5. Concept PUD-Heritage Development1'
F
L
CITY OF S
CHAKH
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
' FROM: Bob Generous, Planner IT
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
' Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
DATE: May 19, 1994
' SUBJ: Revised Plans for Heritage Development Conceptual Planned Unit
Development (94 -1 PUD)
i staff has reviewed the revisions to the concept plan for Heritage Development dated May
City P P g P Y
10, 1994 and has the following comments.
REVISION SUMMARY
The applicant has reduced the total number of lots from 56 to 53 which results in a net
density of 2.09 versus 2.1 units per acre previously. The road has been realigned and there is
a continuous north/south street through the development. Private! driveway access is being
' proposed for a few of the lots. A trail system, ponding areas/open space, and a thirty (30)
foot buffer strip has been provided along the creek corridor.
Staff believes that the applicant is moving in the right .direction to meet the concerns
expressed by the city , regarding the proposed development. However, the 'concerns and
directives contained in the original staff report are still valid regarding this proposal and will
need to be addressed prior to the next submittal (preliminary plat review). To assist the
applicant, staff has created a sketch plan that we believe addresses many of the concerns
expressed by the city. The PUD permits lot depths of 100 feet and lot areas down to 11,000
' square feet. It may be feasible to create two rows of lots along the inside radius of the
northernmost curve of the subdivision.
Staff believes that the development of this site is most appropriate through the PUD process
and is recommending that City Council approve the PUD Concept with the conditions
specified in this report.
s
MEMORANDUM
Revised Heritage Development Conceptual Planned Unit Development (94 -1 PUD)
May 19, 1994
' Page 2
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the initial concept plan for this site at their
' March 22, 1994 meeting. The revised concept plan dated May 10, 1994 successfully meets
the interests of the Park and Recreation Commission and staff in regard to park and trail
issues with a few minor exceptions.
' 1. 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.
2. A 50 ft. wide trail strip shall be identified along the westerly border of the P lat 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.
3. 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. •
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 is open
space areas which provide views and allow for the placement of picnic tables, etc.
Such spaces are not represented on this plan.
i STREETS
' The revised concept plan does address staff's previous concerns with regards to curvilinear
streets and the "T" intersection on the north/south street. In addition, the previous comment
with regards to not allowing this development to proceed without having Stone Creek Drive
completed back out to the Galpin in the Hans Hagen Stone Creek development is no longer
applicable. Hans Hagen has filed the final plat for Stone Creek 4th Addition which completes
the street system back out to Galpin Boulevard. Therefore, the previous concern is no longer
' applicable.
1
Revised Heritage Development Conceptual Planned Unit Development (94 -1 PUD)
May 19, 1994
Page 3 '
The applicant is employing the use of private driveways to minimize the use of cul -de -sacs '
constructed at full City standards. Upon further review of the street layout, staff has prepared
a concept of what staff has envisioned for a curvilinear street in this neighborhood. This
concept does eliminate one of the private driveways and offsets the road further to the east '
over the southerly one -half of the development. This may, however, involve losing a few
more lots. On a positive note, staff's street alignment does provide for more open spaces,
saves more trees, and creates some larger lots adjacent to Timberwood. I
UTILITIES
'
This plan does not alter the extension of sanitary sewer or water service to the site. The new
street layout may affect stone water ponding and storm sewers. It is still recommended that
the applicant work with the City in installing the trunk sanitary sewer system along the
'
north/south street if feasible.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Stormwater calculations for pre - developed and post - developed conditions must be supplied to
the City Engineer for review and approval. This includes a hydrologic analysis of 100 -year
storms for ponding areas and 10 -year storms for storm sewers. The grading plan should
include the normal and high water levels, and elevations of inlets and outlets. Stormwater
ponds on -site should be designed to William Walker's Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff
'
Detention Basins (Pondnet) standards. This design criteria will be required with the
preliminary plat proposal.
'
The site locations and use of stormwater ponding on the first concept plan has been revised.
Staff recommends two stormwater ponds as discussed below. In addition the two small ponds
located just north and south of wetland A15 -11(1) (Attachment No. 1) are not necessary for
'
stormwater quantity or quality. Therefore, it is recommended that they be removed from the
proposed plan. The Bluff Creek Watershed plan should incorporate natural landscaping along
'
the creek.
Stormwater runoff from the northern two- thirds of the site will drain to the stormwater pond '
located along the western edge of wetland A15- 11(1). It is suggested that this pond be
designed to retain and pretreat water in the northern two- thirds of the site in addition to some
of the runoff from the Chanhassen Corporate Center property just east of the school site. '
Fees for trunk storm sewer and water quality ponding will be evaluated based on the
applicant's contribution to the stormwater infrastructure.
Stormwater runoff from the southern third of the site will drain to the stormwater pond ,
located along the western edge of wetland A15- 15(1). This pond will be designed to retain
1
J
Revised Heritage Development Conceptual Planned Unit Development (94 -1 PUD)
May 19, 1994
Page 4
' and pretreat water from the southern third of the site in addition to some of the runoff from
the Stone Creek 4th Addition (Hans Hagen) site to the west. Fees for trunk storm sewer will
be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the stormwater infrastructure.
