8. Rezoning and Preliminary Plat - Patrick Mingerr
t
CITY OF
� CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 5/18/94
6/01/94
CC DATE: 6/13/94
CASE #: 93 -25 SUB, 94 -1 REZ
' U
�a
la
1
1
1
1
H
Cn
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval on 9.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots
and rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single -
Family Residential, RSF and a front yard setback variance of ten (10) feet to
permit a front yard setback of 20 feet
LOCATION: South of Timberwood Drive on the east side of Galpin Boulevard. A parcel
lying in the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 15,
Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota.
APPLICANT: Patrick & Karen Minger
8221 Galpin Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2
ACREAGE: 9.46 acres
DENSITY: gross: 2.01 units per acre net: 2.17 units per acre
Rejec ?e+
ADJACENT ZONING Dat - 7 - 1 4
AND LAND USE: N - RR, Timberwood Estates D °te Subrnated to Commissio
S - A2, single - family home, and RSF, park site
E - RR, Timberwood Estates Date Submitted W - Galpin Boulevard, and PUD, Trotters Ridge
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site currently is densely wooded with a central hardwood type
forest. There are significant stands of trees scattered throughout the site with the predominate
species being oak. A drainage incline traverses the eastern third of the site from north to south
emptying into a tributary of Bluff Creek. The only unforested area on the site is along the existing
driveway, which follows the northern property line of the site and the area near the existing house.
The high point of the site is at elevation 960 and is located approximately 500 feet from the entrance
on Galpin Boulevard. Additional high points are located at the termini of each cul -de -sac.
4.0 units
1
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
' Update June 6, 1994
Page 2
' PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of a 9.46 acre parcel into 17 single - family
residential lots with a net density of 2.17 units per acre and the rezoning of the property from
Agricultural Estate, A2, to Single Family Residential, RSF. The project is located
' approximately one -half mile south of Highway 5 on the east side of Galpin Boulevard
(County Road 19). Proposed lot sizes vary from 15,000 square feet to 37,480 square feet
with an average lot size of 18,879 square feet. There are two outlots that is are proposed: to
' be combined with the property to the west. A trail easement will be necessary along Outlot
A or Lot 17. The subdivision is located in a densely wooded area with a predominance of
significant oak trees dispersed throughout the site. The preservation of substantial areas of
' undisturbed trees will be a great amenity for this site as well as the city as a whole.
In order to facilitate the preservation of trees, the applicant has proposed the reduction in
' right -of -way width from 60 to 50 feet. Conceptually, staff can support the use of reduced
right -of -way width. However, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that significant
tree preservation is directly related to the modification to the right -of -way width reduction.
' This realignment will create larger lots around the perimeter of the site, creating a better
transition from the large lots in Timberwood Estates and allowing them to establish tree
conservation areas. Additionally, through the reduction of the required front setbacks, which
' the applicant discussed with staff at a meeting on May 10, 1994, the applicant should be able
to incorporate a treed buffer along the northern and eastern perimeter of the property through
the preservation of the existing trees. A woodland management plan will be required as part
' of the submittal package for the final platting of the development. It should be noted that the
lots within Timberwood Estates that abut this development have few if any significant trees
on them.
' The realignment of the streets as recommended in this report may result in the loss of Lot 13.
This change would reduce the net density to 2.04 units per acre and raise the average lot size
' to 20,900 square feet.
Staff supports of the general layout and concept of the project and is recommending that this
' proposal be approved subject to the conditions contained in this staff report. Staff is
recommending that an extensive tree preservation easement be incorporated into the final plat
and that the applioant ifivestigate the use of a private dfive to sefnve the feuf lets at the end e
' the eastefly etil de sac. Staff met with the applicant on Monday, June 6, 1994, to
determine whether the use of a private drive would provide additional tree protection
' and after reviewing the plans, it was decided that in this instance the private drive
would not afford additional tree preservation. Additionally, staff and the applicant have
meet to decide on the final placement for tree preservation easements. It was agreed
r
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994 '
Update June 6, 1994
Page 3
that the easements between lots would not be practical and was therefore eliminated on ,
Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 14. Individual grading plans at the time of building permit
application will be required to meet the tree preservation requirement. The following '
easements have been revised based upon our meeting: Lot 7, reduce easement to thirty
(30) feet from fifty (50) feet due to cul -de -sac location; Lot 8, reduce easement along east
property line from fifty (50) feet to forty (40) feet due to cul -de -sac and west property '
line locations; Lot 14, reduce easement from fifty (50) feet to forty (40) due to roadway
realignment.
BACKGROUND
This parcel currently contains the home of Pat and Karen Minger which is located in the '
northeast corner of the site. The property is bounded on the north and east by Timberwood
Estates, a large lot subdivision. To the south, parkland has been dedicated to the city as part
of the Stone Creek Second Addition. The city cemetery is located just to the north of this '
plat.
STREETS /ACCESS I
The project will be accessed from Galpin Boulevard which is also known as County Road 19.
This roadway is designated as a collector road by the City's Land Use Map. The applicant is ,
proposing the use of fifty foot right -of -ways within the development. Upon review of the tree
removal plan with a 50 foot right of way, staff has concluded that up to 53 trees will be
removed instead of the 44 trees shown on the plan. The close vicinity of the street grading '
will most likely damage 9 additional trees. On Lot 1, a retaining wall should be installed to
help preserve the 34 -inch oak and a 28 -inch oak . There are also two oaks that may be lost ,
due to the construction of the park trail. Therefore, staff recommends that the trail be
relocated slightly to minimize tree impact. In addition, the tree removal plan with a 20 foot
house setback shows that 68 trees will be removed instead of the 61 trees shown on the plan. '
Staff has concluded than an additional 7 trees will be lost during the grading and construction
of these house pads. The loss of an additional 16 trees to the site is still less than what
would be lost with a 60 foot right of way and 30 foot house setback. Therefore, staff is ,
comfortable in compromising on the 50 foot right of way and 20 foot house setback to
preserve the tree resource. The Minger's private driveway shall be relocated once the street
is paved and the existing driveway removed. I
The site currently accesses from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) via a shared blacktop
driveway. Expanding the driveway use to a city street will have to be reviewed and approved '
by the Carver County Highway Department. Carver County has submitted comments
regarding this proposed subdivision. They have indicated that consideration will have to be
F
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
' Update June 6, 1994
Page 4
' given for turn lane installation at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard. An access permit will
need to be obtained from Carver County for construction of this access and turn lane.
' The plans have been revised to reflect a 60 foot radius in the cul -de -sacs and have
incorporated 60' by 60' building pads on most of the lots.
' Galpin Boulevard is earmarked for upgrading within the next two years in conjunction with
the new school as well as recent residential development along Galpin Boulevard. The
upgrade will most likely widen Galpin Boulevard to a four -lane urban street section with
' trails or sidewalks on each side of the street. The right -of -way along Galpin Boulevard
currently exists at 66 feet wide. The applicant has provided additional easements to the city
in conjunction with the city sewer and water project. Therefore, additional right -of -way is not
' needed at this time.
' The street system is proposed to be constructed in accordance to city standards (31 -foot wide
back -to -back with concrete curb and gutter). Private driveways could be used to shorten the
lengths of the cul -de -sacs and possibly reduce grading impacts and tree removal. Staff met
' with the applicant on Monday, June 6, 1994, to determine whether the use of a private
drive would provide additional tree protection and after reviewing the plans, it was
decided that in this instance the private drive would not afford additional tree
' preservation. off still beli that the , of ., pr - i v ate d an d th s► a ft e.,;.,,. e f +,,o
This altefflative will fnest likely F in the r of Let 13 te Enake up for the let area
' 184 O rLE4S 11 afid 12 With the ele6atzen of �e -earl dosac. The applicant will be required
to enter into a development contract with the city to guarantee compliance with the conditions
of approval and guarantee installation of the public improvements. Outlot A is proposed for a
' trail extension to the city park immediately south of this development. Staff is concerned that
future lots from the west will not be able to connect to the cul -de -sac. Staff recommends that
the applicant work with the neighbor to sell/convey Outlot A and grant a 20 -foot wide trail
' easement to the city centered along the west line of Lot 17. Due to existing trees, the exact
alignment may have to be determined in the field to minimize impacts to the vegetation.
I LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
The applicant has provided a canopy cover delineation, performed the base line canopy
' coverage calculations, as well as estimated the amount of canopy coverage that will be
removed as part of the development, and incorporated 60 by 60 building pads on the lots.
' This review shows that there is a 96.5 percent base line canopy coverage. It is estimated that
there will be a 56.2 percent post development canopy coverage area or 5.32 acres of tree
r
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
Update June 6, 1994
Page 5
canopy. The tree preservation requirement for the site is 55 percent which amounts to 5.2
acres of tree canopy coverage.
Staff believes that the applicant will be able to comply with the requirements of the
subdivision landscaping requirements and that they will meet or exceed the standards
provided therein. Staff supports the use of reduced right -of -way width as well as reduction
to the front setback requirements. The realignment of the easterly cul -de -sac ten feet to the
east created slightly larger lots around the perimeter of the site and allowed the creation of
tree conservation areas. Through the reduction of the required front setbacks, the applicant
s .hould be able to incorporate a treed buffer along the northern and eastern perimeter of the
property through the preservation of the existing trees. It should be noted that the lots within
Timberwood Estates that abut this development have few if any significant trees on them.
Staff is recommending that a fifty (50) foot tree conservation area be dedicated along the
perimeter of the plat, except for Lot 7 where a thirty (30) foot easement will be required
and Lot 8 along the easterly property line where a forty (40) foot easement will be
required. Within this area only selective thinning to promote the health and survivability of
trees will be permitted or such other clearing or preventative care measures as delineated
in the woodland management plan. Additionally, this area, especially along the northern
border of the plat could be used as a forestation or replacement area for trees. Thinning,
forestation, and tree replacement are conditioned on the development of a Woodland
Management Plan by a forestry professional that would address these issues. The following
tree conservation easements would also be dedicated as part of the plat: et
easement eenter-ed an the eewmaa lot lines of Lots 2 and 3, and Lots 4 and 5 a t-wen�y (20)
feet e .,1 „« the S l f l 5; u t e t line oet n_t _(20) feet e ., 1eng the fieftL, ..
1„t line of Let :7; a fifty (50) foot easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 10, 11, -I4, and 15:
f y (nm f e .,1e the se lot line of lot 1 a forty (40) foot easement
along the easterly property line of Lot 14; an easement over the southern 115 feet of Lot
13; and an eighty (80) foot easement along the east lot line of Lot 16. No construction
activity of any kind will be permitted within these easements except the drainage tile
installation in the rear yards of lots 10 and 11, the removal of the existing driveway in
lots 1, 2, and 3, and the placement of small sheds, storage structures, or play equipment
under guidelines incorporated in the Woodland Management Plan. As can be seen in the
table below, ample area remains of each lot for the placement of a structure that does not
encroach into the conservation area. Additionally, the dedicated land accounts for
approximately 74 60 percent of the required canopy coverage area, 3 .63 3.08 acres of the
total 5.2 acres required.
t
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
Update June 6, 1994
Page 6
I CONSERVATION EASEMENT IMPACTS ON DEVELOPABLE LOT AREA
1
LOT
LOT
AREA
PRESERVATION
AREA
DEVELOPABLE
AREA
PERCENT LOT
DEVELOPABLE
1
25,030
12,250
12,780
51
2
15,000
5,000
10,000
67
3
15,000
5,000
10,000
67
4
16,950
6,300
10,650
63
5
37,480
15,425
22,055
59
6
16,410
5,850
10,560
64
7
16,860
4,350
12,510
74
8
21,760
11,350
10,410
48
9
20,310
11,000
9,310
46
10
20,010
9,280
10,730
54
11
15,180
5,500
9,500
63
12
15,000
0
15,180
100
13
16,220
4,375
13,205
75
14
17,580
5,575
12,005
68
15
18,290
6,640
11,650
64
16
32,580
17,800
15,050
45
17
18,150
8,000
10,150
56
A
6,510
B
1,480
TOTAL
328,940
134,057
194,883
59
r
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
Update June 6, 1994
Page 7
Staff is recommending that a Woodland Management Plan be developed for the subdivision
prior to the final platting of the property. This plan shall comply with section 18 -61 (d) (3)
of the City Code. The applicant will also be required to submit a landscaping plan for the
development. Prior to final platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard
landscaping plan for the first 300 feet of the entrance road into the development in order to
replace the existing vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and utility grading
into the site. The applicant shall also revegetate with ground cover, trees and bushes the area
of the existing driveway to their home upon completion of the roadway to their lot. Also, a
minimum of one tree shall be required in the front yard of each lot, either existing or new,
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
GRADING /DRAINAGE
There is an existing drainageway on the property through the rear yards of Lots 10, 11, and
12. The drainageway will have to be maintained or relocated to maintain rear yard drainage
on the lots. The final plat should dedicate a drainage and utility easement over this area.
The revised plans still have not adequately resolved this drainage concern. The plans propose
a drainage swale immediately behind the houses.
it may be poss ible t p ull the ho use pad away f the dr swu v 1° . At a meeting with
the applicant on June 6, 1994, it was determined that the installation of drainage tile
along this drainage swale will solve the stormwater drainage concern for the homes in
this area.
Grading for the street will involve grading outside the road right -of -way on the Dempsey
parcel which is immediately west of the site. The applicant has been working with Mr.
