the trail alingment would follow within the 20 foot
minimal with parkland dedication running north and south through the site and that the trail
would remain along the eastern side of the ponding areas, generally in the location that is
42
7
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
shown. We will gladly work with staff and a soils consultant to place that trail in it's most
appropriate place along that trail corridor. And Dave Hempel has indicated on number 32.
We'd be happy to look at that as a part of the developer's agreement. I'd like to then switch
to item number 12, the Park and Recreation Commission's condition. In terms of the parkland
dedication. The overall site of 39.5 acres identifies up to 8.2 acres of outlot wetlands that
would be considered, that will be turned over to the city for... In addition to that 8.2 acres, we
are proposing that we will meet code, or actually exceed code by having the parkland
dedication... for this site. Based on the 48 residential home sites on this subdivision, the
requirement is 1.92 acres of parkland dedication. It is our full intent to dedicate this property
to the city in lieu of park dedication fees. We will donate the property as we had suggested
in the plans submitted. With the plan identifying the north /south trail corridor, or parkland
dedication corridor, the comprehensive plan identifies... running north and south along the
Bluff Creek corridor throughout the city. Bluff Creek corridor in the comprehensive plan is
described as a linear park ... and as part of the parkland dedication, trail opportunities are
described as part of the parkland dedication and we feel the dedication of this 2 acre parcel
running north and south provides the greatest experience for trail users to experience
woodland areas, wetland areas of a high quality, open space, wetland area vegetation and then
coming up to the north area, a chance to start having undulating trail system and then into the
ravine that is along the northeast side of the site. The trail would have to be carefully
constructed and maintained in that corridor to be in conformance with the bluff line protection
area. The parkland dedication ordinance determines what is proper for the parkland
dedication. And your ordinance also states that a trail is to be included as parkland
dedication. The plat as submitted shows 2 acres of the dedication parkland. The Planning
Commission has stated that it is interested in more parkland than the Heritage subdivision has
indicated and in the instance where the city wants more land than the developers are prepared
to dedicate, the ordinance states and has been identified in the staff report, that the land can
be purchased or condemned. Accordingly if the commission desires more parkland than this
subdivision identifies, we recommend that the Planning Commission approve the plat as
submitted with the recommendation that the city consider purchasing the wood lots in Block
2, Lot 8, 9, 10 and 11, located at the southeast corner of the plat which would essentially be
this area here. The subdivision presented to you tonight has been a culmination of over 12
months of miork with numerous redesigns, reconfigurations of roadway. Considerations of the
environmental aspects and the number of lots that could be properly set into this north /south
undulating topography site. It is our intent that this plan is the best solution for a residential
subdivision within this site and it meets all objections of the subdivision ordinance for the
city of Chanhassen. The plat as submitted with the 48 residential lots meets the requirements
of the subdivision ordinance and we would request that the Planning Commission approve the
rezoning, preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit and conditional use permit necessary in
order for this preliminary plat to move forward and on up to City Council. With that I can
answer any additional questions.
43
I Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Scott: Questions or comments for the applicant? Thanks.
1 John Dobbs, ...John Dobbs, I'm ... Heritage Development. As Mr. Hoffman mentioned ... we've
been having `conversations in one form or another about what this creek corridor parkland is
' going to be like for some months now. Because for the reasons that Mr. Dietrich stated in
terms of what we believe the trail is in terms of park, a linear park ... that discussions follow if
there is more land required or desired by Planning Commission or City Council and staff
' other than what we're dedicating here, we can discuss the option of purchase and ... you always
have the right to condemn and go forward and we've had that conversation for quite a while
so I'm in no way saying that either one of those options is something we'd be happy to look
' at... But in the end it ends up basically being an issue of park or a trail easement is park or
whether it's a taking... Thank you very much.
Scott: This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Udvina moved, Faimakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Steve McCurry: My name is Steve McCurry and my address is 2050 Oakwood Ridge and I
' just had one question. I missed the previous meeting unfortunately and so I'm a little
puzzeled about item one in your list of five things. The transition between Timberland and
' this development. I have one very tangible question and that was, if preservation of a gain of
4 feet in elevation doesn't help since I don't know where we started from, and then some very
general questions. I'd like some general information about the original plan.
