Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
06-21-89 Agenda and Packet
AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION _ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1989, 7 : 30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 . Preliminary plat to replat Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One 3rd Addition into one lot, Lot 1 , Block 1, Quattro Addition, on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and located on West 77th Street, Fortier and Associates. 2 . Wetland Alteration Permit for the filling and dredging within a Class A and Class B wetland located on Lake Drive, south of Hwy. 5 and north of Lake Susan, City of Chanhassen. 3 . Preliminary Plat to subdivide 100 acres into three single family lots and one outlot on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located on Tanadoona Drive, west of Hwy. 41 and north of Hwy. 5, Kurt Laughinghouse. 4 . Land Use Plan Amendment to change the MUSA boundary to include 140 acres into the Metropolitan Service Area located southwest of Lake Ann, 1680 Arboretum Boulevard, Michael Gorra. 5 . Preliminary plat to subdivide 18 . 93 acres into 11 high den- - sity lots on property zoned R-12 , Residential High Density for 182 condominium units located on Outlot B, West Village Heights ( between Powers and Kerber Blvd. , north of W. 78th Street) , Cenvesco (Oakview Heights) . 6 . Preliminary Plat to subdivide 9 . 5 acres into 18 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located south of Pleasant View Road and east of Powers Boulevard, Van Eeckhout Building Corporation (Vineland Forest) . NEW BUSINESS 7. Convenience Stores Moratorium, Mark Koegler. OLD BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT C I TY O F P.C. DATE: June 21 , 1989 \1' C f C.C. DATE: July 10 , 1989 1; ClIANIIASSZN CASE N0: 89-2 SUB Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Replat of Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 , Park One 3rd Addition Into One IOP Lot - Lot 1 , Block 1 , Quattro Addition z a V LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2 , Park One 3rd Addition �nn APPLICANT: Daryl Fortier Fortier Associates 408 Turnpike Road Golden Valley, MN 55416 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 2 .15 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IOP, WayTek S- IOP; The Press QE- IOP; Versatil W- IOP; Lyman Lumber W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains vegetation along the north and west side of the property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial A - .(< -,_ _.--_ ' -. )111 I! . 3" .'' ,per 7200 .�j� \ L ,4 X E \� } - 71 New \ _!! -730C CI ...A...� 1 1 , ...‘...„..4.1 \1 ��1 1' 740 A sail ribmill ii 43. •\ 00 1 ! 0 i-- 0 _ .. . y irrnli y �V ` • m 1>->...-..'--:-- 7500 •�1aIgrall M I. �� _':!Noon - �p • � `°. / - Z..� -7600 -• •. �f� j t'1 - � , a,J . � ' �: .. 2 � 1 + � 7700 Q S`�'— i I 1 -• /' `Y 71TH gT3 Z. — r ----7800 �' �J - s• lw.; :'.. 1 c 10 U i 1 7900 .::: .., • AFe ice' dC00 I, corco ti �;'W�\`;die a..NI q —aloo — :seat Nil • / ` ) r • 4•, R P !- - 9200 "� DAKOT• l A h t \..,5INNEN CI.•U.E -8300 — i R/CE . L7a. +. .�/ff�SH .Yc� , r`-'--X500 i i 'cv • I � �`t— - Nsoo � 1 - Quattro Addition June 21, 1989 Page 2 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and approved the proposed site plan for a second garage on the site — (Attachment #1) . One of the conditions of approval was that the property would be replatted to combine the two lots into one single industrial office park lot. ANALYSIS — The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat which combines the two lots into one lot, Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Addition. The final plat must provide the front, rear and side easements as — required by the Engineering Department. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: — "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #89-2 to replat Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1, Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Addition as shown on the preliminary plat dated " with the condition that the final plat provide the typi- - cal front, side and rear easements. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated May 17 , 1989 . 2 . Preliminary plat dated "May 25 , 1989" . • Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 42 5. 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 provide screening between the southerly lots and the Gowen property. All voted in favor and the motion carried . SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE ADDITION OF 2, 920 SQUARE FEET ONTO AN EXISTING PRIVATE GARAGE (BEDDOR) , ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 2, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, FORTIER AND ASSOCIATES. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Emmings: Daryl , do you have any comments? Daryl Fortier : I 'm Daryl Fortier with Fortier and Associates. We are pretty much in agreement with the staff report. We hope it's a brief report for you tonight. The additional landscaping , point 2 on the staff recommendations, we would like to simply see the provisions for caliper inch per caliper inch basis deleted and say that we will work with staff and the DNR forester for appropriate replacement. Our simple concern here - is that if the owner wishes , as he' s expressed , to keep the center of the site free, we are losing 6 trees in this area and we' ve already proposed landscaping around the edges . If it ' s caliper inch per caliper inch , we would have to be putting in so many trees , we think there's a real crowding problem. We would rather simple say let ' s look at the actual trees and meet with staff and the DNR forester rather than make the provision that it — be caliper inch per caliper inch. We' re not objecting to replacing trees. We are proceeding with the replat that Jo Ann suggested. The issue of outside storage, I think she suggested , that ' s actually located right at this location. He has a flatbed trailer which is about 24 inches high or so to haul his vehicles to different shows and different events . and driveway curb and gutter . I 'm sure that ' s fine. . . PreviouslyPthisng portion of the building was built and there was an exemption from curb and gutter . The curb and gutter for the property is along this portion of the driveway and is all along the south portion of the driveway right up to the building and that channels water to storm sewers in this location . The remainder of the curbing was deleted specifically because the center of this site is used for auto contour shows . Mr . Beddor has two automotive clubs that he operates out of his garage. They do not store their cars there but he does invite them there for display and car shows . that I know of that I ' ve attended so I really can ' t say that thisnis one frequent but I can say that there are a number of cars . there were about 60 cars that showed up and they are parkedtk onntheast grassme and they go out in an array pattern with a main tent , their hospitality in this location. Curbs would be very difficult to drive over, especially for a bulk of the cars . They simply wouldn ' t do it so the provision of curbs in this case would be defeating his purpose of having a specific facility for automotive display and car shows . The second reason we want to keep Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 43 • the center of the site open is that one of the vehicles they' re storing there is now a helicopter. It is a safety problem to land a helicopter on — a curb. Of course they have to land on skids. They don' t necessarily have wheels and after you land you have small wheels that drop down from the skids. You can think of it as a horse drawn sleigh if you will . The — runners are about the same size. The wheels are attached to the runners and you snap lock them into position . They are about 2 1/2 or 3 inches. You then have to push the helicopter. It is a small 2 person helicopter. You then have to push the helicopter into storage. If you drop is over a curb of course you' re subject to damaging your equipment. You can. . .when you jar a fuel line loose or whatever the problem would be. The second thing is that pushing the helicopter back up the curb, once you're in the — garage and you try to push it over a curb, it' s a real tough problem. You simply can' t do it with 3 inch wheels when you have a 6 inch curb. The runners would prevent you from pulling the helicopter into position unless — we were to make a special asphalt helicopter landing pad . That would be the only alternative and it would have to be large enough so of course you have some safety margin and that ' s the reason we' re requesting no concrete curb and gutter. The final point I 'd like to clarify is the applicant shall submit for approval by the City a drainage and erosion control plan. This is a little more complex. There are actually two proposals before you tonight. One is for drainage improvements in accordance with the previous engineering plans for all of Park One which envisioned that at some time we would connect from Lyman Lumber ' s overflow with an underground storm sewer pipe to the public system. This could never be built as part of the Park One improvements because it' s on private property. It ' s a private improvement and we cannot spend the funds for it. We' re now intending to do that. It ' s this reason that we' ll lose trees . The issue of ponding and so forth has been raised by the engineer but it 's already been addressed. The 20 acres in the northerly part of Park One has created a very large outlot down here. Part of the Ver-Sa-Til project contains this large duck pond that we' ve created in the site and maintained trees . Create a natural site. That's intending to drain all of Park One. It ' s been appropriately sized for settlement and contains . . .so we would not have individual holding ponds in small lots. The lots were simply too small so we' ve already sized them and did all the engineering . . .public funds partially and partially project funds and it' s been assessed against the property so we'd like to point out that a greater amount of impervious surface here has already been calculated. . . .as parking lot so that' s the basis for the calculations and — we are not even approaching anything near that for runoff capacity. Secondly, a grading plan. There is literally no grading involved with the exception of excavating for footings on the garage. The site does not — require any grading. It ' s already perfectly flat. Our survey has been submitted . The reason the engineer doesn ' t see any grading changes is because we' re not changing grades by more than a couple of inches and our surveyer cannot be that accurate. Neither can our contractor so he may have missed the grading plan but it is indeed there. The issue of erosion control has been addressed and again it may have been overlooked but it is actually being addressed as part of the storm sewer line. We have asked for silt fences and we have asked for 5 cubic yards of rip rap to be placed at this location. This is the very same standards we use in the construction of all the improvements in Park One including the City' s public improvements so we think that ' s adequate and since it ' s the same Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 44 standard that the engineer has participated in approving as well as the city's consulting engineers, we feel that should be adequate on the present plans as we' ve requested . With those comments , we have no objections to the staff report. Conrad : What do you agree with? Daryl Fortier : We certainly agree that, I 'm not sure why, it' s a large issue, we are not imposing utilities for this. It is intended to be essentially dry storage for this if you will . There is not intended to be any maintenance but I 'm not sure why we want to put a condition suggesting — that they never do maintenance. If it' s going to be approved as a commercial permanent structure which is what the Council wanted, I 'm not sure why we' re limiting it. He has no intent of doing repairs but I 'm not sure why we are limiting it. Olsen : Because we got into all those traps . Daryl Fortier: If we put in drainage, then we have to worry about pumps . We put in sanitary sewer connection onto the building as previously requested. We did that immediately during construction. It has flammable — waste traps . It has oil separators . It has a hydraulic lift. It has a parts washer. It has solvent recovery. It meets all the requirements. It has testing facilities and where the fuel tank can be monitored on a weekly _ basis if necessary. Yearly by the State Inspector . I think we' re in full compliance with absolutely all the concerns previously listed for this structure. One of the concerns is whether or not it drains. If we put in drains . . .all the protection. In this case there are no drains. No proposals to hook up plumbing whatsoever so the ability to do those types of repairs to provide water just doesn ' t exist . I 'm just not sure why we' re making it an issue. We certainly agree with replacing of the trees for the forester , point 2. We certainly agree to proceed with the plat. We agree no additional outside storage should be permitted . It ' s an industrial use. We would ask for an exemption for point 5. We think the curb and gutter should be deleted for the reasons I mentioned . Not for economics but for other hardship reasons and we would agree that we will discuss or we will consult with staff concerning grading and so forth but we believe we' ve already submitted sufficient information and it perhaps deals with mutliple plans that ' s been overlooked . That ' s all unless you have questions . Ernmings : Let ' s see if there are any comments here . Jim, have you got any comments? Wildermuth : No . Batzli : How do you feel about the curb and gutter? Wildermuth : We didn ' t require it the first time, why do we need it the second time? Ellson : Ah ha . There ' s that precedent that you just said about the last guy. You ' ll ask him the next time he comes in but as soon as he does , Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 45 ' he' ll say but I didn' t do it the first time. Batzli : I was going to talk about condition 1 a little bit first of all . I guess my question was whether we would allow maintenance or repair of automobiles anywhere on the site or were you only trying to limit it in that new building? Olsen : The reason that I put that condition in was if they do start the repair and maintenance then we get into the other things that the other garage had to do with the traps . That ' s the only reason I had that condition in there was so they would not be doing that work in there without having the accommodations for it. Batzli : Okay, so the garage and the new facility are the same thing? Olsen : Yes . Batzli : So really what you' re saying is , you' re only going to use the new facility as a garage and if you use it for anything else, you've got to talk about it. That ' s what you' re trying to say? Olsen: That's what I 'm trying to say. Batzli : I think I would go along with landscaping being done on a staff approval basis. I think that the curb and gutter , there' s a certain amount - of logic to it but I think that you can make a little ramp or something . I don ' t think it ' s the kind of thing where you eliminate all of the curb and gutter throughout the entire site because you ' re going to drive some cars on the grass. Finally I think condition 6, if that is the case then I think the condition should remain but add something to the effect that these things only have to be submitted if required after consultation with the City staff. Emmings : Now Annette . What about curb and gutter? Ellson: This doesn ' t have it because originally this was never required right? Not because we gave them an exemption at one point? Olsen: I don' t remember . I don' t know if we even required it. Wildermuth : Curbing was waived right? Conrad: The first time it was waived. Ellson : Tb-at really doesn ' t matter now but . . . Conrad: It really appeared at that time that it served no purpose. Ellson: Then why do we have it as an ordinance? Then maybe it should be looked at on a case by case basis but if we write it in there that everything around here should have it and yet we use it and enforce it on a case by case basis , then it ' s stupid to have it in there so I 'd just as soon follow what the ordinance says . Like Brian said , like have a cut out Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 46 — for a driveay to actually help the wheels get down. It might be easier than on the wet grass or something like that to have a little concrete ramp or who knows what that' s connected to a curb. I would be satisfied if Jo Ann said the tree replacement is good enough, then I go along with her saying . If Dave were here though I know he 'd want 1 inch for 1 inch, an eye for an eye. Erhart: What happens if it' s a 12 inch tree? Ellson: I know. That' s just it. We' re going to have to decide that. _ I think there' s some merit to the reason we were going to that is because we really lost something once and never returned so I 'm giving Jo Ann that leeway. But I want the curb and I think number 6 should stand . If they've got it in, then just show it to them that it is here. I 'm done. — Conrad : I thought this was a simple deal but now that we get into it and Daryl doesn' t like most of the staff report, I think we should table. _ There are too many technical things that I just don' t understand . I think he had a comment. It showed me that the engineer is not looking at what is there and I 'd like the engineer to comment to me about the issues and I 'm not smart enough to figure out whether we should or should not require curb — and gutter here. The engineer said the grading plan yet Daryl says hey, we' re not doing anything . Something ' s askew and it ' s not for me to make up. I think I would recommend tabling it. — Olsen : The engineer does understand that he wants to still drive up there and stuff. Conrad : He ' s still saying that . But I hear from Daryl , I heard some comments from him that it didn' t sound like there was communication and maybe some different points . Maybe that ' s not the one but others . I don ' t — know. I don' t know whether curb and gutter should be required here. I know we slipped it the first time through. Olsen: Again, we were waiting until the mini-storage and further development . Conrad : Daryl , just one other comment . The trailers are now being stored — outside. Is that taken care of? The staff comment to us was that existing garage is used for storage/maintenance. Site is conforming to the request and conditions of the site but there are trailers being stored outside which was not anticipated in the beginning . So is this new plan taking care of that? They' re saying we ' re storing one trailer between buildings but what about the trailers that are currently outside now? Daryl Fortier : I 'm only aware of one trailer that' s outside right now. There may be more. If there are more it ' s probably because we pulled them out of storage so he could do something in the garage. There is presently — room in here . They do store a trailer inside but he recently purchased , I understand , a larger trailer which sits in here. That ' s the only trailer I 'm aware of which is too large for the structure. Conrad: Staff is saying trailers are being stored outside . Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 47 Olsen : The day that we visited , there were 2 or 3 on the lot . Daryl Fortier: I think that could be much like saying cars are stored outside. He had brought these out and put them out here. . . Erhart: I visited the site this evening and it' s a very neat site. Regarding , well let' s take one at a time here. Not having maintenance in a building. What's this trap you' re referring to Jo Ann? Olsen : I believe the first time they went through they had to have a special trap for the fuel oil. Wildermuth : For spills. Olsen: There was a lot of discussion on that. Erhart: Any building in any industrial , in any garage a guy can pull a car in and maintain it. Wildermuth : But with that original garage I think there' s a floor lift and a wash station and all kinds of areas for working on cars . Erhart : The problem with this condition is that , then we ought to apply this condition to everybody. Everybody that' s got an overhead door in the city ought to have this condition applied to it. Emmings : My recollection of this Tim, and I don ' t know if it helps or not , is that what I remember us saying when we considered this is what we ' re creating here is essentially a service station. The same kinds of consideration ought to be given to this building as would be given to a service station because that' s essentially what it is. It' s private rather than. . . Erhart : But someone doesn ' t come in with their car to have it fixed that he charges them does he? Emmings : No but he' s got the same equipment and doing the same kinds of things that would be done down at the Standard station. Erhart : I do that at my home too in my garage. Conrad: Not everyday. Not multi-cars . Erhart : I don ' t think anybody feels strong about condition 1. To me it also seems pretty much over control . Batzli : This is a commercial area and you' re not . This would be a permitted use in this area. Erhart : I could pull a car into my industrial plant too and tear the engine out, there' s no one that says I can ' t do that . Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 48 • Ellson: They wouldn' t like it though. Olsen : If you ' re going to do it, we just like to know that everything else is taken care of that needs to be done as part of it. — Ellson : He didn' t seem to have a problem with that one. He had a few he had a problem with, that wasn' t one of them. Erhart : Let' s move on. I agree with him it seems a little bit over control . The next one on the landscaping. Essentially the line where that _ ditch is right now, essentially is just grown over and to go in and measure which trees are caliper per caliper basis could mean that you have to move the, you might have to just literally that whole edge of the lot to replace caliper to caliper so I don't know. I 'd be just satisfied to say additional landcaping shall be provided as required by staff and just use good judgment on it because it's very difficult to use a technical approach to it. The outside storage, in other industrial sites there' s outside storage and then the whole thing has to be screened right and here we' re allowing an exception essentially by allowing one outside. Olsen: It is essentially screened on 3 sides . — Erhart : Yes , the whole area is pretty wooded . I guess I don ' t have a problem with 4 leaving it the way it is even though technically I supposed it might be not in accordance with our rules . The next thing is the curb and gutter . I think in this case the specific intention of the use of this owner here , in the first place there ' s a lot of asphalt there now for the small lot and none of it' s curbed and gutter so to go in and require curb and gutter on this new section would mean you have about 20o curd and gutter and 80% just like your home driveway which would really look out of place. Now how I can justify in my mind allowing this building owner not require curb and gutter is that he has a specific requirement that he needs his driveway tailored in the manner in which it is . The Level of the asphalt is level with the green grass and I think we ' re not setting a _ precedent . Somebody else would have to come in with a specific need to have their asphalt driveway the same level as the grass so I guess I don ' t have any problem in extending essentially the same rules on that. Batzli : Can I interrupt just for a second Tim? What did we do with, was it Lyman Lumber that had the asphalt strip and then behind it they had a bunch of piles of rock and stuff and they were going to use, I don' t know if they were going to use forklifts or frontend loaders or something . Did we make them have gutter? I think we did . Wildermuth : The unusual part about this thing is that the applicant is — going to use a commercial location in an industrial office park location for a non-commercial use . I don ' t know if you ' ve been in there but a lot of houses that are built look like the inside of this garage. Erhart : The exterior is definitely, it ' s definitely an industrial building. Wildermuth : Yes right . — Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 49 Erhart : It ' s a good quality industrial but it is an industrial building so — it fits in from that standpoint . Lastly, where is this grading thing in these conditions? Is that in here? Conrad : The last one. Daryl is saying there ' s not much grading to do. Erhart: Okay, I think we should just leave 6 the way it is and let the applicant and the City hash that one out and I guess I 'd like to pass this on to Council . I think it's ready to go. Emmings: I'd like to ask you about the helicopter . I wonder if we knew we had an airport in town and can you basically have a helicopter anywhere you want to? Olsen: We don ' t have any restrictions against them. We have had complaints about the helicopter. Emmings : This was proposed and approved as a garage for automobiles . I know I don ' t know what' s going on with the helicopter or if there are any safety issues or noise issues or anything else. Olsen: But we are getting complaints . We' re working through public safety on how to address it. We don' t have any definitive answers . The zoning ordinance doesn' t regulate them and we' re working with public safety to possibly regulate them. I know that Prince has one on his site too and they just have to meet the FAA. Emmings : They'd probably pre-empt anything we 'd do . I don ' t know except for something like noise or something . Erhart : I would venture to guess that cities would have ordinances which we ought to look at that would have some kind of space requirement. Some distance requirements from a landing pad to a building and to the next person 's property. I ' ve just got to believe that that would be common in an ordinance regarding helicopters . Olsen: What we' re working on now is we' re telling the resident that when you hear the noise or whatever, try to get somebody out there to test it. Use the noise ordinance and it' s not going to work. Batzli : Did we have a noise ordinance? — Olsen : Yes . Batzli : The beefed up one didn ' t pass but we have a noise ordinance? Olsen: It' s more of a nuisance ordinance rather than a noise ordinance . So we have no way to deny them. Ellson: Hours of operation maybe . Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 50 • Emmings: I don ' t know if we should table it or pass it on. I guess I 'd be comfortable in passing it on but I think there are things that need to be worked out between now and when the City Council gets it . Things like traps and stuff, it seems to me you only worry about a trap if you've got a — drain and there aren' t any drains so I 'm not that concerned about number 1. Number 2, I agree with everybody else that it should be done by the staff and we don ' t have to worry about a caliper inch by caliper inch. That' s because Dave 's not here and that's the only reason I have the courage to say that. I don ' t see any reason now to impose curb and gutter . If we let it go before looking for some kind of a reason we thought to be valid at the time, I don ' t see any reason to impose it on this small section. I think we should keep in number 6 and you should just discuss your differences with the city engineer prior to going to the City Council . That's all I 've got. Any other discussion on this? If not, is there a — motion? Erhart: I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan _ #89-3 for the construction of a 2, 920 sq. ft. garage facility as shown on the Site Plan dated April 13, 1989 with the conditions as follows. Number 2, change to additional landscaping shall be provided as required by staff . 3 as stated here. 4 as stated changing the word "the transport flatbed" to — "1 transport flatbed" . Number 5, all parking and driveway areas shall be paved period . And 6 as is. And that ' s it . Batzli : Did you delete number 1? Erhart : Yes . Olsen : And number 5 I changed just to say all parking and driveway areas shall be paved. Emmings : We could do that one like we did on Stockdales . You could say unless the City Engineer determines . Erhart : Ours i.s a recommendation so if the City Engineer came to the Council . Emmings : I mean unless the City Engineer determines now or in the future — that curb and gutter is necessary. . . Just a suggestion. Conrad : That ' s a good way to do i.t. Emmings: Alright, we' ve got a motion. Do we have a second? Wildermuth : I ' ll second the motion . — Batzli : I 'd like to see condition 1 in there and I would also at a minimum like to see your proposed . . . — Ellson : Gutter idea? Batzli : Gutter idea but the problem I see is that , the only reason I really agreed on the guttering last time i.s he ' s not in a sewered area — Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 51 and it didn' t make sense to me. To me gutter is directed to a storm sewer as well as maintaining erosion, or keeping erosion at bay. I think if we do this, we might as well be doing it on everyone that we do from here on out. Wildermuth : But have you seen the site Brian? The initial portion, 80% of it isn't going to be guttered. Batzli : That might be true but I can ' t help what they did before. Maybe I did it before. Maybe I didn 't know any better. Emmings: I think it was your motion. Batzli : Maybe it was but I guess the argument was somewhat appealing . However , I guess you can do it by other means . Wildermuth: This is a unique situation. It 's a non-commercial use of a commercial area . Erhart : The only problem is if the guy sells the property to somebody who then wants to use it for a commercial use and it doesn' t have curb and gutter . If you' re starting fresh from the site , that ' s probably a good - enough argument to require it and it probably should have been required . Wildermuth : Initially? Erhart : Yes . The fact that the site is already 70% developed . Ellson: Then isn ' t that exactly what ' s going to happen when Stockdale expands and we just put that in. We' ll want him to put that in when he expands and now we ' ll have the same viewpoint . Wildermuth : He has to come back if he expands. Ellson: I know like they' re coming back with the idea that we curb and gutter as he got bigger which is the idea behind Stockdale and we ' re not doing it now we won ' t do it then. Pretty soon we' ll have 50-50. Half have it, half don' t. - Emmings : I don ' t think that ' s a realistic danger at all because when Stockdale' s place gets water and sewer , as part of the IOP, everything there is going to be torn down and that place is going to be redeveloped and that' s different. Wildermuth : Not a comparison . — Emmings : But it' s funny we get two of these on the same night . It makes it so hard that you have to justify so many things . Daryl Fortier : Maybe I can help. . .with curb and gutters . One of the differences first of all on this plan is that ever since Frank first held out these two pieces of property for personal use , it was because such a use at his other residential lots would have been inappropriate and after Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 52 _ talking with staff we had to put it somewhere . You earlier had a proposal in here for townhomes and the object is, where do they store their boats and trailers and you said well they' ll rent a space. Where do you do it when you' ve got multiple vehicles? Not in a residential district so we — wind up here. . . . that this is indeed the best use , ever since though however, why didn' t he just set aside one lot? He ' s been following a master plan and that master plan is still being reflected and eventually it — will have another driveway connected here. That' s exactly why the storm sewer has been located by the City and by the developer . We are following a pattern. It' s not a haphazard development. It is a master plan and it is proceeding in accordance with the original designs . The curbing has been stopped here. It has been extended over this side. That is along the perimeter of the property. it will be continued along the perimeter of the property including this portion thus all the perimeter of the property will — be paved , curbed and guttered in accordance with the ordinance even if it were to be transferred to someone else. It would be fully. That will still keep the center portion of the site open. It will contain already water and runoff. It will serve all the purposes of being curbed and guttered . The future owner may or may not paved this or may or may not do something else with it 5 or 10 years down the road but a better idea may well be to support this since this is following a master plan , all perimeters of the property will require curb and gutter to serve a permanent statement or a compromise position and that ' s , whenever he makes any additional cuts in here or adds to this perimeter area , he would indeed — have to add curb and gutter . Emmings: But we' re not seeing any perimeter work on this plan so I don ' t think it would make sense to add it as a condition here. When he adds that driveway over there , would that come back to us or would it just go to the engineer? Olsen : Are you talking like the mini-storage? Daryl Fortier: Right. He ' s already proposed the second driveway in here. — Olsen : If he just put the driveway in , no but if they come in with a site plan for mini-storage, then yes we would see that . Emmings : If he put the driveway in , where does the driveway go? Daryl Fortier : The driveway goes right in front of this future building and connects from here to here . — Olsen: It would be part of that mini-storage addition. Daryl Fortier : That ' s correct . Olsen: Then you would see it . Wildermuth : What kind of a mini -storage addition is this going to be? Daryl Fortier : Mr. Beddor seems to becoming a collector of things. Some of them look like, I noticed that he' s looked at some Jaguars recently and — Planning Commission Meeting May 17 , 1989 - Page 53 he may well become a vintage car collector in which case it would be private mini-storage. He also has a few friends who would say they would like to store their vehicle here so he stores all his own vehicles but if he ever wanted to invite personal friends to also store or other members of the car club, he would undoubtedly put them in these mini-storage. It — would again be for vehicles. That' s the best I can predict at this time but you' re fully informed at least . Emmings: I 'm glad somebody has a master plan. Daryl Fortier : That ' s part of what the previous Council and Planning Commission was based on. There is curb and gutter along this area. Also along both sides of the driveway to make sure that any runoff coming from the site is funneled in this storm sewer. It was not a blanket statement saying no curb and gutter required . Emmings: And the site isn' t being changed. Are there any existing problems with runoff or erosion or anything else? Daryl Fortier: From this area , all the erosion and runoff would go immediately to this small area where we have erosion control measures and this new holding pond is going to happen because we cannot prevent it. - Its a low lying area that it will fill up if there' s an unusual amount of rain and that' s in addition to the previous pond for siltation and erosion control . So it' s well covered that any possible injury by not having curb and gutter is just a miniscule possibility. Aside from any injury on his property but to the public benefit there would be virtually no affect. I hope that helps somewhat. - Emmings : It just doesn ' t look like curb and gutter is going to make any difference here. I guess if the City Engineer , if the motion passes the way it ' s schedule, if the City Engineer has a different opinion on that when he gets to City Council . . .but the site, all of it seems to ;lave been taken care of on the site . Ellson: But your motion you still didn ' t put number 1 in right? Batzli : And you didn ' t accept Steve' s friendly amendment about the adding it at a later date and that kind of thing? Erhart: I ' ll do it if somebody wants it in there, I ' ll agree. Batzli : Do you agree with that amendment? Wildermuth: Sure. Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #89-3 for the construction of a 2, 920 sq. ft . garage facility as shown on the Site Plan dated April 13 , 1989 with the following conditions : 1. Additional landscaping shall be provided as required by city staff . Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 54 _ • 2. The applicant shall receive a replat of the site to combine Lots 1 and 2, Park One. 3. There shall be no outside storage other than one (1) transport flat bed which shall be stored between the two garages . 4. All parking and driveway areas shall be paved and surrounded by concrete curb and gutter only if now or in the future the City Engineer determines that they are necessary. 5. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer a drainage and erosion plan prior to final approval . Erhart, Emmings, Wildermuth and Batzli voted in favor of the motion and Conrad and Ellson voted in opposition of the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Ellson: I want number 1 in there. Emmings : Annette wants number 1 in there. Ladd wants to table it. Conrad: I think it should be tabled. There were 4 out of 6 points that were disagreed to by the applicant versus staff and I think somethings , I would have preferred to have the engineer look at. I 'm also very concerned about future owners and what this property looks like and I don ' t know that that has been incorporated as a sale could occur . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Conrad moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes — of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 3, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor except Batzli and Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION. Emmings : Do we want to add airports to our on-going? I was outside watering my garden this morning at about 6 : 15. A helicopter was out going over TH 5 and I think it was probably one of the traffic reporters . Conrad: The one that was out by our house had the ability to spray. Had the big tubes on the bottom. Emmings: It was incredibly loud . Batzli : Is there anything in the City ordinances about landing airplanes with pontoons on them on the lakes? Emmings : Yes . Minnewashta is the only one that we' ve got that they can do that. — I T o PP D y VC a A\ l'. 200.C151 O rt. \ ♦ A K V • I_ s / /' /\ N N - /w \ / \\'`••. ...- _-- I 1 �, r l _� 1N / y /I / / // I / / D ,tea,,,, I , , , D , / -,— � /� •, t..., / Z 4 I ---•-s1. / a j l /l / M i i DO i s / - //\ I I I I1 I 1 I J I II I I / 1 J I 1 / / I 1 1 1. 1 u0 / / / I I 1 I .(.--D \ j ___________ 11 QUATTRO DRIVE O a y > r o o> n O E r, n tlyf O> > r Oo _ _ f�j o 5 > > X00 A 1.r NA z •� y N Q• r O 2>� 0 n - __ y0 y -700 2 n N 0000 9 C 0 O n P 2••• ;9 O .500.5 O 0 A p w ^o> ft 2gK & z m SOY i CO 2 E v.1;cl P r N •-..1 r• 3 .7:1.,•;i 7 p = N 21.)Ai a .� (` L > t .1C, a , 0 y# O� . 5.4 V 2 rCV1.' 2 P N' 0 .. Nt• AO 0 2fnw •■ Y• D .. ..•C `O j 9ZZf2-i •.•• ••••• o D Ai z .... 0 '2'1 yz . 0 SI y O A A N > y H • = y_ N 33 0 r Kr Q 0 I 11 0 C I TY O F P.C. DATE: June 14 , 1989 CHA iY���� � C.C. DATE: July 10, 1989 E CASE NO: 89-5 WAP Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for the Partial — Construction of Lake Drive and TH 101/Market Boulevard _ z LOCATION: South of Hwy. 5 and North of Lake Susan QAPPLICANT: City of Chanhassen PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IOP & OI ; vacant & Church S- IOP; Rosemount site & city park QE- IOP; vacant — (a W- IOP; Rosemount/Co. Rd. 17 LLI WATER AND SEWER: — PHYSICAL CHARAC. : 2000 LAND USE PLAN: /4Ir 't c.• 014414 1 7 D....R . ' ar / !'-'4,,,,,- Is se Ikg "" „till „nig!. LA imiz % \_,...., 4 , ,-,''. Inaliali%vii,44. rill tr4 i MK*Vei d. o -, p1 ' ,' d - m ' 1111V-1kso�\ L A A(E - /e..) lift/ II I I+0 1 16 rim lilialaP111 4.0"" --# ' ,s ___R S r . bk 14•AVIL s. 1III 1111 C. _FIt s • Pr It, R4 ' e Pi k E` !�`^� ��i 01111 � • 5A ..� if ��Sir 4,--liar .. VI ej E "(I. i 4111, • T cIlii it i = o i -i■w6angieiw —R i < R 12 I 01 - / •• IIll• E. ten.-ice �1C� — s a NW MIN. IMPI,WW1 s� R 12 . !� . 2.4 I J� Y iit�� X11 .* jew..1.142niF c4 ' r — - `" . ties chag" r-. ■ 1111111111 Fc . / I lop // i = �0 b .: " 411 Gi l w. PAC�� o� STATE y in i IP I G�IW AY .'�� - = I (1' 3 >. � tire! min • ,t, . II IIP ) : �`c. • rAr 4 / I -,yi`^lN.GELEN 0 CI 1 o L A/(F SUSAN J -J CO RD . ni.ij . . ,. , .. 4.\, al { �j 1 ,� \� lL______ - - ' i 86 TM ST f — ri �J Lake Drive WAP June 21, 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-421 requires a wetland alteration permit for any digging, dredging, or filling of a Class A or B wetland. Section 20-437 allows a minimum amount of filling of a wetland with the following considerations: 1. Any filling shall not cause total natural flood storage capa- city of the wetland to fall below or fall below further the projected volume of runoff from the watershed generated by a 5 . 9" rainfall in 24 hours. Since the total amount of filling which can be permitted is limited apportionment of fill opportunities for other properties abutting the wetland shall be considered. 2 . Any filling shall not cause total nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to be diminished to an extent that is detri- mental to any area river, lake or stream. 3 . Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic waste may be used. 4. Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation. 5 . Filling the wetland areas will not be permitted during water- - fowl breeding or fish spawning season unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. Section 20-438 dredging will be allowed only when it will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological or hydrological charactertics of the wetlands . Dredging when allowed shall be limited as follows : 1. It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. 2 . It shall not adversely change water flow. 3 . The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. 4 . Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland district unless specifically authorized in the wetland alteration permit. 5 . Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures. 6 . Dredging in any wetland areas is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is deter- mined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. Lake Drive WAP — June 21, 1989 Page 3 ANALYSIS The City is applying for a wetland alteration permit to allow the construction of Lake Drive and Market Boulevard. Market Boulevard will be extended south from Hwy. 5 to just south of the proposed access to Rosemount property and Lake Drive will be extended from Market Boulevard to Powers Boulevard. Within the — proposed road alignment, there exists five wetlands protected by the city. The first plan sheet shows an overall plan of the pro- posed Market and Lake Drive right-of-way and the five wetlands impacted by the construction of the streets. Two of the wetlands are Class A wetlands ( #3 and #5) and the remaining three are Class B wetlands ( #1, #2 and #4) . The project manager for the construction of Market Boulevard and Lake Drive is Gary Ehret from BRW. Mr. Ehret has provided a memo detailing the project and the wetlands that will be impacted and — proposed mitigative measures (Attachment #1) . The DNR, Corps of Engineers, and Fish and Wildlife Service have been closely involved with staff in determining the location of _ and the impact to the wetlands with recommendations for mitiga- tive measures. The following table summarizes the wetlands that will be impacted by Lake Drive and Market Boulevard. Wetland Type Area of Impact Basin Size Wetland #1 Class B 1. 5 acres 4 . 1 acres Wetland #2 Class B . 01 acres 1. 1 acres _ Wetland #3 Class A .14 acres 3 . 5 acres Wetland #4 Class B 1. 05 acres 2 .5 acres Wetland #5 Class A (Type VII) . 35 acres 2 . 5 acres The #1 wetland is located east of Powers Boulevard and west of Lake Susan Park. The #1 wetland is a Class B wetland which is of marginal quality. Lake Drive is being located through the most northerly portion of the wetland ( 1. 5 acres) . The #2 wetland is a Class B wetland of marginal quality. Lake Drive will be impacting a small southerly portion of the wetland ( . 01 acres) . The #3 wetland is a Class A wetland of good quality. This wetland was protected as part of the Rosemount Site Plan approval. The location of Lake Drive will be filling a small portion along the northerly edge of the Class A wetland ( 1. 4 acres) . Many alter- _ natives were reviewed by the city to reduce any impact to the #3 wetland and the proposed alignment of Lake Drive proposes the least amount of impact to the Class A wetland. Lake Drive WAP June 21, 1989 Page 4 The #4 wetland has already been significantly altered as part of the Rosemount site plan. Essentially, this Class B wetland is now a storm water detention pond. The city is still including the 1 . 05 acres of area that will be impacted by Lake Drive and Market Boulevard in terms of replacement within the mitigation areas. The #5 wetland is a Class A Type VII wetland which is a lowland forested area. The proposed Market Boulevard will be impacting the most southwesterly portion of the wetland ( approximately .35 acres) . The #5 wetland is a very high quality wetland which should be protected as best possible. The first set of plans show Lake Drive continuing through the #5 wetland. Lake Drive will need to be realigned at this point to preserve the #5 wetland. The right-of-way that is being proposed at this time impacts a marginal area of the #5 wetland. The higher quality portion of the wetland is located to the east and should be pre- served. Even though only a portion of the #5 wetland is being impacted, staff is still working with BRW to possibily move Market Boulevard further to the west and to relocate the entrance into Rosemount in order to further redice the impact to the #5 wetland. MITIGATION There is a total of 3 . 85 acres of wetland that will impacted by Lake Drive and Market Boulevard. The Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that a 1 to 1 offset ratio be provided to compen- - sate for lost wetland area. The #1 mitigation area located imme- diately east of Powers Boulevard, south of proposed Lake Drive and west of Lake Susan Park is providing for 3 acres of wetland mitigation. The remaining . 85 acres of mitigation is being pro- - vided on mitigation area #2 which is located on the southeast corner of the Eckankar property north of Hwy. 5 and west of Powers Boulevard. Staff has been working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide mitigation areas which meet the stan- dards of the Fish and Wildlife Service and Corps of Engineers. Page 6 of the letter from Gary Ehret dated June 14, 1989 (Attachment #1) specifically states the criteria that will be applied in the development of the #1 and #2 mitigation areas. The #2 mitigation area is currently an existing wetland. In order for improvements to this wetland to be made and for that to act as mitigation for a reduction of other wetlands within the City of Chanhassen, the Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that a separate storm water retention basin be used as a two pond system to absorb the most severe impacts from water level flu- cuation and roadway contaminants prior to it entering the larger existing wetland. The city is in the process of acquiring the property on the Eckankar site and feels that the criteria pro- vided by the Fish and Wildlife Service along with the two pond system can be provided at the site to serve as a mitigation to the impact of the other five wetlands. Lake Drive WAP June 21, 1989 Page 5 SUMMARY The proposed improvements to Lake Drive and Market Boulevard will be impacting five wetlands protected by the wetland ordinance. The alignment of Market Boulevard and Lake Drive has been chosen so that it will result in the least impact to the existing wetlands, primarily the more important wetlands #3 and #5. Staff is comfortable with the mitigation that is being provided to replace the impacts to the five wetlands. The Fish and Wildlife and Corps of Engineers have been closely involved with this pro- ject to guarantee that the mitigation will meet the criteria of the Fish and Wildlife Service and Corps of Engineers and will benefit the City of Chanhassen. — RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration — Permit #89-5 for the construction of Lake Drive and Market Boulevard with the following conditions : 1 . The mitigation areas #1 and #2 as shown on Figure 1 will pro- vide the criteria as recommended on Page 6 of letter from Gary Ehret dated June 14, 1989. 