Dempsey to acquire easements and other negotiable items. One such item is for the first
southerly cul -de -sac off the main street. At this time, the applicant is requesting to service
the four homes via a private driveway within a 50 -foot wide dedicated right -of -way. The
future subdivision of the parcel to the west would then only be required to grant an additional
10 feet of right -of -way if the city's current design standards are maintained. This property
owner would be required to upgrade the cul -de -sac to a full city street. Staff has reviewed
this with the applicant and is comfortable with this scenario; however, we are concerned that
if the property owner to the west (Dempsey) sells or vacates the property that there should be
a method of explaining the responsibilities with regards to the upgrade of this road so the
homeowners on Lots 14 through 17 would not be responsible for any assessments of the
upgrade.
Staff has again visited the sight to determine the impact of grading on the vegetation located
on the north side of the proposed entrance roadway. The property line runs down the middle
r
u
u
J
L
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
Update June 6, 1994
Page 8
' of the vegetation and therefore much of the trees and bushes should be preserved even with
the road construction. This should provide a good buffer to the property to the north.
' The City has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages
of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its
water resources. The plan identifies from a regional perspective the stormwater quantity and
' quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its
impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a
100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm
' sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s PONDNET
model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate
' conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land
use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to
determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
' The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication
will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus
' load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be
based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50
' per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct the
water quality basin, these fees will be waived.
' The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average,
city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed
SWMP culverts and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff
' storage. Single family/low density developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per
acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment
fee of $19,980. This trunk fee is negotiable upon the developers contribution to downstream
' water quantity improvements.
The plans propose to discharge runoff from the front yards and streets into a storm sewer
' which outlets into a stormwater pond just south of the entrance on the east side of Galpin
Boulevard. This will require easement dedication from the neighbor (Dempsey). The storm
sewer must be designed for a 10 -year storm capacity. The runoff from the cemetery should
' also be considered for ponding design purposes. This is a small area from the north side of
the entrance to the top of the cemetery hill. The City's Surface Water Management Plan
' (SWMP) requires that this pond meet Walker Pondnet standard with a phosphorus removal
efficiency of 64 percent. The pond must be capable of retaining the 100 -year storm on a
f
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
Update June 6, 1994
Page 9
temporary basis since the downstream storm water quantity improvements are not constructed
yet.
EROSION CONTROL
The grading plan does provide erosion control measures during construction. Additional
erosion control measures may be employed during new home construction in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
UTILITIES
The city is currently extending trunk sewer and water along Galpin Boulevard adjacent to this
parcel (Project No. 91 -17B). The applicant will be able to connect to the trunk utilities and
extend them into the site to service these lots after June 15, 1994. Detailed construction plans
and specifications in accordance with the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates will be required as a part of the final plat submittal. A preliminary utility layout
plan has been submitted with the preliminary plat. Upon quick review of the layout, some
minor adjusting of the hydrant locations in accordance with the City's Fire Marshal may be
necessary. Detailed review of the utility layouts are performed in conjunction with the plan
and specification approval process.
This parcel will sustain assessments for the extension of trunk utilities to the area. The
assessments have been determined at $970 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,275 per unit for
water. The city has determined the number of assessable units for these two parcels as
follows: 1) Minger - 18 units = $40,410; 2) Dempsey - 7 units = $15,715. As you may have
noticed, the plat reflects only 17 lots, not 18 lots as estimated by the city. However, some of
the lots within the plat are very large and therefore consideration for reduction of one unit
may not be warranted. However, should the Planning Commission or City Council request
that the applicant provide a buffer yard to save significant trees which forces the applicant
into 16 lots, then a reduction in the assessments would be warranted.
Individual sewer and water services will be provided to the Dempsey parcel in conjunction
with the overall project. Based on a mock plat, it appears the site has the potential for eight
single - family lots. The applicant will provide these individual sewer and water services at no
charge to the neighbor at this time. However, the applicant is requesting the city collect and
reimburse them the connection charges when the neighbor utilizes the individual services.
Staff and the applicant will work together in determining the actual dollar amount it takes to
provide these services to the Dempsey parcel. This "rebate" program has been done on
several occasions on other projects where the city has reimbursed the developer a portion of
I
n
1
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
Update June 6, 1994
Page 10
their costs for constructing the lateral line and individual services adjacent to parcels that did
not want hook ups at that time.
The parcel contains an existing house (Minger's house) which, as a part of the utility
construction, which will need to be connected to the new sewer and water mains.
Construction of street system and utilities will destroy the current septic drainfields. In
' addition, city ordinance requires existing homes within 150 feet of the sewer line be
connected within 12 months after the line becomes operational. There is another existing
home (Dempsey) just off the first cul -de -sac. This home is anticipated to be within 150 feet
' of the new sewer and water lines as well. However, after discussions with the homeowner
and applicant, they request that the city grant a variance from this ordinance until their septic
system fails or they sell the property. Staff is in support of this recommendation since the
septic and well sites will not be impacted as a part of the street and utility project and are in
good operating condition.
' PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Outlot A is being proposed for trail dedication purposes to connect this development to the
park site located directly to the south. At a meeting with the developer and the neighboring
property owner, it was also discussed that this outlot may be sold to the abutting property
owner to help straighten the property boundaries. If this option is used, a twenty foot trail
easement will be dedicated along the common property line of Lot 17 and Oudot A. At the
time of final platting, the developer will be required to pay park and trail fees as specified by
city ordinance.
On Tuesday, May 24, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the Minger
subdivision. Mr. Pat Minger was present at the commission's meeting and participated in the
discussion. Issues of concern to the commission centered on the public trail access to the
parkland south of the subdivision via the west cul -de -sac. Not only is the commission
recommending that this trail be accommodated through the acquisition of a 20 ft. utility
easement, they would also like an 8 ft. asphalt trail stub constructed from the cul -de -sac to
the rear lot lines within the easement. The commission wishes to ensure that public access to
the trail is maintained if the west cul -de -sac is constructed as a private drive. This should not
be of concern since the applicant will be dedicating a 50 foot wide right of way along with a
60 foot radius in the cul -de -sac. The Commission recommended the following conditions:
1. Accept full park and trail dedication fees as prescribed by city ordinance for
the Minger subdivision in lieu of land acquisition.
P]
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
Update June 6, 1994
Page 11
2. Provide a 20 ft. trail easement to the west of Lot 17 for connection to the city
park.
3. Construct an 8 ft. wide asphalt trail stub within this easement. The city shall
reimburse the developer for this construction.
4. Design an adequate landscape buffer between this easement and the home
which will be constructed on Lot 17.
REZONING
The rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Single Family Residential, RSF,
is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is compatible with the surrounding residential
uses.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Lot area Lot width Lot Depth
Sg. Ft. Ft. Ft.
Code: 15,000 90 125
Proposal Lot:
1
25,030
361
150
2
15,000
100
150
3
15,000
100
150
4
16,950
92.5
150
5
37,480
85#
160
6
16,410
100
145
7
16,860
175
145
8
21,760
83#
138
9
20,310
55#
138
10
20,010
70#
139
11
15,180
110
136
12
15,000
102
133
13
16,220
101.8
224.4
14
17,580
136
142
15
18,290
119
143
16
32,580
60#
164
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
' Update June 6, 1994
Page 12
' 17 18,150 76# 154
Outlot A 6,510* 22* 134*
Outlot B 1,480 60 30
' Notes: * is intended for dedication as a trail segment; # meets minimum requirement at
building setback: Outlot B is a result of the realignment of the intersection and may be sold
' to the abutting property owner or retained as open area.
FINDINGS
' 1. The ro osed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
P P g
' Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District lot dimension and area requirements. The applicant is
' requesting that the city approve variances to the right -of -way width and
building setback in order to facilitate the preservation of trees. Staff believes
that these methods will save additional trees. The applicant has clearly
' demonstrated that significant tree preservation is a direct result of the requested
variances.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. The
proposed density of the development is within the parameters established by
the comprehensive plan.
1 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
' water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the
' conditions specified in this report. The subdivision should provide an attractive
neighborhood for the residents who move into the development.
t 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
Update June 6, 1994 '
Page 13
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure t
as part of the improvements required of the subdivision..
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; '
Finding: While any development of a natural site causes some environmental '
damage, staff believes that the applicant will have minimized the impact on the
site based on the conditions outlined in this report and the revisions to the plan.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. '
Finding The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,
but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the I
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure and is located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area '
(MUSA) line.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE I
The Planning Commission met on May 18 and June 1, 1994 to review the proposed
preliminary plat and rezoning. The proposal was tabled at the May 18th hearing in order to '
permit the applicant to revise the development plans and provide additional information
regarding tree preservation and stormwater drainage improvements based on discussions held ,
between the developer and city staff on May 10, 1994 and to incorporate additional changes
recommended by the Planning Commission at the May 18 public hearing. The applicant
revised the plan accordingly and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the '
development proposal subject to the conditions below by a vote of four to one.
The one vote in opposition to the development was based on a concern that this development
was too dense given that Timberwood Estates has two and one -half acre lots. Staff pointed
out that this property is guided for low density residential which would permit a net density
I
I
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
Update June 6, 1994
Page 14
of between 1.2 and 4.0 units per acre. The proposed subdivision is well within these
parameters at 2.1 units per net acre.
The Planning Commission added condition 24. This condition repeats condition 12. Staff
has met with the applicant and determined that in this instance, the private street would not
enhance tree preservation and therefore should not be a condition of approval. Staff has also
worked with the applicant to determine the tree conservation easement areas. Based on this
discussion, staff is proposing the revision of the easement areas as specified in condition
number 4.
RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
' "The City Council approves 93 -25 Subdivision and 94 -1 Rezoning providing for the
preliminary plat on 9.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots, rezoning of the property
from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single - Family Residential, RSF and a front yard
' setback variance of ten (10) feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet throughout the
development subject to the following conditions:
Accept full park and trail dedication fees as prescribed by city ordinance for the
Minger subdivision in lieu of land acquisition.
2. Provide a 20 ft. trail easement to the west of Lot 17 for connection to the city park
and construct an 8 ft wide asphalt trail stub within this easement. The city shall
reimburse the developer for this construction. In addition, design an adequate
landscape buffer between this easement and the home which will be constructed on
Lot 17.
3. Prior to final platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard
landscaping plan for the first 300 feet of the entrance road into the development in
order to replace the existing vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and
utility grading into the site. A Woodland Management Plan shall be developed for
the subdivision prior to the final platting of the property. This plan shall comply with
section 18 -61 (d) (3) of the City Code.
4. Incorporate a fifty (50) foot tree conservation area be dedicated along the perimeter of
the plat, except for Lot 7 where a thirty (30) foot easement will be required and
Lot 8 along the easterly property line where a forty (40) foot easement will be
required. Within this area only selective thinning to promote the health and
1
Minger Addition '
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994 ,
Update June 6, 1994
Page 15
survivability of trees will be permitted or such other clearing or preventative care '
measures as delineated in the woodland management plan. Additionally, this area,
especially along the northern border of the plat could be used as a forestation or '
replacement area for trees. Thinning, forestation, and tree replacement are conditioned
on the development of a Woodland Management Plan by a forestry professional that
would address these issues. The following tree conservation easements would also be ,
dedicated as part of the plat: a " (40) feat easement eenter-ed en the eammen lot
li of Lots 2 a n d 2 , a nd Lets A and twenty 5; twenty (20) feet easement al the sq.,tl,
! 1; „e o f ! 5; a t (20) fe easement alefig the _HaFt . l o t line of Let 7; a fifty '
(50) foot easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 10, 11,— -4 and 15: et
easement along the seuth let line of lot 12; a forty (40) foot easement along the
easterly property line of Lot 14; an easement over the southern 115 feet of Lot 13;
and an eighty (80) foot easement along the east lot line of Lot 16. No construction
activity of any kind will be permitted within these easements except the drainage tile
installation in the rear yards of Lots 10 and 11, the removal of the existing 1
driveway in Lots 1, 2, and 3, and the placement of small sheds, storage structures,
or play equipment under guidelines incorporated in the Woodland Management
Plan. The applicant shall work with staff on the adjustment of easements and '
house pads on individual lots to save additional trees.
5. The applicant shall include runoff from the cemetery in the proposed pond design and I
construction.
6. Remove the applicant's existing private driveway once the street is paved with the first '
lift of asphalt.
7. Provide water quantity /quality ponding according to SWMP requirements. '
8. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls to save the 34 -inch oak and 28-
inch oak on Lot 1, Block 1. t
9. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, '
for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the
approved names after their review and approval. The existing homes will be required
to change their addresses consistent with the new street names and numbering system '
10. Compliance with the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum from Bill
Weckman, Assistant Carver County Engineer to Bob Generous dated 4/25/94. '
I
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
Update June 6, 1994
Page 16
' 11. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the public improvements will be
required for submittal with final plat approval. All street and utility construction shall
be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates.
' Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council
approval.
' 12. Prior to the city signing the final plat, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to
guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval.
13. The Minger's house shall be connected to sanitary sewer within 30 days after the line
' becomes operational. The Dempsey's house will have to connect to sanitary sewer
within 12 months after connection becomes available. The homes may utilize their
existing wells until they fail, then the parcels must connect to city water. The existing
' septic systems shall be abandoned per state and /or local codes.
14. The applicant shall apply and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory
' agencies such as MPCA, health department, watershed district, DNR and Carver
County Highway Department.
I 15. The developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction.
' 16. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe
sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle
10 -year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as
' well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the
predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be
consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook.
' 17. A 10 foot clears ace must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid in' to
P Y JAY
fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable
boxes, landscaping.
