The URL can be used to link to this page

8 Plat Approval/Hidden Creek CITY OF CHANlIASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard POBox 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 AdmInistration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 BUildIng Inspections Phone: 952.227.11 BO Fax: 952.227.1190 EngIneerIng Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 FInance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Part & Recreallon Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 RecrealionCenler 2310COUllerBoulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 PlannIng & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Worts 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 SenIor Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 WebSlle www.cLchanhassen.mn.us ~ - MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: March 19,2002 SUBJ: Hidden Creek Estates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The developer, Matrix Development, LLc, is requesting preliminary plat approval to create 20 lots, four outlots and public right-of-way with a variance for the use of private streets and a wetland alteration pennit for a development known as Hidden Creek Estates. The proposed development consists of a 20 lot, single-family subdivision. The development consists of 8.5 acres of lots, 8.5 acres of wetland, 2.28 acres ofponding and upland buffer adjacent to the wetlands and 3.0 acres of road right-of-way. Pipewood Curve will be connected to Highway 7 and the existing access to Highway 7 at the west end of Pipewood Curve will be closed. The existing intersection of Pipewood Curve with Highway 7 has a steep incline up to the highway and poor site distance due to a curve in Highway 7 at this location. The new access will improve both of these conditions. Additionally, a public street will be extended to the north to provide future street access for the property to the north should it develop. Eventually, staff envisions that this roadway will connect to Cartway Lane. . The applicant has proposed a private street to access Block 6. They have shown two alternates to provide access to these lots via public streets. In both instances, there are significant impacts to wetlands. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the private street for Block 6 with no wetland impacts with the condition that landscaping be located on the south and west side of the private street, a 50 foot structure setback be maintained from Highway 7, that the front of the houses be oriented as shown on the preliminary plat, and that a cross access and maintenance easement be recorded. ., City Council action includes approval of two separate motions (highlighted at the end of the staff report starting on page 13): The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #2002-4, Hidden Creek Estates, creating 20 lots, four outlots with a variance for the use of a private street. And, Tbe CII, 01 Cbanbassen . A growing community wilh ciean lakes, qualily schools, a charmlnn dnwnlown. thrivino businesses. wlndino lrail,. and iJP.'lilllli' "",ks An." nl,,, In live WJ1,k anrl nr" Todd Gerhardt March 19, 2002 Page 2 The City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit, #2002-1, to grade and fill within wetlands for the public streets. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 5, 2002, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision with a variance for the use of a private street to access Block 6 subject to staff conditions with modifications to condition 4 to state orientation "as shown on the preliminary plat", condition 22 adding that the developer shall provide inspection reports to the city for the private street, condition 24 that the sidewalk shall be on the north and west side of the streets, and condition 32 that the City Forester shall review the plans for the hardiness of the species, and adding conditions: 36. The developer shall work to save significant trees, especially tree number 58. 37. The developer shall work with staff to dispose of the construction debris, furniture and appliances on site properly. 38. The developer shall work to ensure uninterrupted stream flows. 39. The developer shall post a sign that the northerly extension street will be extended in the future and the cul-de-sac is only temporary. The wetland alteration pewt was recommended for approval subject to the conditions of the staff report with a modification to condition 6 stating that the silt fence shall be removed upon completion of the construction. g:\planlbglviUageslHidden Creek executive summary·doc PC DATE: March 5, 2002 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CC DATE: April 8, 2002 REVIEW DEADLINE: 4/2/02 Extended to June 1, 2002 CASE #: 2002-4 SUB, 2002-1 Wetland J- z « () ':J Q. 0... « STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval to create 20 lots, four outlots and public right-of-way with a variance for the use of private streets and a wetland alteration pennit, ILC, Hidden Creek Estates. LOCATION: North of Hwy. 7 at the end of Pipewood Curve APPLICANT: Matrix Development 1960 Crown Point Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (612) 242-9136 Lee R. Anderson 6651 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 5.5331 ~ .ë:;( a w J- - en PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential . 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 1.2 - 4.0 Units per Net Acre ,,- ACREAGE: 22.28 Acres DENSITY: 0.9 units per acre, gross; 1.86 units per acre, net , SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for subdivision approval received on February I, 2002, to create 20 lots with a variance for the use of private streets and a wetland alteration pennit to fill and grade wetlands. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. ,t LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: -f The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. W. 62nd St. Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 2 PROPOSALISUMMARY The proposed development is located to the north of Highway 7, east of the Pipewood Curve and south of the regional pedestrian trail on the old railroad alignment. The site has a high point of approximately 958, which appears to be manmade, in the central portion of the property. The property contains a large wetland complex that has been altered in the past with the installation of the sanitary sewer through the property. The property has trees scattered throughout the site. Upon initial review of the plans, specifically, the wetland buffer and setback plan, staff believed that the applicant required a variance from the 60 foot by 60 foot building pad standard under the subdivision ordinance tree preservation requirements. After further review, staff detennined that the plan had been drawn in error and if the specified buffer widths had been followed, then the appropriate building pads could have been accommodated. The proposed development consists of a 20 lot, single-family subdivision. The development consists of 8.5 acres of lots, 8.5 acres of wetland, 2.28 acres of ponding and upland buffer adjacent to the wetlands and 3.0 acres of road right-of-way. Pipewood Curve will be connected to Highway 7 and the existing access to Highway 7 at the west end of Pipewood Curve will be closed. The existing intersection of Pipewood Curve with Highway 7 has a steep incline up to the highway and poor site distance due to a curve in Highway 7 at this location. The new access will improve both of these conditions. The applicant is requesting a variance to access Blocks 1,2 and 6 via private streets. While the plans show that Blocks I and 2 can be accessed via a public street, the granting of a variance would reduce the amount of wetland impacts required. Altemately, staff is recommending that the alignment of the roadway accessing Blocks 1 and 2 be moved to the northeast and a straightened cul-de-sac road be extended up to the regional trail alignment (see attached Blocks I and 2 Alternative). This would reduce the amount of wetland impacts since the area to be crossed is smaller, reduce the amount of pavement within the roadway and pennit the sewer connection for these blocks to be extended to the southeast, rather than the northeast. The applicant has proposed a private street to access Block 6. They have shown two altemates to provide access to these lots via public streets. In both instances, there are significant impacts to wetlands. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the private street for Block 6 with no wetland impacts with the condition that landscaping be located on the southwest side of the private street, a 50 foot structure setback be maintained from Highway 7, that the front of the houses be oriented toward the southwest, and that a cross access and maintenance easement be recorded. ". Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions of the staff report Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18 Subdivisions Section 20-611 through 20-616 "RSF' Single-Family Residential District Section 20-401 through 20-418, Wetland Protection BACKGROUND The site is currently vacant. In 1973, the city extended sanitary sewer across the property to the Pipewood Curve area. The proposed street alignment for the Pipewood Curve extension· follows the sanitary sewer alignment, thus minimizing wetland impacts for the road. Over the past several years, there has been various development proposals discussed for the property including townhouses and twin homes. However, nothing was formally submitted for review and approval. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade about 50% of the site for the new house pads, proposed streets, and a private street ending with a cul-de-sac to access the two southerly lots. The proposed grading will prepare the site for lookout and walkout-type dwellings. The street drainage will be conveyed via storm sewer to three proposed storm water ponds for treatment prior to discharging to the existing and created wetlands. The majority of the existing site drains to a wetland in the center of the parcel. Site drainage from this wetland flows southwest into the Pleasant Acres 2nd Addition development. The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates for the 10- and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The applicant has done a good job of attempting to preserve the existing drainage patterns on the site through the use of storm sewer culverts. In places where the proposed streets have bisected a wetland, the culverts will allow the water to flow downstream as it would under existing conditions. Staff has received drainage calculations for the development and only minor revisions are necessary. All of the proposed ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the lOO-year flood level. The minimum utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site and that Type ill silt fence be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. A 75-foot minimum rock Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 4 construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas must be sodded or seeded and mulched within two weeks of grading completion. Storm Water Manal!ement The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Stonnwater calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed stonn water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Easements Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and stonn water ponds. Erosion Control Type III silt fence should be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. Any disturbed wetland areas should be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management PractiE:e Handbook. Suñace Water Manal!ement Fees Water Oualiiv Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $8oo/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 8.5 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $6,800. Water Ouantitv Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and stonn water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single-family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $16,830 for the proposed development. ~ Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 5 SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of three NURP ponds. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $23,630. Other Al!:encies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota PoÌlution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from existing mains, which run along the northem property line and through the parcel toward the southwest. The applicant is proposing to extend sewer and water lines along the proposed streets to service the proposed lots. The applicant is also proposing to abandon and/or remove a portion of the existing sanitary sewer and watermain in the rear yards of Lots 1-3, Block 3. New water and sewer lines will replace the existing lines. Staff agrees with the applicant's proposal and recommends that the existing utility easement be vacated in the appropriate areas as a condition of final plat approval. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for and paid one sanitary sewer and water lateral. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. However, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for each lot. The 2002 trunk hookup charge is $1,383 for sanitary sewer and $1,802 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 6 the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Pennits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, MnDOT, etc. STREETS The plans propose to extend Pipewood Curve, as the main road, approximately 1200 feet and construct a permanent full access at Trunk Highway 7 (TH 7). Upon construction of the new access: the existing Pipewood Curve intersection will be closed, the pavement removed to the edge of the TH 7 right-of-way, and a cul-de-sac turnaround will be installed. The existing intersection will then be reserved as an emergency access only. In the future, when the property to the north develops, a second neighborhood access will be constructed from the proposed stub street to existing Cartway Lane. The impetus for closing the existing Pipewood Curve intersection is purely an issue of safety. The existing intersection, from a sight distance standpoint, is inadequate. The change in grade on Pipewood Curve approaches 8% within 50 feet of the highway pavement. This severe slope makes it difficult for vehicles to maneuver safely to-and-from TH 7. Conversely, the new intersection location would provide much better sight-distance for traffic entering TH 7. Staff has had preliminary discussions with MnDOT regarding the relocation of the intersection. MnDOT agrees that the current intersection is not the best and could be improved by moving it further to the north. MnDOT's main concern is that no additional intersections be added to TH 7. This is why the existing intersection would have to be closed when the new intersection is operational. Staff is concerned with the alignment of the proposed cul-de-sac in the northwest portion of the site. Staff does not believe that the proposed curve in the street will meet a 30-mph design speed as is required by City code. As such, staff is recommending that the street be moved to the north, approximately 100-feet, and the cul-de-sac or tumaround portion of the street be ended at the western property line. Two lots could be located on each side of the street. By placing the turnaround at the property line, the 90-degree curve in the street can be deleted. Also, this revised street would lessen the amount of pavement needed while preserving the same number of lots. While ash trees that were saved on the original alignment will be removed, the positive outcomes due to this realignment outweigh this negative. While all of the public streets are shown within a 60-foot right-of-way, as per City ordinance, the cul-de-sac adjacent to Block 2 has insufficient right-of-way. City code requires a 60-foot right-of-way radius for residential cul-de-sacs and the plan shows only a 50-foot radius. Also, the City standard for street pavement widths is 31-feet back-to-back and a 45.5-foot radius on cul-de-sacs. Staff is recommending that the plans be revised to comply with the Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 7 aforementioned City requirements. In addition, the proposed private street at the south end of the site must be built to a 7 -ton design and enclosed within a minimum 30-foot wide 'cross- access easement. Along the northwest property line of this proposed development is a Hennepin County Trail System. In order to provide residents safe access to this trail system, staff is recommending that 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks be installed on one side of all the public streets. WETLANDS Existin2 Wetlands Two ag-urban wetlands exist on-site. Schoell & Madson, Inc. delineated the wetlands in May 1998. Basin 1 is a Type 2 wetland located along the west side of the property. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and lake sedge. The applicant is proposing to fill 20,388 square feet (0.47 acres) of Basin 1 in conjunction with the extension of Pipewood Curve and street construction to provide access to Block 2. Basin 2 is a Type 3 wetland located along the south side of the property. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and goldenrod. The applicant is proposing to fill 8,586 square feet (0.20 acres) of Basin 2 in conjunction with the extension of Pipewood Curve. SeQUencin2 The City is requiring the extension of Pipewood Curve in order to improve safety in the neighborhood. The current access to Highway 7 has limited sight distances; the new access will improve sight distances dramatically. The current access will be closed, but will probably be blocked with a breakaway barrier to provide access in emergency situations. Overall, the extension of Pipewood will make turns to and from Highway 7 safer and will provide another access for emergency purposes. This is an acceptable sequencing argument and the amount of wetland fill has been minimized to the greatest extent practical. The amount of wetland impact to provide access to Block 2 would be minimized if a private street were allowed. Minimizing wetland fill is important in this location because both wetlands on-site are part of the natural drainage course from Lake Minnewashta to Lake Virginia. Current City regulations require private streets to receive a variance. It is recommended that wetland impact minimization be taken into consideration when reviewing the variance application. Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 8 Wetland Replacement To achieve the required 2: I replacement ratio (57,948 square feet of mitigation), the applicant is proposing the construction of three wetland mitigation areas for new wetland credit. The created wetlands will total 36,750 square feet. The remaining 21,198 square feet will be provided through stonnwater ponding. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans should show a fixed photo monitoring point for the replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan should be submitted. The applicant should provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. Wetland Buffers Wetland buffers 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) must be maintained around the entire perimeter of existing wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas, except in areas where a stonnwater pond abuts a wetland. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures should maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge or, if no wetland buffer is proposed, from the edge of the wetland. Currently, the site and utility plan shows unifonn buffers around all wetlands, but the table indicates that the buffer widths will vary from o to 20 feet. The buffer widths and setbacks shown in the drawing should be consistent with the buffers and setbacks proposed in the table. The large pond on Lots 1-5, Block 5 should be moved north to accommodate the increased buffers. The following lots may not be able to accommodate the proposed buffer plus the 40-foot required setback: Lot 1 Block 1 Lot 3 Block 2 Lot 4 Block 4 Lot 1 Block 5 Lot 2 Block 6 *Staff will resolve the final buffer yard sizes and locations prior to final plat. Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 9 LANDSCAPINGffREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Hidden Creek Estates development are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 13.78 ac or 600,394 SF 1.51 ac or 66,095 SF 11% 25% or 3.45 ac. 0% orOac. The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 150,282 SF 1.2 180,338 SF 166 trees A replacement planting plan has been submitted to the city for approval, however it is short 15 trees. The applicant shall add the trees the plant schedule and landscape plan and submit a revised plan to the city for approval. Buffer yard requirements are as shown in the table: Landscaping Itl'm RC'I"i,.cd I',.0l)("l'd Buffer yard B* - South property line, 1275' 13 overstory trees 26 understory trees 26 shrubs 9 overstory trees 91 understory trees o shrubs The applicant can meet the minimum number of overstory trees required by specifying increasing the planting size of four of the proposed evergreens. PARKS AND RECREATION COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN: The City's Comprehensive Park Plan identifies this development site as lying in the Cathcart Park Service Area. Cathcart Park is owned by the City of Shorewood but is located in the City of Chanhassen. The park is operated through an agreement with Shorewood in which they provide for capital improvements and daily operations and the City of Chanhassen maintains the turf and trees. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: A Hennepin County Regional Railroad Corridor Light Rail Transit Route directly borders this property. An aggregate based multiple use trail is Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 10 operated by Three Rivers Park District within this corridor. Allowing for public access to this corridor from the proposed Hidden Creek Estates Development is of utmost importance. Matrix Development is seeking a private drive in lieu of a public road for access to Block One and Block Two. The City supports this concept as a means of reducing wetland impact and increasing buildable lot area. In the event that this street is designated a private drive, the applicant should be required to provide a public sidewalk connecting the main access road to the LRT trail. Further that the applicant provide all necessary public easements to accommodate the sidewalk and secure pennits from the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority and Three Rivers Park District for connecting to the LRT Trail. COMPLIANCE TABLE Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (ft.) Depth (ft.) Wetland Buffer (ft.) Code 15,000 90, 100 if on 125 Range 0 - 20, A vg. private street 10 Lot I, Blk 1 23,264 200+ 125 10 Lot 1, Blk 2 16,809 98 121 20 Lot 2, Blk 2 17,305 121 154 20 Lot 3, Blk 2 18,659 194 145 10 Lot 1, Blk 3 15,487 110 141 0 Lot 2, Blk 3 17,154 122 141 0 Lot 3, Blk 3 15,541 110 141 0 Lot I, Blk 4 19,673 129 152 10 Lot 2, Blk 4 15,048 99 152 0 Lot 3, Blk 4 15,406 115 152 20 Lot4,Blk4 15,503 91 175 10 Lot 5, Blk 4 16,870 90 189 20 Lot 6, Blk 4 37,351 90 260 20 Lot 1, Blk 5 15,711 110 148 10 Lot 2, Blk 5 15,362 101 179 20 Lot 3, Blk 5 16,200 90 180 20 Lot 4, Blk 5 16,776 125 182 20 Lot 5, Blk 5 16,233 124 165 15 Lot 1, Blk 6 19,415 116 187 10 Lot 2, Blk 6 26,292 40# 226 14 Outlot A 139,863 Outlot B 47,779 Outlot C 122,984 OutlotD 158,921 ROW 130,905 A vefage Lot 18,508 12.5 Size i :\ Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 11 I Total Area I 970,611 # Staff is recommending that the lot configuration for Block 6 be revised so that there is a minimum of 100 feet of lot width for each lot at the western property line. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to pennit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (I) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this detennination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will pennit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The prevailing development pattern makes it inappropriate to construct a public street, specifically due the existence of wetlands. A public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. The use of the private street will pennit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, reducing the impacts on wetlands. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District subject to the revisions contained in the staff report. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stonn water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 12 Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure based on the revisions recommended by staff. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision causes some environmental damage, however, it minimizes the impacts to a reasonable amount. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure based on the revision to the plat recommended by staff. FINDINGS V AffiANCE (Section 18-22) Private Street: The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; ~ 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 13 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; and 4. The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Though a public street can be accommodated within the plat, there are physical limitations to the installation of a public street due to existing wetlands. There are environmental features on the site that would be preserved through the use of a private street. The granting of the variance would not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 5, 2002, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision with a variance for the use of a private street to access Block 6 subject to staff conditions with modifications to condition 4 to state orientation "as shown on the preliminary plat", condition 22 adding that the developer shall provide inspection reports to the city for the private street, condition 24 that the sidewalk shall be on the north and west side of the streets, and condition 32 that the City Forester shall review the plans for the hardiness of the species, and adding conditions: 36. The developer shall work to save significant trees, especially tree number 58. 37. The developer shall work with staff to dispose of the construction debris, fumiture and appliances on site properly. 38. The developer shall work to ensure uninterrupted stream flows. 39. The developer shall post a sign that the northerly extension street will be extended in the future and the cul-de-sac is only temporary. The wetland alteration permit was recommended for approval subject to the conditions of the staff report with a modification to condition 6 stating that the silt fence shall be removed upon completion of the construction. Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 14 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following motions: 'The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #2002-4, Hidden Creek Estates, creating 20 lots, four outlots and street right-of-way with a variance for the use of a private street to access Block 6, shown on plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated 12/14/01, revised 2/1102, subject to the following conditions: 1. The lot configuration for Block 6 shall be revised so that there is a minimum of 100 feet of lot width for each lot at the westem property line. 2. Landscaping shall be installed on the south and west side of the private street accessing Block 6. 3. A 50-foot structure setback shall be maintained from Highway 7. 4. The front of the houses in Block 6 shall be oriented as shown on the preliminary plat. 5. Cross access and maintenance agreements shall be recorded against the lots for Lots I and 2, Block 6 for the use and maintenance of the private street. 6. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 7. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 8. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Stormwater calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the lOO-year flood level. The minimum utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 9. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site and that Type ill silt fence be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands, adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 15 should be aware that any off-site grading would require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Silt fence shall be removed upon completion of site grading and reestablishment of vegetation. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain pennits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 12. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. 13. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 14. A registered structural engineer must design any retaining walls in excess of four feet in height. 15. Add all applicable 2002 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans. 16. Show all of the existing and proposed easements on the plans. 17. Show the location of the outlet control structures for all ponds. 18. The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates for the 10- and IOO-year, 24-hour storm events. 19. In areas where the existing utility lines have been abandoned/removed, the existing utility easements must be vacated. Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 16 20. Upon construction of the new access: the existing Pipewood Curve intersection shall be closed, the pavement removed to the edge of the TH 7 right-of-way, and a cul-de- sac turnaround installed at the southwest end of Pipewood Curve. 21. Revise the plans to show the following for all of the public streets: a 3 I-foot back-to- back pavement width, a 60-foot right-of-way radius, and a 45.5-foot pavement radius for the cul-de-sac. 22. The proposed private street must be built to a 7-ton design and enclosed within a minimum 30-foot wide cross-access easement. The developer shall provide inspection reports to the city for the private street. 23. Move the cul-de-sac public street accessing Blocks I and 2 to the northeast, approximately lDO-feet, eliminate the 90-degree curve, and place the cul-de-sac or turnaround portion of the street at the northwestern property line. 24. Install 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks on one side of all the public streets. The sidewalk shall be on the north and west side of the streets. 25. On the utility plan: · Add storm sewer schedule. · Show the proposed utilities sewer length, slope, type and class. · Show storm and sanitary manholes rim and invert elevations. · Combine the pond inlets to the southern pond to have just one apron entering the pond. . · Keep the hydrants on the same side of the street as the watermain. 26. On the grading plan: · Show the benchmark used for the site survey. · Revise Lot 2, Block 5 first floor elevation from 43.0 to 53.0. · Show all pond contour elevations. · Show the location of the 75-foot rock construction entrance. 27. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of Wetland Alteration Permit #2002- 1. 28. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer or, if no wetland buffer is proposed, from the edge of the wetland. 29. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. Iii Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 17 30. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 31. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 8.5 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $6,800; the water quantity fees are approximately $16,830. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be detennined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $23,630. 32. The applicant shall resubmit for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 166 trees. The City Forester shall review the plans for the hardiness of the species. 33. The applicant shall meet the minimum number and types of plantings required for the buffer yard along the south property line. The applicant shall provide landscaping screening in depth rather than all at the property line. 34. Proposed boulevard planting along all public streets shall be located outside of the right-of-way. Planting and maintenance of these trees will be the responsibility of the developer/development. 35. All structures shall maintain a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level (OHW) of the creek between Lake Minnewashta and Lake Virginia. 36. The developer shall work to save significant trees, especially tree 58. 37. The developer shall work with staff to dispose of the construction debris, furniture and appliances on site properly. 38. The developer shall work with staff to ensure uninterrupted stream flows. 39. The developer shall post a sign that the northerly extension street will be extended in the future and the cul-de-sac is only temporary. The City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit, #2002-1, to grade and fill within wetlands subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show a fixed photo monitoring point for the replacement wetland. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 18 2. The applicant shall demonstrate that a wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around the entire perimeter of existing wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas, except in areas where a stormwater pond abuts a wetland. Wetland buffers should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 3. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer or, if no wetland buffer is proposed, from the edge of the wetland. 4. The buffer widths and setbacks shown in the drawing should be consistent with the buffers and setbacks proposed in the table. The large pond on Lots 1-5, Block 5 should be moved north to accommodate the increased buffers. 5. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. 6. Type ill silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. The silt fence shall be removed upon completion of construction. 7. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: I. 8. Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building pennits will be issued. II. Payment of full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication or construction. Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 19 12. Payment of full trail fees in lieu of construction of any section of the city's comprehensi ve trail plan. 13. Provide for a sidewalk connection from Hidden Creek Estates to the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authorityffhree Rivers Park District Light Rail Transit route multi- use trail, including procurement/transfer of all applicable easements and pennits." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Reduced Copy Preliminary Site and Utility Plan 5. Reduced Copy Wetland Replacement Plan 6. Blocks 1 and 2 Altemative 7. Letter from Matt Saam to Ken Ljung dated 1/25/02 8. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 9. Letter from John W. Griffith to Robert Generous dated 311/02 10. Form Letter from Joan Wall to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 2/26/02 11. Form Letter from Roy & Marlys Heller to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 2/26/02 12. Form Letter from Kristine Christians to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 2/26/02 13. Form Letter from Rev. Peg Knapp to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 2/26/02 14. Form Letter from James and Joan Hardy to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 2/26/02 15. Form Letter from Linda & Bruce Harrier to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 2/26/02 16. Form Letter from Beth & Craig Ramsey to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 2/26/02 17. Letter from Beth Ramsey to Matrix Development 18. Letter from Dr. Douglas Bass and family to whom it may concem dated 3/5/02 19. Form Letter from James Koivost (sp) to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 2/26/02 20. Letter from Jennifer Chaput (MnDOT) to Robert Generous dated 3/12/02 21. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2002 Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 20 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: Application of Matrix Development, LLC for a 20 lot Subdivision with a variance for the use of a private street and Wetland Alteration Permit. On March 5, 2002, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Matrix Development, LLC. for preliminary plat approval of property. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single-Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density (1.2 - 4.0 units per net acre). 3. The legal description of the property is attached as exhibit A. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: I. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, Hidden Creek Estates March 5, 2002 Page 21 susceptibility to flooding, and stonn water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, stonn drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate stonn water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-.site public improvements or support systems. 5. The planning report #2002-4, dated March 5, 2002, prepared by Robert Generous, et aI, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat with a variance for the use of a private street and a Wetland Alteration Pennit. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of March, 2002. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chainnan ATTEST: Secretary z o - ... A. - a: (.) U) w a ... c <=J w ... .... ;¡ ..,i::o.., ~ :SIW) 1: ! ....C'I:::. '" o Q8 ",. ~ .... 01 i::""" .... §.s; Q:; &.Q:: 2-1ií~ ..... ..c:: ~ 0:5 53 -': ~ :5 :s:t 1::: § ~:C:'õ~ :0.., t:,_ '1:: o~ Q .Qj eò""':§ ~~ .~?-.:::o â~ 0 CSII> '- itO U ¡..!. "(". ~~oQ . .... t:..L ~~ 0·_-,: ?-. ...."".g>f'10 QjO ;:t!it .... :o..,......c: I:;LIi''1:: G.OI :::. ..,"(~ o t:1ií... ....~,~:c:~ "'O....~:::. 2QQ(fj~ .c:1I>.c::<I: -......-~Q) :s 0.... 0..:.... :c:....o .E Q Q ?-. 'õ(f¡ ..c:: 1:::1: ...... .... I;) Q -20 'õõ] ~ ~ .....l4J (I):.::: ~ '" 0.. ....QOI~~ I:; it.~ 1::: ~ :::.:5- 0 I Q 0.... .:c:.....S; 01:; O,..J 1ií:C:.!2 &'... o Q~ :::: ~ '0 Q.c: '" ....1=;.~ .c:......, 0.;::,." ........~.c:.....¡: :::. 0 :;... 0 ~ "6"(.;:1'" ~.9-_!~ Q.... 0 cs '" :5 I:;.!; 0 Q 01 ,;)~ .... it.S; 'õQ",,".~~ ~ _.....:SQ:;:~~ 1:;;l1t) "6:C:"" Q,~.., t:Q'" « --:5 .~:S:S I.. 0:::' 01 .... ~O.... ..,........ ~ "'II> 0 Q:: 0 0 -. ~ ~ 0:5 t: :s .S! 1;:0 :c: ......, O.c: .... Q.... 8 Q . <I)...... t: ~_ 01 ...... Q ti 4).5; 0",:5 g.:!!õ ~~ ..oo·!; ..... s' -(Q Ë 1:;,;) "( ..: Qj ;:)(3 Cb Cb_..... o ~.!;O ......::::: -- t) ..... ~¡-J 0..... ~ '" ~ t:.c: 2~:!2 â.E.... .c::- tJ (I)' 't5CfJ.....:soq: Ji!1I>.... .!; .. .... 0 0 ~~ '0 Q,b'!; Q'5 01 it.... .c: ",.C: 0:::::: .... - 0 ........~ 0Q:::!2 o 0'- ..... 