2a-1. Woods at Longacres Final Plat ApprovalI MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CH ANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
' DATE: June 22 1994
' SUBJ: The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
PUD #93 -3
On November 8, 1993 the City Council gave preliminary PUD approval to what was then
' called the Song development. The applicant, Lundgren Brothers, is requesting final plat
approval of the first phase of the development. Following are the conditions of preliminary
plat approval.
' 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet.
' 2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided
for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6
feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be
' reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree
preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are
required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory
structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks.
3. Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this
' number of trees 2 or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be
placed in the lot in question or clustered as appropriate based upon an approved
landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to buffering
requirements along Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots." Trees to be
selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 2 diameter at time of
installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash
deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed
landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for
city approval.
J
.' The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
' Page 2
' 4. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for
review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria
consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance
' and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels.
5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat.
6. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are
predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs,
' financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The association park
will be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on the preliminary plat."
' 7. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on
the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to
have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with
' site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final
approval, the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be
employed. This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is
' to be covered by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and
setbacks are established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993.
' Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing
between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development
contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by
' staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland
mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the
applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The applicant is
' responsible for providing wetland mitigation for impacts stemming from the ultimate
improvement of Galpin and trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will
assume responsibility for obtaining the necessary permits for this activity."
' S. Tree Preservation/Landscaping:
I a. Detailed plans with the final plat for landscaping the cul -de -sac islands be
developed for approval.
b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and berming where
feasible). This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the
home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate
'
locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the
applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately
designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the
numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and
commonly held areas.
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
Page 3 '
C. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected
,
from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board.
d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees.
e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise
satisfactorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being
'
inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of
construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas as
recommended by staff.
'
f. Planting of boulevard trees on Street A per city specifications. '
9. Park and Trails:
Parks '
a. The private /association park be approved with the addition of an open field '
with a minimum size of 180 feet by 180 feet with a maximum 4% slope is
added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu
of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is '
ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes.
Such a provision must be drafted into association documents.
b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit '
application.
C. If in the future there is a dissolution or any type of breakdown in this
neighborhood association, that the city will be deeded this park as a park and
not subdivided into lots. '
Trails
a. It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of -way '
except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement
up to 20' in width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be
included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being
prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the
discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to '
future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan
review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench.
b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the r
southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer preliminary plat as depicted
on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling ,
.' The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
' Page 4
' this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at
the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be
staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and
' City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the
construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail
fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property
' and Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require
amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat
for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer properties.] Fees associated with the
' amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be
waived.
' This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots
16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity.
10. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12'
deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat.
C
1
11. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right -of -ways on Streets B, D
and G to a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with Streets H and I to be 50 feet wide with the
standard street section. The applicant was granted a 25' front yard setback. Staff also
agreed to allow for the construction of retaining walls in the ROW of streets H and I
to save trees so long as they are maintained by the Association
12. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all
utilities located outside the public right -of -ways including drainage basins. The
minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an
improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the
sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. Access may be covered
with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff.
13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e.
Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department,
DNR, Army Corps of Engineers.
14. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with pond storage
calculations for storage of a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity, should be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting.
15. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin
Boulevard when Street A and /or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer,
Carver County Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane
on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street.
I
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat ,•
June 22, 1994
Page 5 '
16.
Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision
,
in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation.
17.
All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or
,
provided with a wood -fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov.
15 each construction season. Areas where street and/or utility construction will occur
throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when
'
building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant
an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas
shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook.
'
18.
The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with
the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final
'
construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council
approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and
water improvements which is considered anything over an 8 -inch pipe diameter, a
'
credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain
trunk improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will
be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch
'
diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement.
19.
As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be required to enter into a
,
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to
guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting.
,
20.
No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The
Song homestead shall gain access via a direct connection to "B" Street.
'
21.
Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval.
'
22.
The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with
the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no
berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard
'
right -of -way.
23.
Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the
development to avoid its being impacted by street and trail construction.
24.
A private driveway easement should be conveyed for access to Lot 9, Block 1 between
'
Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 off of B Street.
25.
The street grades shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between
'
0.50% and 7% except on H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to a 7 ton
design.
'
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
Page 6
' 26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be
extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension
may be through either H Street or another Street location within the
' Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property immediately to the west.
27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A
and E streets, and the proposed cul -de -sac islands, are to be allowed subject to
incorporation of modifications requested by staff and to meet State Aid requirements.
' 28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City.
29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a
' temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in
the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in
the vicinity.
' 30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a
width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround
' acceptable to the Fire Marshal.
31. Decorative street lighting be installed along the collector Street A.
FINAL PLAT REQUEST
' The applicants request final plat approval roval for 30 lots and 6 outlots. Outlot A is a storm
PP are � P
' water pond, Outlot B is a landscaped entrance area, Outlot C is a future phase, Outlot D is
future Song house, and Outlots E and F are future phases.
There are 15 lots with the tree conservation easements. Eighteen lots have wetland
easements. Access to the site is gained from Galpin Boulevard. Hunter Drive runs east and
west and intersections with Fawn Hill Road which runs north and south. Two private drives
' will be employed for Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1 and Lots 6 and 7, Block 3.
As a part of the preliminary plat, front yard and side yard variances were given to where "the
developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result." The applicants have
requested front yard variances to Lots 8 -10, Block 1, Lot 2, Block 3 and Lot 2, Block 4.
THE WOODS AT LONGACRES
LOT
BLOCK
GROSS
AREA
LOT WIDTH
AT
SETBACK
LOT DEPTH
AREA OF
WETLANDS
AREA OF
WETLANDS TO BE
FILLED
STORMWATER
PONDS
MITIGATION
NET AREA
WETLAND 13UFFER
STRIP DEPTH
SETBACK FROM
WETLAND
BUFFER
1
1
17.692
120
200
NIA
NIA
NIA
17,692
NIA
NIA
2
1
22.449
96
230
NIA
NIA
NIA
22.449
NIA
NIA
3
1
37,456
100
280
11,800
NIA
NIA
25,656
10
40
4
1
61.938
160
130
25,700
WA
NIA
36.238
10-60
40
5
1
31.707
140
260
6.700
NIA
NIA
25,007
10-30
40
6
1
29,918
140
260
6.500
NIA
NIA
23.418
10-30
40
7
1
26.870
120
260
10,100
NIA
WA
16,770
10
40
8
1
30,453
120
330
14.750
WA
WA
15,703
10-15
40
9
1
26,383
120
350
11,100
NIA
NIA
15,283
10-20
40
10
1
34,149
115
340
17,350
WA
N/A
16,799
20-40
40
11
1
21,825
120
310
3.100
WA
WA
18,725
45
40
12
1
26.040
95
330
11,000
WA
WA
15,040
35-45
40
13
1
27,809
100
295
12.100
WA
NIA
15,709
20-35
40
1
2
19,972
120
140
WA
NIA
400
19,512
NIA
NIA
2
2
21,534
140
170
WA
NIA
WA
21,534
WA
NIA
3
2
13,729
115
150
WA
NIA
WA
13,729
NIA
NIA
4
2
12,852
100
130
WA
WA
WA
12,852
NIA
WA
N G
O
_ O
�O
r
O
fro
w
n
N
b
N
1
LOT
BLOCK
GROSS
AREA
LOT WIDTH
AT
SETBACK
LOT DEPTH
AREA OF
WETLANDS
AREA OF
WETLANDS TO BE
FILLED
STORMWATER
PONDS
MITIGATION
NET AREA
WETLAND BUFFER
STRIP DLPT"
SETBACK FROM
WETLAND
BUFFER
1
3
75,695
280
255
7,750
NIA
NIA
67,945
10-40
40
2
3
33,702
215
180
4,400
600
3,999
25,303
10-20
40
3
3
27,418
150
255
6,300
310
1,136
19,982
10-20
40
4
3
39,372
105
310
1,800
WA
NIA
37,572
10-15
40
5
3
59,274
110
370
3,700
WA
NIA
55,574
10
40
6
3
48,755
20
440
7,000
NIA
NIA
41,755
10-40
40
7
3
25,843
20
370
1,250
NIA
WA
24,593
10-50
40
1
4
18,262
155
150
WA
NIA
NIA
18,262
WA
WA
2
4
14,954
100
145
NIA
NIA
NIA
14,954
WA
NIA
3
4
19,665
95
195
WA
NIA
WA
19,665
WA
NIA
4
4
16,602
90
155
WA
NIA
NIA
16,602
WA
WA
5
4
13,571
90
150
WA
WA
WA
13,571
WA
NIA
L:L
4
12,573
90
140
WA
WA
NIA
12,573
WA
NIA
Rev. June 20, 1994
xv G
00 N O
O
�a
�o
r
O
ms
Oro
w
M
ct
Qn
b
sv
I
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat '
June 22, 1994
Page 9 '
STREETS I
The applicant has submitted detailed construction plans for utilities and street construction for
this phase of the Song/Carlson development. Construction plans for the street improvements '
for the most part comply with the City's standard specifications. However, the boulevard
areas behind the curb need to be revised. They are currently proposed at 3:1 slopes from ,
back of curb. The City standard is a 2% boulevard to the property line and then extend at a
3:1 slope to match existing terrain. The applicant is proposing 3:1 slopes in an effort to
minimize tree loss and grading. However, staff is very uncomfortable with this due to the '
boulevard area is used by utility companies and the city for snow storage and safety purposes.
In areas similar to this, such as The Summit at Near Mountain, retaining walls have been
employed to achieve the same construction limits. Therefore, we recommend that the use of '
retaining walls be employed at the property line to limit tree loss and reduce grading.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
,
The developer's engineer has submitted drainage calculations for the water quality ponds on
the site. However, since this project is being constructed under the old storm drainage
,
guidelines (City Ordinance), it will be necessary for the applicant's engineer to provide staff
with the following information:
'
A. Locations and elevations of on -site and abutting water courses, lakes, wetlands, rivers,
streams and marshes at date of survey and their ordinary high water marks plus
approximate high and low water elevations. When a subdivision borders a lake, river
t
or stream, a meandering line shall be established at an elevation two feet above the
recorded high water elevation of the lake, river or stream.
'
B. A drainage plan for the area indicating direction and rate of natural storm water runoff
and those unaltered areas where storm water collects and percolates into the ground.
A proposed drainage plan for the developed site indicating the direction and rate of
'
runoff in those areas where storm water will collect and percolate into the ground.
Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle a 10 -year storm event.
Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards (2 -inch rainfall event) as well
'
as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped
runoff rate for a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour duration through the use of
detention/retention ponds. Easements shall be provided along each side of the
'
centerline of any drainageway or storm sewer to a width sufficient to provide proper
maintenance and to provide protection from storm water runoff from a 100 -year storm,
24 -hour duration. Individual storm sewer calculations from between each catch basin
'
segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
' Page 10
' UTILITIES
Sanitary sewer and watermains for this phase of development have been installed under the
' City's public improvement project No. 92 -5. Individual sanitary sewer and water services are
proposed to be extended as a part of this project along with some other minor adjustments.