' The steep grades along the creek in the northeast comer of the property fit the definition of a
bluff, and therefore, the setbacks for bluffs will be required. This should be reviewed by the
' Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
WETLANDS
' Upon a site visit with the wetland's specialist, it was concluded that an additional wetland
exists in the central portion of the site at Lot 18. This is a very small perched wetland and is
proposed to be filled as a result of the development.
Staff encourages the developer to assist with the restoration of wetland A15 -11(1) as
' mitigation. It is anticipated that this wetland restoration will be one of the projects
incorporated into the Bluff Creek Watershed Plan.
A charette will be held on May 26, 1994 to address the immediate issues concerning the
proposed Bluff Creek Watershed Plan. The buffer strip for the upper part of the watershed
' will be one of the most important issues addressed 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 recommendations
for protection 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 Department 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).
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.
'
C. Wetlands with important wildlife functions in eastern Washington should have
a 100 to 200 foot buffer depending on adjacent land use.
d. Buffer widths effective in preventing significant water quality impacts to
wetlands are generally 100 feet or greater.
I
Revised Heritage Development Conceptual Planned Unit Development (94 -1 PUD) '•
May 19, 1994
Page 5 '
RECOMMENDATION '
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City ouncil approves the Conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of roe to create a '
Y PP P property riY
single - family development subject to the following conditions: ,
1.
Water-shed Plan that afe being initiated in the ' . - . The City's
sign ,
recommendations will remain pending on the design 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.
. (Revised) I
if (Completed)
mead 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 property. 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.
11 (1) (bets 50, 5 1, and 52). A%efi the r-eFA of the pr-ep" is develeped an addifie
(Revised) '
.' Revised Heritage Development Conceptual Planned Unit Development (94 -1 PUD)
May 19, 1994
Page 6
. (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
east/west frontage road within three years after the final plat is approved for the first
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 properm provide
public access to the nark, and allow for larger lot sizes along the western border.
11. The ,,efdi/ B a th street (f u t.,re St Q Dr ye )..1, ld be modified at the T
' inev e m ent en the deed a «d eu d de s f e the east. (Revised)
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.
1 13. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council
approval.
u
F
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 trail system will need to be developed.
Revised Heritage Development Conceptual Planned Unit Development (94-1 PUD)
May 19, 1994
Page 7 '
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
road. 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 easy 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 develepxent. preliminary plat review
process. In addition, a woodland management plan will be required es- pew -e€ the
Platting pr-eeess.
,
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
Y P PP Y P g
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 3/2/94."
24. A ten (10) foot clear zone must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, I
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 I
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.
Revised Heritage Development Conceptual Planned Unit Development (94 -1 PUD)
May 19, 1994
Page 8
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 part 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 plan.
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 plan.
ATTACHMENTS
'
1.
Wetland location map
2.
Revised Plans Dated 5/10/94
3.
Letter from John Dietrich to Bob Generous dated 5/12/94
'
4.
Staff sketch concept plan
5.
Staff Report Dated 4/1/94
1
MAY -18 -1994 08:19 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES +.LTD.... TO
tN'1 9
s2 '"�� a �: `� � _was elswr
V.
h
�. t\ —A
.�.+».WN. wre+wa
00 _- Y1 f "V
V `�'` Rel►e R+rr' &We
•� - �� \ � +inuRw
'� .yq'+. YR�. RYir RRSeRR
J oe
wrwwM+w
-may..- r wwww�
t r? `
IQ
s . �+
dr
i ` /�• a+ ; we �..� .._ .
wrwwwl•welwww
• weRA��Rw_
1
Apps wlfl/• ■ooOe.e
..
� L
UwAl
ALIL
JAL `
OPW aim
mvw
V
, ate i
e
/ ♦ ew• -pt
ra
•--- . � i • ;� ,.
Vi
, j
EGAN. S�R SWAK INC. . • .....,•
7415 veytMe SMAW rO wv..WlY4 �wgal• Sie26 :..','..,.
s2 '"�� a �: `� � _was elswr
V.
h
�. t\ —A
.�.+».WN. wre+wa
00 _- Y1 f "V
V `�'` Rel►e R+rr' &We
•� - �� \ � +inuRw
'� .yq'+. YR�. RYir RRSeRR
J oe
wrwwM+w
-may..- r wwww�
t r? `
IQ
s . �+
dr
i ` /�• a+ ; we �..� .._ .
9375739 P.02
1
Apps wlfl/• ■ooOe.e
MEN
zAn
UwAl
ALIL
JAL `
OPW aim
mvw
'
lr K
/ ♦ ew• -pt
f
EGAN. S�R SWAK INC. . • .....,•
7415 veytMe SMAW rO wv..WlY4 �wgal• Sie26 :..','..,.