2. The mitigation area #2 would be initiated within the next 18 months and a separate storm water retention basin shall be used as a two pond system to absorb the most severe impacts from water level flucuation and roadway contaminants entering the adjacent wetland. 3. The applicant must receive permit approval from the Corps of Engineers and the Watershed District. 4 . Staff will work with the alignment of Market Boulevard and Lake Drive to reduce the amount of impact to the #5 wetland. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Gary Ehret dated June 14, 1989. 2 . Plans for overall protection. 3 . Detailed wetland plans. 4 . Detailed plan on mitigation area #1. ~ ^ TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING URBAN DESIGN BRW INC • THRESHER SQUARE - 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55415 • PHONE 612 370-0700 FAx 612 370-1378 June 14, 1989 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: JoAnn Olson — Assistant City Planner RE: Wetland Alteration Permit City Project 88-22 Lake Drive/TH 101 Alignment Dear JoAnn, As you are aware, the City of Chanhassen has undertaken the construction of Lake Drive between County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) and Market Boulevard (TH 101 realigned) . The primary function of these roadways will be to provide access to the new Rosemount facility currently under construction. Additional development is occurring on Lots 1, 2 and 3 on the north side of Lake Drive. This develop- ment will gain primary access from Lake Drive, as will the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ. Ultimately, Market Boulevard will be designated as TH 101 and will carry traffic between TH 212 and TH 5. In order for construction to begin, we have made application for the necessary permits for construction. A wetland alteration permit is necessary for this project. In the following pages we hope to provide the necessary information for this permit application. Project Overview The project is to be constructed through completion of the bituminous base course by December of this year (1989) in order to provide access to Rosemount, prior to the opening of their facility. The soils found within the project area are horrendous thus requiring special construction methods (surcharging the roadway) which have implications on the project schedule. Construction of the project should commence no later than July 15, 1989 and hopefully sooner in order to meet the completion dates established in the development agreements between the City and Rosemount Corporation. We are currently proceeding through the permitting and bidding stage of the project. Bids are to be received Thursday, June 15, 1989, with City Council award tentatively set for June 26, 1989. Permit applications for the project have been made to the following agen- cies: AN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT RINGROSE WOLSFELD JARVIS.GARDNER INC GROUP DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS LAWRENCE J GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E HUNT MARK G SWENSON JOHN 13 McNAMARA RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF JEFFREY L BENSON RALPH C BLUM DAVID L GRAHAM MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST PETERSBURG JoAnn Olson June 14, 1989 Page 2 #1 Minnesota Department of Health #2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency #3 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission #4 Carver County #5 Mn/DOT #6 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed #7 Army Corps of Engineers #8 City of Chanhassen The project award will be dependent upon receipt of final approval from all of the permitting agencies. The City of Chanhassen Wetland Alteration Permit is an important element of the review process for this project. In the following paragraphs we would like to summarize the available information to be considered in the wetland alteration permit application review. Existing Conditions The overall project area which is illustrated on Figure 1, consists of the construction of Lake Drive from County Road 17 on the west to Market Boulevard (TH 101) on the east, and the construction of Market Boulevard from TH 5 on the _ north to future Lake Drive East (Rosemount entrance) on the south. The project has impacts to five (5) existing wetlands as illustrated in Figure 1. The wetlands are primarily Type III (Corp of Engineers designation) wetlands with Wetland #5 being a Type VII wetland. Prior to the Rosemount project, these wetlands consisted of the following basin sizes: Wetland # Existing Basin Size 1 4.1 Ac 2 1. 1 Ac _ 3 3.5 Ac 4 2.5 Ac 5 2.5 Ac* *This basin size is estimated. Final determination has not been made by the Corps of Engineers. Previous review and approval has been given to the Opus Corporation for altera- tion of Wetland #3 and #4 for construction of the Rosemount project. On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, we are submitting for consideration, this permit application for alteration of all five wetlands. Related Information The wetlands affected by this project were initially reviewed by members of our BRW staff in about February of 1989. At that time it was our determination that these wetlands were under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and _ would require either an individual permit or nation-wide permit from the Corp. JoAnn Olson June 14, 1989 Page 3 We have been working with representatives of the Corp since that time. After reviewing relevant information, it has been the position of the Corp to this date, that, if the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were met, the Corps of Engineers would issue a nation-wide permit for this project for the alteration of these wetlands. This is currently an on-going permit application. We hope to obtain the final permit from the Army Corps of Engineers within the next three weeks to one month. Site Description The project area consists of agricultural land, wetlands, woodlands and some church property. The new alignment of TH 101 encroaches on two wetlands (#4 and #5) . The Lake Drive alignment also crosses Wetland #4, in addition to three others (#1, #2 and #3) . Wetlands 1 and 4 will also be used as detention/sedimentation ponds. Figure 1 identifies the wetland boundaries, wetland types , and areas impacted by road construction and by detention pond use. Figures 2, 3, and 4 illustrate the individual wetland impacts in more detail . Each of the five affected wetlands is described below and the indivi - dual impacts are summarized in Table 1. Wetland 1: Cattails, reed canary grass and goldenrods are the dominant vegeta- tion within this shallow basin. A small stand of young deciduous trees is invading this wetland on the north side. This wetland drains into Lake Susan; it was ditched in the past for agricultural use and is now only a small remnant of a once larger (approximately four acres) wetland complex. The intact part of the wetland is just under one acre. Wetland 2: This wetland covers just over one acre. It has been previously impacted by the church road and by TH 5. It is currently hydrologically con- nected to Wetland 3 by a culvert. The vegetation consists of cattails and phragmites. Box elder and cottonwoods are found along the outer edges. Wetland 3: This, the largest of the five wetlands, is 3.0 acres in size. A majority of the wetland typically has open water during much of the growing season. Cattails, reed canary grass and smartweed line the outer edges. Box elder, cottonwood and willow are found along the upland edge. Wetland 4: This wetland also has some open water during the early part of the growing season. It is bounded on the north by a steep bank that is covered with sumac. This wetland has been separated from Wetland 3 by a field road, but it remains connected hydrologically through a culvert. The vegetation consists of smartweed in the deepest part, with reed canary grass throughout. Willows and box elder are found along the upland edge. There is a low woodland east of the wetland that may also be seasonally flooded as reed canary grass is found in the understory. Wetland 5: This wetland has occassional /seasonal flooding from a localized watershed. This is considered a Type VII wetland with mature stands of trees. We estimate that it is about 2.5 acres in size; but this is subject to a final determination by the Army Corps of Engineers. JoAnn Olson June 14, 1989 _ Page 4 TABLE 1 WETLAND IMPACTS Basin Road Indirect Wetland # Size Impacts Impact (Acres) 1 4.1 1.50 0.8 2 1.1 .01 --- 3 3.5 .14 --- 4 2.5 1.05 --- 5 2.5* .35* --- Total 13.7 ac. 3.05 ac. 0.8 ac. Total impacts: 3.85 acres *The basin size and road impact areas have been subject to confirmation by the Army Corps of Engineers. Purpose and Justification The realignment of this segment of TH 101 is a part of a major roadway realign- ment project being constructed in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) . TH 101 will be relocated from its current location on the east side of the M.J. Ward property to its new location on the west side of the property. The final location for TH 101 , as shown, is the result of numerous public meetings, review with Mn/DOT, and deliberations of the City Council of Chanhassen. It is anticipated that TH 101 will serve as a minor north-south arterial between TH 5 and future TH 212. The property between TH 5 and Lake Susan is presently access locked as a result of no access from TH 5, the railroad tracks and Lake Susan. Lake Drive would serve as the only east-west route through this area. It would also serve as a vital traffic link between TH 101 and CSAH 17 by serving to relieve TH 5 traffic and providing access to the adjacent parcels including The Lutheran Church of — the Living Christ. Safe access will be provided from Lake Drive rather than TH 5 as currently exists. JoAnn Olson June 14, 1989 Page 5 Alternatives Several different alignments of Lake Drive were examined before the proposed alignment was chosen. Other alignments had different tie-in points with CSAH 17 and TH 101 , and the placement of the road itself was designed to provide dif- ferent points of access to the major developers of the subdivision. The pro- posed alignment was chosen because it is the best possible route through the site; it avoids wetland impacts where possible, it provides safe access to CSAH 17 and TH 101, and it provides access to the developing Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Numerous alignments for Market Boulevard were also considered. A final develop- ment of a Market Boulevard alignment is currently being developed. The proposed alignment from Lake Drive East to the north has the impacts outlined in Table 1. Alternatives include a minor alignment shift to the west to reduce the impacts to Wetland #5. Mitigation Wetlands were avoided in the road design process wherever possible; however, due to the location of the Rosemount Corporation development and distance restric- tions on the placement of access points to CSAH 17 and TH 101 , some wetland encroachment could not be avoided. As shown above, there is a total of 3.85 acres of wetland that would be impacted by Lake Drive and Market Boulevard. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife has recommended a one to one offset ratio to compensate for lost wetland if possible. We have estimated that the maximum available new area for wetland mitigation "on-site" is about 3.0 acres, leaving a shortfall of 0.85 acres. We are proposing "off-site" mitigation to compensate for the remaining 0.85 acres. Each of the two mitigation areas are described below. Mitigation Area #1 (On-Site) Proposed mitigation would be located just south of the Lake Drive/CSAH 17 inter- section. This area is also proposed by the City to be used as a detention pond. There is adequate space to create a 4.5-acre wetland basin that can satisfy both requirements. The area is adjacent to a City park and could be incorporated into the park system and offer opportunities to park visitors for bird watching, picnicking or just relaxing. The new wetland would have a varied bottom depth to allow for the growth of emergent vegetation and also maintain areas of open water. The edges of the wetland would not be mowed to provide transition into the adjacent upland area and to act as a natural buffer from the park area. This wetland is designed to act as a collection basin for much of the sub- - division; therefore, a skimmer will be placed at the outlet of this wetland that will control the outflow of road oils and floating debris into Lake Susan. JoAnn Olson June 14, 1989 Page 6 Specifically, the following list of criteria will be applied in the development of the mitigation area: 1. Bottom contours will be varied to promote the growth of emergent vegetation on 60 to 70 percent of the wetland area. Emergents are expected to grow where normal water depths are less than three feet. A 2: 1 ratio of emergent aquatic vegetation to open water is the most desirable for wildlife habitat. 2. Pond depths between three and five feet will be included to provide growing conditions for submergent and floating aquatic plants and open water for wildlife. 3. Emergent shoals will be constructed no lower than one foot below the ordi- nary high water mark to avoid unsafe nesting conditions during high water conditions. 4. Grassy areas on the upland should not be mowed unless required to maintain roadway rights-of-way. 5. The Wetland edge will be meandered to provide the maximum amount of upland/lowland edge possible. 6. Upland side slopes will range from 3: 1 to 10: 1. Side slopes in the wetland will range from 5: 1 to 50: 1 to provide shallow fringe areas for aquatic vegetation growth. — 7. The following seed mixture is recommended for revegetating the spoil bank areas: Seed Pounds/AC PLS* Big Bluestem 7.00 Indian Grass 7.00 Switch Grass 4.00 Oats (nurse crop) 60 * Pure Live Seed 8. Purple loosestrife will be controlled, as necessary, in accordance with currently accepted control procedures. The organic material excavated from the wetland areas will be used to line the bottom of the mitigation pond. Any extra material will be blended with surface soils and used as top dressing for the road sides and banks. Mitigation Area #2 The City of Chanhassen is currently negotiating with the owners of property _ lying north and west of the project area (Ekankar Property) but within this watershed, to acquire approximately 23. 15 acres to be used for roadway right-of- way, utility easements, storm water detention and wetland mitigation. JoAnn Olson June 14, 1989 Page 7 Acquisition of this property is related to a different project, but affords the City an opportunity to create a wetland mitigation area which will potentially serve several projects. The use of this property for wetland mitigation "credit" for this project has been agreed to in concept by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife subject to two primary conditions: #1 That the City consumate a process creating a wetland in this area within the next 18 months. #2 That a separate storm water retention basin be used as a "two pond" system to absorb the most severe impacts from water level fluctuation and roadway contaminents. Although all details have not been completely finalized for Mitigation Area #2, we feel this is a reasonable/potential alternative. Verbal agreement has been tentatively reached with the Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife for issuance of permits based upon the criteria referenced above for Mitigation Areas #1 and #2. This will be confirmed upon issuance of the final Corps of Engineers Permit shortly. The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed reviewed and approved this project at their June 7, 1989 meeting. Subject to final approval if the City of Chanhassen, the Army Corps of Engineers , and issuance of permits, construction of this project will begin shortly. We hope this adequately addresses the concerns of Staff, Planning Commission and the City Council , and provides the necessary information, as they consider the permit application. If we can be of further assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, BRW „,-17, 400 / / Gary A. ret, PE Project Manager GAE/sk - \... - % -, •' .-N .. ''. ..,-;.:::4 -, -... -•. . :•-_ ,. .....,,,- . ;, /. i1/4-,L - 12 - . . - _ • .: • "---, • „ c_ 01? .•.,.11. • ,e.- . .... . _. ....,----- ' " • ...- -- „ r ,, ,-1...,.......,,,,tT .: ( . .._ • 1 , ....- 3 •', , - . ..,,_, ,.. s :e.-... ,A3tilW.,,*iii)1 ,58lil!.,.. _ .,. .. i / -''•, st . , -,.......•-•-•r---"'- ! .„. _ - .; _______---..„ f .4004... 1 .14;4.--..:0....q.r-........ter - -.91... 10 0 .` Qlv - '- - - ,''s , --.-. - C , c .1,-,1-; i*•Fki a i-''','• :" 's.—/ ,-. -- '. 0 - . ..._-„, ., • - '-- • "-:tE:tr- eanz---r•-• • - ,•.;!' • •- . , . ,• • . • e . ' -' • '-':;* •. '' .,t ' l'k Ai ----;1' - ".-s..71 -. ..," : l --.--,1 ': .: '',..,.' q '4,,,•-•41 ,i;i*•: ,...?!) • .--_. .- ' - 1 I i ..rof 1-.-..‘"::•';';'' i•i: ' .9 ..,. _.-Vet i•?*.II!, 114-•air**t?"."Pe IOV / S __,... --... . 0 i•ki 114.4 I 11ASSe - • . '. • li‘'.7'. ' 401''' . • M -•': . ';'.rrit..'...* .f4.-:',„-',41- . ... . ' . I°, '. -- . - t . .. \ •--- - ..„. -. - I . 1.L. ,e,.. ;.,,. 4,,f 4 f..a.........41=:' "1 - ...,,/"." ./'... ...'"''. "...14." .7s i to. .• •• • : A 1K... 1•07.1.1.7 ..,,,• „ ,. MO 0 .....-.....,t. . 1 - 41 : '; a 0., . - . .:': .'”-11 -, -- r -- . . :, . 1/4 ;:-.. . , IF /11-•••\ : ... - • - -- e-11,4w 4'In 1 t .7 .- . ..." -..1'0 4'4 I ' i- -s"." ...N.' ....... ••••••••••••• •••••••••••••Hw-•••••••;;Z:4 3- .'-.7 ....eio.,(.7„,,==....__,.. -- . . ,• _ -------,----1 --..- , --, - .7'.."1". -4, .: _ . :',-- ..-$:.....2•A' -,p, „ ...-7..-; 9. ---- . •,_ .* `. r.4. --•,• *-1 - „...„ -..--..........e -r - i A C,.•1 r "‘"-------77-'1:-.7.--. . - ....„ 1. • 11 „ . ;--;'. i ' 1 7.. • _..icitc , . L...........,...1• __,......... \.".,.... , 4 I'S ''. ,, i • ...fii J., • w s . i i r....,) ..- f `.. • - , I. • --.6 . •., • ' \• ...._....../ 4.•.: \ --,-.._ __---; a!I.:., al . . sai •.* t -J._ - . . ..," ,aN a1' 1i 817r7s•ii 471 . - 4 i Ita,.........- • ' - : Lei sp1•; * . ".. . \...j_-_--- •.. ... rk. VA__:: - ---• f..: 3,61,-1/4-11.1-...,:. j•---'' '1 .- • I ------7":-"z•-•-.•_-,-7._-;____-:;* 4 V "il ii '-'7:-' _, -..•-•_. *".4-§4--4 •:•:•:... Or 144-) ice W ''' • ::::: -----_ 3'1-;-._.- ---• -: .....J. ...-- ••yr,,..---•:. -- ," • / - . ........•• ,d„... ( •-••:-.. ,_'- (6? 12 .'.\.-- ' ' *" -'.., -- '•: N-..\-N --'c. it*•,..r,, .s-, .7 '— -- ', -_- ..- e. -7 ...e _. • .:. .,;,::;:j;.:. SI """•••, ,. ,...... • .- -;..."....•••••••,„ ---- ------ kii..4§':::-:„;,?:'.3.-. .-1'.. 24-8 .4.:..:-:..:::fot--"•-,:i.soi - ... . . ---.• fk-e-------- ....,..,•:::gatt,,,,..„.„*4•,-:,-NO.: ._.--01-t,-. _. • ... --„.....::,..:4*.-",,, .:,• - ' L L i -. :,,t.-:.• .•.•:,:..,:m -,,,,,,-. 1, ".• . \s•ek\ 'Ai:: "M. If • r .._ - ,.. •,:::-.44,%3,• L-2 .1., . 2 ...... ,.. ., .. ,...... , .... r ,-"' •- • \- . .24. `* • ...,. - o+4010", -—' .•-• W' •::.„:„,!,,,,,;,..s.• •:-..,•.: . le: c 21 . L _ _ ____ ._........- ..-...--•-• ••7/••::.... ----, :•••..• : :-...... _. _ ___ --- _•-• 12, ._ -- : - -•-.,--s. _ ..„.... .• ........ , ...--." - ...- .0 . ,:::::::::. --:.::::::::. :ii,.-•.:. ::*:.:_. ......- .4.111. 2 2 /::.:.::::::. ::.:...-...:.,:.:.:.:.:...e.: ._ ... ........:.•r-'•:-..--,1:1:::::-....., .41 -'" :i*X:•::.:: ::::::.:::•::•:::::::i:r.::;.:::;-• •' ' .... .. .. ... I -aim .. , 1 41419 4. 1.P.11.'-.....i:, ..::.:::- -' •:•:•:-:•:-. i i pis; _ ... _ . _ ... , , :• - ... . --...,:g• -..------ . - k:i...S...„ ....... .. , •---*:IiiIiii.:.*-: . ....:-..-:-.V.-.--- - . - - _... 4 S. • „,__. , . , .derth.„ i - .-"-',:::... . --Ir r. -"r*e..- '‘... (i::5) P . C . DATE : June 21 , 1989 Van Dora,' C . C . DATE : July 10 , 1989 - Hazard Stallings ` CASE NO : 89- 11 SUB Artitects•E, tr.t .Pim STAFF REPORT TO : Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler DATE : June 13 , 1989 PROPOSAL : Preliminary Plat Request to Create Three Single Family Lots and One Outlot LOCATION : West of TH 41 , south of Tanadoona Drive and east of Dogwood Road _ APPLICANT : Kurt Laughinghouse Timothy D . Foster 281 Norman Ridge Drive 5001 West 80th St. Bloomington , MN 55437 Bloomington , MN 55437 PRESENT ZONING : RR , Rural Residential ACREAGE : 100 . 5 Acres DENSITY : 1 ten acre lot , 2 five acre lots and a 75 . 1 acre outlot ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE : N - RR , Camp Tanadoona — S - RR , University of Minnesota Arboretum E - RR , vacant agricultural W - RSF , single family residences WATER AND SEWER : Municipal water and sewer service not available PHYSICAL CHARAC . : Densely wooded in the west and south portions of the site and currently used for crop production . 1990 LAND USE PLAN : Low Density Residential REFERRAL AGENCIES Roger Machmeir Attachment #2 -- 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.lI, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 V> L Al n C gyp) \\. • ..( -)0 �M / N N E W A S HTA \. • 1 D R - -PUD-R '1 - - - L \ it 1 111111t_____5"!.,. . : 4 r :. glis"-A.11111M111 4_, \ ... • RR _ YAPLE SHORES �� DRIVE -! polu . - DRIVE ii*. ... . C:j t; • ' ' -..- - •7 Iii I( b _ *4'. ./ , . . : v......._ , JONDI 1. roNo A HIGHWAY —\/ I A2 u7 — . _ (.,__ _PA'47.- =---- - • % _ , 82ND STREET • ' •LI _ 1 • - - ..,/ IL .. 4 I, t_ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 Laughinghouse/Foster Subdivision June 13 , 1989 Page 2 Public Safety Department Attachment #3 Soil Conservation Service Attachment #4 Mn/DOT Attachment #5 City Engineer Attachment #6 BACKGROUND In 1987 , this site was the subject of a preliminary plat approval that was almost identical to the plan currently being offered . The major issue that surfaced during the previous review was the provision of road access to the proposed lots . On July 6 , 1987 , the City Council approved the Preliminary Subdivision with the following conditions : 1 . The applicant shall be required to install a cul -de-sac into Lot 3 at the end of Dogwood ; however , the applicant may be allowed to put in a driveway as approved by City Staff. 2 . No development shall occur on either 5 acre lots until completion of the feasibility study and the plans for that road are determined . 3 . A feasibility study shall be initiated to evaluate the alternatives to improving Dogwood Road and Tanadoona Drive , as well as evaluating the connection to the Worm property to the south . 4 . The developer be required to enter into a development agreement guaranteeing the installation of the improvements and provide financial sureties as required . 5 . Dedication of a 20 foot trail easement along the south and east property lines . Consistent with the City Council action , a feasibility study for Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue was prepared by Van Doren- Hazard-Stallings , Inc . in June of 1988 . The report identified four different road access alternates with improvement costs ranging from $255 ,000 to $302 , 400 . Preliminary assessment rolls were identified depicting the allocation of costs to benefiting properties . On May 12 , 1988 , City staff and personnel from Van Doren-Hazard- Stallings met with interested residents from the surrounding neighborhood area. At the meeting , the alternative alignments were reviewed and public comments were noted . At the conclusion of the meeting , City staff requested that the residents arrange a Laughinghouse/Foster Subdivision June 13 , 1989 Page 3 subsequent meeting to discuss their petition to the City requesting road maintenance and their further thoughts on the road issue . On September 15 , 1988 , the City received a letter from David D . Getsch , a representative of the Dogwood Homeowners stating , " after review of the proposals and options presented by various parties over the past six months , a proposal was made to withdraw our — request for road maintenance . That proposal was voted on and passed unanimously . Please accept this letter as the official withdrawal of our request for road maintenance . " ANALYSIS The previous review and approval of this item addressed all of the issues except the provision of road access . At this time , this issue still remains unresolved . The feasibility study presented four viable options for providing road access to the Foster - property and the surrounding neighborhood area which is presently served by substandard streets . Depending on which option is selected , the assessment to various parties could range from _ approximately $ 1600 . 00 to $ 167 , 700 . 00 . Of the four alternatives that were presented in the feasibility study , Alternate A was recommended in 1988 primarily due to cost considerations . From a planning perspective , Alternate D is preferred because it provides maximum access for future development and it permits the construction of a street that meets the City ' s rural standards . Since this subdivision was originally proposed in 1987 , the City has reviewed a number of rural subdivisions . In virtually all cases , minimum standard road improvements have been required . The attached report prepared by the City Engineer ' s office further addresses this issue. The current proposed plat for Zimmerman Farm differs from the one — approved in 1987 in that it proposes the dedication of forty feet of additional street right-of-way only along the frontage of Lots 1 , 2 , and 3 . The former plat submittal contained forty feet of _ additional right-of-way along Mr . Foster ' s entire frontage along both Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue. If a decision is made to upgrade existing Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue , additional right-of-way should be secured at this time as a condition of preliminary plat approval . RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Approval of Subdivision Request #89- 11 based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received May 30 , 1989 " _ and subject to the following conditions : 1 . The applicant shall be required to install a cul -de-sac into Lot 3 at the south end of Dogwood , however , the applicant may — Laughinghouse/Foster Subdivision June 13 , 1989 Page 4 be allowed to put in a driveway as approved by the City Engineer. 2 . Street improvements and right-of-way dedications shall conform to the recommendations found in the City Engineer ' s report . 3 . Dedication of a 20 foot trail easement along the south and east property lines . R RESOURCE ENGINEERING Roger E. Machmeier. Y.E. James L. Anderson. C.P.S.S. 29665 Neal Avenue 3541 Ensign Avenue, North Lindstrom. MN 55045 New Hope. MN 55427 — (612) 257-2019 (612) 593-5338 June 14 , 1987 — JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner — City of Chanhassen P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 _ Re: Planning Case 87-11 Subdivision Zimmerman Dear JoAnn: Enclosed is our evaluation report for the above proposed subdivision. There should be no problem to locate a number of sites which are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds and possibly trenches on each of the proposed lots . The soil boring data was collected in the _ open field to the east and this is presumably the reason that the proposed sites are located a considerable distance from where the house is likely to be. We assume that our evaluation report is self-explanatory. If you have any questions , however, do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, (..)4 Pia _ Roger . Machmeier, P. E. — RESOURCE ENGINEERING REM/jjm Enclosure SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT 7Reou7'#4,1._ REVIEW OF PLANNING CASE NO. 87-11 SUBDIVISION (ZIMMERMAN) SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS for the CITY OF CHANHASSEN by Roger E. Machmeier, P.E. James L. Anderson , C.P.S .S. June , 1987 This proposed subdivision in the City of Chanhassen has been reviewed with respect to soil suitability, topography, drainage, slope limitations , and area available on each lot for the installation of two onsite sewage treatment systems . The information used for this review included the map of the proposed subdivision submitted by the developer, soil boring data submitted by the developer , and the Carver County Soil Survey. - The soils and site information upon which the evaluation of the lots in the proposed subdivision is based is that which has been collected and presented to the City of Chanhassen by the developer . It is assumed that the data has been 'collected from the soil in its natural condition as it existed on the site at the time that the soil boring was made and at the time the field evaluation of the subdivision was made. It is also assumed that the topographic map which presents contour and slope information is accurate and indicates the actual contours which will exist when the plat receives final approval . When the site and soils data on each lot are evaluated and it is determined that the submitted data will allow the location of two sites for onsite sewage treatment systems , those sites absolutely must remain in the condition that they were when the soils data were collected and the field evaluation of the subdivision was made. Any manipulation or movement of the soil from its natural condition as evaluated for the preliminary plat will require additional detailed soils information and a re-evaluation of the subdivision prior to final approval. Each lot of the proposed subdivision has been evaluated independently as to the availability of two sites for the installation of onsite soil absorption systems . It was assumed that the homes which will be built will be Type I , 4-bedroom which according to Minnesota Rules 7080, have an estimated average sewage flow of 600 gallons per day. Since mottled soils at depths of 24 to 36 inches predominate in the area , each lot was evaluated to determine if two sites were available for the installation of sewage treatment mounds . The rock layer in a mound which would treat 600 gallons of sewage per day would be 10 feet wide and 50 feet long . The area required for the mound would have dimensions of 60 feet by 80 feet. The long dimension of the mound must be located parallel to the existing ground contour lines . The mound must be located on natural soils and on slopes not exceeding 12% . Absolutely no grading to modify the natural slope can be done prior to mound -2- construction . A mound can be located on a soil having as little as 1 foot of unsaturated soil. This soil would require, however, a 2-foot depth of clean sand as opposed to the normal 1-foot depth of sand. While trenches can be located in a wooded area between the trees , an open area is required for a mound . Thus, the trees would all need to be removed from an area at least 80 by 100 feet for construction purposes. Also, even though the evaluation of the prelimiinary plat of the subdivision has assumed the use of sewage treatment mounds , a more detailed site investigation which is necessary for the design of the sewage treatment on each lot at the time of development may locate some soils which are suitable for the installation of drainfield trenches . Lot 1 : This lot is reported to be 5.0 acres is size. The west portion of the lot is wooded and the east portion of the lot is open land presently growing corn. The soil borings for the two proposed sites for onsite sewage treatment systems were made in the open area . Mottled soil conditions indicating seasonally saturated conditions were reported in the boring logs at depths of 20 to 33 inches . The land slope in the area where the borings were made is approximately 4 percent . The proposed areas are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds. The contour lines indicate that the land slope in the wooded area on the west portion of the lot is less than 12 percent. If the soil is suitable and the lot owner wishes to remove some trees, other sites for the location of the sewage treatment mounds are likely available on this lot. Lot 2 : The same comments as made for lot 1 apply to this lot . Mottled soil is reported in the boring logs at depths of 30 to 38 inches . There should be no problem locating at least two sites on this lot which are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds . Lot 3 : This lot is 10 acres in size . The western portion of the lot is wooded and has some slopes steeper than 12 percent. The soil borings were made in the open field to the east of the woods . The boring logs showed depths to mottling of 24 to 42 inches . There should be no problem locating at least two sites on this lot which are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds . Summary The three lots which we evaluated on this proposed subdivision each have at least two sites which are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds. A detailed site investigation on each lot will be necessary to collect soils and site data for the design of the sewage treatment system. Sites may be found to be suitable for the sewage treatment systems which are closer to the location of the house on the lot. CITY OF \ LI fr. C HANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen , Assistant City Planner FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: June 5 , 1987 SUBJ: Otto - Timberwood (86-27 SUB) Lake Susan Hills West ( 87-3 PUD) Zimmerman/Pemtom Company (87-11 SUB) These plans were reviewed by the Fire Chief, Art Kerber; Fire Inspector, Steve Madden; and myself . The following recommen- dations are made: - Lake Susan Hills West: Minimum 100 ft. setback from William' s Pipeline - Zimmerman/Pemtom: Dogwood cul-de-sac should have a 45 ft. radius Public Safety has no input at this time for the Otto subdivision noted above. If you have any questions , please let me know. United States Soil 219 East Frontage Road eDepartment of Conservation Waconia, Minnesota 55387 Agriculture Service — Subject: Zimmerman Farm Date: June 5, 1987 To: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner File code: City of Chanhassen jIr 3 1987 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Pfd 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSE\I Attached is a soil map with the approximate location of the plat and a soil interpretation sheet. The soils data is for general planning purposes only. Specific questions at specific sites should be reviewed by a qualified soils engineer. The site (Lots 1, 2 and 3) apparently presents no major limitations to home site development. The greatest potential for site erosion is during driveway construction. Road ditches should be smoothly shaped with out- lets and culverts where needed. They should be vegetated as soon as com- plete with sod or seed and wood fiber netted mulch (such as "curlex" pro- duced by American Excelsior Company) . Any earth piles should be spread or hauled within a specified time period. — /(4)i/ tanley Wendland _ District Conservationist ��The Soil Conservation Service 72 / is an agency of the �� United States Department of Agriculture 1�9 O" 4 Minnesota yo Department of Transportation JUL 4 1?°7 15. District 5 ,f¢ 2055 No. Lilac Drive tirOF TSW' Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)593- 8403 July 13, 1987 Ms. JoAnn Olsen, Ass't. City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: S.P. 1002 (T.H. 41) — Plat Review of Zimmerman Farm located one—fourth mile north of T.H. 5 and west of T.H. 41 in City of Chanhassen, Carver County Dear Ms. Olsen: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the plat acceptable for further development and do not anticipate any significant impact on the trunk highway system. This review is based on the proposed division of 100 acres into three single family lots and one outlot. If you have any questions in regard to this review, please contact Evan Green at 593-8537. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, 2// 0 ( W. M. Crawfor• , •.E. / District Engineer cc: Steve Keefe — Metropolitan Council Roger Gustafson — Carver County Apatntafr rifb An Equal Opportunity Employer .02D0155c CITY OF - A CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM — TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 40-1 FROM: Allan Larson , Sr. Engineering Technician , DATE: June 15 , 1989 — SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Minnewashta Farms File No. 89-12 Land Use Review Location This 100-acre site is located west of Highway 41 and 1500 feet north of Trunk Highway 5 within the north half of Section 8, Township 116 , Range 23 . — Background in 1987 , this site was the subject of a preliminary plat approval that was almost identical to the plan currently being offered. The major issue that surfaced during the previous review was the provision of road access to the proposed lots. — Sanitary Sewer The subdivision abuts the City ' s 201 Sewer Program. Restrictions — on this grant-funded program disallow any further extensions of the sewer service area. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide on-site treatment of wastewater. — Watermain No municipal water is available to the site. Therefore , on-site sources of water will neea to be developed by the applicant. Streets — Site acess is provided by Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Road from Hazeltine Boulevard (TH 41 ) . The applicant' s property commences — approximately 900 feet west of Hazeltine Boulevard. Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Road are gravel roads. The eastern portion of Tanadoona Drive from the Zimmerman farm to Hazeltine Boulevard is approximately 24 feet wide and sufficient for two vehicles to Jo Ann Olsen June 15 , 1989 Page 2 pass each other. From the intersection of Tanadoona Camp Road to Dogwood, the road is approximately 12 feet in width and surrounded by heavy growth. Topography in the area ranges from 12% to 25% slopes . Likewise , as you continue along the roadway onto Dogwood, the road progressively gets narrower and it is vir- tually impossible to turn around without utilizing one of the neighboring driveways . A 20-foot right-of-way has existed since 1930 as shown on the Sunset Hills plat for this area. The applicant ' s subdivision proposes to place three lots at the extension of Dogwood Road. With the addition of these three lots, the cul-de-sac becomes one of almost a mile in length. In light of the narrowness in the road and the lack of turnaround access, this makes this a very undesirable access situation, especially for public service and safety vehicles. The applicant is proposing to provide the City with an additional 40-foot right-of-way along the length of his property to extend the existing roadway easement from 20 feet to the City ' s standard rural section of 60 feet. The widening of the road to City standards would be a very difficult challenge throughout its length. For example , the 201 mound system, located on Lot 3 of Sunset Hills Addition on Lake Minnewashta , lies right in the pro- posed right-of-way. Likewise, the further along Dogwood one tra- - vels, the more extensive the terrain/topography revisions . Further traffic on these roadways will undoubtedly aggravate the roadway situation necessitating these roads to eventually be brought up to proper rural standards. To be consistent with our review of previous plats, it would have to be concluded that the roadway should be improved to rural standards in order to allow the City to properly maintain it and for the access of safety vehicles . From the feasibility study developed by Van Doren, Hazard, Stallings in 1988 (Attachment # 1 ) , "Alternate D" improves both the internal access for future development of Minnewashta Farms ( Zimmerman farm) and the access to the existing homes within the Sunset Hills subdivision to rural standards and public safety guidelines . This route also places the cost of improvement on those that would benefit from this improvement and remains consistent with previous plats/developments where City standards are required before approval . The City ' s policy has been to eliminate gravel roadways whenever possible , not only to improve the City ' s road system but to cut budget costs for dust control , regrading, additional gravel , etc. Therefore, denial of the proposed improvements would add future costs that could be eliminated . Jo Ann Olsen June 15 , 1989 Page 3 — Grading and Erosion Control The applicant is proposing minor grading for the road extension and the building sites . In particular, Lot 3, Block 1 is pro- _ posed to be built on a tough side slope and the applicant has proposed filter fence erosion control for this area. The area in general is extensively forested and, as such , tree removal will be an inevitable consequence to this development. — Recommended Conditions 1 . At a minimum, the applicant shall be required to install a public roadway to full City rural standards across Lots 1 , 2 and 3 of Block 1 with a proper cul-de-sac turnaround into Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision. 2 . In light of the poor access and extreme length of the "cul-de-sac" comprised of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Road — ( 0. 85mile) , "Alternate D" from the 1988 feasibility study provided by Van Doren , Hazard, Stallings should be imple- mented as part of the subdivision. 3 . The developer is required to enter into a development contract guaranteeing the installation of the improvements and provide the necessary financial sureties . Attachment — 1 . 1988 feasibility study developed by Van Doren, Hazard, Stallings . _ 1 -I VanDorEn , Hazard Stallings architects • Engineers • planners 4 topEka . wichita • minnEapolis • kansas city CITY OF C} NH SEEN JUN 21 1988 CI-IG!iEEPAG DEPT. r I I I I I I I FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR - TANADOONA DRIVE - DOGWOOD AVENUE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA JUNE, 1988 1 I I I hereby certify that these plans and specifications here prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. -egistration No. a /4? Date 6//1 , 1988 1 VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS, INC. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 - (612) 553-1950 L :1 1 ,,..!,!P 1.,:,.. .--...4.,: —[ y , _ . .. ... c!: --.-, :-.-- f!r.� 1 :.: : --..-.,,: , :.::::. , , . .... S'. 7 _ Var�ror Haza> : "T - Stgssr aIIif Harbor June 17 , 1988 3030Lane North — Bldg.II,Suite 104 Minneapolis,MN 55447-2175 612/553-1950 Mayor and City Council —11 c/o Mr . Gary Warren , City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive _ Chanhassen , Minnesota 55317 Dear Mr . Warren : —1 The enclosed information constitutes the feasibility study for the improvement of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue . This material has been assembled in response to a resident petition 4 and has been prepared under the guidelines established by the City Council . 1 This report examines four alternatives , all of which are feasible - from an engineering perspective . In all of the alternatives , the use of " standard " roadway sections is not feasible due to existing conditions . The proposed sections are adequate to ensure public safety and all are appropriate for acceptance by the City of Chanhassen for ongoing maintenance purposes . Alternate "A" is recommended for implementation should the City 4 decide to initiate an improvement project . Background information and specific reasons for this selection are detailed in the report . 4 We appreciate this opportunity to provide continued planning and engineering services to the City of Chanhassen . At your 4 convenience , we are available to further discuss the details of this study with staff , the City Council and interested residents and property owners . IVery truly yours , VAN DOREN-HAZARD- STALLINGS , I . z by : 4,k.-e- V2(/?(42 Darrell D . Ha mond , P . E . President DDH : sd t t BACKGROUND ir Tanadoona Drive - Dogwood Avenue is a dead-end street, approximately one mile PP Y ir long, that currently serves the Camp Tanadoona Campfire Girls camp, the residents of Sunset Hill on Lake Minnewashta Subdivision and one farmstead. — IrThe residents of Sunset Hill requested that the City take over maintenance of the portion of the street now privately maintained. Additionally, in ir conjunction with the submission of a j preliminary plat for the development of 1[ the original Zimmerman farm, the City reviewed options to eliminate the existing Dogwood Avenue dead end. — This study has been prepared to look at alternates for upgrading the existing street to current City standards and providing access for future development in the Zimmerman Farm Addition. The purpose of the proposed public improvement project for upgrading Tanadoona Drive - Dogwood Avenue is: 1. To upgrade the streets to an acceptable minimum design standard allowing the City to assume responsibility for ongoing maintenance. I 2. To provide safer, more direct access for emergency vehicles. 3. To provide access for future development of undeveloped land in the area. L L - 1 I 1 I I _ _ I _ � Sr e'ENl'y''''.�� �11i �N \ \ iWi ��� ode-.r I' .t 4711 /tomlo its,Tp.-40?1.1 ma rc. 4" ..-7- - . -„..,... _ - I- p ..... 1lowdifti. %.:-. . -,,,,,, ,. *as R M ir a /, iir_ 0 �� arill - I- , in ... im ,./ -- ,,i_____,---- -w, - 1- .C7 _ LAKE 1. `e MINNEWASIITA - 1111 ;, ' L , -- . — 1 f( . 4 .; . � Ili � k ' _ � , Q LAKE ) .,w, ' . . . • , 57 JOE airy -1 x PON• J ) ) (• } ._\ L PROJECT OCATION ,- ' 23 • -1Al Man, I19‘144, _ 1 ti m# -1_ _ ,Ar....\.....-, I 0 G4 i i ...0.0 ,h10,,,,,,L gfr IATF AILHWAY •-I_ I _ ,___ . -1_ co* 1 I • 4 -. • , II • _ ` , 7 MD STREIT I f ,..., J -----,(NO SCALE) EXHIBIT NO. 1 -L VICINITY MAP 2 z f EXISTING CONDITIONS I Although separately named, Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue are essentially one street. Tanadoona Drive begins at State Highway 41 and runs westerly approximately 3, 250 feet. The traveled portion of Dogwood Avenue begins at this point and goes south another 1,250 feet ending at lot 12 of the Sunset Hill Subdivision without a turn-around or cul-de-sac. 1 The easterly1000' of Tanadoona Drive from Highway 41 to the entrance of Camp Tanadoona has a 20' gravel surface and is currently maintained by the City. Beyond the camp entrance, the roadway narrows to 14 '+ in width and is essentially a one-way street. This portion of the roadway also has gravel surfacing and is privately maintained. The narrow width, steep grades (in excess of 9%) , and lack of a turn-around make this section of the road i difficult for emergency vehicles to access. Major changes in this portion of the road are required to meet current City standards. 1_ The land adjacent to Tanadoona and Dogwood on the south and east, the Zimmerman farm, was recently sold and is being developed as a rural subdivision. The plat that has been submitted calls for three new lots to be created with the remainder of the parcel as an outlot. Under current zoning standards, a total of 10 lots are possible in this development. L 1 L- 3 L v w } - z 0 CCI n I— Z 0 U) I- }. O H N J Z O N O 0 u) Z O H Z U- CO F- _(/) > X w [] 0 0. \ 0 0 I CI az ZzY Sico ; 0 cra t( 0 W p lL y Z U •0 _, . ./1Q O U ) 2 O • H U . aw i o (Jr- L...,,6 , ) _ /,.. :‘,. a. g 3 O 1Z i F r, Z LL et, ti z s J) f.. '" W o N ,' (4` I l iK.,...,_,-,,,..,...-7 ) i i " I V 1 , kb,/ • a +I M1 1J , yO, otiS / / \ � .rrMj % 8 B ®I 1HSb ' 4-1; �,6 o`JG M1 i 11J1+ !13SMIS j I i 1 r me i. _ LAN r Z l_ L_ 1.. l__ LAI MIN Ile l_. L. L._ The three new lots are in the southeast corner of the parcel and access to them will be from Dogwood Avenue. Two of the lots are beyond the current limits of Dogwood Avenue, therefore, the street will have to be extended. Since the existing right-of-way for Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue is only 20' wide, the developer agreed to donate the additional land needed to — establish a 60 foot wide right-of-way area. Near the intersection of Dogwood Avenue and Tanadoona Drive is a low marshy area that is identified as Class B wetland. This area was reviewed by Dr. Leach of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Specific comments on wetland — impacts are addressed in the discussion of each alternate. 