9a Walnut Grove Residential Dvlpmnt
-
':1'
t
)
-
J
I
...
,
-
t
1:
-
~
J
-
-
,)
q a..
PC DATE: 5/7/97
CITY OF
CHANHASSEH
CC DATE: 5/27/97
CASE #: 96-4 PUD, 96-2 LUP and
96-14 SPR
By: Generous: v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Request for a land use p an amen ent om eSI en Ia - ow enSI y
Residential-Medium Density for the northern half of the parcel; preliminary and
final PUD rezoning for approximately 50 acres of property from A-2, Agricultural
Estate to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development ReSIdential preliminary and final pial
request for mixed density residential development; site plan review for 44 bungalow
and 168 townhouses; preliminary and final subdivision request of24710t8, 2 outlots
and associated right-of-way, Walnut Grove (formerly The Highlands).
LOCATION:
Northeast comer of Galpin Blvd. and Hwy. 5
APPLICANT;
Residential Development, Inc.
15 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 934-6238
Rottlund Homes
2681 Long Lake Road
Roseville, MN 551 I 3
(612) 638-0500
PRESENT ZONING:
A2, Agricultural Estate District
ACREAGE:
50 acres +/-
DENSITY:
4.96 units/acre (gross)
5.74 units/acres (net)
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
N - RSF, Windmill Run subdivision
S - 01, Bluff Creek Elementary, A2, vacant, Highway 5
E - RR, single family home
W - A2, single family home, vacant, bluff creek
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is rolling farmland with a high point of 1013 feet and a low point
of approximately 940 feet. The site is generally devoid of trees except along the Bluff Creek corridor
which is located in the southwest comer of the property. A small wetland, designated AIO-14(1) on the
City's Wetland Classification Map, is located in the southwest portion of the site adjacent to the
proposed north Highway 5 collector road.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: North 30.14 acres - Residential Low Density, South 19.66 acres-
Residential Medium Density
Exhibit A
LOCATION MAP
t
I
~
.
~
'.;. LOCATION
t
'..,
.)
,
,
"
,
(
.
.
.
.
,;
II
, I
II
, .
,,"
~;:~
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a mixed density residential development on approximately 50 acres.
Within the development are 247 dwelling units in three types: traditional single family detached
houses (35) on slightly narrower than normal lots, bungalow homes (44), and four, six, eight and
twelve unit townhouses (168).
This property is located within the Highway 5 Corridor District, HC-2 District. While single
family detached residences are exempted from the architectural design standards within the
district, the project must still comply with the Highway Corridor District intent which is to attain
high quality in both design and construction of the development. Specifically, the development
must be consistent with all plans and ordinances; must preserve natural conditions to the greatest
extent feasible; must establish harmonious physical and visual relationships with existing and
proposed development in the corridor; must use appropriate materials, lighting, texture, colors,
architectural, and landscape forms to create a high quality design concept; must create a unified
sense of internal order; must create a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of
open space, landscaping, view protection through screening, buffering, and orientation; must
provide safe and adequate access and internal circulation; and must provide adequate separation
from adjacent properties.
Staff believes that the plan is generally good. However, there are several issues and revisions to
the plan that need to be addressed prior to granting final plat approval. Following is a list of
issues that need to be resolved prior to moving the development forward:
1. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit to incorporate a transit component
within the development potentially providing land and/or funding assistance for a bus
shelter/bus cut-out. (The applicant has attempted several times to contact Southwest
Metro regarding this issue.)
2. The developer shall relocate the trail northward within the open area to expand the gathering
space/public space and make a more useable play area. (This revision appears on the latest
landscaping plan.)
The applicant's original proposal contained 293 dwelling units: 34 single family, 67 cottages,
and 192 villas. This represented an overall gross density of 5.86 units per acre and a net density
of 6.6 units per acre.
In response to the city's and neighbors' comments, the applicant has prepared a revised plan for
the development. This plan contains a total of247 dwelling units: 35 single family, 44
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 3
bungalows, 40 single loaded townhouses, and 128 villas. This represents an overall gross density
of 4.96 units per acre and a net density of 5.74 units per acre. The northerly 30.14 acres contains
122 units (35 single family, 44 bungalow, 24 single loaded townhouses, and 19 villas). Within
the northern 30.14 acres, 3.83 acres are dedicated for right-of-way. This represents a gross
density of 4.05 and a net density of 4.6 units per acre. The southerly 19.66 acres contains 125
dwellings (16 single loaded townhouses and 109 villas). Within this area, 2.98 acres of right- of-
way are being dedicated, including 1.9 acres for Arboretum Boulevard. This represents a gross
density of6.35 units per acre and a net density of7.5 units per acre.
The net density of the surrounding development are as follows: Royal Oaks Estates - 2.13 units
per acre, Windmill Run - 2.41 units per acre, the proposed Lake Ann Highlands - 3.56 units per
acre. Typical subdivisions average 10 percent dedication for right-of-way.
Staff is recommending that the preliminary and final PUD be approved subject to the conditions
of approval.
BACKGROUND
On March 10, 1997, the City Council granted conceptual approval ofPUD #96-4, sketch plan
dated 3/5/97, with the following conditions:
1. Landscape species must be selected from Big Woods species listed in Bluff Creek
Management Plan.
2. Prepare a vegetation restoration plan for slope leading down from road to the wetland in
southwest comer and adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor.
3. Revised grading and drainage plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation
elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
4. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any
building permits.
5. Street and utility service shall be extended to the Hennessy's east property line. Drainage and
utility easements shall be dedicated over the utilities. The development's covenants shall
provide cross access easements in favor of the Hennessy parcel for ingress and egress over
the private streets within the development.
6. Upon completion of the public improvements, the developer shall dedicate to the City the
utility and streets improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility
easements for permanent ownership.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 4
7. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval.
8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each
activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
9. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition
of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and
specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The private
streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the
City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles."
10. Ifnecessary, wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins
and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm
events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance
with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater
calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient
catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall
be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and
comply with their conditions of approval.
14. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 5
15. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands.
16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of
the ponding areas. The final plat for Phase I shall also dedicate right-of-way for Arboretum
Boulevard.
17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along
the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study.
18. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 2 feet above
the 100-year high water level.
19. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level
and no more than 3: I thereafter or 4: I throughout for safety purposes.
20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
21. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a utility, drainage and conservation easement up to
the 964 contour line adjacent to Bluff Creek. This area may also be deeded to the City as an
outlot.
22. The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12-inch trunk water main from Windmill
Drive to Arboretum Boulevard. The credit shall be for the cost difference between an 8-inch
and a 12-inch water line.
23. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin
Boulevard or Arboretum Boulevard.
24. The applicant shall provide the City with a narrative with regards to earthwork quantities and
a schedule of construction events.
25. The applicant shall dedicate a 50-foot wide strip ofland for Galpin Boulevard right-of-way.
26. The require building setback from the Bluff Creek should be at the existing 966 contour.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 6
27. Phase II stormwater pond shall be oversized to accommodate runoff from the future
Arboretum Boulevard in addition to the site runoff. SWMP credits will be given for
oversizing this pond.
28. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for
cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based on a schedule in accordance with
the prescribed land use zoning.
29. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk
fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design
requirements.
30. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance 9-1.
31. All private roads must be assigned street names. Submit street names to Chanhassen
Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
32. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29-1992 regarding
premise identification (copy enclosed).
33. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width not less than 20 feet. No
parking fire lane signs shall be determined once street widths and locations are finalized. No
parking fire lane signs shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy No. 06-1991. The Fire Marshal shall designate location of all no parking
fire lane signs.
34. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection, is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable
prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section
10.502.
35. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with approved provisions for turning around of fire apparatus. Submit turn around
designs to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 1 0.204( d). Exception, when buildings are
completely protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this
section may be modified by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 7
36. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 1O.204(b).
37. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be
chipped on site or hauled off site.
38. Additional fire hydrants are needed. Please refer to plans for location. Pursuant to 1991
Uniform Fire Code Section 10.403.
39. The applicant needs to revise the plan to better protect and preserve the Bluff Creek corridor.
40. The lot width for lots in Block 3 should be increased for a better transition form the existing
single family development to the south.
41. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit to incorporate a transit component
within the development potentially providing land or funding assistance for a bus shelterlbus
cut-out.
42. The developer needs to enhance the edge treatments and landscaping around the perimeter
and throughout the project.
43. The applicant should create view corridors within the project to maximize appreciation of the
natural features on the site.
44. The applicant shall provide additional architectural details for the cottage and villa units and
provide material specifications. In addition, assurances that there will be variation in exterior
materials must be made.
In March 1995, the city approved a preliminary plat (94-14), Lake Ann Highlands, for 92 twin
homes on the northern portion of the parcel and the first reading of the rezoning of the property
from A2 to R4. On April 8, 1996, the city granted a one year extension until March 13, 1997 for
this development. On March 10, 1997, the City again granted a one year extension to the
preliminary plat.
As of December 1996, housing types are distributed as follows: detached single-family homes,
4,924 units (78%); twin homes, 218 units (3%); townhouses, 593 units (9%), and multi-family,
594 units (9%). The proposed development helps to maintain the housing diversity within the city
and provides housing alternatives for current and future residents of the city. Housing
Availability Policy No.8 of the Comprehensive Plan states, liThe development of alternate types
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 8
of housing will be considered to supplement conventional single family homes. Chanhassen is
committed to providing housing alternatives. The future land use plan is evidence of this
commitment. Land designated for future single family units (1990 - 2000) will accommodate
approximately 2,400 units. Land designated for alternative forms of housing will accommodate
approximately 1,500 units. As future development occurs, it is anticipated that alternative forms
of housing will increase as a component ofChanhassen's total housing stock.."
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is rolling farmland with a high point of 1 013 feet and a low point of approximately 940
feet. The site is generally devoid of trees except along the Bluff Creek corridor which is located
in the southwest comer of the property. A small wetland, designated AIO-14(I) on the City's
Wetland Classification Map, is located in the southwest portion of the site. The revisions to the
plan have preserved these areas.
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 50 acres from A2 to PUD-R, Planned Unit
Development - Residential. There are three components to the PUD: single family detached
housing, detached townhouse type units, and townhouses. The following review constitutes our
evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD
Ordinance.
Section 20-501. Intent
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts.
FINDINGS
It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be
realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 9
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
sceruc vIews.
Findine:. The development will preserve portions of the Bluff Creek corridor,
approximately 5.7 acres, and an isolated wetland located in the southwest comer of the
site as well as providing open space and view corridors within the project.
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing
of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Findine:. The proposed development, through the mixing of residential densities within
and individual project, efficiently and effectively uses the land.
3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Findine:. The proposed development is compatible with surrounded uses. Through the
incorporation of the recommendations contained in this report, staff believes that the
project will reflect higher quality design.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Findine:. The development has attempted to transition development from low density to
medium density entirely with the project. The development provides life cycle and
affordable housing opportunities. The applicant has proposed a development that is
unique to the community and fills a niche in the housing needs for current and future
residents of the city.
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Findine:. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan subject
to approval of the land use amendment for the northerly 30.14 acres for low to medium
density residential. This amendment is necessary to permit the internal transfer of
density, to permit reduced lot widths for the single family detached housing, and to permit
the zero lot line bungalow homes.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 10
6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
Findine:. The applicant is preserving the Bluff Creek corridor. A sidewalk is proposed
for the north-south road to permit residents of this development and the subdivisions to
the north to access the trail on the future Arboretum Boulevard. An additional trail stub
is proposed to the east property line to permit further connection to the east when the
adjacent land is developed.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Findine:. The proposed development will provide a diversity of housing types affordable
to a wide range of income groups. Housing prices, as proposed, will range from $90,000
to $250,000. Most, if not all, of the villa units will be within the range of housing
affordability as defined by the Metropolitan Council ($120,000 for ownership housing,
1997).
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Findine:. The proposed mix of housing types provides energy conservation through the
efficiencies related to site development.
9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Findine:. All appropriate traffic management techniques will be incorporated in the
development. The applicant is providing internal street linkages between this
neighborhood and the neighborhoods to the north. City comprehensive land use policies
require that "Development should be planned to provide adequate street linkages." City
comprehensive transportation policies provide that "The city will promote the provision
of street connections to maximize safety and ease of access." In addition, rather than
provide a straight connection of Windmill Drive to Arboretum Boulevard, the applicant
has created a street intersection, causing traffic to turn, discouraging through traffic.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 11
flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features
of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
.
Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Diversity of housing types
Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees, wetlands, topographical
features)
Sensitive development in transitional areas
More efficient use of land
High quality project design
Provision of lifecycle and affordable housing
.
.
.
.
.
.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
There are three types of dwelling units associated with the development. The most northerly area
which includes 35 lots will be built as traditional single family homes. The middle area which
includes 44 units will be built as "bungalow" homes. The most southerly area will be developed
as "Villa" homes. In the "Villa" homes there are a total of 168 units. There are four 4-unit
buildings, four 6-units buildings, four 8-unit buildings and eight 12-unit buildings. Forty of the
townhouse units will be single loaded buildings.
The 35 traditional lots will be developed as any other traditional subdivision. There may be one
builder, but there will be a variety of housing types and materials. Staff has been told that the
price range for this area will be from the $180,00 to the $250,000.
The bungalow is a new product for Rottlund Homes. The "Bungalows" are a one level detached
townhouse. The units are 36' wide instead of32' and approximately 58' deep instead of72',
more square than a long narrow rectangle. The lot size would be approximately 50' x 100'
instead of 47' x 110'. The garage is inset into the house. This projects the front entry and front
parch more toward the street than the garage. The architecture style is that of pre war Midwest
and New England which promote front porches and stoops, stone & brick columns and 8Y2' roof
pitch.
The bungalow fits square to the street instead of the 30 degree angle of the cottages. This allows
more detail and development of the front yard and the front porch instead of the side yard. The
architecture is a more traditional "Bungalow" style to promote the front entry stoop or porch.
The streetscape will appear more like a small single family lots than narrow lot detached
townhouses. The units can also be varied by mixing the garage locations to alternate two
adjacent garages and adjacent front yards with garages adjacent to front yards to also create more
variety in the streetscape.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 12
There are four exterior color palettes proposed to include siding, trim, stone or brick, roofing and
accent colors for the front doors and shutters. The units have a building area ranging from 1350
-1600 square feet on the main level with the potential expansion with one and one-half story and
walk out opportunities to bring the finished square footage up to 2,500.
The "Villas" will also be built by Rottlund Homes. Some of the villas will have new layouts for
both the two story villas and villa townhouses. The villa 12-unit buildings will have end units
with 2 car garages and single car garages interior units, but the 8 unit buildings will have all of its
units with 2-car garages and totally redesigned floor plans and exteriors. The 8-unit buildings
will have entries on the end of the building to create more elevations and with front entries on all
four sides of the buildings. The exterior of the building is proposed to be traditional with
covered front stoops, shutters and picket fences.
Rottlund's "Villa Townhomes" will also include a new type, the 6-unit "row type" townhome.
This unit has a two car garage with the end unit and a one car garage with the interior unit. The
4-unit buildings all have 2-car garages. This will create a different look between the 4 and 6-
unit buildings. Along with the slab on grade and the walk-out opportunities, there will be more
variety among these eight buildings. The villa townhouse that overlooks the central open space
will have the opportunity for covered patios, porches and picket fences to create more of a front
door/front porch feel along the open space. Rottlund has told staff that the affordable units in
this development will be in the Villa phase only.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
DRAINAGE
The site falls into two watershed districts. Approximately half of the site drains naturally to the east
branch of Bluff Creek and half of the site drains naturally to the west branch of Bluff Creek. It
appears that the proposed grading and drainage plans intend to maintain a similar drainage pattern
and predevelopment runoff rates.
Soils throughout Chanhassen contain very high moisture content. Groundwater has been observed
in other projects in the area. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of the groundwater should be
anticipated. Staff recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to
intercept and convey household sump pump discharge that would typically be extended to the
street. The City has in the past experienced that the discharge of sump pumps in the streets created
hazardous conditions for the public, i.e. icy conditions in the winter as well as algae buildup in the
summer.
Part of the stormwater runoff for this development is proposed to drain to the east branch of Bluff
Creek through a proposed wetland and stormwater pond located behind single family homes. The
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 13
project proposes to maintain pre-developed stormwater runoff rates for discharges to the east of this
site and to the northwest. There is a proposed temporary storm pond on the east property line of
this site. This pond will be used as a temporary sediment basin for this area until a regional
stormwater pond on the adjoining property to the east is constructed. This action would be
consistent with the City's goals of regional ponds as described in the SWMP. Financial security
will be requested by staff to guarantee restoration of the temporary pond in the future when the
downstream regional pond is constructed.
The stormwater management plan may require additional catch basins and storm sewer.
Stormwater pipe sizes should meet the runoff rates as noted in the SWMP. This mayor may not
include sizing for off-site drainage. Pipe size installation beyond the requirements of the proposed
project will be reimbursed by the City (see SWMP fees below). This will be reviewed after staff
receives specific stormwater calculations for post developed drainage areas and individual catch
basins. All temporary and permanent storm water ponds must be in place before infrastructure
construction can proceed.
The remaining portion of the site will be directed to the west branch of the Bluff Creek. This
stormwater is proposed to be routed to a stormwater pond on the southern edge of the property.
Staff recommends that this pond be oversized to treat runoff from the future Arboretum Boulevard
in addition to managing runoff from this development. The pond should be sized to meet Walker
standards as discussed in the City's SWMP. This can be accomplished by over-sizing the proposed
pond at the low point of the site or constructing a two-cell pond on the east and west sides of the
proposed intersecting road. This ponding basin must also be in place or constructed as a part of the
overall improvements.
According to SWMP, a water quality pond is also designated just southwest of this development to
treat storm water runoff in the west branch of Bluff Creek It is anticipated that this basin will be
needed for future improvements to Trunk Highway 5 and adjacent to the property. Ideally, this
water quality basin is to be used and modified to pre-treat the runoff from Trunk Highway 5, as
well as, the adjoining watershed before entering the west branch of Bluff Creek
Wetlands
There is one agriculturaVurban wetland on site that will not be impacted by the development. The
proposed frontage road (Arboretum Boulevard) will cross the west branch of Bluff Creek. The
permitting for this work will be by others (MnDOT).
Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the aglurban wetland
located on the property if the wetland is not impacted. The buffer strip width required for anlaglurban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure
setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 14
buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City
will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20
per Sign.
Bluff Creek
The proposed project includes the headwaters of the east and west branches of the Bluff Creek.
