Loading...
7. PUD Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property CITY O F PC DATE: 8/19/92 7 CC DATE: 9/14/92 CASE #: 92 -4 PUD �r By: Olsen:v (ft-- 1 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual Review for a Detached Single Family Residential PUD - 95 Ares Subdivided into 113 Lots (Note: Submitted plans and misleading - they indicate 120 lots which includes outlots and exceptions.) 1 1- z LOCATION: West of State Highway 41, North of State Highway 5, Adjacent to the BMT Site V Q APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction 1 < 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 1 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates 1 ACREAGE: 95 Acres (gross) and 61 Acres (net - less wetlands and streets) DENSITY: 1.19 u/a (gross) and 1.85 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2, single family/vacant I Q S - A2, vacant E - A2, single family /vacant I Q W - A2, Camp Tanadoona/vacant w WATER AND SEWER: Extension of utilities has been petitioned by the applicant. 1b (J) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains steep topography, wetlands, and vegetated areas. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density 1 I Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 2 1 I PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a single family detached residential planned unit development which I subdivides 160.88 acres into 113 single family lots and 6 outlots. One of the lots will be occupied by an existing home, thus, 112 new home sites will result. The site is located east of Hwy. 41 and north of Hwy. 5. The property is zoned A2, Agricultural Estates and is designated I 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 I part of the recent comprehensive plan amendment after Lundgren Bros. made a presentation to the Planning Commission on the suitability of the site to be developed with sewer and water. I The site contains significant environmental features which include eight 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 I 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, I etc.). The first step of the process is conceptual approval. Concept review allows the Planning 1 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 I the preliminary plat and rezoning. 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 I Commission and will be reviewed by the City Council in September. 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 I 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 conceptual PUD is only for the northern portion of the site proposed for the 113 single family lots. The southerly portion will remain zoned as 1 A2. • Staff believes that the PUD concept plan is quite well designed but as is normal at this stage, I further refinement is warranted. The applicant has taken noteworthy care to work with the site's many natural features. Design flexibility allowed under the PUD ordinance is being put to reasonable use. We have recommended a series of refinements that would serve to improve the I protection of mature trees. The wetlands protection/mitigation/enhancement program is also unusually well developed for concept stage submittal. We note that the PUD does utilize 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 1 Page 3 flexibility in lot areas with lot sizes ranging from 11,470 square feet up to 63,250 square feet (including wetland areas). The total project density is extremely low for residential development in Chanhassen. There is a gross density of 1.19 units per acre with a net density (excluding wetlands and streets) of 1.85 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. Major access to this site will be provided by a new street that will ultimately run between Hwy. 41 and Ga1pin 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. However, 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 111 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 inappropriate to construct the collector street to typical collector street standards which would result in a road similar to Lake Lucy Road. We made this determination 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, we 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 our 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 believes the ro osal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is generally consistent P P P P 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. The applicant has held an initial neighborhood meeting to discuss the project with residents of the area. Staff is recommending that the PUD concept plan 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 1 I Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 4 1 suitable for development with sewer and water. I 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 I Brothers with the condition of remaining until a new site is found or until 1994. The proposal is locating one single family lot and an outlot on the BMT property which will be developed once the property is vacated. I 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. 1 SITE CHARACTERISTICS I The site contains 10 protected wetlands, 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 1 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 1 provided with access to street D. The second exception is located to the north of the proposed private park. This site is separated from the subject site by steep topography. 1 The landscaping plan shows extensive landscaping on the outlot which is being used to meet the requirements for enhanced landscaping for the PUD. Since this landscaping will not be possible I for some time the applicant will either have to provide some means for interim landscaping or the city will have to accept the landscaping being installed at a later date. I Site terrain includes large variations in elevation. The highest point of this site is located at the north edge of the parcel near Street E where the terrain rises to a 1032' elevation. The lowest point on the site is the 956' elevation found in the large wetland that forms the southern I boundary of the property and which is also the head waters of Bluff Creek. However, site terrain is far from uniform with a series of knolls and depressions which typically are wet. Much of the site contains large open field areas which were actively farmed in the past. • 1 REZONING TO PUD I Section 20 -501 of the City Code provides an 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 I 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 I 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 5 following nine items are listed and which the PUD should provide: I (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive 1 environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. *1. The site contains some difficult topography, several wetlands of varying value and I 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 I consideration. The blocks are situated around wetland and vegetated areas and the steep sloped areas are avoided in most cases. But when reviewing the grading plan the extent of alteration to the site becomes apparent and it seems changes to the plans could further I preserve some of the natural features. The applicant has been made aware of this concern and is looking closer at the site layout. I (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. I *2. 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. Staff feels it may be possible to further reduce lot sizes and increase density where there are little or no natural features I and in return provide larger lots where it will further protect the natural features. (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. *3. The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality I 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 I a future street connection. There will be covenants recorded as part of the PUD contract to ensure high quality building architecture and enhanced landscaping will be provided. (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located'between different land uses and along I significant corridors within the city. *4. The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential and the proposal is J P P 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 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 6 brought in the MUSA some time in the future. However, 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. *5. 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 1.85 units /acre. This compares favorably with typical single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net density of 2 units per acres. 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. ' *6. 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. *7. 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. *8. It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration. The applicant should further address this issue. (9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic () g g q P conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. *9. The r sal is providing a collector street which will service the property to the popo r po g p pe rty 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 7 east and was mentioned as part of the comprehensive plan. The remainder of the site is 1 serviced by cul -de -sacs which are used to protect some of the natural features. Staff is recommending the connection of cul -de -sacs G and I to further improve traffic flow. 1 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 I 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. 1 The single family detached residential planned unit development must also meet the following guidelines: a) single family Y residential PUD Minimum Lot Size - The sin (draft ordinance ) allows lot sizes I ( down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot I 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 I 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 I deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home /deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. Finding 1 The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 11,470 sq. ft. to 63,250 sq. ft. (including wetland areas) with an average lot area of 23,514 sq. ft. The PUD standards do not allow the inclusion of wetland areas in the calculation of lot area and the applicant has been told to provide revised lot area calculations removing wetland area. In reviewing the plans, it appears that all of the lots will still exceed 10,000 sq. ft. The site is broken down into six blocks which locate the lots around wetland and vegetated areas. Upon review of the grading plan and the impacts to the vegetated areas, staff is concerned that the proposed location of streets ,lots and the housing types are removing more vegetated areas than may be necessary. Staff is recommending that the 1 applicant provide plans which lessen the impacts to the vegetated areas, such as: - Remove Lot 1, Block 2 and use retaining walls along the south side of the I street adjacent to Outlot B and Lot 1, Block 2. Remove the cul -de -sac, H Street and possibly use private drives to remove 1 the need to fill in the ravine area. 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 8 1 - Reduce the fill on J Street and on adjacent lots. - Review the impact of a better mix of lot areas where smaller lots are clustered within areas with less natural features and providing larger and a smaller number of lots within areas with significant natural features. The proposal is preserving open space throughout the site which benefits each block. The applicant must still provide detailed plans demonstrating 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. 1 This standard ensures that each lot provides a satisfactory home site and yard area without needing to resort to variances. The detailed plans must also show a minimum rear yard of 30'. The PUD development contract will document this information to ensure the 1 development of the individual lots will not encroach within and protected area or setback. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. Finding. 1 There are approximately 39 lots which do not have the minimum lot width of 90' at the building setback line. The applicant has been made aware of this and that the plans must be amended to provide each lot with 90' at building setback. Staff feels strongly that the 90' width must be maintained since it is necessary to provide adequate building pad widths to accommodate a single family residence, including a now typical three car ' garage design, without encroaching within setback areas. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. 1 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. 1 Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property line. 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 9 Finding The proposal appears to provide a 30' PUD exterior setback. The detailed plans required 1 under (a) will illustrate whether a 30' setback is being provided on all exterior lots. The plans show a 30' front yard setback. Except for lots fronting on "A" street, which is a collector street, staff is recommending that a 20' front yard setback be required for all lots to pull the building pads away from sensitive areas of the site. 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. The applicant has been made aware of this recommendation and did not object to reducing the front yard setback. We note that the reduced front setbacks will not be visible from off - site locations. Additionally, given the 50 -60' right -of -way widths homes will still be operated by a minimum of 90 -110 feet. Lastly, we note that rear yards are generally much more important from the standpoint of family recreation. In the narrative provided by the developer, it has been stated that the minimum rear yard 1 will be 30'. In many cases the rear yard will exceed 30' due to the presence of a wetland which requires increased setbacks. The detail plans provided under (a) will verify the rear yard setback. 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 PUD standards require a side yard setback of 10' and staff is recommending that this standard be enforced. We have found that the reduced side yard setbacks result in future variance requests as evidenced by the Near Mountain PUD. The setback of 10' for accessory buildings and structures should also be applied. 1 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. 1 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, but in some areas the grading for building pads, streets and ponds appears to be removing more vegetation than may be necessary. The applicant has been made aware of this concern and is reviewing the plans 1 .1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 10 I to see what adjustments can be made. 1 The applicant is proposing to reduce the right -of -way for the collector street from 80' to 60' to reduce the removal of trees. Staff has encouraged this request to be made due to the sensitive nature of the site. A wider collector street with normal design standards I results in a street having the appearance of Lake Lucy Road. To accomplish this 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 1 Boulevard but to be designed to local street standards. I 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 I 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 I preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be I 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. I 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, I 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. I 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 I used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. 1 Finding • I The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan which shows landscaping at the entrance of the PUD and cul -de -sac islands. The applicant must provide a revised landscaping plan which shows boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping, and typical 1 foundation plantings /rear yard landscaping. Planting plans along Hwy. 41 need to be refined. We note that a portion of the landscape buffering is proposed to be provided by trees located in the Hwy. 41 right -of -way. These could well be lost at some time due 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 11 to possible highway improvements. 1 g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for 1 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 1 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. I 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is 1 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 I 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 1 buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. 1 Finding The developer has stated in the narrative that they will establish strict architectural and 1 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, 111 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 1 The subject site contains features that are ideally suited for a planned unit development. The 1 flexibility of PUD standards should result in the reduction of natural features being lost due to road and building construction and the features which remain will be protected, and in some cases, enhanced. Staff feels that rezoning the property to planned unit development is appropriate 1 for this site, but that the proposed concept plan can be revised to further protect natural features. Staff is recommending approval of the concept plan with the stated conditions. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT 1 The applicant is proposing to develop the 113 single family lots on 95 (gross) /61(net) acres. The 1 gross density is 1.85 units /acre and the net density is 1.19 units /acre. The lots range in size from 1 1 1 I Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 12 1 11,740 square feet to 63,250 square feet. The single family lots are located in six blocks which arrange the lots around natural features of the site. The lots meet the guidelines for a single l family residential PUD except for lots which do not have 90' of width at the building setback. The following lots need to be adjusted so that they contain a 90' width at the 20' front yard building setback: 1 BLOCK 1 BLOCK 3 1 Lot 4 Lots 1 -2 Lot 5 BLOCK 4 1 BLOCK 2 Lot 7 Lot 1 I Lot 2 BLOCK 5 Lot 3 Lot 11 -27 Lots 4 -6 I Lots 29 -30 Lot 34 BLOCK 6 I Lots 36 -37 Lots 40 -44 Lot 2 Lots 47 -49 Lots 4 -5 I Lots 54 -58 Lots 60 -63 Lots 66 -67 1 Lots 74 -76 Lot 4, Block 2 contains an existing single family residence and pool. The residence is in good I 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. I 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: I 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. 1 Outlot E - Private park and open space Outlots G and H - Property preserved for future development. 1 The applicant 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 1 1 i Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 13 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 proposed for development and then the plat can be amended if needed. 1 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. Although the plan illustrating landscaping and wetland mitigation is conceptual, it is somewhat deceiving in what is shown as vegetative areas remaining. A portion of the vegetated areas shown on this plan have been removed as a result of grading the site. Staff is requesting that the applicant provide a plan that clearly shows the existing vegetation, the vegetation that is being removed and the vegetation that is remaining and proposed to be preserved. It is understood that there will be a loss of trees with any development of the site, but staff feels there may be some changes to the proposal which would save more of the vegetation. For example, the type of housing design which is being proposed (WO) on J street (lower SE corner) may be resulting in additional grading which is impacting the trees. Also, the open space between Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 has a large portion of the existing stand of trees being removed as a result of grading for a house pad on Lot 1, Block 2. The city may want to consider having Lot 1, Block 2 removed or adjusted and the use of retaining walls to reduce the removal of trees. The city may also want to consider removing cul -de -sac -H street to pull back grading of the ravine. The applicant has been asked to review the grading plans to determine how the impact to the vegetation can be lessened. The proposed standards for residential planned unit developments provide specific landscaping requirements which the applicant will have to provide. The conceptual landscaping plan shows landscaped islands which staff is recommending to be removed. The islands restrict emergency vehicles, school buses and are a maintenance problem. The applicant should pursue other means of enhanced landscaping. GRADING, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, AND STREETS Utilities - Sanitary Sewer 1 1. In February of 1992, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates (BRA) prepared a feasibility study outlining a general plan for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water 1 service to this area. The plans outlined a future forcemain and lift station from the Lake Ann Interceptor. The exact alignment has not been determined and may require utility adjustment, i.e. additional manholes and pipe length within the plat. Subject to approval by the City Council, the financial obligation for extension of this "sub- trunk" line from 1 I Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 14 1 the Lake Ann Interceptor will be the responsibility of the properties benefitting between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard. The properties served by the sub -trunk sewer I and lift station should be assessed a sub -trunk hookup charge pursuant to the feasibility report in the amount of $520 per unit in addition to the overall $970 hookup charge. The exact assessment would be determined at a future assessment hearing. I 2. The sanitary sewer layout throughout the development is fairly straightforward. Provisions for sanitary sewer extension north of the site should be explored. For I example, stub out a lead from one of the two northerly cul -de -sacs. Additional manholes may be required to insure the sewer system is located within the street section. 1 3. All utility construction shall conform to the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Formal construction plan and specification approval by the City Council will be required. I Watermain 1 1. BRA's feasibility report for the MUSA expansion area proposes extension of water service from the existing watermain south of the pump house on Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41. The proposed utility plans show extension of the trunk water line I (16 -inch DIP) through the site out to Trunk Highway 51 by others, meaning the City. Scheduling -wise it may be prudent for the applicant to consider including this work I through this development proposal. Financial relief or credit would be given to the developer for the installation of the trunk watermain through the site. For example, the developer would be credited the difference between installation costs and materials for I an 8 -inch line versus a 16 -inch line. 2. The extension of watermain service along the east side of Trunk Highway 41 north and I south of "A" Street should be considered to avoid future disturbance of any proposed landscaping or berming along Trunk Highway 41. I 3. Street "B" is essentially a very long dead -end street (1500 feet) with two additional cul- de -sacs ( "I" Street and "J" Street). It is recommended that the watermain be extended beyond "I" Street to "G" Street to loop the two water systems together. This will provide 1 better water quality and fire protection. • 4. Fire hydrant spacing appears insufficient. Fire hydrants should be spaced approximately 1 300 feet apart and in accordance with any location recommendations by the Fire Marshal. Grading and Drainage 11 1. The entire site drains in a southerly direction through a series of wetlands. The majority 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 15 of the site is proposed to be graded. Tree loss will be significant due to the challenging topography. One option to reduce tree loss, grading and construction of streets and utilities would be to eliminate "H" Street. The result would be a loss of two or three lots but may balance financially with reduction in public improvement costs and increase lot value with the trees that were saved. 2. Another concern would be Lot 1, Block 2 adjacent to Outlot B. Substantial grading is required in order to construct the proposed house pad. Deleting this lot and implementing 1 a retaining wall would reduce tree loss and embankment material significantly. 3. At the end of "J" Street the stands of woods is almost completely lost due to street and building pad construction. House designs (walkouts) require cutting the lots approximately 8 feet lower than the already lowered street grade. Three options appear available which will reduce tree loss and minimize grading. The first, "J" Street could be shortened to outside of the tree stand. The second, type of house could be redesignated as lookouts or rambler -type homes. The third would be to raise the street grade. It also appears that any of these three options combined would be advantageous to saving trees and minimizing grading. 4. Storm runoff from the streets is proposed to be conveyed through a series of storm sewers which are proposed to drain to 7 different detention ponds located throughout the site. Some of the detention ponds are utilizing some of the lower - quality wetland areas. Detention pond Nos. 6 and 7 appear to be too small capacity -wise to adequately handle the contributing areas. Storm drainage and ponding calculations will be required to verify 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 through the use of detention/retention ponds. The appropriate easements should be conveyed to provide access to maintain the ponding areas. Easements also should be provided along each side of the centerline of any drainageway or storm sewer to a width sufficient to provide proper maintenance and to provide protection from storm water runoff from a 100 -year storm of 24 -hour duration. 1 Appropriate drainage easements corresponding to lot lines shall be provided. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall be not less than 20 feet wide along lot lines containing utilities, i.e. storm sewers, sanitary sewers or water lines. 1 5. The storm sewer lines to the detention ponds should be extended to discharge at the 1 normal water level to minimize erosion along the slopes. Streets , 1. The major thoroughfare (Street "A ") is designated as an east/west collector street 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 16 I providing future connection to the east and eventually on to Galpin Boulevard. According to the City's ordinance, collector -type streets shall be constructed 36 feet wide within an 1 80 -foot wide right -of -way. The plans propose what appears to be a 36 -foot wide street within a 60 -foot wide right -of -way. Staff is comfortable granting a variance for the reduced right -of -way in an effort to minimize setbacks and tree removal. Since this will 1 be a collector -type street staff feels it would be appropriate to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street "A" as a part of the street improvements. 