0 01:0..,1: '" ~ ~~ ~ Qj~ 1:::::::...... -:5 ã tJ.....O ~~ ;:, "'.... Q 0 Q o~.!; .c::C:.!; ..... 0..........- ~~ Q, 5 21; Cb_ II) U)~:::: :5 o.:S.., g :::. t: 0'0 ~ ,2 0 0 c: .., Q, ....'1,...... Cb c:" '0 .... :5.g.- .-..Cþ ~ o.c: Q ..£ CI).....~........, :::. ..,,Q.... 'õ~o .:!! 0 0 o ....?-. ........0000 Q oC'l 0 53 E 01-" Q 01 o t:.... "'J:§ c: 0'¡:0C() 0 o "'.... ~ Cb ~ 'õ.!'t... 2,Q t: 53 0 .c:~O 80.... 1: 0,)(;; c: .S o E'5 0 Q 0 :c::::. 1ií:5 Q, Qt0'5.c:Q .f"- tI.. .......c::: :;:; \.,; 0·-..... I:; Cj it.... .....c::;.......... o I:; "'1; 0 OIâõ ~1š~ .!; .... ~ Qj <J 41)...... 0 "'..... t:0'" Q,,,, Qj I;: 0 0 EQQ ~Q .c:.c: .¡;; t:.c: E.......... -0- '" 0 .... 8<Ö'~ ~'õ~ o ~ " .E C'I o '" Ò ~ :c: .5; Q) ~:o..,"" ....8 :>;~~ 1: 2- =t 5&t~ u ...."'''' ~~~ I....t::t:: 8~~ U~~ &~ U& ¿ca~o~ "a." c"G.t"Wk","&rlG, """1. --";o(;-õ':"', -u'&'& I ..-.....-......... ".<0 ,0. '., R~~Oftp M 1 ~. '.nn.", . çl,t!A~ ð 1i!UfJ1! ~;Tt~F~. , CITY 0Jr CHAMfASSEN ... COU~TIR DRlVIi CHANHAI8EN. MN ""7 (812) ANIOO DeVELOPMINT REVIEW APPUCATION J\P1IUCANr: /J1/ffÆ/ý Ð1://f! l Df' /Hl-If T LI...e rNiHEA:L ~ /l ~Af òJ A!)nQëSS:/9w> (l/?ðuJd PfhAlï 2:f¿dt AOORESs: (-i.~{ mIAlAlf.úI,H¡.frA- 9y/..MNo ~All:xJJ719 h'tIÇi'l''i /17;1/ .~ìll3 'KC~'~(ølt.: /17,(/ 5S~¡1 'TaEPHONeCDay""8) bJ 2 - 2<12-'713(", TELEPHONe:. 952..- 4')'-{ -C:;.Yll '- _ Comprehensive Plan ArnencImem _ TemporatySalesPennit _ CondiliOlll' Use Pelllllt _ VaeeIion 01 F!OWiEasements - -- _ /nIetio¡ Use Permit .,KVartanc. - , _ Non-conlonning Us. Permll -X Wlbnd Aiteo:atjon Permh _ 1'Ianned UriI Developm~t' _ ZOning Aweal - _ Rezoning _ ZoMg ~ina:1œ Amendment - _ Sign Permh5 _ Sign Plan AIMew ~ Notllca1icn Sign _ Sire Plan Re\lÎ8W" . -X. Esaow 10: Fiitv FeeslAllorney .:;osr· ($eO C:UPISPIWACNAR/\'IAPlM3tes and eound" $400 Minar SUB) I X Subdll/Ïllon' TOTAl-FEe' lA~C,. uu - A'" uf.n IIDpeIty 0_ wllllln CillO feet otthe bound8r\n aftlle ~ lI'Iust be included with ,he w~nn. Building......"., ..m... muat be submlUlCI willi.". plan rmewa. "'-wenty-slxfutl".fIIII!IIICop.. ofthepllnsmUltlleeUbmltted.lncl:JCIlng an 8Yz" X,," reduced copy of ""'.r~1cw UCh Plan..... - Q...... 111m lie MqulrecI for other .,.,lc8tIana througb ChI dev8lopnlent conIrwct NOTE - When multiple appIiCaIIol'IS .. processed, 1118 8pp(Gpria!e fee at.:: be c.~r~:j fcr each .)~.calion. y.w &~ ~& ~'.~ør ":I"" ..".."..,..".' a,n... <Ø.õo3IG.-a"'t"-U.Aal po... . RECBV£D .,' . , JAN 3 1 2002 env OfCHllMlASlOl f'RO.ECTNAME #/2>uJ t!4tt:,¿ tfs~ 1.OCATICN ~~ 1I1$H~'1I '7 ~ten/6ßr ",," ,¡:J'~_n,.) lEGAlDCSCAIPTION St:f; A'77YJ(!.H~;J ~4VE 'OTALACRI!AOE 2.:'2. z.e -+- VŒTUNDSPAESI:HT ~ YES _NO PJiE&ENT~ "r¿ <;~" flEœ-.,.,..%ONING " RS F II .._HlAHDUSEDESJGNATION . /l...SF" ,. ~t" ,"-., ¡:ø:qJ'~II;ULANDUSEDEsIONATION I~~ r REASONFOR1HISflEOuEST ?1lt.L 1Þ1,¡JitL 'f PllJ.T J1.PPi?Ø///' L "hIs ~., must be 1;OIIIp1e1ed In fuB and be typewrinen or dearly prn,le:J " must be ~panie~ by an informalion and plans NQuÏnId by appIöt'1IbIo ctty Ordinance provisions. Belore 1iI~ this IIpplic.J1ion, )011 sl\ou~ confl,r with 1118 Pl8lV1iIIQ ~ 10 delønlllne file specific ordinatICII and prOC8ØUnlll«lÌremenlS 8;3p1fc:ab1e 10 your awlicallon. A delerrnirB110n of COfIIpltløness 01 file appIcaIIon shell be made within fen business day,s 01 ,ppNCl.1ìon wÞmitlal. A wriaen I¥JIice or applcallon cIe!iclencies shaD be mlllled to I~ IIppHcant willtln ten buslnl!l;s dap Dr epplicallon. "ThìÌ 11 tII cøltly1hat I em m~ application for file dtlcrllacllICfion by the City and thai I am r~ible for complying willi 1111 OIlY l1ICdrI!InenlS . rwgwd 111 fhIa '*IU811. ThIll ~ lllould be proœssecf In my name and f 11m .... p.ny whom 1IIe City IIhouIdCOfllllCl,....~~mderpertåNngIo"'" appIc;a1Ion. I have all8åleda copy of proof d ownership (eWler capj/ Of ewne... Dur*aIe c.nr.... of'TIde, AbsIracI 01 'RIe or purchase agreement). or I am the authOriZed person 10 make JhIs .". .. "'" -11. file .... owner hu alto sGnecf this appllcallon. 1 '4I'If 1cHp mrsel Infonn8c 01 the cllllIII'n.c lor ~ 01 material and 1he ¡:orogress of Ihis ap"licalion. I further und8IITItId 11m 8ddi1lalllJ ,.. may be charged lor CCln$Ai~ fees, feasiÞJlf.y studies. etc. we: "" eSlimate prior 10 any &I&I1OrfZa1Ion to proc;eec:I wilh \IIelfudy. The .c!ocumen15 &IICI informalio" I haw cubmil!8CI.... lrue End cor:8ClIO the best of my~·"~ '1' .1' i ". cIIy hereby nodies \lie eppIican thai devebpi..«II review c:an~oI be conp'eIed within 60 cIalS duE- 10 puÞtic hearing require and agency revIèw. Thnfore, 1I1e cay .111 ~ the appllœnt \hat the cay req;;ir8s an autol'lllllc 60 day . Dø.elOpment revieW ,hall be comple\ecl within 120 day,s unf_ allditlanal re\lltw ............ . ~ , ¡ ,./. / 17,K':/ SIQlllluteol ~ c:::t-~ 1;.( lf1ð I lWJ'fil:1Ifitmfl"'v.edon 'lpl /0"2... FeePlJd.,3'ðS".ð£.- Rec:ei¡;tNJ. c.:f' 11 '71 'The app1Icant abould CCllltlelltaIf for. cop, oJ the I!IIf raport Which willie .veflable on Frida, pritoC' to the n\MIIna. If.nat cøllllCtlld. 81 copy Of IIIe I'IpOrt WI" be m.l1ed 10 the IIfIIIfIcInt'. ecIdseIs. ~ÞI J!¡ ~~ 'I' '. J,ni ð hi~ !, ~f. tr~! :~6~ !¡'Ii, '¡; ~ ,~¡ rLJ.~ ~ ,"..' , , , i " , II: I, , II' , : ! i~: it i; ¡~ ,., I~ ,,; &í ~ '" u ' z:3 ! ~!< i "'.... .2 :E::3 u .... z ~ .. ~g "'w !<~ .2 ~c " , , I i'¡'i ! I I I' ,~ I ' I 1 ,¡I¡r'll ~i;!i, II. ~ ¡ ~~ !~ 't I.. Ill~: :{ t is I,~ i;; ~ HI \ \ /.'" Ý \ " \ I \---¡ I ''-\'''' \., t) \ . I, -"\ V ' \ ) \ I I \L ,./ \ ~' \ :5-~ \ --.J' ) / ~ ),~~, ~- ~ ~ - -', ,.. '-'-' "'.J ~&~ ~il~'1\'>;., \'~~ >v/ 1,,,-'1 I' ~'" , ) , , i'i N 'I' ',¡ ..! 'I U" J. _"..J... "'..5 ~--¡?--::..f , 'v.J. "~ ':T'''T''l 1'''-': tj ~,~~;.'" "" '\ ¡ì' ~l N";~18~': :......ð":· g , g ,,/ ,;;%~ ",,- '\ ,\",:_.~...:.,,;~ " "/::,~' f;" '~~ I)- " "',~~:, ~'f~ ,i>\', ""~'\T~C;- "," ' \',:;£'>-",/".:, .'.......'" t~ '-. ")/ -Is> / ,/ '........ '........ .~,; ,,>-- J."of'''b':~' / _ _,<, ~'~~:,.. -''of,)" . ,n,' èZ' " 'v' I. "": ~ ,,\;~".. "'" /'"." ....... 11\' ' "I -- ~:'" ., 'e, < )" "1:i"~'-'--0 Ö I' I " "">:..~"',, ~ ·i I " ,,">>. ''''... il I ",- .' ".-....<<>';~:. . '''- "" "- "'-. tt:;;:~2""', ...... ........ ......... ... ... ... '- '- \ \ \ \ - "t.<;., , 11/';' "';¡.,'f:. \ ,;;t" \ ;' / " , 7~~;\ '.Ü ." '~. -:. ~:;; ~~ ... ... .... ... ..... ~ i ~ ~ a '.'. - ~ Lj Jfl~ 1 dmL " .. " ; ~ a: " .. 9 ~ ci ~i a, ..: Z¡ 01, iI! a ..' 01' >' 01' a: > '" < z ~ @~ "'~ .... " õ '" . , ....~ k , I ~:~ ~~ ¥~:~~ ~ ~: ~ ~~ '. '. ^. " H.; .~ '. , h " '. ó" ., ~ }' ¡ ',""" ~ , ¡ . ~' ~ ¡ , ~ ~ ~ , , ¡ '. t.:t,.i.·.!.~f.' ~')",:.~,:. t¡. ~,~ :"..' "'~ ~ ~~;~£~ t¡Jn ~.....~ ~ !~ !¡!I¡,~¡lì' ~i I w~,~,,~ , f.;.f.,; ! !~~~.: ~r~ ~f ,; : ~~~i~ ÚH~~ ¡,j!¡ '~* ¡'í':¡ ;:!!wm ¡¡:~;' n:d~~ ~ I!·[ hr~ ! , · z z I 1 : ! ! ~¡ J!tl > z I. , ~ " i¡I' , i ,Ji!, ~ < H ", \ ~ , · ~~.: "- li¡l I · , 9 ·1· I v æ ~ ~<~ Õ 'I! I z 'Ii "I ! · ~o, fi' ¡ h¡ I!, w ~ 1J i~di~ ! %\. I!~ ¡¡;...;d ~ ~ > '" tll :j ¡¡~ I'i' g .5 ~ f!¡¡5 ,II x t !J i<~ ~ ~ Jnl D L~,~ ,J!} mId! , " " , "" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " \ \ /, Ý \ \ \ I \- - - -1. I \ ).'-. \ \.) \ \' " -\ ì ; \ I ~. \" c,. L \ ~...í \), I \ "-J " / \ 7 ", ./ , " / 'v), " \. "' "', i"-, ,;. ~ " I: if .".~ : ,~ " . / ¡ ~I "i' 0., CI';I 5:r '.'. o! z c: . ... I ~" . I- I"' ~ WI~: it,'" ,,'¿<ri 1,¡;'.{ "., ~. ~. <: ,". " . ':: .~ ..... ..... ..... ..... "- ~, . . ~ " '0 . ~ '';,. 'J "'o,¡ . '"' ~;; ';::- . -,.,.", "' c' ,,~ c > c " " z is ... 5 " , c > C QI W! H ¡¡; .. '" .. '0; 1111 ¡ili , I , ; t t:' ~';:; : î i " I i I , 81 ! "," .. ... ¡¡; z w " w ... ¡¡; , ." ~·I·! ~ i! r >i ~ !;.: ~æ HI ~ ! h!~ hd i: -- ~ lZlí ,II¡, ht~l fhH I I; j '" ~ ~ U!I) c' z~ ~ ~~ j Ct; .2 ~~ u I- Z ~ .. !!O "'~ ~> .E ~~ Ii, ¡ ¡ I'KI· · : I j I i (I I, '"I I' ,¡ ~Ë !,.ø.~: a;" - I" i~ I i~ ! ~t f\ ,~ I: \ \ / \ / '( ", ì -/' )~) ~ " ì , r L \. ~J' , \; _ \,t \ I~~~I l- I. z ~ " oJ¡ - z~ 0 <u ~<z " I-~< ~~~ ~~ ~ ~. ... .ii: < , ;j ~ ~ " , ¡ < il " , ~:~ ~ <. ¡¡:I ., "~ 'C .' 2' , <' ~¡ ~, ~i I '.J / '¡' \,1 " ) ~ " \ " ;y"; -, },-c;" y , ~ i * ~ a ----_._~_. -~--- , I Ip I' I; ; Sol ~i 'oj! I -----_._-,-~.,~---- , , . I' , --1" , . ( , ,~ :!, ~ ,~ ¡ ~ I I ,I Cl" "- ' , f..... I :)' . I I Ii"'; I kt~:-_ /1 :'J' Jl I :, òê /' ~/\ I \ \ \ cJ =\ \ 'J', "Z \ \ , , \ i \ .' , '~.,- j ''''- / " , - ~ /. Õ;-. J I 0 :ç , 135't- ,.L- í n . -q- v 0 '. ~ ;;;, __1 I~-' 'X) I ì --:.-.--- /' -----: ':0\ ~ , , " ~-- " " .,', - ,'J , "(--', ,I - ---.- --._~ -.-..----- _ - '--7"'- !-- " .. -'" '" \ :..: \ ." \. ,I J ~. --- \:,:.: \\ \ ," .. , .-.-" \ \ ~ ~ ~\ ~. \ j \ \, \ BLOCKS 1 AND 2 ALTERNATIVE \ -, ·t·, \ \ \ \ ? \ .. .~ '. -.. / , \ 3r- ...-.---~.. .---:-;, ;: ---:-:-7'"~- . ' ! 4 " -,"", ," ';~V' \0""- "'': ;'¿ .", . :.." :~. . . E' :>-:, '0" \, January 25, 2002 Mr. Ken Ljung Assistant Design Coordinator MnDOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Re: SPlOO4-26 (Trunk Highway 7) - PW067-Dl Dear Mr. Ljung: The City of Chanhassen has reviewed the preliminary construction plans for the above- referenced project. Our only review comment concerns the location of the Pipewood Curve/Trunk Highway 7 intersection. Recently, the City has had discussions with a developer regarding the extension of Pipe wood Curve to serve a proposed residential development. As part of the development project, the City has requested that the existing Pipewood Curveffrunk Highway 7 intersection be closed and a new intersection be constructed approximately 1,530 feet farther to the north along Trunk Highway 7 (see enclosed Trunk Highway 7 plans and development plan). The City's impetus for wanting to close the existing Pipewood Curve intersection is purely an issue of safety. The existing intersection, from a sight distance standpoint, is inadequate. The change in grade on Pipewood Curve approaches 8% within 50 feet of the highway pavement. This severe slope makes it difficult for vehicles to maneuver safely to-and-from Trunk Highway 7. Conversely, the new intersection location would provide much better sight- distance fortraffic entering Trunk Highway 7. The City would like to discuss this issue with you and/or other MnDOT representatives. Please contact me at 952-227-1164 or by email atmsaam@ci.chanhassen.mn.us to set up a meeting. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Matt Saam, P.E. Assistant City Engineer MS:js Enc!.: 1. Sheets 124 & 125, SP 1004-26 2. 11" x 17" copy of proposed development c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Bob Generous, Senior Planner Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Perry Ryan, Ryan Engineering Frank Thera, Matrix Development Greg Kern, MnDOT Design g:"cng\malt\lelters~ipewood curve.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Matrix Development, LLC, is requesting preliminary plat approval to create 20 lots, four outlots and public right-of-way with a variance for the use of private streets and from the subdivision standards, and a wetland alteration permit on 22.28 acres of land zoned RSF, Residential Single Family, located north of Hwy. 7 at the end of Pipewood Curve, Hidden Creek Estates. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. ;:)ROPOSAL: Subdivision Request APPLICANT: Matrix Development, LLC LOCATION: Hwy. 7 and Pipewood Curve " ~ ~ Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous 227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 21, 2002. w. 62nd St. "'",)''' ~ . . Smooth feed Sheets™ .- -. .,-'. - CITY OF CHANHASSEN . C/O SCOTT BOTCHER ·~853 MARKETB .'. PQ BOX ". C SêÒTTI> & I'ÁME4\M HOWARD 6384 N>'I:ER 'IRL EXCELSIOR MN. 55331 '. GREGORY A & VICTORIA L LANG . 6524 ASTER CIR EXc:;ELSIOR MN. 55331 -:t ..;,:. ~. , .-. DQNA'LD & MONA PETERSON 641~i\STER 'IRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 '. WARREN D MCLAUGHLIN CATHERINE C MCLAUGHLIN 6434 ASTER 'IRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PETER ALEXANDER THOMSON & . CYNTHIA i. GESS 4001 ASTER 'IRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DALE H COLLINS 3931 ASTER 'IRL J;:XCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK F MACPHERSON 6301 CARTWAY LN EXCELSIOR MN. 55331 GREGORY A & CYNTHIA L AHLM 6381 ASTER'IRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GREGORY M & DEBORAH D BAIRD 3870 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 .. .... --~ þ""," """.-, , . DA VONE & LAUREANA 3884 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JENNY L ZSCHOKKE & . MEREDITH A MORNEAU . 3891 MEADOWLN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GREGORY A&CYNTHIALAHLM 6429 ASTER'IRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 . KEVIN L & SONIA A SIEFERlNG 6528 ASTER CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CRAIG C MILLER 6450 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 FRED C & KRISTINE E SITTLER 6526 ASTER 'IRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 S JOHN & LISA A JORDAN 6541 KIRKWOODCIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DENNIS G & LYNN M OWENS 380 ASTER CIR . . EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES C & LUANN R STEWART 6551 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EDWARD G & M ELIZABETH LUCAS 6534 ASTER 'IRL EXCELSIOR . MN 55331 Use template for 516.œ DANIEL C & LUCY W MCINERNY 6550 ASTER 'IRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331' GREGORY W & JENNIFER . 6501 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN. 55331 CARL T & JEANIE ANN SEEHOF 6561 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS & MICHELE MUEHLBEF 6508 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DOUGLASvnLLUUdBASS& ROSALIE AUGUSTA BASS 6570 PIPEWOOD CRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARlON A OLIN 6540 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GARY S KALLENBACH & ROXIE S WELLMAN 3961 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN M & MICHELLE LBECKE 6510 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN ·55331 JAMES E & PEGGY A MARKHAM '6520 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANA A NELSON 3967 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - Smooth Feed Sheets™ DAVID L & MOLLY L SCHOLLE 6570 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN P & SHEILA A MCSHERRY 3951 LINDENCIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN W & NANCY A NELSON 3891 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARTHA W HEIBERG 3941 LINDENCIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH M WICKLUND & ANDREA S GOLAND 3970 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HARRY A & CHRISTINE A DRAHOS 3911 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 5533t KAREN L NELSON 3931 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS & LINDA L SANDER 3921 LINDENCIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JANET S WALL 6580 PIPEWOOD CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID H & TRACY L LUNDQUIST 3969 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ..... CRAIG A & ELIZABETH RAMSEY 4111 PADDOCKLN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ALEXANDER M DIITENHOFFER 6590 PIPEWOOD CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TERRANCE L & KATHERINE A PICHA 3966 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CRAIG A & ELIZABETH RAMSEY 4111PADDOCKLN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHERI L RILEY 3960 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARIAN J PECK 3950 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD E & BONNIE G LARSON 3940 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ALAN R & DIANE REUTELER 3930 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES D & JOAN HARDY 6600 PIPEWOOD CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PHILIP 0 & DEBRA J HANSON 4001 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 5160. ;.- ii INGRID B & IŒVIN R HIGIILAND . . 4021 LESLEE CRY· EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 ~ , is RICHARD J DORSEY & SUSAN K HAUN-DORSEY 3941 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROY W & MARL YS HELLER 6610 PIPEWOOD CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROY W & MARL YS HELLER 661~!.I~;!O~ EX~ MN 55331 TODD J BENNETI' 3931 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE J & LINDA J HARRlER 6601 PIPEWOOD CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCOTI' W & BERNADEITE M 4031 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 . " CHAD R CHRISTIANS & . KRISTINE M P CHRISTIANS. " 6611 PIPEWOODCRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331. CAROL RIDDLE 4000 LESLEECRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 . STEPHEN E COBB JR & JULIE A NILSSEN-COBB 4010 LESLEE CRY EXCELSioR MN 55331 ..._->. Smooth Feed Sheets™ Uset~mpla,te for 5160~ JODY MARIE CARLSON 4041 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARY C KNAPP 6621 PiPEWOODCRV EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BETTY A CARLSON 4020 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRIAN P & DEANN M CARIGNAN 4051 LESLEE CRY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LUANN M F ALENCZYKOWSKI 6274 GINGER DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 LUANN M FALENCZYKOWSKI 6274 GINGER DR _____ E~E-'MN 55346 HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY HENNEPIN CO GOVT CENlER 300 6TH ST S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487 >. ., .... TKDA TOlTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED ENGINEERS. ARCHITECTS. PLANNERS 1500 PIPER JAFFRAV PlAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-2140 PHONE: 6511292-4400 FAX; 651/292-0083 March 1,2002 Mr. Robert Generous Senior Planner - City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RECEIVED MAR 0 4 2002 Re: Hidden Creek Estates Development Review TKDA Commission No. 12462-01 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Dear Mr. Generous: We have completed a brief review of the Hidden Creeks Development Application as provided by your office, dated February 4, 2002. We apologize for the delayed response. The submitted documents were reviewed for their potential impact to the City of Victoria. We have the following comments: ~ j '" I. The City of Victoria is always concerned with additional traffic access to Trunk Highway 7. We are hoping that some access points will be eliminated with the reconstruction of Trunk Highway 7 this summer. While this corridor is of concern to the City of Victoria, we will defer the additional access point decision to the City of Chanhassen and Mn/DOT, and trust that the safety concerns along this corridor are considered. 2. The adjacent subdivisions of Lake Virginia Addition and Minnewasta Acres, in the City of Victoria, remain on private water supply wells and individual on-site septic systems. Previous feasibility reports have detennined City water and sanitary sewer connections to be cost prohibitive. While there are no plans at this time to pursue alternative solutions, the Hidden Creeks subdivision provides a viable alternative source to service this area. 3. The City of Victoria is concerned with regards to any increased runoff rate and/or volumes that may be created by this development site. Increased runoff rates and/or volumes imposed to ¡he Hennepin County Regional Trail will negatively impact residents in the City of Victoria by adding to an already existing drainage issue from the trail to Lake Virginia. We would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 651/292-4552 or 952/443-4732. Sincerely, J It-v\ LJ , ) hn (Jack) W. Griffin, P. . I~ ity Engineer cc: Mark Kaltsas, City of Victoria Mike Wyatt, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District An Equal Opportunity Employer Chanhassen Planning Commission City Hall ;" noo Market Blvd. 2/26/02 ...... Regarding Subdivision Request Highway 7 and Pipewood Cun'e Matr.x Deye1opment, liC CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 0 5 2002 For the Record: CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT As property owners on Pipewood Curve and Paddock Lane, we would like the record to show that as taxpayers, parents, and environmentally concerned citizens we have serious misgivings about this proposed dcvelopment. \Ve are concerned aòout sever.