Generous: This is the Timberwood Estates subdivision and this is the proposed new grade for
this development. This is another cross section within the development. The existing grades.
' Steve McCurry: Where is that on the map? Just in the entire cross section...
' Generous: They're both in the northern third of the property.
Hempel: l ' the cul -de -sac.
' Scott: If you can show where the section goes through. Mr. McCurry, are you primarily
interested in identifying where your property is?
Steve McCurry: No, I'm curious in general about the, there was a comment about
maintaining the aesthetics of the transition between Timberland and ... and I'm curious to know
' what the opinion was about what the aesthetics are and then I had a very specific question
1 44
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
i
because there are, there was a lot of discussion about ... and how much earth had to be moved '
and so on and... certainly true. But knowing that it was 4 feet higher than it was...
Scott: Did you get your question answered? ,
Steve McCurry: I think so. My house is right on the bottom there.
Generous: You'll overlook this development. '
Steve McCurry: Yeah, and I do now. I was just trying to get some understanding of how
low the hill was going to be. It doesn't look bad. Thank you.
Scott: Certainly. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing?
Stan Rud: I'd just like to... My name is Stan Rud, 2030 Renaissance Court. And it was
mentioned on the transition there. Is there any landscaping or any trees or anything that are '
going to be put in as a buffer to Timberwood? Any evergreen type trees or will there be just
power lines on the east or west of the power lines, because you can't climb under it...
Generous: Just from the east side of, it's a mixture I believe.
Stan Rud: Is there any kind of a landscaping picture or anything? 1
John Dietrich: ...in the wooded area...
Scott: Good. Anyone else?
John Dobbs: John Dobbs again. Just briefly, NSP does ... contact the people when they come '
back to do ... so they will have to come back and contact people when they're cutting through
to trim trees... '
.Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing none, may I
have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Conrad moved, Harbeits seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ledvina: I think there have been some changes in the development plan. I think the
applicant has worked with staff in making many of the changes come about. I think that after '
walking the site and having an opportunity to see the significance of the, and the innerelation
45 '
0
�
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
between the Bluff Creek area, the wooded area and the wetland in the southern portion of the
site. I feel it would be a tremendous amenity for the future residents in that area so I have to,
I strongly support staff in their specific condition as it relates to the trail and the park in that
area. As I was reading through the City Council Minutes when this thing was evaluated as a
PUD, I noted that the Council members were very concerned with the screening and the
transition from Timberwood and I share that concern as well. I think the real concern occurs
pretty much along the northern 1/3 of the prope#y boundary with Timberwood and affecting
those two residences. I know the developer has developed, or prepared a landscaping plan
which somewhat intensifies the plantings in that area but I guess I feel that I would like to
have this re- evaluated in light of the new grades. If we move things up. I don't remember
seeing this exact planting scheme so I don't know how it compares with the previous plans
but again I would like to see if there's an opportunity to intensify the plantings along that
northern third of the property boundary and I'll leave that up to the applicant to work out with
staff if that can be done. I think as it relates to the public improvements, we can handle that
with the development agreement. I would support eliminating I think it's condition 32. That's
the extent of my comments.
Scott: Diane.
Harberts: I don't have any other comments.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: I'm comfortable with the transition between Timberwood and this parcel. When
Matt and I walked the site there were two lots we were concerned with. Matt, I don't know
who's going to make the motion but there were two lots that I think if I were in Timberwood
I'd have a little bit of concern but other than those two, I think everything's fairly, there's
enough distance there so I think staf report in general and the applicant and the staff have
done a good job in making sure we have the right transition so, but again Matt, I don't know
if your comments relate to those two. If they do, I would support at least a relook at what's
appropriate for those two parcels. Kate, did we save any trees in the middle part there? The
oaks.
Aanenson: .We've got one.
Conrad: They all coming down?
Aanenson: All those are down.
