The URL can be used to link to this page

5-3-95 Agenda and Packet - FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION _ WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1995, 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - NEW BUSINESS 1. Preliminary plat of 7.29 acres into 34 lot single family townhomes and site plan review for 9 buildings of 3 and 4 plexes located on property zoned PUD and located east of Powers Boulevard,just south of Lake Susan Hills — Drive, Lake Susan Townhomes 1st Addition, Jasper Development Corporation. OLD BUSINESS 2. Rezoning request to rezone 16.34 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat of 16.34 acres into 19 single family lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot wide right-of- way located south on Lake Lucy Road (1471), Lake Lucy Estates, Michael Byrne. PUBLIC HEARING - NEW BUSINESS 3. *Item Deleted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 4. Buffer Yard/Transition Zone Ordinance. 5. Code revisions. — ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. Item Deleted 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from office/industrial to residential low density; Rezoning from — A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Single Family Residential; preliminary plat approval for 59 single family lots and 2 outlots and associated right-of-way on 46.27 acres; and wetland alteration permit on property located at 8470 Galpin Blvd. (the northwest corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.), Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties. — Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 16 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated April 6, 1995. 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 6, 1995. — 6. Notice of public hearing and property owners notified. 7. Plans dated March 20, 1995. • l,hf l 6 i r . t—• A e.,y.dGin P,"qt �� O� \ / CITY P,oQIL �v�i � / OCT Oa�v� WC.. ce�a A '/._ R.e.�.oewrr..L` OO • tslz caps p„) ft e�de1B ' Y LI.=gc_ s� o.rru� G %4 ► r Dr ��vvo�� tr - 3rd �� pp �O p .,.� 0 i 4 vots044a � '_T�r ' � ©©ale/ � mina ! w i .Ko o..er.. mum NZ �► . tdj ow ft.-A%a o0 Z. Nter4e o COQ WI4' 30,4&011111111N • Imiktiefr aIN ,..2.,,T, plealto ',1" % 1iliggingeta, rm. litter;AVala IP Ale WV *14111.0031111 v r Alkokli jilip-algAlpi Es ll 1 � / �; SI,Th / 11° /\ ---- 416.741prp Pal 4., rf O ,./ 1„. .... ..„, \ ; Iii s� A 7, 1111" 1111 .,'N. /..f# . ALF" , liplialKeik '0 :: , por4 I 6:4 Air% Ai101. ",.,,, .. / , s s. s, "111711411e . � F •� o101, o s41k Slb - _ / UN so , A. XI . 4// 4, / O , ( fin • pui.lc Jo P. 1111.+` C•• \\. e• Q (/ M.ISMS 4C11.1. S. tall.tl.l 11.4..I.f 111 J/ 000 lM1 U e 1�StlC1LL•QI taw l..Il.tl toll Q \\ . 1.11... w a...Le1.. ..t.. .LM 1. �\ 0 V .... WA•r.. •.......«.•..11.••t �\ `\`� I U III .14 II K. ..II. -_\,, .� ..4...4..1.1 - .•: • 0 000..• Jr y a..K. r...w.•• .•11 u..q�« .•a 1.1,.C. t.l«..rw•t..,••�.•�M•M.•.rw•...Iw• 4" O `J •ILIC MI.I. .1..•t. ....... ______... JJ1 tMRwL C.I.11.1 ....._... .. •;t« �...: - 00 .00 ..1..... 1,r- • A. �.Jf.>� f ......w...... • •..1 1 v ..«.... • 101141 ... �1'i sr I....«00.00"..«... IiI ��Ic t«...1. 1 I \ • ■11...L.I.Nr w•.It•11... •I .....«••w.• t.«........Ile.. I. „....- 4N. � I `�` 11..I.I.I.Yr ' r..w!!t' •::.(••••••••••:::.,••••• ( . J. 1 , `` I l''' yvu umut ` ` ..•,..,.•.a at IMI MI •IA..... • .....w«See..et I 1 Iw••l)1,11.•M f.1.L•u L: •..•«.•.• •..L...«MM M. \� I I - 11.•M L.I.Yt.•.f....w•w•1.1 ••••••..«. Lv N.tp r•,1 0LV O. �J \ •.'..w.Meet,.f•11,00. I...ISO Me b..11-..I.{. ..see �.�•«••« .•'••N. I•�1•. _•� I.1,....1.• •u..—.'r1,. . -OP .I.•I.•..w RTrAc,��,Enjr d / _= James R. Hill, inc. LARD . , P•u -�1 'L-_ ---- F.-.7---7..7... _= HILLS 1• I LAS[ - .. ' PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS r•••N••...,awl. SUSAN HILL b•.r 4-r-r- cAk °- PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, dated November 16, 1987 , between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") , and LAKE SUSAN HILLS, a Minnesota general partnership, and JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife (the "Developer") . 1. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development to be known as "LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PUD" (the "Development") on the land legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". 2 . Planned Unit Development Concept Approval. The City hereby grants general Concept Plan approval of the plan attached as Exhibit "B". Approval is subject to the following: development and final stage approval , a negative declaration of the EAW, compliance with the EAW review findings and compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Except as modified herein, each plat shall also be subject to the standards of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as may be amended from time to time. 3. Density and Use. The following densities are approximate and subject to change: A. Single Family Residential . The total number of single family lots in the development shall not exceed 411. Except as modified herein, single family lots shall be developed in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the RSF Zoning District. B. Multiple Family (High Density Residential) . The development shall provide a minimum of 21. 5 acres of high density multiple family residential units. The total number of dwellintS C ts-nf NOV 1 D 87 r11 /1 6/87 CITY OF CHANHASSEM ;i high density multiple family residential property shall not exceed 375, — or a density greater than 17. 4 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential — shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-12 Zoning District. — C. Multiple Family (Mixed Medium Density Residential) . The development shall provide a minimum of 23 .6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed — medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than 9 . 3 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the — development of the mixed medium density residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-8 Zoning District. 4 . Parks. The Developer shall dedicate to the City Outlot F (18. 1 acres) , Outlot G (9.8 acres) , Outlot H (3 . 9 acres) , and Outlot E. — A credit of 6. 7 acres for park dedication will be given for Outlot E. Unless otherwise required by the City, conveyances of the park land shall be made when the final plat, wherein a park is located, is signed by the City. The land shall be platted as Outlets and transferred to the City by warranty deed. The Developer, at its sole cost, shall grade the — land for the City in accordance with a timetable and plans to be furnished by the City. The Developer shall be given a credit of 50% of the park fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the conveyance of the above described land to the City. The balance of the park dedication fees shall be paid in cash in an amount and at the time required by City ' ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved. -2- • /�3 5 • ,. .. ii 5 . Trail and Sidewalk Development. The Developer shall dedicate trails and sidewalks throughout the Development to the City as indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan. This dedication satisfies the City's trail dedication fee requirements. Trails shall be completed at the time street improvements are constructed in the phase where the trails and sidewalks or portions thereof are located. The Developer shall construct the following trails and sidewalks: (1) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan. (2) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Audobon Road; and an eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard. (3) . Five (5) foot wide concrete off-street trail-sidewalk along one side of all internal streets except cul- - de-sacs when the streets are constructed. (4) . Twenty (20) foot wide bituminous off-street trail easement on the west side of Powers Boulevard. This trail segment shall only be constructed if ordered by the City Council . If ordered, the Developer will convey the easement to the City without cost, but the City will pay for the construction. Construction timing will be at the discretion of the City Council . 6. Additional Conditions of Approval. A. The Developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, and setbacks from lot lines. B. The Developer shall not damage or remove any trees except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved by the City and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking, or other similar means during grading and construction. - -3- C. Wetlands Nos. 14-10 and 23-01 as shown in Exhibit "a" _ shall be preserved in their natural state. D. The following shall be the maximum percentage of — allowable impervious surface: Outlot A 32%, Outlot B 30%, Outlot C 31%, and Outlot D 27%. E. The Developer shall provide $500. 00 of landscaping per multiple family unit and $150. 00 per single family unit. 7. Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval. For five (5) — years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the development unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding _ anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the — City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 8. Phased Development. The Developer shall develop the development in eleven (11) phases in accordance with the EAW. No earth moving or other development shall be done in any phase prior to approval — of final plats and development contract for the phase by the City. 9. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the proposed development complies with all applicable City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances, — Zoning Ordinances, and Environmental Regulations. The Developer agrees to comply with such laws and regulations. — -4- � 5 . S 10. Variations from Approved Plans. Minor variances from the approved plans may be approved by the City's Planning Director. Substantial departures from the approved plans shall require an amend- - ment to the Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 11. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, and officers a license to enter the plat to inspect the work to be done by the Developer and to perform all work required hereunder if Developer fails to perform in accordance herewith. 12 . Utility, Pond, and Drainage Easements. The Developer shall dedicate to the City at the time of final plat approvals utility, drainage, and ponding easements located within the plat, including access, as required to serve the plat. 13 . Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from claims by the Developer and third parties, including, but not limited to, lot purchasers, other property owners, contractors, subcontractors, and materialmen, for damages sustained, costs incurred, or injuries resulting from approval of the Agreement, the development, final plats, plans and specifications, and from the resulting construction and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City, its officers, agents, and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees. The Developer shall pay in full all -5- / bills submitted to it by the City for such reimbursements within sixty — (60) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not — paid within sixty (60) days shall be subject to an eight (8%) percent per annum interest charge. 14. Miscellaneous. A. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, plats, and — certificates of occupancy. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, — paragraph or phrase of this Planned Unit Development Agreement is for any reason held invalid as a result of a challenge brought by the Developer, its agents or assigns, the City may, at its option, declare _ the entire Agreement null and void and approval of the Final Development Plan shall thereby be revoked. C. The action or inaction of any party shall not consti- tute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council . Any party's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement — after expiration of time in which the work is to be completed shall not be a waiver or release. — D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Carver County Recorder's Office. E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to protect — • the public's interest. -6- • 17 J F. Due to the preliminary nature of many of the exhibits and plans and the timing of the overall Development, addendums to this Agreement may be required to address concerns not specifically set forth herein. G. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs , successors or assigns, as the case may be. H. The Developer represents to the City that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that a state environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that a federal or state impact statement or any other review, permit, or approval is required, the Developer shall prepare or obtain it at its own expense. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, ..including staff time and reasonable attorney' s fees, that the City may incur in assisting in preparation. 15 . Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, their employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address : 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, Minnesota 55435. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Clerk or mailed to the City by certified or registered mail in care of the City Clerk at the following address: P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317. -7- �� 5__ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager LAKE SUSAN HILLS BY: \ ,,. --( _ A partner JAMES A. URRYC•{ � — BARBARA CURRY 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1987, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) NOTARY PUBLIC tY/ ( ss. COUNTY (The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i day of .. ;Y/.•' 1987, by .�'�.:� �� .-':./.-741:74;(1/V/ partner of Lake Susan Hills, a Minnesota general partnership on, its behalf. --, �=~'"`.. BARBARA FISHER NOTARY PUBLIC C _ ; ".f• NOTARY PL2LI-- M NNESOTA .'` i�� HENr`JE?I!•J r;Cui�!TY �1..: My Commis.ion L'upum Jury 13 1L93 -8_ S -a S . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF '-tt-�.��p. .. ) ..... The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j day of N2t.,�h•�.c , 1987, by JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife. 11 .,Oc . " COTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson, P.A. 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 • .... vyr, LAKE SUSAN HILLS TOWNHOMES _ NARRATIVE The proposed development contains 34 one-story townhouses, each with attached 2-car — garages. The townhouses in Blocks 1 through 5 are 1590 s.f one-story units with a full-walkout basement. Each has a small deck at the rear. The townhouses in Blocks 6 through 9 are 1319 s.f. — one-story units with a full basement. Each has a deck or patio at the rear. Driveways on all units are large enough to accommodate 2 cars. Additionally there are 12 off-street parking stalls planned. — The architecture of Lake Susan Hills Townhomes will be traditional with a decidedly European Country character. Exterior siding materials will be stucco and brick. Exterior trim will be cedar. Every effort is made to give each townhouse its own distinctive facade by the use of appropriate architectural features such as bay windows, shutters, porches, beams and brackets, garage door treatments, etc. To further individualize each unit, color selection of stucco, brick and trim will change from unit to unit. Colors will be muted, earth tones. — The estimated price range of the units is $150,000 to $220,000. Marketing time is expected to be 24 months. -` The common area and building exteriors will be maintained by the homeowners — association, including lawn and shrub care, snow removal, driveway and street maintenance, roof replacement, exterior painting, etc. There is proposed a lawn sprinkler system. Mailboxes will be clustered at 3 locations within the site, garbage service will be contracted with 1 hauler using light-weight trucks. Pickup will be at each individual unit. — The project is proposed to be phased as follows: Phase 1 (11 units) - Blocks 1, 2, 7 Phase 2 (11 units) - Blocks 3, 4, 8 — Phase 3 (12 units) - Blocks 5, 6, 9 The sanitary sewer serves the site from 2 existing manholes in Lake Susan Hills Drive through an 8" PVC pipe. Individual services are 4" PVC pipe. Water service is provided by connection to the 10" main in Lake Susan Hills Drive through a 6" line, which will be looped. Individual services are 1" copper pipe with standard curb _ box. Two fire hydrants are proposed in the project. Storm water is proposed to be collected at catch basins at each entrance to Lake Susan Hills Drive and then run underground to a sediment pond to be constructed adjacent to the existing pond. The entire site will require grading to attain the proposed drainage pattern. Erosion _ control is to be placed prior to grading. Seeding and mulching is to be placed promptly after grading is completed. The interior streets are proposed to be bituminous mat on compacted granular base. Curb shall be surmountable concrete. Street lighting is proposed to be residential type electric postlights in each front yard, operated by photocell. No wetlands mitigation is anticipated. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 — (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION — APPLICANT: JASa R DE LORiNT O T P OF WFCCINIA OWNER: JASPER DEVEf DA`1FNT CORP OF WAIMEA ADDRESS: 219 E. FMNIFCE MAD ADDRESS: 219 E. EIS R D WDA, AN 55387 WPOCNIA, IC 55387 TELEPHONE (Day time) 612-442-5611 TELEPHONE: 612-442-5611 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs I S DCz' 9. X Site Plan Review , X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" Z, -C)" $100 CUP/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. X Subdivision 84oc+ 41s4 3-C '' 'j7, TOTAL FEE $ 132Su5' A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. - 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME LAKE SUSAN HILLS TOWNHOiMES - LOCATION SE CORNER LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE & POWERS BLVD. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (ATTACHED) - PRESENT ZONING R-8 REQUESTED ZONING NO CHANGE PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION MEDIUM DENSITY RESTDENTTAT, REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION SAME REASON FOR THIS REQUEST INTENDED PLATTING OF TOWNHOUSE PROJECT This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the — Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying _ with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Ov Signatu)6AAA-ti of Applicant / Date uC�dap/ 3 -jet Signature of Fee Owner I Date ��5 Fee Paid I.--?„25C-c2- Receipt No.59{68 Application Received on ��"-�� '�� The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the South Half of Section 14, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly right of way line of Lake Susan Hills Drive, as delineated and dedicated on LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Carver County and the easterly right of way line of County State Aid Highway No. 17 per Corrected Highway Easement Book 157 of Deeds, Page 6 on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, said Carver County; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 38 minutes 01 second East, along said southerly right of way line, a distance of 71.41 — feet; thence northeasterly, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 256.00 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 220.00 feet and a central angle of 66 degrees 40 minutes 20 seconds; thence North 22 degrees 57 minutes 41 seconds East, along said southerly right of way line and tangent to said curve, a distance of 166.46 feet; thence northeasterly, along said southerly right of way line, a distance of 316.50 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 240.00 feet and a central angle of 75 degrees 33 minutes 34 seconds; thence South 81 degrees 28 minutes 45 seconds East, along said southerly — right of way line and tangent to said curve, a distance of 35.00 feet to the west line of Block 5, said LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST; thence South 8 degrees 31 minutes 15 seconds West, along said west line and it's southerly extension, a distance of 659.98 feet; thence South 47 degrees 31 — minutes 09 seconds West, a distance of 219.19 feet; thence South 88 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West, a distance of 366.99 feet to said easterly right of way line; thence North 00 degrees — 21 minutes 59 seconds West, along said easterly right of way line, a distance of 386.99 feet to the point of beginning. 1. CITY OF ilr i , C IIANBASSEN '..„ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '3 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • MEMORANDUM — TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4 q-p DATE: April 6, 1995 — SUBJECT: 95-7 SPR and 87-3 PUD (Lake Susan Townhomes 1st Addition, Jasper Development Corporation) — I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAR 22 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. — Analysis: Soils Report. A soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability — of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes. _ Dwelling Construction Requirements. In order to adequately review the proposed subdivision details on the proposed dwellings must be supplied. Construction requirements vary depending on the distance to the property line. These requirements regulate type of construction, openings — and projections. Drawings showing the dimensions of each different type of dwelling, overhangs, wall openings and proposed optional additions (decks, porches, etc.) must be submitted. — Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Recommendations: — The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. — 1. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. Sharmin Al-Jaff April 6, 1995 Page 2 -- 2. Furnish details on each size of dwelling unit. These details should include exterior dimensions, overhangs, exterior openings and proposed optional additions. Designate — which unit will be constructed on which lots. These details must be supplied prior to preliminary plat approval. 3. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review — prior to final plat approval. g:\safety'sak'nemos\plan\1kesus.sj1 — CITY of ., .,,; ,, ,s-• ii ,.,_. ,, 3 .-. , .. ..,i CHANEASSEN \ ,_ .,,, . /., ,- - .:._ ',lc- fj .;,. '",� _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II — FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 6, 1995 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills Drive, Lake Susan Townhomes, 1st Addition Jasper Development. — Planning Case 87-3 PUD and 95-7 Site Plan Review I have reviewed the site plan in order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division and have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements: 1. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" sign on all private roads in compliance with Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 (copy enclosed). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 2. Submit street names for review and approval. 3. Fire hydrant changes - contact Fire Marshal for additional fire hydrants and their specific locations. 4. 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. g:'afetft I'S73pud CITY a , ,.. , ...,,,-.. .„ \.-4 to s CHANHASSEN „ _, ,. :1 ..or _,_,.,.., f ^� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ,_. ,.. L_ - .= (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 l CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18" . NO 2 . Red on white is preferred. PARKING FIRE 3 . 3M or equal engineer ' s grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. 4 . Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5. Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 1 7 ' 0" 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided _ facing the direction of travel. 7 . Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. V - 8 . A fire lane shall be required in (NOT- TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the _ Fire Chief. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 .---'2 Date: 1/15/91 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 - ti«� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER � WE�ERN C _ = 1 ,. P :iiks •r•• LA — NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - l . ,, Si/ . — PLANNING COMMISSION .f...---. � PARK MEETING , ESSE T . �" �• Wednesday, APRIL 19, 1995 ` .�+ ��11111\Vr �. II at 7:00 p.m. �•*;' 1„rUFFOLK ,/ .Cit Hall Council Chambers �o w 4 %► �� '�� 411( City 690 Coulter Drive 1 G,�,�` ^� : r az: aw �', L A Project: Lake Susan Townhomes 46.41.i. © � , imi R First Addition -13�. Litfog P y , etili1 or, ttr,1 i' eon, — Developer: Jasper Development L• �Nt r „r.� r •tVufl)fr41 �'1' VIMO IW Location: East of Powers Boulevard, %� Vol j �� 44 — IIP south of Lake Susan Hills ' 'r:i t!a �� i •1111 Driveçraii. � p ,1� R. 41 Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Jasper Development Corporation is requsting preliminary plat of 7.29 acres into 35 lot — single family townhomes and site plan review for 9 buildings of 3 and 4 plexes located on property zoned PUD and located east of Powers Boulevard,just south of Lake Susan Hills Drive, Lake Susan Townhomes 1st Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you _ about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. — 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish — to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 6, 1995. acs Patrick & Beth Victorian Karl & Susan Meier Donald, Jr. & Annabelle Diamond_ 8530 Merganser Ct. 1130 Dove Ct. 1131 Dove Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Douglas & Jacquelyn Jacobson Christopher & Tammara Morton William & Jean Notermann 1121 Dove Ct. 8370 West Lake Dr. 8390 West Lake Dr. — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kirby & Sandra Paulson Kevin & Ten Burns Daniel & Barbara Hoff 8410 West Lake Dr. 1100 Dove Ct. 1120 Dove Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Gergory & Diane Meyer Christopher & Marcia Miller Jerry & Paula Lindholm 8381 West Lake Dr. 8401 West Lake Dr. 8421 West Lake Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David & Debra Rugg John & Margaret Wiehoff Thomas & Karen Stauber — 995 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 971 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 8441 West Lake Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kelly & Tracy Woods Michael & Janet Stanzak Donald & Mary Ketcham 850 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1111 Dove Ct. 8380 West Lake Drive — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jeffrey & Anne Graupmann William & Kelly Schulte Randall & Marilyn Koepsell 8400 West Lake Drive 8420 West Lake Dr. 1110 Dove Ct. _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Randal & Linda Fingarson Gary & Mary Nussbaum David & Janet Flaskerud 8371 West Lake Drive 8391 West Lake Drive 8411 West Lake Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Gary & Barbara Berg Larry & Denise Witthus Scott & Lisa Nebel — 8431 West Lake Drive 981 Lake Susan Hills Drive 961 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kevin & Linda Linehan Thomas & Linda Houston Richard & Catherine Anderson _ 860 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 840 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 851 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 D. R. Horton, Inc. Minnesota William & Margaret Tretter Byron & Gayle Korus Suite 204 881 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 8360 West Lake Drive —3459 Washington Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eagan, MN 55122 Jeffrey & Karen Flanders David & Marian Quinzon Paul & Darlene Ryan 8361 West Lake Dr. 1071 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 8310 West Lake Ct. _Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 —Andrew & Cheryl Olson Gary & Laurie Kassen James & Lori Domholt 8290 West Lake Ct. 8270 West Lake Ct. 8251 West Lake Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Neal & Suzanne Ray Ronald & Ann Kloempken Steven & Darnell Sollom —8281 West Lake Ct. 8311 West Lake Ct. 1070 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Scott & Deborach Swanson Argus Development, Inc. Dale & Linda Hallard _829 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 18133 Cedar Ave. So. 8440 West Lake Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Farmington, MN 55024 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Florent & Catheri8ne Soissons Richard & Karen Thon Michael & Maureen Harlander 8350 West Lake Dr. 8351 West Lake Dr. 8320 West Lake Ct. —Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 —Ronald & Cynthia Tonn Thomas & Lynda Dotzenrod Craig & Laurie Burfeind 8300 West Lake Ct. 8280 West Lake Ct. 8261 West Lake Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _Robert & Peggy Hartman Kevin & Karen Engebretson Thomas & Laurie Nilsson 8301 West Lake Ct. 1060 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1060 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Russell & Nancy Birch Richard & Peggy Anderson Hamid Hoodeh — 1050 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1030 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1240 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Patrick & Wendy Nelson Bernardino, Jr. & Lonna Lanzi Thomas & Nancy Martinson 8411 Egret Ct. 8431 Egret Ct. 8450 Pelican Ct. —Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Terry & Barbara Bolen Robert Jensen & Mary Zehrer Doris S. Larson 8451 Pelican Ct. 8299 Essex Rd. 8324 Essex Rd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 P. 0. Box 66 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Prairie Creek Townhome Assoc. Douglas & Donna Johnson Betty Giboney 235 First St. W. 8305 Essex Rd. 8329 Essex Rd. Waconia, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Peter & Judith Kurth Wade & Yvonne Schneider Kirk Sampson & Any Flicek 1040 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1230 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1250 Lake Susan Hills Dr. _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Joseph & Jane Miller Mark & Julie Goeman Gary & Sharon Condit 8421 Egret Ct. 8441 Egret Ct. 8440 Pelican Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Mary Leirdahl Jasper Development Robert & K. Nelson — 8291 Essex Rd. 235 First St. W. 8330 Essex Rd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Waconia, MN 55387 chan Lake Susan Hills Floyd & Gretchen Radach Suite 200 8313 Essex Rd. -" 7600 Parklawn Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edina, MN 55435 CITY O F PC DATE: May 3, 1995 \ I • CllAIHAEI' CC DATE: May 22, 1995 1 �� CASE#: 87-3 PUD,95-7 SPR STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide 7.29 acres into 34 lots and one outlot and Site Plan Approval for 34 Units (9 structures) Owner Occupied Townhomes - Multifamily Development, Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition — Q LOCATION: East of Powers Boulevard, and South of Lake Susan Hills Drive APPLICANT: Jasper Development Corporation Q— 219 East Frontage Road - Q Waconia, MN 55387 PRESENT ZONING PUD, Planned Unit Development ACREAGE: 7.29 acres DENSITY: 4.6 u/a (gross) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD; Prairie Creek Townhomes and Lake Susan Hills Drive — S - PUD; Prairie Knoll Park E - PUD; Single Family Homes, Lake Susan Hills West d 2nd W - PUD; Powers Boulevard W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is vacant, devoid of vegetation, and contains a wetland. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density Residential GLYNN Rp D -•/ m .• I /10 ID111 W CI .` 4.4 *C1Ci't.1NP.3 ` Y 10P ii$ iii? .%%sip' I". 0 p _t_ DRIVE 4 ra4 lel .! CA , :A4 L'k 141, -ii le . —1PPPP.0- 4 I � �' PARK I • ESS41:: VT �,�- �- - ' , • '11,' • \ � ' (!'(��'♦ PV [ © ©i� lfteye \\_ itif Ile 4113 11. ��,,•�:J► a �`, �,•> w vx WOO --J \ Z. �s6 ed. SUSA 1. -7 ....1216Valitykiti.titiWOch% VO'lk.1 atilitkraw"11 ':-- ^"� �.: fiasalit at ''� 1�11 �I 41 3 �,�y�\ 111 I \, TOPA 0 04riA -41121," mi RD '74-111*v ,� 1 _._ � 41.! ♦ � � X11 • ��.�� mii .P�a� ♦fir OAP . ►. 11`„" Sb • q >.?; -- se ... 1/41 - .t %4411 *a. ..... cm, .„„, my iik.APOr 42 r§:i r .,rat 4,,,. - . ....- ,E.,,,, 1, ,„...„ , L.,,, .. ....... .. ,,„ 4 .. . . ...„,, ,„ _ :.:,, j girlaill in wr - %bil d I i MA 1 I A s' 1,4WINN P .itO•'ih,�� this colts- 40.0- extr la ro alls . If ammill a _ . .. 4..„... ... , .. II aft-4- . .H . ♦ ,� r Ahlk 6111 Cfr jib,LYMAN �rio gitt.,igi, oos' ..,• cc . : . AN1 iikig&ti- VA R114.---i (e.:.__ c caJ- HlL�SP? 1 4 ARK p ,1111 Pi-) \ c, , - - Q. , • r ( f k. /1‘ \ I , BAND/ME' i i % COMMUN/TY " ► ✓ l PARK 4. -. f 9 A -- - � \-\ ( Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 2 This application was initially scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on April 19, 1995. After completing the staff report, we met with the applicant to address some issues. These issues included the location of the storm pond, berms, sanitary sewer connections, and the impact it will have on some units. To improve storm water treatment, the storm pond should be moved to the east of the site and south of the — wetland, centered between the proposed development and the Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition subdivision. This relocation of the pond will impact unit 4 of building 2. The applicant has been working on some designs that would break building 2 from a four-plex into 2 duplexes and shifting them closer to building 3. Staff believes this will reduce the hard surface coverage on the site to 35% and reduce grading and move the units further away from the existing homes. The attached plans have not been revised to reflect these changes, however, staff feels the changes will only improve the overall development. Staff's recommendations reflect the required changes. The applicant will be providing plans reflecting these changes at the Planning Commission meeting. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, Jasper Development, is requesting preliminary plat and site plan approval to _ construct a 34 unit townhome housing project on Outlot D. Outlot D was designated as a medium density site as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD approval. The townhomes are proposed to be owner occupied and to be located on 34 zero lot line parcels. The housing _ style and density generally falls under the townhome development type buildings. The 7.29 acre site is located south of Prairie Creek Townhomes and Lake Susan Hills Drive, north of Prairie Knoll Park, west of Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition Single Family Homes, and east of Powers Boulevard. The gross density is 4.6 units per acre. Access will be provided by three private streets located on community property (Outlot A) owned and maintained by a homeowners association. The site is currently zoned PUD-R8, Medium Density Residential and utilities are available for the area. The proposal is for 34 one-story townhomes, each with attached 2 car garages. The townhomes in Blocks 1 through 5 are 1,590 square foot one story with a full walkout basement. Each unit has a deck in the rear. Townhomes in Block 6 through 9 are 1,319 square foot one-story units with a full basement. Each unit has a deck or a patio at the rear. The exterior siding materials on both units will be stucco and brick. Exterior trim will be cedar. Each townhome has its own distinctive facade through the use of different architectural features such as bay windows, shutters, porches, beams and brackets, and garage door treatments. To further individualize each unit, the applicant proposes to use changing color selections of stucco, brick and trim. The colors are proposed to be muted, earth tomes. Staff is recommending that the applicant introduce similar variation among building's rear elevations, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, adding dormers, or color. A Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 3 — homeowners association will be established to maintain the site and units and enforce their covenants and restrictions. — There are two regulations which influence the development of this site. A PUD contract and R-8 zoning district regulations. The PUD contract has specific conditions which must be — followed with the development of each phase of the PUD. The PUD contract states that the mixed medium density sites of the PUD, which the subject site is, must meet the regulations of the R-8 zoning district, unless otherwise specified in the PUD contract. Within the PUD — contract there appears to be a conflict. The PUD contract states that the medium density sites cannot exceed 9.3 units/acre and also states that the impervious surface coverage of Outlot D cannot exceed 27%. It would almost be impossible to reach 9.3 units/acre with an impervious — surface coverage of not more than 27%, unless the units were built vertically. Throughout the staff reports and Planning Commission/City Council minutes for the original approval, it was stated that 9.3 was the maximum density allowed and the applicant was not guaranteed this density. The proposed 34 units result in density of 4.6 units/acre. The impervious surface coverage is — 37%. Therefore, the density is not as high as it could be, but the impervious coverage exceeds the PUD contract. The R-8 zoning district standards allows a maximum of 35% — impervious coverage. This proposal exceeds the maximum permitted in the R-8 zoning district by 2%. The applicant is aware of the situation mainly because the same situation took place with the two prior developments, Prairie Creek Twinhomes and Powers Place. In the case of Prairie Creek Twinhomes, the PUD allowed a 31% hard surface coverage, and the applicant was permitted 24 units which required a 40% hard surface coverage. In the case of Powers Place, the PUD allowed 30% hard surface coverage, and the applicant was permitted — 48 units which required a 35% hard surface coverage. In the case of Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition, staff will be recommending the applicant be permitted a maximum hard surface coverage of 35% as permitted in the R-8 district. — The property slopes for the most part to the east and south. There are no significant topographic features on the site except the wetland. The plans propose on significantly — regrading the site to accommodate walkout-type dwellings on the easterly portion of the site. The plans propose cutting 10 feet in the middle of the site and transferring the material to the south and east sides of the development. This will result in a fairly level site as compared to the original grades. Staff believes that the site grading can be reduced overall. The result of the reduced grading will maintain the existing topography but reduce the number of walkout- type dwellings. — The landscaping plan is well designed. Landscaping has been provided to screen the development from Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Hills Drive. Staff recommends the — applicant incorporate berms along Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Hills Drive. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 4 The applicant will be required to pay park and trail fees in lieu of park land dedication. Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions outlined in the report. BACKGROUND In 1987, the city approved a concept PUD approval for Lake Susan Hills. The PUD permitted up to 411 single family units, created 3 outlots for medium density units and one outlot for high density units (Attachment#1). The single family lots have been platted in 9 additions continuously since PUD approval. One of the outlots (Outlot C) designated for medium density units was platted in April 1993 for 24 units. The second outlot (Outlot B), also designated for medium density units was platted on April 10, 1995 for 48 units. The remaining medium and high density outlots have not been developed. A PUD contract, adopted as part of the approval, listed the outlots and their proposed uses. Outlots B (9.7 acres), C (4.4acres) and D (7.29 acres) were designated for medium density development. The PUD contract states that the development shall provide a minimum of 23.6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than 9.3 units/acre. To date, only 71 units have been approved, leaving a total number of mixed medium density residential dwelling units of 150. Except as modified by the PUD contract, the development shall be in accordance with the standards and requirements of the R-8 Zoning District. The only regulations concerning medium density modified by the PUD contract was the impervious surface coverage that it could not exceed certain amounts, Outlot B - 30%, Outlot C - 31% and Outlot D - 27%, and that the density could not be greater than 9.3 units/acre. The R-8 zoning district permits up to 35% hard surface coverage and up to 8 units/acre density. SITE PLAN APPROVAL General Site Plan/Architecture The site is 7.29 acres with a gross density of 4.6 units per acre. The 4.6 units per acre is under the allowed PUD density of 9.3 units per acre and the R-8 ordinance of 8 units/acre. — The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 34 owner occupied units. The units will be one-story townhomes, each with attached 2 car garages. The townhomes in Blocks 1 through 5 are 1,590 square foot one story with a full walkout basement. Each unit has a deck in the rear. Townhomes in Block 6 through 9 are 1,319 square foot one-story units with a full basement. Each unit has a deck or a patio at the rear. The exterior siding materials on _ both units will be stucco and brick. Exterior trim will be cedar. Each townhome has its own distinctive facade through the use of different architectural features such as bay windows, shutters, porches, beams and brackets, and garage door treatments. To further individualize Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 5 — each unit, the applicant proposes to use changing color selections of stucco, brick and trim. The colors are proposed to be muted, earth tomes. Staff is recommending that the applicant — introduce similar variation among building's rear elevations, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, adding dormers, or color. PRELIMINARY PLAT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL Lots/Density — The applicant is proposing to subdivide 7.29 acres of property zoned PUD-R into 34 zero lot line parcels for townhome units. The property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as — Medium Density (4-8 Units/Acre). The subject site is Outlot D from the Lake Susan Hills PUD and was created as a mixed medium density site. The PUD contract for Lake Susan Hills PUD stated that the mixed medium density sites (this is the last mixed medium density — outlots left) could not exceed an overall density of 9.3 units/acre, and specifically, Outlot D (subject site) could not exceed 27% impervious surface coverage. The proposed 34 lots are located in a cluster south of the site. The lot sizes for Block 1 through 5, exterior lots are 2,909.7 square feet. The interior lots are — 2,713.8 square feet. The lot sizes for Block 6 through 9, exterior lots are 2,552.5 square feet and the interior lots are 2,376.5 square feet. The townhome lots are located within a larger community owned parcel, shown as Outlot A on the preliminary plat. Outlot A contains the private streets and open space. The density of the site is 4.6 units/acre (gross). Since it is a townhome development with private streets and mutual open space, the density calculated was gross density rather than the typical net density. The impervious surface coverage of the site is at 37%. The PUD — contract stated that the density could not exceed 9.3 units/acre and that the impervious could not exceed 27%. As stated previously, the density is not as high as it could be, but the impervious coverage exceeds the PUD contract. The R-8 zoning district standards permits a — maximum hard surface coverage of 35%. Staff will be recommending the applicant be permitted a maximum hard surface coverage of 35% as permitted in the R-8 ordinance. If the percentage of impervious surface coverage is permitted to be increased, the PUD contract — shall have to be amended to allow the impervious surface coverage of Outlot D to be 35%. The applicant will have to amend the plans to reduce the hard surface coverage by 2%. The townhome units are maintaining a 25' setback form Powers Boulevard, Lake Susan Hills Drive and the existing single family lots to the east (which are part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD). The 25' setback is from the R-8 zoning regulations which the PUD contract states to — follow unless otherwise amended. There are no internal setbacks since the site is serviced internally by a private street. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 6 All 34 units will be served via private street. COMPLIANCE TABLE Ordinance PUD Project Proposal Hard Surface Coverage 35% 27% 37%* Setback from Collector 25 feet NA 25 Internal Private Streets NA NA NA Density 8 units 9.3 units 4.6 units If the applicant was permitted to increase the hard surface coverage from 27% as permitted by the PUD to 35% as permitted in the R-8 district, proposed plans will have to be revised to reduce the hard surface coverage by 2%. Landscaping and Tree Preservation The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. The current site is devoid of vegetation. The Landscaping and Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required when a subdivision plat is contiguous with a collector street. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or a tree preservation area. The landscaping plan meets all those requirements, however, staff is recommending the applicant incorporates the use of berms along Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Hill Drive. Appropriate financial security will be required. The landscaping ordinance requires a minimum of 20% canopy coverage. The following constitutes our calculation of the required forestation: — The required post development canopy coverage is 20% or a total of 1.45 acres of tree canopy. To meet the minimum canopy coverage requirements, the developer would need to develop a forestation plan for the site which would require the planting of 58 trees. The PUD agreement states that the developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, and setbacks from lot lines. The proposed landscaping plan provides an adequate landscaping buffer along the east edge of the property. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 7 — The PUD agreement also states that the applicant shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required — landscaping. The proposed landscaping plan meets all ordinance and PUD requirements. Street lighting for the interior private streets is not shown on the site plan. Staff is — recommending that before this item goes to the City Council, that a street lighting plan be prepared for staff review. Street lights will be required in accordance to City standards along the private streets. The applicant has stated in his narrative that street lighting is proposed to — be residential type electric post lights in each front yard, operated by photocell. Street Names — In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted — documents. WETLANDS There is one wetland on-site that is characterized as an ag-urban wetland by the City's _ inventory. The wetland is approximately 1.7 acres, however, 1.5 acres of the wetland is on the property. There will not be any alterations to this wetland as a result of the development. A sediment trap will be constructed on the west side of the wetland to reduce the nutrient _ loading to the wetland. A buffer strip is required around all wetlands in the City. The buffer strip width required for — an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before building construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. — SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future — development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan — uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 8 on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the water quality requirements will be constructed by the applicant, the SWMP water quality fees will be waived. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $2,975 per developable acre. The area of the property subject to these fees is 7.3 acres, therefore, the proposed development would result in a water quantity connection charge of $21,718. DRAINAGE Most of the site will continue to drain to the wetland. Much of the original drainage areas to this wetland (approximately 24.9 acres) has been diverted from this wetland due to development, and therefore, it is important to maintain drainage from this site to the wetland in order to sustain some of its hydrology. The southern 130 feet of the site will continue to drain south and the far western 130 feet will drain to the County Road 17 ditch. The City has advised the applicant to obtain the plans for the County Road 17 reconstruction to make sure that the drainage patterns and grades are compatible. The wetland also receives stormwater runoff from the Lake Susan Hills development to the north, south and east. None of the storm sewers pretreat the runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The City has an opportunity here to pretreat the southerly storm sewer system from Lake Susan Hills 2nd Addition by relocating the sediment pond to the east side of the development just south of the wetland. In addition, staff believes that this is a better location for the storm pond due to safety concerns. We believe the proposed stormwater pond is too close to Lake Susan Hills Drive. By relocating the storm sewer pond, the unit on Lot 4, Block 2 will have to be Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 9 — relocated or lost. Staff still recommends the proposed sediment pond should be relocated to the south of the wetland and oversized to accommodate and pretreat storm water runoff from the adjacent Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition. The applicant will be given credit against their SWMP fees for the oversizing of the stormwater pond. The proposed sediment trap appears to be large enough to trap up to 54% of phosphorus from the 6.25 acres draining to the wetland. Along with the hydrologic calculations, the City requires the computations for the water quality ponding from Walker's pondnet as part of the — final plat. In addition, detailed storm calculations for the individual catch basins will need to be supplied to the city to verify pipe sizing and catch basin spacing. GRADING The site has been employed in agricultural practices in the past. The property slopes for the most part to the east and south. There are no significant topographic features on the site except the wetland. The plans propose on significantly regrading the site to accommodate walkout-type dwellings on the easterly portion of the site. The plans propose cutting 10 feet in the middle of the site and transferring the material to the south and east sides of the development. This will result in a fairly level site as compared to the original grades. Staff believes that the site grading can be reduced overall. The result of the reduced grading will maintain the existing topography but reduce the number of walkout-type dwellings. Grading is also proposed within the wetland buffer strip. The plans should be modified to prohibit — grading within the buffer strip. It appears that the site is to be graded with the initial phase of development. It is unclear — whether or not material will need to be exported from or imported to the site. If material is needed to be imported or exported from the site, haul routes will need to be submitted for review and approval by the City. Rock construction entrances should be incorporated into the _ plans at both access points onto Lake Susan Hills Drive. The applicant should be aware no access will be permitted onto Powers Boulevard (County Road 17). EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan has been incorporated on the grading and drainage plan and — submitted to the city for review and approval. Staff recommends that the applicant use the city's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after — grading to prevent erosion. The catch basins prior to the first lift of asphalt shall be protected by means of hay bales or silt fence. The erosion control fence adjacent the wetlands should be modified to the City's Type III. Additional erosion control fencing may be required — behind the curbs during construction of the buildings. All erosion control fencing shall be installed outside the wetland buffer zone to prohibit disruption of the wetland buffer strip. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 10 UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available from Lake Susan Hills Drive. The plans propose on extending the sewer and water lines from two locations in Lake Susan Hills Drive. Staff believes the westerly connection to the sanitary sewer system in Lake Susan Hills Drive can and should be deleted. There is adequate grade to service the site from the easterly connection point. Water extension is proposed from both locations on Lake Susan Hills Drive as well. Staff believes the connection at both location points is warranted in order to provide looping of the water system. The proposed utility improvements within the development will be private and not be maintained by the City. However, the utility improvements are fairly substantial and will impact the City's existing infrastructures in Lake Susan Hills Drive. Therefore, the proposed utility improvements should be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications should be required and submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City Council, in conjunction with the final plat approval. The City is also concerned about proper maintenance and care of the proposed utility improvements. The City may be contacted to perform annual maintenance functions to the _ private utilities for a fee. If the applicant wishes to pursue this option he should contact the City Engineer to put together a cooperative agreement for maintenance purposes. Upon completion of the utility improvements, as-built construction plans should be supplied to the City for record purposes. Since the applicant has proposed utility and street improvements are to be private, a development contract will not be necessary. However, staff recommends that the applicant enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide security to guarantee street and boulevard restoration and compliance to the conditions of approval. STREETS The site is proposed to be accessed from Lake Susan Hills Drive via a private street system. Street access from Lake Susan Hills Drive is proposed in two locations to provide a looped street. The applicant will need to incorporate cross-access and maintenance agreements in the homeowners covenants to provide access to all the parcels. The streets are proposed to be 25 feet wide from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. This results in a drive aisle of less than 24 feet which is the City's minimum private street width. The street will need to be widened at least by one foot. The width of the proposed street is too narrow to permit parking. Therefore, the street shall be posted for no parking in accordance with the City's Fire Marshal. Additional traffic signage and a street lighting plan will need to Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 11 _ be incorporated into the overall development plan. The City will install the necessary traffic signs and bill the developer for the sign materials. — The street grades appear to meet the City's private street ordinance. The radii at all street intersections should be 20 feet wide to provide adequate turning movements. The plans — propose a street pavement design which staff believes may be too light of a street section for a 7-ton street design. Staff suggests the final pavement design be reviewed and redesigned if necessary by a professional soils engineer after the street subgrade has been constructed. — Written documentation from the soils engineer attesting that the street section will meet or exceed a 7-ton roadway design will be required prior to paving of the streets. EASEMENTS The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and — maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as storm water ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. — MISCELLANEOUS Many of the proposed lot lines encroach upon the building setback line. The lot lines should be modified to avoid encroaching into the building setback areas. PARK AND RECREATION As part of the whole Lake Susan Hills PUD, a significant amount of park land was dedicated to the city and trails were to be developed by the applicant. Therefore, the PUD contract requires no trail fees and '/ park fees. No park land will be required with this proposal. _ RECOMMENDATION _ PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat of 7.29 acres into — 34 lots and one outlot (PUD #87-3) and Site Plan Review #95-7 approval of 34 units (9 structures) as shown on the plans dated March 20, 1995, and subject to the following conditions: — Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 12 1. Amend the PUD contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 35%. 2. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative. Introduce some variation among the rear of buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, adding dormers, or color. 3. The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private streets. 4. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 5. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication. The PUD contract requires no trail fees and 'h park fees. 6. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units. 7. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted which provides berming along Powers Boulevard (CR 17) and Lake Susan Hills Drive. The agreement also states that the _ applicant shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping. 8. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" sign on all private roads in compliance with Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 (copy enclosed). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. b. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review. c. Fire hydrant changes - contact Fire Marshal for additional fire hydrants and their specific locations. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The remaining fire hydrants shall be relocated with equal spacing. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 13 — 9. Building Official conditions: a. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. b. Furnish details on each size of dwelling unit. These details should include exterior dimensions, overhangs, exterior openings and proposed optional additions. Designate which unit will be constructed on which lots. These details — must be supplied prior to preliminary plat approval. 10. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 11. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and approval. The streets shall be constructed in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance for multi-family zoning (Ordinance No. 209). Radii at all intersections shall be 20 feet. The street width shall be widened to 26 feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Issuance of permits and inspection of the utility lines will be performed by the city's Building — Department. The streets and utilities, except the ponding areas, storm sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The applicant will need to incorporate cross access and maintenance agreements in the — homeowners covenants to provide access to all the parcels. 12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's _ wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer — calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 14 14. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the state Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. _ 17. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units which are not adjacent to a storm pond or wetland. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 18. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for the ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 19. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the city and the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. 20. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. The proposed stormwater treatment pond shall be relocated to the south end of the wetland. 21. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond shall be sized to accommodate the storm runoff from Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition which drains into the wetland from the south. 22. Water quantity and quality connection fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP requirements. Credits for SWMP fees will be evaluated at the time of final construction plan review. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st Addition April 19,1995 Page 15 — 23. The final grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the following: a. Relocation of the stormwater treatment pond to the south end of the wetlands. The stormwater treatment pond shall be expanded to accommodate runoff from Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition. The applicant shall be credited against the storm fees for the oversizing of the stormwater pond. b. Site grading shall be revised to minimize the amount of earthwork to create the — building pads. This may result in limiting the type of dwellings to ramblers and/or lookouts on the east and south ends of the project. c. The drainage pattern and site grades adjacent to Powers Boulevard shall be compatible with the future upgrading plans for Powers Boulevard. d. Berms shall be incorporated around the perimeter of the site adjacent to Powers Boulevard. e. Grading shall be eliminated within the wetland buffer strip areas. Erosion control fence shall be placed outside of the buffer strip. 24. The street pavement design shall be reviewed and, if necessary, redesigned by a professional soils engineer after review of the subgrade. The applicant shall submit to the City written documentation from the soils engineer that the street design will meet or exceed a 7-ton design. 25. The utility construction plans shall be designed to extend sanitary sewer for the entire site from the existing stub provided in Lake Susan Hills Drive. 26. Many of the proposed lot lines encroach upon the building setback line. The lot lines should be modified to avoid encroaching into the building setback areas. No decks or any portion of the dwellings may encroach into the City's drainage and utility — easements. 27. Upon completion of the utilities improvements, the applicant shall supply the city with — as-built construction plans." ATTACHMENTS 1. Reduced concept PUD. 2. PUD contract. 3. Narrative from applicant. � CITY OF PC DATE: 4/5/95 � _ C U A N H A S S CC DATE: 5/3195 CASE #: 95-3 SUB 95-1 REZ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 14.53 Acres into 18 single family lots and two outlots, Lake Lucy Estates Q (� A Variance to Allow a 20 Foot Front Yard Setback, a 10% street grade, and _ J a 50 Foot Wide Right-Of-Way, a 123 foot lot depth, and a 20 foot lot frontage Q" LOCATION: South of Lake Lucy Road and North of Lake Lucy Q APPLICANT: Michael J. Byrne Brian & Nancy Tichy 5428 Kimberly Road 1471 Lake Lucy Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 55'117 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District ACREAGE: 14.53 acres DENSITY: 1.2 Units per Acre-Gross 1.98 Units per Acre-Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Shadow Ridge Subdivision S - Lake Lucy - Qt E - RR, Rural Residential District L.; W - RR, Rural Residential District Q . WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. 11.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains two single family residences. The majority of the I— site is wooded. It contains two wetlands. The topography varies significantly throughout the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density • D E 1 00 0 In N o 8 e0 o a 8 0 T .„.41;18:101. n 1 I ., ! . : . . `. . I I o •., •i �'^ ` .mac "a'i %a SII. ! mom rim 4t ; 1=MEW NurEmmot.4 EN Alio At-, I �� IMAM rite ipmik,---- - I- -- Ilittra rill Ild.rali7:43.:11:A4t.W" .N1. — OIF4%7:: r ti� i AR , � I s� • . vs,�„ PHEASAN im, a, ;�'. �/,�.� ��► � 411 ` ��f k lot .vit.' 0 Ill i SOS •��A �l _nem cY LANE r ■:LIJ.�'Fg4al � ' r sII ill *-4 o :141 R BEACH . a,^'�' - �`� � 6ROUNi 6:747 1 fit,. OV i�. I �� S ■Il CHENE )1 L•Pallil W' - --- i tk , s r-g.6, • 21. RR ik.-.4.4tips1°1 11i ig 0 r 7 —)'' -\\_____,/ __. .0 . . caKE - NARRisoN LAKE LUCY111 °.w4"1111 i RD ROVI MI ----...„ . 44Eafi mils Pv1 1 6111 - a -" ' v , ,:t , cr ---- Alliii1111 1: GREENWO,i • JSHORES m 'ARK • MEA DOW i LAKE ANN GREEN PAR,- -�.- � RSF impro....0 Iriti:III*1 * Ns1 L.- , MEV kb„MIAMI - --. ------- • mimmilia7 mai _ H 1 LAKE R4 ANN Lake Lucy Estates — May 3, 1995 Page 2 — This application first appeared before the Planning Commission on April 5, 1995. Numerous issues were raised by the Planning Commission, residents, and staff. These issues included excessive grading, tree loss, environmental concerns, and variances. The applicant listened to the issues and attempted to address them through a revised plan. This staff report has been modified to address the changes. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY — The applicant is proposing to subdivide 14.53 acres into 18 single family lots and two outlots. The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF, Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 30,122 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.2 units per acre. — Most lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance with the exception of lot 8. This parcel is a flag lot and has a frontage of 20 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Also, lot 5 has an average depth of 123 feet. The zoning _ ordinance requires a minimum depth of 125 feet. These variances can be easily eliminated. The site is located south of Lake Lucy Road and North of Lake Lucy. Access to the subdivision will be provided via a public street/cul-de-sac, south of Lake Lucy Road, to — service the proposed lots, as well as internal private streets. The majority of the site has a dense concentration of mature trees. According to the proposed — plans, the minimum tree canopy to be maintained is 46%. Staff calculated 0.94 acres of additional tree removal. — In reviewing this plat, staff worked with the applicant and offered some suggestions to minimize the impact on the natural features of the site. Some of these options were locating a storm pond on the site, moving the cul de sac to the west to avoid some mature trees, — custom grading house pads, and using variances to minimize impacts on the site. The applicant has incorporated these suggestions into the plans and we believe it is an improvement from what was submitted previously. Staff is providing additional suggestions and comments to further improve the plan. Changes that took place between the previous plan and the subject plan include the following: * Total number of lots was dropped from 19 to 18. * Street grades have been increased from 7% to 10%. * Tree loss has been reduced. * grading has been reduced through custom grading of the lots. * Private Street Variance to serve up to five lots has been eliminated. * The use of reduced front yard setbacks have been incorporated into the plan. Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 3 — * The applicant revised the name of the plat to Lake Lucy Estates, which is acceptable. — * Filling on Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 2 has been reduced. The revised plans are a step in the right direction, however, additional revisions will be — required to further improve the plan. Staff has prepared an alternative plan which minimizes grading and variances. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report, as well as, incorporating the plan prepared by staff. — REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family. The area to the north is zoned Residential Single Family to the east and west is zoned Rural Residential and is guided for Residential Low Density. — The 2000 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density _ Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.2 units per acre and 1.98 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out. This area is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending approval for rezoning to RSF consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide an 14.53 acre site into 18 single family lots and two — outlots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.98 units per acre net after removing the roads (2.28 acres) and wetlands (3.16 acres). All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 30,122 square feet. The depth of the lots meets — ordinance requirements with the exception of lot 5. This parcel has an average depth of 123 feet. The ordinance requires a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The applicant shall adjust the plan to eliminate the lot depth variance. — The previous plan submitted by the applicant reflected five lots along the lake shore. That number has been reduced to four. Grading is still excessive. The applicant is showing fill — along the southern portion of the site of up to six feet to create walkout lots. Furthermore, Lot 10 shows a house pad centered in the middle of a heavily wooded area. The revised plan prepared by staff reduces the fill on these lots and shifts the house pads into areas that would — minimize impact on the tree canopy. The 20 foot front yard setback variances on some of the lots is promoting the preservation of — trees and wetlands. We believe it is warranted, however, this variance is reduced substantially in the plan prepared by staff. In the plan submitted by the applicant, there are Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 4 ten lots with a 20 foot front yard setback variances. In the plan prepared by staff, there are a total of two 20 foot front yard setback variances. In staffs plan, the private street grades have been adjusted to conform with existing terrain and minimize distribution to the existing topography. Two of the lots located to the south of the cul-de-sac are proposed to be served via a private driveway, as well as homes proposed on Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 14, Block 2. The property located to the east of the subject property (Morins) can only gain access to a public right-of- way through the subject property. The adjacent property has the potential to subdivide into three lots. Two of those lots will utilize the same driveway as proposed Lot 2, Block 1, and Lot 14, Block 2. The ordinance allows a maximum of 4 homes to be served via a private drive. The plan prepared by staff proposes 5 lots to be served via a private street. This will minimize grading and preserve trees in that area. The applicant submitted one plan with no variances for staff's review. The plan reflected a total of 19 lots, however, the applicant failed to take into consideration setbacks from wetland. We believe 3 lots will be lost after meeting the setback from the natural wetland. Although the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, we believe that revisions as shown in staff's plan will have to be made to preserve more of the natural features of the site. WETLANDS There are 2 wetlands delineated on-site and they are as follows: Wetland A is located on the property just east of Lots 11 through 13 along the southeastern portion of the property. The wetland is approximately 5.3 acres and is characterized as an inland shallow fresh marsh. Approximately 1.7 acres of the wetland is located on the property. The City's wetland inventory states that this wetland is a natural wetland, and therefore, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet wide with an average width of 20 feet. This wetland will not be filled or excavated as a result of the development. Wetland B is the natural wetland complex that borders the Lake Lucy shoreline. The wetland _ is above the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Lucy, and therefore, is not within DNR jurisdiction. Approximately 1.4 acres of the wetland is located on the property. Since this is a natural wetland, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet wide with an average width of 20 feet. This wetland will not be filled or excavated as a result of the development. Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 5 — SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future — development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan — uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's _ Surface Water Management Plan. Storm Water Quality Fees _ The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City has had discussions with the applicant's engineer on the water quality ponding. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $800/acre for single-family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. — Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an — average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of — $1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 16.34 acres; however, 4.86 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 11.48 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of$22,730. This fee will be due — payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING & DRAINAGE — The revised plan has reduced grading somewhat; however, staff believes further work can be _ done to minimize alteration to the existing topography. The site consists of heavily wooded areas, wetlands and steep slopes. The site drains generally from north to south. The runoff eventually discharges into Lake Lucy along the southerly boundary of the site. The _ Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 6 topographic features are somewhat similar to the previous subdivision just west of this site (Coey parcel - Point Lake Lucy), however, that parcel had a common ridge that bisected the center of the development which made it easier to develop. This parcel has significant side slopes which divides the parcel. Some of the changes include custom grading most of the wooded lots, increasing the street grades up to 10% to conform with existing ground contours which results in less grading, adjusting building pad elevations and/or changing the dwelling type to conform with the — existing ground, modifying the street and cul-de-sac alignment to accommodate a water quality pond (Walker basin) for pretreatment of stormwater prior to discharging to the wetland, adjusting lot lines slightly and building types in cases where significant trees can be — saved such as on Lot 12. The plans have been prepared with a 50-foot wide right-of-way again which is less than the — City's standard right-of-way in an attempt to preserve trees and lessen the grading. Staff believes in most cases this compromise of the right-of-way width will reduce grading to minimize impact to the site. Staff has worked on developing a layout which we believe — minimizes grading, tree loss and construction of infrastructures (attached) and still maintains the number of lots. By relocating the private street (Lakeway Court) southerly will reduce grading overall, the number and height of retaining walls and allow the sanitary sewer to — follow the street alignment. As proposed on the plans the sanitary sewer will intersect through the backyards of Lots 11, 12 and 14, Block 2 which results in further tree loss. By locating the street southerly will also lessen the street grade significantly. The Lakeway — Court is currently proposed at 10%. The relocation of the Lakeway Court southerly will however result in loss of some trees but will also save a number of significant oaks which were proposed to be lost due to new home construction. Staff's proposal relocates the house pads away from the significant stands of trees for the most part. Lakeway Court also provides for a "Y" turnaround on the Morin's parcel. A temporary turnaround could be created on-site (Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14, Block 2) until the Morins further subdivide. — Staff also looked at the southerly private street which serves two lots (9 and 10, Block 2). The plans propose filling up to 6 feet to create house pads and the private street. Staff has — reviewed this and believes modification such as clustering the houses on Lots 9 and 10 and lowering the street grade somewhat would result in significantly less grading and filling adjacent Lake Lucy and the wetland on Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 2. In order to provide sanitary sewer service to Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, up to 4 feet of fill will be required to prevent freezing. The homes will also need to have ejector pumps to service the lower levels which is not that unusual. The previous submittal had up to 8 feet of fill in this area. Staff also recommends lowering the cul-de-sac grade by 1 foot to conform to the existing terrain better and reduce the amount of fill necessary. Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 7 — Staff has further reviewed access to the "Willis parcel" west of this development. It appears this parcel may be further subdivided once sewer and water is available to more than four — lots. Therefore, staff is recommending a 50-foot right-of-way be dedicated on the final plat between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1. This street should also be constructed to City standards for future extension into the Willis parcel. Without a public street the parcel will be limited in — subdivision to 3 lots. Staff is recommending that the applicant modify their plans to conform to staff recommendations contained within this staff report. A water quality pond has been proposed along the west side of the cul-de-sac to pretreat storm runoff collected from the streets. The pond then drains back under the street to the wetland on Lots 10 and 11, Block 2. Only small diameter trees and brush will be removed as a result of the construction of the pond. This pond should be designed to retain approximately 65% phosphorus as determined by the Walker pondnet model. The pond shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements listed in the SWMP. Stormwater pipe calculations for a 10-year storm event will have to be provided to the City for review and approval. Emergency overflows for storms larger than 10-year or a _ malfunctioning storm sewer system shall also be provided. Drainage off the private street will/should sheet drain across the street between the house towards the wetlands. The buffers between the houses and wetlands will be sufficient in pretreated runoff prior to reaching the wetlands. Typically, with the soil conditions on hilly terrains, ground water may be of concern. The City requires a drain tile system behind the curb and gutter for homes which are not adjacent to a wetland/pond. The drain tile system provides an acceptable means of controlling sump — pump discharge from the homes. EROSION CONTROL — Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion — control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used around the wetlands for added protection. A revised grading plan should be developed in accordance with the City's BMPH and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final approval. — UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from the Coey parcel which was recently subdivided into Point Lake Lucy. The Coey parcel is located approximately 200 feet _ east of this site. The sewer line to date has not been extended to service this parcel from the Coey parcel. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended this spring through the Coey parcel and deadend at that the property just east of this development (Morin's). The exact alignment _ Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 8 of this sewer line has now been staked in the field up to the Morin's property. The alignment minimizes tree loss and impact to the wetlands and Morin's property. Staff has met with the Morin's previously on site to determine the alternatives for extending sanitary sewer. The applicant has been working with the Morins to acquire the necessary utility easement for this extension. In order for this project to proceed, the sanitary sewer will need to be extended through the Coey and Morin properties. Without the sewer, this project would be considered premature for development. A condition has been added in the staff report that final plat approval will be contingent upon sanitary sewer being extended through the Coey and Morin properties. The plans propose extending the sewer through the rear yards of Lots 11, 12 and 14, Block 1 which will result in further tree canopy loss. Staff has redesigned the sanitary sewer to follow staff's proposed Lakeway Court. The applicant should modify their plans to have the sanitary sewer follow the private street alignment as shown on staff's layout. Municipal water service is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The plans propose extending water service throughout the development. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with fmal plat approval. The construction plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's 1995 edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will be subject to City Council approval. The applicant will be required as a part of final plat and construction plan approval to enter into a development contract and provide the City with financial securities to guarantee conditions of approval and installation of the public improvements. The development contains two existing homesites (Tichy and Christensen). Both of these homesites are currently on their own well and septic system. The existing home on the westerly portion of the site (Lot 18 - Christensen's) is proposed to be removed. The other home (Tichy) is proposed to remain on Lot 15. Both on-site well and septic systems will have to be abandoned in accordance with the City and State health codes in conjunction with this development. The well and septic on Lot 18 will have to be abandoned in conjunction with site grading. The well and septic system on the Tichy property (Lot 15) may be delayed since the construction activities appear not to impact the systems. However, city ordinance requires properties within 150 feet of a municipal sewer system must be connected to the city's system within 12 months after the system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not required until the well fails. The sanitary sewer to serve this development will be designed and constructed to service the Morin's property as well as the properties to the west and north of the site. Sanitary sewer lines from the Coey property will be very shallow to service Lots 7 through 10, Block 2. The lower level of the homes will require ejector systems to pump effluent from the lower level. The rest of the house will be on a gravity system. The use of ejector systems is not that uncommon. Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 9 STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. This road is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Street right-of-way on the public street has been reduced from the 60-foot requirement to 50 feet wide to reduce grading and tree loss. Staff has evaluated this compromise with the revised plans and believes the reduced right-of- way is warranted. The plans are also incorporating the use of private streets to service _ portions of the development and adjacent parcels. City ordinance provides up to four homes to be serviced off a private street. A turnaround acceptable to the City's fire marshal will also have to be provided. The private street will reduce impacts to the wetland and tree loss _ versus the public street. Staff believes the use of private streets to service Lots 9 and 10, Block 2 may be warranted if the house pad on Lot 10, Block 1 is relocated westerly as shown on staff's layout. The proposed plan has the house setback to the far easterly portion _ of the lot. This will require excessive filling/grading. The use of a public street would prohibit developing this area (Lots 9 and 10) due to setback requirements from wetlands and the street. Staff believes if the applicant follows the layout prepared by staff, the _ environmental concerns would be minimized. Another private street (Lakeway Court) is proposed to service up to four lots (12 and 14) and the Morin's parcel to the east. The Morins and staff have reviewed the development potential of the Morin's parcel and it _ appears that the site may be further subdivided into two lots. Therefore, the private street (Lakeway Court) as proposed would be serving up to four homes which meets the City's ordinance. Staff's layout, however, proposes serving three lots from Lakeway Court which _ eventually would serve up to five lots when Morins subdivides. Staff believes, short of a full City street, there is no other way to create a street system which would minimize impacts and, therefore, recommends a variance be granted for up to five (5) homes accessing Lakeway Court. A turnaround which meets the City fire marshal's requirements has been provided at the end of Lakeway Court. If the Morins are not in favor of the turnaround at this time, a temporary turnaround could be developed on Lot 12 or 14 until the Morins are ready to — subdivide. Future access was also considered for the parcel west of the development (Willis) which is — currently for sale. The Willis parcel currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road via a long gravel driveway. Part of the driveway is actually located within the proposed subdivision and is shown through Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2. The Willis driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road is across from Yosemite. This intersection has substandard sight distance which makes it difficult to safely turn to and from the property. Eventually, when the Willis parcel further _ subdivides, staff will recommend that the driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road be eliminated and the driveway be relocated to access between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1. It appears the Willis property has the ability to further subdivide into more than four lots. The applicant _ should provide a 31-foot wide City street and 50-foot wide public right-of-way between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 to provide future access to the site. Lot 4, Block 2 will also be accessed from this street. Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 10 Private driveway maintenance and access agreements will need to be incorporated into covenants to permit access to the lots adjacent to private driveways as well as the Morin parcel. DOCKING ISSUES ON LAKE LUCY The issue of lake access has been considered and the following options are available for residents. 1. No more than one dock shall be permitted on any lakeshore site. No dock shall exceed six feet in width and no dock shall exceed the greater of the following lengths; 50 feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of 4 feet. 2. Intensive removal or alteration of vegetation is not allowed. Furthermore, impacts to wetlands, if any, would have to be mitigated if the altered area is over 400 square feet. 3. Land owners can share a dock by placing the dock on the property line. 4. A beachlot can be created if the developer dedicates the land for it. 5. Any dock will have to receive City and DNR approval. PARK DEDICATION The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on March 28, 1995 and recommended full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land _ acquisition and/or trail construction. They also recommended that the existing house located on Lot 15 be exempt from these fees. If the home is demolished and a new residence was built, the site would then be subject to these fees. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Staff has not prepared a compliance table at this time since all the lot lines will shift resulting in lot area changes. Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 11 — TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING A revised tree inventory survey has been submitted by the applicant. Also included was revised canopy coverage calculations. The applicant has limited grading to road development and a few lots. Most of the lots are to be custom graded. — Tree removal on the site , even after revision of the plans, still exceeds the ordinance by 0.94 acres. The major concentrations of trees is in the center of the site, unavoidable by development. Because of the loss of trees in the heart of the development, preservation of trees located between and behind homes is of utmost importance. Tree preservation areas _ will need to be established around the wetlands and lake as well as back and side yards of some lots. Additional trees must also be saved in addition to the preservation areas. Groups of trees must be saved in order to provide to greatest chance of survival for the trees and the _ preserve the wooded aspect of the site. Applicant has drawn the grading areas including the road, driveway, and home on the tree _ inventory survey. Realistically, more trees may ultimately be removed than is shown on the grading/tree inventory survey. Placement and type of home will have the greatest impacts on the surrounding trees. Attempts must be made to locate home on site where there will be the _ least environmental impact. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan should be submitted for all "custom graded" lots to staff for review and approval prior to - issuance of a building permit. Reforestation requirements based on this submittal will be 46 trees. Applicant is proposing to remove .94 acres more than is allowed by ordinance and therefore must multiply it by 1.2 in — order to calculate reforestation needs. A reforestation plan must be submitted to the city showing the placement of the 46 trees. FINDINGS SUBDIVISION — 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision requires variances to meet the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; _ Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan density designation. Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 12 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site has a significant tree coverage and rolling topography. The applicant will be changing the site characteristics in order to develop it. The plans can be revised to make the subdivision more suitable for this site. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by a public street and infrastructures. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will need to be revised as discussed in the staff report and in the conditions of approval. Grading and tree removal must be minimized. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will be provided with adequate public infrastructure with the extension of the sanitary sewer from the east. VARIANCE As part of this plat approval, a variance to allow 20 foot front yard setbacks, a 10 percent street grade, five homes accessing via a private drive, and a 50 foot wide right-of-way is Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 13 — requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the — following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land. 3. The condition of conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: Staff recommends the variances be approved as shown in staff's layout dated April 27, 1995. PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS As part of this subdivision, the applicant is requesting the use of private driveways to service portions of the site. The subdivision ordinance allows up to four lots to be served by a private driveway if the city finds the following conditions to exist: - 1. The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and existence of — wetlands. 2. After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the public — street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The use of a private driveway will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. Finding: The applicant is utilizing two private streets to access lots 9, 10, 14, Block 1, and Lot 2 Block 2. Private streets as shown on staff's layout will minimize impact on the vegetation and preserve site grades. It will require 5 lots to be — served via the private driveway, however, we believe in this case a variance is recommended. — Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 14 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning of 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, (95-1 REZ), Preliminary Plat (95-3 SUB) to Subdivide 14.53 Acres into 18 single family lots and three outlots, with variances (a variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback, street grades up to 10%, and a 50 foot wide right-of-way), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in plans dated April 25, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road. 2. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way of Lake Lucy. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road Right-of-Way. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. The applicant shall also provide a woodland management plan. Elevation of all trees to be saved within grading limits must be shown on the grading plan. 3. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. 4. Building Department conditions: a. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. b. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. c. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 5. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 15 — boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safety operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. -- b. Due to the close proximity of surrounding homes, any trees, shrubs, bushes, natural vegetation, will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the site. No burning permits will be issued. c. Additional premise identification signage will be required for Lots 8 - 9 - 10 per Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. d. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be — provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The turnaround may be modified if homes on Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 14, Block 2 are protected by a NFPA 13 D fire sprinkler system. — e. Submit a street name for Outlot B to Fire Marshal for approval. 6. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 7. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of — completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council — approval. 10. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's — wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 16 with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. A 50-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court. 15. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 16. A water quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 17. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 15 shall be connected to the city sewer system within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not required unless the well on Lot 15 fails. 18. The proposed single-family residential development of 11.48 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. These fees are payable Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 17 — to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The water quality fees will be waived if the applicant provides for on-site stormwater treatment. — 19. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City — Engineer. The construction plans shall include a draintile system behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond. 20. Lots 1 through 3, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 5, 11 through 15, Block 2 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit — application for review and approval by the city engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the lot. 21. The plat and construction plans shall be revised incorporating the recommendation contained in this staff report to minimize grading and tree loss. Staffs layout dated April 27, 1995. Revised drawings shall be submitted to the City prior to the City Council considering preliminary plat approval. 22. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins. — 23. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's fire marshal. A private — maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided•for all parcels served by a private street(s). 24. The applicant shall provide a public street and utility services to the Willis property directly west of this development. A 50-foot wide right-of-way shall be dedicated between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 with the final plat. — 25. A variance to the City's private street ordinance to allow up to 5 homes to access Lakeway Court should be permitted. — 26. A temporary turnaround may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14, Block 2 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides. — 27. Building setback lines and buffer strips shall be denoted on the grading plans. 28. Homes on Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 2 will require the use of ejector pumps to service the lower level of each household. Lake Lucy Estates May 3, 1995 Page 18 29. Redesign Lot 8 to meet frontage requirement and Lot 5 to meet lot depth requirement." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated April 25, 1995. 2. Minutes of Homeowner's Meeting called by Mike Byrne. 3. Letter from Jill Willis dated March 30, 1995. 4. Letter from Lake Lucy Environment President Committee dated March 27, March 28, and April 6, 1995. 5. Planning Commission minutes dated April 5, 1995. 6. Layout prepared by staff dated April 27, 1995. 7. Preliminary plat dated April 25, 1995. CITY QF .) ,\. .,., ._, :.-i-ilk- ___. ,: _.,:l.lis ;:. ,,,; iii CIIANIIASSEN _ ` , ,. , i ,.,.._ . Irk, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM — TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator7P David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer - y ' DATE: April 25, 1995 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat Documents - Lake Lucy Estates, Michael Byrne - 95-3 SUB/95-1 REZ/95-12 LUR Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., dated July 12, 1994, revised March 6, 1995, and further revised April 21, 1995 and the wetland delineation _ report dated March 22, 1995 prepared by Peterson Environmental, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations: — WETLANDS There are 2 wetlands delineated on-site and they are as follows: _ Wetland A is located on the property just east of Lots 11 through 13 along the southeastern portion of the property. The wetland is approximately 5.3 acres and is characterized as an inland — shallow fresh marsh. Approximately 1.7 acres of the wetland is located on the property. The City's wetland inventory states that this wetland is a natural wetland, and therefore, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet wide with an average width of 20 feet. This wetland will — not be filled or excavated as a result of the development. Wetland B is the natural wetland complex that borders the Lake Lucy shoreline. The wetland — is above the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Lucy, and therefore, is not within DNR jurisdiction. Approximately 1.4 acres of the wetland is located on the property. Since this is a natural wetland, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet wide with an average width of — 20 feet. This wetland will not be filled or excavated as a result of the development. — SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, — preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and Sharmin Al-Jaff April 25, 1995 Page 2 minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions _ model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City has had discussions with the applicant's engineer on the water quality ponding. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $800/acre for single-family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 16.34 acres; however, 4.86 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 11.48 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING & DRAINAGE The revised plan has reduced grading somewhat; however, staff believes further work can be done to minimize alteration to the existing topography. The site consists of heavily wooded areas, wetlands and steep slopes. The site drains generally from north to south. The runoff eventually discharges into Lake Lucy along the southerly boundary of the site. The topographic features are somewhat similar to the previous subdivision just west of this site (Coey parcel - Point Lake Lucy), however, that parcel had a common ridge that bisected the center of the development which made it easier to develop. This parcel has significant side slopes which divides the parcel. Some of the changes include custom grading most of the wooded lots, increasing the street grades up to 10% to conform with existing ground contours which results in less grading, adjusting building pad elevations and/or changing the dwelling type to conform with the existing Sharmin Al-Jaff April 25, 1995 Page 3 — ground, modifying the street and cul-de-sac alignment to accommodate a water quality pond — (Walker basin) for pretreatment of stormwater prior to discharging to the wetland, adjusting lot lines slightly and building types in cases where significant trees can be saved such as on Lot 12. The plans have been prepared with a 50-foot wide right-of-way again which is less than the City's standard right-of-way in an attempt to preserve trees and lessen the grading. Staff believes in most cases this compromise of the right-of-way width will reduce grading to minimize impact to the site. Staff has worked on developing a layout which we believe minimizes grading, tree loss and construction of infrastructures (attached) and still maintains the number of lots. By relocating the private street (Lakeway Court) southerly will reduce grading overall, the number and height of retaining walls and allow the sanitary sewer to follow the street alignment. As proposed on the plans the sanitary sewer will intersect through the backyards of Lots 11, 12 and 14, Block 2 which results in further tree loss. By locating the street southerly will also lessen the street grade significantly. The Lakeway Court is currently proposed at 10%. The relocation of the Lakeway Court southerly will however result in loss of some trees but will also save a number of significant oaks which were proposed to be lost due to new home construction. Staffs proposal relocates the house pads away from the significant stands of trees for the most part. Lakeway Court also provides for a "Y" turnaround on the Morin's parcel. A temporary — turnaround could be created on-site (Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14, Block 2) until the Morins further subdivide. Staff also looked at the southerly private street which serves two lots (9 and 10, Block 2). The plans propose on filling up to 6 feet to create house pads and the private street. Staff has reviewed this and believes modification such as clustering the houses on Lots 9 and 10 and — lowering the street grade somewhat would result in significantly less grading and filling adjacent Lake Lucy and the wetland on Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 2. In order to provide sanitary sewer service to Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, up to 4 feet of fill will be required to prevent freezing. The — homes will also have to have ejector pumps to service the lower levels which is not that unusual. The previous submittal had up to 8 feet of fill in this area. Staff also recommends lowering the cul-de-sac grade by 1 foot to conform to the existing terrain better and reduce the amount of fill — necessary. Staff has further reviewed access to the "Willis parcel" west of this development. It appears this — parcel may be further subdivided once sewer and water is available to more than four lots. Therefore, staff is recommending a 50-foot right-of-way be dedicated on the final plat between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1. This street should also be constructed to City standards for future — extension into the Willis parcel. Without a public street the parcel will be limited in subdivision to 3 lots. Staff is recommending that the applicant modify their plans to conform to staff recommendations contained within this staff report. A water quality pond has been proposed along the west side of the cul-de-sac to pretreat storm runoff collected from the streets. The pond then drains back under the street to the wetland on Lots 10 and 11, Block 2. Only small diameter trees and brush will be removed as a result of the construction of the pond. This pond should be designed to retain approximately 65% phosphorus — Sharmin Al-Jaff — April 25, 1995 Page 4 as determined by the Walker pondnet model. The pond shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements listed in the SWMP. Stormwater pipe calculations for a 10- year storm event will have to be provided to the City for review and approval. Emergency overflows for storms larger than 10-year or a malfunctioning storm sewer system shall also be provided. Drainage off the private street will/should sheet drain across the street between the house towards the wetlands. The buffers between the houses and wetlands will be sufficient in pretreated runoff prior to reaching the wetlands. Typically, with the soil conditions on hilly terrains, ground water may be of concern. The City — requires a drain tile system behind the curb and gutter for homes which are not adjacent to a wetland/pond. The drain tile system provides an acceptable means of controlling sump pump discharge from the homes. EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion — control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used around the wetlands for added protection. A revised grading plan should be developed in accordance with the City's BMPH and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final approval. UTILITIES — Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from the Coey parcel which was recently subdivided into Point Lake Lucy. The Coey parcel is located approximately 200 feet east of this site. The sewer line to date has not been extended to service this parcel from the Coey parcel. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended this spring through the Coey parcel and deadend at that the property just east of this development (Morin's). The exact alignment of this sewer line has now been staked in the field up to the Morin's property. The alignment minimizes — tree loss and impact to the wetlands and Morin's property. Staff has meet with the Morin's previously on site to determine the alternatives for extending sanitary sewer. The applicant has been working with the Morins to acquire the necessary utility easement for this extension. In — order for this project to proceed, the sanitary sewer will need to be extended through the Coey and Morin properties. Without the sewer, this project would be considered premature for development. A condition has been added in the staff report that final plat approval will be contingent upon sanitary sewer being extended through the Coey and Morin properties. The plans propose on extending the sewer through the rear yards of Lots 11, 12 and 14, Block I which will result in further tree canopy loss. Staff has redesigned the sanitary sewer to follow staffs proposed Lakeway Court. The applicant should modify their plans to have the sanitary sewer follow the private street alignment as shown on staffs layout. Sharmin Al-Jaff April 25, 1995 Page 5 — Municipal water service is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The plans propose on — extending water service throughout the development. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's 1995 edition of the Standard — Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will be subject to City Council approval. The applicant will be required as a part of final plat and construction plan approval to enter into a development contract and provide the City with financial securities to guarantee conditions of approval and installation of the public improvements. The development contains two existing homesites (Tichy and Christensen). Both of these homesites are currently on their own well and septic system. The existing home on the westerly portion of the site (Lot 18 - Christensen's) is proposed to be removed. The other home (Tichy) is proposed to remain on Lot 15. Both on-site well and septic systems will have to be abandoned -` in accordance with the City and State health codes in conjunction with this development. The well and septic on Lot 18 will have to be abandoned in conjunction with site grading. The well and septic system on the Tichy property (Lot 15) may be delayed since the construction activities appear not to impact the systems. However, city ordinance requires properties within 150 feet of a municipal sewer system must be connected to the city's system within 12 months after the — system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not required until the well fails. The sanitary sewer to serve this development will be designed and constructed to service the Morin's property as well as the properties to the west and north of the site. Sanitary sewer lines from the Coey property will be very shallow to service Lots 7 through 10, Block 2. The lower level of the homes will require ejector systems to pump effluent from the lower level. The rest — of the house will be on a gravity system. The use of ejector systems is not that uncommon. STREETS — Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. This road is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Street right-of-way on the public street has been — reduced from the 60-foot requirement to 50 feet wide to reduce grading and tree loss. Staff has evaluated this compromise with the revised plans and believes the reduced right-of-way is warranted. The plans are also incorporating the use of private streets to service portions of the — development and adjacent parcels. City ordinance provides up to four homes to be serviced off a private street. A turnaround acceptable to the City's fire marshal will also have to be provided. The private street will reduce impacts to the wetland and tree loss versus the public street. Staff believes the use of private streets to service Lots 9 and 10, Block 2 may be warranted if the house pad on Lot 10, Block 1 is relocated westerly as shown on staffs layout. The proposed plan has the house setback to the far easterly portion of the lot. This will require excessive filling/grading.. The use of a public street would prohibit developing this area (Lots 9 and 10) due to setback requirements from wetlands and the street. Staff believes if the applicant follows the layout prepared by staff the environmental concerns would be minimized. Another private street is proposed to service four lots (12 through 14) and the Morin's parcel to the east. The Morins and staff have reviewed the development potential of the Morin's parcel and it appears Sharmin Al-Jaff April 25, 1995 Page 6 that the site may be further subdivided into two lots. Therefore the private street (Lakeway Court) as proposed would be serving up to four homes which meets the City's ordinance. Staffs layout however proposes serving three lots from Lakeway Court which eventually would serve up to five lots when Morins subdivides. Staff believes short of a full City street there is no other way to create a street system which would minimize impacts and therefore recommends a variance be granted for up to five (5) homes accessing Lakeway Court. A turnaround which meets the City Fire Marshal's requirements has been provided at the end of Lakeway Court. If the Morins are not in favor of the turnaround at this time, a temporary turnaround could be developed on Lot 12 or 14 until the Morins are ready to subdivide. Future access was also considered for the parcel west of the development (Willis) which is currently for sale. The Willis parcel currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road via a long gravel driveway. Part of the driveway is actually located within the proposed subdivision and is shown through Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2. The Willis driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road is across from Yosemite. This intersection has substandard sight distance which makes it difficult to safely turn to and from the property. Eventually, when the Willis parcel further subdivides, staff will recommend that the driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road be eliminated and the driveway be relocated to access between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1. It appears the Willis property has ability to further subdivide into more than four lots. The applicant should provide a 31-foot wide City street and 50-foot wide public right-of-way between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 to provide future access to the site. Lot 4, Block 2 will also be accessed from this street. Private driveway maintenance and access agreements will need to be incorporated into covenants to permit access to the lots adjacent to private driveways as well as the Morin parcel. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. 2. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility -- plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 4. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Sharmin Al-Jaff April 25, 1995 Page 7 — 5. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year — storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater — calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if — sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 8. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. A 50-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be _ required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court. 9. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. — 10. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. — 11. A water quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first — ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 12. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 15 shall be connected to the city sewer system within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not required unless the well _ on Lot 15 fails. _ Sharmin Al-Jaff April 25, 1995 Page 8 13. The proposed single-family residential development of 11.48 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The water quality fees will be waived if the applicant provides for on-site stormwater treatment. 14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The construction plans shall include a draintile system behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond. 15. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road. 16. Lots 1 through 3, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 5, 11 through 15, Block 2 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the city engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the lot. 17. The plat and construction plans shall be revised incorporating the recommendation contained in this staff report to minimize grading and tree loss. Staffs layout dated April 27, 1995. Revised drawings shall be submitted to the City prior to the City Council considering preliminary plat approval. 18. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins. 19. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's fire marshal. A private maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private street(s). 20. Street grades may be up to 10% and the City's right-of-way reduced to 50-foot wide. 21. The applicant shall provide a public street and utility services to the Willis property directly west of this development. A 50-foot wide right-of-way shall be dedicated between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 with the final plat. 22. A variance to the City's private street ordinance to allow up to 5 homes to access Lakeway Court should be permitted. 23. A temporary turnaround may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14, Block 2 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides. Sharmin Al-Jaff April 25, 1995 Page 9 — 24. Lakeway Court shall be revised in accordance to staffs layout dated April 27, 1995 and — the sanitary sewer from Morins shall follow the street alignment and not through the rear yards of Lots 11 through 14, Block 2. 25. Building setback lines and buffer strips shall be denoted on the grading plans. 26. Homes on Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 2 will require the use of ejector pumps to service the — lower level of each household. j ms/ktm Attachment: 22" x 24" copy of staffs subdivision layout dated April 27, 1995. c: Charles D. Folch, Director of Public Works/City Engineer g:\eng\dianelplann ingUklucw 2.ppr LAKE LUCY ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SUBJECT: Minutes of Homeowners Meeting Called by Michael Byrne DATE: April 4, 1995 @ 7:00 PM PLACE: Chanhassen City Hall, City Council Chambers A 1ThNDEES: Michael Byrne Dale&Gloria Carlson Brian& Nancy Tichy Ted Coey Bob Christensen Betsy Glaccum Nancy Mancino Al Harvey Eric Rivkin Ed Jannusch Joe&Gayle Morin Bill&Joanne Lambrecht Al Wiengart Mary Knudten The meeting opened with Michael Byrne("Byrne')introducing himself and indicating that he was only here to elicit comments and concerns from the neighborhood. He wanted to get to know the neighbors as he would soon be our neighbor. Byrne also said that he started out this development project in an effort to pattern his development after the CoeylMason project to the east. After receiving the Staff Report, he was in the process of revising his proposed development plan. He then asked for questions and comments. Eric Rivkin asked Byrne what revisions he was contemplating to the proposed plan since receiving the Staff Report on March 30, 1995. Byrne indicated that the Staff Report had "some inaccuracies"in it but could not articulate what they were. When asked what his thoughts were as to how the plan may be altered to address some of the concerns set forth in the Staff Report, Byrne pleaded ignorance to what his designer/engineer, Mark Gronberg, was doing. He did, however, indicate that he agreed to"custom grade"the sites, permit steeper grades for the streets, move the cul-de-sac to preserve the mature oak trees, and only fill the lakeside lots with 3' to 4' of fill instead of the 8' he originally proposed However, later on in the discussion Byrne indicated that he had proposed custom grading"all along from the inception of his plan and he also appeared to go back to the 8' fill amount when discussing the sewer connections. Byrne indicated that he could put 21 lots with 90' frontages on this parcel and be in "technical compliance"with the City ordinances. However, he had to"balance"that with the concerns of the City and the residents. When Rivkin and others asked how he could do that without the necessary variances, he said he could not answer that without talking with Gronberg. Gayle Morin questioned Byme's statement about wanting to be"sensitive"to the characteristics of the site. She asked, "how could the proposed plat be drawn up without anybody even looking at the site"? She mentioned the mature oak trees in the cul-de-sac as one glaring example of insensitivity. Byrne indicated that he mistakenly relied upon an old tree survey done by the Christensens a while ago, and has had another tree survey done. (NOTE: When Joe Morin asked the tree surveyors on their second trip out to the property why they had missed so many large oaks and other trees on the southern portion of the parcel, they indicated that they were told not to"go down there". Morin did not question Byrne on this point at this meeting.) Byrne did not show any interest in moving the cul-de-sac or street to preserve them at this time. Al Weingart asked Byrne why, given his"25 years in the development business", he hadn't apparently surveyed and platted the site prior to purchasing it so that he would have known about the unique conditions which exist here. Byrne seemed to indicate that his was the process developers typically follow, and they subsequently run into additional information later. A significant amount of discussion involved the impact the proposed development would have on the large wetland pond which rests on the Tichy/Morin property, and the resultant impact on Lake Lucy. The concern centered upon the detrimental effect on the many species of wildlife which nest and live around the wetland, in the buffer land between the wetland and the Lake and which use Lake Lucy. Rivkin cited numerous specific examples of the types of waterfowl, animals, and rare vegetation which exist in this area. He also indicated that this buffer zone was part of a migration path connecting all of the surrounding wetland areas. Joe Morin pointed out that Byme's plan — to bulldoze the area between the pond and the lake, put in 8 feet of fill, and erect a house on top of it — would not only destroy the local environment, but would block the migration path for the entire surrounding area. It appeared that the predominant opinion of the resident homeowners was that the house pads, grading(despite it being"custom")and the filling of up to 8' of this area would have a severe impact on the surrounding environment. Many longtime residents commented on the fact that given this area was only 2' to 3' above the OHW mark, the backyards and basements of these homes would be under water on occasion. Comments were made that by eliminating lots this close to the water, that this land could be used as a neighborhood park/commons area or nature preserve area which prospective homeowners would find attractive and be willing to pay a premium for — something the Coey/Mason project doesn't have. Byrne was very covetous of maintaining these lots, particularly the most easterly lot nearest the water which he indicated was where he was going to build his home. Joe Morin distributed a comparison of the Coev/Mason development to the proposed Byme/Tichy development(copy attached), and questioned Byrne's statement about patterning his development after the Coey/Mason project. Byrne was asked why he could not develop his property somewhat more consistent with what was being done there. — Byrne could not answer this question other than to say there needed to be a"balance". He further indicated that the City had told him that"the number of lots was not important, it was how the site is being treated". Weingart asked him to explain the logic of why more home sites on this parcel does not equate to more trees being cut down and slopes being graded. Byrne could not explain this other than with his"balance"comment. Brian Tichy asked Morin to comment on what his intentions were with respect to his own _ property and the two lots that were shown for potential future development. Morin said that the City requested that they submit a concept sketch of buildable sites on their property (so that sewer and access could be planned). Morin explained that this was only a conceptual plan, so any engineering work to plat the property has not been needed. The Morins also stipulated in their sewer easement agreement that the sewer could only cross their property north of the wetland(rather than south)so that the delicate area south of the pond to the lake would be left undisturbed. (City staff agreed that this was the preferred location). A number of comments also focused on the concern that the ponding requirement for surface water run-off be more restrictive than that required for the Willow Ridge development. A number of residents of Greenwood Shores, led by Dale Carlson, indicated that the sediment ponds for that development are totally inadequate. They are currently, and usually, completely flooded and overflowing allowing organic material to flow through the adjacent wetland vegetation area, and then into Lake Lucy. Byrne's proposed holding pond is located immediately adjacent to the large 5.3 acre pond, of which approximately 1/3 is on the Tichy property and 2/3 on the Morin property. The risk of contamination to Lake Lucy is much more severe in this case. This pond flows through a stream directly into Lake Lucy. There is no wetland vegetation area to filter out the organic material. It was noted that the overall topography of this site will cause this small pond to fill up quickly and most likely overflow directly into the wetland pond and then into the Lake. Joe Morin suggested moving the pond to the west side of the road so that the large wetland to the west could provide a more safe filtration mechanism. Byrne had no suggestion or comments to this overall concern. Dale Carlson questioned whether the lots along the Lake could be considered"lakeshore lots". He acknowledged that they would be marketed as such, but with 100' to 200' of cattails between the land and open water that they were hardly"lakeshore lots". He further emphasized that people interested in purchasing these lots would most likely be attracted to them because of the"nature preserve"feel they would offer. If so, wouldn't they be more inclined to pay a higher price for a lot further away from the water with more of a wildlife area between them and the water/cattails as opposed to sitting 8' above the natural grade of the land with all the vegetation around them removed, with the prospect of water filling their lower levels occasionally. Byrne said that he understands the feelings being expressed; and if he lived here, he'd "feel the same way". Carlson asked if there was something illogical and inconsistent with Byme's statement, since he had previously stated that he was planning to live here. Byrne had no further comment to this inquiry. Throughout the meeting residents offered a number of names of credible people who could assist and advise Byrne on ways to reduce the environmental impact of this proposed development on the trees, wildlife, wetlands, Lake Lucy, lot placements, etc. (e.g., Del Hogan-Wildlife Biologist, Charles Stinson- Architect/Designer sensitive to landforms, etc.). Not once did Byrne write down their names or show any interest in following up on these and other suggestions. Byrne did not take any notes during the entire meeting. Ted Coey and Al Weingart suggested that Byrne increase the lot size and market these larger lots to individuals who would be willing to pay a premium for heavily wooded lots in a nature preserve type setting. It was suggested that such lots in this setting could possibly command upwards of$250,000 per lot if done right. Byrne indicated that with the slowdown in the real estate market he foresees over the next 1 to 2 years, there will not be a market for this price range lot. A number of attendees disagreed with Byrne's assessment, and he offered no sources or economic indicators to support his contention. When asked what price range for the combined lot and house he intended to target, he indicated at firs he didn't know, but then went on to say the range would be between $250,000 and$400,000. When further asked who the builder(s) were who would be building on the lots, Byrne was reluctant to answer this question. After being pressed, he alluded to the fact that there was one builder who was backing him, but would not disclose who that builder was. Joe Morin pointed out that in his discissions with Mason Homes(both before and after Byrne entered the project), Mason Homes acknowledged that this is a site that requires special considerations in developing, and that about 10-12 homes would be appropriate for this site. Morin suggested that since Mason Homes has found a viable market for premium lots featuring natural amenities on the east side of his property, that Byrne _ might find one also for property on the west side if he explored it further with some of the premium builders in our area. The meeting ended around 8:45. Most residents stayed around for a short while to further discuss issues among themselves and with Byrne. Pointe Lake Lucy Developments Coey's Property Tichy/Christiansen Property Property: 18.15 acres1 Property: 14.53 acres? - Wetland&Streets: 7.05 acres1 Wetland&Streets: 5.44 acres2 Existing home: 0.00 acres Existing home: 1.12 acres3 Buildable acreage: 11.10 acres Buildable acreage: 7.97 acres 19 building sites approved by City 18 additional building sites proposed Council (1.71 units per acre—net) (2.26 units per acre—net) 13-14 building sites would achieve comparable density of 1,71 units/acre – Status: Status: Neighbors satisfied with development Neighbors very dissatisfied with proposed — and developer's sensitivity to the destruction to the environment,and environment. desecration of the land. Project approved by City Council. City Staff recommends tabling action on this proposal. Conclusion: Elimination of 4-5 sites is required to have comparable development even without considering the more difficult terrain. Recommend elimination of 5-8 sites to ensure - sensitive treatment of the land. 1 Staff Report dated January 18, 1995. 2 Staff Report dated April 5,1995. 3 Calculation from Coffin Si Gronberg preliminary plat dated July 12,1994. RECEIVED 1995 t'� �;�r 1;t1Pt �HA SE!': March 30, 1995 To: City of Chanhassen CouncilMembers City of Chanhassen Planning Commission Sharmin Al Jaff From: Jill Willis Property owner at 1571 Lake Lucy Road Date: March 30, 1995 I am in receipt of a letter dated March 28, 1995 from Joe& Gayle Morin and Mary & AI Weingart and wanted to express my support for the concerns they have addressed regarding the proposed development by Mike Byrne of the 16.34 acres adjacent to my property. While I too am not opposed to this property being developed, the manner in which it is done is of great importance-- hopefully as important to you as it is to me. I am very concerned about the environmental impact to the property -- and to Lake Lucy-- as well as both the aesthetic and financial impact to mine and my neighbor's properties if the development is approved as currently proposed. I hope the concern for the environmental impact -- and impact on current Lake Lucy property owners -- is weighed carefully as you make your decisions regarding this development proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, WJ Jill Willis cc: Al & Mary Weingart, Gayle & Joe Morin, Mike Byrne ✓G l�rw�E w /Pc LAKE LUCY ENVIRONMENT 4 o e PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 28, 1995 Chanhassen City Officials *City Council *Planning Commission *Park & Recreation Commission Dear City Official, The information contained in this envelope relates to the proposed development b Mic I Byrne known as Pointe Lake Lucy West located at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. The homeowners along Lake Lucy Road, from Willow Ridge subdivision and Greenwood Shores have serious concerns about the impact of the development as proposed. As our letter to all homeowners clearly indicates, we are not opposed to this property ultimately being developed. Rather, we would merely like to see the proposed site developed in an environmentally sensitive manner. Our primary concerns with the proposed plan are. - 1. The planned clearing and grading of approximately 80% to 90% of the site which will cause elimination of: a. the existing tree canopy b. the natural slopes on the site 2. The impact to Lake Lucy from run-off due to the clearing and grading 3 The negative impact upon the property valuations of neighborhood homes by completely changing the pristine character of the north shore of Lake Lucy Our letter to our neighbors more thoroughly sets forth our concerns. We look forward to working with you to ensure that development in our community, and particularly in our neighborhood, is done in a responsible manner. Thank you for your time and interest in serving our community. Sincerely, The Lake Lucy Environment Preservation Committee LAKE LUCY ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 28, 1995 Neighbors of Interest Around Lake Lucy Dear Neighbors, As you may already know, development of 16.34 acres of property per the attached "Notice of Public Hearing" is being proposed in our neighborhood. Joe & Gayle Morin, who live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road, and Mary & Al Weingart, who recently purchased the island/peninsula and will be purchasing the residence at 1685 Steller Court, are concerned about the impact of the proposed development. We want to make it clear right upfront that we are not opposed to this property ultimately being developed. We recognize that subject to city ordinances a property owner has a right to develop his/her property. Rather, we are concerned about the specific plan being proposed for this sight and the impact it will have on the surrounding neighborhood. The subject property has significant tree cover, hills, wetlands and wildlife. While not all of this can be expected to be preserved, the proposed plan calls for the virtual clearing and grading of 80% to 90% of the site. This will cause up to 2/3rds of the existing tree canopy to be destroyed. This includes a large number of '24 to 40 inch diameter White Oaks and Black Oaks -- trees over 100 years old. The attached Proposed grading plat map highlights this impact. The only areas which are not proposed for grading are unbuildable due to either wetlands or extreme slopes. The placing of 18 additional residential lots, extensive streets and retention pond(s) on only 10 "buildable" acres essentially requires a complete reconfiguration of the land contours and extensive filling of the site, particularly down along the lakeshore. To accomplish this will require virtually bulldozing the entire property. The development of the Coey property by Mason Homes, which was just approved, took into consideration the preservation of the natural attributes of the setting. Mason's project will accommodate 19 residential lots on 15 buildable acres. Additionally, this site is better suited to homesites due to the more forgiving topography and the locations of significant inland wetlands. i0111/( ,/7ckl/6i We would merely like to see the proposed site similarly developed in an environmentally sensitive manner - - that's all we're asking. For that to happen, however, we need you to contact the members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission or other Chanhassen officials, preferably in writing and by phone. (A list of these people is attached.) Your participation at the Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday, April 5th at 7:00PM would also be very helpful in preventing what we believe could become a total destruction of this lakeshore site. If necessary, we may be contacting you about signing a petition requesting the developer to conduct an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project to further weigh the potential damage to the site, wildlife and Lake Lucy. Hopefully, the developer, Mike Byrne, will reconsider his current proposal so that this will not be necessary. Should you wish to discuss this further with Morin's (474-1186) or Weingart's (474-6884), please give either of us a call. The City Planner who is handling this development proposal is Sharmin AI Jaff (937-1900 X120). She may be able to provide you with further details and the status of this development proposal. Thanks for your consideration of this request, and we hope to see you or your representative(s) at the April 5th meeting. Sincerely, 411, 1416- jittz Al & M:ai4 Weingart Joe & Gayle Morin 5330 St. Albans Bay Road 1441 Lake Lucy Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 5531 cc: Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen Planning Commission Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission Don Chmiel Sharmin Al Jaff Michael Byrne Ikb i • hI I.A 63 Ir it: fa�L• � Wa►n ; f7 :77.cLa-4111 flovairtri ' ow ..........-m1,;it •+�++ . o „, 1-..... — . , _ NOTICE OF PUBLIC c Vii PAR HEARING �•4'4. MI P H A" ip 1111M- ta PLANNING COMMISSION CIR'', �f�� PAR.1 ■ ! �. . MEETING Wednesday, APRIL 5, 1995 IF0 ■ ( i �; �- �4' R :EACH •�� at 7:00 p.m. 'y; GR.. ro. City Hall Council Chambers f , -� 690 Coulter Drive ...• °UR ` f LAKE !/ ri Et„ l Project: Pointe Lake Lucy West j �^ • V I Developer: Michael Byrne ti f ` Location: 1471 Lake Lucy Road I . - - •.,-- , i,nv = — Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a request to rezone 16.34 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat of 16.34 acres into 19 single family lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot wide right-of-way located south on Lake Lucy Road (1471), Pointe Lake Lucy West. — What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. _ 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. — Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you — choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 23, 1995. _ * The Park and Recreation Commission will review this item at their meeting on Tuesday, March 28, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the _ City Council Chambers. el a • N H 0 : I to ° N . = I W w- ' ' 3 Z z _ Q U i U m > n LL F- wm 1n O z WAr Yv (11 $4ii`` i 1 . 11, 1 Lii • „, 0 co > ‘4 -\ 1 N I cc c•- .44 J} Z a H U ikSs .M� I w cc Z a W 0.o z / lilt I Q s z m o �' ii=i�liiirmiin Y VS. C -71I�1151114111: 1� I g6'_ --( \ -‘"5.1"lictitkalifilinirartikw. I - i[ i- t-- )' / N ' . A%s AN11/111111111: I --- k, 5 - - /. i`0 l aiIIIIIIiiiii . !1IIIflhiIIE s 1 ...�,.■.■■■.■. isu� SP �■ ■.■■11 1 \\ I\1/4‘ l/111h11I11UNs 111'1 / . 111111 11111.1 - \\ 1I \ ‘ i%■.■1111111ww■■ ■a \ of N-\\ �a.-iw■■u.p�ic,, �1ak Ami I ea ■■uav■��mxri A�PONVEt ut 2 > ) \ .! II ■■.■►,■.■-,i►.,./'_1■..rro'1 ■1♦ ■ .■ S ■ i•iaa► O A• ■r:►'•�•: -T- 7��.:alICI I ,' 1--a j- i■s■irirss-. , rn■■aaai»ui - W o .�*ios m r► / . "iar3a■ar■ae ;;.� cic (II Ni ■alrM■ri •a■an ■■1111■■§ a Q �' ' , ' ■r■ols= ii_u.Kj■roivar ,, W ( ■nr.e, ! • ai■um!w■nnr ; \, -�......_...______, _ I .■■� , W, ! "/ uaS.ai!'4:--4. c . , I 1 - ' .MI■kSW1WAEP4F P A i �1 •�-1 impagi OlmkT/ �i � , ■■■■� a I I \ - .SER al, • -I ■■■■. ll �;j� =- !ucio■wv■■r - I vvi �I ,rdaa■■■ aa► \ ■assou■■■■ ��• /!a\ice■►'A <, • • '` �/ I A■SAI/.lIP��tYi-. - ..i.4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN OFFICIALS CITY COUNCIL Don Chmiel Mike Mason Mayor Councilman 7100 Tecumseh Lane 829 Woodhill Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 474-6446 474-7320 Steven Berquist Colleen Dockendorf Councilman Councilwoman 7207 Frontier Trail 2061 Oakwood Ridge _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 937-2416 470-4112 Mark Senn City Hall Councilman 690 Coulter Drive 7160 Willow View Cove P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 949-2272 937-1900 FAX: 937-5739 PLANNING COMMISSION Nancy Mancino Ladd Conrad Vice-Chairperson 6625 Horseshoe Curve 6620 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55317 HM: 474-9563 HM: 474-3861 WK: 332-519n Jeff Farrnakes 7100 Utica Lane Ronald Nutting Chanhassen, MN 55317 6524 Gray Fox Curve HM & WK: 474-8148 Chanhassen, MN 55317 HM: 934-7212 Michael Meyer 981 Butte Court Bob Skubic Chanhassen, MN 55317 8619 Chanhassen Hills Drive North HM: 470-4114 Chanhassen, MN 55317 WK: 458-7364 HM: 934-8445 LAKE LUCY ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION COMMITTEE March 27, 1995 Neighbors of Interest Around Lake Lucy Dear Neighbors, As you may already know, development of 16.34 acres of property per the attached "Notice of Public Hearing" is being proposed in our neighborhood. Joe & Gayle Morin, who live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road, and Mary & Al Weingart, who recently purchased the island/peninsula and will be purchasing the residence at 1685 Steller Court, are concerned about the impact of the proposed development. We want to make it clear right upfront that we are not opposed to this property ultimately being developed. We recognize that subject to city ordinances a property owner has a right to develop his/her property. Rather, we are concerned about the specific plan being proposed for this sight and the impact it will have on the surrounding neighborhood. The subject property has significant tree cover, hills, wetlands and wildlife. While not all of this can be expected to be preserved, the proposed plan calls for the virtual clearing and grading of 80% to 90% of the site. This will cause up to 2/3rds of the existing tree canopy to be destroyed. This includes a large number of 24 to 40 inch diameter White Oaks and Black Oaks -- trees over 100 years old. The attached proposed grading plat map highlights this impact. The only areas which are not proposed for grading are unbuildable due to either wetlands or extreme slopes. The placing of 18 additional residential lots, extensive streets and retention pond(s) on only 10 "buildable" acres essentially requires a complete reconfiguration of the land contours and extensive filling of the site, particularly down along the lakeshore. To accomplish this will require virtually bulldozing the entire property. The development of the Coey property by Mason Homes, which was just approved, took into consideration the preservation of the natural attributes of the setting. Mason's project will accommodate 19 residential lots on 15 buildable acres. Additionally, this site is better suited to homesites due to the more forgiving topography and the locations of significant inland wetlands. We would merely like to see the proposed site similarly developed in an environmentally sensitive manner - - that's all we're asking. For that to happen, however, we need you to contact the members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission or other Chanhassen officials, preferably in writing and by phone. (A list of these people is attached.) Your participation at the Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday, April 5th at 7:00PM would also be very helpful in preventing what we believe could become a total destruction of this lakeshore site. If necessary, we may be contacting you about signing a petition requesting the developer to conduct an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project to further weigh the potential damage to the site, wildlife and Lake Lucy. Hopefully, the developer, Mike Byrne, will reconsider his current proposal so that this will not be necessary. Should you wish to discuss this further with Morin's (474-1186) or Weingart's (474-6884), please give either of us a call. The City Planner who is handling this development proposal is Sharmin Al Jaff (937-1900 X120). She may be able to provide you with further details and the status of this development proposal. Thanks for your consideration of this request, and we hope to see you at the April 5th meeting. Sincerely, AI & Mary Weingart Joe & Gayle Morin 5330 St. Albans Bay Road 1441 Lake Lucy Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 5531 cc: Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen Planning Commission Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission Don Chmiel Sharmin Al Jaff Michael Byrne LAKE LUCY ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION COMMITTEE April 6, 1995 Chanhassen City Council and Lake Lucy Homeowners Dear Council Members and Neighbors, The information contained in this envelope once again relates to the proposed development by Michael Byrne known as Pointe Lake Lucy West located at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. A number of homeowners who reside around Lake Lucy met at the request of Mr. Byrne on April 4th at the Chanhasssen City Hall. Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of that meeting as compiled by the homeowners. We're sure the Council members. and Planning Commission members, would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter. Their names, addresses and phone numbers are attached. Thank you once again for your time and interest. Sincerely, The Lake Lucy Environment Preservation Committee Committee Contacts: Joe & Gayle Morin 474-1186 Al & Mary Weingart 474-6884 Dale Carlson 474-3002 cc: Michael Byrne Sharmin Al Jaff CITY OF CHANHASSEN OFFICIALS CITY COUNCIL _ Don Chmiel Mike Mason Mayor Councilman 7100 Tecumseh Lane 829 Woodhill Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 474-6446 474-7320 Steven Berquist Colleen Dockendorf Councilman Councilwoman 7207 Frontier Trail 2061 Oakwood Ridge Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 937-2416 470-4112 Mark Senn City Hall Councilman 690 Coulter Drive 7160 Willow View Cove P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 949-2272 937-1900 FAX: 937-5739 PLANNING COMMISSION Nancy Mancino Ladd Conrad Vice-Chairperson 6625 Horseshoe Curve 6620 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55317 HM: 474-9563 HM: 474-3861 WK: 332-5190 Jeff Farmakes 7100 Utica Lane Ronald Nutting Chanhassen, MN 55317 6524 Gray Fox Curve HM & WK: 474-8148 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ HM: 934-7212 Michael Meyer 981 Butte Court Bob Skubic Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ 8619 Chanhassen Hills Drive North HM: 470-4114 Chanhassen. MN 55317 WK: 458-7364 HM: 934-8445 chanoff.wps LAKE LUCY ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SUBJECT: Minutes of Homeowners Meeting Called by Michael Byrne DATE: April 4, 1995 @ 7:00 PM PLACE: Chanhassen City Hall, City Council Chambers A lTENDEES: Michael Byrne Dale&Gloria Carlson Brian& Nancy Tichy Ted Coey Bob Christensen Betsy Glaccum Nancy Mancino Al Harvey Eric Rivkin Ed Jannusch Joe&Gayle Morin Bill&Joanne Lambrecht Al Wiengart Mary Knudten The meeting opened with Michael Byrne("Byrne") introducing himself and indicating that he was only here to elicit comments and concerns from the neighborhood. He wanted to get to know the neighbors as he would soon be our neighbor. Byrne also said that he started out this development project in an effort to pattern his development after the Coey/Mason project to the east. After receiving the Staff Report, he was in the process of revising his proposed development plan. He then asked for questions and comments. Eric Rivkin asked Byrne what revisions he was contemplating to the proposed plan since - receiving the Staff Report on March 30, 1995. Byrne indicated that the Staff Report had "some inaccuracies" in it but could not articulate what they were. When asked what his thoughts were as to how the plan may be altered to address some of the concerns set forth in the Staff Report, Byrne pleaded ignorance to what his designer/engineer, Mark Gronberg, was doing. He did, however, indicate that he agreed to"custom grade"the sites, permit steeper grades for the streets, move the cul-de-sac to preserve the mature oak trees, and only fill the lakeside lots with 3' to 4' of fill instead of the 8' he originally proposed. However, later on in the discussion Byrne indicated that he had proposed ' custom grading"all along from the inception of his plan and he also appeared to go back to the 8' fill amount when discussing the sewer connections. Byrne indicated that he could put 21 lots with 90' frontages on this parcel and be in "technical compliance" with the City ordinances. However, he had to"balance"that with the concerns of the City and the residents. When Rivkin and others asked how he could do that without the necessary variances, he said he could not answer that without talking with Gronberg. Gayle Morin questioned Byme's statement about wanting to be "sensitive"to the characteristics of the site. She asked, "how could the proposed plat be drawn np without anybody even looking at the site"? She mentioned the mature oak trees in the cul-de-sac as one glaring example of insensitivity. Byrne indicated that he mistakenly relied upon an old tree survey done by the Christensen a while ago, and has had another tree survey done. (NOTE: When Joe Morin asked the tree surveyors on their second trip out to the property why they had missed so many large oaks and other trees on the southern portion of the parcel, they indicated that they were told not to"go down there". Morin did not question Byrne on this point at this meeting.) Byrne did not show any interest in moving the cul-de-sac or street to preserve them at this time. Al Weingart asked Byrne why, given his"25 years in the development business", he hadn't apparently surveyed and platted the site prior to purchasing it so that he would have known about the unique conditions which exist here. Byrne seemed to indicate that his was the process developers typically follow, and they subsequently run into additional information later. A significant amount of discussion involved the impact the proposed development would have on the large wetland pond which rests on the Tichy/Morin property, and the resultant impact on Lake Lucy. The concern centered upon the detrimental effect on the many species of wildlife which nest and live around the wetland, in the buffer land between the wetland and the Lake and which use Lake Lucy. Rivkin cited numerous specific examples of the types of waterfowl, animals, and rare vegetation which exist in this area. He also indicated that this buffer zone was part of a migration path connecting all of the surrounding wetland areas. Joe Morin pointed out that Byme's plan — to bulldoze the area between the pond and the lake, put in 8 feet of fill, and erect a house on top of it — would not only destroy the local environment, but would block the migration path for the entire surrounding area. It appeared that the predominant opinion of the resident homeowners was that the house pads, grading(despite it being"custom")and the filling of up to 8' of this area would have a severe impact on the surrounding environment. Many longtime residents commented on the fact that given this area was only 2' to 3' above the OHW mark, the backyards and basements of these homes would be under water on occasion. Comments were made that by eliminating lots this close to the water, that this land could be used as a neighborhood park/commons area or nature preserve area which prospective homeowners would find attractive and be willing to pay a premium for — something the Coey/Mason project doesn't have. Byrne was very covetous of maintaining these lots, particularly the most easterly lot nearest the water which he indicated was where he was going to build his home. Joe Morin distributed a comparison of the Coey/Mason development to the proposed Byrne/Tichy development(copy attached), and questioned Byrne's statement about patterning his development after the Coey/Mason project. Byrne was asked why he could not develop his property somewhat more consistent with what was being done there. Byrne could not answer this question other than to say there needed to be a"balance". He further indicated that the City had told him that"the number of lots was not important, it was how the site is being treated". Weingart asked him to explain the logic of why more home sites on this parcel does not equate to more trees being cut down and slopes being graded. Byrne could not explain this other than with his"balance"comment. Brian Tichy asked Morin to comment on what his intentions were with respect to his own property and the two lots that were shown for potential future development. Morin said that the City requested that they submit a concept sketch of buildable sites on their property (so that sewer and access could be planned). Morin explained that this was only a conceptual plan, so any engineering work to plat the property has not been needed. The Morins also stipulated in their sewer easement agreement that the sewer could only cross their property north of the wetland(rather than south)so that the delicate area south of the pond to the lake would be left undisturbed. (City staff agreed that this was the preferred - location). A number of comments also focused on the concern that the ponding requirement for surface water run-off be more restrictive than that required for the Willow Ridge development. A number of residents of Greenwood Shores, led by Dale Carlson, indicated that the sediment ponds for that development are totally inadequate. They are currently, and usually, completely flooded and overflowing allowing organic material to flow through the adjacent wetland vegetation area, and then into Lake Lucy. Byme's proposed holding pond is located immediately adjacent to the large 53 acre pond, of which approximately 1/3 is on the Tichy property and 2/3 on the Morin property. The risk of contamination to Lake Lucy is much more severe in this case. This pond flows through a stream directly into Lake Lucy. There is no wetland vegetation area to filter out the organic material. It was noted that the overall topography of this site will cause this small pond to fill up quickly and most likely overflow directly into the wetland pond and then into the Lake. Joe Morin suggested moving the pond to the west side of the road so that the large wetland to the west could provide a more safe filtration mechanism. Byrne had no suggestion or comments to this overall concern. Dale Carlson questioned whether the lots along the Lake could be considered"lakeshore lots". He acknowledged that they would be marketed as such, but with 100' to 200' of cattails between the land and open water that they were hardly"lakeshore lots". He further emphasized that people interested in purchasing these lots would most likely be attracted to them because of the"nature preserve" feel they would offer. If so, wouldn't they be more inclined to pay a higher price for a lot further away from the water with more of a wildlife area between them and the water/cattails as opposed to sitting 8' above the natural grade of the land with all the vegetation around them removed, with the prospect of water filling their lower levels occasionally. Byrne said that he understands the feelings being expressed; and if he lived here, he'd "feel the same way". Carlson asked if there was something illogical and inconsistent with Byme's statement, since he had previously stated that he was planning to live here. Byrne had no further comment to this inquiry. Throughout the meeting residents offered a number of names of credible people who could assist and advise Byrne on ways to reduce the environmental impact of this proposed development on the trees, wildlife, wetlands, Lake Lucy, lot placements, etc. (e.g., Del Hogan-Wildlife Biologist, Charles Stinson- Architect/Designer sensitive to landforms, etc.). Not once did Byrne write down their names or show any interest in following up on these and other suggestions. Byrne did not take any notes during the entire meeting. Ted Coey and Al Weingart suggested that Byrne increase the lot size and market these larger lots to individuals who would be willing to pay a premium for heavily wooded lots in a nature preserve type setting. It was suggested that such lots in this setting could possibly command upwards of$250,000 per lot if done right. Byrne indicated that with the slowdown in the real estate market he foresees over the next 1 to 2 years, there will not be a market for this price range lot. A number of attendees disagreed with Byrne's aceessment, and he offered no sources or economic indicators to support his contention. When asked what price range for the combined lot and house he intended to target, he indicated at firs he didn't know, but then went on to say the range would be between S250,000 and$400,000. When further asked who the builder(s) were who would be building on the lots, Byrne was reluctant to answer this question. After being pressed, he alluded to the fact that there was one builder who was backing him, but would not disclose who that builder was. Joe Morin pointed out that in his discussions with Mason Homes(both before and after _ Byrne entered the project), Mason Homes acknowledged that this is a site that requires special considerations in developing, and that about 10-12 homes would be appropriate for this site. Morin suggested that since Mason Homes has found a viable market for premium lots featuring natural amenities on the east side of his property, that Byrne might find one also for property on the west side if he explored it further with some of the premium builders in our area. The meeting ended around 8:45. Most residents stayed around for a short while to further discuss issues among themselves and with Byrne. Pointe Lake Lucy Developments Coey's Property Tichy/Christiansen Property Property: 18.15 acres1 Property: 14.53 acres2 Wetland&Streets: 7.05 acres1 Wetland &Streets: 5.44 acres2 Existing home: 0.00 acres Existing home: 1.12 acres3 Buildable acreage: 11.10 acres Buildable acreage: 7.97 acres 19 building sites approved by City 18 additional building sites proposed Council (1.71 units per acre—net) (2.26 units per acre—net) 13-14 building sites would achieve comparable density of 1.71 units/acre Status: Status: Neighbors satisfied with development Neighbors very dissatisfied with proposed and developer's sensitivity to the destruction to the environment,and environment. desecration of the land. Project approved by City Council. City Staff recommends tabling action on this proposal. Conclusion: Elimination of 4-5 sites is required to have comparable development even without considering the more difficult terrain. Recommend elimination of 5-8 sites to ensure sensitive treatment of the land. 1 Staff Report dated January 15, 1995. 