The applicants construction plans have shown these types of improvements in the overall site
' development plan and specification. Staff recommended some minor modifications to the
plans and they are being incorporated by the applicant's engineer.
' 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet.
* This condition has been met.
' 2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided
for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6
' feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be
reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree
' preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are
required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory
structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks.
' * This condition is still applicable.
' 3. Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this
number of trees 2 or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be
placed in the lot in question or clustered as appropriate based upon an approved
' landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to buffering
requirements along Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots." Trees to be
selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 2 diameter at time of
installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash
deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed
landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for
city approval.
* A landscaping plan for Galpin Boulevard has been provided by Ernst and
Associates dated June 10, 1994. Two trees shall be placed on Lots 7 -13, Block
1, Lots 1 -4, Block 2 and Lots 2 -6, Block 6.
' 4. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for
review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria
' consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance
and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels.
* Not applicable with this phase.
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat ,.
June 22, 1994
Page 11 '
5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. '
* Not applicable with this phase.
6. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are '
predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs,
financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The association park '
will be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on the preliminary plat."
* Not applicable with this phase. '
7. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on
the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to '
have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with
site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final
approval, the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be '
employed. This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is
to be covered by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and
setbacks are established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. '
Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing
between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development
contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by '
staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland
mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the '
applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The applicant is
responsible for providing wetland mitigation for impacts stemming from the ultimate
improvement of Galpin and trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will '
assume responsibility for obtaining the necessary permits for this activity."
* Not applicable with this phase. '
8. Tree Preservation/Landscaping:
a. Detailed plans with the final plat for landscaping the cul -de -sac islands be '
developed for approval.
* This condition has been met.
b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and berming where '
feasible). This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the
home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate
locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the '
applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately
designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the
i
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
Page 12
numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and
commonly held areas.
* This condition has been met.
C. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected
from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board.
* This condition is still applicable.
d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees.
* This condition is still applicable.
e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise
satisfactorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being
inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of
construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas as
recommended by staff.
* This condition is still applicable.
f. Planting of boulevard trees on Street A per city specifications.
* Not applicable with this phase.
9. Park and Trails:
Parks
a. The private /association park be approved with the addition of an open field
with a minimum size of 180 feet by 180 feet with a maximum 4% slope is
added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu
of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is
ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes.
Such a provision must be drafted into association documents.
* This condition is still applicable.
b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit
application.
* This condition is still applicable.
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
Page 13
C. If in the future there is a dissolution or any type of breakdown in this
neighborhood association, that the city will be deeded this park as a park and
not subdivided into lots.
* This condition is still applicable.
Trails
a. It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of -way
except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement
up to 20' in width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be
included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being
prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the
discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to
future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan
review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench.
* This condition is still applicable.
b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the
southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer preliminary plat as depicted
on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling
this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at
the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be
staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and
City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the
construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail
fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property
and Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require
amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat
for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer properties.] Fees associated with the
amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be
waived.
This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots
16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity.
This condition should be modified and add (c) as follows:
b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the
southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer preliminary plat as depicted
on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling
this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at
the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be
n
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
' Page 14
' staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and
City Engineer. In recognition for the construction of said trail, the applicant
receive compensation for construction costs associated with this trail.
' This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots
16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity.
C. Full trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance.
1 10. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12'
deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat.
I * This condition has been met.
t
I
11. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right -of -ways on Streets B, D
and G to a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with Streets H and I to be 50 feet wide with the
standard street section. The applicant was granted a 25' front yard setback. Staff also
agreed to allow for the construction of retaining walls in the ROW of streets H and I
to save trees so long as they are maintained by the Association
* Not applicable with this phase.
12. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all
utilities located outside the public right -of -ways including drainage basins. The
minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an
improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the
sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. Access may be covered
with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff.
* This condition has been partially met. The appropriate easements are being
provided on the final plat for this phase. The remaining condition is not
applicable with this phase.
13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e.
Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department,
DNR, Army Corps of Engineers.
* This condition is still applicable.
14. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with pond storage
calculations for storage of a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity, should be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting.
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
Page 15 '
The applicant needs to submit revised storm sewer and ponding calculations in I
accordance to city ordinance.
15. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin
,
Boulevard when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer,
Carver County Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane
on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street.
'
* This condition has been partially met with the construction of E Street. Hunter
Drive has a 200 foot deceleration lane on Galpin Boulevard.
'
16. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision
in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation.
'
be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch
* This condition is still applicable.
'
17. All disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc - mulched or
immediately
provided with a wood -fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov.
15 each construction season. Areas where street and /or utility construction will occur
'
throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when
building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant
'
an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas
'
shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook.
'
*
'
This condition is still applicable.
18. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with
'
the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final
construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council
approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and
'
water improvements which is considered anything over an 8 -inch pipe diameter, a
credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain
trunk improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will
'
be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch
diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement.
* This condition needs to be modified. The city has constructed the utilities
through the site already. The applicant has submitted construction plans and
specifications for the city to review. The plans and specifications are being
considered for approval in conjunction with the final plat.
19. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a
'
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to
guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting.
'
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
' Page 16
* This condition is still applicable.
20. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The
' Song homestead shall gain access via a direct connection to "B" Street.
* This condition will be modified by deleting "the Song homestead ..."
21. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval.
' * This condition is still applicable. The private driveway serving Lots 4, 5 and
6, Block 1 will also need to be named.
' 22. The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with
the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no
berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard
' right -of -way.
* The trail shown on the landscaping plan needs to be located east of the
property line out of the deceleration.
23. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the
development to avoid its being impacted by street and trail construction.
n
1
1
* Not applicable with this phase.
24. A private driveway easement should be conveyed for access to Lot 9, Block 1 between
Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 off of B Street.
* Not applicable with this phase.
25. The street grades shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between
0.50% and 7% except on H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to a 7 ton
design.
* This condition is being met.
26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be
extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension
may be through either H Street or another Street location within the
Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property immediately to the west.
* Not applicable with this phase. The applicant has demonstrated with the
preliminary plat for Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner, the future street expansion to the
north.
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
Page 17
27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A
and E streets, and the proposed cul -de -sac islands, are to be allowed subject to
incorporation of modifications requested by staff and to meet State Aid requirements.
* This condition has been partially met with Street E, Hunters Drive and plan has
been submitted for the landscaped island.
28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. ,
* This condition is still applicable.
29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a
temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in
the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in
the vicinity.
* This condition is being met. Fawn Hill Road will be extended in the future;
however, should be modified to read: A notice of this shall be placed in the
chain of title for all lots in the vicinity.
30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a
width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround
acceptable to the Fire Marshal.
* This condition is being met.
31. Decorative street lighting be installed along the collector Street A.
* Not applicable with this phase.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the final plat for The Woods at Longacres (#93 -3 PUD) for 30
lots and 6 outlots as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1994 and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided
for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6
feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be
reduced down to 20 feet on Lots 8 -11, Block 1, Lot 2, Block 3, and Lot 2, Block 4.
n
1
1
1
1
1
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
Page 18
Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory structures.
These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks.
2. Two trees shall be placed on Lots 7 -13, Block 1, Lots 1 -4, Block 2 and Lots 2 -6,
Block 6. These trees may be placed in the lot in question or clustered as appropriate
based upon an approved landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be
credited to buffering requirements along Galpin nor placed upon commonly held
outlots." Trees to be selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 2f6
diameter at time of installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter
of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation.
Streetscape shall be consistent with plans from Ernst and Associated dated June 10,
1994.
3.
4.
Tree Preservation/Landscaping:
a. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected
from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board.
b. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees.
C. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise
satisfactorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being
inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of
construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas as
recommended by staff on grading and landscaping plan. Tree conservation
easements shall be placed on Lots 1, 2, 4 -7, Block 1 and Lots 2 -7, Block 3.
Park and Trails:
Parks
a. The private /association park be approved with the addition of an open field
with a minimum size of 180 feet by 180 feet with a maximum 4% slope is
added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu
of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is
ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes.
Such a provision must be drafted into association documents.
b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit
application.
C. If in the future there is a dissolution or any type of breakdown in this
neighborhood association, that the city will be deeded this park as a park and
not subdivided into lots.
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat ,
June 22, 1994
Page 19 '
Trails I
a. It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of -way
except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement
up to 20' in width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be
included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being
prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the '
discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to
future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan
review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. '
b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the
southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer preliminary plat as depicted
on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling
this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at
the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be
staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and
City Engineer. In recognition for the construction of said trail, the applicant
receive compensation for construction costs associated with this trail.
This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots ,
16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity.
C. Full trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance.
5. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all
utilities located outside the public right -of -ways including drainage basins. ,
6. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e.
Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department,
DNR, Army Corps of Engineers.
7. The applicant needs to submit revised storm sewer and ponding calculations in I
accordance to city ordinance.
8. Hunter Drive has a 200 foot deceleration lane on Galpin Boulevard. The trail should I
be located within the plat adjacent to the deceleration lane.
9. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision '
in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation.
10. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or r
provided with a wood -fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov.
15 each construction season. Areas where street and /or utility construction will occur
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
' Page 20
throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when
building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant
an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas
'
shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook.
11.
The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with
the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final
'
construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council
approval in conjunction with final platting.
12.
As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to
guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting.
13.
No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117).
14.
Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval. The private
driveway serving Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1 will also need to be named.
15.
The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with
the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no
berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard
right -of -way. The trail shown on the landscaping plan needs to be located east of the
property line out of the deceleration.
16.
Enter into a PUD contract with the City.
Y
'
17.
A temporary turnaround and a signed barricade on Fawn Hill Road indicating "This
street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the
'
chain -of -title of all lots in the vicinity.
18.
The existing home on Lot 1, Block 3 (Song residence) shall connect to the municipal
sanitary sewer system and abandon the on -site septic system per city/state codes within
30 days after the sewer system becomes operational. The existing well may be used
until it fails, then the property must connect to city water.
'
19.
The existing resident on Lot 1, Block 3 (Song) shall change their street address to
correspond to the city address system. The city's Building Department will assign a
new address once the plat is filed.
20.
The developer and/or contractor shall report to the City Engineer the location of any
drain tiles found during construction. The City Engineer will determine whether or
not to abandon or redirect the tile to the storm sewer system.
I I
The Woods at Longacres Final Plat
June 22, 1994
Page 21 '
21. A 10 foot clear zone must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to
fire fighters, i.e. NSP transformers, street lights, cable television and telephone boxes
and landscape plantings.
22. The developers and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or
substantive objections to the special assessment resulting from the city's public
improvement project #92 -5 including but not limited to hearing requirements and any '
claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
23.
