The Woods at Rush Creek - PUD Concept & Dvlpt Stage Plan Review

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Woods at Rush Creek - PUD Concept & Dvlpt Stage Plan Review"

Jonah Horton
5 years ago
Views:

Rush Creek - PUD Concept & Dvlpt Stage Plan Review After reviewing the above-mentioned submittal, the Park & Recreation Board staff has the following comments: The Park Dedication ordinance applies

1 .. - Cityof. Maple Grove Maple Grove Parks and Recreation MEMORANDUM TO: Peter Vickerman - City Planner FROM: Chuck Stifter - Director of Parks and Recreation ft ~ DATE: August: 12, SUBJECT: The Woods at Rush Creek - PUD Concept & Dvlpt Stage Plan Review After reviewing the above-mentioned submittal, the Park & Recreation Board staff has the following comments: The Park Dedication ordinance applies to this subdivision which requires a land dedication or a cash equivalent per unit based on the current rate. The Park Dedication obligation for the proposed subdivision would be a cash dedication based on the 2016 single family rate of$3993 per unit. Fees will apply to all platted residential lots. Undeveloped outlots and wetlands are exempt from park dedication. Based on the proposed 73 single-family lots the park dedication would calculate as: 73 lots x $3993 = $291,489 The Woods at Rush Creek is located within the city's Park Service Area 30. Residents of this subdivision are served by Maple Creek Neighborhood Park about one-half mile southwest of the proposed subdivision. General The recommendations above are that of the Parks and Recreation staff Park dedication requirements are acted on hy the Parks and Recreation Board at their regularly scheduled monthly meetings andforwarded on to the City Councilforfinal approval. Applicants may pay the park dedication fee at any time after the final plat has been approved by the City Council and Park Board but it must he paid before the plat is released by the Cityfor filing. Park dedication rates are reviewed annually in February by the City Council. The rate is applied at the time the plat is released to the County forfiling.

$Hennepin County Pul)lic Works Trans port ation Department!j 1..:' ~,I.),:\ 0 ::0), PI",); 1(' J I!... {I l ] 1 1 u, r" (],~. 1,'/','.1,'/ 1\''''ll~k\Pffl 11.. ;,/tld!i~:\pqrtc1tlun August 17, 2016 Mr.$ Box 1180 Maple Grove, MN 55311-6180 Re: Preliminary Plat Review - The Woods at Rush Creek County Road 101 - opposite 75th Place North Hennepin County Plat Review ID #3523 Dear Mr.

Box 1180 Maple Grove, MN 55311-6180 Re: Preliminary Plat Review - The Woods at Rush Creek County Road 101 - opposite 75th Place North Hennepin County Plat Review ID #3523 Dear Mr.

2 Hennepin County Pul)lic Works Trans port ation Department!j 1..:' ~,I.),:\ 0 ::0), PI",); 1(' J I!... {I l ] 1 1 u, r" (],~. 1,'/','.1,'/ 1\''''ll~k\Pffl 11.. ;,/tld!i~:\pqrtc1tlun August 17, 2016 Mr. Peter Vickerman City Planner City of Maple Grove Arbor Lakes Parkway P.O. Box 1180 Maple Grove, MN Re: Preliminary Plat Review - The Woods at Rush Creek County Road opposite 75th Place North Hennepin County Plat Review ID #3523 Dear Mr. Vickerman: Minnesota Statutes , , and , Plats and Surveys, allow up to 30 days for county review of preliminary plats abutting county roads. The preliminary plat for The Woods at Rush Creek was received by Hennepin County staff August 2, The plat proposes the redevelopment of 5 rural parcels into 72 single-family detached residential lots, and 1 pool lot. The Hennepin County Plat Review Committee discussed this proposal on August 9,2016 and have made the following comments: Access - A single access into the development is proposed along County Road 101 to be aligned with 75th Place to the east, replacing an existing rural homestead access. The county accepts this proposed access location. Due to varying elevations of the property versus the county roadway, the county would like to review a vertical profile for the street approach to CSAH 101 to ensure that a sufficient landing area and entering sight distances are provided. The development proposal would also be removing 2 existing driveways, and 2 farm field entrances. The proposed internal through road ends in the southwest corner. Is there a ghost plat or concept showing how this street ties into the church parcel to the south? Right-oJ-Way - This plat proposes to dedicate the 20' of right-of-way needed to equal the desired 60' half right-of-way for this section. We support this proposal since it would match the existing 60' half section to the east. Turn Lanes - The new development will require the reconfiguration of the CSAH 101 intersection. The addition ofa northbound left-turn lane and a southbound right-turn lane will be required. The left-turn lane will need to be mirrored by a southbound left-turn lane to the existing 75th Place North. An exhibit is attached for guidance showing typical dimensions for this intersection configuration. The intersection design will need to be submitted and approved by the county as part of the entrance permit process.

To best support this Facility, we suggest the proposed north-south sidewalk along County Road 101 be constructed as 10' trail and extended to the south through the entire development.

