10. Rezoning request for 141 single family lots Stone Creek i 0
C 1 TY 0 F PC DATE: April 1, 1992 ...........--•
1 \`�I 1 • C11A11AE N CC DATE: April 27, 1992
CASE #: 92 -1 SUB, 92 -2 REZ
1 92 -3' WAP
1 STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: 1) Preliminary Plat to subdivide 81 Acres into 141 Single Family Lots
� �'Y g Y
1 - 2) Rezoning of property from A -2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF,
1— Residential Single Family District
11' z 3) Wetland Alteration Permit
Q
I V LOCATION: Merle and Jane Volk Property located south of Timberwood Estates
n Subdivision approximately 8500 south on Galpin Boulevard
I I a. APPLICANT: Hans Hagen Homes, Inc.
Q 941 N. E. Hillwind Road
Suite 300
1 Fridely, MN 55432
1 PRESENT ZONING: A -2, Agricultural Estate District Action by City Administrator
1 ACREAGE: 81 acres (gross) 70 acres (net) Endorsed ✓ 'DO k
MCu■i'ie`
j
DENSITY: 1.7 u/a (gross) 2 u/a (net) Re Da #k ectEci - ?3 4.3
I Date Submitted to Commission ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RR; Rural Residential Date Submitted to Council
1 aor S - PUD; Chanhassen Business Center 4- 2-7-q Z. A -2; Agricultural Estate District
E - A -2; Agricultural Estate District
1 0 w_ A -2; Agricultural Estate District
W WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The area has rolling hills with half of the site being farmed and
I (1) the remaining portion of the site is heavily wooded.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
1
Stone Creek
April 1, 1992
Page 2
1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
1 The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 81 acre site into 141 single family lots.
The property is bordered on the west by County Road 19, Galpin Boulevard. The main
access, Timberwood Drive, will connect County Road 19 to the existing Timberwood Drive.
' A road is stubbed to the east to provide access to this area. The area to the east is guided
for low density residential use by the Comprehensive plan. All proposed streets in the
subdivision have a 60 foot right -of -way.
1 This area was located outside of the MUSA line until the recent MUSA expansion that was
approved by the Metropolitan Council in May of 1991. This area is in the Bluff Creek
Sewer Feasibility Area currently being considered by the City Council. Sewer service to this
area could be available at the earliest in the fall of 1992.
I The applicant, Hans Hagen, is proposed to develop this area is several phases. The first
phase would include lots 1 through 6, Block 7 and Lots 26 through 37, Block 5. They would
like to construct three model homes located on Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 6 for the Parade
of Homes, which begins in the first week of September.
Half of this site include a maturing sugar maple forest, the other half of the site is farmed.
This is probably one of the nicer forested areas in the city in regards to the size and species
of trees. Staff is recommending conservation easements to preserve these trees. The
recently adopted Landscaping and Tree Preservation Ordinance states that it is the policy
of the city to preserve natural woodland areas. This ordinance also states that all arterial
and collector streets are required to provide streetscape landscaping. This landscaping
would be placed. along County Roads 19 and 17.
' There is also a wetland on the site. The wetlands are not ro osed to be altered, and are
P P
1 within a conservation easement, where staff is recommending no development or tree
removal take place.
The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that land for a park be dedicated
' with this subdivision. Based on the number of lots, the acreage required would be 5.64.
The applicant has proposed provision of a large 8 acre park and natural area to the north
end of the property. This area contains a wooded natural area surrounding a stream bed
that is quite attractive. The Park Commission has reviewed this proposal and has instead
recommended the inclusion of a five acre park in a flat that can accommodate the usual
assortment of facilities. Planning staff does not normally comment on Park Commission
recommendations; however, in this case, we feel obliged to. We under the Park
' Commission's desire to provide what they consider a normal range of facilities, but
unfortunately, this can only be done in this case with the loss of ability to obtain the natural
area. Staff further notes that this natural area contains portions of lower quality vegetation
and flat areas that can easily be cleared to accommodate most of the Park Commission's
desires. However, under the Park Commission's proposal, this area will likely be platted as
lots and will be privately held. In addition, changes to the plat to accommodate the Park
1
Stone Creek 1
April 1, 1992
Page 3 1
Commission's request are substantial. Since the developer is likely to try to maximize the
number of lots elsewhere on the site to compensate, we are likely to see more extensive
grading that will result in tree loss over the entire property. We would therefore, ask that
the park dedication requirements be reviewed in this light.
Staff believes that this plat request is a reasonable one and is generally consistent with 1
guidelines established by the city Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A moderate
amount of fine tuning is required to incorporate changes and conditions proposed in this
report. We have provided you with a list of conditions that should address these issue but
believe these changes are significant enough that the Planning Commission may want to
consider continuing this item to allow the developer to revise plans in response. 1
A last issue must be touched on in reviewing this plat. This request is made as a standards
RSF subdivision largely due to the continuing dialogue that staff has had with the Planning 1
Commission concerning residential PUDs. The applicant's original desire was to come in
with a PUD that had smaller lots, generally in the 10,000 square foot range or larger, in the
cultivated area on the western portion of the site, with larger, generally, 20,000 square foot 1
or better lots in the wooded area near Timberwood. Staff believed that this approach
yielded many benefits. It allowed the developer to get the required density out of the site
while enhancing tree preservation in the more sensitive eastern area. It also allowed for a
better transition of lot sizes between Timberwood and this site. Lastly, the flexibility
provided under the PUD could be actively use to modify building setbacks, street rights-of-
way
and other development standards to greatly increase the sensitivity of design relative
to wetland protection and tree preservation. We do not wish to infer that this plat is
inadequate, we simply feel we could have done a better job with this area developed as a
PUD. We would ask that in reading this report, the Planning Commission take a moment
to evaluate their opinions concerning PUDs.
Staff is generally comfortable with these requests subject to the conditions provided herein. 1
We believe that if the Planning Commission desires, approval of the request can be granted.
However, due to the magnitude of the changes requested, staff is recommending that action
be continued to give the developer an opportunity to respond.
PRELIMINARY PLAT 1
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 81 acres into 141 single family lots. The density of
the proposed subdivision is 1.7 units per acre gross and 2 units per acre net after removing
the wetland and roads. All the lots meet the minimum 15,000 square feet of area with an
average lot size of 17,616 square feet.
1
1
1
1 Stone Creek
April 1, 1992
1 Page 4
[On the northern portion 9f the site, along County Road 19, Galpin Blvd is a outlot. This
1 outlot is not a buildable lot. It should be combined with the lots adjacent to it.] This outlot
has been combined with Lot 10, Block 1.
1 Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has held several meetings with staff
and the plat is reasonably well designed. However, it is a large and complex proposal that
requires some fine tuning. Due to these concerns, as well as issues related to park
dedication and wetland preservation, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
consider continuing this item to allow for the issues raised to adjusted on the plat.
Streets /Access
1 The subdivision is being serviced by an access off of Galpin Boulevard, County Road 19,
with a connection to Timberwood Drive. Timberwood Drive was always intended to be
' extended onto this parcel. Without the connection, it is an extremely long deadend street.
With the anticipated volume, of traffic, staff classifies Timberwood Drive as a minor
' collector -type street. The right -of -way is proposed to the city standard of 60 feet. Staff
recommends that the street section be extended from the typical 31 foot wide street to 36
feet wide with gutter to gutter, similar to the Lake Susan Hills development. The remaining
' streets may be to the city's standard of 31 feet wide, back -to -back street section. Street
grades are not provided on the plans. However, based on contours, it appears street grades
will be under the 7% maximum grade per city ordinance.
' [The Fire Marshal is recommending that the street names Forest Road and Forest Trail not
be used because that city already has similar names. New names need to be submitted.]
1 New names have been submitted, Boulder Trail and Boulder Road.
This site abuts two minor arterial roads, according to the Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study. County Road 19 (Galpin Blvd.) will have a 100 foot right -of -way,
while Lyman Boulevard will have a 120 foot right -of -way. [The applicant is proposing two
curb cuts. The major entrance, Timberwood Drive, is to be located approximately 550 feet
north of the first entrance.] The access off of Stone Creek to Galpin Boulevard has been
eliminated. Right -of -way along County Road 19 currently is 66 feet wide, 33 on each side
' of the centerline. The preliminary plat proposes dedication of an additional 17 feet to
arrive at one -half of the necessary recommended right -of -way width of 50 feet. Since
County Road 19 is classified as a minor arterial street, according to city design standards,
1 street access should be at intervals of not less than 1 /a mile from existing and established
crossroads. Staff is recommending the elimination of the secondary access at Stone Creek.
The County Engineer, Roger Gustafson, is also recommending that access be limited onto
1
1
1
Stone Creek 1
April 1, 1992
Page 5 1
County 19 to Timberwood Drive only. Staff has shown how this plat could be redrawn with
a cul -de -sac at the end of Stone Creek .
1
The plat also proposes a future street connection at the easterly end of the plat (Boulder
Road). A temporary cul -de -sac should be constructed at this location until the road can be
extended in the future. A sign should be placed on the barricades indicating the future
connection. Notice of the ultimate street extension should be placed in the chain -of -title
for the lots located in this vicinity. 1
Staff is recommending that a 5 foot sidewalk be placed along the southern side of
Timberwood and Boulder Trail and the southern side of Boulder Road. 1
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
The recently adopted Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements state that p p g q t t a
landscape buffer is required when a subdivision plat is contiguous with collector or arterial
streets. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape materials consisting of a
mix of trees and shrubs and /or tree preservation area. The plan does show some
landscaping along Galpin Boulevard, but this need to be carried down to Lyman Boulevard.
Plant materials need to be classified and appropriate financial security will be required.
Half of the site is heavily forested. The area is a maturing forest that consists largely of
Sugar Maples. There are also some older Ironwoods and some Red Oaks. In walking the
site with Alan Olsen, DNR Forester, it was felt that this area was a desirable forest area,
due to the fact it is a maturing forest as opposed to a dying one. There is a significant
amount of dead wood and damaged trees in the area. The DNR is recommending that the
diseased, dead trees, and those trees that may be a hazard should be cleared from the site.
The applicant is proposing to preserve the remaining trees by limiting grading to streets.
1
The Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements state that it is the policy of the city
to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city, and with respect to specific site
development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands which can be incorporated
into the overall landscape plan.
The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivision and site plans:
1. To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas.
1
2. Healthy shade trees of six inches or more caliper at four feet in height shall
be saved unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other feasible way to
develop the site.
1
1
1
1 Stone Creek
April 1, 1992
1 Page 6
3. Replacement of the tree approved for removal by the city may be required on
1 a caliper inch per caliper inch basis.
4. During the tree removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent
1 blocking of public rights -of -way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
5. The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot
be saved.
' 6. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other
means acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or
beyond the ground foot print of the tree's crown. No fill material or
' construction activity shall occur within these areas. These measures must be
in place and inspected prior to the start of grading activity.
' 7. Trees designated for preservation that are lost due to construction activity
shall be replaced by new compatible trees approved by the city. The city will
require the developer to replace these trees with the largest comparable trees
1 that are commercially available for transportation.
S. At the city's discretion, conservation easements may be required to protect
designated tree preservation area.
The staff is recommending that a conservation easement be established for this area. This
' would be accomplished by designating the conservation area on the plat and through
financial guarantees to ensure that the integrity of the easement is maintained. A 20 foot
front yard setback should be used to preserve as many of the trees in the rear yard as
1 possible. Since we are unable to design this plat as a PUD, we are recommending that
variances be granted on the front yard setback on those lots where tree preservation will be
established. In addition, individual lots will be required to show the conservation easement
1 on the plat. Staff is also recommending that a tree survey be submitted so that even those
tress outside the conservation easement may be saved as much as possible (Attachment #1).
GRADING /DRAINAGE
' The site consists of approximately one -half wooded and the other portion of the site is
farmed. The grading plans propose to grade only the westerly half of the site at this time.
The remaining easterly part would be selectively graded as each individual home is
constructed. This is similar to previous developments such as Shadowmere or Lundgren's
Near Mountain development. Individual grading plans shall be required with the building
permit application for those lots that contain heavily wooded areas. Along the northerly
property line lies tributaries to the Bluff Creek Watershed. Adjacent to these tributary
1
Stone Creek 1
April .1, 1992
Page 7 1
streams, two of the proposed house pads, Lot 20, Block 2 and Lot 8, Block 3, will require
substantial grading.
The grading plan also proposes construction of earth berms partially into and adjacent to
County Road 19 (Galpin Boulevard) right -of -way. A recreation trail is shown in the
Comprehensive Plan for County Road 19. The berms should be either moved further back
to the east or reduced in size to eliminate any possible impact with the future trail
considerations. 1
The grading plan also proposes construction of two retention ponds, one in the southwest
corner of the site adjacent to County Road 19 and the other in Block 6. [The existing ditch
along County Road 19 adjacent to the pond should be filled to allow for overland drainage
in to the pond. The ditch system of the pond outlet should remain to convey runoff from
the pond. Storm sewers should be included in Timberwood Drive at County Road 19 to
convey runoff from the ditch (upstream) of Timberwood Drive to the proposed pond.]
As previously indicated in this report, the most westerly pond is encroaching into the future
road right -of -way along County Roads 18 and 19. It is recommended that, if possible, this
pond be reduced in size or relocated easterly to avoid conflict with future road expansion
projects. The pond is being designed with the outlet to be constructed at the southerly end
of the pond and the inlet at the northerly end. Whereas, the second pond is proposed in
the middle of Block 6, the storm inlets and outlet location is undesirable due to the close
proximity to each other. It is desirable, from a water quality standpoint, to locate the inlet
and outlet structures at the opposite ends of the pond if possible. This allows time for
filtration of sediments and nutrients prior to discharging downstream. It is recommended
that the storm sewer system be modified or the pond relocated and developed to meet
requirements of the Walker pond design.
The second pond also proposes an emergency overflow through the rear
P g cY � yards of Lots 9 and Y
10, Block 4, eventually draining out to Boulder Road. Staff recommends that a drainage
easement be shown on the final plat over the emergency overflow swale. 1
Plans also propose maintaining an existing drainageway that runs parallel and adjacent to
the railroad tracks in Block 5. Staff is concerned with the volume of water, although may '
be reduced from predevelopment volumes; however, from previous experiences, this is
ongoing maintenance and somewhat of a safety issue for the city and adjacent homeowners.
. It is recommended that this area be explored for the possibility of constructing a storm
sewer system across the back of Block 5, adjacent to the railroad tracks.
The city's storm water consultant, Bonestroo, has been asked to review the possibility of an
off-site retention pond east of the property to serve future developments upstream. In
summary, based on proposed contours it appears the ponds will provide adequate storage
1
1 Stone Creek
April 1, 1992
' Page 8
and nutrient capacity for the contributing areas. However, additional catch basins will be
' needed throughout the street system. Exact placement of the catch basins will be
determined when storm calculations are provided. An additional ponding site is also needed
downstream east of the development to handle untreated runoff generated by the easterly
' portion of the site (approximately 14 acres). Due to the site characteristics, steep slopes,
and woods, staff feels it would be inappropriate to require any additional ponds in the
wooded portion of Blocks 2, 3, 4, and 5 and would recommend off -site permanent ponding.
1 If permanent ponding is not achievable at this time, one option would be to construct
temporary on -site ponding by utilizing existing drainageways or lots at the east end of Forest
I • Road. The applicant will be responsible for contributing their portion of the costs
associated with the construction of the future retention pond east of the development. This
money will be used for purchasing property construction, and design of the future retention
' ponds. Blocks 2 and 3 also contain drainageways along the rear portion of the lots.
Although these areas are wooded, they will convey neighborhood drainage through the
system. Appropriate drainage easements should be provided on the final plat.
UTILITIES
1 Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is not available to the site. However, the city
is currently holding a public hearing to extend trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to
the area. Depending on the project scope and time frame, this project may or may not be
' able to be operational by October, 1992. The applicant is proposing to construct a portion
of the municipal trunk facilities in conjunction with the overall site improvements.
' Specifically, the trunk sewer and watermains which will follow Forest Trail to Timberwood
Drive and out to County Road 19. The applicant may be given credit on the future trunk
assessment for the cost of the oversizing of these mains which he is proposing to construct.
For example, the applicant would be credited for the cost difference between a 12 -inch
sewer and water line versus an 8 -inch sewer and water line.
' Municipal watermain is proposed throughout development. Staff recommends that the
proposed 6 -inch watermain along Boulder Road be increased to an 8 -inch watermain along
with the section of Timberwood Drive north of Forest Trail to ensure adequate sizing for
' future extension into Timberwood Estates, unless the applicant provides a hydraulic analysis
demonstrating sufficient fire flow during peak demands. The plans did not propose hydrant
locations at this time. The applicant should prepare final plans with hydrant spacing
1 approximately 300 feet apart in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
Easements
' On the final plat, the following easements and right -of -way shall be indicated:
I
Stone Creek 1
April 1, 1992
Page 9
I
1. Dedication of all street right -of -way.
2. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected I
g p cted wetland and ponding areas.
3. Utility easements over all sewer, water, and storm sewer lines located outside public I
right -of -way.
4. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas. 1
5. Standard drainage and utility easements. • 1
6. Provide a conservation easement over all established wetland buffer areas.
1 Park and Recreation
The applicant has proposed dedicating 8.2 acres of property on the most northerly part of
I
the site. This area is west of Timberwood subdivision and includes a sloped area
overlooking the creek. Staff feels that this site would make a desirable park site, not only
for the views of the creek bed, but it could also include some of the more active elements
1
the Park Commission would like to include in a park for this area.
On March 24, 1992, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed plat.
I
After discussion, the Commission recommended that the City Council accept land dedication
and trail construction on County Road 19 and along the north side of Lyman Boulevard,
County Road 17. The Park Commission is recommending that the area for park dedication
1
in this subdivision be an area where there is some wooded area and the majority flat. The
Commission wants this to be an active park, including ballfields, tennis courts, etc.
and recommended against the applicant's proposal. Land for park dedication is based on 1
the number of lots. By moving the location of the park to a portion of Blocks 2 and 3 (the
site desired by the Park Commission), 10 lots would be eliminated; thus, reducing the
amount of acreage required. Staff has shown a rendering of the new park location and how I
it would effect the old park location. The site to the north along the bluff would be a steep
grade 30 feet, and may not be able to get sewer service.
I
Staff has serious reservations with the Park Commission's recommendations. We do not
normally comment on their review but in this case we believe their recommendations to I
relocate the park is ill advised. With the developer's proposal, we have an opportunity to
obtain an unique natural area that can also provide for most of the requested recreational
activities. The only questionable one is the ability to contain a ballfield.
I
Under the Park Commission proposal, the natural area would be privately held and be in
part, at the least, developed with homesites. In addition, the applicant is likely to try to
I
1
1 Stone Creek
April 1, 1992
1 Page 10
minimize loss of lots by tightening up on lot areas elsewhere. In general, this will result in
1 increased loss of trees due to the more extensive grading that is required.
A 20 foot access to the proposed park is shown along the south side of the Timberwood
1 subdivision. Staff is recommending that this easement be eliminated.
REZONING
' The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from A -2, Agricultural Estate to RSF,
Residential Single Family. There are two large lot homes to the north of this area zoned
A -2. Timberwood Subdivision to the north and east is zoned RR, Rural Residential. The
property is bordered on the south by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad.
The site to the south was recently rezoned PUD by Ryan Construction for the Chanhassen
Business Center.
The 2000 Land Use Plan show this area designated for development as Low Density
1 Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.7 units
per acre and 2 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out.
1 This area is in the new MUSA area. The sewer service will be from the new Bluff Creek
service area system. The feasibility for this sewer and timing is currently being discussed
' by the City Council. At the earliest, sewer could be available to this site would be late in
the fall.
' The applicant originally submitted a plan that showed larger lots in the wooded area and
smaller lots in the farmed area. The lots in the farmed area averaged around 12,000 square
feet, and for this proposal it would have to be approved as a PUD. Originally, staff felt that
' the larger lots in the wooded area would help preserve trees. We could also have actively
used the PUD to adjust building setbacks and street right -of -way to increase tree
preservation. Lastly, the use of the PUD would have located larger lots near Timberwood
' where they would serve as a transition. We would ask that the Planning Commission use
this proposal to re- examine the issue. In discussion, with the Planning Commission about
the smaller than 15,000 square foot lots, the PUD submittal was eliminated.
' Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and the rezoning is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
1
1
1 •
Stone Creek I
April 1, 1992
Page 11 1
'
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front /rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1 1
Lot 1 15,000 90 167 30
Lot 2 15,000 90 167 30 10 1
•
Lot 3 16,380 95 167 30 30
I
Lot 4 15,000 90 167 30 40
Lot 5 15,000 90 167 30 40 1
Lot 6 15,000 90 168 30 40
Lot 7 15,000 90 170 30 20 1
Lot 8 15,655 95 155 30
I Lot 9 17,670 72 172 30
Lot 10 31,000 60 200 30
1
Lot 11 17,670 65 156 57
Lot 12 23,566 57 170 30 1
Lot 13 17,360 100 174 30 I
Lot 14 17,205 80 166 30
Lot 15 15,345 88 162 30 1
Lot 16 15,500 90 165 30
Lot 17 15,330 104/146 146 30
1
Lot 18 15,190 112 137 30 I
Lot 19 16,120 72/156 143 30
Lot 20 15,655 91 174 30
I Stone Creek
April 1, 1992
1 Page 12
Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
I Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer
BLOCK 1
I Lot 21 15,010 90 168 30
Lot 22 15,035 90 171 30
1 Lot 23 17,205 90 192 30
Lot 24 21,390 92 230 30
1 Lot 25 27,280 105 266 30
I BLOCK 2
Lot 1 18,600 150 /100 150 57
1 Lot 2 23,566 102 179 30
Lot 3 15,000 105 158 30
1 Lot 4 15,010 105 /140 140 30
I Lot 5 16,120 88 179 30
Lot 6 16,740 84 166 30
Lot 7 15,810 90/110 156 30
Lot 8 15,810 90 172 30
1 Lot 9 16,430 104 182 30
I Lot 10 16,275 113 182 30
Lot 11 16,275 110 183 30
1 Lot 12 15,041 114 178 20 80
Lot 13 15,506 114 175 20 90
1 Lot 14 16,585 90 180 20 90
I Lot 15 17,050 90 185 20 90
Lot 16 17,515 90 199 20 90
1 Lot 17 22,475 90 234 20 90
1
Stone Creek 1
April 1, 1992
Page 13 ' 1
Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer ,
BLOCK 2
Lot 18 20,000 110 275 20 90 75 1
Lot 19 18,445 118 175 20 90 75
Lot 20 19,536 117 251 20 90 75 1
Lot 21 32,240 72 234 20 90 150
Lot 22 33,325 80 279 20 90 150 1
Lot 23 19,530 90 207 20 90 1
Lot 24 17,360 60 155 20 60
Lot 25 15,500 55 140 20 50 1
Lot 26 18,135 55 144 30
Lot 27 16,275 70 159 30 1
BLOCK 3
Lot 1 19,840 185/115 197 20 90 1
Lot 2 17,515 93 190 20 90 1
Lot 3 15,190 90 170 20 90
Lot 4 15,345 95 175 20 90 1
Lot 5 19,580 115 207 20 90
Lot 6 23,850 70/50 250 20 90 1
Lot 7 20,480 100 227 20 90 1
Lot 8 18,000 90 200 20 90
BLOCK 4 1
Lot 1 19,536 185/135 198 30 90
Lot 2 15,600 120 130 20 90 1
Lot 3 15,000 100 150 20 90
I
1
1
' Stone Creek
April 1, 1992
1 Page 14
Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
I Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer 4 I Lot 4 - 15,000 95 165 20 90
Lot 5 15,186 90 165 20 90
1 Lot 6 15,000 90 165 20 90
Lot 7 15,030 90 167 20 90
1 Lot 8 15,300 90 170 20 90
I Lot 9 14,030 90 167 20 100
Lot 10 15,000 90 165 25
1 Lot 11 15,000 90 165 20 90
Lot 12 15,000 90 165 25 90
1 Lot 13 17,970 90 157 30 90
Lot 14 15,655 85 160 20
I Lot 15 15,345 95 159 25 90
1 Lot 16 15,500 98 171 20 90
Lot 17 17,100 105 185 20 90
1 Lot 18 16,830 105 190 20 90
Lot 19 16,830 95 182 20 90
I
Lot 20 15,750 90 175 20 90
1 Lot 21 17,100 110 190 20 90
Lot 22 18,250 115 182 20 90
1 Lot 23 15,000 100 155 20 90
Lot 24 17,830 170 132 20 90
1
1
1
Stone Creek '
April 1, 1992
Page 15
1
Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer
1
BLOCK 5
Lot 1 17,360 145 160 20 90
1
Lot 2 18,300 90 200 20 90 I
Lot 3 17,330 95 192 20 90
Lot 4 15,530 95 172 20 90
1
Lot 5 15,000 90 165 20 90 may be unbuildable
Lot 6 15,000 90 165 20 90 1
Lot 7 15,300 90 170 20 90
Lot 8 16,430 90 182 20 90 1
Lot 9 17,550 90 192 20 90
1
Lot 10 17,550 90 192 20 90
Lot 11 16,650 90 185 20 90 1
Lot 12 15,570 90 172 20 90
Lot 13 15,000 90 165 20 90 1
Lot 14 15,300 90 167 20 90
1
Lot 15 16,200 95 180 20 90
Lot 16 18,000 95 197 20 90
1
Lot 17 18,900 90 207 20 90
Lot 18 18,000 90 205 20 90 1
Lot 19 18,000 90 197 20 90
1
Lot 20 24,020 80* 195 25 110
Lot 21 19,060 78 180 30 120
1
Lot 22 15,000 90 165 30
1
1
1
1 Stone Creek
April 1, 1992
1 Page 16
Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
I Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer
BLOCK 5
Lot 23 15,965 90 172 30
I Lot 24 16,275 92 179 30
1 Lot 25 15,965 100 184 30
Lot 26 19,800 98 220 30
1 Lot 27 24,490 72 212 30
Lot 28 22,470 68 192 30
1 Lot 29 26,195 86 235 30
I Lot 30 24,300 100 270 30
Lot 31 27,230 106 302 30
1 Lot 32 27,235 98 341 30
Lot 33 15,210 90 167 30
1 Lot 34 15,080 90 167 30
1 Lot 35 15,965 100/167 167 30
Lot 36 23,095 90 249 30
I Lot 37 23,870 100 246 30
BLOCK 6
1 Lot 1 19,070 185 /135 310 30 90
1 Lot 2 15,500 120 130 20 90
Lot 3 15,000 100 150 20 90
1 Lot 4 15,000 90 165 20 90
Lot 5 15,180 95 165 20 90
1 Lot 6 15,000 90 165 20 90
I Lot 7 15,030 90 167 20 . 90
1
Stone Creek I
April 1, 1992
Page 17
1
Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer I
BLOCK 6
Lot 8 15,300 90 170 20 90
I
Lot 9 15,030 90 167 20 90
Lot 10 15,000 90 165 20 90
1
Lot 11 15,000 90 165 20 90
Lot 12 15,000 90 165 20 90 1
Lot 13 15,970 90 157 30
I
Lot 14 17,520 85 167 30
Lot 15 15,300 95 170 20 90
1
• Lot 16 16,380 100 182 20 90
Lot 17 17,100 105 190 20 90 1
Lot 18 16,830 105 187 20 90
I
Lot 19 16,380 95 182 20 90
Lot 20 15,750 90 175 20 90
1
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
1
The site contains two Class A wetlands according to the Department of Interior Wetland
Inventory Map. The first wetland is approximately 38,700 square feet and in located in the
I
northern portion of Block 3. The other one is located in Lot 5 of Block 5 and is
approximately 2,945 square feet.
The City Code requires a wetland alteration permit for any alteration to a Class A or Class I
B wetland and for any development within 200 feet of a Class A wetland. Development of
the subdivision will be within 200 feet of these wetlands. The Park Commission is
I
recommending that no development occur in the wooded area.
A problem that the city has experienced in the past with the protection of our wetlands is '
that the Wetland Ordinance requires a 75 foot setback for all structures from the edge of
a wetland but does not prevent alteration up to the edge of wetland. Therefore, although
I
Stone Creek
April 1, 1992
' Page 18
a structure may have to be 75 feet from the edge of a wetland, the area between the
' structure and the wetland could be sodded, seeded, rocked, etc. Without a buffer strip, the
wetland is exposed to direct impact from fertilizers used on the lawn, infringement of the
wetland vegetation from mowing and maintaining the adjacent lawns. Both of these
I wetlands would fall into the tree conservation easement area, where no development is to
occur. •
Staff is recommending a buffer strip be placed around all of the wetlands which will allow
them to be maintained in their natural state. The buffer strip ranges from 50 feet to 75 feet
in width on Lots 16 -21, Block 4. This buffer area will not be permitted to be altered. This
' strip is provided in addition to wetland setbacks that are established on a lot by lot basis.
The preservation strip will further protect the wetland from fertilizers off the adjoining lawn
and shall provide a natural area for wildlife. The preservation strip should also help with
1 maintaining the distinct look of a wetland and preventing removal of vegetation and
alteration to the wetland by residents in the future. It is still questionable whether Lot 5,
Block 5 can meet the 75 foot setback requirement. The city is having its wetland consultant,
' Frank Svododa, review it.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE /ACTION
'
At the April 1992,
t t e p 1, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
preliminary plat for Stone Creek as well as the Rezoning and the Wetland Alteration
Permit.
' There were several issues raised at the public hearing and by the Planning Commission that
has led to a slightly revised preliminary plat. Staff would like to address each of these
issues.
•
1 This preliminary plat has be slightly redesigned to accommodate the issues raised by staff
at the Planing Commission meeting. Staff recommended that the access from Stone Creek
' to Galpin Boulevard be eliminated. This road, Stone Creek, is now a cul -de -sac. In
addition, the park proposed off of Stone Creek Road has been redesigned.
The Park and Recreation Commission requested that 5.64 acres of land be dedicated for a
park. The applicant had proposed to dedicate 8 acres in the northern portion of the site.
Staff felt this location was very desirable for a passive park because of its unique features
1 and the view of the Bluff Creek tributary. The Park and Recreation Commission
recommended a different site. They wanted a site that included some flat land for a play
area and some land that had trees. The Planning Commission asked that staff pursue the
possibility of obtaining both sites. The Park and Recreation Commission held a special
meeting on April 14th to consider two alternates for a park location as proposed by the
applicant.
1
Don Ashworth 1
April 22, 1992
Page 19 1
The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the alternate plan showing an 8.7
acre park located in the northern portion of the plat be approved. This site, which was the
original proposal, has been revised eliminating the lots in front of the park thus, increasing
its size. The park will include the following items; play equipment, ball field and sliding hill.
The remaining portion of the site will remain in its natural state. There will be a trail just
south of Timberwood to provide .access to the park. Staff feels that this is a win -win
situation for the park location. (See Todd Hoffman's letter dated April 15, 1992).
Residents raised concerns over the extension of and possible renaming of Timberwood
Drive. This street was always intended to be a through street. It would not be shorter for
anyone to travel north on Timberwood as opposed to go west on to Galpin Boulevard. Staff
also feels that it makes good planning sense to tie these neighborhoods together. The
residents asked that consideration be given to renaming the southern portion of Timberwood
Drive. The Fire Marshal and Building Official have stated that the street name
Timberwood Drive should be used, and this is consistent with city policy.
The other issue is the wetlands. There are two wetlands on the site. Neither of these
wetlands will be altered, although development will be occurring with 200 feet. The larger
wetland to the north (Block 2) has been defined and a 75 setback can be maintained on the
7 lots adjoining it. In addition, lots along this wetland will have a conservation easement
1
or buffer strip of at least 75 feet. Lot 5 of Block 5 contains the other small wetland,
approximately 2,945 square feet. This lot may not be buildable. This lot will have a 50 foot
setback from the wetland as well as a 50 foot buffer strip, the wooded portion of the lot.
The new wetland ordinance is moving in this direction by requiring buffer strips but the
specific criteria has not been adopted. Staff feels that this wetland will have adequate
protection with a 50 foot setback and buffer strip. Staff has requested that the city's wetland
consultant, Frank Svoboda, review this wetland. Staff is recommending that Lot 5, Block
5 be evaluated again when this portion of the subdivision is being reviewed for final plat
approval. At that time, staff will have a better idea of the wetland setback zone and buffer
strip requirements the city will be implementing.
The compliance table has been modified to reflect the changes made to the preliminary plat. 1
There are still 141 lots with a gross density of 1.7 units per acre. The lots that were non-
conforming have been redesigned to meet the standards of the ordinance.
1
The Planning Commission recommended approval of Rezoning #92 -2, Preliminary Plat
#92 -1 and Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -3. The conditions in the staff report have been
modified to reflect the changes by the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation.,
and the revisions made to the plat.
1
1
' Don Ashworth
April 22, 1992
1 Page 20
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motions:
Wetland Alteration Pennit
'The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -3 with the following conditions:
1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion control.
The erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas
are stabilized.
2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance table for
each lot will be recorded as part of the Development Contract. The buffer strip may
not be less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be preserved by an easement.
3. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to the
wetland and not during breeding season.
' 4. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of Engineers.
PP P rP �
5. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -1 and Rezoning #91-
2."
' REZONING
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
'The City Council approves Rezoning #92 -2 property A -2 to RSF:
' 1. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract containing all of the
conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial
guarantees. The Development Contract shall be recorded against the property.
2. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table.
' 3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91 -1 and Wetland
Alteration Permit #92 -3."
1
Don Ashworth 1
April 22, 1992
Page 21 1
PRELIMINARY PLA T 1
"The City Council approves Subdivision #92 -1 as shown on the plans dated April 21, 1992,
and subject to the following conditions: 1
1. A tree conservation and wetland buffer easement shall be placed on the plat. All
building site in the tree conservation or wetland buffer shall be shown on the
building permit.
2. The development shall follow the standards in Subdivision Regulations Section 18 -61 1
regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation.
3. Park land shall be dedicated, 8 acres of property, as recommended by the Park
Commission, including a 20 foot easement south of the Timberwood subdivision
between Timberwood Drive and the park.
4.. A front yard variances shall be granted to all homes that fall into the tree
conservation area but it no case shall the front setback be less than 20 Feet.
5. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for the temporary
cul -de -sac at the end of Boulder Road. In addition, a sign shall be installed on the
barricades stating that the street (Boulder Road) will be extended in the future.
6. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed with the final
plat over all utilities located outside of the public right -of -ways, along with standard
easements over each lot. Timberwood Drive shall be constructed 36 feet wide gutter
to gutter. 1
8. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e.
Watershed Districts, Health Department, MPCA. '
•
9. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with pond storage
calculations for storage of a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity, should be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
10. A deceleration and acceleration lane on northbound County Road 19 shall be
provided along with a bypass turn lane on southbound County Road 19 to improve
turning movements into the development.
11. Watermain i e sizing shall be increased to 8 inches in diameter on Forest
p p g t o orest Road and
that part of Timberwood Drive lying north of Forest Trail.
1
1
Don Ashworth
April 22, 1992
Page 22
12. All storm retention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as provide
' storage for a 100 year storm event.
13. A permit from the railroad (Twin City Western) will be required for any grading or
1 construction activity within the railroad right -of -way.
14. Fire hydrants shall be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision
in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
15. The proposed earth berms along County Road 19 shall be reduced or relocated
1 easterly to provide adequate room for future trail considerations.
1 16. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc - mulched or wood - fiber blanket within two weeks of site grading or before
November 15, 1992 except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet
' that year. All areas disturbed with a slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored with
sod or wood -fiber blanket.
' 17. The developer shall provide adequate access easements for maintenance purposes
to the proposed retention ponds.
' 18. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with
the 1992 edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates and shall
prepare final plans and specifications and submit for City approval.
19. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from the PCA
and Minnesota Department of Health and street access permits from Carver County
1 Public Works.
20. The final plat should be contingent upon the City authorizing a public improvement
' project for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to the site.
21. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a development
' contract and provide the financial security to guarantee construction of the
improvements and payment of any pending assessments.
22. The applicant shall be given credit for any trunk utility improvements they may
install as a part of their overall site improvements. The credit will be applied
' towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements.
The credit amount will be determined as the difference between a standard lateral
pipe size (8 -inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvements which are 12
inches in diameter.
I
Don Ashworth 1
April 22, 1992
Page 23 ,
23. The applicant /builder shall provide at the time of building permit application a tree
removal and grading permit for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 1 through 7, Block
1, Lots 1 through 24, Block 4, Lots 1 through 21, Block 5, and Lots 1 through 12 and ,
15 through 24, Block 4.
24. The applicant shall work with staff to explore the possibility of conveying backyard 1
drainage from Block 5 into the development storm sewer system.
25. The outlot along County Road 19, Galpin Blvd. needs to replatted with another lot." 1
26. The appliacnt shall meet the conditions of the Rezoning #92 -2 and the Wetland
I
Alteration Permit #92 -3.
ATTACHMENTS
1
1. Map of Conservation and Wetland Easements.
2. Letter from Todd Hoffman dated April 15, 1992. '
3. Letter from Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District dated april 13, 1992.
4. Letter from Dave Hempel dated March 26, 1992.
5. Letter from Todd Hoffman dated March 25, 1992. 1
6. Letter from Mark Littfin dated March 4, 1992.
7. Letter from Steve Kirchman dated March 13, 1992.
8. Revised Preliminary plat dated April 21, 1992.
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. .
-- ...‘-. ...1. 4 ; ID
k
V ,,, t!'
l ati l r I to;
. 1 / i•'•\ : 11_ .....4„ _
- x -1`" $1
.11
• 5; 1 ,1 • 1 o :::--k. 1
cs I -.t., i V...$ 2,31 i c
-1...'` CS t t1 ' i
=' 'i - 1 • -I i il" 4 k k VI `'''
--• k
4 i t I V
.... .„
••••,... ' .4 ''t ec•-• I
0 ...''' Zik ■ •-•
, :g t, ,,i- i .. I : o ti. 1. , ,i-
I
' r 1
. .,. : - - - - : F . • - ,• _
,
•,, ,. q
i •4 ' 4 y
.
Of:11 " '„,*.,. -0 ` O '4' -.-t.. ..
RI ,... ' , q,:.• b.?. 0.• •••••:. e 0 k -t ip. . .4 - -.
4).....:. Pl gi-o•ca.-.',. 1- 1 k ; Z .<'
4 :...1 '••••• ' 4/ CI
r • . .:, I .4-z, v,?v . , .:: , .1 , ,T,, , ", ., , Li r ,
__'Ir ..-- .1-.4 •'
1 11 g 'C l• . lg1' .4 (p,A. ' ' 4 1.4:` ' ! 4:t. 4,
Z,3,•t I
1 I 01
,2V, 1,44..1 -.• s. — Is 41 -t• cl xRAL:. '01
1 1 . 45.1 k / ,"h 175 .. Ck
i X ,....:
. ;1111 kirie, N‘J.
1
\ • ...., .■.., Q.
' k „., 4
\ .
,...„„,........ ,,....,
e.,„ .
,..21, • . .4-z a
lu k c ,.... set
g
1 . i I \ t & 9 ‘
''..,, '','-'• ..• 'A '.; ' ' --- - - s \ \ - -.- - -- .. 7'-- ' . - 7 ) - ' C• \\\ 'Th ...
---,,,,,-,•-, / / ; ) ,-- -.-, , k \ ‘ • ...:•` -• i , * -..*".•„:`-. .,,...\ \ t...
1 ii
/-'' /'' 1 t ' \:- ' z) " \ %;A:' :',. . s-
. ',/-:,:,,,,;--- _1 izs_s,, :: .,
, ..
...., , _ ....._ _ , , , / / ,/ ,- - - ., ..*: “ • ) I .: TA St fq• , ' r ..... - -- . I , 4 \ - 7„ . ,.. ' ,,t . • \ s \ :`: ` X s. iii ' s,l, .•=1 , .4
1 C`--3 c . - - / „'/ - 1 1 ,2'',.. / ; , • Ps -‘ * 4, _ N k'''' ' . -.4- s 4 \ "' ' al
- • - ' - ' -or : - - , s ..., /'■ 4 ,, • 'alit ' , • •'..k r, -t ,,:„ ..., '-'
....! - • J, .; , , -;/...,. „ h
C3 1 •,:• / ,, \:■,' i ,7z , / '.., ..- • P's A /en ----',,,_./ • ' -- - -s 71 '74" \ • ' (:)i ‘..Z
' .1•::
Q ' :-) _ / • I r-t.t / ' . ' 4: : ' ' --.-/. y s•'''" - - - - c frk - \ s • \ 4 ') •.- '''
s ,
L ,..,-,-.-_-,, i.,, .,,,--• __,•-- ; _i .„1., /7"-Z ," '1 ..:A. ' 1 - -- -...." . 7::,,, 'Ff- , , \ • i .
