The URL can be used to link to this page

04-19-89 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1989, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 13.49 Acres into 9 Single Family Lots on pro- - perty zoned POD-R and located on the east side of Powers Boulevard approxi- mately 1 mile south of Hwy. 5, Lake Susan Hills West, Argus Development. - 2. Oak View Heights, property zoned R-12 and located between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, approximately $ mile north of West 78th Street, Cenvesco: a. Planned Unit Development Concept and Development Plan for 140 indivi- dually owned townho►re units on 19 acres of oroperty. b. Wetland Alteration Permit for development within 200 feet of a wetland and storm water discharge into a wetland. c. Site Plan Review for 140 individually owned townhome units. 3. North Side Parking Lot on property zoned CBD and located just east of 480 West 78th Street, City of Chanhassen: a. Preliminary Plat approval b. Site Plan Review 4. Country Suites Hotel, located at the southeast corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard, Bloomberg Company: a. Preliminary Plat to replat Lots 1 and 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall, into two commercial lots on property zoned CBD. b. Rezoning a portion of BG District to CBD District located between Market Boulevard and Lot 4, Chanhassen Mall. c. Site Plan Review for an 80 unit hotel. 5. Zoning Ordinance Amendmnt to Amend Chapter 20 of the City Code by deleting Section 20-255, Section 20-574, Subd. 6, and Section 20-773, Subd. 6. (Contractor's Yards), City of Chanhassen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEMS FROM PLANNING STAFF 7. Informational Items: a. Convenience Stores b. Wetland Articles c. Zoning Code - Use Matrix d. Letter from Roger Knutson dated April 12, 1989. ADJOURNMENT 1 • C I TY Q F P.C. DATE: April 19, 1989 CSANIIASSZN C.C. DATE: May 8, 1989 CASE NO: 87-3 PUD t Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat for 21 Single Family Lots Lake Susan Hills West PUD 2nd Addition Z _ LOCATION: East Side of Powers Boulevard, approximately one-quarter mile south of Hwy. 5 APPLICANT: Argus Development IQC 18133 Cedar Avenue Farmington, MN 55024 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential ACREAGE: 12.6 acres ( gross) 7.1 acres (net) • DENSITY: 3 . 0 units/acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R; single family S- PUD-R; vacant — Q . E- Lake Susan W- PUD-R; single family and vacant WATER AND SEWER: Available to site PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a Class B wetland in the northwest corner. 1990 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density Ii A / ._. * a --i pA,C f .0. JrG i - \ ,t �� _ \ ! T i I G H . ,--<-s \ I 1 CP \h.oi t:,_,------.,--),.„; , . . ! : %di A • .___ -------- -4 _' ; ;.,, • � i.h 1-t1 b?U-5 . 't f k\. z�aa7►ria,1 I • L ` /\ o L .4 KE SUSAN :� -I ' OD 1 /......) 1 (C2 ILLIFU0 — R �-- L ! \,�\ le"' o1 ! I [ 1 , a_ 1 i .y y 96 TN $T i I I--j • I I I til ! I ...... e`ki i'''' i --s . , . )1 . : � ! f . lirr zl-1 1 . - 41 1. . ., .,. . ---. 11 if 1.."'"., J N LYN, N ! L. ` - 90 EVARI) 1 (C.R IR 1 ,..'> -,r I ' ...- . - A2 ' i9-r11.-41 \\ • r . II .j 4 - 1 0 i I -t;R 5.7 .. i i II 1 - ' Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition _ April 19 , 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-518 of the City Code requires the applicant to receive development stage approval of the PUD following general concept approval. The development stage is essentially the preliminary plat of the site (Attachment #1) . REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment #2 Park and Recreation Commission Attachment #3 Public Safety Attachment #4 BACKGROUND The City Council reviewed the PUD concept plan on June 29, 1987, and approved the concept plan as a PUD with certain conditions ( Attachment #5 ) . The developer subsequently revised the concept plan to address the Council ' s conditions. The Planning Commission and City Council held a joint meeting on July 27 , 1987, to review the overall PUD philosophy and specifically, the Lake Susan Hills West PUD proposal. The City Council recommended certain changes ( increase Outlot H to a five acre park) and again approved the concept plan as a PUD. The City Council felt that it was beneficial to have the 299 acre site developed as a PUD rather than as a subdivision. As a PUD the site will be reviewed as one coordinated development enabling the city to require adequate park facilities and to require logi- cal staging of road improvements and utilities. Since the POD will be developed in separate preliminary plats , the city and developer negotiated a concept plan agreement to ensure that all of the conditions will be provided for each phase. On October 5 , 1987, the City Council approved the land use plan amendment, wetland alteration permit, rezoning and preliminary plat for 76 single family lots for Lake Susan Hills West 1st Addition (Attachment #6) . At that time, the City Council approved to rezone the property from RSF, R-4, R-8, and R-12 , to _ PUD-R and to amend the land use plan to correspond to the dif- ferent areas of density approved as part of the PUD Concept Plan. The City Council also approved a wetland alteration permit for the construction of a holding pond within a Class B wetland and preliminary plat for the First Addition of Lake Susan Hills West containing 76 single family lots on the east and west side of Powers Boulevard. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing 21 single family lots located on the east side of Powers Boulevard directly south of the Lake Susan Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition — April 19 , 1989 Page 3 Hills First Addition plat. The average lot size is 14 , 706 square feet. Thirteen of the 21 proposed lots contain 15, 000 square feet or more ( 52%) . Eight of the lots contain less than 15 , 000 _ square feet ( 38% ) . Lot sizes range in 12, 000 square feet to 20, 359 square feet. The PUD ordinance requires that at least 50% of the single family lots contain 15,000 square feet or more and that the average lot size shall not be below 13,500 square feet. The PUD ordinance also requires a minimum of 80 feet at the building setback line ( 30 feet) and no lot shall be smaller than 12 ,000 square feet. The preliminary plat meets all of these con- ditions. STREETS — The 21 lots will be serviced by a 50 foot public right-of-way off of West Susan Hills Drive. The street ends in a cul-de-sac adja- cent to the public open space ( Outlot $) . During the PUD concept — plan review, it was recommended that a temporary access be reviewed connecting the cul-de-sac with Powers Boulevard until future phases could be developed which would provide another per- _ manent access to Powers Boulevard. With the proposed addition, there will be 26 lots serviced by approximately a 2 , 200 foot long cul-de-sac. Both Public Safety and the Engineering Department have reviewed the necessity of a temporary access from the Second — Addition to Powers Boulevard to provide emergency access and feel that it is not necessary at this time since the chance of a barrier closing off access ( large tree) is slim. — DRAINAGE, GRADING AND UTILITIES See City Engineer memorandum. LANDSCAPING The ordinance requires one tree per lot to be provided by the developer. As part of the PUD approval, the applicant proposed increases in landscaping at entrances and along the boulevards. — In addition, the PUD was approved with the condition to preserve existing vegetation as best possible. The preliminary plat includes one tree per lot and additional landscaping along the entrance to the cul-de-sac and along the westerly edge of Lots 1 — through 6 . The applicant has provided a landscaping plan which provides one tree per boulevard and additional landscaping at the entrance of the cul-de-sac and landscaping along the westerly — edge of Lots 1 through 9 . The plan does not specify the type of pine or spruce or the height for the vegetation along the westerly edge of the property. The applicant has been notified that these need to be specified and will provide staff with an amended landscaping plan prior to the Planning Commission meeting. In addition, the approved concept plan showed landscaping at the end of the cul-de-sac, at the entrance to the — park area. The applicant will also provide for this landscaping Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition April 19 , 1989 Page 4 in the amended plan. In working with the DNR Forester, it has been stated that Marshal or Summit Ash are becoming very common and he would prefer a different variety of trees to be used as a boulevard tree. The applicant will be contacting Alan Olson to determine what types of trees would be best. Staff has also recommended that some of the higher quality vegetation that has been removed as part of the First Addition on the northern por- tion of the site also be used as a replacement for some of the landscaping ( such as oaks and maples) . PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary plat on the March 21 , 1989 , meeting. The Commission ' s action was based on the PUD agreement with the Lake Susan Hills West developer with the following conditions: 1 . The dedication of Outlot B for park purposes and to require the grading of that outlot at the same time that streets are installed in accordance with the grading plan provided by the city. 2 . Require the installation of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the through streets within the development. Eight foot wide bituminous trails along the east side of Powers Boulevard. 3 . The developer shall receive 50% credit on park dedication fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat #87-3 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "April 12, 1989" with the following conditions : 1 . The applicant shall provide staff with an amended landscaping plan prior to the Planning Commission meeting on April 19, 1989 . 2 . The applicant shall receive any necessary permits from the Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 3 . The applicant shall install a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the through street shown as West Lake Drive on the plat. 4 . The applicant shall provide an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard. Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition — April 19 , 1989 Page 5 5 . The applicant shall receive 50% credit on park dedication fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees. 6 . Prior to assigning street names , the applicant shall consult with Public Safety for recommendations. 7 . Revised plans that address the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. — 8 . Since the watermain is not looped, proper sizing of the watermain will be required for fire and health reasons. 9 . A typical section of roadway is to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. 10. The developer shall rough grade Lake Susan Hills Drive east of Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition as a second access to the site. 11 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the groper installation of these public — improvements. ATTACHMENTS — 1 . Section 20-518 of City. Code. 2 . Memo from City Engineer dated April 12, 1989. 3 . Memo from Park and Recreation dated April 13 , 1989 . — 4 . Memo from Public Safety dated — . 5 . City Council minutes dated June 29, 1987 . 6 . City Council minutes dated October 5, 1987. — 7 . Plat stamped "Received April 12 , 1989" . t � 0 ..,J i r_____. Lr"' S" `a—. -0. :. 1 tai j UT .(...:...:.::::::::::r.:::::::::::.:.:::::::....s.::' 4 ;a I 3 0 . i v. t�� im: . 0.- . . . ...' . , gif �r a W - ,.ti -0-0 Ems. Q� . 7 la I 2. 8 C .i -7 .g +C , 0 : Y : - . .. . : 1 t .:- - it- ii AO WA_ 1200 o r ti LI VII .' L. r- cuTLcrH * • 3.p .. y 5 6 g �\ �L1�L...1 Z 3 7 S IP- 13 -.....=,4•'•...1. • 1 O tiail3 .1%SQ�'�'"'' Zo 19 j ,� ) ' 4411 i 3 -lir i �� Nti76.11ffiaesmi . lL to i, kk sows 417.3 tiz/ to /9 ,��`�7.7.7.. - Pir��,► : :777. ' ..,.<-7:: n f ► �,, I..,,.." i ./..". — _ '�-.. N CITY OF • - . 1NBAss x 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O- BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer — DATE: April 12 , 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition File No. 89-2 Land Use Review This site is located on the east side 'of County Road 17 . It is the next segment south of Phase I built in 1988 ( see attached PUD plan) . This site is comorised of a rolling topography which has been farmed for many years. — Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site by an — existing 8-inch sewer main constructed under Phase I of the development. This existing sewer main was sized and installed to service the anticipated development for the subject parcel. — Watermain The plans propose no looping of the system at this time but rather construction of a long dead-end line for future development to the south. The City will require the watermain to be sized for elimination of stagnant water and Minnesota Department of Health requirements. The plans do not show any watermain valving and as a minimum the — City will require a valve at both ends of the project and at the cul-de-sac intersection. This will be covered as part of the plan and specification review/approval. — Street The plans do not show typical street sections ; however, the road- way shall be built to City standards with a 23-foot face-to-face concrete curb gutter conforming to Phase I construction. Street grade and right-of-way shall conform to City standards. — Due to the long length of roadway ( 2 , 200 +) from County Road 17 without a second access , the developer should rough grade Lake Susan Hills Drive just east of this site as the second access at this time ( see attached PUD plan) . Planning Commission April 12, 1989 Page 2 Grading and Drainage It appears that a majority of the site will experience shaping and/or grading to create the building pads. The plans propose that the street drainage and emergency overflow be directed to the ponding area in Outlot D developed under Phase I construction. We find this plan acceptable providing proper grading is undertaken to provide surface drainage to the pond along the rear lot lines of Block 1 . Erosion Control The plan shows that the lowland of the site be wrapped with erosion control fencing. We find that this is in conformance with city standards. Recommended Conditions 1. Revised plans that address the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 2. Since the watermain is not looped, proper sizing of the watermain will be required for fire and health reasons . 3 . A typical section of roadway is to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. 4 . The developer shall rough grade Lake Susan Hills Drive east of Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition as a second access to the site. S . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. 6 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. „,f , .- $�^ � I.mmi AI . -L-_ sir - ,” 1: �••�/ •; y a -` - ..."01111111111101P 1 i ,' • -'" - . . I .*•'. 1' -.'- . • .-- • t ••`1,-( , vey 1•••• .. .1001111.1 t".5m.eana-r my / tr:Q:\I\r fi.../....;,:., :4 . , 4 DerArruk.L.t.'.4 kt, NI ; ,(,..r.z;.;f:;-:=7:,..:::-/.:- .' a: -I i,;,...• 01471 fp:. ..t i op s.brrs 01.1-1. ::-.........::....4!J •1 -• • A' '' '''' %yr ,* jig a iz=y.ni,i: :.. :-..1. .), .. ; ,,, -, ... ''' - 'tti%1L---Itt.....•"moolk A,‘4.14 f ., ) '''),)) i ''. VC<\\V/ 1 • '...:,-...:•\ 4.410,1.....2 lig . __, ‘..arirtippir'."....2NN. T.2..10. . . - ' " •;\1 Ili I `.7% ' . i i -- _Tc.. ii--•'fitlaThrit- 10. . /.4") i lira .‘,t: V.4`.1. • i'411.: • •."1' 40:, • war . • • ,, .: . . v...N i .• :air;( ': .. t •' • ** • r 4W!4 0 .? ittit { Jamj/•, i r.y .-•.I �, t �, 4 !•. •.a4 r j MOW Nig J'r �`r • , • ., lir `I ;ii.: O 'Its' al r- '" S Ll g AN J �. cOD 44 a.- ,,� 41,1...---_:-..c.:.. ,, ! j iii—` '°c Q = �� •_.--D E.,( - I1.>v • ;.,• If r .1 1 VI� �e•• 1 ;. • ..• H.,Mots \sN.•Walk sliaef• «. :,-. ',-.....- . ., Li 7 Ira, 44 *� I.SAG. t' Ctf'f'ia c.tt .. s>_CA=. -- ell f Cr , 17-k. *Ilell \ ',‘‘..',1, 11. ..a : .:;i:Witt g r• - iMeN, ., , ‘ .pi. , A •:4:...es . _ -Sill. is, .. /--Nuot...t.,./ :. , ,-..1t, „, ,,,-, ..,11..!. f '-' ti: Neemew-;---‘.""' :.•ell Sli.. ',..,.., ,....- .: -t..... ' .-... It 7 1 .1- --' • -• • . • - . 07‘. •�01, MIS iff...,n. -r !VI. • .• .. V110 • •arVaik. 1001 r piI7V / �• .0' FES•,..\<7.1 -- 9 \ Irail 1i$ _ E^) 11. "::•1� •.. 7 • •• a. N ivk i----. 4„, _. ......... . .. . .....r 1614 . i. 't. . imitiiiiik viiiil- -.',.„..ej' .-- ,' -": ) -, • i- Y.::: - go.e$0. :1017; .,- ritiriel7 1-4,47 .:/, - .,_ _, .... .. . _,,. . . , 1E0. - I' ii •-, .......-----" ,r.........,.. - ''‘' ")•-' 4-1-;1.:-...-:'"•••••‘- : • -1- - - .- A • . . ,, . 0,41- , 1 V Vir .. ,..-__ . IdLet 1• �) A ,.' •j - .V ,�'''' -...:.•:- .-7:-...." _ -- . • . • ,•-41 AIL ilieL • • ",; t ��o 4f' 2 /. 1,....Y,.i�/-I 1t,i•� •��r• - '• .�_" C. 01Zger.e j,I . . .•1 f i all F.i;• Oikri.- . / kie 1 471.' 1 "' '11.2gfii:10.- -:--7::---r.: -)' 1,tsz.\-,..----,-.. .•;: , ..„ . •i • .0...„.,..:,.. ...„, .....:. Ner .__ ...:„..,,- ... / 44111 ,,,,,,.....,,,...,, ,=/... "••••,a4i.. r - 3 rya!.0 i / . 1 te$4 1:" 0 , k errit•f(: /-......1.••••••‘ -t. . . .,-qii - y 1 i •-... ,A.t:: -'-1 7,- •,i0%• .,'I!'1 V..• ,-.4';:::--,--ft ,s, •i.-.• - ..iir_ t.. , vp. ,., , ,•.:_cl 4 •• • ' • / j jf.0 '4.7.- '.---- aJR�1t / / f r / .1/ Uitto y _�),. j mai. doss .csa, 100 ", CITY OF CEANHASSEN l • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner _ FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: March 28 , 1989 SUBJ: Park .and Recreation Commission Action on Lake Susan Hills West Site Plan Review The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for Lake Susan Hills West Third Addition at their last meeting. The Commissioners ' action was based an the PUD agreement with the Lake Susan Hills West developer. It is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to request the dedication of Outlots A and B for park purposes and to require the grading of those outlots at the same time streets are installed in accordance with grading plans provided by the City. Additionally, the Commission recommends to require the installatio:i of 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalks along the through streets within the development; 8 ft. wide oituminous trails alor-g the east side of Powers Blvd. and the east side of Auduuo. Rgad; and a 20 ft. wide trail easement along the west side of ��S + r Blvd. , as outlined in Sections 4 and 5 of the PUD contract dated November 16, 1987. Additionally, it was recommended that the developer receive 50% credit on park dedication fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees. Attached please find the Park and Recreation Commission minutes . mon Mom Park and Rec Commission Meeting March 21 , 1989 - Page 37 -' -'SITE PLAN REVIEW - LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, 3RD ADDITION. Sietsema: This proposal is very straight forward. It doesn' t deviate, as far as I could tell , from what was in the original PUD agreement as far as what was required in parks and trails. I attached the PUD development agreement and as you can see in Section 4 and 5, there were park requirements made at that .time. So basically what my recommendation is to '- just carry through what that original agreement was. To request park dedication with Outlots A and B and require the grading of those Outlots in accordance with grading plans provided by the City. This would also — require you to direct staff to prepare grading plans and start with preparing a master plan for those park sites so that a grading plan can be submitted when they' re ready to go. Also, to require the installation of _ 5 foot wide sidewalks along the through streets within the development . 8 foot wide trails along the east side of Powers Blvd. and the east side of Audubon Road and a 20 foot wide trail easement to be dedicated along the west side of Powers Blvd . . That was to insure that we had the space to — put in another trail on the other side of the street is such was needed in the future. Mady: I like your recommendation with one exception. That is , taking in Al ' s comments about Chanhassen Hills Park and that is , that we need to put a time line into getting that grading done. Because they' re going to be — moving a lot of dirt this summer , just have that be included with that. It might require us to move a little quicker on our parkland but . Boyt: Another thing that we need to look at sometime this summer . — Somehow tying in funds . . .so we can get that done right away. Mady: . . .we had one developer who indicated that he was surprised that we — waited and took them as the permits were filed instead of getting it all up front from the developer . . . Hasek : I 'm surprised that that ' s not what we do. — Boyt: Should we change it right now? Hasek: I thought we were. I thought we were taking down from the developer . Sietsema: It ' s stayed with the building permit . Mady: Can we put that on next week ' s agenda? Hasek : What should happen , when a piece of property comes in , he only wants to go into Phase 1 but we' re taking a big chunk of land. That should come right off the bat , when the property is subdivided , that ' s — when we should be getting our dedication. Right then. Sietsema : We aren ' t right now. Mady: Let' s next week we' ll have a full discussion of it . I move that we recommend to Council to accept staff' s recommendation on this parcel with Park and Rec Commission Meeting March 21, 1989 - Page 38 the exception that we request the developer to move quickly on the grading of the parkland so that land is useable as the families are there. Those kids have a place to . . . Sietsema: If I could suggest that you request that the grading of the park be done at the same time as the streets . Hasek: Second . Mady moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to request park dedication of Outlots A and B and require the grading of those outlots in accordance with grading plans provided by the City and to be graded at the same time as the streets. Also, to require the installation of 5 foot wide sidewalk along the through street within the development, 8 foot wide trails along the east side of Powers Boulevard and east side of Audubon Road , and a 20 foot wide trail easement be dedicated along the west side of Powers Boulevard as outlined in Sections 4 and 5 of the Planned Unit Development Contract dated November 16, 1987. Additionally, it is recommended that the developer receive a 50% credit on the Park Dedication Fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees. All voted in favor and the motion a carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF JULY 4TH CONTRACTS . _ Hoffman : 9 (a) has to do with the selection of the band for the street dance. Again, a search for the appropriate type of band being family entertainment . A lively band playing the appropriate type of music for a reasonable price. The search ended up again with the Hi-Tops. They aim continue to provide an excellent show. Last year , if any of those on the Commission who were in attendance I think would agree with that. They have evolved over the years . They've stayed the same but , their name has ▪ stayed the same but they' ve changed faces and thus their show and their act and their music changes correspondedly. So it ' s staff recommendation to accept their contract in the amount of $1, 200. 00 for three 60 minute sets for this year ' s 4th of July Street Dance which will occur on Saturday evening, July 1st right up back here in the back parking lot at City Center Park. • Schroers: July 1st? Hoffman, Saturday July 1st . Mady: A following question , are you planning on doing the Oktoberfest again this year? Hoffman : Yes . Mady: Okay. I ' ve heard discussion on having , the different . . . idea of Oktoberfest. As long as we have two items. Two different fields. We can have both bands . One on each one. I think we satisfied both groups of the city. So I ' ll move we go with staff ' s recommend to enter into the contract with the Hi-Tops this year again for three 60 minute sessions for $1, 200. 00. r CITY OF \ czANBAssEN AV):: 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM — TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: April 12, 1989 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills 2nd Addition Recommendations at this time: — 1 . A second means of access from the south is not required for 2nd addition. 2 . Proposed street names must be approved by the Public Safety Department. «� « CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT e1 / 600 EAST 4TH STREET _ CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-3435 /NNESo� COUNTY OF CAQVEQ March 20 , 1989 L L Mr. Stephen Hanson Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Planning Case 87-3 Lake Susan Hills West 2nd and 3rd Addition Dear Mr. Hanson: We have reviewed the plans received concerning the preliminary plats on the above mentioned projects. Neither project in itself shall greatly effect CSAR 17 . The completion of the total development of the Lake Susan Hills subdivision does have a traumatic effect on the CSAH 17 road cor- ridor. Carver County is still working with the developer concern- ing the borrow material needed for the widening of CSAH 17 and the possibility of obtaining this borrow material from the future development of the Lake Susan Hills West subdivision. Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments . If you have any questions concerning these comments , contact me at your con- venience. Sincerely,William J. Weckman, P.E. Assistant County Engineer WJW/cjr MAR 2 2 1999 CITY OF CHANHAJStN Affirmative Action'Equal Opportunity Employer r� 1 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 - REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TH 212 AND TH 169 INTERSECTION, TED PERUSSE. — Mayor Hamilton: Do Council members have any problem with this? It's adjoining BF District that we zoned. Councilman Johnson: It was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Rezoning Request #87-2 to rezone the entire two acre parcel of property located at the southeast corner of TH212/169 from A-2, Agricultural Estate to BF, Business Fringe District. All voted in favor and motion carried. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN OF 342 ACRES INTO 892 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 1 --S-:-- . LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF POWERS BLVD. (CR 17) 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF TH — 5, DON PATTON, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST. Barbara Dacy: The plans that were dated June 26th in your packet reflect the most recent submittal by the applicants in response to the Planning Commission action on June 17th. I'm going to keep my comments bried because I know the applicants have a presentation that they would like to give to the Council. To summarize the changes that they have made, in your original Staff Report it [-- was noted that there were a number of lots or I should say there weren't enough lots size 15,000 square feet and above and the applicants have gone back and corrected that so approximately 57% of the lots are 15,000 square — feet or above. Therefore, their overall square lot size has increased also. Secondly, the major concerns of the Planning Cbmmission was the overall reduction in density. The original zoning plan anticipated a certain amount _ of R-12 and R-8 and the proposal was to reduce approximately 30 acres to the R-8 zoning. This plan reflects, if you look on Outlot D, originally that was designed as R-4 and now they are proposing that as R-8. Outlot D is approximately 10 acres in size. Another comment from the Planning Commission — was to make sure that the recommendations from the Park and Rec Commission were being met and the plan that you see here proposes park space on Outlot F, Outlot G, Outlot H proposes concrete sidewalks along the interior streets and an 8 foot bituminous path along the west shore of Lake Susan. The bituminous path is to be located within the acreage that is supposed to be dedicated to the City. Also, the wetland area in Outlot A is also proposed to be dedicated to the City. Another concern the Planning Commission had was to look at the — site plan for sensitivity to natural features. Right now a majority of the site is now cornfields and being used for agricultural production. It does contain steep slope areas and the shaded areas are slopes in excess of 16%. — A remaining concern that Staff has is location of the cul-de-sac at the end of Block 11 here. It looks like according to your drawings would be encroaching into the 16% slope area. We would want to look at that in a little bit more _ detail and look at the impact into the adjacent wetland areas. Other sensitive areas are up along the northeast corner of the site adjacent to Lake Susan Park where there is a pocket of existing vegetation. This plan also reflects proposed landscaping plan. Another comment identified by the - 26 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 -- 1r- Planning Commission. They are proposing a rear and sideyard treatments through to the site as it is existing as an open agricultural field. It is going to be difficult to vegetate the area. With that, you have the Planning Commission recommendation in front of you. The applicant has submitted this revised plan to attempt to address some of those concerns. The Council needs to direct the applicant as to whether or not they feel the proposal is a PUD and whether or not they should proceed to the next stage of PUD application process. If not, then a straight subdivision application can be applied for. Mayor Hamilton: Thea applicant PP gave me some letters that he had received and I was wondering if you could, I know we don't normally like to have, but seeing this is the concept plan, put these in your file for this particular project. I belive these are comments frau local companies. Don Patton: Mr. Mayor and Council, as a part of the growth of Chanhassen you need a good employment base. You need a good retail base and you need a good residential base. We're proposing the development, 299 acres of residential development. It was carved out of the old Dunn & Curry project from some years back. The owners of the land are here tonight. Mr. Tom Reeves, Mr. Mike Forbes and Jim Lamson. I bring this to the Council. The single family lots as we will go through, have been bought on a puchase agreement by Joe Miller Construction represented by Ron Dahlen and Bob Count. We think that we have done a good job in planning this. We have met the requirements of the PUD Ordinance. I would like to introduce Mr. Jim Hill who will make a presentation. Jim Hill: The picture that is on the monitor now represents the original application. By the hanks to the partnership it is still 300 acres. Some 893 dwelling units consisting of both multi-family and single family detached. Approximately half and half. With the higher densities along Powers and adjacent to the Industrial Park and Business Park to the north. Since the application and reviewing with the Park Commission and Staff, the partnership has made a modification of that plat. What we are reivewing represents the latest land use plan but this is a modification of the land use plan wherein the park dedication and the densities have been modified to reflect the R-8 densities giving us about a 5% increase in overall densities. Reflecting the additional 8 acres of park that was required by the Park Commission. Addressing their issues with regard to concern that is it a PUD or is it not a PUD. The proposal on this PUD is to provide now some 933 dwelling units in classifications of R-1, R-4, R-8 and R-12. Generally the multi-family are against Powers and against the Industrial still. The PUD addresses the natural features of the 300 acres. Those are the slopes, the wetlands, the existing trees and existing road system that is in and through the 300 acres. In addressing all of those conditions and all of those natural features, including Lake Susan, we have come up with this alignment of the roads. The number of cul-de-sacs don't differ from the PUD that was approved some 8 years ago. The cul-de-sacs still stay because the land has not changed and the cul- de-sacs recognize those slopes and recognize the drainage areas. Along with _, that, consideration for PUD, Planned Unit Development Ordinance of Chanhassen, it gives the developer the opportunity to vary lot sizes. The PUD says and it specifically says that lot sizes, single family residential homes, can be varied within a PUD if it meets their standards. The data that has been 27 r- - City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 — submitted to Staff meet those standards and I appreciate that when you take a residential plat, whether it be a standard subdivision or a PUD subdivision in R-1, you're going to see very little change because what you're doing is meeting a PUD ordinance that says you're varying the lots. In the 300 acres _ the reason for the PUD is to vary the lots and vary the land uses so that we can achieve and stay with the natural forms that are on the site. Recognizing Lake Susan. Recognize Powers Blvd. that goes through the area including all of the wetlands. The recommendation by the Park Commission calculated under the Park requirement of Chanhassen that 33 acres shall be given and that will be the requirement of the 300 acres and the 930 dwelling units. In their calculation of 33 acres, they gave credit to the 18 acres here, the 7 acres — along Lake Susan totally 25 and that's the reason for the change where we add an additional 8 acres of park. Under the proposed PUD and that 8 acres is here adjacent to the residential high and 3 acre parcel adjacent to the R-4 in the single family. Councilman Boyt: Could you go through that one more time for me. Where you're having your parks. Jim Hill: Park requirements of Chanhassen shall be the number of dwelling units times 2.8 people per dwelling unit times the number of dwelling units — divided by 75 and that's the number of acres you shall provide. That's 33 acres. The Park Commission looked at a proposal of some 50 acres of open space proposed in the PUD and said of that 52 acres we shall credit you 25. 25 consisting of the 7 acres along Lake Susan and the 18 in the southwest corner. Along with that southwest corner we had proposed and provided a park layout to the Park Commission and they accepted it. Ballfield spaces, soccer and skating, totlot and future tennis. 25 acres of the 33 required was credited against the 52 so an additional 8 acres remained... Councilman Boyt: What's this open space now? Outlot G and Outlot H? — Jim Hill: All the green on this site. The 18 acres in the southwest, the 8 acres in the northwest and the 2 1/2 acres in the center and the 35 acres in Outlot E being the lower wetlands or the corridor to Lake Susan and the 7-7 — 1/2 acres along Lake Susan comes to a total of 62 acres or 21% of the site. Part of the proposed PUD, and I think this was explained quickly to the Planning Commission is to provide additional landscaping. The builder has — agreed to allow the streetscape, around other subdivisions you would not have additional planting within the streetscape over and above one tree per lot. You would not have additional landscaping in the streetscape as you drove down the street. What the building is proposing to do additional plantings in the street, adjacent to the street boulevards and that is represented by these clusters of greens that you see along and throughout the single family detached lots. He will provide approximately a $65,000.00 budget for that landscaping throughout. Over and above that the multi-family, a low average for multi-family would be approximately $530.00 per dwelling unit and that would constitute against the 500 dwelling units of multi-family for attached. — That would be another $250,000.00 in landscaping. Part of the proposal and agreed on by the Parks, that the developer shall provide and build the pathways and the sidewalks within the street. That is approximately 3 1/2 miles of concrete sidewalk and/or 8 foot bituminous. That will be buit and 28 — L.'-Art/ City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 -- IT- constructed during the phases of the PUD. In conjunction with the PUD, the developer shall also grade the parks. That's some 33 acres. The 18 and 8 for some 26 acres. We have proposed a park layout for the southwest park, 18 acres. That was generally approved by the Parks Commission. The developer has agreed to grade the access road, the ball diamond and the soccer field and seed and produce cover on the disturbed areas. If one counted all those PUD give me's in this PUD, one could come with a number in excess of a normal subdivision of some $400,000.00. If you didn't like those numbers and you just said James, figures don't lie but liars do figure. If you just looked at the PUD that they are proposing and say to yourself over and above what is proposed is some $60,000.00 to $65,000.00 in street landscaping in the single family area. Park grading to the tune of $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 and the 33 acres that is acceptable credits for the park, which is one-half of the green space that you see in a PUD, of the 33 acres only one-half of it will be credited against the $415.00 that you would normally accept and require if no land was given so that's another $190,000.00. So you could count over a third of a million in the PUD that is extra in their eyes over and above a normal subdivision. The Lake Susan West community is a neighborhood of mixed housing, unglading lands, lots of open space, access to the Lake Susan, pathways and parkways and available parks that are graded and useable. That's the PUD and the developer is trying to provide a neighborhood of people that can function within itself and have the amenities that are there without destroying and going to the cookie cutter, grid system of planning. Don Patton: This is the current zoning that we're conforming to. You see the R-12, single family here and over in through here. The R-8 is in this area. Again, we're changing the arrangement of that. Some of this is outside in the A-2 we would be looking at rezoning that. The MUSA line is this line. Do some density transfers moving that into the.MUSA line. From the standpoint of phasing, it's a big project and obviously can't be built at once. What we're looking for is, in trying to figure out the natural topography, you've got a line that goes basically like this. This draining back towards the Riley- _ Purgatory Creek area and this area draining to the west into a different Watershed District. This is a natural boundary for the west phasing. This is the line that we defined as Phase 1 of the east side. The phasing that we're looking at is in the single family on the west side, the market bracket, and again if it doesn't sell it's not worth developing, are $90,000.00 to $140,000.00. On the east side we're looking at $140,000.00 to $225,000.00 to $250,000.00. If you've ever been down along the lake you'll see the desirability of a lot of these lots. As a part of the development we would be looking at Phase 1 in the high income housing project and the moderate income, this would be Phase 1. Developing to the south, Phase 2, again Phase 2 here. Phase 3 here. Phase 3 down here. One of the things that we see in defining this and trying to maximize the topography and terrain in this development is to define the multiple size so those can then be marketed for multiple construction. We're looking at covenants. A high level of construction. The homes in here would be wood and masonry. Timberline roofs and panel doors so we're looking at something that we would be proud to live in and something you would be proud to be building in Chanhassen. Councilman Geving: What was the price range on that Don? 29 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 Don Patton: On which one? Councilman Geving: In number one. Don Patton: We're looking in the $140,000.00 to $225,000.00. One of the things that we've done, if we can pull some more of rabbits out of here. (Mr. Patton then showed a slide presentation showing the different housing styles that Joe Miller Construction builds.) As a part of our partnership in the Chanhassen community we met with a lot of the business people, Mr. Jerome Carlson from United Mailings. Jerome Carlson: Don talked to me a week or so ago and we went over about what you've gone over I suspect. What interests our company and me is that we have a lot of employees, as you know, who really have a hard time finding — affordable housing, maybe any housing, out here. I believe that this would significantly help fill a need for our employees. It would be more affordable. It would be convenient without a, doubt. I also believe that it would be a selling point for new employees, which we are having difficulty finding. We constructed a facility in Little Falls and moved in to that last August. Less than a year ago. The only reason was because we were unable to find people within a reasonable distance to fill jobs. This year, less than — one year later, we are in the process of finalizing plans for a 45,000 square foot addition to the Little Falls facility and that is 100% based on a labor availability business decision. We are anticipating as we have experienced in — the past every year severe labor shortages as we enter the late summer and fall and winter and spring season. Our slow time generally is May, June, July. This year that did not happen. We are fortunate but we are really trying to accelerate the addition in Little Falls because quite frankly gentlemen it is very difficult to find enough human resource within a reasonable distance. We are raising the minimum wages. We are doing a number of things so that you can assured we are working very hard in all kinds of ways but the fact of the — matter is, affordable housing that would be conveniently located would be a boom to the community marriage of business and housing and I would imagine the redevelopment of the downtown. It all fits together in my mind. This goes _ back many years when we were working on a redevelopment plan that goes back a few additions. That's what I came to tell you. I am in favor of this and I hope that you can find a way to get on with it at the earliest possible date because we need those people. Mayor Hamilton: I appreciate your being here for one thing. Co you feel that if you had the affordable housing here and you feel by being able to attract new employees to this area that your businesses would expand here and perhaps you wouldn't have the need to expand in Little Falls and the expansion could take place here? Jerome Carlson: We have additional space in our buildings that is not being utilized. That was on the basis that we would fill these up originally before we would be going elsewhere. Now, in Instant Webb and at Victory, the labor — shortages are not nearly as severe as they are at United Mailing. We certainly would not have built a facility in Little Falls when we did if the [7- labor had been available in Chanhassen. That I can assure you because it's added expense to a facility that we've already committed to and we have no way 30 r City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 out of that. To the extent that labor becomes available Tom, down here, that will directly impact the rate of growth in Little Falls. Councilman Geving: Jerome, have you ever done a market analysis or an employee evaluation of where your people come from to get to work in Chanhassen? Jerome Carlson: I can't say that we have one that is real recent. I think the most recent one is at least a couple years old and there have been some people that have moved over time to the area from where they were. Councilman Geving: I drive TH 5 east every morning and it seems like there are as many people coming from Bloomington and Edina and wherever they come from from the east coming our way but it seems to me that what.we're talking about here tonight I haven't seen any, what I would consider, affordable housing. We're talking $90,000.00 to $140,000.00. Are you having trouble getting executives out here too? Your middle managers or your manager types. Jerome Carlson: Our primary concern right now, frankly because it is so critical, has to do with the young people who are 30 and under and the affordable housing issue. It was always my understanding going back over the years with the zoning that in fact the City was going to take care of that. Going to take care of that and address that so we would have not just middle to higher income housing. That we would address it for all of the people who we need in the community. Councilman Geving: What we didn't get from the developer yet tonight is an indication of the multiple family and higher density areas and what those might do for our community in terms of affordability. I haven't heard that yet. Maybe you could address that for us. Jerome Carlson: Those, in my opinion, are absolutely as critical. Those later phases of those multiple dwellings. We would really like to see those available. Don Patton: Let me just address that point. One of the reasons for this R-12 is for the lower income. We're looking of course for these high densities, you're looking at 360 units in this orange area. Projections on that would be again based on that king of input I think would be certainly find some builers for that in the $65,000.00 to $70,000.00 range which would address those concerns. Mayor Hamilton: Don, maybe you could address the Outlot, the one right along CR 17? You had at one time I think proposed to downzone that. Don Patton: Yes, again that was what I was showing on this slide. I guess the feeling that we had is that downzoing was appropriate. The feedback that we got from the Planning Commission was that that was not desirable. Again, -L we want to be a good partner to the City of Chanhassen. We want this to be successful and there are a lot of things that make things successful. Me market makes it successful. Good planning makes it successful and by changing this area right here to R-8, we will accommodate that and we appreciate those 31 9 — City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 — comments from Jerome on the housing needs. The buyer that we have right now is for the single family but again we feel that by saying this is where single L family can best be designed and go up according to what Mother Nature gave us. Don't fool Mother Nature, we're trying to design around that. Platting the outlots as we've seen will give the buyers when they come in and market for multiple family housing. We have talked to several people. Mayor Hamilton: Co you have anything else you want to present or does that conclude it? Al Klingelhutz: I guess I would agree with Jerome. The fact that Chanhassen has a lot of businesses and we have more employment in Chanhassen than we have people to fill the jobs and the only way we're going to create a little different climate for more industry to come in here is to get more people to _ live in Chanhassen and put developments up like this is one way of doing it. Councilman Johnson: I agree with the Planning Commission on this one. I see a lot of hocus pocus with these numbers. I'm 'literally very upset to tell you the truth. It really baffles me how in Blocks 8, 9, 10 and 11 we can increase the lot size of 24 lots between Planning Commission and here and one lot was decreased by 300 square feet so somehow we've taken that 300 square feet and — divided that amongst 24 of the lots. Some of them increased by over 2,000 square feet and did it in the same area and having the same amount of open space and the same amount of outlots. This is hocus pocus. This is _ unbelievable. The only thing that was done, when you took this, you changed the numbers here. All the lot lines are identical. I can't find any of the lot lines that are different. I can't find anything on the east side of CR 17, any lot that's been decreased in size except for one. I found one that — actually was. It went from 15,300 down to 15,000 but within that 300 square feet we're able to pick up 24 lots and increase them up to 15,000. That's hocus pocus to me. They say there are 934 dwelling units. Mr. Carlson wants — more affordable housing and this development keeps going smaller and smaller on the multiple families. There aren't 934 dwelling units. There are 857 now. We've decreased the amount of dwelling units because we cut back by 12 acres the R-4. We cut back by 5 acres the R-12. We did increase the R-8 by — 10.4 acres. It's interesting that we had 360 dwelling units in the R-12 when we had 30.1 acres. We decrease that by 5.7 acres and we still have 360 dwelling unit in the R-12 district. This is hocus pocus folks. These numbers are not right. Somebody is figuring. I don't believe that Outlot B is useable for R-8. There's no way to access it. It's hardly wide enough for a regular lot no less than putting in R-8, medium density, residential which is _ what Mr. Carlson wants. Everytime you turn around we're cutting down and adding more. This is not a PUD. We need internal parks and totlots in here versus making everybody walk way out to the periphery and the areas that we can't develop anyway. I don't really see that this qualifies for a PUD at all. I would like to see more of the multiple. I would like to see some commitment to those multiples so we can get affordable housing. $90,000.00 to $200,00.00 housing is not what I call affordable housing. I see an R-8 right — nest to an RSF. I see RSF right next to IOP, that's not good planning. You don't put residential lots right up next to the Industrial Park. You put R-4, R-8 or R-12 next to Industrial Park but are you going to tell the people that are going to be buying these lots what's zoned behind it is industrial or 32 — 49 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 zoned next to it is high density? If there is someway we can make it required to disclose that information, I want that disclosed. I sat and listen to a developer tell somebody, Bill that he was going to have single family housing next door to him and it was zoned R-12. That was a different development. I believe as far as for single family housing, Chanhassen Hills and Chan Vista are going to provide more affordable single family housing than this development. Chan Vista starts at basically $80,000.00 then if you want a porch from your back door it's a little bit more. The people who are moving in there are the young, single, married, I just had 32 people move in behind me and just about every one of them is in their 30's down with one kid or no kids and just getting married and the type of people that you're looking for are moving into Chan Vista right now. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could stick to this. Councilman Johnson: I'm just making comparisons here. That was a PUD and we didn't get much for that. I'm in total aqreement with the Planning Commission. This does not deserve to be a PUD. I get very upset when people do hocus pocus arithmetic because it's technically impossible to make larger lots with 300 square feet. The numbers in this chart are totally wrong. The only thing that stayed the same was 427 single family residents and that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to push the single family residents. I don't think we'll ever see R-8 in Outlot D. I'll let somebody else rant and rave for a while because I'm voting against this because I don't think it's a PUD. Councilman Boyt: Let me start out with some good news. I think the move to put public open space along Lake Susan should be applauded. That's something if other developers had taken that same approach we would have a much different city lake system than we do and I really appreciate you doing that. I think the 3 1/2 miles of walkways and trail systems is a credit to you and a credit to the Park and Rec Board. I would however like to comment that it would have been nice to have the Park and Rec Minutes to read about this. I assume you guys discussed it and we didn't get your Minutes in our packet. Jim Mady: I don't believe they are ready yet. Councilman Boyt: I think you're an important body and we need to get that sort of information to make a reasonable background search before we meet. I think what you have is an excellent opportunity to be creative. You've got an open field. You don't have neighbors. You can basically do all kinds of things with this piece of property. You have by the nature of the zoning that the city chose to put on this, you already have what I think might have gotten you a PUD under other circumstances. The desire to do this has already been zoned in there by the City so maybe you were thinking a lot alike. I've got a question for you, I would like to know how many acres do you plan to grade in each of these phases? Don Patton: Part of that will depend, obviously we're asking for concept approval so we can come back with the preliminary plat and as we talked about in our phasing, this would be this phase 1 and this area up here would be our 1st phase of initial grading. Again, we would like to get that in the ground 33 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 so the next sales will happen this fall yet. Councilman Boyt: Can you give me an idea about the number of acres that are I going to be opened up? If we're talking four phases, are we talking 70 acres a tract? Don Patton: I think this was about 30 acres and this was about probably 12. Part of this, unfortunately, to get the necessary water and sewer intrastructures started, it was more than we would like to open up but that's again, the requirements of developing a wetland, the ponding, because of the lakes, everything has to be ponded on-site. In ponding, grading in the — sewer, connecting on the sewer provided through here. Connecting on the water line that goes along CR 17, it's just hard. We want to minimize that. Obviously that's a cost factor. • Councilman Boyt: One of the things I would like you to do is bring to us some sort of idea about how you're going to minimize dust going into Lake Susan. Having lived on an edge of a dustbowl for the'past month, I can tell you — you're going to dump a lot of dust if you open up a lot of that ground. Kind of come with that in mind. We heard a good bit here about the need for certain types of employees in Chanhassen. Mr. Carlson, it would be my guess — and I have no idea that you're paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $4.50 per hour. Is that roughly in the ballpark? Jerome Carlson: That is the lowest number. Councilman Boyt: Let's say you're paying $5.50 per hour. If someone works for you full-time they are grossing $11,000.00. I will maintain that there is — no one who can live in anything that's going to get built in this town that makes $11,000.00 a year so I don't think that these people are going to be providing. Not being a banker I can't tell you but I don't that anybody is — going to buy a home with a total income of $22,000.00 so I don't think that this offers an opportunity for you to find people to work for you. Jerome Carlson: A lot of the people who work for us are also second income types. They generally are married to, if they are married, to a family situation where the primary income is not that great and that's why they're there. The most typical profile of the lower end wage earner at United — Mailing, the most typical profile is that they are a two family income family so what the gross wage that they could pull for housing would really depend in part on the primary wage earner. Councilman Boyt: I'm just saying, in my opinion Mr. Carlson, that you are indeed in a dilemma. If the City will not be building housing that can substantiate or that someone can live in with the sort of income that a — business like yours is forced to pay because of economics. I think you're up against another problem and that is unemployment in this city and Minneapolis is 3.6% and that's full employment. There just are no bodies here and what — you've done in Little Falls is go find a place in which people are locked and in which they are very happy I'm sure to see you there, we're happy to see you here but you have a different kind of employment base in Little Falls than you _ do in the Twin Cities and we're not going to be able to change that. 34 _ City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 Jerome Carlson: The multiple dwellingthough in 4 g some of these outlots as they come on-line, I believe would provide part of the need. I still maintain that the lower end housing in this development, because of the second wage earner and the primary source for many of our employees, many of our employees are the second wage earner, this I believe would be a significant resource for us. Councilman Boyt: The gentleman here on the Planning Commission had said there is no market for multiple dwellings in the R-12. I think that speaks for itself. As far as Jay's comments about this being a PUD, I would agree with the Planning Commission. I think you could make it a PUD but what I'm looking for in a PUD is something that really shows creativity and innovation. I don't think we have a better opportunity in the city than you have right here and that's what I expect from you or I expect this to come in as a normal subdivision. Councilman Horn: I was involved when this concept was originally approved and I remember one of the criteria we used at that point was that this was a good area for this type of development because we had some concerns about moving multiple housing adjacent to some of our existing single family housing. The neat part about this piece of property is that there is no other single family housing immediately adjacent to it so I think they have somewhat of a unique opportunity here to create a type of PUD neighborhood. I agree that anyone who locates in that must be aware of what the whole plan is for the neighborhood. I'm seeing that type of thing happening in Eden Prairie next to I believe it's Mitchell Lake over here when they had some very nice homes next __ to the lake and now the multiples are going in and I think it's a matter of 5 years later when all the phases are completed but now the multiples are being put in place and I would envision this being a similar type of situation. Where we have very nice homes next to a lake and in the same subdivision putting in multiples. I think they've done some neat things here in what they're providing in terms of amenities. The property does't allow a lot of natural amenities other than the lake at this point but it appears to me they are doing things with landscaping to make it very nice development. Councilman Geving: I think what we have to realize here is this development by itself represents approximatey 25% of all the housing units in Chanhassen. Can you imagine what this will do to our community and the growth of our community if it adds 25% more units? We only have about 3,500 units in the city right now. This is one heck of a big development and we've got to do it right. We have a need for it. We have a need for a varied array of single family dwellings which apparently are the hot item right now and are selling but we also have the need, as Jerome mentioned, for the multiple units and I can tell you one thing, I know a lot of these young kids that work for Jerome. They're not just living by themselves making $11,000.00 a year. There are 3, 4 or 5 of these kids living together in a house or an apartment and they are sharing these units. Maybe not even in Chanhassen but they are sharing units and combining their income. That's how they're surviving. I would suspect they could do the same thing here. They could buy one of these units, 3 or 4 kids along, together, whatever, and they could survive. 'they'll make it go but what I saw and heard from Jim Hill amazed me a little bit. Some of the developers amenities that he's willing to do for us. I haven't heard from a lot of other developers some of the prospects of giving us for example all the 35 959 — City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 lakeshore on the west side of Lake Susan. Not manydevelopers pers have done that for us other than Jim Curry. I think I would like to look at approximately 30 acres or more for parkland and totlots spread more equally among the development. I don't know what this 18.2 acres looks like on the southwest corner. Maybe Al could tell us. It might be more flat than I realize but it just seems like it's fairly far removed from the plat and it might be very difficult to get at and get to. I would like to see more of this parkland — spread throughout the development. This is a big development and there is going to be a lot of need for example for that 360 units in the northern part which are high density residential and I believe that Jim you said that is 8 acres that you had set aside there. Jim Hill: That's approximately 5 to 6 acres. 5.7 acres. Councilman Geving: Okay, 5.7 acres. To me that is not a lot of land. You're talking about 360 units. There may be over 1,000 people in that one little area in the north part of the development and ,6 acres just isn't going to cut — it. I would like to see us add a couple more acres to that. At least, I've always been under the impression that unless you have a minimum of 5 acres you can't even put in a ball diamond. If you intend to put in a totlot and some _ ball diamonds and other things, 5.7 acres in that area for 360 units is not enough. The other thing I saw on this particular development, we talked about the possibility of some sidewalks and maintenance, who's going to maintain those after we build them. It's always nice to have those in our community but what do we do 5 years after the developers gives it to you and we take it over and start to maintain them? I don't know. Where does the money come to develop that to keep it going? Also, I see an awful lot of cul-de-sacs in _ here as was mentioned before. There should be a way and the Mayor and I have talked about this, he had some ideas on how same of these roads could be better aligned and cut out some of the cul-de-sacs. I don't thin you're going to give up any land. I don't think you're going to lose any of of the — potential for lots and I think the road alignment could be better developed. Overall I like the plan and I like what it could do for our city. I believe it's a positive thing. It's something that would have happened. This — development would have happened 10 years ago if it hadn't run into some bad economic times and you wouldn't have had just 892 units, you would have had over 1,000 units but there are some very positive things here. I do have to _ question one thing, somebody mentioned something about a 50% credit for parkland. Was that agreed on Jim? Jim Mady: It was discussed that, at that time the 892 units, we were looking at 33 acres of parkland and I believe, and I'm holding my memory because I haven't seen our Minutes either, we were recommending that we reduce the park dedication fees by 50%, getting all the land so we would have the monies available to put into the park equipment. Me comment on your 18 acre parkland, our Commission toured that parcel. There is room on one hill to put a soccer field and there is a considerable slope but I believe the developer is planning on putting one ballfield down below the slope. That's it for — passive use really. Councilman Geving: You might want to explain a little bit about the grading — because I think this is the first time that the developer has done that for 36 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 I-- us. We've always asked for it but we've never gotten it. Councilman Johnson: Centex is going to do it. Jim Mady: When the developer came in front of us he mentioned something about grading but really didn't have any specifics for us at that time. Councilman Geving: These are the rough grades for the ball diamonds? Don Patton: What we're looking at here is a soccer field in this area. A road in here, tennis. This is a nice slope through here for a sliding hill. Softball down in through here. We're going to need ponding and again, various real complex drainage on the site from the north, make this a dry pond and use that for hockey in the wintertime. Councilman Geving: 'this idea of the totlots throughout the developed area, was that mentioned at all in the Park and Rec? Did you discuss that and how that might be achieved? Don Patton: One of the things that was talked about, they were looking at neighborhood parks and they agreed on four. From the standpoint and correct me if I'm wrong, you do have the other ball diamonds for your leagues in other areas. The envisionment of this was really for the neighborhoods. Councilman Geving: Would you care to comment on my question about the 5.7 park on the north part of the development and what you intend to put in there in terms of how it could be developed for active play areas? Jim Mady: What we were seeing at that time, as I remember we were looking at about 3 to 3 1/2 acres of land so this is all new. Outlot G is new. Don Patton: Yes, they were saying that they needed about 8 additional acres in the formula so that's when we talked about fulfilling that requirement which is part of that. Councilman Geving: I understand the 8 but I'm looking really for more on that very high density residential district up there, the R-12. You're going to have a lot of people in there and they're not going to be going to Lake Ann. They're going to be going out their back door looking for someplace to play. If you're going to have kids, and more than likely it will be kids in this particular unit. I may be wrong but it seems to me that if you're going to have high density residential, you're going to have small children there. Councilman Boyt: I would like to make a suggestion if I could. I think this gets into the area of creativity that I was talking about earlier. You have an R-12 density but there are a lot of ways to get to that density and that you could certainly create a good bit of open space which would be very handy as part of that area. 1 Don Patton: That was part of the discussion we had that night was actually, this entire 32 acres was the R-12 district and we were looking at this being the trade-off of the open space for that design of the orange area. 37 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 Councilman Geving: That's something that you might want to come back to us with. If I were a Park Commission member, I wouldn't let up on this one. I would really want as much space in that area as I could get. Barbara Dacy: Another option would be, in conjunction with the high density development, sometimes there are totlots developed immediately on the R-12 property immediately adjacent. That there could be some private recreational areas there also. If it is approved as a PUD you could make that as a condition of approval that when the site plan comes in that that site create recreational areas on the site. Councilman Geving: I really don't have any other comments. I think it's a positive thing for our community and it's going to happen. I think that we've got a good development company working on this. I think it's going to be great for the community. I'm in favor of what I see here with some adjustments. I do not believe however that it is a PUD. That's all I have. Mayor Hamilton: I had some questions more on Staff's recommendations than — anything else. I spent quite a bit of time reviewing this and reviewing the PUD and what some of the conditions are that are called for in a PUD. It seems to me that this is a PUD and that the developer is meeting the PUD requirements. Just look at the Staff's recommendations. 1, a plan showing existing natural site feastures and how they would be preserved. It would seem to me that the developer is doing that by working with all existing slopes. Trying to build the roads to the contours of the land and preserve all of that that they can. You have to remember this is all cornfield. They don't have very many wooded areas to work with. Consequently it's going to be a little hard to work with site features when there aren't any. Item 4, a — landscaping plan showing additional landscaping along the boulevards over and above the typical one tree per lot. I'm not -sure that our ordinance requires something over and above one tree per lot, does it Barb? Barbara Dacy: There is the section in the ordinance where it says landscaping, that is one of the criteria to evaluate whether or not it is a _ PUD. There is specific language in there. Provide a landscaping plan above and beyond what is typically required. In response to, again the Planning Commission in it's original report, they prepared this plan so that was not in the original submittal. — Mayor Hamilton: I know that the PUD ordinance states clearly in more than one place that PUD should indicate planning design over and above what a normal subdivision would and it seems to me that the developers are doing that. As Dale commented on, the plan with the reduced number of cul-de-sacs, I guess Don if you could come up to your drawing here, I would like to just ask you a question about some of the cul-de-sacs and see if there is a possibility of -' redoing any of them or just throw out my ideas. The one on the northeast side, next to Outlot C. I'm wondering if they can't be looped instead of a cul-de-sac, terminating in a cul-de-sac if that can't be looped? — Don Patton: If you look at the terrain, you see the natural contours, this is a natural hill. You've got steep slopes around it. The reason for taking the hill on the top of the slope is you can make that cut then build the house 38 25 • City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 benches around here so they would be walkouts around. If you start going across that you start getting into some heavy fill situations and again, we're — going against what Mother Nature provided. This is a natural area. Certainly it can be done but we feel like we're doing the least amount of environmental grading, causing the least amount of grading adjacent to the lake which is certainly a concern under the developed land use. Mayor Hamilton: I have a couple others I wanted to ask you about. Again, I'm not terrible familiar with the topography once you get past the hill here. If you go to the west from that cul-de-sac, the first one. If you took that cul- de-sac and extended that somehow in a looped manner again so the road is looped. Don Patton: Again, you have steep slopes right in through here. This is kind of a natural ridge in here and what we're trying to do, originally what we Wanted to do was continue the road straight in but to get the grades of 7% grades, we really needed to take this approach here to minimize the grades for safe ice conditions. Mayor Hamilton: From a maintenance standpoint it would be advantageous for the City if there was someway we could go through. Moving to the west again, the next set of cul-de-sacs to the west, that one and the next one to the west, if those could be joined together. Don Patton: If I could go to the slide. This is part of your packet. It was Sheet #7. There are some wetlands designed in this area. Again Dr. Rockwell, we've already walked the site and designated this one here, one here, one here, one here and one here. Councilman Johnson: Are those existing? Don Patton: Those are existing wetlands and our tops require staying back from them so to use that, the top one being here and getting the size lots. One thing, if I could make the comment, these are larger lots in the PUD that you look at down here because of the change in the zoning ordinance so we did have to do that. The lots here. The road in here and then bringing this up in to kind of preserve and keep the proper setback distance from those wetlands. You see this wetland for the drainage here, again that wetland, when this road, again this road is designated and there has been a feasibility done to develop that road as a part of this IOP area, would utilize some of that ponding area for the storm water retention. Again that then falls down through a culvert and open ponding system and down into the park area that we talked about earlier into the creek area so there are a series of ponds. To answer your question, sure we could bring that across but you're going to put culverts in and have to again bring up the expense and everytime you raise expense you cut somebody out of the market. Mayor Hamilton: The cul-de-sacs directly to the south of the one I just mentioned and then going ease, can you connect that one going across there? Don Patton: That certainly could be connected. What we end up with that flow that goes in through here in our ponding. 39 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Then right at the cul- de-sac at the end of your pencil, if you connected can that go across the ridge? I'm looking at those primarily from a maintenance standpoint. It's going to be a whole lot easier if we can have someway to plow and bring those through. — Don Patton: The thing we're trying to do is maintain the drainage that is set up there and the topography. Those could be taken across. Mayor Hamilton: Item 8 in the Staff Report, traffic analysis to determine the need for turn lanes on Powers Blvd.. Do we need to do that Barbara? I would think that's a part of what you're going to do there anyway. You want to have — turn lanes there anyway so why would we. .. Barbara Dacy: Carver County requested that and they will have to do an _ Environmental Assessment Worksheet so there will have to be some information of traffic flows in and out of the sight so the County can properly evaluate the needs for those intersections. Mayor Hamilton: Item 9, I think they've already done that. Designating existing wetland areas and providing a 75 foot setback. Item 11, a new phasing plan providing a new south and north connection of the easterly street with Powers Blvd.. Maybe you can tell why that's necessary. Barbara Dacy: The main intent of that was to connect the two streets so we _ wouldn't be ending up with one long cul-de-sac operating on it's own for a significant period of time. It wasn't in your objective. Don Patton: What we talked about doing, going back to some of the original — history, when Powers was developed the current owners of the land donated that to the County for that and as a part of the original PUD established sight distances from an engineering and traffic standpoint at this location and this _ location and what we've been trying to do is some of those givens, again those didn't change. Those sight distances didn't change. Those intersections didn't change. What we were saying at this point. Again, we can't develop the whole sight. We would run a temporary road from here out to here to — provide that point. Obviously when Phase 3 is developed you'll have the connection coming all the way through and it won't be a temporary access. Mayor Hamilton: I really like the concept and I think and feel very strongly that this type of a project is needed in the City of Chanhassen. I, perhaps more than anybody, has spoken out in the past for the need for smaller lots and for housing to accommodate employees such as Jerome's company employs. I think the thing that we're perhaps overlooking is those people, if they want to, afford this housing and it will make the labor market more stable here for companies such as Jerome's. Your employees would tend to be more long term I think instead of saying, oh heck, I just don't want to keep driving out here. They are going to seek housing here and they are going to be a part of this community. Also, if you look at the PUD ordinance, which I've done and — hopefully interpretted it correctly, I feel that this does very much so meet the ordinance as it's written. It is a PUD. There are a lot of loopholes in that PUD ordinance. It left a lot of openings in there and we left a lot of _ discretion up to the Council to say it's not. I think that was done because 40 — • -- City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 we didn't want to see PUD's any longer. We wanted to see subdivisions, not PUD's. However, I think the developers have met the letter of the ordinance and the intent of it and I would like to see them move ahead with this project and to start building and to come back to us with your next phase. I would like to ask Don if you or Jim if you would care to answer any of the concerns that Jay brought up about his hocus pocus and do another magic trick for him. Jim Hill: Jay, it wasn't out intent to make a list of lot sizes and shortly thereafter modified the lot sizes without changing, that's not the intent. We have so many acres. We have stipulated that the PUD ordinance shall be met. We've indicated that 57% of the lots indicated on the PUD will exceed 15,000. The intent here is to demonstrate that on a scale of 1 inch equals 200, a pencil line is 10 feet so my technician, in her inventory of the lots, made _ some errors and when I looked at it the second time I adjusted the tables. It wasn't the intent to make any hocus pocus. With regard to the density of 934, we have discussed the idea of taking 8 acres and placing the 8 acres in these two areas and I suggested that because we didn't want to move density in the PUD, that we transfer density. I have done that. We have done that on this latest plan. In other words, the original PUD had some 30 acres of R-12. We've taken some 6 acres, let's say, off of the 30 and wound up with 24. We Imo stayed, if you look at the table, we stayed in the R-12 with the same number. 360 units. The density then will be 14.8. That's given the open space and still maintaining the 600 units for that parcel. With regards to the 5 or 6 acres adjacent to R-12 or 360 dwelling units in the north, in the finaldrawings of Outlot A that bring in the attached housing, at this period of time the developers don't know what that attached housing will be. Will it be condominium? Will it be carriage homes? Manor homes? I don't think they know today. That's why we don't see innovative drawings of Outlot A or B or D and C. But in the development of the multi-family tracts that you see there, the higher densities, they and we all know that on a PUD that site plan will be approved maintaining density and maintaining open space for the number of people that will be there. That shall and will be addressed, I hope by the Council when those parcels come in under this PUD. If it is the wish of the Planning Commission and/or Council to combine all of the private open space on Outlot A and combine it over towards the wetland that is located here and adjacent to the public parkland, then we would be starting to achieve the land use space. As I indicated earlier too, we have separated the single family from the industrial park. The only place we didn't do that is right in here where Jay rightfully said that we've got it backed up to an Industrial Business Park but this, as Don indicated, this area right here is a lower area and will be used for ponding and I'm sure the folks that drive into the industrial park will be dumping water into it and that system then will be ponded in this area and this is a 1 inch equals 200 so we have almost 2 inches right there from that cul-de-sac to Creek Drive and that represents 400 feet. This here has got to be at least an inch and a quarter so that's got to be 250 so we do have that spacing between Creek Drive and the future industrial. — Part of the cul-de-sac system and correctly stated, yes this one could be connected to here and this one can be connected here and this one can be connected here but the overall drainage system does wind through in this system in this manner. It's the intent to leave that as is and not disturb that but these cul-de-sacs can be connected. If you look at the plat closer you will see th darker areas of the 16's, 20's and 25% slopes and you will see 41 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 that there are very few, if any, in this area. Chan Vista was mentioned as a -` PUD and Chan Vista and other PUD's prior to this one, is under the new PUD ordinance. The old PUD ordinance did provide for small lots. 75 foot widths and lot sizes under 12,000. Nearly 10,000 square fet. That's where we — achieve the lower modest housing. Under the new PUD ordinance that this one is being constructed under, we have stipulations and under those stipulations our overall average in this PUD, under the new PUD, our average lot will be 16,100 square feet. If you look at the minimums we are going to look at our 80 to 85 foot widths with 80 being our bare minimum at the setback. Under the old PUD you could get down to 70 to 75. Higher densities and that's where you can achieve the lower end of the modest cost housing. Modest cost housing — today is anywhere from $80,000.00 to $90,000.00. It just ain't there anymore. