The URL can be used to link to this page

11-4-92 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1992, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Beissner, Ltd. proposes the construction of Goodyear Tire and Abra facilities on property zoned BH, Highway Business and located south of Hwy. 5, north of Lake Drive East, and east of the Chanhassen Emission Control Station: a. Replat of Lot 2, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition into 3 lots. b. Conditional use permit to locate an auto service related use in the BH, Business Highway District. \ c. Site plan review for a 5,397 square foot Goodyear Tire building and a 6,494 _ square foot Abra facility. 33.1:r!, 2. Non-conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association located on the north side of Lake Minnewashta. 3. Preliminary review of a Planned Unit Development for 112 rental units and 105 townhomes and a clubhouse/office on 27.04 acres of property zoned R-12, High Density Residential and located north of West 78th Street,between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, Oak Ponds/Oak Hill, Lotus Realty. 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending the Wetland Ordinance. NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS 5. Nomination of Planning Commission Representative to the Tree Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 6. Planning Commission Reappointments. 7. Discussion of Tree Conservation Easements. 8. a. Cul-de-sac length b. Landscaped islands and parkways _ c. Philosophy of Planning Commission meetings and reports, i.e. negotiations with developers, number of conditions, Planning Commission's role in site/plat development process and other concerns. _ ADJOURNMENT ._. I T`/ O C P.� DATE: 10-21-92 1 T r C.�,. DATE: 11-09-92 L ClIANIIIISSENCASE: 92-3 Ute-21311- Plan f y 92 2 CUP �� 90-71 Subdivision BY: Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for Goodyear, 5,397 Square Feet and Abra Auto Service Center, 6,494 Square Feet 2) Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 3.1634 Acres into 3 lots with an area of 1 0.939 Acres, 0.778 Acres, and 1.445 Acres Z 3) Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Auto Service Facility in the BH Q District VLOCATION: South of Hwy. 5, north of Lake Drive East and Chanhassen Estates and .....1 east of Emission Control Testing Station 13. APPLICANT : Beisner Ltd. Chanhassen Holding Company Q 6100 Summit Drive 14201 Excelsior Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Minnetonka, MN 55436 PRESENT ZONING: Highway Business ACREAGE: 3.1634 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Hwy. 5 S - RSF; Chan Estates and Lake Drive East E - IOP; DataSery W - BH; Emission Control Station Q SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. 5.1 w SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is undeveloped and vegetated primarily with mature poplar and elm trees. 0 2000 LAND USE: Commercial Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct an Abra Auto Body Repair and a Goodyear Auto Service facility. The site is located between Lake Drive East and Hwy. 5 adjacent to the Emission Control Testing Station. The area of the Abra site is 33,918 square feet and the Goodyear site is 40,908 square feet. Both sites are located in a Highway Business District. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and has access from Lake Drive East via a private drive. In an accompanying subdivision request, the site is being divided into three lots, one of which will contain the Goodyear building, the second will contain the Abra building, and the third will be reserved for future development. The parcel is zoned BH so that high intensity commercial uses are likely to be proposed but staff is not aware of any pending developments. The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action. Conditions proposed for review would result in dedication of all required easements. The site plan is reasonably well developed. Staff has been working with the applicant for the past three months on the site plan and building architecture. The design has improved considerably and the applicant has been quite cooperative with staff. The Goodyear building is a brick structure that will have a series of service bays and a pitched roof. The Abra building has decorative integral color concrete block. The north and south elevations have a pitched element to them. All services for both facilities will take place inside the buildings. Staff would have preferred to have the buildings utilize a coordinated architectural theme. However, the underlying zoning and lack of HRA involvement does not provide a great deal of leverage. Minor architectural revisions are being proposed to further improve both building designs. Parking for vehicles is located on the north and west side of both structures away from Lake Drive. This location is ideal since it places these areas further away from residences south of Lake Drive. The Goodyear site will be operated from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The Abra site will be operated from 7:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays to provide estimates on work required on a vehicle. Body work will take place from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Both sites will be closed on Sundays. There will be no outdoor storage or outdoor servicing of vehicles. Staff is further requiring that there be no outside storage of damaged or inoperable vehicles. The site landscaping is generally of high quality due to the attention that was paid to this issue by staff and the applicant Additional landscaping is being requested on the north side of the site along Highway 5, and along the parameters of the retention pond located to the south of Lot 3. There is a large number of poplar and elm trees on the site. All of the trees on both Lots 1 and 2 are proposed to be removed to prepare the site for development. These trees are not of valuable quality, however, the large quantity gives it its significance. Their loss is unfortunate but is unavoidable if the land it to be developed. Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 3 When the Emission Control Site was reviewed, site access was a major concern of staff's throughout the design of the proposal. Our original thinking was that a public cul-de-sac should be required running north from Lake Drive since there may ultimately be 4 sites accessing Lake Drive via that connection. However, staff was concerned that the need to create a cul-de-sac at the end of the street would result in a hazardous traffic situation, whereby traffic entering and leaving the sites would be cutting across the cul-de-sac in an uncontrolled manner. Therefore, we recommended that the plans be revised to utilize a commonly owned and maintained private driveway system that will avoid the traffic conflicts outlined above. The private driveway was built to city standards which required the full 32' pavement width and a 9 ton design and curb and gutter. The current access provisions are acceptable, however, plans to provide the driveway's long term maintenance by the land owners should be clarified. Staff regards the project as a reasonable if unexceptional use of the land. It is unfortunate that the Hwy. 5 Study could not have been completed earlier since it will likely result in development standards that are more sensitive to the corridor's image. The Planning Commission may want to consider referring the request to the Hwy. 5 Task Force to gain their input. However, the city's ability to leverage substantial changes to what is otherwise a reasonable request, based upon current ordinances, may be limited. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the site plan, without variances, conditional use permit and subdivision requests for this proposal. BACKGROUND On January 28, 1991, the City Council approved final plat #90-17 for Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition. The subdivision resulted in dividing 5.59 acres into 2 lots with an area of 1.9 acres for Lot 1 and 3.0 acres for Lot 2. Lot 1 became the site for the Emission Control Testing Station which was approved as a conditional use permit concurrently with the subdivision. Lot 2 was reserved for future development and is being proposed for subdivision into three lots with this application. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The building is situated parallel to Lake Drive East and Hwy. 5. Access is gained off of a private driveway which connects to Lake Drive East. Parking is located to the north and west of the proposed buildings. The nearest home is located 350 feet away from the south edge of the actively used portion of the site. Direct views of the service bays will be screened by berming and landscaping from both Hwy. 5 and Lake Drive. The Goodyear site is located 75 feet from the north, 30 feet from the east, 75 from the south, and 75 from the west property line. The Abra site is located 105 feet from the north, 10 feet from the east, 45 feet from the south, and 55 feet from the west property line. Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 4 Materials used on the Goodyear building will be split face concrete block accented by a sandable decorative texture finish. The Abra building will be constructed of integral color concrete block with a prefinished galvanized steel canopy accent. Prefinished metal overhead doors will be used on the east and west elevations of the Goodyear structure and on the north, south and west elevations of the Abra building. The buildings' architecture meets the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements. The Goodyear building will have a pitched roof that is a 100 feet in length. Staff is recommending the introduction of dormers along the roof line to break it up and reflect what has become typical Chanhassen CBD design. The north and south elevations of the Abra building have a pitched element to them, however, the north elevation looks bare. Staff is recommending the prefinished galvanized steel canopy be extended along the north elevation. Auto services at both facilities will take place inside the buildings. The roof system is being used to screen roof mounted equipment. The applicant is showing the trash enclosures screened by a split face concrete block to match the Goodyear building materials. The gate to the trash enclosure is shown facing east on the elevations plan, and facing north on the site plan. Staff recommends the gate face to the west to minimize views from Hwy. 5. The Abra site plan shows a trash enclosure located at the northwest edge of the building; however, the applicant has failed to show the trash enclosure on the elevation plan. It is recommended that the trash enclosure gate face east. The gates to the trash enclosure will be constructed of chain link fencing. PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION The City's parking ordinance for vehicle service stations requires 4 parking stalls per service stall. The Goodyear site will require 16 stalls. The applicant is providing 32 stalls. The Abra site will require 24 stalls. The applicant is providing 25 stalls. Benning and landscaping is proposed along the north side, adjacent to Highway 5. This will provide screening of cars parked in the lot. ACCESS Access to the development is provided by an existing private street off Lake Drive East which services the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS). Similarly, this development does not propose any public right-of-way for extension of the proposed street and therefore access to the lots will be private. A driveway or cross-access easement should be recorded in conjunction with the final plat recording to guarantee access to the lots. There should also be a joint maintenance agreement, acceptable to the city, filed against each parcel. We do not wish to see the city petitioned to accept the street at some point in the future. The existing private street was built in accordance to the City's typical commercial pavement design with the thought that someday it would be dedicated back to the City for ownership. Engineering staff feels with the concept proposed the City will not be taking ownership of the Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 5 street and therefore the street pavement/parking lot designs may be designed accordingly. The preliminary plat provides the necessary drainage and utility easement for the public improvements with the exception of a storm sewer line along the easterly line of Lot 3, Block 1. Staff recommends that the easement be increased to 20 feet wide to provide adequate room for maintenance. We also recommend that a standard 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement be dedicated on both sides of the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. The plans propose extending the private street from the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station located adjacent to the development. Since this roadway will not be a public street, staff is comfortable with the proposal. The layout is similar to a mini-mall type parking lot design with one access from a public street (Lake Drive East). LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan is very well conceived. Staff worked closely with the applicant to design the landscaping plan. Berming is proposed along the north and south side of the site. The vehicles that will park along the north edge of the site must be totally screened by the berms and landscaping. Additional landscaping is being requested on the north side of the site along Highway 5. The trees shown on the landscaping plan are 16 feet in diameter. It is likely that they will reach this size in 10 or 15 years, but until then additional landscaping will be required. Staff is recommending that 8 spruce or Black Hills evergreens be added to each site. Also, along the south lot line of Lot 3, the applicant is proposing a retention pond. This pond will have a depth exceeding 8 feet with an average of one foot standing water. Staff is recommending that the pond parameter be landscaped with trees and hedges. The easterly portion of the site is also lacking in trees. Four additional evergreens are required. There is a large number of poplar and elm trees on the site. All the trees on both lots 1 and 2 are proposed to be removed to prepare the site for development. These trees are not of high quality, however, the large quantity gives it its significance. The applicant is attempting to replace some of these trees with a better quality. LIGHTING Lighting locations have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than 2 foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. An acceptable lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 6 SIGNAGE The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument identification sign is proposed at the north edge of the site facing Highway 5. Staff proposed that if the Goodyear and the Abra signs were combined into one free standing sign, the third parcel located to the south would be permitted to have signage facing Highway 5 too. This third sign would be part of the Abra and Goodyear free standing sign. The applicant has been working on a design for the free standing sign; however, we believe additional refinement is required. The area of the sign is proposed to be 60 square feet. The ordinance allows 64 square feet in area and a maximum height of 8 feet for monument signs. The sign is designed as a monument and not a pylon due to the height of the sign board above the ground. The applicant is requesting a height of 12 feet. Considering the fact that the applicant could place a pylon sign with an area of 80 square feet and a height of 20 feet, staff is in favor of granting a 4 foot variance for the height of the monument sign. It is a clear benefit to have one coordinated sign instead of two individual pylon signs. Both buildings have two wall mounted signs along the north and west elevations. The ordinance requires that no wall mounted sign exceed 80 square feet of display area or 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the sign is mounted. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the sign on site. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of both sites. A sign plan acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site is approximately six feet lower than the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station. The plan proposes to regrade a portion of the access drive to provide a smooth transition between developments. Storm drainage from the proposed development will sheet flow across the driveways and parking lot areas and then conveyed via storm sewer system to a proposed detention pond located over the southerly portion of Lot 3, Block 1. Staff has reviewed the size of the detention pond and found it is under capacity and needs to be enlarged to accommodate runoff from this development and the adjacent MVIS site. The pond should be modified to accommodate 0.95 acre/feet of runoff below the 927' contour line. This will also provide a 2- foot freeboard around the pond basin. The pond is not designed to meet NURP standards as is the city's current policy. To do so would require additional wet area which would severely compromise the utility of the remaining lots. Staff believes that this problem can be addressed downstream at a city owned pond. The developer should be required to pay an equivalent fee into the Surface Water Management Program fund to accomplish these improvements downstream. The charge is currently being computed by the city's consultant and will be made available at the Planning Commission meeting. Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 7 The applicant is proposing a series of catch basins and storm sewer to convey runoff to the ponding basin. From the city's standpoint, the catch basins and storm sewers located within the drainage basin and main street access should be owned by the city to maintain drainage. The individual storm sewer line extended between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 from the street should be maintained and owned by the individual property owners. Erosion control measures shall be incorporated onto the grading plan. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the north, east and southeasterly sides of the development. PUBLIC UTILI'l IES Both municipal sanitary sewer and watermain are available to the site. The plans propose on extending the existing 6-inch watermain and looping to the existing 10-inch watermain located just east of the development. Sanitary sewer was extended previously in conjunction with development of the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer and water service to each lot. All utility construction should be in conformance with the latest edition of the city's standard specification and detailed plates. Formal plan and specification approval will be required at time of final platting. Since the development will include construction of public improvements, it will be necessary for the applicant to enter into a development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. Upon completion of these public improvements, the city will formally accept for perpetual maintenance and ownership most of the utilities within the utility and drainage easements. The city will not be responsible for ownership and maintenance of the storm sewer extended between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. This is considered a private storm sewer line. All three lots will be served with municipal utilities. The appropriate hookup fees will be charged at the time of building permit issuance. MISCELLANEOUS As a part of Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition, an outlot (A) was created. This outlot covers the existing private street. The intent was for the developer to dedicate back to the city, at some future date when the street was extended, the street and Outlot A as public street and right-of- way. However, as proposed the city would have no reason to accept the street. We do not want to see the outlot go tax forfeit nor do we want to see the driveway's maintenance be avoided by the property owners. Therefore, staff suggests Outlot A be incorporated into the replat as part of Lot 3 or resolved in some other acceptable matter to the city. Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 8 COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Abra Goodyear Building Height 2 stories 1 story 1 story Building Setback N-20' E-10' N-105'E-10' N-75'E-30' S-25' W-10' S-45'W-55' S-75'W-75' Parking stalls 24/16 stalls 25 stalls 32 stalls Parking Setback N-25' E-10' N-60'E-10' N-27'E-15' S-25' W-10' S-45' W-15' S-35' W-26' — Hard surface 65% 62% 64.6% Coverage Lot Area 20,000 s.f. 34,163 s.f. 42,410 s.f. Variances Required - none PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES The City is requiring that park and trails fees be submitted in lieu of park land. Fees are paid at the time building permits are requested. These fees are currently assessed at a rate of $2,500 per acre and $833 per acre for park and trail fees, respectively. As such, the Goodyear site will be charged $3,245 in park and trail fees, and the Abra site will be charged $2,614. SUBDIVISION The subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will serve to divide the site (3.136 acres) into three lots, one of which will contain the Goodyear building (40.904 square feet), the second will contain the Abra building (33,918 square feet), and the third (62,969 square feet) will be reserved for future development. The parcel is zoned BH so that higher intensity commercial uses are likely to be proposed but staff is not aware of any pending developments. The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action. Conditions proposed for review would result in dedication of all required easements. The following easements are either illustrated on the plat or should be acquired: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeters of all lots. Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 9 2. Drainage and conservation easement located over the pond on lot 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Auto Service Facilities are permitted in the BH District as a conditional use. The following constitutes our review of this proposal against conditional use permit standards and with conditional use permit standards provided in the draft ordinance revision pertaining to emission control testing stations. GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. FINDING - The site is zoned BH. The proposed uses will not create any significant or unexpected impacts from this use and, in fact, in many respects impacts generated by this use are less by a significant factor then would have occurred or could have occurred if more intensive uses allowed by the Zoning Ordinance were to be developed on the site. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. FINDING - The proposed use would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. The Hwy. 5 Corridor Plan is not yet completed or incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. FUNDING - The site is located adjacent to a major highway and a collector road. It is in the Chanhassen commercial district and as such a commercial building is fully consistent with this site. Staff has worked with the applicant in an attempt to achieve design compatibility with the Chanhassen CBD and Hwy. 5 design efforts. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. FLNDPNG - There will be no measurable impacts to the existing or planned neighboring uses. Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 10 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. FINDING - Full city services are available to this site. Roads serving the site have recently been upgraded and are fully capable of handling the access needs of this proposal. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. FINDING - There are no projected needs for public facilities and services beyond those which are already provided in this area. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. FINDING - This site will not create adverse impacts to persons,property or the general welfare of the area. Hours of operation, orientation of the bays away from residence, and lighting standards will comply with city ordinances. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. FINDING - The site is visible from a major highway and is accessible from that highway by 2 signalized intersections and a collector street designed to commercial standards. There will be no direct traffic impacts to any area residential neighborhood. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. FINDING - The development of this site will result in the loss of a large number of poplar and elm trees. These trees currently act as a buffer between the highway and area residential properties. These trees are not of high quality, however, the large quantity gives it its significance. In order to develop the site, the majority of the trees will have to be removed. Extensive landscaping is being required in part to make up for this loss. Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 11 There are a large number of mature evergreens located along the south side of Lake Drive East that still provide the required buffering. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. FINDING - The site plan is well designed to provide adequate landscaping and _ buffering from adjoining properties. The buildings are to be built of brick and decorative concrete block. Site operations are designed to maximize off-site screening as much as possible. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. FINDING - The site is being used for a commercial type of operation which is consistent with its designation. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. FINDING - The following is our review of conditions of approval and appropriate findings: a. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises except in appropriately designed and screened storage areas. FINDING - All operations will be conducted inside the buildings. b. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within closed building except minor maintenance including, but not limited to, tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement. FINDING - There will be no repairs performed outdoors. Staff is further restricting outdoor parking of damaged or inoperable vehicles. c. No public address system shall be audible from any residential parcel. FINDING - The buildings will be at a distance that exceeds 300 feet from any residence and will be screened by landscaping. d. Stacking areas deemed to be appropriate by the City shall meet parking setback requirements. FINDING - There are no drive through facilitates being proposed. Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 12 e. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles, or all-terrain vehicles. FINDING - Both operations specialize in repair of vehicles, not sales. f. Disposal of waste oil shall comply with PCA regulations. Facilities for the collection of waste oil must be provided. FINDING - A condition is being added requiring proper disposal of waste oil. g. Gas pumps and/or storage tank vent pipes shall not be located within one hundred feet of any parcel zoned or guided for residential use. FINDING - Not applicable. h. A minimum separation two hundred fifty feet is required between the nearest gas pumps of individual parcels for which a conditional use permit is begin requested. FINDING - Not applicable. Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the conditional use permit be approved with appropriate conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the site plan dated September 21, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for the Abra site with a gate facing east and a second for Goodyear with a gate facing west. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for staff review prior to the City Council meeting. The monument sign may not exceed 12 feet in height. Sign covenants are to be submitted outlining the Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 13 use and limit of one common sign and allowances for its use by the remaining undeveloped lot. 3. The applicant shall provide an additional 16 evergreens along the south side of Highway 5 to provide better screening of the parking area. The retention pond parameters shall be landscaped with trees and hedges. The easterly portion of the site shall be provided with four additional evergreens. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. 5. The applicant shall provide flammable waste separator as required by building code. 6. Provide a complete, final set of civil engineering documentation to staff for review and approval. 7. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal Memo. 8. The applicant shall post "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs along the south curb line on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Signs shall be placed at 100-foot intervals and the curb painted yellow. 9. The applicant shall introduce dormers along the east and west roof line of the Goodyear building to break it up. The prefinished galvanized steel canopy shall be extended along the north elevation of the Abra building. 10. Concurrent with the building permit., a lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 11. Pay a fee to be determined to the Surface Water Management Program fund for water quality treatment downstream of the site." IL SUBDIVISION "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision#90-17 for Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition as shown on plat dated September 21, 1992, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time building permits are requested. 2. Provide the following easements: Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 14 a. A standard 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. b. Drainage easement located over the drainage pond. c. A drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 3, Block 1. 3. Enter into a development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the existing and proposed street shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed District, Health Department, etc. 6. If construction of public improvements proceed beyond freeze-up, special modifications to construction practices shall be incorporated as directed by the City Engineer, i.e. full depth select granular material for trench backfill, etc. 7. The developer shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates and submit final plans and specifications for formal City approval. 8. Outlot A shall be included with the replatting of Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition. The outlot shall be replatted/combined with Lot 3, Block 1. 9. The developer shall revise the detention pond to accommodate 0.95 acre/feet of runoff below the 927.0' contour line. 10. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the north, east and southeasterly perimeters of the plat." III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#92-2 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site. Goodyear/Abra Facility October 21, 1992 Page 15 3. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or public rights- - of-way. 4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored over night on the Abra site." ATTACHMENTS 1. Revised monument sign plans. 2. Example photocopies of the proposed buildings. 3. Memo from Dave Hempel dated October 14, 1992. 4. Memo from Mark Littfin dated October 8, 1992. 5. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated October 12, 1992. 6. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. 7. Memo from the DNR dated October 2, 1992. 8. Site plan dated September 21, 1992. Post-Ir brand fax transmltlal memo 7$71 sof a•4••• ► f • ' '� SC,o o k I spdQ • 4- k�fntf Ji , dr3u4b a r;WO' AZ C.k +u tors - �� ,r 16' \LI east t..n • post-It"brand tax transmittal memo 7671 4e " ' mi 1_:__ mi. ' : ' • .t t 1ctt1At •• / Fax # S- V -... 111111 • ■ ■■ l ■■■■ 1 In 1•1111111111 ■■■■r;t■■■■:■■■ 11.111111.111 1 . :___ _:.. , - 111111killliall • i / ,- ' 511111111111 1111 I --- - . . r ■ ■■■■ i — c;rcAl.e? AUTO 11971B fI' ■ L t, i , 11111111M1II ; ;i ;;; I 1111 Wrr -.7- ► MEE. : . . - ' • MIl111 l 111 - MM.. Mk ----- Z---1-‘, 1 r:_"_) � . L irilinii. i._____, _ate■i iiiii hillprin t ., Iliiiiuuiiiiid 4 - 1111111111.111 1111111111. vin . FAA I ARNIM, ! iI ! ■ 1111UIIiiiiiiiiHP IiiU i . .__ , ! Iilj,._� N ii 1 i ,: �7j�' r rmilill a T nmil■ _ _, , — _ r-ZT. . b,, i 'Y t , .nzi IWO !iv / L - -‘ ' 1 I _ 11111111 _ - ) — • 1•• . • i • 64111DAYE 1 . _ AA4-. - •;.„-....„. 0 X7.•=••. -. . ...er•....4:r-, 'Min's. • ..6,----- sh."11 .11.1 111411111 .tr.: ; _.-..L..i. -i%s. •••••-• '.. .....14114-.1"... ....•-..:1E.7 --- ...‹, .43 I 110P ••-• • • .;..441/171.••:r t ••••• •••••.V.:A/0...0.r:::•••....i••••",,,, ••••••-...., L •....'10.,•••4•' "1--..-,- 44•NOMMielnitt...,1,.4.:L.._•_..i. .....%,-7:_t ...a;b3U.1•11. 1......400.t.C.111rill s*• ' -_“-.` ..- -4,,,- aff.m.,1 ,,oar'vk t-e-;-,14......L-s-•''' ow l'ilL 1 il - -.17.- rit%:a.'"'oh."' • _ . _ as I. _ ..:„ . _.,...7, ......-_,-,-!. . 0 ,,..,...„—..- ....... .. .. •. ..„...... :a. ,, . .;.-....,_,, , . • , • . ...._. . • - 0,6 i- , E.....7.....-_,, st,Aram.—_, No, 0 I - . or 4 ' ........•-• .4•004..4,,,,,, .....' .e .4, ..., 484)."1/01°414 •iet.---v - 4°1. Aii.: . ,.,,I1C•..0111,- -. . _ R 48-134-: • • isof .--- ......-- 1 1 -;14.......••••• - ..• - T•,-- ** 1 - . *UtP.1 - .004°. . •---' * - . ._ ,?. . . - * - _ -."'"*......1% .N44•11.,..................4410....... ....'71:1-..i:.. ''. :'-:-.....4•1;:-%fl: *--.-1-:.- . • - , , - -__ • • • - ,,i. :.2.`,.•;-:! - . -. . • • .- - .... • , . - ..- . ,... •,- --___ . ,..' ...••- -' . - -. -5 - - . ...., ----?:`" - _. _ __ - • _ - .-••=•,............. w.-;;;z5-4-ii _ ._.....-.........-"""•-•••• - ---...... • .........____----r--------=---..-7.,---- c. =_-_—_-------7---- --• . -- ,, . =.................._ -L-- ---_-. '.... - tr-7..T. -------- 'f' • —• a _ . M J .v......._ , A ... ...•...L••• - : / 1 --iff ..- ---11=•‘_= _Mir' i -....-•ittiin- .4 . 4, ... I 411.7-1..-,,,x • --7----"0-11•1...')."---.---.."ZP11114116--......--.- a .c---.• I 4, -- . ai% '_ a- • '%; '. 2..,.. %v..... - --... i ( 110, .•- .....11,13.__.•--- i..--'i 2:.---.•:.....;0-.' -- ..0 ••-•.'-.-. .-.---.. ....-.-..• - ..t ---...-- ..--*--.. : ‘....e.V...."••••• -,.......Z. ------- -- ",-:. ;* .-•-, .- . . - • - *•;-,*•:..._' * * . ........%•",....,..... ............. * i e 1 .-..-.._ ....._ -"----_,.. --•-- - . ...._ . .-'. . ....,___ - r ...... '-•,:•?..•••••1*• • — • lirelPDA 47•••••i IBM•I•••• ----.' ----- f - --- _ _ ••••••• =1„ .- -. ': :-......*Trn Z''•.- . 0 I -ii "1, ..--.: . 60 OD*14- r I , - - -- 60°Di 414 7R 4 21. ._ . I --1.- I .. .044_ .9.. :t. '.••••:'""''''' 1 -.:-: raiiiiiillie". . c ....... •••01.. II 1 /........F.- _...... •1„,•1111111111.•• . v. • .. _ •••• •••.-•••••7ZI: ! —7:1 Iir; i W :-..--•"---.7 L..r..kiff , - -.......4.4. CI 91-91-8 — c . ... it . .. e. r . . . .7. . . _ ......... -.-...... '4 . • iT"'••••;,7-. • . . - A. , • - -• - --, ' .• . •'71.-‘77•.• . .- -,.1.-• • ,- - -- . . • *. --•.;-••:- -- - .!-• _..-•,•••, .wr,...--.. - ••••• , . :. ..- ., --.-:-: . . ---.•••.--._ • - • - ..•-: •-.:•••- -:'1:••.- - • • -. •& 0 • . I i!. • , - ..1 r- ,,_-0.9...,.••.„.-:., • ... i I "... -. ., ....i....'7,.b••.-:., .!,, .,.; ''...1... , ' IP )4. - .4 . . -•'. -..-1 - 1:,- . 14 • -''..--4.....' •:'''•'71••''- 2-: '.1,4`•• : ' • i 1, 1,...-- - .. .- , , _,.. ... .-.:. •• :,-.•-__-!.5.-••-,...-.: -.-•N.1*,1--.:- .. -,..--..--A....•-4,,- ...N...••...e- ....1-• . . - '• -- :. ''' ' .--". s•.4:---'•.. . .'':'-.1.' •.- ' -]--...- 4,t--,"- .-1-'-'-'-'4:464'----leVv:-•-:-:' ----- ' '. .- ; "' :- s•'•',' ..-.3.--' ' ..' - -. ::."...•;:- • 11' . : . . , , -. :.fr .1- ............ _.....-:,i-:r.,.`•_-.,..7'_, ''k•!"•-•• 4„1._•.‘":1';:.'-.:..t....:,;:•- . • L: 1,. ! 1 t:-.-. 4-,--AY__ S"...i..' ' -..-.•-••"•••; ' - -• - ----4- .. . ..... _ ... . . - • ' • •'1.- -....•-•;tie kV,--.' ....- -- , a -- -- .‘:•••-V-41‘. -•• • - ••-• -.4** --•- •- IF.-:. ---,....t.-. 4 . • .. . _ .... .,. „ "t ..•!r 6-.1i..7.-.r• -,•-• •.'. .....-. • - i .''•--73'- ..-;...'-",;11•,-::!'r'.;-'6 .-.::::.••••• --.•••--:-.1%:.e..-"..illt-:.-'*:.:,„, - .'-, •••• - •• •st . • - • . 1 • ..'a'•,. :tv:•••.• •-•ii•-i'l.-*•-•rt.. •:".i.7:--••••••• ' • - - •..•••••• • ;•-, ...'. ••,--•C..,:ii..;••A-Jfice:..•41. „..It 4,42.1•-• 1,, . . • .4.12...-:...."-• - - ••••4•••414.•541.x.I'tic. . ---• - -•...-,--.et:• •.'••!:1%.'•-•1,i.7;4••;•t ••:*'...•••.:•'-tt ' s...,• s1t ,,-• • •• "•.:•-.- •'t---.7-.•:•).Neec.t..„;i-.4Z•••••1,.....1•7-1.! ....-' I ) ..... ,.,..• • t . ,,_ •..:.: ..2.1,--.._ I .....1Fre",",.71.-_,41 .•.1 7/1•,1')....1,1-.-..•f-:.•Vie'..--;"•Z7...A.:1-...-•'7•••`..-!.-- :•.1 1. • •..- . ....c,„:....As:.al"..-.•-*..... .,......... • ' --a: ...0,,,,M.•:-,:,:t. ' -. - • •-••• 4,:ti:itor• • a---; •• y-10 • -. . .... . ....t.,. ,s. : -.•.••,--.•.e...:.."..-....._.....i•; .,.i.cN.106...,.r.1.‘1z..111..e..-..7.!"••1.-"4.....:"?.4f1•..,:„,1.4..-A.00;•4441.?.•,;.,:.•,-i.•6"•.4.•.,..‘'t.:.4-.'- . -'-',•;..j-.' -- 1 . 0 •-;• ••: '.....,.74i-7-..,.'),....•.4::,.....1.1.'..,s. :•-.-.1k. Si . 1...1:.4...:,_:.2„-• - .,... :; .•- 1 r..;,.....-7,.i.,,r....:,-.4:-•:-.4...e,-......,• tx ••:-....-----.7L7-.'40 I.0441....tx:e;:,•-7.-....4-..... ..: . , . :Tit . •46,- -,,..---:-..,..-...-.4'77•1••• ..i‘i.....-.7•h‘e.,;•••44:.'• ..... '.;.'14..--1•77:4, V - 4.g i. -,...-• .‘,•.:-.:--4.-.x;...e.-:?••••:,-,-7,-.e.- R ---• '4--•LILA!-:-.;•4t.,i1. -3.,t, ,. ...-.,„--,..-..,. . , ., - - • :-.......Y!-• ••:-.flr,:, 161-4-,4-• - ..:.:"7-'-_-14-• ' ----.., .--0 - 41/45•.••••' -11.44-/ ' . `y.,„- • -- -r _ ....; ::r 1-:.-,--:-.1,.vg...•'•"-.1!!f^l'• --i--r• -. • • ° • * F-r.:4.-i•--4-1, -,e-,-' -IfV ••it I., 1 f--aa,-* a 1 - • . • _. .... ject...-7-.4-.....;c e,-P:74 vf-17.-1- 4.4 si•-••••.,,:•7-r-- -71 -- : . ..:,!...._f ..... ._, ...,!;.5 i-. ••:-.