The URL can be used to link to this page

8. Lundgren Bros rezone to PUD, Preliminary PUD Approval & Wetland Alternation Permit PC DATE: 8/19/92 D t IIIi 1 C ITY 0 H DATE: 9/14/92 1 - CASE #: 92 -4 PUD By: Olsen/Hem j :v City Admi *strato := 1 _ — Re:ected_ 1 STAFF REPORT • D. ; �� ` � .-r_ "g Z =:c Sett: utted to Commission II Me Slit-bated to Count i PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning from A2 Agricultural Estate to PUD, Single Family I Residential Planned Unit Development Development Review, Preliminary Plat to subdivide 161 acres into Z 112 single family lots and 8 outlots I Q 3) Wetland Alteration Permit for dredging, filling and development within protected wetlands 1 ..,,1 LOCATION: West of State Highway 41, North of State Highway 5, Adjacent to the 11. BMT Site 0. 1 4 APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 1 1 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates I ACREAGE: Northern Portion 95 Acres (gross) and 61 Acres (net - less wetlands and streets) Southern Portion 66 Acres ( Outlots G and H) 1 - DENSITY: 1.19 u/a (gross) and 1.85 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2, single family/vacant 1 Q S - A2, vacant E - A2, - single - family /vacant 1 0 W - A2, Camp Tanadoona/vacant W WATER AND SEWER: Extension of utilities has been petitioned by the applicant. I t"'' , (!) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains steep topography, wetlands, and vegetated 1 areas. - y 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density 1 .) ,\, ' t 4 3 1 : ..' .. 4 % ; : ' i s i 1 . : , I OW • L .y{A R�l� ••� '• ; ,mot •�, � / y �.� 7h1 r, t _ `� C i .1.�.y � 1 _• 1 1 _ ,. la / / , J �• , i ( ) ; .,: ,..,:::),. • l . , ,' :,,. � .. : ; • r; ;. _'; ,, ` 1, :`� ..' 1 ... 4 •,r ' /. .4 '1. ?; - • 1 /.` � .. 7 '' . • . t ip V • , ...... e1 1 4i"..? ?'; ..`A.mow'! •: •� N-. r • • / + 6. + , A •.:1 �} t: • • 1 .i+ V � VJ (. g Sli ( . . h • .N ^rte' .'. ''• . :"...,..2 1 .? 77. f i:r r - } r= . Li t` 1 _ r .f . rP''4R'I1/� .* / t _ *LAKE �� • •`r1; r4 ^ :"t •res'{ . fl h .C• = , , r t r4 C' M RR/,S. V c. sa.,,,,...„ Vr1..,,. -,- ..r.rr.e...,...,(,‘ ' . .i .. ...irt , N er._ , r: r .MAIT44411%; i 4 e- • -. r , I . .-‘ -r . :. Ai . , 4) ' I — , - ct Nr AM 1 T \ f 0 9 ` c . ., _ - � �� ' uSJ CT �.. �, DRIVE ♦ ‘i ss • przAt.:::$ 4 CURRE AO At / PR.Q. �.L\L 2 maw. _t ii: a ir! p Imi i., ,.,„: k)li RATur-.-E.. If 199L A N - m 17A 1 iht 4ti 4, w _,,..k- • .. . . . __,., 1 Imo' rip-.0,„,pi. _41 •*, • ,„ billP 41111 - tAILJ: 1 7..7.-10 -111UILA Jo ft s �' _ ~1 7 :Ar_ le A ai ii - Lagijit yllilli r g ill .....:.::..:... . . .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::....:. .. N: ■ \�`� ` \1I �� :�\�\ . � . • . \� . ` ' \' \ - - it. m , s , 1 prig. ..va_ 1 ...‹-T--\-- • __. .• _, ............. 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY OF PUD The applicant is proposing a single family detached residential planned unit development which subdivides 160.88 acres into 112 single family lots and 8 outlots. One of the lots will be occupied by an existing home, thus, 111 new home sites will result. (The concept plan proposed 113 single family lots, one lot was eliminated as the plan was revised to accommodate concerns that were raised). The site is located east of Hwy. 41 and north of Hwy. 5. The property is zoned A2, Agricultural Estates and is designated as Residential Low Density and 1995 Study Area. The northerly portion of the site is proposed as single family lots (PUD site) and the southerly portion of the site is proposed as an outlot for future development. The northerly portion of the subject site was included in the MUSA line as part of the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment after Lundgren Bros. made a presentation to the Planning Commission. It was concluded that the wetland which forms the site's southern boundary, was the appropriate dividing line between the MUSA area and the 1995 Study Area. The site contains significant environmental features which include ten wetland areas, steep topography and mature stands of vegetation. Due to the site conditions and the desire to provide a variety of lots and housing units, the applicant is pursuing rezoning of the property to planned unit development. A planned unit development will allow the site to be developed with reduced right -of -way and reduced setbacks to pull the building pads away from sensitive areas and will allow innovative techniques to be used with the wetland areas (buffer yards, native landscaping, etc.). The City Code currently provides standards permitting planned unit developments if certain requirements are met. Specific guidelines for single family planned unit developments have not yet been adopted, but have been approved by the Planning Commission and will be reviewed by the City Council in October. Staff will be using the existing PUD requirements and the proposed single family PUD requirements in the review of this proposed planned unit development. In addition, new wetland regulations are in the process of being reviewed for adoption by the city and these too will be used as guidelines for review of the proposed planned unit development. The development review for the PUD is only for the northern portion of the site proposed for the 112 single family lots. The southerly portion will remain zoned as A2. The applicant has taken care to work with the site's many natural features. Design flexibility allowed under the PUD ordinance is being put to reasonable use. The lot areas range from 11,550 square feet to 60,370 square feet (including wetland area) and range from 10,075 square feet to 57,813 square feet (not including wetland area). The total project density is extremely low for residential development in Chanhassen. There is a gross density of 1.18 units per acre with a net density (excluding wetlands and streets) of 1.84 units per acre. This compares to typical numbers of 1.7 and 2.0 units per acre respectively on typical single family development in Chanhassen. We also note that this type of density is considered to be extremely low relative to other developing communities in the Twin Cities. 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 3 1 Major access to this site will be provided by a new street that will ultimately run between Hwy. 41 and Galpin Boulevard. Since the applicant is only in control of a portion of this alignment, 1 only that section of the street which is located on the Lundgren parcel will be constructed at this time. The remaining piece would be constructed across the adjoining Song property when this area is subdivided. At this point in time, the applicant is negotiating with the Song's on development possibilities. However, staff is unsure at the time of writing as to when development might occur and who may actually be undertaking it. The Lundgren proposal was designed with some sensitivity to coordinating ultimate development of the Song property. The collector street right -of -way alignment is designed in a manner so that it can be similarly used to service the Song property. Location of a collector street in this area is illustrated on the city Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not purport to establish an alignment for this street. In early discussions with the applicant on this site, the Planning Director and City Engineer 1 determined that it would be inappropriate to construct the collector street to typical collector street standards which would result in a road similar to Lake Lucy Road. This determination was based upon the extreme changes of topography and locations of wetlands on both the Lundgren and Song parcels. It would be impossible to construct a street to the standards without significantly impacting the site's natural features. Therefore, they agreed to recommend that the collector street be designed to high quality local street standards which reduce grading requirements and increase both horizontal and lateral design flexibility. The important thing, in their opinion, is that the road will provide continuity such that residents and emergency services ' will be afforded two means of ingress and egress into this area. Staff is also recommending that the local street right -of -way be reduced from 60' to 50' to further reduce impact to the site. The applicant is proposing alteration to some of the existing wetlands on the site. The wetlands that are proposed to be altered are in a degraded state and the alteration is being mitigated. The applicant is proposing the creation of buffer yards to protect the remaining wetlands and to be ' permitted a reduced setback from the 75' wetland setback. The proposal for the wetlands is consistent with the city's proposed changes to the wetland regulations, but staff has recommended some additional mitigation through combination of new and existing wetlands and by increasing the depth. The first step of the PUD process is conceptual approval. Concept review allows the Planning ' Commission and City Council to review the proposal in general terms to determine if it should be accepted as a planned unit development and what changes need to be made prior to action on the preliminary plat and rezoning. ' On August 19, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the concept plan for the PUD. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development ' Concept Plan for 113 single family lots with the understanding that the applicant will continue to work with staff on the conditions presented in the staff report in accordance with the 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 4 comments made by Planning the Plannin Commission. The Planning Commission felt that Conditions 4 through 9 could be reworded to allow some flexibility to the applicant and still meet staff's intent. The majority of the Planning Commission also felt that the cul -de -sacs "I" and "G" should remain (staff had recommended that they be connected) and that they liked the cul -de -sac islands (Attachment #1). The City Council reviewed the Concept PUD on September 14, 1992, and also approved of the concept plan. At the City Council meeting, the applicant presented the City Council with comments on staff's conditions and proposed changes to the conditions (Attachment #2). The City Council approved the concept plan with the applicant's proposed conditions. The major changes to the conditions were to remove the condition to connect the cul -de -sacs "I" and "G" and to permit the cul -de -sac islands. The second stage of the PUD process is the Development Review where the applicant receives preliminary plat and rezoning approval. The major concern of the city and staff during conceptual review was the amount of grading taking place on site and the resulting removal of trees. The city and staff recommended that the applicant review the grading plan and make changes in the house types, street locations and design, etc. to reduce the amount of grading on- site. The applicant has submitted revised grading plans for review. The new plans do somewhat 1 . reduce the amount of grading. The reduced grading is primarily a result of reducing the number and size of ponding areas and not always showing grading beyond the house pad. Some of the house types have been changed from walkouts to ramblers and lookouts which will reduce the amount of grading. Until the final storm water calculations are submitted for review, staff cannot verify that the proposed ponding areas will be adequate, but at this time the engineering staff feels additional ponding may be required. If this is the case, the applicant will have to increase the number of ponds and/or increase the ponding areas, either of which will result in more grading to the site. Although staff agrees the building sites should not be mass graded and that the creation of usable rear yards could be done individually, the proposed grading plan showing some sites to not be graded beyond the house pad is not correct. There is typically at least a 15' area around the house pad which is altered during construction of the home. When this area is added to the revised grading plan, much of the areas of reduced grading will in fact be graded. During concept review, staff suggested the applicant review some significant changes to the plat such as pulling back the most southeasterly and south central cul -de -sacs (H and J streets). Staff has sketched out some alternatives, using private drives, to determine how many lots would be lost, how much vegetation would be saved and if what is saved is worth such a significant change. Such a revision would result in the removal of some significant lots and the applicant has not proposed such changes. 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 5 The grading for lots located on "H" street are affecting a wooded ravine. The vegetation in this area is mostly box elder which does not warrant a drastic change in the lot configurations resulting in loss of lots. "J" street and the adjacent lots are resulting in the removal of significant vegetation, including large oaks. Staff worked on alternative street and lot configurations for this location to determine how to save some of the vegetation and found that, other than removing ' 3 or 4 lots, even the use of private drives and pulling back the cul -de -sac does not preserve the vegetation. Therefore, staff is agreeing with the layout presented by the applicant. It should be noted that the applicant did reduce the filling of "J" street which has reduce the amount of 1 alteration to the area. Staff recognizes that the Planning Commission and City Council have indicated acceptance of the proposal to maintain two cul -de -sacs on I and G streets. We continue to believe that their connection is warranted due to issues of access and public safety, however, the proposed conditions reflect the direction you have given us. Similarly, the Engineering Department continues to have reservations with the proposal to provide landscaped islands in several streets and cul -de -sacs. Again, the conditions reflect your direction that these be allowed. Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is generally consistent with the guidelines established by the current and draft PUD ordinances. We also believe the applicant is using reasonable and sensitive development standards with an eye towards creating very high quality residential neighborhoods designed in a manner to protect a sensitive environment. Staff is recommending that the PUD Development Plan, Rezoning and Wetland t1 Alteration Permit be approved with appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND 1 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 suitable for development with sewer and water. The proposal contains the BMT property (northeast corner of entrance). The BMT site is a nonconforming use (commercial in a residential district) which has the right to remain as long as it does not expand or intensify. The owner of BMT has sold the property to Lundgren Brothers with the condition of remaining until a new site is found or until 1994. The proposal 1 designates one single family lot and an outlot on the BMT property which will be developed once the property is vacated. The applicant has initiated a feasibility study for sewer and water service to the site. Service to the site will not be possible until 1993. 1 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 6 I SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site contains 10 rotected wetland areas, steep topography, and heavily vegetated areas. The P subject site is bordered by State Hwy. 41 on the west, State Hwy. 5 on the south, the Song property on the east, and residential/vacant property on the north. There are two exceptions shown on the plat. The first is located between State Hwy. 41 and street D. This property is under separate ownership and has its own access to Hwy. 41. To reduce the number of accesses to Hwy. 41 should this site be subdivided in the future, staff is recommending the site be provided with access to the adjacent cul -de -sac. The second exception is located to the north of the proposed private park. This site is separated from the subject site by steep topography. I The landscaping plan shows extensive landscaping on Outlots A and F which is being used to meet the requirements for enhanced landscaping for the PUD. There also are landscaped cul -de- sac islands and median. Site terrain includes large variations in elevation. The large wetland that forms the southern boundary of the property is also the head waters of Bluff Creek. Much of the site contains large open field areas which were actively farmed in the past. REZONING TO PUD 1 Section 20 -501 of the City Code provides a general intent statement for planned unit I developments. Planned unit developments are to be used to enhance flexibility in developing a site with unique features and when there is a desire to provide a variety of uses. In return for this flexibility, the city should receive a higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been achieved through standard zoning regulations. Under this section of the City Code the following nine items are listed and which the PUD should provide: (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive 111 environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. 1 Finding The site contains some difficult topography, several wetlands of varying value and heavily Po �'a PY� az'Y g Y vegetated areas. Upon review of the preliminary plat, it appears that the applicant is locating the streets and lots with the natural features of the site taken into consideration. The blocks are situated around wetland and vegetated areas and the steep sloped areas are avoided in most cases. I 1 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 1 Page 7 (2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing ' of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding 1 The PUD allows the site to locate more dense development in areas without significant features while creating open space around natural features. The proposal is providing pockets of open space throughout the site which will benefit the whole development and is providing a variation of lot sizes. PUD flexibility is used to locate home sites in areas where impact will be minimized by using density transfer. 1 (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 1 high quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality homes. The applicant has taken into account surrounding land uses by locating larger lots adjacent to existing uses. The applicant has also provided for future development with a future street connection. There will be covenants recorded as part of the PUD contract to ensure that high quality building architecture and enhanced landscaping will be 1 provided. (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along 1 significant corridors within the city. Finding The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential and the proposal is accommodating P P g existing uses and the potential for future development. Views of the site from the Hwy. 41 corridor will be protected by the tree preservation and required landscaping. A major land use transition south of the site is possible when this area is brought in the MUSA some time in the future. No decisions on the future of this area have been made pending completion of the Hwy. 5 Study. However, the large Bluff Creek wetland that separates the Lundgren site from the Hwy. 5 corridor has been established by the Comprehensive Plan as the buffer area. (5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 8 Finding The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property 1 as residential low density (1.2 - 4 units /acre). The proposal has a net density (minus wetlands and roads) of 1.84 units /acre. This compares favorably with typical single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net density of 2 units per acre. The site was included in the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment for development with sewer and water and as a single family development. The Comprehensive Plan also showed this property as a site for a collector street, which the applicant is providing. (6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. Finding The applicant is providing open space throughout the site, including a private park. The Park and Recreation Commission has accepted this proposal but full park and trail fees will be required. No credit is being recommended for the private park. 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. 1 Finding The applicant is proposing a variety of lots sizes and housing units. Overall, the sites will be affordable to medium - medium/high incomes. The surrounding uses and potential future surrounding uses are consistent with what is being proposed. 1 (8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. 1 Finding It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration or if this condition is relevant to single family home development. (9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 9 1 Finding The proposal is providing a collector street which will service the property to the east and was mentioned as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The remainder of the site is serviced by cul -de -sacs which are used to protect some of the natural features. Staff continues to ' recommend the connection of cul -de -sacs "G" and "I" to further improve traffic control. Although the Planning Commission and City Council have already taken action on this item and have agreed to not require the cul -de -sacs to be connected, staff feels we should 1 still be on record of being in favor of connecting the two cul -de -sacs. In addition to the general planned unit development regulations, the city is in the process of 1 adopting standards for single family planned unit developments. There is a specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. The intent statement states the developer will be permitted flexibility in development standards in return for enhancing environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing a higher quality of development. The single family detached residential planned unit development must also meet the following ' guidelines: a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD (draft ordinance) allows lot sizes ' down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot calculations). The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot ' sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback ' area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home /deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. 1 Finding The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 10,075.sq. ft. to 57,813 sq. ft. (not including wetland areas) with an average net lot area of 20,601 sq. ft. The PUD standards do not allow the inclusion of wetland areas in the calculation of lot area. ' The site is broken down into six blocks which locate the lots around wetland and vegetated areas. Upon review of the concept grading plan and the impacts to the 1 vegetated areas, staff was concerned that the proposed location of streets, lots and the housing types were removing more vegetated areas than may be necessary. Staff recommended that the applicant provide plans which lessen the impacts to the vegetated 1 areas, such as: 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 10 Remove Lot 1, Block 2 and use retaining walls along the south side of the street adjacent to Outlot B and Lot 1, Block 2. Remove the cul -de -sac, H Street and use private drives to remove the need to fill in the ravine area. Reduce the fill and pull back "J" Street and reduce the fill on adjacent lots. The applicant has submitted a revised grading plan which has reduced the amount of grading to the site. The type of vegetation which will be removed with the creation of Lot 1, Block 2 consists mostly of box elders and elms. Therefore, staff does not feel the removing Lot 1, Block 2 and installation of a retaining wall is warranted. The vegetation impacted by "H" Street and adjacent lots is also low quality consisting mostly of ash and box elder. Therefore, staff does not feel the removal of "H" Street is warranted. The area adjacent to "J" Street is where the most significant trees will be lost and where staff feels some significant changes may be warranted. There are a number of sizeable oaks which will be removed (see Attachment # 3, Area D). The applicant has changed some of the house types in this area and has reduced the fill of "J" Street, which will reduce some of the grading. Staff has sketched a revised plan using private drives and pulling back the cul -de -sac. Staff found that without removing 3 or 4 lots the tree removal would not be reduced. Given the already low density of the project and high quality design, staff cannot justify recommending elimination of these lots. We believe 1 the applicant's tree preservation efforts, when viewed over the entire project, are satisfactory. Therefore, staff is agreeing with the proposed layout. It should be noted that the applicant has reduced the fill on "J" Street which has reduced the amount of grading 1 to the site. The proposal is preserving open space throughout the site which benefits each block. 1 Open space is found in undeveloped outlots, the private park and numerous wetland areas. The applicant has provided plans which demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate 1 a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area of protective easement as required under the draft PUD ordinance. This standard ensures that each lot provides a satisfactory home site and yard area without needing to resort to variances. The PUD development contract will document this information to ensure the development of the individual lots will not encroach within a protected area or setback. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 I Page 11 Finding There are 14 lots which do not have the minimum lot width of 90' at the building setback line. The lots which do not have a 90' width at the building setback are "pie shaped" lots which have adequate building width at the building setback. Staff is comfortable that the intent to provide adequate building pad widths is being accommodated. Essentially, the front setback line is proposed to be moved to the rear of the lot to the point at which a ' 90' width is achieved. The only concern that staff has with this is that some of these lot configurations will result in the building pad being pushed further back into sensitive areas of the site. We have asked the applicant to respond to this concern in the final plat. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. Finding All of the lots exceed the minimum lot depth of 100'. d) Minimum Setbacks: ' PUD Exterior - 30 feet Front Yard - 20 feet Rear Yard - 30 feet 1 Side Yard - 10 feet Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property line. Finding ' The P ro osal provides a 30' PUD exterior setback. P P The preliminary plat provides a 20' front yard setback on certain lots (lots illustrated with a dot). The reduced front yard setback is permitted as part of a PUD to preserve natural features and should be used in this development. A majority of the lots have stands of trees and/or wetlands in the rear yard and reducing the front yard setback will further protect these areas. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and has noted additional lots which with a 20' front yard setback would reduce the impact to the site. The following lots are recommended to also maintain a 20' front yard setback: ' Lots 22 -24, Block 2 Lots 30 -31, Block 2 Lots 46 -47, Block 2 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 12 Lots 58 -61, Block 2 Lots 66 -72, Block 2 There were additional lots which would benefit by a reduced front (example, and setback exam Y yard � p Lots 27 -29, Block 2), except that they would then not have enough width at the building setback. Therefore, staff is not recommending the reduced setback on these lots. In the narrative provided by the developer, it has been stated that the minimum rear yard will be 30'. In many cases the rear yard will exceed 30' due to the presence of a wetland which requires increased setbacks. This is in keeping with the draft ordinance. The narrative provided by the developer proposes a 6' interior side yard setback for garages and a 9' interior side yard setback of living area. The applicant has also stated that a minimum side yard separation of 20' will be provided between each principle structure. As long as a 20' minimum side yard separation is maintained, staff is comfortable with reduced side yard setbacks. The setback of 10' for accessory buildings and structures should also be applied. 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. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. , Finding The proposed layout of the single family lots and streets have taken into consideration the features of the site. Where possible, wetlands and mature stands of trees have been located at the rear of lots so that they can be protected. As stated above, staff was at first ' concerned that in some areas the grading for building pads, streets and ponds was removing more vegetation than may be necessary. The applicant has made revisions to the plans which reduce the area of alteration. 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 and impact to site features. Staff has encouraged this request to be made due to the sensitive nature of the site. A wider collector street with normal design standards results in a street having the appearance of Lake Lucy Road. To accomplish this design on this site would result in substantial destruction of natural features. To avoid this staff determined that the street should be designed to ultimately provide continuity to Galpin Boulevard but to be designed to local street standards. 1 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 13 In addition to reducing the collector street right of way, staff has also reviewed reducing the right -of -way on the local streets from 60' to 50'. Staff found that this reduction in ' right -of -way will help pull building pads from sensitive features of the site, and is recommending that this be done. f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of 1 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 1 preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be ' provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over -story trees. Preservation ' of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. 1 Finding ' The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan which shows landscaping at the entrance of the PUD on Outlots A and F, on cul -de -sac islands, on an entrance median and along the boulevards. During the concept review, it was agreed by the Planning 1 Commission and the City Council, that foundation and rear yard plantings would not be necessary. The landscaping along Hwy. 41 needs to be revised. A portion of the landscape buffering along Hwy. 41 is proposed to be provided by trees located in the 1 Hwy. 41 right -of -way. These could well be lost at some time due to possible highway improvements. Therefore, the applicant must satisfy the landscaping requirements with landscaping on the subject site. 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 14 g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 1 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. Finding 1 The developer has stated in the narrative that they will establish strict architectural and protective covenants and that the covenants will be recorded with the county. The city does not enforce private covenants recorded with the county, but in the case of a PUD, the covenants will be reviewed and adopted as part of the PUD contract. The applicant should provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the city. 1 SUMMARY OF REZONING The subject site contains features that are ideally suited for a planned unit development. The flexibility of PUD standards will result in a reduction of impact to natural features due to road and building construction. The features which remain will be protected, and in some cases, enhanced. Staff feels that rezoning the property to planned unit development is appropriate for this site, but that the proposed concept plan can be revised to further protect natural features. Staff is recommending approval of the Development PUD plan with the stated conditions. DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT 1 The applicant is proposing to develop the 112 single family lots on 95 (gross) /61(net) acres. The gross density is 1.18 units /acre and the net density is 1.84 units /acre. The lots range in size from 10,075 net square feet to 57,813 net square feet. The single family lots are divided into six blocks which arrange the lots around natural features of the site. " The lots meet the guidelines 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 15 ' for a single family residential PUD except for lots which do not have 90' of width at the building setback. The lots which do not have 90' of width at the 30' setback line do have 90' at the 1 building site. Essentially, the developer is proposing to impose a larger than normal setback standard to relocate the line to a point where the lot widens out to 90'. Therefore, staff feels the intent of the regulation is being met. ' Lot 4, Block 2 contains an existing single family residence and pool. The residence is in good g g Y P g 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. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 contain the BMT site. The applicant has stated that BMT will remain at the site until they find a new site or until 1994. A condition of approval will be that Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6, be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The subdivision creates eight outlots (a -h). Outlots A through F will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and will be used as follows: ' Outlots A and F - Open areas used for entry monuments and landscaping. Outlots B and C - Large wetland and vegetated area preserved as open space. Outlot D - Wetland and vegetated area preserved as open space. 1 Outlot E - Private park and open space Outlots G and H will be owned by the applicant and are preserved for future development. The applicant is pursuing the acquisition of the Song property to expand the proposed development to the east. Lots 77 -83, Block 2 show extension of the lot lines into the adjacent ' property (Song property). The lot area in parenthesis reflects the addition of the Song property. The Song property should be removed from the plans until it is actually acquired by the applicant and then the plat can be amended if needed. ' Landscaping and Tree Removal The site contains several significant stands of trees. The applicant has stated that the layout of the site has taken into account the existing vegetation and has tried to locate streets and lots with the least impact to the site. The applicant has made changes to the proposed plans since Concept ' review and has reduced the amount of alteration to the site. Staff has also sketched alternative street and lot layouts and has found that the amount of alteration cannot be significantly reduced ' without removing a number of lots. The proposal already results in an unusually low gross and net density. Staff does not believe that overcrowding of the site is a problem and is not recommending that any lots be removed. 1 The proposed standards for residential planned unit developments provide specific landscaping requirements. The landscaping plan shows landscaping of Outlots A and F, the entrance median, 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 16 the cul -de -sac islands and along'the boulevard. The exterior landscaping along Hwy 41 needs to be revised to provide screening which does not include the existing trees within the Hwy. 41 right -of -way since these trees may be lost when/if the highway is improved. As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission and City Council are not requiring the applicant to provide foundation and rear yard landscaping due to the existing conditions of the site. The areas that are shown as tree preservation areas, on sheet 7 of the plans, will be protected by preservation .easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. GRADING, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, AND STREETS Utilities- Sanitary Sewer On September 28, 1992, the City Council received a feasibility report for providing trunk utility 1 improvements to service this development. The City Council also called for a public hearing to be held on October 26, 1992 to decide whether or not to authorize the project. The feasibility report estimates the project to be completed by August, 1993. The public improvements shown on the preliminary utility plan sheets could be constructed in conjunction with the trunk improvements in order to meet the scheduling needs of the applicants. The drainage and utility easements should be dedicated with the final platting process. The easement surrounding the lift station should be 25 feet wide on each side. The proposed sanitary sewer lines are fairly well - designed throughout the development although no provisions have been made for servicing adjacent parcels. Staff has reviewed aerial topography maps for the adjacent parcels and has determined that sewer and water stubs should ' be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant should extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary to serve a small portion of the adjacent property to the east. An individual sewer and water ' service should also be extended from Street D (cul -de -sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. This parcel would pay the appropriate connection and hook -up charges to the City at time of connection. The City will then refund a portion of the fees back to the applicant for reimbursement of the cost of installation of the sewer and water service. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and the existing home (Lot 4, Block 2) will be required to connect to the municipal sewer line within one (1) year of the sewer system being operational. The existing water system (well) on these parcels may be utilized until the well fails, then connection would be required. 1 All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detailed plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with final platting. 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 17 1 Utilities - Watermain The proposed municipal water system has been designed in general conformance with the recently approved feasibility study. The feasibility study proposes a 16 -inch watermain to be extended by the City along Street A from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41. This development proposes to connect on to the 16 -inch watermain to service each phase of the development. The applicant has proposed to loop the water system from Street B to Street A through Cul -de -sacs G and I. Fire hydrant spacing appears sufficient. Final review and approval ' of the fire hydrant locations will be subject to the City's fire marshal. Extension of municipal water service to the adjacent properties to the north should be extended with sanitary sewer services between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. 1 Grading and Drainage ' The applicant has submitted a revised grading/drainage plan since the conceptual review process. The revised preliminary grading plan has reduced the grading limits in some areas of the development. This was accomplished by reducing street grades and elimination of sedimentation 1 basin No. 7. As a result, tree loss has been somewhat reduced. In an effort to save trees staff has reviewed the possibility of shortening Street J and servicing the remaining four lots in the private drive. This however does not accomplish saving trees as so desired. It is recommended 1 that Street J be left as proposed. The entire site drains in a southerly direction through a series of wetlands. Approximately 2.60 ' acres of wetlands are proposed to be filled as a result of the development. The applicant is proposing 2.81 acres of mitigation to compensate for the filling of wetlands. The grading plans ' shall be revised to include mitigation areas. Staff is also concerned with the size of the sedimentation basins proposed. No drainage calculations have been submitted to verify sedimentation basin storage capacity or water quality standards are being achieved. This may ' result in larger sedimentation/retention basins than are shown on the proposed plans. The applicant shall provide the high water elevation for all wetlands to determine drainage easement limits and lowest floor elevations on the homes adjacent to the wetlands. 1 The grading plans also indicate realigning a drainage swale through Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 2. The new proposed drainageway brings the swale fairly close to the proposed homes. The ' appropriate drainage and utility easement over this drainageway will be required to maintain the drainageway. The applicant may want to consider shifting the drainage swale further from the building pads to allow for future anticipated decks or patios that would encroach the drainageway. The same scenario holds true for Lots 70, 71, 72 and 73, Block 2 and Lots 33, 34 and 35, Block 2. 