5. Rezoning Royal Oak Estates , -
CITY OF 6
PC DATE: 5/5/93 .-----
1 C1111,111111SSEN
CC DATE: 5/19/93
• CASE #: 93-8 SUB & 93-2 REZONE
1 ' By: Olson:Heni el:v
1
STAFF REPORT . .
1
I PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 13 acres property zoned A2, Agricultural Estates to RSF, Residential '
Single,Fanuly and Preluninary Plat to be Subdivided 13 acres into 23 single fartuly
I
lots; -Royal Oak Estates
,
1 4
LOCATION: East of G4,4pin Boulevard and north of Hwy. 5
APPLICANT: Brett Davidson Charles Piowe
1 7291 Galpin Boulevard , 9180 Lexington Ave. N. E.
-,* Excelsior, MN 55331 Circle Pines, MN 55014
•
\ ,
0
Acsmi by (my Admkiistritot
111 ' PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates
Inodified.
Rejects _ ' •
ACREAGE: 23 acres gross 10.8 acre net Dm leiragic.' -
,„ Dete Submitted to Commission
I DENSITY: 1.8 units/acre MSS 24 units/acr e
submitt
ADJACENT ZONING C -i 5
I AND LANI) USE N - RR;* Single family
St - A2; vacant (recently proposed as Windmill Run)
I i, , E - RR; vacant
W -A2; single family
!ma*
I z , WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water are currently being extended to the subject site.
uj
t : , PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The property contains an existing single family residence.
1 (/) 2000 LAND USE PLAN: - Residential Low Density
•
I . ,
I
- 57 - -- - - / ' Zir
1 ----.."--,
i 'Till _
,.-.
■
•1
- _,--'
_ _ _
- -- 1
Is..
VIL__
...; I. AIK E
cr
PARK _
-----_._._.
t HARRISON .—
, . ( •
:
/ :'111111—
■ i .
I
- - __ - -
- T----,
r
1!____,:_ , /-/ 1 I 1
,
,.,
Li 0
,,,
0
/ -- I: ,
,
.
.
0
, i ,..;. .
_
; ,
,
,
1
P 0 N 0
41 1' 0 N DI
— itilli — 1
/
11
A P
• I H A Y f .-----..,„
■—
''.---
A2
,
/
.7.‘r /
I
ii. __ry _
P * 0 „'
/
4 ' '''''. P 0 H 0
1111 --4 . ; 40
l -
4 - w - -
OC", ff..: 6eP
a r .4, iiiii -
z
E....
r--- ..:'
- - - -,
.., \
L-....._____----) LOU_
Royal Oak Estates
May 5, 1993
Page 2
1
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing to rezone property from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, 1
Residential Single Family and to subdivide the site into 23 single family lots. The property is
within the MUSA line and can be subdivided into 15,000 square foot lots. The proposal is a
straight subdivision. As with the Windmill Run proposal, the only issues with the proposal
come mainly from engineering criteria, such a drainage and utilities. Staff is recommending
approval with proposed conditions.
1
REZONING
•
The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from A2, Agricultural Estates to RSF, •
Residential Single Family. The property was recently brought into the MUSA line with the
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. For the property to be developed as 15,000 square
lots, the site must be rezoned to RSF and utilities must be brought to the site. The city is in
the process of extending utilities to the site. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property
as Residential Low Density with a net density of 1.2 -4.0 units per acre. The rezoning would
be consistent with the designated land use. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
1
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 13 acres (gross) into 23 single family lots. The site
is divided into 2 blocks and is serviced by one access off of CR 117 (Galpin Blvd). The lots
1
front on one public internal street. The street is providing a future connection to the property
to the south.
All of the lots meet the 15,000 square foot minimum and the lot width and depth
requirements. The net area of the site (lot areas only) is 10.8 acres. The net density of the
site is 2.4 units per acre, which meets the land use plan criteria of 1.2 - 4.0 units /acre. The
average lot area is 20,454 square feet. The lots range in size from 15,381 square feet to
36,674 square feet (where home exists).
LOT, BLOCK LOT AREA 15,000 LOT WIDTH 90 ' LOT DEPTH 125' 1
SQUARE FEET
LOT 1, BLK 1 36,674 SQ.FT 191' 198'
LOT 2, BLK 1 21,274 SQ.FT. 105' 200' 1
LOT 3 BLK 1 19643 SQ. FT. 110' 186'
LOT 4, BLK 1 18,149 SQ.FT. 105' 173'
1
1
1
1 Royal Oak Estates
May 5, 1993
i Page 3 .
LOT 5, BLK 1 18,293 SQ. FT. 105' 178'
1 LOT 6, BLK 1 18,608 SQ. FT. 100' 185'
LOT 7, BLK 1 18,608 SQ. FT. 100' 182'
1 LOT 8, BLK 1 17,561 SQ. FT. 105' 169'
I LOT 9, BLK 1 21,284 SQ.FT. 100' 183'
LOT 10, BLK 1 37,214 SQ. FT. 110' 219'
•
I LOT 11, BLK 1 23,906 SQ.FT. 105' 191'
LOT 12, BLK 1 17,497 SQ. FT. 106' 141'
1 LOT 1 BLK 2 21,867 SQ. FT. 122' 178'
LOT 2, BLK2 15,381 SQ. FT. 90' 172'
1 LOT 3, BLK2 16,043 SQ. FT. 90' 172'
LOT 4, BLK 2 16,021 SQ. FT. 91' 185'
1 LOT 5, BLK 2 17,871 SQ. FT. 90' 199'
LOT 6, BLK 2 17,986 SQ.FT. 90' 141'
1 LOT 7, BLK 2 17,029 SQ. FT. 90' 190'
I LOT 8, BLK 2 17,957 SQ. FT. 90' 189'
LOT 9, BLK 2 17,837 SQ. FT. 90' 197'
I LOT 10, BLK 2 19,143 SQ. FT. 90' 206'
LOT 11, BLK 2 22,745 SQ. FT. 242' 167'
1 Grading and Drainage
I The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of tree cover except in the northeast
corner of the parcel. The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade a majority of the site
for house pads, street construction and a storm water treatment pond. As proposed,
I construction of the storm water treatment pond will result in the removal of some trees in the
rear of Lot 10, Block 1. Depending on final ponding calculations, it may be possible for the
applicant's engineer to reconfigure the pond and save these trees.
I The grading and drainage plan proposes catch basins to catch storm water runoff from lawns
and the street. Proposed storm sewers will convey the untreated site runoff from two
I
1
1
Royal Oak Estates
May 5, 1993
Page 4
drainage systems. One system conveys the storm runoff to the proposed retention pond on
Lot 10, Block 1 which then flows into the adjacent wetlands. The other drainage system
conveys runoff from the westerly portion of the development and will connect into a storm 1
sewer system proposed by the development to the south. The City has previously approved a
preliminary plat for the parcel directly to the south (Rottlund Companies - Windmill Run)
which may or may not be constructed prior to this development. 1
This subdivision request, as with the previously approved subdivision of Windmill Run, are
prime examples where the applicant is unable to provide adequate on -site ponding facilities;
1
therefore, they should be required to pay a storm water trunk fee. The trunk fee would be
used to offset future costs of oversizing on the next downstream segment of pipe. Trunk fees
1 would be calculated based on the contributing drainage areas flowing to the south parcel.
As previously mentioned, the parcel to the south of this development has previously received
preliminary plat approval by the City. Staff's review of the storm water runoff in Windmill
Run resulted in recommending diverting storm runoff from three drainage areas into two
temporary retention ponding areas. One of these areas was to convey drainage from the
southeast corner of this development through the Windmill Run project. However, since this
site (Royal Oak) is now being considered for development it would be prudent to maintain
the "predeveloped" drainage pattern and convey runoff from the easterly portions of Windmill
Run north into proposed Royal Oak development where the proposed storm sewers located at
the end of the street will intercept the drainage. This additional runoff from the south parcel
will require additional pond storage in Royal Oak development (Lot 10, Block 1) to
accommodate pretreatment. This same drainage scenario is happening on the westerly portion
of the project. Storm runoff from Royal Oak Estates is proposed to be conveyed via storm
sewer south between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 into the Windmill Run subdivision. This storm
runoff is proposed to be treated in a temporary retention pond constructed within the
Windmill Run development. The contributing areas from each development into one another
appears to be equal. Therefore, costs for oversizing of the storm sewer lines and/or ponding
areas in both developments would be a wash.
Storm water treatment in both developments are not fulfilling the City's water quality
standards; as with Windmill Run, the applicant of Royal Oak Estates should also be required
to contribute into the City's Surface Water Management Program for development of a
downstream regional ponding facility. The City has not established a trunk storm sewer fee 1
as of yet; however, the City is nearing completion of a city -wide comprehensive storm sewer
plan. Bonestroo & Associates, the City's storm water consultant, will be able to estimate a
figure based on contributing drainage areas. It is recommended that this development be
required to pay its fair share of those trunk fees to enable the City to contribute to future
storm sewer projects on adjacent parcels to convey runoff from this development to a 1
proposed regional pond. In addition to the trunk storm sewer fee, the applicant will also be
1
1
1
1 Royal Oak Estates
May 5, 1993
Page 5
required to pay into the City's Storm Water Management Program to provide water quality
improvements downstream.
According to a preliminary geotechnical evaluation report prepared by Braun Engineering
dated April 26, 1993, soil conditions throughout the development contain a very high
' moisture content. Ground water was observed at a relatively shallow depth in several
borings. Ground water will also likely be encountered in other low areas of this site.
Therefore, staff recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to
' intercept household sump pump discharge which is typically extended to discharge into the
street. The City in the past has experienced discharge of sump pumps in the street creating
' hazardous conditions, icy conditions in the winter as well as the slippery slime buildup in the
summer. Prior to final platting the applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department
with storm sewer and ponding calculations. All storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 -year
I storm event. The ponding requirements shall meet water quality standards set forth by
Bonestroo. The discharge rate for predeveloped runoff conditions shall be maintained except
where the storm sewer will be extended into a network of trunk storm sewer lines.
' Utilities
The City Council has ordered the preparation of plans and specifications for trunk sanitary
sewer and water improvements to service this area as well as Lundgren Bros. project on the
Johnson/Dolejsi property located to the west of the development. Plans and specifications for
the project are nearing completion and are_subject to approval and authorization for bid by the
City Council. Without these trunk improvements, the project is not feasible from an
engineering standpoint. A change order with the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sewer and water
' improvement project was approved to extend the sanitary sewer from the existing Lake Ann
trunk sanitary sewer line to the easterly lot lines of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. The City's
proposed trunk sewer and water improvements propose on extending the 12 -inch trunk sewer
line westerly between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 to the proposed street and thence continue
westerly to Galpin Boulevard. Since it is a relatively short distance to the south line of the
plat, the City would include extension of an 8 -inch sanitary sewer line south of the future
Windmill Run development. A 12 -inch trunk watermain is also proposed to be extended
down Galpin Boulevard to the intersection of this development. A 12 -inch water line would
then be extended easterly along the roadway alignment to the south plat line. Depending on
timing, the City may also extend the 12 -inch watermain south through the Rottlund
development. A 15 -foot wide drainage and utility easement should be dedicated with the
final plat along the east line of Lots 10 and 11 along with a 20 -foot wide easement centered
on the common property line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. The applicant will be
responsible for the extension of the sanitary sewer and water service to the individual lots
' from the trunk main as well as fire hydrant leads. All utility and street construction shall be
in accordance with the City's latest standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed
construction plans for utility and street improvements will be required as a part of the final
1
1
1
Royal Oak Estates 1
May 5, 1993
Page 6 1
plat approval process and are subject to City Council approval. The applicant shall also be
required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial security
to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval for the overall development.
According to City ordinance, the existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 (Davidson's) will be
required to connect to the new sanitary sewer line within 12 months after such connection
becomes available.
Once the City formally authorizes the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain improvements
(Project No. 92 -5), assessments will be pending on the property. The assessment will be
based on the number of net assessable acreage for each parcel based on the number of
residential equivalent units (REU's) for the planned land use. Net assessable acreage is gross
acreage less wetlands and major right -of -way. The feasibility report for this project proposed
a net assessable acreage of 12 acres with 24 REU's for the parcel. The plat proposes 23 lots
even though potentially 24 lots could be platted. Staff proposes to spread the future
assessments for the trunk and lateral improvements over the proposed 23 lots equally.
Streets
The plans propose a single access off of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Galpin
1
Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Carver County Highway Department of which they
have sent a memo addressing their concerns. Staff has also met with Mr. Roger Gustafson,
County Engineer and Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer, regarding access points in
relation to these two newly proposed subdivision (Windmill Run and Royal Oak Estates). It
is both the Carver County Highway Department's and staff's position that if these
developments came in as one submittal (project), the northerly access which is proposed with
Royal Oak Estates would be denied due to the close proximity to each other. But since the
City has already granted preliminary plat approval for Windmill Run we are unable to change
the plat layout at this time. In the meantime we are somewhat obligated to grant street access
from County Road 117 to Royal Oak Estates.
