7.5 Preliminary Plat to subdivide Agricultural Estate to RSF 1 C I T Y 0 F PC DATE: Feb. 17, 1993
\` 1' CHAHA ti CC DATE: March 8, 1993
1 �
CASE #: 93-4 4 SUB /93 -1 REZ
:
1 STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat to subdivide 17.2 acres into 35 single family lots; and rezoning
1 of 17.2 acres from A2, Agricultural Estates to RSF, Residential Single Family
1
1
;S LOCATION: East of County Road 117, approximately one -half mile north of Highway 5
1:3
a
I 1 O. APPLICANT: The Rottlund Company, Inc.
Q 5201 East River Road, #301
Fridley, MN 55421
1
1 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates
Action by City Admio'strat r
I Endorsed %/ D L t'
ACREAGE: 17.2 acres (gross) 13.83 acres (net) : :.cd
Re .
1 DENSITY: 2.03 units /acre (gross) 2.53 units /acre (net) De "' . ' - ` -�
(g Bate Submitted to Commission
ADJACENT ZONING Dec ^:a:,r::: to Council
1 AND LAND USE: N - A2, Single Family /Agricultural 3 - i :
Q S - A2, Agricultural
E - Railroad /Open Space
1 Q W - A2, Single Family /Agricultural
I W WATER AND SEWER: The site is in the MUSA Line but does not yet have improvements. Sewer
and water are in the process of being extended to the site.
1 () PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has rolling topography and is currently farmed with no
standing vegetation.
1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
1
1
1 Windmill Rezoning/Subdivision
February 17, 1993
1 Page 2
Summary
1 The subject site was approved for subdivision into three single family lots in the late 1980's
under the 2.5 acre minimum for land outside the MUSA line. The applicant, Mike Klingelhutz,
' did not file the plat with Carver County. The property is now within the MUSA line, can be
serviced by sewer and water, and subdivided into 15,000 square foot lots. The Rottlund
Company, Inc. is proposing to subdivide the 17.2 acres into 35 single family lots. The proposal
is a straight subdivision since there was no desire by the applicant to create lots less than 15,000
square feet and there are no existing unique features on the site. Currently, the site is zoned A2,
Agricultural Estates and is proposed to be rezoned to RSF, Residential Single Family. The
proposed rezoning is appropriate for the property now that utilities can be extended to the site.
However, these are of a simple enough nature that they can be dealt with by conditions outlined
by staff.
' The proposed subdivision is very basic due to the conditions of the site, which has been farmed,
and due to the configuration of the property. The subdivision meets the zoning criteria. Any
1 issues with the proposal come mainly from engineering criteria, such as drainage and utilities.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed preliminary plat and rezoning with the
1 recommended conditions.
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 it be approved.
Preliminary Plat
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 17.2 (gross) acres into 35 single family lots. The site
is divided into three blocks and is serviced by one access off of CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.). The lots
front on two cul -de -sacs and two public streets. There is a street running north and south
(Windmill Drive) which is providing the ability to be extended when future developments are
proposed to the north and south.
1 All of the lots meet the 15,000 square foot minimum and lot width requirements. The net area
of the site (lot areas only) is 13.83 acres. The net density of the site is 2.53 units per acre, which
meets the land use plan criteria of 1.2 - 4.0. The average lot area is 17,297 square feet. Just
1
Windmill Rezoning/Subdivision
February 17, 1993
Page 3
over half of the lots are close to the 15,000 minimum. These lots are located along the southerly
and easterly border of the site. 1
Grading and Drainage
The plans propose grading a majority of the site for house pads and street construction as well
as a water quality /retention pond in the southwest corner of the site. Two temporary cul -de -sacs
are proposed, one at each end of Windmill Drive. The elevation of the southerly cul -de -sac is
proposed approximately 3 feet lower than the adjacent parcel. To provide better grade continuity
for the future extension of Windmill Drive through the parcel to the south, the grade of the cul-
de-sac
should be raised at least 1.5 feet. Proposed grading along the backyard of Lot 3, Block
1 is fairly steep in excess of 3:1. Grades throughout the plat should not exceed 3:1 slopes for
maintenance purposes. '
According to the City's topographic maps, the parcel is divided into three different drainage
subdistricts. The westerly one -third of the development drains westerly underneath Galpin
Boulevard to the west. The applicant is proposing a water quality /retention pond in the southwest
corner of the development to address the City's storm water requirements. The outlet of this
retention pond flows underneath Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). An outlet- restricting
device will be required to limit discharge downstream to meet predeveloped runoff conditions.
According to Mr. Ismael Martinez of Bonestroo, the City's storm water management consultant,
recommends limiting discharge underneath Galpin Boulevard to 4.5 cfs at the high water level.
In addition, the wet volume of the pond should be increased to 1.2 acre /feet to meet water quality
standards.
The second drainage subdistrict covers approximately the mid one -third of the development. This
area drains southerly through the adjacent property to a wetland located approximately 1300 feet
south. The plans proposes catch basins to collect storm runoff from the front lawns and streets. '
The storm sewer conveys the untreated runoff along Lots 4 and 5, Block 3 and discharges it onto
the parcel directly to the south. Although this is a normal drainage pattern for the area, the
increased runoff generated by impervious surfaces, i.e. rooftops and street surface, will increase 1
the volume and velocity of water through the parcel to the south. Without the appropriate
drainage easement and storm water improvements downstream the applicant should retain storm
runoff on site and maintain predeveloped runoff conditions. This may require a temporary
retention pond on one or two of the lots until the parcel to the south is able to develop and
extend a storm sewer system to convey the runoff downstream. This subdivision proposal is a
prime example where the City should require the applicant to pay a storm water trunk fee that
is being considered by the SWMP Task Force. The trunk fee would be used to offset the cost
of oversizing on the next segment of pipe downstream when the parcel develops. Right now the
storm sewer is a piecemeal -type system and not functioning at the most - desired level. In
addition, the storm water discharged on the adjacent property is not dealing with water quality
1
Windmill Rezoning/Subdivision
February 17, 1993
1 Page 4
issues; therefore, the applicant should also be required to contribute to the City's Surface Water
1 Management Project for development of a regional pond downstream.
The easterly one -third of the development drains to the east and follows a drainage swale
1 southerly which eventually connects back with the drainage area from the mid one -third of the
development. Again, the applicant is proposing to directly discharge onto the adjacent property
without appropriate easements or downstream storm water improvements and therefore is required
1 to temporarily pond on site and maintain the discharge at the predeveloped runoff condition.
According to soil boring results prepared by Braun Engineering, soils throughout the development
1 contain a very high moisture content. Although ground water was only observed in one of the
borings, seasonal and annual fluctuations of the ground water levels should be anticipated.
Therefore, staff recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to
intercept household sump pump discharge that would typically be extended to the street. The
City has in the past experienced that the discharge of sump pumps in the street created hazardous
conditions, i.e. icy conditions in the winter as well as a slippery slime buildup in the summer.
r final platting, the applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department to p t g, pp p y g g artment with storm p
' sewer and ponding calculations. All storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event
and the ponding requirements shall meet NURP standards as well as maintain the discharge rate
at predeveloped runoff conditions. An alternative to eliminate one of the three discharge points
' would be to consolidate the storm sewers from the easterly two - thirds of the development into
one discharge area. This would have an advantage by utilizing only one or two lots for
temporary ponding purposes instead of two or three lots. Also, in the future, extension of the
' storm sewer pipe through the adjacent parcel would only require one pipe system instead of the
two. The recommended alternative would be for the applicant to propose additional storm sewer
pipe to convey the runoff from the north part of Windmill Drive to south of Crocus Court, thus
1 eliminating the northeasterly discharge point on Lot 1, Block 1.
The City has not established a trunk storm sewer fee as of yet. However, with nearing
' completion of the City's comprehensive storm sewer plan, Bonestroo should be able to estimate
a figure fairly quickly. 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 the proposed regional ponding location near
the wetland approximately 1300 feet south. In addition to the trunk fee, the applicant will also
be required to pay into the City's storm water management program to provide water quality
1 improvements downstream.
Utilities
The City Council recently ordered the preparation of plans and specifications for trunk sanitary
Y P P P P rY
sewer and water improvements to service this area as well as the Lundgren Bros. project on the
1
1
Windmill Rezoning/Subdivision ,
February 17, 1993
Page 5 1
Johnson/Dolejsi property located west of this development. Plans and specifications are being
prepared and are subject to City Council approval and authorization for bid. Without these
improvements, the project is not feasible from an engineering standpoint. The feasibility study
proposes extension of the Lake Ann trunk sanitary sewer line through this development. A
sanitary subtrunk line will extend from the northeast corner of Lot 1 to Windmill Drive south
along Windmill Drive to 76th Street west out to Galpin Boulevard. In addition to trunk sanitary
sewer, trunk watermain improvements are also proposed by the City along Galpin Boulevard,
76th Street and Windmill Drive. The plans indicate a 12 -inch watermain along the entire length
of Windmill Drive; however, it is only necessary to extend an 8 -inch line north of 76th Street
along Windmill Drive. As a part of the final platting process, it is recommended that the
applicant dedicate the necessary right -of -way and easements for the extension of sanitary sewer
and watermain trunk improvements at no cost to the City. The northerly 20 feet of Lot 1, Block
1 should be dedicated as a utility and drainage easement for extension of the sanitary sewer
subtrunk and storm sewer proposed unless an easement is granted by the property owner to the
north (Davidson).