2 Staff Report dated April 5,1995. 3 Calculation from Coffin& Gronberg preliminary plat dated July 12, 1994. LAKE LUCY ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE CV OFC t N A'SE Aril 1 1, 1c)�)� Sharmin Al-Jaff WIMP�, P — City of Chanhassen ;�i. �' li!��#c�1(!! 90 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 APP 1 ;i 1995 _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Sharmin: EN ENGIN-HMG DEPT A proposed location for the holding pond(Walker pond) was presented to us during the meeting with the neighbors called by Mike Byrne on April 4, 1995. The proposed location is of concern to us for the following reasons: 1. Impact on Lake Lucy. Byrne's proposed holding pond is located immediately adjacent to the large 5.3 acrel 1' ] h . 1 1 J3 is the 1.. properly apt! 2/3 n t Morin property. This woodland r,:;:;u, of which u�Jf,r:.:..:7:.aaca� ;, on T:c1.:pr^,l ..,, on r. .. r.. woodland pond flows through a stream directly into Lake Lucy. There is no wetland vegetation area to filter out organic material and other contaminants typically present in storm sewer runoff. The overall topography of this site will cause this small pond to till up quickly and most likely overflow directly into the woodland pond and then into the Lake. In our telephone discussion, Bob Obermier(Barr Engineering — consultant to the Watershed District) explained that holding ponds are intended as retention ponds (i.e., to retain the water for a period of time to allow contaminants to settle out), not detention ponds(i.e., holding the contaminated water indefinitely). Overflow directly into the woodland pond would probably be a common occurrence if the holding pond ends up in the proposed location, thereby causing degradation to the quality of Lake Lucy. 2. Impact on the large 5.3 acre ��'cxxliand pond. The large 5.3 acre woodland pond is shallow (e.g., only about T deep in its deepest part). «cc are concerned that the storm sewer water(enriched with nutrients from fertilizers,etc.) would accelerate weed ,growth which would soon eliminate the open water on this woodland pond. This would adversely affect wildlife in the summer, the aesthetic appeal of the area, and _ children's use of the pond surface for skating during the winter. 3. Impact on trees. The proposed location would eliminate several large trees overlooking the pond. The canopy from these trees provides an environment necessary to songbirds, migratory waterfowl,and other wildlife nesting and living in the area. There are many other suitable locations for the holding pond on this site that do not impact wildlife and/or require the removal of trees. 4. Aesthetic impact Moving the pond a significant distance away from the existing woodland pond would • 1- r .1 i create the of yet 1,e... creak.-a 11!:J:•' i:ilGct:!IlLt',t;rL�iiaa:l:�;t.. i �i).liiaallt`till. pond, .Ll �/ll.a way iv aulu aL�.. ...=s- ��.:a:iloaa/�. open water area for people to enjoy. We request that the pond be moved to the west side of the development. The extensive wetland vegetation area to the west and south would provide an excellent filtration mechanism to clean the water before it reaches the Lake. Adverse impact to the 5.3 acre woodland pond,and ultimately to Lake Lucy, would be eliminated. Trees surrounding the woodland pond would not have to be removed, and the aesthetic quality of the development would be enhanced by the creation of another body of open water. As yon may recall, Mason Homes originally had the location of their holding pond adjacent to this woodland pond. When we expressed our concern. they immediately moved it to the opposite side of their development. We are hopeful that Mike Byrne. will be equally responsive. Thank you for considering t!us request. Si ncerel y, Joe & Gayle Moon Al & Man' Weingart Dale&Gloria Carlson cc: Mike Byrne, Diane Desotelle(Water Resources Coordinator). Bob Obermier(Barr Engineering) Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 9. The southerly 25 feet of Lot 2, Block 1 shall be dedicated as street right-of-way with the final plat documents. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be reconfigured to arrive at the necessary square footage with a minimum of 15,000 square feet. All voted in favor and the motion canied. (Kate Aanenson excused herself from the meeting at this point due to a personal conflict of interest for the next item.) PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 16.34 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 16.34 ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH ON LAKE LUCY ROAD, (1471), POINTE LAKE LUCY WEST, MICHAEL BYRNE. Public Present: Name Address Steve Dirks 1205 West Ash, Olivia, MN _ Al Weingart 5330 St. Albans Bay Road, Shorewood Joe & Gayle Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road Brian Tichy 1471 Lake Lucy Road _ Jerry Hoffman 6830 Utica Terrace Jill Willis 1571 Lake Lucy Road Dale & Gloria Carlson 6900 Utica Lane Shannin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Just one question of staff. Any applicant has the right to bring a plat in front of us. Al-Jaff: Correct. Conrad: Whether it meets our standards or not. We are obligated to look at that, even though it's obviously missing some things that we require by ordinance. Correct? Al-Jaff: Correct. I mean we could have said that this was an incomplete application. However, we just wanted to get the thoughts of the Planning Commission. We wanted to 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 make sure we're moving on the same track. And we wanted to get your input on it. But yes, _ you do have to review the application. Mancino: With that, is the applicant here and would you like to make a presentation? Michael Byrne: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Michael Byrne. I reside at 5428 Kimberly Road in Minnetonka. Normally under the circumstances...speaking — to his proposal. That is not our intention...We are working with staff and staff has been very gracious in working with us. We are in mid stream...We met with the neighbors last night and learned a lot of commentary. Madam Chair was there so she... I don't want to take a lot _ of your time since...I wish however to garner as much information from you as possible... You will hear from the neighbors. Mr. and Mrs. Morin...I can only ask that we continue to have the opportunity to work with staff and working with... I had made plans with Alan — Olson myself but Sharmin from staff has stole my thunder already. To give you an idea of the... The changes that we're trying to make to this proposal are going to be hard. This is a very, very difficult subdivision. We have somewhere between 72 to 78 percent coverage of — trees. We have terrain changes. We have ponds...We really do wish for you to listen to those comments...await for any questions you have. Mancino: Any questions? Conrad: Not right now. — Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open up the public hearing please? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was opened. Al Weingart: My name is Al Weingart. I currently reside at 5320 St. Albans Bay Road over in Shorewood. I recently purchased the island peninsula out in Lake Lucy and also will be — purchasing the Sanda home which is at 1685 Steller Court. That's the Sanda home. And relative to my intentions with respect to the island, you guys went through it and the City Council and they approved a plat of a roadway that goes out there that will only service a — single family home so my intention all along, after that process was over was always to put a single family home at some point. No immediate plans to do so, but that is why we're buying the Sanda house is to give us some time to acclimate ourselves to the neighborhood and what — not. It's a fairly big project so it's going to take some time and more importantly money. General concerns from a personal standpoint are that, the concerns about the economic impact that such a development, as was originally proposed, will possibly have on my property, — which is a selfish interest. And of course...shared by many people in the neighborhood. And 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 also on the quality and the level of Lake Lucy. I have a real concern about the level of Lake Lucy, not only from Mike's development but also from the standpoint of some of the other _. developments around Lake Lucy because my driveway doesn't sit much above the ordinary high water mark and I don't want to be using a boat to get to it. So those are the personal concerns that I have about this particular development. I'm not opposed to development. I — just wanted some sensitivity relative to those kinds of things looked at. Overall I think my concerns would be to preserve the natural, sort of preserve, nature preserve setting of that whole area of that north shore. We don't have a lot of lakes in Chanhassen and I think the — city character of the lakes, would surround the lake changes dramatically although I'm not naive enough to think that it wasn't going to be developed or shouldn't be developed. That's not our position at all. Just that it be developed responsibly. Also there's, as you may know, — there's some wildlife in that area, both on the island and all along this shore it's heavily forested. I think Eric Rivkin will talk a little bit later about some of that but that is a concern. There is a buffer zone that, where this wildlife seems to migrate to and from across — all of that all the way out to the western part of Chanhassen so that is a concern. Again I want to reiterate we're not opposed to development at all. We had a meeting last night, and Mike was gracious enough to call with all the homeowners and we have some Minutes put together that Joe will distribute to you and they can...comments so we're here to kind of give you those rather than sit here and reiterate what's in that packet. Sharmin, could you put this up? Al-Jaff: I sure can. Al Weingart: This, again this is a bit preliminary but my point of putting this up here is just to emphasize, it's backwards. What the initial thrust of this whole development has been and what we've done. You've got a copy of this in a March 28th letter that I distributed that Joe and I...distributed to you and basically the second portion is what, at that point in time, was deemed to be graded to accommodate the home sites. That means all the trees and the slopes would be impacted by the grading. And this initially of course shocked us because really it amounts to about 80% or 90% of the lot. What isn't graded, it consists of very steep slopes, a buffer zone around the wetland and wetlands themselves. And so that kind of caught our — attention and that's what caused us to create a bit of an organization here to just make sure that what is done here is done with some sensitivity. Some of the points on this are that what we're concerned about is really four things generally. The areas along the right hand side. — Right along the water front, or the lakeshore if you will. I'll call it lakeshore. Basically it's very low. There is a proposal to range from 8 foot of fill to be put in there to build up those lots in order so they can have walkouts and look-outs. That I understand may be being — revised to 3 to 4 feet but nonetheless when you fill that site, basically you've got to get rid of all vegetation because you fill with dirt on top, so that's a concern. Between the wetland, the inside wetland. That pond. The big pond and the lake. It's a very sensitive area in there. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 It's very low. That is, and over to the top. That is an area that's particularly I think critical and I think Eric may be able to speak a little bit to that. This plat here and in subsequent to the conversation plat I guess, whatever it was, had a lot of variances, or needs a lot of variances to accommodate the number of homes that are being put in here. Particularly the _ private drives that are necessary for that, and I think those should be taken a look at very carefully to make sure that we're not impacting something by putting too many homesites. And I know the pads aren't necessarily the...factor of this whole but it still defies my logic a — bit that the more homes that you have in a situation, obviously the more trees that go down and the more slopes that get graded and so that explanation of the pads aren't really that important has not really flown with me and I wish somebody would articulate that to me... — That proposal incorporates taking down some very large trees, 24 inch plus in diameter trees and particular in the cul-de-sac area. I don't know how much concession Mike is going to do to move that cul-de-sac...to avoid those trees. I haven't heard anything...but that would be — something that we would like to see... Basically the issues we'd like the Planning Commission to consider would be to, a reduction in the tree loss. A reduction in the grading of the site. Custom grading of the lot which last night Mike had agreed to. Reduction in the — number of lots. Focus on the retention pond location. There's a retention pond that sits right next to the wetland. A pond there and we're concerned about it's ability to hold water and not dump it into the wetland pond which flows directly into Lake Lucy. And probably some of the most severe concerns of our's happen to be, and these were brought up last night in the homeowners meeting, were the number of lots that are on the lake, or even the fact that there's any lots on the lake. To have those things moved back away from the lake. They're — awfully close to filling with a lot of fill there and there's a lot of wildlife and other types of concerns about what impact it will have, not only on that situation but also on Lake Lucy itself from...standpoint. And I would encourage any of you who haven't walked the site to do so because I think you can't really appreciate the undulation of the land and trees and everything until you've been out there. And I encourage you and whoever else is involved in the process to do that. That's all I have right now. Any questions? — Mancino: Any questions? Thank you. Al Weingart: Thank you very much. Mancino: Anyone else? Joe Morin: Madam Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joe — Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. Last time I was here about a month ago I spoke to you, mainly in support of the development going in to the east of my property line. It was not complete support. I had some concerns. Those concerns have been taken care of by the — developer. Tonight I'm here before you speaking mainly in opposition to the plan proposed 13 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 on the west of my property. The differences in the developments, although as Mike last night told the neighbors, he was patterning his development after the Mason Homes development. — The differences are dramatic, notwithstanding the name that he's chosen. Also the character of the land is quite dramatic. I would like to just kind of show a little overview of some of the differences. The Mason Homes development is laid out on a ridge. Mason Homes took — great consideration from the recommendations of the staff to reduce some of the grading originally proposed. They reduced the number of lots which reduced the impact on our property. The President has agreed to move some pine trees between our property and some — of the adjacent homes to further reduce the impact on us. So our relationship there has been quite good. The topography is significantly different, as the staff report points out. The Mason Homes development is on a ridge, whereas the Tichy, Byrne development is located — kind of in more of a ravine area, which is also heavily wooded. Sharmin, if you could put up that. These are some numbers that I gleaned from the staff report. The bottom line here is that in the Coey property, buildable acreage, I think I can read that from here. Is 11.1 acres. — And the buildable acreage on the Tichy/Christensen property is 7.97. Now I want to emphasize and stress here that it's not the number of lots that's my main concern but rather how the land is treated. I'm only showing this to kind of emphasize the differences in the two developments. If we use the same ratio and apply it to the Tichy/Christensen property as the Mason Homes development used in creating their plat. That would suggest that 13 to 14 building sites would be compatible. Not as a compatible development. Not even considering the more difficult terrain that we have to deal with on that site. The status of the development to the east of my property is, the neighbors are, I don't plan to speak for all of _ them but in large part, most neighbors are well satisfied with what went on there. And to the west of my property, most neighbors are very unhappy about what's proposed. So, I want to also emphasize that I'm not opposed to development to the west. In fact, Gayle and I will benefit from a development to the west greatly but we want to see a good development, and — we would rather have no development than what we see being proposed right now. The intentions that we have with respect to our property, I want to make that clear. We have 3 potential sites, 3 developable sites on our property, one of which we have already developed. — That's our present home. When we put our home in, we built it, I cleared the area by hand. There were no significant trees that were removed. There's no grading for the site required _ except to put in our driveway. We designed the home with the site in mind and took about 3 years before we actually, after owning the property, before we actually built a home on this site. The second site is located a little bit southwest of our existing home and in that area, I — have to acknowledge that there is one significant tree. That staff asked us for conceptual plan potential homesites so we don't know exactly how that, where that tree fits in the site but it is something that is a concern to us. The third site on our property is south of the slew area, — which is again more south and east of our existing home. And that's in a natural clearing so the only brush that would need to be removed, I think right now from my walking the site, although I'm not exactly certain where the boundaries are, it looks like it's mainly...and 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 buckthorn. So the net impact on our 5 acres from any future development plans that we would have would be removal of basically one significant tree. Possibly removal, but we'll — do our very best to avoid that. Although like I said, we have not platted the property. We don't know what the implications are for the runoff and so on from that kind of development. I think 3 homes on 5 acres is something quite reasonable, and in dealing with the character of the property, we've taken great care to avoid any tree loss or any other...impact to the environment. Now the main concerns with what's proposed there. Not with the number of lots, as I said before but rather how the land is treated and Al has spoke to many of the concerns that I share with both Al and the rest of our neighbors there. I'm not opposed to Mike Byrne developing but I do object to the callousness with which the, and the insensitivity of the design process that's used and the results of the plan that's being proposed. I don't feel that it does deal sensitively with the environment, and that's of grave concern to me. Ironically one of my biggest concerns is in the area furthest from my house, and that's in an _ area where Al spoke of where right between these large ponds on our property and on Tichy's property, and the lake, the plan is to bulldoze the area, putting in up to 8 feet of fill and erecting a house on top of that 8 feet of fill. Not only is there tremendous destruction to the — local environmental there, and Eric will speak to that later. But it's a major block and impediment to the wildlife migration path. Sharmin, if you could put up the, well that's a little bit of a representative drawing but. _ Al-Jaff: Like that? Joe Morin: A little bit. In that proposed Lot 10 there, the end lot. The land is very much constricted in that area but the wetland area to the east and to the west widens broadly in those areas and on the Mason...as you travel further west there's a very large wildlife wetland — area. And so I see that as a very constrictive impediment to the free travel of the wildlife. Not just for this site but for the whole region. The whole area. Not to mention that a home positioned on top of 8 or 10 of fill would be a tremendous eye sore for the whole area. Now — my other concerns I share with the neighbors. I share with Al. We brought those out in our meeting with Mike last night. Mike didn't take any notes during that meeting but Al and I consolidated our notes and put together the Minutes of the meeting and I'd like to provide — each of you with a copy so that this can also be, and Mike with a copy, so that this neighborhood input can be considered in the further improvement of the plan. We also have copies for people who participated in the meeting and any other neighbors who are interested — in obtaining copies of the Minutes, they can call myself or Al. Again, I don't want to take a whole lot of your time reiterating concerns that are already documented in these Minutes, so thank you very much. Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? 15 -- Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 — Eric Rivkin: My name is Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 Steller Court, which is just to the west of this development about 400 or 500 feet, and I share lakeshore on the other side of the island. Opposite side... I'm also Co-Chairperson of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. I went to the neighborhood meeting last night. I've read some of the concerns that Al and Joe have had. I've read the staff report. I used to own Joe's lot, sandwiched inbetween both of these developments, and I know both pieces of land...very intimately because I had owned it for a year. Picked lots of raspberries there. Watched a lot of wildlife and meditated out there. It's really quite a place. I think this is somewhat of an inaccurate depiction of the — lake. That edge right there, that you see between the water and the land is really the edge of cattails. The actual high water mark goes more around here. You can connect the dots I guess. It goes around here and goes way up in here. The proposed setbacks from here really — put a strain of the water quality of the development. It's very clear right now. There's a lot of beavers and muskrats that excavate this area. They depend on a corridor between here and a pond to be able to traverse. The whole area around here, around Lake Lucy and this side of — the lake primarily is basically a giant wildlife refuge. There's flocks right now of Great Blue Herons that do nest in there. There is a rookery here. They nest in the large tree canopy that surrounds this pond. If that integrity of that tree canopy is destroyed, which it will be on this — side of this lot, I talked to wildlife biologists today, who works for the St. Paul Parks System and she has manages the park at Crosby Farm where they have migratory waterfowl there all the time. And she said if these are disturbed, they're very sensitive to being disturbed and they will leave the nesting sites. So we will lose that. It's an environmental impact that is serious. The other particulars from the environmental issues. There's many water...I'm concerned about. I saw a plan Michael produced last night that had a Walker Pond or — something next to here. I want to comment that I think is potentially disastrous. We have, I know that 4 years ago when Willow Ridge was proposed, there was a lot of talk about, it was _ an experiment. This Walker Pond concept. There was a pond put right on the edge of this giant 1.4 acre pond, which is about the same size as this one. And the theory was that the water would drain into there. Hold the sediment. Hold the nutrients before it would dump itself into there. Well, the water level was planned to rise. Well the whole thing, including — the Walker Pond, is all underwater as the same continuous lake right now. So there is no benefit derived from this Walker Pond. The same thing is proposed here. The same detriment will happen. The water quality will not improve. It will go down. If that is, the difference between this and the Willow Ridge is they have 3 or 4 Walker Ponds for that whole development. This has one and it was located right smack in the middle of the most _ sensitive part of this development. Or sensitive part of the drainage. Highest impact. Potential impact it would have on water quality. This pond drains into Lake Lucy with a running stream right now. There's water flowing in it now? From what I heard. Joe Morin: Oh yeah. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 Gayle Morin: Almost all the time. Eric Rivkin: Almost all the time. There's springs that feed into this, okay. And there's no filtration between here and Lake Lucy. You dump high nutrient loading into this storm sewer system here, it's going to go right into Lake Lucy. Unfiltered where you cannot harvest the nutrients, the phosphorous away. So it's lacking in design and I need to state that on record so that Mr. Byrne will take that and hire the appropriate resources to make sure that it meets ordinances when it comes to water quality interception. There are springs in the area. There's running springs that come flowing out sprinkled all throughout the Lake Lucy area. I think there's one here. From what I remember, there was one over on Jill Willis. There's _ several on Jill Willis' property. There's one right here...because I saw it coming right through the snow. I think there's one or two right here. I think engineering wise, Mr. Byrne is going to discover that if he puts a house there, I don't think he will be able to. There are running _ springs that keep the deer, who come and nest there...or bed down every single night in this region There also, I don't think that it was very sensitive to put a cul-de-sac right in the middle of a grove of mature oak trees when 30 feet from there, you could just move it and terminate it likewise. The impact of putting large amounts of fill on here will destroy the natural, I guess filtration that would be left between here and there on the development. I think this would be a good place to have maybe your retention pond and open space that would be left for wildlife. This was brought up in a neighborhood meeting last night as a strong suggestion that was agreed upon by all the residents. And I think the economic impact of doing something like that, reducing the number of lots to maybe 9 or 10 where you have an amenity that would improve the value of the homes to the point where I don't think he's really going to lose any money. I developed some land in Minnetonka, 4 acres and put 6 lots in. It had 90% of the existing tree canopy was preserved because I wrote in the covenants, and I suggested this to Mike last night. We had covenants that would say the developer, which is me, would have right of refusal for any builder to come in and cut a tree. I would say it can be cut or it can't be cut. Or I can approve your design with this house so you can tuck it in here and there. Whatever. But that kind of environmental sensitivity is lacking here. If Mr. Byrne doesn't have it himself, I suggest that he retain the services of a developer and we suggested to him a name that, retain the services of some professional who can satisfy — that type, to design it environmentally properly. Well, let me get back to my sheet here. The oaks. As you heard, almost all the oaks on this place are red oaks. I had a red oak on my place when I put my house in. I was trying to be very, very careful not disturbing out to the tree line and I like the idea of having them report 1 1/2 times the drip line and not disturbing key trees. Well, destroy all the trees...but in order to, I've seen houses by a sensitive builders go right up within 10 feet of a dripline and not destroy a tree because they knew how to build next to it. It's possible to do that here. You just need some talent to make it happen. I'm concerned about the fact that the trees themselves are home to many species of animals. The holes and they come in trees...but also the mallard ducks. They eat the acorns and the 17 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 mallards, and I know I'm right about this, they flock there by the hundreds during migration and they do nest there. Every single year. They need the food. They need the perch space. They need the tree canopy. They need those oaks intact as much as possible. And I don't think that, I would have to believe that there's enough teeth in the ordinances we have to say no to this level of destruction. Simply saying to the developer it's okay to destroy everything as long as you replant or, just does not meet the intent of the comprehensive plan. And I think that Mr. Byrne can take that and use that as an important thing to preserve. There is beaver sitting right there on the site, in the lagoon to the south of the property. They've been cutting down some saplings on the island and on Christensen's property. Byrne's property right now. And right between the pond and the lake. Now if you put houses in there, some neighbor's going to get in a house and want to shoot them and they need to live. They need to, we have to...to the needs of the beavers here and there's a beaver lodge in that lagoon right now. It's been there for many years and they keep building new ones all the time. Every year they try to come back. And they need to live so we have to... Well, thank you very much. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Would you like to come up? Thank you. If you could give your name and address. Jill Willis: My name is Jill Willis and I own the property adjacent to the...Tichy property and essentially I just want to say for the record that there are...development as has been proposed would be pretty tragic... Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? May I have a motion? Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Thank you. Comments from the commissioners. Ladd? Conrad: I'm going to speak in a two part. The first part relates to our subdivision ordinance, and then the second part relates to my personal feelings in how I'd like to see this property develop. In the subdivision ordinance I think there are, at least there are 7 major points that the staff has outlined and basically this development, or proposed development, misses the first 5. From the standpoint of variances. From the standpoint of water quality pond that should be there. From the standpoint of sensitive to the physical characteristics of the site. From the standpoint of storm drainage. From the standpoint of environmental damage. And these are not, I guess I'm not saying that personally, there are not personal comments. They're just my review of the ordinance versus the project and the project fails in 5 out of 7. Maybe the reason I started this conversation off with why is this here. In terms of how it 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 should be developed. I'm going to echo a couple things that staff has said. I think staff has done a good job of reviewing this. I think they've given us good input. I'm pretty — comfortable with that staff is trying to guide this. So I think the developer, the owner, I think as you work with staff, they're really going to represent a great deal of, at least my philosophy and I think it's philosophy that's carried out through the ordinance. The — subdivision ordinance. So it's not willy nilly. It's not personal opinion. I think it's substantial defensible, solid guidelines. In terms of how, what I would recommend. In terms of my concerns as to how you make this a development that works. We know that developments can work. We've seen them in the neighborhood. We've seen the neighborhood actually support them so I don't think the neighbors are out to say, don't — develop. They're not. I didn't hear any of the neighbors say that. I think it's how we do it. And I've got a couple observations and the first one's going to reflect staff's comment. I won't approve any variances unless we see an environmental sensitivity. Just flat out, I'll trade. I'll do some horse trading. But right now it's all one sided. I'm real nervous about the 8 feet of fill on the south part. Regardless. 8 feet next to the lake for so many reasons. Now maybe it's not 8 feet. Maybe it's 4. So we'll find out. We don't have a real plan in front of us but even real well designed water quality ponding has problems. And so when we start hauling in 4 to 8 feet of fill for 4 lots, that's a lot of fill right next to the water. It's just extremely nervous about that. I don't know how you manage it during the fill. I don't know — how you manage it after the fill, to tell you the truth. Erosion control. The impact on the natural habitat. It seems abusive to me. But most importantly I don't know how you manage 8 feet of fill going in there to not impact the lake. And Dave will say, engineering we can do — anything. Obviously there has to be some storm water ponding. Storm water ponding on site. Obviously. I don't like to look at plans that don't even have it. It says hey, it's not a real plan. This is a game we're playing here. The site, as I saw it, looked like every street was aimed for a tree over 24 inches. And I say that in jest. I don't want to be perceived as taking shots here but, I'm not going to force somebody to preserve every tree on this site, and you don't have to and nobody does. But when I see all the major trees on this site that are — coming down, it's bad design. So that, and I know you can fix that. So I won't even extend my conversation that I know we can miss those trees. Custom grading has to be done on every lot. And the cul-de-sac has to be moved. Those are my comments. — Mancino: Thank you. How did you say what I had written down? Ron. Nutting: Yeah. Very well done Ladd. I guess one initial comment I would like to make is I do appreciate the developer's comments about, I guess first in holding the neighborhood meeting. The projects that get to this point without the neighborhood meetings really seem to not go anywhere. And holding that meeting I think was a good start. As well as the expression of willingness to work with staff and make revisions to the plan. I'm not a — developer. I rely on staff and I think staff does a good job, for the most part. No, staff does 19 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 do a very good job. So when I read the staff report, as well as walk the site, and maybe just to echo one of Ladd's comments. The area where the cul-de-sac is and the grove of trees at that location. Without greater sensitivity to tree preservation, as you acknowledged, the site is heavily wooded. Trees will go down. There's no question about that. We're not here to save every tree but just to responsibly assist in the responsible development of the site. I would — echo all of Ladd's comments and again I can't comment further because I'm not sure what we're going to be looking at, and as you acknowledged, but I think the neighbors comments bear some review and the process but I think staff has done a very good job in trying to — shape the thing, the plan so that as Ladd puts it, variances require some effort towards I guess sensitivity is really a big issue so those are my comments. — Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: Really just to echo the same thing that Ladd has said already. I can't really add — anything to it but just go on record as saying that I agree with him 100%. Mancino: Alright. Did you get his comments Mr. Byrne? Michael Byrne: Yes. Mancino: Did you get his comments were the same? Thank you. I also echo, would like to comment on the same concerns that I have. I'd like to add just a few more. One are the retaining walls that I saw on the plans, knowing that they're not final but if there are going to be retaining walls in the next version that we see, I'd like to know a little bit more about them. These were 100 to 400 feet long. So I'd like to see, why are they there? What are they preserving? How high are they? How are they going to be constructed? From an engineering point of view, and from an environmental point of view. Because I think that we had, or what I saw were 8 of them. My other concern is about the accesses to the properties on the east and on the west, and that would be the Willis' and Morin's. And I would like to — see the developer and staff work with the property owners on both sides as far as where exactly those access points will be. Not only for roadway but for sewer and water. And I would like to make sure that all parties, if we get there, are in agreement on where those are. And that they do take into the environmental concerns that we have. And I have some concerns about the construction of a private street. Making sure that we do not limit, on — either side of the property that's going to be developed, what the other owners can do. That means that if there's a limit to 4 houses on private drives, that it comes back to us. If we want to see 5, that there are very clear illustrations as to how that is preserving that area. I concur — with Ladd that I need a very good explanation, something that I can understand about the necessity for the amount of fill in the southern portion of this property. Not only having to do with walkouts but having to do with sewer. And some other options besides that amount 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995 of fill. The location and the size of the retention pond I would like to have staff and the applicant work together to locate it in an area that will not destroy significant tree coverage, — and at the same time will be effective storm water quality treatment pond. And it would be my recommendation to staff and City Council that maybe you consider conferring with or getting a second opinion from an outside expert on that. Not only the location but how — effectively it will work. 100% of the time... And I guess just in summary I would like to say that I would just like to see the plat comply more with the subdivision ordinance 18-60(d). Lots shall be placed to preserve and protect amenities. Natural amenities such as vegetation, — wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. And I'd like to see this comply with that ordinance. Those are my comments. Conrad: I'd like to make a motion Madam Chairman, I'd recommend that the Planning Commission tables action on Rezoning #95-1 and Subdivision #95-3 and to have the applicant — work closely with staff to resolve some of our concerns. Mancino: Do I have a second? Nutting: Second. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission tables action on Rezoning #95-1 and Subdivision #95-3 and to have the applicant work closely with staff to resolve the issues outlined by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion canied. — PUBLIC HEARING: — SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A TWO STORY BUILDING (RICHFIELD BANK AND TRUST) WITH A TOTAL OF 12,166 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78Th STREET AND KERBER — BOULEVARD, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, BURDICK PARK ADDITION, RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC. Public Present: Name Address — Jeff Pflipsen 5410 Vanderwood Lane, Plymouth W. G. Kirchner 6830 Newton Avenue So, Richfield — Jon Thorstenson 4 Glen Court, Chaska Jan Susee 6625 Lyndale Avenue So, Richfield _ Steve Kuchner 6625 Lyndale Avenue So, Richfield 21 — CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION — REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 1995 Chairman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and then made an opening statement as to the procedures of a Planning Commission meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Nutting, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Mike Meyer, Bob Skubic, and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 25,304 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY — ON 2.16 ACRE LOT, PROPERTY ZONED PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL AND LOCATED ON LOT 7, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION, PAULSTARR ENTERPRISES INC., STEINER — DEVELOPMENT, INC. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Do any commissioners have any questions of staff? Bob, I just have one. Does the entryway, is this for the tenants entryway also? — Generous: Yes, it would be both entryways. Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? David Kordonowy: I'm David Kordonowy from Steiner Development. I'm representing Paulstarr tonight. We looked at the staff report and we think it has reasonable comments and _ we concur with it and we'll comply with the recommendations. I really don't have anything else...thank you. — Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the — motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: We're open for public hearing. If you would like to come up to the podium and — state your name and address and any comments. Hearing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to close the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was closed. — Mancino: Comments from the commissioners. Mr. Nutting. Nutting: I don't really have any comments. It looks like staff and the developer have come up with a good development. I appreciate the ability to work through some of the architectural details and to come up with something that was an enhancement from the start — so I have no further comments. Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. — Farmakes: The report eludes to treating the entrances differently. Can you elaborate on that at all? — Generous: To the entrance? Farmakes: This extension that comes out here. Generous: Yes. — Farmakes: Do you feel that those reflect the guidelines that we talked about as far as design? — I realize this is a warehouse building but we've seen these in here before. I'm wondering if something along the lines that was done with those. Kate, you remember the storage building that I'm talking about that's very typical to this that they redid the front. I think Sharmin — maybe worked on it. I believe it's also over in the Lake Susan industrial area. Aanenson: I'm sorry, I don't remember. Farmakes: It's basically a rectangle and we dealt with the entrances. I believe we modified them. It was a small amount but at least it did more than just create a box. — Aanenson: Right. Those would be the most similar examples that we have would be on Park Drive. Mail Source and then another one next door to that. It's rectangular in size and they — did a little bit different material. Tried to vary the material and also added architectural relief by using, as Bob had them do, requested that they do some sort of entrance feature to try to break up that long line. That's what we were trying to... — Farmakes: Which was just adding another brick? 2 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 David Kordonowy: What you might not be able to quite follow, there is a relief to the entryway. Actually the relief is in about 3 feet so we highlight the entryway with a little bit of brick but also the entryway is set into the building so if you're pushing the building to have a real positive image, of how people will be coming into the building. It's a pretty stark entryway because we're using the colors of gray, almost black and white so it will really stand out and break up, it's really a pretty short building but it will break up the length. Farmakes: We've talked about these buildings before. We've talked about them on the task force on the Highway 5 issue. This is a little different animal. It's inside the industrial park. You have a storage building obviously, and I can't see a developer wanting to put much money in a building. If we look at, on Highway 41, the Mammoth building. I believe that's in Chaska I believe. I was driving by there the other day, I have a 15 year old son and he'd be the last person I'd expect to hear the comment that he made. As we drove by he said gee dad, what an ugly building. And I got to think, yeah, it's a box. And so much I guess of visual relief could be added just by adding something. Depth or extending the front out I believe is what they did on the other building. We still just have a box. It seems that the entrance feature that we're talking about or that we talk about in these guidelines is extending it out, raising it up or creating something, some visual relief. It's not an extensive use. Most buildings you can use just, what was used in Target. Something to break up the box. Two courses of black brick I'm not sure what it's called but. As far as the landscaping goes, I think it's fine. The recommendations that you've made. I have no further comments. Mancino: Bob, would you like to show the materials. Generous: Yes, sorry. The applicant did provide building materials. This is the black brick material that runs, or the accent color that they'll be using. The top part of the building is in the Sanibel rock face and then the lower part of the building would be in this medium gray color. And then I believe on the side and the rear, the predominant color then changes to the gray. That's the window area on the east and west elevations. David Kordonowy: ...colors will be used for...on both sides and then the main part of the side and back building... Mancino: Thank you. Mike, do you have any comments? Questions? Meyer: No. Mancino: Bob? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Skubic: Ah yes I do...street designated on the site plan, eventually will be the front of another office...loading dock area here... — Generous: I don't know if there will ever be sufficient coverage to block all of it. I suppose they could be in halves. We are recommending that they provide an additional 4 trees. Two — overstory and two evergreens. Unless you want to make a wall out there, or do some berming in there, I suppose that would help to help screen that area also. Skubic: Being that there's streets on two sides, one side has to be the back of the building. Generous: Right. And the east side is really the most important elevation than the south one. — The east because that's the view from Audubon, and the south because that is their entryway. Skubic: Thank you. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: One for staff. One for the applicant. Staff, in your recommendations number 10. It says each property shall be allowed one monument sign. Now is that for the PUD in total? — Generous: Yes. Conrad: But this property is one lot. Generous: Gets one monument. Correct. It's one per the site. — Conrad: This property gets one. And for the applicant, well and for staff. Roof mounted equipment. Screened by walls. Point number 17 in the staff report. We're not looking at it. — I don't know what it is. I don't really know what our standards are so what we do we expect the applicant to bring back? Do we have a standard for screening? Generous: Not specifically. They can use metal sided materials. The applicant had been discussing the use of ordering right from the manufacturer a panel that's applied right to the equipment itself. That would be less metallic and I wonder if Dave could provide a little — more detail on that. I know the architect was discussing it with me and it was a material that would blend in with the building, but be attached right to the equipment. Mancino: It has a roof surface? Generous: Yeah. 4 — _ Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 David Kordonowy: It's a metallic. It's a standing seam metal that would have pre-coloring. They would have some color matched to the existing building. We haven't explored it fully — because we're not sure, we haven't designed the office layout so we're not sure if in fact we're putting in one unit... We really haven't gotten to that detail but we have heard that there's a nice pre-finished. We don't know if the project can support it. If it can, great. If not, we'll — go back to a metal type fence curved into the roof which we've used in other applications before. But it certainly won't be a wood fence. I think that's precluded from this...so it will be a pre-finished metal. Either on the unit itself or a fence. Conrad: So our report says all roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Okay. Mancino: Actually the color will be compatible. — Conrad: Yeah. I'm okay with that. Jeff, your comment on, you're not satisfied with the staff report? In terms of their recommendations to break up the front of the building. Farmakes: No, I think it should be done. Mancino: You want it to go further? Farmakes: Or relief around the door. — Conrad: And you'd want some treatment to the entrance itself'? Farmakes: I think, I can't remember the name of the, it was storage unit also in a very similar location. I can't remember the name of it. It was a while back but it was the same issue. They built out the entrance a little bit, moved it back or something and it enhanced the building. I mean it wasn't a major expense but it gave it some relief. Conrad: Okay, no more comments. Mancino: My comments are with Bob's. I would like to see the landscaping that is at the northern side of the property where it abuts B street and becomes the front view for Lot 4. — Just to be bermed. To include some berming here for screening and I would like to see some of the deciduous vegetation replaced with coniferous so there can be some year round screening. And I think that I'd also like to change any of the recommendations when we do — talk about screening, to include the adjective year round. I also agree with Jeff on the entrances. The two entrances. I looked at the other two buildings that are up in that area, the church and the National Weather Service, and I think that the quality of their architecture 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 kind of sets the standard in this area and I think that they do have a little, what do I want to say, more sophisticated architecture in their entrances so I'd like to see some adjustments. — That's it. Do I have a motion? Do we have any further discussions before we entertain a motion? Any other comments? Nutting: What are we, from the discussions regarding the entryway and treatment, are we looking to direct staff? Are we looking to have staff provide some recommendations or. Mancino: We can certainly ask to see it again with staff and the applicant reviewing and I think giving them a little clearer direction with the entrances. Or we can go ahead and make a recommendation that they are to, with staffs approval, go ahead and work on the entrances. — David Kordonowy: Up to this time we have brought all the preliminary views to staff. They've given us direction as to how the city wants the site to be designed and built out. — We've accommodated just about every comment that they've had. Just in the last couple of days they brought up the point that they wanted to maybe see a little bit better definition of the entryway. We came up with an idea. If there's any way that we could proceed with this — process and give us the flexibility working with staff, we don't see any problem with working with the staff. I think we've had good cooperation to this point so if we can continue to move the process along, we'd appreciate it. ...design in some additional features. I don't know what they are yet but we'll try to work with you on that. But I just don't want to have this thing move to another month and then lose the ability to start construction in early May. Mancino: Thank you. We appreciate your comments and the public hearing is closed so we will go ahead with our comments now. Thank you. Do I have a motion? — Nutting: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Site Plan #95-6 on plans prepared by AKRW dated 3/20/95 and Schoell & Madsen, — Inc. on plans dated 3/20/95 for a 25,304 square foot office/warehouse building on Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, subject to the following, or subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report and with the following modifications. All references to, and help me out Nancy in terms of the landscaping to include the words year round. Added to those references. To add condition number 20. Recommending that staff work with the applicant to provide some berming on the north face to provide additional screening back — there for the loading dock area. And I think that's it. Mancino: Can I make a friendly amendment to that? — Nutting: Sure. 6 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: And just, instead of doing number 20, add to number 7. Just add onto that, the landscaping plan for the northern strip of property that is adjacent to Street B shall be revised to include berming and additional coniferous vegetation. Nutting: Okay. And I guess I would add one additional recommendation. I would accept Nancy's revisions and then recommendation 20 that staff and the applicant work together on the treatment for the entrance to provide, if you will break up to the detail consistent with the surrounding development. Conrad: I'd second that. Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Site Plan #95-6 on plans prepared by AKRW dated 3/20/95 and Schoell & Madsen, Inc. on plans dated 3/20/95 for a 25,304 square foot office/warehouse building on Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The pavement sections in the parking and loading dock areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations from a professional soils engineer. 2. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Design Detail (Plate No. 5207 - attached). 3. No building permits or grading may commence on the site until after the final plat has been approved and recorded and the developer of Chanhassen Business Center had executed the development contract. 4. The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event to the city for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances and protection around the catch basins shall be employed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook until the parking lots are paved. 6. Additional information is needed on type of processes, product commodities, height of storage, etc. to assure compliance with fire codes. 7. A minimum of 10 overstory trees are to be planted in or along the parking area. Staff is recommending an additional landscape peninsula in the northern parking lot area. Locations are to be shown on the landscape plan. Overstory trees chosen by the applicant are to be from the City's Approved Tree List with a parking location 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 designation. Perimeter plantings meet calculation requirements, but additional screening will be required in the northeast section of the site to reduce visibility of loading area — from Audubon Road. Applicant shall work with staff to revise the landscaping plan to incorporate the changes. The landscaping plan for the northern strip of property that is adjacent to Street B shall be revised to include benning and additional coniferous — vegetation. 8. Plant material quantities on the Landscape Schedule and the Landscape Plan differ — significantly. Applicant must provide the city with revised schedule that correctly reflects quantities on Landscape Plan. 9. All free standing signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality — of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. — 10. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the _ private site. All signs require a separate permit. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. 11. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. — 12. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. — 13. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. — 14. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. — 15. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. — 16. Revise the building entrances to project out from the building in order to improve the entrance features and break up and add relief to the large building expanse. — 8 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Specifically, the block be built out from the remainder of the building facade enclosing the entry area. 17. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. — are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. 18. The applicant shall provide aeration/irrigation tubing in each peninsular or island type landscape area containing a tree that is less than 10 feet in width. The applicant shall — install automatic irrigation in all site landscape areas. A financial security (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $17,700.00 to guarantee landscaping for the project. 19. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 20. Staff and the applicant shall work together on the treatment for the entrance to provide detail consistent with the surrounding development. All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION TO PRELIMINARY PLAT 36 ACRES OF — PROPERTY INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, HIGHLANDS AT LAKE ST. JOE, LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND — LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND SOUTH OF LAKE ST. JOE. — Public Present: Name Address Loane Burau 1225 78th Street Jeanette & Jerry Boley 7414 Minnewashta Parkway — Tim Braff 7410 Minnewashta Parkway Brenda Roy 7400 Minnewashta Parkway Terry Rixe 7456 Minnewashta Parkway 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Kate Aanenson presented the staff iepoit on this item. Mancino: Does the commissioners have any questions? What's the most current landscaping plan? What's the day of it? So that we can refer to it in our conditions. Aanenson: It'd be 9-27-93, and that's the date probably that should be in the condition. Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or designee wish to address the Planning — Commission? — Mike Pflaum: My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm the Vice President of Lundgren Brothers Construction and I don't wish to make any type of a presentation unless the Planning Commission has specific questions that they'd like to ask of me. — Mancino: Okay, is there anyone that has any questions? Doesn't seem to be at this point. Mike Pflaum: I stand ready to answer any questions. Mancino: Thank you. Do I have a motion to open the public hearing? — Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heating was opened. — Mancino: The public hearing is open. Does anyone wish to come up and speak about this particular project? — Brenda Roy: My name is Brenda Roy. I live at 7400 Minnewashta Parkway. My question is, my home...included I believe in the development. — Aanenson: This is your house right here. Brenda Roy: My house is... Aanenson: Right...this is your house. That's the back portion of the lot... — Brenda Roy: What I'm wondering is, if I'm included. Is that going to affect my taxes? — Aanenson: You're not included in the plat. Just the back portion of your lot is being added to the plat. Your existing home will be maintained the way it is. The area you have left is — 20,000 square feet. 10 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Brenda Roy: But with the letter I just... Mike Pflaum: The legal description of her property, of her homestead would be a lot and block description with the Highlands on Lake St. Joe. The property has been incorporated in the plat split. My understanding is that that...affect whatsoever the valuation questions... Brenda Roy: That's exactly what the City Council... Mancino: Affect your property taxes. Aanenson: The best thing to do is call the Carver County Assessor. Mancino: Assessment office. Brenda Roy: Okay. Thank you. Mancino: You're welcome. Anyone else wish to make any comments or have any questions? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Any discussion? Well I guess I should ask for comments first. Bob, any comments? Skubic: I have none. Mancino: Ron. Nutting: I don't really have any comments either. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: I think the variances are appropriate, if that's what they have to have. I think the intent of the 125 foot and the rationale for the wider lots are met through the pie shape that we ultimately get from these lots so I have no problem with that. For staff, Lots 5 and 6 are non, they're not riparian lot which means they can't have docks. Mancino: 3 too. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad: Yeah, and 3 too. And what prevents that. I don't know Kate if I really have a question. — Aanenson: This is the same issue we went through with the Point at Lake Lucy. There's a significant amount of wetland before you get to the dock. First of all it's pretty cost — prohibitive for an individual person to try to maintain that. They certainly have a right, if it's a riparian lot, to go through the procedures. The same with on Lake Lucy. Certainly they — need a wetland alteration permit which gives us jurisdiction, review and control and at that point we would certainly work to combine the docks, if that's a request. Originally when this came through our intent was to try to not allow docks but we can't, again the DNR has some — control there. But because they need a wetland alteration permit, we would work to have people combine to minimize the amount of alteration to the wetland. — Conrad: So each property owner would need a wetland alteration permit? Aanenson: Correct. It would be similar to what we did on Point Lake Lucy. — Mancino: And is that part of the conditions? Aanenson: There is an existing dock that we said had to come out because then, that was number 15. That's just an ordinance requirement. I didn't...but that they did need one. They would have to go through that. If you wanted to add it, just so it's on the record for _ edification but it would be an ordinance requirement. Conrad: How do we inform the property owners, those that buy, that they are. — Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. We could put it in here but there's not any more guarantee that they'd read these conditions. It's really onerous on the developer to let them — know what the process would be if they were to get a dock. Mike Pflaum: Excuse me, could I address that for just a moment? — Mancino: Yes, you may. Mike Pflaum: We interpreted the condition pertaining to the removal of the dock to mean that none of the lot owners that abutted Lake St. Joe should have docks, and a declaration of covenants for the subdivision prohibits docks...That then should deal with it. — Aanenson: That was our original discussion too. — 12 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 — Mancino: Thank you Mike. Conrad: That's all. — Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: No comments. I like it. Difficult piece of property. — Mancino: Mike. Meyer: No comments. Mancino: I had no comments. Do I have a motion? — Hempel: Excuse me...there was one error in condition number 4 regarding grading. As Kate pointed out earlier in the staff report, we are doing grading within the buffer strip. In the wetland. Condition number 4 prohibits grading within the wetland buffer strip. I suggest — modifying that to the applicant shall work with staff to modify the grading plans to minimize grading adjacent to the wetland. — Mancino: Thank you Dave. Conrad: What did Dave just say? Say that again Dave. It says no grading shall take place within the wetland buffer strip. Nutting: He said adjacent to. Conrad: But that can't happen anyway. Aanenson: Can I clarify that with the map here? This was a condition of the original approval too. You can't grade, you stake that, put the erosion control along the edge of the — wetland. Okay. Then you're required to put a buffer strip. Either maintain what's there or go back and revegetate it. There was an area in here that they had some grading close to the edge of the wetland so there is a problem to say that they can't grade at all within that buffer — strip. So what we're saying is, again you have a chance to meander that buffer strip. There's a minimum average. So what we're saying is that we're working with the applicant to minimize the grading within the buffer strip but there are areas they can. This is a caveat that — says they can't at all. Certainly the intent is to minimize that. Mancino: Will we still have the required average? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Aanenson: Certainly. Yeah, we're not going to vary from that. But they can go closer so what we're saying is, that language is a little bit restrictive insofar as the flexibility that the — buffer strip allows. Farmakes: So you want that first sentence to be replaced by what was just stated then? — Aanenson: Correct. The language that Dave just gave you. Conrad: Which we've all forgotten Dave. Farmakes: The applicant will work with staff to minimize grading within the buffer strip. — Mancino: Any more discussion? Conrad: Well yeah, a little bit with Dave, as long as he brought this up. The buffer strip may vary from 0 to 20. But that is not willy nilly. Isn't that based on how we perceive that 0 to 20 should be in place, meaning there's some places where 0 is not significant. Some places where 20 is significant so do you review Dave the buffer strip and how any particular applicant has treated that? Or can they just really meander that between 0 and 20 and really — it doesn't get the staff attention? Aanenson: You can ask Mr. Pflaum about that. It gets our attention. — Mike Pflaum: It gets their attention. Conrad: Okay. Well maybe that's a good enough answer but tell me about that because I don't understand the process. Hempel: In certain areas it's virtually impossible to give the 20 feet or a curvalinear shoreline shapes of wetlands, depending on the road or built up grade for a lot pad but there are other areas where there's an excessive amount of room there adjacent to a wetland to make up for — that...encroachment. One of the other things is the two storm water treatment ponds that you see on the plan. Those we're looking at reducing down the size of those. They were oversized originally to take a 100 year storm event. There's really no need to do that kind — of...storm water quality pond...water quantity. So we're able to downsize those ponds a little bit to pull those ponds back from the wetland... So we did have a little bit of flexibility there in site grading to do that. Mancino: So he personally goes out an inspects every day and checks. 14 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad: That's what I'd expect him to do. Nothing else. Okay. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval for the preliminary plat for Highlands on Lake St. Joe as shown on the plans dated March 23, 1995 prepared by Sathre-Berquist and subject to the conditions in the staff report with the changed point number 4 that would replace the current wording and state that staff would work with the applicants to minimize grading within the wetland buffer strip. And point number 15. If the covenants, huh. Point number 15 would read as worded, with the addition that states that if the covenants allow docks, I think I'll keep it worded that way. I'm not sure. If the covenants do allow docks, the docks would need a wetland alteration permit. I don't think we can take that right away from somebody and the wording to say you can't because the covenants are restricting the developer can. We can't. That's why I think I worded it that way. That's the, Jeff did you say something? Farmakes: Didn't you mention 16 also in regards to the dating of. Aanenson: Yeah. I think we should add as per landscaping plan dated September 27, 1993. Conrad: Okay, that's kind of what I was going to say. That would be it on point number 16 per the landscape plan. End of motion. Mancino: Do I hear a second? Farmakes: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Highlands on Lake St. Joe as shown on the plans dated March 23, 1995, prepared by Sathre-Berquist, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1995 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Updated construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 4. The applicant shall work with staff to modify the grading plans to minimize grading adjacent to the wetland. The plans shall be revised accordingly. — 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated — over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. 7. The applicant shall place a sign on barricades at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac on Ridgehill Road indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot. 8. The applicant/developer/property owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade (90-15), — including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The applicant/developer/property owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MS Sec. 429.081. Phase I of the _ development shall be assessed for 35 units and Phase II assessed for 21 units. 9. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations of acceptance of park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication. These fees will be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $900.00 per unit. Full trail dedication fees in lieu of a — trail easement. These fees are to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential rate for single family dwellings is $300.00 per unit. — 10. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation include permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in -- accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 11. A buffer strip shall be provided adjacent to all wetlands. The wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe is classified as a natural wetland. The buffer strip width may vary from 10 to 30 feet wide as long as the average buffer strip width is 20 feet. The other wetland is — 16 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 located on Lots 20 and 21, Block 2 and are classified as ag/urban. The buffer strip width may vary from 0 to 20 feet wide as long as the average buffer strip width is 10 feet. 12. Compliance with the Building Official's recommendations: a. Details on corrected pads must be furnished to the Inspection Division. Pads that are corrected at the time streets are installed should be submitted to the Inspections — Division before city acceptance of the subdivision. Data on lots that are individually corrected shall be submitted before Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report compaction tests, the limits of the — corrected pads and elevation of the excavation. 13. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, Block 1. 14. The landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway shall be in compliance with the city's requirements. In addition, the requirement of one tree per lot shall be required. 15. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed at the time of grading within the plat. If the covenants do allow docks, the docks would need a wetland alteration permit. — 16. The applicant shall work with staff to prepare a revise the landscaping plans dated September 17, 1993. Landscaping needs to be added to provide screening from views of Minnewashta Parkway across from Lake St. Joe to soften the view from the homes. — 17. The applicant will be responsible for a storm water quantity connection charge of $46,246.00. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OUTLOT B AND BLOCKS 5, 6, 7 OF OAK PONDS 2ND — ADDITION INTO LOT 1, BLOCK 1, OAK PONDS 4TH ADDITION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 70 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING, CARVER COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Public Present: Name Address Beth Larson 7590 Canyon Curve Gregg Geske 7530 Canyon Curve Cindy Schallock 7501 Canyon Curve _ Jeff& Sherrell McCoskey 7481 Canyon Curve Sherol Howard 1005 Pontiac Lane Bunny Billison 7281 Pontiac Circle _ Jane Kubitz 2492 Saratoga Drive Paul ? 2219 Boulder Road Mary & Tim Anderson 7550 Canyon Curve _ Jack Thien 7570 Canyon Curve Greg Hromatka 7580 Canyon Curve Marion Stultz 110340 Geske Road #203, Chaska _ Viola Scharrer 110340 Geske Road #316, Chaska Dorothy McIntyre 110340 Geske Road #204, Chaska Albin H. Olson 406 Santa Fe Circle Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff repot on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff? I have one. Sharmin, one of the recommendations or one of your suggestions was to add some overstory trees on the western side. Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Will that be shown tonight by the applicant? That revision or could you show me where you mean. Al-Jaff: It would be along this area. Mancino: Okay. And the purpose that it serves is for sheltering in the summer, etc. Was _ there another area also that you had suggested more canopy coverage? Or was that it? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Al-Jaff: It would be the southern area of the building in general. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation at this time? Julie Frick: Madam Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Julie Frick and I'm in the Director of the Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. We've been working with the city on this project for quite some time and we've brought along some of the renderings to try to comply with all of the requirements and still provide some...for the seniors in the city of Chanhassen. At this time I'll turn it over to Carol Crow from Dunbar Development who I'm working with. And also working... Mancino: Thank you. Carol Crow: Good evening. I'm Carol Crow with Dunbar Development. We've been working closely with...Carver County and Chanhassen, both the redevelopment authorities on this development. I have some renderings that show some of the changes that we have been working on as requested by the staff. One thing I would like to start out with, there is some, the layout of the building can be somewhat confusing so I'd just like to walk through that with you so you can see how the four stories of the building lay out. This is a site plan of the building. If you enter, the garage entrance to the underground parking area is off of Kerber Boulevard, which is shown here. The north side of the underground park would be the first level. Above that you have three more levels. This would be the north side here. _ On the west side of the building there is no housing on the first, on the parking level. On the first level that steps up to street level and then up to four levels and then down to three at the very end. We have complied with the setback requirements from Kerber Boulevard. We have pulled it back to 50 feet farther. To do that we have eliminated 7 units of housing to bring the building 10 feet back so we do have the 30 foot setback from Santa Vera Drive. Mancino: So there are a total of 63 units? Carol Crow: 63 units. We also have several computer generated drawings of what the building will look like from the neighbor's perspective. This is kind of an older photo so it doesn't show all the homes that have been developed along here but this would be Canyon Curve...our development. These various photos represent the front to side... There is approximately 400 feet distance between our property and the neighboring... Mancino: I'm sorry, what's the point of those? What are those showing me? I mean I see the overhead. Carol Crow: We're just showing you the neighbor's and perspective to our building... 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Farmakes: When you said 400 feet, from building to building or from property line to property line? — Carol Crow: From our building to the neighbors. Farmakes: From structure to structure? Carol Crow: From structure to structure. — Farmakes: Okay. Carol Crow: This would be more or less an aerial view of the building. These two would be aerial views. These would be views if you were standing in one of these, this house for example would be...Also the rendering in this one...this would be a perspective looking at the back of the building. This is a photograph from down the hill at Kerber Boulevard. This is another development right across the street from our site that is currently under construction. — This represents or shows our building on the side in relation to the building across the street. Mancino: So we are on Kerber, where are we right now? We are on Saddlewood and Kerber? Mike Sepena: We're north of the site. At the first road that goes in...I believe it's — Saddlewood... Farmakes: What is the retaining wall material again? — Carol Crow: Pardon me? Farmakes: What is that material again? I don't remember. Carol Crow: I think we're looking at something like a Keystone type of block. — Farmakes: So it's not flat surface. It's textured. Mancino: I'm sorry Carol, I have a question about that. Now I am to presume that on that lower left view, okay. That I am in my car, which I did this afternoon on Canyon Curve, and that's a perspective I'm going to see? Carol Crow: Actually if you were in the house. — 20 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: I don't know what to say. Only that when I sat in my car, it was a much closer feel, the land mass was, without the building on it. The land mass was much, felt much closer to me than the perspective that you're showing there. So it's just, I don't know if anyone else did that. Went to where the houses were on Canyon Curve but I felt that the perspective, it was very different than what I'm seeing. Conrad: I can relate. Skubic: I agree...seems to be much closer...illustration. Carol Crow: Excuse me, could I ask Mike Sepena with...He worked on these and he might be able to provide. Mancino: Oh, thank you. Mike Sepena: I'm not sure how much more information I can provide other than basically what we did is we plugged the whole building into the machine so we could go all the way around it and have a bunch of different views since we don't have a model here at the meeting. The view that you were asking about was this one... This view is taken, this is the pond that shows right down here. So this view is taken from over here looking in that direction. Carol Crow: So it's farther... Mike Sepena: Right. Looking across the pond at the building. That was here. This one here is taken from the road. From Kerber Boulevard looking in this direction. Then these both are similar views except with eye level up in the air... Mancino: Any commissioners have any questions, comments for Mike at this point? Farmakes: What is red is berming, is that correct? Or terra cotta color. Mancino: Julie and Carol, are you done? Carol Crow: Oh, yes. Unless... Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions. Do you happen to have material samples? As to brick, the siding, etc. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Carol Crow: Pm sorry, I didn't bring those with me. The exterior would be a vinyl siding and the brick would be... — Mancino: What color vinyl siding? Carol Crow: We haven't decided on final colors but what we're showing on the scheme is... sort of a taupe. Mancino: Okay. And the brick, what? Carol Crow: A reddish brown brick. — Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? On materials or detailing. Thank you very much. May I have a motion to open it to a public hearing. — Nutting moved, Faimakes seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion caitiied. The public heating was opened. Mancino: Thank you. This is open the public hearing. Anyone who would like to come up and have comments, please do. State your name and address. Tim Anderson: Hi. My name's Tim Anderson. I live at 7550 Canyon Curve. I guess there's — two items I'd like to bring up. One is one that's been brought up, is the size of the building. It is a big building. We had asked city staff and at a previous Council meeting I had asked for renderings to be made and these renderings that were made are fine except that it would — have been nice if they were on a photographic type rendering... I think I agree with what Nancy was saying that, because the site is up high and it juts out from the rest of this hill, the slope, which kind of juts to the north, the filling should actually be in front or farther north — than like the townhomes will be that will be constructed west of it. It really gives the appearance that it's closer than even like these rendering provide and that's because obviously you're missing, it's a computer rendering, not a photographic rendering and it's very difficult, I — feel to really get a feel for what this thing's going to look like, even with what they provided tonight. I wanted to mention one other thing. A previous plan for this site, done 3 years ago, was originally planned to put about 40 apartment units up on the hill. My neighbors and I had made a video. Actually about 3 years ago in a snowstorm with 30 foot poles showing how big even a 30 foot apartment building would be on the hill and because of this and some other comments from the Council...staff, the developer decided to put townhomes on the hill. — Now they're planning, this project puts 70, or excuse me, 63 units where 40 was too much before. Second item is the garage entrance onto Kerber. Myself and a lot of my neighbors have children who attend school at Chanhassen Elementary who often walk or ride their 22 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 bicycles to school and we worry about having a driveway entrance from the building onto Kerber and if at all possible, could this entrance be put off of, the underground parking entrance be placed off of Santa Vera. There are no other driveway entrances north of the school along the entire stretch of Kerber Boulevard. I have, I guess that's my only comments to make so thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Jack Thien: My name is Jack Thien. I live at 7570 Canyon Curve. My house, if you haven't been by there, is the sort of blue gray house. My house faces, the back of it faces directly to that hill and I do have a concern about the size of the building also because the building, I don't know, what is the height of the building itself? Mancino: Sharmin? Al-Jaff: An average of 44.75 feet. There is one side of 42 feet and another side of 46 feet so when you average those you come up with 44 feet. Mancino: So the highest is 46? Al-Jaff: Correct. Conrad: As measured from where to where? Al-Jaff: As measured from. Aanenson: Average grade. Conrad: So not the north side or not the south side, but someplace inbetween? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: So on the north side it would be. Al-Jaff: The north side is 46 feet. It is 46 feet. Mancino: I'm sorry, go ahead Jack. Jack Thien: And I wonder...my concern is the size of the building and I thought about another concern too possibly is, how many stories is this? Four stories? Four levels. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Al-Jaff: Correct. Jack Thien: And my concern is, I know myself I'm getting in my 40's and I don't get around as quickly as I used to and one of the concerns that I thought about was, you know somebody being on the fourth level, you know if an emergency does come up of some sort, how quickly — are they going to be able to evacuate so that was a concern too. So it's just my hopes that we can work something out. I think we had talked one time, is there a possibility of going with the grade at all and lowering...what it is now. Al-Jaff: We looked at that. The only problem with it becomes the underground parking. — Right now you need to match the grade to allow for the parking with Kerber Boulevard. And if you lower it any further, Dave can you answer that question? Hempel: I think you've addressed it pretty well Sharmin. The road does eventually...continue to bring the driveway down further. You'll have a steeper slope into the basement garage... unit down further, you push the grading closer to the pond. _ Mancino: What is the steepness of that right now from the lower garage level to Kerber? Hempel: I believe it's about 2% to 3%... Mancino: Okay, thank you. — Jack Thien: I can't think of anything else. Oh, there was one thing. If you haven't actually viewed that hill from Canyon Curve, I certainly would hope that you would do that...because it is a different view than what the rendering is. It's up here you know as opposed to more eye level and I just hope that... Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Kevin Crystal: My name is Kevin Crystal. I live at 940 Saddlebrook Curve. I'd just like to repeat my opposition to the height, or their opposition to the height. It being up on a hill, that certainly would dominant the skyline for quite an area around there. — Mancino: Thank you. — John Linforth: Good evening. My name is John Linforth. I live at 7471 Canyon Curve and to first say that I think most of the neighbors in our neighborhood would like to have senior _ housing on that hillside... None of us have, that I have heard, have voiced any opposition to 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 having any type of senior housing development put on that hill. The major opposition that I'd like to voice is the height of this building. It's opening up an interesting... This project could not be done yesterday without 70 units. Today it can be done with 63 units. So what makes sense today is fairly random...that I'd like to ask the staff, where do they measure the 42 feet from the northern exposure...If I understand, the mid-point of the eaves are the measuring points on the northern exposure. From my rough estimates, the actual height of that building is over 60 feet tall. This will be a monolithic sized building, from a hillside that has no vegetation at all on it. I think if you lower this building so that it conforms with the established houses that the Planning Commission and the City of Chanhassen works with, it would fit in with the neighborhood. But as it is right now, it's a huge building. Mancino: Thank you. Sharmin, can you take a minute to clarify exactly where the 46 is by going to the drawing on the northern elevation. Al-Jaff: Okay we're looking from this point up to the middle of. Mancino: So from the ground level to the middle is 46? Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. And in some of those peak areas, you're going to have an additional 20 feet? Al-Jaff: With the peak areas it would come up to 50 feet. I mean if you measure up to the peak, then you are at 50 feet. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission tonight? Sherrell McCoskey: I'm Sherrell McCoskey. I live at 7481 Canyon Curve and my concerns are too in the height of the building. Also the driveway going directly out onto Kerber Boulevard. That seems to be a dangerous proposition with all the children around. I'm concerned about the lack of landscaping. It sounded like they were just going to have sumac or something and there are some oak trees near-by and some kind of covering, even in the winter time would be kind of a nice thing. Judging from that hill, it will probably take me 25 years to grow a tree tall enough to cover up this building but maybe there's something they can do on their part in the meantime. I'm also concerned about how tall the retaining wall is. If that, do you know how tall that is? Al-Jaff: Total of 11 feet but it's going to be stepped. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Sherrell McCoskey: And I guess I'd like to encourage anyone that's wondering what this is going to look like, to go see a large red apartment building by...Creek Golf Course on Valley View Road in Eden Prairie. It is just a huge, ugly building and maybe if we went with a color that was a little lighter or something, it wouldn't be such a monster sitting up on that hill. Mancino: Thank you. — Greg Hromatka: My name is Greg Hromatka. I live at 7580 Canyon Curve and just obviously the height is a concern. My property is directly along the one side which you have — here and the...from the corner of the street, which would be Saddlebrook Curve and Kerber, it really doesn't do justice to the leveling off the hill down to the neighborhood that's directly in my back yard and all around. Another issue would be, cars are traveling away from — downtown Chan on Kerber Boulevard...I feel and it's basically a blind intersection for where these cars would be pulling out. That's a real concern. That's for the kids as well as traffic... Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Cindy Schallock: I'm Cindy Schallock and I live at 7501 Canyon Curve, and just two — concerns. To reiterate that the size of the building, and also the driveway. You know, for someone to start at that point, I thought well we could cross the street but there isn't really any crosswalk along there. That's south of where that driveway would be and then if you — have the townhomes there, that's the only crosswalk for Kerber Boulevard. Painted crosswalk on the street. So that corner is a big concern as far as traffic goes. I'm thrilled that a senior community is going in there and I hope it does go through. I'd much rather see that go — through than rental townhomes... I've worked with seniors the last 12 years and, in a community quite like this, in senior housing in Minnetonka, and I'm really excited. Mancino: Appreciate your comments. Anyone else? I see more people. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Discussion from commissioners. Jeff. — Farmakes: It's an interesting problem, but I haven't been working on it for several months like city staff and the County. I'm very familiar with the area. I've lived here for a long time, close by this area and have been on the commission here when we dealt with the — townhomes developed adjacent on the top of the hill here. First of all I'd like to discuss the 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 — building or the general impressions of the building, irregardless of the height. I think city staff did a wonderful job breaking up the facades. Creating textures in this building. — Considering some of the problems that they had, the size of the acreage, putting up many units and trying to create something that would fit in to the residential area was a difficult assignment. They did a nice job. The materials I think are for the most part done in such a — way not to be institutional but to create a residential feeling to the building. It actually looks like kind of an Italian hillside town. — Mancino: Villas. Farmakes: Yeah. I would much rather live here than in the townhouses adjacent to the top — of the hill. And the view from there is quite nice. One of the things that I've always been concerned about in working with that particular area. We were talking about the other development farther up the hill. There's a considerable distance that separates Saddlebrook — with the top of this hill and as difficult as that may be, when communities and cities look for transition or what is the transition from one to the other, one of those criterias is distance that you use and what separates that usage. In reality, we're a block from mainstreet here. I mean it's not that far away. We're not out in the hinterlands. There's been elaborate studies done and distance and what works for this type of housing and what the major criteria is that it's within quick access to the necessities of life and the service areas. Grocery stores and shopping and so on that don't require large distances to go. Now anybody who's had kids in this city knows that you spend a tremendous time driving back and forth picking up things, dropping people off. So I think that the need for this type of thing and where it's location is, — is pretty finite. That there are very few places that this can go to meet those criteria. And again, I think that they've done a very good job and it isn't often that I get into this. There's a _ couple of things that I would add as general comments that I would like to see. The area that it overlooks is sort of a man made or excuse me, a human made wetland area that was put together. It used to be an old cow slew that cows used to walk through. And there's a _ couple of ponds down there but basically it's sort of been left to go to natural grasses and so on. If some of the continuations of those natural materials, I know that the city has used boulder walls rather than Keystoning say for the water tower and where the natural glacier boulders are used. Something like that might be helpful. Also the color on the roof wasn't a big mass of black. A comment was made, maybe a gray and maybe still asphalt but maybe kind of a fake shaking creates, breaks up the light so you don't have this big mass of long — similar color going through it. But the rest of it, the brick, this is far nicer than anything I've seen in Minneapolis and we're talking 20 some stories there, many of them, and in your residential areas. So just because I say Minneapolis, it doesn't mean big city. We're talking — in South Minneapolis or even in the 40th Street areas you see these two bedroom ramblers going up and then you see a 23 story tower going up. I really think you've done a good job 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 here. On the parking lot area where the entrance is off of Kerber, is that going to be some sort of gravel roof or what? Mike Sepena: The top of the deck over the underground parking? Farmakes: Right. Mike Sepena: That would be, what we're thinking of is it would just be a concrete — patterning, concrete color...so it's more like. — Farmakes: So it's not for use. Mike Sepena: People can walk up there. And that garage entrance is 50 feet set back from _ the property line. So any cars driving out of there are going to be visible from 50 feet before they get to the property line and then of course there's a little more distance between the property line and Kerber Boulevard. — Farmakes: So you then would take the railing that you have going on on the back and place that then around that. I don't see that in the drawing here. — Mike Sepena: Yeah, we didn't show a railing but there would be something around there because people will be up there. — Farmakes: It would be nice if that were continued throughout the building. What you have going on in the back. The landscaping is nice. I think that the neighbors' concerns about the — traffic, I'd defer to the City Engineer and Public Safety on that issue. I walk several times a day up and down this road. I know going through Saddlebrook and going through New Horizon that I cross several streets going up towards downtown so I know in this particular — area there really isn't any streets for a better part of a block and a half. There is the two before you get to, well Byerly's also has a skip out there in the apartment buildings but I doubt whether that's going to be a higher or envisioned as a high traffic area at all. In fact — there's, they want to have fewer parking spots than what the city requires in the parking lot, and this is based on car usage. For instance the staff report on car usage that's been in a like facility. They have reduced the unit structure by a pretty significant amount. Almost 10%. — I've talked enough on this so I'd like to hear what other people... Mancino: Dave, do you have any public safety issues with the driveway access onto Kerber? I mean are there things that we should look out for? I know in the initial drawings there was a, on the south side, a retaining wall. Will that still be there when we go in 50 feet instead of — the 30? 28 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Hempel: It will be there proportionally but it will taper down to meeting the existing ground ...to the street. The trips generated from this type of development is far less than a rental unit or a townhome development...There's good sight visibility along Kerber Boulevard there. If there is a downfall, it's the northbound traffic...Kerber, is a down grading but it's not a very sever down grading. Less than 5%... I don't foresee it being a problem from a traffic safety standpoint. Pedestrian traffic... Mancino: And there will be stop signs coming out or prior to this sidewalk? Hempel: That's true in any case. Mancino: And that is also the access for all trash pick-up and any sort of work that's going to be done to the building? Hempel: I'll have to defer that to the architect. Mancino: Sharmin? Al-Jaff: Would you kindly repeat the question? Mancino: Sure. Is the trash pick-up done underneath again on the ground level? _ Al-Jaff: Yes. The building will be provided with garbage chutes. Each level will have it's own and then the dumpsters will be inside. The garbage truck will go inside the building and pick it up. Mancino: And what about other maintenance crews that come to the building? Will they also have access to the lower level or will that be? Al-Jaff: For example? Mancino: Fixing heating or electric. Aanenson: I would think they would probably come in the front door and check in. Mancino: Okay. So they will use one of those 14 spaces. Carol Crow: Can I just...with regards to the trash... Mancino: Ron, do you have any questions? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Nutting: Jeff s comments I think fairly summarize my thoughts also. The height issue is the issue of substance that I'm hearing. You've got an average of 44 or 46 on the peak. We're at — 42 on the other side. If this was not a PUD, it would be at a 40 foot height requirement. Where on a PUD you have the flexibility. I'm presuming that staff looked at that in terms of — the development of this site. Evaluated it. Did you come up with any options that made sense? This is what makes sense in terms of that site to mitigate the height any more in terms of the architecture? Al-Jaff: We looked at grading the site and again, we're going to have a problem with the underground parking if we grade it... One of the options is to go with a flat roof and if you look at all of Chanhassen, you have some type of architectural element to the roof and that has been one of the requirements of each building that has come to Chanhassen. So other than that, no there wasn't. — Nutting: Okay. I guess my thoughts on it, the difference for me is not substantial enough to, you know I wouldn't want to see a flat roof. I need to see the architectural break-up that we _ have and going from 40 to 44 or 46, given what we get here, which I think is, this is a nice looking project. The landscaping I guess is one issue I'm a little, looking at the maps and the renderings that we have. Did we not have a presentation just a little while back talking about — the additional landscaping that was going to be incorporated into this site? Am I mixing two different? It wasn't today. Al-Jaff: I believe the additional landscaping was on the project to the west. Those were Oak Pond Addition. Nutting: Okay. I guess the only thing that I would add from the landscaping side is to the extent that staff can work with the applicant in terms of putting something in that's not 3 feet today and will take 30 years to mature but to do something to get more of an initial screening — right off the bat but we're certainly not going to cover 40 feet of building but something to break up the building from the north side. I guess I don't have a problem with the driveway issue, as I listened to Dave's comments and what we have there. And the other issue, the — other big issue for me is the transition issue and distance. Being a transition. It's different if you're on a level site and if you're looking up and distance seems to disappear but we do have — the distance but then we also have what's allowed by ordinance and then we have the PUD and so I think it's unfortunate but I'm not convinced that I have enough information here to suggest that I can scrunch the building down to deal with the view from down below so. In general I'm in support of staffs recommendations. That's my comments. Mancino: Bob. 30 — _ Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Skubic: Yes, I have several comments. I agree with what Jeff and Ron have said and I think the idea of changing the color scheme of the roof, that that perceived height would benefit. — And also perhaps more landscaping on that back side might also act to create a perceived horizon which might also lower the building so I think it might be beneficial to put some trees in the back. Some taller trees. The Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan suggests transition -- zones between areas of high density and low density. As has been pointed out, there's not a real good transition zone here. The Comprehensive Plan also suggests that the City provide sufficient senior housing, and there appears to have been a great deal of effort put into — looking for a site for senior housing and that some of those have already been lost and if we don't move forward with this, perhaps this will pass also. — Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: Just maybe a question for staff. Dave. What would it do to the angle of the — underground entrance if you lowered the building? How steep is it right now and how steep would it become? — Hempel: This entrance is approximately about a 2% grade of the driveway. If you lower the unit...might be increased another half a percent... That type of direction, east exposure, the type of conditions we have here, I don't recommend exceeding the 2%. — Meyer: Okay. So we're right about the limit that you recommend then. We could maybe _ drop it a couple. Okay. And then my other comments are the landscaping too. I'd like to see if we could maybe add something to help break it up a little bit more and get some coverage in the wintertime also. Other than that, it is a nice looking building. I would have liked to have seen the materials that are used for the siding. An example, and I understand — you don't have those here tonight. It would have been nice to see that and it would also have been nice to see an elevation from the houses that are closest. I know the road takes a big dip but then comes back up elevation that you have the overlay on it. That's from a lot higher spot than I think than the neighbors that are closest to the building. I would have liked to have seen it from that angle but, I guess that's just a comment. Maybe something that the Council could have a chance to see before they make their decision. Mancino: Sharmin. Al-Jaff: The applicant did provide the materials at the neighborhood meeting and I believe it was an oversight on their part not to bring it today. The color was very similar to what you — see at the fire station. The color of the brick. It's definitely a shade darker than what you see behind you. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Meyer: Did I miss anything with the different elevations? Was there one from Canyon Curve? From the low point of Canyon Curve at the closest point. Was there? Okay. — Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: I think this is a great place for senior housing and I always knew we'd have some multiple units here that when you zone something R-12, you're going to get multi-floors. There's just no doubt so I think Planning Commission, at least I have always known there's going to be some height to anything that goes on this property. A couple questions, and some of it is hard for me to understand the underground parking visually. But I'd ask staff and Kate a question. Have we applied the same landscaping standards here? Have we asked them to do the same type of landscaping as we asked for the neighbors to the west? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Same? Because we kept piling on more trees and more trees. So what kind of _ standards have we. I don't think the renditions, the renderings, anything that I've been given today really speaks very well of a landscape plan that tries to deal with the height, to be very honest. What I've seen. Maybe that's not what's in print but what I've seen is, doesn't seem — to effectively deal with the height. Aanenson: Well, that's the issue right there. Based on the grades, no matter what you do, — because of the height, planting something now and to get it to grow, as the neighbors all attested to, it's going to be hard to get something to grow that fast. Conrad: And so our standard for a new planting would be a 6 foot tree in height? Al-Jaff: Unless you ask for. Conrad: Unless we ask for something more. Al-Jaff: Something more. Aanenson: And the other issue Ladd on that is what we looked at with the Oak Ponds, is that the neighbors didn't want a manicured lawn all the way down, as Sharmin indicated...We thought we'd put, recommend something like sumac. Something natural. Again going back — to what Jeff s comment with the boulder wall. Try to keep it a more natural feeling. Again, to kind of increase the sense of separation between the two. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad: And I buy that. But I also buy transition in height too. I don't buy a bush going to a 46 foot rise. Aanenson: No, no. That's what Sharmin indicated. There was additional trees in the back but what we're talking about is that other area that might be disturbed and go back and put some. Conrad: I like that. But again personally I don't, I'm just not convinced of the landscape plan on the north side, and maybe Nancy you can help me with that. You know more on our standards. And again when I'm applying our standards and precedence versus just, standards and precedence of what guide us here. The underground garage, I probably should have asked this earlier. Is there parking on top of that garage? There is no parking on top of the garage. Where, I'm just having a tough time relating to the underground and then what's. Carol Crow: This is the surface parking here. None of this is over the underground and this again relates to an issue. We have reviewed this with the Fire Marshal and this does meet his requirements. So this would be on ground. Conrad: Okay. So the pink is. Carol Crow: This is just the surface that we were discussing. This is the part, the surface parking here. Then the underground parking is this, there are no units on this side that are _ over parking. The units on this side, these are actually over the parking and then the parking comes out. Farmakes: And what is shaded? Conrad: So what's shaded? Farmakes: What's shaded brown there is the upper part. Carol Crow: This would be over, yeah. Over the parking area. Farmakes: Where they would walk and where the railing question appears. Conrad: So does that mean, so there's an elevation to that. Or is that flat? Is that the same elevation as the top parking? In other words where you can. Mancino: That brown. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad: The brown, is that the same elevation? Carol Crow: Yes. Conrad: It just so happens that there is underground parking below that but it is the same. Okay. My two issues, I think the setbacks, I probably could have compromised on the setbacks except, or at least one of them. Maybe not out to Kerber but I think the height is a bother to me. The height, we have a standard and you've got to rationalize and justify the — standard if you want to change it. And the standard is 40 feet. It's a case where, you know here's a case where we do have a standard in place, and you can slip it if you find real good — rationale. Now if this is project is going to go away, I'll slip that standard. In other words, if we won't get the senior center, I will slip that standard. But in this case, the 40 foot is our standard. It is on a hill. It is probably a good reason to maintain that standard. I don't know _ if I'm buying much by that 4 feet difference, or 6 feet. Whatever. That's my biggest problem right now. I really don't know what I'm buying, but I do know that I don't buy slipping this standard because of the situation that this is in. I feel real comfortable adhering to this zone _ standard. So again, I'm sort of in, I'm caught by maybe somebody who can be very persuasive or by staff or by the applicant that can say this project doesn't work any other way. Jeff, I think it is a nicely designed project and I think there's so many nice parts to it. It's just — that, I really have a problem with slipping a standard that makes sense, especially where this project is. So my two problems are, I have a problem dropping that standard and I do not quite understand our landscaping to cover up the north side very well in terms of trying to — solve a problem where we've spent a lot of time with previous applicants trying to screen a two story building and we probably haven't spent much time trying to screen a four story building. — Mancino: Well two things that I'm hearing about size that I'm concerned with too, and a real easy solution for the City Council and the HRA to think about is buy a little more land. — Conrad: Where? Mancino: Next to it. I mean that issue is gone. Al-Jaff: We don't have any additional land out there. — Mancino: But from the very beginning to lower the height, you can buy more land to put it on, and that may be gone now but secondly, about the landscaping. I think because this is a — PUD, that we may, the landscaping ordinance right now calls for 20% coniferous trees in this area and we could up that to 30%. And instead of a 7 foot average height, we could go for a — 9 foot average height. And for the deciduous overstory trees, instead of a 2 1/2 inch caliper 34 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 — average, go to a 3 1/2 average caliper and therefore you will get bigger trees. Taller trees to begin with in proportion to the building. That would help. What happens with overflow parking Sharmin? We have 14 spaces for guests. What about holiday times when, whether it's Christmas, someone's birthday, family reunion, where can people park in this area? Can they park on Kerber? Can they park on Santa Vera? Where can extra people go to park? Al-Jaff: Dave. — Hempel: Well on Kerber Boulevard we have limited parking I believe on north, I believe south side... One side I know has parking. — Mancino: So either the east or the west side on Kerber? Hempel: Either north or south. Oh, I'm sorry. Santa Vera. Santa Vera... Mancino: So they could on the south side. And what about Kerber? Is there any parking on Kerber? Hempel: No, there's no parking on Kerber. Mancino: Do you feel that that will take care of the overflow parking? I mean because there's bound to be times when there are going to be more than 14 people. Al-Jaff: I believe that if it was a problem, they could also park underground. _ Mancino: Because some of the residents may not have cars. They could also park in the Byerly's. Aanenson: City Hall. — Mancino: Or City Hall and come across if they want. I just wanted to make sure of that. Jane Kubitz: Can I say something about that Sharmin? Seniors are more apt to be going to their families rather than having their families... Mancino: Can you please come up and state your name. — Jane Kubitz: My name's Jane Kubitz. I'm on the commission. I said seniors are more apt to be going to their families than having their families come to them so there shouldn't be a parking problem. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Well, I just know in my family that we have, as a family have gone to visit. Jane Kubitz: But you're not... — Mancino: No, but I certainly have grandmothers and mothers that are so I'm sure that will happen. Any other discussion? Do I have a motion? Any motions? We can made friendly amendments. Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the preliminary plat to replat 2.2 acres from Oudot B and Block 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd _ Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th Addition, and Site Plan Review #95-3 for a 70 unit senior housing building as shown on plans dated March 20, 1995, and subject to the following conditions. 1 through 14. I'd like to add 15. That the applicant work with city _ staff to come up with natural retaining wall materials and roof surface material to reduce the mass of the roof line, i.e. lighter color. Perhaps asphalt shaking. Friendly amendment on the landscaping? — Mancino: Oh on 16 I'll make a friendly amendment that staff work with the applicant to revise a landscaping plan per my comments earlier about conifer trees. The average height _ being 9 feet and that deciduous trees being 3 1/2 inch caliper. Al-Jaff: Increase the canopy coverage to 30%, you also mentioned. — Mancino: What is it right now? Al-Jaff: 21. Mancino: 21? Yeah, I'd like to see it to 30. Thank you. — Farmakes: And 17. The railing on the, what are we going to call that? What is that surface. The raised surface. What do we call that? Al-Jaff: Top of the entryway into the underground parking. Farmakes: Utilize the same railing features that surround the building. That's it. — Mancino: Is there a second? Nutting: Second. _ 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 — Mancino: Any discussion? Fannakes moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval for — the preliminary plat to replat 2.2 acres from Oudot B and Block 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th Addition, and Site Plan Review #95-3 for a _ 70 unit senior housing building as shown on plans dated March 20, 1995, and subject to the following conditions: — 1. The senior housing building shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached renderings. Introduce some variation along the east and west elevations through the shape of windows and adding louvers. 2. Fire Marshal conditions: — a. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be deterred after revised site plans are submitted and reviewed. — b. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable. c. The driving surface over the below ground parking garage must be designed to support the weight regulations of the Fire Department aerial platform truck. Weight requirements are available from the Fire Marshal. — 3. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval detailed storm drainage — calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm event at 24 hour duration. Individual storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event between catch basin segments will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for relocating the existing landscaping and street lights and replacing any sidewalks impacted by the site construction. 5. The applicant shall provide a detailed erosion control plan in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall include rock construction — entrances, erosion control fences, and revegetation schedules. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the storm sewer improvements proposed with the site development. In addition, the plans shall maintain 7 1/2 feet of cover over the — watermain along Powers Boulevard. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 6. The driveway aisles should be increased to 20 foot wide, face to face of curb, with 20 foot radiuses. In addition, the driveway curb cuts will need to incorporate pedestrian — ramps to facilitate the existing sidewalks on Kerber Boulevard and Santa Vera Drive. 7. The storm drainage plan shall be revised to include storm drainage improvements for the — upper parking area. 8. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will need to be engineered per — building codes. 9. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland — ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. The applicant shall submit a letter to the City — documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. 10. Existing and proposed erosion control fence shall be shown on the grading plan. Type I — erosion control fence shall be employed along the west, east and south side of the site. Type III shall be maintained along the north side of the construction limits. All erosion control measures shall be maintained until the site is fully revegetated and removal is — authorized by the City. 11. Construction access to the site shall be limited to the proposed curb cuts. Rock — construction entrances shall be maintained until the driveways have been paved. 12. Park and trail, site plan and subdivision application, building permit, and sewer and — water connection fees be waived as this is a public project. 13. The applicant shall use a mix of native prairie grasses and shrubs such as sumac rather than sod along the northern slope. 14. The building shall be relocated to be consistent with the PUD compliance table: — Hard Surface Coverage 41.8% Setback From Collector 50 feet — Internal Public Street 30 feet External Property Line 30 feet Internal Private Streets NA Overall Density 9.6 units 38 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 — 15. That the applicant work with city staff to come up with natural retaining wall materials and roof surface material to reduce the mass of the roof line, i.e. lighter color. Perhaps asphalt shaking. — 16. Staff work with the applicant to revise a landscaping plan per my comments earlier _ about conifer trees. The average height being 9 feet and that deciduous bees being 3 1/2 inch caliper and increase the canopy coverage to 30%b -- 17. On top of the entryway into the underground parking utilize the same railing features that surround the building. — All voted in favor, except Conrad and Mancino who opposed, and the motion canied by a vote of 4 to 2. — Mancino: Ladd, would you like to give the rationale for the nay? Conrad: Madam Chairman, I think the standard of 40 feet in height should be maintained and — would hope that the City Council could look at that standard. Mancino: And the landscaping? Conrad: Huh? Mancino: And you also had addressed landscaping? Conrad: Landscaping I think you addressed in the motion. Mancino: Thank you. And this goes before City Council on May 8th. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVISION 2.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6660 POWERS BOULEVARD, GOLDEN GLOW ACRES, JAMES RAVIS. Public Present: Name Address _ James & Norma Ravis 6660 Powers Boulevard Bill Infanger 6740 Powers Boulevard Russell G. Kohman 6730 Powers Boulevard Bob & Lois Peterson 6650 Powers Boulevard Roy Anderson 6695 Mulberry Circle _ Ed Jannusch 6831 Utica Terrace Anita & Harry Murphy 1215 Lake Lucy Road Larry Kerber 6700 Powers Boulevard _ Shannin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners to staff? Thank you. Is the applicant here and would they like to make a presentation? Jim Ravis: I certainly think the staff. Mancino: Could you please state your name and address. Jim Ravis: Oh. My name is Jim Ravis. I live at 6660 Powers Boulevard. I'm the applicant. Staff certainly has looked at options. I don't necessarily agree that they're the best options. I think the major, key issue here is access. I'd like to...this is an aerial photograph of this property. As staff stated, I applied for access to this property through the Willow Ridge development, when that development, even before it submitted a preliminary plat. I tried to work with the city to gain access at that time. I believe the staff recommended that that access be granted. It was not. There are only a few ways you can gain access. The one _ through Willow Ridge is now blocked off. There's an access here between the Kohman and Infanger property and I'm sure that would make them extremely happy to work on that, although there may be an existing access there. The one that the city has proposed, I believe _ has all the same disadvantages as any other. One of the main points that staff made was they would lose less trees there. That is not true. You can see that there's a significant amount of mature trees in here. Those trees are now mature. There are other trees back here and at the _ public, there was a town meeting or whatever you would like to call it, where all the property 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 owners and that. The gentleman who owns this property, Mr. Kerber, said he had gone out and counted them and we would definitely lose more trees by going that way. The access I'm asking for is for here. At the time that I applied for access, at the time that Willow Ridge developed, I was told I had sufficient access on my own property. I was also told that that access would remove a significant number of trees that the city did not want to let go. This is a photograph that I took off of my deck last week. That was absolutely not true. You can see the trees that were there before Willow Ridge developed. All of those trees have been removed, so I really have a hard time understanding the logic that has been given to me over — the past 3 or 4 years. These are large lots. There are very few trees to be removed. I also have another two photographs. This is a photograph I took last week of Lots 3 and 4. You can see that those lots are not vegetated with a lot of trees. This is...and the other picture that I gave you, this photograph of Lot number 2 and you can also see that there's...I feel that at this point in time the only proper way to develop this property is through the private driveway. It does not preclude the staff or the other part of the development that they recommended from going in. It does not preclude these other properties to develop. There's an existing access over there. It could be, you also could convert private driveways to a U shape or semi-circular street...So I guess what I'm saying is that I feel...I was told that this was the proper access... I have provided the staff with a written response, or the Planning Commission and City Council with a written response to the staff report. I've also provided you with a letter from the engineering firm that is helping with this development. I think those are extremely pertinent to this situation and I'm not going to read them. It will only take you a few minutes to read those letters. I do have some significant concerns about the _ staff report. In three areas, the preservation zone. I think that recommendation was not well thought out because it's near the homes. Those trees need thinning. I provided a picture with a letter. Those canopies on those trees are already innerlinked significantly. If the trees are _ not thinned, the growth will be impeded. We will not get the majestic trees that we ought to have in residential areas. I also have a significant issue with the drainage. There was two recommendations in the report provided. Staff made one. Gave no reasons for it. I don't believe at this time, and I have not been asked prior to this, to provide a drainage plan or what they've said is necessarily feasible. I've discussed it with the engineering firm. We don't know if that's the right way to propose any drainage solution. This is a significant slope on these lots. We're trying to maintain that. If you read the DNR report, we've been asked to maintain that. We provided a significant buffer zone from the wetlands. I think a preservation agreement certainly is in order there, but I think that until we arrive at a drainage solution, we need to take a look at that and then do what's right. I have some other concerns in terms of building requirements which I have outlined in my letter to you. I feel we only ought to live with one requirement, not double requirements, and those are outlined. I think one of the things that I see that's, I believe the adjacent property owners may not agree to, is all the plans for the alternate plans provided by the staff, give you a maximum housing density. I don't think that that's necessarily appropriate for every development, and I'm sure 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 there's some property owners here tonight adjacent who may give you the same answer. What we're doing here and what we proposed I think fits in with the topology of the land and — I guess what I'd like to ask is you approve the preliminary plat and I'll be happy to work with staff to try to resolve these issues on preservation zones, drainage and building requirements. Thank you. — Mancino: Does the commission have any questions for Mr. Ravis? Thank you. Sharmin, have you had time to read through the Ravis' letter? — Al-Jaff: One of them, yes. The Ravis' letter, yes I have. But the engineer's letter that was submitted just before the meeting, no I haven't. Jim Ravis: I apologize for that but even though my application has been here since November, I did not...until Friday...so he could not provide a response until today. Mancino: Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Farmakes moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public healing was opened. _ Mancino: This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to speak on this issue? Bill Infanger: Yes I would. I'm Bill Infanger, 6740 Powers. I'm one of the two properties most affected by this development and I concur with the city planner. If Mr. Ravis goes ahead as he plans to go ahead with this, I'm simply shut off because...local access to County — Road 17, which I doubt that the County's going to approve. In addition...which I would do for the same reasons Mr. Ravis wants to do it. Mainly to profit from it. I'd move elsewhere. Concern about the condition of the area. So am I. I'd move elsewhere in Chanhassen where it was conducive but his plan essentially says, we'll make it more congested and I'll leave at my expense and I believe at the expense of the owner next to me. So it's certainly not in my interest, and I basically concur with the city planner. — Mancino: Thank you. Bill Infanger: Thank you. Russ Kohman: I'm the neighbor next door to him. I live at 6730 Powers Boulevard and. Mancino: And your name please. 42 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Russ Kohman: Russ Kohman. Mancino: Thank you. Russ Kohman: And I've got several pine trees that sit right on the property line, right on the edge. Yeah. Where he plans on putting the private road in and if he puts the road in through the edge, the pine trees will come down because they will not withstand it. You know if you cut to their roots, eventually they'll die and I can't afford to...I bought the land, I'm a single guy and I bought the land because I wanted to be left alone. I want to live that way. And the same as my neighbors. He bought his house. He's got a big house and a large family and he wants to be left alone. And this is, we didn't really want people building around us or right on top of us. And we didn't want no, another right-of-way coming in the back way. Or coming along side my property, reducing the value of my land and this would throw more taxes towards...eventually. Not right away. But eventually we would... Mancino: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Robert Peterson: My name's Robert Peterson. I live at 6650 Powers Boulevard, which is the property just to the north of Mr. Ravis. I'm not here to speak against their development. I'm for it. They've been good neighbors and I don't have any problem with them developing that property. I'd like to offer some suggestions however that would benefit both of us. But first, let me see if I understand Sharmin. Al-Jaff: Sharmin. Robert Peterson: I don't know if you, did you get the impression that most of us at that meeting favored this plat? Al-Jaff: No. I said there wasn't a plan that was favored by everybody. Robert Peterson: Oh, okay. I didn't hear it well, sorry. Because most of us at that meeting didn't favor that plan. My suggestion, I went back to two. Can I go over there and point? Mancino: Yes. Robert Peterson: The person that builds a house on this lot, well first of all when we moved in here a long time ago, the house was oriented towards the views. The major view which is this way towards the wetland and towards Lake Lucy, you can see sometimes. Now anybody building a house here blocks that view. I understand how that can happen. I feel that the Ravis' could re-locate these two lines, forcing this person to build farther to the south. That 43 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 would help me some but it would do something for the Ravis property. Right on this line here is where the grades starts to drop down quite a bit. If that line were moved to the south, — this property would become a walkout lot which is more valuable than, otherwise it's flat. It takes a little property away from the other two but they're still well above the minimum. They're still about 20,000 feet...I'd like to see if this plat goes ahead to discuss forcing this — person here to build at least 55 feet away from that line. Naturally I'm selfish but that's my interest so I can maintain that view without looking at that edge of this house here as much. And actually...the view. Second part of this is, it's unusual to have the back of a house facing — the front of a house. That's pretty unusual. We have the same situation here too. I just have some suggestions on the layout here to be considered that would help my property and the Ravis property. That was my major concern is the view of my house. Thank you. — Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? — Larry Kerber: My name's Larry Kerber. I own the property directly north, 6700 Powers Boulevard. The largest piece. Also the piece they have the whole road proposed on. I have _ no intention of giving up a half acre of my land so people behind me, to the south of me can develop. It also turns all my property around from the way it lays naturally. I have all walkouts now to the west. That road would turn everything around. It would also take out — about 180 of my trees that were planted on the west side of my property. So I'm sure there's a solution for this but I don't think we've maybe looked at all the options. I definitely don't, yeah this one gives me 9 lots. 9 little slivered lots that are totally reversed from the way I — think they should be and the way the land lays but I'm sure there's a solution but I am not in favor of this one here. But I do think Mr. Ravis should be allowed to develop. At some point he bought his place. I know he bought additional property 5 years ago, I'm sure to — develop. He bought out the back of the two lots, or one of the lots of the people who were just up here. At some point he did a subdivision to get that property of his and again when Lundgren came in, they told him he could develop without access through there so I feel — there's an ordinance in the city for four houses to a private driveway. I don't know if he meets all the conditions but I think he should be allowed to develop without me developing. I don't know why I should, why this development should be contingent on me and Bob — Peterson and everyone else splitting their lots up even if they don't want to. So I think he should develop as long as his plan is legal and meets all the specs of the city. Mancino: Thank you. Hempel: Madam Chairperson, maybe I could address a couple of points here that are coming — out of public comment. First of all staff did go through and develop all the documents for developing the neighborhood. One of the major concerns we had was access onto Powers Boulevard. That is an arterial street. It's a County Road. It's not, they have jurisdiction with — 44 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 — regards to access points. As Mr. Kerber has indicated, he didn't want to see his property develop in this fashion because it changes the lots Mr. Kerber has envisioned and developing his access points off of Powers Boulevard. I don't believe that will be allowed through the County. ...to look at at trying to group neighborhoods as a whole to make it work from a public street standpoint. To include public improvements. Sewer and water, storm sewer and yet give some flexibility on these parcels when it comes to developing it...all that coming at once in order for this to work. On the other hand we didn't want to see each individual property owner coming in with a private driveway proposal out onto Powers Boulevard. Mancino: So with what we're seeing as Option E, the chain of events, which one does have to come in first? Hempel: The neighborhood puts together to petition the city to do a 429 project which is an assessable project, then it would be in the hands of the City Council to determine whether — they want to proceed with conducting the feasibility study and then ordering the improvement at that point. It would probably take close to 50% of the benefitting property owners. Mancino: To do that, thank you. Mr. Kohman, you wanted to come up? Thank you. Russ Kohman: I'm not too good on words. Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else? Robert Peterson: As it relates to most of us that have about an acre maybe, or right at that, that are left over, except for Larry Kerber, we could get one more lot out of our property and _ it would work fine. I've gone through the numbers and I don't know if the rest of them have but you take your acre...cut it in half, pay for a city road, pay for the sewer and the assessments and the development and all of that, there's no profit to be had in making one more lot out of your property. Believe me there isn't. I can show you the numbers. There's — no big advantage for me to cut my ground in half, and I bet everybody else would say the same thing. To get one more lot. It doesn't work. I'm talking about a selling price of $55,000.00 to $60,000.00 on a lot. — Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Bill Infanger: Just one clarification. I don't necessarily oppose Mr. Ravis' development. I just oppose his development if it cuts me off from doing exactly the same thing. Mr. — Peterson's comments are apropos. We've also gone through a cost analysis to see if in fact it could be profitable and the answer might be, no. Not right now, but maybe later on. What I 45 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 don't want is a situation where because of what happens now, I can't develop later on. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heating was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Ron. Nutting: This one's messy. At this point I am in support of staffs recommendation to deny. I'm not in any position to develop or to lay this thing out property. There needs to be more work done. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the development because we're not — talking about moving this one forward. I'm not sure what can be done. Any time you have this many property owners in a competing interest, you're either at each other's throats or you come to some accommodation that isn't going to work for everybody. So I guess I'm, at this — point I think there needs to be some more interaction between staff and the developer as well as continued communications to see if we can come up with something that makes this work. I guess Dave's comments sway me a bit in terms of the access onto Powers. Diane's not here — anymore but I'm echoing Diane's comments from the past. From a public safety perspective and the private drives. I think this is a real problem area for future development so that's all I have right now. — Mancino: Thanks. Ladd. Conrad: It's the Planning Commission's job to make sure that areas develop properly. It's the planning staffs job to do that likewise. The plan before us tonight does not do that. It just doesn't and because it doesn't, and because it forces individual development which is really not what we're about, I think this has to be turned down. This is not, the design in front of us, and I'm not talking about Option A thru E. There may be others. But what we see tonight is not the solution, and what we see tonight is not the way we can really develop one — parcel at the expense of others. It's poor planning. Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. — Farmakes: Nothing to add. No comments. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: No comments. 46 — _ Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Bob. — Skubic: I agree with what Ron and Ladd have said. Mancino: Thank you. Do I have a motion? Nutting: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-22, for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as — shown in the plans dated November 18, 1994 for the reasons as outlined in the staff report. Conrad: Second. Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-22, for Golden Glow Acnes for 4 single family lots as — shown in the plans dated November 18, 1994 for the reasons as outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 52 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, HARSTAD COMPANIES. Public Present: Name Address Bill Munig 6850 Stratford Blvd. — Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road — Keith Bedford 3961 Stratford Ridge Janet Carlson 4141 Kings Road Margie Borris 4071 Kings Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. — Mancino: Any questions for staff? 47 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad: Kate, on page 11 of the staff report. Starting halfway down. Those two paragraphs unfortunately, and then the next one saying Harstad. Maybe I read those out of context but I — couldn't tell, it sort of sounded like you were saying some negative things but I think you've solved them, but I don't know. What do those two paragraphs mean? Aanenson: Can I be perfectly honest with you? I was at a conference when this was prepared and two reports got pulled in here and it's very ambiguous, and I'm not sure what it _ means either. It was a later date. I know what, and the applicant is aware what we've negotiated and that is an 8 acre plus park. They are obligated to dedicate a portion of that. The City will be, we've agreed on a price, purchasing the rest of that and my understanding — as far as the trail fees is that they will be as per city ordinance at the rate in force. I'm not sure how the rest of that got pulled into that report and I apologize. Mancino: My only other question is, the woodland management plan. I just want to make sure in preparation for the tree preservation ordinance that we have, that streetscape is not included in that percentage of canopy coverage. — Aanenson: We've always included it. Mancino: Have you always included it? Aanenson: Yes. Yes. — Mancino: Well that was one of the, towards the end of the task force is, you know if a parcel like this had two collectors, etc, then all of the trees would be on the streetscape and not — inside the development so we wanted to make sure that that did not happen. A portion of it could be used as streetscape but if you could go back and look at that with the applicant. Aanenson: Sure. I think we did put in here too, if you go back into the text of the report, we did put 2 trees per lot is one of the things we're recommending. If you don't do the, on the page here. Page 4. What we're requiring. A minimum of 112 trees be required for — replacement and 2 trees per lot should be required. Mancino: But, just so you know, that the intent of the tree preservation ordinance wasn't to use that percentage of canopy coverage in streetscape but within the interior of the subdivisions. Aanenson: I think in this one, I think we have sufficient that with the streetscape, we're still seeing a 112 trees. Dividing those out, 2 trees per lot. I think that we still have quite a bit of _ replacement, not just in streetscape. 48 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Did the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Paul Harstad: Madam Chairman, Commissioners and staff. My name is Paul Harstad of Harstad Companies. Nice to see you again. I think we all hope that this is the last time that we're before this body for this project, and I guess I'd like to address just a few of the issues in the staff report. For the most part there's no question in my mind that we've made very significant progress and we're very hopeful that things will get approved. Certainly at least that they'll get voted on tonight and that we'll be able to construct the project yet this year. One question, if I may ask staff. Kate, off the top of my head, when was the Woodland Management Plan put into effect? Or if someone could tell me. Aanenson: When you came through on your first plat that was, that condition was still there when you did your tree survey so that's been a requirement with the original plat that came through. Paul Harstad: So the Woodland Management Plan was a requirement of the original plat, one year ago? Aanenson: Correct. Paul Harstad: Okay. Alright. As far as the wetlands go, in fact we have already had a professional delineator come out there. I certainly thought that the city received this letter but perhaps they didn't and I can give you a copy of it right now. It's from the firm called Sound Enviro Solutions and it was done last year. So I hope that will help clarify the wetlands issue. Another issue is access to the ponds. Recommendation number 1 on page _ 15. I don't think this is a real big issue but it relates to the ponding. Halfway through item number 1 on page 15, under recommendations it says, maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. That certainly makes sense. I certainly understand why the city would require that. The largest pond is going to be essentially on the border between the park and those lots. The lots that are the farther east. So the westerly most portion of the park and easterly most portion of the lots. I guess it's our request, if it's not unreasonable, that access be through the city park. Mancino: Dave, can you speak to that? Or do you feel comfortable making a decision on the spot? Hempel: I can address that... As Mr. Harstad indicated, the pond is located in that vicinity. There's also additional storm sewer lines that go along the common property line which will have to be, may have to be maintained in the future as well. That's why the condition's kind of put in. As far as accessing the pond, you could go through the park property. We have to 49 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 get some discharge points where the pipes outlet into the pond. Those will be over to the side of the park so maybe it's just as easy to go through between the houses versus going all the way around the park property than going through a couple of properties to get to that same point. So that's why the condition's in there. Paul Harstad: Fair enough. If there's a storm water pipe that runs between lots or what not, obviously we would provide that easement. That's really not a big issue. A larger issue is item number, let me be sure here. Number 17. On page 17. I'll read it for the public record. — The lift station shall be designed to accommodate future development south of Kings Road, approximately 10 acres, and the City's telemetry system. The City will be responsible for up to a maximum of 50% of the cost of the telemetry system. I've had conversations with staff and in fact today on the telephone with the City Manager, Mr. Ashworth, regarding this clause and I want to refer back to some written correspondence on three different occasions _ letters from Harstad Companies dated February 14th, March 7th and again April 5, all of 1995. I think we made it expressly clear that Harstad Companies does not intend to pay for any improvements upon the plat which benefit properties not on the plat. I don't think that — there's anything unreasonable about that. We're more than happy to build and pay for lift stations that serve only our property. Now I also told Mr. Ashworth today on the phone that if we're talking about a small dollar amount, and I guess I wasn't necessarily prepared to say — what that is but, if we were talking about a small dollar amount, we would not intend to rock the boat. In the meantime he asked me that I do a little more research to determine how much additional cost we're talking about, and I spoke with our engineer, who's opinion I have — a lot of confidence in, and he told me that adding capacity to this lift station to serve an additional 10 acres would more or less double the size of the lift station, because as I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Hempel but as I understand it, it's currently — serving about 17 lots and odds are pretty good that if it were to serve an additional 10 acres, that means it would serve an additional, conservatively an additional 20 lots. Okay. So a conservative estimate would suggest that we're going to double the capacity of that lift station. — In addition to that, that would add the cost of more grinder pumps, and it might also mean that the forcemain pipeline would go from, I believe it's currently 2 inches, without having done a lot of research, our engineer thought it might very well go to 4 inches. The point of this is that his conservative estimate is that that would add approximately $40,000.00 to the cost of the lift station. Now that's by no means a real accurate number but it is on the conservative side. And when I spoke with staff and Mr. Ashworth today about, forgetting — about it if it's not a significant number, I meant it. But $20,000.00 or more is definitely a significant number and we do not intend to pay for additional capacity to a lift station. I can't imagine how that could be considered unreasonable or why the staff would even think that — we'd be willing to do that after detailed written correspondence. The fourth and final item that I have to talk about is simply to clarify some wording, so at this point I'd like to turn to page 11, item number 3 of the staff report. This may or may not be considered controversial. 50 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 It's just that we want to be sure that the wording is understood. These improvements generally, well you can read but I'd better read it out loud for the public record. In assuming — ownership of the park, the City would accept the responsibility for it's portion of public improvements. These improvements generally include street and curb construction and utility costs, (sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer). More specifically the city would pay for it's — half of the street and associated curb, a water and sewer unit to accommodate any future hook-up, and storm water costs. Now depending on how you read that, that could say two things. For the sake of clarity I would like to suggest that that be read to more or less follow — the reasoning in a letter that we had sent to the City dated March 7th, where I'll read it out loud. First page, item number 2. The city, these are points that we sent to the city. Asked them to confirm or contest. This paragraph reads. The City agrees to pay for 50% of the — cost of constructing that portion of Kings Road and it's underlying improvements which abut the proposed park as shown on the concept plan. These improvements include grading all phases of street construction, including curb, and all sanitary sewer and watermain — improvements. It goes on from there but that's jest of it. Now the whole reason that we've been here for 2 years, in addition to the previous developer having been here for a year, is because the City has to understand that locating that park in the southeast quadrant of the — project costs the developer a lot of money. Now perhaps you recall the last plat we submitted which you denied, where the park was shown over on the southwest portion of the property, and you had that odd curve to Kings Road. Well that was to relay a point. It wasn't so we — could spend an extra $5,000.00 on engineering plans. It was to get across the point to the City that if the park is on the east side, there are significantly more costs incurred. If the _ park were located over on the southwest side of the project, the developer probably could not be held responsible for constructing the curb and street to serve a park on the southwest side. Nor would there be any need whatsoever for watermain and sewer to serve that park, unless it was one little hook-up. But if the city wants the park on the southeast portion of the project, — then they have to share the cost of Kings Road and the underlying improvements. Now I think that staff and the developer are in agreement with that but I raise this point now to make that issue very clear. — Mancino: Thank you. Paul Harstad: If there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them. — Mancino: Any questions? Any comments? Thank you very much. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing. — Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heating was opened. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: It's now open for a public hearing. Those who wish to speak, please do so. One at a time. — Sue Morgan: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road, and I was kind of excited to be here tonight. Excited to pick up my plat. I guess — we're part of the reservation, and I guess...In general I'm very excited about the plat. I think that the city and Harstad's have accomplished a lot in the last 2 years. It's nice to see that the park's on...Minnewashta Parkway...there's one area that raises a concern for us as property — owners along Kings Road and that is that we now have storm water runoff running through our property. Back in May of '94, I sent a letter to Kate, City Council members, the Commission and also to Harstad in regards to our concern for the drainage from the north of — Kings Road running across our property into Lake St. Joe. At that time, being as naive as I was, I expected some guarantee that that would never happen but I've learned that there are no guarantees in life. But I also did not receive a response to this letter. So in my mind this — was a moot point. It wasn't an issue. Back in June, June 15, '94, it's the white pages on there. These are copies of conversations I had with Mr. Hempel. I think...regards to drainage from the pond that's going to be established north of Kings Road and there is going to be — runoff the west...towards the east and under Kings Road and going through Outlot A. And I think that the third page of that...I had starred. Hempel, that will eliminate your current — drainage situation that you have right through your property. Sue Morgan. Okay, so that will be closed off prior to construction and Mr. Hempel... So in my mind I guess we would not have any runoff across our property. Now...plat, if you look at your drainage, in the staff — report on page 6. Second paragraph. If the adjacent property owners on the south side of Kings Road, (Morgan/Scott) are willing to grant the City a drainage and utility easement, the City will grant the applicant, which is Harstad, to install the storm sewer from Kings Road — down to Lake St. Joe. If the City is not granted a drainage and utility easement, then the pond will have to be enlarged. The water quality pond will be required to maintain a pre- developed runoff rate on site for a 100 year event. This means the runoff will continue to — drain underneath Kings Road, through the Morgan/Scott parcel to Lake St. Joe as it exists with pre-development conditions. So basically in my mind what this says is that, come hell or high water, they're putting drainage across my property, whether or not we give them an — easement or not. Right now if you travel down Kings Road there is drainage from a field that's been vacant for 10 years and we have this little creek that trickles down. We put a walkway across it and we have a path through the woods and that wetland is not a problem — for us. The wildlife comes through there...and we have no problem with that. You put 52 homes on the north side of Kings Road, sure there will be a storm water pond which will hold the runoff but there hasn't been any proof yet that the drainage from those ponds is free — of chemicals. Free of salt. Free of whatever. In our minds this is going to devalue our property. If you look at the grading sheet as a part of the packet I gave you, it shows you approximately the area in which that drainage will flow. Right now our lot is...if we ever — 52 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 decided to subdivide. We would then have a city easement down the middle of our property and we would not be able to build. Towards the back of the packet that I gave you, there's a letter, August 17th from our attorney to the city, Kate Aanenson. This letter was originally intended to...right-of-way or easement along Kings Road with it being encroached by the city. We were afraid that our trees were going to be taken along the road. This road is going to be put in or developed so we had our attorney look into it. And this does, this statement in this letter does also cover the easement, or it means seeking of an easement for that drainage project on here. And if the city, we would like it if the city would approach us directly rather than kind of...and come to us directly and we could discuss this. The last page, the blue page of the packet...to the City of Chanhassen and probably to Mr. Harstad. That we would be interested in discussing this easement. I'm not real excited about it but I know that compromises have to be made along the way and we're willing to compromise...but I would like to do it on a one to one and... Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Margie Borris: My name is Margie Borris. I live at 4071 Kings Road. My property is the one just as the road goes into the development. Just to the west of that and there is where the row of 10 mature red cedar trees are. I'm glad to hear that we're trying to address that, what they're going to do with those trees because it does take many, many years for them to grow a foot, much less to the height where they are. Also in the park property, there are two existing cedar trees that are over 100 years old. I don't know what you can do with those but I hope you can find something. Mr. Harstad was also talking about having to pay some nominal fees for some things. On some very, I did some number crunching before I came here. It was my understanding from previous conversations that the minimum lots would be _ running around $85,000.00. If you take 47 lots by the minimum amount of dollars, you're talking $4 million, less $5,000.00. If you take 42 lots at that, then you're going over to $4,420,000.00. If he's going to put houses on those and if you take oh say 40 of the houses at $225,000.00, which is pretty average for that neighborhood and sell them at $325,000.00, we're talking thousands. We're looking at between $11 million and $13 million. For him to worry about $20,000.00 for some little...pipes or whatever, seems a little bit nominal to me. Okay. I was not sure on that little plat that you showed before, how far exactly we're developing Kings Road. Were you developing it to the intersection? Past the intersection? Where were you developing it to? Aanenson: It tapers down after that first lot past. It's pretty much to. Margie Borris: Then that's where those cedar trees are and that's also where our driveway is and our entrance onto that. Yes I'm considerably interested in why nobody has addressed any of the owners of Kings Road as to our easements that we have given to the people that live 53 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 along Kings Road and to the people of Victoria that live on Kings Road also. It has never been, I don't have a copy of this report. It has never been clarified how people who live on — Kings Road during this development are going to be able to access their homes. How are they going to access, you know what's it going to do to the utilities. We have underground electrical that goes across Kings Road. Now something's going to happen to our electrical — somewhere along the line. Nobody's told us what we're going to do. Are we going to be out of electricity for a day, two weeks, what? How are you going to get from our property to where we're going to have to leave our cars because we can't drive on this road? We have — several very ill, elderly people that live along Kings Road in the curve area of Victoria. My mom, who is hopefully going to go into the senior development, so she won't have to walk so far, but there are these little other things that have not really been explained to the rest of us. — It took a lot longer to get Minnewashta Parkway done than it was anticipated so we don't even have any ideas...inconveniences are going to be going. Yes, there is probably no way to get past this development. I wish the park were at that 10 acres instead of the 8 acres it's now down to, and I understand the developer wanting to develop that front part because it's much more valuable for him to sell. Irregardless that it's much more logical as a park. Quick easy access if we have the front there. Again the easement. Again the trees and I'm sorry, I think as nice a gentleman as he is, he can afford to absorb a lot more of these costs than he's coming across with. And also, it's going to be in 3 years he'll be able to develop those other — lots, as I understand it, which means they're what? Going to make Kings Road bigger through there and add sewer and water down that section or does the sewer and water stop at that intersection? — Mancino: I'm going to have Mr. Hempel answer a lot of your questions. Hempel: With regards to the sewer service to Kings Road, west of Country Oaks Road, which is the intersection proposed there. That would not be installed until the developer wishes to proceed with Phase H or the neighbors petition the city to do a project for it. Mr. — Carlson sells his property some day or wishes to, it's going to take a combination. It's going to take at least one or a combination of things to happen...without that road being upgraded to a full city street and utilities extended... — Margie Borris: But he was talking about this 10 acre potential development that may adjoin, I wasn't sure what that was to mean. — Hempel: What staff has to look to the future for, is potentially another 10 acres, based on aerial maps...serviced by the sewer line so we have to size the utilities for the ultimate service — for that area. So we project about another 10 acres, potentially could develop out there some day. 54 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Margie Borris: Well I can take 2 of those acres right off because we have 2 acres and you tried to...we have absolutely no intention of it. One of those private drives to get to it, that we talked about earlier tonight. Hempel: We understand that but we have to...in case you have to leave the property some day for whatever reason...Somebody some day in the future may decide to. Moving onto a couple of the other points with regards to the cedar trees. I believe the new roadway, Kings Road...developer, actually the outside to just utilize a part of the existing Kings Road. The grades from Kings Road have been matched very closely so it's not going to require additional grading outside of your property. Margie Borris: I'm talking about right across where according to some of the papers I have, I do own, it's just according to the newest survey. Every time there's a new survey we lose some property. We've lost 16, or 8 feet on one side of us. 9 feet on another side of us and now we're losing 33 feet on the front of us. So every time there's a survey, I lose land without having to, but my taxes don't change. In fact they go up, you know. That's what I'm saying is there's been no communication. I thought they were my trees. I started cleaning out underneath them and taking care of them since 1986, because I thought they were my trees. According to my survey, that's what it showed, etc. According to the latest refinancing in 1993, it shows my easement from the front I think is 33 feet. According to this survey it says something like 10 or 12. Mancino: I have a feeling that you should be coming into the City Hall and talking with Kate, etc, with your survey in hand. Margie Borris: I'll again have to do it anyway. Mancino: That would be a good idea. Dave logistically, as far as Kings Road, when that's under construction, how do the current homeowners, property owners get in and out? Electricity? Hempel: Sure. Unfortunately the Minnewashta Parkway residents have had a bad experiences out there over the last 2 years with that upgrade of Minnewashta Parkway. This project is not anywhere to the scale of that project. Most likely there would be temporary access roads provided. We get into those type of details more as we get closer to final plat but the actual construction of the street...provide an alternative access road... Margie Borris: And the trees that I was referring to, the 10 trees, of cedar trees that were private property, are on the north side of the building before you get to the fence. Because we thought was the property line all these years. So those were the trees to be moved. I also 55 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 know, because of the type of soil that it takes to grow them in, it needs to be something similar to what it is. Pretty clayish. I have no idea. I'm sure you're going to have to grade — something there...certain requirements. And the University of Minnesota has been very informative on... Mancino: Thank you. Margie Borris: That's it. — Mancino: Did you get all your questions answered? Margie Borris: Except for the easements...said he's going to talk to us. What's going to be done about that, etc. Janet Carlson: Hi. I'm Janet Carlson and I live at 4141 Kings Road. I guess hearing some things tonight kind of make me wonder what they're going to force us to do. In 3 years time you want to develop the rest of that, is this what you're saying? Hempel: No, point of clarification. We've given a timeframe for the developer to subdivide those lots into a number of lots, in his preliminary plat. After that time if the zoning laws change and requires larger lots or whatever, he has to. Janet Carlson: Okay. So you're not going to make us pay...That's all I wanted to make sure. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? _ Linda Scott: Hi. I'm Linda Scott. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I think that the plan that is here is a good plan. We have, Sue and I have been in here several times and spoke our _ thoughts on the project and I guess I want to clarify with everybody here, or find out if it's true or not, with the things that we have resolved in the past are still resolved with this new plat. We did some extensive discussions about our trees. Cedar trees on the north side of our — property, which are on Kings Road, and my understanding at this point is that they would be outside of the silt fence, so that they would be protected. I hope I'm understanding that correctly. — Mancino: Is that correct Dave? Hempel: I don't have a grading plan in front of me. 56 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Aanenson: That was our understanding when Loucks did it before. The gentleman that did the original design work and had a meeting out there in the neighborhood and staked. We all — physically looked at the trees appeared on that side. That is certainly I think, as Dave indicated when we get to that level of detail, I think there needs to be a meeting out there. The concern still seems to me, is how do we save the root zone. That's what, I think you — hadn't quite resolved that yet because we were digging, the trench was so deep. We were concerned about, the trees did fall on your property but what was the risk during construction and how can we mitigate that and I think that's something that we're still working to make -- sure that good construction techniques are used and I think Dave had indicated that during the creek construction, that those are issues we try to work through. But my understanding is that, based on where the stakes that Loucks had put out there, that yes. The trees were on — your property. Mancino: And we also could make it as a condition that once the grading for the Kings Road — has been clarified, final, etc, that there is a meeting with the city and the neighbors on Kings Road to go over that and to let them know exactly where the grading will be. Where silt fences will go up, etc. Aanenson: How they get access during the construction period, sure. — Mancino: To have a neighborhood meeting. Linda Scott: Also another issue, what I think I'm understanding is at this point that the cost _ for the road is being shared by the city and the developer and that at this point it's not proposed to be an assessed project. Hempel: That's correct. Linda Scott: And then of course my selfish interest has to do with the proposal and the — easement through the property. As Sue mentioned, we are willing to discuss it. We would like to discuss it one on one and to us it was kind of a shock in the staff report because our understanding had been that it would be routed through Outlot A and now that has changed, and I have concerns as to what that will do. Not that we are planning to subdivide our property but we do have 8 acres and at some point in time, if it's likely to happen, I'm not — sure what that easement does to the amount of lots that our property can be subdivided to. It could have a significant impact as far as we're concerned so we'd certainly like to keep that in mind ourselves. Aanenson: Can we just make a clarification on that too. I think Dave pointed out in his staff report, that was an option. I mean we're not telling you you have to do that. Dave's 57 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 indicated that they have an option. It's the developer's obligation to resolve this problem so we've pointed out the two options. — Hempel: Let we show on the overhead why my thoughts have changed from the original concept. Minnewashta Parkway, when that gets upgraded, will have some storm sewer in it. — However. Or I'm sorry, Kings Road. Thank you. This pond also...for a majority of the development from going into the storm ponds. The storm pond that would treat that water for nutrients, sediments and, to pipe it into Kings Road, all the way back down to this location — involves probably anywhere from $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 worth of storm sewer. On top of that, this water from Kings Road will still have to be pre-treated before it discharges into Lake St. Joe. What that involved is creating a larger, and another water quality treatment down by Lake St. Joe adjacent to it's wetland. And since this is the natural runoff as it currently exists today, through the Morgan/Scott parcel and down to Lake St. Joe, we felt that that option, or that condition should remain or another option would be to pipe it all to the water's edge and eliminate the current drainage ditch through the parcel. There's two options there. This area here, we are limited in how much room to build that water quality pond. If we're just treating the water from Kings Road, that little bit from the park, that pond can be very small. But we have to include additional runoff from this pond will be significantly larger. Mancino: If you pipe it down to the Lake St. Joe, through the easement that they would grant, you would have to clear through there. Put a big pipe in and then it would. — Hempel: Small pipe through. About a 12 or 15 inch pipe only. Clear a path of 15 feet, maybe 20 at the most. Small pieces of equipment to do that, and restore that area... Margie Borris: A question....this one here? This is the tiles. Now when they come in there and start excavating, is that going to tear up this tile? — Hempel: Yes it will. The tiles that currently drain across Kings Road to Lake St. Joe. Margie Borris: Yeah. Hempel: The pond and new storm sewer system that's incorporated with this development — will do the same thing as that drain tile. Sue Morgan: But it will be carrying with it runoff from 52 houses. Hempel: Not 52. Maybe 30. Some of the runoff from these yards go towards Victoria to this wetland area here. — 58 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Sue Morgan: So it will carrying with it, runoff of fertilizers, pesticides, things like that. Hempel: Similar if the property would have been an agricultural use. Sue Morgan: But is hasn't been for many years. Margie Borris: What has happened is all the animal life has migrated this way to this little waterway, to this little, and there's a little tree area down here right before you get to the lake and honest to God, I kid you not, we've got deer in our yard all the time now because there's no longer, everything's pushing this way. Once you start coming in here with this, what is it going to do to them again. Plus their property. Hempel: This storm sewer line down through the property to St. Joe should have no affect on wildlife migration. It will be covered up and revegetated. Margie Borris: Yeah while they're tearing it... Hempel: Initially...regrowth. Revegetating. Mancino: Thank you. Thank you Dave. Linda Scott: As I mentioned, we are willing to negotiate on this item. We don't feel very well educated about it at this point in terms of what it would do for the value of our property one way or the other. And if it only costs $15,000.00 plus something different with a pond to change it, that may not be a significant amount compared to what it might do to our property. Anyways, those are my comments. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Daniel: Hi. My name is Daniel...and I'm legal counsel for Harstad Companies. I guess I just wanted to point out, I think both sides have come a long ways on this. I wasn't involved for the whole two years but I think they've finally come to a resolution which I think accommodates everybody's grounds. There's always fine points that have to be tuned up as things go into the final plat, etc. I think the key part of it is the Outlot B where I think it's my understanding is the 3 years and Harstad Companies is fine with that. They'll develop that into 7 lots I think is what's anticipated. And the only other comment that I would make is just briefly on this lift station issue again. It's $20,000.00 and I don't think Harstad's are going to make $11 million off this property. Nowhere near that. But beyond that, it just doesn't make sense to have them expend $20,000.00-$30,000.00 for something which may 59 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 come and which, if it does, it's somebody else's benefit and I think it's properly assessable to them if that other 10 acres or 8 acres develops, that's where this cost belongs. — Mancino: Thank you. Dave. Hempel: Madam Chairperson, I can address that. I meant to get up when Mr. Harstad was up here but, Mr. Harstad can certainly petition the City to do this project and put in the lift station and assess the benefitting area for it. It's certainly an option. The other option is to — go ahead and put the lift station in. I don't want to get into specifically this item of the lift station but a lift station takes a certain size manhole structure, or for fitting of the pumps and so forth. Additional pumps can be added to service that line in the future so the additional installation of a lift station, which is required to service Mr. Harstad's development, probably is of the 75%-80% of the cost of that lift station where an additional 20% would come in and _ support maybe a little bit larger forcemain leaving the lift station or extra depth to the lift station or additional grinder pump and an additional grinder pump can always be added in the future. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Can we have a motion to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, Nutting seconded to close the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: I have no further comments. Other than procedural, which we can discuss later. I — support the staff recommendation as amended by Kate. Mancino: Thank you. Bob. — Skubic: I have no comments. Mancino: Ron? Nutting: I'm not sure I understand that all of the issues are resolved. The red cedars. The –' easement issues. Dave, can you explain for me where the cost is going to lie for the easement to come through the Scott/Morgan property if we run everything through to St. Joe. Hempel: Currently there's no assessments proposed for the upgrade of Kings Road for providing sewer and water, for storm drainage improvements. All the parcels adjacent to Kings Road are going to benefit from it. All the parcels on the south side of the road are 60 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 paying nothing for those improvements. So the options out there, right now the storm water currently drains through the Morgan/Scott parcel, from a portion of that subdivision. Nutting: As it now stands, which is not developed. Hempel: As it now stands...That would be an option. We could leave it as it exists today. What that would involve is enlarging the current storm pond, or proposed storm pond for this development. We think a better solution to it would be to try to work with the homeowner there, to get an easement, extend that storm sewer down to Lake St. Joe. Eliminate the erosion problem that's probably going to drain through the property and clean it up in general. The city's not looking to pay for an easement though when it directly benefits this property. And there's costs associated with extending storm sewer through their property as well that the City's Surface Water Management Plan would be contributing to, is listed on the overall plan as a component to be installed at some point. Nutting: That cost would be the city's and not the developers? Hempel: That's correct. Nutting: Okay. So the homeowners benefit from the improvements but they also, with the construction of an easement through their property, will lose future development potential surrounding that easement within, what are the requirements? Hempel: The area where the storm water drainage goes underneath the road is a pretty steep ravine that drops off of Kings Road. There would have to be substantial filling to make that a buildable lot. It would also tend to re-direct that drainage that currently goes through the parcel now. There's probably room on each side of the ravine to subdivide and put a house pad on it but to put it directly on top of a ravine wouldn't be very feasible. Or cost effective. Nutting: What are the setback requirements for that type of easement? Hempel: You can build right up to the edge. Nutting: You can build right up to the edge. Hempel: The easement width that we would be requesting on this would be 20 feet wide. Nutting: Well, I'm in favor of moving this forward but I think there's some open issues that need some resolution and obviously I think there needs to be some discussions between staff and the property owners to bring some resolution to this easement issue. I sense there's a 61 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 differing of opinion there that's, at this point in time I don't think we're on the same wave length in terms of the cost of that easement. And I would also support the additional recommendation as proposed. I think Nancy you mentioned that earlier in terms of the construction of the road and getting together and meeting with the affected property owners regarding access issues and utilities and so forth. I guess the lift station issue is less of a concern for me Dave, I guess after hearing Dave's recent comments and I think it sounds like the developer has some option there to petition the city on that. There does seem to be a difference in opinion as to what the ultimate cost to the developer would be and I guess I would also support staff and developer interaction on that point to see if they can't come to some solution, short of what the options would be for that so. Those are all my comments at this point. Mancino: Mike, any comments? Meyer: Not... Mancino: Ladd? Conrad: My two points are the same that Ron just brought up, and I'm still a little vague on _ that, and I'll take up 30 seconds just to ask Dave is, on point number 17 on the lift station Dave. The City is saying we'd pay up to a maximum of 50%, and basically the intent is to compensate for the parcels, the usage that are not part of the applicant's project. Is that the _ intent? Hempel: Ah, no. Commissioner Ladd, the intent of condition number 17 is to pay 50% on the telemetry system. That is a radial system that communicates to one central location and tells us if that lift station is operating properly or not. Conrad: Okay. Hempel: That, we have a funding mechanism to take the funds out. That's built into all our lift stations... Conrad: Okay. So then what you are asking the developer to do is to pay for over sizing the lift station? Period. Hempel: Or he petitions. Conrad: Or petitions, okay. I get it. And then back to the drainage from our pond. The _ pond that, the point that you've made Dave is that the post drainage will be no more, the post 62 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 development drainage will be no more than the pre-development drainage. Therefore there's no more going through the property to the south. There's no more water going through the property to the south. On the south side of Kings Road than before. Hempel: The velocity of the water will be maintained. The volume of water will increase, as you add impervious surface, streets and so forth, but it's released at the same rate so it doesn't cause flooding problems upstream. It doesn't cause erosion problems downstream. It's the same velocity. Mancino: What does it do to Lake St. Joe? Hempel: Lake St. Joe is a large enough body of water that's already been pre-treated. The volumes that you'd see from these developments that occur on Lundgrens to the south and this one to the north. It's been modeled as a part of our Surface Water Management Plan and culverts in the Minnewashta Parkway project put in sized them to accommodate developments. Conrad: So we have more water moving off site, and we're saying it's the developer's problem. Hempel: The ordinance, the old ordinance used to require all developments to pond on site. Maintaining the pre-development runoff rate. Okay, now that we've adopted the Surface Water Management Plan, the SWMP plan as we call it, we have integral components of trunk storm sewer systems to minimize these ponding areas all over the city. This situation, we can put this trunk storm sewer in now and pay for it through the Surface Water Management Funds, or delay it until further development occurs on Kings Road. Have it done as a part as development occurs. Similar to what this developer is providing their own storm sewer system, or storm sewer ponds. At their own cost but they are benefitting from it. Conrad: And it's your assumption that this, your recommendation. It's not a financial hardship to the Morgan property. Hempel: With regards to granting. Conrad: You've solved the quality. You solved the quantity. You solved the quality, but have we solved any financial harm to the Morgan property? Under any of the options that you've given the developer. Hempel: The actual harm is. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad: Meaning they can't develop it the way they may like to. Hempel: Given the topography out there, there's a natural drainage or the sharp ravines and so forth. There'd be a lot of filling involved to make that a developable piece. I mean this would be the location for a property line to exists and their setbacks would be off of that — natural drainage ravine. Nutting: You're saying the property owners are getting benefit at no cost... — Hempel: We're upgrading Kings Road and utility services... It's something that we can also explore further as we get closer to final plat approval and actual construction plans. There may be another option. Conrad: So when you said, I think you used the word sheet drainage across the Morgan property. It's not sheet, or did I misread that? Hempel: I don't believe it was sheet drainage because there is a culvert underneath Kings Road that takes the drainage from the north side and brings it through the Morgan/Scott parcel. — Conrad: Now there's, in our recommendations. Number 1 is the one that relates to the drainage Dave? — Hempel: I don't believe we made it as a condition of approval on here. We just wanted to give the option on how to deal with storm drainage...staff report itself. — Nutting: The option is to whom? Conrad: The option is the developer's. Mancino: No, the option is the Morgan's and Scott's. — Aanenson: It doesn't have to go through the Morgan property. That's why we laid out two options. — Mancino: I mean they can say no. Aanenson: Obviously we're going to sit down and... Mancino: Maybe that should be put in as a condition that the parties need to get together. — 64 — — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Hempel: Either option though eventually has the storm water go through, either versus an open channel as exists today, or through a pipe system. Conrad: And neither affects quality. Do either of those options give us better quality? Water quality. Hempel: No... Piping it I suppose would give us better water quality...I have not seen the ditch. I can't say... Conrad: A ditch just sounds like this is not the way to solve our water problems. Okay. No more questions. Mancino: I have none. Do I have a motion? — Conrad: I will move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #93-11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 45 single family lots and two outlots as shown on the plans dated April 7, 1995 and subject to the conditions of the staff report with the following — changes. Point number 21. The park size acreage is 8+ and with other, staff will have to divide that between dedication and purchase. Under trail. — Aanenson: As per city ordinance. Conrad: Okay. Under trail we're adding the words, as per city ordinance. Under point _ number 23. We're adding a point that says, preservation of the existing red cedars. Red cedars? — Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: What are we saying about the preservation of the existing red cedars? — Aanenson: Approve a management plan that they include that preservation through relocation — of the red cedars. Preservation through the relocation. Conrad: Thank you Kate. Why don't you make this motion. Okay, you're going to have to — fabricate the rest of those words, but I'm sure you can do that. We would, I would add point number 27 that would require staff to meet with the neighbors to review the construction plans and the impact on trees along Kings Road prior to. Aanenson: Final plat. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad: Thank you. Final plat. That's my motion. Mancino: Do I hear a second? Meyer: Second. — Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat 493-11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 45 single family lots and two outlots as — shown on the plans dated April 7, 1995, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the city the utilities and street within — all public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. Maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. The routes are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The appropriate drainage and — utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading _ unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. — 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and — utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR, and comply with their conditions of approval. _ 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development — contract. 6. Storm drainage discharge from the site shall maintain the pre-developed runoff — conditions. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm event of a 24 hour duration. Water quality and 66 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 quantity ponding calculations shall be submitted in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve. 7. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. 8. Lot 32, Block 3 shall take direct access from Country Oaks Lane and not Kings Road unless Kings Road has been upgraded to City standards. 9. A report or letter of clarification prepared by a qualified wetland delineator shall be submitted to the city documenting the location and integrity of all wetlands on the site. — If there are wetlands on the site, they shall be staked, surveyed and included on the grading and drainage plan. In addition, a buffer strip shall be incorporated by city ordinance. 10. The proposed development shall be responsible for SWMP water quality and quantity connection fees of $22,040.00 and $54,549.00 respectively. SWMP water quality and — quantity connection fees may be credited/reduced depending on the applicant's contribution to on-site storm drainage improvements according to the City's SWMP design parameters. 11. Storm drainage from the southwest portion of the site shall be evaluated for pre and post — development conditions. The City shall determine, based on the amount of impervious surface contributing to the wetlands located in the southwest portion of the site, whether or not a sediment basin will be required to pre-treat runoff prior to discharging runoff into the wetlands. 12. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the city by warranty deed for construction of a sediment basin and parkland. 13. Staff recommends granting a variance to the city's ordinance regarding street grades. — Street grades on Kings Road shall be permitted up to 10%. 14. The existing structures on the site shall be razed within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the appropriate permits for demolition of all structures, wells and septic systems. — 15. Detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be required by the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits on Lots 4 through 8, Block 3. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 16. All private driveways shall be built in accordance to the City's Ordinance No. 209. 17. The lift station shall be designed to accommodate future development south of Kings Road (approximately 10 acres) and the city's telemetry system. The City will be responsible for up to a maximum of 50% of the cost of the telemetry system. — 18. The applicant shall include with the street construction a drain tile system behind the curbs on all lots which do not directly abut a wetland or storm drainage pond. The — drain tile system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and detail plates. 19. Erosion control fence adjacent to all wetland areas shall be the City's Type III. Erosion control fence on the entire site shall be maintained by the applicant until the entire site — has been revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. 20. Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac on White Oak Lane _ and a sign indicating that 'THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 21. Paris — The plat shall include an 8+ acre park at the northwest intersection of where Kings Road currently is located and Minnewashta Parkway. The acquisition of the park to be — accomplished through park dedication and purchase. This acquisition shall be a condition of final plat approval. A purchase agreement shall be negotiated by the city contingent upon City Council approval. Full park fee credit shall be granted as a part of — these negotiations. Trail — Acceptance of full trail dedication fees in force upon building permit application as per city ordinance. — 22. The applicant shall escrow with the city their fair share of the costs to extend Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed of Outlot B that — these future lots will be responsible for 50% of the costs to upgrade Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road. 23. A woodland management plan shall be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61(d). Prior to final plat approval, tree conservation easements shall be developed between staff — 68 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 — and the applicant. The woodland management plan shall also include the preservation through relocation of the red cedar trees. 24. Within 3 years after final plat approval, Outlot B must be subdivided consistent with the approved plat. After that time, Outlot B will be subject to the city ordinances in effect. 25. All parkland shall be designated as an outlot on the final plat. — 26. Street names are subject to review and approval by Public Safety prior to final plat approval. — 27. Staff and the neighborhood shall meet prior to final plat approval to review the construction plans and the impact to the trees. — All voted in favor and the motion canied. ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS AND ELECT CHAIR AND VICE- CHAIR Mancino: The By-laws. Are they different than they were? Aanenson: No. The changes that were made at the beginning of the year that we started at — 7:00 and we moved up the last item. I thought we moved that to 10:30 or 10:00. Maybe 10:30. Mancino: I think we said 10:30. _ Aanenson: Yeah, we moved them both a half hour. And then we also changed the other one to say that the first meeting in April... Mancino: Okay. Do we vote on this? All those in favor of adopting the new Planning — Commission By-laws signify by saying aye. The Planning Commission voted in favor unanimously to adopt the Planning Commission By- laws as presented by staff. Mancino: Let's elect a Chair and Vice-Chair. Let's wait for Jeff to come in and take nominations. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Aanenson: While we're waiting, we do have 9 nominees or candidates for the open Planning Commission seat. Next meeting, we're going to try to come back on the transition zones... We took off the Powers Place. We do have another plat on so it will be a full agenda. I think if we have 9 people, we give them each 10 minutes, it's going to take you an hour and a half. So what my suggestion would be, I think it'd be nice for our two new members too if — we, we've got a van now. To take an opportunity to maybe spend an hour and drive and look at a couple projects and talk about what we're doing and then is it working and some of those sorts of things and then come back and spend an hour and a half interviewing. If we start at — 7:00, we'll try to get you out of here by 9:30. Does that work? It's an off meeting next Wednesday, but take an hour to go look at some things and then come back and have the interviews set up. — Mancino: What's the date next Wednesday? Aanenson: The 26th. Mancino: The 26th. April 26th. How does that work with you Mike? Meyer: It would work just fine for me. _ Mancino: Did you hear that Jeff? Farmakes: This is for interviewing? Mancino: Interviewing on the next Wednesday, the 26th and then for about an hour and a _ half, and then going out via. Aanenson: I thought we would drive first while it's light out. — Mancino: Oh, that's a good idea... Aanenson: We drive for an hour and then come back and interview for an hour and a half. Mancino: So it'd be 2 1/2 hours. We'd start at 7:00 and be done by 9:30. — Aanenson: Yeah. Mancino: Does that work with you? 70 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Aanenson: We have 9 people applying. And what Council would like to do is have, there's one opening, is have 2 more than there's openings. So you'd pass 3 names forward. Mancino: Wouldn't we still select one. Aanenson: You select three. You can rate them or whatever you want to do, sure. But they would like to have 2 more than there is openings, so that would be 3. Mancino: What about next Wednesday for you? Does that work for you from 7:00 to 9:30? Conrad: I guess so. Nutting: For the additional money, sure. Mancino: I was going to say, can we have snacks? Aanenson: ...because the next one's full and this is kind of a busier agenda so. Nutting: Can we cater Leeann Chin's on the van? Aanenson: We can do something, sure. Conrad: Is that the time to talk about Planning Commission. Aanenson: I'll talk to you then. While we're driving, sure. Mancino: So what are we going to talk about? Conrad: Chairman, you are in charge. My hope would be that we could talk a little bit to staff about Planning Commission responsibilities. Maybe what we laid out last meeting. It's going to be slipped forever because our Planning Commission meetings are packed but I think it's real relevant that staff gives a presentation to Planning Commission specifically for the new commissioners and then it's a good refresher for us to just know what our charter is. What our responsibilities are. What our legal direction is, and I ask Kate to give us some very direct criticisms of how maybe we should change. Mancino: My only question to that is, should we wait until the last person comes on. Do that all at once. Conrad: That might be. That might be possible. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Well one of the mandates of being a good Planning Commissioner is to come next Wednesday so. Interview... — Aanenson: I'll send you out a notice just to remind you and try to put an idea of, I'll send you the resumes ahead of time... — Mancino: So when will that person, I mean will City Council act right away? Aanenson: I don't know. That's why I'd like, then we still have to get on the Council agenda so that's why I think the sooner we can respond, then they have an opportunity to put it on one of their work sessions. Mancino: So if we go to, by the end of May, get to their agenda. Okay. Any nominations for Chair and Vice Chair? — Farmakes: I'll nominate Nancy as Chair. And Mr. Nutting as Vice Chair. Mancino: Any other nominations for Chair and Vice Chair? Nutting: I concur with the nomination of Nancy for Chair. Aanenson: I'm reading your By-laws here. It says you have to nominate but then it says, this — shall be done by secret ballot. Farmakes: Nominating? — Aanenson: No, voting. Mancino: Any other nominations? Conrad: There are no more nominations. If there aren't any more nominations, then it's not a — secret. Aanenson: No, no, no. The voting. — Mancino: Yeah, but why would the voting be secret. Conrad: Yeah. If there's only one alternative. If you get some blank pieces of paper Kate. Aanenson: That's fine. I'm just reading your By-laws. — 72 — Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Well as Chair, we're not going to go by the By-laws. Aanenson: Well you know what... Nutting: We can waive the By-laws. Aanenson: The Commission may suspend any of it's rules by unanimous vote... Mancino: Do I have a motion to suspend secret balloting. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to suspend the By-laws relating to voting for Chair and Vice Chair by secret ballot. All voted in favor and the motion carred. Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to appoint Nancy Mancino as Chair and Ron Nutting as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL UPDATES: Aanenson: The last City Council meeting in April. They approved the Chan Business Center, the preliminary plat, and final plat will be going to their next meeting. And Oak Ponds, obviously they approved that. Both of those were tabled because they did not have, you needed a majority of the members present and they only had 3 people present... Mancino: Any other? Aanenson: That was it as far as Planning Commission's. Mancino: Okay. And are you going to let us know about Toronto. Your trip and your flight. Aanenson: Yes. I'd like to do that, maybe when we're driving that'd be a good opportunity... (There was an informal discussion between the City Planner and the Planning Commission regarding the applicants and the interviewing procedures at this point.) Farmakes: This is open discussion here? One of the things that reading the Minutes of the last meeting, and looking at the By-laws here, it really doesn't address the issue of conflict of interest. And discussing this with the Council members, that the city in general I think should take a look, and at least our commission should take a look at the issue of conflict of 73 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 interests when we conduct hearings. Make recommendations about the issue of personal benefit and how that interplays with the traditional sense of voting. It seemed to point out a glaring problem in our system when, the attorney at the Council level looked into this, came back and said, well there's nothing. As I understood his ruling, there's nothing in your rules that says that this is wrong. But I think, on a street level, on the citizen level. If someone — benefits from a ruling, and they're conducting that hearing, one has to call into question that issue and I think we owe it to the people of this city that that shouldn't be an issue. Aanenson: The Council did draft a new. Mancino: Didn't they have a Code of Ethics? Aanenson: I'll send that out with this new. Yeah, in reading through that, that's why I pulled _ out of one. I didn't have anything financial but there was a relationship there and I just didn't want it to be the appearance that I was... Farmakes: They seemed to side step the issue though, and leave it more open ended. That's why. Mancino: Did you see the new? Aanenson: I think if you read through the new one, I think it speaks pretty clearly to that — issue... Farmakes: They didn't ask me my opinions on it. — Aanenson: Well I think if you get it and then maybe we should discuss it again. Farmakes: Yeah. Well it probably is also a good educational thing when we're discussing these issues... The other issue is the procedural issue that we had here again tonight. Where these open disagreements on issues where you neither have a chance to respond and report nor, you know it's sort of a running dialogue that takes place. Fortunately he only had 3 or 4 points...but it really puts us in a disadvantage to try and. The first one that comes to my mind is to table this because it's still in discussion and if. –' Aanenson: Part of that's their strategy to make it look like they haven't had a chance to respond when it's more in fact they have, and part of it's strategy. Farmakes: And that's what I'm saying. Should that forum be, should this forum be a place _ for strategy ploys in regards to positioning of negotiation, if they're still taking place. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Aanenson: I would just go back to, you know you should ask us anytime to stop and say, staff are you comfortable? Is there an issue that's unresolved? Farmakes: In particular, if the city's still in a negotiation situation for some financial matters, we shouldn't be making any comments at all. Mancino: When he said, during the second one, and my final, and I thought just let him continue with his final ones. Third year and then it's over. Instead of having him come back up again. Resolving those three issues of the conditions. I mean you don't know which way it's going to play. Aanenson: Which one are you talking about? Mancino: Harstad. Isn't that who you were talking about?.. Aanenson: Oh! Let's do the Minutes. I think that was one thing you left off. Just so you don't forget. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 5, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Fannakes moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. _ Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 75 CITY OF CHANHASSENF 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: April 27, 1995 SUBJ: Director's Report On April 23, 1995, the City Council took the following action: 1. Final plat approval was given for the Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition (7 lots). 2. Preliminary and final plat approval was given to the Golmen-Hoff-Golmen Addition (1 lot). 3. Site plan approval was given to the Richfield Bank and Trust (Burdick Park Addition). 4. Site plan approval was given to Power Systems (Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition). Attached is the draft ethics ordinance the Council is reviewing. This is only a draft. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND - EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF POLICY. The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials and employees be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people; that _ government decisions and policy be made within the proper channels of the governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; that public officials and employees avoid even the appearance of impropriety; and that the — public have confidence in the integrity of its government. In recognition of these goals, a code of ethics for all city council members, city advisory committee members, and city employees is adopted. The purpose of this code is to establish standards and guidelines for ethical conduct by setting forth those acts or actions that are incompatible with the best interests of the city and by directing disclosure of private financial or other interests in matters affecting the city. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. (a) "Business entity" means any corporation, limited liability company, — general or limited partnership, sole proprietorship (including a private consultant operation) joint venture, unincorporated association or firm, institution, trust, _ foundation, or other organization, whether or not organized for profit. (b) "Confidential Information" means any information, oral or written, — which comes to the attention of, or is available to, the public officer or employee only because of his or her position with the city, and is not a matter of public record. (c) "Gift" means money, real or personal property, a service, a loan, a — forbearance or forgiveness of indebtedness, or a promise of future employment that is given and received without the giver receiving consideration of equal or greater value in return. "Gift" does not include: — 17179 r09/02/94 - — (1) a campaign contribution as defined in Minn. Stat. § 211A.01, Subdivision 5; — (2) services to assist a public officer or employee in the performance of official duties, including but not limited to — providing advise, consultation, information, and communication in connection with legislation, and services to constituents; — (3) services of insignificant monetary value; (4) a plaque or similar memento recognizing individual services in a field of specialty or to a charitable cause; (5) a trinket or memento of insignificant value; _ (6) informational material of insignificant value; or (7) food or a beverage given at a reception, meal, or meeting away — from the recipient's place of work by an organization before whom the recipient appears to make a speech or answer _ questions as part of a program. (d) "Interest" means the actual or potential for pecuniary or other benefit — accruing to a public officer or employee as a result of an official action. For purposes of this code of ethics, a public officer or employee shall be deemed to have an interest in the affairs of: (1) the officer or employee's relative as defined in this section; (2) any person or business entity with whom a contractual relationship exists with the public officer or employee or a business entity in which the officer or employee has a relationship as described in paragraphs (3) and (4) below; (3) any business entity in which the public officer or employee is an officer, director, member, or employee; and (4) any business entity in which the public officer or employee — controls or owns, directly or indirectly, in excess of five 17179 r09/02/94 -2- percent (5%) of the total stock or an interest totalling $50,000 or more in value. (e) "Interested person" means a person or representative of a person or business entity that has an interest in an official act or action that a public officer — or employee is authorized to make. (f) "Official act or action" means any legislative, administrative, — appointive or discretionary act or recommendation of any public officer or employee. _ (g) "Public employee" means any person holding a position by appointment or employment in the service of the city, whether paid or unpaid, — including appointed members of any board, committee, or commission thereof. (h) "Public officer" means any person holding a position by election in the service of the city, whether paid or unpaid, including elected members of any board, committee, or commission thereof. — (i) "Relative" means the public officer's or employee's spouse, children, _ and grandchildren and their spouses, parents and parents of a spouse, and brothers, sisters and their spouses. SECTION 3. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. (a) Official Action. No public officer or employee shall take any official action with respect to a matter before the city if they have: (1) an interest in the matter; or (2) an interest in the affairs of any person or business entity representing, advising, or appearing on behalf of, whether paid or unpaid, any person involved in the matter. — (b) Disclosure of interest. Any public officer or employee who believes _ that he or she has an interest in any proposed official action before the city, or who is otherwise disqualified from taking any official action on the matter may only participate in the discussion of that matter in the following manner: (1) by — disclosing on the record of the city forum involved the nature and extent of such 17179 r09/02/94 -3- — — interest and (2) by addressing the city forum from the audience as a member of the public. SECTION 4. PREACQUISITION OF INTEREST. — No public officer or employee shall acquire an interest in, or an interest affected by, any contract, transaction, zoning decision, or other matter at a time when such officer or employee believes or has reason to believe the interest will _ be directly or indirectly affected by an official act or action by the city. — SECTION 5. REPRESENTATION OF PRIVATE INTERESTS AFTER EMPLOYMENT OR SERVICES CEASES. No public officer or employee shall represent or appear on behalf of any interested person, other than himself or herself, his or her spouse, or minor _ children, in dealings with the city until one (1) year after he or she has left his or her position with the city. SECTION 6. PUBLIC CONTRACTS. _ A public officer or employee may enter into any contract with the city only if: — (1) authorized by Minn. Stat. § 471.88; or _ (2) the procedures set forth in Minn. Stat. § 471.89 are followed when applicable. — SECTION 7. GIFTS. Public officers or employees shall not accept gifts from interested persons. SECTION 8. DISCLOSURE AND USE OF CONFIDENTIAL — INFORMATION. No public officer or employee shall, without proper legal authorization, disclose confidential information, or use such information to further the financial or other private interest of the public officer, employee, or others. 17179 r09/02/94 -4- SECTION 9. INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE. No public officer or employee shall occupy any other office, elected or appointed, in the city or any other governmental entity, when the duties of such office are incompatible with the proper discharge of his or her official duties with the city. Dual office or employment is specifically prohibited in any one of the following circumstances: (a) where the duties of the other office make it a physical impossibility to discharge the duties of the city position; or — (b) where one office is subordinate of the other; or (c) where one office carries the power of removal of the other; or (d) where the occupancy of both offices is prohibited by the city code or other provisions of law. SECTION 10. PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT. No public officer or employee shall engage in, solicit, negotiate for, or promise to accept private employment or render services for private interests or conduct a private business when such employment, service, or business — compromises or is incompatible with the proper discharge of his or her official duties or would tend to impair his or her independence of judgment or action in _ the performance of his or her official duties, unless otherwise permitted by law and unless disclosure of such employment is properly made to the city. SECTION 11. EXPENSES. Public officers and employees shall provide complete documentation to support requests for expense reimbursement. SECTION 12. PUBLIC FUNDS. No Public officer or employee shall use, request, or permit the use of city public funds, personnel, equipment or facilities, for private gain, personal convenience or political campaign activities, unless such equipment and facilities — are available to the public generally. 17179 r09/02/94 -5- '- SECTION 13. SPECIAL TREATMENT. _ (a) No public officer or employee shall grant any special consideration, treatment, or advantage to any citizen beyond that which is available to every other citizen. (b) No public officer or employee shall allow use or attempt to use his or her official's position to secure special treatment, exemptions, personal or financial gain, or to avoid consequences for illegal acts for himself, herself nor a relative. SECTION 14. COMPLAINTS. Filing Complaints. Complaints that a public officer or employee have violated these provisions be made in writing and signed by the complainant. Complaints shall be filed with the City Manager or in the case of the City Manager, with the Mayor. The complaint shall be promptly forwarded to the Ethics Commission. — SECTION 15. ETHICS COMMISSION. (a) Creation. There is hereby created an Ethics Commission which shall have the duties and powers, unless otherwise provided, to hear complaints and rule upon their disposition. (b) Appointment of Members. The Commission shall consist of three (3) _ members, to be appointed by the City Council. (c) Terms. Commission members shall serve for three (3) year staggered terms. Of the first members appointed, one shall serve for three (3) years, one shall serve for two (2) years, and one shall serve for one year. Thereafter, each Commissioner shall serve for a term of three (3) years. (d) Compensation. No Commissioners shall receive a salary, but may — be reimbursed for expenses in accordance with City policy. (e) Duties. The Commission's duties shall include: (1) hearing complaints on violations of this ordinance; 17179 r09/02/94 -6- (2) giving nonbinding advice to the City Council, City Attorney, or other public officers and employees on ethical questions. This includes rendering advisory opinions; — (3) giving nonbinding recommendations to the City Council and _ City Attorney on new and existing City policies on ethics. SECTION 16. DISTRIBUTION OF CODE OF ETHICS. — The city clerk shall cause a copy of this code of ethics to be distributed to _ every public officer and employee of the city within thirty (30) days after enactment. Each public officer and employee elected, appointed, or engaged thereafter shall be furnished a copy before entering upon the duties of this office — or employment. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1994, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor — (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1994). 17179 r09/02/94 -7- - ON-GOING ISSUES May 3, 1995 ISSUE STATUS 1. Highway 5 Corridor Study and City Council has selected the southern Land Use Recommendation alignment. Subsequently the City Council will review land use recommendations including northern 1995 study area. 2. Southern 1995 Study Area: BF Staff is proposing to study the remaining District and remaining city land land outside of the MUSA. We will be uses outside of the MUSA Line. studying property in conjunction with the Park and Recreation Commission open space study. We will also be recommending land use by the end of 1995. In early 1996, we will begin evaluating the timing for the Planning Commission hearing process and determine how much, if any, area should be brought into the city's MUSA area. 3. Slope Protection Ordinance. The Planning Commission has held one work session on the proposed ordinance. Staff is making changes. 4. Revise PUD Ordinance. The standards of the PUD ordinance do not necessarily merit the increase in the flexibility it allows. Staff believes the PUD should be a process. Proposed changes are included in a Code glich update. 5. Bluff Creek Study Staff is working with the Watershed District, DNR and Metropolitan Council and has secured funding to study and develop standards for the protection and enhancement of the Bluff Creek Corridor. A walking tour of the creek is set for May 3, 1995. 6. Joint Meeting with Park and Request from the Planning Commission. Recreation Commission This is a good opportunity to meet and review the Park and Recreation — Commission's ComprehensivePlan and plans for preservation and future park sites. Meeting was held on 1/24/95. — 7. Affordable Housing Staff is exploring the affordable housing issue. We are examining what affordable — housing is in the metro area and how Chanhassen fits into this issue. We are also monitoring the Metropolitan Council's new blue print as well as the 1995 Legislature for any housing mandates. 8. Train Depot The Planning Commission requested staff explore the possibility of moving the old train depot to the City Center, especially in light of the train that is providing the rides which originate in the city. 9. Transition Zone The Planning commission requested that staff develop an ordinance for transition _ zones between different densities and intensities of use. The ordiance was reviewed at a work session. It is _ scheduled to be discussed again at the May 3, 1995 meeting. 2 — CITY QF : - CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II DATE: April 27, 1995 SUBJ: Buffering Requirements The Planning Commission last reviewed this ordinance on March 15, 1995. At that time, the Commission directed staff to add a purpose and intent statement to the ordinance, require the use of permanent screening where appropriate, as well as review the costs associated with these requirements. Staff has, therefore, added a purpose and intent section to the ordinance. We have also revised the cost estimates based on a wholesale pricing list from Mulligan's Tree Farm Nursery. Based on these prices, the range of costs associated with the planting standards range from $100 per 100 linear feet of required buffer yard to $4,360 for the most intensive buffer yard in an industrial area. Staff would like the Planning Commission to evaluate the merits of this ordinance. This ordinance establishes extensive standards. While it is expedient to establish standards, staff is asking if we need a buffer ordinance this detailed. RECOMMENDATION At this time, staff is only requesting that the Planning Commission provide staff with direction on this ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Ordinance dated 4/27/95 2. Buffer yard Landscaping Cost dated 4/14/95 3. Memo from Bob Generous to the Planning Commission dated 3/7/95 Revised 4/27/95 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL _ FOR TRANSITIONAL BUFFERING BETWEEN USES PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the policy of the city to provide buffering between different intensities and densities of land uses and between developments and public right-of-ways in order to provide screening _ from light, noise, and air pollution, to enhance public safety, and to improve the aesthetics and compatibility of uses. The intent of this ordinance is to provide minimum standards that are understandable, reasonable, and implementable. The standards must address a — comprehensive range of development opportunities. Standards shall not unduly restrict design flexibility and they should permit a good designer to reflect the demands of the site in which - it is placed. — THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. ARTICLE M. DESIGN STANDARDS, Section 18-61 (a) (5). Landscaping and tree preservation requirements is amended to read: (5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision and adjacent to collector and arterial streets shall be required by the city as specified in section 20-1176 (0. Section 2. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION 1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance, subsection (b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: — (b) Except for buffer yard requirements specified in section 20-1176 (f) below, this article does not apply to single-family detached residences in Al, A2, RR, RSF, and R4 zoning districts which are regulated by landscaping requirements in contained in the subdivision ordinance (chapter 18). — Section 3. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION 1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance, _ subsection (f) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: (f) Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses and between _ a site and major streets and highways and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan. Such buffering shall be located within a required buffer yard. The buffer yard is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon. The — amount of land and the type and amount of planting specified for each buffer yard required by this ordinance are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a land use and a public road. The planting units required of buffer yards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to "buffer." (1) Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel extending to the lot or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or natural features may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Buffer yards shall not be located within any portion of an existing public or private street or right-of-way. (2) To determine the buffer yard required between two adjacent parcels or between a parcel and a street, the following procedure shall be followed: a. Identify the proposed land use of the parcel and the land use of the adjacent parcel based on the City of Chanhassen Future Land Use Plan. b. Determine the buffer yard required on each boundary, or segment thereof, of the subject property by referring to the following Table of Buffer yard Requirements and illustrations which specify the buffer yard required between adjacent uses or streets. c. Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer yard and the number of plant units required per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. Each illustration depicts the minimum buffer yard required between two uses. The plant unit multiplier is a factor by which the _ basic number of plant materials required for a given buffer yard is determined in accordance with the selected width of the yard. d. Whenever a wall, fence, or berm is required within a buffer yard, these are shown as "structure required" in the buffer yard illustrations. The erection and maintenance of all required structures shall be the responsibility of the higher intensity use. Whenever a wall is required in addition to a berm, the wall shall be located between the berm and the higher intensity use in order to provide maximum sound absorption. e. All buffer yards shall be maintained free from all forms of development or storage of equipment or materials. A ground cover of vegetative or organic material shall be provided. Buffer yards shall be maintained free from junk and debris. Dead or diseased vegetation shall be removed and replaced with healthy vegetation. The responsibility to maintain, remove or replace plant materials shall be that of the landowner on whose property the plant material needing maintenance or replacement is located. TABLE OF BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS LUL MD HD OFF MIX COM PUB ACT PASS OFF/ _ D IND LL/LD A, B C C C E B B A H MD A A B B C E B B A H - HD B B A B C E B B A G OFF B B B A B B B B B B - MIX C C C B B B C C C B COM E E D B B A C C C B PUB B A A B C E A A A F ACT A A B B B C A A A F - PASS A A A B B C A A A F OFF/IND F E E B B B F E E E ROAD B B B B B B B B B C — 1. Single-family attached adjacent to single-family detached shall provide a bufferyard. — (The land use of the proposed development is across the top of the matrix. The land use of the abutting property is along the side of the matrix.). The land use abbreviations are as follows: _ L/LD - large lot and low density residential; MD - medium density residential; HD - high density residential; — OFF - office; Mix - mixed use; Corn - commercial; Pub - public/semi-public; — Act - active park/open space; Pass - passive park/open space; Off/Ind - office/industrial; "' Road - collector and arterial road. (3) Plant material existing on a parcel which meets the buffer yard planting requirements of location, size and species may be counted toward the total buffer yard plant material requirement. — (4) Buffer yards may be used for passive recreation and they may contain a trail provided that no plant material is eliminated, the total width of the buffer yard — is maintained, and all other regulations of this ordinance are met. Utility easements may be included within buffer yards provided that the utility requirements and buffer yard requirements are compatible and canopy trees are — not planted within said easement. (5) Where front, side and rear yards are required by this ordinance, buffer yards — may be established within such required yards. 3 (6) Canopy trees are defined as those trees specified as primary or secondary deciduous trees in the city's subdivision ordinance. _ (7) Understory trees are defined as those trees specified as ornamental or conifer trees in the city's subdivision ordinance. — (8) In instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year round screening, the city may designate that all planting be of conifers. — Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. — PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1995, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) 4 BUFFERYARD LANDSCAPING COST ESTIMATE PER 100 LINEAR FEET 04/14/95 BUFFERYARD Canopy Understory Shrubs Conifer COST ALTERNATE COST TYPE A - 25 FT. 0 1 1 0 $100 $105 20 FT. 1 1 2 0 $235 $240 15 FT. 1 2 2 0 $310 $320 10 FT. 1 2 3 0 $335 $345 - TYPE B 30 FT. 1 2 2 0 $310 $320 _ 25 FT. 1 2 4 0 $360 $370 20 FT. 2 3 5 0 $570 $585 15 FT. 2 4 6 0 $670 $690 TYPE C 30 FT. 2 5 5 0 $720 $745 25 FT. 2 5 7 0 $770 $795 20 FT. 3 6 9 0 $1,005 $1,035 10 FT. 3 5 8 0 $905 $930 TYPE D - 30 FT. 3 6 9 0 $1,005 $1,035 25 FT. 4 8 12 0 $1,340 $1,380 20 FT. 5 10 15 0 $1,675 $1,725 15 FT. 5 9 14 0 $1,575 $1,620 - 10 FT. 4 8 12 0 $1,340 $1,380 TYPE E 40 FT. 2 4 14 7 $1,430 $1,450 30 FT. 3 5 19 10 $1,980 $2,005 25 FT. 4 6 24 12 $2,450 $2,480 20 FT. 3 5 18 9 $1,875 $1,900 15 FT. 3 4 17 8 $1,695 $1,715 TYPE F 50 FT. 3 5 18 9 $1,875 $1,900 - 40 FT. 4 6 24 12 $2,450 $2,480 30 FT. 5 8 30 15 $3,100 $3,140 20 FT. 3 5 18 9 $1,875 $1,900 TYPE G 100 FT. 2 4 14 7 $1,430 $1,450 75 FT. 4 5 22 11 $2,245 $2,270 50 FT. 5 7 29 14 $2,920 $2,955 40 FT. 6 9 36 18 $3,675 $3,720 30 FT. 5 7 27 14 $2,870 $2,905 25 FT. 4 5 22 11 $2,245 $2,270 TYPE H 100 FT. 4 6 24 12 $2,450 $2,480 75 FT. 6 10 19 • 19 $3,405 $3,455 50 FT. 8 12 24 24 $4,300 $4,360 40 FT. 6 10 19 19 $3,405 $3,455 30 FT. 5 7 14 14 $2,545 $2,580 - Notes: Cost estimates - Canopy$110, Understory$75,Shrubs $25, Conifer$80 Alternate Pricing replaces all understory trees with conifers g:lplan\bg\buffer.wk4 I •CITYOF r CHANHASSEN ' . f 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 T= (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II DATE: March 7, 1995 SUBJ: Issue Paper - Buffer Yards/Transition Zones PROPOSAL SUMMARY This item is a follow up to the Planning Commission hearing held on February 15, 1995. Staff's intention is to bring this item forward as a discussion item to explain the ordinance _ and to receive Planning Commission and public input. After any proposed modifications, another public hearing will be held. BACKGROUND Recently, there has been considerable discussion concerning transitions and buffering between different intensities and densities of uses, e.g. Creekside Addition/Timberwood Estates, Lake Ann Highlands/Windmill Run. While the city has revised its ordinance to address tree preservation/forestation and parking lot landscaping requirements, there are no specific, quantifiable standards regarding what constitutes acceptable buffering or screening. In each instance of proposed new development, the city has responded on an ad hoc basis in determining what is appropriate buffering. The buffer yard ordinance is an effort to provide quantifiable standards for both city staff and property owners in determining minimum buffer landscaping. GOALS A discussion of the buffer yard standards should begin with agreement on the goals as to what is to be achieved by the ordinance. The following goals are presented for discussion purposes. The Planning Commission is encouraged to redefine, ad, subtract, or redirect this list as appropriate. 