The Bluff Creek is planned as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge point
at the Minnesota River. The east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek are also a DNR
protected waters. The City of Chanhassen has recently completed Bluff Creek watershed
management plan. In this plan, recommendations for this upper area of Bluff Creek includes a 300-
foot setback buffer to maintain a natural resource corridor as well as a recreational and educational
trail corridor. This area has been identified for shallow marsh restoration and big woods
revegetation projects. Staff recommendation at the conceptual stage for this project was to maintain
the natural vegetation and landscape below the existing 966 foot contour. This setback is based on
the existing topography and watershed of the creek in this area. This recommended setback varies
from a minimum of 125 feet to 300 feet along this area. The applicant's proposal goes within the
960 contour, but maintains the remaining vegetation and wetland. Staff believes this alternative
maintains the integrity ofthe creek's natural features and buffers the creek from the intense
development of streets and homes through this site. The most intense impact will occur at the point
in which the underpass trails connect from Arboretum Boulevard and Trunk Highway 5. This area
will also be the site of the needed storm water ponds for this area. Because of these factors, staffis
investigating the feasibility of a big woods restoration project being established in conjunction with
this project. The applicant may have an opportunity to reduce some city administration fees for
participation in this project.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect,
preserve, and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the
stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place
and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the
plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for
storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet
model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions
model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and
therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the
optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be
constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 15
In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the
applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post-developed drainage areas
along with runoff calculations for pre-development and post-development conditions for 10-year
and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water
elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre-developed and post-developed
conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker
Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2 }'2-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and
calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required.
Storm Water Ouality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on
land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the
phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction
shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using market values ofland in the City ofChanhassen plus a value of$2.50 to $4.00 per
cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The water quality charge has been established at $1,530/acre
for multi-family residential developments, $8711acre for medium density duplex developments and
$800/acre for single family residential development. This proposed development of 49.9 acres
would be charged a water quality fee based on the final acreage of each of these developments.
Estimated costs for this plan are based on assessments of22.1 acres at $1,530 for multi-family, llA
acres at $871 for medium density, and 9.6 acres at $800 for single family residential, resulting in a
total water quality fee of $51,422.
Storm Water Ouantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Low
density developments will have a connection charge of $1 ,980 per developable acre and medium
density residential units have a connection fee of $ 2,975 per acre. Estimated water quantity fees
for this plan are based on assessments of9.6 acres at $1,980 and 33.5 acres at $ 2,975 for a water
quantity fee of $118,670.
SWMP Credits
The applicant will be credited water quality fees where they provide NURP basins to treat runoff
from this 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. The applicant will not be assessed areas that are dedicated outlots such as any wetland
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 16
mitigation or areas preserved along the Bluff Creek corridor. No credit will be given for temporary
pond areas.
These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. The applicant will be
charged SWMP fees for lots that are presented for final platting. Future phases of the
development will be assessed charges when they are submitted for final platting.
GRADING
A majority of the site is employed in agricultural use. The entire site, with the exception of the
Bluff Creek Corridor and an existing stand of trees north of the Walnut Curve and Galpin
Boulevard intersection, is proposed to be developed as ponds, streets, driveways, and dwelling
sites. The entire site will be graded with the initial phase. The stormwater ponds shall be
constructed with the initial phase as well to minimize the risk of erosion off site and provide an
acceptable level of water quality treatment and flood protection. Temporary outlet control
measures will need to be developed as a part of the final grading plan.
As part of the Trunk Highway 5 upgrade, a frontage road (Arboretum Boulevard) will be
constructed adjacent to the site. This development will be connected to proposed Arboretum
Boulevard in the future. The site grades appear to be compatible with the future upgrade of
Trunk Highway 5 and Arboretum Boulevard. The preliminary design for Arboretum Boulevard
has been incorporated into their plans. MnDOT should also review the final grading plan to
insure compatibility. Temporary construction easements may be required in the future by
MnDOT with construction of Arboretum Boulevard. The grading plans propose earth berms
adjacent to Arboretum Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Landscape
plantings along the frontage road should be maintained a distance away from the street in
accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor design standards.
Given the rolling terrain of this parcel, the site will be graded to create walkout, lookout, and
rambler-type dwellings. Staffhas reviewed the dwelling types and finds them compatible with
the proposed grades.
In an effort to preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor, the plans propose a strip of land which varies in
width adjacent to the southwest property line. The grading limits follow the 960 contour line for
the most part except in the areas of the storm water ponds. The existing wetland south of Block
9 will not be impacted by construction. Eventually, a trunk sanitary line and trail system will be
constructed within this corridor. This area is proposed to be preserved by a conservation
easement dedicated to the City. Since the City will be extending sanitary sewer through this
corridor, the conservation easement should be expanded to include drainage and utility purposes.
The plans propose a retaining wall on Lot 1, Block 1 which will encroach into the street right-of-
way to preserve existing trees. The developer should work with staff in relocating the wall
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 17
outside the right-of-way if feasible, i.e. shift street alignment. Another alternative would be to
shift the street slightly south to obtain a minimum 7-foot boulevard area and enter into an
encroachment agreement which spells out maintenance responsibilities with the City.
The berm proposed on Lot 18, Block 2 behind Lots 17 and 19, Block 2 should be relocated so it
is not situated over the proposed storm sewer.
UTILITIES
Utility service is available to the entire development. Sanitary sewer and water service is
available at the end of Windmill Drive. Due to elevation constraints, the sanitary sewer has
limited serviceability to only the northerly portion of the development. In conjunction with the
City's Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer improvement project, sanitary sewer has been
extended underneath Trunk Highway 5 to serve the remaining portion of the development. Plans
propose on extending a lateral sanitary sewer service from the City's trunk sewer to service the
entire development. The utility improvements within this development will be constructed in
accordance with the City's standards. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities
will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. Utility and drainage easements
will be required over the public utilities that fall outside of the right-of-way. The easement width
will be determined upon the depth of the utility. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet
wide.
The applicant is proposing to extend the 12-inch trunk watermain from Windmill Drive south
along Village Boulevard to the future frontage road consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Water Plan. The applicant will be given credit for installation of this 12-inch trunk waterline by
a reduction in their hookup fees. Typically, in a development of this size, the applicant would
only need to install an 8-inch waterline, therefore, the applicant will be given credit for the cost
difference between an 8-inch and a 12-inch waterline.
Along the westerly portion of this development immediately adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, an
existing homestead abuts this development (Hennessy parcel). The applicant, in conjunction
with the overall development improvements, will be providing sanitary sewer and water service
lines to serve the parcel. This requirement is typical for new developments to ensure
continuation of the public utility system.
Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required in conjunction with
final platting. Construction drawings will need to be submitted at least three weeks prior to final
plat consideration. Construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City
Council approval. The developer will be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 18
Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of
approval.
STREETS
Overall, the street system is fairly well designed to accommodate the development's traffic and
provide continuity between the neighborhoods. The applicant is proposing both a public and
private street system. The north/south public street will provide residents to the north (Windmill
Run) access to Arboretum Boulevard without having to travel on Galpin Boulevard. This
north/south street will also have a sidewalk system to bring pedestrian traffic south to the trail
system which is to be constructed in conjunction with the Trunk Highway 5 upgrade. MnDOT
will be providing an underground pedestrian crossing at Arboretum Boulevard and Trunk
Highway 5. This will provide an excellent pedestrian route for all the neighborhoods to access
the school south of Trunk Highway 5.
Staff and the applicant have reviewed the previous staff report on Lake Ann Highlands with
regards to Windmill Run's neighborhood concern of traffic using their neighborhood as a
shortcut to and from Arboretum Boulevard to get to Galpin Boulevard. Staff strongly believes
that it would be poor planning from a transportation and public safety standpoint not to connect
to Windmill Drive. Staff does not believe the proposed street alignment will provide a shorter
route for traffic to/from Galpin Boulevard. The development contract for Windmill Run contains
a condition of approval that acknowledges that Windmill Run will be extended in the future.
With Phase I of the development, the proposed east/west public street will connect Windmill
Drive to Galpin Boulevard. When Phase II is completed, it will provide an alternative route to
proposed Arboretum Boulevard for residents north of this development.
All of the public streets proposed in the development will be constructed in accordance with the
City's urban street standards (31-foot wide, back-to-back with curb and gutter) within a 60-foot
wide right-of-way. The applicant is also dedicating right-of-way for future Arboretum Boulevard
and Galpin Boulevard upgrading. Galpin Boulevard is proposed to be upgraded to four lanes
similar to the section of Galpin Boulevard south of Trunk Highway 5. Prior to this upgrade, this
development will be required to construct with auxiliary turn lanes along Galpin Boulevard
similar to the Windmill Run development to the north. Since Galpin Boulevard is currently
under Carver County Highway Department jurisdiction, an access permit will be required for all
work within the Galpin Boulevard right-of-way.
The grading, utilities and streets will be constructed in phases. The southerly access via
Arboretum Boulevard is proposed to be constructed in conjunction with MnDOT's upgrading of
Trunk Highway 5. This segment of Trunk Highway 5 is not scheduled to be constructed until
some time in 1999/2000. The applicant has performed a traffic study to determine the limits of
development before the level of service at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard exceed capacity.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 19
Based on that report it appears the development may fully develop and the intersection of Galpin
Boulevard and Walnut Curve will function at acceptable traffic levels.
The applicant is proposing private streets to serve the villas and cottage homes. The proposed
private streets range from 20-feet to 28-feet wide, similar to the Mission Hills development
adjacent to Trunk Highway 101 south of Trunk Highway 5. The plans appear to comply with
city code which requires a 24-foot wide minimum private street unless the street serves less than
four dwellings at which time the street may be 20-feet wide. The private streets will need to be
constructed to meet 7 -ton per axle weight design criteria. Cross access and maintenance
agreements will need to be developed and recorded against the benefited parcels. Construction
access to the site shall be limited to Galpin Boulevard.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for both the private and public streets will be
required prior to final plat consideration. The public streets shall be constructed in accordance
with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The private streets
shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-
1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles."
The private cul-de-sac which serves Lots 3 7 through 40, Block 2 needs to be redesigned slightly
to accommodate fire trucks. This revision should not affect any of the lots.
MISCELLANEOUS
The parcel has both deferred and pending assessments for trunk sewer and water improvements.
The pending and trunk sewer and water assessments are estimated at over $440,000.00. This is
based on 180 units (sewer at $1,050 and water at $1,375). In addition, there are 18 deferred
sewer assessments in the range of$12,000.00. The number of trunk sewer and water units
pending and/or assessed to date are 198 and 180, respectively. Once the final plat configuration
is determined, the actual number oflots will be subtracted from the number of units already
assessed. The difference in units will be subject to sewer and water hookup fees when the
building permits are issued. Currently, the hookup fees are $1,190 per unit for sanitary sewer and
$1,555 per unit for water. These fees are annually adjusted to reflect construction cost changes to
the local Minneapolis region according to the Engineering News - Record Construction Cost
Index. The applicant will be receiving credits against these hookup fees for the oversizing cost of
the 12-inch trunk watermain on the north/south street. Staffwill calculate these credits upon
completion of the utility construction and apply the credit accordingly.
The city is in the process of amending the subdivision ordinance to require all developers pay a
fee of $25 per lot to incorporate updating the GISlbase map. The fee will be payable at the time
of final plat recording.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 20
Street names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be
reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names for the private streets are not
included with the submitted documents. The proposed street name may have a maximum length of
three words.
Addressing. In order to accurately address the subdivision, I need an overall plan of the
subdivision with streets and property boundaries accurately located. The plan should also show the
outline of each building. The scale of this plan should be 1" = 200".
EROSION CONTROL
Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the final grading and development
plan and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. Staff
also recommends that the applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for
erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and
mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Rock construction entrances
shall be provided and maintained at all construction access points. Additional erosion control
fence should be included at the toe of slope on ponds located on Outlot A.
PARKS AND RECREATION
On January 28, 1997, the Park & Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed "Highlands"
development. Following a staff report, applicant presentation, public comment, and discussion,
the commission made the following recommendation:
That the Park & Recreation Commission recommend the City Council apply the following
conditions of approval regarding parks and trails for The Highlands.
1. The dedication of a public trail easement through the east/west commons area from
Highlands Boulevard east to the property limit. Construction of an 8 ft. asphalt trail
within this easement. The applicant is to be reimbursed for material costs involved in
constructing the trail from the city's trail fund.
2. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
3. The development ofa "commons" within the plat.
Commissioners Roeser, Manders, Scott and Howe voted in favor. Lash and Berg voted against.
The motion carried by a 4-2 vote. Commissioners Lash and Berg voted against due to the failure to
specify that a children's playground must be a component of the commons. As the motion stands,
the specific contents of the commons area are at the discretion of the applicant.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 21
LANDSCAPING
The former farm fields have limited vegetation existing along the Bluff Creek corridor and
Highway 5. The applicant proposes to preserve a few trees on the north side of Walnut Curve at
Galpin Boulevard. Tree protection fencing shall be used in this area. Some tree removal along
the creek will take place as a part of construction. The applicant has provided calculations for
reforestation and found that 400 trees are required. According to the plant species schedule
included in the development plans dated 12-13-96, a total of 672 trees will be planted. A
breakdown of the total includes 231 evergreens, 202 ornamentals and 239 overstory trees.
Species selection of the overstory trees is consistent with the landscaping guidelines for the
upland area in the Bluff Creek Management Plan ':Iith the exoeptioa of the 27 Norway maples.
This tree is not aative to the area 1101' has it proven to be a S1:looess as bmdevard plantiags. Staff
reoommeads the applioaat inol1:lde a speeies of oak rather thaa the Norway maple in order to
promote a 'Big Woods' oOmIR1:laity. No revised plaRt speeies list was suhlRitted with the
prelilRiRary plat.
Staff reoOJnmeads the applioaat mO'le the 10 e'/ergreens from Village B01:l1evard aloag the
stormv;ater poad aad Bl1:lff Creek to ether areas ia the de';elopmeat that \vo1:lld benefit more from
their preseaee, sHell as the northern property bOHndary. SiFlee this streteh of the B01:l1evard was
inteFlded to provide a 'view oerridor', evergreens wOHld be more appropriate in other loeations.
In areas the applicant has designated as open space S01:ltfl of tlle traditioaal siaglt! family homes
aFld also north of the 4 unit villa blocks, staff recommends a prairie or natural area be installed as
part of the landscaping. An area of cut grass can surround the prairie area in order to identify it
as a distinct and maintained part of the landscape. The prairie would further enhance the
environmental attributes of the development and provide residents with scenic and interesting
backyards. Since prairies take time and patience to develop, a maintenance agreement for the
management of the prairie areas must be submitted as part of the landscaping plan for the
development. This agreement will identify specific guidelines for establishing and maintaining
the areas as well as designate responsibility for the areas.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the city code subject to the
conditions of 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;
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 22
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans, subject to
approval of the land use map amendment.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, induding but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report.
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.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to
conditions if approved.
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 7, 1997, to review the proposed
development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 23
that the Land Use Map Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the conditions of the staff report as amended.
FINAL PLAT
LANDSCAPING
The applicant has revised the landscaping plan to address many of the concerns brought out as
part of the preliminary plat. The following issues must still be addressed as part of the final plat:
. Revise the size of the prairie to allow for mown edge on the west side.
. Change proposed ash to linden as indicated on the plant schedules.
. Provide seed mix information for slope down to Bluff Creek and management plan and
planting plan for prairie.
MISCELLANEOUS
Upon review ofthe final plat there are a couple items that need to be revised.
I. On the dedication sheet the dedication of the public streets needs to be clarified. Staff
will be working with the applicant's surveyor to resolve this issue.
2. On the dedication sheet the signature line for the City Manager needs to be changed from
Administrator to City Manager.
3. On the final plat the street named Village Boulevard shall be changed to a name
acceptable to Public Safety.
4. The final plat needs to dedicate drainage and utility easements over the proposed utilities
from the private street sections of the plat. The developer should also be aware that
should additional easements be required upon review of the final construction plans and
specifications, the developer will be responsible for providing them on the final plat
documents.
GRADING
The developer has requested the City to commence site grading prior to recording the final plat.
Due to the relatively short construction season and given the magnitude of the site grading which
is anticipated to take 8 to 10 weeks, it is in the best interest for the development to proceed as
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 24
soon as possible with site grading activities while dry conditions exist. Normally, staff would
have received final construction plans and specifications along with the final plat documents for
review and City Council approval. Staff is comfortable working with the developer to approve
the preliminary and final plat at this time contingent upon final construction plans and
specifications for staff review and City Council approval. The applicant recognizes that the final
plat will not be signed or recorded by the City until the construction plans have been submitted
and reviewed and approved by the City. To commence site grading, the applicant will enter into
a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the City and provide financial security to
guarantee the terms of the grading and site restoration portion of the project. The City has in the
past allowed other developments such as Creekwood, The Woods at Longacres, etc. to
commence site grading prior to the final plat being recorded.
The entire site with the exception of the Bluff Creek corridor and an existing stand of trees north
of Walnut Curve on Lot 1, Block 1 is proposed to be graded with the initial phase. Temporary
and permanent storm water ponds are proposed throughout the site and will be required to be
constructed with the initial phase to minimize the extent of erosion off site.
The berm proposed on Lot 18, Block 2 behind Lots 19 and 20, Block 2 shall be relocated so it is
not situated over the proposed storm sewer. These types of minor modifications can be adjusted
in conjunction with the final review of the construction plans. Overall, the site grading appears
to maintain the overall neighborhood drainage pattern on the site. Staff does recommend that the
grading plan incorporate the lot and block numbers on the final grading and drainage plan.
Erosion control measures are being provided around the perimeter of the site. The site is
proposed to be seeded within two weeks after site grading has been completed. Erosion control
blanket will be provided on slopes steeper than 3 to 1. The plans propose a retaining wall on Lot
1, Block 1 which appears to encroach into the street right-of-way on Walnut Curve. As
previously mentioned, the applicant will be working with staff to shift the street alignment or
right-of-way to obtain a minimum 7-foot wide boulevard area to maintain the existing trees.
Staffhas reviewed the preliminary utility layout plan and there are no real issues other than
relocating a couple of storm sewer pipes or adding additional catch basins. The City also has
another opportunity to review the utility layout with the final construction documents which will
be within a couple of weeks. The plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with
the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The developer will be
required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of approval.
STREETS
There are both public and private street systems within the development. Staff has reviewed the
street grades and alignment and finds them in accordance with City codes. Construction plans
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 25
for the public and private streets will be submitted to the City for staff review and City Council
approval within a couple of weeks.
The private cul-de-sac which serves Lots 37-40, Block 2 will need to be redesigned slightly to
accommodate turning movements of fire trucks. This revision should not affect any of the lot
SIzes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
"The City Council approves the Land Use Map Amendment, 96-2 LUP, amending the
northerly 30.14 acres from Residential- Low Density to Residential- Medium density to
permit the proposed development known as Walnut Grove."
"The City Council grants preliminary and final approval of PUD #96-4 for a mixed density
residential development rezoning approximately 50 acres from Agricultural Estate District,
A2, to Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R."
"The City Council approves Site Plan #96-14 for 168 townhouse units and 44 Cottage
homes, site plan prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, dated 4/4/97, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall incorporate side entry garages for the bungalow homes on Lots 19,21,25,
31,43, and 44, Block 2, and Lot 14, Block 3.
2. The applicant shall incorporate three exterior siding selections for the villa townhomes and
four exterior siding selections for the bungalow homes, stamped received April 23, 1997.
3. No two adjacent bungalow homes may have the same elevations and exterior siding
selections.
4. The applicant shall make minor adjustment to Villa homes adjacent to Highway 5 to
increase architectural detail."