A native vegetative buffer strip 10 feet in width shall be maintained around the natural
'
wetlands on the site. This will limit grading to within 10 feet of the wetland. The
grading plan shall be modified accordingly.
'
24.
The landscaped median island shall be maintained b the homeowners association
P Y
through the means of the declaration of covenants. Should the median not be well
maintained or becomes a public safety hazard, the city reserves the right to remove the
landscaping and /or entire median. The city shall not be liable for damage to the
landscaping or irrigation system as a result of snow plowing operations.
25.
Private driveway or cross access easements including maintenance agreement shall be
provided for Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 1 and Lots 6 and 7, Block 3.
'
26.
The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in
Corps of Engineers, Section 404 permit 94- 02389- SW -GAE. Mitigation work shall be
implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in future phases of the
project.
27.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's
wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
begins and the applicant will be charged $20 per sign."
ATTACHMENTS
'
1.
City Council minutes dated November 8, 1993.
2.
Final plat and landscaping plan.
J
Fi
I�
1
r,
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
REZONING FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 112 ACRES INTO 115 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS: WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, ONE -HALF
MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, SONG - CARLSON PROPERTY: LUNDGREN BROTHERS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Terry Forbord
Jerome Carlson
David Stockdale
Ron Roeser
Fred Berg
Jim Manders
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
6950 Galpin Blvd.
7210 Galpin Blvd.
222 Chan View
6910 Chaparral Lane
6791 Chaparral Lane
Kate Aanenson: As you see. Lundgren Bros is requesting preliminary PUD approval and as a part of that there's
also a wetland alteration permit. Just to get your bearings on this. It's adjacent to Galpin, just south of Lake
Lucy Road and north of Highway 5. As you recall the applicant's also have preliminary plat approval to what
was called the Rogers Dolejsi property. This site is developed. There will be a collector that ties those two so
between TH 41 and Galpin there will be a collector road that ties that together. The staff did support the PUD
based on the fact that there's substantial wetlands on the site ... This is a very beautiful site. It's got varied
topography with 60 feet difference in elevation. As we mentioned before there's wetlands... identified. There's
also heavily forested areas. We're recommending the PUD and they meet the standards of the PUD as we put
together on the residential and minimum lot sizes being 11,000 for the smallest. These lots averaged over
27.000 square feet. We did recommend some variation from the PUD standards as far as setbacks from front
yards and side yards ... One of the big issues between the staff and the developer was, for the Planning
Commission... spent numerous hours as you can see by the Minutes that were attached trying to resolve some of
these issues. One of the major ones was right -of -way for that collector road. Staff wanted 60 feet and that's
what we're still recommending. Some of the other issues as far as trees, the three recommendations that the
staff had as far as the tree issues and ... PUD that we feel that the tree ... The tree conservation as proposed by the
applicant, we wanted to ... lot by lot basis and that's why we recommended that there be a flexibility as far as the
side yard and not hold them hard and fast to 10 feet on either side but allowing to have some flexibility. And
again as proposed in the PUD ordinance that there be 2 trees per lot. One of the big issues, other big issues as
far as ... of this proposed PUD was the park recommendation. It was before the Park Board numerous times. As
you can see through the staff report there was updates numerous times of recommendations from the applicant.
The final resolution from the Park Board is that the applicant will provide a private park. The Park Commission
did recommend that ... a larger field in the park. In addition, they're requiring park fees and trail fees. There will
be approximately 115 lots on the site again. They range within the PUD standards ... the staff would recommend
approval based on the conditions that are outlined in the staff report. There are several alterations as you can see
that from the Planning Commission. The motion starts actually on page 37. Final conditions of approval...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Todd. Do you have anything to add?
34
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
Todd Hoffman: Mayor and members of the City Council. Kate had indicated the Park and Recreation
Commission's conditions of approval in regards to parks. In regards to trails we talked extensively about the
trail on Galpin Boulevard and how that would be accommodated. It was concluded through negotiations with
Carver County and then back—engineering department, that that trail could be constructed in the right -of -way at
a future date. It will certainly be an important link in the very near future with the proximity of this site to the
new elementary school south of Highway 5 once that.-That was the trails. Issue number a. Number b, that the
applicant shall dedicate land to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson -
Dolejsi -Turner property. That Kate referenced earlier, and again this condition is a direct result of an offer made
by the applicant to construct that trail along there as an additional park amenity. When this was first before the
Park and Recreation Commission they were uncomfortable with the private park. That was back in August of
this year at a Park and Recreation Commission meeting. So at that meeting, at the applicant's request, the item
was tabled ... idea. That idea was the development of this trail corridor. An initial offer was made at that time to
identify the corridor and build the trail. Subsequently I received a call from the applicant saying they would not
build the trail due to financial implications. However through discussions... that trail construction as a part of the
construction ... Conversations at that time included the fact, as we call know, if the trail does not go in, when
you're dealing with a trail which goes in the rear yards ... in everybody's interest to see that happen. However
that is where the problems begin to arise between what was intended by the offer by the applicant and what was
interpretted by the Park and Recreation Commission and I don't think that's the last... Furthermore, that a
connection should be made between the street plan of Johnson - Dolejsi- Turner. You want to get the residents -
who are in that neighborhood down onto this nature trail which will develop in the future into something that I
think will be very nice for the city and for the residents in that area. Staff identified that between Lot 16 and
17, Block 2 where there can be another similar suitable location ... AD of these recommendations that came forth
from the Park and Recreation Commission are contingent upon the city requiring a portion of the Stockdale
property for park purposes. Again that was based out of the concern, very sincere concern by the Park
Commission, that the association, the private park does take care of the park needs of the ... itself enabling
residents over in neighborhood that will not have access to it ... cross boundaries to play. The Park Commission
really wanted to see some public park space in that area. I was uncomfortable making that type of contingent
arrangement. However at the applicant's consent, that part of the condition was made. Mr. Stockdale is in the
audience this evening. Per approval by the Council, we have forwarded the negotiations for purchase of just
over 6 acres of Mr. Stockdale's property and those negotiations are underway at this time. An offer ... Mr.
Stockdale. Currently, after the last review by the Park Commission, it was at the October meeting, there was
kind of an update of the status of the project in regards to parks and trails. Points which... which I still
recognized is this in regards to parks. The city is requiring a 250 x 250 open playfield with a maximum of 4%
slope. I had recommended to the Park and Recreation Commission to compromise at 180 x 250. They did not
see that compromise as a wise decision for the city so they want to stand pat at 250 x 250. The applicant would
like to see that size reduced to 180 x 180. The other point of contention as I mentioned earlier, is in regards to
trails. That would be the construction of the trail along the Johnson - Dolejsi -Turner property on the southern
border. It is now the request of the applicant that they be paid dollar for dollar for that. I said we would
certainly like to work with them and make it both economically sound for their company to make that investment
in their neighborhood but not to hinder their development. My offer entailed, it was always thought that that
trail would be bituminous, which is obviously more expensive. I believe ... gravel surface which would be very
conducive to the type of trail ... Those are my comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Just one quick question. What I had read was on page 33 that the change dimension of
that open playfield was to be constructed in the association park from 250 x 250 and you said to 180 rather than
it is shown here as 250, 180 x 250?
35
n
1
u
1
n
I
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
Todd Hoffman: That was my recommendation to the Park Commission. They did not see that that change
needed to be made so they wanted to stand firm at 250 x 250.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But is it correct, 180 x 250 or 180 x 180?
Todd Hoffman: The applicant is at 180 x 180. My compromise position was 180 x 250.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And the records on page 33 it shows it, okay. Let's see. Dave, do you have anything
too?
Dave Hempel: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Staff has worked with the applicant in resolving a few of the issues
stated in the staff report starting at page 33 ... One of the conditions that is still in contention I guess is the private
driveway access to the future Song residence that is on Lot 9—couldn't find any viable reason why... subdivide
down further f rom the County Road. Street right -of -way widths throughout the development. The city has
made an exception on the street width on cul -de -sacs H and I. The area which is heavily wooded and has steep
terrain. A compromise by allowing retaining walls to be built ... to help limit the width of destruction and
grading—retaining wall will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. We reduced the normal standard
street width ... right -of -way down to 50 feet in this area. However the remaining street section... further
discussions on that. The street width itself, as far as the collector road, Street A. Staff has decided that a 7 ton
design at this stage would be acceptable due to the localized residential traffic. It's not being considered a heavy
truck traffic route. And if in the future we review ... State Aid standards to a 9 ton road design simiply by adding
an overlay of about an inch, inch and a half paved section to utilize State Aid dollars for that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I looked at that meeting that was there, there were approximately 36,000
words on the Planning Commission which was a long time and a lot to read and a lot to go on. So what I'd like
to do is ask the applicant to come forward and if there's something new and different than what was already
discussed or said, I would appreciate that position. So at that time, is there anyone wishing to address some of
the concerns that you may still have that have not been discussion. Is there something new or something
different?
Terry Forbord: Excuse me you Honor. Were you asking if we had anything to say?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Terry Forbord: Sorry, I'm hard of hearing.
' Mayor Chmiel: That was my question.
Terry Forbord: There's really, actually I think everything has been covered and the only two points I think that
i we would like to discuss with the Council this evening are clarification on the park issues and the item that was
already mentioned by Mr. Hempel, and I'd like to just very briefly just explain both of those to you. Here's a
couple of exhibits. I apologize that I can't ... This is a rendering of that illustrates what the Song neighborhood
community will look like. It's approximately 112 acres. 100 acres of which is part of the Lundgren Bros
neighborhood community and the remainder of that would be this exception parcel which is in fact from 10 to 12
acres that's being retained by Mr. and Mrs. Song for their future home. They presently live in a home right here
right now. They have an estate driveway and they enjoy this entire parcel solely to themselves at this time. And
their dream has always been that at some point in time in the future, they would sell their land and subdivide it
36
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
and build a new home and let development occur on the balance of that. Just to give you a very quick overview
of where it is and adjacent to ... that you've seen before. North being up. Galpin Blvd and Highway 41. This is
what is commonly known as the Johnson- Dolejsi -Turner property, which was before you last year. And final
'
plats are being prepared to be submitted to the city in the very near future. And then the Song property would
be immediately to the east of that. As part of this proposal, Lundgren Bros is, and also on the Johnson-Dolejsi-
Turner property but as well as on the Song property, I've proposed something that really is somewhat unique or
new to Chanhassen. It wouldn't be fair to say that ... out in the metropolitan area What we've found through our
travels. We travel every year, 3 or 4 times a year to various parts of the United States to find out what is new
and exciting for home buyers and what cities and developers that are bigger and better at what they do than we
are, what are they doing. And one of the things that we've discovered, due to some of the pressures being put
'
on municipalities and their budgets, and from the demands of home buyers, is that they would like to see some
amenities within their neighborhood that often times city budgets don't allow anymore. Those are things like
tennis courts, children playground equipment, heavily landscaped areas, gazebo sitting areas, etc. And so we,
'
over the last 4 years have built 3 neighborhood communities like that and we have 2 in the works. 3 being
called the Song property. And it becomes the focal point of the neighborhood community and we have found
through surveys that buyer profile, the home buyers by Lundgren homes, the type of amenities that they would
,
really like to have are things like these totlots and you've seen this high tech playground equipment in many of
the schools now. Some of them are plastic. Heavy PVC type of material. Some of them happen to be a timber
type. The plastic variety or PVC type seem to be the most popular because they last longer. And then the
tennis courts, etc. And as you folks know, all municipalities are wrestling with those types of amenities in small
'
neighborhood parks. They're having a hard time providing those types of things. So what we have found is that
many cities are realizing that really the way to provide these services today and certainly in the future is more of
a public/private cooperative effort with the developer. They come forth. They provide the land. They put in the
'
improvements at their expense and try to do the things that the cities unfortunately aren't able to provide at that
level any more. Our initial proposal to the city was to do that and to also provide a full park and trail fees.