1. Buffer yard standards should be calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to Planning Commission March 7, 1995 Issue Paper - Buffer Yards/Transitions Page 2 2. The buffer yard standards should provide aesthetic as well as functional planting requirements for sites and buildings. These plantings should not only provide screening or transition between adjacent uses, but they should also be designed to add _ color, natural growth, a sense of identity, as well as an enhancement to the natural environment. 3. Standards should be understandable, reasonable, and easily implementable. 4. Buffer yard standards should complement preservation/forestation and parking lot _ screening requirements. Emphasis shall be given to the protection and enhancement of natural features, rather than replacement. 5. Buffering should be provided between different intensities and densities of uses. 6. Standards should be comprehensive covering all sorts of development — 7. The ordinance shall provide minimum standards to assure that a baseline level of quality is achieved. — 8. The ordinance should not unduly limit design flexibility and should allow a good designer to reflect the demands of the site and the setting in which it is placed. — CURRENT ORDINANCE Section 18-61 (a) (5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required by the city when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined by the comprehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses. Required — buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or tree preservation areas. Where appropriate, the city may require additional lot depth and area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately accommodated and — the home protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty-five (25) percent over zoning district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the _ preliminary and final plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. Section 20-1176 (0 Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses and between a site and major streets and highways and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan. — COMMENT: The city's current language requires buffering between different intensities of uses and a buffer requirement is part of the comprehensive plan. — _ Planning Commission March 7, 1995 Issue Paper - Buffer Yards/Transitions _ Page 3 However, there is no defined standards for either staff or developers to determine what constitutes appropriate and adequate buffering. ANALYSIS Since this ordinance was first brought before the Planning Commission, staff has been able to assemble some addition information including a cost estimate per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, review of the ordinance vis-a-vis existing landscaping buffers, a survey of other local governments' requirements, create a partial location map where transition areas are located, and further refinement in the required landscaping illustrations. Cost Staff has created a cost estimate for each type of landscape buffer illustrated in the ordinance. Cost estimates range from a low of$100 to a high of $7,600 per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. Comparison with Existing Buffers — A survey was completed comparing six different land uses and their existing buffering zones completed in Chanhassen within the last 2 years. Comparisons were made between low, medium, and high density residential areas and the neighboring roads, various densities and commercial uses to the proposed densities listed in the Table of Buffer yard Requirements. The following situations were found: LAND USE PROPOSED REQUIREMT. EXISTING/COMMENTS Bluff Creek (LD/ROAD) B Exceeds B; present buffer is Estates/Audubon Rd wider and more heavily sample area 100' x 70' planted than ordinance would require. Windmill Run/Galpin Blvd. B Fairly equivalent to B; (LD/ROAD) contains 1 more overstory sample area 100' x 20' than would be required, but no shrubs. Willowridge/Lake Lucy B Somewhat equivalent to B; Road (LD/ROAD) contains more understory _ sample area 100' x 20' vegetation that required, but no overstory trees. Planning Commission March 7, 1995 Issue Paper - Buffer Yards/Transitions — Page 4 Prairie Creek/ Lake Susan B Does not meet B for overall Hills Developments buffer, not a consistent (MD/LD) planting - some areas would — sample area 100' x 25' meet req., some wouldn't. Oak Ponds/West Village A Exceeds requirement Hts. (HD/HD) — sample area 100' x 25' Oak Ponds/Byerly's D Does not meet D; lacking (HD/COMM) in all categories - overstory, sample area 100' x 30' understory, and shrubs. Byerly's/Oak Ponds E Does not meet E; same (COMM/HD) comments as above. sample area 100' x 30' — Byerly's/W. 78th St. B Does not meet E; no buffer (COMM/ROAD) was provided by Byerly's — sample area 100' x 20' It appears that in no case should the buffer yard be reduced. In most cases a slight increase in the types, rather than the numbers, of plants installed would occur. Recent plantings tended to exclude overstory trees, the new requirement would include them in all plantings near residential areas. In only one instance does the increase of the bufferyard requirement — appear necessary. Planting between HD/HD usage should be increased to reflect the present trend of existing buffers with present buffer yards more closely reflecting B or C requirements than A. — Survey Results Staff contacted the following communities to determine how they address transitions and buffering: Apple Valley, Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Plymouth, and _ Woodbury. All the communities had ordinances that require some type of "screening" between different uses. However, all the standards were generic in nature stating that screening shall be provided, but providing no specific guidelines. Three of the communities _ had an opaqueness requirement in their ordinance, Apple Valley, Burnsville, and Eden Prairie. All of the communities contacted had greater setback requirements when residential uses were adjacent to commercial or industrial uses. In addition, none of the communities contacted — made a distinction between single-family attached and single-family detached. Rather, the density of the development was used to differentiate land uses. Planning Commission March 7, 1995 Issue Paper - Buffer Yards/Transitions Page 5 Location Map Staff has provided a transition area map to show some areas where the buffer yard will be required. Following is a listing of the types of land use and the required buffer yard (Note - - the required buffer yard for each use is provided. Please see the appropriate sheet to see a visual representation of how these buffer yards could be developed.). No. Land Uses Buffer yard 1. Low Density/Medium Density A/B 2. Low Density/High Density B/C 3. Low Density/Office-Industrial F/H 4. Low Density/Office-Industrial -/H 5. Low Density/Office-Industrial -/H 6. Low Density/High Density -/C 7. Low Density/Medium Density -/B 8. Medium Density/Office/Commercial BBB 9. Commercial/Office-Industrial B/B 10. Low Density/Office-Industrial -/H 11. Low Density/Mixed Use C/C 12. Low Density/High Density B/C Revisions _ Staff has revised the ordinance to include both the subdivision section and the exclusion for single-family detached housing as part of a subdivision. Staff has included a footnote requiring a buffer yard between low density attached and detached. Staff has not changed any of the listed required buffer yard requirements designations. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission provide direction for any changes to the matrix. Since Chanhassen has not zoned all property consistent with the land use plan of the comprehensive plan, we are specifying the use of the land use designation in determining appropriate buffer yards rather than the zoning. However, before proceeding too far, we are requesting feedback from the commission. RECOMMENDATION Staff has drafted a buffer yard ordinance for your review and consideration. We request that you provide us with direction in finalizing this ordinance. Planning Commission March 7, 1995 Issue Paper - Buffer Yards/Transitions — Page 6 ATTACHMENTS — 1. Draft Transitional Buffering Ordinance 2. Transition Areas Map — 3. Bufferyard Landscaping Cost Estimate 4. Matched Landscaping Buffer Yard Illustrations A/A - F/H CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA _ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE — CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL FOR TRANSITIONAL BUFFERING BETWEEN USES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: — Section 1. ARTICLE III. DESIGN STANDARDS, Section 18-61 (a) (5). Landscaping and tree preservation requirements is amended to read: — (5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision and adjacent to collector and arterial streets shall be required by the city as specified in section 20-1176 (1). — Section 2. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION 1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance, subsection (b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: (b) Except for buffer yard requirements specified in section 20-1176 (t) below, this artical does not apply to single-family detached residences in Al, A2, RR, RSF, and R4 —' zoning districts which are regulated by landscaping requirements in contained in the subdivision ordinance (chapter 18). Section 3. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION 1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance, subsection (f) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: (f) Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses and between — a site and major streets and highways and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan. Such buffering shall be located within a required buffer yard. The buffer yard is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon. The — amount of land and the type and amount of planting specified for each buffer yard required by this ordinance are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a land use and a public road. The planting units required of buffer — yards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to "buffer." (1) Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel extending — to the lot or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or natural features may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Buffer yards shall not be located within any portion of an existing public or — private street or right-of-way. (2) To determine the buffer yard required between two adjacent parcels or between a parcel and a street, the following procedure shall be followed: a. Identify the proposed land use of the parcel and the land use of the adjacent parcel based on the City of Chanhassen Future Land Use Plan. b. Determine the buffer yard required on each boundary, or segment thereof, of the subject property by referring to the following Table of _ Buffer yard Requirements and illustrations which specify the buffer yard required between adjacent uses or streets. — c. Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer yard and the number of plant units required per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. Each illustration depicts the minimum buffer yard required _ between two uses. The plant unit multiplier is a factor by which the basic number of plant materials required for a given buffer yard is determined in accordance with the selected width of the yard. _ d. Whenever a wall, fence, or berm is required within a buffer yard, these are shown as "structure required" in the buffer yard illustrations. The erection and maintenance of all required structures shall be the responsibility of the higher intensity use. Whenever a wall is required in addition to a berm, the wall shall be located between the berm and — the higher intensity use in order to provide maximum sound absorption. e. All buffer yards shall be maintained free from all forms of development or storage of equipment or materials. A ground cover of vegetative or organic material shall be provided. Buffer yards shall be maintained free from junk and debris. Dead or diseased vegetation shall be — removed and replaced with healthy vegetation. The responsibility to maintain, remove or replace plant materials shall be that of the landowner on whose property the plant material needing maintenance or — replacement is located. TABLE OF BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS LLJL MD HD OFF MIX COM PUB ACT PASS OFF/ D IIID LL/LD A, B C C C E B B A H MD A A B B C E B B A H HD B B A B C E B B A G OFF B B B A B B B B B B MIX C C C B B B C C C B 2 - - COM E E D B B A C C C B PUB B A A B C E A A A F - ACT A A B B B C A A A F PASS A A A B B C A A A F OFF/IND F E E B B B F E E E ROAD B B B B B B B B B C 1. Single-family attached adjacent to single-family detached shall provide a bufferyard. (The land use of the proposed development is across the top of the matrix. The land use of — the abutting property is along the side of the matrix.). The land use abbreviations are as follows: L/LD - large lot and low density residential; MD - medium density residential; HD - high density residential; OFF - office; Mix - mixed use; — Com - commercial; Pub - public/semi-public; Act - active park/open space; Pass - passive park/open space; Off/Ind - office/industrial; Road - collector and arterial road. (3) Plant material existing on a parcel which meets the buffer yard planting _ requirements of location, size and species may be counted toward the total buffer yard plant material requirement. (4) Buffer yards may be used for passive recreation and they may contain a trail provided that no plant material is eliminated, the total width of the buffer yard is maintained, and all other regulations of this ordinance are met. Utility easements may be included within buffer yards provided that the utility requirements and buffer yard requirements are compatible and canopy trees are not planted within said easement. (5) Where front, side and rear yards are required by this ordinance, buffer yards may be established within such required yards. (6) Canopy trees are defined as those trees specified as primary or secondary deciduous trees in the city's subdivision ordinance. (7) Understory trees are defined as those trees specified as ornamental or conifer trees in the city's subdivision ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. _ 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1995, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) 4 3UFFEYAD A REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' • I Conopy Trees :Att. 2 Understory Trees 0 3 Shrubs Evergreen Trees/ a Conifers Plot Unit 100 Multiplier 1 .4 2 5' 0 _ d .6 20'1 15' _a 00 0 .8 1 .0 101 ti9 6CP cb UFFEPYAD B REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' 2 Canopy Trees 4 Understory Trees 6 Shrubs d Evergreen Trees/ a Conifers Plcnt Unit 100' MutpIier — 4 30' ' �-� .�`: d dt) 6 25' dd 414c a - I-ti I .0 151, Od6a 04 , X10 - UFFEYRD C REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/100' 3 Canopy Trees 6 Understory Trees 9 Shrs d Evergreen Trees/ Q Conifers Plant Unit Multiplier ( 100' Structe If Rued 6 . 30' 0 do IA . e ct) • 8 25' •t 09D -c..) d .0 20'1 _P110 : - Lower ImensIty Use Wk_ .C.. •to H10er Intensity Use • 3UFFEYAD D - REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/100' • 5 Canopy Trees 10 Understory Trees 0 15 Shrubs d Evergreen Trees/ a Conifers Plant Unit 100' Stn„ttre Multiplier Requred _. ti .6 � �0� - 30' '.47.14.:-1 d VV.' 04)O CD aAss .8 25' � �i =U •. a�� '- — • a (124\-'6 $ C3 • • zweest, 1011.4'..14taim 4,K . 1 a _.V .9 I5'I ^':frofin.e:a t-15.4-al — F2 krAfratt Lower Intensity Use • txra :r F3 44_ HIrher Intensity Use • 3UFFEYAD E REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' 4 Canopy Trees -* 6 Understory Trees 0 24 Shrubs• Picea Unit 100 Srrucre 12 Evergreen Trees/ Multipl;er j Required Conifers 1I 7Aez ire*:00 .6 40' a te 41. 0 0626 a 4f1i • 1.::4 fl C7 .8 30' .:� r N • .� I .0 25' i �.. _Je VC .7J race.•. F3 J - t 1 IT I • Lower Intensity Use •7 •z •.j��1 fid 15'� s' AV• >v F4 ,417 Higher IntclsIty Use __.__ _ . ._ ___ - . • 3UFFEYD F . _ REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/100' 5 Conopy Trees . = 7.5 Understory Trees • , 30 Shrubs d — 15 Evergreen Trees/ a Conifers Plant Unitt00' 5tri tune Multiplier Required — Cairnd~ a 50' f d C Zi& , ..: 04 � `i — s a: a.d a•n0 a 81 .8 40' �eti.i kg e,0 _1L or — 0 3 r _ 30' 4_1t re:...s.t1 +' (4. '%4 -. •- �4 Lower Intensity Use _ T 20' Y+ =1. y H4Ser Intensity Use 3UFFEYADG . . Plant Unitloo' Structure — Multiplier i I Required REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' 6 Canopy Trees -*i ��d ,�'! �� 9 Understory Trees 0 ,6 75' O �/' a — 36 Shrubs d 71- , .�t� .4 — a 0d C4 06 cc) • 18 Evergreen Trees/ a tag Ccnif ers '— f 1", .f a) -�� a-`1! B © © 50' a, . :t -,/ (.3 '0 or 4o, *i► ac 41/ 0® d as %t . 1 0 0 4 too' 00 e 0 0 ;. q p I la? ,101 © � ; ly:s: �1&d B2 d i w -i d a � � a 4�' 1 Q I .O •►:`A a tet"!.' a' Jt or F4 — .� a � ... .srs'a•Ra .7 5 30' ?41 F Lower Intensity Use �— 'T �� "• as •.. • ••iq .6 aners.-' 1'G 2 5' . �llr'a1 •�� 'VC: F6 y . Higher Imensity Use _ . UFFEYA3 H REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/100' • 8 Ccnopy Trees = 12 Understory Trees (3 Plant Unit Structure — rh"Utiplier 100' Required 48 Shrubs d I ,} 1 24 Evergreen Trees/ 0 Conifers , &dcP d 000 00 a C. Z1i - 1` B 2 .8 75' aaa =1-tet a.: .'`;, or 0 ®'0;®=fw.'=.,�® F4 1 ' � � -�. too' 'i0 0 OP 110 Olt 21 'f- • 0 i� ,...."..e.,. wain 'yrs:= 1 at R .5 100 ►�► ©© C�� lt 's*;�: �—,_� .� - a 3 0 0 loppgrott, ©' ° O0 • r �- , BW .• tet, ..44 : a a 44.44..„, F6 Lower intensity Use _ T .6 30 .0+ str�� - i.`�v,r l B W 2 — Higher Intensity Use • FECES TYPICAL MINIMUM SYMBOL HEIGHT MATERIAL OPACITY F, 44" – — —. - 25% mimmomminv Wood Rail ^ ^ IN.An ^^^/vv.\ ^Y^N^ ^M^^n F2 48" 50% Wood Picket F3 6� 95% F4 8, Wood Stockode • '"'""1",.. 1111 I I FS I [ I1 - I 1111 6 t IIIIIIII 95% F6 8' 1 1 1 1 I T I 1 I I I I Masonry Wall (Required) (Poured Concrete. Cement Block. Brick, etc.) d_77 • EVS SYMBOL HEIGHT MATERIAL B, 4' EARTH . B2 5' B3 6' • EV WALLS SYMBOL HEIGHT BW, 4' BERM W/6' MASONRY WALL BW2 5' BERM W/7' MASONRY WALL BW3 6' BERM W/8' MASONRY WALL LESS! MORE ! INTENSIVE I INTENSIVE I -IN V r -1 _._ TRANSITION AREAS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� 1 1 1 1 ! C €_ 1 1 ! ; 1 1-D I i i . i t E i i al t i } ilill . t +yr. 1 �, _a+�� ^? '� ��i. 1 — Magni r _ J - ‘..w 11 J 3: — ,Eir - - - ;.. 1 _ —j a.,a �._ jam,:+ a[..,016- �! '— , — r 1EL _____.„, ,.., igoatia -- — -'-- '4 a ^^ „ ,rte - AIM 1111• .....--) PN:7•T:24----, i —1-,:-----r___, ----:-- - ---z___.__ — -H F —>=� 73 ,,,,...,.....,--7' ,:r .� tf33 I` }. ( r - - priv.2: _a.. i — a— P - - ,••tom -�/ -- "•, �- �//o.`! __ i.a.rr y � 4 y�.ye��- __ CITY OF .. _! %` <Nj ]'• 11� f' -I-1 - f,••-a.• tir ... • - - i. �/L._ / 5 . - 'N'7 —_ '1.r / __. a ' _M PREPARED[f: -- i --, `6.^�/y•;•''qi�- . . CHA 4 4SSEN ENGPNEER1NG DEPT. ' �l a'• -.. '- - 1 1 . � — L[r.Am — t)/fi END t% �o.oaaa.� - �VX_. I i { t i i i E Y + J ••• ! 1 i ' ! 1 1 i i BUFFERYARD LANDSCAPING COST ESTIMATE PER 100 LINEAR FEET 02/15/95 BUFFERYARD Canopy Understory Shrubs Conifer COST ALTERNATE COST TYPE A 25 FT. 0 1 1 0 $100 $175 20 FT. 1 1 2 0 $325 $400 15 FT. 1 2 2 0 $400 $550 10 FT. 1 2 3 0 $425 $575 - TYPE B 30 FT. 1 2 2 0 $400 $550 25 FT. 1 2 4 0 $450 $600 _. 20 FT. 2 3 5 0 $750 $975 15 FT. 2 4 6 0 $850 $1,150 TYPE C 30 FT. 2 5 5 0 $900 $1,275 25 FT. 2 5 7 0 $950 $1,325 20 FT. 3 6 9 0 $1,275 $1,725 - 10 FT. 3 5 8 0 $1,175 $1,550 TYPE D 30 FT. 3 6 9 0 $1,275 $1,725 25 FT. 4 8 12 0 $1,700 $2,300 20 FT. 5 10 15 0 $2,125 $2,875 15 FT. 5 9 14 0 $2,025 $2,700 10 FT. 4 8 12 0 $1,700 $2,300 TYPE E 40 FT. 2 4 14 7 $2,100 $2,400 - 30 FT. 3 5 19 10 $2,950 $3,325 25 FT. 4 6 24 12 $3,650 $4,100 20 FT. 3 5 18 9 $2,775 $3,150 _ 15 FT. 3 4 17 8 $2,525 $2,825 TYPE F 50 FT. 3 5 18 9 $2,775 $3,150 - 40 FT. 4 6 24 12 $3,650 $4,100 30 FT. 5 8 30 15 $4,600 $5,200 20 FT. 3 5 18 9 $2,775 $3,150 TYPE G 100 FT. 2 4 14 7 $2,100 $2,400 75 FT. 4 5 22 11 $3,375 $3,750 _, 50 FT. 5 7 29 14 $4,350 $4,875 40 FT. 6 9 36 18 $5,475 $6,150 30 FT. 5 7 27 14 $4,300 $4,825 25 FT. 4 5 22 11 $3,375 $3,750 TYPE H 100 FT. 4 6 24 12 $3,650 $4,100 _ 75 FT. 6 10 19 19 $5,275 $6,025 50 FT. 8 12 24 24 $6,700 $7,600 40 FT. 6 10 19 19 $5,275 $6,025 30 FT. 5 7 14 14 $3,975 $4,500 - Notes: Cost estimates - Canopy $200, Understory$75, Shrubs $25, Conifer$150 Alternate Pricing replaces all understory trees with conifers g:\plan\bg\buffer.wk4 IJ-071-- f 6 0 'iD 4_....°6 ik A / A0 25 d J • . 1 5'1 I At, 0 0 0 ° 2 0' 0 , S7•54 : 20' 9 1 15'I 41e.. 0d 9 ....a...: d •, ,,.. 25'I 0 d 1011 311•- A d.b . ir Oda r I Fi"Vol 0 e e • - A / B 30 , 0 VS4 0 'zr .j..) 15'1 I -1!._ OcJ 0 o i oNisik.-- 2 5' dd l��J )r 0 20' 9 - , ••• -rgr 20' %t':Lim • v.: IF alto. j.90 . ,. l/..�'1.71 0 a _ 2 5' I 0 d •1��. 1 5' d • �:a atIffit •� 17r— 1 7,"...4.4• a 0 Cb _ice A / C 0 $' aE4 040i0 30 ID t� a- ,-51--- .w. - 0On 0 0 .4) Vittr 0 9-3 dbafiA0 0 . 0 fi 201 9 pit 1 20' 1! Ozae: a Ja 0 OW A! a f.c glt T— irel � •! a •1 r 25' 0 - F %we/ . . ai .a. � -al•.i I �0' damoctratimmg.. stnsv ar: torm/`IrN. AIlaur iti I. 1671-- 1= d4 - A / E a ::: 1/1111e. CO a 15' 0 .... oar 0 FrAlgistreVestir• ILIF:0 0 % ..,,,t, 0 - -,---A117.-3 0' «l •• gli ' �� f o a .� AO....... .�" 2 0' I CD:D • Ae. ita . ......: 1 .1. (1 \.. 1.0.-fdiPft 1 07.1 - ROI I Si 14!ilea/V*4 filt;1 I< 0 0 2 5' a tr.ro*lea I Wit 11/1 I . 14,41 0 25' 0 d sit, ..aviremovestmeterirgratI F 2 o1 a. _ .: •,,• 1�'"_1�d1W1 so. 10' i d a 0 e9aztlti ,, di,pa 0 0. OD e A / F 5019 •. d Zit 4t. 0 0 0 I5'1 , / 000 B .� , ,, . :�`: .� .. 0l _tom a oft: ter.. �.,, • ►! o r 4 0 a aaa•Aaa IP ,.�. 1& F3az. t,,,,,, I'D 1,1 .: � e 4f 2 0' .,.i -,---f: B 2 e . • w WW•tosoVibilariVaat 4 44 1 4 a OtettitVg or 30 1y,�-t. .. e1! �► �a iveresvirl F4 --0 -41411 -. 25' I 0 d •.. F 0.2ni fRaNteffill. 5 20 �._1 '�!4.W .` tleGili itlVA;s f. 0211P.0/IIIamp. ••.. 1 PO3W ��•.� B / B 0 -Yk •41010 30' A 0 .f`: d / li-..) _ _ .I. 20' • 6 Jt•00 d • �.' a ry�w 0 �1�� = 2 5 d� �V$1. a ), 0 V, 0 30 .,`: 0 d?:-.) e tam 20' , so 'fit 000 T:../.24,: 0 a / 0 4, if) - 2 5 Oct folic 0 (1.) 4 . 15ta • 41'.two:4 - / liltl1 1-........: .1.. r . d6 0 • B / C 0 , 7 •= 30' #!` Ld __V d e' 0 . d -,�• a� W. 201 ;`: 0 ori . . d - I ' • ti,� 0 ,ri_ ill 25 • - r., 9) ilip • 1 CD-0/Nt, Ci zi. -doP 0 )r igNitt e 3ft' 0 qr 0 1 OIL0r 1:_ j Tom •: .10.0.2 • 0 Ira • I r 0 25 ll 00 Tao.o.• 11 1 • • • F i 1 inzatiebeitawiefitzetwv , 1 0 .... 1 • S. RSI )c9 0 alV• 1.• -40.0•dn tj-ip ARAI B / E .�� w,: d •••• d 4 0' Oak a o _i�.� w • �-.071. : d ., t2D . a U it.' (::;) • 2 0 1 j 0 rn. 0 0 46. SO • • a *we :Um"P : • kPeilitt%Ii it % --ve wi LePriAl*. • ill. =Re 0 % w 301 «� •• �t VP 0 • .t ►�.a � �� tam O 'a a, a ,� / .a a %*. . re'ii Oa; 1� • 7 tor um? IMO -2••••• 0 kit ....L. 0 ;VT.• qr." .`go a1• _ S1• 1 4. I ra '_,rigtr< ate• - ZS di .44:49/6•74 dc: • i IVO s �i,,iais / 0 _CID 1 - 2 51 dr.) At. a 1..,..'•= t �0 - F3 1ap . .0•11Kg ea 2 0 '.sit fibrypmaai est.: IJ/i.s4i%I�'I//I.!I..1II 0 Vr: as 0_10�a 030 _I-1 � _gado, . C / Cori FI e • • r. ,tr_ 0 a 2s • • f.‘ q_.) • s 0' ow.pow. qtr` �� i 1�o 20 ..• -0< Otf) Wit•/� D0 oadipt= - Ey • WO a :ro OIL 20I .014Vt, d ,/1,e b • r9: Os 2s _OA- t _• tet•/, d 0 e Moe • I . . .i ... _ _ "I• I-111- MegigibielekireaggeainaSci0 Os a_ _..........r • F 1 30' 0 $1 aO 0__1,, J 0 p . . 0 ? ,1• 30' 0 ItT i 4/..ID 0 C / E — . �6 . a • t.4 -dip $-i � lorp In cfPL 0$ •'•• d " 40 0 —t!• 0 tf 0 . 0 Oa •ami.40: a iei 01;1 , . OD • Cut& 0 t�!�es o 25'1 �1-aws� 0 41 -b t 11. • cr•-) 41 raVONATIZ:A.- SiTav ,r1 oar,: •,..i ____, ...owl., I.- .....gwe: La -- .., . I b Le -7 el gliPitl gb 0° 1' 40 .1.04 �'t.� `{ • aha �a _air ea A A top C , Ali ION at/ i& ' cfP • • •No�. 2 0 _Wit' 0 '!l,.. :gel 4141111111CcjilnefiTerTO WA -71 25' ea.iw'! EAV ._ iaprtma.4e-,Wdri-.,i-•sn•t• �tA�,r ! "ia,. atAtt 9 �: • aiskiis ai 41 .rue.!.*:'Ls - as 10' A... i �t ' 1arAr%c_ F1 ircat_r.17.icitzitrgeivewancieg 0' MIiIe1IIW�/II�Mist r1�i/I. d z.16 0 =1'= a O a •>>i D / E 30' -.11. % : . ,, de dp ,,` 0 a I I %ft61 to �4Ie0 ►•A eft 0g:: d 4 0' % OD w ~ =l�. cD lora a ;Poi . .i X0 2 5eit-**- h �-�•�ttJ �!` %,00!aAf.t • P., 30fee _1.. 1 —111 ice: iA IR aa. «/`. a totlem Vii. . a . ii D / E 31 .:... . .►i :• _ ..,Ttdju_• V,. 15' :4101/► 4to" Irl '-aAi neitlatF2. "Mb ewe ISIIP161. P.4166- .4.4.40.41E.1.1.1641111,:IP 2..1N1114.4110r r►•.I�� • ril ,Cm% 1 F320' .s_�.l�t: :_raitiLr!%:"� / Iyi.�►iI/�I//��IO. �I�I. 1 ore.. a as. _ _ G al.oval*..• .•3116 ii•OIAWe 10 •1c ��ilna.. •�.��,�,�a•�1_«. Fi rje"4::::40Al 4411.4.7111A4traltrArtinkrv. 1 5' 0:&11:11,,Awn•aiiieN2sTIV•411rdillid/P119,, Fa .," .NI I/III/V..Ilyd AP: E / E01. ... '' � • • 0 ej Nip CD 0 0 to $ -^I. at a 1.10: Ver,Ariffar;Ortigagater". rf e" FA 5' NIj.`.'�7_�+ 0•A.1i••r�i%fit% le * €3gib1 ea, • .t••• s11.1 YJ ••.w3 0• ilipt: 01,: �~' AI A;OMIlour 118 • 0 s ter a s lamb a ` = I • ierit rw l to F3 2 •iii ��1G j 4 1s w wa �`�� IlaM w ..42a.6. IJIiJ�IIm'/r/I�I.o. 1/is/I. •1• 211V11414• 1141012AlltIVA. 1 "Pik 111.110::PreiViltaliVq4.110.0 " "40 2 5 iI gtrallEPZPVINAKOldllraallarkbe 44. 41A Eli ice: ♦�P. V !4�e6 4IS � ' luiortirgrafsrai ji rilm a - .moi �tialt,rat . 04. 10) OA eb •.. , 1a ♦wfacetyn vir eani�imi waewrIsvJa•fhwpormi. E / E 2 01 a •in/.tit: :aMiiais ..C! t '�a F3 iiariklEli��i :gii).' AMP/ IMPOrear: Arts Izo Izr40 6 30' • '' �. P .4, _1�. '� Omatt. '.itor�.., tri 0.1.1/4/"...alik - Isr. r l to � ai , d wA c3 1 • cr.) M 40 4 01 illika 6 cr.) .ft" - d .. , � —, d d filla OD i 1 ie A� w ./ •'�. 9j w • • , ,,,„,,,„ 0 E / F ''` «�•r 40, ej 0sik .�. 40 qi• .' cf .�. • a 0 11.• �� • 171101511FirferT„,41701_,P l0i 5 20 !l�ti04.. 1!f.L.E.T..M..i.-F,_ `•Rz• ,r ►M. ej . 0 ''` 41 ".M - 30' ? . 0.. �t a ...� �� lt • j 64a a�� .f � • a L- U r di .2 .Jtaw e� il OVier0510"...V.ovelIP o r 3 0so =��:.. �, •• .litLW �_�: 'i ��,�' . 111,44=.tort A,511:4-A4 F4 igaity:Wat •r i• • •s. Piag. 41 41E011PleiTAIO MR be..rliWkast0474q,.4•1*.h itil te"-da 2 5'11 ler .r 0 I l Aif et a 4?.• • B , .2. .:-E a 0 0 ,r, „ ... .. (..) N. 0... �� t1 or 4 ate': .a� 0~ ••°.0 �40 F3 'zar , • SO E / F ' •taxi .Iadraaa..�.�.•do to .isL-..C!w!.:w� F3 / • 0 ,16. a a041104 ..V 4, a oD 0 Jr 0� !• (.% 0 iAD 60 Ati. WI fg' 0• 0 q klbe j;c' Zap 1• 40b IP IS lib`% alh Mab :111.11W:411.0411 raISMItrill gall VI VIZ ..pkaikwr"..4iii&Ailltetvardians.t.41 F4 -00 e-2) iiia A ifl' _1y. 50 •0.,to a 0 � 0 ... 5;5:16 9 view OP A?.. "ivir �. E / G 40T 0 e co :O... d) 41`• cr.) 0 0 c5 " 0 VW a 131/.(Ornera orirvaa. 4 F52 5 ��t�tr` �1 �r,;tw�,�J�ri•�� ••t �`- •fkadagoi. I • ... a.....z..:,„...„0.0%, n ! 01 11r. A.:111k1L70 40 esfiraj.az iv .4.01.! cr.) cf 6 15O. Vd gia1,.:: 4. tool,5.1 ...t"''r`• "a martvailiWNWPreaPer"i7•11-ri F5 3°1 ese.dreairaprIL,„VaIdastasrped.: ....mers 4pimelleip4plimW 100.74107,0?eh •1. 10.2...V_ArAllalarT-_7,,,,-.110.1mtiv Atm ..... ..,,„ ...._... - 14:0.10Z41:11.161MbillifiNsiliVa4:77a41.. 04 a «Averaptgarwiii.p.4 0. jairk ApeoLt ow • mil B .... ..... ...AI 6 .4. 0.otsirrIO ID ... a qa A !I 46410.12la 0:74 6:4 a •le i s•i'a/ 2 pM� - 4,......,_ ._.. ,-.. :•,r ,,,,,. ., .0... or • :a 4 a orotte,..eir 4 1 01 i. ere at !Ai .t.m.zaeftem-...1„s., Melo 1.41:0 Fo.zsta 01, F, ... 4., _..,... _. .. ..... . a at MlaskItignW. "gar %6 gis •.• •..• di ....• ,. E / G � . isii- 20' a•.kii•/:'= ';aN 4mw,ed4,z40o1il.t_4oT'ids•1!I r . .ar...:_o 7 F3 1' i , la_s A, i i M _ 9A' Walloqw 2%/333 Wwg.40B , q< COalt. ......."IP a. 50' .� , .�-.-�� alt art 0 t., give ad or F3 741,4aNivo ,01 mizellaCkelei'serif. j. diPC141°1F4 kJ ,It, &� 0 0 4...44: 7 5' iv , ID45 Alt g) o 6) ..„.„,z4.: :•„„, 6, .,«._ _i-, .4 'We a0eD t 0 w o ' I- b.: .::: A il e. - •;.41 ifiktil: el 9D ID viAl od) E / HEztf, � " 0 to • •91<# 1-* 0D 0 a nie004 iFTWIC:e 0 �`��; , 2 aa�� ` ail ,, BW2 30 la �_t0.1N4414�r. ,�� tl �� ,V X2-1... a�v. �M. •/ d. .� : lbs E / H -go•na•imsmavower-alcie. .101' ..40 20 a•-� •. o1• 4a '•1� F .ea f lt: ' .•i rt .�.1.. ii• ale" 3 ai& cP (9 0 :fit 0 0 0 ....z.: 0 gi,.. ,. ...., at a . c.) A ,` � I B 2 0 71 � OD VP =, 4 oo 0 0 o r 0 0 OU 9 lb q se. 4 "f Oa A F 4 Ylig e,„i.m. OF Wee '/t 0.0 Mt. as 15' 0..`r'��• v4� :',.ysi-e • ��• stripv. • ,r .. '��'`'' F4 s�-� •Ow 0 o 0 %i r. iii v► o Act) vO (t- 0 48/1 tr, ( A;-4S • (:L)Gl) 0 10 o OA 1 0 0 (1), Ilfri. wAv 4111 r!► "'€ ' 0 ° 0 00 v. if 1► 013 os ®0c2 OA rq 0 We - �F / H . a tips o0 • _ , ~ �.•. ../..•40:_ I 4 WPI .... -at • ..: 0 .."''''lle‘ 0004:44 0 a a..dr•47400. A e. 0 TA ' ll .l.a ' a . • BW2 •�r�/ /tet .� � �«! �: a�►..� ►' �: p . 64% .. tet . W2 O/ r I •�•t�.�is .,. .fit. 0 •. d a •_1�. ..,.,. 8 ►=•- as 0' a . t. it a A 4,..4 ... ep 4i •MIL a 4 0 r 7: 'OMA F-z .1k, 0 • 4.47T 0 C.) i'MIX arerWA KW ��c 'z w • 6.14 BW •t• .. ,• ..ssr . I 4 CY WOO V%Finer° OKI o r aill stV .Wi + 40a ' �,. a F6kttt�. . . . iL� .., IMP ---e--- • - er...-ovq-v. B ........ •dlo tool'a !�� ALgiro ,I ••. O!rdimovN2 30 r 4. w �t 0 .1�„,,,i. �� .-2. .74: 4* t..' �► sis o r F4f” 4••-scaCp ...a: weibeovimiga - ..-Itwe.....i. sr''M 't A� �:1154�t` a`a � 74 �. ►rItt4 rent,.✓ w�.1�w1 �M�t� • B 3 5 0' ariemitnolgriaati4211.01114766• o r watArou rag a_te-g,0 0-90 - r54 .: ,,,a,,,,et„- 46 � uw1•�.4 . • 11j �i c 5 . 464111 ... FIs , , .tenuilinvirconiwww40.1.0 20' '411,,,ipAtMV: a0lAgegt.1<41101 F / H ;:_�.�. ::�... F5 4#;54111 c9 0 ' cf) g2 0 4P «�0 �a a:: ``� •� � B 2a c *'caa7s' or qV se: ww, 0 co .. 1to 4 0 01 it ...0 0: miC ••• y F4 atV�IJ 9.. te 1.••• .�;.: u• aa I wit cfpjto •/s _ ‘diUreWirjr:41.WO.jig 01 20 �g�....� �.:.0 �` t�r ovi s• fes _ •. a €: F5 11 i_� Ill - ° Q iii ► � Ora tar O AD • a o. wo cifii .81. -1;Ncs 0 o 0 * too' a tits 4 0 Q Q 0v o 0 op ®0(;) OA 0 CITY OF 5 ClIANHASSEN 3. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: April 27, 1995 SUBJ: Proposed Code Amendments Attached is Chapter 18 (subdivision regulations) and Chapter 20 (zoning ordinance) from the City Council. Staff is proposing numerous glitch amendments (issues that need to be fixed with the code) as well as a few amendments staff would like to review with you for your consideration. The proposed changes are penciled into the current code. They have not been summarized as this item is a work session and I would like to receive your input and provide for a more informal discussion. After you have given staff direction, an additional work session could be held or a public _ hearing can be set. A staff report with explanation for changes will be developed for the public hearing. Staff is prepared to review the proposed code changes with you at the meeting. Subvü'.' ReC. J § 18-36 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE . • I (.... DIVI DIVISION 2. PLATTING PROCEDURES Sec. 18-36. Generally. — Notice requirement and procedures set forth in this chapter in excess of those required by state law are directory. Failure to comply with such procedures will not invalidate the proceedings. - — (Ord. No. 33-D, § 4.3, 2-25-85) Sec. 18-37. Exemption. ------720nI'rAcfn11l"lisfrcrJ0( (a) The eitrolerk-sha certify that the following conveyances are exempt from platting if — the new and residual parcels meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance for a buildable lot and are on an existing public street.The applicant shall furnish the city a survey prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor for review: — (1) Dividing a platted lot to add a portion of the lot to an abutting lot; - (2) Dividing a metes and bounds parcel to add a portion of the parcel to an abutting parcel; (3) In areas outside the Metropolitan Council's 1990 urban service area, the separation of a parcel into two(2)or three(3)parcels if all resulting parcels are capable of being further subdivided into buildable lots under the zoning ordinance. (b The city council may approve a metes and bounds subdivision of a platted lot into two (21 lots in areas inside the Metropolitan Council's 1990 urban service area if both resulting lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance and abut an existing public — street. To the extent possible,the new boundary line shall be parallel to a previously existing lot line.The city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed subdivision after notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing has been published once in the official — newspaper, and a proposed development notification sign has been erected on the subject property by the applicant,both at least ten(10)days before the date of hearing.Written notice shall also be mailed by the city to the applicant and all owners of record within five hundred (500) feet of the outer boundaries of the subdivision. Failure to post a proposed development notification sign or to give notice or defects in the notice shall not affect the validity of the _ proceedings. At least three (3) weeks prior to the hearing the applicant shall submit to the • city: • • (1) A survey(prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor); (2) A list of property owners within five hundred(500)feet of the boundaries of the parcel to be subdivided; — (3) Except as waived by the city, all information required for plats. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 4.2, 2-25-85) tr...._-- 1000 SUBDIVISIONS § 18-39 Sec. 18-38. Pre-application consultation. Prior to the preparation of a preliminary plat, the applicant shall consult with the city to discuss the proposal. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 4.1, 2-25-85) Sec. 18-39. Preliminary plat—Generally. (a) After the preapplication consultation and at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the meeting of the planning commission at which action is desired,the applicant may file with the city, an application for preliminary plat approval. The application shall be accompanied by copies of the plat in such number as required by the city, an eight and one-half-by-eleven-inch transparency reduction of each sheet, proof of ownership satisfactory to the city, and a list of property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the property certified by an abstract — company. The applicant shall pay the application fee established by city council resolution. All required data, documentation plans, copies and fees must be submitted before the applica- tion will be considered complete. Rejection of the plat by the city council, or abandonment or withdrawal of the proposed plat by the subdivider, shall not entitle the applicant to the return of all or any part of the application fee. (b) The city may refer copies of the preliminary plat to other agencies and utility compa- nies for their review, comments and recommendations. (c) The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on the preliminary plat after notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing has been published once in the official newspaper, and a proposed development notification sign has been erected on the subject property by the applicant, both at least ten (10) days before the date of hearing. Written notice shall also be mailed by the city to the applicant and all owners of record within five hundred (500) feet of the outer boundaries of the preliminary plat. Failure to post a proposed development notification sign or to give notice or defects in the notice shall not affect the validity of the proceedings. If a development is proposed adjacent to a lake, or will affect the usage of the lake, the applicant shall provide the city with a list of property owners abutting the lake at the time of application. The city shall provide mailed notice to the lake homeowners as in compliance with the procedures above. The applicant is responsible for meeting with affected homeowners. (d) The planning commission shall make a recommendation on the preliminary plat to the city council within forty-five (45) days from the date of the opening of the public hearing, unless the applicant consents on the record to a continuance. The planning commission may recommend approval, approval subject to conditions or that the preliminary plat be denied. If denial is recommended, the reasons for that recommendation shall be stated in the record. (e) Following action by the planning commission, the city council shall consider the preliminary plat. The city council shall make its decision within one hundred twenty (120) • days following receipt by the city of the properly completed application, unless the subdivider consents on the record to a continuance. The city council may: (1) Grant approval of the preliminary plat, with or without modification or conditions; or 1001 § 18.39 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (2) Refer the preliminary plat to the planning commission or appropriate city staff, officers or departments for further investigation; or (3) Disapprove the preliminary plat. If the plat is not approved, the city council shall state the reasons for denial on the record. (f) The findings necessary for city council approval of the preliminary plat and the final plat shall be as follows: (1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; (2) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; (3) The physical characteristics of the site,including but not limited to topography,soils, — vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; (4) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drain- age, sewage disposal,streets,erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; (5) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; (6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. (7) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the (L. following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate-reads. O+c' '��` "�^!� �U1)\t(-- (€€+ c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. pub l�C. cock ri.A is-TS . d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. (g) The city shall notify the applicant of the city council's action,stating the conditions of approval or reasons for disapproval. (h) An applicant may at his own risk, apply to process the preliminary and final plats simultaneously. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 4.1,2-25-85) Sec. 18-40. Same—Data required. Unless waived by the city because of the limited size and nature of the proposal, the following shall be furnished with a preliminary plat: (1) Identification and description: _ a. Proposed name of subdivision, which shall not duplicate or be similar in pronun- ciation or spelling to the name of any other plat in the county. b. Legal description. c. Names and addresses of the record owner, subdivider. land surveyor, engineer, designer of the plat, and any agent having control of the land. 1002 SUBDIVISIONS § 18-40 d. Graphic scale not less than one (1) inch to one hundred (100)feet. e. North arrow. f. Key map including area within one (1)mile radius of plat. g. Date of preparation. (2) Existing conditions: a. Boundary lines of proposed subdivision. b. Existing zoning classifications for land within and abutting the subdivision. c. Acreage and lot dimensions. d. Location, right-of-way width, and names of existing or platted streets; locations of parks,buildings and structures, railroad right-of-way,easements,section lines and corporate boundaries within the proposed subdivision and to a distance one hundred fifty (150)feet beyond. e. Boundary lines of adjoining platted or subdivided land, within one hundred fifty (150)feet, identified by name and ownership including all contiguous land owned or controlled by the subdivider. /0 f. Topographic data within the property to be subdivided and one hundred (100) feet beyond the property boundary, showing contours as follows: two-foot inter- vals where slope is seven percent or less; five-foot intervals where slope is )0 from sevento fifteen (15) percent; ten-foot intervals where slope is greater 1 than fifteen (15) percent. All areas of the subdivision to be platted with a slope greater than twenty-five (25) percent must be clearly indicated. However, on -- undevelopable sections or larger acre lots topographic data may be reduced to significant physical characteristics, such as top and toe of slope, if in the opinion of the city the area is viewed as unsuitable for future subdivision. Location and elevations of on-site and abutting water courses,lakes,wetlands,rivers,streams, and marshes at date of survey and their ordinary high water mark plus approx- imate high and low water elevations shall also be shown. Where the subdivision borders a lake, river or stream, a meander line shall be established at an elevation two(2)feet above the recorded high water elevation of the lake,river or stream. Flood plain areas, location of wooded areas, rocky outcrops, power trans- mission poles and lines and other significant physical features shall also be shown. g. Location, size and approximate grade of proposed public sewer and water mains. If public sewer and water are not available the developer shall provide site evaluation data required by "Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Standards" to determine the suitability of the site for indi- vidual sewage systems. The following data is required for review: 1. Location of two(2) drainfield sites. 2. Two (2) soil borings on each drainfield site for a total of four (4) soil borings per lot. 3. No percolation tests are required for slopes between zero and twelve (12) percent. One (1) percolation test per drainfield site where the land slope is between 13 and 25 percent. 1003 § 18-40 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five (25) percent shall not be consid- ered as a potential soil treatment unit site. The depth of the percolation test should be determined in the field by the site evaluator. h. An accurate soil report indicating soil conditions, permeability and slope. i. Utilities on or adjacent to the property, including location, size and invert eleva- tion of public sanitary and storm sewers, catch basins and manholes; location and size of water mains and hydrants; location of gas mains, high pressure lines,fire hydrants, electric and telephone lines, and street lights. The direction, distance to, and size of such facilities shall be indicated. j. Location of any wetlands. (3) Proposed design features: a. Layout of proposed streets showing the proposed names, the right-of-way widths, centerline gradients and typical cross sections. Street names shall be assigned or approved by the city. b. Location and width of proposed pedestrian ways and utility easements. c. Lot sizes, layout, numbers and preliminary dimensions of lots and blocks. d. Minimum building setback lines as required by the zoning ordinance. e. Areas other than streets, alleys, pedestrians ways and utility easements, in — - tended to be dedicated or reserved for public use, including the size of such areas. f. Location, size and approximate grade of proposed public sewer and water mains. ("-__ If public sewer and water area not available the developer shall provide site evaluation data required by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Individual Sewage Treatment Standards (WPC 409) to determine the suitability of the site for individual sewage systems. References shall be made to "Soil Survey: Carver v (or Hennepin) County, Minnesota," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con- servation Service, and any other available sources. The data required shall be determined by the city. __ g. If the preliminary plat is a rearrangement of a recorded plat, the lot and block -'- arrangement of the original plat, its original name, and all revised or vacated _ _ right-of-ways and easements shall be shown by dotted or dashed line. .� (4) Supplementary information: l a. Statement of the proposed use of lots stating type of buildings with number of proposed dwelling units or type of business or industry to reveal the effect of the -_' proposed development on traffic, fire hazards, and density of population. 3 b. Any proposed protective covenants. c. A drainage plan for the area indicating the,direction and rate of natural storm water runoff and those unaltered areas where storm water collects and perco- _ lates into the ground. A proposed drainage plan for the developed site indicating the direction and rate of runoff and those areas where storm water will collect -- ----- and percolate into the ground shall also be included. (-_-310(1,-1 Vuak( Flip I-10;►. be c-1 _ d. A proposed finished grading plan shown at contour intervals appropriate to the topography or spot elevations indicating the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features. 1004 SUBDIVISIONS § 18-41 e. If any zoning changes are contemplated, the proposed zoning plan for the areas. f. Where the subdivider owns property adjacent to that proposed for the subdivi- sion, a general development plan of the remaining property depicting the possible — relationships between the proposed subdivision and the future subdivision. The plan shall address the overall land use, traffic circulation, utility easement con- figurations, and general lot layouts. g. A soil erosion and sediment control plan.The plan shall include a timing schedule and sequence of operation indicating the anticipated starting and completion dates of the particular development segment and the estimated time of exposure of each area prior to completion of effective erosion and sediment control mea- sures. Gradients of waterways, design of velocity and erosion control measures, and landscaping of the erosion and sediment control system shall also be shown. h. A vegetation preservation and protection plan to provide stabilization of erosion or sediment-producing areas. i. Required variances. j. Water distribution system. k. Proposals for street lighting, curb and gutters,sidewalks and boulevard improve- ments. 1. Such other information as may be requested by the city. m. Photocomposite images, artistic renderings, or site elevations which depict the visual impact of the proposed development's design, landscaping, street layout, signage,pedestrian ways, lighting,buildings, or other details that affect land use within the city shall be submitted. Such images and renderings shall be from key vantage points and provide an undistorted perspective of the proposed develop- ment from abutting properties, less intensive land uses, and/or from entryway locations.Appropriate levels of resolution for the visualization shall be used from flat shading for massing studies and preliminary design to photorealistic imaging for final design. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 59.2(7), 2-25-85; Ord. No. 33E, § 1, 12-15-86; Ord. No. 203, § 1, 5-9-94) Sec. 18.41. Final plat—Generally. (a) Unless otherwise provided in the development contract for phased development,within one (1)year after the date of the city council approval of the preliminary plat, the subdivider shall file an application for approval of the final plat. In addition to the application the subdivider shall submit: (1) Copies of the plat in such quantities as is required by the city; (2) Two (2) mylar copies of the plat; (3) One (1) two hundred (200) scale copy of the plat. If the final plat application is not filed within this period, the preliminary plat will be con- - sidered void unless for good cause shown an extension is requested in writing by the subdivider and granted by the city council. The application for final plat approval shall be filed at least fourteen (14) days prior to the meeting of the city council at which action is desired. Supp. No. 7 1005 § 18-41 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE — (b) The final plat shall conform to the requirements of this chapter and to all conditions set forth in the approval of the preliminary plat as modified during final plat approval. (c) The city council shall review the final plat and shall approve or disapprove it within sixty (60) days of receipt of the completed application. (d) No final plat shall be approved by the city council until the plat is in a form acceptable for recording with the county,the proper filing fees have been paid to the city, a development contract has been signed, appropriate security has been furnished, and no other payments to the city related to the development are outstanding. C azo t (e) Upon approval of the final plat a city council, the c' shall notify the applicant _ of the approval and within thirty ) days thereafter, the icashall file the final plat ? with the county recorder, ..-: - . - • '. - - . :. Failure of the —!` applicant to comply shall be cause for revoking the city's approval. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 4.1, 2-25-85) Sec. 18-42. Same—Development contract. _ Before the city signs a final plat and before the developer constructs any of the required improvements set forth in section 18-78,the developer shall enter into a development contract • with the city. The contract shall delineate the conditions under which approval is given. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 10, 2-25-85) Secs. 18-43-18.55. Reserved. ARTICLE M. DESIGN STANDARDS Sec. 18.56. Generally. _ The proposed subdivision shall conform to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and design handbook.The design features set forth in this article are minimum requirements.The _ city may impose additional or more stringent requirements concerning lot size, streets and overall design as deemed appropriate considering the property being subdivided. (Ord. No. 33-D, §§ 6.1, 6.9, 2-25-85) Sec. 18-57. Streets. (a) Streets shall be dedicated on the plat to the public. The location and design of streets shall consider existing and planned streets,reasonable traffic circulation, topographic condi- tions, runoff of storm water, public convenience and safety and the proposed land uses of property to be served. (b) Street right-of-way widths shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan and official map, and shall conform to county and state standards for trunk highways. If no such plans or _ standards are applicable, right-of-way widths shall not be less than the following: Supp. No. 7 1006 SUBDIVISIONS § 18-57 Right-of Way Pavement Widths Width Street Classifications (feet) (feet) Minor arterial 100 36 to 44 Collector 80 36 Local street 60 24 (rural residential) Local street 60 28 to 32 (urban residential) Local street 60 36 (commercial/industrial) Cul-de-sac, turnaround radius 60 42 (urban/residential) Cul-de-sac, turnaround radius 60 40 (rural residential) Cul-de-sac, turnaround radius 60 48 (commercial/industrial) (c) Insofar as practical, streets shall intersect at right angles. In no case shall the angle formed by the intersection of two (2) streets be less than sixty (60) degrees. Intersections • having more than four (4) corners are prohibited. (d) A tangent of at least three hundred (300) feet shall be introduced between reverse curves on arterial and collector streets. (e) When connecting street lines deflect from each other at one (1) point by more than ten (10) degrees they shall be connected by a curve with a radius adequate to ensure a sight distance within the right-of-way of not less than five hundred (500) feet for arterials, three hundred (300) feet for collectors, and one hundred (100) feet for all other streets. (0 Proper design shall consider required turning radius of vehicles for access points or entrances to and from a highway using standards adopted by the state department of trans- portation. (g) All centerline grades shall be at least five-tenths percent and shall not exceed five (5) percent, for arterials and seven (7) percent for all other streets and alleys. Whenever possible, grades within thirty (30) feet of intersections or railroad crossings shall not exceed three (3) percent. (h) Different connecting street grades shall be connected with vertical curves. Minimum length, in feet, of the vertical curves shall be twenty (20) times the algebraic difference in the percentage of grade of the two (2) adjacent slopes. (i) Local streets shall have a centerline offset of not less than three hundred (300) feet. Offset intersections shall be avoided. (j) The alignment shall discourage through traffic. Supp. No. 7 1007 § 18-57 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (k) The maximum length of a street terminating in a cul-de-sac shall be determined as a function of the expected development density along the street, measured from the centerline — of the street of origin to the end of the right-of-way. (1) Where a proposed subdivision is adjacent to a limited access highway, arterial or collector street, there shall be no direct vehicular or pedestrian access from individual lots to such highways or streets. To the extent feasible access to arterial streets shall be at intervals of not less than one-fourth mile and through existing and established crossroads.Access along collector streets will be restricted and controlled on the final plat. (m) Half streets shall be prohibited except where it will be practical to require the dedi- cation of the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided,in which case the dedication — of a half street may be permitted or required. The probable length of time elapsing before dedication of the remainder shall be a factor considered in making this determination. (n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the metropolitan urban service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan shall be constructed to urban standards as prepared by the city engineer's office. Streets to be constructed in subdivisions — located outside the metropolitan urban service area shall conform to the rural standard re- quirements as prepared by the city engineer's office. The construction of private streets are prohibited except as specified in section 18-57(o). (o) Private streets may be permitted in business,industrial,office,R-8,R-12,and R-16.Up to four (4) lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private street if the _ city finds the following conditions to exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes,local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. If the use of a private street is to be allowed, it shall be subject to the following standards: (1) The common sections of a private street serving 2 units or more in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a seven-ton design, paved to a width of twenty (20) feet, utilize a maximum grade of ten (10) percent, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. — Private streets serving R-8,R-12,and R-16,shall be built to a seven-ton design,paved a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet, utilize a maximum grade of ten (10) per- cent, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal based on applicable — fire codes. Private streets serving business, industrial and office districts shall be Supp. No. 7 1008 SUBDIVISIONS § 18-58 '-- �C built to a nine-ton design, paved a minimum width of twenty-six (26) feet, utilize a _SL, maximum grade of ten (10) percent, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based on guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Plans for the street shall be submitted to the city engineer. Upon completion of the driveway, the appli- o cant shall submit a set of"as-built" plans signed by a registered civil engineer. — (2) Private streets must be maintained in good condition and plowed within twenty-four T (24) hours of a snowfall greater than two (2) inches. Covenants concerning mainte- cc nance shall be filed against all benefitting properties. Parking on the private street — or otherwise blocking all or part of the private street shall be prohibited. C (3) Private streets that are not usable by emergency vehicles because of obstructions, snow accumulation, or poor maintenance are a public safety hazard. The city may C remedy such conditions and assess the cost back to the property pursuant to Minne- sota Statutes section 429.101, Subdivision 1(C), (4) The private street shall be provided with adequate drainage facilities to convey storm runoff which may require hydrologic calculations for a ten-year storm should be Q' -4- included. In the R-8, R-12, R-16, business, industrial, and office districts, these im- C� provements shall include concrete curb and gutter. (5) Street addresses or city approved street name sign, if required, must be posted at the — point where the private street intersects the public right-of-way. ----- c c -C (6) The private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. The ,� -C _ city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts.An erosion _ control plan should be completed and approved prior to construction. .--- L� (7) The private street in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R-4 districts, must be located within a . strip of property at least thirty (30) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way =` � or covered by a thirty-foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all i benefitted and impacted parcels. Private streets serving R-8, R-12, R-16, business, ' '7_2"Z industrial,and office districts,must be located within a strip of property at least forty c. L' (40) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a forty foot wide ~L easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. -___ X .,— c '� � (8) Maintenance and repair of utilities located within the private driveway easement �, �C shall be the responsibility of the benefiting property. c....) c.5 C J U (p) Private reserve strips controlling public access to streets shall be prohibited. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 6-2, 2-25-85; Ord. No. 125, § 1, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 135, §§ 1, 2, 12-10-90; Ord. '' ' t No. 209, § 1, 6-27-94) C `J' '-" ' q. Tri �o(S too moiled 111-.t-e A-2, (Z CRs c,¢ , t �� 14 -lh,e y �= 41fi.k Ijr Iou,(r\.), (�Gh iIlonj elIS i ( : .� S.r Sec. 18-58. Alle s'. r 'aLfr o r-' c y I. �1hc pr vel (� r ck idorArrtk V-(4-,Pin :yokes H- UAB, ii\aulA r krr e -19 (O(\ in+cC- a p L S-1(ef 4 Tr) rn<krn`, -Itu, �� Alleys are prohibited except or re lanes in commercial and industrial developments. , (Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.3, 2-25-85) Or as I-L api;(D/ft O G 11 1 01 c 1'litLi Supp. No. 7 1009 fv\-P (0 M fat\ SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY (c) Flag Lots - Dimensions. In order to encourage the more _ efficient use of land, flag or L-shaped lots may be allowed subject to the following conditions: (1) A flag or L-shaped lot shall be comprised of a staff — portion contiguous with the flag portion thereof. (2) That staff portion of said lot shall front on and be _ contiguous to a dedicated public street or private street. The minimum width of the staff portion of flag lots shall be 20 feet and the maximum length shall be 220 feet unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission and Fire Department. A. No building or construction, except for driveways, _ shall be allowed on the staff portion of said lot unless the minimum width thereof is the same or greater than the minimum width for a lot as allowed in the underlying zone (excluding entrance features and street lights) . B. The front side of the flag portion of said lots — shall be deemed to be that side nearest to the dedicated public street or private street upon which the staff portion fronts. C. The staff portion of said lots shall be deemed to end and the flag portion of said lots shall be deemed to commence at the extension of the front lot line. D. The square footage located in the flag portion of said lot, which shall be exclusive of the square footage located in the staff portion of said lot, shall be the same or greater than the minimum square footage as required in the underlying zone. E. The side and rear yard requirements of the flag portion of said lots shall be the same as is — required in the underlying zone. F. The minimum front setback requirements for all _ buildings shall be 30 feet, excluding the staff, from the front lot line of the flag portion thereof. Setbacks shall be those on the underlying zone. G. No more than two flag lots can be served by one staff portion of said lots. H. All flag lots in the development site shall be approved in the site plan by the Planning Commission. 14-5 § 18-59 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 18-59. Blocks. The length and width of blocks shall be sufficient to provide convenient and safe access, circulation, control and street design. Blocks shall not be longer than one thousand eight hundred (1,800) feet, or shorter than three hundred (300) feet except where topography of surrounding development limits ability to strictly comply or as specifically approved by the city council to foster innovative design consistent with sound planning principles. Pedestrian ways may be required on blocks longer than nine hundred (900) feet or in other areas to provide access to schools, parks and other destination points. Easements for pedestrian ways shall be at least twenty (20) feet wide and shall be located to minimize intersections with streets. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.4, 2-25-85) Sec. 18.60. Lots. (a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required y the zoningordinance or on a private-dr-4=e,- reef- Oc u a`. �' -(b c-4- 01 - (oi i�Ct 4 / (b) Side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles to straight street lines or substantially radial to curved street lines. (c) Lots shall be graded to drain away from building locations. (d) Lots shall be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities, such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. (e) Lot remnants are prohibited. (f) Street arrangements for the proposed subdivision shall not cause undue hardship to owners of adjoining property in subdividing their own land. (g) Double frontage lots with frontage on two (2) parallel streets or reverse frontage shall not be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector street. Such lots shall have an additional depth of at least ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on double frontage lots should face the front of existing structures across the street. If this cannot be achieved, then such lots shall have an '- additional depth of ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetation screening along the back lot line. (h) Lot layouts should take into consideration the potential use of solar energy design features. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.5, 2-25-85) Sec. 18.61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. (a) Required landscapinglresidential subdivision. (1) Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) tree to be placed in the front yard. The type of tree shall be subject to city approval. (The city will provide a list of species). Coniferous trees must be at least six (6) feet high and deciduous trees must Supp. No. 7 1010 DEFINITIONS TO BE ADDED Impervious Surface - Any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of — storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. Light Industrial - The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outdoor storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by — noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. Office - Professional and business office, non-retail activity. Used for conducting the affairs — of a business profession, service, industry or government. Home Occupation - An occupation, profession, activity or use that is clearly a customary, — incidental, and secondary use of a residential dwelling unit and which does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the residential character of the neighborhood. — Vocational School - Establishments primarily engaged in offering specialized vocational courses, including schools such as banking, commercial art, construction equipment, — correspondence schools, nursing schools, real estate schools, restaurant operation, trade schools and truck driving schools. Chapter 20 ZONING* Art. I. In General, §§ 20-1-20-25 Art. H. Administration and Enforcement, §§ 20-26-20-200 — Div. 1. Generally, §§ 20-26-20-40 Div. 2. Amendments, §§ 20-41-20-55 Div. 3. Variances, §§ 20-56-20-70 Div. 4. Nonconforming Uses, §§ 20-71-20-90 Div. 5. Building Permits, Certificates of Occupancy, Etc., §§ 20-91-20-105 Div. 6. Site Plan Review, §§ 20-106-20-200 Art. III. Zoning Districts Generally and Zoning District Map, §§ 20.201-20.220 — Art. IV. Conditional Uses, §§ 20-221-20-325 Div. 1. Generally, §§ 20-221-20-230 Div. 2. Conditional Use Permits, §§ 20-231-20-250 — Div. 3. Standards for Agricultural and Residential Districts, §§ 20-251- 20-280 Div. 4. Standards for Business, Office, Institutional and industrial Dis- tricts, §§ 20-281-20-325 — Art. V. Flood Plain Overlay District, §§ 20-326-20-400 Div. 1. Generally, §§ 20-326-20-345 Div. 2. General Flood Plain District, §§ 20-346-20-365 — Div. 3. Floodway District (FW), §§ 20-366-20-375 Div. 4. Flood Fringe District (FF), §§ 20-376-20-400 Art. VI. Wetland Protection, §§ 20-401-20-475 — Div. 1. Generally, §§ 20-401-20-420 Div. 2. Wetland Alteration Permit, §§ 20-421-20-475 Pt. A. General Provisions, §§ 20-421-20-435 Pt. B. Issuance Guidelines, §§ 20-436-20-475 — Art. VII. Shoreland Management District, §§ 20.476-20.500 Art. VIII. Planned Unit Development District (PUD), §§ 20-501-20.550 Div. 1. Generally, §§ 20-501-20-515 Div. 2. Procedures, §§ 20-516-20-550 Art. IX. "A-1"Agricultural Preservation District, §§ 20-551-20-570 Art. X. "A-2" Agricultural Estate District, §§ 20-571-20-590 Art. XI. "RR" Rural Residential District, §§ 20-591-20-610 — Art. XII. "RSF" Single-Family Residential District, §§ 20-611-20-630 Art. XIII. "R-4" Mixed Low Density Residential District, §§ 20-631-20.650 Art. XIV. "R-8" Mixed Medium Density Residential District, §§ 20-651-20-670 — Art. XV. High Density Residential Districts, §§ 20-671-20-690 Div. 1. "R-12" District, §§ 20-671-20-679 Div. 2. "R-16" District, §§ 20-680-20-690 — Art. XVI. "BN" Neighborhood Business District, §§ 20-691-20-710 Art. XVII. "BH" Highway and Business Services Districts, §§ 20.711-20.730 *Cross references—Buildings and building regulations, Ch. 7; planning and develop- - ment, Ch. 15; use of official maps, § 15-20; subdivisions, Ch. 18. State law reference—Municipal planning and zoning, M.S. § 462.351 et seq. — Supp. No. 7 1141 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Art. XVIII. "CBD" Central Business District, §§ 20-731-20-750 Art. XIX. "BG" General Business District, §§ 20-751-20-770 Art. XX. "BF" Fringe Business District, §§ 20-771-20.790 Art. XII. "OI" Office and Institutional District, §§ 20-791-20-810 Art. XXII. "IOP" Industrial Office Park District, §§ 20-811-20-900 Art. XVIII. General Supplemental Regulations, §§ 20-901-20-1100 Div. 1. Generally, §§ 20-901-20-950 Div. 2. Performance standards, §§ 20-951-20-975 Div. 3. Home Occupations, §§ 20-976-20-1000 _ Div. 4. Animals, §§ 20-1001-20-1015 Div. 5. Fences and Walls, §§ 20-1016-20-1040 Div. 6. Wind Energy Conversion Systems, (WECS), §§ 20-1041-20-1100 _ Art. XXIV. Off-Street Parking and Loading, §§ 20-1011-20-1175 Div. 1. Generally, §§ 20-1101-20-1115 Div. 2. Parking and Loading, §§ 20-1116-20-1140 Div. 3. Off Street Loading and Trash Removal Areas, §§ 20-1141-20-1175 Art. XXV. Landscaping and Tree Removal, §§ 20-1176-20-1250 Div. 1. Generally, §§ 20-1176, 20-1177 Div. 2. Tree Preservation, § 20-1178 _ Div. 3. Landscaping Standards, §§ 20-1179-20-1183 Div. 4. Maintenance and Installation, §§ 20-1184-20-1250 Art. XXVI. Signs, §§ 20-1251-20-1350 Div. 1. Generally, §§ 20-1251-20-1300 Div. 2. Signs Allowed In Specific Districts By Permits, §§ 20-1301-20-1350 Art. XXVII. Mineral Extraction, §§ 20-1351-20-1399 Art. XXVIII. Bluff Protection, §§ 20-1400-20-1449 Art. XX1X. Highway Corridor Districts, §§ 20-1450-20.1454 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 20-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the mean- ings ascribed to the in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Accessory use or structure means a use or structure subordinate to and serving the prin- cipal use or structure on the same lot and clearly and customarily incidental thereto. Agriculture means the commercial use of land for raising of livestock and poultry,growing and producing of fruits, vegetables, field crops and nursery stock, including tree farms and choose-and-cut Christmas tree sales. The term does not include the commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, nor the operation of riding academies, commercial stables or kennels. Alley means a public right-of-way that is used primarily for secondary vehicular service _ access to the back or the side of properties abutting on a street. Supp. No. 7 1142 ZONING § 20-1 Alteration means any change or rearrangement, other than incidental repairs, in the supporting members of an existing building,such as bearing walls,columns beams,girders or interior partitions, as well as any change in doors or windows, or any enlargement to or diminution of a building or structure, whether horizontally or vertically, or the moving of a building or structure from one (1) location to another. Animal feedlot means land or buildings used for the confined feeding,breeding, raising or holding of livestock and poultry where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the enclosure.Pastures are not considered animal feedlots. NUM Arboretum means a place where plants,trees,and shrubs are cultivated for scientific and educational purposes. Arterial street means a street or highway with access restrictions designed to carry large values of traffic between various sectors of the city or county and beyond. [Auto service center] means an integrated group of commercial establishments or single establishments planned,developed,and managed as a unit with off-street parking provided on site and providing uses engaged primarily in the supplying of goods and services generally required in the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles. These may include sale and servicing of tires, batteries, automotive accessories, replacement items, washing and lubri- cating services, and the performance of minor automotive maintenance and repair. This does not include major body repair where it is necessary to provide long term storage of cars and body parts. Bed and breakfast means an owner-occupied single-family home in which not more than five(5) rooms are rented on a nightly basis for a period of seven(7)or less consecutive days by the same person. Meals may or may not be provided to residents and overnight guests. Block means an area of land within a subdivision that is entirely bounded by streets, or by streets and the exterior boundary or boundaries of the subdivision, or a combination of the above with a waterway or any other barrier to the continuity of development. Bluff means a natural topographic feature such as a hill,cliff,or embankment having the following characteristics: (1) The slope rises at least twenty-five (25) feet above the toe of the bluff; and (2) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five(25) feet or more above the toe of the bluff averages thirty (30) percent or greater. (3) An area with an average slope of less than eighteen (18) percent over a distance for fifty (50) feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff. Bluff impact zone means a bluff and land located within twenty(20) feet from the top of a bluff. Boarder means an individual other than a member of the family occupying the dwelling unit or part thereof who for a consideration is furnished meals or other services. Supp.No. 7 1143 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Boardinghouse means a dwelling or part thereof in which lodging is provided by the owner or operator to three (3) or more boarders. _ Boathouse means a structure designed and used solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment. Buffer strip means an area of nondisturbed ground cover abutting a wetland left undis- turbed to filter sediment, materials, and chemicals. Buildable area means the area of a lot remaining after the minimum yard and open space requirements of this chapter have been met. Building coverage means the horizontal area from the outside edge of the exterior walls of the ground floor of all principal and accessory buildings on a lot. Building height means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at — the building or ten(10)feet above the lowest ground level,whichever is lower,and the highest point of a flat roof or average height of the highest of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Building line means a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. Building,principal means a building in which is conducted the primary or predominant use of the lot. Building setback line means a line on a lot, generally parallel to a lot line, high water mark,shoreline or road right-of-way line,located a sufficient distance therefrom to provide the minimum yards required by this chapter.The building setback lines delimit the area in which buildings and other regulated structures are permitted subject to all applicable provisions of this chapter. Canopy coverage shall mean the area on a horizontal plane that is located under the crowns of all the trees on the site. Church means a building or edifice consecrated to religious worship, where people join — together in some form of public worship under the aegis and direction of a person who is authorized under the laws of the State of Minnesota to solemnize marriages. A church may include living quarters for persons employed on the premises and classroom facilities. The following are not considered as churches: Camp meeting grounds, mikvahs, coffee houses, recreational complexes, retreat houses, sleeping quarters for retreatants during spiritual re- treats extending for periods of more than one (1) day. Bible camps with live-in quarters, publishing establishments, ritual slaughter houses, radio or television towers and transmis- sion facilities, technological seminaries, day care centers, hospitals, and drug treatment cen- ters are not churches. Clear-cutting means the removal of an entire stand of trees. Collector street means a street that carries traffic from minor streets to arterial streets. Supp. No. 7 1144 ZONING § 20-1 Commissioner means the commissioner of the department of natural resources. Conference/convention center means a preplanned, centrally managed development con- - taining facilities for business or professional conferences and seminars and containing accom- modations for overnight lodging, eating and recreation. The development is characterized by architecturally integrated buildings,common use of parking areas,and incorporation of passes recreational amenities into overall site design. Conforming building or structure means any building or structure which complies with all the regulations of this chapter, or any amendment thereto. Contractor's yard means any area or use of land where vehicles, equipment, and/or con- struction materials and supplies commonly used by building, excavation, roadway construc- tion, landscaping and similar contractors are stored or serviced. A contractor's yard includes both areas of outdoor storage and areas confined within a completely enclosed building used in conjunction with a contractor's business. Convenience store means a retail establishment which generally sells a limited range of food products,nonprescription drugs,candy and other perishable goods.This includes soda and similar beverage dispensing and food products, which can be heated and/or prepared onsite, and has over four hundred (400) square feet of floor area for retailing o nonautomotive goods. Convenience store with gas pumps means a retail establishment which generally sells gasoline from pump islands and a limited range of food products, nonprescription drugs, candy and other perishable goods. This includes soda and similar beverage dispensing and food products which can be heated and/or prepared onsite, and has over four hundred (400) square feet of floor area for retailing of nonautomotive goods. Critical root zone means an area twelve (12) times the tree diameter at DBH measured from the base of the tree. Cul-de-sac means a minor street with only one (1) outlet and having an appropriate turn-around for the safe and convenient reversal of traffic movement. Day care center means any facility or home where tuition, fees or other forms of compen- sation is charged for the care of children and which is licensed by the state as a day care center. DBH means diameter measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground). Deck means a horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site. _ Density, net means the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the developable acreage of the site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands, lakes, roadways, and other areas not suitable for building purposes. Designated woodland area means an area within a development that has been designated in the woodland management plan as a tree preservation, forestation or replacement planting area. Supp. No. 7 1145 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Development means the division of a parcel of land into two (2) or more parcels; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of — any structure; any mining excavation, landfill or land disturbance, and any use or extension of the use of land. Dock means a wharf, pier, or other structure constructed or maintained, whether floating or not, including all "L's," "T's" or posts which may be a part thereof, whether affixed or adjacent to the principal structure. _ Dock crossbar means that portion of any "L" shaped or "T" shaped dock which is approx- imately parallel in alignment to the adjoining shoreline or ordinary high water mark. Dock setback zone means the area inside and running parallel to and ten(10)feet from the extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake. "Extended lot lines" means an extension of the side lot lines one hundred (100) feet into a lake from and at a right angle to a line drawn between the intersection of each side lot line and the ordinary high water mark.If the extended lot lines of adjoining lots overlap, then the common extended lot line between the lots shall be at an angle which equally divides the area of overlap. Drive-in use means an establishment which by design, physical facilities, service, or by packaging procedures encourages or permits customers to receive services, obtain goods, or be — entertained while remaining in their motor vehicle. This term includes having "drive-thru" windows. Dwelling means a building or portion thereof designed,occupied or intended to be occupied exclusively for residential purposes, but not including hotels, motels, nursing homes, travel trailers, motorhomes or bed and breakfast tourist homes. Dwelling unit means one (1) or more rooms which are connected together constituting complete, separate and independent living quarters,physically separated from any other room — or dwelling unit which may be in the same building and containing permanent cooking, eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. Dwelling, multi-family means a detached building containing three (3) or more dwelling units. Apartment buildings, condominiums, manor homes, quad-duplexes, and cooperatively — owned buildings containing three (3) or more dwelling units are multi-family dwellings. Dwelling, single-family means a detached building containing one (1) dwelling unit. Dwelling, two-family means a detached building containing two (2) dwelling units. Easement means a right afforded a person or governmental/public unit to use another's — real property for a specific purpose. Easement, conservation means an easement created where restrictions are imposed on the _ development or alteration of property to preserve natural features. Supp. No. 7 1146 ZONING § 20-1 Facade means that portion of any exterior elevation of a building exposed to public view extending from grade to the top of the parapet wall or eaves and the entire width of the building elevation. Family means an individual living alone, or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage or law,or a group of not more than five(5)persons(excluding servants)who need not be so related, living together in a dwelling unit. Fence means a structure serving as an enclosure, barrier, or boundary, usually made of posts, chain link, masonry, boards, rails or other materials. Flood fringe means that portion of a floodplain outside the floodway. Floodplain means the land adjacent to a body of water which has been or may be hereafter covered by flood water, including that land covered by the regional flood. The floodplain consists of the floodway and the flood fringe area. Flood, regional means a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in the state and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency once every one hundred (100) years. Floodway means the minimum channel of a watercourse and those portions of a floodplain adjoining the channel that are reasonably required to discharge the regional flood. Floor area means the sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of a building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of walls sepa- rating two (2) buildings. The floor area of a building shall include basement floor area, pent- _ houses, attic space having headroom of seven (7) feet or more, interior balconies and mezza- nines, enclosed porches and floor area devoted to accessory uses. However, any space devoted to mechanical equipment, stairwells,elevators shafts,parking or loading shall not be included in the floor area. Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) means the numerical value obtained by dividing the floor area of all buildings on a lot by lot area. Garage means a structure which may or may not be attached to the principal structure used primarily for the enclosure of personal vehicles. Garden center means a place of business where retail and wholesale products and produce are sold to the retail consumer. These centers, which may include a nursery and/or green- - houses, import most of its items sold. These items may include paints, handicrafts, nursery products and stock, fertilizers, potting soil, hardware, lawn and garden power equipment and machinery, hoes, rakes, shovels and other garden and farm tools and utensils. Grade means the average level of the finished surface of the ground adjacent to the exterior walls of the building or structure or the degree of use or descent of a sloping surface, expressed in percentage terms. Greenhouse means a building used for the cultivation or protection of plants, flowers, vegetables and nursery stock for subsequent sale or for seasonable enjoyment. Supp. No. 7 1147 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Group home means a state-licensed residential facility where persons reside for purposes of rehabilitation,treatment,or special care.Such persons may be orphaned,suffer chemical or _ emotional impairment, or suffer social maladjustment or dependency. Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) is a species-habitat data management system for impact assessment developed by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.Its purpose is to document predicted impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed land and water resource development projects. Habitat quality for selected key species is described by an index, the Habitat Suit- ability Index (HSI). Habitat suitability index (HSI) is a fish or wildlife species-specific index value rating the ability of key habitat components to supply essential life requirements for the species. Index value ranges between 0 to 1.0. Habitat units (HU). Habitat suitability (HSI) multiplied by the area of habitat being evaluated. HU's are used for comparing habitat quality from one wetland to the next or for measuring the effectiveness of mitigation. HU's integrate both quality and quantity of hab- itat. Hardship means the same as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. Health care facility means a state-certified or licensed facility or institution, whether _ public or private,principally engaged in providing services for health maintenance,diagnosis 1 or treatment of human disease,pain,injury,deformity or physical condition,including,but not limited to, a general hospital, special hospital, mental hospital, public health center, diag- _ nostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home,nursing home,intermediate care facility,tuberculosis hospital,chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, home health care agency,boarding home or other home for sheltered care,and bioanalytical laboratory or central services facility serving one (1) or more such institutions but excluding institutions that provide healing solely by prayer. Health services means establishments primarily engaged in furnishing medical, surgical or other services to individuals, including the offices of physicians, dentists, and other health _ practitioners, medical and dental laboratories, out-patient care facilities, blood banks, and oxygen and miscellaneous types of medical supplies and services. Home improvement trades means carpenter shops,interior decorating,painting and paper hanging shops, furniture upholstering and similar enterprises; but not including contractor's yards. Home occupation means-any--eeeupati. .• - • , or pro ession carni-. . . - sident and conducted-as an accessory use in the resident's dwelling unit. n'eu- de (A 1`h d\ Hotel means a facility offering transient lodging accommodations to the general public and which may provide additional services such as restaurants, meeting rooms and recre- ational facilities and where access to individual rooms is provided through an indoor lobby or _ office. Supp. No. 7 1148 — ZONING § 20-1 Household pet means a dog or cat, regardless of weight, or an animal not exceeding forty (40) pounds in weight that is usually and customarily considered a pet. hnjj}} IYIOu - l6{(f' ntehsive vegetation clearing means the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contig- uous patch, strip, row, or block. Ur {� Interim use means a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occur- - f 1L � e nce of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. 1 �l( Junkyard means an area, lot, parcel, building or structure or part thereof where used, waste, discarded or salvaged materials are bought, sold, exchanged, stored, abandoned, baled, cleaned, packed, disassembled or handled, including but not limited to scrap iron and other metals, glass, paper, rags, rubber products, tires, bottles, building materials, vehicle parts, household appliances, brush and lumber. A junkyard includes an automobile wrecking dis- mantling yard,but does not include accessory uses established in conjunction with a permitted manufacturing process when conducted within an enclosed area or building. The storage of unlicensed and/or inoperable motor vehicles for a period in excess of thirty(30)days shall also be considered a junkyard. Kennel, commercial means an establishment in which dogs, cats, or other domesticated animals more than one (1) year old are housed, groomed, bred, boarded, trained, or sold for gain. Kennel,private means any place where three (3) or more dogs or cats over one (1)year of age are kept or harbored, such animals being owned by the owner or lessee of the premises wherein or whereupon the animals are kept or harbored. Lakeshore site means any lot of record which abuts any body of public water. Landscape means all forms of planting and vegetation, ground forms, rock groupings, water features and patterns, and all visible construction except buildings and site furnishings. Living area means the area of a dwelling including, but not limited to, bedrooms, bath- rooms, kitchens, living rooms, and dining rooms, but excluding garages. Loading space means an off-street space or berth designed and used for the loading or unloading of commercial vehicles. Loss of trees means that any of the following may have happened: (1) Grade change or land alteration, whether temporary or permanent, of greater than one (1) foot, measured vertically from the existing grade, affecting forty (40) percent (as measured on a horizontal plane) or more of a tree's critical root zone; or (2) Utility construction resulting in the cutting of forty (40) percent or more of the tree's roots within the critical root zone; or (3) Mechanical injury to the tree trunk causing loss of more than forty(40)percent of the bark; or Supp. No. 7 1149 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (4) Compaction to ninety (90) percent of standard proctor to a depth of six (6) inches or more of forty (40) percent or more of the surface of the soil within the tree's critical root zone; or (5) The pruning of a tree which eliminates forty (40) percent or more of the canopy area of a tree; or (6) The complete removal of a tree. Lot means a separate parcel, tract, or area of land undivided by any public street or approved private road, which has been established by plat, metes and bounds subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, and which is occupied by or intended to be developed for and occupied by a principal building or group of such buildings and accessory buildings, or utilized for a principal use and uses accessory thereto, including such open spaces and yards as are designed and arranged or required by this chapter for such building, use or development. Lot area means the area of a horizontal plane bounded by the front, side or rear lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of lakes or rivers or by street rights-of-way. Lot, corner means a lot abutting upon two (2)or more streets at their intersection, or upon two (2) parts of the same street, such streets or parts of the same street forming an interior angle of less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees. Lot coverage means that portion or percentage of a lot that is covered by impervious surfaces. Lot depth means the mean horizontal distance between the front lot line and the rear lot line of a lot. The greater frontage of a corner lot is its depth,and its lesser frontage is its width. Lot, double frontage means a lot which fronts upon two(2)parallel streets,or which fronts upon two (2) streets which do not intersect at the boundaries of the lot. On a double frontage lot, both street lot lines shall be deemed front lot lines. Lot frontage means the lot width measured at the front lot line. Lot, interior means a lot other than a corner lot. Lot line means a line of record bounding a lot which divides one (1) lot from another lot or from a street right-of-way or any other public space. Lot line, front means the lot line separating a lot from a street right-of-way. In the case of a corner lot it shall be the lot line with the shortest dimensions on the street. Lot line, rear meant the lot line which is parallel to and most distant from the front lot — line; or in the case of triangular or otherwise irregularly shaped lots, a line twenty (20) feet in length,entirely within the lot,parallel to and at the maximum possible distance from the front lot line. Lot line, side means any lot line other than a front or rear lot line. A side lot line separating a lot from a street is a side street lot line. A side lot line separating a lot from another lot or lots is an interior side lot line. Supp. No. 7 1150 ZONING § 20-1 Lot of record means any legally recorded lot which at the time of its recordation complied with all applicable laws and ordinances. Lot, riparian means any lot within seventy-five (75) feet of the ordinary high water mark of a lake, pond or wetland. Lot width means the shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. Lot, zoning means a single tract of land which consists of one(1) or more lots of record and which, at the time of filing for a building permit, is designated by its owner or developer as a tract to be used, developed or built upon as a separate unit under single ownership or control. A zoning lot may or may not coincide with a single lot of record, but in no case shall a zoning lot include only a portion of a lot of record. Manufactured dwelling means a factory-built structure which is transportable in one(1)or more sections on its own running gear or chassis,and which is equipped with necessary utility service connections and designed to be used for single-family occupancy with or without a permanent foundation. Such dwellings measure twenty(20)feet or more in width and forty(40) feet or more in length, exclusive of supporting members or hitches. Mini-warehouse means a building or group of buildings in a controlled-access, screened and secured fenced compound that contains varying sizes of individual, compartmentalized, and controlled-access storage spaces of varying sizes which are leased or rented on an indi- vidual basis. Minor street means a street of limited continuity which is used primarily for access to abutting properties. Mooring area means an area located upon any body of public water used for the mooring of watercraft. Docks are not considered mooring areas. Motel means a commercial establishment providing transient accommodations to the general public containing rooms having direct access to the outside without the necessity of passing through the main lobby of the building. Motor freight terminal means a building or area in which trucks, including tractor or trailer units, are parked, stored, or serviced, including the transfer, loading or unloading of goods. A terminal may include facilities for the temporary storage of loads prior to tranship- ment. Motor fuel and service station means a retail place of business engaged in the sale of motor vehicle fuels and services,but may also engage in supplying a limited amount of related goods. In no case shall the space for the retailing of related goods exceed four hundred (400) square feet. All services are to be performed within enclosed service bays. Neck lot/flag lot means a lot that does not provide the full required frontage on a public right-of-way, but rather is served by a narrow "neck" of land that extends to the street. To meet the definition the neck must be at least thirty (30) feet wide. Supp. No. 7 1151 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Nonconforming lot. A lot that does not comply with the requirements of this chapter but which did comply with applicable ordinance requirements at the time the lot was created. — Nonconforming structure. Any building or structure that does not comply with the re- quirements of this chapter but which did comply with applicable ordinance requirements at — the time it was constructed or put in place. Nonconforming use. A use of land that does not comply with the requirements of this chapter but which did comply with applicable ordinance requirements at the time the use was established. Nursery means an enterprise which conducts the retail and wholesale sale of plants grown — on the site, as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance (but not including power equipment such as gas or electric lawnmowers and farm implements). Nursing home means an extended or intermediate care facility licensed by the state to provide full-time convalescent or chronic care to individuals who by reason of advanced age, chronic ' lness or infirmity are unable to care for themselves. Ordinary`fiigh water mark or level means the boundary o pu.lic waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. Outdoor storage means the storage of any goods, junk equipment, fuel, materials, mer- chandise, supplies or motor vehicles not fully enclosed in a building for more than a twenty- four-hour period. Outlot means a platted lot to be developed for a use which will not involve a building or which is reserved for future replatting before development. Overnight means any time between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. Platting authority means the city council. Power substation means a facility comprising of transmission towers, transformers,power equipment, and structures necessary to house such equipment. Premises means a lut, parcel, tract or plat of land together with the building and struc- tures thereon. Principal structure. The main building as distinguished from an accessory building or structure. Private street means a street serving as vehicular access to two (2) or more parcels of land — which is not dedicated to the public but is owned by one (1) or more private parties. Supp. No. 7 1152 — ZONING § 20-1 Processing means the crushing, washing, compounding or treating of rock, sand, gravel, clay, silt or other like material. Public land means land owned and/or operated by a governmental unit. Public waters means and shall be limited to the following waters of the state: (1) All waterbasins assigned a shoreland management classification by the commissioner of natural resources; (2) All waters of the state which have been finally determined to be public waters or navigable waters by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) All meandered lakes, except for those which have been legally drained; (4) All waterbasins previously designated by the commissioner of natural resources for management for a specific purpose such as trout lakes and game lakes pursuant to applicable law. (5) All waterbasins designated as scientific and natural areas; (6) All waterbasins located within and totally surrounded by publicly owned lands; (7) All waterbasins where the state or the federal government holds title to any of the beds or shores, unless the owner declared that the water is not necessary for the purposes of the public ownership; (8) All waterbasins where there is publicly owned and controlled access which is intended to provide for public access to the waterbasins; and (9) All natural and altered natural watercourses with a total drainage area greater than two (2) square miles, except that trout streams officially designated by the commis- sioner of natural resources shall be public waters regardless of the size of their drainage area. The public character of water shall not be determined exclusively by the proprietorship of the underlying, or surrounding land or by whether it is a body or stream of water which was navigable in fact or susceptible of being used as a highway for commerce at the time this state was admitted to the union. Recreational beach lot means land abutting public water which serves as a neighborhood recreational facility for the subdivision of which is a part. Recreational vehicle means a vehicle or vehicular unit which can be driven, towed or — hauled, and which is primarily designed as a temporary living accommodation for recreational camping and travel use. Recreational vehicles include travel trailers, camping trailers, truck campers, and self-propelled motor homes. Rehabilitation means to renew the land to a self-sustaining, long-term use which is com- patible with contiguous land uses in accordance with the standards set forth in this chapter. Supp. No. 7 1153 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE _ 1 Restaurant, fast food means an establishment whose principal business is the sale of food and/or beverages in a ready-to-consume state for consumption: (1) Within restaurant building; (2) Within a motor vehicle parked on the premises; or (3) Off the premises as carry-out orders; and whose principal method of operation includes the following characteristics: (a) Food and/or beverages are usually packaged prior to sale and are served in edible containers or in paper, plastic, or other disposable containers; (b) The customer is not served food at his table by an employee, but receives it at a counter window, or similar facility and carries it to another location on or off the premises for consumption. Restaurant, standard means an establishment whose principal business is the sale of food and/or beverages to customers in a ready-to-consume state, and whose principal method of operation includes one (1) or both of the following characteristics: — (1) Customers, normally provided with an individual menu, are served their food and beverages by a restaurant employee at the same table or counter at which food and beverages�zre consumed; (2) A cafeteria-type operation where food and beverages generally are consumed within the restaurant building. — Roadside stand means a stand located adjacent to public right-of-way for the sale of agricultural produce. Satellite dish means a combination of: (1) Antenna or dish antenna whose purpose is to receive communication or other signals — from orbiting satellites and other extraterrestrial sources; (2) A low-noise amplifier (LNA) which is situated at the focal point of the receiving component and whose purpose is to magnify and transfer signals; and — (3) A coaxial cable whose purpose is to carry the signals into the interior of the building. Satellite dish height means the height of the antenna or dish measured vertically from the — highest point of the antenna or dish when positioned for operation, to ground level. Semipublic use means the use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a — public service that is ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization. Setback means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property line or roadway easement line; and, within shoreland areas. Setback also means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark. Supp. No. 7 1154 ZONING § 20-1 Sewage treatment system means a septic tank and soil absorption system or other indi- vidual or cluster type sewage treatment system as described and regulated in Chapter 19, Article IV of the City Code. Sewer system means pipelines or conduits,pumping stations, and force main,and all other construction, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal. Shopping center means an integrated group of commercial establishments planned, de- veloped, and managed as a unit, with off-street parking facilities provided on-site. Shore impact zone means land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of fifty (50) percent of the structure setback. Shoreland means land located within the following distances from public waters: one thousand (1,000) feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and three hundred (300) feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a floodplain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner. Sign means any object, device, display, or structure, or part thereof situated outdoors, or visible through a window or door,which is used to advertise,announce, identify,display, direct or attract attention to an object,person,institution,organization,business,commodity,product, service, event or location, by means, including words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fix- - tures, pictures, illumination or projected images. Sign, advertising means any sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, ser- - vice, activity or entertainment not conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is located. Sign, awning means a temporary hood or cover that projects from the wall of a building, and which can be retracted, folded or collapsed against the face of the supporting building. Awning may extend in any required yard setback a maximum of five (5) feet. (2.6 feet in the supplementary regulations) AMMO 1.77- MIME Sign, bulletin board means a sign which identifies an institution or organization on the premises of which it is located and which contains the name of the institution or organization, the names of individuals connected with it,and general announcements, of events or activities occurring at the institution or similar messages. Supp. No. 7 1155 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sign, banner means a sign which is made out of a paper, cloth or plastic-like consistency, affixed to a building, vehicle, poles, or other supporting structures by all four (4) corners. Sign, business means a sign which directs attention a business or profession conducted, or to a commodity or service sold, offered or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered on the _ premises where the sign is located. Sign, business directory means a sign which identifies the names of specific businesses _ located in a shopping center, medical center and professional office and which is located on the premises of the shopping center so identified. t3/4. 1 d'i,tnr4Rf I RLSTAu444r f <u RMeRrL7 1 t t l - Sign, campaign means a temporary sign announcing, promoting, or supporting political candidates or issues in connection with any national, state, or local election. Sign, canopy means any sign that is affixed to a projection or extension of a building or structure of a building, erected in such a manner as to provide a shelter or cover over the approach to any entrance of a store, building or place of assembly. Plastic or structural protective cover over a door entrance, window, or outdoor service area. CAvop Y S i L" .11411141. I SII Sign, changeable copy means a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or illus- trations that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign. Sign, construction means a temporary sign erected on the premises on which construction is taking place, during the period of such construction, indicating the names of the architects, engineers, landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and the owners, financial _ supporters, sponsors, and similar individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the situation or project. Sign, development identification means a permanent ground low profile sign which iden- tifies a specific residential, industrial, commercial or office development and which is located on the premises of the development which it identifies. Sign, directional means a sign erected on private property for the purpose of directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic onto or about the property upon which such sign is located, _ including signs marking entrances and exits, circulation direction, parking areas, and pickup Supp. No. 7 1156 ZONING § 20-1 and delivery areas. EXIT Sign, display area means the area within a single continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits or the actual sign message surface, including any structural elements outside the limits of each sign forming an integral part of the sign. The stipulated maximum sign display area for a sign refers to a single facing. }� t DISPLAY • AREA Sign,festive flag/banner means a flag or banner constructed of cloth,canvas or light fabric, that is hung from a light pole.The flag/banner shall contain no advertising except for cultural events, special holidays/seasons, etc. Sign,flag means any fabric banner used as a symbol of a government political subdivision or other identity. Corporation flags shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet and may be flown in tandem with the state or national flag. Sign,flashing means any directly or indirectly illuminated sign which exhibits changing natural or artificial light or color effects by any means whatsoever. Sign, freestanding/pole/pylon means any nonmovable sign not affixed to a building but erected upon a pole, post or other similar support so that the bottom edge of the sign display area is eight (8) feet or more above the ground elevation. Sign,governmental means a sign erected and maintained pursuant to and in discharge of any governmental functions, or required by law, ordinance or other governmental regulation. Sign, ground low profile business means a business sign affixed directly to the ground, with the sign display area standing not greater than two (2) feet above the ground. GROUtvD Low PROFI L E Supp. No. 7 1156.1 § 20.1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sign, holiday decoration means a temporary sign in the nature of decorations, clearly incidental to and customarily and commonly associated with any national, local or religious — holiday. Sign, home occupation means a sign containing only the name and occupation of a per- mitted home occupation not to exceed two (2) square feet. This is also a nameplate sign. Sign, illuminated means a sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by lights _ on or in the sign or directed towards the sign. Sign, informational means a sign containing descriptions of major points of interest, government institutions or other public services such as hospitals, sports facilities, etc. — Sign, institutional means a sign which identifies the name and other characteristics of a public or private private institution of the site where the sign is located. — Sign, integral means a sign constructed as to be an integral portion of the building of which it forms a part. Sign, integral roof means any sign erected or constructed as an integral or essentially integral part of a normal roof structure of any design, such that no part of the sign extends vertically above the highest portion of the roof and such that no part of the sign is separated from the rest of the roof by a space of more than six (6) inches. Z2.A Sign, marquee means a sign which is mounted, painted on, or attached to any projection or extension of a building that is designated in such a manner as to provide shelter or cover over the approach to any entrance of the building. Sign, menu board means a sign located adjacent to the drive-through lane that is used to advertise the product available at a fast food restaurant. Sign, motion means any sign or part of a sign which changes physical position by any movement or rotation of which gives the visual impression of such movement or rotation. Sign, nameplate means a sign, located on the premises which bears the name and/or address of the occupant of the building or premises. Sign, nonconforming means a sign that does not conform to the requirements of this — chapter. Sign, off-premises means an advertising sign which directs attention to a use, product, — commodity or services not related to the premises on which it is located. Supp. No. 7 1156.2 ZONING § 20-1 Sign, on premises means a sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, product, use,service or other activity which is sold,offered or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is located. Sign,portable means a sign designed so as to be movable from one (1) location to another, and that is not permanently affixed to a building, structure, or the ground including, but not limited to, signs designed to be transported by means of wheels, sign converted to A-Frames, menu and sandwich board signs, and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and — visible from the public right-of-way unless said vehicle is used in the normal day-to-day operations. — Sign, private sale or event means a temporary sign advertising private sales or personal property such as a house sale, garage sale and the like or private nonprofit events such as picnic, carnival, bazaar, game night, art fair, or craft show. Sign, projecting means a sign that is wholly or partly dependent upon a building for support and which projects more than twelve (12) inches from such building. Sign, real estate means a sign pertaining to the sale or lease of the premises, or a portion of the premises, on which the sign is located. Sign, roof means a sign that is mounted on the roof of a building or which is wholly dependent upon a building for support and which projects above the roof line of a building with a flat roof, the eave line of a building with a gambrel, gable or hip roof or the deck line of a building with a mansard roof. Sign, temporary means a sign designed or intended to be displayed for a short period of time. This includes items such as banners, pennants, flags, beacons, sandwiches, or balloons or other air or gas filled figures. Sign, wall means a sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plane approximately parallel to the face of the wall, and which does not project more than twelve(12)inches from such building or structure.Wall signs shall not include product advertising. Wall signs shall include tenant identification, tenant logo, center name, or any combination of the three. Supp. No. 7 1156.3 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE 'ROOF 5IGN PROJECT u ' 1; o Li 1Jr02Jd oa Sign, window means sign, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, designed to commu- nicate information about an activity,business,commodity,event,sale or service,that is placed _ inside a window or upon the window panes or glass and is visible from the exterior of the window. Significant historic site means any archaeological site, standing structure, or other prop- erty that meets the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of Historic Sites, or is determined to be an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 307.08. A historic site meets these criteria if it is presently listed on either register or if it is determined to meet the qualifications for listing after review by the Minnesota state archaeologist or the director of the Minnesota Historical Society. All unplatted cemeteries are automatically considered to be significant historic sites. Significant tree means any healthy tree species measuring twelve (12) inches or more — DBH; or any health coniferous tree measuring twelve (12) feet in height or more. Site distance triangle means no sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than — a distance equal to one-half(1/2) the minimum required yard setback. No sign shall be placed within any drainage or utility easement. Sign shall not block site distance triangle from any private drive or access. Signs shall not be located in any site distance triangle thirty (30) feet _ from the point of intersection of the property line. Supp No. 7 1156.4 — ZONING § 20-1 • Site furnishings means any structure, other than buildings, visible from any public way, and any street hardware located in streets and public ways and outside of buildings. Site furnishings include, but are not limited to,signs, decorative paving treatments, fences,walls, railings, artwork,transformers,utility access boxes, lighting standards and arrays, and other visible site appurtenances. Special trees mean any large broadleaf trees at least thirty (30) inches DBH, any large conifer trees at least twenty(20)inches DBH,any medium broadleaf trees at least twenty(20) _ inches DBH, any small broadleaf trees at least twelve (12) inches DBH, rare or unusual tree species, or trees of exceptional quality. Steep slope means land where agricultural activity or development is either not recom- - mended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over twelve (12) percent, as measured over horizontal dis- tances of fifty (50) feet or more, that are not bluffs. Storage building means any structure used for the storage of materials and accessories used and normally associated with the principal use of the property. Street means a public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-way approved pursuant to the requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public access to abutting property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector, avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity complying with the preceding requirements. Street frontage means that portion of a parcel of land abutting one (1) or more public streets. Street width means the shortest distance between the lines delineating the right-of-way of a street. Structure means anything manufactured, constructed, or erected which is normally at- tached to or positioned on land, whether temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited to: buildings, fences, sheds, advertising signs, dog kennels, hard surface parking areas, boardwalks, playground equipment, concrete slabs. Subdivision means the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single owner- ship into two (2) or more parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets, roads, or alleys for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any combination thereof, except those separations: (1) Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be twenty (20) acres or larger in size and five hundred(500)feet in width for residential uses and five(5)acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses; Supp.No. 7 1156.5 § 20.1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ) (2) Creating cemetery lots; (3) Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a — common boundary. Temporary structure means a structure without any foundation or footings and which shall be removed when the designed time period,activity,or use for which temporary structure was erected has ceased. Toe of the bluff means the point on a bluff where there is, as visually observed, a clearly — identifiable break in the slope, from flatter to steeper slope above. If no break in the slope is apparent, the toe of the bluff shall be determined to be the lower end of a fifty-foot segment, measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding eighteen (18) percent. Top of the bluff means the point on a bluff where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope, from steeper to gentler slope above. If no break in the slope is — apparent, the top of the bluff shall be determined to be the upper end of a fifty-foot segment, measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding eighteen (18) percent. Townhouse means a single-family attached dwelling in a row of at least three (3) such units in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside,no unit is located over another unit and each unit is separated from the adjoining unit by one(1)or more common fire _ resistent walls having no openings and extending from the basement to the roof. Trailer, temporary means a trailer or mobile home for construction purposes, the display or sale of real estate,or major durable goods or as a temporary form of residential dwelling on — lot on which a house is being constructed. Trailer, travel means a vehicle or movable structure which is designed, intended or used _ for temporary human habitation during recreational or vacation activities.The term includes, without limitation,recreational vehicles,campers,camper trailers and tents,and house travel and tent trailers, but does not include mobile homes. Tree caliper means diameter of a tree measured at six (6) inches above ground. Tree trunk means the stem portion of a tree from the base to the first branch thereof. — Truck terminal means any use,area,or building where cargo,trucks,truck parts, loading equipment, and the like is stored or where trucks load and unload on a regular basis. Utility services means the erection, construction, alteration, or maintenance, by public utilities or municipal or other governmental agencies, of underground or overhead gas, elec- trical, steam or water transmission or distribution systems, communication, including poles, — wire, mains, drains, sewers, pipe, conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, police call boxes, traffic signals, hydrants, and other similar equipment and accessories in connection therewith, that is reasonably necessary for the furnishing of adequate service by such public utilities or — governmental agencies or for the public health or safety or general welfare.This term does not imply overhead transmission lines in excess of sixty-nine (69) kv. Variance means permission to depart from the requirements of this chapter. Supp. No. 7 1156.6 ZONING § 20-1 Vegetation clearing means the complete removal of existing vegetative cover in such.a manner as to expose the soil to air and water erosion. Vegetation, native. Native vegetation is the pre-settlement group of plant species native to the North American continent which were not introduced as a result of European settlement. Vehicular use area(V.U.A.) means any open or unenclosed area containing more than one thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet of area and/or used by six (6) or more, of any type of vehicle, whether mooring or at rest, including, but not limited to, parking lots, loading and unloading areas, and sales and service areas. Driveways are considered to be vehicular use areas whenever they are adjacent to public streets or other vehicular use elements described previously in this paragraph (and intervening curbs, sidewalks, landscape strips, etc., do not eliminate adjacency). i ______, Warehousing means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property. Water-oriented accessory structure or facility means a small, above ground building or other improvement, except stairways,fences,docks, and retaining walls,which,because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature,reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks. Wetlands means land transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this definition, wetlands must have the following three attributes: (1) Have a predominance of hydric soils; (2) Are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and (3) Under normal circumstances support a prevalence of such vegetation. (4) Wetlands does not include types 3,4, and 5 wetlands, as defined in United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39(1971 edition), not included within the definition of public waters, that are two and one-half(21/2) or more acres in size. Utilized. Utilized water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not to be classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland characteristics.Wetland alteration permits shall not be required to undertake work on these water bodies. Wetlands, ag/urban. Wetlands that have been influenced by agricultural or urban (resi- dential, commercial, or industrial) land usage are called ag/urban. Influences include: over nutrification, soil erosion and sedimentation, and water quality degradation. As a result of these influences there is a loss of plant species diversity, overcrowding and domination by invasive species such as reed canary grass, and reduction in wildlife habitat. Supp. No. 7 . 1156.7 § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Wetlands, natural. Natural wetlands are still in their natural state and typically show little sign of impact from surrounding land usage. The vegetative community of these wet- — lands are characterized by a diversity of plant species with mixed dominance of species. Other key factors include: presence of natural indicator species, good wildlife habitat, and being aesthetically pleasing. — Wetlands,pristine. Wetlands that exist in a natural state and have special and unusual qualities worth protecting at a high level are called pristine. These qualities include: out- _ standing vegetation community, native species population, rare or unusual species present, and habitat for rare wildlife species. Wholesale nursery means an enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on — site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance(but not including power equipment such as gas or engine lawnmowers and farm implements). Wholesale trade means an establishment or place of business engaged in selling merchan- dise to retailers; to industrial, commercial, institutional, or professional business users, or to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to such individuals or companies. Wind energy conversion system or (WECS) means any device that is designed to convert wind power to another form of energy such as electricity or heat (also referred to by such — common names as wind charger, wind turbine and windmill). Woodlands shall mean any groupings of significant trees with a canopy coverage of one(1) — acre or more, any groupings of ten (10) or more significant trees, or any grouping of trees with at least one (1) special tree and where twenty-five (25) percent or more of other trees are significant trees. Yard means any open space that lies between the principal or accessory building or buildings and the nearest lot line. Such yard is unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward except as may be specifically provided in this chapter. Yard, front means a yard extending across the full width of the lot between any building and the front lot line, and measured perpendicular to the building from the closest point of the — building to the front lot line. Yard, rear means a yard extending across the full width of the lot between the principal _ building and the rear lot line, and measured perpendicular to the building from the closest point of the building to the rear lot line. Yard, side means a yard extending form the front yard to the rear yard between the principal building and the side lot line, measured perpendicular to the building from the closest point of the building to the side lot line. Zoning administrator means the planning director or designee. (Ord. No. 80,Art. II, § 1, 12-15-86; Ord. No. 80-A, § 1, 6-15-87; Ord. No. 80-G, § 2, 1-11-88; Ord. No. 98, § 1, 11-28-88; Ord. No. 116, §§ 1, 2, 1-22-90; Ord. No. 120, § 1, 2-12-90; Ord. No. 127, § 1, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 144, § 1, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 145, § 3, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 151, § 1, 8-26-91; Ord. Supp. No. 7 1156.8 ZONING § 20-5 (6) Facilitate the provision of public services; • 7! Secure equity among individuals in the use of their property. •Urd. No. SO, Art. I. § 2, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-3. Interpretation. (a) Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this chapter are either more or less restrictive than conditions imposed by other ordinances, the ordinance which is most restric- tive shall prevail. When this chapter provides both general regulation as well as specific regulation of a subject, the specific regulation shall apply. (b) When the term "density" is used in this chapter without specifying "net density" or "gross density," it shall be construed to mean "net density." (Ord. No. 80, Art. I, § 3(1-3-1), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 108, § 1, 9-11-89) Sec. 20-4. Compliance. No building, structure or land shall be used or occupied, no building permit shall be Granted and no plat approved that does not conform to the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. I, § 3(1-3-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-5. Identification of arterial and collector streets. For purposes of this chapter, the following are identified as arterial and collector streets: Arterial Streets Trunk Highway 5 Trunk Highway 7 Trunk Highway 41 Trunk Highway 101 Trunk Highway 169 _- Trunk Highway 212 County Road 14 County Road 18 (Lyman Blvd., but not including Lyman Blvd. east of Trunk High- - way 101) • Collector Streets JE. �.I iJr a( - County Road 17 (Powers Blvd.) / r County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) 9 Audobon Road Lake Lucy Road Kerber Boulevard Lake Drive East. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 25, 12-15-86) Supp. No. 2 1157 Section. 20-5 Collector roads add: — McGlynn Drive/Coulter Arboretum Boulevard — Market Boulevard Long Acres Boulevard Pleasant View Road — Lake Drive West West 78th Street Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101 — ZONING § 20-282 Sec. 20-264. Electrical substations. Electrical substations are subject to the following conditions: (1) The substation must be served by a collector or major arterial street as desginated in the comprehensive plan. (2) The substation will not have sanitary facilities and will not be used for habitation. (3) The substation will be located on at least five (5) acres of property. (4) A six-foot high security fence shall surround the substation. (5) A landscaping plan shall be submitted for city approval. (6) Substations shall be a minimum of five hundred(500)feet from single-family residences. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(13)), 12.15-86) Sec. 20-265. Golf driving ranges. [The following applies to] golf driving ranges with or without a miniature golf courses: (1) The location of the driving range is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. (2) Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. (3) Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of landscaping plan in confor- - mance with article VIII of the zoning ordinance. (4) No site shall be located within five hundred (500) feet of a single-family residence. (5) Buildings on the site may be not exceed eight hundred (800)square feet and shall be painted in earth tones. (Ord. No. 80-E, § 2, 11-16-87) 5 c 2k. 5ci I-eL �1c�o;Ie� for ; Y=� to div (OV -. Secs. 20-266-20-280. Reserved. DIVISION 4. STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS, OFFICE, INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Sec. 20-281. Scope. In addition to the standards required by section 20-232, the standards in this division shall apply to the conditional uses if they are located in a business, office, institutional or industrial district. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 17(5-17-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-282. Motor fuel and service stations. The following applies to motor fuel stations: (1) No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises except in appropri- ately designed and screened storage areas. Supp.No.4 1180.1 Sales Trailers are subject to the following conditions: 1. Trailers are permitted only until a permanent dwelling unit is available to be — used as the sales office/model. At such time, the trailer shall be removed from the site. 2. Hours of the sales trailer shall be 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 3. There shall be no outdoor speaker. — 4. Lighting shall be downcast, with no flashing, blinking or skylights permitted. 5. Trailers shall skirted and one trailer shall be permitted per development. 6. Trailers shall comply with ADA requirements. — 7. Off street hard surface parking for 3-5 cars shall be provided. 8. Engineering Department shall approve any access from a city street. ZONING § 20-402 ARTICLE VI. WETLAND PROTECTION* Sec. 20-401. Findings intent; rules adopted by reference. (a) Wetlands help maintain water quality, serve to reduce flooding and erosion, act as sources of food and habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife, and are an integral part of the community's natural landscape.Wetlands provide the aesthetic benefits of open space and can be used to provide a natural separation of land uses. It is the intent of this article to establish a policy of sound stewardship through coordination of regulations which conserve, protect, enhance, and result in the no net loss of these environmentally sensitive resources. In addi- tion, it is the intent of the city to promote the restoration of degraded wetlands. (b) The intent of this article is to avoid alteration and destruction of wetlands.When this is not feasible, mitigation must be provided to recreate the lost or altered wetlands value and function. (c) This article is adopted in part to implement the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (Minn. Laws 1991, Chapter 354, as amended), and the accompanying rules of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (Minn. Rules Chapter 8420, as amended). (d) This article incorporates by reference the Act and the Rules.Terms used in this article which are defined in the Act or the Rules have the meanings given there. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 1, 4-25-94) Sec. 20-402. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to assure the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents through preservation and conservation of wetlands and sound management of de- - velopment by: (1) Conducting an inventory and classification of all wetlands within the city and main- tenance of a comprehensive set of official city maps delineating wetlands. (2) Establishment of wetland regulations that are coordinated with flood protection and water quality programs under the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. (3) Requiring sound management practices that will protect, conserve, maintain, en- hance, and improve the present quality of wetlands within the community. (4) Requiring measures designed to maintain and improve water quality in streams and lakes. (5) Protecting and enhancing the scenic value of wetlands. *Editor's note—Section 1 of Ord. No. 180 amended Art. VI in its entirety to read as herein set out. Prior to amendment, Art. VI contained §§ 20-401-20-409, 20-421-20-424, 20-436-20-441, which pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Ord. No. 80, adopted Dec. 15, 1986;Ord. No. 80C,adopted Oct. 5, 1987; Ord.No. 98,adopted Nov. 28, 1988; Ord. No. 110, adopted Aug. 28, 1989; Ord. No. 133, adopted Nov. 5, 1990; and Ord. No. 141, adopted Mar. 11, 1991. Supp. No. 7 1188.1 § 20-402 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (6) Restricting and controlling the harmful effects of land development on wetlands. (7) Allowing only development that is planned to be compatible with wetland protection and enhancement. (8) Providing standards for the alteration of wetlands when alteration in allowed. — (9) Mitigating the impact of development adjacent to wetlands. (10) Educating and informing the public about the numerous benefits and features of — wetlands and the impacts of urbanization. (11) Obtaining protective easements over or acquiring fee title to wetlands as appropriate. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92) — Sec. 20.403. Delineation of wetlands. (a) Generally.Wetlands shall be subject to the requirements established herein,as well as — restrictions and requirements established by other applicable city ordinances and regulations. The Wetland Protection Regulations shall not be construed to allow anything otherwise pro- hibited in the zoning district where the wetland area is located. (b) Boundaries;maps. A wetland is land that meets the definition of"wetlands"set forth in this article.Wetland boundaries and wetland types,as established by officially adopted city maps,shall be prima facie evidence of the location and type of wetland.The official maps shall be developed and maintained by the planning department. If an applicant questions whether a wetland exists or disputes its delineation, the applicant shall have the burden to supply — detailed information for reviews supporting the applicant's position. The applicant shall pro- vide appropriate technical information,including,but not limited to,topographical survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact wetland boundary.The planning — director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated wetland boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based upon the data that is supplied.Data for wetland determination shall be certified by a registered engineer,surveyor, — or a qualified wetland consultant. The applicant may appeal the planning director's determi- nation of the wetland boundary and type to the city council. (c) Wetland types. This article establishes three (3) wetland types and one body type: (1) Wetlands, ag/urban. Wetlands that have been influenced by agricultural or urban (residential, commercial, or industrial) land usage are called ag/urban. Influences — include: over nutrification, soil erosion and sedimentation, and water quality degra- dation. As a result of these influences there is a loss of plant species diversity, over- crowding and domination by invasive species such as reed canary grass,and reduction — in wildlife habitat. (2) Wetlands, natural. Natural wetlands are still in their natural state and typically — show little sign of impact from surrounding land usage.The vegetative community of these wetlands are characterized by a diversity of plant species with mixed dominance of species. Other key factors include:presence of natural indicator species, good wild- _ life habitat, and being aesthetically pleasing. Supp. No. 7 1188.2 ZONING § 20.406 (3) Wetlands,pristine. Wetlands that exist in a natural state and have special and un- usual qualities worth protecting at a high level are called pristine. These qualities include: outstanding vegetation community, native species population, rare or un- _ usual species present, and habitat for rare wildlife species. (4) Utilized. Utilized water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not to be clas- sified as wetlands even if they take on wetland characteristics. Wetland alteration permits shall not be required to undertake work on these water bodies. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92) Sec. 20-404. No net loss. To achieve no net loss of wetland, except as provided under section 20-416 of this article, or authorized by a wetland alteration permit issued by the city,a person may not drain,grade, _. fill,burn,remove healthy native vegetation,or otherwise alter or destroy a wetland of any size or type. Any alteration to a wetland, permitted by a wetland alteration permit must be fully mitigated so that there is no net loss of wetlands. m- (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 2, 4-25-94) Sec. 20-405. Standards. The following standards apply to all lands within and abutting a wetland: (1) Septic and soil absorption system must be a setback minimum of seventy-five(75)feet from the ordinary high water mark of the wetland. (2) The lowest ground floor elevation is three(3) feet above ordinary high water mark of the wetland. (3) Docks or walkways shall be elevated six(6)to eight(8)inches above the ordinary high water mark or six(6)to eight(8)inches above the ground level,whichever is greater. (4) Access across a wetland shall be by means of a boardwalk and only upon approval of a wetland alteration permit. (5) The city's Best Management Practices Handbook shall be followed. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 3, 4-25-94) Sec. 20-406. Wetland buffer strips and set : Z. (a) For lots created after December, 14, , ' •ate of o finance adoption), a buffer strip shall be maintained abutting all wetland- suffer strip v getation shall be established and maintained in accordance to the following requirements. lant species shall be selected from wetland and upland plants to provide habitat for various species of wildlife. Buffer strips shall be identified by permanent monumentation acceptable to the city. In residential subdivisions, a monument is required for each lot.In other situations,a monument is required for each three hundred (300) feet of wetland edge. The buffer strips and structure setbacks shall meet the Supp.No. 7 1188.3 Suggested Wetland Ordinance Amendments The attached numbered areas on the wetland ordinance, section 20-406(a) should include the —' following wording: 1. All existing vegetation adjacent to a wetland shall be left undisturbed and applied —' toward buffer strips unless otherwise approved by City Council. 2. If the buffer area is disturbed, plant species... 3. Where roadways are constructed next to a wetland, the average buffer strip width for the adjacent wetland shall be maintained. genet iunAwdlmdasayad ad+mead.95 § 20-406 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE following standards: Wetland Type Pristine Natural Ag/Urban Utilized Principal Struc- 100' 40' measured 40' measured 0' ture Setback from the outside from the outside edge of the edge of the buffer strip buffer strip Buffer Strip 20-100' 10-30' 0-20' 0' Buffer Strip 50' 20' 10' 0' Minimum Av- erage Width % of Native Entire Entire Optional Optional Vegetation in Buffer Strip AG/URBAN WETLAND ILLUSTRATION - I BUH- .H MO STREET , WETLAND 31' ' EDGE 60'['/W------) I HOME SETBACK FR(rr YARD I FROM wEn A,�D i I , 1 0' 0'EAS: ENT WETLAND BUFFER STRIP (AVERAGE 10'DEPTH) The dimensions of the buffer strips may be adjusted by the city based upon the quality of the wetland, local topographic conditions, and the type and design of development being proposed. The table above provides minimum and maximum dimensions for the buffer strip. The use of a meandering buffer strip to maintain a natural appearance is encouraged. Structure setbacks are also described in the table. On single-family subdivisions in the RSF dis rict,the applicant A • Supp. No. 7 1188.4 U, ZONING § 20-408 must demonstrate that each lot provides sufficient area to accommodate the applicable front yard setback, sixty-foot by forty-foot deep building pad,and a thirty-foot rear yard area.All of these elements must be provided outside of designated wetland and buffer strip areas. (b) For lots of record on December 14, 1992 (date of ordinance adoption) within wetland areas and for lands abutting a wetland area,the following minimum provisions are applicable unless alternative plans are approved by the city under a wetland alteration permit: Pristine Natural Ag/Urban Utilized — Setback Prin- 100' 75' 75' 0' cipal Structure The city may approve reduced wetland setbacks as outlined in subparagraph (a) above. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92) Sec. 20-407. Wetland alteration. An applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall adhere to the following principles in descending order of priority: (1) Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the — wetland; (2) Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation; (3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland activity and its implementation; — (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance op- erations during the life of the activity; and (5) Replacing unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. — A wetland alteration permit shall not be issued unless the proposed development complies within the provisions of the Mitigation Section of this article,as well as the standards, intent, — and purpose of this article. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 4, 4-25-94) Sec. 20-408. Permit required. Drainage, grading, filling, removal of healthy native vegetation, or otherwise altering or — destroying a wetland of any size or type requires a wetland alteration permit. Activity in a wetland requiring a wetland alteration permit includes, but is not limited to: (1) Construction of new streets and utilities. Supp. No. 7 1188.5 § 20-408 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (2) Creation of ponds or dams and alterations of the natural drainageways of water courses. This shall only be allowed as part of a mitigation project, or to restore or improve the function and value of the wetland. (3) Installation of boardwalks. (4) Creation of sedimentation and water quality improvement basins if part of a mitiga- tion project,or used to restore or improve the function and value of the wetland.These basins may not be created in"pristine"wetlands and may only be created in"natural" wetlands if the city determines that there is no reasonable alternative. (5) Discharge of stormwater runoff in a manner that impacts the wetland. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 5, 4-25-94) Sec. 20-409. Filling. When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing filling in a wetland, the following standards shall be followed: (1) Filling must be consistent with the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. (2) Filling shall not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to be diminished to an extent that is detrimental to any area river, lake, or stream. (3) Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic wastes may be used. (4) Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation. (5) Filling in wetland areas will not be permitted during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season,unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. (6) Filling in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92) Sec. 20-410. Dredging; excavation; grading. When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing dredging, excavating, or grading in a wetland, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The dredging will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland. (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. (3) It shall not adversely change water flow. (4) The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the pro- posed action. (5) Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area. Supp. No. 7 1188.6 ZONING § 20-412 (6) Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures. — (7) Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. — (8) Dredging in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of functional wetland. _ Dredging to create water quality improvement basins may be allowed by the city where reasonable alternatives are not available or where the wetland is of low quality and designated for this purpose by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. — (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92) Sec. 20-411. Stormwater runoff. — When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing stormwater runoff to discharge directly into a wetland, the following standards shall be followed: (1) An increase over the natural volume of stormwater runoff from a development may be allowed when necessary for use of property, but only when it will not have a net adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the existing wetlands. The restrictions on runoff set out below shall not be exceeded. Since the total increase in runoff which can be permitted is limited, the city, when considering permit applications, shall consider, in addition to the following, apportionment of — increased runoff opportunity to all wetland property within the surrounding wetland area. (2) Stormwater runoff from a development may be directed to the wetland only when free of debris and substantially free of chemical pollutants and silt, and only at rates which do not disturb vegetation habitat or increase turbidity. Sheet flow and other _ overland drainage of runoff shall be encouraged. (3) The allowed total increased runoff, in combination with the total fill allowed, shall not cause total natural flood storage or nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to - be reduced in a manner inconsistent with requirements established by the Chan- hassen Surface Water Management Plan. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92) — Sec. 20-412. Mitigation. dIOM (a) Mitigation intent. Where wetland alteration is approved and mitigation is required, mitigation must result in an improvement to the wetland function and value.Mitigation plans must address water quality, improvement, and maintenance of preexisting hydrological bal- ance and wildlife habitat. The wetland function and value will include improvement of water quality,maintaining hydrological balance,and provision of wildlife habitat.Mitigation will be performed at ratios required by state law to achieve replacement of the wetland function and — value. Supp. No. 7 1188.7 — § 20-412 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (b) Mitigation standards. Mitigation of wetlands for function and value should be re- stored, created, and enhanced to have the following characteristics: (1) Relatively stable water levels subject to natural fluctuations. (2) Pretreatment of inflow waters to improve quality. (3) High level of upland/lowland intermingling. (4) A ratio of open water to aquatic vegetation between 1:1 and 1:2. (5) High degree of intermingling of open water and aquatic vegetation. (6) High level of plant species diversity. (7) Restoration of native plant species in upland and lowland areas. (8) Undisturbed upland/lowland edge (i.e. buffer). (9) Meandered wetland edge. (10) Irregular bottom contours—mix of shallow and deep water. (11) Shallow side and bottom slopes—preferable 10:1 to 30:1 around and within wetland; steeper slopes may be used to provide open water and greater vegetation variability. (c) Mitigation techniques. (1) Mitigation will be performed at a ratio required by state law. (2) Mitigation should always result in an improvement to the wetland function and value. The wetland function and value will include improvement of water quality, maintaining hydrological balance, and provision of wildlife habitat. (3) Mitigation shall provide a buffer strip as set forth in this article. (4) Mitigation shall maintain or enhance the wetland hydrological balance through the following: a. Restoration of partially deteriorated wetlands. b. Creation of new wetlands. (5) Mitigation shall provide for pretreatment of water prior to it entering the wetland to improve water quality if required by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. (6) Mitigation,through the buffer strip,shall provide landscaping for nesting and food for wildlife habitat.The buffer strip landscape shall provide for wildlife cover and utilize a diversity of native flora(i.e.,trees,shrubs,grasses,herbaceous plants)to encourage wildlife diversity and provide visual variety. (7) Wetland mitigation should be undertaken on-site. If this is not feasible, mitigation should occur locally within the subwatershed.If this is not possible,mitigation should occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be accom- Supp. No. 7 1188.8 ZONING § 20-413 plished on site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off-site, the applicant shall be responsible for contributing into the city's wetland mitigation fund. The mitigation performed off-site shall meet the above requirements. (d) Construction management and long term wetland maintenance. (1) The permit holder shall follow the city's best management practices to minimize direct impacts due to erosion and construction practices and to safeguard wildlife habitat. — (2) The permit holder shall conduct a monitoring program and evaluation until construc- tion is completed. A letter of credit from the permit holder shall be held to ensure _ compliance similar to any other public improvement. The city will ensure that the permit holder is delivering the wetland that was promised. The permit holder shall demonstrate compliance with the designed wetland as-built plans. _ Where feasible,the city shall require the permit holder to satisfy long term management requirements. _ (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, §§ 6, 7, 4-25-94) Sec. 20-413. Application and issuance of permit. (a) The applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall furnish the information required by the city including,but not limited to, a site plan, topographic data, hydrological data, and habitat evaluation procedures for the review of a wetland alteration permit application. The planning director shall use discretion regarding the level and complexity of information re- quired to review the request. A wetland alteration permit shall not be issued without having been first reviewed by the planning commission and approved by the city council following the review and hearing procedures set forth for conditional use permits and the additional re- _ quirement of Minnesota Rules 8420.0230.The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the proposed use or activity complies with the purposes, intent, and other provisions of this article. The council may establish reasonable conditions which are specifically set forth in the _ permit to ensure compliance with requirements contained in this article.Such conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind, or character of the proposed work; require the construction of other structures; require replacement of vegetation and wetland function and _ value; establish required monitoring procedures and maintenance activity; stage the work over time; require the alteration of the site design to ensure buffering; require the provision of a performance security. _ (b) The Chanhassen City Council shall appoint a person to serve on a technical evaluation panel. The person must be a technical professional with expertise in water resources manage- _ ment. Decisions under this ordinance must not be made until after receiving the determina- tion of the technical evaluation panel regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the city council,the landowner, or a member of the technical evaluation panel asks for such determinations. This requirement does not apply to wetlands for which such data is Supp. No. 7 1189 § 20.413 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE included in an approved comprehensive wetland management plan per Minnesota Rules 8420.0240. The city council may seek and consider recommendations, if any, made by the technical evaluation panel in making replacement plan decisions. (c) Decisions made under this article may be appealed to the board of water and soil resources under Minnesota Rules 8420.0250, after administration appeal rights under the official controls have been exhausted. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 8, 4-25-94) — Sec. 20.414. Inspection of work. The city may cause inspection of work for which a wetland alteration permit is issued, at the applicant's expense,to be made periodically during the course of such work and shall cause final inspection to be made following the completion of the work. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92) _ Sec. 20-415. Expiration and renewal of permit. (a) Unless otherwise specified by the city council, the person issued a wetland alteration permit shall begin and complete the development authorized by the permit within one(1)year after the date the council approves the permit application. (b) The permittee shall provide written notice to the city twenty-four (24) hours prior to the commencement and completion of the development project. No project shall be deemed to have been completed until approved by the city after receipt of notice of completion. (c) If the permittee fails to commence work on the development within the time specified in this section,the permit shall be void.The council may renew a void permit at its discretion. If the council does not renew the permit, the holder of the void permit may make original application for a new permit. (d) The permittee may make written application to the council for an extension of the time to commence work,but only if the permittee submits the application prior to the date already established to commence work. The application of an extension shall state the reasons the permittee requires an extension. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92) Sec. 20-416. Exemptions. Activities exempted by Minnesota Rules 8420.0120 shall be exempted from the provisions of this article. However, certificates of exemption must be obtained from the city prior to starting work. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 9, 4-25-94) Sec. 20-417. Variances. Variances from the requirements of this article may be granted in accordance with the variance provisions of this chapter as regulated by article II, division III of this Code so long as the variances do not violate the Act or Rules. (Ord. No. 180, § 1, 12-14-92; Ord. No. 202, § 10, 4-25-94) Supp.No. 7 1190 § 20-487 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ) Secs. 20-487-20.500. Reserved. ARTICLE VIII. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT* DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20.501. Intent. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relax- ation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs.In exchange for this enhanced flexibility,the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the city's expectation is to be — realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to en- courage the following: (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensi- tive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. (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. (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 higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. (5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (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. (7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. _ (8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. *Editor's note—Section 1 of Ord.No. 149,adopted June 24, 1991,amended Art.VIII,Div. 1, to read as herein set out. Prior to amendment,Art.VIII,Div. 1,contained§§20-501-20-505, pertaining to similar subject matter and deriving from Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5-18-1-5- 18-5), adopted Dec. 15, 1986, and Ord. No. 136, § 1, adopted Jan. 28, 1991. — Supp. No. 7 1200 ZONING § 20-502 (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 appro- priate. (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6-24-91) Sec. 20.502. Allowed uses. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a develop- ment plan. (1) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the city may permit up to twenty-five(25)percent of the gross floor area of all buildings in a PUD to be used for land uses for which the site is not designated in the comprehensive plan if the city council finds that such use is in the best interests of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this section. _ Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a PUD development plan. Supp. No. 7 1200.1 ZONING § 20-505 (2) Where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one(1)land use in the comprehensive plan, city may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the city council shall deem — appropriate to achieve the purposes of this article and the comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6-24-91) Sec. 20-503. District size and location. (a) Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five (5) acres, unless the applicant can — demonstrate the existence of one of the following: (1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of — importance to the neighborhood or community. (2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved devel- opment. — (3) The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6-24-91) — Sec. 20.504. Coordination with other zoning regulations. (a) Subdivision review under chapter 18 shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PUD. The plans required under this chapter shall be submitted in addition to or in a form which will satisfy the requirements of chapter 18 for the preliminary and final plat. — (b) Site plan review under article II, division 6 of this Code shall be carried out for each non-single-family or duplex principal structure, that is proposed. _ (c) PUD plans shall be coordinated with and in compliance with provisions of article V, Flood Plain Overlay District;article VI,Wetland Protection,and article VII,Shoreland Overlay District. (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6-24-91) Sec. 20-505. Required general standards. (a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and _ purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed development and the surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with response to the topography of the area and existing _ natural features, the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of noncompatible land uses and parking areas. Supp.No.5 1200.3 MIN-36 603.6 OPEN SPACE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS — A. It is the intention of this Ordinance to promote common open space development _ which provides a unified landscape for the use and enjoyment of the neighborhood community. Evaluation and subdivision approval by the City Council shall be subject to demonstration by the applicant that the proposed development plan — provides common open spaces in a site design appropriate to the location of building lots. — B. Area Regulations. 1. A minimum of fifty (50)percent of land subdivided for development shall — be dedicated to open space consisting of natural habitat, neighborhood recreation, and/or pedestrian corridor open space, as defined in Section 302 (see Figure 603-B). 2. All designated open space shall be platted as outlot parcels held as open space in perpetuity. 3. Each open space outlot shall be classified as natural habitat, neighborhood recreation, or pedestrian corridor open space, and shall conform to the — type of use, location criteria, and deed restrictions of that classification. Natural Habitat — Neighborhood Pedestrian Corridor. Recreation r.. r,,-,.-.- -(v-;.5,,,,q- , r..l.�• . i. C .-r----'.-_----1-.--- --ilA 4111P K - 1 •' ilit of v.,�� - J \----""- *' <, ' ' .,c-..../: ......,_;. ', \\NI. / ,)2/ -jam•`-%.,-L=• - .-r Figure 603-B Natural habitat, pedestrian corridor and neighborhood recreation open spaces are located on the — development site according to their type of use. 14 37 C. Location Criteria. Open space outlots shall be located on the development site according to the following locational criteria: 1. View Sheds. The open space outlots shall preserve the maximum quantity of view shed open space for the anticipated homesite lots on the development tracts (see Figure 603-C). —' 2. Natural Habitat. The development shall preserve the maximum quantity of natural habitat open spaces in a contiguous, connected configuration. — Natural habitat open spaces may include, but are not limited to fields, wetlands, slopes, bluffs, dense woods, lakes, ponds, streams, shorelands, and other environmentally sensitive areas or desirable view sheds. 3. Pedestrian Corridors. The development shall locate pedestrian corridor open spaces in strategic places such that larger open space outlots and designated places of destination both on the development tract and adjacent tracts are connected with one another. Pedestrian corridor open spaces may include, but are not limited to established regional trails, local pathways, paved walkways, and shorelines. Pedestrian corridor outlots shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width. _ 4. Neighborhood Recreation. The development shall locate neighborhood recreation open spaces such that they are an integral part of the neighborhood of surrounding homesites, at an elevation appropriate to their intended recreational use, defined by coherent boundaries, and accessible to all neighborhood residents. Neighborhood recreation open spaces may include, but are not limited to greens, commons, playgrounds, ball fields, gardens, or other recreational areas. 10 — — Ni IN- 7,-.:-.7.c._.. .:',-,1 4- ' 1-' • -r� _ '+'may ti - .1l :-..,,..,!'-'77,-- .. i ,J ' Viewshed .1 ' # =- .-..,-_ • ` 1..,,,......... ��' 1\ 1110//,..- V .4 , inc-c--_____---- ..........,<-".. - 0 ��- -ILsi (\-7 � — _ )i ,,e r- 'Figure 603-C Viewsheds are directional open space vistas from a homesite and between tree stands and other neighborhood • buildings. e D. Accessibility. Open spaces shall be accessible to pedestrians at no less roadways.than one thousand two hundred (1,200) foot intervals along public necessary, pedestrian access corridor outlots between private lots shall be at least twenty (20) feet in width. E. Deed Restrictions. Each open space outlot shall conform to the deed restrictions associated with its open space classification. 1. Natural habitat open spaces shall be considered conservation easements — and are for the responsible use and enjoyment by adults and children. Construction in these areas shall be limited to trails (paved or unpaved), open air shelters, bridges, benches, bird houses, wood fencing, and — communal drainfields. 2. Neighborhood recreation open spaces shall be used for active or passive — recreational purposes, including gardening. Construction in these areas shall be limited to gravel or paved walkways, open air shelters, bird — 11 Mlid-39 houses, garden storage sheds no larger than one ahundred twenty (120) square feet, wood fencing, landscape planting, play equipment, r furniture, and facilities for active recreation. 3. Pedestrian corridor open space shall Motorized evehiclesfor shallpedestrian be prohibited and/or equestrian travel. Construction in these areas shall be limited to gravel or paved pathways, wood fencing, and landscape planting. — 4. Habitable structures shall not be permitted in any open space outlot. spacesignated open outlot shall be F. Ownership and according Each one of the following means, subject to City owned and Council approval. 1. Open space may be owned in common by the property owners created through subdivision of the original tract. Management shall be the responsibility of that subdivision's homeowner association. In the case where at least one (1) outlot of open space is held in common ownership, a homeowner association shall be established for that subdivision and — membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision shall be mandatory. 2. Open space may be deeded to an established land trust. Management shall be the responsibility of the land trust. Maintenance may be performed by the neighborhood homeowner association, through written agreement between the association and the land trust. 3. Open space may be deeded to the City of Marine on St. Croix. — Management shall be the responsibility of the City. 603.7 NEIGHBORHOOD PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. It is the intention of this Ordinance to promote neighborhood developmenta� which y offers a variety of lot size, configuration, topography, ando Evaluation and subdivision approvalby the eosed development plan providesouncil shall be subject ta demonstration by the applicant that proposed cohesive neighborhood(s) in a site design appropriate to the location of common open spaces. • 12 § 20-505 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality architectural and site design,landscaping,protection of wetlands,creeks and mature trees and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance stan- - dards. (c) Density. An increase/transfer for density may be allowed at the sole discretion of the city utilizing the following factors: (1) Density within a PUD shall be calculated on gross acreage located within the prop- erty lines of the site in accordance with the land use plan. (2) The area where the density is transferred must be within the project area and owned by the proponent. (3) Density transfer in single-family detached area will be evaluated using the items listed in section 20-506. Density transfer eligible for multiple-family areas are not permitted to be applied to single-family areas. \n / (4) In no case shall the overall density of the development exceed the U.grr_ o�s�density ranges identified in the comprehensive plan. �/ (d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density and other standards for developments providing low and moderate cost housing.Incentives may be • approved by the city only after the developer and city have entered into an agreement to ensure that the low and moderate income for a specific period of time. (e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: Comprehensive Hard Surface Plan Designation Coverage (%) f Low or medium density residential C 50 76 01)(ft S pQ((�' 30 _- High density residential � 10 o f.f n 50 Office cf i )ef Q-VCn ni t 70 Commercial (neighborhood or community) II 70 c(6)(Commercial (regional) � e 70 Industrial 70 Individual lots within PUD may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. (f) The setback for all buildings within a PUD from any abutting street line shall be thirty _ (30) feet for local streets and fifty(50) feet from railroad lines for collector or arterial streets, as designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building up to a maximum of one hundred (100) feet. The setback for all Supp.No.5 1200.4 ZONING § 20.505 buildings from exterior PUD lot lines not abutting a public street shall be thirty (30) feet except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building up to a maximum of one hundred (100) feet. Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be setback at least twenty (20) feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD. The setback for parking structures including decks and ramps shall be thirty-five(35) feet from local streets and fifty (50) feet from all other street classifications except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the structure. Parking structure setbacks from — external lot lines shall be fifty (50) feet or the height of the structure, whichever is greater where adjacent to residential property; thirty-five (35) feet when adjacent to nonresidential properties. Parking structures setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be deter- mined by the city based on characteristics of the specific PUD. Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single-family lots outside the PUD,greater exterior building and parking setbacks may be required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming,existing — and proposed plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard requirements established by the comprehensive plan. — (g) More than one (1) building may be placed on one (1) platted or recorded lot in a PUD. (h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the city, all property to be included within — a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. After approval, parcels may be sold to other parties without restriction, however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain-of-title. (i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants, established in the PUD Development Contract. — (j) The requirements contained in article XXIII, General Supplemental Regulations, ar- ticle XXIV, Off-street Parking and Loading, and article XXV, Landscaping and Tree Removal, may be applied by the city as it deems appropriate. (k) The uniqueness of each PUD required that specifications and standards for streets, — utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordi- nances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this [article) or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. — Supp. No. 5 1200.5 § 20-505 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE — (I) No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved PUD nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved PUD. (m) Buffer yards. The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses — interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty-foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one-hundred-foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of — berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements -- by up to fifty (50) percent. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compli- ance with the standards herein. (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6-24-91; Ord. No. 179, § 3, 11-23-92) Sec. 20.506. Standards and guidelines for single-family detached residential planned unit developments. (a) Intent. The use of planned unit developments for residential purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. The developer gains — the potential for offering reduced lot sizes and flexibility in development standards which results in a combination of reduced development costs and improved marketing flexibility.At the same time, the city should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal — ordinance requirements. Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and offer a range of housing pricing options. In addition, quality of development, as evidenced by landscaping, construction quality, provision of public/private open and recre- - ational space, should also be enhanced. (b) Minimum lot size. The s••• -- _ • • • - en . ° . : . ' - :own to a min- :7090 _ imum ofeleven thousand11-,0001-square feet (excluding-identified wetland"are-as-from-lot !NCn calculations). Averagelotsizes for_the-entire PUD-shall-maintain-a-minimum-area-of-fifteen 0 1' Ate thousand (15,000)square-feet: The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes 51)(4 Supp. No. 5 1200.6 ZONING § 20-506 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 ap- proved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate — a sixty-foot by forty-foot building pad and a twelve-foot by twelve-foot deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, thirty (30) feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. It may include areas with steep terrain or tree cover. (c) Minimum lot width at building setback: Nin- y (90) feet — r (d) Minimum lot depth: One hundred (100) feet. (e) Minimum setbacks: (1) PUD exterior: Thirty (30) feet*. (2) Front yard: Thirty (30) feet. (3) Rear yard: Thirty (30) feet. (4) Side yard: Ten (10) feet. * The thirty-foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a minimum front yard setback of twenty (20) feet shall be maintained. Accessory buildings and structures—located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of ten (10) feet from property line. (1) Protection and preservation of natural features. 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. (g) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the — following: (1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over- _ story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. A minimum of over-story trees must be provided in each front yard. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. (2) Exterior landscaping and double-fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to — buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double-fronted lots. Where necessary to ac- commodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. (3) Rear yard. The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least six (6) inches at four (4) feet in height can — Supp. No. 5 1200.7 — § 20-506 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE — be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. (h) Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide — for a high level of architectural design and building materials.While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility,a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval.The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design — will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following: (1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. (2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. (3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage build- ings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to — small lot sizes. (Ord. No. 179, § 1, 11-23-92) — Sec. 20-507. Controls during construction and following completion. (a) The use of the land, the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures in a PUD shall be governed by the final development plan. (b) After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be made in the — approved final development plan for a PUD except: (1) Any minor extensions,alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the city planner if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this section may increase the bulk of any building structure by more that ten (10) percent. — (2) Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be recon- structed only in compliance with the final development plan unless an amendment to the final development plan is approved. (3) Changes in uses, any rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the provisions of common open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only after a public hearing conducted by the planning commission and upon final approval by the city council. Any changes shall be re- corded as amendments to the final development plan. (c) Major amendments to an approved master development plan may be approved by the city council after review by the planning commission. The notification and public hearing Supp. No. 5 1200.8 ZONING § 20-508 procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original PUD.A major amendment is any amendment which: (1) Substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads; (2) Increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling units by more than five (5) percent; — (3) Increases the gross floor area of nonresidential buildings by more than five(5)percent or increases the gross floor area of any individual building by more than ten (10) _ percent; (4) Deceases the amount of open space by more than five (5) percent or alters it in such a way as to change its original design or intended use; or — (5) Creates noncompliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the master development plan. _ (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6-24-91) Sec. 20-508. Standards and guidelines for single-family attached or cluster-home PUDs. (a) Generally. Single-family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. — CC no hif\tMu M €V-er (b) Minimum lot sizes. y f y b ,in no case will Os density exceed guidelines established by the City of — Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. / , (c) Setback standardslstructures and parking: — (1) PUD exterior: Fifty (50) feet. (2) Interior public right-of-way: Thirty (30) feet*. — (3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement. * The thirty-foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a — minimum front yard setback of twenty (20) feet shall be maintained. (d) Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands,wetlands,ponds,and scenic views.These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. (e) Landscaping plan.An overall landscaping plan is required.The plan shall contain the following: (1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over- story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land — Supp.No. 5 1200.9 § 20-508 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE uses. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. (2) Exterior landscaping and double-fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double-fronted lots. Where necessary to ac- commodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. (3) Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be Min 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) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. (0 Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility,a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval.The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following: (1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. (2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. (3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage build- ings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. (Ord. No. 179, § 2, 11-23-92) Secs. 20-509-20-515. Reserved. DIVISION 2. PROCEDURES Sec. 20.516. Preapplication conference. Prior to filing an application for PUD, the applicant shall attend a conference with the city. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an oppor- Supp. No. 5 1200.10 ZONING § 20-517 tunity to gather information and obtain guidance on the general merits of the proposal and its conformity to the provisions of this article before incurring substantial expense. (Ord. No. 80, Art.V, § 18(5-18-6(1)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-517. General concept plan. (a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: — (1) Overall gross and net density. (2) Identification of each lot size and lot width. — (3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. (4) General location and extent of public and common open space. — (5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. (6) Staging and time schedule for development. — (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review.Approval of the concept statement shall — not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: — (1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan,together with all supporting data. (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make — recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official news- paper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing — shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. — (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commis- sion the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning commission fails to — make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the city council may proceed without the report. The council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable.Approval shall require a four-fifths — vote of the entire council. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5-18-6(2)), 12-15-86) Supp.No.6 1201 § 20-518 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-518. Development stage. (a) Following general concept approval of a PUD, the applicant shall submit the devel- opment stage application,preliminary plat and fee. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and preliminary plan stages may proceed simultaneously. The applicant shall file the development plans and preliminary plat, together with all sup- porting data. (b) With the appropriate notifications,the planning commission shall conduct the hearing on the preliminary plat and the rezoning and report its findings and make recommendations to the city council for action. (c) The development stage shall include but not be limited to: (1) A preliminary plat and information required by chapter 18. (2) An approved development plan drawn to a scale of not less than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet containing at least the following information: a. Proposed name of the development. b. Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant topographical or physical features of the property. c. The location, size, use and arrangement including height in stories and feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of proposed buildings,and existing buildings which will remain, if any. d. Location,dimensions of all driveways,entrances,curb cuts,parking stalls,loading spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements. e. The location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for private and public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites and — recreational facilities. f. The location, use and size of structures and other land uses located within two hundred (200) feet of the property boundary. g. A natural resource analysis identifying existing vegetation areas consisting of forest and wood lots as well as wetlands and wetlands vegetation; the geology, slope, soil and groundwater characteristics of the site; existing lakes, streams, ponds, drainage swales,runoff settling areas, and flood plains must be identified; analysis of the relationship of the proposed use of the existing natural conditions listed above. h. A proposed landscaping plan, including location of existing plants, identification of species, caliper size and acreage. i. The location, type and size of all graphics and signage. j. Any other information that may have been required by the planning commission or council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. (3) An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final development plan approval is sought. Supp. No. 6 1202 ZONING § 20-552 (4) A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units and expected pop- ulation. (5) A tabulation indicating the gross square footage,if any,of commercial and industrial — floor space by type of activity. (6) Preliminary architectural "typical" plans indicating use, floor plan, elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including manufactured homes. (7) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topog- raphy and natural site vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan. (8) A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts, state department of natural resources, soil conservation service, or any other agency with review au- thority clearly illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures. — (9) Protective covenants and homeowners' association bylaws. (d) The city may request additional information from the applicant concerning opera- tional factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5-18-6(3)), 12-15-86) — Sec. 20-519. Final stage. Following preliminary plat approval,the applicant for PUD shall prepare and submit the _ final plat and execute the development contract prepared by the city. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal,the preliminary and final plats may proceed simultaneously. The city council shall then consider the submission for final approval and rezoning to PUD. — (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5-18-6(4)), 12-15-86) Secs. 20.520-20-550. Reserved. — ARTICLE IX. "A-1" AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT _ Sec. 20-551. Intent. The intent of the"A-1"District is preservation of agricultural lands and allowing single- family residential development with forty-acre minimum lot sizes to preserve rural character in large areas of the community. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 2(5-2-1), 12-15-86) — Sec. 20-552. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "A-1" District: (1) Agriculture. Supp. No. 6 1203 ZONING § 20-572 (4) The maximum lot coverage is three (3) percent. — (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, one hundred (100) feet. — b. For rear yards, one hundred (100) feet. c. For side yards, fifty (50) feet. — (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. — (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 2(5-2-5), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-556. Agricultural preservation lands. Properties designated under agricultural preserve status as provided for by Minnesota Statutes chapter 473, shall be zoned A-1 Agricultural Preserves until such designation is — requested by the landowner to be removed. No application fee is required for rezoning the property from A-1 to another district. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 2(5-2-6), 12-15-86) Sec. 20.557. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "A-1" District: — (1) Mobile homes (compliance with section 20-905 is not required). (2) Bed and breakfast establishments. — (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20.558-20-570. Reserved. ARTICLE X. "A-2" AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT Sec. 20-571. Intent. — The intent of the"A-2" District is preservation of rural character while respecting devel- opment patterns by allowing single-family residential development. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 3(5-3.1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-572. Permitted uses. — The following uses are permitted in an "A-2" District: (1) Agriculture. (2) Public and private parks and open space. — (3) Single-family dwellings. Supp.No. 6 1205 § 20-572 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (4) State-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (5) Utility services. (6) State-licensed group home for six (6) or fewer persons. (7) Temporary real estate office and model home. (8) Arboretums. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 3(5-3-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-573. Permittedaccessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "A-2" District: (1) Accessory agricultural building. (2) Garage. (3) Private stables. (4) Swimming pool. (5) Tennis court. (6) Signs. (7) Home occupations. (8) One (1) dock. (9) Roadside stand. (10) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 3(5-3-3), 12-15-86) _ Sec. 20-574. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "A-2" District: (1) Reserved. (2) Reserved. (3) Reserved. (4) Cemetery. (5) Reserved. (6) Reserved. (7) Commercial communication transmission towers. (8) Reserved. (9) Electrical substation. Supp.No. 6 1206 ZONING § 20.576 (10) Reserved. (11) Churches. (12) Recreational beachlots. - j (13) Group homes for seven (7) to sixteen (16) persons. ;% 14 / (Ord. No. 80,Art.V, § 3(5-3-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 80-E, § 1, 11-16-87; Ord. No. 96, § 1, 9-26-88; Ord. No. 103, § 1, 5-22-89; Ord. No. 120, § 4(2), 2-12-90) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-575. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "A-2" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half(21/2) acres, subject to section 20-906. (2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that the minimum lot frontage of lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be at least two hundred (200) feet at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be at least two hundred (200) feet at the building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent. (5) The minimum setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet. b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) feet. (Ord. No. 80,Art.V, § 3(5-3-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 170, § 1, 7.23.92; Ord. No. 194, § 1, 10-11-93) Sec. 20-576. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "A-2" District: (1) Churches. • ; ' (':Jri(1flU0 ci( 11. (2) Mineral extraction. (3) Reserved. Supp. No. 6 1207 ZONING § 20-613 Sec. 20-596. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RR" District: (1) Commercial kennels and stables. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12.90) — Editor's note—Inasmuch as there exists a § 20-595, the provisions added by § 3 of Ord. No. 120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596. Secs. 20-597-20-610. Reserved. • PARTICLE XII. "RSF" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-611. Intent. The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Public and private open space. (3) State-licensed day care center for twelve(12)or fewer children. _ (4) State-licensed group home serving six(6)or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. — (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15.86) Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Garage. (2) Storage building. . t3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. Supp.No.3 1209 § 20.613 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (7) One(1)dock. (8) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) — Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (li Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the"neck"has been excluded from consideration. (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety(90)feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually illustrated below. Lots Where Frontage Is _ Measured At Setback Line mom 0111• ;AD 010110 • ` ♦ • f • aP� • • • • A •• • • sip' • Supp.No.3 1210 • ZONING § 20-615 (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be one hundred(100)feet as measured at the front building setback line. . Neck / Flag Lots Fton Lot Lin • Wool i 1 • 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 • 100' Lot Width 1 ! • 1 1 l a«MON (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways andIor flag or neck lots, are as follows: a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one-hundred-foot min- imum width. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, twenty-(28) feet:— --f Lt0,--(tt (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. Supp.No.3 1210.1 § 20-1021 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-1021. Swimming pool fences. All in-ground swimming pools shall be protected by a fence not less than five (5)feet in height. All gates shall have a self-closing and self-latching latch installed on the pool side of the fence. All fences shall be nonclimbable and shall have intermediate rails or ornamental pattern such that a sphere four(4)inches in diameter cannot pass through.Subsection(a)does not apply to pools which are located on property which are completely enclosed by perimeter fence five (5)feet in height. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-7), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 110, § 2, 8-28-89) Sec. 20-1022. Shoreline fences. Fences to be installed on riparian lots shall have a maximum height of three and one-half (31/2)feet in the rear yard(lake side). (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-8), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1023. Height. Any fence over six and one-half(61/2)feet must receive a conditional use permit.The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. All other resi- - dential fences shall meet the following standards: (1) Side yards and rear yards. In any side or rear yard on lots, the height of fences shall not exceed six and one-half(61/2) feet. (2) Front yards. Fences in the required front yard setback area that are opaque shall not exceed three (3) feet in height. Chain link fences in this area shall not exceed four (4) feet in height.All other open fences in this area shall not exceed six and one-half(61/2) feet in height. r c1bubF fro n e� (3) Corner of a'adition to the other provisions contained in this section,fences located on corner lots shall be su jec ,the following provisions: Or doubIF fart to a. Any fence within the required front yard setback area shall not exceed three (3) feet in height if opaque construction,or four(4)feet in height if open construction. b. The maximum height of a fence shall conform to the requirements of fences in front yards within the corner site triangle. Two sides of the corner site triangle commence at the corner of the lot located at the intersection of the two streets and run a distance of thirty(30)feet back along the lot lines abutting the streets,The third side of the triangle is a straight line joining the end points of the adjacent S Se inni Ski it dei+(thnact �: et iocafiorr. G -{f\ aara�� (Ord. No. 0, VI, § 12(6-12-9), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 181, § 2, 3-8-93) Sec. 20.1024. Barbed wire fences. Barbed wire fences are prohibited in all residential districts. Barbed wire fences are permitted in the agricultural districts. (Ord. No. 90, § 4, 3-14-88) Supp.No. 5 1242 ZONING § 20-1020 Sec. 20-1017. Permit. A building permit shall be obtained for any fence installed for any purpose other than an agricultural purpose prior to installation of same. A site plan showing location of the fence shall be submitted with the permit application. The building official may require a fence permit application to provide a registered land survey establishing property lines. _ (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-2, 6-12-4, 6-12-5), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1018. Commercial and industrial fences. Fences for screening or storage purposes installed on property used for commercial or industrial uses may have a maximum height of eight(8)feet. When commercial or industrial uses abut property used or zoned for residential uses, a fence at least six(6)feet in height shall — be placed between the residential and the commercial and industrial property. Said fence must be one hundred(100)percent opaque. Commercial or industrial fences over eight(8)feet shall require a conditional use permit. Fences utilizing barbed wire in all commercial and industrial districts shall require a conditional use permit. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-10), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 3, 3-14-88) Sec. 20-1019. Location. (a) Generally. All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner unless the owner of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that said fence may be erected on the property line of the respective properties. Such an agreement shall be submitted at the time of building permit application. (b) Wetlands. No fences shall be permitted below the ordinary high water mark of a wetland. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-3), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 181, § 1, 3-8.93) Sec. 20-1020. Construction and maintenance. Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike manner and of material reasonably suited for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall be maintained in such condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore, or public or private nuisance. All fences shall be constructed so that the side containing the framing supports and cross pieces face the interior of the fence owner's lot. Any fence which does not comply with the provisions of this chapter or which endangers the public safety, health or welfare shall be considered a public nuisance. Abatement proceedings may be instituted by the proper city official after fifteen (15) days notification, if the owner of such fence has not undertaken the necessary repairs to abate the nuisance. Link fences shall be constructed in such a manner that no barbed ends shall be exposed. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-6), 12-15-86) Supp. No. 5 1241 § 20-1001 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (4) Animals being kept as part of the Minnesota Zoological Garden's or St. Paul Como Zoo's docent programs are in allowed use in all zoning districts. Before such animals are allowed,however,the participant in the program must receive the approval of the council regarding participation in the program and identify the animal being kept. (5) Animals may only be kept for commercial purposes if authorized in the zoning IMO district were the animals are located. (6) Animals may not be kept if they cause a nuisance or endanger the health or safety of the community. (7) Other animals may be allowed by conditional use permit. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 9(6-9-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1002. Care and treatment. Animals kept within any zoning district shall be subject to the following requirements: (1) The size, number, species, facilities for and location of animals kept shall be main- tained so as not to constitute a danger or nuisance by means of odor, noise or otherwise. (2) Facilities for housing animals shall be: a. Constructed of such material as is appropriate for the animals involved. b. Maintained in good repair. c. Controlled as to temperature, ventilated and lighted compatible with the health and comfort of the animals. d. Of sufficient size to allow adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition of debility, stress or abnormal behavior patterns. e. Cleaned as often as necessary to prevent contamination of the animals contained therein and to minimize disease hazards and reduce odors. (3) Animals shall be provided wholesome,palatable food and water free from contamina- tion and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain all animals in good health. (4) Animals kept in pet shops or kennels shall be kept in accordance with regulations for pet shops and kennels in addition to the regulations provided by this division. Pet shop or kennel owners shall receive a license as required by the city. (Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 6-9-2, 12-15-86) Secs. 20-1003-20-1015. Reserved. DIVISION 5. FENCES AND WALLS Sec. 20-1016. Intent. The intent of this division is to provide standards for fences along the perimeter of lots that act as boundaries and/or barriers. • (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-1), 12-15-86) 1240 ZONING § 20-979 (5) Tutoring services (e.g. piano teacher). !r e �. FV 4�Jj' (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8(6-8-2), 12-15-86) " , I Op' 1 S � — LCS Sec. 20-979. Outside appearance. I\ C OnNO\U h(t CCC i r� ~� The home occupation shall be conducted entirely within a fully enclosed building. No change in the outside appearance of the building or land, or other visible evidence of the conduct of the home occupation shall be permitted. Outdoor storage of anything is prohibited _ in connection with a home occupation. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8(6-8-3), 12-15-86) Supp. No. 7 1238.1 § 20-959 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20.959. Explosives. Any use requiring the storage, use or manufacturing of products which could decompose by detonation shall be located not less than four hundred (400) feet from any R District line provided that this section shall not apply to the storage or use of liquefied petroleum or natural gas for normal residential or business purposes. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, 1(6-1-9), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-960. Surface water management. All development shall comply with the city's surface water management plan dated Feb- ruary 1994, which is incorporated herein by this reference. (Ord. No. 227, § 1, 10-24-94) Secs. 20-961-20-975. Reserved. DIVISION 3. HOME OCCUPATIONS — Sec. 20-976. Compliance. A home occupation may be established and conducted only in accordance with this divi- sion. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8, 12-15-86) Sec. 20.977. Subordinate use. The use of a dwelling unit for any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and sub- ordinate to its residential use. Not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the floor area of one (1) floor of a dwelling unit shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation. No garage or accessory buildings except accessory agricultural buildings existing on February 19, 1987 shall be used for any home occupation. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8(6-8-1), 1245-86) Sec. 20-978. Occupations permitted. The following home occupations are permitted: (1) Professional services such as architects,engineers,attorneys,office,real estate agents, insurance agents, and computer programmers, secretarial services, and manufactur- er's representatives. (2) Dressmaking, sewing, and tailoring. (3) Painting, sculpturing or writing. (4) Home crafts such as model making, rug weaving, lapidary work, pottery and cabinet making. Supp. No. 7 1238 § 20-906 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE L Sec. 20.906. Alternate lot size requirements in A-1 and A.2 Residential Zoning Dis- tricts. _ L Minimum lot size requirements in the-A--1-and A-2 Residential Zoning Districts located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Urban Service Area shall be regulated by Article IX and — Article X of this chapter, respectively, or in the alternative may be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet if the following conditions are met: (1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained. — (2) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well. (3) All lots must have conditions which will permit two(2)on-site sewer systems installed — in conformance with chapter 19, article IV. (4) The one-unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single owner- — ship. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for increased density/building eligibility on one of the parcels. Transfer of develop- ment rights from one parcel of land to another is not allowed, except as permitted in — paragraph (7) below. (5) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property, a development contract must be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities re- maining or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of develop- ment rights from one parcel of land to another is not allowed. (6) Each site must have an area which can support two(2) septic system sites, on a slope of less than twenty-five (25) percent. (7) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does have public street frontage and meets other provisions of this section. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 7, 12-15-86; Ord. No. 170, § 3, 6-8-92; Ord. No. 194, § 3, 10-11-93) Sec. 20-907. Height regulations. — (a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one(1)foot rise or fall in seven(7)feet of horizontal distance from the established street elevation at the property line, one (1) story _ in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall_ be permitted on the downhill side of any building. (b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the — following: (1) Barns, silos or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries, _ cupolas and domes,monuments,water towers,fire and hose towers,observation towers, chimneys, smoke stacks, flag poles, masts and aerials; communication transmission towers;parapet walls extending not more than four (4) feet above the limiting height of the building. Supp. No. 7 1232 ,J6 CITY OF ClIANBASSEN # , f;• 690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN r UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. f FIA or RIA Designates Front Lookout or Rea%I ookout. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambkr. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split E+ati'Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at itscdeepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates,Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade ai its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the WO ,:Designates Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in theYear of the dwelling. SE R �SEwOWO F LOQ .,# —�� o. FILO Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. Ary i • x* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ZONING § 20-905 (2) On riparian lots, detached garages and storage buildings may be located in the front or rear yard but must comply with front, side and applicable ordinary high water _ mark setbacks and may not occupy more than thirty(30)percent of the yard in which it is built. (3) Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear yards with a minimum side — and rear yard setback of ten (10) feet, [but] however, must comply with applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks. (b) A detached accessory structure may occupy not more than thirty (30) percent of the area of any rear yard. (c) For parcels with less than three(3)acres in any residential or agricultural district, no — accessory structure or use shall be erected, constructed, or commenced prior to the erection, construction,or commencement of the principal permitted structure or use,but may be erected or commenced simultaneously. If the principal structure or use is subsequently removed, destroyed, or discontinued, the accessory structure or use must be removed or discontinued within twelve (12) months. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 5, 12-15-86; Ord. No. 145, § 1, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 215, § 1, 8-8-94) Sec. 20-905. Single-family dwellings. — All single-family detached homes shall: (1) Be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation that meets the requirements of the state building code. (2) Conform to the following standards for living areas: � ` � _� a. If a one-story rambler design, have an area of nine hundred sixty (960) square feet. J -- b. If a split level design, have an area of one thousand fifty(1OZ square feet. / c. If a split foyer and two-story design, have an area of six hundred(600) square feet on the first floor, us a two-car garage must be attached to th ie ngle-family — structure. d (3) Have an earth covered,composition,shingled or tiled roof or other materials approved by the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city. — (4) Receive a building permit. The application for a building permit in addition to other information required shall indicate the height, size, design and the appearance of all — elevations of the proposed building and a description of the construction materials proposed to be used. (5) Meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city or the applicable manufactured housing code. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 6, 12-15-86) Cross reference—Technical codes, § 7-16 et seq. Supp. No. 7 1231 — § 20-901 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ARTICLE XXIII. GENERAL SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20.901. Overhead transmission lines. Installation of overhead transmission lines in excess of sixty-nine (69) kilovolts shall require the issuance of a conditional use permit through any district located in the city. The city council, in addition .to the standards established in article IV, may also impose other conditions as deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 2, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-902. Multiple principal buildings on same lot. In any single-family detached residential district not more than one (1)principal building shall be permitted to be erected on a single building lot. Groupings of buildings in other districts may only be permitted by conditional use permit. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 3, 12-15-86) Sec. 20.903. Zoning lots. (a) The designation of a zoning lot shall be approved by the city planner if it complies with the lot requirements of the district in which it is located and has a single tax identification number. (b) Interior lot lines within a zoning lot shall be disregarded in applying setbacks and other zoning ordinance standards. (c) After designation of a zoning lot the lot may not be subdivided without complying with the city's subdivision regulations. (Ord. No. 129, § 2, 6-4-90) Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (a) A detached accessory structure,except a dock,shall be located in the buildable lot area or required rear yard. No accessory use or structure in any residential district shall be located in any required front, side or rear setback with the following exceptions: (1) In the RSF and R-4 Districts accessory structures shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet. These structures may encroach into the rear setback as follows: a. Less than one hundred forty (140) square feet, minimum rear setback is five (5) feet. b. One hundred forty-one (141)to three hundred ninety-nine (399) square feet, min- imum rear setback is ten (10) feet. c. Four hundred (400) square feet and above, minimum rear setback is thirty (30) feet. Supp.No.3 1230.6 ZONING § 20-900 e. Buffer yards: The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty-foot — buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one-hundred-foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full,obligation to pro- vide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening _ for the higher intensity use.As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential.To the extent deemed feasible by the city,new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance,however,such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. _ Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering sat- isfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to fifty (50) percent. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 94, §§ 1, 7, 7-25-88; Ord. No. 136, §§ 1A, 1B, 1-28.91) — Sec. 20-816. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "IOP" District: (1) Churches. (2) Concrete mixing plants. - (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-817-20-900. Reserved. Supp.No.3 1230.5 § 20-814 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (13) State-licensed day care centers as a separate facility. (14) State-licensed day care centers as part of a multitenant building. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No: 97, § 1, 10-24-88; Ord. No. 120, § 4(12), 2-12.90) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-815. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "IOP" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is one(1) acre. (2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred fifty (150)feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (60)feet. (3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred(200)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is seventy (70)percent. (5) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in sections 20-1191 and 20-1192 pertaining to landscaping requirements. b There is no minimum setback when it abuts,without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. c. The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d. The minimum setback is twenty-five (25)feet for side street side yards. e. Parking setbacks along public rights-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that one-hundred-percent screening is provided at least five(5)feet above the adjacent — parking lot. The intent of this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional landscaping that is both an effective screen and of high quality aesthetically. Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening through the use of fencing is not permitted. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, four(4)stories/fifty (50)feet. b. For accessory structures, one (1)story. (7) Minimum setback requirements: a. For front yards, thirty(30)feet. b. For rear yards, ten (10)feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. • d. The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. Supp.No.3 1230.4 ZONING § 20-814 (6) Printers. — (7) Indoor health and recreation clubs. (8) Body shops. (9) Utility services. (10) Recording studios. — (11) Off-premises parking lots. (12) Conference/convention centers. — (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-813. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an"IOP" District: (1) Parking lots and ramps. — (2) Signs. (3) Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than — twenty(20)percent of the floor space is used for retail sales. (4) State-licensed day care center. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5.16-3), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 93, 1, 7-25-88) Sec. 20-814. Conditional uses. — The following are conditional uses in an "IOP" District: (1) Reserved. (2) Communication transmission towers. (3) Public buildings. — (4) Motor freight terminals. (5) Outdoor health and recreation clubs. — (6) Screened outdoor storage. (7) Research laboratories. — (8) Contracting yards. (9) Lumber yards. (10) Home improvement trades. (11) Hotels and motels. (12) Food processing. Supp.No.3 1230.3 § 20-795 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (4) The maximum lot coverage is sixty-five(65)percent. • (5) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in sections 20-1191 and 20-1192 pertaining to landscaping requirements. b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts,without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. _ c. The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d. The minimum setback is twenty-five(25)feet for side street side yards. (6) The maximum height is as follows: _ a. For the principal structure,two(2)stores. b. For accessory structures, one(1)story. (7) Minimum setback requirements: a. For front yards,thirty-five(35)feet. b. For rear yards,thirty(30)feet. _ c. For side yards, fifteen (15)feet. d. The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 15(5-15-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 94, §§ 1, 6, 7-25-88) Secs. 20-796-20-810. Reserved. ARTICLE XXII. "IOP" INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT Sec. 20-811. Intent. The intent of the "IOP" District is to provide an area identified for large scale light industrial and commercial planned development. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-812. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "IOP" District: (1) Offices. (2) Warehouses. (3) Light manufacturing. ^� (4) Trade-sh V 0 0c 1"I Vi i a l S C I oO (5) Health services. Supp. No. 2 1230.2 ZONING § 20-712 vide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential.To the extent deemed feasible by the city,new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance,however,such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor of the city. _ In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering sat- isfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may _ reduce buffer yard requirements by up to fifty (50) percent. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 94, §§ 1, 2, 7-25-88; Ord. No. 136, §§ 1B, 1-28.91) Sec. 20-696. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "BN" District: (1) Churches. (2) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-697-20-710. Reserved. ARTICLE XVII. "BH" HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT Sec. 20-711. Intent. The intent of the "BH" District is to provide for highway oriented commercial develop-. ment restricted to a low building profile. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-1), 12-15-86) _ Sec. 20-712. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "BH" District: (1) Financial institutions.- (2) Fast food restaurant. (3) Reserved. (4) Standard restaurants. Supp. No. 5 1221 § 20-695 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (3) The minimum lot frontage is seventy-five (75) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (60)feet in all districts. (4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (150)feet. (5) The maximum lot coverage including all structures and paved surfaces is sixty-five (65) percent. (6) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in sections 20-1191 and 20-1192 pertaining to landscaping requirements. b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts,without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. c. The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d. The minimum setback is twenty-five (25)feet for side street side yards. e. Parking setbacks along public rights-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that one-hundred-percent screening is provided at least five (5)feet above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional landscaping that is both an effective screen and of high quality aesthetically. Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening through the use of fencing is not permitted. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, one (1) story. b. For accessory structures, one (1)story. (8) Minimum setback requirements: a. For front yards, thirty-five (35)feet. b. For rear yards, thirty(30)feet. c. For side yards, fifteen (15)feet. d. The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. e. Buffer yards: The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty-foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one-hundred-foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. The buffer yard'is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to pro- Supp.No.3 1220 ZONING § 20.695 (6) Personal service establishments. (7) Professional offices. (8) Small appliance and shoe repair shops. (9) Health services. (10) Veterinary clinics. (11) Utility services. (12) Shopping center. — (13) Private clubs and lodges. (14) Community center. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-693. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BN" District: • (1) Parking lots. " • — (2) Car wash (when accessory to automotive SeFvice dation). ri1 ( n -e, (3) Signs. — ( :.1J.7 rlr �,, — t 0114 (Ord. No. 80, Art. V. § 10(5-10-3), 12-15.86) , C�J J } (� r,-16r Sec. 20-694. Conditional uses. m r — • J The following are conditional uses in a "BN" District: (1) Convenience store with gas pumps. (2) Reserved. (3) Drive-in banks including automated kiosks. (4) Reserved. (5) Standard restaurants. (6) Bed and breakfast establishments. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 116, § 5, 1-22-90; Ord. No. 120, § 4(7), 2-12-90) State law reference—Conditional uses,M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-695. Lot requirements ands setbacks. _ The following minimum requirements shall.be observed in a "BN" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum district area is three (3) acres. This paragraph may be waived in the case of expansion to an existing district. 01111114. (2) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000)square feet. Supp.No.3 1219 § 20-683 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (5) Temporary real estate office and model home. (6) Churches. (Ord. No. 123, § 1, 3-12-90) Sec. 20-684. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an R-16 District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is as follows: a. Two thousand seven hundred (2,700) square feet per dwelling unit. (2) The maximum lot coverage is fifty (50) percent. (3) The building setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty (50)feet. • b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet. c. For side yards, fifty (50)feet. (4) Parking setbacks shall be twenty-five (25)feet from all property lines. (5) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40)feet. b. For accessory structures, one (1)story/fifteen (15)feet. (Ord. No. 123, § 1, 3-12-90) Secs. 20-685-20-690. Reserved. ARTICLE XVI. "BN" NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT Sec. 20-691. Intent. The intent of the"BN"District is to provide for limited low intensity neighborhood retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-1), 12-15-86) �— Sec. 20-692. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a"BN" District: (1) Convenience stores without gas pumps. (2) Neighborhood oriented retail shops. (3) Self-service laundries. (4) Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations. (5) Day care center. Supp. No. 2 1218 • § 20.654 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (4) Churches. — (5) Recreational beach lots. (Ord. No. 80. Art. V, § 7(5-7-4), 12.15-86) — State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-655. Lot requirements and setbacks. — The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "R-8" District subject to _ additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: 7 (1) The minimum lot area i as follows: For SP lot, fo 2A� ( 1\1e = ��ns(t/ = 6. i tAbiz For a two-family dwelling, seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet per — dwelling unit. Cf. For a townhouse or multi-family dwelling, five thousand five hundred (5,500) square feet per dwelling unit. (2i The minimum lot frontage is fifty(50)feet per dwelling unit except that in the case of a lot that fronts on a cul-de-sac,the width of the lot at the building setback line shall bOf as follows: cr 4c�Ci X. If a two-family dwelling is located on the lot, fifty (50)feet per dwelling unit. C $. If a townhouse or multiple-family project is located on the lot, one hundred fifty. d50)feet. (3) The minimum lot de th is one hundred fifty(10i feet. E - — 1hC r`n,nlfnuf ie, .: Li;+ 4ir �F oi-1-01:6 0t (: r4`= _ (4; The maximum lot coverage is thirty-five(35)percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, twenty-five(25)feet. — b. For rear yards, twenty-five(25)feet. • c. For side yards, ten(10)feet) SF cid-ache rn be -i �'�� 0� Ong 11(t>{:�=�; int (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three(3)stories/forty(40)feet. b. For accessory structures, one(1)story/fifteen(15)feet. rd. No. 80, Art. V, § 7(5-7-5), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-656-20-670. Reserved. . rot S cidochtd Supp. No. 2 1214 ZONING § 20-654 Secs. 20-638-20-650. Reserved. — ARTICLE XIV. "R-8" MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-651. Intent. - AA OChtdO r The intent of the R-8 District is to provide for single-family'ttached residential develop- ______7 ment at a maximum net density of eight(8)dwelling units per acre. — (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 7(5-7-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-652. Permitted uses. The followin uses re permitted in an "R-8" District: SineeJ-e `Gt tI (1)VTownhouses, twe!family and multi-family dwellings. (2) Public and private parks and open spaces. (3) Utility services. (4) Temporary real estate office and model home. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 7(5-7-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-653. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "R-8" District: (1) Garage. (2) Storage building. — (3) Swimming pool. — (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. — (6) Home occupations. (7) One(1)dock. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 7(5-7-3), 12-15-86) — Sec. 20-654. Conditional uses. — The following are conditional uses in an "R-8" District: (1) Day care center. (2) Group home serving from.seven(7)to sixteen (16)persons. (3) Boarding houses. Supp. No. 2 1213 § 20-634 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE — (3) Reserved. (4) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(5), 2-12-90) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-635. Lot requirements and setbacks. _ The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "R-4" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is as follows: a. For a detached single-family dwelling unit, fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet — per unit. b. For a two-family dwelling, ten thousand (10,000)square feet per dwelling unit. (2) The minimum lot frontage is as follows: — a. For a single-family dwelling, eighty (80)feet. b. For a two-family dwelling, fifty (50)feet per dwelling unit. _ c. If the lot fronts on a cul-de-sac the width of the lot at the building setback lines shall be: 1. In the case of a single-family dwelling, eighty(80)feet. — 2. In the case of a two-family dwelling,fifty (50)feet. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is thirty(30)percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30)feet. b. For rear yards,thirty(30)feet. c. For side yards,ten(10)feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three(3)stories/forty(40)feet. — b. For accessory structures, one(1)story/fifteen(15)feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 2, 3-14-88) Sec. 20-636. Reserved. • • Sec. 20-637. Interim !ises. — The following are interim uses in the "R-4" District: (1) Boarding houses. (2) Private kennels. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) _ Supp. No. 2 1212 ZONING § 20-634 ARTICLE XIII. "R-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-631. Intent. The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four(4)dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. (3) Public and private parks and open space. (4) Group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. (5) State-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (6) Utility services. (7) Temporary real estate office and model home. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-633. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "R-4" District: (1) Garage. (2) Storage buildings. (3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. (7) One(1)dock. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-634. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "R-4" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. Supp. No. 2 1211 § 20.615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91) Editor's note—Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to — accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend- ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence,the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2,were included as amending § 20-615(7)b. — Sec. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF" District: (1) Private stables subject to provisions of chapter 5, article IV. (2) Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2.12-90) Secs. 20-617-20-630. Reserved. • • • • Supp.No.3 — 1210.2 MEMORANDUM — TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director — FROM: Jill Kimsal, Forestry Intern DATE: April 20, 1995 SUBJ: Ordinance glitches I've found the following items that need to be corrected or added: I. Section 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. Misspelled scientific names of trees: As spelled: Corrected (underlined): Betula payryiter Betula papyrifera Betula pendula icciminta Betula pendula 'Dalecarlica' Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Marshall's Seedless Gleditsia tricanthos (all varieties listed) Gleditsia tricanthos Gymnocladus dioica Gymnocladus dioici Acer innala Acer ginnala Malus bacata columnaris Malus baccata columnaris Prunus 'Newport' Prunus cerasifera 'Newport' Syringa amurensis japonica Syringa reticulata Picea gauca densata Picea glauca densata Picea pungens glauca Picea pungens 'alauca' — Pseudotsuga Menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' — II. Section 3. section 20-1. Definitions. Add the following definitions: Tree shall mean a woody plant which at maturity is 13 to 20 feet or more in height, — with a singly trunk, unbranched for at least several feet above the ground, and having a more or less definite crown. OR _ Tree shall mean any self-supporting woody plant that provide one main trunk and produces a more or less distinct and elevated head with many branches. — Shrub shall mean a woody plant that remains low and produces several erect, spreading, or prostrate stems from the base, and is not usually tree-like or single-stemmed. III. Section 20-1183. Landscaping materials. Table I. Approved tree list. -' As noted: Corected: Ash, Green Ash, Green Sorbus spp. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Table II. "Silver King" Artemisia 'Silver Mound' Artemisia _ Euophorbia epithymoides Euphorbia polychrome Parthenocissus quinguefolia Parthenocissus quinQuefolia Polygonum tricuspidata 'compactum' Polygonum cuspidatum 'compactum' _ Lonicera xxylosteum Lonicera xylosteum Spirea japonica 'Alpina' Spirea japonica 'Alpina' - Alpine Spirea Daphne Spirea _ Spirea x Bumalda 'Anthony Waterer' Spirea x humalda 'Anthony Waterer'