1 The wetland mitigation sketches show existing and proposed drain tiles. The drain tile systems should also be shown on the final grading plan and record drawings be provided upon 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 18 completion. We question the purpose of the drain tile at this time since the purpose of the wetland is to retain water and habitat for waterfowl, wildlife, etc. We understand the need for drain tile prior to the development phase when the land was under agricultural use. The applicant should provide reasoning why the dram tiles are still necessary with this subdivision. From the City's maintenance perspective, the drain tiles are typically difficult to locate as well as maintain a small diameter of pipe. Plans propose storm runoff from the streets and lawns to be conveyed through a series of storm sewers which drain to six different sedimentation basins located throughout the site. As previously mentioned, some storm drainage and ponding calculations have not been submitted. The ponding sizes may vary depending on final calculations. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10 -year storm events and detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain surface water discharge rates at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed over the drainage areas as well as all storm sewers leading to and from the areas outside the street right -of -way. The storm sewer proposed through Lot 33, Block 2 should be extended to discharge into sedimentation basin No. 6. As proposed, the discharge would be in the middle of Lot 33. Drainage and utility easements should be provided along the centerline of the drainageway or storm sewer to a width sufficient to provide property maintenance and to provide protection from storm water runoff from a 100 -year storm, 24 -hour duration. Appropriate front, side and rear drainage and utility easements corresponding to lot lines should be provided with the final plat. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide in areas containing utilities with the exception where two utility lines may occupy the easement, i.e. sewer and water. In that case, a 30 -foot wide easement should be dedicated. 1 According to the EPA's federal guidelines, construction activities that are initiated after October 1, 1992 which disturb 5 acres or more need to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge 1 Elimination System (NPDES) permit administered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Due to the size of this development, the applicant will be required to apply. All erosion control measures should be designed to be consistent with the Chanhassen Best Management Practices handbook. Watershed District approval is required. Streets 1 The major thoroughfare (Street A) is designated as an east/west collector street providing future connection from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. According to the City's ordinance, collector -type streets shall be constructed 36 -feet wide face -to -face with an 80 -foot wide right -of- way. The plans proposed what appears to be a 36 -foot wide back -to -back street within a 60 -foot right -of -way. Staff is comfortable in granting a variance for this right -of -way in an effort to minimize setback and tree preservation. The plans propose a typical roadway section for Street 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 i Page 19 ■ A of 36 -foot wide back -to -back. Staff recommends that the street be widened to 36 -foot wide gutter -to- gutter to accommodate two 12 -foot lanes and one 10 -foot parking lane. The concrete 1 sidewalk is proposed along the north side of Street A. The sidewalk is proposed to be constructed within one foot of the property line. This will leave a 4 -foot green space between curb and sidewalk. The plans propose a series of landscaped islands in the cul -de -sac as well as in the center median on Street A at the Trunk Highway 41 entrance. Engineering Department staff strongly 1 recommends removing the island median in the cul -de -sacs. This creates snow plowing problems, safety hazards and possible liability risks to the City. The Public Works Superintendent has indicated that the islands as proposed will restrict movements of the plowing 1 equipment and require the plows to make pass between the island and the curbs, thus piling most of the snow in the homeowners' driveways. City plow crews typically utilize the entire cul -de- sac so as not to pile the snow in the homeowners' driveways. These islands will also create a ' parking problem. The street will have to be posted no parking to accommodate turning movements of garbage trucks, school buses and delivery vehicles, etc. Without the island, the vehicle would be able to maneuver to negotiate the cul -de -sac turning radius. As we are all aware, cul -de -sacs are fully utilized by the neighborhood children as play areas. The island will only be a magnet for children to play in and around. This will create a safety hazard with regards to vehicles utilizing the cul -de -sac not being able to see around the other side or when a homeowner is backing out of their driveway. The islands serve no purpose for traffic delineation, therefore, may result as a liability issue on behalf of the City. Islands also create added maintenance responsibility for the City. The ' applicant may desire to have the association maintain these islands. While Lundgren Bros.' developments appear to have cooperative homeowner associations, other developments may not. By allowing the island areas, the city is opening the door to all developments in the city. Engineering Department staff predicts the city will become overwhelmed with maintenance responsibilities requiring additional staff & equipment. The center median proposed along Street A at the entrance off Trunk Highway 41 has some of the same problems as previously mentioned. In addition, Outlot F at sometime will be built on and thus the vehicle will have to do u -turn at the first intersection in order to gain access to its lot. The applicant should delete the island median and construct an entry -type monument which should be place on one of the comer lots (Outlot A or F). 1 There currently exists a driveway to serve the existing building located on Lot 1, Block 6. This driveway will have to be relocated to access off Street A. Staff predicts turning movements at Trunk Highway 41 and Street A will require roadway improvements on Trunk Highway 41 such ' as deceleration and acceleration lanes and/or bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41. The applicant shall incorporate these improvements into the street construction plans accordingly. An 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 20 1 access permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for work proposed in MnDOT right -of -way. Street grades range from 0.80% to 6.4% which is in accordance with City codes. Street B is proposed as a 1500 -foot long dead -end street. Staff strongly recommends that Street I be extended to connect with Street G. The applicant is already proposing to extend sewer and water utilities along the same alignment. From a traffic engineering and safety standpoint, it is only prudent to have these two streets connected also. 1 Miscellaneous Addresses for the existing homes in the subdivision as well as the businesses will need to be changed when the new streets are completed adjacent the property. Plans propose erosion control barriers adjacent to the wetlands. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher quality types of wetlands. There appears to be an existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. The applicant will need to resolve vacating the private road easement prior to final plat. 1 The preliminary plat proposes drainage easements over all of the existing wetlands within the subdivision except for those on the outlots. Staff recommends that the applicant provide drainage 1 and conservation easements over all wetlands including those on the outlots. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 1 Park and Recreation Commission The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this proposal on August 11, 1992. A copy of the staff report presented that evening is attached. Residents were present at this meeting, as was Mr. Mike Pflaum, representing Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. One concern of the commission was in regard to the association or "private" park. It was their desire that the applicant be required to comply with the requirements of the 1992 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 1992 U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Guidelines for Playground Safety. The expectation that the applicant comply with the commission's request is reasonable. Upon conclusion of their discussion, Commissioner Schroers moved that the City Council require full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land dedication or trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. At the time of permit application, the current fees are $500 and $167 per lot, respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon: 1. The applicant indicating their intent to develop the private park area as indicated on the general development plan. 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 21 2. The applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail construction purposes along the western border of the subject property abutting the right -of -way of State Highway 41. 3. The inclusion of the private park does not diminish the requirements for public recreation and open space as part of a subdivision, therefore, no credit will be considered for the inclusion of this private facility. Mr. Pflaum did request that upon development of a trail along Highway 41, any unused portions of the trail easement be vacated. Staff acknowledged that this request would be honored but only ' for portions of the easement for which vacation would be reasonable. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT The City is currently reviewing amendments to the Wetland Protection Ordinance. These amendments were initiated due to new state regulations and new information on treatment and ' protection of wetlands. The proposed standards contain innovative guidelines which staff feels appropriate to apply to this proposal. By reviewing the proposal as a PUD, the city is able to apply different standards from the existing city code if deemed beneficial. The current city ordinance on wetland protection protects all wetlands of type 2 -8, any size. If there is any proposed alteration to a wetland, it must be mitigated with an equal amount of area. All structures are required to maintain a 75' setback from the edge of the wetland. The proposed ordinance protects all wetlands of type 1 -8, any size. This requires equal mitigation in area for a wetland of equal value or mitigation in the form of an improved wetland. The city's wetlands ' have been mapped and classified as either pristine, natural or ag/urban. Each classification has different standards in terms of setbacks, buffer strips and mitigation. One of the major changes in the new wetland ordinance is that the wetland setback has been reduced and a buffer strip, which is landscaped with native vegetation and protected by easement, has been added. There is strong evidence that this provides significantly higher levels of 1 protection for the wetland while improving the homeowners flexibility to use his or her lot. The following is a brief summary of the new standards: Pristine wetland- High quality wetland with unique features and little or no existing alterations. The pristine wetland basically cannot be touched and is further protected from adjacent development by a 100' setback and a 75' buffer strip which is required to contain native vegetation throughout the whole buffer strip. ' Natural wetland - High to moderate valued wetlands that have experienced some alteration, but offer or can be improved to offer high wetland values and functions. These wetlands may be impacted by development only when the city finds there is no reasonable or prudent alternatives. i 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 August 12, 1992 Page 22 Wetland mitigation must be designed to offer improved value and function and should not receive untreated surface water drainage. The Natural wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 10'- 25' buffer strip which is 1/2 native vegetation. 1 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 1 replacement/mitigation plans which improve value and function to allow reclassification to a Natural wetland. The Ag/urban wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 0' -15' buffer strip with optional native vegetation requirements. Utilized - Water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland qualities. No setbacks or buffer strip. The site contains 10 wetland basins. There are three natural wetlands (3, 5 and 6) and the remaining seven wetlands are ag/urban (la, lb, lc, 2, 4, 7, 7a, 8, 9 and 10). Wetlands 1A, 1B, 3A and 6 will be preserved. The applicant is proposing to slightly alter two of the three natural wetlands (3 and 5). The applicant is proposing to fill .25 acres of wetland 3. The area proposed for fill is a narrow drainage way which is part of the larger natural wetland. The area is proposed to be filled for a street and building pads. Staff does not object to this portion of the wetland being filled. The northerly portion of wetland 5 is proposed to be excavated for a storm water pond (.12 acres). The report prepared for the applicant by Summit Envirosolutions stated that the northerly portion of wetland 5 is an appropriate location for the proposed storm water pond. Staff has reviewed our wetland data and agrees the northerly portion of wetland 5 could be used for a ponding area. The storm water entering the pond is proposed to be pretreated and released into the wetland at the predeveloped runoff rate. The Engineering Department is concerned that the proposed ponding area may not be large enough for a 100 year storm. Should the ponding area be required to be larger, the additional ponding area must go to the north and cannot additionally impact wetland 5. The small area of fill to wetland 8 (.06 acres) is a result 1 of street construction. The street is shown in this location so that a future connection to the east will be feasible. Therefore, the street cannot be moved to prevent any alteration to wetland 8. The applicant is proposing to completely fill wetlands 4, 7, 7a and to partially fill and excavate PF P P g P Y P Y wetlands 1C, 2, 8, 9, and 10. After visiting the site, review of our wetland survey and the applicant's environmental assessment, it appears that the applicant is proposing to fill wetland areas which are in a degraded state and can be enhanced or replaced elsewhere on the site. The following table summarizes the proposed alterations: ' WETLAND AREA ALTERED REASON 1C .16 acres excavation for storm water pond 2.05 acres 2 .05 acres excavation for storm water pond 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 23 1 .21 acres filled for street 3 .25 acres filled for street and building pad 4 .17 acres filled for building pad 5 .12 acres excavated for storm water pond 7 .22 acres drained for lot 7A .08 acres drained for lot 8 .06 acres filled for street 9 & 10 1.23 acres filled for street, park, building pad and excavated for storm water pond TOTAL AREA ALTERED 2.97 acres ' For mitigation, the applicant is proposing to create 2.97 acres of wetland. The proposed wetland PP P P g areas are located within the large wetland located along the southerly border and to the south of ' "C" street. Attached to this report are details on the proposed mitigation. The proposed wetland mitigation replaces the altered wetlands in acreage but with some changes could greatly enhance ' the quality of the wetlands on the site. The proposed wetland just south of "C" street and directly adjacent to Hwy. 41 is receiving runoff through a tile line from Hwy. 41 and land across from Hwy. 41. This runoff will provide water to the wetland. The design of the pond is such that it could take on characteristics of a Natural wetland (6' depth, natural contours, etc.). Staff is recommending that the drain tile leading out of the new wetland to wetland la not be replaced. This will prevent water from being drained out of the wetland. If the applicant has a reason for the tile line remaining these should be presented to staff, but if there is no reason for the tile line, it should be removed. ' There is an existing source of water entering wetlands 7 and 7a from the Song property. This water is clean and is at a high enough rate to be present even during dry periods. The applicant is proposing to drain these wetlands for the creation of two lots and to redirect the drainage to ' the rear of the house pads and into the newly created storm water pond at the rear of lots 29 and 30, Block 2. Staff has concerns with drainage being directed to the rear of building pads because it is protected by an easement which prevents the use of this area by the resident and there is still ' a good chance that the basements could be flooded. Redirecting the drainage to the storm water pond is also a waste of clean, high quality runoff which would better serve the wetlands adjacent to lots 27 and 28, Block 2. Therefore, staff is recommending the runoff currently entering 1 wetlands 7 and 7a be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to lot 28, Block 2. Staff also noted that one of the submitted plans (wetland boundary and setback) still shows wetland 7 and that the lots can meet the required setbacks with the wetland being maintained. Another plan ' (wetland mitigation) shows wetland 7 being drained and removed. If wetland 7 can remain without affecting the lots, staff is recommending that this be done. The water entering the site ' will then continue to enter wetland 7 and the drainage can then be piped from wetland 7 to the new wetland to the south. This will result in less drainage problems to the house sites and be better for the water passing through the site. 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 August 12, 1992 Page 24 To further enhance the wetland mitigation proposed adjacent to wetland la, lb and lc, staff is recommending the three-proposed wetland basins have more depth than what is proposed (at least 6') and that the proposed wetlands to the north and south of wetland lc be combined with wetland lc and that this entire basin have a depth of at least 6'. Currently the proposed mitigation with the three basins will result in similar wetland characteristics as what currently exists within wetlands la, lb and lc. These wetlands are Ag/Urban type wetlands with monotypic vegetation and no open water. What staff is proposing will result in wetlands with natural wetland characteristics with more benefit to wildlife and which will be more aesthetically pleasing to the residents. The materials excavated from wetland lc for the storm water pond and from increasing the depth of the wetland can be placed in the newly created wetlands as an excellent base to the wetland and source of seeds for wetland vegetation restoration. The applicant has submitted a plan titled wetland boundary and setbacks. This plan illustrates the wetland boundaries and the proposed setbacks. The applicant has also submitted detailed information on each lot with a wetland as far as the buffer strip width and wetland setback (see compliance table). The new wetland ordinance regulations allow a reduced wetland setback from 75' to 40' (in most cases). In return for the reduced setback the applicant must provide a buffer strip which maintains a vegetative strip around the wetland for protection. The wetland setback does not include the buffer strip. Therefore, if the setback is 40' and the buffer strip is 10' the minimum setback for the principle structure(including deck) will be 50' from the wetland edge. The proposal submitted by the applicant included the buffer strip in the wetland setback. As a result, some of the building pads around wetlands are only 40' from the wetland edge. As an example, Lots 39, 40, 42, 43, Block 2, do not provide adequate setback from the proposed building pad. The applicant has been made aware of this and will be adjusting the plans to provide the required buffer strip and wetland strip. Reducing the right -of -way to 50' should help the applicant meet the wetland requirements. A revised plan should be submitted which shows 1 each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension and the proposed setback (not including the buffer strip) and dimension. It should be noted that the wetlands being created as mitigation must be included on this plan (they are not on the current plan). 1 As previously noted, the site contains Natural and Ag/Urban wetlands. The Natural wetlands are wetland 3, 5 and 6. The wetland ordinance requires different buffer strips for the two types of wetlands as follows: Natural Ag/Urban 1 Structure setback 40' 40' measured from measured from the outside the outside edge of the edge of the buffer strip buffer strip 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 25 Buffer Strip 10 -30' 0 -30' 1 Buffer Strip Minimum Avg. Width 20' 10' % of Native Vegetation in Buffer Strip Entire Optional The buffer strips around the Natural wetlands have to entirely contain native vegetation. It is P Y g optional how much of the buffer strip must contain native vegetation around the Ag/Urban ' wetlands. If the buffer strip already contains vegetation the applicant does not need to provide additional vegetation. Where vegetation does not exist around Natural wetlands, it will have to ' be added. Where it does not exist around the Ag/Urban wetlands, the applicant will have to work with staff to provide some areas of vegetation.The revised plans should show that they provide the minimum average buffer strip width and how they meet the vegetation requirement. Once the buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation will have to be approved by staff. 1 RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate 1 to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of preliminary 1 plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. 2. All conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat (#92 -4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions: 1. Lots 22 -24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58 -61, 66 -72, Block 2 shall maintain a 20 foot front yard setback. I 2. Each lot shall maintain a side and separation of 20 feet between each principal structure, Y P P P including decks. The applicant shall be required to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot separation is being maintained. 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 26 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right -of -ways from 60' to 1 50' and reduce the cul -de -sac radius from 120' to 100'. 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along Hwy. 41 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping plan must be approved by city staff. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by city staff. 6. The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2, shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing 1 of the final plat. 7. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 1 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings. 8. The area shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. 9. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees as the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement for future trail construction along the western border of the subject property abutting the right -of -way of State Hwy. 41. 11. The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility easements for construction of the lift station within the development. 1 12. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant shall extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul -de -sac) to provide service 1 to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. 13. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be g � g required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is operational. 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 27 1 14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans ' and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting. 15. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire Marshal. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory 1 agencies such as MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR and MnDOT. 17. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas as well as 1 show locations of existing and proposed drain tile systems. 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe 1 sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10- year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff ' rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 1 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to maintain the ponding areas. An easement shall also be provided along wetlands and each ' side of drainageways from the storm ponds or wetlands. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement area. In those areas the easement width shall be increased to 30 feet. 20. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to 1 sediment basin No. 6. 21. The applicant shall construct a 36 -foot wide gutter -to -gutter urban street section along ' Street A. The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards (31 -foot wide back -to- back). ' 22. Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses in accordance with the City grid system once the streets have been constructed with the first lift of asphalt. Driveways shall also be relocated to take access off the interior street (Street A). ' 23. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher - quality type wetlands. Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or lower quality wetlands and 1 sedimentation ponds. 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 August 12, 1992 Page 28 24. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. 25. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision, including outlots. 26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDOT. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul -de -sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This will depend on the size of the cul -de -sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parked in the cul -de -sac. 30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 31. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit. g P The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92- 9 with the 1 following conditions: 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland lA shall not be 1 replaced. 2. The runoff currently entering Wetlands 7 and 7A shall be piped to the newly created 1 wetland adjacent to Lot 28, Block 2. If possible, Wetland 7 shall be maintained in its current condition and location. 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 29 1 3. The 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 1B and 1C shall have a depth of at least 6 feet. The proposed wetlands to the north and south of Wetland 1C shall be combined with Wetland 1C and this entire basin shall have a minimum depth of at least 6 feet. ' 4. A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback and dimension (not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. 5. The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer strip required is 1 being provided and shall provide details on how the vegetation requirement of the buffer strip is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning." PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning, preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit on October 7, 1992. After lengthy discussion over the conditions proposed by staff the Planning Commission made the following recommendations: Rezoning Unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning with staff's conditions. 1 Preliminary Plat The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Several ' of the conditions were modified and condition #33 was added which requires cul -de -sacs G and I be removed and that the two streets be connected. Batzli and Erhart were opposed to the motion. Mr. Batzli opposed the motion because he felt the last time the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal it was generally agreed that the cul -de -sacs could remain. Mr. Erhart opposed the motion because he felt we were going too far and were protecting trees over people by promoting the use of 20' front yard setbacks. Wetland Alteration Permit 1 The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval to the wetland alteration permit with a modification to condition #3. 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 August 12, 1992 Page 30 i CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION 111 Staff is recommending the City Council adopt the following motions. The proposed conditions have been changed to reflect the Planning Commission modifications. The changes in the conditions by the Planning Commission are shown in bold. "The City Council approves of the rezoning (#92 -5) from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. 2. All conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. 1 The City Council approves preliminary plat ( #92 -4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions: , 1. The front yard setback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the street right -of -way. The intent being to minimize the impact on the natural features of constructing a new home on each home site. The tots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lots 1, 14 -19, 37 -43, 52 -57, 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78 -81, Block 2. In addition to these lots, staff recommends similar flexibility on the following lots: Lots 22 -24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58 -61, 66 -72, Block 2. Each lot shall maintain a side and separation principal structure, of 20 feet between each rinci 2. Eac t y p p p including decks. The applicant shall be required to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot separation is being maintained. 1 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right -of -ways from 60' to 50' • - _ - . - = - • - = • • - • . . - - !' - e V. except Street A and maintain the cul -de -sac radius at 120 feet. Cul -de -sacs must be large enough to facilitate turning around of all emergency vehicles in the City of Chanhassen, taking into consideration cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning radius, and that no parking signs may be required. 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along Hwy. 41 1 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping plan must be approved by city staff. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by city staff. 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 31 1 6. The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2, shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing of the final plat. 7. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings. 8. The area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. Precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed upon between the developer and staff. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads 9. PP P p or similar other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees as the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement for future trail construction along the western border of the subject property abutting the right -of -way of State Hwy. 41. 11. The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility easements for construction of the lift station within the development. 12. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots ' 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant and city engineering staff shall work together regarding shall extending the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul -de -sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. 1 13. - - ' , : - . _ - - - , - - • .. - The existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is operational. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be removed after January 3, 1994. 1 14. Except for the condition in Recommendation 3 above, All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's ' Standard Specification and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting. 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 August 12, 1992 Page 32 15. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire Marshal. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory 1 agencies such as MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR and MnDOT. 17. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas and any 1 known or . - • - - - . • - - = - - _ • - proposed drain tile systems. Furthermore, the developer shall also report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10- year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to maintain the ponding areas. An easement shall also be provided along wetlands and each side of drainageways from the storm ponds or wetlands. Easements for drainage and 1 utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement area. In those areas the easement width shall be increased to 30 feet. 1 20. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No. 6 or some alternative design acceptable to the City Engineer shall 1 be developed. 21. The applicant shall construct a 36 -foot wide gutter -to- gutter urban street section along Street A. The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards (31 -foot wide back -to- back). 1 22. Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses in accordance with the City grid system once the streets have been constructed with the first lift of asphalt. Driveways shall also be relocated to take access off the interior street (Street A). 23. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher - quality type wetlands. Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or lower quality wetlands and sedimentation ponds. 24. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 33 1 25. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision, including outlots, except for Outlots G and H which shall be replatted in 1 the future. 26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development ' contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 1 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk 1 Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDOT. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning proposed radius of the osed cul -de -sacs with center islands must be , P approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be 1 required. This will depend on the size of the cul -de -sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parked in the cul -de -sac. 30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 31. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable 1 boxes, landscaping. 32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit. 33. Cul -de -sacs G and I be eliminated and that I Street and G Street be connected. The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #92- 9 with the following conditions: 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland lA shall not be replaced. 2. The runoff currently entering Wetlands 7 and 7A shall be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to Lot 28, Block 2. If possible, Wetland 7 shall be maintained in its current condition and location. 1 3. The 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 1B and 1C shall have an undulating a depth of at least 6 feet. ; - _ - . - - -- •. - - • • ; - • • - - • - - = - - 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 August 12, 1992 Page 34 1 4. A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback and dimension (not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. 5. The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer strip required is 1 being provided and shall provide details on how the vegetation requirement of the buffer strip is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning." 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 19, 1992. 2. City Council minutes dated September 14, 1992. 2A. Applicant's proposed changes to concept plan recommendations. 3. Tree removal table. 4. Compliance table. 1 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 30, 1992. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman October 1, 1992. 7. Memo from Mark Littfin dated October 1, 1992. 1 8. Narrative from applicant. 9. Planning Commission minutes dated October 7, 1992. 10. Plans dated September 8, 1992. 1 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 11 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 So., 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 Galpin 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 sot 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. 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. 1 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 II 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. , 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 u'. Please proceed. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name i' 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. To 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 IF 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 11 be most familiar with it. It's approximately 300 and some acres. 360 acres. Approximately 450 dwelling units and 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 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 see 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 ' 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 not a lot of grading here but just right in the front of that sidewalk we ' were able to put in some retainane and maintain the least impact possible to that significant tree. This is a home that's typical of an open area in 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 ' 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 Planning Commission Meeting 1 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 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 we with all the other homes on the market. I won't get into elaborating in 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 asset 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 a' 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 ' 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 ll 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 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. 1 Terry Forbord: John, maybe we could pause there for a minute and just show where the collector goes. 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? 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. 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 ' the study area, as brought out before and we're at 113 lots and if you 11 Planning Commission Meeting , August 19, 1992 - Page 48 1 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. T 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 IL 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 folded into our approach to the property. The wetland conditions, we'd like to have Ron II tell you now how that mitigation and which wetlands are being treated in different fashion. 1 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 agriculture use. And virtually every wetland on this site has tile graded to some pipe. For that reason, some of these wetlands have been greatly benefittr 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 general, we've attempted where we can avoid impacts, to orient those impacts towards the most degraded basins. So 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 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 thli area and he had similar reaction...difficult to make a determination... oil 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 t 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 drainage from the face of the three. The next one over is a small seepage flooded' 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 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 49 is this drainage coming i n from off site That's 9 e to the east. at 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 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 ' 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 1 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 these 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 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 19, 1992 - Page 50 11 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 11 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 hom 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 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 o' 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 thei 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 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 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 fee 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 Igts. 