8. Heritage Development Concept PUDL�
0
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.
'Z
Q
U
�a
CL
a
LOCATION: North of Twin Cities & Western Railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek and east
of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek. Action bg City A
APPLICANT: Heritage Development �o �
MOM-
450 East County Road D ROK". t
Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 Da
(612) 481 -0017 Date &'` m" ed m C0 grn1S*t1
Date °11' to council
'V_ / ' �4
STAFF REPORT
1 1\ "I \ 1 L
ACREAGE:
1
�p
�W
F-
IC • • 1
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 pasture(
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 eas
and the other in the south. A transmission power line runs along the entire western limits of the site
4.0
I
a
J
L
ANN
PA K
"R ET
1
- �ND
Y ON
' 1 A
T
� t
rONO
/O O'
Li
G
1 ✓ � < ><:>
1
I LYM4N BIVD. (C.R. 181 PARK
I I
O
O 8
9700 —I
_ PARK
c •
00 c o 0 0 I I
1 h O n o 01 I
x � 9e00— �
`> tl
s9oo � o \
9000
Ll'M
9100 1 A�
tiI Nu5
9200 U I
I
9300
9400 a
95 I `
z /
9600 0 y i
A+, J
9700
9600 , \ v
P
0
9900
. Q I
10000
10100
' KS I � •� T
NG nF'PT - -
r
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 timin g project on this 'ect 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
before they receive approval.
,
proposal preliminary
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
t
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:
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
7
F
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.
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.
Finding . 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 + I
--A :.,to. 4; of „oac *n flip lnxvar rlancity ( ApvA nment.
4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Findin 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.
the entire Bluff Creek corridor. The plan proposes a trail along the western side of th
e
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.
Findin 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
t
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 5
A
7.
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.
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.
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.
Finding 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.
Heritage Development PUD I
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94 '
Page 6
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
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) Minimum lot width at building setback: Ninety (90) feet. I
Finding. All the lots meet this requirement. '
(d) Minimum lot depth: One hundred (100) feet
Finding. All of the lots exceed the minimum 100 feet lot depth requirement.
(e) Minimum setbacks: '
PUD exterior: thirty (30) feet
Front yard: thirty (30) feet
Rear yard: thirty (30) feet
Side yard: ten (10) feet
Adjacent to arterial or collector roads, a fifty (50) foot setback shall be maintained.
Finding. The proposal provides ample lot areas to maintain all setbacks. There is '
sufficient lot depth to meet the thirty (30) foot rear setback.
(f) 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. '
f '
.
1
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.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94 '
Page 8
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
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 I
Access to the site will be from the Stone Creek 4th Addition subdivision which is in the
process of final plat approval at this rime. 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. I
' 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 outlot 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
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
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 R4UB3). According to a preliminary wetland survey
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 PEM1A/B; 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(l) - 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
r,
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
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 Corps 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
Heritage Development PUD 1
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94 '
Page 12
are replaced in -kind (type for type), the mitigation ratio is 2:1. If the replacement is out of ,
kind, the replacement ratio will be determined by the LGU.
City of Chanhassen's Wetland Ordinance - This project will have to meet the requirements '
for the City's Wetland Ordinance. This includes establishing wetland boundaries, buffer
strips, mitigation areas, and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance.
GRADING /DRAINAGE
The existing ground topography ranges from an elevation of 962.0 in the middle of the site ,
along the westerly property boundary (Lots 15 and 16) and slopes northerly and southwesterly
towards Bluff Creek and its tributaries. Due to the extreme elevation changes, staff believes
that extensive earthwork will be necessary to prepare the site for building pads and utility and ,
street construction. The applicant should attempt to retain the natural topographic features to
preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics.
Stormwater calculations for predeveloped 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. '
The City is in the final approval stages of adopting a data intensive Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP was developed to incorporate stormwater quantity,
'
stormwater quality, and wetlands and lakes into a comprehensive plan designed to allow
future development while protecting, preserving, and enhancing its water resources.
Pretreatment means the design shall meet William Walker's Phosphorus Removal by Urban
'
Runoff Detention Basins (Pondnet) standards.
The SWMP plan addresses the following issues:
,
1. A 2 -cell stormwater quality /quantity pond is required on -site to address the runoff
from a cumulative drainage area of 824.3 acres. The SWMP makes use of the
'
ag/urban wetland (A15- 11(1)) on -site, however, pretreatment will be necessary due to
the plans for the Bluff Creek corridor and the federal and state wetland permit
requirements. At this time direct runoff into a wetland is not allowed and would
'
require mitigation. We recommend that the pretreatment area be located at the
southwest corner of the ag/urban wetland (A15- 11(1)).
'
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 13
2. The outlot in the northwest portion of the site will also require pretreatment in the
future. It is recommended that the area just north of the ag/urban wetland (A15- 11(1))
be used for pretreatment of the future runoff at the time it is designed.
' 3. The small wetland (A15- 15(1)) in the southwest corner of the site was
designated /planned as a water quality pond for the Hans Hagen and Heritage
developments. This wetland receives stormwater runoff from the backyard areas of
Timberwood Estates as well as the future backyards of Stone Creek 4th Addition
through the means of an existing drainage ravine. To convert the small wetland (A15-
15(1)) into a stormwater management pond for Hans Hagen as well as the Heritage
development would require additional tree removal as well as further degrading of the
existing wetland. Staff feels that a better alternative would be to pipe the majority of
the stormwater from the streets and yards of Hans Hagen's development (Stone Creek
' 4th Addition) and the southerly one -half of the Heritage development to a new
stormwater quality /quantity pond to be developed over Lots 50, 51 and 52. One of the
major constraints, however, with this alternative is crossing the Bluff Creek tributary
' which flows through Lots 3 and 4, 54 and 55. Staff believes, though, with appropriate
street grades the storm sewer system could be designed to accommodate the trunk
storm water as previously described. The existing wetland shown as a pond on the
' site plans could remain to retain the current drainage from Timberwood Estates and
future Stone Creek 4th Addition backyards.
Due to the extensive grade difference on the site we believe an additional stormwater
pond may be required in the general vicinity of Lots 23 and 24. In each one of these
' cases it appears the storm sewers will need to be oversized to accommodate runoff
from outside of this development. As indicated, the City is in the process of
implementing the SWMP which requires the applicant to pay storm water quality and
' quantity fees and trunk storm sewer charges as appropriate. In this situation it appears
the developer may be entitled to some credit or compensation if they provide the
necessary on -site stormwater quality and quantity improvements as outlined or
modified in the SWMP. The final determination will be reached upon review of the
storm drainage /ponding calculations.