"The City Council grants preliminary and final plat approval for Walnut Grove subject to
the following conditions:
I. The dedication of a public trail easement through the east/west commons area from Highlands
Boulevard east to the property limit. Construction of an 8 ft. asphalt trail within this easement.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 26
The applicant is to be reimbursed for material costs involved in constructing the trail from the
city's trail fund.
2. PaYment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
3. The development ofa "commons" within the plat.
4. The developer shall relocate the trail northward or southward within the open area, staying
out of the drainage swale area, to expand the gathering space/public space and make a more
useable play area.
5. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit to incorporate a transit component
within the development potentially providing land and/or funding assistance for a bus
shelterlbus cut-out.
6. Landscape species must be selected from Big Woods species list in Bluff Creek Management
Plan. Change some of the proposed Ash to American linden as indicated on the plant
schedules.
7. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees to be preserved on site prior to
commencing grading activities.
8. Vegetation restoration plan for the slope leading down from road to wetland in southwest
comer must be developed. Provide seed mix information for slope down to Bluff Creek
and management plan and planting plan for prairie restoration.
9. The applicant shall work with staff to relocate 10 evergreen scheduled to be planted along
Boulevard near pond and Bluff Creek to the north property line between Windmill Run
and Walnut Grove.
10. Incorporate prairie areas in open spaee sOl:lth of the traditional single family hames aad also
te-the north of the four unit villa blocks on the west side of Village Boulevard. The prairie
areas shall have a detailed planting and management plan submitted with the overall
landscaping plan for the development prior to recording the final plat approval. The
management plan will identify responsibility for the areas and outline maintenance practices
to be followed during the establishment period and beyond. Revise the size of the prairie to
allow for mown edge on the west side. Provide management plan and planting plan for
prairie restoration.
11. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any
building permits.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 27
12. Submit streets names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior
to final plat approval. Submit proposed street names for private streets 200 feet or more in
length. All private roads and a number of smaller driveway accesses will be required to have
street names. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for which streets will need to be assigned
street names. Street names must be submitted to both Chanhassen Fire Marshal and
Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. No parking fire lane signs will be
required to be installed on private roads and roads leading to driveway accesses. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire
Prevention Policy # 06-1991.
13. Street and utility service shall be extended to the Hennessy's east property line. A 45 foot
wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the utilities on the final plat. The
development's covenants shall provide cross access easements in favor of the Hennessy
parcel for ingress and egress over the private streets within the development.
14. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal.
15. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each
activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
16. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition
of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and
specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval prior to the
final plat being recorded. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle
design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive
aisles".
17. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and
will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
18. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm
events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance
with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater
calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 28
calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient
catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall
be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
19. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
20. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and
comply with their conditions of approval.
21. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands.
22. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of
the ponding areas..
23. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along
the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. The berm
proposed on Lot 18, Block 2 behind Lots 19 and 20 shall be redesigned so it is not situated
over the proposed storm sewer.
24. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the
100-year high water level.
25. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level
and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes.
26. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer.
27. The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12-inch trunk watermain from Windmill
Drive to Arboretum Boulevard. The credit shall be for the construction cost difference
between an 8-inch and a 12-inch water line.
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 29
28. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin
Boulevard or Arboretum Boulevard.
29. The southerly stormwater pond on Outlot A shall be oversized to accommodate runoff from
the future Arboretum Boulevard in addition to the site runoff. SWMP credits will be given
for oversizing this pond.
30. Final grades adjacent to Arboretum Boulevard will be subject to review and approval of
MnDOT for compatibility with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5/ Arboretum
Boulevard.
31. The developer shall work with City staff in reducing the encroachment of the retaining wall
into the right-of-way along Walnut Curve (Lot 1, Block 1). If there are no feasible
alternatives the developer shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City.
32. The cul-de-sac proposed to serve Lots 37 through 40, Block 2 shall be redesigned to
accommodate fire truck turning movements.
33. Provide a 1" = 200' scale plan of the subdivision to the Inspections Division showing all streets,
driveways, property lines and building outlines.
34. A 10' clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants
can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance 9-1.
35. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be
chipped on site or hauled off site.
36. An additional 1 to 2 fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact location of additional hydrant(s).
37. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant
to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992. (Copy enclosed).
Additional number ranges will be required on the building ends adjacent to main arterial
roads. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location and size of letters.
38. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for water
protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable
prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 30
10.502.
41. The following setbacks shall be established within the Walnut Grove development:
Lots 1 - 14, Block 1, front 30 ft, rear 30 ft., side 10 ft.
Lots 1 - 3, Block 2, front 30 ft., rear 30 ft., side 10 ft.
Lots 4 - 17, Block 2, front 30 ft., rear 25 ft., side 10 ft.
Lots 1 - 4, Block 3, front 30 ft., rear 30 feet, side 10 ft.
Setback from Galpin Boulevard: 50 ft.
Setback from Village Boulevard: 30 ft.
42. Water Quality and Quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The
requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in
accordance with the proscribed land use zoning. The water quantity and quality fees will
be calculated by staff upon review and approval of the utility construction plans. The
fees will be payable to the city prior to the recording of the final plat.
43. The applicant shall provide additional screen between the proposed development and
the existing development to the north.
44. The developer may commence site grading after final plat approval and prior to
recording the final plat conditioned upon the developer entering into a development
contract with the city and providing financial security in the form of a letter of credit or
cash escrow to guarantee erosion control measures, grading and site restoration.
45. The final plat shall be revised as follows:
a) On the dedication sheet the dedication of the public streets needs to be clarified.
Staff will be working with the applicant's surveyor to resolve this issue.
b) On the dedication sheet the signature line for the City Manager needs to be
changed from Administrator to City Manager.
c) On the final plat the street named Village Boulevard shall be changed to a name
acceptable to Public Safety.
d) The final plat needs to dedicate drainage and utility easements over the proposed
utilities from the private street sections of the plat. The developer should also be
aware that should additional easements be required upon review of the final
construction plans and specifications, the developer will be responsible for
Walnut Grove
May 7, 1997
Page 31
providing them on the final plat documents.
46. The grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be revised to include lot and
block numbers.
47. Final plat approval is contingent upon formal approval ofthe construction plans and
specifications by the City Council."
A TT ACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Reduced Preliminary Plat
3. Reduced Site Plan
4. Reduced Landscaping Plan
5. VillaNilla Townhomes, Exterior Siding Selection Sheet
6. Reduced Villa Elevation, 8 unit
7. Walnut Grove Bungalow Homes, Exterior Siding Selection Sheet
8. Reduced Building Elevations, Bungalows
9. Gross Area Calculations
10. Memo from Mark Littfin to Bob Generous dated 4/24/97
11. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous dated 1/8/97
12. Memo from Robert Huffman to Robert Generous dated 4/21/97
13. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
14. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous dated 4/30/97
15. Letter from Scott Peters to Robert Generous dated 5/13/97
16. Walnut Grove Lot Area Tabulations
17. Planning Commission Minutes of 5/7/97
18. Plant Schedules
19. Preliminary and final plat and grading plan
1819b 18:32:4G
G12-r '-5739-)
,
G12 941 3438
612-937-5739
I'Age 2
,
. I
CITY OF CHANHA88EN
liD COULTeR DRIVI.
CHAN"A~8!N. MN 111\7
(811) 817-1100 '
Rr:r. J~~',H"n
.",. ~
DEe 1 3 1996
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPL CATION CITY ()r l.n....'...nl'\;)~cN
~EPHONe IO~ """) 934-6238, , t~tF'HONe:
:
. i
1..-lL ~tnP~l18~SIVe Pl,n Amendment 11._ ' 'aoatlOn of ROWlEatlmentl
..'_ cqhdttlona~ Use Permit 12._ ~.r1anoe
i
~~l- ~ ~~I"~ cavallon Permit 13.i Wetland Alteration Permit
i '
-.j t~tlni Us, Pennlt 14._ ~nlno Appeal
. ,
. ., . i
e.l..:L. pl4nn~d 1.J~1t DevelOpment . 1S,_ ~onlng Ordinance Amendment
. . i
i i
e.~ R+O~~ ! I
I
: i
7.._ 8~h P~rtn~. 1
. .
8.;..- s~n p~~ ~evl'w ~NO' ~Ioatlon Slgne
l !. .;
I ~.:-:;L Sll~ p~n ~evlew ..L EIC iI'OW tor FIling Fee.,'Jtomey eolt"
I $1 00 CUP/SPRNACNAftfWN'
.
$4 GO Minor SUBlMe'e' & Bound'
,~.~ (.~W~lalo~ TOTAL F IS! $ =3, ~5S.~O
i :
Chanhassen. MN 55317
OWNER,
ADORES.:
\
i
Lars T. Conway
~"L1CANT: ..
Residential Oevelo9ment, Inc.
)bRE88: I
15 Choctaw Circle
4415 Freemont Avenue South
Minneapolis. MN 55409
A list. pf .\1 p~perty ownlra within 800 f'" 01 ,he bOundar", of thl property mull
InolU~ ..th,thl appllCltlOn. i
I I
TVitnty.abc tub alII folded oo~l8a 01 the plana mUlt be aUb~IttICl.
. . I i
8)6" X 11" AeCluCICI copV of tnaneparency for.-e" plan ."....
. NOTE _ When mu1tl~e applloatlona Ire procelled. the appropriate tee ~haU be ti\a'\)lld far each application.
.. Eacrow will be required for other applloatlons through the development contract
. .
12/18196 18: 33 : 15
61Z-'" "'-5139-)
I
61Z 941 3438
612-937-5739
Page 3
1 ~~OJECT NAME~
"~TlON. :
: ~~lm DssdRIPnON
I
I
I
~I
I
I
i
I
_ENT ZONINcI : A - z... I
RSbUESTED!ZoNIN~ PULf<... . I
r.ENTLAND usd DESIGNATION. Wh. )~.dw-S'~.~~'.,J sYz- Md\~ ~\~ e......
~"bUssrED:LAND ~8E De8IGNATI~ '" i\ rv,~~v....~\ra €..s<d.<t-\\J,
RBAsoH FOR ~lsBEQUE8T ~~ 1,k",,{rJ <)<.l!".\' I
The Highlands
See Attached
applloa; m~lt be completed In fu land be typewritten or clearly prl eel and mult be aooofT1)anled by all Intorm&tlOn
.net plans r .Ire~ by' applicable City Ordinance provision.. Before fll ng thlt applloatlon. you lhould confer with the
Planning De ' rtment to determine the e.peoHIo ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
,;,~.. to O8i': tiat I ~m making appll~tlOn for the d.ecrlb.d aotlon ~~lhe City and that I am r.aponslbl. fOr CO!1l)lfIng
- ~ all City I I ~tl with fegard tO~hlS r.qultt. This application .ijld b. proce'88d In my name ancll am the party
m the .. u d. oontlCt regarell any matter pertalnlng to thle Iloatlon. I have attaohed a oopy of proof of
c .rth~ (el( .r Y of Owner'. Du lcate Certlflcat. of Title. Abstra':rOf Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authodzed pi on 'to ~ak8 thle appllcatron and the fee owner ha. also e~ned thl. appllcaUon.
1 ~I keep !: elfm~1 ok.ed of the dea411nts for Bubmllllon of mal.dall-nd the progress of thl, applloatlon. I further
unqtratand t _ d ~~I te.. may be :charged for oonsulUng f.88. fea11b1lllY ttl.ldl.., f)to. with en e'tlmate prior to any
authorization . pr ~ with the atudy. The documente and Information have lubmmed are true tr.rJ ~J(t.'i tj tM tlost
Gf nw knowle . e. ; ~
i
I a140 . hit! Iter the approval or granting of the permit. .uoh dermlt8 shall be Invalid unle.s they are reoorded
agaJp t the he roperty for whloh the approvaVpermlt 18 granted within 120 daye with the Oarver County Aecorder's
Off ' a: cument retumed to elly Hall Records.; .
. i
Date
< . /:
..Li/~~ ~~ /2- ~',
li~a\Ure of . pe ~r i Date
~ Fl8Ce~ dn (l-jl ~J ) C/l: F.. PIId"'l '6 <;':), c. IlIOlIpl NO. fp 3 s1 ()
. I. I
Till applloan, ,hbU1~ contact ltaff for a copV 01 thl Ita" l'lpon ~IOh will be av.llable on Frldav prlor 10 the
mNilng. If not cOn_ed. I oopy or the report will be mailed to t",appllcant', .dd.....
I
I
'~
g
l/I
~
"'
1. Yld AlIYNII'll13l1d
.ONI 'lN3ridOl3A3a 1'VUN3aIS3~
.,
I
....--
_ m.l'_ .... "'tlVU...l_..... 011
':lNI '.LSInOmI38-33HJ.YS
3^O~8 InNTv'M
~: !~:;;I ~
"z-
.. ..~
~ ~ !gla i
w~ ....t;;; ~
e ~ "'......enw 0
~, :l~;U ..
:I. !I: a~~%!l!
~i~~~i~
!"~~
;f ii:i~I!;!!!~!f~i;I!~;lf:~
I~ l.ti!r.I;~~'!i; ..;;.,i;
!' .5z tJI'-I..r~f .. "'.'
;u' !f:.r:~:~' I:' .'~!'J!.l
:~i ~!;i;.j:iil11~.:iia~iw::.
r~ ~!~!:iiljii;.I!'liiio;:I~
.~ li1;\.i..ii!i1rI:;'i!tt.,
!: J!:!;:.:"'~il'ii'~'i"l':it'
~.._' .:E-:li.:::'~'f' !:.! .f
ll' :lI-11 !1....~....;.5 It ."11 .
At. 'j~i~!:iiiii~=:~!~ji~,iii
il~it'!r:~tl-:~i:-itl.~ 1
i~ 3st:l!i~ii;i:l~:tii1i;f!;
0" ~t~:liJ!i:i.JI:~iJ'~i':';
ii Ji!iiiiljlfl::fi~!lJ:lili
U ;.~: '1..::::A .~dl:ll..Ji
J. ;!:i!i'R:;iij!i!~j:I':~~!
I; l'I..:..t:ttli~j'itj!i~!i
11 ;tiil;j;-____',.I.:."l._
80 r.~te!11;-f;;:.1~. :2~;~:
.; !~!:i~~~ll~j~:jl~~~i::i:~
&j i~~:3~:..;;;!1.;:l:. I.:~:
i: A:Jt!Et3J~jis!lidt~il:l~i
~:
i
I
i
.. lll~
~ i3~
f! XCt- .J
III i~ i.
II: ~ l=ioo~ ~ ~
I 1'i c:-- N
o ~ :il' ~ ~~
Nie ill.. !i'! II: N'"
< I Q_ I ~ ~ .
I S ;(~~.."' -<
. ~~~ ~~e:~ ~ ~
~ ~13g: ~~ ~
%N Q. e
_____ sozI'W4I"I Mi:EI,I:I-----
~
,
I
,,------
T
-L
I
I
I
I
I
.-
-1!""'
a
SI
!J
:1
III
14
,h
ot:~
I'"
i'.
il!
In
I
]
l~
-
S !
-- i~i ij
-- !~ !!i
r r
-
s ~.! ,
-- i~i , l.j 0 P
i" · i!i ~
. I . f
r " 1- -
I~
..
~
ill
S
ll/
ocot-ttt (l").~"" ""lY'l..l'M.A~ H1tlOS O!i~
'::lNI 'J.SIn~~a3:a-3:aHlVS
"N" N3SSV1oIWH:l
'JNI 'lN3~dOl3/\30 lit!. N301S3~
...s'-
~ I .
- ~ .1.1
'/
~ ! i
~
I ~
NVld 311S
!I
~I ,
Ii I
I
is 1
,~ J il
~S ~
e~4 I
2:1 I
I~
~il!l
~ i
1110 I
id
iil!l
Sh I
I
;1= I
I
_~I I
~
-~-
(~LL
'ON ayo~ .~) - _ _
a"O~ 3>i
Y')",~
~; ~~~I ~
(; (;~ Ul
~(;~:! OJ
t isi~ ~
~ ~ .....al....... ~
~:I: ..~;;;r:l~ e
, . ~ 15"'~:J:
:i ~ ~ :L~~~
~;;! :I:"':I:~...
~~~~1iliO]~
~~~
- ~
--- in In,f )\ --...... ~ ,-<y...- ~
I L,' It, I ~....~ - !r' . -- _. -
~=.=~U \;;rlf1:2 .ur J<~ ! 0 .:~l~ . C~ ~ A ~ ~ \ I
==~ "'" ~~ d ~~ I !; .' . l+';' t$I. . ~ ';
"---~~ . ~. '- ... "", .' ""'- .
__ ~ \ ~~k .' 6 Ift~~ . .. ~ -'. . ,. . I
__ g, ik7 \ ~. wf ":~-. ~~~l;l~": . . "...~, ·
. I rh ~ c"-LJ '. \ "....l lb' . ~ > :;;.,"'" "i .
__ .' G;:::t I-h.-, J I. ;';::::26...-.. - ~ ~ ~~.;< , .' \" .~ ~\ .
_ s )"f-LJ / f .~ A1J. 12.::::!' "'LVI "Y l"llU (I -.."'.{).: . n' .
_ _ Ill') ~ 7 r :;!o<..::.,.. P11-.P 1 rl~ u: JJJ"' '<'v ~r~ ~ ~~; ~,- .
",'tJo-;- i... ~jnl ~ I '.i .~~
~~" ,,1L,"1~~""'1.,.. .....j-' ~i~~H'm.~ ~'.'
___...~ 7h-J ? ~ I P n ~ \!!~ t!i. . t . 1
t:'\ Lf. ~ ~ h-II C .rill' . tJ jJ ~ : i. t-H fr. ~. . .
r=4'I. Lr-' . 'L.C' ~ 11 -... j ~ ~.." I!!!l'
,_ .. LC ~ 1 ,: CJi<U>I Y r- ~~",." r ~ "!f
~ ii '-;.'~. 'V'~.">>.. ~.pf'/ /' ~f(:: tl,l; ~ t )~ ~ i ~
__ E> ~ ~ 7";.] -~ ~ ~ ~ ~~L.:r~
.~.Il!- ~ fu; ~ ..,~ 119 ~~.~ ~ H: : (91!l f /
_ po, ~ _ ~~ .. _~ </IICZ "'K~"" I'i' w L & //
.., ....:5 < ~ \ / - ~~ ii& "- };..~ -~ Ii ~ ~ < /
.. ~\::; ~ _ ___ .. SV ~"O, ,.'l...~y t/Hl, . '4 ~ :>1<' /
-_~ 'st :. '.. ~ ~~ !JJI ~ 'ij J, /
~ G ~)""\ ~\~ ~~. ~ ~ I ~~~;; .,Oil/
.-I~~\~&'\}J'R;~\:\ __ 1 .'111 I~ fl ffii!:: :!l~ ~~~~ ~
_ --;.___ , \ \ ,<Flu' c. 1~ .. ...
~ . _ _ t? r/ I .2 I c:;- Cl Cl ~ ..
. _ ~w - , I .-! · '6'9 ~
S::=:::,~ II ~_ .?, 0 . ~~/h / 11~ 9 vi i~i~ ~
__:--:.::.::~ _/ il _ -~ t ",.-on w w :>.......
Clrr . ____~- ~__""," _ _ '" ' .." , o~ .......en....... ;i
"" ~~~ _, . . ' " _~ 0 " ·
%. __ __~ . . .., r r "'"" 0
.O:J> ;:,___::' _, j ~ ~/~ 8~~ ':.J' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....