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 heat 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 for 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 mall 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 differenil 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 51 product on these variety of lots. If we went ahead and put in 90 foot lots t 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 really 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. 1 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 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 little bit and that certainly is in step with what the staff and the city have been suggesting as far as preservation... 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 maintain a minimum of 20 feet between homes and we're assuring you that y u would have that. John Uban: Specifically on the entrance, I just want to share with you some of the design and how it works. There's a single spot on TH 41 tha 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 g a view that comes right across into the wetlands and this is part of our 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 t n 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't 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 • do some planting along the back sides of the property, and that's what w 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 ri t 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 wilt 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 material. 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 a 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 I 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 1 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 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 that 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 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 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. ' 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 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. Gravid 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 Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 19, 1992 - Page 54 1 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 them 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 Ado"' 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 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 II 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 IF 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. 1 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 it 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 II 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 street. 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 discharge 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 existi 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 11 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? 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 he 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 PUO 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. 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' August 19, 1992 - Page 56 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' 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 yo can. And also I am concerned about the assessments that will come with 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 wells 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 available to us if this projects goes in? You will have a little bit of problem I think as far as drainage from these properties. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the I 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 bill 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 wil� 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 al Olsen: No, we did not. • 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 di It seems to me that the purpose of the PUD, as far as the City goes, is 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' Planning Commission r•,eeting August 19, 1992 - Page 57 the staff. As far as the cul -de -sac and co nnecting 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. ' 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. 1 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. 1 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 5250,000.00 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 nee that that would be reasonable. ' 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 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 the' you develop, I hope that by that time anyway, is that frontage road woul 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 1r 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 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., 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' 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 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. • 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 we 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 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 at 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 11 everybody else's. We can, all of us can get in our cars and drive all ov 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 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 meetings. And then that would be the last time you see it. 1 Emmings: But as far as, just so we're clear on what we're doing, we're looking at it as a concept? 1 Krauss: It's set up as a concept. Batzli: It was published as a concept. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 60 Emmings: Okay. Y. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? 1 Batzli: Yeah. Terry Forbord: I would like to point out that the ordinance allows an 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' 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 1 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. ' 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 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 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 availab* 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 t come to that public hearing. And the Council makes the final determinati'n 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, I 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 usually" 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. 11 II Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 61 II Hempel: If I just may add to that. I believe the acceptance or consideration of acceptance of the feasibility study is scheduled for II September 14th City Council meeting. Conrad: Parks. The Park and Rec has identified, is there a neighborhood park in the area? I Krauss: No. II Conrad: Will there be? Olsen: Well it wouldn't be a neighborhood park. What they're providing is I 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. Aanenson: I think you also should look at the fact that Minnewashta Regional Park is close. II Olsen: Kitty corner, yeah. Krauss: This is the first private park if you will that the Park Board has I 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. II 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 II outside this area. Krauss: The other property in this area that could theoretically benefit II 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 I 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. 1 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 1 guess, you know it's sort of the PUD. We an 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 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 I 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 II but that's just my point. I like the center islands. I always have. II Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 62 I think it makes it attractive and I know there's no engineering g ing group 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. , Batzli: And cul -de -sacs too? Conrad: Yeah. I think they look neat and they can be an asset. So thos' are my two off the wall comments... Erhart: Okay, well other than the late hour, I'd like to say that Lundgrn Bros., and thank them for really, they've spent an enormous amount of ti 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 t brought in practically their whole staff on another evening to describe w 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 ' 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' really what all remains in the whole city. So I think we're learning a lit 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 o 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 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 Pll 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 something' 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 engineerin' 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. , 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 gill in this kind of area with the slopes and the wetlands and stuff, can do a 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 t .1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 63 wetlands over a large number of houses agree that uses so I think agr t at 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 I 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 1 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... 1 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 II August 19, 1992 - Page 64 II 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 issull Erhart: Okay. My question here in, we talk a lot about saving trees. was a little surprised that someone stated here that we were going to lo 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 cost? Can you do that? Do you know where the building I pads are going to be? • John Uban: Generally yes. Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros.. Even though we are iJ 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 tak the time. It's not specific because we haven't been out and surveyed ea � 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 s e room for error. But a fairly good idea of .what you're going to be takin 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 rea y 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. 1 Erhart: Losing 1/3 of the trees, that includes the trees lost for buildi,g 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 II putting in different homes like ramblers. Not ramblers but not having walk 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. 1 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 II streets and utilities versus the housepad? John Uban: About a third for a street system. Actual street and then till rest. Eden Prairie for instance. They are very aggressive when it comes II II Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 65 II to fitting development into existing woods. Aggressive in the sense that they have very strict rules and very...method of figuring things out. So II 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... II 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 11 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 1 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 II 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 II 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 I 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 I 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 II 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 II 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. II Erhart: Can we get what the other Planning Commissioners. Some direction. I Batzli: Oh, I like islands. Emmings: I like islands. 1 Erhart: Jeff? Farmakes: I think they look just fine. Personally I don't like I 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. II 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. II Planning Commission Meeting , August 19, 1992 - Page 66 Erhart: Okay, then to go through your recommendations. I think most of them look reasonable. 5 maybe add lot widths so each lot has a minimum o 90 feet at the normal 30 foot building setback. Jo Ann, maybe that's... We talked about the 20 foot. 16. I would not connect I and G. On 17, delete islands, we talked about that. So that's it. Thank you. This guy extracts all this stuff out of me from Target when I had little to say, alr now I have something to say and you guys laugh. Batzli: Thank you Tim. I just have a couple of quick comments or questions. One is, there was talk of a lot of tiling on the site. What the effect going to be when we start grading it? Are we going to take ou the draintile and how is that going to effect the wetlands? Is this going to effect which wetlands still exist or is that being calculated into the runoff through the NURP ponds or whatever we're putting in? Olsen: We haven't looked at that in detail yet. Batzli: Okay. Have you guys looked at that in detail? Ken Adolf: I'm Ken Adolf. I'll address it from the engineering point ofl view. As far as the drain tile, I think it would be best when the drain tile are found, to try to maintain them, especially they can be routed into some storm sewer and then go into ponds. The drain tile is providing a function in kind of draining the on site soils and if you just arbitraril, block that, it could cause water table to rise in some area that we don't know about. So I think we take some care to try to maintain those and connect them into the new storm sewer and drain it into ponds. As far a the impact on the volume requirements for the NURP ponds and so forth, th drain tile typically drains at a very slow rate over a period of time so as compared to the runoff you get from a rainfall, it's very low volume so 11 really wouldn't impact the storage requirements for the NURP ponds. Batzli: Okay. Are we going to require or are we going to need to requir, some sort of easement over these drain tiles if we're going to try to maintain them? Have we ever done that before? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we have. We have numerous drain tile systems within the city and we constantly are uncovering them. We d have problems in the future once the development is in and the home building starts and these drain tiles are uncovered in building sites. A the homeowners are subject then to a drain tile system and sump pump that pumps 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Their only recourse is to pump it usually out into the city street and the City then has ramifications of repairing that. Connecting them to a storm sewer system or something. I fact we are considering in some of these areas to look at requiring a dra tile system behind the curb just for these situations that come up where they're excavating large amounts of fill along the sides of hills that mall expose a seam where there's ground water problems or drain tile problems. So it's starting to be a problem for us I guess from a city maintenance standpoint and we are having some injuries from pedestrians and bicyclist" with these drain tile systems draining out into the city streets. Batzli: Have we looked at, I know we've spoken about this at the City Council /Planning goal session or what have you, to have everyone's sump ' Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 67 11 pump drain into the storm water, storm sewer system. Has that been looked at all for this particular area? ' Krauss: Actually there's some changes in the Building Code that they're looking at. It's now mandatory for every new house that you pipe a sump pump to the outdoors. Batzli: Understood. Krauss: Which it didn't used to be. You used to get a sump pot and then it was up to you and most people just dumped it in the laundry tub which causes problems. ' Batzli: Right. Krauss: What Dave is referring to is situations that run all winter long. ' We've had icing situations. Batzli: That's why I'm asking. Can we require them to put it into the storm sewer directly and not into the street? Krauss: If it becomes an issue, I suppose we could. We haven't tried that yet. Hempel: I believe that's something the City Engineer is trying to get on the books. • 1 Batzli: Thought I'd ask. The private park I'm sure is an interesting concept. I'm not quite sure how it works. I'm not sure how it ties into the development to the east or to the south. I don't necessarily like the idea that this is private to the exclusion of someone bicycling in from the neighborhood next door. Although it may not be very likely to happen, but the possibility would exist for in essence the neighbors to say, get out of 1 here. This is private. That kind of troubles me. I think I like the price range that's going in here. I like the development in general. I think a lot of work's been put into it. I like the treatment of the wetlands. The one thing that did concern me regarding the streets, I actually like the cul -de -sacs. I like the islands. One thing that concerned me about the street was the way that this, I don't know what we're calling it a collector, or what are we calling it, the one Street A? Olsen: Collector. ' Batzli: What kind of traffic are we expecting on that street? Krauss: It really should not generate significant thru trips. You're talking about serving this neighborhood and the adjacent neighborhoods. Now emergency vehicles will be able to transit through there if they need to. Delivery vehicles. But there's really no reason for, especially when the new frontage road is built, there's really no reason for anybody else to use it. Batzli: Okay. So this bridge is going to have to be built for pretty heavy duty stuff if it has to, firetrucks - and what have you anyway. r 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 68 II Krauss: Right, there's no question of that. Batzli: The location of the roadway into the Song property. Has that bell looked at by that landowner and they're comfortable with where that's going in there? II Krauss: Well yeah, I don't want to speak for the Song's. I believe they're out of the country right now but we did have a meeting. We being myself, engineering staff, Terry Forbord and the Songs were both present." And we did look at options for getting the road through there and I understood that they were comfortable with it. Frankly it's really the only place to put it. It's a very tough route to take to get through. II Anything else causes significant damage. ' Batzli: Regarding conditions 5, 6, 7 and 8, I think those should be look at individually. I think probably the City and the developer are thinkin of the same things here as far as how to combine those conditions so that they treat the wetlands sensitively and maintain some space inbetween the houses. So I guess I've already said I like the center islands. Has the been, the trail system through this neck of the woods. That is just running along TH 41 now? Olsen: That's correct. II Batzli: There wouldn't be a trail system coming along Street A at all? il Olsen: There will be a sidewalk. Not a park trail system. Batzli: Is that one of the things that you had a problem with Terry? Thil sidewalk along Street A. Terry Forbord: Typically we do not like to have trails or sidewalks in o developments because the people who live there don't want them. Usually y people who use trails enjoy them but they prefer they're in somebody else's neighborhood. However, we believe that this particular sidewalk probably makes some sense because it's...I think there is some merit to having a II sidewalk along...to go from one side to the other without having to be on the street. John Uban: We think it should be on the north side. 1 Terry Forbord: ...because the park's on that side. II Batzli: Those are my comments. Does anyone else have anything? Anyone have a motion? JI Erhart: Again, it goes back to just a question of, why do we want to ado a motion? Batzli: Because you're going to love Steve's wording that you're just II about to hear. Erhart: Great, let's hear it. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 69 Emmings: I move that the Planning ommission recommend approval of the 9 PP 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 that have been made. Erhart: You took the words right out of my mouth. I'll second it. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 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 that have been made. 1. Reduce the amount of tree removal currently proposed through reduction of grading, use of retaining walls, removal and shortening of cul -de -sacs, different housing styles, lowering of street grades, and reconfiguration of lot sizes and locations. 2. Provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types, number and caliper of trees over 6" caliper being removed. 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 11 setback. 6. Demonstrate that each lot provides a 30' rear yard setback and that there is a 30' exterior setback. 7. Reduce the front yard setback for all lots on local streets to 20'. 8. Maintain a minimum 10' side yard setback for all lots and that all accessory buildings and structures will maintain a 10' setback. ' 9. Revise the landscaping plan so that it provides the landscaping required for a residential PUD (boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping foundation and yard plantings, tree preservation) and ' provide a proposal for a budget for foundation plantings. 10. Provide architectural covenants. • ' 11. Locate the extension for watermain service along the east side of Trunk Highway 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. Planning Commission Meeting II August 19, 1992 - Page 70 II 14. Provide storm drainage and ponding calculations to verify pipe sizing and pond volumes and extend storm sewer lines to the detention ponds II minimize erosion along the slopes. 15. Provide a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street A. 16. Review the connection I and G street to provide a 3% or less grade foI the first 50' at intersections. 17. Delete the center median islands on A street and all cul -de -sacs. 1 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer strips and protection of wetland. II 19. Provide as built locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads 20. Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Department." All voted in favor except Ahrens who abstained and the motion carried. li PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO DEFINE DOCK SETBACK ZONE, AND; II ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING FENCE REQUIREMENTS. Batzli: The other two, they're public hearings so I just want to make sul that there's no one in the audience that has come to discuss either the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to define dock setbacks or fence requirements.' No? Okay. Seeing no one in the crowd, is there a motion to table those two items until our next meeting? Emmings: Yeah. I'll make that motion but, I want to just say that it 1 seems to me that the way that dock setback zoning ordinance amendment is written, is very, very confusing. I think it really needs some serious work. 1 01sen: Yeah, we've gotten a lot of comments on it. Aanenson: We would have recommended that it be tabled anyway. Emmings: Yeah, there's at least, the 100 feet makes no sense. It doesn' you know, I don't know if there's anything that needs to be said here abo situations where you have shared docks. Aanenson: Yep, that's what we're going to put in. An exception or I exclusion in for a common dock... Emmings: Also, look very carefully and decide whether you mean, if these" are the extended lot lines and you go in 10 feet, from the definition it sounds like it's the area in here that's the dock setback zone but it's not. The 10 feet on each side, so I think it really needs a lot of work. 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 I! Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve the contract with the Carver County Sheriffs Department for 32 hours of police contract service for 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' jCONCEPTUAL PUD FOR 113 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 63 (NET) ACRES. EAST I � ,SIDE OF HIGHWAY 41 ADJACENT TO BMT AUTOMOTIVE. LUNDGREN BROTHERS DEVELOPMENT ON G �t THE JOHNSON/DOLEJSI/TURNER PROPERTY. ' II Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission reviewed this and did recommend unanimously, recommended approval for the concept plan. The applicant, this is the first stage of a review for a planned unit development and it's just a conceptual plan for you to determine whether or not you want to accept it as a planned unit development. Staff in the report did recommend approval that it be rezoned to PUD. We feel that the site does contain some sensitive features that the applicant has been able to work around using some of the relaxed standards of the Zoning Code through the planned unit development. We have several conditions as part of the approval for the concept plan. Mostly it's just recommendations for changes in the new submittal that they have actually made at 11 this time and they have already addressed several of these conditions. The Planning Commission again did recommend unanimously that it be approved for the concept plan. Some of the conditions that they commented on, that we would also hope that the Council give direction to staff on. The connection of the cul -de -sac I and G. We are still recommending that those do be connected. It is two long cul -de -sacs that will be difficult for buses to, they will not be able to gp down there and for the children to... Another one of the things that 1 was mentioned or discussed was the cul -de -sac islands. The Planning Commission generally felt that the cul -de -sac islands should be permitted. They liked them. Staff had been recommending that they be removed because there has been ' some difficulty from an engineering perspective as far as snow removal, emergency access and those type of items. The PUD does meet all the items for a planned unit development. The density is quite low. They are not really utilizing a lot of the smaller lots. It's more so to get flexibility of some of 11 the setbacks and to work around some of the vegetative areas. In summary, we are again recommending approval with the conditions that are on page 19, 20 and 21. The applicant is here to answer any questions. I think he does still have some comments on the conditions that staff are proposing and then again we would just like some direction on some of those conditions from Council. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. And with that, are we going to see what this is all about? What the conceptual plan is. Do we have anything at all? Jo Ann Olsen: Do you want the plans? I've got all the. Mayor Chmiel: Are you going to put that up so other people can see it? ' Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant also has slides if you're interested in that, he can set that up. Mayor Chmiel: Which would be better? Jo Ann Olsen: Oh, I think this is fine. The location of the property and it's surrounded by State Highway 41 and Highway S. The northern part of the property is where the applicant is proposing to develop at this time. The southern part 11 15 - - - - -- — - City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 is in the 1995 study area on the comprehensive lan that's going , at s g 1 g to remain as outlot. Nothing's being proposed for that at this time. He's showing a preliminary plat with some of the features of the site. One of the concerns that staff had with this was that the extensive vegetation that was going to be...and the applicant has been working with that... Do you want more? Mayor Chmiel: No, I think that covers it fine. It is your time. 1 • Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry Forbord and I'm Vice President of Land Development for Lungren Bros. at 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata, Minnesota. And out of courtesy and respect for the schedule that you have, I know you have a lot of items coming up behind me. I have a 2 hour presentation but I don't think that it's, I just don't know 1 what, how many questions you have and I'd be happy to go as much into detail as the Council would wish. This is a concept plan approval. We have already submitted our preliminary plat to the city and they are reviewing it at this time so I will be before you very shortly again with the preliminary plat approval. So at this time I think I would just ask the Council how far they would like me to go at this time because I'd leave that up to the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I guess I have a few questions in relationship to some of the sizes of the lots in comparison. Some of those being what, 11,000 square feet. Which is about another 4,000 and I guess my concerns with some of those particular lots, wanting to know what size those lots were in themselves. And if considerations had been given to many of the things that we sit up here and have people coming back for all those good things such as their decks and things that they want to do and yet we sometimes cannot allow them to do. And as I had been a strong advocate of the 15,000 square foot lots within the city, I feel strongly about that and I would maybe like to see some of those 11,000 square foot lots be upped and some of those larger lots be cut back. And there is a whole host and assortment of different sizes of lots. But that's some of my concerns. Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I have four questions too. I guess I'll just bring them t out and then you can answer them throughout your presentation. I'd like to know where you are in the petition process for the extension of the utilities because that will certainly effect this. Would you also please give us the results of the neighborhood meetings you've had with the neighbors and how they've been going. I'd like an explanation of the cul -de -sac islands and how they'll impact the safety. And also, is this project likely to force assessments on existing neighbors with sewer hook -ups, etc.. Terry Forbord: Those are good questions and I think that I will set up my projector and kind of prepare for some of the things, because each one of those kind of leads to another question. And for me to adequately address them, I will need the visual aids that I have. Jo Ann Olsen: Maybe to answer one of your questions Mr. Mayor that you were bringing up, as he's setting this up. As far as the lot sizes. One of the things that we were looking at with this PUD was that there was always still buildable area for a 60 x 40 pad which we were feeling that's necessary to provide to prevent variances in the future and they are providing that. And a 1 16 11 11 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 lot of the larger lots actually are wetland areas or vegetated or preserved so I don't know how easy it would be to reduce those and put that elsewhere. Terry Forbord: The other thing I need to do, in case you haven't figured it out, is stall a little bit for time because all these high priced consultants that I've got are coming from different Council meetings. Oh, there's one of them. Before I get into this, probably the biggest issues or the burning issues that the Council will have related to the plan itself, is the lot size and why are certain things the way that they are. Many of you have heard me address some of these things before and just talking conceptually about PUD's, or in other neighborhood communities that we have brought before you. PUD's are really a hassle to do from a developer's standpoint because the process that we have to go through is certainly more complex. It costs more money. There's money documentation. Really the ordinances and the codes are kind of set aside in the city, the legislative authority of the city can pretty much be put on the developer in the manner that the city determines. Whereas if I just came in as a standard subdivision, I could by the code and the subdivision and basically the city would be in a position where they'd probably legally have to approve it as long as I met the code and the ordinance. So you know, people say well, why in the heck do you go through all this then in doing a PUD? It takes more time. It's more costly. Well, it's very simple for a company like ours. In order for us to be successful at Lundgren Bros., we find that we have to do something different than what all of our competition is doing. It's really that I elementary. If we were just to go in and put in normal lots and no other pizzaz or any of the things that most of our buyer profile says that they want, then we'd be just like everybody else. It's just as a business, what we're trying to 11 find and we interview and survey all of our clientele 2 or 3 times a year. SaY what is it that you want from us? What can we do? What can we provide you with to make the investment that you're making in the community the quality of life that you want better than our competition. Well, the down side of that is all of those things have a price to pay. There's a price to pay for all of those things, whether they be tennis courts. Whether they be volleyball. Whether they be skating rinks. Whether they be intense landscaping and berms and 1 entrance mocumentation and irrigation and all those other things. They all cost a lot of money. So one of the benefits for us, when we go into a situation like this, along with being able to provide open space and special little amenities ' in our neighborhoods that normally we could not provide elsewhere under standard subdivision rules and regulations, the PUD allows us to be a little flexible and allows us to divert a little bit from lot sizes and /or setbacks and often times we're able to get a few more lots. .Not always, because if you look at the density, the density is extremely lot, but sometimes those additional generations of revenue enables us to do some of those other things. That's only one aspect of it. From a city like Chanhassen's standpoint, and I've talked directly to you about this before on a neighborhood community that you probably recall being referred to as Ortenblat/Ersbo, which we now are marketing as Willow Ridge. The reason we did a PUD there is just purely from an ' environmental standpoint, it was easily to do that and defer from the standard regulations and be more sensitive to the existing conditions. And this site is not unlike that. I'm going to go to the slides at this time, just to kind of give you an overview of the particular site and it's existing condition. This ' represents aerial view, helicopter, we flew the site...just some photography so it would be easier to explain to folks on the Planning Commission and the neighbors, Planning Commission and the City Council the general lay of the land 17 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 and why we are proposing this neighborhood community in the manner in which we do. We also do this, not just to explain to you but in the initial stages we want to see ourselves. I mean many of you have seen aerial photogrpahy, satellite photography and you can kind of get a feel for it then but when we start doing this type of analysis, you really get a different feel for it. It's very helpful from a planning, and those of you who are familiar with us, we spend a lot of time in just planning. Before it gets to you, we've probably gone through 10 to 20 different concepts and staff often times see those through the process because we come in and say, what do you think of this. What do you think of that so we've usually done probably more concepts planning than what typically is done. But you can see right here is Highway 41. You have Lake Minnewashta over here. This mass of water is the sprawl of Lake Minnetonka to the north. Right along through here there's a power line that goes, you can see the power poles and this one quite readily. This property from here northward, up to about right through Lake Harrison is commonly known as the Song property. North of that is the Carlson property. The subject property of what we are before you tonight is kind of cuts right through this wooded diagonal here and up like this. And right in this general area is what is called the Johnson/ Dolejsi/Turner property and it consists of approximately 95 acres of land. A couple points before I change this slide here. I don't know what you can see from that angle of where you are but right here is a ravine. Then it goes up only about a 75 foot distance. Maybe 100 feet. It goes up approximately 70 feet. And then right into here there's another ravine. And then it goes up very abruptly another 65 -70 feet or another 50 -60 feet. Then there's a big wetland here. There's a wetland actually within these trees. There's actually a wetland here and a couple other potholes and there's an inferior wetland complex in this area. And we'll get to those items here in a minute. Here's the existing house so if you were out in front here, you could kind of see this topography and how it changes. It's really an interesting phenomenum. The same thing occurs on the Song property over through here. This is the Song home right on the edge here. This is looking from the north towards the south. This is Highway 41. We have Highway 5. The subject property would be like this and like this. You can see this large wetland here, here, and there are a couple of scattered ones throughout the site that are difficult to see in this particular photograph. And here's the power line. You may note by looking at both slides, most of this was all farmland at one time and in fact a dairy farm that was owned by the Donnelly family. And it consisted of a larger parcel than what we now are submitting to you this evening in the planned unit development. And it was grazed a lot in certain areas and it was not grazed in others. So there are certain tree stands that, there's nothing here that's stunning. There's no big woods or anything like that but there certainly are some little areas of groupings of trees that are worth spending some time at trying to save them. For us because there are so few trees, we work very, very hard to try to same them. And the wetlands are interspersed in a somewhat unusual way primarily because of the topography that I described to you earlier. The initial plans that we submitted to the staff and they reviewed them and they • came back with some ideas on how they thought that we may minimize some of the grading and maybe lessen some of the impact on certain vegetated areas. We embraced those ideas to the extent that we were able to. Oftentimes at this conceptual stage I might add, you don't really get into exactly which tree is going to go and which one isn't. You get into that more in the design stage. The final design stage. But the diligence of the staff, they're trying to get as much of that up front, at this point in time as possible so we've worked with 18 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 them and identified those things and we've actually changed the grading plan that has been submitted just within the last few days as part of the preliminary 11 plat which you'll be seeing shortly, to minimize that. So that kind of gives you a general idea of the site from that direction. I'm not sure if I need to go any further. You can really see the topography on this particular shot. Now again, why are we doing this as a PUD. Anytime you have such constraints like this, I have a couple options. What I can do is what I said earlier, and we've actually developed this plan. We didn't bring it to show it to you because we knew you wouldn't want it anyway but we do have this plan. I could make all the lots 15,000 square feet. Make them all exactly 90 feet at the setback. I could get more lots on this site than are in this proposal and I could maintain my setbacks from the wetlands and the streets and sideyards and everything, but what you would end up with is a vanilla subdivision. Every lot would look identical to the next lot. There'd be more grading than what you're seeing on this proposal and it just wouldn't certainly be what we would want to propose to the City or what we know that our buyer types would want. You look at the other neighborhoods we've done in your community, Near Mountain in particular, and we look at that and we see a bunch of mistakes there. I mean we see a lot of things that we would never do today. We would do a such better job. And yet that's still recognized, even today as a nationally acclaimed neighborhood community and it still gets coverage. But we see a lot of mistakes there so what we're trying to do is get better at it. But the reason we do the PUD is to ' cover the issues that we've just addressed and actually with your staff, it's refreshing because they come back to us with ideas that, like reduced front yard setbacks, which we normally propose. I've never proposed that here in Chanhassen because I've never received or had it embraced by the Planning Commission or Council. But we do it in every other community we work in. Staff came back with the idea here because they know it will help keep the structures away further from the wetland. It will save a bunch of trees and things like 11 that. Those are very creative solutions to problems we're all trying to solve. Let me see who has, okay I've got some of my consultants here with me. The question regarding lot size. I think I'm going to defer that to John Uban and John can address lot size. And just for their benefit, being that they've just received here, there's been some questions asked right up front due to lot size and why are the lots the way that they are. There were questions about the status of the petition for public improvements and I think the consultants are here for the city. They can probably address that better than we can. There was discussion about the neighborhood meeting. Cul -de -sac islands and assessments on neighbors. Before I give up the podium to John Uban, I'll just tell you a little bit about the neighborhood meetings. As most of you probably know, we typically always have a neighborhood meeting or even more than one on every neighborhood community we develop. And really it's because we sometimes learn something from them. We find out what they don't like and what they do like and we think that it actually saves time, not just for us but it saves time for the Planning Commission and the Council because we try to address the issues before we come before you. There were some concerns by 3 or 4 neighbors about certain things, primarily related to drainage. A couple neighbors said that they would prefer that they would all be acreage lots and that's a normal concern that you see on any growing community that's urbanizing. But generally speaking, I felt that the neighbors felt tbat it was a good neighborhood ' community. I have not had anybody come forth and say, we just oppose it and we don't want it to there period. I have not heard that as of this date. Related to the islands, cul -de -sac islands and assessments, I think we'll get to that in 1 19 11 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 a minute but right now I'd like to introduce John Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. He is our planner. He's a principle with the firm and he has designed this and worked very closely with our firm and staff in putting this proposal to you this evening. Now for the benefit of the audience and for the Council, we have a considerable amount of overhead transparencies to probably address the questions that you're going to have related to setbacks, wetlands, trees, things like that. And just give us a couple seconds. We'll put the, John I think we can put - the overhead right up here like we did at the neighborhood meeting and use them simultaneously if we need to. 1 John Uban: What I'd like to go through with you, if you can see our overhead projection. The basic elements of design. Why it's designed the way it is. How the road system and the lots work together and how it works with the topography of the land. Then how our lot sizes work. Primarily we wanted a road system that absolutely tried to miss all the wetlands and natural features and would wind it's way through the area and actually attach, and we've looked at the adjacent property so it gives access on over to CR 117. This curvalinear road system moves through the area and crosses between these two wetlands on a little bridge. It's about the only place you can get through. There's some beautiful pines that have been planted with the previous homestead and we're saving those as an entry feature. Moving on across missing this wetland area in here. Moving up to the north and skimming across the southern end of this wetland and onward to the very northeast corner. And at this point it lines up to miss the wetlands on the other side which are on the Song property. A large one down through this area, and another large one to the north. So it's designed very specifically to work with the land. In addition, we're working back into the property where we can with a curvalinear road system. It's rolling. We're missing these wetland pockets. The whole southern edge is wetland up in this area. That's why we have the cul -de -sac and it's very..., it's rolling. So these follow the ridge lines and then it drops into steep valleys that feed this 11 wetland. The same with this wetland. This little area works it way back up between these two and this works out on a little pennisula that's all surrounded by wetlands. So the road system is designed specifically to fit with the land. Also, it's curvalinear and what we don't want are a lot of straight roads where all the houses line up the same and we drive down and you see fronts of houses that sort of march down the street like soldiers or a commercial development or something. We want it to curve so as you enter the subdivision, you focus on this nice woods and area. There's a big beautiful oak tree right here. We're going to create a bridge effect and then you focus on that and curve around here and you focus on these pines and then these houses, and we're keeping the existing home in place too. They start coming off all in different positions so that there are no homes that just line up with the next one. So we're doing that all throughout. And the curvalinear patterns were important. And what that creates in the cul -de -sacs are of course lots that are pie shaped. And because of the curvalinear system, we have very few perfectly rectangular lots. They all have lots with side lot lines that come in at angles. And because of that, we have a variety of ways of working with setbacks, sideyards, front yards, to make that all work. And it's really, that flexibility we're looking for in a PUD. The lot size of the smallest lot out here, without wetland in it, the smaller buildable yard and lot is a little over 10,000 square feet which is. But the average lot size overall is 23,000. So we really have a lot of large lots in here and then some small ones. So what we need is diversity and that's what we like to work with also. The diversity is good for attracting a number 1 20 . 