' 18. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or
substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing
requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
r
Minger Addition
May 18, 1994
Revised May 26, 1994
Update June 6, 1994
Page 17
19. Depending on the storm ponding calculations, if the development is not meeting the
City SWMP for water quantity, then the applicant will be required to contribute into
the City's SWMP program. The proposed rate per acre for single family is
$1,980 /acre excluding wetlands.
t
1
i
20. Applicant shall shift the westerly cul -de -sac ten to fifteen feet east at the intersection I
to move the roadway away from the existing house.
Attachments
1. Development Review Application
2. Revised Preliminary Plat/Utility Plan
3. Revised Preliminary Plat Grading/Drainage Plan
4. Memo from Dave Hempel dated 5/11/94
5: Memo from Mark Littfin dated 5/5/94
6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated 5/2/94
7. Memo from Bill Weckman dated 4/25/94
8. Letter from Robert Generous to Patrick Minger dated 11/5/93
9. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List
10. Letter from Peter Knaeble to Bob Generous dated 5/19/94
11. Planning Commission minutes dated May 18, 1994.
12. Planning Commission minutes dated June 1, 1994.
J
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: p k ��� a� e �q OWNER:
ADDRESS: B 2 Z i �� 3 �"� ADDRESS:
C �a r5 P_ /V? 5 1 - 3(7
TELEPHONE (Day time) `0 0 - '� I � TELEPHONE:
J
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11.
Vacation of ROW /Easements
2.
Conditional Use Permit
12.
Variance
3.
Grading /Excavation Permit
13.
Wetland Alteration Permit
4.
Interim Use Permit
14.
Zoning Appeal
5.
Planned Unit Development
15.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. _- c
Rezoning 45
7.
Sign Permits
8.
Sign Plan Review
Notification Signs
9.
Site Plan Review
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"
$100 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. \c
Subdivision G sr
TOTAL FEE $ - - - X11 S s
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
included with the application.
I Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8'/z" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
r
PROJECT NAME M -,g r /do�dl
LOCATION S l: o� a t' - I V a. `� 7 b t r wo va(
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See a`�(ar,4 e Mro n, O w . -s L; sJ )
f
PRESENT ZONING Az
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Lout P P -►5 s - o(_ ,
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION ��"S lti �s °�• '
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST �r v " M �)IAq I? SF 1AS
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanies by aii inrormauor—
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. I
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the part
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof tho
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I a
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the
deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I furthe�
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorde
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder'
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
Signature of AW icant Date
� A, A � �
Signature o Fee ner Date '
Oa
Application Received on Fee Pai Receipt No .4M3
" `�-�
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to tj
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
1
° z
a ! !
a
O ! ij
i
P - -- —
Q, _
/ - GALPIN BLVD. (CSAH ♦T9) - -
Li I
d I \ � _ �i ;I
rJA
� I i
.. w
0
/
/
a
on Krueger & °
Associates, Inc.
LL!D W1/R�C L10QIDOTC 1WmIC
SWI EDNA HOUSTRAL Bou.EVAfO
m►K wfsoTA swo OC
(812) WT - :YEf O D
P",)ivi
PRELIM. GRADING /DRAINAGE PLAN
�� MINGER ADDITION
ro
c
\ 11 1 1 \ \\
I
CHANHASSEN, MN
a
on Krueger & °
Associates, Inc.
LL!D W1/R�C L10QIDOTC 1WmIC
SWI EDNA HOUSTRAL Bou.EVAfO
m►K wfsoTA swo OC
(812) WT - :YEf O D
P",)ivi
PRELIM. GRADING /DRAINAGE PLAN
�� MINGER ADDITION
ro
CHANHASSEN, MN
a
on Krueger & °
Associates, Inc.
LL!D W1/R�C L10QIDOTC 1WmIC
SWI EDNA HOUSTRAL Bou.EVAfO
m►K wfsoTA swo OC
(812) WT - :YEf O D
P",)ivi
yef
-- —OALPIN BLVD. (CS I H
� y Sogc♦ ti'
O
O
a
s
9
— �
� r ,
0 / doo.oa
R / / 1
/ I
/
l' N /
r r amm•
I r
-
r r ;
1
rl 3
/ 1
I E
r �
r �
/
r /
_— -- -- - - - --
y s °`�� f• SZiS { =l /� M ,ASi g6L
/ /' / I f 1 f �p OOZ �� — •�,ff l Q• //� C( ,.. .� / � fr m
// / / I I I a J- ,ur_w. u•„`(�y8Z�?J �/ i I� a
�yH RY MI p
I I II II 1 I\ ly \ {�/ / / •- i � ' --- iw.oii � _ � � m
\ \
LN
0
: [ t'_Fa::; zi•jra, [i a7 r = ` °-' \ �♦ �� a i ' i iY 1
S= ?•4= ?iiFF!- aiiii \ ♦ 'g \ �� i8'
_ !: , ' r :i ♦ ♦ .\ \ - -- ------- -- - --- -- I \
if
S = 'I r_:.• \ \ ♦ ♦ � �_ --- � -- - - i , -• DSO, _
?Eli Eit ?:f • O g ISEiiScY - \ ♦� � ♦ N 6-- - ___ _ �-___ �, \\ I '/ •' � � � � \
ii�g °_x):•: �li` -of!
�' ---- -, ' --��'
isliei!i[4r >• 4 /
- - - 1
• � [c iii i' \ \I I/ 1 / // /r�
I
t
sass IIII I I �♦ �\ \♦ ,3sa> ____ � \- _\ _,laiol_ /_.._N - -------- _ -' , � -� \ T II
"� -ssr / / I / \ �... ♦_. \�d \ ♦ 63_.;3 1
"p i g ffg 44- I mo_ ♦ \ ♦\_... _\ �" \ a no,u 1
I
-��- •L II \ \ ` \
�v • - " TMBERWOOD ESTATES \
m�fecs�sFfi5fiEF5�5fiE��� /
'711
1`
Ke-V I Sc
Ron Krueger & oo
Associates, Inc.
=1 ED&A IOUmwL DomEvMD
mm. w+aso'w
(512) $31 -2980 (� O _ ... _. ......__...
t
Y
PRELIMINARY PLAT / UTILITY PLAN
MINGER ADDITION
t
in),1
"
CHANHASSEN, MN
Ron Krueger & oo
Associates, Inc.
=1 ED&A IOUmwL DomEvMD
mm. w+aso'w
(512) $31 -2980 (� O _ ... _. ......__...
t
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
I
I
L
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: May 11, 1994
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Minger Subdivision
LUR File 93 -22
GRADING & DRAINAGE
Unfortunately the grading plan does not indicate the existing trees on the property. Therefore, it is
difficult to determine the amount of tree removal based on this plan submittal. It is recommended that
the existing trees be placed on the grading plan to determine exact tree impacts. It appears only grading
for the streets and utility improvements and a few of the house pads will be completed at this time. The
remaining lots of which are all treed will be custom graded at the time the building permits are issued.
Staff has meet with the applicant, developer and neighbor at the 12th hour to discuss some of the concerns
we had with the street alignment and lot placement adjacent to the significant stands of trees. Staff has
recommended that the applicant go back and look again at the roadway alignment and house placement
on the site in an attempt to reduce the amount of tree loss. The proposed building pads are only 40 x 60
which is below the City's typical standard. Staff finds that in subdivisions of this nature, a typical house
pad would disturb an area of 60 x 60 and, in some cases, more. Staff encourages the applicant to realign
the easterly cul -de -sac and shift the lots westerly in an attempt to preserve a buffer of significant oaks
along the east plat line between Timberwood Estates and this development. Staff also recommends that
a front yard variance be considered on these lots in an attempt to reduce grading limits which in turn
reduces tree loss.
There is an existing drainageway on the property through the rear yards of Lots 10, 11, and 12. The
drainageway will have to be maintained or relocated to maintain rear yard drainage on the lots. The final
plat should dedicate a drainage and utility easement over this area.
Grading for the street will involve grading outside the road right -of -way on the Demsey parcel which is
immediately west of the site. The applicant has been working with Mr. Demsey to acquire easements and
other negotiable items. One such item is for the first southerly cul -de -sac off the main street. At this
time, the applicant is requesting to service the four homes via a private driveway within a 50 -foot wide
dedicated right -of -way. The future subdivision of the parcel to the west would then only be required to
grant an additional 10 feet of right -of -way if the City's current design standards are maintained. This
Bob Generous
May 11, 1994
Page 2 '
property owner would be required to upgrade the cul -de -sac to a full city street. Staff has reviewed this ,
with the applicant and is comfortable with this scenario; however, we are concerned that if the property
owner to the west (Demsey) sells or vacates the property that there should be a method of explaining the
responsibilities with regards to the upgrade of this road so the homeowners on Lots 14 through 17 would '
not be responsible for any assessments of the upgrade.
The plans propose to convey drainage from the front yards and streets into two sets of catch basins and
simply discharge into the adjacent property. This method of storm drainage is inadequate in accordance '
to the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Staff has been working with the applicant to redesign the
storm sewer system to have one single discharge point and pond location. Staff believes the most prudent
location is at the low lying pasture land just south of the entrance on the east side of Galpin Boulevard. '
This, however, will require easement dedication from the neighbor (Demsey). Therefore, at this time, the
storm drainage plan is inadequate as well as the grading plan.
UTILITIES
The City is currently extending trunk sewer and water along Galpin Boulevard adjacent to this parcel '
(Project No. 91 -17B). The applicant will be able to connect to the trunk utilities and extend them into
the site to service these lots after June 15, 1994. Detailed construction plans and specifications in
accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required as
a part of the final plat submittal. A preliminary utility layout plan has been submitted with the
preliminary plat. Upon quick review of the layout some minor adjusting of the hydrant locations in
accordance with the City's Fire Marshall may be necessary. Detailed review of the utility layouts are '
performed in conjunction with the plan and specification approval process.
This parcel will sustain assessments for the extension of trunk utilities to the area. The assessments have '
been determined at $970 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,275 per unit for water. The City has
determined the number of assessable units for these two parcels as follows: 1) Minger - 18 units =
$40,410; 2) Demsey - 7 units = $15,715. As you may have noticed, the plat reflects only 17 lots, not 18 '
lots as estimated by the City. However, some of the lots within the plat are very large and therefore
consideration for reduction of one unit may not be warranted. However, should the Planning Commission
or City Council request that the applicant provide a buffer yard to save significant trees which forces the '
applicant into 16 lots, then a reduction in the assessments would be warranted.
Individual sewer and water services will be provided to the Demsey parcel in conjunction with the overall
project. Based on a mock plat, it appears the site has the potential for eight single - family lots. The '
applicant will provide these individual sewer and water services at no charge to the neighbor at this time.
However, the applicant is requesting the City collect and reimburse them the connection charges when
the neighbor utilizes the individual services. Staff and the applicant will work together in determining '
the actual dollar amount it takes to provide these services to the Demsey parcel. This "rebate" program
has been done on several occasions on other projects where the City has reimbursed the developer a
portion of their costs for constructing the lateral line and individual services adjacent to parcels that did ,
not want hook ups at that time.
Bob Generous
May 11, 1994
Page 3
The parcel does have an existing house (Minger's house) which, as a part of the utility construction, will
' need to be connected to the new sewer and water mains. Construction of street system and utilities will
destroy the current septic drainfields. In addition, city ordinance requires existing homes within 150 feet
of the sewer line be connected within 12 months after the line becomes operational. There is another
existing home (Demsey) just off the first cul -de -sac. This home is anticipated to be within 150 feet of
the new sewer and water lines as well. However, after discussions with the homeowner and applicant,
they request that the City grant a variance from this ordinance until their septic system fails or they sell
I the property. Staff is in support of this recommendation since the septic and well sites will not be
impacted as a part of the street and utility project and are in good operating condition.
STREETS
The site currently accesses from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) via a shared blacktop driveway.
Expanding the driveway use to a city street will have to be reviewed and approved by the Carver County
Highway Department. Carver County has submitted comments regarding this proposed subdivision. They
have indicated that consideration will have to be given for turn lane installation at the intersection of
Galpin Boulevard. An access permit will need to be obtained from Carver County for construction of this
access and turn lane.
The applicant is proposing 50 -foot wide right -of -ways and 50 -foot radiuses in the cul -de -sacs which are
below the City's urban standards. City standards require 60 -foot wide right -of -ways with 60 -foot radiuses
in the cul -de -sacs. However, the City's tree ordinance does provide compromises in the street width and
right -of -way if it can be demonstrated that reducing the street width or right -of -way will significantly save
vegetation or retain the existing terrain. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate to the City that significant
savings of vegetation will occur. Therefore, until the applicant has provided staff with this information,
staff supports the 60 -foot wide right -of -ways. In any event, staff strongly recommends maintaining a 60-
foot radius in the cul -de -sacs to provide adequate turning movements. The applicant has agreed with staff
on this and will change the cul -de -sac layout accordingly. The applicant is still proposing to submit 50-
foot wide street right -of -ways and demonstrate the tree savings by the reduced width.
Galpin Boulevard is earmarked for upgrading within the next two years in conjunction with the new
school as well as recent residential development along Galpin Boulevard. The upgrade will most likely
widen Galpin Boulevard to a four -lane urban street section with trails or sidewalks on each side of the
street. The right -of -way along Galpin Boulevard currently exists at 66 feet wide. The applicant has
provided additional easements to the City in conjunction with the city sewer and water project. Therefore,
additional right -of -way is not needed at this time.