ù llisues and ",ill he very interested in having the follo'win,g addressed: Environmental impaet on the wetlands and the ereek that runs through the exisring neighborhood Property ,-aluations Quality of life and child safet'¡ concerns Tr,¡fEc issues Aecess to Hwy 7 and the bike/hike trail running behind our neighborhood Noise and privàcy concerns \V'e are also L'Urious as to why seyer.ù of the more recent residents here were assured by city officials that this land could not òe developed because of the wetlands. This information ob,;ously had an impact on a major irwestment and lifestyle decision in òu};ng our homes in this neighborhood. W'e arc further interested in hearing the rationale behind closing our access to Highway 7 and crearin,g a new one to servc the -proposed subdi,;sion. The reasons for this do not seem to be consistent "';t.1J the reasons given during the last proposal process. For the record, those of us with srr.all children are com'ple~v opposed to direcring the tr.1ffic from the new development through Pipewood Curve to Highway 7. \'re welcome the opportunity to attend the scheduled mccring and have these guestions addressed. Sincerely, The Residents of Pipewood Curve :md Paddock Lane 7(i":tj Ù/c-u?z. !/" ~'; Chanhassen Planning Commission City Hall r noo Market Blvd. 2/26/02 ."'. ~ '1) Regarding Subdivision Request Hi¡,,'hway ì and Pipewood Curve i\!atrL" Devdopment, LLC .~ '. For the Reçord: As proptrty owners on Pipt'Wood Curve and Paddodc Lanc, we would like the re<:ord to show thatas taxpayer:;, parents, and cnvironmcntally concerned ci~ens we havc serious misgivings about this proposed development. We are wnœrned about sever.ù issues and will he very interested in having the follov¡in~ addressed: Environmental impact on the wetlands and the creek that runs through the existing neighborhood Property valuations Quality of life a.r:d child safet'j Wnce.."TIS T raffiç issues Access to H\vy ì and the bike/hike trail running behind our neighborhood Noise and privacy concerns \Ve are also L'UriOUS as to why sever.ù of the more recent residents here were assured by city officials that this land wuld not be developed because of the wetlands. This information obviously had an impact on a major irlvestment and lifestyle decision in buying our homes in mis neighborhood. \'\-' e are furmer interested in hearing the rationale behind dosing our access to Highway ì and crcatin,g a new onc to serve the l'roposcd subdivision. The reasons for this do not seem to be consistent \vith the reasons given during the last proposal process. For the rewrd, those of us with small çhildren are wm,pletIÌY 0l'posed to directing the traffic from the ne\v development through Pipel.vood Curve to Hi¡,,'hway ì. We welcome the opportunig to attend t.l:le sc.l¡cduled meeting and have thcse gucstions addressed. ~ \ \ . ~ Smwcly, qo~~~ ~~ ~.ux,.~ The Residents of Pipe<.vo~~ Curve and Paddock Lane Chanhassen Planning Commission City Hall ;" 7700 Market Blvd. 2/26/02 ...... Regarding Subdivision 1tequcst Highl."ay ì and Pipt<\'l.·ood Curve l...1atti", Deve1opment, liC For the Record: As property owners on Pipewood Curvc and Paddock Lanc, we would like the record to show that as tu,,'payers, parcnts, and environmentally concerned cit:izcns we havc scrious misgivings about this proposed development. We are concerned about sever-oil issues and ",ill he very interested in having the follo",;n.g addressed: Environmental impact on the wetlands and the creek that runs through the existing neighborhood Property valuations Quality of life :J,..,d child safety concerns TraftÏc issues Access to Hv.¡y ì and the bike/hike trail running behi..,d our neighborhood Noise and privacy concerns \Ve are also curious as to why sever-oil of the more recent residents here were assured by city officials that this land could not be developed because of the wetlands. This infoffi1ation obviously had an impact on a major investment and lifestyle decision in buying our homes in this neighborhood. We are further interested in hearing the r-ationale behind closing our access to Highway ì and ercatin.,g a new one to SCITe the l'roposcd subdivision. The reasons for this do not seem to be consistent \\;th the reasons given during the last proposal process. For the record, those of us with small children are com,plen;Ay opposed to directing the 1r.1ffic from the new development through Pipewood Curve to Hib>hway ì. We weleomc the opportunily to attend the scheduled meeting and have these gucstions addressed. Sincerely, The Residents ofPip",,vood Curve ;md Paddock Lane c Cf'î\f'<\ef\\~ ..---- - (},1 9-''''3- ok.~. \íì\Fjfik\ at' aur Î\e\~'h\ro(I\øéd \1> ~.pt,.\- dc,()-\ 0ÇfXlIE' the. ci.uJ~rncn+ o+iDf ~Qlrd . rm Q ~ tt,~ 10 '+f'e ~o.,J wJ.D be \) eY\-1 \JviJ ~t)mec\.. T-0 .~ new en\\-rClhCQ --b ~UÀ\ I \)J0J- 'De e~ l\ \J r-~ 16 Q\îc\ -Çv()m the H-wLI on, ~tlcd- shOLlOotn+ be c\ prol0lQn'7 0l~h(:f. A ììlce iurn lane / both EOdf ~ vue6~ LDOvOC/\ œ nt{c,üd. > ',; i - t . j\,litM1k Ú~Q wLP j I P~'d (:HfU€ - Chanhassen Planning Commission City Hall ;- nOD Market Bìvd. 2/26/02 '''. Regarding Subdivision Rcqucst Highv.--.1Y 7 and Pipewood Curve Matrix Deve1opment, ILC , For the Record: As property owners on Pipewood Curve and Paddock Lane, we would like the record to show thatas taxpayers, parcnts, and cnviconmcntally concerned citÎ2:ens we havc serious misgivings about this proposed development. We are concerned about sever,ù issues and ....-ill be very interested in having the following addressed: Environmental impact on the wetlands and the creek that runs through the existing neighborhood Propcrty valuations Quality of life and child safety concerns Trat1ïc issues Access to Hv.¡y 7 and t.l,e bike/hike trail running behind our neighborhood Noise and privacy concerns \'\'e are also Œrious as to why sever,ù of the more recent residents here were assured by city officials that this land could not be developed because of the wetlands. This information obviously had an impact on a major investment and lifestyle decision in buying our homes in this neighbothood. We are furthcr interested in hearing tlle rationale behind elosing our access to Highway 7 and creatin,g a new one to serve theproposed subdivision. The reasons for this do not seem to be consistent with the reasons given during the last proposal process. For the record, those of us with small children are com,plen:b' opposed to directing the trJffic from the new development throuÉ,<h Pipe\vood Curve to High\v.1Y 7. We welcome the opportuni1y to attend the schcdulcd mccting and have these gucstions addressed. d "f) 11v Sincerely, ~ ~ -I:i!-, . .¿~ / The Residents ofPipe\vood'î "e :md Paddock Lane Iõ ~~~~~: {J~ tv .~/ CÞL !P¿,d-./ ~~~~ ~ UJ- t2ÁtLV ~h~ .=f~ J¿,~ 'ì. '-I) ¡Vf¡ [0-'" .' {~~. ~,~ ~ UG-- yqi't;l~' ) .~. ~J¡/ '-fur<; ÛLévt: ' ~ ;ute [l.,¿0--rv~ Ô c . Lf~ () J-w;f1:J~ \ .~ ~f~C~ I::~~_~ \"f (]_4ð¿~ G .~ ¿~-WDty ~ tv ' .' ' <. ' eYV èV (l.vLt--- C¿ryvc¿~ ()~.~ f\ J ~ .r; y~uLJJ~ I::u --fvo'~'lLV¡ d~ ·tv __v ~ (t L'-tc{L Íù ~,¿L/hry,J 1 1W- ~J¡. '~A' oj flA~ OA D~ . Chanhassen Planning CommisSion City Hall r 7700 Market Blvd. 2/26/02 ...... Regarding Subdivision Request Highway 7 :¡pd Pipewood Curve Ma~.x Devwopment, liC , For the Record: As property owners on Pipewood Curve and Paddock Lane, we would like the record to show thatas taxpayers, parcnts, and cnvironmcntally concerned ci~ens we have serious misgivings about this proposed development. We are concerneù about several issues and will he very interested in having the following addressed: Environmep.taI impact on the wetlands and the creek that runs through the existÍng neighborhood Property valuatÍons Quality of life and child safety concerns Traffic issues Access to H\\7 7 and the bike/hike trail running behind our neighborhood Noise and privàcy concerns We are also mrious as to why several of the more recent residents here were assured by city officials that this land could not be develojJed because of the wetlands. This infonnatÍon obviously had an impact on a má¡or investment and lifestyle decision in buying our homes in this neighborhood. We arc further interested in hearing the ratÍonale behind closing our access to Highway 7 and creatin,g a new onc to serve the -proposed subdivision. The reasons for this do not seem to be consistent with the reasons given during the last proposal process. For the record, those of us with small children are com,pletelv opposed to directÍng the traffic from the new development through Fipewood Curve to Highway 7. We welcomc the opportunity to attend thc schcdulcd mccting=d have these guestÍons addressed. C:' I ....,tnccrc y, Th'~;~;::::r'~d:;Z4.;c. ./~ ~ t==: J-I~ -~ oL<.-- ~ Chanhassen Planning Commission City Hall ;' noo Market Blvd. 2/26/02 '...... Regarding Subdivision Request Highway ì and Pipewood Curve Matrix Devtilopment, liC , For the Record: As property owners on Pipewood Curve and Paddock Lane, we would like the record to show that as taxpayers, parents, and environmentally concerned citi::ens we have serious misgivings about this proposed development. We are concerned about several issues and ",-ill he very interested in having the following addressed: Environmental impact on the wetlands and the creek that runs through the exisring neighborhood Property valuations Quality of life and child safety concerns T raftic issues Access to H\vy ì and the bike/hike trail running behind our neighborhood Noise and privacy concerns \v'e are also curious as to why several of the more recent residents here were assured by city officials that this land could not be developed because of the wetlands. This information obviously had an impact on a major investment and lifestyle decision in buying our homes in this neighborhood. W'e arc further interested in hearing the rationale behind closing our access to Highway ì and erearin"g a ne\v one to serve the j>roposed subdivision. The reasons for this do not seem to be consistent \vit.1o the reasons given during the last proposal process. For the record, t.loose of us with small children are com,pletel¡ opposed to direcring the traffic from the new development through Pipt:\vood Curve to HiÉo"¡'way ì. We welcome the opportunity to attend the schedulcd mccrin,g and have these gucstions addressed. /' ;¿ju( CL tk_úLu, Sincerely, , ( /... /71 /Lttc", The Residents of Pipe wood Curve and Paddock Lane Bruce and I concur wholeheartedly with the concerns expressed in the attached letter addressed to the Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 2/26/02 on behalf of the Residents of Pipe wood Curve and Paddock Lane regarding the Subdivision Request at Highway 7 and Pipewood Curve. For all the reasons stated, we oppose the plat approval to create 20 lots, four outlots and public right-of-way with a variance for the use of private streets and from the subdivision standards, and a wetland alteration permit. We oppose the closing of our current entrance onto Highway 7 AND the increased traffic that would be caused if it was the only entrance should the subdivision eventually be developed. IF the subdivision is developed (and we would prefer that the entire project be denied) we would highly recommend that our neighborhood be left as is, and that this subdivision be designed with its own and separate access to Highway 7. Bruce and Linda Harrier 6601 Pipewood Curve Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen Planning Commission Cíty Hall' 7700 Market Blvd. 2/26/02 Regarding Subdivision Request Highway 7 and Pipewood Curve Matrix Devdopment, ll..C , For the Record: As property O'wners on Pipewood Curve and Paddock Lane, we would like the record to show that as taxpayers, parents, and environmentally concerned eitizens we have serious misgivings about this proposed development. We are concerned about several issues and 'Will be very interested in having the follm.ving addressed: Environmental impaet on the wetlands and the ereek that runs through the existing neighborhood Property valuations Quality oflife and child safe!}' concerns Traffic issues Access to Hwy 7 and the bike/hike trail running behind our neighborhood Noise and privacy concerns \,le are also curious as to why several of the more recent residents here were assured by city officials thar this land could not be develoFed because of the wetlanill. 111is information obviously had an impact on a major investment and lifestyle decision in buying our homes in this neighborhood. We are further interested in hea...jng the rationale behind closing our aecess to Highway 7 and creating.a new Dnc to scrvc the proFosed subdivision. The reasons for this do not seem to be consisçent with the reasons given during the last proposal process. For the record, those of us ..vith small £hildren are completely opposed to directing the traffic from the new development through Pipewood Curve to Highway 7. We welcome the opportunir¡ to attend the scheduled meeting and have these questions addressed. Sincerely, The Residents of Pipe wood Curve and Paddock Lane ~~~~ To: Matrix Development ;md the City of Chanhassen From; Beth Ramsey resident on Paddock T .n. ~r . I am a homeowner on Paddock Ln. off of Pipe wood Curve in Chanhassen. I would like to state a few of my own specific concerns ;md comments concerning the proposal for fhe new developmeqt at the end ofPipewood Curve. 1 am not opposed to a development of single f:iITIily 'homes of similar value to the existing neighborhood or even redirect1Ì\g our entrance onto Hwy. 7 to a safer location. Some of the things thaU am concerned about arc thc fol1owing: T do not want the nature of our neighborhood to change. This means that the creek must bc improved, npt hatmed. There must not 1,e ;m increaseín traffic down our street. That there not be a mass of small houses cr.unmeù next to each other ün lots that are .small creating too much traffi~ and congestion ín and out of our neíghborhood. This new proposal does not seem to .create any of these scenarios. For that I amp. The problcl1)S that T-doscc arising from building on 1:hc1and adjacent to our property is a loss of privacy for us. We arc the mli.>' property that is directlý affèctcd by the development of the land. .we bought our home with -the understanding that the bmldircctly adíaccnt to our properIJ would not, could not be- developed because-it is wetlands, That seems to have been false information from the City 'Of Chanhassen. Therefore we would like to request that there be no lots directly adjacent to our properIJ. Another issue that will arise is an increase in our property taxes. If what Mr. Phcra speculated is correct (that our propety values wil! increase with the ncw development) than won't our taxes increase as well? I am very happy about one aspect in particular: that a public access to the hike/bike trail will be included in the plan for the new development. That makes me very happy. Than!r..s for your time. Beth Ramscy , March 5, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: We're writing because we have a number of concems about the planned development to the north of Highway 7. We bought the property at 6570 Pipewood Curve with the understanding that the wetlands were protected and not to be developed. We have six children, three of whom are age 5 and under, making a total of seven small children in the neighborhood. We deliberately chose a house at the end of the street to maximize their safety from both traffic and strangers. We appreciated that a stream ran from the wetlands through our property. We love it that animals such as deer come on our property. We appreciate the variety of frogs and fish that spawn in the stream. We have ducks and wood ducks nesting in the pond on our property, and in the adjacent wellands. We enjoy the wild turkey, grouse and pheasants which return for the feed we provide. We are concerned about fertilizer run-off, traffic on our street, and loud noises disturbing the animals and our way of life. , We have an unusual street that's cut off from the way neighborhoods are usually fonned, in that Pipewood Curve is quiét, personal, and golf-course-like. Driving down Pipewood is like driving through a well-manicured park. We would be totally unhappy for the end of Pipewood to be shut down, and to be made to drive through a new neighborhood of smaller, similar houses, which will reduce the property value of the houses on Pipewood Curve. We request 1) that Block 6 (the proposed two houses adjacent to the Ramsey's residence) be removed from the development, 2) that Pipewood Curve not be extended and shut down at Highway 7, and 3) that restrictions on the use of fertilizer and noise be strictly enforced. As reported a few years ago, while there were two accidents at the comer of Pipewood Curve and Highway 7, one accident was due to the driver falling asleep, and the other was a driver hitting a deer. Neither accident was due to anything intrinsically dangerous about the intersection of PiJJt;!woc;¡d Curve and Highway 7. We therefore reject the argument that closing Pipewood Curve is a public safety issue. Shutting down Pipewood Curve would not only not eliminate a cul- de-sac, but result in a net gain of two cul-de-sacs, given the development plan. We realize that people should have the right to do what they wish with their property, but we wish that their rights be balanced with their impact on both nature and our way of life. Sincerely Dr. Douglas Bass and family 6570 Pipewood Curve , Chanhassen Planning Commission City Hall t noo Market Blvd. 2/26/02 ""'. Regarding Subdivision Request Hi¡"ohway 7 and Pipev;;ood CUITe Matr.x Devdopment, liC For the Record: As property owners on Pipewood Curve and Paddoek Lane, we would like the reeord to show that as taxpayers, parents, and environrncntally concerned citi::ens we havc serious misgivings about this proposed development. We are concerned about several issues and ",-ill he very interested in having the followin.g addressed: Environmental impact on the wetlands and the creek that runs through the existing neighborhood Property valuations Quality of life and clIild safety concerns Traftìc issues Access to H""Ì 7 and the bike/hike trail running behind our neighborhood Noise and privaC"j concerns \Ve are :Ùso. curious as to why severJ.! of the more recent residents here were assured by city officials that this land could not be developed because of the wetlands. This information obviously had an impact on a major investment and lifestyle decision in buying our homes in rhis neighborhood. We arc further interested in hearing the rationale behind closing our access to Highway 7 and creating a ncw one to seITe the proposed subdivision. The reasons for this do not scern to be consistent with the reasons given during the last proposal process. For the record, those of us with small children are com,pleteJJ' opposed to directing the traffic from the new development throu¡"oh Pipewood CUITe to Highway 7. W'e weleome the opportunity to attend t.l¡,e scheduled meeting and have thcse guestions addressed. Sinccrcìy, RECEIVED MAR 11 2002 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C) /Co,,/ V'''/ The Residents of Pipe wood Curve and Paddock Lane ú! - Jlt/Ý\ f5 to/ill J'¡" ¿ ¿ 30 1111(""'0) cJv''''(, :(1 ~.._~ Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 March 6, 2002 Mr. Robert Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RECEIVED MAR 1 2 2002 Subject: Hidden Creek Estates--Mn/DOT Review #P02-0 16 North of Trunk Highway 7 at Pipewood Curve Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Dear Mr. Generous: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following issues: · The proposed access to Trunk Highway 7 is acceptable provided that the existing Pipewood Curve access is closed. A right turn lane and an east-bound bypass lane, as well as the closure of the Pipewood Curve access, will be required as conditions of a new access permit for the proposed development. For your information, these Trunk Highway improvements are development driven and are, therefore, the financial responsibility of the developer and/or the City. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Jolene Servatius (651-634-2373) in Mn/DOT's Traffic section. · The plat does not adequately identifY Trunk Highway 7 right of way, The final plat should show and label Mn/DOT right of way (using three dash symbology) and refer to the appropriate plates), document number and in place monuments. The distances from the center line and offset dimensions from the center line to the edge of the plat should also be identified. The plat should document Mn/DOT's access control for verification that the proposed access is in the proper location. Please direct questions concerning these issues to John Isackson (651-582-1273) in Mn/DOT's Right of Way section. Please send one copy of the final plat for Mn/DOT review to the following address: David Tomn Mn/DOT - Metro West Surveys 2055 N. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 Phone: (763) 797-3113 · The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must not increase). The City or project developer will need to submit before/after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifYing that all existing drainage patterns and systems affecting Mn/DOT An equal opportunity employer right of way will be perpetuated. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Pamela Selden (651-634-2410) ofMnlDOT's Water Resources section. . Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. An access permit will be required for this development. A drainage permit may be required as well. Please direct questions regarding permit applications to Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443) of Mn/DOT' s Permits section. . Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise trom this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582-1293. Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, environmental reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to: Paul Czech Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us trom having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. Feel tree to contact me at (651) 582-1378 if you should have any questions. cc: John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council Matrix Development LLC Ryan Engineering 2 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Blackowiak: So think about it. I would just like us to be able to take a look. We got some petitions from the neighbors so I'd just like us to have 2 minutes to take a look at this and think about it. Give me your decision then. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLA T APPROVAL TO CREATE 20 LOTS. FOUR OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF PRIVATE STREETS AND FROM THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT ON 22.28 ACRES OF LAND ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOCATED NORTH OF illGHW A Y 7 AT THE END OF PIPEWOOD CURVE. MATRIX DEVELOPMENT, LLC. HIDDEN CREEK ESTATES. Public Present: Name Address Perry Ryan Greg Greenwood Kris Sittler Peter Thomson Cindy Gess Dan McInerny Marien Zanyk Beth Ramsey Greg Lang Cindy Ahlm Rosalie Bass Ryan Engineering, Inc. 650 I Kirkwood Circle 6526 Aster Trail 400 I Aster Trail 400 I Aster Trail 6550 Aster Trail 6590 Pipewood Curve 4111 Paddock Lane 6524 Aster Trail 6381 Aster Trail 6570 Pipewood Curve Marien Zanyk: ....and it needs to be preserved as it is. And one concern is the connection of this road right here. There is about 1,000 feet based on information from the other developers, about 1,000 feet here that is expensive for them to create a road here. There's just wetlands. They can't put homes in. Aanenson: Focus on the plat. She can focus on the plat. Marien Zanyk: This works for me. Aanenson: But if you focus on the plat then they can see... Marien Zanyk: Okay. Wetlands. House lots, okay. What's the point of putting in just 2 homes right here that butt up against some neighbors of mine? They don't want to see houses right up against their house. The expense of putting in a road right here, although the sewer line is there, but that's just a waste and it also is a deterrent for the animal life that lives in here and believe me there's tons of animals in here. Why not put a nice neighborhood right here and leave this land alone and leave this neighborhood alone? We understand that the reasoning behind the road access onto Highway 7, a couple of points there. It's an 8 percent grade within 15 feet of the highway and it's supposedly dangerous. It's not dangerous. A year ago I asked about that specifically. Ministry of Transport, or MnDot, whatever you call it in the United States. .. . Ministry of Transport. They said that there has only been 2 accidents 23 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 on there. One, somebody hit a deer and another person fell asleep. There is no accident rating for that. It is non-existent. Non-significant. We use it all the time. It's a slight grade but any access onto Highway 7 is a little bit of a trick. You hold your breath in a way, but it's not such an exceptional.. .entrance. It's not, and there is no accident rating that would validate cutting off our nice cul-de-sac that is safe for our children. That gives us a beautiful amenity as it is. Curved entry into our Pipewood Curve with a cul-de-sac safety issue is so important for our children to be able to play up there. If you put in a road right all the way through, it's a whole different environment. We do not want to travel through a higher density neighborhood and we do not want to lose the access, peaceful access that it is now. With regard to property valuations, we have concems about that. The hiking trail is a wonderful idea. If we could gain access to that, we're in complete support of this type of thing. But this section in here, don't go there. You don't need to. We request that. And this is so much more improved than the multiple, multiple townhomes that we saw before that this seems like a reasonable development from my side of it. But I'd like to request that the cul-de-sac be left there. I guess that's about it for my concerns. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Kind: Madam Chair, I have a question of the speaker. You're not the applicant. I do have a quick question for you. If MnDot limits us to one access point on Highway 7, would you prefer having, which entrance access to Highway 7 would you prefer? The new one or your existing one. Marien Zanyk: Our existing one. Kind: So you would okay with the new 20 homes coming through your neighborhood to get onto Highway 7? Marien Zanyk: No. No. That, no. Kind: That was my question. Marien Zanyk: Yeah, no. Can't we. Kind: No, here's my question. You have your choice between one or the other. Marien Zanyk: Absolutely... Kind: Absolutely between one or the other. Marien Zanyk: I understand you don't want another access. Kind: That's not my, I don't care. It's MnDot who cares. Marien Zanyk: No, you're right. I would prefer, I suppose we would prefer us going through there. Kind: Okay, that's my question. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Rosalie Bass: Hi. I'm Rosalie Bass. I live in this lot right here that's connected to the wetlands. Right here. I have a couple of issues. I have a stream, a hardy stream that runs through my part. I've got quite a large lot. One of my big concerns is fertilization bleeding into the stream because once you, once you fix these lots up they're going to of course fertilize their lots to get the grass growing in them, and that fertilizer has to wash somewhere and it's going to wash where the frogs and the fish that we watch go through the stream We have quite a large amount of carp and different fish that go through the stream, and one of my big concerns is the pollution level. Just to make sure that, you know we're downstream. We're going to catch whatever happens upstream. I also had a concern about oh, a lot oftons of concrete had been dumped on this lot. It's been a mess. They put, you know I don't know what they plan on doing with the concrete. I hope it's not going to be buried in somebody's back yard. I hope it doesn't, if it gets buried, I hope it doesn't become a snake pit. That wouldn't be good for anyone living around there. I hope that it's handled in an appropriate manner. Not to be just dumped on somebody with a negative effect. Another concern is that, you know it sounds like it's almost a, you know it's going to happen whether you like it or not, which I don't mind them developing because if it was my property I'd want to sell it. I don't mind developing it. I think this is, it looks like a really nice plan. I feel sorry for this lady though that lives right here because those houses that are going to be stuck there are just going to be so, they're going to make a street there so it's going to further, not only give a pathway but it's going to make another interruption and another I don't know, if you've ever gone down Pipewood, it's like let me give you a scene. You wake up in the morning, snow's covered everywhere. On top the trees. I mean it's just like a canopy of snow everywhere. You drive through and it's like a little golf course with tiered trees and a stream with bridges over it and it's just immaculate driving in and out of Pipewood Curve. During the spring, which is fixin to happen, you drive through. There's a canopy of lime green leaves over your head. It's like, it's like very beautifully tailored yards. Flowers over the bridges. They say well no, sorry. You can't drive through that anymore because you see, we want you to drive this way. We've got this new development coming in and all these nice brick homes, and I know in 20 years the development will be big and pretty and you'll get a lot more out of it then. But you know, our lot is almost, not only that it has the new families living in it like Miss Marien that you spoke with. She lives closer to the street than anyone almost.. But you have a lot of older people. You have a family that's lived on this street and they're in all the houses that are set back, and they've not had a problem driving off of Pipewood Curve. I mean it's been just fine. I went and spoke with them personally. They don't feel like they have a choice either. They feel like it's inevitable. It's going to happen and it's like, it's almost like a right being, taking this beautiful place away from you and make it go through this other area. So you know I know you've given me a choice. Have 20 people drive through your serenity. Not 20,40. Maybe 40 cars. Husband and wife cars. Maybe teen cars. .. .peaceful, beautiful area and you're saying well, sorry. We've decided that no longer can you have this. It's a safety issue. We've never had a safety problem. Never. You're saying well, but because we're going to stick all of these homes over here, it's a safety problem. Well, you're taking an awful lot away from us. I guess you know, I don't know what can be done. I hope if whatever gets done is done really tasteful where if you're going to take a lot away, you've got to give a lot back you know. Make it beautiful. Don't make us suffer because you know when you live in a place that you know your country defends you. Your city defends you. I mean that's what you do, and if it was done to you, you know you'd be upset too. So I don't know, I've got, see I've got a little one and I had to go and I have to go but, I don't want to drive through 20 houses. I don't want to drive through, now wetland's nice because of the animals. We have beautiful animals coming up to the house and in the yard and we love it. But you know, if you ever just stepped beside the edge of wetland and looked in, it's quite a dump in a way. You know it's not that pretty. You can't just go oh, look how beautiful. Well that's not the beauty of it all. The beauty of it all is being set back and in a nature area with the kind of animals and just being still and letting things happen. And what's going to happen is we're going to have to drive through this area that's wetland to get to these homes. So this wetland area, although wetlands are nice, it's not very pretty really along the edges of a wetland. You ;.~ .~ 25 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 know there's not a whole lot you can do to wetlands to make it look pretty. It'd be nice if we had cattails growing and grow healthy all the time but it just doesn't happen. You know right now it's depleted. It's just rotted looking it's so bad. So I don't know, I know that it looks bad if you were to drive through it right now. And then to drive to make it worst, to drive through these houses would be even worst. I have children that play in the wetlands. I love the wetlands. I love the animals. I love the nature. I love the peacefulness and the quiet and you know, I'm going to leave it really in your guy's hands and Ijust hope, I know that you'll do the best you can and thank you. BIackowiak: Okay, thank you. Kind: Thank you. BIackowiak: Just before you leave, I want to make a couple comments. This item, regardless of our decision tonight goes to City Council. That will be at the April 8th meeting, so you know. I'm sure your neighbors will tell you this too. Kind: Get a baby sitter. Rosalie Bass: Let me tell you, we didn't get letters okay. The only person that got a letter was Beth Ramsey and Marien, the lady that just left, she lives really close. She was in the Caribbean. She didn't get home until a few seconds before she came here. She had no ideal. I didn't get a letter, okay. Kind: There's a mailing address label right here. Rosalie Bass: I didn't get a letter, okay. I didn't. I did not know. I did not know there was a meeting tonight. Kind: It kind of looks like junk mail. Rosalie Bass: I called on the phone and the lady...I called on the phone and the lady told me the meeting started at 5:00 so I tried to find out. I thought 5:00. It was 4:30 when I called. There was no way I was prepared. I hurried up and got a couple of my children and brought them up here and rushed up here. I know that a lot of the other neighbors had no ideal because I walked over to their house today, and they had no ideal about this meeting. The neighbors exactly next to it. I mean the one that's so close that you know, I can look in her window almost. BIackowiak: That's another issue. Rosalie Bass: But the thing is, to be such an important issue of closing our street down, why aren't other people brought into this situation because it's goingto change their lives. It's going to change their whole atmosphere and they have no ideal. I mean and they say well yeah, we put it in the paper. Well, I've been looking for those kind of ads all the time I guess. No, I really don't you know. Kind: Start to. Rosalie Bass: Well I guess I'm going to have to. I'm going to have to but anyway, a lot of people don't know about this and, or probably some of them might have been here that would have wanted to be. 26 Planning Conunission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. And just Kate, one question. Garbage on site, that's the developer's responsibility for proper disposal, correct? Aanenson: Correct. Rosalie Bass: But what will they do with it? They need to have a plan because any choice, is it okay to bury a ton of concrete in wetlands? Blackowiak: No. Rosalie Bass: Is it okay to bury a ton of concrete in someone's back yard that they're going to develop? Blackowiak: I don't think it's okay to bury anything anywhere. Saam: We'll have them dispose of it off site. Blackowiak: Yeah, because I noticed couches and dryers and. Saam: Yeah, there's all kinds of things. Rosalie Bass: I think if things were handled in an appropriate manner, but I think it's necessary that it be a mandatory thing and not a hope they do it or it'd be nice if they do it. Blackowiak: I believe it is. Is a requirement. Saam: And we have inspections to make sure of that so, it will be taken care of. Rosalie Bass: And I hope that if they plant trees, that maybe it's sometimes a little more like to put big ones and some little ones, you know instead of just a strip of a whole bunch of trees all the same size that looks like someone just did it. I hope that they could find a way to do things in a manner. I mean they're taking an awful lot away from the other part of the neighborhood. All I'm asking is please don't make it an eyesore. Or make it look like you know a new development. I don't know if you've seen the senior homes on 7, I mean I know those seniors are going to be happy because, I mean they've got a house but you know, if you overdevelop your land, if you make it to where it's all going to look that way all along the highways, then you're going to end up losing what you love here. And I'mjust hoping that you know, people search for nice places to live. This is a very nice place to live. It'd almost be better to be taxed more. Blackowiak: Oooh. Rosalie Bass: Than to lose what you've got. Sometimes you've got to fight for what you got and I know everybody wants a piece of the pie and if you give everybody a piece ofthe pie, then you're going to lose what you get eventually. Anyway, any other questions? Blackowiak: No, not now. Thank you so much. Slagle: Madam Chair I have to address Conunissioner Kind's comment on junk mail, because I make my living with that. But I would throw out as a suggestion for staff, and I'm sure it's oversight but you might want to seed yourselves on all the mailings that go out because it looks like Scott Botcher was on 27 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 but got crossed off. So I don't see any other Chanhassen staff people. That way you would know that you got the mailing. Or it went out and was received by someone. So just FYI. ßlackowiak: We'll put your name on it. Slagle: Oh my name too. Kind: Put Rich's name. Rich gets every one. Slagle: Trying to help out. Sacchet: It's how you make a living. Slagle: That's right. And more postage. Kind: Okay, I'm sorry. Blackowiak: Thank you so much. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing right now with the understanding I will re-open it later. We're going to start now with our staff report for this item. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this issue. Blackowiak; Okay, thank you. Commissioners, questions of staff. Slagle: Just a couple. Bob, on Block 6, Lots I and 2, the first option, I'll call it option, or outlot. Excuse me, Option A. Exhibit A. You showed the elimination of a ponding area. Does that necessarily have to happen? Could they keep that pond there if they wanted to? Generous: That'd be feasible, sure. Slagle: Okay. Second question on A-I you show the impact is 5,200 square feet, similar to A. Is that, I mean is that cOlTect they're both around 5,200 or one is 4,800 and one is. Generous: We didn't review the exact impacts on this. We just wanted to show an alternative that would work and comply with the ordinance. We prefer to avoid wetland impacts where possible. Slagle: The reason I'm asking, when it's the, what I'll call just an approximation is that on Exhibit B you then say 1,480 square feet less wetland fill. Excuse me, that goes further into the other road. So it's really one of these two options and a private street, cOlTect? Generous: COlTect. For Block 6. Slagle: Okay. How much less does the private street impact the wetland? Generous: There are no impacts to the wetland with the private street. Slagle; None whatsoever, okay. Generous: COlTect. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Slagle: Okay, thanks. Blackowiak: Thank you. Anybody else questions for staff? Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. I do have a few quick questions. On page 8 of the report, it is stated that there's a list oflots and it says the following may not accommodate the proposed 40 foot required setback. I was looking at that and it's, I couldn't quite see how that was consistent. Could you explain that just a little bit. It says Block 1, Lot 1, obviously that's a little close with the pad, but and I looked at some and in some it seemed like to apply and to some it didn't so if you could clarify. Generous: Right, and part of the problem, if you look on page 3 of 7 in the report, they showed the wetland buffer area and then the 40 foot setback adjacent to that. But they're all uniform. They don't vary. And if they can vary that, they can meet the setbacks. For Lot 1 they can actually move the house 20 feet to the north and they'd be out of that wetland setback. So they can comply with that. As part of our review for the final plat we would work out all the buffer yard requirements on each lot and incorporate that as a condition of approval that for instance Lot 1, Block 3 would have a 10 foot buffer yard and Lot 2, Block 2, or Block, yeah. Lot 2, Block 2 may have a 30 foot, or 20 foot buffer yard. So that we maintain the average. But they can correct it. It's just if they get it in a uniform manner and it didn't work. Sacchet: And basically you're saying staff would work with the applicant on that, but what threw me is that the table in the report didn't match that particular blueprint where that the things are. Now, the other question I have is the proposed tree preservation is 0 percent. Does that mean we did not include the trees and the wetland in consideration, correct? Generous: That's exactly what it means. It's only in the upland area that we calculate the tree removal. There are significant stands of trees within the wetlands that won't be impacted, that will be preserved but they're not penalized for that either as, in part of their canopy coverage calculation or in their removal requirements. Sacchet: So in other words there will be a significant amount of trees left on the site? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: That's what I'm after. And then two quick questions. In your findings, your findings on page 11, the private street finding. That obviously applies to Block 6 and not Block 1 and 2? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Because it doesn't say that. And then finding 4 on page 13, the variance for the private street again that's 6 and not 1 and 2? Okay. I believe that's all the questions I have, thank you. BIackowiak: Okay. Questions? Kind: Ah yes Madam Chair. In your meeting with MnDot, did they say we must change it to this new point or that we have a choice between the two? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Saam: No. We have a choice. We requested the meeting because in discussions with the developer we saw the opportunity to correct a bad intersection and move it here, so we requested that we sit down with MnDot But the fact remains that they'll allow only one so. Kind: Okay, so I was right on that? Saam: That's the issue. Kind: But this commission can make a recommendation as to which one you would recommend keeping open? Aanenson: Right. And it's the staff's position is we felt for the integrity of that neighborhood it'd be better to bring it through the new... Kind: ...commenting later, isn't it. I'll save that part for later. Let's see what else. VIi touched on the tree thing because I noticed on the plan there were a lot of trees being saved, so that's good. Generous: Yes. Kind: Including the one most significant tree which is a 27 inch oak, that is on the saved list. Sacchel: Number 58. Kind: What Vii said. Also on that landscape plan there are some species of trees which in the past the city forester has not been crazy about as far as the viability. Specifically Colorado Spruce so I'm wondering if it makes sense going forward to put a condition on there that the city forester should review the hardiness of trees. Generous: That would be appropriate, yes. Kind: Proposed, okay. I think that's it for staff. Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, questions? Peik: Yeah Matt... would you please go over the rationale a little bit more deeply as to why there can only be one access onto Highway 7. Saam: Well again that's MnDot's ruling. They're trying to limit direct access to the highway. Highways are meant to keep the cars moving. They don't want every 300 feet an intersection where cars are pulling out into 55 mile per hour traffic. Peik: ...ifthere were to be two accesses now, what would be the approximate distance between them? Saam: Ifthere were to be the two? Peik: Yes. Saam: The proposed one and the existing? Let me check. Approximately, over 1,200 feet. Or about 1,200 to 1,300. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Feik: Have we received anything in writing from MnDot stating that this is a requirement clearly so the neighborhood to the west... would like to keep their own access, albeit it may be not... Saam: We haven't received anything in writing yet. Typically they don't get their comments back to us until right before the, this goes to council. But verbally they've told us that they definitely agree that that intersection would be better if moved up here. Feik: Well I understand better, but I also understand.. .but I want to be very clear to the residents that they absolutely require one access. Saam: I believe so yeah. I believe once we get the letter from them it will say, keep in mind MnDot's only going to allow one so I definitely believe that. Feik: ...okay, thank you. And then, that's it... Blackowiak: Okay, And I just have I think one or two questions. Private street. How do we ensure compliance with the city's design standards on a private street? Given that at the last meeting we heard horror stories about a private street so if indeed we choose to go forward and allow a private street, how can we ensure we're getting what the residents have paid for. Saam: Right now we don't inspect, we consider them a driveway basically. A private driveway, a private street. So we don't inspect driveways that go in at every house. They're not in the public right- of-way so we don't feel we have a duty to ensure that they're built to acceptable standards. Aanenson: Can I add a condition? If it is a variance you can ask for a condition if you want. Blackowiak: I was going to say. Saam: Maybe add that we inspect it to ensure that it's built. Blackowiak: Or that the applicant provide borings or tests or something proving that it's done to the 7, is it a 7 ton specification you're looking for? Saam: That's correct, yep. Blackowiak: Okay. So that would be appropriate to add that. Okay. I guess I don't have any more questions right now, thank you. At this time would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Perry Ryan: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Perry Ryan with Ryan Engineering. Currently in 434 Lake Street in Excelsior. I think Mr. Generous did a very nice job and I'm sure you've all had a chance to read through this lengthy report. I won't bore you with going through the entire report. I just want to make a couple comments. It is a gorgeous piece of property. I was going to respond to Mrs. Bass' comments about the Pipewood Curve area. The gorgeous property. She talked about you know the concrete, the polluting in the stonn drainage and the fertilizing the wetlands. Certainly we're abiding by the design standards set forth by the city on the storm sewer system as well as the ponding and the city being the LGU on the wetlands. Interesting when you put it the way of what would you rather see the outlet going through, either Pipewood Curve or the outlet on 31 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 this project and I do believe that they would probably agree that it should go through this project. That being said, it won't really change the character of how many vehicles are going through there. We think this property is also a great piece of property, as Mr. Generous pointed out. We're looking at the design, if we can flip to here. We are putting the roadway on the alignment of the sanitary sewer and watennain that was put in in 1973. The wetland impacts are solely for the construction of the public roadway for the public infrastructure.. The conditions which were suggested as part of conditions of approval for this development, one was the reorientation of the existing Lots 1 and 2 in this orientation and we did look at that in some detail. Today we actually at our meeting that we had today with the city staff came forward with proposed contours in that area and there are a lot of benefits to that and we are in agreement that that should be done. It's a slightly less impact on a wetlands through this area than the previous location. There are some other savings. The other condition of approval was the addition of a 5 foot concrete sidewalk on one side of the street, and access through to the trail corridor to the northwest, and the developer is in agreement with that as well. I know that was some of the pauses he had I think spoken with at least 2 of the neighbors. Some of the pauses of providing that access and of course that access would go all the way down to the access point at the end of Pipewood Curve as it exists now and so those residents would also be able to utilize that trail. 1 think generally we had looked at it, they'll be on the north and the west side so that trail will follow along the northwest side, up through here and give not only these 20 residents access to that trail but also the residents of Pipe wood Curve. I don't really have any further conunents. I guess I would stand for any questions. I think certainly the size of the lots are very representative for what's out there in the area if you look at the overall picture. We're at 0.9 units per acre gross and 1.86 per acre net as opposed to the allowable of up to 4 units per acre in the upland so I thought one of the interesting comments that Mr. Generous made within his report kind of made a cut to the chase. This is a 22 point something acre development and somewhere in here, and now I'm having trouble finding it. Mr. Generous points out that it is roughly 8.5 acres of actual, page 2? Thank you. Now I lost page 2. 8.5 acres of lot, 8.5 acres of, oh I turned it over. That's why I lost it. 8.5 acres of lots. 8.5 acres of wetland. 2.28 acres of ponding and upland buffer, and 3 acres of roadway right-of-way and so you know we're only developing really 8.5 acres of this 22 acre parcel. And so I guess I would agree with him. I have seen some of the previous layouts on this site and we would like to agree with them to say that this is a tremendous improvement and I think we're really trying to work with the city, trying to work with the natural environmental conditions out there and the wetlands to put a development together that will work quite nicely so I would stand for any questions. Mr. Frank Thera with Matrix Development is also here to answer any questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Feik: You answered.. .as it relates to the options that have been posed by staff regarding Block 6., .being the short public cul-de-sac. ..from a developer's standpoint, where do you, how do you respond to the...? Perry Ryan: Well we would obviously like to request, and we have requested that the private, I'll put the option up here but it be as shown on the larger set of plans that we do a private street in there. There are no wetland impacts, no additional wetland impacts for those two units. The two, Exhibit A which shows as Mr. Generous pointed out, Exhibit A-I which was a cul-de-sac, both have similar wetland impacts. They are both at 5,200 square feet actually of additional wetland impact. To answer your question previously, yeah you could probably still keep that pond in there and have the driveways go around it. We would rather see the private street going in there and no wetland impacts. We simply did this to show that there's, the land area. When you look at this Exhibit A, I don't know if you can tighten up on that a little bit. Thank you. When you look at this Exhibit A, the entire portion of this except for this little piece right here is wetlands so we are really constructing the homes on the non-wetland portion and we are only infringing on that wetland for the access whether it be the two private driveways, which 32 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 would be standard driveways on Exhibit A, or an actual little stub cul-de-sac on Exhibit A-I. And so we think it makes more sense, and I think we have agreement generally with staff that the private drive is... Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: Madam Chair, to follow up on...Commissioner Kind's comments about, I think we're moving toward putting in a condition about requiring testing of the private street, and you're okay with that? Perry Ryan: Yeah, we had discussed that and certainly we would be amenable to adding that. The design is going to stay the same as all the rest of the public streets. It's just a matter of adding the inspection on that and we would certainly amenable to acting on as a condition. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions? Other questions? Okay, thank you. Okay now at this time I am going to re-open the public hearing so if anyone else would like to get up and speak on this development, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Dan McInerny: Hi. My name is Dan McInerny. I live on Aster Trail which is on the other side of the trail from this development. I also live on Lake Virginia which will be the place where all the silt will go if the wetland doesn't do it's job. I was wondering, have all the members of the commission been out to the site and walked the site? Sacchet: Twice. Dan McInerny: Okay. I hope you agree with me, in the northwesterly comer of this site, the far side of the creek, there is a mature woodland and this whole project... because the creek is well buffered with trees and vegetation. I've heard you guys talking about that there were trees being protected. If you look at the report it looked like there weren't any trees going to be protected. Can somebody tell me where the trees are going to be protected? Blackowiak: Okay Bob, would you kind of point that out for everyone please. Generous: On the inventory list it shows. in the outlot areas there's significant stands of trees. All of these will be preserved on the east side. There's some, our ordinance requires trees to 12 inches or larger... to be shown specifically. Out of those that are smaller, they must highlighted so all ofthis stuff would be preserved on the northern side of the northwest comer of the property. Dan McInerny: On the northern boundary of the property, this is mature woodland all up here and. Generous: That's off site. Dan McInerny: Right. My concern is that if you grade, if you take a bulldozer all the way to the very edge of the property line, you're going to injure all the trees just on the north side of that property line, and I'd ask that there'd be some concern for some buffering to protect those trees. My other concern had to do with the change in the site as far as the increase of the, increase in impervious surfaces and the fact that this creek, when there is a thunderstorm or a big snow melt, carries a lot of water. And to the extent that you increase the impervious surfaces, you're going to increase the surge and you're going to increase the erosion potential. I'm wondering if somebody can tell me beyond satisfying the city, what other 33 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 agencies will have to pass on this project as far as what it's doing with the creek and the wetland and the watershed. Is it, will the Watershed District have to pass on it? Blackowiak: Yes I do believe so. Kate, do you want to kind of give a list of the general agencies that are contacted. Aanenson: Sure. The Watershed District and also the DNR as far as the creek. Dan McInemy: I'm concerned that the typicaL.plastic buffer sheeting wouldn't be sufficient there because my understanding is there's going to be, the creek bed is going to be dug up and a road is going to go across it and sewer and water is going to have to be re-routed across it and while that is going on, if there's a substantial stonn, there's going to be a whole lot of sediment and mud washed down that creek and it's going to end up in Lake Virginia, and it's also going to cover the creek farther down where both game fish and rough fish spawn. Blackowiak: Okay Matt, do you want to address that right now while we're? Saam: Sure. We'll ensure that silt fence and not just silt fence but Type ill erosion control, which is silt fence with heavy duty steel posts, chicken wire in back of it plus straw hay bales are put in, along side any existing water body. That's part of the city code. So that will have to be installed before they start any work. Dan McInerny: What I'm saying is when they're digging up, going across the creek digging up the bank, they're probably going to need some sort of a damming of the creek area and the work area because if there's a storm, it's going to go right down the creek. Saam: Yep, sure. Dan McInerny: ....around the wetland isn't going to help that. Saam: They'll have to make accommodations for when they build this road going to the north, northwest here. I think that's what you're talking about, and they cross the creek, they'll have to make accommodations for that to keep the water going through either by pumping it or putting in a temporary culvert somewhere and diverting it. Dan McInerny: My only other comment would be that, I think the natural amenity of this site is the creek area itself and the mature woodland and I really hope that when the development is done, that that amenity hasn't been destroyed by trying to put as many lots as you can in here. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay thank you. Dan McInerny: Oh I want to commend the members of the commission too. I was once on a planning commission, and I commend your patience. I hear ya. Sacchet Thank you. Greg Greenwood: Hi, my name is Greg Greenwood. I'm actually 6501 Kirkwood Circle. Right now I basically look over the woodlands that pretty much everyone's been talking about so, I'm actually right there. With this road coming in right here, I'm wondering ifany idea of noise and pollution, cars reving 34 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 engines, accidents and what not in this area. We had a horrific accident last week down by Greenbriar, and is there turn lanes? What not. Even up on Minnewashta and Church, in that area it goes from 2 lane to no turn lane right in that area. I'm just concerned because right now we have semi's that come through which are fine. We live with that. We expect that but having a car come in and just gun their car as fast as they can to get up to 55-60, I'm just wondering if any consideration in noise pollution, pollution itself from the cars has been taken into effect. Blackowiak: Okay. Matt, can you talk a little bit about the proposed reconstruction of Highway 7? Saam: Sure. Yeah, a left turn lane will be put in there, and a right tum lane. Greg Greenwood: So right down the middle? Saam: West. In Highway 7, yes. It will make accommodations for that. As far as noise, I don't know if anything's going to be done to mitigate noise. I mean you've got a highway there right now. Greg Greenwood: Oh yeah, but now we're going to have. Saam: I don't, Ijust wouldn't bet that they're going to put a noise wall or anything in there. Greg Greenwood: Right. I've spoken with MnDot as well too. And what they're basically saying is they're just widening the shoulder. They didn't say anything about a turn lane in the middle, as far as last week I talked to them, but it sounds like you guys talked to them today. Saam: Yep, we had a meeting today. Currently their plans don't show this. That was the point of the meeting today to sit down with the developer and MoDot. New plans are going to be drawn up and incorporated into the Highway 7 plans so, that may be why you got the just the widening of the shoulder. Greg Greenwood: Right. Okay, because they weren't aware of this whole development area last week at all when I talked to them. Secondly it's like occasionally we get the 4 wheel drive truck going through with headlights coming in our windows, which that's fine. I don't care, but this is going to be every single person coming out too. I mean they're turning onto 7 this way. Our neighbors right here, they'll be getting lights going this way as well too. Right now we just have the woodlands that just we look over and that's it. So I'mjust wondering about that light pollution as well. Saam: Again, I don't think, I don't foresee anything being done because ofthat. It does look like you guys are a lot higher though than the highway. Do you overlook it? Greg Greenwood: We overlook it a little bit but if, for instance if they're coming up and I don't know how level this was going to be. I remember hearing an 8 percent grade. Saam: Yeah, not in there. It will be relatively level. Very slight. Aanenson: We can check on that grade and get back to them. Get back to you on that elevation... Greg Greenwood: Also, would that be MnDot that would do the noise wall? I mean there's noise wall right down here, a very nice one that I've heard rumors of them constructing as well, Saam: Yes, if it's in their right-of-way that would be something they would do, yep. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Greg Greenwood: Okay. That wouldn't be city oriented? Saam: No. Greg Greenwood: Okay. Saam: That's something we can bring up with them. Ijust wouldn't plan on it. Greg Greenwood: That would be great because everybody right here is going to be affected by this one road coming in now. Saam: Sure. That's something we can bring up with them. BIackowiak: Well and I would also suggest that you should probably pursue it as well because the more people that mention it I think, the more weight it might carry so. Greg Greenwood: You bet. Okay, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Greg Lang: Good evening. My name is Greg Lang. I'm actually a resident of the city of Victoria but I'm within 500 feet. I live on the other side ofthe trail. My address is 6524 Aster Circle. My concerns are with the water, the creek and also the trees and area expressed concern about preserving the forest and the community and I'm not, and 1 drive by this site on Highway 7 but I've never walked across it but I go down the trail all the time. I use the trail like many people do and I think that at this, I believe where this development is going in, it's well forested right on the trail. But small? Well it looks like a forest from the trail. It looks all green in the summer time but, I think that, hopefully we're not going to be staring into the bedrooms of the houses that are being constructed here. When I look at the plan I think it looks like a good plan. I wâs here a year ago when Jasper Development presented their other plan and it was not well received by a lot of the people and this plan certainly looks like it addresses a lot of other concerns, but preservation of the trees is an issue with me, just as I believe it is with you. And the water issue with the creek, I think the construction process is probably the biggest danger, and there's a drop in elevation as it goes from this piece of land down to the lake so that the movement of the water, if there is a storm, is really dramatic. Last, to give an example, last spring the, where the water goes through the culvert under the trail, the water was moving so fast it actually blew a hole through the old culvert right up through the middle of the trail. A lot of, sometimes there's a lot of water moving and so you'll probably have to be out there on the site watching it. Those are my comments. Thank you. Cindy Gess: Hi. My name is Cindy Gess. I'm at 400 I Aster Trail so I am this piece of property right here. And some of the concerns I have, I'm wondering what watershed district does it involve? Generous: Minehaha. Cindy Gess: I've talked to some people that are involved with Minehaha and they weren't aware of any involvement at all yet. So are they involved? Have they been talked to and if who? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Saam: Before this site can be final platted, we'll require that the developer obtain a permit from Minehaha Creek. Now they may not have applied yet. They want to make sure they get through preliminary plat first possibly, I don't know. Cindy Gess: Yeah, they are not aware of it as of 2 days ago. Saam: Okay, yeah. I would assume the applicant hasn't applied with the watershed district yet. Blackowiak: And that's not unusual is what you're saying. Saam: No. Blackowiak: Yeah so I mean, generally people want to come through and make sure that it's okay with the city first before they go and spend money and time to get permits. Aanenson: Can Ijust make one other clarification is that we are the LGU. We do the permitting for the wetland so that's done internally. Blackowiak: Which means, LGU is the license. Aanenson: Local Governmental Unit. Blackowiak: Local Governmental Unit. Aanenson: Right, which we have approval from the watershed district to do the wetland permitting, but they still need another, a permit for the grading. That has to go through the watershed. And generally they will not approve it til the city's approved it. So that's the process. Blackowiak: Thank you. Cindy Gess: I'm also curious about what vegetation will be left along the creek. The creek does come through my property here and so I'mjust curious, you know along the rest of it, what is going to be left. I know we're going to continue to preserve what is on our property and do what we can for the creek itself and the animal life that's there. Saam: Is that a question for me? Blackowiak: I think it's a question. I don't know who'd like to tackle that one. Saam: I can handle it. I was just looking for the silt fence line. The only place that it appears they will be removing the vegetation along the creek is where this road is going through. Or where this road is proposed to go through. If you look on. Cindy Gess: Up in this area here? Saam: Yep. Cindy Gess: So none of this area will be disturbed? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Saam: No. Sacchet: That's wetland. Aanenson: That's wetland. Saam: No, other than where they are creating wetland, and I'm assuming that's an upland anyway so. Cindy Gess: You know the other concern I have, I know there's the houses do have to go somewhere and they are very concentrated on our property line and I'm wondering about the buffers along there and what compensation for the north side, even though it's just a one individual resident, if there's going to be any compensation for that. Blackowiak: Kate. I think maybe you should handle that question. Aanenson: The way our ordinance is set up is low density next to low density, there is not a buffer requirement. There's a setback requirement from the property line but you have a large lot that's kind of built in as the buffer. Most people when they move in will put additional landscaping in, but the ordinance the way it's set up right now, ifit's low density next to low density, there's not a buffer requirement. Cindy Gess: And how far back do you have to stay from the actual line? Aanenson: For the rear setback? It would be, if it's at your rear yard it would be. depending on the orientation. that'd be a side yard possibly. Kind: They're side I think. Aanenson: Yeah, 10 feet. - Generous: For the ones on the road that goes to the north to her property, it would be a side setback. That's 10 feet. For the ones in the Block 1 and 2, or Block 2, those are rear yard so that'd be at least 30 feet. Feik: But that road's being stubbed in for future development potential right? Generous: Yes, for her property. Cindy Gess: And that was another question I had. We really have no intention of developing and I understand that people always say that. We don't plan to develop and eventually do. My concern is, if the city chooses that there is for the good of the rest of the public, that our land is condemned so that that road can come through. Blackowiak: That's I believe highly unlikely but again Kate, or Bob. Aanenson: Well it would be for a public purpose and as a general rule the city doesn't do subdivisions for a public purpose. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Cindy Gess: Well my concern is if Highway 7 were, they needed to close additional accesses so that these people would have to come through up to Aster Trail or access over to Church or Cartway, especially if there was other developments in some of the other areas. Saam: I'll just add something. Something MnDot said today. The only thing they would do is put a median in Highway 7 if they would upgrade it to 4 lanes so they wouldn't take out this access, but it wouldn't be a full one. It would be a right-inlright-out, if you follow that. So they have no plans to close this. What they would do is linùt it. Aanenson: Sinùlar to what they've done further, if you go further east on Highway 7. They put the median in for safety reasons. That would be what they would do here so. Saam: And that could be 20 years out. You know IS. 30. They don't have plans on it. Cindy Gess: And then also the last question I have is with the trail and it having access through this area. With it being such a steep grade there, I'm wondering what type of access onto the trail it would be. Blackowiak: Okay Matt, do you want to? Saam: Yeah. We looked at it quick today with the developer's engineer, Perry. We're going to put it in a spot where the grade's aren't that steep so I wouldn't expect they would be anything over 8 to 10 percent would be the max. Cindy Gess: And so, would it be more than likely stairs or it would be just a? Saam: No. I don't believe it would be stairs. Perry, have you looked at that? Perry Ryan: No... Cindy Gess: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, I'm not seeing anyone else jumping up so I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, it's time for comments. Do you want to start? Sacchet: Sure, I'll start. First of all I want to thank the applicant because it looks like you work very well with staff. I appreciate that you agree with the suggestions of staff with that cul-de-sac moving for Block I and 2. That you think that sidewalk connection is a good thing. I do understand the concerns of the neighbors. I however do believe that many of these concerns are not as severe as they may appear at first. I mean I don't think that it's going to impact property values. It may even increase the property values of those houses that are already there. It's a wonderful neighborhood. It's like fairy tale land. With the traffic actually not going through there anymore, I believe it's going to be better protected and safety will be increased in that area because you have less cars going through there. I do agree with staff, and MnDot's assessment that that intersection getting onto Highway 7 is not ideal. It definitely will be better, better sight and also grade wise. Traffic issues for the neighborhood will be better therefore. The noise and privacy, well there will be more privacy in that existing neighborhood. So I think it's going to be actually to the benefit of that existing neighborhood on Pipewood to do what's proposed here. I would like to be very clear in the findings that we are talking about Block 6 when we talk private road. I think that's the way to go because it has no impact on the wetlands. I do believe this proposal is sensitive to the trees. I did a quick calculation based on the tree inventory to answer the gentleman's concern 39 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 about trees. What I read and 1 might be off by one or so in the count, there are about 40 of the significant trees saved and only 17 lost. And I always look at the real significant ones, the real big ones. Of the real big ones, 6 are saved and only 2 are lost. And I think that's a very reasonable proportion in terms of being sensitive to the environment. And therefore I think it's, I support this proposal. I would however change the finding. I wouldn't say it has no environmental damage. 1 would say the proposed subdivision causes some environmental damage which however is reasonably minimized. I do sùpport this proposal. I think it's well balanced. I do want to thank staff for putting the Uli condition in there. That the silt fence is not just put in, but also put out. Even though in one place it still needs to be added. I would like to be very specific that that cul-de-sac that's being moved and put in to the northwest side is public street, and I would like to also add a few additional conditions. One, that the developer will work with staff to save significant trees as planned, and specifically I would like to ask that that oak tree number 58, which is sort of on the south ofthe property. It's not a huge oak but it's a great oak. It's about what, 27 inch. I mean it's big enough. I want to put specific request that that gets taken care of because it's a little bit at the edge of the grading lines and 1 think it needs some attention to survive because oaks are sensitive. In terms of the concerns of the neighbors, I would like to have a condition in there that the applicant will work with staff to properly dispose of all the garbage and debris that is currently on this site. And I haven't really worded that one yet because I was focusing on the discussions but a condition to ensure that when that road that goes across the creek is put in, that there is proper temporary culvert or whatever is necessary to not impede the drainage of the creek. That's where I'm at. Blackowialc Okay, thank you. Go ahead Deb. Kind: Madam Chair, I'll go. I am comfortable with this plan as proposed with a couple little tweaky things. The preservation of the wetland and the creek I'm comfortable that our staff will make sure that that silt problem does not become a problem for people downstream. I'm confident of that. I like the trail access to the Luce Line. I think that will be a nice service for the neighbors all along Pipewood Curve. The new people and the existing people. My, oh and then public, or not the public street. The access onto 7. I heard kind of even feelings about that from people who spoke, as to whether it should be moved or not and I think the tide goes to the safer intersection by staff's point of view which would be the new access point from the new neighborhood and closing off the existing one. I'm open to other people's comments on that, but that's where I'm coming down on that. The private street question is still up in the air for me. These Exhibit A, with the two driveways coming off the public street. I think that's a viable option, especially if we can keep that pond there. I wish the neighbor who lived next to that part, that Block 6 was here tonight to just speak to that. I'm trying to put myself in their position. I would prefer, if I lived there, to have homes facing that public street versus homes facing my back yard. And so I hate to put my point of view on that, but I lean towards the public street option, Exhibit A that was in our packet. And not doing the private street way. Sacchel: A was the driveways? Kind: Right. With the driveways and keeping that pond there. I don't think that little ponding area needs to be eliminated. I guess that's it for my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Comments down here. Feilc Yes. Point of clarification though Ms Kind. When you, Block 6, was this the one you're talking about? Kind: No, not the cul-de-sac. The one with the driveways. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Peik: The ones with the driveway next to a public street. Kind: That could keep the little pond in the area there. Peik: I very much like the project. I particularly like the change that happened up in Block 2. In light of the last speaker though I'm wondering what the rationale is of stubbing that street in. They have no intention of developing and if she's willing to give up her potential development opportunity in the future dead ending that street, it seems to me that makes some sense. Aanenson: Well, the parcel really has limited, you know without Cartway Path going through, it's our obligation to provide other alternatives, not to landlock somebody's property. We don't' want her to subdivide until she wants to subdivide, ifthat never happens, but it is our obligation to provide access. Peik: Well she has access off Cartway right? Aanenson: Por a private drive, but it'd have to be a public street in order to get access. That street would have to be upgraded. So you'd have to take it all the way in and. Peik: Well, what is the difference had this lot not been developed? She would have, be in the same position she is today. Would be going forward if this was a cul-de-sac in that we are not necessarily limiting, if she doesn't need it and it looks like this could be stubbed for a number of years. I know we have a general policy against dead end roads. You know forever and a day dead end roads. Aanenson: And also it's again city ordinance to landlock a piece of property, correct. Peik: She's not landlocked. She's got access. Aanenson: She has a private driveway but in order to develop the property and subdivide in the future, it needs to have access. Saam: I think it's just good future planning and that's what we try to do at city staff. Say MnDot does come through and put that median down the middle of Highway 7. That would mean everybody in this development then, to go east, would have to make a right hand turn, go down Highway 7. Plip around somewhere. Do a U turn or something, to go back east. Versus this street which would go up through Cartway and then come down to Minnewashta Parkway sometime in the future. Peik: Versus even a temporary cul-de-sac? You'd rather have the dead end versus. Aanenson: Well it would be. Saam: Oh we'll have them put in a temporary turn around there definitely. Oh yeah. Aanenson: Right. And again we're looking long tenn. It may be 20 years but we can give you examples of mistakes that that didn't ocCUr. Peik: I'm looking at this thinking it's a dead end. Aanenson: Yeah, and it may be for the next 20 years, right. It may be that way for a long time. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Peik: Okay. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, any other comments? Sidney: I feel comfortable with this development...I guess it's Block I and 2. That's been resolved. I can support the idea of a private street for Block 6, and I guess it goes back to the basic tenant that if we can minimize the impacts to the wetland, I'm in favor of that. Especially because we have that complex scenario with wetlands and creek and such things that to minimize that impact I think we should go that route... Otherwise I agree with the comments that were made and would like to see this go forward. Blackowiak: Thank you. Slagle: Just a couple things. With respect to the private driveways. I am in support of that, and you're certainly within your right to develop Block 6, but ideally I wish we would not have seen any development on those two lots. But given that, so be it. I do have a question on the condition number 24. We're asking for a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk. Am I to assume, I heard a comment that that would be on the north side, which is fine. Am I to assume that that will go from the east. Excuse me, west to east. Across the wetland. It will then go north to connect to the trail. Will there also be a sidewalk on the north side of Pipewood Curve from basically 7 going north westward to that cul-de-sac as well? Generous: Yes. Slagle: With that said then I think it's great. Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. I didn't hear Rich, which, are you in favor of the private drive or? Slagle: I'm in favor of it as the last option. I actually wish they had not developed that. Kind: okay so you prefer the private drive as proposed versus Exhibit A. Slagle: With no wetland, exactly. A or A-I, correct. Kind: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. No actually it's closed so sorry. We're just making our comments. I agree I guess with my fellow commissioners. I do like the project. I do agree with Rich that in a perfect world Block 6 wouldn't even be there but it is there and I believe that the private street with the wetlands being preserved is probably the best option. I would have to see a condition added or a little more added onto number 22 saying the applicant must provide certification that the private street meets all city requirements. So that would just be a given for me. However, if I were to talk to the neighbor, if that was directly impacted by that and that neighbor felt strongly about using some type of private, or an actual driveway, I think Exhibit A would be a good alternative so I mean I guess I don't have a real strong feeling that way if the neighbor would prefer it. I'd kind of go that way. Otherwise I think it's a well thought out proposal and I do feel that the easterly access to Highway 7 does preserve the existing Pipewood neighborhood a little bit better and that, you're going to be getting the people that are in those, in the newer development driving in there and staying there. So basically you will be driving through 42 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 their neighborhood to get to your existing neighborhood so I don't see any additional traffic generated in the existing neighborhood by the easterly access. Whereas the westerly access would have existing traffic plus new development traffic so I feel that from an existing neighborhood standpoint, the eastern access is best. So I hope 1 didn't totally confuse everyone on that but, I'd like to have a motion. I think we need two separate motions on this? Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #2002-4, Hidden Creek Estates creating 20 lots, 4 outlots and street right-of-way with a variance for the use of a private street to access Block 6, shown on plans as prepared by Ryan Engineering dated 12/14/01, revised 2/1102, subject to the following conditions I through 34 with the following fixes. Blackowiak: 35. Feik: 35 with the new addition. Sacchet: 35. Oh, there was the extra one. 35. Okay. And I would like to modify 22 as just suggested with the additional sentence. The applicant will provide certification of, did what we say, the quality of the private street construction? Blackowiak: The private street meets all city requirements. Sacchet: That the private street meets all city requirement. Alright. And number 23 I would like to say move the cul-de-sac public street, to make sure we understand this is a public street. And then I would like to add a condition 36. Developer will work with city staff to save significant trees as much as possible, especially Oak number 28. 58. Number 58 on the tree inventory. Then a condition number 37, applicant will work with staff to properly dispose of garbage and debris currently on the site. Condition number 38. The applicant will work with city staff to ensure uninterrupted creek drainage during construction. Would that express what we're after? Okay. Blackowiak: I think that's the intent. Sacchet: Yeah, but it may need a little word-smithing. And then of course, oh now this isn't the wetland. Alright, that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, there's a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Slagle: Mr. Sacchet would you be interested in making 24 more specific on the sidewalks? I just want to make sure that we all understand that it is on the north side of Pipewood Curve from the eastern most part to the development western boundary and then up the north of that cul-de-sac. I just want to make sure that. Sacchet: So we would say something like install a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of all public streets. All public streets. Slagle: I just want to make sure. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Saam: That's what it says. On all public streets. Sacchet: You feel we have to say more than all? Slagle: Well no, but I'm watching staff. Sacchet: So we certainly express our intent that we mean all because it says all. Slagle: Yes. And I'm thinking there's a sidewalk because you now are adding a lot oftraffic and you're connecting to each other. Two reasons for a sidewalk. Trail access and safety. Sacchet: I accept the amendment that we mean all when we say all. Kind: Madam Chair, I also have a friendly amendment. Blackowiak: Certainly. Kind: Was that accepted, yes? Sacchet: Yes, absolutely. Kind: Okay. Condition number 2. Landscaping shall be installed on the south and west side of the private street accessing Block 6. Not just in the cul-de-sac area. Ijust want to put that in there for clarification. Sacchet: I accept it. Kind: Number 4. The front of the houses in Block 6 shall be oriented as shown on the preliminary plat. Because one of them doesn't really quite face southwest. Sacchet: Yeah actually I wondered whether staff actually meant it should be turned a little bit. Generous: No. Our intent was as shown on the plan. Sacchet: Okay, let's say that then. Generous: I got confused with the orientation of the lots. Sacchet: As shown on the plat. Accepted. Kind: I'm sure there's another one. This is called the Deb condition. I would like to add a condition that says, the applicant shall post a sign stating this street may be extended in the future at the dead end street on the north property line. Emphasis on may. Aanenson: Yeah, give a friendly amendment to that too. Going back to Rich's, or maybe it was Bruce's comment that for the neighbor that is right behind that, that will look like a cul-de-sac, or hammer head so it doesn't go right to their property line. It will have some sort of a temporary cul-de-sac look to it. 44 Kind: So I'll add that to this condition that a temporary cul-de-sac will be installed at the end of that dead end street. Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2D02 Sacchet: So that'd be number 39. Kind: Whatever we're up to. Sacchet: Yep, 39. Kind: I would like to add a sentence to condition number 32. Right now it says applicant shall resubmit for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 166 trees. Add, the City Forester shall review the plan to insure hardiness ofthe plant species. Sacchet: That's accepted. Basically that translates and probably no Colorado Blue Spruce. Kind: That is true. And that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #2002-4, Hidden Creek Estates, creating 20 lots, four outlots and street right-of-way with a variance for the use of a private street to access Block 6, shown on plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated 12/14/01, revised 211102, subject to the following conditions: 1. The lot configuration for Block 6 shall be revised so that there is a minimum of lDO feet of lot width for each lot at the western property line. 2. Landscaping shall be installed on the south and west side of the private street accessing Block 6. 3. A SO-foot structure setback shall be maintained from Highway 7. 4. The front of the houses in Block 6 shall be oriented as shown on the preliminary plat. 5. Cross access and maintenance agreements shall be recorded against the lots for Lots I and 2, Block 6 for the use and maintenance of the private street. 6. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 7. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 8. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Stormwater calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including 45 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the tOO-year flood level. The minimum utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 9. Staff reconnnends that Type IT silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site and that Type m silt fence be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands, adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be innnediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Silt fence shall be removed upon completion of site grading and reestablishment of vegetation. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain pennits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Anny Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require pennits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 12. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building pennit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. 13. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the fonn of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Pennits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 14. A registered structural engineer must design any retaining walls in excess of four feet in height. 15. Add all applicable 2002 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans. 16. Show all of the existing and proposed easements on the plans. 17. Show the location of the outlet control structures for all ponds. 18. The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stonnwater runoff rates for the 10- and 100-year, 24-hour stonn events. 19. In areas where the existing utility lines have been abandoned/removed, the existing utility easements must be vacated. 46 20. Upon construction of the new access: the existing Pipewood Curve intersection shall be closed, the pavement removed to the edge of the TH 7 right-of-way, and a cul-de-sac turnaround installed at the southwest end of Pipewood Curve. Planning Conunission Meeting - March 5, 2002 21. Revise the plans to show the following for all of the public streets: a 3 I-foot back-to-back pavement width, a 6O-foot right-of-way radius, and a 45.5-foot pavement radius for the cul-de- sac. 22. The proposed private street must be built to a 7-ton design and enclosed within a minimum 30- foot wide cross-access easement. The developer shall provide inspection reports to the city for the private street. 23. Move the cul-de-sac public street accessing Blocks I and 2 to the northeast, approximately 100- feet, eliminate the 90-degree curve, and place the cul-de-sac or turnaround portion of the public street at the northwestern property line. 24. Install 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks on one side of all the public streets. The sidewalk shall be on the north and west side of the streets. 25. On the utility plan: Add storm sewer schedule. \. Show the proposed utilities sewer length, slope, type and class. 2. Show storm and sanitary manholes rim and invert elevations. 3. Combine the pond inlets to the southern pond to have just one apron entering the pond. 4. Keep the hydrants on the same side of the street as the watermain. 26. On the grading plan: \. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. 2. Revise Lot 2, Block 5 first floor elevation from 43.0 to 53.0. 3. Show all pond contour elevations. 4. Show the location of the 75-foot rock construction entrance. 27. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of Wetland Alteration Permit #2002-\. 28. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer or, if no wetland buffer is proposed, from the edge of the wetland. 29. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. 30. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: I. 3\. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 8.5 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $6,800; the water quantity fees are approximately $16,830. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $23,630. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 32. The applicant shall resubmit for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 166 trees. The City Forester shall review the plans for the hardiness of the species. 33. The applicant shall meet the minimum number and types of plantings required for the buffer yard along the south property line. The applicant shall provide landscaping screening in depth rather than all at the property line. 34. Proposed boulevard planting along all public streets shall be located outside of the right-of-way. Planting and maintenance of these trees will be the responsibility of the developer/development. 35. All structures shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level (OHW) of the creek between Lake Minnewashta and Lake Virginia. 36. The developer shall work to save significant trees, especially tree 58. 37. The developer shall work with staff to dispose of the construction debris, furniture and appliances on site properly. 38. The developer shall work with staff to insure uninterrupted stream flows. 39. The developer shall post a sign that the northerly extension street will be extended in the future and the cul-de-sac is only temporary. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimou§ly 6 to O. Kind: Madam Chair, I'd like to add a comment for the public record. That if the neighbor next to Block 6 has issues with the home orientations or that private drive, 1 would like the City Council to consider the public street option, Exhibit' A. With the caveat that I think the pond, the ponding area can stay. Feik: To that end do you want them noticed again prior to City Council? Aanenson: Yeah, we were going to do that. We'll contact her. We did speak to her today but we'll make sure that she understands she has a choice. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. Next motion please. Sidney: I'll make the motion. Make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #2002-1 to grade and fill within wetlands subject to the following conditions, and that's conditions 1 through 13. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. BJackowiak: Moved and seconded. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Sacchet: Friendly amendment. Number 6. The silt fence will not just be put there, it will also be removed upon completion of construction. Blackowiak: Okay. Is that accepted? Sidney moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #2002-1, to grade and nn within wetlands subject to the following conditions: Sidney: Yep. I. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show a fixed photo monitoring point for the replacement wetland. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. 2. The applicant shall demonstrate that a wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around the entire perimeter of existing wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas, except in areas where a stormwater pond abuts a wetland. Wetland buffers should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the Cìty $20 per sign. 3. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from tl¡e edge of the wetland buffer or, if no wetland buffer is proposed, from the edge of the wetland. 4. The buffer widths and setbacks shown in the drawing should be consistent with the buffers and setbacks proposed in the table. The large pond on Lots 1-5, Block 5 should be moved north to accommodate the increased buffers. 5. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. 6. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. The silt fence shall be removed upon completion of construction. 7. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: I. 8. Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain pemúts from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota 49 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building pennits will be issued. II. Payment of full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication or construction. 12. Payment of full trail fees in lieu of construction of any section of the city's comprehensive trail plan. 13. Provide for a sidewalk connection from Hidden Creek Estates to the Hennepin County Regional Railroad AuthorityIThree Rivers Park District Light Rail Transit route multi-use trail, including procurement/transfer of all applicable easements and pennits." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to O. Blackowiak: This item does go before City Council. as I said, on April 8th. Thank you everyone who came and spoke this evening. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS PUD TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING AREA AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 41.522 SO. FT. EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING ON 9.28 ACRES OF LAND ZONED PUD, LOCATED ON LOT 1. BLOCK 2, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS, 8201 MAIN STREET. OPUS NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION CORP, ST. HUBERT'S CATHOLIC COMMUNITY. Public Present: Name Address Ron Slominski Dave Bangasser Randy Kling Jeff Walker Frank Sherwood 2280 Hunter Drive 8321 View Lane 8481 Cortland 4088 West 135th, Savage 18393 Tristram Way Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions? Slagle: Madam Chair. Bob, I'm trying to understand the whole numbers thing, as you might expect that was going to come from me. Conceptually with the church's request, I'm fine with that. I get these letters, or copies of these letters from a law fino asking for some, one might say additional say in what happens. And then I get a copy of a letter from Lotus claiming that the numbers are different. If you're 50