The URL can be used to link to this page

11. PUD to create 115 single family lots 1 PC DATE: 10/6/93 1.I_. , CITY OF '------------- CC DATE: 11/8/93 1 \N C H A II II A S S E N CASE #: 93 -3 PUD ,''y - By: Krauss/Hempel/ 1 Desotelle/Hoffman:v STAFF REPORT 1 *NOTE: Planning Commission update starts on Page 32. . 1 PROPOSAL: Proposed Preliminary Planned Unit Development Approval of 111.77 acres of Property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD to create 115 single family lots, 1 Z Preliminary Plat Approval and Wetland Alteration Permit Q • 1 LOCATION: Generally located West of Galpin Blvd. and North of the Bluff Creek Headwaters Wetland a 1 O. APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction j 4 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 1 1 Action by City Administrator PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential I Endorsed ---AL. Rejectsd ACREAGE: 112 acres Dc.e I L— —93 1 Date Submitted to Commission DENSITY: Gross 1.05 units per acre Net 1.58 units per acre Date Submitted to Council 1 I I -g -R3 ADJACENT ZONING Q AND LAND USE: N - RR, large single family residence t"' S - RR, single family residences d ' E - RR/RSF, Galpin Blvd. and large residential parcels W - PUD, Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner single family residential W WATER AND SEWER: Available I U) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Refer to report. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 ' Page 2 PROPOSAL\SUMMARY 1 The applicants, Lundgren Brothers Construction, are requesting preliminary PUD and preliminary plat approval for the Song property. The site is a 111.77 acre parcel located west of Galpin Boulevard and north of the wetland that constitutes the headwaters of Bluff Creek. They are proposing to plat out 115 single family lots, one of which would be occupied by the existing Song homestead, the balance being made available for new construction. A wetland alteration 1 permit to fill and mitigate 0.78 acres of wetland. Flexibility provided by the PUD is being used to allow for more sensitive development of a very 1 unique area. Lot sizes range from over 85,000 square feet down to 11,470 square feet. The proposed new Song homestead, which is not included in the lot average computations, contains almost 9.5 acres. The average lot size of 27,519 square feet is far in excess of the 15,000 square 1 foot average required by ordinance. Additional flexibility is requested on front and side setbacks where it can be demonstrated that tree preservation and wetland protection will be enhanced. 1 Access is to be provided via two curb cuts on Galpin and an internal connection via a collector street to Highway 41 through an adjoining parcel that is also being developed by Lundgren. The streets are well designed and conform to City standards. Several years ago, when detailed investigations began on this area, staff agreed that the collector street would be built on a 60' rather then 80' right -of -way and to local street dimensions. Additionally, homes were to be allowed to directly access onto the street which is not normally the case with collectors. The terrain it crosses is very difficult and the wider street and required grading would have resulted in significant damage to trees and wetlands. It was our opinion that the continuity of the road ' between Galpin and Hwy. 41 was more important than size and the Commission and Council agreed when the adjacent plat, the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner PUD, was approved. A street connection to the south to serve future development on an adjoining parcel is also illustrated. Several homes are to be accessed via two private drives. These will serve a total of five lots . where a full sized city street would be particularly damaging. Utilities to service the area are currently under construction by the City and will be available next year to support development. Tree and wetland protection were of major concern throughout and both have benefited from the City's current policies in these areas and from the developers sophistication and experience. The site contains some of the better stands of trees found in the community with the primary species being oak and maple. Based upon information provided by the applicant, 717 major trees were surveyed. Of these, 99 will be lost to road and utility construction. Some additional trees will be lost to home placement although this has not been specified. Each lot would be individually graded to minimize tree loss and many of the major trees would be permanently protected by conservation areas. Staff has requested some additional information and modification in this area but it is anticipated that any changes would be minor. In particular, we are asking that the conservation areas be expanded. The site contains 8 identified wetlands totalling 22.86 acres. Of this, less than .6 acres would be filled and will be mitigated on -site. The applicant has 1 II Song Property 1 October 6, 1993 Page 3 worked extensively City with the Ci Water Resources Coordinator in this area. Wetlands will be protected by required buffer strips. - The ro osal has been reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission. They are satisfied with P P Y Y the applicants proposal to provide private recreational facilities on site. They have identified a site on an adjacent parcel for a neighborhood park and would utilize park fees from this project to help acquire and develop it. Trail easements would be provided along Galpin and in exchange for considerations with this proposal additional trail easements will be provided along the wetland fringe of the adjoining PUD being concurrently developed by the applicant. In summary, the proposal represents a well designed project that reasonably develops a sensitive and unique site. Due largely to the current, advanced state of City environmental regulations and programs, and to the developer's familiarity of responding to these concerns, few modifications are required. The only variance being requested is one that would allow varied side yard setbacks where trees can be saved. Rather than abide by the standard 10 feet, they are asking for 6 feet Ill for garages and 9 feet for living areas with there always being a minimum separation of 20 feet. Visually, this will have the appearance of a standard subdivision but the flexibility is very useful for protecting trees and is supported by staff. It is recommended that the Preliminary PUD Plan and Preliminary Plat for the Song Development be approved with the variance and appropriate conditions. 1 SITE CHARACTERISTICS This site is one of the most interesting and attractive parcels in the city. It features extensive I wetlands, heavily forested hills and areas of open farm fields. The high point of 1060' is found in the northwest corner where a hill overlooks Lake Harrison to the east. Many of the significant 1 oak and maple trees are found on this hill and it is visible from a large area to the east. Lake Harrison is a small, non - recreational waterbody that is surrounded be a large wetland fringe. At 994', the lake represents one of the lowest areas on the site. The open/farmed area is found to the east along Galpin. The farmed area is by no means flat but is generally without significant vegetation. Eight wetlands have been identified by the applicant's consultant and one small additional one has been found by City staff. They vary significantly in size and quality. Two of them are small "natural" wetlands with the balance being "Ag/Urban" having been significantly altered by agricultural drainage practices. Surrounding land uses include: NORTH- Rural residential land containing a single large homestead that overlooks the north side of Lake Harrison. A portion of the lake is located on the adjoining parcel. SOUTH- Rural residential parcels containing several scattered home sites. I 0I Song Property October 6, 1993 1 Page 4 EAST- Galpin Blvd. East of Galpin are large residential parcels including one ' occupied by Prince. Several parcels in the area are in the process of being developed with RSF plats including Windmill Run and Royal Oak Estates. WEST- Land owned by Lundgren Brothers Construction and approved as the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner single family residential PUD. 1 BACKGROUND The site and surrounding area was incorporated into the MUSA line under the 1991 1 Comprehensive Plan update process. The applicant, Lundgren Construction, was actively represented in this process. While they did not have a direct interest in the site at that time they were exploring its potential development along with that of the neighboring parcel to the west, 1 with the respective property owners. They prepared concept plans illustrating residential plats on these parcels that proved to be useful to the Planning Commission in determining the ultimate boundaries of the MUSA line. REZONING TO PUD Section 20 -501 of the City Code provides a general intent statement for planned unit developments. Planned unit developments are to be used to enhance flexibility in developing a 1 site with unique features and when there is a desire to provide a variety of uses. In return for this flexibility, the city should receive a higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been achieved through standard zoning regulations. Under this section of the City Code the following nine items are listed and which the PUD should provide: (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive ' environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Findin The site contains some difficult topography, eight wetlands of varying value and ' heavily forested areas. Upon review of the preliminary plat, it appears that the applicant is locating the streets and lots with the natural features of the site taken into consideration. The blocks are situated around wetland and vegetated areas and the steep sloped areas are avoided in most cases. Varied setback standards, lot sizes and street right -of -way are effectively employed to minimize tree loss and wetland impact. This appears to be accomplished without any adverse impact on the quality 1 or buildability of proposed lots or of the resulting residential neighborhood which should be highly attractive. 1 1 1 Song Property 1 October 6, 1993 Page 5 1 (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. 1 Finding The PUD allows the site to locate more dense development in previously farmed areas without significant features while creating open space around natural features. The proposal is providing pockets of open space throughout the site which will benefit the whole development and is providing a variation of lot sizes. PUD flexibility is used to locate home sites in areas where impact will be minimized by using density transfer. , (3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect 1 high quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding 1 The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality homes. The applicant has taken into account surrounding land uses by locating larger lots adjacent to existing uses. There will be covenants recorded as part of the development to ensure that high quality building architecture and enhanced landscaping will be provided. (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. Finding 1 The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential. Transitional development is not really a factor with this proposal. ' (5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as residential low density (1.2 - 4 units /acre). The proposal has a net density (minus wetlands and roads) of 1.60 units /acre. This compares favorably with typical single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net density of 2 units per acre. The site was included in the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment for development with 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 I Page 6 sewer and water and as a single family development. The Comprehensive Plan also showed this property as a site for a collector street, which the applicant is providing. (6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. Finding The applicant is providing open space throughout the site, including a private park. ' The Park and Recreation Commission has accepted this proposal but full park and trail fees will be required. No credit is being recommended for the private park. (7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. Finding The applicant is proposing a variety of lot sizes and housing units. Overall, the sites will be affordable to medium - medium/high incomes. The surrounding uses and potential future surrounding uses are consistent with what is being proposed. This project is not designed to address lower cost housing opportunities. The city is investigating this issue and is considering direct financial support to encourage its construction since the free market is unable to meet this demand. However, this site is not a likely candidate for such an approach. (8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. 1 Finding It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration but all homes will meet current energy codes. The level of tree preservation being provided should serve to decrease energy costs. (9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding The proposal is providing a collector street which will service the property to the west and was part of the Comprehensive Plan. The plat provides for multiple 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 li Page 7 1 entrances and is designed with an internal connection serving a parcel to the south. There is a specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. The intent statement I 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 g Y 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 1 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 I 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home /deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. Finding 1 The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 11,661 sq. ft. to 80,197 sq. ft. (not including wetland areas) with an average net lot area of 27,236 sq. ft. The PUD standards do not allow the inclusion of wetland areas in the calculation of lot area. The site is broken down into seven blocks which locate the lots around wetland and 1 vegetated areas. The proposal is preserving open space throughout the site. Open space is found in undeveloped outlots, the private park and numerous wetland areas. I The applicant has provided plans which demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area of protective easement as required under the draft PUD ordinance. This standard ensures that each lot provides a satisfactory home site and yard area without needing to resort to variances. The PUD development contract will document this information to ensure the development of the individual lots will I not encroach within a protected area or setback. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. 1 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 8 Findin All of the lots meet this requirement except for Lot 36, Block 4 which only has 85' at the setback. The plat must be adjusted to provide all lots with 90' of width at the ' building setback. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. 1 Findin All of the lots exceed the minimum lot depth of 100'. d) Minimum Setbacks: PUD Exterior - 30 feet Front Yard - 20 feet Rear Yard - 30 feet Side Yard - 10 feet ' Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property line. Finding ' The proposal provides a 30' PUD exterior setback. The applicant is proposing to be permitted to have a 20' front yard setback where it will preserve natural features. This is acceptable to staff and consistent with the PUD ordinance. ' The narrative provided by the developer proposes a 6' interior side yard setback for garages and a 9' interior side yard setback of living area. The applicant has also ' stated that a minimum side yard separation of 20' will be provided between each principle structure. As long as a 20' minimum side yard separation is maintained, staff is comfortable with reduced side yard setbacks although this represents a ' variance from the PUD as needed to allow for this. The resulting flexibility will be used to preserve trees. The setback of 10' for accessory buildings and structures should also be applied. e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. 1 Song Property 1 So g October 6, 1993 Page 9 F 1 family lots and proposed layout of the single a y is d streets have taken into consideration the features of the site. Where possible, wetlands and mature stands I of trees have been located where they can be protected. The applicant is proposing to reduce the right -of -way for the collector street from 80' to 60' to reduce the removal of trees and impact to site features. Staff has encouraged this request to be made due to the sensitive nature of the site. A wider collector street with normal design standards results in a street having the appearance of Lake Lucy Road. To accomplish this design on this site would result in substantial destruction of natural features. Additionally, H Street, which serves the hillside overlooking Lake Harrison, is proposed to be built with a 40' right -of -way rather than the 60' required for local streets. This is a highly sensitive area due to severe grades and extensive tree cover. Staff supports this approach although it represents a departure from normal standards. f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be 1 provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 1 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, 1 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. I 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 I Page 10 Finding Consistent with recent practice in residential PUDs, staff is proposing that a minimum of two overstory trees at least 1 of which is to be located in the front yard 1 be required on lots lacking tree preservation. The Galpin Boulevard exposure is probably the site's least attractive since it is 1 devoid of vegetation. Code requires that landscape buffers be provided along collector streets. A landscaped berm has been illustrated along Galpin although details are lacking and should be provided at final approval. Additional landscaping 1 is illustrated on the commonly held recreational outlot (F) and in scattered locations along internal streets. Staff has concluded that establishing a landscape buffer along A street, the internal collector, is not warranted due to its residential nature. I 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 I 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 I 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: I 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is I 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 1 accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage I buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. 1 Findin The developer has stated in the narrative that they will establish strict architectural 1 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. I The applicant should provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the city. 1 1 Son Property 1 Song P October 6, 1993 Page 11 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, 1 enhanced. Staff is recommending approval of the Development PUD plan with the stated conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat will subdivide the site into 115 lots, one of which will be occupied by an existing home. Additionally, there is a 9.5 acre homesite in the northeast corner of the site, that the existing owners, the Song's will utilize to construct a new home. All lots with one exception, meet or exceed code requirements as illustrated in a compliance table prepared by the applicant dated August, 10, 1993. The sole exception is Lot 36, Block 4, which has an 85' lot width the setback. This can and should be increased to the required 90' at the time of fmal plat. Lot areas range from 11,661 square feet to 58,000 square feet exclusive of wetlands with the average (minus wetland acreage) being 27,519 square feet. There are a total of seven outlots in the plat as follows: 1 Outlot A: 43,090 sq. ft., located south of the intersection of A street and Galpin. Will be used to accommodate a NURP basin and entrance monument Outlots B & C: located adjoining the entrance of E street onto Galpin they are 1 small and will only be used to contain entrance monumentation. Outlot D: Containing 37,655 sq. ft. this parcel is located adjoining the west property line. It is intended that this will be subdivided and merged with previously platted lots in the Dolejsi PUD. This appears to be a reasonable use but the land should be conveyed with the final plat. With 258 540 sq. ft. it will contain a large wetland complex and com Outlot E: sq g p associated NURP basin. Outlot F: This is the largest outlot with 818,550 sq. ft. It contains much of Lake Harrison and associated wetland complex. It will also contain wetland mitigation area for the small amount of wetland that will be directly impacted by the development as well as a NURP basin. This outlot also has a sizeable amount of high ground that will be 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 1 Page 12 occupied by the proposed private recreational facility and a large, landscaped hill that will be used to screen the development from the Carlson property to the north. ' Outlot G: This is a small parcel designed to house entrance monumentation on the north side of the intersection of A street and Galpin. 1 STREETS According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Galpin Boulevard is considered 1 a Collector Class I designation with recommendations to upgrade to a four -lane roadway in the future. The study recommends a minimum of 100 -foot wide right -of -way be acquired. Galpin Boulevard currently exists as a two -lane rural highway within a 66 -foot wide right -of -way. The 1 applicant is proposing to dedicate an additional 17 feet of right -of -way to convey one -half of the total street width. 1 Taking into consideration the topographic constraints, the street system is fairly well laid out. Access to the site is proposed from two locations. The first is from Street A which is designated on the City's comprehensive plan as a future east/west collector between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard. The other street (Street E) located on the south end of the project will eventually tie back into Street A. The plat is proposing to dedicate right -of -way widths from 40 to 60 feet wide. The City's standard for local urban streets is 60 feet wide with collector -type streets ('A') 80 feet wide. Staff does understand the topographic constraints on the site and in an effort to minimize grading and tree removal, staff is comfortable in permitting a 60 -foot wide right -of -way on Street A with the proposed street section to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes. The plans propose Streets B, D, G, H and I to have substandard 50 -foot right -of -way widths according to City standards. This issue often arises within developments where there are ' trees or difficult grades. The typical discussion is to reduce the street width in an effort to maintain or save additional vegetation and limit grading. It is the Engineering department's contention that the installation of utilities along the right -of -way rather than the right -of -way width or street construction is the leading cause of tree removal. In addition, staff raises the question why should the City compromise in the street right -of -way width when the developer doesn't propose the same compromise by enlarging the lots or reducing the number of lots in an effort to preserve more trees? Staff strongly recommends that the street right -of -way width be maintained at 60 feet on Streets B, D and G with a 50 -foot wide right -of -way on Streets H and I where street width is of major importance to protect trees. Staff is comfortable in preserving 1 trees within the right -of -way whenever they can be saved and will work with the developer to refine plans to do so. However, staff is also concerned from a safety standpoint (both pedestrian and traffic) with the reduced street width of Streets H and I. Again, the question should be asked 1 is public safety worth compromising street widths in an effort to save a few trees which through the installation of utilities may eventually be lost over a period of 5 years due to root damage? Staff recommends that the street width on Streets H and I be increased from 24 feet to 28 feet 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 13 with a 50 -foot wide right -of -way. On Streets B and D, the applicant is proposing a 50 -foot wide right -of -way. Staff sees no reason to compromise the 60 -foot wide standard on these two streets 1 since they are located in an area that was actually farmed and there are no environmental features to protect. Therefore, staff recommends that Streets B and D be increased to 60 -foot wide right - of -ways. According to City ordinance, the minimum spacing between street intersections is 300 feet. The plans propose an intersection on Street A less than the minimum. Street 'B', located just west of Galpin Boulevard, is only 230 feet from Galpin Boulevard. The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan proposes A Street as a collector -type street. The City has petitioned the Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MnDOT) to include this corridor as part of the City's State -Aid system. MnDOT earlier this spring concurred and the City has listed this corridor as a State -Aid designated route. This will require slightly more restrictive construction standards of Street A. They must meet State -Aid standards for the City to be able to qualify for receiving State -Aid funds in the future. This may impact the developer's request for a landscaped median on Street A at Galpin Boulevard. State -Aid standards may not allow a landscaped median in the right-of- way area. In addition, if turn lanes are required at the intersection of Street A and Galpin Boulevard, the center median may extend beyond the B Street intersection which would limit access to 'B' Street to a right- in/right -out only. This should be further reviewed by the applicant's engineer with MnDOT's State -Aid office, and the City to determine whether or not B Street needs to be located further west. Street grades in the development range from 0.5% to 8% which exceeds the City's ordinance of 7 %. Upon review of the grading areas, it appears that on C Street and E Street the grades could be adjusted to meet City standards. On H Street, due to the steep slopes and heavily vegetated areas, staff is comfortable in granting a variance for the 8% street grade. Staff has also reviewed the proposed house pad elevation in relation to the street grades. On Lots 16, 20, 21 and 25, Block 7, the driveway grades will exceed the 10% limitation. In fact, on Lot 25, Block 7, the 1 driveway grade would be in excess of 20 %. It may be possible through the house design to lower the garage slab elevation to maintain the 10% or less driveway grade. The applicant should be aware that this is a concern of staff and needs to be further addressed prior to final 1 platting. The number of lots proposed in this development and the corresponding development to the west 1 (Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner a/k/a JDT) may generate traffic volumes at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Street A to warrant, at a minimum, right turn lanes as well as a possible bypass lane on Galpin Boulevard. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the Carver County Highway Department and City staff in determining whether warrants would be applicable for a bypass lane at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Street A. At the intersection of Street E and Galpin Boulevard, staff recommends at a minimum a right turn lane also be included as a part of the overall street construction plans. 1 1 1 I Song Property October 6, 1993 I Page 14 A very large lot (Lot 9, Block 1) is proposed just north of 'B' Street. Staff has reviewed I potential accesses to Lot 9 from Galpin Boulevard and recommends that a private driveway between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 over the proposed sanitary sewer be pursued in lieu of a separate driveway curb cut on Galpin Boulevard. Staff sees no need to introduce a new curb cut on to I Galpin Boulevard at this time. In the future this lot is further divided, an alternative access via a new street can be considered. I This development is pretty much self - contained with the exception of a future stub street (F Street) to the Stockdale property which lies south of this development. The other streets, E Street and A Street, will connect into the preliminary plat of JDT properties to the west and extend out I to Trunk Highway 41. In either one of these subdivisions (JDT property or Song/Carlson property) there is an opportunity for street extension to the north. Staff is very concerned with this since access off of Trunk Highway 41 is limited through MnDOT. It seems prudent to I explore the possibility of extending a street to the north. Staff has preliminarily reviewed the street alignments and feels that Street H could be extended northwesterly to provide future connection to the parcels to the northwest however, staff feels it may be more appropriate for I a street to be extended northerly off the JDT property. Staff will leave this option up to the applicant to decide which street alignment he prefers to have extended to the north. Again, staff feels it is very important that another street connection be provided to serve properties north of 1 these two developments. Private driveways are proposed for Lots 6 and 7, Block 5 and Lots 33, 34 and 35, Block 4. The 1 driveways should be constructed in accordance with the City's ordinance which is 20 -foot wide driveway and built to a 7 -ton design with an acceptable turnaround design. 1 UTILITIES The City is currently underway with the installation of trunk sewer and water improvements along Galpin Boulevard as well as E Street to service this parcel and the JDT property. The City project involves extending sanitary sewer and water from Galpin Boulevard back to the JDT I property where a lift station will be constructed. This sewer and water project is anticipated to be constructed and completed yet this fall which will provide immediate service to these two developments. Preliminary review of the utility plans for the subdivision shows sewer service I from two trunk systems. The northeasterly comer of the site is proposed to be serviced from the existing Lake Ann Interceptor and the remainder of the site through the Upper Bluff Creek trunk system which is currently being constructed. Both of these projects will sustain assessments I against the development which need to be addressed in the development contract for the development. I The utility layout for this project is fairly straightforward. A more detailed analysis will be given when the applicant submits detailed construction plans and specifications to the City for review and formal approval. All utility and street construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 15 edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The City's Fire Marshal will also review fire hydrant placement. Typically, hydrants are spaced approximately 300 feet apart in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. According to the City's Comprehensive Water Study, a trunk watermain line is designated along the Street A alignment. Typically the City gives the developer a credit for the trunk utility improvements the developer installs within his development. The credit is given in the fashion of an assessment reduction against the overall development. For example, the applicant would be credited the cost difference between a 1 proposed 16 -inch trunk watermain line versus a lateral 8 -inch water line. Upon completion of the project, the sewer and water lines will be extended to the neighboring parcels. Staff feels, however, on H Street the watermain should be stubbed to the westerly plat line between Lots 16 and 17 for a future looping of the watermain system. The plans also propose on stubbing a 10 -inch sanitary sewer line north of A Street (within the JDT development) for future service to the northerly properties. The parcel does contain an existing home (Song's) which is currently on a well and septic system. As the sewer and water service becomes available, the property should be required to connect to it. The City ordinance requires within 12 months after the sewer becomes available, the household is required to hook up to it. Water service may be delayed until the well on the property becomes inoperational. SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE As described in the applicant's narrative, the site grading will be very selective in an effort to preserve wooded areas as well as minimize disruption to wetlands. The bulk of the site grading is proposed along the easterly one -third of the development. Over the remaining areas, grading will be performed only in the street right -of -way sections and storm ponding areas. The majority of these lots will be custom - graded. On the selectively graded home sites, each individual 1 building permit should require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted as well as a tree removal plan for staff review and approval. The grading plans propose construction of earth berms partially into and adjacent to Galpin Boulevard right -of -way. With the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard, the Park and Recreation Department has expressed a desire to have a dual trail system along the roadway. Therefore, staff recommends that the grades be changed on the grading plan to be compatible with the future trail section along Galpin Boulevard. Another area of concern is wetland basin G which encroaches into Galpin Boulevard right -of -way (Lot 14, Block 2). Since this area will fall within the Galpin Boulevard trail system, it is recommended the applicant relocate the wetland basin so it is contained within the development parameters. ' The entire development proposes five storm water drainage basins (NURP ponds) to pretreat storm water prior to discharging into the wetlands. The plans also propose a series of storm 1 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 1 Page 16 sewer catch basins to convey storm water runoff to the drainage basins. At the preliminary plat I submittal, staff usually does not require any storm sewer calculations or ponding data; therefore, staff is unable to determine if the ponding or storm sewer system is adequately sized at this time. This is usually addressed in conjunction with final platting. As a rule, the surface water I discharge rate from the subdivision is to be retained at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 - year, 24 -hour storm event through the use of storm water detention/retention facilities. The subdivision's storm sewer system should also be designed for a 10 -year storm event. Detailed I storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for staff review and approval prior to final platting. 1 EROSION CONTROL The preliminary grading and drainage plan does propose erosion control measures such as erosion I control barrier fence around the wetlands. Staff recommends that the erosion control measures around the wetlands be the City's Type III erosion control fence to minimize the chance of disturbance of the wetlands. Due to the lateness of the year, it is most likely no grading or utility I work will transpire yet this fall. Typically, the grading on these projects when they are adjacent to wetlands, the City has normally required that no grading be allowed near the wetland areas during the waterfowl breeding season. Depending on which portion of the project (phase) they 1 pursue this spring, this condition may or may not be applicable. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activity shall comply with the City's construction 1 site erosion and sediment control Best Management Practice Handbook. WETLANDS AND PROPOSED ALTERATIONS I The ro ert contains eight wetlands and four of these wetlands will be altered or filled as a I P P Y g consequence of the project. The following is a brief description of the wetlands on site: - known Lake Harrison and classified as Minnesota Department of Natural De Basin A Basin A is ow as p I Resources state protected water 8W. The basin is characterized as two different wetland classifications. Approximately 5.7 acres of the basin within the property boundary is characterized as an exposed palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PUBG; Circular I 39 Type 5 open water). Surrounding the open water basin is approximately 8.5 acres of seasonally to semi - permanently flooded palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMC/F; Circular 39 Type 3/4 shallow and deep marsh). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin I as a natural wetland indicating that the wetland has a moderate to high functional value. This basin will not be impacted as a result of the proposed development. I Basin B - Basin B is classified as a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 wet meadow). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural /urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due 1 1 Song Property 1 October 6, 1993 Page 17 1 to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 0.46 acres and the entire basin will be filled as a result of the proposed park development on the property. 1 Basin C - Basin C is classified as a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMC; Circular 39 Type 3 shallow marsh). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural impacts. Approximately 0.21 acre of the 7.5 acre basin will be filled in order to install a stormwater pond large enough to meet the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The stormwater pond should help to maintain the water quality within the basin. Basin D - Basin D is a drainageway classified as a seasonally flooded forested wetland (Cowardin PFO1C; Circular 39 Type 1 bottom hardwoods). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as a natural wetland indicating that the wetland has a moderate to high functional value. Approximately 0.01 acre of the 0.6 acre basin will be filled to install a 1 stormwater pond large enough to meet NURP standards. The stormwater pond should help -to maintain the water quality within the basin. Basin E - Basin E appears to be a man-made excavated wetland that drains into Basin D via a 220 foot drainageway. The basin is approximately 0.2 acre and the drainageway is approximately 0.1 acre. It is classified as a semi - permanently flooded unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PUBF; Circular 39 Type 5 open water). The City of Chanhassen classifies this basin as agricultural/urban since it was created by man. This basin will not be impacted as a result of 1 the proposed development. Basins F and G - Both of these basins are sections of a road ditch which have revegetated with wetland vegetation. The City of Chanhassen classifies these basins as agricultural/urban since they have been impacted by the roadway. These basins will not be impacted as a result of the proposed development. 1 Basin H - A portion of Basin H is within the project area. The basin is characterized as a ditched /partially drained saturated palustrine emergent wetland (PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 set meadow). The City of Chanhassen classifies this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the basin has a low to moderate functional value. The basin lies in Lot 9 of Block 1 and is planned to be a 9.48 -acre single residential lot. No impacts to this wetland are expected as a result of the proposed development. Basin I - Basin I will be delineated and surveyed in the near future. This basin is classified as a temporarily flooded palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMA; Circular 39 Type 1 seasonally flooded). The City of Chanhassen classifies this 0.1 acre basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the basin has a low to moderate functional value. The 1 entire basin will be filled as a result of a roadway for the proposed development. 1 .1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 1 Page 18 The following table summarizes the wetland areas that will be altered as a_result of the proposed 1 development: I Wetland Wetland Wetland Size Wetland Identification Type (acres) Area to be Altered I (acres) A Natural 14.2 0 1 B Ag/Urban 0.46 0.46 C Ag/Urban 7.5 0.21 1 D Natural 0.6 0.01 E Ag/Urban 0.3 0 1 F Ag/Urban 0.1 0 G Ag/Urban 0.1 0 1 H Ag/Urban not delineated 0 I Ag/Urban —0.10 (needs to be —0.10 1 delineated) TOTAL 0.78 1 Mitigation 1 The applicant is proposing to create 0.78 acre of mitigation on cultivated upland which is contiguous to wetlands that fringe Lake Harrison (Basin A) The mitigation plan will have to be adapted to meet the required 1:1 mitigation ratio required by the Wetland Conservation Act. The mitigation area shown on the current grading plan is approximately 0.68 acre. With the addition of Wetland I, the area will have to enlarged to a total of 0.78 acre or more. 1 Basins B and I (Ag/Urban wetlands) will be entirely filled, but the wetland replacement for the loss will be incorporated into a natural basin (Basin A). The mitigation will help offset I the wetland loss with a higher functional value replacement to the area. Basins C and D only require a small amount of fill in order to install stormwater ponds to help maintain the water quality within the basins. I The natural drainage area to the existing basins will be altered as a result of the development. A hydrologic analysis of present and developed conditions shows that the amount of water 1 1 I i Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 19 entering basins A, E, F, and G will not be significantly altered and the amount of water I entering basins C and D will be increased. The following table summarizes the estimated results of the existing and developed hydrologic conditions. Existing 1 -ear Existing 1 -ear Developed 1 -ear Developed 10 -year I Drainage g y g y Pe 1-y ear Storm Runoff Storm Runoff Storm Runoff Storm Runoff (acre -feet) (acre -feet) (acre -feet) (acre -feet) 1 A & B 0.99 4.12 1.14 4.20 C 0.79 3.87 1.50 5.52 1 D 0.06 0.38 0.20 0.83 E 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.09 1 F & G 0.13 0.78 0.14 0.77 I Basin C will receive a 50% and 90% increase in runoff for a 10 -year and 1 -year storm, respectively. Since Basin C is classified as agricultural /urban, the increase in treated runoff I may enhance the functional value to the basin. Basin D will also receive a significant increase in runoff to the basin. Increasing the size of the holding pond just north of Basin D may help to slow the rate of water entering the basin. It is recommended that this option be explored since the altered hydrology pattern may upset the ecological balance to this natural wetland. Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditions of Approval I The applicant has submitted a table showing the wetland boundary and setbacks. This plan 1 meets the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance. The wetland ordinance requires different buffer strips for the natural and ag/urban wetlands located on the property. The structure setback and buffer 1 strip widths are as follows: Wetland Buffer Buffer Strip % Native Structure Setback 1 Type Strip Minimum Vegetation in from Outer Edge of Average Width Buffer Strip Buffer Strip 1 Natural 10 -30 ft 20 ft Entire 40 ft Ag/Urban 0 -30 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 ' Page 20 The buffer strip around the natural wetlands have to contain native vegetation. It is optional how much of the buffer strip must contain native vegetation around the agricultural/urban ' wetlands. Additional vegetation is not necessary where vegetation already exists. Once the buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with a city approved monument on each lot. ' TREE PRESERVATION The tree preservation concept this proposal is based upon is a good one. The underlying plat design, street layout, lot configurations and locations, are all designed to maximize tree preservation areas and we generally believe that they did a good job. Submitted materials ' indicate that of 717 "large trees" (12 " or larger) 90% will be preserved. Of these, only 8 of the 99 trees 30" or larger would be lost. This is admirable and indicative of good planning ' however, we are not sure if we are "comparing apples to apples" here. This data is indicative of trees lost to construction of streets and utilities. It does not appear to include additional trees lost due to home placement. As with other recent plats, significant areas of the site will ' be protected by conservation areas. Plans dated June, 1993 illustrate cut/no -cut zones around individual building sites. However, these due not conform to the tree preservation areas that are illustrated on another document and may in fact prove to be too restricting when ' individual home plans are developed. Staff has worked with the Tree Board to develop a tree preservation ordinance and continues ' to do so although the process still is not complete. On recent plats, a great deal of effort has been placed upon not only identifying tree masses for preservation but also identifying individual trees on individual lots. This kind of micro planning has the theoretical advantage ' of maximizing tree preservation but it comes at a cost of limiting home buyers choices and greatly increased administration load. Given the fact that these lots sell at a premium and that most home owners want to protect trees, it may be more productive to place focus of our ' efforts on identifying the largest and most practical tree conservation easements and leave the - decisions of how to site a particular home outside of that easement, up to the developer and buyer. ' What we are ro osin can be divided into several areas. First of all, we are recommending P P g that the City accept the proposed Lundgren approach whereby trees will be preserved in ' conservation areas where appropriate and through careful site development (streets and utilities). Secondly, we are recommending that the tree conservation areas illustrated by the applicant, be significantly expanded to more closely reflect the June 4, 1993, cut/no -cut figure prepared by the applicant. We received tree survey information from the applicant in several different formats and at several different times making illustration and interpretation difficult. The intent here is not to preserve trees on a tree -by -tree basis around building pads but rather to 1 1 Song Property g e PrtY October 6, 1993 Page 21 1 ensure that tree massings are protected in a reasonable manner and that r-oad and utility plans can be adjusted as needed to maximize preservation. 1 The third element is reforestation. The applicant is proposing to plant 208 overstory and 87 coniferous trees plus other plant materials in various locations throughout the site. Planting 1 areas include a landscaped berm along Ga1pin; reforestation of the commonly held, private park area, in islands located in cul -de -sacs, at entrances onto Galpin and in scattered locations around the plat This goal is admirable however, from the submitted plans it is virtually impossible to understand where this material is going to be placed. For final approval we are asking that the following be incorporated: 1. Detailed plans for landscaping the cul -de -sac islands be developed for approval. 2. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped berm by developed for approval. This 1 feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. 3. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. 4. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. 1 One additional factor relative to tree preservation is worth noting. None of the applicant's materials recognize the fact that substantial tree preservation will occur on the 9.5 acre parcel being retained by the Song's for their own home. Located in the northeast corner of the PUD, this area is visible from Galpin and would be only minimally impacted by the construction of a single home. 1 PARK AND RECREATION This item was first reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission on July 27, 1993. The issue was tabled that evening for further review at a subsequent Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The attached staff report dated August 18, 1993, explains in detail the reasons for the delay in action. The evening of August 24 saw a Park and Recreation Commission with many of the concerns 1 they had on July 27. The most prominent being the continuing lack of a public park. The commission felt it would be unfair to approve the Song application contingent upon the 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 22 acquisition of a public park elsewhere in this area. The applicant, however, elected to approve of such a condition with a 45 day time limit. Upon conclusion of the discussion on ' August 24, the following action was taken: Lash moved, Berg seconded to recommend that the preliminary plat to subdivide 112 acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development into 115 single family lots (Song property) be approved by the Park and Recreation Commission contingent upon 1 the following conditions of approval being met: Parks 1. The private /association park be approved only if the additional amenity of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope ' is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park 1 purposes. 2. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. Trails ' 1. A 20 ft. trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the ' project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. 1 2. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be ' staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail 1 fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat 1 1 Song Property 1 October 6, 1993 Page 23 1 for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be I waived. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications 1 if it is acquired. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE 1 At the last meeting, the Commission reviewed the PUD/Preliminary Plat proposal to develop 115 single family lots on the Song property west of Galpin Boulevard. In representing the 1 developer, Terry Forbord presented a large number of requested revisions to conditions contained in the staff report. After extended discussion, the Commission indicated that they I did not wish to make a large number of changes to the conditions without adequate consideration and continued the item to allow staff to review the requests. Additionally, Commissioner Mancino noted a discrepancy in two of the wetland designations and asked that this be addressed. The following constitutes our response. Each condition is listed with requested changes and our response if warranted. 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet. 1 No change requested. II 2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks. No change requested. I q 3. Each lot to be provided with two trees, at least one of which must be located in the 1 front yard where there would otherwise be no trees 6" or larger in this area. Trees to be selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 2 diameter at time I 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 24 I of installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed 1 landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval. 1 Developer requested clarification to ensure that where existing trees larger than 21/2" exist on a lot, that they are credited to the tree planting requirement. We are proposing that the first sentence be deleted and revised as follows. I "Each lot must be p rovided with two trees when they do not contain at least this I number of trees, 2 or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be placed in the lot in question or clustered as appropriate based upon an approved landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to buffering I requirements along Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots ". 4. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for I review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels. 1 No change requested. 1 5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. No change requested. I 6. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs, 1 financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The applicant has noted that while they are willing to make commitments to construct 1 the private park, they do not wish to do so until they can include it in the appropriate construction phase. They have asked that the following be added and staff has no objection. "The association park will be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on 1 the preliminary plat." 7. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on I the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with I site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final approval, the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be employed. This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is 1 1 1 Song Property 1 October 6, 1993 Page 25 1 to be covered by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. 1 The applicant has agreed to provide mitigation for two wetlands that will be impacted by street and trail construction along Galpin. However, due to wetland permitting ' standards they do not wish to be responsible for obtaining the required approvals. Since this impact is related to a public improvement, staff agrees that obtaining the WAP should be City responsibility, thus we agree with the request. The following should be added to the condition, "The applicant is responsible for providing wetland mitigation for impacts stemming from the ultimate improvement of Galpin and trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will assume responsibility for obtaining the necessary permits for this activity." Tree Preservation/Landscaping: 1 a. Detailed plans for landscaping the cul -de -sac islands be developed for approval. The applicant has requested that a note be added to the effect that the landscaping plans be prepared for approval at the time of Final Plat. This was our intent and the change is acceptable. b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped berm by developed for approval. This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. The developer has proposed language to clarify this condition that we find objectionable. The only change we are recommending is for the first sentence to read "Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and berming where feasible) to buffer direct views of the street from the homes, shall be 1 developed for City approval." 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 ' Page 26 c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected ' from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. No change requested. d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory fmancial guarantees. ' No change requested. e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise ' satisfactorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas as 1 recommended by staff. Again, alternate but inappropriate language has been proposed. Staff sees no 1 need to change the language. Park and Trails: ' Parks 1 a. The private /association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. ' Such a provision must be drafted into association documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. Trails ' a. A 20 ft. trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the ' project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. 1 1 Song Property 1 October 6, 1993 Page 27 1 b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat 1 for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be waived. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 1 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is acquired. These are Park and Recreation Commission conditions and I am not proposing any significant changes since these can and will be addressed directly to the Council. The only item that we can resolve here pertains to the 20' trail easement that is being requested along the east property line to allow a trail be built on Galpin. We do not believe this is required since the trail can be accommodated in the expanded Galpin ROW. However, additional trail easements will be required near intersections where turn lane requires expanded use of available ROW. Therefore the first sentence of 9a Trails. should be deleted and replaced by the following, "It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street ROW except within 200 of street intersections. 1 In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in width is required." 10. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' 1 deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the fmal plat. Weasel words proposed, no changes recommended. 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 28 ' 11. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right -of -ways on Streets B, D and G to a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with Streets H and I to be 50 feet wide with the 1 standard street section. The applicants have proposed that they be allowed to use ROW sections that they 1 originally proposed that deviate from City standards. Engineering staff is proposing that the condition not be changed. The Commission spent some time discussing this matter on October 6 and there was some support for use of decreased ROW. We are ' asking that you be prepared to clarify this condition at the meeting. No revised language has been proposed. 1 12. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the fmal plat for all utilities located outside the public right -of -ways including drainage basins. The minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an ' improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. 1 The applicants have requested clarification of this condition regarding Outlot F access. A last sentence can be added as follows, "Access may be covered with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff." 13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. 1 Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers. ' No change required. The applicant's concern regarding city wetland permit for Galpin wetlands addressed previously. 14. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting. ' No change requested. 15. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, Carver County Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane ' on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street. No change requested. 1 Song Property J October 6, 1993 Page 29 16. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation. No change requested. 17. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and 1 disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before October 31 each construction season except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. All disturbed areas resulting from construction activities shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for Erosion and Sediment Control. The developer has requested increased flexibility relative to winter construction. Staff is proposing that the condition be revised to read as follows: All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or provided with a wood-fiber . blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov. 15 each construction season. Areas where street and\or utility construction will occur throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 18. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with 1 the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and water improvements which is considered anything over an 8 -inch pipe diameter, a credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement. No change requested. 19. As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be required to enter into a 1 development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. No change requested. 20. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The Song homestead shall gain access via a direct connection to "B" Street. 1 1 1 1 Song Property • October 6, 1993 Page 30 The applicants have proposed that the new Song homestead be allowed to have a direct access to Galpin whereas staff has recommended that it be required to use a ' private driveway to "B" street. Staff sees no reason to deviate from standard City policy which is based upon traffic safety. We are recommending that the condition 1 stand as is. 21. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval. 1 No change requested. ' 22. The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard 1 right -of -way. The applicants have proposed new language that would make it more difficult and ' expensive to upgrade Galpin or construct a trail in the future. We do not support this request and no change is recommended. ' 23. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the development to avoid its being impacted by street and trail construction. 1 Applicant's issues already resolved with earlier changes. 24. A private driveway easement should be conveyed for access to Lot 9, Block 1 between 1 Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 off of B Street. Applicant again raising issue of Song driveway. No changes are recommended. ' 25. The street ades on C Street and E Street shall be adjusted to conform to City adjusted t3' ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7.0% except on H Street which is 8% street 1 grade. 'A' Street shall be constructed in accordance with State -Aid standards. ' Design issues raised by applicant have been resolved by staff communication with State Aid Office at MnDOT. Revised language should read, "The street grades shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7% except on H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to State Aid standards." 26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be ' extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension may be through either H Street or another Street location within the Johnson/DolejsifTurner property immediately to the west. 1 1 1 Song Property 1 October 6, 1993 Page 31 1 The applicant has suggested revised language that would have the effect of neutering this condition. We are recommending that it not be changed from the original staff recommendation. 27. The landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and E Street shall be deleted. The cul -de -sac islands may remain subject to staff modifications. The applicant has sought to be allowed to build landscape medians at external entrances to the project. Our initial concerns were due to State Aid standards and these have been resolved. The condition should be revised to read as follows: "The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A and E streets, and the proposed cul -de -sac islands, are to be allowed subject to incorporation of modifications requested by staff and to meet State Aid requirements. 28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. No change requested. 1 29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in the vicinity. No chang e requested. 30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a 1 width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal. No change requested. WETLAND ISSUES Commissioner Mancino raised a concern over a potentially mis- identified wetland basin. The Surface Water Coordinator has reviewed the matter with the following conclusions: 1. Peterson did not include the Chanhassen types in his report. I included them in the City's report. 2. Wetland A is a type 5 surrounded by a type 3/4. I stopped at this point. In Peterson's report he included that there are also scattered stands of type 1 bottomland hardwood wetlands. 1 • 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 ' Page 32 3. Basin C is a type 3 which discharges into a type 2. The City's report just mentioned ' the type 3 where Peterson's report was more clear by describing the type 2 and 3. 