,....,„ _ .,,, _. , ,_, \ :, - , i .•
' \D\ \'‘ . - tr' — ' `.-' , '-: --I -4.,%'.• ''''''';• •:!-- ‘., - 't \
I . L. ,,,,c • !, • '. \ . • .3., .. __, _ , ,, .!.0. . --x.. =•••N•••• 7 z,.c
1 ‘ • ■ 4r- -r• .I- 1...._../ I ' t. ..,.,. • --- v 4 •s ,• 1,10. l ,
‘ k='
- -, - „ 1 ! .. _ - - - - - - -- _, •,-- "• . s-!' % 0 \e . ._• -_• \vs \
. ,) , \ 1 ‘ ,., .,, _ .-
v i .% • . CI% , , '-' - _ur . ,,- 4 • , .• !F , „. -.. - " . . " .cr v., , 1 t_., ::: !11 1 - 4, - . ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
S . 1 + ' s 1 "' i' l'• !v•IC 's// 5 Ci`c . ',-. ;'''' i -..X s ., ..+:1% . ‘.,, ■ s \ a :,
• ' ,
_SA: L.S).■ 1 L .'■
1 , t.,,, „/ f±!` ' ,,,, ./".• --, ,..:" \ c,:', ,"Z ., ,-_ ,,' • ; ' ' / ..05....1 , '`'''. 4 id . c ""..,,, / ...1.\ _ ."` M ,,\ \ 0 %SO,' , \ , . ,
° (.,,,, j U) ' -I ; ' f 7 2 -.'.. 1 i.,, 1 , ;' • ■J` ' ; 1 2/ - 4, v.-7.# ,-#7,. .,' 'If' s ' •.N)Y \'• , fl . s - ', ' - \
:7 :4 : ., e ir\ \ \ \ ' \ \ •Z'' ...-' ...'‘..'", -‘• " t
/ . . . • , , \ .., - ,1. 4. .., • ,Z \
f..- "L ) i //' ...__,---' '?."-..:-7---;'- -- i... /I ' I / / '.7.... '' ' ,• '‘ '', ‘ ‘, ' - s.;› 1, • i
• ;,......01.:_ ......___ , i ; . ; I li /,,_..... ....... .. ,. , : .k., -_. ,!.. ., i ,„ • -.:-...-- -...', , • J \..,. V \ ta \
< `."1.--'-' ', i-- -_---,-t-:-.7. , ',7„ ee.,•.;•.•' ,/ . tf.,' ;...z. • h.,. ',o-1 \".,, -••• v•• L. t„ V, s\x, \
-J •------ 6 );11 . C ; ---/ . . ";:-: T =1- ' 1 \ .. . - L , -' :".. • /i, ., ',..` .... ,, ;•. - --'>-''.. ':---. ?/•/'''• ,.=.,-,\\\ \ \
I CL ‘C-3 1 t -- A l l \ ,24 ‘- ?/ - ;,, \ :i \ \\ -: 1. 1 ' ''',' , 1 \ A' r ( - ,' . , • ."t !.;?.'" -.*''''.\,\\
cc A„,„ ; .„,-- 1- , J.__; g•.. -f-, ... --. , ,,,.. •7•,,, ,, f••• .. \ c-A.- ..-- • • ,
,
t,
• , -,_„/„) , • , -,- • .. • , ,..„- t, — . . - - - • 4. -:. • • ,, ,- .ic , •• r‘ ‘ \ \ i \ c „
( •,:'; , ...! z , - -5. z! / ---,!-- ! es. . , 1‘ , . ,..,.-. 4 k ' • % - -...k, ' ' ' \ \
' ,,, / ' i ,_', J.., ,!,...!:-.Z.` \ 1. kr ,,, • ‘ ,, 1 s \ :•-••,°' , rii., - ,,- ., • -..` - \ \ 4- I ' \ . \I ' - 9 i.
z \ >V •
], / ....'1 I r \`.- .4_ ,,,•••• ',„- • • , . A -• r.' "
• . ) \ , > , ,L. , _.2:2....._._,;:„ \ -.;:ir .....,..--, \ ) ;. , t,\ - _ ---,, -.,-. -_--,*..-.7., ir -
...„------- '' = - -\-S
., ,,7 , , ,... ...,,' , - ......:;,-,:,,,,-.,, 1 i . ,, , • ,,..._-2•_, , -, "., _\.....,....-:.._._ • '
.7.1 .., j L. ..., , ) ,.. :....W ...._ /-• ,./.. % , „ 8 1/4 I +, . • ... • . . \'.
u..) \ T.
-"..
...-!..;' • .-).. •`- -,- \\ ...,'" . ...A , : . .43v:. 19,. ,.,.„,,, \
,., ., ,:,........ , ut -, • ... ,...., •,,.\..\ -.,
cr ... i / __,-•:: „ ,.: • , \ . . , . - ,...,,,,•• ‘,..:, = ,:-_. •:••••• .; ...<1. -...1 -,
1 ,..-- r.,, 1 \;••.\
\
' :4.,. 4 ,4 .,.,.,/\ - \-:;?"....- .- " ..,- -) 0•\: - s t*.' , ••' . '„Zi ,.. \-
•• L.. , , /.- -, - ..--;:„ A‘,..--50.- ..... .- • -. ,,.. , ••A• • 4 3 ' •
, ,'-.• -1" \_._5., 4., :,., ',/,',',/ ....."r";.:•, r , . . • , , - - • ,..• •:._,,,,‘...,., i ..,...„.. ,„.,
•...,,,,,..._,,, ,:.• .,.... .--- - , .....--;...-- „ • -•,,,-- .7..,„.,:,_ . . s .... . ,,,
--, A Z.'' - -■ , ,1/,'.',',' `_.•'-- /- -- t i`P"-• -- . -.-• ` oc , \ ',. ' " 'i -Y, / • , 1 ‘
-;„•/ , ,, • ., . •:,s
-;.-:-.-• - -12 I' /;,., -- ---__-- ./,-.----,---_ Iti ...----::---i ' •,,, . . ,,,,,, ‘,.. . ,. . ,,,..z., \
7 '-,- '''''72.:•‘77';' " 7 " - , ---- ' - ' if '-'.;/''
'.• . ‘, c ', - " / Z'r / ' ; I ' - 'sr: : •,,....., - ; - *• .'..\',Og „1. i ; -' s • , k :\,
, z...--- -'• " ' • •('--• -- 'co - I ) • . i, it • . -.,„..._ , ' t, , s'Ais I \ '
s s s'
. s ' : i • •"- '''• ' / ' / / 1 ,-• --- 'I • / ‘ ,...'"1.74,....c.? li r / / / fa . t'ss:k . d.r r s - • ■ it 1 4 n ' . , N.„',,,, , ,-..: , :, 1 . ,....„ \ \‘‘',.,,
t ' \\ : \'‘.:. / \ / , • /,, „, ,„„. , i 7 ' ' .- t' '''1. .' / ' L ' '.. ` ". .... Z
III -....".
\ ' ' \ \''''...'* 1 ' //' , , --',, , / il . , ......t! ) 4,!,. •••,,//// / ••.. tf.• .. 2,_, 7 : - .77-1. ■ 't-r 't • /.7-c ,..-!;;;\ 1 1, \ • ‘,.',,,,
%- .- ..T. 1'1 -,-.•\ --;,,!, )1 /.,,,/,:.,-, -..--; // i I ,'/,'// ( /- I `-„, ''''..-- "..-.--: •' , I; , ...t elf lii-
• ..-. L / i ' ...)‘',-..." / It ; I, ;0 i / I , ( '`....N. ....N...1." ..' 1-.... ,_ - mg " ,, - V j. '',":••• t• v V \ •4'
/.... _..„ i 1 ) - __,.. i , , , i , f----n.-- I ..... v + , ,-.....4 •,,,„•••,;.:•,,, - s --.,..„..- ith.„,, - f - ---.., /4-.. •,:• ' \N.', \ \,.
,,,,- ,.... 1 , ,, ,--- ,., //, ,- / , .... __:„.■‘ )4, ,,,,,r, ,, e . . , 4 , \ -.. v s.i . c - .. - . 77 , ,.....)., _ ,
t
I+ ; : -C- :, :.-- * \\\ I 7; - • 1 1/1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1. 1 ( --.....\*\, , ...1 \ ....01.•! 1 4.....,..1.: , .jr4t1 1 . q , ia, #,.,,, .., . :,..,,.,
- -t -1.....#---:%,1. I\ ,;;'-,` 1 ; , :7:: 7 7 . :, r ,-z.",.." \ I.: -.-.7i ', 1, I tl y -,' 1 .X (7.47 : ...- 'I i ''`.t s; 7 71' , ' . ; / N
t
C ..."- I .--..\;,.■ \.;;; - _ \ , , ;; , 1 .1 u $ 1 . t......_ • , .., ‘, ....I s :, 2_ 4 ) i . s z ek ! j . ,,,, 1 i ! 1. P. ,,- ....... • ,,, 1- a l i. „ I., ‘ ', t 4 ., -. \
1
'4_)
(1) \ ' ' '• \- \,\".\\\ !I 1 , ;III '
I , , It ” -- - ,. 1. - . ... j. ' - t., r M, ;!,) • ' .. t . - , r __ J,„ fr , 1 la , .,„.„.\
C ' , ; 1 x ''; \\ ''.- \ ` ' ' 'HI .' ' V t i. ur I -.- .I. v, - -) *4 /' •••''! ' 1. 0% ' / '. 0 .`,/ ./ ! ' . i% ' yt .,:,
1 5 \ •-•., , 1 ±, ‘,' : ,,,) \‘,.,\I ‘„r ;.4 fii(-4.14 -' I • ‘, 4. • - - s i, - - ..,(4 flu , 1 lir: I, , 1, \ \1\-, z ,,, ;..
-,\ 4 ‘z ,s;',.10,:. '.‘;,\.‘\\ \\';' ,..7 ° 11...:*-" •' ""NROiS .1 : i V i! tri \ • ' . IMP . _.'" " .. " :.,Z , - ,I ' •••4 1 ' \ ‘,...?, \ ,,..t ; ,/ '''
- I \ \ e■ ' ' '. 1 , < / S , j', s \ ., \ s s ,V . ',I ,,I` \ ‘, si3VOU ' 1 7 R ,..7:•• ..... I 1 ,i ' S 1' 1 ,7i7 e. , , :# ',- N,, '. 1 1; 1 ; .,,„-;
\\ ,....1
.....0
IL c - D i : 1 ‘‘ ' ; a" ;":>'.%),./..,‘ ' 4 \ '-11‘.-' \ 1 , ',,••••••:-'•! .1\ • .1 e r -k 1 ' ! ' .1. ' '",et \.___!"
' ; \ ,' 1 \`, \ '‘ ‘ .`,.,Z 1 ..2 .'•,.. , ■, \ .. ,A, 74, ''• \ .1 , i \ \:1,. \ t . "- ... - 2 7 ,. ; :'4...= el : 1 \ ......... )1 tt 1
• ‘'i,.,;\,.,...\-":7..s.,...4%--.k..,...........)....:1/4.::1
...E . 4 - 74 /1 1 - 1 4 1!) ,\ IV' :1 VI ' ) ' • : , • ' :1.0.1'21.''.1.,f7. \j"‘ (-,...1 ,, 4. F) \ l_ / ' "f'„ ,;/,
`'-.- ; 1 .5 4 f - S -7 ' --' 1 ti : 4 '.. 0 * 1' , i.=• - • . • 4. E "e ;1 ■ • \ .4k • ' 7 ' ' / •l 4 . - --,. A i c-,, , -
„..‹.... ..---: ' /. / ;' --- ;;; 4 -- , '„,' t ..,•• . .....1,„-,--" , ...--A--0 - 4114 .. / . .. ....',7.7. .-Jtabil.. . v. , ; //,..,34 (1 '7 ." ".; .
I ...,..
-
- ..--.., _•_\......: 5c,,. - .....--_, - . _IN / s,.. .1 . ,:t ...........„ .2. -,:••• - -.C.!s_ _. I -
Is..:r., ,.. , ," , •••••••4 "Pe \ ..‹ , .. • .. ,..„
I .\......-5...1-_-_\-..!---;,.:342---- .-s.4 /.. / •;-.1 , '
- -' - s• ', ‘.. . ` • i i 'H ..,4- =--
•_-; 1 , ce:._:...,..: f. i 15,. ,..... w -.,..:.- 7••-,,-• , • t I..• -- . i. ,... • '....; TS ; ''. ...'; / '" .. ". ,.,;`` , . •., ` .,,,„ -.• ' / 4 , 7
('.., IC, ,,..-- „e:... .:..:.:-;,'? ...,.. -4": q -: . s • , , - -X; \ % 1 1 - - * \ ' ,,,, , " ..--• t ,.., , or .• 4 ,.. I. ,.: .• ' e> ,•,,„ '..,... ', \.i,'• N • / / (/,/ ' ,A.:,:•/„.. ci.)
.---' •:.$' 1.,", : --... \--14 ../._,...--- tw. ,, , N I i ; . . ‘, re X T 'A. '", ..-/ t: , - ...,., ---:..,.&("' 4,-
,:::. r.),, fc-4---_-„...,-..f.-6 p- _,..v. r, .,.,..:. i 1 .„. r , '0,* - k:' '0, k - *k•°' -- W Y-N; ) z;%%"
.....-\ .
\.. • ) ( -1. ' 1 ,:..1 .----••;=--- - -- - - "..:'-'- .1,K, ss.‘ ) 4.1., • '2 \ i 1 i 1 :.1, ,:.--- 7 r,'/
:,.- • er ; -‘ I ' ;,• -... \ .,-,,. el \ 4 . '," I LA/ / , ' --- - ll',. ;,! ; i ' ..,,, ' it - - o , ' ,' , ,'• 0 . i.
L „ :7 4•-••• s .., R.f ! ...., */, /, • / , Son 1114,.. Vf , ///.,;' ...a 'C
:,. , .,,
f 7' \ " L '--- - -...'■." -".• " '? 1 /A%-%" —:---.7.sr r i 1/ N / , ,)t , - J..- D :AUL /,‘,-,* ,H ...
I. • ■■• i• 4' •
:„ 6. , t , i i,.,........ ? • ,z..,.._____ ..., ..,_,„,..........,,, ,, st ,,,4.,,i. ; , ; ,„,,..,. ; 1 \..„, ',,',---p,T 7 g '-•,,_, A , ._ . „, -, ( pi,/ i 4
;4= I; 1• ''.../ 7 ic - -_...- - - 4-•.'. •-ckh,-., st- 4 ,''., 'id , / ' velti, I' • v • .., 1 ..., 4414 ......-__ ... _ ... .,/, 1 (1 .
- i ' r. J --.. ' -,1 ', i„.0 / /- - •-•`■,- es--....; ' -. 4 ,///:// / / i / ,-,..,/,/,'JJ'A\ --/ „,•-...r.- --_-_.:.-:.!--•:- - - , /f , I it, ‘. .0
CY
/ ' / ,, i',1; , ...41 - ,'.'1 I V/ / i ''' ■ ' --- 3*. • --e. ',cite ,...,------5, ,,,-1,,..)--r--- -- . --.7 / /I, i 1 II: t sl.
• „........ •••• _ ....... ,, , /, i --,..,.... i .. 4 ;^ ::...... -. -... „„..•••■••• - ' % / .. 4 1 %
,/ / j ' Il i i'''i i .1 ' ( ---- N ''•''--; I/ 1 i 11 '. 5 1::: i r -:.%',/ i . i %:--..- 1.0,...•---_.-•----.- 1 .• • , i 4 ,
11/ ' 1 t '''I'''; Ill , i ■ .'‘ 1 .., , ' f i is - z s ,:;.:,0.:.kr--_,.-/„,.....-•.--• ... - - 3 -. I , .;•.1 ..., i&
• """' 1 , ) ' . ' ' , ‘ I 1 .......s. ....... ... - ‘ ....... _ .. ... 0 . L.15).........r. - t.." ; I . . . . •• . - - .... . .." - - -- r= - 7 7" : ... it' 1 ./ t ,)4..-f i.,
,...„„i.. „„, • • • • '• i 1 ' kik 1 I I L lil
: - eA .! i • \ •••••r c: ' lit V.:21.-- •••77.;•••::.- -"" \l ( i j .„, -
■,!,.,„,,5#
. ,.•,..-„_t„•_,- :. -,:„T- . ;L,:F , -- - : . ,••-••!••--' . •a_-:--.2:•t • 7a•„_-- ., n, r ..__ z :.,._,z_::-_•,.-•..E-.•,_".,.-_:_--F,•- - --I,I . .,'-
. ' - V.' ----_. - -.•''''.:,-:- ._ -.:' .....,.. ..'"
1.
CITYOF
SO , .. _ CHANHASSEN 1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
N.
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator
j
DATE: April 15, 1992 1
SUBJ: Stone Creek Preliminary Plat . 1
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed Stone Creek subdivision on
I
April 14, 1992. Please refer to the Park and Recreation Commission report dated April 10,
1992, forwarded to you earlier in reviewing their action. Mr. Hans Hagen was present and
briefly addressed the Commission expressing agreement with the Commission's 1
recommendation.
In presenting Stone Creek to the Commission, one additional condition of approval was 1
included. The preliminary plat dated February 27, 1992, shows two interior trail segments;
one bisecting Timberwood Drive and Forest Road near the retention pond, and one
bisecting the park and Timberwood Drive at the north property line. The construction of 1
these trails by the applicant was included in the motion of recommendation to the City
Council. Mr. Hagen was receptive to this recommendation. It is the recommendation of I
Dave Hempel, Senior Engineering Technician to require the applicant to provide a cost
estimate for construction of the interior trail segments. Upon substantiation of these
estimates, the appropriate reduction in trail fees will be made. 1
Upon conclusion of the Commission's discussion, Lash moved and Andrews seconded to
accept 8.6 acres of parkland as shown in Alternate Plan A in lieu of payment of park fees,
and to require construction of the two interior 8 ft. bituminous trail segments in exchange
for an appropriate reduction in trail fees for the Stone Creek subdivision with the following
conditions of approval: 1
1. The park property boundary be surveyed and marked in conjunction with the
surveying activity in adjoining developmental phases. 1
. 1
• NW PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
• 1
1 Ms. Kate Aanenson
April 15, 1992 ,
1 Page 2
2. The applicant shall grub, clear, and grade the park site per grading plans and
I specifications prepared by the city and provided to the applicant. The city shall finish
grade and seed the park site.
I 3. Erosion control shall be installed by the applicant as specified in the grading plan at
a cost to the city of $ 1.75 per lineal foot. Maintenance and removal of the erosion
control materials will be the responsibility of the city.
1 4. The applicant shall provide sufficient right -of -way as specified by the City Engineer
to accommodate the future construction of a bituminous trail along the north side
1 of Lyman Boulevard and the east side of Galpin Boulevard.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
•
D[F.w.vF„
•
'.o.E. "` % Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed Distric
•
„...._ Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co.
.. 8300 Norman Center Drive
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55437
•F 832 -2600
Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman
3300 Piper Jaffray Tower
222 South Ninth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
333 -4800
April 13, 1992 1
Mrs. Joanne Olson
Senior City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mrs. Olson: 1
The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley- Purgatory-
Bluff Creek Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted
• to the District for the Stone Creek 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.
Because of the size of the development, the District encourages that
the grading operations be staged to minimize the area disturbed at any
given time.
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. The management plan must include provisions for
the treatment of stormwater runoff, from the development site, prior
to reaching Bluff Creek. The water quality facilities must be
designed, at a minimum, to meet the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) standards.
REC IV ! 1
�.r
APP 1 X99
Or
1
Mrs. Joanne Olson April 13, 1992 Page 2
Structures to be constructed adjacent to the stormwater detention
basins, and are proposed to be riparian to Bluff Creek, must have
basement floor elevations constructed a minimum of two feet above the
calculated 100 year frequency flood elevation of these facilities and
' creek.
4. All structures must be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the center
' line of Bluff Creek.
5. Because of the size of the project and the proximity to Bluff Creek,
the District will likely require a performance bond or letter of
credit which will enable areas altered to be restored, should it
become necessary, and /or install additional erosion control measures,
should it become necessary.
1 6. The District has delineated a 100 -year frequency flood envelope along
the entire reach of Bluff Creek. Any proposed filling or encroachment
below the calculated 100 -year frequency flood elevation must be in
accordance with the District's floodplain encroachment criteria.
7. There are several areas on the site that meet the criteria for
regulation by the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. Filling below the
wetland elevation of each wetland area on the site must be replaced or
mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the Wetland Act.
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 us at
832 -2600.
' Sincerely,
P
brit
R erti C. Obermeyer
Barr Engineering Co any
Engineers for the District
RCO /lah
c: Mr. Ray Haik
Mr. Fritz Rahr
Mr. Conrad Fiskness
11 23 \27 \053 \JO.LTR
1
1
7
To: Mayor and City Council, City of Chanhassen. 1'
From: Mitchel H. Krause
2380 Timberwood Drive 1
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(H) 474 -9317 (W) 638 -4053
Subject: Proposed Stonecreek Development. 1
It disturbs me that the city of Chanhassen will allow a new
development to destroy the quality of life of an existing
II
neighborhood without sufficient consideration of the residents of the
existing neighborhood. My family and I enjoy taking walks during the
evenings after work, and currently take them on Timberwood Drive.
These walks are pleasant and are not badly marred by the amount or II
speed of the traffic, although if the speed of the vehicles on that
portion of Timberwood Drive about one -third of a mile west of 117 was
ever monitored, I believe the average speed would be well in excess II
of any reasonable residential speed limit. Even with the other '
proposed entrances, the majority of the traffic in the new
development will be using the existing portion of Timberwood drive
II
for entrance and exit to their homes. The existing entrance would be
the closest to state highway 5 which would remain the main traffic
flow area. I believe that any additional traffic load on the
existing portion of Timberwood Drive will make it a very dangerous
road. I certainly did not believe that Timberwood Drive would ever
be extended when I built my home on it. Had I even thought that the
remote possibility of extension of the road existed, I would not have
II
thought that a new development of 140+ houses on less land area than
the 40 or so homes of Timberwood estates would be the reason for the
extension. 1
I would like the City of Chanhassen to at least seriously
consider other alternatives such as closing off the existing entrance II of Timberwood Drive if the proposed development is built or not
extending Timberwood Drive into the new development or not building
the new development. I don't believe that the significant adverse
impact to the existing residents has seriously been considered in the
I
planning of this project. The simplest solution that I can envision
is also the most just and would simply be not extending Timberwood
Drive into the new development and allowing the new development to
I
exist on its own merits. Timberwood Drive should remain the
cul -de -sac that it is and apparently was intended to be.
I would invite each of you to call me at either of the numbers 1
above to further discuss the issue prior to the next city council
meeting.
1
Res ective yours, 1
,...../,
1 Mitchel H. Krause ;
1rR101 ;12 1
C:; Y C: CH " ^SErs
1
APR -13 -92 MON 7:55 ERAD /DEPARTMENT NSP FAX NO. 3306357 P.01
i
Post -Jr brand fax transmittal memo 7671 f Olpages
o f r , ..--P • t�. L
April 10, 1992 �a
Dept, Phone #
1 Fax * f yy.2 Pax a
Dear Mayor Chmiel: / ..,�
We are writing to express our deep concern over the proposed Stone Creek development In our
town. The City Planning Commission approved the recommendation of this development at their
1 March 26, 1992 meeting, despite the outcry from the citizens present at this meeting. ,
1 While we are delighted that the site has been zoned residential, we have numerous concerns
about the density of the proposed development, A development of 141 home sites brings
roughly 550 people Into the city. Please consider the following;
1 • The land is home to several wet land areas, Homes would border these protected areas.