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 of types of homeowners. It isn't all just one kind of home. It provides a variety of experiences. Wooded lots. Lots that look out. Lots that are flat and will have garden spaces in the backyard. All of that works together and is created specifically for diversity. We think that's very important. And so our lot lines and how we measure the width of the lots varies. What we're looking for is some flexibility that not all lots would have at the setback line of 20 feet, not all of them would have a 90 foot width and that only happens though at lots that are on the ends of cul -de -sacs where the pie shape moves in becomes narrow right at the cul -de -sac. But it gets very wide as it moves out and all you have to do is move the house back, sometimes only S feet beyond the calculated setback and we have 90 feet more. And those lots also incidentally are larger than all the other lots. They're the largest lots but they just happen to be the narrowest when you count the setback right at the road. So it's that pattern and that flexibility so that we still get that 90 foot width but only by moving the house back or just moving the garage back with an offset which makes it work very well. That design has worked out excellently... ' Terry Forbord: The interesting phenomena about that, and anytime you look at, and I get caught up doing this myself when I'm working on this, and I think even at one time we prepared an exhibit for the Council or the Planning Commission of a neighborhood like that without any lot lines. So if you just looked up there and you didn't see any lot lines, that's what you're going to see when you drive through the neighborhood. You're not going to see lines on the ground. It's going to look just like a neighborhood. Now, the other thing that you have to remember is the minimum lot size that has been quoted to you of 10,000+ square foot is of the upland area. The lot itself is larger than that but the staff often times tries to show the Council that that is exclusive of wetland. Now as you know, many of the lots in Chanhassen have what is today considered wetland. I would say a lot of lots in the city of Chanhassen have and if you took out those lots what is wetlands, you'd find many lots very, very small. So the lot that has been expressed to you as being that size, is exclusive of that. The other question that was asked is related to cul -de -sac islands and medians. I think what we'll do is just very briefly tell you a little bit about that. I've got a few pictures that I can show you and the reason that we've never presented them to you before is because, just candidly speaking with members of the City, we didn't think that the City would embrace them. We were quite surprised to find that the Planning Commission, the majority of the Planning Commission said that they'd always wanted to do, or they wanted for a long time to have cul -de -sac islands and medians and I didn't even know that. But we have never brought them forth to you before. We have done them in other neighborhoods before and we're finding now that cities are asking us to do them where they had not before. And the reason is very simple. As you all know the movement afoot for less impervious material on the ground. Less pavement. Subdivisions not designed for cars. Subdivisions that has more green space. Things that set them apart from what is normal. Now there's obviously, there's some difficulty in embracing that for many cities. Primarily by the public works department and often times by public safety. But if you go to communities like Burnsville where they've been doing islands for years and years and years and if Roger Knutson was here tonight he'd tell you because he's worked in that community for years. Decades and Burnsville almost demands them. They want them in their ' cul -de -sacs. Now you have to remember some of the reasons they don't like it is because they say, well. If you were going to turn around with a vehicle in there, the island would be in the way. Well that's not true becuase they never 21 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 get close to the island. If a vehicle's so big such as a moving van. Have you ever see a moving van turn around in a cul -de -sac? They can't. Even one • without an island. They can't do it. They have to stop and back up and then go once again and they can get out. So the island has nothing to do with a moving van being able to turn around because they can't turn around anyway. The other issue that typically comes up is snow removal. And I used to contract in the city of Plymouth, myself in my business to plow their snow and I plowed areas that they had islands in and if is different than plowing a normal cul -de -sac but the neat thing about it is, you don't have to plow the area where the island is because that has storage capacity for snow all by itself. And the other thing is usually you go further on the outside of the cul -de -sac and you blade that to the outside. when you make your other pass, you blade that on the inside and there's storage capacity on that island. Now the down side to islands, if somebody was trying to figure out, well what is it that we should be worried about. One is obviously maintenance. Who's going to take care of it because I've seen personally some very unsightly cul -de -sac islands because there was no mechanism set up to maintain them and keep the weeds out of them and all that other stuff. Well, as you probably guessed, we're having a homeowners association in this PUD that's being presented to you, not unlike in what we do in other neighborhoods because there's a lot of open space. There's a lot of entrance monumentation and plantings and things like that that have to be maintained and the islands would be maintained by the homeowners association. Now it's important to design these so they take as little maintenance as possible, and I'm going to show you a couple of examples. Here's an example of a median. Many of you have seen medians before. You probably have a few in the city. I think that it's important to note that the medians that we're going to have are right at the entry. This is a neighborhood community and basically the purpose of this slide is just to show you that they can look very nice. I don't know if any of you have ever been up to Carlson Parkway by the Carlson Companies corporate offices and I had a slide that I didn't bring it tonight, but medians can really change the feel of what roadways look like. And I think there's a lot of interest. The discussion on the Highway 5 Task Force that's been debated around this community for the last few years and I've heard a lot of people say that it's very important to them how that roadway looks. What is the impression of the community going to be when you're driving through it? The median certainly softens the impact of the roadways. I don't know if you're going to be having planted medians on Highway 5 into the business district of the city 1 but I think you can probably get the gest of what I'm saying. When you put landscaping and green space or lighting and flowers or anything like that in a roadway, it really softens the impact. This is a picture of a cul -de -sac island. This is taken from a helicopter. This particular island, I don't know if you can see it from where you are, but it has a curb. A surmountable curb around it. It also then has what is called rush. White river rock. Many of you have probably used this for a landscaping element around your home. Around your shurbs. And then it has the small boulder retaining wall that goes around it and then there are the types of the plantings in the middle of this that are fairly easy to take care of. They don't take a lot of maintenance. They're durable and in the case of the evergreens, they're green year round. And this is not exactly the type of planting materials we would probably put here for the way we would do it. We'd put the emphasis on evergreens and things that are green all the time and then maybe have some lower bushes in front of them that in the summertime they bud and perhaps even flower. Now underneath all this rock is fabric to keep the weeds from growing through it and because there's no 22 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 1 grass here, many of you may have seen medians and cul -de -sac islands that have grass. Obviously somebody needs to maintain those and what we would propose II would be something of a lower maintenance. Something that softens the impact of the pavement. Because if you've ever looked, if you've ever flown over a community, cul -de -sacs are these huge things of pavement and they just sit there and they're really quite ugly. So we think that this does soften it. Here's II one at ground level. The reason I'm showing you this slide is probably the first thing you'll notice if you take a look at it for a few minutes. What do you normally see when you drive into a cul -de -sac? In today's architecture, 1 because of what people can afford as far as design. The first thing you're going to notice is boy, there sure are a lot of garage doors looking at me. And again, it's ugly. Garage doors are not a beautiful element of a house. The II other buying points of a house that people like, the roofline, the point of entry, window treatments, things like that, maybe some specialty windows. Those are the things that capture the eye and are aesthetically pleasing. But because of the economics of construction today and because all the lots can no longer 1 afford to be large lots where you spread that house out really wide, we find that people having to put the garage out in front. Shorten the distance of the pavement to the home because that helps save cost, etc, etc. You certainly can 11 see by coming into this cul -de -sac that really the first thing you see is that there's a lot of really nice landscaping done on the island. And that's exactly what we would propose, or something very similar to it. Is any of you are familiar with our entrances, we're getting better at it. We think we've done a I fairly good job but we're actually getting better. This is a new one in Plymouth called Churchhill Farms. And this one has a median in the middle to the entrance. It's quite a grand entrance. The theme of it is thoroughbred 1 racing and has an authentic rail fence that you may see at a Kentucky farm and it has this type of little gingerbread design on the monuments and a lot of flowers and things like that. And you can see this median right here. This is II all irrigated and there will be flags. An American flag, and on the other flag poles going in we'll have a Minnesota and another flag that's going in will have the logo of the development. And the same thing is repeated on both sides and than we planted all of these trees to make kind of a promenade into the II neighborhood community. ...point of arrival and as this matures and fully develops, it's tremendously dramatic. And we think that it makes a statement that identifes the project and is really quite nice. Now because we're coming 1 off of a major trunk highway, Highway 41, we think it's important immediately to address that and if you looked at the site plan that you have, one of the other things we're learning to do over the last 5 -6 years is that we don't put any lots right at the entrance. Right when you come in we could put a lot right 1 behind that fence and one on the other side. We put outlots in there now and we keep those houses back in there and try to keep them at least 150 feet, 175 feet into the development so when you come in you get this feeling of open space. You 1 get to see flowers. Everything's taken care of. Somebody's maintained it and it certainly is a feel that if we were unable to do those things, they wouldn't have the same effect. This is just the flip side of that entrance. Some of the 1 other things as part of the PUD that we're able to do that we probably couldn't do under standard subdivision, is we can put in little park areas. Now some of you may have some questions about the private park later on here. What we have found, and we've done this before, right away. One of the very first thing that 1 we do, once it's platted and we open up the neighborhood communities, we put in these facilities. Typically as you know, in the park plans, the park, usually the people are all there and then the parks get developed because the city just 1 23 1 . City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 doesn't have that kind of money in their budgets to go out and put in all kinds of extra little features that they may like to. They just don't have the money. What we're proposing, we go in and we build a tennis court ourselves. This righ there a $27,000.00 play structure. We put in the volleyball courts. We do all that stuff right away and we still pay a park dedication fee. So what we're doing is we're providing a little. something special in the neighborhood right up front and the real benefit for that is, it isn't just for the city in alleviating some of the pressures on the park system. But really we do it for the benefit of the people who buy homes from us. When it comes time, for them it's an investment. When it comes time for them to sell their home, what's ' going to give them that special advantage that the other homes that are for sale on the market don't have. And if you go through the other neighborhoods that we have these type of play structures in, you can go by there any time of the day and there's mothers out there, or fathers for that matter, with their kids.and there's people playing tennis at any time of the day. And those are all maintained by the homeowners association and it's a real plus on the resale value of those homes. I know that you have some questions related to assessments and to the public improvements. I think at this time I would defer those questions to the city's consultants and then I have an exhibit here when they're done that I'd like to just pass out to each one of you and put it up on the overhead. Basically going through the recommendations because there's just a few things we'd like clarified and a couple of items we'd like to share with you. So at this time I think I'd defer the issue about assessments and the status of the public improvements that have been petitioned to the consultants and then I'm available to answer, or my consultants are, to answer any of the questions that you may have. Whether they're engineering, wetlands, or planning matters. Phil Gravel: We will be at the September 28th meeting to present the public improvement...and there will be some proposed assessments for the area...not included in this development that are, most of them are green acres so we're assuming that some of the same standards that you've taken on like the Bluff Creek project...only one unit assessments. The small homes... Councilman Workman: So there are single family homes adjacent that are going to be assessed? Mayor Chmiel: Could be, yes. 1 Councilman Workman: Hook up charge? 1 Phil Gravel: Like the Song parcei...Properties to the east of this. Councilman Workman: Are those people all aware of that? ' Phil Gravel: They'll be noticed. We're planning on having a neighborhood meeting in early October before the public hearing which would probably be... Councilwoman Oimler: I have one question on the assessments too that doesn't really relate to other properties but your own properties on the pie shaped lots. The configuration there where they have very little front footage but the lot gets bigger as it goes back. They're only assessed for the road on the front footage and so what you're actually having there is that the large lots 24 11 �1cr Luuii - epzemDer 14, 1992 1 are paying less and some of the smaller lots would have more front footage. Is that a problem for your own assessment rolls or has that been in other developments? Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, the improvements in the neighborhood, when people buy a home from us. All the assessments are in and paid. They buy a package from ' us. They buy the home, the lot and everything is included in the sale price of that so there isn't, they don't get hit with that additional assessment later on. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so that's not likely to be a problem in the future? Terry Forbord: No, no. It's a package of what they buy. Councilwoman Dimler: It will be though when the road's redone. ' Terry Forbord: I'm sure the city has a policy in how they deal with local neighborhood, residential communities. Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I asked. ' Terry Forbord: I'm sure it's consistent. I would hope that it would be and this project wouldn't be treated any differently. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but we did have some problems. That's why I asked the question. ' Terry Forbord: Okay. Hopefully, I wish I could tell you these roads last forever and they never need any maintenance but that would be a lie. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Terry Forbord: Are there any other questions that I may address or would you life re to put the items up on the screen for clarification? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, could you explain and again, I liked your cul -de -sac ' presentation but I did ask about the safety impact there. It looks to me like that if you have parking then, if you allow street parking for visitors and whoever, there might be a safety problem as far as safety vehicles getting through. Can you address that as to what other communities are experiencing? ' Terry Forbord: I think I could best let John Uban address that. He could do it better than I could. John Uban: On the cul -de -sacs, it really won't work any differently than your existing cul -de -sacs in the city when it comes to parking. Around the cul -de -sac you notice that the driveways are closer together. But the driveways ' themselves hold quite a few cars in addition to what's in the garage. And we have not ever found a situation in which a cul -de -sac itself really gets parked up beyond a reasonable sort of level. What is nice about an island, it actually helps control the parking. It defines and makes the cul -de -sac look more like a typical street going around in a circle. And it maintains the same width of street all the way around so it isn't substandard in any respect and actually we 25 think it works better because it better defines the street edge and allows for better organization of traffic just from looking at it. Councilwoman Dimler: And is all your curbing surmountable, in the proposed development? John Uban: Yes. We would like it to be that way. • Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions at this particular time? Tom. 1 Councilman Workman: Only, what was the, we have an outlet through the Song property. How does that jibe with future development? They just have to accept that as a connecting point or how does that connect? Paul Krauss: It's really, whoever goes first cast the die for how this will happen but we've done a lot more than that. We've had a meeting with the Song's, Mr. Forbord and I and their engineers meet with the Song's 3 -4 months ago when it became clear that this was where the road was going to go. We asked their consultant, John Uban to sketch out an alignment that made sense that missed the wetlands. We basically had a need to connect the two points. We know we needed continuity between TH 41 and Galpin. Early on in the process we realized this is not the kind of terrain that you plow a road that looks like Lake Lucy through. It just was much too hilly and we'd lose a lot to do that so we wanted the continuity and then it became a question of where to put it and there really was only one location that lent itself to the continuity and that's where it is right now. 1 Terry Forbord: I think it's fair to say, and some of you know this. If you just would stop and think about it for a minute but we've been working on this now for 3 1/2 years and we've actually worked very closely with the Song family on the alignment of that road. And the city has been, has really kind of asked us to take the initiative and figure out, okay we know this road's got to go here someday. So let's figure out the way that it can be done with having the least impact on the area and they helped provide us with data and aerial photography and topography so we could determine where that future roadway would be. And the exhibit that you see on the screen right now is very close to 11 where that road would end up being. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Paul, getting back to those street widths. As you're well aware, in some of the subdivisions that have been constructed and built up, the given problems that we're having with parking on streets and some of the accessibility of emergency vehicles getting to these. Do you see much problem here if the parking is done, and it's going to happen. I don't care how hard , you try. What's going to be a problem for us as a city? Paul Krauss: Well, we're not looking at reducing the pavement widths here. Charles, what are we looking on the collector street portion. Charles Folch: It's still a 36 foot wide street. The right -of -way is what's been proposed to be reduced from 80 to 60. But the pavement width will actually remain the same. Or remain the standard. 26 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Paul Krauss: So from what the eye sees and what the car parks on, it's not going to be any different than an oversized actually street elsewhere. There's also not all the homes front on that street. Relatively few actually do. The people parking in the streets more than likely will be parking next to the homes on the cul -de -sacs. Mayor Chmiel: If and when those homes go in and closely situated as they were, with the driveways coming in, what total numbers of cars can be parked in that drive and what is the distance of that drive from the garage back out to the 11 street? Terry Forbord: Okay, every particular situation is different because it depends ' on the type of, if you've ever looked at it like. Mayor Chmiel: The lots themselves. 1 Terry Forbord: Not even just that. But have you ever looked at a plan, view of a plan, what does the footprint look like. We have a repertoire of probably 25 different floor plans that would be available to people in here and everyone looks a little different and some of them, the garage is forward a little bit more and some of them, the garage is back a little bit. But I think it's fair to say that most cars, excuse me, most homes and driveways have a stacking capability for a minimum, I mean in a worst case scenario, even if you had a 20 foot front yard setback, which on some of these lots is being recommended by staff and we agree with that, that you'd probably have a stacking capability of 2 cars in the driveway and then you have 2 cars probably in the garage or maybe ' even 3, depending on the style of home or if the people elected to have a 3 car garage. In that case, then the driveway would be even wider and then maybe you'd have a stacking capability of -3. But more typically it's not uncommon to ' have a stacking of 4 cars in a driveway. It just depends on the given situation. Mayor Chmiel: And I keep looking back at a couple of the subdivisions, the problems that we're having now. It's the same situation where the driveways do not have the capacity to keep the vehicles there. Before you know it, they have 4 cars and maybe they have 4 children. They have 6 cars and there isn't room enough within those driveways to park these vehicles and they're parked on the street. You get that with adjacent neighbors. They may not be quite as prolific within those families but, there is some of those problems that I see ' concerns with that I see happening within town right now. And then they come back and we decide maybe we're not going to put no parking on one side. Well they don't want that because they have no place to really park. But yet the problem that comes back to me, as I stated before, is the accessibility of ' having our fire department or police department. Fire department's sore my concern, because we're not providing them the proper amount of space for them to get to their destination. And I can see where it could come back to the city ' and make us liable because we approved basically what went in and not giving enough room on those streets'. ' Terry Forbord: Yeah, the streets in our proposal are no smaller than any other neighborhood street that is currently within the city and there may be some that are even smaller. You may have some that have some reduced road widths. Well even the road right out in front of City Hall is a quite narrow roads but the 27 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 roads in these neighborhoods would be larger than the road in front of City 11 Hall. I don't think, and maybe Charles or Paul can add to this but I don't believe that there's a street or a situation in this proposed neighborhood community that jeopardizes the public safety any more than any other neighborhood community would. Charles Folch: Related to the collector street, 36 foot width allows for 1 parking on both sides. Mayor Chmiel: It provides parking on both sides of the 36 feet. The average width of a car is 5 feet? Depending. Give some, take some. Okay, so that's 10 feet. Richard, what's the size of the engines going through? Councilman Wing: They're 8 footers. , Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me? Councilman Wing: Most of them are maximum width, 8 footers. Mayor Chmiel: 8 footers. Okay. 1 Councilman Wing: Don, I guess I don't see a problem. And even with these cul -de -sacs, you can get it near a cul -de -sac. There's no problem with the hose lengths at that point. Mayor Chmiel: And I was thinking mainly of our main engine. Councilman Wing: The big one. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. It could give us problems. I guess I've had some of my questions. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, I'm going to pass out some material that I'm going to put up on the screen and it's just a copy of the recommendations of staff and just to get some clarification and address a couple things that the Planning Commission are requesting and hopefully answer some questions. The purpose of this is basically what we have here is what is before you in your recommendations and the bold items underneath each item are just my responses to those things and we're requesting a couple items be deleted. The first item is on the recommendation is reduce the amount of tree removal currently proposed . through reduction of grading, use of retaining walls, removal and shortening of cul -de -sacs, different housing styles, lowering of street grades, and reconfiguration of lot sizes and locations. The applicant has met with staff and considered their recommendations where possible. Altering the grading plan, utilizing retaining walls on home sites, reconfiguring lot lines, whie still keeping with the applicant's design. And the applicant does not wish to delete the cul -de -sac H and replace it with a private road. And I've asked that those items in number 1 be deleted. If we could put up the site plan just briefly John. There was some discussion and some concern about the connection of two roadways in this neighborhood community. John, if you could just point to those. That is I believe I and J. Is that correct? John Uban: G. I and G. 28 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Terry Forbord: I and G. Now it's really quite simple why we are submitting these as cul -de -sacs. And the cul -de -sac debate, all of you have heard on numerous times before I'm sure throughout your tenure as public officials and 1 really, and you've heard me talk about it before and I won't belabor the issue but we create neighborhood communities. We design them to be safe. What we really want are these little individual neighborhoods and alcoves that cul -de -sacs really offer you and 99.9 people out of 100 would prefer to live on a cul -de -sac. So what we do, if you recall when I was showing you the aerial photography and I was showing you where that ravine was and then the hill went ' back up and then the ravine went down again. John or Ken, can you kind of show where those are there? John Uban: Here is one ravine through here. There's another ravine down through here so this is a hill and then it drops down and once again you have this area between these two wetlands. So it drops down and then it drops down again into here. 1 Mayor Chmiel: What's the height from one end to the other? ' Terry Forbord: Pardon me? Mayor Chmiel: You're talking with the ravines going down. John Uban: Some of these ravines are what, 30 feet or so approximately. Through here and here and I really don't know, it's 90 to 100 feet probably the full distance. 1 Terry Forbord: And so all we typically do and this also helps eliminate some grading, is we try to put where the houses and the roads are going to be on the highest parts and have as many walkouts as we possibly can because again, 99% of the people would prefer walkout if we could make it available to them. Yes, you could connect a lot of roads in there. We just think it makes a better neighborhood and there's issues on both sides of the fence on that and that's ' why I'm asking you to allow us to proceed as it's proposed. We don't feel that it's really a safety issue. There's no documented evidence anywhere in the United States, there's never been a death anywhere documented that somebody died ' as a result of a cul -de -sac that was too long. I mean that's a fact and the Urban Land Institute will tell you that and any other organization that follows these types of things. But that's for your consideration and we would just ask that that item be deleted. Item number 2, provide a detailed tree removal plan ' illustrating types, number and caliper of trees over 6 inch caliper being removed. The applicant has submitted on September 11th a tree removal tabulation chart for the site. A more detailed plan will be developed during ' the final design stage of each development phase, and I believe that our consultants have discussed that with staff and I think that meets their satisfaction. Number 3, revise the lot areas by removing wetland area from the calculations. The applicant has submitted those revisions on September 11th. Item number 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. And we have submitted that information to the staff as 1 well and you'll be seeing that information as part of the preliminary plat application, if you haven't already received it. Item number 5, revise lot widths so that each lot has a minimum of 90 feet at the building setback. Or 29 1 111 -- City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 provide justification that the required buildable area can be accomplished. We would like to delete the first part of that sentence. We've submitted drawings and narrative and other examples on charts describing how this can occur and we certainly could meet the 90 foot if we just move the houses back anywhere from 5 to 8 feet and then we'd be at 90 feet. Remember that the lots that aren't at 90 feet are the ones that happen to.be in the cul -de -sac and they're not 90 feet at the setback but we could just push that house back a little more and it would be 90 feet, and also those are the largest lots. Number 6, we've submitted information to answer that. Number 7, we've done the same there. Number 8, I'm going to just talk to you a little bit about that in case you have any questions. The ordinance requires a 10 foot sideyard setback. The intent of the ordinance is typically to make sure that there's 20 feet between each structure. What we have asked for, and I believe staff accepts that and is recommending that they accept it, is that we are allowed some flexibility to shift that house back and forth for the simple example is if there's a large tree on one part of the lot. Give some flexibility so that home can move back and forth. So in other words, it's the same thing that we've done on other neighborhood communities for the same reason. And we're asking for a minimum setback of 9 feet on the house side, 6 feet on the garage side but at no time ever will there be 20 feet, less than 20 feet between structures. And the other neighborhoods we've developed over 300 homes with this exact same arrangement in other neighborhoods. And the minimum ends up being 20 but the vast majority of them are even greater than 20 feet between structures. Primarily because if you remember the way the site plan looks, the roads are moving and so just because of the way the houses get situated on the lot, it's not like a bunch of homes just lined up in a row. Every home's tiled, angled and things like that so you typically end up with far greater than 20 feet. 20's the minimum. Number 9. The applicant accepts the staff recommendation. Number 10, same. Number 11, locate the extension for watermain service along the east side of Trunk Highway 41. Now I believe that our consulting engineer has talked to the engineering department and the reason that they asked for that recommendation is they thought there was going to be a berm built along Highway 41. Well if you're familiar with the site at all, the topography drops off dramatically downward from Highway 41 and so it's nearly impossible to build a berm there and have any impact whatsoever so there isn't going to be a berm built. Staff wanted, if there was going to be a berm built, they wanted to get that waterline in there now before the berm got put on top of it. And so it's my understanding that staff has decided that that's not a problem. Number 12, the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation. Number 13, the applicant agrees with staff recommendation. Same with 14 and 15. Item number 16. We ask that the words, the connection of, be deleted and so that recommendation would say, review I.and G streets so it will provide a 3% or less grade for the first SO feet. For the reason that I've already stated to you, is that we'd like to keep those 1 cul -de -sacs and not link those streets. We think it makes a better neighborhood. Number 17, I would like to delete the portion that says, delete the center median islands on A Street and all the cul -de -sacs. We would request that you allow us to put the medians in in the cul -de -sac island for the reasons that I've already stated. At either way, this might be an opportunity for the city to decide if they like the idea. I mean I don't know if you have them in any neighborhood communities. I think that we've been diligent in the way that we handled all of our homeowners associations in the past and the way we've maintained our neighborhoods. This might be a good time for the city to try it. we think that we'd do a good job and that the city'd be happy with the outcome. 1 30 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Number 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer 11 strips, and protection of wetland. And then, continually submitting revised and additional detail and working with the staff to provide the most sensitive application as possible, and we've even submitted additional information as of today. And those items typically will be handled in the final design. Number 19 is a very major problem for us. Provide as build" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. We have never been required of that in the city before. In all of ' our neighborhoods, we're the builder. We don't just develop it and then put a shingle out and ask other builders to come on in and build a house without any knowledge of what's been done in the grading and the developing and the soil corrections. And if you were going to do an as build on every single lot, in other words that's a cross section of what's been done on that lot for every one, it would greatly increase the cost of developing the site and we don't feel that it's necessary and there's really any benefit from it. We would just ask ' that you allow us to do it in a manner that we've always done it with the city in the past.. And the last item is respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Departments. We would do everything that we possibly can ' to continue to work with those various departments to answer all those questions and supply any information that they may request. If there's any other questions of me or my staff, we'd be happy to address them. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, in reviewing the comments that are here, are you in agreement with what, on some of these, are you in agreement with Mr. Forbord? Are all these in the best interest of the city? ' Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, we've been working with Lundgren Bros. on this for quite some time and we think basically we have a real excellent proposal. I mean ' it's extraordinarily low density. It's protecting most of the site. Most of it's going to remain green so fundamentally we're in agreement. Most of the items that Terry read through are items that we're making good progress on. The revised plans have been submitted to Jo Ann and we have to review them but we think we're making good progress. We continue to, I mean the only salient one that we still continue to disagree on is whether or not those two cul -de -sacs should be connected. I guess I'm not going to argue about ULI data but ULI is ' an organization of and by and for developers. You had situations here twice over the summer where fundamentally Teton Lane is basically two cul -de -sacs right now abutting up against each other where the fire truck got stuck on the wrong side. It happens. To say it doesn't happen trivializes the information. We agree that most people would like to live on cul -de -sacs. We don't think we're being knee jerk and in a community like, I believe Eden Prairie says you can have two cul -de -sacs or three cul -de -sacs. That's it. You decide where they're going to go. I mean other communities do that. We do believe that it should be connected. The cul -de -sac right now is 1,400 feet long. Many communities have a 500 foot limitation. We don't do that here. We try to be more sensitive. There's 45 homes on it. So we still would prefer to have that connected. As for the other things, I think we're basically in agreement on everything. By the way, that cul -de -sac design change is one that can be incorporated very simply. I mean there's no question it doesn't have a major ' impact on the layout of the subdivision. as to the islands in the cul -de -sacs in a parkway type of sense, it presents us with a little bit of a dilemma because as planners we agree with a lot of what Mr. Forbord's saying but the question for us, is there a way to work that out that's acceptable to our ' 31 _- City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 engineering department and to our public safety department. We hope there might be but we'd really defer on that issue to Charles and his folks. Other than that, I think we're pretty much in agreement. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any specific questions that any of the Council may have? Mike. • Councilman Mason: I wanted to ask about those two cul -de -sacs and that's a bone of contention that will have to be resolved. I guess I don't have any specific questions. I think as usual, Mr. Forbord's done an excellent job of saying what Lundgren wants to do. I just wanted to make a comment on diversity. I'm not quite sure how much diversity there is between a $150,000.00 home and a $250,000.00 home. But that's my bias. Do you want some more general comments now or do you want to wait on that? Mayor Chmiel: If you'd like to provide those at this time, that's be , acceptable. Councilman Mason: I like the idea of the cul -de -sac islands. I think many of the people on the Planning Commission did too. Certainly seeing that picture with some bushes in the middle is very nice. It looks as the other Lundgren developments in this town, looks very nice on paper. I guess my other major concern is assessments for people that don't own or are not part of the Lundgren property, and I know there's the discussion of future benefit and what not. I think we need to talk about that because I have some strong feelings about that. But it sounds like the City is for the most part in agreement with what's going on here and it looks to be pretty well done. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Tom. ' Councilman Workman: I don't have a whole lot of questions. I just, we're talking about Street I and Street G connecting? I too just have the question right now. These conceptual ideas look different to the neighbors when they know they have an assessment. If they do or they don't. The concept can be one of indifference if they don't have one but it can be rather ugly if they do. I guess I'd like out consultant to as soon as possible try to get that information out to the neighbors so they can maybe better assess their impact. That's all I have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. , 1 Councilman Wing: Well I like the PUD concept and my concern is, like of a PUD ordinance. This has been how many years now we've been talking about a PUD ordinance and if you look on page 3 or wherever it is, it talks minimum lot size and it has the word draft. The Council still hasn't come to terms with minimum lot size. And I don't care if you want to decide on 5,000, 10,000's too small for me. I've made that clear and I think we ought to get the PUD off the draft stage and in the ordinance stage which means to do it, we've got to plug in one number which is the minimum lot size. And between the five of us, we ought to be able to come up with a number. 10,000's too low for se but I'm not going to argue it if there's a majority opinion. I think we've said we don't want to go below 15,000 but then you don't have a PUD so I want to protect the PUD ordinance and maybe there's a compromise number that we can come up with that we ' 32 • , City Council Meet:zg - September 14, 1992 can plug into this and be part of this right now. But right now, the PUD ordinance doesn't exist because it's a draft and we still haven't decided on minimum lot size so I think that has to be done. 10,300. Pick a number. I don't care anymore. I just think we've got to get off the draft stage after all these years, at least Council should, before you people leave, take • responsibility for a minimum lot size. Councilman Mason: Here, here. Yeah, I don't have any trouble at all with 10,000 feet. For RSF, I would strongly disagree. With the situation with Near Mountain and what not, I know some people that are on those small lots that are perfectly happy. Mayor Chmiel: And I also know some that aren't. Councilman Wing: And I know many that are. Councilman Mason: We'll be going back and forth on this one for a while. Councilman Wing: It's only going to take 3 of us to say we don't like 10,000 square foot lots. Okay, 4/5. We may never get it. Alright, PUD ordinance. I think we should address it along with this. At the Board, the variance Board. What do you call that group that met at 6:00? • Councilman Workman: Board of Adjustments. Councilwoman Dimler: That you're part of you mean? Councilman Wing: Carol Watson brought up a comment about that she doesn't like the appearance that we're giving our city and this is with some justification, and Paul does justify his position here as Terry did earlier, and that's our 20 foot front yard setback. And Carol commented, we go from street to curb to the house and they're narrow. We have a very short driveway that holds 2 cars, etc, etc. and we wind up with more parking on the street. I like the appearance. I like the parking. I like the front yard of a 30 foot setback versus a 20 and I realize there's environmental concerns but if our rule is 30 feet, and we stick with it, these rules evenly applied are going to come in and develop that way and we don't have to argue about it. If there's a wetland back there, it still has to be protected. I wouldn't shift anything. That lot just has to be built differently. So I don't like the 20 foot frontyard setback. I'd like to see that maintained to 30. I think it's a better apperance. Having the houses that close, we can talk about who likes front yards and backyards. And the backyards are wonderful for bar -be -ques but the reality is, the kids get on their tric's and they head down the driveway and they head into the street. That's where the action is and you can go through any neighborhood with children, and all the complaints we get, it's not the problems in their backyards. It's the problem in the streets and their frontyards. A 20 foot driveway's pretty short into the street so, my preference would be that we don't go with the 20 foot front yard setback. I would like to maintain the cul -de -sacs. I'm happy with it. If the fire department has to go to Street A or G or I, they know how to get there and there's numerous cases in the city that maybe should be dealt with. 2190 Murray Hill Road is on the east side and there's no connection and 2200 is on the west side. It's a long way around. So we've got a lot of problems like that but in this case, if we're going to go to cul -de -sac A. we know how to get there and 33 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 opinion and we'll go with whatever you tell us. I think the developer here, and we're looking for some guidance tonight as to would you prefer that it be left alone or be brought back as a thru street. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to restate that? Councilman Workman: I'd like it left alone. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: So in other words, accept the deletion? Councilman Workman: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve Planned Unit Development, PUD 192 -4 for 113 single family lots with the following conditions: 1. Reduce the amount of tree removal currently proposed through reduction of grading, use of retaining walls, and reconfiguration of lot sizes and locations. 2. Provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types, number and caliper of trees over 6" caliper being removed. 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. 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. 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 PUD (boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping tree preservation, foundation and yard plantings) and a proposal for a budget for foundation plantings will not be necessary since the site is already so heavily vegetated. 10. Provide architectural covenants. 38 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 11. (Deleted.) 12. Extend the watermain beyond "I" street to "G" street to loop the two water systems together. 1 13. Locate fire hydrants approximately 300' apart and in accordance with any location recommendation by the Fire Marshall. ' 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. 1 15. Provide a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street A. 16. Review I and G street to provide a 3% or less grade for the first 50' at intersection. 17. If the cul -de -sac islands are permitted, the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to provide an acceptable design. 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer strips 1 and protection of wetlands. 19. (Deleted.) 20. Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Departments. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONCEPTUAL PUD ON 18+ ACRES FOR A COMMERCIAL/RETAIL CENTER. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND POWERS BOULEVARD. TARGET DEVELOPMENT. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Ryan Construction is proposing a development of approximately 18.78 acres. This proposal has changed. We've ' already added additional acreage. It's going to the Planning Commission for preliminary and site plan approval on Wednesday so a lot of what I'm talking about is dated information but for the purposes tonight, which is conceptual ' approval, we'd like to go back and show you what we've gone to the Planning Commission with and give you their recommendations and pass those forward back through the process. So the conceptual proposal was 17.78 acres which included ' a Target store on approximately 10.36 acres and Outlot B. And Outlot B that they came in with was approximately, excuse me. There were three variations in this area right in here. The proposal also includes a possible gateway project in this area in here, which the HRA is looking at. And in addition, outlot here which would be the trees that the City will be purchasing. The HRA, excuse me will be purchasing and one of the conditions of approval that we would maintain is that those trees be not disturbed. It'd be approximately an acre and a half. Based on the length, the time of the hour, I'd just briefly go to the summary of the rezoning issues and the reasons why the staff would support the zoning to the PUO, which would be that it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for screening of the undesireable views of the loading areas. The preservation of the desireable site characteristics. More specifically the 39 JOHNSON /DOLEJSI /TURNER PROPERTY CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 Concept Plan Approval Issues RECOMMENDATION ' 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 proposed through DELETE reduction of grading, use of retaining walls, xemoval and shortening UNDERLINED of cul -de -sacs. different housing styles. lowering of street grades, and reconfiguration of lot sizes and locations. Applicant has met with staff and considered their recommendations where possible; altering the grading plan; utilizing retaining walls on homesites; reconfiguring lot lines, while still keeping with ' applicants design. Applicant does not wish to delete cul -de -sac H and replace it with a private road. 2. Provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types, number and caliper of trees over 6" caliper being removed. Applicant submitted on 9/11/92 a tree removal tabulation chart for ' the site. A more detailed plan will be developed during the final design stage as each phase of development occurs. ' 3. Revise lot areas by removing wetland area from the calculations. Applicant submitted revisions on 9/11/92. 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. Applicant submitted a plan on 9/8/92 showing building pads on each lot and a lot tabulation chart detailing setbacks on 9/11/92. II DELETE 5. Revise lot widths so that each lot has a minimum of 90': at the UNDERLINED building setback or provide justification that the required buildable area can be accommodated. On 9/8/92 and 9/11/92 applicant submitted narrative drawings and charts describing how this can occur. 6. Demonstrate that each lot provides a 30' rear yard setback and that there is a 30' exterior setback. ' On 9/8/92 and 9/11/92 applicant submitted drawings and charts that demonstrates this. 1 Jutu►son /DoleJsl /luruer Property • Concept Plan Approval Issues Page 2 7. The PUD is permitted a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. Applicant accepts the recommendation of staff and agrees with its application. Providing flexibility for environmental purposes. 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. Applicant accepts staff recommendation and the responsibility of monitoring the condition. 9. Revise the landscaping plan so that it provides the landscaping ' required for a residential PUD (boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping tree preservation, foundation and yard plantings) and a proposal for a budget for foundation plantings will not be necessary ' since the site is already so heavily vegetated. Applicant accepts staff recommendation. 10. Provide architectural covenants. ' Applicant agrees. DELETE 11. Locate the extension for watermain service along the east side of UNDERLINED Trunk Highway 41. Applicant has discussed this with the engineering department. They thought a berm was to be built along Highway 41 and they wanted to put watermain in first. No berm will be built due to the existing drop in topography. 12. Extend the watermain beyond "I" street to "G" street to loop the two water systems together. Applicant agrees with staff recommendation. , 13. Locate fire hydrants approximately 300' apart and in accordance with any location recommendations by the Fire Marshall. Applicant agrees with staff recommendation. 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. Applicant requests that during final design these conditions be met. 15. Provide a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street A. Applicant agrees with staff recommendation. 1 Jotiusou /Dolejsi /Turner Property Concept Plan Approval Issues Page 3 Delete 16. Review the connection of I and G street to provide a 3% or less UNDERLINED grade foi' the first 50' at intersection. Applicant agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation to ' leave the cul -de -sacs as proposed. Applicant agrees to provide a 3X or less grade for the first 50' at intersection. DELETE 17. pelete the center median islands on A street and all cul -de -sacs. 1 UNDERLINED If the cul -de -sac islands are permitted, the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to provide an acceptable design. ' Applicant agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation to include the medians and cul -de -sac islands as proposed. Applicant agrees to work with the engineering department to provide an ' acceptable design. 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer strips and protection of wetland. ' Applicant has continually submitted revised and additional detail to staff for review and comments, providing the most sensitive ' application possible. DELETE 19. Provide as build" locations and dimensions of all corrected house UNDERLINED pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. • Because applicant is the builder on all the lots in the subdivision applicant believes this condition is counter productive. This condition is very expensive and not necessary. 20. Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park ' Departments. Applicant agrees to work with all City departments to resolve any ' issues. 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 II JOHNSON - DOLEJSI - TURNER SITE 1 TREE REMOVAL TABULATION AREA A Box elder 1 6" - 8" caliper 57 trees 8" - 12" 17 10" - 12" 6 111 AREA B 1 Ash Maple 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees 6" - 8" caliper 1 tree I 8" - 10" 2 10" - 12" 1 Box elder 12" - 14" 1 6" - 8" caliper 19 trees I 8" - 10" 13 10" - 12" 9 12" - 14" 4 1 AREA C Ash Box elder 1 6" - 8" caliper 7 trees 6" - 8" caliper 68 trees 8" - 10" 3 8" - 10" 32 10" - 12" 3 10" - 12" 25 I 12" - 14" 1 12" - 14" 12 14" - 16" 1 14" - 16" 4 30" 1 I Cottonwood Apple 16" - 18" caliper 13 trees 12" 1 tree 30" 1 Basswood Oak I 10" - 12" caliper 5 trees 30" 1 12" - 14" caliper 1 tree 1 30" - 32" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II AREA D Ash Oak II 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees 6" - 8" caliper 8" - 10" 1 tree 8" - 10" 1 2 10" - 12" 1 10" - 12" 3 12" - 14" 1 12" - 14" 2 I 14" - 16" 3 Maple 16" - 18" 14 6" - 8" caliper 4 trees 18" - 20" 6 I 8" - 10" 3 20" - 22" 2 10" - 12" 3 22" - 24" 3 14" - 16" 4 24" - 26" 6 I 26" - 28" 3 Elm 28" - 30" 3 6" - 8" caliper 10 trees 30" - 36" 3 8" - 10" 10 I Box elder Basswood 6" - 8" caliper 13 trees 6" - 8" caliper 5 trees 8" - 10" 1 I 12" - 14" 1 10" - 12" 4 12" - 14" 1 Cottonwood 18" - 24" 4 I 6" - 8" caliper 5 trees 14" - 16" 8 I AREA E Oak Ash I 6" - 8" caliper 1 tree 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees Elm Willow I 6" - 8" caliper 11 trees 10" - 12" 1 tree AREA F 1 Box elder 6" - 8" caliper 12 trees I 8" - 10" 7 12" - 14" 10 14" - 16" 1 AREA G I Box elder Basswood 6" - 8" caliper 3 trees 14" -16" caliper 3 trees 8" - 10" 5 II 2 II f II AREA H 1 Box elder Basswood 6" - 8" caliper 11 trees 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees II 8" - 10" 2 12" - 14" 3 10" - 12" 1 Willow I Oak 16" 1 tree 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees Chokecherry 6" - 8" 2 trees I AREA I I Ash Oak 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees 6" - 8" caliper 7 trees 8" - 10" 3 8" - 10" 11 II 10" - 12" 2 10" - 12" 4 12" - 14" 4 Elm 18" - 20" 1 II 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees 20" - 22" 1 22" - 24" 3 Hickory I 8" - 10" caliper 8 trees Chokecherry 6" - 8" caliper 5 trees Poplar 8" - 10" 7 6" - 8" caliper 1 tree II 8" - 10" 1 AREA J II Box elder I 6" - 8" caliper 25 trees 8" - 10" 5 INDIVIDUAL SCATTERED TREES 1 6" Spruce 4 trees I 10" Ash 1 24" Poplar 1 12" Willow 6 1 1 3 1 1 JOHNSON - DOLEJSI- TURNER SITE LOT TABULATION BUFFER STORMWATER LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH FRONT WETLAND STRIP NET UPLAND MANAGEMENT LOT AREA @ SETBACK AVERAGE SETBACK SETBACK WIDTH AREA BASIN AREA BLOCK 1 Lot 1 16,000 90 160 30 na na 16,000 na Lot 2 21,390 100 150 30 na na 21,390 na Lot 3 26,970 120 150 30 na na 26,970 697 Lot 4 21,700 105 145 30 40 10 20,460 1,550 Lot 5 19,530 95 150 30 45 15 17,128 na Lot 6 17,850 110 175 30 na na 17,850 na BLOCK 2 Lot 1 36,890 90 400 20 60 30 17,438 na Lot 2 36,735 90 405 30 100 70 24,103 na Lot 3 40,455 90 450 30 165 135 30,458 na Lot 4 25,400 120 190 30 na na 25,400 na Lot 5 17,670 100 185 30 na na 17,670 na Lot 6 15,050 100 155 30 na na 15,050 na Lot 7 16,895 105 155 30 na na 16,895 na Lot 8 16,120 100 160 30 na na 16,120 na Lot 9 19,685 90 145 30 na na 19,685 na Lot 10 39,215 80 250 30 110 80 38,905 na Lot 11 43,250 85 270 30 70 40 28,370 na Lot 12 29,295 80 210 30 65 35 28,985 na Lot 13 14,900 100 140 30 na na 14,900 na Lot 14 28,675 90 265 20 na na 28,675 na Lot 15 23,950 90 240 20 na na 23,950 775 Lot 16 20,230 90 245 20 90 60 18,913 4,727 Lot 17 19,995 90 235 20 65 35 16,663 4,030 - IN IIIIII 11111111 1111. MI MN 1111. OM NM OM OM 1.1 MIN MN IMMI I NM MI - O O M r M MO I O MO OM MO O - MO OM O I I Johnson- Dolejsi- Turner Lot Tabulations Page 2 BUFFER STORMWATER LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH FRONT WETLAND STRIP NET UPLAND MANAGEMENT LOT AREA @ SETBACK AVERAGE SETBACK SETBACK WIDTH AREA BASIN AREA BLOCK 2 - cont. Lot 18 19,610 90 225 20 50 20 14,650 620 Lot 19 18,290 90 205 20 55 25 14,105 na Lot 20 18,600 105 235 30 70 40 17,128 na Lot 21 16,510 100 225 30 50 20 15,348 na Lot 22 18,135 90 215 30 45 15 15,655 na Lot 23 21,855 90 240 30 45 15 20,073 na Lot 24 22,700 100 205 30 50 20 20,453 'na Lot 25 32,395 80 185 30 60 30 31,465 na Lot 26 32,085 80 190 30 45 15 30,070 na Lot 27 35,340 90 230 30 65 35 34,875 na Lot 28 25,650 90 220 30 45 15 20,070 na Lot 29 23,630 80 240 30 40 10 20,840 5,192 Lot 30 21,700 90 225 30 na na 21,700 2,170 Lot 31 20,150 90 225 30 na na 20,150 na Lot 32 19,995 100 195 30 na na 19,995 na Lot 33 18,290 80 175 30 40 10 16,895 na Lot 34 31,775 85 220 30 na na 31,775 na Lot 35 40,610 90 205 30 40 10 33,480 na Lot 36 60,370 90 315 30 40 10 57,813 na Lot 37 17,100 105 180 20 na na 17,100 na Lot 38 16,660 90 170 20 40 10 14,180 na Lot 39 23,020 90 220 20 40 10 10,698 na Lot 40 25,885 90 285 20 40 10 10,075 na Lot 41 36,115 85 230 20 60 30 26,350 na Lot 42 32,000 120 200 20 40 10 24,328 na Lot 43 36,115 105 220 20 40 10 31,930 na Lot 44 21,080 95 170 30 na na 21,080 na Lot 45 24,720 215 170 30 na na 24,720 na Johnson- Dolejsi- Turner Lot Tabulations Page 3 BUFFER STORMWATER LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH FRONT WETLAND STRIP NET UPLAND MANAGEMENT LOT AREA @ SETBACK AVERAGE SETBACK SETBACK WIDTH AREA BASIN AREA BLOCK 2 - cont. Lot 46 29,760 95 360 30 40 10 14,493 na Lot 47 19,760 90 350 30 40 10 13,173 na Lot 48 19,995 105 325 30 45 15 16,817 na Lot 49 18,370 105 300 30 na na 18,370 na Lot 50 23,250 90 260 30 na na 23,250 na Lot 51 23,020 95 245 30 45 15 21,935 na Lot 52 16,970 105 250 20 50 20 16,660 'na Lot 53 21,780 90 250 20 45 15 18,293 na Lot 54 22,940 90 260 20 50 20 16,120 na Lot 55 16,510 90 260 20 50 20 12,093 na Lot 56 14,490 90 245 20 50 20 11,003 na Lot 57 14,650 100 230 20 45 15 12,325 na Lot 58 19,600 105 165 30 na na 19,600 na Lot 59 15,270 95 165 30 na na 15,270 na Lot 60 13,870 85 155 30 40 10 13,018 na Lot 61 18,445 90 200 30 40 10 13,408 na Lot 62 27,980 85 210 20 40 10 20,850 na Lot 63 25,420 85 175 30 na na 25,420 na Lot 64 19,610 90 150 30 na na 19,610 na Lot 65 23,715 90 165 20 40 10 15,268 2,247 Lot 66 17,360 95 190 30 40 10 14,880 2,680 Lot 67 16,740 95 180 30 na na 16,740 na Lot 68 14,650 95 155 30 na na 14,650 na Lot 69 17,280 100 160 30 na na 17,280 na Lot 70 15,035 125 155 30 na na 15,035 na Lot 71 15,420 100 160 30 na na 15,420 na Lot 72 12,270 95 140 30 na na 12,270 na Lot 73 13,640 100 135 20 40 10 12,788 930 - - MI s w I MI - • E- OM r MI MI OM MI E I OMM 0111 NMI E r I MO O MO O■■ M M- M r MO O M M Johnson- Dolejsi- Turner Lot Tabulations Page 4 BUFFER STORMWATER LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH FRONT WETLAND STRIP NET UPLAND MANAGEMENT LOT AREA @ SETBACK AVERAGE SETBACK SETBACK WIDTH AREA BASIN AREA BLOCK 2 - cont. Lot 74 22,010 90 155 20 45 15 21,003 1,136 Lot 75 55,720 85 320 30 60 30 54,480 na Lot 76 41,310 90 230 30 na na 41,310 na Lot 77 12,245 90 105 20 na na 12,245 na Lot 78 14,960 90 160 20 na na 14,960 na Lot 79 13,640 90 145 20 na na 13,640 na Lot 80 11,550 90 125 20 na na 11,550 na Lot 81 14,125 85 130 20 na na 14,125 na Lot 82 21,235 100 180 30 na na 21,235 na BLOCK 3 Lot 1 41,950 110 330 30 45 15 16,972 na Lot 2 50,375 225 210 30 40 10 33,093 na BLOCK 4 Lot 1 20,540 100 160 30 na na 20,540 na Lot 2 15,700 95 130 30 na na 15,700 na Lot 3 27,670 95 185 30 na na 27,600 na Lot 4 21,235 90 170 30 na na 21,235 na Lot 5 13,950 95 120 30 na na 13,950 na Lot 6 23,020 95 150 30 50 20 22,710 na Lot 7 30,225 100 180 30 40 10 24,180 na Lot 8 23,020 115 125 30 na na 23,020 na Lot 9 16,350 120 130 30 na na 16,350 na Johnson- Dolejsi- Turner Lot Tabulations Page 5 BUFFER STORMWATER LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH FRONT WETLAND STRIP NET UPLAND MANAGEMENT LOT AREA @ SETBACK AVERAGE SETBACK SETBACK WIDTH AREA BASIN AREA BLOCK 5 Lot 1 16,300 105 120 30 na na 16,300 na Lot 2 23,600 90 170 30 na na 23,600 na Lot 3 35,350 110 200 30 na na 35,350 na Lot 4 15,040 110 165 30 na na 15,040 na Lot 5 13,175 115 140 30 na na 13,175 na Lot 6 18,600 95 185 30 na na 18,600 na Lot 7 16,120 95 155 30 na na 16,120 na Lot 8 17,980 100 150 30 na na 17,980 na BLOCK 6 Lot 1 15,050 110 145 30 na na 15,050 na Lot 2 39,700 270 200 30 45 15 32,493 9,610 Lot 3 24,100 125 225 30 na na 24,100 na Lot 4 28,400 185 160 30 40 10 22,433 na Lot 5 27,750 180 200 30 45 15 22,170 na M M i M MO MO MI MO MI MO M — — — — OM — ! M CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 OFFICIAL ENGINEERING CO MEMORANDUM Rece Revision No. TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Sr. Planner Approved b i Engineer Date FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Approved by Gity Council DATE: September 30, 1992 Ode SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Johnson /Turner /Dolejsi Property Between Galpin and Trunk Highway 41 - Lundgren Brothers Development LUR File 92 -8 1 Upon review of the preliminary plans submitted by Schoell & Madson dated September, 1992, I offer the following comments and recommendations: UTILITIES - SANITARY SEWER On September 28, 1992, the City Council received a feasibility report for providing trunk utility improvements to service this development. The City Council also called for a public 1 hearing to be held on October 26, 1992 to decide whether or not to authorize the project. The feasibility report estimates the project to be completed by August, 1993. The public improvements shown on the preliminary utility plan sheets could be constructed in conjunction with the trunk improvements in order to meet the scheduling needs of the applicants. The drainage and utility easements should be dedicated with the final platting process. The easement surrounding the lift station should be 25 feet wide on each side. The proposed sanitary sewer lines are fairly well- designed throughout the development although no provisions have been made for servicing adjacent parcels. Staff has reviewed aerial topography maps for the adjacent parcels and has determined that sewer and water stubs should be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant should extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary to serve a small portion of the adjacent property to the east. An individual sewer and water service should also be extended from Street D (cul -de -sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. This parcel would pay the appropriate connection and hook -up charges to the City at time of connection. The City will then refund a portion ti of PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen September 30, 1992 I Page 2 I of the fees back to the applicant for reimbursement of the cost of installation of the sewer and water service. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and the existing home (Lot 4, Block 2) will be required to connect to the municipal sewer line within one (1) year of the I sewer system being operational. The existing water system (well) on these parcels may be utilized until the well fails, then connection would be required. I All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detailed plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with final platting. 1 UTILITIES - WATERMAIN 1 The proposed municipal water system has been designed in general conformance with the recently approved feasibility study. The feasibility study proposes a 16 -inch watermain to I be extended by the City along Street A from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41. This development proposes to connect on to the 16 -inch watermain to service each phase of the development. The applicant has proposed to loop the water system from Street B to Street A through Cul -de -sacs G and I. Fire hydrant spacing appears sufficient. Final review and approval of the fire hydrant locations will be subject to the City's fire marshal. Extension 1 of municipal water service to the adjacent properties to the north should be extended with sanitary sewer services between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. 1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE I The applicant has submitted a revised grading /drainage plan since the conceptual review process. The revised preliminary grading plan has reduced the grading limits in some areas of the development. This was accomplished by reducing street grades and elimination of I sedimentation basin No. 7. As a result, tree loss has been somewhat reduced. In an effort to save trees staff has reviewed the possibility of shortening Street J and servicing the remaining four lots in the private drive. This however does not accomplish saving trees as 1 so desired. It is recommended that Street J be left as proposed. The entire site drains in a southerly direction through a series of wetlands. Approximately I 2.60 acres of wetlands are proposed to be filled as a result of the development. The applicant is proposing 2.81 acres of mitigation to compensate for the filling of wetlands. The grading plans shall be revised to include mitigation areas. Staff is also concerned with I the size of the sedimentation basins proposed. No drainage calculations have been submitted to verify sedimentation basin storage capacity or water quality standards are being achieved. This may result in larger sedimentation /retention basins than are shown on the 1 Jo Ann Olsen 1 September 30, 1992 Page 3 proposed plans. The applicant shall provide the high water elevation for all wetlands to determine drainage easement limits and lowest floor elevations on the homes adjacent to the wetlands. The grading plans also indicate realigning a drainage swale through Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, 1 Block 2. The new proposed drainageway brings the swale fairly close to the proposed homes. The appropriate drainage and utility easement over this drainageway will be required to maintain the drainageway. The applicant may want to consider shifting the drainage swale further from the building pads to allow for future anticipated decks or patios that would encroach the drainageway. The same scenario holds true for Lots 70, 71, 72 and 73, Block 2 and Lots 33, 34 and 35, Block 2. The wetland mitigation sketches show existing and proposed drain tiles. The drain tile systems should also be shown on the final grading plan and record drawings be provided upon completion. I question the purpose of the drain tile at this time since the purpose of the wetland is to retain water and habitat for waterfowl, wildlife, etc. I understand the need for drain tile prior to the development phase when the land was under agricultural use. The applicant should provide reasoning why the drain tiles are still necessary with this subdivision. From the City's maintenance perspective, the drain tiles are typically difficult 1 to locate as well as maintain a small diameter of pipe. Plans propose storm runoff from the streets and lawns to be conveyed through a series of storm sewers which drain to six different sedimentation basins located throughout the site. As previously mentioned, some storm drainage and ponding calculations have not been submitted. The ponding sizes may vary depending on final calculations. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10 -year storm events and detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain surface water discharge rates at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed over the drainage areas as well as all storm sewers leading to and from the areas outside the street right -of -way. The storm sewer proposed through Lot 33, Block 2 should be extended to discharge into sedimentation basin No. 6. As proposed, the discharge would be in the middle of Lot 33. Drainage and utility easements should be provided along the centerline of the drainageway 1 or storm sewer to a width sufficient to provide property maintenance and to provide protection from storm water runoff from a 100 -year storm, 24 -hour duration. Appropriate front, side and rear drainage and utility easements corresponding to lot lines should be provided with the final plat. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide in areas containing utilities with the exception where two utility lines may occupy the easement, i.e. sewer and water. In that case, a 30 -foot wide easement should be dedicated. 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen September 30, 1992 Page 4 1 According to the EPA's federal guidelines, construction activities that are initiated after ' October 1, 1992 which disturb 5 acres or more need to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit administered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Due to the size of this development, the applicant will 1 be required to apply. 1 STREETS The major thoroughfare (Street A) is designated as an east /west collector street providing ' future connection from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. According to the City's ordinance, collector -type streets shall be constructed 36 -feet wide face -to -face with an 80- foot wide right -of -way. The plans proposed what appears to be a 36 -foot wide back -to -back ' street within a 60 -foot right -of -way. Staff is comfortable in granting a variance for this right - of -way in an effort to minimize setback and tree preservation. The plans propose a typical ' roadway section for Street A of 36 -foot wide back -to -back. Staff recommends that the street be widened to 36 -foot wide gutter -to- gutter to accommodate two 12 -foot lanes and one 10- foot parking lane. The concrete sidewalk is proposed along the north side of Street A. The ' sidewalk is proposed to be constructed within one foot of the property line. This will leave a 41 -foot green space between curb and sidewalk. The plans propose a series of landscaped islands in the cul -de -sac as well as in the center median on Street A at the Trunk Highway 41 entrance. Staff strongly recommends removing the island median in the cul -de -sacs. This creates snowplowing problems, safety hazards and possible liability risks to the City. The Public Works Superintendent has indicated that the islands as proposed will restrict movements of the plowing equipment and require the plows to make pass between the island and the curbs thus piling most of the ' snow in the homeowners' driveways. City plow crews typically utilize the entire cul -de -sac so as not to pile the snow in the homeowners' driveways. These islands will also create a parking problem. The street will have to be posted no parking to accommodate turning movements of garbage trucks, school buses and delivery vehicles, etc. Without the island, the vehicle would be able to maneuver to negotiate the cul -de -sac turning radius. As we are all aware, cul -de -sacs are fully utilized by the neighborhood children as play areas. The island will only be a magnet for children to play in and around. This will create a safety hazard with regards to vehicles utilizing the cul -de -sac not being able to see around the other side or when a homeowner is backing out of their driveway. The islands serve no purpose for traffic delineation, therefore, may result as a liability issue ' on behalf of the City. Islands also create added maintenance responsibility for the City. The applicant may desire to have the association maintain these islands. While Lundgren 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen September 30, 1992 Page 5 1 Bros.' developments appear to have cooperative homeowner associations, other developments may not. By allowing the island areas the City is opening the door to all developments in the City. Staff predicts the City will become overwhelmed with maintenance responsibilities requiring additional staff & equipment. The center median proposed along Street A at the entrance off Trunk Highway 41 has some of the same problems as previously mentioned. In addition, Outlot F at sometime will be built on and thus the vehicle will have to do u -turn at the first intersection in order to gain access to its lot. The applicant should delete the island median and construct an entry -type monument which should be place on one of the corner lots (Outlot A or F). There currently exists a driveway to serve the existing building located on Lot 1, Block 6. g g , This driveway will have to be relocated to access off Street A. Staff predicts turning movements at Trunk Highway 41 and Street A will require roadway improvements on Trunk Highway 41 such as deceleration and acceleration lanes and /or bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41. The applicant shall incorporate these improvements into the street construction plans accordingly. An access permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for work proposed in MnDOT right -of -way. Street grades range from 0.80% to 6.4% which is in accordance with City codes. Street B 1 is proposed as a 1500 -foot long dead -end street. Staff strongly recommends that Street I be extended to connect with Street G. The applicant is already proposing to extend sewer and water utilities along the same alignment. From a traffic engineering and safety standpoint, it is only prudent to have these two streets connected also. 1 MISCELLANEOUS Addresses for the existing homes in the subdivision as well as the businesses will need to be changed when the new streets are completed adjacent the property. Plans propose erosion control barriers adjacent to the wetlands. Type III erosion control is recommended around 1 the higher quality types of wetlands. There appears to be an existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. The applicant will need to resolve vacating the private road easement prior to final plat. 1 The preliminary plat proposes drainage easements over all of the existing wetlands within the subdivision except for those on the outlots. Staff recommends that the applicant provide 1 drainage and conservation easements over all wetlands including those on the outlots. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 1 1 1 1 1 Jo Aim Olsen September 30, 1992 1 Page 6 I RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility easements for I construction of the lift station within the development. 2. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and I east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant shall extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat I boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul -de -sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided, the City will refund a 1 portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. 3. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be I required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is operational. 1 4. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction 1 with the final platting. I 5. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire Marshal. 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory I agencies such as MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR and MnDOT. 7. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas as well I as show locations of existing and proposed drain tile systems. 8. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe I 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 1 predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. 