. .",. ~ ~ _~ ' . ," ''':;0 < · u' r
. ';;;;:':"-0>"__ ' · J 3 ~ ~ g ~ · ~. ~
~ -'F:) "",'_'___..',-- \~- i! ~ ~/~ ~ E!~ E ~. 5xG~
. ", " ,~"'~ ~~ ~".w<
""_ _ _ 9, I:J g: CD ..J
__ _ ~ ~ I CD . . ;>
"'<'_ l ,~ I
'.. ~ ~J I
!. I
I
~I
i
,I jl
~ I
~
ADDRESS:
BUYERS
NAME:
VILLA! VILLA TOWNHOMES
EXTERIOR SIDING SELECTION SHEET
JOB#
CHANh",,,,,C" r-LMI",,,'l" utPT
CITV OF CHANHASSEN
r"\r-f"rl' 'f':'n
APR 2 3 1997
(PLEASE CHECK ONE OF mE FOLLOWING GROUPS)
VILLA! VILLA TOWNHOMES PACKAGE #1
". Stone - Superior River Rock
". Roof - Driftwood
". Siding - Mission Beige
". Garage Door Trim/SoffitlFascia - Shell Ivory
". Shake - Clay
". Front Door - Dense Forrest
VILLA! VILLA TOWNHOMES PACKAGE #2
". Stone - Superior River Rock
". Roof - Driftwood
". Siding - Highlight Pebble
". Garage Door Trim/SoffitlFascia - Shell Ivory
". Shake - Desert Tan
". Front Door - Ivy Wall
VILLAI VILLA TOWNHOMES PACKAGE #3
". Stone - Superior River Rock
". Roof - Driftwood
". Siding - Antique Parchment
". Garage Door Trim/SoffitlFascia - Special White
". Shake - Antique Linen
". Front Door - Winward
n:\sales\extcolor\nbctext.doc 4/23/97
I f
I
I I
! i
R <
I
I... ,
_""
I ~~
~
~
~
~
z..
~
~t
~~
ADDRESS:
BUYERS
NAME:
WALNUT GROVE BUNGALOW HOMES
EXTERIOR SIDING SELECTION SHEET
JOB#
NHASSEN
CITY 9ft::~~' 'r-:n
!1.PR 2, 3 1991
ul::P1
. 1L.t"'\PIl..tl~"
c\-\J>,l\it1 1\"'':''''' ,
(PLEASE CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING GROUPS)
BUNGALOW PACKAGE #1
* Brick - Desert Common or Stone - Superior River Rock
* Roof - Driftwood
* Siding - Mission Beige
* Garage Door Trim/Soffit/Fascia - Shell Ivory
* Shake - Clay
* Front Door - Dense Forrest
BUNGALOW PACKAGE #2
* Brick - Dakota Common or Stone - Superior River Rock
* Roof - Driftwood
* Siding - Highlight Pebble
* Garage Door Trim/Soffit/Fascia - Shell Ivory
* Shake - Desert Tan
* Front Door - Ivy Wall
BUNGALOW PACKAGE #3
* Brick - Desert Common or Stone - Superior River Rock
* Roof - Driftwood
* Siding - Antique Parchment
* Garage Door Trim/Soffit/Fascia - Special White
* Shake - Antique Linen
* Front Door - Winward
BUNGALOW PACKAGE #4
* Brick - Dakota Common or Stone - Superior River Rock
* Roof - Driftwood
* Siding - Cape Cod Gray
* Garage Door Trim/Soffit/Fascia - Shell Ivory
* Shake - Gray
* Front Door - Rose Clay
n:\sales\extcolor\nbctext.doc 4/23/97
l
~
{l
~
f
i ! I
. .
~ f
i
I !
I ~ '\'
~
;~~
I
I
Q
d
Q:'
~
:5
~
.5
J
OR\\JE
GROSS AREA
30.14 ACRES
I
I
I
I")
..j.
o
0')
I
I
I
\
LOW DENSITY AREA ,
MEDIUM DENSITY AREA
CD
o
c:
1;;
r'---::::::J ~
~~..?.., :;0
0.'1 ACRES 0
GROSS AREA
19.66 ACRES
SCALE 1--200'
lHE HIGHLANDS
C ITV OF
CHAHHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Bob Generous, AICP, Senior Planner
FROM:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE:
April 24, 1997 '
SUBJECT:
Request for a land use plan amendment from residential low density to residential
medium density for the northern 30+ acres of the parcel; PUD rezoning for
approximately 50 acres of property from A-2, agricultural estate to PUD-R, planned
unit development residential; a mixed density residential development; site plan review
for 44 bungalow homes and 168 villa townhomes; preliminary subdivision request of
249 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way located at the northeast comer of
Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5, Walnut Grove, Residential Development, Inc.
Planning Case 96-4 PUD, 96-2 LUP, and 96-14 SPR
I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy
requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional
plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed.
l. A 10' clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes,
NSP, US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly
located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
2. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on
site or hauled off site.
3. All private roads and a number of smaller driveway accesses will be required to have street names.
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for which streets will need to be assigned street names. Street
names must be submitted to both Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for
review and approval. No parking fire lane signs will be required to be installed on private roads and
roads leading to driveway accesses. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy # 06-1991.
4. An additional I to 2 fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
location of additional hydrant(s).
Bob Generous
April 24, 1997
Page 2
5. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992. (Copy enclosed). Additional number
ranges will be required on the building ends adjacent to main arterial roads. Contact Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for exact location and size of letters.
6. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for water protection is
required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the
time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.502.
7. Redesign the offset cul-de-sac to provide a proper turning radius for fire apparatus. Submit revised
turning radiuses to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
8. The private road to the west of Village Boulevard shall be provided with an approved turn around.
Provide turning radius dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval.
ML/be
g: \safety\ml\generous
C ITV OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
REOOIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE
1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18".
NO
PARKING
FIRE
LANE
2. Red on white is preferred.
3. 3M or equal engineer's grade
reflective sheeting on aluminum
is preferred.
4. Wording shall be:
NO PARKING
FIRE LANE
5. signs shall be posted at each end
of the fire lane and at least at
7'0" 75 foot intervals along the
. fire lane.
6. All signs shall be double sided
facing the direction of travel.
7. Post shall be set back a
minimum of 12" but not more than
36" from the curb.
(NOT TO
SCALE)
GRADE
8. A fire lane shall be required in
front of fire dept. connections
extending 5 feet on each side and
along all areas designated by the
Fire Chief.
ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN
WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS
THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY
THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF
FIRE LANES.
,( ~ 7/
Approved - Public Safety Director
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #06-1991
Date: 1/15/91
Revised:
Page 1 of 1
{)
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
C ITV OF
CHANHASSEN
,..
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
General
PREMISES IDENTIFICATION
Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall
contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall
be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director,
Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal.
Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where
no address numbers are posted. .
Other Requirements - General
,G.
..~"'"
1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color 1rom'the ba~kground.
2. Numbers shall not be In script
\.: .
3. 11 a structure Is not visible 1rom the street, addltlonaHiumbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size
and location must be approved. .t:-:t ;.;
..:$ -
4. Numbers on mall box at drivewaY-entrance may be a minImum 014". However, requirement #3 must stili
be met
5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers 11 deemed necessary.
Residential Requirements C2 or less dweIIIllQ unit)
1. Minimum heIght shall be 5 1/4",
2. Building permits will not be f1naledunless numbers are posted and approved by the BuildIng Department
Commercial Requirements
.l-.......
<."'"
".~"""
1. Minimum height shall'be 12",
2. Strip Malls ,
a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements 016",
b. Address numbers shall be on the mai~ en(Rnce and on all back doors.
s.~.
3. If address numbers are located on a dlP16t~ry entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the
buildings main entrance,
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #29-1992
Date: 06/15/92
Revised:
Approved - Public Sa~ty Director Page 1 of 1
tJ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
c
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Carver County Government Center
Administration Building
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2192
Phone (612) 361-1010 Fax (612) 361-1025
Administration
Parks
Engineering
Highway Maintenance
Surveying & Mapping
~
:ARVER
:OUNTY
January 8, 1997
r;"'1t ....",.,."...... t~'t'...,;"
. , . .. .
['4\ ~J .:; ..>'.' .
(j(.~~':,',
SUBJ:
Robert Generous, Senior Planner ~
Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer f~
Planned Use Development
The High!allds, Residontial Developmtlnt, 111C. (96-.~. PUD,9S-2 LUP and !J6-14 SPR)
JAN 0 9 1~~.
TO:
FROM:
C\TY Or Cnr,,''-lr.~~- .
Following are comments regarding the land use plan amendment for The Highlands transmitted
to Carver County by your memorandum dated December 16, 1996.
1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are:
Urban Undivided
2-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
80' 1 DO'
Rural Undivided
2-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
11 0' 120'
Urban Undivided
4-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
100' 110'
Rural Divided
4-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
190' 200'
County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway
in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 40 foot from centerline corridor
shown would provide for a potential 80 foot corridor. This corridor would only meet the
recommended needs for a 2-lane urban roadway. Other plats along this corridor have
provided for a 50 foot from centerline road dedication. This road may eventually become
under the jurisdiction of the City.
The city may wish to consider a wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision
if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width
may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject
to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
3. Any proposed access construction, grading, or installation of drainage structures within
the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway
department.
Affirmatirc Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on 10(7(" Post-ConslIIner Recycled Paper
4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-
of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need
to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition"
than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision
in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for
the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this
responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the
city.
5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the
County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining
an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs
overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead
utility consideration.
6. Existing drainage patterns must be maintained. No impounding of water will be allowed
within the road right of way.
7. A permit for access from Carver County will be required for the proposed access on to
CR 117. Requirements for that access may include construction of right turn lanes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed
development.
RPP-21-lgg7 08:47
MIHNEGRSCO-NCCS
612 321 5573 P.Ol TIl
M",negasctle
21L I I ! I I D I '
AND
11 Ini ~ Ull I 111' HI
HI u \I i UU a
. ENERGY COMPANY
Date: 4/21/97
To: Chanhassen
Robert Generous
Phone #: 612-937-1900
Fax #:
From: MinnegascO
Robert Huffman
Phone: 612-321-5527
Fax: 612-321-5573
Pages: Including Cover _2_
Subject: Planning Case Information Response
1. Gas is available on Galpin and Highway 5 for the Walnut
Grove Development
2. Gas is available on Highway 41 for Gateway Business
Center
Thank you for keeping me informed to the activity in your
community.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 7, 1997
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
SUBJECT: Land Use Plan Amendment,
Preliminary Plat IPUD, and
Site Plan Review for Walnut Grove
APPLICANT: Residential Development, Inc.
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Hwy. 5
and Galpin Blvd.
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, Residential Development, Inc., is requesting land use plan amendment from
Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density for the northern 30 acres; rezoning
from A-2 to PUD; and site plan review for 44 bungalow homes and 168 villa townhomes;
preliminary plat of 249 lots and 2 outlots located at the northeast corner of the intersection
of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Blvd.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
~
/
Questions 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 at 937-1900 ext. 141. 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 April 24, 1997.
~1t
Ian R. & Mary J. Olson
61 Windmill Dr.
lanhassen, MN 55317
:nry & Cynthia Wanserski
21 Windmill Dr.
lanhassen, MN 55317
~ven & Judith Selinger
80 Windmill Dr.
lanhassen, MN 55317
~1 & Susan Reimers
95 Crocus Ct.
:anhassen, MN 55317
,arles Peterson & Bonnie Botten
96 Crocus Ct.
anhassen, MN 55317
illiam Thompson & Mary F10to-
ompson
91 Tulip Ct.
anhassen, MN 55317
nothy & Joy Bott
90 Tulip Ct.
anhassen, MN 55317
nothy & Bonita Mihalko
98 Brinker St.
anhassen, MN 55317
th1een Haldeman
59 Brinker St.
anhassen, MN 55317
Trey Stone & Wendy Loushin-Stone
~3 Brinker St.
anhassen,MN 55317
Jeffrey & Nancy Steinke
7481 Windmill Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark & Sharon Pryor
7541 Windmill Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Jeanette Fiedler
7500 Windmill Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Patricia Lynch & Amy O'Shea
7475 Crocus Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kevin & Cheryl Kohler
7510 Crocus Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael Ronningen & Dawn Cook-
Ronningen
7471 Tulip Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Edward & Kathy Loveridge
7508 Tulip Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jean Kingsrud
2027 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & Carol Oberaigner
2075 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Amit & Ruth Diamond
2117 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Marke Feyereisen & Wren Schafer-
F eyereisen
7501 Windmill Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard & Margaret Manning
7460 Windmill Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jon & Naomi Noe1der
7511 Crocus Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Stephen Toroio & Virignia Bell
7476 Crocus Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard & Pamela Schwartz
7509 Tulip Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & Cynthia Sebold
7470 Tulip Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ron & Diahann Potter
2180 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kevin & Joan Joyce
2043 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Brian Erdman & Dawn Harris
2091 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Colin & Desiree Brown
2131 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Julie Wojtanowski
2145 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Sideny Scorse III & Rebecca Scorse
2187 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire
4890 Co. Rd. 10 E.
Chaska, MN 55318
Theodore & Marlene Bentz
7300 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Bluff Creek Partners
123 N. 3rd St., Suite 307
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Brian & Jennifer Monteith
2159 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & Cinda Jensen
2173 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Steven & Nadia Janson
2199 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
John Hennessy & D. Rengers
7305 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Douglas & Theresa Bentz
7280 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Darleen Turcotte
7240 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
1. P. Links Inc.
c/o John Przymus
642 Santa Vera
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael Gorra
1680 Arboretum Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
t:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
~
Carver County Government Center
Administration Building
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2192
Phone (612) 361-1010 Fax (612) 361-1025
Administration
Parks
Engineering
Highway Maintenance
Surveying & Mapping
CARVER
=OUNTY
r - - ',I - ,-
\... .,
April 30, 1997
I..... ".
'f-. ~ ...... '-'
TO:
Robert Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
FROM:
Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
~
SUBJ.:
Walnut Grove
Planning Case: 96-4 PUD, 96-2 LUP and 96-14 SPR
We have reviewed the information submitted by your memo dated April 9, 1997 for the
Walnut Grove subdivision.
We had previously commented on this development in our January 8, 1997
correspondence (Copy attached). It appears that the plat now shows a right of way width
on Galpin Boulevard of 50 foot from centerline. The other concerns of the County are
listed in the attached letter and can be addressed as this proposal advances.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal.
Atjirmall\'e A(-t/(1n/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on IO'/r Post-Consumer Rencled Paper
c
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
~
Carver County Government Center
Administration Building
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2192
Phone (612) 361-1010 Fax (612) 361-1025
Administration
Parks
Engineering
Highway Maintenance
Surveying & Mapping
CARVER
COUNTY
TO:
Robert Generous, Senior Planner
~ l\~Y
cj
January 8, 1997
FROM:
Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ:
Planned Use Development
The Highlands, Residential Development, Inc. (96-4 PUD,96-2 LUP and 96-14 SPR)
Following are comments regarding the land use plan amendment for The Highlands transmitted to
Carver County by your memorandum dated December 16, 1996.
1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are:
Urban Undivided
2-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
80' 100'
Rural Undivided
2-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
110' 120'
Urban Undivided
4-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
100' 110'
Rural Divided
4-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
190' 200'
County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway in
the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 40 foot from centerline corridor shown
would provide for a potential 80 foot corridor. This corridor would only meet the
recommended needs for a 2-lane urban roadway. Other plat~ along this corridor have
provided for a 50 foot from centerline road dedication. This road may eventually become
under the jurisdiction of the City.
The city may wish to consider a wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a
separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also
be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject to
the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
3. Any proposed access construction, grading, or installation of draina.ge structures within the
right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department.
Affirmatl\e Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
!'rimed Oil fO'?r Post-CunslImer Recycled Paper
4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-of-
way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be
completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what
existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the
developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final
condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will
result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city.
5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County.
When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an
acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging
into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration.
6. Existing drainage patterns must be maintained. No impounding of water will be allowed
within the road right of way.
7. A permit for access from Carver County will be required for the proposed access on to CR
117. Requirements for that access may include construction of right turn lanes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed
development.
~
~,"'\ll"EIS01:, ."
.. 2
; S
~~ ~.l
0" T1'f'
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
May 13, 1997
Robert Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Robert Generous:
SUBJECT: Walnut Grove
Preliminary Plat Review P96-154A
North of Trunk Highway (TH) 5, East of County Road (CR) 117
Chanhassen, Carver County
C.S. 1002
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Walnut Grove
preliminary plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subd. 2, Plats. We find the plat
acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments.
· The final plat must identify the edge of Mn/DOT right of way.
· Any future access to CR 117 should be a minimum of 500 feet from TH 5 so that standard
turn lanes can be developed. We will allow no direct access to TH 5.
· We request TH 5 access control be dedicated by the plat to the public. Questions regarding
right of way documentation may be directed to John Hippchen of our Right of Way Section
at 582-1261.
· The existing ditch width at TH 5 should be maintained. We will require a Mn/DOT drainage
permit. Drainage area maps and computations showing before and after conditions and
addressing 1 DO-year 24-hour storms, must be submitted with the permit application. The
Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District should also review this plan. Questions
regarding Mn/DOT drainage concerns may be directed to Bonnie Peterson of our Water
Resources Section at 797-3088. Questions regarding the permit process may be directed to
Bill Warden of our Permits Section at 582-1443.
· Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way will require an approved Mn/DOT permit.
The permit required depends upon the nature of the proposed work. As previously noted,
Bill Warden of our Permits Section may be contacted for further information regarding the
permit process.
An equal opportunity employer
Robert Generous
May 13, 1997
page two
. It is Mn/DOT's policy to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between
land use and highways. Residential land uses adjacent to highways usually results in
complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from TH 5 could exceed noise standards
established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the U.S. Dept. of Transportation,
and the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development.
Mn/DOT policy regarding new developments adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. The developer should
assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of
any traffic noise.
Please contact me at 582-1654 with any questions regarding this review.
Scott Peters
Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison
c: John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor
Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer
Conrad Fiskness, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
OS/20/97
13:26
NO. 229 [;Jl
~~s SUt9
~~ v{<'
~ J.