1 2. Street "B" is proposed as a 1500 -foot long dead -end street. Staff recommends that the applicant explore the potential of extending "I" Street to connect with "G" Street. 1 3. Preliminary street grades range from 0.50% to 7.0% which is in accordance with the City Codes. Street grades at the intersections should be designed with 3.0% or less for the 1 first 50 feet to provide a "landing ". 4. Street intersections should be aligned at right angles to the collector street. It appears on I the plans that several of the intersections are slightly skewed. 5. As previously mentioned in this report, "H" Street could be eliminated to reduce impact I to trees and grading limits. Another option may be to explore the possibility of a private driveway to serve these lots. 1 6. Delete center median islands on "A" Street and all cul -de -sacs Miscellaneous 1 1. When the project proceeds, the address for the existing home will be changed. I 2. The existing house will also be required to hook up to the new sanitary sewer within one year after completion and acceptance. Connection to City water is not required unless the resident's well fails. I 3. Additional erosion control fence will be required around some of the ponding/wetland areas. Type III erosion control is recommended around the more valuable types of 1 wetlands. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the financial security 1 to guarantee installation of the public improvements. 1 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this proposal on August 11, 1992. A copy of 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 17 the staff report presented that evening is attached. Residents were present at this meeting, as was 1 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. 2. The applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for P otential 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. 1 CONCEPTUAL 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 1 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 1 different standards in terms of setbacks, buffer strips and mitigation. i Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 18 1 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 homeowners the 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 1 development by a 100' setback and a 75' buffer strip which is required to contain native vegetation throughout the whole buffer strip. 1 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 fords there is no reasonable or prudent alternatives. i 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'- 1 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 areas. 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). The applicant is proposing to protect the natural wetlands, except for the northerly portion of wetland 5 and a small area at the south end of wetland 8. 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. The city's wetland map shows this area as a natural wetland and staff will work with the developer to determine whether any alteration to this wetland area would be permitted. The small area of fill to wetland 8 is a result of street construction. Staff will look closer at this to determine if the alteration can be avoided, but it appears that a minimal amount of fill will be necessary. The city's wetland map also shows the ravine area, adjacent to H street, is an ag/urban wetland. This wetland is not shown on the proposed plans. Staff will work with the applicant to determine the location and status of the wetland. • 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 August 12, 1992 Page 19 1 The applicant is proposing to completely fill wetlands 4, 7, 7a, 9, and 10, and portions of wetlands la, lc, 2, 5, 6 and 8. As part of the wetland alteration permit, which proceeds after 1 PUD conceptual approval, the applicant will be required to provide detailed plans for staff to determine whether the proposed filling of wetlands is acceptable, and if so, what form of mitigation is required. The applicant will also be required to provide detailed plans showing the 1 setback areas, buffer strips and landscaping. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE , 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 comments made by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission generally agreed with the conditions presented by staff. 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 cul -de -sacs "I" and "G" should remain and that they liked the cul -de -sac islands. If the Council agrees that cul -de -sac islands are acceptable, the applicant should be directed to work with the Engineering Department to design the cul -de- sac islands. Staff has met with the applicant and have addressed the comments on the conditions of approval. The next submittal by the applicant will address the proposed changes. This is just the concept phase. The City Council should comment on the proposed Planned Unit Development, as to whether it should be accepted as a PUD, and comment on staff's conditions. RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 113 single family lots with the following conditions: 1. Reduce the amount of tree removal currently o osed through reduction of grading, use 1 YP P g 8� g of retaining walls, removal and shortening of cul -de -sacs, different housing styles, lowering of street grades, and reconfiguration of lot sizes and locations. 1 2. Provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types, number and caliper of trees over 6" caliper being removed. 1 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 20 3. Revise lot areas by removing wetland area from the calculations. ' 4. 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 or protective easement. 5. Revise lot widths so that each lot has a minimum of 90' at the building setback or provide justification that the required buildable area can be accommodated. 6. Demonstrate that each lot provides a 30' rear yard setback and that there is a 30' exterior setback. 7. • _ :. _ :.- - : - ..: _ :. _ . : .. : : - . _ . _ _ . e'. The PUD is permitted a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. 8. Maintain a minimum 10' side yard setback for all lots and that all accessory buildings and structures will maintain a 10' setback. or maintain at least a 20' separation between principal structures. It will be the burden of the developer to verify that there is a 20' separation between principal structures at time of building permit application. 9. Revise the landscaping plan so that it provides the landscaping required for a residential t PUD (boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping tree preservation, foundation and yard plantings) and previele a proposal for a budget for foundation plantings will not be necessary since the site is already so heavily vegetated. 10. Provide architectural covenants. 11. Locate the extension for watermain service along the east side of Trunk Hwy. 41. 12. Extend the watermain beyond "I" street to "G" street to loop the two water systems together. 13. Locate fire hydrants approximately 300' apart and in accordance with any location recommendations by the Fire Marshal. 14. Provide storm drainage and ponding calculations to verify pipe sizing and pond volumes and extend storm sewer lines to the detention ponds to minimize erosion along the slopes. 15. Provide a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street A. 16. Review the connection of I and G street to provide a 3% or less grade for the first 50' 1 at intersections. 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner I August 12, 1992 Page 21 17. Delete the center median islands on A street and all cul -de -sacs. If the cul -de -sac 1 islands are permitted, the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to provide an acceptable design. 1 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer strips and protection of wetland. 1 19. Provide as built locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 1 20. Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Departments." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated August 13, 1992. 1 2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated August 12, 1992. 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 30, 1992. 4. Proposed Residential PUD Ordinance. 5. Draft Wetland Ordinance. 6. Letter from Schoell & Madson dated August 11, 1992. , 7. Lot summary. 8. Wetland Evaluation. 9. Reduce copies of proposal. 10. Names of property owners notified. 11. Planning Commission minutes dated August 19, 1992. 12. Conceptual plans. 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 irs am an an am as am as am as am ma am as am am am me ON 7 - T • __ ) / , . lif, . JOHNSON DOLEJSI TURNER PROPERTY . , , , v i ". ,- . : 0 ; 0 -- ( , s , CHANHASSEN, MN. , : A; -p (/ .. ..„.._,-- ./ GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ,.. . .1- . : ,';.. ,o....c.,;4. . IA Barellii V___________40.; • 6444m. , . OPEN SPACE ; • ,, ‘,.., i , -,.,„ 0 .,,, ENTRANCE 111011UMENTS . .9 I .. f 111. 1111■1■1 I i 1 ' 0 • . L ., 1 ._,.., 0. 100' 200 400' OPEN SPACE ' 4‘.41: \<A,... ‘.\\‘ :/ ,2' ) •.'" -■,/.7 , \___:;/ .,,/,' * W . • .''' , :' r'l 1 5 1 j ''' •-• m - .....-f -_ womoW4 J 6 e ' '" . • -' ■ .. -. j 1-' i / 1 . SCHOELL II MACISON. INC. .. , ... _,. .. .. ----\\/ \ -LI o O' dir P SPACE , OEN ; ' ' : \ . ' IT 9 11 if, 1 ill ....... • ... @. . ...,4.4..v.. st 4. . - 40/ : , \ -.q •■■• '''S • / 1 % - ■ * 1 :32 A tirr- 4 i 2.:: 1414 1 inly ',le \ „ - . ,e,% \._ PR ■ iil . OPEN SPACE 41 . DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY To) TOTAL AC. 95.19 AC. f El VMfg a PARK (PRIVATE) 2.3 AC. . -" Al 111 R.O.W. 10.4 AC. • ' NI)." .* ;PAW OPEN SPACE 22.08 AC. &.41i -- NET DEVELOPABLE 80.41 AC. NC). OF LOTS 120 •.,.....,/........_ ..,, AVG. LOT SIZE 21,928 SO. FT. __ MIN. LOT SIZE 10,000 SO. FT. : . FRONT YARD SETBACK 20' MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 21219' .4 (MINIMUM OF 15' BETWEEN HOUSES) REAR YARD SETBACK 30' MIN. LOT WIDTH IllY ' MIN. LOT DEPTH 125' SETBACK TO WETLAND • 10' MINIMUM CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH 30' REAR YARD - 40' w. • . . . ...... • " . • - • ••., • • ,. 1r / .T 1 Y. .•e i r • ••\l - < • JOHNSON DOLEJSI TURNER PROPERTY " ' `E °''" I, 9 ' j' ' , " (7/1.. ' , CHANHASSEN. MN. .� �<I ��rr� — WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION � f ' a � • E a ? . � � 1 I 1 '� ,.• ., - r ¢fi •• :A ll; �C"11101:..... � �� �• T '1/ K i ■ mom , 64,,, ENTRANCE NON.ME s ry 'Nib/i • • a /.,, � !I '., i.% yrw•er. y t---- _ - /`° _ -- • • ' L ` . . • ' ' ,t••. ! -' �o °o I II�III C I • � 141 . 1 j N l _\° . 4:', - � m j �, '•C . "A,7 f •A `; < y l � ,...,/ IIII II�I I �I' tLL -.� 'P. / �' � 0' 1 00' 200' 100' OPEN :.. r. 4 tip- - •- I i, ;iI�N AI -. 10 , j .. L ! t 4' � ulllllI Ll i 1.• ryl _ ��.<, ' . ,/ s f .,- `N,,.. • ► r ' gti l' - t ip __ �, //// fCNOELL A MADSON. INC. 9 ~ e,,, I-�{), r ./000 '1 J �i 's I ' 1 -.�- -_ / , - OPEN SPACE1a ` Ili ( .i, / i 4,41111) / / E r 1 O N . - . e• � 1'1 C. MITIGATION �t7! Z " .ills S. 1 i(P4 ' 411, r Cfp • .00 AC. ATI. �I' I . ` - kvt.•4..1.fi � •i` `•. A �~ 1 • wIn. i ��` rrw ' � A '' ; Il �S• NO • 'L � . 1 AC. MITIGATION ..../11.1.......... L41tfJ_ r te! ~ + �'�,� f , 1 i, cN `�A'' ,!) t 6 AC. MITIGA • Y _ - • OPEN SPACE V al 2t< SUMMARY I 9 ifilllin FILLING OF WETLAND 1 ; '� j I + A WETLAND MITIGATION LOCATIONS - 01%.. ' "% . ` f.t CUMMULATIVE ACREAGE 2.81 AC. � .21 AC. . ATwN ° r" - I qY 5 "1 1•26 M ITwAT10N � h y � I � �I P 1=4`4* I A :i I II ' . v. . - I S MN r tine = NM ea - - 11111 i r i 111111 s MI MN r NI 08/13 10:46 DSU, INC. . . Z002 , I !....: - . r " r i i A • ' ' ".. / J• :....-.,--,=_ _ , .. . r• •,„ ----- - s..-'.. - -- - ....-:-....f . : • -4- ...... • .‘Sk: - •,---..;,-,..• ,. - ..wco-W 2 . • -•••■,.... •,, • • i • • ".. -••••• • - - • - -•z", ,z,..••••,y• %. . • , _- - •"'• L. J $ * • • _„... '••• • . ,. ,_...„ L I ,, .. : 7 7 --- ' - ..,-- r . ..... . - = .,:-.'‘..--Tk ",'!t:4s,..>..4..: ....• . • . ....,_,. . ... . ,. ...vs-'''•;:\ . '-4- ..4' !, ••• .. -...z . • .. . , ,.-• . ';:.:„..'" ;74, • '', I r - ... 1:.;:. •.' ' ' ,, T. -- 3 : -a- -: .:. ' ,-..' : • . - - —. / '. / • ' • I '. ' 4 . I $. -: ---N-_,:0:" : il : '-"-- . - -%. - / - . - - s - • • - - - ---. " / r-.?1,;.,-,):::,-.1":,p4W ' ' .-.. -. . •\•-• • -:----.. ..' , \ • . ...__ . , ,. . . - - -,-,:',9. -,;,- ;- . , - ,;,,,,, , • .,;.-. .: A., . .... : - - -..:r - : ..-.'-:-x..-..., --4,.,`;:-.---_-4.1."--;- ----..-*_,-;..1-:-.4... 14. ^"t+ y .. , •• ... ---_-..-.,..._ • •-.- ...... ._,---'46-.....-- e 11'. ,... • . •Csv,,, . . -.,..- : - .::. • ; ':,-:- - -, z.- , .. -- -444 , - -64.).-4 . , -_,...- ?..,,,.: • ...- - - .. s i... 0 ..., / .L.• - - -7-- .. c..." • -.... :,',... • -,.. 1 9. _ , .... %-,:•:. • -- N• %. •"'••!"'" - ----: ... -Nib.' 0 ,.... ---- ": --..\) •: ' : ' iV ' . , I 9...:., • .?..--=-...... ,..._ '•,-, • ,........ ..-:. ....p7 ., w •,„ .. • j , ..." , _ •,• •■ . 1 j .- ) )1 . • .. - - - -.F.. :- 11:.:• . ','-'; t ,,'"";) 19 -,-;,1-•: • • - 4. / 41 I ''• t? \ ;.'" • '- e_ I •• • • • s ' ." 'S. .•• ' : .-- ---. '1 - • -4 ... I . 7 ,' • 1 4 1 \ k Q!.. 1 , -i' •,,,,' . i ' ' . I I ---'' .••• , ..!\,': .c; _--..;,•• c 4--", / 1 • *: 'VA< , • t ' '' , 1 , ••••••"` ! • • _.,, _,,j ' • - %.../•-(:. ' / - ' •-; t : -",•::: ...-- .; - • -.. ■ 1 •-..r..- . • tN 1 . • I ; . •• ';' -„,.. .. ' • ..• • .. N. . .... • •• ..• '`. - • • - ;••• .:- Z • • ' , ..ezi • .. i i ,.."." . - • ••• -, : ; .. •. \ • . 7 — - — .... • r ; . t .1 :: ..." . rjr, • .../ , . . • ■ • .f. . ,.„ / / ; ..; • • . •••• *. ' ' '...4.. ).'. •"...• ,' , t • 1 ;•9 7 • i . .f --.1$.7';• % • . , ';••;:,...... - • •• ,..",,A, ; • • t . 1 . ,s;- ' - - '*- --,...: - "S ' /I.- .. I , 1 . w. • , ,..,.... _. _Ix ,,:x,, c7,•!-- -, i - , 1 - ; - : • ' •" ,,c . •.. / . . e r.....t ,.. : "a % - ... // .% / , •‘>.....,-- i k. • : ., .• 1%; .., . vx ... , \ ,—.,_ t — '1 i, _ - -* ... - t ..''.. 2- ' ' / • .-„,,..,■—• - : - i ' . s' ' - - • "'' ' '''': 2 .. •— ; • . - ,I,Lx. / / - ,,. , ..::...-,,v-e . .... ,. ...4 .7 a . i , ! ._ .. I • ,' f ' \ '...1 ■ L • ... ' ' . • . .••• -, ' ' i • ' , • ••"'X •Z. •?t. "' : '' '...-...;-", •-.4.: ' • \•■•• - 1/4 vk'rt, ••• .. ‘, • • ? ..' .. - -. - - --:,. , .7...4,:-. .Z-L,,,,:,.. , - - .7 : -...14'.2..;., .. f.,,1:1%fr-_w - ),.-, ---- , . : ' —Z— -- .--. .. . • '. - 7 - - — — - z• .. • ,. 1 ■• • • • :- 1 " ,- -4.. I ''' 7 - `.., ■ .L? " --.. " - •,74 .- f` 4 '•'tn-ie" ,-7- ' ..4. ; ; - • ci.-: .. . ;7.71`fr N. - .. . st .'.? • • .. ‘ 4 • ' -:1.- 7'- -, 2 Z ., , , W : 2 1 % • ''.. • 7 " ; : -••• .• I ... .: • i 7 LS a. -V-7 - . . -• 44 it../ .. Iti ■ r - i.: / 1 gl 1 - . ." -, la) " --, • r .2 -,, . : • --.- ■•_./••••_-__ s _.._ . r ,...: a- • ..: •.2 • ,- - ' ;y: 1 7 .- :: 1 . :-,.." .! / • X ••••')-_-- ' „.• ..: ,...• •41,-; - ,---r•-.4-..: ., •-: / z - 1, - *• v r - - • /:-./. • il•ri,i -..-- .''. Ili : - -.. .1 I .... e ' •• - ,. .• ' •.....- • t. F ;!.... • s t. •-•:.• , - • • fe7f , • ..-• • ) •.' -' :4 V-: / •• '.. i 4 i ',.0- . /- " v ,&.." , ........ , .... • „t „AIL,' . .' .. .- ,,_,,,■..- ; •••• :"•••,- :.; ••-• ?* .. . • ' ' '•,- . - , ••-•%•`...--st;X-,•,''''s2.=',::S3`.:-.`qr.:7*-- ' ••■■• '''...,'• • ..07, .., • .,....., ..• e• --•,,,• •+.• ,- ...- ...tr., , , \. v.. \ ,. *• , Vt. \ Z i ' ''' ' .A F .1 * eq. I ..,....: , ........„, ,...T , -... • _ . --„,„:i.t.,,._ -....,__.: -,„4. ,,,.....__. --,,Nsc... ,-_,..,,,- '- . •... .> • ----->,-.... , -..,,,,, ' Nc4t- .. ••••-•- / : ...., -----._-:& - - - , 4.7, - .4›,,1 4 .?".-W" - x‘ , - ... •.,....;.\,- - •x... - ..,..- - =-‘ • •• A 1 .- .1 - - - , :•;•'4--, '-'.- - •1• "c-4••,.. ... - "4444.4."cftyccr ... i - • C t ... 1 1 • f... CI, el fip • • X s3 ., , ' . ..A .` . s "VC • • • 0 C.) 0 •■ ..•'' • — . i . - 114..1 4 ;:::, -.4 - < < < ••••• ..- ••••. i • "... ' .,r • ; • :- • • ..• 4e. : • -.. , . i , : .,:t-1.... N. ; .... 41' ca cD I . • . / ',u.:: "fy- . L 0 .... , • ; ..% ' ' 1. 4 \ • •••.' . Ni. ••• . ' . '''', .■:,.- ! - • - .t . k.,. s -v: 4' 'Pe 1 ., N.1..i.r■ ' , Z.,":5" • - P 0 Z -. - • ...- 3 '4 ,". ' 7* \ • . ' 1 • 1 's- •.• ' Oe \ . '-::'. 7. Jo .; • - I ..• , 1.". ,. .er • , .2.- . -- •.c, N .. ; -:-. A i .. • • - : Ct 111 g ,.., • .1 .... , 4y, .. • ,. A ..... . :. . .. "i ' ' t :. ^•• • . Z 1 E > • ' .1 . ^ .74> ' .... ' * ; Y.! :7 ti et.'.i co 1•• ' •, • .:, N. C O - •"\ - - 11 . 1. N • re . • ...,, • • V I Z • 0: . 0. 0 . s. , . 1....{1.1.4:: CC iil i CC 0 ' • •.: s ' • . { 111 Q 111 > ; > i 00 as to • • 0 1- o .., • 0 o z ,:—. . ILI I- IU Et ... a. Iii a3 LU • eC cr ....-: SH-;:: LU 0 0E 4# l 1" i' diftliE 0 0 0 so 2 •..... - e. lir. 2 I ' i. 1.■ 1■• Ir. 11 C:1 II: 5: - 5 Z ch a et - kalpi j r - • = 5C ut . M E I s hi E 0 ' . II • a ••• •-• • e al _ ......_ __.,, ,,,, ....„. _..... _..._-/ 1 /// / ■-- • ' ' a''' p ::,•.'. ja *.' 3 f t 1 1 1 'A '''.---- --, -- i/ 1 _ - - 7- Agnpungsv— ''':,S - 7", -- S . ...: .: . , ; I i 1, / *.•••14::::".......:;$4.4,.....::::.;•.;::::::•.:::::::•:::. .•'.5 44•;:.:?•• - ' ; / '''' ,--- - - •.. ...":-..- F ____...'y / C ,-„.•••••• • • • • • • • •• • •• • •:• • •••• • •••::::• • •• • ••■:::•:4 4 % , •• • •••••• . ^ ,... '. 'I .•••:•., .4......:;1. ( . . • - - ', u _ _ : _. ----__. ... .. - • _ - ... ; (-- - - • •••• '• . • •••:•• . •• • • • s , . • ,.. . %: . - - 2.: ' --'... - - 'I. ---.,-, , ‘ .*:;''' ...T .......e --..••• • 1 / . - ::• Th :::;::• PPtt % \ ••■ I .. -• •......... "; : t. •:.....:,,, %- -¢,.••• • i ■ ) 6‘ ,-;•• • N t..1, . ' - 1 , , • ' _, - „. , '' '' • . :••••:•• •• •:;:,•X ; ;: .• ••• • fs t ..1, , ji ' / i ig if ,., -...,..,-;;,•- •. . -:::-..._(:,,,,( i r I - -----;- ------ ----- - : •; ‘: - -43 :::::,::::;1:::::%:•: ( .41:5:r;:•,' , . ' 1 ' : ' . , - — -____ / .;:: : , _ ., __ '' % .-:-. - - • ---- ----- ....,,,, ..0/ , ( _,, , ------‘,11 ..,., •,. • \.. A /. ,r ,. ..f . C i i, i , ...:) ) 1 . '1. ! , -' ---- ,......._" --- --.....-- - -----',.....„_-- - r - ::':...- -----______-• ;.;:, _____ 4, -- .,/,-,--- 1 ; t , r .-.. ,,, , — / ./ , , / . -...,, -.,....::::::*:: . • ,, . ,,,- , , ,:•.--. : ..,.-,•,•-- . 4 ,.% )1 `;' ' -' - , ' ' , - - --- ) A I ' .., ..; • •,,,.. ' •4 fla`......:Crt:' ...',/.. • ' 71 f : / 4 •-• - - t,..;- - -- . 0 ilii -‘ -- ." -- - .., - ;, e., -- ::::::17,>:::::: ■.....,,,, ... _ . ,-;-- ,--. _ - ..... ----: -- i / 2 ' • , --- - ---, . . ''. - ••• — - .-• i A .. -- '' 4 - '' - ' - - P;VA•frtio:A ' _ ._. 7-- _t=" - - -.-----...- --- ..: ::;z ..,, ' i - ■ • iN ' : , ■ i: - - - - - - - . , .:4 • '••".,,,- , - — — - ---- , t, t i ', s ...• " •;..../ ., • c -- ' ---- .... ____ -- -,_ , ,f, , 7.-„,- --- ' \ ( .... --:-.- - . ."' ( ,- -25,,,' „,•;.- • :•-•' / -- ---- ,,, - - 1 , . (. ,-::::::::::•••,::.:..........:::', -. ••• • , ,`, ,-'. e'-i. .s ' '' \ ' ::.:::::::::0::::,..1,4fa;;;;;„, . d• f 2 , , :sz , ,, , ' t -- •": 7 "-"t. - • -- '. ...f.:::::•%::::::4.:".. g .1 / ' '. -*''''•-'''•'•''''';':•;::::::::,.::::::•::::::::.. r • 4' K? ,..:1-: , , • 'A:: ••••:•:;:::. 1 . . • :....: / .... , ., 4 1; ' ' : :x1::::::;:::;:x:::::::..........- I 2 . / ,....• ...._- -- ' i , -•?., \ '4, ' q ' i 1. I. / • . I ••••:.:•.:•:: s s , ', *. 7 .1ini - • ' i ••• \ t o I ! ' - - A .::::::--::::•::::. .• - -- - ••• ... ...-• .■ ..-- : ; ' _ • , • I • -.• S•. ..;:, , ' / ,-, N ___.■ . 1 , A . ,, N • ' . • .X.At... .-........:4;* .........:.•:::.:.::.:ii:::•. \ ,_ .., • \' .., ,....."</„_.__..7.,,,sN. iwit,viRt........, 0?,. .), . . ,:;:a. ‘ ir.:: .. A . : 41 :: : .7 :::: . i ... : :. 4 :. : :::2 . : :1:: . .:____ ": : -- ;::: ........: .:>:::::" . • a„ -- 2 . ( , / 1 i I r ,. ., 4 ..../ 4 -._• -;;;----------. ' Zs,- .:', s'c' '.. • -:•• • • '..;" ...,,,,,---_---•- -- — ,• : , , _ _ \.A...:,,,. ). 4 . , , / , , - •, . --,-;----------- „ ,...:•.::::•.:::::::::: • . . ... .,, ... ., .... .... .,,_ / / A' .:: -. ;. ,..§7:1;;;Ifi •• . E • ,, ,. • • i '''' . ) :-)•- '','-• 9. , :i,:•:•,4- • A, ■ - al. :1 ' .1 : ;.. .L --,- ; . ...• •:•,:,.::::::',. +' 1 • , , /..:44::::::' ." 1 / / r-- . -- -, - . ; , ..•---'.'.: ;7 7..-.: .: ' ,-,....::::::—.. „ ,.. - ..tt.4.......,, , ,.,.. .....,____ • .';'-'-••"'S://1 ..,,- ,! • ..' '' : • ," • ' .. . ..... t . ....:•>:•:•• . ' I ' If / ". ',,, •,. • "-•* ..., , •••,•:. -• , , 7. : . ■. • . , , , , ., v,..),, __ -_,.,, . ' .(:::;:i.:;k:''' :::::: ... i -........' . . - -,..q.' ' - .i ,! Y ' -..... - 7 . -1' ... ,,, T.:: -: :•.•:;$: -4 4 : ;E:g: :•. :::::• .. • - • ' •-- -s . ' ' i =" I .• s. ' , .,' •:. , . - . - ", ‘o ,si;i : , • s•• •.. .• •,.; -..., .,, - ...•:*%:-.■:::;::?:::!:;::, - N•Ei.W...,•17:::, -4-0 :;k:'§; 1 (4::::i: r . ! 1 q.-4-,. \ .,„..„.-,,, t ?' / .....,:„:,:.*:;;;%.:.*:?::,:-....,..„,„ _.,_,, ... : .;:;:;:;;;:' i - 'n ''•'::;:.. ;.', .X:%: . .- - -,•,‘•-..... . i:.::." , .,-_,,, ' J .• .. :,...- - •;;;.• '.7› , i , ...7", • .,e'S:.:„ i:;:i1:;:.' • 1 ; A . . - - ' •• 1 : ri) ,' , • • = 41: : :: : :: : :;:iiii; • ••:,' ,‘ ' --• ' ' . • . ••:.: , :-A*4.*: :: • : ./ w•-::::$:::::-••::t' • - . •-• .:.•:•:•K , • ! , (..) ', ' “.-.! \ '-•-• , :i.•"5-' ,7 "- ? •. : ,.. -*: -......, _- • ••:.*::,,, f - - , ,, :::iii - '•::::::.:.:, . OW' ":".. - , ..inii::.:::•;:;:;:it i:;::: . , Z • . .i .., . 0 ; ! l '" • ' :,..f_ ' I -- -... J , , , C,,) . ,.., , 7./1 '`.•-'; "" I '. Z *. ';'.. D . .. I : ft, . -; • . CC , , • eh. ..,, , 0 - % 0 • I 1 • . ' ; CO CO 02 cc — 1- al i _ z w o - *I 1 M X w g g w E 0 1 liM MO Sill ais an int alli 1111111 all gm am 01111 Mt ali MI IIIII 1111 In di a / 1 • f • . 1 • , ' , 40044 . ... .w.ernew \\ ° Z . .: r.:•' V 4. :4 1 - 7.•: - -z- - ; c o 3 . , ! .• I m , / , \ . ___......._. , . A . I 0:4 ti f nw,..,,,. .raft• ..//' 1 ,...._,1 . :117 DES • mir. t ma, 7 4 „ 1 • Wt. <OM.. Of GAP VON 0.1%.11 ' , 1 -- ,_.- -;.-- PRO • • SED COLLECTOR / I' ........ : . 7 ) , 1 4. Alt ...., , ........ / ........ . . . i / ., . . . • / 1 :r...,.. SUBJECT PROPERTY . i ' ... , I —_____ _ tr:...r.= I ______ -. i / Ali :r.:••.:-.-- . - 7:'• T :.••• I . ; /.... 1 • ,r si a .......... :::... ' ti " rarrel / •-anzr,r- , 1 • ..... Eir4 4 ••• e mt. I :••=•.• Vra...... I, -----1 tr.. i i i ■:::: ''' ".4:"." 2 4 - .." . -' /, , .,_ k I Z . 1 I I 1 / . 1 .r- t ; V•PVINIITY Of MR .............• L i 1.7 7:4.. ...:.t.-.;... ..... . ., 1 .7.7.; 1 1 1 t. ti (..._ ...t..., 1 / . . . t - _ 1 i -r.-.7=-- gm- ) 4 • i I 4rLLT.Ir 1.7:7 e ' if.re I r s • 4, 1 *.r.-:.,..2.• ••• 1 • . —4—:•.-w0--- 1 • JOHNSON DOLEJSI tURNER PROPERTY / 1 i /Y . r; _., A , e ____ . 4- -- :.-:-..-. ; ri CHANHASSEN. MN. i /. ".■ . •■• ..• ... i r --- t . ...... — ....„. • : . „.„. ......... • • • ••• .••••••••• • Silf 400 VW • I 1 LOCATION MAP ! .. ,_ Lyz...v... F 1 .. .. , \ . \ • , . 1 MAW . / . / i . . 'I' • . 1 0 - _ _ • - . ... - ' ••• I - - - -- - — , ,34 1 1 : 1 .4. , , . ! 1 i; , , , ; 3 ...., .3. • , - ; 0 . , 3, . „ „i '--... , :A i I I . : ..1 . I 1 : I , I ' \ . F 1 !■,, I . - .1 or'141. i , I • %.0,,,•_ _ i t 1 .." • . I 1 • - - I i , f'"---„, ,,,, \ I • ' t — - ..... i -- ••., % , ..„.....„......„.,._. p. . ,.. . 1.,1 ,, . • 1 , ..... ,....... --...„....,. ...,.,..., . _II 7 71. /''I.7. ----------- T7 :, ta ' . (/' ; tt, 1 I .,, I i 7 i I i.: ".----- • --- ' • fi2 ;..."...;''. I I ' ---...—.••••.•••••• ` I . I I i I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 ; I i ■ i f Ill 4;3 iv, I • • g I. i 0 1 ii t 1 . I 1 3, • !, i ; J'ir I . „ 1 . ._ .. ... 1 1 __,......,.........s......„...„,.... m , „ :, 0 , :., ...... .....„..._.._ . :, •••■ .., / 444. I , e t , .. :: 'x • 2 ; i I 'I ; i ' I. ' _ ... - • t !--- ;. ....„ ,. .. 1 i 1 ..• . .. t t 1.' .. .... i' ‘;‘... ' :, - CC • I 11 I, ;!' k. ;6 ••• I 'l 4___ I) ..., . . " „ _____ ..". , CC • '"---.„, ' AIN _ ___ _ . .,. ------ - - ;;;■._ - .00 _ \ --1, e "---------- — ------ ---.. ... . — ---- . 11 '' I • 1 a . , ■ 1 1 -. t, \ Z 111 • ' t [___ __ _ •Z , : s ' • I ^ , a s ', ■ 4 z. I 1 %-i CO i 1 b le ' III Is .i I I g I z E i 0 I ill ..,; !- , 1 te. 4 1-0' #:', i , k t; 1 I 4 0 X I \,... ....: -.<1 9 '...) tii ___ 1 .' ,, i • o 3 (( 11 it 1 r • IN SIeff-iN/1//Pd 2 we- 1 1 • 1 1 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAN 1 PREPARED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1 Submitted by: Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612) 473 -1231 1 1 r • 1 1 1 r TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DEVELOPMENT TEAM II. INTRODUCTION 1 III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT A. Location j B. Legal Description C. Zoning D. Project 1 E. P.U.D. Criteria F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability 1. Land Use Guide Plan/Density 1 2. Site Utility Availability and Service 3. Traffic Access and Circulation IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULING 1 V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY 1 VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS VII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT VIII. TREE PRESERVATION /MONUMENTATION /SIGNAGE 1 IX. COVENANTS X. CONCLUSION 1 1 1 1 1 1 DEVELOPMENT TEAM The developer of the Johnson, Dolejsi, Turner property is Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation located in Wayzata, Minnesota. The Lundgren Bros. tradition has been 1 synonymous with quality neighborhoods throughout the Metropolitan Area for 23 years. The Development Team is coordinated by Terry Forbord, Vice President and Project Manager of this 1 development. Consultants 1 Planner: The site plan design by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., Minneapolis, MN. 1 Engineer: The plat and public facilities engineering by Schoell & Madson, Inc., Minnetonka, MN. 1 Surveyor: Site surveying by Schoell & Madson, Inc. Legal: John Kuehn, Leonard Street & Deinard, Minneapolis, MN. Wetland Biological Regulated wetland permits, delineation and monitoring by Summit Analysis: Environmental, Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Landscape Entrance monumentation and landscape design by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Architecture: Uban, Inc. Market Analysis: Preliminary market analysis by Conhaim & Assoc., Minneapolis, MN. II. INTRODUCTION , Purpose of Presentation The purpose of this presentation is to provide the Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council details of the proposed Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and to obtain the necessary concept plan, preliminary plan and preliminary plat approval. 