Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
10-20-93 Agenda and Packet
AGENDA FILE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1993, 7:30 RN CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DR CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Concept Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD for a 232 unit residential development comprised of 21 buildings of either 8, 10 or 12 units in each. The units are two story, slab on grade construction with attached one or two car garages. The property is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Galpin Boulevard Carriage Homes, Centex Real Estate Corporation (Betty O'Shaughnessy). 2. *ITEM TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 17, 1993 3. Concept planned unit development for mixed high density (190 dwelling units) and neighborhood commercial uses on 62.05 acres of property zoned PUD and A2 and vacation of a portion of 86th Street. The property is located east of Hwy. 101 at 86th Street, Mission Hills,Tandem Properties. 4. Interim Use Permit to grade for site preparation (in excess of 1,000 cubic yards) on property zoned BG, General Business and located on the north side of West 78th Street, between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, T. F. James Company. OLD BUSINESS 5. Lundgren Bros. for rezoning property from RR, Rural Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat to subdivide 112 acres into 115 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit. The property is located on the west side of Galpin Boulevard, '/ mile north of Hwy. 5, Song-Carlson property. 6. Zoning Ordinance amendment to the City Code, Section 20-57, regarding expiration of platting variances. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 7. Presentation/Discussion of potential redevelopment/expansion options for the Chanhassen Bank/Post Office sites. 8. Planning Commission Goals Session. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. The following item was tabled: 2. Wetland alteration permit to provide a driveway access to a single family parcel zoned RR, Rural Residential and located south of Lake Lucy Road, north, east and west of Lake Lucy. The parcel is a peninsula in Lake Lucy, Mark and Kathy Sanda. CITY OF �` ClIANIIASSEN PC DATE: Oct. 6, 1993 r CC DATE: Oct. 25,1993 �1r � CASE #: PUD #93-5 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD for a 232 unit residential development comprised of 21 buildings of either 8, 10 or 12 units in each. < LOCATION: Southwest corner on Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard APPLICANT: Centex Real Estate Corporation Westwood Engineering Baker Technology Plaza 14180 West Trunk Hwy 5 5929 Baker Road, Suite 470 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Minnetonka, MN 55345 PRESENT ZONING: A2 Agricultural Estates ACREAGE: 89.59 gross 29.11 net DENSITY: 2.59 units/acre (gross) 8 units/acres (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2 Agricultural Swings Golf Q S - PUD, Trotters Ridge Subdivision E - A2 proposed Elementary School, RR Timberwood Subdivision 0 W - A2, proposed Gateway Business Park WATER AND SEWER: Not yet available to the site. Applicant must petition for services. w �... PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a large wetland complex with upland agricultural area that is farmed. There is a tree line along the property limits. The buildable area along Hwy. 5 is generally flat but then the site drops off toward the wetlands to the south. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: North of collector street, Medium Density Smith of Collector street Low Density Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Centex Real Estate Corporation is proposing to build 232 townhouses on the project on the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are a total of 21 buildings proposed four 8 unit, two 10 unit, and fifteen 12 unit buildings. This property is currently zoned A2, Agricultural Estate but is guided for Medium Density (4-8 units/acre) Development and Low Density (1.2 -4.0 units/acre) Development. The parcel is 89.59 acres all of which except for 29.11 acres is wetland. The property that is suitable for development will be split by the extension of the collector road that will connect Audubon Road with Highway 41. This road is part of the City Comprehensive Plan and the alignment was refined in the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. Although the guide plan shows this area as a mix of low and medium density, staff has supported this area as medium density. The collector road has been moved to the south to accommodate the school site. Based on the size of the development, parcels split by the road and the wetland it would be difficult to develop single family at this location and clustering of units is the only reasonable option. The applicants are seeking only conceptual approval at this time. The applicant still needs to provide additional information including compliance with the Hwy. 5 development standards, PUD standards, wetland alteration permit, petition for sewer service, and a tree inventory. Staff also needs to come to some conclusions about the location of any active portion for a park on this site as well as the location of the collector road as it adjoins the Gateway parcel. There are two possible locations for the active component of the park, on the Opus or Centex parcels. Recently, staff believed the Centex option was more appropriate but a problem has surfaced. The site has a large wetland complex and staff is concerned about the suitability of some of the soils especially in the western portion of the site. Upon investigation of soils on the eastern portion of the Centex site, 31/2 feet of peat and ground water one foot below grade was found. STS, the consulting engineers, who did the soil study stated in their opinion the site in unsuitable for park improvements unless the City undertakes a very expensive program of soil stabilization and site drainage. Staff has concerns whether or not this area is suitable for building would recommend the applicant submit a soils report to verify buildings can be located on this western portion of the site. While the design of this project appears to reflect many of the Hwy.5 development standards, this is the first development to proceed after the drafting of the Hwy. 5 document. Careful measurement of this project against these standards needs to be made. Staff has asked for additional information on specific issues such as tree inventory, perspectives from Hwy. 5 towards the development, impervious surface, etc. The applicant is prepared to provide more details as the project evolves. Staff believes the concept is consistent with city plans and ordinances and good planning practices but there are a number of issues and concerns that must be resolved before plans are Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 3 submitted for preliminary reviews. The proposed concept plan is serving its purpose in helping to define these issues. We are recommending that it be approved. Site Characteristics The site is currently agricultural, and has corn growing on the upland areas. An abandoned farm home and out buildings are located in the far northeast corner of the site. Shelter belt plantings of large spruce and pines are found around the farm home and along the highway with box elders, aspen and eastern cottonwood, black willow and American elm grow within delineated wetlands and on some uncultivated. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 89.59 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development. 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 development 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. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. The major site characteristic of this property is the large wetland complex. The portion of the site that is being developed adjacent to Hwy. 5 is relatively flat. The property along the western edge has trees including elm, box elder and some aspen. The wooded area, with the exception of the frontage road crossing, will largely be left intact. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 4 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. Finding. Because of the wetland on the site and the collector street that bisects the property it is split into 4 development parcels. Block 1 is 12.93 acres, Block 2 is 8.47 acres, Block 3 is 5.46 acres and Block 4 is 2.25 acres. Because it is against city ordinance to have a subdivision lot to have direct access onto a collector, it would be difficult if not impossible to develop this property as a traditional single family subdivision. 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. The property to the west of the subject site is being developed as a business/industrial park. The site to the east is proposed as an Elementary School. Timberwood is just to the southeast of any proposed townhouses. While this is not the optimal location for single family housing, townhomes with their ability to be clustered and develop internal amenities are an appropriate transitional use. 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The Comprehensive plan guides the area to the north of the frontage road for medium density 4 - 8 units an acre. The location of the collector streets has been modified since the adoption of the 2000 Land Use plan. This road has been shifted to the south to accommodate the proposed elementary school. It appears that the maximum buildable area for the site is around 29 acres. Staff would support the buildable portion of the site to be designated medium density. Any proposed single family development south of the collector street would be very small with an 8.5 acre area and a 5.5 acre area. 5. 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. Finding. The Park and Recreation Commission is proposing a community park, approximately 100 acres in this area including the Trotters Ridge and Gateway property. A park (15 acres) will be located on this site or the Gateway property to the west or a portion of both. 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The price of the "for sale" units has not yet been determined. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 5 7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. The site is graded generally to take advantage of the natural ground elevations. The grades have been designed around the location of the proposed frontage road. Berms were developed along the collector road and Hwy. 5. 8. 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. Finding. The site will have access from Hwy. 5 and from Galpin Boulevard. A collector Street will tie this site with the property to the west and east of the site. This collector street will include a trail. Access to this site will not be through any existing single family neighborhoods. Finding. The applicants have stated that the trips generated from Low-Rise Residential Townhouse/ Condominiums units equals approximately 6 trips per units. The data was based on criteria obtained from the institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual. Based on the 23 un -s, the total trips generated would equal 1,392. 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 flexibility in standards allow 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 Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees and wetlands) Improved architectural standards Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts Improved pretreatment of storm water GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The project has two sets of development standards to comply with, one is the PUD district and the other is the Highway 5 Corridor Development and Design Standards. There are a total of 21 buildings being proposed, including four - 8, two - 10, and fifteen - 12 unit buildings. The final project architecture is still being developed. The applicants have shown a similar product that they have built in Eden Prairie. All units are two story with living/dining/kitchen on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor. Some units have an additional loft area Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 6 on the second floor. All units have direct access to their own individual garage as well as an individual front entrance to the outside. The units also include a semi-private outdoor patio space adjacent to the living area. The floor plans range in size from approximately 1,170 square feet to 1,400 square feet. The units along Hwy. 5 have the garage door facing the highway. A landscape berm is proposed along the highway to act as a buffer, but staff would like to see any perspective to determine how much of he building will be seen from the highway. Staff would expect these dwelling units to have a similar design to the ones in Eden Prairie. The homes with brick on the bottom and maintenance free siding of the rest of the exterior. The roof line is pitched and the exterior walls _ have detailing that break up the long facade. The PUD district allows a maximum of 30 percent impervious surface. No information is given about the required amount of impervious surface at this time. Parking, as shown on the plan, meets the city requirements. Two parking stalls per unit are required, one of which must be enclosed, plus an additional 1/4 space per unit. A total of 522 spaces are provided. The applicants have stated that they have provided 740 of which 316 are driveways. The development and design standards for the Highway 5 Corridor have been incorporated into the applicants development proposal. Building height is limited to 3 stories or 40 feet. This proposal is for two story buildings. If the materials used is similar to those used on the Eden Prairie project, they would be acceptable with the Hwy. 5 standards. — The setback for buildings along Hwy. 5 are 70 feet minimum and 150 feet maximum. For the interior collector, the setbacks are 50 feet minimum and 100 feet maximum. Parking should not be in these setback areas. This proposal meets these standards. There will be no roof top equipment. Signage is proposed for the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and the proposed public frontage road. Detail specifications are not available at this time but the signage must be compatible with the project design and low profile. Lighting is proposed for the exterior of the building as well as the standard street lighting. Exterior lighting will be on garages and entrances. Exterior lighting will be controlled with photocells. Lighting shall be consistent with city standards of 1/2 foot candle at the property line. A landscaping plan has been provided. The applicants have stated that the plan is intended to reflect the addition of common and hardy plant material with the project area. The plants in this category are varieties of maple, ash, linden, Oak, pines and spruce. The proposed quantities and complete tree survey will be provided with preliminary review. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 7 WETLANDS Almost fifty percent of this site is characterized as agricultural/urban wetland according to the City of Chanhassen's wetland inventory and a site specific wetland delineation. The wetlands on site can be broken into three separate basins that are described as follows: Wetland A Wetland A is approximately 43.8 acres and it separates the eastern portion of upland from the western portion of upland on site. The wetland is characterized as a seasonally flooded palustrine wetland with emergent, forested, and scrub shrub classifications (Cowardin PEMC, PFO1C, PSS IC; Circular 39 - Type 3 shallow marsh). This wetland is also a DNR protected wetland, 10-210W. An ordinary high water mark has not been established for this basin. Approximately 0.60 acre of wetland will be filled as a result of the proposed development for the construction of a frontage road that will connect the eastern and western portions of the site. In addition, 0.26 acres of fill is proposed for the southern portion of the eastern part of the site. It appears that this fill is necessary to efficiently use the upland that is available. Wetland B Wetland B is a 0.3 acre basin located near the west property boundary. The basin is characterized as palustrine emergent saturated wetland (Cowardin - PEMB; Circular 39 - Type 2 wet meadow). This basin will be filled as a result of the proposed development. Wetland C Wetland C is a 0.3 acre basin located in the northeast portion of the site. The basin is characterized as palustrine emergent saturated/seasonally flooded wetland (Cowardin -PEMB/Cd; Circular 39 - Type 2/3 wet meadow/shallow marsh). This basin will be filled as a result of the proposed development. Additional Wetland The western portion of upland was investigated by the Park Department for construction of ball fields and tennis courts. The area was found to be saturated with hydrophytic vegetation. The majority of the soils in this section are classified as peat in the Carver County Soil Atlas. This section seems to be characterized as wetland, and therefore, it is recommended that the wetland delineation be re-evaluated before a final mitigation plan is developed. The following table summarizes the delineated wetland areas that will be altered as a result of the proposed development: Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 8 Wetland Wetland Wetland Size Wetland Area Identification Type (acres) to be Altered (acres) A Ag/Urban 43.8 0.86 B Ag/Urban 0.3 0.3 C Ag/Urban 0.3 0.3 TOTAL 44.4 1.46 It appears that there are additional wetland acres that would be filled as a result of the proposed development. If the area in question is wetland, the wetland alteration area could well exceed three acres. This would require an individual permit from the Army Corps of Engineers as well as additional mitigation area that is severely limited. Mitigation A minimum of 1.46 acres of wetland would need to be replaced as a result of the proposed development. Mitigation areas are proposed around the edges of Wetland A. All of the mitigation will occur around the western upland portion of the site, which is planned to be fully developed. It is recommended that the mitigation be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development. The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment of different vegetative zones. Wetland A will eventually be receiving treated water from the proposed development and from portions of State Highway 5. One stormwater pond has been designed to collect all of the runoff from the proposed development. The stormwater pond must meet National Urban Runoff Pollution (NURP) control standards. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by the City with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet. Recommendations The western portion of the site does not appear to be developable land due to the peat and muck. If this area is developed, wetland mitigation may be necessary above the 1.46 acres calculated. Mitigation areas for the site are limited since nearly half of the site is currently wetland. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 9 The conceptual stormwater pond on the eastern portion of the site does not appear to be large enough to collect all of the stormwater runoff and treat it to NURP standards before it is discharged into the wetland. Wetland A is capable of maintaining a high functional value in an urban setting and should be maintained as open space for wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and recreational enjoyment. This wetland also provides water quality improvement and flood retention for the Bluff Creek Watershed District. STREETS The site is bordered by Trunk Highway 5 to the north and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) to the east. The concept proposes extension of an east/west frontage road which coincides with the City's land use guide for a frontage road south of Trunk Highway 5. The applicant has proposed an 80-foot wide right-of-way with a 36-foot wide face-to-face street section which is also in accordance with the City's guidelines. This road segment will be a continuation of a frontage road system which will originate from Audubon Road and terminate at Trunk Highway 41. This roadway corridor is designated as a State-Aid route and should be built in accordance with State Aid standards. The proposed frontage road will serve as a collector street for the townhouse development as well as a future industrial park (OPUS) which lies to the west. Staff has visited the site and found that the wetland areas are substantially larger than what is shown on the plan. The wetlands will pose difficulty from both a road construction standpoint and a permitting standpoint from the regulatory agencies. As stipulated in the narrative, the applicant is requesting that the City be the lead agency in acquiring the necessary permits. Staff is comfortable with working this scenario out with the applicant since the frontage road is a segment of the overall frontage road to be constructed south of Trunk Highway 5. As indicated in the September 24, 1993 staff report from Carver County Public Works Department, an additional trail easement (20-feet wide) should be considered outside the right-of- way since turn lanes and medians will utilize a majority of the Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. In addition, to provide adequate space for berming adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. UTILITIES According to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive guide, this parcel lies within the Upper Bluff Creek District. The City currently has authorized Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sewer and Water Improvement which consists of extending sanitary sewer and water trunk service from the Hans Hagen development (Stone Creek) north to the cemetery which lies north of Bluff Creek and south of Timberwood Drive. According to the feasibility study for Upper Bluff Creek, Phase II, the proposed lift station will be constructed this winter to service future development to the northwest which includes this Centex development. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 10 Due to the City's current bonding capabilities, the applicant should formally petition the City for the extension of sewer and water trunk service to service this development now in order to get this next phase into the planning process for next year. Staff has reviewed the preliminary utility layout plan from a conceptual standpoint and feel that the plans are fairly well laid out. Placement of fire hydrants should be reviewed and approved by the City's fire marshal. All utility improvements should be construction in accordance with the City's latest Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. In conjunction with the City's trunk sewer and water improvement project (Upper Bluff Creek, Phase III), this parcel will sustain sewer and water assessments. In the past the City typically has credited a portion of the trunk assessments back to the applicant for reimbursement of the installation of the applicable trunk sewer and water improvements. The City considers sanitary sewer and water lines in excess of 8-inch in diameter to be trunk facilities and the applicant would be credited the cost difference between normal 8-inch diameter mainline utility. All sewer and water improvements proposed outside the City's right-of-way or drainage/utility easements would be constructed as private utility improvements. Whereas the City would not be responsible for maintenance and ownership. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The entire site is proposed to be mass graded to achieve the street and drainage systems as well as building pads. The majority of the site appears to drain in a northeast to southwest fashion towards the wetlands and the Bluff Creek tributary. Again, based on staffs' visit to the site, it appears the wetlands are much larger than is shown and therefore raises the question whether or not Lots 17, 18 and 20 are even buildable. The applicant is proposing to "bench" the townhomes to maintain the rolling or diversified grades as the site appears today. Staff is unclear whether or not the slopes south of Trunk Highway 5 will be compatible with future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5. It is strongly recommended that the applicant contact and work with MnDOT to make the grades compatible with the future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 west of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant has employed the use of retaining walls along the easterly portion of the site to match the existing properties adjacent Galpin Boulevard. Due to the height of the walls, the Building Department will require engineered drawings to verify the structural integrity. The grading plan proposes a storm water/sediment pond located north of the frontage road which will collect storm runoff from the entire development. Storm water will be treated in the sediment pond and then be discharged into the wetlands. The storm water pond should meet NURP standards. Staff's initial review suspects the pond may be undersized for the contributing acreage. All storm sewer systems should be designed and constructed for a 10-year storm event and ponding areas should be designed in accordance to the City's water quality standards. — Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 11 MISCELLANEOUS Since the development will include public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms in the development contract. PARKS AND RECREATION In preparation for next Tuesday's report, Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; and I walked the majority of the site on Thursday, September 23, 1993. The area of most concern being the land which is being considered as one of the park location options. Our suspicions that marginal soil conditions for construction would be found were confirmed. Examination of the Carver County Soil Survey further confirmed our findings, defining nearly the entire area being proposed for park as containing deep peat and muck soils. A portion of this site contains Hayden loam, a soil type which poses severe limitations for the development of play areas for intensive use. The peat and muck soils pose very severe limitations to any type of development (see excerpts from the Soils Survey, Table No.6, Degree and Kind of Limitations for Specified Recreational Uses). With this information known, the only action which can occur at this time in regard to this proposal would be discussionary. It is fair to say that many parks have been developed in similar conditions; however, limitations are inevitable and drainage problems are constant. Staff recommends tabling this item until further investigation of the soils in the area is completed, and other park alternatives are explored. Park and Recreation Director's Update (9/30/93): I am currently 90% certain that the Park and Recreation Commission will abandon the Centex site as a potential location for an active park site. The property does contain a knoll in its southwest corner which will be preserved as park, in addition to the large wetland area present on the site. Forthcoming soil analysis will allow the commission to reach final consensus in this regard. I anticipate the Park and Recreation Commission will review this application again on October 26, 1993. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the conceptual PUD with the following conditions: 1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to preliminary plat submittal. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 12 2. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as a tree inventory, perspectives from Hwy. 5 towards the development, impervious surface ratio. 3. The area to be mitigated should be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development. The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment of different vegetative zones. The stormwater pond must meet NURP standards. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by the city with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet. 4. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping. 5. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer. 6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State-Aid standards. 7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10-year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's water quality standards (NURP). 8. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in the development contract. 9. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993. 10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27, 1993. 11. Compliance with the PUD and Hwy. 5 Design Standards and respond to other issued raised in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Summary from Centex dated September 7, 1993 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 27, 1993 3. Fire Marshal's memo dated September 23, 1993 4. Building Official memo dated September 27, 1993 5. Park and Recreation Director memo dated September 24, 1993 Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 13 6. STS Soils report dated September 28, 1993 7. Hearing Notice dated September 23, 1993 L 09;28..93 15:45 FAX 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA 001 _ • Post-It"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 a of pogo. ► 4 1Iy. ( Fawn r, Sha Co. n' Co. �! Phone 5-9— 1cO0 September 28, 1993 Fax r 7-, ]_5 3 ! Fax Mr. Todd Hoffman City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen. MN 55317 STS Project 95897 Re: Site Reconnaissance of Centex Carriage Homes Property in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hoffman: This letter confirms the discussion we had during our walk-through of the Centex Carriage Homes (Centex) property located south of T.H. 5 and west of Galpin Boulevard. The services that you requested were limited to the following: 1. Observe the general surface features during a walk-through of the parcel with City personnel. 2. Drill shallow hand auger borings to explore the local subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at selected locations on the parcel. 3. Provide in a written report judgments or recommendations regarding the suitability of the encountered soils for structural support of park improvements. Background Information The City is interested in developing a park on this side of Chanhassen and is reviewing various sites. Figure One (attached) is a copy of the conceptual development sketch STS received from the City. It indicates the locations of proposed park improvements for the Centex property, such as baseball fields, tennis courts, a multi-use building and access roads/parking areas. Site Surface Features As observed with you, the portion of the site where park improvements are proposed is predominantly a low, flat area with a four (4) to six (6) foot rise along the southwest side. The rise is wooded, while the low area is covered with grass and high weeds. A shallow, man-made ditch extends along the east boundary of the parcel. a'T1 Consultants Ltd. eonewtnc Engineers 3-460 Annapolis Lane Suite 120 ldinneap0ii6, Minn.e0ta 55447 e12359.1909/Fax 612.5-49.4507 09.'28:93 15:-35 FAX 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA Z002 . City of Chanhassen STS Project 95897 September 28, 1993 Page 2 ` *--�: 1 !. Soil and Water Conditions Three hand auger probes (HAP) were performed at the general locations noted on Figure One. Hand auger probe HAP-1 encountered 3-1/2 feet of very soft, black to brown peat with groundwater at 1 foot. Hand auger probe HAP-2 encountered 3-1/2 feet of firm to soft, black organic clay with groundwater at 2 feet. Hand auger probe HAP-3 was taken on the rise. Six inches of topsoil above 1-1/2 feet of mottled gray with brown clay were sampled in HAP-3. The mottled soil color is an indication of a high groundwater table, but no water was observed directly in HAP-3. Review of the soils mapped for the site in the Carver County Soil Survey you had on hand confirmed the soil conditions we encountered. Opinions and Recommendations We have developed the following_ opinions and recommendations based upon our site observations and the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the hand auger probes. Baseball Fields: As planned, the baseball fields would be located in a swamp that has deep organic soils. The peat and organic clay soils are too weak to support a playing field and drainage would be a problem. Soil stabilization and drainage improvements would be very expensive as compared to a site without organic soils. Tennis and Basketball Courts: The tennis courts and basketball courts (and multi-use building) are even more dependent on stable soils and good drainage than the baseball fields. Pavements for these courts would be very expensive to construct properly. Automobile Drives/Parking: Pavements and pavement embankments would require expensive "soft-ground" geotechnical engineering techniques for proper construction. Otherwise, continuous maintenance of aggregate-surfaced pavements would be necessary. . . Summary: In our opinion the site is unsuitable for the planned park improvements, unless the City undertakes a very expensive program of soil stabilization and site drainage. In addition, any soil stabilization or drainage may require wetland permitting and mitigation, since most of this site may be a wetland. Wetland mitigation was. however, not part of this site reconnaissance. — Closure The opinions and recommendations contained in this report were developed in accordance with common geotechnical engineering practice for this locale and time. Other than this, no warranty of our work is implied or intended. 09;28 93 15:46 FAX. 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA X 003 - • City of Chanhassen STS Project 95897 September 28. 1993 Eit _ Page 3 If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further assistance in your park development work. please contact us at 559-1900. Very truly yours, STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. Ronald A. Shaffer, P. " `r,` — Senior Consultant James H. Ovenoom. P.E. Principal Engineer RAS/dn Enc. PIM WPM . ........... .....7.11.0 4 . . 0, ! i. le 1,4\*..1.11! '1•)/ L.L. \ P.\\7--(1" -----..\-... / . 1, • -\ \l,.., _.• . ._..._. _____ , t„, co C•1 dt e 1 . \\:s‘. .,,,t.1,-,•,. ..7.\\,_,..._ .-....."-.-- 14 _-- ------) I ill i /-- ". ..61 OC t e (, .,'‘ 1 I --- Ili .., .....' .. 1 CC ^t, ,N..7�.I Q — I ( I Til _ ,t,r, Y • Y If� `�4 4Y I .t a. t , ' fa,lt .."20',.. .......11tr.,V4 51 Br' \\i‘ 1.;,ree '-' ci �► • y � ` 1� rr F �° 1 } m s M� ✓',.4 1 Y i4 N E t t..,. 1. j ?' "j=.'ir..psi: �' E-Lic,..*ITOti tea �...11.`i,:r; ..fl,Tf rY E J I 4 � °" �! sfi 1 ' �� 7 ya .s� 4F +1tf 6r til+ ' ti i s X,• g% x . „� — Hie -ft /�. , x o!! ,:s;:c.. a,eillte;%°-1.0 go . 8 � ; ;�'—moi.` '�. - 7 •�; a•. /Jlw�'yi . �•�,...t:'--E.i___ I . ! • --v \ ,„.:`,...:"--44”4:44A: " ,..%._4. - et \ \ i '-til'•?%X„-........,.s.....A, t '=,1 \..., •,. 11H lnl\ t r1`�� �r��.- / ......_ ,..._ re g i_ 6 lin I I I 4;:' --' .‘' . lel I • ( .(L)\ gill rhi �:; II l , 1 c i I I• I . c, Q`• L).tis( (,)L.i., - '�'' ' S Cl) l = i f ' ll� 1 ` ' urs 1,,. i 1 s:::! I 'L . ._ 11 � 1 , J _1 , i, ,.„. ,-) r _�`e! i , 1, t., irl!ip ! 'Plib �•. \ % F i' 1 / - ) ) 1 .v. ._-_— _ ..__.\ 4 , 1r r.....„..-.... 1 / ,// , _____--_2__ _.. 96997 — # • i I / � �j , } V r�) ./.// rj ` I STS PAPr1EGT FILE ' III! i I r�I `l rr' /• I I �' SCALE rf. . ( i �` I f J r i// NTS SNEt1 MO. 1OF1 Ott IMPS tom MUM ' 7-011Z Y.LOS1kZ IK SIS LOSE 6SS ZT9 SF3 9t':ST C6 6i;.60 CITYOF :0:411111 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Sr. Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: September 28, 1993 SUBJ: Conceptual Planned Unit Development Located in the Southwest Corner of Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) - Centex Homes LUR File No. 93-21 Upon review of the conceptual planned unit development plans dated September 7, 1993, prepared by Westwood Engineering, I offer the following comments: ACCESS The site is bordered by Trunk Highway 5 to the north and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) to the east. The concept proposes extension of an east/west frontage road which coincides with the City's land use guide for a frontage road south of Trunk Highway 5. The applicant has proposed an 80-foot wide right-of-way with a 36-foot wide face-to-face street section which is also in accordance with the City's guidelines. This road segment will be a continuation of a frontage road system which will originate from Audubon Road and terminate at Trunk Highway 41. This roadway corridor is designated as a State-Aid route and should be built in accordance with State Aid standards. The proposed frontage road will serve as a collector street for the townhouse development as well as a future industrial park (OPUS) which lies to the west. Staff has visited the site and found that the wetland areas are substantially larger than what is shown on the plan. The wetlands will pose difficulty from both a road construction standpoint and a permitting standpoint from the regulatory agencies. As stipulated in the narrative, the applicant is requesting that the City be the lead agency in acquiring the necessary permits. Staff is comfortable with working this scenario out with the applicant since the frontage road is a segment of the overall frontage road to be constructed south of Trunk Highway 5. As indicated in the September 24, 1993 staff report from Carver County Public Works Department, an additional trail easement (20-feet wide) should be considered outside the right-of- Kate Aanenson September 28, 1993 Page 2 way since turn lanes and medians will utilize a majority of the Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. In addition, to provide adequate space for berming adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. UTILITIES According to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive guide, this parcel lies within the Upper Bluff Creek District. The City currently has authorized Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sewer and Water Improvement which consists of extending sanitary sewer and water trunk service from the Hans Hagen development (Stone Creek) north to the cemetery which lies north of Bluff Creek and south of Timberwood Drive. According to the feasibility study for Upper Bluff Creek, Phase II, the proposed lift station will be constructed this winter to service future development to the northwest which includes this Centex development. Due to the City's current bonding capabilities, the applicant should formally petition the City for the extension of sewer and water trunk service to service this development now in order to get this next phase into the planning process for next year. Staff has reviewed the preliminary utility layout plan from a conceptual standpoint and feel that the plans are fairly well layed out. Placement of fire hydrants should be reviewed and approved by the City's fire marshal. All utility improvements should be construction in accordance with the City's latest Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. In conjunction with the City's trunk sewer and water improvement project (Upper Bluff Creek, Phase III), this parcel will sustain sewer and water assessments. In the past the City typically has credited a portion of the trunk assessments back to the applicant for reimbursement of the installation of the applicable trunk sewer and water improvements. The City considers sanitary sewer and water lines in excess of 8-inch in diameter to be trunk facilities and the applicant would be credited the cost difference between normal 8-inch diameter mainline utility. All sewer and water improvements proposed outside the City's right-of-way or drainage/utility easements would be constructed as private utility improvements. Whereas the City would not be responsible for maintenance and ownership. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The entire site is proposed to be mass graded to achieve the street and drainage systems as well as building pads. The majority of the site appears to drain in a northeast to southwest fashion towards the wetlands and the Bluff Creek tributary. Again, based on staffs' visit to the site, it appears the wetlands are much larger than is shown and therefore raises the question whether or not Lots 17, 18 and 20 are even buildable. The applicant is proposing to "bench" the townhomes to maintain the rolling or diversified grades as the site appears today. Staff is unclear whether or not the slopes south of Trunk Highway 5 will be compatible with future upgrade of Trunk Kate Aanenson September 28, 1993 Page 3 Highway 5. It is strongly recommended that the applicant contact and work with MnDOT to make the grades compatible with the future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 west of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant has employed the use of retaining walls along the easterly portion of the site to match the existing properties adjacent Galpin Boulevard. Due to the height of the walls, the Building Department will require engineered drawings to verify the structural integrity. The grading plan proposes a storm water/sediment pond located north of the frontage road which will collect storm runoff from the entire development. Storm water will be treated in the sediment pond and then be discharged into the wetlands. The storm water pond should meet NURP standards. Staffs' initial review suspects the pond may be undersized for the contributing - acreage. All storm sewer systems should be designed and constructed for a 10-year storm event and ponding areas should be designed in accordance to the City's water quality standards. MISCELLANEOUS • Since the development will include public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms in the development contract. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to preliminary plat submittal. 2. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping. 3. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer. 4. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State-Aid standards. 5. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10-year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's water quality standards (NURP). Kate Aanenson September 28, 1993 Page 4 6. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in the development contract. jms c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITYOF CHANHASSEN - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: September 23, 1993 SUBJ: 232 Unit Residential Development Hwy 5 & Galpin, Centex Real Estate — Planning Case # 93-5 PUD I have reviewed the concept plan for the Galpin Boulevard Carriage Home and have made the following requirements: 1. In general, fire hydrant locations are good. However, because of the high density of residential units with wood frame construction, additional fire — hydrants will be required. These will be indicated on the final submitted utility plan. 2. Fire apparatus access roads: The width of fire apparatus access roads shall not be less than 20 feet. All 20 foot access roads/driveways must be posted with "No Parking Fire Lane" signs per Chanhassen Policy # 06-1991. 3. Please advise me if the buildings will be fire sprinidered and to what NFPA requirements. — 4. An approved turnaround is required on the south/east corner of building #14, the north/east corner of building #1, and the south/east corner of building #19. — Pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(h). 5. Building numbers, street numbers, both public and private, must meet the requirements of the Chanhassen Fire Department. Pursuant to Chanhassen Policy # 29-1992. — f CITY QF tifirCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 41. -- MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official -dc}. DATE: September 27, 1993 — SUBJ: 93-5 PUD, Galpin Blvd. Carriage Homes (Centex) — Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some comments and proposed additions to the conditions of approval . Analysis : The applicant should be made aware that the City has adopted UBC Appendix Chapter 38 as revised by the State. The proposed — buildings will be classified as R-1 occupancies . Appendix Chapter 38 requires fire sprinklering of R-1 occupancies with 8500 or more gross square feet of floor area. The Project Summary indicates the _ smallest unit is 1170 square feet and the smallest building comprises 8 units . Based on these figures, the smallest building will be 9360 square feet and will require fire sprinklering. — In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department . Proposed street names are not included with the submitted — documents . Recommendations : — Staff recommends the following condition be added to the conditions of approval : — 1 . Submit street names, public and private, to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval . CITY 4 F CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: September 24, 1993 SUBJ: Carriage Homes, Centex Real Estate Corporation Attached please find a copy of the Planning Department's request for comments in regard to the above named application. Also attached is a narrative document supplied by the applicant and a preliminary plat. In preparation for next Tuesday's report, Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; and I walked the majority of the site on Thursday, September 23, 1993. The area of most concern being the land which is being considered as one of the park location options. Our suspicions that marginal soil conditions for construction would be found were confirmed. Examination of the Carver County Soil Survey further confirmed our findings, defining nearly the entire area being proposed for park as containing deep peat and muck soils. A portion of this site contains Hayden loam, a soil type which poses severe limitations for the development of play areas for intensive use. The peat and muck soils pose very severe limitations to any type of development (see excerpts from the Soils Survey, Table No.6, Degree and Kind of Limitations for Specified Recreational Uses). With this information known, the only action which can occur at this time in regard to this proposal would be discussionary. It is fair to say that many parks have been developed in similar conditions; however, limitations are inevitable and drainage problems are constant. Staff recommends tabling this item until further investigation of the soils in the area is completed, and other park alternatives are explored. [Note: City staff will be conducting a second site visit with a soils specialist this afternoon. A report in this regard will be presented to the commission next Tuesday evening.] Park and Recreation Director's Update (9/30/93): I am currently 90% certain that the Park and Recreation Commission will abandon the Centex site as a potential location for an active park site. The property does contain a knoll in its southwest corner which will be preserved as park, in addition to the large wetland area present on the site. Forthcoming soil analysis will allow the commission to reach final consensus in this regard. I anticipate the Park and Recreation Commission will review this application again on October 26, 1993. i r AhCART �( SYTA PARK t _ I / _ I -af� ���� : ...w. AL ; I /. 6200 ,&1111111er �_ y ��.�.�� ._ _ ' Pr:1i:iii 6300—.-.-2.-- W v - ag� ►_��� ,t+�0.. .� -���� r--- --=--1�1/�,er. V='' ISE.�__ Avg.ii� 1 �fill 1- • � . • 1liuiI ""=I ; *,.-477-1a...0 . . ,[rEe6� 4500 MoNal1011 166600 it_ o t ` ' it •r!t 14 ru9m II" vi�n,�iTe. ' 1 r m� LAKE shoo � _ LAKE K E -�,. / T � l477. . oa AK 6t• - A/ , N N £ WA SHTA 1'-' l ssoo r \' `- I . Ft.7 NW RlEii/ONAL, , .-/ ..7000 ., PARK- �� -i2w, w t a ii \ l/Ny wawSo TOO ~., t IP CAOrt liriT srio joy : ..a f i di t i pf at r A . 7zoo 0 C � Wo" ■ '''' I o jc�...1 d ` ai. 7300 ~ - / _ ./` I pip (fes) .. iT400 -,,..__ /`ti\ ��,per \� Q CD V _ CII 7500 1!�."111 = I �I 7600 lv7 T7.00L. I MD I I di T ?600 - - 7• 7900 , alair,..............„---- _S----- '919/-4.114111116.' / T 6100 , ivw 0‘rigiows-' T 6200 G ._� s..t•,- -1O rPONZ �Air o I \• / rop,_ ssoo _ - -- Z a • 6300 N' , „...,, Tz. f _ CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS CITY OF CHANHASSEN HID ASSETS OF OSHKOSH, INC. 3610 HWY. 101 SO. C/O TREASURER _ 4275 NOREX DR. WAYZATA, MN 55391 690 COULTER DR. CHASKA, MN 55318 P.O. BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - MARK & J. TAINTOR CURTIS E. & J. BEUNING ANDREW & S. RICHARDSON 2381 TIMBERWOOD DR. 8120 PINEWOOD CIR. - CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MITCHEL & MARY KRAUSE JAMES L. & LINDA J. HOWARD L. & L. JOHNSON 2380 TIMBERWOOD DR. LEIRDAHL 8250 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 2350 TIMBERWOOD DR. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TROLTERS RIDGE LMT. HI-WAY 5 PARTNERSHIP THOMAS & M. SCHwrz 7951 POWERS BLVD. C/O DENNIS DIRLAM 8190 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 15241 CREEKSIDE CT. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _ EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 DALE & M. WANNINGER LAWRENCE & F. RASER PATRICK & K. MINGER - 8170 GALPIN BLVD. 8210 GALPIN BLVD. 8221 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JP'S LINKS INC. ROGER & G. SCHMIDT TIMOTHY & V. DEMPSEY 7750 GALPIN BLVD. 8301 GALPIN BLVD. 8241 GALPIN BLVD. - EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LARRY & E. VANDEVEIER MILLS PROPERTIES INC. JAY C. DOLEJSI 4890 CO. RD. 10 E. 512 LAUREL ST. 6961 CHAPARRAL LN. _ CHASKA, MN 55318 P.O. BOX 505 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRAINERD, MN 56401 MID AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION 2600 ARBORETUM BLVD. --- EXCELSIOR,M N 55331 E. Jerome & Linda Carlson Dennis & Beverly Jacobson Paul & Roxanne Youngquist 3950 Galpin Lake Road 6841 Hazeltine Blvd. 7105 Hazeltine Blvd. -Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 -buane & M. Johnson Jay C. Dolejsi Robert & Penelope Arneson 3ox 102 6961 Chaparral Lane 6921 Galpin Blvd. :haska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 veal & Deborah Wunderlich Michael & C. Klingelhutz Brett A. Davidson 7011 Galpin Blvd. 8601 Great Plains Blvd. 7291 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 )avid & Anga Stockdale Prince R. Nelson Martin & Beth Kuder -1210 Galpin Blvd. c/o BJRS 6831 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 10345 Olympic Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Earl Gilbert HI Valentine & C. Wirtz Mr. Terry Forbord 5901 Galpin Blvd. 19380 Highway 7 Lundgren Brothers Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 C , TY O F PC DATE: 10/20/93 CHANKASSEN CC DATE: 11/8/93 \�1 Y CASE #: 93-4 PUD By: Al-Jaff/Krauss/Hempel/ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development Approval for low, medium, and high density (216) dwelling units, and neighborhood commercial uses. - z Q LOCATION: East of Highway 101, and north and south of West 86th Street. APPLICANT: Tandem Properties u -I 7808 Creek Ridge Circle, Suite 310 Bloomington, MN 55439 Q PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: Approximately 62.05 acres(gross) 39.74 acres (net) DENSITY: Single-Family 2.17 u/a Multi-Family 8.105 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N RSF, Residential Single Family/Horse Farm S Hwy 212 ROW/RSF, Residential Single Family E - RSF, Residential Single Family/Rice Lake Manor Subdivision W- Hwy. 101/RSF, Residential Single Family 11:12 WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water will have to be extended to the site. (f) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site can be characterized by its rolling hills. It is currently being farmed. It contains three wetland areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use (Commercial-High Density Residential), Medium Density Residential,_and Low Density Residential Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 2 On August 18, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application with numerous changes as outlined in staff's report and as reflected in the Planning Commission's minutes dated August 18, 1993. The applicant significantly revised the plans to respond to these issues as well as those raised by area residents. Staff and the applicant felt that the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to review these changes before we forward the plans to the City Council. We commend the applicant for his willingness to facilitate this opportunity. The following staff report has been amended as necessary to account for the revisions. For a detailed list of the issues and responses, refer to page 6. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY This is a Planned Unit Development concept request to create a mixed use (commercial and mixed density residential) development. Tandem Properties will be the developer of Mission Hills. The site is located east of existing Highway 101, and north of proposed Highway 212. West 86th Street, which is a gravel road, bisects the site in the middle. A horse farm is located to the north of the site. To the east of Mission Hills is Rice Lake Manor, which is a large lot subdivision zoned Residential Single Family, containing 8 parcels, served with city sewer and equipped with on-site water wells. The site is located within the MUSA line. The applicant is proposing to rezone the Mission Hills site from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD, Planned Unit Residential and to subdivide the site into 4 blocks and 1 outlot. The entire Mission Hills property is approximately 62.05 acres which includes a 9.33 acre outlot that will be reserved for neighborhood oriented commercial uses, 27.79 acres for multi-family housing, and 9.06 acres for single family housing. Block 1 is proposed to have 2 four-plex, 4 six-plexes, 8 eight-plexes, and 4 twelve-plexes. All proposed units within Block 1 are two story. Blocks 2 and 3 are proposed to contain 16 single family lots and will act as a buffer between the medium/high density units and Rice Lake Manor subdivision. Block 4 is proposed to contain 10 four-plexes and 2 eight-plexes. All proposed units within block 4 are single story. The total proposed units on the site have increased from 190 units as was shown on the plans reviewed on August 18, 1993, to 216 units. Development concepts for the commercial uses on the outlot have not been included with this submittal. This is an area of concern to staff who views the site as supporting only future neighborhood commercial uses, believing that more intensive uses are inappropriate. We have met with the owner of the land (Mr. Klingelhutz) and voiced our concern. He appeared to respect staff's opinion and agreed to neighborhood commercial type of uses although he believes commercial development is a long way off and is unable to provide definitive plans at this time. The commercial site is located in the northeast quadrant of the future Hwy. 101/Hwy. 212 interchange. The proposal is for a PUD so that the city can establish a range of allowable uses and design parameters. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 3 The single family lots within the PUD meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Zoning ordinance. The net density is 2.17 units/acre after removing the roads. The average lot size is 20,010 square feet which has been increased from the previous submittal that reflected an average of 16,400 square feet. This was achieved by eliminating 2 single family lots. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area guided for 4 to 8 units per acre in the southeast quarter of the site (east of the wetland and south of 86th Street). The plans reflect a net density of 9.21 units per acre, which exceeds the guided land use net density by 1.21 units per acre. The area west of the wetland and south and north of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units per acre. The proposed multi-family will generate a total of 44.2% of hard surface coverage in Block 1, and 43.2% hard surface coverage in Block 4. The PUD ordinance allows a maximum of 30% hard surface coverage. Plans must be revised in accordance with city ordinances. This information was not available in the first concept. The site is impacted by the adjacent right-of-way of Hwy. 101 and future Hwy. 212. Those two highways are proposed to intersect southwest of the site. Highway 101 is located to the west of the site. This highway will provide a major link between proposed Hwy 212 and Hwy 5. Increased trips on Hwy. 101 will be inevitable once Hwy. 212 is completed. MnDOT will be responsible for the development of Highway 212. Existing Highway 101, however, was classified by MnDOT as a temporary highway in the 1930s. Therefore, State funds cannot be appropriated for any improvements with the exception of absolute minimum safety improvements. Recognizing that the city needed to be proactive if appropriate planning was to be done for Hwy. 101, the city commissioned a study in 1988. Prepared by Fred Hoisington, this study established proposed new development and design parameters. It also suggested land uses for the area. These recommendations, which called for a new alignment east of old Hwy. 101 with a 4 lane plus trail design were incorporated into the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. Portions of the road near Hwy. 5 have already been constructed in accordance with the plan. Due to MnDOT's design refinements on the Hwy. 212 Plan and approval of the ISTEA legislation, the City Council/HRA determined that the study should be updated. Urban design improvements promoted under the ISTEA regulations could diminish impacts and improve the design. Consequently, Fred Hoisington is currently working with staff to update his original study. This work has yet to be completed and the ultimate alignment will have a bearing on the design of the western edge of the PUD. The project conforms with plans for the realignment of the two highways as we currently understand them. Grading plans of the site indicate that proposed highway elevations have been taken into consideration during the plan preparation stage. The area impacted the most by the highways will be the outlot containing the commercial uses. This is the location where the highways are proposed to intersect, although final plans for this intersection have not been adopted yet. Based upon the foregoing, the applicant will develop the outlot last. Types of commercial uses permitted in the outlot will be outlined later in the report. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 4 As mentioned earlier, West 86th Street is a gravel road. This road provides the only access to Rice Lake Manor subdivision. The city does not own nor have an easement for the public right- of-way of this road. When Rice Lake Manor was approved, it was believed that this was a temporary situation and that once the area surrounding the subdivision develops,West 86th Street would be realigned and improved. The applicant is requesting the alignment of West 86th Street be changed by swinging it to the north as it approaches Hwy 101. This will provide for better sight distance and alignment. The existing intersection will be eliminated, which will allow for improved development coordination and traffic safety. The right-of-way on all public streets in the proposal have been shown at 60 feet with the exception of the most westerly right-of-way of 86th Street, to allow for two through traffic lanes, required turning lanes as West 86th Street approaches Hwy. 101, and a sidewalk that would connect this proposal with parks and trail in the vicinity. Staff anticipates that additional right-of-way might still be required. The street servicing the single family lots is shown terminated along the northern property line of the site, _ with a possible future extension when the property to the north develops. This street alignment is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The roads servicing Blocks 1 and 4 are proposed to be private roads maintained by a homeowners association. Staff has been meeting with the developer since late spring. We believe that they have produced a concept that, while still quite rough, is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We further note that it provides a mix of housing types that we believe to be in short supply in our community and appears to provide much needed, moderate cost housing. We believe that with continued refinements it can meet or exceed ordinance standards and become an attractive addition to our community. There are however a series of concerns that must be addressed before the project comes back for formal approval. These include the following: 1. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage limitations and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. 2. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. The hard surface coverage of the multi family portion of the site exceeds the permitted 30%. Mass grading of the multi-family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be improved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open space. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 5 3. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. This can be discussed further before the formal development plan is submitted. 4. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control and we had hoped to have it completed by now. By the time formal approval is requested, this may have been finished but if not, the western edge of the plat will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The majority of the site is not impacted by this issue. 5. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it — would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and submitted with the formal PUD submittal. Based upon the foregoing, we are recommending that the PUD Concept Plan be approved. This approval should be contingent upon responding to the issues outlined above and elsewhere in this report as well as those raised at the Planning Commission meeting. Site Characteristics This site contains rolling hills and three wetlands. The majority of the area is planted with corn and soybeans. There are trees scattered along the edges of the site that need to be located and identified at the time of formal plan submittal of the PUD. The site is bordered by two major right-of-ways, Hwy. 101 to the west and Hwy. 212 to the south. Those two highways are proposed to intersect southwest of the subject site. Highway 212 is proposed to be built with four lanes by the year 2000. Subsequently, this will increase the number of trips on Hwy. 101 and push the need for improving this substandard highway. The city has retained Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study to establish the best alignment for Hwy. 101. Background The parcels that are included in this plan include areas that were studied in depth during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which was approved by the Metropolitan Council and adopted by the city in 1991. The site is identified on the 2000 Land Use Plan as mixed use (commercial- high density residential), medium density residential, and low density residential. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 6 On August 18, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application with numerous changes as outlined in staff's report and as reflected in the Planning Commission's minutes dated August 18, 1993. The applicant significantly revised the plans to respond to these issues as well as those raised by area residents. Staff felt that the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to review these changes before we forward the plans to the City Council. The issues that were identified by the Planning Commission and the residents are as follow: Issue: The residents of Rice Lake Manor requested that the number of single family lots be reduced, the size of the lots be larger, and a form of barrier be created between the two developments. The applicant has reduced the number of single family parcels from 18 to 16 lots. The average lot size abutting Rice Lake Manor is 20,000 square feet. In speaking to the applicant, he indicated that he plans on installing a chain link fence between the two subdivisions to prevent trespassing. Issue: The Planning Commission and staff pointed out that the density appeared to be high, and requested that it be reduced. Also requested was the hard surface coverage of the site. The applicant has redesigned the site by placing mainly single story four-plexes along the north portion of the site and two story four, six, eight, and twelve plexes south of West 86th Street. Under this new site layout, 26 new multi-family units have been added and 2 single family lots have been eliminated. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance allows a maximum hard surface coverage of 30%. The hard surface of the site exceeds 40%. The density of the southeast portion of the site as identified in the comprehensive plan is 4-8 units per acre. The density as proposed by the applicant is 9.21 units per acre. However, the north and southwest portions of the site are guided for 8-16 units per acre. The applicant is showing a net density of 10.03 units per acre in Block 1 and 6.18 units — per acre in Block 4. Although the density is below the guide plan requirements, the hard surface coverage is still an issue. It is recommended that the applicant revise the plan to reduce the hard surface coverage to 30%. Issue: The plans lacked park and trail facilities. The applicant has converted one of the four-plex unit building sites into a private recreation area of some type. This conversion would take advantage of the largest wetland on the site, is centrally located, and would provide for site lines from the private street across the wetland to West 86th Street and vise versa. The total area of the lot is quite small, however, in the range of one-half acre. It is proposed that this amenity be of a private or association nature. The components of the facility to be at the discretion of the applicant, but typically including landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. — Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 7 The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site paralleling new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to its north and south. This box will be completed by a second north/south trail to be constructed in Eden Prairie, linking Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. The location of this development calls for the construction of an important "middle" link to this box, running east from Highway 101 to the terminus of the project. At a future date, this trail sidewalk system will be extended into the future park property, eventually connecting with the Eden Prairie trail system. The proposed "A" street should also include a sidewalk which can be extended to the north with the street's future extension. The presence of the large ag/urban wetland and the proposed park space creates the perfect opportunity for this pedestrian system to include a loop around the wetland. Issue: The Planning Commission and staff have been concerned over the type of uses in the commercial portion of the site. Concepts for the commercial uses on the outlot have not been included with this submittal. We have met with the owner of the land (Mr. Klingelhutz) and voiced our concern. He appeared to respect staff's opinion and agreed to neighborhood commercial type of uses although he believes commercial development is a long way off and is unable to provide definitive plans at this time. The type of uses that were agreed upon are low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant, office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar uses. Issue: The site is being mass graded. This still remains an issue. The applicant has not revised the grading plans, nor has he submitted new ones. Staff is recommending that the grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site. Issue: The previous plan showed private driveways and curbcuts accessing off of West 86th Street. The plans have been revised to allow all units to access of off an interior street with the exception of one driveway. Staff has made appropriate recommendations regarding this driveway to allow it access off of the interior street. Issue: Landscaping and berming was lacking on the original plans. The applicant has revised the plans to allow berming along the west and south side of the site. Also, trees have been added along both north and south sides of West 86th street. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 8 Issue: Building elevations were missing with the first submittal. The applicants have submitted the elevations of the units for review. They are of high quality and meet the standards established in the guidelines for the PUD. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 62.05 acres from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD, Planned Unit Development. 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 development 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. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. There are significant rolling hills throughout the site. Also there are three wetlands on the site. Grading plans indicate that those hills will be extensively graded. The applicant will place the units on a relatively flat terrain as a result of site grading except on the street and court providing access to the single family units. The grading plan should be revised to maintain the existing topography to the extent possible and minimize impact on the hills. The wetlands on the site are proposed to remain intact with the exception of the wetland located north of 86th Street. According to the National Wetlands Inventory map and a site inspection, this wetland is classified as a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 inland fresh meadow). The City of Chanhassen would classify this wetland as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 0.07 acre and will be filled as a result of the Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 9 proposed development. Mitigation measures should be provided to replace this wetland. This issue is discussed in more detail under the subtitle "wetlands". 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. Finding. The site is guided for mixed use commercial/high density residential, medium density residential, and low density residential. The advantage in the PUD proposal is that the city is gaining a totally planned concept. If this were to develop separately as individual parcels, landscaping, lighting and architecture would not be compatible. The coordination of the site development will also improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of public improvements. 3. High quality design and design compatibility 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. Finding. The plans and narrative submitted by the applicants propose to build different types of multi-housing units that will be architecturally compatible. The city will utilize its normal site plan review procedure for each. The approved PUD documents will establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is developed in a consistent and well planned manner. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. = Finding. The way the proposed plan is designed is reasonable. Low density, detached single family housing separates the existing subdivision to the east from the proposed multi-housing. This also creates a buffer between the two densities. A landscaping buffer is proposed by the applicant along the Hwy. 101 right-of-way. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for mixed use, commercial-high density residential, medium density residential, and low density residential. This area is adjacent to two major right-of-ways that are proposed to intersect along the southwest corner of the subject site. The proposed uses are appropriate for such an area, however, the density on the southeast corner of the site has to be modified to meet the Comprehensive Plan guidelines. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 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. Finding. The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed this application. To meet their requirements, the applicant is providing a tot-lot and sidewalks through the site. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The variety of housing types offered within this proposal has been identified in several studies as a need in the City of Chanhassen. For example, in 1989, the city conducted an open ended Senior Needs Study. As people age, they lose their mobility, especially stair climbing. One of the main deficiencies identified was the lack of one story housing units, which this proposal is offering. A second study involved employees within the city's business community. Staff contacted several businesses in the city to find out where employees in Chanhassen come from. The results indicate that more than 90%k of employees surveyed live outside the city and commuted to work. The main reason was the lack of first time home buyer housing. The city could consider creating a housing district within this project and initiate a First Time Home Buyer program or other similar programs. The proposal indicates different types of units pertaining to size. This will cause the units to sell at different prices and will appeal to different income groups. — 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. Chanhassen is developing an intensive trail system in the city. The Public Transit study for the city, which was prepared by Southwest Metro Transit, identifies the site south of proposed Hwy. 212, and across from the subject site, as a Park and Ride lot that will be improved concurrently with Hwy. 212. Sidewalks should connect the site to this Park and Ride lot. — 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. Finding. Access to this site will be from Trunk Highway 101. The existing West 86th Street is a dirt road and the city does not have ownership of the right-of-way. The intersection of Hwy. 101 and West 86th will be improved considerably with this proposal by improving roadway geometries, right-of-way dedication, and paving the street. The city has retained Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc. to prepare a study showing passable alignments for Hwy 101. These steps will improve traffic management and design techniques. Also, staff is recommending that a traffic demand study be prepared to Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 11 determine the adequate right-of-way as well as traffic lanes and signalization if applicable along 86th Street. 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 flexibility in standards allow 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 Screening of undesirable view of potential loading areas within the commercial district Preservation of desirable site characteristics (rolling hills and wetlands) Improved architectural standards Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts Improved pretreatment of storm water An offering of mixed income housing General Site Plan/Architecture The concept site plan proposes two different types of uses on the site, commercial and residential. No information regarding the commercial portion of the site has been submitted with this proposal which tends to concern staff. Staff will provide some guidelines and standards under which the development can occur. The residential/multi-family portion of the site is described in the proposal summary submitted by the applicant. The building exterior material is a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is proposed to be generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows over the two story windows. On a similar project in Eden Prairie, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia and gray velour brick. Detailed plans showing the facades of all buildings is enclosed with the plans and appears attractive. Each unit has an enclosed attached garage. PROPOSED PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The applicant has proposed the following development standards in their PUD plan. Staff has reviewed these proposals, made comments or findings, and then given the staff proposal for language to be incorporated into the final PUD plan document. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 12 a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant, office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar uses. c. Setbacks Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is proposing to have all buildings setback 50 feet from the exterior parcel line of the PUD and 30 feet from the interior lines. This setback is consistent with the setback requirement of the PUD ordinance. Finding. In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of-way, parking along right-of-ways shall be setback 20 feet. Buildings located in the Outlot must meet these standards. There shall be a buffer separating the residential portion from the commercial portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping. Staff is recommending the following setbacks. Street Commercial Residential Parking Building Setback Building Setback Setback Hwy. 101 50' 50' 20' Hwy. 212 50' 50' 20' West 86th Street 50' 30' 20' Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 13 d. Development Standards Tabulation Box BLOCK USE Lot Area Density* Hard Surface Coverage • Outlot Commercial 9.33 acres 1 144 Multi-Family units 14.36 acres 10.04 44.2% 2&3 16 Single-Family units 7.35 acres 2.17 4 56 Multi-Family Units 9.06 acres 6.18 43.2% ROW Street and court 1.17 acres West 86th St Right-of-Way 2.17 acres Hwy 212 and 101 Right-of-Way 18.68 acres TOTAL AREA 62.12 * The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for commercial uses and 30% for medium and high density residential. Plans should be revised accordingly. * The area east of the wetland and south of 86th Street is guided for medium density, 4-8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 9.21 units per acre, which exceeds the guided land use net density by 1.21 units per acre. The area west of the wetland and south and north of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units per acre. Lot Lot Home Home Area Width Depth Setback _ Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/30' rear 10' sides BLOCK 2 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Cannot be computed based upon provided concept. Lot 5 However, all criteria should be exceeded. Lot 6 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 14 Lot 7 Lot 8 BLOCK 3 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 e. Building Materials and Design COMMERCIAL Applicant's Proposal. The developer is proposing that the building's exterior material be a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows over the two-story windows. On a similar project elsewhere, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia, and gray velour brick. Finding. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 15 2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. 5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components. 6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 8. All buildings on the Outlot shall have a pitched roof line. RESIDENTIAL 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" aluminum siding and brick. 2. Arched transoms and soffit returns shall be used over the entries of the one story units and horizontal transom windows over the 2 story windows. 3. Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc.). 4. Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard. 5. All units shall have access onto an interior street and not 86th Street. f. Site Landscaping and Screening Applicant's Proposal. The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a strong sense of street tree plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Linden, and Sugar Maple. Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living areas will be buffered with the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted with the introduction of native wetland species Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 16 Finding. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. Berms of 2 to 3 feet high shall be added along the Highway 101 and 212 right-of-way. These berms shall be seeded and/or sodded and bushes and trees shall be planted on them. All disturbed areas within the single family lots shall be seeded and/or sodded. Two trees with a minimum of a 21 inch caliper shall be planted within the front yard setback. These two trees shall consist of one overstory evergreen tree and one ornamental deciduous tree. 1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 3. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. 4. The Outlot shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. g. Signage COMMERCIAL Applicant's Proposal. None. Finding. Staff is proposing one monument sign be permitted for the outlot and one monument sign for the residential section of the PUD. 1. All businesses built within the outlot shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed (24 square feet). 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 17 6. No illuminated signs within the outlot may be viewed from the residential section of the PUD. 7. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. = RESIDENTIAL One monument identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. the sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height. h. Lighting Finding. 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than l/z candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. The maximum height of a residential street light shall not exceed 15 feet. Light fixtures within the outlot shall not exceed 25 feet. 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. The outlot light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain and is currently employed in agricultural practices. The previous grading plan indicates mass site grading with the exception of the outlot in order = to develop the house pads for the multiple and single-family dwelling units. Elevations of the existing ground contours lying north of 86th Street range from 924 on the west end to 900 at the east end. The grading plan proposes building floor elevations north of 86th Street between 904 and 907 which is relatively uniform in comparison to the existing terrain. The existing ground contours lying south of the proposed 86th Street range from 920 to 898. The proposed building floor elevations of the multiple dwellings range from 910 to 901.5. This variety in elevation will maintain the rolling hills effect which currently exist today. The area lying north of 86th Street, the large knoll (924 contour), is being significantly lowered in order to be compatible with future proposed Trunk Highway 101 grades. Staff does believe the multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th street could be adjusted in elevation to give some variety and different appearance. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 18 The plans also propose on grading single-family lots along "A" Street and Court. The plans propose the lots to be a variety of split-entry to walkout-type homes. The overall grading plan does maintain the existing drainage pattern through the site. The grading plans do not propose any grading on the commercial outlot at this time. A large earth berm is shown between the proposed Trunk Highway 212 corridor and the development. The plans have the berm labeled "by Others" which is assumed to be constructed in conjunction with Trunk Highway 212. No berming is proposed along Trunk Highway 101 with this proposal. Staff believes some sort of berming should be proposed at this time by the applicant. The plans propose on realigning existing 86th Street northerly to a line perpendicular with the future Trunk Highway 101 alignment. There currently exists a 20 to 24-foot wide gravel roadway which serves Tigua Lane to the east. The City has no dedicated easements or right-of- ways for existing 86th Street. Tigua Lane on the other hand has been dedicated with the plat of Rice Lake Manor. The plans propose on expanding 86th Street in its current location. The result will be partially filling the wetland which lies immediately south of existing 86th Street. Staff recommends that 86th Street be adjusted northerly to minimize or eliminate impact to the wetland. There appears to be sufficient room to readjust the alignment of 86th Street to do so. The entire development proposes three storm water drainage basins designed to meet the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. These NURP ponds are necessary to pre-treat stormwater prior to discharging into the wetlands. The conceptual plan has not yet specified the stormwater drainage patterns that will direct runoff to the drainage basins. Staff will require storm sewer and runoff calculations and ponding data prior to final platting. As a rule, the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision is to be retained at the pre-developed runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event through the use of stormwater detention/retention facilities. The subdivision's storm sewer system should also be designed for a 10-year storm event. Staff will also require calculations of pre-development runoff rates to the existing wetland basins in order to compare runoff rates to these basins after the site has been fully developed. The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for accessing and maintaining the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted during the preliminary plat and construction plan and specification review process. It appears most of the streets, with the exception of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court are proposed to be private. Staff is unclear at this point whether it would be prudent for the maintenance responsibilities of the storm water retention (NURP)ponds be left in the homeowner association's hands. This issue will be further investigated at a later date. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 19 UTILITIES Back in February of 1992, the City prepared a feasibility report for extension of municipal water service to this area. However, due to problems with easement acquisition along 86th Street, the project never proceeded. Since a year's time span has elapsed it will be necessary to go back and update the feasibility report. Staff has received a petition from the applicant for extension of utilities to the site. The City will be updating the feasibility report in conjunction with this project as well as the pending projects of John Klingelhutz (Lake Riley Hills) and the future Lundgren Bros. development which lies south of Lyman Boulevard. The combination of these three projects should make it feasible for the extension of trunk water and sewer service to this development. The extension of utility service to the site would not be available until late spring/early summer of 1994 assuming the project proceeds with the normal public hearing process. The City has recently adopted a comprehensive sanitary sewer policy plan which indicates sanitary sewer service should be brought up from the south along the proposed Trunk Highway 101 alignment. Since this utility project may not coincide with this proposal, the applicant appears to be proposing an alternate sewer connection to the existing sewer line located east of Lake Susan at Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose on extending the sewer from the adjacent property to the north into the development. The appropriate utility and drainage easements would have to be conveyed to the City for this extension. The applicant should also be aware that this connection may be only an interim connection and/or be limited in service area due to downstream capacity restraints of the existing sewer line. The City will have to conduct a study to determine if there is excess capacity available in the existing sanitary sewer line along Lake Susan prior to this connection being approved. The cost of the study would be forwarded on to the applicant for repayment. The plans propose an 8-inch water line extended east from Trunk Highway 101 through the development along 86th Street. According to the City's previous feasibility study, a 12-inch watermain line was required to facilitate looping of the area. Therefore, the City would require oversizing of the watermain through 86th Street. If the applicant included installation of the 12- - inch watermain along 86th Street with their overall site improvements the City would apply a credit towards the applicant's assessments. The oversizing would be the cost difference between an 8-inch watermain and 12-inch watermain. The proposed utility lines located outside of 86th Street right-of-way and "A" Street is be assumed to be a private system. Due to the magnitude of the project, the City would require that the utilities be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Fire hydrant placement should be reviewed and approved in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. All storm sewer systems should be designed for a 10-year storm event. The applicant shall supply the City with storm sewer and ponding calculations for review and approval. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 20 The applicant should be aware the City has implemented a policy regarding drain tile behind the curbs to facilitate household sump pump discharge and also to improve roadway subgrade drainage. On the streets that are proposed to be private, staff will only recommend to the applicant that provisions are made to accommodate for sump pump discharge. Staff will require that a drain tile system be installed along the public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other discharge point such as ponds, wetlands or storm sewer. STREETS The plans propose on servicing the development by realignment and upgrading existing 86th Street east of Trunk Highway 101. West 86th Street currently exists today as a 20 to 24-foot wide gravel street which eventually turns into Tigua Lane which is upgraded to urban standards with blacktop and curb and gutter. The City does not have dedicated right-of-way or easements over 86th Street. However, the City has been maintaining the gravel road portion for over 6 years and therefore the City has established the right to use the street for public travel. The concept plan proposes on dedicating a 60-foot wide right-of-way for 86th Street as well as "A" Street and Court. Staff is concerned due to the land use (commercial, multiple and single- family) that the 60-foot wide right-of-way may be insufficient. The right-of-way for 86th street appears to widen as it approaches Highway 101. Staff is recommending that a traffic demand study be prepared to determine the adequate right-of-way width as well as number traffic lanes necessary to support this area. This report should be authorized by the City at the cost to the applicant. Due to the intense land use, staff's initial reaction is that an 80-foot wide right-of-way for 86th Street should be dedicated up to "A" Street. Beyond that, the 60-foot wide right-of-way should be sufficient. The applicant is proposing 86th Street to be upgraded to a 32-foot wide urban street. Again, staff feels that due to the intense use it is more likely the street will be increased to a minimum of 36-foot, if not 44-foot lanes to facilitate turning movements with the anticipated commercial use on the outlot west of the development. Again, a traffic study should be required to determine the number of traffic lanes as well as check warrants for a traffic signal at 86th Street and Trunk Highway 101. The plans have been revised to eliminate individual driveway curb cuts along 86th Street for the multiple dwelling units with the exception of the curb cut immediately west of "A" Street. Staff recommends the individual access be eliminated and the driveway be redesigned to take access off the interior private streets versus 86th Street as shown in attachment 3. As previously mentioned, the existing wetland immediately south of 86th Street is proposed to be partially filled as a result of upgrading the streets. Staff sees no reason why the 86th Street alignment could not be adjusted northerly to avoid impact to the wetland area. The applicant is showing a trail and/or sidewalks along 86th Street and the pond south of 86th Street. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 21 Prior to final plat approval, detailed street construction plans will be required for staff review and formal approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specification and detail plates. Street construction plans should also include construction of interim deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 101 pursuant to MnDOT standards/comments. All utility and street construction within the Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way will require a permit from MnDOT. Wetlands and Proposed Alterations The property appears to contain three wetlands and one of the wetlands will be filled as a consequence of the project. The following is a brief description of the wetlands on site: Basin A - Basin A is located just south of the proposed location for 86th Street and is classified as a semi-permanently flooded palustrine emergent/unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PEM/UBF; Circular 39 Type 5 inland open freshwater). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 2.4 acres. The street should be realigned to avoid impact to the wetland. Basin B - Basin B is partially located in the southeast corner of the property and is classified as a partially ditched/drained seasonally flooded palustrine emergent/unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PEM/UBCd; Circular 39 Type 3/4 shallow fresh marsh/inland deep fresh marsh). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural and urban development impacts. The basin is approximately 0.5 acre. This wetland does not appear to be filled as a result of the proposed development. Basin C - Basin C is located in the northwest corner of the property at an approximate elevation of 908 feet. According to the National Wetlands Inventory map and a site inspection, this wetland is classified as a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 inland fresh meadow). The City of Chanhassen would classify this wetland as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 0.07 acre and will be filled as a result of the proposed development. The following table summarizes the estimated wetland areas that will be altered as a result of the proposed development: Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 22 Wetland Wetland Wetland Size Wetland Identification Type (acres) Area to be Altered (acres) A Ag/Urban 2.4 0 B Ag/Urban 0.5 0 C Ag/Urban 0.07 0.07 TOTAL 2.97 0.07 Since the total amount of fill to wetlands is appears to be less than 0.5 acre a section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is not necessary, however, notification should be made to the Corps requiring an approval to the rule interpretation. The Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA), on the other hand, will require a permit including a proposal for 1:1 mitigation before December 31, 1993 and 2:1 mitigation after January 1, 1994 for the filling of any size wetland. The City is the local governmental unit responsible for administering the WCA. Mitigation Mitigation or restoration of the wetland filled will be required by the WCA. An appropriate design plan for the mitigation will be necessary for review. Staff recommends that the wetlands be delineated by a wetlands consulted and included on the survey for review. Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditions of Approval This project must meet the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance. The wetland ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetlands located on the property. The structure setback and buffer strip widths are as follows: Wetland Buffer Buffer Strip % Native Structure Setback Type Strip Minimum Vegetation in from Outer Edge of Average Width Buffer Strip Buffer Strip Ag/Urban 0-30 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft The amount of native vegetation within the buffer strip is optional around the agricultural/urban wetlands. Additional vegetation is not necessary where vegetation already exists. Once the Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 23 buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with a city approved monument on each lot. Erosion Control Staff recommends that erosion control measures around the wetlands be the City's Type III erosion control fence to minimize disturbance to the wetlands during construction. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activity shall comply with the City's construction site erosion and sediment control Best Management Practice Handbook. MISCELLANEOUS All site restoration and erosion control measures should be in accordance with the City's Best = Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer should be encouraged to pursue acquisition of the City's handbook to employ said practices. The applicant should be aware that, in conjunction with the public improvements for this development, it will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. As a result of the City's extension of trunk utilities to the area, this development will be subject to assessments in accordance with the feasibility studies. — The applicant should dedicate on the final plat the necessary right-of-way for future extension of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. PARK AND RECREATION The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as lying in park deficiency area #2 (see map and Zone 2 narrative). The 2000 Land Use Plan identified a 20+ acre site to the east of the proposed subdivision as future park/open space (see attachments). A design study for this future park/open space has not been completed, thus it cannot be predicted what type of facilities could be developed on this site. The area is heavily wooded and is squeezed between future Highway 212 and Rice Marsh Lake. The City of Eden Prairie has also identified the land in this area lying in Eden Prairie as future open space. They are planning for a Highway 212 underpass to the east of this location. A second proposed park site was identified in the southeast quadrant of this Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 24 zone in a subdivision applied for by Mr. John Klingelhutz. This future park, if acquired and developed however, would be severed from the subject site by Highway 212. During initial conversations with the applicant and a representative of Rottlund Homes, the future builder concerns that a recreational amenity of some sort had not been included in a plan to develop 190 dwellings which will assumedly house in excess of 400 new residents were expressed. The general response received centered on two things: 1) the applicant asserted that the targeted demographics of the development will not require park space, specifically play equipment, and 2) an attempt to hold down costs is being made in order to produce an affordable end result. The position that the people who would eventually purchase these dwellings represent a profile of our society which will not require play equipment and/or other park amenities is a misnomer. All segments of our society need and value open space/parks and recreational amenities. The city's recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan states that park and open space fulfill three primary functions. "First they meet positive human needs both physically and psychologically. The second function of parks and open space is to enhance and protect the resource space. The third function of parks and open space concerns economics. These facilities can have an impact on economic development and real estate values." A suggestion has been made to convert Lot 6, Block 1 from a four-plex unit into a recreation area of some type. This conversion would take advantage of the largest wetland on the site, is centrally located, and would provide for site lines from the private street across the wetland to West 86th Street and vise versa. The total area of Lot 6, Block 1 is quite small, however, in the range of one-half acre. It is proposed that this amenity be of a private or association nature. The components of the facility to be at the discretion of the applicant, but typically including landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site paralleling new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to its north and south. As referenced earlier, this box will be completed by a second north/south trail to be constructed in Eden Prairie, linking Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. The location of this development calls for the construction of an important "middle" link to this box, running east from Highway 101 to the terminus of the project. At a future date, this trail sidewalk system will be extended into the future park property, eventually connecting with the Eden Prairie trail system. The proposed "A" street should also include a sidewalk which can be extended to the north with the street's future extension. The presence of the large ag/urban wetland and the proposed park space creates the perfect opportunity for this pedestrian system to include a loop around the wetland. This type of trail would typically be constructed with a bituminous surface and its construction would be considered for trail fee credits under current city practices. The sidewalk components of the system are to be constructed using concrete at a width deemed suitable by the engineering Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 25 department. Sidewalks do not fall under the purview of the Park and Recreation Commission and are not considered for trail fee credits. These concepts of a park space interrelated with a sidewalk/trail are depicted on the attached plan. The presence of the neighborhood commercial area would benefit greatly from such a system. RECOMMENDATION CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval of PUD #93-4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right-of-way, traffic lanes and signal justification report Staff anticipates the proposed right-of-way is inadequate. 2. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. 4. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provide from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 26 In addition, the City will authorize/perform a study to determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12-inch water line. If the applicant installs the oversized (12-inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8-inch watermain and a 12-inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 7. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10-year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100-year 24-hour storm event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on-site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. 8. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site. 9. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 10. The applicant shall include a drain-tile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 11. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right-of-way determined from a traffic study for future and 86th Street. 12. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 13. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and Engineer's memo. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the staff report. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 27 14. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right-of-way and wetland areas. 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 101 right-of-ways and between the area separating commercial and = residential lots. 16. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission. A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. B. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. 17. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage limitations and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. 18. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. The hard surface coverage of the multi family portion of the site exceeds the permitted 30%. Mass grading of the multi-family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be improved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open space. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 28 19. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. This can be discussed further before the formal development plan is submitted. 20. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control and we had hopped to have it completed by now. By the time formal approval is requested, this may have been finished but if not, the western edge of the plat will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The majority of the site is not impacted by this issue. 21. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and submitted with the formal PUD submittal. 22. Address the hard surface issue to meet requirements of the PUD Ordinance. The hard surface coverage may not exceed 30% of site area. 23. Eliminate the driveway access located west of "A" Street as shown in attachment 3." ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Dick Putnam dated October 4, 1993. 2. Letter from Dick Putnam to Neighbors of the proposed Development of Mission Hills. 3. Revised Driveway plan prepared by staff. 4. Site Data. 5. Units design and elevations. 6. Letter from David Nagel dated September 13, 1993. 7. Letter from David Nicholay dated September 13, 1993. 8. Letter from Keith and Carol Bartz dated October 8, 1993. 9. Planning Commission minutes dated August 18, 1993. 10. Staff report dated August 18, 1993. TANDEMJames L.Ostenson _ PROPERTIES Richard A.Putnam BROKERS•PLANNERS•DEVELOPERS To: Chanhassen Planning Commission Members Date: October 4, 1993 From: Tandem Properties and Rottlund Homes Subject: Revised P.U.D. Concept Plan - Mission Hills Ladies and Gentlemen, We thank you for the opportunity to revise our P.U.D. sketch plan for Mission Hills before its review by the Chanhassen City Council. The _ August 18th meeting pointed out a number of issues and site plan deficiencies which the neighbors and commission member wished changed. We believe that your review was correct on many points and we asked the staff to allow us to rethink the site plan and come back to the staff, commission and neighbors with a plan that attempts to respond to the suggestions. A. Roadway Issues 1) 86th Street - The plan now includes an 80' R.O.W. from new 101 to the commercial entrance to allow for turn lanes if required in the future when 101/212 is upgraded and the commercial area plan is finalized. 2) 86th Street - The plan now reflects no encroachment into the wetland on the south edge of the road. 86th will be platted as a 60' R.O.W. constructed to city standards with a trail on the south side from new 101 to the east property line. 3) T.H. 101 (new) - The plan provides a 200' R.O.W. for construction of the new street. This R.O.W. will provide a 50' buffer for landscaping/berming adjacent to old 101 for separation for the existing home along the lake. The R.O.W. is slightly different in the degree of curve around the commercial area, but should meet design standards. The 101 R.O.W. will be platted as an outlot with purchase by the government responsible for 101/212 construction. 4) Single Family Street to North - The plan has moved the north/south street 25' to 40' west to allow deeper lots abutting Tigua La. homes. The staff asked that a sidewalk be included with in the RO.W. B. Single Family Lots 1) In response to the planning commission's request that the lots — bordering Tigua be larger, we have increased the lots to 20,000 sq. ft. This required taking one lot out on the east side and removing another lot around the cul-de-sac. The total lots are reduced from 18 — to 16. 2) The issues of relocating the n/s street to the property line with the Larson, Nagel and, Nickolay properties was discussed with one of the owners. The purpose would be to provide a barrier and provide for the future subdivision of Tigua Lane lots. We did not agree that such a configuration would be beneficial to their lots. After some — discussions of the pro/con, a low fence to define the existing lots from the new lots may be more appropriate. C. Garden Homes North of 86th The plan reflects a significant change in the unit mix and orientation. _ The plan now has 82% of the buildings as 4 unit structures and only 2 with 8 units. Also, all the buildings have been turned to have ends facing 101 and 86th and the driveways are connected to the internal — private drive. These site plan changes have allowed a continuous landscaped berm along 101 and 86th. This will create an attractive streetscape. The attached floor plans and building elevations illustrate these newly designed Garden Homes by Rottlund. The current plan is 56 units, a reduction of 4 units from the 6-21-93 — plan. The attached Data Summary illustrates the average and density. D. Villa Homes South of 86th The plan changes for the Villa site deal with 7 issues brought up at the August 18th Commission meeting: need for small private association tot lot/park, pedestrian trails, more variety in building, reduce building size/density in southeast corner, reduce driveways — to 86th Street, create better buffers to 86th, the commercial & 212 and lastly to reduce the density/number of units. — 1) Park &Trails - The Park Commission recommended a small private association space be included in the plan near the central pond. The plan provides a "vest pocket park" adjacent to the pond connected with a trail around the pond to the public trail on 86th. The space will include a tot lot, picnic and sitting areas designed for small kids and passive adult activities. Space for volleyball/bad- minton or lawn games is also included. If the future City Park abutts our east property line a trail connection can be planned from our project around the wetland. 2) Building Variety - The original plan had about 65% of the buildings as the 12 unit Villa, whereas the revised plan has only 20% of the 12 unit buildings. In order to reduce the mass of the units and create a different building style, 4 and 6 unit townhouse units are proposed. The attached building elevations illustrate their design. These will be the first units of this design constructed by Rottlund Homes. The variety of 4 building types on the site will provide a diversity of building size and shape with an integrated design. 3) Southeastern Corner - The plan reflects a completely different approach to the area south of 86th adjacent to the eastern wetland. To reduce the building impact on 86th Street and Tigua Lane Homes we have oriented only ends of buildings toward the _ street and added a 4 unit Villa. We believe this change plus the • landscape berm will present an attractive view from 86th Street and homes to the north. 4) Driveways & Buffers - The plan does a much better job of _ creating space for berms and landscaping on the perimeter of the site. By eliminating all driveways to 86th we can provide a landscaped street feel rather than "driveways and garage doors." Landscaped berms between 212 and the future commercial area will provide a good and attractive separation. 5) Density - The number of units in the Villa area increased from 112 to 144. This increase of 32 units is a result of shifting the south property line slightly, adding some area on the west by the commercial and by better utilizing the site with four building types and better building orientations. The data sheet illustrates the gross and net densities. 6) Commercial Area - The commercial area is about the same size as the last plan, however, the access has been improved. An in/out — from future north bound 101 is provided midway between 86th Street and the freeway ramp intersection. Also, the access from 86th Street has been moved closer to 101 and aligns with the Garden Home entrance. Extra R.O.W. is provided in 86th to accommodate extra turn lanes that may be needed. — Mr. Klingelhutz has discussed the uses with City Staff. The site's neighborhood commercial use is acceptable to both the City and Mr. Klingelhutz. These uses will be incorporated into the P.U.D. concept approval for the site. Conclusion - Mission Hills revised plan reflects our sincere effort to meet the concerns and suggestions of our neighbors, City staff and commissions. Rottlund Homes and Tandem Properties hope to provide a quality housing development which meets the objective of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, the city's housing goals, ordinances and the neighborhood expectations. We look forward to discussing our revised Mission Hills project with you. Thank you, Dick Putnam, Tandem Properties — TANDEMJames L.Ostenson - PROPERTIES Richard A.Putnam BROKERS•PL4NVERS-DEVELOPERS -1.(9,tkilAT £ 1L VA . 1) 10151 EtcAf. , (4-71 -e • 12teNoef ivt fi ye-u ie-ocl F0)214 4r l(il 1.0r-.ia,, Wit ) 1. coft=ste e'"\ ffavel-z.. . -, 1L (44 1 - 7q _ - iyrAiwi4 — Fi2w7 -fir ' ) LWk + mss. - } kape- eoo icatjta 14eac clifrAmve a r ani p62-14 • t- 1-irci‘e. elotif 44-144 )aecilde••44Oet'`‘.e• Jf u)41/1tio€ i& Aploc 1N -' y uv- kti6k6. .6-h)G lite_ ec. jeloulicei.16-46441 4•4477s770/4 2765 Casco Point Road • Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 • Office&Fax (612)471-0573 7808 Creekridge Circle • Suite 310 • Bloomington,Minnesota 55439 • Office(612)941-7805 • Fax (612)941-7853 • • 1k 1 — - 1 'Y/ ` _ rites. \' — — I , ( _ N �I �I' Oh a4 - ` � ` 1� .,..\--,•, d eert1 r' , '� OWIC . - i - -6-talkilit 21 �I gI � L r` '' .-YI ep �� C sis' _r sk a014�41.1 IJ. ) !" ► U . 1315 • '\ ` r 1 • J I i1 - , s. oafsr1 \J` •II, �I "I mark 4- oa+ •?' -i3 '7 win: :VW "! ' , • Alp Lora ,4, 1 00 � . + ��0 � ATS _ - r ) 3.mettoe. - -.1.:.)_,rik IQ' .'' in i ... , ,,.jr- -•\.st, 4 noliam 105111111111 _ _ __, '— ; . . .-":', tt 6-741111111P' °II. '11114114-wilik 1 1(''1././' it's MP im-17-7":I, 47:1 11:111::: ...: - ; ? 411446 4'. 44! 14 i i ' 4, -Pt .41.4„,:.i - ,, e/ r. i magi. !� r te. --, kiln. 1 1: ` - e4It? ,I - o Y./ / -; ,-, ,,,,,e4 to Oi I i k vi --rs.. `,06i. ' . i . ast.#,... -_-Al ' I ;. Nip . 0 , ci A LA, ),. 4,s;71,46.,a i• ;. do � �'-illik .lit %�; • , j cF ? lid: 41ra .ft --if---n•aaL.• NV0/-0 (2.i , ,,-, . <,„3:1111-0/ . ir.p.,,,I., 611r . 0 ' 4i'c VA* IF . • -: ' t,'- si.6 -. it tr;' .t, -''''skel .'"Vsj- . 1).-- .7',.......be& -*Ng -4**0 .,4040.; e -- ------, E-, \ Ao-,..,., 4.,_ t,-,,,,- 4.. t1t,l, ,-,/s- ;.., ., ,, \ 7tieiva,, • 4.0,Allt _A,* ,4 rk .\\t'II 14"; , ..k., . .41!-:.4. / .i-.retis 74-:4* . .3eeen, &...,"4-1*Sit ) . ol-2., . 411-40 4d• , ---,. . '. . - __ ' 473kitvii.N.,- : , 1 ,6,,,44. , k , . , .\. lb' ,•4,-,,,,-, ":,,,-.., .\- - _____. \• +4,a �L?yet r o I - . ,TI • . H I . . . '• . .. . . \ • :kms' 'T •/ �/ \ / / r ,:1 I , . \ . •• \r ,te \ . ,• ,__.- i',II- ..\, -). I, ; 1— Z 2.., II_ ,1 1 - ;1._.1 __-7--1-h, -••••••- •-\ r , , .: .._,, :,...,, 0, „ ..,-7,-,N ., , - -.-. .. -„, . \. 1 1 - . ......, , , , • _ F.-7,1 5 L I.'t:1 ;1.111 -411;1.---ii:3ij1-- - \ • ._. ai!r,!11 'NtJrt: -lid:, �41�4 \ �� \\ Mission Hills - Site Data C:1 0 Total Site Area (less Hwy. 101) - 46. 18±Ac. Total Local R.O.W. (less Hwy. 101) - 3.6 ±Ac. Total Commercial -Gross Area (incl. }-86th street) - 9.33 ±Ac. -Net Area (less 86th) - 8.97 ±Ac. Total Residential -Gross Area (incl. local streets) - 36.85 ±Ac. -Total Units (SF & MF) - 216 -Gross Density - 5.86 U/Ac. Block 1 - Villas Townhomes -Gross Area - 17.90 ±Ac. -Local R.O.W. (} of 86th St.) - 0.70 ±Ac. -Wetland Area. - 2.84 ±Ac. -Net Area (less R.O.W./Wetland) - 14.36 ±Ac. -Total Units - 144 -Net Density -10.03 U/Ac. -Hard Surface Coverage -44.22 (Z of net area-bldgs./drives) Blocks 2 & 3 - Single Family -Gross Area - 9.06 ±Ac. -Total Units - 16 -Gross Site Density - 1.76 U/Ac. -Local R.O.W. - 1.71 ±Ac. -Net Area (less R.O.W.) - 7.35 ±Ac. -Net Density - 2.17 U/Ac. Block 4 - Garden Homes -Gross area - 9.89 ±Ac. -Local R.O. W. (} of 86th Street) - 0.83 ±Ac. -Net Area (less R.O.W.) - 9.06 ±Ac. -Total Units - 56 -Net Density - 6.18 U/Ac. -Hard Surface Coverage (Z of net area — -43.2Z bldgs./drives) c•s c`4 — CI) ,'= , l'-,? V) I tick, ,c4., _7,...-,t ...„ . . ,. c , _ 0 ,.,, , , _ iii ., ,, t ,,, Z 1,7, 1<S.I::N'4gQi►iiF 4.-1 4 *LIII ., � . 1I •":;,= \I 1 lin ` I van •I. 1� IL\ �1 �tlt _ `� III I . - 4-.) ! , I'i it [I�h — I• , IT- I _ `[Donn' / i5I . In°anr� ,7 11==` "` i nSon 4- 11 mono ligf. •Irmo houriPp3 • I _ ' — 1 te.e •• Jill. 'lit!! ===,. i 1 11 1� `,.=�_=,I neral. -r — 1 :::: a!-1511 (-~ = �ry II 1III e • a �` Ili' I.I / ,-Pilin 4 • Y s� ,/ cul. '1'!..�tl' YY I n 1 J .i 1IItic c • )�°11411"11111bli w ..ig: :�IICD o ! . 41IVLO1I11 — L • i�P� •7A! ' 'III Jell! F._ • .4 iL ' iliag; Cd CZ f1 pili,IMP -.11 .--.4%."5111111 O ,4 <<' , II 'ecce c,6i1m1o71m1 iWp�lll , , 1V!: •— QDBO .,j 111allIi� ❑EGG ± � { �1 «i�` L ,rye !• �IINUlu u 1�/l ro ii _ � 15 1 ' 0 •— 100 : \(\4\.'-.4`, 1 ! it-i--;„.„,,,,i,r. O „•. Mal CA vl— t,� 1 111 r II.'liu,a1i1=jiiiir , • I m iwutmij li= 4 _ .______4,_ (Trs_ ! � �, c s U �t14441; tf IVs • Master Bedroom NII /MaerE:droom ,- J 1 I Loft n I iI j . - {1 ° . . r •p. . \ .0 der- L, . I>•= 3 mommis oelem'Glad %/Or 11=1111 f I Loft i • r: al* i' ?t LL11I . _� • opt ckQL I ' 1yo IUnit A t I- Unit B W Upper Level Plan 'Zig. 1 IWit' i ia4 c I O fl r- O 1 /' reo4;'"at' -- Kitchen c,:a4. i L "reit • i1 ^'� Laundry Dining Kitchen , __ F I •-' i — _ Dining _ i H H 1..,..--, ; ' . 1.E r -/ ._, .pr ,,,, ..r. .. 1 -r- - tli , iiiii ' . _41- , oU, ,.. 1 , i _ ,___ , ,. f I , ct. 1!. l ..„ ;. 4,1-- - _Living Living t'; Garage `''- -- ..---- , Ganagc• [ ISe2O _ II,:20 f. _ x . � - .Entry' R1-11t 1'�' rri 1 vJ-�s_ � i 1 - . I Unit A Unit B >44- _..t±- --4,mi.— Mainobe Levcl Planter f I d. vsh,•gto 'y�Ih,It - r t-3111 ✓ ,.-.64.. - - #— —C------ vNrf ' vNrf 4 or 6 Unit Villa Town House '� _ _ Floor Plans ,; l't - VII:1:-' -,/ ' CO iti ifl PM_' di, 1 E 6 Ak . I 611 11 di '11 _ o • „i[111 r.! • ni. , I . r lit. •,ii' t , 111 1 ti 1 kJ . ..„'_-k.. ill ...1 = , ..L . • ,i,.,,,, , ,,I 1111,. , ._1_, 4 pr; cv ' 1* 1 lic IL. illt i. , 1 ., rr-i ...., ICJ ,k 1.. • I Al; '. 11' d I ii ‹... .2 , i rt \\ . al , HI i II' D )• ad i illiiiiffil111 i 11174,, 1,,,,,,,,,,, , i: 111 IV A C ' • •,.,14 t_ I i .11 D 2 _ ; ii '‘ 1 1 I .--- .,....4 -,.% , • i. , 1 ,, . ., ,,, il ii• " I ic • • . . 1 . i j‘l 1, 111 11 • \!, ii 4 ' - , r,--, rz D .14444,44i4t .. __ r-- .- 1- -- -.----‘ tti • ‘;‘ ._ 1 I l; 0 II! 8 tl i 11111- TX ;A, t $-4 t, al 111/11 In;' '11 ' '• - .1 • 1; , •, ; 4 1111111 0 i . ‘..i • - 0 • I NI,"114! " (r)A .,... irti ill ; co '1.____• _ mu ti sii - • -- ‘.. , 1 iiiiiiititair •PAim-k ...-. ; 1 /til eel*1' on ;••• r . I. ,,,f,:, ii 1.!' -; .1 4 t III i 11111 itilli = 2 Ail ,P, IP D .L...c2 _ ,_. OM i . mi, II 1!1 11.1111.1111— co ,_Iirls CI3 4j zr, ,-- Vi - i • ..; ,4 X 41/4e ,._,. \111[ •Iii 1 e4 ,, • , ii t • I. ,.., D ... co _ i 1111111 tk a , 1 .._ e a i leamml. ,,- .,/ 14111r11111 at .4 ._.1 , .11 7 iTillfiiff1 mil u. ra. ' 1 LI:2E, i . ti .1---___I. tm \ .,, ,.5. , -af. 7 - w 7 1,. -' ) e ,1 El== ,i. q t It\ =I • ?`:;t ,F--- ui • , inim. -7- :1 • .: 7,,,, , , .... . - .•6 • MU r LATI; ,i( 1'1.4 1114. al .• IL i liELIIVA_I N • / r il ; 1 ,4 .‘ uzlidmillUllt 'i-i•••• , CZ -k ::‘ ''--1=: ¢ g ;11.1:: ___ ..!. k, it:H P7r; 1 .= I., .= „....,,,.. , .: r 1 '-' ....' iti, ft, .,t , .. D cl = la,Alum. _ ____ •t --- ,_,....aw - < . CD -"1. — 1 -77,., _ • AI • <ILIIH':.PLL i- a . \ • . si . ....1-ausaaa i. . $NMI° 111110., a- II° • 11., %/i .41 1 -P1 ill .-- -' , 11111H111111111 ,, ., . q , ;_,R„ ., .'"iir Allini 1111 li ' It 1111111 Iii I , to ill . 4 \ 4.18 mu - 114.1.1fltold ....i . uzsrar ! .,,, —. 1 i 111001111101 . 1.pilll tr I L hut I 41 r-Eal H - , „Jima... 'MUll . VI h _ . I . . . . . . . t . 1•4 a) •• 0•4 •”4 Z — .. — 0 ci9 — • V) 0 AD 1111111) i •.-4 ,. - mum i .g ' t U inumni! 4 • ell 1 , III:: villa; ME' 1-:.------.7.7. 4 ol..-„d., . .. ...,-. . • — MM....MIL li‘iiit; cm) iT 1-5–.- .'s I E f 0 1 YO'-' x—. r Sc; ._______i__._ „4,171 t ,,0. t> 0 II / q '�y _ .14-,I 1,_-", rm � C. I t-4 1 ....4nQ i 3 0 O I _ Att. M+1® - Il O•o..rt_ -.hall .v, d- MEN _ _ t'Si . 1 .1- t /�i ,- _,la,, f __, ,r .o.-� iii E u�•.GI U Z;b ,,.y 00 ,., „,:i , , 8 . A MI ! i i I_ °) a iii ;. -- as __ _ Q k I I 430)I t. S ..t' r a "'e Ii' ----1- k At &, `� 11`- I 14 .._,____,___e.z.-1- 1,V:,i .r.);9.rg ‘. t4i I ....117-7,c-T. „ ____. . : 11 , co c < v. 7 4;f I . sows a'. It u I 000 .a •> S t— —— r— . fi,.: 1 i 14 it f I "it •i (a ii.,,it I 1Y" - t— e0i 1 L�. .7---, «� 5 L.� le �1 �.a� _ -i= ' lis - 1 I ISMS -. Ai _ I— 1\ T .14 I` VI ' —- I. _ � y� t I i N ri.1 r.fhll., I a l I I el i ict 41 -9 i_-- '''. 4 4 I rTN `.N \ V � I; ,.J PI • ‘` - r :- Y r' 1 ,.„g ..., ,,.._ Ni ,..• -f_'_..; 7A-''s t. I (1 '!.i t,itil ilj•_ i. i I SS � ;, �i-1 ti_i_is TV I 1 - —1. U oG 1. NG..6, w • --T ,G•Ori- al --fil 1--- : 11.1M f-:? -i 1111 > 4 _ ..-4 /v_ MI rIV v 00mi f4 _ ; !i ' IIID ? �, l[lu 1 Ir �� — • II , / -�► -. ._ 1 O _ -. !ig , • ,1 IIh! T 33 t� I:t1 , , ., 1 is 1.., .6 _ , ...,_,...., ,iI.',-,, •,_-% # 6 i I .-,„:: . ._ !r / I !, . } , y I.. _____ I .----=.rt. -:....1 f 1 1:;(' .1 9 , ,,i,, .,,,,.. 1 _ —.—_ < - -tom- I L J �'�ryr –` �D . \ r� l t >� o \\ f 7 Orf .tr : . • 9 9 �)� T� i :. I i i• .,t c �Q x — -, y . ❑ t' !iHLOQ \� 1 ai -- �! tJ g LIFT i G If ct �• �-� 1) Iii.. 4� peF 'r O . \ 14*'N'; 11 — ' / : : .: :: l-e, V___ ME _. ..) . 717% in gr-r--I 1 ...., .j ii .1•4:._ # 1. ;11 Z s!"9 — • ,., _. __ Mak _ i "11 vr,e--Ei . • 11 20 In Li 11 i 11111. , `� ( --Artr—i –47- L '11 : *c/1° _ cis 1 It +►. 'F.Y-uet.lett on 10..elww �•���') 24 11( • 2114 - .d as .L' • r • ` it - v-• • .• , A ,-', at-1 `'_ ar Master :- • •• -. .L . ) 1 11 Ba_p_ SCI „ 1,1 YIMYI 1 � -1 t r 1 • "P ' I .�- cc.4,1. .rrd•.yWf !47474.4 e\ _ lsllR\ milfi 2x4 - � WAIL Loft o Bedroom #2 I L tr — .4_, l N Trz7-- E1 Il 2M�n� ® ® i 1 • 144' ,ed ' 14•s. ' M61*. r _. %10' — UNIT 'A' SEODND\FLOOR PLAN _515 S.F.S.F.NNit -• _ •,..•,•„ e.2- •c.as•:9•... s,...•...•-a c�a 4.1 l 2 a 4 rwai I-Ncwt FLUOR ♦ ♦ ♦za�9 f i V ' " ':r ' o V 1 1- S ; /° • o: ' o .KitchenQ ^ I W,'�--r. f� _ pr 0 P.M1.. QplJfr.•IM •.1 Ur- 144- Z , .4-4.21X.Q' — , :�V 2 • .9' • " I Owltt•.E:! 4.••. 51•5" - *.." 4.5" a'-c," -0 '\ rot .:T_28 w 11 • ar C.wSL taq� 1b s i a tan 4 r' ct n,�[� 2%4 • ,. •y,;.- Garage w... r-.. WI ami 1 Lao Z 11 ® 3 R.7 ib'au-14.'60V% M7l-'1Var •— ^ - .,•-p. w — — -�sp n gra _ ��••••11 F+1 ._ .........,.. .,) re.11.ce `''11 oti 1' TVP A•UNrTAR7�C'""��' 1 ,� CORE Fiu! I L r�, • . M11' .0z.Mlr�b/Vw .— p.m 2x4 co O • 216 9,��,. .11tw1T LICA-VT a 64 •;.LI T � • IUTi O ;. 1 91-Ir 11' Id-2' JM ' • • N ♦ .yj"o" • --X I' l • i UNIT 'A' FIRST FLOOR PLAN 608 SOL ! r,•1 — �< / /� it _-----".- � II14 ••• .. ..... 2..••....-••• ,. '.....i• ••'• G••4- ......‹../... .,...•—:".-.4_ g Oc:54 ' N•••"...x.'-. ry ..� J Irr '-: �' ,, I vT.�'Y.�t ~fit a OA J 1:14I _• - .p - , sem'` I fr-j «fit== �' �I;iIIHCa ''__ r Y 1 id r,^f' II il ^ � f` j iit 1. -. --0-i 1. d7�i.'~' I,ir.Y XIII". _-- i!t.•'•.: -•?....•- tz•-• i'f..:Iti it VIIII - .' ' • Vj ,fix�° r ."—C' 4 c• 'IIhifi.. "el ',tom u .. r. ••..r w-_,",,-- -- -r ': v. :.f▪ ir«iii .i l'` r = -7.t":1--• .. ::_ � ::;'' :ilk':,; _ 4' CC P,:- x:_:2:7---- -_cc _ II co Jimmincr, ;I1;;Iiiis . .. ,,, I ' It: ....... r - ' - I_ •_• •,.. r 'r' w..-,r:;� . I''1 �0_ i CD1 �.ra• '':IFN' I�. ,1r—;...o_ r!4; Ir1 -Jil . 1) 111 II ' • - . ' i• i ii i=„0-,--.--14iii:.1: ':•.:-- .."1:::** ff • .. • 1t, «:,c1. i• ` -,I JJ j 1 si t,.I`----•`#.'y•y;, jr'� .. .- : ' , A 14:5. :-V. jr` - ;; 'j '.'�y;• '' r`I ® -44, .r` A`"r rr�� :l •;: 1 1 " c _ t: _.: ,, _,.,.... 4 41 - fir` • _"c o N ,,,„,,,,,.., `` may . ..�.:'��.' Vis- i c Es - :� • 4. ,,•i^y•• f. o -: S C- t • s - .0e ✓ CI C Q (n L ; c III Om Cr .I imp Os ! WIIIIi O I i i j � II I O _o 0.4 �tH ►i ii m Cr) 'I C CZ CI u • I.- N3 NI1 N3NIl on Ce I DO O C O 1 W IL ' m I oc CI I t Z N O I Q U - ---1 1 3 i , J 0 3 LW moil / i U I fI I Q iZ IMe CA 010 IWI I 1 V 010 1�� ►I Mai Ii 1 111 01101° ic-)1 1 I1 � U 0 0 NT _ 1 6. f O o L 7 • ..•. o° oc et - Z Z yes { c `T'8 2., lir i.• m C 7 m 92 Z --.'‘.41, •• -,, r .7-•I: ' 'ri 1,=, ''''..'•‘, ::e7 _ 4! ' E = -- ...•- !-,.• _ ‘,-. - , ..-ai- ..r.,- II, si wt ti--1 0.7.--i•--__ •,..,• "„). 1,„,-- .- - .11 &4.7 --.7. .41, -----,---..-•:..----- -. A. -.. I= .' . ------ -----=--- 'X = I 77.- . ',i 44°- . - P. . ' • Iteg' .7- 4..4. Al - .;,. cr < . .•.• li, —a. I 1 ii i, ',_i -,.....-;.;.•-:. -:_=_ =2-'4 Arm.4t ,t =-- ! ' iiiirill._ 0' -:----•-- =...; t tt` ryk_ ^- " , • • ffr- 101 . 1.': : lip 7 ' • '="" '2 0 .., . , br .. . ..„.,6 ,. ?./t-tC:". • is- .-. . -: , - , -- • . 11111 • Ittli...talinvgQ. - " _____I• 1: M ' i 61 • • TA--mcw.....-. .: _,..„ •- rivir,P 4.4„- .1 777.14,63, ,----- -- iimni ., 61 t4.k a'•'1 --minium . — f '14"11"11,Eili! 77 'mom :----1.1. . aw, Jr PIN; 1.=_.__,, - — ..._,.. :di 4r 11 A - -- --=- , . I rihr 4. kl 1211,17m ..--_ .2. ,,,,; • 4,1, - _ _- _ . . - '!; 'Ill I'll '11 iiluilIiiniorli-1, ..... .1,Ali oz 4 8, „ ,......,_. 0,,, , p:47, 1,1 ,- .1E-V.A.•Ilf'hrid :A1114144 .-_:_ilt. ------':-4-'r - • :4 : fie. row 1 ig itoft,ii11 , 1 9 • 1 1, -,-7 =iiffr:. 1.- , i'”' ,7::::a :..i...... , ,!It j 1 -7--.,7-#. )4 -4 v01r rld l• fr. -- -- .:. ...,- ,,,!,,.. if ,.#1 .„..i: 1. I. ii-' 7 !Plit if 17.2;' - r` ig _ . ,0 ,.4 . _ numusianut , '' ..:""4 '1 i • :2 -7 411=-r. 7- 1. ilfil4ilui. . Ai'- CA ._*-Z-s .. 61' t • ..1,--- mos,- -71.......0 ( .. :lit fijiii r, 1 0 i ii 1"1.4 iill elk-•-•."- tr--= . imam' i'I 'I'•it --EF I '1\. Cn lit I. 14411'1110f 0 1:10 • ...., NI iik• :- : • 6,4 4 = ?.., 4ii° ii i •k'• '' - —__- .01:1, IiN -I- • ' •11 =-'__‘ 7.--= ITO 14 Ili ‘!. Itbk 711 -- • M M . ':-- -____= i;IZI1 i i t -.-T .."illin. 4 iitlIti,11'04rii: 411111'111iLlit.iti.it .: *, i-c------x---1-_=-______= 0 ;,,I,4 itpitit tvi to 4r.yri" • i_-q -L-1911.::1Tr--. - - . • ... P tr :1.iii.tteid,'LI..1111.1 ; . . . .1 ;. . -----:... ' ' :. ------=---'--..t?,-41:,,... --7,--- .7c-- I ill minifcnuit: •a ---- _ (.., GC. Iffiriallifillal ----=--- ill it In. 1. --4---UIW- r_..__ ______ . .. ("' . I . • ,,:iii., ,:-44'11111111111111111 4 ; d, K; I ' z il -Ell'I'llinimuill ..9--r-- ' 11;; ;1114111'4 Z'f 1 . .-----1 *._—'"" • 1 A.ti r -4. i. 1 •,'. 13, ,..>s tc• p..p.,- ' lik " :'':'; - .i:'..'11::1 !!!''=. - -,-, .._• P 5 c-. ---- -- _1%4';!:,y114.5' !.,:•.` t‘\% \ii ...._ ---- , - --......_ --. ileie /- tol ._..1--.-.t.t n..!;all I U II II I I I I I IN i• — rjigelii..r ' ; .A14 t— I ".i 1\,‘,11 pi :€;;Piiiiiiiim_ti... :::,..,---- • 2--,.:: , .hi 4 ii.F in. , ..„__,_,_. .,. • ..„-- -_-_ — *. 17 t k il I i.11.13411f, i..:: a. .141.lit. ,1 i•1 iiiiill $ :-i-i---1-.--.L 1 11, h ----=."-__ =-__- 1111 :-...' , 'illli. I:1 .1 11!rill il 1..m.' r iidith .'7.__ .g ...q.... ,..., , j , ,,,i,„ ,, 1- tithlij• -7.--..... ..__ ...,u . . i! ).! , iii_ti,,.,...72.: 14,',J •=116.-._ :::::_ E, E i , 'Ill'1j1 il 111 --' 1111111iniii. isiff'i---- ' :=- .,...__ — q.-.,V.,""• =.,....,.•,L:r._ -..a-41--•ql.P.- ;!'..;II lq - 01, yilifil AllP1 I I ..... ------3 ' .7 •-•X..±..'• ". . I . :..1,,.......:1. ..r. • „ v .._.._,..„__ _ .! •...._7,_..:;........__ ..„._ .1.. e, . .t . , 1 .11 i , , i : .....------'. ._.:- ,..... ,- .., ., , iw ;•..- !I, ,! c-,- -,- ,_— .-- -_ cc-CC k...,.C.:. .., .....q.:2".koi * i, ". ti r, 4i' i OP, li;Amu Kt.-- ,h, 7:+, , 41 .. • _no :r-7 –... OI . .,..._A„, ..4.-:,__. '•••' , :-.711,,..-,Inelt.,...Ser.V.A0p11111....n._1!!,--;'- .11-tr.:.-_"--yrf .,..-.A.-----------------'—=;--- , i---‹- --- __ i, •44.. , .. -,.--_....11 1 1 Iiiiii..i. , -7_,_-_-,,_ k"\-- 6'itct ,-.,. r ..40.11, a illg.. r . ......,.. ....... ....'''...... '...........1. . ....... c c c d A7 C.411?1 r ti 1 ri . �c 1"....":1 o Jim 'w 8= ___ L - 1 Q O g y Z w •0 v � C ,.0 Y 8 W 0Z O O 77, _>0 JFTIZ z ZZ = 0 rr W� OGn Ci) 171.IIIIIIMMN11.11.11.L.%'>A\,'''. M hLisisboO 8W O PE irm0 kfl-GI0 :. iCX053 S O x, mg.gt§2, .. 1— Q iis G:W mv z 1r_LI SW .. `. !<uc � �jE V,, l No. F:i-,-4.: Ioc�. r-X < z tour THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC, BuilderforLife J (J[rfJjJN[) VILLAS AT LINDEN, PLACE IIOr4IES May 15, A DIVISION OF - .+ THE ROTTLUND COMPANY.INCI . '1 ` Sales Office: iodel:;Hours: . Main Office: 571-0304 • i1-7 p;rn Mon-Thurs — Agents: 1 12-5 p.m. Fridays • ' 12-5 p* .Sit & Sun a _._ — ASPEN APPROX. SQ FT 1240 BRECKENRIDGE APPROX. SQ FT 1100 *PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE* Extensive Landscaping Private Streets and Common Areas City Sewer, Water, Natural Gas & Underground Utilities _ Underground Sprinkler System Individual Gas & Electrical Services 100 AMP Service 40 Gallon Gas Water Heater Carrier Electronic Ignition Furnace w/Outside A:.r Electrical Service for Range & Dryer Telephone & Cable Rough-ins — Central Air Conditioning 1 Water Spigot in Garage 1 Concrete Patio, size per plan — Asphalt Driveway Aluminum Siding, Soffit, Fascia & Trim Exterior Brick per plan High Premium Asphalt Shingles -' Total Ceiling Insulation R-33 Total Wall Insulation R-20. 5 Double Pane Glider Windows — Metal Entry and Service Door Panel Garage Door 2 Coats of Off-White Latex Paint (interior) Prefinished Ranch Oak Trim through-out Interior Oak Rails Oak Passage & Closet Doors Oak Veneer Cabinets & Vanities — Stainless Steel Kitchen Sink Formica Countertops in Kitchen Cultured Marble Bathroom Vanity — 4" Backsplash on Countertops Vanity Wide by 48" High Mirrors per Vanity Wood Clothes Hanger/Shelf per Closet — Sheetrocked Gas Fireplace w/ Gas Logs & Glass Doors `smoke Detector & Bath Fans White Bath Fixtures • Deluxe Light Fixtures Range, Range Hood, Refrigerator, Dishwasher, Disposal, Washer/Dryer Choice of 2 Inte_ic_ Color Packages (carpet, vinyl , courtertocs; Assessments LINDEN PLACE VILLAS WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 136 HOMES ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET - 1992 Prepared by The Rottlund Company, Inc. REVENUE 136 Homes Monthly Amt. Association Fees $122,400.00 S75.00 EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES Management Fee 59,792.00 $6.00 Tax Returns S310.08 $0.19 Legal $505.92 $0.31 Membership Meetings $816.00 $0.50 Office Expenses 5816.00 $0.50 INSURANCE EXPENSES Dwelling only & Common Area Liacility $9,792.00 S6.00 UTILITIES Water/Sewer $26,928.00 $16.50 Electricity (Street Lights) $864.96 S0.53 SANITATION SERVICE Trash Collection $13,872.00 58.50 MAINTENANCE EXPENSES Lawn Care/Snow Removal $26,112.00 516.00 Irrigation System $848.64 $0.52 Miscellaneous $375.36 S0.23 Fire Sprinkler Monitoring & Rental 54,896.00 53.00 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $95,928.96 S58.78 CONTINGENCY FUND (1.574) 51,436.16 50.88 INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLE $3,264.00 $2.00 RESERVE FOR REPLACEMENT 521,770.88 S13.34 TOTAL ASSOCIATION EXPENSES $122,400.00 $75.00 Page 1 57SP l3 1” 3 _ 1(1 10 rLu Ce1 (..t7Ult4;4"/ 1229VIC4,eee cei4t4- , r„_ teawn.Y, _ _,e/c7-, "beae.e -_ . _4-114,01 J-e-47,47e . CC-Qm.44! cey-34-ciat Ateet _ ie e .ez J2Z-) , ., c ;ve.Ec Ott- , G . 4.7a,& - Flu c ��m�e ��� Q .4,cyptc - esti /144 , fA,070e1A • atileZC C tt- ✓ agaiSt. C)t, 4,%,G , 1?.-a t.1{, 44iit _ _06 4/6e(4 fILYAe' -17- -y . '� _' - -- . 11„(_, CSe . 44.titz<14 Ctf -2Zt.6 I ( JL 4714- K/ /h n ✓� tel. u_ curee • C� c/ JZc�4t, i,�j .iGvC� - od/A.,,-?.;44ft. 47- 4,,,,,,t(4.?„,_09:Le44„",.,,,e,_ii.ei,c,,,e,T4__Jia/_cee,.„:„ _ _ . da,I*14t.eNtt .;i4 3 5,511.40-kr), eCit a•Ree . _ _.RZo -4-tee _ -4. 4t , ,-tea -v .� t6-fiz=q7 C _ •�� (14- I • i0Jutu,;144 e cee7. cf: e ; (IL 0 ce,-1,....eee aehiwc., H4.4t l'aAee, 14.1c",c,,ze.-"4 el 6411 _a.- .."-444r7 . - cJ OtJJfr4a, - ,2%te, 14%74 CC#4;ar Cerk4c;,&zite 1 - -, 17)44-a-ur ivvoulAJ-a-edl- cA-Lez,te SSO- ..xtZta. ct . a ti a fI -- 1 L- _lt.a -fit. - ! _40,4/144 _.44.e.mt cute e itateeet* 444y- „&jtz S- ca4z,cc& c.� - ✓ i,L . •(tel .X4.44 ,Abra c2-4-eet-, ate- csz.ale .� opl-cimiv‘A47. ceyrptc. - r iu .fir - . .AA- testi - .p.4fa Z-4eit.t (ac tAxic‹.ee 42Z; --6-7Le- CLQ � 91,t c ;Z c j cog- 1 yvi.4 A)-clop.tAft _ 4mm,4-t, _ cit g , _Ae&teefyipAktAit_t__a ale:4E-tt I el- _./±4A: Ageru, ,.Arpt*IA-9t, _2 ") __A-kteart-e. 2,L.e?t cy+ _oeiv-4e,t1 iZ 62141,- of- a, cativz.ut .Aen.t.e01121, cegepi+- ateee_r_ te, cl-ttee cerpt-cp.)-(Alizee evtiq, 044e2 A4ie.0444_ • • e5-5-0 7760 L1g6LE q3y - beL.A.):4-tt, Le, it) t.c.4.„e1.3 g 5 T c-`"`� RECEIVED — C —"L`" `,J) � SEP 1 3 1993 CITY 0r 4hHivNASSEN — 4e-d2A-I4elp ia, I59a, — i To - zg A) .._.. LL;s_e_ ;-y.) �- c Av-edArJt 3 ) I ' ''3 . c, t, ,�_ �. a&-LA-17 - -,,. - .. .741,_,-,rt Ib itii3 o — c tta- c> >-.., e-, L t 1?� 6k9 , — (tc--)kkr- ruJJe.„I•c4_4, �` vy . ti Lac, /creak, ezAw-eLt 4t ceL,1;_e_eiL 4trc-,k" L• Y t�=- .gyp �5 -v 8 1 Z Du,3 1,-L;.) ce-,esi ceN,- —i:,.c, -- Ak, —0,z) Atfre i 0 G. , c-c,r .4.,--42. o .6 $,. 'tom, Ita- -68,Z-- __LA) o — Iry -ttv:0, 0.,.e.4-- __ % a) 4Q o -tA ,o-- L a-,,. — ,ie- w-ec4 -tam - t- A--,---1(. 16-c..E. 44-LL. /11I -,,vv . i 3) -riv."4_, tc, fr,e-t .A,-„c-* e,-6--. ro-u-44. — I pr‘i te,.cr r,4.-r,,�s�-v f -tet :ems y0 — "tL..i ,D1 a- w E •b-- s.,,0i; L tea., ziD v2ti`-Li t 'IL' 0 Ca .Ci--+ eta'""L LA't... J ry LA.'AIL .l'Utf.'.e W t Q . a_, ,,,,-, , b...,+" 10 1 L-� , .a. w - `to ).10- 024,�- c.3 00 +a o D CAi 3) - jJ .- I CCW4.-- -tioeN^Y - tln ,=1 CUAJ4fe-- At , 1 _4(,,r—,* L% i,4.- . u -E1 --64..-. 1 .k-e_ ,, e`L 2w.- veAlL t 7 Q, Q. a � ,_�, vizi. , r , -Ea-_ vim. (1 5 ) ! - t.ki1/4.0-A.zry-. tc.D.,7\ _ Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 19 preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. 5. The property owner of Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible at the time of building permit issuance for one sanitary sewer and water connection and hookup charge. The City Treasurer 's office shall determine the charges based on the original assessment plus interest accrued from the date the original assessment was levied. The connection and hookup charge may be assessed against the parcel. 6. All disturbed areas must be seeded or sodded to prevent erosion. One tree must be planted within the front yard setback of each lot. The tree must be deciduous, at least 2 1/2 inches in diameter at the time of installation, and selected from the city' s recommended species list. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DESNITY (190 DWELLING UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 62 . 05 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND VCATION OF A PORTION OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Public Present: Name Address Milton Bathke 8404 Great Plains Blvd. Gene Klein 8412 Great Plains Blvd. Mark & Lori Jesberg 8407 Great Plains Blvd. Bruce Engel 8699 Chan Hills Dr. No. Jeff Williamson 8411 Great Plains Blvd. Randy Fresett 8411 Great Plains Blvd. Joe & Gayle Hautman 8551 Tigua Circle A.W. (Mike) & JoAnn Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Dave & Sharon Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle Joanne L. Larson 8590 Tigua Circle David Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 20 Farmakes : When you say. . .are you talking about commercial there. . . Al-Jaff: Well it isn't. . .the guide plan guides it for commercial as well as residential. It' s a mixed use. We don't know what the applicant is proposing within the commercial district. Farmakes: Typically a mixed use, is that not low type commercial use? It ' s not a Target type situation. Krauss: It ' s really not specifically addressed in the comprehensive plan. It says mixed use. It's mixed commercial and high density residential. It ' s really open to some interpretation as is. . .We think we know the scale. . .PUD process is even though commercial development there is premature, I think it 's probably something that wouldn't happen until Highway 212 was a little more eminent. The PUD process allows you to send - very solid, firm guidelines. . .development that happens here. Just rezoning the land, you have no controls at all and that 's not something we recommend. Just to touch on what Sharmin was mentioning. This is a PUD concept plan. This is the first time through with this. As these things usually are, it's somewhat rough. We 've been working closely with the applicant over the summer. There are some changes that have been incorporated into it. Some of the responses. But this level of detail is more of a fact finding mission frankly. To see what kind of issues need to be addressed when the formal documentation is submitted. We've raised a series of questions that we 'd like to have addressed. We assume you ' ll . . .assume that some of the residents in the area will do the same as well . That' s the purpose of this meeting. A PUD concept is a non-binding review. It has to be formally brought back through the process. Go through the public hearing for official action so that's still in the offing. So I guess you should. . .with a goal of refining the plan and laying your issues out on the table. At the other end of the spectrum, we shouldn 't expect everything to be resolved to nth degree at this stage. That' s not what this type of review's for. Farmakes: Taking that in mind, the 9 . 2 acres there on the commercial site. Do you envision that large enough to. . . strip mall or do you envision that large enough for a light use service type useage. Dry cleaners. Fun and run type. Gas station. Krauss: Well the thing that obviously concerns us is, 9. 2 acres is almost exactly what Target is. Mancino: That ' s not neighborhood commercial. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 21 Krauss: That ' s clearly not neighborhood commercial. I mean we could tell you what we think and we're asking the applicant, for them to tell us what they think it is and reach some accommodation with that. What we'd like to see is something that ' s, as Sharmin said, of use to the neighborhood. That includes the gammit from small multi-tenant office space to a daycare center to small service commercial. Those kinds of things that are used on a daily basis. It is going to be sitting on a major interchange, and I know it's hard to visualize. Well yeah. . .year 2000 now or something. Batzli : Oh really? I saw '97 last time. It' s delayed again. = Mancino: What happens if 212 doesn't get built? That could happen couldn 't it? Krauss : Well, it hasn ' t been built for 35 years so I guess anything ' s possible. The project is moving forward. It' s kind of hard to say. Mancino: But the reason why we zoned it mixed use to begin with was because we thought 212 would go in. Krauss: There' s an official map highway corridor there. Mancino: If there' s not 212 , do we really want to have a mixed use in that area or do we want to have? Krauss: Honestly that becomes arguable. I mean when that section of the city will probably ultimately have enough population that you' ll want something. Would you want as much as you would if you had a highway interchange? Probably not. Our comprehensive plan is predicated on MnDot doing what they say they're going to do and they're buying up right-of-way slowly. Farmakes: Well, from a political standpoint as businesses go in there, which they are. As people subdivide and start building these types of roads. From a political standpoint, so comes the highway. . . Krauss: It ' s an approved project. I mean the State has scheduled to let contracts on the east end of it. Batzli : The people will come in and complain that a highway's going in next to them. That's what will happen. Scott: Also with TH 101 being kind of like the highway that isn't. Roughly, is it a chicken before the egg where this development is going to drive the city' s expenditure of upgrading Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 22 TH 101? I 've read here about that particular classification for that highway and what kind of bill are we talking about? If MnDot isn't going to pay for it. Krauss: We have no idea. First of all, I mean we do have, there is a state highway. The only improvements that are made to Highway 101 since the 1930 's are safety related. There 's no. . . Clearly the road is in terrible shape. Clearly it' s inadequate. Clearly the city have acted as though they're a state government in trying to respond to what the State by default isn't doing. The reason why we commissioned a study 4 years ago, 5 years ago to decide how to upgrade things between Highway 5 and 212 , which is also why the city has already spent considerable dollars upgrading Market Blvd/TH 101 intersection and rebuild it down to the creek. We met with the I guess it's Chuck, the chief engineer. And we were asking him. Harberts: No, he's the metro district engineer. Krauss: We had a meal with them a month ago trying to get this item on the agenda and. . .was that we ought to keep talking on it and they're may be some method wherein the highway is turned back to county or city jurisdiction. . .pot of funds that MnDot has called turnback dollars. We 're hoping of meeting next week with the city of Eden Prairie, Carver County, Hennepin County, MnDot staff to try and set the ground rules for it but it's a very big issue and it ' s beyond one development tripping or not tripping. I don 't know where the straw that breaks the camel 's back. We realize that it 's not a good situation. That's why the city's already committed to doing so much. Harberts: Is there a proposed dollar value though? What kind of money are we talking about here? Krauss: I don't know. We did have some rough estimates. In fact Fred Hoisington is here to be on your agenda last tonight, and maybe tomorrow now. And he was going to give you an overview of some of the preliminary work he did with realignments and his original study I think had some preliminary cost but that was 5 years ago. We haven't updated that yet. Harberts: . . . looking at alignments, yeah. Krauss: Now MnDot is scheduled, with the construction of Highway 212 , MnDot is scheduling to rebuild TH 101 from Lyman Blvd up to 86th Street. That ' s part of the highway project. Mancino: Whenever that. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 23 Krauss: Exactly. Scott: And wherever 86th Street ends up going. Krauss: That' s true too. Mancino: Is there a formula in the comprehensive plan, I mean I read the whole housing section but is there a formula in the comprehensive plan that is mixed use on anything? I mean like is = there a formula for how much of a mixed use should be commercial and how much high density? No guidance? Krauss: No. Mancino: So that 's why we 're ending up with the 9. 2 . . . Krauss: Well the. . .corresponds to where the lines were put on on the official city map. But it is open to some interpretation. Conrad: Any other things? Any other comments right now? We' ll open it up. If the developer has some comments. I think from a Planning Commission standpoint, the key word here is conceptual. This is a concept plan. It will come back. Some of the staff recommendations are kind of specific so it gets you carried away into looking at specifics but again this is the time that we can tell a developer what we 're thinking and for them to tune into where we 're going and then they can take their calculated risk or gamble if they want to go a little bit against what we're recommending. But again, it' s their opportunity to see where we are. I think as we get close to a recommendation, again there are some specifics and I think that ' s, they really get kind of specific but I think we have to be kind of general in our approach. With that, if the developer is here and would like to make a presentation, we 'd sure entertain that at this time. Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Putnam. I 'm one of the partners of Tandem Properties. My partner Jim Ostenson in the pink shirt is here also. Dennis Marhula and Greg Koskey from Westwood Engineering are the engineers and planners inthe project. They're both here this evening and we' ll ask Greg to give you a very short explanation of some of the site plan issues. Don Jenson who is the manager of land development for Rottlund Homes is here sitting in the front row and he' ll be able to explain the unit types that they 're proposing and answer any questions you might have. We received the staff report. As the staff said, we 've been talking with both the engineering staff and the planning staff primarily for quite a length of time. Also with Mr. Hoisington about the road realignment. The impact of that and so forth. I might just tell you how we're purchasing Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 24 the property. We 're buying the land on a contingent purchase agreement essentially. If the project's approved, acceptable to what we need to do, then we would buy the land from the two underlying owners, Mr. Klingelhutz and Mr. Bartz . Mr. Klingelhutz will retain the commercial area and we aren't involved in that other than it ' s included in the planned development at this point so as Mr. Krauss said, he and Al I think have had some discussions about what that outlot will be and what size it should be and that' s an issue we 're kind of responding to on what ' s presented to us. If it's 10 acres or 5 acres or what have you. We'd work around that. I guess what I 'd like to do at this point, we did have a neighborhood meeting last night with just a few people there and they brought up some good questions. Good issues. Good suggestions of what changes we might be able to make. In reading some of the letters, it' s pretty clear however that there seems to be a real basic underlying dispute with the comprehensive plan in that commercial and higher density and medium density housing that happens to be proposed for this site. And it ' s nothing we have any control over. I guess we looked at the plan and talked with staff and highway planners and proceeded accordingly. What I 'd like to do at this point is ask Greg come up and maybe explain very briefly since the staff did a pretty good job on outlining it, for what the plan entails and Don, to explain the units for you and then we 'd be able to answer any questions that are raised in the staff report after that if you'd like. Greg Koskey: Since the staff did a very thorough explanation at the beginning here I ' ll just keep my comments fairly brief here and touch on some points that I 'd like to emphasize. One was that we had met with the staff early on to review the Comp Plan and various site issues. To that end we developed a site plan that was generally consistent with the comprehensive plan in terms of general areas and uses that would define the commercial multiple family and single family areas. The multiple family that we 're proposing is generally lower density than might be allowed by that comprehensive plan. We also took into consideration the alignments for Highway 101 and 212 as defined by MnDot and that the Hoisington Group is working on for the 101 alignments. Knowing that wetlands is that ever important issue that we have to recognize, we did field delineate the wetlands. Had our wildlife biologist go out there and stake them and field survey them so that we can work around them. The intent certainly is to avoid any contact with them. I know that there was comment in the staff report about impact, potential impact from 86th. The intent certainly is that we stay out of it recognizing that there are serious repercussions if we start dealing with that particular issue. When we got into the specific site planning of the property, we took a look at how the Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 25 use relationships were going to work. We naturally wanted to get a single family buffer here adjacent to the residential to the east. Recognizing that 212 is going to be a fairly major roadway coming out of a freeway thoroughfare, we wanted to get a little bit higher density type units to this area and working with a slightly denser, lower type impact unit up here. The units down in this area are 2 story. They're generally 4 , 8 and 12 unit buildings. We have a density in this area of around 9 units to the acre. Up in this particular area we 're looking at one story units generally before and. . . in our buildings. We've also worked with private roads running through this site. We wanted to keep things generally in a curvalinear manner. Keeping straight sections fairly short. Attempting to use the variety of sizes of units and the arrangement of roads to help create an interest so as you move along you don 't see long lines of buildings that look very monotonous. We're trying to create some interest here with the way that we arrange units either at angles, moving along so that you're seeing the buildings from different forms, different directions and not seeing the same thing all the time. Overall density for the site, including the residential. We 're looking at something around 4 1/2 units to the acre. Again averaging 9 units here. About 6 . 7 units for the one story units and about 2 1/2 units per acre for the single family residential. 86th Street is, as you see intended to be realigned up at this point here. Working with reasonable setbacks here and working with the plans for 101 that the Hoisington Group has worked with, there is also a proposed connection to the existing Highway 101 at that point. The street right through the single family residential is intended to loop north and come back up to TH 101 at some point in the future. When that area develops. The grading, we 've worked with in a fashion that' s generally consistent with the site. The one inherent consideration that you have with any type of residential, multiple family residential is there is only so much grade that you can work with on these sites so they do have a tendency to flatten to some degree but we are attempting to retain as much of that existing character as we possibly can. We are also with the site drainage patterns, creating areas of where quality ponding prior to discharging waters into the wetlands. Generally we 're routing water through the site in a southeasterly direction that will ultimately end up moving down towards the Riley Lake area. The utilities to the site are being serviced with sanitary sewer up north of this site. There is watermain that will have to be extended into the site from other areas through a public works project to service this particular property. Landscaping is one where in the multiple family area we 're generally working with the density of about 2 1/2 degrees per unit which is a little bit higher than you' ll typically find in a single family residential area. We're trying to also work with shrub massings around foundations and elsewhere throughout Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 26 some of the critical site areas. By appropriate massings of these trees we can buffer areas along TH 101, along 86th Street. Buffer along 212 in conjunction with the berming that we 're proposing along 212 and 101. We're also trying to arrange landscaping throughout the areas to help define open spaces, shape of buildings, soften the massings of the buildings and help provide for the privacy of the individual units. Where they have their individual gathering areas. I think with that I 'd like to pass it along to Don. Don Jenson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Don Jenson with the Rottlund Company. It's been a while since our company's been before you. We are in the process of developing our own single family subdivision. . . I 'm looking forward to working with Tandem here. We are the builder in this particular development, which means that they're developing the property for us. They're taking care of the streets, utilities, the land development approval process. We 're the end user and that, in this particular case that means we 're looking forward to bringing more of the single family houses such as what we 're buildling at Windmill Run, down to single family lots. We are looking at providing market rate housing that staff eluded to, regarding first time home buyer product. That is what we are intending to provide on the southern end of the property adjacent to 212 is the Rottlund Villa. Some of you may have friends or business associates that live in some of those. There ' s approximately 1, 400 of the villa units now built in the Twin Cities. All quadrants of the Twin Cities. It has sold, depending on the city and the development costs, as our newsletters would say, anywhere from the high $50, 000. 00 ' s in the very first years, up to the low $90, 000 . 00 ' s in some communities. All of those things are driven by conditions and decisions of the various elected bodies. Planning Commissions, etc and how those things impact development costs. I think there ' s goals of the city to have housing that 's more affordable. Then you can influence those through your decisions regarding conditions on any given approval of the project. We 're also excited about bringing a very new product for us, which are called our garden homes. They are the one story product and I ' ll flip over this sheet to those in a moment. This would be a somewhat more detailed and perhaps the cart before the horse but we wanted to give you an idea of what will be here regardless of the site plan. Assuming that you approve it. With that I ' ll move to the other side of the microphone. Farmakes: We 're looking at a fourplex here? Don Jenson: What you 're looking at right now is the back to back unit which means that any given side, if there were 8 of them on the footprint looking in plan view, which is. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 27 Farmakes : . . .multiple. Don Jenson: You multiple it, correct. So you'd see on an 8 unit building, you're only going to see 4 units on any one given side. Farmakes: How many am I looking at right here? Don Jenson: You 're looking at 4 . Farmakes: 4 . So it ' s a 4 plex. Don Jenson: It' s an 8 . But you're looking at. Farmakes: 4 on one side and 4 on the other side. Don Jenson: Correct. Now the site plan that you saw as part of the plan has combinations of 4 unit buildings, 8 unit buildings and 12 unit buildings, and I ' ll show you exactly where each unit is. Farmakes: I 'm seeing 3 garages here. Where ' s the fourth garage? _ Don Jenson: You're actually seeing 4 . You have one building. One unit is right here and it has, all end homes have 2 car garages. Harberts: Oh end homes so the centers have singles. Don Jenson: The centers are single so here' s your other unit. And that should be in your packets, although it may be on a sheet that ' s quite small to read regarding floorplan. They 're all roughly about the same size. These are about 1, 150 square feet typically. The center one is a little bit smaller. It ' s around 1, 100 square feet and then that pattern is just reversed. What you have on the site plan then for a 4 unit building, of which I believe there was one roughly in the center of Block 1 next to the wetland, is you have a combination of two ends. What we're done with this particular building style is the end home has a step roof, meaning that we have a vaulted ceiling space over on this side and then you've got a full 2 story space on the other side. So it ' s roughly compatible with how a lot of single family homes from the end view are built. The building itself is about 72 feet wide on the end view, which is not a whole lot wider than a lot of single family homes that have a wide or a triple car garage. About 40 foot wide house, depending on where the garage occurs, and 80 to 90 foot wide lot. You almost have the same. . . when you 're looking at the end use building, especially when it steps up. It 's no greater or no more visually a concern, depending on a person ' s perspective, than a 2 story home is on Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 28 the street. And depending on how a person views the sketch plan that the developers have put together here, the pattern that you see from the street, whereas you look over the wetland coming down to 86th into the Villa development on the south side, is a series of building masses and roadways which are about 1 1/2 times thinner than some single family neighborhoods. In other words, you might have a 70 foot wide, or excuse me. A 50 foot wide home and you've got your side setbacks and you're going to have another single family home with it's 2 car, 3 car garage. Your side setbacks of 10 and 10 perhaps or 15 and 15 from another home. In this case you have a building mass and then you have at least a 20 foot wide long driveway plus a street, private or public. Another driveway area so you're going to have about an 65 to 70 feet between buildings. Again that' s more detailed in the next part of the site plan but to get to the building style, that 's what we 're proposing in this area. What we believe is that encourages. . .you have created an awful lot of jobs in Chanhassen. Adjacent to Chaska. Eden Prairie. You have a lot of manufacturing, a lot of service sector employment. You're now seeing it across the street out here and in the retail developments that you 've been successful in attracting and a lot of those jobs simply don 't pay the high prices. High wages that are there purchasing the family homes. Farmakes: Materials on this particular model here. The outside clapboard. I see you have some. Don Jenson: No. I ' ll tell you what the outside building materials are. They're brick around the garages. Now that 's usually around our entries to the homes. Places where a lot of hands get touched so it's around the doorways. Usually we have some type of turning corner. Where we turn the corners, we carry the materials around so it ' s just not like a fireplace where it' s just in the front of the face. So we 're carrying it around the corners. It ' s also on all garage tops so if a vehicle would miss the garage door for some reason, it's not going to dent the building. It' s going to have something solid there. The siding is all an aluminum product. This all has a lifetime, similar to most single family homes that are being built today of about 25- 30 year life. The roofing materials, same thing. When we put together homeowner associations for these types of neighborhoods that we 've been building in the Twin Cities, we 're trying to make sure that they don't have big costs that they're going to have to worry about. Some of the associations on different housing projects, different housing types, in the 70 's. Late 60 's, early 80 ' s used a lot of wood products. They used them when wood products had a little bit better quality but still high maintenance. The redwoods, the cedars, they. .paint very frequently and quite often and if you have a single family home Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 29 that still has a lot of wood, it' s a job you dread doing. You end up hiring it away after the first time you do it yourself in most cases. So what we would like to is the low maintenance, long life exterior products. Farmakes: The trim, the windows? Don Jenson: The trims are all aluminum or aluminum clad. In some cases various types of metal composites on the. . .windows. That' s the building product. They all, I could furnish you with additional sheets. It's a detailed inventory of what comes with the home but again it' s about 1, 150 square feet, at a minimum. A little bit larger on the end. About 1 , 180 in some cases. That will fluctuate a little bit depending on how we treat the window areas. It is lofted, lofted space. Gas fireplace. All the appliances come in. This particular neighborhood that we're looking at, we are going to shoot for providing housing that is under $80, 000. 00 for a first time buyer. Now you' ll see a spread on all of our promotional material . If you look in the newspaper every Sunday you would see that a lot of our advertising we talk about how much the interior unit costs because a 1 car garage versus a 2 car garage, you can expect some savings there. There's _ usually in most of our neighborhoods, surprisingly a $6, 000. 00 spread between the 1 car garage and the slightly smaller square footage and the end home with it ' s 2 car garage and lofted ceiling space. Farmakes: Is the garage door also aluminum? Don Jenson: The garage doors have been primarily wood. They're painted. There have been some shifts, it depends on our suppliers and the particular development, neighborhood that they're in. So there ' s some shifts there. The standard exterior patio which is usually at least 10 x 10. You might not be able to measure that by looking at the plan. All of these homes have standard air conditioning, standard. . .we feel they're important. Will also affect that purchase price. Staff has eluded to an idea that they might want to try some type of special district where there might be various other incentives, either to Tandem or to an end builder like the Rottlund Company to do x in exchange for x, of which I don't know what those ideas might be. Farmakes: You're using the word range. Is that the average price then or is that the base price? Don Jenson: Well you've got 2 different styles of homes with, it ' s usually a spread of about $6, 000. 00 and you' ll find that the very first subdivisions we did, if you wanted to research them up at Brooklyn Park or Coon Rapids, had land costs and other Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 30 development costs that allowed those to come to the marketplace in the low 60 ' s. We recently completed a project in Bloomington and Eden Prairie where some of the end units, and they were adjacent to a woods and they were adjacent to very large oak trees, some of those end homes sold for a little over $90, 000. 00. So it ' s subjective. It depends on the location and it depends on the neighborhood and the various conditions of the development. Mancino: Would this be comparable to the property that you just developed east of Dell Road and south of TH 5? Don Jenson: From a neighborhood image on the exterior in terms of what we are now doing for our landscaping program, for our signage programs, our directional signs. . .at Dell Road and TH 5. How people are directed to their homes and how the project looks from the exterior in terms of the landscaping. It would be similar. The building facade itself is different. What we are trying to do there is that was also very high. That was above the number that staff was looking for. Those sold in the high 80 ' s and low 90 's. And what we 're finding is that there 's a lot of people left behind. There ' s a lot of people who still can't qualify at that level . There ' s a lot of singles, for whatever reason, and most of our neighborhoods are women who are looking to buy. About 50% in most cases are single women. That doesn 't mean you have children that you're tagging along. It just means that there ' s women in the workforce that are looking to buy a home and get started themselves and so without a partner and that ' s just what our demographics and our buying patterns show. Then on the end house we 're finding that there's couples. It 's primarily younger people and it 's primarily the first time home buying market. We also see about 10% of any given neighborhood, and most of them are anywhere from 70 units up to 170 units so this one fits squarely in the middle at 112 units. That about 10% of those have been historically older buyers where price was important. . . I 'm going to classify that as people over 50. They 're coming out of another home or they may not have even owned a home yet. They 're simply trying to get homeownership in this state, with it ' s high tax. You get one benefit on your tax form and that ' s if you own a home for the most part. What we found then is we could develop another product and that' s what we have along the street and we 're calling those our garden homes. We 've taken the same square footage, which is approximately 1, 100 to 1 , 200 square feet and instead of two levels, we 've got it all on one level. This does mean that it needs, and it will fall under the ' 88 guidelines for home construction meaning that doorways, hallways are wider than the 2 1/2 feet that you see in most cases. They 're all 3 foot wide doors. Hallways are wider. There ' s more of a requirement to have a flat site because you can 't have more than 4 units without meeting some of the federal Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 31 guidelines for accessibility. What we have then again is the same concept. The end home. The 2 car garage and our current concept plan is 1, 220 square feet so you've got your dining area, you have your garage area and you have your laundry and kitchen. You have a master bathroom, half bath, master bedroom and then kind of a den/bedroom and 'a porch. We found that the 4 season porch, or however builders like to classify it in Minnesota, it's still a big plus. It keeps the mosquitoes away and in areas, and especially neighborhoods where you have more wetlands or where long grass is close by, the mosquito populations are going to be up so you need to get away from those. But there again this is a fairly efficient home. Like all of the Rottlund products, we have accessibility to be straight out of the garage into the homes . You don ' t need to close the garage door and go outside and back into the front door. That 's one of the reasons that the townhome design and the villa product has been so popular with women. It ' s real secure entry system. We 've also taken then the idea of a single car garage has merit. There' s a lot of older buyers that no longer have a mate, or maybe never had one. They only have one car. There ' s no reason that you need a 2 car garage just to store boxes. So we 've taken the 2 car garage away. The 2 car garage again as part of the plan. It ' s a little bit smaller unit. It ' s 1 , 117 square feet and again a similar concept. You have your 4 season porch in the center. A patio space, master bedroom, and you have one master bath. This does not have a second bathroom in it so that ' s one of the places the square footage is increased. The end home has 1 1/2 bath system with 2 car garage. The interior homes 1 bath and then the laundry and kitchen area have a direct entry straight out of the garage. It has a total building height of 23 feet. The villa is around 28 feet so there ' s not a tremendous amount of difference between the roof height pitches. It ' s a 5/12 roof pitch. Similar building materials again. It' s aluminum products on the exterior. In some cases some of the vinyl manufacturers have been pursuing us for vinyl siding. It kind of depends on your personal taste whether you see one or another having more merit. That particular siding industry has improved in how their quality of their siding. You 're seeing it on homes all the way up through a quarter million, $300, 000. 00 so. It has an ability to hold color for long periods of time. . .bleaching out like previous projects did in the clapboards, etc. Metal trim and typically that ' s in a white. Scott: So in this particular plan, basically what we see here is unit A and unit B. Those two actually would be, you could put them together and that ' s basically how they would be? Don Jenson: That's exactly how they are. If you were to push these 2 together, that ' s how they show up on this plan. What' s Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 32 colored over here on the right side. - Scott: Okay. So the indentation back there is the patio and then the 4 season porch adjacent to the side of the garage of unit A. Don Jenson: Here's your porch. Here 's your entry area. In this particular building product, building design also has more of a vestibule or covered entry area so as you're standing at the front door as a guest, whatever and it's raining as this year every other day, you can stay out of it. . .get in the front door. . . .garage and have direct access to entry that way. Single family homes, which we hope to be the end builder there as well. Your minimum lot standards here are being applied to the PUD plan. It ' s a minimum lot size of 15, 000 square feet. That's going to translate into a move up style home or perhaps upper end. . .but it wouldn't be unlike neighborhoods we 're starting to build up on CR 117 . I 'd be happy to answer any questions for you regarding the housing project but other than that, that's the overview. It ' s the first time home buyer and it is an empty nester. People who are looking to downsize or in some cases people who are looking to get into first time home buying on a modest scale. Don't need all the square footage. It ' s all on one level. And we think that there ' s a strong. . . for that in the western suburbs and particularly out in Chanhassen. Western Eden Prairie market area because you 've done such a good job of getting service sector. . .and jobs here. It will keep people off the roads so they won' t be driving a half hour to get to work. . . Mancino: What ' s the occupancy rate of the one in Eden Prairie? Have those all been sold? Don Jenson: It ' s all been sold. There' s been several resales and people that have been resaling have been getting their equity out and paying their broker and making a profit so we 're leaving something on the table, definitely. Development just had it's. . . 2 weeks ago which means we 're still in our warranty period for that neighborhood. That one was sold out very quickly. Most of them, for 112 units, interest rates not going through the roof, we would expect that once we started marketing and selling, that we would be able to move through a development plan like this in, sell through and build that whole neighborhood is about a year. So if you were to approve this plan sometime in the near future, and the streets were to start next year, by the end of the year 1995 you would see a completed neighborhood. We would expect the similar pattern to occur for the garden homes. We 're starting our first neighborhood of that particular home design in Eagan. We haven't broken ground on a structure yet and it ' s got tremendous acceptance. It ' s half sold out right now. . .provide Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 33 the modest home with what people want and that part of the market is served. Thanks. Conrad: Thank you. Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman; in quick summary I might just refer to the two recommendation sections in the staff report of the engineer and also the planner. I think by and large we can work with them on really all of the recommendations. One recommendation about a traffic study, we're a little in the dark about. I assume that pertains to the commercial area. Is that correct? Hempel: That would reflect the intersection there with necessary turn lanes and so forth. The intended use there, trips being generated from multiple and commercial use. So it' s kind of a combination of both areas. Dick Putnam: Okay. The last item is item 11 where it indicates the applicant shall dedicate to the City in the final platting the necessary right-of-way determined from a traffic study for the future Trunk Highway 101 and 86th. In our meetings with the staff since day one we 've indicated. . .we would be dedicating right-of-way whatever' s necessary. We indicated from day one however that TH 101, which takes up, depending upon what you count , anywhere from 7 to 11 acres of property is not something that we 're prepared to dedicate nor are the underlying owners. At no time at this point short of reading this report has anyone suggested to us that that would be a condition of approval . I guess I 'd ask Paul perhaps before the next meeting to check with the City Attorney and the Plymouth case and some others that seem to indicate that in our previous discussions that that would not be the position of the city of Chanhassen for dedication of a state trunk highway or county road or whatever so that would be the only one that we don 't feel would meet in working with staff and for the design. Conrad: Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. Are there any other public comments? Al Klingelhutz : Members of the Planning Commission and staff. I 'm Al Klingelhutz . I live at 8600 Great Plains Blvd, Chanhassen, Minnesota. I just recently received the staff report on this and = I did try to get ahold of city hall today to discuss a few items in here. One of the main items that I wanted to discuss was the right-of-way for Highway 101. When you look at that map and see that the piece of property that I don't think there would be anything happening to until at least the year 2000, the 9 . 2 acres, and expect dedication of a 200 foot right-of-way plus a Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 34 berm between the old TH 101 and proposed new TH 101, which would constitute between 5 and 6 acres of property. Without reasonable access from TH 101 to that commercial property would be asking for an awful lot. I think I mentioned at one time not too long ago, over my dead body or I ' ll go all the way to the Supreme Court. And I mean it. I just can't see it. As far as the state building a new TH 101, I don't think there will be any, I mean to 86th Street, there won't be any dollars other than city of Chanhassen' s pocket. By letting the state acquire that portion of that right-of-way. It' s a major collector street. Proposed to be a 4 lane highway. Proposed to take the traffic from having a major interchange on Highway 212 to downtown Chanhassen and I even believe the first portion of that road was purchased and already built. . . landowner. I cannot proceed having that road being such a major. . .being donated by the developer or the landowner. I 'm speaking also for Mr. Bartz who lives down in Kentucky. He called me today and asked that I should represent him. He feels very strongly about this as I do. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks Al. Other comments. Dave Nickolay: Members of the Commission, my name is Dave Nickolay. I live at Rice Lake Manor. 8500 Tigua Circle, otherwise known as Lot 6, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor. We have the largest piece of property to the east of the proposed development. The map up there in no way I believe does it justice. That line that Sharmin just drew goes all the way back to the black line of the back of the pond. That' s a 4 1/2 acre piece of land and I guess I just want to start out by saying that my wife and I are not opposed to development in Chanhasen, or development on this property. We directed a letter to you at very short notice. I worked on that letter until midnight on Sunday night because we just got home on Saturday night. We did not receive adequate notice from anybody. No one from the staff. No one from the development company. No one has talked to us prior. The last time any discussion that I 'm aware of took place on the land was back in 1990 when the comprehensive plan was discussed. And I talked with Sharmin a little bit about that today but I feel that a development of this magnitude next to the development I live in, and. . . I 'd just like to walk through a few of those real quickly with you if I could. The first and most major concern is dealing with the issue of the 190 units that are being proposed, and I 've learned something here tonight that I don't believe my wife was told and the members of our community of Rice Marsh were told, the other night at the neighborhood meeting. The 190 units are really going on about 40 acres of actual land. The development of Rice Lake Manor was developed I don't know, about 15 years. We've been there about 12 years now. We were the third ones to build in that development. We have 7 Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 35 units on 40 acres about, recognizing you've got to take the streets out of 40 acres and we've got significant amount of land in the marsh which is a wildlife easement. So somebody will have to tell me and I did talk to Sharmin a little bit about it today but I 'm not here to get into the specifics of what's built but I think the fact is, we 're looking at 190 units next to 7 units at this point. We have one open lot at this stage. There will be 8 units there someday. My most major concern is that there's no transitional planning here to go from this size lot, acreage. I had a choice. There were only two lots sold when I purchased this particular site. I purchased it because of the wooded nature and just the whole aesthetics of that lot, and I built a house on it appropriate to the site. Some of you, as I understand, took a walk yesterday through the area. I 'd be more than welcome to invite you to my home to show you what I 've got there in terms of what's being proposed. There ' s no transition here. To go from what we originally bought into in this area to what ' s being proposed. This is going to totally change the whole purpose of what we did back 12 years ago. It 's probably longer. . . My second point is, deals with the fact that Lot 6 in the Block 1 there, I think will be significantly impacted for a number of reasons, and I 'm not going to bore you with all the details. I think I outlined there that the property to the east, or I 'm sorry, to the west of me will not be what I would consider conforming to the property that I own. And I think that ' s going to have an impact on what I have there. Another major concern that I have, which I 'm not holding anybody responsible for this but the contour of the land ' s been adjusted on the horse farm over the last 10 years. The horse farm' s been allowed to dump their horse manure on the land and that has created a drainage problem. All the land to the west of me, where what used to be the corral up on top of that property, and then slightly to the south, all drains through my property now. It does not run any longer off to the back of the marsh because that was filled in with the horse farm's manure. And so that has created a problem for me and I won't speak for one of my neighbors but it's created a problem for him. It's created a problem for both of us in terms of the water drainage. In the most recent heavy rains, only the second time in the 12 years I 've lived in Chanhassen, my house is on a slab. The water table got high enough. I have good underground. . .that filled with water. I had to have that pumped out. The area that it's draining into, the culvert under my driveway wasn 't meant to drain all the water from the west across my property. And that isn't I don't believe how the original land contours laid out. The third point is the fact that. . .with the large wooded area that I have on my property. It ' s directly adjacent to the single family homes and the people who were just up before me, I have a strong feeling there's going to be a large number of young families in this area. There's no park in that Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 36 area. My children play in that woods along with a few other children in the neighborhood. I think it will be an attracter. There 's a treehouse in the woods right now. I can't, how am I going to chase children off my property? I have them myself. The property line which is on the west side of my land, is all treed and I planted some of those trees. There's oak trees there. There ' s an ash tree there and then there' s a variety of other foliage on that line. I would sincerely ask you that none of those woods, if you're going to approve this plan, that none of that growth be destroyed in any manner and you' ll have to determine what ' s reasonable in that regard. It doesn 't make any sense to me if you're going to approve this, to tear out something and the landscaping in preparation of this site, only to plant something back, if it's already there. And some of you took a look at that. So I ' ll let you be the judges of that. The last point under the impact is, what I would consider the northern 1/3 of my property, on the very bottom of the hill behind my house is a main trunk line for the sewer system. For one of them. It is not a trail . It is used by, when I say it' s being used. It ' s not being trespassed at this stage but I have reason to believe that it ' s going to become an easy access point off of this development. There ' s no place for them to go here. They 're not going to go walk out on TH 101, as you're well aware. They're going to work their way, for recreational purposes. There ' s a pond on the back of my property. There' s a nice marsh out on Rice Marsh. I have reason to believe that this is going to be an area where I 'm just not going to be able to protect until such time as the city would put a trail in or use that property for some other reason. Quickly moving on to my point 3 . West 86th Street. I told Sharmin that she should go out there this morning after the rain. You would have truly gotten a feel for what West 86th Street turns into after a good rain. Was it 2 winters ago or in the spring, there is no base underneath that road. That road heaves up. It does what it wants to do when it wants to do. It was originally designed as a farm access road. That is not a city street. The city doesn't maintain it as a city street. And so West 86th Street should not be considered a street by Chanhassen standards. It is in need of major upgrading. Two cars cannot pass. . .on that road the way it exists right now. We have children and a number of the other neighbors have children. A school bus cannot pull out onto Highway 101 without crossing both lanes. If you're heading south out of that road, you cannot head south. It's a blind access. You're taking chances. We go down the left lane until we clear ourselves. We look to the corner first and then we go out. West 86th Street, if you approve this plan, has to be upgraded. With the realignment into the new spot that they 're showing in the dark color area on the map, it cannot be left as it is with this kind of traffic on that road. It ' s a hazard for us right now. The fourth and fifth Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 37 points are the wetlands issue. I encourage you because of this, the high density of this development to have an environmental impact study done by the appropriate state or local, I 'm not sure who actually does that. It's too major of an area there in all regards and I would encourage you to have that looked into. My sixth and final point is that the, at the hearing in, it was in September, 1990 . We were told about another development, Klingelhutz development which was going to be over by Riley Lake. Or Lake Riley. And they were going to connect the sewer and the water and bring it down the side of West 86th Street and then take it to the south. And we were told at that time, and I testified at that meeting and I told Sharmin to check the Minutes and I don't remember what I said at that meeting, but we were going to be connected to the city water at that stage. And at that point they didn't, the staff did not even realize that we had the underground connections in place. So they took our fire hydrants, but we haven't really needed them but somebody took them. We have them capped off but I guess my point is that any, the residents of Rice Lake Marsh, and I will speak for myself. I ' ll let my neighbors speak for themselves, is I don't believe that we should have to pay for any connections or upgrades to this area. I believe we 've paid for that once before and I believe I testified to that effect back in 1990. I never heard back. The staff that were here then, or that were there then, are not here now and that still remains an open issue. I ' ll close by saying I have two requests. One, all of the issues that I had addressed and I 'd like all of the issues that my neighbors addressed, we have a good group of people there. We get along. That all those issues be addressed in writing to you and to us. And my final request is that, if you're going to approve this type of development next to my property, and I won 't speak for anyone else in my area, I feel I should be given consideration for what I have there and how it' s going to change. I don't know what that is. . . I was not going to be here tonight but I changed my evening work schedule so I could be here. I just feel this is being rushed. I haven't had a whole lot of time to think about this. I 'm not feeling good about it. Staff, I did get in this morning. In view of the 35W upheavel and I couldn't get to work, I was able to talk to Sharmin a little bit this morning so I 'm feeling a little better but I 'm really concerned about this and no one has talked to me, or my wife. So with that I thank you for your time and consideration and I 'd be happy to answer any questions. Conrad: Good, thanks David. I think you're probably talking, or finding out about it. You may feel you're behind things but as we said in the beginning, this is a concept. It is the beginning I guess and there is time for you to be involved so I don 't think you should be frustrated that way. A lot of valid points that Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 38 you bring up and hopefully as we express our thoughts. Again, it ' s a real tricky issue when you get into a concept. We 're talking, we should be talking general things. Not specifics. You may be concerned with some specifics. We may ignore them right now. We may touch on them. It depends on the preference of the commissioners. But again, I think what we want to, what I personally want to focus on is the overall global direction and provide the developer our insights so they know where we 're going before they commit a whole lot of time and effort to a project. They already have but this is their way to find out what we're thinking. So anyway, hopefully we' ll get back to some of your points a little bit later. Any other public input? Joanne Larson: My name is Joanne Larson and I live at 8590 Tigua and there ' s a couple, I hope you all have my letter but there ' s some concerns. I ' ll just go over the most important ones that. . . One thing I 'd like to bring to your attention. . . is the developer stated tonight that the purchase of this land is contingent upon the approval of this and I 'm just frighten that maybe if we say okay, this is just a concept. Let ' s approve the concept. He comes back and says, hey I purchased this land. You approved the concept. Now you 're telling me I have to make changes. I think the commission should be careful about that. We just got back from vacation on Sunday night and found out about this and didn't have too much time to prepare so I called a developer friend of mine and I go, I 'm going crazy you know. What do you think? And so I got a little advice from him also and I thought it was good advice. . . not all of them are from here. The density is way too high and the transition is not good. Single family homes should be extended to the south. I feel that single family homes should be extended to the south here. Also I 'm concerned about what's going to happen over here. We have high density in the back along this line. When this developer comes in, will he be able to. rezone this to high density? So my first point, the density is way too high. And then transition is good at all . In fact the developer has not even provided an area of transition from a single family home to the 12plexes right across the road here. . . I also feel no driveways should enter off West 86th Street. On the land here there are a lot of driveways that butt up to West 86th Street and can enter, you know turn right off of West 86th Street right at that driveway. All entrances to the multi-family dwellings should be kept to the west end of the large pond. Personally I 'd like to see from the middle of the pond here multi dwellings just this side of the pond. I feel that the entrances to these multi dwellings should only be on this side of the pond and that ' s it. No entrances any further to the east. I 'd also like to see this myself, single family here. I think we can split this up to quite a few good lots single family. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 39 Batzli : Excuse me, ma 'am. Do you have a justification for why there should only be entrances to the west of the pond? Joanne Larson: I just feel for the transition, that ' s why. I think it would be a nice transition. Also I don't know what you're going to plan on doing for West 86th Street but it would become a collector street and should be widened to 30 feet. I don't know, maybe that would keep some of the traffic down. . . support the aesthetic affect and has a real nice, I mean if they just sort of were separated. If the single family homes were extended south. I commented a couple things on the villas. I like this style of the villas. I 've seen them off Dell Road. I 'm really happy with those. I 'd like to see the ones in Chanhassen upgraded to the same architectural design as the ones off Dell Road. They have gables over the windows and I like, I would prefer vinyl siding. I think it gives a little softer look. I ' ll pass over the. . .The last thing I ' ll just touch on again is that we ask that the city not rezone or approve any concepts at this time because MnDot ' s not even sure that highway 212 will be built. We need to see more alternatives. We need to know if 86th Street. I 'd like to know if it' s going to dead end • there at Tigua Circle or are you planning in the future to extend = it all the way to Eden Prairie. I 'm also concerned, like I mentioned earlier, is that development right to the south of Tigua Circle, east of the plan. . .What' s that going to be developed into? Can that be rezoned to high density? Is it high density right next to it? It' s just all too over powering I feel . Thank you. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Other comments? David Nagel : My name is David Nagel and I live at 6551 Tigua Circle. I don 't know how to say this but I had to come back from vacation for this. As you can see on there, I have on that plan there ' s 5 lots that abut up to mine and I don't feel like I should have to sacrifice my lot for all those. I think that they can somehow they can get like 2 lots in there or 3 but I think 5 is ridiculous. Everything that Dave, my neighbor touched on I think I agree with 100%. The people in there will not have a place to go. They will be coming across into my backyard and I have trees that I planted in there too. I think my backyard will end up being a playground. If anything I 'd like to see somewhat of a high fence put up, and I 'm not talking chainlink. I think something on the order of like a 6 1/2 foot cedar privacy fence. Another point of mine is, are we going to be assessed, the homeowners in that area, for like Dave says the water hook-up because everything is in the street now. And the road. I came from Minnetonka originally and we got assessed for road improvements that didn't even affect us. I 'm afraid that' s going Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 40 to happen here. And to me this development is not an improvement. I mean I saw people out there, the Planning Commission walking yesterday when I came back from up north. And they can see what it ' s like out there. Now I don't thinkt his is an improvement so when it comes to paying anymore money for a so called improvement, I wouldn't go along with that. That ' s about all I have. My main concern though is the 5 lots that abut up against mine. I feel that is really, it's going to screw my yard up. Dave has 2 1/2 . Larson's have 1 3/4 and I have 5. I think that's a bit unfair. That 's all I have, thank you. Conrad: Good. Thanks for your comments. You know there are a lot of, there ' s a tendency to get frustrated because we may not be responding to some of your specific questions. And I really don't want to right now because I 'm trying to get into the concept stuff versus the particulars. I think there 's probably a good reason for having a neighborhood meeting with the developer and some of the people that have been on vacation so, and probably in attendance with city staff so some of these questions can be answered. I know you get nervous about that. It ' s a big development going in. Right now again, I don't want to, this meeting could last for hours and there are a couple other items on the agenda. I 'm not trying to cut short the comments because we want them. Yet on the other hand, it's sort of, we haven 't even started to talk yet and as commissioners and we have our own opinions too and this could take, it could take a fair amount of time. But anyway, your specific questions will be answered and we ' ll make you feel comfortable with it. May not always be the answer you want to hear but at least we ' ll be talking to you. Other neighborhood comments. Mike Mulligan: My name is Mike Mulligan and I also live on Tigua Circle. I 'm in the first lot east of the Dave Nickolay's lot there. I 've not been there quite as long as Dave. About 9 years. 10 years since I bought my lot. Obviously we 're all speaking for ourselves and we're not professionally organized and we haven 't been doing this for 2 years, working on this. But I think you feel the general theme that's running through these comments. Is that we feel that the intensity of the development is not only too great for our neighborhood. I haven't done the numbers. . . but it ' s pretty self evident that it 's too intense for the neighborhood we 're in. The short notice we got. Every single person who lives in those 7 occupied lots there has been on vacation and some of us were not able to be here tonight. Have not returned. We would respectfully ask for enough delays so that we can get our act together and make some sort of cohesive statement. Planning Commission Meeting T August 18 , 1993 - Page 41 Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Again, this is a concept review and you're going to have plenty of time to do that. Other comments. Bruce Engel: Hi. My name is Bruce Engel. I live at 8699 Chanhassen Hills Drive North in the Chanhassen Hills development, which is across TH 101 on the west side of this proposed development. I just have a few brief comments. It appears to me that the plans for TH 101 and 212 should be finalized prior to this type of a project being approved. It may fit nicely with the 212 and 101 when they're completed but it would look kind of silly out there if say 212 wasn't ever built. In addition, the Highway 101 traffic is, once this happens, the traffic will be greatly increased, which it has, we 've all seen it go up a great deal since these past few years and the ease of access and egress for residents will be decreased and I think we're additionally concerned about the future safety risks. The safety considerations on TH 101 for all of us. I think if you drive that, more and more concerned. Again as the staff report addressed, this PUD, planned unit development for the total . . . total plan should utilize the environment and apparently there is some additional concern and I 'd like to see, make sure that there is a great deal of attention placed (a) , to the grading and make sure the wetlands aren 't jeopardized. And finally, my final feeling on this is regarding this commercial area. 9 . 2 acres seems to be, well it ' s too big. I don't think you need a space of that, for this size of development that is as large or almost as large as a Target. I don't think we need a Fleet Farm in there. I think we should keep our commercial. Major commercial development along the Highway 5 corridor. Thank you very much. Conrad: Other comments . Joe Hautman: My name is Joe Hautman and I live in Rice Lake Manor. Rice Lake Manor could put those 8 lots together and compise about 40 acres. 8 lots for 40 acres compared to the 190 units here. So if we came in together, the 8 of us, applying a formula used here, we could ask for a subdivision with 216+ units. Now that would be extremely profitable for us. But that _ would be lousy planning. That really would wouldn't it. You're not going to agree if the 8 of us decided to sell out and plan like that. Well the same thing somewhat applies next door. This is not a good plan for that neighborhood. The density is too high. The reason is, that is the topography does not lend itself to multiple units. We've already heard tonight from the developers. How they're going to have to straighten. . . It's simply the wrong development for that topography and that is a concept. The reason that one of the people suggested that the driveways for the multiple should be west of the pond is, as Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 42 you 've heard tonight, things that are designed for first owners. Single people without children. So it makes sense to have the entry to the, from the busiest sections west of the ponds because the single family ' s going to have children. So it makes sense to separate the traffic pattern. Have the single family where there won't be children. Have a separate entrance there and keep the higher traffic areas with no children have their own separate entrance west of the pond. An important point for all of us is the special assessments. When we bought there we had all the special assessments in and paid for. We had. . .blacktop, storm sewer, catch basins, the whole works. Including the water. And we rely on you to protect us in that regard so that we don't end up paying any further special assessments. Thanks. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? Anything? Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Batzli moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Did Todd leave? Hoffman. Yeah, I was going to ask him about parks . Krauss: I can tell you what we know, and. . .putting together his recommendation and I 'm not privy to that. The comprehensive plan does describe a large park area due east, along the south side of Rice Marsh Lake. It' s an extremely attractive area. Heavily forested and it ' s going to be severed from the balance of the property by the Highway 212 corridor. Access to it is a little problematic because we don't have public right-of-way going all the way through it. I had some preliminary conversations with the Eden Prairie Park Director. They are also planning a significant park in that area and are working with MnDot to get a trail underneath Highway 212 that would run north/south that would basically allow us to have a trail loop around 86th Street to the rest of the city. Through the park, underneath 212 and back along a new trail that was built along. .Lake Riley Boulevard. . . specific recommendation to the Park Board? Hoffman: No, the staff report is still being developed. It will take into consideration any comments brought out this evening. . . 8 : 00 a.m. meeting scheduled with the applicant tomorrow morning to discuss some issues. I have not had the opportunity today to get together and talk about trail alignments. Pedestrian movement through this site between the proposed park open space to the east and Highway 101 to the west. So you 've got. . .recommendation in this regard for the park commission. . . Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 43 Conrad: Okay, good. Mancino: Can I ask Todd a question? I 'd like to see a neighborhood park in this development. I know that the trail around Rice Marsh Lake is going to be a community park. Correct? Hoffman: The basis of whether it'd be a community or neighborhood or a combination of both has not been addressed to date. In the 2000 Land Use Plan, the site is considerably wooded. It rises up above Rice Marsh much more than some of the property on the north side of the lake which is typically much more wooded vegetation type of wetland. So that issue has not been addressed but now would be an interest with 212 coming through and the land use will change in this area, we ' ll have to address what that park is actually going to look like. In regard to amenities, recreational amenities which the residents of the site can use in very close proximity, I made an indication to the applicant that I found it was unusual that there was not a community amenity such as a pool and play structure. Kind of support this type of location included somewhere in this development typical of what you find in many other multi-family development types of applications . So again, that will be addressed in my staff report. Comments in that regard will be heard from the Park Commission. . . Scott: Todd, does the Parks Department own any property in that area? Hoffman: To the north we own, the city owns 70+ acres which is delineated by these two parcels. The one just south of Hidden Valley and then the parcel which is larger just south of Chanhassen Estates. But again there' s a small neighborhood park located right in this location. Access to this park from this development would need to come out onto TH 101 and then access the recently completed trail which travels then east along the toe of the slope or sandwiched between the wetlands and the homes which are in that area. Other than that, there ' s no neighborhood or community parks developed as of yet in this region of the city. However, the city does have land holdings of approximately 32 acres called the Bandimere Community Park site which is south. Scott: That ' s the recycling? Hoffman: Correct. Where the recycling center has been and that is south. . . Mancino: Todd, another question. When we have developers, well we haven't had developments like this. But do you find that homeowners with children plus homeowners that are just single or Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 44 older, over 50, want parks as much as families that have children? Hoffman: It ' s a difficult question to answer because it's really an issue of personal taste. But typically people, whether it's active recreation, passive recreation through the enjoyment of open space and parks, access to trails, all those are amenities which the. . .regardless of age. So if you would like to see those incorporated, or at least that access to them, it's accommodated through the site plan. Conrad: Okay, thanks Todd. Well, we' ll go for planning comments and again, we can have at it folks in terms of details but again I 'd sure like us to keep in general terms if we can. The staff does have a list of recommendations so I think you can react to those but I also think we should react in general terms to the overall site that we see and let the developer and staff know _ what we 're thinking so. With that intro, Jeff. Farmakes: Well I 'm glad. . . In previous meetings that we 've had. . . made comment to the homeowners that stood up here and he asked about the pricing of homes next to him and we didn't know what the price of the house was going to be. I think the standard comment that the city comes back and says we 're not in the business of dictating that certain price house is going to be next to a certain price house directly. Indirectly obviously there ' s several other issues that come into play that the city has minimum requirements. And being that you have a foot of land in Chanhassen and you have a dictated amount of cost to build something on it and strict requirements. . .medium price house and I believe the medium price house now in Chanhassen is $110, 000. 00 to $120, 000. 00. Somewhere in there. Which basically says that that ' s the minimum requirement that we wind up with in this city. I 'm a little disturbed that we come into a development targeting price totally from a governmental standpoint rather than letting the market do that. The reason that I 'm uncomfortable with that is many of these large developments, the huge ones that you see in town and so on are dictated somewhat by government requirements and political concerns versus marketing concerns. Marketing always seems to work out better. . . I realize that there are other considerations that we've talked about here tonight. Providing housing for factory type work. For businesses in Chanhassen and so on. Entry level homes. Single family. Single parent type and I think that's. . . I 'm wondering if the scope here, if what we're attempting to do is solve all our problems with one developer. I find the scope of this, for this particular area, with it ' s surrounding properties, may get a little tunnel visioned to solving the problem that we talked about. Providing housing in Chanhassen due to the deficit for a Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 45 certain type of housing. I would like to see some more moderation that' s been talked about here to the east of the property. Perhaps in Block 2 larger lots. Between 8 and 1. I would also perhaps like to see bringing single family down into the areas of 12 , 11, 10, 9 and 8. Somewhere and perhaps they 're duplexes buffering before you get to the 4 and 8plexes. I realize obviously that that will lower the amount of density but I do think that the homeowners that have come forward here are making a legitimate concerns. This is not a buffered area. There is not a transition, even if it's one row of houses. Again, that refers back to the tunnel vision type of approach of solving a problem by taking into consideration. . .Certainly units 11 and 12 that are on 86th Street, the people who purchase the homes for Lots 1 and 2 on Block 3 , they 're certainly going to be adjacent to large density development of single family homes. Again I think that 's compounding the problem. Overall, I 'm going to make my comment general from this point. I think with the development overall, the scope for high density is too big. I 'd like to see some more moderation in the transition. Again I feel uncomfortable dictating the size of the units and say that these should be duplexes and this should be 4plexes. I know that' s a market of what generates those types of developments. Except where the city or the federal government comes into play. I know that in the case of Eden Prairie, some of the developments that the village homes, particularly I 'm thinking of Centex, they 've done quite an exemplary job in terms of making a transition. The prices however on those units as I recall were in the high 90 ' s to the low 100 ' s so we 're talking about a step up here from where this targeted amount is. The grading that Sharmin talked about earlier, I would support that. I 'd like to see whatever development comes in here that we try to maintain that. It's been something that we try to maintain on any of our developments that we 've tried to. . .Whatever happens here, I also am concerned about the scope of our parks to look at these things. I 'm talking about neighborhood parks. There is, quite a lot that can be done in these types of developments. Areas that are referred to as common areas or areas where there 's a small scale park and I 'm thinking of perhaps Block 1, Lot 6. The 4plex kind of tucked in there in the middle of much higher density. Perhaps an area like that. . .The outlot, I 'm still concern at the size of the outlot. I realize of course there ' s a lot of concern that 101 and 212 may not happen, and. . .any highway projects type costs. But it would seem pretty reasonable if that case. . .we 're having here, the pressure that we're having to the south now, that highway' s going to happen in the relative near future. Where it goes exactly, the preliminary work has been done for that and it may vary somewhat and I am again somewhat concerned. If there 's commercial going in there, that works into our long term development. We look at the proposed commercial area that was at Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 46 TH 41 and TH 5. I responded in the task force in that development to propose commercial development there by the Mills property and the response was there that we had enough commercial of a half a million square feet in the downtown development that that ' s suffice for our population. I am concerned about the size of this commercial development. It's almost as large as the Target area and I would not like to leave that as an open ended thing. By allowing that much space as commercial, I would not like to see that go beyond the scope to providing services. Dry cleaning, daycare, the type of thing that you would not envision in the typical strip mall with more servicing higher residential area. I 'm concerned about the size of that. It' s so large that it would seem to me that it' s bordering on being another strip mall. And if that ' s the case. . . should be discussed. So I 'd like to see more information there on the size of that. On the area of safety and traffic, I 'm assuming that that can't be, that the cost of traffic studies and so on until you come up with a relative plan that you feel has been narrowed down somewhat that we 're going to get a professional response. . .Obviously there's this amount of density being put into this area, there ' s going to be a considerable amount of additional traffic in that area. . . Mancino: I don 't want to repeat all of Jeff ' s. . . I do agree with all of Jeff ' s comments. I ' ll try to add to the big picture one. Paul, when is Fred' s study going to be done? The updated 101 alignment so that we actually have the final 101 alignment. Krauss: I will defer to Fred on that one. Fred Hoisington: Nancy we will, almost all the information is in now so we would expect to perhaps, time permitting on the agendas and so forth, to have something that we' ll be at least recommending. So we 're not that far away from having a recommendation to make to you and to the City Council . Mancino: And your recommendation may .not be this alignment? Fred Hoisington: It ' s possible that it won't be but my understanding is this plan takes into account any possible alignment. Krauss: If I could address. The alignment does affect portions of this property to a greater or lesser extent. But it's not significant. It can be accommodated so it's. Mancino: Would it not add to this outlot size? Krauss: It would add or subtract. More likely it will subtract. But it ' s got to be made clear that when we. . .the city' s alignment Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 47 study and bring it to the neighborhood and get the City Council to approve it, nobody' s going to be out there with a. . . in the foreseeable future. There is no project to upgrade the highway. We 're working with people in trying to put something together but clearly that's a ways off so I don't want to mislead anybody that a quick solution to the Highway 101 issue is in the offing. What we ' re trying to do, in lieu of the safety with the proper planning processes of where this road' s going to go, we 're trying to put the city and it's residents in the drivers seat so we know what the solution is and we can work towards that on behalf of everybody that ' s agreed to it. Mancino: This comment that I have is, I would like to see a neighborhood park in this development. With this high a density, I think it would serve the people well that would live in it. And I also have a concern for the property owners to the east knowing that, I think they're very right that a lot of the people will be, a lot of these people that live in this development will be going there or using their property so I would like to see some sort of a park here. I would also want to make sure that the wetlands aren't infringed on at all. In fact, if anything, if they could be. . . especially wetland #15. The commercial area of the outlot, to me I would like to see neighborhood commercial, not highway commercial. I would like us to have it be so that it does serve the neighborhood and not the community. When I see it being maybe half the size of what it is right now. I think it' s too big. What else did Jeff say that I thought was very good? The Block 1, in that lower, the southeast corner abuts single family and I would not like to see, that is not in this development. I would not like to see the high density abutting single family to the east. So I 'd like to see more of a medium density put in that area and that would be Block 1 where units 8, 9 , 10, 11 and 12 are around wetland 18 . Or excuse me, wetland 13 . I think that ' s it for now. Conrad: Okay thanks Nancy. Brian. Batzli : I agree. I think some sort of amenities need to be provided. Whether that's totlot, play area, tennis courts. I think neighborhood park probably has a unique connotation to the Park and Rec Commission and I don't know that it's really what we 're asking for. A neighborhood park is I think pretty substantial . Isn't it about 40 acres typically? Hoffman: Less than that. Typically 10. . . Batzli : Okay. But I think what we 're looking for is amenities in an area, you know totlot kind of stuff. Tennis courts. Those type of things. Not necessarily a place where you can build a Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 48 dozen ballfiels. I think in general, I agree with Jeff ' s comments and I missed some of them but he sketched them out here for me and I appreciate that and I agree with virtually all of them as well as Nancy's. Some of her detailed comments. Just in no particular order to highlight some of them. I agree, I don't believe there should be drives as currently shown off of 86th Street. I think there needs to be more consideration for the land form to minimize the grading. I understand that 's a problem with some of these. There 's going to be a mobility type homes put in. Low mobility or handicap accessible, whatever. And I understand that but maybe more care needs to be taken regarding that location and the landforms that exist. Something struck me and I need to comment on this. My gut feeling. Someone said that Rottlund was the end user and I disagree with that. The residents of Chanhassen, both current and future are the end users. Not Rottlund and that notion needs to be disabused here. Sump pumps only along city streets. I ' ll get you yet on that Dave. I think homeowners association obviously is a requirement in this kind of thing and that will happen. Drainage problems need to be taken care of. The intensity of the development needs to be toned down a little bit, especially in the southeast corner. I guess I don 't, I understand why this would be guided PUD but I don't think that they 're paying enough attention to some of the things that we would normally look for in a PUD, especially those concerns identified as numbers 1 thru 7 on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Clearly our condition 13 , recommendations of the staff report include that and those are the types of things that I 'm going to be looking at and I hope the developer read that condition 13 carefully because they didn 't comment on it. But yet if they submit a plan consistent with those recommendations with numbers 1 thru 7 , yeah. I 'd go along with that then. Mancino: How do you feel about the commercial size on the outlot? Batzli : I agree that it should probably be neighborhood commercial. However, it' s not entirely clear to me how large a trunk highway 101 is going to be and if this is really a major commercial intersection, I might be convinced that it 's appropriate to have a little bit larger commercial sector here. Scott: I ' ll address my comments specifically to the commercial outlot. I think it needs to be downsized. Restricted to neighborhood commercial. I don't think we need, because of the central business district that we have, about less than a mile from the site, I don't think it ' s necessary to have anything but local services or neighborhood services. And I won't belabor any other point. I 'm in full agreement with the other commissioners so I really don 't have anything extra to add. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 49 Harberts: I have a strong support for a lot of the previous comments. A couple of, two additions I believe. They touched a little bit on, I hope this is global. On just the space. Maybe it ' s the amenities. Maybe, you know you get your joggers. You get your walkers. Just taking that into account. Maybe we ' ll see that. Some of the high points is certainly that transition and reducing the density so maybe some of that will come out. I would strongly urge that under the recommendations that because of the intensity of the number of people, even the fact that some of the target markets that the developer works in concert with the public transit authority to ensure that this is transit friendly. I ' ll also note that a park and ride lot is at the interchange. It has been already mapped at the interchange of 101 and 212 . So I suspect that we ' ll see a lot of transit riders, both locally as well as commuters to Minneapolis. So I would strongly recommend to see a condition that they work with the public transit authority. Batzli : When would something like that park and ride lot be constructed though? Harberts: MnDot ' s going to build it when they build 212 . Batzli : So maybe not for 10-20 years. Harberts: But I think with the current density that 's being proposed and even working with them, that there will be circulators and buses on 101 as soon as the development goes in. So that will , you know we are talking about a park and ride lot somewhere on TH 5 as well so traffic is going to be generated. That ' s it. Conrad: Okay, thanks Diane. I ' ll try to make mine quickly too. I again, I am just not sure about the commercial size of that property. I just, I don 't want to limit it right now but it seems large I guess and we somehow have to get our hands around whether that is too big for a neighborhood type of use. I don't want to close it out. I don't want to downsize it right now but I certainly have my, I guess I need a better vision and I don't have one right now. We haven't talked about 101 dedication and maybe we 're not, Paul. Krauss: Well, if I could clear that up. Al Klingelhutz has no need to go to the Supreme Court, it 's already been done. It's interpretation, and maybe Elliott can possibly comment on that, our City Attorney. Design. . . is probably correct. There may be a different slant. . . if the city winds up owning TH 101. . . Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 50 Conrad: It does seem reasonable. So if we make any kind of motions tonight I think that one condition in the staff report about dedication of TH 101, I don't know. Somebody should note that that is probably not what should be done. I 'm concerned with internal parks. Like everybody else has said, I think there should be some kind of parks or something, on a very small basis in here. The transition to the east, the neighborhood who has represented themselves here tonight, yeah. There ' s no doubt. I don't like 15, 000 square foot lots bordering that property. It's not a transition. That 's not what a PUD is all about. A PUD is transition and in this case we haven't done it. Now I am confused with what the rest of the Planning Commission has said. You 've really talked about the going to single family to the southeast. Mancino: Or medium density. Conrad: And I really am not sure why. Why is that? Batzli : It ' s guided low density to the east. Conrad: So you 're just trying to make a transition there. Even though the wetland is there and that is a transition. I guess that, I have a problem with that. Batzli : I 'm not sure of where the wetland goes based on this map. All of it and I was assuming that there ' s going to be homes here and there is no transition if in fact you develop single family to the east of the property. Conrad: Ah, okay. Farmakes: My comments Ladd is that if 12 became, if they increased that Block 2 between 8 and 1, came up to about 20, 000 square feet. Block 3 remains somewhat as it is. Block 1, 11, 10 and 9 , went down to single family 15 square feet, and 12 became a larger lot. Wetlands again, that would create a barrier that would have, 8 could be a duplex. 7 could remain as it is. 5 could remain as it is. I 'd like to see 6 as a commons area or some. . . I think that that would create something of a barrier visually. Because I think not only looking at it this way but I also think when you're physically on the site looking, building to the east, you have homes to the east, visually what you see too. . . Conrad: Why don 't we just play around with Lot 12 on Block 1? Why are the other 3 or 4 lots important? Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 51 Farmakes: I 'm just throwing that out as a buffer and I 'm agreeable to listen to whatever ever anyone else is suggesting. Conrad: Well what I 'm trying to do for the developers here is try to get, and they have, obviously those of you that are here, this goes to City Council. - City Council will have their cut at this too so when we talk concepts, it's our concepts and then the City council will have concepts so somehow the developer's. . . Farmakes: . . . throw this thing out, obviously the developer's going to have a better feel for his market but as a buyer I can give you my opinion. I would not want to buy Lots 1 of Block 2 or Block 3 because that'd be adjacent to high density across the street. That ' s not a buffer for me. I would expect a larger lot single family with a smaller lot single family, a duplex, a 4plex to an 8 to a 12 . Krauss: There ' s another aspect of what happens in that southeast corner. There is a large wetland, or there is a wetland there. We have to double check MnDot' s plans but I seem to recall MnDot had intended to buy out that parcel and use it for drainage purposes. So there may in fact be nothing ever in that corner but we can double check that with MnDot. Of course they don't own it yet. Conrad: Now a lot of you did not really say anything about transitions on the northeast side but that ' s pretty consistent. Aren 't we concerned about that or am I putting words in our mouth. Harberts: I think you're putting words in the mouth. I thought the general discussion was that there needed to be more transition. That this wasn't going to do it and that I think Jeff kind of coined it right away when he said to reduce the number of lots on that whole Block 2 . Mancino: To 20, 000 minimum. Scott: Cut them in half. Harberts: That 's the way I understood him. Conrad: Okay. Well you're supporting that? Okay. Harberts: Yeah. That ' s what I was supporting. Conrad: I think that is important. I don't think that if this plan came back to us again, and we didn't see some transition, I don't think it ' s going to pass if we don't see a better Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 52 transition to the property to the east. That seems to be essential. Obviously you 're hearing some concerns about the transitions to the southeast so I think we've got to, I 'm not sure what our consensus is on that but I think there has to be something, some attention paid to the southeast part. Generally I like some of the, a lot of things I see here. For those of you who, we have to take discredit for some of this I guess as a Planning Commission. We have said this is, should be some higher density areas. We 've said that in the past. We did that when we did a comprehensive plan so we're not, we can't dodge the issue by saying, hey this is just too, we never anticipated this. We did. And now it ' s just seeing if we still believe that and see how it fits and make it work with existing neighborhoods. The only other things that we haven 't really reacted to was the staff comment on the EAW. Is there a feeling that we should request an EAW on this or not? Anybody? Harberts: What is the EAW going to give us? What can we expect to learn from it? Conrad: That we won't get-, right. Krauss: Well, my personal feeling is it doesn't give you much that you couldn't get anyway. We have a specific request for some traffic information. That ' s something that an EAW might already give you. We have some requests for defining wetland issues. We have the best wetland ordinance in the State. I mean it really doesn't add that much to the process. I don't know. I mean I can't honestly say that it would add that much to the dialogue. I think it ' s a lot easier oftentimes to just specifically state, I 've got an interest in this particular concern. It comes back to us with information on it. I think we 've pretty much done that. , Mancino: Paul. . . let ' s say 212 goes to the south. Comes in here. Will it tell us how much berming we should have because of noise levels that will be affected in the southern part of this development. Krauss: MnDot is right now, a few weeks ago they were supposed to have a meeting and they were meeting on projected noise levels with the highway. Where they were going to build noise walls. Where they're not. They only build noise walls for residential development that ' s existing at the date of which they get what's called. . . Permit and that' s this September. Now we told them about this development hopefully to get our foot in the door but this development does include significant berming up against the highway and the highway. . .That information' s available. They have noise. . . Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 53 Mike Mulligan: Can I speak to that please? Conrad: Okay. Mike Mulligan: The Environmental Impact Statement that was done on 212 did address that issue but as of today, as of last week, MnDot has no noise berming whatsoever in any part of Chanhassen. I missed that meeting. I called Evan. He sent me the drawing last week. Krauss: Yeah, I don't know if, I mean Evan's clearly the person, Evan Green of MnDot is clearly the person who 's doing it. I would. . .We do have some scattered other developments that I hope would happen. . . for neighbors with MnDot and get as much protection as we possibly can. Conrad: SO, are there any votes for here in terms of an EAW? It ' s sounding like we 're, with Paul 's comments. Harberts: We 're covered. Conrad: It ' s sounding like that. I guess if there ' s somebody in the audience that feels that that is an essential part of this, I guess I don ' t know that we're going to move that that happens tonight but if you feel it is important, that maybe you bring it up to the City Council when it gets there in a couple of weeks. Traffic. Dave. Now how do we know. You've asked for some traffic studies. We built that in but that traffic study is, how do we tailor that to a commercial use which we don't know what it is yet? Hempel: That is a difficult question to answer. I guess the traffic study would not be done until we get through preliminary plat stage where it 's a little more defined for the use of that outlot. So we can give some direction to a consultant what to anticipate for trip generation. . .At this stage it 's pretty unclear. Conrad: But the way the developer is handling this, they don't have to tell us what that outlot is going to be used for. Hempel: Our projection that it would be a worst case scenario, most intense use of that outlot. Krauss: Keep in mind that under the PUD you have the ability, whether or not, I won 't say whether or not the property owner wants to, but you have the ability to establish parameters for what 's going to happen there. We'd like to work cooperatively with the developer and the owner to do some projections so that Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 54 it makes sense for everybody. But yes, you can in a worst case analysis. . . Conrad: Paul , how do we get a handle? I don't want to drag this up but how do we get a handle on the outlot? Krauss: Well at this point I think you've made the concerns that we have that have been. . . come back in when formal submittals are developed that that be resolved, or at least brought to a stage that you can intelligently talk about it. It 's quite similar I guess in a way to what happened with Opus/Steiner came in. . .You basically laid down the guidelines or the project wasn't going anywhere until we had some definitions. . . Harberts: What about those special assessments? I 'm uncomfortable what to expect. What the city residents can expect. Will they be subject to assessments or all the costs going to be picked up by the, based on the development of this parcel. Is that still up in the air? Krauss: They do have service from city sewer. It ' s not an unusual relationship to have water in pipes in the street but they're not connected to them. Batzli : They have wells. Krauss: Right. And I honestly, I mean Dave do you know what they 've paid for? Hempel : They did pay for the installation of their own lateral lines in front of the property. Over the last feasibility study that was conducted for bringing trunk water facilities into this area to service, we 've adopted a rate of. . . $1, 275. 00 per unit. One unit being assessed for each one of those individual property owners. . .until some future point when they decide to subdivide further, additional units would be assessed in the process of a connection of a hook-up charge. Scott: Is that the same assessment for the x number of units that are to be added in the development? Same kind of thing? Hempel: Right. . . Krauss: It needs to be made clear though that that was a feasibility study. That was approved by the Council. . .ordered the project but it never was built. We 're not in the process of reassessing how that should be done. There are developments coming in south of 212 on Lyman that will have an even, the assessment, the feasibility study needs to be recomputed, Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 55 refigured. As far as the roadway goes, I guess I envision 86th Street being built by the developer. Harberts: Am I understanding that at this point that it' s possible that the existing homeowners in that Rice, whatever it is. Sorry, that they probably will not be any assessments as a result of this subdivision? Krauss: Well, keep in mind the feasibility study that Dave is quoting, this development was existing in nobody' s imagination at this time. This was rallying water on kind of a mini-regeional basis for the city serving the whole south Rice Marsh Lake area down to Lake Riley. And that was what that assessment was developed under. Now we never built that. Now I think what Dave 's saying is probably reasonable to think that it may be somewhat in the same ballpark but we don't know exactly what it 's going to be. I want to assure everybody though that it' s a very public process. There are usually many hearings on those kind of things at the City Council. Harberts: So it ' s opportunity for the residents to provide maybe more additional information so they can be better prepared. Krauss: Oh no question about it, yeah. Conrad: Okay. Harberts: One other question I have, and this was brought up. I think it was a good point and I 'm a little uncomfortable. As the first gentleman said from Tandem, that this is a contingency and my understanding that you have to have so much building here in order to make it feasible. If we were to approve it in concept, if they went out and bought the land and then because of our discussion that it reduces the number and the cost there, is it feasible for them to build this, they're the ones at risk? Krauss: This is not an uncommon practice. Virtually all the developments that are brought before you are a contingent purchase deal. Now if the developer picks some arbitrary number of units they expect to get, it 's encumbant upon you to provide it. . . Scott: So it' s preliminary plat approval. Conrad: What we say tonight, I don't think the developer 's going to go out and sign anything based on what we 're doing tonight. Harberts: Well no, because as I understand it, if we approve it, it' s non-binding on both parties. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 56 Scott: Or if we don't like what we see, which it -sounds like we don't, we need to table or reschedule to get something back from the direction that the applicant has received from us and do the whole process over again. Krauss: You're not, I mean the City's not bound to perform until you have a project you actually preliminarily approve. Scott: There you go. Conrad: Anything else? I think you react not only to the staff report, but also if you can give a summary of the key considerations that you heard the Planning Commission. If you think it represents the majority of the commissioners to include in that motion. So the conceptual approval has 16 points and if want to react to any of those 16 plus all the additional comments that we 've made. Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval of PUD #93-4 shown on plans dated June 23 , 1993 subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 thru 10 as set forth in the staff report. Condition 11 which reads, the applicant shall dedicate to the city with final platting reasonable right- of-way for future Trunk Highway 101 and the necessary right-of- way for 86th Street. Obviously that needs to be reviewed by City Attorney for appropriate language, that condition. Conditions 12 as set forth in the staff report. Condition 13 would read. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report (including without limitation the concerns identified as numbers 1 thru 7 set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report) in the engineer's memo. Conditions 14 and 15 remain as set forth in the staff report. Condition 16 to read, incorporate conditions of the Park and Rec Commission and include park type amenities such as open space, totlot and tennis courts. Condition 17 . Reduce the intensity of the development along the neighboring properties to the east and southeast corner of the development. Condition 18 . Let me ask this before I talk about condition 18 . Where do we talk about coming back in the PUD process with the neighborhood commercial? Have you talked about that as conditions 1 thru 7 or did you actually include that as a condition and I missed it here? Al-Jaff: It ' s only in the body of the staff report. . . Batzli: Okay. Then condition 18 would read, the applicant shall provide detail on permitted uses of the outlot emphasizing reduction of the size of the outlot and limiting the types of use to neighborhood commercial. That ' s it. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 57 Conrad: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Conrad: Discussion. Harberts: I 'd like to offer a friendly amendment. Item number 19 that the applicant work with Southwest Metro Transit regarding the public transit in this area. Batzli : Does the applicant actually do that or does the City do that? Harberts: Both. Batzli : I accept that. Harberts: Thank you. Conrad: Any other discussion? Mancino: My only question is, is the thing about the topography, leaving the preservation of the existing topography? Batzli : I thought that was set forth in those conditions 1-7 . Mancino: Yes, number 1 . Okay. Conrad: Any other discussion? Batzli moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval of PUD #93-4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right-of- way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right-of-way is inadequate. 2 . All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City' s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the city to review and formally Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 58 approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0. 75% and 7 . 0% . 3 . The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDot. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. 4 . All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be at a minimum 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accorance to the City' s sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provided from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City wil authorize/perform a study to determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12 inch water line. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 inch) watermain,the city shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 inch watermain and a 12 inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal 's recommendations. 7 . The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 year 24 hour storm event. The outlet of the rention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be construted to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on-site, the applicant Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 59 shall work with the city in implementing the best location for said ponding. 8 . The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent uponthe City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site. 9 . The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101 . The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 10. The applicant shall include a draintile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 11 . The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting reasonable right-of-way for future Trunk Highway 101 and the necessary right-of-way for 86th Street. 12 . During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 13 . Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report (including without limitation the concerns identified as numbers 1 thru 7 on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report) and Engineer ' s memo. 14 . The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4 . These figures shall exclude the right-of-way and wetland areas. 15 . The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Highway 212 and Highway101 right- of-ways and betweenthe area separating commercial and residential lots. 16. Incorporate conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission and include park type amenities such as open space, totlot and tennis courts. 17 . Reduce the intensity of the development along the neighboring properties to the east and southeast corner of the development. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 60 18. The applicant shall provide a detail on permitted uses of the outlot emphasizing reduction of the size of the outlot and limiting the types of use to neighborhood commercial. 19. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit regarding public transit needs in the area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: We ' ll move on a little bit. Is anybody here tonight interested in the John Pryzmus item on the agenda, because I don't think we 're going to get to that. And our preference is to table it and talk another night. So if there ' s nobody here that sat through 3 hours of fun conversation. I guess Planning Commissioners, I think I 'd like a motion to table action on item number 5, item number 6, item number 10 Paul? 10, you need reaction to 9 and 11 right? Krauss: Right. Conrad: Okay. 5, 6 and 10 . I had it right. Batzli moved, Mancino seconded to table items 5, John Pryzmus Interim Use Permit; item 6, Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding lot sizes; and item number 10, update on the Highway 101 alignment study, due to the meeting curfew. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and turned chairing the meeting over to Brian Batzli. JMS DEVELOPMENT FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 6. 1 ACRES INTO 13 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, WEST OF TROENDLE CIRCLE, EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE AND NORTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, TOWER HEIGHTS. Public Present: Name Address Shanon Graef 855 Pleasant View Frank & Marilyn Beddor 910 Pleasant View Road Timothy Foster 6370 Pleasant View Cove David Beddor 1050 Pleasant View Road Mike Meuwissen 6500 Troendle Circle Larry Moloney 150 Fifth St. Tower, S#3500, Mpls Pat Cunningham 865 Pleasant View Road Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 14180 Trunk Hwy.5 Eden Prairie. MN 55344 June 21, 1993 612.937-5150 FAX 612-937-5822 MISSION HILLS PROJECT SUMMARY & NARRATIVE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Ref. 93321 PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME Mission Hills (Plat Name) LOCATION East of Highway 101 at 86th Street West OWNERS Al and Mary Jane Klingelhutz Keith D. and Carol S. Bartz 8600 Great Plains Boulevard and 2209 Acorn Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lexington, KY 40516-9645 DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SITE PLANNER, SURVEYOR,AND ENGINEER Tandem Properties Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7808 Creek Ridge Circle. Suite 310 14180 West Trunk Highway S Bloomington, MN 55439Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 941-7805 (612) 937-5150 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Arteka Natural Green 15195 Martin Drive Eden Prairie. MN 55344 (612) 934-2200 Westwood p,otns,onaSemces.Inc ,an eauaI opportunity employer LEGAL DESCRIPTION The northerly 800 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, and: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and Government Lot 3, of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway #101 and southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds East along the east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 519.26 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 463.90 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 108.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 300.00 feet;thence South 30 degrees, 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence North 69 degrees 17 minutes 02 seconds West a distance of 489.69 feet to the centerline of State Trunk Highway#101 and there terminating, excepting therefrom the following parcel: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds East along the east line of said southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 519.26 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 463.90 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 108.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 112.69 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 187.31 feet; thence South 30 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence South 15 degrees 33 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 239.59 feet; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 143.04 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 265.45 feet to the point of beginning. Page DEVELOPMENT DATA ZONING: Existing Zoning: Agricultural Guided: RSF Proposed Zoning: PUD SITE AREA: Outlot(C• ercial) 9.2 Ac. Block 1 ( du Multi-Family) 14.76 Ac. Block 2 (8 du Single-Family) 2.89 Ac. Block 3 (10 du Single-Family) 4.09 Ac. Block 4 (60 du Multi-Family) 8.92 Ac. R.O.W. A street and A court 1.34 Ac. _ 86th Street R.O.W. 2.17 Ac. TOTAL AREA* 43.37 Ac. * Using estimated new R.O.W. for Highways 101 and 212 TOTAL AREA (including Planned R.O.W. for 101 and 212): ±62.05 Ac. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Outlot: Highway Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Site is largely governed by adjacent R.O.W.s(not yet acquired) Approximately 9.2 acres Block 1: 1 -4 du (2 story) attached residential buildings 3 - 8 du (2 story) attached residential buildings 7 - 12 du (2 story) attached residential buildings Block 2: 8 single family lots Block 3: 10 single family lots -- Block 4: 5 -4 du (garden units)attached residential buildings 5 -8 du (garden units)attached residential buildings Page 3 PROPOSED DENSITY: — Multi-Family 172 du on 23.68 ac. 7.26 du/ac net Single-Family 18 du on 6.98 ac. 2.58 du/ac net _ Lot Size Minimum: 15,000 s.f. Range: 15-21,500 s.f. Average: 16,400 s.f. Combined 190 du on 43.37 ac. 4.38 du/ac gross PHASING: _ Phasing will begin at the north and east working south and west. Phase I Block 2 and 3 (single family) East half of Block 4 Half of Block 1 Phase II Balance of Block 4 Balance of Block 1 Phase III Commercial piece (Outlot) PROJECT NARRATIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed project is a 43.37 acre parcel of rolling open agricultural-use land located east of Trunk Highway 101 and north of the proposed Highway 212. The site area is substantially impacted by the realignment of T.H. 101 and the proposed Highway 212 right of way. 86th Street West,which bisects the site, is currently a gravel road. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed project follows very closely the pending land use guide plan prepared by Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc. The proposed outlot and Block 1 south of 86th Street West, proposes Neighborhood/Highway Commercial along T.H. 101 and Medium Density Residential along the south and east surrounding a preserved wetland and open water pond area. The residential units in Block 1 are 2 story condominium style units in 11 buildings of 4 to 12 units each. Page 4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (continued) Blocks 2 and 3 consist of 18 single family lots which act as a buffer along the east side of the project. Block 4 consists of 10 medium density garden style (single level) attached residential units varying from 4 - 8 units each. All attached residential units will be owner occupied and the surrounding yard area will be in common ownership. In final platting the units may become condominiums. Association covenants will be developed to govern the two areas. At this time, the nature of the proposed Highway Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial parcel remains — subject to a number of other planning issues. This will probably be the last piece to develop. Its perimeter, being formed by highway right-of-way and residential developments, will clarify the shape, size and access options of this parcel. At this time, no architectural character proposals or site plan concepts are available. The site plan respects the proposed alignments of T.H. 101 and 212. 86th Street as the site access, will be realigned to meet both the existing and future alignment of T.H. 101. This will require a vacation and replarting of a portion of 86th on the new alignment. PARKING Each unit will have a 1 or 2 car garages and a 1 or 2 car wide bituminous driveway of at least 20 feet from the garage door to the access drive aisle. This will provide for two to four parking spaces per unit. Additionally, off-street parking spaces have been proposed to equal 1/2 space/unit. PLANTINGS The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a strong sense of street tree plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Linden, and Sugar Maple. Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living areas will be buffered with the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted with the introduction of native wetland species. ARCHITECTURE Two styles of attached residential units are proposed -Villas (south of 86th) and Garden Homes (north of 86th). The Villas are two story units and the Garden Homes are single story. The exterior materials for both styles will be similar, i.e., a combination of 5" aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the garden homes and horizontal transom windows over the villas' windows. On a similar project elsewhere, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray — siding, shell white soffit/facia, and gray velour brick. Page 5 • GRADING The site is graded generally to take advantage of the natural ground elevations. We have designed the site grading with the proposed grades of Highway 101 and Highway 212 in consideration and tried to buffer the site from their impact. The site drainage will be directed through 5 sedimentation ponds throughout the site which are strategically located above the recognized wetland areas. These sedimentation ponds will pre- treat the storm water, recharge the wetland areas, and flow in the natural existing direction. UTILITIES The water main service will be connected to the proposed trunk water main extension by the City of Chanhassen in the southerly right of way of Highway 101. 8" and 6" D.I.P. water main will be constructed throughout the site area with 6" hydrants as required. The 8" water main along 86th Street is proposed to be looped to the east to provide the necessary fire protection. The sanitary sewer service will be connected to an existing manhole located in the southerly right of way of Highway 101 near the residential lots on the southeast shore of Lake Susan. 8" P.V.C. sanitary sewer will be constructed throughout the site to serve the proposed buildings. 6" leads will be stubbed out for each multiple-unit building and 4" wyes for the single-family homes. STREETS Bituminous paved streets will be constructed throughout the development as shown on the site plan. The width of proposed 86th Street (public) will be 32' wide with the remainder of the streets being 28 feet and 20 feet wide (public "A" street and "A" Court and private streets). All streets shall be built with concrete curbs. The alignment of 86th Street is proposed to be revised as shown on the preliminary plat. Access to _ the site will be at existing Highway 101 until the new highway construction is completed. PROJECT PHASING The first phase of the project will begin with the east end of the project and include all the single family lots (Blocks 2 and 3) and roughly 1/2 of the attached residential units (Blocks 1 and 4). Phase 2 will consist of the balance of the attached residential units (Blocks 1 and 4). Phase 3 will consist of the commercial site at T.H. 101. WETLANDS Wetland boundaries were delineated and staked in the field on June 2, 1993 using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989) and the Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). Wetlands were classified according to Wetlands of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine, 1971) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et al. 1979). — Page 6 The site includes part or all of three wetland basins. The two wetlands recognized by the City of Chanhassen and located south of 86th Street have been designated as A24-2(1) and A24-3(I) and classified as PEMF (Palustrine emergent semipermanently flooded; Type 4 deep marsh) and PEMB (Palustrine emergent saturated; Type 2 wet meadow) wetlands, respectively. With the exception of a small area of unavoidable linear encroachment to wetland A24-2(1), which will be due to the upgrading of 86th street, these wetlands will be totally avoided. West 86th street excepted, the site plan will also comply with the buffer zones and structural setbacks applicable to these Ag-Urban wetlands under the current Chanhassen wetland ordinance. Because existing 86th Street flanks the wetland edge with no buffer zone or space for improvements, the wetland can not possibly be avoided without substantial changes to the road alignment. The five sedimentation basins proposed will provide more than 1 to 1 wetland replacement for the anticipated encroachment, and will also provide pretreatment for storm water draining to wetlands. The third wetland basin, which is located north of 86th Street, is not shown on the official Chanhassen City Wetland Map, but is shown on National Wetland Inventory Mapping. The applicant understands that City staff have indicated they do not consider this basin a City-regulated wetland. In addition,the applicant submits that, because this basin is a Type 2 (PEMB) wetland less than two acres in size and located on agricultural land, it is covered under exemption 8 of the interim program of the Wetland Conservation Act. Because this 0.42-acre isolated basin encompasses less than 0.5 acres, it is covered under Section 404 nationwide permit 26 without predischarge notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thus, the proposed development will comply with all applicable wetland regulations. • Page 7 RECEIVED - AUG 11993 t,T,-O ,. SEN -- / o y605 l 3- L7A1 MAI / •A4A4 121V ,A4 6, Ste_ tom Ho. —1 1=t1 .4y COticeR / 45 A Ham&o,i4ut, u'i m pi oPC&r OA/ THE J/Oft Th-e�51 OORP6R (:)-i fife -- PRoto5C_p 74-NV eM PROP�1Z 1 /F5 pgUEGoP4&A/_P': wE ARC 1/£RY UCf/ Af-P crc_-_D413 ' Wit- I, F lrLA/ c) L L y ( OA4 E si-_TE5 - - t3O ROC/Z 11/ G WR przopeRry, osiggifsw 1 '/�u7 J , -L/ 7EP 1-lov55 /4 t61 r 5o.t4 E D.,41? -- (3 E By D/J rife L,AivP SES r out? Lor, /Vow tlf -'t' 711/, rime /1-4 5 coo, wC' HAtie oti1e 5aT Ov5 67ve5roiv5 -_ ' 41 V PQA/ til E — n E PRO Pose? P4, A/, l c�T $cE THI4T - 5'vcH A I�lGff ( N5/ Tf• o.c 1ZE5lPv -_ Aii t 5 i>0E5 JOT .f/ r / A/ wr rH r' C H-.4RACivt2E aj -r-B15 AR o.,4 )! ) 1 - Ai Al?6-A lit/ rile L. A A [ i . (,vdV . F1 Nr TEL y' {zuu1 T L 6 •56/ r of • r '/f -- Iva U`�Z y_ I.M.7oR t W T CoLvc6Ri/; OF o2 R 5-1 `_ ---- - — • _ . C3(\j , 50.E f(/NZ OF _0( PF52 - 0& 7- ' 5/V T 5 pRoPa5P__ .1 Vt/ lC/E '/lti 6 THS PRoPO 7 PIA-A/ (,v E 5 5-6 5 Al e , 1-o7-5 Bot , //v 6 ov 1 YJktz P , rH/5 CAA/ 50.14677A465- c/EA- re-- 67-R1551./ti- 1ST/?65 'LL 6r TUAT_1D�i/_ (Ai t-1 &4J Cat/Przofir 7-6D Gam/ 711 SUCH-/ tM-PPuvi /6/ A5 Cga pi?eAv U5fA46 WR 4'x-7 Ay A PC.41 COl?ouwp , Do&$ Rom/vim/6 - YARD To pEp5CAnC .ANP e3VG2 ,4 LL 14/0,45/04/- - I 0J cfc,R PRlvAch GvE 014 WOO "JhL-�. pR U..4G� ice4/6-6 .41-04/6 Dvk ElArrig6 Lor Niue Qo1wE2 /A/6 rf7� Pi opo p 176 v eGdP.M 6tv r, TL'o. ALL dy ri6 5ev6-i O, i &$ I Al ti-(i 5 G/(t/So! ttooP 6,45 r 0f -i-/, PRoPos Pov6woPA4 civ r Po NOT HA-ve c/ rY wA r'6R, OrA7f 1-/A/55 /We /,v r-fi 5r;6&T, 13 v-r NOT HooreP uP ro TLtt /4AYM w116-Ai bir-e PoRCI-Mic&P cuR cu/ Lor, 1.v e p, D FOR T1-115, _WITH rHt Plzc Pose PGo i_D CPr-f c V7 Cc),A41 Al o . 1A7 6 AR 6 FOR D 7"D Pict- I=dlz • 1-1-1-6- To roe ,t4..4-/,/, 5,m4 6.7.11-rvd l,v & (.110- Af&t7 A7 7-141.5 A-1 6, i 11 PAi/& ? 5Tl?E6_ 7-5 Cue- (A41.4 1 E clCPecri _ To & -P PAY } R . Tit C&A v6 (zoA1> t W G Lit/ro T/4/5 X/E/6/t/30/e, Hoop l 0X25r , IAlE 1,4I77-) 05, rH6R_ 0A , 46,Aest/ -- (A/i /4R -&- poRc6P to y - L r : = r , C Ty A J(7 r/1 -- .9 '&/ ' I. 'E 0 M C.Yl- Ft -t- THA r IF PEA4 p z eK r'L s wAtirs_ to PEU6r-DPI rH/5 P/Ece 02c GA-AP 7-H6 - �_..., cis • c-P i.► / 5 7-Ry 7-0 - A CC0/14 ,4 r6 7-71C pi5opig Pf?cs&vvrk y Li o/4/c2_ goal* 1 M /I5 A-R ccA , lAye AZ-50 f E�4 7-1-1,4r A -_ /1/tt ' -A411 i iOAJ L L,q R P6 UELC)PA4&N 7' 5o c kl ./A S TH15 CovGD A,13so(2(3 TH6 C05T c'..P AeVy • AE 5Sj&t 7'S L1ie6a A6,4 /s7' TH656 5 M PRoP&t ry ©cv JV�2 s, TO FuT t r JCC/ 5'.AP_LL/C r62./i, 5 ; , TAA/ PIM A4uST (7l5RV Tiff_ V6RY - - 1/6RY (Z&/45o'v$ L.'& CHC30$G To Li 'E /V _ 1-11-15 AREA , T(t b cr)r.1, 7 (7o oR L25 / 5 51101e, So-A-/ coAvccee,(/ -- THC C76oP16 -P/AT w4/ T ry,5 _ V6/761-0[7.14 &-A/ 7-1- 5/A/C6 ©u < (-joysE r t 7 EA, E f&EGCa v' com p.AL • pA 6 T7 Hi 61g T 1+.4A/ NoRAI A !tom f .Fcx2 (iR.m - L 56/-<e-n./ D -- c u,g-z/ 1.11/14/6 tiW 5 (_ v T -r7 ' t- l VA G C7 P 7-f45 PRoPos&P P e-a)P,14 aov 7 te. nY ref/5 HA 5 [3cr- A/ 49./1/977- &p. CovC-v5/Q / Lv ( 64-1 1"w5 (AEU&Z©PAI tiv r 51-10(it-P /35- 400K6--v _ ` 'V R ' CA P(J L L�' (.�� 7 tt-/ AA/ e5G_ Q v,A-1/ fy _____ 6 RA T/�-- ( ' t/ 4N 77 ry I*x 5/AI 6 © < CDm P1-c- '/ __LA/ 41rot-C, o,p .A- A.o<?E .477g4cr/v ,4trr 4rlv6 you 14141/ AN CD1)E5T7&V5 O/ (-LoyL17 - ' 1, 11<e A4orzt fA Po T f c' 5 , t, - & wouLP 93 - q2 - s-b rcWv,A CWCL� : ;::: ; C f-I4MWb45&&A/ /4A/ 55-317 • 17 5 toOKI A 6 AT .• _I PG4-iv 5 FOR TH15 DEv&eopme / 7-- A- b_//775 C 1o56/ / A comPAgi5041 Cr4cCr 70 A pv• - 1-91A/AY tt 1 S Pm-iv c()P &/rz Y 57-4-A/P TAN Pew Rzopeenc H45 Cot -t7 -o 190 • RE si r).6N 7-1}1-t uy/ T-5 -t--tic &wrw _II/e/&/-BareptooP £A'- 1-11/e Al HA-S /e/c/ frioA4 6- CA4 Lo ay 1(0AcE65_ _V-1L5 L5___NOT A St9i5 -Tt 6 plierZAA/c6- /N De,/5/ rr 11/ rife C6o56/1/ 55 OF TH15 7(W 5.-Ecr, TO us, 0 /A/ 4- Ho.A46 ou-,v6R5 40444 vtg-Y ,A4Licti APP - c-TE-_P ay Tito PRoPose.;- 'p ov exp. /s/ 1 5 1211=-_P RI LuARReN T j C'-o551 L-OOK 13ct rite: - p(..A A/It/IN 6 A4,14 I 55/0A/. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. H IC g i MEMO To: Paul Krauss and Sharmin Al-Jaff From: Fred Hoisington, Planning Consultant Subject: Meeting on 7-13-93 Re: Mission Hills Date: 7-14-93 Present: Don Ashworth Paul Krauss Michael Schroeder Fred Hoisington Mission Hills will be on the August 18, 1993 Planning Commission Agenda. I am to call Mission Hills and explain the following: 1. The proposed new interchange alignment at TH 212/101 is acceptable. 2. Mission Hills must be able to accommodate Alternative Alignments 2 and 3 until such time as one can be selected. Don Ashworth authorized the cultural resources analysis so that the Highway 101 alignment study can be completed. Paul Krauss suggested that we do some additional land use analysis as part of the Highway 101 study to get a better grasp of the uses that may be allowed at the TH 212/101 interchange. If at all possible, some input should be available for the August 18 Planning Commission meeting. We are scheduled to present the Highway 101 Alignment Study at the August 18, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Sharmin, I called Dick Putnam on July 14, 1993 to explain the above. He was agreeable but asked for a letter status report (enclosed). Land Use/Environmental • Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard;Suite 525 • Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439 • (612)835-9960 • Fax:(61 2)835-3160 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. H 1( g i July 14, 1993 Mr. Dick Putnam Tandem Corporation 2765 Casco Point Road Orono, MN 55391 Re: Status of Highway 101 Alignment Study Dear Mr. Putnam: Per our discussion on Wednesday, July 14, 1993, I submit this letter as a summary of the current status of the Highway 101 Alignment Study as it relates to the Mission Hills project. We fully expected to have an alignment established by this time but after discussions with MnDOT, it became apparent that the Study would have to be expanded to include the delineation of wetlands and a cultural resources study. The wetlands have been identified and staked but the cultural resources study was delayed pending a meeting with MnDOT on July 7, 1993. Since then, we have received authorization from the City to proceed with the Study. Once it is complete, we will be able to finish our evaluation and establish an alignment that will become the subject of official mapping. What this means to Mission Hills is that it must build some contingencies into its plans. You can assume that the reconfigured interchange is acceptable but you should incorporate Alternative Alignments 2 and 3 into your plans for the August 18, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. We should be able to give you an answer on an alignment by August or September at which point your plans should be modified to reflect the selected or preferred alignment. We are sorry that the process to select an alternative has taken so long. As you probably already know, the letting of TH 212 has also been pushed further into the future so the urgency in establishing a Highway 101 alignment is less acute. Your project is forcing the resolution of some issues that would normally not need to be addressed until a later date given MnDOT's revised schedule. Land Use/Environmental • Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 • Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439 • (612)835-9960 • Fax:(612)835-3160 I hope this gives you a better indication of the Highway 101 Alignment Study status while providing you with an option to proceed with your project. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Fred Hoisington, AICP Planning Consultant FLH/glh cc Al Klingelhutz Keith Bartz Paul Krauss Dennis Marhula Sharmin Al-Jaff r:\ _.-\---\.7-_, )‘:,.,iv -..- -A-....cfri 1 - -\-J-.}.-., , $ I / .7— . :1\`.s'—'......—..,,---'.." .1 ...4.W::: r —..... �, � � � • 1.NVA, .1` _.+-aa► �-_`. Study Arta Boundary r �\ , �, teet EXISTING 101 c _ - - ��r t lake S"" ALIGNMENT ;:,.s ___ 100' R.O.W. r. �:`'- - ��:��. Or ..-z---::ir 4..itmoom.„ - ' :14::: 6.1_I--.---" '. a ----,.. .-- 4 d raJ .•:-: ,/ •'' , foriii: •, int,_.--..t..-..,!.:.,:::-z.a • T • lil— 1 Sr ., ,, "+ "' X-1---'1''''''''''G:3 I. �/ • �':•• 4 . . B n " � -• 1� �; ' = �9 �, .�/- •:% .1:2 - v't os •AO 741'41.,,AN,,.: , 1 ....2:--N-kkkk.....‹.:. T 047 �1e erg, — �� _ �. F.r —v ^ +rte -y ,___ _ t t .. _if jig ,` ) 1P i ._. :_=1: 13 I' fr • ` �'. 41K� _�� 'l; (.:,... ___yr. ,. I/1 -I • 1111‘111#: 7-40# •-:,...- 4,*16. I? k I .1*.z.4----..-7.4.3.._ it..._NW-- .2 ri . %cif •••• I 14.011a1;.'ick\........\ „, / .;,..441.,\VIIIIIMbiaWit or'. 7.. '. ' ' ) 1 ' / 1 pi.,•QC-\-,Ii01 eil (. .. / I - - a l{-',-...---=--- � 1 1 �- t . •� I,� ���,/- I�a.::l�\\��. � ,,.sem_- -ra�.;�,,, ���. • Z � 105-6--1, i 1 r ALTERNATIVES I & E ✓ I-- \\.........j :; • CITY OF CHANHASSEN el ri , ___. .........I. ., 'L .-- • 41 I (- �._._ UPDATE FOR —_- ; _.'2' •-- -.IELt. -� -------� HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT AND LAND USE STUDY - - HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP --u -azn • .•''----- -: •. :li 1 \ • r-a. & . • V.v. .---- .- -\....1.. ; s, 410,111A4. ...- ...17,k / • • • - - -- -- .w An- . --.• -‘A —Nvil,-i4-.i:. —-7- :. I'AtItk.•-:•!,‘ )•r:L.- \\ftlti ED -,---„ LA. . • k .. 11611‘:-* - '----...., If j I • rf 0 ---. -114 „.....„...L _ ,......,....,„,„..._,.:•.,,,,..„._,,,, „...._.,) ,,. ., c5T---77:. .-.,_ _.,,0_,.......1 --S,.•• .0,4 Irfr- N . . tg...---. :-.:.. 7--w .....4., !,, ,..-- !•• 2 ,A, ,,,-----,--_-z..--- / \. • ••.: .2.1::.-...4,... ..:4111,, i . Study Area Boundary t n,, it •;-"AIIIb. 1 7---- ---1"-.. , $ $ mikfi wiip rlier-7.-WP \* Ms ? ..,__J Lake Susan 100' R.• /4-, ! - ._ _, , --_ ,•, --- 7 _ .,_111-A - .\ 7 . Livr-7-4, ,,r1. \ „•• • ,...‘i, ,,,rA.i-;,-.-.:!!!... -, lie0.,_,......___-_-- .;,_. yna.10 ---- e / ,/47.' •Iiit ' ..,...-~.-1-- er- YI / - ii-IV.. -. • .!..'.. „-,-- ------,:-- --'-' ' . • s•- , il r"----- ------' •., ./0 . — . . . - : • -•. -4,;411 -ioc ,•-...-L-- ; I c , A • -0 • • • ... 4?.:6 : , t .; #cs*J41,A,44. ....,t, . kir:, : :: -.: - .fait is et,/,,,,,fg• ;41 'b. - *It n41--- 4-lik '' ..._ A A\10,.4" . .. (7- 1‘5NstZii.l.lil.i.V.t..gj09li,-r4;,)' _-..a• --c. _ t3 1- -in.'. ritsNs. ,...> :': --: . -•!--2)1; 1 41111.___Att- '\ • jr.37.‘, :1--- i _ / a?. •:.•' e.. • I• .;.,•: • Ili Ilu..-. :-- ..:.,`S.. . __,_I $r!Ilis• • , 7.•:':1,-!• ,' i...11: a 1 -1' .--c'\ 11 VI Z., ....,-- •:,;',1— '' i k IC. - . •._,---1-=------ 1\.. -i. % ..... -.-. 1..N.• '-. .s •=--„--4,1 - ( — k. )/0 ..----'' ' • _ ___ 1 A..: If -:-\ 172.: ....-- L__' ._.,..- ........ ,..„....-....41. ...., ..._ ..... .. .---,- Jr v& , ;;L-1).- , ..., ......„.„. ...)..... , i .( ; • : 1: • i \.': e ."11 ---.--17----- - ' ' ,A_J Bium---.-- •\•;, ,„...% _.. r Study Area''-i - 1,. • I ---r--- ,---- -, 11 -..".... -'-'1 -•-' -`i/z-41 te, '4:idt - . '.117411 .P. •,. a i.....ill it i 1 1 %1 % BOUrIti3r -11 . rzmr, 6 ,,,,..loop,-•- 1- C\r- I ....401. ..a.•••••alle..\\.\%....-.0%-.7' s';`•.'i ..:). J 7W/A0 idilk IA ;,.. If. ; E , - , -, .. ' !TAU, _ .,,,,- 6.- 1 - fi _ • .....---- .-- -r: _____- ,,,L. ,/a.:-.: try--- . —. .. NA 'd i rik't s ....,,,gr.. .. .....,. .,. ..).litt •.—.,—... 1 .41.Z......h74j.11. 11..N._P / • . .4 e -,- ...- i 1,NIctr,,rp. .;I1P ' ...•=,...- -,---z-7-..._.: ,,h,j N._7 0...\- , , i ,.••'`•1"°. ..Vil_ ft,-.--.*-. i r4.: .7.1 ri \r` NAP,))91 -... — . • •°,1ro.1.114W h 4\. p ii! --4._..„,. .._,.. ., ...._,...- , !, . ..... --.........7-Nien 1 „„......."4111 ''' --"...A.ri"04,7,,r,..i OP" ------........ r.-----.;::,- r- • / ... -3 '', -...• lo r.,-., • .trairro-,.-`!".tNI''' . _..e''..°.-. ..0. .,„,, ;... • . . 4' -- C .NP .":"..M11.. .....0•94.-•,- • .-.1 or.....; . ..r"*.-',.:::1r,:z...,.. ' 1 — . 'A I" 1.11111111a, A •- VAlliii4 ,,,•••• k _ )1 r— I ' " ._____ ,- , _,_,-.----, ALTERNATIVES 3 & 131 )--. iFt°«-- VC-- 1 cklc e 1• . . , , ._ N I I --- --- CITY OF CHANHASSEN -1 ,,t 1 --7 ., ,,- i/ ( t--i A 0 , :. ,...... i — u .":- UPDATE FOR--•_-_--- HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT --- • - 7---11.-- ..__ -• . --- ' .'N ,; — --- --7•• ., AND LAND USE STUDY ---,.. . ''-".•••••.... ...„, - _ HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP ..... .... R 1 N.:7.... -:j.7if#i),4A~Z fr_ st :-. • ,...,Ami.:\ ,1,..__ ,\\*.,,,,, . ___ _ • kva2,..o AA- 5-i l�, — il 7-------: Ii - NN l , � � �. Study Area Boundary • � .011 \ .. .. ; AMII;�� r so. f. — lir uka Susan 100'R.•t � � t� '� 7� rt� '"--.--•.:411E-: /7 ri k r - .4•7 4i,07.1114, tti ICY Aill r e • , n ir:---;r•------= l' " - • , 4r• i 4.86 ,. , ifri ,-,.....::_..„/— i ,,,,, - r. ,,„ • . t/or -\ -c.) • (11 1.1 - :dao ~i' +�r`J.0,,• ►�Tr • ..1° ` �� ,_k �, — �� a , > INW. tilt A•t A54 0., A 1� �� _,fire ra., Nn4\ \\,+ fCe� . -Ni.( \ „ ,)' • !Irk il • -2,1 _.t_. ....,,,.. co olim. ,, (11111*.v„, '. 1...V. ' I - ' Im?'°-,'. -- F-f--04"---i ' r4W' W ( - `" --'- ---== Psi-----1--,f--,il -;--*. ..”. --'''<9 ' Q\! a ' fir' ,.i---.„_--- -'."..„-',',„.,. .....^..,,, i % �_! \Af t-/1°.�e;.;l ' c - 'Stud Area .t 1. , •.rr Ill r • T-. `wi �•• ��sr-- �11j _ C� Boundary� Ll ? ,. 11 `I \ a I � ��` �— I \ Nj V *Or � �- t I a • `►CST 1 ��,, ..-. I� / , 41- , ,.1.:..----71.., , 11P441.6.,_,„, .4.,y07 grep fl(( IV . . �. i#!!L�'-'-. rarjmoi: - '•'/ öT?1! tet: )_ ' � • _ 'j ALTERNATIVES & 4 • _•% • ? ' Ji 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN :41- J \`• ` :' i�I �/ ' Y -_ _ (if L .`_-�— UPDATE FOR ,"'ter'« •� === HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT - � ': �� •r .AND LAND USE STUDY HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP CITY of : CHANHASSEN _ • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: August 9, 1993 SUBJ: Planning Case #93-4 PUD & 93-5 VAC Mission Hills I have,reviewed the concept plan for the proposed Mission Hills project, and basically the only item that would need attention at this time would be a second means of access to the development, at least a secondary emergency entrance/exit. As the project develops the concerns will be determining which buildings will be fire sprinklered, the addition and relocating of fire hydrants, "No Parking, Fire Lane" signage, access during construction, proposed street names, and building identification numbers. These requirements will be forthcoming as the project develops. gC ti S pt- - -P 41 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF - _ _ - CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM — TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Steve A. Kirchman. Building Official kotk-' DATE: August 6, 1993 _ SUBJ: 93-4 PUD & 93-5 VAC (Mission Hills by Tandem Properties) I have been asked for comments on the above referenced Planning Department application. Background: City Ordinance #82 adopted in October, 1987 adopted appendix chapter 38 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Appendix Chapter 38 provides more comprehensive fire sprinidering — requirements for buildings than UBC Chapter 38. Analysis: '— Buildings 1. UBC Appendix Chapter 38 as amended by the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC). requires R-1 occupancies of 8500 or more gross square feet of floor area to be fire _ sprinklered. MSBC further states that in the case of a mixed occupancy the threshold number o ,the.mostiestrictive:occupancy-applies to the entire-building. The buildings as shown on afe preliminary plat would all be classified as a mixed occupancy; R-1 and M-1. _ Floor plans showing area were not provided, but it appears that buildings of more than four units will exceed 8500 sq. ft. and, as such, will;be required to be fire sprinldered. 2. Minnesota Rules Parts 1800.5000-5700set limits at which buildings must be designed by — professional designers. R-1 occupancies exceeding 5000 sq. ft. are required to be designed by professionals. It appears these buildings will exceed the 5000 sq. ft threshold. es- tt 4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Sharmin Al-Jaff August 6, 1993 Page 2 Site Proposed street names need to be submitted to the Public Safety Department for review in order to insure no duplication or confusing names occur. Recommendations: 1. Buildings must comply with UBC Appendix Chapter 38 as amended by MSBC 1305.6905. 2. Structures must be designed by an architect and structural engineer. 3. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department for review before final plat approval. TANDEM James L.Ostenson PROPERTIES Richard A.Putnam — BROKERS•PLANNERS•DEVELOPERS • June 21 , 1993 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Gary Warren _ 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Watermain Extension — Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: We hereby petition for municipal water service to our property described as per attached. We have also attached a map showing the location of the property. We respectfully request that the previous study (Project 90-10 ) be updated to comply with this project. Sincerely, _ ' ob 6464"ki Al Kline,, hutz Ji Ostenson, Tandem Properties _ 2765 Casco Point Road • Wayzata,Minnesota 55391 • Office&Fax(612)471-0573 7808 Creekridge Circle • Suite 310 • Bloomington,Minnesota 55439 • Office(612)941-7805 • Fax(612)941-7853 1 CITY OF .,1 i CHANHASSEN S J __ .if ,fk. _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '. ., (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer74 ( DATE: August 12, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Concept Plan for Mission Hills - Project No. 93-23 Upon review of the preliminary plat and site plans dated June 21, 1993 prepared by Westwood Engineering, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain and is currently employed in agricultural practices. The proposed grading plan indicates mass site grading with the exception of the outlot in order to develop the house pads for the multiple and single-family dwelling units. Elevations of the existing ground contours lying north of 86th Street range from 924 on the west end to 900 at the east end. The grading plan proposes building floor elevations north of 86th Street between 904 and 907 which is relatively uniform in comparison to the existing terrain. The existing ground contours lying south of the proposed 86th Street range from _ 920 to 898. The proposed building floor elevations of the multiple dwellings range from 910 to 901.5. This variety in elevation will maintain the rolling hills effect which currently exist today. The area lying north of 86th Street, the large knoll (924 contour), is being significantly lowered in order to beompatible with future proposed Trunk Highway 101 grades. Staff does believe the multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th street could be adjusted in elevation to give some variety and different appearance. The plans also propose on grading single-family lots along "A" Street and Court. The plans propose the lots to be a variety of split-entry to walkout-type homes. The overall grading - plan does maintain the existing drainage pattern through the site. The grading plans do not propose any grading on the commercial outlot at this time. A large earth berm is shown between the proposed Trunk Highway 212 corridor and the development. The plans have the berm labeled "by Others" which is assumed to be Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 2 constructed in conjunction with Trunk Highway 212. No berming is proposed along Trunk Highway 101 with this proposal. Staff believes some sort of berming should be proposed at this time by the applicant. The plans propose on realigning existing 86th Street northerly to a line perpendicular with the future Trunk Highway 101 alignment. There currently exists a 20 to 24-foot wide gravel roadway which serves Tigua Lane to the east. The City has no dedicated easements or right-of-ways for existing 86th Street. Tigua Lane on the other hand has been dedicated with the plat of Rice Lake Manor. The plans propose on expanding 86th Street in its current location. The result will be partially filling the wetland which lies immediately south of existing 86th Street. Staff recommends that 86th Street be adjusted northerly to minimize or eliminate impact to the wetland. There appears to be sufficient room to readjust the alignment of 86th Street to do so. The plans propose a series of pretreatment ponds for storm water runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. These pretreatment ponds should be constructed in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for water quality and quantity purposes. The plans also propose a series of storm sewers to convey street and overland storm runoff in to the pretreatment ponds. The proposed retention ponds will be further addressed once a preliminary plat is submitted with storm drainage calculations. The retention ponds should be designed and built in accordance to the City's storm water management plan (NURP standards). The applicant will be required to provide an outlet control structure in each pond to control discharge rate into the wetlands. The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for accessing and maintaining the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted during the preliminary plat and construction plan and specification review process. It appears most of the streets, with the exception of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court are proposed to be private. Staff is unclear at this point whether it would be prudent for the maintenance responsibilities of the storm water retention (NURP) ponds be left in the homeowner association's hands. This issue will be further investigated at a later date. UTILITIES Back in February of 1992 the City prepared a feasibility report for extension of municipal water service to this area. However, due to problems with easement acquisition along 86th Street, the project never proceeded. Since a year's time span has elapsed it will be necessary to go back and update the feasibility report. Staff has received a petition from the applicant for extension of utilities to the site. The City will be updating the feasibility report in conjunction with this project as well as the pending projects of John Klingelhutz Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 3 (Lake Riley Hills) as well as the future Lundgren Bros. development which lies south of Lyman Boulevard. The combination of these three projects should make it feasible for the extension of trunk water and sewer service to this development. The extension of utility service to the site would not be available until late spring/early summer of 1994 assuming the project proceeds with the normal public hearing process. The City has recently adopted a comprehensive sanitary sewer policy plan which indicates sanitary sewer service should be brought up from the south along the proposed Trunk Highway 101 alignment. Since this utility project may not coincide with this proposal, the applicant appears to be proposing an alternate sewer connection to the existing sewer line located east of Lake Susan at Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose on extending the sewer from the adjacent property to the north into the development. The appropriate utility and drainage easements would have to be conveyed to the City for this extension. The applicant should also be aware that this connection may be only an interim connection and/or be limited in service area due to downstream capacity restraints of the existing sewer line. The City will have to conduct a study to determine if there is excess capacity available in the existing sanitary sewer line along Lake Susan prior to this connection being approved. The cost of the study would be forwarded on to the applicant for repayment. The plans propose an 8-inch water line extended east from Trunk Highway 101 through the development along 86th Street. According to the City's previous feasibility study, a 12-inch watermain line was required to facilitate looping of the area. Therefore, the City would require oversizing of the watermain through 86th Street. If the applicant included installation of the 12-inch watermain along 86th Street with their overall site improvements the City would apply a credit towards the applicant's assessments. The oversizing would be the cost difference between an 8-inch watermain and 12-inch watermain. The proposed utility lines located outside of 86th Street right-of-way and "A" Street is be assumed to be a private system. Due to the magnitude of the project, the City would require that the utilities be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Fire hydrant placement should be reviewed and approved in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. All storm sewer systems should be designed for a 10-year storm event. The applicant shall supply the City with storm sewer and ponding calculations for review and approval. The applicant should be aware the City has implemented a policy regarding drain tile behind the curbs to facilitate household sump pump discharge and also to improve roadway subgrade drainage. On the streets that are proposed to be private, staff will only — recommend to the applicant that provisions are made to accommodate for sump pump discharge. Staff will require that a drain tile system be installed along the public streets Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 4 where the adjacent dwellings have no other discharge point such as ponds,wetlands or storm sewer. STREETS The plans propose on servicing the development by realignment and upgrading existing 86th Street east of Trunk Highway 101. 86th Street currently exists today as a 20 to 24-foot wide gravel street which eventually turns into Tigua Lane which is upgraded to urban standards with blacktop and curb and gutter. The City does not have dedicated right-of-way or easements over 86th Street. However, the City has been maintaining the gravel road portion for over 6 years and therefore the City has established the right to use the street for public travel. • The preliminary plat proposes on dedicating a 60-foot wide right-of-way for 86th Street as well as "A" Street and Court. Staff is concerned due to the land use (commercial, multiple and single-family) that the 60-foot wide right-of-way may be insufficient. Staff is recommending that a traffic demand study be prepared to determine the adequate right-of- way width as well as number traffic lanes necessary to support this area. This report should be authorized by the City at the cost to the applicant. Due to the intense land use, staff's initial reaction is that an 80-foot wide right-of-way for 86th Street should be dedicated up to "A" Street. Beyond that, the 60-foot wide right-of-way should be sufficient. The applicant is proposing 86th Street to be upgraded to a 32-foot wide urban street. Again, staff feels that due to the intense use it is more likely the street will be increased to a minimum of 36- foot if not 44-foot lanes to facilitate turning movements with the anticipated commercial use on the outlot west of the development. Again, a traffic study should be required to determine the number of traffic lanes as well as check warrants for a traffic signal at 86th Street and Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose a number of individual driveway curb cuts along 86th Street for the multiple dwelling units. Staff is concerned with the number of individual access points along 86th Street. Staff strongly recommends these individual access points be eliminated and the driveways be redesigned to take access off the interior private streets versus 86th Street. As previously mentioned, the existing wetland immediately south of 86th Street is proposed to be partially filled as a result of upgrading the streets. Staff sees no reason why the 86th Street alignment could not be adjusted northerly to avoid impact to the wetland area. The applicant should be aware that a trail and/or sidewalks will most likely be required along 86th Street due to anticipated pedestrian traffic. Prior to final plat approval, detailed street construction plans will be required for staff review and formal approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance with Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 5 the City's latest edition of standard specification and detail plates. Street construction plans should also include construction of interim deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 101 pursuant to MnDOT standards/comments. All utility and street construction within the Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way will require a permit from MnDOT. MISCELLANEOUS All site restoration and erosion control measures should be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer should be encouraged to pursue acquisition of the City's handbook to employ said practices. The applicant should be aware that in conjunction with the public improvements for this development the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. As a result of the City's extension of trunk utilities to the area, this development will be • subject to assessments in accordance with the feasibility studies. The applicant should dedicate on the final plat the necessary right-of-way for future extension of Trunk Highway 101 as well as 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tiqua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. 2. Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. 3. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right- of-way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right-of-way is inadequate. 4. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 6 The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. 6. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%. 7. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. 8. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. 9. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 10. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provide from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City will authorize/perform a study to determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 11. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12-inch water line. If the applicant installs the oversized (12-inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8-inch watermain and a 12-inch watermain. 12. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 13. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10-year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100-year 24-hour storm Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 7 event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on-site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. 14. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site. 15. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 16. The applicant shall include a draintile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 17. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right-of-way determined from a traffic study for future Trunk Highway 101 and 86th Street. 18. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer r'Tqi Keith D. Bartz 2209 Acorn Court _ North Pointe Lexington, Kentucky 40516-9645 606-299-2003 October 8, 1993 Planning Department Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive - Chanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: Public Hearing Scheduled for October 20, 1993 regrarding the Mission Hills development- written comments to be presented for us in our absence please. Progress is inevitable in a beautiful rural community like Chanhassen- especially as close as it is to our metropolitan area. _ We have viewed the Mission Hills development plan and find it incorporates a logical layout, good traffic flow design, well landscaped sheltering and quality housing. - As adjacent landowners we are pleased to welcome such an attractive utilization of Tandem Properties land. Sincerely, Keith D. Bartz v Carol S. Bartz • .."T 1 2 1993 PC DATE: 10/20/93 4, CITY O FClIANBASSEN CC DATE: 11/8/93 \\� CASE #: 93-2 IUP By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for Interim Use Permit to grade site in preparation for development. I. LOCATION: North of West 78th Street between Kerber Boulevard and Powers — Z Boulevard • APPLICANT: T. F. James Company - V 6640 Shady Oak Road, Suite 500 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 — 0 Q • PRESENT ZONING: BG, General Business ACREAGE: 18 acres more or less ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - R-4, Mixed Low Density Residential; proposed Oak Ponds Townhouse development S - BG, General Business; Target Store E - OI, Office & Institutional; City Hall W - R-12, High Density Residential QWATER AND SEWER: Available to site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The property slopes from the north and northeast to the — W south and west. The western thirty (30) percent of the site was previously rough graded in anticipation of commercial development. A steep slope exists and will (1) be maintained to separate this property from the property to the north. An abandoned farmstead exists on the eastern third of the site. T. F. James IUP October 20, 1993 Page 2 INTERIM USE PERMIT/ GRADING PERMIT PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is seeking an interim use permit to allow site grading to begin on the site this fall prior to obtaining final development plan approvals. Staff believes the request is reasonable. The grading being proposed by the developer is consistent with virtually any reasonable commercial use of the site. A rough grading plan has been submitted as part of the overall development plans. In the near future, the applicant will be presenting to the City a development plan to include a possible grocery store as well as other commercial uses. According to the applicant, approximately 100,000 yards of excavation will be involved as part of the overall grading operation. Of this amount, approximately 40,000 cubic yards of excess material will be removed from the site. This excess will be stored on-site until the spring-summer of 1994. Until then, a soil stock piling location has been indicated on the grading plan submittal. Grading shall be completed during the summer of 1994. The applicant has indicated that the haul route will make use of West 78th and Kerber Boulevard. Hauling through the downtown area shall be prohibited. Construction vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances only. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining hauling routes, cleaning of dirt, etc. Working hours will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no work occurring on holidays. The site contains a small depression that staff believes is not a protected wetland. While it has wetland characteristics, available information indicates that it was created for storm water purposes and is therefore exempt. Under state and city law, however, we are awaiting a determination from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. An administrative fee and a letter of credit will be required prior to issuing a notice to - proceed on the rough grading operation. The purpose of securing the grading permit as a separate process is to expedite development of the site once final approval is secured. The request meets the intent and standards of the code and we are recommending it be approved with appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In November 1986, this property was approved for a mixed use subdivision (West Village Heights 2nd) including five commercial lots, one multi-family lot, and the realigned right-of- way for West 78th Street. In addition, this property was rezoned from R-la, Agricultural Residence, to C-3, Service Commercial, and R-4, High Density Residential. In 1987, the southern five lots were rezoned to BG, General Business District, as part of the revisions to T. F. James IUP October 20, 1993 Page 3 the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to the redevelopment of the downtown and the finalization of the West 78th alignment, the western portion of the site was rough graded in anticipation of a PDQ center. This center and other commercial uses were never built, although all of the residential acreage has either been developed or is currently being built out. The West 78th Street alignment was modified and a revised road section employed concurrent with the approval of Target. Roadway improvements are nearing completion. WETLANDS AND PROPOSED ALTERATIONS The property contains a depression that could be defined as a wetland that would be filled as a consequence of the project. The following is a brief description of the wetland on site: Basin A - Basin A is located in the south central area of the site at an elevation of approximately 956 feet. The wetland is classified as a semi-permanently flooded palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMF; Circular 39 Type 4 inland deep fresh marsh). The City of Chanhassen's wetland biologist classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland, however, a review of the history of the pond indicates that it was created when West 78th Street was constructed for stormwater holding purposes. The records show that this was not a mitigation site for other wetlands filling in the area, but was created for the specific purpose of stormwater retention. The basin is approximately 0.5 acre. Permit Requirements The City of Chanhassen will be reviewing the proposed project to ensure compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. Based upon currently available information, we do not believe it is a wetland of any significance, nor do we believe it is protected by city ordinance or state law. In this case, it appears that under the WCA exemptions, this wetland will not require mitigation. The WCA states that a replacement plan for wetlands is not required for impoundments or excavations constructed in non-wetlands solely for the purpose of effluent treatment, stormwater retention, soil and water conservation practices, and water retention, soil and water conservation practices, and water quality improvements, and not as part of a compensatory wetland mitigation process that may, over time, take on wetland characteristics (WCA; Exemption 10). The Corps has jurisdiction over "waters of the United States within the section 404 permit program." In general, the rules say that they do not consider the "artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock water, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing" to be "waters of the United States". However, the Corps reserves the right on a case-by-case basis to determine that a particular waterbody within this category of water is a "water of the United States." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has the right to determine on a case-by-case basis if any of these waters are "waters of the United States" since they T. F. James IUP October 20, 1993 Page 4 have jurisdiction over the Section 401 permit program for water quality._ (The nationwide permits include Section 401 permit approval.) If the Corps determines that a permit is necessary, the applicant will have to satisfy the Corps that impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent possible or that compensatory mitigation for all remaining impacts are designed and incorporated into the plat. Compensation must be in the form of wetland restoration or creation. With the current plans, the applicant may need to create at least 0.5 acre of replacement wetland of equal or greater value than those lost due to the project. If the wetland is considered a "water of the United States" by the Corps, the project may have to meet the requirements for the City's Wetland Ordinance. This includes establishing wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation If mitigation was to be required by the Army Corps of Engineers, we do not believe attempts should be made to preserve the wetland on site. It is simply too small and poorly located to be able to maintain it as a viable wetland. We hope to be able to provide additional information on the Corps determination at the Planning Commission meeting. Unfortunately, wetland protection has become highly complex involving numerous agencies. Until the administrative problems are resolved, these problems are likely to continue. SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE The plans propose a number of temporary stormwater sediment basins to retain sediments prior to discharging into the West 78th Street storm sewer system. Staff will require that the applicant design the temporary sediments basins in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The site currently contains two field entrances from West 78th Street. The plans propose two new construction entrances to the site. One from West 78th Street and the other from Kerber Boulevard. Staff recommends that the two existing field entrances be eliminated in conjunction with the site grading to restrict access to the two designated points where rock construction entrances are proposed. The plans propose the entire site to be graded at one time. Staff recommends the applicant work with staff in preparing approved haul routes to and from the site. T. F. James IUP October 20, 1993 Page 5 The site does contain an existing farm with accessory buildings. These buildings will have to be razed and the appropriate permits shall be applied for at the City's Building Department. In addition, it is most likely the site contains existing well and septic system(s) and, again, both of these shall be properly abandoned in accordance with City or State health codes. The plans propose a two-tier retaining wall on the north slope of the site. These retaining walls will require building permits from the City's Public Safety Department. _ Staff has typically found in most of these agricultural areas that field tile was installed many years ago. Due to the mass amount of earth moving, it is most likely drainage tiles will be encountered. It has been the City's policy when these drainage tiles are encountered, that the applicant be responsible for reconnecting these drainage systems to the City's storm sewer system or relocating them to a ponding basin. Erosion Control The plans propose for an erosion control filter fence (Type I silt fence) along the downstream perimeter of the site. In accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook, the size of this site grading may warrant additional silt fence partway up the slopes. Upon completion of the site grading, staff recommends that another row of silt fence be employed approximately 150 feet north of West 78th Street over the easterly one-half of the site. FINDINGS The standards for an interim use permit are as follows: 1. It meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in Section 20-232 of the City Code. 2. It conforms to the zoning regulations. 3. The use is allowed as an interim use in the district. 4. The date of the event will terminate. The use can be identified with certainty. 5. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if necessary for the public to take the property in the future. 6. The user agrees to any condition that the city deems appropriate for the permission of the use. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: T. F. James IUP October 20, 1993 Page 6 1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: With the appropriate controls as recommended by staff, the issuance of the interim use permit shall have minimal health, safety and welfare impacts on the neighborhood and community. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The preparatory site grading furthers the City's goal of creating a vibrant and healthy downtown area for residents of the community. The grading supports the approved use of the site. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The grading being proposed by the developer is consistent with virtually any reasonable commercial use of the site. While the grading of the site will physically alter the appearance of the area, the ultimate development of the site will be compatible with the build out character of the area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: With the appropriate controls as recommended by staff, the issuance of the interim use permit to grade the site shall have minimal impacts on the neighborhood and community. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: This property is located in the heart of the community and is adequately served by all appropriate services and facilities. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The ultimate development of the site as a commercial use has been T. F. James IUP October 20, 1993 Page 7 anticipated by the City in the design and construction of public improvements. The commercial development of the site will improve the City's economic welfare as well as provide for the convenience and comfort of residents. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: With the appropriate controls and conditions, as recommended by staff, the development of the site will have minimal impacts to persons, property, and the general welfare of the community. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: Access to the property is from Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street which are both collector streets designed for higher traffic volumes. Additionally, • the City must approve any haul routes requested by the applicant. Access through the downtown area shall be prohibited. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The requested action does not destroy significant natural, scenic, or historic features. There are no trees or significant features. There is a small basin on the site that could potentially be defined as a wetland. City staff does not believe this to be the case but we are awaiting a determination from the Army Corps of Engineers. If mitigation is to be required, grading in this area should be avoided until a wetland alteration permit can be processed. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: As part of the upcoming development review process, the City will assure the aesthetic compatibility of the project with the surrounding area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: This area is planned and zoned for commercial development. Surrounding property values should actually be enhanced by the development of the site. T. F. James IUP October 20, 1993 Page 8 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The developer must comply with all conditions of development approved by the City. Staff is recommending approval of the Interim Use Permit to permit the rough grading of the site. This grading plan is consistent with the future development of the site for commercial purposes consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Again, the reason for the interim use permit is to ensure that the site can be graded and corrections made so that work can begin next year on the project. RECOMMENDATION "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #93-2 as shown on the site plan dated September 24, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The Corps shall be notified to verify their interpretation of the Section 404 rule regarding wetland alteration and mitigation. This process can take four to six weeks. Grading of the area surrounding the wetland shall not be permitted until determination is completed by the Corps. 2. The City of Chanhassen will process the WCA exemption report and necessary paperwork to administer the WCA. 3. Runoff calculations for the temporary sediment basins shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The temporary sediment basins shall be designed in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 4. Erosion control measures shall be in-place prior to site grading and be maintained until the site is fully restored and removal is authorized by the City. 5. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. 6. All draintiles encountered upon grading shall be reconnected or relocated to discharge into the City's storm sewer system. 7. The two existing farm access driveways shall be eliminated upon construction of the new site entrances off of Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street. 8. The applicant will be required to apply and possibly obtain building permits for the retaining walls proposed along the north slope of the property. T. F. James IUP October 20, 1993 Page 9 9. Upon completion of site grading, an additional row of Type I silt fence shall be installed approximately 150 feet north of West 78th Street over the easterly one half of the site. 10. The applicant shall pay grading fees in accordance to the Uniform Building Code, Table 70-B (Attachment No. 1). 11. The applicant shall enter into a grading permit with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the amount of $32,000.00 to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval for site grading. 12. If material is to be hauled to or from the site, the applicant shall submit to City staff, designated haul routes for approval prior to hauling activities. 13. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances only. The applicant will be required to maintain haul route clean of dirt and mud, etc. Any damage to streets, curb or other public facilities shall be repaired by the applicant. 14. Working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. 15. The applicant shall submit an administrative fee and letter of credit prior to commencement of grading operations. 16. Applicant shall obtain demolition permit(s) from the Inspection Division for all buildings on the site prior to their demolition. 17. A well abandonment record shall be submitted to the Inspection Division prior to commencement of grading. 18. An on site sewage treatment permit shall be obtained from the Inspection Division to pump and demolish septic tanks prior to their demolition." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle dated October 12, 1993. 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated October 4, 1993. 3. Letter from Carver County Engineer dated September 30, 1993. 4. Letter from applicant dated September 24, 1993. 5. Application. 6. Public hearing notice and property owners. CITYOF CHANHASSEN i - 11 1,4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planning II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer V Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator,\% DATE: October 12, 1993 SUBJ: Interim Use Permit for site preparation at NW corner of W. 78th Street & Kerber Boulevard - T. F. James Company 93-2 IUP, Grading Permit No. 93-10 Upon review of the plans dated September 24, 1993, prepared by James R. Hill, we offer the following comments and recommendations: Wetlands and Proposed Alterations The property contains a wetland that would be filled as a consequence of the project. The following is a brief description of the wetland on site: Basin A - Basin A is located in the south central area of the site at an elevation of approximately 956 feet. The wetland is classified as a semi-permanently flooded palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMF; Circular 39 Type 4 inland deep fresh marsh). The City of Chanhassen's wetland biologist classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland, however, a review of the history of the pond indicates that it was created when West 78th Street was constructed for stormwater holding purposes. The records show that this was not a mitigation site for other wetlands filling in the area, but was created for the specific purpose of stormwater retention. The basin is approximately 0.5 acre. This wetland will be filled as a result of the proposed grading plan. Permit Requirements Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) The wetland on the project site is not shown on the MDNR Protected Water Inventory; thus,none of the proposed wetland fills would require a permit from the MDNR. Bob Generous October 12, 1993 Page 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The wetland on the project site is within the permitting jurisdiction of the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This basin is considered isolated for purposes of Corps permitting regulations. The Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in isolated wetlands without notification to the Corps and between a half acre and three acres in such basins with predischarge notification ((see 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)(ii)). The proposed amount of fill is approximately 0.5 acre, and therefore,the project will require a predischarge notification. For impacts to areas between a half acre and three acres, the Corps requires that the applicant demonstrate that the impact cannot be avoided or minimized before considering compensatory mitigation. The Corps has jurisdiction over "waters of the United States within the section 404 permit program. In general, the rules say that they do not consider the "artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock water, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing" to be "waters of the United States". However, the Corps reserves the right on a case-by-case basis to determine that a particular waterbody within this category of water is a "water of the United States". The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has the right to determine on a case-by-case basis if any of these waters are "waters of the United States" since they have jurisdiction over the Section 401 permit program for water quality. (The nationwide permits include Section 401 permit approval.) If the Corps determines that a permit is necessary, the applicant will have to satisfy the Corps that impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent possible and that compensatory mitigation for all remaining impacts are designed and incorporated into the plat. Compensation must be in the form of wetland restoration or creation. With the current plans, the applicant may need to create at least 0.5 acre of replacement wetland of equal or greater value than those lost due to the project. Although the Corps does not directly regulate the use of wetlands for treating urban runoff, the Corps considers such impacts in reviewing applications for wetland fill. Any stormwater ponding that can be done in ponds created from upland or in the lowest quality wetlands on-site will be advantageous. Wetland Conservation Act The City of Chanhassen will be reviewing the proposed project to ensure compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. The responsibility for administering the provisions of this legislation will fall to the local unit of government (LGU). In this case, the City of Chanhassen will be acting as the LGU. This being the case, the project will need to be certified by the LGU as having complied with the provisions of the WCA that apply to the interim period. The WCA provisions require that all wetland impacts incurred be offset by wetland creation or restoration at a 1:1 acreage ratio and on the same site as the impact, if possible. If this is not Bob Generous October 12, 1993 _ Page 3 feasible, the mitigation can be completed first within the same watershed and next within the same county as the impact. The WCA also dictates that restoration or creation of replacement wetlands only be considered after an applicant has demonstrated that the impacts cannot be avoided, further minimized, corrected or eliminated over time. The requirements of the WCA are essentially the same as those contained in the Corps rules. Even if impacts can be reduced to under one half acre in order to obtain a Corps nationwide permit, the City will still need to require the avoid-minimize-compensate sequence and the provision of 1:1 compensation. After December 31, 1993, the required mitigation ratio will be increased to 2:1. In this case, it appears that under the WCA exemptions, this wetland will not require mitigation. The WCA states that a replacement plan for wetlands is not required for impoundments or excavations constructed in non-wetlands solely for the purpose of effluent treatment, stormwater retention, soil and water conservation practices, and water retention, soil and water conservation practices, and water quality improvements, and not as part of a compensatory wetland mitigation process that may, over time, take on wetland characteristics (WCA; Exemption 10). City of Chanhassen's Wetland Ordinance If the wetland is considered a "water of the United States" by the Corps, the project may have to meet the requirements for the City's Wetland Ordinance. This includes establishing wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation Since mitigation or restoration of the wetland filled may be required by the Corps, an appropriate design plan for the mitigation will be necessary for review. Staff recommends that the applicant retain a wetland consultant to delineate the wetlands and provide recommendations for mitigation. The limits of the wetlands shall be shown on the grading plan. Site Grading and Drainage The plans propose a number of temporary stormwater sediment basins to retain sediments prior to discharging into the West 78th Street storm sewer system. Staff will require that the applicant design the temporary sediments basins in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The site currently contains two field entrances from West 78th Street. The plans propose two new construction entrances to the site. One from West 78th Street and the other from Kerber Boulevard. Staff recommends that the two existing field entrances be eliminated in conjunction with the site grading to restrict access to the two designated points where rock construction entrances are proposed. The plans propose the entire site to be graded at one time. Staff is unclear whether or not there is excess material being generated or if material will have to be hauled into the site. If there is Bob Generous October 12, 1993 Page 4 material being hauled in or off the site, staff recommends the applicant work with staff in preparing approved haul routes to and from the site. In addition, we'll need to know the earthwork quantities to base the interim use permit fee schedule. The site does contain an existing farm with accessory buildings. These buildings will have to be razed and the appropriate permits shall be applied for at the City's Building department. In addition, it is most likely the site contains existing well and septic system(s) and, again, both of these shall be properly abandoned in accordance with City or State health codes. The plans propose a two-tier retaining wall on the north slope of the site. It is most likely that these retaining walls will require building permits from the City's Public Safety department. Staff has typically found in most of these agricultural areas field tile was installed many years ago. Due to the mass amount of earth moving, it is most likely drainage tiles will be encountered. It has been the City's policy when these drainage tiles are encountered, that the applicant be responsible for reconnecting these drainage systems to the City's storm sewer system or relocating them to a ponding basin. Erosion Control The plans propose for an erosion control filter fence (Type I silt fence) along the downstream perimeter of the site. In accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook, the size of this site grading may warrant additional silt fence partway up the slopes. Upon completion of the site grading staff does recommend that another row of silt fence be employed approximately 150 feet north of West 78th Street over the easterly one-half of the site. Recommendations Conditions of Approval 1. The Corps should be notified to verify their interpretation of the Section 404 rule regarding wetland alteration and mitigation. This process can take four to six weeks. 2. The City of Chanhassen will process the WCA exemption report and necessary paperwork to administer the WCA. 3. Runoff calculations for the temporary sediment basins shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The temporary sediment basins shall be designed in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 4. Erosion control measures shall be in-place prior to site grading and be maintained until the site is fully restored and removal is authorized by the City. 5. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. Bob Generous October 12, 1993 Page 5 6. Applicant shall obtain and comply with the necessary permits for the demolition of the farmhouse and out buildings as well as the abandonment of the well and septic system(s). 7. All draintiles encountered upon grading shall be reconnected or relocated to discharge into the City's storm sewer system. 8. The two existing farm access driveways shall be eliminated upon construction of the new site entrances off of Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street. 9. The applicant will be required to apply and possibly obtain building permits for the retaining walls proposed along the north slope of the property. 10. Upon completion of site grading, an additional row of Type I silt fence shall be installed approximately 150 feet north of West 78th Street over the easterly one half of the site. 11. The applicant shall pay grading fees in accordance to the Uniform Building Code, Table 70-B (Attachment No. 1). 12. The applicant shall enter into a grading permit with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the amount of$32,000.00 to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval for site grading. 13. If material is to be hauled to or from the site, the applicant shall submit to City staff, designated haul routes for approval prior to hauling activities. jms Attachment: 1. Uniform Building Code Table 70-B 2. Sample Grading Permit c: Charles Folch, City Engineer Steve Kirchman, Building Official 1988 EDITION APPENDIX TABLE NO.70-A--GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES' 50 cubic yards or less No fee 51 to 100 cubic yards S15.00 101 to 1000 cubic yards 22.50 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards 30.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards—S30.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards,plus S15.00 for each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards—S165.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards,plus$9.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 200.001 cubic yards or more—$255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards,plus S4.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Fees: Additional plan review required by changes,additions or revisions to approved plans $30.00 per hour* (minimum charge—one-half hour) *OT the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shalt include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. TABLE NO.70-B—GRADING PERMIT FEES' 50 cubic yards or less S15.00 51 to 100 cubic yards 22.50 101 to 1000 cubic yards—$22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus S10.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards—S117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards,plus$9.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10.001 to 100,000 cubic yards—$198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards.plus 540.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards or more-5562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards.plus$22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours 530.00 per hour= (minimum charge—two hours i 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305(g) $30.00 per hour= 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated S30.00 per hour (minimum charge—one-half hour) 'The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project. zOr the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction.whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision. overhead,equipment,hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. 875 ,..0,. ek. / // cJ/9jj01/44.- Ei GRADING PERMIT NO. PERMIT dated , 1991, issued by the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") , to , ("Applicant") . 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Applicant has asked the City to approve a grading permit in conjunction with the proposed plat for (referred to in this permit as the "plat").. The land is legally described as: 2 . Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the permit on condition that the Applicant abide by its terms and furnish the security required by it. 3 . Plans. The plat shall be graded in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this permit. If the plans vary from the written terms of this permit, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A--Soil Erosion Control Plan and Schedule Plan B--Grading Plan 4 . Time of Performance. The Applicant shall complete the grading and erosion control by , 1992 . The Applicant may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Applicant to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 5 . Erosion Control. Plan A shall be implemented by the Applicant and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial . All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be rye grass or other fast-growing seed suitable to the existing soil to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Applicant does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instruction received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify the Applicant in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Applicant's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Applicant does not reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs. 6. Clean up. The Applicant shall daily clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the Applicant, its agents or assigns. 7. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this permit, the Applicant shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit from a bank ("security") for $ . The bank and form of the letter of credit shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The letter of credit shall be for a term ending , 1992 . 8 . Responsibility for Costs. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Applicant shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the grading and erosion control, including but not limited to inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the permit. B. The Applicant shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit approval and work done in conjunction with it. The Applicant shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney' s fees. C. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this permit, including engineering and attorney' s fees. D. The Applicant shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all work and construction. 9. Applicant' s Default. In the event of default by the. Applicant as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Applicant shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Applicant is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This permit is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 10. Notice. The Applicant must notify the City Engineer in writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to construction. 11. Watershed District Permit. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions of the attached Watershed District permit, especially as it relates to seeding and restoration of vegetative cover. 12 . Site Specific Conditions. b-�- a.aa s a < CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (SEAL) BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager APPLICANT BY: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1991, by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1991, by NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 CITYOF - - ii'1CHANHASSEN ,,,, , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official , 4-4.--_ DATE: October 4, 1993 SUBJ: 93-2 IUP (T. F. James Company) _ I was asked to review the proposed permit for site preparation north of the target site. There are a number of buildings on the site which will need to be demolished at the time the site is graded. It is likely that a well and onsite sewage treatment system are also present on the — site. Demolition permits are required before the buildings are _ demolished. One permit may be issued for all the buildings if the applicant so desires . Unused wells must be abandoned by a licensed well driller. Abandoned onsite sewage treatments systems must have the septic tanks pumped by a licensed pumper and the — tanks filled in or removed. Based on the above, staff recommends the following conditions be — included as conditions of approval : 1 . Applicant shall obtain demolition permit (s) from the — Inspections Division for all buildings on the site prior to their demolition. 2 . A well abandonment record shall be submitted to the Inspections Division prior to commencement of grading. — 3 . An onsite sewage treatment permit shall be obtained from the Inspections Division to pump and demolish septic tanks prior to their demolition. — It Cot• 4_ • ``/ r- - CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-1213 41j iVNESO COL \ C_\ �.Q September 30, 1993 TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer? /U, SUBJ: T. F. James Company Planning Case: 93-2 IUP We have reviewed the information submitted by your memo dated September 24, 1993 for the T. F. James Company property north of 78th Street. The proposed grading will have little impact to the County Road system. We will not be submitting any comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. ;1 � 199 C ;T., Affirmatite Act n/Equal Oppontinlitl Employer Printed on Renrled Papa- 9-24-93 JRH APPLICATION AND GRADING EXCAVTION PERMIT — West Village Heights Discussion : In order for the 18 acres of the T.F . James Company property, - lying adjacent to and north of West 78th Street, to become marketable and buildable the property must be graded. When the final site plan is approved for construction, it is imperative that delays in the start of construction be minimized; grading the site now would greatly reduce future delays . It is proposed that the site be rough graded, covered with a minimum of 6" of existing topsoil and then seeded and mulched per specifications . Access to the site during grading is shown on the plans . It is anticipated that there will be approximately 40, 000 C.Y . of material in excess . Excess material will be stored on- site until spring-summer of next year (1994) . Grading will start as soon as approvals are obtained, with completion estimated during the summer of 1994 . A total of approximately 100, 000 C .Y. will be excavated. There are no significant trees on the site nor are there any wetlands . The site has had no activity on it except the westerly ±30% of the site which was rough graded for the anticipated PDQ center before the redevelopment of the area and the realignment of — West 78th Street was finalized. Hours of operation will be according to City Code . Truck routes for removal of the excess from the site will be submitted for approval and conditions for their use . If there is an on-site dust problem, Contractor shall use a water truck; the existing soils are generally the "heavy" clay soil which dust is not a problem unless we experience a very dry spring-summer. Final Grading Plans, sheets 1 and 2, dated 9/24/93 are attached. RECEIVED CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE S . j 1993 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 CITY yr ll� ,ivn�yJjr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: T. F. James Company OWNER: T. F. James Company ADDRESS: 6640 Shady Oak Rd. , Suite 500 ADDRESS: same Eden Prairie, MN 55344 TELEPHONE (Day time) 828-9000 TELEPHONE: same 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements 3. X Grading.'Excavation Permit 13. Variance 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit 5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost - (Collected after approval of item) 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees 9. Sign Plan Review _ 10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME West Village Heights LOCATION West 78th Street at Kerber Drive tEG-AL DESCRIPTION West Village Heights 2nd Addition lying North of relocated West 78th Street and East of Powers Blvd. PRESENT ZONING C-3 REQUESTED ZONING same - no change PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION commercial REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION same - no change REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Site preparation for Byerly' s store and future proposed — (not final ) land uses as shown on plan. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approvaVpermit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. r• fef:; `' !fe Signature of Applicantf_ iO4 Date t.‘ . iv/ -Nt" $ignature of Fee Owner qq1 /// Date // Application Received on 'r�- 7'5 Fee Paid - 11-(.6- L(.;✓ Receipt No.`7`5 62 * The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. JAMES Property owners within 500' of T. F . James site in Chanhassen West Village Heights - Block 1 Lot 1 West Village Townhouse Partners 1433 Utica Avenue Suite #240 Minneapolis , MN 55416-1571 PUD # 25. 8780010 Lot 2 Same PUD # 25. 8780020 Independent School District unplatted 1700 Highway 41 - Chaska , MN 55318 PUD # 25 . 0125200 Chan Vista 2nd Addition c/o city Treasurer 690 Coulter Drive P .0 Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PUD 4k 25 . 0122100 Schneider Park Block 1 Lot 1 City Treasurer PUD # 25 . 7750010 Lot 2 Same PUD 25. 7750020hitt C-i Block 2 �V Lot 1 Mithun Enterprises , Inc. 900 Wayzata,' MN 55391 PUD 11 25 . 7750030 Lot 2 State Bank of Chanhassen Lot 3 Same 680 78th street West Chanhassen, MN 55317 PUD 4/ 25 . 7750040 PUD 1k 25 , 7750050 J _ JAMES Market Square Block 1 Lot 1 Market Square Assoc. LTD. Partnership 3503 Maplewood Circle — Excelsior, MN 55331 PUD # 25. 4510010 Lot 2 Chanhassen HRA — 690 Coulter Drive P .O . Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55337 — PUD # 25. 4510020 Lot 3 Same _ PUD # 25.4510030 Lot 4 Same PUD # 25. 4510040 Outlot A Same PUD # 25. 4510050 _ Burdick Park Addition Block 3 Lot 1 B .C . Burdick 426 Lake Street — Excelsior, MN 55331 PUD # 25. 1500080 Lot 2 Same PUD # 25. 1500090 Chanhassen Retail Addition — Block 1 Lot 1 Dayton Hudson Corporation _ Property Tax Department T - 862 777 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis , MN 55402 PUD 1 25. 1840010 Outlot A Chanhassen HRA — PUD # 25. 1840020 Outlot B Chanhassen HRA _ PUD # 25 . 1840030 T.F. James Company PO. Box 24137 Minneapolis Minnesota 55424 (612) 828-9000 REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ilh JAMES Regulation Land Survey If 88 Tract B Eckankar P .O . Box 27300 New Hope, MN 55427 PUD If 25 . 68900200 Tract G City Right of Way PUD 125 . 6890070 West Village Heights Outlot B Dean R. Johnson Construction 8984 Zachary Lane Maple Grove, MN 55369-0028 PUD If 25 . 8780040 T.F. James Company P.O. Box 24137 Minneapolis Minnesota 55424 (612) 828-9000 REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT 61 '2-/3 NH pA , . . - 1 / /Lip 01 froN0 ----- ---r . J" ‘ _.,., NOTICE OF PtiBLIC HEARING�4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING vs /iv��� �T. Wednesday', October 2 1 �� "• c y, 0, 993 V Fie 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers , 690 Coulter Drive - 1,, '� Y Project: Interim Use PermitI - 1 I R Ck is Developer: T. F. James CompanyWESSE0 _ 9°Iiiiiihr r 10P -- --- — Location: North Side of West 78th 'moo Street, Between Powers and --; �:-A'' '; Kerber BoulevardtoiKE 41k' SuSd v-- 1. i Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. T. F. James Company is requesting an interim use permit to grade for site preparation (in excess of 1,000 cubic yards) on property zoned BG, General Business and located on the north side of West 78th Street, between Kerber and Powers Boulevard. 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 Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view 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 or 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 Robert at 937-1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning 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 October 7, 1993. ( -L .1 LAK& ANN urrt N ARK)\ ,i_ .1 . ,• . -- I--- iffi;t- �. :/r� �l /--../ 1I/. 1 I4KE / R4 ` �� SE11 ` ANN it J ,NNA Pp- i r _. 'ty i P•QRK �IJ0 - ' • 7 / RR ally i _-ter. S -3---- 101'4 Q' . 7-- ,\ a �u ., , ri:- - R 1 - . Le.haull jp. P & A.:ii*c.i.JL____ Ulm II..‘ , i,._ 1-14-- memigillig 14111114 I ak. 14; c 4. E - MNINOkor: eV' .�.) ,..A4 WArdirir g ■l■ $ )47-7 1 � m_ PakQ Y — -- 1 •✓ n Rot '�v • jr. E WESTE _ _ 1110,1/111117.----c �; I OP - Nail* I MW AY 1 �` + LAKE '- '= _`' r SUSAN-' e �' PARK , �; Q..? , % ' ,s, f i I- •, . \A r ' 0 ..., ..c .4), -- q-. .' u.,'kg','-* -.:(' • -----t,----:, t-..,v , • Fai , L-_.- . . i, Rri 11,k, •__ -•x 11/044'64>I—.----.N‘N\s\. i T ,���;� v ] _� 4 L li WF RK :_..;_i_Li -\\. i , '� • ,•��•, IIr\ D-9.... i ! •i, :' ' ; . 1 ! I A 1 . t .'tet` • msapp .,�, 1,-,..--..,`r 1 ,-` ,fir•r!. I ,�� 1 ;� i k / �7. -� '• ��' ' T RSF - - , .. •� 0 ,• –�,- i-4,: ` ^ �;- -- : ,. it......,,,,,,,i.„.0, _ _____ ___ ; - 1 , _, n_ . _ ,,,,, - -,_, ,,,, ,,,,.,,._,,,..„ 1 ! -- ! j _, 3\) ....,,„..„, „ . ... ) , V \ ti f'1 r j West Village Partners Independent School Chan Vista 2 Add. 1433 Utica Ave #240 District City Tr surer Mpls.MN. 55416-1571 1700 Highway 41 690 ter Drive Chaska, MN. 55318 Ch assen, MN. 55317 Mithun Enterpr. Inc. State Bank of Mkt. Sq. Associates 900 Wayzata Blvd. Chanhasssen .3503 Maplewood Circle__ Wayzata, MN. 55391 680 78th Street Excelsior, MN. 55331 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Chanhasssen HRA B.C. Burdick Dayton Hudson Corp. 690 Coulter Drive 426 Lake Street Dept. T-862 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Excelsior, MN. 55331 777 Nicollet Mall - Mpls. MN. 55402 Eckankar Dean Johnson West Village Partners Box 27300 Construction 1433 Utica Ave #240 New Hope, MN. 55427 8984 Zachary Lane Mpls .MN. 55416-1571 Maple Grove,MN. 55369 Independent School Chan Vista 2nd Add. Mithun Enterpr. Inc. _ District City Treasurer 900 Wayzata Blvd. 1700 Highway 41 690 Coulter Drive Wayzata, MN. 55391 Chaska, MN. 55318 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 State Bank of Mkt. Sq. Associates Chanhasssen HRA Chanhasssen 3503 Maplewood Circle 690 Coulter Drive - 680 78th Street Excelsior, MN. 55331 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 B.C. Burdick Dayton Hudson Corp. Eckankar 426 Lake Street Dept. T-862 Box 27300 Excelsior, MN. 55331 777 Nicollet Mall New Hope, MN. 55427 — Mpls. MN. 55402 Dean Johnson Construction 8984 Zachary Lane PC DATE: 10/6/93 CITY OF : 3 : DATE: 1/8/93 CHANHASSEN _ \ i ' y PUD • By: Krauss/Hempel/Desotelle:v STAFF REPORT *NOTE: Planning Commission update starts on Page 23. PROPOSAL: Proposed Preliminary Planned Unit Development Approval of 111.77 acres of Property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD to create 115 single family lots, f--- Preliminary Plat Approval and Wetland Alteration Permit _ Z LOCATION: Generally located West of Galpin Blvd. and North of the Bluff Creek Headwaters Wetland Q. APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction Q... 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Q Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: 112 acres DENSITY: Gross 1.05 units per acre Net 1.58 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RR, large single family residence FS - RR, single family residences d E - RR/RSF, Galpin Blvd. and large residential parcels W - PUD, Johnson/DolejsiiTurner single family residential w WATER AND SEWER: Available PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Refer to report. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL\SUMMARY The applicants, Lundgren Brothers Construction, are requesting preliminary PUD and preliminary plat approval for the Song property. The site is a 111.77 acre parcel located west of Galpin Boulevard and north of the wetland that constitutes the headwaters of Bluff Creek. They are proposing to plat out 115 single family lots, one of which would be occupied by the existing Song homestead, the balance being made available for new construction. A wetland alteration permit to fill and mitigate 0.78 acres of wetland. Flexibility provided by the PUD is being used to allow for more sensitive development of a very unique area. Lot sizes range from over 85,000 square feet down to 11,470 square feet. The proposed new Song homestead, which is not included in the lot average computations, contains almost 9.5 acres. The average lot size of 27,519 square feet is far in excess of the 15,000 square _ foot average required by ordinance. Additional flexibility is requested on front and side setbacks where it can be demonstrated that tree preservation and wetland protection will be enhanced. Access is to be provided via two curb cuts on Galpin and an internal connection via a collector street to Highway 41 through an adjoining parcel that is also being developed by Lundgren. The streets are well designed and conform to City standards. Several years ago, when detailed investigations began on this area, staff agreed that the collector street would be built on a 60' rather then 80' right-of-way and to local street dimensions. Additionally, homes were to be allowed to directly access onto the street which is not normally the case with collectors. The terrain it crosses is very difficult and the wider street and required grading would have resulted in significant damage to trees and wetlands. It was our opinion that the continuity of the road between Galpin and Hwy. 41 was more important than size and the Commission and Council — agreed when the adjacent plat, the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner PUD, was approved. A street connection to the south to serve future development on an adjoining parcel is also illustrated. Several homes are to be accessed via two private drives. These will serve a total of five lots where a full sized city street would be particularly damaging. Utilities to service the area are currently under construction by the City and will be available next year to support development. Tree and wetland protection were of major concern throughout and both have benefited from the City's current policies in these areas and from the developers sophistication and experience. The site contains some of the better stands of trees found in the community with the primary species being oak and maple. Based upon information provided by the applicant, 717 major trees were surveyed. Of these, 99 will be lost to road and utility construction. Some additional trees will be lost to home placement although this has not been specified. Each lot would be individually graded to minimize tree loss and many of the major trees would be permanently protected by conservation areas. Staff has requested some additional information and modification in this area _ but it is anticipated that any changes would be minor. In particular, we are asking that the conservation areas be expanded. The site contains 8 identified wetlands totalling 22.86 acres. Of this, less than .6 acres would be filled and will be mitigated on-site. The applicant has Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 3 worked extensively with the City Water Resources Coordinator in this area. Wetlands will be protected by required buffer strips. The proposal has been reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission. They are satisfied with the applicants proposal to provide private recreational facilities on site. They have identified a site on an adjacent parcel for a neighborhood park and would utilize park fees from this project to help acquire and develop it. Trail easements would be provided along Galpin and in exchange for considerations with this proposal additional trail easements will be provided along the wetland fringe of the adjoining PUD being concurrently developed by the applicant. In summary, the proposal represents a well designed project that reasonably develops a sensitive and unique site. Due largely to the current, advanced state of City environmental regulations and programs, and to the developer's familiarity of responding to these concerns, few modifications _ are required. The only variance being requested is one that would allow varied side yard setbacks where trees can be saved. Rather than abide by the standard 10 feet, they are asking for 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas with there always being a minimum separation of 20 feet. Visually, this will have the appearance of a standard subdivision but the flexibility is very useful for protecting trees and is supported by staff. It is recommended that the Preliminary PUD Plan and Preliminary Plat for the Song Development be approved with the variance and appropriate conditions. SITE CHARACTERISTICS This site is one of the most interesting and attractive parcels in the city. It features extensive wetlands, heavily forested hills and areas of open farm fields. The high point of 1060' is found in the northwest corner where a hill overlooks Lake Harrison to the east. Many of the significant oak and maple trees are found on this hill and it is visible from a large area to the east. Lake Harrison is a small, non-recreational waterbody that is surrounded be a large wetland fringe. At 994', the lake represents one of the lowest areas on the site. The open/farmed area is found to the east along Galpin. The farmed area is by no means flat but is generally without significant vegetation. Eight wetlands have been identified by the applicant's consultant and one small additional one has been found by City staff. They vary significantly in size and quality. Two of them are small "natural" wetlands with the balance being "Ag/Urban" having been significantly altered by agricultural drainage practices. Surrounding land uses include: NORTH- Rural residential land containing a single large homestead that overlooks the north side of Lake Harrison. A portion of the lake is located on the adjoining parcel. SOUTH- Rural residential parcels containing several scattered home sites. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 4 EAST- Galpin Blvd. East of Galpin are large residential parcels including one occupied by Prince. Several parcels in the area are in the process of being developed with RSF plats including Windmill Run and Royal Oak Estates. WEST- Land owned by Lundgren Brothers Construction and approved as the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner single family residential PUD. BACKGROUND The site and surrounding area was incorporated into the MUSA line under the 1991 Comprehensive Plan update process. The applicant, Lundgren Construction, was actively represented in this process. While they did not have a direct interest in the site at that time they were exploring its potential development along with that of the neighboring parcel to the west, with the respective property owners. They prepared concept plans illustrating residential plats on these parcels that proved to be useful to the Planning Commission in determining the ultimate boundaries of the MUSA line. REZONING TO PUD Section 20-501 of the City Code provides a general intent statement for planned unit developments. Planned unit developments are to be used to enhance flexibility in developing a site with unique features and when there is a desire to provide a variety of uses. In return for this flexibility, the city should receive a higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been achieved through standard zoning regulations. Under this section of the City Code the following nine items are listed and which the PUD should provide: (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Findin The site contains some difficult topography, eight wetlands of varying value and heavily forested areas. Upon review of the preliminary plat, it appears that the applicant is locating the streets and lots with the natural features of the site taken into consideration. The blocks are situated around wetland and vegetated areas and the steep sloped areas are avoided in most cases. Varied setback standards, lot sizes and street right-of-way are effectively employed to minimize tree loss and wetland impact. This appears to be accomplished without any adverse impact on the quality or buildability of proposed lots or of the resulting residential neighborhood which should be highly attractive. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 5 (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. Finding The PUD allows the site to locate more dense development in previously farmed areas without significant features while creating open space around natural features. The proposal is providing pockets of open space throughout the site which will benefit the whole development and is providing a variation of lot sizes. PUD flexibility is used to locate home sites in areas where impact will be minimized by using density transfer. (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 high quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality homes. The applicant has taken into account surrounding land uses by locating larger lots adjacent to existing uses. There will be covenants recorded as part of the development to ensure that high quality building architecture and enhanced landscaping will be provided. (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. Finding The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential. Transitional development is not really a factor with this proposal. (5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as residential low density (1.2 - 4 units/acre). The proposal has a net density (minus wetlands and roads) of 1.60 units/acre. This compares favorably with typical single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net density of 2 units per acre. The site was included in the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment for development with Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 6 sewer and water and as a single family development. The Comprehensive Plan also showed this property as a site for a collector street, which the applicant is providing. (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. Finding The applicant is providing open space throughout the site, including a private park. The Park and Recreation Commission has accepted this proposal but full park and trail fees will be required. No credit is being recommended for the private park. (7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. Finding The applicant is proposing a variety of lot sizes and housing units. Overall, the sites • will be affordable to medium - medium/high incomes. The surrounding uses and potential future surrounding uses are consistent with what is being proposed. This project is not designed to address lower cost housing opportunities. The city is investigating this issue and is considering direct financial support to encourage its construction since the free market is unable to meet this demand. However, this site is not a likely candidate for such an approach. (8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Findin It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration but all homes will meet current energy codes. The level of tree preservation being provided should serve to decrease energy costs. (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. Finding The proposal is providing a collector street which will service the property to the west and was part of the Comprehensive Plan. The plat provides for multiple Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 7 entrances and is designed with an internal connection serving a parcel to the south. There is a specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. The intent statement states the developer will be permitted flexibility in development standards in return for enhancing environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing a higher quality of development. The single family detached residential planned unit development must also meet the following guidelines: a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD (draft ordinance) allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot calculations). The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. Finding The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 11,661 sq. ft. to 80,197 sq. ft. (not including wetland areas) with an average net lot area of 27,236 sq. ft. The PUD standards do not allow the inclusion of wetland areas in the calculation of lot area. The site is broken down into seven blocks which locate the lots around wetland and vegetated areas. The proposal is preserving open space throughout the site. Open space is found in undeveloped outlots, the private park and numerous wetland areas. The applicant has provided plans which demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area of protective easement as required under the draft PUD ordinance. This standard ensures that each lot provides a satisfactory home site and yard area without needing to resort to variances. The PUD development contract will document this information to ensure the development of the individual lots will not encroach within a protected area or setback. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 8 Finding All of the lots meet this requirement except for Lot 36, Block 4 which only has 85' at the setback. The plat must be adjusted to provide all lots with 90' of width at the building setback. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. Finding All of the lots exceed the minimum lot depth of 100'. d) Minimum Setbacks: PUD Exterior - 30 feet Front Yard - 20 feet — Rear Yard - 30 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property line. Finding The proposal provides a 30' PUD exterior setback. The applicant is proposing to be permitted to have a 20' front yard setback where it will preserve natural features. This is acceptable to staff and consistent with the PUD ordinance. The narrative provided by the developer proposes a 6' interior side yard setback for garages and a 9' interior side yard setback of living area. The applicant has also stated that a minimum side yard separation of 20' will be provided between each principle structure. As long as a 20' minimum side yard separation is maintained, staff is comfortable with reduced side yard setbacks although this represents a variance from the PUD as needed to allow for this. The resulting flexibility will be used to preserve trees. The setback of 10' for accessory buildings and structures should also be applied. e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 9 Finding The proposed layout of the single family lots and streets have taken into consideration the features of the site. Where possible, wetlands and mature stands of trees have been located where they can be protected. The applicant is proposing to reduce the right-of-way for the collector street from 80' to 60' to reduce the removal of trees and impact to site features. Staff has encouraged this request to be made due to the sensitive nature of the site. A wider collector street with normal design standards results in a street having the appearance of Lake Lucy Road. To accomplish this design on this site would result in substantial destruction of natural features. Additionally, H Street, which serves the hillside overlooking Lake Harrison, is proposed to be built with a 40' right-of-way rather than the 60' required for local streets. This is a highly sensitive area due to severe grades and extensive tree cover. Staff supports this approach although it represents a departure from normal standards. f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 10 Findin Consistent with recent practice in residential PUDs, staff is proposing that a minimum of two overstory trees at least 1 of which is to be located in the front yard be required on lots lacking tree preservation. The Galpin Boulevard exposure is probably the site's least attractive since it is devoid of vegetation. Code requires that landscape buffers be provided along collector streets. A landscaped berm has been illustrated along Galpin although details are lacking and should be provided at final approval. Additional landscaping is illustrated on the commonly held recreational outlot (F) and in scattered locations along internal streets. Staff has concluded that establishing a landscape buffer along A street, the internal collector, is not warranted due to its residential nature. g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. • 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. Findin The developer has stated in the narrative that they will establish strict architectural and protective covenants and that the covenants will be recorded with the county. The city does not enforce private covenants recorded with the county, but in the case of a PUD, the covenants will be reviewed and adopted as part of the PUD contract. The applicant should provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the city. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 11 SUMMARY OF REZONING _ The subject site contains features that are ideally suited for a planned unit development. The flexibility of PUD standards will result in a reduction of impact to natural features due to road and building construction. The features which remain will be protected, and in some cases, enhanced. Staff is recommending approval of the Development PUD plan with the stated conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat will subdivide the site into 115 lots, one of which will be occupied by an existing home. Additionally, there is a 9.5 acre homesite in the northeast corner of the site, that the existing owners, the Song's will utilize to construct a new home. All lots with one exception, meet or exceed code requirements as illustrated in a compliance table prepared by the applicant dated August, 10, 1993. The sole exception is Lot 36, Block 4, which has an 85' lot width at the setback. This can and should be increased to the required 90' at the time of final plat. Lot areas range from 11,661 square feet to 58,000 square feet exclusive of wetlands with the average (minus wetland acreage) being 27,519 square feet. There are a total of seven outlots in the plat as follows: Outlot A: 43,090 sq. ft., located south of the intersection of A street and Galpin. Will be used to accommodate a NURP basin and entrance monument Outlots B & C: located adjoining the entrance of E street onto Galpin they are small and will only be used to contain entrance monumentation. Outlot D: Containing 37,655 sq. ft. this parcel is located adjoining the west property line. It is intended that this will be subdivided and merged with previously platted lots in the Dolejsi PUD. This appears to be a reasonable use but the land should be conveyed with the final plat. _ Outlot E: With 258,540 sq. ft. it will contain a large wetland complex and associated NURP basin. Outlot F: This is the largest outlot with 818,550 sq. ft. It contains much of Lake Harrison and associated wetland complex. It will also contain wetland mitigation area for the small amount of wetland that will be directly impacted by the development as well as a NURP basin. This outlot also has a sizeable amount of high ground that will be Song Property October 6, 1993 _ Page 12 occupied by the proposed private recreational facility and a large, landscaped hill that will be used to screen the development from the Carlson property to the north. Outlot G: This is a small parcel designed to house entrance monumentation on the north side of the intersection of A street and Galpin. STREETS According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Galpin Boulevard is considered a Collector Class I designation with recommendations to upgrade to a four-lane roadway in the future. The study recommends a minimum of 100-foot wide right-of-way be acquired. Galpin Boulevard currently exists as a two-lane rural highway within a 66-foot wide right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an additional 17 feet of right-of-way to convey one-half of the total street width. Taking into consideration the topographic constraints, the street system is fairly well laid out. Access to the site is proposed from two locations. The first is from Street A which is designated on the City's comprehensive plan as a future east/west collector between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard. The other street (Street E) located on the south end of the project will eventually tie back into Street A. The plat is proposing to dedicate right-of-way widths from 40 to 60 feet wide. The City's standard for local urban streets is 60 feet wide with collector-type - streets ('A') 80 feet wide. Staff does understand the topographic constraints on the site and in an effort to minimize grading and tree removal, staff is comfortable in permitting a 60-foot wide right-of-way on Street A with the proposed street section to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes. The plans propose Streets B, D, G, H and I to have substandard 50-foot right-of-way widths according to City standards. This issue often arises within developments where there are trees or difficult grades. The typical discussion is to reduce the street width in an effort to - maintain or save additional vegetation and limit grading. It is the Engineering department's contention that the installation of utilities along the right-of-way rather than the right-of-way width or street construction is the leading cause of tree removal. In addition, staff raises the question why should the City compromise in the street right-of-way width when the developer doesn't propose the same compromise by enlarging the lots or reducing the number of lots in an effort to preserve more trees? Staff strongly recommends that the street right-of-way width be maintained at 60 feet on Streets B, D and G with a 50-foot wide right-of-way on Streets H and I where street width is of major importance to protect trees. Staff is comfortable in preserving trees within the right-of-way whenever they can be saved and will work with the developer to refine plans to do so. However, staff is also concerned from a safety standpoint (both pedestrian and traffic) with the reduced street width of Streets H and I. Again, the question should be asked is public safety worth compromising street widths in an effort to save a few trees which through the installation of utilities may eventually be lost over a period of 5 years due to root damage? Staff recommends that the street width on Streets H and I be increased from 24 feet to 28 feet — Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 13 with a 50-foot wide right-of-way. On Streets B and D, the applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide right-of-way. Staff sees no reason to compromise the 60-foot wide standard on these two streets since they are located in an area that was actually farmed and there are no environmental features to protect. Therefore, staff recommends that Streets B and D be increased to 60-foot wide right- of-ways. According to City ordinance, the minimum spacing between street intersections is 300 feet. The plans propose an intersection on Street A less than the minimum. Street 'B', located just west of Galpin Boulevard, is only 230 feet from Galpin Boulevard. The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan proposes A Street as a collector-type street. The City has petitioned the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to include this corridor as part of the City's State-Aid system. MnDOT earlier this spring concurred and the City has listed this corridor as a State-Aid designated route. This will require slightly more restrictive construction standards of Street A. They must meet State-Aid standards for the City to be able to qualify for receiving State-Aid funds in the future. This may impact the developer's request for a landscaped median on Street A at Galpin Boulevard. State-Aid standards may not allow a landscaped median in the right-of- way area. In addition, if turn lanes are required at the intersection of Street A and Galpin Boulevard, the center median may extend beyond the B Street intersection which would limit access to 'B' Street to a right-in/right-out only. This should be further reviewed by the applicant's engineer with MnDOT's State-Aid office, and the City to determine whether or not B Street needs to be located further west. _ Street grades in the development range from 0.5% to 8% which exceeds the City's ordinance of 7%. Upon review of the grading areas, it appears that on C Street and E Street the grades could be adjusted to meet City standards. On H Street, due to the steep slopes and heavily vegetated _ areas, staff is comfortable in granting a variance for the 8% street grade. Staff has also reviewed the proposed house pad elevation in relation to the street grades. On Lots 16, 20, 21 and 25, Block 7, the driveway grades will exceed the 10% limitation. In fact, on Lot 25, Block 7, the driveway grade would be in excess of 20%. It may be possible through the house design to lower the garage slab elevation to maintain the 10% or less driveway grade. The applicant should be aware that this is a concern of staff and needs to be further addressed prior to final platting. The number of lots proposed in this development and the corresponding development to the west (Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner a/k/a JDT) may generate traffic volumes at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Street A to warrant, at a minimum, right turn lanes as well as a possible bypass lane on Galpin Boulevard. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the Carver County Highway Department and City staff in determining whether warrants would be applicable for a bypass lane at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Street A. At the intersection of Street E and Galpin Boulevard, staff recommends at a minimum a right turn lane also be included as a part of the overall street construction plans. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 14 A very large lot (Lot 9, Block 1) is proposed just north of 'B' Street. Staff has reviewed potential accesses to Lot 9 from Galpin Boulevard and recommends that a private driveway between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 over the proposed sanitary sewer be pursued in lieu of a separate driveway curb cut on Galpin Boulevard. Staff sees no need to introduce a new curb cut on to Galpin Boulevard at this time. In the future this lot is further divided, an alternative access via a new street can be considered. This development is pretty much self-contained with the exception of a future stub street (F Street) to the Stockdale property which lies south of this development. The other streets, E Street and A Street, will connect into the preliminary plat of JDT properties to the west and extend out to Trunk Highway 41. In either one of these subdivisions (JDT property or Song/Carlson property) there is an opportunity for street extension to the north. Staff is very concerned with this since access off of Trunk Highway 41 is limited through MnDOT. It seems prudent to explore the possibility of extending a street to the north. Staff has preliminarily reviewed the street alignments and feels that Street H could be extended northwesterly to provide future connection to the parcels to the northwest; however, staff feels it may be more appropriate for a street to be extended northerly off the JDT property. Staff will leave this option up to the applicant to decide which street alignment he prefers to have extended to the north. Again, staff feels it is very important that another street connection be provided to serve properties north of these two developments. Private driveways are proposed for Lots 6 and 7, Block 5 and Lots 33, 34 and 35, Block 4. The driveways should be constructed in accordance with the City's ordinance which is 20-foot wide driveway and built to a 7-ton design with an acceptable turnaround design. UTILITIES The City is currently underway with the installation of trunk sewer and water improvements along Galpin Boulevard as well as E Street to service this parcel and the JDT property. The City project involves extending sanitary sewer and water from Galpin Boulevard back to the JDT property where a lift station will be constructed. This sewer and water project is anticipated to be constructed and completed yet this fall which will provide immediate service to these two developments. Preliminary review of the utility plans for the subdivision shows sewer service from two trunk systems. The northeasterly corner of the site is proposed to be serviced from the existing Lake Ann Interceptor and the remainder of the site through the Upper Bluff Creek trunk system which is currently being constructed. Both of these projects will sustain assessments against the development which need to be addressed in the development contract for the development. The utility layout for this project is fairly straightforward. A more detailed analysis will be given when the applicant submits detailed construction plans and specifications to the City for review and formal approval. All utility and street construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 15 edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The City's Fire Marshal will also review fire hydrant placement. Typically, hydrants are spaced approximately 300 feet apart in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. According to the City's Comprehensive Water Study, a trunk watermain line is designated along the Street A alignment. Typically the City gives the developer a credit for the trunk utility improvements the developer installs within his development. The credit is given in the fashion of an assessment reduction against the overall development. For example, the applicant would be credited the cost difference between a proposed 16-inch trunk watermain line versus a lateral 8-inch water line. Upon completion of the project, the sewer and water lines will be extended to the neighboring parcels. Staff feels, however, on H Street the watermain should be stubbed to the westerly plat line between Lots 16 and 17 for a future looping of the watermain system. The plans also propose on stubbing a 10-inch sanitary sewer line north of A Street (within the JDT development) for future service to the northerly properties. The parcel does contain an existing home (Song's) which is currently on a well and septic system. As the sewer and water service becomes available, the property should be required to connect to it. The City ordinance requires within 12 months after the sewer becomes available, the household is required to hook up to it. Water service may be delayed until the well on the property becomes inoperational. SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE As described in the applicant's narrative, the site grading will be very selective in an effort to preserve wooded areas as well as minimize disruption to wetlands. The bulk of the site grading is proposed along the easterly one-third of the development. Over the remaining areas, grading will be performed only in the street right-of-way sections and storm ponding areas. The majority of these lots will be custom-graded. On the selectively graded home sites, each individual building permit should require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted as well as a tree removal plan for staff review and approval. The grading plans propose construction of earth berms partially into and adjacent to Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. With the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard, the Park and Recreation Department has expressed a desire to have a dual trail system along the roadway. Therefore, staff recommends that the grades be changed on the grading plan to be compatible with the future trail section along Galpin Boulevard. Another area of concern is wetland basin G which encroaches into Galpin Boulevard right-of-way (Lot 14, Block 2). Since this area will fall within the Galpin Boulevard trail system, it is recommended the applicant relocate the wetland basin so it is contained within the development parameters. The entire development proposes five storm water drainage basins (NURP ponds) to pretreat storm water prior to discharging into the wetlands. The plans also propose a series of storm Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 16 sewer catch basins to convey storm water runoff to the drainage basins. At the preliminary plat submittal, staff usually does not require any storm sewer calculations or ponding data; therefore, staff is unable to determine if the ponding or storm sewer system is adequately sized at this time. This is usually addressed in conjunction with final platting. As a rule, the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision is to be retained at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100- year, 24-hour storm event through the use of storm water detention/retention facilities. The subdivision's storm sewer system should also be designed for a 10-year storm event. Detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for staff review and approval prior to final platting. EROSION CONTROL The preliminary grading and drainage plan does propose erosion control measures such as erosion — control barrier fence around the wetlands. Staff recommends that the erosion control measures around the wetlands be the City's Type III erosion control fence to minimize the chance of disturbance of the wetlands. Due to the lateness of the year, it is most likely no grading or utility work will transpire yet this fall. Typically, the grading on these projects when they are adjacent to wetlands, the City has normally required that no grading be allowed near the wetland areas during the waterfowl breeding season. Depending on which portion of the project (phase) they pursue this spring, this condition may or may not be applicable. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activity shall comply with the City's construction site erosion and sediment control Best Management Practice Handbook. WETLANDS AND PROPOSED ALTERATIONS The property contains eight wetlands and four of these wetlands will be altered or filled as a consequence of the project. The following is a brief description of the wetlands on site: Basin A - Basin A is known as Lake Harrison and classified as Minnesota Department of Natural Resources state protected water 8W. The basin is characterized as two different wetland classifications. Approximately 5.7 acres of the basin within the property boundary is characterized as an exposed palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetland(Cowardin PUBG; Circular 39 Type 5 open water). Surrounding the open water basin is approximately 8.5 acres of seasonally to semi-permanently flooded palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMC/F; Circular 39 Type 3/4 shallow and deep marsh). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as a natural wetland indicating that the wetland has a moderate to high functional value. This basin will not be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Basin B - Basin B is classified as a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 wet meadow). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 17 to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 0.46 acres and the entire basin will be filled as a result of the proposed park development on the property. Basin C - Basin C is classified as a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMC; Circular 39 Type 3 shallow marsh). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural impacts. Approximately 0.21 acre of the 7.5 acre basin will be filled in order to install a stormwater pond large enough to meet the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The stormwater pond should help to maintain the water quality within the basin. Basin D - Basin D is a drainageway classified as a seasonally flooded forested wetland (Cowardin PFO1C; Circular 39 Type 1 bottom hardwoods). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as a natural wetland indicating that the wetland has a moderate to high functional value. Approximately 0.01 acre of the 0.6 acre basin will be filled to install a stormwater pond large enough to meet NURP standards. The stormwater pond should help to maintain the water quality within the basin. Basin E - Basin E appears to be a man-made excavated wetland that drains into Basin D via a 220 foot drainageway. The basin is approximately 0.2 acre and the drainageway is approximately _ 0.1 acre. It is classified as a semi-permanently flooded unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PUBF; Circular 39 Type 5 open water). The City of Chanhassen classifies this basin as agricultural/urban since it was created by man. This basin will not be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Basins F and G - Both of these basins are sections of a road ditch which have revegetated with wetland vegetation. The City of Chanhassen classifies these basins as agricultural/urban since they have been impacted by the roadway. These basins will not be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Basin H - A portion of Basin H is within the project area. The basin is characterized as a ditched/partially drained saturated palustrine emergent wetland (PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 set meadow). The City of Chanhassen classifies this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the basin has a low to moderate functional value. The basin lies in Lot 9 of Block 1 and is planned to be a 9.48-acre single residential lot. No impacts to this wetland are expected as a result of the proposed development. Basin I - Basin I will be delineated and surveyed in the near future. This basin is classified as a temporarily flooded palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMA; Circular 39 Type 1 seasonally flooded). The City of Chanhassen classifies this 0.1 acre basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the basin has a low to moderate functional value. The entire basin will be filled as a result of a roadway for the proposed development. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 18 The following table summarizes the wetland areas that will be altered as a result of the proposed development: Wetland Wetland Wetland Size Wetland Identification Type (acres) Area to be Altered (acres) A Natural 14.2 0 B Ag/Urban 0.46 0.46 C Ag/Urban 7.5 0.21 D Natural 0.6 0.01 E Ag/Urban 0.3 0 F Ag/Urban 0.1 0 G Ag/Urban 0.1 0 H Ag/Urban not delineated 0 I Ag/Urban —0.10 (needs to be —0.10 delineated) TOTAL 0.78 Mitigation The applicant is proposing to create 0.78 acre of mitigation on cultivated upland which is contiguous to wetlands that fringe Lake Harrison (Basin A) The mitigation plan will have to be adapted to meet the required 1:1 mitigation ratio required by the Wetland Conservation Act. The mitigation area shown on the current grading plan is approximately 0.68 acre. With the addition of Wetland I, the area will have to enlarged to a total of 0.78 acre or more. Basins B and I (Ag/Urban wetlands) will be entirely filled, but the wetland replacement for the loss will be incorporated into a natural basin (Basin A). The mitigation will help offset the wetland loss with a higher functional value replacement to the area. Basins C and D only require a small amount of fill in order to install stormwater ponds to help maintain the water quality within the basins. The natural drainage area to the existing basins will be altered as a result of the development. A hydrologic analysis of present and developed conditions shows that the amount of water Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 19 entering basins A, E, F, and G will not be significantly altered and the amount of water entering basins C and D will be increased. The following table summarizes the estimated — results of the existing and developed hydrologic conditions. Drainage Existing 1-year Existing 10-year Developed 1-year Developed 10-year Area Storm Runoff Storm Runoff Storm Runoff Storm Runoff (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) A & B 0.99 4.12 1.14 4.20 C 0.79 3.87 1.50 5.52 D 0.06 0.38 0.20 0.83 E 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.09 F & G 0.13 0.78 0.14 0.77 Basin C will receive a 50% and 90% increase in runoff for a 10-year and 1-year storm, respectively. Since Basin C is classified as agricultural/urban, the increase in treated runoff may enhance the functional value to the basin. Basin D will also receive a significant increase in runoff to the basin. Increasing the size of the holding pond just north of Basin D may help to slow the rate of water entering the basin. It is recommended that this option be explored since the altered hydrology pattern may upset the ecological balance to this natural wetland. Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditions of Approval The applicant has submitted a table showing the wetland boundary and setbacks. This plan meets the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance. The wetland ordinance requires different buffer strips for the natural and ag/urban wetlands located on the property. The structure setback and buffer strip widths are as follows: Wetland Buffer Buffer Strip % Native Structure Setback Type Strip Minimum Vegetation in from Outer Edge of Average Width Buffer Strip Buffer Strip Natural 10-30 ft 20 ft Entire 40 ft Ag/Urban 0-30 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 20 The buffer strip around the natural wetlands have to contain native vegetation. It is optional how much of the buffer strip must contain native vegetation around the agricultural/urban wetlands. Additional vegetation is not necessary where vegetation already exists. Once the buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with a city approved monument on each lot. TREE PRESERVATION The tree preservation concept this proposal is based upon is a good one. The underlying plat design, street layout, lot configurations and locations, are all designed to maximize tree preservation areas and we generally believe that they did a good job. Submitted materials indicate that of 717 "large trees" (12 " or larger) 90% will be preserved. Of these, only 8 of the 99 trees 30" or larger would be lost. This is admirable and indicative of good planning however, we are not sure if we are "comparing apples to apples" here. This data is indicative of trees lost to construction of streets and utilities. It does not appear to include additional trees lost due to home placement. As with other recent plats, significant areas of the site will be protected by conservation areas. Plans dated June, 1993 illustrate cut/no-cut zones around individual building sites. However, these due not conform to the tree preservation areas that are illustrated on another document and may in fact prove to be too restricting when individual home plans are developed. Staff has worked with the Tree Board to develop a tree preservation ordinance and continues to do so although the process still is not complete. On recent plats, a great deal of effort has been placed upon not only identifying tree masses for preservation but also identifying individual trees on individual lots. This kind of micro planning has the theoretical advantage of maximizing tree preservation but it comes at a cost of limiting home buyers choices and greatly increased administration load. Given the fact that these lots sell at a premium and that most home owners want to protect trees, it may be more productive to place focus of our efforts on identifying the largest and most practical tree conservation easements and leave the decisions of how to site a particular home outside of that easement, up to the developer and buyer. What we are proposing can be divided into several areas. First of all, we are recommending that the City accept the proposed Lundgren approach whereby trees will be preserved in conservation areas where appropriate and through careful site development (streets and utilities). Secondly, we are recommending that the tree conservation areas illustrated by the applicant, be significantly expanded to more closely reflect the June 4, 1993, cut/no-cut figure prepared by the applicant. We received tree survey information from the applicant in several different formats and at several different times making illustration and interpretation difficult. The intent here is not to preserve trees on a tree-by-tree basis around building pads but rather to Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 21 ensure that tree massings are protected in a reasonable manner and that road and utility plans can be adjusted as needed to maximize preservation. The third element is reforestation. The applicant is proposing to plant 208 overstory and 87 coniferous trees plus other plant materials in various locations throughout the site. Planting areas include a landscaped berm along Galpin; reforestation of the commonly held, private park area, in islands located in cul-de-sacs, at entrances onto Galpin and in scattered locations around the plat This goal is admirable however, from the submitted plans it is virtually impossible to understand where this material is going to be placed. For final approval we are asking that the following be incorporated: 1. Detailed plans for landscaping the cul-de-sac islands be developed for approval. 2. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped berm by developed for approval. This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. 3. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. 4. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. One additional factor relative to tree preservation is worth noting. None of the applicant's materials recognize the fact that substantial tree preservation will occur on the 9.5 acre parcel being retained by the Song's for their own home. Located in the northeast corner of the PUD, this area is visible from Galpin and would be only minimally impacted by the construction of a single home. PARK AND RECREATION This item was first reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission on July 27, 1993. The issue was tabled that evening for further review at a subsequent Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The attached staff report dated August 18, 1993, explains in detail the reasons for the delay in action. The evening of August 24 saw a Park and Recreation Commission with many of the concerns they had on July 27. The most prominent being the continuing lack of a public park. The commission felt it would be unfair to approve the Song application contingent upon the Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 22 acquisition of a public park elsewhere in this area. The applicant, however, elected to approve of such a condition with a 45 day time limit. Upon conclusion of the discussion on August 24, the following action was taken: Lash moved, Berg seconded to recommend that the preliminary plat to subdivide 112 acres from Rural Residential to'Planned Unit Development into 115 single family lots (Song property) be approved by the Park and Recreation Commission contingent upon the following conditions of approval being met: Parks 1. The private/association park be approved only if the additional amenity of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4 gc slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private/association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. 2. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. Trails 1. A 20 ft. trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. 2. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail — fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/DolejsilTurner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 23 for the Johnson/DolejsifFurner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/DolejsifTurner property are to be waived. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is acquired. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE At the last meeting, the Commission reviewed the PUD/Preliminary Plat proposal to develop 115 single family lots on the Song property west of Galpin Boulevard. In representing the developer, Terry Forbord presented a large number of requested revisions to conditions contained in the staff report. After extended discussion, the Commission indicated that they did not wish to make a large number of changes to the conditions without adequate consideration and continued the item to allow staff to review the requests. Additionally, Commissioner Mancino noted a discrepancy in two of the wetland designations and asked that this be addressed. The following constitutes our response. Each condition is listed with requested changes and our response if warranted. 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet. No change requested. 2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks. No change requested. 3. Each lot to be provided with two trees, at least one of which must be located in the front yard where there would otherwise be no trees 6" or larger in this area. Trees to be selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 212 diameter at time Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 24 of installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval. Developer requested clarification to ensure that where existing trees larger than 21/2" exist on a lot, that they are credited to the tree planting requirement. We are _ proposing that the first sentence be deleted and revised as follows. "Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this number of trees, 21/2" or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be placed in the lot in question or clustered as appropriate based upon an approved landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to buffering _ requirements along Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots". 4. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels. - No change requested. 5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. No change requested. 6. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs, financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The applicant has noted that while they are willing to make commitments to construct the private park, they do not wish to do so until they can include it in the appropriate construction phase. They have asked that the following be added and staff has no objection. "The association park will be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on the preliminary plat." 7. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final approval, the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be employed. This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 25 to be covered by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The applicant has agreed to provide mitigation for two wetlands that will be impacted by street and trail construction along Galpin. However, due to wetland permitting standards they do not wish to be responsible for obtaining the required approvals. Since this impact is related to a public improvement, staff agrees that obtaining the WAP should be City responsibility, thus we agree with the request. The following should be added to the condition, "The applicant is responsible for providing wetland mitigation for impacts stemming from the ultimate improvement of Galpin and trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will assume responsibility for obtaining the necessary permits for this activity." Tree Preservation/Landscaping: a. Detailed plans for landscaping the cul-de-sac islands be developed for approval. - The applicant has requested that a note be added to the effect that the landscaping plans be prepared for approval at the time of Final Plat. This was our intent and the change is acceptable. b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped berm by developed for approval. This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. The developer has proposed a variety of "weasel words" to clarify this - condition that we find objectionable. The only change we are recommending is for the first sentence to read "Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and homing where feasible) to buffer direct views of the street from the homes, shall be developed for City approval." Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 26 c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. No change requested. d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. No change requested. e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise _ satisfactorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas as recommended by staff. Again, weasel words have been proposed. Staff sees no need to change the _ language. Park and Trails: Parks a. The private/association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private/association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. Such a provision must be drafted into association documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. Trails a. A 20 ft. trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 27 b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be waived. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is acquired. These are Park and Recreation Commission conditions and I am not proposing any significant changes since these can and will be addressed directly to the Council. The only item that we can resolve here pertains to the 20' trail easement that is being requested along the east property line to allow a trail be built on Galpin. We do not believe this is required since the trail can be accommodated in the expanded Galpin ROW. However, additional trail easements will be required near intersections where turn lane requires expanded use of available ROW. Therefore the first sentence of 9a Trails. should be deleted and replaced by the following, "It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street ROW except within 200 of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in width is required." 10. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat. Weasel words proposed, no changes recommended. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 28 11. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right-of-ways on Streets B, D and G to a 60-foot wide right-of-way with Streets H and I to be 50 feet wide with the standard street section. The applicants have proposed that they be allowed to use ROW sections that they originally proposed that deviate from City standards. Engineering staff is proposing that the condition not be changed. The Commission spent some time discussing this matter on October 6 and there was some support for use of decreased ROW. We are asking that you be prepared to clarify this condition at the meeting. No revised language has been proposed. _ 12. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public right-of-ways including drainage basins. The minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. The applicants have requested clarification of this condition regarding Outlot F access. A last sentence can be added as follows, "Access may be covered with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff." 13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. — Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers. No change required. The applicant's concern regarding city wetland permit for Galpin wetlands addressed previously. 14. Storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a 100-year storm event, 24-hour intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting. No change requested. 15. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, Carver County Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street. No change requested. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 29 16. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation. No change requested. 17. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before October 31 each construction season except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. All disturbed areas resulting from construction activities shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for Erosion and Sediment Control. The developer has requested increased flexibility relative to winter construction. Staff is proposing that the condition be revised to read as follows: All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or provided with a wood-fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov. 15 each construction _ season. Areas where street andlor utility construction will occur throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 18. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and water improvements which is considered anything over an 8-inch pipe diameter, a credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8-inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement. No change requested. 19. As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. No change requested. 20. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The Song homestead shall gain access via a direct connection to "B" Street. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 30 The applicants have proposed that the new Song homestead be allowed to have a direct access to Galpin whereas staff has recommend that it be required to use a private driveway to "B" street. Staff sees no reason to deviate from standard City policy which is based upon traffic safety. We are recommending that the condition stand as is. 21. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval. No change requested. 22. The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. The applicants have proposed new language that would make it more difficult and expensive to upgrade Galpin or construct a trail in the future. We do not support this request and no change is recommended. 23. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the development to avoid its being impacted by street and trail construction. Applicant's issues already resolved with earlier changes. 24. A private driveway easement should be conveyed for access to Lot 9, Block 1 between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 off of B Street. Applicant again raising issue of Song driveway. No changes are recommended. 25. The street grades on C Street and E Street shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7.0% except on H Street which is 8% street grade. 'A' Street shall be constructed in accordance with State-Aid standards. Design issues raised by applicant have been resolved by staff communication with State Aid Office at MnDOT. Revised language should read, "The street grades shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7% except on H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to State Aid standards." 26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension may be through either H Street or another Street location within the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property immediately to the west. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 31 The applicant has suggested revised language that would have the effect of neutering this condition. We are recommending that it not be changed from the original staff recommendation. 27. The landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and E Street shall be deleted. The cul-de-sac islands may remain subject to staff modifications. The applicant has sought to be allowed to build landscape medians at external entrances to the project. Our initial concerns were due to State Aid standards and these have been resolved. The condition should be revised to read as follows: "The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A and E streets, and the proposed cul-de-sac islands, are to be allowed subject to incorporation of modifications requested by staff and to meet State Aid requirements. 28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. No change requested. 29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain-of-title of all lots in the vicinity. No change requested. _ 30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal. No change requested. WETLAND ISSUES Commissioner Mancino raised a concern over a potentially mis-identified wetland basin. The Surface Water Coordinator has reviewed the matter with the following conclusions: 1. Peterson did not include the Chanhassen types in his report. I included them in the City's report. 2. Wetland A is a type 5 surrounded by a type 3/4. I stopped at this point. In Peterson's report he included that there are also scattered stands of type 1 bottomland hardwood wetlands. 3. Basin C is a type 3 which discharges into a type 2. The City's report just mentioned the type 3 where Peterson's report was more clear by describing the type 2 and 3. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 32 4. Basin E includes a small creek that drains into Basin D. Block 5 - Lot 7 has a house that is less than 40 feet from the creek. It should be moved to a minimum of 40 feet - (50 feet is the recommended average). Since this is an ag/urban wetland there should be a buffer width average of 10 feet and a house setback from the buffer strip of 40 feet. - 5. Basins F and G were not typed in Peterson's report. After checking the NWI map, they would most likely be classified as seasonally flooded /saturated palustrine emergent wetland type (PEMC/B Circular 39; type 2/3). 6. Except for the lot mentioned in #4, all house setbacks are greater than 60 feet. This meets the setback requirements for buffer strips and house lots for both ag/urban and natural wetlands. Based upon the foregoing, no changes are required except for adding condition # 31 to read as follows: 31. Block 5, Lot 7 shall be revised to ensure that a 40' setback is provided from the creek. Additionally, it must be demonstrated that a wetland buffer of at least 10' plus a setback from the buffer of at least 40', will be provided. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary PUD of 111.77 acres of property to create 115 single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet. 2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks. 3. Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this number of trees 21/2" or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be placed in the lot in question or clustered as appropriate based upon an approved landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to buffering requirements along Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots." Trees to be selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 21/2 diameter at time of Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 33 installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval. 4. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels. 5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. 6. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs, financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The association park will be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on the preliminary plat." 7. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final approval, the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be employed. This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is to be covered by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The applicant is responsible for providing wetland mitigation for impacts stemming from the ultimate improvement of Galpin and trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will assume responsibility for obtaining the necessary permits for this activity." 8. Tree Preservation/Landscaping: a. Detailed plans with the final plat for landscaping the cul-de-sac islands be developed for approval. b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and berming where feasible). This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 34 designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise satisfactorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas as recommended by staff. 