9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access I to maintain the ponding areas. An easement shall also be provided along wetlands and each side of drainageways from the storm ponds or wetlands. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines I 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen 1 September 30, 1992 Page 7 1 with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement area. In those areas the easement width shall be increased to 30 feet. 1 10. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No. 6. 11. The applicant shall construct a 36 -foot wide gutter -to- gutter urban street section along Street A. The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards (31 -foot wide back -to- back). 12. The landscaped islands proposed for the cul -de -sacs and Street A at the Trunk 1 Highway 41 entrance shall be deleted unless the applicant can justify them from a traffic engineering standpoint. 1 13. Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses in accordance with the City grid system once the streets have been constructed with the first lift of asphalt. Driveways shall also be relocated to take access off the interior street (Street A). 14. Street B is proposed as a 1500 -foot long dead -end street. Staff recommends that Street I be connected with Street G, thus eliminating two dead -end cul -de -sacs. 15. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher - quality type wetlands. Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or lower quality wetlands and sedimentation ponds. 1 16. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. 17. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision, including outlots. 1 18. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 19. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 1 20. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if 1 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen September 30, 1992 Page 8 1 so required by MnDOT. These improvements should be incorporated into the street 1 construction plans accordingly. 1 21. If islands are allowed in the cul -de -sacs, No Parking zones shall be established to prohibit parking in the cul -de -sacs. I jms /ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 0011 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 N MEMORANDUM 1 TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official '' . 1 DATE: 10/01/92 SUBJECT: 92 -4 PUD, 92 -6 SUB, 92 -5 Rezone, 92 -5 WAP. Response to applicants' Concept Plan Approval Issues dated September 14, 1992. 1 • i. Item 19. Provide "as build" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. We currently have subdivisions in which the developer is the builder and problems have occurred and continue to occur relating to properly locating dwellings on corrected pads. Problems have occurred with homes being too large to fit on the pads, appendages to homes (porches, decks, etc.) missing the pads, homes being moved or twisted to suit customers and missing the pads, and pads not being placed exactly as originally intended. Other problems have occurred after the area is developed and homeowner apply for permits for additions or accessory structures and the Inspections Division is unaware of the presence or extent of corrected pads. I strongly recommend a condition remain stating: Applicant shall provide as built locations, dimensions, and 1 elevations of all corrected house pads prior to issuance of building permits. 2. I requested a clarification of the intended use of the existing buildings. 1 Buildings or structures intended to be demolished are required to obtain demolition permits. A condition should state: Applicant shall obtain demolition permits for any dwelling or structures to be removed. 1 1 art le PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 111 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal ' DATE: October 1, 1992 SUBJ: Planning Case #92 -4 PUD #92 - 5 Rezoning and 92 -9 WAP (Johnson, Dolejsi, Turner Site) 1 I have reviewed the plans and have the following requirements: 1 1. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 2. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to firefighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e, NSP transformers, street lighting, 1 cable boxes, landscaping. 3. Fire hydrant locations as proposed are acceptable. 1 4. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul -de -sac with the center island must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This would depend on the size of the cul -de -sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parked in the cul -de -sac. 1 1 1 1 1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. IMINIMMEMMINNW ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 1 SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10560 WAYZATA BOULEVARD • MINNETONKA, MN 55305 -1525 (612] 546 -7601 • FAX (612] 546 -9065 September 8, 1992 1 1 City of Chanhassen c/o Ms. Joann Olson P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: Johnson Dolejsi Turner Site Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Ladies and Gentlemen: 1 Enclosed are 26 sets of revised preliminary plans for the subject project. The revisions are intended to address the issues in your August 14, 1992 letter and consist of the following: 1. Preliminary plat - The plat has been revised to show 1 the lot configuration shown on the August 21, 1992 lot sketch plan prepared by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban and which was presented to you at last week's meeting. The plat contains 112 lots. The street alignments are the same as the previous plan. The intersections have been revised to be at essentially right angles. A revised tabulation of the lot areas and widths will be provided. The wetland boundaries and setbacks are shown on a separate plan. 1 2. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan - This has been revised to conform to the new plat. Some modifications have also been made to reduce the site grading and the wooded and wetland areas disturbed by construction. In general, this was done by changing the lot type and reducing grading in the rear yard areas. Attached is a plan which shows the areas where site grading was eliminated. The drainage plan is similar to the previous. The major change is that the stormwater management pond south of "H" Street (old pond 7) has been eliminated. The drainage plan will comply with the requirement of Item 9 in the August 14, 1992 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. 1 City of Chanhassen 2 September 9, 1992 1 1 letter. Detailed calculations and design will be provided with the final plan for each phase. A five - foot wide concrete sidewalk is shown on the north side 1 of "A" Street. 3. Preliminary Utility Plan - This plan has also been 1 revised to conform to the new plat. The watermain has been looped between "I" and "G" Streets and hydrants are shown at approximately 300 foot spacing. The ' sanitary sewer on "G" Street has been changed to flow south to "I" Street. The trunk sewer lift station is shown south of the southeast corner of the site as proposed in the feasibility study. Sanitary sewer can 1 be extended to the north plat line from either "D" or "E" Streets. Watermain along TH 41 can be done in the future within the highway right of way. No berming or other site improvements are proposed that would preclude future construction. 4. Vegetation and Preservation Plan - This plan shows and identifies the scattered individual trees on the site and also the edges of the wooded areas. A general description of each wooded area is provided. The areas 1 that will be cleared for the site grading are shown cross - hatched. We are in the process of obtaining the number, type and size of trees within each removal 1 area. This tabulation will be provided by Friday. A separate concept landscaping plan is also provided. Also included in this submittal is a narrative, Wetland ' Boundary and Setback Plan and Concept Landscape Plan prepared by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, and a Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Ron Peterson of Summit Envirosolutions. 1 Please contact us to schedule a meeting if you have any questions. 1 Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. 1 ` aid 1 KEA /cj Kenneth Adolf enc. cc: Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. 1 John Uban, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Ron Peterson, Summit Envirosolutions 1 1 1 1 JOHNSON - DOLEJSI PROPERTY • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1 LUNDGREN BRO'S. SINGLE - FAMILY PLAT 1. The development plan has been adjusted to minimize the number of lots with widths less than 1 90 feet. The basic concern with lots less than 90 feet is that some homes with three -car garages may not fit on a lot of less than 90 feet. The plat contains 22 lots that are less than 90 feet at the setback line. All of these lots are on cul-de -sacs, which form the end radius, I pie - shaped lots. These Lots also are among the largest lots in square feet within the subdivision. The end cul-de -sac lots, by their very nature, are narrow at the front where they have access 1 to the cul-de -sac turn - around. The lots widen very quickly as one moves away from the edge of the cul-de -sac. By moving a home back 5 to 8 feet, or jogging or offsetting a garage or building in the development plan, one can obtain widths in excess of 90 feet._ Technically 1 however, when measured at the setback line, these lots are less than 90 feet. The fact is that these lots offer a great deal of flexibility in locating homes. Requiring the 90 -foot width at the setback line would actually force lots to be much larger than is needed and would be 1 noticeably less efficient than normal development. Specifically, the following lots proposed are less than 90 feet at the setback line: Block 2 Block 5 Lots 9 through 12 Lot 3 I Lots 25 through 29 Lots 33 through 36 Lots 62 through 65 1 Lots 74 through 77 2. Lundgren Brothers, developers of the property and builders of all of the homes, will control 1 the relationship of all principal structures on the site. This control will guarantee that there is at least a 20 -foot separation between all principal structures. The requested flexibility of the 6 feet for the side yard property line for garages and 9 feet for living space allows final siting 1 adjustments for home construction. With each permit, a site plan is submitted, which will also show the surveyed closest structure to each side yard. The 20 -foot separation will clearly be delineated for each building permit. 1 This flexibility allows for certain minimum conditions to take place, which often times are corners of buildings since the subdivision is designed in a curvilinear fashion to minimize adjacent buildings having a long, common facade -type appearance. The twisting of buildings 1 on the site and adjusting the buildings to the specific site terrain creates a much more interesting subdivision, but also demands flexibility in customizing as the building process takes place. Flexibility up front minimizes the potential for requested variances later on. 1 3. The revised full -site landscape plan shows the boulevard and screening types of plantings that will take place on the site. All of the homes in the subdivision are built for specific customers and not as large blocks of spec. homes. Obviously, there will be models built on the site for 1 sales purposes, which will be fully landscaped. However, we find that individual customers and future residents of the area have a great variety of tastes in how they want to landscape 1 1 Lundgren Bro's. Single - Family Plat 7 September 1992 Page 2 their home. This is a personal choice and we believe that it should be Left up to each home owner. Some will choose lots with woods and others will choose lots that have an open character so that they can enjoy the summer sun with gardening or a swimming pool and ' other activities. To dictate the landscaping in rear yards and around buildings eliminates the individual choices that the home owners demand. We believe that the front yard as viewed from the street is important and the development of ' the streetscape with boulevard plantings adds to the overall attractiveness of the subdivision. This important landscaping is included in our master plan. It is within this framework that we believe the landscape plan should be most effective in single - family developments. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • .1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 7, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes, and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior ' Planner; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician PUBLIC HEARING: LUNDGREN BROS. PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 41, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND ADJACENT TO 7305 HIGHWAY 41 (HAZELTINE BOULEVARD): 1 A. REZONE 93 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR. RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PUD. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. ' B. PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 112 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 8 OUTLOTS. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. Public Present: ' Name Address Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros, 935 E. Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata" John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. Ken Adolf Schoell & Madsen, Inc. Ron Peterson Wetland Specialist Bruce Buxton 401 Golf Course Drive, Baxter, MN Thomas W. Green Box 5055, Brainerd, MN Tim Keene Larkin - Hoffman Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparral Lane David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd. Paul Savargen 9950 No. Shore Road, Waconia Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. 1 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of land development for Lundgren Bros' at 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata. As you may recall, we were before you not too long ago with this concept plan approval and at that meeting the Planning Commission embraced our concept almost entirely and" passed it onto the City Council for their review. At the City Council meeting held recently, they also accepted the recommendations of the Planning Commission and also agreed on a couple other fine points that we had presented to the City and approved that concept plan approval and as' you know now we're back before you for the preliminary plan approval. 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 2 1 Before we go any further, let me just introduce the development team to yon ' in case you have any questions of those professionals that I can't answer. To my immediate right is Ken Adolf. He's our consulting engineer and he's with Schoell and Madsen. To his immediate right is Mr. Ron Peterson and he is our wetland specialist. And over here in the corner is Mr. John Uban ' and he's a principle with the firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, and they have attended all the meetings previously with me. Because you're already so familiar with this proposal as we've pretty much covered most of the ' details conceptually during previous meetings, out of courtesy to you and I know you have a full agenda, I thought what we would do is go directly to the recommendations in the ' conditions. Since we last met, and since the City Council meeting of a couple weeks ago, there have been some additional conditions imposed upon this approval and I thought it would be important for us to go through those this evening and clarify some of them and discuss the remainder. ' What I'm handing out to you is what is on the overhead and basically it is just a repeat of the recommendations that you have before you in your packet with below it, or in the margin, our comments and I'll just go ' through these as quickly as I can and if at any time you have any questionE or you choose to interrupt me and ask a question, please do so. On some of these I will actually have our engineers or the planners or the wetland specialist address them. Under the first items related to the approval of ' the PUD, we have no comment on either number 1 or number 2. On the recommendations in the conditions related to approval of the preliminary plat (92 -4PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions. We are requesting that you delete what is being proposed in the recommendation and inserting in it's place the following. The front yard setback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the street right -of -way. The intent being to minimize the impact on the natural features of constructing a new home on each homesite. The lots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lots 1, 14 -19, 37 -43, 52 -57, Lots 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78 -81 in Block 2. In addition to these ' lots, staff has also recommended similar flexibility on the following lots. Lots 22 -24, Lots 30, 31, 46, 47, 58 -61 and 66 -72 in Block 2. The reason that we are asking for that is because if it states as proposed that they ' shall maintain a 20 foot period. That means that that has to be the setback. 20 feet. Now the idea, and I think that we're on the same wavelength as the staff on this and of the Planning Commission for that ' matter, because we discussed that at a previous meeting. The idea behind the flexibility is to insure or to give the capability to move that structure around a little bit to try to maybe save something. There might be a tree there. There could be something to give you that flexibility but ' if you say that everyone has to be 20 feet, what happens if at 24 feet you'd save a tree? We think that flexibility is an important item. The next item, number 2, we do not have a problem with. Item number 3, we ' would prefer to modify that and the reason that we would prefer to modify it is based upon my discussion with the Fire Marshal Mr. Littfin and he hac concerns about reducing the cul -de -sac diameter to 100 feet and we indicated to him that that would not be a problem for us. We could 1 maintain that larger diameter and we could work with that. Batzli: Excuse me one minute. Jo Ann, was this originally done? Dropped ' down to 100 in order to reduce the grading. Was that the only reason that we had done that? 1 II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 3 II ( Olsen: Right. Yes, we're fine with that. Terry Forbord: And we agree with engineer Dave Hempel in that the II collector street right -of -way should not be reduced to 50 feet. We think because of the nature of that roadway and the fact that there will be a sidewalk there, that we should leave that at a higher, and I'm not exact sure what right -of -way you're proposing. What is that, Dave? Hempel: 60 feet. 1 Terry Forbord: 60 feet, okay. Olsen: That condition just referred to local streets. Not the collectoTl Terry Forbord: On page 2, items 4 thru 7, we are in agreement with. On item number 8 of the same page, right now the recommendation, the conditlir of this recommendation states that the area shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetati What we are proposing instead would be that a tree removal plan, approve by the City staff, will be required for each lot in the subdivision prior to the issuance of a building permit. There shall be no clear cutting II permitted for any lot•except for the placement of the house pad and utilities. Clear cutting is defined as removal of any vegetation with a 4 inch caliper or more at 4 feet in height. And I've taken this paragraph" from a developers agreement between the city and Lundgren Bros on the Summit at Near Mountain and it's worked quite well. It was actually I think proposed by the city. The reason that we're proposing this instea is because the way that it's written now, you couldn't build any .home. u couldn't build any streets and you couldn't put any utilities in which would preclude us, obviously we wouldn't be able to proceed. Batzli: Can I interrupt you one more time Terry? II Terry Forbord: Yes sir. I Batzli: Have you guys seen this before? Or did Terry just give this to you guys as well? Olsen: Just now. II Terry Forbord: I did not get a chance to get this to them. We had the 1 staff report late Monday and between now and then there was no time to respond and get back to them. Krauss: Excuse me, did you want us to raise some questions or can we rate some questions on some of these? Batzli: Yeah. Yeah. I'd rather now have to go back through it so if yil have questions, you bring them up. Terry Forbord: We could back up if you'd like. II II Planning Commission Meeting 11 October 7, 1992 - Page 4 1 Krauss: Well this is on number 8. I think we're comfortable up to that point. Olsen: Terry is correct in saying that that's the wording for Summit and ' we've had some difficulty in the tree removal plans where you'll have a tree removal plan. You'll see that the house pad is showing the removal of some of the trees that you had intended to save. Then you're out on the ' site. It's between you and the homeowner and well, that's where I have to have my house. So you end up losing trees that were supposed to be preserved. And this is, I was just kind of roughly this up right now but the blue area shows the trees on the site. The solid blue areas are the ' trees that are being removed so the highlighted areas that have not been shaded in are the treed areas that are... Anyway, you can see that the house pads will still have room in the clear areas and these are the areas ' that we're saying are to be shown to be preserved. That's one of the whole reasons that the PUD has been proposed and is being accepted. We're sayirK that fine. We've agreed that those are all to be saved. Let's save them. ' And they are not in areas where the utilities are going to be going. They're beyond the house pad area and this is what we did with the Willow Ridge PUD and it's been working very well. ' Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? Batzli: Yeah. ' Terry Forbord: Perhaps there's just some confusion in the language and the understanding. What I was interpretting what staff's condition was, was that the areas in blue would not be able to be, they'd have to be in a preservation zone. And obviously there's streets and there's house pads it there and that would be very difficult. It was just my interpretation of what I was reading. Is it my understanding that the area then that's in ' white is the preservation zone? Olsen: Right. The area that you're showing. That plan shows all the ' vegetation. It shows the vegetation that's being removed and our intent was the vegetation that's not being removed, to be preserved. John Uban: Maybe I could. Some of our confusion I think came from the ' point that when we were before you last time, we had discussed not removinc as many trees and allowing the home placement. The actual building of the home to be fitted into the trees that could be saved and not torn out during the construction process of putting in utilities, building pads and the roads. We do have some places on this particular map where we anticipate the home and the woods will meet. And there may be the need to ' remove some trees based on the construction that we actually find happeninG when we're out there and do the final plans. What we don't want to happen is to have that construction process, the final design and siting of each home to be inhibited by a preservation area that could use some adjustment. So what we were suggesting is, rather than the strict preservation based or our preliminary plan at this point, that a preservation happen later on after we're better able to adjust. That's why we suggested this different wording so each site could be looked at specifically. II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 5 1 Batzli: Let me ask you this question. On the plat we're looking at, if you come around the podium and you look up there, you show trees and thel house pads aren't anywhere near those preservation areas that Jo Ann has drawn up there. Now I don't understand. I mean you two are missing each other I think. Jo Ann is saying there are tree preservation areas which will be deeded as tree preservation areas. You haven't shown on your pli. here, clearly not anywhere near any house pads or anything else. Is there a problem with preserving the tree areas that you show us tree areas on e plat? You can save other trees. Terry Forbord: Yes. Batzli: We're not telling you to cut down all the other trees but we're, saying these trees in particular are ones that we want preserved. John Uban: The actual drawing and putting an easement on the plat prior c construction may not accurately show the edge that will actually be crea ec when you put each one of the homes in place and make those final adjustments. We may decide, and hopefully we'll find some trees that we can save in the construction process. It may be in a sideyard or a fron of a house. We may wish to move the house back or twist it a little bit and...adjustments may be inhibited if we too early set a line that says II this is the line for tree preservation. Hopefully, the process we had suggested with individual site plans that show how that tree preservation t works would be the best way to match the home with a site and have that il preservation take place. Batzli: But see I see a big difference between your condition, which sa nothing about tree preservation area. All you're talking about is you'r going to submit a tree removal plan. This would be a preservation area which would be part, it would run with the land. Am I right? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. We don't have a problem with the concept of II what you're saying. Here's where the problem exists and we're already starting to feel this a little bit in a previous development. When we t k academically about these kinds of things and we try to create in the narrative what's going to happen, we try to draw these lines to scale of inch equals 100 and 1 inch equals 50 feet. And all that looks real wonderful but if any of you have ever even done any landscaping your yari or done any kind of work where you actually get out into the real world ilic you're dealing with dirt and you're trying to make some things work, I mear that fine line disappears. I mean it disappears. There's no such thing lis a fine line. That fine line becomes 10 feet. Becomes 15 feet. And it becomes impossible to do something. For instance, if you're building a home, you've got to have a perimeter around that home of probably of anywhere from 10 to 15 feet minimum, just to be able to function and to II operate and everything's going to be wrecked inbetween. Unfortunately. It'd be neat if there was a better way but so far there hasn't been one developed and all we're saying, it's where that envelope, that building li envelope meets the preservation zone is where the adjustment somehow nee to be made and that's where it gets real difficult to start dealing with. As far as everything beyond that, everything beyond that envelope or tha construction zone, I don't have a problem with having a preservation zon But what happens is that, if you clearly try to say here's exactly where II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 6 it's going to be, well then you say, you know how do you predict what a house that isn't even there yet, how it's going to fit in that. And so somehow I think that it's important that, and this is what we do in other cities as well and this is what we've done already in this city. We bring ' forth, here's the plan. Here's the house for this lot. Here's the tree preservation plan for this lot, and it works quite well, or it has in the past. Batzli: How do you react to my comment that your tree preservation, well your tree removal is not equivalent to a tree preservation area which is a condition of approval? ' Terry Forbord: Like I indicated, we don't have a problem with a preservation zone. I think it's the language or the semantics that we come ' up with right where the construction envelope touches that zone. What is it going to be? The way I interpret this right now, and maybe I'm being too paranoid too. I mean that's possible but I'm the guy that has to go out and live and breathe it and make it work. And what we're already ' finding is that these are very difficult parameters. I think that it's fair to say and I believe that you would agree with me. You trust that we have the same motivations that you do and I trust that we're on the same ' wave. We want to save as many trees as possible. It's to my benefit. It's to my customer's benefit but I do know for a fact that when I get out therE it's not as easy as what you see on those pretty drawings in the real worlc and so we're trying to figure out a way to make that work. And maybe ' somebody has a better idea than I've been able to come up. Batzli: But we don't gain a preservation easement though. ' Terry Forbord: I'm willing to grant a preservation easement outside of the building zone, as long as we have that capability that we're not going to have that problem. Batzli: When does that happen though then? ' Emmings: That has to happen early. Krauss: Yes. It has to happen now with the plat and frankly that's all we've ever asked for. We are not trying to pick and choose homes that you have to shoot uh, I'm sorry. Trees that you have to shoehorn a home inbetween. We frankly have found over the years that this tree cutting plan, and it's not only with Lundgren. It's been used in a lot of projects, is a meaningless exercise. I mean I will save every tree that I don't have to cut down. Well, that's nice. We're not trying to restrict the type of homes. We're not trying to restrict where you put the home. ' We're saying set up a reasonable pad. Set up a reasonable area for the deck. Where there's trees coming into that lot, set up a reasonable line beyond which cutting should not occur. Now if they can pick and choose one save trees between there and the street because they shoehorn the house in, more power to them. But we don't want to get into the business of regulating individual trees like that. That's too difficult. We just don't want to do that. Terry Forbord: I agree 100% with what staff just said. Planning C la i g ommission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 7 , Emmings: Then how do you define the no cutting zone? ' Krauss: They're obligated to show us a building pad on each lot. If it's a 15 foot clear zone beyond that, so be it. You just boot the line further back. It's no different than establishing a no cut line around ilk wetland. You make your best estimate of where it is and you shoot that line. It's not a new technology. Terry Forbord: I think we're talking the same language here. In fact well want to take this even a step further in that it's possible that some of the trees in this area that are cross hatched, that are shown for removal' will actually be there when it's done because we'll be trying to save th tree and then try to get the house in behind it. So from the comments that I've just heard from staff, I think we're talking the same language. Ho precisely you put that in a narrative and make it so, I'm not exactly su but I know we're talking the same language. I do not have a problem putting it in a preservation zone beyond the building pad and I think that's what they're saying also. ' Emmings: I have a question here. We've called these conservation easements in the past and now we're calling it a preservation area. Is that the same thing? Krauss: It's one in the same. Olsen: It's one in the same. I think with Willow Ridge we did call it II preservation. We switched over so that's why we're doing it. And then just one final thing is that we were basing it on this plan that you seell here and even in our narrative of the report, we did point out that theyll are showing the trees right up to the edge and aren't providing that 15 foot area around the house pad and that we do want to have the plans to reflect that. To be honest and say that, when they show the reduced grading, they now show it right up to the house pad and we're saying, we really you're going to be 15 feet beyond there and so that's what we are agreeing to. That yes, there will be removal of trees beyond that. Not" right up. We understand the house pads. That they won't. Emmings: Jo Ann, essentially so I understand. Are the areas you've outlined as the preservation areas on this map, at least roughly the samil as what we're seeing in dark green? Olsen: Well we're both using the same information but this is not what I you're going to get. I honestly believe that there will be less trees preserved than what you see on both of these plans because they are not showing that 15 foot leeway around the building pad and that's one of till reasons we pointed that out in the report was just to say that the tree removal has been reduced but yet the plans aren't really showing all that will be removed. Emmings: But the area that will be in the preservation zone is yet to be agreed upon between the staff and the developer? We're just saying then 's going to be one. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 8 Olsen: Well there will be a plan similar to this and if Terry wants to adc that 15 feet, then yeah. That would be the plan that we would go with. Terry Forbord: And I think you can even add to that by what I've just stated previously. Is that it's possible that some of those trees that are now scheduled to be removed will not be removed. And again, these things are, it's not an accurate science. When you're driving you know a Laterno or a Caterpillar, dual engine, I mean it's just not that precise and so 11 what you try to do is you try to save it as best that you possibly can. What I'm hearing is that we're in 100% agreement with the staff. Is what I am hearing here and these are things that when you get into the actual final design documents, these things become a little more fine tuned and then actually in the developers contract you get further into the language so I don't see this as a problem based upon what I've heard. '. Batzli: 5o even if we said something like, the areas as substantially shown on the plans or something. These are the areas that we're trying to preserve. You're comfortable with that. ' Terry Forbord: Yes sir. Batzli: Okay. Terry Forbord: Are there any other questions related to number 8? Number 9 was that this has come up before you folks and I think you directed the ' staff to work with the applicant. It went to the City Council and they deleted this item. And because staff felt that it was important they had requested that it be placed back on. And this requirement basically would require that the applicant would provide the city with "as- builts ", locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. Let me give you a little bit of background of what this means. An as -built would be an engineered drawing that would show you a cross section of a building site that would show the depth, width, height, all drawn into detail of what was done on a lot in a subdivision if it had soil corrections done. For each lot that had them. Now, in many subdivisions there is a considerable number of lots that have soil corrections done to them and it's because you have to make your site balance and make all the dirt work and the water ' flow where you want it and the roads have to go and the house pads, I mean it's a complicated thing that you're trying to do. And so in some areas you're going to end up either adding dirt or you're going to be trying to cut dirt and if some of the existing dirt that's there is poor dirt or if ' it's an organic nature and it has some, it compresses and it does not become firm, you can't build a house pad on it. So you have to go througF of stripping of that out and then you put in dirt and lifts of maybe 1 foot or 2 foot and you compact it with a roller. Then you put in another lift and you do that until you get it to the elevation that you want to get it at. The problem with all this, and it works quite well, but if you had to do an engineered drawing for each lot, you would add $400.00 to $500.00 of cost to each lot and you'd have a piece of paper that did not solve your problem. Now I think that in my discussion with the building inspector, the problems that they have had in the past typically. Not always but ' typically have been when they have a developer who is not the builder. And if he's here, I'm sure he can address those. I don't know if he's here or _i Planning ommission Meeting g t g October 7, 1992 - Page 9 i not. But in the case with Lundgren Bros. we are the builder. We do the work in there. We build the homes and we're there from the very beginnill to the very end. Now there's two situations that, two solutions or remedies that we have as a builder. If in fact we have corrected the soil on a lot, and then we sell a house to someone and it's typically like a corner of a house may just get off the building pad a little bit because you might want to tilt that house just to take advantage of the way the streetscape is or the way the cul -de -sac is. Or maybe it just looks bet r tilted so let's say you just tilt a house a little bit so typically if t o condition does happen, and this is the fear of the Building Inspector, maybe the corner of a house would just be off the edge of a "corrected building pad ". Okay there's two choices you have if you're the builder." One, you can move the house back into an area where the soil is suitable Or two, you dig down further until you hit suitable soil and then you add additional courses of block. And now some of you may have heard this ty of terminology before. Those are your two choices. Okay, so by having as -built doesn't solve either one of those problems. You wasted $500.00 and it didn't solve a problem. Now when I asked the Building Inspector, he agreed he had never had a problem with Lundgren Bros. on any situation lite this. That we had always gone ahead and if in fact we did go off of a building pad, that we always went about and built and constructed the house in the manner that there would not be a problem. But the situation obviously just is one of those additional layers of regulations that you could add and it wouldn't have to be just confined to this type of situation, that keeps adding to the prices of homes and it doesn't solve the problem. And I asked the Building Inspector, what would this provid you with if in fact you had this? He said, well obviously what he could c is he could have it to scale. When we submit for the building permit, he could take the house, reduce it to that scale and kind of jockey it arou on to see if it was on the building pad. But what are you really doing there again? You're dealing with drawings at 1 inch equals 100 feet. There's absolutely no accuracy whatsoever when you're doing something li that. You could not take a drawing reduced to that size and come up and say yeah, now you're on the pad. Now you're not. I mean you could be o 5 feet easily so from a, realistic perspective, that's really not going t give you anything. So we would request that that item be deleted and wh we would rather do is what we're doing right now. We'd like to, the Building Inspectors come out. They inspect the dirt. The pad before the footings are poured and we would be happy to provide them with whatever information that is normally done. We've never been asked this in Chanhassen before. We've never been asked it in any other city that we've ever worked in 23 years and we feel it's just a level of bureaucracy tha wouldn't really help solve a problem. Batzli: Why is this in here? Krauss: Because the Building Inspector asked it to be. We have had, thi Building Inspector has had problems. There have been homes that have slid off their building pad. I would agree with Terry that the situation whell those happened, I think there were 2 or 3 of them that happened, is not really germain necessarily to this situation because that was a project that had mass site grading. It was a cornfield. That's not the way thi is going to be developed. We have asked Steve Kirchman to think of some alternative measures that are less onerous that satisfy him and his Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 10 1 department. We assume that there are. I really don't know how to advise you on it. It's not something we have expertise in. The condition is worded such that alternative options should be looked at and we're not bound by one method or another. So I'd like to leave it in or leave it with some sort of a provision or provisionary note that says it should be resolved by the time it gets to the City Council. And at that point we car ask the Building Inspector to defend that or make that case themselves. Terry Forbord: We have added our recommendation to there and maybe that would suffice with what Paul just said, in that the applicant shall work with the Building Official to assure that each home is constructed on ' suitable soils. Krauss: Initially I would say that that's fine. I mean either way you read it, any alternative is possible. So the alternate language is fine. Batzli: Well, if for example the applicant had to receive approval of the city building official and he was requiring as- builts because he wasn't convinced that it was suitable soil, they'd have to provide that, right? Krauss: Correct. Yeah, and this is a new requirement for the Building Official. And we'd like him to research it a little further. But again, we don't have a good answer for you tonight. Ahrens: Couldn't we just change similar to other and leave... Krauss: Sure. ' Terry Forbord: Any further questions on number 9? Hearing none, item 10 and 11 are fine with the applicant. Item number 12. We would like to replace 12 with the following. That the applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. And individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul -de -sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time of the exception parcel connects to the water and sewer service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. The applicant shall be ' reimbursed for the cost of installation of said improvements to said properties through credit of a trunk and sewer and water assessments. I think that our consulting engineer, Ken Adolf can explain this engineering item better to you than I can. Ken Adolf: The two locations that are requested as far as sewer and water extensions are the north side of the development. Sewer and water extension in this area from the north plat line, and another extension in this area to the corner of the exception. And also sewer and water service from the cul -de- sac... The developer is agreeing to do those but is requesting that some consideration be given to reimbursement of the costs for those extensions to serve other properties. The lift station which serves this entire area is located right there. So there's a fairly long connection required just to get from the lift station to the development. And if these facilities are going to serve other properties, we feel there's some basis for having some of these costs considered either trunk 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 11 improvements or some reimbursement or credit to the current assessments to this property. 