1. I I 1 L L L 5 ALTERNATES Four alternates were selected for detailed study and cost estimates. — f Alternate "A" looks at upgrading the present alignment to current standards. Alternate "B" establishes a new alignment for a portion of Tanadoona Drive and - then establishes a "T" situation with cul-de-sacs to both the north and south along Dogwood Avenue. Alternate "C" also follows the existing alignment, except in the area of the sanitary sewer mound system. Alternate "D" provides — maximum access for future development of the Zimmerman farms plat. — The base data for developing the alternates and cost estimates was taken from existing plats, 1/2 section maps, USGS maps and aerial photos. Before any final design is undertaken, a canplete topographic and planimetric survey will be needed. Detailed soils information is unavailable. The Carver County soils map indicates the predominate soils are Hayden and Glencoe Loams. These types of soils normally do not pose any major problems for street construction. A discussion of each alternate follows. — 1 -U. 1 -L -L -L 6 ALTERNATE A - EXHIBIT NO. 3 17 The alignment for this alternate follows the existing Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue. Dogwood Avenue, w*iich currently ends at lot 12, would be extended to the south end of the Sunset Hill plat. A cul-de-sac would be built at the end of Dogwood Avenue and a modest realignment is proposed at the intersection of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue. I The proposed roadway for this alternate would be a rural type ditch section using a 24' bituminous surface with 6' gravel shoulders on Tanadoona Drive and a 20' bituminous surface with 2' gravel shoulders on Dogwood Avenue (see Exhibit No. 7. ) On Dogwood Avenue adjacent to the sanitary mound system, the ditch would be eliminated and special design measures will be employed to minimize impact to the system. - I Due to the proximity of the garage on the west side of the road and the lift station on the east side, construction of an upgraded Dogwood Avenue may not be possible without some modification to the mound and lift station. (See Exhibit No. 8. ) By shifting the roadway to the west and using the curb Jsection, the lift station and valve manhole would be raised 2' . Another option would be to not shift the roadway but relocate the lift station and manhole approximately 25' to the east. The estimated cost for the relocation Lis approximately $10,000. L L L t_ 7 L c w ›.- _1 0 Z U I- O CO z - ›- I- < F- Q J_ co CO O F_ CO Z Q Q F— Z LL CO— = I— LU _ 11J Q Q a O ;fir \ 0 0 • Cr iz Y Q z I Z a ,0N 0 a Q /! Z o ° \i/i / 1 0 _ a O ,z O 1/( O I-- , a 0 ri o a a 2 w Z 0 ---9 ti�4` N cc u. N z 211 a ..,./ W O 2 N 1 u ( 'O 11 ) I !" f i; li 0• E .\41 / 7 � l Oi O O " c?!Ez:// VZ e ,t - ii 7% 47,/o).N. .. ©, g : r1.5Sr'a3 • (eyes/"(-jo�4p O N�-D3�r' / � Ni, 704 136NAS 1I I The terrain is generally rolling with some slopes up to 8% - 10%. Proposed grades up to 8% will be used to lessen impact on existing structures, some of which are within 10' of the right-of-Fay. As previously mentioned, there is a wetland area near the intersection of Tanadoona Drive and Dog wood Avenue. A - 1 field review of this area was made by Dr. James Leach of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and in a written response to the City he determined that no adverse impact to the wetland would occur from this alignment. 1 The existing drainage structures along Tanadoona and Doguocd are generally in poor condition and undersized. All existing drainage structures will be replaced. An additional 0.8 acres of right-of-way would be acquired to provide for the realignment at the intersection of Tanadoona and Dogwood and across the Savaryn property. The total cost of Alternate A is $255,000 which would be assessed on a front foot basis. This cost for Alternate A is $25.35/front foot. - I 1 L 1 1 ( I- L9 ALTERNATE B - EXHIBIT NO. 4 The alignment for this alternate follows Tanadoona Drive to the west side of the Walter Zimmerman parcel, then south along the west edge of the Zimmerman _ parcel approximately 400 ' , then turns west to meet existing Dogwood Avenue. Dogwood Avenue would be extended south to the end of the Sunset Hill plat and --ira connection would be made from the new alignment back to Dogwood Avenue to serve the homes on lots 1 - 5 of Sunset Hill. There would be cul-de-sacs on both ends of Dogwood Avenue. With this alternate, existing Tanadoona Drive west of the Zimmerman parcel could be vacated. The proposed roadway section for this alignment is the same as Alternate "A" with the exception of the tie-in to Dogwood Avenue. The tie-in and Dogwood Avenue which would serve lots 1 - 5 would be an 18' bituminous surface with 2' = gravel shoulders. An 18' roadway will adequately serve the five homes and have less impact on the mound system. The terrain, tree cover and slopes are similar to Alternate A. This alignment -IL would require some additional tree removal but would not require the large _( drainage structures at the outlet of the wetland or changes to the lift L station. This alternate would require the acquisition of approximately 3.3 acres of -4_ right-of-way. The alignment would provide limited additional access for future development of the Zimmerman Farms Addition. --L. The cost of Alternate B is $281 ,500 and is to be assessed on a front foot basis. This cast for Alternate B is $25.80/front foot. 10 W >1 C J Q co C/z 0 4Z > I- CO al m ow ' W Q al 0 N. ° gi o : N 0 fit 0 az Q > zZ� 01 o =< o z '< 0 E rn 0 W LL l a O i z 0 / • J ) < Z 1`-' < U H a y e,' 11 U 1i r Lu 0 1 ,.;,-;.7 1 c tcc ® If LL.c 1 f:' . N z < 2 ` � 's_ N L 4 \ ?C') • :E L IIU _ L . �� I. G G .. . , n Q \. /01 / 0 L . k,,„ 7 p-7 1 , vi. t , , 7 4/ A, .4. • ,,3 •T r1Nsb4IA, w ��7/4S/�I, ..® �I pI_Q ®,GI, L .i�, /Np 0►- I^ I �� 171H 113SHI)S I :-...... 1 L w., r 1 _ L.- L< L_ a MI r 1 L__ __ L_ LIIII s c I. —f ALTERNATE C - EXHIBIT N0. 5 The alignment for this alternate is essentially the same as Alternate A except for a portion of Dogwood Avenue which has been moved to the east of the mound system. A tie-in to existing Dogwood will provide access to lots 1 - 5 and there would be cul-de-sacs at either end of Dogwood Avenue. The proposed roadway section for the tie-in would be an 18' bituminous surface as in Alternate "B". The existing terrain, proposed grades and drainage structures also will be similar to those discussed for Alternate A. Tree removal for this alignment will be greater than for Alternate A due to heavily timbered land to the east and north of the mound system. This alternate would not require major modifications to the mound system but also does not provide access for future development of the Zimmerman Farms / Addition. -� Additional right-of-way to be acquired for this alternate would be approximately 2.8 acres. The cost for Alternate C is $281,700 to be assessed on a front foot basis. Assessed costs would run $25.65 per front foot. 12 r. ri;< L z U z col 1- in U mm O W u~'' Z a a E5 z 'i E5 cc uilw _ > W J Q O • of o of az z¢ Q ar N OO u, 01N O a IJ l O I r /' ) o j i ., U a N y L. ) • J U Q nn ZZ .% �2 N I cc 0 O 3I N z <_ I Z o i? LI ' 3 N ti o -1 )) 7 - a TTT/\:: I 411111 \ u 3E I " ` / "' N4, `., Ii - N��w d y /NO. - OI- I<r a I I V, / 114 j136NQS I OM - I . - t - '- -- In es t" I - 1-- t___ L— J MO C '- _ —.{ — ALTERNATE D - EXHIBIT D. 6 — This alternate improves internal access for the future development of the Zimmerman Farms Addition along with the existing homes in Sunset Hill. The alignment is similar to Alternate B except Tanadoona Drive would turn south on the east side of the Zimmerman Parcel and swing farther south before meeting Dogwood Avenue. Existing Tanadoona Drive could be vacated west of the entrance to Camp Tanadoona. The proposed typical sections would be the same as the other1 a terna tes, except Dogwood Avenue would be 20' wide up to lot 4 and 18 ' wide past the I mound system to lot 1. J i The existing terrain and slopes, proposed grades and drainage will be similar to those discussed in Alternate B. Tree removal will also be similar to Alternates B and C. Additional right-of-way required for this alternate totals approximately 5.4 acres. 1 The cost for Alternate D is $302,400 to be assessed on the front foot basis. Z The front foot cost for Alternate D is $25.50. 7 14 it. w J C Q (---z U z COI M oW Ci: Z i_ a CO— W _ I-- > W < al 0 gi N 0 of a:z>- a z Z K N01 W LL t zl a U s z �; O d o• U O ; e ( r 1 a z C U CI L • o �. �- \ U Z a e111 1 \\. cn tee„ x O ii , d f'! " L gr,„ u, . 2 f 1. I N• 1L u ' )\ 7 8 iE i _ . L E e II L l of _o cilcii L VAp /�ySr,N / a� ..., u , ,..._ — it L :: . 4,0, k„ kyr) I QUI 13r.ns L 1 4' , 8' 6' 124' 7 N oAk. 2 00% :r. v' , .i.i 4 'i IpG 2" 2341 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 10" CLASS 5 GRAVEL (100% CRUSHED) 6° CLASS 5 GRAVEL SHOULDERS (100% CRUSHED) TYPICAL SECTION FOR TANADOONA DRIVE 4 I 6' _ 2' 18' Icor 20' N 2 00% l j r' fj' '. '`...;i��'Y Cy• .- • —".';i:i :.w �•f.: .5. .-1J C = U COI } I- -- I \� o m1 T N d co 1 , \ \ L Z w ce 1 � � u1 U.1 W \ 1. CO I d `` v_' xcL) 2 `W X CC 1 W X / Cl 1 co \ ua Q 11J W�—_ I Z0 a 0 -a. O °c - CC Cyt_r \ 0 Z imi �1 W U ? ~ 2 1 _O • \ I -- \ v o —-- < G 1 II V M Q < ~ 01 0 < ti t ,,,__i_____„ cr O OO Cii — 1 ct ``' I C4 W C I- I W � W I z O o �- ; I o Z I NI w -__— F 01C.) UJ 0 I 1---- 9 ---- I Cl) Q I C.) I Q 0 Z1 a I a I 7-- Q- --- --7 1 Z I I W a z o N W J I � 0 0L ..ii " a 0 cc a I� I -- —_— U NI I __ ► -- 1 ____ 1 , i fct 1 load , I — �— III L 010 0 0 8 - _ `�. will. ' • _ N 1 O> oo13a load i 0. t La t1 1 CC , G \ L — ODST TABULATIONS Table 1 shows a comparative p cost breakdown for all of the alternatives. All - 1rimprovements are to be financed by the City of Chanhassen. The cost of these improvements will be assessed to the benefitting properties on a front foot — IF basis. Tables 2-5 provide a comparison of the assessments for each of the alternates. — ir ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES — Alternate A Advantages 1. Lowest construction and front foot cost. 2. Would require the least additional right-of-my. 3. Has the least tree removal. __f Disadvantages 1. May require modification of the lift station. 2. Does not provide access for development of the Zimmerman Farm Addition. -1 Alternate B IL— Advantages — 1. Would not require large drainage structures at outlet of wetland area. 2. Would not require modification to mound system. 3. Provides limited access for Zimmerman Farms. 1 18 4- Disadvantages 1- 1. Requires substantial additional right-of-uay. 2. Requires the most tree removal. — 17. Alternate C Advantages ij 1. Would not require modification to mound system. — I Disadvantages — 1. Would not provide access for future development. 2. Would require substantial additional right-of-uay. I Alternate D Advantages 1. Provides maximum access for future development . i- 2. Provides more opportunities to develop a second access. 1. 3. Would not require modification to mound system. 1_ Disadvantages 1. Highest cost. 2. Would require substantial additional right-of-uay. I- I L 19 - L 1 TABLE 1 _; 1 - PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE A PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE B -f ITEM COST ITEM COST CLEARING & GRUBBING $12 ,000 . 00 CLEARING & GRUBBING $15 ,600 . 00 1 GRADING $41 ,000 . 00 GRADING $47 ,300 . 00 PAVING $122 , 500 . 00 PAVING $135 ,900 . 00 DRAINAGE $13 ,000 . 00 DRAINAGE $11 ,000 . 00 RAISE LIFT STATION $5 , 000 . 00 RAISE LIFT STATION - 4 CONSTRUCTION COST $193 ,500 . 00 CONSTRUCTION COST $209 , 800 . 00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $2 ,600 . 00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $6 , 7OO . 00 ADMINISTRATION , LEGAL $58 , 900 . 00 ADMINISTRATION , LEGAL $65 ,000 . 00 AND ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING -C 1 TOTAL $255 ,000 . 00 TOTAL $281 ,500 . 00 -4 NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION -� PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE C PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE D z ITEM COST ITEM COST CLEARING & GRUBBING $14 , 600 . 00 CLEARING & GRUBBING $13 , 700 . 00 - GRADING $45 , 700 . 00 GRADING $50 , 500 . 00 PAVING $137 ,000 . 00 PAVING $148 ,000 . 00 t DRAINAGE $13 , 700 . 00 DRAINAGE $9 , 700 . 00 RAISE LIFT STATION RAISE LIFT STATION - --i_ CONSTRUCTION COST $211 ,000 . 00 CONSTRUCTION COST $221 ,900 . 00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $5 , 700 . 00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $10 ,700 . 00 ADMINISTRATION , LEGAL $65 ,200 . 00 ADMINISTRATION , LEGAL $69 ,800 . 00 -4 AND ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING TOTAL $281 , 900 . 00 TOTAL $302 ,400 . 00 NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION I i 20 7 L r r I- >- F- I w, O 'CDN w CO M CJ CO CO N N 0) 0) O LC) tC) LC) .--. U) O Z 1 — MNMMMr-. 0) coN.. 0) NNMCC) OOM .-- C') = W 1 t� LC) M CA r— . .-. U) CO LC) LC) CO CO LC) C' V V LP O) C:) O) U) F- E I w A w 4. A A w A w A 4. A A A A __ N Cl) 1 N- O N NN VMM (V M .--1 N N N N N N LD CON Cl) I .0 " . , .„,..,......,............ 1- W I 44444444 F- (n 1 N J d I - 1--1 J I CO J LU I O O CO M CO M 0) CO N r- r- N N V C O r` U7 U') O L) O U) O •-• O F- C7 I CO .--. 00 r- O CO <7 N O M CO O O CO CO O O) Cr) CNC/ .--ir--- 1` (73 Cl) CC Z Q I C- co co . ' i4 .-. .-. .--1 .-1 .-1 -4 .-1 .--1 N N .--1 4 O F- I M N _ W i.- ceO L1.. z L.L O W LL O w O (/) 1 O Cl') I d' O_' O_' O_' -- 3w 1 z w w w w U) N I d1--- N J ZZZZ F- F- F- O Cl) I = Cl) W J d d Q Q Cl) (/) (/) O d I >,_ ,,, m Z Z W = E = E . . = „ LL , I >- d I J > J _ _ Z Y W UJ UJ w d O_ O_ d d 0_ - = = = = = = = . . . Q 4 W 1 1-IN .-� OQ W Z �--� JJU- U- U- U- 0000000001")' Z Z F- 1 C.9 r`I OU ►- C) O UUUUUUU _. .,:c , ,... O Z I W a 2 O' O = = = = = ., = = = = = = = = = = ._ C .-4 c, I Q' W F- W J Q F- Q w 4 Q d Q U U U U U U U I- 1'- F- d J W I '-+ ZF- OC7Q � W = UC) 0) 0) 0) OOO T Z WI- 1 w = J = OZ ZU >- = C O I- F- F- F- F- F- F-M 1 d = _I 1 d O d •-.10 0 • Q .-4 O Q Q 4 Q W LU W w w w ili 4-I •-. '--• 1 F- ca. .‹ 1 E731-- d' O' J 7CC mCOCOmC!3LOLDLDLOLOL7 F- F- F- I Q 1 U I O .--4 N M (.C) CO N - L .-. N I LM U7 .-. .--( .--r .-. � i i O 1 F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- I J 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I •--. J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J i 1 U IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 I Z Q 4 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q d Q Q Q Q 1 = F- I- F- I-- I- F- F- F- F- F- I- I- I- F- I- F- �- C I O = = = = = = 22 = 2 = = = = = = = - W I U If) NN Cl) NNNNNNN (/) NN Cl) NN Z I Q Q Q 4 4 Q Q Q Q . 4 Q 4 0 0 0 3 1 v) 33333333333333333 O 1 I--. W W U.) W W LU W LU W W W W W LU W W W I J d Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z I I 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z - 1 G F- •-• .-. .--1 .-. .-. . . . . . .-. .-. I Z I d � OIW J .--. I Z F- W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W I- F- F- w F- 1 Z = Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O O O __ J d I .--. O Q Q Q d Q d Q Q Q d 4 d d d 4 Q Q J J J F-r I I J J J _ J J J J J J J J J J J J J 1 I I W U I = = = = = = = = Z = = = = = = = = = { V) I ce0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = = 0 0 0 = = 0_ `� W I Q Q 4 d O I U_ J J J J J J J J _J J JJJ JJJ J LL U_ L.L. 1 J J J J J J J J _J _. _1 _, J J _1 _, _, 1 ZZ Z Z 1 ,c = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Q 1 2 F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- = = O_ -. 1 w W W W W W W w W w W W W w W w W W W w W 1 = „ ,...„, „ ,, ,,, ,„ ,,,, , ,, ,, J7� 1Z Z = = Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z = = = = = m 1 „ . . . = . . „- - 1 N Cl) N N . L/) IJ) (n N N V) (/) C.) C.) V) N NJ NJ N - t I 1 -J I 9 W LL I - C ) 0) I .-+ N M U7 O .--. N M1 . COO) O r-. N M V o 1 N N N N N ..:C = I 1 a Z 1 1 E 21 I I. >- F- I . CO CD 4 tD a) w N al CA N N .1 w O M .--. . 4 O ..tD LC) O 4 O Z 1 N CT Q.) Ln CO O CT LP M M N M M Ln Ln CO O Ln to CO LD tD On CO W I CT Lb .-4 Lc) r` N CO N tD al 1` CO LD LD QD LC) u cr V Lf) CT CT O Ln F- f I V) Ln I N- .--4 CO CV V M M N M .--1 N N .--I -4 N N N N N N LD r- N N I LC) N (N.J -4 4.44444 444.444 44 44 44 4.4 44 64 44 44 4.4 64 44 4.4 44 64 >- LU I 44 444 44.-4 F- V) 44 �1 V) J Q 1 •-4 J I CO J LU I UD O O txn CO M C 'D (V N. N- N N cr CT O N. Ln LC) O Ln O Ln 0 ir 2 O I- Lam• I CT .--r N On O LD CT N C MLD O O '-D 'D O Cn C CT O ...-i r- n O N CCZ d 1 N CO CO U) .-4 ,-4 .-1 •"4 .--• •-'4 •--I .--1 •-'i •--I •"I N N .r Q O I N LU H CC O I L.L_ Z L.L O I W t1 I D 2C I O N I O to I d' LY cc .Y 3 LU I Z LU w w w C7 V) I Q I- V) J 2222 1- r N I Z = V) W _J ¢ d4 ¢ V) V) V) ---1 t0 d I >- CC O Z Z W f f = O O O j I V) CC W LJ_ .-. O p W W LU W LL. U.. L.L. I >- co I J ›. J •7I • 2 >- in u.Iin in CL d d o_ o_ o_ o_ CC I CC d m • N V) V) O W CC CC LY CC CC CC CC CC O_' CC CC • r d ¢ W 1 .--4 V) 1--I O Q t.J Z J Jl..LI..a_ l.. l O O O O O O O O O O 2 2I- I C.7 I`1 OLD ,-. OO C> UUUUC, U O •-+ d I • >- F- �OL..LQdd ¢ >- Y >- O 7= Z 1 LU a. CC 2 LY 0 CC CC CC CC CC CC 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 O ,, OC I CC LJJF- LLJJQ V- 2LLJQQQ000UUUUUI- F- F- d J W I .--. Z I- O co d = LU 2 C) 03 CO CO 03 V) N V) V) N V) Ln 0 0 O Z W I- I U- 2 J f O Z Z C)>- CC CC CC CC I- F- I- I- I- I- I- E d ce J I d O d ., 0 CD • Q .-r O ¢ ¢ Q ¢ LLJ LLJ LLJ LU LL LL LL1 •-• •-. 0--4 3 l I- t _ I = 73I-- CCCC _J Dd' 7mmm0L7L7C_7CDCDC,7C_7I- F- F- 1 ¢ I C> 1 0 .--4NM .7t.C1t0rs. I CL .--. Co.) M CT Lf) lD r- CO CT . . . . . . .-. .--. i I O j I I- F- F- F- F- F- I- I- I- I- F- I- F- F- F- F- F- 1 J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I .--. J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J I C, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I Z Q ¢ Q ¢ d Q d d d d d d d d ¢ ¢ ¢ 1 0 I- I- I- F- I- F- I- I- F- - I_-- F- F- I- I- F- F- CC 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 LL I U V) V) N V) Ln V) N V) V) V) V) L/) V) V) V) V) V) Z 1 d ¢ d ¢ d d d d d d ¢ d ¢ d d d d 3 I Ln 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 py1 O I .-_J L U L LI U..1L LJ LU LLJ L U LL Lu LU LU LU LU LL LU W LL J I J Q Z Z 2 Z Z 2 Z Z 2 Z 2 2 Z Z 2 Z 2 I I O 2 Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z 2 Z Z 2 Z Z 2 Z Z W I IZ I- Z L Q O = F 7= = 7= = 7= 7= 7= = .--. NM J O I LL J 1j CO CU J--. I Z I- LL LJJ LU LU uJ Lu LL LU Li) LU LU LU LU LU LU LU U.1 I- F- I- F- 1 Z = Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O O O CL 1 .--. O ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q d Q Q d d d d d d d d -..1 J J 1.-.1 I 1 J J J J J J J J ) JJJJJJJJ I I I 2 I V) NNN -� U I Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z 2 2 Z 2 2 Z 2 2 2 2 CC 2 E c/') I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CC cc = LL I d ddd O 1 L1 J J J J J J J J J J J ) J J J J J L.L U_ LL I J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 1 Z Z 2 Z I 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 d d I CC ,- I- I- I- 0- I- I- F- I- I- •- F- I- H- I- 1--• I- CC CC CC 1 LL LL LLJ LLJ LU LU LL LL LLJ LL LL LL LU lL LL LL LU W W LU LU • I N in (,) N (A N V) Ln in V) V) V) Ln V) V) N Ln = 1 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z = 1 •--. 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 •-• •--• .--. I � LC) LC) Lc) Lc) N V) N N V) N V) Ln (/) Ln N V) Ln ry N .--4 1 J CC I 1 LL LU I U CO 1 r-. N C1 M L.C) tD n CO CT O .--4 N CI) V Ln LO n CO CT O .--. N M V .Y 2 I .-. .--4 .--- ---- ---- ---- ---I .-.-. ,-4 .--. N N N N N d = 1 CL 2 1 1 1 22 1 r I I >- F- I N LO V O r. N N LO C O) LO LO N N Ln CO N. r. LI) O LO Q' in O Z I N. r. tON f` CO NM .--. .--. '-4 .--. .-4QCr ,..0CO M Mc)Ln N Ln co = W I N. N.. Ln N. '-. CO N LO Ln N. co VO LO LO Ln V V in Cr. U0 in F- £ I . . . . . . w w w w w w w w .. w w w - N V) I ON O Ni tO N .7 M M N M .--. N Ni .--4 .--. N Ni Ni N N N LO N. Ni N I r. N .-i O 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 444 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 if >- W I 44 44 44 r-. F- V) I 44 'r V) I J ¢ I - •--• J I co1 ,.... J W 1 OOcOMCOMO) 3ONr. r. CVNvvCr. LninCc') Ou') O O 1- GC I .-4 .--I CO Ln OLO .7N C) McOOOLOcOOChO) O) O - r. r. O (./) Z d I ,, CO ,r —I .-I .-1 —I -4 .-1 ,, -, .--I „, r-. .-4N N .-I ¢ O F- 1 M C W F- CC O I LL Z LL O I W LL 1 D £ I O V) I O N I CC CC CC CC _ 3W I Z W w LU LU C7 V) I d I- V) J Z Z Z Z I- F- I•-- O V) I Z £ V) W J ¢ ¢ ¢ d V) V) V) O Q I CC O Z Z W £ £ £ £ O O O I N CY W W .--. O O W W W W LL U_ LL I >- U 1 J D. £ J "M F- Z >- W W W W CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CC I CL' ¢ £ • V) V) N 2 W CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CY cc 0:: • ¢ ¢ W I mac/) .--+ OQ W Z ,---. JJLLLJ_ U. L.. 000OOOOCM00 Z Z F- I L r r O CO --• O U U U U U U U O • d I • >- F- OOLL dd ¢ Q >- >- >- O £ Z I W CL CC 2 CC O CC CC CC CC CC CC CC 2222222 = 2 _ CD •-. CC 1 2 WF- W J21-- 2 W 22Q2000UUUU1- . F- 2 J W 1 '--. Z 1- O CD ¢ £ UJ S C_) CO C) CO CO Cl) V) V) V) N V) V) 0 0 0 } Z W F- I LI. CC J £ OZ ZU >- CC CC CC CC F- F-- I- I- I- 1- I- 2: £ £ t ¢ CCJ I ClO2 .-+ 00 . 2 OQ ¢ QQ W LU W W W W W .-1 - .--. i I- CL 1 273 F- CY CC J D CC '-DCOCC = COLD CD LO C7 C7 CD C-0 I- F- F- I d - I U I O .--I N M v Ln cO r- I LL .--. (Ni C'.) •Ct cc) LO ^ CO C) .--I . .--. .--. .--I .--. .--I .--I 1 C) 1 I- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- 1- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- I J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 1 U I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 f 1 Z ¢ d d d ¢ d ¢ ¢ d ¢ d d d d d d ¢ s 1 O F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F-- H F- F- F-- F- F- F- F- F- C C I O 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 CC -- LU W I U V) V) V) on on V) V) V) LI) N C/) V) C/) on on Ln V) Z I d d d d ¢ d d d d ¢ d d d d ¢ d ¢ 3 I V) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 O I -+ W W W W LU W W w W W LU LU W W W W W I _J ¢ Z2= Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W I I O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z I C1 F- Z 1 d O £ £ £ f £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ .--1 N M COO I W J W 1-1 I Z F- W W W W W W W W W LU W W W W W W W F- F- I- I- = Z O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NC Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 0 CD _ C1 1 .-+ O d d ¢ d d ¢ ¢ ¢ d ¢ ¢ ¢ d ¢ ¢ d ¢ J J J v.) I 2 I J J J J J J J J J J _J J _J J J J J I 1 I L 1-- _ CY I V) V) V) V) U I £ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z £ £ £ C V) I C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OCC CC CC W I ¢ d ¢ ¢ _ O I LL J J J _J J J _J _J J J J _J _J _J J _J J W LL U- 4 I J J J J J J _J _J _J J J J J J _J _J J I Z Z Z Z I ¢ = 2 2 = 2 = = = = = 2 2 2 = 2 = 2 d ¢ d I £ £ f £ I CYr- r- I--- F- I- F-- r- F- F- F- H - F- F- F- F- F- CC CC CC _ I W W LU W W W W W w W W W W W W W LU W W W W I £ V) V) V) I) N V) V) N V) V) V) V) N N V) V) V) £ £ I 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z £ 2 2 I rJ V) N V) V) V) V) V) N V) N V) V) V) N V) V) V) hi hi ry - I J CC I W W I �- U CO 1 .--. N V M Ln vO N. Cb C) O r-. Ni M V Lf) LO N. CO O) O .-4 Ni M Q c 2 I .--. .4 .--. .--4 -, .--4 -. .--I .r .r Ni Ni (Ni N N _ d O 1 1 CL Z I 1 23 i L - ]] _ 1j 3 1 i >-- F- I OLC) LO wOM .--+ � Ql .r ,-INNO � MMOMLr) MO p Z � O N .--1 000 .-. 0 C 0 0 0 M M 0 r---- Cs.' N un M O .--ice 0 I W I N LD 0 r ----- r ---- .-r CO N LO Q t\ vO LO t'J LD 0 cr .rT CT 0 C) 0 0 0 V) V) 10 0 .--I N. N .7 M M N M .--I N N .--I .--I N N N N N N LD N. N N I V N .--. LO 49 44 44 64 64 49.49 64 44 49 44 44 44 44 64 4 .69..b9.64 49- - 4- }I- LU t. I 464 b4.--I 0-1 V) I 49.N I J ¢ , --. J I CY) J LU 1 OONN. CO LO CV N. \ (NJ NC •zr (0N. Lc) L1) 0Lc) 000 _f cr O I- CD I O •--10NC) C) M .DOOLDL000) OMQ) C) •--- r� r. 0 V) C Z ¢ I 0 CO C' 0 .r .-1 .. .r .--. .--4 .--. .--a --1 .-a .--1 N N ..-1¢ O I- I .--l O . LU F- CC O I LL 2 LL O I -I W La_ I p 2 I O V) I O NICC C C 3 w , CC 2 UJ U V) I ¢ F-- N J Z Z Z Z W W W I F- F- LI) p ¢ I >- CO ZZ W 2222 000 I )-- p t C/') C LU L.1- .--. O p W W LU LU LJ. ,y W I J ? 2 J7 i-- W W W W Cl. Cl_ CL CL Cl. 3._ 0_ C I CC ¢ 2 • V) V) N 0 LIJ C C C C C CC C C CC CC C Z Z LU I ''" N '-' CQ LU Z - JJ W L.L. L._ t10000000ppp I U ~ OCD —. 0 O UUUUUUU 0 2 ¢ I • >- I- O'0 La_ ¢ < ¢ ¢ r >- ?- O 2 Z I W C1C2CC0C C CCC CCC 2222222222 0 --. 0 I C W I- W J ¢ I•-- ¢ W ¢ ¢ ¢ QUUUUUUUF- I- I- ¢ J W I .--1 Z F- O C'3 ¢ 2 W 2 U CO CZ1 CD CD N V) V) V) N V) V) O O O } Z W I- I L.L. 2J2CMZ 2U >- CCCCC' CCI-- I- I-- F- I- I- 1 - 222 Q CC J I 01 O ¢ .--. O O • ¢ .--. 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ W W W W W W W .--. .--. .--. j I— Cl ¢ I 2 '7 3 F- CC C J '7 CC '7 co CO] CO CO CD CD C.7 CD U L7 CD F- I- I- I ¢ I U I O .- C\J re) O Lo N. I W -1 N M Q' 0 l0 t\ co 0) .-i .--I ..r .--I r-ti .--1 .--1 9.--1 I C F- I- F- F- F- I- F- F- F- F- I- F- I- F- I- F- I- I --1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I .--1 J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J • I U I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 Z ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ r 1 0 F- F- 1 I- f- F- F- I- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- C I O 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 = 2 2 2 LU I U V) V) V) V) V) V) V) N N N V) V) V) V) (...) V) N 2 I ¢ ¢ ¢ < ¢ < ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ 4 I VI _I 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 LU O I """ LU LU LU LL LL LU LU LL LU LU W LU W LU LU LU I J ¢ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 Z Z 2 W I I O Z 2 2 2 Z Z Z 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z Z Z Z z 1 G F— I Z I ¢ 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 E 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 . N M W O I W J ,--+ I Z FF- LU LU W LU LU W LU W W LL1 LU LU W LU LU LU W F- I- I- - I Z 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 0 0 Cl I .--. O ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ JJJ I i CL I J J J J J J J J J J _1 J J J J J J I I t V (C I ) V) N V) _ U I 2 Z 2 Z Z Z 2 2 2 Z Z Z 2 2 2 Z Z 2 2 2 2 r0 I C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C W I ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ 0 I LL J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J LL LL LL I J J J J J J _J J J J J J J J J J J Z Z 2 2 ¢ 2 = 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 = 2 = 2 = 2 2 ¢ ¢ Q 2 2 2 2 I C F- F- I- I- I- I- - F I - I- I-- I- I- I-- -- F- I- 1 - ICC C C I W LU W W W W LU LU LU W LU LLI W W W LU W LU W W LU 1 2 V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) N V) N V) V) V) i 1 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 I .--. 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 ..-.. .--. .r i I ti V) V) N V) N V) V) V) V) V) V) VI V) V) V) V) V) N N r---.4 I 1 J C I T W W I - UCC] I .--. N V MLI CO I-- CO C) 0 .--. NMc:eOL.ON. 00 C) --. NMv C 2 I .-I .--I .--. .-y . . . . . N N N N N ¢ 2 t C 2 I s_ 24 4 i RECOMMEDIDATION r V This report has examined four alternatives for improving Tanadoona Drive - Dogwood Avenue. All of the alternatives examined are feasible from an engineering perspective. Selection of one favored alternative involves consideration of engineering issues as well as cost considerations, property 1 and natural environment impacts, comments solicited at a meeting of area property owners and other factors. Considering all issues, it is recommended 1 that the City of Chanhassen pursue the implementation of Alternate "A" to provide an acceptable level of public streets serving the existing neighborhood and the surrounding properties. I I Alternate "A" has been recommended due primarily to cost considerations and t the fact that it is the least disruptive option since it substantially follows the existing street alignments. The primary concern in implementing Alternate "A" is the mound treatment system and the accompanying existing lift station. As shown on Exhibit 8, clearances in this area are extremely tight between the existing system and existing property lines. Although detailed survey information of this area is unavailable at the present time, it appears that this solution is workable. Detailed survey information in this area will be needed as a part of the preparation of design plans to determine what actual impacts may be and what, if any, mitigation efforts will be necessary. t_ I I 25 - CITY OF CHANHASSENI 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: June 15 , 1989 — SUBJ: Minnewashta Farm Proposal The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the Minnewashta Farms site plan at their last meeting. The Commission felt that neigh- borhood parkland should not be requested with this proposal, — however, if and when future development is proposed, such would be necessary. The comprehensive trail plan calls for a trail that would connect — the Landscape Arboretum to the Regional Park, (as both have indi- cated a willingness to work with us ) . The plan shows the trail running along the west side of this parcel , from Crimson Bay Road — to Tanadoona Drive. The Commission felt that this would be less than ideal, recognizing the impact it would have on the southern most lot. Therefore, they have recommended that a 20 ' wide trail easement be acquired along the south and east sides of the deve- _ lopment. They also noted that when future development of the 79 acres occurs , this alignment may be amended. It is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to accept park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction, and to require a 20 ' wide trail easement along the south and east property lines of the site to enable the continuation of the trail segment connecting the Landscape Arboretum and Minnewashta Regional Park. The Park and Recreation Commission also discussed the possibility of acquiring the 79 acre parcel to meet future comprehensive park needs. They will be requesting a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss needs and funding possibilities. — Van DorErr P . C . DATE : June 21 , 1989 Hazard, Stallings- C . C . DATE : July 10 , 1989 Aht cts•Engvwers•Pleir,..s CASE NO : 89-2 LUP Amend . STAFF REPORT TO : Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler - DATE : June 13 , 1989 PROPOSAL : Land Use Plan Amendment (MUSA Line ) LOCATION : West of Lake Ann Park , north of TH 5 APPLICANT : M . J . Gorra 1680 Arboretum Blvd . Chanhassen , MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING : RR , Rural Residential ACREAGE : 140+ Acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE : N - RR , Vacant Land & Lake Ann S - Vacant and Industrial Land E - Lake Ann Park W - Vacant Land WATER AND SEWER : Municipal water and sewer service not presently available. PHYSICAL CHARAC . : Mixture of wooded areas and cultivated fields 1990 LAND USE PLAN : Low Density Residential BACKGROUND Mr. Gorra has filed a request with the City to amend the land use plan to place approximately 140 acres west of Lake Ann Park into the MUSA line. An application and subsequent approval from the City of Chanhassen is required as the first step in this request eventually being acted upon by the Metropolitan Council . 3030 Harbor Lane North Btdg.II, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 L______1. 4, uDE LANE - ,. 1 '[ � \ ` +IIF S„ LI a Gy COVRPLLLL `J LAKE 'I f\ rvi_aomn-' 1-ii , _, k ,, ',,\ , --.... ) _) .4,4•Imi._____ • LAKE r• LAKE LUCY Bear I1f H�RR/SON ` ll 4/ fI !ma.i _II tI 1I at .� Q u ,.. �. - ct- '\,o L� it-4,.‘,-.1 m • 410 p4-Aes1AE^1T _ LAKE ANN 1" ,iiiit. .7 r i\s L _ Z 1 cc — _ , -N....rAi :if- ,, 9, . 41 :amp._ pr. rAppirier tr . Igor, , / AAtei BOULEVARD 1 r---------'------- 1 PA•K (..j __ . 01 COURT o Cs' Rp••00. 1 a ft ill \lig, I / t TIM:ER OOD 1 01(}e# Aill " I I* **t e i t ., VAL. v`l P.f `\ - III ,. PO A 9' S . Gorra/Am. Legion Land Use Plan Amendment June 13 , 1989 Page 2 _ Simultaneous to the request by Mr. Gorra , the City also received a similar request from the Chanhassen American Legion Post to add approximately 5 . 7 acres of land to the MUSA line. The Legion property lies between the land owned by Mr. Gorra and Lake Ann Park . In addition to the Legion parcel , another privately held parcel also exists in this same area. Since these applications were received by the City at the same time and since they lie adjacent to one another , both will be considered in the body of this report. Where reference is made to the Gorra _ property , it includes all of the property shown on Attachment #2 . The motivations of each of the applicants in these two cases is different. Mr. Gorra is involved in litigation with the MWCC over condemnation proceedings relative to the construction of the Lake Ann Interceptor which bisects his property . As a part of that action , Mr. Gorra sought to introduce evidence regarding what he called the downgrading of his property that was part of the Lake Ann Interceptor Sewer Agreement (1 per 2 . 5 acres vs . 1 per 10 acres ) . Judge Mansur issued an order that stated that he would have to bring a separate action on the downgrading issue including the City of Chanhassen and the Metropolitan Council . After review of the order , Mr. Gorra submitted a letter to the City of Chanhassen dated May 26 , 1989 offering not to bring the -- downgrading lawsuit involving the City and the Metropolitan Council if the 140 . 75 acres of land is immediately brought into the IIUSA Line. He further stated that he would agree " not to develop the property for a period of 5 years , other than what current zoning regulations allow. The land would not be assessed ( if at all ) until development plans are approved . " As a part of the application , Mr. Gorra has not submitted a proposed development plan. Outside of his statement that he would not develop the property for a five year period outside of what current zoning allows , his future plans are unknown. Presumably "what current zoning allows " is a reference to the current requirements of the RR district. The request by the American Legion has been submitted because they desire to purchase the old Natural Green site for a future clubhouse and recreational area. In order to eventually build on the site , they desire the availability of sanitary sewer service . This application for a land use plan amendment has to be reviewed on it ' s own merits just as any other application is processed in the City of Chanhassen . The threat or potential threat of litigation should not be a decision factor in the final action on this request . Rather , it needs to be reviewed in light of the overall context of the policies and plans of the City of Gorra/Am. Legion Land Use Plan Amendment June 13 , 1989 Page 3 Chanhassen and any framework agreements that the City has with regional agencies. ANALYSIS This request presents a complex issue which needs to consider — information from a variety of sources . Among these are the City ' s policy as stated in the comprehensive plan , the Metropolitan Council ' s policies and procedures , and the context of the Sewer Facility Agreement between the City and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC ) . In 1986 , the City entered into the Sewer Facility Agreement with — the MWCC as a part of the construction of the Lake Ann Interceptor. That document permits the processing of this type of application. The text of the agreement states , "It is understood that the City — may in the future , following compliance with the provisions of 6 . 1 , amend its comprehensive plan and /or rural service areas and sewer flow allocation , subject to (Metro ) Council approval of _ comprehensive plan amendments pursuant to Minn . Stat. Sec . 473 . 856 and Sec . 473 . 175 and (Metropolitan Waste Control ) Commission approval of comprehensive sewer plan amendments pursuant to Minn . Stat. Sec . 473 . 513 . " The City did comply with the requirements imposed in Section 6 . 1 . At the regional level , the modification of the MUSA Line is addressed in the Metropolitan Development Investment Framework (MDIF ) (Attachment #3 ) which was adopted by the Metropolitan Council on September 25 , 1986 . The MDIF portrays the Gorra property as Commercial Agricultural Area which by their definition is areas where " agriculture is the best permanent use of the land . " The MDIF further states that in these areas , " long-term investments in farm equipment and in land preservation can be made with the — confidence that urban development is not going to destroy or limit these investments. " How the Metropolitan Council classified the Gorra site as Commercial Agriculture is unknown. The City ' s Comprehensive Plan adopted in the early 1980 ' s and approved by the Metropolitan Council portrayed the property as one of the next areas scheduled to receive sanitary sewer service . Furthermore , the City included the Gorra property in it ' s MUSA line which was shown in the plan for informational purposes only . The MDIF also discusses the process of changes in the Urban Service Area (MUSA area ) . It defines two types of changes , one involving land trades and the second involving revisions to the boundary . The current request falls under the second classification . _ Regarding this category , the MDIF states , " tne (Metro ) Council may consider revisions to the urban service area more frequently if a local government can clearly demonstrate that it is growing faster than the Council forecast or that it has less than a five-year — Gorra/Am. Legion Land Use Plan Amendment June 13 , 1989 Page 4 overage of vacant , developable land . However , the (Metro ) Council will consider interim revisions with great caution to avoid rendering the area-wide forecasts and system plans meaningless . " At this point in time , Chanhassen does not have all of the documentation in place to build a comprehensive argument for the expansion of the MUSA line. The issue of expanding the MUSA line was added to the work yet to be completed on the Comprehensive Plan update by Steve Hanson in April of 1989 . The existing Comprehensive Plan text does contain some information in support of the expansion . According to the plan , the City may need a total of 1 ,654 acres of additional land to accommodate residential development prior to the year 2000 . According to City records as of August of 1988 , the community presently has 1 , 160 acres of vacant land within the confines of the existing MUSA line . Population growth also supports expansion of the line . Regarding growth rates that exceed the forecasts of the Metropolitan Council , the MDIF projects Chanhassen ' s 1990 population at 9 , 000 and the 2000 population at 10 ,000 . The Metropolitan Council ' s own population estimate dated April 1 , 1988 identified an existing population of 9 , 225 for the City of Chanhassen . Based upon building permit activity since that time , the City estimates that as of March 1 , 1989 , the population has grown to over 11 , 000 . Utilizing solely Metropolitan Council data , Chanhassen surpassed it ' s 1990 estimate in early 1988 . If local data is factored in , the 2000 estimate was surpassed in either late 1988 or early 1989 . Chanhassen ' s Comprehensive Plan is another source of stated policy regarding the extension of sanitary sewer service . The utilities section of the plan contains a goal that states that the City will prohibit premature extension of utility systems and that such extensions must be consistent with the comprehensive sewer policy plan . Chanhassen ' s adopted comprehensive sewer policy plan identifies the Gorra property as an area that is projected to receive trunk sewer extensions during the 1990 - 1995 time frame. As part of the comprehensive plan update , the comprehensive sewer policy plan is being updated . At this time , the update of this section is incomplete and it is not known whether either the City or the Metropolitan Council will seek to modify the staging of sewer service in this area. Since the Metropolitan Council relabeled the 1990 MUSA line as the 2000 MUSA line , a delay in providing service to this area may occur. Extension of sanitary sewer into the Gorra property which involves placement of the site in the MUSA line will eventually occur . The two key issues that need to be addressed in reaching a conclusion on this request pertain to the timing of the improvements and the quantity of land that is added in each incremental change in the MUSA line. Gorra/Am. Legion Land Use Plan Amendment June 13 , 1989 Page 5 Inclusion of the Gorra property in the MUSA line is generally consistent with the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan in its currently adopted form. The degree of conformance with the update of the plan is unknown at this time. Since it is generally conforming with city policy , are there any downside risks in approving the subject request? The only major risk in seeking the proposed change in the MUSA line concerns whether such a change should include only the requested parcels or encompass a larger area which may more appropriately meet the City of Chanhassen ' s needs over the next 11 year period . Additionally , would approval of a piece of the needed land at this time jeopardize the City ' s opportunity to include more land at a later date? This last question is of particular concern to staff. Chanhassen has identified the need for an additional 494 acres of land in the MUSA line prior to 2000 . The Gorra property satisfies only 1 /3 of _ this demand . Mr. Gorra has stated that it is his intent to withhold development on the property for at least 5 years. If for some reason he elects not to develop the property for a longer period of time , the supply of developable land is even further restricted . RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has three choices in acting on this matter. The request could be approved , denied or tabled pending completion of the comprehensive plan update , particularly the land use section and the comprehensive sewer policy plan. Recently , the plan update effort has been stalled due to thelack of available staff time to prepare key portions of the socio-economic and land use sections . Steve Hanson began to address these topics but unfortunately , they were not completed by the time of his departure. The City Council now has a proposal under advisement to shift some of the staff responsibility for the completion of these key sections to the planning consultant for completion . If this occurs , the plan can be completed in draft form within 60 to 90 days . If this does not occur , further delays are anticipated . If the City approves the request by Mr . Gorra and the Legion to include the parcels in the MUSA line , the next step is the submission of a major comprehensive plan amendment (Attachment #4 ) to the Metropolitan Council for their review and subsequent action . If this occurs , the City of Chanhassen assumes the role of the Sponsoring Governmental Unit and correspondingly , assumes the prime responsibility of preparing the text and graphic exhibits that accompany the application form. The material that will form the basis of the application is the same material that is being — developed for the comprehensive plan . If the City approves Mr. Gorra ' s application at this time , who will prepare the material and who will cover the cost of the preparation? One possibility in — Gorra/Am. Legion Land Use Plan Amendment June 13 , 1989 Page 6 addressing this issue is to require the applicants to post an escrow account to cover the cost of the work . Inclusion of the Gorra property into the MUSA line is consistent with Chanhassen ' s long term goals . Based on information available at this time , it appears that documentation could be assembled to support this addition for submittal to the Metropolitan Council . Whether or not the Metropolitan Council would ultimately approve the addition is open to speculation . From the City ' s perspective , the timing and form of any major request to modify the MUSA line is extremely important . Expansion of the sewer service area is a major concern of the Metropolitan Council . It is the opinion of the Chanhassen Planning Department — that chances of gaining approval are greatly enhanced if the application is well conceived and thoroughly supported by the Comprehensive Plan . As a result , the application by Mr. Gorra is premature at this time and should not be approved until the Comprehensive Plan update is finalized . This recommendation obviously assumes that the plan will support the applicants request. This assumption will not be verifiable until the plan is completed . Therefore , the following motion is recommended for adoption : "The Planning Commission recommends tabling action on Land Use Amendment Request #89-2 due to the fact that at the present time , the City of Chanhassen lacks sufficient background information to fully support approval of the request. The background information from the Comprehensive Plan update is expected to be available in 90 days . Prior to that time , any action approving this request is premature . " If the Planning Commission and City Council find that the applicants request is appropriate at this time , it is suggested that the applicants be required to post an escrow account sufficient to fund the assembly of the application. It is estimated that the cost of this work will range from $2500 - $3000 . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Application 2 . Half section identifying subject property . 3 . Excerpts from Metropolitan Council MDIF . 