9. Park and Trails: Parks a. The private/association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 49c slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private/association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. Such a provision must be drafted into association documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. Trails a. It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right-of-way except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsifl'urner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 35 the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/DolejsiITurner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/DolejsilFurner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Furner property are to be waived. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, _ 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is acquired. 10. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat. 11. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right-of-ways on Streets B, D and G to a 60-foot wide right-of-way with Streets H and I to be 50 feet wide with the standard street section. 12. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public right-of-ways including drainage basins. The minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. Access may be covered with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff 13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers. 14. Storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a 100-year storm event, 24-hour intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting. 15. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 36 Carver County Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street. 16. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation. 17. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or provided with a wood-fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov. 15 each construction season. Areas where street and/or utility construction will occur throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 18. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and water improvements which is considered anything over an 8-inch pipe diameter, a credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8-inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement. 19. As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. 20. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The Song homestead shall gain access via a direct connection to "B" Street. 21. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval. 22. The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. 23. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the development to avoid its being impacted by street and trail construction. 24. A private driveway easement should be conveyed for access to Lot 9, Block 1 between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 off of B Street. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 37 25. The street grades shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7% except on H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to State Aid standards. 26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension may be through either H Street or another Street location within the Johnson/Dolejsifl'urner property immediately to the west. 27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A and E streets, and the proposed cul-de-sac islands, are to be allowed subject to incorporation of modifications requested by staff and to meet State Aid requirements. 28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. 29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain-of-title of all lots in the vicinity. 30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal. 31. Block 5, Lot 7 shall be revised to ensure that a 40' setback is provided from the creek. _ Additionally, it must be demonstrated that a wetland buffer of at least 10' plus a setback from the buffer of at least 40', will be provided." ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommendations suggested by applicant. _ 2. Tree Location Tabulation. 3. Letter from Carver County dated June 22, 1993. 4. Memo from Forestry Intern dated September 14, 1993. 5. Staff report for Johnson/DolejsifTurner (JDT) PUD. SCAL Al2 Ock co t t 7 SONG PROPERTY October 6, 1993 RECOMMENDATIONS AS SUGGESTED BY THE APPLICANT IN BOLD TYPE "The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary PUD of 111.77 acres of property to create 115 single-family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet. 2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20-foot separation is provided for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30-foot setbacks are required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks. 3. Each lot to be provided with two trees, at least one of which must be located in the front yard where there would otherwise be no trees 6 inches or larger in this area. Existing unmapped trees between 2 1/2 inches and 6 inches will be credited toward the two tree per lot minimum. Trees to be selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 2 1/2 diameter at time of installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans of internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval. 5. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels. 6. Oudot D to be merges with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. 7. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities at time of final plat. Since city park plans are predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs, financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The association park will be built concurrent with Street "A". 8. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on the "A" Street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final approval, the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be employed. This monumentation — shall be installed with initial site development and is to be covered by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are to be established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage _ Song Property 6 October 1993 Page 2 caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. The City will apply separately for wetland permits for wetlands along Galpin Boulevard. 9. Tree Preservation/Landscaping: a. Detailed plans for landscaping the cul-de-sac islands to be developed for approval at time of final plat. b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Boulevard landscaped berm developed for final plat approval. This feature shall reasonably attempt to buffer direct view of the road from homesites on lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. The applicant will work out with staff the amenity and screening tree planting vs. the required bare lot tree planting. c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in the City Code and be selected from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise satisfactorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas with staff to allow flexibility for custom housing and to assure tree preservation. 10. Park and Trails: Parks a. The private/association park to be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 180' x 180' with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private/association park is ever abandoned, it shall be offered to the City for a first refusal option to purchase from HOA. Such a provision must be drafted into association documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application with appropriate credits for agreed upon trail construction and park grading. Trails a. A trail will be incorporated into the 100-foot Galpin Boulevard ROW with a separate permit for wetland alteration obtained by the City. b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Song Property 6 October 1993 Page 3 Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and a the time of adjoining street construction, bituminous paving and home development. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant - receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsi/ Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/DolejsilTurner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the JohnsonlDolejsi/Turner property are to be waived. If the construction costs for the trail exceed the trail fee credit, then park fee credit will make up the difference. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 and 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity with no loss of developable lots. This recommendation is not contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is acquired and the city grants fee credits equal to construction costs. 11. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat understanding that - design details may change altering lot and buffer dimensions. 12. The applicants proposed ROW and street sections are acceptable based on tree and wetland preservation and are to be used for the final plat. 13. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public right-of-ways including drainage basins. The minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. Access may be covered with grass over a compacted subgrade. 14. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers. City will obtain separate wetland alteration permits for the expansion of Galpin Boulevard ROW. 15. Storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a 100-year storm event, 24-hour intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting. 16. At a minimum, deacceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, Carver County Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street. Song Property 6 October 1993 Page 4 17. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation. 18. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before November 30 (or hard frozen ground) each construction season except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed that year. All disturbed areas resulting from construction activities shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for Erosion and Sediment Control. Details of extended winter construction will be worked out with city staff. 19. The developer shall construct all utility improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and water improvements which is considered anything over an 8-inch pipe diameter, a credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8-inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement. 20. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. 21. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) except that the Song homestead shall gain access directly to Galpin until redeveloped. 22. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval. 23. Since no upgrading of Galpin Boulevard plans exist, the applicant will coordinate final grading with City staff with berming partially on the edge of ROW. 24. Wetland Basin G and F shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the development to avoid its being impacted by County Road 117 construction with the understanding that the City will obtain separate wetland alteration permits. 25. Lot 9 may have one single-family access to Galpin Boulevard until redeveloped with additional lots. 26. The street grades on C Street shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7.0% except on H and C Street which is 8% street grade. "A" Street shall be constructed in accordance with State-Aid standards if a 25 m.p.h. design speed is used, median islands are allowed, and any additional costs from such designations are paid for by the city/state cost. 27. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension may be through a Street location within the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property immediately to the west if it is demonstrated that a need exists. If no need is demonstrated, then the contingency will be removed. Song Property 6 October 1993 Page 5 28. The landscape median areas at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and E Street and A Street are allowed. The cul-de-sac islands may remain subject to staff modifications. 29. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. 30. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary turn-a-round and a signed barricade indication "This street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain-of-title of all lots in the vicinity. _ 31. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7-ton design and be equipped with a turn-a-round acceptable to the Fire Marshal." CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED LUNDGREN BROS . (SONG PROPERTY) Alin 1 TREE LOCATION TABULATION CHANHAS6EN PLANNING DE BLOCK 1 Lots 1 thru 9 No Trees Lot 7 No trees Lot 8 No trees BLOCK 2 Lot 9 No trees Lots 1 thru 24 No trees Lot 10 No trees Lot 11 No trees BLOCK 3 Lot 12 No trees Lot 1 No trees Lot 13 No trees Lot 2 No trees Lot 14 No trees Lot 3 No trees Lot 15 No trees Lot 4 723 = 12" oak Lot 16 No trees Lot 5 No trees Lot 17 No trees Lot 6 No trees Lot 18 383 = 15" ash Lot 7 720 = 27" oak 385 = 36" box elder 721 = 20" oak 722 = 20" maple Lot 19 386 = 24" double oak 387 = 27" double oak BLOCK 4 388 = 24" ash Lot 1 No trees 389 = 27" double oak Lot 2 No trees 390 = 24" oak Lot 3 374 = 20" ash 391 = 20" oak 375 = 16" oak 392 = 15" oak Lot 4 376 - 26" oak 393 = 18" double oak 377 = 30" maple 394 = 12" ash 378 = 24" ash 403 = 30" oak Lot 20 395 = 18" oak 404 = 30" oak Lot 21 396 = 30" oak 405 = 12" double Lot 22 397 = 24" oak ironwood 398 = 32" oak 406 = 40" oak Lot 23 No trees 407 = 30" oak Lot 24 No trees 408 = 12" ash Lot 25 724 = 30" ash 409 = 12" double ash Lot 26 No trees 410 = 30" oak Lot 27 No trees 411 = 30" double oak Lot 28 No trees 412 = 16" oak Lot 29 No trees 413 = 36" oak Lot 30 476 = 32" maple 414 = 30" oak Lot 31 473 = 12" maple Lot 5 379 = 24" ash 474 = 20" maple 380 = 30" oak 475 = 20" maple 382 = 20" ash 477 = 24" maple 384 = 30" box elder 478 = 15" maple 401 = 30" oak 402 = 30" oak Lot 6 381 = 15" double ash 1 BLOCK 5 594 = 12" oak Lot 1 547 = 30" maple 607 = 16" oak 548 = 30" maple 608 = 22" maple 549 = 30" maple 609 = 14" maple 714 = 18" ash 611 = 18" maple 715 = 12" cluster of 612 = 20" maple birch 613 = 20" maple 716 = 15" double oak 614 = 16" oak 717 = 36" oak 632 = 22" maple 718 = 12" ash 633 = 20" maple 634 = 15" maple Lot 2 546 = 26" basswood 635 = 24" oak 550 = 32" maple 636 = 15" maple 551 = 30" oak 637 = 15" maple 655 = 15" oak Lot 3 539 = 18" maple 660 = 15" maple 541 = 26" basswood 656 = 24" maple 542 = 22" oak 657 = 15" maple 545 = 18" maple 552 = 14" ash Lot 5 574 = 14" oak 553 = 30" maple 595 = 12" maple 555 = 20" maple 596 = 14" oak 556 = 18" maple 597 = 12" oak 557 = 22" maple 598 = 14" oak 558 = 14" maple 599 = 18" double oak 559 = 24" maple 600 = 14" double oak 560 = 24" maple 601 = 18" double oak 561 = 16" maple 602 = 18" double oak 562 = 14" oak 603 = 16" ash 604 = 12" oak Lot 4 575 = 12" oak 605 = 14" oak 576 = 14" oak 606 = 14" oak 579 = 16" oak 615 = 14" oak 577 = 16" double oak 616 = 26" double oak 578 = 14" ash 617 = 12" oak 563 = 16" maple 618 = 18" oak 580 = 14" double oak 619 = 16" oak 581 = 16" maple 620 = 16" oak 582 = 18" maple 621 = 16" oak 583 = 12" maple 622 = 14" oak 583A = 14" oak 623 = 14° double oak 584 = 16" maple 624 = 14" maple 585 = 14" maple 625 = 12" double oak 554 = 12" maple 626 = 16" oak 586 = 14" oak 627 = 20" oak 587 = 14" oak 628 = 12° double oak 588 = 12" oak 629 = 14" double oak 589 = 14" oak 630 = 18" oak 590 = 16" maple 631 = 15" maple 591 = 16" maple 638 = 20" maple 592 = 14" oak 639 = 16" oak 593 = 12" oak 640 = 15" oak 3 237 = 18" oak 238 = 18" oak BLOCK 7 - continued 239 = 18" double oak Lot 6 242 = 18" oak 240 = 20" oak 243 = 18" oak 241 = 22" oak 244 = 32" oak 245 = 24" oak 285 = 26" oak 246 = 18" oak 286 = 24" oak 287 = 18" oak Lot 9 196 = 20" oak 288 = 16" oak 197 = 20" oak 289 = 16" oak 205 = 18" oak 290 = 18" oak 206 = 10" double 291 = 14" oak maple 292 = 20" oak 207 = 16" oak 293 = 20" oak 208 = 22" oak 294 = 16" oak 209 = 26" oak 295 = 26" oak 210 = 26" oak 333 = 18" oak 211 = 16" oak 334 = 34" oak 212 = 20" oak 335 = 20" oak 213 = 22" maple 336 = 24" oak 214 = 16" oak 337 = 20" oak 215 = 14" oak 338 = 26" oak 247 = 18" oak 339 = 16" oak 248 = 26" oak 284 = 16" oak 249 = 14" ash 352 = 18" oak 250 = 18" oak 251 = 24" oak Lot 7 184 = 26" oak 252 = 14" oak 185 = 36" maple 253 = 20" ash 186 = 26" maple 254 = 24" oak 187 = 18" maple 255 = 20" oak 219 = 16" oak 256 = 12" double oak 220 = 30" oak 257 = 16" oak 223 = 32" oak 258 = 16" oak 224 = 26" oak 259 = 26" oak 225 = 16" oak 260 = 24" oak 226 = 20" oak 261 = 18" oak 227 = 24" oak 262 = 20" oak 228 = 18" oak 263 = 22" oak 229 = 16" oak 264 = 22" double oak 230 = 20" double oak 265 = 20" oak 231 = 14" oak 266 = 18" oak 232 = 22" oak 283 = 16" oak 267 = 12" box elder Lot 8 188 = 16" oak 216 = 20" oak Lot 10 133 = 36" oak 217 = 18" oak 135 = 12" box elder 218 = 20" oak 136 = 26" oak 235 = 22" oak 198 = 30" oak 234 = 20" oak 199 = 26" oak 233 = 20" oak 200 = 36" oak 235 = 24" oak 201 = 12" box elder 5 BLOCK 7 - continued 151 = 24" oak Lot 15 46 = 14" ironwood 152 = 42" oak 47 = 30" oak 153 = 16" oak 48 = 26" oak 154 = 16" oak 155 = 20" oak Lot 16 1 = 14" ash 156 = 18" oak 11 = 26" elm 12 = 26" oak Lot 20 157 = 26" oak 13 = 12" ash 158 = 18" oak 21 = 36" maple 159 = 32" maple 22 = 24" maple 160 = 30" oak 23 = 36" maple 161 = 28" oak 25 = 14" birch 162 = 18" oak 38 = 30" maple 163 = 24" oak 39 = 30" maple 164 = 24" maple 40 = 24" oak 165 = 20" oak 166 = 22" oak Lot 17 55 = 22" ash 167 = 18" oak 56 = double oak 168 = 16" oak 57 = 30" oak 171 = 14" oak 59 = 26" oak 172 = 18" oak 60 = 26" oak 173 = 16" oak 94 = 22" oak 174 = 16" oak 95 = 30" oak 175 = 14" oak 96 = 36" oak 176 = 26" maple 178 = 18" oak Lot 18 88 = 26" oak 179 = 24" oak 89 = 26" oak 180 = 22" oak 90 = 34" oak 181 = 18" oak 91 = 26" oak 182 = 24" oak 92 = 26" oak 93 = 20" oak Lot 21 169 = 26" maple 97 = 34" oak 170 = 26" oak 98 = 26" oak 183 = 20" oak 99 = 20" oak 221 = 32" oak 100 = 22" oak 222 = 14" mullberry 101 = 22" oak 102 = 34" oak Lot 22 296 = 32" ash 103 = 26" oak Lot 23 297 = 28" willow 104 = 26" oak 298 = 26" willow 105 = 26" oak 299 = 32" oak 106 = 32" oak Lot 24 300 = 28" oak Lot 19 107 = 26" oak 301 = 26" oak 108 = 32" oak 302 = 26" double oak 109 = 26" oak 303 = 14" oak 110 = 36" oak 304 = 26" oak 111 = 24" oak 305 = 24" oak 112 = 30" oak 306 = 24" oak 113 = 26" oak 307 = 20" oak 114 = 24" oak 308 = 24" oak 150 = 20" oak 309 = 32" double oak 7 Street I 189 = 18" oak 190 = 26" oak 191 = 30" maple 192 = 20" oak 193 = 26" double oak 194 = 30" oak 195 = 18" oak Off Property (but located) 572 = 20" oak 692 = 20" double maple 693 = 14" maple 694 = 16" oak 695 = 16" oak 696 = 24" oak 697 = 18" maple 698 = 12" oak 699 = 16" triple oak 700 = 24" maple 9 K ( .� !_ ' 1: CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 r — (612)4481213 /A'NES(-) COUNTY OF CAIVEQ June 22, 1993 TO: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer SUBJ: Preliminary Plat ) • Song-Carlson Property (93-3 PUD) Following are comments regarding the-preliminary plat for the Song-Carlson Property transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated June 7, 1993. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway • Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 80' 100' 110' 120' Urban Undivided Rural Divided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 190' 200' County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 50 foot from centerline corridor shown would provide for a potential 100 foot corridor. This corridor would meet the needs for an urban roadway. The city may wish to consider an even 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. Drainage by the road structure has been a problem on this property. Any grading work should provide for positive drainage away from the road structure. 3. The plan includes provisions for a divided entrance. The County has approved similar designs in the past. The City may want to review for acceptance of this type of entrance on this roadway. 4. The City may want to review the overall transportation intersection alignments in this area to see if the proposed entrance location will provide for a safe entrance site. Affirmathe Action/Equal Oppontennt, Emploler • Printed on Reclrled Paper 5. 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. 6. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 7. 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. 8. 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. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed development. MEMORANDUM To: Paul Krauss, Planning Director From: Jeff Schultz, Forestry Intern Date: Sept. 14, 1993 Subj: Issues related to the tree removal plan for the Song Property 1. This site contains primarily red oak and sugar maple trees, which are known to be among the most sensitive species to root disturbance in this area. An issue of primary importance on this site is going to be location of protective measures such as snow fencing and determining _ whether or not certain trees, mostly at the grading limits, will actually be saved. I feel that fencing at one and a half times the diameter of the drip line is necessary for the majority of the affected trees. There may be a few cases where the fencing could be closer depending - mainly on the tree species involved. More retaining walls, particularly along H street and the western end of E street, may be necessary in the interest of preserving as much of the original grade as possible around the trees to be saved. Some retaining walls are already planned for these areas. 2. When I visited the property, I found it difficult to match the tree removal plans to the site, particularly in the heavily wooded areas. Although the trees are numbered on the tree removal plans, they are not labeled on site. This can lead to confusion when trying to locate particular trees that may be near the grading limits in the field, especially when many of the trees are of the same species and approximately the same size. Although I noticed faint spray paint marks on some of the trees, I also wonder if every significant tree has actually been recorded. There were situations where I was unable to determine if a tree in the field was on the plans or what number it was, if it was even on the plan. For example, in the rear of lot 25, block 7, there appeared to be at least one large oak that was not recorded. Other recent developments have included numbered tags on the trees (i.e. Lake Susan Hills 9th and Trotters) and these types of problems did not occur. 3. Since the site is poorly staked at best, it is difficult to determine exactly where the grading limits are located in the field. 4. At this time, I do not see any major problems with the placement of the roads, etc. For the most part, the plan appears accurate and seems to work well with the natural features of the site. PC DATE: 8/19/92 ' I TY 0 F i L CIIAHAEN CC DATE: 9/14/92 CASE # 92-4 PUD • By: Olm`He y, ke.. STAFF REPORT :L• Cc-nissio PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning from A2 Agricultural Estate to PUD, Single Family Residential Planned Unit Development 1„" 2) Development Review, Preliminary Plat to subdivide 161 acres into Z 112 single family lots and 8 outlots Q 3) Wetland Alteration Permit for dredging, filling and development within protected wetlands J LOCATION: West of State Highway 41, North of State Highway 5, Adjacent to the BMT Site 0 QAPPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates ACREAGE: Northern Portion 95 Acres (gross) and 61 Acres (net - less wetlands and streets) Southern Portion 66 Acres (Outlots G and H) DENSITY: 1.19 u/a (gross) and 1.85 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2, single family/vacant Q S - A2, vacant E - A2, single family/vacant 1:47. W - A2, Camp Tanadoona/vacant W WATER AND SEWER: Extension of utilities has been petitioned by the applicant. (!) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains steep topography, wetlands, and vegetated areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density IP I 6I -, .‘"),7..i...)..'r"lk, .ertZ-V..-..4:: t'l _ - • Malin yi i,„..,,,,, v. . .• - ..-,••••••1-.1 ,11.0•••••.).D-1- •).$ ----A13....z;Pr. V' ...•k4••••••.1'39‘...*•• 3...e.VI..•••1. ...11.1 ft. .. i, 3.1• 1:::. • 9. ,*4.•••.;"...i''N.(•• i 4 r " ' - • r• 1.••.. .if.::1-•-• •-.1 i •• • • -.), ••••. .1,..". minin.li ail r---7/2 gg - 3.' . ......-t•-31$%1.0% N C.'i...**. '44 1 ••• ......N; V.,...z.„. s- s\ .. -1,.I. 10'1:...,t '1"'•A.' ..... .. i"1 • \\:.' WI . , •..,...,;o..1.--....... -0'.•...% ..flik.. ..•.e. i \ 0 ,,,...--r 7';'3.1...7%"7-•:'•••)%: "..11116."-. - ' i 1-1.•••NI.5,1'•,,N.Z.,•• 1 ,• , . . , •r• :- .,• -1,1 ,il • • '•-, ...—...._ .....1, r..,..-....7-"h.''..,!.1.:.,...., , ....:..914•...' \ , I.:1,.....4.•1• •.1.41 l `9‘ - ,• ••43)?...i.°:.;:.•/itill.6g.:N. ..,!•••:".•••..7 1.•;•4;.•;••,..).' : '•/fr. s'!!'a.•j•'s‘I).•••** k'. " . . •1.fl ••••••04.' '1? • .. ' ''''• l•2 1 "% ", s. ,,'••••••I • • ...., ,••••. :. ••• Z ) • /''.•••• . 1 '-j • . .A.. !. s" •.•:•••,.-1 . 7 Or'4.,7i.....12?-‘...47;•:7C5-;;,•tf.,'!• ./4,1,• /^...........--, •-•. ••••,- .. . * i - • ,_?%:":1;•',•;)::" --Z.•C.:!e:-. '\."' /' / ' -ODWP11.1 ,-Ta aka& - ''). 1-, ;----1 4%-.-",;.1.1 ,-e...:::-.•.,.-tn, / I , :-,- ylzei.; ., .7 i ....) -kgagtIAL,._ — /. 41 ,W.:\-5...;:: . :-,y...-5,716.?:;•= - ;, / ,,...„ .... .., ,,,,....• , ,•(,,,,- --rei:),1--,.•.::-.A..r.."1-•# - •"•'- \ . .,., -t'1.-' -•:-.1.31-:3::\71:4"'. l' '-11,11:-... . .4"•• -''‘'. F t......, , - • .1...-0, 1„,,• "._"rt • :Z.% mi. ... " •••• •-•• , . •...„. . ......_ ...- 9 / .'"- ' •;,...1"..::', 3; .) - i'-.. ..•A....'irb•N"'.-0,A.• ..,,Z•c•-, '....--, ''. :,1 A ,••.'-.. :'.,•-% ‘...- ,I...... ...,... l• •''.)'•,Z=.1.3:3?..1-:---w.. .:ok •..4.-$.••\: \‘ --t,.."' 4 t• r- -.--••••.-.:. • .-•-.,,,f••••,.. -.:.-..-.•:, , ;-1.... •...ill,.„-v.._ -1-•••zi,••- -:,...,....,-:-%• - 0% • • .A-`'..; t.t.'1,....)-... ....1- .3.% ,...,;.,-.- .-.. ,•r:.:..:„."-ni ....•....f. s•T'%, P. p•Ii i.: '.2- t.l.; 11-1107a4f,44..• •...,,•••:,'7.:`.....0...o..,-•••••, 4,1:...s.•• •.1-,. ••,,z•-,-._ • - • I • - • -`,..#•.',..•'1.,:-...'..- •• • ' •-•-• '-'''' " "-•'...1.);.- --:'•,-..0-• `0, -.-%.••••%N.;-0-.1, :-,..-4,_ : Jo .i • - '•.1 r).„:•...1 ..,t1 -•- -.-,-44-:414- 4-.—„...;4i.,.... _ .... - •,.. • . . . .- ....„ P.. ...... E .1. LA .. _. - • - r ...- ' - •-• ;ft::-:-•Rdatc. '• e.4-r.e-ry•-;,.,;>. :-.,r it .(c.c.',)--•i. r-•r_„ . r .111 If / • X• ,-,r:‘•'Z.',:.,0--.,.- cr rei'Ni'ver•• 1741',..:7*.'` i:,* ''''.*girt - ) MAP It/$•Ni t, ,„, .r,. .,-...c, c .r..•• r, ( rr-.,... ...Cc •,r... - :•••,,.,-:_ri";;#*;:..,..c.t... ./..rf'"--.„.•,.. . -et•ow.;"A.,-c::::c .... ,•.4.r,cet-,,...._ea,.4%;. rc. • -• 44.....,-.... "rrys .e oil , r. f •;... p- - fr:r. ,... _el', Abor gotecabit e• C 6.fnq,,r t%,,,t. .:1-, * :r • ....,,, •41. NM - . 1 - • __,J • . f's.•7.rt.:...,t.i.;..,.as r;.,..4-...-.,:y......T.r..--r .. . iiih, , , ., •rt .. ... re. .en . 4 • .. -• p.r•,re......c ,./.. „. ...... . , i . . .-•• • - *A ......................................... . v. a , _. _ 4 f : • D: . B •. JA .. L - e _., 0 /90 CV . ...:c..1-.4., _ - %.\,---- 4 t" _:- 11-e• "' 0 DRIV E .k Pilleaur Fi,cf.-Ace:A-1 , — ____ + • . . : SIM : • przAr . 42 RENT . . __ / tAl k4E0 e ii..... no - L - )l D Y WE .. 111 . / Ai "VA .... 4 $4104611. , kortio -13 Ivy—A c..... .t. •oN -41111 lir .... • vierAr 1116,„....2m.. ALBAL JLX tazi.-c...m.i, AUK-. il /111 Yr ,17-iii-----.4 ' - • .:-:::::::::.:::•:-:::-:•:-.-...-:..-..::. • IIIII - ......• ....• ....... . . .......................... ..........................•.•.• ........................•.•... .• . . ..BrIpr... :4iiirte: ABALAILAJIAI ...L A - • 4 ... ,r a • , .-. I 1111 a • . - 1 ..' . ... _ • ., .. : • -..\ IN ‘••,-.2 I MOI:111'4'11111NM1111112imajwatimrimme --::•:11' „ . • rr r . ; . • ... Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY OF PUD • The applicant is proposing a single family detached residential planned unit development which subdivides 160.88 acres into 112 single family lots and 8 outlots. One of the lots will be occupied by an existing home, thus, 111 new home sites will result. (The concept plan proposed 113 single family lots, one lot was eliminated as the plan was revised to accommodate concerns that were raised). The site is located east of Hwy. 41 and north of Hwy. 5. The property is zoned A2, Agricultural Estates and is designated as Residential Low Density and 1995 Study Area. The northerly portion of the site is proposed as single family lots (PUD site) and the southerly portion of the site is proposed as an outlot for future development. The northerly portion of the subject site was included in the MUSA line as part of the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment after Lundgren Bros. made a presentation to the Planning Commission. It was concluded that the wetland which forms the site's southern boundary, was the appropriate dividing line between the MUSA area and the 1995 Study Area. The site contains significant environmental features which include ten wetland areas, steep topography and mature stands of vegetation. Due to the site conditions and the desire to provide a variety of lots and housing units, the applicant is pursuing rezoning of the property to planned unit development. A planned unit development will allow the site to be developed with reduced right-of-way and reduced setbacks to pull the building pads away from sensitive areas and will allow innovative techniques to be used with the wetland areas (buffer yards, native landscaping, etc.). The City Code currently provides standards permitting planned unit developments if certain requirements are met. Specific guidelines for single family planned unit developments have not yet been adopted, but have been approved by the Planning Commission and will be reviewed by the City Council in October. Staff will be using the existing PUD requirements and the proposed single family PUD requirements in the review of this proposed planned unit development. In addition, new wetland regulations are in the process of being reviewed for adoption by the city and these too will be used as guidelines for review of the proposed planned unit development. The development review for the PUD is only for the northern portion of the site proposed for the 112 single family lots. The southerly portion will remain zoned as A2. The applicant has taken care to work with the site's many natural features. Design flexibility allowed under the PUD ordinance is being put to reasonable use. The lot areas range from 11,550 square feet to 60,370 square feet (including wetland area) and range from 10,075 square feet to 57,813 square feet (not including wetland area). The total project density is extremely low for residential development in Chanhassen. There is a gross density of 1.18 units per acre with a net density (excluding wetlands and streets) of 1.84 units per acre. This compares to typical numbers of 1.7 and 2.0 units per acre respectively on typical single family development in Chanhassen. We also note that this type of density is considered to be extremely low relative to other developing communities in the Twin Cities. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 3 Major access to this site will be provided by a new street that will ultimately run between Hwy. 41 and Galpin Boulevard. Since the applicant is only in control of a portion of this alignment, only that section of the street which is located on the Lundgren parcel will be constructed at this time. The remaining piece would be constructed across the adjoining Song property when this area is subdivided. At this point in time, the applicant is negotiating with the Song's on development possibilities. However, staff is unsure at the time of writing as to when development might occur and who may actually be undertaking it. The Lundgren proposal was designed with some sensitivity to coordinating ultimate development of the Song property. The collector street right-of-way alignment is designed in a manner so that it can be similarly used to service the Song property. Location of a collector street in this area is illustrated on the city Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not purport to establish an alignment for this street. In early discussions with the applicant on this site, the Planning Director and City Engineer determined that it would be inappropriate to construct the collector street to typical collector street standards which would result in a road similar to Lake Lucy Road. This determination was based upon the extreme changes of topography and locations of wetlands on both the Lundgren and Song parcels. It would be impossible to construct a street to the standards without significantly impacting the site's natural features. Therefore, they agreed to recommend that the collector street be designed to high quality local street standards which reduce grading requirements and increase both horizontal and lateral design flexibility. The important thing, in their opinion, is that the road will provide continuity such that residents and emergency services will be afforded two means of ingress and egress into this area. Staff is also recommending that the local street right-of-way be reduced from 60' to 50' to further reduce impact to the site. The applicant is proposing alteration to some of the existing wetlands on the site. The wetlands that are proposed to be altered are in a degraded state and the alteration is being mitigated. The applicant is proposing the creation of buffer yards to protect the remaining wetlands and to be permitted a reduced setback from the 75' wetland setback. The proposal for the wetlands is consistent with the city's proposed changes to the wetland regulations, but staff has recommended some additional mitigation through combination of new and existing wetlands and by increasing the depth. The first step of the PUD process is conceptual approval. Concept review allows the Planning Commission and City Council to review the proposal in general terms to determine if it should be accepted as a planned unit development and what changes need to be made prior to action on the preliminary plat and rezoning. On August 19, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the concept plan for the PUD. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 113 single family lots with the understanding that the applicant will continue to work with staff on the conditions presented in the staff report in accordance with the Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 4 comments made by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission felt that Conditions 4 through 9 could be reworded to allow some flexibility to the applicant and still meet staff's intent. The majority of the Planning Commission also felt that the ci l-de-sacs "I" and "G" should remain (staff had recommended that they be connected) and that they liked the cul-de-sac islands (Attachment #1). The City Council reviewed the Concept PUD on September 14, 1992, and also approved of the concept plan. At the City Council meeting, the applicant presented the City Council with comments on staff's conditions and proposed changes to the conditions (Attachment #2). The City Council approved the concept plan with the applicant's proposed conditions. The major changes to the conditions were to remove the condition to connect the cul-de-sacs "I" and "G" and to permit the cul-de-sac islands. The second stage of the PUD process is the Development Review where the applicant receives preliminary plat and rezoning approval. The major concern of the city and staff during conceptual review was the amount of grading taking place on site and the resulting removal.of tees. The city and staff recommended that the applicant review the grading plan and make changes in the house types, street locations and design, etc. to reduce the amount of grading on- site. The applicant has submitted revised grading plans for review. The new plans do somewhat reduce the amount of grading. The reduced grading is primarily a result of reducing the number and size of ponding areas and not always showing grading beyond the house pad. Some of the house types have been changed from walkouts to ramblers and lookouts which will reduce the amount of grading. Until the final storm water calculations are submitted for review, staff cannot verify that the proposed ponding areas will be adequate, but at this time the engineering staff feels additional ponding may be required. If this is the case, the applicant will have to increase the number of ponds and/or increase the ponding areas, either of which will result in more grading to the site. Although staff agrees the building sites should not be mass graded and that. the creation of usable rear yards could be done individually, the proposed grading plan showing some sites to not be graded beyond the house pad is not correct. There is typically at least a 15' area around the house pad which is altered during construction of the home. When this area is added to the revised grading plan, much of the areas of reduced grading will in fact be graded. During concept review, staff suggested the applicant review some significant changes to the plat such as pulling back the most southeasterly and south central cul-de-sacs (H and J streets). Staff has sketched out some alternatives, using private drives, to determine how many lots would be lost, how much vegetation would be saved and if what is saved is worth such a significant change. Such a revision would result in the removal of some significant lots and the applicant has not proposed such changes. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 5 The grading for lots located on "H" street are affecting a wooded ravine. The vegetation in this area is mostly box elder which does not warrant a drastic change in the lot configurations resulting in loss of lots. "J" street and the adjacent lots are resulting in the removal of significant vegetation, including large oaks. Staff worked on alternative street and lot configurations for this location to determine how to save some of the vegetation and found that., other than removing 3 or 4 lots, even the use of private drives and pulling back the cul-de-sac does not preserve the vegetation. Therefore, staff is agreeing with the layout presented by the applicant. It should be noted that the applicant did reduce the filling of "J" street which has reduce the amount of alteration to the area. Staff recognizes that the Planning Commission and City Council have indicated acceptance of the proposal to maintain two cul-de-sacs on I and G streets. We continue to believe that their connection is warranted due to issues of access and public safety, however, the proposed conditions reflect the direction you have given us. Similarly, the Engineering Department continues to have reservations with the proposal to provide landscaped islands in several streets and cul-de-sacs. Again, the conditions reflect your direction that these be allowed. Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is generally consistent with the guidelines established by the current and draft PUD ordinances. We also believe the applicant is using reasonable and sensitive development standards with an eye towards creating very high quality residential neighborhoods designed in a manner to protect a sensitive environment. Staff is recommending that the PUD Development Plan, Rezoning and Wetland Alteration Permit be approved with appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND The subject site was included in the MUSA line with the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council felt that the property was suitable for development with sewer and water. The proposal contains the BMT property (northeast corner of entrance). The BMT site is a nonconforming use (commercial in a residential district) which has the right to remain as long as it does not expand or intensify. The owner of BMT has sold the property to Lundgren Brothers with the condition of remaining until a new site is found or until 1994. The proposal designates one single family lot and an outlot on the BMT property which will be developed once the property is vacated. The applicant has initiated a feasibility study for sewer and water service to the site. Service to the site will not be possible until 1993. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site contains 10 protected wetland areas, steep topography, and heavily vegetated areas. The subject site is bordered by State Hwy. 41 on the west, State Hwy. 5 on the south, the Song property on the east, and residential/vacant property on the north. There are two exceptions shown on the plat. The first is located between State Hwy 41 and street D. This property is under separate ownership and has its own access to Hwy. 41. To reduce the number of accesses to Hwy. 41 should this site be subdivided in the future, staff is recommending the site be provided with access to the adjacent cul-de-sac. The second exception is located to the north of the proposed private park. This site is separated from the subject site by steep topography. The landscaping plan shows extensive landscaping on Outlots A and F which is being used to meet the requirements for enhanced landscaping for the PUD. There also are landscaped cul-de- sac islands and median. Site terrain includes large variations in elevation. The large wetland that forms the southern boundary of the property is also the head waters of Bluff Creek. Much of the site contains large open field areas which were actively farmed in the past. REZONING TO PUD Section 20-501 of the City Code provides a general intent statement for planned unit developments. Planned unit developments are to be used to enhance flexibility in developing a site with unique features and when there is a desire to provide a variety of uses. In return for this flexibility, the city should receive a higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been achieved through standard zoning regulations. Under this section of the City Code the following nine items are listed and which the PUD should provide: (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding The site contains some difficult topography, several wetlands of varying value and heavily vegetated areas. Upon review of the preliminary plat, it appears that the applicant is locating the streets and lots with the natural features of the site taken into consideration. The blocks are situated around wetland and vegetated areas and the steep sloped areas are avoided in most cases. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 7 (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. Finding The PUD allows the site to locate more dense development in areas without significant features while creating open space around natural features. The proposal is providing pockets of open space throughout the site which will benefit the whole development and is providing a variation of lot sizes. PUD flexibility is used to locate home sites in areas where impact will be minimized by using density transfer. (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 high quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality homes. The applicant has taken into account surrounding land uses by locating larger lots adjacent to existing uses. The applicant has also provided for future development with a future street connection. There will be covenants recorded as part of the PUD contract to ensure that high quality building architecture and enhanced landscaping will be provided. (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. Finding The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential and the proposal is accommodating existing uses and the potential for future development. Views of the site from the Hwy. 41 corridor will be protected by the tree preservation and required landscaping. A major land use transition south of the site is possible when this area is brought in the MUSA some time in the future. No decisions on the future of this area have been made pending completion of the Hwy. 5 Study. However, the large Bluff Creek wetland that separates the Lundgren site from the Hwy. 5 corridor has been established by the Comprehensive Plan as the buffer area. (5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 8 Findin The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as residential low density (1.2 - 4 units/acre). The proposal has a net density (minus wetlands and roads) of 1.84 units/acre. This compares favorably with typical single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net density of 2 units per acre. The site was included in the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment for development with sewer and water and as a single family development. The Comprehensive Plan also showed this property as a site for a collector street., which the applicant is providing. (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. Findin The applicant is providing open space throughout the site, including a private park. The Park and Recreation Commission has accepted this proposal but full park and trail fees will be required. No credit is being recommended for the private park. The Park and Recreation Commission conditioned approval upon dedication of a trail easement along State Hwy. 41. (7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. Finding The applicant is proposing a variety of lots sizes and housing units. Overall, the sites will be affordable to medium - medium/high incomes. The surrounding uses and potential future surrounding uses are consistent with what is being proposed. (8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration or if this condition is relevant to single family home 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. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 9 Finding The proposal is providing a collector street which will service the property to the east and was mentioned as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The remainder of the site is serviced by cul-de-sacs which are used to protect some of the natural features. Staff continues to recommend the connection of cul-de-sacs "G" and "I" to further improve traffic control. Although the Planning Commission and City Council have already taken action on this item and have agreed to not require the cul-de-sacs to be connected, staff feels we should still be on record of being in favor of connecting the two cul-de-sacs. In addition to the general planned unit development regulations, the city is in the process of adopting standards for single family planned unit developments. There is a .specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. The intent statement states the developer will be permitted flexibility in development standards in return for enhancing environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing a higher quality of development. The single family detached residential planned unit development must also meet the following guidelines: a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD (draft ordinance) allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot calculations). The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. Finding The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 10,075 sq. ft. to 57,813 sq. ft. (not including wetland areas) with an average net lot area of 20,601 sq. ft. The PUD standards do not allow the inclusion of wetland areas in the calculation of lot area. The site is broken down into six blocks which locate the lots around wetland and vegetated areas. Upon review of the concept grading plan and the impacts to the vegetated areas, staff was concerned that the proposed location of streets, lots and the housing types were removing more vegetated areas than may be necessary. Staff recommended that the applicant provide plans which lessen the impacts to the vegetated areas, such as: Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 10 Remove Lot 1, Block 2 and use retaining walls along the south side of the street adjacent to Oudot B and Lot 1, Block 2. • Remove the cul-de-sac, H Street and use private drives to remove the need to fill in the ravine area. Reduce the fill and pull back "J" Street and reduce the fill on adjacent lots. The applicant has submitted a revised grading plan which has reduced the amount of grading to the site. The type of vegetation which will be removed with the creation of Lot 1, Block 2 consists mostly of box elders and elms. Therefore, staff does not feel the removing Lot 1, Block 2 and installation of a retaining wall is warranted. The vegetation impacted by "H" Street and adjacent lots is also low quality consisting mostly of ash and box elder. Therefore, staff does not feel the removal of "H" Street is warranted. The area adjacent to "J" Street is where the most significant trees will be lost and where staff feels some significant changes may be warranted. There are a number of sizeable oaks which will be removed (see Attachment # 3, Area D). The applicant has changed some of the house types in this area and has reduced the fill of "J" Street, which will reduce some of the grading. Staff has sketched a revised plan using private drives and pulling back the cul-de-sac. Staff found that without removing 3 or 4 lots the tree removal would not be reduced. Given the already low density of the project and high quality design, staff cannot justify recommending elimination of these lots. We believe the applicant's tree preservation efforts, when viewed over the entire project, are satisfactory. Therefore, staff is agreeing with the proposed layout. It should be noted that the applicant has reduced the fill on "J" Street which has reduced the amount of grading to the site. The proposal is preserving open space throughout the site which benefits each block. - Open space is found in undeveloped outlots, the private park and numerous wetland areas. The applicant has provided plans which demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area of protective easement as required under the draft PUD ordinance. This standard ensures that each lot provides a satisfactory home site and yard area without needing to resort to variances. The PUD development contract will document this information to ensure the development of the individual lots will not encroach within a protected area or setback. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 11 Finding _ There are 14 lots which do not have the minimum lot width of 90' at the building setback line. The lots which do not have a 90' width at the building setback are "pie shaped" lots which have adequate building width at the building setback. Staff is comfortable that the intent to provide adequate building pad widths is being accommodated. Essentially, the front setback line is proposed to be moved to the rear of the lot to the point at which a 90' width is achieved. The only concern that staff has with this is that some of these lot configurations will result in the building pad being pushed further back into sensitive areas of the site. We have asked the applicant to respond to this concern in the final plat. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. Finding All of the lots exceed the minimum lot depth of 100'. d) Minimum Setbacks: PUD Exterior - 30 feet Front Yard - 20 feet Rear Yard - 30 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property line. Finding The proposal provides a 30' PUD exterior setback. The preliminary plat provides a 20' front yard setback on certain lots (lots illustrated with a dot). The reduced front yard setback is permitted as part of a PUD to preserve natural features and should be used in this development. A majority of the lots have stands of trees and/or wetlands in the rear yard and reducing the front yard setback will further protect these areas. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and has noted additional lots which with a 20' front yard setback would reduce the impact to the site. The following lots are recommended to also maintain a 20' front yard setback: Lots 22-24, Block 2 Lots 30-31, Block 2 Lots 46-47, Block 2 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 12 Lots 58-61, Block 2 Lots 66-72, Block 2 There were additional lots which would benefit by a reduced front yard setback (example, Lots 27-29, Block 2), except that they would then not have enough width at the building setback. Therefore, staff is not recommending the reduced setback on these lots. In the narrative provided by the developer, it has been stated that the minimum rear yard will be 30'. In many cases the rear yard will exceed 30' due to the presence of a wetland which requires increased setbacks. This is in keeping with the draft ordinance. The narrative provided by the developer proposes a 6' interior side yard setback for garages and a 9' interior side yard setback of living area. The applicant has also stated that a minimum side yard separation of 20' will be provided between each principle structure. As long as a 20' minimum side yard separation is maintained, staff is comfortable with reduced side yard setbacks. The setback of 10' for accessory buildings and structures should also be applied. e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. Finding The proposed layout of the single family lots and streets have taken into consideration the features of the site. Where possible, wetlands and mature stands of trees have been located at the rear of lots so that they can be protected. As stated above, staff was at first concerned that in some areas the grading for building pads, streets and ponds was removing more vegetation than may be necessary. The applicant has made revisions to the plans which reduce the area of alteration. The applicant is proposing to reduce the right-of-way for the collector street from 80' to 60' to reduce the removal of trees and impact to site features. Staff has encouraged this request to be made due to the sensitive nature of the site. A wider collector street with normal design standards results in a street having the appearance of Lake Lucy Road. To accomplish this design on this site would result in substantial destruction of natural features. To avoid this staff determined that the street should be designed to ultimately provide continuity to Galpin Boulevard but to be designed to local street standards. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 13 In addition to reducing the collector street right of way, staff has also reviewed reducing the right-of-way on the local streets from 60' to 50'. Staff found that this reduction in right-of-way will help pull building pads from sensitive features of the site, and is recommending that this be done. f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. Finding The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan which shows landscaping at the entrance of the PUD on Outlots A and F, on cul-de-sac islands, on an entrance median and along the boulevards. During the concept review, it was agreed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, that foundation and rear yard plantings would not be necessary. The landscaping along Hwy. 41 needs to be revised. A portion of the landscape buffering along Hwy. 41 is proposed to be provided by trees located in the Hwy. 41 right-of-way. These could well be lost at some time due to possible highway improvements. Therefore, the applicant must satisfy the landscaping requirements with landscaping on the subject site. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 14 g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. Finding The developer has stated in the narrative that they will establish strict architectural and protective covenants and that the covenants will be recorded with the county. The city does not enforce private covenants recorded with the county, but in the case of a PUD, the covenants will be reviewed and adopted as part of the PUD contract. The applicant should provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the city. SUMMARY OF REZONL'�'G The subject site contains features that are ideally suited for a planned unit development. The flexibility of PUD standards will result in a reduction of impact to natural features due to road and building construction. The features which remain will be protected, and in some cases, enhanced. Staff feels that rezoning the property to planned unit development is appropriate for this site, but that the proposed concept plan can be revised to further protect natural features. Staff is recommending approval of the Development PUD plan with the stated conditions. DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to develop the 112 single family lots on 95 (gross)/61(net) acres. The gross density is 1.18 units/acre and the net density is 1.84 units/acre. The lots range in size from 10,075 net square feet to 57,813 net square feet. The single family lots are divided into six blocks which arrange the lots around natural features of the site. The lots meet the guidelines Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 15 for a single family residential PUD except for lots which do not have 90' of width at the building setback. The lots which do not have 90' of width at the 30' setback line do have 90' at the building site. Essentially, the developer is proposing to impose a larger than normal setback standard to relocate the line to a point where the lot widens out to 90'. Therefore, staff feels the intent of the regulation is being met. • Lot 4, Block 2 contains an existing single family residence and pool. The residence is in good condition and will remain. The pool, which is adjacent to the rear lot line, is in poor condition and will be removed by the applicant prior to filing of the final plat. Oudot F and Lot 1, Block 6 contain the BMT site. The applicant has stated that BMT will remain at the site until they find a new site or until 1994. A condition of approval will be that Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6, be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The subdivision creates eight outlots (a-h). Outlots A through F will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and will be used as follows: Outlots A and F - Open areas used for entry monuments and landscaping. Outlots B and C - Large wetland and vegetated area preserved as open space. Outlot D - Wetland and vegetated area preserved as open space. Outlot E - Private park and open space Outlots G and H will be owned by the applicant and are preserved for future development. • The applicant is pursuing the acquisition of the Song property to expand the proposed development to the east. Lots 77-83, Block 2 show extension of the lot lines into the adjacent property (Song property). The lot area in parenthesis reflects the addition of the Song property. The Song property should be removed from the plans until it is actually acquired by the applicant and then the plat can be amended if needed. Landscaping and Tree Removal The site contains several significant stands of trees. The applicant has stated that the layout of the site has taken into account the existing vegetation and has tried to locate streets and lots with the least impact to the site. The applicant has made changes to the proposed plans since Concept review and has reduced the amount of alteration to the site. Staff has also sketched alternative street and lot layouts and has found that the amount of alteration cannot be significantly reduced without removing a number of lots. The proposal already results in an unusually low gross and net density. Staff does not believe that overcrowding of the site is a problem and is not recommending that any lots be removed. The proposed standards for residential planned unit developments provide specific landscaping requirements. The landscaping plan shows landscaping of Outlots A and F, the entrance median, Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 16 the cul-de-sac islands and along the boulevard. The exterior landscaping along Hwy 41 needs to be revised to provide screening which does not include the existing trees within the Hwy. 41 right-of-way since these trees may be lost when/if the highway is improved. As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission and City Council are not requiring the applicant to provide foundation and rear yard landscaping due to the existing conditions of the site. The areas that are shown as tree preservation areas, on sheet 7 of the plans, will be protected by preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. GRADING, DRALNAGE, UTILTIIES. AND STREETS Utilities- Sanitary Sewer On September 28, 1992, the City Council received a feasibility report for providing trunk utility improvements to service this development. The City Council also called for a public hearing to be held on October 26, 1992 to decide whether or not to authorize the project. The feasibility report estimates the project to be completed by August, 1993. The public improvements shown on the preliminary utility plan sheets could be constructed in conjunction with the trunk improvements in order to meet the scheduling needs of the applicants. The drainage and utility easements should be dedicated with the final platting process. The easement surrounding the lift station should be 25 feet wide on each side. The proposed sanitary sewer lines are fairly well-designed throughout the development although no provisions have been made for servicing adjacent parcels. Staff has reviewed aerial topography maps for the adjacent parcels and has determined that sewer and water stubs should be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant should extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary to serve a small portion of the adjacent property to the east. An individual sewer and water service should also be extended from Street D (cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. This parcel would pay the appropriate connection and hook-up charges to the City at time of connection. The City will then refund a portion of the fees back to the applicant for reimbursement of the cost of installation of the sewer and water service. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and the existing home (Lot 4, Block 2) will be required to connect to the municipal sewer line within one (1) year of the sewer system being operational. The existing water system (well) on these parcels may be utilized until the well fails, then connection would be required. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detailed plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with final platting. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 17 Utilities - Watermain The proposed municipal water system has been designed in general conformance with the recently approved feasibility study. The feasibility study proposes a 16-inch watermain to be extended by the City along Street A from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41. This development proposes to connect on.to the 16-inch waterrnain to service each phase of the development. The applicant has proposed to loop the water system from Street B to Street A through Cul-de-sacs G and I. Fire hydrant spacing appears sufficient. Final review and approval of the fire hydrant locations will be subject to the City's fire marshal. Extension of municipal water service to the adjacent properties to the north should be extended with sanitary sewer services between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. Grading and Drainage The applicant has submitted a revised grading/drainage plan since the conceptual review process. The revised preliminary grading plan has reduced the grading limits in some areas of the development. This was accomplished by reducing street grades and elimination of sedimentation basin No. 7. As a result, tree loss has been somewhat reduced. In an effort to save trees staff has reviewed the possibility of shortening Street J and servicing the remaining four lots in the private drive. This however does not accomplish saving trees as so desired. It is recommended that Street J be left as proposed. The entire site drains in a southerly direction through a series of wetlands. Approximately 2.60 acres of wetlands are proposed to be filled as a result of the development. The applicant is proposing 2.81 acres of mitigation to compensate for the filling of wetlands. The grading plans shall be revised to include mitigation areas. Staff is also concerned with the size of the sedimentation basins proposed. No drainage calculations have been submitted to verify sedimentation basin storage capacity or water quality standards are being achieved. This may result in larger sedimentation/retention basins than are shown on the proposed plans. The applicant shall provide the high water elevation for all wetlands to determine drainage easement limits and lowest floor elevations on the homes adjacent to the wetlands. The grading plans also indicate realigning a drainage swale through Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 2. The new proposed drainageway brings the swale fairly close to the proposed homes. The appropriate drainage and utility easement over this drainageway will be required to maintain the drainageway. The applicant may want to consider shifting the drainage swale further from the building pads to allow for future anticipated decks or patios that would encroach the drainageway. The same scenario holds true for Lots 70, 71, 72 and 73, Block 2 and Lots 33, 34 and 35, Block 2. The wetland mitigation sketches show existing and proposed drain tiles. The drain tile systems should also be shown on the final grading plan and record drawings be provided upon Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 18 completion. We question the purpose of the drain tile at this time since the purpose of the wetland is to retain water and habitat for waterfowl, wildlife, etc. We understand the need for drain tile prior to the development phase when the land was under agricultural use. The applicant should provide reasoning why the drain tiles are still necessary with this subdivision. From the City's maintenance perspective, the drain tiles are typically difficult to locate as well as maintain a small diameter of pipe. Plans propose storm runoff from the streets and lawns to be conveyed through a series of storm sewers which drain to six different sedimentation basins located throughout the site. As previously mentioned, some storm drainage and ponding calculations have not been submitted. The ponding sizes may vary depending on final calculations. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10-year storm events and detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain surface water discharge rates at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed over the drainage areas as well as all storm sewers leading to and from the areas outside the street right-of-way. The storm sewer proposed through Lot 33, Block 2 should be extended to discharge into sedimentation basin No. 6. As proposed, the discharge would be in the middle of Lot 33. Drainage and utility easements should be provided along the centerline of the drainageway or storm sewer to a width sufficient to provide property maintenance and to provide protection from storm water runoff from a 100-year storm, 24-hour duration. Appropriate front, side and rear drainage and utility easements corresponding to lot lines should be provided with the final plat. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide in areas containing utilities with the exception where two utility lines may occupy the easement, i.e. sewer and water. In that case, a 30-foot wide easement should be dedicated. According to the EPA's federal guidelines, construction activities that are initiated after October 1, 1992 which disturb 5 acres or more need to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit administered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Due to the size of this development, the applicant will be required to apply. All erosion control measures should be designed to be consistent with the Chanhassen Best Management Practices handbook. Watershed District approval is required. Streets The major thoroughfare (Street A) is designated as an east/west collector street providing future connection from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. According to the City's ordinance, collector-type streets shall be constructed 36-feet wide face-to-face with an 80-foot wide right-of- way. The plans proposed what appears to be a 36-foot wide back-to-back street within a 60-foot right-of-way. Staff is comfortable in granting a variance for this right-of-way in an effort to minimize setback and tree preservation. The plans propose a typical roadway section for Street Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 19 A of 36-foot wide back-to-back. Staff recommends that the street be widened to 36-foot wide gutter-to-gutter to accommodate two 12-foot lanes and one 10-foot parking lane. The concrete sidewalk is proposed along the north side of Street A. The sidewalk is proposed to be constructed within one foot of the property line. This will leave a 41/2-foot green space between curb and sidewalk. The plans propose a series of landscaped islands in the cul-de-sac as well as in the center median on Street A at the Trunk Highway 41 entrance. Engineering Department staff strongly recommends removing the island median in the cul-de-sacs. This creates snow plowing problems, safety hazards and possible liability risks to the City. The Public Works Superintendent has indicated that the islands as proposed will restrict movements of the plowing equipment and require the plows to make pass between the island and the curbs, thus piling most of the snow in the homeowners' driveways. City plow crews typically utilize the entire cul-de- sac so as not to pile the snow in the homeowners' driveways. These islands will also create a parking problem. The street will have to be posted no parking to accommodate turning movements of garbage trucks, school buses and delivery vehicles, etc. Without the island, the vehicle would be able to maneuver to negotiate the cul-de-sac turning radius. As we are all aware, cul-de-sacs are fully utilized by the neighborhood children as play areas. The island will only be a magnet for children to play in and around. This will create a safety hazard with regards to vehicles utilizing the cul-de-sac not being able to see around the other side or when a homeowner is backing out of their driveway. The islands serve no purpose for traffic delineation, therefore, may result as a liability issue on behalf of the City. Islands also create added maintenance responsibility for the City. The applicant may desire to have the association maintain these islands. While Lundgren Bros.' developments appear to have cooperative homeowner associations, other developments may not. By allowing the island areas, the city is opening the door to all developments in the city. Engineering Department staff predicts the city will become overwhelmed with maintenance responsibilities requiring additional staff & equipment. The center median proposed along Street A at the entrance off Trunk Highway 41 has some of the same problems as previously mentioned. In addition, Outlot F at sometime will be built on and thus the vehicle will have to do u-turn at the first intersection in order to gain access to its lot. The applicant should delete the island median and construct an entry-type monument which should be place on one of the corner lots (Outlot A or F). There currently exists a driveway to serve the existing building located on Lot 1, Block 6. This driveway will have to be relocated to access off Street A. Staff predicts turning movements at Trunk Highway 41 and Street A will require roadway improvements on Trunk Highway 41 such as deceleration and acceleration lanes and/or bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41. The applicant shall incorporate these improvements into the street construction plans accordingly. An Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 20 access permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for work proposed in MnDOT right-of-way. Street grades range from 0.80% to 6.4% which is in accordance with City codes. Street B is proposed as a 1500-foot long dead-end street. Staff strongly recommends that Street I be extended to connect with Street G. The applicant is already proposing to extend sewer and water utilities along the same alignment. From a traffic engineering and safety standpoint, it is only prudent to have these two streets connected also. Miscellaneous Addresses for the existing homes in the subdivision as well as the businesses will need to be changed when the new streets are completed adjacent the property. Plans propose erosion control barriers adjacent to the wetlands. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher quality types of wetlands. There appears to be an existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. The applicant will need to resolve vacating the private road easement prior to final plat. The preliminary plat proposes drainage easements over all of the existing wetlands within the subdivision except for those on the outlots. Staff recommends that the applicant provide drainage and conservation easements over all wetlands including those on the outlots. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. Park and Recreation Commission The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this proposal on August 11, 1992. A copy of the staff report presented that evening is attached. Residents were present at this meeting, as was Mr. Mike Pflaum, representing Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. One concern of the commission was in regard to the association or "private" park. It was their desire that the applicant be required to comply with the requirements of the 1992 Americans With Disabilities Act(ADA) and the 1992 U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Guidelines for Playground Safety. The expectation that the applicant comply with the commission's request is reasonable. Upon conclusion of their discussion, Commissioner Schroers moved that the City Council require full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land dedication or trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. At the time of permit application, the current fees are $500 and $167 per lot, respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon: 1. The applicant indicating their intent to develop the private park area as indicated on the general development plan. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 21 2. The applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail construction purposes along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Highway 41. 3. The inclusion of the private park does not diminish the requirements for public recreation and open space as part of a subdivision, therefore, no credit will be considered for the inclusion of this private facility. Mr. Pflaum did request that upon development of a trail along Highway 41, any unused portions of the trail easement be vacated. Staff acknowledged that this request would be honored but only for portions of the easement for which vacation would be reasonable. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT The City is currently reviewing amendments to the Wetland Protection Ordinance. These amendments were initiated due to new state regulations and new information on treatment and protection of wetlands. The proposed standards contain innovative guidelines which staff feels appropriate to apply to this proposal. By reviewing the proposal as a PUD, the city is able to apply different standards from the existing city code if deemed beneficial. • The current city ordinance on wetland protection protects all wetlands of type 2-8, any size. If there is any proposed alteration to a wetland, it must be mitigated with an equal amount of area. All structures are required to maintain a 75' setback from the edge of the wetland. The proposed ordinance protects all wetlands of type 1-8, any size. This requires equal mitigation in area for a wetland of equal value or mitigation in the form of an improved wetland. The city's wetlands have been mapped and classified as either pristine, natural or ag/urban. Each classification has different standards in terms of setbacks, buffer strips and mitigation. One of the major changes in the new wetland ordinance is that the wetland setback has been reduced and a buffer strip, which is landscaped with native vegetation and protected by easement, has been added. There is strong evidence that this provides significantly higher levels of protection for the wetland while improving the homeowners flexibility to use his or her lot. The following is a brief summary of the new standards: Pristine wetland- High quality wetland with unique features and little or no existing alterations. The pristine wetland basically cannot be touched and is further protected from adjacent development by a 100' setback and a 75' buffer strip which is required to contain native vegetation throughout the whole buffer strip. Natural wetland - High to moderate valued wetlands that have experienced some alteration, but offer or can be improved to offer high wetland values and functions. These wetlands may be impacted by development only when the city finds there is no reasonable or prudent alternatives. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 22 Wetland mitigation must be designed to offer improved value and function and should not receive untreated surface water drainage. The Natural wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 10'- 25' buffer strip which is 1/2 native vegetation. AG/Urban wetland - Moderate to low valued wetlands which may be impacted by development contingent upon the provision of mitigation/replacement plans. The city encourages replacement/mitigation plans which improve value and function to allow reclassification to a Natural wetland. The Ag/urban wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 0'-15' buffer strip with optional native vegetation requirements. Utilized - Water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland qualities. No setbacks or buffer strip. The site contains 10 wetland basins. There are three natural wetlands (3, 5 and 6) and the remaining seven wetlands are ag/urban (la, lb, lc, 2, 4, 7, 7a, 8, 9 and 10). Wetlands 1A,.1B, 3A and 6 will be preserved. The applicant is proposing to slightly alter two of the three natural wetlands (3 and 5). The applicant is proposing to fill .25 acres of wetland 3. The area proposed for fill is a narrow drainage way which is part of the larger natural wetland. The area is proposed to be filled for a street and building pads. Staff does not object to this portion of the wetland being filled. The northerly portion of wetland 5 is proposed to be excavated for a storm water pond (.12 acres). The report prepared for the applicant by Summit Envirosolutions stated that the northerly portion of wetland 5 is an appropriate location for the proposed storm water pond. Staff has reviewed our wetland data and agrees the northerly portion of wetland 5 could be used for a ponding area. The storm water entering the pond is proposed to be pretreated and released into the wetland at the predeveloped runoff rate. The Engineering Department is concerned that the proposed ponding area may not be large enough for a 100 year storm. Should the ponding area be required to be larger, the additional ponding area must go to the north and cannot additionally impact wetland 5. The small area of fill to wetland 8 (.06 acres) is a result of street construction. The street is shown in this location so that a future connection to the east will be feasible. Therefore, the street cannot be moved to prevent any alteration to wetland 8. The applicant is proposing to completely fill wetlands 4, 7, 7a and to partially fill and excavate wetlands 1C, 2, 8, 9, and 10. After visiting the site, review of our wetland survey and the applicant's environmental assessment, it appears that the applicant is proposing to fill wetland areas which are in a degraded state and can be enhanced or replaced elsewhere on the site. The following table summarizes the proposed alterations: WETLAND AREA ALTERED REASON 1C .16 acres excavation for storm water pond 2.05 acres 2 .05 acres excavation for storm water pond Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 23 .21 acres filled for street 3 .25 acres filled for street and building pad 4 .17 acres filled for building pad 5 .12 acres excavated for storm water pond 7 .22 acres drained for lot 7A .08 acres drained for lot 8 .06 acres filled for street 9 & 10 1.23 acres filled for street, park, building pad and excavated for storm water pond TOTAL AREA ALTERED 2.97 acres For mitigation, the applicant is proposing to create 2.97 acres of wetland. The proposed wetland areas are located within the large wetland located along the southerly border and to the south of "C" street Attached to this report are details on the proposed mitigation. The proposed wetland mitigation replaces the altered wetlands in acreage but with some changes could greatly enhance the quality of the wetlands on the site. The proposed wetland just south of "C" street and directly adjacent to Hwy. 41 is receiving runoff through a tile line from Hwy. 41 and land across from Hwy. 41. This runoff will provide water to the wetland. The design of the pond is such that it could take on characteristics of a Natural wetland (6' depth, natural contours, etc.). Staff is recommending that the drain tile leading out of the new wetland to wetland la not be replaced. This will prevent water from being drained out of the wetland. If the applicant has a reason for the tile line remaining these should be presented to staff, but if there is no reason for the tile line, it should be removed. There is an existing source of water entering wetlands 7 and 7a from the Song property. This water is clean and is at a high enough rate to be present even during dry periods. The applicant is proposing to drain these wetlands for the creation of two lots and to redirect the drainage to the rear of the house pads and into the newly created storm water pond at the rear of lots 29 and 30, Block 2. Staff has concerns with drainage being directed to the rear of building pads because it is protected by an easement which prevents the use of this area by the resident and there is still a good chance that the basements could be flooded. Redirecting the drainage to the storm water pond is also a waste of clean, high quality runoff which would better serve the wetlands adjacent to lots 27 and 28, Block 2. Therefore, staff is recommending the runoff currently entering wetlands 7 and 7a be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to lot 28, Block 2. Staff also noted that one of the submitted plans (wetland boundary and setback) still shows wetland 7 and that the lots can meet the required setbacks with the wetland being maintained. Mother plan (wetland mitigation) shows wetland 7 being drained and removed. If wetland 7 can remain without affecting the lots, staff is recommending that this be done. The water entering the site will then continue to enter wetland 7 and the drainage can then be piped from wetland 7 to the new wetland to the south. This will result in less drainage problems to the house sites and be better for the water passing through the site. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 24 To further enhance the wetland mitigation proposed adjacent to wetland la, lb and lc, staff is recommending the three proposed wetland basins have more depth than what is proposed (at least 6') and that the proposed wetlands to the north and south of wetland lc be combined with wetland lc and that this entire basin have a depth of at least 6'. Currently the proposed mitigation with the three basins will result in similar wetland characteristics as what currently exists within wetlands la, lb and lc. These wetlands are Ag/Urban type wetlands with monotypic vegetation and no open water. What staff is proposing will result in wetlands with natural wetland characteristics with more benefit to wildlife and which will be more aesthetically pleasing to the residents. The materials excavated from wetland is for the storm water pond and from increasing the depth of the wetland can be placed in the newly created wetlands as an excellent base to the wetland and source of seeds for wetland vegetation restoration. The applicant has submitted a plan titled wetland boundary and setbacks. This plan illustrates the wetland boundaries and the proposed setbacks. The applicant has also submitted detailed information on each lot with a wetland as far as the buffer strip width and wetland setback (see compliance table). The new wetland ordinance regulations allow a reduced wetland setback from 75' to 40' (in most cases). In return for the reduced setback the applicant must provide a buffer strip which maintains a vegetative strip around the wetland for protection. The wetland setback does not include the buffer strip. Therefore, if the setback is 40' and the buffer strip is 10' the minimum setback for the principle structure(including deck) will be 50' from the wetland edge. The proposal submitted by the applicant included the buffer strip in the wetland setback. As a result, some of the building pads around wetlands are only 40' from the wetland edge. As an example, Lots 39, 40, 42, 43, Block 2, do not provide adequate setback from the proposed building pad. The applicant has been made aware of this and will be adjusting the plans to provide the required buffer strip and wetland strip. Reducing the right-of-way to 50' should help the applicant meet the wetland requirements. A revised plan should be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension and the proposed setback (not including the buffer strip) and dimension. It should be noted that the wetlands being created as mitigation must be included on this plan (they are not on the current plan). As previously noted, the site contains Natural and Ag/Urban wetlands. The Natural wetlands are wetland 3, 5 and 6. The wetland ordinance requires different buffer strips for the two types of wetlands as follows: Natural Ag/Urban Structure setback 40' 40' measured from measured from the outside the outside edge of the edge of the buffer strip buffer strip Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 25 Buffer Strip 10-30' 0-30' Buffer Strip Minimum Avg. Width 20' 10' % of Native Vegetation in Buffer Strip Entire Optional The buffer strips around the Natural wetlands have to entirely contain native vegetation. It is optional how much of the buffer strip must contain native vegetation around the Ag/Urban wetlands. If the buffer strip already contains vegetation the applicant does not need to provide additional vegetation. Where vegetation does not exist around Natural wetlands, it will have to be added. Where it does not exist around the Ag/Urban wetlands, the applicant will have to work with staff to provide some areas of vegetation.The revised plans should show that they provide the minimum average buffer strip width and how they meet the vegetation requirement. Once the buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation will have to be approved by staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. 2. All conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat (#92-4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions: 1. Lots 22-24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58-61, 66-72, Block 2 shall maintain a 20 foot front yard setback. 2. Each lot shall maintain a side yard separation of 20 feet between each principal structure, including decks. The applicant shall be required to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot separation is being maintained. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 26 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right-of-ways from 60' to 50' and reduce the cul-de-sac radius from 120' to 100'. 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along Hwy. 41 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping plan must be approved by city staff. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by city staff. 6. The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2, shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing of the final plat. 7. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings. 8. The area shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. 9. The applicant shall provide "as-built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees as the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement for future trail construction along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Hwy. 41. 11. The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility easements for construction of the lift station within the development. 12. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant shall extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. 13. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is operational. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 27 14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting. 15. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire Marshal. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR and MnDOT. 17. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas as well as show locations of existing and proposed drain tile systems. 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10- year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to maintain the ponding areas. An easement shall also be provided along wetlands and each side of drainageways from the storm ponds or wetlands. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement area. In those areas the easement width shall be increased to 30 feet. 20. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No. 6. 21. The applicant shall construct a 36-foot wide gutter-to-gutter urban street section along Street A. The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards (31-foot wide back-to-back). 22. Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses in accordance with the City grid system once the streets have been constructed with the first lift of asphalt. Driveways shall also be relocated to take access off the interior street (Street A). 23. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher-quality type wetlands. Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or lower quality wetlands and sedimentation ponds. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 28 24. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. 25. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision, including outlots. 26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDOT. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul-de-sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This will depend on the size of the cul-de-sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parked in the cul-de-sac. 30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 31. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92- 9 with the following conditions: 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland lA shall not be replaced. 2. The runoff currently entering Wetlands 7 and 7A shall be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to Lot 28, Block 2. If possible, Wetland 7 shall be maintained in its current condition and location. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 29 3. The 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 1B and 1C shall have a depth of at least 6 feet. The proposed wetlands to the north and south of Wetland 1C shall be combined with Wetland 1C and this entire basin shall have a minimum depth of at least 6 feet. 4. A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback and dimension (not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. 5. The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer strip required is being provided and shall provide details on how the vegetation requirement of the buffer strip is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning." PLANE G COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning, preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit on October 7, 1992. After lengthy discussion over the conditions proposed by staff the Planning Commission made the following recommendations: Rezoning Unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning with staff's conditions. Preliminary Plat The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Several of the conditions were modified and condition #33 was added which requires cul-de-sacs G and I be removed and that the two streets be connected. Batzli and Erhart were opposed to the motion. Mr. Batzli opposed the motion because he felt the last time the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal it was generally agreed that the cul-de-sacs could remain. Mr. Erhart opposed the motion because he felt we were going too far and were protecting trees over people by promoting the use of 20' front yard setbacks. Wetland Alteration Permit The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval to the wetland alteration permit with a modification to condition #3. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 30 CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the City Council adopt the following motions. The proposed conditions have been changed to reflect the Planning Commission modifications. The changes in the conditions by the Planning Commission are shown in bold. "The City Council approves of the rezoning (#92-5) from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. 2. All conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. The City Council approves preliminary plat (#92-4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions: 1. The front yard setback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the street right-of-way. The intent being to minimize the impact on the natural features of constructing a new home on each home site. The lots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lots 1, 14-19, 37-43, 52-57, 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78-81, Block 2. In addition to these lots, staff recommends similar flexibility on the following lots: Lots 22-24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58-61, 66-72, Block 2. 2. Each lot shall maintain a side yard separation of 20 feet between each principal structure, including decks. The applicant shall be required to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot separation is being maintained. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right-of-ways from 60' to 50' _- . - -. .. ... . . . - !' !C. except Street A and maintain the cul-de-sac radius at 120 feet. Cul-de-sacs must be large enough to facilitate turning around of all emergency vehicles in the City of Chanhassen, taking into consideration cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning radius, and that no parking signs may be required. 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along Hwy. 41 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping plan must be approved by city staff. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by city staff. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 31 6. The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2, shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing of the final plat. 7. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings. 8. The area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. Precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed upon between the developer and staff. 9. The applicant shall provide "as-built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees as the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement for future trail construction along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Hwy. 41. 11. The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility easements for construction of the lift station within the development. 12. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant and city engineering staff shall work together regarding sly extending the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. 13. "- - - • -. • - -- , = - .. - The existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is operational. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be removed after January 3, 1994. 14. Except for the condition in Recommendation 3 above, All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 32 15. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire Marshal. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR and MnDOT. 17. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas and any known or : -. • - --. i: : - . -• : . proposed drain tile systems. Furthermore,the developer shall also report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10- year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to maintain the ponding areas. An easement shall also be provided along wetlands and each — side of drainageways from the storm ponds or wetlands. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement area. In those areas the easement width shall be increased to 30 feet. 20. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to — sediment basin No. 6 or some alternative design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be developed. 21. The applicant shall construct a 36-foot wide gutter-to-gutter urban street section along Street A. The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards (31-foot wide back-to-back). 22. Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses in accordance with the City grid system once the streets have been constructed with the first lift of asphalt. Driveways shall also be relocated to take access off the interior street (Street A). 23. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher-quality type wetlands. Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or lower quality wetlands and sedimentation ponds. 24. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 33 25. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision, including outlots, except for Outlots G and H which shall be replatted in the future. 26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDOT. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul-de-sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This will depend on the size of the cul-de-sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parked in the cul-de-sac. 30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 31. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit. 33. Cul-de-sacs G and I be eliminated and that I Street and G Street be connected. The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #92- 9 with the following conditions: 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland lA shall not be replaced. 