' EASEMENTS AND UTILITIES
As part of the City's Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and watermain project, sanitary
sewer and watermain have been extended to the southwesterly corner of the site. The City, in
conjunction with the development of the school site has approved a construction project to
extend trunk sewer and water facilities to the school site which is located north of
' Timberwood Estates east of Galpin Boulevard. Sanitary sewer service for the site is proposed
to be extended through this development. If feasible from a construction standpoint, it would
Heritage Development PUD 'J
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94 '
Page 14
be cost effective for both the City and the developer if this trunk sanitary sewer line could be '
utilized to serve both as a lateral and a trunk benefit to the adjacent property. However, as
previously mentioned, due to the extensive grades on the site it may not be feasible to run the
trunk sanitary sewer along the proposed street alignment. This will be further investigated ,
during the grading and utility plan preparation process.
All utility construction should be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard '
specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications will be
required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will
be subject to staff review and City Council approval. '
In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee '
installation of the public improvements.
Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide Timberwood Estates with sanitary sewer ,
service in the future. Staff has explored the possibility of extending the sewer line through
Stone Creek 4th Addition to Timberwood Drive. However, there are two low points on
Timberwood Drive where the sanitary sewer will actually be daylighted. Therefore, the other ,
alternative is to provide service to Timberwood Estates along the Bluff Creek tributary
corridor between Lots 3 and 4 (Heritage Development). Generally, this is the lowest area on
the development. In the future sanitary sewer would be proposed to be extended along the '
Bluff Creek tributary which lies just north of Renaissance Court. This would give sufficient
elevation to serve the entire development of Timberwood Estates via a gravity system. Staff
will be recommending that the applicant provide a sewer service in the general location of '
Lots 3 and 4 for future extension into Timberwood Estates.
PARKS /OPEN SPACE ,
The City of Chanhassen is in the beginning stages of preparing a proposal to develop and
begin implementing a comprehensive natural resource management plan in the Bluff Creek '
Watershed that demonstrates prudent development can occur in harmony with protection and
restoration of natural systems and unique resources in an urbanizing watershed connected to
the Lower Minnesota River. Due to the timing of the proposed development, the City's '
comments at this point are pending on the temporary design components that will be initiated
in the upcoming months. As part of this corridor design, the following issues will be '
addressed.
The establishment of a linear park encumbering the entire Bluff Creek Corridor '
including adjacent wetlands and areas/lands of significance to the corridor has been
identified as a top priority of the City's Comprehensive Recreation Plan.
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 15
A trail will be a part of this park.
' - The trail will pass under the Twin Cities and Western Railroad at a viaduct located at
the southern terminus of this concept plat.
- Public ownership of the entire creek corridor, including lands required for trail
construction, is desired.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 16, 1994 for the conceptual review
of this development.
The Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend denial of the conceptual PUD. In
their review, the Commission was concerned about the lack of details provided by the
applicant for this stage of the development review - e.g. house pad locations, detailed
' drainage and utility plans, grading plans - as well as the numerous issues pointed out in the
staff report. The primary issue of the Commission was the question as to whether this
proposal is premature based on the need for the city to define all the criteria regarding the
Bluff Creek corridor as well as the wetland areas. The Commission was also concerned about
the following issues:
1. number of lots under 15,000 square feet in area (21 of 56 lots or 37.5 percent
of gross lot area and 26 of 56 lots or 46.4 percent of net lot area),
2. treatment of Bluff Creek, the ravine and the wetlands,
3. drainage patterns, specifically, how the development will impact drainage from
adjacent property,
' 4. minimizing grading, topographical disruptions and working with and
maintaining some of the steep grades,
' 5. providing a transition from Timberwood to Heritage, concern about lot size
directly abutting Timberwood,
6. overall density of the development,
7. minimizing tree loss,
8. location of sanitary sewer stub into Timberwood, and
Heritage Development PUD '
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
Page 16
9. timing for the northern extension of the road to the proposed east -west
collector street.
The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a ,
plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development
without incurring substantial cost. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the
city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned u '
development district. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission in that there are many
issues which need to be resolved prior to giving development approval for this project. The
general concept stage of a PUD is the appropriate time to flesh out all the concerns, details
and issues which the city believes need to be addressed in preparing the development plan.
Conceptual approval of a PUD gives the developer these issues and concerns prior to
performing all the engineering design and calculations which may change when addressing
these issues.
Staff has contacted Lance Neckar of the University of Minnesota to develop a proposal for a
design charette for the Bluff Creek corridor. The proposal will be brought forward for City
Council authorization as soon as it is prepared.
RECOMMENDATION '
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: '
"The City Council approves the Conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create a
single - family development subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant incorporate design components from the proposed Bluff Creek
Watershed Plan that are being initiated in the upcoming month.
2. The proposed ponding area in the southern portion should be relocated to lessen
impact on wetlands, wooded areas and natural features.
3. All wetlands should be surveyed by a professional wetlands delineator, staked, and '
included in the grading plan. Total amount of impacted acres to the wetland and a
proposed mitigation plan will also be required, if necessary.
4. The applicant should attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the
rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan.
5. Pretreatment of the stormwater runoff before it discharges into the wetland is required.
The City recommends a pretreatment pond in the southwest corner of wetland A15-
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94
' Page 17
11(1) (Lots 50, 51, and 52). When the rest of the property is developed an additional
pretreatment pond may be necessary just north of wetland A15-1 I(l).
6. Wetland A15-15(l) should remain and retain the current drainage from Timberwood
Estates and the future Stone Creek 4th Addition backyards.
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.
13. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council
approval.
14. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public
improvements and conditions of approval.
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 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.
11.
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.
12.
Detailed construction drawings and specifications will be required for submittal with
final plat approval. All street and utility construction should be in accordance to the
City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates.
13. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council
approval.
14. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public
improvements and conditions of approval.
r
Heritage Development PUD
March 16, 1994
PC Update 4/1/94 '
Page 18
15. Trail easements connecting the interior of the development with the bluff creek
corridor trail system will need to be developed.
16. The applicant should investigate the use of private driveways to serve up to four lots ,
from the proposed north -south local street in order to minimize impacts on wooded
areas and the wetlands.
17. The north south street should provide a sidewalk on the east 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 development review process. In ,
addition, a woodland management plan will be required as part of the platting process.
19. The applicant may wish to investigate the use of setback variances to accommodate
the siting of housing in the vicinity of wetlands or to preserve existed wooded or
topographical features on the site.
20. Submit utility plans for review and approval. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet
maximum.
21. Street names shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for approval.
22. Submit turning radius dimensions to the Fire Marshal for review and approval.
23. Applicant shall address the comments enumerated in the letter from Joe Richter of the
DNR dated 3/2/94."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated 3/10/94
3. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated 3/9/94
4. Letter from Joe Richter, DNR Hydrologist dated 3/2/94
5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated 2/24/94
6. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
7. Development Site Plan
8. Planning Commission minutes of 3/16/94
s
I
FROM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 06.07.1993 10:20 P. 2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 66317
(612) 637 - 1900
' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
I
APPLICANT Ligh fr 9 Lngtem OWNER 6k A
ADDRESS: 54 Cc, • I-� - �— ADDRESS:
r� c®iq �"r- r i
1 TELEPHONE (Daytime) ,
17—
TELEPHONE.-
1. _
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
SubdNision
2.