„'t'e.-'11'--• -111c.'?"- ia'------• •' k- . 4 - i , . -.730- ' .....-1.-7 6,.• ,.........•4-ir,A ••..";, 4, „.2"..,-,. r.....,...,2,. it ,,- .. .... ..g.-. . .,,,.., ..._ ;,.,.. .16.:be•-•=. _ ...-... -•• •.m, -.-:;•--,- -•••• 4••-,.7•'-.•..tit•'r-..s.-11,.. - ' .• ...„...;a.i••••••• •.- I i •• ,,-.....- ..il,. .."...0' -..e....,,,,- .. ,., ' ...V.V:-• .n' ;•.-- • •.7„tlei. ..• , - - - 4:...;•:.:7.'777-2 ,1..-1'..il.i--1.7-:-... *775,::;....ollii..1‘;i'.17,-: :. - i . -•r - - -• •-...er,..."-b. .....-.-, --. .., - • -4-, .--r;.u..-.4"../.-- t-•t-137,---,a.-: i I 4 II . , .---.1.k.•-•.1**.,!..-txt?'..--T7t, ..1-..,,,-,..:r.. . •. ,, , ..:% --.... •....:- 014,-.'"te, ,7 .4.1-.4,110. .rl.P.f.:•-•''' ..; -•. • . - • le ..- ..-., • ....-C...1,7,..). .. . r.d....a,,,e% :-47-, f _. t- - - -_ ••tel.1,-1.-• .•■••••4t. • 1W•- .1- ,i ;• . .11P..., . •4k. •:.• .-oir•-., •....... •t;'• 1... •71-r - ,- - • -Ira. - -- ., . .. -',0-a/i74-.1-..0.Liti-Ne.:-.,--t-::. I- --,.-;•.,'-.•i•--3 i - _:, :. i it.g . .:,.,,?:„..:2.,..a. ..:•._ .s-..„..... ... ..ori„:-...-4. .•.__T-z..,..,..„A,..tt• st‘---.. 6-•'.4'.• • 1. ..y47:••••-'• -,1 • - - ' k .4,.....s.. ,.._..: . R-,,i4...1,-....;.2ex --,:.%,....,. i--, ...,r ,;-,- f, -... ItT lk .. 4 ...r. 7.4 ...... •._. '.•Z.•-1 .74 AV... '7 .0'.-44.. ---V7' ....4-6„..4.,1.: ,.. ,. ......kmri '• -... -- 1-..k.ei. .t..i.i• 4;:1,, •cP eP.:';••'2 3 .... -..•1- . , ---••• . ig .../.••• . . .:14: .d• .- -• .-14•4 , - •.. , -r., - •-•.T111_,---- ,: ••:-•.!!!...,v.,:l.•-•: •-r"- . ..; ,..-, ....g•;,_ _, . .. 1 -17,-,- . 4 .. ..11. ' .- ': 44;t4 -70 If '' -• ' R•''r ' A ' • ••'..SN•-it'll •••.0 ,k••• 1 • • 7r,-klf'.4•44.-p:.r_, itWi.ft .,;-• ' . ''... ; k ' •• --4 ei• .... - " •---- ....i•- :• --......-3!•11::e•.,..t•Itt•- 4 Alk•.'••-..It'• -1.,•Ar..4 •- , toi :-. .-. --4,-.7..*,-..- ,.-1.F.-k,..... a .7:0: • '''7_;7 i•OS*I.,..: •• . 7.' - ;0• - I /• . %•ii•, ,.. it4••L.17,!.-.-4-"Nee,,.!.!"6/.).. •• .-• 77' ' ' J.7.•-•'":.•,:ifir; ;7<--: • • / • :-;.i7--.-1,. *::::•-r .sT._ -04,3f.p. .''''-:-`0?"...iff,d1.-...,ie.,--QV •••• 1-:. - -- .A - .f...;- *- • _ -- • • a. - • • ..,,,.. - •a.4.,„Jr .V_.,..-7".40,44'..A6r,• tit... t t, j ' - • -7 0,....44----•. . .--„... -.3,...-.-.1.1,•• 1---,-,,,;•., -..t.e. •,,,, .- • , •,- -... , • i• f•...;t:47..- • .---4-,- •'$---.'.:4..,,tt,••*1 I_•,--•.••••1,I----.,t-ist.4t..,,0..•t•4:,.k.:el,-.-.r..(a4..!4,•D1..r.„..-...4---ae-N•CV1a tA•"1V%t..2..t•.:„-..,••e,,-t.•...ru.,-..:•tJ•.;.•t...--1:...,v-:a i,- 't--1-,;•-1.,'-,..,•,T-.;_,--._-: -..:,-.••-!'--•--:•--.-1I., :1.• - - •.,. • ..- 'I. • -z,•• Il'..4: --- s-.....-•.:: ---ii- •-',. ..' •-!.....4.1,--..t.---12• L 7 -.i-. ' . _ .... . . -- --4,4..:4- _- ...., 4 V.:.....4 i...;;- ! ...g i -4,-.;A.4'ts.p.,:;,•,.:,4 . •-.7".1e.ir7.1. --:"i; ."'' . i - -• tl. • ,- ,6.- --:.i. • . - . - -7-..4.4=1,..ir.4...-s:-47 '''-'11 -f.--,:- - ..: ..,- .. .-,--. 1, ''' --- - •k,,,z,-.4. •t ,s---.1--.r.-i-1-.. ..-e' t•%.„, • 1.1%...- .-,--•-.„1,_ ...4.....,,...- .4..7, ..c-..,:41,e_ -.....-• --• -- . - " Tit-io"." ----' -- *•'%..t-,-411‘..!...---.2... •--f.1*; • - - 0- '..0- • --.• ....... _- - io'-.... „ • ---:45.14-'• -•"-:or' . .,,,s•-t,,c..42-;'0.1k..---.-'s;-6,_,..., ---•-• ',.•-:' , ...._ - • - -.-..• . . i --.•-•ii,•,,..,,L-•---4•N.-"!,;,..4 . - .-, 7'...- f•t 0 .. lie-'. -• '*'• . : 'II 7,.'•7 .r..,..A.!.,...!5' . .. -.‹.1.!.!4...-• '-1`7' 4-...'•:f .i.-'''•.. .1r.• .21,:-i:Olt= -': - •- • • • -'- -.. - ...-1.`'... - .:-:.1.'v. -•_ ,...:4,41-.•_. • - 41,-jrc•-2-•4.-17i. "..?-1•„.*-4.,:--%-z-V".-,,.‘:.- t:-..-44..•:,• •"•••: • ...r *.•--....-- .: -i...--:.- -..0-s. .gr-.SF .-:,-...,z,-;• . , : 1,--e-.:.1..---iy.;,,-...1-: -.---•14.1gy-Jr-alr.. ..-..-:.1-1-• n i .0 ...,,,,..0.4...0......1<iif Illti:t4....--04,147,,N.. i:i:Am-., '.. ,. •.-- r..i. - ''' 7-4-Oki'ir/...0..:••• -.. i-,'-__-.4..--- • :- ISII d . , .. i ...-:' - -,‘---4 . --r•....47:.- . ....,4eA..'L. 1.1k ..-1471*" - -!It' c.•...-...---ww•. .. . .-..-- -4', i • .- ........, .. • .r. • ••...,s-. .. -4$:-••-t,),k: --t4i..-1-' rs1 -,*i•:24-- , a ,.... , •- ---'i•471--A._Ir•r4' .---`7.-' -r'21:,i,a‘,4 Att;:---44,1 -I,...--':-.-ali... -, • .-•::-,• 7 '• .--7/..-.. - ''''..os-''''.. 3'77.-l'.:Ssrt•fi-:•'. .6. -*-A•al...,-.- - I i -'- ---'fiA•Tii.-_ --t---73 : ..,42,..t.4....,.,4_-:•,i.,,..4.....: r,'.._,,,:, ....4/1:-...,-......:‘i • - . • 7:441:::-., ..-0--.2".q.2%; •ip.r-• ..,f 2'Y--et,",.-: ::::%.1.4--- ,-.:,.- • •,-1,f4.44-tf..r:-- A...,-.N4:•;,-" L :-..... .,..i....v. --,,. 1 '•- :-, ..,.....A.,4,7....-z. ..,..,..-.-.#2.-_itzi, --,-...,..- .1 a.;''i',:ilk- • • . - MI I Z ‘-‘ 7.1 LIZII . ..44s,...1.:v...'".6,1`,:cf.t.--4-10-'-•.,•,,94. .'ale:4 „c,....,-,.....q,„ • . - .-. :-.7-kr..,.-1 .,;,..,:c..r.".--4.--,---.)--.-I::....-.;;;• -.--"i:37.-.4•-.i. .. .-th ------' "3 ' ---;.'*. -2.;".1-C". ---•••,.• %,.."...;70'..'s,..:--4!••1 ..-•_;-:14'.• 1.:.",.:4• - 11-, ..::`. . _ . . ,e••• . . ... sio„, • .,. v. ta7f.1.1'.:.-•••,•4, 7-';.-.!6477.:.1. ..,,)1-„,.• •••.•V••,!- :*.s . 11M. .! .;:.'.4.''..L.tte•-r.fr.....`"'-•^-'•-•--Ai A.ii:•••••• -*7--r -.`"1 i.---iii...A.!.„?,,,,,,„••:;'...;,.;.,......,...P-....,._•,.44•5,,-,...i... - -; ....,.. -: ; 'i-.Y - ..::7,?7,4At--•"‘' Te"tk-- :..2..V•!c.......14'--.te •'-•,"-;:s-r-2.-?.. t.;:,•.' .--... ,' - I .I, f1:_____ • _.• , -• . . ..•!,•,.:•,-':.,--,- . • ../.•/-4• : -,.1 • -_Et---*-- •-..-4,1;......:-,. :,.--7 r., i , .,•I- .;..z.3..., ..,fr. . ,..... 1-k....It.;'..1-:.' -.1., - : •..7-•.:;t6i.rt-.•'is..7-2.- - . ,••e,',,,Tr. --- '•• •.'t .!'-i-N".'•-: -----' -.--.s'!.._ --.•'- -v_ik ,, i - .. .- c`.;.--.1ri• -.'7-. '.'"7".;;-'-4-'-.Cf-• ::--i- •-4:-. ':--. ' - ' • ' . -•'''''."--; • . . - •7.,?•••••••,47,.-•7'..;... ...q1777.---:•7 . 7;....1'. •*7 t. .i"..' -,,-- - 7'-. .....2.1.... ''• .• ..- -.: • -..;- - •• • - .. . . ../ v.-. ...-- 't..•.•- - . ---:-;.4%."- .. •-.7',V.4.- iZ':. _,-:-3:---•::77-f -i.'--4!--Z_C- : ...*..'•'., -P7- :-..;'. -' ...; • .,• -- .... f .1....--' _ •.2 '7-. - - '.-' • , 1 - . --.--=:- --1- .4.'•'''-''re.;----‘;' - -'-_ ,..... ...c. •41IgAlli• • •-- •:•;;X.,•,7--,)'7.-;."",•'...--'-----' - ' 7-.•.• ---.- .-.'-.- • 7:. .. :.•4.0•-• 7..k•-•..:4,1•3•7' '•'7 -:1-:---.•1:., . ,• 8-•':-..-:,, '..7,:--..,..t.-.--"- .--. . • -'....:;., '. .• •.... ' r ----. •; ,--- •"" -,* .; -:- - ,--7 ..:......-„,.4. •• . .1- ' . • "-. - 4...1 •-- - -31 -•••....tr-' 4----- - • -•:...7,.-•,•'.'_-,1-...:'3, is.'.::.--••-•• : . '.•- ••,...,,....,.,:-'.• ill - - •••'- •..4/3/4r7 '74,1-.1: - '••lode ..• ti . - --..:;.--r17. - ' -• 7. ' 7.7' -• •tli-' t• • ..•-:7.••:....-J•:..; ,.',-....•...-.:I; . •--- .:.- - -.'-...ri.-'7. .. - ' - ;:. I ' • lt. • -*-...„ t.... - .:•••.7.) • . •-e' .i.• t., .i .. --:. i•---•- . --• .--. . . •7- •...•;.'1.,,: . :1 - 7, .s . ' 7-s-..i.*.. -74741;:dtgr,„.... - '.,". -,::;•:. ePit .1%_- 7 . • ....lir.: . ,. . • '-':-.4:-,:;:i'.'- . .. , .. - ' - '- • lei° ' .. -3 • •:;.'71‘..A7-'•-r..6 - •-'.•••••.-2.- .1••-.1.` ' -.• ..--- .• 3. .-:•- , - 7-.•- . ,.i ..._ - . •At-VI'''.-'. '...'''.-.ji ..-- • . 4! i 1 Os ,.,, • ., .. •••- • s - . . -- .,, - . CITYOF IIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 - MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I — FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician �1 moi'DATE: October 14, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Replat - Lot 2, Block 1 Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition into — Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition; Site Plan Review for Goodyear and ABRA Auto Service Center Project No. 92-16 and LUR 92-17 — Upon review of the preliminary plat for Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition, I offer the following comments and recommendations: ACCESS Access to the development is provided by an existing private street off Lake Drive East _ which services the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS). Similarly, this development does not propose any public right-of-way for extension of the proposed street and therefore access to the lots will be private. A driveway or cross-access easement should be recorded in conjunction with the final plat recording to guarantee access to the lots. The existing private street was built in accordance to the City's typical commercial pavement — design with the thought that someday it would be dedicated back to the City for ownership. Engineering staff feels with the concept proposed the City will not be taking ownership of the street and therefore the street pavement/parking lot designs may be designed — accordingly. The preliminary plat provides the necessary drainage and utility easement for the public improvements with the exception of a storm sewer line along the easterly line of Lot 3, Block 1. Staff recommends that the easement be increased to 20-foot wide to provide — adequate room for maintenance. We also recommend that a standard 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement be dedicated on both sides of the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. — t 4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER _ Sharmin Al-Jaff October 14, 1992 Page 2 UTILITIES Both municipal sanitary sewer and watermain is available to the site. The plans propose on extending the existing 6-inch watermain and looping to the existing 10-inch watermain located just east of the development. Sanitary sewer was extended previously in conjunction with development of the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station. The applicant is proposing to extend a sanitary sewer and water service to each lot. All utility construction should be in conformance with the latest edition of the City's standard specification and detailed plates. Formal plan and specification approval will be required at time of final platting. Since the development will include construction of public improvements, it will be necessary for the applicant to enter into a development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements. Upon completion of these public improvements, the City will formally accept for perpetual maintenance and ownership most of the utilities within the utility and drainage easements. The City will not be responsible for ownership and maintenance of the storm sewer extended between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. This is considered a private storm sewer line. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site is approximately six feet lower than the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station. The plan proposes to regrade a portion of the access drive to provide a smooth transition between developments. Storm drainage from the proposed development will sheet flow across the driveways and parking lot areas and then conveyed via storm sewer system to a proposed detention pond located over the southerly portion of Lot 3, Block 1. Staff has reviewed the size of the detention pond and found it is under capacity and needs to be enlarged to accommodate runoff from this development and the adjacent MVIS site. The pond should be modified to accommodate 0.95 acre/feet of runoff below the 927 contour line. This will also provide a 2-foot freeboard around the pond basin. The applicant is proposing a series of catch basins and storm sewer to convey runoff to the ponding basin. From the City's standpoint, the catch basins and storm sewers located within the drainage basin and main street access should be owned by the City to maintain drainage. The individual storm sewer line extended between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 from the street should be maintained and owned by the individual property owners. Erosion control measures shall be incorporated onto the grading plan. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the north, east and southeasterly sides of the development. Sharmin Al-Jaff October 14, 1992 Page 3 MISCELLAtiEOUS As a part of Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition, an outlot (A) was created. This outlot covers the existing private street. The intent was for the developer to dedicate back to the City, at some future date when the street was extended, the street and Outlot A as public street and right-of-way. However, as proposed the City would have no reason to accept the street. Therefore, staff suggests Outlot A be incorporated into the replat as part of Lot 3 or resolved in some other acceptable matter to the City. Our concerns are that the outlot could be left to go tax forfeit. SITE PLAN REVIEW - GOODYEARJABRA Upon review of the plans prepared by Blumentals Architecture, Inc. dated September 21, 1992, I offer the following comments and recommendations: SITE ACCESS The plans propose on extending the private street from the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station located adjacent to the development. Since this roadway will not be a public street, staff is comfortable with the proposal. The layout is similar to a mini-mall type parking lot design with one access from a public street (Lake Drive East). UTILITIES All three lots will be served with municipal utilities. The appropriate hookup fees will be charged at the time of building permit issuance. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Preliminary Plat Approval 1. The final plat shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 3, Block 1. 2. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the existing and proposed street shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. Sharmin Al-Jaff October 14, 1992 Page 4 3. A standard 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. 4. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed District, Health Department, etc. 5. If construction of public improvements proceed beyond freeze-up, special modifications to construction practices shall be incorporated as directed by the City Engineer, i.e. full depth select granular material for trench backfill, etc. 6. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial securities as required. 7. The developer shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates and submit final plans and specifications for formal City approval. S. Outlot A shall be included with the replatting of Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition. The outlot shall be replatted/combined with Lot 3, Block 1. 9. The developer shall revise the detention pond to accommodate 0.95 acre/feet of runoff below the 927.0 contour line. 10. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the north, east and southeasterly perimeters of the plat. Site Plan Approval 1. The applicant shall post "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs along the south curb line on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Signs shall be placed at 100-foot intervals and the curb painted yellow. jms/ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITYOF 01‘ri. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Bureau DATE: October 8, 1992 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Goodyear & Abra Auto Service Center Planning Case 90-17 SUB, 92-2 CUP & 92-3 SPR The Chanhassen Fire Marshal reviewed the proposed site plan and has the following requirements: 1. Ten (10) foot clear space around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP, telephone, trees, shrubs, etc. City Ordinance. 2 . Fire Department Policy #04-1991 (included) . 3 . Fire Department Policy #06-1991 (included) . Placement to be determined prior to issuance of CO. 4 . Fire Department Policy #07-1991 (included) . 5. Fire Department Policy #29-1992 (included) . If t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER r CITY OF , . C%1 C 11 ANHASSEN t"' �r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18" . NO 2 . Red on white is preferred. PARKING FIRE 3 . 3M or equal engineer' s grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. /\ 4 . Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5. Signs shall be posted at each end ,Of the fire lane and at least at 7 ' 0" 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. 7. Post shall be set back a minimum =;of 12" but not more than 36" from, the curb. U 8 . A fire lane shall be required in (NOT TO ,,� GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and -' ':'` -7" = F along -all areas designated by the � 'r ire, ief. :Er ter= ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL -aE'''SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE 'PLAN,, FOR APPROVAL BY.SHE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE--;DEPARTMENT 70 ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING MESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 Date: 1/15/91 ‘ 1117>9 :g: Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 Is t 4.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • l . 3 CITY OF . _ .Li,,. 0 . . s_.....t C IIAIIIIASSEll A .,,iii-. :air • .� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 - CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS . All the following required inspections shall be scheduled 24 hours in advance with the Fire Marshal: 1. Witnessing the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per NFPA 13-8-2 . 1. 2 . Hydrostatic test of sprinkler system and 24 hour air test for dry systems. 3 . Testing of all smoke detection, manual pull stations, and fire suppression systems. 4 . Installation of fire extinguishers 2A-40BC rated minimum. Install one by each edit door and as designated by Fire Inspector. `. 5. Extinguishers shall be provided before final approval. 6 . A final inspection by to Fire Inspector before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Fire Department access roads shall be provided on site during all phases of construction. The construction of these temporary roads will conform with the Chanhassen Fire 'Department requirements for temporary access roads at construction sites. Details are available. Onsite fire hydrants -shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases of construction. F The use of liquefied petroleum -gas�4ai be in conformance with NFPA Standard 58 sand-the 'Nirinesota- ni#-orp•.aFire ..Code._ A list of these requirements is available. "r' All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored by an approved UL central station With-a UL 71 Certificate issued on these systems before final occupancy is issued. '/ Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: Page 1 of 2 0. t 4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER An 81" x 11" mylar As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use. '- The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located by the Fire Marshal. The domestic supply from a combination domestic and fire protection line shall not exceed one fourth (1/4) the total pipe size at the line. High-riled combustible storage shall comely with the requirements of Article /81 of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High-piled combustible storage is combustible materials on closely packed piles more than 15 ' in height or combustible materials on pallets or in racks more than 12 ' in height. For certain special-hazard commodities such as rubber tires, plastics, some flammable liquids, idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as low as 6 feet. Fire lane signal shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (see policy #06-1991) . Smoke detectors installed in lieu of 1 hour rated corridors under UBC section 3305G, Exception #5 shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for installation and system type. (see policy #05-1991) . Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ClIANIIASSEN „4_ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal . Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. 46 — Other Requirements-General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. 2. Numbers shall not be In script I 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street,additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement*3 must still be met 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers if deemed necessary. Residential Requirements(2 or less dwelling unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". 2. Building permits will not be?haled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commercial Requirements - 1. Minimum height shall be 12". 2. Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6'. b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 3. if address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 Date: 06/15/92 -Revised: Approved - Public Safity Director Page 1 of 1 t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • i , l c :. .. CITY of ,.... i wig_ �1 CHANHASSEN .t. : ..... _P\ , ,,, ..,‘.,,,,,H., �`''� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 . „ l CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REGARDING PRE-PLAN Prior to issuing the C.O. , a pre-plan, site plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. The following items shall be shown on the plan. 1) Size 11" x 17" (maximum) 2) Building footprint and building dimensions 3) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes 4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or deadend 5) Fire hydrant locations 6) P. I.V. - Fire Department connection 7) Gas meter (shut-off) , NSP (shut off) 8) Lock box location 9) Fire walls, if applicable ! 10) Roof vents, if applicable 11) Interior walls 12) Exterior doors 13) Location of fire alarmanel �-; A' 14) Sprinkler riser location 15) Exterior L.P. storage, if applica}Zle 16) Haz . Mat. storage, ,if applicable X 17) Underground storage tanks locations, if applicable 18) Type of construction walls/roof 19) Standpipes ti s"'_..F4y_ :��.-� .ti�may:.:-.;:ei __—_�..... ` --�'.st .. Aff— Ti Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention - 2,0, v,_______ Policy #07-1991 Date: 01/16/91 Approved - Public Safety DieF ctor Pa ge 1 Pges1 of 1 _ t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPFP CITYOF . . r ■. — - -- — - Chanhassen Holding Co. McDonalds Corp. (22-146) Systems Control, Inc. 14201 Excelsior Blvd. AMF O'Hare 755 Mary Avenue No. Minnetonka, MN 55343 P. O. Box 66207 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Chicago, IL 60666 Thomas & K. Kotsonas James & Janice Gildner Michael & Cynthia Koenig — 8001 Cheyenne Trail 8003 Cheyenne Avenue 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gerard & Lindsay Amadeo Alex & Marilyn Krengel Alice L. Sieren 8007 Cheyenne Avenue 8009 Cheyenne Avenue 8011 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Sinclair Marketing, Inc. Terry & Margaret Lewis Chanhassen Center Partners 550 East South Temple 8013 Cheyenne Circle c/o Builders Development P. O. Box 30825 Chanhassen, MN 55317 P. O. Box 637 Salt Lake City, UT 84130 Wayzata, MN 55391 Lotus Lawn and Garden Center Thomas & Patricia Redmond 78 West 78th Street c/o Redmond Products, Inc. Chanhassen, MN 55317 18930 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 DONREED PROPERTIES ALITA LOWNSBURY JEROME & RENEE GRIEP 337 WATER STREET 8000 DAKOTA AVE 8002 DAKOTA AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD & M WASSINK BARRY & M GREGERSON ROBERT & P PETERSON 8004 DAKOTA AVE 8006 DAKOTA AVE 8008 DAKOTA AVE S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAULINE M CALDWELL RONALD & AMY DVORAK PAUL & SUSAN HERBY _ 8010 DAKOTA AVE 8003 DAKOTA AVE 8005 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RAYMOND & K KNIGHT LEE & PATRICIA JENSEN WALTER & K SCHOLLMAN 8007 DAKOTA CIRCLE 8009 DAKOTA CIRCLE 8011 DAKOTA CIRCLE - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - RAYMOND & M JEZIERSKI GARY & M FANDEL DENNIS & S UNZE 8013 DAKOTA CIRCLE 8015 DAKOTA CIRCLE 8017 DAKOTA CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 _ MICHAEL WILLIAM FARRELL ROBERT & B ARMBRUST DOUGLAS & K BAGLEY 8024 CHEYENNE AVE 8022 CHEYENNE AVE 8105 81ST STREET CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VICTORIA MN 55386 GEORGE & A JENNINGS N EINAR & V SWEDBORG DANIEL & L ROBINSON - 8018 CHEYENNE AVE 8016 CHEYENNE AVE 8014 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MITCHELL LOBENS & RICHARD & B FRASCH WILLIAM & E KRAUS MICHELLE RIEHM 8010 CHEYENNE AVE 8008 CHEYENNE AVE - 8012 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY ROSIER RANDALL & M SWATFAGER RAYMOND & D LOBMEYER 8003 CHEYENNE 8005 CHEYENNE AVE 8007 CHEYENNE AVE - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - STEPHEN & J MACDONALD JON, SR & D WILSON GLENN & B HAGEMAN 8017 CHEYENNE SPUR 8019 CHEYENNE SPUR 8021 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS & JOY EASTMAN SHARON HERMANSON ALOIS & M STUMPFL 8023 CHEYENNE SPUR 8025 CHEYENNE 8027 CHEYENNE TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE & T THOMAS PHIL & CONNIE CHAN ROBB LUND 8029 CHEYENNE AVE 8031 CHEYENNE AVE 8023 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RALPH LYTLE THOMAS & S KOEPPEN CLAYTON & M SODETANI MARY ANN ROSSUM 8009 ERIE AVE 8005 ERIE AVE 8021 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TERRANCE & S THOMPSON VENCIL & C PREWITT JEFFREY PAPKE 8000-8002 ERIE 8004 ERIE AVE 6180 CARDINAL DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 VERNON & B HUSEMOEN SOO LINE RAILROAD PER MAG CORP 8015 CHEYENNE SOO LINE BUILDING C/O MAG CORP - R FELLOWS CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PO BOX 530 14956 MARTIN DRIVE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 FRANK JR & M BEDDOR WAYTEK INC D J BOGEMA 649 5TH AVE S 7660 QUATTRO DRIVE 7009 OXFORD AVE NAPLES FL 33940 PO BOX 690 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THE PRESS INC SUNLINK CORP LYMAN LUMBER 18780 W 78TH STREET SUITE 120 PO BOX 40 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 59 EXECUTIVE PARK DR S EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ATLANTA GA 30329 • , I 1 . �W Iliw� gig e Q \‘ 1. . Np '{fy`t g° I s .i 'c 7°E 3 3 I iso: ¢ . 6 \---1 ''' — �,t011 117y1 r'" h its 3:, n•:: A: it :- 2'7.- C)W r i �. ?'fps y .1 a # -a- -e. 2E2 la -Y ? f W i Q t � ►" ilT ::�"1 ►- 'os ceic !:s : eiE '= I '+s�*a.►� uus m z =f •`1 �, Nr3 v ° /OE :Ec t:f- r".3.•,e_ ? °- Ma- }- ¢ z i I� — V ,...1 s' ts `4nf.y� .. .4 O = : - i ! < :ii i 5" i W it�l 5 ''Or 44° - , ti �� • IN.. s •'..',_\ 'f • is � L'i • ,I y•l. = 1Y I I, • _ -_ _,t\ • t 1. r1 1, 1 inx� ; Il ._ •;----� Il.JI . ,- i — 0 . 1 P i Q) r O-t. .w.., l [• `� , I 'I I{ !,:Tr • . I I_:111:111.1'116' fr11i l' • . ,71 :s tI F ,3 %�i III —. 0. 1 : Um. =p1 li3.,ill .,I . } ,�; - 1 • -_r. ,I ' 4I idi .t Ii 1r,1 i ? 1(�" ii 1 : " ''':.••f . `. :f ..,�, it r Ii W N •Vii i . Ys bF i 1 r O t� 'Ir* 11to l d It I ri : ',�e�l. b. LI I \'Ll 1iii 111J�J,1�;_ 1, , -. - - - ,,�,, , ` ° I i II ' 011 , II , •h, 4 1. 1 Ir Y .1y .......,.- a U m ) , I I ill: 1 sI i= i .L I / — L._ . -- - • - ---- - ----- - -_J 3 c4 t .. : s1: -: :.Ts:vin I — •c= i i : - 3 � et :Ea.- -: .s.; • 3c : ill ac-�P 3 s C." c: s c - :e% a saes if, i : Ir co =-Ej .. Lys:: =3_I1 i 3 _ • -'V. t w i - - Y - `-: _ . .zat 1- ' 't< :1 = •...._:: ---._ _6g §:szf E 'ii f lima EN 3.3= c, sr i 3_g_ •,} a:E eY J � s 6 i ,- a p y W b r:=ti ;:tlisii - t 8;_h vii•-iY`-iY Y. wY w_Ii _ ! - rn : :1s a -11?r tqf llt r t ,} $ s � 'ri ig g 1 3 CA • i e i :a:- s -r_ . a-s. . e id 1 E _ •; - 12 I b11 :. :•: s :._ _ = d^ W E. i • t " C t i _ fn -- . ,4=aa-': • f 2 01. ill litl (a- .. iia_3 r w '� - a, - a a 1;6 ,0 'ILij E 1 Q4 I a:1' % fill! I Q it s ie iia =a �i ' a 4 ¢z a �1 iii pN �• U c ii T a-=�=" -'a 3= g lag yV �.;1 •I i `., _i b:' r 1 ...... 8.._i:. I. -I . i:7. . •f• i: . III • JIllt } •,. 'L4— \\ 11 13 I I ' p = >,. a I i \ ....w..o - --• `'- s` 1II 1 1,—= . III , I,ii II 1,- N . IIrI I • 7.il I '11 i a I I -i'..) I;. ' sf 1 1I` � 3 1 �rti !.'k' '' f � 4 n • _ : e f .110er�.lse .g H e w < `S f — —� II T •£ I W Uy� _ li l Il �. I. ( J11i v4 .f [ 3 II r• ;> O_ y }} 'f.. I. )1 I J F" 11. 1 �. r- � � t.....:401-11 I � - °V 'It ' ll -- --' (N.- ---- ii - ['lip l h /I • I4z E .1 I' Ii: 1 c;'. I\1 l I 1111141 I 1.1 1.1 I d I/4- x ' 17 1 ';iil'1 l l ; b'"•:. i t ,6 i'. Vit, „ \J' I. -Ci • \` t`.1, 1 7 ' 1 _._.....-S,t..�.. , .... ....=FC. -;•.' y•.e`.::•-•,• I 1 : I f�� ... III, I, ..1, 0\I, I "ify • I . 1 , i gI t' i / ---- ---------- -- -----'- 1I "- --•— - -- ..-1---- ...a . 91 A, 9 SNOI1VA313 a oNia-uns ..c... N i +IOW %En= . '..i.•,IS I,n 1:1 • —-•—gliAlitraivi .u.bidadar UV31,0000 % Z 111 A3 0 c.- .., 0 0 ... .1,• . gt I 14 CC .., . iq , 0 el z 2 Ti . . 14 8 — k p i . . l, it . ....... ..1 • j.i.:_,....1 <3, 141 ._ .R,ethigo, '11'1111'111 1 '' .1 i;t:f:._1. .,.! tlyligi3O ! ...7\.,t I ... <.:). -714— , 0 . 1 -1-1 lb • \ _ to_ i.. • zi. Ni'I ., q ..p 2. 5- . LI!! . L i • . , iii 1, /1 i kw " MI' '14t. °el „I ilitd I ili i y.' .i i,f, . _ ,.... . _ L,,, , . -I \ • . \ <,;> 1-, 1 3 -\-- I 1 . . 1 I rid 1 . e e,if iriii,1 . 4 I 1 . tg - - "• 4== d r\, L 1 t rj 3 it Holm tua --- Iiti 1 1 I .,, .; L 1 • • ..m• 1 i 1 , 1 ' . ) 1 /; • /.4 a / ,4 P i,— . .,....2 t 1 L i i I.— i I L ; 1 L L L1 L • if u � dr ¢ 0.) 1--.;;:i?I E W ~ e Z.- W Uw W S W 2 (} ! t Ui z `:111 tow J `',5 ! u)N Y .- O=.4 4m t,I r' - ji ¢ 1I! m - L. 7.ii, .1Z Q �11 Ir et I � 1-_- t 1 1..l 1I yf`1- 1 ;gym _ z �;, z '' I a .II,•' t --f a . W ( W I II J' i�I J I'll ' W' W 0. 5; i y1 i J , 'r;yh. ' 4g it ! I 7-,n It I \ __ I i ; ----, ,; Q r� z N O ii: pLL Q Z o J i a No d ~ r iL ., : Qz } Z 2' 1 U_ W Jii le Yi r - w ^ Q i_ Y li ate ' O Q : t• q ?a e : • a J T } 1L isi_{ i 2. ui (.L a• {}r :7ia..= it i cr Z t T i � i fi>E: i 4 Q ° li a y'T i= Ic 9 a. t a •° s3: 1� iIU -c 1 'r, f eii y 11 11 2 g - I J I �1. \ w �, \ z m LI .`E w \ .,r,V, 1 m ___ '" ;Ili\''.."- - I " :I i; I I .: ,,:'4..:: S 'Le, 111 is ' S. - r"..`y rt; " !' �'`, cv 1}f t I�I (NJ , I I 1 `-'1.;- 1�y ala_ I� Z - � .i �, {' • / , i .:I., .--r" '-r'. .-�" 1 :(..111.1 Za'r Z 1��1 1 I I I q t� tn>� -: i I I I • 1 I 2 .i pa • of 1 �.1: I i II --rt. ,t ,f a 'm�' x' ;' nilqt IFI ..r r-« m I r ` :LI s� _ ~ li.• • ;� ! • , • W N A iZl' !�.,. S1 1 • 4:. I y S - I ilt It r r1• 1 Y U I;11 ', III -I •f — • F•. -)i� I a3 ' � a .i .,,, t I �, J l' J. J (01 S I ••I Z-'- ••:-.•'-!_r_a_...-x--'---'.---. - ,i ----).)I 'r, ..t 1 1)- ' ' ( � 1 L` .. I% IIS`,/:' �•• -.----e----- f# �r..`• + .` .. t• • IFt:: , it —•--- .__.. \`il'l . t I II ,- 1 - -- --- -- - - - --J � i � i a • a. = m 1 Pi - W z b t s t �''ii : < a ' ko i G 1-< WI/ i . i I ~ s i ZH 4 W C ° . w= - I • q !; . < z n 11 $ EC La tit 1 W 2. S;. O ( it�� tl e,i = Y of z 11xr e - 's 1- Li-1 F.; W i .i V 1 O m- _ 6 i F..-a, 4 o t;;• 0 te a t n III 3 ;11.4.1 " . .."...-.''''.---7-1" ' , T-- \ . .., _--__,____:\_-46.---7_ w i• •,./: 1,.. 1S ..u_wu.uci�l.•timuL1' 'tA'.�Rn�o A , ,, ,i ,„ "lti..ds.,..-A. .\` ; g I i. I 1-,� --- + . '—I-I- I D ��r� � � s 1r;, !' I ¢i 'I I_I 1 I I .�.... " 1111 .\\`1`kik .� iaC ' i i1 - i I 2? ' i I � �1 ,, y . ,,%Val X11111+ i•.ia! 1 1 I '1 1 I 1111`y ll � 1 n 'I+I 1; � . I - 1 ; .... .1 1 • I �, 11111111111.'11 ll`I�� j111\ s` I 1 ; s r ,� f- I ' 11 '11 \ '— a C 41 1 —� /.� % _'\�T�i ;rip'. I IIIIIII A1111 i E z 1 ' t# I I i s —,r— } I ,1 IIIIIIIA111\11Iq��l Q II 'A_ I ' I I1 i • �'1 1\11__� i•�_ I _i 111111111 j�P{1�1 .�II% F :1 I _ -'___ 1 `1 1411 ,111111; z '2i 1n = e I I 1 1;Id i /1T.4..,• ` 4 I '1 ( n ya, a.' I W IIIMEr =` i i,� ,I�, I I pr� �"---"`'1�.- -•.7 „ `,\S �1 ( °•.% .; II f 1111°1l f [;; ui r I IIi 11% s'p I ,1, a _ . ' , Q N • h I `c,_. a III hIr�1 #,+i l; a i'”4'II' I y 7 ,�. !. 't h` 1'C ; `,a` la f qll 1 1 c �, - I :. III Iil in : i;j,• IIS - E,. ;a' se ..1,. 4�jyF II r.\ a I�II�II VIII , : x 11 11 Ilk 11(y/.. ) {°� ` -j -�' I il t + �"4 - • i X11111 1011 ° j ,,, ,,,,,I - I�,1- ,S . ,, \ i _" 'j.L / „• iii I � \•y / _ 1 III(''1 I1.l,I,, , risilt:.,is-17-11,_•-g.k . ‘7,...r-,„'1, ), ., 111111 .e\IIIIIII , ! 1 ' y '�. �..I..:... ti,.� ' 1 b �+ I I• 1 . - • • ' -. / AS I I " p RAO€ it-, t s'p'I 6.. i I tBYBtinee g --- e)- 1)- 1 6iniiieill R l +i1I l o II., o I'T 1 : o : 1 o I ..- ili iz u. , LAJ C • ..\ a i : g x tn 1' V ti I i ! 1 4 • 0 • s a s ., c e k 4.-*-41 cc 2 ,c. 0 § -•;=. ... :•.: = 10 .- . F"< il en - ' -I - lll 0 i- Lai .• "ii I i- ,... ,,. i ...., N I i Z.: ; ....:,‘,1,-•_. 5,- z le: ! ,,, 10 < I Ir. 1 • 11 Li' rai co z ,,I ':' ' i ,_•= < ...,• . 1-• _2"V t• i I-= = €1.1i -.• 1:0'4 B ,I t••••<• .1.1u ° i:11 2 0 , _ U 1 ° 17 I t • A i i - _ IIt - ill " .•-•*.. ‘'• \ , . • 1' • • 1 ..., . ; -__--....-- ..-4 I - ..." (119,-.A-/.. .—......„.• _—. •;7.1:r.___.0_.4 _______. ._.' .. t' 1- •=•_• , ---------yror-,--1--4.-.;:4-•::x„-- ,-,,.. I • • \ -Z.tt\\ • I\ l• , - --..E....t•—•Alr..7er 1=19- , \i • SIAMNSt,oust,b0 ..,...t- .4 '• • " I Iii 61 .,... I. \ .." : 1 C I B. t - -\\\' A \ - . . ,, . , 2 TE i •r-r:-..1...:,...::12 •i: : ,i; .,. •— .. . 1 1;110 i li - \ --[ • - :. 6111 ' - ; 1, r .. .........._i ,,. ,1,..,....-- .!-., ,1,,, 1 v 0 51.1 , vi I ?" 1 ' . ? , :1 .. . , •Se 2 ;', I 1 I H I , • IS'' ",14:, ' • 1 . ...; 1 •... ,.; \ i 1. 1 ,,,, , .., t. < 7 , . I I .11• . . 11,if t Q •i .t to I jai .. •s--t .E .4 I f,i igi • A it X `17-7-11 ii %.= .... a!: 1 , I, 1-- °%- ---.- • . — -1.- i -ti- lt;- .-, -Z.. /` - ' a'-'-'1"" • -1,411' . • ;.4. . ,..• ii. t 1)i r' ,• 6 V . • ut°• t .ill'i -‘1' • .'•' ..' , 4 . - . . •••.";.4, !:. 1 i magi . .)-i r t1 .1 i- ' • .1,•,1--;11.1 , . '• . .. w .-. `aeIg lifil 1 -4s`,. 1 - 'III% . •'' 0 i-C : .j I I 11 / i g ', . , .•!... . 1 ) - a• 1.0 ) It , ca : 1 !I ° l' 1M 1'I . ,.. — „ , , • • 'i ;\c 11.1\. C • .... 1 . 'A I 1 st f ---- '..'• - i • .2...F 1 '• '-, il 1 t! -i)-- 1 IS ) • '••' : ' • 1 1 ,. % 7.• , ; xi. 41,1'.... `r% . . t •1 t 11 I 1 I A 11-Lal 1_11.1 li- - t ..;,-. 7-7,-.. :..--- , , \ \ 1 i .-• ' . -- -". -•••- ---- ',1: # •'lir• S* "- 7t,":' .., . . . -- • it t " ' - '-` •ei ' •• i / I . g ).. I --- • ..; - •-- • ;•4 "•:"... \"; .- 4 . F i 1 .. , , •••••._• .„...„ • ) , ..,...,::::,.._:__.._......... „........../ ....._..- .- ,:/"......\.: .,„,..„,.. -..... .• x .,...„,- , ., _ .,,,... i, .••\0. :',..... , N-----,..„.%,,......- I ‘...N. .. .., 12,- •.._7_1." •.1....e. -11 .• I, " I 1 '.:k.Z,:.. r.... H.--..... . _I ! 1 '. '.. 4L . .-.J--....— ... I \ ' ••v.. Nt.t. ...„:1.:`,• tit ,1 -.1.— -- i .•..,... f' I :' . • , _ --- , \ ,i. 1' _ I___...__ __ _ _.I , _ i I! u _ -- 7t s' 1 1111E1 , .... , - - . il -• a .... 0 . P.: I, I C I TY O F PC DATE: Nov. 4, 1992 \ I C H A N H A S S E N CC DATE: Nov. 23, 1992 CASE#: 92-3 PUD&92-4 SPR B : Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning of Property from R-12, Residential Multifamily to PUD, Planned Unit Development 2) Preliminary Site Plan Approval for 217 Unit Owner Occupied and Rental Multifamily Development 3) Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide the site _ Q V LOCATION: Outlot B of Saddlebrook Subdivision and Lot 5, Block 1 of West Village Heights Subdivision a. APPLICANT: Brad Johnson Q Lotus Realty P.O. Box 235 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: R-12, Residential Multifamily ACREAGE: 27.04 acres (gross) 22.49 acres (net) DENSITY: 8.0 u/a (gross) 9.6 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; Saddlebrook S - BG; General Business E - R12; Multifamily and RSF; Residential Single Family W - R12; Multifamily ireA WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W _ I- PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has steep slopes on the north and west side of the (n property. It contains a Class B wetland and has heavily vegetated areas, with a significant stand of oak trees. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting rezoning to PUD, preliminary plat and site plan approval to construct a 217 unit multifamily housing project. One hundred twelve units will be available for rent, while the remaining 105 units will be owner occupied and offered for sale. The housing style and density generally falls somewhere between townhome development and apartment type buildings. The 27 acre site is located between Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard. The gross density is 8 units per acre and the net density is 9.6 units per acre. Access will be provided by a public street running between the two boulevards with an internal network of private drives. The site is currently zoned R12, Multifamily Residential and utilities are available for the area. - This item received conceptual approval by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1992, and by the City Council on August 10, 1992. At the time of conceptual review, this proposal had 240 total units with 168 units for rent and 72 units for sale. The total number of units has been reduced by 23. In addition, the number of rental units has decreased by 48 and the number of owner occupied has increased by 33. The owner to rental split is 48% to 52%, respectively. - The development proposal has been modified based on neighborhood meetings, the City Council and Planning Commission meetings. The major concerns raised at these meetings were: • Several residents were under the misunderstanding that a portion of property was to be a park. Staff noted that the park had been proposed under one of the earlier Cenvesco proposals but this was never approved by the city. In addition, it was noted that the park was incorporated into a much poorer quality residential development. The question was raised as to what the park requirements were for the Saddlebrook Subdivision. Outlot A and park fees were required as well as trails along Powers and Kerber Boulevards. Outlot B was never discussed as park _ requirements for Saddlebrook. • Residents asked whether or not this project was needed in the city. The question of project need is not addressed by city codes; however, Brad Johnson indicated that vacancy rates in other developments in the city are very low. • Concern was expressed about the possible elimination of wildlife found in the area. The main wildlife area around the wetlands as well as the wooded hillside will remain untouched and protected under the proposal. However, it must also be realized that the site is essentially 1 or 2 blocks from the city's major commercial street. Staff is recommending that a maximum manicured area around the buildings to the north the rest should be left in a natural state. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 3 • Concern was expressed about the potential decrease in property values due to rental units. This concern has not been demonstrated however, the number of rental units has been reduced and the have been moved away from the adjoining single family neighborhood. • Height of the structures, because of the hill they will look even larger. It was noted that the height of the building is not greater than the walkout homes in Saddlebrook. However, the applicant has indicated a willingness to adjust the roof lines and building alignments to respond to the concern. • There was concern about the potential increase in traffic to the Chanhassen Elementary School through an existing neighborhood. A possible crosswalk is being reviewed by the staff. _ • There was concern raised about the construction noise and hours of operation. Staff believes these concerns can largely be addressed by conditions imposed on the project to regulate hours of construction. • Residents asked how will storm water issues be handled, preservation of the wetland and impact to the existing ponds. It appears all storm water can be handled on site with minimal disturbance of the existing ponds. This is discussed in further detail in the grading and drainage section of this report. • There was concern with the proximity of the buildings to the oak trees and will they live. Staff is recommending that snow fencing be placed around the tree line in addition to trees that can be saved by using some retaining walls. • Residents asked that the rental units be switched and be located where the owner occupied units are closer to homes in Saddlebrook. This plan has been modified to reflect 3 owner occupied units in the northwest corner of the site. • Neighbors to the north do not want exterior flood lighting on the units facing north. The street lighting on the public wall be corten steel similar to the street lighting on Kerber Boulevard. Lighting on the interior of the streets needs to be shown on the site plan. • The residents to the north would like the rear setback to be not more than 20 feet. This would be an area that could be maintained (manicured) anything beyond that should be left natural. This would provide for the growth of the landscaping the developer is providing as well as the continued enjoyment by the adjacent _ residents of this natural area. The residents to the north would also like no trespassing signs placed on the property limits. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 4 The applicant has redesigned this project taking into consideration the concerns raised during the conceptual review. The largest building is now 12-units, the three 16-unit rental buildings have been eliminated. The rental units located on the northeastern portion of the site have been eliminated and now include 3 for sale buildings, one 3-unit and two 6-unit row style townhomes. These lower profile buildings should help reduce the visual impact to the property to the north. The total number of rental units has been reduced from 168 to 112 and the owner occupied units have increased from 72 to 105 units. The current site plan was designed from the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing mature oaks on the site must be preserved. The plan also recognizes that a high quality design must be offered since this is a prominent site having visibility over large areas of the community, including from the Highway 5 corridor in Chanhassen's CBD. Building styles were carefully chosen so that grading would be held to a bare minimum. It appears that trees in the _ center of the project will be lost due to grading and staff would like the applicant to reconsider this plan. A revised grading plan may require the use of a retaining wall to save more of the existing trees. This proposal offers high quality architectural design with interesting building facades and relatively small building footprints. The building footprints allow for a great deal of flexibility in terms of grading and building orientation. The Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that the applicant pay park and trail fees in lieu of park land dedication. The cost of the trail along Powers Boulevard would be deducted from the amount required for trail fees. Plans call for provision of a tot lot, outdoor swimming — pool and a clubhouse facility that will be made available to all residents of the project. Thus, on-site recreational demands should be reasonably well accommodated. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that no park fee credit be given for these facilities.. — The preliminary plan appears to be reasonably well conceived and this design has implemented many of the changes requested by the Planning Commission, City Council and the residents. The plan appears to be of high quality and has taken into consideration the existing natural features. Additional parking still needs to be provided as well as the recreation trail along Powers Blvd. The project is consistent with the underlying zoning, as well as with the — Comprehensive Plan. Utilization of the PUD zoning offers two benefits to the city. The first is improved quality of design. The second is that it will give the city more control over what is to be built on this site, particularly if for some reason, the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill project is not completed as proposed. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council grant preliminary PUD and site plan approval for the project. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 5 REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 25.29 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD-12, Planned Unit Development High Density Residential. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. In this proposed development, the applicant intends to save the existing stand of mature oak trees along the northern portion of the site. Modifications to the grading plan and the use of retaining wall should allow most trees to be saved. There is also a Class B wetland located in the northwestern portion of the site. The wetland and all property located north of it will not be altered. The project also offers enhanced architectural design. These elements are extremely important given the high visibility this site has over a large area. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. The subject property will be developed working with the existing topography of the site. The rental units, which are three story walkouts, are located on the northern portion of the site where the land has a greater slope. The buildings have been set against the existing stand of mature oak trees preserving all but a few of them. The development Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 6 of a single, comprehensive drainage system will maximize the effectiveness of nutrient removal efforts while reducing the city's long term maintenance costs. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. The applicant is proposing to develop high quality, low maintenance buildings. _ The exterior of the rental buildings will be maintenance-free vinyl lapped siding and gabled, asphalt shingle roofs. The owner occupied units are also maintenance-free with shingled roofs, vinyl lapped siding. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. This site is bounded on the east by Kerber Boulevard (minor collector) and on the west by Powers Boulevard (a major collector). The apartment buildings located on the northern portion of the site are at least 200 feet from the nearest lot line of the single family homes to the north and the nearest home is 300 feet away. Concept plans call for establishing an acceptable landscape buffer in the appropriate areas. All but one of the buildings have been oriented so that they do not directly face the homes to the north. Staff has held discussions with the applicant and we believe this building has a potential to be reoriented. — 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The Comprehensive Land Use Map identifies the subject area as the potential land use of High Density Residential. The property is currently zoned R12, High Density Residential. The proposal is fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Higher quality housing in this location is also fully consistent with the underlying R12 zoning and with a desire to cluster density around the Chanhassen CBD. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. The site plan proposes an 8' bituminous trail across the northern portion of the _ site, just north of the stand of oak trees. The trail will connect Powers Boulevard with Kerber Boulevard. A trail is also being proposed along Powers Boulevard as a segment of the city's trail plan. The plan proposes a community common area including a clubhouse, swimming pool and playground. A final review by the Park and Recreation Commission is required. At this time, city staff believes that there is no need for land Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 7 dedication given the site's proximity to City Center Park and Lake Ann Park. The cash park dedication could be put to good use elsewhere. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The project has a mix of owner occupied and rental units. As currently proposed, there will be 112 rental units including a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. The applicant is proposing 105 owner occupied units including a mix of 2 and 3 bedrooms. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. The dwellings are all being situated to make use of the existing topography, reducing the grading on the site. The rental units are tucked into slopes allowing for a walkout level. The owner occupied units will be split so that there is a break in the roof line. The units will be slab on grade and are taking advantage of the existing topography. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. Access to the site is off of Powers Boulevard which is designated as a major collector street by the City Comprehensive Plan. The site also has access to Kerber Boulevard. There will be one public street connecting the streets. The majority of the site will be served by private driveways. This area was included in the tay on Powers Boulevard, shall be conducted by the developer prior to requesting final approval. Summary of Rezoning to PUD _ Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The reduced standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for reducing the standards, the city is receiving: • Improved pretreatment of storm water • Increased landscaping • Protection of vegetation (oak trees) • Improved architectural standards • Sensitivity to maintaining existing topography Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 8 SITE PLAN APPROVAL General Site Plan/Architecture The site is 27.04 acres, with a gross density of 8.0 units per acre. The net density, excluding the wetland, two storm water ponds, and the public street, is 22.49 acres, with a net density of 9.6 units per acre. These numbers have been reduced from the 9.5 units per acre gross density and 10 units an acre net density from the original concept submittal. The 9.6 units per acre is under the allowed 12 units/acre in the zoning ordinance. The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 217 units including, rental and owner _ occupied units. The rental units will vary from 1 bedroom, plus a den, to up to 3 bedroom units. The buildings will include five 8-unit buildings and six 12-unit buildings. The rental units will be three stories in height, with walkout dwelling units and garages at grade level. The exterior will be maintenance free vinyl lapped siding. They are attractively designed and will have gabled roofs and asphalt shingles. The height of these rental units will be approximately 35 feet average grade. - The development proposes 105 "for sale" units, including 75 two-bedroom and 30 three-bedroom units. These would be comprised of seven 8-unit, one 10-unit, two 12-unit, two 6-unit row and one 3-unit row buildings. These owner occupied buildings would be located on the southern portion of the site. The northwest portion of this site plan has been revised and now has a 3-unit row townhouse and two 6-unit row townhouses. The owner occupied units will also be a maintenance free material with shingled roof, vinyl lapped siding, and with balconies at the front of the entries. These units will have double car garages for each unit, additional visitor parking has been provided. The proposal calls for a playground, clubhouse and pool facility to be located on the site. Because these facilities will be used by the residents of the development, the Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that no credit be given for these facilities. Full park dedication fees will be required. The parking shown for the rental units is inadequate. State law requires that for each 8 units, one handicapped stall must be provided. The ordinance requires that for each unit there be one garage (enclosed) parking space, plus one additional (outdoor) parking space per dwelling unit. In addition, one parking space for every 4 units is required for visitor parking. Each rental unit will have one enclosed garage and one exterior stall, while each for sale unit has a two car garage. Staff has informed the applicant that there is insufficient visitor parking for the rental units. This proposal has provided visitor parking with the owner occupied units. Staff had raised the issue of owner occupied visitor parking during the conceptual review process and the applicants have provided 54 parking spaces. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 9 The PUD zoning allows a maximum of 50% impervious surface for high density development. The proposed site plan has an impervious surface of 27.4%. The structure setback in the PUD district is 25 feet and all of the buildings meet this standard. The PUD district does not have a minimum setback for parking on interior public streets and private streets. Staff approves of the parking setback as proposed in the development. COMPLIANCE TABLE Ordinance Project Proposal Hard Surface Coverage 50% 27.4% Setback from Collector 50 feet 50 feet Internal Public Streets To be determined 30 feet External Property Lines 30 feet 30 feet = Density 12 u/a 9.6 u/a gross Landscaping and Tree Preservation The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan. The applicant has proposed saving the majority of the existing stand of oaks along the northern portion of the site. Based on the grading plan, it appears that many of the trees will be lost due to grading. According to the applicant's engineer, the grading plan which was done on a Computer Aided Design, has a margin of error on the proposed contours. It is staff's intent and the developer's intent to save the trees on this site. The applicant's engineer is doing a site specific review of the grading plan to ensure tree preservation. One of the concerns coming out of the previous meetings was that additional conifers should be placed along the oak trees to provide a better screen from the residents to the north. Conifer trees including, Balsam Firs, Black Hills Spruce, Douglas Fir and Austrian Pines have been located along the northern edge of the buildings. In addition, more deciduous trees should be placed along the building in the northeast corner. The streetscape along Powers and Kerber Boulevards include deciduous, coniferous and ornamental trees. There is a mix of coniferous, ornamental and deciduous trees throughout the project. The majority of the deciduous trees are Sugar Maples, Hackberry, American Linden, White Oak and White Ash. The deciduous trees are located near the parking areas and will help create a canopy over the parking surfaces. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 10 — Street lighting for the interior private streets is not shown on the site plan. Staff is recommending that before this item goes to the City Council, that a street lighting plan be — prepared for staff review. Street lights will be required in accordance to City standards along Oak Pond Road. Streets The applicant has reduced the street grades to fall within the City's ordinance of 7% maximum — street grade. The preliminary plat proposes a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 36-foot wide street pursuant to staff's recommendation. In addition, two sidewalks are being proposed parallel to the street. The sidewalk along the south side of Oak Pond Road deviates from the normal location within the right-of-way on the community recreation lot. It appears that the sidewalk is meandering around some existing oak trees. If the grading plan is altered to save the oak trees, staff would be comfortable in the proposed sidewalk alignment with the appropriate trail/walkway easements dedicated to the city. The preliminary plat shows this development ending just short of Kerber Boulevard, yet the plans proposed extending utilities and the street out to Kerber Boulevard across from Santa Vera Drive. The appropriate easement agreements will have to be dedicated to the City for ownership and perpetual maintenance of the street and utilities in this area unless it is dedicated with the final plat. Access to the site from Powers Boulevard (C.S.A.H. 17) is subject to the access permit requirements of Carver County. Carver County had previously indicated they will not consider approving the location of the proposed intersection until a detailed traffic analysis of its impact _ on the Powers Boulevard corridor, north of Trunk Highway 5, has been prepared by the developer's traffic engineer and submitted to the County for review. According to the staff's knowledge, this study has not been prepared and therefore should be a condition of the approval process. Anticipated roadway improvements at the intersection would include a right turn lane and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Powers Boulevard. The preliminary plat proposes dedication of one-half of the necessary 100-foot wide right-of-way along Powers Boulevard. An additional 20-foot wide trail easement should be conveyed along Powers Boulevard for Park and Recreation Commission's desire to extend the existing trail from Saddlebrook through this development. This type of development will most likely generate the need/desire to park along Oak Park Road. Due to pedestrian and vehicle traffic and roadway geometrics, staff recommends the north side of Oak Park Road be signed "No Parking". The staff is recommending that the applicant reimburse the city for the cost of using Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch traffic engineers to do the traffic study in the area. This firm has already done extensive work in this area, most recently on the West 78th Street Detachment project. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 11 Private Drives The applicant is proposing 12 private service drives to access onto the east/west collector street (Oak Park Road). Although the number of accesses are much less than previously proposed on this site, staff recommends that access points be reduced where applicable. One such case would be on the rental units proposed along the north side of the road. Attached is a sketch with the proposed change in the parking area (see Attachment No. 1). The street grades of the private drives appear acceptable with the exception of the second access point east of Powers Boulevard on the north side of Oak Pond Road. This driveway grade is approximately 20% which is twice the normal driveway slope the City allows. It is recommended that the applicant redesign the parking lot layout and/or building pad to reduce the slope on this driveway access to a maximum of 10%. Grading and Drainage Upon review of the revised grading plan stamped October 22, 1992, the majority of the site will still experience grading to create the streets, parking lots and building pads. A refined grading plan will be submitted by the applicant. It is the goal of staff and the applicant to perserve the trees on the site. Proposed slopes within the site will not exceed 3:1. Based on the applicant's narrative, it appears the overall site will be graded and public streets and utility improvements will be constructed with the first phase of development. The plans propose a series of storm sewerd to convey runoff to three different drainage areas, the retention ponds north of the development adjacent to Saddlebrook, the existing culvert underneath Powers Boulevard and the existing storm sewers in Kerber Boulevard. Staff has reviewed this plan and feels that changes are warranted. Staff recommends that the storm sewer outlet near Powers Boulevard should be redesigned to include a nutrient/sedimentation basin prior to discharging into the existing culvert underneath Powers Boulevard. This sedimentation basin should be sized to accommodate storage from a 100-year storm event (24-hour duration) and maintain the predeveloped runoff rate through the existing 30-inch culvert underneath Powers Boulevard. Staff and the applicant have been working with Bonestroo in developing a retention pond in this area to provide and maintain water quality standards. Construction of the sedimentation/nutrient basin on the westerly portion of the site may or may not require a wetland alteration permit, depending on location of the pond. Revised grading and drainage plans will be required along with detailed drainage and ponding calculations upon the plan and specifications submittal and prior to final platting. The northeasterly portion of the site is proposed to drain via two storm sewers into the existing sediment basins/ponds along the north side of the project adjacent to Saddlebrook. Staff recommends that the applicant modify the storm sewer system by combining systems to achieve one discharge point into the existing pond. Staff will work with the applicant in modifying the storm sewer/grading plan during the time of final plans and specifications review process. The Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 12 most easterly portion of the site is proposed to drain to existing catch basins on Kerber Boulevard. Staff recommends that the proposed catch basins incorporate a sump manhole design which will collect sediments prior to discharging into the existing storm sewer line on Kerber Boulevard. The storm sewer line in Kerber Boulevard eventually discharges into a retention basin/wetland. This development will also require some modification to the existing storm ponds lying between this development and Saddlebrook. The most easterly pond will require additional excavation along the south side to provide the necessary storage requirements. Modifications to the berms between the ponds as well as the outlet control structure will be necessary to adequately handle additional storm runoff. Staff is proposing the berms be left in a natural state with the only modification an emergency overflow which consists of lowering the berm in the middle by approximately 11/2 feet and gently tapering out approximately 10 feet in each direction. This area will be riprapped, a top soil layer applied and reseeded. The existing storm water ponds were part of a the Class B wetland to the west. Modifications to these ponds will require a wetland alteration permit. Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik Engineers are designing the retention ponds. Because these ponds will not be built to NURP (National Urban Run-off Program) Standards, the applicant may be required to pay into the city's storm water management fee. The overall plans have not incorporated erosion control measures. It is recommended that the applicant follow the City's recently adopted construction site handbook. A revised grading and drainage plan, including erosion control measures and detailed drainage and ponding calculations, should be resubmitted for review and approval by the City prior to final platting. Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site. The existing sanitary sewer mains are adequately sized to handle the anticipated development. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer mains throughout the development of which some lines will fall outside of the public right-of-way. Due to the size of this development and the direct impact it has on the rest of the City's sewer and water mains, it is recommended that the proposed sewer and water improvements be dedicated to the City for ownership and perpetual maintenance. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final plat. Fire hydrant location and spacing shall be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Marshal. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will need to verify and document sizing of the watermain to provide adequate fire flow protection during peak demands. Detailed calculations should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Since this development involves both public utilities and street improvements, the applicant shall enter into a Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 13 development contract and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval of the development. Park and Recreation The Park and Recreation Commission met on July 28, 1992, to review this proposal. The Commission's specific recommendations were that the trail on Powers Boulevard, as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan, be installed by the developer. The developer would be required to dedicate a 20-foot easement along Powers Boulevard and construct an 8-foot wide bituminous trail along the entire westerly border of the property limits. Trail dedication fees would be used to off-set the expenditure for the trail construction. Additionally, the Commission recommended that the City Council accept full park dedication of fees $440.00 per unit in lieu of land dedication. The Commission noted that the inclusion of the private swimming pool and playground area do not diminish the need for community supplied recreational facilities, and therefore no park credit will be given for the provision of these items. RECOMMENDATION PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning to PUD #92-3 and Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the plans dated October 8 and October 22, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: _ 1. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the entire north side of Oak Pond Road. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions/signs shall be placed on the private service drives and northerly side of Oak Pond Road. 2. The grading and drainage plan shall be modified to include erosion control measures in accordance with the City's construction site handbook. 3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final plat for all utility and drainage improvements. A conservation easement shall be dedicated to the City over the wetlands on the parcel. The final plat shall indicate all wetlands located on the site. 4. The entire public street (Oak Pond Road) from Powers Boulevard to Kerber Boulevard shall be constructed with Phase I of the development. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD — November 4, 1992 Page 14 5. A traffic study on Powers Boulevard, as requested by Carver County, shall be conducted by the developed prior to requesting final approval. 6. Apply for a wetland alteration permit for the location of the trails and possible location of sedimentation pond before final plat approval. 7. Park and trail dedication fees be paid in lieu of park land. 8. Number of parking spaces, including handicapped, must meet the parking standards as required by the zoning ordinance. 9. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a caliper inch basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff. 10. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private roads. A 20 foot manicured area shall be maintained along the north, east and west property limits, anything beyond shall be left in natural (non-maintenance) state. 11. Compliance with the Building Official's conditions as shown in his memorandum dated October 19, 1992. 12. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's conditions as shown in his memorandum dated October 21, 1992. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat PUD #92-3 as shown on the plans dated October 8 and October 22, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee proper installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval for final plat. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, MWCC and Carver County. 3. The developer shall construct the public utility and street improvements within the right- of-ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership and maintenance responsibilities. The remaining utilities outside the easement and right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing of the utility improvements shall be submitted for formal approval by the City prior to final plat approval. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill PUD November 4, 1992 Page 15 4. A 20-foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City along the westerly portion of the site adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the necessary easements to provide for the extension of Oak Pond Road to Kerber Boulevard." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated October 27 , 1992. 3. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated July 30, 1992. 4. Letter from Roger Gustafson dated June 30, 1992. 5. Letter From Riley Purgatory Watershed dated July 6, 1992. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated October 19, 1992. 7. Memo from Mark Littfin dated October 21, 1992. 8. City Council minutes dated August 10, 1992. 9. Site Plans dated October 8 and October 22, 1992. Il CAR,�ER a�AsN k' _ �� f ` � 61- vIOLET :. �� _ �� 411I ��/ Ca ■1 �- t ROAD .� � �`-/� NORTH`) t� �v , \ \ a , , LOTUS i//. ilV.BR.._�W*\ � ,, LAKElit r4PARK • -, Pt X , , 1(,.-LitikvaprAmi ;\ a. ma! !is s Val�� /�� ll:"°- ter- • • ` r'� +� • , , , giV7T .-Pr .•• w --, rz`IP S qua, Illl. �t :, • • 1 `+ _ - -IL 1.61 i � � =� '`T +17R;1'� .ROS' ,• 'I ... -T54._ els .„0 .4, alh - . „........0111L ra'r:1-;°%- ilia IF r'4„- la 1111 Ei ...•�_ VIII 1 IWll o St& 414 J1• `um. � <� • -.' 1w* 1-Fr ;or - ffiial iv... . ,37 a ��S i 4D ottl 1111 4 •.;) i4� T iv WORES 7- sIIif1W� I , L..ARK IA, 101HEMIN-1.4* - IIIME:163.- 4L . L_.: ..ramirlt : ati. z lozwir . ,. GREEN PARK.4fEA DOW IOW 7 �� ,41# '� ��,,,,��#�� Is ,��\ A K E �) t 3 ••••• (3)VI I.I&AZ COP 11 I FAS bialiO II% law • . iie..1 ,-) ___) co ilar.' Arolkiff --___:?"-'1,".= : _ min Emma ...-' ) ..... ir. ...,:-.-_c-aval,„ . .. -1_, 102111rn) ..ata lir kwim' - ...„4,,, arts' A..-0, Sft =um Ares Villem ierged Md woLIS li �chi 611,1... d s...`p�UA � , i r As*,w•%..:1 2 �� 8 � 4��4-:::41i1111^ 1 . • ø� ` � _Jif W . . ir4iiiI g. g I11,p Bram o Y - lila lik itlif ' o :. r nig ` min c =to Num ALL t-W-gli1111111 gr: s 4061 BMLz i-44, . . Nib/ Nu inn ...4.-4...m - At . -_ W : � �d 11111 IMI HMO awnimilp>-.,_ Iliai ift_l � L8u: H•Aowl !INV oil 11 11%.111 11111111/ 7 • WO c !/A R0.0 1v... 111aWn . , Ia S y 5 ash: ifix: , e DRivE ATE HIGHWAY . . •w6 /n - X00.- - ILA es 41 Lai u'J , V74 - t-,. Ilia llilit SCE ;4v:w' , ` • � N .5'�/.7 I l_424: �`'..i_ PARK ' "WitI.%R�� ,ilk I■ .N� - - � .,,, 41111��40111140,-v,---:-_ i, � \t• �� `7''fr 42$1;42 11/4.4 MARS SINNEN THE OARS DEVELOPMENT • Oak Ponds/Oak Hill Oak Ponds and Oak Hill are residential developments designed to provide affordable housing while maintaining the natural features of this unique site. To this end the development has been designed using the existing hills and valleys as much as possible and preserving the stands of large oaks. In fact, only two surveyed oak trees have been lost to create this community of 217 homes. Oak Ponds is a rental community of 112 homes located in 8 and 12 unit buildings. Each of the 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings has a single garage within each of the 2 and 3 story buildings. The units will range from 750 to 1100 square feet. The exteriors of the buildings will be maintenance-free with vinyl lap siding and gabled, asphalt shingle roofs. Oak Hill is a "For Sale" development of 105 homes located in several building types. Ninety townhomes are in 8, 10 and 12 unit buildings along the south and east property borders. Fifteen row style townhomes are located in 3 and 6 unit buildings in the northeast section of the site. Each 1400+ square foot dwelling has a 2 car attached garage, 2 or 3 bedrooms, and private deck. These buildings are also maintenance-free with shingled roofs, vinyl lap siding and brick accent walls at the front entries. The buildings step up the site following the natural terrain to a high point where the community "clubhouse" is located adjacent to the existing oak grove. A pool and playground are planned as part of this community commons. The development is planned around a central, city-dedicated street, but with the majority of dwellings being located on smaller, private streets and drives. The shape of the streets and adjacent building sites all derive from preservation of hills and trees. -2- GRADING The site is 27 acres consisting of a high hill, a meadow, scattered large oak trees and wetlands in the northwest corner. The wetlands are surrounded by a steep slope with woodlands of oak and elm. The design must incorporate the following: 1. No grades over 7%. 2 . Save scattered oak trees. 3 . Tuck buildings into the hillside to avoid excavation of sleep slopes. 4 . Save wetlands from any encroachment. These objectives are met by the design. UTILITIES There is City water on County Road 17 and Kerber Rd. so the water has been looped with an 8" main line for free flow. The sanitary sewer flows east through the townhouses and west to County Rd. 17 . STORM WATER AND WETLANDS: The very eastern and southern edges of the property drain away and the remainder is collected by storm sewer and drained to the ponds on the north or the wetlands on the west. We have proposed to drain directly, bypassing the wetlands to the west side of County Road 17, and there establish a settlement area before continuing westerly. The wetland can be raised to increase its storage capacity. The wetlands will not be graded or disturbed in any other way. The City ' s consulting engineer is reviewing the storm water system proposed and will make recommendations which will be incorporated into our design. -3- Development Timetable. Oak Hill - Final City approval is anticipated by January 1, 1993 . The developer will grade the site in the spring; install public improvements, including Oak Drive, and construct the first building starting in April, 1993 . Sales efforts will start in January, 1993 , with completion of the project scheduled for fall, 1994 . Oaks Community Recreation Center/Offices - Construction start is anticipated in the -summer of 1993 , with completion in the fall of 1993 . Oak Ponds - Final city approval is anticipated by January 1, 1993 ; public improvements to be constructed simultaneously with the Oak Hill development. Development will consist of 112 units built in 2 phases. The starting date of construction will depend upon financing approval and existing market conditions. Phase I Construction Start: Spring, 1993 ; completion: Fall, 1993 (60 units) Phase II Construction start: Spring, 1994 ; completion: summer, 1994 (52 units) The Community Recreation Center will be available to the Oak Ponds residents. CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. EngineeringTechnician'��\ DATE: October 27, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat and Site Plan for Oak Ponds dated October 6, 1992 File No. 92-13 LUR STREETS The applicant has reduced the street grades to fall within the City's ordinance of 7% maximum street grade. The preliminary plat proposes a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 36-foot wide street pursuant to staff's recommendation. In addition, two sidewalks are being proposed parallel to the street. The sidewalk along the south side of Oak Pond Road deviates from the normal location within the right-of-way on the community recreation lot. It appears that the sidewalk is meandering around some existing oak trees. However, based on the grading plan, it appears the grading in this area will actually require removal of these trees; therefore, the sidewalk could be placed in its typical location. If the grading plan is _ altered to save the oak trees, staff would be comfortable in the proposed sidewalk alignment with the appropriate trail/walkway easements dedicated to the City. The preliminary plat shows this development ending just short of Kerber Boulevard, yet the plans proposed extending utilities and the street out to Kerber Boulevard across from Santa Vera Drive. The appropriate easement agreements will have to be dedicated to the City for ownership and perpetual maintenance of the street and utilities in this area unless it is dedicated with the final plat. Access to the site from Powers Boulevard (C.S.A.H. 17) is subject to the access permit requirements of Carver County. Carver County had previously indicated they will not consider approving the location of the proposed intersection until a detailed traffic analysis of its impact on the Powers Boulevard corridor north of Trunk Highway 5 has been prepared by the developer's traffic engineer and submitted to the County for review. To my is ta PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson October 27, 1992 Page 2 knowledge, this study has not been prepared and therefore should be a condition of the approval process. Anticipated roadway improvements at the intersection would include a right turn lane and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Powers Boulevard. The preliminary plat proposes dedication of one-half of the necessary 100-foot wide right-of-way along Powers Boulevard. An additional 20-foot wide trail easement should be conveyed along Powers Boulevard for Park and Recreation's desire to extend the existing trail from Saddlebrook through this