4. Basin E includes a small creek that drains into Basin D. Block 5 - Lot 7 has a house ' that is less than 40 feet from the creek. It should be moved to a minimum of 40 feet (50 feet is the recommended average). Since this is an ag/urban wetland there should be a buffer width average of 10 feet and a house setback from the buffer strip of 40 1 feet. 5. Basins F and G were not typed in Peterson's report. After checking the NWI map, ' they would most likely be classified as seasonally flooded /saturated palustrine emergent wetland type (PEMC/B Circular 39; type 2/3). ' 6. Except for the lot mentioned in #4, all house setbacks are greater than 60 feet. This meets the setback requirements for buffer strips and house lots for both ag/urban and natural wetlands. ' Based upon the foregoing, no changes are required except for adding condition # 31 to read as follows: 31. Block 5, Lot 7 shall be revised to ensure that a 40' setback is provided from the creek. Additionally, it must be demonstrated that a wetland buffer of at least 10' plus a setback from the buffer of at least 40', will be provided. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE (10/20/93) ' The Commission reviewed the item for a second time at their October 20, 1993, meeting. Staff presented a revised set of conditions which had been prepared based upon our second review and a meeting with the applicant. As with the original meeting, Lundgren presented ' the City with a similar, albeit shorter version of their list of suggested revisions to the staff report. The Planning Commission made additional changes in several areas as follows: ' 1. Street width continued to be an issue. As at the first meeting, engineering staff was willing to make concessions on ROW width where tree preservation was a concern but not elsewhere. Design standards for the east/west collector, street A, were resolved ' prior to the meeting. Lundgren continued to press for 50' ROW on streets B, D and G which were not related to tree preservation concerns and engineering staff objected. Ultimately, the applicant agreed to provide a 60' ROW but was granted a 25' front ' yard setback. This will give the city full width streets but the homes would be located the same distance apart as they would have been with a 50' ROW and 30' setback that had been originally proposed by the applicant. Staff also agreed to allow for the 1 1 Song Property 1 October 6, 1993 Page 33 1 construction of retaining walls in the ROW of streets H and I to save trees so long as they are maintained by the Association (condition #11). 2. The proposed new driveway serving the new home to be built for the Song's continued to have a lot of discussion. The applicants wanted a new driveway to serve the home out to Galpin. Planning staff objected stating that internal access from local streets is possible and the City has a normal policy of denying new curb cuts onto major streets when feasible for safety reasons. The Commission favored allowing the driveway on a split vote and the condition was so amended. Staff was asked to come up with language to justify this departure from past policy but is not able to do so. Planning staff continues to believe it is a bad idea although the earth won't stop turning if it is approved. There is simply no reason to differentiate this one from all the others we have rejected in the past. The Commission chose to allow it on a 3 to 2 vote and we have not altered their recommendation (condition #22). 1 3. The use of State Aid design standards is discussed in condition #25. Staff agreed that a 7 rather then 9 ton design is acceptable for the collector street which is also agreeable with the applicant. 4. Condition #31 was added to require additional setbacks on Block 5, Lot 7 to protect 1 what was thought to be a wetland. Upon further review we found that the water body was a manmade overland drainage ditch from a dug pond and not a wetland. Therefore, condition #31 can be deleted. 1 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION UPDATE The Park and Recreation Commission revisited the application and their conditions of approval on October 26, 1993. A land development status report presented to the Commission included a section on the Song property. On the evening of the 26th, a faxed letter from Mr. Terry Forbord of Lundgren Bros. in response to this update was received. Copies of both these documents are attached. Staff recommended two amendments to the conditions be made prior to submission to the City Council. 1. Change the dimension of the open play field to be constructed in the association park from 250' x 250' to 180' x 250'. The Commission rejected the proposed change. , 2. Change trail Condition #1 to: It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of -way except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 34 I width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may 1 meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to I areas west of the trail bench. Commissioner Lash moved, Commissioner Schroers seconded to approve this change in 1 conditions. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. I With this change, the Park and Recreation Commission's conditions of approval now read: Park and Trails: 1 Parks I a. The private /association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet by 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to I and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. Such a provision must be drafted into association 1 documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit 1 application. Trails I a. It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of -way except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement 1 up to 20' in width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the I discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan I review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the I southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at 1 1 1 Song Property 1 October 6, 1993 Page 35 the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the 1 construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsifrurner applications. [Note: This condition will require I amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/DolejsifTurner properties.] Fees associated with the I amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/DolejsifTurner property are to be waived. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots I 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the 1 Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, ' 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, I Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is acquired. The points of contention which I recognize as still existing are: Parks 1 a. City is requiring a 250' x 250' open play field with a maximum 4% slope. The applicant has offered to construct an open field with a maximum dimension 111 of 180 feet x 180 feet. b. None I c. None 1 Trails I a. None b. On August 24, 1993, the applicant discussed this condition with the Park and 1 Recreation Commission informing them that they would like to build the trail in a phased manner. The applicant did not dispute the compensation being I offered in return for the construction (waiver of trail fees for both the Song and Johnson/DolejsifTurner projects). Therefore, the commission forwarded their 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 I Page 36 recommendation to the City Council on the premise that Lundgren Bros. I Construction is in agreement with this condition. Subsequently, however, Lundgren Bros. represented to the Planning Commission that they were not in agreement this with condition. Lundgren Bros. further communicated in a I letter dated October 26, 1993, to the Park and Recreation Commission that they agreed to construct the trail around the wetland in exchange for the waiver of trail dedication fees equivalent to the cost of constructing the trail. The cost of 1 constructing the trail will exceed the total reduction in trail fee charges. I asked the Park and Recreation Commission to confirm this condition on October 26, 1993. I The commission not only confirmed the condition, they also expressed their disappointment in the applicant stating: 1 "What's happening here is we agreed they were going to install that trail and now they want to be paid dollar for dollar and that's not what we had agreed to, we had agreed to have them install the trail in lieu of trail fees and that was our intention and that has 1 not changed." Chairman Schroers "The whole point is we had a discussion, a lengthy discussion for two meetings with that I developer, came to what we thought was a good agreement, things that everybody could live with and he's now complaining to other commissions about our recommendations. I I resent that process." Commissioner Lash "I'm sitting here getting more and more upset that we're spending our time discussing I an end run by someone else to a different commission. I suggest we move on to another issue, our proposal is on record, we're not changing it, why are we continuing to talk about this." Commissioner Berg 1 The commission asks that the City Council uphold their agreement with the applicant. I The applicant has stated that they do not wish to construct a trail connection to the street plan between Lots 16 and 17. The condition allows for the designation of a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. The applicant has not submitted an alternative proposal. I The commission's conditions require the applicant to grade the "Stockdale" park if acquired. The applicant has stated that they cannot afford to grade the park down at Stockdale's and all 1 these other things. RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends the City adopt ado t the following motion: 1 1 1 Song Property 1 October 6, 1993 Page 37 "The City approves Council a the preliminary PUD of 111.77 acres of property to create 115 I P �'Y single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval subject to the following conditions: 1 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided I 2. g p p for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are I required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks. 3. Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this 1 number of trees 2 or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be placed in the lot in question or clustered as appropriate based upon an approved I landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to buffering requirements along Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots." Trees to be selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 2 diameter at time of ' installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for I city approval. 4. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for I review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels. 1 5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. 6. Provide details of the ro osed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are I P P P tY P P predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs, 111 financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The association park will be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on the preliminary plat." 7. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on I the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with I site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final approval, the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be 1 I Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 38 employed. This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is to be covered by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing ' between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The applicant is responsible for providing wetland mitigation for impacts stemming from the ultimate ' improvement of Galpin and trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will assume responsibility for obtaining the necessary permits for this activity." 8. Tree Preservation/Landscaping: a. Detailed plans with the final plat for landscaping the cul -de -sac islands be ' developed for approval. I b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and berming where feasible). This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate I locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. I c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. ' d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise ' satisfactorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas as 1 recommended by staff. i I I 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 39 9. Park and Trails: 1 Parks 1 a. The private /association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 250 feet by 250 feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. Such a provision must be drafted into association documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit 1 application. c. If in the future there is a dissolution or any type of breakdown in this 1 neighborhood association, that the city will be deeded this park as a park and not subdivided into lots. 1 Trails a. It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of -way except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the 111 southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsi /Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require 1 amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be 1 waived. 1 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 1 Page 40 This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 1 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the 1 Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications 1 if it is acquired. NOTE: NEGOTIATIONS IN THIS REGARD ARE ONGOING. 1 10. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat. 1 11. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right -of -ways on Streets B, D and G to a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with Streets H and I to be 50 feet wide with the I standard street section. The applicant was granted a 25' front yard setback. Staff also agreed to allow for the construction of retaining walls in the ROW of streets H and I to save trees so long as they are maintained by the Association I 12. ' Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public right -of -ways including drainage basins. The I minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. Access may be covered 1 with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff. 13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. I Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers. I 14. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting. I 15. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, I Carver County Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street. 1 16. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation. 1 1 1 Song Property 1' October 6, 1993 Page 41 1 17. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or provided with a wood -fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov. 15 each construction season. Areas where street and/or utility construction will occur throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant I an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 18. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with 1 the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and water improvements which is considered anything over an 8 -inch pipe diameter, a credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain 1 trunk improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will. be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement. 1 19. As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to 1 guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. 20. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The 1 Song homestead shall gain access via a direct connection to "B" Street. 21. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval. 1 22. The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard right -of -way. 1 23. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the development to avoid its being impacted by street and trail construction. 1 24. A private driveway easement should be conveyed for access to Lot 9, Block 1 between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 off of B Street. 1 25. The street grades shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7% except on H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to a 7 ton 1 design. 1 1 1 1 Song Property October 6, 1993 1 Page 42 26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be I extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension may be through either H Street or another Street location within the Johnson/Dolej sif Turner property immediately to the west. I 27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A and E streets, and the proposed cul -de -sac islands, are to be allowed subject to 1 incorporation of modifications requested by staff and to meet State Aid requirements. 28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. I 29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in 1 the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in the vicinity. 1 30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal." I ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Recommendations suggested by applicant. 2. Tree Location Tabulation. I 3. Letter from Carver County dated June 22, 1993. 4. Memo from Forestry Intern dated September 14, 1993. 5. Staff report for Johnson/DolejsifTurner (JDT) PUD. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Song Property 1 October 6, 1993 Page 42 1 26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension may be through either H Street or another Street location within the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property immediately to the west. 27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A 1 and E streets, and the proposed cul -de -sac islands, are to be allowed subject to incorporation of modifications requested by staff and to meet State Aid requirements. 1 28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. 29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a I temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in the vicinity. 30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a r width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal." I ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommendations suggested by applicant. 1 2. Tree Location Tabulation. 3. Letter from Carver County dated June 22, 1993. 4. Memo from Forestry Intern dated September 14, 1993. 5. Staff report for Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner (JDT) PUD. 6. Planning Commission minutes dated October 6 and October 20, 1993. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ©c - co , totei- 1 1 t 1 SONG PROPERTY I October 6, 1993 11 RECOMMENDATIONS AS SUGGESTED BY THE APPLICANT IN BOLD TYPE 1 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary PUD of 111.77 acres of property t to create 115 single- family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval i 1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet. I°' 2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 -foot separation is provided for t: side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down 0. to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 -foot setbacks are required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks. i 1 4i 3. Each lot to be provided with two trees, at least one of which must be located in the front yard where there would otherwise be no trees 6 inches or larger in this area. Existing ' unmapped trees between 2 1/2 inches and 6 inches will be credited toward the two tree per lot minimum. Trees to be selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 2 1/2 diameter at time of installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter I of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans of internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval. 1 5. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria consistent I with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels. 6. Outlot D to be merges with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. I 7. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities at time of final plat. Since city park plans are predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some I local needs, financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The association park will be built concurrent with Street "A ". 8. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on the I "A" Street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final approval, the applicant shall I determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be employed. This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is to be covered by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are to be established in the applicant's 1 compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage 1 Song Property 6 October 1993 Page 2 caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate I that wetland mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. The City will apply separately for wetland permits for wetlands along Galpin Boulevard. _ 9. Tree Preservation/Landscaping: 1 a. Detailed plans for landscaping the cul -de-sac islands to be developed for approval at time of final plat. 1 b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Boulevard landscaped berm developed for final plat approval. This feature shall reasonably attempt to .buffer direct view of the road from homesites on lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide I vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. The applicant will work out with staff the amenity and screening tree planting vs. the required t bare lot tree planting. _ 1 c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards .in the City Code and be selected I from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. I d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. e. All tree conservation areas to be rotected by snow fence or otherwise satisfactorily P Y Y ' marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas with staff to allow flexibility for custom I housing and to assure tree preservation. 10. Park and Trails: 1 Parks a. The private /association park to be approved with the addition of an open field with a I minimum size of 180' x 180' with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is ever abandoned, it shall be offered to I the City for a first refusal option to purchase from HOA. Such a provision must be drafted into association documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application with 1 appropriate credits for agreed upon trail construction and park grading. Trails 1 a. A trail will be incorporated into the 100 -foot Galpin Boulevard ROW with a separate permit for wetland alteration obtained by the City. 1 b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on 11 Song Property 6 October 1993 Page 3 Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and a the time of adjoining street construction, bituminous paving and home development. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail i corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant ' receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the a Song property and Johnson /Dolejsi/Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the JohnsonlDolejsi/Turner property are to be waived. If the construction costs for the trail exceed the trail fee credit, then park fee credit • ' will make up the difference. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 and 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity with no loss of developable lots. This recommendation is not contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993. I Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is acquired and the city grants fee credits equal to construction costs. 11. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat understanding that v 1 design details may change altering lot and buffer dimensions. 12. The applicants proposed ROW and street sections are acceptable based on tree and 1 wetland preservation and are to be used for the final plat. 13. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public right -of -ways including drainage basins. The minimum I width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. Access may be covered with grass over a compacted 1 subgrade. 14. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed I District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers. City will obtain separate wetland alteration permits for the expansion of Galpin Boulevard ROW. 15. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting. 1 16. At a minimum, deacceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A and /or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, Carver County 1 Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street. 4 Song Property 6 October 1993 Page 17. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation. 18. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before 1 November 30 (or hard frozen ground) each construction season except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed that year. All disturbed areas resulting from ' construction activities shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for Erosion and Sediment Control. Details of extended winter construction will be worked out with city staff. 1 i 19. The developer shall construct all utility improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with I 1 final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and water improvements which is considered anything over an 8 -inch pipe diameter, a credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement. 20. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a 1 development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee' compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. 21. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) except that the Song homestead shall gain access directly to Galpin until redeveloped. 22. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval. c 23. Since no upgrading of Galpin Boulevard plans exist, the applicant will coordinate final I grading with City staff with berming partially on the edge of ROW. 24. Wetland Basin G and F shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the development to avoid its being impacted by County Road 117 construction with the 1 understanding that the City will obtain separate wetland alteration permits. 25. Lot 9 may have one single - family access to Galpin Boulevard until redeveloped with I additional lots. • 26. The street grades on C Street shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is I between 0.50% and 7.0% except on H and C Street which is 8% street grade. "A" Street shall be constructed in accordance with State -Aid standards if a 25 m.p.h. design speed is used, median islands are allowed, and any additional costs from such designations are paid for by the city /state cost. 1 27. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension may I be through a Street location within the Johnson/DolejsilTurner property immediately to the west if it is demonstrated that a need exists. If no need is demonstrated, then the contingency will be removed. 1 Song Property 6 Oct ober 1993 Page 5 28. The landscape median areas at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and E Street and A Street are allowed. The cul- de-sac islands may remain subject to staff modifications. 29. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. 30. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary turn -a -round and a signed barricade indication "This street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain-of-title of all lots in the vicinity. 1 31. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7-ton design and be equipped with a turn -a -round acceptable to the Fire Marshal." i; F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C !TY OF CHANHASSI RECEIVED LUNDGREN BROS. (SONG PROPERTY) AUG 1 ,' TREE LOCATION TABULATION CHANHASSEN PLANNINIE BLOCK 1 Lots 1 thru 9 No Trees Lot 7 No trees Lot 8 No trees BLOCK 2 Lot 9 No trees Lots 1 thru 24 No trees Lot 10 No trees Lot 11 No trees BLOCK 3 Lot 12 No trees Lot 1 No trees Lot 13 No trees Lot 2 No trees Lot 14 No trees Lot 3 No trees Lot 15 No trees Lot 4 723 = 12" oak Lot 16 No trees Lot 5 No trees Lot 17 No trees I Lot 6 No trees Lot 18 383 = 15" ash Lot 7 720 = 27" oak 385 = 36" box elder 721 = 20" oak II 722 = 20" maple Lot 19 386 = 24" double oak 387 = 27" double oak BLOCK 4 388 = 24" ash I Lot 1 No trees 389 = 27" double oak Lot 2 No trees 390 = 24" oak Lot 3 374 = 20" ash 391 = 20" oak 375 = 16" oak 392 = 15" oak I Lot 4 376 - 26" oak 393 = 18" double oak 377 = 30" maple 394 = 12" ash 378 = 24" ash II 403 = 30" oak Lot 20 395 = 18" oak 404 = 30" oak Lot 21 396 = 30" oak 405 = 12" double Lot 22 397 = 24" oak ironwood 398 = 32" oak I 406 = 40" oak Lot 23 No trees 407 = 30" oak Lot 24 No trees 408 = 12" ash Lot 25 724 = 30" ash 409 = 12" double ash Lot 26 No trees 410 = 30" oak Lot 27 No trees 411 = 30" double oak Lot 28 No trees I 412 = 16" oak Lot 29 No trees 413 = 36" oak Lot 30 476 = 32" maple 414 = 30" oak Lot 31 473 = 12" maple III Lot 5 379 = 24" ash 474 = 20" maple 380 = 30" oak 475 = 20" maple 382 = 20" ash 477 = 24" maple 384 = 30" box elder 478 = 15" maple 401 = 30" oak 402 = 30" oak Lot 6 381 = 15" double ash II 1 1 II II BLOCK 5 594 = 12" oak Lot 1 547 = 30" maple 607 = 16" oak II 548 = 30" maple 549 30" maple 608 = 22" maple 609 = 14" maple 714 = 18" ash 611 = 18" maple 715 = 12" cluster of 612 = 20" maple 11 birch 613 = 20" maple 716 = 15" double oak 614 = 16" oak 717 = 36" oak 632 = 22" maple II 718 = 12" ash 633 = 20" maple 634 = 15" maple • Lot 2 546 = 26" basswood 635 = 24" oak I 550 = 32" maple 551 30" oak 636 = 15" maple 637 = 15" maple 655 = 15" oak Lot 3 539 = 18" maple 660 = 15" maple II 541 = 26" basswood 656 = 24" maple 542 = 22" oak 657 = 15" maple 545 = 18" maple II 552 = 14" ash 553 = 30" maple Lot 5 574 = 14" oak 595 = 12" maple 555 = 20" maple 596 = 14" oak 556 = 18" maple 597 = 12" oak I 557 = 22" maple 598 = 14" oak 558 = 14" maple 599 = 18" double oak 559 = 24" maple 600 = 14" double oak II 560 = 24" maple 601 = 18" double oak 561 = 16" maple 602 = 18" double oak 562 = 14" oak 603 = 16" ash I 604 = 12" oak Lot 4 575 = 12" oak 605 = 14" oak 576 = 14" oak 606 = 14" oak 579 = 16" oak 615 = 14" oak I 577 = 16" double oak 616 = 26" double oak 578 = 14" ash 617 = 12" oak 563 = 16" maple 618 = 18" oak I 580 = 14" double oak 619 = 16" oak . 581 = 16" maple 620 = 16" oak 582 = 18" maple 621 = 16" oak II 583 = 12" maple 622 = 14" oak 583A = 14" oak 623 = 14" double oak 584 = 16" maple 624 = 14" maple 585 = 14" maple 625 = 12" double oak I 554 = 12" maple 626 = 16" oak 586 = 14" oak 627 = 20" oak 587 = 14" oak 628 = 12" double oak I 588 = 12" oak 589 = 14" oak 629 = 14" double oak 630 = 18" oak 590 = 16" maple 631 = 15" maple II 591 = 16" maple 638 20" maple 592 = 14" oak 639 = 16" oak 593 = 12" oak 640 = 15" oak 1 3 II II II 237 = 18" oak 238 = 18" oak BLOCK 7 - continued 239 = 18" double oak II Lot 6 242 = 18" oak 240 = 20" oak 243 = 18" oak 241 = 22" oak 244 = 32" oak 245 = 24" oak 285 = 26" oak 246 = 18" oak 286 = 24" oak 287 = 18" oak Lot 9 196 = 20" oak 288 = 16" oak 197 = 20" oak 289 = 16" oak 205 = 18" oak 290 = 18" oak 206 = 10" double I 291 = 14" oak maple 292 = 20" oak 207 = 16" oak 293 = 20" oak 208 = 22" oak 294 = 16" oak 209 = 26" oak 111 295 = 26" oak 210 = 26" oak 333 = 18" oak 211 = 16" oak 334 = 34" oak 212 = 20" oak I 335 = 20" oak 213 = 22" maple 336 = 24" oak 214 = 16" oak 337 = 20" oak 215 = 14" oak 338 = 26" oak 247 = 18" oak 339 = 16" oak 248 = 26" oak 284 = 16" oak 249 = 14" ash 352 = 18" oak 250 = 18" oak 251 = 24" oak Lot 7 184 = 26" oak 252 = 14" oak 185 = 36" maple 253 = 20" ash I 186 = 26" maple 254 = 24" oak 187 = 18" maple 255 = 20" oak 219 = 16" oak 256 = 12" double oak 220 = 30" oak 257 = 16" oak I 223 = 32" oak 258 = 16" oak 224 = 26" oak 259 = 26" oak 225 = 16" oak 260 = 24" oak I 226 = 20" oak 261 = 18" oak 227 = 24" oak 262 = 20" oak 228 = 18" oak 263 = 22" oak II 229 = 16" oak 264 = 22" double oak 230 = 20" double oak 265 = 20" oak 231 = 14" oak 266 = 18" oak 232 = 22" oak 283 = 16" oak I 267 = 12" box elder Lot 8 188 = 16" oak 216 = 20" oak Lot 10 133 = 36" oak , 217 = 18" oak 135 = 12" box elder 218 = 20" oak 136 = 26" oak 235 = 22" oak 198 = 30" oak II 234 = 20" oak 199 = 26" oak 233 = 20" oak 200 = 36" oak 236 = 24" oak 201 = 12" box elder 5 1 II II II BLOCK 7 - continued 151 = 24" oak Lot 15 46 = 14" ironwood 152 = 42" oak 47 = 30" oak 153 = 16" oak II 48 = 26" oak 154 = 16" oak 155 = 20" oak Lot 16 1 = 14" ash 156 = 18" oak I 11 = 26" elm 12 = 26" oak Lot 20 157 = 26" oak 13 = 12" ash 158 = 18" oak 21 = 36" maple 159 = 32" maple 1 22 = 24" maple 160 = 30" oak 23 36" maple 161 = 28" oak 25 = 14" birch 162 = 18" oak I 38 = 30" maple 163 = 24" oak 39 = 30" maple 164 = 24" maple 40 = 24" oak 165 = 20" oak 166 = 22" oak Lot 17 55 = 22" ash 167 = 18" oak 56 = double oak 168 = 16" oak 57 = 30" oak 171 = 14" oak I 59 = 26" oak 172 = 18" oak 60 = 26" oak 173 = 16" oak 94 = 22" oak 174 = 16" oak I 95 = 30" oak 175 = 14" oak 96 = 36" oak 176 = 26" maple 178 = 18" oak I Lot 18 88 = 26" oak 179 = 24" oak 89 = 26" oak 180 = 22" oak 90 = 34" oak 181 = 18" oak 91 = 26" oak 182 = 24" oak I 92 = 26" oak 93 = 20" oak Lot 21 169 = 26" maple 97 = 34" oak 170 = 26" oak I 98 = 26" oak 183 = 20" oak 99 = 20" oak 221 = 32" oak 100 = 22" oak 222 = 14" mullberry I 101 = 22" oak 102 = 34" oak Lot 22 296 = 32" ash 103 = 26" oak Lot 23 297 = 28" willow 104 = 26" oak 298 = 26" willow I 105 = 26" oak 299 = 32" oak 106 = 32" oak Lot 24 300 = 28" oak I Lot 19 107 = 26" oak 301 = 26" oak 108 = 32" oak 302 = 26" double oak 109 = 26" oak 303 = 14" oak 110 = 36" oak 304 = 26" oak I 111 = 24" oak 305 = 24" oak 112 = 30" oak 306 = 24" oak 113 = 26" oak 307 = 20" oak I 114 = 24" oak 308 = 24" oak 150 = 20" oak 309 = 32" double oak II 7 1 1 Street I 189 = 18" oak 1 190 = 26" oak 191 = 30" maple 192 = 20" oak 193 = 26" double oak 194 = 30" oak 195 = 18" oak 1 Off Property (but located) 572 = 20" oak 692 = 20" double maple 693 = 14" maple 694 = 16" oak 695 = 16" oak 696 = 24" oak 697 = 18" maple 698 = 12" oak 699 = 16" triple oak 700 = 24" maple 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 . p 1 ``K( ^r j . !_ I CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE / 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ■ / CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 I (612) 448-1213 t, t A 'N ES O COUNTY Of CAI VEIQ - 1 June 22, 1993 1 TO: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant C9unty Engineer I SUBJ: Preliminary Plat . - _ ) ''riti) Song - Carlson Property (93 -3 PUD) 1 Following are comments regardint-the- Prefrmiriary plat for the Song - Carlson Property transmitted to C arver County by your memorandum dated June 7, 1993. 1 1. Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are: I Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2 -lane Roadway 2 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 1 80' 100' 110' 120' Urban Undivided Rural Divided I 4 -lane Roadway 4 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 190' 200' 1 County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class 1) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 50 foot from centerline corridor I shown would provide for a potential 100 foot corridor. This corridor would meet the needs for an urban roadway. I The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. - Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 1 2. Drainage by the road structure has been a problem on this property. Any grading work should provide for positive drainage away from the road structure. 1 3. The plan includes provisions for a divided entrance. The County has approved similar designs in the past. The City may want to review for acceptance of this type of entrance on this roadway. I 4. The City may want to review the overall transportation intersection alignments in this area to see if the proposed entrance location will provide for a safe entrance site. I Affirmative Action/ Equal Opponunrty Employer _,- 1 Printed on Rery rled Paper - : - 1 MEMORANDUM I To: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 1 From: Jeff Schultz, Forestry Intern Date: Sept. 14, 1993 1 Subj: Issues related to the tree removal plan for the Song Property 1 1. This site contains primarily red oak and sugar maple trees, which are known to be among 1 the most sensitive species to root disturbance in this area. An issue of primary importance on this site is going to be location of protective measures such as snow fencing and determining I whether or not certain trees, mostly at the grading limits, will actually be saved. I feel that fencing at one and a half times the diameter of the drip line is necessary for the majority of the affected trees. There may be a few cases where the fencing could be closer depending I mainly on the tree species involved. More retaining walls, particularly along H street and the western end of E street, may be necessary in the interest of preserving as much of the original grade as possible around the trees to be saved. Some retaining walls are already planned for I these areas. 2. When I visited the property, I found it difficult to match the tree removal plans to the site, I particularly in the heavily wooded areas. Although the trees are numbered on the tree removal plans, they are not labeled on site. This can lead to confusion when trying to locate particular trees that may be near the grading limits in the field, especially when many of the I trees are of the same species and approximately the same size. Although I noticed faint spray paint marks on some of the trees, I also wonder if every significant tree has actually been recorded. There were situations where I was unable to determine if a tree in the field was on I the plans or what number it was, if it was even on the plan. For example, in the rear of lot 25, block 7, there appeared to be at least one large oak that was not recorded. Other recent developments have included numbered tags on the trees (i.e. Lake Susan Hills 9th and 1 Trotters) and these types of problems did not occur. 3. Since the site is poorly staked at best, it is difficult to determine exactly where the grading 1 limits are located in the field. 4. At this time, I do not see any major problems with the placement of the roads, etc. For 1 the most part, the plan appears accurate and seems to work well with the natural features of the site. I 1 1 1 . / , 5. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right -of -way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 6. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right -of -way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 7. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right - of -way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 1 8. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right -of -way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed development. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T Y O F PC DATE: 8/19 = , CC DATE: 9/14/92 ..-- , ✓ CASE #: 92 -4 PUD �`� By : 01k/1/Howl : . City AQmin str3to, 1 1 STAFF REPORT �� -, -92 „),., -.::.r Ccm.missio; I L' w ._' is Count PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning from A2 Agricultural Estate to PUD, Single Family I Residential Planned Unit Development 1 2) Development Review, Preliminary Plat to subdivide 161 acres into Z 112 single family lots and 8 outlots • Q 3) Wetland Alteration Permit for dredging, filling and development within protected wetlands V LOCATION: West of State Highway 41, North of State Highway 5, Adjacent to the 1 Q. BMT Site 0. 1 Q APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 1 , . 1 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates ACREAGE: Northern Portion 95 Acres (gross) and 61 Acres (net - less 1 wetlands and streets) Southern Portion 66 Acres (Outlots G and H) DENSITY: 1.19 u/a (gross) and 1.85 u/a (net) I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE N - A2, single family/vacant I • S - A2, vacant E - A2, single family /vacant Q W - A2, Camp Tanadoona/vacant w WATER AND SEWER: Extension of utilities has been petitioned by the applicant. Ib (f) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains steep topography, wetlands, and vegetated 1 areas. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density 1 IN t/i IV t ,,-,----- \ . ...,, . ,.....,,,.......„ .,„., . ,. t..i..„ ..,..,.... ......,. ,, • ,_ , . • - f‘...,- .4r " '` t" .:$ • .'• - • • • 4 ' \ 'T ► �� + ' . •!1 > •,• 'I.) ! 4E1I ,; .• f + l. i w "! • ?. 't {'� l • �..A, A_ ,1�1: ti t. i i :. Is .. s . 1 • ,..,Tix.....A....„:„.... I. i •,....... .....; . ,t, , . ,,, ..(...„.. • ..., _ . 1 ! 73,,,.1........... A ' 4 , ` ; •.S ! •► • • • • :i A. lil C \ ► • r C (' t t� } , ' , - f , � � ' c r y; �, �� r V s •�-� L A E ) NARIII — 141 - , i--' C.,,frIp:,i'' . r. „,t r7r '. alia,• ``IF, 6 z ....._:.;,..;.‘4•,...r.,...i.....;..,..i..-r , ...mu. 1 .. ... • .4106. mt . .-- C r% 1 e r -., r. e :... f - ,. .0 ..,— 4 I P 'A • z i Ca •111•11P- it AIL .‘11 : • D : s 8 '`�: • 1 • o r. . � 0 /90 � - (Z;4•1 e N I I DRIVE b A 3'Tt. �r Uri ilrYPAir PAL ME ti • . • . � e k! 441110 de .4■11„„Ilf 1 9 9 A, I . / v 7 7 Y III l !, 4 0141.40, ..1 . ,, • , ( rdii41.21 - . PZ " NIII ■ 41 Ali 4k_ ..... ts.4:1...g..A....a 41L...ALS ii ft .7.1,1. t t .•rte _`� • I ."' 1 ' Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY OF PUD ' The applicant is proposing a single family detached residential planned unit development which subdivides 160.88 acres into 112 single family lots and 8 outlots. One of the lots will be occupied by an existing home, thus, 111 new home sites will result. (The concept plan proposed 113 single family Lots, one lot was eliminated as the plan was revised to accommodate concerns that were raised). The site is located east of Hwy. 41 and north of Hwy. 5. The property is zoned A2, Agricultural Estates and is designated as Residential Low Density and 1995 Study ' Area. The northerly portion of the site is proposed as single family lots (PUD site) and the southerly portion of the site is proposed as an outlot for future development. The northerly portion of the subject site was included in the MUSA line as part of the recent Comprehensive ' Plan amendment after Lundgren Bros. made a presentation to the Planning Commission. It was concluded that the wetland which forms the site's southern boundary, was the appropriate ' dividing line between the MUSA area and the 1995 Study Area. The site contains significant environmental features which include ten wetland areas, steep topography and mature stands of vegetation. Due to the site conditions and the desire to provide a variety of lots and housing units, the applicant is pursuing rezoning of the property to planned unit development. A planned unit development will allow the site to be developed with reduced right -of -way and reduced setbacks to pull the building pads away from sensitive areas and will allow innovative techniques to be used with the wetland areas (buffer yards, native landscaping, etc.). The City Code currently provides standards permitting planned unit developments if certain requirements are met. Specific guidelines for single family planned unit developments have not ' yet been adopted, but have been approved by the Planning Commission and will be reviewed by the City Council in October. Staff will be using the existing PUD requirements and the proposed single family PUD requirements in the review of this proposed planned unit ' development. In addition, new wetland regulations are in the process of being reviewed for adoption by the city and these too will be used as guidelines for review of the proposed planned unit development. The development review for the PUD is only for the northern portion of the ' site proposed for the 112 single family lots. The southerly portion will remain zoned as A2. The applicant has taken care to work with the site's many natural features. Design flexibility ' allowed under the PUD ordinance is being put to reasonable use. The lot areas range from 11,550 square feet to 60,370 square feet (including wetland area) and range from 10,075 square feet to 57,813 square feet (not including wetland area). The total project density is extremely ' low for residential development in Chanhassen. There is a gross density of 1.18 units per acre with a net density (excluding wetlands and streets) of 1.84 units per acre. This compares to ' typical numbers of 1.7 and 2.0 units per acre respectively on typical single family development in Chanhassen. We also note that this type of density is considered to be extremely low relative to other developing communities in the Twin Cities. 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 1 Page 3 Major access to this site will be provided by a new street that will ultimately run between Hwy. 1 41 and Gaipin Boulevard. Since the applicant is only in control of a portion of this alignment, only that section of the street which is located on the Lundgren parcel will be constructed at this time. The remaining piece would be constructed across the adjoining Song property when this area is subdivided. At this point in time, the applicant is negotiating with the Song's on development possibilities. However, staff is unsure at the time of writing as to when development might occur and who may actually be undertaking it. The Lundgren proposal was designed with some sensitivity to coordinating ultimate development of the Song property. The collector street right -of -way alignment is designed in a manner so that it can be similarly used 111 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. 1 • In early discussions with the applicant on this site, the Planning Director and City Engineer determined that it would be inappropriate to construct the collector street to typical collector street standards which would result in a road similar to Lake Lucy Road. This determination was based upon the extreme changes of topography and locations of wetlands on both the Lundgren and Song parcels. It would be impossible to construct a street to the standards without significantly impacting the site's natural features. Therefore, they agreed to recommend that the collector street be designed to high quality local street standards which reduce grading requirements and increase both horizontal and lateral design flexibility. The important thing, in their opinion, is that the road will provide continuity such that residents and emergency services will be afforded two means of ingress and egress into this area. Staff is also recommending that the local street right -of -way be reduced from 60' to 50' to further reduce impact to the site. 1 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. 1 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 August 19, 1992 Page 4 comments made by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission felt that Conditions 4 through 9 could be reworded to allow some flexibility to the applicant and still meet staff's ' intent. The majority of the Planning Commission also felt that the 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). 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" 1 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. 1 The applicant has submitted revised grading plans for review. The new plans do somewhat reduce the amount of grading. The reduced grading is primarily a result of reducing the number and size of ponding areas and not always showing grading beyond the house pad. Some of the ' house types have been changed from walkouts to ramblers and lookouts which will reduce the amount of grading. Until the final storm water calculations are submitted for review, staff cannot verify that the proposed ponding areas will be adequate, but at this time the engineering staff ' feels additional ponding may be required. If this is the case, the applicant will have to increase the number of ponds and/or increase the ponding areas, either of which will result in more ' grading to the site. Although staff agrees the building sites should not be mass graded and that. the creation of usable rear yards could be done individually, the proposed grading plan showing some sites to not be graded beyond the house pad is not correct. There is typically at least a 15' area around the house pad which is altered during construction of the home. When this area is added to the revised grading plan, much of the areas of reduced grading will in fact be graded. During concept review, staff suggested the applicant review some significant changes to the plat such as pulling back the most southeasterly and south central cul -de -sacs (H and J streets). Staff has sketched out some alternatives, using private drives, to determine how many lots would be ' lost, how much vegetation would be saved and if what is saved is worth such a significant change. Such a revision would result in the removal of some significant lots and the applicant has not proposed such changes. 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 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 1 with the guidelines established by the current and draft PUD ordinances. We also believe the applicant is using reasonable and sensitive development standards with an eye towards creating very high quality residential neighborhoods designed in a manner to protect a sensitive , environment. Staff is recommending that the PUD Development Plan, Rezoning and Wetland • Alteration Permit be approved with appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND The subject site was included in the MUSA line with the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment. At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council felt that the property was suitable for development with sewer and water. The proposal contains the BMT property (northeast corner of entrance). The BMT site is a nonconforming use (commercial in a residential district) which has the right to remain as long as it does not expand or intensify. The owner of BMT has sold the property to Lundgren Brothers with the condition of remaining until a new site is found or until 1994. The proposal designates one single family lot and an outlot on the BMT property which will be developed once the property is vacated. The applicant has initiated a feasibility study for sewer and water service to the site. Service to the site will not be possible until 1993. 1 1 .1 .1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 1 Page 6 I SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site contains 10 protected wetland areas, steep topography, and heavily vegetated areas. The I 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 I 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 1 the proposed private park. This site is separated from the subject site by steep topography. The landscaping plan shows extensive landscaping on Outlots A and F which is being used to I meet the requirements for enhanced landscaping for the PUD. There also are landscaped cul -de- sac islands and median. I 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. I REZONING TO PUD 1 Section 20 -501 of the City Code provides a general intent statement for planned unit developments. Planned unit developments are to be used to enhance flexibility in developing a site with unique features and when there is a desire to provide a variety of uses. In return for I this flexibility, the city should receive a higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been achieved through standard zoning regulations. Under this section of the City Code the following nine items are listed and which the PUD should provide: I of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive (1) Preservatlo o pe sp p I environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. 1 Findin The site contains some difficult topography, several wetlands of varying value and heavily I 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 area and the steep sloped areas are 1 avoided in most cases. 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 7 (2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Findin The PUD allows the site to locate more dense development in areas without significant 1 features while creating open space around natural features. The proposal is providing pockets of open space throughout the site which will benefit the whole development and is providing a variation of lot sizes. PUD flexibility is used to locate home sites in areas where impact will be minimized by using density transfer. (3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect high quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Findin The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality homes. 1 The applicant has taken into account surrounding land uses by locating larger lots adjacent to existing uses. The applicant has also provided for future development with a future street connection. There will be covenants recorded as part of the PUD contract to ensure that high quality building architecture and enhanced landscaping will be provided. 1 (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. 1 Finding The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential and the proposal is accommodating existing uses and the potential for future development. Views of the site from the Hwy. 41 corridor will be protected by the tree preservation and required landscaping. A major land use transition south of the site is possible when this area is brought in the MUSA some time in the future. No decisions on the future of this area have been made pending completion of the Hwy. 5 Study. However, the large Bluff Creek wetland that separates 1 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 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41' Proposal August 19, 1992 I Page 8 Findin 1 The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as residential low density (1.2 - 4 units/acre). The proposal has a net density (minus wetlands and roads) of 1.84 units/acre. This compares favorably with typical single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net density of 2 units per acre. The site was included in the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment for development with sewer and water and as a single family development. The Comprehensive Plan also showed this property as a site for a collector street, which the applicant is providing. (6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. 1 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. Finding The applicant is proposing a variety of lots sizes and housing units. Overall, the sites will PP P P g be affordable to medium - medium/high incomes. The surrounding uses and potential 1 future surrounding uses are consistent with what is being proposed. (8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and 1 the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration or if this condition is relevant to single family home development. (9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 9 Finding The proposal is providing a collector street which will service the property to the east and was mentioned as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The remainder of the site is serviced by cul-de -sacs which are used to protect some of the natural features. Staff continues to recommend the connection of cul-de -sacs "G" and "I" to further improve traffic control. Although the Planning Commission and City Council have already taken action on this item and have agreed to not require the cul-de -sacs to be connected, staff feels we should still be on record of being in favor of connecting the two cul-de -sacs. In addition to the general planned unit development regulations, the city is in the process of adopting standards for single family planned unit developments. There is a specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. The intent statement states the developer will be permitted flexibility in development standards in return for enhancing environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing a higher quality of development. The single family detached residential planned unit development must also meet the following guidelines: 1 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 1 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 1 wetland areas) with an average net lot area of 20,601 sq. ft. The PUD standards do not allow the inclusion of wetland areas in the calculation of lot area. The site is broken down into six blocks which locate the lots around wetland and vegetated areas. Upon review of the concept grading plan and the impacts to the vegetated areas, staff was concerned that the proposed location of streets, lots and the housing types were removing more vegetated areas than may be necessary. Staff recommended that the applicant provide plans which lessen the impacts to the vegetated areas, such as: 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 10 - Remove Lot 1, Block 2 and use retaining walls along the south side of the street adjacent to 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 ull back "J" Street and reduce the fill on adjacent lots. P adjacent 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 "3" Street is where the most significant trees will be lost and where staff feels some significant changes may be warranted. There are a number of sizeable oaks which will be removed (see Attachment # 3, Area D). The applicant has changed some of the house types in this area and has reduced the fill of "J" Street, which will ' reduce some of the grading. Staff has sketched a revised plan using private drives and pulling back the cul-de -sac. Staff found that without removing 3 or 4 lots the tree removal would not be reduced. Given the already low density of the project and high quality design, staff cannot justify recommending elimination of these lots. We believe the applicant's tree preservation efforts, when viewed over the entire project, are satisfactory. Therefore, staff is agreeing with the proposed layout. It should be noted that the applicant has reduced the fill on "J" Street which has reduced the amount of grading to the site. ' The proposal is preserving open space throughout the site which benefits each block. Open space is found in undeveloped outlots, the private park and numerous wetland areas. 1 The applicant has provided plans which demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area of protective easement as required under the draft PUD ordinance. This standard ensures that each lot provides a satisfactory home site and yard area without needing to resort to variances. The PUD development contract will document this information to ensure the development of the individual lots will not encroach within a protected area 1 or setback. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 11 Findin There are 14 lots which do not have the minimum lot width of 90' at the building setback 1 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 1 All of the lots exceed the minimum lot depth of 100'. d) Minimum Setbacks: PUD Exterior - 30 feet 1 Front Yard - 20 feet Rear Yard - 30 feet Side Yard - 10 feet 1 Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property line. 1 Finding The proposal provides a 30' PUD exterior setback. The preliminary plat provides a 20' front yard setback on certain lots (lots illustrated with 1 a dot). The reduced front yard setback is permitted as part of a PUD to preserve natural features and should be used in this development. A majority of the lots have stands of trees and/or wetlands in the rear yard and reducing the front yard setback will further protect these areas. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and has noted additional lots which with a 20' front yard setback would reduce the impact to the site. The following lots are recommended to also maintain a 20' front yard setback: Lots 22 -24, Block 2 Lots 30 -31, Block 2 Lots 46 -47, Block 2 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 12 Lots 58 -61, Block 2 Lots 66 -72, Block 2 There were additional lots which would benefit by a reduced front yard setback (example, Lots 27 -29, Block 2), except that they would then not have enough width at the building 1 setback. Therefore, staff is not recommending the reduced setback on these lots. In the narrative provided by the developer, it has been stated that the minimum rear yard will be 30'. In many cases the rear yard will exceed 30' due to the presence of a wetland which requires increased setbacks. This is in keeping with the draft ordinance. ' The narrative provided by the developer proposes a 6' interior side yard setback for garages and a 9' interior side yard setback of living area. The applicant has also stated that a minimum side yard separation of 20' will be provided between each principle structure. As long as a 20' minimum side yard separation is maintained, staff is comfortable with reduced side yard setbacks. The setback of 10' for accessory buildings and structures should also be applied. ' e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by 1 permanently recorded easements. Finding The proposed layout of the single family lots and streets have taken into consideration the features of the site. Where possible, wetlands and mature stands of trees have been located at the rear of lots so that they can be protected. As stated above, staff was at first concerned that in some areas the grading for building pads, streets and ponds was removing more vegetation than may be necessary. The applicant has made revisions to the plans which reduce the area of alteration. The applicant is proposing to reduce the right -of -way for the collector street from 80' to 60' to reduce the removal of trees and impact to site features. Staff has encouraged this request to be made due to the sensitive nature of the site. A wider collector street with normal design standards results in a street having the appearance of Lake Lucy Road. To accomplish this design on this site would result in substantial destruction of natural features. To avoid this staff determined that the street should be designed to ultimately provide continuity to Galpin Boulevard but to be designed to local street standards. 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 1 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 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a -mix of over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed 1 entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 1 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over -story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. Finding , The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan which shows landscaping at the entrance of the PUD on Outlots A and F, on cul -de -sac islands, on an entrance median and along the boulevards. During the concept review, it was agreed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, that foundation and rear yard plantings would not be necessary. The landscaping along Hwy. 41 needs to be revised. A portion of the landscape buffering along Hwy. 41 is proposed to be provided by trees located in the Hwy. 41 right -of -way. These could well be lost at some time due to possible highway 1 improvements. Therefore, the applicant must satisfy the landscaping requirements with landscaping on the subject site. .. 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 14 g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. Whilethis requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. 1 Finding The developer has stated in the narrative that they will establish strict architectural and ' protective covenants and that the covenants will be recorded with the county. The city does not enforce private covenants recorded with the county, but in the case of a PUD, the covenants will be reviewed and adopted as part of the PUD contract. The applicant should provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the city. SUMMARY OF 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. 1 Staff is recommending approval of the Development PUD plan with the stated conditions. ' DEVELOPMENT PLANIPRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to develop the 112 single family lots on 95 (gross) /61(net) acres. The ' gross density is 1.18 units /acre and the net density is 1.84 units /acre. The lots range in size from 10,075 net square feet to 57,813 net square feet. The single family lots are divided into six blocks which arrange the lots around natural features of the site. The lots meet the guidelines 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 15 for a single family residential PUD except for lots which do not have 90' of width at the building setback. The lots which do not have 90' of width at the 30' setback line do have 90' at the building site. Essentially, the developer is proposing to impose a larger than normal setback standard to relocate the line to a point where the lot widens out to 90'. Therefore, staff feels the intent of the regulation is being met. • Lot 4, Block 2 contains an existing single family residence and pool. The residence is in good condition and will remain. The pool, which is adjacent to the rear lot line, is in poor condition and will be removed by the applicant prior to filing of the final plat. 