The applicant will be responsible for extension of the lateral sanitary sewer and water services '
to the individual lots from the trunk main as well as fire hydrant leads and gate valve placement.
All utility and street construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest (1993) Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans for utility and street improvements '
will be required as a part of the final plat approval and are subject to City Council approval. The
applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract to guarantee compliance with
the conditions of approval for the overall development.
Streets
The project proposes a single access off of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Galpin
Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of Carver County Highway Department of which they have
sent a memo addressing their concerns. As indicated in the memo dated February 4, 1993 from
Roger Gustafson, County Engineer, the County Highway Department will require the construction
of a right turn lane along County Road 117 at the proposed intersection. The site plan is also
proposing two temporary turnarounds at the end of Windmill Drive. The street is designed to be
extended north and south to serve future development on adjoining parcels. Temporary street
easements will be required for those areas of the turnaround outside the dedicated right -of -way
and there must be barricades with signage stating the street will be extended.
The applicant is proposing 60 -foot wide road right -of -ways and construction of a 31 -foot wide
back -to -back urban street which is in accordance with the City's standards. Street grades range
from 1.3% to 3.2% which is also within the City's guidelines. As previously mentioned, all
street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition (1993)
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans will be required
1
Windmill Rezoning/Subdivision
February 17, 1993
Page 6
prior to final plat approval. The construction plans for street and utility improvements will also
' require City Council approval.
Erosion Control
' The drainage plan proposed erosion control fence along the perimeter of the site. Erosion control
measures and turf establishment should be in accordance with the City's Best Management
r Practice Handbook.
Landscaping
The applicant is providing landscaping along CR 117. The landscaping must be located on the
' proposed site and cannot be within the right -of way. There is also the possibility of a 20' trail
easement being requested along CR 117 by the Park and Recreation Commission. The
landscaping cannot be within the trail easement. The applicant can work with the Park and
' Recreation Director for some flexibility to this policy.
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 proposed deciduous trees by the applicant
are contained in the secondary specimen list. Staff is recommending that 6 (approx. 1/2 of the
proposed deciduous trees) be from the primary specimen deciduous list. The Subdivision
1 Ordinance also requires each lot to be provided with a minimum of one (1) tree to be placed in
the front yard. Again, staff is recommending that half of the lots (17 lots) be provided with
deciduous trees from the primary specimen list. The applicant shall provide staff with an
amended landscaping plan meeting these conditions.
Park and Recreation
' The Park and Recreation Commission has not yet reviewed this item. The Park and Recreation
Director has reviewed this submission and has provided comments. Any conditions adopted by
the Park and Recreation Commission will be made conditions of approval.
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 1.4 of the 17.2 acres being platted for parkland. This acreage is insufficient
for a neighborhood park, and in my opinion, does not represent a "nest egg" to build upon. His
recommendation to the commission will be to accept full park fees to be paid at the time of
building permit application in lieu of parkland dedication.
1
1
Windmill Rezoning/Subdivision
February 17, 1993
Page 7
1
The Comprehensive Plan identifies Galpin Boulevard (CR 117) as a trail alignment. A 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 line. 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. Two signs shall be posted, one on each side of
the entrance road, identifying the future trail. 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 the future trail connection. 1
Miscellaneous
The Building Official has reviewed this request and has stated that problems have occurred with
dwellings on corrected pads being too large for the pad or missing the pad. Soil conditions for
future additions are also a concern that will inevitably have to be addressed. Details on corrected
1
pads must be furnished to the Inspections Division. Pads that are corrected at the time the streets
are installed should be submitted to the Inspections Division before city acceptance of the
subdivision. Data on lots that are individually corrected may be submitted before the certificate
of occupancy is issued. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report, compaction tests,
the limits of the corrected pads and elevation of the excavation.
Standard designations (LO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) for proposed dwelling types, lowest floor
elevations and garage floor elevation need to be indicated on the drainage plan to insure an
adequate plan review by the city.
Rezoning Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #93 -1 to rezone 17.2 acres 1
from A2, Agricultural Estates to RSF, Residential Single Family with the following
conditions: 1
1. The rezoning will not be final until the final plat has been approved and recorded
and utilities service the site. ,
2. All conditions of preliminary and final plat must be met.
1
Windmill Rezoning/Subdivision
February 17, 1993
1 Page 8
Planning Commission Update
I On February 17, 1993, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
Rezoning No. 93 -1 with the two conditions as proposed by staff.
I City Council Recommendation
1 Staff recommends that the City Council approve Rezoning No. 93 -1 with the two conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission.
1 Preliminary Plat Recommendation
I Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision #93 -4
I and Rezoning #93 -1 for the Windmill Run subdivision with the following conditions:
1. Elevation of the southerly cul -de -sac should be adjusted to provide better grade
I continuity for the future extension of Windmill Drive to the south.
2. The water quality /retention pond proposed in the southwest corner of the
I development shall be increased to provide a wet volume of 1.2 acre /feet. In
addition, an outlet restricting flows shall be limited to 4.5 cfs at the high water
level.
I 3. The applicant shall design and construct temporary holding ponds for storm runoff
on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 4 and 5, Block 3 to maintain the predeveloped runoff
I conditions. In addition, the applicant shall pay into the City's Surface Water
Management Program for future downstream water quality improvements. The
specific amount will be determined by the City's storm water consultant.
I 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water trunk fee to be determined by
the City's storm water management consultant to contribute towards the future
1 extension of storm sewer downstream.
5. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the
I City's 1993 edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Street
construction shall also include a drain tile system behind the curb to accommodate
I household sump pump discharge.
6. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the
I pipe sizing and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be designed and constructed
1
Windmill Rezoning/Subdivision I
February 17, 1993
Page 9
1
to handle 10 -year storm events. Retention ponds shall be constructed to NURP
standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision
1
at predeveloped runoff conditions for a 100 -year 24 -hour storm event. Drainage
plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
1
7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory
I agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR and
Carver County Highway Department.
8. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development 1
contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee
construction of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of I
approval. The development contract will be subject to City Council approval.
9. The applicant shall provide at a minimum a right turn lane along County Road I
117 and any other improvements required by the Carver County Highway
Department.
10. Both temporary cul -de -sacs that are proposed for future extension shall be 1
provided with a turnaround that meets City standards with a barricade and signage
stating that it is a temporary cul -de -sac and this road will be extended in the
I
future.
11. The preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council ordering the
I
public improvement project No. 92 -5 for the trunk sanitary sewer and water
improvements through the development.
12. The applicant shall dedicate the necessary drainage and utility easement for the I
extension of the trunk sanitary sewer and possible storm sewer over Lot 1, Block
1. 1
13. Lot grades throughout the development shall not exceed 3:1 slopes.
14. The applicant temporary licant shall dedicate tem orar street easements for those areas of the I
temporary cul -de -sacs outside the dedicated right -of -way.
I
15. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on
the grading plan.
I
1
1
I Windmill Rezoning/Subdivision
February 17, 1993
1
Page 10
16. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of the pad and
I elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for
the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division.
1 17. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, NSP and Northwestern Bell, cable boxes, pursuant to city ordinance.
1 18. No housing construction beyond Lots 12, 13, 16, 17 may start until fire apparatus
access roads are provided. These access roads shall be designed to the City of
I Chanhassen Engineering standards, and meet the approval of the Chanhassen Fire
Department pursuant to Uniform Fire Code 1988 Edition, Section 10.207(0.
I 19. The street named "76th Street West" is unacceptable and must be renamed. The
reason being that the city already has a 76th Street and 76 does not line up with
the city's grip map system.
1 20. The applicant shall submit an amended landscaping plan which provides landscape
species recommended by staff.
I 21. Meet conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission.
1 Planning Commission Update
On February 17, 1993, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
1 Preliminary Plat No. 93 -4 with staff's conditions and the following changes:
1. Elevation of the southerly cul -de -sac should be adjusted to provide better grade continuity
1 for the future extension of Windmill Drive to the south, and additional contour data
shall be obtained to optimize the vertical alignment of Windmill Drive.
1 20. The applicant shall submit an amended landscaping plan which provides landscape species
recommended by staff. A landscaped soil berm shall also be included subject to staff
I review.
22. Drainage easements must be granted for the pond located in the southwest corner
I and other temporary pondings areas as necessary.
City Council Recommendation
1 Staff recommends that the City Council approves Preliminary Plat No. 93 -4 with the conditions
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
1
1
1
Windmill Rezoning/Subdivision I
February 17, 1993
Page 11 1
Attachments
1. City Code Section Regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements. I
2. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer dated February 8, 1993.
3. Memo from Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director, dated February 10, 1993.
I
4. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated February 2, 1993.
5. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated January 21, 1993.
6. Memo from Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer dated February 4, 1993. 1
7. Letter from Robert Obermeyer, Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District dated
February 4, 1993.
8. Memo from Michael and Colleen Klingelhutz dated January 12, 1993.
1
9. Comparison Table.
10. Reduced Set of Plans for the Development. 1
11. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 17, 1993.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
' § 18-60 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
' (0 Street arrangements for the proposed subdivision shall not cause undue hardship to
owners of adjoining property in subdividing their own land.
(g) Double frontage lots with frontage on two (2) parallel streets or reverse frontage shall
not be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector street. Such lots shall have
an additional depth of at least ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the
back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on double frontage lots should face the front of
existing structures across the street. If this cannot be achieved, then such lots shall have an
additional depth of ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetation screening along the back lot line.