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to ask Don Ashworth, the City Manager, for — comments. Don's been involved with the development of this site since the days when Ed Dunn and Jim Curry owned it and were talking to us and I think Don's input would be important. Don Ashworth: The process started well over one month ago in meeting with developers. Many of the enclosures you have in front of you were prepared based on the information that we had again one month ago. Initially meeting — with the developers, the Staff made them aware of the fact that this was 1987. The approvals that were given before are not in any way binding and that in fact the overall density would in fact change from what had been given. One thing I would like to note is that I am very enlightened to hear the T -- developers developers speak this evening to a number of the issues primarily which is in the parkand recreation area. I think we've had some good discussions between a_- developers and staff. As the Council went through that codification process you made changes in that park ordinance. We made changes bringing over to the ordinance that requires a greater amount of land to be dedicated for the public requires park trails and payment in there. I was very enlightened to — hear the comments regarding their willingness to not only grade but to construct the trails as a part of this process. When the original report was prepared by Planning going to Planning Commission, those forms of concessions — had not been offered. And I think it was just a matter of time in working to come to those positions but what I'm stating to the Council is that the positions that Staff has asked for in the last month, to the best of my knowledge, every issue that we have gone through with the developers has been — met in the current draft or with the positions that you've seen in your packet as well as presented tonight. Construction of trails. Dedication of additional green area. Grading of those are all areas that again have improved in the last 30 to 45 day period of time. Don Patton: If I could say just one other thing, I guess I've heard the comments tonight that you want affordable housing. We can gold plate the thing and make it unaffordable. We think we have planned, provided, working with staff to provide a good community and the compromise of $60,000.00 in the R-12 to 225 so your workers can be there or your executives can be there. We — think that speaks to the PUD. Again, we can keep giving things away but that goes into the price so the request, the demands of the Council, the Planning L7- Commission and the Staff, go into the price of the house and I'm hearing that we want to hold that price down. I think we've given what we can to make this 42 ;J` d City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 affordable. We request from you tonight to give us PUD approval so we PP can come back in as quick as we can with the preliminary plats. Councilman Boyt: I guess I'll have to represent a minority opinion here. I think you've got opportunities to provide whatever Chanhassen has by means of affordable housing in your R-12, R-8 and your R-4 and I am flat out against small lots in residential development. When you come to single family, those people need room. I am comfortable with your cul-de-sacs. Unfortunately, those become playgrounds for a lot of kids in your neighborhood. I think you have done some things that by our PUD ordinance would suggest that you're on the right track. You certainly have got a variety of housing. I gather you've done something to try to protect the environment although our ordinances are fairly strict and the PUD clearly says that you have to act above and beyond what would be asked of you in the ordinance. When we look at this a second time I would sure like you to come back indicating what you've done with it. Your off-street pedestrian ways, which is one of the things that we've asked for and you've offered. The landscaping, I gather you're offering. I guess my sense, as I said earlier and I'll stop, is that we have such a tremendous opportunity to develop some nice large tract with a variety of things that I know Steve Emmings wants in a development in terms of variety in housing and I just don't see that you've done enough for me personally to say that you qualify for a full reduction under a PUD. T Mayor Hamilton:- I think we've covered most of the issues. Unless there is something new that we haven't brought up at this point then I will ask you to make your comments and try to make it brief so we can move on and get done with this item. Councilman Johnson: This is definitely the biggest subdivision and most important thing we're looking at tonight. You talked about house benches, are you going to be grading in all of the homesites? Basically digging out and preparing the house pads for the builder as a part of your subdivision? Is that standard? Don Patton: Yes. We really need to do that as a part of balancing the land and to assure that you don't have bad material for the footings. Councilman Johnson: That's one part of the PUD where, in this case, much of this area in this area you don't have any problem. You're talking cornfields, no big deal to do that but the cul-de-sac in Block 11, Lots 7 through 14, that's a treed cul-de-sac. You're going to take out almost all those trees that you're indicating on here to do that. Up on Block 10, again to put in _ housing pads, you're talking clearcutting again and one of the things that I see is if you want a PUD you're going to have to save those trees. You're going to have to say okay, we'll individually cut in home pads. These are your $200,000.00 homes. Don Patton: That's the plan is to cut in the streets. - a Councilman Johnson: That's not what you just said. 43 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 — Don Patton: You asked two questions. One is the open area, you grade in the i�-- lots. In the tree areas, you bring in the street and the driveway to put in the utilities and leave the lots natural to design the house to conform to it. Councilman Johnson: Right. That's what I'm trying to make sure. Don Patton: Trees add value to the lot. We don't want to take the trees. Councilman Johnson: I heard that before then I saw the trees leave. Don Patton: To assure the Council, I developed our 13,000 single family lots — over the last 15 years and believe me, trees are hard to get rid of for one thing and they certainly add value in the sales price when it comes to putting on a house. Councilman Johnson: I've heard that argument before. Just to reiterate, I believe the entire street layout and everything would be done just the same because of topography whether it was a PUD or 'a regular subdivision. I think — if we look at it by the contours, I'm not totally convinced. There's a few small things that are being given. Trees here and there. I don't think we're getting that much parkland for what we're giving. I still think that there's — a little more room to negotiate. Through some tough negotiating we can get some creativity going in here. I see ponding in people's backyards without any real connecting the ponds. A trail system in a subdivision that I lived in in Iowa when I lived in Iowa briefly had a trail system through the — subdivision along ponds and stuff. We're putting ponds in people's backyards but only those people can get to it. I can see something much more creative here that would convince me this is a PUD. With a few lots out of 427 lots, — we may end up with 400 single family lots or something. I would want to see that number drop a little bit so we could get "a few things. Sidewalks, we had in our ordinance that we can ask for sidewalks in a regular subdivision. It's — not a PUD to ask for a sidewalk. There is very little here that we can't ask for in a regular subdivision and get it anyway. Barbara Dacy: One technical item, the plan before you is the one that's dated — June 26, 1987. The PUD ordinance for the general concept plan states that the Council may approve the plan but approval shall require four-fifths vote of the entire council so if there is a motion to approve, it would benefit the — applicant to specify items that need to be revised in the plan if they are to proceed with the PUD. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what we've been trying to do. Councilman Horn: I would like to go on the voice of the minority in saying that I would appreciate leaving the cul-de-sacs as they are. I think they are — a great amenity to a housing development. I think for the minor inconvenience they cause the city, they are well worth of the safety aspect for the people who live on them and I would vote for leaving them as they are. That's all I — have. Councilman Geving: Just one quick item, I noticed throughout the whole development a lack of identity. A concept or a theme and originally this was 44 — City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 — proposed as Lake Susan West or something like that and I'm surprised that you haven't brought this out in your marketing strategy here to sell this to the Council as a total package. What I would like to see at the beginning of the development as you come into it, a monument in terms of entry and access points and so forth. Don Patton: Lake Susan Hills. .. Councilman Geving: Lake Susan Hills is the official name. Are you planning any of these entry type monuments with shurbery and so forth as you enter the area? Don Patton: Again, we're reviewing a concept right now and those are the things that you will see in the preliminary plat. Councilman Geving: I know they will come later but I just want to emphasize that that's the thing that looks good. That's all I have. Mayor Hamilton: I will entertain a motion that the developer would like to see concept approval for the PUD so he can move ahead with his plans and come back to us with the preliminary plat. The motion was made at this point in the meeting and discussion followed. Mayor Hamilton: I think as long as the developer has the comments that all of us have made and is supplied with the Minutes so they can review those, it would be helpful to them I would think. Councilman Boyt: As I understood what Barbara said, our motion has to include the areas that we want addressed. Is that "correct? Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what we've been doing now. Councilman Boyt: I'm okay with this if that's what we're doing but if we're making a motion that basically incorporates our comments, that's a heck of a job. Mayor Hamilton: That's what we've boon doing I think for the last hour or so and that's why you have the discussion is to give the developer those concerns that we have and they get a copy of the Minutes and if there are any other questions, if they have any questions, they can find them. Councilman Boyt: On the one hand, if I understand all those comments basically get distilled into what comes to us next time, then I can live with it as a PUD but if on the other hand we basically turn him loose carte blanche and say, you look at these things and you adjust them the way you see them, then I'm voting against it. Mayor Hamilton: My motion included our comments. I stated clearly that our comments would be given to the developer in the form of Minutes and he is to —.i respond to those appropriately. If he chooses to deny them, that's up to him. That just makes his job tougher. 45 rme City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 Imo Councilman Boyt: When this takes the next step down Barbara, does it still take a four-fifths vote to go beyond the first? Roger Knutson: Yes. When you plan to rezone, when you get to that point, when the final rezoning takes place when you get to the point of doing the final plat, that would take four-fifths vote. Councilman Geving: So we have another shot at this. All we need tonight is — the concept. Councilman Johnson: What does the preliminary plat take? — Roger Knutson: That takes a majority vote but that won't do any good unless you grant the PUD because if the preliminary plat does not fit into the zoning you can't do it. Unless you approve a PUD, which is a pre-requisite to doing any•of this stuff, it takes a four-fifths vote. Councilman Johnson: That's not final plat, that's rezoning? — Roger Knutson: Right. Rezoning takes a four-fifths vote. They can't final plat until they get the rezoning. — Councilman Boyt: We're not rezoning tonight? Roger Knutson: No, you're not rezoning tonight. — Councilman Johnson: How much additional information do we have before we go to rezoning? I see a lot of changes to convince me this is a PUD. — Roger Knutson: What you'll end of having is final plats and development contracts. All the details spelled out. Grading plans, landscaping plans. — Barbara Dacy: The next stage is called the development stage which is synonymous with the preliminary plat and under the ordinance it says with the _ appropriate notification, the Planning Commission shall conduct a hearing on the preliminary plat and the rezoning reports making recommendation to the City Council. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconced to approve the PUD concept review for 427 single family lots and 465 multiple lots, that's not an exact number any longer but the plan that we have reviewed tonight as a PUD as a _ concept including the Council comments as stated in the Minutes. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR $204,000.00 TEMPORARY TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SPECIAL SERIES 1987. Don Ashworth: I wanted to run a listing to show the impacts of, I mentioned the Pheasant Hill project and the potential problem we may have in that area and a potential benefit of a loan from the city over to HRA. Not only to _ serve their financial needs in obtaining some liquidity but also to really 46 — CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING — JUNE 17 , 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 45 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad and James Wildermuth — MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, Howard Noziska and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: \ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN OF 342 ACRES INTO 892 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, R-4, R-8, AND R-12 AND LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD (CR 17) , 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, DON PATTON, - LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST. — -- PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Kathy Holtmeier 8524 Great Plains Blvd. — Tom Rice 61000 Sally Lane Neil Hamer 1225 Bluehill Bay Greg Brick 4679Parkridge Drive, Eagan .....,_ .Robert K. Kupp 22088 Navaron Drive, Burnsville Ron Dahlen 15028 Butternut Lane , Burnsville Don Patton 7600 Parklawn, Edina — Jim Hill 8300 Humboldt Ave. So . , Mpls . Jim Lamson 5132 Medina Ridge Bill Goers 1601 Lyman Blvd . Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the PUD concept plan for Lake Susan Hills West. Don Patton: I would like to introduce some of the people involved in this. Jim Lamson and Carl Reeves are two of the landowners involved in it. Jim Curry is also one of the landowners. The builder is represented by Ron Dahlen of Joseph Miller Construction who is proposing to build the homes. The thing we're looking at is really two separate communities. On the west side we're looking at homes in the $90,000.00 to $140,000.00 range. In your — exhibit you've seen the kind of homes that are being proposed in that. On the - east side we're looking at homes in the $140,000.00 to $225,000.00 range. The conservative estimate of what this will bring to the community is about 9 million dollars of taxable real estate. We have changed some of the zoning. We're trying to maintain the R-12 here. Again, RSF, as Jo Ann has said, we're meeting all of the requirements of the Ordinance. Minimum 12,000 square foot. Average 13, 500. 20,000 square foot lots along the lake and 15,000 square foot average or more than 15,000 square foot average along the wetlands. And again, you have designated wetlands in these areas. In through here and here Planning Commission Meeting — June 17 , 1987 - Page 2 and through here, we're looking at 15,000 square foot with 75 foot setback from the wetlands. The building at the setback will be 80 and 85 feet. One of the reasons we feel this is important to do as a PUD, it's a considerable _ area of land. There are several areas that have critical services in them from the standpoint of drainage, because they are adjacent to the lake and because of the sanitary sewer. Especially down through here. Jim what is the maximum grading? — Jim Hill : Anywhere from 30 to 60 . Don Patton : So with these extremes it is important to have an overall plan to put all the services in. I would like to introduce Mr. Jim Hill who has done the planning on this and he can give you some of the details. Jim Hill: The opportunity to take 300 acres in Chanhassen, the owners have combined their efforts in ownership and taken that 300 acres and we have, under a PUD, have the opportunity to vary both the land uses, the house — styles, the densities, the lot sizes and how the neighborhood overall is planned for the intrastructure and the park systems that hopefully we can achieve in the Lake Susan area. We have taken the higher density parcels that_ you see in the yellow and we've put that as a buffer to both the industrial and the business park to the north adjacent to Creek Drive and we've kept the higher densities along Powers Blvd. for the opportunity for the vehicular traffic from the higher densities will not traverse the residential — neighborhood but will go directly to the major collector and that being Powers � 31vd.. So we've kept that higher densities then as a buffer and also adjacent to the arterial. That gave us an opportunity then, in looking at the — topography of the site and existing tree cover , wetlands, the low lands, Lake Susan, gave us an opportunity to determine where the homes should be built and where a family should live. We took the position that between Lake Susan and _ Powers Blvd., we would have a single family residential area that would recognize the wetlands, the opportunity to have the PUD addressed and be able to have access to the entire PUD, have access to Lake Susan through the system being development and/or sidewalks and trails. So we allowed that to happen — along the edge of the shore of Lake Susan. When we get to the park plan we will show you the pathways and sidewalk systems. Along with that we have recognized the wetlands and the lower area that is this green strip of land to — the south-southeast of the PUD. We recognize that as low. We recognize that as a drainageway to Lake Susan from the south-southwest. Eventually in time, I think that can be a very passive area for people in Chanhassen to traverse and view nature. Along with that then we have and I forget the number of — units we have on the east side of the PUD, east of Powers , but if you walk the area, the entire parcel has beautiful views. It was the assumption of the developers and the landowners that we would have a larger , more expensive home — on the east side of Powers Blvd.. We get to the west side of Powers and here, if you get on top of the ridge line, you would see that the west neighborhood has some beautiful locations for some homes. Both in views and the unglading _ landforrns that exist in this entire area west of Powers. Beautiful area for homesites. We've taken that in this general area and again we are recognizing and I' ll show you the wetlands and the drainageways through the west neighborhood, but recognizing the wetlands, recognizing the higher density — Planning Commission Meeting June 17 , 1987 - Page 3 r parcels and provisions for parks on the west side also. We have come up with this plan for the residential layout. In this neighborhood we wanted to separate the residential neighborhood from the multi-family density and also from the business park. For that reason, we had no tie, vehicular or industry between the multi-family and the rest of it. We want to separate that — vehicular activity. That should be oriented to Creek Drive which is as planned. The park system is approximately 18 acres to the south in the very southerly area of the parcel. Considering the plan and the layout, there are three designated city wetlands and we recognized that and we will achieve both the lot sizes and the setbacks as the individual preliminary plats come in for additional review by Planning Commission and Council. You can see that phasing on how we will be finishing the entire PUD. These three wetland will be recognized and planned accordingly with the residential development. Although with that there is a DNR wetland and that's this larger area along the southeast line of the property. Included in the west village we have a — major drainageway and ponding system that help in the overall storm water management plan for the Lake Susan west PUD and that storm water management plan will take the run-off through a series of ponding areas and eventually go out through the normal drainageway not exceeding the run-off that is taking place today. That's part of the storm water management plan and also part of the Watershed District's requirements. In the original PUD, as proposed and in the narrative proposed, the park system and amended plan for sidewalks and bituminous pathways consisted of this plan here. Approximately 18% of the land open space and parks outlined in green and just short of 2 miles of pathways and sidewalks located in this area. In meeting with the Staff and night meeting with the Park Board, what you have, I believe the resolution or comments from the meeting. The developers have accepted their comments. The park plan now becomes just short of 62 acres representing 21% of the land and it's located in these outlined green areas. All of this additional 8 acres that you see in this area that are split will come with the final approval. It is suggested here that 5 of the additional 8 acres and 3 of the additional acres be located... Along with that an additional sidewalk — was proposed from the original plan. Proposed to go to the southwesterly part of that. On Powers Drive we have a pathway on the easterly side. A 5 foot sidewalk will be built, on this roadway included a 8 foot bituminous path in this portion of the Lake Susan. ...3 1/2 miles of sidewalks and bituminous paths represents 62 acres of open space representing 21% of the land. The cul-de- sacs and landforms, I have colored this map, these forms right here, these darker browns, are slope areas that exceed 16%. That's the darker areas. The reddish brown is that wetland drainage storm water management that I just showed you a minute ago, representing this system through the west village. The question was, can we do a better job in planning this in eliminating some — of the cul-de-sacs and believe me we've looked at that. We've traveled the site. We've looked at the landforms. We've looked at the percent of grades and remember that in the City of Chanhassen maximum street grade is 8%. These indicate 16% or they go up to 30% or 40% grades. Recognizing those landforms and recognizing the drainage plan along the storm water management plan along the west village, we selected this plan as proposed to more readily locate our homes, our families and keep the landforms that are there. Those landforms, — if you look closely on the plan, are in the rear yard in most cases and will ( -iot be disturbed. I can see only a few that would be touched along here Planning Commission Meeting — June 17 , 1987 - Page 4 L bringing this westerly road through. Most of them will be maintained as is right here. Most of them will be maintained as that present road on it so there won't be additional erosion and silts out of the subdivision. For that _ reason we have the cul-de-sacs. Because of those landforms. For example, if I said, why don't you connect these two cul-de-sacs here, there's a differential of 50 feet between this cul-de-sac and that cul-de-sac. This differential here is 32 feet and I have only a short distance to make up that — 32 feet knowing that the grade of the city is 8% maximum. If I'm going to meet the 8% max, I've got to do a lot of heavy cutting. That's starting to destroy the landforms we have here. That was the purpose of that and I — appreciate the fact that Staff has looked at the fact that we have a number of cul-de-sacs on the PUD. If you look at the original PUD you will see they don't exceed the original that was done some 8 years ago. Again, another study of the PUD from 8 years ago came up with the same answer that we do have— to have some cul-de-sacs. Unfortunately or fortunately, if you are buying a home and you want to live on a cul-de-sac, fortunately because of the landform and drainageways we've got to recognize and hope to protect on this plan. In — the EAW, which is required under the PUD regulations, the PUD will recognize the fact that some of the areas outside of the MUSA line, and that's a corner here and a corner right in here that is outside of the MUSA line and if you _ looked at the transfers of densities and uses from the original PUD that was approved to what we are proposing now, that the small amount of residential homes that would be added to the MUSA line should be a housekeeping item with the Met Council. If you look at the zoning map today in comparison to our - proposed PUD, you will see that we overlap them and changed some of the R-12's , and the R-4's and eliminate the R-8's. To us that's a housekeeping item and if and when the PUD is approved , the zoning can take place under the new PUD — or the housekeeping can take place as each preliminary plat comes in for final action. It should be noted that under the old PUD, there was some 1,023 units on 340 acres, 3 units per acre. We don't have 340 acres today. We _ have approximately 300 acres at 3 units per acre so our density is, in relationship to the land that is in this PUD, we have not lost any units, it's just smaller in size. In the park plan, the park department has required an additional 8 acres. Generally the park plan has provided that 33 acres — according to code if you take the number of dwelling units and multiple it by 2.8 people per house per dwelling unit and code indicating that 1 acre park be supplied for every 75 people we come up with 33 acres. Of the 53 acres that — were proposed and still are proposed in the PUD which represented these two, approximately of those acres were accepted by the Park Commission as acceptable acres for park credit. That left the owners with 8 acres of park that was not creditable against the 33 and that's where the 5 and 3 comes — about. The additional 8 acres. If it happens in these two areas, the R-12 and the R-4, we're asking that the resolution also indicates that the densities, remembering that the 33 acres was calculated on the basis of 884 — dwelling units and 94 dwelling units and that if we take 5 acres out of here and 3 acres out of here, we've just lost 72 units of dwelling units that we would like to still build those dwelling units in those spaces so we would _ Like to have the density transferred in a sense. When outlot A becomes buildable, we would still like to build as proposed in the PUD. The 316 dwelling units and as Outlot B comes in for a development plan and site plan approval under the PUD, that we would still build R-4 at a total number of — Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1987 - Page 5 r units of 144. If this is not feasible, the wish of the Planning Commission and Council , then we will have to recalculate and I think the 33 then will become 30 acres and we will change that. I don't think the overall density of 3 units per acre is a strain on the 300 acres. I think the dwelling units proposed for those two outlots can be still achieved or combined with all of the multi-family and still be achieved under this PUD. The lot sizes will vary. You have a tab and an amended tab on the lot sizes. They will be between 80 to 100 feet at the setback. They will be, as in the tab, meeting _ the code with 56% of them in excess of 15,000.00. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that we ' ve covered all the items but we would answer questions. Don Patton: I would like to show one other transparency. I think this is relevant to what we're talking about. The question on phasing and the reason for that is topography, access of sewer and water and drainage. As you see here, in the upper level housing, we're looking at developing this again with — the street coming in here, the cul-de-sac and generally, all these lots would be wooded. Phase 1 on the other side in the. medium income housing, is this area down in through here, Phase 1. Phase 2, on the Lake Susan side would be here. Phase 2 here. Phase 3 then ties onto this. Phase 3 here and again Phase 4. We have no projected use or layout of the multiple family lots. We do want to get the zoning at this point so once they are defined and the density is defined, it's much easier for someone to come in and then that would then go back through the whole approval process with preliminary plat based on the PUD approval. But this is the phasing that we're proposing probably over 3 to 5 year period. Kathy Holtmeier: I live on the north side of Lake Susan and I'm here for the Lake Susan Homeowners Association. I have a question about the trailway on the western side. They are to give up approximately 80 feet to the City right? That area is dense woods on a hill and it's heavily treed and I'm wondering, 80 feet goes approximately halfway up the hill , correct? It doesn ' t go all the way up the hill? Don Patton : It goes all the way up the hill . — Kathy Holtmeier: So the entire hill would be given to the City? Okay, so then the building will be on the flat part? Jim Hill : It would be on the top of that . Kathy Holtmeier : And the trees would be a buffer? — Jim Hill : Yes. Again, this is in, last night at the Park Commission, the comprehensive trail system for Chanhassen with Staff and we have tried to make our planning as close to that trailway system that is recommended in the Comprehensive Trail System. Bill Goers: I live on Lyman Blvd. and I'm in the process or I think I'm in the process of purchasing some property adjacent to that on the west side of that — development. I'm concerned because the zoning of that property is the same ( -irectly to the property that I'm in the process of purchasing. I'm not real Planning Commission Meeting _ June 17 , 1987 - Page 6 /- knowledgable about this but I'm concerned as to whether I can tie into that, if they are going to develop that higher density, then I wasn't originally aware of , is it possible to tie my property into a higher development also and_ gain access to it? If not, I'm not as interested in the property and I'm sure the existing owner would have the same concern . Conrad: You are outside what we call the MUSA line and they are abutting — right up to that. Within the MUSA line it's a higher density area and there would not be a great chance of including your property in this particular development. The Metropolitan Council governs where that line is and it — doesn't move without a great deal of energy. It's always your perogative to try and change the MUSA line along with the City but realistically speaking it ' s would be really tough. Bill Goers : What would be the possibility of getting approval for this to be like 2 1/2 acre sites? Conrad : Normally what you would have to do , if the MUSA line moves one way the city has to take out some other property in exchange for the part that they just put into the MUSA line. They are going to have to take some part out of the MUSA line which means you and the City would have to persuade somebody who's already in the Urban Service Area to take their property out of that service area . Most people don ' t want to do that. - Bill Goers : So in other words , it ' s really a long shot . Conrad: I would say it's a real long shot unless Barbara, I'm just speaking — and saying a small parcel like that may be, by chance they wouldn ' t care. Dacy: You summarized the process very well. I understand that you spoke to Jo Ann about that and the Commission tonight really can't address his issues. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried . — Conrad: Just reminding the Planning Commission, some of you who have not gone through this stage on a sketch plan, the point of a sketch plan is to be real _ upfront before the developer does a lot of stuff and be able to advise on our opinions of how a big parcel should be developed. In the PUD process, this was important because we found in the old method a lot of plans came in with a lot of energy and by the time they got to us, they were real firm. They had — done a lot of engineering and if we didn' t like what we saw, there was a lot of wasted energy. I think tonight it's a chance for us to get some comments in on this. I guess if we could focus on two issues for sure and then — specific questions or comments about the plat that we see in front of us. But question one is, is this a PUD? Question two, if we down zone basically, and that's really what the developer is asking us to do. He's putting less units _ in the area where we thought there should be high units. More units in. Where should the City of Chanhassen find other land for high density? They haven't totally taken the high density away as you know but still , Chanhassen is obligated in the future and if you've been around for a while you will — Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1987 - page 7 r remember that we look for high density areas. There aren't a lot of areas in Chanhassen that are well suited for high density. ;•7e have earmarked a few around the core city but I think you have to consider the impact of this PUD in terms of how it effects the Comprehensive Plan and our zoning and where future high density areas would be placed. I give you that as my thoughts as — we review that and a little bit of background. Emmings : As far as a PUD goes , I guess it appears to me or maybe I should say, the way I've been accustomed to looking at this from another one we've looked at, the question always seems to be, is the City getting something for what it's giving up? Giving up in terms of allowing smaller lots. It would appear that they are proposing a variety of housing. They are working to the extent that they have gone actually a long way towards preserving the natural site features to the extent there are any but they haven't done anything else. They haven't done anything extra in terms of creation of parks and open spaces then what they are required to do in a subdivision. I'm not sure we're getting much to make it a PUD. Its a huge g project. I've never been here and looked at something this big. It's really hard for me to do. As far as specific questions on this, I don't know why we're looking at this without looking at a specific plan for the high density development. It seems like all the emphasis is on the single family and one of the things that we're interested in is a variety of housing. I don't — know why they don't have a specific plan for the other lots. That bothers me. It almost makes me feel that they're not as serious about that as they , are about the lower density areas. I was sitting here looking at this and , wondering if they are planning to do the higher density last and I'm just wondering if they're going to come back later on and ask us to change that area to single family because they are going to tell us at some later time that that's what the market will bear and that's all the market will bear. Conrad: There's a good chance of that. Obviously the single family is what's moving in the market right now and that's why I posed the question. If we — consider this , we better know where the high density is going to go in Chanhassen. We are obligated to Met Council to have areas for high density. Emmings : The other side of that is , if we would go along with this plan , I think they should know that approval will be contigent upon them building that and then I wonder if they'll ever get it. If they get done with their first 3 phases and phase 4 is high density and they preceive no market for it. So are we getting anything at all for allowing this to come in as a PUD? Like I say, it doesn't seem like they've done much in the categories that we've got and where they have done one , in terms of at least laying out where an area of housing would be, I really question whether we're ever going to see it. Someone mentioned a 3 to 5 year period to build this up. Are you saying that the whole thing is going to be built, all four phases, in 3 to 5 years? Is that your plan? Don Patton: That would be our plan if interest rates stay where they are. We can ' t predict the interest rates and the affordability of the buyer. Planning Commission Meeting -- June 17, 1987 - Page 8 Emmings : But when you say3 to 5years , what did you mean? Is that your plan today? Con Patton: For the land that we have sold at this point. That is, projected absorption rates based on fair marketing approach . Emmings : I don ' t understand that . The land you have sold? — Don Patton: The single family. We have a buyer who I introduced earlier . Emmings : The builder? Don Patton: If I could say one thing, by approving the PUD, you've really set_ those densities. Mr. Hill actually asked that those densities transfer in the additional land that the Park people asked be given. Be transferred into those higher density areas. We're actually trying to keep the density. That ' s our objective. — Emmings : Do you see a market for the high and medium that you've proposed here now? Don Patton: I think probably the medium yes. As we've indicated, the high density, the R-12 could not be developed because of the access so we feel like something is being given up in that by having that built were it be developed . — . .ti Emmings: I'm not following that either. Outlot A is proposed for high density. Do you foresee their being a market, at this time do you foresee — there being a market for high density in that place? Don Patton : That ' s the only place in the project for high density. Emmings : That ' s not the question. Do you see a market for high density? Don Patton : I guess I don ' t see that much market for it . — Emmings: Then my question is why are you proposing to build it if there is no market? Don Patton: That ' s the zoning for that area . Emmings: You are including this in here simply because we're requiring the — zoning? Don Patton: We have tried to accomodate your zoning ordinances in this plan — yes . Emmings : As market conditions stand today, you wouldn ' t build it right now? — Don Patton: No we wouldn't and we couldn't because of the access to that drive. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1987 - Page 9 1 - Emmings : I don ' t understand that either . Dacy: The street has to be built . Don Patton: The access for C and D are to this road here. Outlot A access, — again we didn't want the high density coming through the single family. The access to that would be onto this road when it ' s built. Emmings : When is that supposed to be built? Dacy: Hopefully within the next 3 to 5 year period also. Jim Hill : There was a feasibility study done last year . Dacy: It depends on, Opus owns the land now. First phases of the business — park is to build it up. They are marketing lands on the north side of Lake Susan. They are also marketing this land and we would anticipate that as the PUD is developed obviously we would have to construct a road. Given the past industrial growth that should occur very quickly. Emmings: Do you have any comment Barbara? To reserve an area of high density which doesn't make any sense in terms of the marketplace today. — What they are proposing is to build a bunch of small townhouses and the only reason there's a blank space up there at the top of the map is because they - needed to do that to get lower density and that's seems to be subverting the __ _ ,ihole notion of the subdivision Ordinance. Dacy: To address your first issue about the R-12. From a land use standpoint to have a higher density there adjacent to the business park would make sense. I think they are recognizing that and saying , yes we want to keep that there also. It's not so much the R-12 is the issue really. In looking at the plan, you can see that there are more R-4 areas being preserved and really what's — being eliminated is the R-8. Just rubbing it out is approximately 32 to 35 acres. You multiply that by 8 units per acre and you get roughly 240 to 300 units. So, when we did the Zoning Ordinance review we anticipated that these types of land use patterns could exist on this pattern and they are coming back and saying we would like to rearrange that but as Mr. Hill said also, what's being reduced is the amount of R-8 zoning. Now, the Commission potentially 2 or 3 options that we could investigate with the developer. The first option would be to look at some type of redesign of the left side there to hold out an R-8 area and work with that Outlot B contains very steep slopes. Look to reserving some additional area there. The second option for the Planning Commission would be to look at other areas within the City to zone as R-8 because the Met Council will come through the Land Use Plan Amendment process and say, Chanhassen you have responsibility to keep the percentages between single family and multiple family fairly reasonable to provide a multiple housing choice. The third method that we could investigate also, which has not been done before in Chanhassen, is for example shifting the R-8 to the R-12 so you have a density of 20 units per acre. Transferring — that density up to that Outlot A. You make up those units in that development f: butas I said , that high of a density has not been proposed in Chanhassen . Planning Commission Meeting ._ June 17 , 1987 - Page 10 Emmings: There probably is some value in preserving areas for high density whether they are being built now or not. Dacy: Like Mr. Patton said, it's very hard to predict the American — marketplace and right now it is leaning toward the single family but on the other hand, there is demographic information, there are smaller household sizes coming on. You've tried this for single family homes to become mother- — in-law apartments. More families within single family homes so I think there is a need out there for attached units and so on. Emmings: I was wondering what the Staff's reaction is to the notion of allowing them to the stuff that they're losing by having a park on the Outlot A. Dacy: It' s an option we can discuss . Emmings : You ' re not adverse to that? — Dacy: That ' s the purpose of this meeting . E.mnmings : It looks to me when we had this done before, and he was showing why he had the cul-de-sacs, that appealed to me as a matter of common sense what he was saying. What do you think? Why are you opposed to the cul-de- sacs? — . Olsen : Just what it did to the utilities and servicing that many and emergency access a lot of times can take a lot of turns in dead ends. — Typically we prefer to have a less number of cul-de-sacs but as we point out in the Staff Report, they are preserving some of the site features by having these cul-de-sacs. We just wanted them and it sounds like they did, look at it to see if there was a possibility of extending or connecting some of '- those cul-de-sacs and still preserve the site features but they said they couldn' t. Emmings: The trail system, one part that I don't understand, unless on Powers Blvd. it shows the trails they are shown with dashed lines on the streets . What are those? Olsen: They will be all street trails . Don Patton : Those will be concrete sidewalks . — Emmings: Every bit of it is off-street? Olsen : Yes . Even on Powers and that will probably be bituminous . E:nmings : The City, as I understand it, will allow them what's called a public open space along Lake Susan? Olsen: Yes . Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1987 - Page 11 ` Conrad: At the end of our conversation here, we're really not looking for a motion, we're looking for opinions. We're not necessarily looking for consensus but I 'm sure the developer would like to hear some type of consensus but in terms of what goes to City Council, it's not necessarily a motion tonight. Dacy: You need to give them direction. If you feel the plan is good the way it 's submitted, fine. If you don ' t think so, you should say why. Conrad: Don't need a motion. Basically the Minutes from our hearing will go to them so they' re going to hear our concerns or our positive feelings . — Siegel : In the Staff's conclusion here where you say the application does not appear to meet PUD requirements. I do not see where some of thoes have but could you put those into like a 1, 2 , 3? Olsen: First of all it was the percentage to plot. We had to have a certain number, 50% 15,000 or above and they have adjusted that now so they now have above 50% at 15,000 square foot lots. Some of the other concerns, it was not clear that they were preserving the natural features. That's just because I did not have a plan from which to see where the trees did exist. Now they have submitted a new plan showing all the existing features — and again, some of those cul-de-sacs are cutting into those more than we would prefer. This is really the first time we've reviewed the PUD under the new Ordinance. We were just trying to point out some of the _ _ .questionable areas and those were some of the reasons why it was stated that way. The number of small lots. There are a lot 12,000 square foot lots. What are we getting in return for that? What over and above a typical subdivision and I think one of the major concerns was that those different density areas exist now and are we just using that to make smaller lot areas. Those are some of the concerns. — Siegel : The density transfer question of those lots below the MUSA line, what exactly are we exchanging on that density transfer of those lots to include them in the MUSA line and where is that shift coming from? We're talking about another density transfer. Don Patton: If you look at it, it goes around the park. The current MUSA line goes down here and around this area, it's an area that's being — dedicated 3s park. We excluded that part from within the MUSA actually. Dacy: Some of the single family lots here are outside of the MUSA line. Don Patton : Yes , but I 'm saying the MUSA line, in through here . Dacy: But what the density transfer is applying to is the single family lots . Olsen: What would happen is how many single family lots they are proposing, — they would have to give up a potential 30 units within the MUSA line to allow for the transfer . Planning Commission Meeting _ June 17 , 1987 - Page 12 Siegel : Is there any indication of where that transfer... Olsen: I'm sure in the high density and the amount of single family that is _ being proposed , with the higher density that can be accomplished . Siegel: Okay, but this is not in relationship to us losing the R-4 zoning? Olsen: Part of that would be more within these higher densities than the high densities. So in a sense yes, if they were to develop it to the potential of all the high densities that exist there, they wouldn't have the — capacity to transfer that unless they gave up some open park area within the development . Siegel: How does that relate to, ...the points of getting density transfer for the forfeiture of parkland areas. Outlot A and Outlot D as sort of a density transfer situation too which would not be related to the MUSA line at all . — Olsen: I really didn't look at that closely about that loss of density also. Siegel : In other words , we' re not really getting anything there . Olsen: Initially they requested something within the site and as a - compromise we accepted some of the higher density instead of giving up single family. Siegel : I guess I'm not really that concerned anymore with the point 3 on the plan showing lots designed for solar housing. That's sort of a loaded question as a requirement. If they are amenable to it, fine. Having to do with whether the points were the looping requirements of the City Engineer on the watermain, the looping requirement because of the number of cul-de- sacs in this plan, I guess I wasn't firm in whether that was addressed in his recommendations firmly enough about them meeting those requirements. This is a premiere example of extensive use of cul-de-sacs and of course a lot of people think that possible use and opportunities it provides for land use but there is an incredible amount of cul-de-sacs in here and it does pose problems I 'm sure with watermain and utility service. Olsen: That will be addressed as a condition as part of the preliminary plat. We were just pointing out some of the items that will have to be addressed with the preliminary plat. Show a detailed utility plan and now the applicant is aware of that and I 'm sure they will provide looping out to the cul-de-sacs. Siegel : I get the impression that this is another one of those computer actuated housing developments for maximum amount of useage made utilizing _ cul-de-sacs as the culprit to do that because of the configuration of some of the cul-de-sacs. Some of them are real short. The access is just an access off a primary road and maybe those are easier to address from a utility standpoint than the bigger ones but it does seem to pose some — Planning Commission Meeting June 17 , 1987 - Page 13 r '4-problems from that standpoint , utilities . Wildermuth: I agree. Particularly in the western, Phase 3 area. I think something has to be done about the number of cul-de-sacs there. It doesn't appear that the topography issue is quite as critical there. I would hate to have to look for an address in that area. I think it would be a real problem for emergency services. I just don't share some of the other Commission members concern for the density issue. I guess my feeling is that despite the Met Council, lower is better. So as far as I'm concerned and the fact from a commercial standpoint, the higher density units aren't very attractive from a business standpoint right now, that's fine. I don't have any problems with deferring the plan for those outlot areas. Or even decreasing it a little bit. What I do have a real strong concern for, and I'm not throwing stones at what I see in the handout, but I'm very concerned about the quality of housing that's going to be in the area that is the — western Phase 2 and western Phase 3. We've seen a number of subdivisions come to the City in the last few years, well let's be generous and say that the housing quality, construction quality is less than desirable. I would hope that's not going to be the case. I would really like to see this be a subdivision rather than a PUD. Conferring with Ladd, the subdivision would require the 15,000 square foot minimum and I think that would be appropriate here because I don't think the City is getting very much for the PUD concession. Conrad: If you could relate to me, the parkland on the southwest, 25 acres 13 or whatever it is, because the MUSA line comes in there, is there a park on the other side of the MUSA line or do we have a park? I see Summit Trail coming up into the park. What are we left with? I 'm sure the Park Commission looked at that but we basically have a park that narrows to 50 feet in the middle of it. Is that the way I read that and is that useful park? — Olsen: We went out to the site and it's outside the MUSA line so it could not be developed but it can be used as parkland. It's going to be split. There will be a baseball field in one area, a sliding hill and then the other area will have a softball diamond and soccer field . Conrad : So on the other side of the MUSA line though we do have residential areas and those might be 2 1/2 acre parcels so we sort of have a Park — situation around those people. If you want to go from one section to the other, you're kind of funneled down to a little shoot there. The park conceptually has not been planned I assume . Don Patton: It 's a planned park. Conrad : Are parks generally better on the fringe of the community or do you like to see them in the center of a community? Olsen: From what Lori Sietsema was saying, they would prefer a park right — in the center. Planning Commission Meeting .- June 17 , 1937 - Page 14 - Conrad : So what we've got are some parks that are on the southwest and fringe outside the MUSA line or close to it and we've got a park on the fringe again on the northwest so we've got people walking to get to the park which I supposed is okay but it looks like a park inconvenience. I don't — know that the park's really been designed at this point in time into this community and that's what a PUD does. To me it designs things and features into it. This kind of looks, at this stage, that it's tagged on to some — fringe areas . Olsen : The Park plan has been accepted . — Conrad: By the Park Commission? Jo Ann, you comments you talked about wetland alteration permits and I'm not sure how I heard those words. Is that just forewarning the developer that there are wetlands or did you see something that said we ' re already planning to alter a wetland? Olsen: I didn't go into details but there are wetlands throughout the site. — Class B wetlands and they will be using a pond area. So because of them, they will have to receive a wetland alteration permit. Conrad: At this point in time, is that our consultant's opinion that that's — good use of those wetlands for ponding areas? Olsen: She visited the site and yes, she agreed. There are four wetlands — , on the site. Actually there are five but when we visited it, it was gone Ind Elizabeth agreed that it was not there. But the four wetlands are located by olue. This larger wetland was the nicest one on the site and they are not going to be altering this at all. It's adjacent to a Class A wetlands, Class B wetlands so this is the one that they really should not touch and they are not going to. The other three were more meadow, low areas, drainage areas. ...a need for meeting the Fish and Wildlife — regulations on level bottoms with open water. Elizabeth Rockwell agreed that they could be altered that way. Conrad: Just my thought. We've got a lot of acreage here so I don't see any reason we can' t do things with the wetlands that are the right things to do. We don't have to compromise on the wetlands. As long as Dr. Rockwell — is recommending the use this way, I'm comfortable but I'll be looking at her report to see what she's saying and again, when we have this much property, it's not Like we're trying to eek out a few extra lots. We have enough room to take care of the wetlands and to do it according to ordinance -' so I really don't see any reason to alter our ordinance or compromise our ordinance as it stands unless I hear Dr. Rockwell talking to us about the good reasons and apparently she has already seen some of those things. Bottom line for me, in my opinion this is not a PUD. It's a subdivision. We're getting exactly what we have gotten in other subdivisions so I would prefer to see this come back as a subdivision rather than a PUD unless the developer can persuade us there are things beyond the typical subdivisions that we've been seeing but I don' t see it yet in this particular sketch. It looks like a subdivision to me. When we decided what would be good to get c_for the PUD, it doesn't mean we need all 7 of those things. We're just — Planning Commission Meeting June 17 , 1987 - Page 15 f looking for things that would assist in this community. Make it work better and I do not see things that are significantly beyond what we are requiring in our subdivision ordinances right now. Emmings : As I sit here, I basically agree with you in that this is just a way to get small lots but we are getting that space. One thing we wouldn't be getting is the space set aside for higher density. Conrad: No, that's already there. It's zoned already. You look at the park, and they would have to have the same parkland in a subdivision. The 35 acres of wetland, they can't build on anyway. They're not donating that. That 's protected . Emmings: Basically what you're saying, if they brought in a subdivision on it the way it ' s zoned now, we would be getting all that stuff? Conrad: We'd be getting the same thing unless they can tell me we wouldn't. I appreciate the way they are preserving some of the features of the site but to tell you the truth, I don't think because, especially in the western part, there aren't that many features to preserve. When there's a PUD with lots of wooded land, then I can see making it a PUD. The nature of this site just doesn't tell me it's a good candidate for PUD. We've already zoned the land for high density and medium density and low density and again, it sort of takes some of the impetus for a PUD out of it. The land zoning is already there so therefore , I guess the bottom line for me in my comments to the developer and to the City Council would be, it sure looks like a subdivision candidate. I don't mind the cul-de-sacs as proposed yet I do think, because I think the developer is looking for land features, they are sensitive to the land features and I appreciate that. I think there might be a few less cul -de-sacs in the Phase 3 part of the western portion of this and I suggest that they look at that to see if they could minimize a few of those. It didn't look to a novice, which I am, that the land — characteristics were that tough to deal with in that Phase 3 area to eliminate some of the cul-de-sacs but it's not a real concern to me at this time. I'm not overly concerned but I would recommend that we take another look at that and see if we could minimize a few of those. The last comment that I would have is that to approve a PUD or subdivision like this, I really would like to know where the R-8 zoning will be in Chanhassen. In other words, because the developer is down zoning and generally know how we — feel, I'll guarantee you there will be pressure for us to put in higher density and before I could vote for a plan that's close to this, getting rid of that R-8 area , I would really have to feel that we have another area — identified for higher density because it will happen. Right now I don't know of too many neighborhoods that are willing to stand up and donate their property as potential zoning candidate for R-8. We worked a great deal of time to come up with the current zoning and the Met Council was appreciative of some of those high densities that we had there. This looked Like a good place for it. I appreciate the developer wanting to do what they want to do here. There's a market demand. I understand that. I understand that. I guess it's a concern I have however that we find, if we allocate or we ( identify other parcels that could take over where we are tempted to allow Planning Commission Meeting — June 17 , 1987 - Page 16 ',down zoning like this and I don't think I've ever said anything like that before on the Planning Commission where I was concerned with densities getting low but I think that's appropriate. Any other comments? I think _ what I would like to do with the developer is at least to leave them with some kind of consensus or some comments here. Wildermuth: I would like to get back to my original statement about housing — quality. It's very difficult to legislate quality but one of the ways in which that comes about is with larger lot sizes. More expensive lot to a degree dictates a larger, hopefully better quality home and I think in going — from a PUD back to a subdivision, we're requiring all lots to have a minimum of 15, 000 square feet . We' re going to encourage that. Emmings: I think it looks like a subdivision to me. That's why I started and particularly this last point that you made clear. The zoning is already there. We're not going to lose anything in the zoning. I am concerned about having the higher density but that's already in the zoning so that — takes away my last concern. I agree it should be a subdivision. Conrad: Bob, is that a consensus? Do you feel it should be a subdivision — versus a PUD? Speaking for four planning commissioners at this time, it looks like a subdivision to us. There are three missing tonight. My guess is that they would probably follow suit. I think it's worthwhile taking it forward to the City Council and seeing if that's their perspective also. I — think it would also be appropriate for Staff and the developer to talk about .he zoning and the R-8 void the city has so we get a feel from them whether they're concerned that we don't have right now a replacement for that R-8 — zone and I think we need direction from the City Council in terms of if they are comfortable with this particular density arrangement then I think they should also make some recommendations as to what we should do with the _ higher densities that we're losing and giving up in this area. Along with the Staff Report , I think the comments that Staff had in the report in terms of what you would like from the developer , I agree with most of those comments. If some other commissioners doesn't agree please jump up and say that but the only one I'm not totally positive about is the comment of Staff with the reduced number of cul-de-sacs. I think I would like you to look at that again with Staff, especially on the western side. It doesn't bother — me, as long as we're all comfortable that it's good planning and good design using those cul-de-sacs, I could go along with that but I guess I would prefer to see that we try to eliminate a few of those in the western part of the plat that we're looking at. Any concerns Steve on cul-de-sacs? You're neutral on that? Emmings : It looks like a lot and I would prefer to see fewer but if they can show the same kinds of justifications through site features or elevations like they've done more to the east, than I wouldn't have any problem with it. Wildermuth: I really like the development on the east side of the boulevard. It looks very good along Lake Susan. r — Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1987 - Page 17 .0- ` Conrad : ` Conrad : Mr . Patton , I guess those are our comments . Don Patton: So mainly it ' s the downgrading of the R-8? Conrad: In my opinion and it's not that what you've done is bad, it's just — that I'm looking at Chanhassen saying where are we going to get that? Where are we going to have the R-8 area when that particular market comes back and we need it. We don't have a location for it right now. I think that has — to be a factor in how we look at this. Don Patton: One thing that I guess was hard for me to follow, I recognize the R-8 I also kept hearing that you didn't want to keep the density up to a certain level and you do achieve some of that with the PUD, have a little more free style planning of the lot sizes and configurations rather than cookie cutter style. Conrad : But in the developments that we're seeing coming in to Chanhassen, we're not seeing the cookie cutter type. A lot of our developments are coming in that our subdivisions are looking very similar to this and we're saving, because that's what we're seeing, we're not seeing a change from those subdivisions in this particular plan . At least that ' s my perspective. Wildermuth: With the topography on that big couldn't use a cookie cutter if you wanted parcel there, you probably to. Jon Patton: Actually you really can't because if you walk the line, one of the reasons, if you walk this, this is a natural ridge line that goes all the way down here and if you look at your wetlands plan, the break goes right through here with this part going to Lake Riley/Purgatory and this part going another way so you really end up, as we mentioned with the phasing, this is a natural phasing area for this. There are some very critical things, because of this, this being much higher than this, that's — the other reason the PUD is so important. This is lower and you have critical points in here and here and here and in through here to get back to the sewer line that goes across there . Conrad: I don ' t understand why, is the PUD so important to that? Don Patton: Because there is a substantial cut that has to come through here to achieve gravity pull for the sewer into the lower area. Conrad: I still don't follow. The same would be true for a subdivision — wouldn ' t it? Don Patton: If you came in with an individual subdivision, there's always the opportunity that that might not be put in at the right depth to be able to service all of this. You've got to go to the extra depths to achieve these other areas. It's really important especially for the sanitary and drainage that you ' ve seen here . iEmmings: Why can ' t you plan them together as a subdivision? Planning Commission Meeting — June 17 , 1987 - Page 18 p Don Patton : A 300 acre subdivision with a phasing plan. That ' s possible. Emmings: I think that's what we're saying. Whether it's done as a PUD or as a development, those things should be done. I agree with you so you do get it at a depth the whole area would need. Conrad: I would just make a recommendation that when you go to City — Council, again, when we do a PUD we're looking for things a little bit in exchange. PUD's in my mind are a little bit creative. There is a variety of density in the PUD and you cluster and you have open spaces and you do a — lot of different things. You put parks in central parts of the community. You put in trailways and I think you're getting that with the recommendations of the Park Committee but some of those things are required in a subdivision as well as a PUD. I think when you go to see City Council , — you should really be focusing on what the community is getting other than the depths of the sewer. I guess you should be talking about what Chanhassen is getting or that community is getting in terms of creative — approaches. We've listed seven of them in our ordinance. Whether it be improving solar housing or additional parks. If we require one acre for every 70 people, I would guess a PUD in my mind might come in with 2 acres for every 90 people but we give you greater densities or whatever. I don't think we're looking at a density issue here. At least I'm not. I think Jim is. You're going to hear a little bit of difference in strategy but again, if you do some creative things with the land and get more park and then I — think I would be tempted to give you greater densities if you wanted that Jut you're not. I think those are the things I'm looking at in a PUD and this is a straight subdivision in my mind and I 've looked at quite a few of — them. • Jim Hill : Under the PUD ordinance we have an opportunity to vary lot sizes. We've done that here. We've done it because we have given 62 acres of open — space . Conrad: No you haven't. You haven' t. The 35 acres, you haven't given that. The 35 acres you can not build on. That ' s wetland. Jim Hill : I accept that but if the City of Minneapolis took the same — attitude 100 years ago, we would not have the city of lakes . Conrad : I miss the point but go on. Jim Hill : Lowlands are acceptable as open space . Conrad: They are but you haven't given it. They are there and they are — protected right now. You couldn ' t develop on it . Jim Hill : Surely the person who is paying taxes on it . . . Conrad: Very minor taxes . l Jim Hill : That ' s a difference of opinion . — Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1987 - page 19 (- Conrad : No , it ' s absolute . Taxes on wetlands are quite a bit less . Emmings: You're not saying in your opinion they can build on those wetlands? — Jim Hill : I 'm not taking that position . We' re saying the PUD is there. Conrad: What's the range of densities and sizes of lots that you've got here . You said you had a variety of lot sizes . What ' s the range? Jim Hill : It' s in the handout . — Conrad : But what's the range? Is it something than what we have seen in other? — Jim Hill : It meets the PUD ordinance . Conrad : It meets it but we see that kind of range in all our subdivisions too. Most of our subdivisions . Olsen: You answered my first question. I just wanted more clarification on what it was that you were looking for so we could tell the applicant when he — asks. Then also, just for clarification, if they came back in maintaining that R-8, it would still be the straight subdivision. You are asking also , for additional open space, creativity, clustering . Conrad: In a PUD. Olsen: Right. If they came back in showing R-8, maintaining that, that's not necessarily what you were meaning as you would accept that as PUD. I 'm afraid that the applicant might be thinking that if they maintain the existing density that is there now, then it will be accepted as a PUD. Conrad: I think they are sort of separate issues. The first issue is it doesn' t look like a PUD to me. It is not a PUD. The second issue is a broader issue that the City Council and Planning Commission has to deal with. If we agree with down zoning, then it's our job to find another area to designate for R-8. The developer has all the right in the world to continue the direction of changing our zoning. Olsen : So he can come in with it down zoned but with the PUD clustering , open space and then they would just have to provide for that higher density — elsewhere? Conrad : Then it would be my direction that we find it elsewhere. The logic for where this zone is, the R-8 and the R-12 is excellent. We worked those over for a long period of time but I also understand that it's hard to forecast where things should be and we're certainly not rigid in that area. We don't know that many things about trends when we do comprehensive plan — and zoning, we're guessing and when a developer comes in with a specific proposal I think we should be sensitive to that proposal so I'm ruling it Planning Commission Meeting _ June 17 , 1987 - Page 20 /- tout that we can' t down zone but we do have an obligation to find that land someplace else and do something about it immediately. Met Council is going to force us to do that anyway. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL — ESTATES TOB, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HWY 212/169 INTERSECTION, TED PERUSSE. PUBLIC PRESENT: — Name Address Tim Thornton 1221 Nicollet Mall #700, Mpls . Bert Noterman 1520 West 10th Avenue , Shakopee Dennis Coyne 1221 Nicollet Ma11 , 4700, Mpls . — Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on the Rezoning Request. Tim Thornton: I represent Bert Noterman, the owner of the property. If you are familiar with this parcel it's the old Tri -Y Drive-In down on TH 169 in Chanhassen. That's a front view of it. This is what it looks like from — _ the back. This is looking across TH 169. This is looking down TH 169 _owards the Drive-In from the motel. This is looking back towards the Super `America. Here's looking at the Drive-In from the Super America and this is _ looking north up the road. Significantly, we like the Staff's recommendation for the rezoning. I think it's important to remember this has been a commercial use for 35 years as a Drive-In. To suggest agricultural zoning doesn' t make a hell a lot of sense. Nobody is going to — grow soybeans there for example. We're mindful of the constraints, the real constraints that are associated with the wetland situation here but the actual uplands , the lands that could be built without a lot of permits from — Fish and Wildlife and Corps of Engineers, are a little different than the use that was there. The owner is not aware of any acquisition by MnDot. MnDot has talked to us from time to time about acquisition but so far there _ has been no acquisition. This we think is about 170 by about 160 but the uplands that has been the result of some filling and some natural uplands goes about like this. It seems to me to be very spot zoningish, if you will , to suggest that you're going to only zone 20,000 square feet. It — seems to me that if you're going to zone, you have to zone the parcel. Mindful that the use or any use in the Business Fringe District requires a conditional use or specialities permit. At that time you will have a lot — more details as to exactly what use is proposed or not proposed. What barriers, if any, you need between the wetlands and concerns with fillings and things like that. We were talking about a 400 acre zoning project the last time and now dropping down to 20,000 square feet. What we would like — to ask is the recommendation of the entire 2 acre parcel be zoned mindful that when we come back, we wouldn' t be talking about using any of this wetland or lowland but would have a specific plan to use the uplands and in — L. City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 4. Range be restricted to business use relating to the sale of bows. All voted in favor and motion carried. LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF POWERS BLVD., APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT: — — A. APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLAN/PUD AGREEMENT. Barbara Dacy: If I could just speak to item a. The City Council, as you recall, had a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to consider this item and what the intent of the Planned Unit Development Agreement was was to include in that agreement all of the items of concern that were brought out from the Planning Commission and the City Council that would guide the future phases of this development. For example, there would be the recommendation from the Park and Rec Commission, language as to what outlots should be used for multiple family density and at what density, how much acreage should be given to parks, etc.. Unfortunatley we were unable to meet with the applicant in time to discuss and really have a good discussion as to the terms of the agreement so the recommendation is that the other items of approval here be subject to execution of that agreement and that will be brought back on a future agenda. Mayor Hamilton: Is there anything we need to go over? We've done all this so many times and maybe we should just get into discussion and express our questions. On (a) I know Bill had questions on (a) apparently. Why don't we just do that. Bill you can start seeing as how you probably have more questions than the rest of us. lam Councilman Boyt: I may well be able to satisfy everybody's concerns. I guess I'd like to ask, first Barbara, is what you just said, that item a is going to come back to us again? Barbara Dacy: Correct. Councilman Boyt: When item a comes back to us again, it needs to have the following. One of the things is that you'll notice on the map that there are several loops. All of those loops need to have a trail system on one side of the road. That means the Park and Rec has already asked for a trail on half of that. My discussions with Park and Rec and Lori, they do support my request for trails throughout the loops. The other item is that I feel the Park and Rec fee of 50% is going to be required to provide the necessary equipment for those parks. I certainly think the developer deserves a 50% reduction. He may deserve more but I think we have to protect enough money in the Park and Rec fund to be able to fully equip these parks that we'll be building. The other point I want to see included in that is, I want to see some definite figures about the maximum amount of surface that will be covered with hard surface in the high and medium density outlots and the activities that the developer is proposing to take to blend those high density lots into the high and medium density lots into the single family residential. 29 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Those are basically the concerns I have. I think there are several there but I tried to be concise. Mayor Hamilton: Clark, do you have any you would like to add there? — Councilman Horn: No, my only concern was, from this body trying to eliminate the cul-de-sacs. Mayor Hamilton: Trying to eliminate cul-de-sacs? Councilman Horn: Yes. — Mayor Hamilton: We tried that. Dale, did you have any? Councilman Geving: No, I'm very pleased with the development. I do want to ask Lori, since she's here, if the 50°% park dedication reduction fee was passed on by the Park and Rec Commission. Lori Sietsema: Yes that was. Councilman Geving: That was your recommendation? — Lori Sietsema: That was my recommendation to them and that was their recommendation to you. Councilman Geving: Okay. I have no other comments. Councilman Johnson: I'm going to go wholly in favor of everything just said — there. Trails throughout the loops make absolute sense. To put trails halfway down the street and then the other half of the people don't get them is ridiculous. Because in order to create parkland we've done density — transfers to make some of the high density more dense, I don't think there's any need for any more than a 50°% reduction. It would take a lot of talking to get me above a 50o park reduction fee. Your hard surface on the outlot, are you concerned that we don't have enough water retention? Is that what your — hard surface question is about? I need to understand that one a little bit. Councilman Boyt: In discussions with Mr. Patton, he has agreed that they — would provide underground parking and I think in the discussions he's had has demonstrated a definite willingness to make a good transition zone and to provide a good bed of non hard surface in those high density areas and to me that's one of the best parts of the plan. I think he's probably going to say something about those in a few minutes and I want the PUD approval to hinge upon those being appropriate. Councilman Johnson: I guess this probably gets into wetlands that is later on with this but are they calculations for our sedimentation basins and everything? Do they take into consideration the impermeable surfaces to be — built in the high density or only the surfaces in the single families? I guess Larry's not here. [7: Barbara Dacy: Just the single family. 30 — !1) City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Is there room within the outlots for the high density to put settling ponds and etc. or should we be looking at those at this point? Barbara Dacy: Yes, there is acreage available within the multiple family outlots. As a comparison, the sites that are zoned R-12, for example the northern half of the James piece, the zoning district lists a maximum lot covering 35%. Building and parking area can not exceed the 35% of the lot area. That dictates really 65% of the open area. In Mr. Jacobson's development on the James property, he did include a small retention facility along Kerber Blvd. Some of the outlot areas in the PUD development will be on a larger scale as far as density, 15 to 16 units per acre but again, staff can easily work with the developer to establish a ratio of 40%% to 50% of the lot so there will be, if needed.. . Mayor Hamilton: Don, do you want to respond to some of those points on the concept plan? Don Patton: In response to the coverage, what we've done is taken each of the outlots you see this. We've combined C with D and shown a layout. As you can see on Outlot C, it's zoned R-8. With the density we're looking at, the design would be 32 units. The acreage would be 35. We're not quite achieving that with this plan. Again, it's kind of an odd shaped piece. The coverage including building and parking is 31%. In Outlot D below, again the same zoning and again this did have the density transfer as you mentioned. The parking is down south of here. Is the medium density R-8, 96 with what was planned for the area and the density transfers from the park, we're getting 96 _ t and we're zoned for 95 so we can achieve that fairly well with underground parking. One per unit. The coverage on that is 27%. I guess the way I'm approaching these is probably the way we see it be developed also. This is the outlot B. This is a little more difficult site to deal with. It's zoned R-8. 48 units is what we can see going in to it at this point with this design. By the acreage, we're looking at 91 units. A little over half on that. The coverage is 30%. This is the multiple site. Outlot A, high density R-12, we're looking at 378 units on there. The design of the PUD based on acres is 375. The coverage on this is 31.5% so I think all of the density coverages. Mayor Hamilton: Are your questions being answered Bill? Councilman Boyt: They are being answered. I have a question about the greenery on those. Can you tell me if those represent trees? Don Patton: Yes they do. The thing that we would anticipate, and I think a normal standard that I've seen in development that you would see with each of these would normally be $400.00 to $500.00 per unit landscaping for greenery in all of these. Councilman Boyt: Are you able to provide that sort of tree coverage with that amount? $400.00 to $500.00 per unit? Don Patton: I guess we haven't cost it out. That's some of the job I'm doing right now. One of the things that this doesn't show here, as you see here, 31 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 _ there is some natural greenery that goes through some of the areas. I know that's a concern on this. We talked about on single family that would be 150 per unit with the single family PUD. Again, I think $500.00 is a reasonable figure. Again, your concern was coverage, transition, I think the landscaping, berming and design will really help in transition. Again, each of these outlots will come before the Council again. We understand the Council and as a part of our negotiations with this, when density will open this, that will be achieved with this so I think that that would answer those — questions. With regard to blending transition.. . Councilman Boyt: May I ask a question? You indicated berming. Could you tell me a little bit about that or show what you mean? — Don Patton: The thing, as you look like this, this is a pond here. This will be collecting water from streets over here and also from this area coming down — here into the settling pond. I think you're looking at probably some berming in through here. With the park being here you might want to do some berming separation on that at the top of the road. This is a very steep slope going — down. It's impractical to do that. We've gotten into some of the designs with the engineer. We're looking at another ponding area right down this way so that slope here, I would see some possible berming here. Again, I don't want to profess to you that this i.s what will be built on the site. These are strictly possibilities of what could be built. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Patton, I don't want to confuse you about this but if . — it's not this good or better than I'm not going to vote for it so that's what I want a commitment to is that we're building this or better. By better I mean that you're going to have this or less hard surface. That you're going to have this or more greenery. I think that's what we've been talking about right along. Don Patton: I realize that. My point is the buildings may not be exactly this design. They may have more bend. That's exactly my point. I don't want to try to decide that. I don't think you want to at this point. Mayor Hamilton: Did you have any other issues? Don Patton: I guess the other issue I wanted to address was the looping of the walkways and park credits. We've been through the Parks Commission. — Their recommendation was one side. Sidewalks on the major streets. Access to the parks. This is really what has been settled on. That recommendation was that the 100% trail fee be credited to the developer as a part of that. — Again, as a part of developing the parks in through here, it had been recommended as 50%. I guess the thing that we would like to see, there's really three things that I see the park people. One i.s to buy land. One is — to grade parks and the other is to buy equipment with. We already talked in our discussions and made a commitment to you that we're donating land. We've already said we will grade the parks down. Again, the demand here is to provide economical housing. The more burden you put on that is going to push that thing out of sight and if anybody has been trying to buy a house recently with interest rates going up, the market is going down dramatically. I would like to sec the Council give us a greater percentage of the park fee — 32 101 City Council :fleeting - October 5, 1987 to help cover that cost of looping any of the walks in here. Greater than 500 I'm suggesting. 