9375739 P.02
MEN
zAn
UwAl
OPW aim
mvw
'
tw
I
k ' 1 11
' � 1
i
1
I
t.trateet.etn.lOt., W 9>•u
tt.l.arrtor.0l.t.0,e_
' sn
� 1110. wwo�rwaaaarnt�¢a 1
g--, ttrrat�rtw.0tto�
^ ro ` wr'a- / 1♦
• npjvpm Lot ■
1 �
Lot a ta: 1 soy
t •;
glf{Mi W Q �LACMID . rtitli alt- -��c- 1
-- : , : Lott, 1 9—
ter a
i
- a�om \.� ♦ tm Is 3A I ` / - - AVdaa m
w-
.• I
to A 2 ' :~y "'' _ mtstere arltto
Lure
7 4
— < i / - tmZr ' ! y IYMt�tllMit
TI --t C) tart ! IR 0e', �;c �. 1`, r 1
D 0 Z i�ot'oyr uem,
D - - �' t1�+nAntlmt
11 p _ w�somtmm
p —.— wt
O rm a car a v1 w
— Pb utttr u�r atmr
-C .I am a. rm + twnwlt
\oc s•t:or tear, ttt>or -
\ .. ►.0100 Aot®ttasortRlwe .
SAM
Lm
r
\\ utii ptur naerpsltartat
� 1
5
J . o ?O ca t�r
r to - Minot a � I� samr i wm
--urr I t�ieer saaar
PIowtsowartut tr loss
ottaAlonataRMAU—
zz /110'eta& —Ammy reta lnttr , a• :" ' S'� /
1011 tOQ1NO..• .TS p� y
j /V IXSM.olibl R- p.
Q � __ c1µ•Irc.�wD±
N \ � +� ma•
- ! EGAN. FIELD & O OWAK INC. _
• 7415 Wayzata Boul.0w d Minn
eopab, Minnesota 55426
2Y1P �
mevra armor
- �Wlt irpw'ir
. r
l
I
RN
Lea
F
R
i
3
I WA ..
` tl
W
\ 1a
U+ m 1 d ' b
O m �.
D m D
rim \ er
d
c o ) � I '
�m
Z C m
m Zr
D O Z t sur*D+ R� to W f
Ln
v O D ' o \ •
��� •/ 1. "0
\ \ .\
1 �
� I
w t ELAN. FIELD NOWAK INC.
M 7415 Walaato BO NWI MkYwapdM. YY1rL�wto SS426
I
Il ,
�4
1
I �
'Z* "ITY FoR: Y
�CCMlI.11:$ �e,M10 lNa�» ND.40tl1
msc"T,cN: Val Or tM SMIM »I 0-m- sf SKtien ty, 100nsno t16 Matn, '
ftw 23 t l a D,D 3,n P'Y CRY Yaaen.
CERTWICAT*N: eOpa m DIKI Rgawrrn
na.ey —It" Mat me ,nep .a. ppaea Df me a
0 InOt 1 an 0 OMY ROyr110 LTO I'M I— "" 01 IM S,OIr: a Yi,n»OIO.
Do1N Iny 2w 001 Or YOLn, i294
VpaO1K w. 12" DOY of /jai, 1VD0
DY �
MOTES: I. A OT A— ~Wl —" e» "t pe,IPO.OD le IM wOOeet�a er Inn w..01
7. Tne —, RDrr not Denial » aae w nR » — awlr Ceroare 1,..Ren.
3, K C-RN: IM nut O1 open, S L" D' k4~ (CN»t's,eo"'2 N.,)
O MOO OI _ v_,, a_ -- a 39.IO --
J
RLK
ASSOCIATES LTD.
WA- 1
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933 -0972
fax: (612) 933 -1153
'
of the site, with the ponding requirements and road alignment coordinated with the Hans Hagen
'
Bob Generous
Assistant City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
RE: Heritage Single Family Development
39 Acre Parcel
'
Bob,
Attached with this letter is a revised concept site plan and a concept grading plan for the above mentioned
parcel. The revised plans have been redesigned in response to the comments received from the Planning
Commission and City Council. It is the developers intent to have the revised concept plans reviewed by
the City Council at the May 23, 1994 meeting. In addition, if the concept plans are favorably received
'
Heritage Development will be submitting a preliminary and fiscal plat submission for the single family
subdivision.
The revised plans respond to the critical issues of site design park dedication, wetland protection and
sensitivity to the existing topography and existing trees on the south end of the site. The number of lots
1
has been reduced from 56 to 53 and the average lot square footage is approximately 18,300 sq. ft. The
wetland areas have been delineated and will be respected, in addition a 30' buffer strip will parallel the
'
wetlands along Bluff Creek which will include the recreational trail.
The alignment of the north/south road has been adjusted to follow the contours of the site. The alignment
of the road will also allow the proposed sanitary sewer trunk line to be installed within the right -of -way
which will protect the wetland and Bluff Creek corridor.
The site plan has been designed to be sensitive to the existing trees and wetland existing on the south end
cc: John Dobb
Fran Hagen
.Civil Engineering .Transportation .Infrastructure Redevelopment
*Landscape Architecture • Construction Management
of the site, with the ponding requirements and road alignment coordinated with the Hans Hagen
'
Development. The proposed lots adjacent to Timberwood Estates will be screened visually by the existing
vegetation and the grades of the single family lots will be lowered from the existing grade in almost all
locations.