M
n
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Conrad: I'll re -echo Matt's point. I think the park, as requested by the Park and Rec
Department,' the trail system and the park there, I think it's real appropriate. I think it is a
good amenity. I think it should be purchased or condemned or whatever the appropriate
vehicle is. I think that is something that Chanhassen should have for the residents. Other
than that, my only other comment is, and I'm not sure how to do this. The one wetland that I
referenced before. It is a classic pretty clean wetland and I guess I don't have the right
motion to make but I guess the best I can do is to re -echo to staff that some great care I hope
can be taken when we go in there and put a road in it because it will be in it. That's all.
Scott: Thanks, Jeff.
Farmakes: I don't have much new to add. In fact nothing. I support the city being
aggressive in regards to the park. I think that considering the amount of work or planning
that's gone into the creek... The issue of the elevation plans, I'll just support the comments
that have already been made on that...
Scott: Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend preliminary approval. I'm
sorry, recommend preliminary plat approval of Subdivision #94 -7 subdividing 39.5 acres of
land into 44 lots and 4 outlots subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with the
following conditions. Elimination of conditions 1, 5, 11, 32 and addition of condition number
37 which shall read, applicant shall investigate modification of the landscaping plans to
further intensify planting along the northern Timberwood property line to enhance the
screening effect from existing Timberwood development, particularly those dwellings at 8001
Acorn Avenue and 2050 Oakwood Ridge. Condition number 38. Applicant shall adjust the
alignment of the roadway at the southern end of the parcel to adjust the roadway alignment at
the southern end of the parcel within the right -of -way to minimize the impact to the existing
wetland in that area.
Scott: Can I have a second please?
Conrad: I'll second.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary plat
approval of Subdivision #94 -7 subdividing 39.5 acres of land into 44 lots and 4 oudots
subject to the following conditions:
I
C
J
1. The applicant shall attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the
rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan. '
47
u
n
r
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
2. A woodland management plan will be required as part of the platting process.
3. Revis"e Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor elevation, top of foundation
elevation and garage floor elevation. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show
standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
4. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review
prior to final plat approval.
5. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshall for approval.
6. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safety operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance Section 9 -1.
7. Submit plans to Fire Marshal showing the connection to either existing or proposed
streets at the north end or south end of the proposed road.
8. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
9. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. The land bounded by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the
extension of Stone Creek Drive and Outlot B on the west, and the arm of Bluff
Creek on the north be shown as parkland. Said property to be purchased through
a combination of park dedication, fee credit and cash.
b. A 30 foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the Bluff Creek
Corridor/wetland complex along the north and east portions of the plat.
c. ,The alignment of the 8 foot bituminous trail be amended to reflect the direction
given the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek
corridor enter the parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland
prior to its connection with the railroad underpass. Said trail to be constructed
' -with the first phase of improvements completed by the applicant with a lump
sum cost for the trail being reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall
supply the city with three quotes for the construction of said trail with the final
alignment being staked for approval by the City's Park and Recreation and
Engineering Department prior to construction.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
10. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 100 foot setback buffer
around Bluff Creek and a 50 foot setback buffer along the tributary to Bluff Creek.
11. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with,seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface
Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City Council. Type III
erosion control will be required adjacent to all wetlands except where storm ponds will
intercept runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. In these areas Type I erosion
control is required.
12. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
approval.
13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality /quantity ponds
in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre- developed and post -
developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer
calculations for a 10 year storm event between each catch basin segment will also be
required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water
quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract:
15. the. applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA,
DNR; . Army Corps of Engineers and MnDot, and comply with their conditions of
approval.
L
16. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring
information. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi- ,
49
I Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be
' provided to the Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot.
1
u
u
17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width
shall be a minimum of 20 feet. Consideration should also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right -of -way areas.
19. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the
high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines.
20. The proposed storm water ponds shall be designed with side slopes of 10:1 for the
first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1
throughout for safety purposes. The storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial
site grading.
21. Individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each
wooded lot prior to issuance of a building permit.
22. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. If the applicant
constructs the water quality ponds as proposed, these fees will be waived.
23. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer
trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design
requirements. The fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction
plans.