There's been some confusion. Misunderstanding. I won't get into any of that tonight, unless somebody would
like me to, because I think at this point in time the most important thing is the project and what benefit it will be
'
to the city. So our proposal is that along the collector road, Street A. In this general area, there will be an
association park. And there are a number of reasons why we have located it there. One of the terms in selling
this property for the people who own the land, the Song's, was they had this dream of this future home. Also,
there was a neighboring property owner, Mr. Carlson who became a third party to the contract because he lives
here. He was very concerned what type of development was going to occur in this area What imposition would
it pose on him and he was prepared to buy the property himself if it was going to be a negative impact to him.
'
In working with the Song's, Mr. Carlson and Mr. Song, they found a developer that could meet all of their needs
and develop something that they would all be proud of and not be fearful of. That development could occur and
we were blessed that they selected our firm to be the developer and we entered into an agreement. And we
worked very closely in designing a neighborhood community that would not have a imposition on either one of
those people but hopefully would still meet the needs of the city and the future residents that live here and be
economically feasible. We spent a lot of time getting to that point. So the park was decided to put here in order
to buffer the development from the future home of the Song's and from the Carlson residence. In addition to
'
that we're building berms and landscaping to additionally screen that because the topography, we have to do
certain things to make sure that the impact of the development is not felt by them in a negative manner. Those
became the driving forces of why we ended up designing it the way we did around that particular area. As I
'
said, our proposal was to build this association park. It's going to cost us somewhere between 5225,000.00 to
$350,000.00 to do that. And as I said, we had offered to pay park and trail fees. For various reasons that
proposal did not fly and we set about trying to find another opportunity to provide the city that the Parks
Commission and the Planning Commission and the City Council ultimately would say well, this is something we
'
37 1
fl
U
1
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
can live with. So the idea was, and it just came to me while I was sitting in a meeting. Because the debate
seemed to be centering around providing some public opportunity is that there's a very large wetland complex
that separates the Johnson - Dolejsi -Turner property from what is called the 1995 study area. You can see that
here in this kind of beigish coloring. And I thought well what if somehow there could be some kind of, I was
thinking along a public trail that would allow the general public to connect with what I knew already was
planned a public trail along TH 41 and I knew there was a plan for a public trail along Galpin Blvd. And I
talked to the Parks Director and he said he was willing to consider that and we decided to go out and look out in
the field what that would be like. And I hadn't been out there in probably 3 years from the time I had ... but it
didn't take either one of us very long in walking out there we recognized this would really be a neat place for a
public trail. So it was agreed that we would submit that as a proposal to the city. To the Parks Commission to
see if that would be enough that they would say okay. In consideration for that.—association park. And at that
time I said to Todd, and I've always qualified everything that I've said in relation to this, every statement that if
it's economically feasible. Because when you're just dealing with things on a preliminary basis like this and
they're just ideas, it's not unlike the ideas that any of you have as Councilmembers. You have an idea but you
always want to make sure that it's going to be economically feasible... concept stages and we're throwing out
ideas, obviously none of us have any idea how much it's going to cost or what the reality of that is going to be.
But I was open to any suggestion as long as it was economically feasible and as long as the city would find
some benefit and it wouldn't ... the development. Well, it certainly was agreed upon that that would be a benefit
to the general public. The only concern that I had was how would it be paid for. We were willing to grant the
easements and we are willing to do the construction. We always have been willing to do the construction and
we would do it as the road was built. The lot adjacent to it and we've never been opposed to that. The only
issue here is cost. And so I also knew, after we took that to the Parks Commission, without getting into all the
details because again I think that those details may be irrelevant at this point in time, a trail corridor was planned
to be graded here and there was the suggestion that if the city did acquire this portion of the Stockdale property,
that Lundgren would grade that. So Lundgren was to grade this corridor. They were to grade this park. We
were to build the association park and we were to build this trail and dedicate the land for the easements. And
to this day I still don't have a hard time or a bad time with any of those ideas. I think they're great ideas. The
bottom line though is it economically feasible and what is fair for us to pay. If you're willing to build this park
and dedicate the land to the homeowners association, and build that park at the numbers that I was suggesting
earlier and we were willing to pay the park and trail dedication fee, I believe that around the first of the year the
trail fee goes to S600.00? Excuse me, the parks fee is at $600.00?
Todd Hoffman: It's currently $600.00 for park fees and $200.00 for trail fees.
Terry Forbord: Okay, so there's $800.00 per unit. By unit I mean house. And there's 234 homes here so the
way I look at it, we'll build this at our expense... we'll donate the land for this public trail and we'll donate the
land or the easement for this public trail and we'll agree to pay $800.00 x 234 units. That's the dollar amount
that can be spent to either grade this or build this, build this, whatever. I'm open with whatever the Parks
Commission deems that is the highest and the best use of those dollars. And what I can't do, and I wish I could
accommodate it because a lot of controversy would not have ensued. What I can't afford to do is to do this and
pay for this and pay for this and pay for this. There's just not enough money. It's not economically feasible.
So I think that's the bottom line issue when it comes to the park and the amount of money that's available for
park fees. And then our proposal. And the last issue about the parks, John maybe if you could just use the
overhead. Todd had a really good idea. I can't remember if it was the first or second ... I can't remember which
park commission meeting it was but in the staff report he recommended that we should provide an area for
some, I'm not quoting him but I would describe as some low intensity active play area. Kite flying. Frisbee
throwing. Those type of things could take place. I thought that was a good idea and I think in our original
38
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
proposal we had like a 100 x 100 or 80 foot x 80 foot area where that could occur. And when he brought that
up and after we looked at it, we thought that's a good idea. Now on the other hand, one of the things we don't
want to have happen in here, is we don't want them to be an area where there is organized, planned organized
intense activities. Where a lot of people might show up. There might be a fairly intense pick -up game of either
football or baseball or softball or whatever. And the reason is, and if you look at other communities where
we've done this. This is really kind of geared for the family. This is hopefully where you'll go for a walk and
take your kids down there. Maybe you'll play some tennis and they'll be playing on the play structures and
there will be some other architectural features built here. Lots of landscaping and benches and it's more, it's
intended to be more of a low intensity use. And exactly what we don't want to occur here, where there's
planned organized activities or even like the possibility of somebody bringing a keg or some beer and hang out.
They want to ... more of an intense use. That is exactly what we don't want to happen. And if you provide too
big of an area, we think it's going to be encouraging. So what we decided to, staff came back with an idea of
250 x 250 and 250 x 250 is actually larger than a National Football League playing field. I mean that is a big,
John maybe you can put up. I mean here's an NFL football field and the actual square footage, including the
end zones of a National Football League is 57,600 square feet. Now that's a big area and again, I think it's a
good idea to be able to throw the frisbee and fly a kite. Even if you have half a dozen guys and you want to
play a little quick game of touch football and mess around, I think that's a great idea. But having something
that's bigger than a professional football field goes way beyond what we would like to see as a low intense
family use of it. So we had proposed and to be honest with you, we'd like to see it even smaller than 180 x
180. 180 x 180 is 56% of the size of an NFL football field. So it's even half the size. If you took half of a
football field. How many families, I mean how many of any of us if we just wanted to get together and play
touch football game, I'm sure a half of a football field, we'd be able to have a pretty good time and
accommodate all of you. Now to kind of put this in some other perspective. We measured the parking lot out
here ... most of you park out here all the time and come to City Hall and on the overhead here you'll see what the
parking lot is. Now I ... and in just one of those parking lots you could have a pick -up touch football game. But
if you take both of them, which we did to show the illustration, that's kind of about the area of what we're
proposing and that's a big area. You could easily have a low intensity active area at this... game in this area.
We would really hate to see it get much bigger than that. Some of the other things that happens if it does. To
make that area bigger, then you're putting the focus on that area and taking it away from the landscaping.
You're talking it away from the berming. I mean something's got to give and you want to just expand the flat,
open area and then what do we do with the berm. That we were trying to screen and do some of this buffering.
I mean something's got to go and so we ask that you look at from the perspective of a more low intensity
neighborhood park. If you were going down there yourselves and you wanted to relax and enjoy yourself and
you were fearful of a more intense, organized activity and then also decide well geez, 180 x 180. That's half of
a football field as far as square footage. Is that enough to accommodate that? We think it really is. It's not
going to be a place where you can have a lot of, a lot of activity. That isn't what our intent is and that's why
we proposed it. The last issue has to do again with the Song's driveway. This is an aerial photograph of the
Song property and this area right in here represents the exception parcel that Mr. and Mrs. Song have always
dreamed of someday being able to build their dream home. They did build a very nice home when they built
this home down here but they always had in the back of their mind that someday, if economic situations worked
out, that they would build their dream home. And if any of you have lived in the country or on an estate of any
kind, one of the things that sets the tone for that from the very first thing is the entrance. The entrance to your
home, which in other words would be the driveway. Now as you can see, this area where they have planned for
their dream home is probably about halfway. The location where they would put their home would be generally
right in this vicinity. As you can see, right here actually what's taking place on this day, this is a ground
breaking ceremony I think on Mr. Carlson's property. That's the date that this photo happened to be taken. The
Song's would like to have their entrance come in right around this edge of this wetland. This is upland area and
39
1
I�
h
F
U
1
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
come in and follow the slope through these trees to the residence. It would certainly give them the feeling of
their estate. Sets the tone. A point of arrival. A point of entry. And what is being proposed was suggested by,
and the Planning Commission approved the Song's request on a 3 -2 vote. It was controversial. The staff is
proposing that the Song's would enter through this cul -de -sac and run down one of these lot lines to their home,
which would certainly take away their ambience and the feel of what certainly they've always have attempted to
do. Now the Song's could have, if they would have known that this was going to be a problem, they could have
just come in without a developer... subdivide their land. They could have just come in and said, we want to
subdivide our land. Just this 10 acre parcel here and I'm going to build a home on it and have the driveway
here. And really the city, they meet all the tests of the city ordinances. They could have done that and this
driveway, private driveway already is down there on their other home. And the County, in our conversation with
them and staff's conversation with them, is not opposed to that entrance. So what's really happening here is that
through our proposal the one private driveway that goes to their present home is being eliminated from Galpin.