The street system is proposed to be constructed in accordance to City standards (31 -feet wide back -to -back
with concrete curb and gutter). Private driveways could be used to shorten the lengths of the cul -de -sacs
and possibly reduce grading impacts and tree removal. The applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City to guarantee compliance with the Conditions of Approval and
guarantee installation of the public improvements. Outlot A is proposed for a trail extension to the City
park immediately south of this development. Staff is concerned that future lots from the west will not
be able to connect to the cul -de -sac. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the neighbor to
Bob Generous
May 11, 1994
Page 4
sell /convey Outlot A and grant a 20 -foot wide trail easement to the City centered along the west line of
Lot 17.
EROSION CONTROL
The grading plan does provide erosion control measures during construction. Additional erosion control
measures may be employed during new home construction in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the street right -of -way proposed at 50 feet wide and the lack of storm management facilities, staff
is recommending that this item be tabled and brought back to the next available Planning Commission
meeting with revised drawings addressing staffs concerns.
Staff has met with the applicant and explained the situations to the applicant and the applicant's engineer.
The applicant appeared to agree and will adjust the plans accordingly. Upon receipt of the revised plans,
this office will prepare another detailed staff report for consideration.
jms/ktm
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g: \eng \dave \pc\minger.ppr
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: May 5, 1994
SUBJ: Timberwood Estates & Galpin Blvd.
Planning Case #93 -25 SUB
I have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following requirements:
1. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of fire hydrants. Fire
hydrant spacing is 300 foot maximum.
2. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. This is to avoid duplication of
existing street names to minimize confusion in emergency situations.
3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to
insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1.
4. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire
Marshal for approval. Pursuant to ;1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204 (d)
and 10.203.
g.\+afetyVn \93.25
MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ,
DATE: May 2, 1994
SUBJ: 93 -25 SUB ( Minger Addition)
I was asked to review the concept plans for the proposed Minger Addition stamped
"CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; APR 18, 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT."
Analysis:
In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must
be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not
included with the submitted documents..
Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage
floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the
Public Safety and Engineering Departments.
The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the
Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform
a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit
issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used
for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for
errors during the plan review process. I have included the 1993 memo which lists
and explains these designations.
Recommendations:
1. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections
Division for review prior - to,final plat approval. The plat must be
revised to include the approved names after their review.
2. Revise Grading /Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top
of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done
prior to final plat approval.
3. Revise the Grading /Drainage Plan to show standard designations for
dwellings.
enclosure: 01/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo
n
H-
I
J
g:\ safety \sak \memos \plan \minger.bgl
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official �-cr
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
FLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
' approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
R Designates Ramblcr. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
' SEVO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling. ,
WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade s' loping down to "the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
TU SE R SEWO w0 FLO
or RLO
- - - - -- ; - - -- _r - -- - - - -- __ -.�
' Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans g g p w hich are then passed to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
n
# W 1 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(612) 361 -1010
FAX (612) 361 -1025
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
COUNTY Of CAQVEQ
April 25, 1994
To: Robert Generous, Planner II
From: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
Subjeci: Rezoning Proposal
93 -25 SUB
The following are comments regarding the rezoning proposal for the property on Galpin
Boulevard south of Timberwood Estates transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum
dated April 19, 1994.
Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are:
Urban Undivided
2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
100' 110'
Rural Undivided
2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
120' 150'
Urban Undivided
4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
100' 120'
Rural Undivided
4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
140' 170'
Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) was given a County State Aid Highway (CSAH)
designation a few years ago. CSAH 19 is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class
II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. It would appear that as
a minimum, a 100 foot corridor should be established for a potential 4 lane urban
roadway. The proposal would need to meet at least that minimum.
The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed area
if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width
may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
2. The proposal includes construction of a new street access. We would assume this will
be a City street. Consideration will have to be given for turn lane installation at the
intersection with Galpin Blvd. An access permit will need to be obtained from Carver
County for construction of this access.
i
3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 19 right -of -way are subject
to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. I
Affirmative Action /E ual Opportunity Employer rp
ff i q PP y
Printed on Recycled Paper
Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste
1
4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right -of -way of
CSAH 19 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department.
5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right -
of -way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need
' to be completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition"
than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision
in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for
the final condition of the county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this
responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the
city.
6. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right -of -way gust be approved by the
County. When locating proposed shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to
maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection.
7. Reconstruction of this portion of CSAH 19 is scheduled for 1995. A number of the
concerns expressed above can be addressed in the reconstruction project if the project
proceeds as planned.
' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rezoning.
t
Mr. Patrick J. Minger
8221 Galpin Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Minger:
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
City staff has performed a preliminary conceptual review of your project. The following list
represents areas that will need to be addressed in developing a plan for the site.
BUILDING
The site appears to contain areas of peat and muck, terrel loam, and Glencoe silty clay loam;
all of which are typically unsuitable for buildings or on-site sewage treatment. Soil boring
tests will need to be performed. Areas on the site may be unsuitable for building pads
according to the Carver County Soil Survey. If this is the case, geotechnical reports and/or
soil corrections will be required.
WETLAND
There does not appear to be any wetlands on -site. There is a wetland along the eastern
boundary of the site, outside the property. It is recommended that the site be field inspected
for wetlands.
PARKS
A 20 foot trail easement for trail purposes will need to be included in the plan to provide
access from this property to the park to the south. Park and trail fees will be assessed at the
time of building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The current rate is
$600.00 per lot for park fees and $200.00 per lot for trail fees.
DRAINAGE AND GRADING
A storm sewer plan should be developed to convey storm water runoff from the streets and
front yard areas to storm water retention basins. Storm sewer system should be designed for
Li
f
November 5, 1993
Mr. Patrick J. Minger
November 5, 1993
Page 2
a 10 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity. The storm water basins should be designed to meet
the City's water quality standards (NURP) as well as maintain the predeveloped surface
runoff discharge from the site for a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity. It appears the
prime location for a NURP basin is on Lots 26 through 28 adjacent to Bluff Creek.
The site grading should be designed to limit tree loss and maintain the general rolling terrain
by incorporating the existing topography into the site design and minimizing required grading.
The applicant may want to consider reducing the cul -de -sac lengths by implementing the use
of private driveways to minimize impact on the site. The private driveways, as you are
aware, are limited to serve up to four homes. A detailed grading, drainage and development
plan will be required with the preliminary plat submittal stage.
STREET ACCESS
The site currently accesses from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) via a shared gravel
driveway. Expansion of the driveway use into a City street will have to be reviewed and
approved by the Carver County Highway Department. Galpin Boulevard is earmarked for
' upgrading within the next two years in conjunction with the new school as well as the recent
residential development along Galpin Boulevard. The upgrade will most likely widen the
street to a four -lane urban street section with trails or sidewalks on each side of the street.
The right -of -way along Galpin Boulevard currently exists at 66 feet wide. The applicant
should be aware that, in conjunction with subdividing, they will be required to dedicate an
additional 17 feet of right -of -way along Galpin Boulevard to arrive at one -half or 50 feet of
' the necessary 100 -foot wide corridor.
The street right -of -way for the interior streets will be required to be dedicated with the plat at
' 60 feet wide consistent with City standards. The street system should be constructed in
accordance to City standards (31 feet wide back -to -back with concrete curb and gutter).
Private driveways could be used to shorten the lengths of the cul -de -sacs. City Code allows
up to four homes on the same private driveway. The private driveways shall be constructed
20 feet wide to a 7 -ton design within a 30 -foot wide easement area. A cross- access or
driveway easement will be necessary to ensure access to the 4 lots and spell out the
' maintenance responsibilities. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street
system and drainage system will be required to be submitted for staff review and formal
approval by the City Council. The applicant will be required to enter into a development
contract with the City to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and guarantee
installation of the public improvements.
' The applicant may need to enter into a land exchange with the Dempseys in order to facilitate
a relocation of the roadway and to permit the siting of homes on both sides of the proposed
' road.
Mr. Patrick J. Minger
November 5, 1993
Page 3
UTELITIES
The City is currently extending trunk sewer and water along Galpin Boulevard adjacent to
this site (Project No. 91 -17B). The applicant will be able to extend municipal water and
sewer into the site to service these lots. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall
be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates as a part of final platting. A preliminary utility layout plan shall be submitted with the
preliminary plat submission. This parcel will sustain assessments for the extension of trunk
utilities to the area. The assessments have been determined at $970 for sanitary sewer and
$1,275 for water per unit. The City has determined the number of assessable units for these
two parcels as follows:
1. Minger - 18 units = $40,410
2. Dempsey - 7 units = $15,715
EROSION CONTROL
The site borders on Bluff Creek, thus erosion control measure will have to be employed in
accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The City will require a Type
III erosion control fence adjacent to Bluff Creek where grading or utility work is proposed.
TREE PRESERVATION
Prior to developing the preliminary plat, the applicant must prepare a tree survey of the site
specifying the type and diameter breast height (DBH) measured four and one half feet above
ground. All trees six (6) inches or more DBH shall be included in the survey. These trees
must be tagged, numbered, and included on a survey of the site. In. developing the plat,
including road and utility alignments and house pads, tree removal should be minimized.
ZONING AND LAND USE
The property is currently zoned A -2, Agricultural Estate District which permits a maximum of
one unit per 2.5 acres. The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as low density
residential, 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre. It would be possible to rezone the property to RSF,
Residential Single Family, which permits lots sizes of 15,000 square feet minimum
Minimum lot dimensions in the RSF zone are 90 feet of frontage and 125,feet of depth. The
minimum building setbacks are 30 feet front and rear and 10 feet on side yards.
SUBDIVISION
The subdivision process requires that you initially receive preliminary approval from the
Planning Commission and City Council. You then have one year to come in for final platting
t
� I
Mr. Patrick J. Minger
November 5, 1993
Page 4
' approval from the City Council. As part of the subdivision process, conditions and
requirements may be imposed on the development beyond what has been speed above.
Additional issues and conditions may arise as more information is provided and other City
departments or other agencies provide their input. Finally, you will be required to enter into
a subdivision development contract with the City as part of the approval.
I have enclosed a Development Review Application and Subdivision Requirements summary
for your use. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at
937 -1900, extension 141.
Sincerely,
' Robert Generous
Planner II
Attachments: Development Application
Subdivision Requirements
t
I
t
- NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, MAY 18, 1994
at 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Minger Addition
Developer: Patrick Minger
Location: South of Timberwood Estate
on Galpin Boulevard
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. The applicant is requesting the rezoning of 8.46 acres from A2, Agricultural
Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat into 17 single family lots and
one outlot located at 8221 Galpin Boulevard, south of Timberwood Estates.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900 ext. 141. If you
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department
in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 5, 1994.
r
I
HANS HAGEN HOMES, INC. & TROTTERS RIDGE OF
MERLE & JANE VOLK CHANHASSEN DENNIS R. & JEAN ROLLINS
941 HILLWIND RD. NE 2765 CASCO POINT RD. 2081 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE
STE. 200 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FRIDLEY MN 55432
BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY TIMOTHY & VICKI DEMPSEY GERALD & LOIS GUSTAFSON
1000 HESSE FARM ROD 8241 GALPIN BLVD 8341 GALPIN BLVD
CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROGER & GAYLEEN SCHMIDT
8301 GALPIN BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANDREW & SUSAN RICHARDSON
i
GREGORY & JULIE SORENSON
CURTIS & JEAN BEUNING
8120 PINEWOOD CIR.
8121 MAPLEWOOD TER.
2381 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
'
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK & NANCY BIELSKI
RICHARD & E. LARSON
JEFFREY G HEINZ &
8140 PINEWOOD CIR
8141 PINEWOOD CIR.
JOAN M. PADRNOS -HEINZ
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
2071 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
'
BRADLEY J. FOLEY &
JUDITH A. WERNER
ROBERT & NANCY KROCAK
DAVE & KAREN MAENKE
2061 TIMBERWOOD DR
2051 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE
2041 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RANDLE & TERESA CORFMAN
WILLIAM & LANA MILLER
JAMES & BONITA ROEDER
2031 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
8121 PINEWOOD CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
8101 PINEWOOD CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GREGORY & BEVERLY
GREGORY & JILL PERRILL
CRAIG & MARY HARRINGTON
VANDERVORSTE
2101 TIMBERWOOD DR
8140 MAPLEWOOD TER
8141 MAPLEWOOD TER
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY TIMOTHY & VICKI DEMPSEY GERALD & LOIS GUSTAFSON
1000 HESSE FARM ROD 8241 GALPIN BLVD 8341 GALPIN BLVD
CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROGER & GAYLEEN SCHMIDT
8301 GALPIN BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TERRA ENGINEERING, INC.
Land Planning - Civil Engineering - Consulting
5301 Edina Industrial Blvd.
Edina, MN 55439
(fax) 831 -3093
831 -2989
May 19, 1994
Bob Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Revised Preliminary Plans
Minger Addition
Dear Bob:
Attached are 17 sets of our revised Preliminary Plat exhibits (with 8.5 x 11
reductions), per your Staff Report ( 5/18/94) recommendations, and the
recommendations of the May 18th Planning Commission. I understand that this
project will appear again at the June 1st Planning Commission meeting. The plans
were revised as follows:
- Maintain the proposed 50' R/W to preserve trees.
- Reduce front setback to 20' to preserve trees.
- Shift east cul 10' west to preserve trees.
- Approx. 28 additional significant trees would need to be removed using
60' R/W and 30' front setbacks.
- Show baseline (existing) tree canopy area (9.13 ac., 96.5% of total site).
- Estimated post development tree canopy area (5.32 ac., 56.2% of total site).
- Show 30' tree buffer area along north and east property lines.
- Prior to final platting, the developer will submit a boulevard landscaping
plan for the first 300' of the entrance road.