3 Bicycle and Pedestrian - We support the proposed internal sidewalk system with connections to the north-south sidewalk along County Road 101. In the future, the county envisions a 10' off-road trail alongside County Road 101. To best support this Facility, we suggest the proposed north-south sidewalk along County Road 101 be constructed as 10' trail and extended to the south through the entire development. Drainage - The drainage pond in the northeast corner of the development appears to outlet directly onto the county right-of-way. Developer must demonstrate this would not result in an increased runoff rate onto the county right-of-way, Options could include either maintaining the existing ditch drainage along CSAH 101 or develop curb & gutter design. Storm water and drainage questions can be directed to Drew McGovern at (612) , or drew.mcgovem@hellllepill.us Permits - Please inform the developer that all proposed construction within county right-of-way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. The county wants to ensure that the existing 2 driveways be removed and graded upon vacation as well as restoration of adjacent ditch. Driveway removal requires permit and as part of the abandonment of the existing driveways, the county is willing to provide the necessary permits at 110 cost to the city or developer. Permit questions can be directed to Mike Olmsted at (612) , or mike.o/msted@heljllepin.us Please contact Bob Byers at (612) or robertbvers@hennepin.us: or Jason Gottfried at (612) or jason.gott/ried@hellnepin.usfor any further discussion of these items. Sincerely, fames N. Grube, P.E. Director of Transportation and County Engineer ING/jdg cc: Plat Review Committee Mark Larson, Hennepin County Survey Office

nts t, e, r t ght of way. drainage. sight distance. horlzontal/ vertical alignment.

4 8' MIN PAVED ---I--If-~I--lI-...J CROSS INTERSECTION BASE DESIGN 1ST PRIORITY Most desirable given no Inherent cone+rc 1 nts t, e, r t ght of way. drainage. sight distance. horlzontal/ vertical alignment. and meets +hreshhold traf.flc values. Some dimensions can be reduced (Ianel deceleration taper lengths) based on trafflo study. I 300' (TYPJ L. No Scala.. "

MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: The Woods at Rush Creek file Community Development Department DATE: November 22,2016 SUBJECT: CD Staff Comments Staff has reviewed the latest plan set dated 9-15-16 and have the

The property line between lots 68 and 69 should be moved to go directly over the proposed storm sewer pipe in that area. 3.

5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: The Woods at Rush Creek file Community Development Department DATE: November 22,2016 SUBJECT: CD Staff Comments Staff has reviewed the latest plan set dated and have the following comments as well as additional comments related to the proposal. 1. The plans are missing easement lines on lots The property line between lots 68 and 69 should be moved to go directly over the proposed storm sewer pipe in that area. 3. Regarding the turnaround on the church's property, we note that there is additional property to the south that could potentially develop next year and we are working towards a master plan for this area that would extend this road in the very near term so the turnaround may be moot, but ifit is shown on the church's property it will need an easement. 4. Grading Plan notes say there are 28' roads but the plans show our standard 31' and we will likely want to build 31' to ensure parking on both sides. 5. Grading Plan notes say all retaining walls require a building permit but only walls above 4' require building permits. 6. CB A17 will interfere with a trail connection to the south. 7. Extension of the utilities as well as maintenance around Pond #2 would be difficult in the future with all of the trees and the lack of a flat bench to work on. Trees around the other ponds may need to be relocated and/or pushed back away from the edge to provide adequate access. 8. There is no scale on the Grading Plans. 9. Tree Preservation Plan: a will be impacted, they should be classified as removed. b. 95, 186,376, and 381 will be impacted by the grading. Move grading further, and where applicable the retaining wall, further away from the trees to limit the impact on their root system. c. Please show a detail and sequencing of the root cut for these trees as has been discussed previously.

Remove the Black Hills Spruce in the 30x30 site triangle at the entrance road and 101. 11. There is no info on plans for wetland mitigation.

6 10. Landscaping Plan a. The initials for Norway Spruce and White Pine don't match up with the symbols on the plan sheet. b. Limit replacement trees to 72 of one species (affects the Black Hills Spruce) c. Limit the lot trees to 14 of one species (affects the Greenspire Linden) d. Remove the Black Hills Spruce in the 30x30 site triangle at the entrance road and There is no info on plans for wetland mitigation. Approval is subject to receiving approval for a wetland mitigation plan through the Engineering Department. 12. Engineering staff has concerns about the proposed trail along County Road 101 and the ability to adequately build this to the north along the Rush Creek Golf Course property. The existing grades between the property line and edge of County Road 101 do not seem to support such a trail. Further dialog with the County, City and applicant will need to resolve this.

Peter Vickerman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Hagen Wednesday, November 23, 2016 3:53 PM Peter Vickerman Jupe Hale The Woods: Review of Traffic Signal Warrants Peter: As requested, I have

This analysis also looked at the existing traffic volumes to see if a traffic signal might be warranted with or without the proposed Woods development.