From now on this will access on a city street. So all we're doing is taking one private driveway here and we're
putting up on the new home here. And those are really the only points that we have ... this evening. The rest of
everything else, we've worked a long time with staff on. Our consultants are here if you have any questions
related to engineering or planning...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Terry, before you sit down I have a question about whether the two items, the two
first items you addressed are related. Are you saying if we reduce the private park to 180 x 180, then you
would be able to afford to do the trails and the park as well? I mean is that.
Terry Forbord: The 180 x 180 we are suggesting purely as a practical matter and aesthetics. It's not, it will
really take away from the feeling of that park if you put a playfield in this area.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. So it's not related to whether you can afford to do the.
Terry Forbord: That's correct.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks.
Terry Forbord: I don't know if I would be able to provide, I don't think that we'll be able to do the berming
that is required of me, what we promised all along from the very beginning with the Song's and the Carlson's
when we expand that area because there's only so much room.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael, do you have anything?
Councilman Mason: I'd like to know what the rationale is for, we've heard what the rationale is for 180 x 180.
What's Park and Rec rationale for 250 x 250?
Todd Hoffman: We have three of our Park Commissioners here that will be able to answer questions as we go
along as well as far as what was represented at the Park and Recreation Commission. The 250 x 250 was
originally arrived at as to allow a large enough open play area for some pick up games. Now I'm not
insinnuating that the applicant that this would encourage organized league games. It was never intended to do
that. We just wanted sufficient open fields to allow for ... Again, I recommended a compromise position and the
Park and Recreation Commission did not see fit in going along with that so I would defer to them for further
40
[J
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1
clarification.
Mayor Chmiel: Does Park and Rec have anything to address that with? Any members. Okay. Jerome: '
Jerome Carlson: Thank you. On that specific subject I have 3 points I'd like to touch on.
Mayor Chmiel: If you could just, for the record so. '
Jerome Carlson: Oh, Jerome Carlson. 6950 Galpin Blvd, Excelsior. '
Mayor Chmiel: Soon to be Chanhassen.
Jerome Carlson: I hope so. The park. When we spent 6 months working, I'm here representing Charles and
Irene Song as well as Linda and myself. That's the way it has been from the beginning. Charles and Irene have
relied upon me to assist them in the process of the document which was executed with the Lundgren Bros
sometime ago now but that was about 6 months in the making. One of the concerns that we had expressed and '
is in our document. We are very much opposed at having a park that encourages a lot of folks, particularly if
the size of that is going to create a lack of berming. We were concerned about the noise. We were concerned
about the privacy issue and that's when we, we negotiated with Lundgren Bros it was to keep that neighborhood '
park small. Sufficient. We understood the need for it. We understood their explanation and their marketing but
we absolutely are opposed to a large park in that location. To further my request of the city to build a smaller
park it seems to me that if in fact the contingency of the Stockdale property, 6+ acres being converted into a
public park, remains as a part of the approval, then is that not enough? Why is the 250 so important at that ,
point? And I think that, I would ask on behalf of the Song's, and on behalf of the Carlson's, and appeal to you
for our original agreement which still is in effect. To keep that to a minimum, particularly if in fact there's
going to be an adjacent park on the other side of the same property, which clearly would have the acreage '
sufficient for a lot of organized or pick -up games. I believe that's fair. That is our feeling on the park. The
180 x 180 for those reasons. May I touch on the other two subjects or would you like to finish this one Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: I think we'd probably like to just finish the one that we're on right now, thanks. Okay. ,
Michael, did you have anything more?
Councilman Mason: On this particular issue? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Mason: I kind of like Todd's idea to tell you the truth. It sounds like a compromise. And I, '
maybe this, I don't know if this is the time to go into my personal feelings about neighborhood association parks
or not. Is now the time for that or not?
Mayor Chmiel: You can mention it right now if you care. '
Councilman Mason: Well I don't like them. I think they tend to be elitist. And I'm not saying that's the intent ,
of anybody but you know, are there signs that go up that say this is for this neighborhood only? Are there
signs? How are they maintained? Who maintains them? I know if anything ever happens and it comes back to
the city, then the city maintains them, which we need parks. I don't deny that but 1, my personal feeling is, is '
that that situation tends to internalize the neighborhoods and maybe we want that. I don't know. But I see
41 1
u
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
' neighborhoods turning in then instead of turning out and I basically, that's my own philosophical bent. I'm not
saying I'm bent on destroying this concept or anything like that. I'm not. But that's what my feeling is on that.
' So I guess at this point I support Todd's compromise but I'm not saying that's definite yet.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
' Councilman Senn: I'd have to say this was one of the more interesting puzzles in our packet. I wish we could
have had the presentation fast because it took me about 2 hours to figure what he just told us in 30 minutes. I
guess I, personally I'd like to really applaud the developer because I think this is one of the best plans I've ever
' seen in terms of a neighborhood. I think, I can even go back to my old city planning days and I've never seen
anything to parallel this. I think it's fantastic. Very responsible in just about every way, shape and form. I
don't see any real issues. Major planning issues coming out of it. I think mainly what it came down to was
some economic issues, predominantly related to the parks and trails. I guess I have to say that after reading
' through all the developer's discussion, reading through all the commission stuff and everything, that I started to,
I guess have to say sympathize a little bit with the developer because I kept adding this up in my head and
started to figure, I don't think anybody on this earth could afford it but. You know looking at the park and the
' trail issues, I don't have any problem at all with these neighborhood or association parks. Maybe my bias is
there because I come from a neighborhood with one and I think they're fantastic. It provides a focal point to the
neighborhood. It takes a lot of pressure off the city operated and maintained parks. At the same time it serves
' really in my mind a whole different function you know than a city park does. If more neighborhoods of this size
throughout the city had these parks, then I think we could concentrate on larger scaled activity or youth athletics
and bigger types of parks within the city. I have no problems with the 180 x 180 playing field that the
developer has suggested. I think it's very adequate for what's being suggested. Looking at the park and the trail
issues, I think the idea of the trail around the wetland is just great. I mean that's something that probably
normally we could never hope to achieve and I look at that and I say I know there's a cost to that and it seems
to me that if the developer's willing to grade the trail along Galpin and also provide the, what I guess I call the
' internal trail, it seems to me that beyond that there shouldn't really be any trail fees. And it also seems to me in
looking through all of these numbers and that sort of thing, I mean there's got to be some cost protection there
to the developer because if I calculated this right, there's trail fees coming on this close to $50,000.00. And to
' me the developer should have to spend that $50,000.00 on those, both that internal and that Galpin trail and then
beyond that I think, then I think part of it becomes our responsibility. But at the same time I turn around and I
say, I think the developer should pay the park fees. So I don't like to kind of mix those two or balance them
out. To me they're doing a great job on trails and if we decide to go ahead on the trails and the trails cost
$75,000.00 instead of $50,000.00, I think we should pick up the $25,000.00. But at the same time I think the
developer should be contributing the $600.00 per household for park fees because again, going back to the
concept where I think this neighborhood park services one function and there's still another function and I think
' if the people who live here are going to be putting pressure in other fashions on city parks, ballfields, soccer
fields, you know a lot of other uses so I think that's still appropriate that that charge go in there and that the
developer pay it. The other issue I became over hearing was this, oh I forget the, what was it. Stockdale. The
' Stockdale property. After reading through this stuff I didn't really feel it was really appropriate or fair to be
requiring this developer to really do anything with that property. It's not his and he's not buying it. I don't
really see his role in it. As far as the driveway issue goes, I didn't see any problem with that one at all. I think
the Song's should be able to have that driveway and I think that'd be a real amenity to that property and I think
' the development and the Song property then end up both to be better off as a result of that driveway and
entrance. I think the driveway coming in through the development itself, I don't think we lose a plus to the
overall plan. I think it's a negative instead so I guess that pretty much covers all the issues that.
42
t
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1
i 1 '
Mayor Chmiel: And lust one quick question I have. Is this, in your opinion, still benefitung the city o rw would
this be benefitting the developer? ,
Councilman Senn: In terms of?
Mayor Chmiel: Of your positioning on the different things that you had said. '
Councilman Senn: Well Don if you look at it purely economically.
Mayor Chmiel: And the other point being, are we establishing some kind of precedent with this and I don't
,
know that either, and I can ask Todd that when you get done.
Councilman Senn: You know, that's something that I was going to come around to at the end because I don't
'
know if we've ever done this type of, excuse me, balancing act before but at the same time I don't think we've
looked at a development before that comes in with this extensive a trail system for example within it. And that
sort of thing. One of the problem is here, at this early point you don't have any dollar amounts or numbers
attached to most of these things. All you can do is look at it and say, from an income standpoint we know what
'
our park fees are and we know what our trail fees are and I look at this and say, well. We're expecting roughly
$50,000.00 in trail fees and we're expecting roughly $150,000.00 in park fees. So I start with that as the base
economics and I go into this and say, well geez. The developer should then, between the internal trail and the
,
external trail, provide $50,000.00 worth of trails. I think that's his responsibility. Beyond that, I don't think it's
his responsibility. So I mean that's kind of like one ledger sheet over here. The other ledger sheet I pull out
and say. geez. They're providing this wonderful neighborhood park but again I look at the use of that
neighborhood park as being self serving in a way but I still think it's great to see. In looking at the overall
project and the plan, I think it fits great and it's beautiful and it will be a big amenity to the city and the
neighborhood. But then at the same time I sit there and say, but I don't think that should impact them paying
$600.00 per household in park fees because we still have that pressure going on overall city parks and the
'
neighborhood park I look at as being as much a benefit to the neighborhood as it is to us. Well more of a
benefit to the neighborhood than it is to us. I think there's some benefit to us because again it takes some
pressure off of city parks. So I look at this not really as just one big balance sheet but I think each one of them
'
becomes a balance sheet and I can't tell you where the numbers come out because I don't know what the heck
the trails cost. There's nothing in here to tell us that one way or the other. I don't know if we're talking about
100 grand in trails. You know 70 grand. 50 grand. Less than 50 grand. I mean I have no idea. I'm just
assuming since you're bordering a wetland and Galpin with the topography along Galpin there, my guess is
'
you're not looking at inexpensive trails to develop but that's just purely a guess.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
'
Councilman Wing: I guess I'm going to ... here because I just, I agree with Mark. Everything he was saying I
had written down here. I guess I'd just to quote Colleen, I'll say ditto. I'd like to ... this neighborhood park
,
concept for these type of closed neighborhoods and in regards to that park, I'd like to have Lundgren Bros and
Terry simply go ahead and develop their neighborhood park the way they want to do it to meet their needs and
then separate that issue out. I don't want to hear about it. I don't want to discuss it. I could care less. That
180 x 180 is fine with me. My thoughts are not on their neighborhood park. I'm willing to give Terry total
'
control and direction on that. It's not a city park. So I ... Mark's discussion of the trail fees and the park fees
and that's the money we have to spend. Now what are we going to do with it. And this Stockdale property.