1 III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT 1 A. Location This proposed Residential Planned Unit Development by Lundgren Bros. is located in Chanhassen in Section 9, Township 116, Range 23. The property consists of 95 acres. The project is served by State Highway No. 41 to the west, State Highway No. 5 to the south and vacant land to the north and east. 1 1 1 Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 2 B. Legal Description See attached. C. Zoning 1 The project consists of four parcels of land owned by three different owners. The property is currently zoned A2. The developer proposes to rezone the property to a Residential Planned 1 Unit Development. D. The Project 1 The project consists of 120 single family residential home sites that will be developed on lots ranging from 75' to 130' lot widths with lot depths varying from 130' to 400'. Each lot will be developed to match the site with a choice of pre - designed models. Each home will have a minimum two car garage with a wide driveway and major emphasis placed on walkout basements where topography allows. Lot Size: Gross Average Lot Size 34,554 s.f. 1 Net Average Lot Size 21,485 s.f. Smallest Lot Size 12,000 s.f. Largest Lot Size 71,300 s.f. 1 Proposed Building Setbacks: 20' Front Yard Setback (minimum) 30' Rear Yard Setback (minimum) 6' Interior Side Yard Setback for Garages 9' Interior Side Yard Setback for Living Area 15' Minimum Combined Between Buildings 40' Rear Yard Wetland Setback (minimum) 1 Meandering wetlands create a variety of constraints to development, which can be minimized by mitigative efforts aimed at providing quality homesites while maintaining the integrity and contributing towards the enhancement of the wetlands. Measures such as conservation easements, reduced setbacks and restrictive covenants all contribute to this and will be discussed later. 1 • As noted earlier, lots will vary in size from 12,000 s.f. to 34,000 s.f. The range of lots in this development is considerable and provides an opportunity to accommodate different home styles. Besides offering the advantage of a highly varied streetscape, the mixture of home plans and lot sizes can help to diversify target markets. Generally this option does not achieve densities as high as those using conventional platting procedures evidenced by the gross density shown on this plan of 1.3 units /acre with a net average lot size of 21,485 s.f. 1 1 1 Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 3 With the difficult constraints on the site, the mitigative measures that we propose such as preservation of wetlands and vegetation with additional ponding proposed creates a development that is aesthetically pleasing and environmentally responsible. 1 These mitigation measures speak to the purpose of the P.U.D. and successfully create the ultimate condition that the P.U.D. was designed to affect. Development Summary: Total Acreage 95.19 ac. Private Park 2.30 ac. 2% Open Space 22.08 ac. 23% R.O.W. 10.40 ac. 11% Net Developable 60.41 ac. 64% Number of Lots 120 Gross Density 1.3 units /acre (120 _ 95.19) Net Density 2.0 units /acre (120 _ 60.41) E. P.U.D. Criteria 1 The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance (May, 1992) outlines three expected attributes of Planned Unit Developments. Those expected attributes and the developer's findings are outlined I below: 1. Attribute: The City should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements. Finding: The overall concept is oriented around the development of individual neighborhoods defined by the road system and the integrated open space system. This 1 community was designed to accommodate moderate -size single family homes while providing generous amounts of open space. The plentiful open space shown affords the visual amenity provided by ponds, wetlands, mounds and depressions and combines them with the landscape elements such as grass, flowers, shrubbery and trees. Over and above this, open space provides the means to preserve and enhance existing natural amenities, thus preserving wildlife habitat and migration corridors. Open space can beneficially influence the micro climate by. improving heat radiation and by providing channels for air drainage and favorable air flows. The system operates as more than just open space; it provides a readily accessible place for informal 1 recreation. The developer has used this process that embraces the delicate balancing act of locating roads and home sites where it has the least effect on the wetlands, trees and steep slopes to create a development that is innovative and harmoniously sensitive to the environment. 1 1 Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 4 2. Attribute: Lot sizes should be mixed to reflect the sites' environmental limitations and opportunities and to offer a range of housing pricing options. 1 Finding: The proposed plan maximizes the potential of the limited developable land on this property while providing an efficient use of open space that benefits as many 1 home sites as possible. Because of the unusual amount of constraints existing on this site such as: the 10 wetlands, the visual and noise concems of State Highway No. 41 and the extensive vegetation, Lundgren Bros. is requesting a P.U.D. on this property. 1 A P.U.D. would provide more efficient use of land and public services, consolidation of areas for recreation, and reductions in street lengths and other utility related expenses. The curvilinear road system, rolling topography, and general site design help create many interesting and unique building sites which further promotes diversity in housing within the development. 3. Attribute: Quality of development in: landscaping, construction quality, provision of public /private open and recreational space. a. Landscaping - By design, the road system locates entrances which identify 1 points of arrival to individual neighborhoods. The entrance features will consist of entry monuments, ponds, extensive landscaping and planted medians. The cul -de -sacs, while allowing development of rolling hills and creating niches for smaller more private neighborhoods, also affords the opportunity for landscaped islands, another feature of this development. These areas will be maintained by a homeowner's association as well as covenants on the land that must be adhered to by owners. b. Construction Quality - Lundgren Bros. invests a great deal of time and money periodically upgrading its entire home product line keeping current with design trends that are the most in demand and efficient. The latest innovative construction techniques are implemented upon their introduction to the building industry. Lundgren Bros. has been developing residential single family developments 1 and building quality homes in the Twin Cities area for 23 years. The Lundgren Bros. tradition of quality neighborhood communities has been recognized nationally by many industry publications such as: Better Homes & Gardens, Professional Builder and Builder Magazine. c. Public and Private Open Space - The amount of open space together with the neighborhood recreation area and the numerous ponds created within the development are a direct result of the flexibility allowed under a P.U.D. Additionally, because of reduced lot size and setback requirements the developer is able to provide other neighborhood community benefits that reduce the strain on other City parks and trails. The plan addresses the need for neighborhood park activity by locating a 2.3 acre private park in the center of the development. In addition to a pond 1 1 Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 5 entrance feature, other features proposed are a tennis court, a 1/2 basketball court, a play structure, and other areas for informal recreation. Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes and other minimum requirements and performance standards associated with traditional zoning, Planned Unit Developments can maximize the development potential of the developable land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics. F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability 1. Land Use Guide Plan/Density 1 The property is currently guided for Low Density Residential Single Family Housing by the City's Land Use Guide Plan. This designation allows 1 to 4 residential dwelling units per acre. The Johnson, Dolejsi, Tumer property plan proposes 120 residential single family lots on approximately 95 acres for a density of 1.3 dwelling units /acre. 1 2. Site Utility Availability and Service The site is within the MUSA expansion area. The February, 1992 report prepared by Boonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates presents the general plan for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and watermain to this site. Based on the report, sanitary sewer service will be provided by extension of a 12 -inch diameter trunk sewer from the Lake Ann Interceptor. This gravity sewer would terminate in the Song property which is immediately east of the Johnson, Dolejsi, Turner site. A lift station is proposed in the southeastportion of the Johnson, Dolejsi, Turner site which would pump the waste water by forcemain to the gravity trunk in the Song property. The intemal lateral gravity sewers would be extended from the lift station. This would be done in phases as necessary to support the phased development, beginning with the first phase at the west side of the site. Trunk water service to the site would be provided by extension of a 16 -inch diameter watermain from the pumphouse on Galpin Boulevard to Highway 41. This main would also pass through the Song property. Watermain laterals would be extended in phases from the trunk as necessary. • Lundgren Bros. has been working closely with the Songs, and preliminary alignments 1 for the streets which would contain the trunk sewer and watermain in their property have been developed. A feasibility study for the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain extensions has been ordered by the City. The preliminary schedule for the study and the project would provide for a project bid award in February 1993 and July 1993 construction completion. 1 1 Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 6 1 The storm drainage system on the site consists of storm sewers in streets which will 1 discharge into storm water treatment ponds. These ponds will outlet into existing wetlands. Storm sewer outlets are also provided from all of the existing wetlands to allow controlling the water levels. In general, the site drainage pattern is from the north portion of the site to the large wetland in the south portion. The drainage facilities will be constructed in phases along with the other site improvements. 3. Traffic and Access Circulation The road system, open space system and trails have been developed to best facilitate the movement of traffic safely and conveniently in accordance with the City's designated road system, while at the same time providing a unique neighborhood community consistent with Chanhassen's high standards. 1 Primary access to the development will be off of an east -west collector connecting State Highway No. 41 and County Road No. 117 additionally providing access to the Song Property located adjacent to the east. The road system is designed to identify a hierarchy of traffic with cul -de -sacs running into this collector. The preliminary plan provides for the preservation of 25± acres of natural wetland and 1 high ground areas to be used for private park, trails and open space. IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND E N SCHEDULE S QUE CE S HE UL E The developer intends to develop the project in five phases over a period of approximately four to five years. Obviously, economic conditions may affect the actual time frame and special areas of development. The attached accompanying phasing plan identifies the sequence of development of the proposed development. This sequence is mostly derived by the approximate location of utilities. V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY As the optionee, Lundgren Bros. intends to develop the Johnson, Dolejsi, Tumer property once they receive every governmental approval necessary for development to occur. Lundgren Bros. is a principal developer in the City of Chanhassen and has never failed to meet its obligations throughout its history. 1 VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS Except for a few concentrations of steep slopes, the topography is generally rolling terrain with the highest elevation being 1,034 feet and the lowest elevation being 954 feet. There exists 24± acres of 10 separate protected wetlands on the site with both the Army Corp of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen having jurisdiction. 1 Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 7 this neighborhood community. In addition to these natural features, the development will include significant ponding and enhancement of existing wetlands and along with additional landscape elements proposed by the developer, we believe the result will be an overall development that is attractive and enduring. VIII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT The project contains a total of 24± acres of wetlands of various types. Generally, the wetland basins on the project area have been heavily affected by past drainage activities. Virtually all of the wetlands on site have been subjected either to ditching or subsurface tile line installation. In some cases, this drainage activity has been effective enough to eliminate wetland hydrology and in others it has rendered historic wetlands so marginal that they serve few, if any, functional wetland values. After extensive analysis and a conscious effort to minimize the development impact on the site, approximately 2.81 acres of wetland were found unavoidable and are proposed to be filled (see Table 1). In general, the impacts would be incurred by the most degraded wetlands on the site. Of the 2.81 acre total, 1.65 acres or 59 percent consists of Basin 9 and 10 which are extremely marginal in their a soils, hydrology and vegetation. More than 87 percent of the impacts associated with the project will affect wetlands classified by the City as Ag Urban. Impacts to wetlands classified as natural have been limited to fringes and degraded portions of these basins. Because of the extensive distribution of wetlands present, it is clear that some wetland impacts cannot be avoided. Sedimentation ponds will intercept and collect storm water runoff prior to discharging it into the wetlands. The developer's intent is that upon its completion, the site should have equal or greater wetland acreage with overall higher quality than existed prior to development. This should provide an improved variety of plant types and a better habitat for more species of wildlife. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses shall occur in the form of several wetland creation projects distributed among the least disturbed portions of the site. We have tentatively identified 2.81 acres of potential wetland creation at seven locations within the site (see Wetland Impact/Mitigation Exhibit). These sites would provide 1:1 acre for acre replacement of wetlands to be affected by the project. The acreage encompassed by these sites is exclusive of storm water storage/treatment ponds to be constricted for the project. As the project moves into final design the locations and designs of these sites may be altered. Six of the seven replacement wetlands would be contiguous to and become part of Basins la, b or c. These basins would be excavated to a depth sufficient to create wet meadow or shallow march conditions. In general, the wetland types to be created will provide substantially higher wetland functional value than the degraded wetlands affected by the project. Bottom substrates for created wetlands will consist of organic material excavated from existing wetlands to be affected by the project. A conservation easement will be established around each wetland. The design of this easement shall show a natural perimeter that meanders around the edge of the wetland. The depth of the easement shall vary with 10' being an absolute minimum. This easement, with a minimum depth of 10' combined with a useable backyard of 30', should provide setbacks to the wetland of 40' minimum. 1 I Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 8 1 The primary purpose of the conservation easement is to provide nesting habitat and wildlife cover peripheral to the wetland. In addition, the easement combined with the proposed sedimentation ponds will work together to improve and maintain the character of the wetlands. Many species of wildlife reside in wetlands and depend, in part, on the presence of a fringe of upland 1 habitat. The design of this easement shall depict a natural perimeter that meanders around the edge of the wetland. The depth of the conservation easement shall vary depending on the classification of the wetland. Each lot shall have a deed restriction in recordable form and easement that forbids the home buyer from violating and tampering with the conservation easement. Table 1 1 Wetland Impact Summary Lundgren Bros. Chanhassen Residential Development City Regulatory Acres Summit Basin No.a City Basin No. Cowardin Type Classification Filled 1 a A9 -7(2) PEMCd Ag/Urban 0.05 I 1 b A9 -7(2) PEMCd Ag/Urban 0 1 c A9 -12(1) PEMCd Ag/Urban 0 2 A9 -7(1) PEMC Ag/Urban 0.25 3 A9 -8(3) PEMC & PEMNBE Natural 0.25c 3a - - -b PFO 1E - - -b 0 4 A9 -8(2) PEMF Ag/Urban 0.18 5 A9 -8(1) PEM/FO1C Natural 0.05 6 A9 -4(3) PEM/SSC Natural+ 0.02 7 A9 -8(4) PEMA Ag/Urban 0.22 7a A9 -8(4) PEMA Ag/Urban 0.08 8 A9 -4(9) PFO 1/UBC Ag/Urban 0.06 9 A9 -7(5) PEMA Ag/Urban 1.65 10 A9 -7(5) PEMA Ag/Urban TOTAL 2.81 1 a See attached Wetland Impact and Mitigation Exhibit . b Basin No. and Classification has not yet been assigned by Svoboda and Associates, Inc., because of its marginal nature, this basin was under further review to determine if it met minimum wetland criteria. c Of this impact, 0.22 acres is composed of a man-made drainage swale which provide an overland outlet for the natural portion of Basin 3. 1 1 1 • I 1 Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 9 1 VIII. TREE PRESERVATION /MONUMENTATION /SIGNAGE The vast majority of the existing trees are located in areas along the southern large wetland and will be subject to minimal impact by any home or mad construction. The design attempted to locate other large stands of vegetation in rear yards to preserve them and also I provide a screen to adjacent lots. There will be some tree loss occasioned by this development, but it is the expressed intention of the developer to keep tree loss to a minimum. Professionally designed and landscaped entrance monuments shall be provided at each entrance to the P.U.D. The elements of the monumentation and signage shall be consistent throughout the neighborhood community. The design team shall take advantage of the creativity the P.U.D. ordinance allows and develop an identity that blends well with the natural surroundings. All monumentation shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and shall be consistent with the quality 1 monumentation found in other exclusive Lundgren Bros. neighborhood communities. IX. COVENANTS As in all neighborhood communities created by Lundgren Bros., strict architectural and protective covenants shall be established and recorded to protect the investment of each homeowner and the wetland conservation easements. 1 X. CONCLUSION 1 i Lundgren Bros. feels that the proposed preliminary plan for development of the Johnson, Dolejsi, Tumer property enhances the quality goals and objectives of the City of Chanhassen. It is our 1 pleasure to respectfully submit to you our proposal and request your acceptance. 1 1 ! . 11 1 1 '1 4 C ITYOF 690 COULTER DR IVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ( 612) 937 -1900 • FA (612) 937 -5739 , 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner 1 1 FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ki.ake DATE: 07/30/92 1 SUBJECT: 92 -4 PUD, 92 -6 SUB, 92 -5 REZONE, 92 -9 WAP (Lundgren Bros.) 1. Standard designation for dwelling type is: TU - -- tuck under SE - -- split entry R - -- rambler SEWO - split entry walkout WO - -- walkout These designations should cover all types of grading possibilities, and the standardization helps avoid confusion. Plans should be changed to reflect these standard designations. 2. Problems have occurred with dwellings on corrected pads being too large for the pad or missing the pad. The development contract should include a provision requiring as built locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads. 3. Reduction of setback requirements, particularly in side yards creates a I potential for a number of problems. Drainage (from roofs and lot grading), permitted encroachments, and future structures all have higher potential for causing problems with the closer proximity of the dwellings. Four to five foot drainage easements should continue to be required at each side property line, with a drainage swale shown on the grading plan. All permitted encroachments except cornices and eaves should be prohibited. This would i include fire escapes, egress window wells, stairs and landings, bay or bow t windows, chimneys, decks and patios, balconies and canopies. Floor plans should be designed with no doors facing the side yards to avoid the perception 1 that future decks may be permitted. • 4. It isn't clear what is intended for the existing dwellings shown on the plans. This should be clarified. l 1 � 4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows: Section 20 -506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Detached Residential Planned Unit Developments. Intent The use of Planned Unit Developments for residential purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. The developer gains the potential for offering reduced lot sizes and flexibility in development standards which results in a combination of reduced development costs and improved marketing flexibility. At the same time, the city should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements. Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and to offer a range of housing pricing options. In addition, quality of development, as evidenced by landscaping, construction quality, provision of public /private open and recreational space, should also be enhanced. As average lot sizes are decreased below 15,000 square feet, the city's expectations will be increased and it will be the developer's responsibility to demonstrate how the project meets the city's goals . a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD 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. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. 1 1 1 d) Minimum Setbacks: 1 • 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 ry g adjacent P P minimum of 10 feet from property line. 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. f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. - The applicant should demonstrate that the will provide for g) Architectural Standards a pp PUD p 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 1 2 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 I buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. Section 20 -507. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Attached or Cluster -Home PUD's. a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet may be allowed. However, in no case will gross density exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. c) Setback Standards /Structures and Parking: PUD Exterior - 50 feet Interior Public Right -of -way - 20 feet Other setbacks - Established by PUD Agreement ' d) 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. e) 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. Landscaped berms 1 shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining 3 i • • 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. 1 3) Foundation and Yard 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 fmancial guarantees acceptable to the city. 1 4) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. f) 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 1 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 1 buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. 1 Section 2. Amend Section 20 -505, Required General Standards, by adding the following: (m) Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the Plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. 4 1 1 1 The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. 1 The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, 1 shall be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor 1 of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the 1 city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to 50 %. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 5 1 1 ARTICLE VI. WETLAND PROTECTION DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20 -401. Findings and intent. I Wetlands help maintain water quality, serve to minimize problems with flooding and erosion, 1 serve as sources of food and habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife, and are an integral part of the community's natural landscape providing the aesthetic benefits of open space and a natural I separation of land uses. It is the intent of this article to establish a policy of sound stewardship through coordination of regulations that strive toward zero degradation and no net loss of the wetlands by conserving, protecting, and enhancing these environmentally sensitive resources. In I addition, it is the intent of the city to promote the restoration of degraded wetlands where feasible and practical. It is the city's intent that the use of sound planning policies should strive to first avoid alteration to a wetland which are of high value. Where alteration of prime wetlands cannot be avoided, then wetland loss shall be mitigated. At the same time, wetland regulations will be based upon the value and function of the water body as determined by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. Section 20 -402. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to assure the protection of the general health, safety and welfare 1 of the residents and the protection of the wetland resources of the city, for now and in the future, through preservation and conservation of wetlands and sound management of development by: 1 (1) Establishment of wetland regulations that are coordinated with flood protection and water quality programs under the Chanhassen Surface Water Management I Plan. (2) Conducting an inventory and classification all wetlands within the city and maintenance of a comprehensive set of official city wetland maps. (3) Requiring sound management practices that will protect, conserve, maintain, 1 enhance, and improve the present quality of wetlands within the community. (4) Requiring measures designed to maintain and improve water quality in streams 1 and lakes with its attendant increase in recreational use and value. (5) Protecting and enhancing the scenic value 'of the wetland. 1 (6) Restricting and controlling the harmful effects of land development which I adversely affect wetlands through: • Requiring proper erosion control practices. 