24. The applicant shall report to the City ENgineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
25. The §outherly cul -de -sac shall be re- evaluated for a private driveway in an effort to
pull the house pads away from the tree line. A turn around in accordance with the
Fire Marshal's recommendations shall be provided.
26. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8 inch sanitary sewer line to the westerly
edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary (Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, Block 3).
50
33. The applicant shall investigate modification of the landscaping plans to further
intensify planting along the northern Timbeiwood property line to enhance the '
screening effect from existing Timberwood development, particularly those dwellings
at 8001 Acorn Avenue and 2050 Oakwood Ridge.
34. Applicant shall adjust the alignment of the roadway at the southern end of the parcel '
J g
to adjust the roadway alignment at the southern end of the parcel within the right-of-
way to minimize the impact to the existing wetland in that area. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditionaf Use Permit #94 -4 to permit filling and replacing wetlands on the site subject to ,
the following conditions:
The applicant shall comply with the wetland fill /excavation and wetland mitigation ,
conditions as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Mitigation work shall
be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in future phases of the
project. All mitigation work shall be limited to the Bluff Creek corridor and not in the ,
wetland located at the southwest comer of the site.
51 1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
27.
The northerly proposed interim storm pond shall be shown on the grading plan.
Details such as contour lines and the outlet control structure shall be included.
,
28.
The north /south street shall be extended through to the frontage road within three years
after "the final plat is approved. The applicant shall provide the city with a financial
'
security to guarantee the roadway extension will be completed.
29.
The trail alignment around the wetlands (Bluff Creek corridor) shall be determined in
'
the field after walking the site and consulting a soils engineer.
drainage for
,
30.
The final plat shall dedicate the appropriate utility and easements access
and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas and wetlands. The
wetlands and ponding areas may be deeded to the city as outlots as well.
'
31.
The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls along the east side of the
southerly creek crossing to minimize tree loss.
'
32.
Adjust the lot lines for those properties that abut the Bluff Creek tributary to use the
tributary/bottom of ravine as the lot line.
'
33. The applicant shall investigate modification of the landscaping plans to further
intensify planting along the northern Timbeiwood property line to enhance the '
screening effect from existing Timberwood development, particularly those dwellings
at 8001 Acorn Avenue and 2050 Oakwood Ridge.
34. Applicant shall adjust the alignment of the roadway at the southern end of the parcel '
J g
to adjust the roadway alignment at the southern end of the parcel within the right-of-
way to minimize the impact to the existing wetland in that area. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditionaf Use Permit #94 -4 to permit filling and replacing wetlands on the site subject to ,
the following conditions:
The applicant shall comply with the wetland fill /excavation and wetland mitigation ,
conditions as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Mitigation work shall
be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in future phases of the
project. All mitigation work shall be limited to the Bluff Creek corridor and not in the ,
wetland located at the southwest comer of the site.
51 1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
All voted in favor and the motion carved.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #94 -4 to permit filling and replacing wetlands on the site subject to
' the following conditions:
1. All buffer areas shall be surveyed and stoked by the applicant in accordance with the
' City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before
construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign.
' 2. Wetland buffer areas are required around the wetlands in accordance with the City
Wetland Ordinance. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 50
foot buffer around Bluff Creek with a 100 foot building setback and a 10 to 30 foot
' buffer with a minimum average of 20 feet around the tributary to Bluff Creek with a
50 foot building setback.
' All voted in favor and the motion carved.
' Kate Aanenson asked for clarification on the previous motion of Matt Ledvina.
Ledvina: That motion would include the Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration
' Permit with the items identified in the staff report.
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated November 2, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
' CPTY COUNCIL UPDATE:
' Scott: Could you give us a City Council update?
Kate Aanenson stated that there was not a written update.
' Scott: Well the significant matter, I got in at about 8:00 and basically the discussion centered
around reconsidering the Council's decision on the Ryan property. As you may recall, the
' Mayor voted for denial. I believe Councilman Senn voted to approve. I believe Councilman
Wing voted to approve and I belive that Councilwoman Dockendorf abstained from voting.
' Ledvina: Wing also abstained. Mason voted for.