1 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could address that condition. One other condition that was deleted I guess was the modified version was the applicant shall extend sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat II boundary. There is a small piece of high ground east of the subdivision that would be very difficult to serve with sanitary sewer when that parc develops. We anticipate sewer would be brought in from Galpin Boulevard r south of the property on up. There's a low ravine area that would have be crossed and rather doubtful that there'd be elevation to service it and be a gravity so it is our recommendation then that Street A, at the easterly edge of the plat, that sewer be extended to that plat edge. Units the applicant has other provisions to serve that parcel to the east. Ken Adolf: I forgot to address that that's an extension in this area. Ile most easterly lot is right here and that house is really on the west portion of that property. It's kind of the top of the hill. This street grade is going to drop off fairly sharply and in order to service any of" this area in the Song property would require lowering the sanitary sewer • considerably in this area. We feel that this area of the Song property would be better served by sanitary sewer being extended through the Song" property from the south. Terry Forbord: To the forcemain that's being constructed as a part of t trunk sewer project? Ken Adolf: Well actually it'd be a gravity sewer... Terry Forbord: What increase in depth would you anticipate in that 1 collector road of the sanitary sewer if in fact it was extended in that portion easterly? Ken Adolf: This street drops 10 or 15 feet in elevation from this point o the plat line. Terry Forbord: So the additional depth of the pipe. Ken Adolf: The sewer would have to be at least that much deeper to serve it. Terry Forbord: I think these are engineering items that the engineers c possibly get together and work through. Batzli: Yeah. What I would suggest is that you have your consultant talk to our City Engineers to see if that would even be feasible because I dollt think that we can vote on that yea or nay without knowing whether the depths and everything else would work out. Terry Forbord: I think it's fair to say that Lundgren Bros, when we meet' with the City Engineers, as we always have in the past, we've always come to a conclusion that's been workable for the City and for us and so I th k it's just a matter of having that opportunity to do so. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 12 Emmings: What about the other changes they're suggesting there tonight... Y g g ' Hempel: Yes, typically the City would refund a portion of the service costs to the exception. We've done it on similar plats. Vineland Forest Addition. However, as far as the trunk sewer and water assessment, the ' City has not typically refunded those costs back to the developer. The cost the City would refund would be a lateral type assessment or cost for installing that section of main to service that parcel. The trunk sewer ' and water costs are assessed on a unit basis which, depending on the acreage and so forth, is how we arrive at the number of units to be assessed on the parcel. Therefore we would request that that be eliminatec in their proposal. 1 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. We'd like to go on record saying that a lateral benefit reimbursement would be acceptable to Lundgren Bros and we think it ' would be fair. Are there any other questions on number 12? On number 13. The existing business that's on Lot 1, Block 1, we've been asked to require to connect that to urban services. That business is going to be demolishec on January 3rd of 1994 at the latest. If the current owner can find a ' place to relocate to, then he will be moving sooner. I think it wouldn't be well advised to spend the kind of money to hook up a building to sewer and water that was going to be demolished in that short of a period of time period so we would ask that that would be struck from the recommendation. Krauss: We could agree to that. Terry Forbord: Number 14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specs and detail plates. We've asked that, except for the condition in recommendation number 3 above, which discussed the right -of -way reduction and also discussed leaving the cul -de -sac at 120 which everybody seemed to agree with, that shall be constructed in accordance with the latest editior ' of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Everything else to that remains the same. ' Emmings: I don't understand the change you're making. Terry Forbord: The change is if you look at item number 3, or condition number 3. It states that the preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street rights -of -way from 60 to 50 and reduce the cul -de -sac radius from 120 to 100. We've already discussed that item and it's already been acceptable but I believe the City's standard specifications show 60 ' foot right -of -ways and that's why I'm saying except for. And I think they'd agree with that. Hempel: Yeah. No, we've comfortable with that. Terry Forbord: On page 5, 22 thru 24 are, we're in agreement. Page 5. Did I skip a page? Emmings: Yeah, there's a page missing. Terry Forbord: Page 5, or mine are out of order. Excuse me. Page 4. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 13 Emmings: Our's are too. Terry Forbord: How can those copying machines collate out of order. I'i not figured that out. I apologize for any inconvenience. Emmings: You could work for the city if you do something like that. Terry Forbord: Number 15 and 16 are okay. And number 17, we would ask that that be modified so it would state that the grading plan shall be I amended to include the wetland mitigation and we've struck the areas related to drain tiling because we do not know where existing drain tile iE on the site and we do not know if there's any proposed drain tiling. An so I'll let the engineer deal with this and discuss this because he's th� one that has alerted me to this. Ken Adolf: Well as Terry said, it's really impossible to show the existIc drain tile because no one really knows where they are. We do know that there are a number of tiles in the area. As far as proposed drain tile, where existing drain tile are encountered, we're proposing that those woitc be, by encountered I mean during the construction process we're proposinil that those would be either repaired or connected into some storm sewers so that the drainage patterns would not be altered. Hempel: The reason why Mr. Chairman I believe that comment got put in there is one of the plans did show an existing drain tile through one of the wetland areas. Also, the plan showed a proposed drain tile to conne the two wetlands I believe and we just would like to see that informatio also on the grading plan. Terry Forbord: It is true, we have discovered one drain tile. The 1 drainage patterns, as our wetland specialist can tell you, would lead one to believe that the site is laced with them but we don't know where they are. They probably will be discovered once construction starts out ther� And so it's difficult to put them on the grading plan now because nobody knows where they are, except for the one or two exceptions that exist but I can assure you there are more than that. 1 Batzli: You don't go out there with your little bent welding rods and kinc of dozz around there? 1 Terry Forbord: I always wanted to learn how to do that. Batzli: It works. It works. I've had to find drain tiles that way. Terry Forbord: Are you available on weekdays or weekends? Well, Mr. Hempel, do you have any recommendations how we could maybe amend this? 1 Hempel: I believe we could amend it to include any wetlands or drain tiles that are encountered I suppose during construction. With the as -built construction plans, that these drain tiles be shown on the record drawini. Batzli: If they find one when they're grading, would they be required to fix this? Would it hurt something if they switched it somehow or took oll a section? .1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 14 Hempel: The city is laced with drain tile systems and what we've found in the past is you're better off to connect these to a storm sewer system or ' reconnect the drain tiles to keep the drainage pattern that's going. If you interrupt the drainage pattern, you could cause a problem upstream which you may become liable for in the long run. So we have, in the past typically reconnected any drain tiles back up or connected them into a 1 storm sewer system. Batzli: He added to his proposal that the wetland mitigation area is then ' a known existing and proposed tiles or whatever and also include that they will report any that they find and may be required to connect them or work with staff if they find them. That would be satisfactory? 1 Hempel: That would be acceptable, yes Mr. Chairman. Terry Forbord: That is acceptable to Lundgren Bros. On number 19, the ' only modification that we have added to there is the word drainage. That would be in the third line I believe where it says now, it presently says an easement shall also be provided. I just added a drainage easement shall also be provided along wetlands. I think that was in the intent. I'm pretty sure by reading further on in the text. Is that correct? Hempel: If I could maybe just ask Jo Ann. Typically wetlands, do we have a conservation easement over those as well as a drainage easement or, have we in the past? 1 Olsen: We do have conservation easement also. Hempel: Okay. So the final plat of the development can reflect the ' drainage or drainage utility easement over the wetlands. However, the final plat cannot reflect a conservation easement on that document. Any conservation easement is dedicated through an easement agreement. So I think the language that we use by an easement covered both types of 1 easements. A conservation easement and the drainage easement. Terry Forbord: That's acceptable to Lundgren Bros. I thought they were 1 talking drainage. So number 19 is okay. Emmings: Well now, wait a minute. It only does talk about easements for ' drainage and utilities. That's all 19 talks about if you read it. So should we add something there? Olsen: The intent was also to protect the wetlands. 1 Emmings: It doesn't say that. Terry Forbord: So the appropriate. Emmings: Conservation, drainage and utility easements should be conveyed. If we just add the word conservation in there will we do what needs to be 1 done? Olsen: Are you on the first sentence? 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 15 f II Emmings: Yeah. If I just add. Ahrens: But is the purpose of a conservation easement to provide II access...? Olsen: Right. So it is the second sentence. 1 Batzli: But the conservation easement is over the wetland area but you want it for. , Olsen: It includes the wetland area. The buffer. Batzli: So your number 25 doesn't cover it? 1 Olsen: Yeah, that covers it. Emmings: So we can leave 19 the way it is. Originally? Is that what w were saying now? Olsen: I don't think it makes that big of a difference. Terry Forbord: That would be fine with Lundgren Bros. On number 20, I'll let the engineer describe that to you. Ken Adolf: This is probably one of those items that could be worked out with the city engineering staff...but the request, or the condition I should say was to extend the storm sewer which right now is going to end t that point and to extend it to this storm water basin. We feel that right now this is discharging right at the existing wetland and there's really lc need to extend the storm sewer any farther. ...surface very shallow swale... I don't see the need for the storm sewer extension. Terry Forbord: What we're trying to avoid, is we're trying to avoid I putting a bunch of pipe in the ground where it's not needed. That's the issue. Hempel: Staff's issue on this is you're essentially discharging the sto sewer in the middle of the resident's back yard. We're saying extend it to the rear property line which is the sedimentation basin limits or the I wetland limits. In either case there's going to be a drainage utility easement over that. The rear yard to provide maintenance and drainage ways so we just felt the resident would end up having an undesireable ditch section through it's back yard and one way to resolve that is to pipe it II with storm sewer an additional 30 -40 feet of pipe. Ken Adolf: I guess extending it to the rear property line is fine. Thalls a shorter distance than the entire distance to the basin. Terry Forbord: To make sure I understand what the two of you are saying" You're saying extend it to the rear property line? Okay. I think this another item that the engineers are agreeing to agree. Batzli: Well Jo Ann, is there an issue of them putting it directly into' wetland? Were we trying to filter it somehow? II ' Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 16 Olsen: I think this is different. Is this the same drainage? This is different. ' Hempel: This case is different than what Jo Ann had previously indicated about connecting the storm sewer between the wetland and had the pristine spring water traveling through it. What we're concerned about is the ' discharge of the storm sewer in the middle of the back yard also creating erosion problems. Typically the outlet of the storm sewer is at the sediment basins so discharge is at water level. Not up above which would ' have the potential for being an erosion problem over time. Olsen: This is what we're talking about is. My issue is these wetland basins, this drainage would come in... ' Hempel: Again, I'm sure it's an issue that can be worked out during the plans and specs review process. ' Emmings: Now does piping it to the rear of Lot 33 solve the problem as far as you're concerned? Hempel: I think it's two different issues. Emmings: Oh it is? Alright, then I don't get it. Obviously. ' Olsen: The piping that they're talking about is coming from the street. Drainage. And this over is overland drainage. Emmings: But 20 addresses storm sewer lines. ' Olsen: Right. Emmings: So now if we've got two issues here, which one are we talking about in this condition? Batzli: We're not talking about Jo Ann's. ' Olsen: Not talking about me. Emmings: Okay. So you don't have an issue here? Alright. So now, does giving it to the rear of the property line make everybody happy? t Hempel: Happier. But we can work it out during the plans and specification process to arrive at a comparable spot where the pipe 1 should discharge. Terry Forbord: I think that the item that I do agree whole heartedly ' with, and I don't believe that is what we're doing but David had indicated that he doesn't want this going right through somebody's yard. Well neither do we. And I can say that for the record. It's not our intent to do that. But we do believe that we can reroute that water or ' route that water without having to put in pipe. Batzli: Well, what happens if we say that you'll work with the City Engineering to do this or an other alternative acceptable? 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 17 Terry Forbord: That is acceptable. Yes sir. Batzli: Okay, what's next? ' Terry Forbord: Well because my pages are backwards here, I'm going to go back to the previous page. Onto number 25. , Olsen: That's fine with us. Terry Forbord: The only reason we eliminated G and H is because those are areas scheduled for future development and I'm pretty sure that the thought was the same between us and staff and I just clarified it. Okay, onto the last page. I'm not sure if my numbering is correct here but II for the last item I just stated that all conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit as shown below. Because we had requested that some of those be changed so if we move into the wetland alteration permi #92 -9, we would like to delete item number 2 and I will have Ron Peterson, our wetland analyst address that. Ron Peterson: Thank you Terry. Could I get that mitigation plan for thll corner of the site? Just lay way of re- orienting you to this portion of the site wetland basins. Batzli: Excuse me a moment. Can everyone hear? Okay. , Ron Peterson: Wetlands 7 and 7A lie immediately to the north and east o the storm water pond that's shown on this plan. These basins are very, very marginal remnants of a larger wetland that appears to have once existed in this entire area. And are just barely wetlands. And the reason for that is that there appears to be an extensive tile system under that whole area. What is occurring is that we're getting drainage!' coming in from the east. From the Song property that enters these two small basins and essentially disappears. It enters the tile system at that point and then re- appears at the northern most head of Basin 1C. Which essentially takes on a ditch like character from there. It flows to the south. Now maybe Ken can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't kno that we have a problem in routing that drainage to the mitigation area versus the storm water pond. I don't know that it necessarily would nee to be piped but perhaps I think a swale was already shown in the plans. But I see two options for dealing with these basins, and the reasons behind those options would be related to making sure that we don't end ull with some type of a drainage problem with the adjoining lots. One would be to essentially encourage the continued drainage of that area. In other words, and I think that's what we applied for initially, was to drain those two basins so that all of that water goes to the south and could go into the mitigation area. In that manner we could make sure that that flow doesn't end up turning up in somebody's basement or elsewhere. The other option would be perhaps to provide a little bit more fill around the edges of the house pads in those lots and then even excavate those basins slightly deeper so that they form an amenity and then have those again, discharge to the south. I think to maintain thos areas in their current condition is more or less going to just leave a couple of soggy spots off the back ends of a couple of lots that aren't 11 going to really serve any particular wetland functions and aren't going 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 18 to be an amenity to the lots adjacent and they're going to be rather soggy places for the kids to play in, is what they're going to be. ' Olsen: The reason that we stated in there that it could be, that wetland 7 could be maintained is that on some of the plans it still showed that it was existing and that the house pads could still meet it so we were saying that if it didn't need to be removed, don't. I agree with what Ron's saying. If it's just going to be kind of a worthless mushy area, that's not a major issue with us. We do strongly feel that the runoff ' should be routed to the new wetland mitigation pond. And I don't think it can be a drainage swale. I believe that's a hill. So I don't know, is it? I can't see on here. - Hempel: The grading plan that we looked at indicated a hill there kind of sloping down towards the house pad and. ' Olsen: So therefore it would have to be piped. Hempel: Yeah, it's going to be rather difficult to put a swale in there. We felt a pipe would have to be installed. Ron Peterson: Perhaps we could get some clarification about what the problem is with running it through the pond. I mean if it goes into the ' pond, I don't know what's. I mean the mitigation area that we're creating should have wetland hydrology without having the additional drainage. Essentially all we're doing is bringing two higher areas down ' to the grade of the existing wetland on either side so that we should be getting wetland hydrology even if we don't get this drainage. Olsen: Well it was, it's just not to waste that drainage because it was ' good drainage. And in working with our wetland consultant, they were saying, it was just something that he really remembered when he was visiting the site that there was a high amount of runoff coming into that ' pipe from the Song property and that was very high quality runoff coming from another wetland system that carries wetland vegetation with it. All the other nutrients. I guess he was saying it would be a real waste to have that go to a storm water pond. That it would be beneficial to have it go to the new wetland mitigation area, and we agreed with that. Batzli: Well let me see if I'm even coming close to tracking what we're ' talking about here. The current wetland 7 and 7A, they're not high quality wetlands, correct? ' Olsen: Correct. Batzli: So you're trying to take the water and get them out of a not very high quality wetland and put it down into the newly created one which is about 4 or 5 lots to the south? Olsen: They are currently directing that into a storm water pond that's ' adjacent to the mitigation pond. We're just saying direct it to a different. I mean it's not that much of a difference. 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' October 7, 1992 - Page 19 E Ron Peterson: I think we can probably find a way to engineer that. I mean I think, we think that would be beneficial too to run that water in there. I'm sure that between the engineers we can work out a way to get , that in there. Olsen: Into the storm water pond? This is where it's being proposed toll be directed to a new storm water pond. What we're saying is that it should instead be directed to the new wetland area. Terry Forbord: ...water quality? 1 Olsen: It's good water. It should go to the wetlands instead of a storm water pond. , Terry Forbord: We don't have a problem with that. Batzli: Okay. 1 Terry Forbord: Okay, the last item that we had a concern with was the next item, item 3 and Ron will address that as well. , Ron Peterson: Perhaps you could leave that same graphic up there for another moment or two. The concept behind the wetland mitigation plan this area is to blend these two areas, or three areas into existing wetland basin 1. The three. different parts of it, 1A, 8 and C. And for that reason we have tried to match the grades of that wetland area and perhaps maybe take it down another half a foot to a foot. The reason foll that, or for trying to replace what's being lost as close to in kind as we can. And I don't think we have a problem with making some minor changes to add a little bit more diversity in these areas to get a I combination of open water and emergent vegetation but we thought that 6 feet was possibly a little too deep to suit that purpose and is going to result in an awful lot of excess material that we're going to have to I waste somewhere and I don't know exactly where that material would go. The second part of this recommendation regarding getting into that part of Wetland 1C that lies between those two mitigation areas and deepening that as well. We've been trying to avoid extensive modifications to existing wetlands because the other wetland agencies that we have to dea with will view those as adverse impacts, even though all we're doing is perhaps changing one wetland type to another. In recent months we've been on -other projects been required to actually mitigate for changes we've made to other wetlands. And so we're trying to keep our mitigation in line with our impacts and leave any existing wetlands we can alone as much as we can. , Olsen: Okay, this is what we were proposing was to combine the mitigation for this whole area, and to increase the depth so there is I some open water. We agree that you should try to mitigate in time but this area is such a large wetland area. It's really pretty low quality and we shoudi really add some open water and just a diversity would be very beneficial. I agree with what he's saying though by increasing the I amount that's going to have to be removing from a wetland that would have been altered to begin with. That's probably a good point and so we should probably modify the condition that this be two new basins then. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 20 11 Add increase depth to this and they don't necessarily have to alter this one. Terry Forbord: That is agreeable with the applicant. Batzli: Okay so Jo Ann, what ever happened to the conditions we used to put on when people did things like this that talked about slopes and undulating bottoms and muck and all that good stuff? ' Olsen: Well they're doing that with the one wetland. And that's essentially kind of what we're requesting for these other ones. ' Batzli: But we're not putting that condition in? Olsen: They already did it with the one, but no. We could put it in but some of the mitigation that's being proposed are going to reflect what ' exists there and then those really wouldn't really match so it wasn't an easy condition to do as a general condition. ' Batzli: Okay. But those conditions are still what we're trying to achieve? ' Olsen: Yes. Batzli: Do you follow the change they made to condition 5? Okay. Do you have anything else Terry? Terry Forbord: Just a follow -up on your comment to what you were just describing. Those conditions are not a problem for us. As long as we don't have a consistent 6 foot depth in these. We think that's a little over kill and extreme. It ends up causing other problems with other agencies and things and we're trying to avoid that. That is the end of our comments. I think we may have a couple comments regarding some of the issues related to the buffer strips and I think Mr. Uban has some comments on those. John Uban: Sorry, I was distracted for a second. Terry Forbord: Okay. We were just talking about the buffer strips and the setbacks. John Uban: When we put together our plan and so forth, and showed the setback to the wetland, 40 feet and then accommodated a 10 foot buffer strip, it was our understanding that when we met with staff and had talked with them, that this basic process was, the setback was to the wetland. And then you created a buffer strip in which you maintain natural vegetation in there. In that setback area. And what has transpired as either a misunderstanding or somehow we're not, didn't track exactly what was the intent of the setback and as we read the staff ' report, as it's been amended and handed to us this evening, that they are indicating that the setback is from the buffer strip. Not from the wetland. And we will do our best to accommodate within the development those adjustments and the fact that we can narrow up some of the streets by 50 feet versus 60 and looking at that of flexibility, we will Planning Commission Meeting II October 7, 1992 - Page 21 adjust to best meet that condition. There may be a few spots where it II P may not exactly fit and we would hope that the flexibility within the PU and so forth would allow a 5 foot variance here and there where it may b necessary. We don't think it's a big problem and we will make our adjustments accordingly but we did have some confusion on the real intent and how the ordinance was being interpretted and applied to this condition. II Batzli: Thank you. Jo Ann, we never got your response or rebuttal if 1 you will from their recommendation to modify condition 1 of the preliminary plat. They listed a lot more blocks and lots if you will. Did you have any reaction to that? Olsen: No. We're agreeable to what they're proposing. I guess we were' just trying to go one step further and to point out lots where the 20 foot front yard setback would be very beneficial. It would reduce the impact to trees, the wetlands and grading. And so we're just playing it II out that those lots should have the 20 foot front yard setback. Again that's the whole purpose of the PUD. We're just concerned a lot of time where the setback would actually be 30 -40 feet and that would actually b impacting more than what is being shown or believed to be happening now. Batzli: But given their, assume for a minute that they have a II conservation easement around the trees and assume that they need to put the 40 foot buffer from the wetland. Would you still be uncomfortable i with allowing them flexibility to move it around, which is what their II proposed wording gives it? Olsen: Right. What they're doing is fine. I don't think we need to be as strict as I was. II Batzli: Okay. This is a public hearing. If there is anyone else who would like to address the Commission. I invite you to do so. If you'd II come to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record, we'd appreciate that. Tim Keene: Tim Keene with Larkin, Hoffman, Daley and Lindgren, 7900 II Xerxes, Bloomington, and I'm here this evening with Tom Green and Bruce Buxton on behalf of Mills Fleet Farm. Property owners to the south and west. Just a quick question for either of the engineers. It wasn't I clear from the drainage plan, and I believe it's wetland 6 in the southeast corner. Will that be discharging off site and if so, which direction? II Batzli: I think it's 1C. Wetland 1. Tim Keene: Well it's in the extreme southeast corner of the site. 1 Emmings: Can we get something up on the board so he can. Olsen: Yeah. This shows the wetland that you were asking... II Ken Adolf: I believe the question was, is the storm water basin in this'll general area, number 6. II 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 22 Tim Keene: Correct. Ken Adolf: That's going to discharge off site. I guess indirectly it does. It will discharge into this large wetiand...which will extend ultimately off site. Tim Keene: Okay. Will that be wholly contained within the property controlled by Lundgren Bros or will it be effecting our property off site? Ken Adolf: As I said, this will discharge into this very large wetland complex so we don't expect that given the size of this wetland, that there will be any impact at all. On site or off site. • Tim Keene: Okay. ' Batzli: Is the property that you're here representing, do they abut this wetland? Is that the issue? Olsen: On the south side. • Tim Keene: I'm not certain as to the extreme boundaries of the wetland ' and Tom, is that contiguous to? Tom Green: I'm not sure. Tim Keene: Yeah. It's hard to say from that site because the site information, once you get off the developed portion is not any level of detail. That was our only question. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, as with any storm retention pond, the city does require that the pond discharge at the pre - developed runoff rate from the sedimentation pond. So the volume of water or the discharge rate of the water will be at the pre - developed runoff rate. Overall I would anticipate the overall volume or the amount of runoff would be slightly increased with the added impervious surface through the development but as Mr. Adolf has indicated, there's a very large wetland to the south of this development. Batzli: So you wouldn't envision having to put in some sort of pipe or culvert at a certain elevation in that wetland is so large? Hempel: That's correct, no. ' Tim Keene: Okay, thank you. Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the commission? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in ' favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Joan, do you have some comments for us? 1 • 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 7, 1992 - Page 23 Ahrens: I feel like I just sat through a staff meeting. I think that a lot of this stuff should have been worked out before coming to us. I'm saying that not just staff but for Lundgren Bros because we've been sitting here for almost 2 hours discussing things that you're in basic agreement on. Besides that, I'm not going to go over each condition that Terry has discussed here. I'm going to go along with the staff report oil this and with everything that's been agreed to tonight between the developer and the staff. The only condition that I kind of have a problem with is condition 8 that deals with the tree preservation area. I guess I'll be satisfied. I think Brian you proposed to insert some language. I'm not even sure because I didn't write it down but I think it was something about the areas...proposed tree preservation areas will be...eventually agreed to by the staff. 1 Batzli: I think I said something about the areas substantially as shown on the plans will be protected in that they're going to work with staff to get a final designation. But I would like some comfort from us. I agree with you that what we're looking at is the area that we think. It' substantially that area. I don't mind if they've got to move in 5 feet or 10 feet because that's where the house pad goes. I agree with Terry II that looking at this plan with these scales, there might be a couple of minor adjustments but I would like to be assured that it's substantially what we're looking at is going to be preserved. 1 Ahrens: And if that can be done with the language that you've stated, I guess that's all we can do but I agree. I think that that area should be preserved as it's shown on that plat. I guess the questions that remain open I guess I'm going to defer to the city's expertise and allow them to work those things out with the developer. Do we see this again? Batzli: No. Do you have any feeling, we talked about this last time a 1 little bit. The issue of the private park versus public. Or 50 foot easements or do you have any concerns with those or the islands? Ahrens: Well I understand the park issue has been resolved by the Park and Rec Commission. They weren't too crazy about the private park. I don't personally like the idea of a private park. I like to see public parks going into neighborhoods. I don't know why developers wouldn't be welcomed to that idea either. But I don't think that we have anything to say about that at this time anyway. 1 Batzli: Well we could recommend. Ahrens: Okay, I recommend that it be a public park. That's going to bell a collector street going through and it's going to be eventually there's going to be kids from other neighborhoods riding their bikes to it. There's going to be a trail along TH 41. I mean who's going to, is the Association going to be, going to take turns monitoring the park to make sure there are no outsiders in the park? Batzli: Well the thing I don't want to see is something that we've 1 talked about in a little bit different setting and that is the problems we've had with some private beachlots. You know, who enforces these things? Who patrols them? If this is a private park and there's a part"' 1 I Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 24 1 there, are we responsible? Are the neighbors responsible? Who's responsible to these and that's kind of bothered me. It also bothered me, I think I brought up last meeting. The kid rides his bike over from I the Song property, if Lundgren doesn't develop that and somehow include it. And does this mean that he really doesn't have a right to play there? 1 Ahrens: Well if it's a private park, I guess not right? I Batzli: Well that's the issue. Ahrens: What was your other question? 1 Emmings: Islands. Batzli: Islands. Easements. The roadway easements. How do you feel I for example about a 20 foot setback from the road with the reduced right- of-way? How that impacts? I think you get, if this is, well actually the collector street, are there any houses that will be pulled up on a I collector street 20 feet from it? Olsen: They're proposing some. 1 Batzli: Are they? Ahrens: That are going to be what? II Olsen: 20 foot setbacks. Batzli: There was a comment in the report about Lake Lucy Road. That II this isn't going to be the same as Lake Lucy Road. Do you remember that Jo Ann? 1 Ahrens: Right. They said that. Olsen: The justification for not having the 80 foot right -of -way. II Batzli: Yeah. Is it Lake Lucy Road on the east side of, is it Powers that's real. What's the one that they've got the houses tucked in. It's a collector street. 1 Ahrens: That's on the east side of CR 17. Lake Lucy Road, they have all the problems all the time because people drive too fast on it. 1 Batzli: It seems very narrow and it's a collector street and it seems like we're constantly talking about it. How is this different from that? I Krauss: There are some similarities but there's some differences too. There's fewer homes on the frontage in this proposal than there is on that street. That street has very small lots. The biggest problem on I that street though is that curve where you come onto Nez Perce. In coming around that curve and not being able to see around it and cars then manuevering and turning north into Vineland Forest. The street I itself we had some complaints from residents on it when some of the Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 7, 1992 - Page 25 platting was occurring. That they didn't wish to encourage thru movements in front of their homes. Unfortunately, that's what that street's designed for. It is a thru street and so that part of their questions couldn't be answered but most of the problems there come from 1 that, it's probably about a 15 mph curve down to Nez Perce. Batzli: Well it seems to me that there's always a lot of human activity around that road and it seems ill suited to be a collector and I'm wondering how we're avoiding that kind of situation here. Or aren't we? Is it because the lot sizes are small so it's just kind of a dense congregation of kids playing out in the street? Ahrens: But really there's not even any development on this side of Lail Lucy there so it's not like there's a lot of homes. They're small lots on the south side of Lake Lucy. Krauss: No, it's the same up and down. 1 Ahrens: On both sides? Batzli: It's both. You could drive up and down. i Krauss: There were a few vacant lots up to the summer but they're now built on. You know that's a perfectly straight shot. Each home is 90 feet apart. There's no variation in lot width. There's no change in grade. There are those tough intersections. In this case, I'm not even sure. We do have a wider street section anyway being proposed. That wail built to a very narrow street section. They're proposing to compromise some on the right -of -way requirement for a collector street but what's the street width going to be there ?, 1 Hempel: The street width is like a local street of 31 foot back to back wide street. Where the proposed street in Lundgren's would be approximately a 39 foot back to back. 1 Batzli: So this would be 8 feet wider than that road? Hempel: That's correct. 1 Krauss: It's also going to have a trail along side it. Batzli: I guess I'm just thinking, if we have a lot of buffer zone and preservation in the back yard, the place to play will still be in the street because we'll have small front yards, and granted there will be II the private park which hopefully will be where the kids go to play or at least in the cul -de -sacs but I've noticed a lot of activity on that road. Ahrens: One more comment. It doesn't, are there going to be no parking signs posted in the cul -de -sac? Is that what's being proposed by the Fire Deparment? Hempel: That's correct. 