The city can only go so far in enforcing these "protected" areas, With 20 foot setbacks
I on many of the proposed tots, we believe it is a real possibility that homeowners would
"reclaim" these areas to stretch their backyards. In addition, the wetlands would likely
suffer just due to the sheer volume of people into the area. We do not believe the
I proposed park would sufficiently serve the neighborhood, and the overflow would likely
harm the wetland areas,
I • The development as proposed calls for the removal of approximately twenty acres of
trees. With the relative scarcity of forest in Chanhassen, this seems excessive and tragic.
I • The proposal does not adequately consider the effect on the volume of traffic this
development would bring. If one averages two vehicles per home, that means an
additional 282 vehicles stressing County Roads #117 and #18, and Highway #5. With
I the road construction hurriedly chasing the current flow, an additional strain would put
us back to square one, in addition, the construction for Highway #5 at the juncture of
*117 will not be completed until next year, If homes go up this summer, as proposed,
1 this intersection will really be a mess,
• The proposal does not adequately consider the effect on the school district. School age
1 children will most likely make up half of the population of the new development. This will
add an additional burden on the school system that does not seem to have been taken
into account.
• A further concern is regarding the safety of some of the proposed lot sites. A railroad
1 track would border the backyards of many of the homes. This Is downright poor
planning,
I • Finally, we believe the City Council needs to consider the overall image of Chanhassen.
We currently have a wonderful small town. We realize the need for growth, but it must
be managed properly, A dense subdivision with small lots just transforms us into another
I Eden Prairie.
APR -13 -92 MON 7:56 ERAD /DEPARTMENT NSP FAX Na 3306357 P,02
1
These concerns are foremost In our minds as a citizens of Chanhassen. In addition, we have
several concerns as a residents of Timberwood Estates, These concerns center around the
recommendation of joining the two neighborhoods by road that was approved by the City
Planning Commission, These concerns are twofold:
1
• • Timberwood Drive is currently a quiet residential street used only by the 34 homes of
Timberwood Estates, Even so, we still have problems with cars exceeding the speed
limit. Joining the two neighborhoods would increase traffic flow by approximate! 141
cars daily (assuming only half of the new development used it). This would make it a
dangerous street for the young residents of Timberwood Estates, 1
• As property owners, we have grave concerns over joining two very dissimilar
neighborhoods. Our neighborhood's lots are 2 -1/2 acres or larger, while 1
development has plans for lots as small as 1/4 acre. Our apprehension that the
property value as well as the marketability of our home will drop instantaneously, This
Is not unfounded anxiety. The market value of a home In a quiet neighborhood of 37 is 1
much different than the market value of a house on a busy street in a subdivision of 178
houses.
1
We understand and appreciate the Planning Commissions reasoning Please believe us, we are not isolationists nor snobs, for
but joining
seems
counterproductive to join two neighborhoods that would be so dissimilar. We also understand 1
the Commission's desire for a road between the neighborhoods for emergency vehicles.
Therefore, we propose a compromise. Please consider the following ideas:
• Require larger lot sizes, hence less density, for 1
h
strain on the city roads, schools and services, as services, as as the threat to the wetlands and
trees. Several of the proposed lots are marginally buildable, anyway. 1
• If building guidelines restrict you from enforcing the above suggestion, please reconsider
making Timberwood Drive a thoroughfare. Rather, it could be used as an emergency I
route only, not paved, but a grass covered road. This would allow emergency vehicles
to pass but would deter the overuse by residents, An "emergency vehicle only" road Is
used by many communities. 1
Please consider the above concerns and suggestions. We also invite you and your fellow
1
councilmembers to our neighborhood of Timberwood Estates to inspect the land of proposed
development. You will see the tragedy a densely populated development would bring to the
environment and to the city of Chanhassen. 1
We apologize for the length of this letter, but the length was necessary to convey our deep
convictions regarding the proposed Stone Creek development. 1
Sinc rely,
� �L 1
rnfrai i fer_Ag44-16fr
I
CITYOF
ii
1
,, ., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I 1, (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II .
1 FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician It
-
DATE: March 26, 1992
I
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Stone Creek
File No. 92 -7 LUR
II
Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by E. G. Rud & Sons,
II Inc. dated February 27, 1992, I offer the following comments:
SITE GRADING
The site consists of approximately 50% wooded areas and the other
50% agriculture use. The grading plans proposes to grade only the
I westerly half of the site at this time. The remaining easterly
part would be selectively graded as each individual home is
constructed. This is similar to previous developments such as
1 Shadowmere or Lundgren's Near Mountain developments. Individual
grading plans should be required with the building permit
application for those lots that contain heavily wooded areas.
I Along the northerly property line lies tributaries to the Bluff
Creek watershed. Adjacent to these tributary streams, the proposed
house pads will require substantial grading. For example, Lots 12
II and 13, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 8, Block 4. These lots
are even questionable as to whether they should be built upon due
to the slope characteristics and vegetation loss.
II The grading plan also proposes construction of earth berms
partially into and adjacent to County Road 19 (Galpin Blvd.) right -
of -way. I believe the City is intending on constructing a trail
I system along the easterly side of County Road 19 in the future. It
is recommended that these berms be either moved further back to the
east or reduced in size to eliminate any possible impact with the
I future trail considerations.
The grading plan also proposes constructing two retention ponds,
II one in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to County Road 19
et
Ili, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Kate Aanenson
March 26, 1992
Page 2
and the other in Block 6. The side slopes of the first pond
encroach into the future right -of -way for both County Roads 18 and
19. The pond size should either be reduced or the pond moved
further east to avoid conflicts with future road expansion on both
County Roads 18 and 19. The existing ditch along County Road 19
adjacent to the pond should be filled to allow for overland
drainage into the pond. The ditch system south of the pond outlet
should remain to convey runoff from the pond. Storm sewers should
also be included in Timberwood Drive at County Road 19 to convey
• runoff from the ditch north (upstream) of Timberwood Drive to the
proposed pond.
STREETS 1
The plat proposes construction and extension of Timberwood Drive
from Timberwood Estates subdivision which lies directly north of
the site to Gaipin Boulevard. The street will be the main
thoroughfare of the subdivision as well as a secondary street
connection for Timberwood Estates which is built to rural road
standards. With the anticipated volume of traffic, staff
classifies Timberwood Drive as a residential collector -type street.
The right -of -way is proposed at 60 feet which is the City standard.
Staff recommends that the street section be extended from the
typical 31 -foot wide street to a 36 -foot wide street (gutter to
gutter) similar to the Lake Susan Hills development. The remaining
streets may be the City's standard 31 -foot wide back -to -back street
section. Street grades are not provided on the plans; however,
based on contours, it appears street grades will be under the 7%
maximum grade per City ordinance.
The preliminary plat proposes two street access points onto County
Road 19. The major entrance, Timberwood Drive, is to be located
approximately 650 feet north of County Road 18 and the second
entrance, Stone Creek, approximately 550 feet north of the first
entrance. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation
Study, County Road 19 is classified as a minor arterial Class II
roadway which recommends a total of 100 feet of right -of -way.
Right -of -way along County Road 19 currently is 66 feet wide, 33 on
each side of the centerline. The preliminary plat proposes
dedication of an additional 17 to arrive at one -half of the
necessary recommended right -of -way width (50 ft). Since County
Road 19 is classified as a minor arterial street, according to City
design standards street access should be at intervals of not less
than 1/4 mile from existing and established crossroads. Staff
recommends granting the main entrance.(Timberwood Drive) to the
development but recommends deletion of the northerly entrance
(Stone Creek) into the development. Comments received from Mr.
Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer also concurred with staff's
1
Kate Aanenson
March 26, 1992
Page 3
recommendation on limiting access to Timberwood Drive onto County
Road 19 and providing, at a minimum, acceleration and deceleration
lanes on northbound Galpin Boulevard. Final roadway improvements
along Galpin Boulevard will be addressed by Carver County Public
Works with the access permit.
The plat also proposes a future street connection at the easterly
end of the plat. A temporary cul -de -sac should be constructed at
this location until the road can be extended in the future. A sign
' should be placed on the barricades indicating the street will be
extended in the future.
1 DRAINAGE
Preliminary plans propose a series of storm sewer catch basins and
manholes to convey storm runoff to two proposed ponds over the
westerly portions of the site. The easterly half of the site
proposes to drain via overland and through storm sewer systems to
1 the east for future ponding of which the City is exploring with its
Surface Water Utility consultant, Bonestroo. The plat submittal
did not include any storm sewer calculations or ponding data;
1 therefore, we are unable to determine if adequate ponding or storm
sewer sizing is being provided at this time. However, this can be
addressed prior to final platting.
As previously indicated in this report, the most westerly pond is
encroaching into the future road right -of -way along County Roads 18
and 19. It is recommended that, if possible, this pond be reduced
' in. size or relocated easterly to avoid conflict with future road
expansion projects. The pond is being designed with the outlet to
be constructed at the southerly end of the pond and the inlet the
northerly end. Whereas, the second pond proposed in the middle of
Block 6, the storm inlets and outlet location is undesirable due to
the close proximity to each other. It is desirable from a water
quality standpoint to locate the inlet and outlet structures at the
opposite ends of the pond if possible. This allows time for
filtration of sediments and nutrients prior to discharging
downstream. It is recommended that the storm sewer system be
' modified or the pond relocated and developed to meet requirements
of the walker pond design.
This second pond also proposes an emergency overflow through the
rear yards of Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 6 eventually draining out
to Forest Road. Staff recommends that the emergency overflow be
amended to overflow between Lots 13 and 14 out onto Forest Road.
1 Plans also propose maintaining an existing drainageway that runs
parallel and adjacent to the railroad tracks in Block 5. Staff is
1
1
Kate Aanenson ,
March 26, 1992
Page 4
concerned with the volume of water although may be reduced from
predevelopment volumes; however, from previous experiences, this is • II
ongoing maintenance and somewhat of a safety issue for the City and
adjacent homeowners. It is recommended that this area be explored
for the possibility of storm sewer or temporary ponding basin
across the back of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 5.
The City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo, has been asked to
review the possibility of an off -site retention pond east of the
property to serve future developments upstream. In summary, based
on proposed contours it appears the ponds will provide adequate
storage and nutrient capacity for the contributing areas. However,
additional catch basins will be needed throughout the street
system. Exact placement of the catch basins will be determined
when storm calculations are provided. An additional ponding site
is also needed downstream east of the development to handle
untreated runoff generated by the easterly portion of the site
(approximately 14 acres). Due to the site characteristics, steep
slopes and woods, staff feels it would be inappropriate to require
any additional ponds in the wooded portion of Blocks 3, 4, 5 and 6
and would recommend off -site permanent ponding. If permanent
ponding is not achievable at this time, one option would be to
construct temporary on -site ponding by utilizing existing
drainageways or lots at the east end of Forest Road. The applicant
will be responsible for contributing their portion of the costs
associated with the construction of the future retention pond east
of the development. This money will be used for purchasing
property, construction and design of the future retention ponds.
Blocks 3 and 4 also contain drainageways along the rear portion of
the lots. Although these areas are wooded, they will convey
neighborhood drainage through the system. Appropriate drainage
easements should be provided on the final plat.
UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service currently is not
available to the site. However, the City is currently holding a
public hearing to extend trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities
to the area. Depending on the project scope and timeframe, this
project may or may not be able to be operational by October, 1992.
The applicant is proposing to construct a portion of the municipal
trunk facilities in conjunction with the overall site improvements.
Specifically, the trunk sewer and watermains which will follow
Forest Trail to Timberwood Drive and out to County Road 19. The
applicant may be given credit on the future trunk assessment for
the cost of the oversizing of these mains of which he is proposing
to construct. For example, the applicant would be credited for the
•
1
Kate Aanenson
March 26, 1992
Page 5
1
cost difference between a 12 -inch sewer and water line versus an 8-
inch sewer and water line.
Municipal watermain is proposed throughout development. Staff
recommends that the proposed 6 -inch watermain along Forest Road be
' increased to an 8 -inch watermain along with the section of
Timberwood Drive north of Forest Trail to insure adequate sizing
for future extension into Timberwood Estates unless the applicant
' provides a hydraulic analysis demonstrating sufficient fire flow
during peak demands. The plans did not propose hydrant locations
at this time. The applicant should prepare final plans with
hydrant spacing approximately 300 feet apart in accordance with the
Fire Marshal's recommendations.
1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street
' easement for the temporary cul -de -sac at the end of Forest
Road. In addition, a sign shall be installed on the
barricades stating that the street (Forest Road) will be
extended in the future.
2. The final plat shall be amended to include the revised street
alignment of Stone Creek by eliminating access onto Galpin
Boulevard and provide a cul -de -sac with an interconnecting
street between Stone Creek and Timberwood Drive.
' 3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be
conveyed with the final plat over all utilities located
outside of the public right -of -ways.
4. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent
agency permits, i.e. Watershed., Health Department, MPCA and
Carver County Highway Department.
1 5. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with
pond storage calculations for storage of a 100 -year storm
event, 24 -hour intensity, should be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval.
6. A deceleration and acceleration lane on northbound County Road
' 19 shall be provided to improve turning movements into the
development. Roadway improvements along County Road 19 shall
be constructed in accordance to Carver County Highway
' Department.
1
1
1
Kate Aanenson
March 26, 1992
Page 6
7. Watermain pipe sizing shall be increased to 8 inches in
diameter on Forest Road and that part of Timberwood Drive
lying north of Forest Trail. 1
8. The storm sewer inlets and outlets should be located at
opposite ends of the ponds to promote water quality.
9. The emergency overflow for the pond in Block 6 should be re- 11 graded so as to provide emergency overflow between Lots 13 and
14, Block 6 out to Forest Drive. 1
10. A permit from the railroad (Twin City Western) will be
required for any grading or construction activity within the
railroad right -of -way.
11. Eliminate the ditch section and relocate or reduce the pond
size adjacent to Gaipin Boulevard so it is completely outside 1
of the future right -of -way and roadway improvements along
County Roads 18 and 19.
12. Fire hydrants shall be spaced approximately 300 feet apart 1
throughout the subdivision ii accordance with the Fire
Marshal's recommendations.
13. The proposed earth berms along County Road 19 shall be reduced
or relocated easterly to provide adequate room for future
trail considerations. 1
14. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately
restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket
within two weeks of site grading or before November 15, 1992
except in areas where utilities and streets will be
constructed yet that year. All areas disturbed with a slope
of 3:1 or greater must be restored with sod or wood -fiber
blanket.
15. The developer shall provide adequate access easements for
. maintenance purposes to the proposed retention ponds.
16. The developer shall construct the utility and street
improvements in accordance with the 1992 edition of the City's
standard specifications and detail plates and shall prepare
final plans and specifications and submit for City approval.
17. The final plat should be contingent upon the City authorizing
a public improvement project for extension of trunk sanitary
sewer and water facilities to the site.
1
1
1
Kate Aanenson
March 26, 1992
Page 7
18. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall
enter into a development contract and provide the financial
security to guarantee construction of the improvements and
payment of any pending assessments.
19. The applicant shall be given credit for any trunk utility
improvements they may install as a part of their overall site
improvements. The credit will be applied towards the Upper
' Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements.
The credit amount will be determined as the difference between
a standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch diameter) and the
proposed trunk improvements which are 12 inches in diameter.
20. The applicant /builder shall provide at the time of building
permit application a tree removal and grading permit for all
wooded lots, specifically Lots 1 through 15, Block 3, Lots 1
through 8, Block 4, Lots 1 through 20, Block 5, and Lots 1
through 12 and 15 through 24, Block 6.
21. Timberwood Drive shall be constructed 36 feet wide gutter to
gutter.
1 22. The applicant shall explore the possibility of conveying
backyard drainage form Block 5 into the development storm
sewer system.
1 ktm
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF 4, 'Air ,
. .
..: .,Io CHANHASSEN 1
.J t„,_
k „
c tk.
t z
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II 1
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator //J
DATE: March 25, 1992
SUBJ: Stone Creek, Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. 1
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat on
March 24, 1992. As expected, their discussion centered on the issue of whether to approve
the proposed park location, or to recommend an alternate site more accommodating to a
variety of active park facilities.
1
The Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area of the city as park
deficient. Presumably this proposal represents the single largest residential subdivision 1
which will develop in this section of the city (the area bordered by Highway 5 and Lyman
Boulevard to the north and south, and Audubon Road and Galpin Boulevard to the east and
west). This being the case, it presents the best opportunity to acquire a neighborhood park 1
of an appropriate size in this area.
The Park and Recreation Commission discussed extensively the options of accepting the
1
proposed park, or requiring an alternate site. All commissioners voiced an appreciation for
the value of preserving the proposed park area in its present state. It was recognized that
the site does provide opportunity for the development of some active neighborhood park I
components. However, in making a final decision, the Commission relied on its past
experience with residents of new developments. Time and time again, residents too will say
the preservation of a natural passive park space is desirable, but that neighborhood parks I
with considerable open space and active play facilities is their first priority. The consensus
was unanimous to ask that an alternate site be identified offering a larger percentage of I
relatively flat ground on the edge of and including a portion of the treed property on the
site.
The Commission also addressed the future recreational trails which will abut this property 1
as identified in the Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan. Members were in
agreement to require the dedication of any additional right -of -way necessary to
1
t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
.1
1 Ms. Kate Aanenson
March 25, 1992
Page 2
accommodate the construction of an 8 ft. off- street bituminous trail on the east side of
Galpin Boulevard, extending to the north side of Lyman Boulevard. Construction of this
1 trail is not being advocated at this time, however.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon conclusion of the discussion by the Park and Recreation Commission, a motion was
made by Andrews and seconded by Pemrick to ask that an alternate park site be identified
which will accommodate active park facilities. This site shall combine a large area, 3-4 acre,
of relatively flat ground, with 2 -3 acres of the wooded property.
It is the desire of the Park and Recreation Commission to review the new proposal prior
to this proposal being submitted to the City Council.
ATTACHMENT
1. Report to Park and Recreation Commission dated March 24, 1992.
1
1
•
.
1
1
1
1
i IY
1
1
C I T Y 0 F PRC DATE: March 24, 1992 I
' C HANHASSEH CC DATE:
HOFFMAN:k 1
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Rezoning property from A2 to RSF and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 81 acres into 141 Single
Family Lots and 8.2 Acres of Park Area on Property Zoned A2, Agricultural Estate
z LOCATION: Located North of Lyman Boulevard, East of Galpin Boulevard, and South of Timberwood (see
Q vicinity map)
n APPLICANT: Hans Hagen Homes, Inc.
941 NE Hillwind Road, Suite 300
Fridley, MN 55432
4
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - A2, Agricultural Estate —Large Lot Home Sites Including Timberwood
S - A2, Agricultural Estate— Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad
E - A2, Agricultural Estate
W - A2, Agricultural Estate— Galpin Boulevard
Q COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this proposed
subdivision as being located in a park deficient area. The site lies outside the
service areas of Sunset Ridge Park and Power Hill Park as shown on the
W vicinity map.
I
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN:
The Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan currently identifies a trail along Galpin Boulevard as a
Phase 11l (2000-2010) addition. The plan also includes the future Bluff Creek Trail Corridor which parallels
the eastern border of this site. The railroad underpass allowing this trail to bisect the tracks lies just to the
east of this property.
1
' Park and Recreation Commission
March 24, 1992
Page 2
1 PARK LAND:
In preliminary discussions with Mr. Hans Hagen, ft was apparent that the urn sual flag- shaped area of this
property lying on its northern edge may be desirable for park property. In one of the initial plans, this area
was divided into three lots to be serviced by extended private drives. As noted on the site plan, the
maximum amount of park property that the Commission could request under current ordinance is 5.64 acres
(141 lots x 3 persons per home + 75 persons per acre of land = 5.64 acres). The area preliminarily shown
as potential park is approximately 8 acres.
1 A copy of the aerial photo of this area including topographical information is attached. The copy identifies
the approximate boundaries of the flag - shaped land area. The creek drainage flowing through this area
dominates the site with two relatively flat knolls being located on either side of the creek. However, the
necessity to cross the creek makes access to its north cumbersome. Areas south of the creek are
' interspersed with mature conifers and deciduous trees, open grassy glens, and areas of small trees and
brush. The remainder of the site can be described as a typical mature hardwood forest. Upon walking the
site, it is my opinion that clearing a portion of this land to accommodate an open field would be short-
' sighted. If ft is our desire to maintain an open grass field to accommodate traditional neighborhood park
facilities, the park should be located somewhere in the agricultural field.
The decision to set aside a natural land area as park versus the development of a traditional neighborhood
park is a philosophical one. The opportunity to acquire'naturar land masses as part of subdivision review
is not available in many cases. The forfeiture of $70,500 or a portion of that amount in park fees is also
worthy of consideration. Under the current plan, the applicant is offering approximately eight acres of land
' when only 5.64 can be required. Presumably, if the Commission wishes to require land for park in the open
field area of this plat, this would not be the case. The construction of ball fields and preservation of open
space to the north of this site in conjunction with a school site is also a possibility. The merits and
deficiencies of the options available need to be considered by the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
' No recommendation is being forwarded to the Park and Recreation Commission. Staff will be glad to join
in the discussion next Tuesday and is hopeful that a recommendation can be formulated by the Commission
to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council.