Conditional Use Permh
12. _
Vacation of ROW/Easements
3.
Grading /Excavation Permit
13.
Variance
4.
Interim Use Perrrmit
14.
Wetland Alteration Permit
6._,_,_
Notification Signs
Is._'
Zoning Appeal
6.
Planned Unit Development
16.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
7.
Rezoning
. I
17.
Filing Fees /Attorney Cost - (Collected after
approval of hem)
8.
Sign Permhs
18._
Consultant Fees
Q.
Sign Plan Review
10
Site Plan Review
TOTAL`FEE -1 ��d O0
A fist of all property owners within 600 feet of the boundaries of the prop94mu tt
Included with the application. L
Twenty- six'tuli size is W copies of the plan must be submkted.
61W X 11" Reduced copy oftransparenoy for each plan sheet.
r
•
ad for each application.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charg
FROM CITY OF CHANHASSEN
06.07.1993 10:2 0
P.
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION AT.- /-�,cHr- '
LEGAL DESCRIPTION �5E A
PRESENT ZONING _sl at ,/'o Res.
REQUESTED ZONING Sn 1
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION '
I- ": - �UESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THiS REQUEST De4w r &? + CP S 1,a /e FuMiL Loft ,
This appiication must be completed In full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accom nled b all Information
Pa Y rm
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. ,
This Is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party
K: • the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
c - •:hip (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
a:.nhc :.d person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I ,yself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further'
unders:�.! *, ; that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best'
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approve rmh Is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and, he original document retumed to I Records.
Signature of Appiloant
ure of Fee Owner
Application Received on
Date
//& /q 7 � r
Date
Fee Paid 750 Go Receipt No. 7 d"
This application will be considered by the Planning Commission /Board of Adjustments and Appeals on I
NARRATIVE DOCUMENT
39 ± Acre
Heritage Development
Single Family Subdivision
CONCEPT P.U.D. SUBMISSION
February 16, 1994
Prepared For:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
Developer:
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Prepared By:
RLK Associates, Ltd.
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, MN 55343
(612) 933 -0972
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
SUBMITTAL FOR THE 39 ACRE
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT
56 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION
February 16, 1994 '
Introduction I
In the western part of the City of Chanhassen on the south side of Highway 5 and east of the
Timberwood Estates subdivision is a 39± acre parcel referred to as the Heritage Single Family
'
Subdivision. The general boundaries for this property are the west tributary of Bluff Creek to
the north, the main channel of Bluff Creek to the east, the Twin City and Western railroad to
the south and the Hans Hagen single family subdivision known as Stone Creek and
Timberwood Estates to the west. Directly to the north and northeast is the property known as
the Chanhassen Corporate Center. The 39± acre parcel being submitted by Heritage
Development at this time was formerly contained in the December 6, 1993 Concept PUD
'
submission for the Chanhassen Corporate Center. The single family proposed for this 39 acre
parcel is consistent with the comprehensive guide plan and zoning ordinance. Due to this
Heritage Development began the review process ahead of the Chanhassen Corporate Center. It
'
is anticipated the CCC will be resubmitting the concept PUD plan within the next month.
Goals of the Project
'
Heritage Development's decision to submit this Concept PUD proposal will allow the City and
developer the opportunity to review the proposal prior to a preliminary plat submission. This
'
area of Chanhassen is guided for single family residential and with the Bluff Creek, a protected
waterway, it is important to identify the critical issues of land use, for both the public and
private interests. It is Heritages desire to create a pleasing and site sensitive development.
Through the PUD process the issues of park dedication, trail placement, ponding locations and
'
subdivision layout will be resolved prior to the preliminary plat submission.
This PUD has the following objectives:
I
1. To create a subdivision development with an average lot size of 20,138 square feet that are
compatible with adjacent properties and land uses;
2. To protect Bluff Creek and its tributaries as open space and landscape corridors within the
development;
3. To create a public utility, ponding, roadway and trail system within the 39 acres that works
and is integrated with adjacent properties; '
4. Coordinate the grading of the site with the trunk line sanitary sewer extension for
implementation in 1994.
I PUD Submittal
This submittal is for a (general) Concept PUD review. Pursuant to Sec. 20 -517 of the City's
ordinance the "general concept plan for a PUD" allows a developer to submit a plan to the City
showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development.
This submittal includes the following information:
1. Application for development review (concept PUD);
2. Written consent of all fee title property owners within the PUD;
3. Narrative;
4. Legal description of property proposed for PUD designation;
' 5. Twenty -six plan sheets showing the overall development plan and area specific development
plans showing the following information:
' a. identification of each lot size and lot width;
b. general location of major streets;
c. general location and extent of public and common open space;
6. Fee of $750 for the PUD submittal.
' 7. Reduced plan at 8' /z" x 11 with transparencies.
The property owner list and legal description to be utilized for this PUD submittal have
previously been submitted in the December 6, 1993 Chanhassen Corporate Center
Development.
f
L
Heritage Development Company will be the principal developer for the 39 acre site. Mr. John
Dobbs will serve as the principal contact with the City of Chanhassen on this development.
Heritage Development and Mr. Dobbs have extensive experience in producing quality single
family residential development throughout the Twin Cities area.
Site planning, surveying, civil engineering and landscape architecture services will be provided
by RLK Associates, Ltd. John Dietrich and Jeannene Krone will serve as the principal contacts
for these issues.
Project Description
The project area is located south and west of Bluff Creek is oriented on a north /south axis and
occupies approximately 39 acres. Currently the north and east property line is the center line
of Bluff Creek. The property is currently in an agricultural state for the majority of the site
with a wooded area on the south central portion and a lowland /future ponding area on the
southern most portion of the site adjacent to the Twin Cities and western railroad.
North of the 39 acre site is an 8 acre site identified as an outlot on the attached drawing. The
outlot is not proposed to be developed at this time. Eventually the roadway servicing the 39
acre residential subdivision will connect to the East/West Frontage Road north of the 8 acre '
outlot and initially with the Hans Hagen development.
The PUD process offers an opportunity to design a site in a manner that achieves a more
creative use of the land while easing the constraints and restrictions of normal zoning district
standards. The result is that the development plan may be more sensitive to the specific
features of the site and more responsive to adjacent land uses. The following section describes
some of the more important design features associated with the Heritage subdivision and how
the proposed PUD is consistent with the City's review criteria.
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creek, wetlands, lakes
and scenic views.
It is anticipated that grading will be completed to achieve an earthwork balance (cut and fill) ,
arrangement on the site. There are some steep slopes, and mature trees along portions of the
creek. These areas will be protected during the grading and development processes. The intent I
of the development is to incorporate the existing vegetation and open space corridors for the
creeks and steep slopes into a high visibility and integral landscape component of the site
design. The wetland areas, both the 100 year flood plain and National Wetland inventory map
areas are identified.