(h) Lot layouts should take into consideration the potential use of solar energy design
features.
(Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.5, 2- 25 -85)
Sec. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements.
(a) Required landscaping /residential subdivision.
(1) Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) tree to be placed in the front
yard. The type of tree shall be subject to city approval. (the city will provide a list of
species). Coniferous trees must be at least six (6) feet high and deciduous trees must
be at least two and one -half (2 inches in diameter at the time of installation. This
requirement may be waived by the city where the applicant can demonstrate that a
suitable tree having a minimum diameter of two and one -half (2 inches for decid-
uous and six -foot height for evergreen and four (4) feet above the ground is located in
an appropriate location on the lot. The following trees may be used to meet planting
' requirements:
Primary Specimen Deciduous Trees Common Name
Acer saccharum Maple, Sugar or hard
Celtis occidentAli% Hackberry
Quercus alba Oak, White
Quercus bicolor Oak, Bicolor
Quercus macrocarpa Oak, Bur
' Tilia americana Linden, American
Secondary Deciduous Trees
Acer platanoides 'Cleveland' Maple, Cleveland Norway
Acer platanoides 'Columnar' Maple, Columnar
Acer platanoides 'Crimson King' Maple, Crimson King
Acer platanoides 'Emerald Lustre' Maple, Emerald Lustre Norway
Acer platanoides 'Emerald Queen' Maple, Emerald Queen Norway
Acer platanoides 'Jade Glen' Maple, Jade Glen
Acer platanoides Schwedler' Maple, Schwedler Norway
Supp. No. 4
t 1010
1
1
SUBDIVISIONS § 18-61 1
Secondary Deciduous Trees Common Name
Acer platanoides `Superform' Maple, Superform Norway
Acer platanoides 'Variegatum' Maple, variegated Norway
Acer rubrum Maple, Red
I
Acer rubrum `Northwood' Maple, Northwood Red
Acer saccaharinum 'Silver Queen' Maple, Silver Queen
Betula payryiter Birch, paper
1
Betula pendula icciminta Birch, cut leaf weeping
Fraxinus americana Ash, White
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ash, Marshall's Seedless
1
Ginkgo brioba Ginkgo
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis Honeylocust, thornless
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis `Imperial' Honeylocust, Imperial
1
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis `Skyline' Honeylocust, Skyline
Gymnocladus dioica Coffeetree, Kentucky I
Ornamental
Acer innala Maple, Amur
Amelanchier Serviceberry or Juneberry
Malus bacata columnaris Crabapple, Columnar Siberian
Malus (various species) Crabapple, flowering Varieties: I
{ Dolgo, Flame, Radiant,
Red, Silver, Red Spendor
Prunus 'Newport' Plum, Newport I
Prunus triloba Plum, flowering or Rose Tree of China
Prunus virginiana `Schubert' Chokeberry, Schuberts
Rhamnus frangula 'Columnaris' Buckthorn, Tallhedge
Syringe amurensis japonica Lilac, Japanese tree
Tilia cordate Linden, Littleleaf
Tilia cordate `Greenspire' Linden, Greenspire
I
Tilia x euchlora `Redmond' Linden, Redmond
Conifers
I
Abies balsamea Fir, Balsam
Abies concolor Fir, Concolor
Picea abies Spruce, Norway
Picea glauca Spruce, White
Picea gauca densata Spruce, Black Hills
Picea pungens Spruce, Coloardo Green
Picea pungens glauca Spruce, Colorado Blue
Pinus nigra Pine, Austrian
Pinus ponderosa Pine, Ponderosa
Pinus resinosa Pine, Norway
Stipp. No. 4
1010.1
1
1
CITYOF
0 114
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 6V-
DATE: Februa ry 8 , 1993
1 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Windmill Run - The Rottlund Company
Project No. 93 -3
Upon review of the preliminary plat and site plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated
1 January 19, 1993, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
1 The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of tree cover. The existing and past use
has been agricultural. The plans propose grading a majority of the site for house pads and
street construction as well as a water quality /retention pond in the southwest corner of the
site. Two temporary cul -de -sacs are proposed, one at each end of Windmill Drive. The
elevation of the southerly cul -de -sac is proposed approximately 3 feet lower than the
1 adjacent parcel. To provide better grade continuity for the future extension of Windmill
Drive through the parcel to the south, the grade of the cul -de -sac should be raised at least
1.5 feet. Proposed grading along the backyard of Lot 3, Block 1 is fairly steep in excess of
1 3:1. Grades throughout the plat should not exceed 3:1 slopes for maintenance purposes.
According to the City's topographic maps, the parcel is divided into three different drainage
1 subdistricts. The westerly one -third of the development drains westerly underneath Galpin
Boulevard to the west. The applicant is proposing a water quality /retention pond in the
southwest corner of the development to address the City's storm water requirements. The
1 outlet of this retention pond flows underneath Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). An
outlet- restricting device will be required to limit discharge downstream to meet
predeveloped runoff conditions. According to Mr. Ismael Martinez of Bonestroo, the City's
1 storm water management consultant, recommends limiting discharge underneath Galpin
Boulevard to 4.5 cfs at the high water level. In addition, the wet volume of the pond should
be increased to 1.2 acre /feet to meet water quality standards.
i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Jo Ann Olsen
February 8, 1993
Page 2
The second drainage subdistrict covers approximately the mid one -third of the development. '
This area drains southerly through the adjacent property to a wetland located approximately
1300 feet south. The plans proposes catch basins to collect storm runoff from the front
lawns and streets. The storm sewer conveys the untreated runoff along Lots 4 and 5, Block
3 and discharges it onto the parcel directly to the south. Although this is a normal drainage
pattern for the area, the increased runoff generated by impervious surfaces, i.e. rooftops and
street surface, will increase the volume and velocity of water through the parcel to the south.
Without the appropriate drainage easement and storm water improvements downstream the
applicant should retain storm runoff on site and maintain predeveloped runoff conditions.
This may require a temporary retention pond on one or two of the lots until the parcel to
the south is able to develop and extend a storm sewer system to convey the runoff
downstream. This subdivision proposal is a prime example where the City should require
the applicant to pay a storm water trunk fee. The trunk fee would be used to offset the cost
of oversizing on the next segment of pipe downstream when the parcel develops. Right now
the storm sewer is a piecemeal -type system and not functioning at the most - desired level.
1111
In addition, the storm water discharged on the adjacent property is not dealing with water
quality issues; therefore, the applicant should also be required to contribute to the City's
Surface Water Management Project for development of a regional pond downstream. ,
The easterly one -third of the development drains to the east and follows a drainage swale
southerly which eventually connects back with the drainage area from the mid one -third of 1
the development. Again, the applicant is proposing to directly discharge onto the adjacent
property without appropriate easements or downstream storm water improvements and
therefore is required to temporarily pond on site and maintain the discharge at the
predeveloped runoff condition.
According to soil boring results prepared by Braun Engineering, soils throughout the
development contain a very high moisture content. Although ground water was not
observed in all the borings except one, seasonal and annual fluctuations of the ground water
levels should be anticipated. Therefore, staff recommends construction of drain tile systems
behind the proposed curbs to intercept household sump pump discharge that would typically
be extended to the street. The City has in the past experienced that the discharge of sump
pumps in the street created hazardous conditions, i.e. icy conditions in the winter as well as
a 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 and the ponding requirements shall meet NURP standards as well as maintain
the discharge rate at predeveloped runoff conditions. An alternative to eliminate one of the
three discharge points would be to consolidate the storm sewers from the easterly two- thirds
of the development into one discharge area. This would have an advantage by utilizing only 1
1
1
Jo Ann Olsen
February 8, 1993
Page 3
one or two lots for temporary ponding purposes instead of two or three lots. Also, in the
future, extension of the storm sewer pipe through the adjacent parcel would only require
one pipe system instead of the two. The recommended alternative would be for the
applicant to propose additional storm sewer pipe to convey the runoff from the north part
of Windmill Drive to south of Crocus Court, thus eliminating the northeasterly discharge
point on Lot 1, Block 1.
The City has not established a trunk storm sewer fee as of yet. However, with nearing
Y � g
1 completion of the City's comprehensive storm sewer plan, Bonestroo should be able to
estimate a figure fairly quickly. 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 the proposed
regional ponding location near the wetland approximately 1300 feet south. In addition to
the trunk fee, the applicant will also be required to pay into the City's storm water
' management program to provide water quality improvements downstream.
UTILITIES
The City Council recently ordered the preparation of plans and specifications for trunk
sanitary sewer and water improvements to service this area as well as the Lundgren Bros.
' project on the Johnson /Dolejsi property located west of this development. Plans and
specifications are being prepared and are subject to City Council approval and authorization
for bid. Without these improvements, the project is not feasible from an engineering
standpoint. The feasibility study proposes extension of the Lake Ann trunk sanitary sewer
line through this development. A sanitary subtrunk line will extend from the northeast
corner of Lot 1 to Windmill Drive south along Windmill Drive to 76th Street west out to
Galpin Boulevard. In addition to trunk sanitary sewer, trunk watermain improvements are
also proposed by the City along Galpin Boulevard, 76th Street and Windmill Drive. The
plans indicate a 12 -inch watermain along the entire length of Windmill Drive; however, it
1 is only necessary to extend an 8 -inch line north of 76th Street along Windmill Drive. As a
part of the final platting process, it is recommended that the applicant dedicate the
necessary right -of -way and easements for the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain
trunk improvements at no cost to the City. The northerly 20 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 should
be dedicated as a utility and drainage easement for extension of the sanitary sewer subtrunk
1 and storm sewer proposed unless an easement is granted by the property owner to the north
(Davidson).