' TRAILS:
' The preliminary plat identifies two trail segments on the interior of this plat; one bisecting Timberwood Drive
and the proposed park; and one bisecting Blocks 6 and 7 adjacent to a large holding pond. The trail along
Galpin Boulevard as identified in the Comprehensive Plan will be placed on the east side of the road at the
time of construction. The City Engineer and Planning Department have been notified as such and will require
the additional right - of-way necessary to accommodate this trail. Any recommendation by the Commission
should include this as a condition of approval.
The need for interior trail segments will be unclear until the park issue is resolved. As such, 1 will not
expand upon the necessity, desirability, or cost of these proposed trail connections. However, if these or
other interior trail segments are determined to be desirable, ft is recommended the applicant construct the
trails with their cost, as determined by the city in consultation with them, be deducted from the trail fees.
' I would encourage Park Commissioners to drive by the site and, if possible, tour the area on foot prior to
next week's meeting. Permission to access the property has been granted by the applicant.
•
ATTACHMENTS
Vicinity Map
1 Preliminary Plat Sketch Plan
Aerial Photo including Topographical Information
Trail Plan
CE1VEE
CER CbtlCOURTHOUSE I
600 EAST 4TH S?REET
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HASKA, MINNES 318
(6121 448 1213
111
1 •ti' E5
COUNTY OF CAQVEQ
March 3, 1992 1
To: Kate Aanenson, Chanhassen Planner - 11 From: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer
Subject: Preliminary Plat
Stone Creek
II
Comments regarding the Stone Creek Preliminary Plat dated 2 -27 -92 and
transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated 3 -2 -92 are: II 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor
Arterial (Class II) are:
II
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
2 -lane Roadway 2 -lane Roadway I
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 110' 120' 150'
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
II
4 -lane Roadway • 4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 120' 140' 170'
II
Both County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 and CSAH 19 are
functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) roadways in ,
the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. Preservation of
adequate corridors for the future upgrading of both CSAH 18 and 19
is an important consideration. The Year 2010 projected average
daily traffic volumes for CSAH 18 and CSAH 19 are approximately II
14,000 and 8,000 vehicles, respectively, adjacent to the proposed
development site as documented in the Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study. This volume of traffic does not represent II
full development within the general service area of these county
highways. Ultimate traffic volumes on CSAH 18 and CSAH 19 very
probably will be in excess of the Year 2010 projections.
Therefore, I recommend a minimum width of 120 feet be preserved r
for CSAH 18 to accommodate the construction of a 4 -lane urban
undivided highway, and a minimum width of 100 feet be preserved
for CSAH 19 to accommodate the construction of either a 2 -lane or I
4 -lane urban undivided highway.
The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridors I
along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be
constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also
be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 1
Affirmatnr Atmn /Equal Opportunity Employer ,
Printed on Recycled Paper 1
1 '
Page 2
Stone Creek Preliminary Plat
March 3, 1992
2. It is the preference of the county highway department that only
Timberwood Drive intersect CSAH 19. Desirable access control
along CSAH 19 is to have "Collector" intersection spacing of 1/4
to 1/2 mile with no "Local" intersections. It appears that
Timberwood Drive is a "Collector" roadway and Stone Creek Road is
a "Local" roadway. The city and the developer are urged to
consider looping Stone Creek Road with a short cul -de -sac to the
west or converting Stone Creek Road to a cul -de -sac. .Discussion
' with the city and the developer about the Stone Creek Road
intersection is requested.
' 3. Construction of the proposed street intersections with CSAH 19 is
subject to the access permit requirements of Carver County. The
county highway department will not consider approving the
locations of the proposed intersections until detailed sight
distance analyses have been prepared by the developer's traffic
engineer for both proposed intersections and submitted to the
county for review. The engineer is directed to Section 5.2 of the
' Minnesota Department of Transportation Road Design Manual.
Particular sight distance concerns are:
* Left turn movements from the intersecting streets
onto CSAH 19
' * Left turn movements from a south - bound, stopped condition
along CSAH 19 onto both of the intersecting streets.
' The city is asked to inform the developer that, most certainly,
the county highway department will require the construction of
right -turn lanes along CSAH 19 at the proposed intersections.
' Further, the county highway department may deem it appropriate
that the developer and /or the city invest additional dollars in
any modifications determined to be needed to safely and adequately
accommodate traffic at one or both of the proposed intersection
' locations. These modifications may include reconstructing a
portion of CSAH 19 to improve sight distances and /or adding south-
bound bypass lanes at one or both of the proposed intersections.
4. It is not known if any public utility lines are to be installed
within the CSAH 18 and CSAH 19 rights -of -way. Any such
installations'are subject to the utility permit requirements of
Carver County.
5. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures
' within the rights -of -way of CSAH 18 and CSAH 19 is subject to
review and approval of the county highway department.
Page 3
Stone Creek Preliminary Plat
March 3, 1992
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 highway rights -of -way
(including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment
deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-
of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to
construction. It is requested that the city include a provision
in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be
ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county
highway rights -of -way. A clear understanding of this
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
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
highway.103
1
1
1 i
CITY OF
CHAVHASSEN
1
0.:. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
II DATE (mm /dd /yy): 11 :192
TO: Kate ?:a:.e:,_o:: TITLE /TO: Planner
II THROUGH: TITLE /THROUGH:
II FROM: .: . , k'_ :c...: �:: k- TITLE /FROM: Building Official
SUBJECT: _ _ _ ..._: Case: 22 2 Rezone & 92 -1 SUE (Stone Creek)
T'':- a: _..o,._.. inacate on the grading plan the types) of dwelling
peiri. t::e c' eac _:t. The designated type of dwelling should conform to
II the :cc::::; c : t:.- ap; ved grading plan. The lowest floor elevation and
t..- -=- : - ±::: e:evatic_n for each dwelling sh:culd also be indicated on the
gr_..:. - _wF._ c typ€ designations should be:
II F. -Rare tl er
72 7,.ck Und - -
4Z : : ,. _ k 0,;t
:7,F2 S,_ li t Entry
II :Et•?_: :pi.t Entry wa:k Out
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
� 4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
0:4 CHANHASSEN
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal 1
DATE: March 4, 1992
SUBJ: Planning Case #92 -2 Rezone and #92 -1 SUB (Hans Hagen) 1
1. Fire hydrants shall be spaced at 300' intervals. Please
indicate on utility plan for approval.
2. 10' clear space around fire hydrants pursuant to city
ordinance.
3. The name "Forest Road" and " Forest Trail" cannot be
used. We already have a "Forest Avenue ", "Forest Circle"
and "Forest Ridge Circle ". Have developer submit new
names for Public Safety approval. 1
4. Have developer provide a fire department approved
turn - around on the east end of Forest Road, pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.207(h).
1
1
1
1
1
t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
•
• 1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 1, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, Jeff Fermakeo
and Joan Ahrens
N�
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Tim Erhart
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; Sharmln Al-Jaff, Planner I; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave
^
m�
Hempel, Senior Engineering Technician
PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST FROM A2 TO RSF AND PRELIMINARY PLAT
N� REQUEST FOR 141 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 8'2 ACRES OF PARK AREA LOCATED NORTH
OF LYMAN AND EAST OF GALPIN BDULEVARD, JUST SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD E5TATES,
STONE CREEK, HANS HAGEN HOMES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Fo;Le 8020 Acorn Lan-
peirick HinJ+n 6221 Galpin Blvd. •
B/oc� �rn�ka 19057 Lotus View Drive, Eden Prairie
Jim Colleen Duckendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridgp
T Kh"n 2040 Ron?,iu.Fan�� Court
N�
Jerry Bonnie Markouski 205I Renaissance Court
8,/, M�c�k 2051 Timborwuo D'lve
Dave Maen[ 204I Tjmberwood Drive
131 Fox Hollow D/ive
1311 Lake Susan Hi ] ls Drive
2030 Renaisoon C�urt
2041 Renaissance court
.^,l |����.� ��`.,Lz 8600 Great Plain; Blvd
'
E, , l 8610 Galpin
JJrf 2071 Timberwood Drix
N� Ds/'nis Rollins 2082 Tln`b*rwnod
U�
2031 Timbe/woud
Mike 3474 Lake Shore Drive, Chaska
Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd.
Mary Harrington 8301
A+oenzon presented the staff report on this item.
~~ Batzli: I'd like to ask you one question before I ask the applicant if
they'd like to speak and that is, stated in your report that the Planning
Commission may want to consider continuing this item. In your opinion,
0� what would be the benefit of continuing it?
Aanenson: Only if you wanted to consider the PUD option.
•
Krauss: Also, when we wrote the report and got it to the applicant we were
not certain how they would receive the changes that were being requested.
The redesigned to move the park is a fairly significant one. We've since
Planning Commission
g sion Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 2
heard from the applicant's engineer who's here tonight that they believe
that that can be accommodated apparently. If they're comfortable with
those changes and if you're comfortable with the recommendations, we have
given you the conditions that are required to carry it forward.
Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant, I assume the applicant's here 1
somewhere. Would he like to make a presentation at this time?
Ernie Rud: ...owner's not in town tonight. My name is Ernie Rud. We're
the surveyors and the designers of this plat and with me I have Chuck Plow
who's the consulting engineer. I'd like to take a moment to pass out
booklets and I've got to apologize for not getting them in your packets bu
we just got them back from the printers at 3 :00 this afternoon. It's some
of the house plans we're planning on building in there. We have read the
staff's report. I guess when we first looked at this piece of land, we ha
some of the same concerns that the staff has got. May I use your overhead
there please?
Aanenson: Ye_ 1
Ernie Rud: As staff has pointed out, this whole easterly side here is all
mature woodland including the part that...to Bluff Creek. We were very
sensitive to this easterly area and planned our...grading on the westerly
side which is all agricultural at this time. We do agree with the staff's
recommendation that serious consideration be given to the Park Commission's
recommendation. We looked at that northerly part as a passive park. The
part that we have designed to be a park and that's kind of unique. I mean
there isn't too many places you can walk along a brook like that and have
• those mature trees. I was just in there this afternoon and that kind of a
park is something you can't build with bulldozers. I mean you could put a
ballfitld out in the open there and stuff but to have amenities like that
• that can he enjoyed by the whole neighborhood 1 think is something that yo
don't come by too often. And therefore we d» not want to change our park
dedication. We want to leave it where its at. T_ don't know what part th
Planning Commission plays in that. If they just forward on the Park
Commi.ssion'.7,3 recommendation or if the make one themselves. As far as tha
cul -de-- saniny that Stone Creek, I think that can be achieved. I think thi
is something we'd have to work with staff on. We haven't had sufficient
time to respond to it. We've done a couple of sketches on it but have not
had a chance to meet with them and we'd be happy to work with them before
that Council meeting and try and resolve that issue. The homes that Mr.
Hagen Will build in here will probably range from $125,000.00 to, I don't
know. He's built some up to $300,000.00 so I guess I would expect the
easterly half to have more expensive houses than the westerly half. The
land just dictates that. In your packet you'll see some of the landscaping
that we've done in the city of Woodbury. That would be very similar to II what we would propose along Galpin Blvd. there. All that landscaping and
plantings would be done by the developer and be maintained with the
homeowners association so the city wouldn't be obligated to maintain those!'
islands or the landscaping on that berm. We further cover that with a
landscape easement so the homeowners are aware that all that landscaping on
the outer side of that berm will be done by the association and not by the
homeowners themselves or the City. As far as realigning those ponds and
stuff, we don't have any problem with that. That can be done, taken off
' Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 3
11 the right -of -way. There's ample storage in both those ponds for the runoff
so we can move those to accommodate a trail should that be needed along 17
or 18.
' Batzli: I'm sorry, I may be jumping ahead of what you were going to say
here but did you comment on the conservation easements? Were those
' troublesome at all?
Ernie Rud: No. We might like to get that extended to 100 feet back and
the reason being that some of our houses are 45 feet deep rather than 40
and should we want to set a house at 25 feet or 30 feet rather than 20,
then we could run into a little trouble with that. So we would like the
flexibility of probably having 100 feet of area in there. Not necessarily
to clear but to have the flexibility to put a home in there should we have
to have a deeper house on one of those lots. And we're in complete
agreement with staff. We want to save as many of those trees as we can too
because, I don't know if you people have walked through that woods but it's
one of the few woods where you don't see a lot of underbrush. I mean the
crowns in the trees are so thick that they just haven't allowed the
underbrush to grow so it's nice and open and we want to preserve that as
rnluch as staff does. I don't think I have any other comments on the plat.
I would be open to try and answer any questions that the Planning
Commission alight have.
' Batzli: I think we will probably direct some questions your way a little
bit later, unless somebody has a question that they'd like answered right
now. Thank you. What I'd like to do next is, I know that we have a couple
11 of s. h?)a from the Park and Recreation Commission and I would like to
ask there to come up, if they want to talk to us now before the rest of the
people herJ if .ou're here for this meeting So guys if you'd like to.
' dim Andrews: Thank you. I'rn Jim Andrews from the Park Commission and we
looked at thi . proposal on the 24th I believe was the date. We did
'
reognize the unique value of the wooded area up on the upper corner. It
grades wooded area. One of our biggest concerns was that a
plc ✓c lc ;: ntc: n{_ of this size has consistently tly come back to us looking for
r,),37:7, and a good example of that is Pheasant Hills. Pheasant
l tJ development of approximately 1 ?•0 house , if I remember
� l rec tly . They demanded quite strongly a bal lfield, a play area, soccer
fields and hockey rinks and tennis courts. Our concern was that if this
' development were to go in without an active play area, that we would be
faced with an irrate developed neighborhood demanding space that we could
no longer provide them. I was also encouraged to see that the alternate
' plan that Todd drew up for us would accommodate the wetland that's on the
property and son of the forested area so I guess I feel, and I think our
Commission felt that a good compromise was preserve both the forest area
and part of the wetland and provide adequate active play spaces.
i Dave Koubsky: Chairman, Commissioners. Dave Koubsky, Park and Rec
Commission. Like Jim had indicated, we had wrestled with this issue of
' preservation of a nice wetland or a creek area and a lot of green space
versus a more open area where we could provide more active amenities for
softball, baseball, open field areas. Todd had indicated in his memo, and
I think he highlighted some good points, that this area is in a park
II -
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
April 1, 1992 Page 4
deficient area. It's a development going into the new MUSA area that we
don't have a lot of amenities that we're requesting out of this
development. This was a large tract development. Currently there's no
park systems within the radius required to service this neighborhood.
Sunset Ridge would the closest one. They have a proposed hockey rink and
proposed ballfield and some open space. That's on the other side of
. Audubon. For people to access that park their kids would have to cross th
streets. There's another development proposed south of this that would be
in the same scenario. They're on the west side of Audubon so to go to a
park that could provide them open space and those types of amenities, they
would have to cross a road. So we did wrestle with it [.Jr` cult that a
flat land, bigger area, something we could provide 140 hou ies in Li); o
additional houses to the south, Timberwood to the north with some sort of
open space, ballfield place to play. Again we wrestled with this for a
long time. We did reach an unanimous decision to go this route and I guess
we're just here to support our decision.
Batzli: Thanks Dave. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to
come and voice their concerns, pro or con to this matter. I'd like to
invite you to do so right now. I'd like to ask that you step up to the
podium and give your name and address before you start your remarks though.
Mary Harrington: My name is Mary Harrington. I live in Timberwood and I''
pleased that we are getting some residential houses. Not too pleased abou
the lot sizes but pleased for some residential houses. My concern would
fall i the line of the preservation of the trees, the wetlands and also 1
was wondering about the intelligence of renaming maybe Timberwood down
there to some other street. Having Timberwood pop out on CR 117 labeled
Timberwood in two places I know can cause nothing but utter confusion to
people. The other thing that I would question is whether Timberwood, in
it's existing state could be left as a cul-de-sac and turn their road into
a cul-de-sac also dead ending there where tHey do not join or meet and
leaving, instead of Stonewood cul -de - -sac i ng that, have that be a second
e '- it for that particular" subdivision. Right mow Timberwood Dr ivy' ha a lo
of occu' = nt_r. on it doing 40 and 45 mph down Timber wood and I could see it
turning into raceway if it was going through. That would be a concern o
b_eicall; my major concern between the wetland' ,1. That that be , the trees
be kept and somebody addressed the issue of Timberwood as stated, fol the
road renaming and also for the raceway that it would start to create. I am
overjoyed to see the houses.
Bonnie Markowski: My name is Bonnie Markowski. Currently I live at 510
Timberland Drive in Burnsville but my husband and I currently own the lot
that's at 2051 Renaissance. It is directly north of the proposed
subdivision. It's within the Timberwood Estates. We're planning to move
there this summer hopefully. I have to agree with Mary Harrington about
all of her points. I do not like to see Timberwood Drive go through. I
could see that remain as a cul - de - sac and the opposite end, the Stone Cree
subdivision also be a cul -de -sac. I'm concerned about the traffic flow as
she is. I'm also concerned about the mature treed area that's on the east
of the development. I think it's a very, I really think we should try to
maintain that area as much as possible and perhaps if possible leave that
as agricultural or perhaps like Timberwood Estates have the lot sizes ther
as 2 1/2 acres or greater in order to keep trees. I also am concerned
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 5
IF
that the wetlands be protected in the area too.
Jeff Heinz: Jeff Heinz. I'm at 2071 Timberwood. I'm on the west side,
one of the houses that borders where the park was planned to be, or just
north of where that was planned to be. I have a couple of problems. One,
that is a beautiful area back in there with the creek running through it
' and to get rid of that and not preserve that I think would be a shame.
Secondly is the fact that the road, just like other people have said,
coming through there. These are all large lots. Our lot, our home is on a
hill. There's a significant drop on the hill. Small kids going down that
hill on hikes, I mean right now it's a very low traffic area and the cars
that do come back there, they do not go 30 mph. I mean it's just not an
area where there's a lot of turn offs and not a lot of incentive for people
' to drive back there slowly and I have a real problem with that going all
the way through. Thanks.
' Colleen Dockendorf: Colleen Dockendorf. I live on Oakwood Ridge which is
in Tjmbel wood Estates. I can only reiterate the concerns that my neighbors
have stated. Particularly I guess the one thing I do want to get across is
I moved to Chanhassen, moved to a small town. I didn't want to move to a
pseudo Eden Prairie and I'm concerned about the density of homes.
Batzli: ;anyone else like to speak at this time? Okay.
Jerry Markowski: Jerry Markowski. I'm also in Timberwood Estates and I
didn't_ hear anyone talk about the ability or the impact on the services to
1
the area l i k e police and fire department and how that would be serviced.
_yl.so if people have talked about the additional students that would be
corning into our school system, whether our school system could handle that
influx of people and would there be any tax increases that would be
necessar, to service that area? I didn't hear that being discussed as part
of this hearing and I feel it should be. I also feel it should be taken
into , o n•- idf_rz,tion before the rezoning would be made final.
B ;tzl.l: nka, , thank you for your comments.
1 .tan r:ud Ni M> name is Stan Rud from 2030 Renaissance Court in Timberwood. I
is h a% r , e , • el : 1 concerns I'd like the Planning Commission to consider
before they make a decision on this. One of them is that with
ac r 143 new lots down there, that calculates out to be something
'
ovel 280 cars 01 300 cars and as several other people have mentioned, that
could make a pretty good sized increase in traffic on Timberwood Drive. It
also calculates out to he probably 200 or 300 children in that area. About
' over 20 of the lots hack up right against the railroad tracks. That's sort
of a dangerous area to have the houses right up against the railroad tracks
in their backyards. I'd propose having one of the roads run more like a
' service road right along the railroad tracks and not have the backyards
backed up against the tracks. It could be potentially dangerous too if
there's any derailments or any cars going off or spills right on the
railroad tracks right on somebody's backyard so it might be good to have a
' buffer against the railroad tracks. It might be possible to extend the
service road all the way from CR 18 over to Lyman More like a
service road all along the railroad tracks. Another concern is the impact
of 141 lots in that fairly lowland area there. Fertilizing and draining
into the wetlands and stuff like that and a lot of those lots, if you walk
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
April 1, 1992 - Page 6
around them in the summer after a heavy rain, it's very wet and some of th
puddle up and stuff so I don't know if some of those lots, if they're
buildable or not. You probably have to do something as far as the drainagli
goes. Also by looking at that drawing that Kate put up, the one that
shows where the trees are cut around all the roads. It looks to me like
that's about a 200 foot wide swath, maybe 1,600 feet long for each road an
that calculates out to be something in the neighborhood or 15 or 20 acres
of cutting down trees so that's a significant impact. The roads and the
front yards and all those houses in the woodland. It's not just a minor
thing. It's probably cutting down 50% of all trees in that area. On
another related, totally unrelated thing. In Timberwood we have a lot of II
covenants that were put in place and I don't know what's expected in this
new development as far as storing boats in front yards and putting up shed
and TV antennaes on the roof and stuff like that. I just want to make sur
we don't change the whole character of the neighborhood if we don't
consider those things too. Thank you.
Dave Maenke: My name is Dave Maenke and I live at 2041 Timberwood Drive. II
First of all I'd like to say that I'm real pleased to see that this is
residential as opposed to all of the industrial or commercial that was on
the comprehensive plan. I do like the alternate park site as opposed to
the park site up along the wetland. One thing I would like to suggest is
the Forest Road and Forest Trail and what is now drawn on this map an>way
as Timberwood Drive. I wonder if that couldn't be drawn as kind _of a loop
and not connected to Timberwood Dri.ve...everybody else has made as far as
amou.ni of traffic and the confusion on Galpin having two Timberwood Drives.
That might be one solution . I know you need t get access...