Now it's my understanding that these park and trail fees to buy that property would be totally used up, is that
43 1
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
I correct?
' Todd Hoffman: Correct. On the park fees to purchase the Stockdale property.
Councilman Wing: Every dime would go?
Todd Hoffman: Every dime for both the Song and the Johnson - Dolejsi - Tumer.
Councilman Wing: Okay. I guess I would set a priority here and with that wetland and the amenities out there,
having walked that area. I'd like to get that trail as my personal priority here. Is that we get that trail and how
can we realize this issue. How can we go for this trail and drop the other issues? I mean Lundgren Bros can
take their neighborhood park. I don't want to talk about it any more. So we've got the—park fees that are going
to go to pick up the 6 acres and now you've got roughly $50,000.00 for trail fees and is a trail going to be
' doable for 550,000.00? Now what can we do to work with Lundgren Bros to realize that trail and what will they
participate maybe above and beyond so I guess my feeling is to go along with Mark's comments totally to
prioritize the trail and that trail issue. I mean to go out and buy a chunk of land and pay the money, that's an
obvious thing but this trail, we don't have the dollar amounts and I think the greatest asset to this community
long term is going to be that trail going around that wetland. We'll never get it if we don't do it now. So that
would be my priority for this project on the park issue. Is to establish that trail and realize that trail being built.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Jerome.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can I say something?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks. I haven't had a chance to address this yet and just sticking to the trail
issue. I guess I see the neighborhood park as a purely marketing asset to the development and since we're
getting park fees in lieu of. Well, since we are getting park fees, it's a non issue. As far as the trails, I concur
' completely that they need to be done and whatever we can work out with Lundgren to get them built is a
priority. I've got some other issues but they're not park and trail related so.
Councilman Wing: I think at this point, if we've discussed the park issue, I think we all have on the record and
have our opinions and the Mayor will be back very shortly. In the meanwhile, maybe if Jerome could come up
and address the other two issues that you had. At least subject wise for this project.
Jerome Carlson: I'd be happy to. The driveway for the Song's, since I'm representing the Song's. They would
greatly appreciate their own driveway. That came to somewhat of a shock to them when they heard that there
was a possibility they wouldn't have their own driveway. They frankly had never thought of that possibility and
so providing that for them on a 10 acre piece does not seem unreasonable. I hope you will agree. The road
width that was altered, H and I, I think it was. I want to support that as strongly as I can because of the size of
the maple and oak trees up there and the steep grades. Let's not take any more trees than we really have to. I
related this to the Planning Commission. Cedar Lake Parkway. Linda and I actually went down and measured
it. We were driving around Cedar Lake enjoying Minneapolis with a friend and Linda carries tape measurers in
her purse. So we stopped the car and we measured Cedar Lake Parkway in Minneapolis. From the outside of
the curb to the outside of the curb is 26 feet. Perfectly fine parkway. Handles more cars on a Sunday afternoon
than that little road up there will handle in a decade and it does just fine. What's being proposed here on a
44
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1
smaller basis is somewhat larger than that... '
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor ... Song's had their own driveway and the width of...whieh is item 11 remaining at
50 feet. ,
Councilman Senn: Which staff is supporting?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right.
Councilman Wing: And if I still was chairing this temporarily, I guess the question I would have. I'd turn it
back to you. The question I would have on the trail is, if Terry Forbord could discuss that trail issue around that
wetland or what they might, what they can or can't do or will or won't do. Assuming that Mark Senn and
myself prevailed on allowing you to have your neighborhood park to your own design. No city interference on
that, how would we best realize the trail that's been discussed and what role might you play in that? '
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, do you want me to address that right now?
Mayor Chmiel: Right now.
Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros. The trail that you're speaking of is this trail?
Councilman Wing: That's correct.
Terry Forbord: One thing that I neglected to point out is there also is a trail along this collector road as a '
condition of approval I believe, is that correct?
Dave Hempel: A sidewalk. '
Terry Forbord: There is a sidewalk that goes from here to here that we also are putting in. I did not tell you
that but I thought now would be a good time to do that. Again, this is purely an economic issue for me. '
Believe me. I would much rather... just said we will do whatever you want and there'd be no controversy. The
trail fees. There is generated $52,800.00 I believe in trail fees for both of these communities. The trails that are
being asked of us are this trail. The grading of this trail. The road bed. The trail bed. And then a link
somewhere between one of these lot lines from this neighborhood down to here. And the only problem that I '
have with any of it is the dollar amount. And staff has always recommended that at least, I think it's always
been recommended that they recommended a waiver of trail fees as our participation in that. One of the things,
and I think Counciler Senn eluded to it is, is nobody knows what the cost is right now. And the condition of
approval actually states that the trail will be designed per staff's specification period. I don't even know what
that means. So what happens if we have $52,800.00 to spend on trails, and we're willing to do the construction
as a part of our phasing. Our guys are there. We'll get more bang for the buck and the staff report actually
eludes to that too. That the city will get more bang for their buck if the trail is built while the developer's
subcontractors are there doing the work rather than doing them separately. But what happens if this turns out to
be $80,000.00? Or if it's $100,000.00? I mean there's an increment there that I can't afford to make up and
I'm willing to work with the city staff to whatever degree is necessary to try to help get to that point. Now,
Counciler Wing suggested that the park fees would go exclusively to buying the park, and I don't know if that's
always been the plan but if in it's wisdom if the city decided that they rather would have this trail complete and
have it blacktopped so people could rollerblade on it or whatever, and they have decided to take trail and park '
45
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
' fees in order to accomplish that, that would be fine with me as well. I think the city should decide how they
want to spend those total sum of those fees. But I hope I'm answering the question. We're willing to work
with the city in any way we can to help bring that in cheaper. One of the things that we need to recognize. I
' know Todd knows this because we were down there. Because this is on the edge of a wetland, is what really
makes it neat but it's also what's going to make it expensive. We're at the toe of the slope. It's wooded down
there. We're going to have to be very careful in the construction of it and erosion control and all the kind of
things that add to the construction costs. It still can be done but I think I agree with what everyone says so far
' about that trail. The experience of this type of trail is entirely different than the experience of a trail along
Galpin Boulevard. I mean this is a utilitarian type trail. This is an experience and I think all of you recognize
that so we think it's a good idea and...
' Councilman Senn: I just had a question. In terms of the trail fees we were talking about. I mean this is really I
think a different situation I think than normal because I mean there's another factor I think we're not
considering. The other factor we're not considering is, we're going to say if you put the full $50,000.00 in trails
fees that you in, at the same time they're donating all the land for the trails. I mean isn't that normally part of
that whole equation of what goes into a trail? I mean isn't land dedication part of in lieu of or whatever
usually?
Todd Hoffman: The applicant would have to clarify but at this point I'm assuming there would be a trail
easement along the back side. So it's not a, easements are not credit for trail fees. Easements are taken as part
' of the responsibility of the particular development...
Mayor Chmtel: That's what it's been right along.
Todd Hoffman: The applicant has made one clarification in that the Park and Recreation Commission has
recommended that trail fee credit be given for that construction and we are at the conceptual stage but if these
type of deals have been struck up before, the PUD at Lake Susan Hills, which is now probably 7, 8 years old.
' They agreed to build a whole lot of trails because they saw a value in those trail systems to their development to
the city. Plus they agreed to pay 50% of their trail fees as part of that development. So sometimes you take a
run at the dark like that and it's a benefit to the community. It's a benefit to the neighborhood. That trail is
going to sell houses to those people. I've always said, I'm going to start a scrapbook one day because people
say, trails devalue households. They devalue neighborhoods but everytime I see a real estate ad, trails nearby.
Trails close by. Parks close by. So I'm hearing two things. The other clarification we need to relate is that
both, it was stated that trail grading would be taking place up and down Galpin. That was originally put in as a
condition when a full 20 foot easement would have been taken up and down Galpin. That is no longer the case.
The condition now reads that within 200 feet of street intersections there would be additional easements so you
can get these turn lanes in. And as the condition now reads, those would be the only areas under the jurisdiction
of the applicant which would be graded. So not the entire land is being graded. And in speaking to Mr.
Hempel. at the point when Galpin is upgraded and he's got the road project going on, then we would go ahead
and grade the trail bed and put the trail in at that time. So that's just a clarification.
' Councilman Wing: I sure hope I don't run into any of the Park and Rec members in the dark. Or actually even
during the day... mentioned to Todd and I'd like to pursue here is the rethinking of the fees used. It's nice to
have park dedication fees and trail dedication fees but I get tired of taking the dedication fees and they always
go to buy ballfields and put in a tennis court and that's wonderful and that's great but what's ... more into the
passive type parks. I'd like to see those dedication fees go someplace else and in lieu of the Stockdale property
and the park, I'd like to see us rethink the use of this to complete the trail around that wetland and establish that
46
I
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
once and for all for the city because that's what I'm going to use and that's what my interest and what my
family's interested in. It gives me access to that property. We're not going to come from anywhere to come '
over here and use that 6 acres. That's wonderful for the group but the neighborhood's got it's park. I'm not
going to deny the use of a park in that area or that we want it or need it. But I think this is a case that there's
such an environmentally sensitive piece of land that we can rethink the use of those fees and perhaps put it to go
to insure that this trail goes in at this point ... trail around the entire wetland. What I'm seeing on the map. ,
Terry's only talking about the north.
Todd Hoffman: ...concept sure. The other pan currently is being used and this is the conceptual and would '
have to be incorporated into the City's comprehensive trail plan for future development.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: I'm hearing economically feasible, and I certainly don't dispute that. Terry, how many
acres or home many homes will Lundgren Bros have in the city of Chanhassen? I mean all totalled. In the
whole city. I mean just real ballpark.
Terry Forbord: You mean since we first came to the city?
Councilman Mason: Yeah. '
Tent' Forbord: Oh, I'm going to guess over 10 years it's probably been 200.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, and that's obviously continuing to grow. '
Terry Forbord: Well our company is growing. '
Councilman Mason: Right. Okay. And I hear this economically feasible and I hear that and I do understand
that but I'm also a little curious to know just how much money Lundgren Bros has made working in Chanhassen
too. And I know you folks have your bottom line. I mean I don't know that I ever need to get into that
argument but if this is a matter of give and take here, I think the city does have a very good relationship with
Lundgren Bros and obviously I think they're a quality product but, I guess I get, I'm a little concerned when I
keep hearing economically feasible. Yet they can spend a quarter of a million dollars on a park for their
development but these other things seem to be a major problem for them. And maybe that's something to think
about. I may in fact be out of line.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what you're trying to say is it gets lumped into the cost of the house and it's part of the
total value.
Councilman Mason: Well, yeah. So I don't know where that stands in this whole picture either I guess. This is '
a real complicated one, I don't deny it.