According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, County Road 117 is classified 1
as a collector (Class I). Eventually it will be a 100 -foot wide road right -of -way corridor with
a four -lane highway. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 currently accesses the property
from County Road 117. It is recommended that the driveway access be relocated to access
from the proposed interior (new) street.
The plans propose 60 -foot wide road right -of -way and construction of a 31 -foot wide back-to-
back
urban street section which is in accordance with the City's standards. Street grades
range from 0.7% grade to 4.7% which is also within the City's guidelines. All street 1
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition (1993) of
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans and
1
Royal Oak Estates
May 5, 1993
Page 7
1 specifications will be required for review prior to final plat approval. The construction plans
and specifications for street and utility improvements will also require City Council approval
1 in conjunction with final platting.
Erosion Control
' The drainage plan proposes erosion control fence along the easterly edge of the development
and the southwesterly comer of the development. Staff will recommend that erosion control
1 fence be extended along the easterly lot line to the north comer and then west around the
pond perimeter. In addition, depending on timing, the City may also require erosion control
silt fence installed approximately 10 feet behind the curb throughout the subdivision in an
1 effort to minimize erosion during new home construction. This also alleviates the builder
having to install individual erosion control measures on each lot in the future.
1 Landscaping
' The applicant is providing landscaping along CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.): The Subdivision
Ordinance requires a landscaped buffer on the exterior of the subdivision if adjacent to a
collector street. The buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a
mix of trees and shrubs. The Subdivision Ordinance provides a list of preferred plantings. The
list contains primary specimen deciduous trees, secondary specimen deciduous trees,
ornamental and conifers (see attachment). The Subdivision Ordinance also requires each lot
to be provided with a minimum of one (1) tree to be placed in the front yard. The proposed
boulevard landscaping consists of 5 River Birch. Staff is recommending that the landscaping
be improved with berming and additional landscaping. The five River Birch are fine but
should be support landscaping to higher quality boulevard trees such as recommended by the
city under the primary category (see list). Staff is also recommending that the boulevard
landscaping be expanded along Lot 1, Block 1. Although this is an existing home, the lot is
' part of the subdivision and does not currently provide landscaping along CR 117. The
landscaping plan shall also contain details on the one tree/lot. Staff is recommending that at
least half of the lots contain primary specimen plants (12 lots). The landscaping plan shall be
1 amended to reflect staff's recommendations.
There is a stand of trees along the northerly boundary. Only the ponding area may impact
1 these trees. Staff is recommending the landscaping plan show the boundary of the trees and
that a conservation easement protect the stand of trees.
1 Park and Recreation
' The proposal lies within a park deficient area, but due to its size, most likely will not be
considered as a candidate for land acquisition. The city's parkland dedication ordinance
would allow the taking of .92 of the 13 acres being platted for parkland. This acreage is
1
1
Royal Oak Estates
May 5, 1993
Page 8
insufficient for a neighborhood park, and in my opinion, does not represent a "nest egg" to
build upon. Staff's recommendation to the Park and Recreation Commission will be to accept
full park fees to be paid at the time of building permit application in lieu of parkland
dedication.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies Galpin Boulevard (CR 117) as a trail alignment. A
I
current analysis to determine which side of the road this trail will be constructed identifies the
east as the better candidate. To accommodate this construction, a 20 -ft. wide trail easement
will be required of the applicant. This easement shall be granted on the westerly property
I
line (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2). The alignment shall be included in the overall
grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This bed may meander
within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment
must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as part of the grading
plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas east of the trail bench. Full trail
fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application to assist in the financing of 1
the future trail connection.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
At the May 5, 1993, meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval
of the request with an addition to condition #12 which is noted in bold.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves request #93 -2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned A2, 1
Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and subdivision #93 -8 for Royal Oaks
Estates to create 23 single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 7, 1993, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The city shall accept full park fees to be paid at the time of building permit
application at the rate then in force in lieu of park and land dedication; and
2. A 20 -ft. wide trail easement shall be granted to the city along the applicant's westerly
property line (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2). Furthermore, that the easement on
Lot 1, Block 2 shall be included in the grading plan for this project with a suitable
trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment
at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to
future trail construction, and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan
review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to the areas east of the trail bench. Full
1
1
1
Royal Oak Estates
May 5, 1993
Page 9
' trail fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the rate then in
force to assist in the financing of future trail construction.
3. The applicant shall pay an appropriate storm water trunk fee to be determined by the
City's storm water management consultant to contribute towards the future extension
1 of trunk storm sewer facilities.
4. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's
' latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The street construction
shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to accommodate household sump
pump discharge. Detailed construction plans and specifications for utility and street
' improvements shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final
platting. Final construction plans and specifications are subject to City Council
approval.
' 5. The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying
the pipe sizing and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be designed and constructed
' to a 10 -year storm event. The retention pond will be reviewed by the City's storm
water management consultant and constructed pursuant to guides implemented by the
' City's consultant (Bonestroo).
6. Erosion control plans and methods shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's
Best Management Practice Handbook.
7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory
' agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District and Carver
County Highway Department.
' 8. Prior to the City's 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 and compliance of the conditions of approval.
The development contract will be subject to City Council approval.
9. The applicant shall provide, at a minimum, a right -turn lane (deceleration lane) along
1 County Road 117 and any other roadway improvements as required by the Carver
County Highway Department.
10. Should the end of the roadway not be connected with the parcel to the south, a
temporary cul -de -sac shall be constructed to meet City standards with a barricade and
signage stating that it is a temporary cul -de -sac and this road will be extended in the
future. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the necessary temporary roadway
easement for portions of the cul -de -sac lying outside the right -of -way.
1
1
Royal Oak Estates 1
May 5, 1993
Page 10 ,
11. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council ordering and awarding
the bid for Public Improvement No. 92 -5 for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and
watermain improvements through the development.
12. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the typical 5 and 10 -foot wide drainage I
and utility easements along all side, front and rear lot lines. In addition, drainage and
utility easements shall be conveyed for all pond retention areas which will include the
newly construction 12 inch line along the back of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. 20 - I
foot wide drainage and utility easements shall also be dedicated with the final plat on
the following areas:
a) between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. 1
e) between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2.
13. Should parcel the arcel to the south (Rottlund - Windmill Run) not develop, this 1
development will be required to provide temporary on -site retention pond until the
parcel to the south develops and the storm sewer line is extended to Lots 1 and 2,
I
Block 2.
14. Erosion control measures and turf establishment shall be in accordance with the City's
I
Best Management Practice Handbook.
15. The final grading plan shall denote the type of house and elevation of garage and 1
lowest floor for each lot.
16. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 (Davidson's) shall connect to the municipal 1
sanitary sewer system proposed with the site improvements within 12 months after the
connection becomes available.
I
17. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 shall relocate their driveway to access the new
street within 12 months after the new street is constructed.
18. The City will spread the proposed trunk and lateral sewer and water assessments
equally over the proposed 23 lots.
I
19. The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide boulevard landscaping in the form
of berms and plant materials. The boulevard landscaping shall contain landscaping I
from the primary specimen list and shall include Lot 1, Block 1. The landscaping
plan shall reflect existing trees which will be protected by a conservation easement.
The required 1 tree/lot shall contain trees from the primary specimen lists for at least
I
14 lots.
•
1
1
Royal Oak Estates
May 5, 1993
Page 11
20. Fire Marshal conditions:
1 a. Street names must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal, particularly
since it will be connecting to the subdivision to the south. Street names must
be approved so as to avoid duplication, and house numbers match the city's
1 grid map.
b. Relocate fire hydrants as shown on preliminary utility plan.
' c. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
d. Fire hydrant caps must be painted per City of Chanhassen Engineer Spec.
e. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to
provide all- weather driving capabilities. The roads shall be in place before
construction on new dwelling starts which is greater than 150' from County
Road 117.
f. If the road does not connect to the south to form a looped road, a temporary
' Fire Department approved turnaround shall be provided. See preliminary utility
plan."
1 ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 27, 1993.
2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated April 28, 1993.
3. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 22, 1993.
' 4. Letter from Assistant County Engineer dated April 22, 1993.
5. Letter from DNR dated April 27, 1993.
6. Primary specimen list.
7. Reduced plans.
8. Planning Commission minutes dated May 5, 1993.
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
-'‘‘' _.
0 CHANUASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
1
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: April 27, 1993 I
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Royal Oak Estates, Brett Davidson 1
Project File No. 93 -12
Upon review of the preliminary plat and site plans prepared by Ernie Rud Surveyors and
1
Charles Plowe Engineering dated April 6, 1993, I offer the following comments and '
recommendations:
GRADING AND DRAINAGE i
The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of tree cover except in the northeast
corner of the parcel. The preliminary grading plan proposes on grading a majority of the
I
site for house pads, street construction and a storm water treatment pond. As proposed,
construction of the storm water treatment pond will result in the removal of some trees in
the rear of Lot 10, Block 1. Depending on final ponding calculations, it may be possible for 1
the applicant's engineer to reconfigure the pond and save these trees.
The grading and drainage plan proposes catch basins to catch storm water runoff from lawns
I
and the street. Proposed storm sewers will convey the untreated site runoff from two
drainage systems. One system conveys the storm runoff to the proposed retention pond on
Lot 10, Block 1 which then flows into the adjacent wetlands. The other drainage system 1
conveys runoff from the westerly portion of the development and will connect into a storm
sewer system proposed by the development to the south. The City has previously approved
a preliminary plat for the parcel directly to the south (Rottlund Companies - Windmill Run) 1
which may or may not be constructed prior to this development.
This subdivision request, as with the previously approved subdivision of Windmill Run, are 1
prime examples where the applicant is unable to provide adequate on -site ponding facilities;
therefore, they should be required to pay a storm water trunk fee. The trunk fee would be 1
is
A sir •
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1
1
I Jo Arm Olsen
April 27, 1993
Page 2
1
used to offset future costs of oversizing on the next downstream segment of pipe. Trunk
I fees would be calculated based on the contributing drainage areas flowing to the south
parcel.
I As previously mentioned, the parcel to the south of this development has previously received
preliminary plat approval by the City. Staff's review of the storm water runoff in Windmill
Run resulted in recommending diverting storm runoff from three drainage areas into two
I temporary retention ponding areas. One of these areas was to convey drainage from the
southeast corner of this development through the Windmill Run project. However, since
this site (Royal Oak) is now being considered for development it would be prudent to
1 maintain the "predeveloped" drainage pattern and convey runoff from the easterly portions
of Windmill Run north into proposed Royal Oak development where the proposed storm
sewers located at the end of the street will intercept the drainage. This additional runoff
1 from the south parcel will require additional pond storage in Royal Oak development (Lot
10, Block 1) to accommodate pretreatment. This same drainage scenario is happening on
the westerly portion of the project. Storm runoff from Royal Oak Estates is proposed to be
I conveyed via storm sewer south between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 into the Windmill Run
subdivision. This storm runoff is proposed to be treated in a temporary retention pond
I constructed within the Windmill Run development. The contributing areas from each
development into one another appears to be equal. Therefore, costs for oversizing of the
storm sewer lines and /or ponding areas in both developments would be a wash.
1 Storm water treatment in both developments are not fulfilling the City's water quality
standards; as with Windmill Run, the applicant of Royal Oak Estates should also be
1 required to contribute into the City's Surface Water Management Program for development
of a downstream regional ponding facility. The City has not established a trunk storm sewer
fee as of yet; however, the City is nearing completion of a city -wide comprehensive storm
I sewer plan. Bonestroo & Associates, the City's storm water consultant, will be able to
estimate a figure based on contributing drainage areas. It is recommended that this
development be required to pay its fair share of those trunk fees to enable the City to
I contribute to future storm sewer projects on adjacent parcels to convey runoff from this
development to a proposed regional pond. In addition to the trunk storm sewer fee, the
applicant will also be required to pay into the City's Storm Water Management Program to
1 provide water quality improvements downstream.
According to a preliminary geotechnical evaluation report prepared by Braun Engineering
1 dated April 26, 1993, soil conditions throughout the development contain a very high
moisture content. Ground water was observed at a relatively shallow depth in several
borings. Ground water will also likely be encountered in other low areas of this site.
1 Therefore, staff recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs
to intercept household sump pump discharge which is typically extended to discharge into
1
1
Jo Ann Olsen 1
April 27, 1993
Page 3
the street. The City in the past has experienced discharge of sump pumps in the street
creating hazardous conditions, icy conditions in the winter as well as the slippery slime
buildup in the summer. Prior to final platting the applicant shall provide the City's
Engineering Department with storm sewer and ponding calculations. All storm sewers shall
be designed for a 10 -year storm event. The ponding requirements shall meet water quality
standards set forth by Bonestroo. The discharge rate for predeveloped runoff conditions
shall be maintained except where the storm sewer will be extended into a network of trunk
storm sewer lines.