The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies the Bluff Creek Main Channel as protected
open space. The proposed development plan identifies a 100 foot open space corridor on each
'
side of Bluff Creek (total of 200 feet). This corridor will also include a public trail system.
The first 50 feet adjacent to the creek are proposed to be dedicated to the City for park
dedication purposes. Additionally the seasonal creek flowing from the Timberwood Estates will
be preserved in its natural condition.
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.
The development proposal will allow for the more efficient use of the land and provide the City
with a more logical and cost efficient approach for the timing and phasing of public
improvements. For example, the development site is sufficiently large to allow for the planning
of a single, comprehensive stormwater drainage system that will maximize the effectiveness of
,
nutrient removal while reducing the City's long -term maintenance costs.
The proposed development will also assist the City in the timing and phasing of trunk utilities
and the east \west collector roadway system to serve the proposed development and the
development proposals of adjacent properties.
3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including
both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should
reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. I
1
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The comprehensive plan has guided this areal for single family residential development. The
current zoning of A2 also is consistent with the proposed development.
6. Parks and open space.
Bluff Creek is proposed to be a linear park with a City maintained trail system. The first 50'
from the creek centerline is proposed to be dedicated to the City for park purposes. Wetland
areas identified will also remain in open space. The creation of additional public open space
will be consistent with the park and open, and trail plans.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD.
The proposed housing subdivision will be offered for sale at market rate prices, consistent with
the single family homes currently selling within Chanhassen.
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings
and the clustering of buildings and land uses.
The proposed design has minimized the number of cul-de -sacs while maintaining the natural
features of the site. All homes will be constructed to meet City Standards for insulation and R
Value.
E
Prior to City approval, a final set of Preliminary and Final Plat documents will be submitted to
the City. As they are developed, each lot and subarea of the property will be submitted to the
City of Chanhassen for formal review of building plans, landscaping, signage, and lighting in
order to be in compliance with the City guidelines. The approved PUD documents will
establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is developed in a consistent and well planned
manner.
'
The Heritage site design is meant to complement the characteristics of the existing property.
The design will be commensurate with a residential development. Impervious surface coverage
and building densities are below the minimum standards established as part of the City's
'
development code. The average lot square footage, open space corridors, landscape areas,
ponding access and lowland protection areas exceed typical zoning regulations and standards.
'
The single - family residential area will be designed to complement the Timberwood Addition
and enhance the Bluff Creek area. The City of Chanhassen is proposing a recreational trail to
'
run the entire length of Bluff Creek from T.H. 5 to Lyman Blvd. The trail would be a
combination of bituminous and \or crushed aggregate.
'
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and
along significant corridors within the City.
The single - family residential development has been designed to complement the existing
'
Timberwood Estates and the Hans Hagen Development.
Bluff Creek is being treated as a protected water course on both the main channel and its
'
tributary. In order to protect the stream banks and promote water quality, grading activities are
anticipated to be restricted.
1
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The comprehensive plan has guided this areal for single family residential development. The
current zoning of A2 also is consistent with the proposed development.
6. Parks and open space.
Bluff Creek is proposed to be a linear park with a City maintained trail system. The first 50'
from the creek centerline is proposed to be dedicated to the City for park purposes. Wetland
areas identified will also remain in open space. The creation of additional public open space
will be consistent with the park and open, and trail plans.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD.
The proposed housing subdivision will be offered for sale at market rate prices, consistent with
the single family homes currently selling within Chanhassen.
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings
and the clustering of buildings and land uses.
The proposed design has minimized the number of cul-de -sacs while maintaining the natural
features of the site. All homes will be constructed to meet City Standards for insulation and R
Value.
E
9. 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. '
The internal road system will connect the Stone Creek Development and Heritage to the future
east /west collector. The roadway system is an integral component to the residential collector ,
street system in Chanhassen.
L
Cam'
i
�LOCAMN NAPS . — - �TYPW LL LOT
---- ----- - -+
1
I 1
SITE
- 9 I r r 1ID
a I wore.uc anrt
— I I w�Y,ua ann
� aYra ann
� 1M YrQ awfl
{•4 i C w
_ � r 171•x/ 3U1�1Q A _
pS ?Ow Qw.q 4
[ \ — Mw➢.iomo1O11utA
/ /� �� — C10tOff OI YRRM aY
/ � I �% I \ � ` "^ � �� � � 3 \�� �. }�0. � \? r ;li.wr' :...w/ } r ► � au. j/ ��..���� "'�. \`�+ � o � �
� / / / • /�ta�1 to it 18��,. �/ ,� / � T'c_ ,.a wi t ,,.w _ � ll�" �r� \.C��..
ESTATES
/� /rwuima� � ! / i 1 ( I • � l ( _ � � �(:1 � / � �`�I I � � � I \�/ _� `�\ '�SiONE CREEK
wraRa mvownwcro 'I \ I \ / I :�� � •� �
�SRE WFORtMTKXI I ._� --
�� _b�umae mn I
I
200'
IENTAGECEVELOVFENT LIVM
u n
s «�R: , a. au.u�sllx.o.cwo 511E MAN 1 /1
C�
I I �
�C
_
�C
�ww
200'
IENTAGECEVELOVFENT LIVM
u n
s «�R: , a. au.u�sllx.o.cwo 511E MAN 1 /1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Bob Generous, Planner 11
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director TH /J
DATE: March 10, 1994
SUBJ: Concept PUD Submission, Heritage Development Single Family Subdivision
The above referenced concept plan was filed with the Planning Department on February 17, 1994.
The timing of this submission did not allow this item to be scheduled for review by the Park and
Recreation Commission on February 22, 1994. The commission will formally review this
concept PUD on Tuesday, March 22, 1994. I can preface this review with some brief comments
in regard to the Bluff Creek Corridor.
The establishment of a linear park encumbering the entire Bluff Creek Corridor including
adjacent wetlands and areas/lands of significance to the corridor has been identified as a
top priority of the City's Comprehensive Recreation Plan.
A trail will be a part of this park.
The trail will pass under the Twin Cities and Western Railroad at a viaduct located at the
southern terminus of this concept plat.
Public ownership of the entire creek corridor, including lands required for trail
construction, is desired.
In that I have not had the opportunity to meet with the applicant, I will not comment specifically
on the concept plan. Formal comments will be forwarded to you upon meeting with the applicant
and after Park and Recreation Commission review.
PC: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
Park and Recreation Commission
Heritage Development
RLK Associates
r
J
�
1
1
I MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer iA
DATE: March 9, 1994
i SUBJ: Heritage Development Conceptual Plan - South of Trunk Highway 5 and East
of Timberwood Estates - File No. 94 -6 LUR
Upon review of the concept site plan for Heritage Development dated February 16, 1994
prepared by RLK Associates, we offer the following comments:
Natural Resources
The City f Chanhassen i in
t s the beginning stages of preparing a proposal to develop and
begin implementing a comprehensive natural resource management plan in the Bluff Creek
Watershed that demonstrates prudent development can occur in harmony with protection and
restoration of natural systems and unique resources in an urbanizing watershed connected to
the Lower Minnesota River. Due to the timing of the proposed development, the City's
' comments at this point are pending on the temporary design components that will be initiated
in the upcoming months ahead.