The applicant will be responsible for extension of the lateral sanitary sewer and water
services to the individual lots from the trunk main as well as fire hydrant leads and gate
valve placement. All utility and street construction shall be in accordance with the City's
latest (1993) Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans for
1
Jo Ann Olsen 1
February 8, 1993
Page 4
1
utility and street improvements will be required as a part of the final plat approval and are
subject to City Council approval. The applicant will also be required to enter into a
development contract to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval for the
overall development. 1
STREETS
The project proposes a single access off of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Galpin 1
Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of Carver County Highway Department of which they
have sent a memo addressing their concerns. As indicated in the memo dated February 4,
1
1993 from Roger Gustafson, County Engineer, the County Highway Department will require
the construction of a right turn lane along County Road 117 at the proposed intersection.
The site plan is also proposing two temporary turnarounds at the end of Windmill Drive.
Temporary street easements will be required for those areas of the turnaround outside the
dedicated right -of -way.
The applicant is proposing 60-foot wide road right-of-ways pp p p g 60 o de oad ght -of ays and construction of a 31 -foot
wide back -to -back urban street which is in accordance with the City's standards. Street
grades range from 1.3% to 3.2% which is also within the City's guidelines. As previously
mentioned, all street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition (1993) Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans
will be required prior to final plat approval. The construction plans for street and utility
improvements will also require City Council approval.
EROSION CONTROL 1
The drainage plan proposed erosion control fence along the perimeter of the site. Erosion
control measures and turf establishment should be in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1
1. Elevation of the southerly cul -de -sac should be adjusted to provide better grade
continuity for the future extension of Windmill Drive to the south.
2. The water quality /retention pond proposed in the southwest corner of the
development shall be increased to provide a wet volume of 1.2 acre /feet. In
addition, an outlet restricting flows shall be limited to 4.5 cfs at the high water level.
3. The applicant shall design and construct temporary holding ponds for storm runoff
PP g P �Y g P
on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 4 and 5, Block 3 to maintain the predeveloped runoff
1
1
1 Jo Ann Olsen
February 8, 1993
1 Page 5
conditions. In addition, the applicant shall pay into the City's Surface Water
Management Program for future downstream water quality improvements. The
specific amount will be determined by the City's storm water consultant.
4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water trunk fee to be determined by
the City's storm water management consultant to contribute towards the future
1 extension of storm sewer downstream.
5. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's
1 1993 edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Street construction shall
also include a drain tile system behind the curb to accommodate household sump
pump discharge.
' 6. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ondin calculations verifying the
P g pipe
PP
sizing and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be designed and constructed to
1 handle 10 -year storm events. Retention ponds shall be constructed to NURP
standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision
at predeveloped runoff conditions for a 100 -year 24 -hour storm event. Drainage
plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
1 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory
agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR and
Carver County Highway Department.
8. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development
1 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 along County Road 117
and any other improvements required by the Carver County Highway Department.
10. Both temporary cul -de -sacs that are proposed for future extension shall be provided
with a turnaround that meets 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.
11. The preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council ordering the public
1 improvement project No. 92 -5 for the trunk sanitary sewer and water improvements
through the development.
1
1
1
Jo Ann Olsen
February 8, 1993
Page 6 1
12. The applicant shall dedicate the necessary drainage and utility easement for the
extension of the trunk sanitary sewer and possible storm sewer over Lot 1, Block 1.
13. Lot grades throughout the development shall not exceed 3:1 slopes. 1
14. The applicant shall dedicate temporary street easements for those areas of the
temporary cul -de -sacs outside the dedicated right -of -way. 1
ktm
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
1 DATE: February 10, 1993
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat, Windmill Run, The Rottlund Company
1 The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing the aforementioned land development
proposal on Tuesday, February 23, 1993. These preliminary comments are being forwarded to
t alert you to the issues the commission will be addressing:
1 Parkland
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 1.4 of the 17.2 acres being platted for parkland. This acreage is insufficient
for a neighborhood park, and in my opinion, does not represent a "nest egg" to build upon. My
1 recommendation to the commission will be to accept full park fees to be paid at the time of
building permit application in lieu of parkland dedication.
Trails
The Comprehensive Plan identifies Galpin Boulevard (CR 117) as a trail alignment. A 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 line. 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 the future trail connection.
Again, the conditions discussed in this memo are subject to the approval of the Park and
Recreation Commission.
tOr PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
7
CITYOF
td,,,,, 1
o f , CHANHASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official k
DATE: 02/02/93
SUBJECT: 93 -4 SUB and 93 -1 Rezoning (Windmill Run, Rottlund)
I
Background:
I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning I
case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval.
Analysis: 1
Problems have occurred with dwellings on corrected pads being too large for I
the pad or missing the pad. Soil conditions for future additions are also a
concern that will inevitably have to be addressed. Details on corrected
pads must be furnished to the Inspections Division. Pads that are corrected
at the time the streets are installed should be submitted to the Inspections I
Division before City acceptance of the subdivision. Data on lots that are
individually corrected may be submitted before the certificate of occupancy is
issued. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report, compaction 1
tests, the limits of the corrected pads and elevation of the excavation.
Standard designations (LO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) for proposed dwelling types,
lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevation need to be indicated on the 1
drainage plan to insure an adequate plan review by the City.
Discontinuous, widely separated streets with the same name or number
designation have proven to be confusing for emergency personnel. Although the
City is addressed with a grid system, an older or more well known street
always seems to get responded to first in an emergency. The less well known 1
street is "discovered" afterwards or when emergency equipment is already
headed in the wrong direction. Name designations for roadways also allow
future additions to the roadway to continue in any direction without regard to
the City grid. 1
1
‘..4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1
1
1
1
1
1 Jo Ann O
02/02/9 3
Page 2
Recommendations:
1 Staff recommends the following be included in the conditions of approval:
1. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for
each house pad on the grading plan.
2. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits
' of the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division.
A general soils report for the development should also be submitted
to the Inspections Division.
1 3. Replace numbered street designations with names and submit for
review.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
1
to CHANHASSEN
1
1
efii
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 II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
I
DATE: January 21, 1993
SUBJ: GalP in Boulevard, Windmill Run, The Rottlund Company 1
Planning Case 93 -4 Sub, 93 -1 Rezoning
I
I have reviewed the site plan and have made the following requirements:
1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, (i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, N.S.P. & Northwestern Bell, cable boxes). Pursuant to City Ordinance.
2. No housing construction beyond lots 12, 13, 16, 17, may start, until fire apparatus
access roads are provided. Theses access roads shall be designed to the City of I
Chanhassen Engineering standards, and meet the approval of the Chanhassen Fire
Department, pursuant to Uniform Fire Code 1988 Edition, Sec. 10.207(f).
3. The street named "76th Street West" is unacceptable, and must be renamed. 1
Reasons being, the City already has a 76th Street, and 76 does not line up with the
City's grid map system. 1
1
1
1
1
es
tof PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1
1 X R (ttt
`C 1 i
1 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH STREET
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
II (612) 448.1213 ,f � X , 0 ti�
1
COUNTY of CAQVE' E J n ';99"
_
February 4, 1993 CITY OF G- w,IH, s
1
I To:
From: Jo Ann Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner
Roger Gustafson, County Engineer
Subject: Preliminary Plat
I Windmill Run
Comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Windmill Run development dated January 19,
1993, and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated January 20, 1993, are:
I 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
9 Y
functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are:
I Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
2 -lane Roadway 2 -lane Roadway
I Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
80' 100' 110' 120'
I Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
4-lane Roadway 4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
1 100' 110' -- --
County Road 117 is functionally classified as a Collector (Class 1) roadway in the Eastern
I Carver County Transportation Study. Preservation of an adequate corridor for the future
upgrading of CR 117 is an important consideration. I recommend no less than a
minimum width of 100 feet be preserved for CR 117 to accommodate the construction of
1 either a 2 -lane or 4 -lane urban undivided highway.
The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed
I subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county road. Additional
width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
I 2. Construction of the proposed street intersection with County Road 117 is subject to the
access permit requirements of Carver County.
I The city is asked to inform the developer that, most certainly, the county highway
department will require the construction of a right -turn lane along County Road 117 at the
proposed intersection.
1
I Affrnmatr:' Actron /Equal Oppom Emploler
Pr mh d on Recyled Papo
•
1
Page 2 1
Windmill Run Preliminary Plat
February 4, 1993
1
1
3. Installation of public utility lines within the County Road 117 right -of -way are subject to
the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 1
4. The proposed grading and the installation of drainage structures within the right -of -way
of County Road 117 are subject to review and approval of the county highway
department. Construction of the pond along CR 117 must be done in a manner to
accommodate the widening of the road. Also, the developer must document to the
County's satisfaction that the 984.0 O.H.W. of the pond poses no structural threat to the
county road embankment nor does it pose any threat of "overtopping" the road itself. The
county highway department is not inclined to accept the construction of a dam for this
purpose within the county road right -of -way.