0
~ .,:l
lu (fJ
0 ,p
~
""Q ~q;
1-~1iS ~
~\.t:
SATHRE. BERGQUIST, INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY
(612) 476-6000
WAYZATA. MN 55391
FAX 476-0104
WALNUT GROVE
LOT AREA TABULATIONS
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
Dated: May 20, 1997
(Page 1 of 3)
BLOCK 1 13 10158 51 4435 BLOCK 5
14 11226 52 4225
LOT AREA 15 10669 53 4471 LOT AREA
Sg.fl 16 13467 54 4533 Sg..Et
17 10499 55 3980
1 25337 18 78547 1 2210
2 19159 19 4059 2 1813
3 16727 20 4920 BLOCK 3 3 1813
4 17678 21 4630 4 2210
5 13814 22 4803 LOT AREA
6 14577 23 4375 SUi
7 15382 24 4616 BLOCK 6
8 14872 25 4255 1 31748
9 13660 26 3869 2 14351 LOT AREA
10 12968 27 4173 3 12297 ~
11 13317 28 4480 4 14048
12 14050 29 4502 5 50110 1 2210
13 15388 30 4489 6 3794 2 1813
14 18431 31 42162 7 4570 3 1813
32 4928 8 4481 4 2210
33 4771 9 4015
BLOCK 2 34 4049 10 3956
35 4030 11 3933 BLOCK 7
LOT AREA 36 4051 12 4153
ful.ft 37 4029 13 4372 LOT AREA
38 4373 14 4465 SQ..El
1 10739 39 4310 15 3981
2 11984 40 42466 1 2210
3 17725 41 4216 2 1473
4 14300 42 5148 BLOCK 4 3 1473
5 12028 43 4887 4 1473
6 11828 44 4255 LOT AREA 5 1473
7 13470 45 3794 Sg..Et. 6 2210
8 13025 46 61703
9 12194 47 3747 1 2210
10 11601 48 3998 2 1813
11 11003 49 4015 3 1813
12 9912 50 4588 4 2210
OS/20/97
13:27
NO. 229 [;103
~~s Sf.J~
~~ v~
~ ~
~ ~
4U en
~ ~
~ ~l<j
G'
1t~~S ~
~\..'"
SATHRE. BERGQUIST, INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY
(612) 476-6000
WAYZATA, MN 55391
FAX 476-0104
WALNUT GROVE
LOT AREA TABULATIONS
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
Dated: May 20. 1997
(Page 2 of 3)
~ BLOCK 11 BLOCK 13 BLOCK 15
r AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA
Sill Sg..E1. SQ.ft. SUl
2210 1 1756 1 2210 1 1691
1473 2 1307 2 1473 2 1023
1473 3 1307 3 1473 3 1023
1473 4 1756 4 1473 4 1023
1473 5 1756 5 1473 5 1023
2210 6 1307 6 2210 6 1691
7 1307 7 1691
8 1756 8 1023
~ BLOCK 14 9 1023
10 1023
r AREA BLOCK 12 LOT AREA 11 1023
~ Sg.EL 12 1691
LOT AREA
2210 SQ..E.t. 1 1691
1473 2 1023 BLOCK 16
1473 1 1691 3 1023
1473 2 1023 4 1023 LOT AREA
1473 3 1023 5 1023 SQB..
2210 4 1023 6 1691
5 1023 7 1691 1 1691
6 1691 8 1023 2 1023
)CK 1 0 7 1023 9 1023 3 1023
B 1023 10 1023 4 1023
- AREA 9 1023 11 1023 5 1023
S!4.ft 10 1023 12 1691 6 1691
11 1691 7 1691
2210 12 1691 B 1023
1813 9 1023
1813 10 1023
2210 11 1023
12 1691
OS/20/97
13:28
NO. 229 [;ll
~~s Sl.J~
~<c, v~
~ j..
~ ~
au C/)
0 tP
~
/(;1 ~~
~~~S ~
~\,..~
SATHRE. BERGQUIST, INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY
(612) 476-6000
WAYZATA, MN 55391
FAX 476-0104
WALNUT GROVE
LOT AREA TABULATIONS
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
Dated: May 20, 1997
(Page 3 of 3)
BLOCK 17 BLOCK 19 4 1023 4 1023
5 1023 5 1023
LOT AREA LOT AREA 6 1691 6 1691
.sw Sg,ft 7 1691 7 1691
8 1023 8 1023
1 1691 1 1756 9 1023 9 1023
2 1023 2 1307 10 1023 10 1023
3 1023 3 1307 11 1023 11 1023
4 1023 4 1756 12 1691 12 1691
5 1023 5 1756
6 1691 6 1307
7 1691 7 1307 BLOCK 22 OUTLOT A 7983
8 1023 8 1756 OUTLOT 8 32161
9 1023 LOT AREA OUTLOT C 34545
10 1023 Sg,..El OUTLOT D 62971
11 1023 BLOCK 20 OUTLOT E 88404
12 1691 1 1691 OUTLOT F 65213
LOT AREA 2 1023 OUTLOT G 84509
.5Q.E1. 3 1023 OUTLOT H 65403
BLOCK 18 4 1023 OUTLOT I 225064
1 1756 5 1023
LOT AREA 2 1307 6 1691
SQ..El 3 1307 7 1691 TOTAL AREA =
4 1756 8 1023 49.80 ACRES
1 1756 5 1756 9 1023
2 1307 6 1307 10 1023
3 1307 7 1307 11 1023
4 1756 8 1756 12 1691
5 1756
6 1307
7 1307 BLOCK 21 BLOCK 23
8 1756
LOT ARE~ LOT AREA
Sg.fl. .s.w
1 1691 1 1691
2 1023 2 1023
3 1023 3 1023
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to reuse the existing ground low profile sign.
And also the Planning Commission recommends to approve the request for a conditional
use permit for the time and temperature display within the existing monument ground low
profile sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW
DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE NORTHERN 30+ ACRES
OF THE PARCEL: PUD REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF
PROPERTY FROM A-2. AGRICULTURAL EST ATE TO PUD-4. PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT:
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 44 BUNGALOW HOMES AND 168 VILLA TOWNHOMES:
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF 249 LOTS. 2 OUTLOTS AND
ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
GALPIN BLVD. AND HWY 5. WALNUT GROVE. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
David Jensen
Rick Manning
John Hennessy
Joan Joyce
Mark S. Peyereisen
Rick Sathre
Todd Stutz
Rick Murray
Julie W ojtanowski
Carol Oberaigner
2173 Brinker Street
7460 Windmill Drive
7305 Galpin
2043 Brinker Street
7501 Windmill Drive
150 So. Broadway, Wayzata
2601 Long Lake Road, Roseville
15 Choctaw Circle
2145 Brinker Street
2075 Brinker Street
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Thank you Bob. Any questions of staff?
Joyce: Bob, I have a question. Actually two details. Number one, on this density on the front
page. Is that supposed to be net density of5.74?
Generous: Yes.
Joyce: Okay.
Generous: That was a carry over from the original report and I never.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Joyce: On page 2 of that. On the bottom I start getting kind of confused and I realized if you
look it says 104 villas. That should be 128, right?
Generous: That's right.
Joyce: All right. Clean that up.
Generous: I had the applicant pointed that out to me also.
Joyce: The question I had, actually kind of dove tails with the setbacks. Are those setbacks for
the PUD ordinance then? Is that why you had these setbacks set up? Is that?
Generous: It would be established for this specific PUD, yes.
Joyce: Okay. Is there, I have a question. Is there buffer yards standards for PUD's that we set
up or has that changed?
Generous: No. That's basically for land uses and it would be a buffer yard be between low
density and medium density.
Joyce: Okay. I'm just, I'm looking at the plan itself and some of the landscaping and on the
northern part of this plan there doesn't look like there's a lot oflandscaping as far as what would
be buffered from that low to medium density. Is that something that the stafflooked at?
Generous: Yes, and that's one of the condition...we believe that the 10 evergreens located
there...
Joyce: Is that where the 10 evergreens are planning on going, is in that comer? Does that
adequately satisfy that buffer for going from low to medium density like that?
Generous: The only thing they would be missing is the shrubbery.
Joyce: Okay. I guess I'm just laying some ground work and I'm sure that Rick, you can come up
and we can discuss that I'm sure. Thank you. That's all I had.
Peterson: Other questions of staff.
Sidney: I have a question for Dave. Am I understanding looking at this, there's no entrance onto
TH 5? It merely goes out to Galpin?
Hempel: That's correct. There will eventually be two access points. The one on the north
frontage road, Arboretum Boulevard is constructed in the year 2000 with the upgrading of
Highway 5. That would be extended parallel to the north side of Highway 5 out to Galpin.
Peterson: Other questions?
7
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Sidney: I have a question for Bob. I guess I was a bit concerned about the number of off street
parking stalls in the villa homes area. How many parking spaces are we talking about and how
does that compare to the number of single car garages?
Generous: I've never counted them but.
Peterson: Maybe the applicant can address that too Bob.
Sidney: Is there maybe a rule of thumb or any ordinance that talks about, addresses that?
Generous: There is an ordinance. It's 2 Y2 stalls, or 2 stalls per dwelling. However if you have a
2 car garage and driveway, that's more than, it meets the minimum standards.
Peterson: Other questions of staff? I have a general question that I had. If you look at the
background for the original when it went to Council and went with 44 conditions. I assume that,
I'm taking, I didn't compare all 44 of them but I assume that all of them have been adequate
addressed to staff s.
Generous: Or they remain conditions of approval.
Peterson: They are still there, okay. So at this point there are none that are of contention per se.
Okay. Any other questions for staff?
Brooks: I have a quick one. I noticed under the Park and Recreation it says Commissioners Lash
and Berg voted against the conditions because there was no childrens' playground component.
Was that ever worked out? There's still no playground?
Generous: The intention is to allow the association to determine exactly what playground use
should go there because if you get a lot of empty nesters, there might not be a need for a
children's playground. They might want to have a picnic area or a gazebo or something. What
we'd like to...
Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state
your name and address please.
Rick Murray: Thank you very much. My name is Rick Murray. I'm from 15 Choctaw Circle
here in Chanhassen. I think first of all I'd like to introduce the gentlemen with me this evening.
Mr. Todd Stutz from Rottlund Homes. They will be doing both the cottage home product and
the townhouse product. And my consulting engineer, Rick Sathre sitting right behind Todd will,
after a short presentation, will be happy to answer any questions generated and respond to some
of the questions that have already been posed. Your previous packet, explained that this is an
existing preliminary plat and when I acquired the property I had some ideas of how possibly to
make that better. When I was in front of you in January, on January 11 t\ we were sent onto the
City Council to see if this kind of conceptual program was even worth pursuing. And after 3 or 3
Y2 months, many meetings with my neighbors, especially the ones to the north and Mr. Hennessy
8
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
to the east, two different Council meetings, what you have before you is an evolution of those
gatherings, with the input and the modifications and this is the concept, the conceptual plan that
was generated. And I have a bit ofan ego that says that this was my idea but quite frankly there's
a lot of input here that came from both the neighbors and the City Council, which we responded
to. The concept that was approved actually had one more unit in it than does this plan this
evening. One unit from the southern tier of single family lots through here has been dropped.
That was a concern from the neighborhood to the north at the approval, on the approval evening
on March 10th. Because we wanted to ensure, first of all that there was a little more width in
those lots and from our perspective we wanted to ensure that all lots would accommodate a 3 car
garage because so many single family homes and purchasers of single family homes are requiring
that in the marketplace. 80 that has been accommodated and we lost the one unit in that area.
The conceptual plan that was approved envisioned a comprehensive plan modification, to a
certain extent to modify the detached, or to allow these detached townhomes in the low density
plan district. There isn't a provision for that style of housing. If they were attached as twin
homes, that would be allowed in that, in your low density district. This plan is consistent with
the approval that we did receive conceptually. I got a little ahead of myself, I apologize. One of
our goals, we had some goals when we started out with this project of Walnut Ridge, or actually
when we started out with this project it was called the Highlands. We ended up into a bit of a
name dispute with one of our friendly competitors and acquiesced to change the name. There's
another project in this community named The Highlands at Lake 8t. Joe, and although the names
would be different on the plats, they're close enough to create confusion in the marketplace so
we've come up with another name. We wanted to transition this site from the north to the south
because we saw a single family neighborhood there and from that intensity of use to a very high
intensity of use, i.e. the Highway 5 corridor and the higher zoning district that was down there,
we wanted to transition through our own property into those uses. In doing so we knew that we
had to be careful with Mr. Hennessy's property to our east and try to insulate or buffer that..and
preserve that portion of our southwest comer that the creek accommodates, and I think this
concept addresses all of those issues. They've been discussed back and forth and we're hopeful
that it meets the City's needs and our neighbors needs. Our staff report has been very thorough.
There are two of the issues which I'd like to bring up. One of them will be in response to one of
the questions asked about the Park Commission. On page 23 in the middle of the page, and
actually combines two of the issues. It's recommendation number 3 and recommendation
number 4. Number 3 deals with our commons area in the subdivision and number 4 deals with a
recommendation to move the public trail to the north. This afternoon I had a discussion with Mr.
Hoffman questioning if the need was to move the trail either north or south would be
permissible, and I think he might have responded to Bob. Did he get a hold of you? While you
were in another meeting at the time. What he indicated to me, as long as on the south side, and
I'll go to the board for a second. There would be a drainage swale that would be behind this
townhouse unit. As long as we didn't put the trail in the swale, Todd said it could go to the
south. It could go to the south. What he wants is a larger open space in our central open space
for...purposes. We would rather have it to the south just because the value of these basic units.
The more valuable units on the bungalows, these will all have walkouts and would be in the $185
to $200,000.00 range. The ones to the south would be slab on grade townhomes and would
probably be the $130 to $150 range. They would be more accessible to the marketplace... Todd
had...the Park Commission didn't seem to have a problem with that as long as we didn't put it in
an area that would get flooded. Or be subject to that and I think we can accommodate that very
9
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
well. The other issue with respect to that meeting we had at the Park and Rec Board, and it was a
split vote. There were two dissenting members and they wanted an area for active participation
or active play. What we presented that evening was... Our intention going into the meeting was
to provide a gathering spot, i.e. a gazebo or something of that nature. Maybe it's a gazebo with
some tables. But the scene that we presented was the neighbors, the owners of this association,
the owners of this open space would actually be determining and making their improvements
subject to city approval as time went by. As this plan has evolved, what's become more apparent
to us as developers and the Rottlund Companies as the builders would be possibly the need for
benches along the public trail. And when this came up in a discussion recently it was suggested
that we accommodate the need for places for people to sit through that open space corridor or
that public trail corridor and provide that at 2 or 3 locations which might have some shrubbery or
some plantings around them. That's in response to the gathering sense, or the sense of gathering
that the staff is suggesting in number, recommendation number 4. And the other
recommendation that I'll address for a moment before I introduce Mr. Sathre to kind of go
through the whole plan is at the top of page 24 and that's number 11. Number 11 asks for a
prairie grass space to be established and ifl've got these right Bob, the spaces would be this,
behind this buffer yard area and somewhere in. . . Well, we agree on one out of two. The two
spaces I would suggest and because the way I see probably the property being used, children on
this site are probably going to live in the single family area and the establishment of a prairie
grass area and the maintenance of a prairie grass area is pretty well defined. It doesn't lend real
well to activity areas. I was going to suggest the open space being our bungalow units and the
townhouse units because mostly, predominantly these will be empty nesters type of homeowners.
Number one, they would appreciate the wild flowers and the prairie grass and understand what
it's there for and why it's there. I'm afraid children being children.. .more active uses... The
other area I would suggest maybe would be along the slope, which is more of a view area. It
would have good exposure from Highway 5 up the valley as another area that we could possibly
do this in, as an alternative. With that let me introduce Mr. Sathre because we've been through
six renditions ofthis plan. I told him not to go through all six but to concentrate on this plan and
maybe just show some of the highlights of where the changes have occurred and hopefully give
you folks a better understanding ofthis process. I know one of you, Mr. Joyce is intimately
familiar with the entire process but maybe for the rest of you it might be good.
Rick Sathre: Good evening. I'm Rick Sathre with Sathre-Berquist from Wayzata. We're the
planners, engineers and surveyors for this project. And I would like to give you a little
background ofthe project because although we've worked very hard with, as Rick said with the
neighborhood and the Council and the staff, the Planning Commission hasn't seen this for a long
time and I think it would be, if you would like to see how we've come to where we are, I think it
would be a good thing. Very quickly, this plan is the original, I don't know if you want to zoom
in but this plan was the original submission that the Planning Commission saw in January. We
were over, well over the allowable net density which we learned to our chagrin and just before
the Planning Commission reviewed that plan. The second plan was created which, I think I'll put
these side by side for a second. .. Here's our first significant change. The plan on the right, we
dropped down to 268 units, which was still, as it turns out, more than the allowable density on
the site. But there's a very significant change in the road patterns between the two. The 293 plan
provided good circulation within the PUD but also provided a little too much opportunity for
short circuiting of traffic into the neighborhood to the north, so in the 268 plan on the right we
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
moved what we now call Village Boulevard, then Highlands Boulevard. We moved the northerly
terminus of that road well west so that the, we really were able to avoid the short circuiting of
neighborhoods of our traffic and totally foreign traffic from the single family neighborhood to the
north. Well, after the Planning Commission saw this 268 unit plan and the 293 plan, we went to
some lengths to try to determine exactly what the allowable density was because it had been a
matter of much discussion. What we actually found was that 254 units were, or 253 or 254 units
could be permitted under the guide plan. Under the comprehensive plan. So in March we
presented a plan to the Council and received a conceptual approval for this 248 unit plan and the
significant changes on this are we, between the original submission and this point we have pulled
away from the creek farther. Pulled totally out of the woods in the southwest part of the state.
We've provided two clustering areas for the private open space in the center of the project and
we've taken into account the park commissions guidance which was sidewalks along two of the
proposed public streets and a trail corridor connection that will eventually go to Lake Ann, which
heads to the east from Village Boulevard. The Council had some concerns when they reviewed
this plan. A lot of them centered around what, the center product in the plan which is called a
cottage home which Rottlund has been building of late in several locations around the Twin
Cities. This particular housing style has the garage projected to the front of the unit and the
living space is behind the garage. And so as you drive down the street, there's a very strong
feeling that it's a garage forward unit that the architecture was found to be, by both the neighbors
and the Council to be perhaps not to their liking. The neighbors were a little afraid of what that
might look like, especially when it wasn't fully landscaped. So the next significant change was
made, which gets us up to date, which is the substitution in the center area of what Rottlund is
now calling the bungalows, which is a new product type which Todd would I'm sure like to show
you in greater detail. Which takes the garage and pushes it back in the unit and introduces a
porch that actually projects farthest towards the street for a softer look. So the major changes,
besides dropping density to meet the guide plan, the comp plan. The open spaces evolved
significantly through time. Our ponding plan now has evolved into a two tiered pond in the
south. The diversity of housing type has changed greatly. Just briefly we've got 12 unit villa
buildings that have two car garages on the end units and single car garages on the interior units,
similar to what is it, Mission Hills. There are 8 unit buildings in this plan as well, which all have
2 car garages now which is a brand new design for Rottlund. You haven't seen those before.
The vista townhomes, the split villa buildings that are on this plan which we can accommodate
walkout conditions with. There are 6 unit buildings and 4 unit buildings in the plan now that
allow us to take grade up better and there's a mix of 4 and 6 unit buildings there. Again in the
sixes the end units have two car garages. The internal units are single garage but all of the four
unit buildings are double garages. So there's a reallot of diversity even in that villa style
building product. All of the bungalow units have two car garage. The question came up about
parking. I counted 94 off street, extra parking spaces on the plan as we presented it. Rottlund's
goal was to have one-half extra parking space per unit, which would have suggested that we have
60 some, 64. There's actually 94 on the plan. Each of the single car garages has of course the
one garage space internally to the building and a space in front of the garage as well. So in the
worse case condition the units have two defined spaces for them plus the half plus space that's
shared. I counted, well Todd was doing some quick math while I was sitting there. We have
about 3.6 parking spaces per unit overall in the villa area so we're significantly greater than the
city would require but this is what we feel we need and want. The last quick issue I wanted to
address before Todd comes up was the staff report suggests that a few of the driveways be in the
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
bungalow area, that we side load some garages. The plan shows some units being side loaded.