II
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Tapir ': hn: I'm also a homeowner on Timberwood_ The house under 1
construction. I wart to point out that the amount of trees in that whole
area are :i great asset to everyone and the passibility of a compromise the
northeast portion of this development C r kept -- P �.pnren� �f �ui�. �e r�.�: at a largFr lot size
with minimal removal of tl ees . I also favor what other people have Said 1
the option of not allowing Timberwood to go _i &fi on through but to make
ho1_h t` • south and the north end of the die be a cul -de -sac so that it ca
be passable f_'r the using of park al eas but not passable by car traffic.
I'm gl d that the development is homes rather than commercial so but I am
concerned about lot size and the density. The way this was drawn up,
I there's an awful lot of homes with only 2 entrances, the road entrances
into the area. It would seem to me to make more sense to not make the
Stone Creek a cul -de -sac but let it go all the way through the highway.
Thanks. 1
Batzli: Could we have your name for the record sir?
Tahir Kahn: Tahir Kahn and I have a house under construction on 2040 1
Timberwood.
Batzli: Thank you. 1
Brian Klingelhutz: Hi. I'm Brian Klingelhutz and I live on 2031
Timberwood. I feel for all the neighbors here. That they all have 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 7
concerns about what's going to happen next door but I sell real estate as a
living and I've been in all of Hans Hagen developments and as a developer
we couldn't ask for a guy that I've seen do a better job with all of his
developments and how they turn out so I'm just real happy that it's Hans
Hagen that's trying to develop this piece of property. Thanks.
Farmakes: Excuse me. Where did you say you lived?
Brian Klingelhutz: 2031. Right along...
Dennis Rollins: My name is Dennis Rollins and I live at 2081 Timberwood
Drive. My concern is the same as a lot of other people. The traffic on
' Tirnberwood. The residents of Timberwood, that is our neighborhood street.
If our kids want to ride bikes or go for a walk, that's their only choice
and I think we would like the Council to consider alternatives or certainly
' lock at a number of options before making a decision regarding the new
development. Take into account the residents in Tirnberwood Estates and do
whatever is possible to minimize the effects on the traffic on that street.
Bit_ - zi.i: Thank you.
dim Doc kendorf : I'm Jim Dockendorf. I live at 2061 Oakwood Ridge and I
'
also share the concerns about the high amount of traffic that would be
:SeneF ated on Timberwood Drive. Something I guess if the residents of
T Timbelwood had their way we'd have no development going in all around us
but realize that the people own land want to made a buck and want to
I deve loper that might
G',J�?l � ,_ tf F =..= land sites. I have �a ;SU <;FP'Stlf�l'I to the f t'
k, _ c_; (5:'. idea but since the lots on the eastern side of Tirnberwood are
gc.tnj to be higher buck houses anyway, to have two somewhat separate
'
developments similar to the Joe Miller development where you have higher
homes on the eastern side . Keep the developments separate . Have
1, e , lot sizes so you could still have yr,.ur access from Timberwood Drive
to 1_ h<.:_ p l t of the development and the other part of the development on
F ie could be accessed frcAl Gaipin. So I just think if they put
.. _ r'm'il': in thcr?:, the 1 r _ f J_ . 'JTl Titnb n wood's going to be
and 1 thilnk c holm: ValL?CS will Suffer quite a bit and I don't
t i is „1. ? what the people y who (n��ve I) thi pars: of Chanhassen really
�, - t i -.-' t , ce when t hey moved into Tin!1_ e; woc 1.
' Ma) k Fester: My name is Mark Foster and I live at 8028 Acorn Lane in
Timberwood. I just have the same concerns that my neighbors have expressed
and that is I don't like to see the connection of Timberwood going through
there. I think the traffic flow would be detrimental to our neighborhood.
Robert Lawson: My name is Robert Lawson. I live at 2041 Renaissance
Court. We are in the, what would be the northeast end of this development.
I guess our primary concern is the saving of wetlands. Some have deemed
them as swamps. We consider them wetlands. We find that they are very
important for any biodiversity in the area. We have a large number of
woodpeckers, owls, deer, fox, pheasant, all in that area that thrive in
that woods. The lot sizes, I think the density is way too great for this
area. I know that I'll be looking out my back window at approximately 4
1/2 or 5 houses directly adjoining to our lot. I would like to see larger
lot sizes or some sort of buffer between Timberwood and the Stone Creek
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 8
Addition' Also one thing that I have noticed on Katie's diagram of the
wetlands. If you could put those up again. To the east of that large
wetland that she has pictured where that proposed park is, there is also
,
much larger wetland that that same creek runs through. I do not believe ~~
that those lots are probably buildable.
•
Aanenson: '''marginal lots in the report. 0�
Batzli: Can you point to which ones you're talking about Kate? Okay.
Robert Lawson: There is a larger wetland to the east of that on the other
of Tlmberwood'
Aanenson: We walked the site. It's not a wetland on the, Fish and m�
Wildlife or the inventory that we used. We walked the site. Based on the
topography, it's holding water at certain times of the year but it's not
wetland. 0�
Robert Lawson: I would invite you to come out there now and take another
walk. N�
Aanenon: I've walked it twice within the lest 2 weeks.
Robert Lawson: Now that a lot of the snow is gone and you can actually sell
where the water is in that area where the creek does run through there.
The creek does run approximately 45 feet into the development area It is
buffered by the trees that they ha a�ved right now. I worry a little bi
the setbacks from the road and how far and how close into that treed
area and into that creek area it goes. Also we are very concerned about
the t)affic that will be coming down Timberwood. I�'� a very large N�
�
dsve]''pm*nt with a lot of homes with a lot of cars. That will be a lot of
tripE. I think you all know about the problems with the intersection of
TH End CR 117. We have had school bus accidents up in that intersection
Last F,ll there was a women killed up on TH 5 and CB 117. This ivaL is n^��
de`�yr'-d fo) the amount of Lrufflc that this road will be carrying out of
thi H
for >our comm�nta . Paul or, what is the plans for TH �~~
aL CP ]17:' Can you refresh our memoli*s there?
Krauss: Right now the current improvement plans for TH 5 end at the west N�
side of downtown Chanhassen. We've been working with MnDot for many years
to get the rest of it, the rest of it being out to TH 41 scheduled and
built. A lot of progress has been made with that. It's now in the MnDot N�
year plan. In fact we have held regular meetings over the last 2 months
with MnDot's engineer on designing that segment of road. It's scheduled
now for construction in 1996. From time to time as well before then we've
asked that safety improvements be made. In fact at the present time, this
summer they're making safety improvements out at TH 41. At Audubon we're
looking to put in a temporary signal to service the development that's
occurring there. If the same kind of need develops on Galpin, we would N�
respond in the same way. '
Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Commission at this N�
��
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 9
time?
Bruce Senske: My name is Bruce Senske. I'm an Eden Prairie resident. I'm
presently negotiating on purchasing a lot at Timberwood Estates and the
density factor of the new development proposed has an effect on my
decision. The fact that Timberwood Drive would go through into that
' heavily density area would also affect my decision. That's all I have to
say.
' Roger Schmidt: Roger Schmidt, 8301 Galpin Blvd.. Somebody, probably the
first one from outside of Timberwood Estates. I guess many of their
concerns are some of mine too. I've lived in that area for many years and
walked those woods many times back there and I guess I'm a little bit
' concerned about what it might do to the wildlife. I think too that the lot
sizes are a little bit too small for, you know it's too much of a
development for that area and I also think that the concern about the
traffic problems on CR 117 so I would like to, I didn't get here early
enough for the first part of the presentation so I don't know everything
about it but just the lot size and the traffic and the wetland area is what
I'm concerned about. Thank you.
Resident: Juet one more question. What is the future �_?
ure for Galpin Road?
'THE I eee it, these many homes, even if Timberwood goes through, so
1 rr'n 1
�-emes [—e3veget to require a lot better roadwa into this What is the
future for CR 117?
( sneneen: It Supposed to be 100 foot right - -c f -way. He'11 be required to
I
deli . . additiore31 17 feet along his Jgment of that street and improve
11
If I could add to that This was looked at with the Eastern
1. -i) I_ eunt," Transportation Study done a few years ago which anticipated
what the flow of traffic. . ..devt lopm nt c.f not only Chanhassen but also
1.,j: :oni: , Victoria and ii11 . . .Carver County, Galpin is supposed te.
r ernalr; a 2 lane road. d. Undoubtedly at. SDME pc'int in the future it's Going
' f ., t " lrripro . Some ;f the -i'jht distances aren't very good. The
ren't_ =at anr3 the int_rse_ticn ef TH _ le certainly nothing tO
. But it's einl_1cipJ _d that it will rein -i11 a 2 lane
1 Tc:i d: nt : What., is the nearest experience the City of Chanhassen has with a
development this size in a neighboring area? Is there an example that you
can al, e?
Aanenson: Lake Susan Hills.
Resident: Okay, about the same number of homes?
Aanenson: Probably more.
' Krauss: Lundgren's is I think 300 homes up in the northeast corner of the
city. Pheasant Hills is approximately 140. The same.
Batzli: Anyone else like to address the commission? Can I have a motion
to close the public hearing?
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 10
1
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1
Batzli: Joan, we're going to start at your end.
Ahrens: The density...by a lot of people that the wetlands are not being 1
protected properly. Do you want to speak to that?
Aanenson: Yeah. There's a couple of issues I'd like to speak on. What w c�
have done is we've gone kind of beyond what we normally do with the
wetlands. Normally what we've just said is the 75 foot setback and we've
allowed people in the past to go up and mow right up to the edge. What
we're doing under this is they already fall into a conservation easement
that we've established so now we've given a buffer protection to try to
reduce the amount of sediment or fertilizer, whatever that would go into
it. We also have the setback in addition so we feel like we've gone beyon
what we normally do in protecting those wetlands. And even the one, the
small one on Lot 5 in that Elo 5 is very, veri marginal. I mean it's
2,000 square feet. We're still_, because it's a forested wetland, are
preserving it with a buffer strip.
Ahrens: With the buffer behind that Lot 5, is that a buildable lot?
,Aanenson: No. We raised that as an issue. It may not be buildable. Yep.
. Ahrens: In seems iH going thI cu jh /our staff report that there were a lot
of unbuildahle lots...
Aanenson: Well we figured that they just need to be redrawn. There's
enou tl"s lets are oversized enough that it 's just a matter of sitting
d_,wr and caiefully redrawing a few of those. what the; were is•on the
7 :; "•1C. ..urve > :u have to have a 90 fool_ flontge when you're on the inside
of the curve artd Soule of those didn't meet it. There's only one that was
Undr ized 37, ;gar as 15,000.
Ahr il_ Those lota in Block 5, tl'iost . r _ all bui ldabl€ . . . ? 1
A 3rle n_on: Ye They've got what" we' . _ ehowr is 90 foot:.. As I explained
before, it'd be a 20 foot setback. F-. 40 foot home depth and 30 foot behinc
th9t so if someone wanted to put a patio or a deck or a swingset, whatever
and then the rest of it we want to preserve that so they couldn't use that
Ahrens: How do you monitor that?
Aanenson: Well what we're going to do is require home placement plans and
put in the chain of title, a legal description describing exactly what to
draw and each lot would have a legal description saying this would be the
conservation easement so when someone carne in with a home placement plan,
we would check those and see to make sure that there's no homes. What
we're hoping too when they come in with the home placement plan, that some
of the trees, even though we haven't shown them, some of the trees along
the side, depending on how they dig out the'foundation can be preserved.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 11
11 But at a minimum we want all the trees in the rear to be preserved.
Batzli: Who does the easement run in favor of?
' Aanenson: You mean the homeowner or the City?
' Batzli: The City?
Aanenson: Oh yeah. I misunderstood the question.
' Batzli: So it's up to the city to enforce it?
Aanenson: Correct. It would be on, recorded so when you buy the property
' you realize that you couldn't put a swimming pool back there or that sort
of thing.
Ahrens: How many people...backyards?
' Aanenson: What we did with the Lundgren subdivision, we talked about
putting in the pins. Maybe you need something visible like that so people
realize that's the area that you can't go beyond or something like that.
Kraus: Are you asking is there a penalty if you?
Ahrens: I'm not as king about a penalty. It's just that it happens over
and over again_. .do that kind of thing. I mean they have wetlands in their
_sck _, H_ and the pull up the vegetation because they're not satisfied
with the size of the backyard.
Kl auss: Well in a number of those instance.: they've been made to
. _- t, the wetlands at some cost.
Ahren = Om- of them have.
le"r au`_` . le(3h. And some of the problems that We've had are traced mole to
t rig and knowledge an7 hn;T'eful ly over the years we've
gotten a little better al putting people on notice and better
rl
de 1] I f, 1 tho- , :,areas art'
t;i11 iii._ I guess ni> point 1s people buy houses even with an easement , they
dolt's: uridei stared what an easement is And unless you're going to hav' . . .
where people are told in...and of course that would only deal with the
f i r st time home buyer's and then there would be... It's a real tough issue
and I don't kne how to monitor that.
' Aanenson: Well we're hoping too that the developer will market those as
forest and wooded lots, premiere lots and that's what you're kind of buying
' into that amenity.
Ahrens: Well...the park issue. It sounds to me like a lot of people are
presenting this as an either or situation. Either you have the ultimate
park site and if you have the ultimate park site and give up the wooded
stream area where that's going to be built upon. ...why can't the city
build a little walkway through that by the creek and then maintain that as
a little park area plus have the ultimate concept?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 12
1
Aanenson: As far as dedication we would require from him based on the
number of lots, it'd be like 5., I can't remember the exact number. It wa
like 5.6 acres is what he would be required to dedicate in land so anythin
beyond that I guess the City would have to purchase which I guess would be
an option. ,
Ahrens: That's not buildable anyway right?
Aanenson: Well it could be. We've platted it out how we've got a
cul -de -sac going up in that area. It will be tough but we've shown how it
could be lotted out so yeah it could be.
Ahrens: But my impression...
Aanenson: It would be but it could be.
Hempel: It would take some site preparation. They would not be
encroaching the stream bed. That would still be preserved and I would
envision that we'd also have a conservation easement along the entire
stream bed through there. In fact it's similar to what we did down in
Shadowrnere.
Ahrens: So this area would be la i
p ttec. as part of the lots that end in a
- cul-de-sac or would it be an outlot?
Aanenson: No, it would be lotted and sold off individual lots, yeah. We
didn't show 1 he lots goirr;J all the WdY to the stream bed you know. I mean
technically they go all the way to the edge of the property but you
couldn't build. Whoever owns those lots would have to maintain the setbac
from the stream bed but yes, it could become private property.
Hempel: I w - - . s just going to point out, the buildable area is up on top
ne..t to the c!_!1-de-sac. It drop off down to a ravine. Heavily wooded an
th-='n the 1 _i \'i li%_ goes back up the other si,d(: . But they couldn't put a
d: i :ew,a- ._ - . o the stream bed and ac> forth.
Ahrens I; this part. of Bluff Creek?
Hempel.: It's a tributary of the Sluff Creek.
Ahrens: The City isn't...?
Krauss: No. Well yes we are. What you're referring to Commissioner
Ahrens is the Bluff Creek corridor itself that's designated on the land use
plan as a recreational corridor where we're going to use dedication of
purchase to require. This is not the main channel of Bluff Creek. That's'
down the hill in the valley.
Ahrens: We've not interested in protecting tributaries? 1
Krauss: We don't have the ability to. I mean State law allows you to take
a dedication of a certain amount of land. It's a question of where are yo
going to take it? Beyond that you can acquire it but you're going to have
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 13
to buy it. Now we're not saying the creek's going to disappear. Those
trees in the creek will all vanish but a significant portion of that area
' will be occupied by homes and all the rest of it's going to be their
backyard.
11 Ahrens: But the City could preserve...
Krauss: You could preserve it. You couldn't get access to it, yes. You
' can preserve a portion of it._
Ahrens: Is there anyway to make that, the ultimate park plan smaller and
still maintain a park there and that area? The creek area. ?'
' Krauss: I honestly don't know the answer to that. I think, and maybe the
Park board members here tonight can explore that a little bit but there's a
' minimum size to accommodate the kinds of facilities that are being desired.
The ballfield, tennis court, hard surface area and I'm not sure how small
an area you can fit all that into.
' Ahrens: It just seems to me that if you're trying to balance two balls in
the air here and maybe the Park Commission can give up the tennis court and
make it a smaller park and still maintain the creek area as a park... I
1 mean you're interested in preserving...provide enough space for a ball
park. I don't think all communities need tennis courts. We don't have
an> -... where 11ive. It may be possible to have both is my guess.
' i%i our : If I could also editorialize this just a little bit. We don't
i...sues or take exception to Park Board recommendations.
Typie311/ we do everything within our power to bring them to be. This one
' we horeEt.l,' had a difference of opinion and we wanted to little
p o air it a little
bit and di_•cuss it. Kaf. ' and I w_v: walking this site Monday I think, a.ni
we f_)und that there, while it all looks wooded on the aerial photograph, a
i'._ t e f the trees _r in the southern bluff area are actually pretty poor
q_'al it'. and .ou can actually probably fit in a significant number of
F.Thties , t hest area , keepi rig the creek and the lest of the bluff area
j do IT:_�.ch � tat laic allows u
1 �. S e J ' o do and t h e n w e ' l l do
s ni ni_•i lni' 1 th- 'de v e 1c'> p t ; r" cr l' roll are limits to haw much
we can tar.
' A:hre.n_: I could tell that by reading...that you didn't like this
develoement as a straight subdivision. You wanted it as a PUD.
I F,c; n:_ ns, 11 We tried .
Ahrens: Would lot size and number of lots, would number of lots be
affected by doing this as a PUD?
Krauss: Well, the developer originally brought in a concept, and I think
I showed that to you at a meeting a month or two ago. Two concepts. One
' was a PUD that had 20,000 square foot plus lots in the trees with 10,000
square foot lots out in the cornfield. The other.was a straight plat. It
was a wash basically in the number of lots that you were going to get out
' of it. It was just a matter of where you were going to put them. That
seemed to offer some advantages.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 14
1
Batzli: In what way? Trees?
Krauss: You were able to do much less grading. The streets were further
' apart in the treed area. I've never been a particularly strong proponent
of buffering less densely developed residential areas but it did offer the
potential of kind of a staging effect and density from Timberwood. Existil
Timberwood on down. Plus it just seemed to make a whole lot of sense als
.from the developer's standpoint in the ability to offer two distinct values
of lots with the more attractive hornesites which market a bigger'dollar 1
figure up in the trees.
Ahrens: But that's going to be accomplished anyway. I mean it's going to
be more...• 1
Krauss: No doubt. I still feel that had we had the flexibility of the
PUD, we could do a better job than we can do under these circumstances. 1
Batzli: It seems to be without a complete ordinance on the book you have a
lot of flexibility with the PUD,
•
II
Kraus: That's true but I couldn't in good conscience ask a developer 10
spend 3 good bit of money preparing plans under the expectation that . PLJP
could co through giver) our recent discussions. 1
Ahrens: I don't have an/ more comments.
Batzli. Thank you Joan. Jeff. 1
Farmakes: I'd like to =tart out by asking a question of the developer, or
the representative of the developer. Dici you do a market study in regards:
to t h i issue o n the p r k?
Erie Pud The i __uE of the park? 1
F:ai 11-, _ _ i „ _' . Do you 1' ...I passive x p
- p r1 eel 1erice is just a. l]
s seab].e
r ` r
to your clients as a ; ec =otion type pal k.'
II
Erriio Pud The one that we're pl oposinj
. Far nla kc'_- Yes.
1
Ernie Rud: Yes. We didn't do a market study as far as the park itself
goes. 1
Farmakes: Does your experience lead you to believe that?
Ernie Rud: Yes. In most cases when we have an amenity like that, people II
pay premium dollars to back their lot up to it. To answer Joan's question
here. I did take some pictures of park today and as you can see...staff's
report is that there are some small opera areas there. I'd like to expand
on that park thing a little bit if I could.
Batzli: Sure. 1
1
' Planning Commission ge 15 Meeting
Rpril 1, 1992 - Pa
Ernie Rud: These people in Timberwood are concerned about the traffic
issue on Timberwood Drive and I guess if I lived there I would be too. The
' thing is if we put a park in here that's got a ball diamond and other high
level activities in, it's going to do nothing but drag traffic in there I
think and compound that problem. The other thing is that alternate park
site they showed there constitutes 7 acres. We were required to give 5.6
and anybody knows that a ball diamond takes roughly 3 acres to build so
that leaves you 2 1/2 acres left. Maybe this fits into the woods, maybe it
doesn't. But the park we are proposing to give is 8 acres and that's, what
'
30% more than we're required to give but we would do that. And I just feel
so strong about that park area along the creek there that I just think it's
such a nice passive park for that area. I think if you're going to be
looking for ballfields, they should be put in a complex. Maybe where the
school site is up on TH 5 and CR 117. People take kids to ball diamonds.
You know they're different ages and there's going to be more than one age
bracket playing at that time. Maybe a small little sand lot or something
' but you don't want to put a high level activity park there.
Farmak< My question was really, when you're selling to a customer, is it
' an _amenity of a recreational lot versus a passive lot where you walk
throu h the trees, you go for a walk along the creek?
Ei r,l< _ That depends on buyers. If you've got 2 teenage kid=., you'd
li
11 t - have a ball diamond within a few blocks of you. If you hav_
ids or if you're an empty nestE r , you want a more passive park . I
tar :nk at the trend, people earl -_' n.or.' into walking, jogging and
t_I:.ri__ .: t= t hat.
a
Farmak =mss: Who do you feel you're targct customer is here for this
i.. i l l a L' ._ the a p e group'
' E ni,- r'_!- I can't fairly answ r that que t icn. Hari Hagen will ha \.'f- to
'? 1 i_ t•J t. !l ii L
I'm not into t i n l a l k 1' r. i i ) end of it.