4 . Major Comprehensive Plan Amendments application . RECEIVED LAND DEVELOPm,ENT APPLICATION b/der9 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REN Hp,ZARD 690 Coulter Drive VAN DO Chanhassen, MN 55317 STALUNGS (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: J 06041 p OWNER: J�M 4e- ADDRESS lh 0 R ( eeTV ki ADDRESS A�ka�sse�, fl 0P, 3.TELEPHONE (Daytime) 7 4 _ `aCe Zip Co __ TELEPHONE REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Zoning Variance __ Preliminary Plan Final Plan - Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision V Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Si Ar,u Loco ISefus::) REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING R UA.L ec s'% Apel i' A C. REQUESTED ZONING d CAAIU• USES PROPOSED SIZE OF PROPERTY Q Ac rICS LOCATION I to 8O 6o,e-e i L U CS. Co ftie DP REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST L p K �� E7 E'ticLDseA Lc e2 , LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) _c y2ye� �ivcL : iffriviarregra 41Ib LAt Y1n Co_ A ccT ec r • C_t_ of Chanhassen 4 f 'SS7Q - - Lanc Development Application /ILL ow ,v� s 4�f Pace - I I{i rFI" D>co-o t i n e Sd� This abdication must be 'rG ov - clearly printed and must beaccompaniedbyeted in full and inbe typewritten or plans recuired by applicable all information and filing this City Ordinance provisions. Before - to determine the specific ordinance andconfer with the City Planner application , should applicable to your application. Procedural requirements • FTT i::Ci C-RTIFICATIC�7: v�.1 The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certif' that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all apolicabie City Ordinances . les Signed By ' ! pplicant _ Date - �- �� The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has • described d to make this application for the prcperty her been ein Signed By / . l `0 dif Date c- Z.to - RI . Fee Owner • Date Application Received - Application Fee Paid • City Receipt No. • • • - * This Application will be considered by Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their e Planning Commission/ meeting . • - • May 26, 1989 — City of Chanhassen Honorable Mayor — City Council Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: M.W.C.C. vs. Michael J. Gorra,et al Dear Stirs: Jud^-e Mansur' s Order states that I must irolud.e the City of Chanhassen and the Met Council tr a. separate action to determine liability in the downgrading of 140.75 acres that was tart of the Lake Ann Interceptor Sewer Agreement between the City of Chanhassen and the Mpt Council. I have offered not to bring the downgrading; lawsuit against the City 'f Chanhassen r_d ! et Council if the 140.75 acres is irrrnediately brought in t" the MUSA Line. I won d a-ree not to r_evelop the property for a period of 5 years, other than what current zoning regulations allow. The land 'could rot be assessed ( if at all) until development plans are arjrroved. The Metro Council ' s attorneys h ,ve suk=vested the proper xray for the Met Council to make a decision on my proposal is to receive a request for action on the proposal from the City, if the City supports the proposal. This is a reouest f:'r the City' s support for the above — proposal. I would hope that this matter could be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties as soon as possible. Awaiting your decision. Sincerely, 724• % An482---• Micha J. Gorra cc: M. McCullough l v Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, 1, Minnesota 55101 612 222-8423 O May 24 , 1989 Q • Mr. Milo Wehking 1960 Mabel Court Chaska, MN 55318 Re: Condemnation Case 87-23355 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission v. Michael Gorra Dear Mr. Wehking: This letter is to confirm the information I gave you on the phone last week with respect to the above named case. The petitioner, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission , is ready to present its case on damages at any time. We would need only enough notice from you to schedule our witnesses . It is my understanding that Respondent Gorra' s attorney is going to ask for an extension of time for filing the commissioners ' report on the premises that he is going to bring a separate action on the issue of a zoning change affecting Mr. Gorra ' s property. He intends to ask the court to consolidate the two cases . Before any consideration on the damage issue could take place, there would have to be a finding by the court that a taking due to a downzoning had occurred. I informed Mr. Gorra ' s attorney that the MWCC reserved the right to object to a consolidation of the cases . At present, Mr. Gorra has not started an action with respect to the zoning change issue. It ' s my information that he is presently applying to the city for a relocation of the MUSA line. If the City Council approves his application for relocation of the MUSA line, it would be submitted tot he Metropolitan Council for its approval . The City would be making a decision on Mr. Gorra ' s application sometime in July. I have no objection to holding the hearings after the City and/or the Metropolitan Council have made a decision on Mr. Gorra ' s application but we would want the hearings on this case to be scheduled right after the decision has been made by the City and Met Council unless the case has been settled. The Order signed by Judge Mansur on April 10 states that the zoning issue is not part of this case so hearings on this case can be scheduled at any time as requested by the condemnation commissioners . Sincerely, Of `fanne K. Ma oss Associate General Counsel • JKM: am CC: Mark C. McCullough EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ArFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER • • ( SKAAR 8c MCCULLOUGH NARVEY E. SKAAR 1900 /,RST SAM LAU ST - MARK C. MCCULLOUGN MINNEAPOLIS, MINN Td B93 16121 333.151 O • ) b April 17, 1989 Jeanne K. Matross, Esq. METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 350 Metro Square Building Seventh -and Robert Streets — -- St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: MW CC vs. Michael Gorra, et al. Condemnation Case No: 87-23355 Carver County District Court Dear Jeanne: I have Judge Mansur's Order, which presents some interesting legal issues. Mike is presently deciding if he should appeal separate the Order or commence a p proceeding and move to consolidate the cases, or both. As the City of Chanhassen and the Met Council will be brought into this matter one way or another, I would like to make a proposal to resolve one or both of the damage issues. Mike will dismiss his appeal, or not bring his "downgrading" lawsuit, if his 140.75 acres is immediately brought within the MUSA line. He would agree not to develope his property for 5 years and his land would not be assessed (if at all) until development plans are approved. Mike would also like to settle the easement damage issues, however, thus far the MWCC has not expressed an interest in considering his claim. If you can come up with a creative resolution of these issues, please contact me within the next few days. Thank you. Very truly yours, Mark C. McCullough MCM:slr cc: Mike Gorra • 4;;: \ ` 9Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612222-8423 May 16 , 1989 Mr. Mark C. McCullough Attorney at Law 1900 First Bank Place West O Minneapolis , MN 55402-1893 O Re: MWCC v. Michael Gorra, et al . Condemnation Case No. 87-23355 Dear Mark: As you recall , by court order dated November 23 , 1989 extended the time by which the commissioners appointed for this case must file a report to June 9 , 1989 . Since we are ready to present our case to the commissioners as soon as a hearing can be scheduled, it would be more appropriate for you to file a motion requesting an additional extension if you are planning to commence a separate proceeding and to move to consolidate the cases . Since we are fast approaching the June 9 date, I will not oppose the motion to extend the date for the commissioners ' report. However, we may oppose a motion to consolidate any other case with this one and reserve the right to do so. I sent a copy of your April 17, 1989 letter to Roger Knutson, representing the City of Chanhassen, Jay Heffern, Chief Counsel of the Metropolitan Council and David Theissen, an attorney with the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council attorneys informed me that the proper way for the Metropolitan Council to make a decision on Mr. Gorra ' s proposal is to receive a request for action on the proposal from the City, if the City supports the proposal . I would suggest that you contact Roger Knutson to get specific details on the information that Mr. Gorra would have to submit to the City. The City would present the information and proposal to the Metropolitan Council for a decision. Sincerely, nne K. Matross ssociate General Counsel JKM:am CC: Jay Heffern, Metropolitan Council David Theissen, Metropolitan Council Roger Knutson , Grannis Grannis Farrell & Knutson � gl EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER \/1\ CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. CARVER COUNTY P.O.BOX 106,121 WEST 4TH STREET,CHASKA,MINN.55318 (612)448-5570 ABSTRACT k TITLE Dale B. Kutter David E. Moonen May 26, 1989 Mr. Mike Gorra 1680 Arboretum Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 According to the 1989 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the following persons are listed as owners of the property in Carver County, Minnesota which lies within 500 feet of the following described property: PARCEL ONE Government Lot Three (3), Section Ten (10) , Township One Hundred Sixteen (116), Range Twenty-Three (23) . EXCEPT the North 66 feet as measured along the West line of said Government Lot Three (3), Also, the Southeast Quarter (SE;) of Southeast Quarter (SE;) of Section Ten (10) , Township One Hundred Sixteen (116), Range Twenty- Three (23) . EXCEPT that part of Southeast Quarter (SE;) of Southeast Quarter (SE;) described as ccmTencing at the Southeast corner thereof, thence West along the South line of said quarter-quarter 556 feet, thence North parallel with the Fast line of said quarter-quarter 593.2 feet, thence deflecting to the right an angle of 62°00' , 150 feet, more or less, to the centerline of the creek; thence Easterly along the centerline of the creek to the East line of the said quarter-quarter; thence South along said Fast line to the point of beginning. PARCEL TWO That part of the West Half of the Southeast quarter (W1 of SE' ) of Section Ten (10) , Township One Hundred Sixteen (116), Range Twenty-Three (23), Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Comrencing at the Northwest corner of said West Half of the Southeast Quarter (W1 of SE') , thence on an assumed bearing of South 4°57'42" West along the West line of said West half of the Southeast Quarter (W1 of SEa), a distance of 1446.92 feet to the beginning of the parcel to be described; thence South 73°29' 12" Fast a distance of 1358.68 feet to the Fast line of said West half of the Southeast Quarter (W1 of SE;) ; thence South 5°35'37" West, West along said Fast line, a distance of 907.72 feet more or less to the Northerly right of way line of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 5; thence Westerly along said Northerly right of way line to the West line of said West half of Southeast Quarter (W1 of SE`) ; thence North 4°57'42" Fast along said West line a distance of 1158.81 feet more or less to the point of beginning. - PARCEL THREE That part of Section Ten (10), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116), Range Twenty- Three (23) , Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NW a of SE%) of Section Ten (10) , running thence Fast along the line between Lots Two (2) and Three (3) of said Section Ten ( 10) to the lake; thence commencing again at said Northeast - corner of said Northwest Quarter (NW;) of said Southeast Quarter (SE',) of Section Ten (10) and running South along the line between the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NW% of SE%) and Lot Three (3) of Section Ten (10), Four (4) rods, thence Fast through Lot Three (3) to the lake. ALSO the West Half of the Southeast Quarter (W1 of SE;) of Section Ten (10) , Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) Range Twenty-Three (23) Carver County, Minnesota. EXCEPT (This legal is the same legal as Parcel Two) . ALSO EXCEPT Right of way of Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 5. June 7, 1989 City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attention: Joan Olson, City Planning Department Gentlemen: The Chanhassen Post 41580, American Legion Housing Corporation is entering into an agreement to purchase the Natural Green property for future club- house site and recreational area. The property is a gross acre parcel of 5.65 acres located in the SE of Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 23 West in the City of Chanhassen. The legal description is included with this letter as is a copy of the Plat Map of the area. We understand that the property is outside of the Metropolital Urban Service Area and City sewer is not available. The main sewer trunk line is located on the south side of the property, running along State Highway 115. This trunk line also borders on the west line of said property; We request that the City of Chanhassen petition the Metropolitan Urban Service Area to permit installation of City Sewer to this property with hookup into the trunk line which abuts the property. Very truly yours, Bernard F. Schneider President Chanhassen Post 41580 American Legion Housing Corporation JUN 71989 CITY OF CHANhASSEN Tr IC) I`" 11111 VS,_ N■ tITm!u!1I i g is — �' ` ,rcA, ., � #' IMMIliti51111111 la& in C - w • T'TN STr1(i r J us 1 '. tiga ' .' RR/ ., ,- ''' - ) RAMO • i i III At. • „ . Cr B. MARRISo* . LAKE LUCY E , jf ,-- 6.0 RD '1 E iv- l7 int:.-� : 5, %_ . ,t,A - - - ,ite,,.Liiii 6 ..-. Fl El t.....14..;. i, 1 , ,‘ uu-N , V. ... 0 _. ' i 1 i I LAKE ANN A .J. 1RSF � oi RD 1 4 ...t/ i R il1 r.li - R4 R1 , is: RR Nip 6...v mali R12 01 ► R 12. . t Subject et ____ — •I %.OU CVARn �iiii�; - .( ii it BG • ril ri ,--- $ 1 f.r� �ti CITY OF w •� s�� ��- CHANHASSEN T.\ — s,��—�� ZONING MAP �� IOP 01 EFFECTIVE FEB,19,1987 LEGEND 1i 1I • t of Al - AGRI LTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT / , qii, / '`,1 V, A2 - AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT j RR - RURAL RESYIENTAL DISTRICT \ . IOW - OP OLE FAAILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R4 - NIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRCT RI - WILED 14DQA+DENSITY RESO(NTIAL DISTRICT LAKE SUSAN WILEDR12 •• FOGA DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT O RD ON - NFJO!BOW1000 BUSINESS DISTRICT m �I - ON - IIDNWAY•BUSHES$SERVICES DISTRICT COO - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT q S O B G - GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT a 3 PUD-R '-111111-1 °6-.11 BF - FRNOE BUSINESS DISTRICT a .• OFECE•NIC STITUTONAL L STRT g •1 IDP - POUSTR1AL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT - - - - 11.11111111S ___ - PLAIIEO WT OEVELOPNENT DISTRICT IE - NATURAL EHV M O .EM LAKE ` RD - RECREATIGVAL DEVELOPMENT LAKE - _ -- O J j I m 0 I 1 • A2111 i N . 3e • • 43 ' •\ • 42 I \ \\ N` P ,, I7I RICHARD • � D B ITNAN �\. P ft 111,1.{{ -J EASEMENT NO.LA-It . •\ .. • ra 3:::1+7 ',. s:-.._..,r . ..... 11I-• - 40 ..m. I r:11.�L COORS --_'_------ -- 3� EAS€YEMT NO.LA-N • momi [ • ••• �' • r. w.G{c.4 :A :".14"c"GOA. 3e kr • • • Ni�.E'G J GONNA Y 36 GEwc[ u.osrAaN • I C «::.':ice..r 11 EASEMENT NO.LA-It W.S — • C.- i F. - , _---NO.---- —--- _ 35 3 • — CARLISLE MADSON COUNTY SURVEYOR CARVER COUNTY, MINN. PRI 197D YEA OF C..- API COY O w Coop arr or E-,jam REC Ile,TA 1989 ""•L►uEk PANNING DEPT. .CALE M FEET •ATwjjhtvsats 4i.Z. • 0 0 00 200 300 400 __ — _ _ le.,:c..0.-6::;•34:0 _ ..-.-- 1,-%-ti-'il Metropo I i tan ...„_ .y.„„,..i..,,,, .,..,.„:„..„,•::,..,„, .....,......,„ „.i.,,,,..„...„......,„.„... i,_,';-q-.4, --;.3.:::,.. D eve lopment and:„.„..,,,,.. .-,.....s.,,,,,,,:z:: I nvestment F ram ewo rk ......„.„,,„„.„, _ .._..„...,..„. .:,......,,,...„.,,,,..„ . .:,„:„,....„.., .. ---5-7:it14 — - • -it.-:.:--ArtiATW:,--v53:-IVATO,,;-;1!;-,.,,,--iivt.naq.,."-):-,,,i,:::*:•,41.;;44.2kirta.1. :1-x,'-%=,-.-wl--zeAP.,:.;.0:g,,ik,w,v....k6,-Cfiikw.,...4.1-:,--;44-7.1r71 fft,;: .....;:firsv4fpliizi?.,,,i,,,...v..-All.g.seti..r.1.7.0::,:tzkolzvv),i-it---: — _ =;'?.;.:gi-i>ilatl.-.#.".1:4',:giciegit,..,4p:!..<•:,,S1:::::,;b4,3. 014eq4P.fr:..19-...-- ;-41--11-11141?-It:A1-41,E*.v.i?::;.vpilceistvg -4070...7,4';-3:- :---4."..*!•:,P.ZAIK.Ait-,*, Wilip.-w..All-ZgWirrg-.:;:jkt — _ [ - Ippli _ iihigiii :.1.-•:;...k.,-,-14,.. --4./.....7:4..:-,!,.:,...,:-.,...?.-,.."...f,:;-.-4.--,:.e.....:-...-.7..i........,•••••_ ,,,.•,..:-,...1....":7.4•;„:67.,4,..f.-11::::41::;Z::::::•54‘.7.:::::::::,•;::::.;:ii:1,..;......,..„,.........4.:,...!.2.1.4-a.:,:c..:Z _ — f I - and reaffirms here that forecasts for the metro mand (based on Council forecasts) for each corn- centers* and the fully developed area would be munity along the urbanizing fringe. In this review, more usefully viewed as a lower limit rather than as the Council typically found that the current land an upper limit to growth, because of the lack of supply was more than sufficient to meet forecasted available land for new development in these areas, needs for the next 15 years. In these cases,the 1990 prevailing demographic conditions and Council urban service area as shown in the adopted local policy. In general, higher growth forecasts by these comprehensive plan became the year-2000 urban communities could be supportive of Council policy, service area. However, in some cases, the Council provided that system capacity is available or can found that communities needed to add land to their reasonably be provided. Furthermore, forecasts for 1990 service areas to meet year-2000 demands. The the developing area and freestanding growth Council asked these communities to identify addi- centers should not necessarily be viewed as an up- tional urban areas consistent with Council-forecasted per limit on growth, if regional systems can accom- needs. These locally identified additions were then modate the greater growth. added to the affected communities' previously adopted 1990 urban service areas.The extension of Although the Council bases its forecasts in part on the urban service line also took into account pro- trends, "functional" constraints (for example, the tecting the natural environment. Wetlands, physical ability to expand facilities such as a floodplains and areas where bedrock is located near highway) and fiscal, or financial, constraints may the soil surface are not considered a part of the contribute to redirecting growth. Significant local available land supply within the urban area. economic development efforts may also play a role. The Council will support local economic develop- The Metropolitan Council will plan for growth in- ment efforts in areas where there is excess capacity side this urban service area, which includes in regional systems. freestanding growth centers (identified in the next section). The Council will also support urban development in rural centers(also defined in the next DIRECTING GROWTH WITHIN AN section), consistent with their ability to finance and URBAN SERVICE AREA administer necessary support services such as sewer, water and roads. The Council will not extend The focus of the Metropolitan Council's strategy on regional facilities to rural centers. directing growth in the region is to encourage growth to occur within an urban service area (see Figure 1). The Council is committed to providing metropolitan The 1975 development framework documented that systems within the urban service area, including the facilities and services needed to support urban freestanding growth centers, in accordance with the development can be provided at less public cost if regional systems plans and with mutually consistent the land area available for urban development at any local comprehensive plans. Regional facilities and one time is defined and limited in amount. This led services include sewers, major highways and inter- to the establishment in the first framework of urban changes, transit service, regional parks, and major- and rural service areas within the region,divided by and intermediate-level airports. However, as is the a generalized line. The metropolitan urban service case with maintaining regional facilities, the Coun- area line, as it presently exists, is a by-product of the cil will assign a higher priority for the construction review process carried out under the Metropolitan of new facilities that support economic development Land Planning Act, and subsequent amendments to as opposed to those that support residential local comprehensive plans. As the Council approv- development. ed plans for communities along the urbanizing fringe, the urban service area line in each of these The Council will use the urban service area as well plans replaced the generalized line in the 1975 as its demographic forecasts to direct future planning document. of and investments in regional systems. The Coun- cil urges local, state and federal agencies to support This framework reaffirms the urban/rural service area urban development and redevelopment in the urban concept and extends the metropolitan urban service service area. The Council will use the urban service area to the year 2000. The process of extending the area concept in reviewing plan amendments and en- line involved a review of the land supply and de- vironmental reviews from local governments and in _ decisions on distribution of funds. The Council will 'These "geographic policy areas," noted in bold type, are consider changes to the urban service area accor- defined in the next section. ding to the procedures found in Appendix B. 13 8GEOGRAPHIC POLICY AREAS The Metropolitan Development and Investment centration either becoming or replacing a metro Framework established policies for different center, based on.the centers' uniqueness and geographic areas within the metropolitan urban and historical role in the region. rural services areas(see Figure 2.)These geographic policy areas are the setting in which the Council and The metro centers have the highest level of ac- local governments prepare and carry out their plans. cessibility by road and transit in the region, and The Metropolitan Council has different expectations because of their density and number of jobs, the for each of the areas that are reflected below as well greatest potential for new forms of transit. In addi- as throughout the remainder of the framework. In tion, internal circulation is facilitated by their relative- addition, the Council has assigned different regional ly small size,together with the sidewalk system,and investment priorities to each of the areas. more recently, the network of skyways. Both Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns have METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA experienced a development boom over the past several years, much of it supported by some type of - Metropolitan Centers public subsidy. Although some changes in the form and amount of public subsidy may well be in order, The metropolitan, or metro, centers consist of the due to the high-cost and time-consuming process of central business districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul. reusing land in the metro centers, the public sector They are the largest and most diverse activity centers does have a continuing role to play in helping deter- in the region and comprise the government and mine the economic future of the metro centers. financial centers for much of the upper midwest.The Council has defined the geographic boundaries of Despite all the recent new development, both metro the metro centers according to the U.S. Census centers still have depressed areas, particularly at their definition (see Appendix C). fringes; the incorporation of the Mississippi River frontage into the downtown proper still needs work The metro centers were the original focal points for in both cities; and even with the progress already development in the region. Their tangible made, the need for more housing for middle- and attributes—the mix of old and new, the grid pattern lower-income people requires continued attention. of streets, the intensity of development—are unique (These three issues were identified in the 1975 and are not likely to be reproduced elsewhere in the development framework.) same form and composition.The variety,accessibili- ty and stability of cultural and entertainment offer- Over the past few years, virtually all parts of the ings add greatly to their image. Local residents and Metropolitan Area have been subject to some air, people from outside the area often judge the noise and odor pollution; but this problem is poten- desirability of the Twin Cities Area by the appearance tially most severe in the downtowns and adjacent and vitality of these two downtown districts. The areas. Much of this can be attributed to the heavy — Council does not foresee a regional business con- concentration of office buildings, industrial 17 — Development and Investment Framework . Figure 2 GENERALIZED - 2 : D GEOGRAPHIC POLICY AREAS , l ob 2 Fully Developed Area ' �' .. .� - �8 0 �` Developing Area ' 'IL F • • Freestanding Growth Centers fasuir . ( 1 + i.-_ A �� ::w15*wE - f'w SGu.• Commercial Agricultural Area1,(31PN.,.. �-' .„.,,_______i„ -_f Q • ' `� General Rural Use Area = �����MO I� ;�Iwr PY Metropolitan �m_ ik - 44 \ • ❑❑ po tan Centers ```r. 7 1. i IrJGTON . ®Regional Business �\� Ali } Ia Concentrations > W�� 741k111•19" - lia� �c;ti � '„� ® Rural Centers I� = laws r TiR�c. ...•• ,.�` `, I10.0 riallial irm ral ii witz ._, -wiiniurimak,,,Lar,„.777=.1ffilL.,,_ .0 — '1*7:-.W. _ __ ar,, ,..,,,.?,...Eatic4r:a1.41,11,141wrilla lel o-r�` .� fv� IMIIIMMI .......� ,AL1; taffa s 0 \ 'Nair ‘7.-• *; .74.r _ WAY4fila avian! .„h„,111- -Mini Nitl*Sitiiiil rillr / * YR . -46"44111111110111101 r . iik ,, s. ---. ,...- .,,. -.1.-4-etielitti,;44--71r-i r -.%;%vs_ _ „...., ,L%,,,,,,i3,,,v,rr, 4F,..,4 .:. i. ‘ iiinrimmt‘,„„s. , .. ,L,.....„,,,4* _ ti.-.?,- _ ,j,,i"sis„'„,_,iiil,t•..„.,., .i-.. �. A-7-1W,s..kc.. :k -;. .^rwrl. �\ wtww! lkp_.,,,rj\t',i Ew"'N''.1 °'--. "j' afisLgilissh<imts..„m1-d,,,_, . __ .. ,...444 .bli... .. .-"kv...4. -11*.. -'''' bkii....%.. .N\4%.!444N414...b.,..._11161 fir-- - Note:Areas are shown as of May, 1988.A precise location of the urban service area for any community is available from the Metropolitan Council Data Center,612 291-8140. The line between the developing area and the rural area is referred to as the metropolitan urban service area boundary. 18 I s v. buildings, automobiles, trucks and buses in and location of affordable housing within a reasonable around the downtowns. If the metro centers are to travel time is also an important consideration for af- be convenient places for people to work, shop, live fected communities. and be entertained,the environmental quality must be protected.The cities have taken action to reduce The concentrations generally have metropolitan critical levels of pollutants in the downtowns; highway access second only to that provided to the however, continued efforts are necessary to preserve metro centers. Transit service is typically minimal, the environmental quality of the metro centers. although the potential exists for utilizing a retail or — employment center within a concentration as a focal The Council wants the two metro centers to be strong point for new transit routes or for developing a linear and diversified cores of the Metropolitan Area with concentration into a transit corridor. This could be _ a wide range of commercial, institutional, cultural, particularly important for health and social services, entertainment and high-density housing facilities. which often locate in or near a concentration and New development requiring a central location, high require good accessibility. accessibility (including a range of choice by mode _ and route), high service levels and high density are A problem shared by most of the concentrations is the most appropriate for the metropolitan centers. pedestrian access to and within concentrations.The Continued high-quality highway and transit ac- failure to provide for pedestrians results in people cessibility is essential. The two centers should be at- using automobiles for very short trips. — tractive and continue to convey the "quality" image of this Metropolitan Area. Several of the regional business concentrations in the fully developed area need some redevelopment if they are to continue to function as major regional — Regional Business Concentrations concentrations. Some of these areas are equipped with metropolitan facilities and services that could Regional business concentrations are areas with a support additional development. The Council will large employment base and/or large sales volumes. support additional development in these areas. Since They contain diverse mixes of offices, hotels and the same problems cited for redevelopment of the motels, retail facilities and industry, and they con- metro centers pertain to these inner area concentra- stitute the most important concentrations of tions, albeit to a lesser degree, some public-private — economic activity outside the metro centers. These pooling of resources may be the only way to upgrade concentrations are developed at a lower density and them. cover more territory than envisioned for the major diversified centers described in the 1975 The regional business concentrations vary con- Metropolitan Development Framework. They will be siderably in age, layout, physical condition, function, used in this document to replace the earlier concept ownership and development desirability.This docu- of the major diversified center (see Appendix C). ment does not include an in-depth analysis of each — one. Local governments should undertake small-area The Council defined regional business concentra- studies as needed to determine how the concentra- tions as areas of contiguous business development tions function and to determine their facility and ser- with an employment of at least 10,000 persons and/or vice needs. In these studies, internal circulation and — sales of at least $100 million. However, the Council regional highway and transit access and other essen- will continue to study major business locations in tial support services should be primary the region and, as discussed in the"Work Program" considerations. section of the framework, look at other potential — criteria for defining the concentrations. The Council recognizes the regional business con- centrations as major centers of activity that are essen- The concentrations provide good locational choices tial to the economy of the region. It sees additional _ for businesses and industries that do not want or growth and increased densities as desirable, provid- need to go into the metro centers but still want good ed the changes are planned and coordinated with regional highway access, transit potential, in some the provision of supportive regional facilities and ser- cases railroad trackage and a regulatory environment vices. The Council will monitor business develop- — appropriate for nonresidential land uses. Since the ment in the region on a regular basis to document concentrations can employ large numbers of additions to or changes in the concentrations. employees, many of them in lower-paying jobs, the 19 Development and Investment Framework Fully Developed Area The aging of regional facilities serving the fully developed area is another important consideration. The fully developed area is that part of the urban ser- There are high public costs to serving both existing vice area where the level of or need for maintenance, and new development. Metropolitan-level invest- upgrading, rehabilitation and redevelopment has sur- ment decisions over the next 15 years will very like- passed the level of new development. It is comprised ly require that choices be made between extending — of those communities that were more than 85 per- regional systems into new areas and maintaining or cent developed at the end of 1984 and that are con- overhauling existing systems that are reaching the tiguous to one another. end of their functional or useful life. In order to pro- tect the resources and investments in the fully While a number of other, generally small corn- developed area, the Council must find ways to main- munities in the region meet the criteria of being 85 tain regional service levels to this area. percent developed, they are all surrounded by developing areas. Consequently, although their The expansion of regional facilities to serve newly development characteristics are more similar to ful- developing areas may induce capacity problems in ly developed communities, their regional service the fully developed area, making it necessary to ex- characteristics tend to be comparable to those of pand or construct facilities in the fully developed developing communities. For investment priorities, area as well.This is particularly true of facilities such the Council will consider these communities as part as sewers and highways. The Council recognizes this of the developing area. interrelationship and will see that costs of facilities are fairly distributed on the basis of services provid- The fully developed area has a very large proportion ed. The Council views the fully developed area as of the region's total investment in housing,streets and the backbone of the Metropolitan Area,which must highways, public utilities and parks, and contains the be protected and upgraded on a continuing basis. most fully developed systems for the delivery of The investment already in place is too large to take social and governmental services. a chance on losing even a part of it through neglect and disinvestment. During the latter part of the 1970s and first half of the 1980s, confidence in the future of many of the developed area's older neighborhoods was restored, ' Developing Area and genuine progress was made in maintenance and upgrading. This has stemmed some of the outward The developing area is that portion of the region that flow of middle-and upper-income people from the is in the path of urban growth. In fact, most of the area. However,the need for continued efforts at im- residential growth in the Metropolitan Area to the provement remains. In many fully developed year 2000 will occur in this area. It includes the corn- suburbs, a significant portion of the housing stock munities beyond the fully developed area up to the was built within a short period following World War metropolitan urban service area boundary. The II and is now reaching the age where it requires more greatest asset of the developing area is its large sup- maintenance. Consequently, creative public-private ply of undeveloped land that is now or will be pro- cooperation will continue to have high priority in vided with metropolitan facilities and services need- the future. ed to support urban development. Because of the vast resources available in the fully Urban expansion in the developing area should be developed area, it is important to consider the planned,staged and generally contiguous to existing demographic profile of its communities.Minneapolis development. The Council urges communities to and St. Paul have long been known for their higher provide for the orderly extension of services by Iden- _ numbers of single-person households of young tifying where and when they will provide land within adults and senior citizens,as well as female-headed their local urban service area with support facilities households. The same pattern is now emerging in needed to initiate urban development. The Coun- the region's older, more mature suburbs. This aging cil, in turn, will work with the metropolitan agen- - of the suburban population has numerous implica- cies and the Minnesota Department of Transporta- tions for maintaining the housing stock, the school tion to provide metropolitan systems at the time, system, health and social services, and other local place and size needed to support growth based on services and facilities. The Council will take these regional forecasts. — implications into consideration as it examines future investments in the fully developed area. Since most of the region's new housing construction 20 will take place in this area,developing communities employment base within the community that is large will need to provide a variety of housing types for enough to provide work for the local population. people of all ages and income groups. They are more than just residential communities in both location and their economic bases. The developing area has a generally adequate supply of the most essential facilities and services and All freestanding growth centers have central sanitary reasonably good highway access to most portions sewer and other services that enable them to serve _ of the Metropolitan Area. Cultural facilities, other an urban population. Services available include than education, are not well developed. Corn- sewer,water, schools and higher levels of police and munities could promote clustering of housing for fire protection. In addition,all communities provide target populations and social and cultural facilities at least full-convenience retail services and have a in locations with good access to meet special needs significant number of other kinds of employment op- and to facilitate the sharing of resources, expertise portunities available for their residents. and facilities. Freestanding growth centers often have a large con- Public transit is either unavailable or largely serves centration of elderly, many of whom moved there trips to and from work. The developing area is from the surrounding rural area.The centers are also definitely automobile oriented and,to the extent that the location for services and facilities for the elder- _ development occurs at low density, future public ly residing there and those remaining in the rural ser- transit prospects are not very good. vice area. • The Council views the developing area as the place The Council considers the freestanding growth to build communities that combine the best of the centers as detached portions of the metropolitan ur- past with innovation and imagination about the ban service area. It wants the centers to prosper and future. Once the initial urban pattern is set, it is time grow and to serve as alternatives to living and work- consuming and costly to change it. The best possi- ing in the large central urban area. Consequently, — ble job of planning and development to meet the Council supports housing maintenance and physical and social needs must be done at the outset. rehabilitation as well as the development of new af- The developing area offers that opportunity. fordable housing and housing that meets the needs _ of people at all stages of the life cycle. Because they are so similar to urban service area communities,and Freestanding Growth Centers because they also accommodate regional popula- tion and employment growth that might otherwise — Freestanding growth centers are the larger urban occur in unserviced areas, the Council supports centers located within the rural portion of the seven- regional investments in these communities. However, county Metropolitan Area. They originated as outly- where additional land is needed to accommodate ing trade centers. Some include large areas of open growth, the communities should extend municipal — land as a result of annexation of former townships. services in a staged, contiguous manner, consistent with their ability to provide such services. If the The Council has identified 11 communities as additional land is in an unincorporated area, _ freestanding growth centers.They range in size from annexation through an orderly annexation agreement Waconia, with a population of about 2,600, to the is the preferred alternative. Stillwater-Bayport-Oak Park Heights area with near- ly 19,000. The Council will redesignate any rural center when it meets the criteria for a freestanding METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA growth center. (These criteria are included in a POLICIES separate appendix to this document.) See Appendix B, page 52. Metropolitan Centers IFreestanding growth centers are similar to corn- 11. The Metropolitan Council supports the munities within the urban service area in that they maintenance of two strong metropolitan have a full range of services and thus are able to ac- centers and will support new developments re- commodate a full range of urban land uses. The quiring a central location, high accessibility, j distinction, however, is that freestanding growth high service levels and high density as most ap- centers are physically separated from the larger ur- for the metropolitan centers. — ban area by undeveloped land. Also, they have an Maintenance of metropolitan systems serving 21 Development and Investment Framework the metro centers will receive the Council's RURAL SERVICE AREA highest investment priority. Commercial Agricultural Area Regional Business Concentrations The commercial agricultural area includes those lands certified by local governments as eligible for 12.The Metropolitan Council supports continued growth and increased densities in regional agricultural preserves under the 1980 Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act. This approach places the business concentrations and will give invest ment priority second only to the metro centers responsibility for defining agricultural lands on local governments. With Council protection policies for for the maintenance of metropolitan systems serving the concentrations. commercial agriculture focused only in areas where there are local government plans and protections, local and regional policies support one another. Fully Developed Area The amount of land included in the commercial agricultural area is large, covering about 600,000 13.The Metropolitan Council supports the acres in 1985.This constitutes over half the farmland maintenance and upgrading of development and service facilities in the fully developed in the seven county area. area. Reinvestment for maintenance and The geographic area defined as the commercial replacement of metropolitan systems serving existing development in the fully developed agricultural area is subject to frequent change when area will take priority over investment for ex- tied to the Agricultural Preserves Act because land pansion in the developing area. can go into and out of certification when local governments decide to alter its status. Local govern- ments may replan and rezone certified areas if a Developing Area change in policy is desired, but this change must oc- cur as a public process. For the purposes of this docu- ment,the commercial agricultural area is defined as 1 3. Urban expansion in the developing area should the area certified as of March 1 of each year. This be planned, staged and generally contiguous date is the end of each Council reporting year re to existing development. The Metropolitan Council will work with the metropolitan agen- quired under the Agricultural Preserves Act. cies and the Minnesota Department of Under the Agricultural Preserves Act,a local govern- Transportation to provide metropolitan systems at the time, place and size needed to support ment passes a resolution certifying land eligible for growth based on regional forecasts. protections and benefits and limiting housing den- sity to one unit per 40 acres. The certified area is 15.System investment to serve additional residen then considered long-term agricultural land. The tial land beyond regional forecasts will receive local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance must reflect this land use and zoning. Farmers own- a lower priority than system investment to serve ing land within the certified area may then enter the unanticipated economic development. program. Land in the program is referred to as covenanted land. The Agriculture Preserves Act pro- - Freestanding Growth Centers vides protection for the farmer from urban assessments, property taxes at development value and conflicting land uses in exchange for a legal 16.The Metropolitan Council supports urban- density residential,commercial and industrial commitment to continue farming for at least eight development in freestanding growth centers. years. Since they are a microcosm of the Metropolitan Area, The Metropolitan Council will make in- Within the commercial agricultural area,all land has — been certified by local governments as eligible for vestments in metropolitan systems serving the agriculture preserves program. However, the freestanding growth centers based on the ful- Council recognizes two levels of protection in the ly developed and developing area policies, as applicable. commercial agricultural area: primary and secondary protection areas. 22 APE"- Primary protection areas are lands covenanted as residential density on the basis of 40-acre parcels. agricultural preserves. They will receive the greatest This will prevent possible urban-density clustering protection possible from incompatible uses because of a large number of homes on small minimum lot the greatest level of commitment to farming has been sizes, but within the overall density cap. The Coun- established. cil opposes such clustering because it could result in the need for urban services,such as package sewer Secondary protection areas cover the farms in the disposal systems. area that have not yet formed agricultural preserves. Existing Urban-Density Development The Council believes the commercial agriculture area is a place where agriculture is the best perma- Residential subdivisions, mobile home parks and nent use of the land. Long-term investments in farm clusters of moderate- density residential development equipment and in land preservation can be made also exist in the general rural use area.They frequent- with the confidence that urban development is not ly demand urban services but are in locations where going to destroy or limit these investments. urban services are difficult or costly to provide. The Council's principal concern is the potential need for the costly extension of central sanitary sewer and par- General Rural Use Area ticularly metropolitan sewer service. The Council supports development in the general rural use area The general rural use area is the area outside the ur- consistent with service levels appropriate for a rural ban service area that is not designated for commer- area. Local governments with existing urban-density cial agriculture. Over 40 percent of the land in the development should address the operation and Metropolitan Area falls in this category.The area con- maintenance issues of on-site systems to avoid poten- tains a wide variety of land uses, including tial problems and the eventual need for costly local agricultural, residential and urban-type facilities. investments. There are sizable parts of the general rural use area that host no particular kind of land use—land that Urban Uses is often called unused. Most of the area looks rural, but many of its residents are tied economically to Many facilities exist in the general rural use area that the urban area and many of its land uses provide ser- require isolated and spacious locations but serve vices to people living in the urban service area. primarily the urban public. These facilities include campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks, Four major types of uses exist within the general rural regional parks,trails,waste disposal installations, rac- use area. ing facilities, gun clubs, festivals, mining sites and similar facilities.The general rural use area is an ap- General Farmland propriate location for these facilities. The Council's interest is that these facilities are adequately serv- A large part of the general rural use area is devoted ed, consistent with local and regional plans, and to to agriculture. The Council supports the continua- the extent possible, that they do not interfere with tion of agriculture and encourages local governments agricultural activities. to support it by zoning agricultural land at one unit per 40 acres. For farms within an area so zoned that subsequently sign up for the agriculture preserves Rural Centers program, the Council will reclassify them as part of the commercial agricultural area. Rural centers historically have served as retail ser- vice centers and transportation centers for the sur- Rural Residential Development rounding rural area. However,changes in agriculture and rapid urban expansion have changed the tradi- Rural residential development consists of homes on tional rural service roles of many of these small large lots in areas that are hilly, wooded or other- centers to residential areas for urban people and wise unsuited to agricultural production. The Coun- locations for industries with little tie to local cid considers rural residential development a perma- agriculture. The latter make use of available labor nent land use and not an early stage of urbaniza- in rural areas and, by their nature, tend not to be tion. The Council supports this type of use as long dependent on close contact with other firms for their as the density does not exceed one housing unit per supplies or critically dependent on transportation. 10 acres of land. The Council will compute rural 23 Development and Investment Framework The Council has identified 35 rural centers, with propriate, needed to serve it. Financing of necessary populations ranging from just over 100 to more than support services would be a local responsibility. 5,000. Some rural centers, such as Norwood and Areas of existing urban-density uses are likely can- Young America, encompass the entire corporate didates for selection as new rural centers. limits of the community.Others, such as Lake Elmo, are small enclaves within a larger rural community. Rural centers should accommodate additional development consistent with their ability to finance Services available within rural centers vary. Some and administer services, including sewer, roads, have central sanitary sewer; others depend on on- water and stormwater drainage. If additional land is site waste disposal systems. Some have central water needed to accommodate growth, rural centers systems. Some provide the full range of convenience should extend services in a staged, contiguous man- retail stores,while others have only a bar or gas sta- ner. Residential, commercial and industrial develop- tion. Some have small manufacturing or service ment at urban densities should be accommodated businesses; others are almost exclusively residential. only in rural centers with central sanitary sewers that The Council does not support the extension of are meeting state and federal water quality standards. regional systems to rural centers because of the Larger projects should be located in freestanding L I distance from the urban center and the small popula- tions of rural centers. growth centers that have a full range of services. 1•. Rural locations in the past decade have been attrac- RURAL SERVICE AREA POLICIES tive and some, although not all, communities have experienced an upsurge in growth, principally Commercial Agricultural Area ' 'I residential development. Development trends are down from the highs noted in the early 1970s but 17. The Metropolitan Council supports the long- `II continue at modest levels into the 1980s. term continuation of agriculture in the rural f service area. The Council will use the follow- Several services are important in adequately serving ing ranking in decisions to accommodate 6.1I additional rural center development, but sewage facilities serving urban residents. 1 disposal is the most critical. Urban-density develop- ! ment ment in an unsewered rural center poses the risks 1. Primary protection area: Land covenanted of on-site sewage system failure, contamination of in agriculture preserves will receive LillI groundwater and eventually the expense of new on- primary protection. Urban facilities should j site or central sewer system installation. The be prohibited in this area unless there is 1 possibility also exists that remedying a pollution strong documentation that no other loca- problem may require an extension of metropolitan tions in the Metropolitan Area can ade- '1 sewer service through rural areas. Lack of sewer quately meet the siting and selection ') service is a serious constraint on the amount and criteria. L I type of development that rural centers can safely accommodate. 2. Secondary protection area: Lands certified but not presently in agricultural preserves Some parts of the rural Metropolitan Area, especially will receive a level of protection secondary I Anoka County, are receiving large amounts of scat- to agricultural preserves. Urban facilities tered urban development. This scattered develop- should not be located in this area unless ment poses service problems and may,at a later date, there is strong evidence that a proposed • result in very high local service costs. The Council urban use cannot be located in the general proposes a strategy that offers local government an rural use area. _ alternative way to structure this development by designating and creating a "rural center:'These new centers would be limited enclaves for urban-density General Rural Use Area Ill land uses, facilities and services within the local governments' broader corporate boundaries. They 18. The Metropolitan Council supports long-term would not be coterminus with the entire corporate preservation of agricultural land in the limits. Under this strategy,a local government would general rural use area. However, the Council identify an area to receive urban-density residential, will also support residential development at is commercial and industrial development and the densities of no more than one unit per 10 facilities, including local central sewer, where ap- acres computed on a 40-acre basis (a max- L 24 imum of four units per 40 acres). The Coun- center's plans to accommodate additional cil will not extend metropolitan systems to growth provided they are consistent with the serve urban-density residential development center's ability to finance and administer ser- in the general rural use area. Where urban- vices, particularly sewer service. The Coun- density development already exists, a local cil supports rural center service im- government should address service issues in provements but not at regional expense. its plan, particularly on-site sewer system operation and maintenance. 