UTILI HES 1
The City Council has ordered the preparation of plans and specifications for trunk sanitary
sewer and water improvements to service this area as well as Lundgren Bros. project on the
Johnson /Dolejsi property located to the west of the development. Plans and specifications
for the project are nearing completion and are subject to approval and authorization for bid
by the City Council. Without these trunk improvements, the project is not feasible from an
engineering standpoint. A change order with the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sewer and water
improvement project was approved to extend the sanitary sewer from the existing Lake Ann
trunk sanitary sewer line to the easterly lot lines of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. The City's
proposed trunk sewer and water improvements propose on extending the 12 -inch trunk
sewer line westerly between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 to the proposed street and thence
continue westerly to Galpin Boulevard. Since it is a relatively short distance to the south
line of the plat, the City would include extension of an 8 -inch sanitary sewer line south of
the future Windmill Run development. A 12 -inch trunk watermain is also proposed to be
extended down Galpin Boulevard to the intersection of this development. A 12 -inch water
line would then be extended easterly along the roadway alignment to the south plat line.
Depending on timing, the City may also extend the 12 -inch watermain south through the
Rottlund development. A 15 -foot wide drainage and utility easement should be dedicated
with the final plat along the east line of Lots 10 and 11 along with a 20 -foot wide easement
centered on the common property line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. The applicant will
be responsible for the extension of the sanitary sewer and water service to the individual lots
from the trunk main as well as fire hydrant leads. All utility and street construction shall
be in accordance with the City's latest standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed
construction plans for utility and street improvements will be required as a part of the final
plat approval process and are subject to City Council approval. The applicant shall also be
required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial 1
security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval for the overall
development.
1
1
1
Jo Ann Olsen
April 27, 1993
1 Page 4
According to City ordinance, the existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 (Davidson's) will be
required to connect to the new sanitary sewer line within 12 months after such connection
becomes available.
Once the City formally authorizes the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain improvements
(Project No. 92 -5), assessments will be pending on the property. The assessment will be
' based on the number of net assessable acreage for each parcel based on the number of
residential equivalent units (REU's) for the planned land use. Net assessable acreage is
gross acreage less wetlands and major right -of -way. The feasibility report for this project
proposed a net assessable acreage of 12 acres with 24 REU's for the parcel. The plat
proposes 23 lots even though potentially 24 lots could be platted. Staff proposes to spread
the future assessments for the trunk and lateral improvements over the proposed 23 lots
equally.
STREETS
The plans propose a single access off of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Galpin
Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Carver County Highway Department of which they
• have sent a memo addressing their concerns. Staff has also met with Mr. Roger Gustafson,
County Engineer and Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer, regarding access points in
relation to these two newly proposed subdivision (Windmill Run and Royal Oak Estates).
It is both the Carver County Highway Department's and staff's position that if these
developments came in as one submittal (project), the northerly access which is proposed
with Royal Oak Estates would be denied due to the close proximity to each other. But since
the City has already granted preliminary plat approval for Windmill Run we are unable to
change the plat layout at this time. In the meantime we are somewhat obligated to grant
street access from County Road 117 to Royal Oak Estates.
According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, County Road 117 is classified
as a collector (Class I). Eventually it will be a 100 -foot wide road right -of -way corridor with
a four -lane highway. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 currently accesses the property
from County Road 117. It is recommended that the driveway access be relocated to access
' from the proposed interior (new) street.
The plans propose 60 -foot wide road right -of -way and construction of a 31 -foot wide back-
to-back urban street section which is in accordance with the City's standards. Street grades
range from 0.7% grade to 4.7% which is also within the City's guidelines. All street
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition (1993) of
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans and
specifications will be required for review prior to final plat approval. The construction plans
1
1
Jo Ann Olsen 1
April 27, 1993
Page 5 '
and specifications for street and utility improvements will also require City Council approval
in conjunction with final platting.
EROSION CONTROL '
The drainage plan proposes erosion control fence along the easterly edge of the
development and the southwesterly corner of the development. Staff will recommend that
erosion control fence be extended along the easterly lot line to the north corner and then
west around the pond perimeter. In addition, depending on timing, the City may also
require erosion control silt fence installed approximately 10 feet behind the curb throughout '
the subdivision in an effort to minimize erosion during new home construction. This also
alleviates the builder having to install individual erosion control measures on each lot in the
future. ,
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall pay an appropriate storm water trunk fee to be determined by
the City's storm water management consultant to contribute towards the future
extension of trunk storm sewer facilities.
2. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The street construction
shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to accommodate household sump
pump discharge. Detailed construction plans and specifications for utility and street
improvements shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final
platting. Final construction plans and specifications are subject to City Council
approval. '
3. The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying
the pipe sizing and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be designed and
constructed to a 10 -year storm event. The retention pond will be reviewed by the
City's storm water management consultant and constructed pursuant to guides
implemented by the City's consultant (Bonestroo). ,
4. Erosion control plans and methods shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's
Best Management Practice Handbook. 1
5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory
agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District and Carver '
County Highway Department.
1
1
1
1 Jo Aim Olsen
April 27, 1993
1 Page 6
I 6. Prior to the City's 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 and compliance of the conditions of
1 approval. The development contract will be subject to City Council approval.
7. The applicant shall provide, at a minimum, a right -turn lane (deceleration lane)
I along County Road 117 and any other roadway improvements as required by the
Carver County Highway Department.
1 8. Should the end of the roadway not be connected with the parcel to the south, a
temporary cul -de -sac shall be constructed to meet City standards with a barricade
and signage stating that it is a temporary cul -de -sac and this road will be extended
I in the future. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the necessary temporary
roadway easement for portions of the cul -de -sac lying outside the right -of -way.
1 9. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council ordering and awarding
the bid for Public Improvement No. 92 -5 for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer
and watermain improvements through the development.
I 10. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the typical 5 and 10 -foot wide drainage
P t3' e P g
I and utility easements along all side, front and rear lot lines. In addition, drainage
and utility easements shall be conveyed for all pond retention areas. 20 -foot wide
drainage and utility easements shall also be dedicated with the final plat on the
1 following areas:
a) between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 1.
I e) between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2.
11. Should the parcel to the south (Rottlund - Windmill Run) not develop, this
I development will be required to provide temporary on -site retention pond until the
parcel to the south develops and the storm sewer line is extended to Lots 1 and 2,
Block 2.
I 12. Erosion control measures and turf establishment shall be in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
I 13. The final grading plan shall denote the type of house and elevation of garage and
lowest floor for each lot.
1
1
1
Jo Ann Olsen 1
April 27, 1993
Page 7
I
14. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 (Davidson's) shall connect to the municipal I
sanitary sewer system proposed with the site improvements within 12 months after
the connection becomes available.
15. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 shall relocate their driveway to access the new 1
street within 12 months after the new street is constructed.
16. The City will spread the proposed trunk and lateral sewer and water assessments 1
equally over the proposed 23 lots.
ktm 1
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. SOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
' FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
DATE: April 28, 1993
SUBJ: Royal Oak Estates
Attached please find a copy of the staff report presented to the Park and Recreation Commission,
' and the written response from Mr. Bret Davidson, the applicant, in regard to the aforementioned
preliminary plat. Mr. Davidson was in attendance at the April 27, 1993, Park and Recreation
Commission meeting. The commission listened to Mr. Davidson's concerns over the requiring
of a trail easement on Lot 1, Block 1 (the lot on which Mr. Davidson maintains his residence),
but upheld the requirement for such an easement.
1 Upon conclusion of the commission's discussion that evening, Commissioner Koubsky moved
and Commissioner Roeser seconded to recommend the City Council require the following
conditions of approval pertaining to parks and trails for Royal Oak Estates:
' 1. The city accept shall full park fees to be paid at the time of building permit application
P P
at the rate then in force in lieu of park and land dedication; and
' 2. A 20 -ft. wide trail easement shall be ranted to the city along the applicant's westerly
$ Y g PP
property line (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2). Furthermore, that the easement on Lot
1, Block 2 shall be included in the grading plan for this project with a suitable trail bed
being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the
discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail
construction, and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of
trees shall be restricted to the areas east of the trail bench. Full trail fees shall be
collected at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force to assist in
the financing of future trail construction.
Por PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
April 24. 1993 1
Bret A. Davidson
7291 Galpin Blvd
Excelsior, MN 55331
(612) 470 -9087
Mr. Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 ,
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
I am writing this letter because circumstances beyond my
control prevent me from being at the Park and Recreation
Commission meeting Tuesday night by 7:30. I will be out of
town and arriving back in town at about 7:45. I plat, on
coming to the meeting right away but will probably not
arrive before about 8:30. In case I don't arrive before my
a e:tdr, item, the following addresses my concerns.
From the' staff report on Royal Oak Estates. a 20 foot trail
cas ,.:cr:t is recommended on the east side of Galpin Blvd
alc,� the west side of Lot 1 Block 1 and Let 1 Block 2. L^
1 Bloch 2 Has sized in expectation of this requirement and
(- of the trail easement has been planned. My
specific concern is with Lot 1 Block 1.
Lot 1 Block 1 is being platted at the same time as the plats
of Ro'.al Oak Estates because this was required the
Chanha - =,sen planning department but this lot is net
specifically a part of the Royal Oak development.
This lot currently has a home on it that was built in 198C.
At the time it was built, all required setbacks from
existing easements were complied with. Subsequently, a
paved driveway and landscaping were installed. As you may
be aware, the county is now suggesting the easement along
Galpin Blvd be increased from a 33 foot easement to a 50
foot easement. An additional 20 foot trail easement will
significantly impact the present homesite. This easement
could require removal of 2 large trees, and a significant 11 portion of the driveway, impacting access to the garage.
In addition, a layman's visual inspection would appear to
indicate that the future trail might be better suited along
the west side of Galpin Blvd. The property immediately
north of Lot 1 Block 1 is owned by Prince. To continue the
1
1
trail along the east side of Galpin would require an
easement through the property which will more than likely
' stay undeveloped for many years to come. In addition, there
appears to be a small wetlands that would have to be
traversed and an eight foot high chain link fence that would
have to be removed and reinstalled further east. It would
' seem considerable time and expense will be required to place
the trail on the east side of Galpin Blvd.
In contrast, the west side of Galpin Blvd appears to be
' extremely well suited for the trail placement. The land on
the west side is currently farm land and a major development
company has an option to purchase this property. It appears
1 this land will be developed in the next couple of years.
There are no fences, wetlands, etc. to traverse and the land
could be dedicated as development occurs.
1 As the developer of Royal Oak Estates, I will more than
gladly dedicate the trail easement along Lot 1 Block 2, but
as the homeowner of Lot 1 Block 1, I .am requesting that no
' easement be required of this private homesite at this time.
As future development occurs and as the trail is being
planned the issue can be readdressed and resolved.
' As the City of Chanhassen expands we arc all aware that
current residents will sometimes be inconvenienced or
' sometimes worse for the sake of progress and overall good of
the community. However, I would also hope the city would he
sensitive to current homeowners and that solutions would be
derived that are in the best interest of all involved.
I hope to sec you at the Commission meeting April 27t1. and
will be more than willing to answer any questions you might
hnvc at that time. Thank you.
' Sincerely.
/7 r://
Rret. A. Davidson
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
t 4 CHANHASSEN 1
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal 1
DATE: April 22, 1993
SUBJ: Royal Oaks Estates 1
Planning Case 93 -2 Rezoning & 93 -8 Subdivision
1
I have reviewed the site plan and have the following requirements:
1) Street names must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal, particularly since 1
it will be connecting to the subdivision to the south. Street names must be approved
so as to avoid duplication, and house numbers match the city's grid map. 1
2) Relocate fire hydrants as shown on preliminary utility plan.
3) A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 1
4) Fire hydrant caps must be painted per City of Chanhassen Engineer Spec. 1
5) Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide 1
all- weather driving capabilities. The roads shall be in place before construction on
new dwelling starts which is greater than 150' from County Road 117.
6)
If the road does not connect to the south to form a looped road, a temporary Fire 1
Department approved turnaround shall be provided. See preliminary utility plan.
1
1
1
t a4. •
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1 N R ('C)0
•. CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
' ` / j 600 EAST 4TH STREET
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT F�_ / CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
I (612) 448 -1213 4> ,It. NNESO
i
COUNTY Of CAQVEQ
April 22, 1993
1
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner
I FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat
Royal Oak Estates (93 -2 Rezoning and 93 -8 Subdivision)
I Following are comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Royal Oak Estates subdivision
transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated April 8, 1993.
1 1. Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are:
1 Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
2 -lane Roadway 2 -lane Roadway
1 Minimum Recommended
100' Minimum Recommended
80' 110' 120'
I Urban Undivided Rural Divided
4 -lane Roadway 4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 110' 190' 200'
I
County Road 117 (Gaipin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway
in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 50 foot from centerline corridor
1 shown would provide for a potential 100 foot corridor. This corridor would meet the
needs for an urban roadway.