I
5. The proposed location of tree plantings is questioned. The county highway department
assumes the intent of the landscaping plan is to locate all plantings outside of the 50 foot
I county road right -of -way. This is not clearly represented by the landscaping plan. Please
inform me if this assumption is correct or incorrect. The location of these proposed
plantings may pose problems for the installation and maintenance of utility lines. Sight
I distances may also be restricted by these plantings. Discussion involving the developer,
the city, and the county highway department about the landscaping plan is expected if
the project is advanced.
1 6. 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 road right -of-
way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to
be completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition"
I
than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision
in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for
the final condition of the county road right -of -way. A clear understanding of this I
responsibility will, in my opinion, result in fewer project over -sight problems for both the
county and the city.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plat for this proposed subdivision. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District
1 1—Z71- Engineering Advisor Barr Engineering Co.
`` .... 8300 Norman Center Drive
> — Suite 300
ch � Minneapolis, MN 55437
832 -2600
Legal Advisor: Popham. Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman
3300 Piper Jaffray Tower
222 South Ninth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
333 -4800
February 4, 1993
Mrs. Joanne Olson
Senior City Planner
' City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mrs. Olson:
The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the
Riley Purgatory - Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary
' information as submitted to the District for the Windmill Run Development in
Chanhassen. The following policies and criteria of the District are applicable
for this project:
1. In accordance with Section E (2) of the District's revised Rules and
Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit will be required
from the District for this project. Accompanying the permit
application, a grading plan showing both existing and proposed
contours must be submitted to the District for review.
2. A detailed erosion control plan must be submitted to the District for
review and approval.
3. A stormwater management plan must be submitted to the District for
review and approval.
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this project at an early date.
' If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please call me at
832 -2857.
_. y,
Ro ert C. Obermeyer
' Barr Engineering Co pany
Engineer's for the District
c: Mr. Ray Haik
Mr. Fritz Rahr
23 \27 \053 \RUN.LTR
1
1
1
TO: JoAnn Olsen
Paul Krauss
FROM: Michael and Colleen Klingelhutz /44: (- ,
DATE: January 12, 1993
SUBJECT: Rottlund's Preliminary Plat
Enclosed please find our signatures on Rottlund's preliminary plat
and re- zoning request. We are signing this request with the
understanding that Rottlund is solely responsible for any fees or
costs incurred.
Our signing this application also does not imply that we will be
willing participants in locating the trunk sewer easement on the '
property if Rottlund does not exercise the option to buy it. To
date, they have not set a closing date.
MJK /cmk
encl. ,
cc: Charles Folch, City Engineer
Phil Gravel, Project Engineer
Don Jensen, Rottlund Homes
1
1
1
1
1
1
COMPARISON TABLE
1 Description Lot Area Lot Depth Lot Width
Ordinance Rqmts. 15,000 125' 90'
I Lot 1, Block 1 15,070 137' 110'
1 Lot 2, Block 1 15,070 137' 110'
Lot 3, Block 1 15,070 137' 110'
1 Lot 4, Block 1 15,070 137' 110'
Lot 5, Block 1 15,070 137' 110'
1 Lot 1, Block 2 15,070 137' 110'
Lot 2, Block 2 15,070 137' 110'
1 Lot 3, Block 2 15,070 137' 110'
Lot 4, Block 2 18,400 164' 116'
1 Lot 5, Block 2 19,175 172' 100'
(at 30' setback)
1 Lot 6, Block 2 22,325 155' 98'
(at 30' setback)
I Lot 7, Block 2 23,125 154' 100'
(at 30' setback)
1 Lot 8, Block 2 18,725 170' 98'
(at 30' setback)
Lot 9, Block 2 19,225 167' 115'
1 Lot 10, Block 2 18,200 154' 121'
I Lot 11, Block 2 17,400 157' 100'
(at 30' setback)
Lot 12, Block 2 21,400 149' 95'
Lot 13, Block 2 19,025 146' 95'
1 (at 30' setback)
Lot 14, Block 2 16,925 159' 95'
1 (at 30' setback)
Lot 15, Block 2 16,725 186' 115'
1 , Lot 16, Block 2 18,900 196' 105'
1
1
.1
Lot 17, Block 2 15,125 151' 111'
Lot 1, Block 3 15,456 167' 95' 1
Lot 2, Block 3 15,030 16'7' 90'
Lot 3, Block 3 15,030 167' 90' 1
Lot 4, Block 3 15,030 167' 90' I
Lot 5, Block 3 15,030 167' 90'
Lot 6, Block 3 15,030 167' 90'
Lot 7, Block 3 15,030 167' 90'
Lot 8, Block 3 15,030 167' 90' 1
Lot 9, Block 3 15,030 167' 90'
Lot 10, Block 3 18,300 180' 90' 1
Lot 11, Block 3 20,775 221' 90'
Lot 12, Block 3 27,625 293' 100' 1
Lot 13, Block 3 17,775 351' 113'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
I r E)
I
C
1 `■ irml
f• a 1 1 i r; it t w q
1
.1. iil 1 1 91
1 i M I j
1 i fr ,. I
E
1
i1i.Ei liiii 11 I 11111131i 11 ' '1 11111
1
1
1 = :. ; It ,, r.i1 _ 1
::s3:'"st•.•.$11} : s :I i li 1 i { {
lil a{{: l ; sr"ri.�j si 1 E E 1 1 • 111 , + t
1 , si {;S . It._:t : .. aii :1 111 ' ii ' -•- : iii i:� 0 ! l ? ais a J t �' • u 1"w .Ka } 1 ti 1 i ( ! - { a ,I ?a - ei /r+ 6 ' , ilk J i � i 1 1 ' I { it r: =3i I
3 i= il ; r •.. : }t it
1
1 JJ w_ U ,
' - k i lri g-'ka*- alltIVAIII Milir.....--t i "lif i i i
1 . ' MI- r -,-114,s ... _,„ it ..,
it
:�� lb- � umf1 : , , • 11
1 : - f 1;I - `cam ��: .1 t-;.-.-. •� �} Pi
li ...d. , 0 ,:),, t_______„ . =mg ■
■
--
_ _ i _ 1
1 e ,... 44) icor , -
- -4.11 •
__ _ — -: I - II , Vii`; 1 r 4 _ I " i fit % ''',.., , , i \ i. ,..,. ... .,,, 7 - . , — A l 1 i j t
1 1 , 411M•sa■ .. _:_ . ''. . 4. V- —4 ..., I —■
I \ Illp / . . ..-- ...- -.. -,..... . ai, ., — 11 i
1 II
i I
k N. 1 Ir 1 r . . .
, I IL:1.111, 1
1 rtp -4i IN) .-
• 1 ! ,, 11 .\, 1 I I
-ALS> , [.'4-1
1 ....‘ \ "N . 1 V 4 . w 400 ..... , 4
'`\
1
. : i lc
1
1 1 ,
, ......_, • ,
i .., , 4 p , ../. i .
i i -4:-.T.,ry, i '...,,,,,,......"...- I _ ........'" ., . , ' ,.. gi I 1
1 i s• ' l r ..- _ ,. 1
-- _ fli, ID t , a._ is in I 1
\ I -mlik 107 1 1 I I
\ I t oli k v
\ kor : `
Ii !1t e 11 III li
1
% lth I � ' II Vii,; ki �dl. • --- �� __ t 1 ' h 1� i Mil li ,t r1 , i i - - - -- i - ' ' ' ' / �i ' ,l • till/14 a t 1111 "llclii I!
WI ■ 1 ....•-•-• ......_. ...- z . , ; ir A ��.�,r,l.
.." ........ 2- , ' ' ' ir- ; i; , , . .- - A 1,; I 1 r , . -- 1 -- — 2 4 / , 4 44 I. p / ail , 4 i II ....... .. i 1 ' / 1 C -.G.,
- - -- - - -...- 110- �+ ,, - ' 1"1E
-1 - _'j .� - %; t:l 1
•
1
1
1
1 1
1
,....,,, 1. - • ID
/ .-- I ''
s. / / _ - i .-� p -_-_-,--,.--
1 - / - , Wolitabkiram20IN
- ,....--- . 0 „,v...,, ,T=6:a4 ...iiic_ sewv . 401%
IN
gag
.... , rtt 1101 ' V I I MOW l / .!'
z-,,,-., k foe \ i: , . .' .1-- Al ry IV_: 4. ..-
\\ . .0... ,- ■ ii, 2
t � I�� NI t ( l .....
1 1 # -■ '
t.' .. i e lms& „ - i 1"›. ' rail _.,
i _.
i _., ., . ,,, lir 4 , 4 _,
N% I,: .., 1 o lloriodz )
1 1 I - , 1c ',;,/ 1 v f: „ , j V WM I 1 1
/ 1 ,.,, .,_____ _ . ,
1 % %r + • 1
..- ! _ -- .,-- /
1 _,...--- 9 ,...,...- • I iiii [IA lag ; j
---- 1141\ m,, I:// ,
C �
\% 1 r ‘ ...0011...... * \ \ .K 4iir
O .s III
I
. 4 1111111 11 !linj fikp / _,-- . • -:
1 ea
G
. 11 : -..----Lt r y"' / • "tyti,44,,:n h �� s ii
1 i 1 i ylfij kl
C---iii.,__.--:-.-. � = = 1Rw�_ ---- " ai ~�••. _ j;
1 ..-:.- ^�� ♦ -- -__..� • fi
IT
! . _ i 1 � y
1 I
PI
1 1 i •
1 1 •. `
1
r
i
\ / ..----'. �� / /i i % i '
1
� � / r / / r,; , � —• 11.1 ; yr—
..-""' / 1 s..... ell A //1 .....1.- 1 I pi
'''.• --• ......, _._ .......... ..- 121 la
qT
___ 2 .. .... .„
_ __ _ I , ... (--
___ 0 ..
....„---... . , ..„/ ..- - :\ -- ' ...../ I
N. N .., \ /dr ‘../...... . ...,..: I 1..".... IS .... awe ow■ .... saw. ..--- ... -
i \
]:::
1
/ ,. —AI _ , -
` \ ' / r
t \ j 1 1
�_�-� \ \
I .... \ ` .1 \ \ - ` II ` 1
1
i / ,/, ./ a / ;. %
e. .... I' / is / I
i , .., ...,
. .