52
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Mr. John Dobbs
Heritage Development Company
450 East County Road D
St. Paul, Minnesota 55117
Re: Creekside Addition
Dear John:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation today, I am advising you that the appraisal being performed for '
the city regarding the parkland area within the Creekside plat will not be completed until late this
week.
As we agreed, this time frame will not permit you or staff;;
discuss the purchase amount for the property. .Since we bt
permit both parties sufficient time to try to complete negot
the plat, we are requesting that you send an letter authorizi
period for the plat by 30 days. This will permit us to rem4
City Council agenda and still provide the city with at least
necessary, to review the plat and make: a decision on it.
ficient time to review the appraisal and
agree that it would be advantageous to
ons prior to the City Council hearing on
the city to extend the 120 day review
this item from the December 12, 1994
o City Council meetings, if deemed
If you have any questions or need additional information, please tet me know. I look forward to
working with you on resolving this issue.
�k
c: Todd Hoffman, Parks and Recreation Director
HERITAGE
DEVELOPMENT
In response to our phone conversation on 12/5/94, and the letterlreceived in today's mail dated
12/5/94, I agree that the time remaining will be insufficient to facilitate a meaningful and
thoughtful discussion about the purchase of excess park requirement land in the Creekside
Subdivision. As I stated at the planning commission meeting on 11/16/94 I am enthusiastic about
resolving this single issue that remains on this project.
As you stated in your letter, and we discussed on the phone, I don't believe the appraisal will be
done in time for the Dec. 12th City Council meeting which our project is due to appear, and allow
enough time for staff and Heritage Development to digest the information. Therefore I concur
with staff that the Creekside plat should be table until the next scheduled City Council Meeting at
the City of Chanhassen.
I further understand from our phone conversation on Dec. 5 that the 120 day time period expires
on Jan. 18. 1995 and therefore the staff would like to extended the 120 day period 30 additional
days so as to accommodate " at least two city Council meetings, if deemed necessary". I
therefore am amenable to the City of Chanhassen extending the review period an additional 30
days which would be Feb. 17, 1995, counting from Mr. Generous date of Jan. 18, 1995 as the
�. 4-
ViLLlellt e}C1Jlrilt'1VIi lL(11.G.
I would stress however that this project as been in the city for many months and that I would
hope that ther =would be no need to delay this project any further than is absolutely necessary.
Sincerely,
i ohn Dobbs
Director of Development
12/7/95
450 East County Road D
' St. Paul, MN 55117
(612) 481 -0017
FAX: (612) 481 -1518
Robert Generous
Planner II ..
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
'
PO. Box 147
Chanhassen MN. 55317
Dear Bob,
In response to our phone conversation on 12/5/94, and the letterlreceived in today's mail dated
12/5/94, I agree that the time remaining will be insufficient to facilitate a meaningful and
thoughtful discussion about the purchase of excess park requirement land in the Creekside
Subdivision. As I stated at the planning commission meeting on 11/16/94 I am enthusiastic about
resolving this single issue that remains on this project.
As you stated in your letter, and we discussed on the phone, I don't believe the appraisal will be
done in time for the Dec. 12th City Council meeting which our project is due to appear, and allow
enough time for staff and Heritage Development to digest the information. Therefore I concur
with staff that the Creekside plat should be table until the next scheduled City Council Meeting at
the City of Chanhassen.
I further understand from our phone conversation on Dec. 5 that the 120 day time period expires
on Jan. 18. 1995 and therefore the staff would like to extended the 120 day period 30 additional
days so as to accommodate " at least two city Council meetings, if deemed necessary". I
therefore am amenable to the City of Chanhassen extending the review period an additional 30
days which would be Feb. 17, 1995, counting from Mr. Generous date of Jan. 18, 1995 as the
�. 4-
ViLLlellt e}C1Jlrilt'1VIi lL(11.G.
I would stress however that this project as been in the city for many months and that I would
hope that ther =would be no need to delay this project any further than is absolutely necessary.
Sincerely,
i ohn Dobbs
Director of Development
12/7/95
450 East County Road D
' St. Paul, MN 55117
(612) 481 -0017
FAX: (612) 481 -1518