30% to buy the soccer field goals, backstops, build tennis courts and again, you're looking at 1,000 units so at 75% rate you're still looking at 1,000 times say $125,000 to $130,000.00 so you're still looking at substantial number of dollars to provide the standards for the parks. I think that's a reasonable request. The other thing that I guess we really do need to talk about and Gary Warren and I have had several discussions on, as a part of the original design it had been indicated to us that there was strictly a gravity system desired in the sanitary system. As a part of the request that's coming out now and in the study, they've asked for lift stations. I guess if that's what engineering wants, that's no problem. The thing I guess I am concerned about, and I just want to use this as an exmaple. There will be changes as this, we're talking about a PUD and we're talking about a development. We've expressed the willingness at some point, depending on what the storm sewer, again talking that this pond here is going to cover it, that there would be a pond here with a swale going down through here for the storm sewer. If it's decided that's not needed, this can be brought across. I think we do need to have an understanding but I think we also need some flexibility because as we get into things, we had shown you a phasing diagram. If the lift station is going to be required down on the sloped areas, we've got to change the phasing because we have to build a road to get to the lift station. We want to work in good faith with the City. With the staff. With the Council. We want to build affordable housing for people who want to live in Chanhassen. I think you've given a wide enough income range from densities here, high density here to medium housing to very nice housing here. I guess in summary, we do want to provide the transition. We're willing to do the : looping. We would like to have 75% credit on the park fee. Again, from the standpoint of cul-de-sacs, we don't have a problem doing that. Changing it later. Again, working with the engineering department. Are there any other questions? Councilman Boyt: Please let me kind of conclude this. Since Lori is here, one of the questions that I asked Lori to research for me was do we need $200,000.00, which is approximately half of the fee, to provide the necessary equipment for these parks because I think as Mr. Patton has stated, that that really is what the park fee encompasses. The equipment along with what he's already given us and Lori, maybe you can respond to that and if you would also respond to your sense of this question about trails through the loops. Lori Sietsema: Okay, first of all on the $200,000.00 which would be about half of the park dedication fee, will develop those parks. I'm pretty confident with the grading done, we can go in and finish off those parks. I can't tell you if it's going to cover, if we would have an excess or not because the Park and Recreation Commission and the Council haven't decided what they want to do in those. If they want to see buildings or if they want to keep it to the bare minimum. So I can't tell you how much in excess of that $200,000.00 will be spent but I feel fairly confident that—with what we've done in other neighborhood parks. As far as the trail, at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting we did not talk about putting trails along the loop at that time. At other times when the Commission did talk about it, they did say, some said, they never made a motion on it. I can't say it's a consensus that there was a formal motion made about it but there was 33 iljr - City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 conversation about, at least some of the commissioners about getting trails along the loops as well. Especially going down to the 18 acre park. Councilman Johnson: On the loops and park reduction. My feeling, after — listening to all of this and saying we don't trails to the parks, that's essential to me. I wouldn't be willing to look at it, the cost for the trails along there and look at another 20% off of the, additional 20% up to 70% if that is dedicated to the trail cost. If that trail cost doesn't cost that much, $100,000.00 or whatever it is, if the trail cost is going to be $50,000.00, I'd say we could pull that off of it. I don't have a feel for what the trail cost is going to be. What we're talking there. That's the way — I would like to approach that is yes, the park has said we've got that... Don Patton: One thing I think we need to deal with on this thing is not the — numbers but percentages because construction costs today is going to be different from some of these things develop in 1995 and that's the reason that I guess I'm suggesting. The same thing for whatever the parks are. You're — still going to have a tennis court or ball diamond. Those are fixed costs today but as you all know, the sidewalk cost is $225.00 right now and that will proably be $250.00 or $300.00 or $500.00 by the year 2000. All those could go up and I would like to see percentages rather than actual costs. — Councilman Johnson: You're telling us you're not going to develop this until the year 2000? As far as the single family residential? I disagree. I would like to see what the numbers are in today's dollars and if today's dollars comes out at $25,000.00 and you're wanting another $100,000.00 above and beyond the 50% that we've got right now, I'm against that. I would like to look at today's dollars and what today's dollars buys for trails along those — loops including the loops into the park and have that apply out. Mayor Hamilton: I think that was already done wasn't it Don? — Don Ashworth: Staff did do a calculation based on a previous recommendation. Our finding was that, as recommended, it did break even in comparison to total charges for trails but again, that's a different number to estimate. We could have 20% to 25% error. Councilman Johnson: Well, I would like to at least see the numbers before I — make a decision is what I'm saying. If the numbers come out, I may feel like adding 25% to the numbers but I haven't seen the numbers. I have nothing to go upon. They're asking for $100,000.00 to complete these trails. I want to — know if it's going to cost the developer $100,000.00, that may be reasonable. If it's not going to cost him $100,000.00, I don't think it's reasonable to deduct $100,000.00. I think there is some room for compromise here. I think it's definitely no goad having a park if you don't have trails to get to the — park. We can put all the equipment we want into it but if the kids get hit in the street going to it, it doesn't do us much good. Councilman Geving: Let me ask Lori, in the original concept plan you asked for a 50% reduction and no trail. You had asked for no trail dedication be paid for by the developer. Was there some reasoning for us to change in the L77 middle of the stream here and now ask for the trail loop? Did you ask for it 34 — 101 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 to help cover that cost of looping any of the walks in here. Greater than 50% I'm suggesting. 30o to buy the soccer field goals, backstops, build tennis courts and again, you're looking at 1,000 units so at 75% rate you're still looking at 1,000 times say $125,000 to $130,000.00 so you're still looking at substantial number of dollars to provide the standards for the parks. I think that's a reasonable request. The other thing that I guess we really do need to talk about and Gary Warren and I have had several discussions on, as a part of the original design it had been indicated to us that there was strictly a gravity system desired in the sanitary system. As a part of the request that's coming out now and in the study, they've asked for lift stations. I guess if that's what engineering wants, that's no problem. The thing I guess I am concerned about, and I just want to use this as an exmaple. There will be changes as this, we're talking about a PUD and we're talking about a development. We've expressed the willingness at some point, depending on what the storm sewer, again talking that this pond here is going to cover it, that there would be a pond here with a swale going down through here for the storm sewer. If it's decided that's not needed, this can be brought across. I think we do need to have an understanding but I think we also need some flexibility because as we get into things, we had shown you a phasing diagram. If the lift station is going to be required down on the sloped areas, we've got to change the phasing because we have to build a road to get to the lift station. We want to work in good faith with the City. With the staff. With the Council. We want to build affordable housing for people who want to live in Chanhassen. I think you've given a wide enough income range from densities here, high density here to medium housing to very nice housing here. I guess in summary, we do want to provide the transition. We're willing to do the looping. We would like to have 75% credit on the park fee. Again, from the standpoint of cul-de-sacs, we don't have a problem doing that. Changing it later. Again, working with the engineering department. Are there any other questions? Councilman Boyt: Please let me kind of conclude this. Since Lori is here, one of the questions that I asked Lori to research for me was do we need $200,000.00, which is approximately half of the fee, to provide the necessary equipment for these parks because I think as Mr. Patton has stated, that that really is what the park fee encompasses. The equipment along with what he's already given us and Lori, maybe you can respond to that and if you would also respond to your sense of this question about trails through the loops. Lori Sietsema: Okay, first of all on the $200,000.00 which would be about half of the park dedication fee, will develop those parks. I'm pretty confident with the grading done, we can go in and finish off those parks. I can't tell you if it's going to cover, if we would have an excess or not because the Park and Recreation Commission and the Council haven't decided what they want to do in those. If they want to see buildings or if they want to keep it to the bare minimum. So I can't tell you how much in excess of that $200,000.00 will be spent but I feel fairly confident that...with what we've done in other neighborhood parks. As far as the trail, at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting we did not talk about putting trails along the loop at that time. At other times when the Commission did talk about it, they did say, some said, they never made a motion on it. I can't say it's a consensus that there was a formal motion made about it but there was 33 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 — or was that something that the developer brought back tonight and you haven't seen before? Lori Sietsema: The trail fees were recommended at 100% credit be given. That was recommended by the Commission along with 50% in park dedication. '- Councilman Geving: So now if we take $100,000.00 away from the original $200,000.00, we're down to $120,000.00 roughly. Can you still develop the — parks the way you had envisioned? Lori Sietsema: Again, not knowing what exactly we're talking about going in there. I know that two tennis courts on one location cost right now roughly $25,000.00. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you again, if we were to go back to your — original position and we put in the trails ourselves, the loops ourselves and went for the original 50%, wouldn't that be a better situation for you? Lori Sietsema: If we put in the trails and ask that 100% trail fees be paid? Councilman Geving: Yes. Councilman Johnson: The additional trails. Councilman Geving: Any additional. I guess the question I'm asking is, are — we absolutely convinced that we need the trails that are being asked for from the Park and Recreation standpoint? Is your answer yes or no? Lori Sietsema: The understanding that I had gotten from the Commission that those trails are very important. Gary Warren: I think the point that keeps coming up in these developments also, is whether we're talking bituminous or concrete and you're talking twice as much roughly for concrete versus bituminous so when you start talking credits, I get the feeling that we're leaning more towards concrete as you — recognize the expense for maintenance on that down the road. Councilman Johnson: Are we talking 5 foot concrete? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Because you're not talking 8 foot concrete? — Councilman Boyt: No. Councilman Johnson: Because this is through somebody's front yard here. Some will be bituminous. Councilman Geving: And that was the original recommendation from the Park and — Recreation, is that correct? 35 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: We have a Park and Rec Commissioner here, perhaps he can clarify that. Ed Hasek: I think originally when we looked at this particular project, we were going on the basis of the things that we had looked at in the past and I felt being a new commissioner, it had been suggested that perhaps all we needed in this project was the main road be taken care of. On closer examination, in realizing that we've got a fairly intense development as compared to other areas of the city, we felt it absolutely necessary that we get a more intensive trail system to serve the people that will be living there. That's why we have... Not only that, I think probably that decision came after the results of that survey was sent out as well. The City as a whole is interested, the people are interested in trails so there's no point in not taking care of that problem... I didn't see the topography on this particular study but just in looking at the topography, just the way it's proposed, I heard comments about the number of cul-de-sacs. Did the developer come back with a plan? Councilman Geving: You're looking at it. Ed Hasek: This is the revised plan? Councilman Geving: I don't think it's been revised a great deal. I think this is pretty muco the same in terms of the number of cul-de-sacs. Don Patton: We've taken some out. One of the things that you've got it's really basic what we did here. We did save the current loop for one here is, a street up in through here. This could possibly be done if we would eliminate this drainage down through here but again, the topography is very tough. We had a contour or if we want to study this, you can see the very steep contours. Again, this hash mark is 15% slopes which is really dictating. Again, we've got a ridge that runs like this with a flat area in through here. Again, your slopes, you're just going to eliminate or necessitate the cul-de- - sacs. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think we've reviewed that pretty extensively in the past. Thanks for your comments Ed. Councilman Horn: If I heard right, what we're hearing is that the recommendations we're getting now for additional trails and the fee are not the original recommendations that we received when we reviewed this from the Park and Rec. New things have come up in the meantime. Lori Sietsema: The fee is the same. The fee recommendations are exactly the same. The only thing that is in addition is to build trails along those loops. Those are the only additional things coming from the Park and Recreation Commission. Councilman Horn: You said 100% for the trails without the loops initially. Now you're asking for the loops and then 100% for the trails and 50% for parks? 36 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 _ Lori Sietsema: Yes. Councilman Horn: I guess I have a concern with changing the rules in the middle of the approval process. We went along with the original recommendation and I don't think that came to us via Park and Ree. Lori Sietsema: No, I wanted to emphasize that Park and Rec did not make a formal motion with this addition. They just merely mentioned it. That they had seen an oversight on their part. That they didn't ask for that at the beginning but there was no motion made and maybe it should have come to a motion and then would have been brought to your attention earlier. Councilman Horn: I guess that's the only concern I have. I don't like to se the rules change as the progress happens on the development. Councilman Johnson: I believe that to say something in defense I guess of our Park and Rec Commission, we have many new members on the Commission. This is their first PUD and I don't think they really understood the PUD concepts of — what a PUD was and the negotiation processes of the PUD and I think that as the group has matured now. They're fairly new. Mayor Hamilton: Can we talk about the issues rather than the Park and Rec ` Commission. • Councilman Johnson: I think they've come to grasps with the issues because — they now have much more experience in their job and they are now giving us a recommendation that I think is very appropriate. Councilman Horn: What was the dollar amount due to the change in the recommendation? Lori Sietsema: I don't know that the Park Commission. — Don Patton: $75,000.00. Mayor Hamilton: Do you have something additional Ed that we haven't discussed? Ed Hasek: I guess my question is, the body that makes the decision on this — thing, the governing body is you folks. We send you these recommendations. If we are recommending that we created an oversight, certainly it's within your power to change anything that you've done in the past. Councils do it all the time. Mayor Hamilton: You're right. I think we're well aware of that. — Councilman Geving: We try not to though. Councilman Boyt: I would like to make one summary point here. I think we're being reasonable in saying the trail fees cover trail development and I think the Park and Ree Department has said they would have asked for all of those — trails and wish they had. The most they would have given, had they asked for 37 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 all those trails, is a 100% reduction in the trail fee. I don't think we should be taking money out of the park fee to build trails. They are two separate fees. We set them up with a trail fee sufficient to build trails so now what I'm suggesting is that this is a good development. . I'd like to see it go forward but to get my vote I'd certainly like to see a 50% reduction in park fees, 100% reduction in trail fees. 'thank you. Roger Knutson: May I suggest, since as Mr. Johnson pointed out, this has not been written up. I would suggest that your approval would be appropriate, if that's what you want to do, subject to us writing it up, meeting with the developer and going over the specific wording and bringing it back to you. Perhaps putting it on a consent agenda. Councilman Horn: I still have a concern with requiring additional trails. Mayor Hamilton: That seems like a good idea. If we're going to do it, we might as well do it right the first time and get it finished rather than wishing we had. Councilman Johnson: Are there any trails we could trade off? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve, subject to Staff review, the Concept Plan/PUD Agreement for Lake Susan Hills West with the coverages mentioned by Mr. Patton in terms of impermeable surface in the medium and high density areas not to be exceeded. With underground parking to be provided as stated in his remarks with $400.00 to $500.00 per unit being provided in landscaping and berming efforts to make a transition in those areas. That the park fee be reduced by 50% and the trail fee be reduced by 100% with trails completed through the loops and subject to the execution of the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE 15 ACRES FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REDESIGNATE 40 ACRES AS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 37 ACRES AS PARK AND OPEN SPACE, AND 75 — ACRES AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. — — Mayor Hamilton: Do we need to have discussion of this? Resolution #87-108: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adopt the Land Use Plan Amendment #87-3 to amend the MUSA boundary to include 15 acres for low density residential development and to redesignate 44 acres of high density residential, 33 acres of parks and open space and 31 acres of low density residential to land uses shown in Attachment #13 subject to execution of the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. REZONING OF 29.9 ACRES FROM R-12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, R-8, MIXED MEDIUM _ DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND R-4, MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL. 38 — J 6 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 ._ Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the first reading _ of the Rezoning Request 487-3 to rezone 299 acres of RSF, R-4, R-8 and R-12 to PtJD-R subject to approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract. Also, subject to the execution of the of the PUD agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. — PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 39.4 ACRES INTO 76 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R. — Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the preliminary plat =87-3 as shown on the preliminary plat dated September 16, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. The proposed access points from CR 17 (Powers Blvd.) must receive an access permit from Carver County. 2. The applicant snail provide a detailed landscaping plan for City approval prior to final plat approval. _ 3. The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan and shall reforest lots 5 and 6, Block 1 as recommended by the DNR forester and approved by the City Engineer. — 4. The linear strip of land along the west side of Lake Susan be obtained as shown on the concept plan #3 and that an 8 foot wide — bituminous trail be constructed on such at the time of construction of phase 1. 5. A 5 foot wide concrete off-street trail/sidewalk be constructed along the main street that crosses Powers Blvd. and that the trail be placed on the same side of the street in both neighborhoods so as to match at the Powers Blvd. intersection. — 6. A park access of not less than 50 feet be obtained off of the main street on the west side of Powers Boulevard. — 7. Approval of Wetland Alteration Permit and compliance of all conditions. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City and provide necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement for completion of the improvements. — 9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required by the DNR, Watershed District and the Office of the Carver County _ Engineer. 10. The applicant's engineer shall provide calculations evaluating water pessure/flow conditions for watermains at the end of the cul-de-sacs — of Blocks 1 and 4. 39 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 11. An additional gate valve shall be added to the 8" watermain in the vicinity of the southwest corner of Lot 22, Block 1. • 12. An intersection landing zone being a street grade of 0.5% for a distance of 50 feet shall be used at all intersections with CSAH 17. 13. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all slopes greater than 3:1. 14. Type II erosion control (staked haybales and snow fence) shall be added along with the proposed silt fence adjacent to wetland areas 14-06, 14-07 and along the east ends of the development which are adjacent to Lake Susan. A floating siltation basrrier shall be considered as part of the final erosion control plan to protect Lake Susan. Nam 15. All utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards for urban construction. 16. Clearcutting of trees will not be allowed. 17. Completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 18. Subject to execution of the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. : City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 given the details on the final design. 4.1111• Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so approval can be conditioned. Councilman Johnson: Okay, the next one is that pond that you were pointing — to. Currently at the Class B wetland, an area of dubious uses and benefit, where we're going to fill part of it in and extend another part a different direction. I personally believe there's a lot of uses for a Class B wetlands _ primarily in nutrient uptake. Removal of nutrients. Ground water infiltration and things like this. I haven't seen a lot of information addressing whether when you redo this wetland and the primary design as I see so far is to make sure that the water outflow out of this wetland is the same as what it is presently or I believe it sould be less than what it is presently. I don't know what happens to the infiltration that's going on now and if you now create a pond instead of a Class B wetland, do we decrease the — amount of phosphate uptake? We're going into a very phosphate sensitive system. Now we're going to have more gallons of water per pound of vegetation. Right now we have a lot of vegetation for what little water goes into this Class B wetland. A lot of grass and a little water. Now we're going to have a lot of water and a little grass. We're going into a system that the Osgood Report. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a specific thing that you would like to see done with that particular wetland that you can point to with some conviction and z say they should do this or that? — i Councilman Johnson: I'm foreseeing a problem and I'm not the engineer to create the problem. I don't think we as a Council should be doing engineering and not create the problem but fix the problem. Mayor Hamilton: Then you must have a problem with the wetlands in general and if Gary is going to review these and work with the developer, that will be — satisfactory for you I presume because they will come back to us anyway. Councilman Johnson: Right so the wetland alteration permit, I want this one — reviewed in more detail on phosphate uptake and the overall wetland issue. Mayor Hamilton: Is that to review these with the developer and have it back on the consent is something. — Gary Warren: We can do that. In fact it's important for Councilman Johnson to recall, I guess the Osgood discussions is that the impacts to Rice Marsh — Lake, the phospherous impacts and such, he's saying even distilled water is an impact because of the excessive amounts of phosphates that already exist in the area there so it's pretty difficult to rely on a Class B wetland such as this to have any benefit as far as phospherous uptake. Plus it would take a research study in itself to probably identify what is happenin in the wetland. I cjuess we certainly will review it and we'll apply our standards that we have in other developments to see that they're not aggravating the situation — anymore. { Mayor Hamilton: We could have Dr. Rockwell go out and look at it. That's why — 41 „r1 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 we have her on the staff as a consultant to review these things and if there a appears to be a problem, to point those out to us. Councilman Johnson: I must disagree with what you just said on your quotation of the Osgood Report because I spent a lot of time this weekend reading it again. Or reading it for the first time I should say and he does say, consideration of the entire basin for eliminating phosphates before it gets to Rice Marsh Lake should be a consideration in this entire watershed district and that just because distilled water will cause harm is no reason to put distilled water plus phospherous down into the system because that will cause more harm. Gary Warren: I'm not saying that we want to add anymore than we have to but likewise he doesn't give us any solutions to how to eliminate the phosphates. Councilman Johnson: I agree. His report is very short on solution and very high on problems. Councilman Boyt: On page 2 of the report on the conservation district, he indicates concern about building sites being evaluated to make sure that there is not going to be flooding. I hadn't thought of this area as a potential flood area but he makes that comment. I know in our building code, or at least I think in our building code we indicate that you can't build a basement unless it's 2 feet above the water. Is that clear there? It has to be 2 feet above the water table. Gary Warren: Above the 100 year high water mark. Councilman Boyt: So really they can't build there anyway? Umr Gary Warren: Right. Councilman Boyt: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit #87-13 for the alteration of Wetlands 14-06 and 14-07 as shown in Attachment #16 subject to the following conditions: 1. A drainage easement shall be provided over the wetland area and all structures shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the wetland boundary. 2. The holding ponds must meet the following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife Service: a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting birds. b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 to 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. 42 m City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 _ c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contours for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with — emergent vegetation. d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (much from an existing _ wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the — basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. 3. Subject to approval of the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. Don Patton: If I could address one other thing and Barbara if you can help me with dates on this. The PUD will be published as of today, is that right? There is a 30 day period for that to be advertised for the EAW which will come — j back November 3rd I think. As I recall, the time to the Council will move out to the 19th which means that grading of the site couldn't start until next year which is going to be awfully hard to get through. The thing I'd like to _ ask the Council to authorize the City Engineer, is if there are no negative comments, if you would authorize a grading permit to be issued as soon as possible with your authority to him based on approvals of the EAW. Mayor Hamilton: I think we've done that previously. Are we in a position to do that now? Gary Warren: We've done it in the past with the contingency that a development contract be executed and a letter of credit as security be on file with the City. Councilman Johnson: I think we can put that on our October 19th agenda to consider that. Kind of call it a preliminary review of the EAW. Mayor Hamilton: What the developer is saying is he'd like to start as soon as possible and if he can meet the City requirements and satisfy the City Engineer and City Manager, he should be able to begin grading. _ Councilman Johnson: That's November 3rd before he clears that period so October 19th is plenty of time. Barbara Dacy: October 19th may be a little premature on some of the EAW comments. 43 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 Councilman Johnson: We're not doing a final EAW approval. Barbara Dacy: Even if the Council wanted to do kind of a preliminary review of the EAW, it's been our experience that a lot of the agencies wait until the last minute to submit their comments. There is a meeting on November 2nd that we could look to the development contract evaluation but to get those other steps in line prior to the grading authorization, we have to wait for that 30 day time. Councilman Geving: Let me ask, how soon, what is the soonest we could allow them to do the grading? When is the first date we can go ahead and tell to go? Barbara Dacy: Technically the City Council has to make a finding of negative declaration meaning that an EIS is not necessary. What Mr. Patton is saying is that the soonest that that would occur is November 16th, the second Council meeting and what he is requesting is the ability for staff to allow the grading permit after the 30 day cycle is -up but prior to your official action. Councilman Horn: I think you've got that. Councilman Geving: I would say we should authorize that. Mayor Hamilton: I don't see any problem with that. Gary Warren: Prejudging the need for the EIS. Mayor Hamilton: Well, :cased on the site I can't see that would be a problem there. Councilman Geving: I think we should just poll the council and let him go ahead. Councilman Horn: Wasn't what Jay was saying is we can do that at our next meeting. Put it on our consent agenda with your recommendation as to how that should be worded and that would still give us time. That's what I heard. Barbara Dacy: Maybe by the November 2nd meeting we'll have a better idea of what the comments will be. CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS. Mayor Hamilton: This is one of those things that we see every year unfortunately. Some of the same ones but you see some new ones on here that kind of raise your eyebrows. People like Jack Barnes and the Richliff's and Jim Congdon so it's a little discouraging that we have to do this. I'm all in favor of shutting their blasted water off and letting them come up here and pay their bill but apparently we can't do that. Some towns do that I know. Why can't we do that. 44 )'i i LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 — • (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: OWNER: PPS') c)z---)-2L)c,)/it E/\/7 — ADDRESS % i�`~ I }`1^�!; ADDRESS ?! % — Zip Code - Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) TELEPHONE - •• '.7 REQUEST: • . Zoning District Change g Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan — Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment ;' Platting Metes and Bounds • Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME • - i PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING• REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED /in SIZE OF PROPERTY �..- LOCATION �-r- _ . - REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST / '' 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) • i ' • r�......- .... . . .�LWT�L• .•+...LIQ Api C TY P.C. DATE: April 19, 1989 G Q C.C. : 89:: 'P:; 1989 LEIAlliAdt . tiikl • c(t):: ) i CASE "' ` ' 88-15 I Site Plan Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT 4 PROPOSAL: A. Planned Unit Development Concept and Development Plan for 140 Individually Owned Townhome Units B. Wetland Alteration Permit for Construction of a F.. Holding Pond and Stormwater Discharge into a Class B z Wetland Q C. Site Plan Review for 140 Individually Owned Townhome O Units MINIM LOCATION: Between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, Approximately 4 Mile North of West 78th Street pp y Cl. APPLICANT: Cenvesco Hedlund Engineering 3650 Annapolis Lane 9201 E. Bloomington Frwy. Plymouth, MN 55441 Bloomington, MN 55420 • PRESENT ZONING: R-12, High Density Residential ACREAGE: 18. 9 acres (gross) 17. 6 acres (net) DENSITY: 7. 7 units/acre (net) — ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; Saddlebrook S- BG; vacant E- R-12; townhomes Q W- R-12; vacant W WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available to site. — E-- PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has steep slopes on the north and (n west side of the property. It contains a — Class B Wetland and has heavily vegetated areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density -'•,- ;' 4i 4,;I:t-veii ), s ___, _, , _ i ..-is • 1,nnw�rNa�1 n J j, � y 1 - .--1 , iriN:3----i 4, ,i , -O t / V q` :..;;;:4_1W ..j. -4 -7rai. , 00:1Cf . . . ..:10.vip•lik f.. � , �i z.�fy - ' .� "•- j.., D --,_,/- \ a , I ' n*S111P ..,,,, • -41 Virk.‘' ea - • \ • 0 1.-11-1-7. ,_ , : '' " n - �. _ ` -_ • c. ` LOTUS „=--- v 191 �� jj,,, ,,,� R .R ®E -1.1. iN. ile, 5 4. t.... '7,4 _ I h. ' ■ 'AIK == :"w�ii is at or lio.ir `UD- s. 0,R:A c-A. Irt,''''''.4„,;), F.: ilk 11 , masa.�� oo CI ,I ! rill..' ��' ti �. i'' _ d a . YA 4W\ 4 A KE •NRSF / t . -_-_-_,--- _----- ., a._.7... .e,_,_.-''VS' kS \ / . 4.10. � fi4.:\ A.-, � 1 ' lea`` -1 EL "2jjj- , ,., .-- /: , -.K_______, i --K. • . , .t„.._. • L...._.- •• ..arr ., .. . _:_,..7-, _ f'CFL. P(� •e._ iZLr7� 1 i _ um _ i TO -I , ,—c • r'l E - 11 ;- 1101 • % 1 61n.n , E um 1 /ARD Ei„... - . .- _._c , �S� ST; :HI_ LW D/ C Zi PLI/DRIVE 1�L� c 7TI n / _______ \\44, , : ' . --- lip -- \ �1 P � ' 1 IGHWAY - �* �� \ _ Vie► .a� Oak View Heights _ April 19 , 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-504 ( c) PUD - for uses other than single family detached structures, conditioned upon the following features being provided: 1 . Preservation of natural site features, wetlands , lowlands, wooded areas , etc. not protected by the State Department of Natural Resources or city ordinances. 2 . Creation of public areas for active park use or other public purposes such as schools , park buildings, etc. , which meet the intent of the Park and Recreation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 3 . Installation of public improvements designed to serve areas beyond the project boundary. 4 . Installation of off street pedestrian ways. 5 . Structure design conducive to solar energy features. 6 . Landscaping plan showing additional boulevard trees, rear yard treatments, buffers from existing developments, etc. beyond the required standards. Section 20-518 allows the applicant to apply for the concept — stage and the development stage of the PUD process simultaneously. Article XV, R-12 Districts requires a townhouse unit to have a Min minimum of 3 , 600 square feet per unit and a minimum street fron- tage of 150 feet per lot (Attachment #1) . REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment #2 Public Safety Attachment #3 Park and Recreation Attachment #4 Watershed District Attachment #5 Carver County Attachment #6 Building Department Attachment #7 Oak View Heights _ April 19, 1989 Page 3 CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SITE PLAN The applicant is proposing to construct 140 individually owned townhome units . The proposed site contains 18 . 93 acres and is — currently zoned R-12. Since the townhomes will be individually owned, each unit will have to have its own lot. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 18 . 93 acres into 140 lots with the remaining site being proposed as Outlot A and B, Lot 1 , Block 13 , Lot 1, Block 14 and public right-of-way. The indivi- dual townhome lots range in size from 1 , 200 square feet to 2 ,000 square feet. Since the proposed lot areas are smaller than the required 3 , 600 square feet per townhouse unit, the applicant must receive PUD designation to allow the smaller lot areas. The applicant is requesting PUD concept and development plan approval simultaneously as permitted in the ordinance. Site Characteristics The site currently contains mature vegetation on the easterly, northerly and northwesterly edge of the property. Also in those — areas are steep slopes exceeding 15% and a Class B wetland located in the northwest portion of the site. Proposed Development The applicant is proposing the individual townhome lots to be — located in 12 blocks that range from 10 to 16 lots. Six of the blocks will be located north of Jenny Lane and six blocks will oe located south of Jenny Lane. Seventy-two of the townhomes will be located north of Jenny Lane and the remaining 68 units will oe — located south of Jenny Lane. Outlot A will contain the common open space around the townhome parcels north of Jenny Lane and Outlot B will contain the common open space around the townhomes — south of Jenny Lane. Lot 1 , Block 13 is provided for a future apartment building and Lot 1 , Block 14 is also provided for future development. Density The total acreage for the site including right-of-way is 18. 9 — acres . The net density removing the right-of-way of Jenny Lane is 17. 6 acres. The net density of the parcel using 17 .6 acres is 7 . 7 units per acre. Seventy-two of the townhome lots are located — within Outlot A. The total acreage of the 72 lots and Outlot A equals 5 . 6 acres. The net density of the 72 units north of Jenny Lane, just using Outlot A as the boundary would be 12 .8 units per acre. The remaining 68 townhome lots which are located south of Jenny Lane and within Outlot B have a total acreage of 5 . 2 with a net density of 13 units per acre. Since Lot 1, Block 13 and Lot 1 , Block 14 are separate parcels which can be developed in the — future , the number that actually reflects the density of the pro- posed townhomes is the 12. 8 and 13 units per acre. Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 4 As the site is currently zoned (R-12) , the density would not be able to exceed 12 units per acre. Since the applicant is pursuing a planned unit development, the city may permit an increase in density in exchange for the applicant exceeding the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Imoervious Surface As with the density calculations, staff calculated the impervious surface by taking the total acreage of the two outlots and the total of the townhome area divided by the total area of the impervious surface within those areas. The total acreage including the outlots and townhome parcels equals 10 . 77 acres. The total acreage of the impervious surface equals 5 . 32 acres for a total of 50% of impervious surface. The R-12 district permits a maximum impervious surface of 35% . In calculating the lot coverage, staff did not include Lot 1, Block 13 and Lot 1, Block 14 , since they will be separate parcels with the potential to be developed in the future. Again, since the applicant is pursuing a planned unit development designation, the amount of lot coverage could be negotiated between the applicant and the city. Setbacks The PUD ordinance does not specify setbacks for either single family or rnultiole family developments . On sheet 5 of the plans the aoolicant has shown the typical setbacks of the R-12 District which is 25 foot front and rear setback and i0 foot side yard setback. All of the proposed buildings are within the required setback. There is one area where the driveway and parking areas are within the 25 ' setback ( northeast corner - Sheet #5) . As part of the PUD approval, the Planning Commission and City Council, can determine whether or not the setbacks being provided by the applicant are adequate. The City has been con- sistent in requiring the typical setbacks to be maintained. Streets , Utilities, Etc. The townhome parcels will be serviced by a 50 foot public street right-of-way (Jenny Lane) . Jenny Lane will connect the site with Powers Boulevard (CR 17) and Kerber Boulevard. Individual blocks and units will then be serviced by private drives from Jenny Lane. The 24 foot private drive servicing the 72 units north of Jenny Lane will also act as a fire lane. The Fire Inspector has reviewed the proposed private drives and has confirmed that they will provide adequate access for fire and emergency situations ( Attachment #3 ) . The applicant will provide a homeowners assoca- - tion document which will provide ingress and egress across the association common area. Oak View Heights _ April 19, 1989 Page 5 The City Engineer will further address streets, utilities, grading and drainage in his memo ( Attachment #2) . Landscaping - Sheet #2 of the plans show the existing conditions and provide the location of the existing trees with the caliper size of each — tree. As can be seen, there are several existing mature oak trees . The oak trees are located such that they are right in the middle of the proposed improvements and the applicant was only able to save two of the oak trees ( see Sheet #6) . Sheet #6 of -' the plans shows the landscaping of the site. The applicant is providing extensive landscaping along Jenny Lane and around the proposed townhomes. The applicant is providing several Red Oak and Maple to replace some of the trees that are being removed as part of the development. Although the proposed landscaping is extensive, staff is recom- mending that additional landscaping be provided to further replace the trees that are being removed and to provide landscaping over and above what would typically be required. - Staff is recommending that the applicant work with the DNR Forester and staff to determine what additional landscaping should be provided and where they should be provided. - The applicant has provided a drainage easement around the wetland which includes a 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland - ( see Sheet #3) . Staff usually picks a contour to follow so it is easier to locate the boundary. The 75 foot setback is approxima- tely where the 960 foot contour is ( see Sheet #4) . As can be seen on Sheet #4 the 960 foot contour would not include a - majority of the vegetation which should also be preserved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the 980 foot contour reflect the conservation easement and that it be further con- ditioned that the complete stand of trees be protected. It should be noted that proposed grading will impact the northeast corner of the vegetated area and that the conservation easement of 980 feet should reflect the finished grade. - Parking The applicant is providing two parking spaces per unit. The interior townhome units will provide a single car garage with one parking space outside and the end units will provide a double car _ garage with two parking spaces outside of the garage ( see Sheet #6) for detail) . The applicant is providing a total of 188 enclosed, 188 overflow ( outside garage) and 14 visitor spaces . (The total number of spaces shown on the plans include future - parking. ) The 376 townhome parking spaces exceeds required parking but staff feels 14 visitor parking spaces may not be enough. One option would be to provide some of the future — oarking at this time. - Oak View Heights _ April 19 , 1989 Page 6 Park and Recreation The applicant is providing a tot lot with park play equipment ( see Sheet #4) . The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the plan and recommended the following: 1. The developer shall be required to install playground equip- - ment similar to that attached as part of the Park and Recreation Memo dated April 13, 1989 and the tot lot be located in an area a safe distance from vehicular traffic. 2 . The 20 foot wide easement be dedicated along Powers Boulevard and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail be constructed within that easement. 3 . An additional 10 feet of right-of-way be dedicated along Jenny Lane and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed - within such. 4. The applicant shall be required to pay 100% of the park dedi- cation fee and shall be given 100% credit on the trail dedi- cation fee. PUD SUMMARY In order for the applicant to receive the PUD designation, they must meet the criteria as stated under Applicable Regulations . The additional amenities required for a PUD can be provided in the form of trails, park facilities, additional landscaping, pre- servation of unique features and open space. As the preliminary plat is proposed, the two large lots, Lot 1, Block 13 and Lot 1, Block 14 will be separate parcels which could be sold and developed individually in the future. Since the lots could be developed in the future, staff is not including that acreage into the total lot coverage and density for the proposed townhome units. As a result of this, the density is over the normally permitted 12 units per acre and the impervious surface is above the permitted 35% lot coverage. To compare what would have been permitted under the ordinance with what is being pro- posed, staff took the total amount of acreage of the outlots and townhome lots, which is 10. 77 acres, and divided that by 3 , 600 feet, which is what is required by the ordinance for each townhome unit. The result is that 130 units would be permitted on the 10 . 77 acres . The applicant is proposing 140 units which results in an increase in impervious surface and density. The PUD process allows the applicant to negotiate with the city to receive over and above what is normally permitted in return for additional amenities to the site. As has been seen with past PUD' s proposed in the city, it is sometimes difficult for the Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 7 applicant to provide additional amenities over what is required by the ordinance. Any wetlands that are on the site are already protected by the city, the ordinance already requires the protec- _ tion of vegetation and if any is removed they must be replaced as part of the landscaping plan. The Park and Recreation Commission requires any trails and park areas that they feel are necessary. The applicant is proposing to develop a tot lot with playground equipment proposed by the Park and Rec Commission. The offering to provide the tot lot equipment could be considered an amenity over and above what would have typically been required since the area is not determined to be park deficient. One of the reasons for a PUD is to preserve unique features of the site. The site _ of the townhomes in Block 8 and 9 contain very large mature oak trees . When staff visited the site with the DNR Forester, it was felt that there would be no way for these trees to be preserved since they were in the middle of the prime buildable area of the site. As can be seen by the site plan, only two of the eleven mature trees can be preserved. Even though the applicant is providing some additional amenities , staff feels that lot coverage must still be maintained. One of the options that the applicant has to reduce the high density and impervious surface would be to remove one of the blocks of townhomes , preferrably in the location of where the oak trees are located, and preserve that area as open space. This would result in the reduction of the number units and lot coverage, provide — additional open space while preserving unique features of the site. Another option would be for the applicant to shift the lot lines and increase the area of Outlots A and B to reduce the amount of lot coverage and density. This could be done in the form of adjusting the lot lines for Lot 1, Blocks 13 and 14 or to remove — Lot 1 , Block 14 completely. If Lot 1 , Block 14 was combined with Outlot B, the density of this area would be reduced to 11. 9 units per acre, but the impervious surface would still be 45%. — A third option would be to combine Lot 1 , Block 14 with Outlot B and to provide deed restrictions against Lot 1, Block 13 which would limit the amount of units and lot coverage that would be — permitted on Lot 1, Block 13 . If the total net acreage of the site is used ( 17. 6 acres) , and the total units proposed are used ( 220 [ 140 townhomes plus 80 apartment units] ) the net density — would still be 12. 5 units per acre. Taking the net acreage of the whole site and including the future 80 unit apartment building, the total lot coverage would be 33%. For the site to maintain the maximum of 35% lot coverage, the remaining area ( incl ding Lot 1, Block 14) would only be permitted to increase the lot coverage by 2%. As a result, less than 16, 000 of addi- tional land could be developed which reinforces the benefit of combining Lot 1, Block 14 with Outlot B. Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION PUD Concept and Development Plan Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights as shown on the plan stamped "Received March 30 , 1989" with the following conditions : 1 .a.The number of townhome lots be reduced within Outlot A and/or B to reduce the percentage of lot coverage and that the reduction in townhome parcels be located so as to preserve the mature trees located in and around Blocks 8 and 9 ; and/or 1.b.The applicant shall adjust the lot lines for Lot 1 , Block 13 and/or Lot 1, Block 14 to provide the townhome units including Outlots A and B with a maximum impervious surface of 35% ; and/or 1 . c The applicant shall provide deed restrictions against Lot 1, Block 13 , Lot 1 , Block 14 to maintain an overall lot coverage of 35% and a density to be determined by the city. 2 . A drainage and conservation easement shall be provided over the 980 foot contour on Lot 1, Block 13 . 3 . The developer shall be required to install playground equip- ment similar to that attached as part of the Park and Recreation Memo dated April 13 , 1989 and the tot lot be located in an area a safe distance from vehicular traffic. 4 . The 20 foot wide easement be dedicated along Powers Boulevard and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail be constructed within that easement. 5. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way be dedicated along Jenny Lane and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed within such. 6 . The applicant shall be required to pay 100% of the park dedi- cation fee and shall be given 100% credit on the trail dedi- cation fee. 7 . The applicant shall work with staff and DNR to provide addi- tional landscaping to replace the trees being removed. 8 . Approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-14 and approval of Site Plan Review #88-15. Oak View Heights Aoril 19, 1989 Page 9 9 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these Public improvements . — 10 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within Jenny Lane right-of-way and fire lane easement areas to the City for — permenant ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. 11. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all — public facilities . 12. The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to be — done to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber Boulevard. 13 . All buildings, parking and driveway areas shall meet the R-12 setbacks . 14. All conditions of site plan approval . — RECOMMENDATION Site Plan Review "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review _ #15 as shoran on the plan stamped "Received March 30, 1989" and subject to the following conditions : 1 . The applicant must receive a Watershed District oermit and a — permit shall be required from Carver County for access onto County Road 17. 2 . The apartment building proposal shall require a separate site plan approval. 3. Detailed construction plans and specifications including — ciculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. 4 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12" watermain — under County Road 17. 5. The parking needs and peak demands site shall be reviewed and supplemental parking area( s) provided. — 6 . The 24 foot private roadway through the north portion of the site shall be designated as a fire lane and post for No — Parking accordingly. Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 10 7 . Type III erosion control shall be wrapped and maintained around the entire site. Erosion control blankets shall be utilized on all disturbed slopes of 3 : 1 or greater. 8 . All conditions of preliminary plat approval. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT As part of the site plan review and the development of the site, the aoplicant must provide for the stormwater runoff from the site. Initially, it was proposed to have the stormwater directed through a disapation chamber and then into the Class B wetland in the northwest section of the property. Staff preferred to have a ponding area provided to allow for the sedimentation of the stormwater prior to it entering the Class B wetland. This option was preferred over the chamber in that it would better preserve the quality of the wetland. Therefore, the applicant must receive a wetland alteration permit to' provide for the holding pond at the southerly edge of the Class B wetland. Staff has visited the site twice with the Fish and Wildlife Service and it has been determined that the Class B wetland would not be detrimentally impacted by the holding pond and by directing the stormwater into the Class B wetland. The proposed holding pond would prevent erosion of the wetland and would allow the sediment of silt, etc. prior to it entering the wetland. The Engineering Department and the Watershed District has confirmed that the size of the holding pond is adequate to contain all of the runoff prior to it entering the wetland. The proposed holding pond will be altering the most southerly tio of the Class B wetland and the remaining portion of the wetland will remain in its natural state. Since the holding pond is not totally within the Class B wetland and needs to be designed to a certain contour to enable it to contain the stormwater prior to it entering the wetland, staff is not recommending that the holding pond be designed to the six Fish and Wildlife recommen- dations. Staff is recommending that the vegetation around the holding pond be returned to its natural state and not be sod or seeded with grass. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 as shown Sheet 4 of the Planning Packet dated "March 30 , 1989" with the following conditions: 1. Vegetation around ponding site and disturbed areas be returned to its natural state. 2 . The wetland area beyond the proposed pond shall be protected by Type III erosion control. Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 11 3 . Approval of PUD concept and development plan #89-1 . 4 . Approval of Site Plan #88-14 . _ ATTACHMENTS 1 . Zoning Requirements. 2 . Memo from City Engineer dated April 12, 1989. 3 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated April 13 , 1989. 4 . Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated April 13 , 1989 . — 5 . Letter from Watershed District dated April 12, 1989. 6 . Letter from Carver County dated March 20, 1989. 7 . Memo from Building Department dated April 13 , 1989. — 8 . Letter from DNR dated March 28, 1989. 9 . Letter from Hedlund Engineering dated March 28, 1989. 10 . Letter to Hedlund Engineering dated March 20, 1989. 11. Plan Reductions. CITY OF \ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer DATE: April 12, 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for Oak View Heights File No. 89-1 Land Use Review The site is located on the west side of County Road 17 approximately one-half mile north of Trunk Highway 5. This 18 . 9 acre site is comprised of a rolling topography with mature vegetation scattered throughout the site. This parcel was platted as part of the West Village Heights plat which was approved by the City Council on April 20 , 1988 . Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site on the east and west. These existing sewer mains were sized and installed to service the anticipated development for the subject parcel. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided on the plat over all public utilities. A common sewer and water utility corridor is proposed for each building plex. Watermain The plans propose a looped watermain system to be constructed from the existing 12-inch main along County Road 17 to the existing 8-inch watermain that has been provided at the easterly property line by the West Village Heights Townhomes development. The watermain will need to be jacked under County Road 17 and a wet tap connection made to the City' s 12" main. A county permit will need to be obtained by the applicant. The City shall provide public service for sanitary sewer and watermain within the right-of-way of Jenny Lane and the fire lane easement respectively. The sanitary sewer and water service to the buildings are in a common utility corridor ( see typical building detail) which will be maintained privately by the developer. The applicant will need to verify and document sizing for the watermain with submittal of the plan and specification. Planning Commission _ April 12, 1989 Page 2 Public Street The applicant has provided a 50-foot right-of-way for Jenny Lane. This right-of-way extends from County Road 17 to the easterly portion of the plat. The access onto County Road 17 will require an access permit from Carver County. — Jenny Lane shall oe built and dedicated as a City street. The street section will be constructed through the public platted right-of-way with a 36-foot width to meet the anticipated demand — for this type of development. Private Street — The plan calls for a 24 foot wide private roadway looped through the north portion of the site. This would be dedicated as a fire lane and posted for "no parking" . In addition, internal access to the individual plexes is proposed via a 18-20 foot private drive with parking proposed for individual units with 2 to 4 Parking spaces available per unit depending on the unit' s loca- tion ( see typical parking detail) . It is inevitable that special functions such as parties, etc. , will present parking conflicts with other units in the area and overflow will no doubt result in parking on Jenny Lane. In this regard it would appear that the 13-20 foot private drive width is inadequate unless supplemental parking facilities are provided on both north and south sides of the site . The 24-foot service roadway north of Jenny Lane shall be main- tained as a private roadway but considered as a fire lane and no parking restrictions posted accordingly. It was the understanding of the City Council that when the future — alignment of Jenny Lane was established that the West Village Townhouse segment of this road would be brought up to full city standards . As such, city staff will be recommending that a feasibility study be initiated to extend Jenny Lane from Oak View Heights through the West Village Heights townhouses site to Kerber Boulevard. The anticipated demand by construction of Jenny Lane necessitates that this roadway be extended to Kerber -- Boulevard. Grading and Drainage — It appears that a majority of the site will experience shaping and/or grading to create the building pads. It should be noted that a majority of the oaks ( 18" to 36" ) will be removed by the site development. These are shown on Sheet 4 of the plans with an "x" for removal. The applicant is providing a sediment ponding site to be constructed on the northwest corner of the parcel just off Jenny Planning Commission April 12 , 1989 Page 3 Lane to maintain the predevelooed runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a 100-year storm event. A storm sewer net- - work is proposed to drain the site runoff to the storage pond area. Details will be required with plan and specification sub- mittal . ub- mittal . Erosion Control The plans shod gaps in the erosion control network. The entire site shall be wrapped with erosion control fencing in accordance with the city' s Type III standard ( see detail) . All side slopes greater than 3 : 1 shall be stabilized using erosion control blankets . Vegetative cover shall be established in accordance with the conditions of the Watershed District permit. Recommended Conditions 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements . 2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 3 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access Watermain Crossing Permits issued by the office of the Carver County Engineer. 4 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within Jenny Lane right-of-way and fire lane easement areas to the City for oermenant ownership. The remaining building utilities will Una be privately owned and maintained. 5 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including ,_ ciculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. 6 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities. 7. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12" watermain under County Road 17. 8 . The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to be done to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber Boulevard. 9 . The parking needs and peak demands site shall be reviewed and supplemental parking area( s) provided. Planning Commission _ April 19 , 1989 Page 4 1U. The 24 foot private roadway through the north portion of the site shall be designated as a fire lane and post for No Parking accordingly. — 11. Type III erosion control shall be wrapoed and maintained around the entire site. Erosion control blankets shall be _ utilized on all disturbed slopes of 3 : 1 or greater. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Typical building detail 2 . Typical parking detail 3 . Type III erosion control detail. — PROPOSED U T I L I T IES ,i TYPICAL BUILDING DETAIL b. ONO d . MI • CRUSHED ROCK BASE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT — 11S.MINs:1; .*1-\ _ d 1 19' is-20 i6' I ' [Ti, 2O' W W l — , MIN. 1.- N �� I d u 0 1LRAO. v i0 TYP. 6 4' FIRE LANE IJL3 . 16' --"\ _ le 24RIRELAME. • SEWER CLEANOUT -VISITOR 23'MIN, TYPICAL PARKING — R.O.`N• • - = TYPICAL PARKING DETAIL nr- 11Vv._c CAR .:.1.5.RAC2E uN Ir CED L alli ' . PARKING PROVIDED( For 140 TCwnnCUSe Units — AI Enclosed = i88 } 1 1 Overflow ow ( ( ) l ( i 1 Visitor = 1854 — TOTAL PARKING SPACES _ 1 `A.4 .Eti� u \ — — • ' ' •^ • ... . -.ET POSTS FIRMLY (POST SwALL BE OAK OR STEEL I — ANO mOuNT ..0c, AVE To posts. I .cce..!wr Tim. Tec-IN ,,c11400 mIRAF1 100X.FASTEN T.7NOG FIN:GS. 1:1.7--, ' AILS OR STAPLES. .-- - /M r.-•---"..---.,• ' f',..': 7-.• = i,,•_,:-_ -', : f.:•:--,•:. - 17 . _ -- $ '.:•.:--:- .--,..,._ . ;---;.-,-,=.--,-'.7 • -^-,-_,_.., _ _—;:•--...•-•' _1 .0 ,.///;;: --'4<'__ _•..-.-....•••1; •/.fi. -.4,-,----__- _,-........... //'•• -.,_ /Ad/ r . , ,— // -...-7..../ ..— 11. ./4.1./ --.' • I .ff/;/. *;;"V DEPTH q• A.OIG T RE NCH 4V if S.LAY IN FABRIC a eAcKriLL —J < ... CC Lll EROSION CONTROL .• .r. < ... . i FENCE-TYPE I . ; w J V a co STEEL PENCE PHYSTS SHALL I BE USES To < CI SAPORT SNOW rEn4cE ,S ,,,,,-----irm .... I • LU . I ,;:i . 1._____. •-- . .... .. . ...-:'---„,. _... , . .... 0 .m. ro,MO stwAw PALES PE-BARS DRIVEN THROLCod EACH BALE 11/2'-2'INTO GPOuNCI BALES TO 9E RECESSES Z < = T NO I-• - 2 1 EROSION ICONTRO _ I _ c IiIELO .......w GRACE AND WIRED TO SNOW PENCE FENCE-TYPE 2 STEEL FENCE POSTS :;;AL L4E.SNOW FE FTED LU CCI 0 I-- LLI nornrinr,911rInr711117n, CC cC.... CO LLI —.1 I SILT FENCE z LkillagnEWOMI igil"19.111001 .. < CO ...- I < 1 ...... L. flaiEs 0 Z I TWO RE•EURS DRIVEN THROUGH EACH RALE 11,2.-2'INTO GROUND BALES TO EIE RECESSED S'BELOW GRADE AND WIRED TO SNOW FENce __________LEROSION CONTRO _. I FENCE-TYPE 3 ________ _.. _—. I, C I TY 0 F , I ZI:.. -;" CE.11111.1ASS„If 411 SILT FENCE : _. SCALE 1 — q DATE I PLATE NO. 52 1 2 CITY 0 -" - _ ` L cnANBAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE : April 13 , 1939 SUBJ: Case #88-24 SUB, #88-15 Site Plan, #dd-14 NAP, Oakview — Comments and recommendations regarding Oak Park Heights : 1 . Fire hydrant spacing was reviewed and is acceptable. 2 . Road width as shown on site plan is acceptable. 3 . "No Parking Fire Lane" signs .gill be installed by developer on the north access road per Fire Chief recommendation. 4 . Additional information and input will ae needed for a building numbering system, and a private drive name for the north service road. _ CHYOF cHANHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 A, (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner FROM: Lori Sietsema , Park and Recreation Coordinator. DATE: April 13 , 1989 SUBJ: Oak View Heights Townhomes The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for Oak View Heights at their last meeting. This site is not a park defi- cient area, however, due to the high intensity, the Commission felt that playground equipment should be required ( please see attached) . The Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for an off-street trail along Powers boulevard and a sidewalk along Jenny Lane. The Park and Recreation Commission unanimously recommended that the developer be required to install playground equipment similar to the attached in an area a safe distance from vehicular traffic. It is also recommended that a 20 foot wide easement be dedicated along Powers Boulevard and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail be constructed within that easement and; an additional 10 feet of right-of-way be granted along Jenny Lane and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed within such. The Commission has recommended that the developer be required to pay 100% of the Dark dedication fee and be given 100% credit on the trail dedication fee. • • I r� , • R • .• 11� 11' 4 ,----,.::._:.-• •,g 1 '*-4 :44 • . . 7 • �4' ' ' ? iiil. ] k,.... ` t.. _ �. `-moi`, u ._�1. l�a :0 I ^' '�` VI '\ ►///�rr�.�� 7'' IIIP•t ..•ice 1 i i\-- ..?...../ —.: r,..•.---. -..r.,:..• i ' '1/4.NNI- i 7 - i - _ tom: �`� ��~•f�M.�2 tar's" a . •••f ( }�� .. _ _ ;.-- -Tim.:,...,...:-....,,rii'�,yy f i9• � ,� • �, �.�� S ... I• -- moi .;'. �iQ'e' -,#{'y.`v�• �r � +,' -•-'c _ s:. �'--.r _ : ,i4, . � 4��4'�l .1- - ': y� 't;=�`^ .. z _ w.d"r.-i•-,:sk - A 'li to \ \ ` jitut �,��J 'y' wow / I ,. ,. • •' r k ra"t t • �'� ••••-,---, ice' 1 i1 ...,-;--pi-..sAvt,s- _ .t.,... -.•;w'.--..,:-.•,-:,/ ' �r.��_: Y 9' '�' 1p_ ' •-•4,7,'::::, a • 'r. .ate 4. ` •- a s ..,*.. y ?� a S a. -" , • .eA i,. - C��L .xL"'<w ly �'v�°' 1 I ...„ ....- h" 4.„.._ �- b .•._.:,. . v .,tel _ • tiG47'.;.-4'.. Jt -t1+''`x -'7!".'"•4•;' ', . •�-^ . •t s"y� F dE� `4.6 y � w .•... -.�t.. z i _ + a,,, X4r -* 3g� y t•-•'••• •••••"••`i --;3' 1 •• • . • 4 4l.Faf?ar -rs ` ra + L2 .. .- � .'^ -f ,` ` - ., r _r ± ` -..6•=._7;.-7 '„r< rte '^ ..* !a 'Yp r�-� • ..-.. - . -4' -.mow - - •`4i<_ l .r4_ ..-::'-'7•`.- ', - ..,• _ '...-71.;;,•:i-7 ., -. •`1..• 'Sr:- ...•:+ --. y :*te 1•- ` 1 / ri- � _ '_'42'4 -„.•Z''.!7:,..r--.7- *- --. •••41 -'''', • i 0: ' - i �� .".....14*- YTfw J� ,�:'� + ! 'w: !'1_.• I w. _ x.- ,747.41,1....-:,-.-4.1:,&,.:-.......,:......;d1rh'Ilryypmicon.rzeve ....o...1 ls.••• ,.4. %s LI ,,... WO.MI L ••„,„,„,,,,t , , • 'Cn —�.. • OF- _ _....,•:•/-:?,:r7.. ..1.-=.--, -4.:,:,--• , - .. . .\,. -- a ..4 _ • lY 1., .-_ , , --.....,.. - , , ; ., . ,..„,......„.... . .. ,_, ...;.. ...... ',.. 4fMh7.0:e.‘"„tritcc'i:''.45.:r..4.-'SC-. . 4..#1,44../..„.... ,...a.. e .'T'. : 4 . ' '� IY.: .v j .:awy , .'1 ..,1, i1/ .�f.� nl....r •/ 4 _ �.: 60.III. Phase I • .•c _ - . . _ • The four mainstructures create hubs of activity and are con 5' >4 nected to provide a challenging circulation pattern. This large _= --7 structure can be easily purchased in phases as shown. When hen ;41 complete, it includes almost all play events. TuffTurf resilient \;\- surfacing not included. 4 --..... Actual size:42'x 46'(1280 cm. x 1402 cm.) X...av Minimum area required:52'x 56'(1585 cm. x 1707 cm.) - i ( _ • Play events:24 t. — :-..--11111, Decks: 17/Highest at 70"(178 cm.) ,�.� `' Number of kids:50-60 ,9 ,.1 ,.. : I 3� Plan also available in Playbooster and Redwood. _ ° :: r •� .. Phase II 4-� Phase I c U IOW ._ ��- , CI•.,ly Mr o•uN.AI /•� -\\\ _ • , - Z A-—: 91•1•••••Sao*.USN • Saida• y l', T • i at14 yV •4_ ..•4 Uld.r� %,\�-�\ ITM Tee O.wH Too 7..• -. - -•a,�_ ..,.... • / POW NMN • „,-,....•... .•._.,, ,_-?z„. • t.Vertigo,War V. - .. 4 0 s��`ye � -.s 8 -.£i• _ Dolt 5•ly •/` \ % ' .a.AN prM .1.11010 a,-s- � Y:.."..-.4!;.,v + ^y 4e. N. 1 •, -. fesi"Ilk M•MM ,•I L..••. 171 Weed mil mo Whoa ilt. 'L�- .l. .i ---,ci ';ii+. s '''' .c �. rs IN w..1 WW1 c•N•wMt ��'. v' .-.;.1"-, ;t-•`-'*'---'--,- j.;. `s'F t• _. .'41.4t ' wN•.•IN Ladder •.4 IS\ 1 ; ;•.•W! S L \ray Y a`' AL1 Woad WY vain Wheel • . Beim.Mir\ C. iiiiits... Clumele PM,SW A"- . 'i ce. {h 'L%r tc .- •d� • \ SOU ay. +^tea y `. `• a'�.'14.,� �€ ':ice, +-. ". ,,..;:4�„'4_�•-`,'''.' \ . .3+:` 11: c"r1a.�!'1-'c'.-•. `' • \ i .\14. ..-'....Aktv.i:fik.• - - -- • lalitli . ,.,.. ". • : t... ..,.... ...... .4.si._ . ..ec ... 1 ___ �,. j+_ .. : '' is * ,,.-• 4.-...‘,` :'t_ ,•— .-`17 x-.�= LI - t "�T:, -1".. �` 1 ` r'; �� Flay egwpmentmust Gtimsfalledover alall-absl>R�req _ y r 1 clone.Hen,optional Tu u used in lrealy war ands only. .-._ _ - .: •S`;tri':.."�-. .. -'-`r'� ..`•�•.._ - - . landscape Structures 33 .a-../r / u-wrf Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District NA Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 7803 Glenroy Road �. . `:._., Minneapolis. MN 55435 830-0555 • � � cc Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich&Kaufman 1+ 3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower Minneapolis, MN 55402 — 333-4800 April 12, 1989 — Mrs. Joanne Olson City Planner City of Chanhassen _ 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mrs. Olson: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley - Purgatory - Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary information as submitted to the District for the Oak View Heights development — in Chanhassen. The following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for this project: 1. In accordance with Section E (2) of the District's revised Rules and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit will be required from the District for this project. Accompanying the permit application, a grading — plan showing both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for review. 2. A detailed erosion control plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. — 3. A storm water management plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval.The management plan must be in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Stormwater Management Plan for the City of — Chanhassen. Sufficient pipe and overland flow capacity must be provided enabling storm water runoff from the site to reach and discharge into the proposed permanent detention basin located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Powers Boulevard and West 78th Street. APR 1 `.j 1989 aii cF CHANvhh v L LMrs. Joanne Olsen April 12, 1989 2 L. Thank - you for the opportunity of reviewing this project at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments , please call us at 830 - 0555. Sincerely 111) ) C( 'Z Ro•ert . 0bermeyer Barr Engineering Compa y ngineer's for the District c: Mr. Ray Haik Mr. Fritz Rahr Wm Wm wm Um Wm Wm C'pfii CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH STREET a PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1 CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 348-3435 rl4'NESO� COUNTY OF CI V r:Q March 20 , 1989 Ms. JoAnn Olsen Assistant City Planner _ City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive , P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Planning Case 88-24 SUB Oakview Dear Ms . Olsen: We have reviewed the above mentioned site plan and submit the fol- _ lowing comments: A permit will be required from the Carver County Engineer' s Office for the construction of the proposed Jenny Lane onto County State Aid Highway No. 17 ( Powers Blvd. ) . At that time we will need to see the construction plans showing the grades and cross sections of the proposed entrance . From the information submitted it is difficult to tell how this roadway will tie into the gradeline on the proposed reconstructed CSAH 17 . This will need to be clarified before issuing the permit. _ Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments. If you have any questions concerning these comments, contact me at your con- venience. Sincerely, William J. Weckman, P.E. Assistant County Engineer WJW/c j r "1IR CITY OF CHA22NHAS1939SEn i Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF 0 :IA111: Assn 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector DATE: April 13 , 1989 SJBJ: Oakview Heights After discussing the pr000sed foundation design with the contrac- tor, the Inspections Department has re-evaluated its position. The contractor stated the engineered design of the building will include a pair of interior footings spaced 48" apart. Building utilities will run between these footings and utilities should rest on undisturbed or approved soils . Utilities should oe at least the thickness of the footings above the footing. The contractor further stated the design calls for exposed soil bet- ween the foundation walls of the pair of parallel footings . Assuming the submitted design includes the details stated ov the contractor, the Inspections Department will classify each townhouse as an R-3 occupancy. As such, 3prinklering will not be required. All provisions of the UBC regarding construction on property lines are applicable. STATE OF -IMMESOYA Cepit4.7 z MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OR NATURAL RESOURCES 199° - METRO REGION DIVISION OF WATERS PHONENO. 286_75231200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO. March 28, 1989 Ms. JoAnn Olson, Assistant City Planner — City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: PLANNING CASE 89-2 (COUNTRY SUITES) AND 88-24 SUB (OAKVIEW) Dear Ms. Olson: I've reviewed the subject materials for development proposals in the City of Chanhassen. Neither project site includes any state-protected waters. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any floodplain or shoreland issues to be addressed. No permit approval from the Division of Waters is required for these projects. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact me at 296-7523. Sincerely, D) CC,k- Patrick Lynch Hydrologist PL284:kap MAR 2 9 1989 CIT.Y.OF CHANHA55tA AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER REztliswg, Planning Engineering Surveying March 28 , 1989 JoAnn Olsen 690 Coulter Dr. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Re: Oak View Heights - P.U.D. Concept and Preliminary Plat Submittal . Dear Ms. Olsen, This letter is to address the staff comments listed in your letter dated March 20 , 1989 . Each item was reviewed and our responses are outlined as follows: Items 1-4, 6 & 14: Easement Issues The utility and drainage easements have been adjusted on the preliminary plat as was recommended. Ingress and egress shall be provided across the Association Common Area and is described in the townhouse Homeowner's Association Documentation. Items 5 , 13 & 15 : Storm Sewer Issues The stormwater detention basin, structures and calculations have been formally addressed in an attachment to this letter. The storm sewers will be designed to a 10 year storm. The details of the storm sewer and sizing will be provided with the final construction plans. The preliminary top and invert elevations as well as sizes are shown on the grading and drainage plan. Items 7 & 8: Fire Access Issues The site data and typical roadway detail provide 20' wide private drives to better accommodate fire fighting equipment. A 24' fire lane is proposed to provide looped access to the northern portion of the site. This dimension was discussed with the City Fire Marshall in a telephone conversation. MGR ? 8 1989 9201 East Bloomington Freeway. Bloomington, Minnesota 55420. Telephone (612) 888-0289+��ur �'".aNtrA5SEt An additional hydrant was added to the plans. The minimum distance between hydrants remains at 300 lineal feet, as discussed in earlier meetings with City staff. _ Item 9: Vegetation Issues Tree locations and sizes have been verified and shown on the Existing Conditions Map (Sht. 2) . Trees to be removed are labeled on the Grading Plan (Sht. 4) . Tree replacement is shown _ on the enclosed Landscape Plan (Sht.6) . Items 10 : Parking Spaces The designated parking spaces layout for residents and visitors are delineated in detail on the Landscape Plan (Sht.6) and also tabulated on the Cover Sheet (Sht. l) . Item 11 : Signage Presently, the builder does not plan to install identification signage on the site. The Homeowner's Association may want to install signs in the future. Fire lane signage requirements were also discussed with the Fire Marshall . A final plan shall be established after the scheduled meeting with staff . Item 12: Trash Disposal There will not be a centralized area designated for trash disposal . Each unit will contain trash containers similar to single family developments. Trash pick-up requirements for hauling trash to the curb is outlined in the Homeowner's Association Documents. Items 16 & 18: Drainage The drainage directions and spot elevations are highlighted on the proposed Grading, Erosion Control and Drainage Plan (Sht.4 ) . The drainage area delineation is shown on the enclosed map submitted with the hydrologic analysis. Item 17: Street Grades The street grade has been revised to meet the 7% requirement. In providing this 7% grade, a severe cut will be required, as shown on the grading plan. It is our preference to maintain the originally proposed 8% grade to lessen the impact on the existing topography. Your timely responses to our inquiries is appreciated. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincere ry • rjer\cX Mary/J. My - 'ley, Planner Hedl • - •lanning Engineerin rveying cc. Dean Johnson, Cenvesco MJM/kas Ci 1Y OF Iht 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 March 20 , 1989 _ Ms . Mary McCawley r Hedlund Engineering , 9201 East Bloomington Freeway Bloomington , MN 55420 _ Re: Oakview Heights Dear Mary: Staff has preliminary reviewed the submittal for Oakview Heights and has found that the following items need to be provided prior to the application proceeding to the Planning Commission. 1 . Access easements to the townhomes must be provided on the _ plat. 2 . Outlots A, B and C have to be changed to Lots 1, 2 and 3. Our ordinance does not allow development of outlots . 3 . All easements must be shown on the plat. 4 . A drainage and conservation easement must be shown around the .wetland area. The conservation easement is typically 75 feet from the edge of the wetland or drainage easement. _ 5 . Staff had originally recommended that a retention basin be provided to hold the storm water prior to it entering into the wetland rather than just the sedimentation chamber. Why was this not pursued? 6 . Easements from the center of the buildings must be provided out to the utilities in the street. 7 . Staff feels that the buildings are located too close together _ and that the 18 foot width for the driveway is not adequate for fire and safety reasons. We are recommending that a dedicated fire lane be considered to satisfy this concern since other alternatives would necessitate extensive no parking restrictions and/or wider driveways. 8 . Additional hydrants will most likely be required by the Fire _ Inspector (approximately every 200 feet) , — _ i� w ^ On Maa_ Z ,- . sszax:.'i s z .2, Z .m It CC N. JZ ��? 3 Q u a o a¢ fl:m ei o Z Id {• .. U o:_ m Z W a1... •• . �. d - 8"E'EES p V1 � -- p Z W -, b _ J r.411 _' Z. ¢ > ice'_° ¢ J? .- .J o n Z oil a` 027 -iai :- G1� W : - ...... ! Q W ra Q W Z ooa ii I3 `. J al gilds:.- - a U ;gal. Q. S W aou e-• re SOS 14442.004 1 .•.w _ -f r w ra __ r i• �p -I • w at _ Q •`..."`°110:,% �9 :::.:::‘. � 7 islit' . ,�� u.Nm•s`� 1 `\ ilill G •rte ilhi 1 IN, ' Ifil • U 2 p 1001._ - • , s Ad vit..,'t n,* SCO ) -c. 7fa mpook. • . .. ,„.. � ��` Dy• 44♦ s _ �e a w o a *ilk., [per' '�`-,s,. �\ - s _ .,. LA ,4111g.:. • a - ' 0 • . Z •� w 9 11115 I• -J w •a -.ri ' a iVp, _ ++ +. Iii: 'II, I7 .i •t 1 ..r'`. r, --• - aS _' 02 l: C • 2 1‘.., illif.• t TO .. 2 '3 I + ti 4 9+ ;0* i '• l_II.w 11.Y.r Irl 111/111 a 0 i _i11111111111; O 4w . •T.+ i Y i r6.lnrM , 4 s a \ \\ ,%�~��¢ «I; Ja•s11111011111! 2, " •• \ • �. \ rrr \ It ri �4'v k.r 1 • rrw s 3 '1 \ „., :: �e W' t. . �_ ' r� a Y= .._Yfgr1 ,`, .. h`'� 1: •- WO 41._ '' _a sYi d !III p P 1 '•a 1s.3 3j`,,,,, zi - K LU 1.4.1.LE.&• — a ( OAle Sb3MOd) Li ON AMH QtV 11VIS AINOOJ 4 Lo w Z _- Z � - 9 c az 4 L) d;. m O W m>:9 JQ i o N o zw o_ _ cr w `�— W Fz .i° - 41 :°. Wz W W Z . `_ F GU nnu a SW 012113. - ..• II `2 4 . • Z.: NUP • -•mmn On n0 NON enn• NNN••-• - • w y ` 00000 V •••NN YIN NNNNNNN N .O......N.NODitin �NnN NO nnPOn '4' .. - n_ CV d.i T a, Od Olf�p • r-- 0 P PQ.i2 7HO W S CO CO - w A o X zo < a N 101 W 6 6 n ia 6Q , ..0.. Zu ZOm n S SLa (-- mm a...... ��ua. La Am. _ Cl) sQ « Z ; « 0 < RW ja OnOn00 O i N n •• 0 m O - - s .1 Le2 0...4 ': :i.QZewa-JO i a'<..mmn.m a o o a a n MC W • } -..'......11111111c1/-4. = f' �• '' - ex • �C \_ !�'i \..,,,,,0 A\IIIIPIIIIIIIH:jr_,\t . T 1LL r ,,,,a 0. \\ _1_,Zdik II iI' 197; ticlgO � d . (" I, aoo , i. I,iy z a c_�e-3":6 . Mil oH o00 1 ,a ♦ ♦ ( N / k. 91. 4 \ • ''"- nil\\ _a �) :, I-1 i.'I I.1 �1 -nJ i� .+•. N I-i s� i ,l lit 1' I- i------1��,]--l-• - l!' k \\. • - • •0411 M••••1 -•-.•••Oe•14•0•...Y] Li I :i o Z Q 1i:ir : =i i w 5.- .. Q il srII ! • °lVI i• IL Z C,� C7� /� u a Cl. O !q i \ . F5 d :,c." ,.. .- - " • ik fr,._—, • no-eLz,--., ----...` /_ . '°It,s Nit0' ifi:,:7.1a11174ir0\1)s..;.t,ler1.\iIliltk--'•1.N.1..%q,..\.",'"V.1".,iillb':fe:f 4a.i',lfi/‘Pil LSi1.-0t.• 1- \11 lit *.a • S \ \ \\` . -� ice'_ 1 \` 1 1 t.W-. _ \ IA1 1 \ t 1 1 I 1 1 I _ ' � /�i I I 1100\ 446,/ Z l l ; (.7 g ..,-.• . jok , ,,;...e ._„. -- Ilk, 4; I. ....e t: i:., , y 3 .; frialtircesiot . egtar-- . . f C 'off, I, ; --=;J. ____ t ..s\ \ \ 1 1K} pr / g Fitt ll-• I 1,i''ll _ > '• __�':�♦ \ '� I/, , I vJl t,'' �. t�lv1j1II I lillll'1 ''�� • • 11 1•I, III I I 1 1 t r / ,\1 rf I:.r �• Ill.; 9111;11 \ is 'P •• I // WO1 3di Ar� �. 1 I 11111 1' 1 !• ' ._ _ "\ . - 4"616« if& . )yl \ , �� •i hi 1„,,,1 l + 79��'��(vy 1 , lilt! • 1 I �c` � •f' t♦ 1 11 1 I • _ik0tlr.• n !! f •� (-. ' � tii,,,c....--/ �Sl.• 111 �°J I � 1 1 �`,- i1 \ ♦; ` , 1 k '-'"-i` jl v.,...wito It: , ,_I ' 'IIII 'II \,•.I.•\\ \ , 1.1 \ \ 1 \ ' / 1Ili \If,1r I IIII \\\•:\.