Terry Forbord: You know a lot of focus keeps being on what this park does for Lundgren Bros. I think that's a
natural thing for anybody to do and if I was in your position I'd be saying, well what is the city getting, is this
just for Lundgren Bros. And one thing that nobody has ever heard from at any of these kind of meetings are the
people who aren't there yet. People who will be your constituents and will be paying the taxes in the
community. And when you have a chance to visit those people in 5 or 10 years, they'll be saying. Boy, this is
47 1
i City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
a great community. I'm really glad that the city has worked to allow these type of...I mean those people aren't
here now and they can't speak for themselves but those people will be citizens and Counciler Senn is absolutely
correct. This does take the impact off some of the other city facilities and to be honest with you, every city
we've ever proposed these to, they have never, ever had the controversy that we've had here. And I think
mainly it's because those cities are a little more developed too and this is new. Usually they're saying, you're
willing to do this and pay for park and trail fees, and that's always been our position. I mean there is a
provision in the city ordinance of Chanhassen that if we propose an association park, you have the right, it's a
provision in the ordinance, to waive the park and trail fees if we agree to build an association park but we've
never asked for that. So I think it's also fair to say, it's our attempt to, and I can't prove this to you until I'm
1 done but I feel very confident that it will be proven. That this will be one of the nicest neighborhoods in
Chanhassen because of the things that we're going to do and that is a benefit to the city. That is a direct benefit
to the community as a whole.
Councilman Mason: Well, that raises a whole nother issue Terry and I don't know if we want to get into what's
nicest. I mean is that dollar value? Is that affordable? Is that upper level? I mean, you just opened a whole
nother can of worms as far as I'm concerned and I'd be happy to get into that one too tonight.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, please don't.
Councilman Mason: Well, it's coming up. One way or the other, affordable housing is an issue here but I think
Fred wanted to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Fred, would you like to come up? One of the other thing before you come here Fred.
Kate, with the total number of homes that we're putting on this 112 acres, have we looked at what we're taking
back out of there for roads and everything else and what are those lot sizes eventually going to be with the size
of homes that are going to be on them?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. When we do the PUD for the density, we take out roads right -of -way and...So if you look
at the gross and the net, that would be reflected as part of the wetlands ... So 1.7 is pretty accurate...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Fred.
Fred Berg: Thank you. Fred Berg, Park and Rec Commission. I just had a couple of things I wanted to say
and hearing about benefits to the city sort of caught my attention a little bit more. I'm hard pressed to see a lot
of benefit to the city as a whole. Number one, this is a nice neighborhood park yet it's going to have signs on
both sides saying it's exclusively for this neighborhood. Period. As far as helping the other people in that area,
it's not going to be an accessible park at all. The second thing is, while these people are coming in and they
have the right to do that certainly, they are going to be using the other city parks as well. They're not going to
be able to play softball in this park. They're not going to be playing hockey. They're not going to be doing any
of the other activities that require larger play areas. To be perfectly honest with you, as far as the 250 x 250 and
1 some of the other issues, I haven't felt comfortable coming up and talking to you about them because I'm so
confused about what's going on and I've been sitting on the commission listening to the presentations for 2 or 3
times anyway and it seems every time things are changing that I'm not aware of. All of a sudden I'm coming to
another meeting and things have changed again because there was a misunderstanding as to what one person
meant and what one person said. It's a very confusing issue. I know you see that when you're looking at your
own packet but as far as the benefit to the city, I guess I don't see it as being as strong as the applicant might be
i sa y in g .
48
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have one comment. We have to keep in mind that this is a PUD and that
does allow you know some, a lot of leeway on the Council's part to request things from the applicant that
'
normally we don't have to. Or we can't.
Mayor Chmiel: And you can also look for the other things that were discussed and are indicated. That those
'
things are probably unaffordable and I don't like getting hung out on a line on that part either. Just not knowing
whether this would be done or whether it won't be done. But the PUD does give us that leeway of saying these
are the areas that we want and they're the areas that we basically need and we go either with that position or
another position that has been brought up. Does Council feel comfortable with this particular project and with
'
that are you at a point where you feel you would like to move on this?
Councilman Wing: Are we still on park and trails or are we digressing now?
Mayor Chmiel: To anything or everything that's involved with it.
,
Councilman Wing: Well I'll support the private driveway. I definitely want to support the road width remaining
at the 50 feet. I have no problem with this neighborhood. But there I have 2 other additions that I mentioned to
Terry that I wanted to add that I think Planning missed or stated they wished they had added. There's a draft
ordinance for boulevard planting in the city coming from the Tree Board. I think today is the time to start. We
have a collector road. Road A going from TH 41 to Galpin, and although it is in a way kind of a neighborhood
street. There's two additional conditions we'd like to add. The planting of boulevard trees on that particular
road. Road Number A ... staff's specifications and I know what those are. We had x feet within the easement
area. X trees per footage. I don't know if it was 60 feet or 100 feet. Anyway the trees, there is a definition of
boulevard trees and boulevard plantings so I'd like to add that. And there would be ... tree preservation
landscaping, item f. They're requiring tree, or boulevard trees per the draft ordinance in the staff
recommendation. And then under item number 31, the addition of street lights. Decorative street lights.
Minnewashta Parkway is a good example. Very non - obtrusive. Low light levels but some lighting. Scenic
lighting. Appropriate lighting along that same road. Collector Road A so item number 31 would be the addition
of street lights. Take that Council.
Councilman Mason: With the selling, the Song's get their road, and I certainly don't fault them for wanting that.
What's to prevent any other home along Galpin Blvd to having a direct access to Galpin Blvd?
Mayor Chmiel: I think there's a provision within the Council as to total distances from one driveway to the
next. But if it meets that criteria, then of course they probably would have that.
Dave Hempel: Mr. Mayor, maybe I could address that a little bit. Actually our city ordinance has provisions for
spacing driveway accesses along collector and arterial streets...That would restrict the interior lot from having
that and that is a condition which is in the staff report. We're not disputing that extra driveway through the
collector for the 10 acre parcel for the Song residence... We've had this come up in other instances where the
Planning Commission wanted us to justify whether to allow it or not to allow it. Each situation is ... so to set a
policy would be really kind of difficult to apply ... The County has jurisdiction on all the access points along their
right -of -way here and ... If it did subdivide in the future...tie into the Carlson parcel at some future date. Not to
say that the cul -de- sac...
49
J City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
' Councilman Wing: We've got one of those driveways in our neighborhood where the ran a driveway down the
Y g Y Y
lot lines. What a nuisance. Maintenance and who plows what and where does the snow they plow go and it's
really unsightly. I'd hate to see a neighborhood that's being developed at this level to suddenly have those type
of interferences. Purely aesthetic.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: It's getting late and I guess this is complicated but I guess I'd like to attempt a motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I've got just a couple issues if I could before you do Mark.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And more of them are just questions or issues. I have some concerns about the
landscaping around Galpin, and I don't see clearly what's going on there. Todd, if you could just give me an
' explanation. or Kate, to what exactly that's going to look like. Or the developer. Somebody give me an
explanation of what's going to go on there.
John Uban: My name is John Uban. Landscape architect and planner for the city. Or for the applicant. Also a
consultant to other communities. Wear too many hats sometimes. We've provided a landscape plan along
Galpin that indicates a variety of plants and it will consist of overstory, some understory or ornamental trees and
some evergreens. And right now they'll generally be mixed with a variety of things to take on a more rural,
natural look rather than a regimented sort of urban street planting. And it's to be planted in combination with
berming. On the grading plan which we don't have, we're trying to get berming where we have the homes the
closest and in some areas where we have a wetland, there's actually a depression so it drops away and we don't
want to build a berm and fill wetlands so there will be some areas where there will actually be some views into
the site itself. So that way it's broken up a little bit and then it's more intense where the homes are close and
we can do some berming and then there's some open pockets where we're protecting the natural wetland and the
view into the wetland.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thank you. And my other question or issue is for Dave. You know we've
got Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge and maybe the townhouses and the school site and we've got the Rottlund
subdivision up there and now we've got this. What are we going to do and when are we going to put traffic
lights on TH 5 and CR 117?
' Mayor Chmiel: That's coming eventually.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well eventually is here. It has to be now.
' Mayor Chmiel: That's with the Highway Department to make that final determination.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it's the Highway Department that determines that?
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we don't order traffic studies or?
1
50
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: No. Well, go ahead Don.
Don Ashworth: On your agenda, and in fact I hoped to have it on this one but the County has proceeded in ,
making an application for traffic signals. You will have on your agenda 2 weeks from today a resolution
supporting that application. Hopefully we'll be able to take the signals, the temporary signals that currently exist
down here by the clock tower, because those are on loan, and actually move those out there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Good answer. Thank you.
Councilman Mason: Somebody's day was just made.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hey, it is suicidal taking a left turn there.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's right but unfortunately you know how the Highway judges when a stop and go light
is put in. After so many deaths and that's a shame but that's the way it goes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well there have been several there so.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Mark, you were going to.
Councilman Senn: Give it a try.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Give it a shot.
Councilman Senn: Let's see here. I would move approval according to staffs recommendations with the
following additions and changes and deletions. How's that? The neighborhood park field area be approved at
180 x 180. That the applicant be required to pay full park and trail fees, as well as provide the neighborhood
park and as well as providing appropriate easements for all trail systems occurring within the development. And
let's see here. And that the applicant would not have any direct responsibility in relationship to the Stockdale
property. And that Song's be able to have the driveway off of Galpin. And that we add these additional
'
conditions. Installation of boulevard trees and the decorative street lights that Dick suggested. And I think that
covered everything because staff's recommendation already had the trail along the wetland and all that other stuff
in there. So that was fine.
,
Councilman Wing: I'll second that for discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Could we clarify that 60 to 50?
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's in there.
Mayor Chmiel: It's there but it has a 60 foot wide on 11.
Councilman Senn: Oh yeah. Staffs recommendation was 50 there so I didn't address that. I assumed that was
'
okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a clarification. Okay, is there a second?
51
1
u
1
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
Councilman Wing: I seconded that.
Todd Hoffman: Clarification on whether the motion was made to accept full park and trail fees and trail
easements. There's no mention of construction of the trail.
Councilman Senn: That was in your recommendation that they should do the construction. I assumed that
meant the construction. I'm saying their cost responsibility is limited to our policy which is full parks and
dedication fees. So what I'm saying is, they pay what they're supposed to pay on park fees and they pay what
they're supposed to pay on trail fees. Plus they're supplying the neighborhood park plus they're providing the
easements.
Todd Hoffman: Do you want the applicant then to bill us for what their material costs would be for our review
and then we reduce those fees accordingly?
Councilman Senn: Well I would assume you do that how you would normally do it. I don't know if that's your
normal way of doing it but.
Todd Hoffman: Sure.
Councilman Senn: You know and l would assume that you guys would probably keep a pretty close eye on
what those overall costs were and bids and all that sort of thing. Or at least subcontractor bids and stuff. Is that
fair?
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I seconded that but this trail issue's still haunting me then. The $300,000.00 for the
neighborhood park, God bless Lundgren Bros. That's their problem.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and that's basically what the motion says. We're out of it other than that.