development. This type of development will most likely generate the need/desire to park along Oak Park Road. Due to pedestrian and vehicle traffic and roadway geometrics, staff recommends the north side of Oak Park Road be signed "No Parking". Street lights will be required in accordance to City standards along Oak Pond Road. PRIVATE DRIVES The applicant is proposing 12 private service drives to access onto the east/west collector street (Oak Park Road). Although the number of accesses are much less than previously proposed on this site, staff recommends that access points be reduced where applicable. One such case would be on the rental units proposed along the north side of the road. I have attached a sketch with the proposed change in the parking area (see Attachment No. 1). The street grades of the private drives appear acceptable with the exception of the second access point east of Powers Boulevard on the north side of Oak Pond Road. This driveway grade is approximately 20% which is twice the normal driveway slope the City allows. It is recommended that the applicant redesign the parking lot layout and/or building pad to reduce the slope on this driveway access to a maximum of 10%. GRADING AND DRAINAGE Upon review of the revised grading plan stamped October 22, 1992, the majority of the site will still experience grading to create the streets, parking lots and building pads. Contrary to the narrative provided by the applicant, most of the oak trees will be lost due to grading measures with the exception of the oak trees located below the rental units along the north slope of the development. Proposed slopes within the site will not exceed 3:1. Based on the applicant's narrative, it appears the overall site will be graded and public streets and utility improvements will be constructed with the first phase of development. The plans propose a series of storm sewer to convey runoff to three different drainage areas, the retention ponds north of the development adjacent to Saddlebrook, the existing culvert underneath Powers Boulevard and the existing storm sewers in Kerber Boulevard. Staff has reviewed this plan and feels that changes are warranted. Staff recommends that the storm Kate Aanenson October 27, 1992 Page 3 sewer outlet near Powers Boulevard should be redesigned to include a nutrient/sedimentation basin prior to discharging into the existing culvert underneath Powers Boulevard. This sedimentation basin should be sized to accommodate storage from a 100-year storm event (24-hour duration) and maintain the predeveloped runoff rate through the existing 30-inch culvert underneath Powers Boulevard. Staff and the applicant have been working with Bonestroo in developing a retention pond in this area to provide and maintain water quality standards. Construction of the sedimentation/nutrient basin on the westerly portion of the site may or may not require a wetland alteration permit, depending on location of the pond. Revised grading and drainage plans will be required along with detailed drainage and ponding calculations upon the plan and specifications submittal and prior to final platting. The northeasterly portion of the site is proposed to drain via two storm sewers into the existing sediment basins/ponds along the north side of the project adjacent to Saddlebrook. Staff recommends that the applicant modify the storm sewer system by combining systems to achieve one discharge point into the existing pond. Staff will work with the applicant in modifying the storm sewer/grading plan during the time of final plans and specifications review process. The most easterly portion of the site is proposed to drain to existing catch basins on Kerber Boulevard. Staff recommends that the proposed catch basins incorporate a sump manhole design which will collect sediments prior to discharging into the existing storm sewer line on Kerber Boulevard. The storm sewer line in Kerber Boulevard eventually discharges into a retention basin/wetland. This development will also require some modification to the existing storm ponds lying between this development and Saddlebrook. The most easterly pond will require additional excavation along the south side to provide the necessary storage requirements. Modifications to the berms between the ponds as well as the outlet control structure will be necessary to adequately handle additional storm runoff. Staff is proposing the berms be left in a natural state with the only modification an emergency overflow which consists of lowering the berm in the middle by approximately 11 feet and gently tapering out approximately 10 feet in each direction. This area will be riprapped, retopsoiled and reseeded. This ponding design will not require any modification or enlargement of the storm pond along the Saddlebrook side of the ponds. The overall plans have not incorporated erosion control measures. It is recommended that the applicant follow the City's recently adopted construction site handbook. A revised grading and drainage plan including erosion control measures and detailed drainage and ponding calculations should be resubmitted for review and approval by the City prior to final platting. — Kate Aanenson October 27, 1992 Page 4 UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site. The existing sanitary sewer mains are adequately sized to handle the anticipated development. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer mains throughout the development of which some lines will fall outside of the public right-of-way. Due to the size of this development and the direct impact it has on the rest of the City's sewer and watermains, it is recommended that the proposed sewer and water improvements be dedicated to the City for ownership and perpetual maintenance. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final plat. Fire hydrant location and spacing shall be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Marshal. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will need to verify and document sizing of the watermain to provide adequate fire flow protection during peak demands. Detailed calculations should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Since this development involves both public utilities and street improvements, the applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval of the development. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee proper installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval for final plat. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, MWCC and Carver County. 3. The developer shall construct the public utility and street improvements within the right-of-ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership and maintenance responsibilities. The remaining utilities outside the easement and right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained by a homeowners association. 4. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing of the utility improvements shall be submitted for formal approval by the City prior to final plat approval. 5. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the entire north side of Oak Pond Road. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions/signs shall be placed on the private service drives and northerly side of Oak Pond Road. Kate Aanenson October 27, 1992 Page 5 — 6. The grading and drainage plan shall be modified to include erosion control measures in accordance with the City's construction site handbook. 7. A 20-foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City along the westerly — portion of the site adjacent to Powers Boulevard. 8. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final plat for all utility and drainage improvements. A conservation easement shall be dedicated to the City over the wetlands on the parcel. The final plat shall indicate all wetlands located on the site. — 9. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the necessary easements to provide for the extension of Oak Pond Road to Kerber Boulevard. — 10. The entire public street (Oak Pond Road) from Powers Boulevard to Kerber Boulevard shall be constructed with Phase I of the development. — ktm Attachments: 1. Parking Lot Design. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer . 7 . • t2if '::.-- . - - C5f,) 0 - s. r N.�atm' i. B., w\ a .. b. NIT • CDo 73 f. � 1 to :O II % f. • s � aftfulia. .._.........: , 3 a 't a ko D _ o _ moo /3 b". 0 a[ lip r0 1 a 'o DJ a 0 ._. . , \ 0 \ 1 j io RFNr1rlr • 4�G } Az...**-'-'''' . ). 116' 0 0 • s • . i ....D 4„-----,....,.....„ or---- . b ' • • 4114°A .'eo.';'--i. N a . .41, _ 1 --1. \ •" ' • a mho 2 w d yz 0 . \-1\44p I r- ,0 , • NIP 4,t J ,.• • • 1131 111°° eVi Cl.Y M aN w y� CS) \ 4_ . .tisP y \ 11 1 t�� . _ - \. I T 1 s. CITY OF •It411IIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ♦ MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: July 30, 1992 SUBJ: Park and Recreation Commission Review of Oak Ponds/Oak Hill Land Development Proposal The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the above mentioned proposed development on July 28, 1992. The Commission's discussion centered on the impact this high density residential development will have on existing parks, as well as the need for the construction of an 8 ft. bituminous trail section along Powers Boulevard. This trail is identified in the Recreation Section of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and represents a vital link in the city's expanding trail system. The conclusion that the residents of this proposal community will utilize existing parks in the area and, as such, the applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of park land dedication was reaffirmed. After hearing from the residents present in the audience that evening and upon concluding their discussion, Commissioner Andrews moved to recommend the City Council accept full park _ dedication fees in the amount of $105,600, $440 per unit, in lieu of land dedication. Secondly, that the developer of Oak Ponds/Oak Hill supply a 20 ft. easement along Powers Boulevard and construct an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the entire westerly border of this property with trail dedication fees being reduced to off-set the expenditure for this trail construction. Lastly, that the inclusion of the private swimming pool and playground area do not diminish the need for community supplied recreational facilities, and therefore no park credit will be given for the provision of these items. Chairman Schroers seconded the motion and all commissioners voted in favor. As detailed in my staff report, the developer will be responsible for estimating the cost of this trail segment and for its construction. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill has a trail dedication requirement of $35,280 or $147.00 per unit. Upon submitting a cost estimate for trail construction, it will be verified and a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council to reduce this trail dedication fee accordingly. a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson Oak Ponds/Oak Hill Development July 30, 1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: 1. Accept full park dedication fees in the amount of $105,600 in lieu of land dedication at the rate of $440 per unit. 2. The developer of Oak Ponds/Oak Hill supply a 20 ft. easement along Powers Boulevard and construct an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the entire westerly border of this property with trail dedication fees being reduced to off-set the expenditure for this trail construction. 3. The inclusion of the private swimming pool and playground area do not diminish the need for community supplied recreational facilities, and therefore no park credit will be given for the provision of these items. pc: Charles Folch, City Engineer „ivy.col,4 • J CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE �` 71 � j 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT \ t ”- / CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (612)4481213 4j � 'NES° COUNTY Of CAQVEQ June 30, 1992 To: Kathryn Aanenson, Chanhassen Senior Planner From: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer 0 Subject: Concept Plan Oak Ponds and Oak Hill Comments regarding the concept plan for the Oak Ponds and Oak Hill development dated June 15, 1992, and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated June 23, 1992, are: 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' 170' County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. Preservation of an adequate corridor for the future upgrading of CSAH 17 is an important consideration. The Year 2010 projected average daily traffic volume for CSAH 17 is approximately 17,000 vehicles adjacent to the proposed development site as documented in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. This volume of traffic does not represent full development within the general service area of this county highway. Ultimate traffic volumes on CSAH 17 very probably will be in excess of the Year 2010 projections. Therefore, I recommend no less than the minimum width of 100 feet be preserved for CSAH 17 to accommodate the construction of either a 2-lane or 4-lane urban undivided highway. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. RECEIVED JUL 01 1992 Afirmatit' Action;Equal Oppeittunal Emploler Printed on Reclrled Paper CITY Of- l+h rwitiHSSEN Page 2 Oak Ponds and Oak Hill Concept Plan June 30, 1992 2. Desirable access control along CSAH 17 is to have "Collector"intersection spacing of 1/4 to 1/2 mile with no "Local" intersections. Has the proposed "new dedicated street" been functionally classified by the city? Also, the spacing between the proposed "new dedicated street" and proposed "new 78th Street"intersections with CSAH 17 is less than 500 feet (1/10 mile). Discussion with the city and the developer about the proposed "new dedicated street" intersection is requested. 3. Construction of the proposed street intersection with CSAH 17 is subject to the access permit requirements of Carver County. The county highway department will not consider approving the location of the proposed intersection until a detailed traffic analysis of its impact on the CSAH 17 corridor south to TH 5 has been prepared by the developer's traffic engineer and submitted to the county for review. The city is advised that the county highway department is of the initial opinion that the city's project to reconstruct a portion of CSAH 17 north of TH 5 will have to be revised to accommodate the proposed intersection. Project revisions appear needed to safely and adequately accommodate traffic on CSAH 17 in the area of the intersection. These revisions may require the developer and/or the city to invest additional dollars in the CSAH 17 project. tf the new street is proposed to be constructed prior to the reconstruction of CSAH 17 by the city, a detailed sight distance analyses will have to be prepared by the developer's traffic engineer and submitted to the county for review. The engineer is directed to Section 5.2 of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Road Design Manual. Interim improvements to CSAH 17 may be required. These improvements may include a right turn lane, reconstructing a portion of CSAH 17 to improve sight distances, and adding a south bound bypass lane. 4. It is not known if any public utility lines are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right-of-way. Any such installations are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 5. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 6. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turn removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will, in my opinion, result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the concept•plan for the proposed development. C[E•-••Ir • 1.0 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District tT-1 Engineering Advisor:Barr Engineering Co. ,,,,.,•. 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 300 Minneapolis,MN 55437 .;_ n �� 832-2600 • Legal Advisor: Popham,Haik.Schnobrich&Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 July 6, 1992 Mrs. Joanne Olson Senior City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mrs . Olson: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill development in Chanhassen. The - following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for this project: 1. In accordance with Section E (2) of the District's revised Rules and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit will be required from the District for this project. Accompanying the permit application, a grading plan showing both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for review. Because of the size of the development, the District encourages that the grading operations be staged to minimize the area disturbed at any given time. 2 . A detailed erosion control plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. 3. A storm water management plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. The management plan must include provisions for the treatment of stormwater runoff, from the development site, prior to reaching Protected Waters. The water quality facilities must be designed at a minimum to meet the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. RECEIVES JUL 1992 cll.! :dr Mrs. Joanne Olson July 6, 1992 Page 2 Structures to be constructed adjacent to the wetland/stormwater detention basins must have basement floor elevations constructed a minimum of two feet above the calculated 100 year frequency flood elevation of these facilities. 4 . The wetland areas on the north side of the site may meet the criteria for regulations of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. Filling below the wetland elevation of each wetland area on the site must be replaced or mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the Wetland Act. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this project at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please call us at 832-2600. Sincerely, ///), -obert C. Obermeyer Barr Engineering Company Engineers for the District c: Mr. Ray Haik Mr. Fritz Rahr CITYOF _ i cHANBAssEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -0 ' MEMO' TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner - FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official (=t-y, DATE: 10/19/92 ttcc SUBJECT: 92-3 PUD (Oak Pond/Oak Hill) None of the revisions requested in my memorandum of 07/07/92 have been addressed in this new plan. I have included a copy of my previous memorandum. Conditions of approval should address these comments. n f1•Or PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • CITY OF 40•1; CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4aV DATE: 07/07/92 "SUBJECT: 92-3 PUD (Oak Pond/Oak Hill) • -I have reviewed the plans dated June 15, 1992 and have the following comments. 