Heritage Development is committed to meeting the conditions of approval as stated in the initial planning
reports. We are very encouraged by the redesign of this single family development and are of the opinion
'
it meets the goals and objectives of the City of Chanhassen.
Thank you for your consideration of this concept site plan and grading plan.
'
Sincerely,
RLK Associates, Ltd.
John Dietrich
-
attachments:
cc: John Dobb
Fran Hagen
.Civil Engineering .Transportation .Infrastructure Redevelopment
*Landscape Architecture • Construction Management
t ip
Staif sketch concept plan
~ W"Wwoncsw mwuyONUMW
wnwsrw mm - �.
r� /OOl INIO�0•
irr�, tilt Ofs>•Ol0_:
\�
LOr
i
i
f
ocn�ewwcRAea�su�as
tea
c
/
t
msrc WN"
%
� %
t
t •
mwAt •Rt
�rw� aAtr
�p�r \II.
jai
% 1 • ,r ,
a. �1OI O�MO
, �
i
om
mD
-
} — --
-- - --
- --
.
O
I DOMAMMwors
C
-
�i
i ltit�
r'1
or*w,ot
-
IL
,
0
' -
vo
- . —_
z
f �:
.I
._r ra,awow
~ so®tstw�enre
° o
..
.
•
\ .�.
MWOIRI�f
t.L
UP
J/ If�� •/
/ t
R
•'-
r
- � - � , ' - / > -- _
•rani•,
srr jj1
...
ararewaanrort•—
..
•. `� cry �
• S + SN,R• ro aLlS-
• '�
` 1� /� 01 Krto,wi rti., a
S
EGAN, FIELD do NOWAK INC.
SURVEYORS
\
7415 woy:oto 9"*k wo Yimnowolik Mwwooto 55426
i
i
f
•
rM
�Z
Q
' J
�d
Q
O
�W
F-
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Applicant is requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development to rezone 39.64
acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD for a proposed fifty -
six (56) single - family lot development.
LOCATION: North of Twin Cities & Western Railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek and east
of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek. &*A K co MAilt MFft
APPLICANT: Heritage Development
450 East County Road D�
ti
Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 Data. -..�`'
(612) 481 -0017 Date sutitt; "ed to Commission
Date to Council
'/— /I — 1 7 44
ACREAGE:
39.64
DENSITY: Gross: 1.4 units per acre
Net: 2.1 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 two- thirds of the site consists of cultivated and pasturec
farm land. The northern one -third of the site has severe topographic changes from a low of 900 feet
to a high of 960 feet. The property is bounded on the north and east by Bluff Creek. The southern
one -third of the side is wooded. A ravine which acts as a temporary stream traverses the southern
one -third of the project from west to east. Two wetlands are located on the property, one on the ease
and the other in the south. A transmission power line runs along the entire western limits of the site
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a planned unit development consisting of 56 single - family homes
on 39.64 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 12,000 square feet to 50,300 square feet (not including outlots) with an average
net lot area of 20,138 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. Two existing wetland areas are located within the
development, one along Bluff Creek in the central portion of the project and the other in the
south adjacent to the railroad tracks.
This plat meets the minimum lot size requirements for a single family PUD but falls short of
the preservation of site characteristics including topography, creeks and scenic views. Staff
supports a PUD for this site because it is designed with the flexibility the PUD allows.
Protection and enhancement of natural features should be provided. While the applicants are
asking for conceptual approval, there are numerous issues that need to be resolved or further
defined before this proposal could receive preliminary PUD approval. One of the most.
important recommendations that the applicant needs to incorporate into the proposal is the
design components for Bluff Creek corridor. Staff is working to set up a " charette" with Bill
Morrish, a member of the Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission and City
Council. The purpose of the charette is to provide some design parameters for the segment of
Bluff Creek.
The timing on this project is similar to the Gateway /Opus development along Hwy. 5. In
' both instances, we are asking the applicant to incorporate pending design elements into their
proposal before they receive preliminary approval.
1
L i
r,
The propose of the conceptual approval at this time is to provide the applicant a list of
recommendations that they need to complete before any additional reviews are to be
completed.
Staff believes this site warrants a single family PUD but this proposal needs to be further
developed. Staff is recommending conceptual approval with numerous recommendations for
the subdivision refinements.
SITE ANALYSIS
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
i�
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 3
Cities & Western Railroad line is a wetland/ponding area. The 39.64 acre parcel being ,
submitted for review was formerly contained in a concept PUD submission for Chanhassen
Corporate Center. Bluff Creek is the easterly and northern border of the site. The property ,
has varied topography with over a 60 foot change in grade.
REZONING . I
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone 39.64 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, ,
Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD
request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. ,
Section 20 -501. Intent
Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through
the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also
allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a
potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has
the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and
more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning '
districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations
are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
'
Plan p g $
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive '
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes
and scenic views. ,
Finding . The major site characteristics of this property are the large wetland complex
on the east, Bluff Creek to the north and east, a wooded area on the south, a second ,
wetland area on the south, a ravine that bisects the southern third of the project, and
some steep slopes. Through appropriate site design, these areas can be protected and
incorporated into open spaces, natural vistas, and project landscaping. The city is in ,
the early stages of developing a plan for the Bluff Creek corridor. Bluff Creek has
been identified on the Comprehensive Plan as a linear park with the city's most recent
request for a LCMR grant. We are in the early stages of developing a plan for the
corridor. Staff is attempting to put a design study together to identify critical issues '
that should be incorporated into the design of developments along the corridor. Staff
r
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 4
is asking that the applicant incorporate these "elements" into the proposal for the nest
level of review.