I Wetlands
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 riverine stream bed with an
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 2
unconsolidated bottom (Cowardin R4UB3). According to a preliminary wetland survey
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 A15 -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,
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 3
sedimentation, and other runoff problems. The buffer strips are to be identified by permanent
1 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 Edge
Width
Buffer Strip
Natural
10 -30 ft
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.
' Wedand 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 Corps 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 are replaced
1
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 4 '
in -kind (type for type), the mitgation ratio is 2:1. If the replacement is out of kind, the
replacement ratio will be determined by the LGU.
City of Chanhassen's Wetland Ordinance - This project will have to meet the requirements for
the City's Wetland Ordinance. This includes establishing wetland boundaries, buffer strips,
mitigation areas, and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance.
Grading/Drainage '
The existing ground topography ranges from an elevation of 962.0 in the middle of the site
along the westerly property boundary (Lots 15 and 16) and slopes northerly and southwesterly
towards Bluff Creek and its tributaries. Due to the extreme elevation changes, staff believes
that extensive earthwork will be necessary to prepare the site for building pads and utility and
,
street construction. The applicant should attempt to retain the natural topographic features to
preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics.
,
Stormwater calculations for predeveloped 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.
The City is in the final approval stages of adopting a data intensive Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP was developed to incorporate stormwater quantity,
stormwater quality, and wetlands and lakes into a comprehensive plan designed to allow
future development while protecting, preserving, and enhancing its water resources. '
Pretreatment means the design shall meet William Walker's Phosphorus Removal by Urban
Runoff Detention Basins (Pondnet) standards.
The SWMP plan addresses the following issues:
1. A 2 -cell stormwater quality /quantity pond is required on -site to address the runoff ,
from a cumulative drainage area of 824.3 acres. The SWMP makes use of the
ag/urban wetland (A15- 11(1)) on -site, however, pretreatment will be necessary due to
the plans for the Bluff Creek corridor and the federal and state wetland permit
requirements. At this time direct runoff into a wetland is not allowed and would
require mitigation. We recommend that the pretreatment area be located at the
southwest corner of the ag /urban wetland (A15- 11(1)).
2. The outlot in the northwest portion of the site will also require pretreatment in the
I
L
F�
J
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 5
future. It is recommended that the area just north of the ag /urban wetland (A15- 11(1))
be used for pretreatment of the future runoff at the time it is designed.
3. The small wetland (A15- 15(1)) in the southwest corner of the site was
designated/planned as a water quality pond for the Hans Hagen and Heritage
developments. This wetland receives stormwater runoff from the backyard areas of
Timberwood Estates as well as the future backyards of Stone Creek 4th Addition
through the means of an existing drainage ravine. To convert the small wetland (A15-
15(1)) into a stormwater management pond for Hans Hagen as well as the Heritage
development would require additional tree removal as well as further degrading of the
existing wetland. Staff feels that a better alternative would be to pipe the majority of
the stormwater from the streets and yards of Hans Hagen's development (Stone Creek
4th Addition) and the southerly one -half of the Heritage development to a new
stormwater quality /quantity pond to be developed over Lots 50, 51 and 52. One of the
major constraints, however, with this alternative is crossing the Bluff Creek tributary
which flows through Lots 3 and 4, 54 and 55. Staff believes, though, with appropriate
street grades the storm sewer system could be designed to accommodate the trunk
storm water as previously described. The existing wetland shown as a pond on the
site plans could remain to retain the current drainage from Timberwood Estates and
future Stone Creek 4th Addition backyards.
Due to the extensive grade difference on the site we believe an additional stormwater
pond may be required in the general vicinity of Lots 23 and 24. In each one of these
cases it appears the storm sewers will need to be oversized to accommodate runoff
from outside of this development. As indicated, the City is in the process of
,implementing the SWMP which requires the applicant to pay storm water quality and
quantity fees and trunk storm sewer charges as appropriate. In this situation it appears
the developer may be entitled to some credit or compensation if they provide the
necessary on -site stormwater quality and quantity improvements as outlined or
modified in the SWMP. The final determination will be reached upon review of the
storm drain age/pon ding calculations.
Utilities
As part of the City's Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and watermain project, sanitary
sewer and watermain have been extended to the southwesterly corner of the site. The City, in
conjunction with the development of the school site has approved a construction project to
extend trunk sewer and water facilities to the school site which is located north of
Timberwood Estates east of Galpin Boulevard. Sanitary sewer service for the site is proposed
to be extended through this development. If feasible from a construction standpoint, it would
be cost effective for both the City and the developer if this trunk sanitary sewer line could be
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 6
utilized to serve both as a lateral and a trunk benefit to the adjacent property. However, as
previously mentioned, due to the extensive grades on the site it may not be feasible to run the
'
trunk sanitary sewer along the proposed street alignment. This will be further investigated
during the grading and utility plan preparation process.
'
All utility construction should be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard
specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications will be
required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will
'
be subject to staff review and City Council approval.
In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a
'
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee
installation of the public improvements.
,
Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide Timberwood Estates with sanitary sewer
service in the future. Staff has explored the possibility of extending the sewer line through
Stone Creek 4th Addition to Timberwood Drive. However, there are two low points on
Timberwood Drive where the sanitary sewer will actually be daylighted. Therefore, the other
alternative is to provide service to Timberwood Estates along the Bluff Creek tributary
'
corridor between Lots 3 and 4 (Heritage Development). Generally, this is the lowest area on
the development. In the future sanitary sewer would be proposed to be extended along the
Bluff Creek tributary which lies just north of Renaissance Court. This would give sufficient
,
elevation to serve the entire development of Timberwood Estates via a gravity system. Staff
will be recommending that the applicant provide a sewer service in the general location of
Lots 3 and 4 for future extension into Timberwood Estates.
Streets
'
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. 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
i
J
1
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 7
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.
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 outlot 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
edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction drawings are subject to
staff review and formal City Council approval.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. The City's recommendations are pending on the design components for the Bluff Creek
Watershed Plan that are being initiated in the upcoming months.
I 2. The proposed ponding area in the southern portion should be moved since this has
been determined to be a wetland surrounded by trees and rolling terrain.
3. All wetlands should be surveyed by a professional wetlands delineator, staked, and
included in the grading plan. Total amount of impacted acres to the wetland and a
proposed mitigation plan will also be required, if necessary.
' 4. The applicant should attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the
rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics.
' 5. Pretreatment of the stormwater runoff before it discharges into the wetland is required.
The City recommends a pretreatment pond in the southwest corner of wetland A15-
11(1) (Lots 50, 51, and 52). When the rest of the property is developed an additional
pretreatment pond may be necessary just north of wetland Al5- 11(1).