Significantly there are two buildings which staff has asked us to add a side load garage on and if
we can zoom in a little bit to this building right here. I don't know if that will work but the
building that the pen is pointed at, the staffhas asked that we side load that garage. We could do
it, we're happy to do that either by side loading it on the south side or flipping the building and
doing it on the north side. I'm not sure which way would work better for us at this point but
we're happy to do that. The other building that we're asked to make a change on, the staff report
actually refers to this building.. .north of the east/west driveway. Common driveway. I think
side loading that garage would be difficult but I would suggest that we could side load the
building directly south of that. Not to the south to that private road but actually to the north so
we could come out from... We could side load it to come out this way as opposed to straight out
the front which would give that home a nicer look from the Village Boulevard. That's Lot 15.
Instead of 14 in the staff report. With that, if there are no questions for me I'd like to turn it over
to Todd.
Todd Stutz: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Todd Stutz,
President of Rottlund Homes. The Rottlund Company is very excited to be part of this
development. We'll be developing two neighborhoods within the Walnut Grove development.
The villa neighborhood, with approximately 168 total homes and the bungalow neighborhood
with 44 homes. What I'd like to do is share with you this evening some of the architectural
changes which has occurred since the last time you had an opportunity to review this
development. These changes come in direct response to some of the comments we heard from
the neighborhood and then also from the Mayor and City Council in the conceptual plan stage
and hopefully we've addressed those to your liking. The first thing I'd like to address is the
bungalow neighborhood which is a total of 44 homes. Within this neighborhood, of the total
four different plans, with a minimum of two elevations per plan. The square footage of the
homes which will be constructed in this area, we have 1,350 to approximately 1,600 square feet
in size with a price range of approximately $140 to $200,000.00. The target market for this
particular product is empty nesters and retirees, given the fact that the homes are single level and
then also the expansion space in the lower level. It's anticipated that the plan as reflected, as
shown here hopefully will sell equally well so that there will be diversity and will be able the
ability to have alternating plans so that the overall development will have a variety of looks to it.
One of the struggles that we always have as a builder is really to try to suppress the appearance of
the garage. So often I think you see both in attached and also single family neighborhoods, is
where the garage presents very much of a challenge and really is it's most distinctive feature that
you see as you drive down the street. What we've done with this particular plan is we've
widened the total exterior front elevation by 4 feet from what you originally saw so it's 36 feet in
width with a double garage leaving approximately 16 feet on the front elevation which can be
treated in a variety of ways. The garage itself will not be, will be suppressed in terms of it's
depth in the fact that you'll have porch elements, portico elements extending past and out front of
the garage so as you drive down the street, what you'll see is porch features and roof features and
stoop areas and portico areas. We think that overall that certainly should present a very nice
feeling neighborhood and will encourage people to spend time out on the front porch areas and
the front yards versus in their back yards so we're very excited certainly about this product.
We've not built this product before. I don't have any pictures to show you. It's something that
was developed specifically for this development and hopefully you'll be pleased with this
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
particular product and neighborhood ultimately. This neighborhood will be governed by a
homeowners association, like the villa neighborhood will be. All the exterior maintenance,
including the exteriors of the homes, as well as the landscape will be provided by the
homeowners association and also be subject to a set of covenants which will regulate
architectural control as well as outside storage, etc. In addition, through the conceptual process
of reviewing the development, there's also comments with regard to the villa neighborhood.
There's a total of 168 homes within the villa neighborhood. 40 villa townhomes or row type
townhomes and then 128 villas or back to back type units that will be constructed in 8 to 12 unit
building configurations. That's what's reflected by this drawing which would be an 8 unit
building. What we've tried to do in this particular instance is to improve the end elevations as
well as the front elevations given the fact that the majority of what you'll see as you drive down
Highway 5, also along Village Boulevard, is you basically see the end element of the homes. The
homes will now have, versus previously what you saw, will have entrances on the ends of the
homes where the two units on the end and also does incorporate some of the features you see in
the bungalows in terms of field stone exteriors and those types of things which I think integrate
both neighborhoods better, between both of them so you have a common architectural style. The
target market for this particular product is singles and young couples. Square footage will range
between 1,200 to 1,400 square feet in size. Price range will be approximately $90 to
$140,000.00 in price. Again this is the 8 unit building configuration which was mentioned, has
all 2 car garages now versus what you saw previously. Again was a more prominence on the end
of the unit in terms of architectural detailing. This would be the 12 unit building. Again with
more attention paid to the end of the home with side entrances on the ends. Also incorporating
again the features that you saw in the 8 unit building, again tying back into the bungalow
neighborhood so there's some continuity of architectural style between both neighborhoods.
This is the villa townhome product. Some of the changes that have been made to this is the
addition of some of, again the common architectural themes with the fieldstone. Some of the
column areas that we're trying to accomplish in terms of improving the appearance of the homes
from what you previously saw. Also in terms of what you'll see for the most part will be the rear
elevations of these homes, especially in the open common area that's between the bungalow area
and the villa townhome area and what we'll be doing in these areas and some of the porch areas
in the back incorporating the use of picket fences and also columns in the deck areas again to
again encourage people to use that area, but also to provide some privacy but also additional
detailing of that area so that again it ties into the overall feel that we're trying to accomplish.
You didn't bring with by any chance, the rear elevations for either the 8 or the 12 units by chance
did you? As in the case of the 8, Mr. Chairman, in the case of the 12 unit buildings, what you'll
see is an exact mirror image on the other side. So it is a back to back unit, correct. Because of
the topography of the site, especially along the wooded area on the southern portion of the site,
it's necessary to have some walkout configurations and this is referred to as being a vista
townhome, which is included in the total of 40 row townhomes. In this case you'll have a
walkout ability on the back side with porch projections again on the back side of the home. So
that's what that will look like. Again, common architectural themes with the fieldstone, the
cedar shake areas, the shudders which again tie back the bungalow area also. One of the issues
that staff brought up was relative to the affordability. Metropolitan Council defines an affordable
for sale home as that selling for less than $120,000.00. 96 of the total 168 units will fall below
the $120,000.00 price range and we're committed to doing that within this development. That's
basically the architecture that we're trying to accomplish on this site. I know that our staffhas
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
spent a lot of time trying to address some of the needs and requirements the City has had and I
think overall the development has benefited by that process and I think everyone will be very
pleased when the development is finally completed. Thank you.
Peterson: A few questions, if you would please. Take a little bit of time to walk us through
where the villas would be. Where the walkouts would be. Just kind of point and just give a
general feel for that intense grouping and where the respective ones would end up.
Todd Stutz: The area that you'll see the walkout condition and the row townhomes, which we
refer to as our vista townhomes, occurs along the creek in the southern portion of the site which
would be these homes up here. The walkout conditions. The rest ofthem will be on grade, slab
on grade product as far as the row townhomes are concerned, and those row townhomes again
occur in a variety of locations. Here, here, these two locations here and also here. This area
again being the area that we'll be paying very close attention to in terms of providing some
confinements but also some privacy for those units in that open space and some additional
detailing on those backs of those homes with picket fences and such will be done to accomplish
that. The rest of the homes will be in the back to back type configuration with the 12 unit
buildings and 8 unit buildings again with end entrances on the end units and those occur
throughout the site. I'll just point out the 8 unit buildings to begin with. 8 unit buildings are
located here and here, here and here. And developing 12 unit buildings here, here, here, here and
in this location here, and those are reflected by the drawings that you've been provided.
Joyce: Can I ask a question, a quick question here? On the side elevation for the 8 unit building,
you have some windows, it looks like french doors. Windows without any shutters on them.
What exactly are those? The side elevation.
Todd Stutz: Right. The side elevation.
Joyce: Yeah. Are those french doors that open out or?
Todd Stutz: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Joyce. They are not french, in this location basically
in this location here is a two story space. So these would actually function a transom windows
because the two story space in that location.
Joyce: I'm talking about the inside.
Todd Stutz: Yeah. Here and the...it would be patio doors which comes off the dining room
area.
Joyce: Okay.
Peterson: You mentioned that the bungalow is a new style for you but the current villas, I
assume you have around the area in some places. Did you by chance bring any pictures of those
at all?
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Todd Stutz: I did not. You do have a villa development within your community called Mission
Hills, although I will say that this in terms of product developed using the floor plans internally
as well as the exteriors will be very much different than that. That was one of the concerns.
Those are all front loaded whereas in this case the end units enter from the side. You have a hip
roof configuration and also the level of detailing with the fieldstone that's been added, the cedar
shakes have been added, creates a much richer feel than what you would see in Mission Hills,
although Mission Hills was certainly a very successful development. I know that was a real
concern in terms of highway, the Highway 5 corridor and what the appearance would be along
Highway 5. I know there's some variety occurring and really with four different product types
that we have within the villa neighborhood itself, I think you'll see a real variety versus maybe
more of a monotony that perhaps was a concern more perhaps with Mission Hills or other villa
developments.
Peterson: Other questions?
Skubic: Just a suggestion. The bungalows, the rear elevations. They have quite a bit of
exposure to the north from Windmill Run, especially the bungalows that are on the top crest of
the hill there. I think it would be a good idea to have rear elevations of the bungalows also since
that is I think a prominent view from the north.
Todd Stutz: Yeah. We've not yet developed the rear elevations, understanding that this is very
preliminary in nature in terms of the plans. It was intended to at least reflect what the streetscape
would be, which was one of the concerns expressed at some of the meetings that we had with the
neighbors and some of City Council. I don't have those with me this evening, although I will
indicate that the backs of the homes with the combination of having four season porches and then
also a lot of transom windows and two story type windows, because of the amount oflight we're
trying to get into the backs of these homes, I think will be as equally appealing as certainly the
front is.
Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Skubic is it?
Skubic: Correct.
Rick Sathre: Rick Sathre again. When we were with the neighbors on several occasions and
with the Council as well, we shared some cross sections which we don't have here tonight. But I
have a board that shows what we did share view wise. I don't think this will work on the camera
but the section AA, this big yellow one through the site. We developed a cross sectional view
that showed the relationships of the Windmill Run houses to our single family lots in the
northerly portion of the site to the, what was then the cottage homes on that knoll that you speak
about, and then down through the villas down to Highway 5. Those bungalow units now that
replace the cottage homes in the middle are the highest units on the site but they're not that much
higher. In fact the street that comes out of Windmill Run, if we go back to the board on the table.
This street coming south, around this curve, actually is for a little ways, is actually higher than
that central knoll and the point being that the street in the single family area isn't that much lower
than the crest of that knoll. In fact the single family home that fronts this street will provide a
visual break or a visual buffer if you will to the bungalow area. Our greater concern internally
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
actually has been how would this, the look of these bungalow units be perceived by these single
family homeowners. So we recognize as neighbors concern about whether we're going to be
good or bad neighbors but we're also worried internally and so Rick Murray has spent a lot of
time with Todd and with Arteka working on the landscape package for the internal transition too.
So we're very sensitive to what the whole site will look like and can look like.
Joyce: That was leading up to one of my questions. Is that private road going to be right on top
of that term then?
Rick Sathre: Yes.
Joyce: So you're going to have the bungalows on either side of that private road, is that correct?
Rick Sathre: Yes sir and they're walkout units on both sides. The northerly ones walk out to the
pond and the southerly ones back up and walk out to that open space.
Joyce: What kind of grade are you going to have going up there? I'm just curious. Is that going
to be.
Rick Sathre: Well we can zoom in again on the grading plan and, if you zoom into this area. We
can get real specific if you wish. How about much farther in? Even closer would be good. Oh,
that's it. Okay. Well, that's pretty good. Lift it up. Each of these lines on the street are 2 foot
elevations or they're 2 foot contours. In fact all of the lines that you see the curvilinear lines that
are behind the units are 2 foot contour lines so you can see behind those bungalow units toward
the pond there's about 12 or 13 feet of fall from the bungalow units back yards to the pond. And
through the unit itself, rising up to the road, there's the typical 8 foot or so elevation difference
between the garage and the basement level. The walkout level. So what we're doing, the top of
the knoll as it existed right now. .. is right here. The road is skirting the edge of the very peak of
that little knoll.
Joyce: Thanks for explaining that. I didn't know what those arrows were and that makes sense,
thanks.
Rick Sathre: Sure.
Peterson: While you're on elevations, if you could go down to the villas that are closest to
Highway 5. What's the height and prominence of the berm between TH 5 and the villas?
Rick Sathre: Well now we're right down here. You'll remember that Highway 5 is actually just
south of the, bottom of the drawing. This is the future Arboretum Boulevard which is the future
frontage road. That will be similar in elevation to Highway 5. The top of this berm rises up to
982. The elevation of the frontage road will be in the 960's somewhere. We don't have, I don't
bave the plan with me. We're anticipating an intersection elevation down here oh about 958.
Arboretum Boulevard will continue to rise I think as it goes over the hill. The existing hill. The
elevations of the villa buildings themselves are in the mid 970's. So this berm as we've shown it
would actually provide 5 or 6 foot high.. . from the villa unit sides. But from the highway side,
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
the highway is very depressed compared to that so there will be a greater slope south of the berm
than there is north.
Peterson: Thank you.
Rick Sathre: There's still an issue to work out too with staff having to do with that bus pull out
area. We're not sure where that might be. It could be in that location as well so, as we proceed
we would be working on that issue.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Actually that was one of my questions was the bus pull out area. But my second
question also has to do with parking. You've talked about the number of spaces on the street.
But as I read the information from the fire chief, they're talking about no parking on private
roads. I see everything but Windmill Curve and Highlands Boulevard as being marked private
roads. Am I correct in assuming then there will be no on-street parking anywhere else but those
two major roads?
Rick Sathre: We are proposing, I'm sorry for the confusion. We are proposing to have all off
street parking, even in the private street system. Each homeowner would have their inside garage
spaces. They also would have the space in front of their garage plus those shared off street
parking spaces. The little head-in parking spaces that are shown on the plan. Ifwe can go back
to the grading plan drawing I can point out some of those. Right here. There's 5 spaces for
instance in front of this little open space area that would be shared visitor parking. So we
wouldn't intend to have people parking willy nilly on any street.
Blackowiak: Oh as I read it, they couldn't park on the street. That's what I was making sure of.
And then when, I don't know if this is a staff question. When Arboretum Boulevard comes out,
will that access onto Galpin or onto TH 5 or what will happen? Bob, help me.
Generous: Arboretum will access onto Galpin Boulevard.
Blackowiak: Onto Galpin. So at this point in time we've got the entire, this entire neighborhood
dumping out onto Galpin from basically Windmill Curve, just one road. Has there been a traffic
study? And the results?
Generous: The results were that the level of service would be acceptable.
Brooks: You don't foresee any major traffic problems trying to get onto Highway 5 with 247
households trying to get onto TH 5 at one point?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that one a little bit. This development is very
similar to the Mission Hills development that you see down on TH 101 and we've not had any
problems that I'm aware of with that development and that has approximately 208 units in that
development. .. Again, the traffic study was prepared. They did not anticipate a problem with
the level of service at that one intersection. They anticipate a growth period here of a few years
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
in order to develop the site totally. By the time that that is fully built.. . closer to probably the
year 2000 in which time Arboretum Boulevard will be in place...
Brooks: When's the four lanes to Highway 41 going to be in?
Hempel: It's proposed to commence construction in 1999...year process. Build the frontage
road and widen Trunk Highway 5 concurrently.
Peterson: Other questions for Rick?
Rick Murray: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to Mr. Joyce. I skipped Commissioner Joyce's
question earlier about the landscaping.
Joyce: No, I would have caught you.
Rick Murray: It just dawned on me. Bob, in the staff recommendation it spoke to moving those
evergreens along the creek area to the north. Well I instructed the landscape architect this
afternoon to move them all the way to the north so you will find them on that plan in the back
yards of the single, of my single families to provide additional buffer to the people to the north.
Those will all be 8 foot evergreens. I didn't realize that you meant to have them go into the
buffer area between my product and the Rottlund's product. So I moved them all the way north.
Joyce: So you're saying that the evergreens are between Windmill Run and, okay. Could there
be any other additional shrubbery or whatever that would act as a buffer there because I'm just
looking at what we have here as part of our ordinance here as far as buffer yards and I'm just, I
don't even know how that is decided Bob as far as a buffer yard. Is there shrubbery that should
be added onto there?
Rick Murray: Their calculation Bob is right under your left hand. It's, but to answer your
question specifically Commissioner Joyce. The buffer yard between two single family, there is
not a buffer yard between two single family areas, although we are quasi kind of creating one
with some landscaping.
Joyce: There's no buffer yard between two single family but there is a buffer yard between
intensities and this is a lower, low density and then you have a medium density.
Rick Murray: Land use wise I think my single family densities are pretty equivalent to what. . .
Joyce: I think we're asking for a, you're asking for a LUP that would, with a 30.14 acres, you're
asking for that to be changed from, land use change from a A2 to medium density. That's what
we're here for isn't it? Bob? So there's a difference in densities there.
Peterson: Per your feeling of the ordinance for buffering Bob, would you consider that there is a
defined need for a buffering zone between the two?
Generous: By ordinance, yes.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Rick Murray: Let me ask the question a little differently Bob. Does my single family have to be
a medium density zone?
Generous: Yes.
Rick Murray: Okay.
Joyce: I think you've come a long way. I'm just asking you know.
Rick Murray: I didn't understand. I mean I didn't understand that.
Joyce: And I'm not really even forcing the issue here but I know he said that he was bringing up
the 10 trees, which aren't evident on this, and you said rightfully so. But I'm just saying you
know, if we're going to be consistent, I'm just, I'm throwing that out.
Rick Murray: As you can see from the buffering, we anticipated our buffer zone to be between
our single family and our bungalow homes. That's where on our landscape plan, even the
landscape plan that you folks have, that's where it's demonstrated on that plan. That's a
perception and not an ordinance definition between single family and the bungalows. To redo, to
do the guiding that Mr. Joyce, Commissioner Joyce raises a very good issue. Should I move that
buffer zone up to the top, and I'd suggest that that wouldn't fairly treat the single family
neighbors that were moving, that I was providing to be a buffer to the Windmill Run
neighborhood. That that wouldn't sufficiently treat their needs against the bungalow homes.
Joyce: When you present this to City Council, will you be showing those 10 evergreens that you
were...
Rick Murray: They're actually I brought the plan this evening. It just wasn't ready.
Joyce: Can you show it right now?
Rick Murray: You're not going to.
Joyce: Not going to be able to see it.
Rick Murray: You're not going to like this. I even took the time to color some of dots look
pretty small. The darker green ones in there are evergreens and I think there's 10 or 12 of the
black dots. You put some of the, 3 or 4 of them right here on the comer as a distinction between
neighborhoods and then the dark dots that are scattered through here, they came out right through
this area.
Joyce: All right.