I 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through
mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
1 Findin . Because of the wetland on the site, the steep slopes, Bluff Creek corridor,
and the ravine, all natural features that are important to preserve and protect, it would
be difficult if not impossible to develop this property as a traditional single family
' subdivision and protect the natural features. The main natural feature is Bluff Creek.
3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and
' along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Finding. The property to the east of the subject site is being developed as a
' business /industrial park. The Chanhassen Corporate Center being proposed to the north
and northeast will include medium to high density multi- family or industrial. To the
west is Timberwood Estates a large lot development and Stone Creek a standard
single - family subdivision. This project can serve as a transition from the higher
densities and intensities of uses to the lower density development.
r 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding. This area is designated for Residential - Low Density (Net density 1.2 to
4.0 units per acre) in the Chanhassen 2000 Land Use Plan. The proposed development
would be within the middle of this density range and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
'
Finding. The Bluff Creek Corridor is designated for parks and open space in the
Comprehensive Plan. The city would like to create a trail system connecting north
and south Chanhassen using the Bluff Creek corridor. To the north- of this site, the
' city already owns a large section of the corridor. The Park and Recreation
Commission has not yet reviewed this plan. The Park and Recreation Director has
recommended that a trail be provided along the creek and a linear park encumbering
' the entire Bluff Creek corridor. The plan proposes a trail along the western side of the
creek. This trail was addressed as a part of the Hwy. 5 corridor study. The trail will
cross the southern frontage road as well as Hwy. 5.
l
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 5
6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Finding . The price of the "for sale" units has not yet been determined. Sale prices
will be at market rate.
7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings
and the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding The site is graded generally to take advantage of the natural ground '
elevations. Through the use of the PUD, the city can vary code requirements to
enhance building siting and development design. Staff has concerns about some of the
grades on individual lots as well as some of the small ravines that dissect the site. '
Sensitivity to the natural topography needs to be incorporated into the design of the
subdivision. It appears that extensive earthwork will be necessary.
8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic '
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as
appropriate.
Findin . The site will have access from Galpin Boulevard via Stone Creek Drive and
to the north via the future south Highway 5 collector road. Single- family residential
units generate an average of ten (10) trips per unit per day based on criteria obtained
from the institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual. The majority of the
traffic will come from the southern frontage road of Hwy. 5. Access to this road can
be gained from Galpin Boulevard or eventually Audubon Road.
There is a specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. It states the '
developer will be permitted flexibility in development standards in return for enhancing
environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing a higher
quality of development. The single family detached residential planned unit development
must also meet the following guidelines:
(b) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a '
minimum of 11,000 square feet . The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix
of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of Natural features and '
open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will
be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot
is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding '
into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a
minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required
home /deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements.
I
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 6
'
Finding. Development of this site through the PUD process is the most efficient way
for the city to preserve and protect natural features on the site.
' g) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of
over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and
roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required
to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography.
Finding. The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 12,000 square feet to 50,300
square feet (not including outlots) with an average net lot area of 20,138 square feet.
The ability to create a variety of lot sizes allows us to provide natural open space and
' p
protect significant natural features. Each lot will be required to accommodate a 60' x
40' building pad as well as a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into the required
setbacks.
(c) M
Minimum lot width at building setback: Ninety (90) feet.
Finding. All the lots meet this requirement.
(d) M
Minimum lot depth: One hundred (100) feet
' F
Findin . All of the lots exceed the minimum 100 feet lot depth requirement.
' (
(e) M
Minimum setbacks:
' P
PUD exterior: thirty (30) feet
Front yard: thirty (30) feet
Rear yard: thirty (30) feet
' S
Side yard: ten (10) feet
Adjacent to arterial or collector roads, a fifty (50) foot setback shall be maintained.
' Finding. T
The proposal provides ample lot areas to maintain all setbacks. There is
sufficient lot depth to meet the thirty (30) foot rear setback.
' (
(f) P
Protection and preservation of natural features.
Finding. Development of this site through the PUD process is the most efficient way
for the city to preserve and protect natural features on the site.
' g) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of
over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and
roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required
to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography.
J.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 7
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be
provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more
intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots.
Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may
be required.
3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be
established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD,
the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the
required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide
financial guarantees acceptable to the city.
4) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is one primary goal of the PUD. A '
detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the
plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. '
Finding. The existing trees shall be protected to the maximum extent feasible as part
of the development. An approved landscaping budget will be a condition of final ,
platting. The parcel adjacent the railroad tracks will be dedicated and maintained as a
ponding area and planted with native vegetation. ,
h) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide
for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement '
is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be
prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city
that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place
without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the
following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. '
2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is
felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot
sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in
the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room
to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit.