6. The majority of the stormwater from the streets and yards of Hans Hagen's
development will have to be routed to the pretreatment pond discussed in number 5.
Bob Generous
March 9, 1994
Page 8
7. Wetland A15 -15(1) should remain and retain the current drainage from Timberwood
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.
ktm
r
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g:\eng\diane\planning\heritage.cp
1 STATE OF
Ll � H rg� S Q) c g ' z l
DEPARTMENT
PHONE METRO WATERS - 1200
95'2-7910
March 2, 1994
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 551(6
ILE NO.
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhasst__n, 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:
We have reviewed the site plans (received February 24, 1994) for the above -
referenced project (Section 15, T116N -R23W) and have the following comments
to offer:
' 1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water, is on the proposed site. Any activity
below the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek (including
stormwater outfalls) which alters the course, current or cross - section
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
submission, which is good. All the work that is done for this
proposal
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 B1uf� Creek. The
bluffs should not be disturbed and all structures shoulfl` setback
at least 30 feet from the top of the bluff. V
t _,', . 0 �9uq
' AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CI OF
r
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 '
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 E
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
I have reviewed the site plan dated 2/16/94, and have the following requirements:
1. Submit utility plans for review and approval. Fire hydrant maximum spacing
shall be 300 feet.
2. Street names shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for approval.
3. Submit turning radius dimensions to the Fire Marshal for review and approval.
MEMORANDUM
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 r
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 continents, 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, `p , L
1994. �3 `f '
3
McGlynn Bakeries, Inc.
c/o Grand Met Tax Dept.
MS: 1843
1200 S. 6th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
l Conway T. Lars
4952 Emerson Ave. So.
'Minneapolis, MN 55409
'Betty O'Shaughnessy
1000 Hesse Farm Rd.
Chaska, MN 55318
,16925
Merle D. & Jane Volk
Co. Rd. 40
Carver, MN 55315
Jay C. Dolejsi
' 6961
CHaparral Ln.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
C arnes L. & Linda J. Leirdahl
1 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
Alva Bruce & Kristina Johnson
2051 Oakwood Rdg.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Shamrock Property Partners
7350 Commerce Lane
Fridley, MN 55432
Michael J. Gorra
1680 Arboretum Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dale F. & Marcia Wanninger
8170 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard Hartung & Wallace Otto
400 Oak St. S.
Waconia, MN 55387
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 55317 -9662
Stephen McCurry &
Bridget Haefner
16780 North Manor Rd.
Eden Prairie, MN 55345
James & Colleen Dockendorf
2061 Oakwood Rdg.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
J.P.'s Links Inc.
c/o John Przymus
642 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chan-Land Partners
200 Hwy. 13 W.
Burnsville, MN 55337
Lawrence & F. Raser
8210 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire
4890 C. Rd. 10 E.
Chaska, MN 55318
Mitchel & Mary Krause
2380 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Layton & Linda Zellman
2290 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark J. Foster & Karen S. Olsson
8020 Acorn Ln.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard M. Czeck
8011 Acorn Ln.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Sracey R. Rickert &
Michelle Rheault
2040 Oakwood Rdg.
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
James & Joann Jancik
19000 Stratford Rd. #301
Minnetonka, MN 55345
David & Gail McCollum Agha Thir Khan & Stanley & Christine Rud
2048 Timberwood Dr. Patricia Khan 2030 Renaissance Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 2040 Renaissance Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & Roberta Lawson
2041 Renaissance Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gerard & Bonnie Murkpwski
2051 Renaissance Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & Lana Miller
8121 Pinewood Cir.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Bonita Roeder Gregory & Jill Perrill Craig & Mary Harrington
8108 Pinewood Cir. 2102 Timberwood Dr. 8140 Maplewood Ter.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
N 1,17 fle gasco
A Company of Diversified Energies, Inc.
March 4, 1994 7J`_
I UJ
'- i4 ' H
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 Min n
New Business Team at 342 -5123. to make application for gas service.
Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal.
Since ely,
1 Richard J, 1' on, P. E.
Senior Desi n Engineer
Engineering Services
61 2 - 342 -5426
CC: Mary Palkovich
Terry Jencks
Ll
700 N est Linden Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
16 1
Commission meeting Planning Comma g - March 16, 1994
,
footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall
10. The square
for the removal of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text.
,
account
11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
'
Ladd Conrad and Ron Nutting who opposed, and the motion
All voted in favor, except
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 ewou the process but I'm less a tinkerer
I'm new to this game and I still haven t fully figured
I'm not
o haver t spent
and more along the lines with what Ladd was saying. hat the�developers a of of
I see as oppos
picking everything apart to what
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.)
PUB LIC HEARING: OM A2
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES
TED
CONCEPT OTS
ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 WOOD AGE
'
AGRICULTURAL
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 EAST OF TIMBE ESTATES HERTT
DEVELOPMENT RLK ASSOCIATES.
Public Present:
Name Address
'
2040 Renaissance Court
Tahir Khan
RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
,
John Dietrich
16 1
i
i 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 Torn —and just trying to be as much a part of this as I
possibly can so. We're coming to the ... meeting at 2:00 tomorrow and I'm pretty excited
about the process and I think we'll pass along ... With that, we do have some concerns with the
storm water is a real issue. That's changing as we speak in terms of drainage, Stone Creek
and new runoff that we're going to generate, park corridors and trails along it so
obviously... So John Dietrich who represents RLK will...
John Dietrich: John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We are the landscape architects and civil
engineers preparing the findings for Heritage Development. I have just some clarifications
that I'd like to put to each of the I guess 23 recommendations that we have with you.
Address those. We've had a chance to discuss it. We are basically in approval with the
' recommendations as they are stated. Some minor clarifications that—Should we speak to
those now or would you like to discuss the plan first?
17
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Scott: I guess I think probably what wed 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 have-individuals
come down and use that space. Secondly is timing. We are interested in moving forward
,
with a final PUD and then into a preliminary platting procedure so that we can look at an
opportunity for development on this site this coming year, 1994. So we are looking to do,
trying to move along quickly but also incorporating the concerns. Number 2, the proposed
'
ponding area in the southern portion should be relocated to lessen impact on wetlands,
wooded areas and natural features. If indeed the ponding area that we have ... talked about
with Heritage and ... is going to be an issue, we feel that there's an opportunity to have a pre-
treatment of the storm water between the wetlands to the east and the lots up the roadway
that would necessitate some ... and possibly the roadway and possibly some negotiation
between the square footages of all the lots but we feel that would be a doable process and we
,
would definitely adhere to the pre - treatment of any storm water ... wetland areas. Number 3,
that's a yes. We will definitely be working with Frank Svoboda and Associates for wetland
delineation. Number 4, attempt to retain the natural topographic features. Again, we will be
'
looking closer at the grading plan and design and in concert with these...trunk line, sanitary
sewer and watermain to this site, we want to try and have an equal balance for good
engineering and good site design for all parties involved. Number 5. Pretreatment of the
,
storm water. Basically we go back to comment number 2. The City has suggested removing
Lots 50, 51, and 52 and building a storm water retention pond for the pretreatment area. We
feel we can modify the location of that pretreatment area so that we will not lose 3 lots
outright for pretreatment. That is again a ... modification that would have to be. Number 6.