•: ♦\\\ „1l„ \ 4.'''. - %\1411t.7'...4/1 A, I 1111'41S\ 1� \ \ IWT \v\\\\ `\� ' ` �,' 7x1v 1, 1111\-�\ \\`111\\`\ \, \.` , ��' .� ' ': "'111 Ih 1l -- \\♦ \`l l �\\';;\\ -Z.c -t'4• ,� �'' ' Ill I��, \\`\\\\ '•\ \\;\�`- ---'-\\`7'•.4:-":•\-.•1:: •:- I::r ,r lX` 1 1. Il ill 111 it 1 \0\ \\\ \ ` ____ >`` • II 11 1111 ) \\\\ \ -•�: \7• ,,11 `, ;/ 1.1.111" i \ \\ \ �- zz�` „`zI, r.1\` 1 II 41 '1 (\\\ \ \ �_��- ti`"��:;,;`\v I „i!, I�r Ili IIII( \ \ `:\` `�. . \ 1` "1111 ,1 \\ � :-` \\\ \\\` .. /1' IIw1 ..... \\....................:.,-1.1,!1.. .",... ... -•-.........:zat....sli \‘‘‘,,,, ,4:1, Iiii, :1)1\1 .....T...... --"'-". ^.• I I 1 1 I k\...... \I N \k,‘ 1., • ,..,, . ..... ,•,... \ .00, I — 5.---1 liA1H 5tf3MOdI Ll .N .`M11 UIV 31VL. AINf1O:) 3 . . T I I 0 Z ' „ Vf Y W .p W -7 f �t F,. cIII Z oNm i 4.1 ,.., ogigli 4 I4 6 s�: tl :: O n:n Cr _I :iI Pil - ><cij *i_::'i: �7 \' — ct a • i. ' 1 1j-- --� - _- 1 Udall . 1111111111171* • •• ' La OSI_ K • n4 • \ N• — 2 '-.‘ :-t, t t7k t 41 got• to g 1 .. -z; 41 • Li) iss. '',.,,,Is. It.:-/,';---r-- --4 At4k % U di. . ,. ii ,1 i 4401 . -y \r1 OIL /._ .0 . (.7 1.sItt \ $11.6to,A,• . 1 tr_____,_,,, .. ,, , .;.€____ ,:j , . ..... LW 1 ,‘ 01. \ ''' , % " ITO k -, 7 - _"&•.- f.'-.'-' i, _lb... iii, ---,,----\ jet io u.1 111 _ . . - _� .., %dig ' I -vire .... . ____00. 0.1 . f _____ 11 1:1'. _ i it 1,, _ ,I1p t ' ' r h-------6, ,::,, 1 ,; . . ' 0 . t. 1 o ; ,11 .1 1 1 1.� i l �0 1 q ,.1 ,,e 1 I' --Ij111f I j1i 1 11.4 1110 $01if - .1:111.1.11' `i...1.,., ..." .. ... , + 4\ 1 1111II 1 / \I � '4-. . II .0 I _,irsign. \11i1;li1 l •.\\\ \\�\, t\ r . I.,II'll 11, s se et- _ El t. ...,... •\• ,' \11 �\ QY `\\ x+31 ty+ S�� 7.. , _ :,,,,,,,,,,t,„„„,_,,, -, _ , r • .. . „r, , ,, . , : ......., ..,,, 4 , ‘„,„ ... , . .,.,,.. ,.,, , ,,, .. , , , ,,,,„_____... , ,, . ,,, , , ..:,, , , 6 t.. .:, 1 ..\\11 \ VI 0 1 0 _ -� Y-- _ ..11+'S l l.u.n — y ( 0A 18 Sd3MOd) L{ ON ANN OIY 3 VIS A1NI103 ° .."-T-7.--7---- — 'i ~1 3 L, z r. VI - Z I z¢ I - I ©;v J = I ;o I IIjI t 1 .� Jz 1 �. U o=- a OW d,5 ®i U o :: 3 . W w '=a a jZ �o ... , rs z zQ� Z8 ' 1 ., > .S- -1- `+.,t ,./ N z1F a .` 1 Q. Z oyz Q. OCA y' ? V W +`i "WY - , a W z ¢ WZ foo `; z .J ulp'!8w LJ Q. U masa. 4 SW man -..s .i CA 4.-«;3:6s. .coo - -_ _�-.` LIJ • / I f ,/ /--�\ ; `I 1 '6 / m -`, , , , ; /- I I , \ '.:, , - ' '-- i • .` ' . 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 ,,, I \� `� \ e /1'01 a / / ' 1 ' 1 i \ I c / ,, ,,,,, 1 1i , / , ,/ I , „3 , ,, / / 1 / , , ,// f W , i ,.., 4 I f ,/ , -y,� , / 1 j l I I 11 I // I I I 1.1 1 / '\ I 1 I 1` I f� ,. rA I I I II11'•I111 W ___ �. I ` �\ , 1 1 ! 11i 111, 11,I�1. ----- --__ CC .\\\ �` 1 I 1 �, a +- / / / ,:: I:,l 1111 I; - ---1'- `. .1 ` I .I \ :'-- --ice '1 �'"I,I I,i:1�II11I' 11"�"- I �_ ``�\`,` ,1` ,.`1 1 / r' ;N / /,! 11�@11'iyl;ll II , I I ;' `` 1 ll, 1. 1. 11311 ` \ .i�'\\ , , , / , i— , e_. /r ,-., 111'11 1111 1 I ,`,r - -....1-7-11.4--. -= I , 1 ,� , / , 1 2,.., /�' I/ / / 111:::'1"1111' 1 i i,� 1111 1, •I • , �♦ -. ‘,1,//C),',,,/,',,' '`1 '///,/ / / I / I \Q yl // / , 11,1'II I I 1 I •..i _ _'-- \ ,,,� / / ' , 1 i mti 1 ' / /♦ 111'' '1111 , 1 I 1111 ,�/'"1,// '' ' ' ' a `,\ I . //// III'�1111 II 1 _ _-21------N-;11 11111, 1 1','/ // ,' �5i(/ O 11 v - \1 i i ; , ` ��Ii111111 I II111 d I,,1' / - , 1 1 I I I 1 11 1111 °'J ' -t---- '4•-• I 11 1 1 1 I, 1 11 1 (��/�J{/ `I I 1 I V 11 11 II' - II 1;1 II' 1 l `I \ 1 V/ `` ``-- 1 I I / \ 1111 1111 III _ -�'\\1 1111 Iv'„ o , . \ 1 1 C i' )1 f 1 l /I 1 n1 111 I� (_-.�— \ It ,\\ \.` ♦ ♦ \I \ `1 l /1 1 I 1111 VIII I/' -, .\ t.,.1;IM�\\` . \\ .\\\, l \ I- / __,-1,/ __ / /1 J/, 1 i41` `11 � - / •1✓1111.\ \\ \i. s� \ \ .\ \ - ' / / 1 1j11111 1111 \\`�\• \\ \`\ 11 \ �\ �4�-\ - '// 1 I 1 111111 I1 III :-. .,.\`\\. \�\ 1 \`\ \1\ `�� / / , IIII,I I 11 i a \ \‘,......:;\,,k% \..� \\\\1 , \\l \\`\\\��:.� z_ -- - f , - -'..',// j 1111:11 �II�I 0 . 1\ \\\\\�1\,i��1yp1(11\\ 1V\.��`.\� / "T /' ,, 1 j4,l�ll 1111, _, i \ \`\,� �17F\1�1 \`` �.,,,•,.....:.,-.--.-.-.-,-.--....---.::.:-:::::------'_ 1'� �(/ , 1111,1 IIII i i -\ • \. "'C' `\\\\A,;\ Vs's _` =�� f' /,/,L, ' '!/ - 1 11�1I1l1 11111 0 , \\ \\\1\ I\\\``\\\\ ' -.."7"'' '''' •~=�\ �� j 'I i ' r''-'''IP; IIIA : o ' I z. I C \\ \ . \` \ - �:\'`-S _-_ •I , ' /, IIIg1 11II = a y�\\\ \\`\��' v•.� \``.` ` , r�''4 ` 1111111111 a i y} \`\`\\�\\�\�� `�: `.:````- ,�;:t'' 11111 11,11 o = \ \\\�� _ -,--:.- ...; •,.. . ..yy''�� ` _.„/ ''/ 1111 II III . a^ \' \\� �" :-' ;:a'`;,`1 / / 111111 '111 O Or ` \ -� �v��` s� 1`1 1 11 Ij1 II "- \\v�. y5�� - `�`�\\ \x\\\,111,11 /', '' `• 7,11 IIII fi W \.`3 i _ �� \ \\\ \\ 1, 1 -''•' 11 11 I i `_ \ ` `\,, 1t` r--...-______-___-:1;1":. W \\�` = - "s„.%,%,‘ \711J` , 11 , —___.)-, ____*\ ‘ \V_ _--s:-,;-.: ' S'' %t •1\ /l 0A19 Stl3MOd J ' Li ON 'AMH 01V 31V,S AIN000 --- ,.h M .0 L I L L t.: . — ---- ----—------ -— ----— ., -.!. . -.1' ',1 1 I __ ... z .11;1 ,.1.1 :• ti ,_ — '' A !!„‘1. - . - ; ____•• i ill !1...: ti..i, . - ,a- :I 4. :„... 1r, - . ,-,,; :.4[ y ez . :.:E, ',_ E „ ! „ ,..., ., f..... k . r ......'1 4,. oZ .;.:3; 6°4 i - 4: -, 1 p . . 1 - •.,..; zw .:::: v) , , . r• ...1-41i . k- I - '1 3 :.' =z ...))0 ; 1 1 . '' v e - " -•-( ,•.• 7. .--- '.. , • -.... 8 LD ''.. Z wz < r. - c..) --i.:1- , 4. mu, ;.);).;a• :.:2: !I --.•: —I L. e e • 2 ri l ...1 • , ....-, .1 . :-.1, 4, . ;1 a --..„,„,„4.K.-z______ i i I 1 i • i _ I „• ir--•• •• 0- ,....c), La...O.. 0 p. •: - II \ ' ' -\ ,..:" I...tn.) .. . .i: . ... —, ..... . S -- - Y 6 5 . 4 0 0 • .10 \\ t ,.., e -.g : .... .4 1 ..i I U'a ,i.r,.. . ,,, CI< .. All G N '04- • o a Z __ it• - e .- - \ ;,: e . _ - - \-4 %,.i.. --, ....,c-'61-11 \\ . ',:‘•-••(:'4... ',„..,4_,— L6 ; ... Cr) ç. _ _Lt ..., 4h:\ 4 Cll) 'Y a = - 1 (.; • - - — 1 • .-"Q, • (.• OW air it: • - '.,... 1k "'" . i•-• ::,:a .1 ., t W Stilt 4.[ u ...ens.. ....., = i . I \ .... I ,..1k, r's- 15 ... 14411. 43:1 4 Ii0 • . itilk '1:'i. ig ., i •.., I.2....1 t..1 ..........." ....., . ....01 >,,I , W- °W.' * et• ' I : 1 12- . .1.-.-- ..... '' .. I at Immo ftl".111111% .L„•-1 • :•-,-- ; ._ . . .. . . R, - -""- • - F-... 1,e -i a.- ti me li.t11i ei1 I 1'1(41 j: Z - - =I.:, , -,....„.." . I .._ . I . • -,.. \ ., - . 1 ', e ' '' - • .. ss . ‘ ••\..,- , .,.... .- co, • .., \,% k ., 1,4. \\ - 1. 44 tt I, .. i••••6164.:61:4:::k.:1,.....11: 2 ". d %,... ‘ \ ... \ ‘‘ ., ‘• ''''..."'"lid, _ 4i. Iii 1 - eswie to /1. ..t. i .:..le•reee ectei_e—stesiu 7.1a lA m dddld .2ii qiii Mr Rik CB — .: . ! S tii! 14; 511 It - '-A •, ':-.!. . 1 4 , • 11 - f\a 3 1 .i i. •or i J f . tl 2 •2...,E • . I , „ I t :.! ,;!.. 1,,, 317] ;,,: 1. to; ), R (6 i_j... i:il 1.i.cf 2.:i4%E.2.1: :: s . .,. .., 1p ___ . eg 21 i akar' Uni tttE 2=34 gg fiat 4 - . 1 I 3'!! a_,._ ___.._____ I 1 ... II "S3M0.1) Li ON AMH OIV _ilViS AINI103 = i..1-5 GI 0 a Ca c8 e4 . mmm• - ' ....• .m.11 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Cenvesco CWNER: Cenvesco ADDRESS ;� 50 \nnznolis I ane ADDRESS 3650 Annapolis Lane I'lymot�th M 55141 Plymouth , MN. 55441 TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 550_ Zip Ccde Zip Code 6430 TELEPHONE 559- 64.50 REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development V;n Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan \n Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment S Subdivision - - _ • \,-n Land Use Plan Amendment \ Platting ` n Conditional Use Permit Metes and Sounds Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation c_ Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Oak View Heights PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION R- 12 REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION R- 12 PRESENT ZONING R- 12 REQUESTED ZONING R-12 USES PROPOSED Multi- Family SIZE OF PROPERTY 18. 925 _acres LOCATION Fast of Hwy. 17 Powers Blvd. ) and north of 78th Street West. REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST DevelopTownhouse Unit A. S. A. P. • LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) Outlot "B" - West Village Heights , according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: April 19, 1989 TUNEs yC.C. DATE: May 8 , 1989 CASE NO: 89 Sa\-- E Prepared by: Hanson/v START= REPORT PROPOSAL: A) Preliminary Plat Approval �.. B) Site Plan Review of Final Facia Signage and Exterio Building Lighting and Revised Sidewalk and Parking Q Layout Configuration LOCATION: North of West 78th Street and East of 480 West 78th - ^-� Street 1. _ APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Q P.O. Box 100 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- R-12; proposed Heritage Park Apartments S- CBD; commercial use E- CBD; commercial use W- CBD; commercial use — WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site is level 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial North Side Parking Lot — April 19 , 1989 Page 2 The site plan for this area, which is the location of the Chanhassen Professional Building was approved by the City Council at the February 27, 1989 , meeting. That approval was subject to the following conditions : — 1 . Platting the area. 2 . Submittal of final facia, signage and exterior building lighting for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits . — 3 . Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibi- lity of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps to maximize accessibility. 4 . Direct staff to have the consultants review the intersection _ to see if there is any possible alternatives and if possible have a modified alternative by March 13th. Since that time the plat has been prepared for the property. The plat creates two building sites around West 78th Street and outlots generally to the rear of those two buildable lots for the parking areas that will serve these buildings. — The site plan has been amended to modify the location on the pro- perty on the west end near the Riviera. These amendments were _ done in order to improve the parking situation for the Riviera Restaurant. In addition, the sidewalk locations were evaluated on the east end of the proposed Chanhassen Professional Building. It was felt the best alternative was to align the sidewalk from — the apartment building in a generally direct alignment with the clock tower. Then also a pedestrian link was made from that area over to Colonial Center. In evaluating means for making the — pedestrian crossings through the parking area visible, it was determined the best solution was to put in large cross walk painted areas lined up with landscaped features between parking stalls . It It was felt that the use of speed bumps in the parking lot would not improve the situation for these cross access ways and that stop signs would be inappropriate in these locations . Pedestrian signs could be added to emphasize where the cross — walks are. The City Council asked staff to evaluate the access at the inter- — section of West 78th Street and Great Plains Boulevard. In looking at this, no other alternatives were identified other than eliminating this particular access. This access was a negotiated — item with the property owners in the area as part of the overall redevelopment of this entire area. The Engineering Department has indicated this access, while not the most ideal situation, is acceptable from an operational standpoint. — North Side Parking Lot April 19 , 1989 Page 3 The applicants have sumitted facia, signage and exterior building lighting for Planning Commission review. The applicants arepro- posing one free standing identification sign of 20 square feet to be located at the southwest corner of the building in Phase I . — This sign will be 3 ' 6" in height. On the back side a free standing directory sign is proposed to be 4 ' 6" high and 3 ' 6" across . On the face of the building back lit sign bands are pro- posed over three of the entrances these are 36 square feet in size. On the south elevation another sign band of the same size is shown in the middle of the building. The signage proposed complies with the zoning requirements, provided that no occupant may have more than one wall sign. The plans note only one light to be located in the patio area. No other exterior lighting is proposed on the exterior of the building. The other site lighting is part of the parking lot improvements being done by the city. The proposed facia of the building is to be woodlap and shakertown siding, with ornamental grille work and railings on teh entrance features. The roof is to be asphalt shingles. Previously the entrance features were goint to be brick. No colors have been listed on the plans . The door and window materials are not noted. These should not be aluminum finish. RECOMMENDATION _ Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the North Side Parking Lot subject to the plans stamped "Received Aoril 14, 1989" . The Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" subject to the following conditions : 1 . No business may have more than one wall sign. 2 . No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. 3 . Pedestrian signs be added to cross walks in parking lot. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Preliminary plat. 2 . Site plan for north side parking lot. 3 . Site plan for Phase I Chan Professional Building. 4 . Elevations for Phase I Chan Professional Building. C I T Y OF: P.C. DATE: April 19, 1989 '141\r L C.C. :E28: 8189CASE Site Plan Prepared by: J. Olsen STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A. Preliminary Plat - Replat Lots 1 and 4 , Block 1 Chanhassen Mall B. Rezoning a Portion of the CBD District Z C. Site Plan Review for an 84 Unit Hotel Q LOCATION: Southeast Corner of West 78th Street and Market Blvd. U — APPLICANT: Bloomberg Companies, P.O. Box 100, Chanhassen L. . John Rice Truman Howe & Associates Q- 630 Interchange Tower Mike Simon — G Highway 12 at CR 18 620 Mendelssohn Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55426 Minneapolis , MN 55427 PRESENT ZONING: CBG and BG ACREAGE: 3 . 1 Acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- CBD - Chanhassen Bank _ S- CBD - Filly' s QE- CBD - Chanhassen Dinner Theatre - W- BG - Vacant W WATER AND SEWER: Available to site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Currently contains existing building, Hooked on Classics, All State Insurance, etc. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 20 something like this as a possible PUD? Anything that would make you think that yes , that' s a PUD? Batzli : I think if they were to . . . Lot 14 and get some more open area that way and decrease the density a little. . . I think parking ' s a problem. I like that they are actually saving all the trees even though it ' s on a slope. . . Ellson : I can picture it . . . Conrad : Steve, can you get into a situation where you would pass this? Emmings : Yes . Conrad : And those are. . .what you discussed? Emmings : Yes they are . Conrad : . . .you don' t think the developer could never achieve? Emmings : I would like to see them move this project . . . If Lot 14 doesn ' t have any development . If we lower some density. I don ' t know what can be moved . . . The only thing that still sticks a little bit with me is the size of the apartment building . I 'm not sure you can put that big of an apartment building on there and still satisfy the. . . I think I could be convinced . Conrad : I guess you' ve heard that we haven ' t ruled the PUD out . There are some amenities to the property that I think you could persuade me on. The numbers in certain cases look really great to me . I could go with a PUD. Therefore, I guess what we ' re saying , the consensus would be, other than Dave. Headla : I 'd like to see the portion . . . Conrad: I think that means we should table it and see if city staff can muddle through some of the comments that we made. Work with you and see if you can come back with us with a revised site plan. Another concept plan that might encourage us . Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table action on PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights so they can work with city staff . All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST 78TH STREET, CITY OF CHANHASSEN: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW. Steve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 21 Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Brad Johnson : I want to just say a couple comments then Arvid Elness is here from Arvid Elness and Company. This will be the first , I don ' t know if you guys have seen the color rendering. This is the apartment building in the back and that ' s the . . .we' re proposing on this part right here. Then Phase 2. . . At the request of the City we dropped Phase 3 here as - part of our program. . . That gives you an idea . I ' ve asked Arvid to address, the signage issue I guess I want to talk about too. The signs are kind of. . . We need the signs permitted by the ordinance. . . It ' s back lit. It ' s that ban, what do you call it. If you look at something like Gelco . That sign . That kind of sign that we' ve got a dark opaque feeling and the letters are cut into that opaque. Arvid can address facia . . . - Arvid Elness : I ' ll just make a couple points . This is the soffit plan . Two things that were addressed here . . . We did a number of studies and I guess our feeling architecturally had to do . . .one is a matter of . . . The second is the fact that these elements are standing out in front of this building and I feel personally that they shouldn ' t be distinguished as a feature or element that is different than the main building . I think it will look like a simple building with some large brick high risers here standing and the facade standing out in front of it with a change of naterial . I notice the material used on that free standing element that stand out in front of it will characterize the theme of what should have - proper materials and should feel like they' re integrated in the design so our thinking is to take the same materials that we' re using . . .so this element here looks like a part of this building and not distinguish it as - something different. In doing that , the materials of the main building are like lap siding . They' re cedar lap siding and cedar shakes on the upper part and then our color ban that will wrap around the building . So in doing that we just brought those materials forward and put them on the front here . . .because this is really a free standing sort of spacial form out in front and it creates a shadow. Creates some interest and also gives us the opportunity to put some identification on there. Brad asked - what the signage said . . .we' re talking about . We did some studies as to ways we could do it on a professional type building and I think the. . .was that it was because part of the design of the building integrated and was well controlled . . .color ban of the building or could be used to introduce some backing . Then it sort of looked like part of the archtectural . . . So it ' s sort of designed and integrated into the building and to have. . .as opposed to a more commercial type brackets of signage where there' s a certain amount of freedom through the signage to create an identity and mark. . . so I think we' re comfortable that with the bannage system that goes above the entry at eye level . . . The problem with the drawings was that we - submitted Friday without identifying what we had agreed to as the quantity of the potential site . . . So the two issues I have I guess are the choice of materials on the exterior of the building and I think that ' s in character with what I 'm seeing in Chanhassen at this point and what' s aappening around town . These are materials that are very common place . . . Brad Johnson : What about the lighting? Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 22 Arvid Elness : Then the City has some lighting plans that we looked at for our standard ones that were going on the street . . . The lighting for the parking is taken care of on the plan . What we tried to do beyond that is because this element which stands out in front of the main building has sort of a void , a space between it' s . . .we put standard lights on the back side of these high risers that stand out here so at night each one of these main areas will be lit indirectly to the back side so they' ll glow with it' s own light . Then the city standards out there with the light . . . So we ' ll do some architectural lighting as we call it in these areas and every place they refer around the building . We' ll probably put some light in the cupola on the roof up here . . . Those are the lighting ideas that we have. Signage I ' ve explained. The sign ban. . . Conrad : Anything else? - Earnings moved , Ellson second to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Headla : I have no problems with the signage. . . .The sidewalk there . I foresee that to be a . . . That ' s the way I look at it. I 'm concerned about the skateboards coming down there , whatever . Are we putting up traffic signs or parking signs? Hanson : No . We' re not proposing to put speed limit signs . Conrad: I think everybody' s going to have the same kind of questions . Steve, maybe you can help us on this , or Brad . The last time this was in , we were concerned where the sidewalk ran across the traffic . . . We talked about speed bumps . We talked about signs . You eliminated the speed bumps . You eliminated the signs and basically what you 've done is painted the walk so can you give us more rationale for that? Hanson: I personally don' t see that as a problem. . . look at from a traffic standpoint and their recommendation was striping was more than adequate . . . Speed in the parking lot is not that bad and we should be able to. . . bringing those islands out and creating parking stalls lets you know there's something happening there and we can put in pedestrian crossing signs . In my opinion , that ' s what we can do and that' s. . . Conrad: Are they going to, the pedestrian traffic, are they going to go through this or are they going to go around? Are there other sidewalks that they' re going to use? Hanson: I think some of the traffic will go around that way. The other question, if somebody' s walking , why are they walking in there? I can see them walking . . . Kenny' s Market to buy groceries and then carry them back. . . Headla: I 'm not concerned about people carrying groceries . I 'm concerned about young people on skateboards and bicycles . If you ' ve ever had an office by a window on the second or third story or higher above a parking lot. Haveyou ever noticed those speeders in the parking lot? It ' s atrocious the way they can speed. I 've been hit in a parking lot . . . It Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 23 happens . All the rationale says it shouldn ' t , there are speeders . . . I simply can not believe . . . I want to see something to make that sidewalk safer . Wildermuth: I had a problem with the sidewalk. . . Batzli : Did I miss something or isn ' t the lighting of the building going to be . . .? Brad Johnson : It' s all provided by the City as part of the parking lot so it's part of your site plan. Hanson: The other lighting was what the architect had mentioned . . . Brad Johnson: I don' t have a lighting plan because the lighting plan is - the parking lot plan that BRW put out . Batzli : The access here , the left area . . .access east . . . That' s the one I _ talked about last time . . . Ellson : I don ' t like the . . .parking . . .juts around . I agree with Dave. I think the thing that bugs me most about all this is, we naturally = think. . . then it stops and then you ' ve got this distance open but this goes right through and there are parking places on this side and parking places on this side and there ' s a sidewalk in the middle . Normally a person on - the sidewalk is hidden behind two cars until they get out in there and I . . . and I don ' t like that . I think there should be speed bumps , stop signs . . . Emmings : I have the same reservation . I essentially feel that . . . I don' t have any problem with anything except the sidewalk directing traffic . . . What Dave says about kids on skateboards and little kids walking , they can walk out between two parked cars. If they' re 3 1/2 feet or shorter , the driver doesn' t have a chance to see them and they don' t have a chance to see the car. You' re creating a situation where I think - it' s. . .driving down streets , you' re always thinking about kids coming out between cars. It ' s happened to me. I didn ' t hit them but other people have and we' re creating that situation. I think maybe widening it out . Eliminate some of the parking spaces on each side of that sidewalk. . .sight lines , that would help. Having a painted crosswalk I think would be , I think that' s what we asked before. To me that' s essential . I 'd put stop signs there. . . .stop at that sidewalk at least until I was absolutely - satisfied through it' s use that the traffic on the sidewalk didn' t warrant stop signs . I 'd start with that and then make them prove that it wasn' t necessary. Then we'd just have. . . Tim Erhart ' s discussion could not be heard on the tape. Conrad: . . .yet from the apartment building standpoint, they' re going to. . . It' s probably going to be there. It' s fairly straight . I 'd have to go along with Steve. I think it may be a little bit of overkill but I think it should have some kind of signage. That' s my only comments. I - like the lighting. I like the signage. Is there a motion? I guess we Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 24 have to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. Is there a motion? Ellson moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Emmings : I guess I was a little confused about what exactly. . . was the preliminary plat? . . .sidewalk issue. Hanson : The sidewalk issue is part of the site plan . That was the first document . . . Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the North Side Parking Lot subject to the plans stampted "Received April 14 , 1989" . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Conrad : Is there a motion for the site plan? Headla: . . . 1989 with the following recommendations . The three listed . The first two . Pedestrian signs be added to crosswalks . I 'd like to go to number 3 on the opposite page. Traffic engineer should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps to maximize accessibility. Conrad : Is there a second? The motion fails for lack of second . Is there another motion? Erhart : I ' ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on the plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" with the conditions , number 1 as is . Number 2 as is . Number 3, did you start out by saying what? Headla : It ' s on the opposite page there. Number 3. Erhart: Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs. And item number 4, to review the west access to increase access to the area for . . . To review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot . . . Hanson : Is the intent to try and get the access coming back towards the. . .? I 'm just trying to clarify that . Emmings : Did the Public Safety Director and Fire Department review this plan for the access? They did? Conrad : Is there a second to Tim' s motion? Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 25 Ellson: I ' ll second it . Erhart moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of revised site plan and final facia , signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" subject to the following conditions : 1 . No business may have more than one wall sign. 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior . 3. Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs . 4. Review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot . Erhart , Ellson , Wildermuth and Headla voted in favor of the motion . Batzli , Conrad and Emmings voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3 . 3atzli : My reason is , I still don' t like the eastern entrance to the south . The eastern most southern entrance . Emmings : It just emphasizes the sidewalk issue. I can' t approve the plan the way it is . PUBLIC HEARING: _ COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 AND 4, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN MALL, INTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD. B. REZONING A PORTION OF BG DISTRICT TO CBD DISTRICT LOCATED BETWEEN MARKET BOULEVARD AND LOT 4, CHANHASSEN MALL. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 80 UNIT HOTEL. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the above three items . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order on the Preliminary Plat - and Rezoning issue. Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in _ favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #89-7 as shown on the plat stamped "Received - April 11, 1989" with the following conditions: CITY OF .4* ttledCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Steve Hanson, Planning Director DATE: May 3 , 1989 SUBJ : Preliminary Plat Approval and Site Plan Review of Final Facia, Signage, Exterior Building Lighting and Revised Sidewalk and Parking Layout Configuration for Chanhassen Professional Building The Planning Commission at its April 19 , 1989 meeting approved the preliminary plat for the north side parking lot subject to the plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" . Regarding the site plan approval, the Planning Commission recom- mended approval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" subject to the following conditions : 1 . No business may have more than one wall sign. 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. 3 . Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety with the possibi- lity of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs . 4 . Review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot. This motion was approved on a 4 to 3 vote. -- The Planning Commission discussion on the site plan centered on three issues. The first of those was the sidewalk extending from Heritage Park Apartments across the parking lot in the direction of the clock tower. Generally, the Commission felt that addi- tional signage or definition of this pedestrian crossing through the parking area should be added. Concern is that small children using the crosswalk would not be visible due to cars parked on either side of the crosswalk. They requested that this be looked at closer by traffic engineering. Therefore, I have contacted BRW and requested that they be in attendance at the Council meeting on May 22 , 1989 to address this particular issue. Don Ashworth May 3 , 1989 Page 2 The second item of concern deals with the entrance and the adjusted parking configuration by the Riviera . There was a pre- ference expressed for the access as it comes in to allow a right turn into the first bay of parking along the professional building rather than having to go all the way to the back of the parking lot to get into that parking. The adjusted configuration was arrived at after meeting with the Kruegers , owners of the Riviera. A copy of a memo from Fred Hoisington summarizing this meeting is attached to this memorandum (Attachment #6 ) . It should be noted that this particular adjustment to the parking is in Phase II and the approval at this time would be for the parking configuration for Phase I . The third issue that was raised by Commissioner Batzli was the same concern he had raised when this item was before the Planning Commission previously. That issue is the need for the access west of Great Plains Boulevard on West 78th Street. His feelings are that this access should be closed and that allowing it to remain in this vicinity only complicates the traffic flow at the intersection by the clock tower . Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for the north side parking lot based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" . Further, staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received - April 14 , 1989" subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission . Attachments 1 . April 19 , 1989 Planning Commission minutes. 2 . Preliminary plat for the north side parking lot. 3 . Revised parking lot layout. 4 . Final facia and signage plans. 5 . April 19, 1989 staff report. 6 . Memo from Fred Hoisington dated May 8 , 1989. City Council Meeting - ! 22, 1989 7. Provide the addition of 2 more Linden trees on the landscape plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Roger Knutson: Excuse me Mayor. The motion was specifically d(1) . Did not include d(2) . Mayor Chmiel: It was my understanding covering as it was mentioned making both of those 1 and 2. Councilman Boyt: I would approval of item d(2) . Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Site Plan Review for a 6 and 8 unit townhane building for South Lotus Villas Townhomes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. "64 H. NORTH SIDE PARKING LCTI' IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87717. Councilman Workman: I believe the last time that we discussed this as a council the primary concern that we had was the south exit onto TH 101 or West 78th coming out by the clock tower. I did talk to Gary today briefly. I guess I �f1would just like to bring it up before the Council. I know Gary Ehret is here also. Maybe get some more comments. The Planning Commission didn't look at that aspect of it again? Brian Batzli: I made a comment but everyone else seemed satisfied with it. Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like comments from the Council then as far as how they feel that south exit is. Councilman Johnson: I'll start on that. I'll basically make the same comment I made last time. As you can read in here, they did a lot of negotiation with the property owners that are paying for these improvements, that are being assessed for their improvements and the only way they will submit to giving that property to their, it's their property. They own it. They are going to deed it to the City at no cost and then they're going to pay to have it upgraded at their cost and they need that access according to their businesses. Take that access away, they're going to retract their offer to sell us the land, from what I read here. Then we've got no parking lot. No medical building. No development. Councilman Workman: Are you saying they're threatening us Jay? Councilman Johnson: That's the tone I get out of here. They didn't threaten. That's basically the agreement we made with than for this parking lot and if we change the agreement, go back on the agreement, they have the right to do that. Then we'll have to go into condemnation to condemn their land and buy it from than to do the same thing. In condemnation they may win the same argument anyway. 15 City Council Meeting - M- 1.2, 1989 A Councilman Workman: So Jay then you're saying you're fully in favor of this egress at least coming out at that intersection? Councilman Johnson: I believe that for the people who have been there, businessmen in our community for a long time, they deserve their parking lot to be convenient for their businesses. They would like a full right turn, left turn. We negotiated down to a right turn in and right turn out only. It's not the best thing in the world but the engineers say it's safe and it's a lot better than it is now because now it's ridiculous because people try to take that left turn in there. Now they won't be able to turn left into that so it's going to be an improvement over the current situation but it's not going to be as good as I want it. That's what I think is the most reasonable, the best compromise to do. We have to live with those businessmen too. We can't just put then out of business. So that's where I sit. Is that it's a reasonable compromise. Mayor Qmiel: Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: I don't have any concerns. Councilman Boyt: I find it interesting how we get ourselves into these situations of where we, on the one hand we have business interests who very much want that way in and out of their property. Or the other hand we have the citizens who are going to drive through that intersection and I'm just sure they're not going to be pleased but I think as Jay mentioned, it's kind of part of the deal and though we may not be happy with it, I think we will be happy with the medical arts center. So although I was opposed to this, I'm willing to accept it. I think it's the best compromise we're going to get. Mayor Chmiel: Basically frau what both of you have said and I sort of agree with each of those. I think the accessibility has to be there too for the businesses. We may not be happy with what's there but I think it's the best thing we can have right now. I think Bill mentioned that. Councilman Workman: Okay, I guess I'd just like to say I'm totally for the businessman in the city. I in no way, shape or form want to, as I've said before, there's many other options for people to spend their money rather than downtown Chanhassen I'd rather see here. We in the past have made a mistake I think on that corner by the clock tower and I think we're adding a little bit more of a mistake to it. If we have an opportunity to fix it. I sincerely believe that it is going to create a problem if they do not have that access there but I think nonetheless and I guess I want to go on record as saying I think it's going to create a problem there. I know that TH 101 is going to be moved eventually so traffic should be reduced in that area but I still have concerns. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the North Side Parking Lot Improvement Project #87-17: a. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Approval for the Medical Arts Building b. Resolution #89-70: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Advertising for bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 16 -1 1 II Mill .t as 3 2 Ail!Itil I Ille115 114.116 I -..., 4t-1----Itit # 4 1_. t _._ tl- I. it • • _ --it 11 lififfi li 1 Illinril :1 - ' ;.;; III Vi II i I i :::: , 11 1 1 MEI 111111111 1 I 1 i — 1 HE 1 r=_.. 1 ,.; 1 _ !!.. . t! .... 1 _ -Olt HOW . 111/1114F.111 I! if, i.. n •.-- , • • 1. :::-.i 1 -. ... ,-,pi I .... . ....„. . .. ..:...,,„ii I I - : rdiMilt.imilmAuti 1 ...41, t •)ip•Is inn.r:wiitipiait 5: :A, i . _ • • III... I /1111' :•Fril • :di •• ,...,::::: .. iiil • • -. 0:11i 11.11ar 14...4;;;Iiiiii'i.:: .X ::: ..,... g .fris—• • .t,II. - a • os• ' - 641."*1;E::n. :::i , - *1.... ....ki-- .- '• . -1-1•11- .-iii *- •, • N:-110:-init.:ifil Lir.ii::.! ,T ,• :'-.'.' 111111ii:El .• i_gl.fe. •( >4,.... / .!.. t::: .• i...:.-mig , -,-- il s f i•.'.".7-• i'elm:4 •01 "1' - a Aldo, 'll . !g. ; 1 _ C ,11 MC Ili HIM •'. 1 I t 4 i • I - ___, ' '•••:: ::. 1 • I • - 11 I :LI 1 ILI:: Ill .11 . 1... • % 4:' ‘..,. Fill I P i 1! 'Dili i 1 'I • ' • --. ' -, I•:,:- 1 . • f 1: .....1.1:' ilitii • - • 111 ::' • .- - 141 !TVs:,IiII:IniS — I i ..--.... . • ' illii :::: lihr f:7-41 '41 I . ...• :::: ! II I r L . • •.II - . • 1...,' :::: 1 1;'' f aul . • 14 C: . - -.3 Mill •-•, • ,• 14 ' 1 . • — • _ li • • n - ... ; 114 . , _ 1, 4 1- 1 ® . I 1 ••••••-' — I I • --4 • -....--- it) I I 6) , , i . _..) _ .. .. , w. Ei , , t , . _ - 4, .., initi ! . 1 1,1 --.1.. . , 111i . 1 2_2 w li -", I III ' — figi., ,, i[LilaI 5f _I I • 111 .41 . . 1 m . i Al :. , -i II i R .... iti I . _ ' _ oil Due . Pi . ! " v4 4 4 11 ..1 i 11 • 1 1 8 i I 0 11 - 11 r, i• - 11 - II 1 • _ 1 ' i .. . S . ...- ; !I! II : 1 • 11 t if . i I ...L.-4.'4. 4... c I • 5 6 ,, 3 r . 11. _ . I, '14 ft rg . E ti 4 - . . - "rs ICE bil • , id • . NIS II"it l , _ - :" f Fiii I 1 . _ IIIIIP Him ! • . '' . i, l111 • . . .. •-'•- -,.--- 4:: ....: 1 .!g"glioN" ''.1.Oil 4.......-...-if ......,_-.4::.: ,'-..0.• II • .Y:, ••• 4 Ott .. ,--.t. \, 1.. • ''� •.� rr` ..! -it _ , ... ;I 1:::: : , ..• . ip-..... . . 11111;1 •,;I:Runm I� , . .•.�G: t .•• , . .1--- — ' t . . 10::: i 1 :::: . c1 t ...t.. -.:71, !!1 1,p.....:b-. 1 1 • 4'.: a 1.• _::, g - ,i I , ai0 . • 1.1 - 11 _ t, 1 _ . 1 \\\ 11 I, .‹-- t5 s I - I;0 - J r , i II H 1 1 Q 1, , ar '' f 11111 , / 11.1k7:110111 ,�� 111— 1 ;� � i1I1 ' i : 4I : IJ iiia Ill -i: I - 1 - i ® 10 ,1 ,t 1. ' • �1 . 1 r el 1 El ;I . , t Q I 'm , ..,_. 1 •' • i 1 'I.4. • i I . .h. , - ..r I . 11111!11,}1 ` `i11111 11111!11,}1l r` I It 'X11; 1101 1111111.111 I i 1 ' w i. I rj1 1 I SII '• '� I' jti', .11 ll I II IWlli ~11®111 1 i�.•CC4,,/Iv % 4 6---- _ '1 ;I - 1 "i' 7,:::::: r::,: • "SII V\ , ,1 I :!-...i. �. .. • 1 1 I. ` S�a �J 1 i ,i jil�IIIIIIIII 1111111111 _y i:.i I I ...: I i - , w• •••• _. 1'i -y :�5,1 i 1III I I p11111!i11 :111111111.; _ 1 : i or.) ��n �I 1 1,::r:_I i SM] I _ — u M:. \/ 4p y1 ..1 - 1 r-'-- sa :1! --1114, t1 so 11 1! 1 uullm uwmn;S -I I �,. II1'.1 q= ' I 101 11 ~1 1 1'': .:ii; IIIIit IH ilium!lI_- ; ' t ::: ai i :; I'1 I a �. 1l1 ' . • I 1 MW11-,1.l '1'Mil 1111 i 'i a:: �� i �) 1 i 1 I ':-.I IMP' _ II - •rf I ,I I 1Q I® 1 ® jI® • I, 7=111111111P1 II f• 1 ® . I ® ,, 114- 41_ ..:: 7.. :: t, I• - iii YI ..'r !s © � ,, .,r,t• H ,3 ® '-11 a.,. �r 1I . 1 'I I LE !W! J�—iI 1_l_I'• : I i. —I 1 / _ —111 _,; v 1y-, i O ii r,.. / / 1 1111 _ I I/ I (i) I' ./...?ler'‘ \ ` ® ` I . II I ii --1— A' 'aa idol ' IIII 4 I ' - i.[ ti \' • V. I - 111:1i i- ..�■■ . _ 4 t. i ~•. Z / z /1i ! 4 , / _• L— / i 1 --; ast s! II:= , t ;, s S [� t. �% t i r1t 7: OM1� I A i c' ma -I/ I 33 .. !" I ^� .Cy. 7.w i .1 rY t r�� ..ii -, 1 ammo -; f ;, w 1.� 34 1 1 II II y - .. .� 1, - `• L _j r_ I V Ilia 11 t �j I 1 I I I I I s� - w mo.' w 1 ` az ammo L__ . ? a...A (f N 1 ..:Z 1 n - .-7-72c I - 1I A - I I •K 1 . /� I I 1 \- t ,II t Ail ® 4I 11 I '153 li I ® I I 1I r -tl 41 'El : • ., ,, ,, c- _ . __1 1 �� . 1 -' 1 `- E A 1 C ® I -i 1 I 111 II 1 1 . \4\ Lii1 _etD 1% e • o irE-t4, I ® c e 1 • 1 i .1 - s 6 ..t...:_-_-:‘ _ .. 1GREg1 Q � v �� t \ � : Uq r -� • --\;:;" ,• \I - \ ) _ ��it w ,400 ... .„ . 1 � s, aM tri jr —� i ___ _ .. ..... ‘ , .... . „„.., . ...;:i . , MA La i UD— / �` _ .moi - ..\_�I p.� �� `111)‘ ., ) ' , ' i r� y.� R Sr ,-. •,- .F 1111111M t. ,,\ 4Ir J\ mJ 0 , L.L A ACF Mil.t� 1' `�� . M� Al �\ • . m\ ,nor 'V 1 ` 1 r,if i� : 1. �Q 7� �I� \ H I- "r I �. -vi i / � 1.� /1 ,' . \ \• ,.. 'a AZ.: ...... ..ii., ' - is. - .ekts,"...., —_, r, ....„4,i 11043 - s 1 -• inwCi3 u■ , ,,,I � 2 i � :.. :<, '.1,4 - • . . MINI •. , (4) -- i 1 W — Ill .. ]t0►,11 I•'Lr�l..111 .1\ ccs, r - ■ luu 1 . ' WEST 781 ST • :u. IIr. -5L1 P G i______. icti,l, P DRAM fv,43 .. .7. ,L* z • - -4----...., - 7 1 2 i 11' 1".. .j7soi .. 4E4-1,...... ... . PAC f '_�+f - STAr� ` ,� - ,�,t�. ', . = . 1 IGMWA - ,. y_ ' :�� \ , 10P ‘F-01 -.Lt»,c7) .. • , .; • , ! -44-E4'L.. • fa ', 7.--., ‘cl. .: f,Ns. ..i , r_,-7 k...3.. mr- 1I •• C i -1./// , - .___,___ , •vNru Country Suites Hotel April 19, 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS CBD allows hotels as a permitted use. There are no setbacks , height requirements or maximum lot coverage. The minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet with 100 feet street frontage and maximum lot depth of 100 feet (Attachment #1) . REFERRALS City Engineer Attachment #2 Preliminary Plat The applicant is proposing to construct an 84 unit hotel over two existing lots ( Lot 1 and 4 , Block 1 of Chanhassen Mall) . Therefore, the applicant is required to replat the property to remove interior lot lines where the hotel is located. The appli- cant is proposing to create two lots, Lot 1 and 2 , Block 1 and five outlots (Outlots A, B, C , D and E) . The proposed site currently has buildings which house Hooked on Classics, Allstate Insurance, Animal Fair , etc. The proposed construction of the hotel will remove the building containing Hooked on Classics , All -' State Insurance and will leave the building containing Animal Fair. The proposed hotel will be located on Lot 1 , Block 1 of Bloomberg Addition and the remaining building will be located on Lot 2 , Block 1, Bloomberg Addition. The number of outlots are necessary due to the types of improve- ments that will be made to the site. The parking areas for the site will oe located approximately where Outlot A and Outlot D are proposed. As part of negotiations for improvements to the site, the City will oe constructing the parking areas for use of the hotel and in front of the existing building on Lot 2 , Block 1 . In order for the City to make these improvements, the City must have control of those lots . When the City makes the parking lot improvements, the outlots will be transferred to the City and once the improvements are completed the ownership of Outlots A and D will be transferred back to the Bloomberg Companies. Outlots B and C will remain to be utilized as access for both Lot 1 ( the hotel) and Lot 2 ( the existing buildings ) . Outlot E is a seven foot wide strip which is currently part of Lot 1 , Block 1, Chanhassen Mall and it will be transferred to the City to provide the 40 foot wide right of way necessary for West 78th Street. As a part of the plat approval a portion of the existing right of way for West 78th Street will be vacated and turned over to the Bloomberg Companies. The right-of-way is shown with the dotted line on Attachment #3 . Interior street and utility easements will also be vacated. Country Suites Hotel — April 19, 1989 Page 3 The proposed Lots 1 and 2 , Block I meet the minimum area require- ments for lots within the CBD District. Once the outlots are reconveyed to Bloomberg Companies, when improvements to the sites are completed, Lots 1 and 2 will have the required street fron- tage. RECOMMENDATION - Preliminary Plat Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat #89-7 as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 11, 1989" with the following conditions : 1 . The applicant receive vacation of the right-of-way and utility — easements as shown on the preliminary plat. 2 . Outlot A and D will be reconveyed to Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 , once the improvements to the site have been completed. " — 3 . All conditions of the site plan approval. REZONING The area between the westerly edge of Lot 4 , Chanhassen Mall is zoned BG (Attached #4) The additional property which is shown as part of Outlot A on the Bloomberg plat was purchased by the City from Bloomberg Companies for the construction of Market Boulevard. Since that area is now going to become a part of the — hotel site, the property should be rezoned from BG to CBD. Physically, the BG area is already separated from the remaining BG district by Market Blvd. — RECOMMENDATION - Rezoning The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt — the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning Request#89-1. " SITE PLAN — The applicant is proposing to develop an 84-room hotel located on 2 . 1 acres zoned CDB. The Central Business District allows the hotel as a permitted use. The CDB district does not have speci- fic requirements for setbacks or lot coverage. The hotel will be located on the southeasterly portion of Lot 1 , — Block 1 , Bloomberg Addition as shown as Parcel A on the site plan. The parking area for the hotel will be located on the north and west side of the hotel . The site will be serviced off — Country Suites Hotel Aorii 19, 1989 Page 4 of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. The zoning ordinance requires one parking space for each rental room or suite, plus one soace for every two employees. Therefore, the hotel would be required to have 88 parking spaces . The applicant is providing 99 parking spaces . The site plan also shows that there will be seating for continental breakfast. The continental breakfast will only be for the people using the hotel. Therefore, addi- tional parking would not be required. The height of the building will be three stories at 34 feet. The trash enclosure for the site is located in the southwest corner of the hotel and shall be fully enclosed. Any roof-top equipment will be required to be screened. The applicant is proposing two wall signs. They will be located on the north and south side. The wall signs are 16 square feet and 37 square feet, which meets the requirements of the ordi- nance. The applicant is also proposing one pylon sign which has a height of 20 feet and a square footage of 68 feet. The zoning ordinance only allows a 64 square foot sign. Therefore, the sign must be reduced in size to meet the 64 square foot require- ments . The pylon sign is also shown to have a changeable letter and price area below the Country Suites sign. This would not be permitted unless the total area of both signs equal 64 square feet. Details of the sign and elevations of the building are attached on the back of the report along with reduced copies of the site plan. Landscaping The last page of the set of plans contains the landscaping plan. Several of the plantings shown along West 78th Street and Market Boulvard and south of the hotel are existing plantings . The applicant is also proposing extensive interior landscaping around the hotel site. The applicant is adding a two-foot hedge to be located between the vehicular area and abutting right-of-way. The proposed landscaping plan meets the requirements of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION - Site Plan Staff recommends the Planning Commission to adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #89-2 as — shown on site plan dated "March 15, 1989" with the following con- ditions : 1 . Final Plat approval of the plat for Bloomberg Addition. 2 . The sign facing on the pylon sign shall not exceed 64 square feet. Country Suites Hotel _ April 19, 1989 Page 5 3 . Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report. — 4 . An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals. 5 . All side slopes greater than 3 : 1 will need erosion protection. 6 . A typical section of roadway and parking lot is to be shown — on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. 7 . The applicant will be entering into a development contract with the City for phased development of the site including the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper — installation of these improvements. 8 . All privately owned underground utilities, i .e. telephone, gas, electric, shall be relocated outside of the building pad at the time of construction. 9 . All roadway and walkways disturbed by the construction shall — be replaced in sufficient proportion to provide a stabilized pavement area. 10 . All conditions of preliminary plat approval. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Zoning Code. 2 . Memo from City Engineer dated April 13, 1989. 3 . West 78th Street right-of-way. — 4 . BG District . 5 . Application. 6 . Plan Reductions. 7 . Preliminary plat and site plan. ZONING 20-732 district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. Other setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards. twenty-five(25) feet. b. For rear yards, twenty(20)feet. c. For side yards, ten(10)feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, two(2)stories. b. For accessory structures,one(1)story. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 11(5-11-5), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-716-20-730. Reserved. ARTICLE XVIII. "CBD" CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Sec. 20-731. Intent. The intent of the "CBD" District is to provide for downtown business development supporting a strong central business district while enhancing the overall character of the community in conformance with downtown redevelopment plan,goals and objectives. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 12(5-12-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-732. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "CBD" District: (1) Bowling center. (2) Retail shops. (3) Offices. (4) Standard restaurants. (5) Liquor stores. (6) Entertainment. (7) Convention and conference facilities. (8) Financial institutions. (9) Health care facilities. (10) Hotels. (11) Specialty retail(including but not limited to jewelry, book, stationery, bible, camera, pets, arts and crafts,sporting goods). (12) Supermarkets. 1219 § 20-712 CIL NILASSEN CITY CODE (91- (17) Private clubs and lodges. (18) Community center. (19) Funeral homes. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-713. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BH" District: (1) Signs. (2) Parking lots. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-714. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "BH" District: (1) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale. — (2) Supermarkets. (3) Small vehicle sales. (4) Screened outdoor storage. CC_ (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-4), 12-15-86) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20--715. Lot requirements and setbacks. _ The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BH" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum district area is ten (10) acres. This paragraph may be waived by a condition use permit in the case of expansion of an existing district. (2) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand(20,000)square feet. (3) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage in all districts of sixty(60)feet. _ (4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (150)feet. (5) The maximum lot coverage is sixty-five(65)percent. _ (6) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section, except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial uses establish joint off-street parking facilities,as provided in section 20-1122,except that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. Minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential 1218 • CITY OF • _ � L i _ l `\ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer DATE: April 13 , 1989 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Country Suites Hotel File No. 89-4 Land Use Review Country Suites is proposing to develop on Lot 4 , Block 1 of Chanhassen Mall. This site is fronted by West 78th Street to the north and Market Boulevard to the west. Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site by an existing 10-inch sewer main within the eastbound lane of West 78th Street. This existing main was sized and installed to ser- vice the anticipated development of Chanhassen Mall. Watermain The existing 10-inch wa_ermain within the site will be relocated to the east side of Market Boulevard to make room for the hotel and parking lot construction. Four new hydrants will be installed for fire protection. Relocation and timing of this main needs to be closely coordinated with the City' s Utility Superintendent. The 10 inch watermain shall remain a public uti- lity and appropriate easements dedicated over it. Roadway A 36-foot wide entry drive should be used for any roads which will experience truck traffic consistent with the City' s commercial/industrial standards. A detail for these road sec- tions and parking lot should be provided. All removal of existing street sections necessary for utility connection shall be replaced to the existing standard. Site Grading/Erosion Control It appears that a majority of the site will experience shaping and/or grading to create the building pad and parking lot. Planning Commission — April 13 , 1989 Page 2 The plans do not include any erosion control. This needs to be addressed thoroughly so that proper protection can be provided. _ Storm Drainage The storm sewer system for the site will be constructed with two systems . The first will connect to the existing catch basin at Market Boulevard at the southwest corner of the site which will handle only a portion of the parking lot drainage. The second, — primary system will handle the building, courtyard and balance of the parking lot and will connect to the existing 72-inch storm sewer in Market Boulevard. This will require replacement of por- _ tions of Market Blvd. and the City' s walkway along the west boun- dary of the site. These patches shall be of sufficient proportion to provide a stabilized pavement area when complete. The storm sewer system shall remain the responsibility and in ownership of the developer. Recommended Conditions _ 1 . Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report. 2 . An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals. 3 . All side slopes greater than 3 : 1 will need erosion protection. 4 . A typical section of roadway and parking lot is to be shown _ on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. 5 . The applicant will be entering into a development contract with — the City for phased development of the site including the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these improvements . — 6 . All privately owned underground utilities, i .e. telephone, gas, electric, shall be relocated outside of the building pad at the time of construction. 7 . All roadway and walkways disturbed by the construction shall be replaced in sufficient proportion to provide a stabilized — pavement area. . . I t, y2 Z..— .. 1 M .2 .S0.0 S • • ...--- 001 1.11 • 1 ..' No= 1 CC : ... • OJ 1 WI I 1 :-• D . g i_ C) .- :...• i . ....... . _ b .—. I. I I . -• Li 0 t" 0 .. ...., I—. ..n I , ••• b '.1... -I ..> -• al a I t r• o '2 ,•' nn r--- 1., I .-• — . (‘,, !F.::: ...3-02.£0.0 S ., . . .. k 1 ': . . i S6 i I Lou ...; . . -, ____ __,..._. ' •2 Iii iolino . 901k 1 1 ,--... ... NMI 0 i O . :...,.• 41, 19 O• 1/4111 M ...... 1 P\ .... :40 \ 40,ri 0...:..1.• Co• w ab IMINII C: a tt ••• 0...- 1 i'l O 0 ..•1 3_OZ.£0.0 — ! ! . ..... .- ..' , ...,...: 1 Ot....‘ I - . 0 .... .....% ..:' ia ' 00 ZI --...--% 114 I 1 0 - \ •::. . . t \ ....1 C IL. --- :.„1. . .• , Li ... • ,„. 0 = _ I , 1...„ ,.., •„; -r-- . 1....- ,-..: o , .. ,0 /0'On aq cy spiatila spa 1.1 , — I 1 : er: ry i ',..1 Akizqn puo /90.,,rs 51,/fisix_7,... ci 11 _I :.- i0 .-- ., • % r) , •:%.*: 1 q. .. .... 3 * —7' T .,.., / I si 1/4, / n!! I i..2 0 ( I . :.-.. _ sz ! crt 0 -T--0- t , I ., \ t" CO ._ I ---1 , ....,,,,.... ..... _ \ ,-;•• /uaia.as..2a Willi/I? porodoid-. ..-----1 = et, ...---,47174/42,;(.7.7sdouo:.::::.11...7 ,I mm. 60.2g ! 3 -0Z.Gc.0 N Oe'gzs,t1.9£1.1 .. N. 3 u.i._ I 0 0 -ZI•cg.e.t..c, . \ : ,,,CO.Pz.-, (a '1d.SLE•:.•4 to _ m..02.0S.0 S i ----3-7--.._ . c‘i a Ir r ce,...1.zzt.,-----______ ... • 7 .... — . .., . -21.ts.re•r• ., • 0 z 0 k Z mew 4 'g I ........_ '.!, 'I i....: -............... • ................ -----s-7"--- 10'Oco.1,6 •ci•v• ....___ L...! 1/4 *1/4. •• 1.L.1 t, 1.: 14 i _Jo 1-,1 '1/4 ka :10 .4.m.. LI i 1... 11; I'2 I 1.0 • \.. .i • Vi..." ._. ... 1 . . - Ai ..Z£.90.0 S OI :II -... I .. . •'. .., al 1 la •••• • ; .. .. : al ....... ... - 1.-• b ) . o r o . Y ) - C) L. I t.,2 WI -. M ..... 1 ! . NT- 0 C. 0 - --__ I ..' —• Z ..3..0Z.£0.0 S — ——______ :3 -% i •:. '.3 7I..'.7.: •:-. . ' SG il ..—.-. 1 -.'..: ce t' 0 io-uno ',..14 - --.!-- -.7- .:.--------- 0 -... --.--- L, • , '2 ,0 I Jo-lino! . .... _ 301 a ti 0T F.. 4 • 0 ' • • 0 L V 19 1 i I I i Y ...1... ... o• ‘.o co•--, ,.• 31 a • •-, mos _ . I ., 0 ....: .-3 ..0Z.Z0.0 S 0 1 z , I. 00.ZI ti ..... 1 s.. I Z 4. I..: '. . ...i.: 1 I 2 i i 0 -.J t- .. .. ._-.': ICE —. I ... o \ .....:. ..... et to 1/4, k., o o \ I. o o 1 o LI ..,--.' C 1• n ,... ,.... ,....1 li k• .N. 1 • .7. r. M CC LLI _. /10/0.70A Of? 0/ f/09(0.7S0.2 0 0 cl, Lo (4 t..) .fifigo puo jaaAts 5U//S/%3 6 _ _ `c. co . ... ,,s. ...., z ......1 ..... ., . _ ,J__ _ ____._________._,LA co , -I— .k . . . , 3 E zi. 1.:::: - - _,...„_ 1 ." T. '... 0 I ip l l I I _ _ ._ i__vs I cn 0 ! __ . ,i, ..) 1 _ . 1 noll • 11 \ 1 I r al 0 ... vr 1 •-• ,, , 1 ,..:, —;„,., .,,.,,, ,f„:///17 p.7.ro•odd- ---- 1..-_ ,_ al _ O. ,t..9zc.ei,.9 1.,....1 /1.../1.2.2uoAlosloacroo.7iacid a .r • a0"ZG 3..0Z.ag.0 N • £0• • . t•z..,, — 0 ! -•• • ' .. ------- —7-- P.1 b - i6 26 .-*...:.2.9S.,0 S , -----.....„ N ' . o I k Z 1 o a ..........loors,•o-411.1 .........................2..... 17 frri441•22/.1-----...............„ . -t - -2,-cg...,•t. - • ....-; • —_______. - .....: :-... ----.........._ •.ictio., ). • ..... — !,t-: 1 •• a 1/4, o I',. I _, OJIM n•I ••. k.) '... a 114 Fn.. 1/4. I 2 I L.) ,.. 4 I. in — ... ....; t, 4, . • \......1 , - TRUMAN � , HOWELL ARCHITECTS 6N a ASSOC INC. 620 MENDELSSOHN AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55427 April 10, 1989 SUITE 130 PHONE: (612) 541-9777 Joanne Olsen Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Joanne, As per our phone conversation on Friday I am sending you revised calculations of lot area and site coverage due to the deletion of the 25 foot easement along Market Blvd . from the hotel property. Vow The revised parcel area total is 90, 787. 63 sq. ft. or 2. 0842 acres. Parcel "A" equals 79810. 63 sq. ft. and parcel "B" equals 10 , 977 sq. ft. The revised percentage of site coverage by building is 25. 3% The revised percentage of site coverage by impervious surface is 72. 1% The revised percentage of site coverage by parking area is 41%. Please contact me if you need additional information. 741g447. ' Michael Simon _ cc : Clayton Johnson, Bloomberg Companies Bill Bell , National Lodging Development Man APR R 11 1989 CITY OF CHANHASSEN . CITYOF CHANHASSEN _ 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director DATE: April 14 , 1989 SUBJ: Contractor ' s Yards The Planning Commission and City Council, have reviewed the option of deleting contractor' s yards from the A-2 and BF Districts as conditional use permits. Through these delibera- tions, the Planning Commission evaluated the possibility of allowing small contractor ' s yards, or total elimination of this use from those districts. The option of allowing these as a small controlled operation was described in a memorandum from Mark Koegler dated November d , 1988 . That report is attached to this memo. After review of Mark 's report by the Planning Commission and City Council, there was a concensus that the appropriate direction to take would be the elimination of contractor ' s yards in the A-2 and BE Districts out still allow contractor ' s yards as a con- ditional use permit in the IOP District. All existing contrac- tor' s yards in the A-2 and BF Districts would be allowed to continue as a legal non-conforming use. This amendment would delete the following sections : Section 20-254, 20-574, Subp. 6 , and 20-773, Subp. 6 . Copies of these sections of the zoning code are included for reference. Also attached is a draft ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the City Code, which is the zoning ordinance, to accomplish this amendment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the City Code to delete the following sections from the zoning ordinance: Section 20-255 Section 20-574, Subd. 6 Section 20-773 , Subd. 6 Planning Commission _ April 14 , 1939 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. 2 . Copy of the existing zoning code sections to be amended. 3 . Copy of Mark Koegler ' s memo dated November 8 , 1989. _ 4 . Planning Commission minutes dated February 1 , 1989. 5 . City Council minutes dated February 13 , 1989 . 6 . Planning Commission minutes dated March 15, 1989 . ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of Chanhassen ordains as follows: Section 1. The following sections of the Chanhassen City Code are deleted in their entirety: 20-255, 20-574 Subd. 6, and — 20-773 Subd. 6. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ENACTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1989. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor ATTEST: Don Ashworth, City Manager 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Church means a building or edifice consecrated to religious worship, where people join J 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 retreats 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. theological seminaries,day care centers, hospitals, and drug treatment centers are not churches. Class A wetlands means wetland types 3,4,5,6,7 and 8. In the case of wetlands adjoining a public waters designated as lake or pond this class shall also include type 2 wetlands.Type 2 _ wetlands shall also be deemed a class A wetland when adjoining a stream designated as public waters to the extent that it encroaches upon the one-hundred-year floodplain of the stream. Class B wetlands means type 2 wetlands not adjoining a public waters designated as lake — or pond nor within the one-hundred-year floodplain of a stream designed as public waters. 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. Conference/convention center means a preplanned. centrally managed development con- taining facilities for business or professional conferences and seminars and containing ac- commodations 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, andlor construction materials and supplies commonly used by building, excavation, roadway con- struction, 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. 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. Density, gross means the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the gross site area. 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. 1144 ZONING 3 20.575 • (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) Bed and breakfast establishment. (2) Temporary mobile home(compliance with section 20-905 is not required). (3) Mineral extraction. (4) Cemetery. • (5) Commercial kennels,stables and riding academies. 6) Contractor's yard. (7) Commercial communication transmission towers. (8) Wholesale nursery. (9) Electrical substation. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 3(5-3-4(. 12-15-86) State law reference—Conditional uses, 11.5. : 462.3 95. 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(2'_)acres, subject to section 20-906. (2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall he two hundred (200) feet in width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred(200( feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty(20) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty(50) feet. 1205 7,ONING § 20.256 (2) The structure must be in compliance with local building and fire codes. (3) The site will be reviewed annually through a public hearing process. (4) Septic systems must be in compliance with chapter 19. article IV. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(2)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-254. Commercial kennels,stables and riding academies. The following applies to commercial kennels,stables and riding academies: (1) The structure must be in compliance with chapter 5, article III. (2) The site must be located on a collector street. - (3) The structure must be a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland area. _ (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(3)), 12-15-S6) . 20-255. Contractor's yard. _ The • lowing applies to contractor's yards: (1) The mi, mum lot size is five(5)acres. (2) All storage an. -ard areas as well as buildings must be set b - one hundred (100) feet from public of .rivate road right-of-ways and five h dred (500) feet from an O<ifl.G, adjacent single-family idence. (3) The site must be located alo a collector o iinor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan. (4) All outdoor storage areas must be • mple v screened by one hundred(100)percent opaque fencing or berming. (5) No two t2)contractor's .-.rds shall be located within •e(1) mile of each other. (6) Hours of operat.: shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., • •day through Saturday only, work • Sundays and holidays not permitted. (7) Lig -ources shall be shielded. (8 o outside speaker systems are allowed. ( :. No. 80. Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(4)). 12.15.86) _ Sec. 20-256. Commercial communication transmission towers. Commercial communication transmission towers not designed to collapse progressively shall be set back from all property lines a minimum distance equal to the height of the tower. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(5)), 12-15-86) 1173 awn 20-772 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-772. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BF" District: (1) Parking lots. (2) Signs. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 14(5-14-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-773. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "BF" District: ..'- (1) Automotive service station without car washes. (2) Truckjtrailer rental. (3) Utility services. (4) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (5) Cold storage and warehousing. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 14(5-14-2), 12-15-86) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-774. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand(20,000)square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum front footage of sixty (60)feet in all districts. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is forty(40)percent. (5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section, except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122.except that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in all districts. Other setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards. twenty-five(.25) feet. b. For rear yards, twenty(20) feet. c. For side yards, ten(10)feet. 1224 ri-7)...,71 [4:tpot ;�= . `�N. ��= 'i'1 IIs.. '„` .• ►tom+r.� i�S:'ti`. • PLANNING REPORT — TO : Chanhassen Planning Commission and Staff _ FROM: Mark Koegler W'' DATE : November 8 , 1988 SUBJECT: Contractor ' s Yards - A-2 Zone BACKGROUND ( Contractor ' s yards are currently allowed as conditional uses in the A-2 zone. The A-2 zone is the predominate zoning category of land located within the Rural Service Area _ (RSA) , All A-2 land lies south of TH 5 . A review of contractor ' s yards in the A-2 zone needs to consider the general issue of land uses throughout the entire Rural Service Area . In the late 1970 ' s , the City of Chanhassen pursued a policy of allowing only farm related agricultural uses in the unsewered area ( RSA ) . Residential uses were specifically prohibited without municipal sanitary sewer service . Court challenges resulted in the modification of the strict provisions that prohibited residential development . In 1986 , the City of Chanhassen modified the zoning ordinance to restrict residential densities in the RSA to one unit per 10 acres . Land owners had until January 15 , 1987 to file subdivision applications under the previous ordinance which allowed a density of 1 unit per 2 . 5 acres of land . The imposition of the application deadline resulted in a series of development proposals containing 2 . 5 acre lots . By the fall of 1988 , many of the developments had installed street improvements and housing construction occurred . Additionally , several other developments are preparing to begin initial construction . _ The growth of 2 . 5 acre single family residential lots that has occurred over the past two years has substantially changed the land use pattern in southern Chanhassen . Three primary use patterns exist : 1 ) agriculture , 2) rural residential @ 1 unit per 10 acres and 3 ) large lot residential @ 1 unit per 2 . 5 acres . All of these uses are presently accommodated in the A-2 zone . The focus of this report is on contractor ' s yards and their appropriateness in the A-2 zone . Addressing this issue requires — a review of both contractors yards as a land use and the impact of 3030 Harbor Lane North BIdg.II, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 812/553-1950 such uses on each of the three use patterns that exist in the A-2 zone. — In the existing ordinance , contractor ' sards are ined as " ny area or use of land where vehicles , equipment , and /orf construction materials and supplies commonly used by building , excavation , or roadway construction , 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 . " Additionally , the ordinance provides restrictions pertaining to lot size , setbacks , location , screening , hours of operation and proximity to one another. Neither the definition nor the restrictions limit contractor ' s yards to accessory uses . Therefore , they assume the status of primary uses that for all practical purposes , are industrial in nature . The Planning Commission has expressed interest in redefining contractor ' s yards to make them Tess intensive uses . Overall sentiment seems to be to allow smaller scale , "mom and pop" operations but not large scale businesses . If the ordinance is to allow only smaller scale businesses', the term "contractor ' s yard " needs to be redefined to apply only to less intensive uses . Under this scenario , larger scale contractors facilities would fall under the provisions of industrial uses and only be permitted in industrial zoning districts . In order to limit the size of contractor ' s yards , it may be advisable to allow them only as accessory uses rather than as principal uses . As an accessory use , the size of a contractor ' s yard could be tied to the size of the principal residential use thereby controlling the scale of the operation . Assuming that contractor ' s yards are limited to "mom and pop " operations , the appropriate location for such facilities needs to be examined . Of the three primary land uses in the RSA , agriculture and rural residential ( 10 acres ) can probably accommodate contractor ' s yards as interim land uses with little or no mitigation required . Large lot residential is an exception to this rule. Large lot residential developments (2 . 5 ) acres such as Lake Riley Woods have a strong resemblance to urban residential developments . Because of housing types and higher overall densities , contractor ' s yards are not appropriate in such areas . Prohibiting contractor ' s yards in these areas may require additional zoning modifications . For example , developments such as Lake Riley Woods could be rezoned to Rural Residential (RR) which does not allow contractor ' s yards . Other methods could be used to accomplish the same purpose. The preceding discussion has focused on the Planning Commission ' s desire to allow small scale contractor ' s yards in the southern portion of the City . A comprehensive review of this issue should also address the prohibition of contractors yards outside of industrial areas . In preparing this report , I reviewed the zoning ordinances of the cities of Plymouth , Maple Grove , Minnetonka , Chaska , Eden Prairie , Blaine and Champlin as well as ordinances of several developing communities in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area . All ordinances prohibit contractor ' s yards outside of industrial sites except Chaska which allows landscape contractors businesses in their Rural Residential zone. Chaska requires a — minimum lot size of 40 acres for such uses . The purpose of the A-2 zone is "preservation of rural character — while respecting development patterns by allowing single-family residential development . " Are "mom and pop" contractor ' s yards considered part of the rural character? If so , they may be _ appropriate uses . If not , they either need to be prohibited or the purpose of the A-2 zone needs to be modified . Beyond an analysis of the existing purpose statement , the Planning Commission needs to consider the long term impacts of contractor ' s yards of any scale . Chanhassen is rapidly urbanizing . A significant amount of development has occurred over the past five — years in the Rural Service Area . As land continues to be absorbed in Eden Prairie , Chanhassen will receive added development pressure . In light of increasing development , the compatibility of contractor ' s yards with existing residential and future land — uses needs to be addressed . Additionally , allowing contractor ' s yards may pose short and long term administrative problems . In the long term , contractor ' s yards are compatible only with industrial land uses . At the present time , future industrial areas in the Rural Service Area have not been identified . Therefore , _ permitting contractor ' s yards throughout the southern section of Chanhassen creates potential future land use conflicts . Allowing any scale of contractor ' s yards also creates significant short term administrative problems . Once low intensity contractor ' s yards are '— allowed , the mechanism is in place to permit variance applications for more intensive uses . In reality , it is much easier for a city to control a use by not allowing it to occur in any form than it is to consistently deny variance applications . RECOMMENDATION : Contractor ' s yards are largely inconsistent with long term growth in Chanhassen . Almost every community in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area has found that such uses are inappropriate outside of industrial zones . Additionally , the inclusion of contractor ' s yards in Chanhassen ' s existing zoning ordinance has — created enforcement and administrative problems . The city ' s experience with this issue coupled with the fact that contractor ' s yards are not consistent with long term land use in Chanhassen _ creates a strong argument for prohibiting such uses . For these reasons , it is recommended that contractor ' s yards be permitted in Chanhassen only in appropriate industrial zones and not in the unsewered sections of the community. — If the Planning Commission decides that small scale contractor ' s yards should be allowed in the A-2 zone , a significant modification — of the zoning ordinance needs to b2 considered . In order to limit the intensity of such uses , the following modifications ars offered for review: 1 . Modify the definition of Contractor ' s Yards to include only low intensity uses with minimal storage needs ie . means an area for the storage of vehiclesgaccessory ip"Con 'related s yards and to small scale contracting operations that areaes orytothe principal residential use of the property . Equipment and vehicles stared in the contractor ' s yard shall be used solely by family members residing in the principal residential structure on the property. " 2 . Establish contractor ' s yards as conditional accessory uses in the A-2 zone subject to the following conditions : A . The minimum lot size is ten ( 10 ) acres . B . Ali storage and yard areas as well as buildings must be set back one hundred ( 100 ) feet from right-of-ways and five hundred ( 500 ) feet l � cfroom rpan adjacent single- family residence . C . The site must be located along a collector or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan . 0 . The total floor area of storage buildings shall be iimitea to one thousand ( 1000 ) square feet or 507, of the floor area of the principal residential structure whichever is more restrictive. E . Outdoor storage areas shall be limited to five hunared ( 500 ) square feet in total area . All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by one hundred ( 100 ) percent opaque fencing or berming. F. Hours of operation shall be from 7 : 00 a . m. to 6 : 00 p. m. , Monday through Saturday only , work on Sunday and holidays not permitted . G . Light sources shall be shielded . H . No outside speaker systems are allowed . I . All vehicles and equipment relating to the contracting business shall be stored within a building or screened area . 3 . Rezone existing 2 . 5 acre residential developments to Rural Residential ( RR ) . Rural Residential prohibits contractor ' s yards . If an approach such as the one outlined above is eventually adopted by the City or if contractor ' s yards are contractor ' s yards will become nonconforming . As such ,all willexisting be allowed to continue providing they are p ' t they permitted contractor ' s yards at the time of the modification of the ordinance . They will not , however , be permitted to expand or intensify . After discussion by the Planning Commission , appropriate ordinance language will be prepared for formal consideration by the Commission and City Council . Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 15 back and use your energy to better use? Hanson : Some cities , to handle this type of a thing , would set up what might be called an adminstrative plat or a minor plat or whatever . It would be handled more or less as a consent item. In the case of this where it' s fairly straight forward and it wouldn' t make any sense not to approve it once you approved the site plan because they couldn ' t build the building now. Headla : We' re going through stuff where you ' re just using your energy where it could be probably better used. In the future if you could guide us on something like that. Hanson : We would have had this coming with the site plan previously but there was a delay in getting the plat document available when the site plan was because it was something we turned up when we were reviewing that so it threw us off two weeks . Conrad : David , it is a public hearing which we have to have. Have the floor for a public hearing and we need the staff to make this up. Headla : I just had a question, is there some way to avoid that? This particular type of set up. Conrad : I don ' t know if we could figure out the rules . E;nmi.ngs: I think we want to try and have this folded into the site plan so we do it all at once and that would pretty much take care of your objection I think. Ellson moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat Case #89-1 based on the plans stamped "Received January 11, 1989" subject to the following conditions : 1. Final approval of the site plan for Ver-Sa-Til by City Council . All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Headla moved, Ellson seconded to note the summar of Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 18 , 1989 as presented. All voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and the motion carried . OPEN DISCUSSION: CONTRACTORS YARDS . — f, Hanson : I had hoped that we could just have a general discussion of it . I wanted to give you somewhat of a comparison between the contractors yard , the conditions that apply to it as it is now versus what Mark has included in his recommendation and that staff report and I believe that that ' s on the , it might be the third page of his . I don ' t have the first Planning Commission Meeting — February 1, 1989 - Page 16 page. The part I 'm looking at is actually the fourth page . On item, it' s numbered 2 and the differences between what he has there and what ' s _ presently in the Code. First of all , the minimum lot size has changed from 5 acres as it is presently and increased up to a 10 acre minimum lot size for a contractors yard . (b) , that ' s what is in the ordinance now. (c) is what' s in the ordinance at this time . (d) is a new section — limiting the total square footage for the storage buildings. Presently there' s no limitation on that. Then (e) i.s a change and the first sentence there is new. That outdoor storage areas shall be limited to 500 — square feet in total area. Under the present ordinance, there' s no limitation on that outdoor storage area . Then , hours of operation are the same. Light sources is the same. Outdoor speaker systems are the same. The last section is a new section that all vehicles and equipment relating — to the contracting shall be stored within the building or within a screened area so that it' s clear that those have to be non-visible from other areas . Then there' s one section under the present conditions that has been deleted under this proposal and that ' s the requirement on the one mile separation between contracting yards . That' s not included in the proposal that Mark had prepared . There ' s a graphic up here that I 'd just like to point out a few things on this because we talk about this — agricultural area . The A-2 area is really everything south generally of that line so it ' s this area in here. The green areas are essentially open rspace areas . Areas committed to , a golf course down here and the -- Arboretum. The area shown in the yellow are for the most part, subdivided areas with 2 1/2 acre lots or more in some parts and also some odd parcels that are less than 10 acres . . . .couple areas that would not be available for . . . The red areas on here are existing . . . There is the one mile restriction left in. In looking , this is approximately a mile. You ' re looking at some slivers in here that would not be covered by one mile radi.us . . . so if that one mile limitation is left on there, I think there — are only a half dozen parcels that would be available . . . The area that ' s shown in orange on there are nurseries. Again, there ' s been some discussion on whether a nursery i.s a contractor ' s yard . . . The couple _ other areas that are noted on here that have conditional use permits . . . Hidden Valley extraction plant down here . An electrical substation here and driving range here. We also have a couple contractors yards up in _ here that are not in the A-2 district . They were approved prior to that limit so they were grandfathered in. . . My reason for going over that is simply just to provide some background and a jumping off place if you will on what the Planning Commission is looking at. One of the things too, I — think we had talked about briefly when Tim had asked about where the contracting yards were and where it was sitting. The old Council had looked at this and looked at the recommendation from the Planning Commission and Mark ' s report and essentially it was a 4 to 5 decision at that point in time. There was no formal recommendation but saying , yes , the Planning Commission should proceed with that . There was some discussion whether they should wait for the new Council to take their — position and look at that . When I went back to the Minutes , they basically said no, let ' s take it back to the Planning Commission. Probably should have brought that back earlier than now but I wanted to — get it back before you and see what direction you wanted to take as far as looking at some type of an amendment and the time frame you want to look at as far as setting up public hearings . Planning Commission Meeting February 1 , 1989 - Page 17 Conrad : Does anybody, with taking a look at Mark ' s recommendations , should we be pursuing this right now? Contractors yards aggressively? Batzli : A zoning change? Conrad: Yes . Emmings : I don ' t know. Wouldn ' t the thing to do be just to schedule a public hearing? We don ' t have to stake out a position on this until , I don ' t think we want to until after the public hearing . Conrad: I don' t know if it' s , to have a position. I think it' s our role to float this in front of the public . I guess the only, see if anybody cares. The only ones that are going to show up are the contractors but I think it' s our goal to do that . Batzli : There might be a couple people next to some contractors . Conrad: Possibly, yes . Emmings: I think we should pursue it . I think it ' s one of the things we' ve been wanting to get at. Conrad : Basically when I went through the Minutes of City Council , other than Hamilton, everybody else felt comfortable going ahead with it . Basically going to a less intensive use of some sort . I don ' t know if I read a consensus to get rid of it but certainly a less intense use I sure heard . I think what I read here , in Mark ' s is certainly getting us to a less intense use. The question is , do we send it back to City Council or do we go ahead with it? My reading , we don ' t know where the new Council is. On the other hand , we certainly can go ahead on our own . It ' s a question of whether we bounce it back up to them for another shot at it, see if the new Council ' s interested or if we just go ahead ourselves . Headla : I 'd like to see what the new Council has to say. Send up a trial balloon and see how they respond. Conrad : Basically what you say Dave is , let ' s take Mark' s comments here and pass it up for an informational item as soon as we can schedule it and see if the Council has any comments or a different set of direction but noting the fact that we want to schedule a public hearing and are interested in any comments they may have. Emmings: We ' re playing a lot of tennis with this thing. Couldn ' t we just say that we'd like to have a public hearing set up on this unless the Council disagrees or unless the Council feels like we shouldn ' t proceed? That way it doesn ' t have to come back. They can just go ahead and set it _ up. Erhart : The other thing is , that after the public hearing , it still goes to Council anyway. Planning Commission Meeting — February 1 , 1989 - Page 18 Conrad : But it ' s always nice to incorporate new thoughts in before . Emmings: With 3 new members, I think it would be good . Give them a veto — on it . Just say, let ' s go ahead . Let' s set up a public hearing unless they think we shouldn' t. Hanson : Are you thinking that we would go ahead and incorporate Mark ' s recommendation? Conrad : That ' s my next. Yes . Headla : I 'd like to throw out something for discussion to see what you think about making an addition to that . It' s a very difficult thing to — measure but we don ' t talk about noise at all but when somebody comes here to talk about contractors yards , noise, I think it ' s been brought up every single time. It was brought up again tonight . Remember the Lyman Lumber? _ One of the big objections was the noise. Lyman was very responsive to that but I ' d like to see us , whether we need guidance on how in the world you can even word it to make it meaningful because I really think you ought to talk about some type of noise control . The contractors yard near — me, I can ' t complain about, that ' s get noisy once i.n a while during the day. That part isn ' t bad but I think at times it can be excessive in some r of these places and we should have some way of controlling it. Emmings : Steve , do you ever deal with contractors yards a great deal in your background? Hanson : No , because we didn ' t allow them in the agricultrual areas , in all honesty. We looked at them as an industrial use. Have a different license for them. _ Conrad : Dave, I buy your idea on noise but I don ' t know how you write something . Headla : I bet 5-10 years ago , we would have responded the same way when you say, what do you do for sight? How can you measure and somebody says , well , let ' s put up a big fence . Those were new words at one time. I — think maybe we should have new words for the sound nuisance. Emmings : I think they' re restricting the hours of operation . That ' s what that was getting at . Headla : It can be a big benefit . I think that ' s one of the primary reasons that was put i.n there in the old ordinance. — Batzli : I think with larger sites , a 10 acre site , you ' re going to have less noise as well unless they take up the whole site. The point is , that — here it ' s a much less intensive use . They don ' t have, 500 square feet of outdoor storage is nothing . Hanson : One thing I hadn ' t mentioned there . Item 1 on that page with those changes , is a modification of the definition to a contractors yard . What it clearly does is it snakes that contractors yard an accessory use to Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 19 the individual living on the property. That ' s a major deviation from where we are now. Headla : That in itself can help quite a bit . Conrad: Any other recommendations in terms of what ' s in front of us here? Batzli : If we change the definition of contractors yard , do we currently allow them in the IOP? So you really can ' t change the definition of contractors yard up at the front of this section. Hanson: Good point . Batzli : We' re going to have to call it something else . Ellson: There's your junk yard . There ' s, the definition of junk yard maybe. Batzli. : I think there has to be an easier way unless we just , I don ' t know if we can do it in the definition section to define it one way for one district and another way for another . That would be easier than trying to amend a bunch of different sections. r Emmings: We can face that after we decide what we' re going to do because I guess what we' re looking at, if we' re going to make it less intense, we' re either going to say there aren ' t going to be any in which case we can just leave it alone. Leave the defi.nition alone because it will still fit in the IOP. If we take that route , we don ' t have that problem. It ' s only if we take the second choice of saying it ' s going to be an accessory use. Then we ' ve got the problem. We can figure something out then I suppose. Hanson : One place where we might try to define that is , presently you have standards for a contractor 's yard in the agricultural and residential districts . You have a group of those districts and then under the industrial it' s also a conditional use. They are separate criteria in that part of the conditional use regulations so it could be defined differently to cover it in that area . Batzli : That would be a good way to handle it . Erhart: Ladd , are you looking for comments as to how we should, what ' s the next step? Conrad : Additions to what Mark, do you see anything that we want to change as we pass this up to City Council for a veto or as we set Steve forward to set up a public hearing . Do you see any other changes in this? Erhart: Do you normally go to a public hearing with just general comments? Do you go out with a specific plan of this is what we want to pass? I guess we assumed that we were going out with specifics on a public hearing . Planning Commission Meeting — February 1, 1989 - Page 23 T Hanson: We need to have a draft , if you will . Erhart : Okay. Then it seems to me that we have to decide either between the plan that Mark is recommending, which is the elimination of contractors yards in the A-2 district or the alternative which is we feel that we have to allow them someplace even though nobody else does. Then we have to pick that one . Ellson : I thought we already decided . That ' s why we passed it up to City — Council . I thought we had this discussion. We all pretty much said no in the A-2. Erhart : That we were going to eliminate them? — Ellson: Right. And then we went up there and they got some comments and now it' s back here . Erhart : So then we ' re not really considering the alternative? Emmings : But don ' t we want to have, let people comment on both of the things that Mark has laid out somehow? Maybe we ought to have a public hearing on . . . r Ellson : We ' re kind of wishy washy then . Erhart: Don ' t get me wrong . I 'm just for eliminating and my question, I ;has just wondering where we were going . Emmings: We can have a puolic hearing on a proposal to eliminate them in the A-2 or have a public hearing on a proposal to deintensify their use or eliminate them. I guess I don ' t know if we have to have . . . Conrad : We have to have something to react to. _ Emmings: But if we say, we want to have public comments on a proposal to eliminate them in the A-2, then how will people see this alternative plan of Mark ' s so they could comment on it? Conrad : They won ' t. Emmings : But don ' t we want to hear what they' ve got to say about that? Conrad : Unless we do it through a staff presentation. Unless we float the elimination up there by staff for the public that shows up. They can comment on the alternative that we looked at . Hanson : The other thing you could do is have, rather than a formal public hearing, to talk about the two different options but to still try to generate some interest is to have a workshop type or just have it on the agenda as a discussion item that we would advertise. Then get some public — input and then do a formal public hearing on one of the alternatives . We' ve got to publish the amendment to the ordinance for the public hearing . I 'd rather not publish two because I think it ' s going to be. . . Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 21 r Elison : I would agree to do something like that if we were split but we were pretty much all together . Why would we want to present it any other way? We were all for eliminating them. Why would we even bring it up? Not that we' re trying to outsell ourselves but we already feel strongly this way, and granted they can come forward and say no, I like my neighbor. He has a neat contractors yard or what have you and maybe that will open our minds later to the other alternative but right now, we ' re all voting this way and we sent it forward and now you look like you ' re maybe changing your mind . Erhart : That is a point . If we did get a lot of negative response at a public hearing to eliminate them, then you could always go back and come back with the alternative. Emmings: On the other hand , just looking. at it from the other side , you ' re saying, we' ve got two proposals in front of us. We' ll only show the public this one so they can comment on it and we ' ll keep the other one behind our back. I don ' t know, the whole idea of the public hearing it seems to me is to get . . . Ellson : But this one is the most drastic. So if we get a lot of negative, then we can pull out the happy medium. r Batzli. : I think we should have Ladd write a lengthy letter to the editor explaining the differences between the two plans . Conrad : I ' ll do that tonight . Batzli : No, but I agree . I think we kind of made the decision that we don ' t like them in somewhat of a vaccum in that we haven ' t been reported in the local paper recently and I don' t think the public comes in and reads our Minutes . I would prefer to present both. If we have an option and it ' s going to slow it down by a week or two , I 'd rather do that . If the public' s interested , they can come in. Headla : But how do we get to the public to get them in? Batzli : But they have the option . Emmings : That ' s right . All you can do is provide the opportunity. You can ' t make people come in and comment because we' ve held a lot of public hearings where all we had were crickets . Headla: But if you can give them the option , give them the option. You can tell them, just come here and read the Minutes or you can give them a plan. I think you ' ve got to be more up front with them and say, hey we want to talk about contractors yards. Emmings : I guess the only question is how aware you want to make them of the two options that we looked at . Planning Commission Meeting — February 1 , 1989 - Page 22 tr i Headla : I think Steve should come in at the next meeting with a plan . What we should publish at this public meeting . Conrad : When we passed this up, we asked City Council for their comments . I didn ' t read their comments to say get rid of it altogether . That ' s not what they said . So what you ' re doing is , we passed it up to you folks but — we' re going to go off and get rid of them altogether. Dave, you didn' t say that . You like the small ma and pa , as I recall . Headla: Yes , definitely. Conrad : So the question is , do we want to , it ' s sort of go back and study — it some more Planning Commission and here we' re saying , we thought about it again and we ' re going to go out and have a public hearing eliminating them. Steve, you ' re saying , let ' s get more comments . Batzli : I don ' t even know if he ' s saying that. He ' s saying let ' s see if there are any comments. I don ' t think there will be any but I 'd like to see somebody have the opportunity. Conrad : I don ' t think we ' re in sync with what the City Council is saying . Or at least the past City Council . Batzli : By saving that? Conrad : Based on our attitude right now, I don ' t think we ' re in sync with — what they' re thinking . Emmings : What if we advertise a public hearing as a public hearing on the adoption of an ordinance amendment to eliminate or restrict, pose it in the alternative, contractors yards in Chanhassen . Just hold that public hearing and if you want to, publish a proposed amendment to eliminate and a proposed amendment to restrict so they can read all that and comment on — all of it. Can we do it that way? In the alternative? Because it seems to me that that would , if anybody' s going to comment , that ' s going to fire more people' s imagination than just something real short that says we want to eliminate them. Headla : I like your point Steve but I think we should have a brief definition of contractors yard because I don ' t know what you would — consider a contractors yard and my wife ' s definition might be quite a bit different . Conrad : If we want to get people ' s input , I think we ' ve got to get Steve to float the story over to the Villager . That ' s the way to get any kind of background rather than through a public notice . Hanson: I think if you ' re wanting to create people' s interest, publish that you ' re eliminating contractors yards . Emmings : That would grab the attention of the contractors yards folks but if I 'm a neighbor to one , I may see it as an opportunity to get it clone but I also may think, it looks like it ' s done. I guess it depends on, do — Planning Commission Meeting February 1, 1989 - Page 23 we hold a public hearing because we ' re obligated to or because we want to get some comments? I think the more you put out there, the better chance you ' ve got of getting a better input if they see that the thing is up in the air. I don' t think many people will show up other than people who have them. Conrad : Just the contractors and a few people that might get notified . That receive the notification that live close by. Erhart : I think you' re going to get frustrated trying to get a lot of comment on it. I suggest we simply look at it from a pure planning point of view which is the way Mark has looked at it and I think your history has looked at it. Our stated goal is to eliminate intrusive uses and I think it ' s clear that this is an intrusive use in the agricultural and residential area. I 'm not against getting public opinion but I think in this case , since it ' s only directed at such , the real focused issue is only going to be on those contractors , it ' s the only people you ' re going to get up here . I 'm not too sure we' re going to accomplish what we ' re trying to accomplish. I 'd be more inclined , if you ' re uncomfortable Ladd that we' re not in line with the current Council that is opposed to going out with a vague thing, that we go back to Coucil and get their opinion . I just don ' t think we' re going to get that much out of the public hearing process. I- Conrad : I agree . I think we ' re going to get nothing . Erhart: If you ' re uncomfortable, let ' s go back to the new Council . Conrad : What I 'm saying is , we sent it up the first time to get their input. We got their input that said , reduce the contractor ' s yards but they didn ' t say eliminte them. When I say reduce , reintensify contractors yards is what I read their minutes to say except for Torn Hamilton. Yet what Mark says , to get rid of them altogether and I guess with a new Council I guess I 'm just more interested in feeding them back to them right now. Getting their comments and then take to the public either one or the other options. I think the public is , in this case, I don ' t think we' re going to get a lot . Emmi.ngs : You can pretty well anticipate that . Right? It would be surprising to hear anything new. Conrad : The contractors will be irritated and they' ll be here. The public thinks it' s probably a benfit so they don ' t have anything to lose and everything to gain and they probably won ' t show up . If we think it ' s a deal that they should show up, then I think we should make an effort to floating the story in the Villager . What do you want to do? Hanson: In light of the decision made on the earlier extension of the I. contractors yard in the BF district, we haven ' t talked about that . I 'm • not sure if the Planning Commission would want to include the IIF district also or do we want to just talk about the A-2 district? I heard a lot of what some of you were saying is that is probably not an appropriate use in that location . That causes me to say, well maybe we ought to be , I don ' t Planning Commission Meeting _ February 1, 1989 - Page 24 r want to say let ' s open Pandora ' s box but on the other hand , I 'm also a little leery about do a little amendment here and do a little amendment in a couple more months for something else . I tend to fall back and say, — I 'd like to look at it more comprehensively if we can without saying , let ' s spend 6 or 8 months rehasing a bunch of things . I guess the contracting yard in the BF district is one thing some consideration ought _ to be given to . The other thing that we' ve talked about on previous applications is definition between the nursery and the contracting yard . As far as the type of use that occurs on there. That ' s caused some confusion for some of those people as well as staff in advising someone when they come in on a nursery type application. It' s kind of splitting hairs in some respects . Conrad : Don , what do you want us to do? Have you talked this issue with the new members at all? No chance. Okay. Ellson : Maybe they should look at it. You ' re probably right . It could be a whole different point of view. I 'd hate to go to the public with our recommendation and then have it be 100% different than theirs . Ping pong it back eo there again, right Steve. And I think you made a good comment . — Take a look at everything . Look at that highway and the works instead of just . . . ' Erhart : I ' d agree . If we' re going to get more comment from Council , we ought to include BF. 3atzli : Then we might as well look and see if that thing should be zoned 3F to start with then . Let ' s start with A. Erhart : That proposal has already been made in a separate series of documents . Batzli : I know it has but nothing ' s happened has it? Conrad : We don ' t have a good alternative for that property. Batzli : We just don ' t want to change it to agricultural again. Conrad : Agricultural on TH 212 is kind of foolish. Fringe business means we had nothing else to call it . It was good for nothing and therefore we _ wanted to accommodate what was there and not intensify anything but we ' ve been intensifying stuff . Erhart: You can accommodate what ' s there . Conrad : We ' ve gone way contrary to what originally the fringe business was and that was just to keep it conforming . Take it out of the non- conforming category so we had some kind of control on it but since then , i we' ve been developing the area and some of it made sense. L _ Erhart : Whatever we perceived the evils of non-conformance is , I just don ' t think outweighs what we got ourselves into and that is that it ' s growing . Planning Commission Meeting February 1 , 1989 - Page 25 — r Batzli : Well , staff told us to do it that way. Emxni.ngs: Can we have maybe a different zone where there are no permitted uses . There are no standards. There are no conditional uses . It ' s called the Twilight Zone and just put things like that in there and hope they go away. Erhart : If we go back to the Council , let ' s try to keep the thing moving so we get it back and get something to a public hearing because I think we all see where we ' re going and the more we wait , the more we' re going to invite another contractor yard application and then we' re going to have a problem. Conrad : I guess what I 'd like to do is , Steve, have you give City Council a brief presentation and we' re sticking you into something that you don ' t have a whole lot of background i.n but I think we should introduce him to the subject. We should say, the Planning Commission at this point in time, based on the consultant ' s opinion, is feeling that they should be eliminated altogether and we ' re looking for their feedback again because of the new City Council members . At this point in time, I don ' t know what we' re floating a motion or anything other than having you give them a presentation to give the new Councilmembers some background on this subject but also to say, we ' re still , there ' s a leaning down here to - eliminate them altogether . Probably on a 5 to 2 vote . I 'm just guessing that not everybody' s in favor of the eliminating them. Does that make sense? Can we do it that way? Ellson : Yes, let ' s do it that way. OPEN DISCUSSION: HIGHWAY 101 MEDIANS . Fred Hoisington: Tim has really raised a very good question because we ' ve dealt with all of these roads . The major roads of the downtown streets and so forth. As one can well see, there have been a number of medians proposed throughout a good share of the redevelopment area of the City of Chanhassen . But unfortunately, there are some very significant limiting factors . Did theyget a copy of the memo by any chance Stove? Okay. What ' s proposed right now is something , well that ' s really not the correct one but at least it shows the median situation i.n regards to Market Blvd . . The point Tim is raising , it has to do primarily with this stretch of TH 101 and future TH 101 on the south side. We have a number of things working against us . When the alignment of Market Blvd . was established north of TH 5, what happened was we took a limited or minimum right-of-way through here so we only have about 80 feet I think it is in that location. Now that that has been pretty much established , the question is , how do we tie into it and we' re very limited as to how we can tie into it . We ' re committed to have to have a 6 foot wide median at the nose at TH 5 so that the two intersections north and south can tie in and be directly across from one another. What that tells us is , that if we want to widened the median further , and really that ' s kind of Tim' s question is can we widened it more and landscape it and so forth , then we would have to do that south City Council Meeting - F:bruzry 13, 1O`39 gallon elevated tank downtown hare which does need some improvements here. When r the new reservoir was constructed, at that time the color scheme was selected. Basically the cumulus color which you see it painted now was chosen with rublic input from that area. The action of the Council at that time was to choose this color and that we would then paint the rest of the elevat_d tanks that same — color for consistency once we dealt with the rehab of those tanks. Just to confirm for the Council that we are proceeding with that direction and the downtown tank, which presently is sort of an aqua green, will be painted the cumulous color. We've had some good comments actually from the residents around the reservoir how it blends in with the sky and such and that was the intent. The other item I wanted to touch base with the Council on is the logo. The new reservoir has a maple leaf, the City's logo. The downtown tank obviously has the word Chanhassen on it which I think is, frau a historic standpoint, strictly my preference. We're suggesting that the tank would be painted with the Chanhassen name. Not only on the south side as i.t is now but also on the north side. I noticed driving in from the north, especially on Kerber Blvd., it's really stands up and it's a very visible point. It'd be nice to have the name I think on both sides of the tank. I'm just throwing that out. I guess we do _ want to include that in the plans and soecs that are presently being prepared so we can get bids out. It really wouldn't impact the cost in any significant fashion as far as adding another name. Councilman Workman: What color is i.t going to be? Gary Warren: Cumulus. Counci L•nan Workman: That light blue? Gary Warren: No, no. The color of the new reservoir which is basically a cream whit-, that blends in with the clouds. :e have had some very good comments frau the residents up there. It does blend in pretty well. Councilman Workman: Are you going to put the name Chanhassen and the maple leaf on it? Gary Warren: I don' t think we have room for ill of that. Just put Chanhassen on the north and the south side. We'll pursue it from that standpoint. DISCUSSION OF CONTRACTORS YARDS, PLANNING DIRiCTOR. Steve Hanson: This iter has been referred to you by the Planning Commission. It had been referred to Council towards the end of the year last year. Going back to Planning Commission, the Planning Commission at the last meeting had a fair amount of deliberation regarding the contractors yard. They decided that _ they really wanted to get a little more direction from the Council...with new people on the Council, to get a little more clear direction as to what this body is thinking regarding this. I won't go through the entire package. There's a memo that you have from PLark Koegler that was prepared back in December but essentially what it boils down to is the Planning Commission is asking for some direction on three different options. One of those is to leave the ordinance as it is. Presently it allows contractors yards in the A-2 district as a [7:• conditional use. The second option is to amend the ordinance but still allow contractors yards within the A-2 district but restrict the size of that. The 48 City Council >,.eti ng - February 13, 1939 intent being that it would be more of a ma and pop type operation rather than a large wholesale contractors yard. Then the third option is to delete contractors yards entirely from the A-2 district and allow them in the industrial areas only. I don't know if you had a chance to read through the Planning Commission Minutes contained in your packet.. .but basically the Planning Commission is leaning towards the option number 3 which is eliminating them from the A-2 district. what they would like is the sense of the City Council or what your thinking might be and whether they should pursue that. .. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to make a comment. As you're describing number 2, what's written in our packet is to limit the contractors yards as an accessory use. I think that's important to point out to where we're talking about having a person living on the site and he's also, like Buck in his excavating business, he lives there. He's got an excavating business there. He has a contractors yard that's an accessory to his home and his business. That keeps it a mom and pop. I like that option. The gentleman on CR 117 has his home there and he wants to put his business at his home and it's a fairly small business. He has a few more, a lot more employee actually. He has 10 to 12 but our current ordinance will allow -anybody to go out and buy 40 acres of farmland and turn it into, if they can meet the 1 mile radius criteria, and turn it into a contractors yard where nobody lives. They just start bringing in semis. I think they've probably hit every spot they can with the 1 mile radius right now. It's close. There's a couple spots but I like number 2 because I think that as an accessory use, if somebody such as the Buck Excavatings of the world and the landscaping contractor, I forget his name out on CR 117, that sons to be a legitimate use for a property. Coming out and avoiding going into an industrial park by being able to buy farmland at much less price and doing this, is not really :ghat we should be doing with the south side of Chanhassen or the north side. I mean somebody could buy some acreage along Lake Lucy and do this also. There are some spots there that would probably be outside the 1 mile as long as you get away from Larry Kerber's contractor yard, which is another example. The other thing I want to make sure is that this is only in the non-severed areas and that as the MUSA line changes, I'd like to see some way, we want to make sure that it doesn't go with the property so that if Larry sells his home, the person he sells to could not be able to continue to use that as a contractors yard in that he is now in suburban Chanhassn, not rural Chanhassen. When he opened his contractors yard, he was much more rural. That's another thing I would like to look into is those contractors yards that are now in suburban side of the City with curbs, gutters, sewers and everything else. That gets limited. But I like option 2 as long as we have some acreage requirements. I hate to see a 2 acre contractors yard put on a 2 1/2 acre lot with a little house there in which case the accessory use turns out to be the house, not the contractors yard. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question and maybe Steve you can answer it. If we go with option 3, which is to prohibit then altogether, then the ones that are there are non-conforming. It says they will be allowed to remain there but they will not be permitted to expand or intensify but when they sell, does that non-conforming use pass to the next possesser? Steve Hanson: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: It does. Okay. 49 • City Council Fleeting - February 13, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Is there anyway Roger that we could make a conditional use -1- permit that when the zoning changes and it went from a conditional use to a non- conforming use that we could, once they get in a non-conforming use, do they still have a conditional use permit that goes with that property? Roger Knutson: Yes. It's just non-conforming. Councilman Boyt: You want to buy our Redi-,-nix plant? There you go. _ Councilman Johnson: Yes. That's exactly the same thing. The Redi-mix plant. Councilman Boyt: They're forever. I'm pretty sure that the Planning Commission really wanted to hear from the 3 new councilmenbers on this issue. Councilman Workman: I think what we're kind of looking at is the south side specifically isn't isn't it? Councilman Boyt: That's where the A-2 is. Councilman Workman: I've read some of the information that Tim Erhart has loaned to me. I've been driving through that area of town since I was a 2 year old and Jim Klobuchar lives in my community. It's uglytown out there. There's no doubt about it. What are we really saying about this area? Do we want it to go back to nature as part of the bluffs and the river and the wildlife area down there? Is that realistic? I don't think allowing it to go back to nature is ... going to happen. Do we want it rezoned A-2, is that what we're looking at? Agricultural? ++ Councilman Boyt: Residential. Agricultural residential. Councilman Workman: Because I don't see that as really being a viaole agricultural. Farming on bluffs, there's just nothing there anyway. t,:ni.c leads me to the question, so what do we do with the people that are down there? Cr people who had intentions such as Admiral Waste who had intentions to operate their business there. What happens to the value of their property? What happens to their whole game plan? They're stuck with a parcel perhaps that has now changed intended use and what can they do with it? Councilman Johnson: They're not in the A-2 by the way. Admiral. Councilman Workman: They're in the BE? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Councilman Workman: So I understand frau certainly the neighbors in that vicinity to the north, that it is uglytown. But again, I don't see. it as ;oi.ng back to Mother Nature. Have we got a restriction on the junkyard down there? As far as their expanding that. Are they allowed to expand that? Councilman Johnson: Which junkyard? Councilman Boyt: You mean the auto place? Councilman Workman: Statewide. 50 i L, City Council Meeting ng - February 13, 1M9 1-- J J Don Ashworth: I'm sure that's a non-conforming use. Councilman Wor-anan: They haven't been allowed to expand? Councilman Johnson: That's BF also. That's not the A-2. Councilman Boyt:.Y�: �.; You e got to think of south of TH 5 T . That's not just the bluffs. Councilman Johnson: All the Bray from TH 5 south. MUSA line, we're talki L• As soon as you get out of the ng yman Blvd., Pioneer Trail, the Merle yolk property. West of Lake Ann Park. All that area is A-2 also. The A-2 expands from here, from south of Lake Minnewashta up to here, down along and then all the way down. Not just the bluffs. Councilman Workman: Right, but I'm thinking specifically of the bluffs also because I think that's probably the rubbing what are our intentions down there? I understand the�safettyly aspect nts aw in that nd the aesthetic aspects of it but, isn't that what we're trying to do? e're trying to send a signal to that area also? Councilman Johnson: That's a different issue of eliminating the BF and changing that to A-2. I think that's a separate issue. , Councilman Workman: But isn't Admiral Waste a contractors yard? .... j Councilman Johnson: Yes, in the BF district right now. Councilman Wor man: But we're saying they can' t do that either. Councilman Johnson: No new contractors yards. They would be able to continue with what their conditional use permit was when it was issued last year if they bum do anything before their 1 year period ends. Councilman Workman: No, they went to the Planning Commission for an extension and didn't get it. Nom Councilman Johnson: That comes to us yet so it hasn't been, the Planning Commission recommends to us that they don't get their extension. That will be coming before us probably our next meeting. The question the bluffs area and that area, is should we allow contrahere, ' � ] ctorsya dsinourA-2 zone and how should they be allowed? Admiral is considered a contractors yard, yes. Larry Kerber's place, that's a contractors yard. Do you Larry Mom lives there? Then you have across the street from Pryzmus' little golfrcourse, a contractors yard without a permit. It's just been there forever. He's never gotten the permit. Then just north of him is another contractors yard. Further north of that is another contractors yard that's going in. We just gave permission last year. Pryzmus is in the A-2. He's not a contractors yard though. I think the question comes, do we want to continue encouraging industrial uses in the A-2 district or only residential uses? Is this area going to be industrial/commercial or residential in this City? I think that really comes down to the question as to what do you want to see it in the future. There's a lot of people who would love to make it industrial. I 51 � ') City Council :•'c�ti�Z - _::bru.�ry 13, l:3 personally think it should be residential and that some limited contr.cttrs yard 'ar usaage accssory to somebody's residential ucoage I have it there as ::yJhouse 1 but I also want to run my business out of my house. When I've got 1J acres or 43 acres, I have roam to do that. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a couple of comments. I was reading here in the middle of the page it says, in the lona term, contractors yards are comoatible only with industrial land uses. Did everybody find that? At the present time, future industrial areas in the rural service area have not been identified. I'm wondering if it isn't time to do so. That we could do that ahead of time in zoning and then prevent problems in the future. Why can't we identify them now? Councilman Boyt: It's the idea of zoning, we probably should. Councilman Johnson: I recommended that last year as a part of 212 because as the 212 corridor goes through, it makes sense that we might want to put some commercial, some industrial around the 212 corridor. It doesn't make sense to put it down along Pioneer Trail. Councilor an Dimler: Okay, so now who do we take that to get that done? Steve Hanson: ...At this point in time, if someone were to ask, at this coi nt in time your position is that it's agricultural with some other conditional uses it allows. For examole in this case, allow really an industrial type use out in that agricultural area. So I think from the standpoint of your question, what you're really asking is what should the City be looking at for these areas? A 'Jn7 tern... Cc;:':ci o man Dimler: Yes, when it is a service area, what do you see? You can' t razon it right now for that? i'Fe could cone it right now for that and then that 4auid prevent contractors yards from coming in if it's not compatible. Steve Hanson: I don't know that you're in a position right now to know what zoning you'd place on it. Councilwoman Dimler: We could direct to where they would be allowed and in _ other areas they wouldn't. I'm just asking if we couldn't plan for the future a little bit more than just going... Steve Hanson: I think that's what we should be doing but at this point in time we're not in that position. Councilwoman Dimler: Can we get in that position? _ Steve Hanson: I certainly hope so. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, what would it take? _. Steve Hanson: First of all it would take going and updating the Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Boyt: Which you're doing now. Steve Hanson: We're in the process of doing. 52 L City Cou^_i 1 ..yeti:- j - . :br• .iry 13, 139 Councilman Wor!-cman: It'soin_ g to 3ave a lot of problems in the future for denying this kind of thing. Steve Hanson: You can look at it two different ways. You can take it and say, take everything that's in the City and determine as best as you can what should happen in those areas or you can take the tact that the City has in the past and that's to take those areas outlying where you don't really have a good sense for what the market is going to be and what things really ought to happen out there. I think i.n an agricultural district, to allow that to occur, and I think that's where Planning Commission is coming from at this point in time. They're we don't know what those areas need to be. want torash saying decision but the Planning Commission doesn't believe that a contractors the type right now is the right kind of use to stick out there, es yard wof ith the conditional use, the way that it works. especially p putting it there permanently. I think they're recoanizing that that's not ot of pthes'besttway to deal with i t. The best way to deal with it is to pull that use out of there because it's not appropriate at this point in time and then take the time to 6. decide what should happen in the long term. Mayor C::niel: Why couldn't you put a restriction on the number of years on something? Like 1995 or something of that nature. Councilman Johnson: On a conditional use permit? :7e tried that. Putt_-n� # our attorneys, to couldn' t make a temporary conditional use permit. ' it to Rorer Knutson: I can point out that there is a bill that will be introduced in 1 the legislature this year. I'm on a committee that's recommending that that change take place to allow temporary uses.1 5o if that's passed, you can do it. Maynard Poppe: I'm Maynard Peppy and I own property just up above where this contractors yard is supposed to be. It's detrimental to the property that I own. In fact if they put a contractors yard down there, from what I understand is to be for garbage trucks and that sort of thing. It will ruin the property that I own. It's a residential area. ::hat does it take to change it from agricultural residential to whatever it would have to be? Also, how long a term would it be given if they were given a permit or whatever they're going to get? Another thing, when the property that was Bushick's don't know 7, 8, 10 years ago, I own the propertyproperty was up for sale, I next to that and looked into the possibility, went to the Minnesota Highway Department asking if I could get an access just up above the underpass that's down there on TH 101. They said low well, I would have to put i.n a written request but he didn't think that the Highway Department would give me an access going in there even if I owned the property unless it was just a limited access which meant, what he told me, that if you come out of that property, you'd have to go upthe hill. You couldn't make a cross over or coming down. You couldn't make a left turn. Now I'm wondering how come the roadway just below that underpass is more of a hazard, highway hazard than the part north. I wonder how they give a permit for an access where there would be trucks going in and out and give them an access. They' re sure not going to go uphill to get out of there with the trucks. They're going to make a turn and go to the left. The same way coming down the hill so I think that would be very much of a hazard if we had to fight those trucks coming down the hill. You come under that under the way it is now with the traffic that we have. The traffic that was 3-147gh 53 • City C„un::i 1 Meetiig - _ebru.iry 13, 1 A9 years ago is nothing compared to what the tragic going up and down there now because they're going up the other :•ray. much against giving S So I would very a permit for anything like a garbage or contractors yard of that sort. ` Mayor miel: That will be coming before the Council next meeting. Within 2 C wte ks. Maynard Popoe: That's why I was wondering. I called City Hall and they said they were talking about that tonight. :mayor u•niel: Just whether or not the availability of contractors yards should be within the city or what determination we should come up with. — Maynard Poppe: Okay, I thought that that was what was going on. I didn't get a notice. That's one thing I would like. When there's something going on down _ there, that we would, along that road, get a notice of something that's going on. ?mayor Ciel: If you leave Steve your name and 'address, he will be more than — happy to send you a notice. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I kind of like what Jay had to say about the accessory use but I do wonder sometimes how many ma and pa operations we still have coming before us...major businesses. However, I think maybe it's a little bit too restrictive when we go saying that they shall not work on Sunday and holidays. It seems like we're going back to the past. [1 Councilman Johnson: No, I don't think so. CounciLman 3oyt: We're trying to give people some quiet. Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but you've got to renenber they're on a 10 acres and your neighbors aren' t that close. Mayor C:niel: It depends upon what they're doing. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but I'm just saying that we can' t be that restrictive for everybody because people that are doing...cut their grass on Sunday. Councilman Johnson: So what's the guidance coming from the Council to the Planning Commission on this? I haven't seen any clear cut guidance as of yet. Mayor Chmiel: No, I guess I'm looking for, as I see that there nay still be a "- need for same of these contractors yards. I like the idea of putting a limitation on it, if that becomes law. I think that would be the thing to do is to put a restriction for numbers of years. Because the growth goes with it, the MUSA line moves, we've got a lot of different things that we have to think about. I'm not sure whether we should delete yet at this time contractors yards entirely from the A-2 district. I think there should be a restriction as to numbers that can be there. There are restrictions as far as the hours that they're operable. I think that we really have to, I like these ma and pa kind of situations because I think it's good for us and it's good for then. I think I would be pretty much in favor at this particular time, looking to amending the ordinance to allow limited contractors yards as an accessory use in the A-2 54 City Council Meeting - c'Baru Zry 13, 1:39 district. L j Councilman Boyt: Sounds like what we have is Jay who is for, as you call it, the mom and pop operation. Don, you seen to be Leaning that direction. I'm not sure how Tom and Ursula feel. I'll take two minutes and tell you that in the last year I saw the previous Council approve a contractors yard that had 5 tractor trailers that Was put in what was generally considered to be good residential property just north of TH 212, rolling hill kind of country. Councilwoman Dimler: How many acres? Councilman Boyt: Ursula I don't remember the number of acres but the cost of it wasn't the issue for this gentleman. He needed an area to park his tractor trailers and that was the best place to do it as far as he was concerned. If we don't change this ordinance, we currently don't, in my opinion, we don't have an ordinance because the previous Council gave a variance to the within 1 mile down to a couple hundred yards so I don't think we have a 1 mile limit, in my opinion. We're dealing with, basically a situation in which, regardless of what we do, if we shut them off altogether, we still have more contractors yards than any cannuni.ty around us right now. Eden Prairie doesn't allow them. I don't believe Chaska allows them. That's my best guess because I don't remember exactly but I know for a fact that Eden Prairie doesn't allow them. They're not felt to be compatible with developing communities although it's a needed service but we have got quite a few contractors yards today and we're not going to be able to do anything to eliminate those contractors yards unless you want to buy than. So to go out, maybe the man and pop thing is an option. I don' t think Awe're going to get any of those situations so maybe that's a possibility but the contractors yards, as I understood from the previous council, that situation was created so that people who currently were sort of a mom and pop, could continue to do that. What I saw happening was it got, as far as I'm concerned, completely out of hand. We granted th.rn. The tractor trailer thing was an excellent example of where somebody was taking it to the extreme. My particular position is to agree with the Planning Commission as they previously stated and as they reaffirmed that when you build, as we are in south Chanhassen, very expensive homes, you'd like to think that somebody just over the hill isn't running tractor trailers or doesn't have the ability to come in and do that after you've bought your home. As it stands today, they do have that ability and I think we should prevent that from happening. Councilman Workman: It really, to me, it is leaving us open, how do I phrase this? It kind of leaves us open to a can of worms a little bit I guess. I did follow that semi trailer issue. Is that the one just on the other side from the SA down there? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Workman: I understand they can' t even get their tractor trailers in there. Councilman Johnson: It's not across From the SA. It's by the Assumption Seminary isn't it? You're talking the cold storage area. That's a cold storage area. 55 -1 City Council .' eting - February L3L.)$') Councilman 3oyt: It's down by the Assumption Seminary but it's right in that difficult triangle of traffic. Councilman Johnson: It's :est of the Assumation Seminary. It hasn' t been constructed yet? Councilman Workman: They're doing a good job of hiding it. Councilman Johnson: It's way off the road. Councilman Work--Kan: I guess the point of, and I read through Tim's articles and he's got a personal issue in that surrounding area, and even prior to taking a -. seat on the Council, there's a lot of issues about contractors yards and tree farms and that kind of thing going on. I don't want to limit people's ability to use their property to earn a living but to me it's still so vague out there _ about what a person could use that for. They could use it for tractors or he could use it for a mom and pop but until we can say, we've got to keen this back a little bit so that we don't have willy nilly all over everyplace, I don't feel comfortable in saying yes, let's go ahead and let them do it. To me it just hasn't teen proven to me that we have a certain amount of control here and that in the future we're going to stumble over a lot of them. Councilman Johnson: I hear what you're saying and to phrase it slightly d ff`rcatly, I think we need to define a contractors yard better because the seri thing under our present ordinance is defined as a contractors yard and I don' t think it should have been but unfortunately it is. So I think there's two issues to me. 'When we're talking a mom and pop accessory use, I'm not talking that the guy's running a Consolidated Freight out of his backyard. That's • d.2finitely an industrial use. It's more, and I continue using Buck Excavating -. or Larry Kerber. Larry Kerber runs, has got a couple tractors and a couple pick eo truc::s. That type of small, non-intense use. I think we should put something on the number of employees allowed. The one on CR 117, I believe he said his maximum employees were 12. That's getting a little hign I think. I would want to see anything more than that. In fact, I would rather see less than 13 employees. The Merle Volk contractors yard where he's got 3 or 4 different contractors sitting in there. lie rents out the houses, he doesn' t actually live there anymore. I don't consider that. I wouldn't consider that as mom and pop constractors yards. It's an industrial park in the A-2 zone. I agree with you Tan. There's a real problem there of allowing, what do we allow in there? Vile can' t just allow anything. We have to define it better also. Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a comment and that is, I did ask for the acreage on Bill's example because I think it does make a difference if you've got 5 tractor trailers on 40 acres or if you've got than on 5 acres or 10 acres. I'm asking, if A-2 is agricultural residential and how many actual .agricultural businesses do we still have in Chanhassen? We do still have some real bonafide farmers and are we then restricting them, let's say if they have a grain operation, are we restricting than from using and hauling trucks? Mayor C-Kiel: No, that's agricultural. I wouldn't think it would fall under contractors yards. Councilwoman Dimler: But it's in the A-2, - 55 City Council Meeting - 7.bruarr 13, U3') Councilman Johnson: But it's agricultural. That's what the A stands for. Councilwoman Dimler: That's right but then if you're saying, the neighbor over hare who has 4 acras and ,acauoc his business isn't agricultural per se, he can't have his trucks parked there but the next guy can. Do you see what I'm saying? Councilman Johnson: But then the guy that's got his agricultural knows that in the future it's not going to be agricultural. He knows that 20 years down the road or 40 years or whatever, that he's not going to be allowed to park his trucks in there because... Councilwoman Dimler: He's not going to be able to farm there? Councilman Johnson: When the price is right, he won't be able to farm there anymore. Councilwoman Dimler: What if he wants to stay? Councilman Boyt: He can farm there forever. He's tax exempt as lona as he's farming that land and if he wants to hold it Jay, it's his. Councilman Johnson: When I moved into my house I talked to the farmer behind me. He says I'll leave this land feet first. Horizontally. He said, I can see Shakoes from my upstairs window. I can see Lake Minnetonka from my upstairs window. I'll never leave here. You know I know have 30 hours behind me because the price was right. Councilwoman Dimler: He sold off part of i t. Councilman Johnson: He sold off all of it. He's not there. He's built a house over by St. Hubert's. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I still go with that number 2 but my position cn that is, if there is a limitation of years that they can be located there. That's my only condition with that. Councilman Boyt: If there wasn't, would you go with 3? Mayor Ctmiel: Yes. I more than definitely would. Councilman Johnson: When you talk limitation of years, would you say review of the contractors yard permit every so many years? I think right now, that was another thing is I'd like to see anytime there's a conditional use permit of any sort in any district, that we have a review of that conditional use permit on a schedule. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not legal though. Councilman Boyt: It's legal to stay in touch with than following it but it's not legal to pull it away from them simply because they've had it for 5 years. Councilman Johnson: No, no. I said a review to see if they're meeting their conditions is what I should, I didn' t complete that. We've got conditional use 57 City Council ;� �� t 1 - ;'=bCL'..iCV 13, L?39 permits out there that they haven' t ever done what the conditions say to do but •:'a hive not tone out and enforced it. I would like to see, this is something I talked about last year, is an ordinance amendment that requires inspections of conditional use permits and an inspection fee. If they want to make a profit off of it and that's why they're getting a conditional use permit, then we should inspect it. ::Le can incorporate an inspection fee just as we do a fire — insoection Lee, whatever, into the conditional use permit process. Have you got what you need for the Planning Commission? CCJ::CIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Camiel: Let's move on. Next, Council presentations. I'd just like to — address the ones that I brought up rather quickly. The Senior Community Services are requesting some money from the City to support the South Shore Senior Center during the year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990. I'm not sure whether there's any CDBG's available on this for that support. Can you tell us? Councilman Boyt: to already gave them a substantial amount of money out of last year's budget. Mayor .:Niel: Yes, but they're looking for now July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, — 1990. Steve Hanson: :we do have $7,500.00.. . CCunci L:ian :govt: I think they requested that. I think that study was the result of l fund. their request that w i� l?_c] Steve Henson:enson: They' re in the process of doing their own special study. Councilman Johnson: No, this was my study. Steve Hanson: This was a study for... Councilman Boyt: Oh, excuse ;u. I thought we helped than fund a study. Councilman Johnson: I think we did too. :7e designated part of our Community Block Grants that way and we designated part of the Community Block Grants for — us to do a study of the Chanhassen seniors and what are the needs of the Chanhassen seniors here. Mayor Chmi.el: All they're really looking here, what they're saying is to help support ongoing operations of the center as well as providing matching funds for a new lift equipment van awarded to the South Shore Senior Center. Councilman Boyt: weren't we involved in funding a van there just this last year? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Councilman Boyt: I'm sure we were. 58 • Planning Commission Meeting Marcn 15, 1989 - Page 30 CONTRACTORS YARDS . Emmings : I have a little preliminary question there. We have something new in our packets in the form of a little folder . Does that signify that we should keep these for a while? Hanson : Yes . The intent is a couple of things . On some of this stuff , especially the ordinance stuff and when we talk about procedures and so forth , I expect we' re going to go through a few generations on that and what I 'd like to do is not copy Minutes from the last 7 meetings when we get to the point where we' re about to approve something so what I 'd like to do is give you stuff that we anticipate that you need to hang onto for while. Emmings : Then I would also assume that from the time we get one of these , that will appear on every agenda after that as old business. Hanson : We can do that , yes . Emmings : I think we' ve talked about that several times and I think it ' s a good idea so that we have a handy checklist of the stuff that we' re considering on an ongoing basis . Contractors yards , what have you got for us? Hanson : Basically what I 'm really asking of the Planning Commission is 'kind of a last check off to authorize us to go ahead and have the formal Amendment , if you will , put together and drafted so that we can schedule it for a public hearing . What I 'd like to do is publish that so you have what we' re itending to, at least consider for the adoption before you . What the staff is suggesting is that we go ahead and delete contractors — yards as a conditional use in the A-2 district . I guess there' s one thing I didn' t mention i.n there and I should have and that was the BF district . Whether we' re going to delete it from that district . I was going to delete it from the BF district also . Then under the conditional use provisions, we could delete entirely the section on contractors yards. I guess it ' s a question of whether you want to deal with the BF district or now or if you want to leave it there or if the intent is really just to — delete it from the A-2 district. Right now the contractors yards are allowed in the A-2, the BF and the IOP. Emmings : I ' ve got a question. The last time we talked about this we kind of went around about whether we should say that we' re, i.n the published notice for the public hearing , whether we' re considering restricting the intensity of the use or whether we' re actually going to abolish the things . Whether we ' re going to present that as an alternative or whether we are going to just present one alternative. What are you proposing to do? Hanson : What I 'm suggesting is the alternative to delete it as what you ' re considering. Not the option of the mom and pop. Continuation of contractors yards as a mom and pop type operation . Headla: Did you say delete the mom and pop? -ilanning Commission Meeting '-!ar_n 15 , 1989 - Pact` 29 • and parking lot drainage. 19 . All driveways are to be consistent with the City' s commercial/ industrial standard details . 23. A typical section of roadway to be shown on plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. 21 . Necessary County permits for control of access to CSAR 17 at the _ northerly access to the site shall be obtained . 22 . A 35 foot permanent utility easement shall be dedicated along the easterly lot line of the site for storm sewer purposes . 23 . The Plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian traffic around the building and site. 24 . Access MUST be maintained for City forces to monitor and maintain Well No . t at all times during construction and development of this site _ and until such time as Lake Drive improvements are completed . 25. Construction traffic shall not conflict with the City' s improvement project associated with Lake Drive. =5 . If the City' s 13 inch watermai.n is not relocated , an easement shall be provided across the southwest corner of the site and any cut or fill _ over this :Hain shall receive prior City approval wnich will be predicated on proper remedial actions taken . 27. The applicant shall provide screening for root top equipment if the same is visible from a public right-of-way. All voted in favor except Headla and Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2 . Headla : I think two reasons . Inadequate information available. I don ' t know what I 'm approving and I don ' t see anything in documentation of the parking lot and drainage to make a judgment . Emmings : Same thing? Wildermuth: Yes . _ Emmings : I guess just as my closing comment I 'd say, I think this thing probably should have been tabled in terms of what we should do in terms of _ supplying information to the City Council . I thi.nk. it ' s kind of half baked and it results in our doing kind of a half baked job but I don ' t think the applicant should be held up for that reason. I think this stuff is going to get ironed out between now and the City Council meeting . tanning Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 31 Hanson : Yes . Emmings : Now the Section 20-574 is conditional use in the A-2 and 20-255 is what? Hanson : That ' s the conditional use requirements for contractors yards in an A-2 district . Emmings : Then you ' d add this section down there for BF also? Hanson: That ' s what I 'm wondering. If you want to keep BF or not. The condition::) use requirements for the contractors , one ' s for the non-residential and then there' s ones for the residential and agricultural so the criteria is different in those two instances . If we leave the BF alone subject to the conditional use requirements that apply in the IOP district. Emmings : I 'm just trying to remember what was in the report that we got from Mark and it seems to me, I thought we had agreed that they were appropriate in the IOP but that ' s all . So it seems to me the BF stuff ought to be down here. Who ' s got comments on this? Headla : I have a hard time giving up the mom and pop type of thing . Emmings : I take it that we can still discuss that at the public hearing . The trouble is we ' re not throwing it out in the public notice which is , the notice for the hearing and I . . . Headla : That ' s my only concern. - Wildermuth: I guess I 'm in favor of deleting it in the A-2 . I think that ' s the approach I 'd like to see taken with the public hearing . - Emmings: What about the BF? Wildermuth : I think it could remain in the BF and IOP. Batzli : I was just trying to recall . . . Emmings : Are you going to. . . Batzli : Well , I should say I did and my problem was , I couldn ' t even add up the score of what the Council people were saying. I had 3 for ma and — pa . One for eliminate. Our Mayor saying that if you couldn ' t limit them, maybe eliminate them totally and then I don' t know what , so we kind of had 3 for ma and pa , 1 for eliminate and 1 of the ma and pa was kind of walking the fence and Councilperson Workman, I didn ' t know what he wanted to do but I assume he wants to get rid of it in the BF from his comments L as well . Which leaves I don' t know what. I didn' t really get clear guidance from reviewing that but I assume that since we only have 2 BF' s — and they' re both along TH 212/169 there. I would like to see them eliminated from that because I don ' t think that ' s appropriate places to ti Planning Commission Meeting \ — March 13 , 1989 - Page 32 \\ put them due to the increase in traffic, etc. and it ' s already a pot pourri of things that I don ' t think are appropriate there anyway so my bottom line is to eliminate them from A-2 and BF. Ellson: Are we just deciding here what to say in the public hearing? We ' re not making decisions are we? — Emmings: No . Ellson : Why are we going around like this? Emmings : In some ways I think it would be nice if we wait to make up our minds until after we have the public hearing . Batzli : But we ' re trying to decide what to say to the public though. Ellson : But let them come anyway. 3atzli : I spoke with you . I would like to give them an option. Invite _ them in and hear their comments but if we' ve got to publish something , my recommendation to publish is, eliminate it from the A-2 and the BF. My :Hind is not made up in stone but if we' ve got to publish something , that ' s what I ' d like to publish . ' anson : Could I maybe clarify one thing for you Brian? 3atzli : Go ahead . Hanson : You ' ll jump on me if I ' m wrong but just as far as what City Council did when they looked at the issue because you did want to get some input from them. Granted the Minutes don ' t , I don ' t think the Minutes read what was said. Batzli : Hop- fully they do . Hanson: Well , I think it ' s the words but my reading of what City Council said, there were 2 people that said, let ' s eliminate contracting from the A-2 district . And there were 2 people who were supportive of keeping the mom and pop operation. Batzli : Johnson and Dimler? Hanson : No . One of those was the Mayor . And the Mayor ' s point was , if — there was a means where we could do it on a temporary basis, he would like to retain the mom and pop but if we can ' t , then his tendency was to say well , then maybe we should lean towards eliminating them. My _ understanding , and I don ' t recall who was on what side of the issue . I would say then that the other person , I believe it was Ursula, was less clear about what she wanted although she talked about the City ought to be looking at what ' s going to happen in those outlying areas. And that would tend to tell you whether you should allow that kind of a use out there if it ' s going to conflict with what you ' re going to do long range so she was looking , I think, for a longer term solution on whether contracting yards — Planning Commission Meeting `?arch 15 , 1989 - Page 33 belonged out there or not may depend on what the City envisions happening . That was my sense of what was said. I took that in my mind to be a direction of Council that really their direction was , let ' s eliminate it from the A-2. The question on the temporary use and Steve had brought this up at Planning Commission previously about whether we could do licensing. You have a memo in your packet from Roger on that and essentially what Roger said is yes . They probably could do something — under licensing but the red flags in my opinion i.n his recommendation are not quite as bright as they needed to be. I ' ve talked with him and he said, he feels that legally you could probably do it but that enforcement of it is really going to be a headache. His concern is once you 've allowed the business in and you want to get it out , it ' s going to be real hard to do . He did mention to me that he ' s been involved in a case like that where they had a business . It was supposed to be in for a temporary — time period and they had to get them out . He said the amount of legal fees and time that it took to get them out,' he said it probably wasn' t worth it. If I remember right , what he told me on the phone was they — spent close to $50 , 000 . 00 to get the business out . Even though it was to be a temporary use. I think that ' s his fear with it and that ' s why he said i.n there , if you ' re going to proceed that way, he 'd like to see us proceed fairly cautiously. Mayor Chmiel : Has that bill been introduced to allow a temporary use? — ianson : I don ' t know if it has been introduced or not . I know that there is a bill proposed to change the conditional use to allow temporary. - Mayor Chmiel : For x number of years . Hanson : Yes . And there ' s also a bill on the conditional use process to make it clear that a conditional use permit can not be denied . The City can ' t say no to a conditional use permit . They can only put conditions on it. So there is some legislation pending that could change the issue . - Ellson : It doesn ' t really bother me which way the public notice says it . I think we would get the same people either way we notify them. Olsen : I think the only thing is, I remember Roger stating this before that the public hearing states something that if you were to approve is something more restrictive. Ellson : Then maybe you should ellude to the fact that it may end up being total elimination. Then I guess you should write it as strict as it could possibly turn out . That ' s what you should do it . Conrad: I agree. The only question is, should we instruct staff to prepare a procedure where we would allow ma and pa? Do we want them to review that with us during that public hearing formally? Procedures and the pitfalls of doing that . Ellson: Yes . Emmings: I do. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 34 Ellson: The pros and cons. Emmings : ;o you? Conrad: Yes . Emmings: Dave does I guess . What about you Brian? Batzli : Yes, I 'd like to see that . Emmings : Jim too? :iilJermuth: Yes . Hanson : I ' m sorry, I missed that . Erhart : Be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of the ma and pa if the discussion goes in that direction. I guess if we get a lot of people that - come up and say. . . Ellson : We already have some council members that were thinking they Liked the idea of mom and pop. We should really know the pros and cons to it because it ' s already being thought of seriously. Emmings: Think about the kind of place that would be, somebody who' s — lived here for 35 years and they' ve got 1 truck and 1 Bobcat and they run thisplace right out of their home and they' re sitting on 40 acres. That isn ' t the kind of thing we' re going after in prohibiting these things. The question is whether or not you can reasonably write any kind of standards. Batzli : and then enforce them. Emmings: And then enforce them, yes . So I guess that' s the problem. Wildermuth: The other side of the coin is , maybe we' ve got to look at some zoning too . Emmings: I don ' t know what you mean though. Erhart: I think Jim, my point is, you ' ve got a lot of this A-2 out there really is residential today and when you' ve got a downtown area where — we've got some pretty restrictive uses of in town lots in terms of overnight parking and what you can have in your front yard and what you can store in your back yard. We as Chanhassen, we have those rules yet now you' ve got essentially a residential area out there that a guy can have his Bobcat and his dump truck right next door so if we do it at large, I think that ' s the easiest way for the City and other cities have `. filled precedent that they' ve eliminated contractor ' s yards when they get -' to our stage of growth. On the other hand , if we' re going to allow some ma and pa , then I think we' ve got to do what Jim' s referring to and that is, I think we need to look at the A-2 area and find out which is — ?lanni.ng Commission Meeting March 15 , 1989 - Page 35 — residential and which is rural . I 'm okay with either approach . Headla : Where are you going to draw the line on this? Wildermuth : If we say we want some contractors yards like the ma and pa operation , then I think we' ve got to look at some zoning allowing them on critical highways . Headla : Are you getting to a point that if you own a Bobcat , you ' re in violation of some ordinance? Emmings: No , that ' s not the objective. That ' s not going to be a contractors yard . That' s not going to fit under the definition of a contractors yard . Erhart : If you have a business with that Bobcat . If your business uses that Bobcat , then that falls under the definition of contractors yard . Headla : I don ' t know of a single Bobcat that ' s used that isn ' t used for a business of making money. Erhart : You' re probably right . Your initial question was what then? Headla : If I owned a Bobcat, I 'd be in violation of some ordinance here? Erhart : You ' re saying then that you own that Bobcat and you operate a business with that Bobcat? Headla : Yes , that ' s what you ' re implying . I wouldn ' t own a Bobcat if I didn' t expect to make some money on it . Erhart : But then if you owned a lot , do you want your neighbor to operate a business with that Bobcat where he' s loading it up, unloading it? The question is , the real basic question here is , is that kind of business — appropriate for an urban neighborhood? Headla : That isn ' t my question at all . My question is how definitive are you going to get? What if I ' ve got a tractor with a bucket on it? You' re going to get down in a gray area there that you could hit a lot of people so I think we' ve got to be prepared for that. — Erhart : I think the definition is , does he use that for his main source of income. I think that ' s the definition. Emmings : It isn ' t the definition but maybe we want to look at that too . We may want to look at all this stuff . We' re getting beyond what we ' ve got to do tonight . Are we? What I 'd like to do , I guess you have an idea of what we want for the public hearing and I guess we' re saying go ahead and do it . Is that what we' re saying? Erhart: Both districts right? For the public hearing . Ellson : Right . As strict as it might possibly be. Planning Commission Meeting — 'iarzh 15, 1989 - Page 36 Erhart : And then we can back off from there? Ellson : Right . Wildermuth : Let ' s say eliminating it altogether from everything . — Erhart : Well we ' ve got to have it in the IOP. Emmi.ngs : What he ' s saying is if you want to make it most restrictive, just say we ' re going to consider eliminating them. Erhart : I don ' t think we want to eliminate them from the IOP. — Wildermuth: If you just have it in the IOP, it ' s tantamont to eliminating it pretty well . Except for the one little IOP that we' ve got down here. — Erhart : IOP is the industrial park. Wildermuth : I know but who can afford to put a contractors yard in the industrial park. Hanson : You have one that you ' ve approved in the A-2 district that ' s — looking at locating in the Industrial Park. Erhart : I think when all the other cities have outlawed them, essentially they have to go to the IOP' s . I think it ' s a good business and I think we ::o want them in Chanhassen and I just think the IOP is a good place for the . I think we ought to at least put our sign out someplace for these businesses. I guess I assumed all along that we were talking about allowing them in the IOP' s . Ellson : Jim was just saying , if you ' re going to go the most severe •=•• possible in the public notice, do it that way. Erhart : That ' s almost like saying , we want to chase you guys out of town — completely. I 'm uncomfortable with that. It doesn ' t leave us the argument that . . . Wildermuth : If they' ve got a permit , we can ' t do that anyway. They' re in — because the permit goes with the property. Erhart : I understand that . I 'm just saying that if somebody comes into our town with a contractor ' s business, what this is saying is we don' t want you. Do you want to leave that answer with them? Emmings: Do you need any kind of a motion or anything or you ' ve just got the idea? Hanson: Yes . — CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 5, 1989 - Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 40 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Jim — Wildermuth, Ladd Conrad , Brian Batzli and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Mark Koegler , Consultant APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Wildermuth moved, Ellson seconded to approve the — Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated March 1, 1989 and March 15, 1989. All voted in favor except David Headla who abstained for the March 1, 1989 Minutes and the motion carried . ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS: Erhart : I recommend that the Planning Commission get feedback from the City Council whether we take up the issue of banning plastics that are non recycleable . Similar ordinance that Minneapolis passed . I as a Planning — Commission member which is very environmentally conscience would like to take that issue up and see this City coor_dinate our efforts with the City of Minneapolis and try to get, ultimately try to get a statewide law. Emmings : Does it ban the sale? Erhart : It bans the use of plastics for use and packaging which are not recycleable or environmentally biodegradeable. They expect that St. Paul is going to pass such an ordinance and Hopkins has indicated that they are, the Mayor of Hopkins has indicated that he is in favor of passing — such an ordinance. Essentially Minneapolis requested that the suburbs take up the issue because they' re afraid if the State gets i.t first, that the lobbying is going to dilute it down so much that it won' t be effective. And I ' ll repeat an experience I had 3 years ago when we bought the additional 40 acres there. Part of it was kind of crap, junky weeds and so forth and we took it and tilled it all up and planted it in trees. And this was behind some houses but i.t was undeveloped land . I 'd say in — an area of about 4 acres we probably pulled a third of a pick-up load of plastic and metal and junk. It was underneath the grass but it had accumulated over the years. It was just amazing. A lot of it was bags . Conrad : That ' s a good issue. What direction would you like us to take? Erhart: We should either express our interest. If we have interest in it, we should go to the Council and say we'd like to take it up as an issue I think. It seems to me that would be the appropriate way to proceed. If Council says they don ' t us to . . . Conrad : Would you like to get the Council feedback or would you like to have staff do some research on the issue? Erhart : I really don' t have any. ti Planning Commission Meeting — April 5 , 1989 - Page 2 Conrad : Steve , what do you think is most appropriate? Should we just start the or_ocess here and have you do some research on this or should we — get City Council feedback on the subject first? Hanson: I think you could go either way. If you 'd like I could get some _ information from the City of Minneapolis . . . I haven' t seen specifically what they' ve adopted and the timeframe. I know it' s phased in over several years but I don ' t know the specifics on it. Conrad: Why don' t we instruct Steve to do a little bit of background so when we send something up to the City Council , they have something , a little bit to react to so there might be more of a chance to get them — interested in the subject . Headla : I 'd like to see it a little more in depth to the extent that one way or the other we end up with a public hearing. Either put in a ban or — not put in a ban but give the people of Chanhassen a chance to voice an opinion. Ellson : What about our current recycling? It fell through whoever we had to do it? Conrad : I had all my r_ecycleables out today. And the dogs went through it . I can' t believe it. Horseshoe Curve is not real pretty. Ellson : I heard that the company that we had hired had backed out and said they don' t want to do it anymore. Hanson: They did . We only had gotten two bids . _ Ellson: But the other one was those people that were here that wanted that other site. Admiral? I 'd like to see them get it. Hanson: No. They didn' t bid. There were just two bids and the low bidder , they had decided to award it to them and they were putting some stuff together and we didn' t hear from them for a while and Jo Ann called and said hey what ' s going on. Actually through the County found out that they had decided they were going to back out because of what they said were personal problems . The background on that . Then we contacted the — other bidder and they said that they would step in and do the service. What it' s done i.s it ' s pushed it off a couple of weeks . The difference between them as far as pick-up and that , as I recall , the present contractor will do it every 2 weeks whereas the other contractor was twice — a month . Conrad : what ' s the difference? — Batzli : 24 and 26. Hanson : Yes , it ' s 2 more pick-ups during the year . There ' s always been a question on which i.s easier . Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 3 Ellson: Like first and third or every other or something like that . Conrad: Is there a plan to put out little signs to remind everybody? — Hanson : Jo Ann' s going to be here a little later . Conrad: I think we want Jo Ann to coordinate that effort just to remind oeoole Hanson: She can go over it with the promotional campaign and so forth for the recycling. Wildermuth : Are we going to have little containers like Excelsior? Hanson: I don' t think so. Just paper bags . Conrad : Some communities they just put little yard signs out on the curb before the day of the pick up or a couple days before just to remind everybody and that ' s really a good idea . Hanson: We may have to amend the sign ordinance. Conrad : It may be temporary but that ' s really a real good way to do it . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - WORKSESSION. Mark Koegler : It ' s amazing this item isn ' t under old , old business . We' re on a schedule that hopefully Steve and I are going to be able to meet . We have every intention of doing it . Of getting a draft of this thing finally roped in by about the 17th of May. As a part of getting to — that step, we had a couple of different topical areas that we needed to review with the Commission this evening. There' s really about four areas . The first deals with goals and policies . The second thing we want to go into and cover a little bit is the supply of commercial/industrial property. The third item is some discussion of land uses and policies and such in the rural area. Fourth is to focus on corridor studies and that ' s going to lead into a more specific discussion of some land use and — alignment alternatives for TH 101 around the new TH 212 interchange. I 'd like to start with the goals and policies section . The material is really nothing new in what' s been presented there. It ' s simply though, in some cases , it' s the first times you ' ve seen some of the comments that you had made previously over about the past, probably about the past year . Just kind of wanted to bring together a composite copy of those to allow you to look at those one last time or one other time and I don ' t certainly intend to go through those item by item or even section by section but perhaps if you see anything there that you want the language worked over a little bit or you want to add something or delete something, feel free to point those — out. I suggest we start with that and then move on into the other sections of discussion . Conrad : Commissioners , anything on page 1? Any comments on page 1? Page 2? Planning Commission Meeting g April 5, 1)89 - Page 4 a Erhart: Yes . Under goal . I would like to see us include, where we say protect and preserve those items that we listed above which is open space, natural tree cover , wetlands, variable topography. In addition to protect and preserve, I would like to also see add the word enhance. Koegler : Where are you Tim? Erhart: Under goal on community development . Enhance these amenities . Maybe even to the extent of including words like increase urban forest. Zero lose of wetlands which is now I think a national goal . If you can get the meaning in there, I don' t want to clutter this thing up with a bunch of wording . You' re much better at words than I am but I guess a _ little stronger on the, increase urban forest enhancing those things and minimal environmental degregation. Emmings: Minimal? Erhart : No stop environmental degregation. Something . Conrad: Minimal ' s not bad . Erhart : I don ' t think we can, realistically. _ Batzli. : How about minimize? Erhart : Minimize or something . That ' s my only comment . Headla: I don' t see that as a goal . Chanhassen is a high amenity residential community containing large amounts of open space. To me that isn' t a goal . I don' t think it' s structured right and I don' t know that it should be a goal to contain large amounts of open space. Are we saying we don' t want people to build here and there? _ Batzli : I think that ' s a good goal personally. Ellson: I think it' s defining what it' s trying to achieve. You have to — say what it is first and then you say, now this is what we' re trying to do because of that . Headla : it ' s a high amenity residential space. As a goal , that isn ' t a good sentence. Erhart : I think if you take the whole paragraph as a whole, I think the — first sentence sort of defines . Ellson: Right. You could say it' s the City ' s overall goal , these — qualities and then name the first line but it says the same thing if you have. . . Headla : But then I disagree. I don' t think our goal is to contain large amounts of open space. If that is a goal, I 'd like to hear somebody say that is a goal to contain large amounts of open space. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 5 Batzli : I ' ll say it . I think that' s a goal of Chanhassen . Headla: Then I 'd disagree with you . Ellson: What is the opposite of large amounts of open space? There' s very little of it. Headla : Not large. Erhart : I would agree with Dave. That should not be a goal of the City — to have large amounts of open space. Headla : To me the only place you have large amounts of open space is the lake and swamps. The other land, it' s going to be used . Batzli. : Do you want parks? Parks . Backyards. Ellson: Lakes are open space . Headla : What I 'm really asking is, and I was trying to think how can we — state that better and I don' t have a good suggestion on it but I don ' t think the way it ' s worded now is what we' re really after . Koegler: This is a fairly critical goal so we probably should try to come to resolution about what you think you are after . Headla: Do you think I have a point there Mark? Koegler : Dave, you always have a point . — Erhart: I agree entirely like you say because as we go later on, I have another problem with another thing that kind of goes along with that that' s been added I think since the last time and that is that there' s a - goal somewhere I ' ve got it . Here it is . Discourage development in rural wooded areas. How do you do that? Headla : I ' ve got that underlined . Erhart: I mean I don' t understand how that' s a goal . - Koegler : It was a statement that I took out of comments that were made by the Commission. Wildermuth : I 'd like to do that but I don ' t know how we'd do it . Ellson: You make it a goal and the goal is just that. — Erhart : But then the goal means , if you want to do that , then the City has to buy that land. That' s the only way and the same with open spaces . If you want to somehow. . . Planning Commission Meeting — April 5 , 1989 - Page 6 Ellson : I would say the lake i.s an open space and stuff . I mean if you were to fly over, I don' t think you need to take it literally. Like an open space i.s 100 x 100 x 100 and anything smaller is a small open space. _ That' s spliting hairs . Erhart : I guess I would be more comfortable with a word like a balanced — amount of open space rather than just have an open ended. It' s our goal to have as much open space as we can. That ' s sort of what it says now. Headla: Like we wouldn' t allow any building . — Ellson: We' re trying to give the same feel that Chanhassen has always had when people come in here. We want to have growth but we don' t want it to — feel like change from one city that had this feel to it to a city that has a whole different feel so you ' re defining what the feel is . When people come in now, they think of it as open space . A lot of tree cover . A lot of wetlands. A lot of different topography. What we' re trying to achieve in a long range plan i.s to get that same feeling but allow growth. That ' s basically what I see this statement saying . Koegler : Does it get to the point if you just simply remove the words, large amounts of? If you have that lead in sentence saying the City has open space and then to the qualifier second sentence that says we ' re going to protect, enhance and preserve that amenity. Erhart : Yes , if we could get rid of the large amounts . Emmings: But that' s already what it says. It looks to me like that first sentence it simply says what exists . The second sentence is saying the goal is to protect, preserve and enhance those things. I don' t think that _ first sentence i.s a goal . I think it ' s more of a description. Headla: It' s a preview first . Conrad : But i.t sets up the second sentence. Emmings: I don ' t really have much trouble with i.t myself . — Conrad : But it doesn ' t mean anything . I guess I do agree that if we wanted to protect, if we wanted to keep open space, then we wouldn' t allow — new residential development . And I 'm wondering , are we promoting clustered housing and we' re not. What else do we want to do to promote open space? I think the things to do are the wetlands and the key natural environment i.s what we want to preserve so I think if we do that, then — that ' s what we' re talking about . So the open space i.s going to be eaten up by residential and we' re not trying to prevent that, to my knowledge. Erhart : I think I 'd be comfortable , just take the words large amounts out and leave we want to preserve open spaces . Ellson : How does that sound to you Dave? Headla: I like that. If you delete that . Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 7 Koegler : Okay, we' ll do that . Hanson: But that one i.s an overriding premise for the ones that follow. The ones that follow I think are trying to clarify and define that . Emmings : I have another one on that page. In the goal under natural resources, it says promote rational planning which correlates growth and the preservation of a high quality environment . And I ' d change that to say the preservation of the natural environment simply because environment , like in the goal at the top of page 3, Chanhassen should provide an environment. Sometimes environment i.s used broadly to include — people things and here I think we' re talking about the natural environment. Koegler : Yes , I think that ' s a good point . Conrad: Then when we get down to policies under that point, we say review shall include but not be limited to soils , vegetation, drainageways , topography. In your mind Mark, does vegetation cover any kind of forestation? Is that all encompassing? Okay. — Koegler : I think that' s a carry over from the ' 80 plan. Given the City' s increased awareness in wetlands since that time, we may want to specifically add that also. That ' s certainly an item that ' s key to any of - your reviews . Conrad : Yes , we talk about it every week. Every other week. Anything on page 3? Headla : Just one. Mark, you ' ll have to help me. I think it fits in here because we talk about things going in the water for the farms. What I 'm — trying to get in here is, I ' ve brought it up before. It really didn ' t get to first base but the subject is what do we do with all our wells. I ' ve got two wells on my place. One' s a shallow well . One' s a deep well . Sooner or later those are going to leak , just like everybody else who' s got city water now. Ellson: They' re going to leak? Headla : They' re going to leak sooner or later and if we wait til later , we stand a great danger of damaging our water supplies . Erhart : You ' re saying like fertilizer would leak, go down in the well and get into the ground water? - Headla : Right . Sooner or later it ' s going to happen . I 'd kind of like to see that addressed in this thing first as goals and see what we can do to work that . I think it ' s a time bomb problem. Just see what we can do — to work that over a period of time and maybe we can ' t work it this coming year . We may have to do just a lot of investigating . Find out what should be done but I would like to see that as a goal that we address . Conrad : And how would you work that or what would your intent be? Planning Commission Meeting _ April 5 , 1989 - Page 8 Headla : The intent is to come up with a policy on how we handle . . . Ellson: Like monitoring the ground water? Headla : No . How we handle vacated wells. In my own mind , and I 'm not _ that well versed on how to handle it but anytime, let ' s say I came in for a building permit for anything on the place, that then would allow the City to come in and say hey, you ' ve got a well here that has to be taken care of . Emmings : What can they do Dave, do you know? What is a person to do to prevent the problem? _ Headla : I don ' t think I have anywhere near the knowledge to say this is the best thing to do. I know the State' s 1poked at it. People are _ wringing their hands yet . I don' t think there' s a , this is an absolute way to handle it. I think we should be addressing that. Erhart : You could pull the pipes out . Headla: You pull the casing out but you ' ve got to backfill . What do you backfill it with? Is it concrete? Erhart: Yes, you could just run concrete down the casing . Headla : Maybe it ' s sand and yes , maybe you don ' t pull the casing . Like I 've got a jet pump, maybe just pull the pipes and backfill with sand . Jay Johnson : I ' ve been working on a hazardous waste problem here in the City today. I just discovered some abandoned hazardous waste but I overheard what you ' re talking about . The State has standards on the State and National standards on how to abandon a well . State Health Department standards. The Health Department ' s in charge of wells . Basically it' s a bentenite concrete slurry that is pumped into the well housing . Bentenite ' s a clay that expands. Concrete shrinks when it dries so if you pour concrete down, it shrinks and you' ve still got a hole so with the bentenite mixture, it expands completely filling the hole and becomes impermable. You put bentenite plugs in and things. Most of your well drillers that are licensed well drillers know how to pull . Then they have _ to certify it properly to the geological survey and everything. Of the places that we have seen wells, we' ve made them so far say you have to abandon that well per State Standards . I didn' t get the first part of the conversation . I just got here and heard you talking about wells. Headla: Like all along Minnewashta where the sewer and water went in . They all had to hook up to city water . We all had wells. Those things are just sitting there. Sooner or later they' re going to leak into the ground water . Jay Johnson : An abandoned well , what ' s going to leak into the ground water? Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 9 Headla : The surface water . Jay Johnson : The main problem are septic systems too close to wells. That the septic system leach gets to the well and leaks in. Or people -- with hazardous waste that say, here' s a convenient place to get rid of it and down the well . Those types of problems. Headla : My point is , I 'd like to see it addressed in our Comprehensive Plan as making a policy statement for the City. Wildermuth : As areas become sewer and water , wells should be properly — capped or maintained. Conrad : Does that seem like a reasonable policy statement? I don ' t know that that ' s a goal statement Mark. Is it a policy? Headla : Yes , I think a policy. Maybe one of the things under the policy here. Koegler : Yes . I think we can insert that as a policy item. I don' t know right at this moment where it fits the best. Whether it ' s under. this — section or utilities or where it goes . Headla: I went through there and I couldn' t find one. Say hey, this is the place so I just put it under this one because you mentioned about fertilizer for farmers . Conrad : I guess there ' s some ramification. It ' s easy to put some words — in here and then there' s another thing of enforcement or whatever so I think if we put it in, we should really flag it as what are we doing about it? Are they just words or is there something that the City wants to - aggresi.vely go after? I don' t have a cluse whether we should be. I don ' t know that it ' s a problem because I have a well on my, we converted to city water , I ' ve got a well and I haven' t done a thing and I just don ' t know what to do. Headla : And I think it' s just a time bomb that ' s all . — Erhart: In keeping the correct approach to what we have here in this Comp Plan , I 'd like to keep the statement more general and in terms of putting words to the effect to say that protect ground water by strict enforcement - of standards relating to well abandonment , use of fertilizers . Make it a more general statement as opposed to just honing in one paragraph specifically relating to wells. Let ' s just talk about ground water protection in general in one pargraph and I think it would fit more with the design of this document . Headla : That would cover what I think we should be looking at . Erhart: I have another one. I 'd like to see us , on page 3, insert it ' s our goal to reforest , re-establish urban forest or reforest unused ag areas . I do believe that that is going to become a national priority. I 'd like to sea us , and I 'm okay with the hardwoods too Dave. I think it Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 1989 - Page 10 ought to be a goal and I think this city is doing something that I ' ve been involved now for the last 3 years in tree give away programs for Arbor Day. I think that ' s a very, it ' s an important thing that we need to take — up and start doing because trees do balance against the pollutions that are contributed to the air from automobiles . In fact I heard one statistic was it only takes 250 trees to balance 1 automobile which I find — a little hard to believe but there is an amount of trees that will balance it . Conrad : That was the jet plane . It ' s 250 trees for a jet plane . Erhart : Is that what you heard? Conrad : Yes . Erhart : Well that ' s even more unbelieveable. I would think it would take more like 10,000. Ellson : 250 what size trees? Erhart : I don ' t know but there is some number that the Americans could keep driving their gas guzzlers and pollutants if they had a certain number of trees that you could have an environmentally balanced situation. _ So the solution is to find out what that i.s and get that many trees in the ground . Ellson: You'd like to see us spearheading . . . Erhart: I 'd like to see it simply as a goal i.s to support reforestation of unused areas . It ' s something that Europe' s been doing for years . They ._ have actual government programs, reforest any unused piece of land . Conrad : But what does that mean? Now break it down into something that _ would actually happen here in Chanhassen? Erhart : For example what we do is we give away trees at Arbor Day to anybody that comes up to the Kenny' s . Conrad : The City of Chanhassen would? Erhart: We do. We do that now. We' re going to give away 6, 000 trees . Ellson: About this size? Erhart : Well yes . We' re not going to give out 40 foot oaks . We just take those down. Ellson: Say it as a statement as you have it in here . Erhart: Just that it' s our goal to re-establish forest in areas , unused _ areas. Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1989 - Page 11 Conrad : Is it a policy? It ' s a policy to promote the reforestation and unused . . . Erhart : Ag areas and the urban forest . Batzli : Urban forest? Erhart : Urban forest yes . And the last one was the zero net loss of wetlands. I don' t see that in here specifically. Maybe I missed it. Koegler : No it' s not and I noted that. Batzli : Speaking of wetlands, on page 3. Fourth paragraph up on page 3 . Construction activity will be permitted in floodplains , shorelands, _ wetlands. I 'd like to reverse that so it reads , construction activity will not be permitted in floodplains , shorelands and wetlands unless consistent with adopted ordinances and standards . - Emmings : And the way I wrote it , for what it' s worth. I left it the way it was and I said construction activity will be permitted in floodplains , shorelands and wetlands only when in strict compliance with adopted — ordinances . Batzli : Yes . Any one of those would be better than the way it is now. Conrad: And the way I wrote that was, construction activity will only be permitted . - Batzli : The essence should be. Emmings: Change your emphasize . Batzli : Shouldn' t be permitted unless in strict compliance. The other one I had, the last pargraph on that page, actually two things. One, in the goal , the needs of man . It seems kind of sexist for the 80 ' s. Maybe persons or something. Last pargraph, urban development is appropriate. Is that a statement that urban development will always be appropriate in prime agricultural areas and that you won' t have any other kind of — development? That ' s kind of like saying it' s inevitable that this is going to happen? Koegler : Perhaps it' s just a matter of how you' re defining that term. I think in the way this is implied and whether or not it' s clear , you either have agricultural development in this context or urban development . Urban development is a homestead if you will sitting in the middle of ag land . Suddenly it becomes more urbanized . Batzli : I don' t know, I always picture that as being like residential and — not urban and maybe that' s just my own. Koegler : Maybe the problems with the word urban because it' s intended to mean development . Not necessarily high density. If any. .high intensity land use. Planning Commission Meeting _ April 5, =989 - Page 12 Emmings: You could say other :3evelopments instead of urban developments . Batzli : That just struck me when I read that that this was kind of like inevitable like the city was going to end up concrete city blocks and we couldn ' t do anything about it. _ Erhart : I think in other documents that we use frequently, the word urban is used to describe all development . Batzli : Do we ever define what the word means in our Comp Plan? Koegler : No. Not really. Only in the context of it being used in _ metropolitan urban service area . Then urban comes in to it again which implies every intensity development as long as it has sewer . Batzli : If it' s a term of art that means any development other than '— agricultural , I ' ll buy it. I just had a problem when I read it. If it' s in the planning industry. It ' s a term of art to mean to any development . Koegler: That' s the intent. In this statement, there' s no problem. We can substitute . Instead of urban development, just non-agricultural devleopment . _ Batzli : I like it better but the other commissioners didn' t seem to have as big of a problem. Emmings: I had a comment about the second sentence in that one . I can ' t figure out what it means. Batzli : Urban uses? Emmings: No. It just says , the conversion will be governed by the _ provisions and restrictions of the Comp Plan. This is the Comp Plan and I don' t know. I didn' t know what that meant . Koegler: Really in terms of strict application, shouldn' t probably read the Comp Plan but should read the Codes and Ordinances of the City because that ' s really the governing entity versus the policy entity. Emmings: But couldn' t we take that for. granted? Isn ' t that true of everything that' s on here? Koegler : I think so . Emmings : I think you could probably just knock that sentence out . Conrad: It doesn' t mean much to me. Koegler : Consider it scratched . _ Conrad: Anything else on 3? Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 13 Batzli : One other thing while we' re talking about this stuff . We talked a little bit about runoff and what the downstream stuff can handle. Lately we' ve run into a lot of situations where they' re going to take drainage off of a roof or a parking lot and something and we talk about — putting in skimmers and traps and all that other good stuff . Do we need to say anything in here about that? I just had a little note and I didn ' t really see much about it except for the fifth paragraph up about storm _ water runoff storage sites are unavailable but, I think you elude to it when , maybe even when you talked about Dave ' s preserving ground water and such. Maybe it would best be fit into something like that. As long as we' re encompassing handling pollutants that would enter the runoff or something. Erhart : You could beef up that second paragraph under policies on page 3 — there where it says water and storm drain systems should be routed and constructed to minimize permanent damage to, natural resources . You could beef that paragraph up a little bit maybe. Koegler : Yes . Put something in there pertaining to the control of water quality. Headla : How are you going to word the fourth one up? Did we have agreement on that? Batzli : I think any one of the three. Koegler: I wrote down essentially Brian' s comments and I think the theme was the same on the other two. Conrad: Page 4? — Ellson: I had something about recycling . Since we ' re talking about using biodegradeable, non-polluting chemicals. Did we want to say something about or maybe encouraging recycling , because it seems to be in the same _ vein. So let' s put it in the plan that we want recycling. Koegler : Do you want that to carry forward and say, and use of biodegradeable or recycleable products? Erhart : That ' s what I was thinking . We could add plastics in that first one. Or products. Maybe at this point products are safer . Emmi.ngs : I had if you go down to housing and then count up 4 where it says, construction plans and specs should contain provisions for adequate on and off site protection of existing vegetation . If we wanted to be a little more aggressive there we could add that they should also show a plan for replacement of trees which are removed for construction purposes . I knew you'd like that. I actually thought of you as I was writing that one. Headla : I like that one. That would just reinforce that . Planning Commission Meeting _ April 5 , 1989 - Page 14 Emmings : Then I just had a question . On the pargraph right at the top of the page it talks about the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act and I have no idea what that is. — Erhart: I can explain that . If you' re in ag preserve. Emmings: Is this the green acres? Erhart : No . This is another one similar to that. If you' re in that, I think the City is required to have their zoning be consistent with that. — Emmings: With what? Erhart : In that you can ' t develop it if you' re in the ag preserve. Emmings : Oh. Okay. So it' s an election that you make if you have 40 _ acres . Erhart : Yes . I ' ve got 80 acres . It ' s in ag preserve so it has to be, I think it has to be zoned agricultural . Until that' s not in the ag preserve, you can ' t change it . Wildermuth: Can you take it out at will? _ Erhart : No . Conrad : You sign a contract don' t you. Emmings: Do you get a tax break? Erhart : Yes . You used to get a tax break. It ' s another trick you know. They make you sign up for 8 years and then 3 years in they take your tax break away but it takes you 8 years to get out of the contract . _ Conrad: They didn' t do that did they? Erhart : Yes they did. Conrad : The point was to reduce the taxes . . . Erhart: In exchange for a contract. Conrad : They didn' t increase the taxes all the way back up to where it was? Erhart : This year it' s virtually back even , yes . Conrad: That ' s really tacky. Erhart : I was lucky thought because I put it in just for 8 years and _ immediately terminated it so that I have a 8 year block so it comes out in 1991. But for the poor guy who put it in indefinitely and now he' s stuck with this minimum of 8 year contract and now there' s no tax benefit . lam Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 15 — Conrad : That ' s just terrible. Koegler : That ' s 8 years from time of notification of the cancellation . Conrad: Okay. Anything else on 4? Erhart : Were we going to do something on that replacing existing vegetation? If we do that, I think we also have to say valuable vegetation. I don' t think replacing 1 inch trees and 2 inch trees , and I don ' t know what the word you choose Mark but . Headla : I thinkou ve y got to be careful on that because we had a forester go through and take a look at a lot of box elder and said, well those are trash trees . Then a bulldozer comes down and scraps it clean . If I had my choice of looking at bare ground or box elder , I ' ll take box elder . — Erhart : I agree . Ellson : So you' re concerned that they say equal value? Then people will — say, that ' s worthless according to Mr. Forester. Erhart : My point , I wouldn ' t want to see somebody go back and replace the prickly ash. Conrad : We ' ve got to be careful here. You ' re designing an ordinance . You ' re really designing an ordinance here versus a policy. Erhart : No . That ' s why I wanted to use the real broad marketable or valuable. If our goal is to replace existing vegetation , I don ' t think — that ' s really our goal . I think our goal is to replace existing valuable vegetation . I 'm just adding that one word . I 'm not trying to get specific. Conrad : Any problems with that? Emmings: It ' s just something to cause arguments . Batzli : It is. An attorney would pick up on that like . Emmings: Valuable to who? Erhart : But all these things. All these things are broad . - Koegler : . . .enact a city ordinance somewhere down the road that clarifies what that value is , then you' re okay. — Erhart: There' s nothing in here that you can. . . Ellson: That you can take to court . • Planning Commission Meeting — April 5 , 1989 - Page 16 Conrad : Just so you know that if this goes through, then it ' s up to you to spur some kind of ordinance. Otherwise it ' s nothing . Erhart : I think we are talking about putting ordinances . Ellson: Right. For like diameter to diameter . Batzli : We' ve got tree mapping . Erhart : Yes . I think there' s a lot of work going on in this city right — now that' s consistent with defining what' s a valuable tree and then requiring it to be replaced . Eden Prairie does it . Conrad : Okay. Anything else on 4? On 5? Wildermuth : On the first paragraph . Existing housing within the city should be maintained and improved. How do we do that? How do we promote — that? Hanson : Through a couple of things. One of the things is , some of the — block grant money that the City gets , goes back into a rehabilitation program to rehab existing homes that are below code. Wildermuth: Do we have any block grant money? Hanson: The block grant , the Council just went through the hearing on that and they allocated for the next block grant period about $19, 000. 00. And the City' s done that historically over a period of time. Wildermuth: $19, 000. 00? That ought to do a lot. Hanson : It ' s $19,000 .00 out of a budget of about $33 , 000. 00 . What they' ve done in a lot of the homes is , the range in the cost of the improvements to upgrade them have been from $5 ,000 .00 to $7 , 000. 00 so they' re looking at out of that fund maybe being able to do 3 or 4. Ellson : So you ' re saying that' s one and we' re just basically encouraging — any others that might come along. Koegler : Just to add one other thing . There are still a few State programs available available through housing finance agencies and things based on financial need . For weather. i zation and those kinds of programs so there are some other compatible programs. They are few and far between these days but there still are a few. — Ellson : Does this , by saying the City will provide adequate land for projected housing growth, is this basically saying that if we see that — there will be a lot of people moving here and we don ' t have enough area zoned residential we'd be forced to say then the minimum lot size should be smaller or we should find more places? What is this encouraging us to — do? How much strong arm is it to have us , force us to find places for people to have homes? I don' t know. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 17 Koegler : The reason it' s in there is it ' s kind of a lead in to some of the land use plan later on where you' re allocating various spaces in the community for various land uses . It ' s just saying that based upon the City, and that' s an emphasize. The City of Chanhassen' s projections on what will be needed , and that again is tied to what goals you want and what type of housing you' re after . We' ll make every effort to provide that land and then of course the caveat consistent with the regional policies which are the folks in St. Paul . Erhart : Where does it say consistent with regional? - Koegler: In that sentence. Regional policies primarily is reflecting MUSA. - Batzli. : Are all of these policies on this page? Koegler : Yes . Batzli : Why did we change from should , might , could , wants to , to will , will , will , will , will all of a sudden on this one? - Koegler : Not specific reason. Batzli : I 'd like to soften those . Each and every one of them where it - says the City will . The City will . The City will . The City will down further . Koegler : Wills to shoulds? Batzli : Yes . If it' s a policy. Unless we' re writing an ordinance that we' re going to do this. Ellson : You ' ve got a little more breathing room with the word should is that what you' re saying? Batzli : Well , soften it somehow. Maybe should isn ' t the right word but . Wildermuth: There are a number of shoulds in here. I think it was - literary variety. Batzli : Will is like a command to do something . Ellson: That' s true. That ' s why this one probably struck me that way too . It sounded like someone could come in and say we have a commune . We want it to be here and we want you to find a place for us. Almost makes it seem like that so you ' re right . Hanson: The should reads more as being an intent . Erhart : You go through this , there' s a lot of wills. Batzli : That was my overall comment when I hit this page. This is where it started . And maybe we want a will . Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 1989 - Page 13 Erhart : I 'm more comfortable with the wills . I don ' t know. It ' s a good question because nothing bothers me more than writers in our company when they use these soft words. What would and could . It just drives me nuts . I always scratch them out and say, if this is what you ' re going to do than say it. — Batzli : Well we could say, see if Chanhassen might if it feels like it. Hanson: At some future date. — Emmi.ngs : And a time to be determined . Koegler : We will or we won ' t . Erhart : My feeling of it is , if you ' re going to spend the effort to write it down, by goll then say you ' re going to do it or you' re not going to do it . Ellson : It ' s also , it can be taken from a person who comes after us too — saying, you say you will do this. I don' t see a revitalizing program that helps me or what have you so it can work both ways . Koegler : So what ' s the consensus? Soften them? Batzli : My vote is to soften . Ellson: I like should . Conrad : I don ' t like will but I also am not real wild about the second _ and the fourth paragraphs. They make sense that we should have residential area but I think, does that mean that we' re just flat out going to zone everything we want into residential just so any developer _ can come in here and we' ll expand the MUSA line to put whatever? I 'm a little bit nervous about. It says to me, no matter what , if a developer comes i.n we will find land for him. That ' s what those statements tell me and I don' t agree with that . — Erhart : I don ' t think it says that . Ellson: Tell us why Steve . Hanson : I think you' re reading it wrong and I think that ' s what Mark eluded to . When I read the policy, what it ' s really saying is that the — City of Chanhassen in determining the land use that it wants to have happen within the City, will provide adequate land for the housing growth to go along with that . What I see is that gets back to is how much — residential . How much industrial. How much open space that we talked before within the whole framework of the City do you want to have? The intent in my mind is not that a developer can come i.n and say, hey it says — you ' re going to provide adequate and I 'm going to tell you what adequate is. I think the Planning Commission and the Council are going to tell the developer what ' s adequate through the rest of the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 19 Emmings : It also , it' s not as if you ' re almost reading it like the City owns all the land in Chanhassen and we have to give it to the developer when he comes in and that ' s not the way it is at all . A builder_ who comes — in is going to have to come in in an area that ' s zoned for the type of development he wants to put in. Conrad : But a case could be made. . . Ellson : For us to change the zoning is what I was thinking when I first read that. He' s going to come and say I want that business fringe to be housing because you say you will provide it. And I think if I said should, I wouldn' t feel it quite as hard as will . — Erhart : And I think you go down to paragraph 5 where it says plans and ordinances for the City of Chanhassen should ensure that adequate amounts of land are designated to accommodate projected residential growth which i.s the same as paragraph 2. I don' t know why we need both those paragraphs . Paragraph 5 reads the best I think. I think what you ' re obligated to do has nothing to do with the builders at all but if you read paragraph 5, I think that ' s accurate . If the market out there , if there — are people who want to move to Chanhassen, if the market dictates , then I think we owe it to the market to increase the residential area to allow those people to move in here. I think you ' re legally required to do that. Ellson : I don ' t agree with that . Conrad: I don' t agree with that . Conrad : That could raise my taxes . Every new resident that comes to town basically is requesting more services and basically i.s probably costing me — money so the question is, if we' ve allocated enough commercial , industrial to offset the increase in the residential cost. I really do disagree. I am not committed to allowing everybody who wants to out here, unless I am convinced that taxwi.se it' s feasible to do that. It ' s an impact on me. It' s an impact on highway services. It' s an impact on utilities that we provide and I just don' t think that , at least personally I don' t feel obligated to allow anybody out here that wants to because it ' s costing me something . So I think the challenge to the City Council is to have this appropriate balance where as you allow two more residential developments in, we have compensated or we' ve decided that it makes sense to allow — another company. We have room for another company or 2 more employees of a company to increase the amount of work that' s produced and maybe the taxes generated out of the community. So I have some problems with this because I do think there i.s a financial impact as we promote residential growth. Erhart : But it can go either way. Taxes could down too with a larger — population. Conrad : How? I just don ' t think it ' s ever been proven that a new resident brings in more money to Chanhassen. It ' s costly. The only thing that offsets a new resident is commercial/industrial . That ' s the only Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 20 thing . A new resident is a net negative. It ' s an impact on your taxes Tim. Emmings: And it stays that way essentially forever . Ellson: Yes , you were saying even after 30 years they haven' t paid for themselves . Erhart : Then maybe that word ought to be urban growth so you do include commercial then instead of residential there. I don' t think it should be driven by the developer . I think I agree with you there but I think, the question that arises is, can you then, let ' s say you don' t want any growth. Can you just put a moratorium on growth and say you' re going to _ keep the MUSA line where it is for the next 50 years? Can you do that? Wildermuth : You could . Conrad: Sure you could. Erhart : I don ' t think you could . Wildermuth: They' re doing it in California . Batzli : But then we' ve got to change our first goal back to large amounts of open space. Erhart : I have a problem with a growing population to be so self centered as to say. . . Ellson : We ' re not saying we' re not allowing to grow but we don ' t want them to dictate how it ' s going to grow. That' s exactly what I was saying . Koegler : So is there a consensus out of this? I would agree that I think _ 2 and 5 maybe are too much repetitious of one another . Batzli : I like 5 better than 2 but I would agree with Tim to change residential to urban if we' re going to use urban as growth . — Erhart : Because commercial brings in the taxes that are needed . Koegler : Change 5, residential to urban and scratch 2? Conrad : Yes . We' ll do that . Do we want to say anything about financial appropriateness of some of these decisions? The word financial is not thrown in here. Maybe that doesn' t make any difference at all . Ellson: Aren' t you going back more to an ordinance than if you' re saying , 1 for 2 or something like that? Where it ' s just your policy is in general and then you can spearhead that new ordinance. Wildermuth : You could have a policy statement promoting a balanced growth between commercial/industrial and residential rather than one at the expense of the other . Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 21 Ellson : I like the word balanced and that interpretation of balance is decided by us and the City Council and the people on referendums and things like that. So in 15 years it might be a whole different group — who ' s decided what balanced means which is fine. They' ll be the people who are here 15 years from now. Koegler : Some of that is referenced later on. For example the land use . There' s a policy that states, encourage development of additional commercial;industrial uses in order to balance the communities tax base . The section we' re in now is really focused more on the residential component . It ' s under housing . Batzli : Well this is interesting though because this is provide housing - opportunities for all residents. That implies the people already live here. I would assume if they already live here, they already have a house. What' s their housing opportunity are we providing? I 'm moving up? Trading up? Ellson : You' re so good at semantics Brian . You catch these wills and shoulds . Batzli : Well I don ' t know. I don ' t mind if we just want to improve our own residents situation. I 'm must curious about that after re-reading the - goal when you said that . Ellson: All residents and potential residents? So reword it Brian. Batzli : Well I 'm not going to say all man this time. Ellson: Mankind . Erhart : Housing opportunity is consistent . Batzli : I think the reason you have the word in there where it' s for people moving into the community and I think that ' s what you ' re trying to say so I think that needs to be redone somehow to reflect that. — Ellson : Do you want to say the word new residents? Emmings: No . Ellson : Incoming residents? Erhart: Just drop for all residents . Ellson : To provide housing opportunities for all? — Hanson: No. Batzli : Housing opportunities consistently identified . Planning Commission Meeting April 5,5, 1989 - Page 22 Conrad : The sixth paragraph , consistent with established housing goals the City should promote the use of applicable programs designed to reduce land cost for developers of low and moderate income housing . We ' re not — talking about subsidized housing. We' re saying we want to promote, we want to use programs that are there to subsidize . Koegler: That particular policy statement i.s a carryover from the ' 80 plan. At that time there were more programs available for those types of options but there certainly still is a program available in the form of the City' s HRA. If the City ever so chose to do it , you could enact a — housing district and that through a land write down or whatever , assist in the construction of elderly housing or low income housing or whatever it might be. That ' s a carryover from the ' 80 plan. — Conrad : Well do we want to keep that in? Do we want to promote , we haven ' t promoted it yet. It' s been there. , Do we want to promote the subsidy of low and moderate income housing? — Batzli : As long as it' s consistent with established housing codes? Conrad : Well we' re probably not going to do anything about it. Does anybody care? Ellson: It looks like our heart ' s in the right place I think. Conrad: The trouble is, when you get a lot of policies and you don' t do anything and they' re kind of meaningless so it ' s nice to have real good policies . Ellson : Ellson : Don ' t people sometimes say, does your city have a policy ... regarding low income housing and you go absolutely? How many do you have is another subject . Koegler : That ' s still a topic that ' s of great importance to the Metro Council folks. It' s just a fact that their authority to encourage that has diminished over the last 8 or 9 years . That used to be a requirement of their signing off on LAWCON grants was that a city had to have made progress towards meeting their identified housing goals. That ' s no longer a requirement. So I think their thinking i.s still there, they' ve just lost some of the reinforcement tools. _. Conrad: Okay, nobody has a problem with that one . We' ll move on. Fourth from the bottom, the City will promote the construction of senior citizen housing . . . Do we want to temper that with based on? I would say the City — will promote based on need the construction. Headla : I was thinking we should make it a lot stronger . — Wildermuth: I don ' t have any problem with just as it reads . I think we should promote it. _ Batzli : I would change will to should . Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 23 Koegler : It ' s already been done. Conrad : Promote which means you want to bring it in . - Batzli : I would insert the words , consistent with established housing goals. Conrad : Everybody else feels comfortable with the way it ' s worded? The delete my comments. Batzli : I was backing you. Conrad : You were . I appreciate that Brian . The only other comment that I have here is on construction quality. Wildermuth : Right . There ' s nothing in here about that. Conrad: And that bothers me. I don' t think anything should be sacrificed . All of these things, I think we need some kind of statement talking about quality construction so we' re not talking about an urban renewal because we' re promoting some of these low income projects . So — I think Mark, if you can find a place to talk about construction that , Howard Noziska would just love me if he heard me talking right now. Headla : Couldn' t we make this consistent with something? Batzli : I think like on the last paragraph , notwithstanding everything we just said, we want standards. We want quality. Wildermuth: Consistent with the building codes and ordinances . — Batzli : Of Edina . Wildermuth : So we don' t get anymore blank, blank developments . Conrad: Anything else on 5? On 6? Koegler : The recreation ones have been reviewed by the Park Commission - and they probably would welcome your comments . Ellson : Did they change them or they just went through them? Koegler: No. They have been through these a number of times. IE there are things that you think are inconsistent with some of the land use policies, those should be pointed out . w Emmi.ngs : You seem to have changed all of the wills to shoulds. I don ' t see any wills. Headla : I ' ve got some comments for the Park and Recreation. Let me tell you where I 'm coming from first. It really started, a while ago I was swimming over in Eden Prairie where they' ve got a communcity center and this lady lives south of Chanhassen. She'd been not too complimentary Planning Commission Meeting _ April 5, 1989 - Page 24 about the way we operate. And she said, you know when TH 212 goes through. Here we are in the Chaska school district . We' ve got a Chaska mailing address . The highway' s dividing us . Why aren' t we not adopted by — Chaska? She we' re a totally different community. We aren' t part of Chanhassen . Well that same thing is true with Chanhassen west of TH 41. We aren' t part of Chanhassen so what my point is, I 'd like to see _ something , and a good way to get us united is with this park and recreation to have trails uniting us. The other thing that keyed me, when I read all these minutes on Eckankar , people are really high on buying this 174 acres. Give me one reason why I should put my city taxes — towards buying that property? My family, nobody around me will ever use that . It' s too far away and the Village isn' t doing one thing to give us any parks , recreation or trails out in our area of the City or down south. _ We' re totally divorced. The City doesn' t show any interest. I would like to see this goal , the goal here is to get an equitable distribution of parks and trails throughout the city on a consistent priority. And if they put in trails , I don' t want to see first priority downtown. I think it' s got to get out to some of the other areas where people can say, hey we are part of Chanhassen after all . I would like to see the City, how we can do something to better unite this city. — Conrad : So really you' re looking for a word called equitable someplace in one of these? Headla : Yes . Wildermuth : The third one from the end talks about providing a balanced — park system. Ellson : Yes , you could say a balanced , equitable park system. Wildermuth: Neighborhood parks, community parks , special use, etc . , all interconnected by a linear trail network. I don' t know what the word linear means there. Headla : You go to the Park and Recreation , they don ' t even know where southern Chanhassen is or where. Well that isn' t quite true. Tim' s wife is on there . She knows where she lives . Erhart: I might add Dave that I think there' s some rethinking of this — whole trail plan and to reverse the priorities . I think there' s a lot of discussion about putting the trails along TH 101 first now. Headla : I think that ' s healthy. Stuff like that can unite our whole — city. I think we ' ve got to really work that one. I think it' s a major subtle problem for. Chanhassen . Wildermuth : One of the things that bothered me as I read this part on recreation is that there really isn' t anyplace where we talk about whether we' re going to promote large regional parks or whether we' re going to promote a number of small neighborhood parks. It has pretty dramatic implications for City costs . If we' re going to have a lot of little neighborhood parks, it' s going to be very expensive to maintain. Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1989 - Page 25 Batzli : Isn ' t that the one you just read though? Provide the balance. Wildermuth: Well they' re talking about a balanced system so that means — we' re going to have both. Batzli : Yes. Balanced. Whatever that means . Wildermuth : We' re going to have big parks and a lot of little neighborhood parks. We' re going to have a pretty expensive program to fund . I think the Council ' s going to have to think about that . Ellson: They' ve basically only got like 4 or 5 more designated areas that they feel they' re park deficient in or whatever . I don ' t really know that it' s that much more that they' re looking at but I like the idea of a neighborhood park. It just is impossible , especially with little toddlers and stuff. You 'd like to be able to take a stroller to a park. I think every neighborhood should have a park. If we have to support that, then I would because I think it ' s that big a deal . Not everyone can come into the city. It ' s just should be something that ' s part of your neighborhood . — Batzli : But you can have homeowners associations and developers put them up. Ellson : Well aren' t we having developers put money toward that sort of thing right now? Hanson : Yes . Wildermuth: Park fees . - Ellson : Right . So if a new development is going in, then these developers are either giving land or they' re putting money towards this so maybe it isn' t as much of the City' s money. I don' t know. I guess I don' t agree that I wouldn' t want a lot of little nieghborhood parks. I would want a lot of them. Wildermuth : If that ' s what we want to do, then we ought to talk about — stressing neighborhood parks. We've got 2 to 3 major regional parks in the area . We ' ve got the Arboretum. The Preserve and Minnewashta Lake Park. Headla : Now you want to take away all my neighborhood parks . Wildermuth: No, I 'm just saying, if we' re going to promote neighborhood parks then we ought to say that but I don ' t think we ought to do both. Koegler: The recreation text section is fairly specific and it does — advocate a balance system of all components . Typically the facilities in a regional park do not necessarily overlap those in a city park because they' re more the large scale picnicing , camping in many of the regional parks. Those kinds of things that you don' t find as normal city park facilities. Then the next scale in the recreation plan is that of Planning Commission Meeting — April 5 , 1989 - Page 26 community parks which are really more actively oriented plus the provision of large picnic spaces. That' s what usually identifies them as a community 'Dark. Lake Ann obviously being the example in Chanhassen . The — Plan does specifically call out continuation of the City' s policy of providing neighborhood parks within about a half mile radius of virtually every homestead in the city is the goal . That ' s not quite achieved but the City does have a goal of providing neighborhood parks which again is kind of a notch down then again on the echelon of providing a play structure for kids. Some casual open space for pick up baseball game or whatever it might be that' s convenient to the users . You' re right, there is more maintenance cost with that . There' s more maintenance cost with every public improvement that ever occurs but those maintenance costs tend to be of a less order than like Lake Ann Park where you have to have — manicured turf and fields maintained and so forth. But the recreation section right now does advocate those full range components of the municipal system and then certainly recognizes the value of the regional — facilities that happen to be in the community also . Headla: When you say neighborhood parks, are we talking something like 300 feet by 300 feet? Koegler : No . Generally they' re about a 5 acre size because a softball field can take up an acre . There' s usually the provision possibly for a couple of tennis courts . In some cases there' s small parking provided for just a few off street. Again the scale is usually low intensity. I think the ideal is non-organized play activities but that sometimes is not possible given the number of fields and things in developing communities. Conrad : Can ' t you folks over there just use the Excelsior parks? Headla : We' re into Shorewood stuff. Cathcart field and their tennis courts and their warming house . Conrad: Jim, do you want to pursue anything here? Wildermuth : I think we ought to stress one or the other . Neighborhood parks or the regional parks . - Conrad : But the regional . I guess I don ' t have a problem. Brian , ant' problem? ._ Batzli : I 'm not saying a word after the heat I took last time. Conrad: Steve, anything on balance or whatever? So Jim is sort of by himself on this one? Ellson : Sure . He doesn ' t have kids that are tiny and need to walk to — their little park. Conrad : What is the word linear trail in that sentence mean? — Wildermuth: My road is deteriorating but by golly I ' ve got a neighborhood park. Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1989 - Page 27 Koegler : I think we can strike that word . Trails by nature tend to be — somewhat line like. Conrad : Anything else on 6 or 7? Mark , we really didn' t talk about — people movement. We talked about space but we didn' t talk about people movement . When you get to transportation, you talk about cars . Koegler: We talk about, if I remember right, we talk about non-motorized vehicles in transportation also . I hope we do because I thought I remembered we did. — Erhart : Did we not say anything about trying to put safety into this system? I 'm thinking in terms of getting the bikers off Minnewashta Blvd . and TH 101 . Headla : What do you want to do, put me in jail? Erhart: No, I mean as far as providing alternatives . Ellson : You' re saying the trails are an alternatives for safety as well as recreation. Erhart : Yes . Do we have anything in there on safety? Batzli : Page 12, second paragraph down they talk about some people movement. Koegler : There ' s also a couple references on 11. One of our mutliple use — of right-of-way areas for accommodating various modes of transportation of which non-motorized is one . Then two-thirds of the way down there ' s one of promoting increased development of bikeways and pedestrian facilities . — Then the reference on page 12 also . Conrad: Okay, anything else on 6 or 7? On 8? Batzli : On 8 I had one . The last policy. Right before the second goal I guess. All new utilities should be placed underground. What kind of control do we have over what they' re going to be putting along the — rerouted highways if anything? Do we have any say in that? For instance, as they redid TH 5 and they put the superconducter wires all the way out . Koegler : You had something to say about that one. Wildermuth : That ' s different . You don' t have anything to say about that. - Koegler: You picked the location. Hanson : They did an alignment corridor study for it . Wildermuth: We didn ' t. Hanson : The City did. Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1939 - Page 28 Wildermuth : The City did? As opposed to cutting across land? Koegler: Going along the new TH 212 corridor . — Batzli : And we picked TH 5? When did we do that? I wasn ' t here was I? Ellson: Before you and me Brian . Conrad : I think it made sense . Didn ' t it? Emmings: At the time. Wildermuth : What ' s the difference whether it goes along TH 5 or TH 212? _ Emmings : Wasn' t there also an option to go along the railroad? Conrad : Yes . — Batzli : It kind of jogs for a little bit there. Ellson: So what are you getting at Brian? Batzli : My only question is, when we' re talking about new utilities , which utilities are we talking about? Do we have any control over the public utilities? We can tell them to do certain ones underground and not others? Wildermuth : I think you have control over the residential utilities but something like those major distribution lines . Hanson : You can ' t put the major distribution, well I shouldn' t say can ' t. You can but it ' s . . . Emmings : It' s too expensive . We asked at the time. It just costs too — much. Koegler : There are other cases where the only way to do it is to somehow be able to finance it. Audubon Road is an item that comes to my mind of an improvement project that ' s coming up and I don' t know if a decision' s finally been made but it' s been looked at. Underground versus leaving the — existing overheads along the east side of Audubon. This is really aimed more towards local service type of lines for commercial , industrial or residential . Batzli : I was just curious about that . Emmings: Do we insist at this time that, for example if you build a new — house , does everything have to be underground? Electric . Phone . Every new subdivision it' s all underground? Is that right in our subdivision ordinance or is it just something they do? Because it does cost more — every month on your bill . Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 29 Wildermuth: I think if you have a lot in an existing subdivision where it is above ground, you can still have it above ground. Emmings : But all new subdivisions it' s underground? Hanson: Yes . Erhart : On goal , this is the one time I agree with Brian . I think the goal , I think the words ought to be toned down a little bit. Where it says in the General Rural Use Area , Chanhassen will discourage premature extension of the utility systems. System extension should be consistent — with the comprehensive sewer policy plan because the way it is now, it reads like an ordinance as opposed to a goal . - Koegler : You did say should discourage right Tim? Erhart: Will I don' t want to get that, I ' ll just say. Discourage is soft by itself so I think will discourage and should be concistent because I think it reads like a law and I don' t think that ' s what this is. Emmings : I guess I 'd ask on 8 , the first policy under that one. It says — that septic systems must be compatible which seems like awfully soft language to me . It must comply. But still , I don ' t even know why, do we want to have as a policy compliance with ordinances? Does that make sense? Koegler : Probably not in that specific of a case . I don ' t think this exact statement but I think the tone is somewhat of a hold over and back when it was originally drafted , the only thing in effect was that WPC40 of the Metro Standards and the City hadn' t enacted anything yet . - Emmings : Well we ' ve got it now. Koegler: But now that ' s it there and in place now. Emmings : Maybe we don' t need that . Plus the last one on that page really kind of addresses the same thing. Non-urban land uses should be served by properly constructed and operated septic and well water systems. I think — that' s okay but I think that 'd be kind of tough to do. Erhart : Are we on page 9? Conrad: I don' t know yet. Yes, page 9 . Erhart : I just wanted to point out that the last paragraph there , the — City will discourage expansion or construction of commercial or industrial facilities within the General Rural Use Area and I think in the last two years I don' t think that we have done a very good job of following that — policy and hopefully we' re doing some things next meeting to change that . That ' s all . Conrad : I just philosophically think it ' s good to think about this one. The fourth policy. Residential neighborhoods should be planned and Planning Commission Meeting — April 5 , 1989 - Page 30 developed with pedestrian ways on major streets connecting to schools, open spaces , commercial areas , industrial centers and significant features . I think that ' s a real important statement there and I just want to make sure, you can make it stronger or you can make it weaker but I think that' s a neat philosophy. David , it accomplishes some of your tie together type of things. I believe in that one a whole lot. Page 10? — Headla : How about at the very bottom? Policy. Provide a local transportation system? Baloney. I don' t want to be involved with providing a transportation system. — Emmings: Encourage? Wildermuth : Even in the goal , I think we ought to change create to promote. Headla : Yes . Put in promote and encourage in both of those , that ' s fine . But provide is rather absolute. Conrad : Page 11? — Emmings: Next year we can go back and change all those shoulds to wills. Probably change everything because we' ve done this before . — Conrad : I think Mark did it the way we told him to do it . Now we see it in print. Emmi.ngs : Yes . I just wonder what it was before. We ' re probably just changing everything right back to the way it was . Koegler : I save the original copy. Batzli : It was way back page 9, the second one down , continually update — the Comp Plan. We' re following that one. Headla : At the very bottom, the City will continue an ongoing maintenance program in order to maximize the community' s investment in transportation — facilities . We' ve got to invest in a transportation facilities? Ellson: The streets is basically what we' re talking about . Headla : If you say facility, I think of a structure. If you say a road , I think of a road . Ellson: So you'd like it to say road? Headla: If we' re talking about roads, let ' s say roads . — Koegler : We' re talking about roads , trails, sidewalks . Anything . Conrad: System? Headla : If you say system, fine. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 31 Batzli : Are we going to encourage light rail in here somewhere? Koegler: The last policy on page 12 in transportation is addressing light — rail . Right above community facilities . Batzli : I 'm sorry, I missed that one . Conrad : Anything on 12? Emmings: Yes . In the third paragraph down, do we mean to say timely — construction of TH 169/212 or just 212? Koegler : 212. Erhart : 169 is not in Chanhassen anymore is it? They changed TH 18 to 169. Now doesn' t that go all the way. . . - Emmings: That ' s only in the city. They moved it over from 100 onto 18 . Made 18 to 169. — Erhart : Okay, but then where does it turn? Emmings: It turns . Erhart : At crosstown there at 169 then? Emmings: But here we' re talking about the construction of TH 212. Koegler : Old 18 to 494 now is 169 that picks up 101. — Erhart : Is it the intent when they put the 18 bridge in that 169 then goes all the way through across the river there? Koegler: I don' t know. Batzli : They probably should have already done it if they were going to do it to get federal funds . Erhart : On paragraph 5, within the urban service area , Chanhassen will provide a system of hard surface streets. Within the general rural areas , the City will provide a transportation system consistent with the needs of agricultural uses. What does that mean? Emmings : Cartways . Koegler : That ' s a remnent from the ' 80 plan again . At that time, I think this is reflective of basically the development prohibition and at that — time the City' s position was the roads will be gravel basically. Erhart : Will you look at that? Koegler : Yes , that ' s come a step up since then. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 32 Headla : How about in the middle of the page. Chanhassen supports county, regional and state efforts to establish a light rail transit system. I _ don ' t think we know enough to say light rail . A transit system, yes . Light rail , no. Ellson : I remember talking about this . Conrad: We asked Mark to put it in. Ellson : We said we definitely want something to show that we' re behind it. I don' t remember too many of these things but I definitely remember this one . _ Headla : When you say light rail , you' re negating any other. system. Ellson: We ' re just saying , if a light rail comes up, we' re telling you right now we ' re supporting it . Emmings: I don' t think it excludes others . Ellson : No , I don ' t think so either . Headla : I think that' s too explicit . Conrad : Any other support for Dave' s thoughts on that? Erhart: Could you say mass transportation? Emmings : No, I think we ought to get behind light rail . Light rail and _ other forms of mass transportation is you want to but I think we ought to leave light rail in here because it' s something that' s actually out there. Headla: Where? Conrad : Any other comments on 12? Anything on 13? Solar Access . Erhart: I would suggest we take that whole thing out. I just don' t, I 'm not against , I want to get it perfectly clear , I 'm not against solar access. However , when you read this , it' s just out of date. The whole _ thing and do we really, things have changed and do we really want to be in the business of regulating shade? Emmings : We just talked about re-establishing the urban forest and now we — want to protect. In new subdivisions they' ve got to provide restrictive covenants which prohibit shading of adjacent properties . Erhart: Yes , do we really want to do that? Conrad : Do we see any problems with that? Are there any problems that _ we anticipate in the next 5 years? Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 33 Ellson : What was the reasoning behind wanting to do it? I wasn ' t here. There was probably some really good basis for it. Conrad : It was energy. Emmings : The oil crisis . Ellson : He said it was required you guys . Koegler : No. Solar access was a required element of the Comprehensive Plan last time around . I can ' t honestly tell you that that' s still a - requirement under Met Council ' s review procedures. I ' ll find out because I had the same reaction. Now I took a number of statements out but a lot of the statements were more towards the, not just the passive but the active solar collecters and things that really have gone nowhere. Ellson: Or at least in Minnesota they don' t go very far . Conrad : Does anybody see any reason for keeping anything relating to solar access in here? — Ellson : If it ' s required I would . Batzli : If a couple more Exxon ships hit the ground , you may want this back in here. Wildermuth : I think we ought to have something . I think we ought to maintain some of it. Ellson : There was probably good reason at one point . I just kind of wish I knew more about it . Wildermuth : That problem has not gone away. Batzli : It' s gone away artificially, temporarily. It ' s going to be back . Wildermuth : It will be back. I think we ought to rethink some of these individual policy statements in here. Batzli : Can you imagine how forward thinking we ' re going to be looking like in the year 2020 or whatever when people look back on this and they - thought, hey these guys were on top of things. Conrad: Or they' re going to say, well they took that whole section out. Emmings: I don ' t mind the goal . I think the policies aren ' t real important somehow but I don' t know if it makes sense to have a goal without some policies . Conrad : So maybe Mark you can take a look at what ' s required and I guess the sense is to keep something in there. Maybe not quite as specific. Planning Commission Meeting — April 5 , 1989 - Page 34 Batzli. : I think we should encourage it somehow but not necessarily to some of . . . Erhart : Why don ' t we just encourage use of solar energy. Forget the shade stuff because I think you' re in an area . . . Wildermuth : For example, the third policy statement in there . That can certainly stand. And the fourth one could probably stand . Batzli : And both of those are encouraging use of solar energy. — Ellson: But when we' re getting down to regulating planting and stuff, that sounds like pretty strong words. — Koegler : I ' ll verify requirements on that now and then we' ll rework that . Conrad: Page 14 . Erhart : Yes . This one I feel we have some real work here when you look at these numbers. — Koegler : Can I walk through some of this real quick because this is getting out of the first discussion area and now going into the second . _ You should have found on the table in front of you a page 14A that somehow was omitted out of copying when this thing was originally put together so if you find that amongst all the materials that are scattered there . I 've got a few extras. As kind of an orientation to all of this, you have to keep in mind that in Chanhassen' s Comprehensive Plan it still advocates , as it did in 1980, the existence of two MUSA lines. One of which is only formally recognized. The other one has been stated for policy purposes, _ if you will . The dashed line on this exhibit i.s the Metro Council ' s officially recognized MUSA line or very close to that. Where the City deviates and where it has deviated for the last 8 or 9 years comes through _ this section of the community which the City has always advocated should be in the MUSA line and i.s pretty much consistent with the surface area for the Lake Ann Interceptor_ but to date that ' s not formally recognized . In looking and introducing the topic of adequacy of commercial/industrial — lands apply, it ' s interesting and we' ll get into that in a few minutes that even with the area that Ch.inhassen has shown as far as the expanded MUSA line , that really is not prime commercial/industrial property. In all likelihood it' s a continuation of a residential pattern that' s being probably even more entrenched with some of the rural subdivisions that have happened recently. Focusing on industrial first of all , at the present time the City has about , and these are pretty close numbers , 290 — plus acres of vacant industrial land. Over the last 10 years, on average the city has absorbed about 27 acres per year of industrial property. As I point out in some of the text, just looking at that average is somewhat — misleading because the growth trend was fairly slow through the first part of the decade and picked up substantially over the last 5 years or so. In the early part of that time period you had the Chan Lakes Business Park — and the Park One areas established south of TH 5 and on the east end respectively. You had a lot of the small machine shop businesses and things that came in at that time and there were 30, 000 square foot Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 35 buildings here and there. That pattern has changed quite a bit with some of the developments. Oh the Instant Webb facilities and the related businesses there. The Rosemounts . The McGlynn Bakeries coming in. Some of those that are a lot larger facilities and a lot larger land users. If — even the average that ' s occurred over the last 10 years continues to the year 2000, this city would need about 324 acres of property just to maintain that pace. Obviously there' s not quite that supply left at the present time. Factoring in some of the large users that I just referenced , I think leads you quickly to at least have a level of concern as to whether or not the city has additional or has enough industrial property zoned at the present time or available. The same thing is true , — and I don't know if we should stop and talk about industrial or maybe just introduce commercial also and then go back and discuss both of them because they perhaps come somewhat interrelated. The same thing is - somewhat evident in the commercial land that ' s left . The numbers that are in these little circle incidentally are vacant acres that are remaining . Emmings : Not the number of acres in the circle but the vacant? Koegler: The vacant acres remaining, yes . At the present time the commercial land supply that ' s available is 52. Of that total , 16 is — within the circle that' s in the center there which really is downtown Chanhassen if you will . It ' s the area that ' s received the most focus of the redevelopment effort over the last 10 or 12 years. Then there' s 20 acres immediately west of that which is still to some degree certainly associated with downtown so the predominant availability certainly is in the downtown area . In addition to that the only other two areas of any commercial concentration at all are the very limited area up at TH 7 and TH 41 and then the business fringe area down in the southern part of the city. Obviously neither the north piece nor the south piece have much potential to provide future expansion of commercial so it gets back to the — downtown area. The concern that this I think brings to light is that pieces of property such as what I ' ve referenced in the report as the High Path Farm which also is Eckankar , it ' s the same piece. One is the historic name and one is the current name. That piece has always been looked at as kind of a reliever for the City of Chanhassen. That' s had quite a variety of zonings that have been applied to it over the years depending on really who had interest in it to be honest with you. A — number of years ago Minnetonka Inc . was hot to build a new corporate facility there and suddenly we rewrote the ordinance. Rewrote the Comp Plan and put in this campus business category because that ' s what they wanted and it would have been a beautiful facility but it didn ' t happen . So then the zoning reverted back to something else. So that ' s been kind of all over the board but at least it ' s been a large vacant parcel , some of which may have had long term commercial possibilities . At — the present time with that being developed as a church site, I don' t know what that does to that but perhaps that ' s a public , semi-public land use now instead of commercial or a housing site or, whatever it might have — been . The key point though is that there really is no land available for any large users . We' re not trying to define what large users are. Whether they' re Cub stores or K-Marts or whatever because that' s not the issue. But the issue is whether it ' s a shopping center or land intensive user , there are no alternatives that exist outside of really seriously Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 1989 - Page 36 going to another community. So we' re really just bringing into discussion this evening as to whether or not that should be addressed in the Comp Plan and if so, how we'd want to do that . I referenced a minute ago that the MUSA lines don' t really provide any assistance. Graphic evidence of this i.s the only place that we really address the future expansion of commercial and industrial property to any degree is in these corridor — studies that were done for the various areas and those were looking at long term land uses . They didn' t have any time frame attached to them. That ' s the one that was put together for the western portion of TH 5. The dotted line that runs through there i.s the City' s MUSA line so everything — to the north of that line, if you will , is what the City was advocating should be serviced prior to 1990. I think you can see that any parcel that we ever looked at as maybe having some long term potential in — commercial or industrial is outside of that line still so that ' s not something really that we can point to and say, well here' s where it should go to next because that i.s really much longer term. Future land use kind of thinking . What this has led to is Steve and I have kicked this around quite a bit and are of the opinion that it' s probably in the City' s best interest to look at the designation of land use for the entire city of Chanhassen. Previous efforts from the Comprehensive Plan have really — focused only on the area that ' s encompassed within the MUSA lines . Plural . The City' s and Met Council ' s. THe overlays that are here simply put on the land use that ' s been talked about previously as part of these corridor _ studies and suddenly you end up with really only a few isolated areas that we haven ' t discussed what the long term land use should be. We ' re thinking that probably we should look at land use as a whole for the city and then discuss the timing aspect of that related to the provision of the — Metropolitan Services. Specifically where the MUSA line is now. Where it will be in 2000. Where it will be potentially beyond that . As I indicate in some of the narrative, the MUSA line is really a growth management tool _ that' s used on a regional basis . It' s a control that' s here and now but it ' s not something that 50 years from now may make a lot of difference to Chanhassen. The development pattern will occur . It' s just a question of — when . Our thinking is if we have some concept of future land uses , that perhaps the City is in a better position that if the commercial supply or industrial supply appears to be getting seriously deficient by the year 2000, that there' s a stronger argument that can be built to say here' s — where we think the next area should be. Here' s how we can serve it . We need to gat Metropolitan approval to do it . So that' s some of a brief overview of the rationale and the introduction of this topic as to whether_ or not there' s enough commercial/industrial land and if not , how should the comprehensive plan approach that . Conrad : What we' re looking at on that overlay is based on the study that — was done, the long range study. Koegler : What ' s on that plan right now is the land use element that has been consistently offered to date as part of this plan. Then the overlay sections incorporate the land use that was part of the corridor studies that are in the packet. Now I should indicate there will be some changes to those and one of the items we' re going to discuss later is some of the changes to the TH 101 area but that in essence was what was reviewed as a part of the corridor study process . Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 37 Conrad : And basically the biggest increase in that plan for commercial industrial use was at the intersection of TH 41 and TH 5. — Koegler : It was envisioning some commercial expansion . . . Again , we ' ll get into that a little bit later but we had talked about some commercial expansion then in a couple of areas along TH 5. The thrust of that was that the business fringe area was, at least in a shorter term context, was non-conforming land uses by and large and would remain so but that there would not be any expansion of that area until much longer term. But again that ' s part of the language that if we take an approach of looking at land — use as a whole, we' ll need to build into the plan. We' ll need qualifiers in there saying that this is not going to happen by the year 1993 or the year 2000. That this is long term but it 's intent to indicate the City' s thinking . Subject to change over that period of time too based on market conditions and so forth. Wildermuth : What is PS? Koegler : Public and Semi-Public . Things like the Arboretum. Legion clubs . Any number of uses that are not private nor totally public. Conrad : Mark, your opinion is we don' t have enough, based on your calculations and they' re all based on assumptions and whatever but we don' t have enough industrial land based on your comments . Koegler : Those feelings really weren' t probably specifically spelled out in this report . This report is more just a statement of here ' s the facts and here' s what' s happened and here' s what ' s happened and here' s what we got . I think though you summarized my concern is that the supply of industrial land and possibly, I think again back to large scale commercial — land , is very limited . Under certain growth scenarios , it certainly may be adequate but it very well may not be. That may not sound like it is a position on the issue but I think it is because I think we need a fallback to be looking at if the supply is inadequate, where are we logically going next. The City has a rather specific agreement in the sewer agreement over the Lake Ann interceptor and I don't know if that will actually stay in place until the year 2000 or not. If it ' s enforced the way it' s — written it will . But after you get out to say 1996 or 1997, things may look quite a bit different than they do today and I think this plan needs to be in place to be advocating where are we going from here and I don ' t think we' re really quite there yet. We've taken a quick shot through these corridor studies of long term land use and I 'm not sure that even those designations are appropriate. What we would like to do is spend a little more time putting some background material together on a scenario — for the entire community and bring that back. Erhart : You calculated that there are only 52 acres left designated for — commercial . Koegler : There' s 293 vacant acres of industrial . Erhart : That' s the one. I disagree with that entirely. If you look at this map here, that ' s the industrial one right? That whole 109 acres , Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1989 - Page 33 that' s completely used up. Ellson : You' re saying it should be less? Erhart: I think it' s only 50 to 60 acres . The 109, that' s gone. Ellson : For anything that could go in there? Erhart: Well between Rosemount, Empak and our firm, that' s completely — gone. Koegler : With any comp plan efforts , it' s as of a point in time and these _ numbers were current as of August of 1988 . Erhart : That 109 acres is gone . Conrad: What about the Ward property? Erhart : You' re right . There might be a little bit on the east . A few — acres on the east side. The Ward property there. Koegler : The point is valid though Tim because we' re going to get into a discussion in a little while on some of the land use in and around the Ward property that may suggest that portions of that are not industrial any longer . Emmi.ngs : If anything the problem is worse than it ' s characterized in this. Koegler : It may compound the industrial problem. It may relieve the commercial problem a little bit. Erhart : That 100 acres that you show there, essentially everything north — of that railroad , most of those lots north of the railroad currently have something on them or are under construction so I think you' re only talking about 30 acres there. Maybe 20 acres on that 109 and over on the 31, — doesn ' t the old CPT building take up most of that? Where' s the CPT building? Hanson : I think that ' s taken out of that . Erhart: Okay, so it' s 31 acres left. And that 25 , of course that' s gone. Mostly gone with McGlynn. — Koegler : That ' s 25 remaining . That takes McGlynn out of it . Ellson: But the Empak isn' t taken out and the Rosemount isn' t taken out? Koegler : As of August of last year when the survey was done , there were — 100 acres of vacant property within the confines of that line. Erhart : Okay, so it' s somewhat less than the 200 but not more than what I was calculating . — Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 39 Emmings : But it' s certainly less though even just with Rosemount would have a significant impact on that number . Erhart : I 'd say there ' s at least 100 acres less . Koegler: Rosemount is factored out of that 109 also. That' s the one that I had a site plan on and I knew the specific acreage of that one . That one was deducted . That and McGlynn and the other one that I happened to know were the updates i.f you will . So the numbers we' re speaking in — approximate ranges but I think the impact is at least the degree to what we' re talking about and possibly a little more severe . Wildermuth: What are you proposing Mark? Koegler : I guess we' re advocating to the commission that the plan should take a little different tact than what it has. You ' ll find really is only — focused on land use in the MUSA line. Everything outside of that we 've been treating as the "rural area" . . . Wildermuth : So now we should refocus outside the MUSA line as well? Koegler: We need to have more focus on that and we need to qualify that that may or may not happen prior to the year 2000 but we need some orderly progressions to how that ' s going to occur so that I think the City' s in a better position to argue, if it so chooses down the road , when the land supply becomes even tighter that we need some expansions . Erhart : Also with the freeway now, that is going to be, that ' s coming on. The official mapping process is going to happen here real shortly isn' t it - so we now have to consider that in any land use issues that come before us. Is that correct Mark? Koegler : And that ' s a factor certainly in the planning . That ' s to a certain degree, I don ' t want to say that ' s what we 've been waiting for but we kind of have been. Knowing what the TH 101/212 interchange is likely to be like has an impact on how land uses relate . Again , you' ll see that — in a few minutes. Emmings : You said before, what do we need to do tonight? I 'm not quite clear on what we should do. Koegler : The item tonight was really to bring this i.f you will to your attention. That we don' t think this has been treated heavily enough in the plan to date . We think we need to departure from that course that we were on and look more specifically at future future, if you will , land use which may be sooner than we think. Ellson : And you want our okay to go ahead and do that? To continue research. Koegler : Yes . That that ' s the policy direction the Plan should go in. I think that' s the key question. Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1989 - Page 40 Emmings : Identify areas for future growth . Gosh , I think we've just got to do it. I don' t know how we could ignore it. Conrad : But the Comprehensive Plan is to take us up to the year 2000. That' s the point of the plan right? Koegler : And in some cases beyond . Certain elements of the plan now go beyond the year 2000. The sewer element for example has always been a - long term, full growth item because it ' s looked at , not only at the staging of development but it ' s looked at maximum capacity of the system and various areas of the community which has run literally border to border so there are elements of the plan right now that go beyond 2000 and there always have been . So in that respect , it' s not new ground . It' s just that we haven' t really looked at land use in that regard. Corridor _ studies kind of opens the door to that and if you recall , there was a certain level of controversy as to whether or not we should do that. And it went to the Council and the Council said yes , that seemed like a good idea . Why don' t you do that and they were put together . — Emmings : We' ve got that work and it really provides an opportunity to fold the comp plan and the corridor studies together . The basic work has OMB already been done . It ' s just a matter of kind of updating it. I think it ' s a real good idea. Conrad : But it doesn' t and I don ' t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with between now and the year 2000. Do we have enough commercial industrial land right now to take us? If we fill in the residential areas that we' ve got , one, do we have enough commercial/industrial and you can ' t — just have the absolute amount . You have to have extra because you need more because things got to fit. So my biggest concern right now, I think that ' s nice . . . Ellson: Solving long term but also short term. Conrad : But I ' ve never known that things beyond 10 years come to pass . — I 'm not sure what the benefit of that , to be very honest . I 'm not sure what the benefit is . I am very concerned with what ' s happening in the next 10 years . Do we have enough, consistent gross for financial so that — we keep this balance between residential and industrial . I 'm more concerned with that . Does the Eckankar parcel , taking that out of circulation, does that put us in a bad situation in the next 10 years? I 'm real interested in those types of comments more than beyond the year — 2000. Erhart : I think the point Mark ' s making , realistically if that freeway — goes in, even if it doesn' t go in I think the possibility of the MUSA line moving before the year 2000 is gaining probability every year as it fills in. I think what I 'm hearing you say is I think we ought to start looking — at some of these things in the event that pressure is there to move that MUSA line and in fact it does so we have some pre-planning done. Wildermuth : We ' ve got to be looking within the MUSA line too. — Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 1989 - Page 41 Conrad : I 'm saying I 'm more concerned right now than I am 10 years from now. That ' s my point. Koegler : Ladd , my comments have focused more on the long term and I don' t mean to imply that we' re going to ignore the time period between now and the year 2000 because that ' s not the position the plan would be taking either . What the intent would be, to update these numbers which is not difficult to do , I think as was pointed out the information is available and to really get an up to date look at what the supply situation looks like and then to certainly focus on between now and the year 2000 to within the confines of what we have to work with. There are some alternatives . It ' s just that realistically maybe some of them don ' t make — very good market sense until things like TH 212 happen. The City has land that it could designate as commercial within the MUSA line . It just so happens it ends up down around the 212/101 intersection because that' s the only area that ' s in the MUSA line . It doesn ' t necessarily make the most sense from a market sense where people are going to be and where concentrations of people are going to be moving . — Wildermuth: But I think now is the time to start looking at zoning . Emmings : I think this i.s scarier than scary because you know a year ago we didn't know anything about Rosemount. They came in and what i.s the size of their site? Koegler : It ' s just under 60 acres . Emmings : If we were lucky enough to have a couple of other developments like that, we'd be exhausted at which point anybody looking for a place , — Chanhassen will simply be thought of as a place where you might as well not even look because they' re filled up. Their industrial acreage is filled up. That is frightening . It could happen real fast . This is really a small amount . Conrad : Then the point is, if you don ' t have access to sewer , you can ' t have it anyway. Emmings : Right . But I think you ' ve got to look at both . — Conrad: That ' s a real economic situation. It stops development. Emmings : It stops the development you want . We' ve just been talking about the fact that residential development doesn' t pay for itself where commercial and industrial . . . . Ellson: Have to support the rest . Emmings : So you want some of it . Conrad : I 'm really interested in knowing , and I don ' t know what I 'm asking here but I 'm really interested in knowing, as residential folks fill in here , if we have enough. I do believe we have enough commercial Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 42 property for the short run . If we can' t lure a supermarket i.n right away, we don ' t have a problem there but I 'm kind of concerned as more and more _ reisdenti.al moves in. Are we going to be restricting? Is that going to harm us economically i.n the next 10 years . I 'm real intrigued with that . That ' s one of those things that it would make a case to go to , well I don' t know if it would make a case to go to Met Council to change the MUSA line. I 'm not sure what the leverage is . Hanson: I think where we' re talking about heading is consistent with what you' re saying . It ' s trying to strike where that balance is within the service area. As the community develops, where some of the shortcomings may be and I think the other thing to keep in mind , 2000 ' s not that far _ away. We' re getting a lot of calls now in anticipation if you will of the MUSA line being amended down the road . 10 years , if it ' s not amended before that , i.t' s still not that long. I would venture to say i.t' s amended before that . Conrad : Who ' s the biggest benefactor of saying here ' s where we' re going to be in the year 2000? If we do this type of planning for the comprehensive plan and we have these globs of districts , who benefits? Hanson: I think everybody does . Conrad : Landowners benefit because they kind of have an idea of where we' re going to go. Developers have an idea of where they can start messing around and getting their paws in , or at least their feelers i.n. What else. What other benefits are there? Hanson : Some benefits to the city is it allows you to start programming _ for the capital improvements that are going to have to occur along with that development rather than reacting to it when it comes in on day 1. It allows you to start scheduling those. If you' re looking and you want trail systems out in that area , it allows you to determine that now. It allows you to determine the park needs that you' re going to have. It also allows you to be able to do the projections on the water and sewer services that you' re going to need for that area. Right now if you were to ask that question, it' s agricultural . We don' t need . You don ' t have anything that' s telling you what kind of service you' re going to need for that area . _ Conrad : I 'm saying a lot of this stuff makes sense and that' s what we' re around here to do i.s do some planning. In terms of economics and hiring Mark to do that , what kind of approval . Do you take this type of request to the City Council? Is this a big deal to do some of this updating or are we talking about a small deal? Koegler : It' s minor . It ' s just a departure in focus and policy from what we' ve done . The actual work to do it i.s not significant . Conrad: And as part of that you' re going to try to help us decide in the next 10 years whether we have enough space, based on some kind of ratios and guesswork. Might that impact in any way the Eckankar parcel , just out of curiousi.ty? Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1989 - Page 43 Ellson : Making it commercial you mean? — Conrad: Yes. Looking at it for other uses. Commercial/industrial . Hanson: I would venture to say. . . Koegler : That really is a continuation of , as I referenced , what has happened historically. That parcel has bounced back and forth and has been envisioned as all kinds of uses and it just so happens it has high — density zoning now, I think on the south end and it gets lighter as you go north but it' s been looked at as being a commercial piece. An industrial piece. Not the entire thing but perhaps the south end so I think it ' s — fair to say that it would be looked at to see how it fit the land use scheme of the city. Conrad : Any disagreement with the direction? So to do that , what ' s the timing to come back? It'd really be nice to get this stuff shot up to City Council . What was the timing , May 17th? — Koegler : We ' re looking to have a draft available to you for the meeting on the 17th of May. Depending upon your availability of agenda time between now and then, we may try to come back for another review session on this topic . I would like to do that if it can be accommodated . Headla : We' ve always agreed with whatever you ' ve written. — Conrad : I think it is worthwhile. I think it ' s real important because there' s so many issues that are affecting this. Mark, what else do you want us to talk about? Koegler : There ' s two more areas that we need to address . One is the land use in the rural area. The second one is kind of a follow up on some of MEM the corridor study information . Specifically focusing on TH 101 and I would suggest maybe we reverse the sequence of those, since we' ve just been talking about land use , and talk a little bit about land use and the TH 101 corridor specifically at the TH 101-new TH 212 interchange. Fred — is here this evening and I think we' re going to kind of turn things over to him because he' s put some material together as part of the broadened study area and the three of us have met and reviewed and feel it fits with — the context of the Comp Plan . Fred Hoisington : We have been commissioned by the City to address a couple of concerns having to do with the TH 101 alignment on the first hand and secondly one that was precipitated by this body indicating some concern for aesthetics of that roadway as a south entrance to downtown Chanhassen . So what we did after we were here probably two months ago and — after some discussions with Gary Warren and Don Ashworth and so forth , concluded that we should try to pool all of those concerns into a single study. Really it ' s turned into a land use study as well and feeding into the comprehensive plan . Some of the things I 'm going to be talking to you about tonight about land use, think of them in terms of potential for land , various kinds of land uses . Not necessarily want you would or will Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 44 consider as you put together the land use plan . Mark has to deal with land use in the sense, and you do in a sense, what do you need between now — and the year 2000. What we' re going to show you tonight are some of the land uses that seem to make some sense here given the new roadway system. Now the total study area eventually that we ' ll be asking you to look at includes TH 5 as well so this whole study includes all of this corridor . — It ' s just that in order to respond to another concern yet and that is the official mapping of TH 212, we had to concentrate on the south end of the study area rather than deal with the TH 5 portion of it right now. We' ll — get back to you later but for the time being we are really primarily dealing with the area between TH 212 and between the Ward property. So kind of looking at this central portion but it gives us an opportunity to talk about the Ward piece and the kind of land uses that might occur there and the land uses to the south further . Now what we' ve done i.s look at three different alignment alternatives for TH 101. What we would like from the Planning Commission tonight or the 19th, as soon as you can, is a — recommendation as to which alignment you prefer because we are going to hold a hearing on the 24th with the City Council and they would like some input from the Planning Commission before we get to that point . This — alternative is one that would bring TH 101 just to the east of present TH 101 which i.s located here. What it would involve would be only about 250-280 feet of separation between the two and would bring TH 101 almost directly into the interchange that MnDot presently proposed the loops here and the on and off ramps located here. Of course that interchange has all of it ' s ramps, the way it' s presently designed , on the east side. For spacing reasons , the spacing being between TH 101 and CR 17 so MnDot was — r.elunctant to put any of the ramps on the other side. Some of the advantages of this alternative are that it doesn ' t disrupt existing land use. For example the Bart' s property and a house and barn and so forth . . . and detaches however the road from the residences that are on Lake Susan and that was one of the reason that this whole study was begun. Barbara started it and Mark started it quite some time ago trying to find an alternative alignment for it. One that would take the traffic off from — present TH 101 and satisfy the concerns of those who live on Lake Susan . You begin to put together some land use around that, what you end up with is residences backing up to the future TH 101 . Now remember TH 101 — probably won' t be built in 10 years or at least until such time as 212 i.s ready to be built. Then you wou1f have single family along present TH 101 all facing into it and creating , have a neat cluster of single family and — rather divorcing it from the traffic that will be on this highway. The other side, we have a rather substantial piece of the Bart' s property and a portion of the Klingelhutz property that have to interface with the residences on these large lots further to the east so we have a chance to — create a transitional zone , single family. Some multi family possibilities. Medium density and we have obviously, with this interchange going in here, some potential for commercial at virtually all the quadrants where visibility is good and access ability i.s also good . At the north end , just for the purpose of discussion, this i.s Market Blvd . and this is kind of a done deal . This will be built this summer down to the Rosemount entrance and then we have a phasing in of a temporary connection to TH 101 at a later date but still undetermined when that will be and then a future alignment . But what we would have again would be a roadway coming off from TH 101 and having single family interfacing with — Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 45 single family. Office for the property' s zoned for that presently. Perhaps multi-family but it could be an office devlepoment on the lake or just off the lake and then one of the best sites in the City of Chanhassen — for commercial is that which would be located north of future Lake Drive. Now Lake Drive presently comes in in this fashion on the north side of Rosemount. There would be a separation of an off-setting of Lake Drive. Then it would pick up and be continuous throughout the rest of the City all the way over to 184th. I don' t remember if we' ve ever discussed, we have that off-set have we not in the plans? One of the things that we looked at was trying to get a bigger site in here no matter whether it was commercial , industrial or office. We just felt it was important to get a bigger site in here and if we ran Lake Drive straight through, we would end up with a little area that would be ideal for fast food restaurants or — probably several of them and we decided maybe that wasn ' t the most appropriate use there. At least we ought to have flexibility in that we could have other bigger things occur at that location . In addition, — because of the turning movements that would occur at this intersection , we felt that the detachment would help immensely in getting people into that side without having to have them come in and immediately make a left , which is one of the things we experienced at a number of the intersections — along TH 5 and will continue to do so but we' ll have to live with some of them. We ' ve corrected some but we' re leaving some. We think there' s a lot of potential for that site . It ' s about 20 acres and something at least you should be considering as you continue to look at land use here . The second alternative is one that is more in conformance with what we originally intended this stretch of Market Blvd. to do if it were to be continued and then connect down to the interchange here . In order to get the right geometri.cs, all the right curves and all the right super and so forth , it requires quite a sweeping roadway and what it does is , if you recall , what it looks like down here, this is all open space or should be — committed to open space . It' s marshy. Wetland areas but there' s a knob or a hill that sticks up right in the middle of it and it ' s wooded . It ' s quite attractive but this one would propose that the road would swing to the east side of that avoiding it by putting about this much of road in the wetland and a fairly valuable wetland. I have some real hang-ups with alternative. To say nothing of the sweeping curves , it would have missed Bart's property. It would detach the traffic from the Lake Susan — residents again but would get it closer to the residents here . It would create a peculiar piece of land, a triangular piece of land in this area that will be very difficult to use . Not impossible but difficult to use . — It will change minimally the configuration of the interchange. Really only change these areas here as far as alignment of the ramps and so forth is concerned. Would leave a connection for existing TH 101 to the future or new TH 101 at the north end and you can see then the land use pattern would be to again have a cluster of residential . The open space. Probably more multi-family in this concept because none of the dimensions work very well with the single family in these zones between the two, the present — highway and the future highway. A very small triangular piece of land that could be used for single family probably connecting the cul-de-sac that ' s at the end of 86th and bringing it back down through, not absolutely essential but quite probably to get good circulation there. Some commercial potential here. Excellent commercial potential and very good commercial potential in this location as well . This multi-family Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1989 - Page 46 would have to have access back through this area . There would be no other way or it would have to have access directly up to this extension of the - ramps as such. Headla : Fred , on the very northern part of the multi housing , just down — one color , how would the people there get out to TH 101? Fred Hoisington : That ' s a good point . We are showing all of the accesses that would ever be provided onto TH 101 on these drawings. On these — scenarios . In other words , this would be an intersection. This would be an intersection. This would be an intersection and there would be no others so the people that were to live here would have access to this road — here and would have no access to TH 101. Everything would have to be to this roadway inbetween . Headla : Is there room there for a road going down the center of that multi. housing? Fred Hoisington : Yes. I 'm not sure you want to do that exactly. It — would not be a road probably. It would be an internal driveway system that they would simply link up so that everything connected back to this south end. This one is sort of an intermediate concept and it ' s purpose .„ was to try to divide the Bart' s piece up into two parcels that were more easily developed and perhaps more easily developed into single family. Especially as we interfaced with this area further to the east at the end of 86th. What it does through is it goes right through this hill , — demolishes it . It stays out of the wetland a little better than the one that swept further to the east. It eliminates at whatever time this is built, the Bart ' s property has to go. It does not under the other two -- alternatives. What we found from this was the dimensions come our rather peculiarly and it also suggests more multi-family than the first alternative in this case. What it does do is it pulls the ramps out of — thi.s quandrant and it puts them on the other side of the highway, of TH 101. A rather strange thing though because what it does , it does allow you to come and go necessarily with the same pattern . It ' s a rather strange sort of pattern. It makes it a little more difficult to get downtown because when you come off , you have to make additional turns i.n order to be able to get down there and that' s always been one of the concerns we' ve had i.n that case . If you pull the ramps out of this — quadrant , as you know, this is all a wetland that the interchange is going to go in. You would want to protect the remainder of the wetland that would be outside of the highway right-of-way itself as open space. What you see in this concept then is very much the same residential cluster on both sides of existing TH 101 and in this scheme and i.n this scheme , pulling TH 101 or the existing TH 101 back so that it does not use the present alignment. So what you would have would be houses backing up to houses back here rather than having these have a roadway directly behind them. It would just create more of a neighborhood kind of feel in this particular case . What you end up with is a rather peculiar piece here and _ only used for multi-family and that will make the problem more difficult than it will be in this because you have a narrower piece of land to serve. Not that you can' t cluster and do with your up to 8 units per acre. You can cluster everything near the south end and probably do it -' Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 47 anyway. I mean you can do it there without too much difficulty but the dimensions are not ideal . Multi-family here. Multi-family again on the south side of 86th . Then we show some commercial . This would be a good — commercial site on the west side of the ramps. This commercial site I 'm a little concerned about because this road is low and the grades are high so you'd have to really have some rather severe grades to go up that slope . So I 'm having some difficulty and that ' s why we' re saying that i.t could either be commercial or it could be multi-family. It probably would be multi-family. Would have an extension of this down in this fashion. Where I 'm after some considerable evaluation or looking at this, I 'm — tending more towards alternative 1 than I am towards alternatives 2 and 3 for a lot of reasons. Because I think we can interface better with the residential areas that are there. Because we can accomplish I think everything we need to accomplish by providing some additional commercial . We' re just coming now to the point where we think this probably works better from a land use standpoint than the other alternatives. One of the things it does for us as well is provide us with the possibility of an expanded right-of-way concept here. Getting more right-of-way than we really need . Based on the geometrics of this alignment , we can either build or have lots that would come all the way back to the right-of-way, — future right-of-way of TH 101 backing to it or we could leave some openings in there where the City could be involved or the County or whoever builds the road , with landscaping and so forth within those expanded right-of-way areas. It reminds me a little of Hwy. l00 in Edina where we did an expanded right-of-way plan 20 years ago. Where MnDot , in that case, had a great deal of interest in having that look good and would allow the city to provide additional landscaping and so forth. It could — well mean a greater commitment of dollars on the part of the City in a case like this . . .MnDot will have in this roadway at the time it ' s likely to be built but there' s some implications here. One of the things I — especially want to talk about with you tonight is the whole issue or question of a landscape median. The same thing we talked about last time I was here. This roadway will be designed now as one that can accommodate speeds of 55 mph. At the time it' s built, if there isn' t a great deal of, in other words, if it were to be built today, you would in fact be able to travel 55 mph on that roadway. I 'm quite sure in my mind about that . If it were to be built 10 years from now and a lot of the development that — you see here has already occurred or is about to occur , at the point that it has occurred substantially, this roadway will no longer function at 55 . It will probably function at 45. It would be important to the City not to try to make it function at a lower speed than 45. This road will be extremely important as a link through here and one that you have to maintain a certain level of speed on. You have no choice but to do that . One of the things we' re trying to explore, that we were exploring was, whether at the time it' s built we could reduce the speed enough that we could in fact do more landscaping there. One of the reasons we can do it downtown is that the speeds are low enough and the road is straight — enough, with the exception of the one curve, that the clear zones adjacent to the curbs don ' t need to exist . Minor clear zones in that case , at 30 mph. At 45 mph, the speed below which we would not want to go ever on this roadway, you have to have for a median a clear zone on the side of the curb that the person could lose i.t into the median. You have to have a clear zone of 37 feet from the travel lane. The inside travel lane. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 48 Now you could take, if it happens to be an urban section , a curb section here, then you' ve got to figure 37 feet and then on the other side, you _ don ' t have to have 37 feet. Let' s say you have to have half of that. You'd have to have a median at least of 50, 60, maybe 70 feet wide in order to accomodate the trees in a median of such . You can always have shurbs there but it would be very difficult to put trees in the median under any scenario . I guess what we' re beginning to think here i.s if you ' re going to do some landscaping and want this to be kind of a very pleasing entrance , you have to look for other ways to do that . One of the ways you can do that is to expand the right-of-way concept. Another way you can do that is to have some areas along the road. For example in front of Rosemount where we know we' re going to have some additional right-of-way anyway. Where you can create pockets of landscaping . Kind of frame a roadway and make it attractive. Other areas where you can do that are up the slopes for example where you have steep cuts because the answer in point that a car can' t travel anyway so there are things that you can do about those where you 'd have major cuts in the way of landscaping with trees and not shurb material . In fills , you have another problem because those slopes have to be flatter so you have some rather _ significant clearance zones in fill areas that mean you' re very limited in what you can do landscaping wise close to the roadway and such. What I 'm telling you i.s we can continue to look, we must continue to look at what will create or establish a pleasing entrance into downtown Chanhassen along this roadway but probably trees in the median are not one of the things that you' re going to be able to do unless you were to reduce the speed to considerably below what we think the speed limit must be on this road to carry the traffic that will be necessary in the year 2000, 2005 or 2010. So with that I ' ll just open it up to questions. We would like some suggestions or recommendations from the Planning Commission as to _ which of the alternatives you would like the City Council to consider . You will get future shots because it does have to come back for official land use. Headla : Before he gave the pitch , I favored 2 and I had all sorts of reasons . I think he gave some very convincing reasons why it should be 1. Right now, with everything he said, I would go with 1. Just one thing , that line of sight , did you say that had to be like almost 60 feet? Hoisington: The clear zones , that line would be. . . Headla : What is a clear zone? Is that line of sight? Hoisington: No . The clear zone is the distance between the travel lane and the nearest fixed objects which are things that a car could hit and do damage or a driver being injured substantially. So when I talk about 60 feet , I 'm talking about , in the median area , when I talk about the clear zones on the edges , you only have one exposure and that' s the car on the outside lane. So in those cases , your clear zones are only let' s say the 37 feet from the traveled edge. Where the curves I believe are 4 . . . 30 minutes . So in the median you'd have to almost double it. Wildermuth: I really favor alternative 1. I like the creation of large commercial zone in that area to the north there that Fred was talking Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1989 - Page 49 - about . The potential for an office building or some other commercial use. That could be a really prime piece of property out there. Has minimal impact on the wetlands and the topography. Hoisington: Just a couple of points. This of course would be the same for all three alternatives . There would be no difference there. Each one of the alternatives does have, and I don ' t want to suggest to you that it doesn ' t have a wetland impact . I think this one has by far the greatest wetland impact because we had such a major exposure there to the wetland . - Wildermuth : Well 1 seems to have the least wetland impact . Hoisington: I think you ' re probably right but nonetheless , the creek does — exist in here and it kind of winds down before it comes out at Lake Susan. What would happen under this scenario is you probably have to put , you 'd straighten it out and bring it across the street and put it under in one place. So you would lose that, you can' t help that. Unless you leave the road where it is , you' re going to have a wetland impact. Conrad : What about to the south Fred? The wetland at the TH 212 — intersection . Hoisington : That ' s a real concern. Under any of the scenarios , you' re - going to have just a major impact on that wetland. Conrad : Is it an A and a B wetland? — Hanson: I think it ' s an A. Hoisington: I 'm sure it' s an A. And just because we' re able to save a — portion of it here, there' s still a lot of it lost . There' s going to be an interchange there. There isn' t much way you can avoid it . The only thing I can think of is to, and MnDot is relunctant to do this, is to plot this whole interchange on the other side and you just about can' t do it now because of the subdivision that have already occurred further to the west . That option is precluded . I guess in the whole scheme of things, in looking at all the alternatives that MnDot has looked at for. that — roadway, they are coming to the conclusion , at least I think the EIS is coming to the conclusion that this represents the lesser of the total impacts of the other , south Riley and the other alternatives that would be — considered. No matter whether you have the interchange or not , you have to go through a wetland . That ' s just where it ' s going to go . Batzli : Three minutes ago I would have said I like option 3 because we save part of the wetland . I don' t think I like 2. Number 1 on the other hand to me, it seems like we have a lot of single families abutting TH 101 there don ' t we? If that ' s a 55 mph road , I don ' t know that that ' s really — the kind of use that ' s going to go in there or would be appropriate. I don ' t know that a lot of people want to be up against TH 7 kind of arrangement if they knew about it in advance. That ' s going to be a heavily traveled road . That would be the drawback that I see on 1 besides the fact that we' re going to put the interchange in the wetland. But of the three, I think that might be the most realistic . Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 50 Ellson : Isn ' t it true that you can actually like move a wetland? I hate the idea. We just a thing in our comprehensive plan, we are not going to do anything to wetland and here we are not even 2 hours later saying how we' re going right through one. We' re just so inconsistent. Maybe we'd have to give up some residential medium density but can ' t you like literally move a wetland and put it somewhere else? I ' ve heard of that sort of thing and I 'm just saying , I hate the thought of doing that . We' re basically trying not to , in any way we can, so I 'm saying if we have to can we move it and forfeit some of this other zoning in order to put a wetland there or something . But as far as the three alternatives , I would go along with 1. — Hoisington : Annette , let me just say that MnDot , if and when it builds TH 212 here, will have to consider mitigating loss of the wetland . One of the alternatives i.s to put it someplace else. It ' s never obviously quite — the same as where it is but it would function in the same manner that it does here. One of the things they are talking about though, and I 'm not sure how effective that would be, is in their concepts they do, which is — really this concept right now, they are talking about ponding in all of the quadrants in this interchange. So there is going to be an effort to either retain as much of it as they can or if there is some loss , they' ll — try to figure out ways to mitigate that loss so that' s required that they address that in the EIS . Erhart : I 'd like to emphasize that I like, if we can ' t have a central — median which wasn' t really the point of my last discussion as it i.s just to make it a very aesthetically pleasing entrance to Chanhassen. If the way to do it is to expand the right-of-way, I think that ' s a great idea . — So I fully support that . In addition , I had the same problem that Brian had with backing lots up to a private street or even up to TH 101. I have a concern with that . I 'm glad to see you changed that drawing from the one we had out here because that was one of my points on the old one. I wanted to cut it off there so we don ' t have that . I think one of the things you can do is you can combine this landscaping to also make it a barrier between those lots that back up to TH 101 . In fact I think in the — long run, I think if we would have done some of that on some of our freeways here, we could have saved a lot of money and have a lower maintenance cost, sound barrier than we have with these wood and concrete — things that are all starting to get cockeyed and tipping over and really question how long that' s going to work. I don' t like number 2 at all . I think it makes the distance further that you have to travel . For number 1, from a person who lives in the south , it' s really exciting to see that — someday we' ll have a decent way to get into town. Otherwise I 'm going to Chaska too. It ' s really exciting to see something like this on paper anyway. Item 2 just goes against , I think the benefit is that now you ' re — back in fairly sharp turns. Going way out of your way to get from Point B so I would like to see that one rejected somewhat out of hand . Again , it does adversely affect the wetland. My question relating , and I like 1 — best of the alternatives, but why when traffic comes down this way and if you want to go west, and essentially you ' re going in somewhat in the same direction , why do we have a guy in the left turn to go right? The intersection I think about, and I use it frequently is the intersection on — Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1989 - Page 51 all around the Eden Prairie Center . It is so ridiculous . All the turns and lights and things you ' ve got to do just to get from downtown, down Pioneer Trail . It ' s so ridiculous . You' ve got make left turns to make a — right turn and I don' t understand why in either of these, particular in this one here , you' re coming down, why can ' t you just have the entrance going west just basically go off? And the same here. It would take almost zero space and this in fact is not developed . I 'm talking about just a gradual lane going down there. If you did that, then you could bring this one into here and out of the wetlands and reduce the whole side of this intersection. It would make it less expensive and I think a lot — more handy for people to use. Hoisington : They would still Tim bring this one out . What they could - avoid, if they were to do that of course, would be that they wouldn' t have to build whatever barrier within the wetland , back here but they will have to build thi.s . . . Erhart : Yes , that would be fine but it would be bring it out of the wetland and that would be great. — Hoisington : But what they' re concerned about is the spacing of the end of thi.s ramp to the beginning of the CR 17 ramp. That' s the reason they use this folded diamond concept . My understanding is that they originally - considered a number of alternatives here. Their conclusion was that the spacing was just not adequate . Erhart : I guess probably the major reason why I don' t like thi.s plan , if someone coming off. They have to make a right turn. Stop. Then a left turn to get into town . It ' s real cumbersome although I think it solves some of the problems with getting some of the intermediate zones between — the highway. I think you need to have the exits . What is OS? Hoisington : Open space. Erhart : Maybe you could have the exit coming up here. Hoisington: You could. The only disadvantage of that is that for the — most part people who , what MnDot like to do i.s they like to bring people off and then get them back on basically at the same point if they can . - Erhart : So they don ' t get lost . Hoisington : Exactly. That ' s the reason. So that' s a possibility but one that we don' t think they would look up to right away. Erhart : I guess I would favor 1 . If the left turns are unavoidable, then I guess that' s . . . I think we ought to emphasize too to MnDot i.s the zero — net loss of wetlands. That they try to mitigate as much as possible. Conrad: Fred, I don' t have anything new to add. I think 1 is the best alternative. It' s great on the upper part for sure. My only comment is I think we should be talking to MnDot about minimal impact on the wetland at the interchange. Whatever that access method is , that ' s the one we should Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 52 use . But it ' s got to be an easy access for downtown Chanhassen period . Number. 3 does not do it the way it' s designed. We just can' t have that . — That ' s not an alternative at all . So it ' s got to be an easy right hand for westerly bound traffic and that' s real important . Hoisington : We will be holding a public information meeting on the 17th — so if you don' t have enough meetings to attend now, please feel free to come out and spend some time. Conrad: Okay, thanks Fred. Mark, you ' re back on. Koegler : Okay. We have essentially one last component of the plan — discussion and that deals with land use in the rural area . When the 1980 plan was put together , as I think I ' ve stated earlier tonight , it was a very easy task because at that time there was an ordinance essentially prohibiting development without sewer . As you know that didn' t exactly stand the test of time so now this plan needs to take a little different approach and the only approach that ' s been really taken to date , outside of the discussion we just got through a little while ago on looking at — long , long term land uses , is really from a policy standpoint . Goal and policy standpoint and some of those you reviewed earlier dealing with the general rural use area and how that' s going to be handled. There have been discussions i.n the past as to whether or not that approach which is kind of more passive and to just let those statements dictate what the policy is along with the existing ordinances . If that ' s the right approach or if it ' s appropriate to take a more active approach i.n looking — at land use . Some time ago Tim is the author of this map. There was a reduced version of that in the packet but what this did was identify various types of uses in the southern part of the community. Agriculture . — Wooded. Existing residential development. Wetlands and so forth and there was discussion at that time as to whether or not that kind of thinking should be expanded through the entire rural area and then should we be looking at land uses , either permanent land uses or interim land uses that were compatible with those various types of use areas . The Planning Commission , according to my notes , even considered at one time should we be designating areas for "pure" agriculture versus hobby farm — areas . Were there areas where the agricultural quality were not necessarily suitable to the highest level of production of rural crops or whatever . Should we be looking at hobby farms in some of those kinds of — areas as being more of a permitted use? Again, this item is brought back to you tonight for your thoughts and kind of policy direction . Where do you want to go with talking about the between now and 2000 use of the general rural use area . How specific do we want to get? We have a number — of policies in part of the plan right now that basically say development only in conformance with ordinances . No expansion of the commercial , industrial and so forth. Is that sufficient or do we need to go further? — Conrad : Well Tim, why don' t you start us off . Erhart: Okay. This item 2, discourage development in the rural wooded areas . I remember that now. What I thought I communicated was to discourage agricultural development of wooded areas . In other words , going in and cutting down all the trees and converting it to crop land . — Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1989 - Page 53 That ' s what I meant to say that time because wooded areas is the most valuable, as Dave will know, most valuable area you can get for future residential use . Maybe this is someone elses idea but if this was my idea — then that' s what I meant by it. Was discourage conversion of wood lots to agricultural use in the rural area . Headla: I 've got the same thing circled . Erhart : Is everybody okay with that one? Item 1, identify pure agricultural areas vs . areas suitable for expansion. The first part of — that , I tend to think that the area west of that freeway will be pure agriculture for quite some time unless it gets adopted by Chaska. I think it will be agricultural for some time. There are some people there that — want to stay farming. Essentially if you look at the map here, on the northwest part of that TH 212. I 'm looking at this item number 1. Identify pure agricultural areas vs. areas suitable for expansion. I don ' t think, was that my idea too? Koegler : I can ' t tell you who . It was just a comment that was discussed briefly. Conrad : It had to be yours . Erhart : I don ' t remember that one. I guess in looking at that , I would just go back to what we do and identify pure long term agricultural vs . transitional areas I guess which is what we' ve said previously already in this document. From what' s happened in the area down there by me, that' s almost all lots are wooded at this point . So it seems to me that ' s not a transitional area , then I don' t know what a transitional area is . — Koegler : That proliferation of residential that ' s occurred over the last several years needs to be called out in the plan and discussed as being the existing situation. I guess that ' s kind of the direction that I was assuming we would probably go. A brief discussion then of what' s left that is "agricultural" . The fact that the slat of the plantings preserve that, at least what, as long as practical? If it is productive farmland , to allow it to remain that and not go into a great deal more comment on — it. Let that kind of narrative and the policies basically portray the City' s policy in the general rural use area . — Conrad: Tim, I don' t understand your map. Now why did you do that? You had some reason for drawing that map and are we paying attention to those reasons? Erhart : I ' ve done a number of these maps over. my 3 years on the Planning Commission . I think one of the frustrating things is just like up on TH 41 and TH 7. To me that ' s just an area that I really don' t have a vision — for . So many times we' ve talked about south Chanhassen and everybody thinks of it in terms of it' s just farmland. I was trying to get people to communicate that hey, it' s not just farmland . In fact I think there' s two distinct separate areas in south Chanhassen. One is rural residential as we call it, which is that area essentially, at this point everything east of extended CR 17 is really rural residential . Then everything west Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1989 - Page 54 of that is really still agricultural . I think in doing planning , you' ve got deal with data. Real facts and that' s the real facts and that ' s why I — did that. Conrad : So it makes sense to me what you' re talking about . The _ agricultural being to the west but do you think we should be treating the land to the east that is hobby farmi.sh or bigger , do we need to do anything? Erhart : Well yes . For example when we talked about contractor ' s yards, it' s still up in the air whether we want to just separate south Chanhassen and allow contractor ' s yards out in the ag area . That' s still going to — come up. As opposed to allowing contractor ' s yards east of the extended CR 17 . I don ' t care , we can either eliminate them completely which is fine with me. On the other hand, if there' s a sentiment that somebody _ owns 100 acres out there and he wants to be in the contracting business , then if he' s in that agricultural area , then maybe he ought to be allowed to have a contracting business . I really don' t care as long as we don ' t have these industrial sites in the middle of which is now a rural — residential area with really expensive homes . In fact , I think that ' s the reason why I drew this map the last time was to communicate the fact that it ' s not just as simple as it' s just a bunch of farms out there. There ' s _ really two distinct separate areas and I think in our terms of planning , we' ve got to at least start thinking of it that way. Hobby farms, to me a hobby farm is somebody who wants , has got 10 acres. You can have a hobby farm. I don ' t know where that came from. I don' t remember that I brought that up and don ' t know that it has to be in there. Does that answer your question? Conrad : Mark' s comment on the bottom of page 20. Another alternative is to take a more active approach in specifically address land uses in southern Chanhassen. Listing of existing land use types and natural _ conditions and the corresponding statement of appropriate use in those areas. Tim, you would not feel we needed to do that? Erhart : Say that again. — Conrad: Read the bottom paragraph on page 20. Erhart : Are you suggesting you do that by micro areas or macro? Koegler: There was discussion in the past about a more micro approach. I think my thoughts and what I think I 'm hearing this evening is really, if you want to use the term more macro in that we' ve got a couple of distinct areas with different characteristics and those need to be recognized . We' ve got agricultural and we've got rural "urban" land use. We ' ve got — housing and so forth and they do set up two distinct zones and just coincidentally, virtually almost bisected by the TH 212 alignment . Erhart : Yes . Your map corresponds a lot with what already exists. Koegler: That' s the approach that I would suggest we take. Right now we' ve got a blank spot in the plan where it says that ' s to be filled in 4=M1 Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1989 - Page 55 and I think that ' s the way we should fill it in. Erhart: I think we should proceed along with what you are proposing there — which deals with the identifying long term ag on a macro basis . I think that' s what you ' ve got on your map. Conrad : Any disagreement with that? Headla : I was questioning this very last sentence. All development would be discouraged. How do you discourage? Koegler : This is only really speaking in a policy context because if your ordinances allow development at a certain density, which they do, that is - permissible. Wildermuth : Couldn' t stop it right? Koegler : No . Short of going to another density category which given the amount of land that ' s remaining is probably not in the City' s best interest . But just from a policy standpoint , to preserve that — agricultural useage as long as is practical and until such time in the future as sewer and so forth comes in and the property ultimately develops . Wildermuth : It ' s pretty restricted now with the 1 unit per 10 acre requirement. I guess the only comment I would have is I don' t see any need to identify pure agricultural areas vs. hobby farms . I think the — economics in the situation , soil types and that sort of thing dictate what goes where. — Erhart : I guess I assumed we were taking this paragraph out in exchange for what Mark is proposing to do. Koegler : The macro approach just looks at agriculture period. It doesn ' t categorize. Conrad : This point number 3, for rural subdivisions require ghost plats . — It kind of makes sense. Koegler : That certainly could be a valid concern i.n any number of areas and maybe now in light of what has happened in recent history with zoning , it ' s not as critical as it might have been January a few years ago when suddenly these developments came i.n. But the area that' s of most concern to me in that regard is the area north of TH 5 between the two MUSA lines . That ' s kind of really the transitional area because that' s the next area that according to the sewer plan will be serviced . That ' s the area where it' s most critical i.n at least the shorter term that the development — pattern that goes in fits some long term scenario as to how properties ultimately could be redivided. That same concern is evident in the south also. It' s just potentially a little further down the road . But perhaps the passage of time now and the ordinance that' s in effect with the 1 per 10 standard , that ' s maybe not as critical as it was with the 2 1/2 acre. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 56 Conrad : I don ' t know. Steve, you' ve got to tell us . You' re the one that has to deal with all this junk. You divide it into 1 per 10 and then — pretty soon you divide it to 15, 000 square feet . It ' s more of a planner problem. Hanson : I guess I see part of it as determining what , again that' s why I go back to the land use, that land use ultimately is . . . inter_ im steps . . . The decision has to be made for larger lots in 2 1/2 acres or . . . I think that northern area would have a fair amount of that has gone 2 1/2 acre — lots and now we' re faced with an area . . . On the other hand , if you' ve got an area that' s developing along a different character . . . I don' t have a feel for that. I 'm not sure if I answered your question or not . _ Conrad: Well , some of this stuff , we literally don' t know. We' re kind of trying to help provide orderly planning because the reality is , there will _ be resubdivi.sions and previous city planners have gotten real concerned about some of this . So if ghost platting is important to do, because we know there' s going to be a sequence, then we should be working some of this into policies or ordinances . As Mark says , he' s not real concerned — because maybe the changes recently in the 1 per 10 and whatever and maybe we don ' t have a problem there and I guess I don ' t have a real sense. I don' t know. Koegler : Ladd , my level of concern is still there. It ' s just I don ' t think you ' re going to see as many cases now where this is going to become an opportunity to do that as you would have a couple of years ago when the — door_ was open to all these rural subdivisions that came in. I think just simply the numbers of these things over the next few years are going to be pretty minimal with the 1 per 10 standard in effect. _ Conrad : Then my sense is to leave it alone and not deal with it. Erhart: Let me ask you this . Let ' s say on Riley Lake south there, let' s say sewer was extended into there, would you actually go in and put that sewer in on all those 2 1/2 acre lots and force those landowners to hook up when their septic systems are working? Hanson: I can' t imagine that you would. Erhart : I can ' t either . I can ' t imagine that . Hanson: The cost of that would be too great. On the other hand , if you _ have a lot of failing septic systems then that situation changes . My understanding of that area is that has pretty well gone under the new regulations that they got two sites and so forth so I wouldn ' t see that that' s going to be the case. That you' re going to have a lot of failures . — Erhart : Let ' s say sewer comes by on TH 101 , who ' s going to pay for it to run it into that whole subdivision when there 's no urgency to do it? I — would just find it , unless things are failing , I just can' t imagine that ever being subdivided. Maybe someday but boy, not for a long time. I have a theoretical question . What is our position today realizing , I think as we do, the 2 1/2 acre lots are really uneconomic from the — • Planning Commission Meeting — April 5 , 1989 - Page 57 standpoint of providing services . Streets and so forth and everything . If we had this guy in here who wanted to hook in from the north end of town . Who wanted to hook in and could hook in in a gravity flow even though he — was outside the MUSA line, I 've got to believe you' re going to see some more of those coming in here. First place, he' s close to a wetland . The second thing, if you did allow him to hook in instead of having some more 2 1/2 acre lots, you could have maybe you could 15 , 000 lots or maybe 1 acre lots . Something . But we keep forcing more 2 1/2 acre lots when in fact the sewer is right across the street from the guy or something . What ought to be our position in those cases? Realizing that Met Council ' s - going to say no today but what ought to be our , if we had our wish , what would it be? Do we want to encourage the City to try to get Met Council to give us some flexibility, to be more flexible so that we can do what we — think is, in my opinion, better planning? If you don ' t have to put a lift station in and the guy' s got some lots there, to force him to keep some more 2 1/2 acre lots , to me that' s just poor planning . I think you guys are already doing something . I guess I 'd like to see the Planning Commission encourage the staff to try to get some flexibility out of Met Council to stop this propagation of 2 1/2 acre lots . Even to go to the extent that we'd actually put a statement in our comp plan to say, have — flexibility or something or try to minimize additional 2 1/2 acre lots in those cases where gravity sewer would serve an area. - Conrad : You don ' t like 2 1/2 acre lots because they' re uneconomical? Erhart: Waste land. — Wildermuth : But you can ' t have any more can you? I mean it' s 1 unit per 10 acre density. I think the 2 1/2 acre lot is pretty well ruled out . — Conrad : Even though it ' s 1 per 10, you can have on a 40 acre. . . Hanson: Yes , if you have 40 acres , you could cluster them. You could have four 2 1/2 acre sites clustered and have 30. . . Wildermuth: But you use up the allotment for the balance of land? — Hanson : Yes . Wildermuth : The only thing that' s going to happen there is when they do — come in with sewer, boy it ' s really going to be expensive for that sewer and water . I 'd hate to bring sewer and water into Hesse Farm for example. Those big lots . - Erhart : There you wouldn ' t but let ' s say a buy' s got 40 acres and he wants to put 4 lots in. This guy had 4 lots didn' t he. I don ' t remember the whole circumstances . Koegler : I don ' t know what guy you' re specifically talking about . Hanson: Are you talking about Carrico? Erhart : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting April 5 , 1989 - Page 58 Koegler : Okay, the flexibility thing seems to have been lost over time. — I don' t know how that occurred but in the late 70' s and early 80' s, the arguments between the City and the Met Council , the City' s position was that the MUSA line was a flexible line within certain parameters. The way _ the line occurred is that Met Council originally gave the City a rough alignment and it literally was a graphic swath that went up through the city. That was refined largely by the City based upon gravity sanitary sewer . But the thing you have to bear i.n mind was the decisions on — gravity sewer were made on 10 foot contours . USGS information was all that was available and is all still that' s available at this time for certain parts of the community and that ' s not real definitive. — Consequently you had pieces of property that came in that were right next to this new hardline that was drawn that people could demonstrate that they really were serviceable. The City' s intent back at that time was that those should be included in the MUSA line because that was the foundation, that it was gravity sewer service and anything that was not was outside the MUSA line . Somehow that flexibility seems to have gotten lost. I don ' t know how that has occurred and maybe that' s not totally a — dim topic because in that same time period the Metropolitan Council seems to have gotten a little bit more flexible now with changes to the MUSA line . Erhart : More recently? Koegler : More recently. So maybe the pendelum is swinging back the other_ — way but the concept that you bring up Tim is nothing really that wasn ' t expressed some time ago. the City went through a lot of discussions and a lot of heated , very heated debates with Met Council when the MUSA line was being drafted . My predecessor back i.n the ' 76 timeframe or so was heavily involved i.n that . That was pretty well ironed out by the time I was involved. Erhart : Then I guess I would ask the Commission to consider to put some words in here that basically reinforces trying to get some flexibility back into this thing . — Koegler : Back in those days sewer allocation was a dirty word . Nobody ever said that. Now more recently they speak of allocation. Number of — units . Number of connections and things so it has gotten a lot more specific and that' s to a large degree why the line has become more firm and there ' s been less flexibility maybe in saying this guy' s right next to the line and he really should be in. Well no, because Chanhassen only has — x sewer capacity and you' ve already used up the capacity or whatever the argument might be. Erhart : That ' s also a thing that kind of burns me that you' ve got one guy on one side of the line and one guy on the other side of the line, there ' s no economic reason why one guy is treated different than the other . Where — it ' s gravity flow, that ' s something you can stand on. Conrad : I don ' t disagree with what you ' re saying Tim. I don' t know where we take it but I don' t disagree. Steve, do you have any opinion on Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1989 - Page 59 — this? Mark can work it in. Hanson: Well why don' t you let us give it a shot and try to come up with — something. Met Council did, last time there was an adjustment made they indicated that there was some flexibility to adjust that but they didn' t want to see 10 acres here and 5 acres there. That the City, we'd identify those. Part of the reason we haven' t proceeded with that , Carrico. . . negotiations on that as far as the park site. That ' s one of the reason I haven ' t pursued that further until that issue has been settled . -- Conrad: Are we through Mark? Koegler : Yes. You' ve given us direction I think on all the topics that we needed. Jo Ann Olsen updated the Planning Commission on the recycling program. Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in — favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 50 p.m. . Submitted by Steve Hanson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director DATE: April 14, 1989 SJBJ: Convenience Stores We have surveyed several of the cities in the metro area regarding their requirements for convenience stores. Of the cities contacted to date they permit convenience stores in the neighborhood and general or highway districts. They are less commonly allowed in downtown districts and industrial districts. Most common is to allow convenience stores as a conditional use permit. Most of the conditional use permit standards address impacts on adjacent residential areas, landscaping, access, lighting, and architectural character. Most cities do not define convenience stores. The City of Minneapolis has adopted specific requirements and definitions for convenience/gas facilities . A copy of their site plan review process for these is attached along with their defi- nitions. We expect to have additional information available for the next Planning Commission meeting at which time we can discuss this issue and pursue a course of action. Please keep this memo and attachments with the other convenience store information. -r • SITE PLAN REVIEW Minneapolis Zoning Office 300 Public Health Building 250 South 4th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 (612) 348-7836 On October 23, 1987, the Minneapolis City Council adopted .a Zoning Code Text Amendment which requires a Site Plan Review for the following uses: 0 Restaurants O Convenience Food Restaurants O Service Stations* 0 Automobile Convenience Facilities* O Automobile Combination Convenience Facilities* O Automobile Wash Facilities* O Self-Service Car Washes* O Food and Grocery Store O Motor Vehicle Storage or Repair Garage* 0 Battery and Tire Service Station O Bakery*, Deli, Meat and Fish O Shopping Center Fee: $65.00 As per Section 414.70 -- Minneapolis Code of Ordinances APPLICANT: (NAME) (ADDRESS) (PHONE NUMBER) SITE LOCATION: PROPOSED NAME: *Also need Special Council Permit (Section 265.10) Forms at 304 City Hall Z-63-19 11-1-88 SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE — STEP 1 Zoning Administrator's Office _ 300 Public Health Center The applicant must submit the following materials to initiate the Site Plan Review procedure: — 1. 350-foot property owners list 2. Nine (9) copies of the site plan that meets the following standards: A) Site Plan must be drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, and large enough — to clearly show all details. B) Site Plan must show: - Lot property lines and dimensions. - Lot area in square feet. — - Streets and alleys. - Existing conditions including trees, utility poles, fire hydrants, sidewalks, curb cuts, buildings and changes in grade. - Proposed curb cuts, curb radius, driveway width and location, the location — and size of parking spaces, the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Code, sidewalks (public and internal), and show all curbing as 6-inch by 6-inch continuous curbing. — - Exterior lighting in compliance with Section 530.10(4). - Refuse storage in compliance with Section 530.10(5). — - Signage in compliance with Section 530.10(7). - Landscaped areas in compliance with Section 530.10(3) in detail, including: 1. Name of plant material 2. Size 3. Number 4. Location — 5. Area in square feet of each landscaped area, and total landscaped area. C) Drawings or photographs showing all four (4) sides of the building's exterior, including roof treatment, in compliance with Section 530.10(6). 3. Payment of fee to the Zoning Administrator. STEP 2 Process A) The applicant must distribute the nine (9) copies of the Site Plan as follows: One (1) copy to the Zoning Administrator's Office, Room 300, Public Health Center, 250 South Fourth Street. Phone - 348-7836. Two (2) copies to the Minneapolis Planning Department, Room 210 City Hall. Phone 348-2587 - Gary Dorek Two (2) copies to the Traffic Engineering Department, Room 211 City Hall. Phone 348-3811 - Helmer Christenson Two (2) copies to the Minneapolis Fire Department, Room 230 City Hall. Phone 348-2544 - Elmer Herkenhoff Two (2) copies to Licenses/Consumer Services, Room 1C City Hall. Phone 348-2080 - Patricia Holmstrom B) Review of Site Plan by Planning Department staff. C) Receipt of comments and changes required by Fire Department, Traffic Engineer and Licenses. D) Review by the City Planning Commission - Referrals Committee and full Planning Commission. E) Review by the City Council - Zoning and Planning Committee and full City Council. F) Site plan sent to Zoning Administrator with stamp signifying approval of Planning Commission and City Council. STEP 3 Timing to Process Completion A) A 20-day notice to owners of property situated within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property, and to registered neighborhood groups, is required to initiate the process. B) The time from Planning Commission inception to final City Council approval takes five (5) weeks. STEP 4 Final Construction Plans A) Before issuance of any building permit, final site plans must be approved by the Zoning Administrator and the Public Works Department. Revised - 4/5/88 GD/rm MINNEAPOLIS ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS Section 522.40 Definitions — AUTOMOBILE CONVENIENCE FACILITY - a facility where flammable and com- bustible liquids, such as gasoline and other motor fuels are stored and subsequently dispensed, by use of fixed approved dispensing equip- ment by customers of the facility on a self-service basis; in addition, — a facility which also provides sandwiches, snacks, staple groceries and other similar retail products or services which are not recognized or defined by the Zoning Code as separate uses or as necessary can- ponents of separate uses, for sale on premises for consumption off premises by by the customer. AUTOMOBILE COMBINATION CONVENIENCE FACILITY - a facility which offers — the same services as the automobile convenience facility, and in addi- tion, offers retail products, including but not limited to convenience food items, and/or other services which are recognized or defined by — the Zoning Code as separate uses or as necessary components of separate uses. CONVENIENCE FOOD - food items which are substantially prepard and cooked — on premises and packaged in individually wrapped, non-reusable, inedible containers. CONVENIENCE FOOD RESTAURANT - a restaurant where convenience food is delivered to the retail customer for consumption on-premises, or for carryout and consumption off-premises, and where no other services or retail products are permitted to be offered for sale. A restaurant — that generates more than one-third of its annual sales in this manner shall be considered a convenience food restaurant. DELICATESSEN - A delicatessen is an establishment which sells prepared or cooked meats, smoked fish, cheeses, salads, relishes, etc. , pri- marily in bulk form as distinguished from individual servings. — DRIVE-IN FACILITY - a facility which is designed to accommodate custo- mers' automobiles, frau which automobiles the customer may purchase non-food services or retail products. — RESTAURANT - a restaurant is an eating establishment which serves a substantial proportion of its food for consumption at tables or counters — located on the premises. CAPACITY IN PERSONS - the maxim= number of persons that can avail _ themselves of the service (or goods) of an establishment or use at any one time, as determined by the required floor space per person established in the building code. 11-1-88 — CHAPTER 530. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 530.10 Site Plan Review Standards. Site plan reviews for CON- VENIENCE FOOD RESTAURANTS, SELF-SERVICE CAR WASHES, RESTAURANTS, SERVICE STA- TIONS, AUTOMOBILE CONVENIENCE FACILITIES, AUTOMOBILE COMBINATION CONVENIENCE FACILITIES, AUTOMOBILE WASH FACILITIES, FOOD AND GROCERY STORES, AND SHOPPING CENTERS shall be subject to the following standards, and the Design Guidelines for Site Plan Review: 1. ALLEY ACCESS If the zoning lot is located in a block which contains any Residen- tial zoning (R1-R6A and RR) or B1 zoning, alley access shall be allowed only for commercial deliveries, when approved by the City Engineer. 2. PARKING and DRIVEWAYS a. Screening and landscaping shall be subject to Section 540.290 paragraph C4). b. Driveways. Driveways shall conform to the requirements of the City Engineer and to the specifications for monolithic concrete sidewalk, concrete driveway, concrete curb, gutter _ and concrete alley of the department of Public Works. In addition, no driveways shall be allowed on freeway ramps and canbined freeway ramp frontage roads. c. Driveway and parking areas. Driveway and parking areas shall be paved according to Section 540.290 paragraph (3). All driveway and parking areas shall be bounded by six inch by six inch (6"x6") continuous concrete curb. The curb along parking areas shall be at least two (2) feet clear of any yard or buffer and four (4) feet clear of the frontage pro- perty line. d. Bumper stops. Requirement along business or manufacturing zoned boundary: Along the property line which abuts other property in said district or property which is zoned other than Residential (R1 through R6A and RR) , or B1, a burger stop shall be constructed. The bumper stop shall consist of three inch by twelve inch (3"x12") timbers supported by eight inch by eight inch (8"x8" ) posts, eight (8) _feet on center, set in concrete, or an approved equal_ Where there is no building on the abutting property, a six inch by six inch (6"x6") box curb may be substututed for the bumper. 3. LANDSCAPING/SITE DESIGN a. At the boundaries of a B1 or residentialy zoned district, a strip not less than 5' wide shall be organically landscaped. b. A minimum of 20 percent of the lot area, minus the area of the building, must be landscaped in accordance with the cri- teria stated in the Design Guidelines for Site Plan Review, available at the Planning Department. c. In case of hardship, lesser areas than described in 3b above may be landscaped, subject to the provision on enhanced site amenities as indicated in Section E of the Design Guidelines for Site Plan Review. However, under no circumstances shall less than 10% of the lot area minus the building be landscaped. 11-1-88 d. The area between the public sidewalk and the private curbs defining the limits of the driveways and the parking areas on the site shall be landscaped. e. On Street frontages having business zoning abutting the appli- cant's zoning lot, the minimum lot width shall be fifty (50) — feet. The building shall be located as close to the front lot line as allowed by the ordinance, unless amended by the City Planning Commission. — f. This requirement is a continuous requirement and imposes on business owners the care and maintenance of healthy plants and shrubs. — 4. LIGHTING All exterior lighting used to illuminate open space or light up — the exterior of buildings shall be directed away frcm residential property an public streets in such a way that residential structures shall be shielded from direct rays of light and so as not to exceed _ an intensity of illumination greater than three (3) foot candles measured at the residence district boundry, or ten (10) foot candles measured at the contiguous street right-of-way line. 5. REFUSE All refuse must be stored in a building, a trash transport (dump- ster) , or in covered cans. The storage area must be enclosed on — _all four sides by screening, compatible with the exterior design of the building, not less than two feet higher than the refuse container. 6. EXTERIOR APPEARANCE For new or existing, free-standing buildings, all sides of the building not within one foot of an adjoining building shall be uniform in appearance with non-window surfaces of the building's primary face fronting on a street. Where a site is within an His- toric Preservation District or other area covered by City Council - - adopted Design Guidelines, those guidelines shall be canplied with in design of the structure. In a planned unit development, the design shall be similar to the overall design of the development. — 7. SIGNS No signs can be located within 50 feet of a Bl or residential dis- _ trict boundry. One roof sign or freestanding sign per zoning lot is allowed, subject to the zoning regulations for the applicable zoning district. The sign shall not exceed 150 sq.ft. per face. Signs are also subject further to the requirements of Section 5403) - 540.200 40.70 -540.200 of the Zoning Code. 11-1-88 8. HOURS OF OPERATION Hours of operation for all facilities shall be as follows: IN B1 - B2S ZONES a. 7:00 a.m. to 10:90 p.m. , (_11:00 p.m. Fridays -and Satiirdays) IN B3 - B3C ZONES b. 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. , (Midnight on Fridays and Saturdays) B4 to M3 ZONES c. 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. (2:00 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays) Longer hours than those provided above may be requested by applying for a Conditional Use Permit. 9. SPEAKER BOXES Speaker boxes designed to communicate from drive-thrus or pump islands shall not be audible on any residential property adjacent to the business. The Director of Inspections shall order removal of speaker boxes used in connection with the sale of non-petroleum related products upon proof of two (2) or more convictions within a twelve ( 12) month period of violations of the City noise ordinance. 10. SITE MODIFICATIONS Modifications, or additions to existing structures, which substan- tially affect the useage, landscaping, parking and circulation, seating capacity, bulk, or add a drive-thru window, shall be sub- _ ject to all provisions of Section 530.10. 11. EXISTING BUILDINGS Any of the regulated uses in this section which propose to locate in an existing storefront building which is within five (5) feet of the front property line, in a shopping center where it shares a common wall with other uses, or in a multitenant building, shall only be required to ccly with Section 7, 8 and 9 of this section. Compliance will be determined by the Zoning Administrator. 12. CAR WASH BAYS Every automobile service station which operates one (1) or more car wash bays or any freestanding car wash shall build and erect a six-foot high solid fence between its property and any residentially used property. 13. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Planning Commission shall also make a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. If inconsistent, it may be denied. 14. ENFORCEMENT The facility shall be constructed or improved according to the plans approved by the Planning Commission. Thereafter, there shall be no alterations affecting the bulk, capacity, approved appearance, or site layout without approval of the City Council 11-1-88 15. PLANNING CCPt1ISSION/CITY COUNCIL REVIEW and NOTICE The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing and make findings as to whether the building and site plans comply with each and every condition as set forth in this section, and make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the application should be approved or disapproved. Said hearing shall be at a regular meeting of the City Planning Commission, notice of which _ shall have been mailed at least twenty (20) days prior to the meet- ing, to owners of property (according to records on file with the County Auditor) situated within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property, and to the registered neighborhood group (s) . The Commission may delegate the public meeting to a subcan- mittee in which case the notice shall be the meeting of the sub- commitee. Findings and recommendations by the Planning Commission to the City Council shall be made within forty-five (45) days of acceptance of the application by Planning Department staff. This forty-five (45) day period shall be extended where there are unusual _ circumstances, or if requested materials and information required by staff to review the application cannot be delivered by the appli- cant in a timely manner. The City Council shall grant or deny _ approval of the application. If approval is granted, then the building permit shall issue as provided by Section 534.70 of this Code; otherwise, no permit shall issue. 16. COMPLIANCE DEADLINE ( 1) Presently existing facilities in use on the date of final passage of this ordinance (10/23/87) shall be permitted to operate as a nonconforming use in accordance with the provisions of Sections 532.30 through 532.100. Such nonconforming status shall became unlawfulon October 31, 1993. (2) Prior to April 30, 1992, the Zoning Administrator shall investi- gate the status of all automobile related facilities as to length of continuous operation and determine which ones would _ become unlawful on October 31, 1993. Appeals frau the deter- mination of the Zoning Administrator shall be pursuant to Sections 534.40 through 534.60 and 534.200. 11-1-88 CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW OBJECTIVES 1. To promote the human and pedestrian scale of a typically high volume, active, automobile oriented use. 2. To contain to the extent possible operational impacts of the use to the site and protect adjacent residential uses. 3. To contribute to the perception of quality of the neighborhood. 4. To add to overall quality of the site through improved site organization, visual quality, and reasonable maintenance. GUIDELINES A. Sfr. ORGANIZATION 1. Access Curb cuts should be located to minimize conflicts with existing residential areas and to minimize traffic congestion. Adding heavy traffic to residential streets and alleys should be avoided. 3. Service Areas Reasonable access for service trucks should be provided which does not conflict with pedestrian or customer use of the site. Garbage trucks should be able to service the site without disrupting pedestrians or other uses. 3. Parking, Driveways, and Drive Up Windows Circulation through the site should be minimize internal congestion. Site organization should avoid the possibility of congestion of driveways, public streets or alleys. Sufficient stacking lanes for drive up windows should be provided to avoid congestion_ Conflicts should be minimized beween vehicles and pedestrians going to and from the building, parking, and sidewalks. People walking from parking areas to the building should not have to cross lanes for drive up windows. 8. LANDSCAPING/VISUAL QUALITY 1. Coordination of Structure and Landscape The building and any ancillary structures should have consistently finished exterior facades on all four sides. The plantings and the design of structures and screens should be visually integrated with the primary building. 1 • 2. Unity Overall composition and location of landscaped areas should complement the scale of the site's development and its surroundings. It should help give the site visual unity. Generally, larger and contiguous plant massings, well-placed, are preferred to small, disconnected planting areas. 3. Limited Turf Grass (turf) areas should not be extensively used. Appropriate areas for grass may include areas under shade trees, slopes or mounds less steep than 3:1 slope, torders between pavement and planting beds, and as part of visual compositions including trees and taller shrubs. 4. Role of Plantings The landscaping (both the kind of plant materials selected and their positioning) should be subtle and naturalistic, minimizing the visual impact of the site rather than being attention-getters. Unnatural looking plants with variegated or summer- long non-green foliage or with bizarre forms should be avoided or limited to special accents. Any such accents should have neutral planted backgrounds. 