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. Outlot E - Private park and open space 1 Outlots G and H will be owned by the applicant and are preserved for future development. • in the acquisition of the Song roe to expand the proposed applicant is pursuing q g P P rty osed P P P 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 111 the site has taken into account the existing vegetation and has tried to locate streets and lots with the least impact to the site. The applicant has made changes to the proposed plans since Concept review and has reduced the amount of alteration to the site. Staff has also sketched alternative street and lot layouts and has found that the amount of alteration cannot be significantly reduced without removing a number of lots. The proposal already results in an unusually low gross and net density. Staff does not believe that overcrowding of the site is a problem and is not recommending that any lots be removed. The proposed standards for residential planned unit developments provide specific landscaping requirements. The landscaping plan shows landscaping of Outlots A and F, the entrance median, 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Ptoposal 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 1 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 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 1 be required. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detailed plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with final platting. 1 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal • 1 August 19, 1992 Page 17 Utilities - Watermain The proposed municipal water system has been designed in general conformance with the 1 recently approved feasibility study. The feasibility study proposes a 16 -inch watennain 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. Grading and Drainage The applicant has submitted a revised grading/drainage plan since the conceptual review process. 1 The revised preliminary grading plan has reduced the grading limits in some areas of the development. This was accomplished by reducing street grades and elimination of sedimentation basin No. 7. As a result, tree loss has been somewhat reduced. In an effort to save trees staff has reviewed the possibility of shortening Street J and servicing the remaining four lots in the private drive. This however does not accomplish saving trees as so desired. It is recommended 111 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. nin a drainage swale through Lots 6 7 8, 9 and 10, The grading plans also indicate realigning g , 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 1 should also be shown on the final grading plan and record drawings be provided upon 1 1 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 1 Page 18 completion. We question the purpose of the drain tile at this time since the purpose of the wetland is to retain water and habitat for waterfowl, wildlife, etc. We understand the need for drain tile prior to the development phase when the land was under agricultural use. The applicant should provide reasoning why the drain tiles are still necessary with this subdivision. From the City's maintenance perspective, the drain tiles are typically difficult to locate as well as maintain a small diameter of pipe. Plans propose storm runoff from the streets and lawns to be conveyed through a series of storm sewers which drain to six different sedimentation basins located throughout the site. As previously mentioned, some storm drainage and ponding calculations have not been submitted. The ponding sizes may vary depending on final calculations. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10 -year storm events and detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain surface water discharge rates at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed over the drainage areas as well as all storm sewers leading to and from the areas outside the street right -of -way. The storm sewer proposed through Lot 33, Block 2 should be extended to discharge into sedimentation basin No. 6. As proposed, the discharge would be in the middle of Lot 33. Drainage and utility easements should be provided along the centerline of the drainageway or storm sewer to a width sufficient to provide property maintenance and to provide protection from storm water runoff from a 100 -year storm, 24 -hour duration. Appropriate front, side and rear drainage and utility easements corresponding to lot lines should be provided with the final plat. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide in areas containing utilities with the exception where two utility lines may occupy the easement, i.e. sewer and water. In that case, a 30 -foot wide easement should be dedicated. According to the EPA's federal guidelines, construction activities that are initiated after October 1, 1992 which disturb 5 acres or more need to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge. Elimination System (NPDES) permit administered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Due to the size of this development, the applicant will be required to apply. ' All erosion control measures should be designed to be consistent with the Chanhassen Best Management Practices handbook. Watershed District approval is required. Streets The major thoroughfare (Street A) is designated as an east/west collector street providing future connection from Trunk Highway 41 to Gaipin 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' Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal 1 August 19, 1992 Page 19 A of 36 -foot wide back -to -back. Staff recommends that the street be widened to 36 -foot wide gutter -to- gutter to accommodate two 12 -foot lanes and one 10 -foot parking lane. The concrete sidewalk is proposed along the north side of Street A. The sidewalk is proposed to be constructed within one foot of the property line. This will leave a 42 -foot green space between curb and sidewalk. • The plans propose a series of landscaped islands in the cul -de -sac as well as in the center median on Street A at the Trunk Highway 41 entrance. Engineering Department staff strongly recommends removing the island median in the cul-de -sacs. This creates snow plowing problems, safety hazards and possible liability risks to the City. The Public Works Superintendent has indicated that the islands as proposed will restrict movements of the plowing equipment and require the plows to make pass between the island and the curbs, thus piling most of the snow in the homeowners' driveways. City plow crews typically utilize the entire cul -de- sac so as not to pile the snow in the homeowners' driveways. These islands will also create a parking problem. The street will have to be posted no parking to accommodate turning movements of garbage trucks, school buses and delivery vehicles, etc. Without the island, the vehicle would be able to maneuver to negotiate the cul -de -sac turning radius. 1 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 P urpose 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 1 responsibilities requiring additional staff & equipment. The center median proposed along Street A at the entrance off Trunk Highway 41 has some of 1 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 fast 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). There currently exists a driveway to serve the existing building located on Lot 1, Block 6. This 1 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 1 I Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41. Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 20 I access permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for work proposed in MnDOT right -of -way. - - 1 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 1 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. I Miscellaneous 1 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 I 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 i prior to final plat. The preliminary plat proposes drainage easements over all of the existing wetlands within the I subdivision except for those on the outlots. Staff recommends that the applicant provide drainage and conservation easements over all wetlands including those on the outlots. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial 1 security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. Park and Recreation Commission I 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 I 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 1 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 1 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 1 lot, respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon: 1. The applicant indicating their intent to develop the private park area as indicated on the 1 general development plan. 1 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. 1 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. Pf laum 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 1 amendments were initiated due to new state regulations and new information on treatment and protection of wetlands. The proposed standards contain innovative guidelines which staff feels appropriate to apply to this proposal. By reviewing the proposal as a PUD, the city is able to • apply different standards from the existing city code if deemed beneficial. The current city ordinance on wetland protection protects all wetlands of type 2 -8, any size. If there is any proposed alteration to a wetland, it must be mitigated with an equal amount of area. All structures are required to maintain a 75' setback from the edge of the wetland. The proposed ordinance protects all wetlands of type 1 -8, any size. This requires equal mitigation in area for a wetland of equal value or mitigation in the form of an improved wetland. The city's wetlands have been mapped and classified as either pristine, natural or ag/urban. Each classification has different standards in terms of setbacks, buffer strips and mitigation. One of the major changes in the new wetland ordinance is that the wetland setback has been reduced and a buffer strip, which is landscaped with native vegetation and protected by easement, has been added. There is strong evidence that this provides significantly higher levels of protection for the wetland while improving the homeowners flexibility to use his or her lot. The following is a brief summary of the new standards: Pristine wetland - High quality wetland with unique features and little or no existing alterations. 1 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. 1 Natural wetland - High to moderate valued wetlands that have experienced some alteration, but offer or can be improved to offer high wetland values and functions. These wetlands may be impacted by development only when the city finds there is no reasonable or prudent alternatives. 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 22 Wetland mitigation must be designed to offer improved value and function and should not receive untreated surface water drainage. The Natural wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 10'- ' 25' buffer strip which is 1/2 native vegetation. ' AG/Urban wetland - Moderate to low valued wetlands which may be impacted by development contingent upon the provision of mitigation/replacement plans. The city encourages replacement/mitigation plans which improve value and function to allow reclassification to a ' Natural wetland. The Ag/urban wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 0' -15' buffer strip with optional native vegetation requirements. ' Utilized - Water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland qualities. No setbacks or buffer strip. The site contains 10 wetland basins. There are three natural wetlands (3, 5 and 6) and. the remaining seven wetlands are ag/urban (la, ib, lc, 2, 4, 7, 7a, 8, 9 and 10). Wetlands 1A, 1B, ' 3A and 6 will be preserved. The applicant is proposing to slightly alter two of the three natural wetlands (3 and 5). The applicant is proposing to fill .25 acres of wetland 3. The area proposed for fill is a narrow drainage way which is part of the larger natural wetland. The area is proposed to be filled for a street and building pads. Staff does not object to this portion of the wetland being filled. The northerly portion of wetland 5 is proposed to be excavated for a storm water pond (.12 acres). The report prepared for the applicant by Summit Envirosolutions stated ' that the northerly portion of wetland 5 is an appropriate location for the proposed storm water pond. Staff has reviewed our wetland data and agrees the northerly portion of wetland 5 could be used for a ponding area. The storm water entering the pond is proposed to be pretreated and ' released into the wetland at the predeveloped runoff rate. The Engineering Department is concerned that the proposed ponding area may not be large enough for a 100 year storm. Should the ponding area be required to be larger, the additional ponding area must go to the north and ' cannot additionally impact wetland 5. The small area of fill to wetland 8 (.06 acres) is a result - of street construction. The street is shown in this location so that a future connection to the east will be feasible. Therefore, the street cannot be moved to prevent any alteration to wetland 8. fill wetlands 4, 7, 7a and to partially fill and excavate The applicant is proposing to completely 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 1 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 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 23 .21 acres filled for street 3 .25 acres filled for street and building pad 4 .17 acres filled for building pad 1 5 .12 acres excavated for storm water pond 7 .22 acres drained for lot 7A .08 acres drained for lot 1 8 .06 acres filled for street 9 & 10 1.23 acres filled for street, park, building pad and 1 excavated for storm water pond TOTAL AREA ALTERED 2.97 acres For mitigation, the applicant is proposing to create 2.97 acres of wetland. The proposed wetland areas are located within the large wetland located along the southerly border and to the south of "C" street. Attached to this report are details on the proposed mitigation. The proposed wetland mitigation replaces the altered wetlands in acreage but with some changes could greatly enhance the quality of the wetlands on the site. The proposed wetland just south of "C" street and directly adjacent to Hwy. 41 is receiving runoff through a tile line from Hwy. 41 and land across from Hwy. 41. This runoff will provide water to the wetland. The design of the pond is such that it could take on characteristics of a Natural wetland (6' depth, natural contours, etc.). Staff is recommending that the drain tile leading out of the new wetland to wetland la not be replaced. This will prevent water from being drained out of the wetland. If the applicant has a reason for the tile line remaining these should be presented to staff, but if there is no reason for the tile line, it should be removed. There is an existing source of water entering wetlands 7 and 7a from the Song property. This water is clean and is at a high enough rate to be present even during dry periods. The applicant is proposing to drain these wetlands for the creation of two lots and to redirect the drainage to the rear of the house pads and into the newly created storm water pond at the rear of lots 29 and 30, Block 2. Staff has concerns with drainage being directed to the rear of building pads because it is protected by an easement which prevents the use of this area by the resident and there is still a good chance that the basements could be flooded. Redirecting the drainage to the storm water pond is also a waste of clean, high quality runoff which would better serve the wetlands adjacent to lots 27 and 28, Block 2. Therefore, staff is recommending the runoff currently entering wetlands 7 and 7a be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to lot 28, Block 2. Staff also noted that one of the submitted plans (wetland boundary and setback) still shows wetland 7 and that the lots can meet the required setbacks with the wetland being maintained. Another plan 111 (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 I Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 24 I 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 I 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 1 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 1 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. I 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 I the applicant meet the wetland requirements. A revised plan should be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension and the proposed setback (not including the buffer strip) and dimension. It should be noted that the wetlands being created as 1 mitigation must be included on this plan (they are not on the current plan). . As previously noted, the site contains Natural and Ag/Urban wetlands. The Natural wetlands are I wetland 3, 5 and 6. The wetland ordinance requires different buffer strips for the two types of wetlands as follows: 1 Natural Ag/Urban Structure setback 40' 40' 1 measured from measured from the outside the outside edge of the edge of the 1 buffer strip buffer strip 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 August 12, 1992 Page 25 Buffer Strip 10 -30' 0 -30' Buffer Strip 1 Minimum Avg. Width 20' 10' 1 % of Native Vegetation in Buffer Strip Entire Optional The buffer strips around the Natural wetlands have to entirely contain native vegetation. It is optional how much of the buffer strip must contain native vegetation around the Ag/Urban wetlands. If the buffer strip already contains vegetation the applicant does not.need to provide additional vegetation. Where vegetation does not exist around Natural wetlands, it will have to be added. Where it does not exist around the Ag/Urban wetlands, the applicant will have to work with staff to provide some areas of vegetation.The revised plans should show that they provide the minimum average buffer strip width and how they meet the vegetation requirement. Once the buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation will have to be approved by staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: • 1 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. 1 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 1. Lots 22 -24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58 -61, 66 -72, Block 2 shall maintain a 20 foot front yard setback. 1 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. 1 •1 -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 ' 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. 1 6. The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2, shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing of the final plat. 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 of the lift station within the development. 12. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east ' of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant shall extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul -de -sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. 13. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be ' required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is operational. 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 August 12, 1992 Page 27 14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting. 15. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire Marshal. 1 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 show locations of existing and proposed drain tile systems. 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10- year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to 1 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. 1 20. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No. 6. 1 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 1 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. 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 28 24. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. 25. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the ' subdivision, including outlots. 26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development ' contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDOT. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul-de -sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be ' required. This will depend on the size of the cul -de -sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parked in the cul -de -sac. 30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 31. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. ' 32. All conditions of rezonin g and wetland alteration permit. 1 The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92- 9 with the following conditions: 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland IA 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 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 29 3. The 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 1B and 1C shall have a depth of at least 6 feet. The proposed wetlands to the north and south of Wetland 1C shall be combined with Wetland 1C and this entire basin shall have a minimum depth of at least 6 feet. 4. A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed 1 buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback and dimension (not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. 5. The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer strip required is being provided and shall provide details on how the vegetation requirement of the buffer strip is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 1 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning." 1 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Plannin g 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: 1 Rezoning, Unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning with staff's conditions. • Preliminary Plat 1 The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Several of the conditions were modified and condition #33 was added which requires cul -de -sacs G and I be removed and that the two streets be connected. Batzli and Erhart were opposed to the motion. Mr. Batzli opposed the motion because he felt the last time the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal it was generally agreed that the cul -de -sacs could remain. Mr. Erhart opposed the motion because he felt we were going too far and were protecting trees over people by promoting the use of 20' front yard setbacks. Wetland Alteration Permit The Plannin g Commission unanimously recommended approval to the wetland alteration permit 1 with a modification to condition #3. 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 ' Page 30 1 CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the City Council adopt the following motions. The proposed conditions have been changed to reflect the Planning Commission modifications. The changes in the conditions by the Planning Commission are shown in bold. ' "The City Council approves of the rezoning (#92 -5) from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: ' 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. 2. All conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. • The City Council approves preliminary plat (#92 -4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots with ' the following conditions: 1. The front yard setback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the street ' right -of -way. The intent being to minimize the impact on the natural features of constructing a new home on each home site. The lots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lots 1, 14 -19, 37 -43, 52 -57, 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78 -81, Block 2. In addition to these lots, staff recommends similar flexibility on the following lots: Lots 22 -24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58 -61, 66 -72, Block 2. 2. Each lot shall maintain a side yard separation of 20 feet between each principal structure, ' including decks. The applicant shall be required to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot separation is being maintained. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right -of -ways from 60' to 50' t' ! !'. except Street A and maintain the cul- de-sac radius at 120 feet. Cul -de -sacs must be large enough to facilitate ' turning around of all emergency vehicles in the City of Chanhassen, taking into consideration cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning radius, and that no parking signs may be required. ' 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along Hwy. 41 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping plan must be approved by city staff. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by city staff. 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 31 6. The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2, shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing of the final plat. 7. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings. • 8. The area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. Precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed upon between the developer and staff. 1 9. The applicant shall provide "as-built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or molar 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. ant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility 11. The applicant p sue' g ty 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 (cul -de -sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. 13. = _ . - • - - - - • • - The existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is operational. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be removed after January 3, 1994. 14. Except for the condition in Recommendation 3 above, All utility and street 1 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 August 12, 1992 ' Page 32 15. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR and MnDOT. 17. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas and any known or proposed drain tile systems. 1 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 draina a and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to drainage the ponding areas. An easement shall also be provided along wetlands and each ' side of drainageways from the storm ponds or wetlands. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement area. In those areas the ' easement width shall be increased to 30 feet. 20. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No. 6 or some alternative design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be developed. 1 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 1 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). 1 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 S. u 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 the future. 26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDOT. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul-de -sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This will depend on the size of the cul -de -sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parked in the cul -de -sac. 30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 31. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit. ' 33. Cul -de -sacs G and I be eliminated and that I Street and G Street be connected. The City approves a roves 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 1 wetland adjacent to Lot 28, Block 2. If possible, Wetland 7 shall be maintained in its current condition and location. 3. The 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 1B and 1C shall have an undulating a depth of at least 6 feet. "- - - - . - - - - - -- - - - - - . .. _ : - -• . 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 1 Page 34 met 4. A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback and dimension (not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. 5. The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer strip required is being provided and shall provide details on how the vegetation requirement of the buffer strip is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning." 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. 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 30, 1992. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman October 1, 1992. 7. Memo from Mark Littfin dated October 1, 1992. 8. Narrative from applicant. ' • 9. Planning Commission minutes dated October 7, 1992. 10. Plans dated September 8, 1992. 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 • .-...., ... t , s ,,..,,, .. . ...-..• • ..., • KEIT. WC 10.4 .1C •• WI• NI 1... 0 Inf TArL a I t" ' • .,- . „„. . '/,' It7 :P. ,•,„ £ ske......4= —..'? • . ...e ,..../ , ''.== 0 ,re' / • ' sr-,3 r-ii f :!'.....:::=1',14.%"4 7a ° .. • ...1, ,...., , MOS • ...NM. IC.* R51 . III "11. •COCt 1 0 5: ....:::-_,',,,,-,■_,,,,,,,,„ , ,,,, . f ..‘ .4 ... _ , ...,.... ...... .....s • Y.. Is,. Mr CO 211...MI , • ..” v.......‘ mer •• .........-rors , .c •••• Cc7../S4 CV I t.,,,,,, .. :,,,, ..,,, r , ....Z: , Zt.,.3_,,,_ •• *CY • 7.1176,61M a ....• ,a, pa .... a. ..,,,,,, . ::4:77i:Z.e ' ' '"` C.... !. 0.0 .....',.. = No. .. < . . . NS .1 • . . . 4 / • ■ 1 r-....„.. ! , • 5 ....„. 1-' _„„ ---._. • ! • ".-'' "" 6 . / / ,.. ' •... - I : cr.---31r . :,` I I 1 e • 6 V ' -...---",rjr---.4 " ..----.---"'...;-.-.-'4.----,. •-■., * ' i ,.----.-.-." I i 2 ./.......';'.' •• i - I y : , ... _...._,,--__ _ _...■.,,.. ...... s... - I v ,„--------_____:., — — — '...:".• N ', 7 r ' ....::, ••. . \ - 1 --i3 , 1: \ "...... _ . / 11: ..:. ,-; \ I 1 5 I k': \ \.. • 1 ki' Z i I / II ... /1., ,"----- ,- / I! • . : k as 1 . re . ce ff „-_/ ,...,3 i 1 11 11 I b • . : 4 0 ...." , ,..::„....;":"; 7, r .................,....--------- -- ,. -...-- .." ,..........,- .t.i.- ." I i ......' , t'.... t.. i ./.......M..', ! • ;.....„...„./.. ...■........ IA ...... „.......„... _N \ ..'... ‘..,.... ... :N....."...."."....,.............' .t... ....cr e....<----.. ':.•\ = g \ N ••■_, V g •,., IN • ss ‘i ' N., :,..... ,, " .0.• r. . -------------------------------.-- , _ , . . i . '.. rece cows • AllpllpcgallIllk CERTIFICATION DLAoNoDoom■••■01mmINN ...t... ...= C , • SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. _/ ( con., t DEVELOPER PROJECT NAME / SLEET IOU • ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS ■111111111111■ A•p•=7.,=.: - ..... ERS • SOIL TESTING IM•11■■■■■■.......1■11 •,•11.3..•■••••■• . ■•■•■• fe$1111 AAAAA TA IILVD. LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION ) ( ,...■.... —_-= W in1 SONG — CARLSON PROPERTY i .■.......■...■..■ ..______...._-__ ••• 411■11 II.-11101 BOUNDARY SURVEY . . -. . . . .4 . .. • .. . . — . S.M.I. PROJECT NO 60120.023 SHEET 1 OF 6 SHEETS • - . ....--- — ME ME BM NM — 1.1 IIIIII all MN IMO 1.111 1111111 11011 PM — IIIII NM PM 1011 y.. ,- ----.•`,: I'.4 -tom -w -.7., • • - - ~ :� ._. �� • - . ! i �" l i t ' '" ' ' A � �f TYPICAL s6rnoY _ - i .� TYPICAL _ _ roF, / i�;oY r -y r /, -•��• ''�`� MOAN aowwRS -- : ' .,•,‘+.,:"'-'„, :.1i 7.';' ",-:..: _c"), %4.‘- :.•-•_,-,:: .:2- ••• ...- •-.- . --____ •,•:,, „;-, � _ : - _ . ms v ; ` f I . . \:-.;... „,,,,,,:::„..1.: = : = --Y ` —._ . ' • .n . = - _ _ . _ _ '\ •ti's! -aw l - `� , e ,- -- ', :. . /y�}G, .•”" � _ "w � : vv.-4c/ f •� , : t. _ -,.>- � pN" \• '4,1,---,,,-.--' -= " �. - - � ,J • � "yt ` � ' err` -._ - - 1 � - c .- - r \ _per s T c � ; �! . h-. s . - ` �s °' :', _ r Y ' + r 1 _Y - �+.:ro 1 v_ " ' 1� -.•;�� T ` _.: • C . `,�\ ` � \ i\' - .T: - Y n : \ 1 , Y - i' ` ��=e X ' x ' 1' -• ®, �s : _�_. .1 _ :. -y- - = - � • _ - - - — - , ,, �^'' y � 1 . ir .r : • —, �__ ` =� _ -_ - ►` a / / • I - ' ,.,c,' 4 . t • 1 /4 •42,.. -_ - :‘,„:...........:-/-. • - : t_`` r- f' 1 ��"L7r - c _ o•- \ ` .Et,aos i .."... LEDEND .r ,=? -.--- _ - = n- • 1 - ,.-,. "~ \--: _-.-- -: !+ ,-, =, Y a� = •\♦ .t�jr_ — `•. \• � . 4 -c;. uer..c .0 eua • �� / ti . J '- ., . fi L„ . J i p. h a.. = } ,gr = 'S..:.•••" - - - -e, . �` : f_ .�� - Ct i7i s\ + Q y �`•\ -. -- 'J %�" `F' v� . .ate..., 00 m ar vo j L`t � � � \.� ��. ��" \♦ a i = ^."" ms ` '. � = -- yamces• —=': ® we coma 4ivsi.rrY r ._ • _ - ti ` - I - q - iS -' —^ fir «c_ _ { - ` . , C'_� ...w....: ._ 4 O W.°,�...r = �� f ' % .' :..,. 1 ; i :� — ^ �\ \�\ , ^ .\�t%' =te a �NO i - _— ,.,..m•J EE al ..nurne.Y.n.o..a r..c.,aer • / ! 0 � CEET 1.1CMIp1 OWIQ / OEVElO.E/1 .1 G CT 11.11C /SKEET 'MU ..... SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. enaYE en.nw.EwE. •w.YEYU SONG - CARLSON PROPERTY ♦ N�� rr ��rww. Mt T[Et O •10.1.14.1.. REYICEE `... .r .aYEO..E,E, 4UNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION .oYYnaE... r.acE1 aueE• PRELIMINARY GRACING AND DRAINAGE PLAN . lwr V Yur.s. r.o, n..rw - .... are +YC.Ye S.MJ: PROJECT NO.60120 -023 SHEET 3 OF 6 SHEETS , 4/ -..... _. -- .... --•-. "----, '"'" --.■ ---.... cou I ------ • --- N ® c. -7.===aC •"--- 4;4 .1%,': • -- • , ----)... '.. _.... .'••• ,,_ ;t:Z.7-,.., 1 •■■:Z ■ „ ..- ,,,, I \ 3 - '6 .L. .. ••■,:' / ---- ---. / 1 • ',.. --. .... ...... j , "wqr,— •'''''', 1. I ''''' Or - - 2 ‘ .. .....---'■ ----. ''''. ''. 41., ... „..,..., . k r .....t7.:..., / , ' ',XI...77 4 7.,.........._■.. ......----..,....... / 7 -- 1 ------.,r--- ---- i / ., • --- 7--- — — — =CZ. -= — — s .of ;IT rg ro .,, ; ' .5 1 '•,'• '' ..---- ' /.. - li-- 7:-' . .. 7 ------:„___ 3 ...., I • - / - — -.:---- \ / .' . • 0,61., • . '' : II ■ • " IA N. ----). `•t ''• . . \• --" ,....- ..- 2. .......ltatt .' . -....._... ) I 4 . ' ...... "<*--------- _ a. % a .3 30 ---------: ' . .... V Z. 1 s / . / . t ''.. ... / 57 14 -.:.. Ala --lel ' - ..... I 1.7 ■•• - :22E., -... ...., ....." . . • ' . -.. A LEM* - • - ,c-fy* .• ' 1 ''' ' ''' ; 2. : - 27_ 1 .' .‘ "/*' ,;..4 ..,..44 4 . • 37 /\\ —,..-...- Homo. SWF.. ...■ 64.• A. • ....‹ S • .0.••••ma,• 0 , . _ .• . • 3. I, : •---- LOSTIK maTmomm• —41-0— walS.11181 av aTNERS ■ I I i ...:-... -••••••—••••■•••• WORM, RATER.. ommemsom .IST. Mow SOK11 I I \ V < soCeseles MOMS. PORN UREA MOW TO /MAD*4 rum noN ' . - ONAmARE rresoNI 1 ' • •• \ ...7". : =2.... •172., .O • • , 1 1 . Allip: SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. CERIIVICAriou I . -,,,,,,,.............. .-....... Itt7=1".".. .......:. ENGINEERS • SIONSOMMIS •01.■ 70: : CARLS ON PROPERTY i m. ... ..■ „,.....—„,.= ..• , - • t.... _—._ sm. nrnroo • atIVIRONMENTAL SMOCKS = .... ,.........,...7... WSW WATIATA 1101AIVAND. surrm i MINNETONKA. soNNESCITA SSSSS C"v"E " "* LUND " GREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION ft. 0 . ..10.1 ...= mut 1144-7sel rim SMS-90111 OATS JURE.M10. • • ... $2 . t . 4.1 PROJECT NO. 60120-023 SHEET 4 OF 6 SHEETS _1 • NM MI MI MI MO MI MI 1111111 NS MN MI • •1111 Mg MI MI MN 1 PM •• II Iwulw•ed eu„ wM.,,.w.Y s„ I.n9� - ill f j n, ° 1 ri 4 l 1 N ! 1 y 1 1,1 ` ..rte - -. _ r i 1 r—r" 1 i ,t n `,t J. 1 .! ° •a ,,./LJ - 'e- \"(1....t.' .i ° - ;� �n.'� 1 � \� �j ,eiy i %%•- i i 1 ,`( ~•'Z- �_ si J ___ ` •i 1 'ii . F ..4-----,,,---,...k_ s -- ,_›:,?,..,:,-.-, .. : .. - I: \ O� \ ' r /� 1.1:I ' 'ill A 7 °° r ~'T ,� !/ �` - i rr y I 1. \ v . . „. „ y am 1 r .•( i I r I r y t ti I I T. ( :. i l ? , / + y • ,• _ ; .' / .'..( i 1 *—. i \ - 1 . T:\. . '?./. ..---::_( _., .s 'i X , .,, / / i).4 r I . \ , / ,\ ..,././ \ r- '"tli -”, . .7 _ ,. J . / . I. V 1 \ \, I-- )--______._ i i /L .. .. :/. 1 r . \ t : , , .1 0) : : ___, I 7 `L7 r' ' at '/' i I I Ali a. r. i i N I —� I 'y �J 1 1 S_ ,C -' ..� .7 � e S EA 2 ! -. e 41g$00 § 1 I I N - / f 0 6 ” 4 •� ' m ; R ! v aSBL SJB . r!rS� ,f l n s' n i' \ cr71 \ \;( \ \ C'�'`� _ ° . 1 111 V r O � \ 10 \\ \ ..,... VI • \'• < + \ 1 1 ......, , — I • ... N./ / 1\ ..• / %,.......N,N,..Z \ ■ . ,, , ( C : k �- . \ I \ r \.. ( l c1A—. 1 CO a I 1 -; y oo N . / l -� -�. /c ) ii...„.. i g A2 to .....--:-.,/-c„, 1 4 G .-----4 r. ' .T.A ck ,. _. ( . ,, PROJECT NO. ES E x r _ _ n e r "ones x.ue , 0x00• >tne Il.,.0 / I one � • VI 1.0/ \ / SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. " °10'0" / \ -= [001000X/ • 00000,0X8 • 000011(01 • '7,4,...../41717,"••• " 11 L• w - - 0ae rnnxo .."""""""1- •envmcs LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION SONG - CARLSON __ " 00000 410000* 0001.000 "0, BUM 1 - - . e \ __,r —.x.mi J \ 1 w"0no" "". 41"x.0.. ueoe \... / PROPERTY I - -_ - -- - -_ _ - 1.100 III fit. ”..90.1. ”..90.1. e - -- S Me: JUn, 1.01 \ \ - TREE LOCATION PLAN J MI SOSES SHEETS ova SNEET0 .. 1 .1 _ '� 4 -- - - A --;‘ \ a I { Irit r r f ar t� r , r 's' f , . ��' y f r $ .1. f \` ` s. r \ h \ \ \ q f• �► r,�' i \ Vv. W K \ r ! o , .;E \ � •I \ r t K r .•f • 1:- t f L �-(X K . /� ` r .. r pI \ .. � \ { !# t i ..t 1 . 2 f " � (1 1 \ r., / • ti ,, � 'r�A t! ! x � ' \� i " �'" J am , �+\ `� �% ° , "•••... `' 1 i r a �i ` \� ' r r re 4"._ t o p ti • ti '� ;,'' l��_�� , `� / ` 1 fi I tt. "( \ ` �� ;i ,' "NN c� N\--(4:3) f L ni t i J � 3 .,I ., \ .f r r t 1 I a \ ►-if\I ~; ., i1 f - - -- a' '. l t ' ., �ra \•� II `� I {r.' f• N I /i 4 1 ' � I a u M T � N Y 1 '�.� J,• 11 t i �J i , I rv � P I \ / . . r, ! .� lam t J � � � II I -- \\\ Eia i 41 il \ '...... \ \/, > , ..., I / In N' a 2Rk If \ Y( \ �a A l • L V . )(‘' \ 11'4 \*‘ 1." , :'•-•.,, j... 1 : , / -1.1 : ::1- ' n.. - 'IT: -/ IA: f s i ( if.j•••.. • Is Iv ,. (pir....x...:1.,.(_ ....c.z."-",•:4-7.,..4 . 6, -------- 1 / 7 .\\*. .___../:: rAic i 4 i ..-------.. ...4 5). v . ,> \ 4 I _.. _.. 2 \ j _ - Yi _ ...---r I i F.T -- .1 -.. 4 - / , 1 - r L. -- 51 --__ , &„,,./......_ I * 1 2: I ) )._°' -- ---..,..ti . i t ."( = 1 0, ` \ 441 #44 r '04p, \ g c �. i � . /jam ` i i t $ . \ ...�...._ —...._ _ •, rxw•or• Is • L�.i4 .etit. ., . NY• . M...OR. •' 11.1.0.11 11.1.0.11 ,..,. n 1 SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. \ / .wxe. n..., nna \ — . ?y.p)±s -- • ti .,, • • 0.arw2N • 110111d•0411 110111d•0411 ••.•.i...• LUNDOREN EROS. CONSTRUCTION _ _ �.�.� w ,�" �: +t n. nn... • .....o•wnu n.,xn SONG - CARLSON `' �., ,, _ r.• r..w1o.. PROPERTY ms.. r•u•u•.... ... ,, ,,� « TREE LOCATION PLAN _ - -_ ___,�•_„ _ - - EIt. �PRb7FCT N0. 00120.025 SH TS ail rr — ,�. • • — rr r r r ■ s r I= r tin r / - -` „Am., �Lttl� H0.�CICSBERRr�EE 2,,r 206 O N NT TREE 1.,•• 6a AMUR MAPLE / % J / �� /�J M W �..�� \_ SVGAR MAPLE CRA / 14 )» : >�'l�r�a RED OAK ' / r l ' yA Y�•7� EVERGREEN TREE 4-6• ar SHRUB 3• ts / '� HILLS SPRUCE DWARF AMUR MAPLE O i ) - - g -��J / • • � ° _ e • b a - �� ` , ` � COLORADO SPRUCE COMP AM. HIG/IBUSH CRANBERRY (/ Koliir44 i •A" f1 - . '- . 1� • -a . �+ I `� , 0,, SUMAC x____ 7______,1, \, 7/ ______ p,r, _21.416.114:(..(r ..:76\\\‘,..;:xiii. _ 41. , esir„: iirs,.. v....2s_____.\_ :Tic ____,,,,,_ . . _ cc,,,i _ .iliihtiiiik_ ___ ,,,,,,,_ . _ ..__ _ ., I ._ _________ _ 1. _. ______. ,r ____ _ f _, r _ : ___ _ _! _Z"' ,• _ -�: � mil ,/ S _ r • ♦ 111 \ •:, c am\ --�v �� ,-. SI 1 - r j f / �_ - ar,.soNCO ; pcE = • \ . � :� N1 0 ia . ,0 lr.��4' %4 ^:'T f ` l = _ - �i� r ,,, _N_ . , 1 �� ' f/ /� `\ �I:w .* Q Jim � j ) • �A� L � » ,, y . : c; .. • /� ✓ fi' i `` � 1 & . O i . OF•�� C J s 1R :,P \a� !.M %1 !� I dL - .V i � - --.12; NEIGHBORHOOB RECR114NUN e ' I ' "' ��` A ti t �' �� (� N. � 0 $ 1 � i (�t � ' I r*-V- ; I � .�: e a `dC1 if I /, ��'l A sy.'�e•, l !,` t��, r ; ,� N .� -sue I i /g a 1� - -`- .. 1 , �:�)rY. p / '� i �_ I�. _ 0 *,'„:":„."., �r 1 �� l t 1 - ?► . . • tea + � NAIIRISON LAKE � n' \ ` \�` ) i� w � oPEN sPACE 1 . 1 ' � � _ � , •'. \ \� ' � j„.._ .....: i 1 ,,,T,I. ..„,..,....."...10. a�. (, ,; v , .11 , , \' / ''��Vi�"`` ��t .mP'�' o - + •ice • � r ; � �� • � . �t N�i �� / (' i ce'- -� �' -f � , o � � � `= �i`w � l " .� p �� y�� Jvj' � �,i� "v ` ` � ' 94 j n _rah \� � _ \I �.!i�l,i_'�' " ✓�� fin Cl ' f - / , -..�_r -Y`. +A-:- , j - ". "'L � `�� + `i' '�„ : ` .> ` ' gar .�' i• : , ,. C . ' �� ' c r� r , / / � -- Lim - � � l t4 :3 t �` %�C• c - -V s 's g ` � / �� Jf /� � � �. � • j�: ; �P * �i' � � 1 l0/ '1 111 � �l t ,... �� a U --- . ' �P — •Q') - _��_ _..� . �.� % (::: : .-- ---- , : N .,r.r •. R. • n+.n % .ter. m •... 1111./ +..o. i s n � �e� \ c,g// ;-----3'.-- \-' j 3 CEAn,KATOK SCHOELL Ora / oevranu IIIOKC'I MOM / V E tt ITE y;� �— • w MADSON, INC. NI USTRATIVE SITE PL l uwlao• . 01./.10 . RM.. • ,` 1.1. ;w , ; °; 811111411 LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION SONG /CA RLSON PROP ERTY , - ..701.1.11.111.111 11.1111 _��_ /J 1 � CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ki• _ . __ _ _ . - _ _ - - _ __ __ _ S.ML. PROJECT NO. . SHEET OF SHEET?" • Ca. • CITY OF - CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 R , MEMORANDUM • TO: Park and Recreation Commission 7, FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director 1 DATE: October 19, 1993 SUBJ: Land Development Status Reports t SONG PROPERTY, GALPIN BOULEVARD: The Planning Commission reviewed this 1 application on Wednesday, October 6, 1993. The Park and Recreation Commission's conditions of approval were discussed that evening, being documented in the attached minutes. Please note that Paul Krauss, Planning Director, pointed out to the Planning Commission that, "Traditionally, the Planning Commission does. not place themselves in between the Park Board and the developer." The Planning Commission, however, did t ake comments in regard to park and trail issues because of their potential affect on planning. ; What follows are my responses to the comments made in regard to the Park and Recreation Commission's conditions of approval, and a subsequent recommendation to amend those conditions: 1 Parks: 1. Existing Condition: The private /association ark be approved only if the additional P PPr y amenity of an open field with a minimum size of 250 feet x 250 feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout.. This open field is to be in addition to, and not in lieu of, existing proposed amenities. - Furthermore, that if the private/association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. Findings: The applicant has proposed an 180 ft. x 180 ft. open field, not a 250 ft. x 250 ft field as requested. This represents a 48% decrease in land area, a position which is unacceptable. A compromised position Of preserving an open field of 180 ft. x 250 ft. is suggested. This would decrease the size of the field by 17,500 sq. ft., a 27% reduction in lieu of the 48% requested by the applicant. The length is necessary to allow informal football games, soccer games, etc. to be played. I would like to clarify that the city is not looking to introduce large scale team activities to this site as represented to the Planning Commission by the applicant's planner. I also differ with the position that since a city park may be located to the south that a large open field is not necessary in the • 1 1 Park and Recreation Commission October 19, 1993 Page 2 association park. These sites are over 1/3 mile apart and both will be surrounded by ' residential units. 2. Existing Condition: Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. Findings: The commission has continually made it known that full park fees would be required in the absence of the dedication of public parkland. The applicant has touted their willingness to do so as one of the reasons the commission should accept the development of a private park. 1 Trails: 1 1. Existing Condition: A 20 ft. trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line. Furthermore, this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail-bed may meander within the ' easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to the areas west of the trail-bed. Findings: This condition was forwarded to assure that adeq uate space be available for the future construction of a trail along Galpin Boulevard. The city's engineering department has determined during review of the application that this trail can be constructed within the road right -of -way of Galpin Boulevard. However, it was originally the position of Carver County that the trail should be located outside of the right -of -way. They have since agreed to allow the trail within the right -of -way; however, one area of concern occurs at road intersection points where additional land will be reserved for trail purposes. 2. Existing Condition: The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment No. 4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail parallelling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication for this trail corridor and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsiffurner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat ' for the Johnson /Dolejsiffurner properties. Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson /Dolejsilfumer properties are to be waived. 1 1 . Park and Recreation Commission October 19, 1993 Page 3 This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 and 17, Block 2, or at a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. Additionally, the applicant agreed to rough grade the Stockdale park site if it was acquired. 1 Findings: Facing the possibility that the Park and Recreation Commission would deny this application, the applicant offered to provide this trail easement and to construct the 1 subject trail. Staff recognized that this offer went above and beyond normal requirements; however, at the time, the applicant was attempting to sweeten the pot in order to gain the Park and Recreation Commission's approval. The applicant did contact the city after making the initial offer, rescinding their offer to construct the tail citing economic hardship. Staff confirmed the position of the Park and Recreation Commission during that conversation and recognizes that high expectations are being maintained. In lieu of 1 dropping the construction, a discussion in regard to phasing the construction of the trail was entertained resulting in the agreement that phasing would be the preferred in lieu of building the trail all at once. Mr. Terry Forbord, Lundgren Brothers, confirmed the content of this phone conversation at the August 24, 1993, Park and Recreation Commission meeting stating, "I talked to Parks Director Hoffman about the construction of the proposed public tail and he didn't have a problem with this proposal. I think his staff report already says that but we would like to build that public trail as, the development will be phased. We'll be doing one phase and we'd like to build that public trail along that phase and then when we do the next phase, build that segment of the public trail and then as you go, because that's how you're going to be doing the grading. You kind of build it as you go and I think that's what, I'm not sure but I think...talldng today." However, he then stated at the October 6, 1993, Planning Commission meeting that, "The problem with it is, is that not only do they want me to give them land. They want me to build it for them and they want me to grade the park down at Stockdale's and all these other things. We can't afford to do that and do all the other things we're trying to do here." In regard to the trail connection between Lots 16 and 17, Block 2, or at a similar suitable location in the near vicinity, that condition remains valid. Full trail fee credit for both the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner and Song properties is being offered in consideration for this condition. The applicant's planner, in a phone conversation on October 19, 1993, now states that if a trail is to be built, they are expecting full 1 compensation for the construction. Furthermore, that if the applicant grades a city park they want to be compensated. As ou will recall, these conditions are contingent upon the city acquiring the Stockdale Y g � tY �l 8 property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24. The 45 days have passed and we are closing in on a potential purchase agreement. Staff was uncomfortable with this condition as it was being proposed; however, as a matter of record, the applicant consented to it on the evening of August 24, 1993 (see attached minutes). I am therefore disappointed with the applicant's planner's statement that, "The Park Commission had wanted to make that acquisition a contingency on the approval of the Song parcel which 1 • 1 Park and Recreation Commission October 19, 1993 Page 4 is, it's out of our control and it didn't make sense to us since we are doing so much anyway that just making it contingent, wasn't something that we felt was appropriate and was not an issue that we could control, is the problem." Staff is frustrated by the applicant's treatment of park and trail issues, which at times mimics a "bait and switch" tactic of advertising, promoting an offer to get you in the door and then not following through with the offer. RECOMMENDATION arks 1. Change the dimension of the open play field from 250 ft. x 250 ft. to 180 ft. x 250 ft. 2. No change. Trails 1. Change the condition to: It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of -way except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20 ft. in width is required. ' 2. No change. 1 O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY. GALPIN BOULEVARD: As the commission will recall, a portion of this property had been considered for an active park, but was dismissed due to soil conditions. The applicant has recently asked for direction from staff as to what the commission's reaction would be if they moved forward with the soil corrections and the construction of housing units on this site. In essence, as stated by the applicant, plopping buildings right into the middle of the city's passive park. Any comments you have in this regard will be forwarded to Centex Homes. This item is being reviewed at the conceptual stage by the Planning Commission on Wednesday, October 20, 1993. If the application moves forward, the Park and Recreation Commission would review it again at the preliminary plat level. OPUS SITE /GATEWAY, HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41: Two additional park concepts have been prepared by Hoisington - Koegler Group, and they are attached for your review. At the commission's request, calculations have been made to determine the amount of land which would be consumed as park under the various scenarios being considered. As shown on the attached ' exhibit, the area of high ground varies from a low of 18.8 acres as proposed by the developer, to a high of 30 acres under Concept 2. The applicant's initial site plan identified a total of 178.3 acres. Therefore, approximately 17 acres (closely matching the applicant's original proposal) could be acquired through dedication. Any land above and beyond this would have to be 1 • Park and Recreation Commission 1 October 19, 1993 Page 5 purchased. Assumably, this purchase would be orchestrated in the makings s of a tax increment Y P _g financing plan. Demands on TIF proceeds are high, however, and the city management would like to confirm if this active park site is an absolute necessity in this location. If it is not, could it be moved north of Highway 5 or to some other location in the city? I await the commission's direction in this regard. pc: Mayor and City Council Don Ashworth, City Manager Paul Krauss, Planning Director John Uban, DSU Terry Forbord, Lundgren Brothers Construction Dan Blake, Centex Homes Michelle Foster, Opus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 111 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 from a practical standpoint. The idea is to, the problem here, the way we look at it wasn't that the houses were the problem. The road was the problem and we were trying to buffer the people who live there from the noise of the road and the view of the road and the cars going by and so we were trying to create that type of buffer, while at the same time when you're driving down the road, the houses aren't just leaping off the site at you. But I think you might be able to see a rooftop and things like that and I just didn't want to say that we'll be able to do that when I inherently didn't think it would achieve it. That's the only reason we modified that. 1 Krauss: Well I mean again, I don't think we're far apart...never been to avoid looking at homes...make sure that the homes have a legitimate rear yard area and to view from the ' highway it helps the roadway somewhat soften but the primary issue is protecting the residential neighborhood. We've got so many situations elsewhere in town that that was done inadequately and again, I don't think we're talking about different things here. 1 Conrad: Yeah, I think we're pretty close. Let's move on. John Uban: Okay, yes. c and d, there's absolutely no problem with. e is the issue of how much we can expand the actual tree conservation area which is an easement that's recorded on the property versus the adjustments we made during construction with flexibility to make sure that works out. In talking with Paul, I think we're close. I think it's just a matter of some adjustments to the plans that we have submitted and really clarifying with staff how much flexibility we need to have and how much of a guarantee or an easement is appropriate 1 for this development. I think we're close and we just merely have to sit down and work it out before we appear before the City Council. 1 Krauss: That's probably a fair statement, John Uban: The next item that we talked about parks. I had under 10(a), I had shown you I that we had put in a 180 x 180 size playfield which is designed for the level of play that • we're looking for and not the 250, the 250 foot play area that is suitable for large scale team ' activities that the Park Commission was looking for. Since they're putting a park to the south, it really isn't necessary in our neighborhood association. Krauss: If I can interject. I understand some of their concerns with some of the Park issues. Some I agree with. Some I don't but the fact is, traditionally the Planning Commission does not place themselves inbetween the Park Board and a developer. These are concerns that I ' think the Park Board has seen it.. These were their issues. This was their recommendation. I think the developer can make that pitch relative to these conditions to the City Council. It just traditionally hasn't been something that you've tinkered with. 1 38 . • . 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: How do you feel about the issue of right of first refusal for the property? Does 1 that mean that it could be sold for a price determined at market at a later date? Krauss: I think the condition that was written by the Park Board was somewhat different in 1 approach. It said that if the homeowners association fails to operate the park or maintain the park, whatever. Wants to walk away from the park, that it becomes a city owned facility. That's different than getting first dibs on buying it. But again, I wasn't at the Park Board. That was their recommendation. I'd ask you not to tinker with that. Farmakes: I'm perfectly agreeable with that but I do have a question in regards to that How 1 does the taxation work for that type of operation? Krauss: It's taxed property. I suppose it's taxed at a lower rate. Farmakes: So the homeowners association then pays that tax? 1 Krauss: You bet. And I guess we're somewhat comfortable with it in this case Jeff. There are a lot of commonly held facilities and chunks of land in this one that don't, and the park, 1 that the homeowners association has a valid purpose and would tend to exist for... Mancino: Paul, I just have one other question with that too. I don't want to tinker with the 1 Park Board's recommendation but what was the rationale behind having them put in a 250 square foot field? Krauss: I honestly don't know. I mean I can �' Y gu ess. Mancino: A rink? An ice rink? • 1 Krauss: Well there was an presumption here that okay, the Park Board agreed that they • would build a neighborhood park on the next property to the south pending their ability to obtain title to buy the property. But I think they also wanted to make sure, this is significantly sized development. That it was providing a legitimate variety of internal recreational amenities. That's my guess. Terry Forbord: Paul, this just makes for expediency. Is it the position then that the Planning Commission will not be dealing with any of the park issues as it relates to the items that we have concerns about? Krauss: That's traditionally been the case unless there are some land use aspects or site design aspects of the park issue. The Planning Commission and Park Board are equally 39 1 i ' Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 • 1 created by the City Council with their respective spheres of influence and we haven't tied to modify them. 1 Conrad: Tent', I don't mind hearing the issues. 1 don't know that we're going to react to them here. If I think they affect the planning. I don't know that we're going to react to 250 I versus 180 unless it affects the overall plan of the site. So it's good for us to hear them but again I don't know that we're going to react to them in one way or another at this time unless it does, there's some contingencies to something that we really have some influence on.' ,1 Terry Forbord: Okay. Well then let me just take over fora minute here because I think it's important for me to state that of all the issues, there's a number of key issues that are here I tonight. We're going through some minor adjustments here and fine tuning with you but there are a couple key issues that will decide whether this property is acquired by us and whether it is developed and the park and trail issues are certainly probably at the top of the I list. The association park that we have presented in the Johnson /DolejsitFurner neighborhood connected to the immediate west of this subject property and the same association park on the Song property, are new elements of design that we are now incorporating into all of our 1 neighborhood communities of any significance. And by significance I mean something that is of enough size that it warrants this type of amenity. I'd like to tell you that we are the ones that invented this, but we are not. We've traveled the country and we have found that in I neighborhoods with these types of amenities, the people find them to be incredibly desirous for, not only for their use but for what they do to protect and enhance the property values and the investments that people are making in probably the largest investment they make. So • 1 over the last 4 years, on every significant neighborhood community that we've developed, we have included as association park like this. And they have been incredible. Well, excuse me. Well accepted by the buyers. Now this is kind of a new thing for the midwest. You can go 1 all over the United States and find these everywhere but in the midwest it's somewhat different. And we've had to really, really spend a lot of time before planning boards and city councils and park commissions trying to hopefully educate them to the benefits, not only to I the people who own the association but to the general benefits of the city because we're providing the land. We're building the improvements. We're maintaining it and that takes a I burden off some of the facilities in the rest of the community. So for us we find that it is very, very important. Now, for the parks commission, their charge is to also make sure that the general public is being taken care of with facilities to provide recreational facilities for the I general public which is their charge and it's a good charge and those things do need to be addressed. So obviously they look at this very closely and they scrutinize it. And in their attempts to review this, and pass it onto you, they have exacted from us items economically I to the point that where it's going to kill our ability to proud with this project if in fact it ultimately is approved that way. We're spending a lot of money, if you can imagine, just putting in the facilities that we are. Now they have asked us to come back to them with 1 40 • • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 some new ideas and we came back to them with the proposed trail corridor that John briefly 1 described to you earlier. And that trail corridor, there was something I -was trying to figure out what additional incentive can I make to the city so they will accept the association park concept. What additionally could I provide that would be public oriented and it just hit me that this wetland complex here and I brought it back to staff. We would provide an easement, the land that would enable the beginnings of a public trail system around this I natural area, would that be something of interest to the parks commission. Well of course it was and it was a good idea and they embraced it. The problem with it is, is that not only do they want me to give them land. They want me to build it for them and they want me to 111 grade the park down at Stockdale's and all these other things. We can't afford to do that and do all the other things we're trying to do here. So this issue has become a very large issue and the only way that I can make it work is if park fees and trail fees are waived to the equivalent amount of the cost of the construction of these facilities that are of public benefit. And so I'm just sharing this with you tonight because it more than likely is a deal breaker for our ability to make this, purely from an economic standpoint. I would like to be able to say I to the city, I'd be happy to do all these things but I'm not Santa Claus and I can only do what makes sense from an economic standpoint. And at the same time still be able to provide a very high quality community. And so you may not want to be dealing with these 1 items tonight because we've made some changes in the recommendations in how those park and trail dedication fees are to be allocated so I'll be happy, we can go through these. Each one of them if you'd like us to but if you're of the position of historically of the parks • 1 commission not to deal with those things, then we can move on to other items. It would be up to the Planning Commission. , Conrad: Well, do we want to hear them briefly or do we want to just skip them? • Mancino: I'd like to hear them briefly. 1 Conrad: Okay, let's touch them but. Terry Forbord: A couple that are key, such as Galpin Blvd so why don't you go ahead. Conrad: Yeah, let's keep on going. 1 John Uban: I think on item number (b) here, Terry talked about that already quite a bit. I That we need to have the fees equal the construction that's being requested in addition to what we are dedicating and building as an association facility. The trails, under trails. The trail, we're suggesting it be incorporated is a 100 foot boulevard from Galpin and here's a I section that generally shows that and what this indicates is that within 100 feet we can get the 52 foot wide road, 10 foot boulevard on either side. There can be a trail on this side also. 1 41 III 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 • 1 Put a 10 foot trail in and we have additional land here yet on the edge of the right -of -way. This is a very comfortable cross section that handles lots of traffic. Trails are good to have, I believe, in the corridor or the right -of -way. It's safer. There will be light poles here. ' They'll be illuminated. They'll be more watched because safety is a concern. If they kind of wander off and away from the road, there are some safety issues that are a concern. Additionally, when we build our berm to keep our 30 to 40 foot back yard here, we'd like to build it and then just taper it right into the edge of the right - of-way and usually we do that in other communities and I know that the city is looking at similar berming effects on roads along Highway 5. The frontage road and so forth. But this helps us to maximize our bernling if we can taper it into the edge right there on just a couple feet But this is a very good trail system many cities are using. This same design between 80 and 100 feet of right- 1 of -way, depending on the road size. Terry Forbord: Now this exhibit represents what's proposed by Lundgren Bros and we're ' showing you to demonstrate that clearly the proposed right -of -way would be able to, is . capable of including the road improvements and the proposed trail. John maybe you have exhibit that may show what is being proposed by staff. John Uban: This is park staff. 