2 0. The Council will support a local government's plan for a new rural center and its requests for state and federal grants,provided the local Rural Centers government restricts urban densities from sur- rounding rural areas and will support the new 19. The Metropolitan Council will support a rural center with necessary service investments. l — 25 Development and Investment Framework E T PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES: Council and Local Units of Government Since the adoption of the 1976 Metropolitan Land require local units to amend their comprehensive Planning Act, the relationship between the plans to maintain consistency with regional plans. Metropolitan Council and local units of government has focused on the requirements of the act. Essen- State law also requires that the Council re-evaluate tially, the act requires local governments and the regional system plans at regular intervals. Whether Council to continually review and modify growth ex- system plan changes result from this periodic review, pectations and corresponding regional facility needs. changes in development framework forecasts or Either the Council or a local unit can initiate a other outside influences, the Council will transmit change. The following procedures relate to handling all changes to local governments shortly after they potential changes. are adopted. To reduce confusion about what changes in regional REGIONAULOCAL PLANNING PROCESS plans directly affect individual local governments, metropolitan system statements will clearly indicate Since this framework is the keystone for all Council which geographic areas and/or population groups policies, the regional/local planning process starts will be most affected by the changes. In addition, with the framework. The Council will thoroughly the Council will transmit all system changes that oc- review and revise the framework after it receives and cur in a calendar year in a single annual system state- analyzes information from each federal decennial ment. This means that local governments can con- census. The Council will complete a more general sider all system plan changes made during a review at five-year intervals after each census-based 12-month period concurrently. revision. Adequate census data is usually available to the Council within about two years after corn pletion of the census. Changes in the Urban Service Area The census provides the data needed to revise The Council will also re-evaluate the boundary for population, household and employment forecasts, the metropolitan urban service area every five years which in turn affect needs for urban land and in conjunction with its revision of municipal regional facilities. Changes in the forecasts may forecasts. Shorter time periods are inadequate for subsequently require changes in regional system projecting trends and even a five-year span is ques- plans and metropolitan system statements. System tionable in providing an adequate picture of poten- statements inform local governments about Coun- tial trends. cil forecasts, plans for regional facilities and other Council plans, including the development and in- The Council will consider expanding a local govern- vestment framework and how these plans will affect ment's urban service area if changes in forecasts in- them. Changes in system plans may require dicate a need for additional urban land or if a local metropolitan agencies to revise their plans for government has less than a five-year overage of va- regional facilities.Changes in system statements may cant, developable land. 41 Development and Investment Framework If a local government wants to develop vacant land viding regional systems based on its forecasts and currently outside the urban service area but adjacent local plans consistent with those forecasts. If a local to it, without changing the total size of its service government develops according to pre-existing zon- area, the Council will consider a land trade. A land ing that is in conflict with the comprehensive plan trade involves trading vacant, developable land in- and if that development has greater service re- side the urban service area for vacant, developable quirements than the planned use, the local govern- land outside the urban service area, provided that ment risks running short of regional system capaci- metropolitan systems are not adversely affected. ty. Consequently, local governments that identify such conflicts between their pre-existing zoning and The Council may consider revisions to the urban ser- comprehensive plans need to prepare a plan amend- vice area more frequently if a local government can ment addressing what measures they will take to clearly demonstrate that it is growing faster than the resolve these conflicts. Council forecast or that it has less than a five-year overage of vacant, developable land. However, the Council will consider interim revisions with great INTERCOMMUNITY PLANNING — caution to avoid rendering the area-wide forecasts PROCESS and system plans meaningless.Appendix B includes specific guidelines governing this process. The land planning act not only addressed the need for local governments to consider regional plans; it Changes to a Local Comprehensive Plan also directed them to discuss the effects of their plans on adjacent governmental units and school districts. Reflecting concerns of local government, the Coun- The act, in fact, requires that local units circulate cil has established a review process for plan amend their plans to neighboring jurisdictions six months mems that, up to the present, has operated satisfac before they formally transmit them to the Council. torily. However, more and more local governments If differences surface between communities, the act are submitting major amendments to their plans that also states that the Council can mediate these require more supporting data than stipulated in the disputes. current amendment procedures. The Council will Although few intercommunity incompatibilities sur- again work with local government to revise its faced during the initial land planning act process, amendment procedures to more adequately address the Council recognizes the ongoing importance or major plan amendments. achieving intercommunity compatibility in land use On the other hand, the Council still reviews the ma- and facility planning. As local plans are amended, — jority of the amendments it receives within a 10-day the Council will work with local governments to period. The Council is committed to keeping the develop guidelines to address this issue. If necessary, basic review process efficient and effective and will the Council will amend its administrative guidelines continue to streamline its procedures wherever to clarify intercommunity planning needs. Part of possible. such an approach might incorporate an analysis of intercommunity impacts in the plan amendment process. Relationship Between Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL The land planning act requires that local govern- IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS — ments not adopt any official controls that are in con- flict with their comprehensive plans or with regional The land planning act required school districts to system plans. However, the act does not specifically submit capital improvement programs to the Coun- address official controls in place prior to the adop- cil for review on a one-time basis and thereafter to tion of the plans.Zoning ordinances are the primary submit only major changes. However, sharing infor- tools used by local governments to carry out their mation related to projected school facility needs on comprehensive plans. a regular basis is beneficial, particulariy to affected local governments.Just as local governments provide The Council's primary concern with consistency bet- information on all changes in their plans with adja- ween planning and zoning relates to the provision cent local governments and school districts, the of regional systems.The Council is committed to pro- Council encourages school districts to provide 42 INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR MAJOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a copy of each proposed major comprehensive plan amendment. A major comprehensive plan amendment is defined as: 1 . a complete revision, update or rewrite of an existing comprehensive plan in its entirety, 2. a major revision, update or rewrite of a chapter or element of an existing comprehensive plan, 3. a new chapter or element of an existing comprehensive plan, 4. an amendment triggered by a proposed development that requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) , as defined in Minnesota Rules 1985 Parts 4410.4300- .4400, and is inconsistent with the existing comprehensive plan, or 5. a change (land trade or addition) in the urban service area involving 40 acres or more. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. If a staff report was prepared for the Plan Commission or City Council, please attach it as well . I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Sponsoring governmental unit _ Name of local contact person Address Telephone B. Name of amendment Description/Summary C. Please attach the following: 1. a copy of the proposed amendment 2. a city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change , if the amendment triggers a map change 3. the current plan map(s) indicating the area(s) affected, if the amendment triggers a map change 4. the proposed plan map(s) indicating the area(s) affected, if the amendment triggers a map change D. What is the official local status of the plan amendment? (Check one or more as appropriate.) • -2- Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, on Considered but not approved by governing body on Other E. Indicate what adjacent local governmental units affected by the change have been sent copies of the plan amendment and the date(s) copies were sent to them. Notification of affected adjacent governmental units is required for major plan amendments. Because of the comprehensive nature of most major plan amendments, a summary checklist is more useful to ensure that the amendment is complete for Council review and to determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the — metropolitan systems plans or other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Please indicate whether the amendment affects the following factors. Where it does, the materials submitted must fully address the issue(s). _ II. IMPACT ON REGIONAL SYSTEMS A. Sewers — 1. Change in city's year 2000 flow projections. No/Not Applicable. Yes. 2. Community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor. No/Not Applicable. Yes. Indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment. B. Transportation _ 1 . Relationship to Council policies regarding metropolitan highways. No/Not Applicable. Yes. 2. Change in type and intensity of land uses at interchanges and other locations within a quarter-mile of the metropolitan highway system? No/Not Applicable. Yes. -3- 3. Impact on existing trip generation rates. No/Not Applicable. Yes. 4. Capacity of road network to accommodate planned land use(s). No/Not Applicable. Yes. 5. Impact on transit and parking strategies. No/Not Applicable. Yes. C. Aviation 1. Impact on regional airspace. No/Not Applicable. Yes. • 2. Impact on airport search area. No/Not Applicable. Yes. 3. Consistency with guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise. No/Not Applicable. Yes. 4. Consistency with the long-term comprehensive plan for an airport in the vicinity of the community or proposed development. No/Not Applicable. Yes. D. Recreation Open Space 1. Impact on existing or future federal, state or regional recreational facilities. No/Not Applicable. Yes. III.IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK A. Land Use 1 . Describe the following, as appropriate: a. Size of affected area in acres b. Existing land use(s) c. Proposed land use(s) d. Number of residential dwelling units involved • -4- e. Proposed density f. Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial or public buildings B. Change in the city's population, household or employment forecasts for 2000, or any additional local staging contained in the original plan. No/Not Applicable. Yes. C. Change in the urban service area boundary of the community. No/Not Applicable. Yes. D. Change in the timing and staging of development within the urban service area. No/Not Applicable. Yes. • IV. IMPACT ON HOUSING A. Impact on the supply and affordability of housing types necessary to serve persons at different stages in the life cycle. No/Not Applicable. Yes. B. Impact on the supply and affordability of housing types necessary to serve persons at varying income levels. No/Not Applicable. Yes. C. Impact on the community's numerical objectives for low- and moderate- income, modest-cost market rate, and middle- and upper-income housing units. No/Not Applicable. Yes. V. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A. Change in zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls. No/Not Applicable. Yes. LT013A .r , CITY OF CHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: June 14 , 1989 SUBJ: Land Use Plan Amendment Proposal The Park and Recreation Commission, at their last meeting, discussed the application of Mike Gorra to rezone his property. As stated in the attached staff report, this item would not typi- - cally be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission. However, a portion of the land under consideration is currently designated on the Land Use Plan as park/open space. Recognizing that a Land Use Plan amendment may occur, the Park and Recreation Commission unanimously acted to notify the Planning Commission that the trail around Lake Ann is still valid. Therefore, they have recommended that whatever land use changes take place, the area around Lake Ann remain designated as parks/open space. Attachment 1C� C I TY O F PRC DATE: June 13, 1989 C11,11.1111ASSEN� - C.C. DATE: Y CASE NO: Prepared by: Sietsema:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of 140 acres from Rural Residential to Residential Low Density. U LOCATION: Southwest corner of Lake Ann, immediately west of Lake Ann Park, 1680 Arboretum Blvd. APPLICANT: Mike Gorra 1680 Arboretum Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 —c • PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential ACREAGE: 140 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RR, Rural Residential S- IOP, Industrial Office Park E- RR, Rural Residential ( Lake Ann Park) W- RR, Rural Residential — EXISTING PARKS: Lake Ann Park lies immediately to the east �W of this site. �. COMP. TRAIL PLAN: (1) The Comprehensive Plan calls for aquisition of lakeshore around Lake Ann so as to COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: continue the trail system. Park and Recreation Commission — June 13, 1989 Page 2 Background This proposal is a request to amend the Land Use Plan and MUSA — Line to allow an urban-type development in what is currently a rural area. The Park and Recreation Commission would not typi- cally review this type of request, however, staff felt that since — a portion of the property is identified on the Land Use Plan as potential parkland, the Park and Recreation Commission should review it. As shown on the attached, the land around Lake Ann is designated as potential parkland to continue the trail around the lake. If this is still a goal, the Park and Recreation should make a — recommendation to the City Council that this designation remain on the plan. Recommendation Recognizing that a Land Use Plan amendment may take place, it is the recommendation of this office to maintain the parkland — designation around Lake Ann to preserve the integrity of this undeveloped lake and to enable the City to continue the trail system around the lake. — — -- :1 -----.--- '-— --- -,clo.-, i-, _[ - / Nil , 71 CRE qf V IE . , .., .,.. V 2.' Th'.-..' 4 Q • U Y 1 r.)a r I I I !I 1 I . ' ' A al grr'tO1111 "----1 1 1111117 ' ( ii I 1 _ I 67 T).1 A .. ..mi RR ____ _ ,„ ._ % _ , „ _ :411,41111111Fetti-r-"..#01 -4. .. _, . . -... ‘ IllretAtep urii -. --- A K E Le . ''NI i° ion Ilr HARRISON .! a - --- LAKE LUCY eI *Ave IN 41 a sr, --th:- .k4,..tt-... ...... -1.. MEW D 11111 • -1 R ,---„.....,.. IP l V al _ 1 la mr, 17:04;141: • 0.,.,i;r Jelia," - S. - i • I CIA • Ws 'mom a . , 4./ . 'N-.- go` Whilire a. ie.tassaka i .J 0 .—_•• ) % CO 8+- . •—• ,.:- — • ("- ,_.., ll .1'`I r't fr* .4 , .r A Niy il _. \ L, ...... ......, 1 6 ' N •''-' 1 , / ....1 1 CD ) I 11 ....'"-------'-7' ..- •,_ ', --...... N., ko.... . t ---__.---- 4 7~gr."'s . ; .... — RR . , Cr .....7 ! .. b.1-,......\\................. t \ i ' .1.. -..- - • ..:I k / '.........r. 4: r-) ., . \ I •. r---• '' i A .••••• ..... • I ' i\ ! /.-..--. s.) 111011111. .• . _ ...AR .. . • i I ' I _( ___, - --- - --_-- --- ___ -' cra VI-- Th."-- , 1 i -"- 1 , .. . ...,1 ! . ..t. b-'' . • , • • . as • )3,. ....------r- • 1 I--.---! . .... • -C- D 0 0 C . 0 0 8 8 g 8 g ,t, 8 g 8 8 8 0 c 0 2 0 0 0 2 § ? t a ,•-• .. i / ., .. oft, 1 I . //1 ,I,,., ..., "i'-' I (— i •• • - . .. . - - —y: , - ::"-:. ••••. 1,..,. ,.,,, ,...c , , ,.. ...- 1..i,i,':•:i ,,, **:,.,;__ : .:,, ,. ..,...;.. • • , - .... "r-- ..•' H --<'-'\w' .°.!...---:------ I- %. ' ,i;i:" : :: •••:' '••!4. __.._...3 . ' ' "-**\itai -Art-11:1;t'..-'-'-'' <,,Igigigg'j -' ‘....-.. .:::.i',U:::* Aflir i. - •-:---- t . ... - .. . ....-....-..-..,-., .------- \ •?.? :---),IF(JV . ... .', t• •• ) .."..'::.'..;.1. . ,:-; . . :. - : !:.I: -H....". .1' •7,-. ,., • •••-••• ... 1.-- ••+ - ' ;',..** ..'' ... MIK : ' ::,ii'•-:;;.-••_.7_'''-'' :''..,' 2 . ` . ' . a Sail Olt ,I.... -......,-,_ ... __ :.--.:,_.„ .-. 2_,t„,.... .--yi::::-:-- : '', "').,-",-t."4""•••-1.7....7.--,;-,/ ,-_-::-:::-7-:--411111r1IME1 1111111111,11111. i.:..,:i:, :.:,..ije •It**air_ .,1 --......' i :.:if. iiii:!•:- . Mk-'. t•...V..'' .1.1 -1-4 eNes o A t- ............ ......-... -dr .,., _•...... ....••--.4;•:.,:-:::-:-:::•::! • 1 ' •..14-4,1--:,:.•.'. j ''-'•• ' --------- :...•.:.:::,:•:•:-.4.•,•,-••• .---"- ••::':: :.:.:::::::i:,i:K*i::•. --. .1 W '. :••..:i---.;:',::•-•:. :::::::::•:::::-:- t7 ...":...: ,--* ....r) --..1"..s•-• ...& -1.1.-' a -------.111- -,,: ::• '...:'•,.: :.-i,,r.,':-,*::::"':.:: -1 • ;, ,//if .......,:::••iiii-:iii. ::•::iiii.i:::: ::: 4\i _, t,;,1..Y.);.,I.,-,1:'t .....:?• 41. -----------.6tecrvitti!. 77r.-..1 ,..i.-- ,,...,.":••:••:,•::'4 Al .. :• 4 4-./.' -: :::i,::::i--oggin...--.m]mi„.. ...,,2-2,:,...,„?... -I ,.,- p, ,,- , go - -- - 7 -- :.__.___."_L...... .............:.. 111■1141111AMIIMIN .fil . 1..1.,,%.,-,:- , , ...-c,.,... ..z..,., •,..,:.. . , . . :.•. ... ::::,...: „:::.:..: .:?.H.,: . ''-'CA - 7: .-, ..-.:.,‘, ,, Lillii 'V.,.-• . .t].i.:.?''.:::.::::?.:, :':,:.:::: ,:,....".. ::::::h .::::.:::....:'::::::::,?.:i..:J:i :::::?'::::,:. '.:,:,•:,i::::.: S..,. 1! ._.... .:.:.-,:.\\,...•: :,.../.,.21,.4.ii,i: , '- ‘\Y T"1.....N. :...‘":-.r., -•-•:-.17,- /6-sz,41,..„ .-.‘'..,..s-1.-q..::M--.2:: .iiij;.: ::: :,.::i'::.:, ..,..11-..jt.•.4. .N..-'`P A 1..P."-•:! -‘. li:':.;-.11-'‘'.1 3, : ,..;:,?..a::-:, :::-::::-:,-a-.:::,:.,:-.;-::.-- - - - 11E111 SI .4 0, ..00„.:-. ,,,;716,!..:, .: • ..,-)1:-•..•-0-,. ., ,.,... i...••• . .. ;•1,-.--.-,=:.:-.:-.:i*::.:::: :::::..::::::.: ,,:-,:::,: :,:...::::,,,.,:-:.::,,,:,::.r it . • ,„,.,4,„,.,-- , ...„-i,.-...,:. ..,....,-....,,.,......;„z, I, .,,, -:..... ..,..,..,pi.„.. ,-,-..•'..... ,:1..-.., i i :',,,:.1:. '.,. ::.... . ii e_....:4_,............____•-• ?..,_•,?:i:.: -t„,.: ,,,,,..,.. .., , •,...,-% ‘,.:- :•. -: : er, Wt• .. .. Niitiliaii. 1!,,::::i i-ii.,:a.: •,-, ,..,;,-,-,. ,... .....,.., ...._.,.._.....,•„,.. , •.„ , •,.. , ,..,-, .,-. ,,,....,.....„::_:::::.:...::::::-:.:,:....• :.•:.•„ :.,...:.::.• ,. . : : : . : : . . :,"•••.,..:I' ' ' I ' '.•it AY) -1%‘I, -..N-,,,..:L.,,, ••'1)..1.1 '. , ; t::..;:i...:i;i:i•i':.;':Iv:::.::::,:::•,;•::::-"i:]::•:":7• ••i,,:-.:.-...• •:" .- .:':•:,:*'•:;',.::::::,.,i:. .,..,:i; -;'.....'...".• , ... A?•X " .; i:1 ,,t../ ... 1 1..1..‘ h.,.V:,.% ' n1 1.‘,..? /;:y r....:i;:.;,iin:',;..:::::::, :'..='::::;:..,..'.7.....,:: :•:::i: :::i.,:,:..;:::-,,.'..:;,...i:':'....i•:5..:,'.:.;:,:',.."..:...rj.i:.' '''' . ..,,....sr. ,. 11000.... ......,,,:- f. 1.,t; e• . ,:_;,7.)..._:-.'7.'-'!....:22_,__‘..,:::::: .. -1"..j 1...1`.., .;‘-% • •....... •".\...), :'.:.' f•:.;:,-::::-:-::i.:i::.;::::::::.Rf::',:;',..i...ia;i:,..;:i::::?..;....7...; :::::: i.,:i::.,?:;;::;..;:,..':',::,'. :::., '.- -‘: ...." . i._ , •••:•:':i:..:':::',: atsi.,1'::;i:;:.\'::: ". ...7:-I-1 ,.....--,;...-,.1 -,:I,..1•-,•;-‘" • • !:'.-..! •:,.:.:',•:::::::!::-:-.:-,::::,: :::• •••::::::i-:::...:.iii?:ii:•.ii•i-i::::,.::..:::i..A-)...: ::::::::-.:::::::::•::.::,:?:::.::.:::.:::::-::::::::,::: • •'-‘-' . al‘) g 1 , .... ',r__,L = --. -,...::•;,',.......1::: .z,-,.......:.,%.'11,•11,1-...-;.,-,_,-... :.- ... .:•: : ::::::::-:.:•::]i: ...]: ::::ii::.:::-:::::: .• •Lf.„:•:::.:,.:: i:.,:;:•:,:-.:,....-:: :-:::-::::::::ii . 4.1-7.7;;;i-, ' . •• „- .N.".•';,:7.--,..:, .-.:..-7;,:,•••-,,,-,,.4! .:::t:::t ::. ,,,: ,• ::::::.:/-•- •.'-:•:,... :.,;.•.:.,:.--,:.;J.; LAKE wcr .p..r.t .... ? . . .r...1i --Z:;1 -1:z: ‘:i .:1s%'1V74,.% A:: .:- i:*::.::,: 1:-::. l.....:. • ',.. :.''':‘;-• - . I 7: '...:, g.:54::: ::',, , •• .::z.:- .:.-1 -;-••11-=12+ .. 1,-:-:2`,i).::.; -7'-,: :.•:':i. .:::-::-.1-•:::::..: : :;:Ms. :..::::::::.: . :•-,:: .,',, is..1-,.4 -'-:. ,••.: , : ....... ,,..,..e.,••1 .- . : , ,•::Mi::;1/4 :: )•r ... .,::'--•, .•1----';'•'"?•-s ' -•4*::: '.**''' ' .' ''.' :' :..•:•.'• ' --:•:i.:.f:: :.:.::.Ei:.E'....:iiiiiii ,Ar '.:_ .::1::.•,::• •i:: ::•::.:::I'• :. -.„:4A-.........) .- • -: .2i.--- •"-:,i,.:iiii:i:::Eiaili.::•:::.:-. ::•.: ::::..::,::::: ::::::,:..... .,,:s •-•?:"::-::.•••: •' - --' • ::.*:. **::•:',-.,',-7.•-•'•-:::i4.) ------ • :-.— ...................—,.. ,...,„:„.:„.:.:,,..,......: - • --:---.ii:UniiiMi4 .:,.:,::::•..i::::-:,.::-:•:.::::::,..:::::,.::-,.,,s,....)-: , ,....... . ...... .......:.. _____, . . • ------.I :.•-:.:'. , :II i, ... a3 — . ., LAKE ANN ..41 ''. • ,LZ-VI .-;' s.- ---- -, .,•, •. I., ..imr • .4 u at.:::.,.. -.... ,-eiyi-, "-: r•• . . , ..fr, • • ‘. z: 0-:;, _A. . 1 ---,, 1-1. .1 t: .•.•"Y ': ': :::-:: ' • I:- •:'• , • . '..:'1 ...- - '':•:•:::::.' •••: . ' ‘I' . , t',..•:' s''-t\-1•-•i .(11:•2;).„.; ,-•:, (.../t/ '`..-- :;•Y'e : ';'):?1'. 11`-t-j ill-,.'i '::. ‘.;4i:, :::•:.:: -. '4t.4 '.;::.:.• 4:. // -•-• - / ..„./( •J 1:•,•,?'1.' , • .r.,". ,•-t . •.) r.-, . i- 4.if.':•;;;IV4:;;... ...::::ii:2112.1 .. i 1..."1"...1.1,1 . / , , _ .:s 7,...I::12.1..,,•-•,,..-,.Y% • • • • • • is ....- ,1 r.•.•.•.•.•.• —_—_ -_ A/1 i ", -- ..\.... ;;;,:r.-,. ,.....,•,-,..2ef. ...,./••• • • • • • ... ..- , • • • • • • • '.... . J 4 L. .. _....„....''.' ::: . ..1.11“'171%• ...,.....'S. ...4*:.‘1.:1/..::.. ': 1.11:1411:1;11;71:1:1:;::*1116:7:;2141;744,47--1--- ----- , ----- STATE ,---.. knWY• NO 1 1 / - - ---------------=1:- -----7----.-7--=-5 , •1 r r .r-ir . ; I _ _ ._. ----_-_- , - • 1:g! e i 1- -.••• :•r-,,. \‘ ----- ' • ' ,Nshr. , ,-1:::1...i....,..•..4t,. ------ ----. .......16 i•.I •, .1...'1... ,N . 7::::_i"7.4.,i. K t• .. . 41. ,. -1•- • .s. 15 • .. tt " ' s -tz:\ „ - .. 'C'' % k.. .._ . --"J--- ‘. — 4 .. .. • s N • •"•' '''.•‘;C"-t.:,....,--I. IEEEJ \ .....". .•:•::::• •:: .•:i...i.•:•...1.: •••''s ........ ........... • . . _.,. ........ ............ -.-- ••••••• ••••••••••• 0.. . ••\ ....... ............ ....... ............. Z 1 •''. 1 od.ii, ..... ............ '.......:....• ''.......:...........:.:...\ ,....._._. D :•••••:•••• •-•••-•••••••.•:•:•:•:•:-;• LAKE SUSAN U . •..'•:-.... • . :•:•:•:•:•:•)-' 1 _ • ;E • ,.:::•::::: • • .c.:.:.:.:4.:... Ii.. iir ','...1 .:•:•:•:•:-:•:•:::•:::•:::::•.„ ....-..1.,••••• . fel . :. .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::;." .1::::::•:•::::::::: "" —.Ie..... —__._______ ____._............ .r....--....--:..... . _ r . . \\. - '......:•••:•:•:•.•••••-•::::•:•::•:-:•: .., . "...' ••••:•••:•••••:•:•:•:•:•:''':•:*-*.%:•:C.:•:s:i: '-. ...:: i,: . • , it . " ,:•:•.•::.::::-.:.:.:.*:.-4.::•:•:•:•:•,.*.: - -,.. ::: ...' . q"' „.. k ' .::::::::::•:•:-*-.-,' , ' ...: I . . - , NW -- C I TY O F P.C. DATE: June 21, 1989 4" 41 C.C. ::E:88:S :: CASE 89-14 W. 88-15 Site Plan Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A. Subdivision of 18. 93 Acres into 11 - R-12 Lots B. Wetland Alteration Permit for Construction of a Holding Pond and Stormwater Discharge into a Class B z ► Wetland V C. Site Plan Review for 112 Condominium Units LOCATION: Between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, Approximately i Mile North of West 78th Street Q 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: 10. 8 units/acre (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; Saddlebrook S- BG; vacant Q Cm; Q E- R-12; townhomes W- R-12; vacant WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available to site. — p"" PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has steep slopes on the north and west side of the property. It contains a Class B Wetland and has heavily vegetated areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density ,���"� /. ! ! "'� ,..= -�L.--1 — y alt ^. _� fif ,`1 — XE LU Y '® amps „.,......,...4, ' �►,';� ROS ` Iii �'�I � '�1 ••W ?� RD 4 is.1141•eisj MELAIIt ;....•w-v.L.1 Ilk E lussoix. 1 n w 1UEI1 . Islip�, � LA APUD—P - — faeg 1*.--41- 4 I_. min • Ii.‘,........ MIMI ag.o.a ii���Iirov t. Ft;m co , ilp 4,44,,fE ANN 1 ; RF . v..... ,,,- , - t'�`l�1�1a 7m 7111.1 num a eMJ =11�aa■ or '41� 'i q Ri ...... 4vicd ritist:„Slit,i)*; In -: �" fiTrIP ) = ,An, r ��.N --• ripe Stiellemi , I l'-1- 9 1 4 ,-• "i 10,:r 4 __ma'. - 1 RR ���, per - n�tr'�,r..t _ i_,_. . :... I I E ob4htiI� tilr� `�i R 0I E}-_ :" • R12 � i �_-,-�;: w \----?,_.._. W: la ,tet ,__-_s) I Y 80ULE4.4Rp E. '' . f ' est tai ST • PArRK I - - , Cl ✓D 6111 �( wT POR i ( / 77711,, i • �� • d goy- `� ty � � I it //f:- . Y \ QAC f1•� -'--------7:- STgIG}iWA TE Y _ Y ` \ B..�`„ , `- Ar 1 Up ' En S P ., '�I ' 2 . ;.- . . : • ...... - • ii r I j I _ a 1 !! LAKE SUSAN J op i RD ! j. . \ - 1 fnl .77(:,./ . Oakview Heights Condominiums June 21, 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-671 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the intent of the R-12 District is to provide for townhouses and multi-family residential structures with a maximum density of 12 units per acre. The lot requirements and setbacks for the R-12 District are as follows : Minimum Lot Area 3,600 square feet per unit Minimum Lot Frontage 150 feet per lot Minimum Lot Depth 155 feet per lot Maximum Lot Coverage 35% Front & Rear Setbacks 25 feet Side Yard Setbacks 10 feet Maximum Height 3 stories or 40 feet The subdivision ordinance states that double frontage lots with frontage on two parallel streets shall not be permitted except for lots back on an arterial or collector street. Such lots shall have an additional depth of at least 10 feet to accommodate screening along the back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on a double frontage lot should face the front of existing struc- tures across the street. If this cannot be achieved than such lots shall have an additional depth of 10 feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the back line. Section 20-421 requires a wetland alteration permit for the creation of a pond within a Class A wetland and for any digging, dredging or filling in a Class A wetland. Section 20-438 dredging will be allowed only when it will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological or hydrological charactertics of the wetlands. Dredging when allowed shall be limited as follows: 1. It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. 2 . It shall not adversely change water flow. 3 . The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. 4 . Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland district unless specifically authorized in the wetland alteration permit. 5 . Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures. 6 . Dredging in any wetland areas is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is deter- mined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. Oakview Heights Condominiums _ June 21, 1989 Page 3 REFERRAL AGENCIES — City Engineer Attachment #2 Public Safety Attachment #3 Building Department Attachment #4 Park and Recreation Attachment #5 BACKGROUND — On May 17, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the PUD Concept Plan for Oakview Heights Townhomes and recommended denial of the — PUD. The City Council then reviewed the proposed concept plan on June 12, 1989, and also recommended denial of the PUD (Attachment #1) . ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is requesting preliminary plat and site plan appro- val for 112 condominium units located on ten R-12 lots and one _ lot for future development ( 70 apartment units) . The applicant originally proposed a planned unit development so that the townhome units could be individually owned with their own separate lots of record. Since the PUD Concept Plan was not accepted by the city, the applicant is now pursuing condominium units which would be located on a larger outlot without separate individually owned lots of record. — The lot sizes are as follows: Lot 1, Block 1 5 . 77 acres with 70 units ( apartments) and density of 12 .1 u/a Lot 2 , Block 1 1. 08 acres with 10 units and — density of 9. 3 u/a Lot 3 , Block 1 1. 15 acres with 12 units and — density of 10. 5 u/a Lot 4 , Block 1 1. 21 acres with 12 units and density of 9 . 9 u/a Lot 1 , Block 2 1. 35 acres with 16 units and density of 11 . 9 u/a Lot 1 , Block 3 . 84 acres with 8 units and density of 9 . 5 u/a — Oakview Heights Condominiums _ June 21, 1989 Page 4 Lot 2 , Block 3 . 84 acres with 8 units and density of 9 . 5 u/a Lot 3 , Block 3 1. 07 acres with 12 units and density of 11. 3 u/a Lot 4 , Block 3 . 93 acres with 8 units and density of 8. 6 u/a Lot 5 , Block 3 1. 25 acres with 12 units and density of 9 . 6 u/a Lot 6 , Block 3 1. 34 acres with 14 units and density of 10 .5 u/a The overall net density is 10 .8 units per acre and the overall impervious coverage is 25 . 9% . Each lot contains at least the required 3 ,600 square feet per unit and provides the required street frontage of 150 and lot depth of 155 feet. Lot 1, Block 2 has 155 ' of depth in the center but not along the end of the lots . Lot depth is the mean horizontal distance between the front and rear lot line. Lot 1, Block 2 has street on all sides and also is curved on the sids making the mean depth less than 155 ' . Lot 1, Block 2 can also be defined as a double frontage lot which is not permitted by the subdivision ordinance unless one of the streets is a collector or arterial street. Unless Jenny Lane is designated as a collector, the subdivision ordinance would not permit Lot 1 , Block 2 to be a double frontage lot. If Jenny Lane was to become a collector street, an additional 30 feet of right- of-way would have to be provided for Jenny Lane. The City Council can approve a variance to the subdivision ordinance and permit Lot 1, Block 2 to remain as a double frontage lot. At the very least, the applicant should be required to provide the additional 10 feet of depth and a vegetative screen. The applicant is submitting an alternative plan to Lot 1, Block 2 which would divide it into 2 lots and remove the problem of a double frontage lot. The 155 ' lot depth requirement will also be addressed. Staff will be prepared to address the issues at the Planning Commission meeting. Streets The site is being serviced by a public street shown as Jenny Lane which will connect with the existing West Village Townhomes to the east and provide a connection from Powers Boulevard to Kerber Boulevard. The preliminary plat is also providing a street looping to the north from Jenny Lane to service Lots 2 , 3 , 4 , Block 1 and Lot 1 , Block 2 . The applicant should provide a name for this portion of the public street for Public Safety Department approval . Oakview Heights Condominiums — June 21, 1989 Page 5 Easements Easements are being provided for each lot and a large drainage and utility easement is being provided over Lot 1, Block 1 to protect the wetland and 75-foot wetland setback. The sloped area adjacent to the wetland is heavily vegetated with mature and — valuable trees which should also be protected. Staff is recom- mending a conservation easement be provided over the 980 ' contour on Lot 1, Block 1 to further protect the wetland and vegetative — areas from future alteration. RECOMMENDATION - PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #88-24 as shown on the preliminary plat dated "June 2 , 1989" with the following conditions : — 1. The applicant shall provide a name for the loop road north of Jenny Lane for approval by the Public Safety Department. — 2 . 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 the improve- ments . 3 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access/Watermain Crossing Permits issued by Carver County. 4 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- of-way to the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. 6 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities . 8. The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber Boulevard. 9 . A conservation easement shall be provided over the 980 ' con- tour on Lot 1 , Block 1. 10. Lot 1, Block 2 , shall be revised to remove it as a double frontage lot and provide the 155 feet of lot depth. " SITE PLAN REVIEW The applicant is requesting approval for 112 condominium units located on 10 - R-12 lots. Lot 1, Block 1 with future development proposed for a 70 unit apartment building will not be reviewed as Oakview Heights Condominiums June 21, 1989 Page 6 part of this site plan. Any development of Lot 1, Block 1 will require an individual site plan review. The 112 condominium units located on the 10 - R-12 lots range in building sizes of 8 units per building to 16 units per building. It appears that the required setbacks of the R-12 District are being maintained. The most southeasterly parking area on Lot 6 , Block 3 appears to be within the 10 foot side yard setback. The applicant should con- firm that the 10 foot side yard setback is being met. The applicant is providing 152 enclosed parking areas and 152 overflow parking spaces which would be located directly outside of the proposed garages. The interior condominium units will have one car garages and the end units will each have a two car garage. The total parking spaces provided are 304 and no additional visi- tor parking is being provided. — Six of the R-12 lots located south of Jenny Lane are being ser- viced by Jenny Lane, three of the lots are being serviced by the loop north of Jenny Lane and Lot 1 , Block 2 is being serviced by both the northern loop and Jenny Lane. The site plan is pro- - posing individual driveways entering Jenny lane from the R-12 lots. There is a total of 19 curb cuts onto Jenny Lane which staff feels is in excess of necessary curb cuts and is a potential safety hazard. Staff is recommending that the number of curb cuts be reduced and that the applicant provide an internal driveway to service the units rather than the individual driveways as pro- posed. For example, a could be serviced by an internal drive similar to what is being used on Lots 2 and 3 , Block 1 rather than what is proposed for Lot 4 , Block 1 . The applicant has stated that the reason for the individual driveways is to maintain the percen- - tage of impervious surface that is required. It does not appear to staff that by providing internal driveway versus individual dri- veways the impervious surface would be increased so that it would exceed the 35% maximum. Sheet 3 of the plans locates the existing trees and designates which ones will be removed as part of the plan and which ones will remain. The trees with an "X" through them will be removed and the two that are located on Lot 1, Block 2 are shown to be preserved. Sheet 3 of the plans also shows the location of the two trees to be preserved as an area where a berm or a knoll will be provided. Such grading or filling in this area will essentially destroy those trees. Staff is recommending that the applicant either not provide berming in that area or work with the DNR Forester to ensure that those trees will not be destroyed. Any alteration, half as much away from the existing drip line will destroy the tree. Oakview Heights Condominiums June 21, 1989 Page 7 The landscaping plan is provided on Sheet 5 . Staff has submitted the plan to the DNR Forester for his comments but have not yet received comments. The landscape ordinance provides tree — removal regulations . Section 20-1179 states that the following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans. Specifically, that shade trees of 6" or more in caliper shall be — saved unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site. Also, the city may require the replacement of removed trees on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis. At a minimum, however, replacement trees shall conform to the planting requirements identified in Division IV of this article. This section of tree removal regulations does apply to multiple family lots. Section 20-1191 requires a strip of land of at least 10 feet in depth located between abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use area which shall be landscaped to include an average of one tree per each 40 linear feet or a fraction thereof and that such trees shall be located between the abutting right- of-way and the vehicular use areas. In addition, a hedge, wall or berm or other opaque durable landscaped area of at least 2 feet in height shall be placed along the entire length of the vehicular use area. The proposed landscaping plan provides extensive landscaping of the site but does not meet all of the requirements of the landscape ordinance. The landscaping and grading plan does — not provide for the berming and landscaping required between vehi- cular areas and right-of-ways. In addition, the ordinance requires interior property lines to have a buffer between vehicular areas adjacent to residential districts. Since the whole site is a residential district, and therefore each lot is abutting a residential district, the ordi- nance could be interpretted to require the applicant to provide screening along the interior lot lines of each lot between vehicu- lar areas. To require this between each interior lot line vehicu- _ lar area on this site would be a little excessive but there are areas where additional landscaping would be beneficial to screen the buildings from adjacent vehicular areas. As an example, the areas between Lots 3 and 4 , Block could benefit from additional — landscaping to screen the barking areas also between Lots 2 and 3 , Block 3 , additional landscaping would be beneficial between the vehicular areas to screen the building in Lot 3 . This additional — landscaping would also help the applicant to replace some of the caliper inches lost by the removal of the mature vegetation existing on site. In his memo, the City Engineer addresses streets, utilities, grading, etc. (Attachment #2) . Park and Recreation The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan and preliminary plat on June 13, 1989. In the attached memo, Lori Oakview Heights Condominiums June 21, 1989 Page 8 Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator summarizes the recom- mendations of the Commission (Attachment #5) . Since the number of units proposed for this site will be creating a need for recreational facilities , the Commission is recommending that the applicant provide a tot lot area as well as a volleyball and basketball court. The actual design and location of these facili- ties must receive final approval by the Park and Rec Commission. The Park and Rec Commission also recommended provision of a 20 foot trail easement along Powers Boulevard, the development of an 8 foot bituminous trail within the 20 foot easement an a 6 foot concrete sidewalk along the south side of Jenny Lane. SUMMARY The proposed site plan is meeting most of the requirements of the zoning ordinance as far setbacks, impervious surface, density, lot area, etc. but the location of the buildings , driveways and extensive grading of the site is such that it is creating a potential for traffic hazards , drainage problems , and extensive tree removal. Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #88-15 for 112 condominium units as shown on the plans dated June 2 , 1989, with the following conditions : 1. An amended landscaping plan providing for the replacement of the mature trees being removed and providing for interior landscaping to screen vehicular areas and additional landscaping to screen vehicular areas from street right-of-ways. 2 . An amended plan providing for the reduction of the number of individual curb cuts onto Jenny Lane. 3 . 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 the improvements . 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access/Watermain Crossing Permits issued by Carver County. 6 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- - of-way to the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. Oakview Heights Condominiums — June 21 , 1989 Page 9 7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calcu- lations for sizing utility improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. — 8 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities. 9. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch watermain under County Road 17. 10. The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber Boulevard. 11. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be provided with the plans and specifications for proper surface drainage around proposed buildings south of Jenny Lane. — 12. Developer be required to install a significant play structure ( $20, 000) , a sand volleyball court and a half basketball court on the site and that the plan for such be subject to — the Park and Recreation Commission' s approval . 13 . The required facilities will be non-public and that park — dedication fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland. 14. A 20 foot trail easement shall be required along Powers Boulevard and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail shall be constructed within that easement and a 6 foot wide concrete wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the south side of Jenny Lane within the right-of-way, if possible, and if not, an — additional 10 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated in lieu of trail dedication fees. " WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT As part of the site plan review and the development of the site, _ the applicant 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 storm- water 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 Oakview Heights Condominiums June 21, 1989 Page 10 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 tip 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 . 3 . Approval of PUD concept and development plan #89-1. 4 . Approval of Site Plan #88-14. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Excerpts from zoning ordinance. 2 . Memo from City Engineer dated June 12, 1989. 3 . Memo from Public Safety dated June 7 , 1989 . 4 . Memo from Building Department dated June 13 , 1989. 5 . Plat dated June 2, 1989 . CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer DATE: June 12 , 1989 SUBJ: Update of Memo dated May 8, 1989 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 complex. 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 roadway to the north 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 deve- _ loper. The applicant will need to verify and document sizing for the watermain with submittal of the plans and specifications . Jo Ann Olsen June 12, 1989 Page 2 Streets The applicant has provided a 50-foot right-of-way for Jenny Lane and the roadway that loops through the north portion of the site. The access onto County Road 17 will require an access permit from Carver County. Jenny Lane and the roadway to the north shall be built and dedi- cated 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. Curb Cuts This plan submittal deviates from past submittals in that they show 19 curb cuts for driveways on Jenny Lane. This is excessive and would create traffic problems if allowed. As an example, there are 182 units within this subdivision and 60 units in the West Village Heights Townhouses. These units coult generate _ approximately 2, 420 trips on an average day (ADT) . In com- parison, Lake Lucy Road is designed to handle 1,170 ADT with far less driveway access per mile. Parking With this new concept we have also lost necessary off-street parking for visitors. 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. Any additional parking along Jenny Lane due to the lack of off-street parking would also aggravate the traffic problem. The westerly driveway of Lot 1 , Block 3 needs to be moved to the east to allow for proper stacking of vehicles at the intersection of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17 ) and Jenny Lane. 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, a feasibility study will need to be ini- tiated to extend the Jenny Lane road section from Oak View Heights through the West Village Heights townhouses site to — Kerber Boulevard. Jo Ann Olsen June 12 , 1989 Page 3 Grading and Drainage It appears that a majority of the site will experience shaping — and/or grading to create the building pads which in turn elimi- nates a majority of the mature oak trees on the site. Additional spot elevations and contours will need to be provided to address — surface drainage around the proposed buildings south of Jenny Lane. The applicant is providing a sediment ponding site to be — constructed on the northwest corner of the parcel just off Jenny Lane to maintain the predeveloped 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. Access easements shall also be provided. — Erosion Control The plans show the entire site 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 the improve- ments . 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 Carver County. 4 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- of-way to the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. 5 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar — plans will also be required upon completion of the construc- tion. Jo Ann Olsen June 12, 1989 Page 4 6 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities. 7 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch water- - main under County Road 17. 8 . The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber Boulevard. 9 . The parking and driveway access need to be revised and addressed for safety along Jenny Lane similar to past submit- - tals where parking and driveway access were restricted, i.e. original plan showed 9 curb cuts. 10. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be provided with the plans and specifications for proper surface drainage around proposed buildings south of Jenny Lane. CITY C FCHANHASSEN _ � i 1 � 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: June 7 , 1989 _ SUBJ: Oak View Heights Site Plan Enclosed is a site plan review for Oak View Heights . SITE PLAN REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE re. c�� F�-- The purpose of these questions is to determine the necessary requirements for the prevention or minimizing of loss of lives and property. A committee of Jim Chaffee, Scott Harr, Dale Gregory and Mark Littfin will determine the answers based on the site plan submitted by the contractor. The contractor may also be called for further verification. The results of the questionnaire will then be forwarded to Jo Ann Olsen with the committee recommendations. Non Questions Ccmply Compliance 1. Means of access for fire department apparatus shall be provided to all structures in planned building groups in accordance with Section 3-1 and the appli- cable provisions of Sections 3-2 through 3-8. OK 2. Every dead-end roadway more than 300 ft (91 m) in length shall be provided at the closed end with a OK turnaround acceptable to the fire department. — 3. Turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road width and shall be constructed with a minimum radius p City Engineer's of 25 ft (7.5 m) at the inside curb line and a radius recommendation for approval of 50 ft (15 m) at the outside curb line. — 4. Roadways shall be not less than 24 ft (7 m) wide pro- vided no parking is allowed, not less than 30 ft (9 m) wide if parallel parking is allowed on one side, and not less than 36 ft (10.5m) wide if parallel parking is OK allowed on both sides. ------- 5. Parking in any means of access shall not be permitted within 20 ft (6 m) of a fire hydrant, sprinkler or N/A at this time standpipe connection or in any other manner which will obstruct or interfere with the fire department's use of the hydrant or connection. __ ______ 6. "No Parking" signs or other designation indicating that parking is prohibited shall be provided at all normal and emergency access points to structures and within 20 N/A at this tine - ft (6 m) of each fire hydrant, sprinkler, or standpipe info needed later connection. 