- Revise culs to 60' R/W radius.
- Proposed 31' back -to -back street width.
- Revise alignment of west cul intersection, Outlot B to be sold /conveyed to
neighbor.
- Show 20' trail easement within Outlot A. Outlot A to be sold /conveyed to
neighbor.
- Revise the grading plan to show standard dwelling designations.
- Show 60' x 60' building pads on the grading plan.
- Show existing trees on the grading plan.
- Revise storm sewer to provide a single discharge point and one pond.
NURP pond calculations are attached.
- Revise hydrant locations per Fire Marshal requirements.
it
1
FJ
I believe that these changes satisfy all of the issues and concerns in your staff
' report. If you find additional concerns, or if you have any questions, please call. We
appreciate the cooperation we have received from all of the City staff.
Sincerely,
-
Peter J. Knaeble ✓G
, P E.
I CC: Pat Minger (w/ encl.)
1
i
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
8. The area of all directional signs shall not exceed 4 square feet and the height shall not
exceed 5 feet. Brick shall be used to cover the metal poles. The material and color, of
brick used shall be consistent with brick used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings.
9. That the applicant present a more detailed and more artistic version of the Abra sign
that's attached to the building that faces to the north
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PATRICK MINGER FOR THE REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT
LOCATED AT 8221 GALPIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES.
Public Present:
L
F
I
Name Address
Mark Bielski
Andrew Richardson
Patrick J. Minger
Peter Knaegle
Tim Dempsey
Jean Rollins
Joan Heinz
Richard & Elizabeth Larsen
Craig Harrington
8140 Pinewood Circle
8120 Pinewood Circle
8221 Galpin Blvd.
5301 Edina Industrial Blvd, Edina 55422
8241 Galpin Blvd.
2081 Timberwood Drive
2071 Timberwood Drive
8141 Pinewood Circle
8140 Maplewood Terrace
Bob Generous and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Questions for staff.
Conrad: It's a good staff report. I guess just philosophically, it's zoned agricultural estates.
That's what it's zoned. What, and I didn't do my homework, what else is zoned A2 around
there?
Generous: Everything south of there basically.
12
n
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
Conrad: So is this an eating away at the A2 and basically saying well, there really isn't a A2
area other than Timberwood? Is that what really this is going to boil down to?
Generous: Yeah.
Conrad: Okay.
Generous: It's providing urban density for ... 2 1/2 acre minimum under A2.
Scott: Okay. Would the applicant of their representative, do they wish to speak? Yes sir.
Please identify yourself and give us your address.
Peter Knaegle: My name is Peter Knaegle. I'm the engineer for the developer. My address
is 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd in Edina. With me tonight is Pat Minger who is the owner and
developer of the property and also lives on the site. We're not prepared tonight to make a
detailed presentation. A lot of the information... city staff and much of what staff said, we're
in the process of making changes based on the recommendations of the staff report but we're
here tonight basically to answer any questions that the Planning Commission or some of the
neighbors may have. In fact because I'd just like to reiterate that we are in the process of
making changes, we're going to be submitting them back to the staff in the next couple of
days and they will be incorporating all the requested changes in the staff report in regards to
ponding, shifting of the roads, larger cul -de -sacs, tree canopy plan. But every item will be
addressed...
Scott: Okay. And do you have a copy of our latest tree ordinance?
Peter Knaegle: Yes I do.
Scott: Okay, good. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Any members of the general public who would like to speak, please step forward.
Identify yourself and give us your address and let us know what's on your mind.
Tim Dempsey: Good evening. My name is Tim Dempsey. I'm the property owner directly
west of this proposed development. The one where Dave and I have been talking about some
essential ponding. Pat and I have been talking about this issue for over a year now. Since he
first found out I was going to be buying it, he let me know that he had plans to develop this
13
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 '
Tim Dempsey: If you put that back up, Pat and the developer were going to try and make ,
that a little clearer but it's up in that area right there. So I go from my quiet, quiet, quiet to
a, flash, everybody else has I guess. The third issue that I have is a traffic nuisance, which I
certainly don't have now. Currently though I have a once a week a garbage truck comes up i
my driveway and picks up some garbage and whenever I call Frankie's, they come out but ■
basically it's my wife and I and maybe my daughter driving in and out. That will be changed
also as people drive up in there to service those 4 houses, although Pat has suggested, and
this is one of the points of contention. That instead of a full road, that a private drive be
used to serve those 4 houses, which would... It would minimize the destruction of foliage
between that road and myself, which would enable my privacy to be held a little bit more. It ,
would cut down on just general nuisance traffic of people thinking that... someplace I can go
out and drive around with a private drive sign and things like that. And from my standpoint,
14
I
so this is not a surprise to me. However I still have my concerns and I've shared those with
Pat and we've been trying to work together to come up with a plan. There are some issues
though that I feel very strongly about and I want to put before the committee. One is the
drive. Specifically ... It's currently a very mature, classic element drive. It's surrounded by
trees and you drive up in it, and it's this warm green tunnel which brings you to your home.
It's a route from the busy city to the homestead and if those trees were taken, just for the
'
sake of a 10 foot discrepancy to an ordinance, I think it would forever change the character
that I drive through every day and that if this development does go through, which would
cause the people to drive through. And you'd end up with just yet another new development
,
with lots of space as you drove into it and nothing particularly interesting about it. So I think
for the people that would be living there and for the people that do live there, I would ask
that we really look at this 50 foot, to save the trees. My personal side, the second issue is the
loss of privacy for myself and my family. Currently I'm surrounded by woods and most
people make the comment that when they come out there, it's like you're living out in the
middle of 50 acres. Can't believe you're in Chanhassen. And I can walk out of my house,
go to my barn and don't have to worry about who's watching or don't have to worry about
anything. It's a very peaceful, serene area. Any development there, no matter how careful
the developers are, is going to change that forever for me and so that I ask that any plans,
certainly protect whatever privacy they can by spacing. I know some people from this
development around that with 2 1/2 acres are concerned and when I look at what their ... back
'
yards with trees in them and in their back yards they've got hundreds of yards and I'm
looking at the 60 feet to a road that's going to be about 40 feet from my bedroom window.
Pat is trying to work to make that less of an issue but it's still going to be within 100 feet, I
don't think without really taking a lot away. That's going to change my privacy and I have
concern about that.
'
Conrad: Where's your house?
Tim Dempsey: If you put that back up, Pat and the developer were going to try and make ,
that a little clearer but it's up in that area right there. So I go from my quiet, quiet, quiet to
a, flash, everybody else has I guess. The third issue that I have is a traffic nuisance, which I
certainly don't have now. Currently though I have a once a week a garbage truck comes up i
my driveway and picks up some garbage and whenever I call Frankie's, they come out but ■
basically it's my wife and I and maybe my daughter driving in and out. That will be changed
also as people drive up in there to service those 4 houses, although Pat has suggested, and
this is one of the points of contention. That instead of a full road, that a private drive be
used to serve those 4 houses, which would... It would minimize the destruction of foliage
between that road and myself, which would enable my privacy to be held a little bit more. It ,
would cut down on just general nuisance traffic of people thinking that... someplace I can go
out and drive around with a private drive sign and things like that. And from my standpoint,
14
I
I
I
I
7
F,
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
I think if I was a home buyer, that would enhance the home that I was looking at if I knew it
wasn't going to be accessible. But the way the road goes, and the plan I gave Pat showed it
somewhat different than I think the people in Timberwood Estates probably would object to
the way I would like to see it. And that is I would like to see the road follow the current
driveway and keep that bend away from coming so close to my house. That will keep the
road traffic and the nuisance traffic the farthest away. Now it would have an effect on the
number of lots, in fact the development. Because he's got some economics that he's got to
deal with and I'm not, he doesn't make me privy to his economics so I don't know what the
break even point is here. But I could certainly prefer... suggested to him in my drawings, that
the road follow the current drive and it would also I think minimize some of the trees that the
street would take anyway but of course the houses are going to take some. That would keep
the road and the traffic nuisance at least further away from me than it currently does now
where people coming down that road you might see headlights and hearing noise that I don't
hear now and that would put that further away. That's my comments. Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
Mark Bielski: Yes, my name is Mark Bielski. I live at 8140 Pinewood Circle and I guess I
would have all of the same arguments for keeping the road where it is as the other gentleman
did for keeping it...600 feet of property just to the left of the house which is going in on the
other side of the driveway that's in red there. And I have all the same concerns about the
traffic and the headlights and just privacy in general. And I know when we moved there, it
was zoned agricultural. Now it's going to high density and I'd just like to know what is the
criteria for changing. You know if somebody just comes to you and says, can I change the
zoning? Do you just go ahead and do it or exactly what do you follow? Can I take my lot
and make it high density? It's zoned agricultural.
Aanenson: The City has a Comprehensive Plan that guides all the property—the property is
' guided for single family residential. And it's been that way since our comp plan was adopted
in 1991. So this area was, it's currently zoned agricultural but it is guided. There's other
areas of the city that don't have development on it and are guided.
Mark Bielski: Can you explain what guided means?
' Aanenson: It's a comprehensive plan that's approved by the Met Council designating future
land uses in the city. Okay, inside the urban service area there's designations for all the
property inside the urban service area. When you've got sewer and water are available, given
the ultimate land uses. Now right now people are still farming or under utilizing the property
and then generally it's given an agricultural zone.
i
15
1
0
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
Mark Bielski: Okay. I guess my concern is number one, the loss of privacy. Cars. The
width of the road that would access the site. I'd like to know if any of the trees along my
property line are going to be taken out. And the development would infringe on my property
at all. I know sometimes when you have a road that's fairly narrow you have to go beyond
property lines to get the sewer and water put in. And if that was the case, I think that I'd
probably lose most of the trees on my property line. Just simply because there just isn't
enough room but you go right down the center of the existing center line of the road.
Scott: Okay, excuse me sir. Dave, can you address that?
Hempel: Sure. That is correct. A majority of the tree loss is not just from the street right -
of -way it's actually for the utility construction that goes on and boulevard grading. The street
construction usually falls within the parameters of the trenched excavation and with this plan
here, the sewer elevation, in order to service this site, would require removing quite a few of
the trees on that 50 foot corridor. Even with the special construction techniques. Trying to
reduce the impact on there so. The tree loss is for the first approximately 300 feet I believe
it is and then where the road bends to the south there, the remaining trees will be on the
property line to the north—preservation easement in the back yards.
Mark Bielski: The thing that really protects my lot from the density housing is that existing
tree line. It's nothing beautiful but it's got some scrub oaks and it's got a few red oaks in it
and it's got some box elder but they've been there enough, they're mature enough that it does
provide a good buffer and I think if you put the utilities through, if you took those out, you'll
just open that whole view to the south for the higher density housing and the road.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, there is in the staff report, you'll see that the staff recommended a
landscaping plan along that side where the trees would be lost. Obviously they're not going
to be the same size caliper that you have out there today but in time they will reforest or
revegetate that area.
Mark Bielski: But I think realistically those will be in 20 years or 25 years.
Hempel: 5 to 10 years approximately.
Mark Bielski: I haven't seen, I've been there for 5 years and I haven't seen a pine tree grow
up more than 2 feet. I'm just trying to be realistic. You know it's going to pretty well
decimate that back area back there.
Conrad: Dave, when I look at the tree calculations, I don't see any trees on the plans in that
first several hundred feet. So what's a function of? You're saying we're going to get
16
�I
t
ki
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
significant tree loss but again, as I see them measured here, none are in the right -of -way.
Hempel: Actually there are quite a few trees in the right -of -way. In the commission plans
did not provide the trees...
Conrad: Okay. I don't think we're seeing what you see on our plans right now.
Mark Bielski: I don't know if any of you have been to the site or to the area but...and take a
look to the south, you can really see what buffer there is. If those trees are gone, it's going
to really devastate our view and our privacy and one of the reasons we'd like ... is we set our
house fairly close to the back lot line. Now I bet we're within 100 feet from the existing
driveway to our bedroom window and had I known something like this was going to happen,
I probably would have moved the house another 100 feet towards the cul -de -sac that we live
on. So it's kind of a, it's getting a little bit close and I hope you understand that. Hopefully
you can go out and take a look to the site. Come over to, you're welcome to come on my
property and look to the south and...
Ledvina: We will. Question for Dave. Will there be a construction easement associated
with this road here that will involve the removal of trees actually off the property? Is that
what's going to happen?
Hempel: Not on the north side. Not on the Timberwood Estates side. The property that will
be probably most impacted will be the Dempsey property on the south side ... trees outside of
that 50 foot strip. There's also the city's cemetery lies just north of this road. It's fairly
heavily wooded at the entrance but I'm not sure ... goes back at least 300 feet off of Galpin
Boulevard. That's where the trees will be lost along the property line and as you continue
east on that property, the road bends away from that north property line and the trees that are
out there today will stay so. It'd be nice to show on here where the property line is and
cemetery as well as the adjacent properties in Timberwood Estates to see exactly where the
trees are going to affect.
Scott: Dave, here's a what if. What if utilities go on the other side? Obviously we're going
to, what's the impact there?
' Hempel: The elevation drops.
Scott: Is it because, as I'm looking here where you've got, as I'm trying to read this it looks
I like it falls off rather quickly. So you're just saying logistically they're really, engineering
wise, there's less of an option?
17
r
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1
Hempel: It does require of the utilities that o through there... I
P � g g
Scott: Okay. Alright. The public hearing is still open. Is there anyone else who would like
to speak?