Wetland 15 -15 -1 should remain in it's current condition. If in fact it does remain in that
condition and you would like to have us work with the city as to potentially looking at that as
some unique 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 point of clarification. Is that the wetland that is drained by a
culvert?
�
18 1
l�
�J
I
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?
Ledvina: Well.
Hempel: One of the issues I guess that staff had before was this, this is the location of the
wetland that's currently being drained through an existing culvert that goes underneath the
railroad tracks in this location here. Based on the surface water management plan, we did
propose ... the use of this wetland but as the storm water quantity ... as of today right now. A
lot of the Stone Creek development as well as the southerly—drain through a ravine down to
the wetland to this location here and ... It is our belief that somewhere in this area here, this
flat area with the trees ... for water quality improvements is adjusted in this point. So we feel
there's probably a location here where a pretreatment pond can be developed prior to a storm
sewer to go in prior to discharging into the wetland... continue the drainage patterns of the
neighborhood. That's something we want to be looking at here when we get the grading
plans and so forth.
Ledvina: Thank you.
John Dietrich: Item number 7. The SWMP report, the storm water quality/quantity fees and
trunk storm sewer charges as appropriate. Yes we will be looking to provide that on site and
the credit that comes with that report and providing that service. That would be great. We
also are concerned about what those fees are and that report is in it's final draft form so we
have not had an opportunity to actually see the report. Number 8, sanitary, trunk sanitary
sewer lines to be used as both lateral and trunk. We intend to work with the city and have
those within the public right -of -ways of the site so that we have an opportunity to maintain
the creek corridor in it's natural state which we think both parties will benefit from. Number
9. The north/south street shall be extended through the outlot to connect to the future
east/west frontage road. Between Galpin and Audubon Road. We fully intend that that
19
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
LJ
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 minimi 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
20 1
I 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
J Y Pe
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.
1 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.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 f
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? 1
Hempel: I would say you're looking at Lots 4 thru 12 in this area. Address the back yard
drainage. t
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 file along the property line...
Tahir Khan: Also for the record, if your architects care to go and see it right now ... that pond '
is about 50 feet in diameter. And it has not gone over the slight hump before it starts to
drain so it's collecting right now between my property and the property north of me and I
think as the spring thaw progresses, it eventually will top itself off and start heading across
the, start draining eastward now.
John Dietrich: Would there be a problem to drain that all the time without having the water.
Tahir Khan: We would prefer, looking from our point of view, to have it drain all the time ,
because there is some very mature oak trees that momentarily do get submerged. Then once
in a while when the plow used to plow the cornfield, it would leave ridges. 6 inches to 8
inches worth of ridges and that would be like a dam. And eventually the ridge would break
and the flow would be very rapid across the cornfield so preferably it would be, if there's a
road going by and it can be graded so that the lots and the road are lower, by only even a
foot, then that water would probably drain normally into the sewer anyways. That's all I
22 1
i
i Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
I have, thank you.
Colleen Dockendorf: Hi. Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge. Is that the exact area
we're talking about where the sewer stub will go in?
Hempel: The sewer stub for servicing the future Timberwood Estates, we're looking at this
corridor through here. It would be the lowest portion.
' Colleen Dockendorf: As with all conceptual approvals there's, it's hard to give comments
when it's not final but my other concern is the time line that you guys are trying to meet and
are we putting the cart before the horse ... Bluff Creek corridor done this summer. I'm not
sure if all—and if we give conceptual approval at this point, are we forcing ourselves to a
time line that we don't want to be subject to.
s
Tahir Khan: I have one more point. I read about the stub also for the sewer. If it has to run
into the Timberwood Estates, I would personally oppose to having it run next to the creek or
the drainage creek because it's very heavily wooded and it meanders back and forth
sufficiently through my property as well as properties through the west of my property. And
it would require a lot of trees going down. The sewer line would have to go across. Now
there is a drainage and utility easement on the northern edge of my property that takes a
straight shot towards Galpin Boulevard. If the trunk has to go and get stubbed in between the
creek and the existing easement, I would recommend the existing easement because the
existing easement also is part of this pond that I'm describing and consequently there's not as
many trees. And also access, like I said, straight to Galpin but I would be opposed to having
my property detreed ... in order to facilitate the stub going in.
Hempel: We'll be looking at that in greater detail in the upcoming preliminary plat submittal
in determining the best alternative to extending sewer, sanitary sewer in the future for
Timberwood Estates. Where the creek runs in the lowest portion of the Timberwood area
though it's typically, well there's—to extend sanitary sewer so you can service the entire
development through a gravity system —and no need for an additional lift station and so forth
but we can certainly review that in greater detail in the upcoming month here so.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the general public? Okay, could I have
a motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
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 outlot to connect to a future east/west
frontage road within three years of the final plat. I'm concerned about the connective you I
24 1
i Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
know road scenario and what would be the time line for the east/west frontage road going in?
This is part of that south frontage road construction. What are we looking at there?
Hempel: That's correct. The east/west frontage road will serve the school site and eventually
' multiple residential sites there east of the school site. The city project will be commencing
this spring with the site grading of the school. Utilities later on in the summer with the street
construction in the fall. Completion date of I believe July of 1995.
Ledvina: Okay. Doesn't it make sense to just, so this, the roads in this subdivision would
actually be done this year, is that what we're shooting for? Is that what the developer is
shooting for?
Hempel: I don't want to speak for the developer but my interpretation of their plan here is to
show you the entire development with anticipation of doing a phased approach. The outlot to
the north is actually under a different PUD development and it will be coming in in the next
couple of weeks. Chan Corporate Center I believe it's called. I don't know, maybe the
developer can address their phasing ... of this parcel. Maybe they are proceeding to develop 56
lots.
John Dobbs: It would depend on a number of issues—the one that's the most glaring and that
is this trunk sewer coming up. Whether that would follow the road line or not. If it does
follow along the proposed alignment that we have, there would be some drainage that would
have to be—in preparation for the sewer ... Then our intention after that, after the sewer would
go in, if there's enough time this year—put in streets as far as weather...
' Ledvina: Okay. Well I'm concerned about a 3 year time period. The issue as I see it relates
to safety and maybe 3 years is too long—to delay that connection so I guess I wouldn't
change that recommendation specifically but I would request that staff review that
recommendation again to see what might be appropriate as it relates to that time frame. It
may be an as soon as possible type of thing, you know would be appropriate. On item
number 17, Dave. Would you clarify the situation with the sidewalks there? How do you
see that?