1 Terry Forbord: Parks commission, that's correct. John Uban: This shows the 100 foot Galpin Boulevard right -of -way. And here we'll have 1 over 24 feet between the road and the edge of the right -of -way and then they're asking for a 20 foot trail easement added to that which combined would certainly be 140 feet of right -of- way or easement combination which then we have the trail set farther back. Was closed to 1 traffic and then when we try to put our berm in and keep our back yard, we have much less room in which to do that because the trail doesn't want plantings involved to separate it from the road and so forth and keep it graded to match. . ' Ledvina: Would that roadway be constructed with a curb and gutter? Y Su 1 John Uban: Yes. ' Ledvina: So there wouldn't be any need for ditches, okay. John Uban: This seemed to be sort of wasting land here that it's more maintenance in the 1 long run. It's less consolidated. I believe it becomes less safe and when you look at the rest of Galpin Blvd, especially to the north, and you realize you want to grade out this far, there are some significant wetlands to the north that are impacted that make the two that are on this 1 42 1 • 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 property fairly minute by comparison. So I believe the consolidation of road and trail, is a good practice. Other cities are doing it. To minimize wetland filling and other activity like . that 1 Terry Forbord: Now we recognize that in the past the city has used these principles but what we're suggesting is that just because it's been done before in the past, doesn't mean maybe it was the best idea. Because this particular type of cross section on this proposal of 140 feet combination of right -of -way and easement is a huge swath of land that goes along any route and it will involve the filling of more wetlands. Eventually the cutting down of more trees in those areas where it's going through that are wooded, and we feel that you can readily accommodate all the same functions within the proposed right -of -way without any additional easements. 1 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, let me just interject something here. The typical section proposed there is fairly accurate. There is sufficient room to build a trail section within the 100 foot • 1 right -of -way. The problem comes when you come to an intersection where there's additional turn lanes. Turn lane medians that expands that paved section out even wider. That does restrict where the trail goes. In some cases the trail may be right up to the back of the curb. • We understand the intersections like that, maybe it's not that bad...and so forth. Similar subdivisions that we've recently done along Galpin Blvd, we have incorporated the trail section into the 100 foot right -of -way. Carver County Public Works Department had sent us i a memo regarding this. Their recommendation though is if we want a trail section, for it to be outside the 100 foot right -of -way. We are currently working with Carver County Public Works Department to change their minds on that since most likely it will be a joint cooperative project to upgrade this county road in the future. So our concerns I guess would be the trail...intersection would seem possible, an additional turn lanes and medians at the intersection. Mancino: What jurisdiction does the Carver County public works have on it? 1 Hempel: It's currently under their jurisdiction...out in their right -of -way. Eventually it may be turned back over to the city as a city street. 1 Terry Forbord: Dave, would it make sense. Just make sure I understand your concern at the intersection. If there's a turn lane right here is what you're saying. Is that that trail should be able to meander in. I don't think that would be a problem for us to accommodate that around turn lanes and things. I think that makes sense. The only thing we're saying is to make that, to add that huge swath through the entire length, one it's overkill. Two, it is 1 going to impact wetlands and it's certainly going to impact the quiet enjoyment of these people. That berm now will be right off their deck. That berm will come right up to the 43 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 deck of these homes under the proposal and nobody will have any back yard space along here. I think there's a way to get around that. 1 Conrad: Interesting issue. I think Qty Council will deal with that one. We'll all have our own opinions but it is interesting because that is a major, well I'm going to abbreviate my ' comment. The grad there is very important and I can see why Park and Rec wanted it and I can also see why you don't and it's better. I can see both sides of the issue and I think we don't need to get involved. We'll let. ' Terry Forbord: Just to clear that, we do want the trail. 1 Conrad: Right. Right. John Uban: Then we continue I guess basically on with that trail issue. That once again 1 we're asking that the fee and park fees for trails make up the difference for any, the construction that the Park Commission may request. On the trail that goes along the south edge of the Johnson/Dolejsi property, this major walk along the wetland that we've just talked 1 about. The city is asking for a connection up into that subdivision, which we think is a good idea but we're having a hard time finding an appropriate place and we wanted to make sure that that could happen without wasting a lot that we've already gotten approved so we're I suggesting in our narrative and to work with the city and we think that there is an easement, utility easement that can be used that would also be used for the city to gain access to the sedimentation ponds that are also being built in that area. So I think if we can work . creatively with the city to combine utility easements and access for sedimentation pond and a possible trail connection that might not be suitable for bicycles but, you know it would be probably steep but can be walked. That that would work out very well and we'll continue in that direction. The other, on Stockdale to the south. The Park Commission had wanted to make that acquisition a contingency on the approval of the Song parcel which is, it's out our control and it didn't make sense to us because we're doing so much anyway that just making it contingent didn't, wasn't something that we felt was appropriate and was not an issue that we could control, is the problem. And we will work with the city. We'll work with Stockdales to make sure that something reasonable can take place but we are dedicating an additional trail on the nature walk. We are building our own parks plus, if no construction is involved, still paying all the park and trail fees for both developments and only asking for credit should they ask...That sort of summarizes I think the issues with park and trail. If there are any other comments. I'll move onto number 11. Really it's just a clarification. We have really no issue with number 11. Number 12. We want the street section that we have proposed in the subdivision and the right -of -way dimensions that we've proposed, to continue and these are on two very specific areas. Number one, we have all the roads, the thru streets are all 60 feet in width, the right -of -way and standard 31 feet or even, I think larger on A 44 1 1 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 1993 Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Ron Roeser, Jim Andrews, Larry Schroers, 1 Jane Meger, and Jan Lash STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation 1 Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lash: I just have a couple things that I found. On page 20. My comments at the bottom. I 1 think I said the first lines and after that point in time, I think it was the applicant speaking because it sounds like something the applicant would talk about that night. Not something I was saying. And I think it starts right about with the well. And then another one on page 48. My comments in the first paragraph down. I probably said I've always but what I meant was, I've never. I've never been a proponent of that. And then I'm a cheapskate. Not a cheapscape. I don't know what the difference is but I know I'm a cheapskate. I don't know what the other one is. That's it for me. Schroers: Anything else? If not, may I have a motion to approve? Y S Andrews moved, Meger seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation 1 Commission meeting dated July 27, 1993 as amended by Jan Lash. All voted in favor and the motion canied. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. SONG PROPERTY, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. 1 Public Present: Name Address Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros 935 East Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata 1 Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparral Lane Bret Davidson 7291 Galpin Blvd. David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd. 1 1 Hoffman: The Commission should be aware the approval of the Minutes only coven the July 27th. The August lOth.:. The Song property proposal, as the Commissioners are aware, was reviewed on July 27th. The discussion that evening including the tabling of this issue. Expectations from the Commission in doing so were two fold. That the applicant desired more time to review internally and progress with staff ideas to enhance the park and recreation components of this application. Secondly, that the Commission desired additional information in regard to land holdings south of the Song's..DolejsiTurner property. 1 had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Terry Forbord to discuss the new idea which he referenced at the committee meeting. The applicant's preliminary offer was to identify a trail easement along the southern border of the Johnson Dolejsi- Turner property which abuts the Song property and to construct that trail. You have a diagram in your packet...in this regard. The Johnson- Dolejsi- Turner proposal and the Song proposal are adjacent so one another. .They're both...and are owned, or would be owned by Lundgren Bros Construction. The area ofthe trail would start about in this location at Highway 41 and wind it's way down to the southern • half of the Johnson- Dolejsi Turner property. So you've got the plat which you approved, or passed your recommendations onto the Council sometime last year and the Song property in . • this location. This is a large wooded wetland area which you have I believe an aerial photo of...I'm not a wetlands expert but it's certainly primarily what they refer to as canary reed - grass and we'll have some pictures of that, those slides... Mr. Forbord and I toured this area- on foot the morning of August 9th. A Monday morning. Very wet morning. We....very desirable for a recreational trail and would offer an experience which is not attainable with - - the trails along street alignment such as the on street alignment which would run parallel with the thru street which will access TH 41 and Gaipin... This proposed corridor parallels a large wetland. We talked about the homes that would be constructed in the area. The trail in most cases would be located at the edge of the wetland, sandwiched between the wetland and the • • home's backyards. The alignment of most area followed the toe of the wooded slope which acts as a natural buffer. One area in particular does not allow that and you'll see a slide of it approximately right in this location which is an open alfalfa field which then dead ands...off into the wetland. Several sets of photographs were taken. We'll look at those here momentarily. 1 also prepared the blue line copy of the aerial photo. I apologize...but you can certainly get the idea without having any additional feet on there. Upon concluding our site visit that day it was agreed that the applicant would map this potential trail alignment, which is down here...attached in the packet. Providing copies of that map for the commission to review. A follow -up conversation on August 17th with Mr. Forbord and during that conversation Terry informed me that they had determined that it was not feasible for them to construct a trail at their expense. At least probably without receiving some sort of compensation from the city for that.. The second issue which I would like to touch on is the issue of the land holdings in the area...get an idea of what this wetland looks like. You drive by it, I drive by it every day, a couple times a day. I certainly knew it was there but I didn't 1 know to what extent this area was, the extent of the area which it covers so I think it will give you a real good idea of what the area actually looks like. Schroers: A couple quick questions Todd. What is the length of the trail and is the trail of any significance regarding the overall master trail plan of the city? - • - i - - 2 • 1 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 1. Hoffman: As proposed the length of the trail is about 2/3 of a mile in the Lundgren development. It would then continue and probably conclude at Galpin and be much closer to a mile in length from TH 41 to Galpin. In regard to the overall comprehensive trail plan, it's not an identified segment but it certainly is a very desirable segment. The comprehensive trail plan typically identifies trails which are traveled, or not solely for recreation but you know line up with major corridors and major neighborhood corridors and that type of thing. So I think it is a desirable link, even though it's not identified on the comp plan. If you can follow through in your head as I walk through these. I don't have the luxury of pushing back and forth between the overhead and the slides. This is a photo just east of Highway 41. About at the location where the trail would begin on TH 41 right up in this corner. Right up here and as you travel across the slide to the left, that tree line there would be the separation point to the wetland so that's one reason you really don't see it. This is the view when you cross over that tree line. The view which greets you there. Part of the wetland. As you can see, it's not a cattail type marsh. It's not wooded. It was wet there obviously . this year because of the weather we've been experiencing but I would think in drought years it was probably completely dry, except for maybe in a small creek which winds through the center 1 of it. The wooded property you see there in the background would be the southern half of the Dolejsi property, which is severed from the northern half. So it makes it real impossible to develop those as a consecutive piece of property. That's where I pan to the left, as I'm I standing there and it shows the wooded edge of the property to the north which would be the start of the houses that would come down to the edge of the wetland there. The trail would meander inbetween the houses and the wetland. 1 Lash: So are you proposing the trail construction to be along the wood line? The tree line. 111 Hoffman: Right along the wood line, correct. It could not be constructed out in the wetland itself. It certainly has to be up on suitable ground. Schroers: Is that tree line going to be altered by the construction? Hoffman: Assuredly yes. To what extent I would have to have the applicant to address that 1 question. These begin to get out of order. This would take you all the way to the opposite end of the trail to the terminus. As it comes out at the very left hand corner of the slide would be Swings golf course. And the trees that you see to the right would be the edge of a cul -de -sac, if you can look on your packet, that knoll which is very heavily wooded... That knoll however does have a, it's kind of a funny little area. It has an opening actually which fits very nicely for a street which is the fortunate thing from tree loss. This would be if you round the corner and look back towards Galpin Blvd. So as you walk around the corner from the other side and then face, this is facing east. Due east right down towards City Hall. This would be probably very close to the alignment of the trail as it came around the toe of the 3 1 1 1 • Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 :. • • slope. And then penetrated to the east to match up with, along with future developments somewhere out to Galpin Blvd and then eventually down to the trail underpass which goes under Highway 5. This slides looks directly north towards the Song p roperty. From about . that same comer. If you can picture, you're probably minding on the trail here beading to my - right towards Galpin. Heading to my left towards TH 41 and then you're looking north and towards the Song property. This approximately delineates the separation between the Song property on the right and the Johnson Dolejsi•Turner ca the left. Another photo of the alignment as it comes along the toe of the slope again in that general vicinity. This is an area which 1 mentioned earlier where the field, the agriwhural field actually comes right down to the edge of the wetland. These would be...sanding either at the rear bousepad or somewhere in the rear yard and then looking out over the wetland in this area So the trail would run - approximately right in line with that wetland edge. That's coming up much higher on the hill. The last slide was down way to your right. This is standing up on the hill son ewhere potentially where the street would be or maybe a front yard looking back over the vista of - - • - that wetland area. And again the trail, if there was a proposed trail, would be down in the _ foreground...There's another shot of that same vicinity. Again, down lower. The wooded knoll that you see there, that's the knoll that the other series of slides centered around an the opposite side of it. This trail would then come along vegetation edge. Follow the toe of that wooded slope around and head on over towards Swings golf course or Galpin Blvd or potentially to the north at that time, depending on what alignment was eventually chosen and that wooded knoll there would contain houses in a cul -de-sac ..One area of particular concern ' to the commission was the issue, of this private park concept was approved, what potential exists for the city to acquire public parkland in the area immediately south of the Song, Johnson - Dolejsi- Turner property. So I put together a map which I think approximately . _ indicates the existing land holdings in that area. Again, 3 weeks was not sufficient time to bring you a complete evaluation of what's available. What potentially would not be available and all the other questions you would have in regard to the land purchase. But I did have.the opportunity to discuss the topic with some of the landowners in the area. .. vealtor and Mr. Forbord who represents Lundgren Bros Construction in their land acquisition inquiries throughout Chanhassen. I do understand as an agent of the city I can only take these inquiries to such a degree. Make the recommendations to the Park Commission and then ultimately approval by City Council. however, I believe it is fair to state that there are no properties in this area which have been actively marketed. That statement made, I may alter that statement to some degree tonight as we talk about the Stockdale property in more detail later on. Again, I mentioned that there smears to be one owner who is considering subdivision of their property and that being Mr. David Stockdale. I believe it is also accurate to state that the remainder of the landowners have either been contacted by perspective buyers or considered selling their property at some time and...some property owners that are just happy with what they have going on and probably would not consider selling at any time in the future. So again the Stockdale property is about 19 acres. You have an additional 1 4 • • Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 1. handout with you this evening which I will reference and that looks something like this. So this is the 19 acres Stockdale piece of property. The Song's...to the north. Their house lies somewhere up in this corner of this potential road which would come down through here. The Stockdale's currently reside in this location. It would be at least a consideration of the Stockdale's to sell the city this section of land in this area for a potential future neighborhood park. That's approximately 5 acres in size, or potentially a little less. The Park Commission would have to decide what they feel would be an appropriate total acreage for that park site, if you would care to pursue it. Mr. Stockdale is in conversation with Lundgren Bros on the potential acquisition of that remaining property with development of that property coming down through this road extension and probably meet in a cul-de -sac somewhere in that location. So this is certainly something the commission can consider. It's not the only piece of property in the area which could be acquired for park. As we go further on in the discussion about the land holdings in the area, you'll see that. However, I believe the Stockdale's are in a position to at least come to the bargaining table at present and see if something could not be worked out. So if that's your desire, I will take direction in that regard. Moving further south with some of the other properties. It would be my belief that the Bentz and Turcott properties would not be available for acquisition by the city. Each one of these 5 acre parcels have a residence constructed on them somewhere centrally located on that lot. The southern property has some wetland impacts on the rear of the property and then in addition, the Highway 5 frontage road, or access boulevard, will come and probably make this southern corner to some degree in that location. You're all familiar with Swings Golf and then you move across Galpin to the southeast corner of Highway 5 and Galpin and there's a piece of property, the VanDeVeire property. These two locations would not be desirable for any park obviously because of their location. Coming around the bottom side and you have a 50 acre parcel owned by Mr. Conway. Mr. Conway has been in conversation , with Mike Gorra and a potential joint development of those two properties so there at least has been conversation. These represent some substantial land holdings in the area which will probably see some development of some type in the future. To the north you have Windmill 1 Run and Royal Oaks, which the commission is aware. Are currently being developed for single family homes. Then north of that you have the Prince Nelson property which is hard to venture a guess as to what the future of that property is but it certainly may see some development at some point in the future. The other one to consider would be potentially the other half of the other segment of the Dolejsi property, which is separated from the northeast by that wetland that comes in through here. There are some additional issues which the commission needs to discuss this evening. Those centering around city sponsored recreation programs. These potential subdivisions create 234 Lots between them. A portion of the Park and Recreation Department sponsored programs currently take place directly in neighborhood parks. Those being such programs as Summer Discovery Playground and tennis lessons. What would the city's commission, Park and Recreation Commission's policy be if you were approached by the neighborhood to provide public recreation services within those private or s • • 1 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24,1993 - association park? I think that's something we should discuss here this evening. And then ultimately your decision, whatever ft is, would have some impacts on future commissions in that regard. Second issue is the trail easement along Galpin Blvd. The applicant's letter of August 18th references 17 feet of right -of -way along Galpin Blvd and the grading for a trail alignment within that 17 feet. This position is in direct conflict with staffs recommendation that a 20 foot easement for trail purposes be dedicated adjacent to the nevi right -of -way. That recommendation is consistent with the action by the Commission and the Council all the way up and down Galpin Blvd, starting on the southern reaches across Highway 5 with Stone Creek, the Hans Hagen development where the right -of -way was taken and then an additional 20 feet of trail easement and now they're constructing that trail within that easement. Moving north to the Windmill Run and the Klingelhutz development and then Bret Davidson and his development there. So that has been a consistent recommendation and consistent action by -- the Council. The applicant will be presenting his diagrams this evening showing potentially how the trail construction could take place within a right -of -way. I will respond to that . - presentation at that time. I did have a chance to have a conversation with the City Engineer - and the Assistant City Engineer in that regard today so Ill have some additional information for the...at that time. The depiction of passive play areas on the attachment to the letter dated August 18th. As the commission will recall, one concern about the potential association or private park in the Song property was that at some point in the future ft could revert back to the city ownership and city operation of maintenance. And one thing the commission and the city typically want to see in those neighborhood parks is an open playfield so it-was a - direction to the applicant to identify that. An attempt was made to do so on this diagram which identifies two areas that's shaded and labeled then as passive recreation. I would agree that they probably could be used for passive recreation but they have steep slopes in those areas and they're very small, or relatively small so a game of pick -up baseball or something of that nature would not be appropriate there. The minimum size of 250 x 250 would reach the, just by having the thought process. So neighborhood children can pick up a game of baseball or softball, how much distance would you allow between home plate and the first window of some garage or the house adjoining the park. And 250 feet is about the minimum amount you could safely. I think you could reduce that down to somewhat.. over 200 feet. . - Conclusions that were made. I think the applicant has attempted to satisfy the desires of the" commission in regards to park and trail amenities but is falling slightly short of the city's mark. Specifically in regard to the private park amenities and the whole issue of the private park but again that is something that the commission has to wrestle with as well. I've talked about the open playfield area and the failure to identify one of those. The question of whether or not land in the area are available for development as public park space remains unanswered. I think...new information today. That information was gathered and agreed to about 3:45 p.m. meeting this afternoon so you can see ifs...has not been developed. But it is certainly a possibility. There's always future events which kind of cartwheel upon one another as to what is going to occur with the land holdings in the vicinity. However, it can 6 1 1 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 certainly always be said that if it's your wish to acquire some parkland, you can probably make that happen but again that statement is also applicable to the subject property. In regard to the 20 foot trail easement, as I mentioned, we will talk about that more during the applicant's comments. The offer to incorporate the trail alignment along the large wetland is commendable. These types of trails are desirable in our society. They allow an opportunity 1 to come in close contact with our natural surroundings. However it is staffs position that this trail should be constructed in conjunction with the initial public improvements in the area. As the commission is aware, it is very difficult to go back once the homes have been developed, even if you have a trail alignment identified and even if somebody else is going to pay for it. At that time it becomes much more difficult to get that trail constructed so it would be staffs recommendation to see that construction take place with the adjoining improvements, or the adjacent improvements in the area. Recommendation. It is recommended that the preliminary plat to subdivide 112 acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development into 115 single family lots, referenced as the Song property, be approved by the Park and Recreation Commission contingent upon the following conditions of approval being met. There's two each in regard to parks and trails. In regard to parks. That the private association park be approved only if the additional amenity of an open field with a minimum size of 200 feet square with a maximum of 4% slope be added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. And then second, that full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. In regards to trails, we have two issues there. A 20 foot trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. That trail bed may meander within this • easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as part of the grading plan review. Then again, planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of that trail bench or outside the trail. Secondly, that the applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson - Dolejsi -Turner preliminary plat as depicted on the attachment in your packet. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling that wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications at the . time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and the City Engineer. In recognition for this dedication of this trail corridor and the construction of that trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive a full trail fee credits at the time of building permit 1 application for both the Song property and the Johnson - Dolejsi -Turner applications. That will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson - Dolejsi -Turner properties. This trail shall include a connectionto the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 and 17, Block 2, or a suitable similar location in that vicinity. I believe that last item is also an issue which the applicant would like to discuss with the commission tonight. With that, I'll turn it over to you Chairman Schroers. , 7 1 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 • • Schroers: Okay. I think at this time it would be appropriate to hear what the applicant has to say. Terry Forbord: Members of the Park Commission, my name is Terry Forbord. I'm with Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd and Mr. Hoffman did a good job in summarizing all the issues related to this proposai...related to his staff report to the Park and Rec Commission. He's right, on August 9th we went out and walked the wedands where the public trail is being proposed. As you recall at the last meeting I asked that this item be tabled because as I was sitting and listening to the Parks Commission it became clear to me that you liked our proposal but the part that you didn't like about it was the fact that we had an association park versus a public park. At least that's...some smaller issues. For us we think it is very, 'very important for the success of this neighborhood to have something that is within the community that the city will not be able to provide. And we've gone, taken the extra effort and tried to explain those items to you and why we think it's important and...As I was sitting • here listening to the comments of the commission, I thought that maybe there's an opportunity, and I wasn't sure at the time but maybe there's an oppornmity to provide a public experience that would benefit everybody who lives in the city that would connect to city • public trails that presently are planned for Highway 41 and Galpin Blvd. Now for those of you who have ever walked trails, whether they be municipal or county or otherwise, there are different types of trail experiences. Certainly the type of trail experience that we would enjoy on Highway 41 is one of pretty much utilitarian needs. Trying to get from one Point A to Point B...by traffic. You might have some enjoyable experience, you're out exercising,'etc but it's not going to be the type of trail experience that you'd probably want to go for relaxation. So as I was contemplating that, thought that I should maybe think about that. Maybe I have an opportunity to provide the city with something that would connect those two public trails ' that are utilitarian in nature and provide an experience that would be different. So Parks Director Hoffman and I walked that property and it was a nicer experience than I anticipated 1 it would be. I think primarily because of the topography of the area. The area in question around the wetland is quite a bit lower than all the other upland areas that surrounds it. Some of the pictures of slides that he showed represent that but it's hard to describe what you'd be ' able to see if you were there in person. While we were walking right in this area right here, excuse me. We were walking right here, we saw a buck come out of the woods and rum across here and he came across here. We startled another buck in the larger grass. We saw ' hawks and the thing that was probably more unique to it than anything, was the quiet that was down there. Probably because of the depression to the rest of the land around it and all the upland. When you're up in this area you can bear Highway 41 and Highway 5. I don't ' recall hearing any highway noise at all when I was down here so it was very quiet. I quickly realized what I had hoped to realize and that it was a unique experience that might be of interest to the city. Now normally we would not be proposing to the city a public trail corridor in the back yards of homes because our home buyers would tell us normally that they ' - E 1 • Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 • would be very, very opposed to that. And these issues have been fought in battles in every city in the metropolitan area. Most people would prefer not to have a trail in their back yard. . If it was directly there to see it. The unique thing about this site, and the sites around it, is most of it, not all of it but most of it is wooded. And like I said, where the trail would be is at the toe of the slope and the homesites are up higher. So I weighed that and like I said, normally we wouldn't be proposing that because it's something that we fear. The last thing you want to do is do something to a homesite that would make it so nobody would want to buy it. And in talking to Park Director Hoffman, he kind of...on us a little bit. He did and I did and there's a trade off. There might be some people that would look at it as a benefit. I mean from my experience I can tell you that most people, if they can see it. If it's right out their back door and they're sitting on their deck, the last thing...talking to their spouse, most people would not want to see people walking in their backyard. The unique thing of this, is that all those lots in those areas are very deep lots. Most of them are very wooded and most of them are very high. There's only a section of lots right through here, I think there's probably 5, maybe 6 at the very most, that you had...where you could actually, if you were on your deck, you'd be able to look down and see a trail. The unique part about that is that when you're up high and looking beyond the trail, there's a vista that probably goes for maybe a couple miles. As far as the view that you can see. So there's going to be some trade offs there. So the way I look at it, after a lot of thought, is there's 5 or 6 lots here that may be impacted by that trail. And if there's some people don't like that, well we have other lots that are available to them that they don't have to buy the lot on the trail either. Now if I had 20 or 30 lots in here affected by that trail, I would not even consider proposing it. I think 1 because of that, I had 5 lots, there might be somebody who's a rollerblader in that farriily who would want to..get on that trail and rollerblade around. There's probably 5 people out there that might be willing to do that. So normally we wouldn't be proposing this. I think the ' 1 situation is a little unique. I think it offers an experience that, I'm real familiar with Chanhassen trails and...but I think this would be certainly fair to say that this is a little different experience than some of the other trails that are provided in the city. And it does link two trails that will be common routes for school children going through to school that will be at Galpin and Highway 5. The land...down by Swings or across the street from Swings, there will be a...or some type of tunnel system that goes under Highway 5 to the school and community park area that will be there as part of the school grounds. So this kind of ties it all together. I wish I could tell you that I thought of this in the beginning and it was a well conceived master plan...so I think that it's really something unique that is a benefit to the city. The other item that I would like to address, and there was some public comment at the Last meeting about the availability of other properties for sale in the area. As Parks Director Hoffman has explained to you this evening, you have a willing seller who would like to have a public park right in his front yard and that is Mr. Stockdale. Mr.Stockdale asked to meet with me last week, unless he's changed his mind since then. He's very, very encouraged by the idea of having a park in his front yard. As long as he can meet a satisfactory 9 .1 1 • Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 agreement with the city and that was none of my business so I didn't get into that with him . But he met with me and asked me if I would be willing.. acquiring the remainder of his property... So we have a unique situation where we sow have somebody who's willing to provide the city with the parkland that the city has indicated is desired from them. At the same time, Lundgren Bros right next door is willing to build two association parks at our cost providing amenities that the city cannot provide it's residents and we also are going to • continue to agree, to pay park dedication fees.-so it seems to me that all of the things that were of concern to the parks Commission at our last meeting, have the potential for being addressed well beyond, exceeding the limits of or the expectations that normally would be available to the city in a given area. If you add up all the amenities in that area, if that • public parkland is acquired, and with the trail system that's there that was never part of the _ • Comp Plan, you have a park and trail experience in an area that most cities would be very pleased... The other unique thing about the Stockdale property is that there's been a lot of discussion about obtaining the right type of property for the right type of use. The Stockdale • - property is relatively flat. It has easy access to Galpin Boulevard. It offers the type of topography that is conducive to that type of use. You will not find that type of land on the . Song property. In discussing. Schroers: Can I ask a question? Would Lundgren Bros be interested in doing preliminary grading on that site were we to find that accessible? - Terry Forbord: Which site sir? Schroers: What you're speaking about on the Stockdale property. I mean I realize that this is all hypothetical that it would happen but is that something that Lundgren Bros would consider? Terry Forbord: If Lundgren Bros has equipment on site at the time that the city would like to - have that park developed and graded, we'd be willing to talk to the city to try to facilitate the most inexpensive way of development. The timing would probably be the key. • Berg: Could I ask a couple questions about the trail before you move too far away from that. My recollection from the last meeting was that one of the concerns with having a city park within that association, within that development, was the concern of the neighbors to the type of people that would be corning in to use the city park outside of the neighborhood. I'm wondering if you've given thought to the fact that this trail is also going to introduce people into that neighborhood, into that development. _ Terry Forbord: That was an item that we did not raise. That was an item that somebody else raised. I never, ever said that we were concerned about the type of people that would be 10 • 1 • Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 1 coming into our neighborhood. I never stated that. Berg: So for you that's not a factor at all? - Terry Forbord: I think the question, at least that I recall, if I remember my response, it is a concern of our's and people, and this is not unlike if this was a townhome development or if this was an apartment complex. People are paying for a facility that happens to be there with their money. They are maintaining it. I think that it's fair that those people would have a concern about the use of people from outside the area coming to use it. It is not a concern of our's with any of the type of people that live in Chanhassen...So as far as the experience with the trail, as I said, I probably don't have words that are creative enough to describe it. I was very pleasantly surprised and I had been down there like 4 years ago but when you're looking at land for the first time and you're trying to make some buying decisions, it's different than when you're out trying to imagine an experience of a trail... Berg: One other question regarding the trail as well. My concern would be that because this is a private association park, that this trail might also be construed as a private trail. Would you have any, I would assume that you probably wouldn't have any trouble with identifying it as a city trail so that everyone in the city would know that it was accessible to them. ' Terry Forbord: We would have absolutely no problem with that. In fact it connects with two planned city public trails now along Highway 41 and Galpin. I'm not sure if the city has a sign system that designates the trail but if they don't, we would not have any problem whatsoever designating that. • Lash: I have a question too in regards to that. From the looks of the plan, it doesn't actually connect TH 41 to Galpin. Is that correct? At this point it doesn't. Hoffman: Correct. Lash: Okay, so what is the potential. Say we were to acquire the Stockdale property. How did that, knowing that I'm not always really good at reading these maps but can you show me, would the park property abut this wetland so that we could continue the trail from the 1 wetland right into the park property? Hoffman: I think Mr. Forbord could go ahead and show that. ...potentially you could loop 1 the trail up around the cul -de -sac and bring it into the Stockdale property. Lash: I guess for future, if this all comes together, that would be maybe one of my hopes would be that we could ultimately have that trail connect into the public park and then on out 11 1 • Park and Recreation Commission - August 24,1993 . to Galpin. And then ultimately if the Dolejsi, the southern segment were to come in for development, that we would have earmarked, at this time I would like to have it earmarked that we would want also to have an easement to continue around that development also so we . could end actually with a whole circled area in there with a trail. • Terry Forbord: Let me comment on a couple things. Todd and I were out walking in this area. There's kind of an existing farm road that presently kind of crosses right here. Mere was a slide of that. It's kind of hard to decipher unless you would have known that that's what it was. We were trying to decide would it make more sense to go up this wady and come down here. And at that time the Stockdale proposal was not a discussion so WC had contemplated primarily how would we get over here to make it connect with the tram that went over to the school. So I would imagine that there's very probably some sense in trying . to connect that to that...and probably would happen during the platting process of the Stockdale property. As far as continuation of the trail around the entire wetland. Lundgren . Bros does not control this portion of the Dolejsi property. That would have tD be something that would be handled a differently... ... ...; - Lash: That was directed to staff that as those come in for development, I would want that to be looked at. So the Stockdale property, is that the right band corner...? - Terry Forbord: Actually it goes down and probably right there... Lash: The Stockdale property? P Terry Forbord: That's correct. His property is right in here. And whether that is the best . place for the trail to come in, I couldn't answer t hat. There may be some wisdom to that if there's a public park... Lash: Okay, thank you. . I Terry Forbord: Chairman Schroers, you had asked about trees...related to that proposed trail. and I think it's fair to say that the toe of the slope. Schroers: May 1 clarify that. I wasn't referring only to the trail but to the entire development. How much impact is the development going to have on the trees there was my question. Not specifically the trail. . I . Terry Forbord: On the Song property or the Johnson - Dolejsi- Turner property? l l Schroers: Yes. On the entire development is where I have an interest actually. i 11 12 • 1 - - ..- . :. :, • i . Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 1 Terry Forbord: You know I'd have to, I can't remember what all the specifications of the preliminary plat on the Johnson - Dolejsi -Turner property...On the Song property...somewhere around 30 %. Maybe less than that. That includes right -of -way and... Schroers: Okay, and that came about before the development of the Tree Board so that won't apply to your development but that is .pretty consistent with what is happening now. There's pretty much a 30 %. • Terry Forbord: And we're trying to follow that and I know the public hearing was cancelled and I certainly will be present at that public hearing because there's a lot of issues that I think need to be discussed on that but TIl wait until that public hearing before I do. A couple more items. Just to answer the question about the trail. Most of the trees that are down by the wetland are box elders. Parks Director Hoffman identified those for me because Tm not an arborist or anything and some of them are dead too. And I think it's fair to say that near the toe of the slope, that's where the trees are terminating. And for a trail to be there, to have that type of experience where you're right next to the wetland and right next to the woods,: there will be some vegetation, some brush, possibly a few scrub trees type things that would be...part of that trail construction. But I believe the trails are presently 8 feet? So I really think it will be extremely minimal given the circumstances. About the item in the association park about...flat area to have a little more active recreation. First of all there won't be any homes anywhere near the association park, or certainly not close enough to where anybody could cause damage to one of those homes by swinging. And secondly, the idea of those association parks is not to have pick -up games and that's, they're designed so those type of • things aren't going to be available. Now we do think it was an excellent idea that the staff had of trying to expand some flat area there so...play frisbee or if you wanted to play catch or throw a football a little bit, we think that's a good idea. But we do not want to make 250 x 250 feet. That's 3/4 of the length of a football field and that's an awfully large area flatten, especially in light of the fact that if the city is successful in it's attempts to acquire public 1 property in there, that's really the type of area that would be conducive for those types of activities. Let me just talk a little bit about the trail along Galpin Blvd. If I may, I'll just go to the overhead. On the overhead presently it shows the existing condition of Galpin Blvd. 1 To my knowledge, the Galpin Blvd currently has a 66 foot right -of -way and there's approximately 13 feet of pavement in each direction for a combined pavement of 26 feet. So there's 20 feet of right -of -way on each side of the pavement. From the pavement edge to the edge of the right -of -way. Now what the city is proposing for the future of Galpin Blvd would be that it would be a 100 foot wide right -of -way and the pavement would be, if it ever were expanded to 4 lanes, would be 26 feet in each direction so you have two lanes heading south and two lanes heading north. The city desires, and it is so noted on the comprehensive plan to have a trail, a north /south trail along Galpin Blvd. And I'm not sure if it states it should be on both sides or not but I know it's important for the city to have some trail connection there. 13 ' • r ' Park and Recreation Commission - August 24,1993. • - And this is not an uncommon request. I think in any city in the metropolitan area that you • would go to, on a key north/south street like this, it would be reasonable to say that any municipality and parks commission would hope to have some type of trail there and we think that's a good idea. We have absolutely no problem with that idea. Especially because ifs going to be a key route for children going to the new school. What we do have some difficulty with, and this is also, ...consistent around the metropolitan area but oftentimes there are rights -of -way or easements asked for by either the engineering department or sometimes a parks department for additional amount of taking of private property for use that really goes beyond what the need is to accomplish the same task. And in this particular case, we think that it's creating an unnecessary burden on, not only the land developer but the land owner and we think it readily can be accomplished the objective without such a taking. As you'll see on the upper left here, there's a diagram in your packet You have your center line of the road, 100 foot right -of -way, two lanes are going north and two lanes are heading south. Its very important for the city to have a utility corridor and I'm sure there will be a response to things I'm going to tell you but the utility corridor gives the city the ability to run utilities, - whatever they may be, private or public, in this area. And there also is on the other side you have to remember there's 24 feet that right now im't being used at all. There's also a utility corridor opportunity there. I'm not sure if the city presently has planned another trail on that side. I'm not sure if it would make sense to have a trail on both sides but you do have 24 feet on the other side of the road. On this side, what we're showing here within the existing, or excuse me. Within the proposed right-of- we're showing an 8 foot wide trail. That's... been asked for and was connected to the Cop Plan and it can easily be constructed in that right -of -way. And then there shows an additional, and this is for illustrative purposes only. It's showing an additional 6 feet between the edge of the trail and what would be the toe of a berm that would screen future homes along Galpin Blvd from this traffic that will be occurring over time. Now the utility corridor also provides a buffer from the edge of the curb to the people that are walking. This is what we believe to be totally compatible with what the desires of the city are. We believe that all the utility corridors and utility items necessary can . } go in that corridor. There's plenty of room for it there. If additional right -of -way is asked for, then you're expanding into the private property area of the back yards of those future homeowners and it's not really needed. As an example I'U show you, this is an exhibit that was put together by one of the city's consultants for a different city in Woodbury. Bonestroo was the consultant here. And this is a minor arterial street in Woodbury, and I'm just showing this for an example of what other cities in situations like this. It can be done and I'm showing you that it can be done. That it's not uncommon. This is an 85 foot right -of -way which is 15 feet narrower than the proposed and shows again 4 lanes of traffic. Two heading for illustrative purposes, I'll say two heading north and two beading south. It shows the 10 foot corridor for the trail and has a 9 foot space...with the slope. This is the design right out of the spec book and the trail that is being constructed in Woodbury. And so these kinds of things are being done and there are opportunities for utility corridors in here on this side, on 14 • • d .. 1..±. . Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 this side and so the only thing that we're stating to you is that we are not at all at difficulty 1 with the concept. We think the concept is a great concept but we think.that more right -of- way is being required than is necessary to accomplish the task and we would like you to consider amending the request to lessen the amount of right -of -way that's required on the trail because it really becomes land... Lash: Mr. Forbord, just to clear me up. The bottom picture. Is that what you're proposing 1 or is that what we're proposing? _ Terry Forbord: This is what we would be proposing. 1 Lash: Is that with the 17 foot trail easement as opposed to the 20 foot? Terry Forbord: There's an additional right -of -way that is being required by the county and by the city of 17 feet and we would like to put the trail within that right -of -way. The 17 feet on each side so 17 and 17 is 34. Lash: On each side of the road? 1- Terry Forbord: 17 feet on each side of Gaipin so right now if you recall, this is 66. So if you add 17 feet on this side and 17 feet on that side, that's 34 to make it 100. That's a very, very wide right -of -way and the point I'm making is that cities are putting the same things in right -of -ways that are 85 feet. And certainly I think it's fair to say, this isn't true everywhere but there's certainly, from a planning perspective, is a movement afoot to lessen right -of -way. To lessen the width of roads except for roads that are very, very necessary and all we're saying here is that we think it's an excessive taking that infringes upon the development opportunity of those lots that we're having to back up to. Now remember, the challenge that we have, if we really want to do a nice job with those lots, the challenge that we have is how do we screen those lots from Galpin Blvd because I don't think it'd be fair for me to try to sell my home to future home buyers. Oh yeah, Gatpin Blvd's always going to be this real 1 nice, sleepy road. Two lanes. One going north. One going south. That isn't what I'm going to be telling them. I'm going to be telling them that someday this is going to be a very, very busy road and I'm going to have to, in order for me to do a good job to protect those people 1 from that busy road, I should be building a berm. I should probably be landscaping it. 1 should probably trying to be buffering the impact with that road. Well, if you start taking more right -of -way for trail purposes than is necessary, I can't put the berm that close to the road and it keeps moving the berm this way. If I keep moving the berm this way, then I'm moving that berm into the back yards, bringing the berm closer to the house. People will be sitting on their deck and all of a sudden there's a berm there. And every little foot makes a difference to the people who happen to be buying these homes. 15 1 1 1 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 . . - - - • Lash: So we're talking a difference of 3 feet, right? From what the recommendation is and what you're suggesting? Terry Forbord: No No They want an additional 20 feet Andrews: Outside the 100 foot right-of-way, is that correct? . _ - • - - _ • .-,. • Terry Forbord: Correct That's correct. -; -•; :•••. • - Andrews: On the Song, current Song property. . - - y • tn: •<•••f, - - . • .. , Terry Forbord: And that's where the problem lies because we think you can easily get the . • trail corridor within the 100 foot right-of-way and have all that pavement and all that buffer and everything. I mean I'm not trying to say that I mean I can't blame city engineers for wanting more rights-of-way for their needs and I guess I can't blame the Park Department for wanting as much right-of-way as they possibly am get for a trail but the point ia..aot to put a - berm in. For the people looking at a road, well that wouldn't be vety nice either. Or the • other alternative 15 10 obliterate these lots and just not have them. Or move this road, continue moving, I mean it's just not, we think it's overkill and we don't think it's necessary and we think the diagram shows that. We think what's happens in other cities shows it... Now there are cities that are but certainly it's fair to say that nowadays cities are starting to • take a look a t that. If we really don't need it, why shoWd we be asked for it. just a few last items that I'd like to cover. I talked to Parks Director Hoffman about the construction•of the proposed public trail -and he didn't have a problem with this proposal.. i think his staff report • already says that but we would like to build that public trail as, the development will be • phased. We'll be doing one phase and we'd like to build that public trail along that phase and then when we do the next phase, build that segment of the public trail and then as you go, because that's how you're going to be doing the grading. You kind of build it as you go and I think that's what, I'm not sure but I think...talking today. And lastly, two last items. We would have to amend our PUD approval that we already have on the Johnson-Dolejsi-Turner property in order to accomplish this. We would like, and I don't know if this is really a Park Commission issue but we'd like the fees waived to accommodate that. And the last item would be that it's been the desire of the Park Director, and I think it's a good idea I'm just not sure how to facilitate it right now. I believe that we'll be able to figure out a way but it's the desire, the idea of the Parks Director, ni give him credit for it. If you recall there's that • proposed trail corridor along through here. And he would like us to put a connection from the street B, between a couple of these lots here down to that trail. And obviously that poses a little bit of a problem for us because to be fair to those future homeowners, I'm going to obviously have to tell them that there's going to be a trail link...but not only that, I need to kind of protect them a little bit from that trail for the same reasons that Tye already identified. • 16 • • 111 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 1 Now I wouldn't have to do this but I just think it's right. We should put some kind of plantings along there. Some trees so they don't just see people walking down their side yard lot line. So my concern is that somewhere along in here I'm going to have to adjust some lot lines too I think in order to make those home sites so they're negatively impacted by that connection. Now I'm going to need some cooperation probably from the Planning Department and from the Engineering Department to accomplish that. And I think that they're willing to compromise...but this is of concern to us. And now the reason I bring it up is because well have to amend this preliminary plat. We're going to have to try to find a way of how do we do that in here. Make two of those lots a little wider in order to be able to buffer those home sites from that link. And so we would like approval to direct staff to work with us to try and figure out a way to accomplish that, because I'm not sure how we can do that. I think the idea's a sound idea but I sense I'm going to need the cooperation of other departments, planning and engineering. 1 Lash: What are your, I'm just looking at, I see there's kind of a short cul- de-sac right in the middle. Yep. Okay, go to the corner lot there. So if you ran it there, you'd be yeah. Would 1 that work better? It wouldn't be in the side yard of two houses. It be along the back. Terry Forbord: Yeah, you know that's one of those things that's 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other. You know the people that are sitting on this, their deck here trying to have their quiet enjoyment, would it impact them more to have the trail here than to try to put it between the side of the yard of that lot line. And I don't know right now. To me the way we would normally go about that, we would first of all try to get the other departments to cooperate and maybe allowing us to adjust some lot lines, because I do think it's an important issue. I don't think it'd be fair to those future home buyers if we just ignore it. So what I would do then is I would like to stake the field. I mean this is the kind of thing you go out in the field and kind of do it there rather than just on a piece of paper because you get a more real feeling of it. All I'm asking for, and I think most of you would probably agree. Yeah, this is a consideration we should give to the homeowners. And we're just going to need the . cooperation of Todd's letter and he's said that he'd be happy to work with me on that. I would just like whatever approval or recommendation you give tonight, that you would direct staff, engineering and planning to assist us to accomplish that. Because we think it's a good idea. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time. Schroers: Okay. Well thank you very much Mr. Forbord and we appreciate your work and your effort in trying to work with the city and I'm going to open this up to commission discussion in just a minute. I think we need to refocus what the role of this commission is regarding this particular, not only this development but this area. This area is a park deficient area so as the area develops, the city needs and our mission here is to acquire public parks space in park deficient areas so the surrounding community has facilities to use. So we have 17 1 -1 1 • Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 : = ._ _, _ .4'_ - - to keep that in mind. There's possibilities of development of public park property on the Stockdale property and other potential development sites in the area. Hbwever, those are possibilities that may of may not happen. We may or may not be able to capitalize on them. • This is the biggest development proposed that we know of in the we It is the most logical place to acquire the needed parkland and it is what's happening now lit fact so with that in mind, td like to open it up to any commission response. - Lash: I'd like to bear if there are any other public comments first. 3 don't know if there are. Schroers: Is there anyone else in the audience that would wish to make a statement in regard to the Lundgren Bros development this evening? :4: Andrews: I have a question for Todd. If we were to take staff recommendation, what would be the approximately amount of fees that we would collect for this development? Hoffman: Park fees currently are 8600.00. Those are increased on an annual basis. So if- - this is thing gets in the ground 1994, you'll probably see those closer to 8700.00. Say you have 200 in total, 234 homesites I believe I stated. So it would run about 8140 some thousand dollars. .. - Andrews: And then kind of as a follow up question. If the city were to develop a neighborhood park simiilar to what Lundgren is proposing to build at their cost, what would 0 b our cost to develop that? Hoffman: I couldn't answer that question... Schroers: Okay we do have, please come forward. State your name. • Dave Stockdale: M y name's Dave Stockdale and I think most of you..1 had conversations with both Todd and Terry and it's too early to say whether or not it's going to come to fruition but we are, my wife and I are definitely open to the concept of parkland adjoining our property. There's a lot of things that have to be worked out before I say it's a go go but we're definitely in dialogue on it you bringing that information forward because as you can see Schroers: Well I appreciate yo gt g y see, 1 this is a difficult, complicated issue right here and my personal feeling is that there is a lot of unanswered questions and we need to do some ground work and make a plan I feel, you 4 know and have something to work with before we can go ahead and make any kind of real definitive recommendation. I mean I think we would be premature at this point to go ahead and make these recommendations not knowing on what we are going to be able to or what we s _ 18 • I - 11" Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 1 aren't going to be able to do in the future. I mean we need to do some research here before we can make an educated decision on this. Dave Stockdale: We are going to consider your dialogue, however it passes tonight and proceed. - • Schroers: Any new information, we'd appreciate knowing about it. 1 Dave Stockdale: We'll keep you posted. Schroers: Thank you. Lash: Is it possible to make a recommendation contingent on the fact that we will be able to acquire some properties for public park? And if that situation disappeared, we'd be able to come back and change our recommendation. Hoffman: That was my thought this afternoon. I called to the City Attorney's office and got Ho y gh ty ey g in too late in the day to get an answer to that question. Schroers: That almost seems like it would be unfair though to the developer and to anyone else if we say well, yeah. We'II go along with this provided that we can make another deal and get halfway through another deal and that doesn't pan out and then come back at a later date and tell this developer that no, they've got to change their plans. I don't think we want. to do that. 1 Hoffman: I think you're correct in that assumption. Schroers: Mr. Forbord. 