Craig Harrington: Craig Harrington, 8140 Maplewood Terrace. Just two things that I have. '
On the, I would agree with Bielski's view is that the committee consider, as far as the
protection. We're one of the last in this area and probably as far as with the large lots or
small acreage type properties in that we had as much protection. As much as could be given
with either buffer, which is being considered all the way around our development as far as
with the elementary school. With the other proposed lots that are coming in and this is ,
probably the one that's closest to us coming in with houses as close as they are. And that
whatever consideration you could give, most of the owners that are abutting right up to this
would appreciate that because of the way, our lots are set up. Especially Bielski is probably
the closest right there. The other consideration that I have is, along again that north side just
to the east of Bielski's residence there's a low land that originally was a swamp area that was
for ponding at one time. Even sprayed it for the mosquito control and it was supposed to
have a culvert that went through originally, when the plat was developed, to go under and
Pat's driveway. That was in route to the east to run as a drainage ditch all the way down
through Timberwood to the east. And as we relook at how, especially in conjunction with
these new lots, how that drainage is going to work as far as on the engineering of it because
currently it is not draining well. I know several lots there the water just stands there and it's
a mosquito breeding ground right now. If they could either look at, if that could be ,
compounded with additional drainage by the sloping of these new lots that are going to go in,
that could also create further problems in there. That's only the comments I have. Thank
you.
Hempel: Maybe I can address that Mr. Chairman. As part of the subdivision, it will be
maintaining the pre - developed runoff rates of the site. The continental divide, as I'll call it, it '
does break at the northerly property line of this subdivision. Part of it drains east. As Mr.
Harrington indicated, there is a low lying area just north of this plat which drains east out to
Timberwood. Mr. Minger's property there's a high point that's great for drainage to the north
and also to the south and that drainage break will be maintained with this new subdivision.
So essentially you'll have just a back yard of the home draining to the north as it does right '
now. The remaining part drains south into the storm sewer system and water treatment pond.
Joan Heinz: I'm Joan Heinz, 2071 Timberwood Drive. We own right east of where they're
trying to build that and like my neighbors, before we bought our lot we researched and we
saw that that was zoned agricultural so we felt pretty confident that there wasn't going to be
houses back there. So our big concern is just loss of privacy and the fact that we're all ,
18
t
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
wooded back there now. We own about 50 feet into the woods and we're just concerned that
instead of looking out our back yard, there's going to be these ... and that just seems like a lot
' of houses for what is it, 8 acres. That seems like a lot of houses back there. Thanks.
Drew Richardson: My name is Drew Richardson. I live at 8120 Pinewood Circle. I'm on
that 800 feet of, what did you call it, a tunnel. Mr. Dempsey called it. In the winter I look
out the back of my house and I see basically the horse pasture Mr. Dempsey has. In the
summer I look out and see trees and granted, like Mark said, they're not the best looking
trees but they are a very nice border. I'd be concerned with loosing that. At the back of my
property there's a fair drop off that goes up and then comes down and that's where all the
trees are. I have trouble envisioning how the drive is going to come through there without
basically wiping that out. Without building a wall or something. I guess you'd have to see it
to really understand. That would be, that's at the corner of the cemetery ... You're welcome to
come out and look at it. Come out and see what it is. Thanks.
Jean Rollins: M Y name is Jean Rollins. I live at 2081 Timberwood and my property is by
Patrick Minger and I guess my main concern is, besides the number of houses, which does
seem like a lot between our woods, is the drainage site which you said wouldn't be getting a
majority of the drainage. However I live right on the border of the ditch and my property is
' wetland... washed out from the increased drainage and have a terrible time getting the water to
drain. And my other concern is that, is there going to be erosion that's going to come down
from these other lots and fill up our ditch again? Because right now the city has had to redig
our ditches in front of our houses twice... increased drainage or erosion is just going to clog it
further. It's going to add more water to it.
Scott: Okay, Dave.
Hempel: Yes Mr. Chairman. As I indicated earlier, the site will not increase the runoff to
the Timberwood Estates development. The water will be conveyed by storm sewer to a
regional holding pond. Hopefully there from the Dempsey property which overflows and into
the Bluff Creek corridor. It should not affect Timberwood Estates homes. ...there's a lot of
drain tiles in the area in the ground with springs and so forth that creates some problems in
that area.
Scott: Okay. Good, would anyone else? Yes sir.
Rich Larsen: Hi, I'm Rich Larsen at 8041 Pinewood Circle. I live next to the Bielski's and
' to take the last issue first. Drainage is a huge problem in Timberwood now and I don't know
if this is the forum for complaining about that but nothing has been done. I live in a swamp
that Craig Harrington talked about. And it's been a constant problem since we moved in.
19
i7
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1
The City s doing absolutely nothing to help us. They've been out there several times but
Y g Y g P Y
told us ... I'm wondering, to help alleviate some of the concerns, can we somehow tap into that
drainage because as Craig pointed out, the drainage has been diverted away from the '
Minger's property now and it has to go at a 90 degree angle at our property. Water doesn't
like to turn at a 90 degree angle so it collects in our back yard. So is there a possibility of
tapping into any new drainage systems... because it's not working now. So that's one
comment. A second thing about that, as ... said, we too found that it was zoned A -2 when we
moved in. Nobody bothered to tell us that this is going to change. It's agricultural now but
it could be high density housing and to deal with the overall planning that if you isolate
Timberwood as the only large lot area, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. It's going to
be very uncoordinated looking so I have a recommendation for you guys. If you approve this
thing, that you require a 1 acre minimum lot size for this development. That would tie in
better with Timberwood. It would reduce the amount of traffic past everyone's house. I
probably live a little farther away from the road than the Bielski's and the Richardson's do
but it will still affect us, especially if the trees get reduced. So that's my recommendation.
That you look at requiring a minimum of an acre lot size. That's awfully dense for the area
and requiring an acre would also save quite a few trees and help that. And the last question I
had was, when another development's being proposed, there were a lot of discussions about
roadways and somebody from the city said that there's a minimum setback between
roadways. When you're looking at putting a second street into that new development just,
what is it boulder? Whatever.
Aanenson: Stone Creek. I
Rich Larsen: Stone Creek, thank you. They said it was a minimum distance between
roadways. I'd like to know, there's Timberwood Drive and yet you've got that proposed
street going in. Isn't that closer than the minimum requirement and is there a variance being
proposed here?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. The street spacing is adequate for the ordinance
for that type of street...
Scott: Okay, and then when this is u pgraded to a 4 lane, how does that change? Would it
become inadequate when they decide to widen it or how does that play? If this were a 4 lane
today, would there be adequate separation between the cuts?
Hempel: That's what we're working on right now. The comprehensive transportation study
predicts—in the future so our comp plan guides us for what our street widths will be on
certain collector type streets, but this has been designated as a 4 lane urban section. In the
future an urban section with curb and gutter and storm sewer. That will change the spacing... '
20 �
t
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
Scott: Okay, so the spacing is adequate for as big as that road is purported to be. Okay.
Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Okay, can I have a motion?
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ledvina: The only question I had on the streets. We've talked quite a bit about cul-de -sac
lengths and I don't see that being addressed anywhere in the staff report here. They measure
' the cul -de -sacs at 900 and 1,000 feet respectively and I'm just wondering, was there any
thought in connecting two cul -de -sacs? Bob, or Dave.
Hempel: Commissioner, maybe I can address that. We thought about trying to loop them
into a looped system there. Unfortunately it does make a lot of double street frontage or lots
with streets on 3 sides and probably would be reducing the amount of houses out there a lot
and would increase the impervious surface from the street. We also even looked at, future
extension into Timberwood. Those are large lots there. At some future date...probably
subdivide as well into smaller lots. So part of our job is to look at future street extensions
where feasible or possible. We know the impacts the Timberwood Estates residents have had
with the Stone Creek development, the Hans Hagen development that's developing and
proposed east of the Timberwood Estates. There was some consideration there also to
' provide some stub street to Timberwood for some future extension. However, due to the size
of this small parcel and how we envision it developing, you have the creek on the south side.
You really can't develop any further to the south. You have Timberwood to the north and to
' the east there is an opportunity to stub a future street connection that way but I don't think
the residents would appreciate it. We do have other streets in the city that are
somewhat... we're looking at 17 homes on here which is going to generate a large volume of
traffic for a dead end street. Public safety has looked at it and didn't seemed to be too
concerned about the cul -de -sac.
' Ledvina: Okay. Well I can see, certainly see your point as it relates to the scale of the
development. Looping those together, you'd have essentially maybe 6 houses, at the most,
inside that loop and that's a lot of street. It wouldn't seem that efficient for all that much
pavement so.
I Conrad: What does our cul -de -sac ordinance, what does it say?
Ledvina: Can you address that? What happened? Did that die at the City Council?
Aanenson: ...we've been shooting for 600, 700, 800 minimums... what we'd be doing is
taking out more trees and ... impervious surface, which is one of the reasons why we
21
f
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
recommended private drives.
Ledvina: Right. So are you recommending a private drive for the, that would be the, let's
see, the west cul -de -sac?
Hempel: Temporary common drive at this time to serve the ... The intent however is to
dedicate a full right -of -way with the future intent of upgrading that road when the Dempsey
parcel develops and subdivides to a full urban street section. The problem we have with
those homes that will be platted that way on Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17. Those will be
responsible...
Ledvina: Okay. Well I would favor the use of techniques that could save as many trees as
possible along the drive and I even to the extent of supporting a reduced right -of -way. I
think that could possibly be employed along that north boundary for tree preservation. I think
I would also support staff's recommendations to pull the easterly cul -de -sac further away
from the Timberwood lot lines there. I think that would provide a little more buffering
capacity in that area. Also the reduced setbacks are an applicable alternate in this instance. I
think that can also help. That's the extent of my comments at this time.
Scott: Okay, Ron.
Nutting: I would agree with staff's recommendations and Matt's comments. We're going to
be getting this back. I guess I personally would like to get out to the site and get a closer feel
to the issues that have been expressed. Just to understand visually a bit more of what we're
looking at and after that, maybe a better condition when we get this plan back to kind of...
some of those issues.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: Yeah, I'll make sure I get out to the site and walk it. I would like, when it comes
back, I would like staff to give me some guidance on the A -2 district. I'm not convinced I
need to rezone it. Unless there's some really, unless I feel there's some capability here. But
I also want to see how it fits you know and Timberwood sort of set a precedence in terms
large lots out there and whether I was for it or against it, it's the matter it's there and we
zoned it this A -2 because we felt it made sense. Now so when I said, I'm looking for some
vision. I guess I'm looking for some realism. Is there a demand for A -2? Do we see that as
something that a property owner could reasonably get, sell today you know and again, I don't
know what you do staff but I need that kind of insight. If A -2 is, if these large lots are not
going to sell and they're a detriment, then I think we owe it to rezoning. But I'm not
convinced yet. I need that insight. I also respect the Timberwood residents in terms of what
22
I
,,
LI
t
L]
t
r
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994
they moved out here for and what they bought. So therefore, I'll be real interested in how
the developer adapts to their neighbors and there's a lot, it looks like a lot of tree loss here
and if you want to stop the tree loss, you keep it at A -2 folks. That's an easy one. That
doesn't take a lot of insight so, yet I think we have to be, so whoever brought up the fact that
something can be rezoned. Yeah, something can always be rezoned but we did guide this for
large lots. So before we rezone it, I think we've got to take a look at not only this but we've
got to be kind of, as I said, I prefaced, I said hey if this goes, well then we don't have a A -2
district out there. We have Timberwood and so I think we've got to be pretty confident that
A -2 is something that's.
Aanenson: Let me make a clarification. It is guided for 15,000 square foot lots.
Conrad: Is that right?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: Okay.
' Scott: RSF.
I � 1
u
I
u
Aanenson: ...I just want to make that clear. We can get a legal opinion on that issue but...
Conrad: Thanks for those comments because I was not sure of that Kate. Anyway, that sort
of deletes about my last 3 minutes of conversation. I think, I'm real concerned with tree loss
here. I'm concerned with what the residents have to say. There's some big trees here and I
think the staff report is good. I think we should table it and wait for more information.
Scott: Okay, good. I don't have anything else to add. Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table the development, Case #93 -25,
Subdivision 94 -1 and that the additional conditions in the staff report be addressed by the
applicant, as well as the commission's comments this evening.
Scott: Good, can I have a second?
Nutting: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we support the staff recommendation with
additional comments. Is there any discussion?
23
t
Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission table action on
Preliminary Plat #93 -25 and Rezoning #94 -1 for Patrick Minger so that the plan can be
revised to meet staffs and Planning Commission's recommendations. All voted in favor ,
and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
HARSTAD COMPANIES TO SUBDIVIDE 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 38
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL '
SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE OAKS AT MINNEWASHTA.
Public Present: '
Name Address
Steve Johnston
Loucks and Associates
B. Fuller
1075 Red Cedar Cove
,
Terry & Bonnie Labatt
2981 Stratford Ridge
Keith Bedford
3961 Stratford Ridge
Dave Headla
6870 Minnewashta Parkway
,
Kevin Cuddihy
3900 Stratford Ridge
Lowell & Janet Carlson
4100 Kings Road
Margie Borris
4071 Kings Road
Susan Morgan
4031 Kings Road
Linda Scott
4031 Kings Road
'
Larry Wenzel
6900 Minnewashta Parkway
Bill Munig
6850 Stratford Ridge
Harold Taylor
3861 Stratford Ridge
Allin Karels
3920 Stratford Ridge
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. 1
Scott: Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant like to speak?