Rick Murray: That answers the question. I didn't recognize there was more question there.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Joyce: You didn't bring anything else about density though. 1 do have another question for you
Rick actually. Can you break down the time table of construction phasing for us?
Rick Murray: Yeah. David, can I? We would like to be grading in the month of June. That
would give us the longest portion and the driest part of the year to enable our grading project to
finish. Would like to have utilities installed from somewhere about the first of July to the 15th of
August and we're hopeful that it could be a little quicker than that but that gives us 45 days to
accomplish that task. Our sewer and water mains both have to come from Highway 5, with the
exception of what we can pick up off of the Windmill Run trunk line. There's a little piece there
that covers about 18 units to our north. We'd like to have the roads in by September. First part
of September so that if we got into a bind and the season got real wet and we couldn't be on that
schedule, I looked at a couple of scenarios of get all four products to a marketplace that would be
available in the spring. What roads wouldn't we finish with blacktop or curb or whatever.
That's really not a pleasant thought for me to think about. When I've seen, and other builders.
I'm sure Rottlund's much better than some other builders that have built on sites but when they
come in and 5 or 6 trainloads full of sheetrock show up on your site and the immense, the amount
of material that, it's going to make it hard to come in a little bit later and finish the street because
there's so many things in the way. So our desire is to get everything finished this year. We have
kind of a fallback scenario if we couldn't where we would condense those streets.
Joyce: But then you will phase in Phase 1. Are you say all the phases would go at once?
Rick Murray: All the improvements would be done this year.
Joyce: Right. But then how would the phasing of the actual, will the single family homes go in
at one time?
Rick Murray: The single family homes will all be available for construction. There are three
builders that will be doing them.
Joyce: There are three builders? Okay.
Rick Murray: And that's 10 lots a piece. That's generally about a season and a half for most of
them. For construction. There would be three models up for this parade season is what they're
anticipating. In the single family.
Peterson: Other questions from commissioners? Thank you. This is open for a public hearing
and 1 would like to hear a motion to do so and a second please.
Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing so if you would like to address the Planning Commission,
please come forward and state your name and address please.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7 ~ 1997
John Hennessy: Good evening commissioners. John Hennessy, 7305 Galpin Boulevard. I own
the property right in this area. This section right in here.. . right now is looking at rezoning. My
understanding is.. . area that comes down here, is that correct Rick?
Rick Murray: Actually...
John Hennessy: Or whatever your recommendation is, should you recommend this, and I think
Mr. Murray has come an awful long way and I salute him. This is a very nice project. I'djust
ask that you also note in your recommendation that my property also be zoned for that same
medium density since it's surrounded on all sides by that type of zoning. So I'd just ask for a
similar zoning to what's going on around me then. Thank you.
Peterson: Bob~ I assume we can't do that as it's not presented formally before us tonight. So
what we'll have to do John is to formally present that to City staff and we'll have to deal, that
would have to open itselfup for it's own public hearing. Staff could help you with that.
John Hennessy: It seems to me that in the past though the City has arbitrarily changed the
zoning. . . without any notification to myself. At one point I was zoned in the agricultural area.
...my lower 2 acre parcel here was zoned for medium density. Then all ofa sudden it's~ this
comer here is to medium density and the rest is zoned for whatever... usage was designated so
I've seen all kinds of zoning. It happens without any notification to me. It's my property and I
don't see any need for that. That I should really have to undertake a huge process to go and have
it redone again when it's been arbitrarily zoned and rezoned at will. Is that standard?
Peterson: It's not standard not to be notified~ no.
John Hennessy: Four times.
Peterson: No, again we apologize on behalf of the city but I'm sure the intent was to notify and
placed in a public hearing because that is a requirement.
John Hennessy: And one time this lower 2 acres, which are. . . was zoned for medium density.
Why that would disappear without my notification is far beyond me.
Peterson: I'm sure staffwill endeavor to make it as simple and as easy as possible for you.
Anyone else wishing to address the commission?
Joan Joyce: My name is Joan Joyce. I live at 2043 Brinker Street and I just have a number of
requests to make. We spent a lot of time with Rick Murray trying to work through this
development and come up with what we feel is a good compromise and I do have just a couple of
concerns I'd like to point out. For one thing the villas along the southern part of the
development. I have a concern over the elevation. I just have, my thought here along this picture
right here is what that's going to look like from the Highway 5 corridor. I see nothing but garage
doors there and I ~ d like to make a request that the applicant consider putting up some sort of a
gable over the entry so there's a little more focus on the entry for the villas. And that specifically
would be appropriate I think for these, for this area right here. The other request I'd like to make
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
is the idea of the side entry for the garage on the bungalows. The bungalows look a lot better
than the cottages, I will say that as far as the architecture goes but it would be nice if there was a
consideration for these two right here. To have this side entrance garage for those two
bungalows. And then another concern I have is with regard to the single family homes. I haven't
heard much about the builders selected for those or if any of them are going to be walkouts. I'm
also concerned about the length of time. Would this, you know since there are three builders, is
this something that might drag on for 5 years or is there a time limit to how long this could go
on? And then last but not least, and I feel most importantly is the request over the landscaping.
My understanding is with the PUD, usually it is an enhanced development and I'm still waiting
to see some form of enhancement in this plan with regard to a feature primarily I would expect
would be seen through landscaping and I don't see that. I'd still like to find out if this is
minimum landscaping here or where the extras are and again, the way I read the PUD ordinance
is that there is a change in density and therefore there needs to be more of a buffer and
landscaping between those densities and that would specifically be addressed to this area. As the
plan is stated right now, it's hard for me to really get a full view of what this would look like but
I don't see that it's necessarily an enhanced landscape plan. That's all. If you have any
questions. Or you want to add to that. Do you want to respond to the landscape?
Rick Murray: ...calculation on the site, previously on the side of the bottom...gives the formulas
for the reforestation calculations. It also gives the formula for buffer yard and transition area.
The required plantings that the City requires for those two requirements is 513 trees. This project
has 628 trees. The requirements for those reforestation buffer yards are 113 shrubs. The project
has 3,251 shrubs in it. So we're 3,200 shrubs more and 115 trees more. In addition to that we
have 177 evergreens on this site. The City average for evergreens is 6 foot p1antings. 75% of our
evergreens on this site will be 8 feet or larger. We have, well there's only 75 or 177 that will be
6 feet. There's 83 of them that are 8 feet. There's 11 of them that will be 10 feet. There's 12 of
them that will be...
Joan Joyce: So are these bigger than the minimum standards then? The sizes that you're
referring to again?
Rick Murray: Minimum standard is 6 feet.
Joan Joyce: Okay. Then my request would be to have some of these trees relocated to some of
the other areas because I don't feel that, and I heard your last change that you're moving 10 trees
to the north and that's a step in the right direction but 10 trees spread out on 13 lots is not really
effective, in my opinion, so my request is that you would consider maybe doing a little bit
more...
Peterson: We don't really need agreement here tonight. We just want to plant some seeds for.
Joan Joyce: Right, right. And again, I'm not looking at the trees that align the street on the south
side of those houses. I'm looking at what is on the north side of those houses because that is the
edge of the PUD development. That is where the buffer would, suppose to be according to this
city code. Thank you.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
David Jensen: David Jensen, 2173 Brinker Street. I just have a couple of questions. Number one
is the road, Windmill Drive. It's been proposed before that we would like to have that blocked
off during construction. I'm not sure exactly where we're sitting on that. Again the
neighborhood would like that blocked off so we do not have construction traffic coming through
our neighborhood. That is something that we would ask for as a neighborhood. Number two is
I'm also not sure exactly what building code is for when construction can occur. I don't know if
Saturdays and Sundays are open for construction. We would like, we would prefer not to see
construction on the weekends. If that's not possible, definitely we would like to have a later start
time on the weekends. Again I'm not aware of what the city code is for this so if you could
enlighten me, I would appreciate that.
Peterson: Dave, could you speak to both those items.
Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The developer will be entering into a PUD/development
contract with the City which. . . the construction hours of the development. Is more geared for the
actual on site development. The site grading, the utility work, street work. Those hours are 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. On Saturdays it's 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. No work
on Sundays or legal holidays. What regulates or governs the home builders however is city
ordinance which currently I believe is 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 to
5:00 on Saturday. Now there has been some discussions I believe at the City Council level
instructing staff to look into those hours to try to reduce some of the evening hours and weekend
activity. However, the home builders, they have a tight schedule. I'm sure there's going to be a
lot of. . . that end of it. Everyday home builder, homeowners out there that want to do the home
construction. . .hours and sometimes on the weekends, so people have to build a fence and
construct their shed or something like that so there's lots to take into account when we...
Peterson: Have you talked to Rick about the Windmill Run being closed off at all or not?
Hempel: No we have not but if you look at the grading plan, it states right on there maintain
existing barricade until street is installed. I think Mr. Jensen's concern as well as possibly some
of the new home construction where you get cement trucks, your sheetrock trucks, lumber trucks,
could potentially find their way back through there. Looking at the street layout, it's only the
shortest, quickest route into the development is through the new street except for when you start
building the homes furthest.. . and then there's the opportunity to go.. .It's really difficult to try to
regulate construction traffic there. Some home builders will install signs saying no construction
access points here but by that time it's sometimes too late.. . Difficult to regulate. We can
certainly request that though.
Peterson: Thanks. Anyone else?
Mark Peyereisen: Just one last comment. My name is Mark Peyereisen and I live at 7501
Windmill Drive and I think Ms. Brooks brings up a great point in regards to the traffic on Galpin.
Currently you're telling us that the 200 units that are going in there, that Galpin would be able to
handle that traffic, but I think there's some thought that should be gone into that. The Lundgren
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
development is not yet completed down the road from there and also the Centex development is
also enroute as well. And if you currently take a drive down Galpin Boulevard with the trucks
that are hauling there, the utility trucks and the sewer trucks that are coming in, the grading that's
going on down there, Galpin is not a safe street at this point in time to be on bike riding, running,
walking, whatever the case may be so I think there is some thought that needs to go into that in
regards to the Galpin Boulevard. Galpin Boulevard is an inferior street, especially for a 50 mph
speed zone on there and if that were to be the case, then we should look at lowering that speed
limit or just addressing the traffic study again in regards to Galpin Boulevard. That's it.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Seeing none, is there a
motion to close the public hearing and a second please.
Skubic moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. It's been a long and winding road in more ways than one. Alison,
would you care to comment first please.
Blackowiak: Okay. Get on the right page here. I'm just going to kind of run down the
conditions that staff suggested and comment where I feel necessary. Numbers 3 and 4, we're
talking about the commons in the plat and also the trail location. I agree that the commons is
very important and would like to see the trail moved either north or south. It doesn't matter
which one but just give us a larger open space in the middle. I agree with the dissenting
members of the Park Commission regarding the need for some type of a playground or
something. I'm a member of the Park Task Force and a recent survey done of city residents
pointed out that neighborhood parks are number one on their priority list, and I can't believe that
the potential new neighbors in this area would be any different than the people we already have
in Chanhassen in terms of their desire to have a neighborhood park. So I would strongly hope
that something could be worked out and I agree that the neighbors could, and then probably
should have some input as to what it would be but I would like that to be a part of the plan.
Moving the trail a little bit and thinking about some type of a totlot or whatever you want to call
it but something there for the families that are going to have small children so that they too can
enjoy these parks. The gazebo's a nice touch. I don't know if that's the answer or the benches or
whatever but I like the idea of a place to meet and yes, a small playground can be a place to meet.
I really haven't heard anything about the bus shelter or bus cut out. I'd like to know a little bit
more about that and where that could be potentially incorporated because I am somewhat worried
about the traffic and the fact that we are at this point dumping everybody out with a single access
point onto Galpin, and that scares me a little bit because there will be a lot of cars. And I do
realize that Arboretum Boulevard is scheduled for 1999 but we all know MnDOT and that may
just not happen so I'm kind of worried about that. I like Joan Joyce's comments regarding the
higher standards of the PUD. We need to look for something that's going to be interesting.
That's going to be above average and just moving trees around maybe from the south side to the
north side might solve a couple problems but then if you really felt they were necessary in the
south side, can't we just add some instead of moving what we've got. If it is going to be a
medium density PUD, then I think that in order to conform to the requirements of our PUD
standards we would need some buffering then between the existing Windmill Run neighborhoods
and the proposed Walnut Grove neighborhood. Let me think here. Also parking. Hennessy's
24
-
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
property. Again I think we addressed that. That that will have to be a separate issue before the
Planning Commission. It will have to be published in the paper and proper notice given. And
boy, I think that's about it. We heard a lot tonight. But generally I think it's a good plan but if
we address some of those issues, and probably some others that the commissioners will bring up,
it will be an even better plan.
Peterson: Thank you. Allyson.
Brooks: Well I agree a lot with Alison. I do think the playground should be considered. I know
we talked about empty nester and we talked about retirement but I think that a lot of single
parents with children are attracted to townhomes and bungalow type homes and that you may
actually get more children than you expect. It's also a nice way for families to congregate and
meet each other. If you're looking at different sets of people, you know you can tailor open
spaces to the different sets. You know put your gazebo or sort of non-children in one open space
and have the play area in another open space. The traffic question is not directly related
necessarily to this development alone. Trunk Highway 5 is going to be, just a horizontal parking
lot one of these days and I don't know, I think we're all, our hands are tied no matter what. No
matter what development goes in. I do worry about the idea that there's only one access out to
Galpin and then onto TH 5 and the back-up that will cause. And those are really my major
concerns. Other than that I guess I don't have a lot more comments.
Peterson: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: I don't have much to say. I think it's really come a long way. From the comments I
made 3-4 months ago, and I wasn't even involved in the process. They've taken care of them.
Between the neighbors and the developer. This is a good PUD. It's got variety of housing styles
in here which it didn't have 3-4 months ago. These are nice designs. I compliment the Rottlund
group who put them in. For the tOwnhome type product, it's very good. I like the roadway
system and yeah, traffic's always going to be an issue but there was a study done. There was a
study done. We have to pay attention to the study. The study was done. Park and Rec also made
motions on what they like so, I think there's some things that could be done based on what the
commissioners like but overall I think, and John I think you won't have any problem getting the
zoning. If it doesn't go the way you want, I'd be real surprised. I can't believe it won't. But I
like this. I think there have been some comments on things that changing and refacing loading. I
think that's my only comment. I think there are some tweakings that can be done and as to how
we load certain units here, which can add. I think there were some good comments made about
maybe some simple things that could give a little bit better vision on Highway 5 for some of the
housing down there, but overall boy I just don't have too many problems with the proposal.
Peterson: LuAnn.
Sidney: I'm the newest commissioner and this is actually the first time I've looked at this plan
and studied this and I'm very impressed with it. I really like the idea of variety of home styles. I
think it's well laid out and really gives, been able to tell there's a lot of thought and work put into
the plan. A couple things I did note. The other commissioners have mentioned the playground
and that was a concern of mine too. That there would be a playground in this development. Also
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
back to the parking, that I had mentioned before. I'm concerned about the amount of off street
parking and I'm wondering if the applicant could work with staff to see if that could be reduced
and the reason that I liked it reduced is to hopefully minimize the impact upon some of the open
spaces that you've proposed in just the villa home development area. Particularly I'm looking at
the very northern portion, near the villa homes where there are several spaces that are near the
trail and as I walk along the trail I really don't want to come within 3 feet of a car when I'm
walking along the trail. So I'd like to see those removed. Also, on the very southern most part I
see more stalls closest to the proposed Arboretum Boulevard. I guess I don't really like the idea
of having parking there. And then also food for thought about open space. .. . right in the middle
of that villa townhouse development, could those slots, parking spaces be removed so that it is a
green space so you don't have to have your picnic table in the midst of a bunch of cars pointing
at you. I think the applicant can work to revise the parking plan. I would hope that the applicant
would do that. Otherwise I guess I see that this has been a long process. A lot of work and
thought has been put into this and really happy to see the developers worked with the neighbors
to make some progress in this area. That's what I have.
Peterson: Thank you. Kevin.
Joyce: Yeah...hats off to Rick. I think he's done a good job with what he has had to work with.
We've had some issues here. The road has worked out better than we had expected originally so
I certainly appreciate the help with that. I'm very happy with the bungalows. I think the
bungalows was a nice idea. I think they're going to be an asset to the neighborhood. The single
family homes once again is an extension of the Windmill Run. Somewhat of an extension to the
Windmill Run so that helped. I would have to echo that, on some of these 12 pie xes of the villas
and on the 8 unit plex that to add gabling to that would help. I would have to respectfully
disagree with some of the commissioners as far as the totlot. I'm not really that much in favor of
the totlot there. I think they're doing a good job with that open space. I'm kind of against half
hearted playgrounds versus maybe something a little more natural. A gazebo would be nice. I
know that there had been considerations of some problems they thought they might encounter
with the gazebo. I can certainly appreciate that. Really the only issue I have left here, through
this long process, and I'm proud to say that I was part of the process because it's really evolved
into something that I, you know I do look, I'm going to be looking out on this so I have a vested
interest in what's going on here. And it's evolved nicely. The only thing that I could say Rick is
that, I'd really like you to look at a little additional landscaping up north by us. I know you're
putting those 10 trees up there. I'm not asking for a complete visual screen up there. I'm just
asking for some landscaping because per our ordinances we're allowed to have a little bit of
landscaping up there so the trees are wonderful but please, and I'm going to suggest a condition
to that. That you look at some additional screening there. And otherwise I think it will work.
Peterson: Bob.
Skubic: ...on the part of the developer, staff and the residents here, I think it really came along
nice. A couple comments. I tend to favor a totIot too based on my experience. I have kids and
what a neighborhood looks like but I think I really have to consider the developer's expertise on
this. He knows what he's developing these dwellings for so I think he has a better idea of what is
required here. And there will be input from the residents. The prairie grass. I live in a
26
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
neighborhood where the outlots of vegetation gets a real workout from the little kids and I agree
that prairie grass probably won't work to the north and I think it would work much better to the
south. And regarding the buffering. Now technically there should be buffering there a
potentially different from Windmill Run to the north. However that's not the intent of the
ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to separate areas that have different densities, different
uses. In this case the houses to the south of Windmill Run I hope have the same value. Or same
type and I really don't feel, based on the intent of the ordinance that they should, all the buffering
that we would require between medium density and low density developments.
Peterson: Okay. Thank you Bob. My questions, my comments don't differ that much from my
fellow commissioners. I think that as you presented to the Council, Rick if you can present the
commons area and maybe the gazebo with a little bit more detailing as far as it's potential size
and give them some sense of how big we're talking. A 5 x 5 or a 25 x 25, just to get some sense
really of what impact that will have on the whole development. As it relates to the villa units, I
guess if there's anything that I do have concerns about with the development yet is in that area
and the really imposing size of them from the Highway 5 area south. I mean from a PUD, I think
it all fits. But in a PUD as close to Highway 5 corridor and the work we put into that study, I'm
even more concerned about what is within that corridor and what kind of views you really have
from Highway 5 going into the PUD. So I think anything that we can do to break up those units
on the villas, or that the comments were brought up tonight are germane or whether there's other
things that we can do to break up those into more appealing to the eye versus just the impending
size of the structure, does concern me. And I'm almost hesitant to vote in favor of the rezoning
because of that but the PUD is so strong in and of itself I think that that won't be the case tonight.