1 • Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Park Commission. Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. Lundgren Bros would prefer this evening that the commission would either vote for or against the proposal and the reason is we have contract obligations with our sellers. We would rather walk away from this deal and know now rather than to continue it. We cannot continue to...or we'll be in violation of our contractual obligations. We would prefer this evening that you would vote for or vote against it. Thank you. Schroers: Is there anyone else present in the audience this evening that would like to speak on behalf of this project? Any other commission response? 19 1 • .1 1 Park and Recreation Commission • August 24, 1993 Roeser: Well I'm just wondering now, the recommendations that staff has made here. There is absolutely no way that you can live with these, is that what Fm understanding here? The 20 foot trail easement for instance. Or adding the 250 square feet to the private park. Lash: Are you asking Mr. Forbord? 4 - . zr . Roeser: Yeah. I just, yeah. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Park Commission. 'Terry Forbord. I'm sorry, I didn't know you were addressing me. I thought you were talking to the Parks Director. We feel that we have made an incredible proposal to the city. In light of all the amenities that we are going to be putting in at our use, and also we're going to give the city additional land for public right -of -way and also agreeing to pay park dedication fees. We really feel that we have met the mark. I mean in any other city I think you'd be hard pressed to 'find any city that would not just welcome a proposal like this with open arms. And Fm not going to stand up here and say that were the greatest thing in the world, because we're not. We make a lot of mistakes. I addressed that at the last meeting but we do know what, the limitations of what we can do from an economic standpoint and from a design standpoint. And we know what works from a marketing standpoint. I think there may be some fine tuning of some of - those items that you raised. If you take a 250 foot by 250 foot flat area in this general vicinity, there isn't one. And we'd have to, I don't know what we'd have to do to our plan to accomplish that. The only choice I would be able to do is take up a home site and I can't - afford to do that. So that to me becomes an issue where I can't do that. Now essentially, if I believe that the city is going to acquire a public park, and I believe that's in the city's best interest, and I think they probably will do that, then that type of active...will be available at that park within very short distance along public trails right to there. So, what was the other item other than the 250 x 250? Roeser: The 20 foot trail easement. . - Terry Forbord: Well what would happen is I would end up losing maybe a dozen lots... The alternative is taking and pushing that berm real close up to the houses. Roeser: Now you've told us that. I understand that. • Terry Forbord: I wouldn't want to do that. I wouldn't want to sell somebody a lot like that and I don't think anybody would want to live on a lot like that. If there was really a need and it couldn't be done any other way, I wouldn't be proposing this but I know it can be done. f We've done it and other cities do it so that's the only reason I'm proposing it because I know 1 we can accomplish that and everybody can still have what they want. • 20 . •--- Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 Roeser: See what you're asking us to do though is to set some precedence here to do some ' things that we've never done before. For instance, granting you the right to build a private park. Granting you a .17 foot easement. We're changing some things here that by doing it, the next developer that comes in is going to say hey. Look what you did here. Look what you've given them. You know and then all of a sudden we're, it seems to me we're getting ourselves into something. Terry Forbord: Well to be honest with you, the city already has approved a preliminary plat with an association park like this and the city's done so also at condominiums, apartment complexes. They have very similar facilities. But you have to remember also this is a PUD. And if you read the zoning code, the intent of the PUD ordinance is to provide flexibility... exactly the types of things we're talking about. That's what a PUD is for. It's a different zoning tool, different zoning district that is essentially there so that, to break away from the rigidity of standard subdivision planning. So the city, staff, park commissioners, planning commissions, the council and the developer or the applicant can all come together with as creative an idea as possible and it doesn't set a precedent because it's a PUD. Lash: But the flip side of that is for a PUD, it's the developer's obligation to provide above and beyond what's normally required. So for us to be providing the flexibility to you, we're supposed to be getting some pretty big paybacks, and right now I haven't really seen really big paybacks. I mean I've seen some nice things but it's nothing way above and beyond what we've seen in other developments so. Schroers: Here's what I'd like to ask you Terry. It's not that we are against a community . having it's own amenities. Like you say, we all know that there are apartment complexes and townhome complexes that have their own tennis courts and own swimming pools, all that stuff. But how do we accomplish our job? How do we acquire public space in that neighborhood? I can tell you from past experience, things that have happened many, many years ago have come back to haunt us. Things that we had no control over. Nothing to do with. People came back all of a sudden saying, where's our park and we're going, where's 1 what park. Well we were promised a park however many years ago and it's not there. And now we want our park. And so where's the money coming from to develop it? Where is the property coming from to put the park on? We're not going to get ourself in that situation • ' again. We can't and in order to conform to the master plan of the city and the whole development of Chanhassen as a whole, somewhere in your neighborhood, which is park deficient, we have to acquire public space. How do we do it? Where do we get it? ' Terry Forbord: You know we agree with that. I know there are people who have come forth to the city willing to sell their property. Mr. Stockdale just indicated tonight that he's having dialogue with the city. I have not heard him say that he will not sell the city his land. I have 21 1 .1 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 - • • beard him say that he's really interested in selling the city his land, as long as they can come to satisfactory terms, and I know there are other parcels that were identified by Parks Director Hoffman that are for sale right now. Because I'm trying to buy them. 4 don't know if I'll be successful so I know there's land out there. If the city really wants to buy parkland, the city . can buy parks if they want to. Now the alternative, I mean there is a bottom line alternative to this is that if the city doesn't want us to develop it, then well fwd out. Well go away and well just develop the site that we do have and the city can wait for the next person to come in and they can exact from that person the parkland, if they haven't acquired any by that time, they can exact from that particular developer, if it ever develops in the future, a site on it. Again, if they haven't already acquired it. And then what the City's accomplished is that they have a S acre site that needs to be improved. They're not going to have, no longer have an association park anywhere with the other amenities because that will begone. Those 1S0 - - homeowners won't have the benefit of a park. I mean really the alternative isn't really a very nice thing for the city either. Whether it's an association park or a public park, it is providing benefit to the citizens of the city. And so we think that it's a gift horse in the mouth. We really do. I understand your situation. I really do and 1 d_ o believe there needs to be a public • - park in that area. I've always favored that. _ Manders: I think the question on, you're talking about discussions with other land holders in the area. What is an acre of land going for? __•. - Terry Forbord: In Chanhassen, residential. Manders: That area; - Terry Forbord: In that area, I haven't talked to everybody in that area but I would imagine that land in that area would probably be anywhere from 518,000.00 in the worst case, or the lowest to 530,000.00 on the high end. It just depends on the site. Berg: My concern, and certainly with your business... you know this better that It's 8 Y Y Y Y easy for us to sit here and talk about the people who are willing to deal and who are talking to the city but we also know that tomorrow they could change their mind. And then where are we? We're right back to where we are now with an association park and nothing to serve the rest of the people in that area. That's my concern. We can't sit here and presume that there is going to be land available tomorrow. 1 don't think we can make that kind of assumption. Terry Forbord: I agree. I mean there's nothing for sure and I can terminate my option tomorrow and I can walk away too. I mean there's no guarantee that I'll be here either. I mean in this type of situation, there are no guarantees until you actually get to that point. We think that we're bringing a real valid proposal that if we cam make it through the process, 22 • 1 1 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 we'll have a very nice neighborhood for possibly people who already live in Chanhassen. 1 Most of our buyers come from the general area. We get some people from outside the area so...citizens of Chanhassen. But I do believe that the city can buy some land. I really do believe that, because if I can go out and buy it, there's no reason the city couldn't go out and buy it. Schroers: We can go out and buy it'but it's really not the best means of acquisition. Roughly 1 speaking, just a very rough estimate in park dedication fees, we may get somewhere between 5120,000.00 and 5130,000.00 from your development. Okay. Figure an average of 525,000.00 per acre to acquire property. Might be a ballpark figure. For 5 acres were talking 5125,000.00 to acquire the property and then there are no funds left to develop it. If we took your proposal, say we got 5120,000.00 - 5130,000.00 from you. Went and bought property someplace else, all we're doing is a trade. We don't end up with a park that's developed. We don't end up with any facilities. All we end up with is 5125,000.00 piece of property that we still have to figure out a way to develop. Buy equipment for. Facilitate and get up and running. Andrews: I guess I'd like to comment. We'd be in that position either way. 1 Lash: You know, I was ready to move on this but I think we've got, unless somebody's got something. We're talking this thing to death. But my idea was to do a recommendation that was contingent on the factor of the city acquiring property for a public park. If that idea isn't acceptable to the applicant, then I'm ready to come up with a new one A new motion so. Andrews: Let her fly. Schroers: I'm ready at this point. 1 Lash: Okay. I guess I would move that we deny this application until we are able to acquire • public property in the area. Berg: Second. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. What was it that I wasn't acceptable to me and I wasn't clear on. ' Lash: We asked if having a contingent recommendation based on us acquiring a couple of properties, we would make a recommendation based on that deal coming forth. And you said you couldn't live with that because you've got contracts and people and you haveto get moving and so if you can't live with that, I can understand that. But then we've got to do 23 1 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 what we have to do too. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. I was not responding to Commissioner Lash's idea. I was responding to the fact that we would like to know one way or the other whether the city wants this proposal to proceed. I would not be opposed to her suggestion =s long as there was like a time limit on it because if it went on in perpetuity, it wouldn'lserve the city and it certainly wouldn't serve the applicant. So maybe it's fair so say that within .30 days. Schroers: This is exactly what I had written down. The exact same idea that Jan has brought up. Moving to accept the recommendation dependent on acquisition of other acceptable public space in the area How long that would take to do that, I don't really know. ' o • research it but I would also vote yes on that if we were able to do that Fm not sure, staff may have to consult with the City Attorney to see if that's, if there's any legal implications involved. I think that's in general what we're saying is we don't have enough, information to make a really good, solid decision tonight. We want some more information. We like the proposal. We like your plan. We just need to find a way to assure that we are going to be able to acquire public space and this is what we are attempting to do. So I think that we. would have a good chance of voting this in contingent on what Jan has proposed. Andrews: Mr. Chairman, we have a motion on the floor that's been seconded for denial. I think we have to ask if the motion maker and the person who seconded it wish to withdraw that motion before we consider an alternative. Lash: If a contingent recommendation is acceptable to the applicant, then I'm willing to withdraw my motion. Berg I withdraw my second. Schroers: Okay. Then , are we willing to, can I have a revised motion or new motion? ' Lash: One thing that I guess I want to get other commission input on, because this was part- of my idea fora motion to start with. I want us to think about the idea for the importance of the, I like the idea of the trail around the wetland. I don't know at this point in time if and 1 maybe you guys can sell me one way or another, if I'm not interested in forfeiting the trail fees to have that paved at this time. Or at the time of development. Or if we would rather collect the fees and add that to our trail fund but just pt the easement and maybe have it as a natural trail or something for a while with the possibility of future pavement. You know, I'm going to throw that out just to see. Get feedback from you guys. . Berg: What's the lay of the land in terms of it being wet, etc. for a nature path? . • - 24 • 1 1 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 1 Hoffman: Either way we would have to construct the nature path or asphalt path on high ground. The thing that I would ask the Commission to consider is that the value you're receiving in having the applicant construct it is far in excess of what you would have available in trail fees to do other work. It is more benefitting to a significant degree in that regard. I believe, also I...the commission some additional information briefly on the 20 foot easement issue and regard to my conversation with the city engineer's office today. A couple areas of discussion included, and I think Larry can respond to at least one of these. ...it was the city's intention to install boulevard plantings, you're very limited. You could not do that. You could not put boulevard plantings over a utility corridor because of what you find underneath there. So that's one consideration in the area where the additional right -of -way for the trails is required. The trail easement which we would look for outside of this line, is just that. It's an easement for trail purposes. The trail can certainly be squeezed up against the outside of that easement. What it's been referred to as before is an insurance policy. Once , that, these property lines come up in here, you've sold your interest in acquiring any additional property into perpetuity. So you certainly want to take a look at those issues at the time they are before you. ' Lash: Can you show us with your pencil about where you're suggesting it should be. Hoffman: The trail would be outside of this line. From here over 8 feet. Lash: The trail would be? ' • Hoffman: Yeah, the trail would be. The easement is 20 feet and an easement is just a standard. It's not taking the property. It's an easement for trail purposes. We're saying that, or staff is saying that the 8 feet can go here and then landscaping can go within that 20 foot easement and it will act like rear yards. I'm not sure what these people will be doing on the outside of this berm, or if that's going to be addressed as part of the association's covenants. If that would be mowed and maintained or if that would be more natural. I'm not sure what that would look like. An additional issue in regard to if the commission wanted to consider a compromise in this issue, is I have taken into consideration turn lanes which would most likely occur at these two locations. And at some point this is probably a signalized intersection so if you put turn lanes in this right -of -way, you'd again take up a considerable additional right -of -way in that location. That's the other difficult problem in location that trail. So a compromise position presented by the engineering department would be to require additional right -of -way for the length of those turn lanes, which is about, excuse me. Additional easements for trail purposes. The length of that turn lane, which is about 300 feet, to the north and south of these two access points...both acceleration and deceleration lanes that are right off of and right onto. , • 25 , Park and Recreation Commission August 24,1993 Andrews: That's not consistent with other developments that are happening. There are usually turn lanes off of collectors, not onto collectors that we're building. Hoffman: They.. with the upgrade of County Road 117, which is Powers Blvd. here will be both a deceleration and acceleration... Lash: I would be ready to make a motion on this. It's going to be long. " - - • Schroers: Okay. Let's make the motion and as the motion is taking place, let us set through with the motion before there is any interruptions. . _. • _ _ - . Lash: Okay. Are there any other comments from other...for the trail thing that I threw out? Schroers: Just to eliminate confusion. . :- .. _ _ - Lash: I took staff's comment. Okay. I would move that we move the recommendation by the City Council, or that we would recommend to the City Council the acceptance of a private association park with the amenity of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet and a maximum slope of 4 %. This is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. And that full park fees be accepted at the rate in force at the time of building permit. And also as a condition to the park, I would want to have written in there . that if, in the future there was dissolution or any type of breakdown in this neighborhood association, that the City would be deeded this park as a park and not .subdivided into lots. Then to move onto the trail issue. There would be a 20 foot trail easement on the easterly 1 property line and that this easement would be included in the grading plan for a suitable trail bed. And that there be no trees, planting of trees in the restricted area west of the trail bench. Also that we would acquire easements and the developer would provide construction of the 1 nature trail, or the trail around the wetland. And in lieu of that, full trail fees would be . waived. And that the amendment be done to the Johnson- Dolejsi- Turner development from last year. And let's see. There's something else. Oh, that we would direct staff to provide ,':. cooperation to the developer and flexibility of allowing the trail connection from the street to the wetland. And if the city were to acquire public property in this proximity, to this ' development, that Lundgren Bros would be cooperative in doing the rough grading on that site. And to direct staff that in the future the southern Dolejsi property would come forth or any of the other properties affecting this wetland that we would earmark that as a connection 1 to this trail around the wetland. Is that all of it? . - , . . . Schroers: Are you including that it's dependent on whether or not we have the ability to I acquire public space? '. I 26 1 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 1 Lash: Right. That this recommendation be contingent on the fact that we are, the city is able to acquire public property near this development. Andrews: Within? Lash: Within 30 days. • Meger: Would we also at this time make the additional recommendation then for staff to actively pursue the Stockdale property and other properties in the area or would that be a separate? ' Schroers: No, I think that would be appropriate to include. Or interpret into the 30 days? Is that it? , • Lash: Yep. Plus the friendly amendment. Schroers: Staff, are Y ou clear on that? Hoffman: I'm clear. A couple of clarifications to the motion. The restricted on the trail ' bench would be to the east. Just a clarification to the way Jan made her motion. The issue of the 30 days, I do not believe that that would be sufficient time. If it's agreeable to the applicant, that that be extended to 45 days at a minimum. 60 days at a more comfortable level. That would be, there would need to be appraisals made and City Council items and your recommendation should include the friendly amendment by Commissioner Meger in that regard because the Commission is going to want to know that the commission desires to see that parkland, there is a park in that area. And finally, mention should be made about the trail connection between Lot 16 and 17 or a similar location. That that be a condition of approval as well. Lash: Okay. I accept that. Andrews: We might as well get them all out here. Lundgren Bros had asked that we would recommend that any fees for PUD be waived for the already approved Johnson - Dolejsi -Turner property and I think that would be consistent with the cooperative effort we're trying to accomplish. Lash: The trail fee? Andrews: Not the trail fees. The charge to amend the PUD in order to redraw the lot lines to put in the trail linkage. 27 1 • 1 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 - _ - - - - • • Hoffman: That'd be an administrative charge, as far as I understand it that the Planning Department would assess to the preliminary... _ . Lash: Okay, so we would waive that fee. . _ Andrews: We'd recommend that it be waived. ' - i - Manders: Wasn't there some comment about trail fees being included in this? `,;4. -- Andrews: We don't want fees. We want them to build the trail. • - Menders: Right. Lash: And so if they build the trail, we'll waive the fees.- . _ Menders: Right. Okay. Schroers: And that's all included. I think we've covered most of the bases. Berg: I think I'll second it. Andrews: Just a moment. The :motion was 30 days. Are you making it to 43 or 60 ?- Schroers: Staff did that I think and Jan agreed to it. Hoffman: ...agree on which one. I'm not sure what. Roeser: Make it 60. Schroers: Would you like input Mr. Forbord? - r Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Parks Commission. Terry Forbord. My contractual obligations are going to push me to the wall at 45 days. I can accept that risk. 60 days I'd be in violation of my agreement and it would cost me a fortune to amend the agreement because our agreement is written that if it goes beyond a certain time period and I wouldn't be willing to spend that additional money at that point in time but 45 days I can live with. • Lash: Okay, so we'll change it to 45 days... 28 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 1 Schroers: Okay, 45 days. Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. Tll call the question. 1 Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat to subdivide 112 acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD) into 115 single family lots contingent upon the following conditions: Parks: 1. The acceptance of a private association park with the amenity of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet and a maximum slope of 4 %. This is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. 2. Full park fees be accepted at the rate in force at the time of building permit application. 3. If in the future there is a dissolution or any type of breakdown in this neighborhood 1 association, that the City will be deeded this park as a park and not subdivided into lots. 4. This recommendation is contingent on the fact that the city is able to acquire public ' parkland near this development within 45 days. Trails: ' 1. A 20 foot trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line and that this easement would be included in the grading plan for a suitable trail bed. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. 2. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction 1 is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and the Johnson /Dolejsi/Turner applications. This trail shall include a connection to the 29 1 • Park and Recreation Commission • August 24, - • , ... street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2 or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. 3. Staff is directed ,to provide cooperation to the developer and flexibility of allowing the trail connection from the street to the wetland. . - • • - 4. If the city were to acquire public property in the proximity of this development, that Lundgren Bros would be cooperative in doing the rough Sradinn on that site. _ 5. Direct staff that in the future if the southern Dolejsi property would come forth or any of the other properties affecting this wetland, to earmark that as a connection to this trail around the wetland. - =' - ., - - �=` * , 6. The Park and Recreation Commission would recommend that any fees associated with the redrawing of the plat for the k hnsonFDolq silTurner property for this trail easement be waived. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Andrews wbo abstained, and the nodes carded. MISSION HILLS. TANDEM PROPERTIES, - _ Public Present: 111 Name Address ■ Jo Larson 1590 Tigua Lane • O Sharon Nickolay 1500 Tigua Mike & Jo Ann Mulligan 1501 Tigua Circle Dick Putnam 2765 Casco Pt. Rd. I Marge Shorba Al Klingelhutz Great Plains Blvd, Luce Susan 1600 Great Plains Blvd. ... • ' Hoffman: Chairman Schroer:, Commission members. Item number 4 is the conceptual plan . development approval for low, medium and high density homes. 190 snits on 62.05 acres... neighborhood commercial use...again this is a conceptual plan at this time. The location is I east of Highway I01 and north and south at the intersection of West 16th Street. The...kind of a new area of the city for development proposals. As we travel iouth on Market Blvd, leaving City Hall at this location across Highway 5. Travel down the new segment of TH 101 and right now you then attach the old segment at this portion. But again the upgrade... to P • • 30 1 . • LunDGREn BROS. October 26, 1993 CONSTRUCTION - INC Mr. Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director Park and Recreation Commission City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Park and Recreation Commission Staff Report 1 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Dated October 19, 1993 - Song Property Wayzata Minnesota 55391 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: (612)473 -1231 On October 25, 1993 I received the Park and Recreation Commission Staff Report dated October 19,1993 from Mr. Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Staff Report and hopefully clarify for the Commission what Lundgren Bros. has been saying all along. Below is a summary of the issues and Lundgren Bros. position on these issues: 1. Parks: As you know, from the beginning Lundgren Bros. has proposed a significantly sized association park that included (at Lundgren Bros. expense), amongst other things, recreational amenities not normally included in the development of 1 neighborhood communities. Facilities like, tennis courts, children's playground equipment, active play areas, possibly basketball and handball areas as well as gathering and sitting areas heavily landscaped providing a relaxed atmosphere to enjoy low intensity passive and active recreational activities. These amenities represent a significant dollar investment by Lundgren Bros., not only in the cost of the land, but the infrastructure and the amenities themselves. 1 As part of our initial proposal, Lundgren Bros. also agreed to pay in its entirety full Park and Trail dedication fees for the entire subdivision. This was our original proposal submitted to the City. As you know the Parks Director did not like our proposal and recommended to the 1 Park and Recreation Commission a denial of our submitted proposal unless it was modified to a degree that was unsatisfactory to Lundgren Bros. The Park and recreation Commission tabled action on this matter to another meeting. In an attempt to persuade the Park and Recreation Commission Lundgren Bros. offered to the City what we hoped would be an additional incentive for them to approve our proposal. This additional incentive included the dedication to the City of a trail easement around a wetland on an adjoining parcel of property commonly known as the JohnsonlDolejsi/Turner property (immediately west of the Song parcel). • October 26, 1993 Page 2 Lundgren Bros. also agreed to construct the trail around the wetland in exchange for the waiver of Trail Dedication fees equivalent to the cost of constructing the trail (this may require the waiver of fees on both the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner and the Song parcels). It was our understanding that this proposal also was not satisfactory to the Parks Director and the Park and Recreation Commission. It is our understanding that in addition to the proposal described above that the Parks Director and the Park and Recreation Commission also wanted Lundgren Bros. to expand the size of the open field within the association park on the Song property to a size equivalent to 250' x 250'. This size is unacceptable to Lundgren Bros. and encourages a high level of organized activity that we are intentionally trying to avoid. The revised size of 180' x 250' is also unacceptable to Lundgren Bros. for the same reason. In addition to this requirement we also were required to grade a trail corridor along Galpin Boulevard and also required to grade a future park that may occur on the Stockdale property. This is a condition that Lundgren Bros. feels is unfair, however, Lundgren Bros. agreed to work with the staff to see if we were capable of doing so but only if economically feasible. 1 We would like to be accomodating but, unfortunately Lundgren Bros. clearly cannot afford to do everything that the Parks Director and the Park and Recreation Commission are asking of us. To do so would cause the project to not proceed. The amount of money that is available for additional items above and beyond what our original proposal was (including the trail easement around the wetland on Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner) is the amount of monies that are equivalent to the total sum of the Park and Trail Dedication fees for both the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties and the Song property combined. That total amount of money could be either spent in the construction of the park around the wetland or in the grading of the Stockdale property or in the grading of the trail corridor 1 along Galpin Boulevard, whichever item the Park and Recreation Commission feels is most important. But we cannot afford to go beyond that. • We regret and are disappointed by staffs suggestion that Lundgren Bros. mimics a "bait and switch" tactic of advertising, promoting an offer to get you in the door and then not following through with the offer. It is our opinion that we have been very clear and very concise in our proposal. Only ' because of recommendations by the Parks Director and conditions imposed by the Parks Commission have we continued to amend our initial proposal. In twenty -four years of doing business in many ' communities we have never been accused of being deceptive. I hope the above has further clarified the position that we have taken all along in this process and we truly ' regret the accusations that have been leveled against Lundgren Bros. We have never attempted to deceive the City of Chanhassen or any other city and we look forward to the development of this Lundgren Bros. neighborhood community. Ve ly you , ' rry o ord Vice President 1 TMF:bw cc: Mayor and City Council 1 Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 CITY OF • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BS, MINNESOTA ' (612) 937 -1900 OX • 147 FAX • CHANHAS (612) 937 -5739 EN 55317 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: August 18, 1993 SUBJ: Song Property 1 As commissioners are aware, this item was reviewed on July 27, 1993, with discussion that evening concluding with the tabling of this issue. The expectations of the commission in doing so were twofold: 1) the applicant desired more time to review internally and to address with staff an idea to enhance the park and recreational components of this application; 2) the commission desired additional information in regard to land holdings south of the Song and JohnsonWDolejsifTurner properties. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Terry Forbord to discuss the new idea which he referenced at the commission meeting. The applicant's preliminary offer was to identify a trail easement along the southern border of the Johnson/ DolejsifTurner property (which abuts the Song property) and to construct this trail. Mr. Forbord and I toured this area on foot the morning of August 9, 1993. The proposed alignment is very desirable for a recreational trail and would offer an experience which is not attainable with a typical on- street trail alignment. This proposed corridor parallels a large wetland and the homes which will be constructed in this area. The trail in most cases would be located at the edge of the wetland sandwiched between the wetland and the homes' backyards. The alignment in most areas follows the toe of a wooded slope which acts as a natural buffer. Several sets of photographs were taken of this area while walking the site and will be presented to the commission in slide form on Tuesday evening. I will also prepare blue -line copies of aerial photographs showing the area in question. Upon concluding our site visit, it was agreed that the applicant would map this potential trail alignment, providing copies of this map for the commission's review along with a narrative document explaining the applicant's proposal. On Tuesday, August 17, Mr. Forbord called to inform me that Lundgren Brothers had determined that it was not feasible for them to construct the trail at their expense. Mr. Forbord informed me that the maps were being prepared and that more information would be forwarded to the city on the 18th. The attached information was received on the afternoon of the 18th (Attachment No. 1). 1 Park and Recreation Commission August 18, 1993 Page 2 In regard to the land holdings which exist south of the Song and Johnson/DolejsiTrurner properties, a map (Attachment No. 2) was prepared to further acquaint commissioners with this area. The past three weeks have not allowed a complete assessment of the status of properties 1 to be compiled; however, some information is known. I had the opportunity to discuss this topic with some of the landowners, a local realtor, and Mr. Forbord who represents Lundgren Brothers Construction in their land acquisition developments in Chanhassen. As an agent of the Qty of Chanhassen, and ultimately the City Council, I am restricted to how far I can proceed in investigating potential land acquisitions. However, I believe it is fair to state that there are no properties in this area which are being actively marketed. There appears to be at least one owner who is considering subdivision of property (Mr.and Mrs. David Stockdale). I believe it is also accurate to state that the remainder of the landowners have either been contacted by prospective buyers or have considered selling or developing their property at some time. The following information has been gathered to date. • Stockdale (Approximately 19 acre): Mr. Stockdale visited City Hall on Tuesday, August 17, 1993. He was interested in receiving an update on the proceeding relative to the Song property application. Mr. Stockdale and I also discussed the potential development of the Stockdale property. ▪ Nelson (Prince R.): Future subdivision of Mr. Nelson's property is certainly possible, but 1 most likely not in the near future. ▪ Royal Oaks (13 acres): Under development. • Windmill Run (17.4 acres): Under development. 1 ▪ Conway (approximately 50 acres): The southern half of this property funnels directly into the future Highway 5 underpass. I have been told that Mr. Conway has been approached ' 1 about selling, but that he appears hesitant/cautious in this regard. ▪ Gorra (approximately 140 acres): Mr. Gorra has participated with vigor in the Highway 1 5 Corridor Study. The future north access boulevard will have significant impacts on his property. Mr. Gorra certainly has inclinations to develop sometime in the future, possibly in concert with Mr. Conway's property. In conversation with Mr. Gorra, we had the opportunity to discuss the interests of the city in maintaining a greenway around Lake Ann. I believe Mr. Gorra has some concerns in this area, but appears to be willing to work with the city in this regard. • VanDaVeire (approximately 13 acres) and Swings Golf (approximately 18 acres): These sites represent the northeast and northwest intersections of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard and are unsuitable for neighborhood park purposes. 1 1 1 ' I Park and Recreation Commission August 18, 1993 Page 3 1 - Bentz (approximately 14.6 acres and 6 acres). Bentz (5 acres). Turcott (5 acres): The Bentz and Turcott properties are all family related. The southern parcel will be affected I by the recommended access boulevard alignment and contains extensive wetlands. The two 5 acre parcels currently exist as estate lots with one single family home being constructed on each. It is staff's opinion that these parcels do not offer an opportunity 1 for acquisition of an active park site. - Doleisi (south half): The north half of the Dolejsi property will be developed by I Lundgren Brothers Construction. Any future development of the southern half of the property would allow an opportunity for parkland acquisition. Here again, however, the access boulevard alignment will limit these opportunities (Attachment #3). 1 Additional Issues: I - City - sponsored Recreation Programs: The potential creation of 234 lots between the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties and the Song property will result in increased recreation program demands. A portion of Park and Recreation Department sponsored programs I currently take place directly within neighborhood park sites, i.e. Summer Discovery Playground, tennis lessons, etc. What will the commission's policy be in regard to providing program services in association /private parks? I - Trail Easement Alone Galvin Boulevard: The applicant's letter of August 18, 1993, PP � references 17 feet of right -of -way along Galpin Boulevard and the grading for a trail 1 alignment within the 17 feet. This position is in direct conflict with staff's recommendation that a 20 ft. easement for trail purposes be dedicated adjacent to the new I right -of -way line. The additional right -of -way is being required for future improvements associated with the widening of Galpin Boulevard. Retention of additional trail easements along county roads which are part of the City's Comprehensive Trail System is standard I practice. - The Depiction of Passive Play Areas on the Attachment to the Letter Dated August 18, I 1993: Although these areas are passive in nature, both are deficient in size and contain excessive slopes to be classified as open fields. Staff specifically asked that the applicant include an open field in the private park layout. A minimum standard for such a field I is 250 feet square with a maximum slope of 4%. CONCLUSIONS 1 The applicant has attempted to satisfy the desires of the commission in regard to park and trail amenities, but has fallen slightly short of the city's mark. In regard to the second association/ I private park, the applicant has failed to identify an area for an open play field. The question of whether or not other lands in the area are available for development as a public park space 1 1 Park and Recreation Commission August 18, 1993 1 Page 4 remains unanswered. Future events which will affect land holdings in this area cannot be 1 predicted in their totality. However, it can be said that if the commission's and city's desire to acquire parkland is strong enough, the obstacles to do so can be overcome. This statement is also applicable to the subject property. In regard to the 20 ft. trail easement along Ga1pin i Boulevard, this is a standard requirement which should not be compromised. The offer to incorporate the trail alignment along the large wetland is commendable. These type of trails are desirable in our society, allowing an opportunity to come in close contact with our natural surroundings. However, it is staffs position that the trail should be constructed in conjunction with the initial public improvements in the area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the preliminary plat to subdivide 112 acres from Rural Residential to 1 Planned Unit Development into 115 single family lots (Song property) be approved by the Park and Recreation Commission contingent upon the following conditions of approval being met Parks 1. The private /association park be approved only if the additional amenity of an open field 1 with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. 2. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. 1 Trails 1. A 20 ft. trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement 1 alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. 1 2. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson /Dolejsi!Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment 4/4. 1 The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property .1 1 Park and Recreation Commission 1 August 18, 1993 Page 5 1 and Johnson/DolejsiVTurner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.] ' This trail shall include a connection to the street P lan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. ' ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter dated August 18, 1993, Lundgren Brothers Public Trail Proposal 2. Land Holdings Map 3. Highway 5 Access Boulevard Map 4. A & B Proposed Trail Alignment Map and Aerial Photo ' 5. Staff Report (Song) dated July 23, 1993, with Attachments 6. Staff Report (Johnson/DolejsiTTurner) dated August 11, 1992, with Attachments 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission • FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director , DATE: July 23, 1993 SUBJ: Song Property, A Proposed Planned Unit Development by Lundgren Brothers Construction - As the commission will recall, this item was originally scheduled for review on Tuesday, June 22, 1993, but was omitted from the agenda at the applicant's request. To reacquaint the . commission with the application, I have provided an overview of the documents compiled to date in this regard. Commissioners can make their own conclusions as to what relevance each of these documents have in the review process. Attachment No. 1. Staff Report Dated August 11. 1992: This reportaddressed park and trail issues as a part of the application made by Lundgren Brothers Construction to subdivide 95.19 acres of property referred to as the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property. This property is located to the immediate west of the Song property. As presented in the report, staff was not opposed to the development of an association or private park. However, concern over bow a neighborhood with a private park would interface with the larger community was expressed. A position was also presented that if Lundgren Brothers confirmed their intent to develop a private park, it was staff's preference that the city retain park fees generated by the development to be used in a combination purchase/land dedication venture in a future development in the area. The proposal to develop the Song property does represent such a development. 1 Attachment No. 2. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes Dated August 11. 1992, Pages 10 -18: Verbatim minutes of the discussion entertained and the action taken by the commission on the aforementioned application. Attachment No. 1 Staff Report Dated June 18. 199; This report addresses park and trail issues as a part of the application to subdivide the Song property. During a meeting with representation of Lundgren Brothers Construction on Monday, July 19, 1993, Lundgren Brothers continued to express their displeasure over this report; citing its lack of objectivity and content relative to the positive aspects of this proposed development. I did not deny the lack of discussion on a variety 1 Park and Recreation Commission July 23, 1993 Page 2 of subject areas relative to the application, stating that access to a narrative at the time of preparing a report would have proved valuable in this regard. Lundgren Brothers concurred with this reasoning. As a part of this conversation, I offered to admit any wrong - doing, including an apology if I misrepresented previous discussions with representatives of Lundgren Brothers in the report. Lundgren Brothers did not think that the content of the letter was misrepresentative, but cited again its objectivity and lack of positive comment. Attachment No. 4 Letter from Lund n Brothers Construction Dated June 21 1993: The ' applicant's request to be removed from the June 22, 1993, Park and Recreation Commission agenda. Attachment No. 5, Letter from Paul Krauss, Planning Director Dated June 22, 1993: Response to Lundgren Brothers' request. Attachment No. 6, Letter from Mr. Bret Davidson, 7291 Galpin Boulevard, Excelsior, MN 55331 Dated June 22, 1993: The content of this letter relates to the need for a neighborhood park in the area of Royal Oak Estates and the Song property. Royal Oak Estates is a 23 home 1 subdivision being developed by Mr. Davidson to the south and east of the Song property. Attachment No. 7, Letter from Lundgren Brothers Construction Dated June 23, 1993: Rebuttal 1 to staff's report of June 18, 1993, in regard to the Song property proposal. Attachment No. 8, Letter from Lundgren Brothers Construction Dated June 23, 1993: This letter 1 expressed Lundgren Brothers' desire to be considered as a corporate gold sponsor of park and recreation special events. The letter was delivered with Attachment No. 7. The Chanhassen City Council maintains a policy of reviewing all donations in excess of S500.00 prior to their 1 acceptance. City Manager Ashworth is recommending that the donation be returned due to the timing of the offer. 1 Attachment No. 9, Letter from Carol Berg, 6910 Chaparral Lane, Chanhassen, MN dated July 1, 1993: This letter, addressed to Mayor Chmiel, presents Ms. Berg's opinions in regard to the letter received from Lundgren Brothers Construction dated June 23, 1993, in regard to staff's report. This letter is presented to the commission with the consent of the author. ' Attachment No. 10, Letter from Lundgren Brothers Construction Dated July 2, 1993: Response to comments and issues raised in staffs report dated June 18, 1993. It provides information on the merits as presented by the applicant of the proposal. Note: The issues presented in this letter ' are also included in the narrative received by this office on July 21, 1993. As such, I will address issues of concern presented in it during the review of the narrative. ' Attachment No. 11, Letter from Don Ashworth, City Manager dated July 6, 1993: Response to Lundgren Brothers Construction in regard to the Song property proposal and related matters. 1 1 Pf Park and Recreation Commission • July 23, 1993 Page 3 Attachment No. 12. Narrative Presenting the Song Property Planned Unit Development Concept 1 Plan and Preliminary Plan Submitted bv Lundgren Brothers Construction. Received bv this Office on July 21. 1993: The report is addressed to the Planning Commission and City Council. When questioned in this regard, Lundgren Brothers Construction responded by saying the Park and Recreation Commission was omitted from the title page in error. In reading the 16 page report and its attachments, it can be seen that Lundgren Brothers has 1 provided details of their proposal in a very thorough manner. Section X discusses neighborhood recreation specifically. Prior to discussing this section, I will reference sections of the report 1 which are likely to be of interest to the commission. As Qty Manager Ashworth mentioned in his letter to Lundgren Brothers, the issue of whether a developer should be required to dedicate land for a "public park" if a "private park" is proposed in the same area has never been debated 1 by our council or commission. The commission's decision in this regard will in effect be a policy decision which will guide future applications of this nature. Proposal ": This paragraph, among other thin Page 1, Titled "History of Development paragrap g things, discusses the relationship between the Song property and the Johnson/Dolejsii/Turner parcels. Staff concurs that this coordination of efforts results in a unified development, making an important east/west connection between Galpin Boulevard and TH 41. The applicant will be installing a sidewalk as a part of this connection. The presence of this sidewalk will allow non- vehicular travelers to trickle out from the neighborhoods, gaining access to future trails on Galpin and TH 41. Page 2: In regard to the complicated development purchase agreement the veto authority by the Carlsons and the Songs, and that the Carlsons and Songs do not want any public park, their concern being that a public park would only invite trespass and disturbance of quietude and the natural environment lake. The city respects the Songs and Carlsons positions, however, the city represents the interests of not only the Songs and Carlsons as residents of the community, but all other present and future residents as well. Furthermore, I would conclude that these same concerns, founded or unfounded, are also applicable to a private park. People, as the primary user, are basic to either a public or private park. Page 5: Under the development summary, the acreage noted for homeowner association recreation is 3 acres. This representation is inconsistent with the labeling of the association park as 4.6 acres under Section X, page 13, paragraph 6. In speaking with the applicant's consulting planner, I was informed that the number is flexible, but that the 4.6 acres more closely represents the proposed park's size. Page 6, Subparagraph C. Public and Private Oven Space: Staff concurs with this Item 3 Su by subparagraph, but would include other citizens of the city in the fold as needing recreational services. , 1 1 Park and Recreation Commission July 23, 1993 Page 4 Page 11, Section X, Neighborhood Recreation Area: Staff does not dispute that the private or association recreation area, if developed at 4.6 acres in size with the amenities noted, meets the park needs of those residing within the development. However, it is the intent of the City's j Comprehensive Plan to provide recreational services for all residents. I do not know whether residents of the city residing outside of this development would be welcome or allowed to utilize this facility. A more important question in my opinion is would they feel welcome. The gross density of 1.50 units per acre is low; however, open space associated with private lots while providing for sun light and fresh air does not meet public needs for access to the park space. The site does include two relatively large areas of land unencumbered by structures, roads and utilities. These "wetland areas" are also proposed to remain under association ownership. This section makes reference to a neighborhood park as being 5 acres in size and serving 1,000 people. These standards have not been applied in the city for at least the past five years in favor of the 1 acre/ 75 people standard. The report goes further in supporting Lundgren Brothers 1 position that their proposal meets the needs for parks within its own development. The policy decision facing the commission is whether this exclusive approach to development is in the best interests of the city. RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff's recommendation of June 18, 1993, remains valid. Parks ' In regard to park dedication, the commission has many options. The three most obvious being: 1 1. Recommend the rejection of the preliminary plat due to its lack of public open space. 2. Identify zero to 4.6 acres of land for acquisition as public parkland and recommend the requirement of this dedication as a condition of approval for the plat. 3. Recommend the acceptance of park fees in lieu of land dedication (subject to the private park being developed). Trails It is recommended that the following conditions of approval in regard to trails be forwarded to the City Council: 1 1 1 Park and Recreation Commission July 23, 1993 � Page 5 1. A 20 -ft. trail easement be retained along the entire easterly property line to facilitate the future construction of a trail along Gaipin Boulevard. Note: The applicant has stated it would be their desire to have this trail 1 constructed within the road right -of -way. The additional 17 feet of right -of -way required is for road purposes. The city will also need a utility easement along this alignment. This easement can overlay the trail easement where they interface. 2. In addition, any trail easements and/or trail construction which would be necessitated by the identification of a park site within this plat should be required. • • 1 pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Paul Krauss, Planning Director • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 \Nwth's,:c7,71144"---Niket . . . , "iP 1- e g,,,,._ ,., ). 11 1%,,,,,_ ii■ ta„,'" 1 - /---, ,,.... . / , r - ' 1 011 , - '''- / At` ti c I i 4.-.444x 4 I / 4 i ‘A 1 1# " el ft ' - , 1 7 - - -6.-- 4411k ''' . 1 ; y pikk ‘-- ).,..„. 7- '40.-,...,44 , t, '!� � ► ci �vi�� e, �`...s f g S .- ( cir-,i--, :A.- /Vit# oi i ..... .... * mmi 114 1 i ' P \\ N■ " * 16 'i 1 I 1 okirrr 111? V- 2 - II . . 0 1".0,,,N*„.\,..a. - ii , , 1 , ,• ain ■k*V .... 4 4t9 ..t e -1\16-7 ... tite -i. .� a . •, # a �,_� 1. 1 ) i N.. 140 _..--- leife" VP.rft k--; i . .. N,... 1 \. \ ' Ie. ' : X "r'l - fie te:e.,:,E.fd-..- ' i:N.. 'CAW / lib ,..,:,--',..1.-.::..:"---------,....,/,,,----4-74z...--,.:,,,,,,,_ _.. _ \ N .0.0 ;; ;;;0 .,.....„- _ G iV 1 10 TM' 4 - ( - I _ fgrA NEIGHBORH • D RE -� - ■ t� r ,� � 7 • + � - ub p o v ` ` A 1 , - 1 • 1 . \ Alificollt \ VII re + �. O t11ti1 i f 1 E 104 \ 1 4%00 E- 1 0 , i reit -t 44 iletfi. .. N . P i ii 2 , - I 1 4 -- Z+ $ '7 I 1 11 r MIL, it 11/41,1" r..,'://: tr''- ••• -..,. 1 200-;002] 'z»I `nsa T0SS /CC ZT942. MST C6'LZr10 -- 's "r"* 7 . . ,............... - - ..,, .. • - N, ab ■L Allik.__ .. 1 0 - .r. Ale .„ / 1 1 r■ .... .-------.4.ri ( 6 11 11 ,..--.•-•,—,-‘ 7/7 , I t a l -1111111111111111111111111 I . . la 01, " .:„.....-,.,,,i ....,_, Oje . . 4NI IIR I 1 • ■ .... , , .,. • . ., =maw , %I." 1 :, : 10;4/ 4 iii7111111t/ 1 ? '17' : 7 111 0 1A 1.- Crli 4 :1' All 10. , , 41/7 it # . • • # 1 " . ). 4 44.4,44.4444 • R 1 I . • •••■ • • ■ I . '4 " . • kii•Pe '# ' ,42I Mb,. a mi. - # womb , . , . 4 14 . - • • 4" .., # 4P, * • i . • ••• ...• OM 111 /410: , - M : 4 / • '0 # 4P .. :dp *N .1 '" • • •R,f II , dr 46 ..,4■ 4■ , • 4 ze . 0 .4. • - fo , ,,, 4t• .4. 4 7. 4111 :4, •,,,, dp , , 4. •P 0 Ell e . •••■• . 4, 411• 4 ./.. • * 411 I , IP • 41. ire .4 • ...4, . '0' s ..r. 4■104, . VV.. • J tallOPP 40 . Ilk # 0 A, • 4 4,.. .. • ak •-• 4-4•A • ....4.70.. •• OM.. '. • 1 OW . ( CO? . /9 ) lip IL • et: .. r ,.. in ' T I .6 g 11d e 4 .1 - PE Ir mum ki PO Wf g 1 • 4 ■‘.: F: r - . 4 - li. , 4, 4 4 .. ,, 4. .110 4 l r. 0. 1 I r.. 12r rimr - . iiv III• ■ AIN, 4. .40.....`.." _46 1111 I 1 C all nee .. i P •41. 4: v• A. 0 i 1 11hi li E .... 4 4. 4 .. ....4... s.,..4- r• - mui P1! fi11 :II ns t.4.. p "I ng ilty . . A in X 0 ■■_‘ - . : ; wirdi ,474?' -s-s i Ar ••■ #1.• ONO 4.. # •• . „AM* ar 4Alit. 41, Iv 1 :. tit ,. • .. r-zt MI .. aul (_,-.-5- ft. wir ...• 11114.411 T. I 1..._ 1... a. 4- 11 . 1 . 16 1 11 /- mmieminic at ..... , , . irims re, : . at rgi .,, • e „,. ,,c F441111MIIIIIIIII:11 1111 .1 . . I' ''' .,, .....36 ii , ., . ...,....,A4.. l - • - ._: ,,_,.: , lb Aka Agjrf rilliii — felll °' 4 . 111 riz4 fI l Annw ■Ik- IkW M 1 - MI' ' ilitifiti■ #4'44 1 .." ''' - 1 1-:.== ti-4;i7. 1, t ol I 7 t NI r, Iti r,..41LIBINO ) = j!..., N oak 4 __,... ..1.1111111111111 me LAMM . lati Ill " 16- .. .,.. 1 i ,, 0 z Emullin iilinvt al o t ,-. cip or.- 00- .7 !I= ;r. ...: iii0OVAkil 11V " mom . : Pi. — Pillio ' I pow,. ..__ virk nn 0, f; Ilail‘l■ , '"Irr - A - 16 .". - 7 1 1: er 6 4 .._, ,Afire- le.s • . .... ...,_,...: 1 mo ., #114... ?as. ,. :Sy.- 6 '. 41 _■ 11 L' —:"" ' ". = •■ (1. 11111 Als■dri •-■ r-cnr-II ' a" -. IP/gaga MN ill • i-le , .- . • ,:................1.1... I DATE: August 11, 1992 1 �, I T Y O F '' ^ ,,., � „ /ov «vs/, •� v�o�,cf r CC DATE: ` �' CHANHA 6' ' HOFFMAN:k 1 1 STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Rezoning, Planned Unit Development and Subdivision of 95.19 acres of property into 120 lots, alteration/filling of 2.81 acres of wetland, Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property; a single family residential Planned Unit Development concept. 11 I F LOCATION: See vicinity map V APPLICANT: Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc. ' a 935 East Wayzata Boulevard CL Wayzata, MN 55391 I Q Mr. Terry Forbord 1 PRESENT ZONING: A -2, Agricultural Estate District ADJACENT ZONING I AND LAND USE: N - RR, Rural Residential District S - A2, Agricultural Estate District E- RR &A2 . 1 W - State Highway 41 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Recreation Section 1 Q for public recreation open space is not being met as a part of this j-- proposal. The provision of a 2.3 acre "private” or association park d does not meet the city requirements of providing public parkland I 0 as a part of the subdivision and development of a parcel or parcels W of land. In addition, open space, which is comprised of wetlands, I is not acceptable for park fee credit under city ordinance. Qty Code allows for the capture of one acre of developable land for OMNI every 75 persons the platted land could house based on 3 persons I per single family dwelling unit for public park purposes. This city ordinance is derived from state statutes. In this application for land development review and acceptance, that amounts to 360 persons 1 or 4.8 acres. Putting aside the proposed development plan for this ip 1 ATTACHMENT 1 • Lundgren Brothers Proposal August 11, 1992 Page 2 property and addressing the site solely on its proximity to existing or proposed neighborhood based' recreation sites, reveals the void currently existing in this area in respect to neighborhood parks. Being historically agriculturally based with intermittent estate residential areas, there has been no impetus up until this point to acquire and develop neighborhood parks. Requiring a public park space as a part of this subdivision may be advisable; however, if the applicant confirms their intent of developing a private recreational facility in this neighborhood, it is preferable that the city retain the park fees generated by this development as capital to be used in a combination purchase/land dedication venture in a future' development in this area. If the applicant chooses not to pursue their private facility, then it is recommended the city require parkland dedication in an amount not to exceed 4.8 acres in a location deemed appropriate and desirable by the Park and Recreation Commission with park fee requirements' being reduced by the appropriate percentage. Staff is not opposed to development of a residential neighborhood containing a private or association' park; however, there would be no public use or control over such a facility. The types of amenities proposed for the private recreation area, i.e. a tennis court, basketball area, and children's play structure, are appealing to the home buyers targeted by this development. Lundgren Brothers has found this, approach successful in other cities, such as Plymouth, which is why I assume they are proposing it here. For their private parks in Plymouth, Churchill Farms and Stromseth, Lundgren Brothers did not receive' any park fee credits, and the granting of any credit was never considered. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: • ' The City's Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for the future installation of a trail along State Highway 41 (the western edge of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property abuts Highway 41—see attachments). Highway' 41 is classified as a Class I minor arterial and currently has a 150 ft. right -of -way. The attached diagram details the cross section of a Class I minor arterial showing Highway 41 will in the future be a four lane highway with a median, leaving approximately 27 feet of clear zone at its edges. In many instances,' 27 feet will not accommodate the utility and drainage needs and the construction of a trail combined, due to constraints such as the presence of stands of trees or specimen trees, excessive slopes, tuneven terrain, etc. It is therefore appropriate to require the dedication of a 20 ft. wide easement for potential' future trail construction purposes along the entire western border of the subject property abutting State Highway 41. It is also advisable to install a concrete sidewalk along Street A which will in the future be the thru street in this development. The City's Planning Department will address this need. No trails are proposed to be constructed by the applicant, thus no consideration for trail fee credit is necessary. RECOMMENDATION ' Based on the preceding comments, staff recommends that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council: ' 1 1 I Lundgren Brothers Proposal August 11, 1992 Page 3 1 1. Accept 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 applications at the per lot fee in force I for residential property at the time of permit application. The current fees are $500.00 and $167.00 per lot, respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon the applicant indicating their intent to develop the "private" park area as indicated on the general development 1 plan. 2. The applicant supply a 20 ft. wide easement for potential future trail construction purposes along 1 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 1 open space as part of a subdivision, therefore, no credit will be considered for the inclusion of this private facility. 1 1 . 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . • 1 1 t : fp, A CAT B W I GM T C : 1 1 1 . 8 D p - : f..1 II IL ..., , ____ _ um, In Tf 7 wet Wu �, . 3 -. /G t : i.- = « ter r i 4 - - KO r l /, �A . -� -•:- = ,i II .. I� ` � ±�' l id' • -:- r wt'- r • % �' a = = E: >�V.rr� ::::::17 � � ACIAmms ' IL _ - -1 . " -11160• .4 ,, _,01:1,..* A _ ._.,. .. ... ... .. "N ill' II 7 ' *-- r -iv w 1 Imam- 41 1111 : 1 two N. nag /� ` , i. 7. MLA U _l' / /MAUL 1/ sip . ,,..±: .,,........ X , ��. N •' �� , 1 as 7 Al AI t / ' 1 Air co .. 5 � g C //, SEW . t. ..„ Alla "Ir --- % kip - OM v 1 ari P f i g t p "Ilk _ ' Or I ,.....e_ CI _ • _. - - M iii � f Li 1 i I - _ � - 1 I (I / % r s IMO Mit, , il a „ Am -1100,0 AzIP Adib lc , i L \. Mk NJIII Oil! % % � i At 41 I rrAp (CR N ii 1 ,�_, MiliV-''' ...... • .. 1 .. S r � • . \ AREA SHOWN ON ENLARGEMENT a . \ war - ../. %moil i , ��` IS . _ J �'` rte='; 0 4 i:' , Tom. .III." • /� ` I • ` ___•_• � _-»• %" . - • -- II WV al lir ' - t ..• : 7 4, , ....... .404/ „,...••• • ••■•.. ....• '-''' ..,441 ' 11 "":. l'.1::* I' N W.**Nok, I ,I7 i 4 ,. / ‘`.. % \ 4%41...11 %1 % 1 4 1' .. .. . Ni , iii : _. / slur ilk, ; \ -Tr ?sr / ' i L:�- .. tr.: .w .... tr.. ... •iY�•. . ...• •ii • • ... _ ......- .. _, ... .. .: • -. .. , • 11 1 ; i k L. i 71:1 i :Ai. I. ER PROPERTY • 1 ; -- ! Eir •' ~` • ` . _......... ;:- ••• - , • In .