Steve Johnston: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Johnston. I'm an engineer '
with Loucks and Associates. We're located in Maple Grove. We represent the applicant
tonight. They were unable to attend because ... We have reviewed the staff recommendations
and ... I don't believe there's any problems with any of the conditions that were placed upon
the development and... recommendations. But I'd just like to point out one thing, if I could on
24
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
4. The recreational beachlot shall meet all of the General Issuance Standards of Section
20 -232, condinonal uses.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott: Can I have a motion on the wetland alteration permit please?
Mancino: I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the wetland alteration permit
#94 -2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following conditions. 1 thru 4.
Scott: Okay, is there a second?
Conrad: I do.
' Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the wetland alteration permit. Is there
any discussion?
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Wetland Alteration Permit #94 -2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following
' conditions:
1. The area of mitigation shall be located on the northeastern portion of the site.
2. A replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size
wetland replacement ratio of 2:1.
3. The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires
authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers.
4. The following wetland setbacks shall be maintained:
Natural wetland
Ag/urban wetland
10' -30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback
0 -30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PATRICK MINGER FOR THE REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM A2,
12
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND '
PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT
LOCATED AT 8221 GALPIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES. '
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Questions or comments for staff?
Mancino: Bob, in the staff report. The property is bounded on the north and east by
Timberwood Estates which is a large lot subdivision with 2 1/2 acres, right?
Generous: Yes. I
Mancino: So the north and the east. The west is Galpin and south is a park. Correct?
Generous: Right. ,
Mancino: So why wasn't this area also guided for something with larger lots? I mean this is
a perfect place. Why did we go from 2 1/2 acres to 15,000 square feet? Isn't there
something in the middle there? And this is the perfect place to have it guided for something
between where you have the 2 1/2 acre Timberwood lots and. ,
Aanenson: Well that—that issue came up at the last meeting as far as what's going in all
around and it's zoned for agricultural and that's a holding zone. It's zoned agricultural... and
it falls within that range.
Mancino: Can we reguide it? '
Aanenson: Again... I
Mancino: Ladd, you were here then. I mean maybe somebody else was. What was the
thinking when you have these larger lots and then going to 15,000 square feet? I mean why
wasn't there some thought on something inbetween the two?
Conrad: Because you do have some, we've had some zoning districts and it really goes from '
15,000 and it jumps up to what Timberwood is. The 40,000. And I think back then it was,
back then? A couple years ago the feeling was that there probably wasn't going to be a huge
demand for the large lots anymore. You didn't see the general public coming in when we,
and I advocated different lot sizes years and years ago and we'd open it up for public
comment and nobody would ... another zone and nobody showed up. So the general public
13
Fl
U
L
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
really felt pretty comfortable with the 15,000 square foot. And we had the 40,000 I think
when we did the comprehensive plan.
Mancino: Well this is 2 1/2 acres. This has got to 90 to 100,000.
Ledvina: 100,000 yeah.
Conrad: 40,000 is what we were talking. When I said the 40, that was what we were
' looking at as a different zone. But we didn't get any support for that so we had the 2 1/2, or
we have what Timberwood is and then we have the 15,000 and there really wasn't a public
outcry or demand for it. Not that the public leads all the way but when you kind of advertise
to the Chanhassen residents. Say hey it's there ... and nobody shows.
Mancino: It would certainly give us more diversity on different levels.
' Conrad: It would. It's probably not an economic, and I'm not sure what's economically
' feasible anymore.
Mancino: Well we just ... 4 1/2 acres. People are out there looking for it...
Farmakes: Yeah, but ... you've got a fair amount of land...
Mancino: But to some people that's important. I'm just trying to figure out why there's such
a big gap there and it just seems like this particular area would work...
' Farmakes: I wouldn't agree with that. Timberwood was one of the developments on
the ... and you had a minimum size that they could be...
Aanenson: I think that point is well taken. Those lots were all outside of the urban service
area ... when we start talking about city services and the cost—when you talk about urban
services, it's a different thing...
Farmakes: I remember the farmers were in here that owned property at the time before the
corporation... and they were, some of them were doing their own subdividing and a lot of it
i was minimal farmland and they were arguing how many acres the minimum could be. And
they brought it down to 2 1/2 I think.
Mancino: It was 10...
Farmakes: Yeah. That was something that they were arguing back and forth with the Met
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
because the Met pressure was to get as much density as possible and eliminate the large lots.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to make
a presentation? And please, state your name and your address.
Peter Knaeble: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peter
Knaeble and I am representing the owners... Patrick Minger. I'm with Ron Krueger and
Associates and our address is 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd in Edina. Bob went through most
of the ... based on the staff report our clients came back with the ... In regards to the tree
conservation area, here tonight...proposing to purchase the lots from the Mingers and ... might
have some comments also on ... concur with the staff report on their recommendation that this
project be approved. The only only requirement we have is exactly where the individual
trees...
Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for the applicant?
Mancino: You made a comment that you might want to change ... and you may want to put
the houses back further and saving trees in the front. Unless I'm viewing this incorrectly I
don't see too many trees in the front that need to be saved. If you put the house back. What
I do see, according to this plan is if you move the house back you would take out more trees.
Peter Knaeble: Yeah, what we started out with every cul -de -sac we got right at the 20 foot
setback line ... 20 foot, then there would be trees ... front setback area that would be taken... to
overlay the proposed tree conservation area on our grading plan, to do that, at least a few
lots ... actual tree conservation line is encroaching into that 60 x 60 pad area ... Lot 1, Lot 15,
Lot 17.
Mancino: 7 and 8 and I'm sorry, what were the other two?
Peter Knaeble: I said Lot 1...15, 17...
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? I'd like to see a show of hands
please. Is there anyone from the general public who is interested in commenting on this
particular proposal? Okay. Can I have a motion please to open the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If you'd like to speak, please step up front. Identify yourself and give us your
address.
15
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Tim Dempsey: My name is Tim Dempsey. I live at 8241 Galpin, which is the property
adjacent to this and I had a couple of things. Regarding your comments earlier, we talked
about that quite a bit at the last meeting about the A2 and ... and all that and we had a meeting,
myself and a few of us ... also to understand why guiding happens. I guess I'd Like some...
some legal ramifications there. I'd like to have more understanding of why we have to have
15,000 square foot lots if it's guided...
Farmakes: Excuse me. Do you, when you identified yourself, are you representing
Timberwood Estates?
Tim Dempsey: No, no. I'm just saying these questions came up. I live right next door to
the project.
Farmakes: Are you part of the Homeowners Association of some sort?
Scott: No. They own the property between the proposed development and Galpin.
Farmakes: That house right there?
Scott: Yeah.
Farmakes: Okay. I thought you said...
Tim Dempsey: ...were talking to the people that were from Timberwood Estates at the last
meeting brought up the A2 and the response that it was guided for further development. And
myself, I would like some more clarification on what legal barrier there is...
Aanenson: The same thing was discussed at the last meeting. The comprehensive plan...
meet all the setbacks and the lot configurations ... that's what they're allowed to have. Now if
you say they cannot have that, you have to have a Findings as to why they can't do it. The
topography or whatever...
Mancino: So guiding really means that it...
Tim Dempsey: They just haven't changed the initials yet.
Aanenson: No. What it says is that.-Metropolitan Council that when urban services are
available ... If you choose not to...
Tim Dempsey: I understand the ... Now the other two, the prior meetings before the last
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
planning meeting that we were talking about item number 15 in the plan you have which is
on page 16. First line says the Minger's house shall be connected to sanitary sewer within 30
days after the line becomes operational. The second line ... Dempsey parcel will have to
connect to sanitary sewer within 12 months...hook -up only when the present system fails.
When the property's developed or (3), when we sell the property...
Hempel: Yes it is Mr. Dempsey but we also said that the City Council is the only authority
that has the power to change the ordinance... That's something staff would support when it
came to City Council for discussion.
Tim Dempsey: Okay. Well I want to bring it up...
Scott: And that's true with any issue. If you're for something or you're not for something.
Is to say the ultimate decision gets made at the City Council. At least in my experience I see
in certain circumstances, in an instance where someone just made a significant investment in
either a well or a septic system or if it's in good working order, I can't predict what's going
to happen. However, gather your case. Usually the items that people highlight is the age of
the system. How it's working, etc, etc and take it from there but we recommend that you
follow that issue through the City Council because that's where the ultimate decision is made.
Tim Dempsey: Okay. I'll follow it ... And looking at the layout ...where my worst nightmare
was and that is the ... large oak trees and ... and if we could straighten that out, maybe take it
another 10 -20 feet away from that—somehow straighten that out, it would pull it away from
that. I don't know what you're achieving by the 10. If there's some street maintenance issue
or whatever but it seems to be moving close to my house with no real benefit.
Scott: Dave is that to give it more of a T intersection?
Hempel: That's correct. To try to have them perpendicular ... The ordinance requires that
they...
Scott: And you can get out your protractor. What's the angle, begs the question.
Hempel: Unfortunately I don't have one with me here this evening but it appears to be
within the 50 ... It can be looked at further but I don't think it can be shifted that much...
Tim Dempsey: Well those are my questions.
Scott: Did you have, you wanted to respond?
17
I
�
1
1
n
L
I
I
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
r Peter Knaeble said something which was not heard on the tape.
Scott: Okay, well if these gentlemen could perhaps talk that through with city staff. Okay.
Would anybody else like to speak at this public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a motion
please?
' Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ledvina: I guess as it relates to the situation with subdividing this parcel, I'm comfortable
with the staff's evaluation of the neighboring properties. I guess I genuinely feel that the site
is fairly well screened from the other parcels. Due to the extensive trees along the boundary
so as far as that's concerned, I'm comfortable with that issue. If there's some tweaking of
the boundaries that can be done as far as the tree conservation easement I would, to whatever
to provide some flexibility with the house pads and to actually save trees potentially in the
front yard that would be in the tree conservation easement. Obviously if we cut down a 24
inch oak to save a 6 inch box elder on the back side we're not getting anywhere so I would
be very receptive to the applicant demonstrating to our staff where things can be jockeyed
and we can be precise in that manner and I would certainly be for that so.
Scott: Would you want to modify a particular condition?
Ledvina: Yeah, I don't know. I don't know how we'd go about that.
Scott: Maybe number 4?
Ledvina: Let's see.
Mancino: It seems that's very appropriate to move those boundaries...
Ledvina: Yeah, for the boundary, yes.
Farmakes: It seems like they'd be able to deal with that through asking for a variance.
They come in. They say the topographical area requires them to put the house here and not
there I believe is criteria for a variance. ...relegistating that to that specific development.
Ledvina: The applicant talked about Lot 15 and that's not on th boundary of the site so I
don't know.
Mancino: And micro manage every single lot?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Ledvina: Well I don't know. I don't know how we'd do that.
Farmakes: I think you're going to get this with the tree conservation zone every time we get
an area in there that's not farmland. You're going to get saying well what if we want to put
the house up here or move it over there.
Mancino: Well and one of the reasons why we had the tree preservation, had them put the 60
foot pad, housing pad was to make the developers think about it and where it goes in
relationship to the trees right away so that we can get these ... So we could start ..mapping of
tree preservation areas.
Farmakes: ...to argue that you can't do that. If there's a significant stand of trees or a
significant landmark of some sort to say no. On the other hand.
Mancino: And that's what staff supports, to go out and look at the...
Farmakes: And you can always ask for a variance. Under the criteria, if there's something
that's in your way, you're certainly allowed to come in and ask for a variance.
Ledvina: Bob, would you feel that, do you have any suggestions for condition 4 to meet our
objectives here?
Generous: Well I think if you incorporate some of the same language you did in the previous
case and say work with staff on the individual lots maybe. The Tree Board worked hard to
come up with this concept and they're supposed to look at...critically and say this is the area
that we think is best. You know if they wanted to shove the house in the back and have the
easement on the front, that'd be fine with us too. We're looking for significant stands.
Around the perimeter, especially on the east side. The south side. Then one in the middle.
There are perfect areas of significant stands of trees. Dense vegetation. If we can keep their
development out of there, that'd be fine. If they want to tweak it around and say instead of a
50 foot on Lot, what is it, 8. Have a 40 foot on that one in terms of the cul -de -sac and
everything. Well maybe that's something we should look at prior to adopting it but let's get
it recorded and platted.
Ledvina: Okay. Now I'm comfortable with that, yes. Okay. I guess I would also suggest
that we add a 23rd condition which would essentially codifies what the residents and the
developer have just discussed as it relates to that westerly cul-de -sac in shifting of that cul -de-
sac the appropriate distance. We should agree with that.
Mancino: I think it was 15 feet.
Z
I
1
L i
Ll
i
I
u
iJ
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Ledvina: 10. 10 to 15 feet. Something like that. That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Okay. Nancy.
Mancino: Well I was going to listen...
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I have a lot of comments on this development. One thing on clear cutting on the
land issue. It would be nice to see a buffer in here. However, under the circumstances of
how it occurred, how the development occurred. Particularly when you take into Stone
Creek. We discussed this issue of Stone Creek—the relationship of land versus the adjacent
land and the 2 1/2 acres throws a wrench in it. The reasoning for that, as I recall, the
hearings that took place. Some people were coming in complaining that Timberwood was
being developed saying that that housing was too dense and they wanted a more open row of
land and 2 years later you get the residents of Timberwood coming in and saying, this is too
dense. So it's just a matter of 5 years here or 5 years there point of view I guess. I don't
think it's relevant to expect somebody's going to pay for 5 or 6 acres of land as a buffer.
There's a quarter of a million dollar investment before you put up the home on the property.
You're going to have 2% or 3% population that can do that.