2. The runoff currently entering Wetlands 7 and 7A shall be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to Lot 28, Block 2. If possible, Wetland 7 shall be maintained in its current condition and location. 3. The 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 1B and 1C shall have an undulating a depth of at least 6 feet. - - ._ -- -- -• - - - - - - - - - -- - Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 34 et-least-6-feet,- 4. t l4. A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback and dimension (not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. 5. The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer strip required is being provided and shall provide details on how the vegetation requirement of the buffer strip is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning." ATTACHMENT'S 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 19, 1992. 2. City Council minutes dated September 14, 1992. 2A. Applicant's proposed changes to concept plan recommendations. 3. Tree removal table. 4. Compliance table. 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 30, 1992. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman October 1, 1992. 7. Memo from Mark Littfin dated October 1, 1992. 8. Narrative from applicant. 9. Planning Commission minutes dated October 7, 1992. 10. Plans dated September 8, 1992. : :1 .... ( • • --- r2Ii . .1 V ... / 9 i cc .1 11.. / E tl ,, Yq's '...t 1 •, 1 1..; I; •MM.it 4.03.1. / /1 ... L , , Ili ; ,t, 1 .9., ,••;'''' i 5 1 E .... 1 4 i \„ !11 .111.'3 I A ';! ..., -,....?..,"''.. 11 \s i I -. I t' '- ' v .. . —. :•.1 i : .,... :1 • al 0 RV ;;:", Ni 4,7..!!!!L'.!.'FT \ —• . 1 r• il ilt III :, " n.4' , -------...-- 13 41. I'r 113 i I: - 'E _ ....ro•-\\ ),,,,, z O - rz r-1 fr; i 27 it 2(Aj AI . \ i li , 1 / r'') I 1 1 c' 2,iose"oi II iii •5-' 1,,,,./ r co c • . Z / / 0 • ..! 0 6 ...... I?. --..-• I-- 0 cc , I co • e \ I., z w .....11 J 2 1 z _ ,..7„.., .)... , , .‘„, .... ..,.. _ .,... :, ,.. . e•-• /if ..,-- 0 I .... Z : te . S: i'a7 -ea 4".• ee / .\,,-.../„•. 7--.14.4-,......., \ t :i0°...i• , , : 04.: St_.-- \ e'. ••:, af,,;.-=:::-.:Ef,•-:...s. \\ 2 •••: / v.,. ,:i ,:;•,:,..•• •••;`,..›...„. ,>\., -.------,. 1 / ,,,,e, - .. : f• e• eee \\,:::.:\ it:,t, 1 4: . . . , 1:9 I 1 ee ' t/ s_._— ,./i 7/, • \ .\\ I ..i a 1 la! a ,19 1 = 44. if ""'lat:M'Ilk\ \\,.. ' • 0 r• .,;:..... IA& I I; ‘\\ \ 0 s:.,j.. -,.,;:... a.• —. i 1 \\\ ,, . I 1 3>1Y1 NOSINFJVH ,3, I - •- *4 .k 't N% 'It t -Ill) V t\ A i I _ .,,, _-• morel •V I .. "". .. ( ••--• • -•••- • .. ! .m.m ..1 • , • . (TN\ 1k' 1! 1 I . _ • . .i. V i'l i p 1114 I ; •;, • ST. ,, . 111 . . ._... ...a. ..=•• - • — --- • -- --. T \ ‘6 11191% II 11 ! il I • 3 il• II. i:1111%).1 sj i „ i 4 ill , • t 1 1 ' I 11 k ,4 , ; i $ ;;! .) 1.1 i••• itt g i .1 •i• 1 lin\ till 41\\ Loa: 1 v h .. 0 1- I fr 1' 1'I ,.... if q!, :II 11 a 0/•'. ! -"'.111 oil '1. i.,' 1 Fi '1 i 1/ ° , iiIIM 1,•! ii. .g.;1 I"- 0 z $ o P ..3 .1 L1 1 i • I g ii e •-,. ;., . c .,1 ' . VI III 1 4 Y vs v Ir. ,1 pi I kJ . .1 i..: 0 E ft ri ,,, , s - :•1 1' • All0A061..111T0030.41 .. ... t „1. . .. 1 . I.,/ / 411-1r.p,/,,-,tod, 1-----,<“.0.,.z:r.,•" / 1 i. ' -• ''),e-.A.fr'•"--,,...0../.-- • /j \ i i.,,ticii. .•,,. r .. I 1 • .. .f 'i u 0 g. • 1 , ( a 411 :Lt.i.:*9 tei ''4*. ' . ;,'-. ../.4.- .t. ' ' 1 ." 11 1 111/:"tf,- re.--;‘:- . • `.4. . /-,1..--' *1•4•>/'%Ifi, • .;:•.'. .,1 ,1,.r.: ._ ......_, ..--....„, „ ..4.,,, :.....--_..A ,•,,t.t.. i ,air..,140,,,. .. • '.,‘.V. ....,..„‘ /...'—.....\;.1 Vi 'CPT:al' N%s, le: , . • • , .''' '. • . ., .:::.,- - . .,----...---....• ...• : , •••,i., .31,.....1 -- , •. - 411 i4,:-4- - s..-.7v- ...- - .;.1 )1 li it .,pi- 1 s• '''-; 1 S. .6 6.. ,..,f1,a.,;(..i.77.....,•. i ;./••., -4 '... ,..... •. .. 41• .. , g' f if? ''-'1....9..N7W - .' '''''' •' %.k,A• ' .r..1:1. . •"1.121 7.N NT .. .. P t: /I-I. 's "'40'••:"fr' ,;:i0Z-ir 74...-. i 0 ,../.4,, ,,..‘,0••••:., A.., \ . .1: , i ,......,„‘ •, .0„e7.,,c,11..i. II, ..A(',,,t m t-• - • : !; ,,,;,././ii ‘,,,,,,,(git _ ..„.is. . ? , •' ' .• tik -• \.\i\A'A 4 •1, s.N. . '''A'Z. , It. • ' z • 41 •• i ,;•tft.• 11"77.7. 0 1 i i " : •ii• il ?!ii---/,"...--,it/. i!t, .1, .1' 1 f'A r,I i.) ( .iii " %\ - N1\ - rwi-r t (..) 1' ' L •I 41 „.... 4.. . , ,.i , -1" .1. .fs•'' II ••'14,4- i i °' cii • •P •.,1;• A-0- !ID 41 1,„ 't. , .4V. ' ' • . '‘.11... i.‘(.(( ta f 0 . m .., 11 1..t••,k, ' I.•14 • ) '; 'Yit. l' L'it-4\1I‘,j / i .• ' . T- , , /..,,,, At.. . . • •!.!. . 1.) ,„, -. .4-b), ,- . q... ,\ •: -.Iv:\ la t • •••i.,,, , . e:::,....,1:•., •, ••i: A.,......„„,,,--. , ••,..,. .•; \ ,1 A. . ••••1;;;,.....7,.‘.: I ,{It,. .,\‘.../ CC 1 g z D 1 li •'..i4./." 1,4. .-.414 gi‘i , la.... . ..%I.,t-t- "r'' -* ',• -24--; j!" u- 47t.....,:.-ir. :, 1 ri4E'va .4 IV\ ",- •'-0' K,,kt,,s.'44)).,.40:i_ .,:,!%\‘ -..: 41'.1 I •,14‘,..Sci.".., • •,- ..\-'•- - • Y I J TI_@___ t I, 1;:q •• - 1''' •.C9:;" ---,..." ' =:'‘..... 1 11%.: 4 e:' 1;'. 4.; .0.,"it" r( i +1,04--/i- '71 ' (4-:.;:i".'..1 '.'1' ;.1;;;:r'S.'''''-' .2\ •1, --;t0:'it... )) -,1 --1.-4-..,.i"i! A".;)• •vil. w ' --,..••' ,.;k..‘..,v ..,. ,„,7;,,,,,, •0.,....0.4.:•*ss‘f.t. ,....,,,:-• -- •1";.',..i .. !1241' ... .:. i%..his. ."..-Wtft..,'..4, 6....:At,...' '671,44-,.$4, ,. ..i, .,.-4li„,,,,.-,0 -' ..'7:-. ,•' '''. .;-- =.-='-." •V-'11 1 ... iri„..f.z..: it .,,,,4,.,,, .;I:p1 de, v. ,,s-,, iii, ,i.4..,,.. s-..tr, . .!.,,-...,. . , .. \1 1— ... •11., „ ...i , 4.0' ••• . V-.%:,..,`" 4:4 .;-.-7 ,..,V)' ',21-j.(1••-c. lii-ft a ,Tiz ,fr•, - • . - • - ,. k - i ••--- --, .1‘ 6 ... / ) .,;..,;leo, . \ . '. . -....- , : ,..rf - -- '..;. * . .- --.-,.:4-. ,,,,•. 1 ,7 ../„•:::•,..7.- ' "61;.., t .,:,:c:75 .,.,AA t 1-.-.. ,gir J. Illt6 4111: t...V. :4 v,.\ .: IJi"1 1 ,f(icirAl _ 3.1. k:-.:::_:.:-.1.,;1... ..: ..,....;i,..:.1.,?::.-....„,-; — - 47f . ,/ ilik• • .'N.• !›." +-• e/ / '- III 1. ..,:s'1'.\''.i.'i —"T• A — • (. .'•-.....,-) .-• -...4.7-. ti- -_,._ -• `---r--- ,- , -i ,1......... . I ;1011 • • I , • w, -.... 0 -ili!! Is,,,-,..„•,,,-4-...;'. .' i • •;:ii . ...i::z.., ir -r O.;":;:r,•;" , -. r- C r---cn:-.17';' '.17. ....., 'te"*/*.-•eit'=_--:...---::',".-1 ,7" i — it.' • - 1 • 1 • 1 ,I'l\-r ..1, ‘3, , i I 7 .. • 144 . 4 • • . • - 7,-. '....fl- ....-:;41)• ii.:: .)./1.1 .'' '1 C ', 411:1111;./..4%. 1:11:.f.1II:t • i•1•1*;.•:':7•.7:-te-. : :1:1. " -•:•11117 ' F ••"I-7 •-•.--.-7:-•-:;---"C/! „..;.,1 - I I?,f!''.... ..-- -V; . .- e•1'.'."''''..r11- '----i-- 1 -1 I ii 1; • d Y:-.-!'' ,:j.,- . . ,..,,....-..1. ;>.---..„:.!..1...er,..fi, .0, 1.... . ..• i.p.r. • • -11 , i • `.Al w t .1 ....". e "/ ...\.--•• f ....,..i .:-...,,,,,..0,A(..„:4?..,,,,.,;.,0•.,-..;,;.-,•;.4-.......„--.,_?...,.....:„..........,...„_./.. • ,.s f. •• .., •A' ..ii , 34-- • ',...-—,,litt• 2-i .- tiv.; ,/ • '., ,.. -. .• '''t \ A.: ,<N:,.4;:lie 44-:_-1.-.F--"••-•t - 1-*t I.' 1111 NV Nte 1". - :-::..i.,:i ' 1 , • '•;.‘ ..:.v.11...`..,1 II 0,• '''''''C, ,,•••;:.:- is-.4 I'At...!•-7 " 11-i-41k.--;•:.;.:f?:fait. • ' . ..01'. " : ' 1 ••• •I tk - .:'--,.,j '')iilitf 1,:e•.:/.1. ' ' 4' 1.!..• '1'. ': '\•-- N" •''' /1/ : / .. ! , t:v•' •,)1,1s • ..4,..w ..' ii - '.;- -(1111 j1 .....,c;/----:--77. "'IL •••••‘'...!..4, -, .''' --........... . , • ::. ., tli . ''.`,'•4/ '''''1'. ''' I., • 1 ' .1 'I'. '.I .: •r. .-;),/, /, :•16.,410., ,;,?;\ _... .. .,.,. :: 1 ., ,4 'tii 1/ • i'l RI,./11 ' '1.4 ; . 111(h . k i 1 -1 .; '-'' '.1. g!t; •' ' •' '.„1): i 1 - ''''' • tit.((..kt \....._} )1.: "'‘ '• . 1.1, 111,i; : • , : \ Ir'...::No..11.41',Ati,.i ? •:•:'. -y. 1 •,. • .74:•tti''','AI. ..;,.'.• ,:. . •,,,, . t.j k,` .,!i',\,11'...1 \• : 1.\ t, ,, . 1• 1\1',N •;.11‘• 7 •It i'l) :I; .• ' ' .•. •. 'RIP •• ''• '1. 1 •f, i - .1011v -.' '• •.•-1' 1., • •(s.: 1 A 10 I i je.v. ••• " -t I' (1 111 g 4;-ji , hi . III i 4 el il 1 e C . i .,‘• .11.1111:11.1..,... . •-. ii 14 . . • A...buoika 1101111Ara T ' ' .-/ •% , ...,; .• • i t 11111 \. • I 3 IhiP 1 . . . 2 i 17 • , 0 1 •' I " 0 i TV z I ' . 23/1: i t g ill. Ealk i • gik 0 f 061 I !ii2: 1 oil • , , . 20 c 520 1 - I . . • , • ,, . . , • 1 .ligid,k.itihillil • • , . • ..\ ... . : _It. • . , . . ? . . , .... • 1,1i..114].1,,I.If 1101. •m I.. . .., ) Ill IP i I . . . . . . . . • , , .._ i E a r= E E ' :I • = yy Z Tr. ■•ii t Vii} W 11 �� /1 li- . : _6_ ,ii. . iI 4, , E I �ii UH1 U9 ' 111 . z O a 1 it -,. : . . .,,7 , , j ; 1• ; �. N — o r n•Ii' I • Z `0 ii • Y !1 4'• �•y��,�• 1 i/ : :- 7 ....„... ..--- - . a., ...........),'ii rCIF 3 r . b it -..--' 7: ±( /./ " t .4 :.i. : \ \„... N‘ ••'.r.\ //// ---] 1 .. f '.. rr : . .........\ II.. .• f —.IN •� �:ri. - / r '-i- ,___L____/ : .. .....y. 4 Vt. o .21: yi (•_;t . ._ .,,,:„., • . .. • \ _ `i i. j ! IA — 1 . -_4. -- --_ ill 11). . �'\ /VT ' r ` iil ..� _ &mill + I ie.kr- I l 1 s' 4• iii,: -yr , 1 , .. s....„,/ g il i —. 1 1 K - ++t ,,,ii, .... ...,...,1 (-Fr.\ ! I • t i tc, ` . I ._ t °. 1 yl,1Y Y '1 \ '~l /' :I: v: :\ Ii( I � j'' i ":: • co I \ " 4 \ .r L.--4 y \ 1\-'.'" . __--: C/•/ ILI;.. I 1r --_---\- r- --) `—r"").).,.'L---‹. i'.1.1 -'4 \ b----\\;-------11 -' ,,.. l^ilfi ; ` `r ; ' � a / '� I' Y I� r 1 Li- y3i . .. i \\/ 'ice•, !•y •�— �-— --2...... ......"....4: ,\ r v,"\ 'y!l.. a 1 1111 I l"` N 1 NI''i% " .i ' + J; �i 1 --.. . , 1 ! i v rr rt 1 . I f ! 1I I• i yr\ r ~'' �` iJ,'`�-//I r t 1 1 1 1 I• `-� ! / > Y . `\/ / r - .� I I \ b .Y'��/moi\t� ' `_• r r y 9 I r r.. J-r Y • If 11 t q 4. i.1 . p t 4 \r,\,',. .31 / /.12- - - y 9999 I• V.r....) \ , t.... Li i ‘,..k,„.1..,,,._) , ,P 1!..ILI s,1,1 i I I ' i ! ; r�r I i� l..i- f`...•�"----------...-..-____/: = �` f V'›/f E i t•i 9!MUM fiF-_i I ' �1 y i§!,i i s f1[-.1 --1: pp ylti'f---L- 4"' r',, fl 1• : ri— ----- \\ ) . -).\,( -"' 11, 1 i \ \1T!rl r, o \ .1 f J�,Jr a \\. \' \ 1 y ::.,______ \\\ \ G / ' 6; >..‹... r. \ \ \\ h..._Z„„. / t ...1N. i \ \i / \ \ 1 s .6.\....N.N...../....__ \ I r__ ) 1 ��f 2 a f. C...,j" a / • _� \ / -,/- .. ... \\,),: 1 )/I v i),- - O -..--(1f 7. � e it N * i . 1 r—v r•..vw ..,..............7a.•. w..w• / "°'•""o•• w.•',Ur"'e " "'v'•I , ,,� ��. _ SCHOELL&MADSON,INC. .• r • L. .wM • YM.•.a.•...N "'�.`•• +- .•aa .Y•N...ru+w•"w.awvn.,r..u. • LUNDGREN BROS.CONSTRUCTION SONO-CARLSON J No.91.141—6.•a - mint fork M•1.•4M.•MIN PROPERTY vm W-rq•nn.•.-..o 1102 w • TREE LOCATIO AN c .. .—__ .. _—� PROJECT .ED7iE377 ET. ..me ••••• • • . . . ,. .....,.............,.1...1, _._...../.. -4----•----`\.,c-.4 Mt 1• •---% 4._.E.N.../--4:1--------------cP •-, \ , 1 , _•,—). lc.1.;tfr-11--0,- -sp.. . *1 4. 4 6.cs‘v ".t i--f----4-r-CAA if ,.ii, ft,.. N a '‘I , •,4 ,,,N.:',...11,1± ... f• i i ., 1 )\...:.,1 .1 1 • ut I f r„1., .1. , p ,-% ‘ .... .11 11" 1. . • *1 \\ 1 1 4 ''', i ri 4. ,,,,r; . \I A\'' ',..'cNN I._..,,,P.X ..if, .1 'V 1.. r N. %\ f ia 1 • i ...pc<• • +; r'. .1.- - 1-• A I u. 7 'N‘,....7)• 1'41 11 ‘-.. % / /- IN.\ --e` 1 N 1) ' W'4-114- \ . rs ••-• \ 14 / i f I i'a - - v. .„----1-- • .1i V --,, I \ 4 lc:7) 7 ''..•..„?' \ ......, ‹.....i......... \_ ..... 1.4 ,,.., .„,. . , \(\ .*•••4,:ri* • .---,...,4 i . r11, ' • ‘N:r".. 01 Lk I."'1-•-' _...---.' \ !\....-----1 1 1 . .. r1,- .4' Kis\ r i ,. •-• .-...)-1..N.i Pt 1. -.. .., tr il a'•:‘, 1. ‘ >-2_ ---• ... I I 't .. ...4-1\•\1 .1• i i 21 I ••• — - r 4rr 4 \ .k...._ -, r--- . ....,..../1 i ) -A,'; i ` -._ , j ,.„-*2.,• \ ..:I.•,,...,„1-- L_ 11 .1 r) c•-,..,7z,-,.(54 %.- A-. \-.....L....-1 I • ' --J ---(--- )1 I I ,1 •1 . //4.1 .iA. \\--t., )- --I s-r\ ) i9,„/ P/L2 // . \.„-, .5-c\--,,-, _,->_.•• i• ',1 jil . _,.1.-- r... - --t -_s- r•-• ---- ,I 7/..\,...., /, --;..... i ) / / • 1.4...„\ ""'.>" - ,-,,...c.... -....„...„ .s., .z. ( -7x'•-..- , I v •<' 1/ .‘r-*24.-.X. ..--- r ....-.\--- .7 - - /! ...-. T/. / tikt /,4 %-,.. " r ."%i 1---.-111 17-1,,), , ..- r r• ., I,r____, \1 j ---1), L... ‘1. , 4 1 , 1 ,.....:-.,..........,.. , .. - ) 7 , ,,, I 4--, I ' f 1 1.------;--1 ., s,' L--y--=--V' I 1 ., ..1 1 1,1 LI ‘i ----/ ‘,\,, 0& i --...,.• — .... — 1-I 'XI il I ____. 1 ., .„, 1. 1 1.1 I I f•••••.,. ?--- 1 • iu J- 7-\•.: \\\,..N. i. I ill . .._____+.1 . ,..."--..../ ( xv, .....__ ...-, % \...,‘ 0.4,,,,_ •--. ' I l'ilq, N., r"-- ...„,...... .._,..........1/4.2) ... . srl)- r:.6 . ..7.- .< . 4 N. \ \ .1.` •/( / • 7-1 ' , ,,,. • .. itAr•I \ 1 . r'. Ai ' /•........., v / •\\'\ . ..‘ k \ '.: I .1)'-' ! ,/ ,7,, \ '1/4 s'' / „,.. i / 'N t" \ • . ' ''.' ‘K., 'IP . • IV i i '....S... / \ . \ , .....‘,.. t.. . • i\\\\ : 7-'-y..,:.L_t..., 44___:„.......6e...it-.ro• 11 J., ___\___ __\..—..-j i ..—..-1 , .\\\< , \... •..-1...., ---' X -.- , -•(..,!..\4,„J.... s.'.3 , t'.---' \........• ..t•-•..--:---....5,--------- ..4------—7------ 1 ., / \ ji i . / N "•••• \''.-N...----.. -----.1________ - go ......,..__--/ . I, /.• ___--- - •- .. za_A-6r L....._.._.._ m - , - i I _ 1 '-' •-- 1 ,,.., , .,,,....... „....t.....„ ..._._ / .. ) .•_._.t..,,,, , -t---..„. 4 • _... i • 1 1 ! , , ... •ko r.N. >'----\ . \ I I j . ! -' ''?'04 "-----.1„ •• / \ \ ..; &WIWI - -5- - -"--...._ ,___ ...,.._ \ .L. lqiiiii 1 _ ---- , ....„... ,--..._ .. -...„ i • .... •••• .. a•;3*. /..,_..,::"...T.,7 . , SMELL 8 MADSON,INC. (I'''.'n."*.• -...,\ ...,.• • ot. f-2-'..t.,-;,::ti...77.••_ — •••••••••••••••'•••••••• '.--' iMIMi.11•4....van•&Lawn. SONG-CARLSON ___-- -..--_,.. ....„ • ....t........=,..... ..r......w.= WI MM....•...........&MM. LUNDGREN BROS.CONSTRUCTION ••••• ft1.01....6.Imre I PROPERTY = . •.0.00011.....01/4 IAMB .•8.0 100-MI f•I.•••-••• . ... - .._ ... ,....." MI LOCATION PLAN CUTINIOJECT NO.110I20-23 TS — . .• i f v Lam/ Lam' '� 1\ \\.'--•.'„:-..:1:71{.--c , �z. 0. „, ti...._....._. c....... ) J w ; ` S. I • 1+ �✓/-�.J -._\ .. .,._---- / (.,�/t ' "'' .. :::c.,,,,,, n`� W Z Z W i I r _---\......1/1,--••:-- 1)1_.` t.i 1, . "��� g.a if 1,1 pia -1 'I Iii 1: I 1 id' .iJml'a i+�„�stim,R.;••77-7 1 , / \,,� P.ft ) � .4I(.I!II� . N , $.50,---- --ilk.: 44; -.. to:7 r,4.,.. .____. ) 145spi la i 1 g i a 1 1 ! . . t. N.N. rwrittak N•tze / iv Ni, ir,r, lyp.70; +4 ? of^ 'r-` `maga. 00.1. "J`+lY1 ., Y ,� Oji�. `�\��-! /� �\ _ :i ::10:40) �,+' Z ' // IJ{//f •t�, Sr��\h1�,j (r���- ‘.c.�! _ , � ����;\�ief�l�� ����� •� t� O 1 • . ,/ !V `(1�: + `�l79�!!1 � �.� Isp� � 'Art.�.� STT •_.•/' 9 U '•�� .� �tf' �)+1 /- �� �` ; �11,, � � Vii; :, rr =ig' .. - ,...- (40 •.--- - vALN ,.. 5 11 a c I ill'Il "-C-L---:-I , 0 I firp 0:,.7.7. .•-• ,t,,i 0 _ term 6, Al.,- .., , 11:11g 1 11 �� 11 ofori �5. o..,, , ,1i�. (,,,,vii � ' �1�;: o „, ,, ,,, ii,,,„/„., itt „:14, , 00; ,,,,. ., co - �� C cc . - "is W'4 91)#ofel-• k—'_-_-__----1;11(#.4k —A, 4itt!?-Ak. •-- , 1 ow f Attar/ „ *t 777111 L V'k .' eit ,iii �� �,� !•.p illi i 41 /f ail E i�pR11 Ali�j`i// t krtr Dj J Q: , ( CM *. 4 ________./f&'4 i ilk&' 111.11,VA' hi r,1,,,,ep„,„,,,,:,„,...4( tv,:li q ,i, -,---,—. ---,---4.�' f: �f,,q ,,I+I'; .,ti• t VI 1,c4 r -.tib! ► .� j� • � � iti.�h��"�, ,,�`�m' -----•�� • P ���1 ftil' f-�� �a � lief I = R!oo tr471011 4,904;Qe9 %{t �� i Efts,%/N' © o 111_ r ..!ii" re-e..0 ^1�'u�pr- r* 1;11 ) ��te- ,Ail tib / lam% __, < 11111 AAt -i�LP- '4- •74 .t,:%/ �I E , ��ry 10,11 PAIII4A- /rig ' v:ortr „1t ,d• �- 141, 4,714 , l3 � AL .... s,•\\,,,,,.„:,. „z4 ,10, „.._.. . ,, '- .'7%' ,:.,170;;I::::1 ' r-i-7L' 4 ,..___,, -,c. ) , 140 Akte:to; .. fi .. -111110- ! . ... . _:_,. ^Niic IP . ” r 411 . \) ) Ii i - u,____-- \t,i 4 I I '' / &"( (‘I:11, ) : . 1 1---- V:Akkt*te f--- , -- .. ir ill;:i 7,\ �\\,I�� V �r.\ *-41 4 ` ` ' 11 Y J .\ t b CITY OF t‘iCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I DATE: October 13, 1993 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for non-use. The current ordinance pertaining to violations of conditions imposed upon variance and termination for non-use states that "A variance shall become void within one (1) year following issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in reliance thereon." This condition is valid for variances reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and — Appeals, such as setback requirements which are linked to pulling a building permit. Variances approved by the Planning Commission and City Council are typically associated with subdivisions and site plans. When the City Council approves a subdivision, and the subdivision is recorded with the county, it becomes a permanent lot. If the subdivision has a variance attached to it, the variance becomes part of the permanent record and should not expire. The city ordinance does not distinguish between the two types of variances that are approved by the City Council and Planning Commission versus those approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. This has caused a problem with a small lot division near Lake Minnewashta for lot area that technically expired before the home was built even though the — lot, with the same variance, is now of record. Staff is proposing an amendment to that section to read as follows: Sec. 20-57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for nonuse. The violation of any written condition shall constitute a violation of this chapter. A variance, except a variance approved in conjunction with platting, shall become void within one (1) year following issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in reliance thereon. Don Ashworth October 13, 1993 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for non-use, to read as follows: Sec. 20-57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for nonuse. The violation of any written condition shall constitute a violation of this chapter. A variance, except a variance approved in conjunction with platting, shall become void within one (1) year following issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in reliance _ thereon." CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 6, 1993 Vice Chair Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli, Diane Harberts and Joe Scott STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2, BLOCK 1, OUTLOT C, OUTLOT D, BLOOMBERG ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A HOTEL EXPANSION AND RESTAURANT BETWEEN THE COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL AND FRONTIER BUILDING, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES AND BLOOMBERG COMPANIES, INC. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle John D. Rice 575 West 78th Street Kevin Norby 6801 Redwing Lane George Bentley (?) Eden Prairie (SW Metro) Herb Bloomberg 7008 Dakota Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, my name is Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. Tonight we'll just quickly go through a brief presentation of the things that you've seen and probably highlight what we did with the signage plan which was developed and did not show you last _ time. So with that I'd like to have Tim Howell come forward, the architect and then we'll follow that with Kevin Norby with the site plan. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Tim Howell: Would you like a review of what we've gone through before or shall we cut to the chase and look at the sign issue? I'd be happy to do whichever you prefer. Conrad: I don't need the review but does anybody want to see it? Ledvina: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to know what architectural changes, or what changes have been made from the last drawing that we've seen. Mancino: And specifically on the dock screening area. Tim Howell: Okay. I'll show you here. This was the original, I'm getting laughs already. Mancino: No, no. Not at you. Tim Howell: If you recall at the previous meeting, I don't know if you can see this. I'm sorry. We had some additional parking in here because we knew we were tight on parking so we were trying to find every useable space. And we had access through a screen here for the trucking to come back and unload. The request was made that we provide either a wider turning for the larger trucks for an additional access to the dock back here which would serve the restaurant for deliveries. In reviewing the whole process, there was also a discussion about at some point in time, if the parking of a truck is not adequate, that there may be some need for pedestrian access to the back or additional parking behind the Frontier building and in this area back in here. So in preparation for that potential, what we did was a couple of things. Number one, we took that parking out that you see is now a planted area. We provided two openings, one of which is pedestrian access to the back alongside of the building and then we're having the large deliveries from the back here and only small trucks and individual deliveries at the front. We also are obviously providing for the trash pick-up and... Actually all three of those issues have been dealt with and what we've done for that is to again tie in with the idea that we presented all along of the arched entries and provided two more arches there. One for the trucking and unloading back there and then one also for pedestrians with appropriate lighting, etc. Mancino: Will there be a sign there saying what that one entry is for? It's just for truck loading or unloading. Tim Howell: I don't know that that would be necessary to have. I guess my preference would be not to have a sign at that point. It's probably only going to take one delivery. Mancino: I mean you don't think you'll get cars going down there? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Tim Howell: I really don't believe so. If it becomes an issue, we certainly can. Farmakes: Is that access to be backed into? And backed out of? Tim Howell: Well actually it's wide enough. If there are not these vehicles simultaneously — unloading, yes there is space for this truck to drive in and pull that away. Farmakes: Okay. From what direction here, just clarify for me. The screening that we see that you drive through is towards the bottom, correct? Tim Howell: Right here? Farmakes: The screening we just talked about. The arches. Mancino: The arches. Where are the arches? Tim Howell: Yes, right here. Mancino: Oh, they're back. Farmakes: Right, so they're recessed from the arches that we see in a two dimensional drawing? Tim Howell: Oh yes. _ Farmakes: When a truck has to come in there, or a car or a van. A van in this case. Delivery van. It accesses by, there's no room to turn around correct? Tim Howell: No. Farmakes: It accesses by backing into then? Tim Howell: No, no. He can drive directly in here and pull right here, unload, and continue on. Farmakes: And continue on. Tim Howell: So it goes straight through. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: I see. So the drawing, there's sort of a barrier there. That type, we really can't see that from here. — Tim Howell: This is the driveway here. You come in and pull along side and unload onto this dock. A large truck can come from the backside and back up there. — Farmakes: Yeah. See when I saw my plans I saw that line underneath the type. I thought that was a barrier. Tim Howell: Oh. No, no, no. No, no. Not at all. No, there's nothing there. That's words on the plat. Mancino: And where do the big ones come from? _ Tim Howell: From the back. Mancino: From the back. What street is that? Tim Howell: Well, whatever is back behind the, what do you call it? _ Conrad: That's the bowling alley. Tim Howell: It's the bowling alley side. Farmakes: Has safety looked at this at all? — Tim Howell: There's a plan to be a road back there. Farmakes: Is there a one way problem with this or is this calling for a one way access or are you comfortable with the safety factor of that? Mancino: Of one truck coming one way and one truck coming the other. Farmakes: Sort of a blind curve there. — Krauss: It's not that long a drive. Farmakes: But we're funneling people in there too aren't we? Tim Howell: On a walkway. 4 — Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: Right. And are they protected then from that type of access? You're comfortable with that? I just asked if that was considered. Aanenson: Well right now we have it that they provide parking in the back. What we said is our recommendation to monitor that. If they do, then we would want them to provide better access as part of it. They need more lighting or whatever to make sure that it is safe to get back there. Right now they may not need that. Farmakes: So if two cars see each other driving through there. Aanenson: Cars won't be going through. There will be two trucks backing. Farmakes: Two vans. If they meet each other in the middle, they're going to have to put it in reverse and back out again correct? Or one will. Aanenson: The intent is to back up anyway. Farmakes: Okay, so that goes back to my original question. Is it the intent then for them to back out of there or drive through? Aanenson: The way I understand it, they'd be backing out. Tim Howell: The only reason that they would ever have to back out is if they were both there at the same time. Farmakes: That's an unlikely possibility or is that, I'm assuming most deliveries are in the morning? Tim Howell: There is room for someone to drive in, turn and drive down. There's also the possibility that if someone is here, he can back the truck in. Farmakes: My point though is that if a single lane of traffic and we have someone coming in and there's an access, they basically meet each other. Tim Howell: This is not going to be a drive. I mean this is, it's not a roadway per se. It's a delivery area. Krauss: If there's one truck sitting there, you'll see it before you enter. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: What would stop me say from my car from driving through there to get through to the other side on a short cut? — Mancino: Let's say there's no parking and I decided I'm going to park in the back because there's not enough parking because it's... — Tim Howell: Is that getting back to your idea of let's put a sign up that says trucks only? I mean that can be done. Farmakes: Well, of course it's like having an alley way where there's one lane where two cars may meet each other in the middle. In this case it's not a straight road. So I'm just — wondering if safety has looked at that. I'll leave that up to the professionals on the Highway Department. — Ledvina: Could you identify where the covered area is between the retail and the restaurant? Tim Howell: The covered area is the dotted line. The dotted line across here and it goes back to the front edge of the dock. Ledvina: Okay. And that has a roof over it? Tim Howell: Yes. The roof is open. Obviously the two archways in the front and totally — open to the back. Ledvina: Totally open in the back. Okay. — Mancino: So the roof is only being supported on each end in the back? There are walls? Okay. — Farmakes: The primary area for the pedestrians is to come across it would be from the left side. They would come out to the furthest walkway there and cut across? — Tim Howell: Here? Farmakes: Right there. Tim Howell: Yes they would. And what we're proposing is that that become a, either a — brick tie and...so that it's identified through the roadway. Farmakes: Okay. 6 — Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Mancino: And what are the little black squares on the roof line? Tim Howell: These are columns. You can see the arches in the front After the work is being done as we speak, the arched ways are being opened up and these will be columns that will support the overhang...so that you do have a protected walkway back through. Conrad: Okay. Tim Howell: In terms of the signage, what we requested is, again if I can approach the bench. This again is the front elevation of 78th, as we face 78th Street. We're asking for a band, 3 foot wide band along the, above the line of the eave on the Frontier building and — you'll see up there presently the Team Sporting Goods red band basically extended down to the Theater. As an allowable band for 24 inch letters, 5 inch deep with a plastic face... Team Sporting Goods right now. That band. We're asking for a band on the face of the, where it's presently the Animal Fair building. A directional sign, which is merely identifying the entrance to the restaurant at that point. The band on the face of the colonnade here that would identify the two shops inside the hotel. A sign on the back of the proposed motel expansion. That would be facing actually Highway 5. Mancino: And what does that sign designate? Tim Howell: This one? Mancino: Yes. Tim Howell: Just the hotel. Farmakes: The Country Suites? Tim Howell: That's all that will be on the back side. Mancino: Just the Country Suites, their logo? Tim Howell: Right. And then two monument signs that we're talking about are located, one in the location. We're taking down the pylon sign that is presently existing out there. Farmakes: The abandoned one? Tim Howell: Is this where you pause for applause? And then replacing it with a monument sign here that is architecturally compatible with the expanded motel, hotel rather. Than a 7 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 second monument sign here that identifies the...on the upper floor. And that's the two. Ledvina: Why wouldn't the designs of the signs be the same? Tim Howell: My understanding was that we were to keep them compatible with the appropriate buildings. We certainly can but we think that it gets a little mundane having everything the same on the street. Ledvina: Okay. So the signs are to match the look of the building, okay. Tim Howell: The mansard appearance for the Frontier building and this sign would follow the architecture... Mancino: Dave, do you have any problem with a sign that, can we go to the second board please? The sign which is I think Sign A that is positioned on the right side. Yeah. I'm concerned about traffic. It's at a corner where you're going to be turning out onto 78th Street so if you have somebody in the parking lot that's trying to get out into 78th, will they be able to look ahead and see traffic because of that sign there? I know that it corners, you know in neighborhoods, etc we don't want to have fences over 4 feet tall so I'm just concerned about the placement of that sign at that corner. As safety. Hempel: The traffic on West 78th Street is primarily eastbound traffic. - Ledvina: That's a right out only, right? Correct? So they're not looking that way. Conrad: Okay. Anything else? Brad Johnson: Any other questions? Conrad: No. Brad Johnson: Okay, Kevin...Kevin Norby the landscape architect. Kevin Norby: Maybe I should hand this out. This is a reduction of the colored plans you're trying to decipher there. Maybe it will be a little more clear. ...over story trees. This one and the handout I just gave you show some of the other plantings that would happen underneath the trees. As well as up along these projections in the parking lot. We've also added a couple of trees here. Basically the parking didn't change. Sign locations didn't change. The one thing that you may not be aware of, I called Paul about this and I talked to Kate. We recalculated the square footage of landscape, interior landscaped area relative to 8 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 these two sites. We come up with 4.8%. If we calculate all three of these areas, we get 5.1% so we jumped up a little bit from the 3% we talked about last time. Basically we're, if you look in the upper corner here, we've gone with four different species of shade trees. We've got sugar maples, hackberry, American linden and the summit ash which are all on the tree list. We've gone with equal quantities of those. We've got 4 of each in appropriate locations. Some do a little better in actual parking lot locations so we've used them accordingly. We've also got some...plant material. Both evergreen and basically perennials are being used underneath there trying to get away from all the... Mancino: Excuse me. Could you read a few of those because I can't. Kevin Norby: Yeah. They didn't copy real well. The trees of course I mentioned. The lower plant material we have Blue Princess Spirea. Those are used primarily up around the building. We've got dwarf bush honeysuckle which is used in the parking lot. Both here and here and that's intended to be planted as a solid mass...The...juniper is used in the center of . the parking lot here. Just on the points here and along the building over here. And we've got some daylilies. Those are used around the two signs here as well as in a couple planting areas along the front of the building here and here. And then we've got some of the...a little bit taller. About 30 inches to 3 feet. Those are existing and over here is the restaurant. Mancino: Did your calculations of the 5.1 include the perimeter landscaping on the boulevard? Kevin Norby: It only included the projections into the parking lot. It did not include any of the area here. So the 5.1 is from this line to this line. And just the projections into the parking lot. These. I think the two sites we're really dealing with right now are these two and we come up with 4.8%. I think total trees, I think we've got 16 of them and if we were at the 8%, I think we'd need 14. So we're still a little above that as well. The only sod I can see probably being used here would be out along the boulevard, adjacent to the street. And possibly up in this area here but I think we want to do some nicer landscape plantings there as well. Mancino: What are our areas for the plantings? Are they 200 square feet? The minimum that we had in the. Kevin Norby: They're 10 feet by about 32 feet so they're like 320. 300. Something like that. There will be these four in the center. They're 10 feet wide. Conrad: Okay. Any other questions of Kevin? Anything? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Brad Johnson: The only other issue that I don't think, we'll have to figure out how to handle tonight was the staff had asked Strgar-Roscoe to study this interchange here. We still prefer to have it open because I guess it seems logical and what we're trying to figure out is there a safety problem. And the opinion of the owners is if we don't leave it open, we'll have a safety problem over in this area because people will have to drive down to the end, come back and then always exit past where most of the pedestrian traffic probably will be. There are a number of interchanges that look like this around town. Staff's position, which is correct. Is that this is a semaphore interchange and they're concerned about stacking. What we're concerned about is the congestion in this area here. If people have to drive down, turn around. It's like a long cul-de-sac. You know you don't like cul-de-sacs. So this would be like one. So what we're saying is that it's better for traffic to come out here. I guess we're willing to close it off, just like we suggested on the other thing. If we run into trouble. We don't think we're going to have that much traffic in and out of here and I've been watching _ the Dinner Theater when it actually, you know we've got the same kind of lanes right over here at the Dinner Theater. And if you come here at night where probably what, 400 cars leave and...again there's semaphore down in this area so I think you're waiting for a report from Strgar. And if there's some real dramatic problem but we think, you know this is just an opinion now. We're not experts but we think there will be a problem right in here. Conrad: I didn't understand your solution Brad. Brad Johnson: Well the solution would be to open it up. See today it looks like this. There's a better picture but I don't have it blown up like this. Today this is the, okay and there's the sign. And we've got it running there. If you look at it this way, we've got a picture that looks this way. It comes down to the end and it's just going to be a problem. It's sort of like some of these over in here and I, I don't know if stacking's going to be a problem or not but I think if it's really heavily stacked, it will back up and come around and go out that way anyway. But otherwise, and I drive this everyday. I just know it's dangerous to come back into this area, even with nothing there. Because the guy here doesn't know you're coming. It's just, and that's an opinion. Not an educated one but just an opinion. So we'd like to try it this way with the stipulation that we change it at the city's request. That we have a lot of accidents at that point but I think we can end up with some major problems out here in front of the shopping center. Because we'd just be doubling up the traffic. Ledvina: Is that, now just to clarify that. Is that a right-in, right-out only? _ Brad Johnson: This is a right-in. This is the interchange. Their point is somewhat correct. If there is a lot of traffic out here, which we're not sure we have. I did calculate it. It will be 1 car every 30 seconds to a minute. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: Is there a light there? Brad Johnson: There will be a light there. Mancino: So you can go left or right? Brad Johnson: Yeah. Yeah. And I'm not saying, it's just, we looked at it and we said, the problem will be in here and we'll create another kind of problem because all this traffic will have to always be going like that. And this is the same thing over here and nobody's too concerned about it. As is Town Square. You know we don't keep routing traffic around. This is the same type of interchange opposite. What we're proposing is an interchange like this. And we haven't had, the hotel has a real minimum traffic in and out. The restaurant, if it's really busy, maybe 1 car every minute. If they're really lucky. Okay. I mean it's not a high traffic kind of business. It sounds like it is but when you actually analyze it, if there's 60 tables in there, and they turn once every 30 minutes, you know that's pretty good for a restaurant. It's full sit down and that, maybe sometimes. And I don't think, we'd like to try it this way first and if that doesn't work, come back with a different alternative. That's our idea. And maybe somebody else has something else. We'd like to know, if an expert can tell us traffic counts there, we can tell you it's not going to be very many cars. I think that's really the only issue that's in there right? And there's some conversation about a 40 foot easement. We think you already have the easement for the two lots that are being currently platted. And if not, you can have it. And then over here on the Frontier side, that's not up for replatting. But when we come back and replat that we'll give you that so I don't think we have any question about your easements and this is primarily for road purposes in the downtown area. As long as we can have parking. So okay? Any other questions? Conrad: No. Good. Okay, we'll open it up for other public input. Is there any? Anything? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Matt, we'll start at your side. Ledvina: Okay. Kate, last time we talked about a variance for the frontage. Has that gone away? I didn't see it in this. Aanenson: No. That was a condition... Ledvina: Right. So we need to add a condition as it relates to that? What would you, I think you had one in the last staff report. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Aanenson: ...100 feet of frontage and they're at 96...variance to the lot width requirement. Ledvina: Okay. Can you suggest some language for that? Just a variance shall be granted for. Aanenson: Lot width requirement in the CBD zone. Ledvina: Okay. I'm a slow writer. In the CBD zone? Okay. And the other thing that one of the things that I was looking for last time was a little bit more description in terms of the reason for the variance and looking at it in a more classical sense. Aanenson: Justification. Ledvina: Right. The justification for granting that variance. Aanenson: I can pull that forward, what we put in there before and that was the justification would be what we're trying to do is provide two separate ownerships for the existing buildings. The Animal Fair building and then the extension of the hotel, which is going to be under two different owners... Ledvina: Okay. Well I understand it's critical to the proposal and we want to see this, or we do support, or I support the development, redevelopment in this area so I think it's definitely a good thing for the downtown area. Not that I oppose it. It's just kind of a technical point. But okay. Let's see. On condition number 6. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Code requirement regarding lot lines through buildings. Is that complete enough? I mean does that get us where we need to be? Aanenson: Well...Building Official regarding that. What we've done, and one of these lots is actually put a subdivision lot line through a building and that required certain Code conditions. So they've been made aware of what those conditions are and stated that they're willing to meet that condition so, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Building Code and what we're saying, just to make them aware that they must comply... Ledvina: Okay, so everything that we need then to comply as it relates to the lot lines and the design of the building and whatever. Aanenson: Is now...Building... Ledvina: Alright. And then I guess as it relates to that access point to the west. I believe that the situation is, that it be connected there and I guess I would follow staff's 12 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 recommendation that that should be left as it exists today and then if the applicant can demonstrate that there is actually a problem, then it can be changed later. It wouldn't make much sense to change it and then find a problem and then have to change it back. So I guess that would be my comment on the access. I think that's it. Conrad: Okay, thanks Matt. Nancy. Mancino: Matt, is that the curb median that you're talking about? Ledvina: Right. The west access. Mancino: And leaving that? Okay. And Dave, do you still feel strongly as you did from our last, the last staff report about leaving that in? Hempel: Yes I do I guess. It's been functioning properly out there. ...with the semaphores that are going up and could create a stacking problem if somebody wants to short cut across and there's cars backing up. To putting a turn in and out of there so. There's both types of median entrances I guess and we see them around town. And as Brad had indicated, it's been working fine. It makes sense to go back and change it twice if there is a problem. Mancino: I agree. Kate, on recommendation number 7 it says, staff still encourages the applicant to leave parking entrances as it exist today. Aanenson: That's the curb we're talking about. Mancino: Okay. And do we want to say still encourages or? Aanenson: I guess the reason why we wrote it kind of soft that way was, it was like 5 reasons to take it out and 5 reasons to put it in and we were kind of split. Engineering, it's really their call but...should probably be left in. So what we did is we referred it to our traffic engineer consultants, Strgar-Roscoe to look at it and we haven't gotten a response back from them yet. So we're still looking for their expertise on the stacking. Basically, the fact that there's a signal, that's really the concern with stacking. So if you want to word it stronger, if you want to...recommend that they leave it in, that's fine. Or as Matt suggested, leave it and if they demonstrate there isn't a problem, then they can have it. Ledvina: If I can just follow up on that. I guess as I look at it, it says and provide additional access points. Can you just flush that out a little bit? Do we need more access points? Aanenson: I think the... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Ledvina: But that didn't mean out onto West 78th. Aanenson: No. No. No, that's what exists. Ledvina: Okay. Do you think we can take that out and, that phrase and addition access points? • Aanenson: Sure. Ledvina: Okay. Mancino: So staff wants the applicant to leave the parking entrance as it exists today? Aanenson: That sounds like the direction... Mancino: I don't really have any other comments. I do like the new landscaping plan that I see in front of me here versus what we got in our packet. So I want to make sure that the new plan that I see in front of me is the one that is executed. The only other recommendation that I feel, that you talked about Kate in your staff report but didn't put down as a recommendation and I thought should be included would be that the city will monitor parking and if a parking problem occurs, the applicant will be required to provide landscaped hard surface parking at the rear of the hotel site on property, owned by Bloomberg Companies. So that would be recommendation number 10. And that's it. Conrad: Good point. Jeff. Farmakes: I'll start off with the landscaping. The two areas that are in the forefront there, in the landscape plan. I keep on seeing these drawings where the crown of the tree over extends the island considerably. Those seem to be the narrowest islands, other than the one that's directly adjacent to. These are existing trees? Which ones are existing and which ones are to be put in? Aanenson: There are some... Farmakes: That's what I'm saying. I'm just wondering what we're looking at here now. What is differentiating what's there or what's to be put in? Kevin Norby: The existing boulevard trees are these here. And there's one ash, one large tree here. The rest of these are all proposed. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: Okay. The islands that I'm looking at for the two proposed, the two in the center on the lower end. And the island that's adjacent to the drive in area. Kevin Norby: Here? Farmakes: No. The drive in from 78th. Kevin Norby: Here? Farmakes: Right there. That's correct. Those islands are the narrowest islands as I can see through the drawing here. I can barely see a delineation where those islands are underneath there. Didn't we come to a discussion on how wide these islands are in proportion to how big the tree actually gets. Aanenson: I think we touched on it a little bit. I think the new ordinance talks about 10 x 20 minimum, 200 square feet. Kevin had mentioned they were 10 x 32. Kevin Norby: The three here are 10 x 32. They're the length of two stalls. Farmakes: The larger ones. Kevin Norby: Right. This one would be 32 x probably 8 feet at the one end and 10 feet at the other end. So we're still within the 200. Farmakes: We're within the total range. We're just a bit narrow. Kevin Norby: The other restriction was...4 feet where a car would pull along side it. 6 feet where a car would pull up to the island. So the minimum it could be would be 8 feet. Farmakes: It seems to me from a pull in perspective, that the tree against the drive in area just seems to be, I wonder does the tree grow longer and not wider. Or narrower on the other end. It just never seems that these trees ever get very large even 20 years later in the middle of a parking lot, but maybe they're not suppose to. Driving into that island from that exit just looks a little strange to me. It sort of, it seems like an awkward place to put the island. I realize that there's some difficulties with this piece of property and landscaping and dealing with the amount of parking spaces that are required. The other thing that bothered me with _ this, a driveway still seems rather bizarre to me. I realize that the city would like to have walk through and pedestrian traffic coming through but it worries me, as I understand it. The property does go down there in the elevation and you'd be driving through a screened area down to the elevation from 78th where we're asking people to walk through. And the ones 15 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 that, some will walk on the walkway and some will walk on the road and I'm just wondering, how safe that would be. Aanenson: One option I guess would be to put some striping in there. But if you go back to the original curb cut, what your recommendation appears to be, that that would realign at that one planter. Farmakes: I'm just concerned about somebody getting hurt there. Is it, I guess I'm all for it if it can be done safely. It just seems to me that there's some, in looking at it, there's some hazard there from somebody blind siding somebody or somebody standing behind the obstruction, coming into the road. Kids stepping out into the traffic. If we have fencing there or something that does not allow them to come into that roadway. If it comes down to a question though about accessing traffic up through there versus getting somebody hurt, I'd rather block that area off and let them access it from the back. I'll defer to the experts on that. I just wanted to put it on the record. Tim Howell: Excuse me. In response to that if I may. You did recognize...sort of jumping in on you. My understanding is that the passage back there is contingent upon having a problem with the front, with the parking. So the only reason that pedestrians would be going back there is because of the access to the parking lane. Given that, when and if that does become a necessity, I see no reason that we couldn't put a handrail or something like that along side the sidewalk. We're really doing two things here, and I understand that. I think - it's important that we separate them with not only a curb but also certainly furniture, landscaping kind of thing will make it, and lighting that will make it more agreeable to go back there. - Farmakes: Okay. Well, again I just wanted to address the paragraph on page 2 says the City wants to ensure that we have flexibility on the potential uses for the bowling alley property and possible expansion of the park. I just hope that that doesn't get in front of being safe in that consideration. Anyway, I'll go onto the next item. I like the expansion. I like the difference in architecture. I like the walkway. I even like the, what's called the dock screening. I mean how it appears. I like the way that that looks and connects two buildings and my worry is not how it looks but what it's going to do. Mancino: Safety. Farmakes: Yeah. I'd also back up your comment of the monument sign which is now a pylon. But the monument will obstruct the view on that entry off of 78th. Let's see that would be Sign A I believe. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Hempel: Sorry to interrupt. In preparing the proposed downtown West 78th Street construction plans for that intersection, it does seem to be a conflict with the West 78th Street improvements at that corner would be both sidewalk locations and the same proximity to where the pylon sign is located. So they probably should look at that. Farmakes: So maybe slide down more to allow the better access? Hempel: Right. Farmakes: The sign proposal for the walkway, or I guess that's what I'm referring to. Is that the right term we should be referring to it as. The walkway as it continues down I think is pretty moderate. I think it, the proposed monument signs brings me to the question that I asked in previous meetings. Whether or not we had an opinion from our legal source. Did you get a response to that? I didn't see that in the report. Aanenson: No, I haven't gotten it. Farmakes: Conceptually what I was wondering is if you have a development where you have a separated two buildings but under the same ownership where agreements of use, are you dealing with two separate entities? So when we're dealing with ordinances and regulations, does the fact that there's a cartway say inbetween two buildings, are we dealing with one structure or one entity or are we dealing with two? Are we dealing with two pylon signs? Are we dealing with two, do you understand what I'm getting at here? And my question still holds here. I think that this is important in relationship to what we're doing with Highway 5 because we may have developments that are under the same management and development but may be 4 or 5 different buildings. They may be separated by, or they may even be connected and how do we address that? Do we wind up each with it's own sign? Each with it's own square footage. For instance outside of the actual store owner. Let's say we're dealing with monument signs. In this case, if we look at this, is this one development or is this two developments or three and I'm not proposing one way or the other that we have three, two or one. I'm just saying, what criteria do we use to evaluate that. And I'm not sure we have a specific criteria in this particular instance. The monument signs I think again are low profile. I don't have a problem with how they look. I like how they look. So that the question to me is, we should answer that so as not to create a precedent of how we're doing this...kind of creating a situation that we're approving here. The sign that's on the back, I don't see a sign on the hotel expansion other than my particular piece here says fine restaurant and I think Sign A should be limited to identify location of the hotel. And the signs at B will be limited to identification of the two retail spaces. This Sign A that I'm looking at, the plan says fine restaurant, hair shop, gift shop. Is the hotel there somewhere? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Brad Johnson: There's no sign for the hotel. Vernelle Clayton: A and B are changed. A refers to the hotel. Farmakes: I'm looking at monument sign A, monument sign B. I'm not seeing Country Suites on either one. Is that correct? Vernelle Clayton: That's right. Farmakes: Alright. So number 1, the last line, that's incorrect. From the staff report. Conrad: Which one Jeff? Farmakes: It'd be the last line on 1, under signs. Page 3. It'd be the third paragraph down. Sign A should be limited to identification of the hotel. Mancino: That's the sign band. Tim Howell: They're described as bands and monument signs. Farmakes: Okay, there's two A's and two B's. Tim Howell: There's a band A and a monument sign A. Farmakes: I see the band in the previous one. I don't see it on that one, alright. That's been cleared up. Thank you. Conrad: Anything else Jeff'? Farmakes: No. The sign on the back of the southern elevation takes the place of the pylon I believe. The question becomes, is it a duplication of what's already attached on the Country Suites hotel that currently stands. And is it a separate entity and I'm not saying it one way or the other. I'm just asking for a legal opinion on that. Conrad: Okay. I don't have anything to add. I like the design. I like what I'm seeing. And I think Jeff brings up some good points and I think that we have to follow them up but I think what's being requested is appropriate. And whether it's the right thing in terms of setting precedent or not, I don't know. I do know that it seems like a right level of use. I think the band signs are appropriate. I think the pylons are appropriate. I really don't have a problem with it but I still respect what Jeff says. I said I think we should have a good grasp 18 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 of what this is doing. I like the walk thru. I like the design. I like what's happened since the last time through. Only question. So when the parking will handle 90%, handle our needs 90% of the time. In the 10%. What does that 10% mean? Aanenson: Well according to Brad's study, peak...and there may be some problems with that. Conrad: And so where do they go? Aanenson: Then there may be some flow over to properties that we don't want to permanently tie up, which would be maybe Southwest Metro perhaps at night when they're not using it or... Brad Johnson: Ladd, can I add something? Conrad: Sure Brad. Go ahead. Brad Johnson: What we're talking about is a Friday night in December and there's a parking lot across the street that's publically owned that has about 200 parking spots that's never used on Friday nights during the month of December. And when we did the...across the street that's one of the reasons we put a public parking lot there, which is designed as. That's part of the Professional Building. Okay. And there's going to be an access right off the middle there. Between the two where the building goes. And that was the idea. That would handle the overflow of December uses in the evening and that actually close traffic assuming the Dinner Theater caused the problem, hopefully because it's over packed that evening. But there is, you know the Theater in the winter months lately, they were parking, this is closer over at the, what is it. Pauly's or across from Pauly's, in that area. They'll park there. That was the idea. That's the whole area that's not used at night, if you think about it. Conrad: Yeah. Well I'm comfortable. Serving the needs 90% of the time. But as I said, but we also have to know where. Brad Johnson: If the Dinner Theater creates the problem, if there is a problem. Conrad: Okay. Mancino: I just want the city to be very proactive about recognizing those back up positions and where the overflow parking goes. And to know that now, so when it does come, we can deal with it. Conrad: Well I really like what I see. Looks neat. Anything else? Is there a motion? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat for Bloomberg 2nd Addition and Site Plan Review for the addition of the hotel, - restaurant, modifications to the Frontier building as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1993. Is that stamped? Is that the received date? Conrad: Yeah. • Mancino: Does that include the new landscape one that we saw tonight? Ledvina: Is that this plan? Conrad: No. Ledvina: There's no date. Conrad: Exhibit B handed out on 10/6. Ledvina: Okay. And Exhibit B submitted on October 6, 1993. And also subject to the following conditions of the staff report with the modifications as follows. Number 1 thru 6 to _ read as indicated in the staff report. Number 7 to read as follows. The applicant shall leave the parking entrance as it exists today. If safety problems are experienced, the applicant may petition for a modification of the access points. Number 8 to read as indicated in the staff - report. Additional number 9. A variance shall be granted for the lot width requirements in • CBD zone. Additional number 10. The City shall monitor parking and if parking becomes a problem, the applicant shall provide hard surface parking at the rear of the hotel site on - property owned by Bloomberg Companies. And number 11. Additional number 11. Pedestrian safety shall be re-evaluated for the north/south walkway between the buildings. If staff has concerns, a rail or other means shall be installed to separate vehicles and pedestrians for safety reasons. Conrad: Is there a second? - Mancino: I'd like to make a friendly amendment. Conrad: I'd like to have a second first. Mancino: I second. Conrad: Okay. Motion made and seconded. And the friendly amendment. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Mancino: Would be that we add to, I think it was number 10. That if a parking problem occurs, the applicant will be required to required to provide a landscaped hard surface parking at the rear of the hotel site. So I just want to put the word landscaped in. Conrad: I don't know what that means. Mancino: So there's not just hard surface parking lot. It needs to be landscaped. The parking lot needs to be landscaped as the front one does. Interior landscaping. Conrad: Okay, Matt? Ledvina: I would accept that. Conrad: Any other discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Bloomberg 2nd Addition and Site Plan Review for the addition of the hotel, restaurant and modification to the Frontier Building as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1993 and Exhibit B dated October 6, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. All mechanical equipment and loading docks shall be screened with similar building materials or landscaping. 2. Right-of-way along West 78th Street shall be dedicated at 40 feet from proposed center line. 3. All trees located in the planters shall include an equal mix of sugar maple, linden, ash and hackberry. 4. All signs must be in compliance with proposed sign plan as proposed as shown on plans dated September 23, 1993, except monument signs shall not exceed 8 feet in height. 5. Cross parking agreements between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Outlot A of Bloomberg Addition and Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall and Frontier Development Corporation shall be recorded at Carver County. 6. Compliance with conditions of Building Code requirements regarding lot lines through buildings. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 7. The applicant shall leave the parking entrance as it exists today. If safety problems are experienced, the applicant may petition for a modification of the access points. 8. Sign covenants shall be created and filed with the development/tenants. 9. A variance shall be granted for the lot width requirements in CBD zone. 10. The City shall monitor parking and if parking becomes a problem, the applicant shall provide a landscaped hard surface parking at the rear of the hotel site on property owned by Bloomberg Companies. 11. Pedestrian safety shall be re-evaluated for the north/south walkway between the buildings. If staff has concerns, a rail or other means shall be installed to separate vehicles and pedestrians for safety reasons. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: _ FRANK REESE TO SUBDIVIDE A 36,023 SQUARE FOOT LOT TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND AN OUTLOT TO BE COMBINED WITH A LOT LOCATED IN SHOREWOOD ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6200 CHASKA ROAD, JEAN ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Robert Sommer 6239 Chaska Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Robert Sommer: My name is Robert Sommer. I live at 6239 Chaska Road. Essentially across the street and my only concern is that I had to, I extended the water line to the city limits of Shorewood, eastward and to give you a little historical perspective. It was about 5-6 years ago that Mr. Reese requested that the City extend the water line because he wanted to split off a lot. And at that time we made an agreement with Mr. Reese, Mr. Swearingen and myself that we would extend the water line for this petition and that we would all pay our fair share. Then his original plan did not go through and I extended the water line at my 22 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 expense to the city limit. I would like some assurance in the public record that he will pay his fair share of reimbursing me for the amount of footage that he would be using in the water. Conrad: Kate, how would that happen? Hempel: Mr. Chair, maybe I can address that. Unfortunately I guess Mr. Sommer's here is a part of the development requirements, the City does have requirements that...provide sewer and water for the subdivision and also extend it beyond his subdivision or into the limits for the next person to connect onto and extend it. Unless there's an agreement reached during the actual platting procedure, and on record, the city is not obligated in any way to reimburse you for any money for anybody else tapping onto the water that you have already installed as part of your development. Similar to...Gary Carlson up on Church Road where Mr. Carlson did put in a water line to serve both sides of the road...as well as the neighbors across the street. At that time it was brought up and put on public record that the applicant should be reimbursed by the neighbors across the street and the neighbors then...onto it and paid a portion of those connection hook-up fees that were received by the city. To my knowledge I'm not aware of any agreement has been made in the past for this subdivision. I'm assuming your referring to Eight Acre Woods subdivision. Robert Sommer: Yes. Conrad: Okay. It doesn't sound like there's a happy answer for your question. I think that's a practical response from the City Engineer. I think that's probably true. Do you have any agreements? Any written agreements that you can produce? That might be the only. Robert Sommer: Well it's in the public records that Mr. Reese did apply for water extension for the city to put water through. Mr. Swearingen was a co-party to it and I was also a co- party to it originally. At that time we had an agreement. Conrad: Any advice we can. Hempel: I guess he can certainly pursue it at the City Council level. Let the City Council decide whether or not there's any reimbursement. Conrad: You may want to do that. Any other comments. Hand it up to you. I like that. That's great. Mancino: Pass the buck. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: Any other comments? Is there a motion to close public hearing? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Jeff, start at your end. Farmakes: I guess I don't have any further comments on this. Staff's recommendations seem sensible to me. It seems like a straight forward request. So I have no comments. Conrad: Nancy. Mancino: I agree. Conrad: Matt. Ledvina: I do have a couple of questions, and I guess maybe the first one relates to the, may be a question that Paul can answer. Are we concerned at all about the future loss of the outlot by annexation to the city of Shorewood? Is that an issue at all for us? I mean we don't like to see our city chiseled away at but I mean is this a concern? Aanenson: ...annexation. We're not discussing this at this point. What we've always said is that this is an outlot and it's unbuildable. Recorded that way. If he wants to pursue annexation, that's completely different...City Attorney about that. We're not prejudging ourselves in anyway. Right now it's unbuildable. Ledvina: Okay. Aanenson: What he really wants to do is to create a buffer between that lot screening and the existing home. The one that's in our jurisdiction and the Shorewood jurisdiction, we want a buffer there. He's just got two separate tax parcels, which he's had in the past. — Ledvina: Okay. Krauss: ...we went through with an annexation of a chunk of Shorewood which was a cooperative effort between the two cities. Ledvina: So this swapping goes on all the time. Okay. Alright, well that's fine. I was wondering if there was anything other than that or something deeper that we should be concerned about as it relates to that potential annexation. But our loss to Shorewood. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Whatever. Okay. I had a couple of questions here on item number 2. A tree removal plan shall be required with the building permit. Would that be prior to the issuance of the building permit? Aanenson: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. And then a buffer strip of 5 to 10 feet from the house, that's from the rear of the house right? I'm sorry, for number 3. I think it's identified as a 5 foot buffer strip. Is that right or is it 10 feet? Can we be specific on that? Aanenson: It's 10. Ledvina: Okay, 10 feet. Is it appropriate to be specific on that at this point? Okay. And let's see. In Dave's staff report he talked about the need for a grading plan, grading and development plan showing the elevations of the lowest floor and garage. Also it talked about a ditch culvert. Is it appropriate to add that to these conditions here or do you have any thoughts on that? Aanenson: They did submit a...plan that showed the sewer and I think they gave that to you, that showed the elevation...sewer in. Ledvina: Okay, let me just take a quick look at that. I didn't think I saw it in here. I see the house plans but. Aanenson: Where it shows the proposed sewer and water. Ledvina: I don't know what the lowest elevation would be. I guess I'd like to, it may be redundant but I'd like to stick Dave's recommendation in there. His recommendation from the staff report. So we'll throw that in there whether that's been covered or not, and that may be the case. Aanenson: Which number from Dave's? Ledvina: Number 4. And I guess we don't really see a grading plan for the house pad and such and I think maybe that's one of the things you were looking for. Aanenson: Usually we do that as a part of the building permit... Ledvina: Okay. Alright. I think that's about it. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: Okay. Thanks Matt. Kate, you expressed some concern with tree removal. But actually there's only one spot on this parcel that can, that a house can go. Whether it splits or not. Aanenson: Exactly. Conrad: I have no comments. Is there a motion? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93-19 to create a 27,750 square foot lot and an 8,750 square foot outlot for Jean Addition as shown on the plans dated September 8, 1993 and subject to the following conditions. That read in the staff report with the following modifications. Number 1 shall read, an appropriately sized driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot. Number 2 should read, a tree removal plan shall be required prior to the issuance of the building permit to ensure minimal tree loss. Number 3 shall read, a buffer strip of 10 feet from the rear of the house is required since this area will be of greatest runoff along the area of greatest potential of runoff from the lawn area fertilizers and chemicals. Silt fencing will be required around the perimeter of the lot during construction. Number 4 to read, the house type may be limited to a split entry type home due to sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home may require an ejector pump for the lower level based on engineering analysis of sewer hydraulics. Number 5 to read per the staff report. Number 6 to read, the applicant shall convey a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered on the common lot between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm considerations. Number 7 per the staff report. Number 8 to read, in addition. 8 to read, the applicant shall submit a grading and development plan showing elevations of the lowest floor and garage slab. This plan shall also show the ditch culvert location and size and invert elevations. That's it. Conrad: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93-19 to create a 27,750 square foot lot and an 8,750 square foot outlot for Jean Addition as shown on the plans dated September 8, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 26 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1. An appropriately sized driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch area in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot. 2. A tree removal plan shall be required prior to the issuance of the building permit to ensure minimal tree loss. 3. A buffer strip of 10 feet from the rear of the house is required since this area will be of greatest runoff along the area of greatest potential of runoff from the lawn area fertilizers and chemicals. Silt fencing will be required around the perimeter of the lot during construction. 4. The house type may be limited to a split entry type home due to sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home may require an ejector pump for the lower level based on engineering analysis of sewer hydraulics. 5. The applicant is responsible for the appropriate connection hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance for connection to City sewer and water. 6. The applicant shall convey a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered on the common lot between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm considerations. 7. Park and trail fees will be required at the rate in force at the time of building permit application. These fees are currently $600.00 for park and $200.00 for trail. 8. The applicant shall submit a grading and development plan showing elevations of the lowest floor and garage slab. This plan shall also show the ditch culvert location and size and invert elevations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING: LUNDGREN BROS FOR REZONING PROPERTY FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 112 ACRES INTO 115 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, SONG-CARLSON PROPERTY. Public Present: Name Address Marian Schmitz 8190 Galpin Blvd. Betty & Larry VanDeVeire 4980 CR 10E, Chaska Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban Patrick Minger 8221 Galpin Blvd. Jerome Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd. Ron Peterson Peterson Env'tl Consulting Ken Adolf Schoell & Madson, Inc. - Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. - Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd in Wayzata, Minnesota and I'm really happy to be here tonight. As Paul indicated, actually it's been 4 years since we started this process in 1989. Almost 4 years to the date when we started the land assembly. And Paul's also correct, I believe the Chair is the only person here that probably remembers when we started that process. And actually it's not unusual anymore where it takes 4 to 5 years to start working on a neighborhood community of this scale before you even get to the point where you're pushing dirt. In this particular situation it will be about 5 years from the time that we start until the time we're actually in the construction phase. Unfortunately the process...takes that much time but we're very pleased to be here tonight because on this particular proposal it's taken a very, very long time in working with the landowners and also with Mr. Carlson who's a landowner to the north. And just to set the record straight, Mr. Carlson is a third party to the contract with the Song's and Lundgren Bros. He helped the Song's and assisted them in making their decisions and negotiating with us to their best interest and also because he lives right next door. He had a genuine concern. And this is kind of a unique situation. Usually Lundgren Bros is working diligently with the City and the seller but in terms of this acquisition were extremely unique because of the site. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 It was very, very important to the Song's and to the Carlson's that they have as much input into this planning process for this neighborhood community as we would have ourselves as the developer and we wanted to make sure that we addressed all their concerns, and we believe that we have done so. And we seek your help this evening in order to make sure that we follow through with those promises and commitments that we've attempted to make. I'd like to introduce to you this evening the staff, the development team. To my immediate left, to your immediate left, would be Mr. John Uban. He's a principle with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. He has been the planner on this neighborhood community. To his immediate left - and to your right is Mr. Ron Peterson. He's a wetland specialist. To Ron's left and your right is Mr. Ken Adolf. He's a principle with Schoell & Madson and he's a civil engineer. Mr. Uban is going to present this proposal to you this evening. Myself and the remaining development team will be here to provide input and also to assist and answer any questions. To expedite this process, because there's a lot of detail in what we're going to be presenting to you tonight. I have an outline for you which you can follow through on Mr. Uban's presentation. I hate almost to have to give this to you because I don't want you to get too hung up in looking at the paper. I hope you give Mr. Uban the opportunity to present the proposal to you but because there are some detail items, I thought you may appreciate hearing... John Uban: I'm John Uban. It's a pleasure to be here in front of you again. We've worked with Lundgren Bros on many different developments and this is one that we really like because of how it grew from the Johnson/DolejsLtTurner project, which is directly to the west and how it just has naturally worked across this fairly interesting terrain with all the wetlands and woods and so forth. What I'd like to do is first go through a couple of slides so you get a quick overview and what I'll do is give an overview of the project and then we'll talk about some of the specifics. So I'll come back and revisit these things as we need to discuss a couple items. I will point out and talk loudly hopefully so everyone can hear me. But the property that we're looking at, is the Song property which comes up to the tip top of Harrison Lake. This is Galpin. We're looking north. This is of course Lake Minnetonka. Here's Highway 41 and the Song homestead, today, is this house right here. This is the Stockdale home and the land they own directly to the south. This area is being looked at by the Park Commission for a future park. We have a power line that runs through here and you can see all the heavy woods all along this area and another wetland here. Wetland here. Rolling fields without trees on it. And here we're looking back this way. The Song homestead. This is the Carlson home and the shared pond, or lake, and wetland complex with the woods surrounds this area. So this is really a major feature within the whole area and what we've done throughout our development is paid special attention to preserving that. Not just the environment but the views of it. The ambience of it and how it will be enjoyed by everyone in the area. Here we're looking south. Here's Highway 5. The Carlson's, the lake and then all this land over here is the Johnson-Dolejsi parcel. And a collector road comes through 29 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 here. It comes around and enters onto Galpin over here. So we weave it through all the wetlands, the varied terrain and the wooded areas to make that work. This shows that wetland area. And you'll notice this wooded stand and this is where we paid a special attention to design details trying to get a road sort of almost surgically installed into this wooded area with narrowed standards. In other words, smaller right-of-ways. Smaller street ...very carefully looked at with grading and much of this area, it will be covered with a conversation easement for the preservation of the trees. Mancino: Can you show me the line, the western property line of this development on that slide? John Uban: Yes. This is a, right here you can see a line which is a power line and that forms the boundary between Johnson-Dolejsi and other properties and the Song property. The Song property is about here south. All the way over to Galpin and then right here is it's southern edge and this then would be it's western edge go like that. Mancino: Thank you. John Uban: I have also for you to look at, and it helps because you start relating then directly to the maps that will show you is an aerial photograph at 1 inch equals 100 feet. And it's in black and white but outlined in red is the perimeter of the property. About 117 acres. Here's Galpin. Stockdale parcel is right down here. Johnson/DolejsilTurner project is over here. Carlson to the north, this way. And here are the large woods. All along the western edge. Wetlands and wetlands here and then an open field character along Galpin. This gives you a sense then of the kind of constraints that we had and the constraints basically are steep topography, significant woods, and wetlands and then adjusting to the adjacent roads and tying the two developments together. So we have to, weaving around these wetlands and there really was one good path through it which works out very well and then there's another connection which right now is called E street that takes us up this hill to connect to what was a cul-de-sac on this plan. To connect it through which will be a very nice development also that has special standards. To really overview the combined development, I first want to show you Johnson/Dolejsi and the Song development put together as one piece. And once again this is Highway 41 and here is Galpin. This is a wetland to the south of the project and you'll see in this green color is the buffer area and a proposed trail easement that we've been talking to the Park Commission about. Something in addition to what we're doing besides building two association recreation areas and paying full park fees and trail fees. And then the Park Commission has started talking to us about what we can do to trade fee credits for actual construction of a trail for instance or assisting in the grading of Stockdale Park, which is shown here directly south of the Song parcel. And this shows a possible further subdivision of that piece so we get some idea of how this road 30 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 system will access the south. Also I want to show you in this whole process, this is really that same drawing. Here you can see the wetland complex on this small map with Highway 5 and Hazeltine Boulevard and TH 41 and Galpin. But there's a potential, as the rest of the land develops to have a very nice nature trail all the way around that wetland. Whether it's paved or a soft trail I think is an issue depending on how much money the City would like to credit against the fee that would be collected on both developments. This is that same development and I've outlined here also the wetland areas and the city has found that we need to map one additional that sits approximately in this area. It's a small wetland. And it shows the common areas. Protection areas. Buffer areas around here. Around the wetlands and just in this combined development, there's about 207 acres and of that 95 of the acres are either conservation easement, buffers, specific buffer easements, wetlands, and amenity and recreation areas. All to be enjoyed by the neighborhood. So that's about 46% of the development and that really I think speaks to what we're proposing and how much of it is committed to the common enjoyment and preservation. Some of the details we want to talk about and we've been talking to City staff about it too is how to work with tree preservation. How to, I'm actually going to turn this like this if it will help since we're looking at everything, north's up. And how we preserve these features on the site. What this exhibit shows are the different areas that are treated differently and have different constraints. The tan area are the wetlands on the Song property. Once again this is Galpin and this is that power line western edge. Around this then is the preservation or buffer strip. It varies all along the edges of the wetlands. We're also, this is the mandatory setback or buffer setback and then in the green is tree conservation area. The green area is an easement. This is where absolutely no construction takes place. Nothing can happen. There's no mowing of the grass. It is kept natural and it's an easement that is restricted on the deeds and it's recorded with the platting of each lot which is different than sort of a preservation area or an area that the city looks at when you get a permit and see that, how well each home is adjusting to each individual site. So what we have here are sort of three levels of how we develop and how the city reviews and controls tree preservation on the site. One is this definite conservation easement that controls these areas. The second is as we prepare our first grading plan for utilities and road construction, that perimeter is protected and we only remove certain trees. And so that gives us an area between the conservation area and the actual road where each home is built and that way when the lots are looked at and sold, they see the maximum amount of trees possible and are able to adjust their homesite, their home plan to that site itself. And then that is done when you take out a building permit and each building permit then is reviewed. The forester comes out and looks and that's the way it's done today with the city and that's how we adjust to each one. And in talking with staff, they would like to see some additional areas covered by the permanent easement and we want to sit down with them and make sure that we have full flexibility to do custom housing design and yet maximize the protection that the city would like to see. There's this comfort and flexibility 31 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 thing that we just need to work out and it works well. That is the level of conservation that we are proposing. Mancino: Excuse me, John. Am I reading that right? What I'm seeing on the northern, let's see on the right side where that green conservation easement is. There aren't any trees there. There aren't any existing trees there at this time, correct? John Uban: Yes. I'll show you the plan so you can see what is being planted so that becomes. Mancino: So it's an easement for what is to be planted? It is not old growth trees that are already there? John Uban: Not in this area. But it will control this area the same as it controls other areas so it's the kind of protection that we felt was important because we're re-establishing some natural areas. Some of our wetland mitigation is happening in this area. We're actually - going to be transplanting some of the native material from one slope back to another. There's a lot of sumac out there for instance and we'll be transplanting some of that around to recreate that natural feeling that is there today. And how that works, and let me turn this over again. This is the development plan and it shows a proposed typical Lundgren home on the individual lots. Here is that main street A, the road that goes through the project. And here we're putting in lots of plantings around this park area and that's what will be covered also by this conservation area. There actually are some trees up in here that we'll make sure that those that exist up there can be covered also by the conservation easement. So I think these are some of the things that we'll be talking to staff about in detail. What the plan, this plan shows then is the basic development pattern. The road looping through. This is the southern road. Road E and coming up through this wooded area for instance where the road needs to steepen. It's about 8% and this is done to minimize the grading again. To lower that road down to 7% for instance, you'd either have to cut off the top of the hill or fill more at the bottom as we're crossing the stream through this area. And so we can do it more sensitively and save more trees by having an 8% grade. The 8% grade also is up on H and I in this area. But this is the narrow cul-de-sac road system to work in amongst these large trees. In fact one of them down in here is our largest tree which is about a 60 inch oak tree which is fairly large and fairly mature. And those trees are all covered in a conservation easement. We can see that we will integrate each homesite then into the existing trees that are there. Each one will be custom done to make sure it fits well. The ponding, the additional ponding that's shown on the site, NURP ponds and so forth. This recreation area, I have a detailed plan so I can show you how that works. Some of the issues we'll be talking about is how we grade and what we can do along Galpin to integrate into the future road condition and how trails might work in that area so we'll go through those issues one by one. We have 32 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 two entrances with entrance islands. These are very important to create the ambience of, excuse me. I'm losing my voice. To help the ambience of the entrance. We like to do these on every one of the entrance roads into the neighborhood. We're proposing them in both cases because they're both important entrances, not only to the Song property but as they carry over into the Johnson/Dolejsi and that one also has the same entrance off of Highway 41. We'll have berming all the way along here where we can and we are protecting the existing wetlands that are along Galpin. Another issue that is being talked about with city staff is the city would like to designate road A as a state aid road. And that has different design standards than what we have designed at this point so we have some specific issues that we need to review with you so you can see the ramifications and hopefully accept our recommendation on how to address that and make it work for both the City and the developer. And I'll be going over each one of these issues on the outline so you can see how that works. The private park is developed along the road which is a spine road and you'll see that most of Lake Harrison then, there's just a few lots and then the wooded lots and they really won't be viewed to a great extent from the natural area and then we've put our park in here and put in a berm so we really keep protecting the views in that lake area. And this shows the same area. Here's the lake. We have tennis courts, a totlot, a connecting trail, basketball, picnic area and then we put in an informal play area which Park Commission requested. They wanted one that was large enough to put in a full sized baseball field which we felt was inappropriate. To have that scale of active play and instead we proposed one that's a bit smaller, 180 x 180. This is very good for frisbee, you know family games of ball and so forth but not big enough so that team play would be attracted to the site. This definitely is a family neighborhood recreation facility and not meant for large scale activities. But it's done in a very nice way with natural landscaping brought back into the park system itself. What I'd like to do next is show you the specific recommendations of staff. Just go through those so that we can talk about some additional wording that we think is appropriate to bring our concerns together. So we can focus on getting ahead of the final approval for this time. And I'll show those on the overhead. Conrad: Is that a copy of the recommendations? Terry Forbord: With slight modifications. We would like to go through these. John Uban: The recommendations we've given you in blue are really very similar to staff and we are very close to staff on these details. We just want to make sure we have a clear understanding and direction what we hope is working together to resolve these issues. What we've shown, only in those areas that are bold typed. We have just some wording to change the recommendation which we feel fits the development a little bit better. Number 1 and number 2, there's really absolutely no problem with. Number 3, what we want to make sure is, when we count trees, on 2 trees per lot and there are no trees on the lot, there really are 33 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 lots of unmapped trees. The aerial photo's not up but around the wetlands and so forth there are a number of trees we just have not mapped and shown so we want to make sure we have credit for that and have our absolute commitment that we are not...lots up there. We will be planting a minimum of 2 trees per lot. And each home, homeowners typically do extensive landscaping after the home is built. Krauss: I should state there are 30 some odd conditions and we got this late this afternoon and Dave and I had an opportunity to briefly go through it. You may want to get a point, counter point kind of a thing on each one as you go through so you don't lose track. The first one's kind of detailed. I guess I'd agree with John. That's consistent with the language that's built into the subdivision that we require 2 trees per lot, at least 1 of which must be in the front yard. Well if there's already an existing tree, we only require 1. The next effect is really negligible because John and Terry will be planting more trees than we require anyway to satisfy the buffer...along Galpin and the park landscaping around the site so. Farmakes: Does it make any difference which species of tree it is? Whether it's credited or not. Krauss: The trees, well actually that's not been the case though. I mean as long as you have - a tree of significant size. Farmakes: Well we're talking about between 2 1/2 and 6 inches. Krauss: Right. Farmakes: Yeah. Exactly right. Credit them for that. It makes no difference which species it is then. Krauss: It hasn't in the past Jeff. It's just having a tree in the appropriate area. John Uban: This is really only a point of we think clarification and understanding and not a burdensome issue either way. Farmakes: But this maybe brought to attention maybe something that's lacking in there. Terry Forbord: Most of the trees that are on the site are maples and...those are all acceptable trees for the city. Farmakes: Yeah, I was talking about in relationship to what our requirements are. I don't recall encountering that. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 John Uban: Well to continue on. Number 5. Number 4 is just misnumbered but number 5, we have no problem with the architectural criteria and so forth. Outlot B will be assembled with the Johnson/Dolejsi parcel. The issue of, on number 7 is really a timing issue that the association park will be built concurrent with street A. So those parks are always built within that neighborhood phase as developed and so that's when that park will be built and we just want to make sure that's understood and it's not anticipated at some other time. Terry Forbord: Maybe I could just embellish upon that briefly. Because of the, for those of you who drive Galpin Blvd ever, there's a public improvement project, 92-5 currently underway extending sewer and water to this area and that sewer and water easement is within this right-of-way and if you drive down here you can actually where they're constructing those public facilities at this time. And therefore, it only stands to reason, being that we'll have lateral benefit from those pipes that are going to be in there. We can tap right into that trunk line that's being built right now with each one of these homesites that's along here. So it just stands to reason this would be the first phase of development in this neighborhood community. It wouldn't make a lot of sense since the sewer and water's here, to start up here. So we would be starting here and so then is the progression before it can swing north up to and ultimately street A...will be built and at that point in time, which probably will be within the second and third phase of development, this one we're proposing to build the association park. Conrad: Paul. Krauss: That's fine with us. We're going to have financial guarantees that say it's going to be built anyway. Conrad: Okay. John. John Uban: The next point, number 8 where they're talking about the wetland mitigation and so forth and you will have a 1 to 1 ratio. In this the city has asked that we remove wetlands out of the highway right-of-way on Galpin. Generally this, Galpin, the enlargement of that street would either be a county or combined city/county project in which there would be lots of other impacts along that corridor and normally a city or county would mitigate that as a total entity and would be banking...to resolve those issues at an opportune time. What we don't want to happen is for that kind of mitigation or requirement that is sort of beyond what we would normally be doing within our development, to impact and throws into a category or calls concern for those people reviewing our wetland mitigation, that we've added into it this additional amount. So we want to stay coordinated on that issue and we also feel, and this is another issue that will come up on another one of the topics. That there's a way to minimize some of those impacts, especially along the entire corridor for Galpin if we do a good 35 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 consolidation of highway and trail into the right-of-way rather than trying to push the trails out beyond the right-of-way of Galpin. We are dedicating an additional 17 feet to Galpin to make a total of 100 feet of right-of-way for that road, so that's quite a bit of right-of-way which will accommodate a 4 lane road, plus trail and most accommodating on most kinds of designs and we'll show you an exhibit when this comes up again in the recommendations that clarifies how that can work. Terry Forbord: The key point in number 8 would be our wetlands specialist advises us that the city should apply separately for their wetland mitigation for Galpin Blvd construction rather than combine it with our wetland application. That's the change that we show here. Krauss: We understand what the situation is. I mean there were several things that were raised. Dave and I are assuming that the trail will be going within the right-of-way. It's probably something that needs to be worked out, we'll sit down with the engineer but that's what we've been doing on other roads. What we have here though are two small wetlands that would be impacted by a public improvement that needs to occur pretty quickly. What we also have here is the ability to mitigate that on the Song's PUD with no fuss, no muss. The issue here is that, it's almost a technical one. There is a threshold beyond which permitting gets to be considerably more complicated in this new, what we're dealing with wetland protection. And they are concerned that this will put them over the threshold. I had a chance to speak with Diane Desotelle about that tonight. It's really not a big deal for us to process a city sponsored wetland alteration permit for the city improvement understanding though of course that the mitigation be carried out on the Song property. So we're willing to do that. We didn't know however that condition was listed 3 times in the Lundgren report so... Ledvina: Mr. Chairman? Then Lundgren actually does the mitigation? Krauss: ...yeah. In their grading, that's the way I see it. That we would make sure that there was sufficient, basically it's shifting two fairly small wetlands a little bit so that they're out of the way of the public project. Terry Forbord: It's not our intent to not coordinate or cooperate. It's our intent to make sure we don't jeopardize the approval of our permits for the development over this and Paul understands this stuff far better than I do. I know because he is intimately involved with it and I think he's addressed it in his comments that he just made. John Uban: The next issue then is on tree preservation. The first one just that we'll provide all the landscape details when we do the final plat. I think that's just clarifying when we'll do that. Item number b under 9. Here we will buffer the road from the homes. So in other words, we will try to minimize the impact the road has on the adjacent homes along Galpin 36 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 and what we need to do here is make sure that we can do it successfully and it has once again an impact on whether or not a trail would be placed on an easement adjacent to Galpin Blvd. Paul has indicated that it sounds like the City staff would keep the trail within the right-of-way which would help immensely in our developing a good berm system because it would take 20 feet away and we would lose the ability to do a good berm. Plus the land undulates and some of it is high and we just can't berm successfully. So that's basically to clarify what we'll be doing there. And we'll be working with Paul and clarifying what trees will be planted on which lots and screening and so forth. So it's just a matter of coordination. We're recognizing that, and this alteration to the recommendation. Conrad: Paul, any counter point? Any comments? Krauss: As to the modification on a, that's fine. On b, I'm uncomfortable with the language. We're talking about homes from Galpin. That's mandatory. Whether it's done through a berm or landscaping, there's two ways about it. And when I see a sentence written, this feature shall and then there's two weasel words, reasonably attempt. There's no reasonably attempt about it. There's got to be a buffer established. I think we're splitting hairs here and I know what their intent is. I know what our intent is. It's probably the same thing but it should be clear that there is a desire to see legitimate buffering of those homes from Galpin and I didn't see the need to modify that language. As far as the last sentence, the applicant will work out with staff the amenity and screening tree planting versus the required bare lot tree planting. I don't see any versus about it. I mean they're all separate things. We're concerned with buffering. We're concerned with the bare lot tree planting. Lundgren Bros has, I think creatively said, well we'd rather not plop two, if we have an obligation to put 2 trees on a lot where there's no trees existing, we'd rather not just plop one on every lot, we'd rather cluster them. That's a fine idea. That's great. I don't have a problem with that. They've also got a third requirement which is, I don't know if self inflicted is the right word but they want to create a buffer screen upon the private park from Lake Harrison. That's fine. We would encourage the reforestation of that site but that's nothing inherently that the city is necessarily asking for. Certainly not to compromise the number of trees that go on individual lots or around the buffer. So again, I thought it was worded fine the way it was originally written. I don't think we're far apart on that however. Terry Forbord: Let me just clarify. The reason that we modified this, and I haven't had the opportunity to talk to Paul and I think he's correct in saying that our objectives are the same. I can honestly say that there's no way that you will be able to make it so when you're driving down Galpin Blvd that you won't be able to see a house. Because the elevation, I mean there's big hills in here and you will, if you were to build a berm, you would have to build a berm so high and it would look so, certainly it would look unnatural. And so what we were afraid of saying is that making sure that we don't see any homes. I think that's unobtainable 37 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 from a practical standpoint. The idea is to, the problem here, the way we look at it wasn't that the houses were the problem. The road was the problem and we were trying to buffer the people who live there from the noise of the road and the view of the road and the cars going by and so we were trying to create that type of buffer, while at the same time when you're driving down the road, the houses aren't just leaping off the site at you. But I think you might be able to see a rooftop and things like that and I just didn't want to say that we'll be able to do that when I inherently didn't think it would achieve it. That's the only reason we modified that. Krauss: Well I mean again, I don't think we're far apart...never been to avoid looking at homes...make sure that the homes have a legitimate rear yard area and to view from the highway it helps the roadway somewhat soften but the primary issue is protecting the residential neighborhood. We've got so many situations elsewhere in town that that was done inadequately and again, I don't think we're talking about different things here. Conrad: Yeah, I think we're pretty close. Let's move on. John Uban: Okay, yes. c and d, there's absolutely no problem with. e is the issue of how much we can expand the actual tree conservation area which is an easement that's recorded on the property versus the adjustments we made during construction with flexibility to make sure that works out. In talking with Paul, I think we're close. I think it's just a matter of some adjustments to the plans that we have submitted and really clarifying with staff how much flexibility we need to have and how much of a guarantee or an easement is appropriate for this development. I think we're close and we just merely have to sit down and work it out before we appear before the City Council. Krauss: That's probably a fair statement. John Uban: The next item that we talked about parks. I had under 10(a), I had shown you that we had put in a 180 x 180 size playfield which is designed for the level of play that we're looking for and not the 250, the 250 foot play area that is suitable for large scale team activities that the Park Commission was looking for. Since they're putting a park to the south, it really isn't necessary in our neighborhood association. Krauss: If I can interject. I understand some of their concerns with some of the Park issues. Some I agree with. Some I don't but the fact is, traditionally the Planning Commission does not place themselves inbetween the Park Board and a developer. These are concerns that I think the Park Board has seen it. These were their issues. This was their recommendation. I think the developer can make that pitch relative to these conditions to the City Council. It just traditionally hasn't been something that you've tinkered with. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: How do you feel about the issue of right of first refusal for the property? Does that mean that it could be sold for a price determined at market at a later date? Krauss: I think the condition that was written by the Park Board was somewhat different in approach. It said that if the homeowners association fails to operate the park or maintain the park, whatever. Wants to walk away from the park, that it becomes a city owned facility. That's different than getting first dibs on buying it. But again, I wasn't at the Park Board. That was their recommendation. I'd ask you not to tinker with that. Farmakes: I'm perfectly agreeable with that but I do have a question in regards to that. How does the taxation work for that type of operation? Krauss: It's taxed property. I suppose it's taxed at a lower rate. Farmakes: So the homeowners association then pays that tax? Krauss: You bet. And I guess we're somewhat comfortable with it in this case Jeff. There are a lot of commonly held facilities and chunks of land in this one that don't, and the park, that the homeowners association has a valid purpose and would tend to exist for... Mancino: Paul, I just have one other question with that too. I don't want to tinker with the Park Board's recommendation but what was the rationale behind having them put in a 250 square foot field? Krauss: I honestly don't know. I mean I can guess. Mancino: A rink? An ice rink? Krauss: Well there was an presumption here that okay, the Park Board agreed that they would build a neighborhood park on the next property to the south pending their ability to obtain title to buy the property. But I think they also wanted to make sure, this is significantly sized development. That it was providing a legitimate variety of internal recreational amenities. That's my guess. Terry Forbord: Paul, this just makes for expediency. Is it the position then that the Planning Commission will not be dealing with any of the park issues as it relates to the items that we have concerns about? Krauss: That's traditionally been the case unless there are some land use aspects or site design aspects of the park issue. The Planning Commission and Park Board are equally 39 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 created by the City Council with their respective spheres of influence and we haven't tried to modify them. Conrad: Terry, I don't mind hearing the issues. I don't know that we're going to react to them here. If I think they affect the planning. I don't know that we're going to react to 250 — versus 180 unless it affects the overall plan of the site. So it's good for us to hear them but again I don't know that we're going to react to them in one way or another at this time unless it does, there's some contingencies to something that we really have some influence on. Terry Forbord: Okay. Well then let me just take over for a minute here because I think it's important for me to state that of all the issues, there's a number of key issues that are here tonight. We're going through some minor adjustments here and fine tuning with you but there are a couple key issues that will decide whether this property is acquired by us and whether it is developed and the park and trail issues are certainly probably at the top of the list. The association park that we have presented in the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner neighborhood connected to the immediate west of this subject property and the same association park on the Song property, are new elements of design that we are now incorporating into all of our neighborhood communities of any significance. And by significance I mean something that is of enough size that it warrants this type of amenity. I'd like to tell you that we are the ones that invented this, but we are not. We've traveled the country and we have found that in neighborhoods with these types of amenities, the people find them to be incredibly desirous for, not only for their use but for what they do to protect and enhance the property values and the investments that people are making in probably the largest investment they make. So over the last 4 years, on every significant neighborhood community that we've developed, we have included as association park like this. And they have been incredible. Well, excuse me. Well accepted by the buyers. Now this is kind of a new thing for the midwest. You can go all over the United States and find these everywhere but in the midwest it's somewhat different. And we've had to really, really spend a lot of time before planning boards and city councils and park commissions trying to hopefully educate them to the benefits, not only to the people who own the association but to the general benefits of the city because we're providing the land. We're building the improvements. We're maintaining it and that takes a burden off some of the facilities in the rest of the community. So for us we find that it is very, very important. Now, for the parks commission, their charge is to also make sure that the general public is being taken care of with facilities to provide recreational facilities for the general public which is their charge and it's a good charge and those things do need to be addressed. So obviously they look at this very closely and they scrutinize it. And in their attempts to review this, and pass it onto you, they have exacted from us items economically to the point that where it's going to kill our ability to proceed with this project if in fact it ultimately is approved that way. We're spending a lot of money, if you can imagine, just _ putting in the facilities that we are. Now they have asked us to come back to them with 40 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 some new ideas and we came back to them with the proposed trail corridor that John briefly described to you earlier. And that trail corridor, there was something I was trying to figure out what additional incentive can I make to the city so they will accept the association park concept. What additionally could I provide that would be public oriented and it just hit me that this wetland complex here and I brought it back to staff. We would provide an easement, the land that would enable the beginnings of a public trail system around this natural area, would that be something of interest to the parks commission. Well of course it was and it was a good idea and they embraced it. The problem with it is, is that not only do they want me to give them land. They want me to build it for them and they want me to grade the park down at Stockdale's and all these other things. We can't afford to do that and do all the other things we're trying to do here. So this issue has become a very large issue and the only way that I can make it work is if park fees and trail fees are waived to the equivalent amount of the cost of the construction of these facilities that are of public benefit. And so I'm just sharing this with you tonight because it more than likely is a deal breaker for our ability to make this, purely from an economic standpoint. I would like to be able to say to the city, I'd be happy to do all these things but I'm not Santa Claus and I can only do what makes sense from an economic standpoint. And at the same time still be able to provide a very high quality community. And so you may not want to be dealing with these items tonight because we've made some changes in the recommendations in how those park and trail dedication fees are to be allocated so I'll be happy, we can go through these. Each one of them if you'd like us to but if you're of the position of historically of the parks commission not to deal with those things, then we can move on to other items. It would be up to the Planning Commission. Conrad: Well, do we want to hear them briefly or do we want to just skip them? Mancino: I'd like to hear them briefly. Conrad: Okay, let's touch them but. Terry Forbord: A couple that are key, such as Galpin Blvd so why don't you go ahead. Conrad: Yeah, let's keep on going. John Uban: I think on item number (b) here, Terry talked about that already quite a bit. That we need to have the fees equal the construction that's being requested in addition to what we are dedicating and building as an association facility. The trails, under trails. The trail, we're suggesting it be incorporated is a 100 foot boulevard from Galpin and here's a section that generally shows that and what this indicates is that within 100 feet we can get the 52 foot wide road, 10 foot boulevard on either side. There can be a trail on this side also. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Put a 10 foot trail in and we have additional land here yet on the edge of the right-of-way. This is a very comfortable cross section that handles lots of traffic. Trails are good to have, I believe, in the corridor or the right-of-way. It's safer. There will be light poles here. They'll be illuminated. They'll be more watched because safety is a concern. If they kind of wander off and away from the road, there are some safety issues that are a concern. Additionally, when we build our berm to keep our 30 to 40 foot back yard here, we'd like to build it and then just taper it right into the edge of the right-of-way and usually we do that in other communities and I know that the city is looking at similar berming effects on roads along Highway 5. The frontage road and so forth. But this helps us to maximize our berming if we can taper it into the edge right there on just a couple feet. But this is a very good trail system many cities are using. This same design between 80 and 100 feet of right- of-way, depending on the road size. Terry Forbord: Now this exhibit represents what's proposed by Lundgren Bros and we're showing you to demonstrate that clearly the proposed right-of-way would be able to, is capable of including the road improvements and the proposed trail. John maybe you have an exhibit that may show what is being proposed by staff. John Uban: This is park staff. Terry Forbord: Parks commission, that's correct. John Uban: This shows the 100 foot Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. And here we'll have over 24 feet between the road and the edge of the right-of-way and then they're asking for a 20 foot trail easement added to that which combined would certainly be 140 feet of right-of- way or easement combination which then we have the trail set farther back. Was closed to traffic and then when we try to put our berm in and keep our back yard, we have much less room in which to do that because the trail doesn't want plantings involved to separate it from the road and so forth and keep it graded to match. Ledvina: Would that roadway be constructed with a curb and gutter? — John Uban: Yes. Ledvina: So there wouldn't be any need for ditches, okay. John Uban: This seemed to be sort of wasting land here that it's more maintenance in the long run. It's less consolidated. I believe it becomes less safe and when you look at the rest of Galpin Blvd, especially to the north, and you realize you want to grade out this far, there are some significant wetlands to the north that are impacted that make the two that are on this 42 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 property fairly minute by comparison. So I believe the consolidation of road and trail, is a good practice. Other cities are doing it. To minimize wetland filling and other activity like that. Terry Forbord: Now we recognize that in the past the city has used these principles but what we're suggesting is that just because it's been done before in the past, doesn't mean maybe it was the best idea. Because this particular type of cross section on this proposal of 140 feet combination of right-of-way and easement is a huge swath of land that goes along any route and it will involve the filling of more wetlands. Eventually the cutting down of more trees in those areas where it's going through that are wooded, and we feel that you can readily accommodate all the same functions within the proposed right-of-way without any additional easements. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, let me just interject something here. The typical section proposed there is fairly accurate. There is sufficient room to build a trail section within the 100 foot right-of-way. The problem comes when you come to an intersection where there's additional turn lanes. Turn lane medians that expands that paved section out even wider. That does restrict where the trail goes. In some cases the trail may be right up to the back of the curb. We understand the intersections like that, maybe it's not that bad...and so forth. Similar subdivisions that we've recently done along Galpin Blvd, we have incorporated the trail section into the 100 foot right-of-way. Carver County Public Works Department had sent us a memo regarding this. Their recommendation though is if we want a trail section, for it to be outside the 100 foot right-of-way. We are currently working with Carver County Public Works Department to change their minds on that since most likely it will be a joint cooperative project to upgrade this county road in the future. So our concerns I guess would be the trail...intersection would seem possible, an additional turn lanes and medians at the intersection. _ Mancino: What jurisdiction does the Carver County public works have on it? Hempel: It's currently under their jurisdiction...out in their right-of-way. Eventually it may be turned back over to the city as a city street. Terry Forbord: Dave, would it make sense. Just make sure I understand your concern at the intersection. If there's a turn lane right here is what you're saying. Is that that trail should be able to meander in. I don't think that would be a problem for us to accommodate that around turn lanes and things. I think that makes sense. The only thing we're saying is to make that, to add that huge swath through the entire length, one it's overkill. Two, it is going to impact wetlands and it's certainly going to impact the quiet enjoyment of these people. That berm now will be right off their deck. That berm will come right up to the 43 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 deck of these homes under the proposal and nobody will have any back yard space along here. I think there's a way to get around that. Conrad: Interesting issue. I think City Council will deal with that one. We'll all have our own opinions but it is interesting because that is a major, well I'm going to abbreviate my comment. The trail there is very important and I can see why Park and Rec wanted it and I can also see why you don't and it's better. I can see both sides of the issue and I think we don't need to get involved. We'll let. Terry Forbord: Just to clear that, we do want the trail. Conrad: Right. Right. John Uban: Then we continue I guess basically on with that trail issue. That once again we're asking that the fee and park fees for trails make up the difference for any, the construction that the Park Commission may request. On the trail that goes along the south edge of the Johnson/Dolejsi property, this major walk along the wetland that we've just talked about. The city is asking for a connection up into that subdivision, which we think is a good idea but we're having a hard time finding an appropriate place and we wanted to make sure that that could happen without wasting a lot that we've already gotten approved so we're suggesting in our narrative and to work with the city and we think that there is an easement, utility easement that can be used that would also be used for the city to gain access to the sedimentation ponds that are also being built in that area. So I think if we can work creatively with the city to combine utility easements and access for sedimentation pond and a possible trail connection that might not be suitable for bicycles but, you know it would be probably steep but can be walked. That that would work out very well and we'll continue in that direction. The other, on Stockdale to the south. The Park Commission had wanted to make that acquisition a contingency on the approval of the Song parcel which is, it's out of our control and it didn't make sense to us because we're doing so much anyway that just making it contingent didn't, wasn't something that we felt was appropriate and was not an issue that we could control, is the problem. And we will work with the city. We'll work with Stockdales to make sure that something reasonable can take place but we are dedicating an additional trail on the nature walk. We are building our own parks plus, if no construction is involved, still paying all the park and trail fees for both developments and only asking for credit should they ask...That sort of summarizes I think the issues with park and trail. If there are any other comments. I'll move onto number 11. Really it's just a clarification. We have really no issue with number 11. Number 12. We want the street section that we have proposed in the subdivision and the right-of-way dimensions that we've proposed, to continue and these are on two very specific areas. Number one, we have all the roads, the thru streets are all 60 feet in width, the right-of-way and standard 31 feet or even, I think larger on A 44 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 street. On the cul-de-sacs we're proposing just on these roads to have 50 feet of right-of-way with the standard street in there and that allows us just to be a little bit tighter here and especially on this cul-de-sac which is cul-de-sac B, we're able to pull as far away as possible from Galpin and give as much room as possible to this park. And so it's important for us to have this 50 foot right-of-way. And the other place that we're having a right-of-way reduction is on H and I which is the street that goes up into the woods. And here it's going to be 8% in grade, a little steeper to minimize grading. It's narrowed up specifically to save trees. It is narrowed up with a 40 foot right-of-way and with a 24 foot wide road. To expand that back to a city standard or even a 50 foot right-of-way with a standard road will spread the actual construction for the road itself. It will expand the area where utilities will have to be placed. It will expand back into the wooded areas the allowable paths for home development. All of this will have an impact. In fact we looked at just the road construction and if we expanded the road itself and we found about 9 trees might be taken in addition to what is there, which is about, it was over 200 caliper inches of oak that would be removed if we expanded the right-of-way and the road surface itself. And these are really critical and we think the city really has to make some judgments here. We've been working to minimize tree loss to do a good job and we really have to look at creative solutions and this may not always mean the standard road and the standard right-of-way and standard construction techniques. And we're committed to using the best possible. In fact we'll push the envelope of tree preservation in trying to coordinate all these utilities to follow a single corridor. You have NSP. You have Minnegasco. You have the telephone company. You have the cable company. They all like to go everywhere and then you have the driveway and we are going to try to do whatever possible to coordinate all of this and create single entrances into sites. Mancino: So you're asking for kind of a double bang. You're asking one to get smaller road right-of-way to bring the houses in closer to the street and you're also asking for 20 foot setbacks on particular sites due to tree preservation. John Uban: Right. Some lots we may want to be set back farther if the front yard trees can be saved. A greater amount in the front yard versus the back yard. It's really hard to predict at this time but there are a number of sites where there are more trees in the front than in the back and it's vice versa so each one will be approached differently and customized but we're looking for the maximum flexibility to maximize tree preservation. Terry Forbord: Let me just embellish for a minute. It's not our desire to create any health, safety or welfare issues. It's not our desire to make maintenance, snowplowing, those types of things any more difficult for the city. We are not going to gain any additional lots or anything like that because of the way we're proposing this. But what we are trying to do, and this is a commitment I personally have made to the Carlsons and to the Songs. This particular area in the northwest corner, we probably spent 50% of our time just talking about 45 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 that during the negotiation process. Mr. Carlson and I personally walked this site oh 3 to 4 times and then I've walked it a couple times with the Songs as well as about 6-7 times by myself. Trying to figure out how can we build the road there and save the 4 foot sugar maples that adorn that whole landscape in there and the magnificent oaks. And so that area is one area that I think deserves unusual consideration by the city of Chanhassen. But also, let's just talk briefly about the other areas when we're asking for these 50 foot reductions. Remember Mr. Uban just pointed out that this be cul-de-sac areas. These roads don't go anywhere. They're just cul-de-sacs. There's not a health, safety, welfare issue here and it's not going to improve maintenance, snowplowing, or any of that to any degree whatsoever. If it was, we wouldn't be proposing it to you. All the rest of the streets are under the same design standards of the city. What we're trying to bring forth to you is from what we keep hearing back from the city of Chanhassen over and over again as far as preservation, less roads, but we also are trying to make sure that we're sensitive to health, safety, welfare. — Conrad: Well Paul. Dave. What do you? Hempel: I know from an engineering standpoint it may be somewhat different than planning's viewpoint on it. From a safety standpoint I guess as it states in the staff report, I think the most devastation or disruption I should say to the right-of-way area is the — installation of the sewer and water, storm sewer line and the public utilities like the gas, electric and telephone. We've discussed previously about trying to consolidate the utilities and gas, electric, telephone and we're still working on that with these entities. However, the sewer and water installation I guess is probably the major disruption to the area. It may be possible by uses of construction techniques such as a box, which is where they can narrow up the trench with less disruption area but otherwise typically your utility trench at the base of the trench is 3 to 4 feet wide and from that point it should go up at a 1:1 slope. So if you're down 12 feet, you're out 28 feet at the top. That's per OSHA standard. Anything less than that you're in violation of the standards. In addition to that, you've got areas where the soil will be back cast over what they call the spoil bank. Now that can again be reduced by these construction techniques called a box but...Typically we've seen, or we've heard these techniques being employed but when it comes down to the actual construction, it's much more difficult for the contractor to drag the box along and to get the box. One day all of a sudden it's back out to 28 feet wide at the top and the area of disruption then is the same as the 30 foot wide street section. I don't think we're gaining much by trying to reduce the street pavement section out 24-26 foot wide. Right-of-way limits. Once we give up our rights to that right-of-way, there's no ever getting it back. The houses will be built. 15 more years down the road if we need to add a sidewalk, add a trail, reconstruct the road and so forth, dig up those utilities for maintenance repairs, the houses are set back from that right-of- way and the area will be disturbed anyway. Removal of additional 9 trees. On a 900 foot long street, to get the added width, I don't know if that's such a sacrifice or such a 46 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 compromise if you look at public safety. As far as giving enough street pavement for pedestrians to walk. In a 24 foot wide pavement section, that's barely enough for 2 cars to pass on the street. Mancino: But you're comfortable with the 31 foot wide pavement areas? Hempel: That's our standard. Mancino: That are on most of these streets except for H. Hempel: Right. But I think the applicant is proposing that. Where they're deviating from the pavement width is on streets H and I in the more sensitive area and we agree. That is a sensitive area but on the other hand we think the construction in itself is going to take it's toll on those trees whether or not you have a 24 foot wide street or 31 foot wide street. Mancino: And your suggestion is the 28? Hempel: Well, I'd like some clarification. I guess is the 28, is that back to back or is that pavement width? If it's pavement width and we include the curb and gutter, you're essentially out to the 30 foot wide street section that we normally wouldn't have an urban section like this. 50 foot right-of-way. That has to do probably more with setbacks around the houses. In this area if it, due to the sloping terrain of the, kind of like a knob...it's kind of a ravine so if by reducing the right-of-way width it helps keep the houses up on top to save trees, eliminate grading, we can, staff can live with that. But these other right-of-way areas outside where it's, what I'll call sunshine lots where there's mass grading already, we see no reason to compromise the 60 foot right-of-way in those area. Conrad: Paul, any comments on Dave's comments? Krauss: I think you've heard us both on this issue many times before. It's one of the few things that we tend to approach it a little differently than the engineering department. We tend to encourage a little more flexibility in those things. I understand the problems the wider right-of-way causes. I think it's possible in all probability to construct, we used to build all our streets in 50 foot right-of-ways. Now it wasn't perfect. There were always problems that cropped up. I think when you go look around the Twin Cities, a lot of communities have 50 foot as a standard. There are some communities that have much less and I wouldn't encourage much less. I mean...I don't know. I'm comfortable with the position. I don't want to recommend that you ignore the recommendations of the engineering department that they made in good faith. On the other hand, if it's not hurting anything, and it works well on one street, why doesn't it work well on the other one. I think it does 47 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 provide a little bit more flexibility... Conrad: Okay. We've got a lot of points going through here. It's going to be tough for us to react to your proposal on the words. I think you've got to give us some global perspectives so we can give staff direction on this. I'm not sure that the words in your recommendations are, we're going to, as we wind this thing up and we've been at it for an hour and a half now and we haven't even talked yet. The key things are going to be lost. Terry Forbord: Pardon me? Conrad: The key points are going to be lost because you're making so many points with the number of pages that you have here. The 27. The 31 points you know and we're not going to give a motion that's real intuitive. It's hard to react to all the things you're bringing up right now. And my point is, I don't mind hearing them but when we make our motions, we're not going to be able to extract this and that from one and impose it on the other. what I'm saying is, you've got to make sure we understand like you did on trails Terry, what your, the key points and you've got to make sure we understand the issues involved. Maybe not the wording as much because I don't know that we're going to incorporate the wording that you're suggesting. And the other point I'm making right now is, we have been at it for an hour and a half and you know, we're going to listen to your points but if you can give us the essence of what you're saying without spelling it out in the words because I'm never, we're not going to echo your words in our motion. I'll guarantee you that. We're not bright enough to do that. For 31 points and to remember all the things that you've said. We're just not. And more than likely what we're going to do is tell staff to take a look at some of these issues, which is probably what you're setting us up to do anyway, which is okay but again, we're at 10:30 and there's an 11:00 curfew, which I'd really like to stay tuned to. And there is another item on the agenda. So the bottom line is, not to say we don't want to give you the time. But I do want to make sure, don't let us lose sight of the key issues because you're hitting us with a lot of stuff. And I don't know that we're going to be able to. Terry Forbord: ...issues right now and we will work the rest of the items out with staff. I believe that the remaining key issues. Krauss: I don't want to interrupt that but you did raise a valid point. We do have another fairly significant item that's on. It's getting late and this is kind of traditionally the time here if you don't think you're going to get to something, you might want to offer an expedient way out and place it first on the agenda next time. Conrad: Well we're not, we haven't talked yet and we're not going to get to it. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: I echo your thoughts. I want staff's opinion before we deal with any of this. Mancino: Yeah, I want staff to take this. Krauss: No, you're in the middle of something here but I'm wondering relative to the next item with the Centex one which is also significant in size, isn't going to get heard tonight. Is that going to be finished or should you revise and. Conrad: Is there somebody from Centex here? Aanenson: They're out in the hall. Conrad: They're out in the hall. Mancino: What's our agenda look like next meeting? Krauss: The next one isn't so bad. Conrad: Come on up for a second. We're taking a lot of time on this issue and we have typically an 11:00 curfew. We find that our decisions after 11:00, I'm trying to tell you that we don't do a real great job after 11:00 and I really try to get us out of here then. My preference would be to invite you back and put you first on the next agenda, if that is okay with you. If it's not okay, we may table it anyway tonight. I'd have to poll the commissioners. Does that put any undue hardship on you if we promise you'd be first on the next agenda? Centex Representative: What does that do to our City Council schedule. Aanenson: It's my understanding you have kind of a drop dead date at the end of the month. They want to get to Council by the 25th. Mancino: We have another meeting. Aanenson: It has been done. We haven't always had Minutes ready. The Council likes to see those. The only way we've done that before is Nann... Mancino: But we may be able to because it's conceptual only. I mean it's not a preliminary plat. It's a conceptual. Aanenson: They want to get conceptual from the Council by the end of the month. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Krauss: I suspect it's probably something we can turn around. Ledvina: But it comes back to us as a preliminary plat. Conrad: Preliminary plat later on. — Farmakes: Well I'll throw out my opinion. These are large developments and I don't think we should be pigeon holing them into a time frame that is inappropriate for the size of — development that they are. Conrad: Yeah, I think that's true. So I guess I'll put it back on staff a little bit here. Do — you feel we could turn it around? You know it's sort of. Krauss: In all fairness to the applicant, if they get knocked off the agenda tonight, we'd probably owe it to them. Conrad: Okay. What's our agenda like next time? Krauss: It's not as bad... Conrad: Yeah, I really don't want to talk about it tonight. Seriously, bringing it up. Centex Representative: Staff understands our issue. If that can be worked out, I think we • could... Conrad: Okay. Well we're maybe half way through what we're talking about. I couldn't even tell you we're going to get you on at 11:00. But again I have, I'd rather not. We'll send you home a half hour early but I guess it will be our commitment to have you on first the next time through and staff will have Minutes ready for City Council for the meeting on the 25th? Centex Representative: So the next time will be 2 weeks? Conrad: 2 weeks from now, yeah. Thank you. Okay. John, you're back on. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, taking your comments to heart and we will...smaller items we will work with staff and we're just trying to bring them to the attention of the commission. Conrad: Well I think it's a good exercise Terry but you're going to get us lost and again, if you can hit the key points and the ones. 50 — Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Terry Forbord: We could actually go through. John Uban: We have just two. 21 and 25 are almost identical issues. Just quickly the Song parcel that they are retaining is a 9 1/2 acre parcel on the north side. They want to build a substantial home on the site. They want to have their own driveway, as they had before, on out to Galpin. The city staff is saying that they would like to have the driveway come between these two homes and come up into the site. And on our mitigation plan we're adding onto the wetland mitigation in this area and it's really kind of a draw through here. I kind of like to keep that separate and we'll have the Song's have their own entrance. I don't think a single family home's going to impair traffic on Galpin and there are plenty of other homes that are, Prince for instance in a similar situation. Carlson's and the like. And we would like to have that versus off...ravine and the mitigation area. Terry Forbord: Actually I can put it more bluntly. The Song's do not want to access through an urbanized neighborhood community for their estate home. This is a dream of their's. Always has been. To locate a substantial custom home up into that area. They would like to be afforded the same treatment as others in the city have had or may have larger parcels of property. Where they have a meandering driveway that goes through the woods and their own private entrance. And this would literally be unacceptable to them. It would mean...to their property values. It would not even be the ambience feeling or anything for them if that was required of them. Conrad: Okay. Now I don't even need to hear a counter. Does anybody want a counter point? Oh do you? Okay. John Uban: The next issue. Conrad: Wait, wait, wait. We're going to ask Paul. Krauss: We've never allowed a direct access of any home to a county highway when there was a subdivision going in. We simply don't do it. There are reasons for not doing it. From a safety standpoint. It looks like it could be easily accomplished from a grading standpoint. We understand Mr. Song and Mrs. Song need to...turn lanes and acceleration lanes and everything else that we're making this development do. It's pretty much standard procedure. Conrad: But if they subdivide their property, it won't be going through this. Krauss: No. No. That's true. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Mancino: They'd do it as a separate parcel. Krauss: Conceivably, you know equally possible access through the Carlson property. You know these are both properties that nobody's anticipating developing in the foreseeable future but at some point down the road they may develop together. I don't know. But we're talking about a new homesite, a new driveway. It is not been the past action. Conrad: Okay. It is not there now? Krauss: No. Conrad: Okay. Hempel: They have a sanitary sewer line also that will be going down to the common property line at the same location and it makes sense from an access maintenance standpoint and sewer lines also will have a driveway there for future maintenance. Access to the sewer manholes. Maybe he brings up a good point. Maybe this cul-de-sac should be extended to the property line for future access in the future. Maybe it can be an access off to Galpin in the future and tied into the Carlson property. So there's different alternatives out there but for a single driveway access back out to a county road... John Uban: Just to point out. There is an existing sort of a field service road that comes into this area off of Galpin. Krauss: Isn't that the Lake Ann Interceptor though? Mancino: Yep. John Uban: Yeah, that goes through there too. Hempel: Is that wooded too there? John Uban: Yeah, this is all wooded through here which is south and so then the cul-de-sacs are going to have to go, penetrate the woods and we're going to attach all of this as a natural area back here. Was our thought and our design. Terry Forbord: The next item would be item number 28. This just has to deal with the feeling of a neighborhood community and the importance to making sure there's some continuity in the monumentation for the entrances. We would have preferred that there would 52 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 only have been one entrance off Galpin Blvd into this neighborhood community but obviously that is not probably going to be a conceivable notion for the staff. They prefer that we had another entrance down at the southern portion of the property in this location. Well, all of the entrances to this neighborhood community will be extremely well appointed with fencing and landscaping and berming and irrigation and signage, etc, etc. Far more than what you have ever seen us do in the city of Chanhassen before and consistent to the projects we're currently doing in Medina, Plymouth and in Apple Valley. To take that away from us at another key entrance to the neighborhood community would make the theme of all of this fall apart. First of all it would look out of place. They'd say why would you guys do all this job up here and you didn't do it down here. So we find that the median in this area and the other theme features that create the synergy of this whole neighborhood are very important here as well as it would be here and on the entrance on TH 41 which is already been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Conrad: Paul, do you want to? Krauss: David... Conrad: What do you have to do with it? Are you taking over the planning? Hempel: Well actually it's kind of an engineering item. The maintenance. Conrad: Ah. That's where that came from. Hempel: Maybe I can just brush on the main thoroughfare street A there. I did talk with State Aid offices. It's our recommendation that the street be built to State Aid standards...it's a corridor for future east/west collector. MnDot actually had no problem with a landscaped median out there as long as there was...in terms of sight distances and so forth. So based on that I guess...but on Street A, fine. I guess it probably goes the same with Street E, is it? I know it's somewhat different from our attitudes in the past but I guess if we do it at one intersection, like Terry said, it only makes sense to do it at the other... This is probably going to set a precedence though for the rest of developments in town. What I'd like to do is speak with our utility department, maintenance crews as far as snowplowing goes. If there's maybe some design that they would rather see. Some limitation on the widths and so forth. So maybe working with the developer here... Conrad: Okay, good. Thanks Dave. Terry Forbord: One final comment. We would like the narrative and the recommendations that we have submitted to you tonight in writing to be entered into the record. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: For sure. Terry Forbord: Thank you. Do you have any other comments John? John Uban: No. I think the important things really are the consideration of the street designs to save trees. The trail in the right-of-way on Galpin versus leaning into the subdivision. And I think a lot of these other issues we'll continue to work with staff on them and get them refined. Terry Forbord: We'd be happy to answer any questions that we can for the Commission. — Conrad: Okay. Well I'm probably going to open it up for commissioners. Well, we still have a public hearing. We still have some people that want to, maybe want to say some things. So Terry, thanks. John, thank you very much. Appreciate your work. Public hearing. We will open it up for any other comments. Jerome. Are you going to keep us here for a while? Jerome Carlson: No. Conrad: You want to get home don't you? Jerome Carlson: I'm not long winded. This street. I think you're going to have a challenge with the Song's but I'll let them argue their private entrance business. I don't think they see their 9 1/2 acres because they're very dear friends of our's and they rely on me to sometimes voice some of their opinions but I think they would see their 9 1/2 acres not as a part of the subdivision but as 9 1/2 acres. A substantial piece of property which might warrant it's own entrance. But I will let them address that. What I would like to address is the question. Dave, are you suggesting that there is in fact no difference between a 31 foot wide road and a 24 foot wide road in this area here? Hempel: That's a different question Mr. Carlson. The limits of disruption that will occur between the difference? The street construction is not being the main disruption factor. The utility installation and sanitary sewer and water installation, that is going to create most of the disruption. When you put a street on top of that area, the area of disruption will be 30 feet wide. Jerome Carlson: Well, I'm a little bit ignorant except I know the territory and I've walked that property umpteen times. I probably could name some of the trees by now I feel that close to some of them. And quite frankly if there are 9 sizeable trees that have already been identified as being sacrificed in addition to what is already going to have to go, something 54 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 has to go. I understand that. But our agreement. Incidentally, there is a contract that exists here between myself and the Song's and the developer and I think we have some power and some rights and I'm going to fight hard to maintain every single tree on the street. I mean I went down and measured on Sunday, a very, very busy day. Took a 25 foot tape measurer and I measured Cedar Lake Parkway and I'm telling you in Minneapolis that is a busy street on a Sunday in the summer. From the edge of the curb to the edge of the curb it's 26 feet. 26 feet. And I'm listening to all this talk in the city that we've got to have 60 foot roads? I mean I've got to honestly tell you I think that some real serious rethinking needs to be done. And those roads are still just fine. They're being used by more cars travel that road on a Sunday than would travel this road in a year. And so as far as how do you put the trench in, maybe some creative thought. Put the trench in before the road goes on. Move the utilities over to one side. If you want a sidewalk, put the sidewalk over then where the utilities items ended up. Put the road on top of a 30 foot width that's been disrupted. I mean let's, if we're serious about saving the environment and the trees, then let's get serious and look at this thing and these other 50 foot widths that end up in cul-de-sacs. I'm sorry. Give me a break. And the trees too. Thank you. Hempel: Mr. Chair, if I could respond to that a little bit. We have streets 22 feet wide in the city. Carver Beach is a prime example...function well from a drainage standpoint, from a snowplowing standpoint, from a safety standpoint. Close intersection. Not the room for pedestrian traffic and so forth. Our current standard is 31 foot wide of pavement width is standard and it's used throughout the city and the other communities as well. In Minnetonka they do reduce street width in some situations. Again though, I'm not sure that reducing the pavement width is going to save those trees. If it's possible to maybe massage the road right- of-way around to protect these trees, I'm all for it. The streets can be saved with retaining walls. Some unique construction techniques and installation of utilities can all be employed but that's all I can ask the developer to do that. We're willing to listen. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman, just as a footnote to that. The sanitary sewer depth on that road is only about 12 feet deep. So the trenching that will be required, that is the deepest pipe that's going to be in that road. The water line will be above that. The trenching that will be required for that 12 foot depth will not go beyond into the trees and I think the burden of proof should be on us to be able to show you we will. That we can put those utilities in that corridor as proposed without going beyond it. Conrad: Okay. Good point Terry. Krauss: If I could add too. I mean again we've been supportive of modifying standards when trees...and we think on street H is in evidence of that. But one of the things we wanted to clarify with the developer is exactly what trees we're saving on the street right-of-way. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 It's not clear from documentation that we have. I'm pretty convinced they're there. I mean I can see that they're there but that's the one area on the site where we really need to designate trees in the front that we're taking extra measures to protect and make sure that they are there when they're done. And there's a condition to that effect. Conrad: Yeah, Dave brings up some valid points and I know what you're speaking of Dave. Hempel: Similar projects with subdivisions...pneumatic gopher where they plow gas, electric, telephone lines underneath or through the root systems of these trees that are on boulevards to save them. They're going through the 9 yards to do it. Well the concern is that the root damage though is sustained during the construction that 2-3 years down the road, they would die anyway and do we end up taking them out, the city, because they're within the right-of- way or do we have the developer. Mancino: You know but the other point in here is, even if we don't save trees, any more trees, we do have an area that is heavily wooded. We have less paved area and people will start planting trees, even if they aren't saved right around the streets. They will start planting trees closer so that it just reduces visual impact of the pavement and still be safe. Conrad: Okay. Any other public comments? Anything else? Anybody here for this? Okay, is there a motion to close the hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: I forget, it's been so long. Jeff, we'll start at your end. I don't know if we did. Farmakes: We can start at my end again. Conrad: Is that what I did? So I should start. Farmakes: No. No problem. No angry crowds here so I can. I guess I'll start out first with a couple of comments. The issue that the staff made regards to Lot 36, Block 4. That turn around that's there, the best I could see it opted for the turn around was, was on the presentation drawing. It's sort of a sketch showing approximately what the setback is on that lot. The turn around on the end of the private driveway. It's like adjacent to the setback to the wetland, is that correct? Krauss: No, it's not clear. We wanted a design detail of that. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: It looks like it's going to be pretty tight in there. Krauss: Well, it's probably okay. That's something that we need to work out in the final option. Basically you're not looking to be able to turn a pumper around...but you need to be able to kind of K turn your way so usually it's a matter of flaring out the last driveway and doing a little bit of extra pavement. Farmakes: Do the houses, will they be set back far enough so that again the shared driveway that there are 10 cars parked out in front of the house at a party but they're not out into someone elses property. Krauss: Those kinds of things really have not been problems over the years. They require this thing be paved to a width of 20 feet. You can park a car on that and get around it. - Farmakes: We haven't had a lot of houses develop out here that are 10 feet apart. 20 feet apart. Excuse me. I've seen those types of problems farther in town where some of the older developments, they were some of the old farmhouses and so on, they have some of these shared private driveway areas and multiple properties encroaching on it. And sometimes, usually when they first start out, the neighbors...but as different people move into different houses, it doesn't' always work out that way. I know that if I had a very socially active neighbor next to me, and he was constantly parking on my drive, if it was abused I'd probably take issue with it. Particularly if I had something going on at the same time. It looks like a very nice development. I'm not even going to ask how much the houses are going to go for because I can probably guess. Although it's not an issue here. It looks like the staff's done a lot of work on this. I guess I want to touch a little bit on the issue of that we said we weren't going to do on the issue of the park. I think that particularly in the transaction where we're discussing connective issues in the city and the trails issue is what I'm talking about on the collector streets. That we should be cognizant of that because we're probably looking at these things on a larger scope than just the park. We're also looking at how you get from point A to point B in the city and it looks like a lot of times the parks afford us, or these developments afford us the opportunity to do some connectivity with them. I am concerned about the trail. I think that's, Galpin is a collector road in our city and I think that also should be taken into consideration with that trail. I don't have a problem with the island. That isn't an issue with me. The park. I don't have a problem with the private park. I don't have a problem with the concept of it. I'm not going to get into the...or anything. I think it's great that we don't always consider neighborhood parks to have ballfields and these large expanses of property that more often than not aren't being used. Only heavily used during a small slice of time. I like the idea of small, intimate parks for neighborhoods. Meaning that that's what they are. That there's a discernable difference between that and a community park and sometimes we lose, I think in Chanhassen we lose 57 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 because of the pressure of some of all our kids being crunched in at one time into these soccer fields and baseball fields and the time problems that's created for use on that. We kind of see that as a solution to our problems and we try to stuff it in sometimes where it doesn't belong. So I'll back out of the park issue. I'd like to talk about procedural issue. Any time I get these things where we've got several items to look, I'd just as soon table this automatically. I think that there are items that should be worked out with staff before we get this. I remember making this exact same comment last time we did this. If there's too many issues to be covered here, and if we're going to do that, we should just clear the entire board and we should take, I think discuss 10. Vote on 10 and then go onto the next two because absolutely by the time 2 hours later we're on 28, I've forgotten 1 to 10. And the issues that we're dealing with here, on many of them, it seems to me these are issues that could be worked out but I'd like to hear stuff that staff can't agree on. These are the disagreements and this is what you can't resolve. I don't think what's included in here is things that you can't resolve. That would certainly speed up the meeting and it also, I feel like I don't have access to the staff's opinion when we're here discussing these things kind of extemporaneously without anytime to think about them. Mancino: So are you suggesting that we table this? Farmakes: I would like staff to respond to some of these issues on here. There are some major points on here. Philosophical. I don't have a problem with that but I would like to know and allow staff time to respond to these things. Rather than just arbitrarily get hit with several modifications to an ordinance. I really think it would be difficult to include all these issues inside a recommendation. If you feel that they're not a major issue, but it seems to me there are some major things in there that we may want to comment on. There are a couple of - them that change quite significantly how they read and many others don't change it hardly at all. Conrad: There may be 3 or 4 issues that we should be reacting to tonight. Farmakes: Yeah, and that's what I think we should have spent our time discussing here. Especially again staff could have the opportunity to respond to those issues and we wouldn't be hit with this at the last minute. I'd like to see this stuff in the packet. The last thing I'll talk about, I think I forgot about 3. If we give credit for trees, if it seems to me we should encourage what that credit is by our approved list. That we're not talking a 2 1/2 inch sumac or something like that.. If there wasn't anything there at all, no natural growth and we were requesting them to put in trees, those trees do not come from the approved list? City list? Krauss: I think we asked, if we didn't put in the condition that they should, that's supposed to be in there... 58 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: It says trees to be selected of the city list. I was wondering if that. Krauss: That's what we're talking about. Farmakes: If that...to that sentence. Krauss: Yes. Farmakes: Okay. I guess that's it Mr. Chairman. I do have a feeling that I have other comments to make on here and I feel a little, without knowing what the driveway to the Song property and what they're proposing, I would not be supporting that until I got a pretty clear on what is expected to be happening to that property. If it was going to be subdivided in the future, it doesn't sound like I will be. Conrad: Yeah. You can't make any, you can't assume it will be. But on the other hand, yeah. You can't assume it will be. Nancy. Mancino: A few comments. Paul, what happens to the park and trail part of the staff recommendations? Does it now go to them to read through your staff report and make decisions on? Krauss: Go to? Mancino: Okay. So what I'm reading in here about the park and trails and the developer would like the language changed in the recommendations on the parks and trail area. What's the process? Krauss: The normal procedure here is, Todd Hoffman doesn't normally come to Planning Commission meetings but he is normally present at the City Council and in much the same manner as I respond to questions you raise, he responds to questions the Council may raise relative to those recommendations and the Council makes the final decision. So there will be airing of those issues. I'm certain of that and we'll of course pass these comments along to Todd so he's prepared to deal with those. Mancino: So it doesn't go back to the Park and Recreation Commission? Krauss: Not unless the City Council refers it back, which they've done before. Mancino: I'm just mostly going to respond to the staff's recommendations from Paul's report. First of all I'd like to say that I'm really quite pleased with this development. The 59 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 environmental sensitivity that is shown on the site plan. I live just down the street from the Song property so I'm very intimately aware of it and am very concerned about how it is going to be developed. So I'd like to pass on a few of my thoughts. I'm going to take, to get these thoughts according to the staff report on page 23. I'm just going to use Paul's recommendation list as my guide. Number 1, I have no changes. Number 2. I am not in favor of reducing front yard setbacks to 20 feet. I have recently visited some subdivisions where the 20 foot setback is used and as I enter this particular subdivision, there is a feeling of very high density on each side of me. The houses are big. They're close to the street. There is a large back yard area with trees but there is no balance between the back yard and the front yard. There are no trees in the front yard and there's just very minimal setback and it has, for me a very tunnel like feeling so that I wouldn't be in favor of any 20 foot setbacks. Number 3, on the Galpin landscape berm. I think that it is very much the city's and the developer's intent to screen the abutting homes from car lights. To screen traffic, noise and to provide a safety barrier for children playing in the rear and side yards. So I would like to make sure that those goals are kept. And in places where homes are higher than Galpin Blvd, I would suggest that we use massive plantings and in areas where the homes are lower or at the same level, that we do berming and landscaping. This is a quality development and in the future when Galpin is a 4 lane highway, I want to make sure that the quality of life in this neighborhood is upheld. I'm making sure that we do have good berming and landscaping. Going on to page number 24, with wetlands. I agree with the number 8, with the staff's report only I have read two different classifications in two different reports and I ask that staff and the developer make sure that they agree on classification of the wetlands so that the city's wetland ordinances are met and that primarily has to do with buffer strips. And in the staff report, it's on page 18 and in the developer's report it's on page 10. And if you refer to these two pages, wetlands indication on the staff report for Wetland A is a natural type and in the developer's it's an ag/urban type. The other difference is in Wetland H. One is an ag/urban and on the other it's natural. So just please get those in line with each other. Going back to the staff report. Number 9. Tree preservation landscaping. Number (e). I would, as a Planning Commissioner, like to see the expanded tree conservation area. I know that the one that we have been given is not complete. I would like to see a completed one. In addition, the developer states that they are removing 10% of the trees for the roadway. For the right-of-way, etc but there's no mention of the percentage being removed for housing and I would like to see those projections on how many total trees will be removed for the entire parcel. Parks and trails I will leave alone. On page 26, number 12. Streets. I am very much in favor of smaller street widths and for them to be used in the right setting and under the right conditions. Where they can save trees. Where they can save the topography of the natural land. So that I would be in favor of keeping the right-of-way for B, D and G at 50 and H and I at 40. I would like to see Chanhassen have more intimate, more neighborhoody, more smaller streets. Number 20. Page 27. Development contract. I would like to be made aware of the writing of the development contract. Being a northern neighbor to this project, I 60 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 have major concerns about quality of life issues arising from the work days and hours of the development of this project. Especially because it will be going on for maybe 4 to 5 years. So I would like to be aware of it. I don't know, how do I participate in that? Krauss: We can answer that now. There's a standard. Hempel: Standard work hours are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday and then on Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No work on Sundays or legal holidays. That's the standard in the development contract. Of course as we've experienced this year with the wet climate and with the conditions we've had, there's been a request for variances to that to try and pick up some of the time. Those are on an individual case by case. Mancino: So you mean for 4 or 5 years I may be hearing construction on Saturdays? Hempel: That's correct. You will hear new home construction on Saturdays right now. Mancino: And what do, is there anything the Planning Commission can do about that? Hempel: I'm not sure if the Planning Commission can. It would take City Council approval... Krauss: I'm honestly not certain if it's an ordinance or if it's just the way we write our development contracts...I know that it takes a Council action to deviate from it, but that's... because when the Council is asked to deviate from it, they're not being asked to give a variance to an ordinance. They're being asked to allow a change in the condition of a contract. I suppose it's possible, if there were particular reasons on a particular development why something ought to be throttled back. Mancino: Is there a sensitivity to the hours? I haven't found that. Krauss: Well, I mean we've established the, this was established by the city to mitigate the worst problems...people out shooting nails into a roof at 4:00 in the morning and these kinds of things happen and rather than deal with it on an ad hoc basis, a standard...written into the contract. But you know, Dave is right. I mean you've got to honestly realize that that's an unfortunate aspect of living in this community during it's development. That the sounds of things stacking up and nail guns kind of work as the back ground noise for a time. Mancino: Well I'll take it up with the City Council. Thank you. My other comments are the landscape median. I would like to definitely for the entrance on street A and E. I think 61 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 that it states a uniqueness to the neighborhood which I like. And that's it. Conrad: Thanks. Matt. Ledvina: I'll go to the conditions also. Looking at condition number 2 Paul. I'm not sure I understand what we're talking about in. terms of this 6 foot setback for garages and 9 feet for...areas. Normally we're talking about 10 feet in both of those instances, isn't that correct? Krauss: Yes. This was a request of the developer and I believe it's similar to the condition that was...What they're asking for is they're saying that our ordinance requires 20 feet between houses. They'll give us the 20 feet but they want to be able to shift things around. Have a little more latitude to that and it's primarily because you're going to wind up with a nice tree on one side of the lot and you want to shift things... Ledvina: I see. Krauss: It really seemed to be no skin off of our necks to allow them to do it as long as they had the obligation to demonstrate to us. Ledvina: 16 on one, 14 on another, stuff like that? Okay. Alright. And on number 9. I think you mentioned it Paul. I'd add a condition relating to custom grading plans. The. applicant shall prepare for appropriate lots as they needed them by city staff. I don't know if you want to do it just you know, over the whole thing or just specific areas where you want. custom grading plans. Krauss: You know I was talking to Commissioner Mancino this morning about that and I guess if I had my druthers, our ordinances would specify that there is no mass grading of residential parcels. And on this particular, I don't know if the developer finds that acceptable or not. I think it's preferable but certainly we can go in and list the lots that have the trees on it versus the ones that are out in a corn field. Ledvina: Even just like, for example, Block 7 or something like that. Just doesn't have to be real complicated. I don't think we're concerned about that aspect so much like lots 2, 3, 5 and maybe there's some in 4 that we would want to look at but. At any rate, however you want to crack that. Getting to the right-of-ways on the streets and the street widths, etc. Condition number 12. I think that for streets H and I, I believe that the proposal that the applicant has put together is reasonable and sensitive and I would support that but on the other hand, the streets for the streets G. Or I should say, all the other streets with 50 foot right-of-ways. I think that I don't see a real strong need there for reducing that right-of-way and I would suggest that those be expanded to a 60 foot right-of-way. If it doesn't amount to 62 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 increasing the pavement width, you're still agreeing to a 31 foot pavement width, I don't see the problem if we're not disturbing sensitive areas...additional right-of-way and I think we should have that. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. I think maybe there's a misunderstanding. May I clarify? Conrad: Sure, go ahead. Terry Forbord: Before Commission Scott. The only reason that that's proposed in that particular area is to minimize the grading because the house will be pushed further back. Because there's a front yard setback requirement from the edge of right-of-way so when you narrow the right-of-way, that means the house doesn't have to be pushed so far back in those areas. So we won't have to grade that far back. That's the benefit is that there's just going • to be a lesser amount of grading. And I know it's kind of hard to understand but you measure the front yard setback from the right-of-way. If you narrow the right-of-way, that means the house doesn't have to be as far back. And in these areas, it means you'd be pushing, you can't get 60 foot. Ledvina: Is the entire right-of-way automatically graded? Terry Forbord: That's correct. Ledvina: It is? Okay. Terry Forbord: So what happens is that you're gaining 5 feet all the way around on each side...5 feet on that side is essentially what you're gaining. And it may not sound like a lot but it all adds up. That's why we proposed it. Hempel: I think that whole street B though, that's proposed to be graded. Is that correct Terry? All the lots. It's kind of a mass grading on those. Terry Forbord: In the open areas, there's some mass grading. We're trying to limit how far back we have to go into there with a building pad. ...probably addressed it better but the building pads, you must grade for the foundations of the homes yet you don't have to go 5 feet further back. So you're saving 5 feet on each side of that road by doing that. But if it saves the cost of the grading and further impact. That was the only reason. Ledvina: Okay. I can see that. Let's see then. As far as, I guess I'm just going to touch on the parks and the trails. I guess I agree that you can have a smaller open area. I think if the 63 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 larger open area, the 250 feet square is going to mean reducing landscaped areas or whatever, there's trade offs there. I don't know that those are hard to make. I think a smaller is just as effective as 250 square feet. Or 250 foot square areas. It seems to me that, and correct me if I'm wrong Paul but is the Parks Commission asking for them to pay the trail fees and then they're also asking them to finance the construction of the trail fees? Is that like making them pay for it twice? Krauss: All I can tell you is it does sound like that to me. If that's the case it certainly, you can question the equity in it or...require on the subdivision. That really needs to be clarified. Ledvina: Well, that's what it seems like to me as I read through this and I don't know. I think just to get that out in the open. Other than that, I certainly respect the opinions of the Park Commission. They work very hard in things that relate to the trails and in general I would defer to their recommendations here but I think the overall game plan and the value of the development should certainly be taken into consideration as some of these issues are ironed out here. Let's see. Then as far as the private drive onto the 9 acre parcel. I guess I would support staff in requiring that that driveway not be allowed, given the configuration that we have here. I think that it's possible that some changes be made to B street to maybe accommodate that drive in some way but I'll leave that to be worked out but I would, I do • think that the additional driveway may not be warranted so. Other than that I really would commend the developer for an excellent job with this parcel. I think it's going to be a wonderful area to own a house. Conrad: Boy I'm sitting here thinking what we're going to do after we stop talking. And if we've added any value to this. Number one, what has to happen is that I think some of what Lundgren has presented in wording, I think a lot of it is appropriate and I would hope that by the time this gets to City Council, that we can get it so there aren't that many areas of difference. Because I don't think the areas of difference are very big in most of the cases. _ At least the way I read it. But it's real hard to digest what is being said and for some lay people who aren't as familiar with the issues. I honestly don't know where to begin. You know Jeff, there was a point where you said table and I really don't know that I need things tabled. Farmakes: I would be perfectly happy to vote on the staff report recommendations. But I will not, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to vote on this until staff has a chance to respond. Conrad: And I think that's appropriate. So as long as representatives from Lundgren don't mind that. It really is difficult to react to what you present without having a staff prepared to look at everything. I think we'll react to the staff report and I think it's really. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Mancino: You don't want to see it again? Conrad: I don't. I personally don't need to see this again. I really like the proposal. I think there's so many nice things about it that it's really neat. There are some key things for you that you've got to get through and some of those things we're not even going to react to tonight within the park and trail systems. In concept, they're really good. I like the trails coming down to Galpin, which is no big, great shakes. I don't have any insight how big they should be. Where they should be. I like the trail system around the wetland. I think that's really neat. That's just neat stuff. You look for the neat stuff that the community can get out of a development. There's some neat things here. Most of the other things I will leave to the professionals to handle. I do like the narrow streets and I would like, and Dave I respect everything you said. I understand what you said. I actually understood what you said and it made sense. Yet I like narrow streets and I think here's, I would like to see if we can make that happen. And you know when you find out that we're only putting the sewer 12 feet down and what have you, maybe we're not disturbing that big an area. I'd sure, my recommendation tonight is to try to make those narrow streets work. I live on Horseshoe Curve and if you've been there, you know that that's mighty narrow. That's far narrower than what we're talking about. I love it. It's terrific. Nobody complains about it. But that's not necessarily relevant for tonight's conversation but it sort of tells you where I'm coming from. I'd like to think we could make it work. If it doesn't work because of safety, because of exactly the facts that you bring up. They were going to go down, we're going to disturb 30-40 feet anyway so what's the point. Well, if that's the case. Well yeah. That's practical. Let's not being playing with sky when we're going to disturb but again I think I heard Lundgren say, Terry say he'd like to work with us on that and prove that it can happen and I'd like to see that proof. I'd like to see that all parts work toward that. The landscape medians, yeah. Of course. You've got to have two. There's no difference between one and the other. That's cut and dry in my mind. Paul, your key points. The big conservation areas and forget about these onesies, twoies trees. Yeah, absolutely. There's just no doubt that that's, I like, that's the way to manage. Preserve the big stuff and we can't get into the fine management and I don't know Nancy. Maybe you don't like that but I really do like going for the bulk and letting individuals have some interaction with maybe some of the details. So I like the overall concept of what's going on here. One thing, and I don't know how this is ever going to end up in a motion but in point number 8. Staff had some concerns about basin D. How much it could handle and you know I just didn't get the feeling that staff was real convinced that basin D was going to do it's job. Needed more information. Well, that wasn't worked into any of the conditions. At least the way I read the conditions so that probably fits into 8 someplace, and I don't know who up here is ever going to work that in but it may happen. But if not, I would hope that somebody could look at that. I think that's on page 19. Halfway down. Basin D will also receive significant increase in runoff to the basin, increase blah, blah, blah, blah. I just didn't see that reacted to in the report. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Throughout here the staff report kept talking about 250 square feet. Now this park is bigger than 250 square feet so when this hits someplace, let's correct that. I think that's on a side if I'm not mistaken, right? Versus 180 foot on a side but it's not 250 square feet in my mind. That's a small park and you can't play frisbee in that small an area. I think in the future, when a current tree, well. It's been said. When there's a tree that applies to, and is being — credited to what a developer is obligated, I think we do have to make sure it's one of the trees that we like. That's for future type of stuff that we've got to make sure works. I think, I have a pretty good feeling that the trees in this proposal are going to meet that. The need, I think they will be of good quality. I guess the only place, I don't know. The access for the Song's. That one I'm really split on. You know it's like, geez. That property is going to be developed. Somebody who makes the motion can persuade me on that one. I didn't have a problem. If you've got 9 acres and we put one road in off of 9 acres, that's not a great deal although that's certainly not what we'd like to do. But I would hope that that criteria is not a make or break type deal for this development. It's a terribly nice development. I'm very sensitive and that's not even, you know. That one's not an issue to me one way or another. I think the staff recommendation is the recommendation they should have made. I guess it's up to the Planning Commission and City Council. If we care, it could go a different way but the staff made the right recommendation. I guess I could talk about it a lot longer. I have no idea who wants to make a motion on this and what you say. But if somebody has a clever way of addressing the issues and summarizing the points, I welcome them to take a shot at it. Ledvina: It's my opinion that there are too many things unresolved and as much as I'd like to keep things moving, I'm not comfortable with passing it along at this point. I know that's not what you want to hear but. Conrad: No, that's fine. Your choice. Mancino: I'm going to have to agree. Farmakes: You have my opinion. Conrad: Your opinion. Farmakes: I would be happy to vote on the staff's recommendations with a couple of points that were brought up here. The issue that you just discussed last, I recall that we had an 11 acre development that was subdivided. I think the issue here that it's a private driveway, setting precedent for private driveway. The issue is obviously it's a large enough parcel to probably ask for a connection to the highway if it was a development. Conrad: Oh for sure. It would have it so I don't know. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: Considering the amount of large scale property out that way, it could create a problem by letting that happen. Conrad: Yeah. I guess that issue shouldn't get us hung up here. I don't think we care about that one. I guess Matt wants to see some of these things ironed out. I don't know that I have any more insight into this that, or I don't know that I need to hear staff come back or Lundgren come back to me. I think if Terry wanted to get concurrence and narrow in on the points, he could very definitely we could bring it back and I think we could clean this up a whole lot. And bring it back and look at it and review it in a half an hour. Yet I don't personally feel a need to do that. Matt, you do and that's. Ledvina: Well could I ask the developer a question. Would you like to see the proposal moved forward with just the staff conditions or how would you like to see it? Terry Forbord: Well, I have a great deal of confidence in Chairman Conrad's comments. _ He's been doing this a long time. He's certainly seen enough of me over the years. I believe he knows that we do what we say we're going to do. I think that the outstanding issues, the staff has had an opportunity to hear what the comments generally are from the Planning Commission. They know where we stand with those and I think a lot of those things can be worked through. We submitted this proposal to the city probably sometime in July and we've been working closely with the city in different components of the staff on this for a long — time. And the staff's really busy because they have a lot of proposals before them and you all probably recognize that because you're seeing them ultimately. So we would really like obviously, to be able to continue to move this forward. If we could incorporate some of the comments that were made by each of you this evening into a motion and then with some general directions to staff and the applicant can sit down and work through the details on some of these outstanding issues, would be satisfactory to us. Conrad: Paul, a motion to approve that has a split vote goes, what happens? So it will go, actually it will go up with no recommendation. Isn't that correct? Krauss: If I remember Robert's Rules of Order. We have our Assistant City Manager here who is going to take his masters degree in public administration. Conrad: Oh then he knows. If he doesn't know, he fails right? Krauss: I honestly thought a tie vote is equivalent to a negative. Conrad: It's been a while since we had one. It might be. Is that right? 67 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, if the Planning Commission feels more comfortable with tabling this item. It never is the posture of Lundgren Bros to try to make any of you feel — uncomfortable. Obviously it would be something we would prefer not to do but I don't want any of you saying well Lundgren Bros made us feel uncomfortable tonight so we. I don't want to do that. If you feel more comfortable with tabling, then we would accept that. — Conrad: Nancy you're probably, I think. Jeff I'm just guessing here and verbalizing a strategy on this one. Matt would like to see it come back. Jeff and I probably could let it go — through based on staff report and Terry would take his chances of working with staff. Mancino: I guess I'm the youngest. — Conrad: You're the one that can move this one way or another. What do you think? Where do you want to be? Mancino: I'd like to see it come back. Conrad: For what reason? Mancino: I'd like to iron out before we get to City Council some of the details. Conrad: Which ones? — Mancino: The ones that are, I would like to integrate these two. The recommendations from staff and the recommendations from the developer and get these two integrated. — Conrad: And you'd like to see them yourself? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: That's your posture too Matt? — Ledvina: Yeah. I don't think that we need 4 hours next time. I mean I think we can do it in a half an hour. So I think all the issues are on the table. I'd also like to see some more — discussion with, and maybe this will automatically happen with the Park and Rec Board too. I think that there's some star issues that. Mancino: Big issues. Ledvina: Yeah, and I don't know. I don't want to force the process. 68 — Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: Okay. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? We would rather be denied than go back to the Park and Rec. We would walk away from this deal in a heartbeat if I have to go back to them. Mancino: So, we will not get the park and rec trails. There won't be any decision there until it goes to City Council. Conrad: Well, the Park and Rec has made their recommendation. And you know, that recommendation is really there and so for you to say, send it back. I don't think that you really have the right, the authority to do that. You can agree with. We, when we send this up, we can be saying. We can make comments about their comments but it's not going to go back to them based on. Ledvina: Okay. Well, I didn't know that. I guess then, when you talk about not addressing the park issue, then we're really responsible for addressing the park issues and saying what we think and working those things through. Conrad: Well, there are some things that can come back to us. There's no doubt. I think the street issues. There are some valid things. To come back so that it's put to bed here so when City Council gets it, it's real clean. There are some of those issues. And I guess the consensus is, we want to see them. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Ledvina: I move that we table Case No. 93-3 for PUD for the, I'm sorry. Is that right? Hold on. Table Case No. 93-3 PUD until staff has a chance to meet with the developer to resolve some of the outstanding issues. Conrad: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to table PUD Case No. 93-3 for the Song-Carlson property proposal by Lundgren Bros until staff and the developer have a chance to meet and resolve some of the outstanding issues. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: I really want to be clear. Staff's going to go back, and Paul left. Now it is late and I'd rather not be here either. But Dave, maybe you can take notes because I'm not going to. There's a good reason probably for Paul leaving. But anyway, I really want to be real specific in terms of the issues. There are 31 issues basically or whatever. To integrate the wording and language that I don't know is too far apart. But I want to make sure that staff 69 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 knows exactly what issues we want to review real carefully. Jeff, can you summarize the couple that you thought? You know a lot of these are going to be. Farmakes: Number 3 should be revised so that it, I have no problem with the information that was inserted but it should reflect the next sentence. It should be modified so it relates to the next sentence. So it's approved selection of what they're being credit for. And I guess the issue of the park, I don't agree with what they've put in and the issue of option 5. I don't think the city should enter into that. Conrad: Okay. Farmakes: And again, I had the feeling that I didn't want to make comments on this blue sheet because I haven't had time to digest it and properly think about it. I just got it right here in the meeting. I feel a little uncomfortable deciphering which, those are the two particular ones that came to mind. The other issue, I would support the smaller streets. I don't have a problem with that but the issue really wasn't dealt with precisely here. The problem I have with this is procedural. Not so much of what they're asking. I just don't think we should be reviewing information like this where the recommendations are being modified like this. It does not allow us time to, you know I'm just repeating myself. It _. doesn't allow us time to review it. It doesn't allow staff time to support it. Conrad: Nancy, did you have some key? I know you have some key issues. -- Mancino: Number 12. The proposal for right-of-way I think is a key issue. Conrad: Which means, in my mind, and I'm going to put words in all. We'd like to try to make it work, right? Isn't that, okay. We want to see that that 40 foot right-of-way can work and basically so it comes back and we can see and we can all three parties, or however many we have here, can say yeah. It will work so when it goes to City Council, they'll say yeah. We can see why we can slip the standards. Okay. Mancino: The single family access to Lot 9. The Song's new property or where they're going to put their new house. The 9 acres. Kind of resolve that. Conrad: More than likely staffs going to still come back with the same recommendation. Anything else that's real key? Matt, while she's thinking. Anything that you can jump in with? Ledvina: Nothing new other than what I indicated in my comments. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Mancino: The north/south street, and I don't even know if it's on here. One of the recommendations in the staff report is making sure that there is a north/south street, whether _ it be H or something west into the next property. Is that on this blue sheet? I thought it was. Do you know what number? I think that's a big issue to resolve. And maybe you were fine with that. I thought I saw. Terry Forbord: Oh it's 27. — Mancino: 27. Conrad: Anything else? Okay. Terry. You're standing up. You want to talk to us. Are — you going to lecture us or are you going to. Terry Forbord: Can you tell me when we may be appearing before you next. Krauss: Two weeks from today. _ Conrad: Yeah, it shouldn't take long. Terry Forbord: Can we be first? Krauss: We sort of promised that. Terry Forbord: Thank you very much, all of you for taking all the time. I think that a lot of times our presentations take a lot of time but I think when you look back, and you drive _ through these neighborhoods in a few years when you're watching them, you'll be happy that we all spent this kind of time because I think that the neighborhoods will present themselves in an image that you all hope... Conrad: Thank you. _ CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR A 232 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 21 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 8, 10 — OR 12 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY, SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION WITH ATTACHED ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE — INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY). 71 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to table the Concept Plan for PUD #93-5 for Centex Real Estate Corporation until the next Planning Commission meeting due to the lateness of the hour. All voted in favor and the motion carried. MODIFICATION TIF DISTRICT NO. 2-1 AND 2-2; DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Are there any questions? What are we in? Are we in a public hearing? Gerhardt: No. The public hearing will be held Monday night at the City Council. What you're doing tonight is approving the changes within the plan that they are consistent with the comprehensive plan and your development plans of the city as a whole. I think the comprehensive plan outlines that the 40 acres north of the Timberwood development would be a school site and if it is not a school site, it would be a medium density residential development. This summer we entered into an agreement to purchase that land...school district. In concert with that, the Planning Commissioner Mancino has been sitting through T the Park and Rec recreation center task force in looking at expanding off the elementary school site where we would use approximately $2.3 million of tax increment dollars to add a gymnasium and then enhance what is a typical elementary school...full sized gym. Raising the roof by 5 feet. Taking it from 20 to 25 and putting in a wood floor instead of a tile floor that would be a typical gym in an elementary school. Thus we would have some priority over programming of the elementary school. Have one additional full sized gym for our own use and additional meeting rooms, fitness center and storage. They're also looking at a running track that may go around both of them... The second thing in the plan is that we would acquire parkland, the low area associated with the Chan Business Center. With that, that would be along with the Bluff Creek trail system and there is approximately 2 to 3 acres that are buildable down there...to build a recreation totlot or multi purpose rec. The little fitness center. Mancino: Todd, how many acres is that? That you're buying for $115,000.00? Krauss: Isn't it close to 10? Gerhardt: I think it's 14. 14 acres. There's estimates from $187,000.00 down to $45,000.00 so I think I added the two and divided them. Mancino: Isn't there any park dedication in TIF districts? Is there any park dedication in the 72 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 business districts? Gerhardt: I think the Park and Rec Commission chose to collect the fees in lieu of...purchase the land when increment became available. Krauss: They wanted both. Mancino: They wanted both, okay. Gerhardt: That's typically how we did the Lake Susan Park next to Rosemount. We collected the park and trail dedication fees from the development and then used the increment to buy the land. Mancino: I have no other questions. Conrad: Okay. Anything else Todd? Gerhardt: No. Conrad: Do we have any questions? Jeff, anything? Farmakes: None. Conrad: None. Good. I have nothing. Is there a motion? What do you need us to do Todd? Actually we need. Gerhardt: A motion to approve. Conrad: Yeah, there is a recommendation. Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 93-1 finding the modification to the TIF District No. 2-1 and 2-2 and Development District No. 2 consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan. Conrad: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? 73 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Resolution #93-1: Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 93-1 finding the modification to the TIF District No. 2-1 and 2-2 and Development District No. 2 consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: Do you need signatures on this thing Todd? Gerhardt: Yeah...I'll get it to you. I've got to make the modification of the date on the Resolution. Conrad: Well, I don't want to hear any more. Do you have anything to say to us? Ledvina: Can I talk about one thing? Conrad: Sure. Ledvina: For the PUD for the Centex thing. The area that was identified in the notice was wrong and I don't know if that affects if people look at that and say, hum. That's not me. Mancino: It's the Song's property isn't it? - Ledvina: Yeah, this is the Song property so when you renotice. Do we have to renotice? Krauss: No. No. As long as the legal's correct...the Attorney said we don't technically have to but we should fix it... Ledvina: Just to let you know. Conrad: Anything Paul? Krauss: Briefly two things. You are, in terms of office. Chairman Batzli has told me he's not going to ask to be reappointed. Jeff, your seat is open as well. What we ask is that we - have an indication from you if you want to be reappointed so when the ad is put in the paper, we can tell people that we have a fully open seat or. Farmakes: I'll do it again. Krauss: The second thing is, you're going to get a notice from us, if you haven't already. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 You asked us to schedule a bus tour. Farmakes: Received it today. Mancino: On the 16th. Krauss: Yeah, right. Do we have some interest there... Well, we'll be more than happy to do it. If you want... Conrad: I want to do it. I am out of town. Farmakes: It is worth while. Conrad: It is absolutely worth while. Ledvina: If you can do it some other time too, whatever. I'm kind of missing a lot of those things so I want to. Conrad: That's a good one. I'm in Iowa. Mancino: This is the Highway 5 tour right? Krauss: Yeah. I asked Kate to invite the Highway 5 task force members as well as the City Council. If we get 20 people on the bus, that'd be... Conrad: Are you going to go out to the Arboretum too? Krauss: We were going to end it at the Arboretum and have lunch out there. An early lunch and I spent a morning with Peter hiking around the Arboretum and he thought, I invited him to give 20 minutes and sum up the Arboretum. He didn't think he was going to be able to be there but he though he might have one of his staff people there. Farmakes: I have a quick question. Was that the two items you were discussing? The Colonial Grove thing and the letter. What happened to that item? I couldn't figure out how they got 8 runabouts, which are 16 feet or better, on a 35 foot dock because it doesn't add up. Krauss: I wasn't present. I was... The Planning Commission recommendation of 3 boats was forwarded to the City Council. The City Council was short members that night and, as I understand it, a motion was made very quickly for 8 boats and it was over with and done. There were then, I think Court MacFarlane came to the follow-up meeting and expressed 75 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 some concerns. I don't remember exactly what he said. I'm paraphrasing but why would the Council action on this beachlot be different than all the other beachlots where it was based on some factual basis. Then someone on staff and apparently some of the City Council received one or more phone calls that implied that some of the...information that was received... Colonial recreational beachlot may have been given duress. And I don't know that happened. We didn't try to ascertain if this was true or not. In fact we did nothing about it. At a following meeting Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, brought it up and said they were real uncomfortable with what happened. We'd like to vote to reconsider it. That was - done. We were asked to come back and bring Findings of Fact. That was done a week ago. Two weeks ago. Cliff Whitehill, representing the beachlot, was in attendance. Claimed that he had, wasn't personally invited or something. I don't remember exactly what...but he was fairly upset. The Council then continued it to Monday night. Farmakes: As near as I can figure out with that operation, even if they were fishing boats, which on Lotus and Minnewashta is very proportionate much more to runabouts. They were 16 feet more. There isn't enough running feet at the dock to get that many boats for overnight storage. So it doesn't make any sense to begin with. Plus the boats can only get so close. To get both sides of the dock, it doesn't work out in running feet. You've got a lot more boats than you've got docks. - Krauss: Well I think it's fair to say, I mean staff's position on it. We typically do not take positions...factual data as we saw it and passed forward your recommendations. There's been - a tremendous number of accusations that I personally resented towards my staff about implications that we tried to tip things one way or another on that. Ledvina: On that particular one? Krauss: Yeah. Farmakes: Also, they were the ones that came in, I don't know if we're. Of any of the ones that had come in, I thought that one, I felt the most uneasy about it. I felt like we weren't - getting factual information. But still in all, I felt that it was important to remain consistent with how we dealt with the other ones. There were as many people who said that there were. As many people who came and said there weren't so I didn't see any credibility to what they were presenting. But we're not here to say you're telling the truth and you're not. Ledvina: I voted for 8 boats in that instance but I did that only on the basis of what was presented in front of me. I mean the people that did come in, they were there with their letters at the last second. Tossing them in front of us and I don't care for that. At any rate. 76 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: If you had a chance to hear Court MacFarlane, who was the Chairman of what. Surface Water. No, what was it? Krauss: He was the water usage. Conrad: Water usage or whatever. And when you hear the background to the whole scenario, you know absolutely and we're still on tape now. But you know absolutely that boats were not permitted period. At that point in time, and that's the original interpretation of staff. Staff's original interpretation on that property, that boats were not permitted. So when we granted them 3, that was 3 more than what the contract really, the permit. Mancino: The original. Conrad: The original permit gave them rights for. A little bit, and a different opinion Jeff. And this one's closer to home so I'm probably a little bit more bias. Yet on the other hand there was a lot of reason. The timing of that was when there was so much going on on Lotus Lake that people were really concerned about outlots so they were watching what was going on in that area. And plus the task force that was out there was watching every outlot at that point in time, especially on Lotus Lake. So the task force, so all the numbers that were coming in were really validated by the surface water usage group. So that's what Court came in and said, hey. We were watching. The numbers that staff had turned up in their audits, those are the numbers that we used when we were managing this and trying to come up with recommendations for what beachlots should be permitted to do. But prior to that, they had no rights to have any boats. So when we said 3, that was 3 more than what they really had a right to do. So when they got 8, that was pure fantasy. That was just fantasy. Farmakes: The staff report I read though said that they had 3. Conrad: There were 3 there probably. Farmakes: But they weren't supposed to be. Conrad: They weren't supposed to be there, right. They were illegal at that point in time. Farmakes: See as I said before, 35 foot. That's 70 running feet both sides of it. You can't get that many boats. Krauss: At this point Cliff Whitehill, representing the beachlot has, and stated it in a meeting environment...sue Dick Wing for liable. We're not...You elect a Council person to make judgments. It's not...to do so and the City Attorney felt comfortable with that...I wouldn't be 77 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 surprised if it would up in litigation. Conrad: Oh there's no doubt. Krauss: The City Council...3 boats. I think it's fairly safe to say that the... — Farmakes: 8? I thought it was 9. Krauss: No, they didn't...with that and that was one of the things that Cliff Whitehill was fairly abusive towards Kate about. In Cliff's letter there's some kind of a comment along the lines of, we had 9 out there in the past and we could have asked for it but we're only asking —' for 8. Farmakes: See, I read that as 146 feet, running feet of boats. How do you get that on a 35 — foot dock? Even if you put it on both sides, you'd better have to put it on the dock too. It doesn't make any sense. — APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vice Chair Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 15, 1993 as presented. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. — Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director — Prepared by Nann Opheim 78 — 0i,10 , CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 N MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning DATE: October 14, 1993 SUBJ: Report from Director At the Monday, October 11, 1993, City Council meeting, the following actions were taken: I. Stone Creek Third Addition, Hans Hagen Homes, final plat approval was granted on the consent agenda. As noted earlier, this is the third addition of Hans Hagen's development which after a slow start is proceeding extremely rapidly. 2. City Code Amendment to Chapter 10 regarding sexually oriented businesses, final reading, was approved on the consent agenda. At an earlier meeting, Councilman Senn pulled the item to ask staff to research the potential of increasing the setback from 500 __ to 1000 feet for sensitive uses. Staff researched the matter and found out that the 1000 foot setback failed to meet the constitutional test of allowing legitimate commercial sites to exist. Therefore, the ordinance was approved with the 500 foot setback that was -- originally suggested. 3. Zoning ordinance amendment to Sections 20-575-20-595 regarding lot sizes final reading -- was approved on the consent agenda. The Planning Commission will recall that this was a minor amendment to Code to correct an omission to ensure that rural residential subdivisions platted prior to 1987 could not be smaller than 21/2 acres to protect consistency of established neighborhoods. 4. Cliff Whitehill gave another visitor presentation on the Colonial Grove beachlot. As at the last meeting, he was somewhat antagonistic in particular to Councilman Wing. At an item later on the Council agenda, the Council approved the findings of fact revising the beachlot approval to allow only 3 boats, rather than the 8 that had originally been approved by the Council. Mr. Whitehill did not stay around for this item leaving us to conclude that this will ultimately need to be resolved through litigation. Planning Commission October 14, 1993 Page 2 5. Metes and bounds subdivision for Lot 5, Block 1, Sun Ridge Addition into two parcels, Dan and Robin Edmunds. As a metes and bounds subdivision, this is not reviewed by the Planning Commission but rather goes directly to the City Council. As the Sun Ridge Addition is a pre-1987 rural residential plat, lot sizes are restricted to a minimum of 212 _ acres. We found it was possible to split this lot meeting or exceeding this test and recommended that it be approved. Unlike the balance of the lots in Sun Ridge Addition, these two parcels will connect to city sewer and water being extended south from Bluff Creek Estates. Environmental Commission As the Planning Commission is aware, there are currently 3 separate bodies working issues of — recycling, tree preservation, and surface water protection. Each of these groups has provided valuable input to staff, yet each is reaching something of a watershed in their work load. The Recycling Committee has been relatively quiet in recent years since the city was able to drop its — direct sponsorship of a recycling program in favor of organized collection. At the present time, they are undertaking a study to see if organized collection should be carried further, but after this, their work load will drop to the point where they only need to meet one to three times per year. The Tree Board is likewise finishing up their work on preservation and landscaping ordinances and will need to move in other directions in the future. The Surface Water Management Program has reached the point where the initial planning phase is nearly over and a reorganization to facilitate long term implementation may be warranted. If I combine these facts with the difficulty of providing staff for each one of these groups, preparing packets and attending separate night meetings, with the fact that one of these groups will meet frequently enough to support continuity of decision making, I have come to the conclusion that an appropriate response may be to combine each of them into a single environmental commission. I approached this subject to a number of individuals, most of whom are generally supportive of it. As an environmental commission, they would have permanent standing for the city and could handle ongoing work items in all three areas as well as other tasks that are sent to them. Members would have terms of office in the normal manner. Since this would only meet once a month, it would certainly be easier for my staff to provide support services and they would certainly have ample work to justify monthly meetings. I have been recommending that this be a 7 member commission with one seat set aside for a Planning Commissioner, another set aside for a Park Commission member with the balance being offered to concerned residents at large. I believe this type of make up will facilitate coordination with ongoing activities in the city as well as broadening the horizons of the environmental commission itself. I have been proposing that such a commission be established some time mid winter of 1994. I would appreciate the Planning Commissioners' review of this proposal and any comments that you wish to give me at the — meeting. ONGOING ISSUES REVISED OCTOBER 14, 1993 ISSUES STATUS 1. 1995 Study Area (North) and Hwy. 5 Materials presented to PC. Public hearings Corridor Study scheduled for late fall 1993. 2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments allow 3. Sign Ordinance Draft ordinance has been completed and will be reviewed by the Hwy. 5 Task Force in May. CC asked that the committee look at limiting the number of sign boards on building exteriors for office buildings. To be completed by January 1994. 4. Tree Protection Ordinance, Mapping Work completed on upgrade parking lot of significant vegetative areas landscaping. Work on going on boulevard plantings and tree preservation standards. 5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on draft of the ordinance. Initial comments delivered to Minnesota DNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. 6.* PC input in Downtown Planning and The city is embarking on a 2002 Vision Plan Traffic Study for the CBD. Meetings will start shortly. The Planning Commission will be notified. 7. Review of Architectural Standards to Hwy. 5 Task Force is working on this issue. Promote High Quality Design Will likely influence what is done in balance of city. 8. Bluff Creek Corridor Greenway Park and Recreation Commission is undertaking update of the recreational element of the Comprehensive Plan. Bluff Creek issues to be dealt with in this format. Working with Minnesota DOT to install 1 bridges over creek for Hwy. 5. Recreational easements being taken over the creek in vicinity of Laurent farm near Pioneer Trail under proposed platting. Land for school site and trail south of Hwy. 5 and north of Timberwood acquired by City Council action. 9.* Temporary uses, sales - new PC reviewed. Staff given direction to make ordinance changes and bring back in November. 10. Sexually oriented businesses Scheduled for City Council review. 11. Open Space Zoning Requested by PC. 12.* Upgrade landscaping ordinance Completed standards to meet criteria established during Target Review. 13. Joint meeting with Park and Requested by PC. — Recreation Commission on natural area preservation and Park Comprehensive Plan. 14.* Review land use designation of Recommendations for changing parcel located west of Hwy. 41 and comprehensive plan in this area are south of Arboretum. contained in the Hwy. 5 plan. 15.* Auto related uses. CC determined that new district not appropriate but wants lot by lot discussion of available sites and how best to control/ _ influence auto related uses. 16. Local/Collector Street Plan PC requested discussion of potential developing a map and plan. 17. Existing use zoning - BF District PC requested discussion. * Change in status since last report. 2 CITY OF 011CHANHASSEN �- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Don Ashworth, Executive Director DATE: October 15, 1993 SUBJ: Old Bank Acquisition, Update Report As the HRA is aware from our last packet, both the Mithuns (as sellers) as well as the Kleins (buyers) have been very reluctant to proceed with negotiating with the city on the sale of the old _ bank site. They see that site as the only area for employee parking if a new bank expansion would be considered in the future. To address their concerns, I had Fred Hoisington prepare various alternatives as to potential solutions meeting their concerns. Hopefully Mr. Hoisington's - report is self-explanatory and shows that the best alternative for the city/postal service/Mithuns/ Kleins would be to have the post office move to a new location and have that property then incorporated with the bank property--such representing the best solution for future expansion of the bank. The solution also is in the best interests of the postal service as sufficient area does not exist on that site for their expansion needs. My continued concern throughout this process has been that Washington may not figure out that a new post office is needed for several years and then to discover that a potential building site does not exist within the downtown area. I think that this type of scenario would be disastrous for the city. A post office is one of those types of services that should be available within a downtown area allowing a person to buy a loaf of bread, stop at the bank, and mail some letters. Although Eden Prairie is attempting to develop a downtown, I believe they received a major setback when they allowed the new post office to be built adjacent to the Flying Cloud Airport. The current position of our negotiations is that the Mithuns/Kleins would be willing to trade the old bank property for the postal service property if the city could make that property available to them. They would also be willing to sell the two vacant lots to the west of the old bank building. At this point, I am not sure as to whether we are close to the monetary amount for the vacant property and/or as to whether some form of kicker would be needed in the trade of the two properties. As this issue is important in the transfer of the bank's assets from the Mithuns to the Kleins, I had hoped to be in a position to present a specific agreement Thursday evening. Housing and Redevelopment Authority October 15, 1993 Page 2 The gist of that agreement would be that the city, during the next 3-5 year period of time, would attempt to work with the postal service in their relocation efforts with the intent of purchasing that site to fulfill the trade. If we were successful, the trade would be consummated and respective ownerships switched. If we were unsuccessful, we would guarantee to the new bank that we would either provide adequate parking on the city hall expansion site and/or return the ownership of the old bank property to them. The agreement would also allow the city the right to potentially encroach or otherwise start improvements for a city hall expansion/central park during that 3-5 year period of time. Critical to this whole discussion process is one of determining exactly how the city would propose to use the property in the future and, as a result of developing that plan, whether parking could be accommodated on the city hall expansion lot for the bank. [Note: Generally, the two organizations would typically have opposite parking needs and could co-exist rather well, i.e. our high peak needs would probably be evenings and weekends whereas the bank's employee parking needs would generally be weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..] Staff intends to walk through the Hoisington report Thursday evening, potentially distributing a copy of the tentative agreement reached with the Mithuns/Kleins, and to discuss current efforts in attempting to identify city hall expansion needs/alternative site plans. -4- 147.. 4-A _ }(iein Bancorporation, Inc. KLEIN BUILDING CHASKA MINNESOTA 55318 •- 612/448-2484 T + To: Daniel Klein, Klein Bancorporation, Inc. Donald Ashworth, City of Chanhassen, MN Lewis Mithun, State Bank of Chanhassen Kevin McShane, State Bank of Chanhassen From: Gary Wenande Date: August 11, 1993 Subject: Condemnation of Bank Owned Property, Parking Needs, Etc. This memorandum is to summarize the discussions and conclusions reached at a luncheon meeting of the above parties at Hazeltine National Golf Club at noon on Wednesday, August 11, 1993 The meeting was requested by Klein Bancorporation, Inc. (KBI) to discuss subject issues with all of the parties involved (City of Chanhassen [City], State Bank of Chanhassen [Bank], and KBI), in the City's planned condemnation of the Bank owned property (two lots and old bank buildings) to the west of the Bank's present operating facility and a lot owned by Mithun Enterprises Donald Ashworth reported that the City's purpose of starting the condemnation process at this time was to insure that all parties are aware of the City's intent to acquire subject property for purposes of using it as a park or green area KBI and Bank representatives discussed that part of this Bank owned property being condemned was viewed as a solution for future bank parking requirements when the Bank's present operating facility is expanded. A preliminary review of possible expansion reflects a need for an additional 80 parking spaces. Considerable discussion was held regarding the timing of the condemnation process and its relationship to KBI's pending purchase of the Bank, future parking needs and requirements of the Bank, concerns and considerations of intended uses of the property to be condemned, etc. The meeting was concluded with the following agreements: 1 Donald Ashworth will request a six month delay for the initial condemnation hearing on subject property. Such a delay will enable the present owners of the Bank and KBI, as its buyer, to complete the r. 21VED sale'purchase without having to amend any agreements currently in place. - i 1993 Memorandum August 11, 1993 Page Tr►o present owners of the Bank and KBI, as its buyer, to complete the sale/purchase without having to amend any agreements currently in place. 2. Three alternatives to the future additional parking space requirements were discussed, and the City will work with the Bank, the Mithuns as sellers of the Bank, and KBI as buyer of the Bank to resolve the problem. Kevin McShane will be the Bank's contact person for the City to work with. The three possible alternatives solutions for the Bank's future parking space problems discussed were - a. The City will work with the Bank to satisfy the Bank's future parking space requirements related to a Bank building expansion by guaranteeing required parking spaces in a municipal parking lot, either as part of an expanded City Offices lot, or from part of the property to be condemned. b. The City may consider acquiring the Post Office property and making required parking space for Bank expansion available on that property. c. The Bank acquiring the Post Office property for expansion purposes, including the required parking spaces. (This alternative does not fit into the Bank's future expansion • plans.) If the above does not represent discussion and conclusions reached at the August 11th meeting, or if any attendee does not agree with the above summary, please contact Gary Wenande. Sincerely, • KLEIN BANCORPORATION,INC. • Gerald C. Wenande Vice President GC\V:1d + \ ! + Klein Bancorporation, Inc. ►1N BUILDING CHA.SKA,14:NN'ESOTA S5318 612/448-2484 FAX 612/448-7788 August 25, 1993 Mr. Donald Ashworth City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Don _ As you are aware, we are in the process of purchasing the State Bank of Chanhassen (Bank), and as we have discussed, the City's planned condemnation of two lots owned by the Bank including the lot on which the old bank building is located, is of concern to us Our long-term planning for the Bank includes probable Bank building expansion. Such expansion would require additional parking space requirements. In determining our purchase price for the Bank, we gave considerable consideration to what we viewed as the ultimate value of the two (2) lots that are planned for condemnation. We viewed this property as a solution to parking space requirements when future Bank expansion occurs, as well as property that has considerable development value due to its location in relation to other recent developments in the City. Our primary concern is one of so':.-ing the parking space requirements when the Bank building is expanded. We believe that the condemnation will take away our ability to add on to the banking facility and continue to provide the City, and its residents, with needed banking services as the City and its service area grows. We appreciate your willingness to work with us to resolve this parking space requirement problem. Please be assured it is a major concern of ours, not only in connection with our pending purchase of the Bank, but to enable us to continue to provide the growing local community with necessary banking services. We will use our best efforts to work out an amicable solution to the parking _ problems that future Bank expansion will create. In that regard, in order for us to close on our pending purchase of the Bank, we request that the City provide us with a written Mr.Donald Ashworth August 20,1993 Page 2 assurance/agreement by October 19, 1993 that the City will guarantee future parking space required by future Bank expansion as was reviewed and discussed with Fred Hoisington on Friday, August 20, 1993. We look forward to working with the City of Chanhassen, not only relating to this parking issue, but to help in any way we can to assist the City of Chanhassen with its financial needs and in its development of the City and community. Please do not hesitate to contact us at any time if there are questions regarding our plans for the sank, or if we can be of assistance in any way. We appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the communities in which we own banks. Our primary business is "Community Banking". Sincerely, KLEIN BANCORPORATION, INC. q0a7-Zte iele<;ri Daniel G. Klein, President DGK.Id R.O.M. FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. 91I0 East Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 130 • Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 • Tel. (612) 473-6422 ?" _ 7 / 4..l ..... /74 August 30, 1993 ���,s (.t /L'~ . A 4. .►�,�� `-'�' '¢ Mr. Don Ashworth City Manager City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 RE: State Bank of Chanhassen - Property Condemnation Dear Don: We have recently had two very positive and helpful meetings regarding the possible condemnation of the two parcels of land owned by the State Bank of Chanhassen. The first meeting on August 11 was a chance for you to meet the Klein people and to become acquainted with the group which plans to purchase our bank in late October or early November. The Kleins are good people and very thoughtful, community-minded bankers. We left the meeting with the understanding that the condemnation hearing date would be postponed (which it was by letter of August 18 from Gary Fuchs) and that you and the City were going to help us find a satisfactory solution for the Bank's future parking needs. Don, it is almost a 100% certainty that the Bank will need to expand its building and services on its current site in order to meet the growing needs of Chanhassen residents and businesses. With this building expansion will come a need for extensive additional parking which we had always planned the lots to our west would provide. If the residents of Chanhassen want to use our land for a park, we certainly do not want to be an obstacle. With your pledge to help us find alternative parking, we believe all parties will come out "winners" in this project. Fred I-1;isin;tcn in our meeting of August 20 was equally helpful. He expressed great confidence that he and the City will be able to find a way to create a park ;ld provide sufficient parking for the Bank's expansion needs. Mr. Hoisington said he would be able to get back to us in mid-September with a recommended solution. That date should allow enough time for the City to prepare a letter agreement satisfactory to the Kleins by October 19. Thank you for taking the lead in this issue. I believe we will now quickly come to a mutually satisfactory resolution. Sincer v, • Jam.' 2 / LetVis M. Mithun — cc: Dan Klein Gary Wenande CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612)-937-5739 .14 To: Daniel Klein, Klein Bancorporation, Inc. Lewis Mithun, State Bank of Chanhassen Kevin McShane, State Bank of Chanhassen Gary Wenande, Klein Bancorporation, Inc. Fred Hoisington, Hoisington-Koegler Group, Planning Consultant From: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date: August 31, 1993 Subject: Suggested Modifications to Gary Wenande's Memorandum of August 11,1993 I am in agreement with Gary's memorandum of August 11, 1993, with the exception that I would modify a., b., and c. on page 2 to read as follows: a. Fred Hoisington is to review the anticipated growth needs of Chanhassen State Bank and determine how the existing westerly parking area of the bank might be reconfigured to better handle the additional parking requirements; and b. Mr. Hoisington is to similarly meet with the Postal Service and determine their future needs. As a part of that process, he is to explore the possibility of reconfiguring both the westerly half of the postal parking area as well as the bank parking area to see if a new parking lot configuration could serve the needs of both entities. This alternative would make the assumption that the city would create this new parking as a municipal parking lot with funding for such being derived from new increment generated as a part of new construction; and c. Should Mr. Hoisington ascertain that the Postal Service needs cannot be met on their current property, and that a much larger facility will be required for them, he is to explain the possibility of relocating the Postal Service and use the increment from both the Postal Service addition, as well as the Klein addition, to help in that relocation and provide the land necessary for the parking requirements for the new bank (usage of the old Postal Service property by the bank); and d. In the event that a.-c. cannot be accomplished to fully meet the bank's parking needs, to ascertain how the city would be using the old bank property for office August 31, 1993 Page 2 expansion, parking, and park purposes in an effort to show how spaces for those expanded uses could be used by the bank to meet their new parking requirements. I believe the above restatement of your points is very similar, but differed enough to warrant restating them. As a point of reference, it is my understanding that Mr. Hoisington has contacted both Kevin McShane and the Postmaster in an effort to start the above process. t"1 CITY OF CHAIIIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 August 31, 1993 Klein Bancorporation, Inc. Attn: Mr. Daniel G. Klein, President Klein Building Chaska, M.N 55318 • Dear Mr. Klein: Thank you for your letter of August 25, 1993. I will share that correspondence as well as Gary Wenande's memorandum and my suggested changes to that memorandum with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The city's ability to meet the October 19, 1993, deadline suggested in your August 25, 1993, letter may be difficult. Fred Hoisington has been given a number of assignments through my August 31 memorandum and I would hope that he can complete those as quickly as possible. Whether they can be completed prior to October 19 and submitted to our HRA for final disposition is the area that becomes questionable. As we had agreed in our meeting, the city will put on hold the proposed condemnation for a six month period to examine the parking issues. We will continue to abide by the agreement and attempt to have resolved issues prior to recommencing condemnation. I am assuming that by your letter you are clearly advising the city that condemnation will be looked at very differently by the bank if the parking issue has not been resolved. Specifically, I am anticipating that you are telling me that the parking issue is an integral part of not only the current value of the bank, but also its future value, and that any form of condemnation by the city which does not consider the parking needs for the new bank will assuredly include a claim for a reduction in value to the new bank. I further recognize that these points are not being made as any form of a threat, but solely to ensure that the city fully recognizes the importance of additional parking to meet the future needs of the bank itself. I can understand these concerns and, again, will work as diligently as possible to attempt to resolve those concerns and to have that resolution placed into written format. However, I must state again that the likelihood of that happening prior to October 19, 1993, will be difficult. Mr. Daniel G. Klein August 31, 1993 Page 2 Thank you for writing, and again, I will share the correspondence from yourself, Mr. Wenande, Lew Mithun, as well as my correspondence with the City Council/HRA. Sincerely, / C2/ Don Ashworth City Manager DA:k CU . CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director DATE: August 9, 1993 SUBJ: 1994 Planning Department Goals and Budget Request • BACKGROUND Over the past four years I have traditionally taken the opportunity presented by the budget process to update the City Council on progress towards meeting our annual goals. 1993 has been an unusually hectic year. The Planning Department workload increased dramatically due in large part to the large number of new developments applications. This type of activity runs in cycles depending largely on economic trends. However, it is clear that "Chanhassen's time as a major player" in the Twin Cities region, has clearly arrived. We are clearly viewed as a desirable place in which to live and work due in large part to the support of the City Council's major efforts to maintain our quality of life. While we are subject to state and national economic trends and upon the availability of sufficient developable land (i.e. future MUSA line amendments), the current pace of development is likely to persist. At the same time, the Planning Department remains committed to a variety of short and long term projects including: • Recycling • Southwest Metro Transit • Senior Support Services and Senior Housing Development • Permit Review and Code Enforcement • SWMP Program • Hwy. 5 Project • Representing the City's interests before a variety of regional and state agencies • Tree Board 1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget August 9, 1993 Page 2 1993 has also been a year of considerable upheaval for our department. Jo has left us after 9 years of committed service. Her experience will be difficult to replace. Secondly, on the positive side, we have finally filled the Water Resources Coordinator position that was outlined in the original 1990 Surface Water Managing Program. Managed jointly by the Planning and Engineering Departments, this program is already paying large dividends in protecting our environment and improving service and responsiveness to our residents. The last departmental upheaval is of a more personal nature. I am writing this memo in Lima, Peru with our daughter Rachel. God willing, by the time you read this she will be home with us in Minnesota. The adoption process has directly and indirectly absorbed a lot of my time in the past few months, while my commitment to Chanhassen remains strong, my absence has contributed to some delays and increased work load for my staff. I appreciate the support I have received from the Council and look forward to resuming my normal responsibilities. Special thanks are due to Kate, Sharmin and Vicki who kept things together while I was gone. PROGRESS FORWARDS 1993 GOALS The following is a summary of the department's 1993 goals and mid-year progress: 1. Complete the Highway 5 Corridor Study. At the time of writing the Highway 5 Study is nearing completion. We expect to have it finished by early fall. Planning Commission review and hearings are being scheduled for September 15 and More importantly, the project is already starting to pay big dividends. Quite simply, the way in which we do business and the City's expectation of new development in the corridor has already been raised. The project has provided a means for city residents to begin to get motivated in the corridor future. It has helped us to establish a stronger working relationship with Minnesota Department of Transportation, one that will provide a large amount of financial support for completion of the northern access boulevard. At the time of writing, it even appears that the study will have provided a mechanism for positively responding to mitigating impacts from development. The city has also developed an excellent and wide-spread reputation in the area of urban design. This was evident in our receiving a nearly $300,000 ISTEA Grant to construct the pedestrian overpass. This one grant alone will more than offset the cost of the entire project and environmental assessment. In summary, we believe the project represented an excellent use of city resources. 2. Complete the Surface Water Management Program planning effort and establish the program on a permanent footing. Here again we have an example of a program that is paying in large dividends even before it is completed. Again, it has changed the way _ 1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget August 9, 1993 Page 3 we do business. It insures that new development is much more sensitive to protecting our surface water and wetland resources. It also gives us an understanding of quality problems that have been occurring in our lakes and gives us a means to positively respond and correct them. The plan will be completed on schedule and is to be delivered to the City Council this fall. This past year we began undertaking remediation projects around the city. Our Public Works Department has developed a good working knowledge of the program and have expanded their responsibilities under it. We have also added an in-house coordinator for the program, who is jointly managed by the Planning and Engineering Departments. In short, we are poised to make a major positive impact on the quality of our natural environment. 3. Senior Commission/Senior Center. Planning staff continues to provide support for the Senior Commission as their role in providing services grows. A noteworthy accomplishment in 1993 is the opening of the Senior Answer Line. Operating out of our center it is a joint effort of the City and Carver County. With a county funded coordinator and volunteers, it is a one-stop information service. Sharmin Al-Jaff deserves the recognition for bringing this off. One of our focuses in 1993 has been on the preparing the ground work to undertake a Senior Housing project in the CBD. The feasibility study was completed and reviewed by the Commission, City Council and HRA. The probable project has been defined based upon market demand. We are aware of budgeting constraints with the TIF program, we are seeking ways to minimize direct city cost without losing management control to insure that the housing continues to respond to the needs of our residents. We expect to conclude this phase of the project in the next few months with construction possible for next year. 4. CDBG program/maintain eligibility. Staff has been working intensively with the mayor on this project all year. We have made considerable progress and have apparently been included in the 1994 funding allocation. 5. Computerize departmental functions. Is an on-going goal for the past few years and we continue to make progress along with other departments. Currently, we are all using the PC's to draft memos and reports. The SWMP modeling is on disk and will be up and running at City Hall shortly. Other uses are expected by next year. 6. Continue to enhance recycling efforts. The City continues to maintain an effective and expanding program. Recent appliance and hazardous materials drop-off days were highly successful. A study of city coordinated pickup service to insure responsiveness and reduce damage to local streets are currently in process. 1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget August 9, 1993 Page 4 7. Continue the need to upgrade, revise and improve the zoning ordinance. This is an on-going goal from year to year. We have implemented numerous minor changes. Major amendments include the wetlands ordinance, improved landscaping standards, sign ordinance and upcoming Hwy. 5 standards. 8. Strive to maintain and improve Chanhassen's image as a progressive community that sets high standards for development. Maintain good working relationships with developers, residents and out state agencies to ensure that city goals and policies Can be achieved. This is an on-going goal and one that occupies much of my time as well as my staff's. We continue to strive to be responsive to inquires and concerns raised by — residents. We serve on a large number of regional and state task forces, committees, etc. We have developed a regional reputation for being innovative in the areas of urban design and environmental protection. I believe the goal is being met but continuing efforts are required since this is not something that can be. PROPOSED 1994 GOALS 1. Implement Hwy. 5 Plan. While the plan and ordinance have been completed, they must be refined during the review process, given formal public hearings and adopted. The Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended to incorporate the document and revised land use plan. The zoning ordinance also needs to be amended. It is likely that we will have to process several city-initiated revisions to the zoning map to bring it into compliance with the Hwy. 5 Plan's recommendations. There are a number of long-term tasks to go along with the plan including working with new developments to bring them into compliance and working with MnDOT and others on issues related to the highway and access boulevards. One important factor to watch is the 1995 Study Area on Hwy. 5. You have already received one request to bring it into the MUSA line and will probably be getting others. It is clear that the City is growing faster than anticipated and that there will be a need to consider bringing this area into the MUSA line within the next 12-24 months. It is impossible to anticipate how involved a request the Metropolitan Council will demand at that time but we should be prepared for a major work effort. Related projects to be undertaken in 1994 include building the Hwy. 5 pedestrian overpass. We secured a$280,000 ISTEA grant for the project and must start construction in 1994. At this point, project management and public review of bridge designs are the main tasks. Secondly, we are working with Southwest Metro Transit and the American Legion to develop plans for redevelopment of the site. This would involve building a new legion hall, park and ride lot and motel/restaurant. The City is acting as the project facilitator and is meeting with the parties and area residents. In 1994, we expect to know if this is feasible and has merit. We expect to be able to bring it back to the HRA/City Council for review. -- 1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget August 9, 1993 Page 5 2. Implement SWMP. This is another program that is winding up its planning phase and needs to be re-tooled for the long haul to address the City's water quality and wetland protection concerns. We are in a good position to proceed based upon the quality of our plan and our staff. Funding for SWMP remains a problem. I have told you for three years that the program had sufficient funding for the planning and initial phase but was inadequate to cover construction, land acquisition, etc. The program was initially funded at 60% of staff's initial 5 year request and due to an error by the original consultant, we are only getting 60% of that. I expected that we would finish 1993 with the SWMP fund nearly zeroed out. This did not occur for several reasons. We did not bring our Surface Water Coordinator on until mid-year which saved on salary but also significantly delayed project development, educational programs, water quality testing, etc. We had also scheduled several construction projects on Lake Lucy and Lake Riley which were delayed due to delays in subdivisions that the project was linked to and an inability of staff to manage and promote projects due to work load. We expect to make up for lost ground in 1994 and the issue of correcting SWMP rates needs to be addressed if the program is to reach its goals. 3. Senior Housing Development. For several years the City has been studying the feasibility of building senior housing in our community. This has been a goal of the Senior Commission for at least 3 years. We have completed a feasibility study that defined the need and type of housing that is required and are currently completing a financial study of how best to attain what is needed. A public/private partnership to build a 70 unit, 2-3 story project with underground parking in the CBD seems the likely outcome. Things are moving forward and it seems likely that we may at least be able to lock up a site in 1994 and potentially secure a developer and initiate the project. 4. Continue work to expand senior services. In 1993, we were able to start up the Senior Answer Line. In 1994 we wish to continue to understand and meet senior needs in related areas. 5. CDBG. Now that we have reached our goal of securing funding into the future, we need to get back down to business regarding project development and program operations. It seems likely that senior support services and construction to meet ADA requirements are likely to use the lion's share of funding for the next few years. 6. Recycling/Organized Collection. The City is currently in the process of completing Phase I of the organized collection study. This was designed to see if the idea had merit from the standpoint of minimizing neighborhood disruption, street maintenance, cost and levels of service. The idea seems to have some merit and the Council will soon be asked if they wish to proceed with Phase II which could culminate in contract development and program administration. If we proceed with phase II, this will largely be a 1994 project. 1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget August 9, 1993 Page 6 With the exception of this project, the recycling program is largely in-place and requires relatively little oversight. 7. Tree Preservation. The Tree Board has been working to develop improved preservation ordinances and is nearing the end of this task. For 1994, I have set a goal of putting the program in a more permanent footing. I am seeking an increase of funding up to $30,000. This will allow us to regularly hire a forestry intern. At relatively little cost, we have been able to use this person to more effectively review and manage developments while responding to many resident concerns regarding their trees. I do not see making this a full time position in the near future but want to explore the potential of sharing this person and related costs with other communities. Secondly, I would like to be able to start an organized reforestation effort on public lands and ROW with the additional funding. 8. Environmental Commission. I am proposing that the Council constitute an Environmental Commission that would replace the work of the SWMP Task Force, Recycling Committee and Tree Board. Each of these groups have reached a point where their work load has diminished. We still need them for important input but they would not convene with enough frequency to be consistent or reliable. Secondly, managing three boards on top of all our other responsibilities is extremely difficult for myself and my staff. I am therefore proposing to combine their responsibilities in an environmental commission that would meet monthly and standing Commission members would be _ appointed by the Mayor and Council and would serve terms of office. They would provide the required continuity for the three programs and I believe adequately guide and direct them. I am recommending that there be 7 members, 1 from the Planning Commission, 1 from the Park and Recreation Commission and the balance selected from interested residents. 9. South 1995 Study Area and 212/169 Corridor. Since we adopted the Comprehensive Plan we have had a goal of defining land uses in the two 1995 Study Areas. With the Hwy. 5 Plan we have met this goal for the north area. We need to launch a comparable effort for the south one located between Lyman and Pioneer. Additionally, the Planning Commission has long been concerned with the old commercial strip along Hwy. 169/212. Sandwiched between the Minnesota River bluff line and the National Wildlife Refuge, this area contains a series of marginal land uses. We are proposing to combine both studies. Work load permitting, we want to initiate this project with the Planning Commission in 1994. 10. Hwy. 101. The City has been working on a project to define the ultimate alignment of Hwy. 101 between Hwy. 5 and new Hwy. 212 that we expect to complete by early 1994. Additionally, we have started a process of working with Carver and Hennepin Counties, Eden Prairie and MnDOT on the ultimate disposition of Hwy. 101. This will likely be _ 1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget August 9, 1993 Page 7 a long-term program that will culminate in the improvement of the roadway and turn back to County authority. This program should begin in earnest in 1994. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Thom.+:J.Camrkll (612)452.50N Rogcr N.Knutson Fax(612)45'.5550 Thomas M.Scott Gant'G.Fuchs James R.Walston October 12, 1993 Elliott B.Knetsch Michael A.Broback — Renae D.Steiner Mr. Lawrence A. Moloney — Doherty, Rumble & Butler, P.A. '✓' 3500 Fifth Street Towers k.,, ... „ . 150 South Fifth Street _ Minneapolis, MN 55402-4235 Re: City of Chanhassen vs. Frank Beddor, Jr. , et al. — Court File No. C9-93-1111 Frank Beddor, Jr. , et al. vs. City of Chanhassen, et al. — Court File No. C5-93-1185 Our File No. 12668/310 Dear Mr. Moloney: — Enclosed herewith and served upon you by mail are the following documents in connection with the above-entitled — matters: 1. Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint — (#C5-93-1185) ; and 2 . Defendants' Informational Statement. Best regards, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FU HS, P.A. By: }L. 1-17- Th as M. Scott TMS:rlt Enclosure cc: Mr. Don Ashworth (w/enclosures) /Mr. Paul Krauss (w/enclosures) 8231 Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Attorneys at Law Thomas J.C+mncd (612)452.5\ Roger N.Knutson Fax (612)452-5550 Thomas M.Scott Gan G.Fuchs lames R.Walston Elliott B.Knetsch October 12 , 1993 Michael A. Broback Renae D.Steiner District Court Administrator Carver County Courthouse 600 East Fourth Street Chaska, MN 55318 Re: City of Chanhassen vs. Frank Beddor, Jr. , et al . Court File No. C9-93-1111 Frank Beddor, Jr. , et al . vs. City of Chanhassen, et al . Court File No. C5-93-1185 Our File No. 12668/310 Dear Court Administrator: Enclosed for filing are the following: 1 . Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (C5-93-1185) ; 2 . Defendants' Informational Statement; and 3 . Affidavit of Service by Mail. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUC;iS, P.A. By: Thomas M. Scott _ TMS: rlt Enclosures cc: Mr. Don Ashworth Mr. Paul Krauss Mr. Lawrence A. Moloney 8229 Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Other Civil Court File No. C5-93-1185 Frank Beddor, Jr. , Todd Novaczyk and Sherry Novaczyk, and Robert L. Post and Sandra J. Post, Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS' ANSWER vs. TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT City of Chanhassen, its Mayor Don Chmiel and City Council Members, Defendants. Defendants above-named, for their Answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, state as follows: 1. Deny each and every statement, allegation, matter, or thing contained in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint except as hereinafter specifically admitted. 2 . Admit the allegations in Paragraphs 3 , 4 and 8 of the Amended Complaint. 3 . As to the allegations in Paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Amended Complaint, admit that the City intends to condemn property owned by Plaintiff Frank Beddor, Jr. and his wife for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. The other allegations are specifically denied. 4 . As to the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint, deny that the City of Chanhassen is a home rule charter city. 5. As to the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint, admit that City staff recommended approval of the Tower Heights Addition plat subject to various conditions and that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the plat on July 21, 1993 . The other allegations are specifically denied. 6. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint except that the hearing date has been changed. 7 . As to the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint, admit that on or about July 21, 1993 , a Petition was filed with Environmental Quality Board requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the proposed project, which Petition was signed by not less than twenty-five individuals . The other allegations in Paragraph 12 are specifically denied. 8 . As to the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint, admit that on August 18, 1993 , the Planning Commission - for the City of Chanhassen met and discussed the proposed project. The other allegations in Paragraph 13 are specifically denied. 9 . As to the allegations in Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Amended Complaint, admit that on August 30, 1993 , the Chanhassen City Council adopted a Findings of Fact and Decision determining that an EAW was not needed and would not be prepared. The other allegations in Paragraphs 14 and 15 are specifically denied. 10. Admits the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint. 2 11 . As to the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint, admit that Plaintiff Beddor has presented materials to the City Council relating to purported alternatives to the road extension. The other allegations are specifically denied. 12 . Specifically deny the allegations in Paragraphs 17 , 18 , 19, 20, 21, 23 , 24 , 26, 27 , 29, 31 and 32 . AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 13 . The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 14 Plaintiffs are not proper parties. The action must be brought in the name of the State of Minnesota. 15. Plaintiff Frank Beddor lacks standing to bring this action because he is not a person residing within the State of Minnesota as required by Minn. Stat. § 116B. 03 . 16. The action has not been properly commenced in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 116B. 03 , Subd. 2 . 17 . There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed road extension and the project is consistent with and reasonably required for the promotion of the public health. 18 . Defendants are exempt from any claim under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B. 02 , et seq. , because the road will be constructed on property which will be owned by the City and the removal of trees for the road cannot reasonably be expected to pollute, impair or destroy other natural resources located within the State. 3 BAD FAITH LITIGATION 19 . Defendants are entitled to an award of their costs, disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees and witness fees against Plaintiffs and their attorney pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549 . 21 because Plaintiffs have acted in bad faith, asserted a claim that is frivolous and costly to Defendants and are taking an unfounded position solely to delay the ordinary course of proceedings. WHEREFORE, Defendants request judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint with prejudice and awarding to Defendants their attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements. Dated: October 12 , 1993 . CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FU HS , P.A. l t By: Thomas M. Scott, #98498 Attorneys for Defendants 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (612) 452-5000 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 49. 21, Subd. 2 , to t e party against whom the allegations in th s leading are asse ed. Thomas M. Scott, #98498 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Civil No. C9-93-1111 Frank Beddor, Jr. and Marilyn A. Beddor, husband and wife, John Doe and Mary Roe, and County of Carver, Defendants. INFORMATIONAL STATEMENT FORM 111. 02 Frank Beddor, Jr. , Todd Novaczyk and Sherry Novaczyk, and Robert L. Post and Sandra J. Post, Plaintiffs, vs. Civil No. C5-93-1185 City of Chanhassen, its Mayor Don Chmiel and City Council Members, Defendants. 1. All parties have been served with process . 2 . All parties have not joined in the filing of this form. 3 . Brief description of the case: Plaintiffs Beddor, et al . claim that Chanhassen's decision to build a 800-foot street extension violates the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. (Minn. Stat. § 116B. 01, et sect. ) . Plaintiffs Beddor, et al. also claim that Chanhassen's decision not to perform an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs Beddor, et al . seek injunctive relief. The City's condemnation action (File No. C9-93- 1111) to acquire the necessary land to build the road has 9241 been consolidated with Plaintiffs Beddor, et al . 's lawsuit challenging the project (File No. C5-93-1185) . 4 . It is estimated that the discovery specified below can be completed within two months from the date of this form. (Check all that apply, and supply estimates where indicated. ) a. Interrogatories No Yes X b. Document Requests No Yes X , estimated no. : 10 c. Factual Depositions No X Yes , estimated no. : d. Medical Evaluations No X Yes , estimated no. : e. Experts Subject to Discovery No X Yes , estimated no. : 5. Assignment as an X expedited standard complex case is requested. (If not standard case assignment, include brief statement setting forth the reasons for the request. ) Street construction cannot proceed until this matter is resolved. This long-planned road connection is necessary for local traffic and safety reasons. Also, the City has approved a new subdivision contingent upon the construction of this section of roadway. 6 . The dates and deadlines specified below are suggested. a. 11/12/93 - Deadline for joining additional parties, whether by amendment or third party practice. b. 12/10/93 - Deadline for bringing non-dispositive motions. c. 12/10/93 - Deadline for bringing dispositive motions. d. N/A - Deadline for submitting to the Court. (specify issue) e. N/A - Deadline for completing independent physical examination pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 35. f. N/A - Date for formal discovery conference pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 26. 06. g. 01/05/94 - Date for Pre-trial Conference pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 16. h. N/A - Date for scheduling conference. i. 01/05/94 - Date for submission of a Joint Statement of the Case pursuant to Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 112 . 9241 2 j . 01/10/94 - Trial date. k. 01/05/94 - Deadline for filing (proposed instructions) , (verdicts) , (findings of fact) , (witness list) , (exhibit list) . 1 . - Deadline for 7 . Estimated trial time: two to three days. 8. A jury trial is: No entitlement to jury trial. X Waived by consent of Defendants pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 38 . 02 Requested by (specify party) (NOTE: Applicable fee must be enclosed. ) 9 . Alternative dispute resolution is not recommended. ) 10. Please list any additional information which might be helpful to the Court when scheduling this matter. Dated: October 12 , 1993 . CAMPB#LL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & F CHS .A. By: Thomas M. Scott, #98498 Attorneys for Defendants: City of Chanhassen, its Mayor Don Chmiel and City Council Members 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (612) 452-5000 9241 3 CITY OF toi , VIII"- C I1ANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 it October 12, 1993 Mr. Thomas J. Larson Refuge Manager Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3815 East 80th Street _ Bloomington, MN 55425 Dear . Larson: The City of Chanhassen is strongly supportive of expansion and development of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) within the City. Our Comprehensive Plan illustrates a goal of having all the land located south of Highway 169/212 ultimately incorporated into the Refuge. In 1991, we requested that additional areas be included in the plans for the Refuge. Enclosed is a copy of the City's 2000 Land Use Plan as well as a plat of the lands the City requested be included in the Refuge Plan. At recent meetings, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has been evaluating the feasibility of adding lands to the present Refuge boundaries along the Minnesota River in Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, and Scott counties. These meetings caused us to question whether or not the additional lands in Chanhassen had in fact been included in the Refuge Plan. Could you please verify that these lands have been included by the Service in plans for the Refuge. We understand that the Refuge must operate within the financial limitations imposed by Congress, but we have established its expansion in Chanhassen as one of our goals. I look forward to working with you on developing the Refuge, a trail system to benefit Refuge users, as well as preservation of the Minnesota River Valley bluff line and other important and sensitive environmental - - systems and areas. Sincerely, _ `Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director _ PK:bg:v Attachments: 2000 Land Use Plan N1/2, Sec. 36, Twp. 116, Rg. 23 cc: City Council Planning Commission South 1995 Study Area Comp Plan file ��,ENT OF Th \\ �lif�i' j �=. PR1DE IN�� ^ , % ' United States Department of the Interior u r�u►s�e • _ `' i- FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 4 mu w �RC1 ,e`9 Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building ��� 1 Federal Drive - [NREPLY REFER TO. IL.';—:; D Fort Snelling,MN 55111-4056 / l� j FWS/ARW- 1/(el Rafl 't_ , 0Ki- . Mr. Earl F. Gnan l#:;,:)e Chair, Carver County Commissioners �-" 13190 122nd Street : Enclosed you will find a summary of the proposal, including a series of five maps showing the existing Refuge and proposed areas of interest. Throughout the evaluation process, we will continue to keep you informed. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Mr. Thomas Larson, Refuge Manager, at (612) 854-5900 or Mr. Stanley Jackowicz, Project Manager, at (612) 725-3306. Sincerely, 441 >?21/ett— Sem Marler Regional Director Enclosure PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE MLNNTSOTA VALLEY NATIONAL WflDLIFE REFUGE WHO? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the primary Federal Agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation's fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for the continuing benefit of people. The Service shares this responsibility for fish and wildlife resources with other Federal, State, local, and private entities. As part of this mission, the Service operates the National Wildlife Refuge System, which are lands that are specifically managed for their fish and wildlife values. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is a special area, a wildlife refuge coexisting with an urban setting. It was established by a special act of Congress in 1976. WHAT? The Service is proposing an addition to the Refuge that would link all units of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area. This linkage would extend from the confluence of the Minnesota River and the Mississippi River to the Lawrence Unit of the State Trail (see attached overview map). It will provide protection and management of wildlife habitat along a contiguous corridor in the Minnesota River Valley in Minnesota. This includes the protection of wetlands and bottomlands habitat in the Minnesota River floodplain, the prairie and savanna habitat on the blufftops, and rare calcareous fen habitat. This action will benefit all wildlife species that use the valley for living space. This area is the confluence of a nationally significant river system and has a rapidly increasing population and development growth rate. Development has reached to the banks of most rivers and streams in the area. Point and nonpoint pollution from industrial, residential, urban and agricultural development has seriously degraded the St. Croix, Mississippi, and Minnesota Rivers. It is the Service's goal to protect the valley's rare habitats and the associated wildlife from development pressure or degradation. The Service's management objectives of protecting and maintaining the natural diversity of the Minnesota River Valley have been difficult to accomplish. When Congress established the Refuge, it also outlined a goal boundary. Through further study of the Minnesota River Valley, it was found that the original boundary, which was broken and scattered, did not allow enough connection for the living creatures to travel their natural corridor, the river. In addition, the vast majority of the Refuge encompasses portions of the floodplain only. Little blufftop is contained within the existing Refuge, even though the major ecological processes that affect the floodplain are largely controlled by the watershed, which extends beyond the top of the bluffs. The entire Minnesota River Valley, particularly the blufftops, is threatened with development. Having these lands within the Refuge boundary would provide them with added protection. This would also provide another management option for communities currently possessing management responsibility, but lacking either expertise to manage these lands or the funds to acquire or manage the land. The additions would allow present and future generations to enjoy a panoramic view of healthy native habitats such as prairie pothole upland, oak savanna, hillside forest, floodplain marshes, lakes, floodplain forest and the Minnesota River. Environmental education and interpretation programs would be expanded to demonstrate how the different habitats are dependent on one another for survival. HOW? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes an addition of eight areas, totaling 6,445 acres, to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge through the acquisition of fee title, easements, licenses, other compensated arrangement, or with cooperative agreements from willing land owners. It may take 20-30 years to acquire lands for the Refuge and some lands may never be purchased. • At this time, no formal decisions have been made by the Service to acquire the identified lands. The Service will determine the needs, issues, and concerns, for an addition to Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and possible alternatives to the Service's proposal by involving you. Public meetings are scheduled in Bloomington, Carver, Eden Prairie and Savage to gather comments. MORE DETAILS WHERE? - Areas Under Consideration Two of the areas, the "Bloomington Open Space" (735 acres) and "Purgatory Creek" (160 acres), were included in the original "Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Act" (Act) as part of a Wildlife Recreation Area and are predominately publicly owned (see map #2). These areas are in the proposal to assure the habitat protection of the bluffs, to provide management for wildlife, and to provide a continuous corridor for wildlife between the eastern and middle portions of the existing Refuge. Nichols Fen (26 acres) located next to the Cedar Avenue bridge (see map #1) and Savage Fen (500 acres) located near Savage (see map #2) are two units that were identified in the Comprehensive Plan as important resources to be protected within the Minnesota Valley. They are examples of calcareous fens which are a rare type of wetland which occur only in the Great Lakes States. The Nichols and Savage Fens may be the most unique component of the valley's diversity and would support the Service's emphasis on preserving biodiversity. The Savage Fen is considered to be one of the largest and best preserved fens remaining in the state. The Service presently owns 13 acres of Nichols Fen and 30 acres of Savage Fen. The Service proposes to acquire the balance of Nichols Fen to protect it from development. The Service also proposes to acquire the remaining 49 acres of the actual fen in the Savage Fen and 421 acres of surrounding wetlands and adjacent blufftop to protect the groundwater and upland habitat that support the existence of the fen. Two additional proposed units are small in size and are boundary line adjustments to improve the management efficiency of the Refuge. The first is the Wilkic;/Rice Lake Boundary Adjustment, composed of 10 acres which would extend the boundary of the existing unit 0.13 miles to the east (see map #2). This extension would include the outlet of a marsh that is now outside the boundary of the Refuge. This acquisition would allow the management of this unit as a complete system. The second is the Upgrala Boundary Adjustment, which is a 5-acre addition along the north boundary of the Upgrala unit (see map #3). This will eliminate incompatible land use and would make the boundary more manageable. The seventh proposed addition is the Carver Rapids Unit (512 acres) which is surrounded by the existing Louisville Unit and lies across the river from the proposed Rapids Lake/Bevens Creek Unit (see map #4). Carver Rapids is largely an oak savanna and prairie with wetlands interspersed throughout the unit. The area is a good representative of a fire-maintained ecosystem. The unit is currently a State Park within the Refuge. The Director of Parks and Recreation (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) has recommended that the unit be included within the Refuge boundary for more coordinated management. If added to the Refuge, the Carver Rapids Unit would be incorporated into the Louisville Unit for administrative and management purposes. The eighth and largest proposed addition is the Rapids Lake/Bevens Creek Unit (4,540 acres) located on the upstream end of the Refuge (see map #4). This addition would provide the largest single block of habitat on the Refuge. This unit, coupled with the Louisville Unit (2,760 acres) and the Carver Rapids addition (512 acres), would provide over 7,812 acres of unfragmented native habitat types including blufftop prairie, bluff hardwood forest, spring-fed lake marshes, old-growth floodplain forest, and the Minnesota River that enables the unit to work as a whole system. The existing Refuge does not have a complete, unfragmented representation of these landforms in one contiguous area. The proposed seventh and eighth additions would provide habitats of sufficient size and variety to benefit a wider array of plant and animal species within the Minnesota River Valley. Planning Process/Decisions to be Made Information gathered on issues, concerns, needs, and alternatives to the proposal at public meetings will be used to help prepare a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA). The Draft EA will describe the proposed action, outline the objectives of the action, and identify and — compare different alternatives to the action based on their impacts on the human environment. This would encompass the ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health resources associated with each alternative. Alternatives to the proposed action will include "no action" by the Service. The EA would be distributed to all interested people for review. After this review the Service would address the comments and revise the EA into a Final EA. The Final EA would result in two decisions that would be made by the Service. The first decision is selecting the alternative to implement. The second decision is to determine if the selected alternative would have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. If it is determined there is "no significant impact" then a decision would be made on what alternative would be implemented. If the Service determines the selected alternative would have a 'significant impact," then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be prepared. The EIS would include additional public involvement, including public meetings or hearings. The entire planning process would be conducted in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). MINNESOTA VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE '°C ASKA LAKE& 4 RAPIDS UNITED s7.1Es CARVER. DAKOTA. HENNEPIN. AND SCOTT COUNTIES. MINNESOTA UMTto su'ns�� CEPA.74,461 OT Nc NTEo,Ow r15). Aso MLDLfE SCRNCC •r.o•oo• R 24 W R 23 W 9317.30• — MIAIMMLWIMMIIIIIIMIIMICIIIMIIMIIIIM I� 1� �iN=— Ka �.0 0 0... ,7I'X�—o \\ ///// // r 4 -•. 0 00 D C/ 6---"e'''''''INIA..adk01 _. \1.. \\.1 .-1, ,..1\ _ 44,411 '' . .. I li rill r • �� 11 LEGEND r111L11‘111111"4111" Fir' p,�o.w •tea, "�-.III MN " 4. A. .P,apovrel Liliht.e.s AM Ili 4 III was'oci - COJt/ b. ^ I.4'.500•/ N\\ ' �b—\ ) - , iTatmw- mall _ 7 ;-, \ ` Ns.N.,. .v, qin III yLil tids i ,\\ \\. II `/ i > - ' /! in ' IM.\\\a // 3.gyp — C) '. -Nt• o' ‘Iv R‘t,- ...poit C 3. wir 96 ;N. �SjQ \ . Al , 1 p T 115 N i t 0 ,\N f \ T 115/r P-11 N _ om T 114 N �__ 1 ) —"�\�\\\e' Carr' RapI\' /%T 114 N. -nsIIMINE „„/„.....2... \. ��, \\� hoe I .... v, ,, ,,,,„:,,.,,,. Z I of \\.\..\.,, \ ,..„4„,,,,,i N AIIIN Cd.nry �� „ , I 4rs l \1\, a rRANCISCD �� \ ‹ �+\\\ / .... \�\C' \\: \\\\ \ O 7-N\ '' �9/ \ .. ••� \\ / 1697 t ,,,,,:.\-...„,s, k_ . . ' ` A �+Euw tel, _. — 1,,- .:„.,\,,\.vvs .,,,,.,,‘-• 0- ,•,, \\ , ,,,\/„, wimr.....____74:, \,,\,,\ „,,. ,,\,, \�, 1. I. . rt..) , 17 16 i. iao ,,, :\�4. �” JLOp 0 93.000- R 24 W R 23 W "17 M. \� "Cu ..S " •;E ATA Of RE FOURTH & FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIANS �+ ''2 ,ELN < < - C 7000 .00C, 6000 9000 FEE r OE4".tc. +9Es I — a s 1 c 7o 4a0447E415 gr ::t: ::, 4r:f ,. 3R MN 39, \ / - .- ` • `: �_J 41;i-, ` l � C --: \ ----- I- i g E • • 10 z a ;A^ 2 _•........ 0 01 • • • Viz11 1 - ' i® — T Z �o o yo L2— 1 m% ®T „ ._..,, .., a ti.4 : i 13 0 C :-_ �j«•i O M v M M I . — pll U O 7 +1 IH ��,•., 11�111' . I m W j § J 7 Z J win. .:::: :,:„. . ..„ .....„:. _____:. ..._ ,...,,,,,,, ..:...:, ...: ••••'4,94, .,F.Eii::7. F---.... .q......ii-_,. v; • • • r}I� 111ifi loll - -..;27--- �..- . r- r< F – > �� :111111 ' ::,=s:. -,r= �I eq. _ 7.__ , '''..if Ir al r_ .- I, f**.. f 'iii!E. 'Iii 11.1 ' Illy Ill –�_ \,...7":.. :::."4.'“;-;:::•. • ..A1112 . • 4 -, .7.4 :„.........::::1. ._! „. : 1,4t.z.,„,. ,., .,7 le ..... =1;41 1 r -*.sik ...i A ._.i — -,Ir- r r M-11 February 14, 1991 Mr . Thomas J. Larson Refuge Manager Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service 3815 East 80th Street Bloomington, MN 55425 Dear Mr. Larson: As you will recall, you and I held discussions last month concerning potential expansion of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge within the City of Chanhassen. I indicated to you that a recently adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City illustrates a goal of having all land located south of Highway 169/212 ultimately incorporated into the Refuge . You indicated that you believed the Fish and Wildlife Service may be receptive to this proposal and that you would consider including it in an upcoming funding request . I am pleased to inform you that in discussions held with the Planning Commission and City Council for the City of Chanhassen, the idea of expanding the Refuge to these boundaries received strong support . On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I look forward to working with you in the development of the Refuge. We also strongly support the development of a trail system that would be of direct benefit to our residents, as well as preservation of the Minnesota River Valley bluff line and other important and sensitive environmental features of this area . Sincerely, Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning PK:k cc : Mayor and City Council Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Background File CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 October 4, 1993 Mr. Ron B. Erickson, P. E. MnDOT, Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Ron: I appreciate you copying me on a letter you sent to an engineer representing Mills Fleet Farm. • The letter, copy attached, indicates that Fleet Farm has made inquiries to MnDOT regarding potential alignments of a north access boulevard in Chanhassen and also relative to direct access consideration from Hwy. 41. _ Please be advised that Mills Fleet Farm as no official standing above and beyond that of any property owner, relative to either issue of street alignment of direct access. As you are aware, the City of Chanhassen is in the process of completing its Highway 5 Corridor Study, which responds to both land use and access issues in the corridor. The initial draft of the study has set an alignment for the access boulevard that Fleet Farm has objected to in task force meetings. Additionally, the task force has developed a land use plan that would not provide an opportunity for Fleet Farm to develop on their site nor allow any other significantly sized commercial operator to build either. This decision is based on many factors and ultimately is a comprehensive planning decision made by the City Council. We expect to have formal public hearings on the plan completed by early next year. You should also be aware that at the present time the Mills Fleet Farm site and other properties in the vicinity are located outside of the MUSA line and thus, it is impossible to provide them with urban services. In summary, the decision as to whether or not Mills Fleet Farm or any other commercial operation will ever be allowed on this corner is one that is in the hands of the Chanhassen City Council. Additionally, the ultimate alignment of the access boulevard will be determined by the Mr. Ron Erickson October 4, 1993 Page 2 City Council working in concert with MnDOT. Fleet Farm's contact with you and your staff constitutes an independent act by an individual property owner that is in no way sanctioned by the city. We appreciate you keeping us informed on this matter and look forward to our continued good working relationship in the future. Sincerely, 67:e Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director — PK:v c: Deb Porter, Barton Aschman Bruce R. Buxton, P.E., Widseth, Smith, Nothing Tim Keane, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lindgren — City Council Planning Commission Charles Folch, City Engineer — Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner 12L., C4 BRIAN H. BATZLI 161 Fox Hollow Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 October 4 , 1993 ct7y �' ' Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr. 7951 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Extension of Nez Pierce Dear Frank: Thank you for your correspondence of 17 September 1993 . Please be advised that by copy of this letter I have forwarded the same to Paul Krauss , Planning Director of the City of Chanhassen, for the City' s review. Sinc rely, Brian H. Batzli cc : -_ Mr. Paul Krauss Planning Director City of Chanhassen CONSULTING ENGINEERS $IONE 612 571 2500 FAX 612.671-1188 ULTEIG ENGINEERS, INC. uLTfZG 5201 EAST RIVER ROAD,SUITE 308 MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55421 September 7 , 1993 Mr. Daryl Fortier FORTIER & ASSOCIATES 408 Turnpike Road Golden Valley, MN 55416 RE: Design review and comments for proposed road linking Lake Lucy Road to Nez Pierce Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota UEI Project 193831 Dear Mr. Fortier: As you requested, we have proposed roadway grades for the alignment for the subject project. We have enclosed a plan which combines the survey information you provided from Lot Surveys and the proposed roadway. The roadway slopes proposed north from Lake Lucy Road do not exceed seven (7%) percent. To achieve these grades, a low retaining wall would be required near the middle of the outlot. The retaining wall would range from two (2) to three (3) feet high on the west, with no retaining walls on the east. Side slopes from the street to the retaining wall would be 3 : 1. Provided that an easement could be granted west of the outlot, the low retaining walls could be eliminated. A grading easement of approximately 400 square feet would make this feasible. We gave a cursory review of the proposed alignment from Lake Lucy road to Nez Pierce Drive. We feel that the curves along this route would be safe. The entire alignment and grades looked feasible and within design criteria used for the adjoining streets. For example, Nez Pierce Drive has a curve with similar radius within a few hundred feet to the east and Fox Path consists of several similar curves. We appreciate the opportunity to perform this study. If we may be of any further assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, Charles F. Melcher, P. E. Project Engineer CFM:mg Enclosure C E I .,,... i‘% . ..13", • \• • .1 , '1 �� , -- -- • . , ,i .. PROPERTY UNE o o ,. :* ,.r 1L. . � ,�\ >"Se" 1 : % i i I/ /7‘. .01K.................__...... , .., - it i i' 1 i Z • \ •\ + Jig , . ���- \. / r0 i r 32- f- " • 100022=5 � Iill ��� \\\ __ ____ .. •� .1018 ��� \ - 1016-_. \\ - / \ tot4 • NE /1111 . / \. ' 1012 �—_ ��- _ _• a III:v4 d''''''''\."..... ... • 11: . ---101•, • .‘: N LAKE LUCY ROAD asatPna ACTtVE WALE 1.. s 'SO EXHIBIT I - GRADING PLAN Liman sr-NA STUDY FOR NEZ PERCE DRIVE CONNECTION TO LAKE LUCY ROAD pitmoi atm= RK ULTEIG ENGINEERS, INC. _ CAD LIBRARY DIX 9-7-9a �" 93$31 MASTER DRAWINGS DECKED C O O • 0 "zO O�> C Jt r o N m2. LT, O O O O EO — W • m W LT Oa c. 1' p i � g : 215 o . • cFOoo o C • ac .o o ' 0. ` o Zo 6 o • • c�0 W 0. t ,...• ug m C.) 0 • : u " a M o a a 0 - Z W o x o o « .n .n O >jao < c 0W `O o o a a a s C c c C O o 0 G — Lt• to o o � o 0 o a` a a` Z O 0 0 • o 0 if 0 0 be z < 8g N A z o Q o z w O CO N • N _3 r. W •+ .ri _ N a -2 < 1° 0 c r C 0 c % S c0 W p • v 0 3 if b L y on a A :� o A w V.0 o } x c z 8 n* vi W •a Z .E r g- 1+.1 W \ a = yQ J c .._ O e eci . CC Lo 24 14 2 • V 7c 41 8 .3a :t1 _„..: QIo CO W — p. A 9 7 0 a 1� s' I- w 0 ID tr A r ti moi, x �► o. w. N ij r:i. fcio x xC• oX g , I 1 10 N _ U0 III b v - °1 10 _t "' Ai P 0. CO 0 • r — r 'At �0 .1 = att N r, LeFel o 2 o 4 — 2 • 4 ' t � — N tt% xo g 0 O r - K X^ o x� y icr V F.M `, 0 % 2 oa C C _ M U v a` ~ a o d 9 u 0 \ •�` E g o Q „�- ,� to- 0 \ •x • • ri 4 .i rp ts i it oa I4 C..) t, t o1 In p v , Q a O }� (i O.ig 'C o ) ti 0O t0 ID 1c z �'� O) o ii EQ C > vd `o LP y - 0 k ..0 `fret e` 0 » � 4 Lc1. d g '0 z • xo '7g �� 40 1 1E J. C o S N c�% b C 8f - gg d r i 1;!, J7 w �Tie � , K1 V _ t...) To 2 ; 1;-c kv vil -..g i- in = N To ;-(' i . w - mb O L r C `V g .. tco "-1 U'c-fcc, /2rZ ow04 Minnesota Department of Transportation — Metropolitan Division R' t z.c;i Waters Edge Building c, 1500 West County Road B2 1993 of Roseville,Minnesota 55113 September 30, 1993 FHWA MN EIS 4f-90-01-D S.P. 1017-06, -07 & 2762-08 (TH 212) From: Cologne To: 1-494 SouthWest Corridor In Carver & Hennepin Counties Determination of Adequacy Record of Decision To Whom It May Concern: Attached for your information is a copy of the following information for the above referenced project: 1. Copy of the Mn/DOT's "Determination of Adequacy" for this project. 2. Copy of the Federal Highway Administration's "Record of Decision" (ROD) for this project. 3. Map showing estimated letting date for projects. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (612) 582-1303. Evan R. Green Project Manager Metro Division - Roseville ATTACHMENTS Det.of Adequacy ROD Map An Equal Opportunity Employer • Os°4 Minnesota — oIt t( pennp TransDeportationartmtof TraBuilding ortation 395 John Ireland Boulevard 4)7111 , Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 OF (612) 296-1637 September 7, 1993 To Whom It May Concern: On July 2, 1993, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) circulated a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on S.P. 1017-06, 1017-07 and 2762-08, in Carver and Hennepin Counties. The preferred alternative for this project consists of construction of a new T.H. 212 expressway/freeway from the existing 4-lane section east of Cologne to the I-494 interchange in Eden Prairie. The comment period on the FEIS ended August 16, 1993. The Minnesota Department of Transportation, as the Responsible Governmental Unit for the above referenced project, has determined that the FEIS is adequate. In reaching this decision Mn/DOT considered the following factors: 1. Mn/DOT considered all the issues associated with this project which were raised during the scoping process. All issues for which information could reasonably be obtained have been analyzed. 2. The FEIS provided responses to all substantive comments which were received during the Draft EIS review and public comment period. 3. The FEIS was prepared in compliance with the procedures of Minnesota Statutes 116D, and with the Mn/DOT Alternate Environmental Review Process, which was approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board on August 18, 1983. During the comment period Mn/DOT received six letters from governmental agencies. None questioned the adequacy of the FEIS. The Minnesota PCA and Minnesota DNR requested that coordination continue during the detail design and permit process. Both agencies will be further involved during these stages of the project. The Federal Highway Administration has issued a Record of Decision in this matter which is consistent with this Adequacy Determination. This Determination of Adequacy concludes the State Environmental Review Process for this project. The project can proceed to permitting, contract letting, and construction. Yours truly, • tVa,,f.4.120,---ce--- C % c i "o Lawrence E. Foote, Ph.D., Director Office of Environmental Services An Equal Opportunity Employer Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Record of Decision Minnesota Project F-012-2 Hennepin and Carver Counties, Minnesota FHWA-MN-EIS-90-01-F L Decision on Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative for T.H. 212 is Alternative 2. Alternative 2 consists of the Residential, North Lake Riley, and Western Segments, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Figure 2, Page I-8 of the FEIS, illustrates the preferred alternative. The highway will be a basic six-lane freeway between Mitchell Road and I-494 along T.H. 5 with access interchanges at Mitchell Road and Prairie Center Drive, a four-lane freeway between T.H. 41 and Mitchell Road with access interchanges at T.H. 41, C.S.A.H. 17, T.H. 101, Dell Road, and C.S.A.H. 4, a four-lane expressway or freeway west of T.H. 41 in Chaska Township and access at Engler Boulevard and existing T.H. 212, and a four-lane expressway between Cologne and Chaska Township with limited at-grade access. • IL Alternatives Considered A total of eleven corridor segments were considered in the project, of which six were selected for study in the Draft EIS (see Figure 2, FEIS, page I-8). The six corridor segments were analyzed as four-lane freeways, except for the portion of those segments (Mitchell Lake and Residential) that merged with T.H. 5, where a basic six-lane freeway was required. Combinations of the six segments resulted in five build alternatives, and the No-Build Alternative was analyzed as the sixth alternative. Upgrading inplace T.H. 212 and inplace T.H. 5 would not satisfy the purpose and need for the proejct. The solution to the transportation need in the study area requires the upgrading of inplace T.H. 212 and T.H. 5 to four lanes and the construction of the preferred alternative. The selected alternative was based upon a review of the impacts identified in the Draft EIS, local, state, and federal agency comments, public hearing testimony, and written comments received on the Draft EIS. Of particular importance was the consistency of T.H. 212 with local and regional plans and positions. The corridor for T.H. 212 was officially mapped and has been approved by the Cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska, and Carver and 1 Hennepin Counties. Other support was received from the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition, an organization comprised of representatives of the affected cities and counties, the state legislature, and businesses. The T.H. 212 FEIS documents the methodology used by the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation for the selection of the preferred alternative (pages II-3 and 11-4). The No Build Alternative was not selected because it would not satisfy the transportation need in the area, nor is it consistent with the comprehensive planning of the affected local governmental units. Comparable alternative highway segments for T.H. 212 were ranked by impact category and criterion to assess social, economic, and natural environment impacts. Equal weight (importance) was given to each evaluation criterion. The result of this ranking was that the North Lake Riley and Residential Segments had the least overall impact of the build alternatives on the social, economic, and natural environments; therefore, the selected alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative. LEL Section 4(f) Approval The preferred alternative displaces three areas eligible under Section 4(f). The playground facilities of the Eden Prairie Middle School and Kindergarten Center, the ruins of an historical district in Eden Prairie, and a residence in Chaska (Mieseler Farmstead). After considering all avoidance and minimization alternatives in comparison to the magnitude of impact to other environmental features, it was concluded that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the taking of these properties for the preferred alternative. Additional detail on the 4(f) impacts of the preferred alternative is disclosed in Part IV of the T.H. 212 FEIS. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is located in Appendix A of the FEIS which specifies the stipulations for archival documentation. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Independent School District #272 and Mn/DOT on the replacement of the recreation facilities at the Middle School and Kindergarten Center is included in the FEIS as Appendix B. IV. Measures To Minimize Harm All practicable measures to minimize social,economic,and natural environment impacts will be incorporated within the design and construction of the project.The T.H.212 DEIS, FEIS - and Section 4(f)Evaluation contain specific mitigation commitments for all categories where adverse impacts can be expected. A summary of the proposed mitigation is as follows: IV.A.1 Relocation Impacts Those displaced by the preferred alternative will receive relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended. Mn/DOTs Office of Right-of-Way and Surveys, Relocation Unit, will administer the relocation assistance program for all eligible displaced 2 • persons, businesses, farms, and non-profit organizations. IV.A.2 Farmland Impacts A notice of intent to acquire farmlands in excess of ten acres covenanted by the Minnesota Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act will be filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. IV.A.3 Noise Impacts Noise impacts will be mitigated by the construction of sound barriers for existing and new residential developments (planned, designed, and programmed) shown in Figure III-2 of the T.H. 212 FEIS. The barriers will be of a height and length based on the critical state nighttime standard and "worst case" sound level (not to exceed Lio 55 dBA between 0600 - 0700 hours) and cost- effectiveness criteria. IV.A.4 Potentially Contaminated Sites Prior to the acquisition of potentially contaminated sites identified in Table III-A of the T.H. 212 FEIS, Mn/DOT will determine the likelihood of possible soil or groundwater contamination by conducting site inspections and reviews of site uses. Mn/DOT will also review the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) leaksite files to determine the type and quantity of petroleum product spilled and the method and completeness of cleanup. For sites containing registered underground storage tanks, a site investigation including drilling and soil sampling will be completed to check for the presence of soil or groundwater contamination. For one site labled as a licensed hazardous waste generator, Mn/DOT will conduct site inspections and reviews of site uses prior to acquisition. The results of all site inspections and additional investigations will be used to determine whether or not additional drilling or soil sampling may be needed to check for the presence of soil or groundwater contamination. IV.A.S Floodplain Impacts Mn/DOT will coordinate all floodplain concerns with the affected Watershed Districts, Watershed Management Organizations, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. All floodplain storage that cannot be replaced within the same drainage area will be incorporated into the design phase of the project using "best management practices". The preferred alternative will include appropriate landscaping to help maintain the aesthetic values of the affected floodplain. The replacement of displaced floodplain on an approximately one-for-one basis will provide suitable replacement habitat for deer and wildlife. IV.A.6 Water Quality Impacts 3 Methods described in Mn/DOTS Standard Specifications for Highway Construction will be used to control erosion and sedimentation during project construction. Mn/DOT policy is to minimize the effect of runoff solids on isolated drainage systems by allowing some settlement prior to discharge, where possible, into the system. The method chosen will be determined in conjunction with the affected watershed districts and watershed management organizations for each specific site. IV.A.7 Wetland Impacts The T.H. 212 FEIS includes E. O. 11990 (Wetland Finding) and identifies all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands affected by the preferred alternative. Measures to minimize harm include impact reduction through incorporation of construction and design features devised to minimize wetland encroachment (silt fencing and bale bars,broken back slopes and guard rail to narrow construction limits, minor alignment modifications, and creation of new wetland from upland, expansion of existing wetlands, and restoration of drained wetlands). Compensation measures include the creation of 13 potential compensation and stormwater storage sites for wetland creation or restoration, as shown in Figure 19, page 111-48, of the FEIS. IV.A.8 White-tailed Deer, Upland Wildlife Habitat, and Vegetation Impacts Deer collision mitigation devices, including deer warning reflectors, deer-proof fencing, and overpasses in forested habitats and ravines, will be investigated. The cost and practicality of designing ravine bridges with liberal clearance zones to allow passage for deer will be investigated for large forested ravines that appear to serve as major deer travel corridors. Adequate bridge clearance would be combined with fencing 'to guide deer to ravine overpasses where deer could cross safely under the highway. Mn/DOT will develop specific bridge design features for deer crossing locations. Deer warning reflectors will also be installed in localities demonstrated to be critical problem areas. Tree and shrub preservation will occur to the extent possible, and will be removed only where necessary to meet safety standards and construction requirements. Locations of vegetation to be preserved will be determined during the design phase of the project and demarcated prior to construction to ensure its preservation. Good specimen trees and shrubs located within the proposed construction limits will be identified, salvaged and transplanted to the extent feasible and prudent in accordance with Mn/DOTs Technical Memorandum No. 87-5-ENV-1 "Salvaging Plant Materials on Construction Projects". Trees and shrubs that are injured during the construction process will be trimmed and dressed to reduce opportunities for parasite invasion and disease. Injuries to trees and shrubs will be minimized by erecting tree protection fencing at construction limits in critical areas. Where appropriate, trees and shrubs will be planted to produce a more aesthetically pleasing environment for motorists and residents. A landscaping plan will be developed to minimise total vegetation impacts and to enhance and/or screen the view of the proposed roadway. Native plants and wildflowers will be utilized where appropriate in revegetating the areas 4 • scarified during construction. IV.A.9 Archaeological, HIstorical, and Cultural Resource Impacts The T.H. 212 DEIS identified ten potentially significant National Register of Historic Places-(NRHP) eligible archaeological sites that would be affected by the preferred alternative. The approximate locations of the sites are illustrated in DEIS Figure 17 and listed in DEIS Table 12. The MOA requires that Mn/DOT develop a data recovery plan with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to recover data from the Riley Creek I Site, the Purgatory Creek Northeast Site, and the Rice Lake Marsh East Site. The stipulations for preparation and submission of the data recovery plan are described in the MOA, located in Appendix A of the T.H. 212 FEIS. The MOA also requires an archaeological survey of all wetland mitigation and borrow areas to determine if additional properties of potential NRHP significance are affected. The T.H. 212 DEIS and FEIS identified several historical resource features that are not directly impacted by the proposed project but are eligible for the NRHP. These include the Frank Farmstead in Dahlgren Township of Carver County, which was avoided by an alignment shift, and a number of other structures between Chaska and Cologne of"Chaska Brick" construction similar to the Frank Farmstead, which were identified after the publication of the DEIS. While not classified as Section 4(f) impacts, the MOA to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) provides additional stipulations to further minimize harm to these properties. IV.A.10 Energy Impacts Energy conservation measures to be implemented with the preferred alternative include demand-responsive local transit service, park-and-ride lots, ridesharing programs, and provisions for HOV access ramps and metering devices. IV.A.11 Construction Impacts Construction regulations and Mn/DOTs "Standard Specifications for Construction"will be used to minimize any impact from excessive dust during construction. Construction noise will be minimized by restricting the hours of work,utilizing the quietest equipment available, constructing temporary sound barriers, and careful attention to muffler maintenance, in accordance with Minnesota Standard Specifications (Section 7, Subsection 1701). Local traffic disruption will be mitigated by maintaining property and temporary accesses. All applicable regulations of pollution control relating to the prevention and abatement of pollution shall be complied with during hauling and construction operations. V. Coordination and Monitoring 5 • V. Coordination and Monitoring Agencies cooperating with the FHWA and Mn/DOT on the preparation of the T.H. 212 EIS include the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (St. Paul District), and the Metropolitan Council. In addition, many other local, metropolitan, state, and federal agencies reviewed the EIS and provided input into the document. This proposed project is subject to further review by federal and state agencies and local units of government. Several permits will be required. The review and permit process will ensure that feasible mitigation measures will be implemented. VL Comments on the FT'IS No substantive comments ' received on the Final EIS. • VII. Conclusion The selection of Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative was made after careful consideration of all social, economic, and natural environmental factors, and input from the public involvement process. / Date: �/�igned: • L on H. Wood, Director /Tly Office of Planning & Program Development •6 rbbi., T. az itl.'"" ' ; (-,-' '. '• ' 7. ii t 1 1-.4 . titaft1 • c. s i x # # i f i 1 o 6 Air -f4 ,t;1/4 iieliNI:Ef 77 a « o 0 0 0 - -O-1 W W Y E - d G w h O- N All ' ., . Elk 4 ak '-r-' ?4. .....ittkigh. ,,,..7:::# & 1 t f ig C. .1.1, g; :i; fa.-- ::,, „,.?., t; «2 _ pk.,,s 'yr :. - ' 10 1 ,,9, it? 13 '..7. 1 2 al. : ig s lad ° i« 5 ss • •` -74X4M1514,4 .TO e' sw i ie 4041111% ,c., '" 0 - 1 II/ 1 -° ii: m:!-.1 LT L.21 sl• §:I I.= f, ■ m. /.- f- . f `c ''fin."� r -, ' `� - _ _ = S.b 10116i. • It% r...e4va.0 & i : i . .,‘, 1 ialthog,ilia_ : i i 4, . ii..,..s.-Ngt...s.e.:41—, . L z y 3 r__ .077,--: u I chi" pi:- ). • J" ii r.p. ' AIL' II ake. i ;V I tie 0 illi '''4\ _:0 I... ri • ! �` S 1 • el Ilk !, , , , ., ..„.,„.......„; •., , ., I, La••• i i [JO, I \-, , ii cAt ,, - F-- a 7.-., 20 at ._ L ,, L.,< -,) . , — ~r_ _N"�, • i s„v, 4 - 01- • /ri'le. 1 2 Ilirt ' \- - it 5 I; 17., I ' if per � i s __..i 4 1 _ v v I ., 4611.:\44,-Atli ' ' --_— 113 • - Fort � o :kto il I 7-1_--- --,..tif..?t— -4I-▪ . „ Iii, — 1,1; 0 t76 „ L © O il' / 1 - J`d. , 11 :S A 1., ,,,-.: ii ,. _,Asft_ 1 d Ilidli i ,U ill aii: „ti. --,,q . 1 ..- 0.41414. ' - • . W HU = ds NeY g AL 1 -; 11.„ . N I I •A e s,k: a ..a;e= e ,4-':\' sgEFb•sg1E2 fist _.- 1111111111i\ t I AN It,▪::ae$a a 2 { n I j Fr -