- + wil '0,1ti V �It i '�I -D, II' I f5 av 1 1 T. I I i 1 i i 1 I i . *- Ili I i i ca r . � ..J 1 MM �f \ _ - 1 E 1 Ili! Y J. i g $ $ $ $ $ $ t ! iv t ii • 1 ., Ti .•••1010' 1 t . . r ig ii 4., -,• , - • ,,, . -1. . . -tvir ,..- .....„...?.. , -... i limi 1 1 ' 1 , 1./ :•'-!•• 1. / i t /f It+ yI . ". Iry "f f4' o A ar f ir • \ ..) *"2 " :"1 1- "4 -k: :-:- Ali '.A'_^_` ': t , �c ,. j j t _ r . 21 : _ _ ; i . 1 • 1 1 ‘,,,, 4.3 r --, id. -‘..", ) / , 0 1 .444 IP i e, 1L - "" ..-- N''■- t. t „ ./..:,*;.. • '• 4...1 W h I.- ' P1331 .. • " ' •C:'.'r" Wilt t''* 1 .- - ":".c... 7• 4 4 4r 4 :40 P A41%. .; 7. At \ e 1 I r I f 4 : 4 6 1 , • 4, . ;lg. it 1 ( tWi \.. .- - ' : ..-4; j..%1 -- f-Z i 4•-.9;. : :_r: __ "..1` i • , r. i ..? V.41-r 4, , 4, .= • ....._ it /.. 4„,, - - -- ,:- i .1:( I l e i 4 : 4 4,0_. _ •• I ii /. WE \ t -. , , •. = - ..,,,,,� 4.41, ' � o f \� � i �S t , - a '� , , 1 Ali - � . `� ;;. �" _'. ' _gi p . r jar� �(, 47'• \ . t - :„..4„,„ `` � ti,.,, }' C. :,--7-:-f-------- .. tt '_a . , L . 1Ct L . 11, 1 t r • 1 I , , % . - - 7 , : 3 , v� 1 w. fl y : + - , c f. � \ , I = i I dm .. • h 2 - 1 o g . I Mt /` .3 - -74 07 - � - $ e'•s9'$3" W - - ! f _ " ir 11 t 4 WALTER WHITEHILL ' :q . } •K 111, ►125 s/ S 438 , 0 ROY w 1 c 1 N sK z, P e N N\ '0e .� \ s � _ 1 N . ,J 1 '•.J N 1 09 . i • 4 1 s A% 3, / ti� T. Oo s •° I Doe .No.9984i ,% / •3 Sy j / •. ' - / =S S• ` 'yo I / - f � M , / 14 t3 '1 6i 69 4, ,M T� yt° • P.�qY o • off . `y ; ` TRAIL EASEMENT • . i 0° 1 ; i 1 (PUCE A 6ESKE •� 00C 46669 6, cp • % 60 1 52 ,► ■ V/ 4 �J 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 • /o' /r' /1' I' ion "' a' /1' 0' t7' 1' 111 a gene o.4/./... Afte4 1446 C/. Foot } '4—! 1• III L /SO' aims /Miot 4* 'a/ 1 . ' ' ' /I' /t' / ?' ' 1. ' 1 C /. Font C/ font 1 1 -----m ,___:__________________ 1 4 1-s /DO' . %I Cvaasir M%mir A *"4'f 1 1 1 II 1 /1' /0' 0' /t' /P' . C/. font ,en9 1 0/401 inf. a lout . i • ___Ah_ -1 I kg p0' - id I Coss I Co / /rtfoo 1 1 III 1 26' 11 /1' i ii 84 eh" Of FO/le G/ere Foxe 1 II i 41/ lO 1 G /ma CaldtrP 1411 1 1 FIGURE 19 1 DI TYPICAL URBAN ROADWAY SECTIONS 1 it 46 . . I Ilt - - -_ 1 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 10 • John Dietrich: It is crowded. It is anticipated that a majority of the traffic would be coming off of Powers Boulevard with that interchange there at Highway 5 and Powers. We will have to present that into traffic studies to help show... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) ' Schroers: ...pass on our concerns to the Planning Commission and City Council as well, we'd very much appreciate it. Thank you. Lash: And Todd, you'll do that also? i -7 f,7 z LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW. JOHNSON. DOLEJSI. TURNER PROPERTY; A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT. LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION. 1 Public Present: Name Address Mike Pflaum Lundgren Bros. Construction Thomas & Darlene Turotte ' Bruce Geske 7325 Hazeltine Blvd. Don Roy 7205 Hazeltine Blvd. Paul Youngquist 7105 Hazeltine Blvd. 1 Marlene Bentz 7300 Galpin Blvd. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, commission members. tlr. Mike Pflaum, I representative of Lundgren Bros. Construction is in the audience this evening to address this issue as is the rest of the members of the audience as interested parties. This proposal is a rezoning planned unit development and subdivision of 95.19 acres of property into 120 single ' family lots. It includes the alteration and filling of 2.81 acres of wetland and is known as the Johnson, Dolejsi and Turner property. A single family residential planned unit development, PUD concept. Again the ' applicant is Lundgren Bros. Construction. The present zoning is A -2 or agricultural estate. To the north we have rural residential district. To the south is A -2 again, agricultural estate. To the east or back towards town, is both rural residential and agricultural estate. And then direct]) adjacent to the west is Highway 41. In reference to the City's comprehensive plan, the intent of the plan, recreation section for public recreation open space is not being met as a part of this proposal. The ' provision of 2.3 acre private or association park does not meet the City's requirements providing public parkland as part of a subdivision and development of the parcel or parcels of land. In addition, open space ' which is comprised of wetlands is not acceptable for park credit under cit) ordinance as the commissioners are aware. The City Code allows for the capture of 1 acre of developable land for every 75 persons platted land could house, based on 3 persons per single family dwelling unit for the ' purposes of park. The City ordinance is derived from State Statutue. In this application for land development review and acceptance, that amounts to 360 persons or 4.8 acres. If we put aside the proposed development plar for this property and address the site solely on it's proximity to existing ATTACHMENT #2 1 Park and Rec Commiss n Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 11 or proposed neighborhood parks, it reveals the void currently existing it. this area in respect to neighborhood park sites. Being historically agriculturally based with intermittent estate residential areas, there's been no need up until this point to acquire and develop neighborhood part. Requiring of public park space as part of this subdivision may be adviseable. However, if the applicant confirms their intent of developing a private, recreational facility in this neighborhood, it is preferable that the city retain the park fees generated by this development as capil to be used later on in a combination purchase, land dedication venture in s future development in this area. If the applicant chooses not to pursue their private facility, then it is recommended the City require parkland, dedication in an amount not to exceed 4.8 acres in a location deemed appropriate and desireable by the Park Commission with park fee requirements being reduced by the appropriate percentage. You have in yrr packets the proposed site plan. This can confirm where the applicant is proposing the so called private park or association type recreation area. Here's Highway 41 to the west. The main access road or Street A as it's labeled running east and west. This will be the future thru road to oth developments which will be coming along from the east. Again, this is t location. Currently on the plan it shows a tennis court, full size, half court basketball area, a piece of play structure, facilities which are commonly found in a neighborhood park although on a larger site. These lie facilities which again appeal to the perspective buyer of these homes. In regard to the comprehensive trail plan, the city's plan calls for the future installation of a trail along State Highway 41, which again is th western edge of this property in question. Highway 41 is classified as a Class I Minor Arterial and currently has a 150 foot right -of -way. The diagram enclosed in your packet shows the future layout of that roadway. And it shows there will be 4 lanes. A 4 lane highway with a median leav I approximately 27 feet of clear zone at it's edges.: In many instances, 27 feet will not accommodate the utility, drainage, and construction of a trail combined due to such constraints as the presence of stands of tree or specimen trees, excessive slopes, uneven terrain, etc.. It is therefor( appropriate to require the dedication of a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail construction purposes along the entire western II border of the subject property abutting State Highway 41. Questions have been raised by the applicant in regard to, has the City undertaken a stu looking at which side of Highway 41 the trail would potentially go on. Staff's response to that is that it indeed may go on both sides of State Highway 41. If not, with the presence of the large land holdings of the Minnewashta Regional Park and then the Arboretum property, some of I which is on that side, and the Girl Scout, Campfire location, we would assume that higher density residential areas would be developed on the eastern side or the side of the street or highway which this development occurring. So potentially in that light, the east side makes more sense As far as terrain, it is difficult on both sides. One side is no better than the other. In fact, they almost mirror each other. When one side of the road drops off on the west, it typically drops off on the other side's well. It is also adviseable to install a concrete sidewalk along Street which will in the future be the thru street in this development. The City's planning department will address this need. No trails are Propos" to be constructed by the applicant, thus no consideration for trail fee credit is necessary. An additional comment from the applicant in regards to back of the trail. You'll notice, if you've driven along Highway 41 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 12 stands of mature pine trees which are there. I can only presume that some of those were planted by the Highway Department when that road was put in f orbuffers and that type of thing. The stand in question is in this 11 location to the south of their access road. At the time the applicant assumed that those were inside of the property line. The fact that they are not and are currently in the road right -of -way. If you go ahead in the I future when they upgrade Highway 41 and these trees are in the right -of- way, they're on the edge of the right -of -way so they would be left but ther if you try to put in a trail behind it, it would be squeezing the alignment. That is one reason it is adviseable to take an additional 20 ' feet of right -of -way for, if you will insurance policy to the city. The trail issue has gotten a real high priority from the community. We don't want to... The area inside those trees is primarily agricultural. To the ' south is fairly flat. To the north you see some relief in this area. In light of these findings, staff recommends that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council, one, accept 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 buiding permit application at the per lot fee then in force for residential property. The current fees are 5500.00 per lot and 5167.00 per lot respectively. The above recommendation ' being contingent upon the applicant indicating their intent to develop the "private park" as indicated on the general development plan. Two, 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, And 3, the inclusion of the private park does not diminish the requirement for public recreation and open space as a part of a subdivision, therefore no credit will be ' considered for the inclusion of this private facility. Mr. Pflaum may have some comments in that regard or either Mr. Pflaum or myself will answer questions from the Commission. Schroerc: Okay. I think before we get to that part, maybe the Commission would he interested in entertaining comments from other residents or ' concerned parties in regards to this development this evening, after which maybe our questions, all of our questions could be better addressed. So if that's acceptable at this point, I would invite anyone that wishes to share some information on this development with us to please come to the podium ' and state your name and address for the record and share your information with us. ' Paul Youngquist: I just have a question. My name is Paul Youngquist and I live at 7105 Hazeltine Boulevard which is the 26 acre farm on the north edge of the proposed project. The information refers to a city's comprehensive trail plan and I haven't been at every meeting that there's ever been so I've never seen that. Is that in the room? Do we have one of those around? Hoffman: Currently no. It's a plan which shows all of the proposed trail link systems throughout the city. If you would like to address that, I could certainly give you a copy of it. ' Paul Youngquist: You don't need to do it now. Is it typically go down TH 41 and all the way to TH 5? 1 1 Park and Rec CommissA.,n Meeting IF August 11, 1992 - Page 13 Hoffman: Correct. Typically the alignments are along, as you can see we reference the map behind the Commission. East to west Highway 5 would be a link and then the major connectors coming through north to south aril part of the comprehensive trail plan. Highway 41, Galpin, Audubon, Powe Boulevard, all on down the line. Typically it incorporates a major roads or collector roads. Paul Youngquist: Okay. North of this site, the east side of the TH 41 II gets real hilly. Real high and when you said that the two sides kind of reflect each other, I think that's until you get north of the site. I'mil not sure that really means you're going to end up with a trail on the we side though anyway. Is there any concept of where various parks should be I assume, I mean I know that you've been planning parks around town. Is there thoughts about where parks should be in this whole area between Galpin and TH 41? Is there anything on paper with that kind of stuff or not really yet? Hoffman: No. The City of Chanhassen has not developed.a long range ' comprehensive park plan. However, now with this portion of the city is inside the MUSA line, we would be addressing that. Taking a look at the potential future development and specifically keying in on geographical ' features and areas which would be beneficial to a parks creation. So to answer your question specifically, I could not tell you in reference to your property or this subject property where the park would be planned. II Paul Youngquist: Okay, thanks. Schroers: We are aware that there is a need for more parkland in the II western part of the city and we are looking for potential places to develor parks in that area and hoping to acquire property along with development the most viable way for us to obtain property out there. And also I believe in the comprehensive plan we have, are the spurs that go to Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and the Arboretum are included in the comprehensive trail plan so there are proposals to connect the trail to Ite Arboretum and Lake Minnewashta Park. • Don Roy: I'm Don Roy and I live at 7205 Hazeltine Boulevard. The question I've got is, I see my property kind of abuts the north part of II this project end I don't know just exactly where the park is going to be and I'm concerned about with the type of park it's going to be. The siz end...facilities you're going to have for it. So I'd like to know a Litt more specifics on the park itself. Schroers: I think that Lundgren Bros. would have to address that questill for you. Don Roy: Alright. Then I have one other question. Is there a time tab on the widening of Highway 41? Hoffman: We would not have that information. It's a State Highway. You would need to give a call down to the State Highway Department. ' Don Roy: There won't be any coordination with the development? There won't be any highway widening at that point then? 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 14 Hoffman: There may be, not highway widening but allowance for deceleration acceleration lanes. ' Don Roy: Yeah, that's a very dangerous highway right now getting on and off. _ Hoffman: Right. And those types of concerns would be addressed by the City Engineer and Planning Department and City Council. Koubsky: The only thing I've noticed is they are widening the intersection down on TH 5 and TH 41 to allow for turn lanes. Don Roy: Well when you want to make a left turn off of TH 41 it's, you've got your life in your hands. Koubsky: Yeah, I do that every day. Don Roy: But the main thing I just wanted to be... I'd like a little more ' detail on it. Schroers: Okay, we'll make sure that that question is asked. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the Commission this evening? Okay then, we'll open it to questions from the Commission. Andrews: I'd like to have the applicant speak here briefly. ' Schroers: Would you like to? Yeah, that'd be fine. Mike Pflaum: I'm Mike Pflaum and by way of a little bit of introduction and an apology. I have not been involved in the planning phase of this project. A gentleman by the name of Terry forbord, with whom I think you are familiar, has been doing from our end that is, from a corporate end, all of the coordination and planning work on this. And as a consequence I am not in an entirely desireable position to answer specific questions about the proposal. Terry had suggested that this meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission be postponed until he could be here. The Planning Department however wished that this meeting occur so that the results of the meeting would be available for inclusion in the Planning Department report. Hence I am here. Now Terry would have been here but he had another meeting equally important which he had to attend and it was heads. So that's where he is. To answer the question to the best of my ability about what would the park be like. It is not, I'm sure definitely planned at this point. Typically the final planning of features is done at the final stage of plan development which is after preliminary approval. I am familiar with similar sorts of parks that we have built elsewhere and I ' would imagine that the same general facilities and type of use would be carried over here. One such facility is in Plymouth in a project called Churchill Farms and it contains a prefabricated play structure of the sort that you would see a grade school. It is a very sophisticated, efficient in it's design structure. That particular play area also has integrated with it, at a different location actually down the street, facilities for older kids and adults. There's in that instance a tennis court and a half court basketball court. So as far as traffic is concerned, the objective Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 15 1r is to have a private facility used by the owners of properties within the development. It is a walking use. Walking or bicycle riding use. It i not a drive in use. And there would be no provision for extra parking f people that might want to drive to it. Fundamentally that's how these things are set up. They're designed as an amenity to provide close at hanc recreational opportunities and in a certain sense provide supplementatio to the community's own park plan, park schedule. So far as other specif s of the development I can only offer generalities and -kind of muddle my way through. Todd probably knows more about it than I do. But I'd be happy .c attempt to answer your questions. Lash: Do you know what the approximately size is? Mike Pflaum: Of this park area? According to the report. it's 2.3 acre" Schroers: And if we were to ask for park dedication, parkland dedication from this development we would be asking for 4.8 acres, is that correct? Hoffman: Correct. The 2.3 acres does contain a holding pond or wetland area so of what the Commission would call park property, it's less than but the total which the City or the Commission could require is the 4.8. Erickson: Todd, is this property covered on the map up here? Hoffman: Just the southern tip I believe. You see the large canary grail type wetland. That is the southern fringe of this area. Schroers: Any questions? Does anybody have any questions? Okay. In 1 light of that then, is anyone prepared to make a motion? Koubsky: I just have one question I guess Larry. As I look at this, anll these are tough to read with the contour lines but it seems like there's quite a lot of relief in here and it is pretty hilly. Am I correct? Is there 4.8 acres of flat land in that development? ' Mike Pflaum: I doubt it. Koubsky: It looks like your park or your play area is the only plateau I I see. Mike Pflaum: I think that's a fair observation. 1 Koubsky: I'm assuming that your soil correction will just be sufficient tc put in the roads and then the building pads. ' Mike Pflaum: I'm assuming the same thing but I wouldn't be so bold to assure you of that without having seen the preliminary grading plan. We are very sensitive to the value of wetlands, relief and trees and when w� ley something out, we try to preserve as much as we can because to us that's value. So I would imagine that the plan... 1 would imagine that your observation is accurate. The minimum amount would be done. 1 Lash: From the Tree Board perspective here, are we looking at any stands of mature trees that are going to be getting wiped out Todd? .1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 16 Hoffman: Not to my knowledge. There certainly would be tree loss as part ' of the development but in staff discussions, it has not been pointed out to my attention that we'll be losing significant stands of trees. Erickson: As far as the alteration or filling of the 2.8 acres of ' wetlands, is that a Planning Commission issue? Hoffman: Correct. That will be part of their review in Wetland Alteratior ' Permit. Andrews: Is the applicant..bound by any of the Federal Regulations ' regarding park and facility accesses, park type equipment for handicapped people? Hoffman: For ADA? Yes, to certain points. To certain degrees. Andrews: I think you should make it a point and coordinate with the developer about that so they're in compliance if that's an issue. ' Schroers: Okay. If there are no questions, I guess I'll attempt the motion. ' Mike Pflaum: Could I ask one question. This is not in connection...on the easement for trail purposes along Highway 41. I guess I have two questions. This being a State Highway, is it prohibited to put the trail in the right -of -way? Hoffman: No, it certainly would not be. It would•be again a coordination effort between the State and the City to see that that trail alimiment as identified in our comprehensive plan would be built. Again as stated, and as shown in the Commissions packet, once that roadway is upgraded, we have 27 feet of clearance which when allowing for site constraints and changes 1 in elevations, those type of things, tree stands, does not give us the necessary leeway to construct that trail. An additional 20 feet would they allow us only in the areas which are necessary, will allow us to go outside ' of the road right -of -way to see that that trail is put in in the most environmentally sensitive and prudent manner. ' Mike Pflaum: Not being familiar with this property, presumably the trail is going to travel some distance along 41, is that correct? Hoffman: Correct. 1 Mike Pflaum: Does this mean that the City would be acquiring 20 feet of easements from all the other landowners along Highway 41? ' Hoffman: Absolutely. As you would, being that this property has just recently been put into the MUSA, Metropolitan Urban Service Area, additional developments will be coming in and we will be obtaining those easements. There certainly will be exceptions but as a rule, we want to take a look at receiving that additional leeway so that that comprehensive trail plan can be followed. 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 17 Mike Pflaum: Excuse me, I would like to a request that since it seems to be the general intent to utilize the area close to the highway for tr '1 purposes, that the trail be constructed within the right -of -way wherever t is reasonable and feasible and where it is not constructed on the proper of the subdivision, there be a vacation after the trail has been constructed for those areas the trail does not occupy that were set asid as trail easements. So it was only the portion that the trail really ne s is set aside as easement. As individual homeowners I'm sure you can see the advantages of not having an easement there. Hoffman: Staff has no objections to that request as long as it's reasonable. We're not going to vacate minor little jogs but as long as some realistic straight lines and that type of thing can be drawn to the' easement documents, that can be accomplished. Schroers: Okay. Lash: Mr. Roy and Mr. Youngquist, do you feel like your questions have been answered? Paul Youngquist: Yeah, I do. I was just going to say. I don't know wh everyone's thinking about what is happening to the other property along the road but as for our family we'd just as soon, we're just going to keep i as our family.for a while. We have young kids and it's a great place to live so we don't plan to sell it and I'm not here because I want to see hot. neatly mine could be developed next year. I'm here just because this is ' where we're going to live. Schroer!: Thanks. Alright, with that let's attempt a motion. I'll mov to accept full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land dedication for trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the tim of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property at the time of the permit application. The current fees are $500.00 and $167.00 per lot respectively. The above recommendation beindl contingent upon the applicant indicating their intent to develop the private park area as indicated on the general development plan. Okay. Two. The applicants 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 and that the City not require that easement to be maintained in an area that is not going 11 specifically be used for trail. And three, the inclusion of the privat park does not diminish the requirements of the public recreation and open space as part of a subdivision. Therefore, no credit will be considered' for the inclusion of this private facility. Schroers moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council require full park and trail dedication fils in the absence of land dedication or trail construction. These fees are c 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 I current fees are *500.00 and *167.00 per lot, respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon: 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 18 1. The applicant indicating their intent to develop the private park area as indicated on the general development plan. 2. The applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for 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. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 111 CARVER BEACH PARK. VEHICLE PARKING. Hoffman: Upon receiving the Commission's recommendation in this regard, for the designation of four parking spaces at Carver Beach. I consulted with the City Manager before giving this to the City Council. Finding the Commission's action consistent with the Carver Beach Park adopted master plan, the Manager suggested I include the item in the July 27th City Council administrative packet as an informational item. If no comments were received, I would then move ahead with the designation of the four parking spots. No comments or questions were heard from the Council that ' evening but prior to moving ahead with this project I received a call from a resident of the area. That resident was at the meeting, at the Park and Recreation Commission. This person stated that they did not believe all . ' their questions had been addressed satisfactorily at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. In talking with the individual I could not resolve their concerns and they voiced a desire to speak to the Mayor or ' somebody else on the City Council. He eventually chose the Mayor. The Mayor upon receiving this call talked to the individual at length. Mayor Chmiel then took the time to arrange a site inspection with me. After which a meeting between all parties, this person and their spouse, Mayor ' Chmiel and myself, was scheduled to discuss their concerns. This meeting was held on the morning of July 31st. The result of that meeting it's his recommendation to reconsider your previous action in recommending a total 1 of 4 parking spaces be designated. Reconsider that action of recommending 4 parking space be designated. Instead designating a total of 3 parking spaces for Carver Beach Park. This is somewhat inconsistent with typical action. Typically it goes to the full Council, there for review prior to F recommendation for action coming back to the Commission or approval taking place. However, it is recommended that the Park Commission rescind their previous recommendation of June 23, 1992 recommending the City Council ' approve the construction and signing of 4 parallel parking spots on the south side of Lotus Trail for Carver Beach Park. One of the four spaces designated for persons with disabilities as specified and shown on the attached map. And have planning and engineering take a careful look to ensure that there will be no damage done to the existing trees in the area. Instead make the following recommendation. The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the construction of signage of three parallel parkins spots on the south side of Lotus Trail at Carver Beach Park consistent witt the park's master plan. One of the three for persons with handicaps and A T • � ■T � ANT SHA DLO s . AND - I' COhPOI.aTED CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE MINN 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612 339.3300 18 August 1993 Chanhassen Park & Recreation Commissioners City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Lundgren Bros. Public Trails System Proposal Dear Commissioners: 1 Terry Forbord of Lundgren Bros. presented the Song /Carlson Property Subdivision at the last meeting of Chanhassen's Park & Recreation Commission meeting on July 27, 1993. The proposed subdivision, in combination with the previously approved Johnson/DolejsilTurner Subdivision, . creates two linked neighborhoods between Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard. An east/west collector road runs through both subdivisions with a public sidewalk on the north side that connects two separate association recreational areas one which has already been approved with the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer Subdivision and another is proposed with the Song /Carlson Subdivision. Although these two recreational areas are designed to serve the needs of the neighborhoods built around them, there was uncertainty at the past Park and Recreation Commission meeting that other recreational facilities were needed in the general area. At this time, both the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner and the Song /Carlson developments include not only the connecting public sidewalk along the east/west collector road between Galpin and Highway 41, but also includes a public trail easement along Highway 41 and an additional 17 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard which will be graded for public trail purposes to fulfill the City's trail needs in this area. , Lundgren Bros. has always strived to build unique and very strong neighborhoods in the sense that they attract people who want special identity and a high degree of amenity features within their neighborhoods. This is why the association recreational areas are an integral part of Lundgren Bros. neighborhoods. It was apparent that additional issues needed to be addressed based on comments of the last meeting 1 of the Park and Recreation Commission and Lundgren Bros. asked that the issue be tabled so that they could work on some new ideas for public recreational activity in the area. When we looked at the overall open space system and public trail linkages in the area, we concluded that there might be a very advantageous public trail opportunity that has not been talked about or proposed yet for this area of town. The collector road through the Lundgren Bros. neighborhoods generally run in an east -west direction and slightly along the northerly alignment. Although the sidewalk through the neighborhood collects pedestrians from the homes and acts primarily as a transportation type • 1 I Chanhassen Park & Recreation Commissioners 18 August 1993 Page 2 I function, we felt that an additional public trail linkage was possible that would provide a significant natural experience for the citizens of Chanhassen through one of the nicest features of this part of town. I A very large wetland complex lies to the south of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner Subdivision and affords the opportunity for a public nature trail system to directly link the Highway 41 trail with the public trail along Galpin Boulevard. This public trail system also can provide opportunities for I connecting other subdivisions to the trail system which will eventually pass under Highway 5 and to the new elementary school site. I The location of the public trail is at the toe of the slope and bluff line along the wetland complex which provides significant views all along the perimeter of the northern edge of the wetland. On Monday, August 9, Terry Forbord met with the Park and Recreation Director, Todd Hoffman, and walked the property along the wetland. During the walk, deer and hawks were sited and the beauty I of the area became apparent and the opportunity, we believe, is a significant one for the beginning of a public trail system around the wetland complex. I We have enclosed a map in our proposal that shows the public trail opportunity along this wetland and how it relates to the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner Subdivision. The amount of area that is already being preserved in this area is about 9 acres. The public trail easement granted to the City by I Lundgren Bros. would be two- thirds of a mile in length. Lundgren Bros. is willing to dedicate a public trail easement and grade the easement as a part of its park dedication requirements for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner Subdivision. With the remaining fees generated by both neighborhoods, the City will have significant funds available for the public trail construction. As the remaining areas 1 develop in the future and the wetland complex can be encircled with a complete public trail system, the recreational opportunities greatly increase. We have found that looped trails attract a significant amount of recreational activity from children exploring to aerobic exercising with in -line skating and I bicycling. We believe this looped public trail proposal will bring a significant recreational opportunity to the City and residents of the planned neighborhoods in the area. I In summary, Lundgren Bros. is proposing, in addition to creating their own association recreational areas with tennis courts, play structures and flat areas for informal field activity, public trail connections that will be the catalyst for a wonderful, natural experience along one of the most attractive wetland complexes in the City of Chanhassen. We hope you will share in our enthusiasm I for this idea and we look forward to working closely with the Park and Recreation Director and staff to complete the details on the wetland trail system. We still are proposing to pay park dedication fees for both Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner and Song /Carlson in addition to the other amenities they have I already proposed. Sincerely, 1 DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. 1 y d° i iiti , \._ I \ \i C. John Uban, ASLA 1 Enclosures 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 PUBLIC HEARING: LUNDGREN BROS FOR REZONING PROPERTY FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 112 ACRES INTO 115 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, SONG - CARLSON PROPERTY. Public Present: ' Name Address Marian Schmitz 8190 Galpin Blvd. • Betty & Larry VanDeVeire 4980 CR 10E, Chaska Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros 1 John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban Patrick Minger 8221 Galpin Blvd. Jerome Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd. Ron Peterson Peterson Env'tl Consulting Ken Adolf Schoell & Madson, Inc. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd in Wayzata, Minnesota and I'm really happy to be here tonight. As Paul indicated, actually it's been 4 years since we started this process in 1989. Almost 4 years to the date when we started the land assembly. And Paul's also correct, I believe the Chair is the only person here that probably remembers when we started that process. And actually it's not unusual anymore where it takes 4 to 5 years to start working on a neighborhood community of this scale before you even get to the point where you're pushing dirt. In this particular situation it will be about 5 years from the time that we start until the time we're actually in the construction phase. Unfortunately the process...takes that much time but we're very pleased to be here tonight because on this particular proposal it's taken a very, very long time in working with the landowners and also with Mr. Carlson who's a landowner to the north. And just to set the record straight, Mr. Carlson is a third party to the contract with the Song's and Lundgren Bros. He helped the Song's and assisted them in making their decisions and negotiating with 1 us to their best interest and also because he lives right next door. He had a genuine concern. And this is kind of a unique situation. Usually Lundgren Bros is working diligently with the City and the seller but in terms of this acquisition were extremely unique because of the site. 1 28 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 I It was very, very important to the Song's and to the Carlson's that they have as much input rY P So g Y ut P I into this planning process for this neighborhood community as we would have ourselves as the developer and we wanted to make sure that we addressed all their concerns, and we believe that we have done so. And we seek your help this evening in order to make sure that I we follow through with those promises and commitments that we've attempted to make. I'd like to introduce to you this evening the staff, the development team. To my immediate left, to your immediate left, would be Mr. John Uban. He's a principle with Dahlgren, Shardlow I and Uban. He has been the planner on this neighborhood community. To his immediate left and to your right is Mr. Ron Peterson. He's a wetland specialist. To Ron's left and your right is Mr. Ken Adolf. He's a principle with Schoell & Madson and he's a civil engineer. I Mr. Uban is going to present this proposal to you this evening. Myself and the remaining development team will be here to provide input and also to assist and answer any questions. To expedite this process, because there's a lot of detail in what we're going to be presenting I to you tonight. I have an outline for you which you can follow through on Mr. Uban's presentation. I hate almost to have to give this to you because I don't want you to get too hung up in looking at the paper. I hope you give Mr. Uban the opportunity to present the I proposal to you but because there are some detail items, I thought you may appreciate hearing... I John Uban: I'm John Uban. It's a pleasure to be here in front of you again. We've worked with Lundgren Bros on many different developments and this is one that we really like because of how it grew from the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner project, which is directly to the west 1 and how it just has naturally worked across this fairly interesting terrain with all the wetlands and woods and so forth. What I'd like to do is first go through a couple of slides so you get a quick overview and what I'll do is give an overview of the project and then we'll talk about 1 some of the specifics. So I'll come back and revisit these things as we need to discuss a couple items. I will point out and talk loudly hopefully so everyone can hear me. But the property that we're looking at, is the Song property which comes up to the tip top of Harrison I Lake. This is Galpin. We're looking north. This is of course Lake Minnetonka. Here's Highway 41 and the Song homestead, today, is this house right here. This is the Stockdale home and the land they own directly to the south. This area is being looked at by the Park Commission for a future park. We have a power line that runs through here and you can see all the heavy woods all along this area and another wetland here. Wetland here. Rolling I fields without trees on it. And here we're looking back this way. The Song homestead. This is the Carlson home and the shared pond, or lake, and wetland complex with the woods surrounds this area. So this is really a major feature within the whole area and what we've I done throughout our development is paid special attention to preserving that. Not just the environment but the views of it. The ambience of it and how it will be enjoyed by everyone in the area. Here we're looking south. Here's Highway 5. The Carlson's, the lake and then all this land over here is the Johnson - Dolejsi parcel. And a collector road comes through 1 29 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 It comes around and here. ar an enters onto Galpin over here. So we weave it through all the wetlands, the varied terrain and the wooded areas to make that work. This shows that wetland area. And you'll notice this wooded stand and this is where we paid a special attention to design details trying to get a road sort of almost surgically installed into this wooded area with narrowed standards. In other words, smaller right -of -ways. Smaller street ...very carefully looked at with grading and much of this area, it will be covered with a conversation easement for the preservation of the trees. Mancino: Can you show me the line, the western property line of this development on that 1 slide? John Uban: Yes. This is a, right here you can see a line which is a power line and that 1 forms the boundary between Johnson - Dolejsi and other properties and the Song property. The Song property is about here south. All the way over to Galpin and then right here is it's southern edge and this then would be it's western edge go like that. Mancino: Thank you. John Uban: I have also for you to look at, and it helps because you start relating then directly to the maps that will show you is an aerial photograph at 1 inch equals .100 feet. And it's in black and white but outlined in red is the perimeter of the property. About 117 acres. Here's Galpin. Stockdale parcel is right down here. Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner project is over here. Carlson to the north, this way. And here are the large woods. All along the western edge. Wetlands and wetlands here and then an open field character along Galpin. This gives you a sense then of the kind of constraints that we had and the constraints basically are steep topography, significant woods, and wetlands and then adjusting to the 1 adjacent roads and tying the two developments together. So we have to, weaving around these wetlands and there really was one good path through it which works out very well and then there's another connection which right now is called E street that takes us up this hill to 1 connect to what was a cul -de -sac on this plan. To connect it through which will be a very nice development also that has special standards. To really overview the combined development, I first want to show you Johnson/Dolejsi and the Song development put together as one piece. And once again this is Highway 41 and here is Galpin. This is a wetland to the south of the project and you'll see in this green color is the buffer area and a proposed trail easement that we've been talldng to the Park Commission about. Something in addition to what we're doing besides building two association recreation areas and paying full park fees and trail fees. And then the Park Commission has started talking to us about what we can do to trade fee credits for actual construction of a trail for instance or assisting in the grading of Stockdale Park, which is shown here directly south of the Song parcel. And this shows a possible further subdivision of that piece so we get some idea of how this road 1 30 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 ' system will access the south. Also I want to show you in this whole process, this is really that same drawing. Here you can see the wetland complex on this small map with Highway 1 5 and Hazeltine Boulevard and TH 41 and Galpin. But there's a potential, as the rest of the land develops to have a very nice nature trail all the way around that wetland. Whether it's paved or a soft trail I think is an issue depending on how much money the City would like to 1 credit against the fee that would be collected on both developments. This is that same development and I've outlined here also the wetland areas and the city has found that we need to map one additional that sits approximately in this area. It's a small wetland. And it shows the common areas. Protection areas. Buffer areas around here. Around the wetlands and just in this combined development, there's about 207 acres and of that 95 of the acres are either conservation easement, buffers, specific buffer easements, wetlands, and amenity and recreation areas. All to be enjoyed by the neighborhood. So that's about 46% of the development and that really I think speaks to what we're proposing and how much of it is ' committed to the common enjoyment and preservation. Some of the details we want to talk about and we've been talking to City staff about it too is how to work with tree preservation. How to, I'm actually going to turn this like this if it will help since we're looking at everything, north's up. And how we preserve these features on the site. What this exhibit shows are the different areas that are treated differently and have different constraints. The tan area are the wetlands on the Song property. Once again this is Galpin and this is that ' power line western edge. Around this then is the preservation or buffer strip. It varies all along the edges of the wetlands. We're also, this is the mandatory setback or buffer setback and then in the green is tree conservation area. The green area is an easement. This is where absolutely no construction takes place. Nothing can happen. There's no mowing of the grass. It is kept natural and it's an easement that is restricted on the deeds and it's recorded with the platting of each lot which is different than sort of a preservation area or an area that ' the city looks at when you get a permit and see that, how well each home is adjusting to each individual site. So what we have here are sort of three levels of how we develop and how the city reviews and controls tree preservation on the site. One is this definite conservation ' easement that controls these areas. The second is as we prepare our first grading plan for - utilities and road construction, that perimeter is protected and we only remove certain trees. And so that gives us an area between the conservation area and the actual road where each 1 home is built and that way when the lots are looked at and sold, they see the maximum amount of trees possible and are able to adjust their homesite, their home plan to that site itself. And then that is done when you take out a building permit and each building permit then is reviewed. The forester comes out and looks and that's the way it's done today with the city and that's how we adjust to each one. And in talking with staff, they would like to 1 see some additional areas covered by the permanent easement and we want to sit down with them and make sure that we have full flexibility to do custom housing design and yet maximize the protection that the city would like to see. There's this comfort and flexibility 1 31 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1_ thing that we just need to work out and it works well. That is the level of conservation that 1 we are proposing. Mancino: Excuse me, John. Am I reading that right? What I'm seeing on the northern, let's III see on the right side where that green conservation easement is. There aren't any trees there. There aren't any existing trees there at this time, correct? 1 John Uban: Yes. I'll show you the plan so you can see what is being planted so that becomes. 1 Mancino: So it's an easement for what is to be planted? It is not old growth trees that are 1 already there? John Uban: Not in this area. But it will control this area the same as it controls other areas I so it's the kind of protection that we felt was important because we're re- establishing some natural areas. Some of our wetland mitigation is happening in this area. We're actually going to be transplanting some of the native material from one slope back to another. I There's a lot of sumac out there for instance and we'll be transplanting some of that around to recreate that natural feeling that is there today. And how that works, and let me turn this over again. This is the development plan and it shows a proposed typical Lundgren home on I the individual lots. Here is that main street A, the road that goes through the project. And here we're putting in lots of plantings around this park area and that's what will be covered also by this conservation area. There actually are some trees up in here that we'll make sure that those that exist up there can be covered also by the conservation easement. So I think these are some of the things that we'll be talking to staff about in detail. What the plan, this plan shows then is the basic development pattern. The road looping through. This is the I southern road. Road E and coming up through this wooded area for instance where the road needs to steepen. It's about 8% and this is done to minimize the grading again. To lower that road down to 7% for instance, you'd either have to cut off the top of the hill or fill more 111 at the bottom as we're crossing the stream through this area. And so we can do it more sensitively and save more trees by having an 8% grade. The 8% grade also is up on H and I in this area. But this is the narrow cul-de -sac road system to work in amongst these large 1 trees. In fact one of them down in here is our largest tree which is about a 60 inch oak tree which is fairly large and fairly mature. And those trees are all covered in a conservation easement. We can see that we will integrate each homesite then into the existing trees that are 1 there. Each one will be custom done to make sure it fits well. The ponding, the additional ponding that's shown on the site, NURP ponds and so forth. This recreation area, I have a detailed plan so I can show you how that works. Some of the issues we'll be talking about is 111 how we grade and what we can do along Galpin to integrate into the future road condition and how trails might work in that area so we'll go through those issues one by one. We have I 32 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 two entrances with entrance islands. These are very important to create the ambience of, excuse me. I'm losing my voice. To help the ambience of the entrance. We like to do these on every one of the entrance roads into the neighborhood. We're proposing them in both cases because they're both important entrances, not only to the Song property but as they carry over into the Johnson/Dolejsi and that one also has the same entrance off of Highway ' 41. We'll have berming all the way along here where we can and we are protecting the existing wetlands that are along Galpin. Another issue that is being talked about with city staff is the city would like to designate road A as a state aid road. And that has different 1 design standards than what we have designed at this point so we have some specific issues that we need to review with you so you can see the ramifications and hopefully accept our recommendation on how to address that and make it work for both the City and the developer. And I'll be going over each one of these issues on the outline so you can see how that works. The private park is developed along the road which is a spine road and you'll see that most of Lake Harrison then, there's just a few lots and then the wooded lots and they 1 really won't be viewed to a great extent from the natural area and then we've put our park in here and put in a berm so we really keep protecting the views in that lake area. And this shows the same area. Here's the lake. We have tennis courts, a totiot, a connecting trail, ' basketball, picnic area and then we put in an informal play area which Park Commission requested. They wanted one that was large enough to put in a full sized baseball field which ' we felt was inappropriate. To have that scale of active play and instead we proposed one that's a bit smaller, 180 x 180. This is very good for frisbee, you know family games of ball and so forth but not big enough so that team play would be attracted to the site. This definitely is a family neighborhood recreation facility and not meant for large scale activities. ' But it's done in a very nice way with natural landscaping brought back into the park system itself. What I'd like to do next is show you the specific recommendations of staff. Just go through those so that we can talk about some additional wording that we think is appropriate to bring our concerns together. So we can focus on getting ahead of the final approval for this time. And I'll show those on the overhead. 1 Conrad: Is that a copy of the recommendations? 1 Terry Forbord: With slight modifications. We would like to go through these. John Uban: The recommendations we've given you in blue are really very similar to staff ' and we are very close to staff on these details. We just want to make sure we have a clear understanding and direction what we hope is working together to resolve these issues. What we've shown, only in those areas that are bold typed. We have just some wording to change 1 the recommendation which we feel fits the development a little bit better. Number 1 and number 2, there's really absolutely no problem with. Number 3, what we want to make sure is, when we count trees, on 2 trees per lot and there are no trees on the lot, there really are 33 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 lots of unmapped trees. The aerial photo's not up but around the wetlands and so forth there are a number of trees we just have not mapped and shown so we want to make sure we have credit for that and have our absolute commitment that we are not...lots up there. We will be planting a minimum of 2 trees per lot. And each home, homeowners typically do extensive landscaping after the home is built. Krauss: I should state there are 30 some odd conditions and we got this late this afternoon 1 and Dave and I had an opportunity to briefly go through it. You may want to get a point, counter point kind of a thing on each one as you go through so you don't lose track. The first one's kind of detailed. I guess I'd agree with John. That's consistent with the language that's built into the subdivision that we require 2 trees per lot, at least 1 of which must be in the front yard. Well if there's already an existing tree, we only require 1. The next effect is really negligible because John and Terry will be planting more trees than we require anyway to satisfy the buffer...along Galpin and the park landscaping around the site so. Farmakes: Does it make any difference which species of tree it is? Whether it's credited or not. Krauss: The trees, well actually that's not been the case though. I mean as long as you have a tree of significant size. Farmakes: Well we're talking about between 2 1/2 and 6 inches. Krauss: Right. 1 Farmakes: Yeah. Exactly right. Credit them for that. It makes no difference which species it is then. 1 Krauss: It hasn't in the past Jeff. It's just having a tree in the appropriate area. John Uban: This is really only a point of we think clarification and understanding and not a burdensome issue either way. Farmakes: But this maybe brought to attention maybe something that's lacking in there. Terry Forbord: Most of the trees that are on the site are maples and...those are all acceptable 1 trees for the city. Farmakes: Yeah, I was talking about in relationship to what our requirements are. I don't 1 recall encountering that. 1 34 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 John Uban: Well to continue on. Number 5. Number 4 is just misnumbered but number 5, we have no problem with the architectural criteria and so forth. Outlot B will be assembled I with the Johnson/Dolejsi parcel. The issue of, on number 7 is really a timing issue that the association park will be built concurrent with street A. So those parks are always built within that neighborhood phase as developed and so that's when that park will be built and we just 1 want to make sure that's understood and it's not anticipated at some other time. Terry Forbord: Maybe I could just embellish upon that briefly. Because of the, for those of 1 you who drive Galpin Blvd ever, there's a public improvement project, 92 -5 currently underway extending sewer and water to this area and that sewer and water easement is within this right -of -way and if you drive down here you can actually where they're constructing 1 those public facilities at this time. And therefore, it only stands to reason, being that we'll have lateral benefit from those pipes that are going to be in there. We can tap right into that trunk line that's being built right now with each one of these homesites that's along here. So I it just stands to reason this would be the first phase of development in this neighborhood . community. It wouldn't make a lot of sense since the sewer and water's here, to start up I here. So we would be starting here and so then is the progression before it can swing north up to and ultimately street A...will be built and at that point in time, which probably will be within the second and third phase of development, this one we're proposing to build the i association park. Conrad: Paul. 1 Krauss: That's fine with us. We're going to have financial guarantees that say it's going to be built anyway. 1 Conrad: Okay. John. I John Uban: The next point, number 8 where they're talking about the wetland mitigation and so forth and you will have a 1 to 1 ratio. In this the city has asked that we remove wetlands out of the highway right -of -way on Galpin. Generally this, Galpin, the enlargement of that I street would either be a county or combined city/county project in which there would be lots of other impacts along that corridor and normally a city or county would mitigate that as a total entity and would be banking...to resolve those issues at an opportune time. What we 1 don't want to happen is for that kind of mitigation or requirement that is sort of beyond what we would normally be doing within our development, to impact and throws into a category or calls concern for those people reviewing our wetland mitigation, that we've added into it this 1 additional amount. So we want to stay coordinated on that issue and we also feel, and this is another issue that will come up on another one of the topics. That there's a way to minimize some of those impacts, especially along the entire corridor for Galpin if we do a good I 35 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 consolidation of highway and trail into the right -of -way rather than trying to push the trails 1 out beyond the right -of -way of Galpin. We are dedicating an additional 17 feet to Galpin to make a total of 100 feet of right -of -way for that road, so that's quite a bit of right -of -way which will accommodate a 4 lane road, plus trail and most accommodating on most kinds of designs and we'll show you an exhibit when this comes up again in the recommendations that clarifies how that can work. Terry Forbord: The key point in number 8 would be our wetlands specialist advises us that the city should apply separately for their wetland mitigation for Galpin Blvd construction rather than combine it with our wetland application. That's the change that we show here. Krauss: We understand what the situation is. I mean there were several things that were raised. Dave and I are assuming that the trail will be going within the right -of -way. It's probably something that needs to be worked out, we'll sit down with the engineer but that's what we've been doing on other roads. What we have here though are two small wetlands that would be impacted by a public improvement that needs to occur pretty quickly. What we also have here is the ability to mitigate that on the Song's PUD with no fuss, no muss. The issue here is that, it's almost a technical one. There is a threshold beyond which permitting gets to be considerably more complicated in this new, what we're dealing with wetland . protection. And they are concerned that this will put them over the threshold. I had a chance to speak with Diane Desotelle about that tonight. It's really not a big deal for us to process a city sponsored wetland alteration permit for the city improvement understanding though of course that the mitigation be carried out on the Song property. So we're willing to do that. We didn't know however that condition was listed 3 times in the Lundgren report so... 1 Ledvina: Mr. Chairman? Then Lundgren actually does the mitigation? Krauss: ...yeah. In their grading, that's the way I see it. That we would make sure that there was sufficient, basically it's shifting two fairly small wetlands a little bit so that they're out of the way of the public project. 1 Terry Forbord: It's not our intent to not coordinate or cooperate. It's our intent to make sure we don't jeopardize the approval of our permits for the development over this and Paul understands this stuff far better than I do. I know because he is intimately involved with it and I think he's addressed it in his comments that he just made. John Uban: The next issue then is on tree preservation. The first one just that we'll provide all the landscape details when we do the final plat. I think that's just clarifying when we'll do that. Item number b under 9. Here we will buffer the road from the homes. So in other words, we will try to minimize the impact the road has on the adjacent homes along Galpin 36 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 and what we need to do here is make sure that we can do it successfully and it has once again an impact on whether or not a trail would be placed on an easement adjacent to Galpin Blvd. Paul has indicated that it sounds like the City staff would keep the trail within the right -of -way which would help immensely in our developing a good berm system because it would take 20 feet away and we would lose the ability to do a good berm. Plus the land ' undulates and some of it is high and we just can't berm successfully. So that's basically to clarify what we'll be doing there. And we'll be working with Paul and clarifying what trees will be planted on which lots and screening and so forth. So it's just a matter of 1 coordination. We're recognizing that, and this alteration to the recommendation. Conrad: Paul, any counter point? Any comments? Krauss: As to the modification on a, that's fine. On b, I'm uncomfortable with the language. We're talking about homes from Galpin. That's mandatory. Whether it's done through a ' berm or landscaping, there's two ways about it. And when I see a sentence written, this feature shall and then there's two weasel words, reasonably attempt. There's no reasonably attempt about it. There's got to be a buffer established. I think we're splitting hairs here and ' I know what their intent is. I know what our intent is. It's probably the same thing but it should be clear that there is a desire to see legitimate buffering of those homes from Galpin and I didn't see the need to modify that language. As far as the last sentence, the applicant will work out with staff the amenity and screening tree planting versus the required bare lot tree planting. I don't see any versus about it. I mean they're all separate things. We're concerned with buffering. We're concerned with the bare lot tree planting. Lundgren Bros has, I think creatively said, well we'd rather not plop two, if we have an obligation to put 2 trees on a lot where there's no trees existing, we'd rather not just plop one on every lot, we'd rather cluster them. That's a fine idea. That's great. I don't have a problem with that. They've also got a third requirement which is, I don't know if self inflicted is the right word but they want to create a buffer screen upon the private park from Lake Harrison. That's fine. We would encourage the reforestation of that site but that's nothing inherently that the city is necessarily asking for. Certainly not to compromise the number of trees that go on individual lots or around the buffer. So again, I thought it was worded fine the way it was originally written. I don't think we're far apart on that however. Terry Forbord: Let me just clarify. The reason that we modified this, and I haven't had the opportunity to talk to Paul and I think he's correct in saying that our objectives are the same. I can honestly say that there's no way that you will be able to make it so when you're driving down Galpin Blvd that you won't be able to see a house. Because the elevation, I mean ' there's big hills in here and you will, if you were to build a berm, you would have to build a berm so high and it would look so, certainly it would look unnatural. And so what we were afraid of saying is that making sure that we don't see any homes. I think that's unobtainable 1 37 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 from a practical standpoint. The idea is to, the problem here, the way we look at it wasn't 1 that the houses were the problem. The road was the problem and we were trying to buffer the people who live there from the noise of the road and the view of the road and the cars going by and so we were trying to create that type of buffer, while at the same time when you're driving down the road, the houses aren't just leaping off the site at you. But I think you might be able to see a rooftop and things like that and I just didn't want to say that we'll be able to do that when I inherently didn't think it would achieve it. That's the only reason we modified that. Krauss: Well I mean again, I don't think we're far apart...never been to avoid looking at homes...make sure that the homes have a legitimate rear yard area and to view from the highway it helps the roadway somewhat soften but the primary issue is protecting the residential neighborhood. We've got so many situations elsewhere in town that that was done inadequately and again, I don't think we're talking about different things here. Conrad: Yeah, I think we're pretty close. Let's move on. John Uban: Okay, yes. c and d, there's absolutely no problem with. e is the issue of how much we can expand the actual tree conservation area which is an easement that's recorded on the property versus the adjustments we made during construction with flexibility to make sure that works out. In talking with Paul, I think we're close. I think it's just a matter of 1 some adjustments to the plans that we have submitted and really clarifying with staff how much flexibility we need to have and how much of a guarantee or an easement is appropriate for this development. I think we're close and we just merely have to sit down and work it ' 1 out before we appear before the City Council. Krauss: That's probably a fair statement. 