3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage '
buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining
parcels due to small lot sizes.
u
I
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 8
1 Finding. Due to variety of lots sizes, it should be possible to provide a variety of
home types and designs to meet the needs of the residents. As the project progresses
through the PUD process, more detailed architectural details will be provided.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
flexibility in standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique
1 features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
' Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees, Bluff Creek corridor,
topographical features, wetlands and scenic views)
Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic
' conflicts
Improved pretreatment of storm water
' STREETS /ACCESS
' Access to the site will be from the Stone Creek 4th Addition subdivision which is in the
process of final plat approval at this time. The Stone Creek 4th Addition plat is contingent
upon off -site stormwater facilities which are proposed within the Heritage Development.
' Stone Creek 4th Addition will not be able to proceed without these stormwater drainage
improvements. Therefore, these projects are somewhat tied together. Street access, as
mentioned, will be through the Stone Creek 4th Addition and eventually reconnecting to the
proposed east/west frontage road which will service the school site. Construction of the
frontage road is scheduled for August, 1994 with completion scheduled for July, 1995. The
access street (Stone Creek Drive) which is considered a local collector is being constructed in
a portion of Stone Creek development. The standard section of street was built to 35 feet
wide back -to -back within a 60 -foot wide right -of -way. Staff is recommending that this
typical street section be extended through the Heritage plat on up to the future frontage road.
Staff has reviewed the concept layout of the street alignment and would request modifications
along the north/south street at the "T" intersection. Staff believes that curvilinear streets
would be helpful to add aesthetics and character to the neighborhood as well as deter
speeding motorists. Staff believes that the north/south street (future Stone Creek Drive)
should be modified at the "T" intersection so as major movement of traffic would be
north/south with the minor movement on the dead -end cul -de -sac to the east.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94 ,
Page 9
Without the complete looping of Stone Creek Drive back out to Galpin Boulevard, Heritage
Development should not be able to proceed. Without the looped street this street alignment
becomes a very long cul -de -sac from Galpin Boulevard. Staff also believes it would be a
good idea to stipulate in the conditions of approval of the preliminary and final plat that the
applicant shall complete the street construction of the north/south street out to the frontage
through the oudot within three years after the final plat is approved for this first phase to
insure that this road is connected in the future to avoid a dead -end street scenario. '
Detailed construction plans for the street improvements will be required as a part of the final
plat submittal. The street construction plans shall be in accordance with the City's latest I
edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction drawings are subject to
staff review and formal City Council approval.
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
The applicant must prepare a tree survey of the site locating all significant trees. The tree '
survey shall include the species, the diameter measured at 4.5 feet above ground, and the
condition of all significant, special, or damaged and diseased trees. In addition, a canopy '
coverage calculation must be made. 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.
The subdivision standards require one tree to be planted in the front yard of each home. The '
PUD standards require that two overstory trees be provided in the rear yards of each lot.
Credit for preserved trees of six inches or larger caliper can be granted. As part of the
preliminary and final platting process, the applicant will be required to provide a detailed '
landscaping plan for the development.
WETLANDS I
The City is committed to the protection and restoration of the Bluff Creek corridor and is in
the process of establishing a comprehensive watershed plan to protect the creek and the
corridor associated with it. This site incorporates the upper section of Bluff Creek and
includes one wetland that has a high potential for restoration.
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. At the site, Bluff Creek can be classified as an intermittent reverine stream bed with an
unconsolidated bottom (Cowardin MUM). According to a preliminary wetland survey I
1
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 10
' completed by Westwood Professional Services, there are several type 1 and 2 palustrine
emergent and forested wetlands that occur within and adjacent to the channel. These
wetlands should be protected and restored as part of the Bluff Creek Corridor.
This portion of Bluff Creek is not included in the Bluff protection areas of the City, and
therefore, the shoreland ordinance will not apply. The height between the toe and top of the
' bluff is less than 25 feet and the slopes are less than 30 percent.
Wetland A 15 -11(1) - Approximately 4 acres of a temporarily /saturated palustrine emergent
wetland (Cowardin PEMIAB; Circular 39, type 1/2 seasonally flooded basin/ inland fresh
meadow) is located along Bluff Creek in the lower 2/3 of the site. This wetland extends east
of the property and covers a total of approximately 12 acres. The City of Chanhassen has
' classified this basin as an ag/urban wetland indicating that it has been impacted as a result of
agricultural practices. This wetland has a high potential for restoration as part of the Bluff
Creek watershed project that the City is commencing and may serve as banking for mitigation
' in the process.
Wetland A15 -15(1) - Approximately 0.7 of a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent wetland
' (Cowardin PEMC; Circular 39, type 2 inland fresh meadow) is located in the southwest
corner of the site. The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an ag/urban wetland
indicating that it has been impacted as a result of agricultural practices. The quality of this
' wetland, however, is better than some ag/urban wetlands with the diverse surrounding
topography and wooded areas. Although the City's SWMP plan identifies this as a water
quantity /quality pond, it is not recommended that this wetland be converted into a stormwater
holding pond.