I The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed
subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway.
Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
I 2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right -of -way are subject
to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
I 3. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right -of -way of CR
117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department.
1 4. 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- 1 of -way (including turn removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment dej6osits)
-- lir 7.3
1 Affirmative Action /Equal Oppontuniti Employer _
Prated on Rec}rled Pape
1
to be completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition" 1
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 I
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.
I
7. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right -of -way must be approved by the
1 County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining
an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs
overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead
utility consideration. 1
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed
development. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATE OF
I DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE
&
METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 5510
PHONE NO. 772- 7910 4
Jo Ann Olsen April 27, 1993
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
' Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: ROYAL OAK ESTATES, BRET DAVIDSON, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, HENNEPIN COUNTY
1 Dear Ms. Olsen:
' We have reviewed the site plans dated 4/6/93 (received April 9,
1993) for the above - referenced project (N1 /2, SW 1/4, S.10, T.116N,
R.23W) and have the following comments to offer:
1. The project site does not contain or appear to involve any
public waters or public waters wetlands; therefore, no DNR
public waters permit is required.
2. No DNR shoreland management or floodplain concerns were noted.
' 3. There appear to be wetlands near the east or northeast portion
of the site. The city will need to ensure the project is
consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. We do
note that the stormwater goes through a treatment pond before
1 being outlet in the direction of the wetland, which is good.
4. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during
' the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water
& Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and
' Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent,
should be followed.
5. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000
' gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR
appropriations permit is required. You are advised that it
typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit
application.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
772 -7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Ceil Strauss
Area Hydrologist
cc: Bob Obermeyer, Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek WSD Wayne Barstad
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1
Primary Specimen Deciduous Trees 1
Boulevard Planting Common Name
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry
Tilia Americana American Linden
Acer Platanoides "Schwedler" Maple, Norway
Acer Platanoides "Superform" Maple, Superform Norway
Acer Platanoides "Variegatum" Maple, variegated Norway I
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis Honeylocust
Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust
Aesculus hippocastanum European Horsechestnut I
Gymnocladus dioica Kentucky Coffee Tree
Quercus macrocarpa Burr Oak
Quercus alba White Oak
Quercus rubra Red Oak •
Quercus palustris Pin Oak
Jugians nigra Black Walnut 1
Interior Planting
I
Acer Saccharum Sugar Maple
Primary Specimen Conifers 1
Boulevard Trees Common Name 1
Abies balsamea Balsam Fir
Abies concolor Concolor Fir
I
Picea abies Norway Spruce
Picea glauca White Spruce
I Picea glauca densata Black Hills Spruce
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ......_...-------- I '• ‘ k
,
1 ,,c,,..r: m • ---,_.
....______. . I
— / , - :9: ",6 -: - , :-.---;---Leuszo ( •1_,_ _ --. --
tn,. --, -.,-,______.. , • .!./:.0 .74,2 FO
.f". tit P 'g ill
r :.;4
1 r4.1:TI
ii....:ii F r 1
.../i.ct „•;,:.
• , P., l'-:. Jc. • '4 "7,4... '14- .). 7
''• ' - a '"N -
SA;$ m ills „ -
) . • - - - • • _. `3 1 ,r --
/
'! ?.! - i'.1.--11
,i 0 2 . 7 ^ / 2 — 1.• :4
1
SP
72 / _- ' Z. --• '
e lit ; II .1
"...........;•..,-;• . - • , :I., i
, \ \ 1 / - •, _
! _ ...
P. --......---tt
I-
V . I.
- ---...,:,.., *4 F r! I :,i
■ 1
,s, \ .......-... -
t ' r r•
1 siz
■ "
,
1 •::: %,...:, Fr r r.".!
•. '.7.:' 4 %; .....:- I
'i! Ic:ii # i !''ii a - ._
. I 1 s.
, 1 ` r
•n. %El 2 ,.. :S' . v :...' ... _ 7 ■-...-.........?...../.-'.*••• I I 1
' .. I. i _ ._ N \ • I " '
: ...1
4141 :, % - .-7 - 77.. -. •- 1 ''' -- ;,:1•"-:-.
--
I :
1 : r•ii :1, r:
....,
a "*.---- • I 'zr. - et, - \ "
I: • a,/
— — — —
i -
-,--- '
8 1
15 \ \ I , •
• . ., _
I 1 r
\`' f :.
*I
■
( : • 1 IN. • . 13' ' ' \ \ \ \ '1 `4 ., V t 1
tit
111-..
I - =:-: ;*: ;t-•:: t ... 0. -,
t•; i• :1 I ,
— I el__ ::.!="?, 1 -- I - - - • I. 33
rri
I ''' ...;'• t 1 Mg .;
o• I ' - - -- 'PI I rn r
,....
1 ;-.• i ;', ; t I i i 1 '''..,. - — ---" - I - \ '' ' , - ft . m g 73
03 N
■ Z : : ■• ?: J. C. -. ........._„/ /...,--........ gi
1
• ,..: .
t. •
: t.
:• a
4/ i ........
.. . :-.-. i 1( ) I 11 i
1 ,
, ■ ■
... -.'.... - 0. 0 .
x cr)
• -;
kr
0 C)
t la 1 ; • ,,,,,, 0 M 0
1 1
.,
'13 ',
11
— --
g.• r 4 —I '
.... a 0 1 i ./:: 1 ' i
• .. ■
••• ..'. . ..' I . xi 2
! ,•., t • ,.
\ 0 n
1 •
, :.'s; z•:•::.
,..; .,=-,...
;,, ■.;
o ,
1 •
,_._ A. -'• 1 ,
- a .
,\, 1, 0 ••■1
• \ x r 57 >
• I ' ‘ C 114 ‘, \ I tZ,•
. , • • —
1
i !' ; • - - I i
..:. 1 1 •• ,. .. ... 'or, '
" '.•••
rn
I 1
' V:1'sill
j .--1!-,ii,
, . I i. • \
i
- - 1 .
(7. -
,,..-: )• :- '
i
I
• ,, t 11 1. • *. \ .1 - — ..: , pi
• ; .• . .
1 -T, -1 ) :„ ! .■ I :■:\ i li i s s. i 1 l'
1 \ k--- -- - i
-,.. ,..f.. 1 .:).0",.:10
=1 !!ii 1 •
' i - -.1 ,; • t. r i ' - ir\ ,
i 1 i il ; t• lif•- it .0. _ -- -,,, : • t --- . .•• I 0
: ,,i , . 7.
■ 1 : - - . , ,
I I t t 1
■, — 0 (b
...... - V
1
••• . ' / ..,, -
, tr.
.-
?•
•
__
• - -- _ _
:7 - ...› „, ol
----"'
i •--, ;:g1 ,,,,,....
r
•= \ 6:-. 2 r f . .r .. ,
. / 7 ... Z .••••°--- 77 '.- -.. " U 1 2 rh •
„ ,,,., li , ,..,,.....,,,,..- • i .1
• .5 f,...... *
:: • -,
• - / f (...- -.. ; ,
,
: '-' ' ;•.! ri
•:. i ' _.. ,. ••••••• - -.% ,
• i 1 , : :,1 • ,. • - --....- -C
3.4..,C1t S :
..- i
_.
1
v l /'
�i / I ROYAL OAKS ESTATES Owner ::, ev ,
fre J / PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN t vio,son
�' _ - '129► Cs5 I v r / cu ad
•
•
II - --- .1--- - :ice _ F Excelsior, MN ��331
,
1 \., :...,,, _ v.._ j __
• -IC:r I!- - -�G aGV -�- 1 / I ! iEL.4:0;c1.1,1siti
• .(I Illlj l I \ -.+..
I 1
('. ( ' '
/ �2 .3 4 S ' 7 �g , 0 It\ N .. 8 I; I I
.� \ I „ III +I'1 1 _. _
-----/ I / ---�; �- l I T i' J '� _`, \ / 1. 7 / - -.4 , 1, i I \ \\ \ - ' -- -
_____-2 I ! IILU 9971,0 -- 1 1 _ -.. -
----/ - 'a e� . .. % IL -WPT _ 01 NLNf I ! N1I.f73.>t y t .•9Ta .. ` ' v ` 1 1 1 t .. .
-- ��� - -��i"!_:. �`� -. ,V.973./5
'�: - �! Y. 71. •. ` I I 1 1
,i; q? ----•:-- \ _/: 1 ------1 , I \ c i. , i \ -\-7 1--c-, \ ---- --- 1 ‘ us , , , ii ; , 0 , ! 11 -
n I \ \ \ 1 / / I I \ I • r ■ ' - 11 \ 1 \
\ � 5 `� g 71 �\ \' 8 % • 9 _I0 I I I w+, . \I2
I / \ t I / -- ( • \ \ 1 , •\ 1 \ ��./ i n� .. -' /1' / / \ \\
/
I 1/ I , /- � \. 1\ ( I \ \ I s e,+.r/cn ■
/
' \ 1 1 l \ \ \ N. : ) .--) \ 1
/
PRELIMINARY
UTILITY' PLAN
PREPAREO BY: 1 r l
1170 ',AWN, CNCINCCIINE
CHARLES W. PLOWE
gt-M CONSULTING ENGINEER „ , „0000 I.
• w. + Ike N /n / /Aa I Mat I,r b .. . �c
91IIp OH AK. N0 . LCV0000N AVENOC N L N INnal n,rr I oft • h/ (IN,/,/ Ir..
1110
CAGE PAM NI000SOIA (MIX 010(0, NM 05014
Ilr,ro „/ ,n1/n / .( r ,. N.. 1 /Y. N M•••••14 ]0010 - $ 1[L 7N - 00'54 711.104 ( ./,'(I J
/ aX i /&2 J( ..---
0/7C: 11.— f:' ^ 9 '' Oft 00 /(' 7
R. G. RUD 1 60N6, INC, cRArHIC �C,0U
LAND 61AxV8ro ..
5100 LEXINGTON AVE. NO.
I CRGLE PINES 7TE•OTA
35014 -3•:D TEL. l•• -DDS• [7 1 ,,
1 i
•
NM 111111 NMI 111111 IIIIIII NM MI Mil NMI MI MI MIN INIII I= NMI II.
1
1 — -
Ua pa..°Z s mwn
I Q •
4 N !
If t
s il i - 2 1 1 i 2: .
Dm 1 42g, tz c. o Y;
e1> O Z 4 � RI e , 0 V ; S acco U
00 " r
b 13 7-1-0 e p oga� iI % .h
0 r V ' _
� al U 8 = , , O a i s 111 _
N k W 11 a �' O
i m,w
ta'.N
I -_• 0 ^
) t t: , g .. ,
1 co R K K K
i�iy MIN
t 1 .A J"li,�° ti
2 . 0 �(�M1 y Ykt£2 .a.K.m{ .I W
II -`a o 3 +� . is c` w F W
0:1 Fi \".1] s 1
‘111 41
__-
1 J
�' 1 > 2S T a i _ ..tt.ee aoe rorz - i c
e " « • s.„„ R -
NO
T
I II.. . N
el t,..2„ a s♦
i • .., l U ~ Y,St.KA.L I Z � �,; I Z - K- ~ I
�, ;i R „ M. ft r 3 Bus «� 1 °I 1
E i¢`•, e- I 2 . 3 ,.o.n Lc... 1w m '
O .5 Q21.1
= ` 3 1 8 _ — u•b, V 3 Sri In
tlho$.g'ot Y -� C f at
K 1, —r 2 cl. i' = = j ;;=
1 - , 1 133x115 R
NUL 4.:111
J e ^ ge ist.ecOON to
._ d I �e a �
O =.s °s =tj utu Am — 7.OL..GtM i .`_� « 6E 3-
1 at °
a arR)121 Y eo .a` r t 8 gi
$ 8=lglIt. 8 - g Y V a.� Y €=
• r ' t1= a o � ° 4 i
..axaae — Ins..: n g:€3.
1 Craig 1.00 - - o
Q.: B C
: ' J a o m o o s
9 g l .!.t, ' pia • - m v ti
I 9 Eil 1 { rt .- OO.ILtos 0 Y
�. = - - "_ * , l al .0 1 tt i; Z 4 4
I zt 2 �. � • W d i - ! a y QZr °s oi
o.
. K K Y O j�-i 4 "' a 1 � ` r .r�.-, i s 2 2
= r Oil 7f7 a — __ 8 w Lc �
— _ =1 jd7 L L L ObOel '00 , /tea Q
/- r•o o+ • + ....... .3 .os:x�o - v w ...I51 UdI
1
1
• E res• .1 ,
.--..•
:. - • • .., •,... - -7 " •
1 III
, Ai- --- ,;• ,..........._.,... .. ... 2 ? 1 P ii 1 P1
. , t . \ , s..-- ;',;*--..,„ . ---- ■,,,...;: . ! es, . j , e. i
i• I . I N.I
_, 1 :g•ii;,*1 l., . -- • - I
) r .)..) ,..-,'"' ' - 7..