‘ 1 , (
i ....,, , , , „,„ 1 : /. ,
. ... / ......./ / i �� � 1 // / 9: I J I 1 I .,
1
/ -- / / / f v , _ ` 1 , 1 II
...
..•••• .0 -
......... _. .. . .
__.... .... . . , ,
„ _ „ , e
./ V ..-
410„ ," t
i • i "''.
ill I
. ‘ I ' 1 , . _ r / , ,._
. 13 ,/- Ft;:), \ . . .... ...., •- r /../ r ` �' / / / I 1 1 - 0 4,
/ , /' — . 1 \ / i I 1 1
1 1 / / / � I - \ ‘.‘ • -‘c.
�� r - - -- \ ■ \ \ \ \
-'_' -` - .� aroma . � - z u ; 1
1
I I 1 !!
l
1
I
Ii 1
i • -- �i - COU Y
' i
11 -x
i I 4.,...
r"
J'' ii- s II
1
r !•
I
i ` jir I
_ I •
7 �� R CQt •
i _ •
i 1
i V `.
i I
1"
1
1 W
1
1 1 i �
i I 1 if
1 i
t 1• 1 I. N
1
i
1 ' 1 op
i i i .. "' ,
i 1. I 1- e . i
F • Ft• . tio' 18, I / _ .
1
1 , ...... .' t om` II.
I — ' - S -II' w. t 1 Ng _ �. 4111 11• 1 .r 1 i 1 • r ,
1
If
1
1
il
•
1
HANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION 11 REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 17, 1993
Acting Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino,
and Jeff Farmakes '
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner Ill
and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
THE ROTTLUND COMPANY (MIKE KLINGELHUTZ) PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, WINDMILL II
RUN:
A. REZONE 17.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF, II
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; AND
B. SUBDIVIDE 17.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
Public Present: ,
Name Address
David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd.
Tom & Dar Turcotte 7240 Galpin Blvd.
Mark (Red) White Representing Prince Nelson
Wayne Tauer Pioneer Engineering
Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Acting Chairman Scott called the public hearing to order. ,
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Dave, does the developer have
the option of constructing ponds and maintaining the pre - development II runoff rate, I mean as opposed to going ahead and making the payments to
the City for oversizing the storm sewer? Is that his option that we'll
give him or is that...
Hempel: In this particular development, we're looking at actually
probably both scenarios where the pond that's being proposed in the
southwest corner of the site is achieving the City's requirements for
water quality and quantity but yet, that will only cover western one - thirll
of the development. The remaining two - thirds of the development is left
untreated or unretained.
Ledvina: Would it be possible for him to construct a equalization pond
for that other two - thirds of the property?
Hempel: It would be but when we look down the road here at our overall 11
comprehensive storm water plan, this could be an island if you will, that
still is the old where we have maintenance ponds on site instead of being,
a part of the overall network. Storm sewer network which drains to the
regional holding pond south. From our perspective, I guess we'd like to
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 2
i see it be a part of this overall storm sewer network that we want to
incorporate with the comprehensive plan.
' Ledvina: What do you think is most cost effective at this point in
time? For the developer. Obviously if you build ponds he's going to lose
lots and things like that. You haven't set the rates for this surcharge
' or whatever. I'm just, getting a feel for that at all?
Hempel: That's a very good question. I don't think I have a real good
answer for you. We felt, just looking at it at this stage that by leaving
' the lots as temporary holding ponds until they're dealt with in the
future, it gives the applicant some opportunity to come back and still
build and utilize those lots. Maybe the applicant tonight maybe will want
to respond to that a little bit further. What his desires would be.
Scott: Is there anymore comments from staff?
Hempel: Not from engineering.
Scott: Would the applicant or applicant's representative wish to make
' some comments? And please state your name and your address, and spelling
of your name if it's not intuitive.
Wayne Tauer: Thank you. My name is Wayne Tauer. That's T- a- u -e -r. Not
T- o -w -e -r naturally. I'm from Pioneer Engineering and I represent the
Rott.lund Company tonight. Couple of things just to expand a little bit on
what Dave has talked about. The pond that we're presenting building in
that southwest corner was basically dictated to us by Mr. Ismael Martinez,
and as I understand it, this part of the master plan has been completed.
Therefore that's why that pond is where it is and that's why it's the size
' it is. It's part of the master plan, obviously and unfortunately most of
the water that goes into that particular pond is only approximately a
third our's and two - thirds somebody else's. Therefore, we're building a
11 holding ponds and NURP treatment for other people. I guess our only
concern is the fact that if and when the master plan does get implemented
and all the pipes and drainageways are in place, that it be noted and
credited to our account so to speak. That we have been already assessed
' so to speak. We built enough ponding and NURP treatment to handle
approximately I would say nearly 20 acres. Our site is 17.2 so just so we
are on record that we won't be assessed. again. And I guess also to
' address some of the concerns of the Commission here tonight is, we will be
willing to temporarily take one, two or whatever it requires lots out of
the subdivision. Well, wrong term. Out of building the homes on those
particular lots. We'd like to have the lots approved with the condition
that when everything is settled and all the drainage is worked out, that
we can go back and then of course build on those particular lots. And
with an easement over them I think we'll have to vacate that easement
ultimately when building plans and permits are issued. I guess that's
really most, oh. There's a couple other minor things. Should I run
through what our concerns are or do you want to just throw some things at
11 me?
Scott: Sure.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 3 1
Wayne Tauer: There were just a couple things. There was, I guess item II
1 where they asked us to lower the street on the south end of
Windmill Drive. Certainly willing to do that. That's not a problem. I
guess what we really need to do is get a little more topography and
project a vertical curve. We've often run in our development's experienc
into roads that are poked out into space so to speak. And after that, yo
don't know where they're going. I guess just a little more topography
would really make more sense than just to say, raise it a foot and a half
• or 2 feet or whatever it is. Okay? Leave it at that. Okay, good. Some '
of the other things that we're a little bit worried about. I know a new
condition showed up here tonight is about berming along the county road.
One of the things we're worried about there is whether the county road
will remain as a rural section and will it have a ditch. If that's so,
then the berming is not a problem for us. If it does not remain a rural
section kind of design, berming in there may clog up or what we call are II
positive overflow. As you see there is water coming from the property
from the north. If we don't have a positive, we are extending some storm
sewer up there to pick up normal rainfalls you know. 2 to 5 year storms.
Anything beyond that, those storm pipes will not handle that volume.
Therefore it has to be able to flow overland without flooding somebody,
specifically those two northwesterly lots. If berming is going to cause a
problem and block up our positive overflow, I guess we have a problem will
that. If it doesn't and the rural section then we can maintain a natural
swale that will reach that pond ultimately, then we'll definitely go along
with that and we can work that out I think between the engineering
department and ourselves.
Ledvina: Just a point on the berming. What would the, so the purpose of
the berming is to screen, to provide screening for the residents
from the traffic on CR 117?
Wayne Tauer: Agreed, right.
Ledvina: What would the height of the berm that would be required? I
guess I don't have a feeling for what we're talking about.
Olsen: We were talking like around 4 foot because of the width that even
would require is 24 feet. We were figuring at a 3:1 slope. So I don't
know that we could go with, with what's there, I don't think we could go
much higher than that.
Wayne Tauer: Well the real problem is also they want a 20 foot easement II
for a bike trail. Now are we taking 20 feet off our land and then anothe
24? And are we now losing 44 feet or whatever it's going to be off of
those lots? I don't know if we can really afford all of that and still
build it.
Mancino: You are going to lose a little bit of that 40. In the ordinance
in our city code landscape ordinance, in Section 18 -61, number 5 it says II
landscape buffer around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required
by the City when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets
as defined by the comprehensive plan? Required buffering shall consist o
berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs. So
that's where the berming came from.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 4
Wayne Tauer: Okay, thank you.
Olsen: And we'll have to be working with that because we have to massage
everything. There's the 20 foot trail easement but within that trail
1 easement is the 8 foot bituminous trail. So we have room for berming.
Room for landscaping within that 20 foot easement, to a certain extent.
Plus there's also the possibility that trail can actually be located in
County right -of -way, if they permit it so it can go in and out where
there's room or lack of room. So it's one of those things we're really
going to have to work on and we can't be specific right now.
1 Wayne Tauer: Most people assume that berms have to be 3:1 period. You
know, if it's 4 foot, it's 12 feet horizontally, 4 foot vertical. So on
and so forth. That isn't necessarily so. Depending on how you treat the
berm and how you plant it. There are a number of ways to make berms
higher without sticking with that 3:1. If you totally plant them with
ground covers and fairly densely populated plant materials, you can
1 certainly maintain a steeper slope, assuming that no one has to mow them
everyday. And I also assume that those berms will be on private property.