Thank yc
1cy_,t my place whele _ wroLe - .;c•i•n - i your name. Your name wa _•?
' 1 Pii J' Ernie Rud.
' Batzli: Thank you.
Fr:Imat.e =: I have another question I'd like to address in general for the
' residents of Timberwood. I'm looking at the road here and we're looking at
the connection from Timberwood. You're talking about the traffic that it
generates. People are going 45 mph. I'm looking at a schematic of the
road here. It would seem to me any of that traffic's coming out of your
development.
Aanenson: Jeff, can I make a clarification on that? I scaled that off and
' I meant to give you this information but coming out to go north as you
mentioned, it's about 3/4 of a mile. It's significantly shorter just to go
back out through this subdivision. Like a third of a mile. Just the
longest stretch which would be this. The same in here. It's like a third
___
.
'
I
. Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 16
of a mile. To go all the way back up here is 3/4 of a mile so it's
significantly shorter to go back out onto Galpin as opposed to cut through"
That isn't that people aren't going to do it but.
Farmakes: That was the point I was going to make. just from a'''traffio'
. Sometimes they think of it in generic terms. There's going to be more N�
people out here, therefore we're going to get more traffic. That isn't
always how -traffic flows'
Aanenson: Can Z add to that too Jeff. We do have a stub street. 11
Farmakes: There are several business perks to the south. If you've ever
driven to any of them, they get quite busy.
Resident: ..'where 212's coming in, will that be south of that?
Farmakes: That will be significantly south of that, yeah. --
.
' Resident: And when is that scheduled to go through? ..'yeah, I realize
that. The only logical place, is my point is thoy`ie going to go north t��
TH S.
Farmakes: I don't sec whore they would be incurring a lot greater dietan"I
to drive through your area to get out' '
Resident: . . .golnQ north though �f you `re ^golng yeah it's shorter from
. ^ .��
t|`e . . .Timboruoo'j D/ iv* . From the.'-..: w going south, left out to Galpin
i& shorter than gDing LhE othp ua/. If I'm going north, I have to back
^ track to get up to Galpin'
II
Farmakes: I'll 0:, onto the ne`t one. I feel that there's some valid
argumentH. agalnsL what you're s*/lng
II
R+id*nt : . . .we `/e saying is nob''J needs to go north . ' .
F»/ makes' The point I'm Lryin.i t`, mx!'e he-,e is that there are snm3 valid N�
|�
s rgumc ntc against what you ` / e sa; j .:3 ''aa,,d �n this plan. You could have a
p 'i nt Lit T don't think it's a ve/' strong point. I don't think there's
an> ctatictical evidence that shows someone would do that'
II
Batzli: Jeff, I'd like to let Paul address this question.
K/ auas: There's a couple things' I've been doing this for 15 years and II it `s beoomo kind uf a litany for mu . I knnw you `vm hmard it a bunch of
times but if we become a community of cul-de-sacs, which I think is the
preference for a lot of people and I acknowledge that they're attractive �
�
places to live. There's no question. You have a lot of things that °�
result. I heard people tonight question the impact-of development on
taxes. Well, there's ample evidence that says if you have 3/4 mile dead
end streets in both directions you're running snowplows up and back.
II
Garbage trucks run up and back which is a private expense. School buses
can't go through. It adds to their time and expence in servicing areas.
Possibly more importantly is from an emergency access standpoint. II We
always site what happens if a tornado, watermain breaks. You all have
II
. .
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 17
watermains in the area. I know you don't now. Comes and severs your only
access. It happens. It happens all the time. Then the next item that's
' on tonight we have a letter from the Fire Marshall indicating a similar
concern with a situation in another part of the community where they had a
fire call and were on one side of the dead end street. Found the fire was
' on the other side and they couldn't get there. It turned out to be a false
alarm but they got very frustrated by the fact that they would have had to
driven out and around a distance of a mile or mile and a half to get to the
fire. So there's a large number of reasons for making reasonable
connections where you're not going to run inordinate amounts of traffic
through. And we're very sensitive to that. On top of that is the fact
that there is a potential, and we're designing this project for this for a
road connection to run out to the northeast. I don't know if you recall,
we don't have an area map here but there is an area guided for residential
use that's between Timberwood and Buff Creek. We're looking at an east/
' west collector street north of Timberwood. We've got some sketches that
show the connection leaving from there, spreading up to serve those homes
that might be east of Timberwood and connecting with that collector. If
anything's going to be absorbing a lot of traffic. for the predominant trip
' i.rito town, which is to the northeast, that's going to be it. There's
re=ally going to be little or no reason to turn around and go backwards and
a longer way out to north through Timberwood.
_' Batzli: Thank you. Jeff.
' Far makes: He stole everything I was going to say now.
K1uuss Sorry.
F._lrm.tes: Let's see. The next issue I wanted to address here, getting
ba(.!k to the Pil , that we had talked about. Was there any calculation of the
diffe1ence in tree loss? I'm just curious because that was an additional
thing that we had discussed earlier in regards to the positive issues of
' the PIO and I was wondering in this area, since it is heavily forested, or
lea -.t -3 p )r ti Jn of it Lt_ , did 'you do any calculation of the benef 1. r?
t 1 -i ur:_ : No, Commissioner Farma kes we GJ do t because we would have to have
a v r well defined alternative plan to do it. I might add too that was
also one of out' concerns relative to the park. We fully expect the
' developer to get his due. I mean they're going to get the number of lots
that they can get out of this thing consistent with our ordinance and
that's what you would expect a business person to do. If we're taking 5
acres of the prime flat ground, which right now have a lot of lots on them,
the developer is going to shift things around to get those lots elsewhere
which means again we're squeezing those trees. I can't give you specific
numbers in either scenario but it seems to be very, very likely that that's
going to occur.
Farrnakes: The next question I had in regards to some comments made about
1 the residential development along the railroad tracks. Would you respond
to that at all?
Aanenson: There is a conservation easement abutting that. We showed all
- those homes along the track would have at least 100 foot conservation...
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 18
along the rear of those lots so the homes would be, I think the average
depth of those was almost 200 feet.
Farmakes: Is there any statistical evidence for the safety commission or il
anything that shows that that is a, I know it's not a heavily used rail
run. Well, there aren't 4 or 5 trains going through a day I don't believ1
Residents: Yes...and they're going 60 mph.
Krauss: That's the one that comes right through downtown. ,
Farmakes: Yes I know but that rail line I was told, at least since I've
lived here is not, there's a significant amount of traffic going by on a
daily basis.
Resident: Every night it wakes you up.
Krauss: The ownership of the thing has changed more than a number of
times. I think now it's owned by one of the short line companies that's
come along. ...along that track there's also a height differential. It's
very difficult, ill fact it's almo=st impossible to walk up to the tracks
along most of those rear lot. lines because of the grade change. We've
walked it several times and when you get up towards Lyman and Galpin, it's
more at grade and that's easier. But I don't know how to answer
except for the fact that it's not owned by the railroad. It's legitimately
platted and got extensive trees between the home, and the railroad.
Farmakes: Getting back to the issue of useage. I used to work on the
railroad and a heavily used rail line, this is not it. If it wakes you up
in the middle of the night, it ' _; heavily used I guess but I don't think
it's classified a- a heavily us.,ai Tail line. The last comment I want to
make in regards to the park. 1 dealt with this before and I would be
i elunct.ant to disagree with the Pal 4 Commission but in this case I. went to
the property and I looked at it =rid there are very few areas like that that
rn3ke for a passive park experience. That are situated I think with that
potential in Cnanhase.en. I know that it I was in that development I would
prefer that even though I have kids. I would prefer that to a ballfield
because there are other places that have ballfields. There are other
areas, property that are probably more useable as a ballfield. I don't
disagree with what you're saying. I just am not sure that given the choir
between one or the other, that perhaps another development in that area
would be better used with an open area and an area without forest used as a
ballfield. I would support staff in their recommendation.
Batzli: Thanks Jeff. Steve.
Emmings: If there's no potential for sewer being out there before fall,
and if this builder wants to get going and put up houses for the Parade of
Homes, it sounds like there's going to be houses built before there's sewer
out there or not? '
Aanenson: I'll let Dave comment on that.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 19
1
Hempel: It's going to be, depending on what the Council's decision is on
the 13th, it could be built in conjunction with this project. In fact the
developer, as a part of this would actually be building a portion or a
phase of the trunk utilities.
Emmings: I guess my only question is this. Are we going to let someone
start building houses out there before there's actually sewer there?
II Hempel: He actually would not be able,to build a house until the utilities
have been tested and accepted by the City.
Emmings: Okay. That's what.
Hempel: Except for, let me clarify. Except for maybe a model home on the
corner of Galpin Blvd. but there would be no utility hook-up of cor„
' Batzli: Would they have sanitary sewer? A holding tank? What then?
Hempel: Well it would just be a model home. It would not Be occupied.
Similar to what Joe Miller has dome or Lundgren': has done in the past.
Just so we have the capability of getting a fire truck to it if there is a
' fire emergency. A worker fell off the roof OY something like that. The
lot war abutting a hard surface drive, we would allow a permit for a house
prior to the utilities being accepted. However, we would not allow the
house to be occupied or hooked up to those utilities until they were
' accepted.
Enrmin Okay. As far as the, I think traffic is a real serious concern
' but I would hook Timberwood together - . We've been doing that, it's been ouY
policy. I think it's a good policy to hook these new neighborhoods
together as the come in wherever we're able. I remember that we tried to
make f'1 ovi si ons to hook some of the Lill-de-saes that go to the east of
1 TimLerr-.,-,, Ttied Ti to make provisions to be able to hook Timberwood to the
land to the east at the time that WE were looking at Timberwood. In fact
_:orri of us had thought we had done that and it turned out we didn't. But
it certainly was, our intention to d:_ it. I think we actually screwed up
' but I think it should definitelr be h inked up to the south. And that
doesn't_ mean the traffic isn't a problem. I think it's a big problem. We
' had the same problem in fact on other areas in other parts of the * cite / . On
Frontier Trail I think haven't we? Or some of the other streets that g0'
through where you wind up with a lot of people going fast but I think it's
a real legitimate concern but I don't think that would stop them from
' supporting the staff's position that it should be hooked up. As far as the
park is concerned. I'm always uncomfortable commenting on the work of
another commission just because they look at it in more detail than we do
I and they consider different factors than we do. It seems to me that the
desire to have a passive park and a desire to have an active park really
are two different things. One is you're trying to preserve something
that's very, very nice. But it also seems to me that when you pack in this
' many folks on a piece of ground like this, it's real important to have an
active play area. My only concern with the alternative park site is that
it's not really suitable to get enough activity on it. I don't know what
it looks like but I hope they're able to get enough things so they can
really be used by the people who are living in this area. It sounds, I
Planning Commission Meeting
• April 1, 1992 - Page 20
think I support the Park Commission on this because it sounds like the
stream is going to be preserved anyway. I think we're going to wind up
getting both. The trouble will be access to it and I just don't know what
to do about that so I support the alternative park thing. I agree with the
comments that there are too many small lots in here but they all meet. our
ordinance and when someone comes in with a plan that meets our ordinance,
we really don't have any choice. Our subdivision ordinance says you can't
have lots smaller than 15,000 and except for one lot they don't. But it
really comes out along the border with the Lawson property. Mr Lawson .
spoke here. Where he's now backed up to 5 lots. He'll have 5 houses
behind him and we've talked about this issue a number of times. About
having what we've been calling a blending ordinance where when a new
division comes in next to an old one, they can't put so marry lots up
against a larger lot. This again points out the need for that. We've
tried to put one together a number of times and we failed every time. It'
just hard to come up with a general scheme to deal with that problem. But
I think Mr. Lawson's got a legitimate complaint. here. I'm comfortable wit)
the level,of protection for the wetlands. I think that's really a good,
they've really done a good job with that here. On the compliance chart, I'
wonder what arc you suggesting we do with the lots that don't comply?
Krauss: They're going to redraw the plat to make them comply. '
Emmings: Yeah. I don't think there should be, because they're putting in
as many lots as they are, I wouldn't give them an inch I guess. ,
Krauss. No, th war. no gu,; of oiviiig them vai iaiic' s. That wa not
recommended.
Emmings: On paw_ 3 of the report it talked about some questionable lots. .
In Block 4 it w . Lot. S. In __lock 1, Lots 12 and 13. On ?lock 3, Lot 1.
What wi 11 happen on t ho:o.e ^ ;.Nhot_ are yc. _! T ecorilmendi ng:'
ian_-nron: The, have to be i dcaN1; to.
Emmings: Oh okay, those too.
Aannson= That's u p in up 1 :. Biel e .
Emmings: Well, they're all over. '
Aanenson: Yeah that one is in Block 4, yeah. That's a big significant
grade change. That might be a real wet loss.
Emmings: Okay, so is there a condition that deals with those lots?
Aanenson: Yeah, he has to replat them and make...
Emmings: Alright. And then on page 19. Condition number 5. ,
Aanenson: That needs to be changed to 92 -1 and 92 -2.
Emmings: Yeah. Somebody got carried away with the numbers. And then the,
next line under the rezoning. In the opening part it says the Planning
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 21
Commission recommends approval of Rezoning, that should be 92-2. And then
there should be a condition under the Subdivision, a condition 27 I suppose
that the conditions of the Rezoning 92-2 and Wetland Alteration Permit 92-3
— is another condition in compliance with all of the conditions. And Z guess
my feeling is that there's no reason to look at this again. I think we
ought to just move it along to the City Council.
Batzli: Okay, thanks Steve. Matt?
Ledvina: You talked about the accesses to CR 19, two accesses and the
concern is with the traffic. Is it possible to make Timberwood Drive a
cul-de-sac on it's west end there and have Stone Creek Road actually be the
N� outlet there? You'd still have the capability for access out to 19. I
~-
don't know if that would mess up the traffic flow within the subdivision
too much.
~~
Krauss: Just to make it a little more round around?
Ledvina: Right. To make it, to slow down the traffic essentially
Krauss: Well, I think the``lc|ical]y it is. The conc*)n is the s.pacinq
more than an/thing olap bu, thel, are other ways to make it som''what round
about in terms of how you design intersections and where you put stop lgns
- ,
internally. For example we ha�*n"t decided this but it's quite possible
that if you change the orientrAion here and brought that in as a T and put
a stop sign and make it a 3 wa/ stop, that would alan dlscou/aQa peopl',
from going up that way And if Have that option to go out tc, Lho
lt would kind opl ' ' travelinJ thaL wa>
1 L+Jrina: Okay. those conL`,ls are av^lldhle at a 1�1or then?
W.11 ' oJld do | that particular `hange we `ould
or�'�ratt . N 7: think uc |.a:€- +n enyin*e //Q m/cer//
Hempel. Ye Placement of patrolll/'j
.le fo/ Lh)u o�%:ao/enL of tr6ffi . fo/Lh' Jo
w,r/ants u,; f''r [`la:amenL of �iop alJoa ]u�'
1.. at '_hat j//i'.'�Lje/' 1 a"ul./ Find IL hard to su/ it
w�ul� me�t �/r Mayb� [u`d/�. �u�n jn cho �uh�lvj�i w he/a o
Creek intersects TlmbeI wnmd max hc more of an appropriate area where you
--
have a larger number of vehicle |'a:ellng but that's something that we'd
hav= to prepare an engineering study on to Jete/mine wh*le the stop signs
N�
would be appropliate'
Batzli: You're not a big proponent of speed bumps then either I'll bet
you?
Hempel: Snowplow drivers don't like them. They can't see them'
Batzli: Okay. Steve, you wanted to?
Emmings: Yeah, I've got a proposal to make. Why couldn't we have the
alternate park site for active park area and then, let's see. I wonder if
II it shows up on that. There's a little narrow marsh area that goes down
Planning Commission Meeting
II
April 1, 1992 - Page 22
II
here. I take it that's basically...?
Aanenson: Right and... II
Emmings: Okay. Why couldn't there be a little skinny access like that sa
between Lots 11 and 12 and would just be a foot path that would take peopl
back to this area. Go ahead and develop it like this but let people have
access to the stream bed area and still have a nice big active park? It
seems to me that would satisfy both sides of this argument anyway. 1
Krauss: If the developer, out of the goodness of his heart is willing to
do that, that's great. Otherwise we'd be inviting people to trespass on
private property.
Emmings: What would it take to get just a little skinny you know, a 6 or
10 foot wide trail?
Krause: Steve, I think the bigger issue is who's land are they walking
around on when the/ get back there. And if we do invite the public b_a
there, d: we put trails back there and if so, who maintains it?
E m m i r l•J t: 1 1 t -' {. -. _. _ 4 t 1 e developer t: o do it.
c T �t car horse �- - 11
Krauss: I don't want � :i beat a dead horse but again under a PUD l•Je ' d hay-
a 1 ii ; 1e bit more flexibility.
II
f rnmi 3,_ - Yeah. Pe c r. ± cic, a PUP _,_ -_use it clear that the C'
t he i ty Counc,
wo'u>.dn _-3r �F lh 0 0 t q i' G k
_ _�... 1 , -
L'_ _ _ .�_i,a1 _. wit ,. � _ =V y� >J know, talk about bt::it.].', "i'} .1
•
dead horse. That's a waste of time.
II
Kraw '`-'u can cri> maiiJai e i, t;lc• St.a;L= Enabling leic,lation allows ,
You to
Enn inc; `3"= It's 3 -ii' . ,
II
Ahr w: h
Maybe it out of the goodness o his hear 1
E��•tzli : 3 _ 1, E• he'll do � c> t � g �• -,�> f heart. .
Emmings: Maybe he hasn't been hen d . Let's find out.
Krauss: Well you never know. • II
Dave Koubsky: Our intention isn't to keep you here all night but part of
Todd's recommendation to in his letter to Kate was, the Commission hasn't
had_an opportunity as a commission to review the alternate park site. I
think I need to make that clear. We had made our recommendations based on
the proposed park site and we decided that we would prefer an active park
versus a passive park in part because of the number of kids which is
pointed out from a gentleman of Timberwood. 141 lots. Possibly 2`40 kid.
You have a development to th : • ° ' • r h;:_ r 30 1 ' ? ; i u .ill
many 400 or 500 kids. We feel a nice, open field is a safer place to
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 23
pacify play versus a passive area that's away from traffic. There might be
' littering. There might be public safety issues. We prefer something open.
Something big that's safe and can handle a lot of kids. Now we haven't
reviewed this proposed area. Jim and I have had the opportunity to look at
this because we were asked to come and present our views. I just wanted to
' bring that to your attention that we haven't approved this. I'm not saying
we wouldn't approve it but we've made recommendations to staff to allow us
to look at it before your decision goes to the City Council. Thank you.
' Batzli: We really didn't address one concern that Mr. Rud brought up and
that was, he asked something about setback from the conservation easement
' as I recall. Is that?
Aanenson: He wanted an additional 10 foot. What we're looking at is 90.
As I said before, it will be a 20 foot front yard. Then we gave a 40 foot
home depth and then a 30 foot rear yard which would accommodate a deck or a
patio. So whit he wanted to do is add an additional 10 foot so have 100
foot. Our total would be 90. He was saying 100. He wanted maybe a SO
' foot home and 6,!,L k _
Batzli Ec that would take 10 feet further back into the trees,
Aanenson: Fight
B=,tz1 i : O a.y . How comfortable do we feel with the 20 foot setback in the
' fl on1,' Do., that? Is that enough?
ausE : :•J- '1 _ it .
';1lner c _!t I reel good about it. I think the intent is to save
mu. h of t h, t r<•� t, ;iblc . If v t ! th- �0 foot then - - i -' - If go with _ ,� ,_ � � �� f �_ �, , and t � �, -. a 40
foot dept, and y ou -t 1 ] 1 need to dive some people some rear yard to put
' st•,i1.j:et in n a patio. I _'! in by r."J1h ng it forward, we're tr.'irig to
p,r ervF t h
- =- :.t -
,!',part f �'•r he vi :u.-11 effe.�..t of tree lined - .treets in front
:r
tli .; !] !1 1 �:•J�� �Tli - ti e ;�1 �-:t rr commonly _i, ;t�1..e�i t i;� L•Jrl� - .1' �
spac. If You're - c to ; eL: € __te 4 bar--LE- •que, whatever , let the k.i _3'_
pla /, you're ;;�_)111g t.�.. <-i" 1t ).n the TNa1 . it 3omething's got to give
3nstca =] of trees, that -_ to be the best place to do 1t. Also It
internal It's 1
I _ � r��tiy� -1 Y only <,:,toing to look that way inside this project .
Batzli' Kate, on condition 5 which I assume is handling this matter. On
page 20. We say that the/ have a 20 foot front yard variance. I assume
that means you have a 10 foot variance to a 20 foot setback.
Aanenson: Correct.
' Batzli: Whoever makes the motion may want to clarify that.
Aanenson: Okay. Let me just clarify that a little bit further. In the
compliance we went through and those lots that we designated would fall
into this, we specifically identified. In addition there were some that
. had just a small border of trees so we kind of tapered that down so it
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 24
would ive basically that would be along Block with the
g � Y g ock 5 wit e forested. This
area here as it tapers down. What we did is we went to 20 -25 -30 so it jus
kind of made a nice, and we put that in the compliance table so when they
would come in and we did the plot plan check on those lots, we would follo
the compliance table.