Wetland Mitigation/Protection - There is an indication that some wetlands will be altered as a
result of the project. All wetlands should be staked, surveyed, and included on the grading
plan. The following information should also be provided on the grading plan and/or text
format:
1. Total amount of impact to each wetland
' 2. Total mitigation area(s) based on a 2:1 replacement ratio
3. Mitigation design plan
The City will review the project based on the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) and the City's Wetland Ordinance as discussed below.
Whether a wetland is impacted or not, the City requires that a buffer strip be maintained
abutting all wetlands in order to protect the basin from the effects of fertilizers, chemicals,
sedimentation, and other runoff problems. The buffer strips are to be identified by permanent
77
J
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 11
monumentation provided by the city in order to inform the public of this protective measure.
The following table shows the city's setback limits for buffer strips and structures.
Wetland
Buffer
Buffer Strip
% Native
Structure
Average
Type
Strip
Minimum
Vegetation in
Setback from
Setback from
Average
Buffer Strip
Outer Edge of
Wetland
Width
Buffer Strip
Edge
Natural
10 -30 ft
1 20 ft
Entire
40 ft
60 ft
Ag/Urban
0 -20 ft
10 ft
Optional
40 ft
50 ft
Most likely, the City will require native vegetation landscaping within and around the buffer
strips of all wetlands. Recommendations will be discussed pending discussions on the Bluff
Creek watershed project.
Wetland Permitting Agencies
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Bluff Creek (Basin 209W) is shown on the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Protected Waters Inventory; and
therefore, this project must meet the MnDNR protected water requirements. If there is any
work performed below the established ordinary high water mark (OHW), a protected waters
permit application will have to be completed.
Army Corns of Engineers - The wetlands on the project site are within the permitting
jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. The Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in
isolated wetlands without notification to the Corps and between a half acre and three acres in
such basins with predischarge notification [see 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)(ii)]. A permit
application including mitigation plans will have to be completed and approved before fill or
excavation greater than one half acre can be performed on -site.
State Wetland Rules - Wetlands on the project site are within the permitting jurisdiction of
the State of Minnesota under the WCA. Responsibility for administering the provisions of
the WCA falls to the City of Chanhassen as the local governing unit (LGU). The WCA
dictates that restoration or creation of replacement wetlands only be considered after an
applicant has demonstrated that the impacts cannot be avoided, further minimized, corrected
or eliminated over time. This is similar to the requirements contained in the Corps rules.
Even if impacts can be reduced to under one half acre in order to obtain a Corps nationwide
permit, the City will still need to require the avoid - minimize - compensate sequence and the
provision of compensation wetland based on the WCA's replacement criteria. If the wetlands
I
t
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 8
7. Wetland A15 -15(1) should remain and retain the current drainage from Timberwood
I Estates and the future Stone Creek 4th Addition backyards.
' 8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The typical street section be extended through the heritage plat on up to the future
frontage road within three years after the final plat is approved for the first phase.
11. Curvilinear streets are recommended to add aesthetics and character to the
neighborhood as well as deter speeding motorists.
12. The north /south street (future Stone Creek Drive)should be modified at the T-
intersection to provide major traffic movement from north to south and minor traffic
' movement on the dead -end cul -de -sac to the east.
13. 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.
14. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council
approval.
15. 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.
1 ktm
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g:kngNdianelplenninglheritge.cp
t I J n� S n TATE OF /� LJ V E Z ( O uz%
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 5516
PHONE No. r
�i'2 -7910
March 2, 1994
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner ,
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 ,
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: HERITAGE SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL,
BLUFF CREEK, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, (CITY CASE #94 -1
PUD)
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
reviewed the site lane received February I
We have rev p ( Y 24, 1994) for the above-
referenced project (Section 15, T116N -R23W) and have the following comments
to offer: I
1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water, is on the proposed site. Any activity
below the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek (including
stormwater outfalls) which alters the course, current or cross - section r
of Public Waters /Wetlands is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may
require a DNR permit.
2. It appears that the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which
is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to
Bluff Creek. '
3. There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or deed
restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This
would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the city and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over the areas and
that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits.
4. The 100 -year flood elevation of Bluff Creek is mentioned in the proposal
submission, which is good. 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.
5. Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of Tributary. The
shoreland district extends 300 feet from the top of the bank, 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:
a. Portions of the northern half of the project area appear to contain
bluffs (i.e., slopes that average 30 percent or greater and rise 25
feet above the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek. The
bluffs should not be disturbed and all structures shou1t b1*.
at least 30 feet from the top of the bluff. i ; `';
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY -OF CHAIIHA,:a.w
it
I
' Ms. Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner
March 2, 1994
Page 2
b. Other portions of the project area contain steep slopes.
Topographic alterations should be minimized in these areas.
C. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural
g
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. See state shoreland management guidelines for more
details on what can_be allowed in the impact zones.
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. It appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR
jurisdiction. The U.S. Corps of Engineers (Gary Elftmann @ 290 -5355)
should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for
' activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands must be
evaluated in accordance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of
1991.