Therefore, it'd be the responsibility of the maintenance of them to the
property owner who owns them. Therefore I assume they're going to take
care of them and not try to mow them obviously if they're mowable. So it
just depends on how we design that berm and how we plant it will also
determine the width of that particular berm, so. And there were lots of
' ways. There's even fencing I suppose. Opaque fencing of some sort. I
don't know if that's allowable in your city or not.
' Olsen: We don't prefer it.
Wayne Tauer: Not preferred, okay. But like you say, there's options and
again, maybe we can work it out with the staff to make it fly.
Scott: But as far as the issues relative to berming and right -of -way and
storm sewer and so forth along CR 117, staff does not see any issues that
cannot be resolved? I just want to make sure that this issue is not
something that's going to cause them to, or this project to be non - viable
for some reason. But I get the reason that you don't see that as an
issue. Okay.
Hempel: I don't think it will be an issue. The berming or landscaping
can be used also in the trail easement corridor. It also I'm sure will
extend out into the properties though somewhat to a point.
Wayne Tauer: Oh yeah, agreed. Yeah, no problem there.
Hempel: We're told because the landscaping will effect large trees, the
root systems and so forth on any kind of trail base that we put in there,
plus hazards of limbs and tree trimming and so forth. So we're going to
be careful of what plantings and where they're located in relation to the
trail.
Wayne Tauer: We just don't want to restrict those two abutting lots to
the point where they're no longer viable lots. Although we do have fairly
large setbacks there already. So I mean we made those lots obviously
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 5 1
larger than the standard lots. It's just a matter of making'sure'that well
have at least a 50 or 60 foot building pad to put a nice house_ on
Farmakes: What's the City's experience with maintaining private berm
areas? Or does the private individual maintaining the berm area? Has it
been good? _-
- T,
Olsen: The ones I'm thinking of are the ones on Kerber. I don'tiknow II
that it's, I think on their side, on the interior side they do maintain
it. On the exterior side, I don't know that. I think that we d8'. Ike end
up maintaining that. " - t
Scott: It looks like they're mowed up about as far as someone c
m n safely
go so there's usually a section of about 10 to 12 feet that doesn't work.
And then I think, weren't there a tremendous amount of pine trees_at; one II
time? That ended up dying an untimely death. ' `
Farmakes: I think they're still there.
Olsen: Some of them, yeah.
•
Farmakes: Where does the City define it's responsibility that berfn
then? Property line?
Olsen: Typically yeah. The end of the right -of -way or beyond. Anything"
beyond the trail easement we would not maintain.
Mancino: So if the landscaping and the trail easement... II
Olsen: Well I think we would make an accommodation that we wouldn't be
responsible for that.
Farmakes: But if we defined what the landscaping is, we - fiould be
cognizant of maybe that part of it may not be taken care ef.so much.
Olsen: Right, and the landowner wouldn't understand that hat's their's.1
Farmakes: Well not only that but physically it might be difficult for
them to maintain it. Particularly if you want to increase the grade of II
it.
Wayne Tauer: Well if we increase the grade, there won't be much -
maintenance involved is the whole idea behind it. Is to put plant
materials in there that will not require a lot of maintenance. Especially
mowing, which is a weekly. 7 1
Farmakes: That's what I'm saying.
Wayne Tauer: Right, which is a weekly problem. 1
Scott: Wayne, do you have any other comments that you'd like to-Ake as a
part of the public hearing?
Wayne Tauer: No, I guess that's pretty much it. I'll take your questions.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 6
Scott: Okay. Any questions from anyone that you'd like to address to
Wayne?
Ledvina: Does Rottlund, is it acceptable for them to pay the cost for the
oversized pipes that will be placed at a later date? As I understand the,
is that something that we're willing to do?
Wayne Tauer: I think so, as long as it's a common denominator for
everybody. As I understand it, it's an ordinance not in place presently.
It's wishful thinking kinds of things and I know that Dave is looking for
that process and many other cities have that and why should Chanhassen be
' different right? You know, really. I mean it does make some sense. If
you can have regional ponding as opposed to these little potholes all over
creation, I mean that really is a pain to most developers and if the city
can go in and actually develop regional ponding areas where they make
sense, I think most developers will be in agreeabce with that. Assuming
the assessment is reasonable and the City isn't making necessarily a major
profit on the project. That it covers the cost and makes the system work,
no. I think Rottlund would be absolutely agreeable with that.
Farmakes: Do you have an idea of the square footage that they're looking
at building per lot? Square footage of the building.
11 Wayne Tauer: The square footage of the building?
Farmakes: Are you looking at a range for the development? Just curious.
Wane Tauer: You're talking to the wrong man unfortunately. I don't know
what they have in mind here. I'm sure it's $120's to $175's. You know
I'm just thinking. I shouldn't even probably say that. I don't know.
Farmakes: You're talking price range. I'm talking square footage.
Wayne Tauer: Square footage. Well, I mean they're kind of related I
guess. No I don't. I really don't. We could certainly get that number
to you. What they think will be coming in here but I don't know.
Scott: Any other questions? Okay. Is there anyone else as a part of the
public hearing that would like to comment on this project? Okay, seeing
none, then can I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Now we'll, Diane if you'd like to start with your comments. We
started down here last week. Two weeks ago. Do you have any comments or
questions?
Harberts: Thank you Mr. Chair. I told you it was a long day. Maybe this
is somewhere between a question and a comment with regard to the temporary
turn around easement. This is going to be an actual asphalt that's laid
down. Are those two lots, Lot 1 of Block 3 and Lot 5 of Block 1, are they
going to be available to be built on right away with that turn around
there?
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 7
Olsen: They could still be accommodated. Well Lot l's going to have the
pond on it. We've had that before where the lots, buildings can still bell
located there and then, as Dave can explain, it's just no curb. It's jus
asphalt that's easily removed.
Hempel: The original permanent street is actually put in and what they di
is pave what I'll call a tab outside to complete the radius for vehicles
to turn around so they're not turning around in somebody's driveway all
the time. It will be a little less grass for the homeowner to mow until II
the street gets extended. When the street does get extended, the
homeowner will receive a sodded yard back where that pavement is. It will
be torn out by the next developer and resodded. Building setbacks would II
be still from the property line, not the easement line so the setbacks
would remain the same.
Harberts: I feel a little bit that this is one of those situations where"
this is plopped down and I guess his meridian that he used, what's going
to happen around the other, you know surrounding it? Are we going to see
some plans for that? I mean we have this road. We have this group of
homes and we're talking about sewer.
Hempel: I can expand on further west of this subdivision. As you may oril
may not be aware, Lundgren Bros have been before us with a preliminary
plat for quite a large subdivision but it's further to the west, closer to
Trunk Highway 41. There's also some talk of another property owner, the
Song's and also possibly Carlson's getting together with Lundgren Bros ,
also and do a development on the west side of Galpin, slightly north of
this development. The applicant may want to expand on the potential, the
parcel north of this immediate development. There was some talk trying 11
combine.
Harberts: Yeah, there's a single family home just.
Wayne Tauer: Yes, there is one. The property owner himself lives up in
that northwest corner of that particular property but we have also looked
at that property and have actually had a sketch plan type design on it and
Rottlund is negotiating with the Davidson's at this time to try to
purchase it. So it'd be very nice if we could, I mean nothing guaranteed
at this point in time but
Harberts: How many acres is it?
Wayne Tauer: It's approximately the same size as this one. About 17
acres. Minus whatever that little corner is. That's probably an acre ou
of there. Maybe it's around 15 -16 acres. There is a wetland in the
northeast corner which you will have to obviously avoid but yeah, we're II
trying to expand this particular plat if we can.
Harberts: I think that's it. Thank you.
Ledvina: Let's see here. A couple of things. In the staff report on
page 3, talking about grading and drainage. You say, I think this is
probably your piece Dave in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Grades throughout the plat should not exceed 3:1 slopes for maintenance II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 8
' purposes. And when you say maintenance, do you mean the homeowner's
maintenance?
Hempel: That's correct. I referred to this for like backyard areas and
so forth. There was one particular area that appeared the slopes may have
been a little bit steeper than a 3 :1. It was on the east side of the
development, Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 where it appears the backyards were
fairly steep grades and it's difficult to maintain vegetation also in some
of those slopes when you increase the grades beyond 3:1.
Ledvina: Okay, so for the homeowners benefit you're suggesting that?
Hempel: That's correct.
Ledvina: And then the pond. You suggest that the volume be increased by
1.2 acre feet. Is that easily done with the area that they have to work
with?
Hempel: That number came.
Ledvina: It just means deepening the pond correct?
Hempel: Essentially, yes.
Ledvina: Okay. And then there was a suggestion that related to the
placement of draintile behind the curbs to prevent or to provide some
drainage for sump pump water and things like that. Would these draintiles
be connected to the catch basins and such? Is that how that would work?
Hempel: That's correct. We'd like to network it with the storm sewer
system. Soil borings that were taken throughout the development here,
there was one particular area that showed kind of a high ground water, or
water table elevation where similar areas of the city have experienced,
the homeowners have experienced sump pumps that run pretty continuous
throughout the day and during the winter months they also continue to run.
And to discharge outside creates a big ice build -up and with the
homeowners, well in the summertime it creates a very wet and spongy yard
and homeowners usually extend the draintile then out to the city street.