1 I 1 • Preventing rapid runoff from developed areas. • Preventing pollution from gas, oil, salt, fertilizer, sand silt, and other materials. ' Prohi dumping of waste in wetlands. Restricting the placement of structures within wetland areas. • Maintenance of a buffer strip to protect the perimeter of the wetland ' (7) Allowing only development that is planned to be compatible with wetland protection and enhancement. ' (8) Providing standards for the alteration of wetlands when permitted by the city. 1 (9) Mitigating impact of development adjacent to wetland areas. (10) Educating and informing the public regarding the function of wetlands and the 1 impact of urbanization upon wetlands. (11) Obtaining protective easements over or acquiring fee title to wetlands as opportunities occur. Section 20 -403. Interpretation. ' Neither the issuance of a wetland alteration permit nor compliance with the conditions thereof, nor compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall relieve any person from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance of any permit serve to impose any liability on the city or its officers or employees for injury or damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance of any permit remove the requirement of obtaining any other permit approvals from other regulatory agencies. Section 20 -404. Establishment of wetland areas. ' Lands lying within a wetland area shall be subject to the requirements established herein, as well Y g subject � + as restrictions and requirements established by other applicable city ordinances and regulations. The Wetland Protection Regulation shall not be construed to allow anything otherwise prohibited in the zoning district where the wetland area is located. Land within the wetland areas shall be classified by the city in accordance with officially adopted maps. In instances where the maps prove to be inconclusive, or if the official maps are not in place by the effective date of this ordinance, the city shall obtain further clarification from the Minnesota Department of Natural ' Resources, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, local wetland professionals and reference documents established by current Minnesota Statutes. 1 • 2 1 Chanhassen's wetlands are classified as follows: I • Pristine - High valued wetlands which have few visible signs of significant impact I by agriculture or urbanization. Pristine wetlands are considered to be areas which all development is prohibited and for which the greatest amount of protection will be provided. Should not receive untreated surface water drainage. I • Natural - High to moderate valued wetlands that have suffered from some impact but which offer or can be improved to offer high wetland values and functions. May be impacted by development only when the city fords there to be no reasonable or prudent alternatives. Wetland mitigation must be designed to offer improved value and function. Should not receive additional amounts of untreated surface water drainage from projects being considered for approval. • Ag/Urban - Moderate to low valued wetlands. May be impacted by development 1 contingent upon the provision of mitigation/replacement plans. The city encourages the provision of replacement/mitigation plans that serve to improve I value and function to allow reclassification to natural wetland status. May directly receive surface water drainage. • Utilized - Utilized water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water 1 runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not to be classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland characteristics. Wetland alteration permits shall not be required to undertake work on these water bodies. Section 20 -405. Determination of wetland boundary. 1 Wetland boundaries shall be established by officially adopted city maps. The official maps shall I be developed and maintained by the Planning Department. In the absence of having a wetland defined by the official maps, the Planning Director shall make wetland determinations based upon field investigations, applicable state law and in consultation with concerned agencies and I professionals. If an applicant questions whether a wetland exists or disputes its delineation, it shall be the burden of the applicant to supply detailed information for review. The applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to, topographical survey 1 and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact wetland boundary. The Planning Director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated wetland boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based upon the data that is supplied. Data required for wetland determination a registered engineer, surveyor, or a qualified wetland consultant. The applicant may appeal the Planning Director's determination I of the wetland boundary to the City Council. 1 3 1 1 ' I 1 Section 20 -406. Variances. I Variances from the requirements of this article may be granted in accordance with the variance provisions of this chapter as regulated by Article II, Division III of this Code. 1 Section 20 -409. General development regulations. 1. Setbacks. Setback standards described in Section 20-408 shall be applied uniformly to 1 all parcels of land in Chanhassen containing designated wetlands. 2. Permissible Uses between setback and buffer strip 1 Accessory structures, except garages and storage buildings exceeding 120 square feet and fencing over 6 feet in height 1 3. The following standards apply to all lands within and abutting wetland areas: (1) Septic and soil absorption system must be a setback minimum of one hundred 1 fifty (150) feet from the ordinary high water mark of the wetland. (2) The lowest ground floor elevation is three (3) feet above ordinary high water mark 1 of the wetland. I (3) Docks or walkways shall be elevated six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ordinary high water mark or six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ground level, whichever is greater. 1 (4) Private boat launches requiring fill are prohibited in wetlands except on lakes without a public boat access. All other access across a wetland shall be by means I of a boardwalk and only upon approval of a wetland alteration permit by the City Council. 1 Section 20 -408. Intent and Mitigation Procedures Intent I The primary goal of this ordinance is to avoid wetland impact by careful design of development proposals. An applicant for a wetland alteration has the obligation to demonstrate, to the city's I satisfaction, that reasonable alternatives to the action have.been explored. The city must find that the alternatives are inappropriate or that a wetland enhancement would result for the city to approve the wetland alteration. The city's actions on wetlands shall be guided by the procedures 1 outlined in this ordinance and by the value of the wetland as established by official city maps, Surface Water Management Plan, and information received from experts on wetland preservation. 1 4 I • Mitigation should always result in an improvement to the wetland function and value. The wetland function and value will include improvement of water quality, maintaining hydrological balance and provision of wildlife habitat. Mitigation will be performed at ratios required by state law to achieve replacement of the wetland function and value. Current state law requires a 1:1 mitigation until final rules are in place which raise the ratio to 2:1. Wherever wetland replacement ratios are mentioned elsewhere in this section it is understood that the prevailing state mandated ratio will be operative. Mitigation will not always be based solely on an acre to acre replacement but may be based on replacement of habitat units (HU) through the use of habitat evaluation procedures (appendix) at a ratio of 2:1. When significant improvements in the wetland value result, direct surface area replacement on a 2:1 basis may not be required. The city council will determine when wetland impact will be allowed and the nature of mitigation which will be acceptable. Mitigation Standards 1 Mitigation of wetlands for wildlife habitat should be restored/created/enhanced to have the 1 following characteristics: • Relatively stable water levels subject to natural fluctuations • Pretreatment of inflow waters to improve quality • High level of upland/lowland intermingling • A ratio of open water to aquatic vegetation between 1:1 to 1:2 • High degree of intermingling of open water and aquatic vegetation • High level of plant species diversity • Restoration of native plant species in upland and lowland areas • Undisturbed upland/lowland edge (i.e. buffer) • Meandered wetland edge • Irregular bottom contours - mix of shallow and deep water • Shallow side and bottom slopes - preferably 10:1 to 30:1 around and within wetland; steeper slopes may be used to provide open water and greater vegetation variability 1 Miti gati on Techniques 1. Mitigation will be performed at a ratio of 2:1 replacement of function and value. 2. The city will use the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) to determine Habitat Units (HUs) to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1. 3. The mitigation shall provide a buffer strip. A buffer strip is an area of non - disturbed ' ground cover left unmowed to filter sediment, nutrients, and chemicals. The wetland and buffer strips will be protected by an easement dedicated to the city. Buffer strip 5 1 III I vegetation will be established and maintained in accordance to city requirements; plant species shall be selected from a list of wetland and upland plants to provide habitat for various species of wildlife buffer strips shall be identified by permanent monumentation I acceptable to the city. In residential subdivisions, a monument is required for each lot. In other situations, a monument is required for each 300 feet of wetland edge. 1 The buffer strips and structure setbacks shall meet the following guidelines: Pristine Natural AR/Urban Utilized 1 Structure Setback 100' 40' 40' 1 measured measured from the from the outside edge outside edge I of the buffer of the buffer yard* yard* 1 Buffer Strip* 25 -100' 10 -30' 0 -20' 0 I Buffer Strip Minimum Average Width 50' 20' 10' 1 % of Native entire entire optional optional Vegetation ** I in Buffer Strip 1 1 1 1 • • 1 1 6 1 1 • i . 1 * The dimensions of the buffer strips shall be determined by the city based upon the quality of the wetland, local topographic conditions and the type and design of development being proposed. The table above provides minimum and maximum dimensions for the buffer strip. The use of a meandering buffer strip to maintain a natural appearance, is encouraged. Structure setbacks are also described in the table. On single family subdivisions in the RSF district, the applicant must demonstrate that each lot provides sufficient area to accommodate the applicable front yard setback, 40 foot deep building pad, room for a 12 foot wide deck at the rear of the home and a 30 foot rear yard area. All of these elements must be provided outside of designated wetland and buffer strip areas. ** Native Vegetation: Restore disturbed areas in appropriate native ecosystem including native trees and shrubs. 1 4. For development approved prior to (date of ordinance adoption) within wetland areas and for lands abutting a wetland area, the following minimum provisions 1 are applicable unless alternative plans are approved by the city under a wetland alteration permit: TABLE OF WETLAND CLASSIFICATIONS Pristine Natural Ag/Urban Utilized Setback 1 Principal 100' 75'* 75'* 0 Structure 1 * The city may approve reduced wetland setbacks as outlined in Section 3. However, this may only be approved in conjunction with compliance with buffer yard standards continued within the same table and compliance with all provisions of this ordinance. 5. The mitigation shall maintain or enhance the wetland hydrological balance through the following: • Restoration of deteriorated wetlands • 1 • • Flooding of previously drained wetland basins • Creation of new wetlands 1 7 1 1 , 1 II • Enhancement of existing wetlands 6. The mitigation shall provide for pretreatment of water prior to it entering the wetland to I improve water quality if required by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. 7. The mitigation, through the buffer strip, shall provide landscaping for nesting and ' food for wildlife habitat. The buffer strip landscape shall provide for wildlife cover and utilize a diversity of native flora (i.e. trees, shrubs, grasses, herbaceous plants) to encourage wildlife diversity and provide visual variety. 1 8. The mitigation process shall preserve the wetlands by dedication of easements or by fee title. I 9. The city's primary goal is to have wetland mitigation undertaken on -site. If this is not considered to be feasible by the city, second preference is for mitigation to occur locally I within the sub - watershed. The least preferred option is for mitigation to occur outside the sub - watershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be accomplished on site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off -site, the applicant shall be 1 responsible for contributing into the city's wetland mitigation fund. The mitigation performed off -site shall meet the above requirements. 1 10. The city may determine that the public interest is best served by requiring off -site wetland mitigation. This determination will be made based upon the city of Chanhassen's Surface Water Management Plan. When this situation arises or when the applicant is unable to I restore wetlands on -site as outlined in Section 8, the city will require payment into the dedicated Wetland Mitigation Banking Fund. This fund shall be used solely to create new and/or expand and improve existing wetlands according to the priorities outlined in I Section 8. The City Council shall establish the fee structure on an annual basis. Fees shall be based upon the average price for similar property elsewhere in the city. 1 Section 20 -409. Construction Management/Long Term Wetland Maintenance. I The applicant shall follow the city's construction monitoring program to minimize direct impacts due to erosion, construction practices, wildlife habitat protection, etc. I The applicant shall conduct a monitoring program and evaluation until construction is completed. A letter of credit from the applicant shall be held to ensure compliance similar to any other public improvement. The city will ensure that the applicant is delivering the wetland that was I promised. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the designed wetland as -built plans. Where feasible, the city shall require the applicant to satisfy long term management requirements. 1 1 8 _ 1 1 1 . Section 20 -410. Exemptions. Activities exempted by Minnesota Statutes 1036.2241 from State Wetlands Protection 1 shall be exempted from the provisions of this statute. However, certificates of exemption must be obtained from the city and filed with the County Recorder prior to starting work. 1 DIVISION 2. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Part A. General Provisions 1 Section 20 -421. Required. 1 1. The following activities, if performed in a wetland area require a Wetland Alteration Permit allowing the activity. 1 (1) Scientific research projects which benefit the specific wetland and provide educational benefits for other wetlands. 1 (2) Public works activity shall require a wetland alteration permit for streets /utilities. (3) Creation of ponds or dams and alterations of the natural drainageways of water 1 courses only if part of a mitigation project, or to restore or improve the function and value of the wetland. 1 (4) Installation of boardwalks. I (5) Create sedimentation and/or water quality improvement basins if part of a mitigation project, or used to restore or improve the function and value of the I wetland. These basins may not be created in "pristine" wetlands and may only be created in "natural" wetlands if the city determines that there is no reasonable alternative, if the wetland can be improved through the alteration, and if mitigation I for the impacted surface area is provided. (6) Digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering a wetland if part of a I mitigation project, or used to restore or improve the function and value of the wetland. (7) Discharge of storm water runoff, only when pretreated and retained to maintain 1 predevelopment conditions. 2. The following activities do not require a wetland alteration permit; I (1) Normal maintenance, city facilities such as dams and dikes. 1 9 - I (2) Removal of diseased and storm damaged trees and vegetation shall not require a wetland alteration permit. I (3) Repairing existing drain tile if the property has been in active agricultural use during the twelve (12) months preceding (new adoption date). 1 (4) Emergency situations when the Planning director deems the action necessary to protect public health, safety, and city infrastructure. 1 Section 20 -437. Filling. When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing fill in a wetland, the following guidelines 1 shall be followed: 1 (1) Any filling must be consistent with the provisions of the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. 1 (2) Filling shall not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to be diminished to an extent that is detrimental to any area river, lake or stream. ' (3) Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic wastes may be used. (4) Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation. I (5) Filling in wetland areas will not be permitted during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the City that the wetland is not 1 used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. (6) Filling in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated as defined in Section 20- ' 407. Section 20 -438. Dredging/Excavation /Grading. I When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing dredging/excavating /grading in a wetland, the following guidelines shall be followed: I (1) The dredging will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland. I (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. 1 (3) It shall not adversely change water flow. 1 10 .1 (4) The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the I proposed action. (5) Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area. 1 (6) Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient I retention measures. (7) Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season of I fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the City that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. (8) Dredging in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated as defined in Section 1 20 -407; if the activity results in a loss of functional wetland areas. Dredging approved by the city to create water quality improvement basins may be allowed by the city where reasonable alternatives are not available or where the wetland is of low quality and designated for the purpose by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. 1 Section 20 -440. Storm water runoff. When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing storm water runoff to a wetland, the 1 following guidelines shall be followed: (1) A minimum increase over the natural volume of storm water runoff from a I development may be allowed when necessary for use of property but only when it will not have a net adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological 1 characteristics of the existing wetlands. If the city is concurrently approving the creation of a replacement wetland elsewhere or the alteration is demonstrated to provide a direct benefit to the wetland by improving water quality. In no case I shall the restrictions on runoff set out below be exceeded. Since the total increase in runoff which can be permitted is limited, the Council when considering permit I applications shall consider, in addition to the following, apportionment of increased runoff opportunity to all wetland property within the surrounding wetland area. (2) Storm water runoff from a development may be directed to the wetland only when free of debris and substantially free of chemical pollutants and silt, and only at I rates which do not disturb vegetation or increase turbidity. Sheet flow and other overland drainage of runoff shall be encouraged. (3) The allowed total increased runoff, in combination with the total fill allowed, shall 1 not cause total natural flood storage or nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland 1 11 1 1 1 to be reduced in a manner inconsistent with requirements established by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. 1 Section 20 -441. Enforcement/Procedures. (a) Violation of Article VI, Wetland Protection, or of the terms of a permit issued 1 thereunder shall be a misdemeanor punishable by ninety (90) days in jail and/or a seven hundred dollar ($700.00) fine and be responsible for undertaking I restoration of the wetland. (b) Wetland reviews conducted by the city shall be coordinated with State of I Minnesota Wetland Protection Regulations and official rules. (d) Notice of requested wetland alteration permits shall be mailed to all property I owners located within 500 feet of the requested activity. Notification requirements established by State of Minnesota Wetland Protection Regulations and official rules shall be coordinated with city approvals. 1 Section 20 -422. Application, issuance, etc. I The applicant, for a wetland alteration permit, shall furnish the information required by the City including, but not limited to, a site plan, topographic data, hydrological data, and habitat evaluation procedures for the review of a wetland alteration permit application. The Planning I Director shall use discretion regarding the level and complexity of information required to review the request. A wetland alteration permit shall not be issued without having been first reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council following the review procedures I set forth for conditional use permits. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the proposed use or activity complies with the purposes, intent and other provisions of this article. A permit must be approved by a three- fifths vote of the Council. The Council may establish I reasonable conditions which are specifically set forth in the permit to ensure compliance with requirements contained in this article. Such conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed work, require the construction of other structures, require 1 replacement of vegetation and wetland function and value, establish required monitoring procedures and maintenance activity, stage the work over time, require the alteration of the site design to ensure buffering, require the provision of a performance security. The granting of a 1 wetland alteration permit does not abrogate the need to obtain permits required by other local, state or federal agencies. 1 Section 20 -423. Inspection of work. .• II The City may cause inspection of work for which a wetland alteration permit is issued to be made periodically during the course of such work and shall cause final inspection to be made following the completion of the work. 1 12 1 1 Section 20 -424. Expiration, renewal, etc. 1 (a) Unless otherwise specified by the City Council, the person issued a wetland alteration permit shall begin and complete the development authorized by the permit within one (1) year I after the date the Council approves the permit application. (b) The permittee shall provide written notice to the City Engineer twenty-four (24) hours I prior to the commencement and completion of the development project. No project shall be deemed to have been completed until approved by the City Engineer after receipt of notice of completion. 1 (c) If the permittee fails to commence work on the development within the time specified in this section, the permit shall be void. The Council may renew a void permit at its discretion. I If the Council does not renew the permit, the holder of the void permit may make original application for a new permit. III (d) The permittee may make written application to the Council for an extension of the time to commence work, but only if the permittee submits the application prior to the date I already established to commence work. The application of an extension shall state the reasons the permittee requires an extension. Part B. Issuance Guidelines 1 Section 20 -436. Generally. I No wetland alteration permit shall be issued unless the City Council determines that the proposed development complies with the provisions of this part, as well as the intent and purpose of this I article. If the City determines that the required calculations in a particular instance are needlessly burdensome because of the area and nature of a proposal, it may agree to a substitute analysis. 8/6/92 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 litte 0Rr 1 A uj .�, 1 99 - SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. co-, Lo- ; r milimmmmmmmm. I ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES I I 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD • MINNETONKA, MN 55305 -1525 [512] 546 -7601 • FAX (512) 546 -9055 August 11, 1992 1 Ms. Joann Olson 1 City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Subject: Johnson Dolejsi Turner Site 1 Dear Ms. Olson: We have reviewed the areas and densities shown on the preliminary plat. Following is the corrected information. 1 Total area 160.88 ac. Area of Outlots G & H 66.00 ac. I (Future Development) Area of Development 94.88 ac. Street Right of Way 450,864 SF or 10.35 ac. Area of Outlots A -F 1,024,967 SF or 23.53 ac. I Area of Platted Lots 2,657,160 SF or 61.00 ac. Total No. Lots 113 Average Lot Area 23,514 SF or 0.54 ac. I Gross Site Density 1.19 units /ac. (Less Outlots G & H) Net Site Density 1.85 units /ac. 1 (Less R/W & All Outlots) We will provide a tabulation showing the wetland areas for each lot within the next day or two. I Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, II SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Kenneth Adolf 1 KEA /cj cc: Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. John Uban, Dahlgren Shardlow Uban 1 II AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1 1 JOHNSON, DOLEJSI, TURNER PROPERTY • LOT SUMMARY 1 varag� , ' i3lock : .ot8.P i.oT' • , - .ik Ht . - , •B•tbeck I Block 1 Lot 1 19,070 160' 100' 110' Lot 2 26,660 175' 80' 110' Lot 3 20,460 175' 50' 80' III • Lot 4 29,140 175' 50' 75' • Lot 5 17,210 150' 80' 90' Lot 6 22,160 125' 150' 120' Block 2 1 • Lot 1 40,500 400' 100' 100' • Lot 2 40,500 405' 100' 100' • Lot 3 47,430 455' 110' 110' i Lot 4 25,420 195' 110' 115' Lot 5 17,360 180' 105' 100' Lot 6 16,430 158' 100' 100' Lot 7 16,890 163' 100' 110' Lot 8 16,500 150' 110' 100' 1 Lot 9 21,300 170' 50' 85' Lot 10 40,450 230' 50' 80' • Lot 11 44,800 245' 50' 80' • Lot 12 30,100 240' 50' 80' . Lot 13 15,680 140' 110' 100' Lot 14 28,500 270' 80' 85' • Lot 15 23,470 248' 80' 85' • Lot 16 18,870 245' 90' 80' ' • Lot 17 18,500 238' 90' 85' . Lot 18 17,840 220' 80' 80' • Lot 19 17,000 205' 80' 82' • Lot 20 21,380 225' 115' 105' , • Lot 21 16,590 230' 170' 115' • Lot 22 16,770 215' 90' 90' • Lot 23 19,550 230' 90' 85' • Lot 24 18,000 225' 85' 85' • Lot 25 28,130 225' 70' 80' - Lot 26 36,000 238' 50' 80' I • Lot 27 34,800 240' 50' 75' Lot 28 34,400 238' 50' 75' • Lot 29 22,990 243' 85' 60' • Lot 30 19,100 240' 75' 80' 1 Lot 31 18,500 223' • 80' 80' Lot 32 16,770 215' 80' 80' Lot 33 21,450 193' 105' 100' • Lot 34 18,100 190' 70' 75' Lot 35 32,700 190' 50' 80' 1 • Lot 36 41,540 ' 268' 50' 80' • Lot 37 63,250 332' 60' 90' Lot 38 15,600 160' 100' 105' Lot 39 14,700 173' 80' 80' I • Lot 40 16,820 193' 80' 80' • Lot 41 26,970 245' 95' 90' • Lot 42 44,650 310' 65' 100' • Lot 43 31,620 160' 70' 115' • Lot 44 36,900 183' 70' 100' I Lot 45 24,500 190' 80' 105' Lot 46 25,270 218' 250' 200' • Lot 47 27,690 355' 95' 90' • Lot 48 19,840 . 