5. Seasonal Interest Plant materials-selected should include some with seasonal interest (winter color, flowers, berries, good fall color, etc.). Generally, a significant amount (perhaps 1/3 to 2/3's shrub materials and, if appropriate, some trees) of the plantings should be evergreen. A significant portion of the evergreens should be tall enough and positioned such that they can be seen throughout a normal winter (i.e. stick above snow cover or piles). S. Dimension of Beds Whenever possible planting beds should be wide enough for a varied foreground and background planting including both evergreen and deciduous materials. Such areas, if appropriate, should include evergreen trees, ornamental trees, and vertical accent shrubs. They may also include grass areas and/or planted earth mounds. C. LIGHTING 1. Traffic patterns, curb cuts, service areas, stacking areas, and parking should be sited or screened to minimize chance of headlights shining into any residential windows. 2. Any lit signs should be shielded from view from any nearby residential windows. • D. USE OF SCREENING • 1. Extent of Screening Views of trash receptacles, truck loading/unloading areas, parking and service areas, car stacking areas, etc. should be screened from view from the public right-of-way. Essential driveways may permit some views of these areas, but such views should be minimized through site layout and internal screening elements. Screens should consist of plantings and/or structures whose design is visually integrated with the site's primary building. 2. Dimension Screening is to be primarily car height except where it might be a hazard to passersby or driver sightlines. Where important sightlines occur, shrubs exceeding 3' height should be set back about 30' from intersections and 5' or more from where driveways cross sidewalks or enter streets or alleys. E_ SITE PLAN ENHANCEMENTS 1. Vantage from Residences All paved areas and service areas visible from residential yards and windows, including upper story windows, should be buffered (but not necessarily totally screened) by vegetation or other integrated screening materials. 2. Reflectance The amount of pavement on the site and immediately surrounding it that is e:mosed to summer sun should be minimized. 3. Shading Off Site Planting of trees which overhang (shade) paved areas including any adjoining public sidewalks, alleys, or streets is encouraged. 4. Public Use/Pedestrians Any important existing pedestrian routes through the site should be preserved and enhanced. 5. Accessibility Convenient, safe, pleasant pedestrian access should be provided to on-site facilities. 6. Food Service Where food is served on-site picnicking facilities should be provided sufficiently sheltered from vehicles, with pleasant surroundings, and not obstructing pedestrian traffic. ..:, •i..-:: 3 • 7. Non-Customer Use • Landscaped sitting areas and if warranted bus shelters should be provided at bus stops, if any, or where pedestrian use is significant. These areas should be convenient, but not obstruct pedestrian traffic or other uses. S- Material Enhancement • Inclusion of materials such as trees, shrubs, planter boxes, ornamental lighting, etc., which significantly improve the appearance of the site. Plant materials that are larger and/or more numerous than those typically provided, or other site details that provide a significant visual site improvement. P. MAINTENANCE 1. Site layout and development should foster proper drainage, refuse control, snowplowing, and plant maintenance. 2. Snow storage areas should be designated or snow removal commitment made. 3. Species tolerant to salt, pavement, and snow loading should be used if necessary. 4. Plants should be selected and placed such that pruning is not necessary to maintain proper clearances for sight lines, utilities, etc. 5. Need for special maintenance of plants should be minimized by selection of hardy, tolerant species and placement in good locations for growth without damage. 6. Planting areas should be thickly mulched (use 3 to 6 inches of chips or granular _ material, plastic sheeting not advised). That mulch should be well contained so that passersby, plows, etc. do not scatter it onto walks and other pavement. 7. Plants should be protected from vehicular damage (including that from bumper overhangs and snowplows). Generally, plants should be set back so that their growth is no closer than 3' from a curb, or alternative protection should be provided. 8. Trees, shrubs, and sod should to adequately watered, fertilized, trimmed, and generally maintained to ensure survival and steady growth. • ' - I Self-service 'file n icon. said William P. Con- businesses +lasts, divisional merchandise man- ::[.is:not u,mmers no„roger get And ii has helped businesses differ- Ir' entiate themserscs. Salad bars and _ �stratrd standing on the Iitwr war;- (lessen h irs.to example.are viewed find time I 1ne for.1 salesclerk." M restaurants more as a way to drawI diners than as a labor-saving meas- In surs,v atter survey, /unsumcrs °r`• is money have indicated that coned and sentence tops price en the list of No one is sounding a death knell for • pluses associated with cryo-erten. service people y-t. of course. Stores that carry high-ticket items are likely By Claudia H.Deutsch In fact.many consumers are so con- to keen stressing customer service. New York Times vinced that seif-service is the height • of good service that they are willing and stores selling complex products ARCO customers arc an independent to pay extra for the privilege—wit- —•-omputer stores, for example — bunch these days. First, they pump la ness the people who pay fees for — their own gas, at pumps that have using teller machines. or who pay are likely to keep specialists on hand been designed to make the process as • extra to tap into intormation systems to help customers who might be con- fast as possible. via their own computers. fused by technology. Then. if they are hungry. they walk i personal"People want theBut look at a few statistics on some over to the adjacent AM/PM conven• removed from their trannsal element sactions,al- of the older sett-service products.and ience store and serve themselves a most the same way they would like to there is little question which three- hamburger that has been kept on asee cancer removed ftom cigarettes.' non the trend is moving. spectat warmer since it was made said John O'Shaugnnessv,a business several hours before. professor at the Columbia Business In 1974.only 9 percent of gas sold in - Maybe they pick up a quart of milk School. this country came from self-service pumps: today, nearly 80 percent of — to take home.Only then do they deal The result- said John Deighton, an gas is pumped by the customers. with another human being — and assistant marketing professor at the only to pay for whatever it is they University of Chicago.is that"there Ten years ago there were 9,275 auto- bought. is a lot of unbundling of service and mated teller machines in the country; I product going on. as consumers be- last year.there were 67,000. — Gas pumped,dinner eaten,shopping come willing conspirators in the as- done—all in a matter of minutes. t sumption of more responsibilities." And a _rowing number of banking customers are finding even a tnp to Shoe customers at Mervyn's,a chain Plenty of forces are driving the trend. the teller machine too tedious: Un- of 219 moderate-price department Consumers have grown far more less they need cash,many are trans- stores owned by the Dayton-Hudson comfortable with the technology of femng rands between accounts and Corp., are getting in and out pretty self-service at the same time that they checking their balances via touchpad fast,too. have grown impatient with what is teiepnone. .. Mervyn's recently convened its perceived as shoddy or rude service. women's shoe department to all-self- The list of successful self-service op- For industry, this is a godsend, be- lions is already legion, and growing service.It keeps boxes of shoes in all cause labor shortages are making ser- longer each day. — sizes right out on the floor, with avice-oriented people harder to find sample shoe displayed on top.. . ; and more expensive to hire. Eastern.Continental and a few other airlines have supplemented ticketing If a customer likes the shoe,she canMoreover, industry has gotten lar agents with ticketing machines on look for her own size,try it on,and more sophisticated in touting its some routes. pay for it without ever dealing with ailearncorporations have salesperson. Waiting time: Next to , learned Today's to present self-service as an Hotel guests increasingly are review- - nil. added fillip to a product-not a way of ing their bills via closed-circuit tele- cutting comers. vision and then paying them with an In both cases,money is not the pro- �i automatic charge to their credit mary reason that consumers are em- - "Business people learned long ago cards. bracing self-service. that it is cheaper for them.and may- - be more effective for the consumer. Rental-car customers. armed with to substitute capital for labor," said are computer-generated rental agree- Noel Capon,a business professor at ments going straight from airport Columbia. terminals to their waiting cars,with- out saying so much as hello to 40 "What they are learning now is their counter personnel. marketing. They've learned to say— On the corporate side, Dun they arc giving you extra value." &Brad- Self-service Cootie ' street. TRW.Knight-Ridder and sev- Whatever its roots,the do-it-yourself real other information companies arc The prices the ARCO customers pay movement has opened whole new successfully offering new services are comparable to most Last-food business vistas for U.S.industry. that let customers with personal outlets or convenience stores on the computers hook into the information food,and no more than a few cents For ARCO,it has meant entenng an company's data base and extract the I lower— if that — than full-service industry—food—that it would not information they want. stations on the gas. have touched in a full-service selling I environment. The services save The companies the And at Mervyn's, the move to self- time and expense of packaging the service coincided with a store-wide Today there are AM/PM minimar- data.set the full casings are rarely.if kels.as ARCO calls them,at 770 of e`er.passed along to the customers. t�• Sundays April 9/1989/Star Tribune ARI-'O's 1.700 branded stations.and the company says it will be tranches- "When sou go to an electronic teller ing many more. i,iachme sou are effectively working reed from page IU for your hank,and sou are working Self-service has also enabled gas spa- r,r us schen you retrieve your own — push to stock better merchandise,so tions. retail stores, even electronic- uta-"said George J. Feeney. senior not only were prices not discounted, intormation companies to handle a s ice president of advanced technol- they actually went up. much nigher volume of customers, lig°at Dun ee Bradstreet. thus increasing revenue per location. Still. sales in the shoe department "That means the cost of delivering were up by a double-digit percentage It has opened new markets for once- products is going down. But the cus- last sear. more than any other 'der- site-bound companies—il.tnsis.tor I tomer eels the product quicker and v yn's department. I example.who could not afford retail I more efficiently, so prices are not space at airports arc starting to place 1 necessarily dropping" expensive flora arrangements in sell- serve sending machines at amval icrminals. OMNI 0 c K. z3 o m cl O = J \4 V rn r z CA c C D m z -• n o m m O rn -nt . rC } — z T7 m m o I� v O �1 y IMME Y to ( ) 1 I 7 7 -1 I� iI 1 ;. n I I ' \v I I 7 O"-r1 —• Z O r., I p !!.1 v m p 4 — n n j -i ,•n o Cr C' I T R i cG C7 COmime J i i T ---1. fJ 0 ',r? I Cl7 --s 1 cm (..71O ( ~ Q I CM 0 . -S • CD --1 N N O 7 C 7 CD 1I O —1 c-1.•7 J X - APR J i 19$9 ►:i(1 OF CHANHASSEN 1 No• 39-Or-060 Dote 1st Reading AN ORDINANCE Da1e to Mayor Ref. to Comm. of the Date Returned Public Hearing CITY OF Date Resubmitted to Council 2nd Reading & Final Passage MI N N EAPO US _ Cramer, Coyle, Niemiec, Johnson, Hilary, Scallon, O' Brien, and Carlson the foilowingorainanca: Amending Title 10 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances relating to — Food and Food Handlers by adding thereto a new Chapter 204 relating to Environmental Preservation: Environmentally Acceptable Packaging. The City Council of the City of Minneapolis do ordain as follows: Section 1. That the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances be amended by adding thereto a new Chapter 204 to read as follows: "Chapter 204. Environmental Preservation: Environmentally Acceptable Packaging — 204.10. Legislative Purpose. The City Council finds that discarded packaging from foods and beverages constitutes a significant and growing — portion of the waste in Minneapolis' waste stream. Regulation of -food and beverage packaging, therefore, is a necessary part of any effort to encourage a recyclable and compostable waste stream, thereby reducing the — disposal of solid waste and the economic and environmental costs of waste management for the citizens of Minneapolis and others working or doing business in Minneapolis. The Council further finds that plastic packaging is rapidly replacing other packaging material , and that most plastic packaging used for foods and beverages is nondegradable, nonreturnable and nonrecyclable. _ The Council also finds that the two main processes used to dispose of discarded nondegradable, nonreturnable and nonrecyclable plastic foods and beverage packaging, are land filling and incineration, both of which should — be minimized for environmental reasons. Chemicals hazardous to human health and to the safety of the environment are present in the composition of plastic packaging, are believed to leacn into the groundwater when this packaging is placed in landfills, have been found to escape into the air when this packaging is burned in incinerators, and contribute to environmental problems associated with ash residue resulting from the incineration process. The Council therefore finds that the minimization of nondegradable, nonreturnable and nonrecyclable food and beverage packaging originating at retail food establishments within the City of Minneapolis is necessary and desirable in order to reduce the City' s waste stream, so as to reduce the volume of landfilled waste, to minimize toxic by-products of incineration, to make the waste stream less damaging to the environment, and to make our City and neighboring communities more environmentally sound places to live. - 204.20. Definitions. As used in this Chapter, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings as defined in this section: (a) "Packaging" shall mean and include all food-related wrappings, adhesives, cords, bindings, strings, tapes, ribbons, bags, boxes, coverings and containers; and shall further include cups, glasses and similar containers for drinking out of or for holding liquids, and plates and serving trays, but shall specifically exclude plastic knives, forks and spoons sold or intended for use as utensils. (b) "Environmentally acceptable packaging" shall mean and include any of the following: (1) DEGRADABLE PACKAGING: Paper or other cellulose-based packaging capable of being decomposed by natural biological or biochemical processes; (2) RETURNABLE PACKAGING: Food or beverage containers or packages, sucn as, but not limited to, soft drink bottles and milk containers that are capable of being returned to the distributor, such as out not limited to, dairies and soft drink bottlers, for reuse as the same food or beverage container use at least once; (3) RECYCLABLE PACKAGING: Packaging made of materials that are separable from solid waste by the generator or during collection and are currently collected for recycling in an organized fashion in a municipally sponsored program within the City of Minneapolis. Packaging made of either polyethylene terepthalate (P.E.T.) or high density polyethylene (H.O.P.E. ) shall be considered to be recyclable if and when it is collected for recycling in the same manner as here stated. (c) "Food establishment" as used in this Chapter means a "food establishment" as defined in Section 188. 10 of the Minneapolis Code of _ Ordinances. (d) "Commissioner" shall mean the Commissioner of Health of the City of Minneapolis or the Commissioner' s designee. 204.30. Prohibitions. No person owning, operating or conducting a food establishment within the City of Minneapolis shall do or allow to be done any of the following within the City: Sell or convey at retail or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail any food or beverage that is placed, wrapped or packaged, at any time at or before the time or point of sale, in or on packaging which is not environmentally. acceptable packaging. The presence on the premises of the food establishment of packaging which is not environmentally acceptable packaging shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of intent to sell or convey at retail , or to provide to retail customers packaging which is not environmentally acceptable packaging; provided, however, that this subparagraph shall not apply to manufacturers, brokers or warehouse operators, who conduct or transact no retail food or beverage business. 204.40. Enforcement. The Commissioner shall have the duty and the authority to enforce provisions of this chapter. 204.50. Rules and Regulations. The Commissioner may, upon notice and hearing, promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Chapter and protect the health of the public, including the development of exemptions under Section 204.70 for packaging for which there is no commercially available alternative and for flexible packaging. In promulgating such rules the Commissioner shall consider the legislative purposes provided in Section 204.10 of this Chapter and shall consult with the operators of affected food establishments. 204.60. Advisory Commitee on Environmentally Acceptable Packaging. The City Council shall , by resolution, establish an Advisory Committee on Environmentally Acceptable Packaging. The resolution shall provide for the membership, manner of appointment, the Committee' s charge and its duration. The membership shall be drawn from affected governmental units, business and industry, trade associations, general business organizations, consumer groups, environmental groups and others as determined in the resolution. The Advisory Committee shall include a member designated by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners from outside the City of Minneapolis and a member designated by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. The charge of the Committee shall include the following: (a) monitoring industry and governmental actions relating to environmentally acceptable packaging; (b) advising the Commissioner of Health on implementation issues; (c) advising the City Council on the feasibility of the effective date of this Ordinance and recommending whether or not the effective date should be extended; (d) assisting in efforts to expand the City' s recycling program to include the collection of potentially recyclable materials not presently collected, including consideration of financial assistance; (e) recommending actions other levels of government and industry can take to advance the goals of this Chapter. (f) assisting in the development and implementation of public education programs on recycling and packaging. (g) Encouraging adaption of substantially similar regulations by surrounding cities, particularly those cities with a border in common with Minneapolis. 204.70. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, this chapter shall not apply to: (a) any flexible packaging of 10 mils or less in thickness unless disapproved by the Commissioner pursuant to rules promulgated under Section 204.50 above; (b) any packaging used at hospitals or nursing homes; (c) any paper, cellophane or other cellulose-based packaging that is coated with plastic; (d) any packaging which is not environmentally acceptable, but for which there is no commercially available alternative as determined by the Commissioner by rule promulgated pursuant to Section 204.50. In determining whether there are commercially available alternatives the Commissioner shall consider the following: (1) the availability of environmentally acceptable packaging for affected products; (2) the economic consequences to manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and other vendors of requiring environmentally acceptable packaging when available; and (3) the competitive effects on manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and other vendors involved in the sale of product brands or labels available only in packaging that is not environmentally acceptable packaging. Every rule creating an exemption under this paragraph shall be reviewed annually by the Commissioner to determine whether current conditions continue to warrant the exemption. 204.80. Penalties. Each violation of any provision of this Chapter or of lawful regulations promulgated under Section 204.50 hereof shall be a petty misdemeanor, for which the maximum fine shall be $50.00. Each day on which a violation occurs constitutes a separate violation. 204.90. License Adverse Action. A violation of Section 204.30 shall — be sufficient grounds for the revocation, suspension, denial or non-renewal of any license for the food establishment at which the violation occurs. 204.100. Severability. If any part or provision of this Chapter or — the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstances shall be adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, — provision or application which is directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this Chapter or the application thereof to other persons, entities, or circumstances. 204.110. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect July 1, 1990. The City Council may, however, pursuant to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee created under Section 204.60 hereof and the Commissioner of Health, delay the effective date of this Chapter for a period not to exceed six (6) months. • • • • RECORD OF COUNCIL VOTE : Su �hrC Mer^ap ave Wy + V.V •Oa. .wrC ss ; :.Unca MemOer 7 ',layi V V COs. �vra. ts..st — i 1 I i Scanon y T i reazc } N,em,� • C ane^ �- ! 1 1 Nn••e • L ► Scr,,tstaa — ;Cvie j ! �onnson :anso^ _ 'L :avtes 3etro^ r X INDICATES VOTE—'1.V - Not Voting jos. —absent Ovra - Vats to Overnoe Sust - vote to St.s.ain MAR .61 1989 PASSED- 19 ?.MOM,Or COu^<MM — APPROVED NOT APPROVED t9 VETOED — ATTEST _.ry C.er■ cliCITYOF 1‘.44\11'/I '' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director DATE: April 14 , 1989 SUBJ: Wetlands Attached please find an article submitted from Steve Emmings regarding wetland regulations in Minnesota. Also, there is an article from Planning Magazine from the February, 1989, issue for your review. Both of these articles are included for your infor- mation and future consideration regarding wetland issues that come up before the city. LAW OFFICES SIEBEN ■ GROSE ■ VON HOLTUM ■ MCCOY ■ CAREY ■ LTD. 000 MIDWEST PLAZA EAST. EIGHTH AND MARQUETTE■MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 ■TELEPHONE 16121 333-4500 117 SOUTH PARK STREET■FAIRFAX. MINNESOTA 55332■TELEPHONE 15071 426-8211 — Harry A. Sieben.Jt_ REPLY To FAIRFAX OFFICE Clint JohnGrE. 11923Holtur E. Von Holtur Timothy I. McCoy John W.Carey Douglas E.Schmid David A.Stofferahi Mark G.Oily. April 10, 1989 Wilbur W. Fluege Mark R. Kosieradzki David W.H. Jorstad Raymond R. Petersot Willard L. Wentzel, Ir William O. Bongarc Mr. Stephen Hanson Steven D.Emmings City Planner lames P.Carey David R. Vai 690 Coulter Drive Veronica Cases Chanhassen, MN 55317 Of Counsel Miles W. Lord Dear Steve : Enclosed with this letter is an article, "Wetlands Regulation in Minnesota, " which was recently published in Bench & Bar. While the article does not talk about local regulation of wetlands , I think it gives a good picture of state and federal — regulation. I think this article would be of interest to members of the Planning Commission and perhaps the City Council ; if you agree — after reading the article, perhaps you would like to arrange for its distribution. Very truly yours , • Steven D. Emmings SDE:gg — enc . APR 1 1999 CITY OF CHANIHAcc. Becky A. Comstock :_r:, em -�_,'.' 7'77-. .- _ e u ation _ Wetlandsg in Minnesota Once undervalued as wasteland, wetlands today are subject to a complex _ web of federal and state regulations designed to preserve their ecological value without unconstitutionally taking them from their owners. Little more than a decade ago, Clean Water Act(33 U.S.C. §1344)and indicate whether an area contains a wetlands were commonly referred to as implementing regulations(33 CFR 328). wetland subject to the jurisdiction of the swamps, bogs,or marshes and were "Waters of the United States"include DNR. While the United States Fish and considered of little to no value, if not wetlands whose use, degradation, or Wildlife Service also has conducted an simply a nuisance. By the 1970s, the destruction could affect interstate or inventory of wetlands, these inventory ecological value of wetlands for wildlife foreign commerce as well as wetlands maps do not limit the jurisdiction of the habitat and flood control was recog- adjacent to other"waters of the United Army Corps of Engineers.If the presence nized as expanding agricultural and States."33 CFR §328.3. The term of a wetland is in questicr., a site visit development pressures contributed to "wetlands"means those areas that are by the Army Corps of Engineers may be their rapid disappearance.Since the 1970s, inundated or saturated by surface or necessary to determine whether the _ new laws have been enacted, old laws groundwater at a frequency and property contains a regulated wetland enforced, and new policies developed to duration sufficient to support, and that and to identify its dimensions. regulate the alteration of wetlands. under normal circumstances do In November 1988, the National support, a prevalence of vegetation Wetlands Policy Forum,a group of Protected Wetlands typically adapted for life in saturated governors, chief executives of environ- Wetlands in Minnesota are regulated soil conditions. 33 CFR§328.3(b). mental groups and corporations, real by both the federal and state govern- The Clean Water Act has been estate developers, ranchers, scientists, ments.Agencies involved are the U.S. broadly construed to extend the juris- and federal officials, convened by the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. En- diction of the Army Corps of Engineers Conservation Foundation at the request vironmental Protection Agency(EPA), to all water bodies, including wetlands, of the EPA, issued its report with over and the Minnesota Department of which car.be shown to have a connec- 100 recommendations for wetlands Natural Resources(DNR). Wetlands tion with interstate commerce. Even protection.Among those recommenda-- ; subject to the jurisdiction of the Minne- artificially created wetlands are within tions was the adoption of a single sota DNR include and are limited to all the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of regulatory definition of wetlands.The types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands as defined in Engineers. See Track 12, Inc v. District national Wetlands Policy Forum had — the United States Fish and Wildlife Engineer, United States Army Corps of identified 50 different definitions of a i Service Circular No.39(1971 edition), Engineers, 618 F.Supp.448(D. Minn. wetland in federal regulations. In 1 which are ten or more acres in size in 1985). In contrast, Minnesota has January 1989, the EPA,Army Corps of unincorporated areas or two and one- limited the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Engineers, the United States Soil and half or more acres in size in incorpor- DNR to three of eight freshwater Water Conservation Service, and the ated areas. Minn. Stat. §105.36 subd. 15 wetlands types of limited size.Those United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1988). Wetlands subject to the juris- wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of signed an interagency agreement to — diction of the Army Corps of Engineers the Minnesota DNR were identified in adopt a single manual as the technical are those that fall within the definition and are limited to the inventory and basis for identifying wetlands.This of"navigable waters of the United designation of protected waters and publication,A Federal Manual for States"under Section 10 of the Rivers wetlands required by the 1979 amend- Identifying and Delineating Jurisdic- and Harbors Act of 1899 and imple- ments to the Minnesota Water tional Wetlands, draws upon existing menting regulations(33 CFR 329)or Management Act, Minn. Stat. §105.391 agency manuals and methods to within the definition of"waters of the (1988). Simple reference to the DNR's provide a single consistent approach to United States"under Section 404 of the protected waters inventory maps will defining wetlands. , 14 : Bench,c Bur of:1l ittne>ota March 1989 IIMI Il ,tz , . 1 .... i ffirif , -/,'(4,4(;%-/- - _-_- . , „... , ,-- ._. e- a.*,..., te,.. _... . . i i ..,9 i ,r___ ,.. .,:.,...,, \•‘,#,..,,,‘ \\‘ . \ \s. ..r,.......,, +4\ ks,,;F....; _ \ ‘-, :\\ \N`.:,• ' -- --'-. _,,. ,,--- --%- ,\• •, . -• ' ---: - ••1 • . • . N.• • ,. - -4•.... -- , -...... 1 . -.......:„. $ • -, I , I . - • - .-,, •.c,'-' ' • 1 ..- I - I -mi • I t .- -, . -". ., • • • . . .. .. • .,- - -1. c . .... . . ",• j ''''''S -t• ..i % • -: &.. ' ' A.. • L,- -1,1 _.4 • L. , . .. i". .4 - F 4 . .' 41t.,... „,-.J.,F.. i,I' •''' r 1.,,,7 . . % a :. 0 '"'• ..M.-.P.4,tW- ,-.' • ,' '4 e: ,• Ct 4'."4'. .. .: - ).' el. 4' t s•I it' t1"-,•...• ' ' • '' .•. , p s,s `,.• ;;;., 1:1.4 • 1-1.. ''•'Ci.")..." . 4 ; V:,- ,.` , ;",v.-: ..' .-. "''.•,..,s; ' ;' .... ••,..., . .. :•,;:.„ 1;.,,,_•..-..1., ,..-. ", . - ., .„is,,.:4,• 4 ••• • . ••.... • .F.*0' .-- t_ . _ '' u ' 0 •--• ear,- ' • p•e J•.• -- tr. • '.% 1.. grh *--e-•• • 1. -... ..: ,. . .01,, ... •• - . 1. .: t '-, ,.. _ -.... ...e -/ . -. ! • ...."4/Cit . . _ .,. Jt:••- k - • - ..... 41S. :7:-...;•:' -+.--- Alit-I. .... ... , -...4■11P-- ......40„. ,_ #. ...... 4 -211ftsglitz. ..4., ........z. , _a..• . ' -- . „....-447.,1,,t>- 0.11-cI.-----•- - - .Am.. -.....1•...........„_‘J.•• ...01111111111111Pinnirm. -••• .41110. ......111111014....... . 421111k.".' ••••=1111111.10116 "••..t•- - gip 4iptp• ....ig21111/111031:31.,... ,....... ....:., -""-........- .1111r41111111147:.''.-• - --"Z.:„ma.--.'11E4 ---=,... - ---m-- ..... ...- - -- -..... ... .-....o.- ....N. 14'j.s.* - _,A,,,- - . . isea_,-... • _ ea,. •ftigio • - ' •4It a., -.. .--•-—ler-.--....mmow--- ... _.---- .._,..i...-. dr -- - --. 7.:::.1.1..: • ' 4:„, I 7..,: ...,,4i,i.,,7-4-4.,‘,„, -, ;;,,,, se ; • ' • • -4 •' .°1 ...` • '• .' t• •' • . _te-,._....i. • t, .4... ,. ..,,, ,.. .",,......„ __ _,. ... ._,-.. • ...,.. ,.-. •.-,F.. .... ,__,.! ,,-":4,i," J5:,:,_.--isif • .1.. ^ ,4.:Lv.,,•5-1 . .i. 14•,,..: '.I , ..*f ' • - ". -.',,,;-•-k - ,11,1," :".e.....si '..' -- ".....: . . •, _. :. ,. -. ..17 I' .,'' _ ILLUSTRATION COPYRIGHT 1979 WEST PUBLISH!VC COMPANY The Bench &Bar of Minnesota, March 1989/1 P --;:: *!.. .4-c :3=!`T+ —_. r1G I: y'-.; T-' --x.144. a - Wetlands Regulation An individual permit under Section 404 is a Department of the Army — In Minnesota, a permit from the authorization following a case-by-case Minnesota DNR is required in order to evaluation of a specific project, in- change the course, current, or cross cluding public notice and comment, section of any public waters, including and the opportunity for a public hearing. — protected wetlands, whether by filling 33 CFR 325, 327. In most cases, the or excavating the wetland.Minn. Stat. permit review process takes between 90 §105.42(1988). Minnesota DNR regula- and 120 days.A general permit is a ,, Minnesota a tions contain standards and criteria for Department of the Army authorization granting permits to change the course, that is issued on a nationwide or regional permi•t from the current,or cross section of protected basis for a category of activities, where wetlands, describe which activities do the environmental consequences of the and do not require a permit, and action are minimal and the activities are - Minnesota DNR is identify prohibited activities.The substantially similar in nature or the Ye uired in order to regulations include specific standards permit would avoid unnecessary dupli- �] for filling, excavation, structures, watercation of regulation by other agencies. — level controls, bridges, culverts, outfalls 33 CFR§323.3(h).At the present time, 6 change the course, and intakes, as well as drainage and to 8 percent of permit applications to the mining activities.Minn. Rules 6115.0150- Army Corps of Engineers are denied current, or cross 6115.0280(1987). and 70 to 80 percent of the applications section of any public All applications to the Minnesota are modified before a permit is granted. DNR for permission to change the Nationwide permits are blanket course,current, or cross section of a authorizations for certain insignificant - waters, including protected wetland are subject to reviewg ] activites, such as placement of naviga protected wetlands." and comment by the Army Corps of tional aids and bank stabilization Engineers, the DNR's Division of Fish activities.33 CFR §330.5.No predis- and Wildlife, the affected watershed charge notification to the Army Corps district or water management organiza- of Engineers for these activities is tion, the soil and water conservation required with the exception of a dis- district,and county and local units of charge to wetlands which causes the loss • — government. The Minnesota DNR or substantial adverse modification of processes approximately 1,000 permit ten or more acres. Such notification applications per year, a third of which triggers a"substantial adverse modifi- are generated by the metropolitan area. cation"review by the Army Corps of — Approximately 95 percent of these Engineers which may result in special applications are approved or approved conditions or the requirement for an with modifications, and 5 percent are individual permit. denied.Most permit applications are When Congress enacted the Section processed within 30 to 60 days. 404 program in 1972, it gave permitting In addition to a permit from the authority to the Army Corps of Engi- Minnesota DNR, a permit from the neers because of the authority of the Army Corps of Engineers may be Secretary of the Army to require per- i required under Section 404 of the Clean mits for the construction of dams, dikes, Water Act to discharge dredge or fill and other structures in navigable waters — material into waters of the United under the Rivers and Harbors Act of States.Six activities are exempt from 1899.However, Congress recognized the g the need for a Section 404 permit, EPA's responsibility for environmental including certain farming, silviculture protection and gave the EPA authority 1 — and ranching operations, unless the to develop guidelines for the specifica- discharge involves any toxic pollutant or tion of disposal sites or the issuance of i the flow or circulation of waters of the permits, known as the 404(b)(1) United States may be impaired or the guidelines. 40 CFR 230. The Army — reach of such waters reduced.33 CFR Corps must follow these guidelines in §323.4.Activities which are not exempt determining whether to grant a permit from the Section 404 permit program under Section 404. Under Section will generally require an individual, 404(c), the EPA also has veto authority — general, or nationwide permit. over the Army Corps' brant of any ial - - _ z•: –_,,....„23�/"f ate.•- �•� - .1a . 2`'ws ' i.44;ssa permit where it finds that the discharge EPAAs veto of a permit under Section would result in unacceptable adverse 404(c)on the basis of the"availability" effects.The EPA has exercised its veto of an alternative site under the Section authority on five occasions.States also 404(b)(1)guidelines.The court found — are involved in the program through reasonable EPAAs consideration of the Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. availability of alternative sites at the Applicants for a Section 404 permit time the plaintiffs first entered the — must provide a certification from the market to investigate property in the state in which the discharge originates area, rather than when the plaintiffs "Where avoidance, that the discharge will comply with the applied for a permit. Clean Water Act. Where avoidance,minimization, and minimization, and Mitigated Impact alternatives have been ruled out and impacts are unavoidable,mitigation alternatives have been The most notable recommendation of that is acceptable to the authorizing the National Wetlands Policy Forum agency may be required as a condition — was that Congress adopt a national of the permit.The mitigation debate, in ruled out and impacts policy calling for"no net loss"of general, pits the value-of-the-wetland are unavoidable, wetlands in the United States. President theory against the acreage-replacement — Bush has indicated his support for this requirement.In other words,do the mitigation that is no-net-loss-of-wetlands policy.According numbers of acres of wetlands lost or to the Forum, this policy does not imply impaired have to be replaced or is the acceptable to the that permits for the alteration of wet- degree of mitigation required related to — lands will be denied, but rather, that the value and scarcity of the habitat at authorizing agency any loss of wetlands by dredging or risk. For the Minnesota DNR, mitiga- authorizing agency filling is to be mitigated by improving tion is a value-of-the-wetlands issue, not maybe Ye uired." — an existing wetland,restoring a degraded an acreage issue.The mitigation policy 9 wetland, or creating a new wetland. of the United States Fish and Wildlife Section 404 regulations provide that Service,which functions in an advisory the decision whether to issue a permit role in the Section 404 program, also — will be based on an evaluation of the focuses on habitat value. 46 Federal probable impact of the proposed Register 7644(January 23, 1981).In activity and that"the benefit which practice, the Army Corps of Engineers reasonably may be expected to accrue has expressed its preference for mitiga- — from the proposal must be balanced tion in the same watershed as the against its reasonably forseeable affected wetland and enhancement of detriments."33 CFR§325.3(C)(1). In existing wetlands,given the difficulty in this balancing of benefits and detri- restoring wetlands or creating new — ments, mitigation is often necessary for wetlands. a permit to be issued.However, an The Sierra Club has criticized the applicant for a permit is first expected to mitigation aspect of the Forum's no-net- — design the project to minimize if not loss-of-wetlands goal because of the avoid encroachment on the wetland, difficulty in restoring or creating review alternatives to wetland alters- wetlands, especially fresh water tion, and assess the extent of impacts wetlands.19 Environmental Reporter — which cannot be avoided. 1570-1571(December 2,1988). For the In the past, the Army Corps of present, it is unclear whether a no-net- Engineers has been criticized for not loss-of-wetlands policy would change — fully exploring avoidance and impact the Army Corps of Engineers mitigation minimization before authorizing practices in the Section 404 program. mitigation as a condition of the permit. Enforcement Authority — Some federal agencies believe that a permit applicant should show that there In Minnesota, it is a misdemeanor to are no alternative sites for a project alter the course, current, or cross section before being allowed to mitigate of a protected wetland without a permit wetland impacts. In Bersani v. United or in excess of the authority granted — States Environmental Protection under a permit.Minn. Stat. §105.541 Agency, 850 F.2d 36(2nd Cir.June 8, (1988). Regardless whether a hearing 1988), the Court of Appeals upheld the has been held, the DNR may, as part of — The Bench&Bar of Minnesota, March I989/; / 11111.11111111111111111.11111111111111111.111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.11111.1117-1 } .3F12. - -/ — an order granting or denying a permit penalties for violations of Section 404. No. 12630 requiring executive depart- or as a result of an investigation of 33 U.S.C. §1319(g). ments and agencies to review their — activities being conducted in public actions carefully to prevent unnecessary Unconstitutional Taking waters,issue a restoration order requiring regulatory takings for which just corn- removal of fill material placed or filling The Fifth Amendment to the United pensation would be required.On June , where dredging has been done without States Constitution and Article I, 30, 1988, Attorney General's Guidelines ; - a permit.Minn. Stat. §§105.461, Section 13 of the Minnesota Constitu- for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoid- ' 105.462(1988).The district court in the tion prohibit the taking of private ance of Unanticipated Takings were county where a project is located may, property for a public use without issued. It is too soon to say what impact upon application of the DNR, enforce paying just compensation. With the Executive Order No. 12630 will have on — DNR orders issued under Minn. Stat. expanding regulation of the dredging the Army Corps of Engineers imple- §§105.37-105.55(1988). and filling of wetlands, the question of mentation of the Section 404 program. , The Army Corps of Engineers and the when the regulation of wetlands The expanding case law on regulatory EPA share enforcement authority for becomes an unconstitutional taking has takings suggests, however, that the the Clean Water Act's Section 404 taken on greater interest. regulation of wetlands is by no means a program.The Army Corps of Engineers settled issue. and the EPA have interagency agreements „ with respect to this shared authority. The regulation of Looking Ahead Following an initial investigation, the wetlands is by no The National Wetlands Policy Forum Army Corps of Engineers may issue a „ recommended, among other things, the — cease-and-desist order involving viola- means a settled issue delegation of wetlands protection to the tions of Section 404 where a project is states.Under Section 404(g)of the Clean not yet complete. Where the project has Water Act, states are now authorized to been completed, the Army Corps of What constitutes a regulatory taking administer the Section 404 permit pro- - Engineers may issue an order for initial of property has been recently addressed gram upon application to ar.d approval corrective measures, taking into account by the United States Supreme Court in by the EPA. To date, only the state of jeopardy to life, property, or important First Evangelical Lutheran Church of Michigan has applied for and been public resources. Except where the Army Glendale v. County of Los Angeles 107 granted approval to administer the Corps of Engineers has determined that S.Ct.2878(1987). Several claims Section 404 program.With no addi- legal action is appropriate, it will review involving regulatory takings of wet- tional federal incentive to administer the an after-the-fact permit application lands by the Army Corps of Engineers program at the state level, regulation of ▪ which will be granted if the work is not have been brought in the United States wetlands in Minnesota is likely to contrary to the public interest and corn- Court of Claims. See Deltona Corpora- remain in the hands of both the Army plies with the EPA's Section 404(b)(1) tion v. U.S., 657 F.2d 1184(Cl. Ct. 1981) Corps of Engineers and the DNR. B3 guidelines.If an after-the-fact permit is (developer did not suffer uncompen- ▪ denied, notification of the denial will be sated taking);Florida Rock Industries, F accompanied by the required final cor- Inc v. U.S. 791 F.2d 893(Fed. Cir. 1986) • rective actions for necessary restoration (record reveals a substantial possibility - 1:- work.Failure to complete the restora- that a taking occurred)Loveladies F tion likely will result in a legal action. Harbor Inc v. U.S. 15 CI.Ct.381 ,:1,, 33 CFR 326. (1988)(material issues of fact precluded s-}:' � The Army Corps of Engineers may summary judgment when plaintiff had - -•_ 1 `}!� — recommend either a civil action for not shown that permit denial deprived - � injunctive relief or a criminal action. property owners of all economic use of • "�t""•" Knowingviolation of the Section 404 the land). In Beure v. U.S., 16 Cl.Ct. 42 ' • f �' requirement became a felony following (1988), the Court of Claims denied the ! overnment's motion to dismiss on :' .. ._ amendments to Section 309 of the Clean g �.. Water Act in 1987. Civil penalties for ripeness grounds where the government ' Section 404 violations may not exceed contended that the Army Corps of ; I Y — $25,000 per day of violation and Engineers had not finally decided the Becky A. Comstock is a partner in criminal penalties for a knowing extent to which development of property Dorsey& Whitney, practicing in the violation may not exceed$50,000 per might be permitted because one permit firm's Environmental and Regulatory day of violation and/or three years' denial did not preclude offering new Affairs Department. She is a member of — imprisonment. In addition to increasing proposals or additional mitigation.The the Executive Council of the MSBA's the civil and criminal penalties, in 1987 court invited resolution of the case on Administrative Law Section and a Congress authorized issuance of Class I summary judgment motions. founding member of the MSBA's newly (not to exceed 525,000)and Class II (not On March 15, 1988, then President formed Environmental and Natural to exceed 5125,0001 administrative Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order Resources Law Section. 1 Planning February 1989 When It Comes to Wetlands, — By James Krohe Jr. There's Nothing Like the Real Thing Schemes for replacing wetlands lost to development are producing controversy in public agencies and the courts. 1 //We know very little about restoring Corps of Engineers—acting with the advice I V V wetlands, even though there is a of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service—and lot of wetlands restoration going on,"says the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Donald Hey, the engineer-ecologist in Fourteen states also have wetlands protec- — charge of a pioneering floodplain restora- tions laws(some predating the Clean Water tion project in suburban Chicago. After a Act),as do some 2,000 local governments. Try as they may,creators of • century of draining and diking wetlands to As David Burke, head of Maryland's non- replacement wetlands rarely make building sites and farm fields,the U.S. tidal wetlands office,puts it,"Wetlands pro are able to duplicate scenes like — the one below. The graph at has changed course, as experts like Hey tection has matured and entered a new right shows the enormous loss seek ways to save,restore,or even recreate phase of innovation and expansion:' of original wetlands in the the lands that are now seen as a national re- And controversy.None of the new laws lower 48 states.The bulldozer is — source. cover all inland wetlands,nor do they con- at work on a wetlands research About 95 percent of the nations surviving trol all the activities that threaten them.Ac- project in northern Illinois. -...i., _,,di, -,?. - .10 TA.yr it pr. - -,,, giii....or-,.- ....e .'w-'2,_ I . Affiftr itOP • . w i, '6;ate .: f k......-kr"...S 1 ,:. • . '444, \-.. ,. •..::f•Y 111, E 1 -- ••••' .: .4' '•. "-'#yiliP.,....,. . ....,,,,. „-.. .-.4„,.....:,::„ ., Vt -1k —04 cil i'' .--- -- . it :. - - - r •! a. i- sVJtA. , ._ — '1 rte. -' ate _ +e fF,, ! ,, .r� .-y- • wetlands consist of nontidal freshwater -" Yt JA.- �4 A`��•- • ��, �j s . fens,marshes,and swamps-They are some .a .-4 . • •, , 7 �• e,-‘--&-_,--_?",..,,-•• .-• ► b ti - of the continent's most versatile and varied . ',4. -`'sit .. . -1.- '!' 4 -' •• '- environments. Wetlands help control = 't _ :� ' = -- ? �c �'. �- flooding. They harbor rare plants and • ; r' r, �' '+::,> animals and provide breedingand feeding s'�t :' • �', '1'' ...-...-.•.�`�'_�:�• .'., i. ._.......Nit.4 � 9 tom' - - sites for waterfowl and gamefish.They fil "ti �•••' 47:, �• •• ter polluted surface waters—marshes have f,' a. ,. y=`:. ••=r:e, ,F ` • been likened, unpoetically, to kidneys— ' 0* �Y •j. t. .% , 17 and replenish subsurface water. 1' o''y-Ptak ' :'T.� �•iiL,- ti C Yetthousandsofacresofwetlandsdisap . ' ••-; . .4""K-'„..j -•p, '` '>h ' • it ear annual) The U.S. Fish and WildlifeAp. T ; ' _�"'• ' Y• • r Service estimated in 1984 that over half of71i •�."!r' ��:Y, + �• z„.._10. i Ni,,,i the 215 million acres of wetlands believed r •, sirs►7,;,...."..." •+ ."‘ to have existed in the lower 48 states when - '. , i • ��t„•' li # ' ;r '' `, • Europeans first settled them had been :+ .„0„,„„...‘, -,Q-• -` ` �,,. .. drained, dredged, or paved by 1975. Al- R" - though current national figures are not ,�1/n�+�' - l ; „O- I s vrr� available, experts assume that wetlands jailer 71:��'t. - I continue to disappear at a significant rate. • �r• •�• `� ,t•.. , The federal government has asserted ''c ....:.4. some authority over discharges into non .16111M1111 '►�,•_ ~ ��_ t�,F �}a tidal wetlands since 1899,but the national •,. �� - 4 -, effort to save them did not begin in earnest rft„, •• i= IL. until 1972 when the federal Water Pollution `„ 4' .� Control Act (later amended as the Clean ` % '+�,� �. _ Water Act)was passed.Under Section 404 A• ‘~ _ . r� of the act, certain wetlands were placed under the joint protection of the U.S.Army *zilch, Ititr Y or - - -'' 4-1 • � v •4_ - iiiiarri 1•. , 5 f �. '" cording to Fish and Wildlife Service .1r". -.c; development on wetlands be compensated _ estimates, only about eight percent of the ; 'q , f rte' for. Mitigation was first prescribed in wetlands lost between 1955 and 1975 were • L '','.'�y-• " •..r. .fir . generic terms by the Council on Environ- casualties of urban development Yet farm- i.. -` •.. _,�'••,Y•r mental Quality in a 1978 statement since ing,which accounted for 87 percent of the / i.. t• -i adopted by the U.S. EPA, the Fish and — losses during that period, remains 1 Wildlife Service, and several state pro- generally exempt from state and federal \t ) grams.The message:Avoid damage if possi- regulation. (Recent state surveys suggest_ 1 ble, reduce it when necessary, and however,that in some parts of the country A/ t compensate for it when the first two ap- urbanization is gobbling up wetlands at ; proaches fail. double the past rate.) • • s. lost Avoiding damage is often as simple as revising a site plan to relocate buildings Tit for tat it r 46% away from wetlands,or leaving a natural For all their shortcomings,the recent laws F t�//' remaining em inin in bumffer in place around them.Like most sim- cumulatively express a new wetlands ethic. e• ' & ple solutions,however,avoidance can have "Save what you can;'the current thinking g/ L • complicated consequences.Many wetlands, goes,"and replace what cant be saved"Thus for instance,are of no particular ecological did the concept of mitigation enter the lex- it significance,and both the Fish and Wildlife icon of the land-use planner.Details differ, Service and some state agencies(including but virtually all the state laws passed since New Jersey and Massachusetts) rank 1972 require that the adverse impact of °•°° S EPA wetlands according to their resource value, - itir,i .,...... A.,. .., 4... i _ lir ,- • .... , - NINO 1... . .r : ,..• 0._ ,,, , ,.411:r fp.- , - . • , . .., • „..„,,....,.....,. • .. ., . . , .. ,... g .*.,-:,..i.:4•%.--.,-,F,--7•:-.-•:::?':.••-7 .-3".-"47;'.'-' ..f:,2).71=!-.: ti ,s, b • , ili.P loi.,,,;. : \ �. .� • JIN./y J f•-;1''. '�• _ �' .- r. T,—� -.��. -'-. et • ��. 4 � - .. .�at .ice. � J -,f �, 7= r ':; ��•' ,� s 'r • ;«— recognizing the differences between a bot- . rw: 1- ,,-►_.♦ `''r • " • t •'• '` tomland hardwood forest and a patch of t:L'_'�'' �'t""� t i�• _�` r T ' - cattails. Some wetlands are so small as to leave them vulnerable to even modest ..�+. :tea'IL. s \ - t \ :b• .-�.' ,. �.�.� ��, �' ' changes in their watersheds; scuzzholes is 't '•- s• . R�; 1 the term some Army Corps engineers use ' • •. td ' %'-•\--r. ,'. privately to describe such marginal L . � `� •^ wetlands. • .w a ,• i i- But sometimes the law does not make e . ' ;' . • '` - such distinctions.The official goal of most ! .. wetlands programs is no net loss.Applied ., y_ �T too literall • s;f. •` y to wetlands of dubious quality, -1 , s-r-.' .v , t such a standard can cause problems.A case ti =./f�,�At.I.y - in point is Florida, where in the words of �.� �• w —. e, l ...r. `z ' t+ . •.....8yir j„�' -'- - environmental consultant Carol Sawyer ' , Lotspeich,"it's hard to walk 200 yards with- 4 - �•+4 2- Pg.• �. .22YA,tv •- . -• .. '.,--� out bumping into a wetland"Yet,Lotspeich _ notes, developers often do not propose ,;.„„,,,-.401",_17 , .- , :_` • alternatives to preservation in such cases ,i.'.4.________,::-_- because"it's cheaper and less aggravating to '14111rniko... -..s_____11410 �. k - ••• •••• leave the wetlands intact"—often to become - - _ '� ' 4 -.-7- 41.. _ mosquito-infested trash dumps. ""!¢»-"'-r- arson ,,, = .•—• --.4 _ - What's a potential trash dump in one �, place, however, may be a marketable �� M • amenity at another. In 1983, the Army „.�4'� I_--. --w r`+ '' Corps insisted that developers of a sub f •• _ _ !- '7 _ y :....� urban Chicago office building preserve five S i1. } • ; acres of grassy marsh on their 28-acre site. + `• The developers,Chicago's Levy Organiza- 6 Planning February 1989 tion, saw a marketing opportunity in the state laws and stricter enforcement by Khervin Smith,a Pennsylvania wetlanc obligation and called the project Waterfall federal agencies(especially for large-scale administrator, warned of the traps in Glen, advertising it with the slogan, "If projects) have toughened mitigation re- mitigation policy in a talk before the 1986 nature needed offices,they'd be here"Levy quirements. But even so, as David Burke National Wetlands Symposium,sponsore representatives say the firm is so pleased notes of the practices of the Army Corps of by the U.S.EPA, the Army Corps,and th with the response that it plans to add a sec- Engineers in Maryland,"When they get to Fish and Wildlife Service. Permit ap- ond building. the smaller guys,they steer away from re- plicants who offer a generous enough trade. Similarly, the British builders of Lake quiring mitigation"because of its expense. are in reality buying the right"to destroy th Nona,a 7,000-acre mixed-use development environment for a price,"Smith warned. now under construction near Orlando,re- Doubters Similar objections are often made to served virtually all of the 1,400 acres of For public authorities,the issue is less one mitigation banks,which were pioneered iy— wetlands on the site,somewhat more than of cost than of efficacy.Some states(Florida California.Mitigation banks allow a publi, required by the permit issued under for one) reject'out-of-kind" (off-site corn- authority to buy and restore damagea Florida's 1984 wetlands law."In the last five pensation) mitigation altogether. They wetlands and to recoup the costs through years there's been a very big change in the argue that no distant wetland,whatever its developers'donations(usually cash).The attitude of land developers;says Lotspeich, size or quality,can replace the unique value developers gain"mitigation credits"whicf who helped design Lake Nona. "They a natural wetland adds to its original site.To may be applied to satisfy wetlands re- recognize the economic benefit that can be compensate for loss of public value,many quirements at other sites,while the public_ gained by the retention of those features" programs demand that out-of-kind agencies get to pool resources in order tc There is some criticism that converting wetlands be traded for altered originals at restore large tracts of wetlands.The hitch, wetlands into ornamental landscape ratios of two to one or higher. according to some of the officials who staff t �-��.,� ." - - *tom "' I` • q, -rte r ,fi ! = ! .. _ I _ _ =� a _ ,.fir- C .yam `• t ..�" , --$1'froi :-.1-jitgA. l• _ i tet ., si c-•.t ijr ...:..... l'... T 7..... -t: 4:L.:et-. .-"� ,....arms-.-.�. • T.,......,,,....... fes.-• •'r..arr•r�-� preserves their appearance at the expense i _ of their function. But how does one corn- _ ___ -- . -r, I pensate fora wetland that cannot even be i"i; _., t" '` , `� ' • cosmetically preserved? Most wetlands ;xr ; .f I laws require some sort of compensation ..'� ` : ••,, r `-1,0,‘"1,„144r' , '. �„ \.I, t' 1 r� k,..I. • when damage to a wetland is deemed `/ ,.' ; 3 r xf- ;XVI'. • t x ` t? £ 4 r f t^ `. unavoidable.Wetlands of a similar a and 1�� %4 .,,-.:.„ �,,� type < r� � � F 1r �R Yi �r size may be ordered restored or recreated 7 ,. :14-,,,,.‘ 4 1 �,��' �., ti: *„.• M f� , ; elsewhere on the site—so-called in-kindild t • •1t , �� ',IA?,=,: '� I4:4. 's'.:.r � S"` ` • mitigation. When a wetland cannot be . -,,‘,#--.4 t v. qtr t 1 , /•�x ,1.lei t-\% :�+ u "/..4,..1 +d , replaced,the developer may be required to >/" ' I.f f "� '' -, '—,• • "� •`.. .,t , I • +ll ►..1-•-x:,3 ."i �= upgrade another,similar site,usually with F' •`' '�' _ � a proviso that the newly enhanced wetland .r; k .. 't......4. . ; �� y_ y!LA 4:44, ; • • ►�.. 4 be dedicated to public use or even donated I , ...r.4%, ' t: ,i i i 1• ;;:'..: l to public ownership. .,. , ;it.'t I ►n,., :i.'t••u •'; I...•Z,A.. '( ' "'FiDevelopers generally regard wetlands + .� =` * N" r ,;mitigation requirements a ely another 1: _ st' -,> >,� '.• t fsurer �. � � �, . . ' �, 'r •�; ,I•t� inagrowin list of exactions that add to the -aQ :�, G '1 ' % ``f1 I. i; i.�yi', 't. ' ./ cost and complications of building Until c nj j r, - ; ti LL` `'..i\,F,;•�} 1.,.,4••P‘,. .� �,�� - recently, the demands were not onerous, ' " 'r `• ' `r. however.The congressional Office of Tech- tyi7 td;~4 :i , l rI /. ••• ;•.'.• . �0 " / nology Assessment reported in 1984 that 90 4. , " h1; _, ; ,• .: r, . . r d i• I •..- ,. Rl . . 'r percent of the wetlands conversions ap- '. •'- -7..t.,.�; t 1 t}. � .e' 1 7. proved under Section 404 permits in 1980 ,. • '+� �`- �1 �� `•1 moi' '00.1;rr ' t .t ,.}w, z .. t- .� e uncompensated.T + r A s r 1 _ 1: .` .�' ' ,} 6f . ...,: and 1981 wer compen he newer °. ! > > i ��Y•. _\\:�. _ r•: , ..., , • •, ':'• �.-"II rk = • ',it:. ,is '�•� t:1 -; .•1'.J ,. •t �`r I•` r `� •X for7 � �.- /` 1-10 fttttt A ti` s'; - '+ ' � them,is that the banks have proven expen- types of wetlands can be recreated. The " ?4 ' ; � sive to set up.They can also be controver- Massachusetts policy guidelines flatly state ▪ • . r11 .) ��R' . , •,l,• sial to administer, for, like out-of-kind that "no engineering solutions"exist that 111%4}" mitigation schemes ingeneral, mitigation can replicate the full functions of a � .1,. g g p ;,,� V banks may actually abet the destruction of freshwater wetland.The Fish and Wildlife •► „ ` 1 'i some wetlands. Service calls wetlands creation "an ex- x*' '`' ;�o Partlybecause of such objections, most ` � . j perimental technology only" and insists r,� -. -' wetlands programs make in-kind mitiga- that substituting artificial wetlands cannot • tion an official priority.The U.S EPA,for ex- justify development of their natural Manicured but intact:The ample,states flatly that in-kind mitigation counterparts. And EPA officials note that developers of Lake Nona,in is the only ecologically meaningful com- alternate-site creation schemes too often Orlando(left I. worked around pensation for wetlands losses.Yet despite trade the certainty of destruction for the the site's 1,400 acres of such official reservations, out-of-kind mere promise of replacement. Even in wetlands.So did the Orange mitigation has become a seductive option Michigan, whose 1979 wetlands law County Convention Center:its for developers and regulators alike. Pro- defines mitigation as replacement, live-acre wetland is below. ponents see off-site restoration or recrea- regulators saytheyare cautious about a Nevertheless.problems persist p frights.along the Central Con- tion as a rare win-win situation in which proving such projects until more is known necticut Expressway,a recently developers get to build where they want at about the chances of success. created wetland(a project of the no cost to the public in lost resources. Science—or rather the lack of it—is the state transportation agency;gets But does everyone win?No one knows big obstacle. Engineering habitats with its share of abandoned cars. for sure whether any but the very simplest such eccentric water regimes is tricky."If --..algailligligir 114 9 '''` -•"- -.7-1-.." - . --,-- - -.... - ....;..4-•4-.,_ -..- :if*i+rrr, `t� rf •oy•' 'f 1 t �'. '.114.;... ...1.i• r}:. ,;...-44.-.-1 om j iii M, jc"t � - x ' *% ,� '„ _ �fC� t , , ~ ir ;� J .r . � � r � gyyt�+-'iiiii� } _1.i i ,i - Lr : W• 414 • i o .� r . '.1 �l- •� rte • ...{ 71 - ��! ' �� ” you don't get the hydrology right,you don't /• !� \ 1 .' t• 'f •_ ..4..., have a wetland:says Vermont environmen- i r. ��, �...•Ai, '', . ..k l licit, tal lawyer Jon Kusler.LA forthcoming APA ;••,•t t$ `;4,`r"1 { 7 ' „ Ii i:y ;l - ,•-%. publication, ProtectingTidal Wetlands, by ll., ,.. . •+ • . : . ,,c . 71• . .' , 4"►tea E ' A • +1+At p t..' l7if 1+ t '. •fl, . • •- , ,. i L-s ,• 1. aye •, David Burke et al.[PAS Report No.412/413; . r , r �, ty, 1 • Z r� ,"t7' r ','9tti� • $36 from Planners Bookstore] makes a s.t ::4 itA, ;. I..;j '�? .{ ;` j / S l ► ' •'p. ` ? similar point.) `V....1 ;,. • t '7 4"qr f s Some creation projects involve nothing - i,t : ,• ; t �. at. r �;•i P j g x � �� =+•,: 'r yrr r;',' / k=_ l: 1/4`' more than bulldozing the seed-filled, :� f. I"'l:tea 7{ .�'_�,.: ,1,,;jjf }_ri,\ •r • .y.t„-ftt t4 i• *i+�;'n,tr. „ „yF;`is; , y , - 1: irk rhizome-rich muck from the bottom of a , c t ...z.:-..r.„ . ,, wetland and trucking it to a new site.And r 'tt. 1 .+� 4fy-. 7 . r. • :.Ttijyy% +` �; ^�•. ;xl ;<x;;� l:�, j �`t although opponents acknowledge that the ,..4 i ::A-:".,:l'.: i.�.,L�i, „•, c .,,.{ . , , ..0:41 .Z � muck will sometimes sprout at the new ';'rr.. �{ ; }.�,l._'•1' 7•_._.� `,, l' t.} 1 1' 440, site, they insist that imitating a natural T ; + � I�r�t.., ,,s."-- 7.4:::.. .�r.:1.Yw` , �� ,`._. `r'' j +�� system is not the same as duplicating it.A T t. . y-. ( "'` ;-, wetland reflects its history;' says Kusler, :� �• I f :r, • t • • :t� 1tj + j "i .} 4. ,:,.._..--,......-....-..,:,-.. . ? ,y : "and a newly created wetland has no '%•�•.Kr`tl `p. �Y � rte+ 1• • + ` �' : ..j, history:' '�Ik � 1+ , "� � "�J' ; ; - ;,,‘4,. :r In 1987, the EPA asked the National fir:. � f E� }'+ .,� 'a , '' Q; + ' Wetlands PolicyForum, a broad-based 1�� 1 . r» 1 --":„,-..•;., � it i, ' i, ;,� t_.\•v.,.. .... group of representatives from business, i \ • • 4..4-%' �'. ' � s ;� .', _.: ;; / • sl., government,conservation,and science,to I t�{ i.' j' , �: ':.,r • chart a way out of what has become a• ,. 4 ;, • = regulatory swamp. The forum members , ,. •. . -�i �3, ��• ,•,t • t .• heard from a variety of experts, who ex- LI ! Lfi `* z.:-..'"? ��• :tL�`=•/ 8 Planning February 1989 plained that roughly half the restoration regulatory guidelines published by the Who's in Charge? — and creation projects attempted until then Association of State Wetlands Managers, seem to have failed in some important re- and the model wetlands protection or- "The confusion is massive," says Gus spect. The 1986 National Wetlands Sym- dinance presented in the APA report, as Bauman.A land-use lawyer with the Wash- posium had heard much the same news;as well as existing federal and state laws. ington,D.C.,firm of Beveridge&Diamon a Massachusetts official told the sym- Together these documents suggest a Bauman notes that joint authority over Se posium,many replicated wetlands were in shape for freshwater wetlands regulation in tion 404 of the Clean Water Act creates real fact only stormwater storage areas with a the 1990s:Mitigation-as-last-resort will re- problems."It's a clash between the Corps Qj few wetlands plants added. main a key principle,however much it is ig- Engineers and the EPA, with proper Consultants who specialize in wetlands nored in practice.Monitoring of mitigation owners caught in the middle;'he says. creation tend to be more sanguine about projects will increase(perhaps paid for by Several years ago,one of those owners ap- their craft. "I don't have any qualms that permit fees, as the Sierra Club has sug- plied for a Section 404 permit to build-,.- restoration-creation can be accomplished, gested). The requirement that mitigation shopping mall onSweedensSwamp inAttl although it can get costly," says Carol measures be in place before destruction of boro,Massachusetts(the primary developti Lotspeich. natural wetlands may proceed may prove was the Pyramid Companies). As a result, How well restoration-creation projects impossible to impose,but the odds of suc- Attleboro may come to be remembered work is still not clear.Thousands,ranging cess should increase as detailed perfor- the Lexington or Concord of the legal ba from duck ponds to drainage systems,have mance standards (such as those required tle over the regulation of wetlands in the been tried,but under less than laboratory under Massachusetts's trend-setting 1965 U.S.The project won local approvals on the conditions. Donald Hey's 10-year Des inland wetlands law) are written into strength of the developers'agreement t Plaines River demonstration near mitigation agreements. Existing acre-for- provide both in-kind and out-of-kin Chicago-250 acres of rebuilt floodplain acre replacement standards may gradually mitigation(a 36-acre artificial wetland)to marsh divided into llstudy areas,begun in be replaced by standards based on compensate for filling in a red maples 1985—is one of the first such projects wetlands value,as methods of assessing the swamp on the site. The regional office c I designed to allow the systematic testing of aesthetic, ecological, and hydrological the U.S. EPA objected, arguing that alter I various techniques over time. functions of both new and existing native sites were available.Deferring to the Despite such uncertainties,local officials wetlands are refined. EPA opinion, the district Corps offic 1 often find it hard to resist approving plausi- Implementing any new policies will refused the permit,only to be overruled,ii ble mitigation projects,partly out of desire likely be harder than drafting them. The 1985,by Corps headquarters.The EPA then 1 to spur taxable development, partly wetlands forum called the present national exercised its seldom-used veto power, as because they lack the expertise to give pro- program "incoherent," and with reason. authorized under Section 404. — posals rigorous review. Simply banning Several federal agencies have a say in That's when the lawyers were called in restoration and creation would be legally wetlands permitting decisions. (The EPA The most recent decision in the Attleboro 1 dubious. Besides, as the EPA wetlands even has veto power over the Section 404 case was rendered last year by the U.S_ forum reluctantly concluded,the only way permit decisions of the Army Corps.) Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1 to stem the net loss of freshwater wetlands Moreover, state programs vary widely. in the U.S. in the face of development pressures is to learn how to make new ones; _ the wetlands forum recommended that the --.-...;1.3:a4, -:...,*+` Y;�!% ',, •j A..,4 • Four years ago, National Academyof Sciences develop '�' '-.�' "' '�_:.� engineer Donald -1rs ' guidelines for such projects and that "` '_ �'r = �"f Heybeganalo- federally funded demonstrations be '` - �� -'�� - : " )'eardemonslra- established. _ - tion project to :-tom ` ' r•.. uer PI,,"IP determine just how Murky waters - ♦ - ` While scientists raise concerns about the ' - - 4 ,;. process involved,policy makers need to ask - F.; ` 1 4 +�• t some questions of their own. Nancy Kriz, x S- ` = president of the Connecticut Association of ��! --:'"��'` +` _ Conservation and Inland Wetlands Corn- 1 om = t:? ;h� i r r .i-'.• missions and a wetlands creation skeptic, '� ' �`? `�"� '` f '' poses several: Do we need to replace only E _ ..�.� - _ .Pii- • the function of lost wetlands,or their eco- 1.' logical type as well?If function alone is the t ;'.� * I standard, must every function of a lost _ r wetland be replaced before its loss is con- --� sidered compensated? Should a new n'rY wetland be established before the destruc EW 8p t RSR #. • tion of its predecessor is sanctioned?Who �••Plaines River '� should do the monitoring and for how long? r (WA rx Pumping Station, a� e/ Out of such questions a consensus is w p 9 ®Precipitation Gouge 1 forming on key points of wetlands mitiga Groundwater Well,RSR— River Stage Recorder p 2, J tion policy,as reflected in the recommen- O Climate Station, QL Quarry Lake fm,•4` dab . u Ji . dations of the wetlands forum, the draft �. Field Office, --- Project Boundary 11 �!! mill Creek 1 RSR 11 4 9 plans. Not everyone sees wisdom in expanded which ruled two to one against the attorney who specializes in wetlands state responsibility.Stuart Meck,assistant developers.That decision was appealed in issues, says that, compared to the"speed city manager and planning director of Ox- December to the U.S.Supreme Court. limits"set by federal agencies in such areas ford, Ohio, and APA's president-elect, The key legal issue in the case is EPAs as floodplain construction, the authority argues that most states will expand their market-entry argument. The agency con- claimed by EPA over wetlands is wetlands protection programs only reluc- tends that the determination as to whether "minuscule:' cantly, probably in conjunction with alternative sites are available must be made Indeed,some observers believe that the growth management laws. at the time permit applicants enter the federal role in wetlands regulation may be Meck expects that, for the foreseeable market for a given project, not when they too modest.At the 1986 National Wetlands future,wetlands mitigation in most states actually present building plans. In the At- Symposium, Michael Wilmar of the San will remain a local zoning issue. Local of- tleboro case,the EPA argued,alternatives Francisco law firm of Nossaman,Gunther, ficials will have to act under increasing were in fact available,which meant that the Knox & Elliott argued that much of the scrutiny by state and federal regulators, project's wetlands impacts were not "uncertainty and unpredictability" of the however. Many large wetlands cross unavoidable and thus not mitigable. mitigation process actually results from the jurisdictional as well as ecological boun- Stuart Meck,president-elect of APA,calls reluctance of the Corps and the EPA to in- daries, while others merit special protec- "— the market-entry theory "pretty screwy:' volve themselves in land-use planning with tion under state or national law. The requirement was not defined by either state and local governments. David Burke says he is"a little leery"of in- the agency or the court, which led Most seem to agree that the courts are not vesting exclusive authority in local officials, _ developers'attorneys to complain that it is the ideal place to work out a wetlands who often lack the manpower, expertise, impractically ambiguous. policy.Kusler argues that Congress's deci- and money to undertake the review and APA filed an amicus curiae brief in the sion to award EPA and the Corps joint monitoring required by even simplemitiga- case.Says Meck."I'm very concerned that authority over the Section 404 program was tion projects."Not many local governments the EPA is getting de facto land-use powers a political compromise between environ- are geared up to handle it yet:'he says."Not never dreamed of by Congress: Bauman mental and development interests in the many states are:The solution,Burke sug- puts it more bluntly:"It throws planning out first place, and so needs to be resolved gests,may be to emphasize the avoidance the window: politically.Adds Meck,"Congress needs to of impacts rather than compensation. Opinion on that point is not unanimous, harmonize federal intent with state In fact, many environmentalists, in- however.Carol Dinkins,an attorney with authority." Wetlands impacts may not eluding those working for federal agencies, Vinson&Elkins in Houston,says,"The At- always be avoidable,Kusler concludes,but say that local authorities, acting under tleboro case basically confirms EPA disputes over mitigation may be if everyone pressure from developers,are too quick to authority. Local planning agencies do not avoids"mushing together scientific truths resort to mitigation as a way to rationalize have a free hand in light of federal legisla- and political questions:' the destruction of inconvenient wetlands. tion over wetlands:'Jon Kusler,a Vermont Michael Deland,the U.S.EPAs administra- limb tor for New England,for example,has com- plained that regulators who ought to be well"constructed on the map of the Some states, such as Oregon, use the ex- looking for ways to relocate proposed de- wetlands"do over project's 11 study isting local planning apparatus to conduct velopments now look for ways to relocate "— the long haul. The areas(below!. The reviews. Others, including Connecticut wetlands instead. area at left,shown bulldozer is being and Massachusetts,have created new local Planning thus seems likely to assume a after a 1986 flood, used to install entities to approve wetlands permits. In larger role in mitigation strategies.Under is marked EWA 3 irrigation pipe to contrast,New Jersey specifically preempts programs now under way by federal a en- bring water from local authoritysuch projects. Some cies, wetlands considered unsuitable for the Des Plaines over River into the local governments impose tougher stan- development will be better mapped,enabl- eexperimental dards than do their respective states;nearly ing planners to steer projects away from �—' 'c wetland basins, every jurisdiction requires its own separate problematic areas. (The EPA has already _;,44"7 R permit process. Massachusetts officials, begun to aid that process through its ad- noting that permits there are reviewed by vanced identification program.)Consistent ,t'; - So any of 351 local authorities and five state of- with that approach is the agency's admitted ;'fit;;',..v r� fices before they are passed on for relevant policy of attaching so many mitigation con- /' federal action,concede that certain"incon- ditions to Section 404 permits that sistencies"are inevitable. developers will find it too expensive to D SOL ,.--1 In short,getting water to move through a build on wetlands. The easiest kind of < < I swamp is in many cases easier than getting wetlands damage to mitigate, the agency rfi asa fi t paper to move through the wetlands says,isthedamagethatisn'tallowedinthe regulatory system. The wetlands forum first place. — i concluded that an expanded and t_ :� _ l," streamlined national wetlands program James Krohe Jr.is frequent contributor to Plan- ought to delegate primary regulatory ning.He is an associate editor of the Illinois Times. - (feet) -- z . _ authority to the states,which would draft .i 1= Own their own plans in the context of corn- prehcnsive regional planning efforts, U.S. HiWY 41 which would,in turn,reflect local land-use CITY cHANBAssEN I a 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director DATE: April 14 , 1989 SUBJ: Zoning Code Permitted Uses The attached matrix lists all the permitted land uses as pre- _ sently contained in the zoning code. This summary allows a quick reference for finding which districts allow a certain use. To use the matrix, find the appropriate use and read across the -' row for each district noted at the too of the page. The letters designate the following: "A" - Permitted as an accessory use "C" - Permitted as a conditional use "P" - Permitted as use by right "-" - Use not allowed in district The last column notes the required parking for the uses as pre- sently contained in the zoning code. This information is provided for your re.:erence. L_ 47 L ICNINE DISTRICTS PERMITTED :SES _3E 7.20UIREO A-2 RR RSF -4 P-3 R-12 22N 3H >G 2c CSD 10 IgP PARKING L 11 -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ADAPTIVE REUSE SCHOOLS - - - - - - - - - - AGRICULTURE P P - - - - - - - - - - - L AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS A - - - - - - - - ANIMAL HOSPITAL - - - Jl/:/+50 SF i •/1 APPAREL SALES - - - - - - - - P - P - - 200 ARBORETUMS A - - - - - - - - - - - - AUTO SERVICE STATIONS - - - - - - C P P C - - - 1+2/STALL l O. BARS - BED & BREAKFAST C - - - - - C - - - - - - h. BOARDING HOUSES - - - C C C - - - - - - - BODY SHOP - - - - - - - - C - - - P L BOWLING CENTERS - - - - - - - - P - P - 7/LANE BUILDING SUPPLY CENTER v +r. CAR WASH - • CAR WASH W/SERVICE STATION - - - - - - - - - - - - CEMETERY C - - - - - - - - - - - - CHURCHES - C C C - - - - - P - 1/3+1/CLASSROOM CLUBS - L COLD STORAGE - - - - - - - - - C - - - 1/10000+1/2000 THEREAF COMMUNITY CENTER - - - - - P P P - P - 1/ +0+1/4SEATS CONCRETE MIXING PLANT - - - - - - - - - - - - CONTRACTORS YARD CONVENIENCE STERE - - - - - - - - - - - - WITH GAS -PUMPS - - - - - - : P - - -- ;7 CONVENIENCE STORE - - - - - - - - - - - - - L WITHOUT GAS PUMPS - - - - - - - P - -- - 11200 CONVENTION FACILITY L CULTURAL FACILITIES - - - - - - - - - - - - °D` DAY CARE 12 CR LESS P P P P C P F - C* - - 1/10CH+1/EMP DAY CARE 13 OR MORE - - - - : P P P - +;+ - - 1,'ICCH+1/EMP 1 DEPARTMENT STORES - - - - - - - - - - P - - 1/200 DOCKS A A A A A - - - - - - - DWELLINGS - - - - - - - - - - - - - SINGLE FAMILY P P P P - - - - - - - - - 2 ENCLOSED DUPLEX - - - P P P - - - - - - - 1/EFF.,1.5/1BED,2/2BED MULTI-FAMILY - - - - P P - - - - P - - 1/EFF.,1.5/1BED,2/2BED DRIVE-IN BANKS - DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY PICKUP - - - - - - P - - - - - - EQUIPMENT RENTAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - I ELECTRIC SUBSTATION C - - - - - - - - - - - - L ENTERTAINMENT - - - - IIFA FARMERS MARKET - FINANCIAL INSTITUTION - - - - - - - P P - P - - FIRE STATION - FOOD PROCESSING - - - - - - - - - - - - C 1/500 • FUNERAL HOMES - - - - - - - P P - - P .6. GARAGE A A A A A A - - - - - - - 4 GARDEN CENTER - - - - - - - P - - - - L iROUR CARE 6 OR LESS P P P P GROUP CARE 7 OR MORE - - - - C C - - - - - - - : NING DISTRICTS F_R`ITTED USES JSE .;EEJIRED A-2 RR RSF P-4 P-8 R-12 EH BH s; BF CPD :C IOP PARKING HARDWARE GvODS - - - - - - - - - P - - :.'200 HEALTH CARE FACILITY - - - - - C - - P - P - - HEALTH CLUBS - - - - - - - - P - P P 0 20+1/500 OR 2/COURT HEALTH SERVICES - - - - - - P P - - - P P 1/150 HOME FURNISHINGS - - - - - - - - - - P - - 1/400 HOME IMP. CENTER - - - - - - - - P - - - C HOME OCCUPATIONS AAAAAA - - - - - - - HOSPITALS - - - - - - - - - - - P - I/2BEDS+1/2EMPLOYEES HOTELS - - - - - - - P - - P - C 1 P.00M+i/2EMPLOYEES WW W.4 ,•A JUNK YARDS - - - - - - - - - - - - - ::ENNELS CO:'.MERCIAL - KENNELS PRIWJE A A A C - - - - - - - - - ft- LIBRARY - - - - - - - - - - - P - I/500+1!4SEATS LIGHT MANUFACTURING - - - - - - - - - - - - P 1/EMPLOYEE+1/COMPANY V LIQUOR STCH LOOSES - - - - - - - - - - R - - 'BER - - - - - - - - - - - - - MAJOR AUTO REPAIR - MINERAL EXTRACTION - _ MINIATURE GOLF - MOTELS - - - - - - - P P - - - C 1!ROOM+1/22EMPLOYEES MOTOR FREIGHT - - - - - - - - - - -MUSEUM - a�1M NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL - - - - - - P - - - - - - NEWSPAPER OFFICE NURSING HOMES - - - - - - - - - - P - 1/2BEDS+i!2EMPLOYEES `0' OFFICES - - - - - - - P P - P - = 211000 OFF PREMIS PARKING - - - - - - - - - - - - OUTDOOR DISPLAY - - - - - - - C C - - - - OUTDOOR DISPLAY, TEMPORARY - - - - - - C - - - - - - OUTDOOR STORAGE SCREENED - - - - - - - C C - - - - °P' PARKING LOTS - - - - - - AAAAAA A PERSONNAL SERVICE ESTAB. - - - - - - P P P - P - - 1/200 PERSONNAL SERVICES - - - - - - - - - - P - - POST OFFICE PRINTERS - - - - - - - - - - - - P PRINT SHOP - PRIVATE CLUBS/LODGES PROFESSIONAL OFFICES - - - - - - P - - - - - - 3/1000 PUBLIC RECREATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC BUILDINGS - - - - - - - - - - P C 1!500+1/4SEATS ,O. h. 6. :CNING DISTRICTS PERMITTED USES 6` USE RECUIRED A-2 RR RSF R-4 R-8 P-:2 SN BH BG BF CBD IO IOP PARKING RRECORDING STUDIOS - - - - - - - - - - - REC. BEACH LOTS C C C C C - - - - - - - ` RESTAURANT STANDARD - - - - - - CP P - - - - RESTA'!RANT FAST FOCO - - - - - - - - - - - - - RETAIL SALES - - - - - - - - - - - - R-2 RETAIL SHOPS. NEIGHBORHOOD ORIENTED - - - - P - - - - - - RETAIL SHOPS - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESEARCH LABS RRIDING ACADEMIESROADSIDE STAND STAND R.V. & BOAT SALES - - - - - - - - ? - - - - PS SCHOOLS - - - - - - - - - SELF SERVICE LAUNDRY - SENIOR HOUSING SHOE REPAIR - - - - - - - - - - - - SHOPPING CENTER - - - - - - - - - P - - SIGNS r A A A A A A A AAAA SMALL APPLIANCE REPAIR - - - - - - - - S'ALL ;EHICLE SALES - - - - - - - - - - - - SPECIALTY RETAIL - STABLES CO? ERCIAL - C C-1 - - - - - - - - - - STABLES PRIVATE A C C - - - - - - - - - - STANDARD RESTARANTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - STORAGE BUILDINGS - A A A A A - - - - - - - SUPERMARKETS - SWIMMING POOLS A A A A A A - - - - - - - TAVERNS - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ TEMPORARY OUTDOOR DISPLAY - - - - - - C - - - _ - - TEMPORARY REAL ESTATE OFFICE P P P P - - - - - - - TENNIS COURTS A A A A A A - - - - - - - TRADE SHOPS - - - - - - - - - - - - o TRANSMISSION TOWERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - TRUCK/TRAILER RENTAL - - - - - - - - - - - - TRUCK/TRAILER SALES - - - - - - - - - - "U• UTILITY SERVICES PPPPPP P P ? P P 'V' VETERINARY CLINICS - - - - - - P - P - •- - - .u. 'AREHOUSING WHOLESALE NURSERY C - - - - - - - - - - - - ONING DISTRICT BULK REQUIREMENTS :ONIN6 MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM 'A(IMUM SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK MAXIMUM HEIGHT DISTRICT LOT AREA FRONTAGE DEPTH COVERAGE FRONT REAR SIDE °RIM BLDG ACCESS. A-I 40 AC. 350' (3) 250' 3% 100' 100' 50' 40' 40' A-2 2.5 AC.(1) 200' (3) 200' 201 50' 50' 10' 40'(2) 40'(2) RR 2.5 AC.(1) 200' (3) 200' 207. 50' 50' 10' 40'(2) 40'(2) RSF 15,000 90' (3) . 150' 25% 30' 30' 10' 40'(2) 40'(2) R-4 (SF) 15,000 B0' (3) 150' 30X 30' 20' 10' 40'(2) 15' R-4 (DUP) 20,000 100' (3) 150' 307. 30' 30' 10' 40'(2) 15' R-3(DUP) 7,500/DU 50' (3) 150' 357. 25' 25' 10' 40'(2) 15' R-8(MF) 5,500/DU 50'/DU (3) 150' 352 25' 25' 10' 40'(2) 15' R-12(DUP) 7,500/DU 50'/DU (3) 155' 35X 25' 25' 10' 40'(2) 15' R-12(MF) 3,600/DU 150'/LOT (3)155' 352 25' 25' 10' 40'(2) 15' BN 15,000 75' (6) 150' 657. 35'(1) 0'(7) 15'(7) 1 STORY 1 STORY BH 20,000 100' (6) 150' 65% 25'(7) 20'(7) i0'(7) 2 STORY 1 STORY BG 20,000 100' (6) 150' 70% 25'(7) 15'(7) .0i(7) 40}(2) 2 STORY BF 20,000 100' (6) 150' 401 25'(7) 20'(7) 10'(7) 1 STORY 1 STORY CBD 10,000 100' (6) 100' NONE NONE 'TONE NONE NONE NONE Oi 15,000 75' (6) 150' 651 35'(7) 30'(7) 15'(7) 2 STORY 2 STORY IOF 1.0 AC. 150' (6) 200' 70% 30'(7) 10'(7) 10'(7) 50' =0' .. COTES: (1) Subject to 20-906 (2) Or 3 stories L (3) At building setback line for lots on cul-de-sacs (4i 150' at bulldlnd setback line for lots on cul-de-sacs for mlti-Taatiy (5) L (6) Lots on cul-de-sacs 60' (7) See Section 20-695(6) (8) Or 4 stories L L L L L L L L