Batzli: If I understood what you just said, there's a blending of that irl,
- those lots?
Aanenson: Right. '
Batzli: So that condition 5 isn't entirely accurate?
Aanenson: We may want to reference that back to the compliance table.
You're correct. That probably would make more sense.
Batzli: Okay. Which lots are the ones that are blended there?
Aanen:=•on: On Lot 5 and then there may be some on, I'd have to look back t�
the compliance table, on Block 1 up here. It varies a little. bit.
Batzli c'_ Lot_ 20, Block 5. Okay. AE far as connecting the street goes
I Un"1•Or st n J the resident's concern. T. live In a neighborhood where T
thought I was moving onto a cul-de-sac and it turned out to be a "thru
- street.. The amazing thing is, I was converted when we had our 1'3 inch rain
and t 1 r flont e n t r a n c e to Our development was flooded )o nobody could c dew a r�c_i r. k _ dy r.o..r 1 �, gf•t - '
1n. ,.Y r•i,}t. I d_ '1n d'rstand the need tc connect these things through.
unforn L! ri.f tel kind of learned it the hay d way. My car wouldn't a through
the f1 _, , entrance to the development so I think it has been intended
that we ,linc`t that u: and 1 think as a Planning Cornrri s iur C.:JT policy
has be t :,_ tl':..t:. I think we need to do it for our consistency and
fE t _ -. kE but I understand your concerns. It doer I think
i
promo!-:-'>n r to go a little bit faster on the ro._id: ani:1 ] en ouraga'
you to t,,ke '1 concf -nlnr to the City Council. But I think wc. :_ _
1-y ,t - 1 i'_ ht_ are leaning towards recommend; ng to the
r c i! me i t t 1-dt_ it 1_ c <_,r!n c t. i d. I a 1 _•c would have liked t o have °='_ c r
lift__, l i 1 r ,.:i > SOrn:. 1 7::,: =1 1011 i n t:h ln! i t'�`_�_ i; Ft ..y : f
t hc . As Steve pointed out, they do meet o _
> t ou: 1 din�ince anc.,
deft iz :u it t_ L 1J. them tth-it they have to put in larger" lot:- Espec1 -iii
when th -> 're treed like that. I was hoping that they might do that on
their own. I agree it seems very confusing to me. At least one resident
noted that Timberwood Drive corning out twice on CR 19i117/Galpi rl may LE a
little confusing. Is there a thought process as to wh it can't be called
well what might be called Forest Trail, although that name will be changed'
and having it stop when it intersects Forest Trail back up in the northeast
corner?
Hempel: We have similar street configurations with Lake Susan Hills Drive
off of Powers Blvd.. In situations like that, we can put an address range
on the street sign or Timberwood Drive South or Timberwood Drive North and
kind of give an indication. It is a confusing situation. It could be
resolved also by reconfiguring one of the intersections, as Paul mentioned
and possibly just changing the name.
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 25
Batzli: I guess I think we should look into that. I agree that it's
confusing. Just for my dumb question of the night. Is this road, is the
' official name actually County Road number 19 and not 117?
Aanenson: That's actually Lyman as it comes off.
' Batzli: Yeah, okay.
Aanenson: I think that's how it, it kind of takes that funny intersection
' right there. Originally they had an access on it to that street but
meeting with the County we eliminated that.
' (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Batzli: Wetlands I think, that's nice. I would, as far as the park goes.
I think it's a shame if we can't somehow save the passive park. I would
really like to do that I like Steve's idea. The developer hasn't carne
charging forward and said we'll do it. I was kind of hoping for that but
of c: r_ that hasn't happened. But I guess I would like staff at least
to sir;c that -ire back up in there isn't going to be buildable anyway"
and we basic all end up, there's going to be Some additional iota up
there if they build out the alternative way. I'd like us to at least_
'
explore that with the developer and talk about it. I do like the -,p
space with the ballfiel.ds and things. I live next to a park. I think it's
hi a amenity and I think they're right. There's a lot of kids in this
don't know if the :school's going to go in l_hel "" north of
' Timber i•.00d or not. I don't know if we can count on that so I wo_ I d l i k e to
_ ? i jhhor hoo j p a r k somewhere in this area as w e l l But it sounds like
this needs to go back to the Park and Rec Commission after what we talked
about tuni.jht -7 ' Aye they going to have a meetinj between now and the
C;' u .i 1 if we ooprove thi
Da , o That v.J is Todd's recommendation.
K,au__ T- d; __1d mc this evening that he was 1ookin'. at the po`•r bilit
of i -, - .:.i "' l Board meeting sometime
tea,.__ ill: other _-- sti"rl Two other" questions. rl `c far as erosion
contr..: an :, ! ITiny_ like that_. I didn't see that we had a lot of or .an
erosion .: cr ;trot kind of condit ion thing here, do we? I mean do we normally
put something in there?
Hempel The developer I believe has supplied some erosion control and I
feel the area., we have looked at and we'll recommend additional where
appropriate.
' Batzli: Is that normally done at the grading permit process kind of
thing?
' Hempel: It's normally done with the preliminary plat and also finalization
of the actual construction plans. We'll get detailed construction plans on
where everything's going.
Commission Meeting II Plannin
g
- April 1, 1992 - Page 26
II
Batzli: Okay, so you feel comfortable at that time you can put in the
necessary controls and enforce them? 1
Hempel: That's correct.
Batzli: And Kate, on condition 25. There's a word drainage after the I
period there at the end of a sentence. 22. Is there supposed to be
something else there or is that just, can we cross that word off?
Aanenson: Cross it off. II
Batzli: Okay. And Dave, if I could have you give me the 10 second
synopsis of what's going to happen at this upcoming Council meeting with
the improvement?
I Ipel: Okay. Council, at the last Council meeting tabled for further
1
discussion and review of the pr oposc.' , , 'le; r I`1 .ek trunk sewer and
water facilities out to this area. Some of the concerns was the a=:sessabl
are - ` _ i e i ng included and the scope of the work for the project. B r i n g i n g i
bac on the 13th tc, continue the public. hearing I believe and hopefully
fait _ decision with this project. This project again 1s very contingent
and lelits c Extension of the trunk sewer and water improvements to slake
it in In . We en.ision it with the anticipated development out ho1_ c lung
with other palce1e that expressed a desire to develop. We see it 'Using
--117.r ;- d on the 13th. I
B,,,t _'l . - r'';= p 1 1 or that approval at the City Council, are any of t ,_
r :.e. _nt = or otL. i pe - p1 _ out there going to be affected J ' , the
i m r c vE-rlI r.Y = _ - ss u a -
f r a:_ .e ,ment and things 1 i ke t ha I_
1
HeHeel, i.d _ H.- 7iffiliwood Estai e', neighborhood. T t e -
t That's been exempt n T
omitted f r m the musA area. The remaining parcels, T do h_:'., e .:. neap ehow1 n
t} •3 S , ,eble al e3 that we propose to assess with these improvement=: Tf
„ 7 ' - i l l ; LI t it on the overhead.
:1. j' L 13 at 1,2a �llc'. gentleman h t i
_ had .� cone . rr; that .: ��rll �now t hi .
d e = l - >prre ' ,e - ' - _ n c l te increase t a , e _ o f impact fire, of th I c - l i k e
thet . 1 h 'J n _ yc.0 Line uw that up just for a second. Where are w' ' Or3,
1 the I,,iir< tTac.k I think.
Aanenson: This is Timberwood...
Hempel: T` -,at the old street layout. 1
Aanenson: This is when he originally came in with that PUD.
Krauss: The areas that were exempted from potential assessments have that I
diagonal slash across it. It includes Timberwood and it includes some of
the lots west of Timberwood along Galpin. It includes Sunridge Court and
if you, that goes back to discussions we had with the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Batzli: Okay. I guess the, in kind of addressing the gentleman's concern
we've had a running debate as to whether residential single family is an
' Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 27
impact on the City or not. As far as tax wise. And I don't know that
we've had two different answers. One that says yes and one that says not
really and so I don't know that we can give you an answer other than to say
we have looked at it and we have different conclusions. We don't think
that it would have a large negative impact.
Krauss: This has been a long debate in many communities. It's clear that
commercial /industrial development or multi - family housing which is
commercial, non - homestead, pays a huge amount of taxes in Minnesota. Far
' in excess of what it takes to afford the services. The question was
typically do single fancily homes carry their own weight? You know I always
beg to issue, if you don't build single family homes, where are you going
' to live anyway but there's been evidence on both sides of the issue. Now
Plymouth last year had a very interesting scenario. They had 3 or 4 major
developments pending. I think it was about 1,100 acres of development.
And their City Council was going through a little bit of difficult time but
' Going through sore changeovers but there was a big package of potential
Ei` ,eesntents projects coming down and there was a General concern amongst
rf.sidents outside these areas that they not be burdened with the cost. And
'
what they did is they hired one of the big 10 accounting firms. 1 forget
which ono, i_ do an analysis of it and they developed an 80 page repot t
that wa: reall kind of interesting. I heard it presented in a couple of
.e minar,. It bd h.`].1 concluded that. if you build homes in excess of
¢100,00' 0 0, there no doubt about it You're over the hill. It's
;=-'_ =iti � 0 1'VC never SC' n it done as conolu=,i"/ely as t_ {1•i was.
' �•at li: That -'__ all the comments I had, i_inles th _anlrli�s.ic n has other
r
- - rrl n l ' . ri i s I ' d : G i n a motion.
Emrr,i ngs ^ tIi f ' ` r_;rd the Wetland Alteration Permit, 1 'd move that the
;ii'
C1 irl'y `:I7; J !rllmend
8101 `of WetianJ Alteration Permit V -'i
e _. t report L.
i r; the _ ,�f F •. =p� t wi t � � the modifications in
111;in�: '_+1,2 numb -_r= right-
r: t T : C _ 7 . li i
F .1
Ea tzl_ _ =11 I'd like to discuss b calling on the• gerltl m,.,u
with his hanJ up h1 -re. Do you have a concern about this pat ticulai motion?
Earl .,_'l _ =ek: :I'm Earl Hclasek, I've ct the piece right c ":-t
g � p � across, t i. �; in
the southwe =t cot nor thel e. I'm right across from the development and I
would l i I e to know where all the storm sewer'; going to go? Aril I going to
be taking all of that water from all this blacktop and 141 roofs and
garages and driveways? Am I going to be taking on all that water?
Batzli: The report does address that and I'll let our City Engineer
address your concern. This doesn't really have to do with the wetland
alteration permit but we'll address it now.
• Hempel: Part of the City ordinance for development, the developer':
responsible for ponding on site the storm water and releasing it at the
pre - developed runoff rate. So the water that he is, the excess water that
' '
`
Planning Commission Meeting II
' April 1, 1992 - Page 28
II
will be produced with the impervious surface and rooftops out there will be
stored on site and released at the pre-developed runoff rate. So in a
sense you will not be flooded out downstream. II
Earl Holasek: You do have a creek going right on through that now.
' Hempel: That's correct. II
"
Earl Holasek: Why can't some of that be funneled into that?
Hempel: Ultimately it will be channelized to that area from the smaller --
pond. There will be two different drainageways. One following the pond
along CR 18 and discharges into the existing ditch on the east side of 18
'��
The other portion, or the easterl/ portion of the development will drain
easterly towards Bluff Creek. That's where we're hoping to develop e, redo
a ponding area for the other areas as they also develop. Have one larger
. pond inctpad of 10 small ones. N�
_ Earl Holaso�: Some of these rains you get 4, 5, 6 inches and whem you do
them on thF.t L'lzrktsp and all them roofs, that's lots and lots w�ter.
.
//ew."1: i/: 4 15L - - into oonaids/aLion for a 100 yea, Flood which is a 6 inoh
ct�/m in a �4 hour duration.
II
F3atzli: I would *n`ourage you, if you have a specific concern, to m*"t
eilh o.1 Cit> En„lin:.erinQ group.
II
E,= r ] ;.`l a � � � I w�//L to meet th* next time, in fact .'.l Kl i n8c l hu{z asked
l*i-J time, m`T with the engineers the next time they meet about this
u .�1 F�eei I plan to stay there and I don't are for uai and „,ewe
in m ,:lac^
r/i21i 1 ih ''' H would be best if you addressed yuul :pecl[l� ccerrl
1, t!.' ' it |^F `fto/ Lhi meeting or set up a meeting with i!. y. It
.ro',:/H' 1lL^ ,^', |`:' .-, :=pecific concerns.
' E.`] : : Tt w,� i// L|/ Miout�o of the lat. mo�tinJ. II
Gat: The Pl�onin,g Commission
Krauss' If I could. Mr' Holasek and Mr' Al Klingelhutz testified at the I
last [it/ Council meeting on the assessment project of Bluff Creek. M/.
Hmlasek`s prop*rty is in the assessment area as it's currently drawn. Thr
Council I believe, asked the City E?glneer to meet with Mr' Holasek and N�
several other parties before it gets back to the City Council which is in 2
weeks?
Aanenson: The 13th. ~~
Krauss: So yes. If Charles hasn't called, we can make sure that he doos II ' °
Earl Holasek: Well let me know for sure.
. II Batzli : Okay thank you . Io there any other discussion?
II '
I Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 29
II ' Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -3 with the following
conditions:
11 1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III
erosion control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good
II condition until the disturbed areas are stabilized.
2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance
I table for each lot will be recorded as part of the Development
Contract. The buffer strip may not be less than 10 feet wide. The
buffer strip will be preserved by an easement.
1 3. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least
impact to the wetland and not during breeding season.
1 4. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of
Errgi rleer s .
t ' ' shall meet all conditions Suk liviai rl #92 -1 '
_ 7r applicant �ha t of the. >c c� any_,
P_:z. ni n;j #92 - 2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
E, iii. • C rl 1 have another motion for the l ezoning.
I : Then= T. r'.'_'. that the Planning. Commission r ecomrnend approval oval of Rezoning
ti= for L. :pert/ to RSF.
E7 ;_
II
I Ahrens moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Rezoning #92 -2 property A -2 to RSF with the following
conditions:
II 1. ?H: . {' :,h_ 1 enter into a Development Contr_ct : crltaining = of
thf .onditi. )lls of approval for this project .and shall ':_uh_uni t: =, i i
T e-;,_'il ek: financial guarantees. The Development Contract shall } .bb.
II recorded against the property.
u. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliant€ Table.
II 3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of Subdivision #92 -1 and
Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -3.
II All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: Last, is there a motion on the preliminary plat?
II Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision #92 -1 as shown on the plans dated March 2, 1992 with the
II - conditions that are contained in the staff report with condition number 5
1 •
11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 30
altered to read that variances shall be granted as necessary to all homes
that fall into the tree conservation area. In no event shall the front
yard setback be less than 20 feet. Adding a condition 27 that makes the
approval conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of the Rezoning
#92 -2 and Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -3.
Ahrens: Second.
Batzli: Any discussion? I guess I would like to just make it clear. Go
on the record that I would like staff to discuss some element of a passive
park between now and the City Council meeting. Is there any other
discussion? 1
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that 'the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #92 -1 as shown on the plans dated March 2, 1992 an
subject to the following conditions:
1. t' e e conservation and wetland buffer easement shall be placed on the
plat. All building sites in the tree conservation or wetland buffer
be shown on the building permit.
2. Ti . development shall follow the standards in Subdivision Regulations regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation.
name "Forest" shall not be used for any of the Etreetr..
1. m,11.ad :Mall be dedicated .J _2 acres of r - p { recommended b,
"- r ,r k Commission. s
S. Variances shall be granted as necessary to all homes that fall into th
tree conservation area. In no event shall the front yard setback be
less than 20 feet.
-t - applicant +,=.1 1 coliv to the City _ temporary ar tl _ -t_ €a.'..emeri'_ for
l -m i , 't,i d - :;c at th- end of For:.sl_ i II - I .d'di.Li n a
__:n =f - ]1 i!: iri on the barric_ dr_ =:� -teti1Ig th. i_ the `-.tre r_' t' '
,
0 J9d) wi.l.l be extended in the future.
lat shall be amended to include the t evi _.cd stl eet a] ignnit ri�
_f = .t.:;tl , Creek by eliminating access onto rulpin Boulevard and pl . d::
a cul-de-sac with an interconnecting street between Stone Creek and
T :iib _ ; a ic,d Drive -
e. The appropriate dr a and easements s s e with
aln y nd l.ttlllty ea�ement_ _.hvuld be conveyed wltil
the final plat over all utilities located outside of the public
right -- -ways, along with standard easements over each lot. Timberwoo
Drive shall_ be constructed 36 feet wide gutter to gutter.
9. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency
permits, i.e. Watershed Districts, Health Department, MPCA.
10. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event along with pond
storage calculations for storage of a -100 year storm event, 24 hour
r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 31
11 intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval.
11. A deceleration and acceleration lane on northbound County Road 19 shall
be provided along with a bypass turn lane on southbound County Road 19
to improve turning movements into the development.
12. Watermain pipe sizing shall be increased to 8 inches in diameter on
Forest Road and that part of Timberwood Drive lying north of Forest
Trail.
13. The storm sewer inlets and outlets should be located at . opposite ends
' of the ponds to promote water quality. The emergency overflow between
Lots 13 and 14, Block 6 out to Forest Drive. A permit from the
railroad (Twin City Western) will be required for any grading or
construction activity within the railroad right-of-way.
' 14. Eliminate the ditch section and relocate or reduce the pond size
adjacent to Galpin Boulevard so it is completely outside of the future
right-of-way and roadway improvements along County Roads 18 and 19.
1 c 1 = It; dr ant a :hall be spaced approximately 3c0 feet apart throughout
+L H- 3ubdiv1E10n in accordance with the Fr.r Marsh . 31's reccofnfrend.ation_;.
pr op•_ _ _-d earth bermes along County Road 19 shall be reduced or
ed = ;i_orl, to provide adequate room for future trail
;1 i c. rt
17. 4:1) &leas disturbed during site ggr ciina shall be immediately restored
11 -1 =A nd '-, i c -- rn l."J l c h d ; l �-J ; . - , 1 } ' � ` blanket within two week ': f
Tradi c before Ncv 14, .77)- ;cr i
., E: m c c_ r 1 1 . f. , ; � � in a' f- a_. w f r ;
n 1 ,'_ r t -.. i c -
:+ .� will � ?<< _of "._t uc'" , d i _ t -4 -_3' year. All 51 L'�d with a _lope of 3:1 or 'c?1 e mu:_ "yo-= re` -tared with sod ^ +_`r
l` i l..lr :.fit.
- - = i' =-flail. provide acir>,_, = ac_cey.._ ear 'n''nt_ for min fen n'
F
=' '_ . the proposed retention pony =3.
_om. =tru_t the _.'_ii1t ., an :: =t. eet improvement_ in
: : Jrdance with the 1992 edition of 1.he', City' :_t_aridard pecificat i.-H
,;rd detail plates and shall prepare final plans and specifications and
c. i t for Cit.) 'ippr oval .
0. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permit
from the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health and street acce
permits from Carver County Public Works.
21. The final plat should be contingent upon the City authorizing a public
improvement project for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water
' facilities to the site.
22. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a
development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 32
1
construction of the improvements and payment of any pending
assessments.
23. The applicant shall be given credit for any trunk utility improvement
they may install as a part of their overall site improvements. The
credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer a
watermain trunk improvements. The credit amount will be determined a._
the difference between a standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch diameter)
and L e proposed trunk improvements which are 12 inches in diameter.
24. The applicant /builder shall provide at the time of building permit
application a tree removal and grading permit for all wooded lots,
specifically Lots 1 through 15, Block 3, Lots 1 through 8, Block 4, II
Lots 1 through 20, Block 5, and Lots 1 through 12 and 15 through 24,
Clock 6.
25. The applicant shall explore the possibility of conveying backyard 1
drainage from Block 5 into the development storm sewer system.
26. The c'utlot along County Road 19, Galpin Blvd. needs to be replotted 1
with d ri t h e Y lot
27. Compliance with all conditions of the Rezoning #92 -2 and Wetland 1
Alteration Permit #92 -3.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Eatzli will this go in front of t: fit' City Council
A;1,1- Y]] _ 1
:i_�, _ • :p; ) 1 2 'th_ Thank you all for - -'piing in c'rlc g encourage
} _ ? } _ ,` thc ' _ ci _ 1 rl . I
. _ . . o: _ i I i7,sue up to the City C o u n c i l .
�1 T
. .--'1� 1'�1 . herd arc _ ?.. io:l on r11 =:hv_ 212. I h +: Federal
1
r" allotted d rui. l l i j'i _.�I.: l _ that ' Th.. Lurid':_
_ .' i i I; i' - , � 1 I - - � i Y t, .� i � 7 {.�. c 1 . _' r'I _1 i_ f I._I :. _ .� :.iii _
_(c "'J(' :ed to LE let up to Lym rl Pivd. th_t t ,
1 y ' the C- G3 .;t phase L' I t l lc
it ,+f construction in 1',?5. I it _.Y -- :.umebod it will I-;-,
' fore it conies in and I've been on the committee now for about _
,• ar_, I think it's finally going to happen. The State has in their
year c it improvement program has got the money to complete 212
eon+ + E:te F,lghway
up to L. ;n 3n 81`✓': Coning from Eden Prairie to Lyman Blvd. so I heard -rom-:
di.=_'c.u_•Eic•n that possibly some of that traffic could go to the south and
have -a freeway to go into the city.. It probably will generate more traffil
going to Lyman Blvd. and down onto 212.
Batzli: Thanks Al. I'd like to take about a 3 minute recess here. 1
•
1
1
1