345' 100' 95' I • Lot 49 19,500 325' 110' 105' Lot 50 17,700 295' 110' 100' Lot 51 20,460 260' 80' 80' Lot 52 19,990 220' 80' 80' 1 / • 1 1 I Lot 53 16,430 205' 175' 120' • Lot 54 21,080 245' 80' 80' • Lot 55 21,080 255' 75' 80' • Lot 56 18,910 260' 100' 90' Lot 57 18,600 250' 130' 115' • Lot 58 16,890 243' 120' 105' Lot 59 18,760 170' 100' 105' • Lot 60 15,500 155' 100' 95' • Lot 61 12,860 160' 85' 80' I • Lot 62 17,050 195' 90' 80' • Lot 63 28,830 220' 100' 95' Lot 64 27,120 185' 55' 85' Lot 65 21,240 160' 60' 95' I . Lot 66 23,720 166' 70' 90' 95' Lot 67 17,510 178' 105' Lot 68 16,890 175' 90' 95' Lot 69 15,500 160' 100' 90' Lot 70 17,980 135' 100' 100' I Lot 71 17,360 148' 160' 125' 90' Lot 72 14,410 158' 90' Lot 73 13,020 138' 100' 90' • Lot 74 13,480 130' 100' 100' I • Lot 75 23,560 185' 60' 90' • Lot 76 63,240 290' 60' 90' Lot 77 35,030 260' 60' 95' Lot 78 11,470 210' 120' 90' Lot 79 14,730 240' 90' 90' I Lot 80 13,330 225' 90' 90' Lot 81 11,780 205' 85' 90' Lot 82 13,800 210' 70' 80' Lot 83 20,600 220' 90' 100' I Block 3 • Lot 1 43,090 328' 110' 110' Lot 2 49,910 210' 190' 240' I Block 4 Lot 1 21,230 140' 90' 100' Lot 2 16,430 145' 80' 100' Lot 3 23,560 195' 60' 80' I Lot 4 22,170 198' 70' 90' 1.015 16,120 133' 85' 110' 1.016 20,770 170' 55' 95' • Lot 7 28,670 210' 60' 90' Lot 8 28,050 145' 90' 120' I Lot 9 19,070 160' . 70' 130' Block 5 Lot 1 17,670 150' 90' 120' I Lot 2 24,340 265' 50' 95' 100' Lot 3 95,814 180' 60' • Lot 4 17,510 153' 150' 125' • Lot 5 15,810 173' 173' 105' • Lot 6 16,280 180' 180' 85' I Lot 7 14,570 153' 153' 90' Lot 8 18,130 153' 153' 100' Block 6 I Lot 1 15,340 140' 110' 110' 260' 1.012 40,450 208' 310' Lot 3 24,490 225' 125' 120' • Lot 4 28,830 165' 200' 185' • Lot 5 28,050 175' 210' 180' I 1 _ Lundgren Brothers Construction: ' WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Johnson, Dplejsi, Turner EVALUATION WORKSHEET Site To Be Completed By Applicant and • PP Submitted with Application (Attach additional sheets if necessary) 1. WETLAND DESCRIPTION: • • Size: See attached narrative 1 Class: see attached Type: See attached narrative Location: Lakeside Streamside Upland X 1 • Watershed District: Riley- Purgatory -Bl Creek Area of Open Water: See attached narrative - 1 Drainage Flows To: Bluff Creek 1 • Vegetation Types: See attached narrative Soil Types: Basin 1 Pd (deep peat /muck); Basin 6 Ma (marsh soil); All other basins Ge (Glencoe silty clay loam) 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: See attached narrative 1 • 1 1 3. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: Single family residential development. 1 4. APPLICABLE WETLAND ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 20 -439, section 20 -440 , Section 20 -437 and section 20 -438. 1 1 • 5. A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF NO 1 ALTERATION IS MADE: Because of the extensive distribution of wetland basins and intervening steep topography, the project site cannot , d_ ev_eloped for single family residential use with out some wetland impact. 31, wetland impacts are totally avoided, the project becomes infeasible 1 because of the large proportion of lots that would be eliminated. -I1 ' 5. B. IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO WETLAND ALTERATION: As mentioned' above, due to the extensive distribution of wetland within the project site, no alternative exists which would totally avoid wetland alterations. The project proposer has modified the site plan several times to further reduce wetland impacts. See attached narrative for more detailed discussion. C. IDENTIFY THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED _ ALTERATION: Thp prey advantage of the purposed alteration is that much of the wetland on the project site has been substantially degraded by drainage and agricultural activities. The project would allow the restoration of 1 both wetland acreage and wetland functional values in an amount well in excess of (Continued on separate page) 6. USING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE STANDARDS AS A GUIDE, DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE AND PROPOSED ALTERATION: It is anticipated that proposed project 1 will be consistant with all of the ordinance sections identified above; however, specific ordinance requirements cannot be addressed quantitatively until the project design has progressed farther. The developer is committed to meeting 1 all of these ordinance requirements and will provide the City with documentation of compliance as design details become available. • • • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2- 1 1 11 5. C. (Cont.) I the values that will be lost project. The site plan has been developed to avoid and minimize impacts to the highest quality wetlands on the site and to limit impacts as much as possible to those basins that have been degraded. Lost wetland values are being replaced at a ration in excess of 1:1 on an acreage basis. Also direct storm water I discharges into existing wetlands on the site have been avoided and all street runoff will be preponded before entering wetlands that remain on -site. All wetlands remaining on the site at project completion will be permanently protected by conservation easements. The project proposer does not recognize any disadvantages to the purposed alteration. given the above described measures. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 ?• Summit "s.r. Envirosolutions 1 1 July 20, 1992 1 Mr. Terry Forbord Vice President Lundgren Brothers Construction Company 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 ' SUBJECT: Wetland Delineation and Regulatory Analysis rY Y Chanhassen Site, TH 5 and TH 41 1 SUMMIT Project No. 921010 Dear Terry: 1 As requested, we have field reviewed the above - referenced property and delineated the jurisdictional wetlands found there. Wetlands on the subject site were delineated using the Federal Manual or Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Task Force on Wetland Delineation, 1989) and the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation 1 . Manual. Revisions to the former method have been proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and are currently under review. Pending the adoption of these 'revisions, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is applying the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual. We find that both of these manuals yield the same wetland boundaries on the project site. "Cowardin" wetland classifications are referenced first throughout the text with abbreviations of Cowardin types and "Circular 39" classifications being shown in parentheses. In analyzing potential impacts 1 and providing site layout recommendations, we have used the site concept plan prepared by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban and the preliminary stormwater pond locations provided by Schoell and Madson, Inc. BASIN. CHARACTERISTICS Generally, the wetland basins on the project area have been heavily affected by past drainage activities. Virtually all of the wetlands on -site have been subject either to ditching or subsurface tile line installation. We have indicated on Figure 1 locations where we know or believe tile lines to exist. In some cases, this drainage activity has been effective enough to eliminate wetland hydrology and in others it has rendered historic wetlands so marginal that they serve few, if any, - 1 function wetland values. A basin -by -basin description of wetlands on the project site follows: 1 708 North First Street, Suite &233 • Minneapolis, MN 55401 • (612) 333 -5050 • FAX(612) 333.5445 Offices Minneapolis, Minnesota • Milwaukee, Wisconsin 0 Mr. Terry Forbord Page 2 June 20, 1992 SUMMIT Project No. 921010 1 Basin 1; Sub - basins la, lb, and le Basin 1 is a large wetland complex which lies partially on -site along the southern boundary of the project area. In our mapping„ we have broken this basin into three sub - basins labeled la, lb, and lc. This basin is a ditched/partially drained saturated to seasonally flooded palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1B /Cd; Circular 39 Type 2 wet meadow). This basin may have originally been a wetter seasonally to semi - permanently flooded shallow marsh prior to its being ditched. Sub- basins la and lb appear to have roughly their original boundaries; however, sub -basin lc has been substantially altered by historic drainage activities. Sub -basin lc appears to have originally extended farther to the north and encompassed what have been designated in Figure 1 as Sub- basins 7 and 7a. Thus, the topographically flat area at the north end of Sub -basin lc represents former wetland that has been effectively drained by tile lines. The slender segment at the north end of Sub -basin lc is essentially a man -made ditch which offers few wetland functions and serves 1 primarily as a conduit carrying drainage from Basins 7 and 7a toward Basin ib. The site concept plan shows about 0.05 acre of filling impact to the fringe of basin la and no direct impacts upon Sub - basins lb and lc; the proposed stormwater pond locations all lie outside these basins. It appears that there are substantial wetland mitigation opportunities along the fringes of these three sub - basins. There are a number of cultivated upland areas fringing this wetland which can readily be excavated to blend into the existing wetland. Basin 2 1 Basin 2 is a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1B; Circular 39 Type 2 wet meadow). This wetland is totally dominated by monotypic reed canarygrass (a non -native wet meadow plant species) with a few mature willows and box elders along the fringe. Because of the considerable elevation difference between the north and south ends of this basin (about 6 feet) it appears that this wetland receives its water from a tile line that feeds in from off -site uplands to the north. Monotypic reed canarygrass extends uphill beyond the delineated wetland into a steeply sloping area that does not exhibit hydric soils or wetland hydrology. The lower portion of this basin feeds 1 into a ditch which flows under the existing site access drive and into Basin la. The flow observed in this ditch during field work appeared to be considerably more than what would be expected of a wetland with such a small, enclosed drainage area; again this suggests a subsurface tile line supplying water to the basin. This basin has relatively low ecological integrity due to the substantial invasion of non -native plant species. Also, because of this basin's lack of vegetative diversity, it has relatively low wildlife habitat value. The lower (south) end of this basin has the most diversity and the highest habitat value. The concept plan for the site indicates about 0.25 acre at the north end of this basin would be lost 1 to residential development. The portion of the basin affected is the steeply sloping and the most marginal in terms of wetland hydrology. This portion of the basin appears unavoidable without 1 1 Mr. Terry Forbord „' Page 3 June 20, 1992 SUMMIT Project No. 921010 the elimination of at least two (and possibly three) lots. Even if fill in this basin can be avoided, it ' is likely that construction on uplands to the north will disrupt the tile drains which provide some of this basin's water. If the street and cul -de -sac to the east of this basin is shifted east to avoid or reduce impacts to Basin 2, impacts to Basin 10 are increased. Because the character of the ' ecological integrity of the affected portion of Basin 2 is very low and its hydrology largely artificial, the proposed impact does not appear unreasonable. 1 There appears to be a mitigation possibility at the south or downstream end of this basin. Since the basin has been disturbed by tile drainage at its upper end and ditching at its lower end, it ' appears that a control structure at the entrance drive could be constructed to restore wetland hydrology to the portion of the basin which appears to be natural wetland. In conjunction with this structure, we suggest that an attempt be made during construction to locate the tile line at the north end of the basin and an extension placed on this line to carry water to the lower portion of t the basin. Basin 3 Basin 3 is acre semipermanently flooded palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1F; Circular 39 Type 4 deep marsh) vegetated primarily with cattails. This basin appears to be relatively undisturbed and of high ecological integrity despite the fact that it receives tile drainage from Basin 3a and has a man -made drainage swale as an outlet. Basin 3 has very high wildlife habitat value, particularly for dabbling waterfowl. The drainage swale at the southwest end of Basin 3 is man- made and vegetated with monotypic reed canarygrass; this reed canarygrass extends upslope 1 considerably beyond the margins of the swale itself suggesting that seed was spread to adjacent upland during grading of the swale. Because of the monotypic nature of the reed canarygrass at this location, we established the boundary of the wetland based on the limits of hydric soil and wetland hydrology. The drainage swale has several mature willows, cottonwoods and box elders running along its center. The proposed lot concept avoids impacts to the natural, high quality portion of Basin 3. Filling is limited to about 0.25 acre of the man-made swale. It appears that it may be possible to retain the trees along this swale in the development of the site grading plan. We believe the proposed ' impacts to this man - made swale will not result in a meaningful loss of wetland values and that these impacts are unavoidable. We do not see any mitigation opportunities around Basin 3. • Basin 3a We classified Basin 3a as a seasonally saturated palustrine forested wetland (PF01E; Circular 39 ' Type 1 bottomland hardwoods); however, because of this basin's extremely marginal hydrology, it is possible that the Corps or the City's wetland consultant might interpret this basin differently. We have included it as wetland to provide a conservative analysis. This basin is dominated by an • Mr. Terry Forbord Page 4 June 20, 1992 SUMMIT Project No. 921010 1 overstory of box elder and American elm with sparse ground cover of stinging nettles and cleavers. The very sparse woody understory is composed of common elder, small willows, ' riverbank grape and scattered buckthorn seedlings. This basin lies between two ridges and has a very small enclosed drainage area. It appears that this basin receives most of its water from a tile outlet at its north end (which appears to drain from Basin 6) and possibly would not be wetland but for this artificial water source. A tile outlet exists at the south end of this basin which drains to Basin 3. Basin 4 Basin 4 is a very small (0.18 acre) temporary palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1A; Circular 39 1 Type 1 seasonally flooded flat) with a small saturated emergent (PEM1B; Circular 39 Type 2 wet meadow) fringe. This basin had standing water in it during our initial field review but was vegetated with smartweed during subsequent field visits during the summer; the emergent fringe is entirely reed canarygrass. This basin is presently surrounded by alfalfa; during other years when row crops are planted it is probably cultivated. This basin is a good example of a temporary emergent wetland and offers habitat for waterfowl during nesting and brood rearing. A pair of Canada Geese were observed with a brood of goslings on this basin during our field review. The site concept plan shows this basin as unavoidably filled. It is our understanding that the adjacent steep topography is such that grading for roadways cannot be accomplished without the loss of this basin. We believe that we can readily replace this basin in kind at a location along the fringe of Basin 1 in an area less likely to be disturbed by future human activity. Basin 5 , Basin 5 is a combination of saturated palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1B; Circular 39 wet meadow) and saturated palustrine scrub shrub wetland (PSS1B; Circular 39 Type 6 shrub swamp). The emergent portion of this basin is monotypic reed canarygrasS with some mature willows and box elders on its fringe; the scrub shrub portion of the basin is monotypic small black willows. This basin appears to receive some of its water from a tile line draining Basin 6. The emergent portion of this basin appears to be totally avoided under the current concept plan. The scrub shrub portion of the basin also falls on rear lot lines and appears to be avoided. The only impact to this basin appears to be about 0.05 acre of wet meadow at the northernmost tip of this drainageway that flows into the emergent basin. Schoell and Madson identifies a potential 1 stormwater storage pond location in the scrub shrub portion of this wetland; we find this location to be appropriate. This basin will provide pre - ponding for water entering the emergent portion of the basin. There do not appear to be any mitigation opportunities available around this basin. ' 1 1 Mr. Terry Forbord • Page 5 June 20, 1992 SUMMIT Project No. 921010 Basin 6 Basin 6 is a semi - permanent to permanent palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1F/H; Circular 39 Type 4 deep marsh). This basin appears to get its water primarily from surface runoff; no tile inlets were evident though they may be present. This basin appears to discharge via one and possibly two tile drains; one tile flows to Basin 8 and the other (if it exists) appears to flow to Basin 5. Basin 6 is heavily disturbed by past dumping activity. Numerous large deposits of farm debris and broken glass are distributed along the forested margins of this basin. The water in this basin appeared substantially more turbid than in other wetlands on the site, possibly due to the ' direct influence of agricultural drainage from the north. Despite its high level of disturbance, this wetland offers good wildlife habitat value for feeding waterfowl. ' About 0.02 acre of the most disturbed portion of Basin 6 would be directly affected by the current lotting concept. This basin is not shown by Schoell and Madson as a potential stormwater pond location. The only mitigation opportunity offered by this basin is any wetland value that might be gained by debris cleanup; coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies will be necessary to determine whether any such credit will be given. 1 Basins 7 and 7a Basins 7 and 7a are 0.22 and 0.08 acres in size, respectively, and are partially remnants of the drained wetland that once existed on this portion of the site and partially a function of drainage that has been diverted to this area from off -site to the northeast. A small ditch which flows from the south end of Basin 8 drains off -site to the southeast and then re- enters the site at Basin's 7 and 7a; this ditch does not appear to represent the natural drainage pattern. Basin 7 is a combination of seasonally saturated and saturated palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1B/E; Circular 39 Type 1/2 seasonally flooded flat/wet meadow). It was evident during our field review that the area these basins are underlain by drain tiles (as is the entire drained wetland that once existed in this area). The amount of standing surface water in these basins did not correspond with the ' considerable surface flow which was entering from the northeast. It appears that these basins would be eliminated with the current site concept. Given the ' substantial past disturbance and the marginal hydrology of these basins, the proposed impact seems very reasonable. Even if these basins could be avoided, the tile system which feeds and drains them will likely be disrupted during site grading; this will make it virtually impossible to preserve these basins in their present form. Schoell and Madson have shown a stormwater storage basin immediately west of these basins. There is an opportunity to obtain some wetland mitigation value by restoring wetland functions to a portion of the drained wetland which lies east of Basins 7 and 7a. This objective would be furthered by routing the drainage that flows into Basins 7 and 7a directly into any mitigation basin that might be constructed in this area. 1 1 r Mr. Terry Forbord Page 6 June 20, 1992 SUMMIT Project No. 921010 Basin 8 Basin 8 is a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1C; Circular 39 Type 3 shallow marsh) with a substantial component of saturated palustrine forested wetland (PFO1B; Circular 39 Type 1 bottomland hardwood forest). This basin receives tile line drainage from Basin 6 and 111 discharges via a man-made ditch off -site to the east and eventually to Basins 7 and 7a. This basin has relatively high ecological integrity despite these hydrologic alterations and provides good waterfowl habitat. The current site concept shows about 0.06 acre at the south end of this wetland being filled for road construction. This portion of the basin is not natural and represents a man-made outlet ditch. Basins 9 and 10 1 Basins 9 and 10 are very marginal, drained temporary to seasonal saturated palustrine emergent 1 wetlands (PEM1A/Ed; Circular 39 Type 1 seasonally flooded flat). It is evident from field conditions that these basins are heavily tiled with drainage flowing from the south end of Basin 9 through a ditch into Basin la. Soils in these basins are of the Glencoe series which is considered 1 hydric; however, our field inspection indicated only scattered signs of gleying and oxidation. The soils under Basin 10 showed more signs of saturation, possibly due to a tile line between Basins 9 and 10 being damaged in the construction of a field road crossing. The vegetation in these basins was nearly half upland and half hydrophytic, indicating that these basins are transitioning toward an upland condition. These basins appear to have been cultivated in the past. The ecological integrity of these basins is very low and they offer virtually no wildlife habitat value. A total of 1.65 acres of Basins 9 and 10 would be eliminated by the construction of the main through road, a neighborhood park and one residential lot. Schoell and Madson have indicated a potential ponding area immediately north of the road within Basin 9. Because of the extremely disturbed nature of these basins and their marginal wetland status, we do not feel that the proposed impacts will be unacceptable to the applicable permitting agencies. We concur with the use of Basin 9 for stormwater storage; in fact we suggest that as much of Basin 9 as possible be used for this purpose to provide a significant water feature for the park and to reduce filling for which mitigation would need to be provided. Regulatory Ramifications 1 On the basis of the analysis described above, a total of roughly 2.81 acres of wetland would be filled with the proposed project. In general, the impacts would be incurred by the most degraded wetland areas on the site. Because of the extensive distribution of wetlands within the site, it is 1 1 1 s ir. i erry - orooru • Page 7 �. June 20, 1992 SUMMIT Project No. 921010 clear that o some wetland impacts cannot be avoided. The re ramifications of the proposed project are described by agency below: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers All wetlands on the site fall within the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. All of these basins should be considered isolated for ' purposes of Corps permitting regulations. The Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit for up to one acre of fill in isolated wetlands without notification to the Corps and between one and ten acres in such basins with predischarge notification (see 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)(ii)). Because the amount of fill involved in this project exceeds one acre, this project would likely be covered by this existing nationwide permit with special conditions attached. Typically when filling exceeds one acre, the Corps requires the applicant to demonstrate that impacts cannot be avoided or minimized and that unavoidable impacts be compensated. You should note that this nationwide permit expired on December 31, 1991 and was 1 subsequently reissued on January 13, 1992 without change. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has not yet provided 401 Water Quality Certification for the reissued permit. The MPCA is asking the Corps to reduce the 1 acre threshold and to require alternative analysis and compensatory mitigation for any fills over this lower threshold. Until the Corps and MPCA resolve their differences on this permit, you will be required to obtain individual 401 Certification for this project. Given the degraded nature of the affected wetlands we do not see a problem in obtaining a 1 Section 404 permit from the Corps provided adequate compensatory mitigation is provided. Board of Water and Soil Resources With the passage of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, wetlands on this site now come within the jurisdiction of the Board of Water and Soil Resources. During the period between 1 January 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993, 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. We have reviewed the various exemptions contained in the Act and find that, unless the project has a pre - existing approved preliminary plat or other local governmental approval, none of the exemptions appear to apply. 1 This being the case, the project will need to be certified by the LGU as having complied with the provisions of the Act that apply to the interim period. These provisions require that all wetland impacts incurred during this period be offset by wetland creation or restoration at a 1:1 acreage ratio and in the same watershed or county as the impact. The Act also dictates that restoration or creation of replacement wetlands only be considered after an applicant has demonstrated that the 1 1 1 • Mr. Terry Forbord Page 8 June 20, 1992' " SUMMIT Project No. 921010 1 impacts cannot be avoided, further minimized, corrected or eliminated over time. This burden is essentially the same as for the Corps permit process. , Based on the above analysis, it appears that the Act requires that at least 2.81 acres of wetland creation or replacement be incorporated into the project to meet this requirement. The Act requires that replacement wetlands be completed prior to or concurrent with the project generating the impacts or that an irrevocable bond or letter of credit be provided to the LGU to ensure that the compensation will be completed. It appears that sufficient replacement wetland acreage can be obtained on -site. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1 The project does not involve any waters on the state Protected Water Inventory; thus, a permit will not be required from the Minnesota DNR for the project. City of Chanhassen The City of Chanhassen has adopted a very stringent wetland ordinance which requires a wetland alteration permit for any project which calls for filling, dredging, or discharges of soil or stormwater into wetlands in the City. In 1984, the City adopted an official wetland map for use in determining the applicability of the ordinance. However, there is language in the ordinance that gives the City the flexibility to regulate all wetlands within the City. For some time the City has 1 been regulating all wetlands in the City without regard as to whether they appear on the either the official City map or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps. The applicable standards for each regulated activity are somewhat complex and are set forth in the ordinance (attached). We believe that the highly degraded nature of most of the affected wetlands will be considered to some degree by the City in determining whether they are satisfied that impacts have been sufficiently avoided and minimized. The quality of the affected basins will not be particularly helpful in reducing mitigation needs. Even if the City would otherwise consider the quality of the affected basins in evaluating mitigation needs, the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 requires 1:1 acreage replacement without regard to wetland quality. The Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance requires a 75 foot impervious surface setback from wetland boundaries within the City. Clearly the City recognizes that this requirement cannot always be met since the ordinance provides standards for impacts within the wetlands themselves. Because the project site has such variable topography, it appears • impossible to meet this setback requirement in all portions of the site. The degree to which we can comply with this setback requirement will affect our overall potential for obtaining a permit for the fill that is being 1 proposed. Any design alterations that maximize our compliance with this standard should be considered. 1 �vu rerr}' t'orpprc] Page 9 ,1 June 20, 1992 SUMMIT Project No. 921010 1 1 We hope that the above analysis is of assistance in your planning efforts on the Chanhassen project and look forward to working with you on the above -listed action steps. If you have any questions on the above analysis, please contact our office. 1 Best regards, Summit Envirosolutions onald P. Peterson 1 • • Principal Consultant cc. John Uban- Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban 1 Ken Adolf - Schoell and Madson Enclosures 1 rPPl • 1 • 1 1 1 .. 1 • 1 • 1 1 Lundgren Brothers Construction: 1 • WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Johnson, Dolej si, Turner EVALUATION WORKSHEET Site To Be Completed By Applicant and Submitted tted with Application (Attach additional sheets if necessary) 1. WETLAND DESCRIPTION: 11 Size: See attached narrative Class: see attached Type: See attached narrative Location: Lakeside Streamside Upland X Watershed District: Riley- Purgatory -gi Creek Area of Open Water: See attached narrative - 1 Drainage Flows To: Bluff Creek 1 Vegetation Types: See attached narrative Soil Types: Basin 1 Pd (deep peat /muck) ; Basin 6 Ma (marsh 'soil) ; 1 All other basins Ge (Glencoe silty clay loam) 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: See attached narrative 1 • .1 • 1 3. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: Single family residential development. 1 4. APPLICABLE WETLAND ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 20 -439, section 20 -440, Section 20 -437 and section 20 -438. • 5. A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF NO 1 ALTERATION IS MADE: Because of the extensive distribution of wetland basins and intervening steep topography, the project site cannot • hP developed for single family residential use with out some wetland impact. 1 if wetland impacts are totally avoided, the project becomes infeasible 1 because of the large proportion of lots that would be eliminated. 1 --) 1 'P. ... -: -.); - ' ITCC4k.: AL III SAKE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING > t y � ,t PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGIONAL •kj I Wednesday, August 19, 1992- 7:30 P.M. MIRK i Ri RR,jGR City Hall Council Chambers ; � � 690 Coulter Drive / / Project: Johnson Dolejsi Tumer A :,.. : . > d • 111 Property -:: ... ..... G.�v -AP : ..... :.::" :::.. ...:: t ;> .. Developer: Lundgren Bros. Construction . 1) ' ' . Location: East of Hwy. 41, southeast of I Ches Mar Farms, Adjacent to 7305 Hwy. 41 (Hazeltine , L''6 Boulevard) 1. J 1 .- 1 I Notice: , You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Lundgren Bros. proposes to rezone 95.19 acres from RR, Rural Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development, a Planned Unit Development to subdivide 95.19 acres into I 120 single family lots, and a wetland alteration permit for filling and altering 2.81 acres of wetland on the site. I 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 1 through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 1 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 1 Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. I 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 Kate at 937 -1900. If you choose to I 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. 1 Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 30, 1992. 1 1 PAUL & R YOUNGQUIST JAY C DOLEJSI JOHN P SAVARYN ESTATE 11 • 7105 HAZELTINE BLVD 6961 CHAPARRAL LN C/O PAUL SAVARYN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1049 OAK TERRACE N MANKATO MN 56003 1 DONALD & BETTY LOU ROY TIMOTHY & ANN OAS BRUCE & YNONNE GESKE 1 7205 HAZELTINE BLVD 7305 HAZELTINE BLVD 7325 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 DAVID WEATHERS & WILLIAM & MERILYN TURNER WALTER & M WHITEHILL KAREN EDELMANN TRUSTEES OF TURNER FAM 7250 HAZELTINE BLVD 1 7235 HAZELTINE BLVD 3501 SHORE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN ,55331 JANET C KOCH DEAN & J SIMPSON DAVID A T KDALE 1 SOC & 7331 HAZELTINE BLVD 7185 HAZELTINE BLVD ANGA MCBRIDE STOCKDAL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 7210 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GREGORY & N SCHMIDT TANNA L MOORE CHARLES & VIRGINIA GROI 2700 CHES MAR FARM RD 2800 STONE ARCH RD 2703 CHES MAR FARM RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYZATA MN 55391 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 CHAS & IRENE SONG DUANE E & M JOHNSON MILLS PROPERTIES INC 1 7200 GALPIN BLVD BOX 102 512 LAUREL ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA MN 55318 P 0 BOX 505 BRAINERD MN 56401 I BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY CHASKA GATEWAY DOUG & THERESA BENTZ 1000 HESSE FARM RD PARTNERS 7280 GALPIN BLVD 1 CHASKA MN 55318 3610 HWY 101 S EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WAYZATA MN 55391 DARLENE TURCOTTE T F & MARLENE BENTZ J P'S LINKS INC 6430 CITY WEST PKWY #5314 7300 GALPIN BLVD 7750 GALPIN BLVD I EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 43 PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PUD FOR 113 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 63 (NET) ACRES ' LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 41, ADJACENT TO BMT AUTOMOTIVE (7305 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD), LUNDGREN BROS. DEVELOPMENT ON JOHNSON /DOLEJSI /TURNER PROPERTY. ' Public Present: ' Name Address Tim Oas 7305 Hazeltine Blvd. Tim Keane 7900 Xerxes 5o., Bloomington ' Dean Simpson 7185 Hazeltine Blvd. Don Roy 7205 Hazeltine Blvd. David Weathers 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. Paul Youngquist 7105 Hazeltine Blvd. Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparal Lane Linda Carlson Gaipin Blvd. ' Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros. Development Company John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow & Urban Ron Peterson Summit Envirosolutions Ken Adolf Schoell and Madsen ' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Jo Ann, you're recommending that we approve the concept? Thank you and welcome back. Does anyone have any questions before we hear from the applicant? Farmakes: Has the type of tree cover, has the city evaluated the tree cover that's proposing in your recommendations that they not build through? That they eliminate some of these lots. Has the types of woods been ' evaluated? Olsen: Right, the applicant has provided on some of the plans. I think it's on the grading plan you can see where there's detailed trees that have been shown and yes, we have looked at some of those areas. Farmakes: I couldn't discern what exactly was on there. Olsen: We did request a cleaner copy which we got today which shows without all the grading and everything on it, which shows specific to what the trees are. I have not had a chance to :look at that closely. We just received it today. 11 Emmings: Have you looked at connecting the cul -de -sac at the end of Street B? Whether it makes any sense to preserve the option of connecting that to the east? Olsen: Which one was that? Emmings: Whether the cul -de -sac that's at the end of Street B, whether it makes any sense to look at preserving options for connecting that to the east or the one at the end of the Street J or connecting it to the south. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 44 Olsen: Right. We looked at all of those to see whether there should be future connections and we found that due to topography and to existing wetlands, that we should not be. The topography going east of the B cul -de -sac was fairly extreme and the connections would not have been possible. And Dave looked at that closely. Emmings: And south out of that cul-de-sac on J, is that wetlands down there? Olsen: Again that's wetlands. That large wetlands. 1 Emmings: So if they develop the property to the south of that that's in , the 1995 study area, that will have it's entrance off of the new road? Okay. Batzli: I guess Terry, if you have a slide show and a presentation for of Please proceed. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of Land Development with Lundgren Brothers in Wayzata. 935 East Wayzata Boulevard. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this evening on this proposal. At this time I think I need to say that we're a little confused because I believe our application was for a concept plan, a preliminary plan and I think ou application shows that and certainly our fees do and this was the first that I realized that this was just a concept approval because I believe oil application was otherwise, to the best of my knowledge anyway. With us this evening I have a development team that I'd like to introduce to you. To my immediate left is Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. Toil his left is Mr. Ron Peterson of Summit Envirosolutions. And to his left Mr. Ken Adolf of Schoell and Madsen. He is our civil engineer. Ron will has done all of the wetland delineation on this property and he can addre all those issues. Our land use attorney Mr. Bruce Mulkerson has a confli this evening and he may be here shortly. I thought that prior to me turning the presentation over to Mr. Uban, I should give you just a little bit of background. Most of you know who we are. Some of you may not but we've been in the community already for approximately 12 years and Lundgr Bros. has developed over 23 years, approximately 2,200 single family detached dwellings in the metropolitan area. Primarily in the western suburbs. Also there has been hundreds of multi - family and commercial projects developed by the company. Approximately 75% I'm guessing of those have been planned unit developments. The planned unit development within your community that you may be most familiar with is the Near Mountain planned unit development, half of which is in the city of Chanhassen. Th other half, the northerly half being in the city of Shorewood. And like I said, that approval was obtained here I believe somewhat around 12 year. ago and we are just finishing the final phases of that. John, would you so kind to run the slide machine for me. I'm just going to talk very briefly just about our planned unit developments, and Near Mountain in particular because it's easier for me to refer to that being that you may, be most familiar with it. It's approximately 300 and some acres. 360 acres. Approximately 450 dwelling units a.nd there's a number of reasons of why we did that as a planned unit development. Primarily because it allot flexibility and design and for us to achieve an objective while being at Planning Commission Meeting 9 August 19, 1992 - Page 45 the same time sensitive to the existing land features. Typically, as you all know, we provide a great deal of detail in our entrance monumentation. It's point of arrival to our neighborhoods. And as you know, the PUD oftentimes allows you to have some open space where you can provide other amenities that you may not tee typical in other standard subdivisions. These particular slides are going to be of homes in the Near Mountain neighborhood. These lot sizes that you are going to see range in size from 8,500 square feet to about 11,000 square feet. Lot width at the setback of ' 55 feet to 75 feet. And these are homes in an established neighborhood. They've been tucked into the trees. A great deal of care was given, even 12 years ago before most people were attempting to do that. And these ' slides represent examples of that. Now you'll see in this particular slide in Chestnut Ridge, even though there are 9 foot setbacks on the house side and 6 foot on the garage side, you will see that this is probably about a 30 foot amount of space between these two dwellings and that is because ' it's on a curvalinear street or it may be on a cul -de -sac. This is another home with a 20 foot front yard setback. 9 foot on the house side. 6 foot on the garage side. This home was featured on the front page of Better ' Homes and Gardens. This is another example of the type of homes that we'd be producing within a neighborhood community that we have before you this evening. Again, it's the same setbacks. This particular lot is a 55 foot wide lot and is 8,500 square feet. That's another example of a home where 11 this one is more in an open area. This particular street where you've seen most of these homes has been featured in three national publications. Many of you may not know this but the reason it was featured was because of the environmental sensitivity that was used in the design of this neighborhood on a small lot product in a wooded area. And again this is 12 years old and the city of Chanhassen, even 12 years ago was on the cutting edge of developing planned unit developments in the United States. This is an example of how you have a steep topography, terrain. Significant wooded area where you nestle a home into that area with the least impact on the environment as possible. You can see, if you look closely in the shaded ' area under the trees on the left side, that that is a boulder wall. A retaining wall that enabled to limit the amount of grading on this particular building pad. This is another example of something. There's 1 not a lot of grading here but just right in the front of that sidewalk we were able to put in some retainage and maintain the least impact possible to that significant tree. This is a home that's typical of an open area in 1 Chestnut Ridge and it's not unlike the homes that we would be proposing in this planned unit development. And likewise with this. We showed you earlier one of the entrance monuments to Chestnut Ridge. This is an entrance monument to Churchill Farms which is in Plymouth. Now one of the 1 things we try to do is a little bit better:job every year in the way we identify our neighborhood communities. The reason that we're showing you this, as the next slide will show, is that this isn't a very good shot of ' it but it has the split entrance. There's a median in the middle that's vegetated or plantings and flowers. Petunias. All of our entrances are irrigated so they stay green during the growing season. And you can see, ' if you look closely, that it's a very grand entrance and this is very similar to the type of entrance that we would be proposing for this neighborhood community. This gives you a little closer shot of the median. Now the medians are, most of you are familiar with them. They're all over the Twin Cities. It's not, if you ask any public works department or any engineering department in any city, anywhere in the United States, they 1 Planning Commission Meeting , August 19, 1992 - Page 46 will tell you they prefer not to have them. The reason that we put them in is because we don't design them primarily just for engineering purposes. We design them for people. It softens the entrance. It gives you a very very nice point of arrival. The neighborhood community that we are proposing this evening has a private park. This is something new for us in the city of Chanhassen, although we've been doing it for years in other II communities. We haven't had a new development here that was large enough in order for us to provide a facility like that. But what we do is we go in at the very beginning. Before all the homes are built, we put in totlots similar to this. This is a $30,000.00 structure that was install" in Churchhill Farms in Plymouth. We put in tennis courts, basketball hoops, volleyball courts and we do those things at the very front end. A it provides our homeowners with something that they can't get anyplace else. It certainly increases the appreciation value of their homes and insures that their investment will be well protected and then when they go to resale their home, they stand a very, very chance of competing very well with all the other homes on the market. I won't get into elaborating in II detail about Lundgren Bros. because most of you know who we are. We try to do a good job in the city. Every project that we do we go back. We assell it. Try to determine what we could have done better. It's very interesting if you look at Near Mountain and the newer neighborhood communities we've developed since then. There's a significant difference. There's more open space. We're trying to do a better job. This is not all departure from that. The proposal before you this evening is very, very low density. Has a lot of open space. A lot of things that we wouldn't be required to do. We're trying to provide a neighborhood community that is ' different than what the buying public can buy someplace else. At this time I think it's, I should just tell you, in case you may have forgotten, that we've been working With the city on this proposal for 2 to 3 years. was going to look up the date before I came and I just didn't have time. was trying to prepare a presentation but it took place when all of you we adopting the comprehensive plan. You may recall at the last minute you included this property into the comprehensive plan for reasons that you II already know and so it's been a long process and now the feasibility studies are being done for the sewer and water. We have had numerous meetings with staff over the last 2 -3 years on this proposal and now we finally have the opportunity to present it to you. With that, I will tur the meeting over to Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. He wil be presenting and conducting the presentation for Lundgren Bros. and we will be then also utilizing the other two consultants to talk about engineering and wetlands. Thank you. John Uban: Thank you Terry. What I would' like to start with is give you , an overview of the site so you can see it•from the air. Get some feeling about the natural features because that is really what's driving the uniqueness and the difficulty on the site and the flexibility that we're requesting in the PUD. How to get around trees. Work with the rolling terrain. The wetlands. All these things come to play and at the same time, take these things that are difficulties and make amenities. Make actually very positive open spaces that enhance the neighborhood that we'll creating. This aerial shows generally, if you were over TH 5 looking across toward the land, on the far right corner is CR 17 I believe and then you can see the lakes and so forth in the background. And just below whall looks like a cultivated field, that is the northern boundary of the Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 47 property and the property then comes all the way to the south on down to the wetland. This is looking from the north. Looking back toward TH 5 1 which is right at the top of the picture. We see TH 41 as the large highway running through and once again that cultivated field that forms the northern edge of the property. Along TH 41 we have just one opportunity for access and we have trees. We're working inbetween trees. There's an industrial site there that we will be removing. Taking out a non- conforming use. Parts of the areas you can see are wooded. It's mixed. Very rolling and through all of this we're trying to locate a collector road as sensitively as possible, which has to go from TH 41 and through the adjacent property. Once again we're looking at the site from the south, approximately over TH 5 and in the center of the picture you can see the property and then there's a line that separates the property from the adjacent property which is a power line. And this forms the eastern edge of the property. And forms a sort of barrier that we have to incorporate into our platting. Terry Forbord: John, maybe we could pause there for a minute and just show where the collector goes. 1 John Uban: Yeah, if you could trace generally where the collector road will go. We're going through and there are wetlands and rolling hills and lakes and we have to follow really a very specific course and then we miss wetlands. Come down through the property and back out to TH 41. And as we go specifically into the plan you'll see how this has to snake through the terrain. Batzli: On this picture, where is the proposed PUD in the future, can you point where that is on that page? 1 Terry Forbord: You mean the outlot? ' Batzli: Yeah. Terry Forbord: To the south. That property... (There was a tape change at this point in the presentation.) John Uban: ...we have a power line and then we have a wetland and this is the area where the collector road is going to come through and link what is called the Song property directly to the east with this parcel. And you can start seeing some of the wetlands and so forth that are in that area ' where we're trying to meander our road. Just another general photograph from looking at the site. Another one from the north looking back onto it. Terry Forbord: ...the Johnson property. 1 John Uban: That gives you an overview and I will now use the overhead projector and go through the various drawings. The subject property, approximately 95 acres. This shows the surrounding property and it also shows the general location of the proposed collector and this is located really to meander through the property and miss all the wetlands and so forth in that area. The comprehensive plan places this area just north of 1 the study area, as brought out before and we're at 113 lots and if you 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 48 i looked at the net density and translated that into maximum, it'd be about twice that amount, so we're really at a fairly low level to begin with. Tli kind of density that we're anticipating on the property. Existing conditions on the property and if you recall the photographs that we look, we saw that here were the wooded areas in green. Along in here. Down on the southern edge. Here's the wetland that forms the southern edge. We have inside of this various different kinds of wetlands. There's a varie of qualities and these are the ones that we're trying to get through, miss mitigate where we have to fill and at this point I'd like to, here's our line, power line that goes through the western edge and in orange, here's the industrial use and here's the existing house. And you can see some other trees that are just single lines which was also incorporated which were planted with the homestead. And all of this is into our approach to the property. The wetland conditions, we'd like to have Ron tell you now how that mitigation and which wetlands are being treated in different fashion. Ron Peterson: Thank you John. The wetland resources on this site were looked at in some detail, almost from the outset and delineated or staked in the field and surveyed in so these are pretty precise boundaries. The is approximately 10 wetland basins on the site. The reason I say approximately is that some of these basins are remnants of larger basins where you have two remmants of what formerly was one basin. The reason f that is that this entire site has been very heavily tiled for agricultura use. And virtually every wetland on this site has tile graded to some pipe. For that reason, some of these wetlands have been greatly benefittlt by the tile drainage. Other ones have been virtually eliminated. What we have tried to do in the process of laying out the plans for the site, we tried to, besides from just avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts in II general, we've attempted where we can avoid impacts, to orient those impacts towards the most degraded basins. 