Mancino: No, but by 2 1/2 acres we could go half acre. You don't have to go down to a
third. You could do something inbetween where it's not something...
Farmakes: But again, how do you look at that as a second zone? Where you have a larger
lot. I think that's been discussed infinitum over the years. That issue and it's not on the
current plan.
Mancino: ...two cents worth in.
Farmakes: That's right. 10 years ago you should have been here. But there was reasoning
for that and I think it's sound reasoning. The problem that occurred is that there was a
motivation to develop outside of town but when they lowered that down to 2 1/2 acres, they
brought it down enough in money where people sort of jumped out in front of planning and
started building. And you've seen how those type of developments dictate what goes around
them. Just like, almost like an old tree that is there and the other trees come around it. It's
hard to predict what that is because it's in the realm of a developer. A developer is dictating
not only that acreage but other acreage around it and future development. Anyway, I really
don't have any further comments on this. I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this development
but I think it's within the realms of the rules that we set up. Although I would be open, if
20
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
you want to relook at or talk about buffer. The buffer situation on this is really going to
significant change this development if that's what you're steering towards because of the
property that's already owned on the west side. That's it.
Scott: Mr. Conrad.
Conrad: I was here for the comprehensive plan and I've kind of looked at it again in terms
of what this was guided for, and as I said the last time, if you wanted to protect trees, then
you keep it in the large lot, 2 1/2 acre. We don't have another zone. Period. We don't. So
there's nothing, and if we did, we should have been doing something before now. The
proposal's here so I'm comfortable with the rezoning. It still makes sense to me. I support
the guide plan. But when I say that, I'm not a real proponent of transition and therefore
transition is real important and protection of the quality of the life that the neighbors had who
bought the property. So therefore I'm fairly rigid in what I'd like to see. I think the staff
report tonight is excellent from the comments that they heard 2 weeks ago. I think they've
put in the protections. It's meeting a canopy coverage which I think I thought was pretty
strict. So it's meeting what those guide plans are and so it's hard for me to say it should be
something different. In the staff report, on page 4, halfway down the page staff has said,
staff still believes that the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly cul -de -sac
will afford additional tree protection. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That was a statement
but it wasn't really worked into recommendations so basically you support that but you've
dropped it and I guess I'd like to know why.
Generous: Well Dave and I sat down to try and do it and we couldn't make it work with that
house placement. Especially on the ... but we'd like to see the applicant investigate this further
and see if they can make it work. Not only are we concerned with the tree preservation in
that area but again there's that drainageway that we think the building pad is encroaching on.
Conrad: For Lot, which one?
Generous: Lot 10. If you look at the contours, it goes right through the rear of the building
pad.
Mancino: Going back to the other thing about making the cul -de -sac shorter. So do we want
to put a recommendation that the applicant investigate that further with you and Dave? And
see if you can work out something to save some more trees and shorten it up.
Generous: Sure.
Conrad: You've looked at it and you're saying you don't have a solution so.
21
I
u
1
I
1
7
u
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Hempel: We looked at it kind of 12th hour. We didn't spend a lot of time on it.
Unfortunately. It is difficult. There's a drainageway, as I indicated on one side and you've
got the trees and the tree buffer on the other side. Cul -de -sac does expand the setbacks out
further. By shortening that up you may save Lot 10. The house pad being on the
drainageway but then Lot 11 house pad ... so you're not really gaining anything that much by
shortening it up unless you can offset it further. We threw it out on the table I guess. The
applicant's engineer maybe can investigate to see if there's a feasible alternative to this with a
private driveway that would save trees. That they wouldn't lose a lot. That was another
thing that they were concerned about. The potential of losing a lot because ... so there's some
balancing between the two.
Conrad: Lot 13 is a strange lot.
Scott: Wasn't there a condition that basically we recommend cutting that lot up and adding it
to.
Conrad: Along with some of this other, yeah. Which made a terrific amount of sense. You
know again we have a fair amount of land here and we are trying to buffer the neighbors to a
degree and I think the staff and the applicant has gone along with some of the staff
recommendations. I'm real appreciative of that. It's just that geez, we just stuck, there's a
real strange lot there and I guess it's legal. I wish if staff had found a good way to preserve
some of the things we were looking for, I would have loved to have carved that 13 up and
moved it into some of the other lots. I'm going to stop.
Mancino: Aren't we doing that? Wasn't it suggested that?
Farmakes: It wasn't a condition.
Conrad: It wasn't. It was not a condition, no. It was a thought but it's not a condition right
now. But I'm hearing from staff that they haven't really found a good way to do a lot of
these things and make it a smart. We don't have a better idea right now. Now we can
challenge staff again but there's a good chance that there's not a solution to this one. It's just
that in general that's, Lot 13 bothers me and it's just grabbing another lot out of here which
is legal but, and I think again as we're looking to sort of move out of a large lot subdivision
into a small lot, I guess I'm not always trying to squeak out every 15,000 square feet that we
can to put a new house on. And I think the rationale for that was if we could be saving a
significant. I'm not looking for one tree. I'm looking for a significant benefit and if it's not
there, I don't think we should do it. But I guess I'll challenge staff one more time. That if
there is some way to do it, and I'd sure like to see their recommendation to the City Council
of that way. But at this point in time I don't want to see it back. I'd just like to challenge
22
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Dave and Kate and Bob to take a look at that. I think that is, you know again, I just think
that this is a lot better thing than what we looked at last week. Or 2 weeks ago. I think that
it's a good report. I thank them for that and I'll go along with the recommendations in the
staff report.
Scott: Okay.
Mancino: I don't have too much new to add except that I would also like to see staff and the
applicant investigate the use of private drive and shortening up the easterly cul -de -sac to see
that it will afford the additional tree protection. You know when you drive into this land, I
think I read a little bit of it in the Minutes. That it was addressed. On the northern part of
the entry to this area there is a stand of trees that separates the land to the north and this
drive thru which is a really nice entryway. Are all those trees, I don't even see canopy
coverage up here. Are all those trees going to be gone? On the north side of this new road
that goes in where there are, it's a private road right now and there are existing trees and I'm
sorry if you.
Hempel: Maybe I can address it on the overhead here. This is where the existing driveway
currently is on the property and it continues up right through here. The tree removal will be
contained in this area here. The vegetation actually goes on the north side as well. On the
cemetery property as well as on the homeowners property there in Timberwood Estates. The
vegetation, the property line essentially is centered on that vegetated road there so half of it
would be lost. The southerly half would be lost and this first 300 -400 foot of roadway.
After that the roadway curves south. The remaining vegetation is, as Bob has pointed out
here in the purple, will be a tree preservation easement area and all saved.
Mancino: So are you taking vegetation off somebody else's property...?
Hempel: No we are not.
Mancino: Has there been some soil ... in your woodland management plan request for maybe
putting some trees in that area that's being, that were existing?
Generous: No, not specifically in the woodland management plan but there is I believe a
recommendation that they provide a landscaping plan.
Mancino: I think that that would be a good place as a buffer between the cemetery and it's,
it was there and thos, a lot of trees will be down. I think it would be good to have some
coniferous trees there so we get year round buffering.
23
f
1
1
n
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Generous: Yeah. Well under condition 3 we address the...
Mancino: Okay, good. Those are all of my comments.
Scott: Good. Could I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision
#93 -25 and 94 -1 Rezoning providing for the preliminary plat of 8.46 acres of land to create
17 single family lots, rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to RSF
and a front yard setback variance of 10 feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet
throughout the development subject to the staff conditions. Modifying condition number 4 to
include the applicant shall work with staff on the individual house pads to maximize tree
preservation. Adding condition number 23. The applicant shall shift the westerly cul -de -sac
approximately 10 feet to the east at the intersection of the main access street.
Mancino: Can I give a friendly amendment? 23. That staff and the applicant will
investigate further, investigate the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly
cul -de -sac to see if it will afford additional tree protection.
Ledvina: That'd be 24.
Mancino: 24, thanks.
Ledvina: Yes.
Scott: Is there a second to that motion?
Conrad: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Subdivision #93 -25 and Rezoning #94 -1 for the preliminary plat on 8.46 acres of land
to create 17 single family lots, rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate
District, A2 to Single Family Residential, RSF, and a front yard setback variance of ten
(10) feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet throughout the development subject to
the following conditions:
1. Accept full park and trail dedication fees as prescribed by city ordinance for the Minger
24
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
subdivision in lieu of land acquisition.
2. Provide a 20 ft. trail easement to the west of Lot 17 for connection to the city park and
construct an 8 ft. wide asphalt trail stub within this easement . The city shall reimburse
the developer for this construction. In addition, design an adequate landscape buffer
between this easement and the home which will be constructed on Lot 17.
3. Prior to final platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard landscaping
plan for the first 300 feet of the entrance road into the development in order to replace
the existing vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and utility grading into
the site. A Woodland Management Plan shall be developed for the subdivision prior
to the final platting of the property. This plan shall comply with section 18 -61 (d) (3)
of the City Code.
4. Incorporate on the final plat a fifty (50) foot tree conservation area to be dedicated
along the perimeter of the plat. Within this area only selective thinning to promote the
health and survivability of trees be permitted. Additionally, this area, especially along
the northern border of the plat could be used as a forestation or replacement area for
trees. Thinning, forestation, and tree replacement are conditioned on the development
of a Woodland Management Plan by a forestry professional that would address these
issues. The following tree conservation easements would also be dedicated as part of
the plat: a forty (40) foot easement centered on the common lot lines of lots 2 and 3,
and lots 4 and 5; a twenty (20) foot easement along the south lot line of lot 5; a twenty
(20) foot easement along the north lot line of lot 7; a fifty (50) foot easement along the
rear lot lines of lots 10, 11, 14, and 15: a forty (40) foot easement along the south lot
line of lot 12; an easement over the southern 115 feet of lot 13; and an eighty (80) foot
easement along the east lot line of lot 16. No construction activity of any kind will be
permitted within these easements. The applicant will work with staff on individual
house pads to maximize tree preservation.
5. The applicant shall include runoff from the cemetery in the proposed pond design and
construction.
6. Remove the applicant's existing private driveway once the street is paved with the first
lift of asphalt.
7. Provide water quantity/quality ponding according to SWMP requirements.
8. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls to save the 34 -inch oak and 28-
inch oak on lot 1, block 1.
25
L 7
1
1
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
9. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division,
for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the
approved names after their review and approval. The existing homes will be required
to change their addresses consistent with the new street names and numbering system
' 10. A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants.
11. Compliance with the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum from Bill
' Weckman, Assistant Carver County Engineer to Bob Generous dated 4/25/94.
12. The applicant shall investigate the shortening of the easterly cul-de -sac the use of a
' private drive to service the four houses at the terminus of the cul -de -sac.
13. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the public improvements will be
required for submittal with final plat approval. All street and utility construction shall
be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates.
Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council
' approval.
14. Prior to the city signing the final plat, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to
guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval.
15. The Minger's house shall be connected to sanitary sewer within 30 days after the line
becomes operational. The Dempsey's house will have to connect to sanitary sewer
within 12 months after connection becomes available. The homes may utilize their
existing wells until they fail, then the parcel must connect to city water. The existing
' septic systems shall be abandoned per state and/or local codes.
16. The applicant shall apply and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory
' agencies such as MPCA, health department, watershed district, DNR and Carver
County Highway Department.
17. The developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction.
0
18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe
sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle
10 -year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well
26
LJ
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped
runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent
with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook.
19. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development
contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee
construction of the public improvements.
20. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to
fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable
boxes, landscaping.
21. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive
objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements
and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
22. Depending on the storm ponding calculations, if the development is not meeting the
City SWMP for water quantity, then the applicant will be required to contribute into
the City's SWMP program. The proposed rate per acre for single family is $1,980 /acre
excluding wetlands."
F1
L�
�
LJ
23. The applicant shall shift the westerly cul -de -sac approximately 10 feet to the east I
at the intersection of the main access street.
24. That staff and the applicant will investigate further the use of a private drive and
the shortening of the easterly cul -de -sac to see if it will afford additional tree
protection.
All voted in favor, except Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4
to 1.
Scott: And your thought is?
Mancino: ...I just don't think it's a good ... use. I don't think it's a good transition land use
between Timberwood and a park. That's what I think. I think it's too dense.
Scott: Well, here's a thought. We've seen a proposed development on the north side of
Timberwood. As part of the.
27
1
i
t
L
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Mancino: At the school.
Scott: Well there's a, I'm trying to remember who had it.
Mancino: Oh, Heritage.
Scott: Yeah. So there's an opportunity if you would like to make a proposal on that
particular piece. See there's, we've retained some of that, we've seen a request to rezone
property adjacent to the north side of Timberwood and I believe there are some 15,000 square
foot lots. At least the development that we saw had 15,000 square foot lots lined up, you
know where the power line goes through there?
Mancino: Yes.
Scott: Abutting the east side. So that is a similar, it's guided similar to this particular
property but it is not as far along.
Mancino: And this one has some other site characteristics being ... 100%. 99.6% wooded so...
to preserve some of our woodland areas. And I think that this is important so that we do
have bigger lots...
Scott: And severe topography.
Mancino: Severe topography which will be a little different. I just, I don't know. Don't
think that this is the best use of that land.
Scott: Okay. This is for the 13th? Okay. Thank you for coming sir. And the applicant,
thank you.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILTFY AND
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN
IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT
OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5, MARCUS CORPORATION.
Sham Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments from commissioners?
Mancino: Sharmin, I just have a question about the site plan review on page, starting on
page 1. The April 13th meeting. That those need to be revised. That those are not the...13th