1 John Uban: The next item that we talked about parks. I had under 10(a), I had shown you that we had put in a 180 x 180 size playfield which is designed for the level of play that we're looking for and not the 250, the 250 foot play area that is suitable for large scale team activities that the Park Commission was looking for. Since they're putting a park to the south, it really isn't necessary in our neighborhood association. Krauss: If I can interject. I understand some of their concerns with some of the Park issues. Some I agree with. Some I don't but the fact is, traditionally the Planning Commission does not place themselves inbetween the Park Board and a developer. These are concerns that I think the Park Board has seen it. These were their issues. This was their recommendation. I think the developer can make that pitch relative to these conditions to the City Council. It just traditionally hasn't been something that you've tinkered with. 1 38 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: How do ou feel about the issue of right of first refusal for the property? Does Y g ' that mean that it could be sold for a price determined at market at a later date? Krauss: I think the condition that was written by the Park Board was somewhat different in approach. It said that if the homeowners association fails to operate the park or maintain the park, whatever. Wants to walk away from the park, that it becomes a city owned facility. That's different than getting first dibs on buying it. But again, I wasn't at the Park Board. ' That was their recommendation. I'd ask you not to tinker with that. Farmakes: I'm perfectly agreeable with that but I do have a question in regards to that. How does the taxation work for that type of operation? Krauss: It's taxed property. I suppose it's taxed at a lower rate. Farmakes: So the homeowners association then pays that tax? Krauss: You bet. And I guess we're somewhat comfortable with it in this case Jeff. There are a lot of commonly held facilities and chunks of land in this one that don't, and the park, that the homeowners association has a valid purpose and would tend to exist for... 1 Mancino: Paul, I just have one other question with that too. I don't want to tinker with the Park Board's recommendation but what was the rationale behind having them put in a 250 square foot field? Krauss: I honestly don't know. I mean I can guess. Mancino: A rink? An ice rink? 1 Krauss: Well there was an presumption here that okay, the Park Board agreed that they would build a neighborhood park on the next property to the south pending their ability to 1 obtain title to buy the property. But I think they also wanted to make sure, this is significantly sized development. That it was providing a legitimate variety of internal recreational amenities. That's my guess. Terry Forbord: Paul, this just makes for expediency. Is it the position then that the Planning Commission will not be dealing with any of the park issues as it relates to the items that we have concerns about? Krauss: That's traditionally been the case unless there are some land use aspects or site design aspects of the park issue. The Planning Commission and Park Board are equally 39 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 created by respective City Council with their res ective s P heres of influence and we haven't tried to modify them. Conrad: Terry, I don't mind hearing the issues. I don't know that we're going to react to n'3', g g g them here. If I think they affect the planning. I don't know that we're going to react to 250 versus 180 unless it affects the overall• plan of the site. So it's good for us to hear them but again I don't know that we're going to react to them in one way or another at this time unless it does, there's some contingencies to something that we really have some influence on. Terry Forbord: Okay. Well then let me just take over for a minute here because I think it's important for me to state that of all the issues, there's a number of key issues that are here tonight. We're going through some minor adjustments here and fine tuning with you but there are a couple key issues that will decide whether this property is acquired by us and whether it is developed and the park and trail issues are certainly probably at the top of the list. The association park that we have presented in the Johnson/DolejsifTurner neighborhood connected to the immediate west of this subject property and the same association park on the Song property, are new elements of design that we are now incorporating into all of our neighborhood communities of any significance. And by significance I mean something that is of enough size that it warrants this type of amenity. I'd like to tell you that we are the ones that invented this, but we are not. We've traveled the country and we have found that in neighborhoods with these types of amenities, the people find them to be incredibly desirous for, not only for their use but for what they do to protect and enhance the property values and the investments that people are making in probably the largest investment they make. So • over the last 4 years, on every significant neighborhood community that we've developed, we have included as association park like this. And they have been incredible. Well, excuse me. Well accepted by the buyers. Now this is kind of a new thing for the midwest. You can go all over the United States and find these everywhere but in the midwest it's somewhat different. And we've had to really, really spend a lot of time before planning boards and city councils and park commissions trying to hopefully educate them to the benefits, not only to the people who own the association but to the general benefits of the city because we're providing the land. We're building the improvements. We're maintaining it and that takes a burden off some of the facilities in the rest of the community. So for us we find that it is 1 very, very important. Now, for the parks commission, their charge is to also make sure that the general public is being taken care of with facilities to provide recreational facilities for the general public which is their charge and it's a good charge and those things do need to be addressed. So obviously they look at this very closely and they scrutinize it. And in their - attempts to review this, and pass it onto you, they have exacted from us items economically to the point that where it's going to kill our ability to proceed with this project if in fact it ultimately is approved that way. We're spending a lot of money, if you can imagine, just putting in the facilities that we are. Now they have asked us to come back to them with 40 • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 some new ideas and we came back to them with the proposed trail corridor that John briefly described to you earlier. And that trail corridor, there was something I was trying to figure out what additional incentive can I make to the city so they will accept the association park concept. What additionally could I provide that would be public oriented and it just hit me that this wetland complex here and I brought it back to staff. We would provide an easement, the land that would enable the beginnings of a public trail system around this natural area, would that be something of interest to the parks commission. Well of course it was and it was a good idea and they embraced it. The problem with it is, is that not only do they want me to give them land. They want me to build it for them and they want me to grade the park down at Stockdale's and all these other things. We can't afford to do that and do all the other things we're trying to do here. So this issue has become a very large issue and the only way that I can make it work is if park fees and trail fees are waived to the equivalent amount of the cost of the construction of these facilities that are of public benefit. I And so I'm just sharing this with you tonight because it more than likely is a deal breaker for our ability to make this, purely from an economic standpoint. I would like to be able to say to the city, I'd be happy to do all these things but I'm not Santa Claus and I can only do what makes sense from an economic standpoint. And at the same time still be able to provide a very high quality community. And so you may not want to be dealing with these items tonight because we've made some changes in the recommendations in how those park and trail dedication fees are to be allocated so I'll be happy, we can go through these. Each one of them if you'd like us to but if you're of the position of historically of the parks commission not to deal with those things, then we can move on to other items. It would be 1 up to the Planning Commission. Conrad: Well, do we want to hear them briefly or do we want to just skip them? Mancino: I'd like to hear them briefly. 1 Conrad: Okay, let's touch them but. Terry Forbord: A couple that are key, such as Gaipin Blvd so why don't you go ahead. Conrad: Yeah, let's keep on going. . g g 1 John Uban: I think on item number (b) here, Terry talked about that already quite a bit. That we need to have the fees equal the construction that's being requested in addition to ' what we are dedicating and building as an association facility. The trails, under trails. The trail, we're suggesting it be incorporated is a 100 foot boulevard from Galpin and here's a section that generally shows that and what this indicates is that within 100 feet we can get the 52 foot wide road, 10 foot boulevard on either side. There can be a trail on this side also. 41 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Put a 10 foot trail in and we have additional land here yet on the edge of the right -of -way. 1 This is a very comfortable cross section that handles lots of traffic. Trails are good to have, I believe, in the corridor or the right -of -way. It's safer. There will be light poles here. They'll be illuminated. They'll be more watched because safety is a concern. If they kind of wander off and away from the road, there are some safety issues that are a concern. Additionally, when we build our berm to keep our 30 to 40 foot back yard here, we'd like to build it and then just taper it right into the edge of the right -of -way and usually we do that in other communities and I know that the city is looking at similar berming effects on roads along Highway 5. The frontage road and so forth. But this helps us to maximize our • berming if we can taper it into the edge right there on just a couple feet. But this is a very good trail system many cities are using. This same design between 80 and 100 feet of right - of -way, depending on the road size. 1 Terry Forbord: Now this exhibit represents what's proposed by Lundgren Bros and we're showing you to demonstrate that clearly the proposed right -of -way would be able to, is 1 capable of including the road improvements and the proposed trail. John maybe you have an exhibit that may show what is being proposed by staff. John Uban: This is park staff. Terry Forbord: Parks commission, that's correct. 1 John Uban: This shows the 100 foot Galpin Boulevard right -of -way. And here we'll have over 24 feet between the road and the edge of the right -of -way and then they're asking for a 20 foot trail easement added to that which combined would certainly be 140 feet of right -of- way or easement combination which then we have the trail set farther back. Was closed to traffic and then when we try to put our berm in and keep our back yard, we have much less room in which to do that because the trail doesn't want plantings involved to separate it from the road and so forth and keep it graded to match. Ledvina: Would that roadway be constructed with a curb and gutter? John Uban: Yes. 1 Ledvina: So there wouldn't be any need for ditches, okay. John Uban: This seemed to be sort of wasting land here that it's more maintenance in the long run. It's less consolidated. I believe it becomes less safe and when you look at the rest of Galpin Blvd, especially to the north, and you realize you want to grade out this far, there are some significant wetlands to the north that are impacted that make the two that are on this 42 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 property fairly minute by comparison. So I believe the consolidation of road and trail, is a good practice. Other cities are doing it. To minimize wetland filling and other activity like that. Terry Forbord: Now we recognize that in the past the city has used these principles but what we're suggesting is that just because it's been done before in the past, doesn't mean maybe it was the best idea. Because this particular type of cross section on this proposal of 140 feet combination of right -of -way and easement is a huge swath of land that goes along any route and it will involve the filling of more wetlands. Eventually the cutting down of more trees in those areas where it's going through that are wooded, and we feel that you can readily 1 accommodate all the same functions within the proposed right -of -way without any additional easements. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, let me just interject something here. The typical section proposed there is fairly accurate. There is sufficient room to build a trail section within the 100 foot° right -of -way. The problem comes when you come to an intersection where there's additional turn lanes. Turn lane medians that expands that paved section out even wider. That does restrict where the trail goes. In some cases the trail may be right up to the back of the curb. We understand the intersections like that, maybe it's not that bad...and so forth. Similar subdivisions that we've recently done along Galpin Blvd, we have incorporated the trail section into the 100 foot right -of -way. Carver County Public Works Department had sent us a memo regarding this. Their recommendation though is if we want a trail section, for it to be outside the 100 foot right -of -way. We are currently working with Carver County Public Works Department to change their minds on that since most likely it will be a joint cooperative project to upgrade this county road in the future. So our concerns I guess would be the trail...intersection would seem possible, an additional turn lanes and medians at the intersection. 1 Mancino: What jurisdiction does the Carver County public works have on it? Hempel: It's currently under their jurisdiction...out in their right -of -way. Eventually it may be turned back over to the city as a city street. Terry Forbord: Dave, would it make sense. Just make sure I understand your concern at the intersection. If there's a turn lane right here is what you're saying. Is that that trail should be able to meander in. I don't think that would be a problem for us to accommodate that 1 around turn lanes and things. I think that makes sense. The only thing we're saying is to make that, to add that huge swath through the entire length, one it's overkill. Two, it is going to impact wetlands and it's certainly going to impact the quiet enjoyment of these 1 people. That berm now will be right off their deck. That berm will come right up to the 1 43 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 deck of these homes under the proposal and nobody will have any back yard space along here. I think there's a way to get around that. 1 Conrad: Interesting issue. I think City Council will deal with that one. We'll all have our own opinions but it is interesting because that is a major, well I'm going to abbreviate my 1 comment. The trail there is very important and I can see why Park and Rec wanted it and I can also see why you don't and it's better. I can see both sides of the issue and I think we don't need to get involved. We'll let. 1 Terry Forbord: Just to clear that, we do want the trail. Conrad: Right. Right. g t . John Uban: Then we continue I guess basically on with that trail issue. That once again 1 we're asking that the fee and park fees for trails make up the difference for any, the construction that the Park Commission may request. On the trail that goes along the south edge of the Johnson/Dolejsi property, this major walk along the wetland that we've just talked about. The city is asking for a connection up into that subdivision, which we think is a good idea but we're having a hard time finding an appropriate place and we wanted to make sure that that could happen without wasting a lot that we've already gotten approved so we're suggesting in our narrative and to work with the city and we think that there is an easement, utility easement that can be used that would also be used for the city to gain access to the sedimentation ponds that are also being built in that area. So I think if we can work creatively with the city to combine utility easements and access for sedimentation pond and a possible trail connection that might not be suitable for bicycles but, you know it would be probably steep but can be walked. That that would work out very well and we'll continue in that direction. The other, on Stockdale to the south. The Park Commission had wanted to make that acquisition a contingency on the approval of the Song parcel which is, it's out of our control and it didn't make sense to us because we're doing so much anyway that just making it contingent didn't, wasn't something that we felt was appropriate and was not an issue that we could control, is the problem. And we will work with the city. We'll work with Stockdales to make sure that something reasonable can take place but we are dedicating an additional trail on the nature walk. We are building our own parks plus, if no construction is involved, still paying all the park and trail fees for both developments and only asking for credit should they ask...That sort of summarizes I think the issues with park and trail. If there are any other comments. I'll move onto number 11. Really it's just a clarification. We have really no issue with number 11. Number 12. We want the street section that we have 1 proposed in the subdivision and the right -of -way dimensions that we've proposed, to continue and these are on two very specific areas. Number one, we have all the roads, the thru streets are all 60 feet in width, the right -of -way and standard 31 feet or even, I think larger on A 44 ' 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 street. On the cul -de -sacs we're proposing just on these roads to have 50 feet of right -of -way 1 with the standard street in there and that allows us just to be a little bit tighter here and especially on this cul -de -sac which is cul -de -sac B, we're able to pull as far away as possible from Galpin and give as much room as possible to this park. And so it's important for us to have this 50 foot right -of -way. And the other place that we're having a right -of -way reduction is on H and I which is the street that goes up into the woods. And here it's going to be 8% in grade, a little steeper to minimize grading. It's narrowed up specifically to save trees. It is narrowed up with a 40 foot right -of -way and with a 24 foot wide road. To expand that back to a city standard or even a 50 foot right -of -way with a standard road will spread the actual construction for the road itself. It will expand the area where utilities will have to be placed. It will expand back into the wooded areas the allowable paths for home development. All of this will have an impact. In fact we looked at just the road construction and if we expanded the road itself and we found about 9 trees might be taken in addition to what is there, which is about, it was over 200 caliper inches of oak that would be removed if we expanded the right -of -way and the road surface itself. And these are really critical and we think the city really has to make some judgments here. We've been working to minimize tree loss to do a good job and we really have to look at creative solutions and this may not always mean the standard road and the standard right -of -way and standard construction techniques. And we're committed to using the best possible. In fact we'll push the envelope of tree 1 preservation in trying to coordinate all these utilities to follow a single corridor. You have NSP. You have Minnegasco. You have the telephone company. You have the cable company. They all like to go everywhere and then you have the driveway and we are going 1 to try to do whatever possible to coordinate all of this and create single entrances into sites. Mancino: So you're asking for kind of a double bang. You're asking one to get smaller road 1 right -of -way to bring the houses in closer to the street and you're also asking for 20 foot setbacks on particular sites due to tree preservation. 1 John Uban: Right. Some lots we may want to be set back farther if the front yard trees can be saved. A greater amount in the front yard versus the back yard. It's really hard to predict at this time but there are a number of sites where there are more trees in the front than in the back and it's vice versa so each one will be approached differently and customized but we're looking for the maximum flexibility to maximize tree preservation. 1 Terry Forbord: Let me just embellish for a minute. It's not our desire to create any health, safety or welfare issues. It's not our desire to make maintenance, snowplowing, those types of things any more difficult for the city. We are not going to gain any additional lots or anything like that because of the way we're proposing this. But what we are trying to do, and this is a commitment I personally have made to the Carlsons and to the Songs. This 1 particular area in the northwest corner, we probably spent 50% of our time just talking about 1 45 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 1 that during the negotiation process. Mr. Carlson and I personally walked this site oh 3 to 4 times and then I've walked it a couple times with the Songs as well as about 6 -7 times by myself. Trying to figure out how can we build the road there and save the 4 foot sugar maples that adorn that whole landscape in there and the magnificent oaks. And so that area is one area that I think deserves unusual consideration by the city of Chanhassen. But also, let's just talk briefly about the other areas when we're asking for these 50 foot reductions. �. Remember Mr. Uban just pointed out that this be cul -de -sac areas. These roads don't go anywhere. They're just cul-de -sacs. There's not a health, safety, welfare issue here and it's not going to improve maintenance, snowplowing, or any of that to any degree whatsoever. If it was, we wouldn't be proposing it to you. All the rest of the streets are under the same design standards of the city. What we're trying to bring forth to you is from what we keep hearing back from the city of Chanhassen over and over again as far as preservation, less roads, but we also are trying to make sure that we're sensitive to health, safety, welfare. Conrad: Well Paul. Dave. What do you? Hempel: I know from an engineering standpoint it may be somewhat different than 1 planning's viewpoint on it. From a safety standpoint I guess as it states in the staff report, I think the most devastation or disruption I should say to the right -of -way area is the installation of the sewer and water, storm sewer line and the public utilities like the gas,, 1 electric and telephone. We've discussed previously about trying to consolidate the utilities and gas, electric, telephone and we're still working on that with these entities. However, the sewer and water installation I guess is probably the major disruption to the area. It may be possible by uses of construction techniques such as a box, which is where they can narrow up the trench with less disruption area but otherwise typically your utility trench at the base of the trench is 3 to 4 feet wide and from that point it should go up at a 1:1 slope. So if you're down 12 feet, you're out 28 feet at the top. That's per OSHA standard. Anything less than that you're in violation of the standards. In addition to that, you've got areas where the soil will be back cast over what they call the spoil bank. Now that can again be reduced by these construction techniques called a box but...Typically we've seen, or we've heard these techniques being employed but when it comes down to the actual construction, it's much more difficult for the contractor to drag the box along and to get the box. One day all of a sudden it's back out to 28 feet wide at the top and the area of disruption then is the same as the 30 foot wide street section. I don't think we're gaining much by trying to reduce the street pavement section out 24 -26 foot wide. Right -of -way limits. Once we give up our rights to that right -of -way, there's no ever getting it back. The houses will be built. 15 more years down the road if we need to add a sidewalk, add a trail, reconstruct the road and so forth, dig up those utilities for maintenance repairs, the houses are set back from that right -of- way and the area will be disturbed anyway. Removal of additional 9 trees. On a 900 foot long street, to get the added width, I don't know if that's such a sacrifice or such a 1 46 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 compromise if you look at public safety. As far as giving enough street pavement for pedestrians to walk. In a 24 foot wide pavement section, that's barely enough for 2 cars to pass on the street. Mancino: But you're comfortable with the 31 foot wide pavement areas? Hempel: That's our standard. 1 Mancino: That are on most of these streets except for H. Hempel: Right. But I think the applicant is proposing that. Where they're deviating from the pavement width is on streets H and I in the more sensitive area and we agree. That is a sensitive area but on the other hand we think the construction in itself is going to take it's toll 1 on those trees whether or not you have a 24 foot wide street or 31 foot wide street. Mancino: And your suggestion is the 28? Hempel: Well, I'd like some clarification. I guess is the 28, is that back to back or is that pavement width? If it's pavement width and we include the curb and gutter, you're 1 essentially out to the 30 foot wide street section that we normally wouldn't have an urban section like this. 50 foot right -of -way. That has to do probably more with setbacks around the houses. In this area if it, due to the sloping terrain of the, kind of like a knob...it's kind of a ravine so if by reducing the right -of -way width it helps keep the houses up on top to save trees, eliminate grading, we can, staff can live with that. But these other right -of -way areas outside where it's, what I'll call sunshine lots where there's mass grading already, we see no reason to compromise the 60 foot right -of -way in those area. Conrad: Paul, any comments on Dave's comments? ' heard both on this issue many I think you've eard us o e y times before. It's one of the few things that we tend to approach it a little differently than the engineering department. We tend to encourage a little more flexibility in those things. I understand the problems the wider right -of -way causes. I think it's possible in all probability to construct, we used to ' build all our streets in 50 foot right -of -ways. Now it wasn't perfect. There were always problems that cropped up. I think when you go look around the Twin Cities, a lot of communities have 50 foot as a standard. There are some communities that have much less and I wouldn't encourage much less. I mean...I don't know. I'm comfortable with the position. I don't want to recommend that you ignore the recommendations of the engineering department that they made in good faith. On the other hand, if it's not hurting anything, and it works well on one street, why doesn't it work well on the other one. I think it does 1 47 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 1 provide a little bit more flexibility... Conrad: Okay. We've got a lot of points going through here. It's going to be tough for us to react to your proposal on the words. I think you've got to give us some global perspectives so we can give staff direction on this. I'm not sure that the words in your recommendations are, we're going to, as we wind this thing up and we've been at it for an hour and a half now and we haven't even talked yet. The key things are going to be lost. Terry Forbord: Pardon me? 1 Conrad: The key points are going to be lost because you're making so many points with the number of pages that you have here. The 27. The 31 points you know and we're not going to give a motion that's real intuitive. It's hard to react to all the things you're bringing up right now. And my point is, I don't mind hearing them but when we make our motions, we're not going to be able to extract this and that from one and impose it on the other. what I'm saying is, you've got to make sure we understand like you did on trails Terry, what your, the key points and you've got to make sure we understand the issues involved. Maybe not the wording as much because I don't know that we're going to incorporate the wording that you're suggesting. And the other point I'm making right now is, we have been at it for an hour and a half and you know, we're going to listen to your points but if you can give us the essence of what you're saying without spelling it out in the words because I'm never, we're not going to echo your words in our motion. I'll guarantee you that. We're not bright enough to do that. For 31 points and to remember all the things that you've said. We're 1 just not. And more than likely what we're going to do is tell staff to take a look at some of these issues, which is probably what you're setting us up to do anyway, which is okay but again, we're at 10:30 and there's an 11:00 curfew, which I'd really like to stay tuned to. And there is another item on the agenda. So the bottom line is, not to say we don't want to give you the time. But I do want to make sure, don't let us lose sight of the key issues because you're hitting us with a lot of stuff. And I don't know that we're going to be able to. Terry Forbord: ...issues right now and we will work the rest of the items out with staff. I believe that the remaining key issues. Krauss: I don't want to interrupt that but you did raise a valid point. We do have another fairly significant item that's on. It's getting late and this is kind of traditionally the time here if you don't think you're going to get to something, you might want to offer an expedient way out and place it first on the agenda next time. 1 Conrad: Well we're not, we haven't talked yet and we're not going to get to it. 1 48 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 echo thoughts. I wan staff's opinion before we deal with any I e o your want p y of this. 1 Mancino: Yeah, I want staff to take this. I Krauss: No, you're in the middle of something here but I'm wondering relative to the next item with the Centex one which is also significant in size, isn't going to get heard tonight. Is that going to be finished or should you revise and. 1 Conrad: Is there somebody from Centex here? 1 Aanenson: They're out in the hall. Conrad: They're out in the hall. I Mancino: What's our agenda look like next meeting? 1 Krauss: The next one isn't so bad. Conrad: Come on up for a second. We're taking a lot of time on this issue and we have I typically an 11:00 curfew. We find that our decisions after 11:00, I'm trying to tell you that we don't do a real great job after 11 :00 and I really try to get us out of here then. My preference would be to invite you back and put you first on the next agenda, if that is okay 1 with you. If it's not okay, we may table it anyway tonight. I'd have to poll the commissioners. Does that put any undue hardship on you if we promise you'd be first on the next agenda? I Centex Representative: What does that do to our City Council schedule. 1 Aanenson: It's my understanding you have kind of a drop dead date at the end of the month. • They want to get to Council by the 25th. 1 Mancino: We have another meeting. I Aanenson: It has been done. We haven't always had Minutes ready. The Council likes to see those. The only way we've done that before is Nann... I Mancino: But we may be able to because it's conceptual only. I mean it's not a preliminary plat. It's a conceptual. 1 Aanenson: They want to get conceptual from the Council by the end of the month. 1 49 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 g g 1 Krauss: I suspect it's probably something we can turn around. Ledvina: But it comes back to us as a relimin plat. P �'YP Conrad: Preliminary plat later on. . 1 Farmakes: Well I'll throw out my opinion. These are large developments and I don't think we should be pigeon holing them into a time frame that is inappropriate for the size of development that they are. Conrad: Yeah, I think that's true. So I guess I'll put it back on staff a little bit here. Do 1 you feel we could turn it around? You know it's sort of. Krauss: In all fairness to the applicant, if they get knocked off the agenda tonight, we'd 1 probably owe it to them. Conrad: Okay. What's our agenda like next time? 1 Krauss: It's not as bad... Conrad: Yeah, I really don't want to talk about it tonight. Seriously, bringing it up. Centex Representative: Staff understands our issue. If that can be worked out, I think we could... Conrad: Okay. Well we're maybe half way through what we're talking about. I couldn't even tell you we're going to get you on at 11:00. But again I have, I'd rather not. We'll send you home a half hour early but I guess it will be our commitment to have you on first the next time through and staff will have Minutes ready for City Council for the meeting on the 25th? Centex Representative: So the next time will be 2 weeks? Conrad: 2 weeks from now, yeah. Thank you. Okay. John, you're back on. 1 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, taking your comments to heart and we will...smaller items we will work with staff and we're just trying to bring them to the attention of the commission. 1 Conrad: Well I think it's a good exercise Terry but you're going to get us lost and again, if you can hit the key points and the ones. 50 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 Terry Forbord: We could actually go through. 1 John Uban: We have just two. 21 and 25 are almost identical issues. Just quickly the Song parcel that they are retaining is a 9 1/2 acre parcel on the north side. They want to build a substantial home on the site. They want to have their own driveway, as they had before, on I out to Galpin. The city staff is saying that they would like to have the driveway come between these two homes and come up into the site. And on our mitigation plan we're adding onto the wetland mitigation in this area and it's really kind of a draw through here. I l kind of like to keep that separate and we'll have the Song's have their own entrance. I don't think a single family home's going to impair traffic on Galpin and there are plenty of other homes that are, Prince for instance in a similar situation. Carlson's and the like. And we 1 would like to have that versus off...ravine and the mitigation area. Terry Forbord: Actually I can put it more bluntly. The Song's do not want to access through 1 an urbanized neighborhood community for their estate home. This is a dream of their's. Always has been. To locate a substantial custom home up into that area. They would like to be afforded the same treatment as others in the city have had or may have larger parcels of 1 property. Where they have a meandering driveway that goes through the woods and their own private entrance. And this would literally be unacceptable to them. It would mean...to their property values. It would not even be the ambience feeling or anything for them if that 1 was required of them. Conrad: Okay. Now I don't even need to hear a counter. Does anybody want a counter 1 point? Oh do you? Okay. John Uban: The next issue. I Conrad: Wait, wait, wait. We're going to ask Paul. 1 Krauss: We've never allowed a direct access of any home to a county highway when there was a subdivision going in. We simply don't do it. There are reasons for not doing it. From 1 a safety standpoint. It looks like it could be easily accomplished from a grading standpoint. We understand Mr. Song and Mrs. Song need to...turn lanes and acceleration lanes and everything else that we're making this development do. It's pretty much standard procedure. 1 Conrad: But if they subdivide their property, it won't be going through this. I Krauss: No. No. That's true. 1 51 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 Mancino: They'd do it as a separate parcel. Y P P Krauss: Conceivably, you know equally possible access through the Carlson property. You Y� Y �l Y P g P� know these are both properties that nobody's anticipating developing in the foreseeable future but at some point down the road they may develop together. I don't know. But we're 1 talking about a new homesite, a new driveway. It is not been the past action. Conrad: Okay. It is not there now? 1 Krauss: No. Conrad: Okay. Hempel: They have a sanitary sewer line also that will be going down to the common 1 property line at the same location and it makes sense from an access maintenance standpoint and sewer lines also will have a driveway there for future maintenance. Access to the sewer manholes. Maybe he brings up a good point. Maybe this cul -de -sac should be extended to the property line for future access in the future. Maybe it can be an access off to Galpin in the future and tied into the Carlson property. So there's different alternatives out there but for a single driveway access back out to a county road... John Uban: Just to point out. There is an existing sort of a field service road that comes into this area off of Galpin. Krauss: Isn't that the Lake Ann Interceptor though? 1 Mancino: Yep. John Uban: Yeah, that goes through there too. Hempel: Is that wooded too there? 1 John Uban: Yeah, this is all wooded through here which is south and so then the cul -de -sacs are going to have to go, penetrate the woods and we're going to attach all of this as a natural 1 area back here. Was our thought and our design. Terry Forbord: The next item would be item number 28. This just has to deal with the 1 feeling of a neighborhood community and the importance to making sure there's some continuity in the monumentation for the entrances. We would have preferred that there would 1 52 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 only have been one entrance off Galpin Blvd into this neighborhood community but obviously that is not probably going to be a conceivable notion for the staff. They prefer that we had another entrance down at the southern portion of the property in this location. Well, all of the entrances to this neighborhood community will be extremely well appointed with fencing and landscaping and berming and irrigation and signage, etc, etc. Far more than what you have ever seen us do in the city of Chanhassen before and consistent to the projects we're currently doing in Medina, Plymouth and in Apple Valley. To take that away from us at another key entrance to the neighborhood community would make the theme of all of this fall ' apart. First of all it would look out of place. They'd say why would you guys do all this job up here and you didn't do it down here. So we find that the median in this area and the other theme features that create the synergy of this whole neighborhood are very important here as well as it would be here and on the entrance on TH 41 which is already been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 1 Conrad: Paul, do you want to? Krauss: David... Conrad: What do you have to do with it? Are you taking over the planning? ' Hempel: Well actually it's kind of an engineering item. The maintenance. 1 Conrad: Ah. That's where that came from. Hempel: Maybe I can just brush on the main thoroughfare street A there. I did talk with 1 State Aid offices. It's our recommendation that the street be built to State Aid standards...it's a corridor for future east/west collector. MnDot actually had no problem with a landscaped median out there as long as there was...in terms of sight distances and so forth. So based on 1 that I guess...but on Street A, fine. I guess it probably goes the same with Street E, is it? I • know it's somewhat different from our attitudes in the past but I guess if we do it at one intersection, like Terry said, it only makes sense to do it at the other... This is probably going to set a precedence though for the rest of developments in town. What I'd like to do is speak with our utility department, maintenance crews as far as snowplowing goes. If there's maybe some design that they would rather see. Some limitation on the widths and so forth. So maybe working with the developer here... Conrad: Okay, good. Thanks Dave. Terry Forbord: One final comment. We would like the narrative and the recommendations 1 that we have submitted to you tonight in writing to be entered into the record. 1 53 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: For sure. 1 Terry Forbord: Thank you. Do you have any other comments John? 1 John Uban: No. I think the important things really are the consideration of the street designs to save trees. The trail in the right -of -way on Galpin versus leaning into the subdivision. And I think a lot of these other issues we'll continue to work with staff on them and get them refined. Terry Forbord: We'd be happy to answer any questions that we can for the Commission. Conrad: Okay. Well I'm probably going to open it up for commissioners. Well, we still 1 have a public hearing. We still have some people that want to, maybe want to say some things. So Terry, thanks. John, thank you very much. Appreciate your work. Public hearing. We will open it up for any other comments. Jerome. Are you going to keep us here for a while? Jerome Carlson: No. Conrad: You want to get home don't you? Jerome Carlson: I'm not long winded. This street. I think you're going to have a challenge with the Song's but I'll let them argue their private entrance business. I don't think they see their 9 1/2 acres because they're very dear friends of our's and they rely on me to sometimes voice some of their opinions but I think they would see their 9 1/2 acres not as a part of the subdivision but as 9 1/2 acres. A substantial piece of property which might warrant it's own entrance. But I will let them address that. What I would like to address is the question. Dave, are you suggesting that there is in fact no difference between a 31 foot wide road and a 24 foot wide road in this area here? Hempel: That's a different question Mr. Carlson. The limits of disruption that will occur between the difference? The street construction is not being the main disruption factor. The utility installation and sanitary sewer and water installation, that is going to create most of the disruption. When you put a street on top of that area, the area of disruption will be 30 feet wide. 1 Jerome Carlson: Well, I'm a little bit ignorant except I know the territory and I've walked that property umpteen times. I probably could name some of the trees by now I feel that 1 close to some of them. And quite frankly if there are 9 sizeable trees that have already been identified as being sacrificed in addition to what is already going to have to go, something 54 i 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 has to go. I understand that. But our agreement. Incidentally, there is a contract that exists here between myself and the Song's and the developer and I think we have some power and some rights and I'm going to fight hard to maintain every single tree on the street. I mean I went down and measured on Sunday, a very, very busy day. Took a 25 foot tape measurer and I measured Cedar Lake Parkway and I'm telling you in Minneapolis that is a busy street on a Sunday in the summer. From the edge of the curb to the edge of the curb it's 26 feet. 26 feet. And I'm listening to all this talk in the city that we've got to have 60 foot roads? I mean I've got to honestly tell you I think that some real serious rethinking needs to be done. And those roads are still just fine. They're being used by more cars travel that road on a Sunday than would travel this road in a year. And so as far as how do you put the trench in, maybe some creative thought. Put the trench in before the road goes on. Move the utilities over to one side. If you want a sidewalk, put the sidewalk over then where the utilities items ended up. Put the road on top of a 30 foot width that's been disrupted. I mean let's, if we're serious about saving the environment and the trees, then let's get serious and look at this thing and these other 50 foot widths that end up in cul -de -sacs. I'm sorry. Give me a break. 1 And the trees too. Thank you. Hempel: Mr. Chair, if I could respond to that a little bit. We have streets 22 feet wide in the 1 city. Carver Beach is a prime example...function well from a drainage standpoint, from a snowplowing standpoint, from a safety standpoint. Close intersection. Not the room for pedestrian traffic and so forth. Our current standard is 31 foot wide of pavement width is ' standard and it's used throughout the city and the other communities as well. In Minnetonka they do reduce street width in some situations. Again though, I'm not sure that reducing the pavement width is going to save those trees. If it's possible to maybe massage the road right- of-way around to protect these trees, I'm all for it. The streets can be saved with retaining walls. Some unique construction techniques and installation of utilities can all be employed but that's all I can ask the developer to do that. We're willing to listen. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman, just as a footnote to that. The sanitary sewer depth on that road is only about 12 feet deep. So the trenching that will be required, that is the deepest pipe that's going to be in that road. The water line will be above that. The trenching that will be required for that 12 foot depth will not go beyond into the trees and I think the burden of proof should be on us to be able to show you we will. That we can put those utilities in that corridor as proposed without going beyond it. 1 Conrad: Okay. Good point Terry. Krauss: If I could add too. I mean again we've been supportive of modifying standards 1 when trees...and we think on street H is in evidence of that. But one of the things we wanted to clarify with the developer is exactly what trees we're saving on the street right -of -way. 1 55 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 It's not clear from documentation that we have. I'm pretty convinced they're there. I mean I can see that they're there but that's the one area on the site where we really need to designate trees in the front that we're taking extra measures to protect and make sure that they are there when they're done. And there's a condition to that effect. 1 Conrad: Yeah, Dave brings up some valid points and I know what you're speaking of Dave. 1 Hempel: Similar projects with subdivisions...pneumatic gopher where they plow gas, electric, telephone lines underneath or through the root systems of these trees that are on boulevards to save them. They're going through the 9 yards to do it. Well the concern is that the root damage though is sustained during the construction that 2 -3 years down the road, they would die anyway and do we end up taking them out, the city, because they're within the right -of- way or do we have the developer. Mancino: You know but the other point in here is, even if we don't save trees, any more 1 trees, we do have an area that is heavily wooded. We have less paved area and people will start planting trees, even if they aren't saved right around the streets. They will start planting trees closer so that it just reduces visual impact of the pavement and still be safe. 1 Conrad: Okay. Any other public comments? Anything else? Anybody here for this? Okay, is there a motion to close the hearing. 1 Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All . voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: I forget, it's been so long. Jeff, we'll start at your end. I don't know if we did. Farmakes: We can start at my end again. Conrad: Is that what I did? So I should start. 1 Farmakes: No. No problem. No angry crowds here so I can. I guess I'll start out first with a couple of comments. The issue that the staff made regards to Lot 36, Block 4. That turn around that's there, the best I could see it opted for the turn around was, was on the presentation drawing. It's sort of a sketch showing approximately what the setback is on that lot. The turn around on the end of the private driveway. It's like adjacent to the setback to the wetland, is that correct? Krauss: No, it's not clear. We wanted a design detail of that. 56 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 1 Farmakes: It looks like it's going to be pretty tight in there. Krauss: Well, it's probably okay. That's something that we need to woik out in the final I option. Basically you're not looking to be able to turn a pumper around...but you need to be able to kind of K turn your way so usually it's a matter of flaring out the last driveway and I doing a little bit of extra pavement. Farmakes: Do the houses, will they be set back far enough so that again the shared driveway that there are 10 cars parked out in front of the house at a party but they're not out into I someone elses property. 1 Krauss: Those kinds of things really have not been problems over the years. They require this thing be paved to a width of 20 feet. You can park a car on that and get around it. I Farmakes: We haven't had a lot of houses develop out here that are 10 feet apart. 20 feet apart. Excuse me. I've seen those types of problems farther in town where some of the older developments, they were some of the old farmhouses and so on, they have some of these I shared private driveway areas and multiple properties encroaching on it. And sometimes, usually when they first start out, the neighbors...but as different people move into different houses, it doesn't' always work out that way. I know that if I had a very socially active I neighbor next to me, and he was constantly parking on my drive, if it was abused I'd probably take issue with it. Particularly if I had something going on at the same time. It looks like a very nice development. I'm not even going to ask how much the houses are I going to go for because I can probably guess. Although it's not an issue here. It looks like the staff's done a lot of work on this. I guess I want to touch a little bit on the issue of that we said we weren't going to do on the issue of the park. I think that particularly in the 1 transaction where we're discussing connective issues in the city and the trails issue is what I'm talking about on the collector streets. That we should be cognizant of that because we're probably looking at these things on a larger scope than just the park. We're also looking at I how you get from point A to point B in the city and it looks like a lot of times the parks afford us, or these developments afford us the opportunity to do some connectivity with them. I am concerned about the trail. I think that's, Galpin is a collector road in our city and I I think that also should be taken into consideration with that trail. I don't have a problem with the island. That isn't an issue with me. The park. I don't have a problem with the private I park. I don't have a problem with the concept of it. I'm not going to get into the...or anything. I think it's great that we don't always consider neighborhood parks to have ballfields and these large expanses of property that more often than not aren't being used. I Only heavily used during a small slice of time. I like the idea of small, intimate parks for neighborhoods. Meaning that that's what they are. That there's a discernable difference between that and a community park and sometimes we lose, I think in Chanhassen we lose 1 57 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 because of the pressure of some of all our kids being crunched in at one time into these soccer fields and baseball fields and the time problems that's created for use on that. We kind of see that as a solution to our problems and we try to stuff it in sometimes where it doesn't belong. So I'll back out of the park issue. I'd like to talk about procedural issue. Any time I get these things where we've got several items to look, I'd just as soon table this automatically. I think that there are items that should be worked out with staff before we get this. I remember making this exact same comment last time we did this. If there's too many 1 issues to be covered here, and if we're going to do that, we should just clear the entire board and we should take, I think discuss 10. Vote on 10 and then go onto the next two because absolutely by the time 2 hours later we're on 28, I've forgotten 1 to 10. And the issues that 1 we're dealing with here, on many of them, it seems to me these are issues that could be worked out but I'd like to hear stuff that staff can't agree on. These are the disagreements and this is what you can't resolve. I don't think what's included in here is things that you 1 can't resolve. That would certainly speed up the meeting and it also, I feel like' I don't have access to the staff's opinion when we're here discussing these things kind of 1 extemporaneously without anytime to think about them. Mancino: So are you suggesting that we table this? • Farmakes: I would like staff to respond to some of these issues on here. There are some major points on here. Philosophical. I don't have a problem with that but I would like to know and allow staff time to respond to these things. Rather than just arbitrarily get hit with several modifications to an ordinance. I really think it would be difficult to include all these issues inside a recommendation. If you feel that they're not a major issue, but it seems to me there are some major things in there that we may want to comment on. There are a couple of them that change quite significantly how they read and many others don't change it hardly at all. 1 Conrad: There may be 3 or 4 issues that we should be reacting to tonight. Farmakes: Yeah, and that's what I think we should have spent our time discussing here. 1 Especially again staff could have the opportunity to respond to those issues and we wouldn't be hit with this at the last minute. I'd like to see this stuff in the packet. The last thing I'll I talk about, I think I forgot about 3. If we give credit for trees, if it seems to me we should encourage what that credit is by our approved list. That we're not talking a 2 1/2 inch sumac or something like that. If there wasn't anything there at all, no natural growth and we were 1 requesting them to put in trees, those trees do not come from the approved list? City list? Krauss: I think we asked, if we didn't put in the condition that they should, that's supposed 1 to be in there... 58 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 Farmakes: It says trees to be selected of the city list. I was wondering if that. Krauss: That's what we're talking about. - Farmakes: If that...to that sentence. 1 Krauss: Yes. Farmakes: Okay. I guess that's it Mr. Chairman. I do have a feeling that I have other ' comments to make on here and I feel a little, without knowing what the driveway to the Song property and what they're proposing, I would not be supporting that until I got a pretty clear on what is expected to be happening to that property. If it was going to be subdivided in the ' future, it doesn't sound like I will be. Conrad: Yeah. You can't make any, you can't assume it will be. But on the other hand, yeah. You can't assume it will be. Nancy. Mancino: A few comments. Paul, what happens to the park and trail part of the staff ' recommendations? Does it now go to them to read through your staff report and make decisions on? ' Krauss: Go to? ' Mancino: Okay. So what I'm reading in here about the park and trails and the developer would like the language changed in the recommendations on the parks and trail area. What's the process? ' Krauss: The normal procedure here is, Todd Hoffman doesn't normally come to Planning Commission meetings but he is normally present at the City Council and in much the same manner as I respond to questions you raise, he responds to questions the Council may raise - relative to those recommendations and the Council makes the final decision. So there will be airing of those issues. I'm certain of that and we'll of course pass these comments along to Todd so he's prepared to deal with those. Mancino: So it doesn't go back to the Park and Recreation Commission? ' Krauss: Not unless the City Council refers it back, which they've done before. Mancino: I'm just mostly going to respond to the staff's recommendations from Paul's report. First of all I'd like to say that I'm really quite pleased with this development. The ' 59 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 environmental sensitivity that is shown on the site plan. I live just down the street from the Song property so I'm very intimately aware of it and am very concerned about how it is going to be developed. So I'd like to pass on a few of my thoughts. I'm going to take, to get these thoughts according to the staff report on page 23. I'm just going to use Paul's recommendation list as my guide. Number 1, I have no changes. Number 2. I am not in favor of reducing front yard setbacks to 20 feet. I have recently visited some subdivisions where the 20 foot setback is used and as I enter this particular subdivision, there is a feeling of very high density on each side of me. The houses are big. They're close to the street. There is a large back yard area with trees but there is no balance between the back yard and the front yard. There are no trees in the front yard and there's just very minimal setback and it has, for me a very tunnel like feeling so that I wouldn't be in favor of any 20 foot setbacks. Number 3, on the Galpin landscape berm. I think that it is very much the city's and the developer's intent to screen the abutting homes from car lights. To screen traffic, noise and 1 to provide a safety barrier for children playing in the rear and side yards. So I would like to make sure that those goals are kept. And in places where homes are higher than Galpin Blvd, I would suggest that we use massive plantings and in areas where the homes are lower or at the same level, that we do berming and landscaping. This is a quality development and in the future when Galpin is a 4 lane highway, I want to make sure that the quality of life in this neighborhood is upheld. I'm making sure that we do have good berming and landscaping. Going on to page number 24, with wetlands. I agree with the number 8, with the staff's report only I have read two different classifications in two different reports and I ask that staff and the developer make sure that they agree on classification of the wetlands so that the city's wetland ordinances are met and that primarily has to do with buffer strips. And in the staff report, it's on page 18 and in the developer's report it's on page 10. And if you refer to these two pages, wetlands indication on the staff report for Wetland A is a natural type and in the developer's it's an ag/urban type. The other difference is in Wetland H. One is an ag/urban and on the other it's natural. So just please get those in line with each other. Going back to the staff report. Number 9. Tree preservation landscaping. Number (e). I would, as a Planning Commissioner, like to see the expanded tree conservation area. I know that the one that we have been given is not complete. I would like to see a completed one. In addition, the developer states that they are removing 10% of the trees for the roadway. For the right -of -way, etc but there's no mention of the percentage being removed for housing and I would like to see those projections on how many total trees will be removed for the entire parcel. Parks and trails I will leave alone. On page 26, number 12. Streets. I am very much in favor of smaller street widths and for them to be used in the right setting and under the right conditions. Where they can save trees. Where they can save the topography of the natural land. So that I would be in favor of keeping the right -of -way for B, D and G at 50 and H and I at 40. I would like to see Chanhassen have more intimate, more neighborhoody, more smaller streets. Number 20. Page 27. Development contract. I would like to be made aware of the writing of the development contract. Being a northern neighbor to this project, I 60 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 I have major concerns about quality of life issues arising from the work days and hours of the I development of this project. Especially because it will be going on for maybe 4 to 5 years. So I would like to be aware of it. I don't know, how do I participate in that? 1 Krauss: We can answer that now. There's a standard. Hempel: Standard work hours are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday and then on 1 Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No work on Sundays or legal holidays. That's the standard in the development contract. Of course as we've experienced this year with the wet climate and with the conditions we've had, there's been a request for variances to that to try ' and pick up some of the time. Those are on an individual case by case. Mancino: So you mean for 4 or 5 years I may be hearing construction on Saturdays? I Hempel: That's correct. You will hear new home construction on Saturdays right now. ° 1 Mancino: And what do, is there anything the Planning Commission can do about that? Hempel: I'm not sure if the Planning Commission can. It would take City Council I approval... I Krauss: I'm honestly not certain if it's an ordinance or if it's just the way we write our development contracts...I know that it takes a Council action to deviate from it, but that's... because when the Council is asked to deviate from it, they're not being asked to give a I variance to an ordinance. They're being asked to allow a change in the condition of a contract. I suppose it's possible, if there were particular reasons on a particular development why something ought to be throttled back. 1 Mancino: Is there a sensitivity to the hours? I haven't found that. I Krauss: Well, I mean we've established the, this was established by the city to mitigate the worst problems...people out shooting nails into a roof at 4:00 in the morning and these kinds of things happen and rather than deal with it on an ad hoc basis, a standard...written into the I contract. But you know, Dave is right. I mean you've got to honestly realize that that's an unfortunate aspect of living in this community during it's development. That the sounds of things stacking up and nail guns kind of work as the back ground noise for a time. I Mancino: Well I'll take it up with the City Council. Thank you. My other comments are the landscape median. I would like to definitely for the entrance on street A and E. I think 61 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 that it states a uniqueness to the neighborhood which I like. And that's it. 1 Conrad: Thanks. Matt. Ledvina: I'll go to the conditions also. Looking at condition number 2 Paul. I'm not sure I understand what we're talking about in terms of this 6 foot setback for garages and 9 feet 1 for...areas. Normally we're talking about 10 feet in both of those instances, isn't that correct? Krauss: Yes. This was a request of the developer and I believe it's similar to the condition that was...What they're asking for is they're saying that our ordinance requires 20 feet between houses. They'll give us the 20 feet but they want to be able to shift things around. Have a little more latitude to that and it's primarily because you're going to wind up with a nice tree on one side of the lot and you want to shift things... Ledvina: I see. 1 Krauss: It really seemed to be no skin off of our necks to allow them to do it as long as they had the obligation to demonstrate to us. Ledvina: 16 on one, 14 on another, stuff like that? Okay. Alright. And on number 9. I think you mentioned it Paul. I'd add a condition relating to custom grading plans. The applicant shall prepare for appropriate lots as they needed them by city staff. I don't know if you want to do it just you know, over the whole thing or just specific areas where you want custom grading plans. • 1 Krauss: You know I was talking to Commissioner Mancino this morning about that and I guess if I had my druthers, our ordinances would specify that there is no mass grading of residential parcels. And on this particular, I don't know if the developer finds that acceptable or not. I think it's preferable but certainly we can go in and list the lots that have the trees on it versus the ones that are out in a corn field. 