7. Where no recognized water supply distribution system exists, appropriate access shall be provided for water supplies in accordance with the provisions of NFPA N/A 1231, "Standard Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting." _______ _______ • Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 2 Non- Questions Comply Canoliance 8. Fire lanes shall be at least 20 ft (6 m) in width with the road edge closest to the structure at least 10 ft (3 m) frau the structure. OK 9. "No Parking - Tow-Away Zone" signs shall be posted in accordance with the instructions of the fire N/A at this time department having jurisdiction and a method of — enforcing such provisions shall be provided. 10. Fire lanes connecting to public streets, roadway, or private streets shall be provided with curb cuts Per City Engineering extending at least 2 ft (0.6096 m) beyond each edge for approval of the fire lane. 11. Chains or other barriers may be provided at the entrance to fire lanes or private streets, provided that they are installed according to the requirements — of the fire department having jurisdiction. N/A 12. The designation and maintenance of fire lanes on private property shall be accomplished as specified N/A by the fire department having jurisdiction. 13. Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 ft — (7.5 m) clear width between rows of parked vehicles N/A for vehicular access and movement. 14. At least three perimeter walls of structures and all exterior doors into structures constructed as a part of a planned building group shall be within 200 ft OK (61 m) of an approved fire lane or street. — 15. Structures exceeding 30 ft (9 m) in height shall not be set back more than 50 ft (15 m) from a street, fire lane, or private street. (Exception: When any combination of private fire protection facilities, including, but not limited to, fire-resistive roofs, fire separation walls, space separation and automatic fire extinguishing systems, is provided and approved by the fire marshal as an OK acceptable alternative, 3-4.2 shall not apply.) — 16. All structures exceeding three stories in height and 3,000 sq. ft (279 sq m) in ground floor area _ and containing nonrated openings in exterior walls facing other structures shall be separated frau other structures by at least 20 ft (6 m) of clear space between structures, and 10 ft (3 m) from a common property line. OK 1 Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 3 Non- Questions Comply Cartoliance 17. Al least two means of access for fire apparatus shall be provided for each structure exceeding 30 ft (9 m) or three stories in height, not less than one of which shall be a fire lane, or street. OK 18. At least 14 ft (4 m) of nominal clearance shall be provided over the full width of streets, fire lanes, and other means of vehicular access. N/A 19. Landscaping or other obstructions shall not be placed around structures in a manner so as to impair or impede accessibility for fire fighting N/A at this time. and rescue operations. 20. The location of structures and access to each structure shall be approved by the fire marshal before permits for construction are issued. OK 21. All structures more than three stories in height or over 50 ft (15 n) in height above grade and containing intermediate stories or balconies shall be equipped with a standpipe system in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems. Fire department standpipe connections shall be located within 50 ft (15 m) of a fire hydrant. N/A 22. Water supply systems not publicly owned and in- stalled shall meet the minimum requirements of NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Developer needs to Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, or supply further info NFPA 1231, Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban re: water supply calculatio and Rural Fire Fighting, where no recognized water for approval supply distribution exists. 23. Fire hydrants shall be provided in a ratio of at least one fire hydrant for every 90,000 sq. ft (8370 sq m) of ground area or portion thereof involved in the development. (Exception: This requirement shall not apply to land planned or left for other than structural development. ) OK • Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 4 Non- Questions Comply Compliance 24. The fire flow requirements shall be not less than — that established by the fire department having jurisdiction. In cases where a water supply system consisting of mains and hydrants does not _ exist, the provisions of NFPA 1231, Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire N/A Fighting, shall apply. 25. Water supplies shall be capable of supplying the required fire flow for at least one hour for fire flows of 1500 gpm (6750 L/min) at 20 psi (1.38 bars) — or less; or for two hours for fire flow greater than 1500 gpm (6750 L/min) at 20 psi (1.38 bars) . Need additional (Exception: In those situations where the info for approval, provisions of NFPA 1231, Standard on water — Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting, are utilized, 3-6.2.2 shall not apply.) 26. The contractor or installer of water supply systems in planned building groups shall demonstrate by actual test that the capacity _ of the water supply system will meet fire protection design requirements. Fire flow Need info for approval. performance tests shall be witnessed by the fire department-and other authorities having — jurisdiction who desire to do so. 27. Distances between installed fire hydrants shall not exceed 300 ft (91 m) unless fire department operations or technology would otherwise dictate increased spacing. For buildings exceeding 20,000 sq ft (1860 sq m) in ground floor area, a Additional hydrant needed fire hydrant shall be installed within 300 ft as specified on drawing. (91 m) of any portion of the building. Actual location of fire hydrants shall be as required by — the fire department prior to installation. 28. Fire hydrants located in parking areas shall be protected by barriers that will prevent physical damage from vehicles. N/A 29. Fire hydrants shall be located within 3 ft (0.9144 m) of the curb line of fire lanes, streets, or private streets, when installed along_ such access ways. OK 30. Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the stanaards of the American water Works Association. • Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 5 Questions Non- Canoly Compliance 31. Threads on fire hydrant outlets shall be American National Fire Hose Connection Screw Threads and shall be equipped with thread adapters when the local fire department thread is different. 32. Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a 6-in. (15-an) diameter main installed on a looped Need info on 6" system, or not less than an 8-in. (20-an) diameter system if adequate main if the system is not looped or the fire for approval hydrant is installed on a dead-end main exceeding 300 ft (91 m) in length. 33. Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 ft (182.5 m) in length for main sizes under 10 in. (25 an) N/A in diameter. 34. Fire department vehicular access to all structures under construction shall be provided at all times. In areas where ground surfaces are soft or likely This is a must. to becane soft, hard all-weather surface access roads shall be provided. 35. The fire protection water supply system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and in service prior to placing combustible building materials for This is a mast. structures, or combustible pretested fabricated building assemblies on the project site or utilizing them in the construction of building structures. If phased construction is planned, coordinated installa- tion of the fire protection water system is permitted. 36. Trash and debris shall be removed fran the construc- tion site as often as necessary to maintain a firesafa Per inspection by construction site. =Fire Inspector 37. Flammable or combustible liquids shall be stored, handled, or used on the construction site in accor- dance with the applicable provisions of NFPA 20, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code; NFPA 58, Standard for the Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases; and NFPA 395, Standard for the N/A at this time. Storage of Flammable and Combustible Liquids on Farms and Isolated Construction Projects. Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 6 Questions Non Comply Compliance 38. At least one portable fire extinguisher having a rating of at least 4-A, 30-BC shall be within a travel distance of 75 ft (22.5 m) or less to any point of a structure under construction. Personnel normally on the construction site shall be N/A at this time. instructed in the use of the fire extinguishers provided. 39. All plans for planned building groups shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction for approval before the issuance of the construction permit. This approval procedure shall include the fire department having jurisdiction. 40. In addition to the requirements of 3-9.1 a small- scale drawing of the site's surrounding area showing streets, access points, water supply sources, and other items of fire suppression interest shall be Needed at later date. — submitted to the local fire department before the start of any construction. 41. Drawings showing building floor plans, fire pro- tections sytems, and items of fire suppression interest shall be submitted to the fire department Needed later. having jurisdiction, as requested, upon completion of the project. CITY of CHANHASSEN _ .e. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector 4,(1. DATE: June 13 , 1989 SUBJ: 89-9 Subdivision (Oakview Heights) The buildings are R-1 occupancies. R-1 occupancies having more than 3000 sugare feet above the first floor shall be of not less than one hour fire-resistive construction. Group R-1 apartment houses ( condominiums) with 8500 or more gross square feet must be sprinklered. I would like a detail showing a plan view and section view of the utility corridor. The details should show proposed grades, floors, footings, walls, accesses and utility locations. The existing plans are inadequate to determine the acceptability of running the utilities under the building. CITYOF - CHANHASSEN 11110i, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM — TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator — DATE: June 15 , 1989 SUBJ: Oakview Heights Proposal The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for Oakview Heights at their last meeting. As outlined in the attached staff report, this development will create the need for 4 - 5 acres of parkland. Although this area currently lies — within the service area of City Center Park, that park is nearly at capacity with existing park users . The Park and Recreation Commission felt that if recreational facilities were included with the project, some of the pressure would be taken off City Center Park. They felt that a substan- tial totlot struction ( $20,000) , a sand volleyball court and a half basketball court would meet the immediate needs of this development. The Commission felt that this would justify accept- ing fees in lieu of parkland ( 5 acres) , however, no credit could be given toward park dedication fees for non-public facilities. The trail plan calls for an 8 ' wide bituminous trail along Powers _ Boulevard and a 6 ' wide sidewalk along the through street (Jenny Lane) . The Park and Recreation Commission felt that if the sidewalk could not be accomodated within the right-of-way an additional 10 ' of right-of-way should be requested. The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the developer be required to install a significant play structure — ( $20, 000 worth) , a sand volleyball court, and a half basketball court, on the proposed site and that the plan for such be subject to the Park and Recreation Commission ' s approval. They also recommended that as these facilities would be non-public, that park dedication fees be accepted in lieu of parkland. They recommended that a 20 ' trail easement be required along Powers Boulevard and that an 8 ' wide bituminous trail be constructed — within that easement, and a 6 ' wide concrete sidewalk be constructed on the south side of Jenny Lane within the right-of- way if possible, and if not, an additional 10 ' of right-of-way be — dedicated; in lieu of trail dedication fees. r ci — • C I TY F PRC DATE: June 13 , 1989 '� � � C.C. .C. DATE _ CI1TI� Y ASSN �� CASE N0: _ Prepared by: Sietsema:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 18. 93 acres into 11 high density — lots for 182 condominium units. 27 U LOCATION: Between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, approximately # mile north of West 78th Street 1.c APPLICANT: Cenvesco, Inc. Q 3650 Annapolis Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 PRESENT ZONING: R-12, High Density Residential ACREAGE: 18. 9 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- R-12, High Density Residential S- BG, General Business E- OI, Office Industrial W- R-12 , High Density Residential — Q EXISTING PARKS w AND TRAILS: The proposal lies within the service area — t...... of City Center Park. (f) COMPREHENSIVE The Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for PLAN: sidewalks along thru-streets and a trail along Powers Boulevard. Park and Recreation Commission June 13, 1989 Page 2 Background The Park and Recreation Commission recently reviewed a Planned Unit Development proposal on this site, which was denied by the Planning Commission. The applicant has resubmitted the proposal as a straight subdivision. This proposal will generate 182 units, which, according to the Park Dedication Ordinance, creates the need for 4-5 acres of parkland. Although some of the park needs generated by this development will be met by City Center Park, that park is used intensively by current residents and is near capacity. — Therefore, staff feels it would be appropriate for the develop- ment to include recreational facilities to serve their residents exclusively, such as totlot equipment, a sand volleyball court, and a half court basketball court. If recreational facilities as described above are required, then park dedication credit could not be given as the area would not be public property. _ However, a dedication of acreage would also not be necessary. The Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for 6 ft. wide sidewalks along the south side of the through street within the development. — Such would require an additional 10 ft. of street right of way. The Plan also calls for the construction of an 8 ft. wide bitumi- nous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard, which would also require an easement along that road. Trail dedication fees would be waived for this construction. Recommendation — Due to the high density of this proposal, it is the recommen- dation of this office to approve the proposal with the condition that the developer provide a large playground structure, a stan- dard size sand volleyball court and a half court basketball court so as not to over tax existing park facilities. It is recom- mended that the plan for this recreation area be approved by the Park and Recreation Commission and park dedication fees be required in lieu of parkland. Additionally, it is recommended that an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail be constructed along Powers Boulevard within a 20 ft. ease- ment, 10 ft. of additional street right-of-way be dedicated along Jenny Lane ( thru street) , and a 6 ft. wide concrete sidewalk be constructed within that right-of-way, in lieu of trail dedication fees. .._ I i._J L_______1----77 - \, --___ ___ -----i L_____777_ , \ '\ \ ._. ,A ( \..„......._ ( -.-J 1 ____/ . .. .., , . \\:::\.\\* .\ ------:'- ,._ , .., I 2...-„,- -- -------.. i 1--------\ , .._.., •I,. I !----i, \\\\ 1J '1 - !go ^ I 1 O NII J N..W OU 0 M D ❑ :z;S -------------1)\\_- 0 o b 0 D }(J� I opo Q 41 �1 000 j t al — OCJO U u _ %r j �� 1� / V... i , i / VI [ .. / ll� V. Y a i•4_ z. ! , / 1 T`4 I I . i, lid" ••• ) 1M l La I 111.011111 Cr• / ( l k / ft / /' ,,di -, u) , . . . + .. / 1, u.. • / . k ~�� (� 1 L '1 . sb \ ....—.... I , % I . . I I ,. `Al 1 \�1 \ 1.. C ...: 1 • !♦` / i • �. l 1 i • 1 k_J LJ 1 i • • - -^— --,-- ---1--z—:-- . �� 1 k V 1 ' 1 • — _n - - 1 1 1 1 I iI — i 1 I —J O 1 I \_t.,._.r..i__rrL_) w As Ali • LJ L, ' 1 1 , 1 e 1 1 r - — — — I w LL.1 LI 1 h� , !^ 1 J 1 �-- i i3 : A s I ( . � I _ v1 1 1� ` ii I �� nmii 1 - ; \ ----_m \ \ al \ — , 1 \ . 1 . v t• 1 , _ — �.I \ 11 ; • U U � A 1 I 1 f1, \ .1 1 a.+ '� In P. I mivoc I • ..r,r IY.11,...M YY 4 1 1 `L — I� ~--Ni Y.1..,NY,Y Mw,get 1,• -. -4 :.", •-... -.•"1.4 -....... m..._.118 4..w4 .1.> n.Y. .-A...Mrd ..+i.1►! ,' ' 00,1•14.....Ni/r••Bir e 1 e5 u: 3.11_lk.aN • EH=M:.'C! : Z... 3N .kyr. .I. . 3:'.15 AiYi:-i33 1 — • CI • z } W Z <.'n Z-N o�M } J Z z" - 4 a -Pr ¢ o'm •_ .;i Uo:ry m o W m�� CI VI : o ZW - 5 < > 5 J- WZw !,- WZ :z n 0U' oz bs W �+ C �' W Z o0 0 R U lino n LILTJ mmi . :2: S Nall i- ai+at is COMMON rJE "AAA n AAAe:tnn . . .. 1 0 - a¢ • • 6uu O 82N.., A P.13,-,e22 m wN u100^0040 m am S r=w= Oi NNdvmp a C -w z u _ La o.s 0 r u +Omp p ,{NOOm L I i z2c J .°a W 4 , m N..ou z v_. ma. i z r p _ fl_1 r aatz O - na N._N. w "T'"::: ON " . DO - ` a mn a u• UTTo w z w < r' 8 W N m- m ~ Z W Z ¢` u Y p _ d m��+ .. a0-o... ry 6 Zi ••• c i2 a z O In �� < o Mil "4 w .a 10 4001001.0 o o a ® o m rwn�� m = ' i �: i u w•:NNmnav<mp1 . < 0 n .ri C0VI Nm = WA i SC0 a ~ 6°0 J ZZ4< O Cr_ /00 - 6 - EUN -i-. U2 • -240 ^ a « p • ELI 2..... N H16r mJ5. �JJ S N 6"3 200 F .y J/- _ _ 9 N D • Q1 , i: liours -.•....,,,„ . \o, , : , .... . . ._,____ii_n____,,_____ ____ _ -_____., , \ 4 14[----7= Y \ .‘ --- NO i( ; ,��i �' _ - _ --- --r °���. - iI1Lvi n a ' I i z }�.Q I . a.: „...----:To---i-,÷ \i z I p_4 A • —Y i 1 I i . C_J ‘•• ‘ . -1,k \ il\''•'tri - i ' / \ r-I. • . ', ‘1,.. ` MI I ; 1. ss, '.. ,1 ite !II _• , •:,........ -, war • •• , I C.1 S•4•4•1 •-•—_ u.. A ..n Nei...rw • Z F w N — Q 1 co> W= • J II V u Z¢ m 11 el 17 ® –n LL' :: It: m iXJZ zic iOC m -1-in' - - 1,11 "Waa– =- . _ 'NI):ai a o .. ¢ omQ a Z ® -;� 8 - aill di.,-- c Zw 5 O - ". 4 Z oii 0. 0E7 Wai ..- kV MI eg % " i ¢ W ��i C W z cci . WJ 3: 5 t' "t't 4 U uv n 2 W mma j C1... I 2 —........uuL- .Z rE-SU3 3.ES.62.00N I I` S y Zri 1 / I . 4 ti en ':� t'- ��" o m . ss s \ 10 ` 17 91 \ wa \\ ">; \\ Z 1 ..,* J <f s�i \\' \ U<W r y Q ^o/ \ / l /' / �` reni o 4 I I; ilta 1 `� 1 il 1 I 1= J• 1 V1. NO 1 1 1 ..........I ! I J 1I \ 1 1 J: 1 __- ' - r- CS = 1 01+1 4. 1 I I / 1 1 1 I 'a I • i V r__-- 1 1 1 I r J 5.1.1 Ile I _ f y 3.3 'I I I 3 S• 1 .,O N 1 `1 11 I 1 .; rl-I1 I ',� 1 - ! 1 W mt it i 6. ;• i S 1 _ .1 1 L Q - - ,`i'\ 1 I 3 O ....- C \ 1 \ ss II i \\ �� \\\%, \\\ `\.//err' fid' =I. "1 3M \ \ �y• \\ �. 1 ., 1 .. :d \ \ II • J _ 2.'..'..•.s� tly \\\ \ \ 1 f -I - tin': 2. It ZU'rat 1. ' Yy \ I N ^� N. \ 1 1 1 d \\ / 1 _`a _I 1 .S r,` , `le , 93 3S E` 1 v 1 1 J \ I 1 ; • 1 1 , f/�/f� `'�1 � 1I 1 .2 3: °H1 3 . 24 -.11 it 3.9,,,,,,...6.0 ,1 S 4. E6-if(la1.LE.00N 3 ( •0A18 Sd3MOd) LI •0N •AMH 01 V 31V1S A1Nf103 4 .r.- J. • - - 0 0 z n ci,� Z )- W CI Cd Ct. Ifiddliiial illir"10 I ' . W z¢ "s' �Z W I, _ _ u v z� 4: z z N z Hi =i 9 (� Z ti a_jeL, o o J:� ¢ - I . U U W Q u W w `_ ,?, �z ::_? s t 1 2 CL.(/1 as ". 1 q W Aa. Q W Z oci OO 0 j' i 4 U nin 4 =W mmn - : 3 �� a W Q I • r\---:::_z_` `�♦ ♦ Sri. LAI 0, _ • , ... Is, fi,l,ts S'1,1% I . ' : . likkh 1110, A, '' '4'..t. ,.. , 0 'is,V c ' � , E�' 1a 1 4 , 1 1 I : • IliWill ' / •1' --� I �1 l i 1 i F', . (at_.... 95P-r 1" ' :.: .n..k; ..i. . :' I i :, ii n� , ie i O' ft 'CLT11i ScUleH Fmill " ' ,: \ • l` I' .i l = Q ° -- g , is It IL ''''6'' Ill . 'I 1 ' ': 111 ;_,, ,(,...,-iNt\=: :-.17,14 Alva ...." , I, Illeii-li 111Proa—iii,,,Pr -v **- ii , . W — 5� �..,-fi:. 4 i. a • 1 III „ , I W s,, �1 `. / ••n. ILS er I Ii"Il '� ill II 11 i till '-- • I.;' W •I 11, A , ' �' �� V, I{,,Q ,`i',1; III• �lN A , ;\: ►- 1 ' �: '1,-il = - ""'\`I III I,` ` ,� . \ • 4 1 ,�;�; 4' ' 1'1 11 1I\\.,;:\`` ak,` \ \ �' / ' � l.. 1,1. y mi. 1:' \\ `‘:•:.`VZ:,` `‘‘`‘ '‘‘‘l'\1‘: ''.,\\ 'lb' lii ifai - iiiiiii ' iii‘ 'Z'i II:, NI z • \\ \I\,\\V \ \�, ‘,..,‘` ,....,2--- ,- `\�- - �` Ill,' a \\\\ \1}\\\\��� `� \'�' ' 'uo, •..� G '•: VIII W , '-�\ \�,\\\\\1\ \\\0, \,,\‘.. .-„:.--7---_ - �`\,�\ •?�-- It �� I1i•� 11111 1 N • \ �\ • \\\\ \ \\' ji :\: II �_• i' '�111 I ' I \ \` : N....' ��� _ �� • Ili • ?, 1111 II = I.( i....\\��: '-- \��`� .A_. � 9 , \1JiI •` 1SII O \� \ - -- -, �:.; \` 1 '. 0 il:::' : 11 I i. ) C: . ; . ., ,..._2,:::\ tri' I.itil iii! u ��` `' \;\\\'• w9s�� . 4 ' s ' 1 E I ' o , '-__....? ,.,..N. •c_. . . i ., . ,;\ ,,..ei,- a • - . -: 0`,1- • -__ - 2` ---.- 1 _ -_ ..---- -;,21_111:1;1-z £ 2., I I i ` ----( •OnlB Sb3MOd I $ L I ON 'AMH 01 V 31V1S AkNIl03 y •L Af • i — 1 I A • 4 — ° cO Z O to H w i b ¢ C Z Q R,. L. i I W = Z W I;u U ZGil �< _OM r ; b 6 Z <. Z .GN • _ ' 1 t 2� ', _ irb Q o U'wN ' e W .• emm i o 4. U I!; OW mz., .3 En Z W 2 �Z ,..2.a .. ' 0 3 Z v�iio W cio -o= 'ce I:6 I U 4 U nna a =W wma Jill!... 3 , — = i 991. a W I I� tll r Su• 3. .62.00N — I I 1.4 • s, f 1. 1 / W 14 0 Or \411i kW:* No . '':4'..t• al en em. N.s S.,:s s Illi \ ,\,As 14. \ :::''> ZO •. • 'sss'' ,....'": . \\.\Alfrogi : U< Ci,<Q " 11111111 illit' "il ff.'' A \ :\ \:-01.16111111111 aiii II ill HIIIIIIIIIIIMig,\,\ i%%'. „„ \ ii,„. --- ::::::-_i it, 11111111 • III 1- r:: ,..iraysirti3O ws= 41. q ,_,.‘ 01 411 ,ii 1 _grb , 1 _. V D ;f 1 i , i �� 1 w u, N i _ i 1 ,,` - _ 3 5 • I P 111 _ _ `I ,\ 1II MY- , I I I .,., . HI \ .iii . U C \ s, , •%I . I %a \\ `, s.\.‘. Nil, lablaav, Ile a .., ...., < .., -_, \ �o4 , \\ s7,,,k ' —i----- %-- 'ha i t 0 .., \ -tot, \-41 --. NI -- ---,1 ,.... . F `‘` \ 6r& \ : -1 _ �� \ \ F Z 11 '1 ` J x A r ` \ • `` \`\ \ 111 111 111 1 i ,\ .•11 .11111111r1 1111 111`•,.. .1147104 1 11 ir ' � l 4N3 .1 1� -_-_.-� — 35,3 .. tl - _J i- 1 1W ,l'3,t4 ,s`1 J 0w,• wll 331.4, r rb0 ii t . Tur'i:i u�u�".a'ti rte:. `' — �5 a.v ;_ 1; C 86 L(l?a 1.2(.00. 3 4 g - -�— 2 ( 0A18 Stl3MOd) 3: fl ON "AHH OIV 31YIS'AINAOJ 2 ro •I mom.x A 1 6 o - a — • ? "8gd o . }Q 3fjW n I. Nin ny r 1.. ! z 1 W Z iom Q„ .t. ` 1 e4 i Qu —N, �z Il + O �zM d ' 3:' j , ,.. C-3 Eii- W W - w DZ aW .0> W O U nan 4 2 W -::2: i 410- 0. I ) I ruses 3.E5.62 ' - 01 V*, 'I'I -,, i iss4: 1 , 1 2 :!i 11100, F �' 's,s,s,,, tON 00 lliet ".t4,...„1.:--' \tle44A 1104 ISA'A te It /" I'+ \an ' li 'ri riliWs 1 / 0 ..;,,, , vt iguipasi „, , 1 li• 2 ' iiii.or, / ; ac.tyti.,,, \ IWO • if . .c. _ Z NMI !El . I :101311111114-4-:_► ==--1leer g 112 g 11 W 11 :2 ILI .... Z 11".11.- -U"-- --- --.------ -7:‘ ' IOW 10._ its:v leili,‘Iiiini.ei 7 0 tiSSL \ \ \ l !ur. < .‹ `..4 awft„...mi r\ iirr ar , gmmen -t-------- . 0 a.: . . P ` ______-__:- . I, 4i4, m : ,--_._-- la. ii. do. 1 4 \ y \ mbi gp rok. ii. k.:--i---N---• r� •I= • = if` `� ` A. \` \` . . ,\ �� - ---, p ��111 iti44 ilii 4444 i4 Ff4fi Bd . S `\ 3 =1 11111.111 .««« 1111 •... .•A"^ «tia a�` 1 «`. \\ `� jW7 t �� � 1� C C� y � 9 a �fC .., '- I, \ I VIP* 1 ri;: A ay .I i t_i 5i 4i33 ae ! I * /�� 1� ILIA �1� e € -..ss,,, V tia i 11 - 1 1 • i . gi E2 its N 4 i C p 5FqF9 it p ~ t w ` , 39y" I .111b7 , r :!i41 � :a� �OG +Y�� •g i�'t ji ■ 6[r - _ _ h Ya/ 1;ii li itsg & i It / _ 73 I 17 ` 1 i p mgr reEj �.r�.E lk]d Y: :i/4 - 0 d6 LF'3.Idf AOM 9—_—_—_—_ —_—_------________ g !l a �6 a 6 p1 6 a • g ( 'OAIG Sd3MOd) Li 'ON 'AMH 01V 31\11S AINno3 g 1 0 G I 0 3 1.!'L: EJ 1 ✓ LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CIIANHASSEN — 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: OW _Cenvesco — NER: Cenvesco ADDRESS _LE10 nnanolis Lane — ADDRESS 3650 Annapolis Lane p3 .'mouth MN 55441 Plymouth, MN. 55441 TELEPHONE (Daytime ) Zip Code Zip Cc_ 559-6430 TELEPHONE 559-6430 REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development _Nal_ Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment X_ Subdivision --ma_ Land Use Plan Amendment X Platting ing Conditional Use Permit __ Metes and Bounds _les Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation 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 - 1 ? USES PROPOSED M lti- Family SIZE OF PROPERTY 8 . 925 Acres LOCATION East of Hwv. 17 Powers Blvd. ) and north of 78th Street West— REASONS estREASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Develop Townhouse 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. • _ t =— CITY OF P.C. DATE: June 21 , 1989 `. C.C. DATE: July 10 , 1989 7 Y CASE NO: 89-8 SUB Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 9 . 5 Acres into 18 Single Family Lots F- - Z a U LOCATION: Lots 9 , 10 and E. 16 Ft. of Lot B, Vineland - Directly West of Fox Chase, North of Carver Beach Estates and South of Pleasant View Road APPLICANT: Chuck VanEeckhout Merila Associates Q Suite 165 Suite 63 1935 Wayzata Blvd. 8401 73rd Ave. N. Long Lake, MN 55316 Brooklyn Park, MN 55428-1293 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 9 . 5 acres-gross 8 . 1 acres-net DENSITY: 2 . 3 units per acre - net ADJACENT ZONING — AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family S- PUD-R; single family 2:12. E- RSF; single family w W- RSF; single family WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water is available — PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The property has steep slopes and is heavily vegetated. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density `� I (,. ,f 1 1 CHR/ TMA 'I I NE PI N COUNTY • in,„,,,,,,,), LAKE ( �: i . `1 - PIEOURTT �•r . • PUD-R ' �� TRillpr 11115,. ‘ . •'itall CIRCLE. . p . CIRCLE. . .�, IraOW ���� MOUN� IE ' -, , `.' x i COURT I • 0 ' •, ,4 R `A' . ., BLUFF-: .. 4 ' -- I V--ft .! .. c: '-'i 0 Stpa .. 2.e4'- ''' •• •• 4. .-•;110,i ot_ Imii,- . :,,,,,,, 4, ;* I 6.1 '.".....'-"..' 6':_ ReA, MI : F i „ ''‘ •r `\r"•-t) FOXTAIL ii •■ S �+�•ti �� ` .. .. 410 '� COURT . 10•4...„5. IMO 40 mew ,.,,. ) -•40A91 I , mu Ilywrrfinum Aviv i ,,--%. - MI felMilih . ''‘• ' , .f t Milt lin wriorin,r w gym_�:-Ilia r \\. /� (� .wi � �� ... AL lit - ietst, 1�rlh Lc L:.�a \_____ `� 1,1 RD ; 1 ets rVI 'en =Vat vi main mi. go 6 wv / 1 na .v r R� ---_.:.• .,41111r1 simmillaimmi! r V.,.I.S. _ rot....g%rio- -OS ,,' R 9 • oa. LOTUS jir--- .- mu; 41 ,- 4 &Tot...d.ot .. . _ sae III - gm � � w �e , ,..,. _, : --- qw, IA IFI -43 g-r.-----?"61176* \ ' "D-R _l v-'11171.11111111111111161.111.111 171 lirie '_ t''firs* • .,7442 •Yrs'• _q"`' ' 011*` • ....... . y000 .r - 111111P -, • -----—---, F MOM '' -1 ,\ I' � 11 m' ' � � L .� IYE \ , RSr. _t�'�,' i�'� � co i 1 . , o .or t Vii i urrrri" Lrs71 � 4 .. R Ilii/ - R 4 RZ11411,/.07.40Wm ����. ' I .- . ri adinfior-r-Rt Orli!. �;�:\e. � \- L 46 , ..,ft so• of •fr �• .: r ilW� C • R12 -: — °'R12 - = -� '-• Vineland Forest June 21, 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The RSF district permits a minimum lot area of 15 ,000 square feet with 90 feet of public street frontage and 125-foot lot depth. The land use designation permits up to 3. 4 dwelling units per acre. REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment #2 Building Department No comment. Public Safety Attachment #3 ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to subdivide 8.1 acres into 18 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF and the average lot size is 19 ,570 square feet. The net density is 2. 3 units per acre. The site is located north of Carver Beach Estates and west of Fox Chase. Currently, the site has street right-of-way provided from Carver Beach Estates , the Carver Beach subdivision and from the Fox Chase subdivision. The applicant is separated from Pleasant View Road by separately owned property ( see location map) . The proposed plat is showing access from Pleasant View Road rather than from Fox Path or from the right-of-way south of the property from Carver Beach Estates and Carver Beach subdivision. Staff has met with the applicant and stated that a recommendation of approval cannot be made until the correct amount of right-of- way can be dedicated and the typical street section can be pro- vided. The applicant wished for the Planning Commission and City Council to review it at this time to know whether or not he should pursue purchasing the property between the subject site and Pleasant View Road to provide the required right-of-way and street section or if other means of access are preferred. The preliminary plat plans do not show the full connection from the subject site to Pleasant View. Staff requested that the applicant provide plans showing access from Pleasant View to the proposed subdivision prior to staff commenting on the proposed subdivision. The applicant has submitted a separate sheet showing three access configurations. The first one is the future access which shows a street connection from Vineland Drive to Pleasant View. This configuration would require the applicant to purchase additional land to the north of his property in order to provide the 50 feet of right-of-way and the full street section. • Vineland Forest June 21, 1989 Page 3 — The second configuration is an interim access which shows 31 feet of right-of-way easement and 24 foot temporary bituminous roadway which is located to the north of the subject site on — property that the applicant currently controls under a purchase agreement. This configuration does not allow a standard street section to be provided does not provide required right-of-way and — does not connect very well to the subject site. The third con- figuration is an alternate interim access which provides a 50 foot temporary roadway easement through the property to the north — of the subject site which the applicant has a purchase agreement for and provides a 24 foot temporary bituminous roadway. This configuration also shows how Vineland Drive would be connected to the 24 foot temporary bituminous roadway to Pleasant View. This — configuration also cuts into the most northwesterly lot of the proposed subdivision. In his memo, the City Engineer reviews the three alternate access proposals for the subject site to Pleasant — View Road. In addition to the access problem from Pleasant View Road, staff — has stated to the applicant that a secondary access must be pro- vided. The preliminary plat does not show such an access being provided. Specifically, the Fire Department is requesting a through street connecting Vineland Court with Nez Perce. The — City Engineer' s memo (Attachment #2) further reviews the street issue. The submitted preliminary plat also does not provide the existing conditions, including delineation of the vegetative areas and a tree removal and landscaping plan. An amended preliminary plat must be provided prior to final approval for the preliminary — plat. RECOMMENDATION — Until the access issue is resolved between the applicant, Planning Staff , the Planning Commission and Council , further — detailed review of the preliminary plat cannot take place since whichever access is chosen will impact the proposed preliminary plat. Staff is requesting the applicant to submit amended plans showing the full street right-of-way and required standard city street with existing conditions , specifically showing areas of vegetation and a tree removal plan, a landscaping plan and a plan showing the secondary access from the site. Staff is recom- mending that the Planning Commission table any action on the plat until these issues have been resolved. ATTACHMENTS 1. Excerpt from Zoning Ordinance. 2 . Memo from City Engineer dated June 15, 1989. — 3 . Memo from Public Safety dated June 13, 1989 . 4 . Application. 5 . Preliminary plat dated May 31, 1989. CITY of CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner — FROM: Allan Larson, Senior Engineering Technician DATE: June 15 , 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Vineland Forest Addition File No. 89-13 Land Use Review The Engineering Department cannot give a full report on the streets and utilities for Vineland Forest Addition at this time due to the incompleteness of the proposed plat. Until the access issue is resolved, further detailed review can- not take place. However, I can offer the following comments: Streets 1 . The plat should offer a City standard street and right-of-say through street connecting Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce via Vineland Court. 2 . At the very least, street access should be from Nez Perce with emergency access to Pleasant View Road as a second access to the site. Utilities 1 . Watermain through the site is to be looped from Fox Chase Addition to Pleasant View Road. CITY OF - = -i A` CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: June 13, 1989 SUBJ: 89-8 Subdivision Comments and recommendations per Fire Inspector: 1. Fire Department is requesting a through street connecting Vineland Court and Nez Perce. — 2 . Add fire hydrant as indicated on site plan. 3 . A 10 ' clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrants. — CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: June 15, 1989 SUBJ: Vineland Forest Proposal The Park and Recreation Commission, at their last meeting, reviewed the Vineland Forest site plan. As this site is currently served by existing parkland, it is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to accept park and trail fees in lieu of park land dedication of trail construction. LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive • Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Van Eeckhout Building Corp. OWNER: Same ADDRESS 1935 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 165 ADDRESSc,An,p Long Lake, MN 55356 Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 612/473-1578 TELEPHONE Same REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development _ Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment X Platting Conditional Use Permit Metes and wounds Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Vineland_ Forest PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Residential REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Residential PRESENT ZONING RSF REQUESTED ZONING RSF USES PROPOSED Sin•le Famil Residential SIZE OF PROPERTY 9.5 Acres LOCATION South of Pleasant View Road and East of Powers Blvd. REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Prel' ' . Plat LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) Lot 9, 10 and east 16 feet of Lot 3, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota. Cit:' Of Chanhassen Land Development Application Pace 2 • FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be t ypewriten clearly printed and must be accompanied by all informationtandor plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application , you should confer to determine the specific ordinance and proceduralerequirementsr applicable to your application . - — • FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies _ that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . ' • Signed By -X Date k Appiica'nr. The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application descri pedfor the property hereherein• . Signed By Date — Fee Owner Date Application Received Application Fee Paid $332.50 • • City Receipt No.4"62rf3 "V • * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and A • meeting . Appeals at their L 0 Van Doren- Hazard- Stallings MEMORANDUM TO : Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler - DATE : June 12 , 1989 SUBJECT: Convenience Stores Chanhassen ' s Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Issuance of Land Use Approvals and Building Permits for Convenience Stores with Gas Pumps expires on July 1 , 1989 . When the moratorium was enacted , it was with the clear understanding that the City would review the issue for the six month duration of the moratorium term . — Since December, the planning department has prepared a number of discussion reports for review by the Planning Commission . With the ending date of the moratorium approaching , it is now time to finalize all discussion and either leave the present ordinance intact or suggest specific modifications to the City Council . The current zoning code allows for convenience stores and auto - service stations in the following districts : CBD BH BG BF BN Convenience Stores w/o Gas Pumps C P P X P Convenience Stores w/ Gas Pumps C P P X C Auto Service Station X P P C C P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed Use A report prepared by Steve Hanson dated March 9 , 1989 contained two proposed definitions , one for a convenience store and the other for a gas station . The convenience store description defines a use similar to Brook ' s Convenience. The gas station description defines a use such as the proposed Amoco Food Shop . Neither of these are the same use that is currently defined in the zoning code — as Automotive Service Station . — 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.II, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 Convenience Stores June 12 , 1989 Page 2 For comparison , the three definitions are as follows : CONVENIENCE STORE ( PROPOSED ) Convenience store means a retail establishment which generally sells a limited range of food products , non-prescription drugs , candy , and other perishable goods . This includes soda and similar beverage dispensing and food products which can be heated and /or prepared on site , and has over 400 square feet of floor area for retailing of non-automotive goods . GAS STATION PROPOSED) Gas station means a retail place of business engaged in the sale of motor vehicle fuels , but may also engage in supplying a limited amount of related goods . In no case shall the space for the retailing be provided for maintenance or repair of motor vehicles , except for the provision of window washing , air and oil dispensing services . AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION ( EXISTING ) Automotive service station means a retail place of business engaged — primarily in the sale of motor vehicle fuels , but also may be engaged in supplying goods and services generally required in the operation and maintenance of vehicles . These may include sale of petroleum products , sale and servicing of tires , batteries , automotive accessories , and replacement items , washing and lubrication services and the performance of minor automotive maintenance and repair . The above statements constitute a definitional approach to regulating convenience stores and auto service stations . Other — approaches have also been considered in the review of this issue . One of these is the establishment of minimum distances between convenience stores with gasoline sales ie . a one mile separation between businesses . Application of this technique seems particularly arbitrary since within a one mile radius , the road system and land use pattern may very easily be able to support more than one such facility. This technique was applied to the — contractors yard issue. As all of the contractors yard sites filled up , it became difficult to deny what may have been appropriate sites simply because they were within one mile of another similar use . Another approach in defining this issue to impose primary source of revenue requirements . A number of zoning ordinance regulate — the sale of alcoholic beverages by requiring that facilities maintain at least 50% of their revenue in food sales . This same approach could be applied to convenience stores by requiring that — Convenience Stores June 12 , 1989 Page 3 the gasoline portion of the business be incidental to the sale of grocery products . This could be accomplished with a maximum 30% , 40% or 50% gasoline sale requirement . This approach is not , however, recommended because it is much too cumbersome to continually monitor a business to determine the mix of gross product sales . Having reviewed alternative approaches , the definitional approach seems to be the most equitable method of addressing this issue . The three definitions seem to adequately cover the existing composition of the petroleum sales industry , either by convenience stores ( Brooks ) , by gas stations (Amoco Food Shop ) or by automotive service station ( traditional Amoco stations ) . If this method is accepted , the next charge is to define appropriate use categories . Uses to be considered include the three that are referenced above and convenience stores that do not include fuel sales . Identifying appropriate locations for these four uses requires a review of the purpose of each of the commercial zoning districts . The intent of the CBD , Central Business District is to provide for downtown business development. Within a downtown area , most communities emphasize maximized land uses that generate employment opportunities while providing a mixture of goods and services . Within this area , it could be argued that convenience stores without gas sales are appropriate because they are consistent with other walk- in retail businesses . They really represent the old fashioned sundries stores that used to be part of most urban areas . Convenience stores with gas pumps , gas stations and automotive service stations may be inappropriate because they devote larger amounts of land to automobiles rather than maximizing areas for building construction which accommodates job generation and the availability of consumer goods . The BH , Highway and Business Service District is defined as the area that provides highway oriented commercial development . All four uses appeal to highway oriented commercial clientele . The BG , General Business District provides for downtown fringe commercial development . This area is identified to accommodate some of the more land intensive commercial uses that appeal to CBD area customers . All four types of convenience/gas station uses have the potential to fit in this area. The BF , Business Fringe District is identified as an area appropriate for limited commercial uses without urban services . The thrust of the comprehensive plan is that the BF zone is limited to the grandfathering of the uses that now exist . If this policy is to be continued , it is hard to argue that any of the four uses Convenience Stores June 12 , 1989 Page 4 have a place in the BF zone. Neighborhood business uses , BN , are intended to provide for limited — low intensity neighborhood retail and service establishments . In a neighborhood setting , either a pure convenience store or a convenience store with gas pumps may supply valuable and needed — services to surrounding residential areas . Gas stations which involve the sale of large quantities of fuel and automotive service station which involve the repair of vehicles do not seem consistent with residential neighborhood areas . Commercial developments in the BN zone have to be responsive to the existing and planned pattern of residential development . This — means that each commercial proposal needs to be reviewed on a site specific basis . The method to accomplish this is the conditional use permit . Utilizing this procedure , each proposed use can be — required to meet conditions that are tied to the corresponding characteristics of the proposal . For example , commercial facilities surrounded by single family residential uses may have more restrictive hours of operation , signage controls , delivery — hours and related items than would a more remote BN site. In addition to specific conditions , all convenience stores with gas pumps must comply with Section 20-288 of the Chanhassen City Code — which identifies a set of standard requirements . The comments portrayed in the previous paragraphs establish a use _ matrix that differs from the present ordinance . Specifically , the following mixture of uses results : CBD BH BG BF BN — Convenience Stores w/o Gas Pumps P P P X C Convenience Stores w/ Gas Pumps X P C X C Gas Stations X P C X X Automotive Service Stations X P C X X P = Permitted Use — C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed Use RECOMMENDATION : it is recommended that the Planning Commission prepare an ordinance modification to accommodate convenience stores , convenience stores with gas pumps , gas stations and automotive service stations in a manner consistent with the matrix identified above . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 7, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and - David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Elison and Jim Wildermuth — STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner — PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND FOR A CATCH BASIN AND DUCK POND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY, ALAN LENHART. Public Present: — Mr. and Mrs . Alan Lenhart Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad : Thank you Jo Ann. The point of the permit is simply to create a pond period. And staff's opinion with Rockwell and Burke and whoever says that will benefit the wetland . Olsen : If it' s done with to the conditions or recommendations of the Fish — and Wildlife. Conrad : And who monitors? Olsen: They will have to be receiving a Watershed District permit, a DNR permit, a Corps of Engineers permit and we review once they. . . — Conrad : During construction who monitors , just out of curiousity? Olsen: I know we monitor it . Conrad : The building inspector or who would do that? Olsen: It would be building inspectors and most likely the engineers. The engineering techs would be going out . — Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Alan Lenhart: My name is Alan Lenhart and I live at 6575 Pleasant View Road. On page 4 there, you' ve got a few things on there like this 12 inch pipe. Well I don' t think that ' s a 12 inch pipe in there for an apron. That was an old drain tile from back when still the farmers farmland that was draining from up above. They put a new drain tile in going out of the Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 2 east, out of the upper wetlands. It ' s way up back behind again and there' s — not too much that comes down that anymore and like I say, I don' t think it' s a 12 inch pipe. It' s probably about an 8 or. a 10 at the most . Conrad: How can you respond to that Jo Ann? Olsen: The reason that they referred to it as a 12 inch i.s because on the plan it shows i.t as a 12 inch pipe. We can work with, the engineers could — go out there and determine the size and how much drainage comes through and if it really is necessary to have the apron. It is also for his benefit but if the cost i.s such, we can work with him. — Alan Lenhart: And then the other one I had, the item (b) in there it was asking for a topsoil of muck from an existing wetland to be filled back _ into it. Well there' s going to be muck left in it because I 'm not going to dig it down that deep. If you take muck from another wetland , is that the same thing as taking a bog from another wetland and sticking it in another wetland? — Olsen : No, you are right . You have already had that muck there. This is for when somebody is creating a wetland they have to provide that. You _ won' t have to be providing that. It ' s already there. Alan Lenhart: Oh okay. Then the item (e) , I didn' t quite understand what they mean by a culvert or raised pipe, etc. at the other end to let the — water out. Is that a pipe that has to be x many feet above a surface of water level? Olsen: No and again, in discussing with the engineers we would be working with you probably just to have like a little swale going out when you grade it. A pipe , you don' t have enough depth for a pipe but a swale would do. — Alan Lenhart: Then one of the reasons to create the duck pond and stuff is for the view of the wildlife and stuff like that so like along the north edge of it where they were saying to let the grass grow back up and stuff , — I would like to keep that down at a lower portion so we can view the duck pond and have the animals come in there because we still have deer and pheasants and a lot of animals that do come in there. Now like this spring it was down low and stuff and we had a fox come through and a deer and ducks were landing on it and stuff and we got to view that . If the grass grows real tall on the north side, i.t will block that view and we won' t get to see as much. In the DNR rules and stuff they were saying that they only need 30% of grass around the edges of the pond for wildlife. Like the whole east side and south side would still have, over half of it would still have the cattails and the grass and stuff growing on that portion so I 'd still like to be able to go down on the north side pretty close to it. I can only get too close and then it ' s going to be too close to go any further . — Conrad : Were you talking about grassing it down to the wetland? Alan Lenhart: I 'd probably basically leave it to the natural grass that' s already growing there and I ' ll probably just mow it . I probably would put — Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 3 in a blue grass or pine grass that would be there. It probably would be the natural but I probably would mow it . Conrad : I think the problem is that we ' re trying to let the wetlands do what they do best and that' s in your case, you' re right next to Lotus and — make sure that the fertilizers aren' t going in. If you start putting grass in there, that' s not a real good filter. It's not a good filter so if you' re fertilizing your yard and you 've got low, if you really are grassing to the wetland, you' re maximizing an impact on the wetland and reducing the effect it can have on keeping Lotus Lake clean. Alan Lenhart: Like right now there' s grass down to it but it's not the — regular lawn type grass . It ' s the wetland dig bladed grass that ' s there . That' s what' s there right now and I probably would not change that. But like I say, I would probably mow down to where I mow at least now anyhow. . . . fairly high up to the yard like just about at the edge of the pond and stuff there is a row of trees there that I would leave in there that I mow down to right now and I think they' re below that footage level that they showed . Then like the other thing that I had a comment on. Conrad: Let' s not lose this one. What do you see, is there a solution to this? Jo Ann, I guess I 'm not sure what the benefit or . . . Olsen: We can go back out and look at it and see if what' s there now, if he maintains that. Conrad : The trouble is, we' re not really going to be monitoring in the future you know. I ' ll wait for other comments later on but. . . Then your last point is? Alan Lenhart: On the disposal site, he was asking to be sodded within 10 days. There might be, is that my only alternative that I have to sod it — because there might be a portion of it that I might to put like like rocks over it to make a garden on it with rocks with evergreen shurbs and stuff like that to grow there too . — Olsen : That ' s fine . As long as there' s some sort of vegetation or some sort of cover . — Alan Lenhart: Okay. Then I guess that ' s all I had . Conrad : Any other comments? Any other public comments on this public hearing? Emmings moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in — favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Headla : Ladd is that the end of the lake where it ' s heavily loaded with - loosestrife? Conrad : Used to be. I don' t know about right now. There used to be a fair amount down there. Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 4 Headla : I think his intentions are good and what he' s doing sounds good . Overall I 'd say yes, I 'm certainly in favor of this. I guess I 'd kind of like to take this as an opportunity to reinforce that they've got to — control loosestrife on anything that they do. You ' ve got to pay strict attention to that, especially until new grass comes up. I was trying to place it exactly and it seemed like that' s where it was. I 'd like to see something worded in that that would pay attention to loosestrife. That 12 — inch pipe, I think if we just say drainage pipe. I don' t even think that' s pertinent information. It' s function is a drainage right on that item 5? You' re talking a 12 inch pipe to spend all the time and money doing that, — going out and looking at it, I don' t think the diameter of the pipe is pertinent at all . The other one is, I would tend to favor not allowing cutting right down to the pond . The reason is you don' t get that much _ wildlife activity in the middle of some of your foliage, etc. . In the spring , fall , winter , the foliage is down. I don ' t think we'd be inhibiting your view very much of some of the life. Now yes maybe on the actual pond you wouldn' t be able to see some of it . Maybe something can be — done to cut down the heights of some of the weeds but I certainly agree with Ladd and the function of the wetlands is the filtering . Maybe we can work out some type of compromise but cutting right down to a pond, I don' t — think would be appropriate. That' s all I had . Batzli : Jo Ann, how far, what kind of distance are we talking between the 896 and 897 elevation here? Olsen: It' s not a lot. Batzli : I guess isn' t that the part we' re talking about whether he ' s going to be allowed to let it go back to a natural state? Olsen : Right . The 897 isn ' t necessarily right where the grass yard does end right now. It' s close to that elevation so it' s not that big of a strip. Batzli : From the way the applicant spoke, it sounds like to me that he mows down to the willows and the willows run between the 896 and 897. If he ' s going to dredge this down to, or the top of the pond is going to be — 896 about, so he' s going to have a portion, if he left it as it is right now which is kind of what ' s being discussed I think, there' s going to be a portion of it that' s mowed down to the pond and a portion of it that' s got _ cattails and a portion that ' s prairie grass or whatever ' s there . Olsen: We just wanted what is the willow, the prairie grass and type that is there now i.nbetween those areas , we do want to try to maintain . Batzli : — Batzli : But do you want him to actually get rid of that and let it go back to cattails or isn' t it going to be that low right there? What part are — you actually telling him to let go back? Olsen: When they come in here, this will be altered and . . . just around the fringe but it' s acceptable also to have areas of it opened. We' ve allowed that before. I know the Fish and Wildlife allows that but a lawn that' s — Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 5 well maintained and fertilized right up to it we don' t like to promote. That' s something that we can work with. It' s not, that' s not flexible. Batzli. : Well I live a short distance away and I ' ll agree there' s a lot of wildlife down there and I think he' s actually doing the area a little bit of a favor for it in general and I guess I 'd like to see us work with him to have something like this done. I don' t see it as a big deal what size the pipe that drains in there if there' s not a lot of drainage in there. He had a comment about water level control , culverts, riser pipe, etc. and all you were asking for there was like a swale or something? Olsen: Something that allows if there is one of those big rains, that it — doesn ' t just flood over all the edges. We have to allow some of the water to be able to run off so if there are habitats around it, that those don' t get flooded out . Batzli : Okay. Then I think it' s just more a problem of us including the Fish and Wildlife Service criteria verbatim in there. - Emmings : I don' t have any trouble supporting this thing i.n that it sounds to me like the issue about the grass around the edges and whether i.t should be mowed or now seems to me to be kind of a technical issue. If it' s — important for Lotus Lake or for the wetland that there be left a strip that is not mowed, then he shouldn' t be allowed to mow it but if it' s not important to the wetland , then I can see that he doesn ' t want to have an obstructed view and if it' s not important, then he shouldn' t be able to mow it as far as I 'm concerned but that and some of these other issues all sound more like technical issues where we ought to have some, you hate to spend a lot of time on kind of a really small deal but we ought to check — maybe with Fish and Wildlife and say is this important to this wetland. If they say it doesn' t really matter , then I think we ought to go ahead and let him mow it but I can ' t decide that because I don't know really how to - think about it. As far as the apron is concerned , what is the material of the apron? Is it just rock or is it concrete or what do you expect them to do there? — Olsen: They' ve got different designs and it can be just rock and rip rap or whatever engineering terms are. What they showed i.n here was a real big major one but what engineering is requesting is just something similar to — that that disperses the water . Emmings: Okay, so if he puts some rock down at the end of that pipe, and that ' s something that he can talk to the engineer about so that it' s appropriate to whatever water flow might be coming out of there, again that sounds to me like a technical issue that ought to be taken up with the engineer and between the engineer and the applicant . I don ' t really have any other comments. Erhart : I pretty much agree with everything that' s said . My preference — would be only to make i.t bigger . If you' re going to spend the money to do this and you could actually make i.t a little bit bigger and more productive but in the past I ' ve generally favored these things. I think there' s a few technical words that we could change in a motion maybe to help clarify some Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 6 things for the applicant . Mowing , I think my concern would be, if we mowed — more than 25% of the shoreline but looking at the shoreline, it doesn' t appear that that ' s possible in any way. As long as 75% would remain in it's natural state so I guess that' s the only comments I had here. — Conrad : My only comment is that we minimize any nutrient runoff into the wetland from the adjacent grass or properties so based on the technical , whatever is necessary Jo Ann. I don' t think the height of grass matters . — I think it's more of what it is and how thick it is. I could be wrong but I 'm not concerned with height but I am concerned with runoff. From that end of the lake, there's so many nutrients from the old farms that have — gone in there that I 'd prefer to keep as much out as possible. Erhart: Should we be looking at things like restricting fertilizer within _ certain distances? Is that the kind of runoff you' re worried about is nitrogen? Conrad : Pretty much yes , and my thought would be yes. — Erhart: Do you have a distance in mind? Conrad : I don' t have a clue. It would be an arbitrary, if I made something up Tim, it 'd be real arbitrary. Tough to do. I 'd prefer that there were certain fertilizers not permitted at all within 100 yards of any lake but it' s arbitrary type of thinking right now and I think I 'd trust — the staff in terms of. . . Olsen: Actually the pond is helping that. — Alan Lenhart: The pond is about 600 feet away from the lake so there is still a big area of cattails and grass between the pond and the lake — itself. Conrad : Yes . Any comments? Is there a motion? Erhart: Yes, I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as stated with the following exceptions. Item 4 add, as an alternative the applicant shall install a method for — preventing erosion of spoils within the 10 day period . Clarifying that , in other words, if you can provide staff an alternative to sod, you still need to do it within the 10 day period . Change number 5 to , the applicant shall — provide a rock apron at the end of the existing drain pipe instead of the 12 inch pipe and remove the 12 inch from all of that line. Clarify that item (d) that he can use muck from the basin if it' s already there. Item (e) , add in the parenthesis , an overflow area. I 've seen some of these -- small ponds built, you don' t need a culvert specifically as Jo Ann stated . Just a flat area on one end , on the outflow end that' s got good grass cover . Will serve to control the water level . And I ' ll just add number 8 — is to minimize the drainage of fertilizer and chemicals into the wetlands more or less as a request I guess. Batzli : Second . — Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 7 Conrad : Good motion . Under discussion, Jo Ann do you agree with what Tim said for item (e) ? An overflow? Olsen : Yes . - Conrad : You' re comfortable with that . Dave brought up purple loosestrife which is a problem. I don't know how to work that into this thing. What we' re doing is really not purple loosestrife. I don' t know how to resolve the problem. It' s a really valid problem but I don't know how to make a connection between the pond and purple loosestrife. Do you see, is there a connection? — Olsen : Disturbances to the wetland can promote purple loosestrife so we just have to keep a good eye. Conrad : So disturbance too? Olsen : If there is purple loosestrife where they' re dredging, then you have to dispose of that in a different way. Headla : Remember what Ms. Rockwell said about loosestrife? Disturb it , you break up the roots, you just create more and more of a problem. I — remember the way I was telling her I was pulling it up and tossing it off and letting it dry. She all that' s doing is making the problem worse. I' guess that tend to make me a lot more sensitive to that and it seems like this might be an ideal opportunity to control it more. Conrad : What do you suggest? What are you thinking of? — Headla: One of the things she said, you ought to burn it but on here. . . Conrad : You' re thinking of disposal then? Headla: The way we dispose it and I think what he was suggesting is a garden. Now he' s not going to let loosestrife grow in his garden . He' s going to control it so I 'm all in favor of that he moves it up. I think that ' s an ideal situation but the rest of it , if I understand it correctly, that depth on there, we may be propagating it. Putting in ideal conditions for loosestrife. I guess I 'm with Steve, it' s kind of a technical thing — and I just don' t know that much about it except an alarm went up. Olsen : I ' ve got information on purple loosestrife and I could just give that to the applicant and talk with Paul Burke. He' s coming out again on Friday. This does have a lot of purple loosestrife in that area and see what we can do. — Headla : Is that the same information you mailed to us before? Okay. Your 8, Steve made a good point that we' re probably not that technically astute on runoff . Steve I think made a good point that maybe we should get a — little technical help on it. It does make any different or doesn' t it? I don ' t know which appropriate group would be Jo Ann but maybe if we could just get a comment on it. From the north, it' s going to run right into the pond . If they say, well if you leave it up an inch or 2 inches , that all Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 8 you need , that ' s fine but I certainly don ' t have that knowledge and I guess — I 'd kind of like to see something worked in where the people technically knowledgeable on it would comment on it. Alan Lenhart: One other comment I have, if you' re there in the spring, you can tell which way the water runs down through to get to that wetland . It comes down through and it enters just south of where I have the spoils , where I want to put it and it runs halfway across my yard and then down to — the pond so like the runoff is stopped from the hill and the other two neighbors and stuff , goes across my yard first before it turns and goes into the wetland anyhow. Then it enters more to the east end of the duck — pond than anyplace. So a lot of it filters down through my lawn and grass before it gets there. Erhart moved , Batzliseconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as shown on the site plan dated May 8, 1989 subject to the following conditions : — 1. The applicant receive a permit and meet any conditions from the DNR, Watershed District , Corps of Engineers and a grading permit from the — City prior to any dredging of the Class A wetland. 2. The applicant shall provide Type II erosion control between the proposed duck pond and Lotus Lake prior to any dredging of the wetland . — 3. The area between the proposed duck pond and the existing grass yard (897 contour) shall be allowed to return to it' s natural state. - 4. The disposal site shall be sodded within 10 days of placement . As an alternative the applicant shall install a method for preventing erosion — of spoils within the 10 day period . 5. The applicant shall provide a rock apron at the end of the existing drain pipe in the pond . — 6. Dredging shall not occur during breeding or spawning season as determined by the DNR. — 7. The six recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service shall be met as follows: 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 - 20: 1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife . c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0. 5 - 3. 0 feet) and (b) encourage growth — Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 9 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 (muck from the existing wetland being filled) on the bottom on the basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. The applicant may use existing muck in the basin if it already exists. e. The basin will have water level control (culverts , riser pipe, overflow area, 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 . 8. The applicant shall minimize the drainage of fertilizer and chemicals into the wetland. All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: — LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF ONE ACRE OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED IN SOUTH LOTUS LAKE ADDITION, MICHAEL CARMODY. Public Present : Name Address Bobbie Kussard 7604 South Shore Drive Judi Podevels 200 South Shore Drive — Eunice Peters 7660 South Shore Drive Jeanette Lappen 140 South Shore Drive Judy Schmieg 200 West 77th Street Michael Carmody Applicant Paul Struthers Architect for the Applicant — Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: Don' t we have a zoning district called PUD? Olsen : That ' s the zoning and this i.s the Comprehensive Plan . Conrad: So back in the Comprehensive Plan, that is not carried forth? - That is still broken down into the other categories so a PUD does not over ride a Comprehensive Plan? — Olsen : What it i.s is you just want them to be consistent . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 10 Conrad : This is a case where the zoning is there. We have changed the zoning. In essence we are allowing high density. We' re now bringing the Comprehensive Plan back into sync. _ Emmings : I'm curious why the City isn' t the applicant on this . Why do the property owners have to go through this? This is a housekeeping thing for the City really isn ' t it? Conrad: But the City is not the owner . Emmings : Yes but the City is the one who ' s concerned about the Comprehensive Plan being coordinated with what it' s done with it' s zoning . It doesn ' t matter , it' s here but I was just surprised that it wasn' t the City and I 'm surprised that there' s a condition on it too. I don' t quite understand that but anyway. Conrad : This is a public hearing , are there any comments? Jeanette Lappen: I just wanted a clarification? I live in that area. Are we talking about one lot to be zoned high density or two lots? 3 acres? Olsen: It' s the outlot that is 1. 5 acres . Jeanette Lappen : Okay, so we' re just talking about one lot? Then all the other lots are zoned residential low density? Olsen : They' re all zoned PUD-R. Planned Unit Development but the underlying, the Comprehensive Plan, the land use is low density. Bobbie Kussard : That means you can ' t have multi-unit dwellings? _ Olsen: No, you have a certain number of units per acre that you can have and it comes out to I think 3. 4 units per acre. With a high density we' re talking about 12 units per acre and that ' s where you need the high density. — Bobbie Kussard : So right now they don' t have that density so they can' t build those 14 units until they get the high density? Olsen: Technically they already have approval of the zoning . Bobbie Kussard : That ' s what I mean , what are we doing here? Conrad: The zoning takes precedent and the zoning was achieved basically the last time when we reviewed this issue and we allowed the townhouse units there. What we' re doing right now is saying okay, the zoning was already approved . Now this little master plan , this theoretical plan that we give to the Metropolitan Council, we' re trying to put that back in sync with the zoning that we' ve already granted . We try to just keep those two in sync. Bobbie Kussard : They don ' t have to go back to the City Council or anything? I mean they' re approved and everything. — Planning Commission Meeting June 7 , 1989 - Page 11 Conrad : This is really a formality than anything else that we' re doing — tonight. Olsen : It does have to go in front of the Council . Conrad: It does go to the Council but the fact that they have agreed at this point in time with the zoning, with the townhouses , that is what the City follows and that' s the law basically. The Comprehensive Plan is this ivory tower little document that we ' re now adjusting to reflect what we' ve granted already. I know it' s not easy for me to communicate what' s happening . Bobbie Kussard : Then you guys made a boo boo . It shouldn' t have been approved until . . . Conrad : No , that ' s not true. We gave it, that whole area to be a PUD. We said in that area we' ll let it be a PUD and when you allow it to be that, then you can do exactly what they did . You can have some high density over here and some low density over here. So no, we didn' t make a boo boo. We knew what we were doing and now we' re just trying to sync things up. There are a lot of mistakes we do make. This was not a case where it was bad — planning . Bobbie Kussard : When I first looked at the site development and selected - by lot, there wasn' t a little picture of 14 little squares up over there so to my knowledge there wasn' t going to be 14 little square up there . So I assumed we were probably. . .and it was low density. Originally I thought there was going to be a couple houses up there and not 14 little things. Conrad: It' s a real valid point and yet you almost have to know, I 'm sure when you bought your house you would have had to come into the City and say — what are we zoned and somebody would have said, well you ' re zoned PUD. And you probably wouldn' t be, and this is not a criticism, but you wouldn ' t know the right questions to ask. You wouldn' t say well could there be high density across the street from us . Bobbie Kussard : No, but I would have said can there be 14 little squares across the street from me. That I would have said. Olsen : And they would have been told yes . Jeanette Lappen: I 'm not sure, is the whole area PUD so that means any lot in that whole 30 lot area can be zoned for multi.-unit dwellings? Olsen: It's already been, the PUD had a concept plan originally. That ' s where everything was approved . What could happen . The only way that they could change that would be to come through with an amendment. Again, this outlot was approved for. 14 units per acre. Jeanette Lappen: And was that the only one in that area? Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 12 Olsen : We had some duplex lots but those are there. That was the only — high density. Emmings : And you should understand , if my recollection is correct, when — they showed us the concept plan, the lot on which the townhouses will sit, were intended for high density right from the beginning as I recall . Jeanette Lappen: I think then as a secondary issue that has nothing to do with you is , well in a way it does , is the fact that when we looked at this beautiful map of our area that the real estate agent gave us, or whoever gave us , it showed parkland . It showed supposed swingsets and supposed — tennis courts and supposed houses and all the lots had little houses drawn on them but lo and behold , that one square that will have 14 units on it now, showed this big square that looked like it was a continuation of the — park. So in a way it was , I feel like we were intentionally misled so if someone knew what they were doing and there was nothing on it that would ever lead you to believe that, in fact it was. . . led to believe that that was part of the park. — Emmings : Now you' re talking about the honesty of the developer . Jeanette Lappen: Well I wouldn' t say that. Emmings : I think you are . You ' re talking about number one, whether it was misrepresented to you or not, I don' t know but part of the sales pitch may well have been intentionally constructed to make you feel that way so that you wouldn' t ask what' s going here. I don' t know if it was or wasn' t but that' s not unheard of either . — Conrad : It ' s a tough issue and it goes back to how forthright usually realtors are in communicating that and sometimes they don' t know — everything . They know they have some land to sell and they' re not sure how the rest of it ' s going to be developed. The point of a PUD is hopefully a valid point . We allow them and in many cases it allows some of the land to be put to different uses. We break rules in PUD' s where we feel that if — you have a significant amount of land , you can cluster some houses and put higher density and then give other houses a much lower density. In many cases it ' s really fine planning . It ' s what you wanted to do and we ' ve been — trying to encourage that over many, many years here. It doesn' t always work out . The Planning Commission typically has different standards than the City Council on what a good PUD is . In fact we very seldom, we don' t — always agree on what a good PUD is . On this particular one I can ' t remember if we agreed with it or not but anyway. Erhart : More importantly, what did we get in return for the high density? Usually an area like this that was zoned RSF and we provided high density in one area , we had to get something in return for the neighborhood . Olsen: There was a transfer of land for parkland. Erhart : So there was some additional parkland that we picked up. Unfortunately it wasn ' t, was it in that neighborhood? — Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 13 Conrad : So the City got the boat launch is what it got out of this land . The neighbors didn' t want the boat launch but it got something . Emmings moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Emmings : My only question is why there' s a condition on this . What happens to the land, don' t we want to amend the Comprehensive Plan anyway? Olsen : The only reason I can think that it wasn' t done originally was that in case they did come back and go through the amendment and then use it as — single family or low density. Emmings : Right now we know that this piece is going to be some form of higher density. We' re not going to give them low density on this so why wouldn' t we amend our plan anyway? Batzli : They could come back in and redo their PUD if they decided not to — build the townhomes there. Olsen : That ' s the only reason I put that condition is just to, it' s not — that necessary of a condition. We know that they' re going to go through but once they do plat it into those 14 individual lots , townhome lots , then we know that it is going to pretty much go through. - Emmings : It ' s not worth anymore. I ' ll go along with it . I don ' t feel strongly about it . — Batzli : Well he asked by question so it ' s okay. Headla: I asked the question before on the previous thing and I lost so — I ' ll go along with this one. Conrad: I have no comments . - Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #89-1 to change 1. 5 acres Residential Low Density to Residential High Density with the following condition : 1. Final plat approval of the 14 townhome units . All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: — ARGUS DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON THE EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 3RD ADDITION: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 35. 79 ACRES INTO 55 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS . B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND. Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 14 Public Present: — Don Patton, Applicant Ray Brandt, Applicant — Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad : Jo Ann , you mentioned that there would be grading of Outlot A but — I don't see that in the recommendations. Is that bundled in someplace? Olsen : That should have been under the park. — Don Patton: I think it' s on the PUD concept. Olsen: It ' s already in the contract that they have to do that. We could add that though. Conrad : Whatever you think. — Olsen : It is on number 1. I 'm sorry, I 'm reading the Park and Rec one ' s. Yes , we should probably add that to be consistent because I 've added. . . — Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Ray Brandt: I 'm Ray Brandt. I don't know how I did this. The right-of- way for Heron Blvd . is platted 60 feet wide and way back 2-3 months ago when I was putting in the dimensions, I put in 25 feet . . . One of my — earlier preliminary plats I erased it but I didn' t erase it on my computer so it' s drafted at 60 feet so the lot areas and that are correct. Then that one lot that I have 12, 900 and some, that ' s just an oversight also . I — don' t think there were any others. Oh yes, I guess what I was thinking on that wetland , what we' re going to do is encroach , our setback is going to encroach but now that I read the report I 've got to put a ponding area in there so that will have to come back and change that. '- Conrad: Okay. Any other comments? Batzli moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. — Headla : I 'm glad to see them putting in hackberry. I don ' t know if you read the Minnesota Volunteer but they talk about the pine bark beetle that hit Woodbury last year . Part of their conifers are taking quite a beating . — Stay away from all conifers. Use deciduous and I 'm very glad to see you do that. Will you explain to me again the rationale for a 90 foot frontage that we just insist that all the builders have? — Olsen : With the PUD you can go down to 80 feet and that ' s one of the benefits of the PUD. Why we have 90 feet though? — Planning Commission Meeting June 7 , 1989 - Page 15 Headla : We' re so unforgiveable with that 90 feet with all our builders and now we come in and there are several 80 feet. This doesn ' t seem to be — consistent at all . Olsen : That was one of the benefits of a PUD. Smaller lot sizes . — Narrower lots . Headla : Aren' t you saying that' s the way it is period if that ' s the case . I take a look at a 90 foot frontage as not being a rigid rule but certainly can be negotiated in the future. It ' s hard to believe that it' s got to be this for one place and another place, ah, we can lose 10 feet. It won' t make any difference . Conrad: Well we do have a minimum. Headla : It ' s 90 feet but they allowed 80 feet here. Batzli : That's in a PUD. Headla : But it' s still in a development . You've got homes here , you' ve got homes here, what' s the difference? I 'm not going to be that hard nosed on 90 feet when I can see it used so often here and I 'm not saying 90 is — the magic number over 80. I 'm looking at more consistency in our reasoning as we say yea or nay on more people in the future. Batzli : Isn' t that just part of the whole PUD plan though that we' re getting something in return so we' re being more flexible. Conrad: Is there a minimum Jo Ann for our frontage? Olsen : In a PUD? — Conrad: Yes . Olsen : It' s 80. - Conrad : It is 80 . So normally without a PUD, what' s the minimum? Olsen: 90. Erhart : But remember if it' s not PUD, in RSF it ' s 15,000 square foot minimum. In a PUD, it' s 12, 500 square foot minimum. Headla : That part I can buy. I think there ' s some pretty good rationale for that because they compensate in other areas but when I see so many 80 foot wides , I don' t think that our 90 foot has that much substance to it. - It' s a good guideline but to hold to it, I think we should look at it a little bit different . That' s over a 10°% change. On recommendation 1, you refer to having a minimum of 12,000 square feet and provide block numbers . — What' s a block number? Olsen : It ' s when you have Lots 1-3, Block 1. Lots 1-10, Block 2. It' s just another little technicality. Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 16 Headla : Oh okay. That' s all I had . Batzli : Dave got me thinking on this 80 feet. Lot 3, which is 2 to the _ east from the lot that' s below 12, 000 square feet. You see where I 'm at? We have a frontage at 79. 96 . Not to be picky or something but . Olsen: I was picky on the 11,900 so yes, that' s just, when the final plats — come in, the lot lines always adjust a little bit and we check those . Batzli : Just curious. I think this is an interesting plan in that we have — several lots which are enormous compared to lots on the southern end here. I 'd be personally kind of interested in, and I don' t know that I was really here for the entire PUD concept plan for this. I 'd be really interested to _ know why we have several lots that are so big. Erhart: That ' s where that pond is going . Batzli : All the way around there? Erhart : That' s a low area . Olsen: It' s wetland, yes . Batzli : So that' s going to be back, well we don' t have block numbers , okay. One other just idle curiousity note here before I get to my one real question . Is this 20 foot strip out to Outlot A from Heron Drive, did I miss something? Why is that in there? .— Olsen : That ' s access to the park. Batzli : Is that down into the park or is that going to be. . . Olsen : It will be part of the outlot . I believe dedicated to the City isn' t it? Batzli : Is the outlot dedicated to the City? Is the City going to be maintaining that? _ Conrad : Was that your real question? Batzli : No. This is my real question. In item 11, the right hand turn, will that affect any lot sizes over in that corner? Are you going to be moving the road over actually? Ray Brandt : It ' s all within the right-of-way. Batzli : It' s all going to be in the right-of-way? Okay. That was my only real question . Emmings : I have a couple of questions . I don ' t know if they' re real or not but I ' ll ask them anyway. Over on the left hand edge of this thing , there ' s Lots 4, 5 and 6 on that one cul-de-sac that looks like they' re - Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 17 double frontage. They front on Audubon and that street . Do they? - Ray Brandt: Are they double frontage? Emmings: Yes . Ray Brandt : Yes . Actually 7 is too . They really front both ways but I would imagine that there won' t be any access on Audubon. Emmings : I assume that ' s what you' re doing there but I know that in the past when we've had this situation, just to make it crystal clear , I don' t think that the County would let you do it anyway. Olsen: It's a city road. Emmings : It' s a city road, but I think maybe we ought to just put that down that all access for those lots will be on the interior streets. That' s what you plan to do anyway but just so it' s spelled out . Then the other thing I have on those double frontage lots is I have a recollection and I 've been feverishly searching through the ordinance here and maybe it's not in there or I just couldn' t find it but it seems to me that we always do some things with. . . Olsen: You always have to have an additional depth. Emmings : Where is that in the ordinance? Olsen: In this new codified ordinance, I can' t find it . — Emmings: Yes , I couldn' t find it but there are things that apply to double frontage lots and I don' t know if these double frontage lots were evaluated in terms of whatever those provisions are. Erhart: There' s an extra 10 foot setback. Olsen : Yes , and they definitely have the depth. There' s also additional landscaping. I can' t remember right off hand where exactly it is but I know when we were looking at the PUD concept , we were looking at the additional depth for that. Emmings: I guess I 'd just ask that between now and the City Council that that be checked just to make sure that all of the provisions are being met and if there' s any problem, that it be brought up to the City Council . Then the only other thing I wonder about is, right now there' s nothing developed to the south of this property correct? Yes , that ' s correct? — Olsen: Yes, there' s nothing . Emmings: And how about to the east? Is that the first subdivision? Olsen: First phase. Planning Commission Meeting June 7 , 1989 - Page 18 Emmings : And how are these lots on the east edge matching up with lots that have already been platted to the east? Olsen : They' ve all been consistent with the concept plan . — Emmings: That' s all I 've got . Erhart : Jo Ann , why do we request a developer to pave sidewalks but yet — not the trails? What's the thinking behind that? Olsen: The trail easement? — Erhart: Yes. Olsen : I 'm not exactly sure if that was a condition between the Park and Rec and the PUD contract . Maybe Don can fill you in on exactly why? Erhart: I was just wondering what the rationale was? — Olsen: I think it' s along Powers it' s going to be improved and it depends on when all of the improvements for the road will take place. The _ developer might not . . . Erhart : Powers , what 4 lane all the way? When? Olsen: In the next 2 years . 4 years. They' re planning on it now. Erhart : That ' s right . Going down to the railroad bridge it is 4 lane and it looks like it' s a temporary jog there. Okay. The thing I might suggest when you' re doing a wetland thing , in order to react to Brian ' s concern about those large lots, they' re putting a conservation easement on a — significant portion of those lots so we should try to keep them wild if you think that fits. After studying that in detail , if you think that fits . Olsen : We usually put a conservation easement along the 75 foot setback. Erhart: In that sense making it a pseudo public area because it' s a lot of. . .maybe you could help me Dave but what ' s wrong with pin oaks? — Headla: I looked at that and couldn ' t figure out why they changed? Olsen : The DNR forester said the pin oaks grow real fast and get brittle. — They' re fast and the mature tree really sooner but it wasn' t as long lasting . Erhart : I don ' t know why they don ' t just use red oaks instead of pin oaks . The PUD ordinance requires, is the 1 tree per lot on just the PUD ordinance or is that in . . . _ Olsen : That ' s in all our ordinance . Erhart: That' s in all our ordinances? — - Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 19 Olsen : It ' s always a condition of any development contract. — Erhart: On Audubon Road there where we have those nice evergreens that we' re putting in , is that going to be also bermed or is that just going to be level with existing? Olsen: It showed a grading plan . Again , Audubon Road , there ' s some improvements being made to that too. There are plans to continue that all the way down to Lyman. Erhart: Yes, I 'm aware of that one. — Olsen : The grading plan , it shows slight berming . Erhart: I think that' s real valuable to take a double fronted lot like that when the rear abuts up to a major street or arterial like that, or a collector, to put a berm in addition to the trees but I guess I 'd ask that you consider that in the final plan of this thing because it does , it really provides some immediate screening but it also provides somewhat of a — barrier for kids running in the back yard and running out onto the street. Ray Bradt: The street, Audubon Drive, the existing elevation is at it' s — lowest point is 946. That' s about 12 feet higher than the backs of the lots. Erhart : So I see a berm would really be useless. Okay. I think that ' s all I had on my list. Conrad : Okay, good comments Tim. I was not an advocate of this as a PUD — and I still am not. I do have problems with lot configurations as certain lots back into the sides of other lots . I just find that that forces fences and is not good planning. I have no other comments . Headla : Can I make a couple more? Conrad: Sure. Headla : I've got one real comment . On number 10, the sanitary sewer shall be jack-bored to the west right-of-way. I know what jack-bored is. Is it — appropriate in this type of situation that we require it? My real concern is this is appropriate in this type of condition, that' s all . Olsen : I 'm sure the engineers have reviewed that and that ' s what they determined . Headla : Well it was in their comments but does it fit in here? To me — that' s a question if that' s appropriate. The other one I have is that these dedication fees . Where do they go? I ' ve never seen any of that money spent west of CR 117 or south of CR 18 . Olsen : That ' s not Chanhassen . Conrad: It' s not supposed to. That' s the law. Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 20 Headla : Let ' s change that to eastern Chanhassen? I had to get that shot in. Batzli : Jo Ann, just following up on Dave' s point, they' re going to start a watermain down along Audubon Road there right? Olsen : Right . Batzli : And also the sanitary sewer down there as well so what they' re doing is basically putting it over there for if and when they do start that _ project? Olsen : Which project? The Lake Susan? Batzli : No, aren' t they going to make some improvements? Utility improvements down Audubon Road there? Olsen: Correct . Batzli : So you' re just asking them to jack-bore it for when the improvements are put in that it will have already been done? Olsen : Yes . To loop everything . Emmings : I found one thing on double frontage lots . There ' s a provision under Section 20-908 that says the required frontyard has to be provided on both streets . Olsen : That ' s not it . There' s another one . Emmings: There may well be but I found one and I ' ll just bring that to your attention . Olsen : I know the other one too but just where it is in this new one I 'm not sure. Batzli : I 'm sorry, did you say the frontage has to be provided on both sides? Emmings : No , required front yard . Olsen: Two front yards and two side yards . Emmings : Yes instead of , you don ' t have a back yard on a double frontage — lot so you have two front yards. Batzli : So is that just for setback purposes then? Olsen: Yes and what can be placed in it and stuff like that . Conrad : Anything else? Is there a motion? Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 21 Headla : I thought Steve had one comment in there that I can' t remember what it was now. Erhart : Yes , I 've got it. I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat #89-2 PUD dated May 12, 1989 with the 15 _ conditions cited by staff plus a condition 16 that all access on double fronted lots shall be from the interior streets only. Emmings: Access to all lots should be from interior streets because there are some on corners too I guess . Erhart : Yes . Did I miss something? Batzli : I ' ll second it for discussion purposes. Are we going to talk at all about conservation easements? Conrad : Or grading the outlot? Erhart : I think that' s going to be part of the wetland alteration . Olsen: The easement would be. Batzli : The conservation easement but grading the outlot is going to be part of the wetland alteration as well? Erhart : No . Olsen : The conservation easement around the wetland would be part of the wetland. I don' t know where the edge of the wetland is yet. Erhart : Now you' re talking about grading Outlot A for a park? I thought I read it in there as one of the conditions already. Olsen : The Park and Rec Commission put it in. Erhart : Then let' s add that as number 17. Further discussion that was in — the report. — Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #89-2 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat dated May 12, 1989 with the following conditions : 1. The applicant shall provide an amended preliminary plat showing Lot 1 to have a minimum of 12, 000 square feet and provide block numbers . 2. The applicant shall provide staff with an amended landscaping plan prior to final plat approval replacing the Pin Oaks with Hackberry. 3. The applicant shall install 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Heron Drive. Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 22 4. The applicant shall provide the 20 foot wide trail easement along the west side of Powers Boulevard. 5. The applicant shall receive 50% credit on park dedication fees and 100% _ credit on trail dedication fees. 6. Approval of wetland alteration permit. 7. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installatin of these public improvements. 8. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 9. The sanitary sewer located within Heron Drive shall be held at a grade of 0. 40% throughout the run to Audubon Road. 10. The sanitary sewer shall be jack-bored to the west right-of-way line of Audubon Road for future connection and service along Audubon Road. 11. The right-of-way for Heron Drive needs to be 60 feet in width to conform with Phase I construction and a right turn lane included at Audubon Road to meet anticipated traffic demands of the area . 12. The storm sewer sytem needs to be modified so that it drains to the wetland pond provided on site and eliminate the storm sewer/parkland development conflict as outlined in the PUD report . 13 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer . As-built mylar plans and tie cards will also be required upon completion of the construction. 14. Appropriate utility easement shall be provided over all public '- facilities . 15. A feasibility study should be considered to facilitate the looping of watermain along Audubon Road from the railroad tracks to Heron Drive or incorporation of this work into the Audubon Road improvement project if initiated this year. 16. All lots shall have access from interior streets . 17. The developer shall be grade Outlot A at the same time as grading of the lots occurs . All voted in favor and the motion carried . — Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommends tabling of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-4 subject to an amended plan being submitted to the city staff for review. All voted in favor and the motion carried . — Planning Commission Meeting June 7 , 1989 - Page 23 RECOMMENDATION OF OFFICIAL MAPPING OF TH 101 RIGHT-OF-WAY, FRED HOISINGTON. Fred Hoisington : Mr . Chairman, I ' ll be very brief with our presentation . For the most part the Planning Commission has seen the alignments . The - alternative alignments. One of those, Alternative 1 has been selected for consideration for official mapping by the City Council . That was with a great deal of input from the neighbors , the folks who live along the alignment , the owners of the land along the alignment . If you recall we — brought this matter to the Planning Commission , the matter of selecting an alternative and while we did not vote formally, it was an unanimous choice for Alternative 1 at that point. What we didn ' t know then and what we do — know now is that considerably more right-of-way will be required to accommodate a roadway section that we' re talking about here than we had originally expected . It ' s primarily because the road goes up and down a lot and the present road doesn ' t. The present road is at least reasonably, it just goes this way and what we' re going to do is we ' re going to replace the road that has a very bad horizontal alignment with one that has not bad vertical alignment but simply one that has considerably more up and down — than what you see there presently. In order to do that , there has to be a number of cuts and fills along the alignment and rule of thumb is that you don ' t necessarily have to acquire all of the right-of-way to cover cuts . — That whatever is in the cut slopes can be credited to density or whatever and in fact, the adjoining length will be graded down so you would in fact use that area . So you normally don ' t have to have quite as much right-of- way in cut sections as you do in fill sections . Fill sections, MnDot and the folks who know recommend that you take all the way to the ends of the fill slopes. Now what we ' ve done in this case was originally tried to put 150 foot right-of-way on this and we were going to bring that to you in the — way of a recommendation and take our chances on the slope easements and so forth later . What we decided to do instead was to come to you with 200 feet of right-of-way for official mapping and then at the time, whenever it _ seems appropriate to build the roadway and the design occurs , it ' s possible that some section or some parts of that will be less than 200 feet , which will be a savings for the City or whoever it is that ' s going to acquire . The value for us in official mapping is that there will be development — throughout that corridor between now and let ' s say the turn of the century when we might expect the TH 212 to be built and this will be built pretty much in conjunction with that so we ' ve got to protect the right-of-way — during that interim period . So all we' re recommending to you is that you recommend to the City Council the official mapping of 200 feet of right-of- way with one small bubble and that bubble happens to be just a little ways north of the creek . It goes between the two lakes and that happens to correlate with not only where the future roadway or I should say the existing TH 101 will tie into the new TH 101 . There will be some geometric problems accommodating that but also because the fill is almost at it ' s - maximum through that 150 feet section so that ' s what we recommend to you . I 'd be happy to answer any questions you might have in that regard . — Erhart : Fred , on the lots that would be between TH 101 and the 200 foot right-of-way then, what is the distance there? Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 24 OMB Fred Hoisington : Tim, the depth is about , I think we were trying to get — 180 to 200 feet of right-of-way. Erhart : So it would be adequate for a 15,000 square foot lot? — Fred Hoisington: Yes, and then on that side we had talked to you before about this concept of kind of an expanded right-of-way. What we' re able to do is raise that within that 100 feet on that one side. As you can see from the section we will be able to do some berming and some landscaping to kind of protect those single family lots . Erhart : But this is a four lane? Fred Hoisington: It will be four lane. Erhart : Okay. So another 25 feet really isn ' t going to adversely affect putting 15,000 square foot lots along TH 101? Fred Hoisington : Those will be substantially 15, 000. Erhart: Just to Dave's point, if I can excuse the subject here a minute, — regarding the 80 foot frontage Dave. If we take a 15,000 square foot lot and divide it by 80 foot frontage, you get a lot that ' s 188 feet deep. I think that' s one of the problems with that is you get a real narrow long lot. Where if it' s 90 feet, it' s only 160 feet deep. I think that' s sort — of on the side Fred . Again , as I stated at the last meeting , I think it' s real exciting from the prospect or for something living to the south the prospect of having this done maybe in my lifetime someday. I 've got a — couple more questions Fred. The 25 foot median is what, concrete or what? Fred Hoisington: It would be a grass median. The possibility still exists _ that there could be some sort of shurbery type material in that median but we' re still looking at that . Erhart: Or a rubber tree. — Fred Hoisington : Anything you can drive over or bounce off of. Erhart: Let me ask you this, the City, we do not have the official mapping of TH 212 yet adopted in the City? Fred Hoisington: No . But we do have the maps here and they' re in the process of being reviewed and so about a month from now I think we' ll come back with those . Erhart : And that puts this whole thing , that takes us through that step? Fred Hoisington: Yes . — Erhart : Then after that , if somebody comes in and wants to do development or building, we have the option in 6 months to buy that? — Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 25 Fred Hoisington : The good thing is, if nobody comes in or if the landowner does not come in and request a building permit, of course it can go on — indefinitely or never have to worry about it . But yes , if a person comes in and wants a building permit, you can say no. Your building department or your planning department will say no because it' s officially mapped . It — will have to go through the process whereby the City makes a decision and has 6 months to make that decision to acquire or not. If the decision is not, your Board of Appeals will actually the permit or be charged with that and they will be compelled to do so. Resident: Can we ask one question so we can go home too? — Conrad : Sure, go ahead . Resident : With north of TH 5 approved and everything on TH 101, that choice made. You had a couple choices for north of TH 5 also to choose. Fred Hoisington : That is not part of this request . — Resident: This is just mapping for future . Fred Hoisington : Right and only the portion to the south of TH 5. The — portion north, there were several different alternatives considered as well and the one that was selected was the one that comes through the apartment building. Takes the apartment building and comes down right at Dakota . In other words, leaving the intersection exactly where it is today. Some reconfiguration of Eden Prairie' s. That has been selected by the City Council as the alternative that is to be. . .and fortunately we think we have the dollars also to begin the project except the Governor did veto the — spending bill which has our bill in it or our provision in it. We think that's going to stay in September when they go back but yes that' s the one we' re working on. All the rest of them on the north side was addressed . Conrad: So those are State dollars. Does the City contribute to that at all? - Fred Hoisington : No, what it is , on the north side those will be tax increment dollars . They' ll come from the extension of the economic development district by 3 years . What that will do is raise a certain — amount of additional money and it will all be spent on TH 101. Conrad : So it' s not State funds? Fred Hoisington : Some state dollars will be spent there but most of those will be from that tax increment district. — Erhart : What ' s the right-of-way going north on TH 101 up to the Eden Prairie line? Is that 200 feet now? — Fred Hoisington : No, no . TH 101 , there ' s a common roadway between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen is only 66 feet I 'm assuming. It' s very limited roadway. Two lanes of course and then it has ditch sections which it' s a dangerous road . Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 26 Erhart : It would be difficult to upgrade to four lane going north. — Fred Hoisington: It' s going to have to be upgraded. It will never be a divided roadway. It will be comitted to probably just to be lucky to get 4 lanes. Erhart : You visualize it being 4 lanes? Fred Hoisington: Oh absolutely Tim. That road is going to carry, it' s already carrying more really than it can accommodate and it will be carrying 15,000 to 20,000 in the year 2005. — Erhart : When would you expect something would be done to make that four lane going north? Fred Hoisington : Well there' s going to be for some period of time a question about that stretch that the City is trying to build right down to TH 5 and up to, is it TH 7 or TH 12. I guess it' s TH 12 where all of TH — 101 north of TH 12 has been turned back into Hennepin County and all of that stretch between TH 12 and just north of TH 5 is very much up in the air . It' s a temporary state trunk highway and nobody is coming forward to — try and do anything about improving it there. It takes a special approval of the Commissioner . . . Very difficult problem. Erhart : Yes , the tone of your voice it sense me there ' s something eminent. — Fred Hoisington: Not on that stretch. The eminent projects are, assuming funding stays intact , the north leg will be built, I 'm guessing 1991. — Conrad: The north leg of? Fred Hoisington : This portion of course is under construction now north of Lake Drive and then this section down to a temporary connection here will have to be going in 1991 as well because once we commit to move TH 101 onto the new alignment and take it off of 78th and Great Plains, we' re committed — also to make a connection here at Market to existing TH 101 . So what you see here is the ultimate and what will happen inbetween is an interim connection . TH 101 will just tie Market Blvd . into it. — Erhart : Let' s say Al Klingelhutz comes in here with a development which you' re probably going to see. Are we going to respond to that by making _ this change then instead of when they build the freeway? Is that a possibility to find the funds to do that? Fred Hoisington : No . What Al will have to do is to set the right-of-way aside and plant around it . Incorporate all of his access so that it works with the new future roadway. One of the good things is, because of the availability of utilities and everything , they will be able to develop all — of the properties along it and that ' s why it ' s so critical that we do the official map. For the most part, all of them will set the right-of-way aside. I don ' t think you ' ll have any difficulty with that . The only question that will arise will be seeing when are you going to buy it from us and if they press the issue , you will be forced to have to do that . — Planning Commission Meeting June 7 , 1989 - Page 27 Maybe sooner than you want to do it. — Erhart : Well there' s another issue . The other issue is trying to plan around the future abandonment of that TH 101 section down here. - Batzli : That' s going to have to almost delay development in some cases to the west of the road there because you' re going to have to stay out of the right-of-way but you can ' t stay in the current right-of-way. Fred Hoisington: Everything in the vicinity of the interchange itself, the people who own that land realize that they will not be able to do anything and the way it was planned that we showed you as sort of an illustration — there until it changes as well , there' s no reason to have it until the interchange is built. Otherwise it's single family residential and they don' t want to do that. Erhart : Just eliminate the jog that' s all . That' s about three-quarters of a mile? — Conrad : So this southerly portion, we' re increasing the right-of-way Fred and basically there' s a cost implication but that is, the funding source for this for purchase is from State funding? Fred Hoisington: No. The only things that are certain right now Ladd are we know that when the north leg is built and we assume the funding is in place for that so we know, and of course this stretch of Market coming up to TH 5 is already in the process of construction very soon and will be partially assessed. The right-of-way was dedicated in that case and it will be partially covered by I forget. . .but whatever the non-local share or — non-local road share. . . the City is picking up the tax increment here. This stretch down here, then the temporary connection we' re acquiring that land now through condemnation the same way we' re. . . to the north to make that we — can make that temporary connection. So that will probably be taken care of and paid for now. Everything however beyond that temporary connection in through here, we have no funding source right now at all for. that . But _ what I 've learned over the years is when you have to have something , somehow or another it works out and you will end up getting it when the time comes and hopefully it will be delayed as long as you can delay it and you won' t be against the wall to have to acquire it sooner than you want — it. Jeanette Lappen : . . .north of TH 5 will not be started until 1991? Fred Hoisington: The construction of that section north of TH 5, it' s possible it can start before that but at least the way we' re looking at it right now, it probably will start in the summer of 1991. Jeanette Lappen : And it will be 2 lane or 4 lane? — Fred Hoisington: Just to the north it will be, immediately north it will be kind of a transitional . It will be 4 lanes at the intersection and then it will taper back to 2 lane. Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 28 Jeanette Lappen : And has there been any consideration for pedestrian — safety along TH 101 at all? Fred Hoisington : Along the north side there? — Jeanette Lappen: North and south. Fred Hoisington : Part of the consideration in the course of all of this was what those pedestrian connections should be. I can' t even remember now what we discussed in the way of alternatives up along TH 5. The things we' re doing here are really not related to that. There we kind of have a — funding source and we can get the right-of-way. . . (Fred Hoisington and Jeanette Lappen had a discussion regarding speed limit _ on TH 101 at this point that wasn ' t completely picked up on the tape .) Conrad: Jo Ann, do you recall what our trail system that we thought we were going to implement, is there a trail that goes down TH 101 in the — plans? Olsen : Yes . Conrad : On the western side so it'd be on the South Lotus Lake side? Would there be a trail crossing there? Olsen : I believe so . Conrad : Well it' s a sidewalk. Trail is a real strange word for that part of town. Emmings : It'd have to be on the west because on the east it' s Eden _ Prairie. Conrad : That ' s a good place, we can have them fund it. Is there a trail proposed down the west side? — Olsen : You mean on the south side of South Lotus Lake? I believe there is. — Conrad : That ' s really more the issue in the plans than this particular highway configuration. There is a need for pedestrian service there. Just absolute . In fact the whole TH 101 is just a real disaster in terms of pedestrian right-of-way. Jeanette Lapin : I guess we' re looking for. guidance . Especially for. the — • speed limit. I think something is needed. Conrad : That ' s really, and Mr . Hoisington was saying that ' s a tough call . I don't know if he gave you any direction on that but he might have given you, I think what he' s saying is boy, good luck. It ' s really a tough one to get changed. Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 29 Jeanette Lappen: What about TH 101 within our downtown Chanhassen? You have no control whether it' s 55 mph or 30? Olsen : . . . they don' t have any control . - Batzli : One question, well this first one isn' t a real question. RALF funds. What is a RALF fund? Fred Hoisington: Maybe you' ve heard , the other term it goes by or used to go by is the Schriver Bill funding which is set aside by essentially the Metro Council sets it aside and that money can be used for either emergency acquisitions or hardship acquisitions. Hardships are strictly residential . In other words , if you have a person who has to get out of their house for some reason or another and they can' t sell because of being in the right-of-way, then those funds can be used for that purpose. If there is eminent development also within that right-of-way, somebody comes along and wants to develop something , they can also be used for that purpose . What it is is it' s an interest free loan provided by the Metro Council to the City who buys the land , holds it and then when it comes time for MnDot to — purchase it, they get their money back and the money goes back into revolving RALF fund pot. - Batzli : Okay, so you' re saying since we' re not sure that this is going to be a State trunk highway, we' re not sure the RALF funds would be available? Fred Hoisington : That' s correct. Batzli : Because it would only be for a State roadway that it would be eligible? Fred Hoisington: Because it' s, and I shouldn' t use the temporary in the sense that I did there Brian because it has since 1940 been a temporary - State trunk highway. Batzli : I thought all trunk highways were temporary. Fred Hoisington: No. This one is and it' s a very unusual thing and I don ' t even know why it was but probably because it ' s so terrible that nobody wanted to take responsibility enough to maintain it. But I don' t — think it' s because it will be turned back or turned over to the City or the County. The County might be the ultimate recipient of this roadway. We don' t know who' s going to be the owner of it and we don' t know for sure that RALF funds will be available. I guess all we' re saying is, it is a funding source. It may apply but it may not because of the temporary nature of the roadway. — Batzli : The other question I had was , since we haven ' t done the official mapping, I don' t think we have, of TH 212 yet, is this right-of-way that we' re doing here going to be impacted at all by the final result of that — mapping? Fred Hoisington : It could be just slightly impacted . We understand this bridge in the alignment that was established with this alignment, puts a Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 30 little bit of a curve, just a slight curve in the bridge itself. MnDot — doesn ' t like curves on bridges so what they' re trying to do is they' re presently trying to straighten this out . It will have a slight impact through here but by the time we' re ready to describe this in a meets and _ bounds description , that will be resolved . So what you' re looking at is something that ' s very close to what's going to be right in it and it could shift let' s say 5 feet , something like that but it' s going to be a minor change. — Conrad : Anything else? What do we need? Is this for our note Jo Ann? Olsen: You need a recommendation. Conrad : We do need a recommendation? Olsen: A recommendation of the official map. Conrad : Is there a motion regarding the presentation on the mapping of TH — 101? Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the — official map as proposed in our packet for right-of-way to be described and recorded at the County Courthouse as officially protected TH 101 corridor . Headla: Second. — Emmings : I just want to be clear . Maybe I missed something here but is what we have in our packet, this is not the official map? — Fred Hoisington : That Steve is not the official map. That map will become the official map as soon as the Council approves it. The legal — descriptions and everything will be prepared for it. Emmings : But right now you ' re not asking for approval of the official map. You' re asking for authority to go ahead and prepare the official map? Fred Hoisington: We' re asking for the approval of the official mapping of something very close to what is on that map. The 200 foot right-of-way, — the 250 foot bubble and that alignment is very close. Batzli : Let me amend my motion to say that we' re recommending approval of an official mapping in conformance with what we' ve perceived here. The — concept received here. Emmings: Okay, I think that clears it up for me. — Batzli moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend — approval of an official map in conformance with the concept presented by Fred Hoisington for the right-of-way to be described and recorded at the County Courthouse as the officially protected TH 101 corridor . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 31 Olsen : We' re close to coming to finalization of, this is where Kenny' s is and Colonial Center. We just wanted to bring it in front of you to let the - Planning Commission look at what the site might be like and to provide your comments now. It will be going out for bids when? - Fred Hoisington: It will be going out for bids on the 20th . Olsen: So we just wanted to let you get your shot at it now. — Conrad : Bids for what? Fred Hoisington: You have to understand , this one is a bit different in — that the City is involved. I guess I shouldn' t say the City, the HRA is involved in this case with the design and development of a new facade for Colonial Center. The way that's all going to be done is that the land for the parking lot will essentially be a compensation. We' re going to swap a parking lot in front for the facade improvements and then we' re going to improve the parking lot and improve the front of the building so the City or the HRA has a very big involvement in it. What they've done is asked — Jack to design the facade treatment for Colonial Center . He ' s been working with the owners of the building and I hope you ' re real close now to having some agreement . This is the facade that they would like to have. Conrad: So the City gets the parking lot? Fred Hoisington: The City gets the parking lot. Conrad: Why are we looking for the parking lot? — Fred Hoisington : Because all of the parking on the north side, the Colonial Center parking and the Cenex which will be gone, and all of the parking associated with the Medical Arts building , plus a good share of the parking at the Riv, all will be city parking lot . Conrad : So this is consistent with what ' s going in? Olsen: Yes. We wanted to let you have input . Jack Anderson : I 'm Jack Anderson , project architect with EOS . I ' ll give — you a little briefing of the project that we' ll be working on here. This is the Colonial Center and Kenny' s Market is located here . What we' re trying to do here is a very economical budget, do something that blends in - with the city developments that have been done and some of the existing things. Then work it in with codes and so forth in working with the existing building . The existing building , this is showing it in brick, face brick which is a red face brick back here, we' re encapsulating the existing canopy and moving the signage above that . We' re coming off of that with a gabled . . .then it has gabled ends that accentuate certain portions . Those correspond with the present entryways . Conrad: So the gables come out this way? Jack Anderson : Right. Planning Commission Meeting June 7 , 1989 - Page 32 Conrad: Is there any covered walkway? Jack Anderson : Yes . This would still be, this is a side view of it . Both an east and west elevation so this would be covered. The existing canopy. We' re just putting a sloped top on it. Erhart: You' re not putting a roof on the building? — Jack Anderson : No . A roof on top of the canopy essentially is what we' re doing . — Erhart : Yes . The building is still going to be a flat roof when essentially all of the other new buildings in downtown are going to have a steep roof . What you' re trying to do is somehow from an appearance standpoint in one direction make it tie in? Jack Anderson : Yes. This is quite a large building itself and this is a — way to give it a store front that blends in with some of the new developments . We' ve got , as far as materials, we' re reusing and cleaning up the brick. We' re veneering the columns and putting a new brick face on _ them. The fronts would be wood . This would be a wood lattice material here. Wood siding and wood trimwork. We have signage insets located as we show there. Then the asphalt shingles . Then the underside of the canopy would be wood also with the recessed light. Down on the sidewalk we '— removed the existing corresponding with development of the lot out here and then put in a new sidewalk with. . . Erhart : What ' s the roofing material of the medical arts building? Is it cedar? Olsen : No , it was asphalt shingles I believe. Heavy duty ones . Erhart: That ' s the building that ' s going up right next to this. Whereas the Dinner Theater is all cedar . — Jack Anderson : Well this would be a timberline type asphalt shingle which would be a gray color very similar to the cedar . The Timberline shingle is — like, it' s a better quality shingles and it does have that look but has the durability of course. As far as cost, it' s about the same cost. Erhart : More durable than what? — Jack Anderson: Then the cedar. Less maintenance . Erhart : Cedar is supposed to be the most durable roof that there is . Batzli : What ' s going to be right across the street? — Erhart : Where Pauly' s and them used to be? Olsen: I don' t know that they' re going to be torn down. There ' s not any immediate plans to tear those down . - Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 33 Batzli : Are they going to do anything with those right now? — Olsen: What the immediate plans for those are, I 'm not sure . Batzli : We looked at concepts last year . I was wondering if that' s going — to blend in at all with what' s going on here or if this is going to be, vice versa , if this is going to be blended in. Erhart: Which building are you referring to? Batzli : Pauly' s. That group of buildings right to the west of the square. — Erhart: Have we looked at anything on those? Olsen : Just some facades . Batzli : Facades and things . Erhart : Oh yes , that ' s right . Jack Anderson : We are going to take as an alternate and see if we can get it in on the budget and that is to redo all the windows and doors . Headla : When I look at that and I think about it as you go west , the north side, it's early American. On the south side it 's western. I 'm not sure they' re all that compatible. Fred Hoisington : Well David , when the original plan , the architectural plans were drawn by Arvid Ellness for CHADDA, what they were proposing was — sort of like exactly that . A western theme on the south side because of the Dinner Theater such a major force there, takes up so much of the south side. On the north side it was proposed to be very contemporary. Very - much different on the south side. Headla : That was the plan huh? — Fred Hoisington : Yes , almost contrasting totally with one another . Unfortunately, we don' t think we' re going to get enough of that original concept on the north side . We' d like to see a contrast , we'd like to see — some life on that lower side and we' re still struggling for. that. However , things that are proposed here are a substantial improvement over what ' s there and by the time we get signage and so forth on there that' s appropriate to this building , it ' s going to look a lot like Retail West . Not like it but at least consistent with Retail West or the Town Square shopping center building which is going to be so much better it' s unbelieveable. Erhart : What ' s it going to look like from the east end? — Jack Anderson : We have proposed a paint, exposed concrete block that' s there blending color . Planning Commission Meeting June 7 , 1989 - Page 34 Erhart : It' s too bad we don' t have the money to put a roof over the — building. Headla : Do you think that' s what will happen in time Tim? — Erhart: That' s the only way you could really tie the building in would be to put a roof on it. Fred Hoisington: It would sure be nice if we could but the number of dollars we' re talking about here and the additional rents the owner actually has to get to support this improvement plus . . . , we think they' re — willing to accept that or very close to an agreement. Probably Monday or Tuesday. Probably will not do a roof here for a long time. It' s not in the cards. Conrad : A number of shopping centers have, the Retail West , is there a canopy out over the walkway Fred? Fred Hoisington: Yes. The Retail West , yes . Conrad: These canopies just go up to the parking lot. — Fred Hoisington: They cover the sidewalk. Conrad : They do cover the sidewalk? — Fred Hoisington : Yes , this is covered . Conrad: Anything else? Erhart : What about a partial roof facade just behind that? — Jack Anderson: What do you mean? On the existing? Erhart : On the existing roof . — Jack Anderson : Well you see you run into real code problems . We were limited on our height here. We would have liked to have gotten a higher — pitch on this but we can only extend by code 3 1/2 feet above the existing roof line or else we' ll have to, we run into snow removal problems . We have to reinforce the entire structure. Erhart: Because it traps snow in there? Jack Anderson : Yes . Theoretically the snow will come in the back and — could cause snow drifting. So the code addresses that. That would be a substantially more expensive venture . Erhart: You've just thought of everything . Conrad : What kind of landscape are we putting in here? Do we have a landscape plan for this area? — Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 35 Olsen : I haven' t seen one yet. - Jack Anderson: Our charge is not that aspect. Fred Hoisington : You have reviewed site plans . When they were brought to — you a month ago, most of the discussion, I wasn' t here but I guess most of the discussion centered on the walkway and the rear portion of the site plan. They were showing the landscaping plans and everything at that time. Olsen : That was for the north parking lot . Emmings: That was only the medical building. Fred Hoisington : The landscaping and the walkways and the lighting and everything is part of this public improvement project which includes - everything from this site down through the Riveria building . They really should review what was . . . I thought they had already done that. Conrad : Without landscape here , you know you ' re dealing with a limited — budget so it' s hard to really critique this. It ' s clean and fine and we' re not, I don' t know how we can give you any other comments . I really am interested in landscaping for this area however because that can soften it — up and it can tie it together with other parts of the downtown and I think we need to see that . Olsen : I ' ll get copies of those and bring them in for you to review. We just wanted you, so if you ever saw this improvement you'd know. . . Erhart : What about wrapping the canopy around the ends? Have you - considered that? Jack Anderson : One side here is not even. owned by this property. The west — side. In fact we have to get a variance even for this little bit of work. The property line is right on the building line. Erhart: Who owns the parking lot then? Who owns west of that then? Jack Anderson : It ' s in the process of being purchased . — Erhart: By the City? Jack Anderson: The City' s trying to purchase it . Erhart: It might do the job of covering the building if you could go around the canopy and go around the east and west side I guess . What is it , 3 feet? 3, 4, 5 feet from. . . Jack Anderson : We' re extending out about 10 feet there. — Erhart: My concern is that it will come out obvious that someone tried to cover up the building and obviously that ' s your profession to try to avoid that with a limited budget. Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 36 Jack Anderson: Yes . I think this is the type of project that , as a — designer you have to look at where it came from. It is substantially improving the existing building there. Erhart : But like you say, if you' re spending a buck, if you spend a $1. 10, could you get another 50% return I guess is the kind of thing I 'm searching for . NEW BUSINESS . Conrad : Under the new business category I 'd like to bring up something that I suggested last time and Jo Ann I need your advice on that. I think the Eckankar project brought it up because of community interest and it — brings up tax issues and a whole lot of things related to financial aspects but what I 'm interested in is knowing what the impact of the planned residential development is in Chanhassen for the next 5 years and that impact on taxes in Chanhassen . Obviously where that goes is , I 'm just — plain interested year by year. As we build 100 new houses, is there an impact good or bad to an average house? But once we find out that information, it may be able to be converted into well if there' s a negative — impact taxwise because of services , then I think there ' s an implication for residential commercial . The City' s agressiveness to develop and also the ability to have enough land to maybe offset some of the costs of residential growth. Right now I know nothing about those impacts. I don' t know if there are plateaus and then all of a sudden you grow and have to add a whole lot to tax increase. I don' t know how schools are impacted. I don ' t know how. . .so what I 'm asking and if the Planning Commission thinks it's worthy of time. I 'm asking for you Jo Ann to give us a recommendation how to go about looking at this issue. And it maybe something as simple as Don Ashworth could come in and with his computer he can tell us what he — thinks the growth implications are for the next 5 years and how residential growth impacts the city and the average taxpayer. On the other hand maybe it ' s a subject for a consultant to map that out . I have no idea but I 'd like you to talk to Don and if you understand what I 'm saying and advise us — next meeting so that we could forward that recommendation onto the City Council . Anybody else interested in something along that line? Is that just a me concern or is that a concern for . . . — Erhart: Your concern is that we provide adequate space for commercial development? Conrad : My biggest concern is what' s new residential costing us out here? What I ' ve been saying is typically a new residence and typically what they say in planning is a new residence that comes into Chanhassen is costing — each one of us money. It' s not benefitting taxwise me or you because of the services that have to be provided to that new residence , it' s costing us . The things that keep cost down for that is a corresponding or an _ incremental increase in commercial/industrial growth . So I 'm just kind of interested in what all the residential growth that we 've got on the books is going to cost us and to see how the commercial growth that we' ve got is off setting that. — Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 37 Erhart : I heard that we were going to indefinitely grow the size of the city staff through continued sales of building permits. Actually that' s — kind of funny. Obviously you can' t have an indefinite set of building permits but the odd thing about it is, a major portion of the city' s income in the last few years has been from building permits . Conrad: Is that right? I 'm not aware of that. _ Erhart : I think I would like to know that too. What the net contribution is of commercial versus residential property? Conrad : And where it leads us , or leads me is I feel better about new — development coming in, residential or commercial. Right now I don' t have a clue . I don' t know. Headla : I think that would be an interesting analysis . We could probably learn a lot from it. Conrad : And it will get back into some land use issues . Do we have enough commercial? With Eckankar out of the picture is that good or bad and I really don' t know what I 'm asking . I really don' t know. Obviously it' s not a science but I think we need, at least I do some kind of guidance on — that issue . Emmings : You' re really bringing financial planning into the land use planning to see how land use affects it and how it affects land use. Obviously they' re very closely linked but it' s an area we' ve sure never been into before and I don' t know if somebody is looking into this things in the City and is coordinating them but it'd probably be Don if it' s — anybody. But it might be nice to have him talk to us about how he thinks about these things. _ Erhart : I would have to believe that at sometime before we were on this group that that was discussed when they first put the zoning map in place. Conrad : Not since I ' ve been here . We' ve never touched it . We' ve just sort of said, here' s a blob over here. Let' s make that commercial . There' s never been a tie to finances and I think if the Mayor and some of the new council people, they've always been concerned, at least in their campaign — about minimizing tax increases , I think this is real relevant information and most of what I get is hearsay and it' s not scientific or it' s not even based on relevant data in Chanhassen . Emmings: In fact we' ve heard here not only do the new residences , not only are they a net draw on city resources, but that remains true for their entire life . Somebody has told us that here . Batzli : I think it was Ladd . — Conrad : No , it wasn ' t me. Emmings : I think it was Steve Hanson. If that ' s true , that ' s very significant . Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 38 Erhart : In addition to that , I guess I 'd also like to see some data then that shows us what the lot size affect and that is. It goes back to my argument that 2 1/2 acre lots are even a real net loss to the city because — essentially a 2 1/2 acre takes the same amount of taxes as a 15,000 square foot lot but you' ve got to maintain 200 foot road frontage and the other city services. Public safety and stuff like that . Emmings : Pack them in , you get more efficient services like that. I guess the paradime or the graveyard would be to stack them up 3 deep. Erhart: Again , I 've heard some people say that well gee they' re expensive and if we' re going to get data, it'd be nice to get a little bit more accurately on what that really is at the same time. Conrad: So could you come back next meeting and advise us , so basically what we have next meeting is we can make a motion to City Council that we recommend something that staff studies, consultant be hired, Don Ashworth — presents , whatever makes sense to you guys . Batzli : I ' ll bet you 10 to 1 that it' s not staff studies. — Erhart : This is the kind of thing that Don really is good at . Conrad: Don is. Literally, I don' t personally need an absolute graph that — says here is total forecase for the next 10 years but . . . Emmings: A general idea . — Conrad : Yes. Batzli : That would also help on our long range goal of maybe getting more industrial park. We ' re filling up. Conrad : Okay, is there any old business? — APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the _ Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 17 , 1989 with the following changes : Brian Batzli had changes on page 24 changing the word "half" to "have" and on page 11 changing the word "ever" to "never" . All _ voted in favor except Headla who abstained and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. — Conrad : Anything on the City Council Update? That was a good report Jo Ann by the way. It was fun to see. — Emmings : On the City Council update , Dave Stockdale ' s not on here. Wasn ' t he in front of them? Olsen : He goes on next Monday. - Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 39 Batzli : For all of you who didn' t attend the City Council meeting last - time, I would like to report that I attended and they actually asked me questions as a Planning Commission representative. It was exciting to be there. Emmings : Did you know any answers? Batzli : I knew 50% . OPEN DISCUSSION. Emmings : The temporary conditional use permits is the last thing . Batzli : Yes, the temporary use permits . That was interesting . Emmings : Now do we have to draft an ordinance? — Olsen: Yes. We got this at the last minute but I threw it in and yes, if that' s something that you would like. — Conrad: I think so. Emmings : It would go under the conditional use chapter and would allow us to apply. . . Are we only going to allow the conditional uses we already allow and say in a certain district. If they' re all conditional use, are we only going to allow that use on a temporary basis in some conditions or is this for all kinds of things even if it' s not now listed as a — conditional use? Olsen : Right . I think that ' s how it could be used . Batzli : It would be more flexible that way. Emmings : I think it should be kept as general as possible. I feel like it ought to go under the conditional use chapter just to say that this is one alternative to, there are conditional use permits and there are temporary conditional use permits and leave it that vague as to what we apply it to . Batzli : In other words, we could make a conditional use temporary under your , unilaterally on the applicant? Emmings: Yes . Erhart : Can we arbitrarily assign that or do we legally have to show - something consistently? Like all retail nurseries in the A-2 area are going to be a temporary conditional use . - Emmings: I think as long as you present, if we do it on a case by case basis and present some rational cases for limiting it to time. The interesting part is going to be defining the end and they put that right in the law that you have to be very specific about it and that makes a lot of Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 40 sense and that ' s going to be the tricky part. But like Tim suggested — before when we were talking, you might take a use that' s going into the A-2 and say this can stay here in the A-2 until such time as it becomes residential . If at some future date this property is ever zoned RSF, it — has to get out of there and that ' s kind of neat idea I think. There might be some kinds of things you'd want to do that to. Batzli : Like a contractor ' s yard . — Ewing : But there might be all kinds of different reasons to terminate it or define the end. — Erhart : I can think of an example and I 'm not proposing but an example would be, we discuss from time to time the idea of allowing, we have some _ wholesale nurseries , in fact we have Halla which is more or less grandfathered in as a retail nursery in the rural area so it' s really a non-conforming grandfathered use but you could make it conforming by giving that guy now a temporary conditional use permit to do that. Say you can do — retail , which he' s currently doing , until such time as the area is zoned RR or RSF. I 'm not proposing that we do that but I can see that would be an application. — Batzli : Well who' s going to study and recommend how we implement this? Olsen: When we did it before it was real general. Like when we had Bryan — Pike , the pastor from the church , we allowed him to have a temporary conditional use in the IOP district. In fact he's still there but we did it illegally because we did not have the basis to really do that . Now this — would allow us to do things like that. Erhart : The other example was with Jay here up at Lotus Nursery. See he — wanted to build out on TH 5. We had no mechanism to say okay you can build there until we go residential . We turned it down and I always felt that that was a good use of that land on a temporary basis and that ' s where this would apply nicely. — Olsen : It would be real general unless you wanted it more specific . I ' ll bring something back real general . — Emmings : Wait a minute. We had a temporary conditional use permit provision in here that we deleted at one time. Olsen : Because we did not have the Statute to back it up. Emmings: Can ' t we just resurrect that? — Olsen : Sure. Conrad : I don ' t know if that ' s good or bad . Emmings : There are a lot of specific conditions under the legislation too that have to be addressed . That' s right . — Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 41 Olsen: But Roger could work that up. — Conrad : Okay, what ' s coming up two weeks from now? Olsen: Mike Gorra is coming in to get his land within the MUSA line. Do — you know where his property is? It' s west of Lake Ann Park and that' s going to be coming in. Emmings: What can we do about it? Olsen : You would recommend approval to amend the MUSA line to include his property. Batzli : We have to do that before he can go to the Met Council . Olsen: Plus where the Natural Green was, their property is coming in along with that too . The Legion wants to buy that and put the Legion out there . We' re getting a lot of pressure. . . Oak View Heights is coming back with R-12 . Batzli : Is anything being done to include in the MUSA line that area kind of north and south of TH 5 out past where the MUSA line now runs? I recall — seeing in the Villager the week that Steve Hanson resigned something to the effect that we were applying to the Met Council to adjust that MUSA line and include a big portion. Olsen: Where was that? Batzli : I don ' t know. It was the big article in the Villager and I was — kind of looking at it saying, golly I never heard of that before. He was quoted as saying the City was applying to adjust the MUSA line to kind of square off that corner where it goes up and down. Headla : On TH 5 and TH 41? _ Batzli : I don ' t know. It was going to be north of TH 5 and kind of west of Lake Ann towards TH 41. You don' t read the local yocal paper? Okay, I ' ll get you a copy. — Conrad : Yes , Steve made a lot of comments that I hadn' t heard before. Erhart moved, Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 50 p.m. . Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen — Asst . City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: June 14, 1989 SUBJ: City Council Update - June 12, 1989 Agenda 1. The City Council passed the conditional use permit for a contractor ' s yards and screened outdoor storage (Dave Stockdale) back to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to apply for the variance to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for curb and gutter. The Board of Adjustments will review this item on June 26 , 1989 and then it will again be reviewed by the City Council that evening. 2 . The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Reed' s -- Orchard Ridge, Gary Reed, with Planning Commission' s recom- mendations and the additional recommendation from staff that the existing pond area needed to be revised to meet the required standards of the City Engineer' s Department and the Watershed District. 3 . The City Council approved the site plan for a second private garage for Fortier and Associates. The City Council approved the site plan with the condition that the garage can only be used for storage and not for maintenance and repair and a condition that any tree removal must be replaced by caliper per caliper inches and the condition that curb and gutter must be provided. 4 . The City Council approved the final plat for the Bloomberg Addition which is the location for the proposed Country Suites Hotel. 5. The City Council denied the PUD Concept and Development Plan for Oakview Heights Townhomes. The Council agreed with the Planning Commission that it was not acceptable as a PUD. The exact motion of the City Council was to table action on the PUD until the City Attorney could provide the City Council findings of fact for denial. As part of the discussion of the Oakview Heights Townhomes, it was recommended by the Planning Commission _ June 14, 1989 Page 2 Council that a moratorium be provided so that no trees over 100 years old could be removed until an ordinance is in place to protect them and it was also discussed by the Council to review the zoning of this area. — 6 . It was very late in the evening when the Council was able to discuss the 1989 goals for the Planning Commission. Staff — had recommended that the Council be prepared to provide their five top priorities from the list and did receive these from the Council. The top five priorities were as follows: Boyt Blending ordinance — Updating of development procedures Tree ordinance review Rezoning of BF District to A-2 District _ Recycling of oil Concerning wetland violations He felt that #12, Noise Ordinance was Public Safety as was #8, Eurasion Water Milfoil. Workman — Update zoning map Blending ordinance Convenience store moratorium — Update zoning code Trail involvement of Planning Commission Light Rail Transit — Eurasion water milfoil Chmiel Contractor' s yards Update zoning map Blending ordinance Convenience store moratorium Update zoning code Rezoning of 2i acre lots to RR District — Trail involvement of the Planning Commission Eurasion water milfoil Dimler ? Johnson ? Blending ordinance Comprehensive plan issues — Sign ordinance Update zoning code Update zoning code Contractor ' s yards Wetland violations Eurasion water milfoil — Tree ordinance review Wetland violations Planning Commission June 14, 1989 Page 3 As of today, I have not had time to provide a matrix comparing the different Council member priorities . With the preliminary review, it seems that the blending ordinance was a high priority of several council members as was wetland violations and eurasion water milfoil. Staff is already working on updating the ordi- nance to provide stricter controls on wetland violations and the eurasion water milfoil is being addressed through the Public Satety Department. I will try to have a matrix which summarizes the City Council' s priorities at the June 21st meeting. REVISED JUNE 14 , 1989 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ISSUES 1 . Comprehensive Plan Update Ongoing 2 . Amendments to MUSA Boundary Ongoing 3 . Future Use for Areas Out- Ongoing side the MUSA Boundary B. ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS 1. Contractor ' s Yards City Council Approval - May 3 , 1989 2. Update Zoning Map Ongoing 3 . Blending Ordinance Ongoing 4. Rezoning BF Distict to A-2 Ongoing 5. Convenience Store Moratorium Ongoing 6. Sign Ordinance Ongoing 7. Update Zoning Code Ongoing 8 . Trash and Recycable Users- Ongoing Where should they be located? 9 . Wetland Violations - Add Ongoing section to wetland ordinance 10 . Tree Ordinance - Mapping of Ongoing significant vegetative areas 11. Rezoning of 24 Acres Lots Ongoing to RR District 12. Noise Ordinance Public Safety proposed an ordinance which was denied by City Council 13 . Storage 14. Front Yard Fencing 15. Standards for R-12 Ongoing Developments - Parking, garages, architectural standards REVISED JUNE 14 , 1989 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS 16. Heliports 17. Restricting Amount of Tax Exempt Land C. OTHER ITEMS 1 . Update development proce- Close to completion — dures including submittal dates, design review com- mittee, submittal check list _ and process 2 . Computerize land use files, Waiting for intern permits, conditions and — expiration dates on a par- cel by parcel basis 3 . Wetlands mapping by Fish Estimated to be completed and Wildlife Service. by July 1989 4 . Trail Involvement of Planning Commission 5 . Light Rail Transit — 6 . Recycling of Oil 7 . Eurasian Water Milfoil Public Safety Involved 8. Review of the impact of _ Residential Development on the financial structure of the city. 9. Temporary conditional use permits.