Councilman Wing: Okay but now, how can we, it's a PUD and as part of approving this whole process how can
we get this trail and how can they contribute and we talked about phases. I don't want to drop the trail issue.
Councilman Senn: But Dick, in the motion. If I'm hearing wrong, but in the motion we're taking in effect, as I
understand it, approximately $200,000.00 from them to turn around and pump back in to those trails and to me
that ought to be a pretty accomplishable number. Again, without numbers in front of me I can't tell you but I'm
saying there's $200,000.00 coming in that can go back to those trails. I'm agreeing with what you said earlier.
I don't think the Stockdale property is their problem and I think we should capture whatever, if it's $100,000.00
hopefully for the trails, then $100,000.00 goes into doing those trails and the other $100,000.00 goes over to help
pay towards other things or whatever. Or the Stockdale property if that's what you still want to do or whatever.
Councilman Wing: The question is, what will you do with the dedication fees. Will they go into the trail or
will they go to buy the 6 acres of the Stockdale.
Todd Hoffman: The Park Commission and City Council have authorized negotiations to purchase the Stockdale
property. We're moving forward in good faith with that. Total dollars generated for park fees are about
52
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1
$120,000.00 and total dollars for trail are approximately $45,000.00 so we're at about $165,000.00. And again,
the motion put forth by the Park Commission which is included in your recommendation tonight is to have
Lundgren build the trail which again as both the applicant and staff have stated tonight, has not been. Originally ,
it was identified as a standard city trail which is 6 inches of crushed and 3 inches of blacktop. But again, if you
diminish the cost to make this thing maybe a little bit more conducive to the natural, passive type park ..crushed
rock. I think if you waived $45,000.00 worth of park fees, or excuse me, trail fees and asked the applicant to '
build that segment of trail in a crushed rock manner, I don't have the dollar figures either but it sounds
like... equitable to me.
Councilman Wing: That would be my friendly amendment. That would resolve my problem that he be given
credit for that but be charged with building that trail as described. And it may or may not cost more. It's true,
it may but we are going with the crushed rock too so that's clearly lifting a burden and a compromise.
Councilman Senn: So what you're asking is that he be required to build and pay for the entire trail through plus
pay the trail fees?
Councilman Wing: No, no.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, waive the trail fees.
Councilman Wing: Waive the trail fees. t
Councilman Senn: Waive the trail fees. Build the trail through. Pay the park fees.
Councilman Wing: And then have his way with the city park which I think we agree on.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I don't have a problem with that but I mean at the same time, until we know that
number I guess I'd like to. Well I guess let's go with it that way but I want to leave the door open because if
that trail number comes in at something that's just, $300,000.00 or something, I think the developer ought to
have the right to come back in and say whoops. You know this number. We can't afford this because again I '
get real uneasy when you're talking about projects that have absolutely no dollar amount attached to them. So I
have no problem with that going forward but leaving the door open for the developer to come back if that cost is
proven to be prohibitive. Todd, is that fair?
Mayor Chmiel: The project could be unacceptable then.
Councilman Senn: I think the city staff, our consultant and the developer I think should work very quickly to
establish a cost.
Todd Hoffman: ...cost is grubbing, clearing and grubbing and for installation of rock. Restoration. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that acceptable with that as a second? To the motion. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: So, you're asking me to say I don't care about that neighborhood park so we can get that
trail in there?
Councilman Wing: I'm offering my opinion. I heard you loud and clear. I don't necessarily disagree with you I
53 1
t
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
Mike. I'm personally discounting it. We're picking up the Stockdale park and we're picking up the trail and
that to me is a big issue. What Tent' does with his neighborhood is not a big issue.
Councilman Mason: Well but, that neighborhood is in our city so I do see it as an issue and I don't like the idea
of having signs up saying, you don't live here. You can't come in here.
Mayor Chmiel: Well they're going to be there.
Councilman Senn: We've got them all over the city already.
Councilman Wing: I'm going to sneak in there anyway. I wait until Jerome and his wife leave and then I go
pheasant hunting in his back yard.
Jerome Carlson: I count them every morning.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the preliminary PUD #93.3 of 111.77
acres of property to create 115 single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet.
Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided for side yards as each
building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are
permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that
improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are
required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory structures. These must
comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks.
3. Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this number of trees 2rfz" or
larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be placed in the lot in question or clustered as
appropriate based upon an approved landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to
buffering requirements along Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots " Trees to be selected from
approved city list of over story trees, minimum 2 diameter at time of installation. Seed and sod required
for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee
installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape
berm for city approval.
4. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for review and approval.
The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria consistent with the PUD. Association
documents should clearly establish maintenance and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities,
landscaping and parcels.
5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat.
6. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are predicated upon the
54
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1
construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs, financial guarantees ensuring its construction,
,
must be posted. The association park will be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on the preliminary
plat."
"A"
'
7. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on the street
alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to have native wetland vegetation
established. This installation shall be completed with site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees.
'
Concurrent with final approval, the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be
employed. This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is to be covered by
sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are established in the applicant's
compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage caused by the
sanitary sewer crossing between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development
contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required
wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. At this time we
are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The
applicant is responsible for providing wetland mitigation for impacts stemming from the ultimate
improvement of Galpin and trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will asstune responsibility for
obtaining the necessary permits for this activity."
,
8. Tree Preservation/Landscaping:
a. Detailed plans with the final plat for landscaping the cul -de -sac islands be developed for approval.
b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and berming where feasible). This feature must ,
be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of
preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the
applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around '
the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation
elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas.
c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from the official tree list '
that is being prepared by the Tree Board.
d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees.
e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise satisfactorily marked and all
erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city before undertaking '
any grading of construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas as recommended by
staff.
f. Planting of boulevard trees on Street A per city specifications. '
9. Park and Trails: '
Parks
55
i City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
a. The private /association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 180
feet by 180 feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in
addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is
' ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. Such a provision must be
drafted into association documents.
b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application.
c. If in the future there is a dissolution or any type of breakdown in this neighborhood association, that the
city will be deeded this park as a park and not subdivided into lots.
Trails
a. It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of -way except within 200 feet of
street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in width is required. Furthermore, that
this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being
prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant,
' but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a
pan of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench.
b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the
Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and
construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and
at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer
' and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication
of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full
trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and
John son/Dolej si/Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions
of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson /Dolejsi/Turner properties.] Fees
associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be waived.
This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a
similar suitable location in the near vicinity.
10. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' deck and 30' rear yard
without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat.
11. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right -of -ways on Streets B, D and G to a 60 -foot
wide right -of -way with Streets H and I to be 50 feet wide with the standard street section. The applicant
was granted a 25' front yard setback. Staff also agreed to allow for the construction of retaining walls in
the ROW of streets H and I to save trees so long as they are maintained by the Association
12. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located
outside the public right -of -ways including drainage basins. The minimum width should be 20 feet. The
plans should also be revised to include an improved surface over the east edge of Oudot F to provide the
City access to the sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. Access may be covered with
sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff.
56
u
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 `.
13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, Health
Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers.
14. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a '
100 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval
prior to final platting. '
15. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A
and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, Carver County Highway Department, and staff
shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street.
16. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the
Fire Marshal's recommendation.
17. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or provided with a wood -fiber
blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov. 15 each construction season. Areas where street
and/or utility construction will occur throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home
'
sites when building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant an
extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas shall be restored in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook.
18. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition
of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City
staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs
'
trunk sewer and water improvements which is considered anything over an 8 -inch pipe diameter, a credit
will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements which will
be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be determined as the cost difference between the
'
standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement.
19. As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with
the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval
of final platting.
20. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The Song homestead shall
gain access via a direct connection to "B" Street.
21. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval.
22. The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with the future upgrade of
Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no beaming or drainage facilities will be allowed '
to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard right -of -way.
23. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the development to avoid its being
impacted by street and trail construction. '
24. A private driveway easement should be conveyed for access to Lot 9, Block 1 between Lots 4 and 5, Block
1 off of B Street.
57 1
LJ
City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993
25. The street grades shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7% except on
H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to a 7 ton design.
26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be extended to serve the
parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension may be through either H Street or another
Street location within the Johnson /Dolejsi/Tumer property immediately to the west.
27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A and E streets, and the
proposed cul -de -sac islands, are to be allowed subject to incorporation of modifications requested by staff
and to meet State Aid requirements.
28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City.
29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary turnaround
and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be
placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in the vicinity.
30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a width of 20 feet, be
constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal.
31. Decorative street lighting be installed along the collector Street A.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor. Council. I'd like to thank all of you. I'd like—just a couple closing comments.
This has been a real difficult process for me personally working with staff ...If it wasn't for the Mayor and Don
Ashworth, Todd Hoffman, Paul Krauss being resilient and me trying to be resilient, we wouldn't have gotten to
this point. But I want to thank all of you. This has been the hardest project on me personally that I've ever had
to work on. Not because people didn't care but just because it's been a sensitive issue. And all the people...
deserve a lot of credit because they put a lot more work in here than meets the eye. And I forgot to mention
Dave.
I Mayor Chmiel: We appreciate that.
Terry Forbord: ...and I haven't been the easiest fellow to work with. I apologize for that and I appreciate all...
Thank you very much.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
' Councilman Mason: Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. Fences are being moved. They're grading at 1:00 in the
morning. Trees are getting cut down that aren't supposed to be. Do we know what's going on there Kate? I
know Paul isn't here tonight. 1 think it's been his.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There was a meeting held with them ... with the developer...
C
58
C
i
r_J
CITY OF za)
CHANIHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: June 27, 1994
SUBJ: Modifications the Final Plat Approval of the Woods at Longacres
The following changes need to be made to the Recommendations for condition of approval:
1. Developer is responsible for demonstration a minimum 20 foot separation is provided
for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6
feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yards setback may be
reduced down to 20 feet on Lots 1, 844,10, Block 1, Lot 2, Block 3, and Lot 2, Block
4.
4. Trails (a). It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of-
way except with 299 100 feet of street intersections.
8. Hunter Drive has a 200 foot deceleration lane on Galpin Boulevard, The trail should
' shall be located within the plat adjacent to the deceleration lane for the first 100 feet
from the center line of Hunters Drive.
r
The applicant has requested that the council address one other issue although is not under
consideration with this phase of the final plat. Under preliminary plat approval the Council
gave consideration to direct access to Galpin Boulevard to the future song home. This
approval is not accurately reflected in the conditions of approval in the minutes. ( See
minutes dated November 8, 1993, page 49). Staff is recommending the following
modifications to preliminary conditions of approval to clarify this ambiguity.
20. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117),. The
" . except the
future Song residence which access is contingent upon approval from the Carver
County Highway Department. If approval from the County is not given access to
Lot 9 Block 1 shall be between Lots 4 and 5 Block 1 off of "B" Street. I
24.
bets -^T -meek 1 ef€ ef"B" 81feot This condition can be eliminated because it
has been addresses in condition #20.
1
r