1 Ledvina: Even just like, for example, Block 7 or something like that. Just doesn't have to be real complicated. I don't think we're concerned about that aspect so much like lots 2, 3, 5 1 and maybe there's some in 4 that we would want to look at but. At any rate, however you want to crack that. Getting to the right -of -ways on the streets and the street widths, etc. Condition number 12. I think that for streets H and I, I believe that the proposal that the applicant has put together is reasonable and sensitive and I would support that but on the other hand, the streets for the streets G. Or I should say, all the other streets with 50 foot right -of -ways. I think that I don't see a real strong need there for reducing that right -of -way and I would suggest that those be expanded to a 60 foot right -of -way. If it doesn't amount to 1 62 1 1 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 increasing the pavement width, you're still agreeing to a 31 foot pavement width, I don't see g P the problem if we're not disturbing sensitive areas...additional right -of -way and I think we should have that. ' Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. I think maybe there's a misunderstanding. May I clarify? ' Conrad: Sure, go ahead. Terry Forbord: Before Commission Scott. The only reason that that's proposed in that particular area is to minimize the grading because the house will be pushed further back. ' Because there's a front yard setback requirement from the edge of right -of -way so when you narrow the right -of -way, that means the house doesn't have to be pushed so far back in those areas. So we won't have to grade that far back. That's the benefit is that there's just going to be a lesser amount of grading. And I know it's kind of hard to understand but you measure the front yard setback from the right -of -way. If you narrow the right -of -way, that ' means the house doesn't have to be as far back. And in these areas, it means you'd be pushing, you can't get 60 foot. ' Ledvina: Is the entire right -of -way automatically graded? Terry Forbord: That's correct. ' Ledvina: It is? Okay. ' Terry Forbord: So what happens is that you're gaining 5 feet all the way around on each side...5 feet on that side is essentially what you're gaining. And it may not sound like a lot but it all adds up. That's why we proposed it. ' Hempel: I think that whole street B though, that's proposed to be graded. Is that correct Terry? All the lots. It's kind of a mass grading on those. ' Terry Forbord: In the open areas, there's some mass grading. We're trying to limit how far back we have to go into there with a building pad. ...probably addressed it better but the ' building pads, you must grade for the foundations of the homes yet you don't have to go 5 feet further back. So you're saving 5 feet on each side of that road by doing that. But if it saves the cost of the grading and further impact. That was the only reason. Ledvina: Okay. I can see that. Let's see then. As far as, I guess I'm just going to touch on ' the parks and the trails. I guess I agree that you can have a smaller open area. I think if the 1 63 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 large r op en area, the 250 feet square is going to mean reducing landscaped areas or whatever, q g g there's trade offs there. I don't know that those are hard to make. I think a smaller is just as effective as 250 square feet. Or 250 foot square areas. It seems to me that, and correct me if I'm wrong Paul but is the Parks Commission asking for them to pay the trail fees and then they're also asking them to finance the construction of the trail fees? Is that like making them pay for it twice? • Krauss: All I can tell you is it does sound like that to me. If that's the case it certainly, you can question the equity in it or...require on the subdivision. That really needs to be clarified. 1 Ledvina: Well, that's what it seems like to me as I read through this and I don't know. I think just to get that out in the open. Other than that, I certainly respect the opinions of the Park Commission. They work very hard in things that relate to the trails and in general I would defer to their recommendations here but I think the overall game plan and the value of the development should certainly be taken into consideration as some of these issues are ironed out here. Let's see. Then as far as the private drive onto the 9 acre parcel. I guess I would support staff in requiring that that driveway not be allowed, given the configuration that we have here. I think that it's possible that some changes be made to B street to maybe accommodate that drive in some way but I'll leave that to be worked out but I would, I do think that the additional driveway may not be warranted so. Other than that I really would commend the developer for an excellent job with this parcel. I think it's going to be a • wonderful area to own a house. • Conrad: Boy I'm sitting here thinking what we're going to do after we stop talking. And if 1 we've added any value to this. Number one, what has to happen is that I think some of what Lundgren has presented in wording, I think a lot of it is appropriate and I would hope that by the time this gets to City Council, that we can get it so there aren't that many areas of difference. Because I don't think the areas of difference are very big in most of the cases. At least the way I read it. But it's real hard to digest what is being said and for some lay people who aren't as familiar with the issues. I honestly don't know where to begin. You know Jeff, there was a point where you said table and I really don't know that I need things tabled. 1 Farmakes: I would be perfectly happy to vote on the staff report recommendations. But I will not, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to vote on this until staff has a chance 1 to respond. Conrad: And I think that's appropriate. So as long as representatives from Lundgren don't 1 mind that. It really is difficult to react to what you present without having a staff prepared to look at everything. I think we'll react to the staff report and I think it's really. , 64 1 • 1 1 1 Planning Commission Melting - October 6, 1993 I Mancino: You don't want to see it again? 1 Conrad: I don't. I personally don't need to see this again. I really like the proposal. I think there's so many nice things about it that it's really neat. There are some key things for you that you've got to get through and some of those things we're not even going to react to I tonight within the park and trail systems. In concept, they're really good. I like the trails coming down to Galpin, which is no big, great shakes. I don't have any insight how big they I should be. Where they should be. I like the trail system around the wetland. I think that's really neat. That's just neat stuff. You look for the neat stuff that the community can get out of a development. There's some neat things here. Most of the other things I will leave to the professionals to handle. I do like the narrow streets and I would like, and Dave I respect I everything you said. I understand what you said. I actually understood what you said and it made sense. Yet I like narrow streets and I think here's, I would like to see if we can make I that happen. And you know when you find out that we're only putting the sewer 12 feet down and what have you, maybe we're not disturbing that big an area. I'd sure, my . recommendation tonight is to try to make those narrow streets work. I live on Horseshoe I Curve and if you've been there, you know that that's mighty narrow. That's far narrower than what we're tallcing about. I love it. It's terrific. Nobody complains about it. But that's not necessarily relevant for tonight's conversation but it sort of tells you where I'm coming I from. I'd like to think we could make it work. If it doesn't work because of safety, because of exactly the facts that you bring up. They were going to go down, we're going to disturb 30 -40 feet anyway so what's the point. Well, if that's the case. Well yeah. That's practical. I Let's not being playing with sky when we're going to disturb but again I think I heard Lundgren say, Terry say he'd like to work with us on that and prove that it can happen and I'd like to see that proof. I'd like to see that all parts work toward that. The landscape 1 medians, yeah. Of course. You've got to have two. There's no difference between one and the other. That's cut and dry in my mind. Paul, your key points. The big conservation areas and forget about these onesies, twoies trees. Yeah, absolutely. There's just no doubt that 1 that's, I like, that's the way to manage. Preserve the big stuff and we can't get into the fine - management and I don't know Nancy. Maybe you don't like that but I really do like going for the bulk and letting individuals have some interaction with maybe some of the details. So I I like the overall concept of what's going on here. One thing, and I don't know how this is ever going to end up in a motion but in point number 8. Staff had some concerns about basin D. How much it could handle and you know I just didn't get the feeling that staff was real convinced that basin D was going to do it's job. Needed more information. Well, that wasn't worked into any of the conditions. At least the way I read the conditions so that probably fits into 8 someplace, and I don't know who up here is ever going to work that in I but it may happen. But if not, I would hope that somebody could look at that. I think that's on page 19. Halfway down. Basin D will also receive significant increase in runoff to the 1 basin, increase blah, blah, blah, blah. I just didn't see that reacted to in the report. 65 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 Throughout here the staff report kept talking about 250 square feet. Now this park is bigger 1 than 250 square feet so when this hits someplace, let's correct that. I think that's on a side if I'm not mistaken, right? Versus 180 foot on a side but it's not 250 square feet in my mind. That's a small park and you can't play frisbee in that small an area. I think in the future, when a current tree, well. It's been said. When there's a tree that applies to, and is being credited to what a developer is obligated, I think we do have to make sure it's one of the trees that we like. That's for future type of stuff that we've got to make sure works. I think, I have a pretty good feeling that the trees in this proposal are going to meet that. The need, I think they will be of good quality. I guess the only place, I don't know. The access for the Song's. That one I'm really split on. You know it's like, geez. That property is going to be developed. Somebody who makes the motion can persuade me on that one. I didn't have a problem. If you've got 9 acres and we put one road in off of 9 acres, that's not a great deal 1 although that's certainly not what we'd like to do. But I would hope that that criteria is not a make or break type deal for this development. It's a terribly nice development. I'm very sensitive and that's not even, you know. That one's not an issue to me one way or another. 1 I think the staff recommendation is the recommendation they should have made. I guess it's up to the Planning Commission and City Council. If we care, it could go a different way but the staff made the right recommendation. I guess I could talk about it a lot longer. I have no idea who wants to make a motion on this and what you say. But if somebody has a clever way of addressing the issues and summarizing the points, I welcome them to take a shot at it. Ledvina: It's my opinion that there are too many things unresolved and as much as I'd like to keep things moving, I'm not comfortable with passing it along at this point. I know that's 1 not what you want to hear but. Conrad: No, that's fine. Your choice. Mancino: I'm going to have to agree. Farmakes: You have my opinion. 1 Conrad: Your opinion. 1 Farmakes: I would be happy to vote on the staff's recommendations with a couple of points that were brought up here. The issue that you just discussed last, I recall that we had an 11 acre development that was subdivided. I think the issue here that it's a private driveway, setting precedent for private driveway. The issue is obviously it's a large enough parcel to probably ask for a connection to the highway if it was a development. ' Conrad: Oh for sure. It would have it so I don't know. 66 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 1 Farmakes: Considering the amount of large scale property out that way, it could create a problem by letting that happen. I Conrad: Yeah. I guess that issue shouldn't get us hung up here. I don't think we care about that one. I guess Matt wants to see some of these things ironed out. I don't know that I have any more insight into this that, or I don't know that I need to hear staff come back or I Lundgren come back to me. I think if Terry wanted to get concurrence and narrow in on the points, he could very definitely we could bring it back and I think we could clean this up a whole lot. And bring it back and look at it and review it in a half an hour. Yet I don't 1 personally feel a need to do that. Matt, you do and that's. Ledvina: Well could I ask the developer a question. Would you like to see the proposal 1 moved forward with just the staff conditions or how would you like to see it? Terry Forbord: Well, I have a great deal of confidence in Chairman Conrad's comments. I He's been doing this a long time. He's certainly seen enough of me over the years. I believe he knows that we do what we say we're going to do. I think that the outstanding issues, the staff has had an opportunity to hear what the comments generally are from the Planning I Commission. They know where we stand with those and I think a lot of those things can be worked through. We submitted this proposal to the city probably sometime in July and we've been working closely with the city in different components of the staff on this for a long I time. And the staff's really busy because they have a lot of proposals before them and you all probably recognize that because you're seeing them ultimately. So we would really like I obviously, to be able to continue to move this forward. If we could incorporate some of the comments that were made by each of you this evening into a motion and then with some general directions to staff and the applicant can sit down and work through the details on 1 some of these outstanding issues, would be satisfactory to us. Conrad: Paul, a motion to approve that has a split vote goes, what happens? So it will go, 1 actually it will go up with no recommendation. Isn't that correct? Krauss: If I remember Robert's Rules of Order. We have our Assistant City Manager here 1 who is going to take his masters degree in public administration. Conrad: Oh then he knows. If he doesn't know, he fails right? I Krauss: I honestly thought a tie vote is equivalent to a negative. 1 Conrad: It's been a while since we had one. It might be. Is that right? 1 67 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 1 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, if the Planning Commission feels more comfortable with tabling this item. It never is the posture of Lundgren Bros to try to make any of you feel uncomfortable. Obviously it would be something we would prefer not to do but I don't want any of you saying well Lundgren Bros made us feel uncomfortable tonight so we. I don't want to do that. If you feel more comfortable with tabling, then we would accept that. Conrad: Nancy you're probably, I think. Jeff I'm just guessing here and verbalizing a strategy on this one. Matt would like to see it come back. Jeff and I probably could let "it go through based on staff report and Terry would take his chances of working with staff. Mancino: I guess I'm the youngest. Conrad: You're the one that can move this one way or another. What do you think? Where do you want to be? 1 Mancino: I'd like to see it come back. Conrad: For what reason? Mancino: I'd like to iron out before we get to City Council some of the details. 1 Conrad: Which ones? • • The ones that are, I would like to integrate Mancino: �ate these two. The recommendations from rom ' staff and the recommendations from the developer and get these two integrated. Conrad: And you'd like to see them yourself? Mancino: Yes. 1 Conrad: That's your posture too Matt? Ledvina: Yeah. I don't think that we need 4 hours next time. I mean I think we can do it in a half an hour. So I think all the issues are on the table. I'd also like to see some more discussion with, and maybe this will automatically happen with the Park and Rec Board too. I think that there's some star issues that. Mancino: Big issues. 1 Ledvina: Yeah, and I don't know. I don't want to force the process. 1 68 • 1 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 I Conrad: Okay. Y ' Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? We would rather be denied than go back to the Park and Rec. We would walk away from this deal in a heartbeat if I have to go back to them. ' Mancino: So, we will not get the park and rec trails. There won't be any decision there until it goes to City Council. 1 Conrad: Well, the Park and Rec has made their recommendation. And you know, that recommendation is really there and so for you to say, send it back. I don't think that you ' really have the right, the authority to do that. You can agree with. We, when we send this up, we can be saying. We can make comments about their comments but it's not going to go back to them based on. ' Ledvina: Okay. Well, I didn't know that. I guess then, when you talk about not addressing the park issue, then we're really responsible for addressing the park issues and saying what ' we think and working those things through. Conrad: Well, there are some things that can come back to us. There's no doubt. I think ' the street issues. There are some valid things. To come back so that it's put to bed here so when City Council gets it, it's real clean. There are some of those issues. And I guess the consensus is, we want to see them. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. ' Ledvina: I move that we table Case No. 93 -3 for PUD for the, I'm sorry. Is that right? Hold on. Table Case No. 93 -3 PUD until staff has a chance to meet with the developer to ' resolve some of the outstanding issues. Conrad: Is there a second? ' Farmakes: Second. ' Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to table PUD Case No. 93 -3 for the Song - Carlson property proposal by Lundgren Bros until staff and the developer have a chance to meet and resolve some of the outstanding issues. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: I really want to be clear. Staff's going to go back, and Paul left. Now it is late and I'd rather not be here either. But Dave, maybe you can take notes because I'm not going to. There's a good reason probably for Paul leaving. But anyway, I really want to be real specific in terms of the issues. There are 31 issues basically or whatever. To integrate the wording and language that I don't know is too far apart. But I want to make sure that staff ' 69 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 , 1 knows exactly what issues we want to review real carefully. Jeff, can you summarize the couple that you thought? You know a lot of these are going to be. , Farmakes: Number 3 should be revised so that it, I have no problem with the information that was inserted but it should reflect the next sentence. It should be modified so it relates to the next sentence. So it's approved selection of what they're being credit for. And I guess the issue of the park, I don't agree with what they've put in and the issue of option 5. I don't think the city should enter into that. , Conrad: Okay. Farmake again, feeling s: And a ain I had the feelin that I didn't want to make comments on this blue sheet because I haven't had time to digest it and properly think about it. I just got it right here in the meeting. I feel a little uncomfortable deciphering which, those are the two 1 particular ones that came to mind. The other issue, I would support the smaller streets. I don't have a problem with that but the issue really wasn't dealt with precisely here. The problem I have with this is procedural. Not so much of what they're asking. I just don't think we should be reviewing information like this where the recommendations are being • modified like this. It does not allow us time to, you know I'm just repeating myself. It doesn't allow us time to review it. It doesn't allow staff time to support it. Conrad: Nancy, did you have some key? I know you have some key i Mancino: Number 12. The proposal for right -of -way I think is a key issue. Conrad: Which means, in my mind, and I'm going to put words in all. We'd like to try to , make it work, right? Isn't that, okay. We want to see that that 40 foot right -of -way can work and basically so it comes back and we can see and we can all three parties, or however many we have here, can say yeah. It will work so when it goes to City Council, they'll say yeah. We can see why we can slip the standards. Okay. Mancino: The single family access to Lot 9. The Song's new property or where they're going to put their new house. The 9 acres. Kind of resolve that. Conrad: More than likely staff's going to still come back with the same recommendation. Anything else that's real key? Matt, while she's thinking. Anything that you can jump in with? , Ledvina: Nothing new other than what I indicated in my comments. 70 ' 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Mancino: The north/south street, and I don't even know if it's on here. One of the recommendations in the staff report is making sure that there is a north/south street, whether it be H or something west into the next property. Is that on this blue sheet? I thought it was. Do you know what number? I think that's a big issue to resolve. And maybe you were fine with that. I thought I saw. Terry Forbord: Oh it's 27. 1 Mancino: 27. I Conrad: Anything else? Okay. Terry. You're standing up. You want to talk to us. Are you going to lecture us or are you going to. 1 Terry Forbord: Can you tell me when we may be appearing before you next. Krauss: Two weeks from today. I Conrad: Yeah, it shouldn't take long. 1 Terry Forbord: Can we be first? Krauss: We sort of promised that. Terry Forbord: Thank you very much, all of you for taking all the time. I think that a lot of times our presentations take a lot of time but I think when you look back, and you drive through these neighborhoods in a few years when you're watching them, you'll be happy that we all spent this kind of time because I think that the neighborhoods will present themselves in an image that you all hope... Conrad: Thank you. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR A 232 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 21 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 8, 10 OR 12 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY, SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION WITH ATTACHED ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY). 71 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 ' their estate lot certainly feel it's inappropriate to be connecting the esta t to the end of a cul -de- o sac so we want to have it come out onto GalP in. And so those two conditions, 20 and 24, we would just either like to have them struck or reversed to allow the Songs to have a simple driveway out to Galpin. Item number 25. We worked on this and we'd just like to add to the very end of it to clarify the State Aid standards for street aid. That it would be built with a 7 ton section. And we've talked to.engineering and we believe that is agreeable. 26 Paul talked about and that's what we agreed to and that sounds great. And so the last one is really item number 31 and this is a setback to a drainageway that has been unplatted, or sort of unrecognized before and I want to point that out to you because I think a little too much attention is being paid to it. I don't think it's as significant as everyone might believe. It is a drainageway that drains the pond next to the Song's existing home. It comes to this just is a wet swale that comes down and then finally joins the creek at the bottom of the ravine through here. And we already have a conservation area, a buffer area, setbacks from the creek bed up to this lot. We also around this man made pond, we also have a buffer area and a large setback to the front of this building. And this swale runs along the side and if we then place another buffer and setback, 10 and 40 feet, we will significant reduce the ability to develop on this property. And we think that it isn't a creek. It's really just a swale that drains that pond and that pond seems to be draining quite a bit now because the Song's use a heat pump and the heat and the source that they use to extract heat is their well water so this ( overflows and keeps their pond level high and then of course the surplus drains on down. And so it's not really a wetland in our opinion but is a drainageway. So we thought, instead of 40 feet, a 20 foot setback would be good from a 10 foot buffer. So, we can create then a protected space that would in combination be 50 feet wide with the drainageway in the middle. And we think that's more than adequate to protect that particular feature so we suggest that the setbacks in 31 be changed to 20 feet instead of 40. Those are our issues. We think they're fairly small at this point and we will answer any other questions. Ledvina: Have you discussed these with staff then? John Uban: We've discussed all of them except number 31. Ledvina: Dave, could I get your reaction to these then? Just go right through them. Hempel: Item number 11. Mr. Uban is correct. We've had discussions regarding the street width on H and I. The right -of -way being...50 foot wide right -of -way over 40 and increase the street width to 28 foot back to back over the 24. Compromising the boulevard typical slope which would normally be a 2% grade to allow for private utilities, gas, electric and telephone. Allow them to modify that to a greater percentage of slope. To meet the existing terrain much better. Also to allow them to place retaining walls within the right -of -way area subject to maintenance responsibilities placed amongst the homeowners association and that 54 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 can be done by a chain of title such as a development contract which they would be entering into. Making sure the maintenance responsibilities... As to condition number 20 and 24. Harberts: Excuse me Dave. Can you go back and address the 25 foot setback request on number 11 versus the required 30. Hempel: Oh I'm sorry. Harberts: Do you have a feeling for that? Hempel: Right. It is our belief that we shouldn't compromise the 60 foot wide right -of -way on Streets B, D and G with those areas all being mass graded anyway. The applicant has requested to maintain the placement of the homes, the grading and so forth to accommodate their request for a 50 foot setback. Or 50 foot right -of -way with a 30 foot setback. We thought well, we could live with granting the 25 foot setback of those lots and get our 60 foot right -of -way. Essentially the house is placed in the same location. The same green space, and so forth. The city will just have the 60 foot right -of -way versus the 50 foot right -of -way. And I don't want to speak for Paul but I believe he's in concurrence with that as well. I Krauss: Yeah. We've always supported the 25 foot setback and such. Now it's raised questions and...but I think Dave, in this case Dave is correct. Visually it's not going to look any different. You're just talking about where the...The house is going to be exactly the same 1 distance back, whether we get the full right -of -way and a modified front yard setback or the smaller right -of -way with...setback. It's exactly the same. 1 Mancino: But what's standard right now is the standard right -of -way which is 60 foot and a 30 foot setback. I mean that's the standard so. 1 Harberts: What are we gaining? Mancino: Pardon? Harberts: What are we gaining though by if we were to. Mancino: To go with the standard? 1 Harberts: No. Mancino: To go with the reduced? 1 1 55 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 a significant home and they want to still live on an estate for the remaining years of their life. g Y gY Now if they came in and this wasn't a proposal by Lundgren Bros but they just came in to the city and said we have 100 acres. We'd like to subdivide it. One's going to be a 10 acre piece and the other piece is going to be 90 acres. They could go through that process. The city would have to give them access for the two as long as they met all the criteria. They'd have a private drive for that. There could be another private drive for the 90 acre piece and they could do that. And then when they were done with that, then they could come back to Lundgren Bros and say, okay now we'll sell you the 90 acre piece and they'd have a plat of record with their own access. I mean it's really important to them. If any of you have ever lived in the country. I don't know who does here and who doesn't. I have before and I wanted my own private driveway. That's why I wanted to live in the country. I wanted that type of lifestyle. Granted this area is urbanizing but I don't think that it's really significant to the approval of this plat. I think it's something that as the owner or fee owner of their property, they should have the right to have that private driveway...and I just wanted you to know that's very important to them and they personally will be coming and talking to the Council about it because it's so important to them. Scott: Continue with your comments. 1 . ( Ledvina: And then the last one. 31 I believe it is. Hempel: The street grades. We believe...Street A should be constructed to in accordance with State Aid standards. We did discuss the item. State Aid does require a 9 ton. 9 ton state aid does but we'd be willing to deviate from that standard to a 7 ton design since the applicant will be actually building the street and there will be no state aid dollars used to construct that street so we're able to by -pass MnDot's regulations. In the future, MnDot, if we need to go back and. Harberts: Reconstruct. Hempel: Right, we can use State Aid dollars to beef it up to the 9 ton standard with a small overlay project. Harberts: Question. Why does MnDot have a 9 ton requirement then? l ohs a 9 ton requirement because State Aid routes usually. Hempel: Mn Dot has eq Harberts: Is it kind of like a blanket approach? I Hempel: No, there's more commercial traffic. Truck traffic routes and so forth and the 58 I 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 lighting of the roads and so forth. Collector type streets. Staff is comfortable with designing g g the 7 ton standards, which is the city's current pavement design. 26, Paul had revised earlier that the street extension to the northwest shall be through another street located in the Johnson/DolejsifTurner property. 31. I don't know if Paul wants to address that. 1 Mancino: Is that a swale or a creek? Scott: Yeah, how's it classified? Krauss: I uess I'm reluctant to change it at this point. I mean we'll take the developer's g P Pe i comments under advisement but I'm not equipped to evaluate this changes at this point. I sent Diane home after the last item so, we can certainly, I mean if it makes sense to do it this way, we can bring that up. I don't know what to advise you right now. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Well that's pretty much it. I would say though that I guess considering that it would just be a matter of process for getting that additional curb cut, I think that it's reasonable to allow that to occur with this proposal. So I guess would support that at this point. Mancino: I agree with you too. On the Song property? Ledvina: Right. Mancino: To go ahead. I would too. If I were there and wanted 10 acres and my estate, etc, I can, Dave wasn't so much, he didn't seem too much against it. Kind of one way or another. I would support allowing the private driveway for that amount of acreage. Scott: Excuse me. What's the distance between the street and the curb cut? A couple hundred feet or what? - Hempel: 600 -700 feet. ' Scott: Oh! There's something about 300 feet between. Krauss: That's a minimum Scott: Minimum? Okay so we're, oh you know. Krauss: You're well in excess. 1 59 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 �. Scott: Okay. That's fine. I'm sorry. n'Y . Mancino: That's okay. That's a good question, thanks. , Scott: That's okay. i • Mancino: Terry, I had a question about recommendation number 2 from the Planning • Commission and it has to do with the front yard setbacks being reduced to 20 feet or the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result. Does that mean that, well obviously that's not going to happen in any of the area that's on the agricultural part of 111 it. Anything east, you're not going to ask for a 20 foot setback because there are no trees to preserve on the eastern part of this land. On the western edge where you go up into Street H, I'm assuming that's where you're going to ask for a 20 foot setback instead of a 30 foot setback? Terry Forbord: Actually there's a, we walked the site with the staff quite some time ago but I think it's fair to say that through here and there's a few areas maybe right in here. There may be a consideration and then it will be, I think we determined that, the way I understand { it, the way staff wants to do it is, if we submit a building permit application and at that point in time when the survey's been done and it's determined that hey, we can save something there. Let's talk to the staff and the staff says, hey you're right. That's when we should make that adjustment because every house will be designed differently. So I don't see that . happening on every lot but if you've ever, I don't know if any of you have ever been on this property but I know the staff has. There are 4 or 5, 6 foot trees, some of them. And if you are careful, you're going to be able to save them. And so there should be, we hope there's some latitude to enable that. Mancino: So what I just want to make sure of is that on Street H, that if you have one house 1 that needs to come up to the have the 20 foot setback, that all those in a row aren't going to do that. That it's only going to be those specific houses because of the tree preservation. Terry Forbord: You're speaking of this street? n'Y sP g Mancino: Yep. , Terry Forbord: Now on this particular street, because of the reduced right -of -way, I believe that, what was the request? John Uban: It was for 50 feet of right -of -way and then up to a 20 foot setback. 1 60 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 Terry Forbord: On a case by case basis. 1 Mancino: On a case by, on a house by house. Krauss: It's the same. Terry Forbord: That's correct. 1 Mancino: Okay. And I'm referring back to your Willow Ridge which has all setbacks, the right -of -way is 50 feet and the setbacks are 25 feet and they're every house regardless of tree ' preservation. Because a lot of the houses don't have trees in the back yards so they have been, they have the 25 foot setback regardless. Terry Forbord: Yeah, some people have found that offensive. I would say the vast majority haven't but some people find that offensive. 1 Mancino: Okay. Those are all my questions. Farmakes: I have no comments to make on this. I think we discussed them at length before. 1 The issues that were still open and...I support staff's recommendation across the board. I'm concerned about the Song issue. I realize that probably is arguable that it makes no difference. However, I support the Planning staff that either we should quantify how many acres it makes no difference or we should follow precedent on this issue. And I'm not opposed the saying that if we have a connection and we have over 50 acres or whatever. If we want to qualify it that way, that's fine but I think it's a mistake just for us to. Harberts: Arbitrarily. 1 Farmakes: Arbitrarily say well, it's a lot of land and we should let them hook up. I'm a little concerned about how we're going about evaluating that. Other than that I support staff recommendations on this issue. Scott: I just have one question. I remember back in a meeting we had in January we talked ' about island cul -de -sacs and as I recall you don't like those. We were talking about maintenance. We were talking about people falling down and getting sued, I mean it got to be pretty ridiculous but I see a couple of them and I just want to see how those fit in with the ' stuff, because I can't rip the ordinance off the top of my head right now. But I see them there. Speak to me. 1 Hempel: Staff's gone through and reviewed those. You're right. The engineering 1 61 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 department's perspective is more the public works, from a maintenance standpoint. We didn't like them. Maintenance headache. This situation's a little bit different than... Scott: Are we preserving some trees? • Hempel: Well, there are going to be landscaped median areas and a homeowners association P g P . will be responsible for maintenance of them. The city actually went out and performed some tests on snow plowing cul-de -sacs with islands in them. They went out to the Dinner Theater 1 and it actually turned out, the snow plow drivers like them better. It was easier because there wasn't as much snow to be removed. Scott: Had a little snow plowing derby out there. That's what you guys were doing. Okay. That's fine. Alright, anyway. I don't have any further comments. Do we have a motion? Mancino: I move that we approve the preliminary PUD of 111.77 acres of property to create 115 single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval subject to the following conditions. All the conditions will stay the same as in the staff report. Does anybody want to help on 11? Matt, did you have that written down? Ledvina: Yeah, sure. For number 11, it should read the final plat shall be amended to 1 include revised street right -of -ways on Streets B, D and G to a 60 foot right -of -way with Streets H and I to be 50 foot right -of -way with a 28 foot street section. Front yard setbacks• for streets B, D and G shall be allowed to go to a 25 foot setback. Mancino: And retaining walls can be placed within right -of -way on Street H? 1 Ledvina: Yes. The use of retaining walls and 3:1 slopes shall be allowed for Streets H and I. 1 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, just one clarification on that. 28 foot wide street width is limited to Streets H and I only. Street B, D and G would be your typical 31 foot wide street section. 1 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman, for the city's benefit I think that there was something over looked there. The city would like that the maintenance of those retaining walls be the 1 responsibility of, when he said HOA. The Homeowners Association. We'd like to see it as the responsibility of the lot owner. Is that satisfactory? It does make a difference to the homeowner but the city does want to be protected there so we should. 1 Hempel: The lot owner, it won't be on anybody's lot. It will be within the city right -of -way. 62 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 I That's why I'm wondering if the Association probably wouldn't be more appropriate. If Y g P Y there's some language we can work out in the development contract but if the property owner 1 doesn't own the property. Scott: Yeah. I think it's a homeowners issue. I Mancino: Okay. 12 thru 19 remain the same that are in the staff report. 20 reads, the Song homestead shall gain access via a private driveway off of Galpin Blvd or County Road 117. Number 21 thru 23 reads the same. 24 is deleted. 25 reads, the last sentence reads, a street I shall be constructed to State Aid standards with a 7 ton section. 26 reads, the last sentence reads, the street extension shall be through the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property immediately to the west. 27 thru 31 the same. Oh 31, we want to add a last sentence that says staff will I take the developer's comments under advisement. Scott: Can I have a second please? Anyone? 1 Ledvina: I'll second it. I Harberts: Discussion. Scott: Well it's been moved and seconded that we act on Commissioner Mancino's motion. 1 Is there any discussion? Harberts: I'd like to just revisit what Jeff had said in terms of having some kind of criteria or 1 some kind of rationale so that if this comes up again, we've got some kind of direction in which to look at. 1 Scott: For the access off of Galpin? Harberts: The driveway, yes. I Scott: And we can, I would think staff being more familiar with existing situations. I think g g 1 what we would do is just direct you to, and I don't know whether this becomes an ordinance issue but something that, some guidelines. Acreage size and you qualify for these. I Harberts: I think we need the rationale tonight though. • Scott: Size of property. 1 1 63 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 Mancino: So why wouldn't we? Harberts: Well I think Paul had a real good perspective in terms of public safety. 1 Mancino: As far as not having a right turn lane? Harberts: Well, exactly. Farmakes: I think there's a lot of compelling evidence why it's probably makes sense with 1 that amount of property. There's also, what's disturbing though is that it's fielder's choice for the issue of hook -up. We're creating a precedent without having a precedent to follow. We're not quantifying how many acres. We're not quantifying restricted access or the fact that they can't go anywhere else. The fact that it's a private home or that they've lived there for a while really, I don't think probably we use that as criteria for other issues of that sort. If we had that criteria, I think I would probably support that hook -up. It's a significant piece of property and so on but I feel a little uncomfortable just arbitrarily saying well that makes sense. Let's do it. 1 Harberts: And I have to agree with that and I like the 600 foot distance. Is that what it was Dave? I think it's great. I just, it's like take that dart and throw it and where it lands, that's what I'm uncomfortable with. So I'm just looking for some rationale in terms of why are we doing it this evening. Farmakes: And if I had 5 acres and wanted to access, I'd say you're doing it here. Why. And then you're saying well I've got 5, he's got 100, what's the difference? Mancino: And it's been going on up and down Galpin all the time. Since I've lived there for 10 years. People have bought 11 acres. They've bought 5 acres. And they've gotten curb cuts and gone into their property. 1 Farmakes: Yeah, but as the lots get smaller and smaller, one imagines that there will be more and more cut requests. 1 Ledvina: If you say we're setting a precedent, I mean you just said there were 5 acre lots that got curb cuts on Galpin so I don't think, this doesn't represent a precedent. 1 Farmakes: Well, that was 15 or 20 years ago. The issue is whether or not it's currently relevant. Scott: Is there an ordinance that specifies the. 1 64 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Mancino: No, there's just a new ew one. It' s 3 acres. 2 1/2 -3 acres. 1 Hempel: There is a public street-collector street and arterial streets, there's a certain distance. 1 Scott: What about county? ' Hempel: Private driveways, I don't believe there is. This situation the access is under the jurisdiction of another agency, Carver County. Mancino: Yeah, there was someone who just moved into Galpin just across from the Song property, Westerpatt. I can't remember but they just bought 2 1/2 to 3 acres and put in a private driveway and a new home and did all the landscaping and everything which was 1 approximately 2 years ago. Harberts: Did they have access to an interior road though? 1 Mancino: No. No. It's right off Galpin. 1 Farmakes: But that's part of what, why we're discussing restricted access. Harberts: And I'm not, like I said, I'm not really against it..I want some rationale. Mancino: So that we know. 1 Harberts: Exactly. Farmakes: I think so and probably the end result again is a public safety issue. How many 1 cuts do we actually wind up getting once the area is fully developed? Mancino: Because I see this land developing with the Carlson property when it develops. Scott: If there is ' s no access to it, and I m thinking of the last development that we put ' together. We took a curb cut away. They had access to, their property was abutting the cul- de -sac anyway, as I recall. So that made a lot of sense. This is a situation where we don't have that situation. Plus the fact, I think there was another issue that the distance inbetween. ' Well yeah, we would have had a curb cut from the existing driveway that was 100 or 150 feet away from the curb cut for the collector for the development. But I think if we take a guideline of 300 feet. If we also take a guideline that if there is no other, if they don't have 1 access to some sort of a collector street, then if someone does happen to buy the 3 acres and 1 65 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 there's no development around, they need a drive. Farmakes: Is that, that's really a separate issue for another point in time. I guess what I, my concern is what we have here tonight or we're going to be voting on. The .issue before us. Harberts: I'm finding it difficult to support the recommendation because of that and it's not the driveway, it's the whole process here. I mean. Mancino: But sometimes that happens. Don't things come before us before we've had the 1 time to write down guidelines for it so what do we do, just not accept it? Or do we stop the process and say let's develop guidelines? 111 Ledvina: We can bring in guidelines and you know, next time or whatever and just because this one has some special treatment or, it's not special treatment but it's, the consideration of the rules that we have at the time. That doesn't impact our future ordinance or guidelines. I don't see that as a problem. Scott: Are we ready to vote on the motion? Of course it's discussion. 1 Harberts: I know. Paul, is it feasible for staff to develop some kind of criteria or guide lines on this? Are we looking at once in a. I know you have nothing to do, I know that. Krauss: ...whether we agree with it or not. I don't know. I suppose it is. I have a hard . time differentiating you know because this lot and this lot or some other lot's something else. Maybe there is a size criteria but the thing that came to mind to me is we've got Ches Mar Farms that was approved. That's on a state highway where the state only allowed one curb 1 cut and we have a street combined driveway. I've got the developer wanting to go back before the City Council who wants to build a...for sharing a driveway. I don't know how big those lots are but I supposed they're the same. Same kind of size frame. I mean in this case 1 Carver County's somewhat more liberal than the State was. I don't know what to answer. It would help though, I mean you appear to have a perception or the rationale that this one's okay but you're not going to let other people do it in the future. You know it's not an ordinance you're playing with. If it was an ordinance you were playing with, you couldn't do it. You'd have to come up with a rationale for a variance. In this case it's kind of a development principle and you do have the ability to waive it I suppose but it would be useful if there was a rationale tied to it so the next time it comes up, we can say this is different and this is the same. Scott: Well the rationale as I see it, and in the last development that we made someone basically give up the curb cut. That property had, that property was abutted a cul -de -sac or 1 66 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 an interior street. I think that was key. And then there is a guideline, I think we use a 300 feet between curb cuts. Something like that. And it didn't hit that requirement either. So 1 those are, that's the kind of rationale that I was pulling with. Adequate separation. It does not abut an interior street. I think those are pretty straight forward. And the size of the property doesn't enter into it. Ledvina: The other thing to consider here is if, by our action tonight by denying that that driveway forces the Songs to literally take and split it into two parcels and then go through this whole rigamaroll just to get what they need, you know. Why force them into through that process? 1 Scott: And I think the underlying thing that I'm picking up on that isn't said is that there's an agreement between the Songs and these guys that they get their curb cut. You haven't ' said that. Farmakes: What I don't understand here again is that if, technically to help in the planning ' issue, whether or not the Songs live there throughout their life or not, or another individual who has a piece of property, if something, like a subdivision plan is submitted that shows how that driveway would be utilized should the property be subdivided in the future, and I 1 don't know how the city can say, commit to that, but something like that, at least from a planning standpoint would eliminate some of my apprehensive to having very large lots with driveways that may make no sense in the future. 1 Krauss: There is an extensive track record of requiring a ghost plat. It's been a while since we've seen one. 1 Mancino: And what's that? ' Krauss: Well, where a plat has not been proposed but you have a concept of how streets can be laid out in the area allotted and what's being proposed makes sense on that basis. You know where it would be useful there too, I suppose to have something like that is, it's still unclear to me what's going to happen across the street from this thing. Where do we want to force a new street to be on the east side. 1 Mancino: But Prince isn't to the east of that new Song place. Krauss: I don't know where it is exactly. Mancino: No, it isn't. That's u p further. 1 67 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Krauss: But it's not Davidson either. It's somethin g inbetween. Mancino: No, it's Marty. He has 21 acres and the next people have about 5 acres. And then Prince is just a little south. Farmakes: Don't you have an overhead picture showing the structure? 1 Terry Forbord: To address Mr. Farmakes' concern. Really the property that the Songs are 1 keeping for their estate, geographically should be planned and developed with the property to the north. There's a wetland or it will be a mitigation area between the proposed cul -de -sac. The mitigation area, this is actually going to be expanded but this is an illustration. This mitigation area actually comes in through here. It's being expanded as part of the development of this site. If you look at the topography in here, this site really kind of flows more with this site. Someday those sites will probably develop and at that time, just like you do when you entertain other plats, you will cause them to vacate their present access onto Galpin when those roads, those lateral roads or street roads are being built within that subdivision. And so that's when that, at that point in time would occur. Krauss: That's true but I think Dave understands that the merit of the ghost platting is that when we have a request to develop across the street, we know where to put that road and that we don't have a standard situation where the Song driveway is here or over there. I mean we're not asking that it be proposed but that at least it be looked at in concept. • 1 Mancino: Terry, can you show us where Prince's home is? Terry Forbord: Okay, here's the Song future homestead. Right across the street is another 111 home right there. His driveway is right here. And here is Mr. Carlson's driveway. And then there's another driveway here and here. Our proposed street fits right about, let's see. Where's the pump house? Okay, so our northerly street is here and the southerly street is down here. Harberts: Where's the Songs' driveway P roposed? Terry Forbord: Their future driveway? 1 Harberts: Yeah. Terry Forbord: Their driveway would probably be in, this is kind of a wetland complex right here. So their driveway would probably be right in this area. Between this general area. 1 68 • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Krauss: We can take a little bit closer look at it but from that aerial, it looks like there's only one option to build it. - Terry Forbord: As far as a health, safety and welfare issue. The County wouldn't allow that to occur if they thought it was a health and safety, welfare issue. They wouldn't grant that 1 access onto that road. And that's another criteria they utilize...entertaining permit applications. Scott: Any more discussion? Okay, a motion to close the discussion? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close discussion on the motion. Chairman Scott stated that discussion was closed. ' Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval g PP of Preliminary PUD #93 -3 for 111.77 acres of property to create 115 single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval subject to the - following conditions: 1 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet. 2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory 1 structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks. 3. Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this number of trees 21/2" or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be placed in • the lot in question or clustered as appropriate based upon an approved landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to buffering requirements along ' Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots." Trees to be selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 21/2 diameter at time of installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of 1 building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval. 4. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance 69 1 • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels. 1 5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. 1 6. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs, 1 financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The association park will be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on the preliminary plat." 7. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on 1 the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with 1 site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final approval, the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be employed. This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is to be covered by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E 1 streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide # protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required 111 wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1 :1 ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The applicant is responsible for providing I wetland mitigation for impacts stemming from the ultimate improvement of Galpin and trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will assume responsibility for obtaining the necessary permits for this activity." 8. Tree Preservation/Landscaping: a. Detailed plans with the final plat for landscaping the cul -de -sac islands be 1 developed for approval. b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and berming where feasible). 1 This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is 1 mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide 1 vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. 1 70 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. ' d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise satisfactorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas as recommended by staff. 9. Park and Trails: ' Parks 1 a. The private /association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park ' layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. Such a provision must be drafted into association documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. 1 Trails ' a. It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of -way except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading 1 plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may . meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsifl'urner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by ' the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. 71 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner 1 applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the 1 Johnson/DolejsifFurner property are to be waived. • This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the 1 Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is acquired. 10. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' 1 deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat. 11. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right -of -ways on Streets B, D and G to a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with the typical 31 foot street width. Streets H and I to be a 50 foot right -of -way with a 28 foot street section.' Front yard setbacks for streets B, D and G shall be allowed to go to a 25 foot setback The use of retaining walls and 3:1 slopes shall be allowed for Street H and I with maintenance of the retaining walls to be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. ' 12. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public right -of -ways including drainage basins. The minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. Access may be covered with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff. 13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed 1 District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers. 14. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 -ear storm event along with and storage calculations Y g P g for storage of a 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity, should be submitted to the City 72 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting. 15. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, Carver County Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound 1 Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street. 16. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation. 17. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or provided with a wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov. ' 15 each construction season. Areas where street and /or utility construction will occur throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant ' an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 18. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council ' approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and water improvements which is considered anything over an 8 -inch pipe diameter, a credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk ' improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement. ' 19. As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to 1 guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. 20. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The 1 Song homestead shall gain access via a private driveway off of Galpin Boulevard or County Road 117. 21. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval. 22. The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with the 73 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard right -of -way. 1 23. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the development to avoid its being impacted by street and trail construction. 1 24. Deleted. 25. The street usted to adjusted be rades conform to City ordinance which is between 8 1 � O.50% and 7% except on H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to a 7 ton section. , 26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension to the northwest shall be through the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer property immediately to the west. 27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A and E streets, and the proposed cul -de -sac islands, are to be allowed subject to incorporation of modifications requested by staff and to meet State Aid requirements. 28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. • 29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in the vicinity. 30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal. 1 31. Block 5, Lot 7 shall be revised to ensure that a 40' setback is provided from the creek. Additionally, it must be demonstrated that a wetland buffer of at least 10' plus a setback 1 from the buffer of at least 40', will be provided." Staff will take the developer's comments under advisement between the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. ' All voted in favor, except Farmakes and Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Scott: Jeff, if you could state your reason for opposition. 74 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Farmakes: I'd just repeat. My opposition is not to the proposal itself on the Song property, P� Y PP P P g P PertY, which was my only objection of the motion. But how we're arriving at the conclusion. I think we're arguing two different things here. One is the actual request and what I'm arguing is how we're, the rationale we're using for it and I would like it to be consistent and that the ' rationale be consistent as to how we apply that. Scott: Okay. And Diane your thoughts? 1 Harberts: Ditto. Scott: Your thoughts are similar? Harberts: Very similar. 1 - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, SECTION 20 -57, 1 REGARDING EXPIRATION OF PLATTING VARIANCES. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. 1 Scott: Do we need to discuss? This isn't a public hearing item so, do we need to discuss the recommendation? 1 Ledvina: I don't have any comments. 1 Krauss: Well actually it is a public hearing...Zoning Ordinance amendment. Scott: Okay. The public hearing is open. Let the record show that there are no members of the public here. I think I can boldly close the public hearing. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Scott: Okay, do I have a motion? Harberts moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the ' City Council approve Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 20 -57 to read as follows: Section 20 -57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for non -use. 1 The violation of any written condition shall constitute a violation of this chapter. A variance except a variance approved in conjunction with platting, shall become void within one (1) 1 year following the issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in 75 1