1 ,-:.%. 0 . , 71 1 -1 .
fli 15 i
' • 7" . ‘ . ...Aka> I "_‘\1.
. ,: - - -3• CR - , -). } :I g V • ' , , , - • - ' • . ..... • ' • • . r 7,- e.ra,?_.! .
-717 ;K - ... . ;
-=-,,,, 0 kv,"1 ''..,,"••..zr,q4A .-: - ..4. ' ,- I
c - • .7 . ' - 1
4.., in -5 ,f; - --- - - --Z / *' ,;%, '-'''77--;----- .. -,a. •
........., - :..1
I
..._ ... -- f -7 -.? ..
.
- —.' ' •/•• i -
r •-■ u_tc, 0 . ... • ..„ ..,
, • -_ --.=-..
6. --- - = --- — --- -•:,.
... - ,
..--- / •,,..,
...
. -
_____ , I
i 4; I
3 fp : Iii I i i ' •-. . „
i , -it. I t • ••! 1 " - '
0 i • .
° - .•.: , , i f it • ' — .......
..I I I
,•• - I,k1ggli. g••' ci: .•
; 1-: ,- 111!ii' „..
1 ` 1--1 ----' • ---- `• ` 11;l11W i':,4 i
— i i. ; I . _. ,,,,,,
_
44. t r..-- ''' 1 1 11\. i• i L ' I I ' - I 1 t '
i 0 I t 1 - . • ' 'i. -. 1 % 0 \ 1 .. n i 4.1 - ../ 7: ' !--; i'. i
,.,-,, - • ” 1 • ir"i' 1 ...-:' 1. -- -- It: . ....-. ., . ...,) ..
/ , 1 i) • %
' ' • '. 1 1 .........! 'i ; .• i ? • • i .
• 1 0 •
L.-- •
til s ••••• * - -_,, ._ • - r1 ST- i.
V) < • '... - I 1 ';:."1; 1 ..■ .,I r -----__ F- _ ! 1 --- '1 1
g \
L ___., , 1. ..,• ) .• ,,,,\_,--- --,
T i '- • / s4ls 1 1 \ . 4 . t : i
I 7 I
i . 7 :l < I; . I • I
CC -.1 " ' I I ; ) W:V, ------ . • t.1 I ' - I it;1 : - I •
....i
1—• 0 Cl. t
/ 111 11 . 1 ''.1 - 1 - - 4 1 P
0
7
cn - . ,
\ . ..0 -- ■ ..;
LLI 0 -. ___ i ........7, ."..
r.t.. ..
z rr ... 7 1 ;;1
„,-• c...) .. ..., ...1) , )1 .. _., . f f t' :• '••• ...): •.:1-
: I .,. . - z ' L ) •••• -
0 I f.: .— ---/- • e• • i, t., .7)
• < Z L : • .., if I .i 'X' r i m '' '! 1 -:.1 ' 1 -;,,..,?.. ..,..,
• CC °
t t ' - 7
-
CI (.) •'; -
- r ...• ,..., .. .......-z-..:
0 '
')-. i , , — I
...I >'. Z .-- • . • - ! ..•••• ) f 4 g
...____ .,• • -. t(.. - ..,
f
; P i• •.
: •7
< Cr 0 le
(J. • 'ft- i -.---; ., --- - . .
.. A • ;
, ‘,.... --
__()_••______:.._ :.:.!••.
\ ...,
.... co ---. I 1 0, ........
% S. \ r ----7, \ ,..' 7 "---.• I „..,•-------- / ".1 —7 1
CC 2 ct
:a w I , ,-,,,, - , , - - •----,----,- .--,,, , .1- .. .r b , r
t : :`::_. k :r-: I
•.: --. , Z...*: ■ I
'\ ____________ i I • $ - ri.`.-: -z, - . 1 .1; t L
lil ;1? ....ft 4.. -t _.:
. z: f • ,, -1 11 -
. . 1,.. -- ,o ; I; ••
2 I- . --->- , 1 i.:_•. x i: : '..: )2.
...1 ,
7-7 HI;
I . , -I ...- •.,., ro -.,.:; %, - F:.
II: / ' . \ , •;,. • -. ., - ---_,. , ... _ _.. , .I, - .•-:-.. Ig :::,
• `CV .u,
.
1 - -1- i — ,... ;r -•.;
- — *. , , I ; • . I .
' !- ' .:-I „ L % -.. ' t. i Mei 1 't l•i± ..7
„, _. •
\ .
N — ---. • 1 I ____________ _
\ .. 1 s. ,,........ I .'.1: • ,- .7 ',;;':. t.
.7., ..; i - r. i , r /2".- - .; .• ' !Eg g ..f. i t_ta;
1-.: \\ I 1,1 --,!:?: 4 ; .-- Nr:•--, ' :5 „,....ti 115!1!.1::::::N
--
I ;II! - - '.. •
\ Li 1 ' • ' ---" F-:-:■. P = r....:: 7 .
.- - - . _
" - -. ..) ti - _
--p , e 1 ! ' l -,., A...CZ; •• --
• 11 / \ ,
! I / - IL.....1.f.1_,...,...
_
; ;; .... 1 S. Ii - i - ri r •N , --- e 7 *
-, 0. - - o•-•
. '/ I . 41•1•..,)771,,"- ..,-, .
. ff.!. ! / \ 4 „ . . ,.. , / / 1
•• i .
1 1 -;'' ,, .iti ':
. Li '. - .;'''
\ .
A z \ ,. ----=_!7,_ ..(.._ `,...,..;;;•_... .!.? 4 ;. I s >
, ,..__ , 1 :... .."7r,-,.,..--=_—t-- ...,--( -
-. i. _:, 1 ",'--;--"..---.:;,...•,..._.
-- _ ir.i - • , -----'.-•--,- -).— "
) K -- 47. r - z ---- -Afti:;,'•----- -•• .-. -- - - -
-- —
-- - , . I •
....
.."------ ' z
. 1 .
., i
\ s, \ t
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 5, 1993
' Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scctt,
Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes, and Nancy Mancino
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City
Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO REZONE 13 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND TO SUBDIVIDE 13 ACRES INTO 23 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, ROYAL
OAKS, BRETT DAVIDSON.
' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
' Batzli: Let me ask a question. Did you have more Jo Ann?
Olsen: No, that was it.
Batzli: Let me ask one question before I have the applicant respond, if
he'd like to. This language in here about the trail bed meandering at the
discretion of the applicant, etc, etc, etc. But the eventual alignment
' must be conducive to future trail construction. Does that mean that we're
going to get a chance to look at it when they bring in the grading plan?
' Olsen: Right.
Batzli: So we're not leaving it totally up to their discretion. You guys
will have a chance to look at it at that point?
Olsen: Right. It can't be on a slope like this. He can move within that
20 feet.
' Batzli: Would you like to give us the presentation? Would you like to
comment on any of the conditions?
' Brett Davidson: I'd just like to comment...A couple of them are just
maybe typos that, first off my name is Brett Davidson. I'm the owner of
the piece. I also live in Lot 1, Block 1 and the developer. Just a
' couple of things as we go through. And some of them are typos I would
assume but just to make sure that it's right. On the front page, I think
the typo says there's 23 acres instead of 13. Obviously it's, I wish it
was 23 but it's only 13. And then page 2, where it talks about the
preliminary plat. There again, it's a minor point but the largest lot is
actually Lot 10, Block 1 which is a little over 37,000 square feet so
that's another.
' Ledvina: Where is that? Which condition?
' Brett Davidson: Lot 10, Block 1. It's the big one on the back side in
that corner. That's actually the biggest lot.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 2
Ledvi,na: Which condition are you referring to though?
Brett Davidson: It's on page 2 in the preliminary plat. ,
Ledvina: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
Brett Davidson: Second paragraph at the bottom of the last sentence.
Let's see, and then on page 5 where it talks about the utilities. Just
about halfway through there it's a typo again I'm sure. Because it says
it correctly later in the report but the 12 inch trunk sewer line actuall
goes between Lots 11 and 12, rather than 10 and 11. Block 1. There's a
storm sewer line that runs between 10 and 11 and a sanitary between 11 an
12. And then on page 10 on the recommendations, at the top of the page
where it talks about the easements. I think we left out an easement that
I'm sure you're going to want. Why not huh ?...and that is we've got, it
talks about a 20 foot easement between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. That's 11
the sanitary sewer and 10 and 11 of Block 1, that's the trunk. I mean
that's the storm sewer. And then Lots 1 and 2 is also storm sewer but
there's already sewer across the back of Lot 10 and 11. We don't mention"
an easement for that in here. I assume you want a 15 foot easement acros
that? Or do I get paid for that?
Batzli: Is that the dotted line on our preliminary utility? 1
Brett Davidson: Yes it is. That was brought in from the Lake Ann
Interceptor to get through the wetland. I think you mentioned it
somewhere else in there. I think it just didn't get in there.
Hempel: I believe it's staff's intent that with the proposed pond there
that the entire area behind Lots 10 and 11 will be a drainage utility
easement so it will be covered with that. So I think it's specific on an
easement width there.
Batzli: Help me out. Is that in one of our conditions right now. Which
one is the pond in? Or isn't there one?
Olsen: Under condition 12.
Batzli: Well that's the drainage and utility easements along all sides,
front and rear lot lines. In addition drainage and utilities and it shal
be conveyed for all pond retention areas. Okay so that.
Hempel: That covers it in there. '
Batzli: When do we have to get specific about which areas are actually
going to have an easement over them?
Hempel: When the final grading plan is prepared showing the proposed pon
in back of those lots.
Batzli: But when is that recorded then because isn't this plan recorded?
Hempel: This is a preliminary plat. On the final plat we'll denote all II
the proposed...our recommendation with easements on it.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 3
Ledvina: That newly constructed sanitary, that's the 12 inch line?
Hempel: That's correct.
Ledvina: Okay.
' Scott: So that's covered in the pond easement then?
' Hempel: That is correct.
Scott: Okay.
Hempel: Thank you for pointing that out.
Brett Davidson: No, I just want to make sure it's right. And then
•
another one that I'm not sure of and I didn't get a chance to check, and
that's on 19 on the same one we were talking about with the landscaping.
In this section we require a tree per lot from the primary specimen list
for 14 lots and earlier you said half the lots, which would be 12.
' Mancino: So it's on 12 lots.
1 Olsen: It should be 12.
Brett Davidson: It should be 12? Okay. That's what, okay. My only
' other concern, I talked to Dave a little bit about this, and that is my
consulting engineer is not real sure exactly what the city would like to
see as far as a draintile behind the curbs because he hasn't dealt with
this specific kind of thing before so we would just like leeway to work
with Dave and Dave, we've talked about it already, to decide exactly
what's needed and then if the City decides hey, we need one the whole
length along the whole thing and it's got to be designed like this, we're
' more than willing to do that obviously but we would like the wording in
here to allow us the option of working with Dave to decide what's exactly
needed and then when he decides for sure after we, and it may even be,
take a little bit more look at to see if it's needed the whole way or not.
Farmakes: Are you referring to a particular condition or do you want?
' Brett Davidson: Ah, is it 4? Yes sir, it's 4 then. It's the street
construction shall include a draintile system behind the curbs. It's like
the second sentence. We know what you'd like to see and we want to
' satisfy that as best we can. We just want to have the option or the
ability to work with Dave on it or the City's engineers and decide exactly
what's necessary.
' Batzli: Okay. Anything else?
Brett Davidson: No sir, that's it except if I could answer any questions.
' I know that just listening to some of the talk. I know one of the concern
was the utility plan was the sewer. The sewer utility plan that you see
there was actually supplied by Bonestroo so all the specs and all there
are by Bonestroo. I know the other concern, at least from the staff
report is the street. That's a little bit of a two edged sword here. We'd
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 4 i
actually, obviously prefer in some ways to rather have a cul -de -sac
because those lots are more desireable than a street. On the other hand, II
because this subdivision is so different than the Rottlund subdivision in
that it will have specific covenants. The homes will be a different style
homes. It's a different type subdivision than the Rottlund subdivision,
we feel it's important if at all possible, to have access off Galpin Road
to make it a separate subdivision rather than have to go through the
Windmill Run subdivision to get to it. I guess the only other thing that
I would request and that is if the City decides to take another look at
it, if the Rottlund development doesn't go through, we would also like in
that time to be able to assist in that look and give some input about, if
it is, if it does have to be changed, if the Rottlund development doesn't
come in, we'd like to assist in that change. I mean whether we bring in
road from the center through one of their cul -de -sacs or whether we bring
it on the end, we'd just like to be able to, if it does change, to assist,
in that change. That's it, unless you have some questions.
Batzli: Okay. We'll probably get to them in a minute.