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 26 II Ahrens: That doesn't, I mean that doesn't make any sense to me at all. Cul -de -sacs always have lots of people parking on them. Who's going to ' be monitoring that? It's so unrealistic, I can't even believe that it's proposed. Olsen: He's making that requirement as a result of the cul -de -sac islands. Ahrens: Right, but you know and I know and everybody else knows that people are going to still park on those cul -de -sacs so why doesn't the city just fix the problem and make the area bigger or get rid of those islands if they're unworkable for the city instead of setting up unrealistic expectations. Hempel: Well that was our initial proposal was to have those islands deleted. However, we've been kind of advised through the Planning 11 Commission and City Council that they like the idea and to maybe work from a design standpoint to enlarge the cul -de -sac and to make it so we can have vehicles park there and still facilitate the turning movements of a fire truck and school bus, garbage truck and so forth. So it may require additional pavement in the cul -de -sac to do that if the applicants willing to do that. ' Ahrens: ...like the idea of an island there but are people going to like having no parking signs in their front yards? Emmings: No place for guests to park. Ahrens: Yeah, no place for anybody to park. It's just... I think the 1 islands have got to go. Batzli: I thought it was my understanding from Dick Wing and I won't quote. I'll kind of quote. I'll paraphrase. His line was, if we can ' get close, hose lengths are no problem. Are what we're talking about here is the fact that they won't want to back up? 11 Hempel: I believe that's the Fire Marhsall's contention. If they get down a cul -de -sac and it's the wrong cul -de -sac for whatever reason, turning abilities are constricted and they end up backing out. Batzli: If for example we have people parking all the way around the cul -de -sac, could a fire truck turn around in there anyway? U Hempel: No. You're correct. They would not be able to. They would however be able to jockey back and forth easier than with an island obviously. t Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, may I. We had purposedly deleted this portion of our presentation because it would be redundant because we have already given it to you before and to the City Council but we are prepared to ' addressed each of those issues. The City Fire Marshall himself has a diagram that he shared with us. It had the City of Plymouth's logo on it and I've seen it many times because we've.developed more lots in Plymouth than anybody else. And what is an acceptable turn around, and there's 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 27 or 4 different variations. There's one called a hammerhead. I mean there's just a number of different types of variations of what can be done by an emergency vehicle in the event they needed to turn around. I, the event they couldn't'go through a cul -de -sac. In the event it was closed. I mean they try to figure worst case scenarios, which they should because precious minutes could save somebody's life. When we met with the Fire Marshall, he shared with us schematics of turning radius oil the equipment that the City of Chanhassen has. Including their new vehicle that they purchased within the last few years. We talked with him about his concerns about turning that vehicle around in the event somebody was parked in the cul -de -sac. Whether they were on the outside of the cul -de -sac or whether they would be against the island, because we have the same concern he does. We don't want anybody to get hurt but arill people making a bigger deal out of this or is there really another way around this? And so what we're tried to do, is we've figured out a way to answer that question. Now if you remember, the largest truck that till city has is a boom truck and it has a boom up on top of it and it's high off the ground. So John if you would maybe put those up on the overhead and then you can describe your overhead to the Planning Commission. John Uban: This is a diagram that we were given that shows...and this II shows the turning radius... Terry Forbord: John, can I interrupt you. Can you describe to everybod1 what each one of those lines is. John Uban: I'll be glad to. The line with the dash, this is right -of -way right here. This is 120 feet of diameter for the right-of- way. These are lot lines radiating out from the cul -de -sac. The home, we've shown one home with a car and so forth so you can envision then II instead of driveways all the way around... Here we show the island and cars parked on the edge and you can see that the template and the equipment can move around the cul -de -sac with cars parked on the inside." We also then looked at what happens with cars parked on the outside. Batzli: Assuming for a minute that the front edge of the fire truck is right at the curb as you drive it there. What's the clearance between the back of the truck and those parked cars? John Uban: Through here, all of 6 feet approximately. 1 Batzli: 6 feet between the back of the fire truck and the car, the way you've got it drawn? ' John Uban: Right here. Batzli: Yeah. 1 John Uban: Approximately 6 feet. I might be, you know depending on the cars that stick out. 1 Batzli: Yeah, and if they're parked several feet away from the curb. 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 28 11 John Uban: If they're parked out and away from the curb, certainly. The condition that we found that would happen with the cars parking around the perimeter of the same cul -de -sac. What we found is that the outer ' edge, that is the turning radius, it's not the center island that restricts the movement. It is the parking on the outer edge which happens no matter if you had an island or not. And so that is the condition where there is difficulty in getting the equipment to move around the outer edge. The best way and the only way to manuever them is for the vehicle to come up into the cul -de -sac, back halfway around the other side or a third of the way around, and back out again. Any cul -de -sac, this is the method that has to be used for turning the vehicle around if there are cars parked all the way around the outer edge. Islands or no islands, that is the situation. The island is actually in the center where few movements are actually made so that it actually helps the drawing of where the cars can park... Now this is what we have proposed. This is within 120 foot cul -de -sac width or ' right -of -way and approximately 90 feet then where the cui -de -sac curves. We also have another design that we will be showing to the Fire Marshall for his review which shows 50 foot radius or 100 foot deep of curve. And this then gives us a lot more room for the occasional parked car and when we compare it what Plymouth has, they have 80 foot. So if we have the difference between 80 feet and 100 feet, that gives us 10 feet on either side which can accommodate a parked vehicle and still allow some movement ' of most vehicles...except for maybe a semi -truck or something like that, through the cul -de -sac without ever having to stop or make any adjustments with an island in the center. Terry Forbord: I think the most important thing that one needs to remember is what Chairman Batzli has stated. That if there was no island in this cul -de -sac, that vehicle would have difficulty turning around if cars were parked within the cul -de -sac. The Fire Marshall's concern about cui -de -sacs isn't if there was a fire in this cul -de -sac as if it was a fire in a different cui -de -sac and they made a mistake and went to the wrong place. That's what his concern is. Because if there was a fire in this cul -de -sac he could pull the vehicle straight on it and I guarantee they'd fight that fire. They wouldn't say, oh I can't get ' close enough. I'm going to leave. But they are concerned if they're in the wrong cul -de -sac and they have to go away. And the way that they would do it, if they couldn't not turn around as indicated, they would do what is really what is done in a hammer head approach. They'd pull in ' and back up and drive back out. Ahrens: Have these plans been shown to the Fire Marshall? ' Terry Forbord: He showed us the plans and we're showing. Ahrens: ...plans been shown to the Fire Marshall? Terry Forbord: These plans are renditions that we made after he gave us the information and we illustrated it for your benefit. ' Ahrens: Okay. I think they can go back to the Fire Marshall and see if this is acceptable to the Fire Marshall. They look fine to me...so that should be taken care of outside of our group. 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 29 Terry Forbord: And I think his memorandum indicates that too. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Do you have anything else? Jeff. , Farmakes: I'd like to back up Joan and say that I think we could have saved ourselves an hour here at least if this had been worked about before the meeting. In fact I'd like to compliment Lundgren Bros. I wall at your home on Lake Lucy Road. Your model home. I asked questions about the conservation easement along next to the wetland and acting as customer and they answered all the questions correctly in regards to tha so my compliments. That isn't often the case by the way. Batzli: Undercover. , Farmakes: That's right. I was undercover for the city. I guess first of all I'll address the issue of this amended piece here. I support the City on 8. Whatever they feel comfortable with. I think the idea of th� tree preservation thing is a good one. And how they want to reword that would be fine with me. The rest of the 9, 12 and 20, whatever they can work out with the city and them is fine. The rest of them, it was my I understanding that you're in agreement with them. 5o I'll leave that. Some of the stuff that disturbed me is stuff that we talked about already so I'm not going to go at great lengths about it. I'd just be repeating myself. But the issue of these long cul -de -sacs is not very wise for us , to pursue. I know that the Council has approved this and I'm in a minority here. I don't think that everything that we should be doing design wise for the city should be customer driven. That there are a loll of very educated people telling us not to do this who's profession it is to design and actually build the city and maintain it. And yet we continue to approve these type of things. These long cul -de -sacs which II would be B Street which is basically one long private road. And I think that the original idea of G and I, connecting them was a good one and it reduces any of the cul -de -sacs that are there in this development to being at least fairly short. I think we're being kind of arrogant on owl part by ignoring this type of advice that we're getting from staff. Getting from noted city designers. Professional opinions. At least fro what I've read in that regard. We also don't deliver the mail. We don' pick up students. Deliver them every day. We don't do the type of functions of plowing streets and I think we're ignoring what they're saying to us by encouraging this type of development. For the issues of" 3 and H and some of the other comments. I'll support the staff on. If they don't think that that would be appropriate based on their earlier recommendations, I'll support them on that. That's it. The issue of th islands. On the issue of maintenance, I'm not sure if that's still been explained. If there's a city concern on that but the turning radius, if in fact the Fire Marshall says it makes no difference for safety. Batzli: Thank you. Steve. Emmings: I guess I don't have too much to add. I agree with everybody 11 else on the preservation easement on the trees. I think that we've got to have that ahead of time and not at the time of issuing the building permit. On connecting G and I, I do agree with Jeff's comments. And I think we also, Dave did you tell us that they are going to be utilities II 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 30 IF that run on G and I streets and will run between the cul -de -sacs as if there were a street there? 1 Hempel: That's correct. The utility extension will be between the two cul -de -sacs and service part of that subdivision. Emmings: So you'd just have easements across those yards to get in there for, so there will be sewer and water and all that? ' Hempel: That's correct. Batzli: Jo Ann, just remain me once more. If they did connect those cul -de -sacs, do they lose any lots? Olsen: No. They showed that they actually gained a lot. Is that correct? ' Terry Forbord: That's correct. We would gain lots by doing that. The only reason we did it... ' Emmings: I know people like cul -de -sacs and I actually, there was a time when I was, I didn't like cul -de -sacs at all. The only reason, it seems like the marketplace says people like to live on them and I recognize ' that. I've been told it enough times by enough developers but this is an awful long one. You know when you start all the way up there on A street and get down to here, that's a lot of cul -de -sac so I think it's a minority viewpoint anyway and especially on the City Council so, but I just wanted to let you know. I still think too that options to push B Street to the east ought to be preserved. But I mentioned that last time and nobody was interested in that either. Batzli: You'd have to build a bridge over the wetland. ' Emmings: Well I don't know. Or you move it up a little to the north and go around. They say that's not much of a wetland anyway. But I don't think any of those things are going to happen. So that's my comments on 1 that. I don't think I have anything else. Ahrens: Brian, can I say just one more thing? 1 Batzli: Yeah, please. Ahrens: I also thought that, I said this at the last meeting that G and I should be...I don't think that's a minority viewpoint. Emmings: Maybe not. ' Batzli: Matt. Ledvina: Well I don't have too much more to add. I would support the ' conditions that staff has generated and also the modifications which have been discussed tonight. I think Lundgren has pretty much addressed the issue regarding the islands and I think that's a nice feature for the subdivision so I'd support that. I also support the connection of the 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 7, 1992 - Page 31 ' two cul -de -sacs. So I think that would, it would improve the , serviceability of the development. Batzli: What do you think about, since four people have now said they 11 support connecting these cul -de -sacs. If in fact the City Council decided that or Lundgren you know, lobbied them that they really didn't want to connect these, would it make a difference to anyone on the Commission that they drop the island on these lower cul -de -sacs to improve safety, if that's a concern? In other words, we're talking long cul -de -sac and if they did have to back out of this thing, it would really be quite a back so would that impress anyone? That that would bell an option if the Council decided. Emmings: It doesn't sound like islands are the... 1 Ledvina: It doesn't appear that that's an issue as far as the information they had there. Batzli: Well they would be an issue if people were ignoring the no parking and they were parked all the way up and down. Someone has a party. There's cars parked all the way up and down, maybe it would be helpful. Farmakes: Actually if the island wasn't there, when I go into a cul -de -sac, usually I park within and not on. Batzli: In the cul -de -sac across from me, they park a boat and a truck I out into the cul -de -sac so you've got about a 30 foot object sticking into the cul -de -sac so I don't know. I don't know why an island would hurt but anyway. Farmakes: I actually agree with them. I think it's a dead space really. Ledvina: No other comments. ' Batzli: Tim. Erhart: Well Brian, you know I've been here for 6 years and I tell you," we've been talking about cul-de-sacs in every other development for 6 • years and you know, flexibility's nice but this is anarchy, and I agree • with Joan and the others that said that some of this stuff could have been worked out ahead. But I'll tell you the real problem is, we've got a lot of subjects where we have no policy. If we don't have ordinances, we ought to at least have some policy on some of these things. It's a free for all. I mean one day, depending on who the commissioners attend/ a certain meeting or whatever seems to be the mood that night. That developer gets stuck with the short cul -de -sac. He has to have short cul -de -sacs. A nice guy comes in, or a guy like Terry comes in with a II slick message and you know, everybody loves long cul -de -sacs and we're worrying about, now we're worrying about the City Councilmen. What they're saying these days. And it's not just cul -de -sacs. It's the islands. It's the entrance islands. Now all of a sudden we've evolved II new thing called a tree preservation zone and I've been trying to get on this agenda now all summer is a discussion to set a policy for tree Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 32 11 preservation because I tell you what, we haven't even talked them out because Paul already has stated in a report that we've got some problems with the tree preservation zone that we're already applying and I personally think there's a big problem. I'm not going to get into them right now because it's a waste of time. Because I tell you, I've just listed a whole list of as -built drawings. I mean I could go on and on ' and on. Why do we sit here and discuss in front of all these people and work until 10:00 at night because some city official here decides that he wants to go to Paul and says he wants as -built drawings. And it's not ' Paul's decision to tell him no. It's a policy decision. You can't make that in front of every developer that comes in here. Because the next guy that comes in is not going to be as good as Terry and he's going to get stuck with as -built drawings. We've got to decide here to set some ' policy on some of these issues. I think it's a great plan. I'm not surprised that there's a little confusion about the setback thing. I think we've really got to make sure in our new wetlands ordinance that ' that's clear because it's a change from what we had. I think that's probably the confusion. The note that it's a change so I'm glad you're willing to go with that. And it looks like there was pretty much agreement...it looked like you were comparing the notes Steve. Other than that, I quite frankly a couple years ago we probably would have moved to table it until it came back. I remember when Dave Headla was complaining about 12. Thank goodness we're not going to do that here. ' We're not going to see you on this one again. I think it looks good. That's all my comments. Batzli: Okay, thanks Tim. My comments, oh go ahead Terry. Terry Forbord: Just a brief comment. The reason we've continued to pursue some of the items that I've heard being discussed here tonight primarily is the islands, the lack of connection between I and J, and the medians was because that's what the Planning Commission passed onto the City Council. The Planning Commission already said that this is what they wanted and they passed that onto the City Council and they agreed with you. And so that's why we're back because I think the vote was 4 to 2 before. I think it was Commissioner Ahrens and Commissioner Farmakes were opposed to the islands and the medians and everybody else was for ' them and they also wanted the cul -de -sacs. So that's why we continued to pursue it. It is what we wanted. Council agreed with you. Batzli: Thank you. Farmakes: I think we're also ignoring though that that was staff ' recommendation that we connect. That was part of the staff report. So I don't think that's inconsistent with their policy as far as at least, I haven't been here that long but as far as I know, they've always been opposed to long cul -de -sac situations. I believe it's 1,500 feet. Erhart: If you don't put some rules on it, if you don't put some measureable things on it, it's irrelevant. - 1 Farmakes: I don't think this is an ordinance. I think they've been consistent with their recommendation. ,' II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 33 II 1 Krauss: It actually used to be an ordinance. Before my time there was 500 foot length which is fairly standard in most communities. Erhart: You don't have, what's a long cul -de -sac? What to you is a long cul -de -sac might be different to me is a long cul -de -sac. II Farmakes: 1,500 feet, was that the? Krauss: 500 feet was. II Batzli: We used to say and turn around 1,500 or something. Emmings: That's because we have one that's that long. I think that's II where that number was from. Batzli: 5o that was our rule of thumb? 1 Emmings: Yeah. That was the bad one. 1 Farmakes: I remember this issue first, when I was here first coming up the issue on TH 101 where there was already an area a long cul -de -sac. Emmings: That's where we first ignored that policy. The Commission sail let's stick with it and the City Council said no. Let's have a long cul -de -sac. 1 Ahrens: We tried to be consistent. Erhart: Is there a policy? 1 Emmings: I think there has been. I think the Planning Commission has always said, let's not have them... .II Erhart: Well I guess my point is, in our office we have a policy it's in writing because I don't think anybody can use a verbal policy. 1 Particularly in a situation that's complex and so many people involved. Emmings: We have a policy but it's writing them down. Batzli: Thanks Tim for your comments. I think they're good ones. I all would express a little bit of disappointment that some of this stuff wasn't handled. I understand that Lundgren didn't get the report until 2 days c or what have you so that doesn't give them much chance to iron out their issues with staff and I think the problem may be us trying to push some o these things onto the calendar before you're able to work out all these things with the developer. And I'm not sure where that pressure comes from, although I have a good sense of where it does, to get these things r the calendar but you're probably in the awkward position of, too much of this is resolved behind the scenes. We complain that we're not part of lle process but we were just part of the process and we didn't like it. So the future, to the extent that these kinds of things can be resolved, I think the Commission in general would be grateful. I like the developme in general. I have mixed feelings about the cul -de -sac issue. I like t islands. I'd like staff to, obviously the developer's going to work with II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 34 1 the Fire Department on the island issue. I think if it would help to I redesign, if it turns out that we have a long cul -de -sac and it would help safety at all to remove the islands on those particular, you know on the end ones. The fire truck goes down the long cul -de -sac and he's going to run, that's where he's going to have the most trouble. And to the extent ' it would help, I guess I'd at least have recommended staff maybe look into that as an alternative if, I get the sense I should say, that we're about to recommend that the cul -de -sacs be joined. And maybe this all goes away 1 then but if we don't and it's still an issue because the City Council either overrules us and puts the cul -de -sac back in, maybe staff might want to take a look at that as an alternative which would help safety. I agree with the changes that we talked about. I've been glancing over Steve's notes and I think I agree with most of what he's about to say so I'd entertain a motion now if we have one. And I do appreciate Lundgren working. I think they have been fairly sensitive here to the wetlands and trees and grading and things and hopefully if history repeats itself, they'll be sensitive to that as they develop this project so looking forward to good things. Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Rezoning from A -2 to PUD with the conditions, the two conditions in the ' staff report. Batzli: Second. Is there any discussion? Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning from A -2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: ' 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of the preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. ' 2. All conditions of the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: Move on to the preliminary plat approval. ' Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat ( #92 -4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions. Condition 1 will read as proposed in the handout ' given us by Lundgren Bros. Number 2 will remain as is. Number 3 will reac as follows. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right -of -way from 60 feet to 50 feet except Street A and maintain ' the cul -de -sac at 120 feet. And then I'm going to add to that one that cul -de -sacs must be large enough to facilitate turning around of all emergency vehicles in the city of Chanhassen, taking into consideration ' cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning radius. And no parking signs may be required. Number 4 thru 7 will stay as they are in the staff report. Number 8, we use the version from the staff report with the following modifications. The first sentence will I read, the area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. And then the second 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 35 i sentence will stay as it is. Another sentence will be added that the precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed u r between the developer and staff. 9 will stay as it is in the staff repo but we'll change the word similar to other. 10 and 11 will stay as they are. 12 will stay as it is in the staff report. And as an aside here I 1 say, with the understanding that the work that has to be done between th developer and staff with regard to the extension of the sanitary sewer on Street A. 13 will read as proposed by Lundgren Bros in their handout tonight as will 14. 15 and 16 will stay as they are in the staff report 17 will read as follows. The grading plan shall be amended to include t wetland mitigation areas and any known or proposed drain tile systems. Furthermore, the developer shall also report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. 18 and 19 will sly as they are in the staff report. 20 will read as follows. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No. 6 or some alternative design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be developed. 21 thru 24 will stay as they are in the sta f report. 25 will read as proposed by Lundgren Bros in their handout tonight. 26 thru 30 shall remain as they are in the staff report. Time out, we've got two 31's. So 31 as it appears at the bottom of page, oh okay. 31 will stay as it is in the staff report, as will 32. 33, I propose that cul -de -sacs G and I be eliminated and that road be pushed, 1 that I street and G street be connected. Batzli: Is there a second? Farmakes: I'll second that. Batzli: Discussion. 1 Ahrens: Good job Steve. Batzli: I'm probably about to vote not in favor of the motion. Not because it wasn't beautifully crafted but only because of the issue on the cul -de -sacs and I guess in talking about it last time, I think we had agreed and there was probably a different mix of people here, that we lid it. And I'm not convinced one way or the other whether it should go in I'm going to vote against this probably just to alert the Council that it's not I think a heartfelt unanimous decision, at least by all of us on the 1 Planning Commission but thank you Steve. Any other discussion? Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat (.92 -4 PUD) to create 112 single family lot with the following conditions: 1. The front yard setback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the street right -of -way. The intent' being to minimize the impact on the natural features of constructing a new home on each home site. The lots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lis 1, 14 -19, 37 -43, 52 -57, 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78 -81, Block 2. In addit n to these lots, staff recommends similar flexibility on the following lots: Lots 22 -24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58 -61, 66 -72, Block 2. 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 36 II 2. Each lot shall maintain a side yard separation of 20 feet between each ' principal structure, including decks. The applicant shall be required to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot separation is being maintained. ' 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right -of -way from 60 feet to 50 feet except Street A and maintain the cul -de -sac at 120 feet. Cul -de -sacs must be large enough to facilitate turning around of all emergency vehicles in the city of Chanhassen, taking into consideration cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning radius, and that no parking signs may be required. ' 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along Hwy 41 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping ' plan must be approved by city staff. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and I approval by city staff. . The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2 shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing of the final plat. ' 7. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings. 8. The area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation area ' will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. The precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed upon between the developer and staff. ' 9. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building ' Official. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in ' force for residential property. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement for future trail construction along the western border of the subject property abutting the right -of -way of State Highway 41. 11. The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility ' easements for construction of the lift station within the development. 12. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant and city engineering staff shall work together regarding extending the ' sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D 1 Planning Commission Meeting II October 7, 1992 - Page 37 L II (cul -de -sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provide the City will refund a portion ofthe connection fees to Lundgren Bro 13. The existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to connect to t municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system operational. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be removed after January 3, 1994. 14. Except for the condition in Recommendation 3 above, all utility and II street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. II Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting. 15. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire II Marshal. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits oll the regulatory agencies such as MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR and MnDot. 17. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation II areas and any known or proposed drain tile systems. Furthermore, the t developer shall also report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. ' 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be II 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 predevelope runoff rate for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. Drainage plans sha be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed toll provide access to maintain the ponding areas. An easement shall also be provided along wetlands and each side of drainageways from the stern ponds or wetlands. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall' not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement area. In this areas the easement width shall be increased to 30 feet. 20. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No. 6 or some alternative design II acceptable to the City Engineer shall be developed. 21. The applicant shall construct a 36 foot wide gutter -to- gutter urban II street section along Street A. The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards (31 foot wide back -to- back). 22. Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses" accordance with the City grid system once the streets have been II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 38 Ir constructed with the first lift of asphalt. Driveways shall also be relocated to take access off the interior street (Street A). 23. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher quality type wetlands. Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or ' lower quality wetlands and sedimentation ponds. 24. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. 25. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision, including outlots except for Outlots G and H which shall be replatted in the future. 26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration ' lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDot. These improvements should be 1 incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul -de -sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This will depend on the size of the cul -de -sac and the ability of the fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parking in the cul -de -sac. ' 30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. ' 31. A 10 foot clean space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. ' 32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit. 33. Cul -de -sacs G and I be eliminated and that I street and G street be ' connected. All voted in favor except Batzli and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Batzli: Your reasons Tim. ' Erhart: ...reason you have to be consistent on previous Planning Commission. And I still, as I say, I don't agree with this tree ordinance thing and I guess that by itself wouldn't.cause me to vote no on it but I ' think we haven't thought that through and where it goes with the lot owners on the end. I think we're imposing this on a couple of developers already. 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 39 II Finding ourselves writing things like, I mean it was a little shocking t me that we, I thought you misread item number 1 where it said we shall maintain a 20 foot front yard setback. Terry, I have to commend you on that I thought you were just a little off base but what it really is, that's driven by this tree thing. We have put people's safety, we have ipt trees over people's safety in our thinking in this thing and it's crazy. Emmings: What's the safety issue? No front yard? II Erhart: No front yard. And then we've had years of a real policy...an ordinance where we said you have a minimum of 30 yard setback. And then all of a sudden somebody gets a wild hair that this tree is worth more tilr anything and next thing you know we're demanding, we're going to our developers and demanding that we don't exceed the 20 yard setback. Emmings: See I think it's more than that. I don't think it's just the I trees. I don't really connect those two in my mind, although I think sometimes it works out to be the trees. But I think we've also heard people talk about the fact that their back yards are more valuable to I people who live in developments like this than their front yards. I'm going to be real interested to see what a development with 20 foot front yard setbacks look like. I've got real reservations about it. 1 Erhart: You've got one down by south of the one we just approved. South of, north of Lyman Boulevard where you have these tree preservation easements. 20 foot setbacks. Aanenson: Stone Creek. Erhart: Yeah right, Stone Creek. I Emmings: Well yeah but you can't see houses there yet. But I want to sip what they look like when they're in and I don't know what it's going to look like and I've got real reservations about it but. Erhart: Well I certainly do. 1 Emmings: But I think it has as much to do with, you know if you've got people use their back yards for a lot of recreation. I think you're trylig to create a little bit bigger back yard and you have all the easements w h the wetlands too, not just trees. i! Erhart: Historically they would go in and make good old American decisi . This is their land and if they wanted to remove some trees and make a bac yard, that was their perogative and now we're getting into telling peopl now how to run their home. Emmings: Folks used to shoot their neighbors when they got mad at them too. 1 Batzli: I don't agree with that because this is a PUD and we're preserving more than what they would have had to preserve had they gone in there wi a standard subdivision and they could have done exactly what you're proposing with a standard subdivision, and we chose to preserve natural II Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 40 features and that ha was a decision we make by doing this this way. But I agree with you. Erhart: ...20 foot setbacks. Batzli: Well then I say, why did you vote to change the zoning to PUD? I mean let's just do it as a straight subdivision. Erhart: I think it needed a PUD but this 20 foot setback is only one thins as part of what we've got for the PUD. Ahrens: What's the setback on the house...is that about 20? Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord speaking. To be honest, I just don't know right off the cuff like this. ' Ahrens: It looks like about 20. Terry Forbord: I believe that it is. An example also is in Near Mountain. Near Mountain has setbacks like that and I've mentioned that before and I know it's an older subdivision so it's difficult to remember back. That was 10 years but those are 20 foot setbacks. I apologize, I did not hear the vote. What was the vote? Batzli: It was 4 to 2. Terry Forbord: Okay. In favor or? Batzli: In favor. So the motion does carry and my reason again was, only on the issue of whether to link the cul -de -sacs. I don't know that we fully looked at that and so I have a hard time voting to link them up. I'm not opposed to linking them up. I just don't know that we really addressec that so, is there a motion on the wetland. Oh, this is well after the fact but I just noticed this. That we approved this without referencing the plans. ' Emmings: Yeah, and there were 42 plans here and I don't know, do we need a reference to a particular plan? ' Olsen: Well I thought we had the date September 9th in there. That's the date of the plans. The official copy that we got. ' Batzli: Our motion was made by looking at these plans so for the purpose of the City Council, yeah okay. Is there a motion on the Wetland Alteration Permit? Erhart: What did you finally agree with on 3? Emmings: I can take a shot at it if you want to get going. Planning Commission, I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -9 with the following conditions: 1 and 2 as they appear in the staff report and then 3, modify the version that's in the ' staff report by just changing the second sentence. The second sentence will read, the proposed wetlands to the north and south of Wetland 1C shall 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 7, 1992 - Page 41 l be combined with Wetland 1C. 4, 5, and 6 shall be as they appear in the staff report. 1 Batzli: Is there a second? Ledvina: Second. 1 Batzli: Any discussion? Emmings: Did that do what you want it to? Olsen: Well I don't know that you can do the first sentence and the sec c sentence together. I think if they're combined. Emmings: Well that's what you said. You said you still want them to go c 6 feet on the parts they were creating but not to do the part in the mid e I thought. Olsen: Right, but I don't know if that means combining them. 1 Emmings: I don't either. Olsen: ...I think what we agreed to was, what we meant by combining them was that they would be the whole, the middle part. The wetland 1C would be graded also so you'd have one basin. But now I think what we've said isil that rather than having to mess with the wetland that wouldn't have been touched, that you have just two basins on either side of it. Emmings: So that won't be combined? 1 Olsen: So essentially it's not being combined. Emmings: What will be between the. 1 Olsen: Existing Wetland 1C. And you'd have basins on either side of it What we had proposed is that they would be combined and be one basin and they were concerned with the dredging out wetland 1C that wouldn't have been altered otherwise. Emmings: So you're actually thinking those two basins will have borders all around them? Batzli: There won't be any flow between the... Emmings: Okay, I misunderstood that. How can we fix it? Fix it. Batzli: Just eliminate the second sentence. Do you like that? Olsen: I think that, yeah just using the first sentence. That takes call of it and I'll need a change of at least 6 feet. They don't want it to consistently 6 feet. ...the 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to those shall have a depth. Batzli: Shall have an undulating depth in places 6 feet. • 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 42 Olsen: Right. And then remove the rest. Batzli: And then eliminate the second sentence. How's that for a friendly amendment. ' Olsen: Sounds good. Batzli: Who seconded this? Ledvina: I did. Batzli: Do you accept that? Ledvina: Yes. ' Emmings: That's fine. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -9 with the following conditions: ' 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland 1A shall not be replaced. 2. The runoff currently entering Wetlands 7 and 7A shall be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to Lot 28, Block 2. If possible, Wetland 7 shall be maintained in its current condition and location. ' 3. The three proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 1B and 1C shall have an undulating depth of at least 6 feet in places. ' 4. A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback ' and dimension (not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. 5. The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer ' strip required is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1