That I will vote for it but my rationale would be that because it being so close to Highway 5, it
was an issue in my mind. So anything we can do would be beneficial. But I think in many ways
what we're doing is sacrificing that to some degree to get more affordable housing and I respect
that position to some degree. I'd be somewhat concerned about moving the evergreens from that
natural area to the northern area. Again moving around vegetation and when you move those
trees you're opening up those villas to more views from Highway 5 too so you're definitely
taking something away from that area. As it relates to the side entries on the bungalows, and any
of the units that we're talking about tonight, which I think you did a fine job in creating those
unique structures. I think we should put the maximum number of side entries available into the
project to again, to further break it up. And lastly, the comments that I also disagree with one of
my fellow commissioners. Commissioner Sidney where you talked about the off street parking
in those areas. I, from a safety perspective I'd be concerned about removing those. On a
Saturday night if one of those or two of those people have parties, we're talking about a lot of
potential people parking on the street which is I'm sure Public Safety would have a concern with
that so there's a delicate balance there but I'd be careful about removing any. I'm generally a
proponent of, in those high densities, is to be sure we have enough so I'd just be cautious if talk
of removing is going on and what the impact of that would be. So wi~ that, any other questions
or comments before we take a motion? Hearing none, may I have a motion and a second please.
Conrad: I'd make the motion. I think it's two motions. We need two motions here. I'd make
the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the land use map amendment,
amendment #96-2 LUP, amending the northerly 30.14 acres from Residential Low Density to
Residential Medium Density to permit the proposed development known as Walnut Grove.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Peterson: Is there a second?
Blackowiak: Second.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the Land Use Map Amendment #96-2 LUP, amending the northerly 30.14 acres from
Residential-Low Density to Residential-Medium Density to permit the proposed
development known as Walnut Grove. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Peterson: Second motion please.
Conrad: You don't want to do it Kevin?
Joyce: No.
Conrad: Well you're involved. I'll make the motion. The Planning Commission recommends
approval ofPUD #96-4 for a mixed density residential development rezoning approximately 50
acres from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development, Residential PUD-R
with the...
Joyce: I'll second that motion.
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
PUD #96-4 for a mixed density residential development rezoning approximately 50 acres
from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Third motion please.
Joyce: I'll throw this out. The Planning Commission recommends preliminary plat approval for
Walnut Grove subject to conditions, did you add a condition Bob?
Generous: 41.
Joyce: So we're at 42 right now? Okay. With condition number 10, the applicant shall work
with staff to relocate 10 evergreens scheduled to be planted along the boulevard near pond and
Bluff Creek. I'd like to add to the northern property line between Windmill Run and Walnut
Grove. And I'd like to add a condition. Number 43. The applicant present additional screening
to buffer the low density Windmill Run neighborhood and the medium density Walnut Grove
neighborhood.
Conrad: And all the other conditions stand?
Joyce: I'm sorry. Yes they do.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Conrad: Would you take some friendly amendments?
Joyce: Sure.
Conrad: On condition number I. For the applicant to work with staff to, Bob I'm going to let
you word this but I'd really like to, we heard some recommendations both from the applicant and
maybe, I don't know who else but anyway, I'd like to have the staff review those, the
modifications that the applicant made and make a recommendation to the City Council. On
condition number 4. I'd like to make sure it's clear that the trail can be moved southward or
northward, but for sure out of the drainage area. Condition number 11. I'd want to make sure, I
do believe the applicant has a valid point about where the prairie areas should be and so I would
like as a sentence there to have staff review with the applicant the appropriate areas for the
treating of the prairie grass. Condition number 43. I'd like to have the applicant propose to the
City Council some revision to the villa units on Highway 5.
Joyce: That would be 44.
Conrad: Is that 44? Okay. ... to the architecture on the villa units facing Highway 5.
Generous: Actually that should be the site plan.
Conrad: Site plan?
Generous: On page 23.
Blackowiak: We're actually looking at four motions, not three.
Conrad: Ah, I'm sorry. Sorry, yeah.
Joyce: Can we revisit that?
Conrad: Yeah. Yeah, let me do that later on. I'm sorry. I will work those in. So the only
comment that I made that is valid is the one on the first one on the site plan where the staff is
reviewing with the applicant the appropriate bungalow homes where the side entries work based
on the applicant's recommendation. Does that make sense Bob? That's the only, sorry Kevin.
That's the only amendment to your motion.
Joyce: Condition 4, you're going to move the trail southward. And so we have 43 conditions
then. Okay.
Peterson: Do you have that Bob?
Generous: I have 43 conditions, yeah.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary
plat approval for Walnut Grove subject to the following conditions:
1. The dedication of a public trail easement through the east/west commons area from Highlands
Boulevard east to the property limit. Construction of an 8 ft. asphalt trail within this easement.
The applicant is to be reimbursed for material costs involved in constructing the trail from the
city's trail fund.
2. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
3. The development ofa "commons" within the plat.
4. The developer shall relocate the trail northward or southward within the open area, staying
out of the drainage swale area, to expand the gathering space/public space and make a more
useable play area
5. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit to incorporate a transit component
within the development potentially providing land and/or funding assistance for a bus
shelterlbus cut-out.
6. Landscape species must be selected from Big Woods species list in Bluff Creek Management
Plan.
7. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees to be preserved on site prior to
commencing grading activities.
8. The applicant must submit revised landscape species list with corresponding plan.
9. Vegetation restoration plan for the slope leading down from road to wetland in southwest
comer must be developed.
10. The applicant shall work with staff to relocate 10 evergreen scheduled to be planted along
Boulev~rd near pond and Bluff Creek to the northern property line between Windmill
Run and Walnut Grove.
11. Incorporate prairie areas in open space south of the traditional single family homes and also
to the north of the four unit villa blocks on the west side of Village Boulevard. The prairie
areas shall have a detailed planting and management plan submitted with the overall
landscaping plan for the development prior to final plat approval. The management plan will
identify responsibility for the areas and outline maintenance practices to be followed during
the establishment period and beyond.
12. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any
building permits.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
13. Submit streets names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior
to fmal plat approval. Submit proposed street names for private streets 200 feet or more in
length. All private roads and a number of smaller driveway accesses will be required to have
street names. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for which streets will need to be assigned
street names. Street names must be submitted to both Chanhassen Fire Marshal and
Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. No parking fire lane signs will be
required to be installed on private roads and roads leading to driveway accesses. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire
Prevention Policy # 06-1991.
14. Street and utility service shall be extended to the Hennessy's east property line. Drainage and
utility easements shall be dedicated over the utilities. The development's covenants shall
provide cross access easements in favor of the Hennessy parcel for ingress and egress over
the private streets within the development.
15. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal.
16. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each
activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
17. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition
of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and
specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The private
streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the
City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles".
18. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and
will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
19. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm
events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance
with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater
calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient
catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall
be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
20. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and
provide the necessary fmancial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
21. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and
comply with their conditions of approval.
22. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands.
23. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of
the ponding areas..
24. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along
the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. The berm
proposed on Lot 18, Block 2 behind Lots 19 and 20 shall be redesigned so it is not situated
over the proposed storm sewer.
25. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the
100-year high water level.
26. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10: 1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level
and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes.
27. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer.
28. The developer shall expand the conservation easement over Outlot A to include drainage and
utility purposes. This area may also be deeded to the City as an outlot.
29. The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12-inch trunk watermain from Windmill
Drive to Arboretum Boulevard. The credit shall be for the construction cost difference
between an 8-inch and a 12-inch water line.
30. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin
Boulevard or Arboretum Boulevard.
31. The southerly stormwater pond on Outlot A shall be oversized to accommodate runoff from
the future Arboretum Boulevard in addition to the site runoff. SWMP credits will be given
for oversizing this pond.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
32. Final grades adjacent to Arboretum Boulevard will be subject to review and approval of
MnDOT for compatibility with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5/Arboretum
Boulevard.
33. The developer shall work with City staff in reducing the encroachment of the retaining wall
into the right-of-way along Walnut Curve (Lot 1, Block 1). If there are no feasible
alternatives the developer shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City.
34. The cul-de-sac proposed to serve Lots 37 through 40, Block 2 shall be redesigned to
accommodate fire truck turning movements.
35. Provide a 1" = 200' scale plan of the subdivision to the Inspections Division showing all streets,
driveways, property lines and building outlines.
36. A 10' clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants
can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance 9-1.
37. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be
chipped on site or hauled off site.
38. An additional I to 2 fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact location of additional hydrant( s).
39. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant
to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992. (Copy enclosed).
Additional number ranges will be required on the building ends adjacent to main arterial
roads. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location and size of letters.
40. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for water
protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable
prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section
10.502.
41. The following setbacks shall be established within the Walnut Grove development:
Lots 1 - 14, Block 1, front 30 ft, rear 30 ft., side 10ft.
Lots 1 - 3, Block 2, front 30 ft., rear 30 ft., side 10ft.
Lots 4 - 17, Block 2, front 30 ft., rear 25 ft., side 10 ft.
Lots I - 4, Block 3, front 30 ft., rear 30 feet, side 10ft.
Setback from Galpin Boulevard: 50 ft.
Setback from Village Boulevard: 30 ft.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
42. Water Quality and Quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The
requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in
accordance with the proscribed land use zoning.
43. The applicant shall provide additional screen between the proposed development and
the existing development to the north."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Next motion please.
Joyce: We're going back to site plan?
Peterson: For the townhouses.
Joyce: I'll present that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #96-14 for
168 townhouse units, site plan prepared by Sathre-Berquist dated 4/497 subject to conditions 1
through 4. Number 4 being minor adjustments to the villa homes fronting Highway 5, breaking
up the longation of those homes with possibly gables.. .etc. Does that work?
Peterson: Is there a second?
Brooks: Second.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Joyce moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan #96-14 for 168 townhouse units, site plan prepared by Sathre-Berquist dated 4/4/97,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall incorporate side entry garages for the bungalow homes on Lots 19, 21, 25,
31,43, and 44, Block 2, and Lot 14, Block 3.
2. The applicant shall incorporate three exterior siding selections for the villa townhomes and
four exterior siding selections for the bungalow homes, stamped received April 23, 1997.
3. No two adjacent bungalow homes may have the same elevations and exterior siding
selections.
4. The applicant shall make minor adjustment to Villa homes adjacent to Highway 5 to
increase architectural detail."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
34
i
..
May 6, 1997
.
Rick Murray
Residential Development, Inc.
15 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612)934-8238 (612)934-2428
WALNUT GROVE DESIGN BUDGETS:
:::8
Sine:le Family Homes
Overstory:
City Requirements:
Q.!Y:. Item d
.4", . L;.....,~-~
20 S..uuuil AMt-.{2.5" BB)
17 Green Mountain Sugar Maple (2.5" BB)
5 Pin Oak (2.5" BB)
15 Amur Maple Clump (6' BB)
16 Austrian Pine (6' BB)
5 Red Sunset Maple (2.5" BB)
17 Colorado Spruce (6' BB)
Proposed Design:
Q.!Y:. Item
5 Patmore Ash (2.5" BB) ,I
20 ~it.Ash-(2.5" BB) ,:1 tt, .L, ....~ ~ ...
18 Green Mountain Sugar Maple (2.5" BB)
5 Red Sunset Maple (2.5" BB)
6 Amur Maple Clump (6' BB)
5 Shadblow Serviceberry (6' BB)
7 Isanti Dogwood (5 Gallon Pot)
14 Red Twig Dogwood (5 Gallon Pot)
9 Common Lilac (5 Gallon Pot)
17 Arrowwood Viburnum (5 Gallon Pot)
6 Austrian Pine (6' BB)
15 Colorado Spruce (8' BB)
5 Blackhills Spruce (8' BB)
II C.Y. 1.5" Washed River Rock (3" Deep)
1125 S.F. Fiber Mat Weed Barrier
140 L.F. Poly Edger
.
Entry Buffer:
Qffi
3
2
6
4
4
2
3
22
4
400
240
May 6. 1997
-iiiiii
-:iii
Item
Summit Ash (2.5" BB)
Pin Oak (2.5" BB)
Shadblow Serviceberry Clump (6' BB)
Blackhills Spruce (8' BB)
Blackhills Spruce (10' BB)
Blackhills Spruce (12' BB)
Colorado Spruce (6' BB)
Isanti Dogwood (5 Gallon Pot)
C.Y. 1.5" Washed River Rock (3" Deep)
S.F. Fiber Mat Weed Barrier
L.F. Poly Edger
~
Bune:alows
Commons- Buffer:
~ Item
14 Red Sunset Maple (2.5" BB)
I Pin Oak (2.5" BB)
12 River Birch Clump (6' BB)
10 Blackhills Spruce (6' BB)
12 Colorado Spruce (8' BB)
32 Redtwig Dogwood (5 Gallon Pot)
4 C.Y. 1.5" Washed River Rock (3" Deep)
360 S.F. Fiber Mat Weed Barrier
220 L.F. Poly Edger
Residential Buffer:
~ Item
3 Pin Oak (2.5" BB)
4 Amur Maple Clump (6' BB)
14 Colorado Spruce (8' BB)
Bungalow Overstory: . I' I
~ Item A"'. .... ~t '"
15 n_,-~~~ A ft!r (2.5" BB)
5 Summit Ash (2.5" BB)
13 Red Sunset Maple (2.5" BB)
I Pin Oak (2.5" BB)
4 Shadblow Serviceberry Clump (6' BB)
14 Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn (1.5" BB)
5 Spring Snow Crabapple (1.5" BB)
2 Blackhills Spruce (6' BB)
10 Austrian Pine (6' BB)
3 Austrian Pine (10' BB)
Bungalow Foundation:
~ Item
220 Abbottswood Potentilla (3 Gallon Pot)
44 (santi Dogwood (5 Gallon Pot)
44 Winged Euonymous (36" Pot)
44 Dwarf Korean Lilac (5 Gallon Pot)
132 Anthony Waterer Spirea (2 Gallon Pot)
44 Mohican Viburnum (30" BB)
~
21
12
19
5
11
16
5
3
17
3
16
15
4
380
120
May 6, 1997
:3i
Item 4....\. L;... ,/ '- "\.
>>atmore-Ash (2.5" BB)
Summit Ash (2.5" BB)
Red Sunset Maple (2.5" BB)
Pin Oak (2.5" BB)
Shadblow Serviceberry Clump (6' BB)
Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn (1.5" BB)
Spring Snow Crabapple (1.5" BB)
Blackhills Spruce (6' BB)
Austrian Pine (6' BB)
Austrian Pine (10' BB)
Amur Maple Clump (6' BB)
Isanti Dogwood (5 Gallon Pot)
C.Y. 1.5" Washed River Rock (3" Deep)
S.F. Fiber Mat Weed Barrier
L.F. Poly Edger
~
~
Bungalow Foundation Continued:
SS Techny Arborvitae (42" Pot)
132 Sea Green Juniper (5 Gallon Pot)
30S C.Y. 1.5" Washed River Rock
30S00 S.F. Fiber Mat Weed Barrier
96S0 L.F. Poly Edger
15 C.Y. Soil
Villas
Entry Buffer:
Q!Y:.
6
3
7
Item
Pin Oak (2.5" BB)
Summit Ash (2.5" BB)
Red Sunset Maple (2.5" BB)
Entry Buffer Continued:
4 River Birch Clump (6' BB)
3 Shadblow Serviceberry Clump (6' BB)
5 Austrian Pine (6' BB)
5 Colorado Spruce (6' BB)
4 Blackhills Spruce (S' BB)
4 Blackhills Spruce (10' BB)
6 Blackhills Spruce (12' BB)
S C.Y. IS' Washed River Rock (3" Deep)
750 S.F. Fiber Mat Weed Barrier
500 L.F. Poly Edger
Villa Overstory:
Q!Y:. Item
33 Patmore Ash (2.5" BB)
40 Greenspire Linden (2.5" BB)
16 Summit Ash (2.5" BB)
6 Pin Oak (2.5" BB)
13 Red Sunset Maple (2.5" BB)
S Shadblow Serviceberry Clump (6' BB)
6 Amur Maple Clump (6' BB)
10 River Birch Clump (6' BB)
29 Spring Snow Crabapple (1S' BB)
24 Red Splendor Crabapple (IS' BB)
29 Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn (1.5" BB)
21 Austrian Pine (6' BB)
1 Colorado Spruce (6' BB)
3 Colorado Spruce (S' BB)
14 Blackhills Spruce (6' BB)
May 6,1997
.:3i
-Uii
Revegetating Area:
Q!Y:. Item
63 Redtwig Dogwood (5 Gallon Pot)
37 Yellowtwig Dogwood (5 Gallon Pot)
300 Smooth Sumac (24" Pot)
13 C.Y. Wood Chip Mulch (for Dogwood)
100 C.Y. Wood Chip Mulch (for Sumac)
2400 S.Y. Erosion Matte
Villas Foundation
4 Unit Townhouse:
Q!Y:. Item
16 American Compact Viburnum (4 Gallon Pot)
32 Anthony Waterer Spirea (2 Gallon Pot)
24 Dwarf Korean Lilac (3 Gallon Pot)
88 Little Princess Spirea (2 Gallon Pot)
64 Sea Green Juniper (5 Gallon Pot)
8 Winged Euonymous (5 Gallon Pot)
36 C.Y. 1.5" Washed River Rock
3720 S.F. Fiber Mat Weed Barrier
520 L.F. Poly Edger
6 Unit Townhouse:
Q!Y:.
24
48
48
112
88
8
49
4600
640
8 Unit Villa:
Q!Y:.
32
48
24
16
48
128
128
Item
American Compact Viburnum (4 Gallon Pot)
Anthony Waterer Spirea (2 Gallon Pot)
Dwarf Korean Lilac (3 Gallon Pot)
Little Princess Spirea (2 Gallon Pot)
Hughes Juniper (5 Gallon Pot)
Winged Euonymous (5 Gallon Pot)
C.Y. 1.5" Washed River Rock
S.F. Fiber Mat Weed Barrier
L.F. Poly Edger
llim!
Sea Green Juniper (5 Gallon Pot)
Andorra Juniper (5 Gallon Pot)
Redtwig Dogwood (5 Gallon Pot)
Winged Euonymus (36" BB)
Dwarf Korean Lilac (3 Gallon Pot)
Nearly Wild Shrub Rose (2 Gallon Pot)
Little Princess Spirea (2 Gallon Pot)
May 6, /997
,a
8 Unit Villa Continued:
48 C.Y. 1.5" Washed River Rock
1280 L.F. Poly Edger
5760 S.F. Fiber Mat Weed Barrier
12 Unit Villa:
~
64
48
32
352
256
192
192
136
16240
3200
Item
Sea Green Juniper (5 Gallon Pot)
Redtwig Dogwood (5 Gallon Pot)
Winged Euonymus (36" BB)
Nearly Wild Shrub Rose (2 Gallon Pot)
Little Princess Spirea (2 Gallon Pot)
Dwarf Korean Lilac (3 Gallon Pot)
Andorra Juniper (5 Gallon Pot)
C. Y. 1.5" Washed River Rock
S.F. Fiber Mat Weed Barrier
L.F. Poly Edger
May 6. J 997
..