Brett Davidson: Very good. 1
Batzli: It's a public hearing. Since there's no one else in the audiencil
here, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Scott moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. '
Batzli: Jo Ann, why don't you run through one more time the impact of why
Rottlund isn't going ahead and how that impacts this. 1
Olsen: Well the reason they're not going through is just the final
closing, they weren't able to come to agreement on, I don't know. They'r
going through negotiations again. As far as how that impacts this
subdivision, and maybe Dave will be the best to address this but one of
the major impacts is the storm water ponding that's required. And I'll
let you go into some more detail on that. And then also, as far as how II
the two will tie in together with the roads, local roads.
Batzli: So how can we approve this if the Rottlund one doesn't go
through?
Olsen: It can still act on it's own. They can still provide the ponding
on their own site. It could become permanent.
Batzli: But the engineer's report is that either one is taking care of
itself in a real good manner. How do we take care of this one by itself II
if we don't even have Rottlund?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. If the Rottlund piece
does not go in conjunction with this one, essentially this development
will have to do on site temporary ponding until the adjacent parcels do
develop at some future date and at that time would extend'a trunk storm
sewer up to pick up that drainage and then the need for a temporary pond II
would distinguish. One of the concerns staff had originally with these
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 5
two developments so close together was the street access. They're
approximately 340 feet apart, center line to center line. The County,
' along County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard, I'll just point out that is under
County jurisdiction. You made the same remark that it was relatively
close and would prefer to see only one access. However, as the small
parcels like this come in to develop, it's rather difficult to lump them
all together to foresee the future. How the future street systems will
react to one another out there. On top of that we'll also have the
potential of a common intersection with the parcels across the street to
l the west. I believe the Stockdale property and the Song property.
There's been some talk of development on the Song property through
Lundgren Bros development. We have not really seen any kind of concept
' plan or layout for street access points onto Galpin Boulevard. Therefore
again we're trying to predict where likely intersections would be best
suited. We haven't explored the possibilities of which intersection would
be preferenced I guess at this point but we felt by either providing the
stub street on Lot 4, Block 2 to the south to connect to Rottlund, if
Rottlund one didn't proceed that way we could limit access out onto the
County Road for a future developer what I'll call the Rottlund piece at
this time. But at this point I guess we've already given preliminary plat
to the Rottlund development. We're unable to undo that unless another
individual comes in with a similar plat, a replat or a one year expiration
I date on that plat expires.
Batzli: I wasn't here for the Rottlund development coming through. Did
we have on any of these maps, because I couldn't find it, what the
internal workings of the Rottlund development look like?
Harberts: It's dated February 17th.
Olsen: As you can see Rottlund has those two cul -de -sacs and so it's easy
to punch the road through.
Batzli: Punch the road through where?
Olsen: To the north.
Hempel: On the most westerly cul -de -sac or it could be the whole
subdivision could be realigned or laid out to be compatible with the
' Davidsons.
Olsen: With the objective being one of those intersections to Galpin
closing. So you'd have one.
Batzli: Okay. Well, let's go around here and see what.
Ledvina: ...long cul -de -sac? Well I suppose if you had that long
connecting street down.
' Olsen: You'd have a loop on the side.
Batzli: Okay. Nancy, do you want to lead us off here? Do you have
comments, questions, concerns?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 6
1
Mancino: I have kind of a...park designation in this area because it's a
deficient area? When and how does the Park and Recreation Commission, II when are they going to choose a place in this area? Because it is park
deficient and we have the Song property coming up.
Olsen: Right. That's what they're looking for the parkland on that piecil
of property. Exactly how they determine. When it's a smaller acreage
like this, the 12 acres, 13 acres, they really won't get much parkland as
far as the dedication so they wait until a larger piece comes in that the
can get like a 10 acres that would serve as a neighborhood park.
Mancino: They don't ever put two together even though they're by separat
owners?
Olsen: Oh sure, they can do that.
Farmakes: There is land that's adjacent to that property not too far awa1
to the northwest that's a lot more applicable towards park. A lot heavier
woods.
Mancino: ...but we should be hearing about that soon?
Olsen: The Song property? '
Mancino: Yeah, as far as what will be park designation...
Olsen: Yeah, if they move ahead with that, you should be seeing somethin1
I'd say probably late summer or fall.
Mancino: In the northeast corner where the retention pond will be, you II
talked about losing trees. What kind of trees are they?
Olsen: We're going to go out and look at those. They're big. They look
like they're decent trees. I don't know, do you know what type of trees
you have on there?
Brett Davidson: Yes. We were just out there as a matter of fact '
yesterday with the DNR... They're about probably 4 or 5 inch birch trees.
It's a stand of birch trees. And they actually, that border between Lot
and 10 in Block 1 and we are fairly certain by talking with our consulting
engineer, that depending on the ponding size that we're going to need,
that we can move the pond south if we have to move it south and save the
stand of trees. Obviously it's to our advantage to save them too because
it makes the lots more desireable. Or we could bring the, instead of
having a shape that's tending to be more of a kidney shape or something
that will save the stand of trees...4 inch, 6 inch birch tree.
Batzli: Do you have any concern, you've done a very nice job of taping
these two together. Do you have any concern about how these are going
together and if Rottlund ends up not going ahead? 1
Mancino: Would you have, would you have designed this differently if
Rottlund wasn't in there already?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 7
Brett Davidson: Probably the only difference I would have done, y if I
would have had my choice would have been lots on the east side have a
cul -de -sac there. But you've got to have access off Galpin... Obviously
you have to put a street through to the property south so that's really
not an option. Just one other thing and I'm sure that...Dave had
' mentioned it but while it's not ideal, Galpin is classified as a collector
and we do meet the city ordinance for distances between two streets.
Although it's not ideal, it falls within city ordinance by about 40 or 50
1 feet.
Batzli: But would it be more valuable if you hooked up through one of the
cul -de -sacs on the Rottlund property so this was kind of, this didn't have
direct access? Would it then be more valuable to you?
Brett Davidson: Actually, if we had our druthers and we had to get rid of
an access what we'd rather do, if we had to would be to stop the access
off Galpin and leave the other access into the Rottlund property rather
than go through their cul -de -sacs. And the whole reason for that is if
the Rottlund piece of property was similar homes and the similar type
neighborhood, we'd probably on our own would say, okay we won't have
access to Gaipin. But because they're two so dissimilar neighborhoods,
you basically, if you don't have the access off Gaipin, what you have to
' do is come in the Windmill Run neighborhood to get to the Royal Estates
neighborhood. Which in and of itself after the project is complete,
although not ideal...I mean I'm sure you know maybe this is just my
opinion but typically people want their own neighborhoods to be their own
neighborhoods and to be somewhat separated. Whether it be whatever class
of homes it is. And it's tough to do that if you enter through the
Windmill Run neighborhood. So that's why we did the access off Galpin.
And in fact we have plans right now to do an entrance monument...Windmill
Meadows to the north. There's a Lundgren property on the Galpin Boulevard
entrance and also...monuments on the south...simply for that very same
reason again. To keep them separate from the south.
Batzli: How do you view this neighborhood as being different from
Rottlund? Just price?
Brett Davidson: Part of it's price. Part of it is we have pretty
extensive covenants and we'll have similar mailboxes. The mailboxes will
all be the same. Not allowing or having an architectural committee
approve any fences that go up and satellite dishes that might go up. The
Rottlund subdivision does not have those same or similar architectural...
requirements. Garbage cans can't be exposed to the street. The typical
things that you would like to see in a neighborhood but they are typical
things that may or may not be required in a, for instance a Rottlund
property.
Batzli: What kind of price range are you thinking of develping in here?
' Brett Davidson: ...covenant is a 2,300 square foot home. So the home and
lot price is going to run anywhere from $230,000.00 to $300,000.00 and
maybe on up for the larger walkout lots. Rottlund's piece of property are
' developing in the $160,000.00 to $220,000.00 range. So theoretically
it's...
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 8
II
Mancino: It will be similar to what you have there right now?
Brett Davidson: Yes. Maybe even a little larger than mine. 1
Batzli: Thanks Nancy. Jeff.
II
Farmakes: The shape of these two pieces of property are dictating how
it's developed. They're narrow rectangles. You run a road through the
middle of it and put houses on either side of the road. If we look at
both pieces of property and we put them together, what worries me about II
these types of development and I realize you have little leeway with this
piece of property. Are we, when we develop up and down Galpin, are we il
going to have accesses to Gaipin every 2 houses? And in the long term
when we think of these properties, do we have a long term idea of what
we're looking for as far as the roads in that particular part of town? I
know that Highway 5 is working on the road to the south of that property II
but is there, it worries me a bit that we're looking at these types of
hook -ups but we're not sure that development's happening below and I'm
wondering long term if we shouldn't be giving that more thought or do we II
allow the developers to dictate that on the basis of how much property
they own.
Olsen: Well that plays a major part in that. We do look at what the
surrounding topography is and where roads could go. We do look at what's
coming in for development and so like with this one, Dave has looked to
the west to see where the road will continue. 1
Farmakes: The piece of property to the east is like under one owner isn't
it? 1
Olsen: Right. Mike Gorra's.
II Farmakes: Large piece so I guess that would be beneficial or at least yo
can work with that. It must be difficult with these little small pieces
of property.
Olsen: And we looked at that. That's why we want to go to the south. II
Going to the east doesn't work with the wetlands and the slope.
Farmakes: It doesn't worry me I guess, the pricing is close enough and 1
adjacent although it's really not our concern but in looking at square
footage of the lots, they're very similar. I'm not excited by row
housing. That's my own personal taste but I don't see how else you're
going to develop this small piece of property. It's pretty much dictatin
that it's a row development. It also I guess worries me that we rely so
much on the shape of the property that's owned for our connecting street II
plans. I really don't have a better idea of how to approach that but whe
we look at Rottlund say pulling out and so on, that are we sure that that
road curving to the south is the right thing to do? I have no answer to II
that. The recommendations and the other things that we talked about, if
staff is fine with those, I have no further comments on this.
Brett Davidson: Can I say one more thing here? 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 9
1 Batzli: Sure.
II Brett Davidson: And that is, the way I understand it at the present time,
if the Rottlund property was not developed, it appears at this point that
the Lundgren piece of property, which is the Song piece of property, may
1 be even delayed for some time now so the sewer and trunk improvements may
or may not even be approved. And if that happens, obviously the
subdivision is on hold. So this one is almost inherently tied to the
1 Rottlund piece of property simply because the trunk improvements probably
require that.
Farmakes: And that's the point I'm trying to make with this thing. Often
1 we get a development that's farther out and it's placed out in the middle
and then everything else revolves around that development, whether it's
good or bad. Just happens to be the amount of property that's held at the
1 time and the developer and what they happen to be doing I think.
Timberwood and some other ones that are dictating how all the other
development occurs. It's kind of hap hazard to me but...
II Batzli: Is public improvement #92 -5, is that just for this development or
is that on a larger scale?
1 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, that is a larger scale. It was really started by
the Lundgren /Song parcel. I'm sorry, Johnson /Dolejsi parcel way to the
west closer to Trunk Highway 41. That was the impetus to start this, the
1 whole feasibility study for bringing trunk sewer and water into the area.
Along with Lundgren came Rottlund and since then Mr. Davidson. The city
is prepared at this stage to scale down that project or do it in phases in
order to serve this subdivision and Rottlund's subdivision if necessary.
1 Batzli: Well, because the applicant is saying, if these don't happen, I
don't happen. Is he somehow suddenly assessed a much larger chunk if we
II phase it in and only bring it to his property?
Hempel: No. The assessments have been already calculated on a unit basis
and the only thing is, the city would not be recouping our costs back as
II fast if we're not able to assess the larger area.
Batzli: Well, if you do it on a unit basis and the others one don't go
II ahead, your units change do they not?
Hempel: No, they do not. The units stay the same but the ability to
1 collect.
Batzli: Well sure because there's no units there. So are you calculating
it then on a gross acreage kind of thing to figure your units?
1 Hempel: That's correct.
1 Batzli: Okay. I'm sorry, did you have anything else?
Farmakes: No further comments.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 10
a question. Earlier I was looking at the slope
Scott: Dave I've just got e q P
from this is Lot 10 in Block 1 and off the top of my head, you're going t
have to refresh my memory but I notice there's certain maximum slope that
we're looking at and it looks pretty steep to me. How does that compare
with what we're trying to do?
Hempel: I believe on the review that I did, the slopes were no steeper II
than 3 to 1 and that would be a maximum for maintenance and mowing and so
forth.
Scott: Okay. And then, so if we're looking at developing this parcel by
itself with a cul -de -sac at the end, do we therefore not get crossed with
our recent cul -de -sac length? ,
Olsen: It'd be a temporary cul -de -sac. It wouldn't be a permanent
cul -de -sac. i
Scott: Okay, yeah. Because eventually this property's going to get
developed at some time in the future. Other than that I don't have any
other questions.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Matt.
Ledvina: Staying on the issue of the cul -de -sac, temporary cul -de -sac. I1
looks like for Block 1, Lot 12 that temporary, you know if you apportioned
the cul -de -sac to each side of the street there, it looks like it would
chew into that guy's front yard quite a bit. Is there a plan to locate i
further into Lot 2, Block 11? I'm sorry, Lot 11, Block 2. You see what
mean? You're looking at the housepad there. Its a smaller building area
as opposed to Lot 11 across the street to the west. Can we control that I
at all in terms of where that temporary cul -de -sac goes?