7 Peter Vickerman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Hagen Wednesday, November 23, :53 PM Peter Vickerman Jupe Hale The Woods: Review of Traffic Signal Warrants Peter: As requested, I have reviewed the proposed access of The Woods development along County Road 101 at 75th Place in order to determine the likelihood that a traffic signal may be needed as part of the proposed development. This analysis also looked at the existing traffic volumes to see if a traffic signal might be warranted with or without the proposed Woods development. It should be noted that County Road 101 is a County roadway. As a result, any existing or future traffic signal would need to meet the County's minimum traffic and crash thresholds before they are even considered for installation. Existing Conditions: Existing traffic volumes were collected at the intersection of County Road 101 and 75th Place. County Road 101 volumes were obtained from Hennepin County, while City of Maple Grove Public Works staff collected volumes existing volumes on 75th Place. Existing volumes are as follows: County Road 101::: 8,900 vehicles per day (vpd) 75th Place= 260 vpd Traffic Signal Warrants & Hennepin County's Traffic Signal Guidelines: The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) provides a set of guidelines to consider when determining if a traffic signal should be installed at a location. The MMUTCD has developed a set of quantitative ;f thre.holds, in the form of warrants, to assist engineers-in the decision making process. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) also requires an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report to determine the best Intersection control strategy for each location. Engineering judgement should be included during the evaluation of an intersection to ensure that site specific characteristics are considered when determining the appropriate traffic control device at a given intersection. Hennepin County has developed a set of guidelines to evaluate and prioritize intersections along their county roads where there is interest for the installation of a traffic signal. These guidelines are applied to any intersection along the Hennepin County roadway system within the County. The guidelines include a non-signalized intersection ranking system that assists the county in allocating available resources among the traffic signal candidates and ensures that the traffic signal installation process is uniform throughout the county. The county has a responsibility to maintain a safe and adequate roadway system, so this ranking system manages budgets and discourages the proliferation of traffic signals on the county roadway system. The non-signalized intersection ranking system consists of two factors: traffic volume and recent crash experience. Each factor has its own point scale that is summed to determine the intersection's Priority Factor (PF) that allows for the prioritization of intersections. The MMUTCD provides a set of warrants that are related to the existing operation of the study location, and the potential of a traffic signal to improve these conditions. The Traffic Volume Factor (TVF) is the sum ofthe number of hours an intersection meets each of the following traffic signal warrants (out of a 24 hour day). Warrant 1 (Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume) The intersection receives 1 point for each hour met of one condition (A, B, or C) of Warrant 1. A maximum of 24 points is available for Warrant 1 based on the hours in a day. 1

Warrant 38 (Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume) The intersection receives a maximum of 1 point for any hour met of Warrant 3B.

8 Warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) The intersection receives 1 point for each hour met of Warrant 2. A maximum of 4 points is available for Warrant 2 based on the 4 hours in a day that experience the highest traffic volumes at the intersection. Warrant 38 (Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume) The intersection receives a maximum of 1 point for any hour met of Warrant 3B. A maximum of 1 point is available for Warrant 3B based on the 1 hour in a day that experiences the highest traffic volumes at the intersection. A maximum of 29 points is available for the TVF. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis: A traffic signal warrant analysis was completed in order to determine if a traffic signal is justified at the County Road 101 intersection with 75th Place. The analysis was conducted under existing and future traffic conditions, assuming full build out of the proposed Woods development. The results of the traffic signal warrant analysis can be found in the table below: Table 1- MMUTCD Signal Warrant Analysis Results Summary: County Road 101 at 75th Place Existing Full Build-Out Conditions Woods Development MMUTCD Hours Warrant Warrant Warrant Required Hours Hours Met? Met? Met Met (Yes or No) (Yes or No) #la 8 0 No 0 No #lb, 8 " 0 No 0 No ".,-: #lc 8 0 No 0 No #2 4 0 No 0 No #3B 1 0 No 0 No As shown in Table 1, a traffic signal is not warranted at the County Road 101 intersection with 75th Place under existing traffic volumes, and/or at full build-out of the proposed Woods development. It is estimated that the existing traffic volumes on 75th Place, east of County Road 101 would need to more than triple before the intersection would meet MMUTCD traffic signal warrants. In order for the traffic volumes on 75th Place, west of County Road 101 (from the proposed Woods development), to meet MMUTCD traffic signal warrant, traffic volumes would need to double. Conclusion: Since the intersection of County Road 101 and 75th Place does not meet any MMUTCD traffic signal warrants under the existing and/or post-woods development scenario, it is highly unlikely that Hennepin County would approve of a traffic signal at this location based on their adopted traffic signal guidelines and priority factor ranking system. Hope this helps! 2

E., PTOE Transportation Operations Engineer City of Maple Grove

9 Let me know if you have any questions, comments, or if you would like to discuss this in greater detail. Thanks, John John Hagen, P.E., PTOE Transportation Operations Engineer City of Maple Grove Arbor Lakes Parkway PO Box 1180 Maple Grove, MN

Access requests to County streets and roadways are processed through one of the following methods:

13.1 GENERAL APPLICATION PROCESS Access requests to County streets and roadways are processed through one of the following methods: A. Planned Developments may set general locations for access points.