9. 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).
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
' c: Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed
Gary Elftmann, U.S. Corps of Engineers
City of Chanhassen Shoreland File
' City of Chanhassen Floodplain File
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 & FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: February 24, 1994
SUBJ: Timberwood Estates - 56 Single Family Lots
Heritage Development
Planning Case: 94 -1 PUD
MEMORANDUM
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
'
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, MARCH 16, 1994
'
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
'
Project: Heritage Development
'
Developer: RLK Associates
'
Location: So. of Hwy. 5 and East of
Timberwood Estates
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. The applicant is proposing a Concept Planned Unit Development to rezone 39
' acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD and preliminary plat of 56 single family lots
located south of Hwy. 5, east of Timberwood Estates, Heritage Development.
' 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 Planning 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 Kate at 937 -1900, ext. 118. If you
' choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department
in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
' Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 3,
1994. 2 ,q
3'
r
McGlynn Bakeries, Inc.
c/o Grand Met Tax Dept.
MS: 1843
200 S. 6th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Conway T. Lars
4952 Emerson Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55409
Betty O'Shaughnessy
1000 Hesse Farm Rd.
Chaska, MN 55318
Merle D. & Jane Volk
16925 Co. Rd. 40
Carver, MN 55315
Jay C. Dolejsi
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
8000 Acorn Ln.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Debra Ann Lano
2060 Oakwood Rdg.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Shammck 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
Audobon 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
Layton & Linda Zellman
2290 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark J. Foster & Karen
8020 Acorn Ln.
Richard M. Czeck
8011 Acorn Ln.
55317 -9662 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Stephen McCurry &
Bridget Haefner
16780 North Manor Rd.
Eden Prairie, MN 55345
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 '
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Sracey R. Rickert &
Michell
e Rheault
2040 Oakwood Rdg.
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
s. Olsson
Alva Bruce & Kristina Johnson James &Coll
een Dockendorf James &Joann Jancik
2051 Oakwood Rdg. 2061 Oakwood Rdg. 19000 Stratford Rd. #301
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55345
1
David & Gail McCollum
2048 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
Robert & Roberta Lawson
' 2041 Renaissance Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Bonita Roeder
8108 Pinewood Cir.
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
fl
;
Agha Thir Khan &
Patricia Khan
2040 Renaissance Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gerard & Bonnie Murkpwski
2051 Renaissance Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gregory & Jill Perrill
2102 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
St ..-ley & Christine Rud
2030 Renaissance Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & Lana Miller
8121 Pinewood Cir.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Craig & Mary Harrington
8140 Maplewood Ter.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
. Minnegasco
A Company of Dir .sified Energies, Inc.
March 4, 1994
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: 94 -1 PUD
56 Single Family Lots
North of Twin City And Western Railroad
Heritage Development Company
CHanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Ms. Aanenson
Enclosed is your print for this project showing the location of
Minnegasco's natural gas mains . Individual services are not
shown. Natural gas service is available to this property from the
main shown. 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
New Business Team at 342 -5123. to make application for gas service.
Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal.
�J
1 7
L
I 77
Engineering Services
612 - 342 -5426
cc: Mary Palkovich
Terry Jencks
700 West Linden Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
1
k
1
L
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall
account for the removal of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text.
11. Byerly's 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
' John Dietrich
1
2040 Renaissance Court
RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
16
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
John Dobbs
Colleen Dockendorf
450 East Co. Rd. D, Little Canada
2061 Oakwood Ridge
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 terns 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
1
n
1 7
L
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.
' 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 haveAndividuals
' 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 housing 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 oint of clarification. Is that the wetland that is drained b
P Y a
culvert?
18
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Hempel: That's correct. '
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 Timberwood 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 your question? I
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 Y ou. '
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 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
connection would be critical to servicing this site and as that roadway is developed, this one
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 streets 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: Those who 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
1 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 from 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.
7
I �
I
21 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Tahir Khan: This side of the concept where they show the street layout and the lot lines.
' Hempel: We 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
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
have, thank you. I
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
I
Planning Commission Meetin g - March 16 1994
Mancino: I'll make it short and sweet. First of all, Bob I want 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 horse 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
1 24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
know road scenario and what would be the time line for the east/west frontage road going in? I
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. I
25 '
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
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 staffs 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 concerns.
' 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
26
I I ' �
I
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
1
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
I
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
homes or higher density within the site or?
1 Ledvina: Well, coming in here and just grading it all out, you could put more lots in here.
' Farmakes: But there's a substantial amount of it you couldn't grade out.
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.
Y
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 6onceptual 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
1
28
l
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
1
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 any further comments. Do we need more discussion or would someone like to
make a motion?
'
Mancino: I'd like to make a motion 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.
'
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 1
I 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
the 28th?
Generous: The April 11th.
' 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.
Ledvina: Joe?
' Scott: Yeah.
Ledvina: I'd like to clarify two points that were discussed in addition to the things in the
30
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
minimize topography disruption and tree loss to the extent possible. '
Scott: Do you guys want to take a 5 minute break before we do the next?
e Planning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.) '
(Th g P
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
Vernelle 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 as 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 1