11 And during the wintertime and ice build -ups and it becomes a real hazard
for both traffic and pedestrians. Lately the city crews have been
actually going out and repairing a number of these isolated areas around
the city and we're trying to implement now with the construction of these
new developments where we know up front where we can anticipate water
problems to try to correct them in advance. We have a similar development
where they actually stubbed out individual services to run to the house
for the draintile. Some basket to connect into because of the high water
table. It's worked fairly well. Most of the time homeowners, if they
can't discharge it outside, or if it gets the yard wet and so forth, a lot
11 of times they'll just discharge it down into the sewer system within the
house which is illegal and it's bad for the city from an infiltration
standpoint. The City pays an annual fee based on how much sewage goes to
the MWCC and by having all these sump pumps hooked up to it, it just makes
our utility rates increase annually which is in turn passed onto the
homeowners through rate increases.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 9
Ledvina: Okay, so the City is actually, in certain problem areas, the
City is actually constructing these drains behind the curb as a remedial I
technique to avoid these problems?
Hempel: In some of the areas we have, we've worked with the homeowners
and /or the builders /developers to go back and pay us to do that work. So
it's much easier to do it now as a part of the initial road construction
than having to go back and tear up the boulevards and restore yards and
driveways. So it's a better situation this way.
Ledvina: Is there a maintenance concern to keep these drains free flowing
over the long term? Are there clean -outs and that type of thing? 1
Hempel: There are clean -outs. Spaced approximately at about hundred
feet, hundred foot intervals.
Ledvina: So that's flush with the surface?
Hempel: That's correct, yeah. So far we've had draintile systems put in"'
for a little over 2 years now and we've had no problems with freezing or
clogging or crushing of the pipe.
Ledvina: Okay. Let's see. Okay, I think that's all I have for my
comments at this time.
Scott: Great. Jeff. 1
Farmakes: I think I'll make a couple of statements. One, I think that
the applicant can come forward with the solution if that's agreeable to
the engineering firm to solve the temporary problems along the highway. II
I'm not I guess going to hand out any awards here for the lot development.
It meets all the requirements of the city and I think that it serves a
need to have a range of prices. Square footage of homes and so on. It
worries me a little bit that when we place developments out in the middle
of nowhere, we're not quite sure what's going to go in there later on. We
have a general idea I guess if we turn to our master plan but that part
really handled by private enterprise and development. That particular
part is handled by the property owners with some guidance from the city
but we're not defining how big the houses are. We're just defining what '
the minimums are. We're not defining how big the yards are going to be.
Just how little they're going to be. It seems to me kind of an odd mix
from some of the surrounding properties that I hear are being developed
out there, but maybe that's good. Maybe that's good that we have a range"
of development. To each his own.
Olsen: This is also little pieces that there is, you can't really do tooll
many fun things with it.
Farmakes: Right. It's a small, and I think once we start developing
more, our flat farmland, we're going to find more and more of that. I
think in the last year or so we've been seeing odd topography type
developments where they're been doing a lot of contouring and around tree
and trying to save certain areas and I hope we continue some of that
creative development. And I know that we don't have ordinances requiring
Planning Commission Meeting
11 February 17, 1993 - Page 10
that but this is a small development and I think it meets the requirements
that we have on the books. I'll leave it at that.
Mancino: I agree with that. Thanks Jeff for bringing that up. ...rolling
terrain right there and I live on Galpin and this is the first development
that's going to be let's say... Just one little question. Jo Ann, we
have a problem. Now I know that it's still nebulous about how the trail
and how the berming and everything is going to work. If the berming is on
private property, can we still guide the plantings for landscaping?
1 Olsen: Well, sure because that's still, they're still responsible for
providing that along Galpin. It always is on the private property with
the landscaping.
Mancino: So...wanting more massive plantings than just the rows...and
guided that way?
Olsen: Right, and that's something that in your condition, if you want to
add 20, that instead of just row you can...
Mancino: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
Scott: Okay. The questions that I had have been addressed by the other
members of the Planning Commission. So do I have a motion?
Ledvina: I have one more question. Jo Ann, you suggested adding, or did
you suggest adding an additional condition as it related to the utilities
I/ being available to this site?
Olsen: well that's in there. But the one I did suggest was that, there's
nothing in there about being provided easements for the temporary ponding
on Lots 1 and Lots 3 and 4. That does need to be added.
Ledvina: Okay.
Olsen: I don't know if you have a good way of wording that, or can it be
added to one of the other conditions perhaps.
11 Scott: Or is that something that we'd be more comfortable putting
together a motion after some of these issues have been developed in
writing with staff doing that and then revisit it? Or is this something
that we're comfortable with acting on right now?
Ledvina: I think if it's an easement issue and the developer is willing
to grant those easements, I think that can be worked out with staff.
Scott: Okay, so that's something we could act on today.
11 Ledvina: Yeah, I think so.
Harberts: Mr. Chair. Also, with the point that was brought up with
landscaping with berming. Is that something then that staff will address
and bring back your recommendation if that should be included or not? As
part of the landscping.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 11 1
Olsen: Well the way I, what we were suggesting is that you would just ad
that they shall provide a landscaping plan which provides landscaping
species and berming recommended by staff.
Scott: Okay, so we just an amendment to item 20? 1
Olsen: Right. And so that it would not come back to you.
Wayne Tauer: Would we be locked into that city list of plant materials? 1
Olsen: That's what this recommendation is. What we're saying is that
half of them be from there.
Wayne Tauer: Half of them? Oh, okay. We have some options.
Mancino: Then I'll go ahead and move that we approve the Rezoning #93 -1 II
to rezone 17.2 acres from A2, Agricultural Estates to RSF, Residential
Single Family with the following conditions, 1 and 2 as stated in the
report.
Ledvina: Second.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Rezoning #93 -1 to rezone 17.2 acres from A2, Agricultural
Estates to RSF, Residential Single Family with the following conditions: II
1. The rezoning will not be final until the final plat has been approved
and recorded and utilities service the site.
2. All conditions of preliminary and final plat must be met.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
Ledvina: I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council approve Subdivision #93 -4 for the Windmill Run subdivision I
subject to the staff conditions with the following amendments and
additions. The first condition shall read as per the staff report with
the additional statement to read, additional contour data shall be
obtained to optimize the vertical alignment of Windmill Drive. And
amendment of condition 20. An addition to read, a landscaped soil berm
shall also be included subject to the staff review. And adding a 22nd
condition to read, drainage easements must be granted for the pond locate,
in the southwest corner and other temporary ponding areas as necessary.
Scott: Is there a second to the clarification of items number 1, 20 and
the addition of items 22?
Harberts: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I
approval of Subdivision #93 -4 for the Windmill Run subdivision with the
following conditions:
1 Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 12
' 1. Elevation of the southerly cul -de -sac should be adjusted to provide
better grade continuity for the future extension of Windmill Drive to
the south, and additional contour data shall be obtained to optimize
' the vertical alignment of Windmill Drive.
2. The water quality /retention pond proposed in the southwest corner of
the development shall be increased to provide a wet volume of 1.2
' acre /feet. In addition, an outlet restricting flows shall be limited
to 4.5 cfs at the high water level.
3. The applicant shall design and construct temporary holding ponds for
storm runoff on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 4 and 5, Block 3 to maintain
the pre - developed runoff conditions. In addition, the applicant
shall pay into the City's Surface Water Management Program for future
1 1 downstream water quality improvements. The specific amount will be
determined by the City's storm water consultant.
4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water trunk fee to be
determined by the City's storm water management consultant to
contribute towards the future extension of storm sewer downstream.
1 5. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in
accordance with the City's 1993 edition of Standard Specifications
and Detail Plates. Street construction shall also include a drain
tile system behind the curb to accommodate household sump pump
discharge.
' 6. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations
verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be
designed and constructed to handle 10 year storm events. Retention
ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the
surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at predeveloped
runoff conditions for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. Drainage
plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best
1 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, DNR and Caver County Highway Department.
8. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter
' into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee construction of the public
improvements 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 along
County Road 117 and any other improvements required by the Carver
County Highway Department.
10. Both temporary cul -de -sacs that are proposed for future extension
1 shall be provided with a turnaround that meets 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.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 13
11. The preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council
ordering the public improvement project No. 92 -5 for the trunk
sanitary sewer and water improvements through the development.
12. The applicant shall dedicate the necessary drainage and utility
easement for the extension of the trunk sanitary sewer and possible II
storm sewer over Lot 1, Block 1.
13. Lot grades throughout the development shall not exceed 3 :1 slopes. 1
14. The applicant shall dedicate temporary street easements for those
areas of the temporary cul -de -sacs outside the dedicated
right -of -way.
15. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for eac
house pad on the grading plan.
16. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits
of the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division'
A general soils report for the development should also be submitted
to the Inspections Division.
17. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e.1
street lamps, trees, shrubs, NSP and Northwestern Bell, cable boxes,
pursuant to city ordinance.
18. No housing construction beyond Lots 12, 13, 16, 17 may start until
fire apparatus access roads are provided. These access roads shall
be designed to the City of Chanhassen Engineering standards, and meet
the approval of the Chanhassen Fire Department pursuant to Uniform
Fire Code 1988 Edition, Section 10.20(f).
19. The street named "76th Street West" is unacceptable and must be
renamed. The reason being that the city already has a 76th Street
and 76 does not line up with the city's grid map system.
20. The applicant shall submit an amended landscaping plan which provide
landscape species recommended by staff. A landscaped soil berm shall
also be included subject to the staff review. 1
21. Meet conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission.
22. Drainage easements must be granted for the pond located in the
southwest corner and other temporary ponding areas as necessary.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
1
1
1