Hempel: Sure. We can adjust it so it's not a burden on that front yard.
Again it's a temporary type cul -de -sac. With a 42 foot radius, it's a 60 '
foot right -of -way so you add 30 feet. It'd be another 12 feet outside the
right -of -way would be the edges of the turnaround.
Ledvina: Okay. That's quite a bit. I mean you're.
Hempel: Your 30 foot setback? 1
Ledvina: Yeah. The outside lines of the street are the setback lines
right? Or I'm sorry, the right -of -way.
Hempel: That's correct.
Ledvina: And then for the temporary cul -de -sac you'd need, did you say all
extra 12 feet?
Hempel: That's correct. 12 feet. '
Conrad: 6 %.
Ledvina: 6 %, okay. ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 11
Hempel: That's 12 %, I'm sorry. 42 foot radius.
' Ledvina: I mean you could, if you apportion that equally on the east and
west, you could be what, 15 feet from the guy's house with that.
Hempel: 18 feet from the front door.
Ledvina: Okay. That seems we should look out for that.
Batzli: ...that's much too far away. We should make it twice as close.
Ledvina: It looked like a strange alignment there and the possibilities
are.
Hempel: It's possible to do an offset temporary cul -de -sac and utilize
more of the backyard.
Ledvina: More like in a dog leg or something. Okay. And then.
I Batzli: And how do you do that with, under what circumstances does that
occur? That we end up putting in a cul -de -sac there? Temporary or
permanent or whatever. Only if the Rottlund doesn't go through?
Olsen: I think we would always, it's like Timberwood. Timberwood has a
temporary cul -de -sac at the end of, you know for when Hans Hagen came
through and now that's never going to happen. This one it would probably
stay temporary until that side is developed.
Batzli: So it's going to go in?
Olsen: It's going to go in eventually.
' Batzli: For sure?
Olsen: A road connection will go through. That's a good question though.
If, like in the Timberwood case where now we know it will not go through,
do we go back? I don't know.
Hempel: Put a permanent one in
' Olsen: We kind of hate to.
Batzli: Well if it's 18 feet from the guy's door, you can go back in
there and put in a permanent one.
Olsen: Well not there, no.
Batzli: You either have to put in an undersized permanent one or do
something about it now.
Hempel: I guess it's our intent that that road will extend in the future
similar to what we've done in numerous other subdivisions, At some point
that road is extended. The land to the south is compatible for roadway
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 12
extension. It's just a matter of time before somebody comes in and
develop it. And that's kind of been a starting point for their plat.
Mancino: How come, Jo Ann, how come Timberwood doesn't go all the way
through if it was.
Olsen: To the south? The Timberwood residents objected to it. There's
an easement that goes to the east. That has not been proposed. Again, I
doubt that that would ever get approved. 1
Mancino: So could these, if this is...get resident here.
Olsen: They could fight it. 1
Mancino: They can fight it and say, we don't want it.
Olsen: That happens all the time. 11
Farmakes: It happens every time. ,
Batzli: Every single time. Every one that I know.
Hempel: We've tried to minimize or at least make the residents, future '
resie -nts aware of that by putting in the chain of title that this road
will be extended in the future. As well as that we've posted a sign on
the barricade saying this road will be extended in the future and I
believe that's what we're proposing here.
Olsen: Right. They can still object to it. We did that with Timberwood
And once the residents are there and when the public hearings come for th�
extension to that cul -de -sac, they can object to it.
Mancino: But if we have a cul -de -sac ordinance that says they can be no
longer than this.
Olsen: What we can do, I mean we always are arguing against that.
Obviously it's the final vote.
Farmakes: What do you do then when you have a long, narrow rectangular
piece of property? You're either going to have double the size of lot an
�
run the road along the edge of the property or run it through the middle
of the property. And it's got to come out somewhere else.
Olsen: Yeah, right.
Farmakes: So whether it's temporary or otherwise. I think you did have
road drawn into the plans to the south.
Olsen: For Rottlund.
Farmakes: For Stone Creek wasn't it?
Hempel: Yes. ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 13
Farmakes: Stone Creek, wasn't t that to the south?
Olsen: To the south?
Farmakes: Yeah, connected up and it made sense. Much more sense than
driving to the south to get back to TM 5. And like we said, the
neighborhood just didn't want it and they had enough people here to say
they didn't want it.
1 Ledvina: On number, condition number 9. We're saying the applicant shall
provide at a minimum a right turn lane along Galpin and other road
improvements as required by Carver County. Now can we do that? Can we
say that Carver County, it seems like we're overstepping ourselves there.
Olsen: It's their road.
1 Ledvina: If it's Carver County road, we can require Carver County to
force them to put in a right turn lane?
1 Hempel: Carver County is the one responsible for granting access to the
parcel. They'll put in conditions of that access and what's typically
happened, I believe the report also mentioned about a right turn lane into
1 the site.
Ledvina: Do you think it's appropriate that we impose this condition on a
developer at this time?
Hempel: Yes, I believe it's appropriate.
1 Ledvina: I understand you want to identify what your intents are and what
your concerns are but I'm just, it seems a little strange in terms of the
wording and the jurisdiction. But that's fine. Number 14. We have a
similar condition as number 6 and I'm wondering, is there any difference
there, or can we take one of those out?
Hempel: That is a duplication. Number 14 is a duplication.
Ledvina: Okay, so we can take 14 out. I think that's all I had.
1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: I have no questions. It's a reasonable subdivision.
Batzli: Okay. Did we, we already talked a little bit about the pond in
the northeast corner. Is there anything in the conditions to vacate that
1 once we develop the areas around it? Is that something that will not be
needed once we go ahead with that other development?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, that pond in the northeast corner of the
1 development will most likely be a permanent type pond because it is
adjacent to a wetland area already. The only temporary pond that we
foresee on the site would be in the northwest corner if the Rottlund
development did not proceed ahead.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 14
Olsen: Southwest.
Batzli: Southwest. 1
Hempel: I'm sorry, southwest.
Batzli: On Lot 1, Block 2. 11
Hempel: That's correct. Right now the applicant is proposing a storm II sewer line to connect in with the storm sewer line that was proposed by
Rottlund subdivision as well.
Olsen: Connect them to their pond. '
Batzli: So what would, would the homeowner have to come in and petition
the city to vacate that? If in fact it was taken care of by developments"
elsewhere?
Hempel: The City could exercise that motion.
Olsen: Initiate it. It'd have to go through the vacation process.
Batzli: Okay. Diane. '
Harberts: My comments just kind of lie around that whole street issue.
You know is there an opportunity, and I had a chance to talk to Dave II earlier in the week. I guess it was yesterday. My how time flies. I'm
not here. You know I think there seems to be an opportunity to see if
some kind of plan for a street series. I mean you know the land's going
to be developed. You know we have these little bits and pieces. Can the,
City establish some kind of guide plan so things do hook up? I guess I'd
be more inclined to, my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, is that
this subdivision is not going to happen unless the Rottlund happens
because of the sewer, the utilities. Is that correct?
Hempel: No. The City said, we're prepared to downscaled the project.
Harberts: In order to do it.
Hempel: In order to do it. Just to serve this one development because will
foresee the other developers on the doorstep. It's just a matter of time
Harberts: Well and I concur with that and what's preventing the city to
do the same sorts in terms of a street? You know an overall street plan.
If you know that the plans are going to happen, can the city, you know the
plan's fine and I can understand there's difference in houses but I still
don't see what's wrong with having like that loop in there versus having II
the two accesses onto the county road. It seems like, is there an
opportunity, you know it's going to be built. The developments are going
to occur. Is it in the best interest of the way city services are II provided that we look at that? You know should this be approved subject
to, you know to see what happens with the Rottlund and Lundgren. To look
at a more comprehensive street plan. That's basically where I stand on
it.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 15
1
Batzli: Is that it?
Harberts: I think we have opportunities here to maybe put a little bit of
guidance out there and that's all I'm looking for.
Batzli: See we've done that before Jo Ann, especially right around,
where'd we do it? Pleasant View. South of Pleasant View we kind of did a
proposed, this is kind of how we think it's going to come in. This is
' where we'd want the streets to happen and we did it in part because
Pleasant View homeowners repeatedly came in and said, you're putting too
many accesses on the road. What's to stop us from doing something like
that here? Other than time and effort.
' Olsen: Right. Nothing.
Batzli: Is it something that we should be doing?
Olsen: Well we do do it, the times that we do make those studies other
than when it's specifically brought up by the residents is when it's more
of a collector, like Lake Lucy and we do an official map and things like
that and take that process. We have done it before also west of Lake
Minnewashta in the area kind of by where Dave Headla lives. In that area.
' There's nothing, I don't know. It's more coming to Dave's lap actually
for him to do.
Harberts: You don't have anything to do, do you?
Hempel: Well, we did look at that area up in Pleasant View and we did
' come up with like 4 different alternatives. I guess up there though we
were limited with much smaller developable areas. Okay. Out here we're
just beginning a new frontier if you will.
' Batzli: We've got a clean blackboard.
Hempel: Right. I mean what it takes is larger tracts to come together
' and piece, come in as one large development and it's really tough to
dictate at this time how that property's going to develop I guess. The
developer may want larger lots. Larger homes and so forth.
1 Harberts: But isn't that part of our responsibility though? I mean we're
a planning commission. We should put some of that guidance out so in the
sense we can deliver the city services efficiently, cost effectively. You
know and I'm not here to make a burden on the developer. It looks like a
good plan but you know I think is the ball in our court? Are we missing
out on an opportunity here? You know we kind of have a reprieve now in
I the Rottlund piece here. Maybe it's going to dictate a little bit because
the year isn't going to expire but like you said, we've got this wide open
frontier. Is this our opportunity to, you know at least put some kind of
guidance, you know some kind of guideline out there? You know maybe we
don't make it the ordinance but by putting this plan out here, the City's
going to be able to have a desire in terms of how these streets, things
are going to occur. And if the developer can show for some reason why it
' won't work or something better's going to work, isn't that what's good for
the city rather than piecemeal here and you know, oh we're going to have a
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 16
1
road here because it's such a small piece. We're waiting for the big one.
I don't know. I'm just a little, this just kind of sticks with me a
little bit with this.
Olsen: And actually with the Rottlund, it hasn't gotten final plat
approval. If we really want to do it, if you felt strongly about it, and
Dave has suggested it, to me is to make the recommendation that the acces
do go to the south on Lot 4, correct? And we still have the ability that
when Rottlund does come back through, that if we now see that there shoulli
be a different access, we can still make that recommendation.
Harberts: I'd hate to see some residents stand up here. I wasn't
involved with the Timberwood but was that good for the city to not put it
through because we had an opportunity for some very astute people to
basically organize themselves. Is that what's good for the city? Is that
the vision we want? Is that the way that development occurs? I mean 11 isn't it really on our shoulders or we have the ability to develop that
guide plan and that's all it is is a guide plan.
Olsen: Well we essentially are doing that. I mean we're not officially II
mapping it but as they do come in, we are looking where they go and as
with the Song property and stuff. There's enough features to those sites
that there's only certain areas that the road can go and yes, that's what"
we do. But all we can do is put the road to the end of that one
development that's come through. I mean we can't, again we'd make the
recommendation that it's only temporary. That it has to be pushed throng'
when the next development comes through.
Harberts: But that's what happened with Timberwood and where is that.
Olsen: Exactly. Even if it's officially mapped, they still could have
made that case. They swayed the Council. That's.
Harberts: Well and that's what I'm saying. If we put out a guide plan
here and this is the vision here and this is the way it looks like, isn't
it kind of hard to not be consistent with that unless there's some real
good reason rather than we like it without a drive thru street? I don't
know. It's just you know, I think you said it well that every time, if
there's a cul -de -sac that should be extended, they're going to say no.
People like their cul -de -sacs and we're going to be the ones sitting here
saying, well it's good for the city. We should put it through. People ar
saying no. Well. I mean do we have an opportunity? If there's an
opportunity, I think it's in the best interest of the city to do so.
That's it.
Brett Davidson: Can I say just one more thing?
Batzli: Sure.
Brett Davidson: Just so we get it clear. I'm a little unsure how this
compares to the Timberwood problem. I know they're a problem but I don't
see the same problem here. Now I'm not going to agree or.disagree with
what you're saying. I don't see the same problem here. Do you see it as
a problem here? The same that Timberwood had? Is it in fact the road
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 17
already looks into a pre - planned road and that's not an issue. Is that
' correct?
Harberts: Well, I don't think the issue really today is the cul-de-sac.
My issue is actually having some kind of overall plan in terms of, a guide
' plan in terms of how the street system should be looking to you know
what's best for the city.