' Hempel: Certainly. Currently Stone Creek, the Hans Hagen development to the southwest of
this site, is proposing to extend Stone Creek Drive to where it exists today in the first phase
of Stone Creek. There currently is a sidewalk I believe on the south side of Stone Creek
Drive ... which will terminate at the westerly property line of the subdivision. Their street,
typical section does include the construction of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk as well so it
would be completing the sidewalk.
rd
25
P-1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
I�
Ledvina: Okay so that, so we wouldn't have a situation where we would have a sidewalk
ending? It would connect to the existing sidewalk? Or the proposed sidewalk in that area.
Hempel: That's correct in that location and eventually there is a sidewalk/trail in harmony
with each of those...
,
Ledvina: Okay. And getting, stepping back a little bit on this whole development. I guess
generally I support, certainly support the development of this site using the PUD approach.
We certainly do have a very sensitive area that we're dealing with. We have the extreme
topography on the northern part of this site and then also the ravine on the southern part of
the site. I would want to see those elements treated very carefully and to that extent I would
strongly support staff's recommendation that the private driveways be looked at in great
detail. Not necessarily to reduce the right -of -way but in an effort to minimize the disruption
to the topography. Also, it may make sense to increase the distance or just to eliminate
grading from those very steep areas and just pull the extent of the development back on the
northern part of the site to essentially leave those areas alone. And similarly to the, as it
relates to the ravine on the southern end, I understand of course you have to cross that but as
r
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 N
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 1
f
fl
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
know if 24 lots averaging 13,500 square feet, you know that might be acceptable.
Farmakes: My point on that though is if you look at Lot 37 and you see Lot 38, those lots
are a third of those lots are buildable.
Ledvina: Right. I understand your point. Exactly.
Farmakes: So if you count those and the ones that are already substandard, if you get to 40-
50 %. 60 %. 70 %. At what point does the trade off for sensitivity become, really go beyond
the zone of single family and start encroaching elsewhere. Just because it's a wetland
doesn't, you couldn't build a traditional development on it.
Ledvina: Right. Well if it's a wetland it can't be included in the total, is that correct Kate?
Aanenson: There's a compliance table in the plat that shows the lots without the
wetland ... We check out the net and the gross...
Ledvina: You might think it's not buildable because of the topography but you know they
have some rights in terms of being able to grade that area. We don't want them to.
Farmakes: Well no, but what I'm saying, even as total square foot. Not usable square foot
but if you look at total. 21 of the 56 lots are undersized. That's, if you look at the usable, I
did count the usable square foot because we don't really have a criteria for that but it seems
like we get all these somewhere around 50% being undersized. And when they go in
adjacent to properties that are large lot, how are we dealing with a transition of development.
Ledvina: That's always an issue, certainly. And some of the things that actually, now I
wasn't able to walk that whole line there. I didn't want to because I'd be trespassing, or at
least I thought I would be. But I see a lot of topographic changes there that, and there's a lot
of vegetation there along that line. There is a, is there a power easement right on that line?
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: I think that also provides a buffer. And I don't know. You raise a very valid point
and there's a red flag that goes up when I see the backs of 5 lots, more than that, 6 lots
abutting one lot. So that's always a concern. But I think the gains that can be made relative
to the creek may outweigh that given the specifics for the site.
Farmakes: So you think that more homes, I'm not here to beat up on your logic but you
think that more homes, when you're saying the site benefits. Does the site benefit from more
27
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
I
homes or higher density within the site or?
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. I
Ledvina: Right, and the wetlands you can't.
Farmakes: In other words, the houses are lined up in a row so at least a substantial amount
of them are sort of lined up in a linear line so I.
Ledvina: I would change that certainly.
Farmakes: But there's not a lot of room to play around there before you get into the wetland. I
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. I
Nutting: Very good comments. I guess my issue comes down to giving conceptual approval
now versus deferring you know until the corridor or watershed plan is done contrasted with
the fact that the recommendation number 1 says they incorporate design components from
that. Is it 6 and 1, half a dozen of the other. I'm not sure. In terms of everything may
change or have to change because of that. So that point seems to suggest that I can live with I
28 1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
the recommendation but I agree with, I do agree with Jeff's concerns and also other
comments that have been made and so the question is, do you move it forward by deferring
or do you move it forward by approving subject to. And that's where my confusion comes
into the process.
Ledvina: Well we will see this again. I mean this is a conceptual.
Nutting: Yeah, so I guess from that standpoint I would tend to lean to say that subject to the
various comments that we could approve then the conceptual plan and move it forward. But
there's a lot of issues that are going to have to be resolved before it gets past that next stage.
I think Jeff's comments are appropriate.
Scott: Good, thank you. I was kind of surprised when we had two residents come up. One
who lived or has a lot adjacent to this property and they didn't say anything about the density
or the number of lots and so forth. I agree with Jeff on the kind of the false sense that we
get when we see very large average lot sizes but that's dictated primarily because of non -
usable space and so it kind of gives us a false sense. This to me looks extremely dense. I
don't support moving this forward. I guess even though it's from a conceptual standpoint, I
still think that we're saying something stronger than perhaps we are when I say I approve this
conceptually. I can't approve this conceptually. I think it's too dense. I think there are,
when I think about the work that we did on Al Klingelhutz's multi- family. We had a
situation where we had some large lot people with 15,000 square foot lots abutting, I think
there were seven 15,000 square foot lots abutting a fellow who I think had a 2 or 3 acre
parcel. The developer came back and reduced the density but basically worked with the
adjacent residents. Also too, is it topographic or topographic? I'll say topographically and
when I take a look at the northern extension of the street and I think Matt had a good point
about maybe doing something different. I see from Lot 22, I see an elevation of 910 going
up within, to Lot 19. We've got a 40 foot change in elevation and obviously that probably
exceeds our, was it 6 %? 7 %? So I think we're talking about some horrendous grading. I
can't pass this on right now. I think there's such a, there's a large component here where we
have to be sensitive to Bluff Creek and so I would recommend denying this conceptual plan.
I don't have 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
+�S
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 f
too.
Scott: Is there a second please? '
Farmakes: I'll second. I
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the applicant's request. Is there any
discussion? I
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. I
Scott: April 11th? Okay. And what will be accomplished relative to the, at least the design
or the shirette or some input. Will there be some facts that will be available or some city
guidance... time to rework their plan prior to presentation to the City Council?
Aanenson: I don't think so. We didn't intend for that—What we'll try to do now is...so they '
know what to do when they come back the next round. They may not get 56 units. They
may get less than that but we have to resolve all these issues... that's fine but obviously we
hadn't intended for this shirette or this focus group to meet before they go to Council. But ,
we certainly will communicate with them and with you so you know what the issues are
when it comes back.
Scott: Yeah, that's what I'm kind of thinking. If there's probably going to be some new
information available, okay. ,
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 Y
ou guys want to take a 5 minute break before we do the next?
Y g
(The Planning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.)
' PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT
COMPUTER AIDED GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND
SUBDIVISIONS.
Public Present:
i Name Address
I Vemelle Clayton
425 Santa Fe Circle
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
I 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
s