5o that the more pristine or natural basins on the site are the ones that we had the most emphasis on preserving. There's approximately 24 acres of wetland on the site so out of 95 acres, that's roughly a quarter of the property. The impacts that are associated with the proposed layout are 2.81 acres. The... approximately 60% of that, involves this wetland in the center of the II property. I think that in your packet it labels it as basins 9 and 10. That area is probably the most graded wetland on the site and in fact when we looked at it, we spent a lot of time scratching our heads deciding whether or not it really met the prairie wetland criteria in the first place. The reason for that is because it's extensively tiled. Tile drainage flowing to the south and into this larger wetland complex of the development. I think the City's wetland consultant has also looked at th area and he had similar reaction...difficult to make a determination... o upland versus wetland on that development. But as you can see, we've tried to limit our impacts as much as possible to the most degraded basins on tit site. The one on the far left, we're attacking the uphill of that basin. Again, part of that basin was formed mainly by tile drainage from upwards to the north. The third...is man made drainage swale that carries drains from the face of the three. The next one over is a small seepage floode basin and then the last one on your far right is the remnant of a drained wetland that once existed at the edge of the property. The only reason there's any wetland vegetation there at all is, does that help? The only reason there's any wetland vegetation in that area at all is because ther Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 49 is this drainage coming in from off site to the east. That's still flowing ' into that area and because of the extensive tile drainage underneath that area, water flows onto the site and essentially disappears. Percolates into the ground and enters this tile system. Comes out through a ditch down into the wetlands to the south. The blue areas, which Ken can address in more detail, are proposed storm water ponding locations. In developing our wetland mitigation areas, we have kept those separate from the storm water ponding needs of the site so as to avoid routing speed runoff into our mitigation areas. We've shown a series of locations along the south end of the site trying to keep our mitigation areas somewhat isolated from human activities as much as we can and tie them in with the existing wetlands on the site to insure that they're viable. Those areas, we have done a preliminary grading analysis to make sure that they fit in with the grading that's needed for the other storm water ponds in the lots. However, we will be refining that as we get into the detailed design ' process and there may be some refinements to those areas as we move forward if we find that we can actually reduce impacts further as we get into more detail. Then we may modify some of those. The mitigation that we've shown ' is at a 1 to 1 acreage ratio to what's being effected. I would say that the quality of what we're going to end up with in the form of mitigation areas and the number of cases on the site, far outweighs the value of the wetland remnants that we're replacing. Each wetland will have a conservation easement around it. Both the portions of the existing wetlands that are being preserved as well as the mitigation of wetlands that we're creating. I think that's all the comments I have. Any ' questions? Batzli: I think we'll probably have some a little later. Thank you. John Uban: What I'd like to do now is really go through the attributes of the PUD. Why we're doing it this way. What we're trying to create from a design point of view and how we see a neighborhood being created here and the sort of uniqueness and the flexibility that we hope will meet with your approval. This is important to us. How this all works together is part of the creative nature of planning but it's real important because what we do 1 is really create neighborhoods and it's this process that's very important to us. This is the general layout and you can see that what we're trying to do, as you recall the slides, that we're trying to adhere to the topography of the area the best we can. Yet at the same time, ' incorporating a collector road through the site. Using cul -de -sacs to reach up into the areas that do not have access from other directions. We're also reaching down into the areas along the wetlands for really the I nice homesites. So we look at it, where do homes really want to be. Where would they naturally want to set and then•build a road system to serve those homesites. And we're also preserving woods. Of course staying out of wetlands and through this process, we have an existing home we're saving. We're building on the front edge entrance. Boulevard conditions. We're bringing people in on a bridge that comes across this connection to the wetland. This bridge system really starts to make this neighborhood a special place and where all things have to work together to make a nice design. This collector road, as talked about earlier, as it goes through our property. Here we've shown how it has to miss the wetlands and we have some high points and steep grades in the north so we actually go through here missing all the significant features and placing it in the Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 50 best place possible. This is how we've organized this area and pre - studied then the future connection. The overall impact, and I think some good II points were brought up in the staff report and we are endeavoring to do better as we start our grading. But what we have seen and what we can do by some adjustments. Some of them were pointed out. Making sure our homes or design of each individual home meets the site by grading our road syst but trying to leave as much of the wooded sites ungraded so we actually f a home to that site. Doing that kind of approach, really a tailor made connection between each lot and each home because there are 15 homesites that we can show you tonight if you we have time, and how they fit on eac II one of these sites. So what we've done is we've calculated with our most sensitive siting and so forth, that out of all the treed areas, we will b preserving about 2/3 of it. And that's really a, from looking at this difficult a site, is doing very well. And this is what we're striving fo and we think we can accommodate that. We have very good preservation techniques for actual construction. And we will preserve a fair amount oll these trees. The important thing is to understand that we also, even though these are trees that are in the backs of lots and so forth. That you saw on the photograph that when we just grade the roads and leave the" lot, when-we match the home, we can save trees up in the front yard too. It's hard for us to predict at this point exactly what that's going to be like but that is how we've developed in the past. The open space that we've provided is in a system. We have a large wetlands to the south of course but along the collector road, we've also located other things. An you can see the private park. The front entrance. At the bridge we have this view in towards the wetland. This is part of our entrance feature. We have a wetland that we're exposing to the traffic as you drive by. It 11 is, we don't want to hide all these in people's back yards. We want to bring them out onto the street as much as possible so that your feeling o what the neighborhood is really like. Sharing all the amenities as peopl drive in. And this is important because we have to build roads then because no one has a lot up and we have 1,090 feet of frontage on roads that are being built that don't have a home on it. And that is a lot of II frontage and this is frontage we could otherwise consume as lots and be more efficient. But this is what we think creates a very special neighborhood. And this is part of the flexibility. This is what we're giving is all this amenity exposed to the public street. Over 1,000 feet and we're looking for in return the flexibility on how we design our lots and make it fit to the site. Part of that, when we look at the different lot sizes. This is just a quick graphic that shows the different sizing." The green being the smaller lots and the blue being the large lots. Over 3/4 of an acre. The largest lots get up to an acre and a half or so. And what we've done is those are the ones close to the wetlands or in the hea woods on this side. This is up next to the power line but here's next to � the amenity in the northeast corner. All of these work within the system of creating a variety of lots. This creates a variety of homes. Variety of prices. All of which are the goals or attributes you look for in a PU So it's this variety that's very important and trying to adhere to just f instance a 90 foot width on a lot. It's very important for us to be able to fluctuate from that and that's what a PUD ought to do. You should mak" sure that it works well and that you can locate lots. For instance, 2/3 the lots are under 90 feet. Or 1/3 rather but 2/3 are above that. But one half of the product can sit on those lots that are under 90 feet. An so we have a great variety. A great opportunity to put a lot of differen ' Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 51 1 product on these variety of lots. If we went ahead and put in 90 foot lots and figured it also that all the lots had a 20 foot setback because this is designed on a 30 foot setback to begin with and then see where we need the flexibility and so what we looked at is where we have lots around a cul -de -sac for instance. It's a pie shape and if you move the setback in to 20 feet, which we don't realty anticipate doing, the width actually narrows up considerably but yet the lot is very large. And so this is the flexibility. This is where you have a large lot and sensitive area but you're really narrowing it up on the front side but you need to match the product to that lot. And so we might lose up to 7 lots if we just tried to make them all 90 feet for instance. And this, on a product around a design that already is very low density and already contributing 1,000 feet of frontage of road that exposes amenities, it becomes a burden and an edge to the PUD that is saying, are we really getting the flexibility that allows us to make this kind of design work. And this is just one consideration. Batzli: Is this discussion in response to the staff's request that you move the front yard setback to 20 feet? John Uban: It's on all lots. We don't need it on all lots, especially on cul -de -sacs we don't need that. We need the flexibility on just certain lots around wetlands. Terry Forbord: We would prefer to have a reduced front yard setback. It makes a lot of sense from an environmental standpoint. It makes a lot of ' sense from quality of life standpoint for the people who live in these homes. However, there are certain areas where it just doesn't work. There's a few number of lots that it doesn't, and that's not uncommon to have some degree of flexibility on those difficult lots to adjust... John Uban: It's that flexibility we're really looking for in the PUD. The flexibility on the side yard setbacks. This shows generally how it really works. Still keeping the separation of 20 feet between buildings. Where we would have a 6 foot setback to a garage, perhaps there is a tree that happened to fit just off the property line and if we were 10 feet from it, ' we'd rather be 14 feet away. You know it's that kind of adjustment to get away from trees or on curvalinear streets where all the lots are just a little bit different and the home wants to sit straight but it's not 11 straight to the one next to it. Corners of buildings may come a little bit closer and then we can move the buildings around and this works very well when you have a developer that develops the lots as well as builds all the buildings. And this gives that adjustment and yet when it's all done, you ' don't notice that it's any different than normal development. The separation is still there but there's the•flexibility to move it back and forth a little bit with each siting of each home. Terry Forbord: It's important to note that those are minimums. It's a minimum of 6 foot on the garage side and a minimum of 9 feet on the house side. If you go to up Near Mountain and took a tape measurer, I would guarantee that you would find very few instances where they are actually that long. But what it does give you is the flexibility as an example that John gave. If there are trees there, a steep slope, you can move that a 11 little bit and that certainly is in step with what the staff and the city have been suggesting as far as preservation... 1 . Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 52 , Olsen: But you're also saying that you will maintain at least 20 feet at all times. , Terry Forbord: Correct. And the staff, the PUD ordinance apparently as written is 10 and 10 and the idea probably behind that is that you want tli maintain a minimum of 20 feet between homes and we're assuring you that y would have that. John Uban: Specifically on the entrance, I just want to share with you II some of the design and how it works. There's a single spot on TM 41 that we've worked out with MnDot where access is appropriate. We're curving that road in. It comes in and curves around and at that same time you gell a view that comes right across into the wetlands and this is part of our II entrance. A way to make a dynamic entrance. A special place to live. It's looking at it just beyond trying to fit a certain number of lots on piece of property. And right in this area there's a very large oak tree that we're going to key on and create this bridge with a large oak and th we'll have the pond and the wetland and it will be a very nice setting and nice entrance. We are planting along the highway through here where we have lots that back up to the highway. The problem here is the highway's higher than the property. We can't berm for it. I mean it would create another highway next to a highway practically. So all we can really do i do some planting along the back sides of the property, and that's what we plan to do. Terry Forbord: John, would you please note the outlots at the entrance. Typically we do not believe that it is good practice to put homesites rig at the entrance to a neighborhood community. If at all possible, we prefer not to. And so this neighborhood community is depicted on the landscape plans. Those are outlots that will be vegetated and are planted heavily and so we've deleted the homesites from those areas. John Uban: It helps, as people come in. Get a focus towards where we wat them to look and see a nice area. It also shows the median that we're proposing to help separate traffic but at the same time make a very nice entrance. The park area, we're proposing the skating pond, tennis court, and as you come across this bridge, here's a big row of evergreen materia that we're saving to help edge this entryway. Coming in and then focusing once again on open space which is the park area. The double cul -de -sacs that we've talked about. This design, here are two wetlands you see in all little lighter green. This is an upper cul -de -sac and a lower cul -de -sac and they look out over these wetlands. So we were creating these lookout conditions. Really nice sites. Once again looking for where the nicest ' sites would be and then creating the road'system to work with that. We have explored, as suggested by staff, a method of combining these two. I don't know if I'll get it to line up perfectly here. In that fashion generally. Connecting those two cul -de -sacs. This is something we will II strongly consider. We think the cul -de -sac system gives us really nice home sites but if there's a strong need to connect and the City really it wants us to, we will look at this and see what adjustments we can make. would prefer of course to keep the cul -de -sacs. Terry Forbord: Now we do concur with the city engineering department thall moving the water and we would not be opposed to running the sewer through Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 53 those cul -de -sacs down that ravine. Actually that would be beneficial to us... However, the main purpose for the cul -de -sacs is that 99.99 people out of 100 would prefer to live on a cul -de -sac is you gave them that opportunity. And that's why we're showing it like that. We actually gain a homesite by connecting the road but it's not a deal breaker by any means for Lundgren Bros. if you demand that we connect those. We just think it would make a nicer neighborhood. John Uban: Also, part of our system of cul -de -sacs. There's another element that's important to us and that is the development of the landscape island. This island really breaks up that large expanse of asphalt that often ends up there and that's usually the most negative part of a ' cul -de -sac system. People love to be on cul -de -sacs. They like the privacy and so forth but that expanse of asphalt is usually the part that people don't like and we have worked in other communities. We've worked in Burnsville for instance since they became a city. We've been their consulting planner and we're making a list of all the cul -de -sacs and we found that it's several pages long which have islands and it really enhanced the city as a whole and it's a very nice way of breaking up these ' cul -de -sacs. We have some slides to show you. In addition, we just want to point out that we've studied this in detail working with the standards of a city. Making some adjustments. Working within the right -of -way that 11 this will accommodate most trucks and firetrucks and so forth. The turning radius while maintaining an island in the center. And I think this detail will be able to work out with city engineering. Oftentimes it's the people who plow snow, do maintenance and so forth that wish they didn't have to go around something. It slows them down. But in reality is, they aren't that much more difficult to plow. That really an island absorbs the snow. You don't have to plow the snow off the island and it actually provides a place, when properly constructed, to place snow. And we'll show you some slides on how that works, and all of these are maintained by the homeowners association. All the open space. All the recreational facilities. All 1 the medians. All the entryway features. All the landscaping that is common to everyone, which includes these islands. And it is there. They pay fees and it works very well. If I could just turn this off, I don't think we'll conflict without moving. These are just medians and roads. 11 This would be similar to the median we proposed at our entrance but you can see how it really would break up and help create and define views as you enter first into the subdivision. But designed in such a fashion that it l allows good sight .distances out to the highway. Those two things must work together. Here's an island in the center of a cul -de -sac. You can see this particular one is elevated. You pile snow around the edges of it. It is not, it doesn't have to be grass. Gravel works out very well so you don't have to mow it. The snow doesn't kill it. Maintenance is much lower and then you plant trees and so forth and'what it does then, is here's a planted island from the ground and you can see, instead of driving down a cul -de -sac and seeing many garages, that will be broken up. You'll see the plantings in the center. And this really does a great job of creating a nice setting for the cul -de -sac system. Terry Forbord: I think it's appropriate to point out that the myth that people have or misperception that they have that vehicles cannot turn around when there are islands. If you take for instance a semi - trailer. Semi -truck trailer, even without an island in a cul -de -sac they can't turn 1 Planning Commission Meeting IF August 19, 1992 - Page 54 r around. That's a fact. If you've ever been in a semi - trailer or if you know anybody, watch them. They cannot turn around in an existing cul -de -sac right now. The island does not become a factor for a moving v� so to speak. Some of the large fire trucks cannot turn around in a cul -de -sac without an island. So they have to back up anyway. So often times you may have heard the argument that well if there's an island ther that means they can't turn around or can't drive through it, can't anythi so I think it's very important to recognize that. John Uban: The last thing I want to show you and then I'll have Ken Adolf go through some of the engineering elements, is just what we've done to further show that we're adhering to all the setbacks. The setback from II wetlands. The buffer edge. Adhering to the useable back yard plus accommodating a deck on a 40 x 60 pad. And each one of these lots we've exhibited the wetland in gray, a line around the wetland shows the combination of buffer area and the useable rear yard or setback which is feet, and then we've shown each one of the homes and a deck that would happen on each one of those lots. And this shows how we'd...regulations and buffer ourselves and separate ourselves from the wetlands. Ron Adolf: I'm going to briefly discuss the site engineering issues. The site is within the MUSA expansion area that was described. The developer or Lundgren Bros. has petitioned the City for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service to the site. The sewer service would co from the extension of a gravity trunk main from the Lake Ann Interceptor which is east of Galpin Boulevard. That gravity sewer would be expanded II some point east of the site and then a lift station would be constructed. In discussions with Bonestroo, that would be constructed someplace over in this area. When that lift station would then service the...elevation properties both on the site and also east of the site. Property of the site and that lift station would pump the flow into the gravity sewer. Lateral gravity lines would then extend from that lift station along the streets to serve both lots. The trunk sewer, as well as the trunk water,, as I said, that feasibility study is in the process and the current time table on that is that will be available in 1993. Water service to the site would be provided by a 16 inch diameter trunk watermain which really follows the collector street and continues east through the Song property" and then connects to the water system at the pump house on Galpin Boulevard. Again the lateral lines would be extended from that trunk mai The trunk main would also provide the lateral benefits along the collecto The storm water management plan would consist of accepting the surface runoff in the streets and gutters. Conveying that to some storm sewer. All the storm sewers would discharve into some storm water II management ponds which are shown in blue.. The number of ponds is really dictated by the amount of relief on the site. It is very difficult to try to consolidate the runoff into a central location so each one of these provides treatment of surface runoff prior to discharging into the existill wetlands. The storm water management would comply with the City's current draft ordinance on the storm water management. On the site grading, the first phase of the development would be on the west side obtaining access" from TH 41. TH 41 does have a controlled access and really the location shows where this collector road connection is the only location that is available for access. The site would be graded in phases. Probably a total of five phases over a period of 4 to 5 years. Initially we'd just II 1 II Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 55 grade the first phase plus the street alignments that would contain the necessary sewer and water lines to provide service to the first phase. For instance this collector street would need to be graded to allow the watermain construction and some sanitary sewer would be required down to the lift station. The details of the grading plan will be refined. Staff ' has come up with some good comments in their review and we're reviewing those comments and trying to really achieve the goals of minimizing the loss of trees and the total grading on the site. I'd be happy to address any questions later. ' Batzli: Thank you. Is this a wrap up? I Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. We actually edited our presentation to you this evening because of the lengthy presentation to you earlier so we've skipped over a number of things that may be of relevancy to you. We have a number of concerns about the recommendations. More importantly I'm concerned about that we were applying for a preliminary plat and I'm not exactly sure how to handle that at this time. But we are available for questions and I'm assuming that you ' have a lot of them and we'll do the best that we can to answer those. Batzli: This is a public hearing. People in the audience that would like ' to address the Commission, please step forward to the microphone. Give us your name and address and we would appreciate brevity. Linda Carlson: My name's Linda Carlson, I live on Galpin Boulevard. I heard them say that the roads that go through there are public roads. I don't know if that's normal or not for a PUD but my feeling is that the parks ought to be public as well. There are no parks in that area for the people in that area. So that was my comment. Paul Youngquist: My name is Paul Youngquist. I'm at 7105 Hazeltine Blvd.. I'm the cultivated area on the north side that you saw in the pictures. Boy it's late and I would not want to be on the Planning Commission. Thanks for doing your job. This might sound like a paid endorsement of this project but unfortunately it's not paid. But I'm assuming that this in general is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and I feel pretty lucky that Lundgren Bros. has laid it out the way they have and I'm pretty well sold on everything that's been talked about. I like that east /west road. I know the earlier plan called for a much larger road and this is a smaller road in size and it meanders through and respects the contours and the trees and everything. I like the amount of open space. I like the way they've left existing trees and so forth and I personally appreciate that the larger lots seem to be on the north side and the smaller lots on the south side, although the smaller lots are smaller than I thought they really would be. But having said that, we have a couple of concerns. One ' is assessments. We were hit for the Lake Ann thing here this last year and I'm worried about are we going to be hit for something else? I was real pleased to see, I didn't learn until tonight that things are coming in from the east rather than like coming from the north or something. I'd encourage you to take a good look at the density and lot size and then I'd trust you to enforce the wetland regulations. Thank you. 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 56 1 Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Dave Weathers: My name is Dave Weathers. I live at 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard and that's the square block which's marked out as exception on the north side part of it. And I pretty much echo the comments that Paul had just made. That we are fortunate that the developer that came along II has laid it out the way he has. My concerns are the same thing. The density. The amount of what I consider a high density in that area. I'd prefer to see it less possible so I hope you study that as closely as you can. And also I am concerned about the assessments that will come with i�. And with that I will make it as brief as possible so I'll stop there. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Don Roy: I'm Don Roy, 7205 Hazeltine Boulevard. I'm on the northwest corner of that property. The only concern I have is the, we all have wel that are up there at this present time and I wonder what the plans are for hooking up when this comes through and how soon and when will the sewer b available to us if this projects goes in? You will have a little bit of r problem I think as far as drainage from these properties. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the , Commission? Erhart moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Joan. Ahrens: I'm sure my fellow commissioners will be greatly disappointed bu I'm going to have to abstain on this project from discussion because of a conflict of interest. If you want me to talk about something else I will It's only 11:30. Batzli: She was the epitome of brief. Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: Did the staff on their recommendations that I read in here in regards to shortening J, eliminating H, connecting G and I. Did you do a calculation of the 120 lots, what you envisioned that would reduce them? I mean I did a guesstimate of 8 maybe. Did you calculate that out at all. Olsen: No, we did not. 1 Farmakes: So I'm assuming that some of those comments that you made that you, I believe the time here that you want to discuss that further. I think that the recommendations are right on. Exactly where they should b It seems to me that the purpose of the PUD, as far as the City goes, is t achieve some of the objectives that were pointed out here tonight. 37% of those trees it would seem to me would be greatly reduced, that figure anyway if the city's recommendations were followed. It seems to me percentage wise, lot wise, that would impact on the total amount pretty slight. I'm not sure on your bottom line-where that falls but from the City's position I think the comments have been a good recommendation from II Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 57 1 the staff. As far as the cul -de -sac and connecting I and G, I think that that cul -de -sac is too long as it is without a connection there or a loop. I'm sure obviously Lundgren is market driven. They're a successful developer and a good one in this part of town and it helps sell. We certainly know here anyway that it helps sell homes and that's what people want. The problem of course is that they don't provide bus transportation. 11 Someone else has to do that for them and pick up their kids and take them to school. They don't drive an ambulance and some of the other problems that are involved with long, single access cul -de -sacs. I think the City's recommendation on a connection is a good one. Was there a price range at all mentioned in that report? I couldn't find one. I was wondering, do you have any information in regards to the pricings since the lot sizes is so different from the bottom to the top? John Uban: We do have a general range. We have the products in a general range. We didn't show you all of that because of time. Farmakes: So from the bottom to the top in the price range would be? Terry Forbord: In today's dollars? Farmakes: Yeah. Terry Forbord: And this is subject to change at all times. Farmakes: I won't hold you to it. We won't close the deal tonight. Terry Forbord: The intent here is, if you study the market in Chanhassen, there is very little housing stock in, it is usually at the extreme. All the way...low end and at the high end. And we believe that what Chanhassen probably needs the most of...housing objectives, is probably to be, have some housing stock in that $150,000.00 to $250,000.00 range, including lot and that's our intention. Now we are working on additional assembly of parcels in this area and if that occurs, and it may, then that would be a broader price. There would be some homes in the higher price range and hopefully some homes below that. Although it's getty very difficult in Chanhassen to do that because of development costs. Farmakes: The other point I wanted to make, is we spent a lot of time discussing the issues of minimum square footage on a single family lot. It seems to me that the ratio here, I guesstimated here that under 15,000, they had about 24, somewhere in there, of under 15,000 square feet. Olsen: I haven't done that calculation yet until the preliminary plat. Farmakes: Percentage wise, it seems to me that that would be reasonable. 11 It doesn't seem to me that they're taking advantage of that situation. The private park. You said that the Park and Rec had went through that and I'm not sure that they inquired about the park needs in that area and I'm not really familiar with park service on that end of town so I guess I have no way to comment on that. Olsen: The way they would have looked at it is that the neighborhood would 1 have been resulting in the need for a neighborhood park and they feel that 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 58 the developer is still providing that Farmakes: The final comment that I have here, on that lower section that you develop, I hope that by that time anyway, is that frontage road would that'll come through in that section correct for TH 5? Was that our vision? It wouldn't meander because on the preliminary section it kind of meandered • a bit. Krauss: Yeah, we're not exactly sure where it's going to go. You have that Bluff Creek system coming in through there. It needs to be defined II whether it's going to come north or south of that creek. Batzli: Let me ask the question before we move on, on this private park.II How private is a private park? John Uban: It's a private park in the sense that the homeowners use it. They maintain it. They own it. They pay taxes on it but it's pretty obvious that children know no bounds and friends of friends and so forth... So in a way, there's no way to stretch any significant...but it is something that is part of that neighborhood. It's designed to be an amenity that they control. If they want to add another tennis court, it'll up to themselves. They're in control of their own destiny in that respect. Batzli: But there's no parking there correct? 1 John Uban: That is correct. Batzli: So it would be limited to on street if you will. For example I I/ ride my bike from Lotus Lake. I go to the park. Can they kick me out? John Uban: I suppose if you're drinking beer and being rowdy. 1 • Terry Forbord: For most of you who have traveled around the country and this is certainly something that is not uncommon all over the United States. You don't see a lot of it in the Midwest. You have to get to Chicago probably to see a lot more of this. We've been doing it for probably oh 3 to 5 years but we have not done it in Chanhassen because well have not had a new neighborhood community in Chanhassen. As I eluded to earlier, we've gone to great lengths to try to be better at everything that we do everytime we do a new project. You can't do something like this either unless you've got a significant, enough size of a site. We were II before you not more than a year ago on what is now called Willow Ridge, or you may recall it as Ortenblat /Ersbo on Lake Lucy Road. And that particular property was not large enough for any type of a park and had al type of economic feasibility in it. But more importantly, what we are trying to do as a company is we really don't have any desire to try to develop real estate and have neighborhood communities that are just like II everybody else's. We can, all of us can get in our cars and drive all ova the metro area and see plenty of that already. What we try to do and what we've always tried to do, we're more a nitch developer. A nitch builder." We're trying to have something that is a little more upscale I guess or something. A little more special than what everybody else is doing and our buyer profile, if you look at them or interview them, or even the census data, will show you because it's that localized now. The data's so 1 II Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 59 specific, the buyer profile that typically comes into our neighborhoods is willing to pay a little bit more money to have something that's not just like all of our competition. And we also have found through exit interviews of our homebuyers and we also have found out just by market analyst data that when people sell their homes, they have a much easier time selling it if they have some special amenities in the neighborhood where they live. And so really what we're trying to do is have a competitive edge over our competition. Create a better neighborhood community. There's absolutely no doubt that it takes stress off the city's park system. When we do this, we go in and we build it right away. Now those of you who have worked on the parks commission in the city know that they usually wait until all the people are there and then when there's enough money, maybe then they build the park. And every city has that problem because there's just simply not enough money. So what we are doing is we are putting it in immediately so people know that it's part of the package. The homeowners association controls it and owns it and it's a real benefit to those people who live there. And it also benefits the city because it takes some of the financial burden off of them. Batzli: So the operative word there though was the homeowners own it and control it. Terry Forbord: That's correct. Emmings: I don't think I have much to add. I guess my observation would be that I think that the staff, the conditions that have been attached here or put down by the staff are a good list of issues. I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with, when it says reduce front yard setbacks for all lots on local streets to 20 feet. I don't know if you want to do that but ' I think the conditions do a good job of identifying the issues and maybe that's enough since we're, this is really a concept plan. Why does he think we're doing a preliminary plat and the rest of us think we're doing a ' concept? Krauss: We're really not sure. We were under the impression we were in sync on that but it is a PUD. Emmings: We always do a concept review, right? Krauss: Yeah. It's optional actually. Emmings: Oh really. Krauss: Yeah, it's optional to do. By typically what we do is we come back in and the same thing with Hans Hagen. You come back in after the concept with the preliminary and plat concurrently at the next round of 11 meetings. And then that would be the last time you see it. Emmings: But as far as, just so we're clear on what we're doing, we're looking at it as a concept? Krauss: It's set up as a concept. Batzli: It was published as a concept. 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 60 1 Emmings: Okay. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? t Batzli: Yeah. Terry Forbord: I would like to point out that the ordinance allows an II applicant to go through both processes at the same time and we've done that before with the city and our application I believe it clearly shows that'll what we applied for and the fee structure that we paid for... And if it was an error, then so be it but I want to make sure the record's straight. Emmings: And I guess if we were going to look at this as a preliminary II plat at this point, we had an awful lot of conditions and we've got an awful lot of things that are unresolved and I don't think I'd be willing to do that, but. Batzli: No. But clearly if they've paid the fee for the preliminary plat. Olsen: It's just one fee for the PUD. 1 Krauss: We went with the unitary fee structure. It's not broken out. Batzli: So they will not have to pay another fee to go through the preliminary plat? Krauss: Well, we're always willing to take a developer's money. 1 Batzli: Ladd. Conrad: A gentleman had a comment about sewer and connecting. Krauss: I think we can try that one. We've got the feasibility study II being done now and the honest answer is we won't know the answer until th feasibility study is completed. Now knowing what we know about how this project is being laid out, there's not, I won't say there won't be any assessments off site to the north but I don't think there will be. The II utilities are being brought in from the east. If there's any benefit accruing directly to lots, it comes through the east side. So as it goes out to Galpin and Lake Ann Interceptor. That information will be availabll when the feasibility study is completed and there's a public hearing held at the City Council. When that happens, all benefitting properties, all the properties that stand to get an assessment are notified and invited ti come to that public hearing. And the Council makes the final determinate as to who's going to be assessed and what will be deferred, if anything. The other question in terms of extending utilities to adjoining lots, that's something we regularly look at when we get the final engineering done. We look at where it's appropriate to extend it. I don't know specifically if it will reach some of your properties. Some of them are considerably uphill from the site which makes for difficulty. We usuall terminate these things at property lines and don't extend it. If you wan to give Dave Hempel in engineering a call in the next couple of days, he can tell you specifically how close he thinks we're going to get with the" utilities. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 61 1 Hempel: If I just may add to that. I believe the acceptance or consideration of acceptance of the feasibility study is scheduled for September 14th City Council meeting. Conrad: Parks. The Park and Rec has identified, is there a neighborhood park in the area? Krauss: No. Conrad: Will there be? Olsen: Well it wouldn't be a neighborhood park. What they're providing is essentially a neighborhood park. What you're probably thinking about is more of a community area and I don't know that they have identified a larger park in that area. 1 Aanenson: I think you also should look at the fact that Minnewashta Regional Park is close. Olsen: Kitty corner, yeah. Krauss: This is the first private park if you will that the Park Board has looked at and we didn't know how to react to it but they were comfortable with it. Keep in mind too that they're not getting any credit on park dedication so the developer, for the right to do this, is essentially getting hit twice. Conrad: That's recognizable. There was a comment that said maybe we need parks in the area and I just wanted to follow that up. That somebody lived outside this area. Krauss: The other property in this area that could theoretically benefit from a park is the Song property. Now Lundgren Bros. may or may not work on a coordinated project with that. In the future I know that it's been discussed. If there is, and if it coordinates with it too, I suppose they would have...to this park or another similar one would be built there. If somebody else develops that, I think the Park Board's going to have to look at having a separate neighborhood park and resolving some of those recreational issues on that site. Conrad: Generally I really like the plan. I think it's neat. Recommendations from the staff, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are pretty absolute and I guess, you know it's sort of the PUD. We can slip those. I don't want to slip them in all cases but I think, I'm not sure I'm as absolute as maybe the staff is on that and I think there was some things that Terry talked about and other presenters that I think we should listen to. Again, I think we just want to be sensitive to that. My only other two comments, and I'll probably be all by myself on these. 16 and 17 in the staff report, connecting I and G. I really like how it looks. I just like the cul -de -sacs that way. I think it's terrific design. If we take a look at what City Council approved at Kurver's Point and the cul -de -sacs there, we're not consistent as to how we implement this. I really like this. I like how it makes the neighborhood and I know there's concerns about that but that's just my point. I like the center islands. I always have. Planning Commission Meeting "- August 19, 1992 - Page 62 I think it makes it attractive and I know there's no engineering r g g g oup or maintenance that will say they like it in the world but I like them. Batzli: You like the little islands? Conrad: I sure do. 1 Batzli: And cul -de -sacs too? Conrad: Yeah. I think they look neat and they can be an asset. So thosl are my two off the wall comments... Erhart: Okay, well other than the late hour, I'd like to say that Lundgr Bros., and thank them for really, they've spent an enormous amount of tim on this in the last, I didn't realize it was 3 years but they volunteered to come to our wetlands ordinance group and speak to us about this and th brought in practically their whole staff on another evening to describe h�i the new ordinance would effect this development. So that's appreciated guys. And I think the development's really neat. The difficulties that you have here combined with, in light of the fact that actually it's a beautiful piece of property and this particular piece I think represents lot of the property that remains to be developed in Chanhassen. I think we really use this as a prototype of what we do with the rest of the city because what it is is essentially wooded areas that have been, where the II trees have been removed from small fields that are high ground surrounded by wetlands and it's just a lot of, as you walk around Chanhassen, that's really what all remains in the whole city. So I think we're learning a 1 on how to do this and how to do it right and I'm pretty confident it's going to look really neat when it gets done. So just quickly, I'll just through my list. On page 4 that you talked about this exception to the property being designed so that it can be ultimately access from Street G but it's just not clear on the plans to me how that would happen. I'm not asking for an explanation now... Also, again when we go through these PUll lists of things that we're looking for, it implies there that we're actually expecting the developer to react on each one of them and I didn't think that was our intention of a PUD. That they had to give us somethin on all of them. ...ask them now to respond with more and I'm not sure that's needed. I agree with Ladd. I see no point in connecting I and G. People want cul -de -sacs. It's safer. It is safer and these are not long. So I'd like to see it the way it is, although I guess I'd like engineerinil again to review the possibility of extending Street B to the end of the property so if it's possible to hook up later on in what I think is the Song property. i Krauss: We looked at that in a lot of depth. Over a period of about a year. Erhart: Well I'm getting used to be disagreed with tonight. One more isn't going to hurt. Removal of 8 in lieu of private streets. I think we ought to look at doing more of that. I think private streets, when you gig in this kind of area with the slopes and the wetlands and stuff, can do ail lot to fit things in without destroying things and what you're giving up there sometimes though is a sharing of some of the things. The nice thin about the streets and cul -de -sacs, it's sort of a nice, even sharing of t6 Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 63 wetlands over a large number of houses so I think agree that looking at private streets is a good idea, and they do work and they're used a lot really outside of Minnesota. But when you travel around you see a lot of private streets. I think our ordinance allows what, 3 houses? 4 houses? 1 Krauss: Four. Erhart: The lot widths, we tie that into the 20 foot. Terry, you tried to tie in the 20 foot setback and correct me if I'm wrong but I thought what you said is, if you measure the lot width at 20 feet, then it becomes smaller. That's one of the reasons why you have so many sub - standard narrow lots. I guess my feeling is that I sort of agree with staff that we ought to maintain the 90 foot, although they ought to be measured at the 30 foot setback. So when you get on those lots where you have 20 foot setbacks, it could be less than 90 feet. Then going back to the recommendations where we say reduced front yards on all those streets at 20 feet. You know if we just want to make a carte blanche statement like that, then you've got to question is our ordinance right. I don't think our ordinance is wrong. Olsen: I intended it more for. 1 Erhart: I think we ought to do it lot by lot. Olsen: Yes, that's what we... Erhart: Let's see. I think I'm now convinced that the idea of just requiring 20 feet between buildings has some merit and would agree with that. I notice I don't see woodland easement or what do we call it, tree easements so I'm pleased with that so far. And hopefully on a later meeting we'll have time to discuss trees before this one comes back in. I'm not suggesting we do it tonight anymore. This foundation plantings and your rear yard trees is an interesting thing Terry. I don't know, you must have read the Minutes of the meeting where we discussed in our new PUD. I voted against the PUD because of particularly those two requirements. I didn't think it made any sense and in discussing with Paul earlier, I think now I understand where we weren't communicating on this. I viewed the PUD as it is applied against a subdivision where the lots are sold and the people get their own developer and make their own builder and build their own house and I could not visualize how you made the connection between the guy developing the lot and the guy who builds the house were two entirely different people. Apparently you were not thinking that way at all. Your idea was, or most of the Commissioners idea was in this PUD is that the developer also is the builder. Now maybe.I'm wrong. Is the builder always as a developer? See, I didn't think so. So I think we've got this first ' case of a problem, this foundation plantings and your rear yard trees are problematic. I don't see how we can, it doesn't seem to make sense to us to have a PUD where we require foundation plantings and rear yard trees because it is unconnected to the subdivision. It's something that relates to the building itself so I don't know. I think it's a good point and maybe we can. ' Krauss: We've spoken to Terry tonight about some options for resolving that particular point that I think you'll wind up agreeing with. You also 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' August 19, 1992 - Page 64 1 are trying to cover with the ordinance, you're covering cornfield development too where there isn't anything and it may be sold off to individuals. But I think we've got a positive way to work out that issue` Erhart: Okay. My question here in, we talk a lot about saving trees. I was a little surprised that someone stated here that we were going to los' approximately 1/3 of the trees. How do you know this far in advance exactly where the building pad's going to be to determine how many trees are going to be lost? Can you do that? Do you know where the building II pads are going to be? John Uban: Generally yes. Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros.. Even though we are in the conceptual stage of this, staff usually likes to know so they have an idea of what impact the development may have on the site. And so we take the time. It's not specific because we haven't been out and surveyed eac� lot and surveyed the building pad. But by utilizing the technology that we have, you can get a fairly clear idea, plus or minus there's obviously so room for error. But a fairly good idea of what you're going to be taking out and the grading plan, you're trying to balance the dirt on the site and so you know what you have to do and so you come fairly close but you real don't have a real concise idea until you're in the final design phase. Erhart: But this 1/3 does include the building sites? Terry Forbord: I'm sorry, I can't hear. ' Erhart: Losing 1/3 of the trees, that includes the trees lost for buildir sites? Terry Forbord: That's from development. I don't believe that was calculated into actual pads, was it? 1 Farmakes: Total loss to development is 37 %. John Uban: That's based on grading the whole site and in some cases putting in different homes like ramblers. Not ramblers but not having wa k outs in some cases. So we've adjusted the grading plan to reach that number. And also we may be able to save more but we don't know until you" actually match a specific house for a specific owner. Terry Forbord: It's probably fairly close. because we recognize that most" of the building pads in this neighborhood.community will have corrections In other words, you'll be doing soil corrections on almost all the pads so that's probably fairly close. ' Erhart: Of the 33 %, what does it do to house pads versus streets and utilities? Okay, 33% of the trees are going to be lost. Of those 33 %, say now that's 100 %. Of the 100% trees lost, what percent is due to , streets and utilities versus the housepad? John Uban: About a third for a street system. Actual street and then thll rest. Eden Prairie for instance. They are very aggressive when it comes Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 65 to fitting development into existing woods. Aggressive in the sense that they have very strict rules and very...method of figuring things out. So they just automatically assume that you're going to lose probably around 40% of the trees. And that's just what you have to accept in development. You know doing a road with lots and you get the lots and the homes... Erhart: Alright, well that just gives me an idea here. I'm trying to figure out where this tree thing for notes later. The islands. Maybe once and for all we can get an action here where we can have islands in our city. Because everytime islands have been proposed by a developer, it's always okay Dave. We're going at you here. It's always the street maintenance don't like it and by the time you get all done and we all up here kind of go along and it gets thrown out. And I've always liked islands. They're all over the place. Eden Prairie's got them. Maybe we have more snow than them. Do we get more snow than Eden Prairie that we can't have islands here or something? I guess I'd really like to see the Commission take a stand and maybe a poll here to see if we can get rid of this mentality that we shouldn't have, of not having islands because I think they're, as Terry said, I think there's a lot of advantages. I think we ought to allow islands. I know Ladd said we ought to allow islands. Batzli: I don't know if we're going to allow rebuttal. Do you have real rebuttal or just it's going to save us money and stuff like that? Hempel: No, just a couple comments I guess towards the islands that we have problems with. One of them is our public works maintenance. Snow plowing and so forth. Damage to the curbs on the island and so forth takes repairs. Again, the street function in itself is for vehicles. Manuevering and so forth and with those islands and that, they do look aesthetically pleasing and they break up the neighborhood asphalt surface but again there may be safety issues with children playing on them. Cars coming around and so forth. These are all issues to be looked at. There may be some liability risks of having an island such as what is proposed. Those are some of the things we consider. Batzli: Thank you. You don't get rebuttal. Next point. Erhart: Can we get what the other Planning Commissioners. Some direction. Batzli: Oh, I like islands. Emmings: I like islands. Erhart: Jeff? Farmakes: I think they look just fine. Personally I don't like cul -de -sacs. I think that they're private streets and a lot of them are are paid for by the public. But they're in demand. Consumers want them and that's why they're there. It obviously looks nice. Ahrens: It hasn't been a real big issue for me Tim but you know, I guess they're okay. I agree with Jeff's statement about cul -de -sacs in general. I think it does create too many private streets but they're okay.