Brett Davidson: Okay. I agree with that too but you have to understand a
little bit from our point of view now and that is, we in a sense do have
that and that's city and county ordinances. So when we design it, we go
by the city and county ordinances which are, this preliminary plat does
meet that.
Harberts: Well they meet the minimum standards. The ordinance and the
codes are the minimum. You shall, you know this is the minimum standards
and so from the city's perspective, yes that's the minimum standard but is
it the best opportunity here. Because when you look at the cost of city
I services, things like that, is that good for the community and that's all
I'm asking. You know and the last thing I want to do is put a burden on
the developers but bottom line here, it's the city that's going to be
ponying up on the services and the cost. And with the budgets shrinking
and things like that.
Brett Davidson: Services and cost to the develop this is not the minimum.
I'm responsible for all the roads built.
Harberts: Well yeah but when the sewer goes out there and the sewer costs
start going up and the city hears about this.
Brett Davidson: The sewer runs through there whether development's there
or not.
' Batzli: Yeah, but we're like this. We were speaking more globally.
You're parcel raised an issue that caused us to say, we're missing an
opportunity. We should be looking at a lot of different parcels and
seeing how we're going to connect them up and what triggered this was the
fact that if we put in a temporary cul -de -sac down between Blocks 1 and 2
at Lots 11 and 12 respectively or 12 and 11, will they someday, your
' people that move into your development say we don't want that to go
through and so we're trying to come up with a way that we can develop a
more comprehensive way to link up all of thes lots. So we were using your
parcel as an example but we were speaking very globally, so. My comments,
I've kind of snuck them in between people here and there. I only had one
left. Two left. Sumps. Have we ever, we've talked about this and I've
trought it up at our long range goal kind of meetings at the start of the
year every year to do sumps but this is the first one I've ever seen where
we've required i'.
' Hempel: I believe the Rottlund piece we did also.
•
Batzli: Well sure but I wasn't there. So I'm sorry.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 18
report from out there. Most re it
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, we did receive a soil p
of the borings did indicate very, very wet soil conditions and we,
unfortunately learned by experience here that most of Chanhassen lately,
or in the past is the same type of soil situation and we've been trying t
catch up with these sump pump discharges into the streets. And discussion
with the City Engineer, we feel that it should be standard construction II
practice now with the street construction, to provide this drain tile.
It's not only going to provide drainage for the individual homes but it's
also going to improve our street system. It's going to provide drainage
away from our streets.
Batzli: So we get rid of the discharge into the sanitary sewer which
people do because their yard's too soggy. What you're going to do is
you're going to run drain tile behind the curb and then hook it up to thell
storm sewer every whatever?
Hempel: That's correct. 1
Batzli: And who's responsible for the maintenance of that?
Hempel: The City would be.
Batzli: Where does the city responsibility end? 1
Hempel: We would not necessarily allow a direct connection to that drain
tile system. The homeowners would bring their sump pump hoses out to a 11
certain point and then build what's called a gravel pit there where the
water discharges and seeps through the rock into our drain tile system.
So there'_- really the maintenance of their system would be the homeowners
maintenance. The City's would be ours. 1
Batzli: They're going to be on the city right -of -way. Why do they have
to maintain it?
Hempel: Well, similar to a driveway. They snowplow their driveways in
the boulevard. They pave it.
Batzli: So when the sump, when the gravel gets clogged and starts
spilling out into the street, you're going to write a letter to the
homeowner and say fix your gravel drainage thing down to our drain tile? 1
Hempel: Potentially yes.
Harberts: Who signs the letter? '
Batzli: Well I'm curious because when we've spoken about this in the
past, what we've talked about is I thought, underground pipe to the drain"
tile which then drained into the storm sewer system. So it was all
underground. The homeowner never worried about it and now we've got a
plastic hose or something, maybe running on top of the ground. Maybe
below. To a clugey little rock gabeon catch basin thing into your drain
tile.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 19
Hempel: Well, it's something that we're probably going to have to take a
closer look at and issue permits for construction. We do right now for
any kind of construction in the city right -of -way and spell out
responsibilities or do these inspections so we don't have the maintenance
problems in the future.
Batzli: Now don't get me wrong. I'm 100% in favor of this but I want it
to succeed. And I think we need to decide these things in advance to make
sure that, you know it sounds like the developer wants to work with you
' and probably for the very reason that he doesn't want plastic pipes
running up out of the side of the house, across the lawn and discharging
near the street into these little piles of gravel. And then we start
1 arguing over who's responsible for what. So I'm 100% in favor of working
here but I think we need to do this probably on even more developments.
To get rid of a lot of the discharge into the sanitary sewer, etc. that we
' end up. The landscaping clause Jo Ann. Last sentence on number 19. I
understood that we changed it from 14 lots to 12. Then we're only
requiring it on a minimum of 12 lots because there's existing trees. Is
that what we're doing? Why we're doing this?
Olsen: Well, we know we could require it on all. It's kind of a new
thing that we're stating that you have to use the primary list.
Batzli: This is just, so there's going to be trees required but you can
use some of the secondary lists?
Olsen: Right. It's fine with me if you go with 100% with the primary
list. I mean you have a pretty good variety there and choices. I
guess I'm just kind of slowly going into this with the new list that we've
got. Since we don't have any policy, we don't have any landscaping
ordinance yet that states that you have to use certain species.
Batzli: And see I guess I read it that, I read it completely incorrectly.
You read that as you were required to put trees on the other lots but it
doesn't have to come from the primary.
' Brett Davidson: One tree per lot but half of them have to be from the
primary list.
Batzli: Okay. Well if I'm the only person that read that wrong, then
never mind. I think Jo Ann, what I would like to see on this, and Jeff
has brought this up in the past, is I was at a disadvantage not having
•
' been here for the Rottlund discussion but I had no clue how this thing
hooked up and Jeff has brought it up in the past. It would be very
helpful to at least have a sketch on this kind of page to see how this
stuff hooks up to see what's around it.
Ledvina: Have we developed standard plates for that yet? For this type
of construction. The drain tile being on the sewer and the hook -ups and
1 all that.
Hempel: No, we haven't.
1 Batzli: It sounds like we're gonna on this one.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 20
Hempel:
Yeah. The boulevard areas are so clogged with other utilities.
You've got telephone, gas, electric, cable TV and so we're going to sit
down and specify zones for each one of these utility companies to be in 1
we don't have them criss crossing and tearing up our drain tile
accidentally if we don't know about it.
Batzli: I don't have any other comments. Any comments or motions from II
anyone?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Request #93 -2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estat
to RSF, Residential Single Family and Subdivision #93 -8 for Royal Oaks
Estates to create 23 single family lots as shown on the plans dated April'
7, 1993...subject to the following conditions, and I'll try to get this
right. The conditions are listed in the staff report with the following
exceptions and changes. Condition number 2 shall be, the second sentence
shall be revised to read, Furthermore, that this easement on Lot 1, Block,
2 shall be included on the grading plan for the project with a suitable
trail bed being prepared. Condition number 12, I wanted to add something
to that to hopefully clarify that a little bit. Condition 12 to read, thl
applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the typical 5 and 10 foot wide
drainage and utility easements along the side, front and rear lot lines.
In addition, drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed for all poi'
retention areas which will include the newly constructed 12 inch line
along the back of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. And then the rest as it reads.
Eliminate condition number 14. Condition 19, the last sentence of that
condition to read, the required 1 tree per lot shall contain trees from
the primary specimen list for at least 12 lots. I think I caught them
all.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Conrad: I second that. '
Batzli: Any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ,
approval of Request #93 -2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned A2,
Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and Subdivision
#93 -8 for Royal Oaks Estates to create 23 single family lots as shown on I
the plans dated April 7, 1993, subject to the following conditions:
1. The city shall accept full park fees to be paid at the time of
building permit application at the rate then in force in lieu of
parkland dedication.
2. A 20 foot wide trail easement shall be granted to the city along the ll
applicant's westerly property line (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block
2). Furthermore, that this easement on Lot 1, Block 2 shall be
included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail II
bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement
alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual
alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is
subject to approval as part of the grading plan review. Planting of
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 21
trees shall be restricted to areas east of the trail bench. Full
trail fees shall be collected at the time of building permit
' application at the rate then in force to assist in the financing of
the future trail connection. •
3. The applicant shall pay an appropriate storm water trunk fee to be
determined by the City's storm water management consultant to
contribute towards the future extension of trunk storm sewer
facilities.
' 4. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in
accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications
' and Detail Plates. The street construction shall include a drain
tile system behind the curbs to accommodate household sump pump
discharge. Detailed construction plans and specifications for
utility and street improvements shall be submitted to the City for
' review and approval prior to final platting. Final construction
plans and specifictaions are subject to City Council approval.
' 5. The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage and ponding
calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. The storm
sewer shall be designed and constructed to a 10 year storm event.
' The retention pond will be reviewed by the City's storm water
management consultant and constructed pursuant to guides implemented
by the City's consultant (Bonestroo).
' 6. Erosion control plans and methods shall be consistent with the City
of Chanhassen's Best Management Practice Handbook.
' 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from
the regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department,
Watershed District and Carver County Highway Department.
' 8. Prior to the City's 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 and compliance of the conditions of approval. The
development contract will be subject to City Council approval.
1 9. The applicant shall provide, at a minimum, a right -turn lane
(deceleration lane) along County Road 117 and any other roadway
improvements as required by the Carver County Highway Department.
' 10. Should the end of the roadway not be connected with the parcel to the
south, a temporary cul -de -sac shall be constructed to meet City
standards with a barricade and signage stating that it is a temporary
1 cul -de -sac and this road will be extended in the future. The
applicant shall dedicate to the City the necessary temporary roadway
easement for portions of the cul -de -sac lying outside the
right -of -way.
11. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council
ordering and awarding the bid for Public Improvement No. 92 -5 for the
Planning Commission Meeting 1
May 5, 1993 - Page 22
extension of trunk sanitary sewer and watermain improvements through
the development.
12. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the typical 5 and 10 II
foot wide drainage and utility easements along all side, front and
rear lot lines. In addition, drainage and utility easements shall b
conveyed for all pond retention areas which will include the newly
constructed 12 inch line along the back of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1.
20 foot wide drainage and utility easements shall also be dedicated
with the final plat on the following areas: ,
(a) Between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, and Lots 10 and 11, Block 1.
(b) Between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2.
13. Should the parcel to the south (Rottlund- Windmill Run) not develop,
this development will be required to provide temporary on -site
retention pond until the parcel to the south develops and the storm II
sewer line is extended to Lots 1 and 2, Block 2.
14. Deleted. ,
15. The final grading plan shall denote the type of house and elevation
of garage and lowest floor for each lot.
16. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 (Davidson's) shall connect to
the municipal sanitary sewer system proposed with the site
improvements within 12 months after the connection becomes available!'
17. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 shall relocate their driveway to
access the new street within 12 months after the new street is
constructed.
18. The City will spread the proposed trunk and lateral sewer and water '
assessments equally over the proposed 23 lots.
19. The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide boulevard
landscaping in the form of berms and plant materials. The boulevard '
landscaping shall contain landscaping from the primary specimen list
and shall include Lot 1, Block 1. The landscaping plan shall reflect
existing trees which will be protected by a conservation easement.
The required 1 tree /lot shall contain trees from the primary specime
lists for at least 12 lots.
20. Fire Marshal conditions: '
a. Street names must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal,
particularly since it will be connecting to the subdivision to II
the south. Street names must be approved so as to avoid
duplication, and house numbers match the city's grid map.
b. Relocate fire hydrants as shown on the preliminary utility plan.'
c. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 5, 1993 - Page 23
d. Fire hydrant caps must be painted per City of Chanhassen Engineer
Spec.
e. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided
with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities.
The roads shall be in place before construction on new dwelling
starts which is greater than 150' from County Road 117.
f. If the road does not connect to the south to form a looped road,
a temporary Fire Department approved turnaround shall be
provided. See preliminary utility plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Scott seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 21, 1993 as presented.
' ONGOING ITEMS:
Batzli: Let's hear a report from Diane and Ladd about what happened at
the HRA, Planning Commission, Park and Rec.
Conrad: You were there Brian and you made a very eloquent speech at the
very end. Well I had to speak for you.
Batzli: Well thank you because they were so.
Harberts: He should share his speech.
Batzli: For the record, they were so long winded that I gave up and left.
' I apologize.
Conrad: Well I was accused of being long winded when I spoke for you.
Batzli: Once you got going? Okay, well I'm glad you spoke for me.
Harberts: At the HRA meeting, and Nancy was there as well for a period of
time. Basically they presented several alternatives that they were
looking at for their, I don't know if it's the entertainment center or
civic center or whatever it's called. Basically they presented the
alternatives and called a question. Do you want a recreation facility as
part of this civic center?
Conrad: And Brian, you were the only one that didn't. Well no, I thought
I spoke for you.
Batzli: I'm sorry, I was the only one that didn't what?
Conrad: Didn't want the recreation part.
Harberts: Public. Public recreation.
1