1. State Building Code (SBC 1340.9100) requires one handicap equipped unit in each building in Oak Ponds. City Code (CCC 20-1124) requires 2 stalls per unit, one of which may be exterior. The plans should be revised to show one 12 ' wide exterior parking stall as near as possible to each handicap equipped unit. These stalls should meet all handicap requirements except for signage; reserve each 12 ' stall for the individual apartments rather than signing for handicapped parking. 2 . An additional four handicapped spaces must be provided for visitors in Oak Ponds . These should be signed per SBC 1340. Revise plans accordingly. 3 . Oak Hill must be provided with handicapped stalls at a ratio of one handicap stall per fifty parking spaces. Revise plans to show these stalls. These spaces should be equally distributed throughout Oak Hill . 4 . The designer is responsible for meeting all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the buildings and on the grounds. 5. Street names are subject to review by the Public Safety Department. Revise plans to include streets names. 6. All buildings in Oak Ponds must be fire sprinklered. n to Of PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITYOF CHANHASSEN ,�- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 ' FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: October 21, 1992 SUBJ: #92-3 PUD, Oak Pond - Oak Hill Preliminary Site Plan Review After reviewing the site plans for the Oak Ponds, Oak Hill project, the Fire Department has the following requirements: 1. Add additional fire hydrants as shown on utility plan. 2 . "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed. Signs shall read "No Parking Fire Lane, by order of Fire Chief" . Location of "No Parking" areas are indicated on site plan. Placement of signs must meet Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 . All curbing in fire lanes must be painted yellow. Pursuant to Sec. 10. 207 (L) . (Enclosed) 3 . Post indicator valves (P. I .V. $) must be installed and shown on utility plans. Pursuant to NFPA 13 . 4 . The private driveway servicing the rented units north of Oak Pond Road and the private driveways to the south of Oak Pond Road must have Fire Department approved street names. The Fire Marshal requires that the private drives have street names so as to expedite emergency services and equipment. (See map for specific drives in question) . Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Code 1988 Edition, Sec. 10. 208 (b) - Premises Identification - Street or Road Signs. 5 . Rental buildings will be required to be fire sprinklered. Sec. 1305-6905 Appendix Chapter 38 . sus `4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson October 21, 1992 Page 2 6 . Premise identification shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 . (Enclosed) 7 . Turning radius must be indicated on plans and approved by the Chanhassen Fire Department. Pursuant to Sec. 10. 207 (G) ' 88 UFC. 8 . 10 ' (foot) clear space around fire hydrants. Pursuant to City Ordinance. 9 . Policy #04-1991. Chanhassen Fire Department notes to be included on all site plans. (Enclosed) 10. Policy #07-1991. Policy regarding Pre Fire Plan. (Enclosed) City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 Councilman Workman: No, I'm just talking about docks in general. That 's why people have docks. Mayor Chmiel: One more point . Is that there was also canoe racks mentioned in there, if I remember reading this. Canoe rack. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, no. I saw no evidence that that was present in 1981. Is that correct? Ken Wolter: That was again something. Councilwoman Dimler: Just intent . Ken Wolter: . . .again got shot down in '78 based on. . .mob effect type of thing. Now if we would have had those things, if the city would have been able to at that time I guess work with all the heavy opposition of us having what other - associations at that time already had in '78, then we would have a canoe rack and a dock and all the fun things like that without it being utilized. Mayor Chmiel: To continue on with our long discussion, I think we've heard all the pros and cons and yet I think they're looking at a point of trying to provide the additional amount of even dockage, maybe for fishing or whatever as well. So with that , I would like to call a question on this. Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Non-Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Sunny Slope Homeowners Association with one dock, 40 feet in length, no overnight boat storage, and a swimming beach with marker buoys, if applicable. All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. CONCEPT REVIEW OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 168 RENTAL UNITS, 72 OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS. AND A CLUBHOUSE/OFFICE; AND REZONING OF PROPERTY ZONED R-12. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD; LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN KERBER BOULEVARD AND POWERS BOULEVARD. OAK PONDS/OAK HILL, LOTUS REALTY/OAKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Kate Aanenson: This proposal is 25 acres with a gross density of 9.5 units an acre and a net density, excluding the wetlands, the two storm water ponds and the public street , the acreage is 23.27 with a net density of 10 units per acre. There will be 168 rental units, ranging from one bedroom plus den up to 3 bedroom units. And there will be 72 for sale units. The developer has tried to match each building with the topography of the site reducing the grading. These units will be approximately 3 story in height . The rental units will be walk- out with garages at grade level and the exterior will be maintenance free vinyl lap siding. The owner-occupied units will be a split with 4 units at one grade and 4 units at a different grade. Again, these will also have maintenance free, shingled roofs, vinyl lap siding with brick accents. The owner-occupied units will have two double, a two space garage. Double car garage for each unit . Staff does have concerns about the insufficient parking and have asked them to make modifications before they come back for preliminary design. The insufficient parking would include handicap parking and visitor parking. This project does meet the impervious surface structure and setback requirements. Access to the site is off of Powers Boulevard, which you need a county permit 33 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 for the road cut . In addition it will be accessed onto Kerber Boulevard. There's two options to get access. One would be through the Villa's Apartment or we recommended the I intersection up here on Santa Vera. The developer has _ made modifications to his site plan showing that 1. One of the concerns with the neighborhood is the existing location of these buildings up here. By moving that street down, it allows these buildings to actually be pulled down off the top of the hill , which is one of the concerns of the neighbors. The proposed plan showed a 50 foot street . Staff is recommending that it be a 60 foot right-of-way with 36 foot face to face cross section. Also, that there be a 6 foot sidewalk along both sides of the street. This proposal as submitted has preserved a majority of the oak trees, which the staff has recommended. We do have concerns about , since they are oaks, that they put some conifers. The oak trees are spaced as such that during the winter months there will be a lot of visibility from the rental units on the heights down into the neighboring property. We recommend an additional landscaping, specifically conifers be placed in that area to help reduce visibility and increase the privacy for those homeowners. We recently adopted a landscaping ordinance calls for streetscape along the major collectors. Kerbers and Powers and this plan needs to be modified to reflect that . As far as grading, again we've noted that this, we feel this is a superior site plan to the previous one submitted in the fact that there's minimal grading to the site as opposed to the other project which required a significant amount of grading. The majority of the grading for this project will be in the location of the road. The major problem with this proposal that needs to be resolved, and we feel it can be mitigated, is the storm water runoff. 40% of it runs towards the existing ponds and the portion runs towards this wetland up in this area. There is limited area for retention ponds so it may need wetland mitigation to put in a sedimentation pond in this area right here. Again, we've had the city's consultant on Bonestroo, the storm water management and hopefully they'll be able to resolve that issue. Sewer and water is available to the site. The Parks and Recreation Commission has met on this project on July 28th. The developer will be required to dedicate a 20 foot trail easement along Powers Boulevard for the construction of an 8 foot wide trail. The original proposal showed a trail along this portion of the property which the neighbors were concerned about , again privacy in their back yards. The developer and the Parks Commission recommended elimination of that trail. The Comrission is also recommending that the City Council accept full park dedication fees of $440.00 per unit and the construction of the trail would offset any of the trail fees. As far as rezoning it, I'd just like to summarize that we feel that it's consistent for rezoning to the PUD for the improved pre-treatment of storm water, increased landscaping, the protection of • vegetation, the oak trees. Improved architectural standards and again, sensitivity to the topograhy with limited grading. The Planning Commission heard this item on July 15th and there was a number of concerns raised by the neighbors, which we summarized. Tried to group them together and give you the major summary points. I think the main concern, as I pointed out, was the visibility of those rental units looking down into the homeowners. The developer has made some modification to the building .design which I'm sure he'll show you tonight . Again, he's pulled some of those o•ff the top of the hill and he was concerned that that originally was to be a park and there was concern from neighbors on that. Some of the other issues, they did have a neighborhood meeting. Some of the other issues that came up with the neighborhood meeting was privacy. Maybe protection that the developer and the homeowners put no trespassing signs and again increase the concern about the viability of oaks and 34 Lity Council meeting August 10, 1992 the proximity of the buildings to the oaks, and then again landscaping and protection from views. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the Conceptual PUD with the concerns outlined by the neighbors. And staff would recommend conceptual approval by the City Council with the concerns or the conditions outlined in the staff report . There was, I'd just like to add one other thing. There was a lot of issues raised by the neighbors comparing the different projects, and we did put a comparison in here. We hat to break it down into the first submittal and second submittal. There was a different criteria used so we tried to break it down so we're comparing apples and apples. Not apples and oranges and I know it looks confusing when you look at the numbers but one of the applications actually showed 27 acres and that was in the staff report for the previous project and that site is only 25 acres so that 27 couldn't have been a correct number. So what we tried to do was actively go through and look at taking out parks and wetlands and try to give you a good comparison of the merits of each project. And again, we do feel that this project , as designed, is a better project than the two previous applications. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Does the developer wish to say something? Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, my name is Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail, Chanhassen and members of the Council. Basically we've asked and agree with the City that this should be a PUD. And as we've gone through and discussed this with the neighborhood, there are a lot of sensitive issues that relate to where that ponding is and they're concerned about whether or not we'll be able to change it later. I think we can go back to the PUD ordinance and simply say we can't change it because we'd have to come back through a public hearing and I think that 's important . We try to be concerned about the land itself. Not trying to cut it all up. Number two, we've concerned ourselves about the trees. Because I 've been through this TH 5 corridor, we've tried to stick with whatever was the plan for the TH 5 corridor for this site, which was to maintain the trees and have a good view from the south on the project . And then one thing that we've been working with since our Planning Commission presentation was with the neighborhood to the north, because they weren't here last time a project was submitted and we're trying to work through those different issues with them. I might say that we have not changed the plan as of yet because this of course is just a conceptual presentation. So we've stuck with our plan and we're making the changes on the next time through when we come through for the preliminary approval. I have with me this evening Arvid Ellness or Arvid Ellness Architects. He's done over 15,000 housing units in the metropolitan area and a number of other projects just here in the Twin City area and he's pretty sensitive to I think most of the concerns that you may have and then Kirk Willette who is the project architect. So I'm going to have Arvid say a few words and then Kirk will go through where we are in the project. Arvid. Arvid Ellness: Just a couple conceptual highlights of the Planning Commission discussion was that we have in the second submittal, or this submittal. We weren't involved in the first submittal but we .are in this one obviously, is that on the, we put the for sale units on the south side of the development line. A road that goes through the center of the property and we put the rental tc the north. And the rationale behind that was that , we thought that the, there was less flexibility with the for sale unit in terms of the topography. It would be more suited on the south portion of the property where it's flatter and less topography and the issue of the trees wouldn't surface. On the rental 35 City Council Meeting - Al"vust 10, 1992 side, we were much more flexible with our design. We can develop a special unit with the rental housing in order to take advantage of the topography and save the ravine. Save basically the topography of that side of the property and get — some walk-out type units with a great deal of more flexibility. So this seemed to be the reasoning that we went to. And the second highlight of the conceptual torments was that we went to much smaller units. Unit sized buildings. We've even gone down from what we had presented initially to smaller scale buildings and especially with the rental, we're able to break them up into small components where necessary to save existing vegetation and topography. Kirk Willette has been to the community meeting and he has been working with the site and will address some of the changes that we actually have made to the plan since the initial submission, as well as the issues of how we're going to continue to save as many and all, if possible, the oak trees that exist on the site. Kirk, will you. Kirk Willette: This plan shows some of the changes that have already been made after talking to the Planning Commission and with the neighborhood. One of the first concerns of the neighborhood was, on the original plan we had two of the largest buildings on this side of the site. . . We broke them down to smaller units and have actually eliminated 4 of the units by going with smaller buildings. . . The other thing that shows here. Mayor Chmiel: From what size to what size? Kirk Willette: Originally we had a 16 unit building here and another 16 unit building here. These are now 8 unit buildings with a lower roof on the back side so it appears like a two story building on the back side. . . The other thing that this drawing shows is the realigned road coming out to form a T with Santa Vera. Is that right? Which helps because it brings these two buildings are able to move farther south, again giving more distance here to the existing neighborhood on this side. The concept . . .stay with the topography. That 's how this whole project was set , because of the natural topography runs that way as well as the tree line. So we followed that with these buildings. That also helped because it kept all of the parking and the really more activity to inside of the site instead of the back side or the neighborhood side. One of the big concerns has always been saving the trees that are there. The way that we've laid this out right now, there's only one tree that we're not able to save and it sat right in this area here. And that was because it happened to be a very high point in the property and it just , we weren't able to work around that . The other trees, we're going to work very hard to save. Some of the concerns were how close we were building to the trees. We are working with a landscape architect and we have found that some of these buildings will have to be moved a little because, in the past it was always the understanding of staying away from the canopy of the trees and now that's, they've really modified that and now they're staying you have to stay a little farther than that. And especially important during construction as much as where you actually build is keeping all the construction traffic away from the trees. So that's something that we'll — watch very carefully because certainly the oaks are. . .this project as well as the existing neighborhood. And it 's our idea, this line going behind the buildings, everything that 's north of that line will stay as it is. Other than any work that has to be done for the drainage of the property. So we're not looking at doing anything in here other than just leaving it the natural. . . 36 City Council Meeting - 'ugust 10, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: On the west end of that property to the east end, as it progresses through, what 's the topography following your street line as you're going past the different units? And up even close to those buildings. Kirk Willette: In this area up here? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Kirk Willette: Okay. This would be a high point . This it starts to go down to Kerber. This is approximately a 3 to 4 foot drop from here to where this goes. . . Mayor Chmiel: If you're going to follow the contours also in and adjacent to all those other buildings that you're talking there, what are those? Kirk Willette: Back against the. . . The back of this building is 84 and these slowly step up. 87 and 89. Then they go down a little to 87, 85 to 87 all along this line. And that 's following as close as possible to the natural topography so that we don't cut into the roots of trees. These buildings will set up to the hill and as the road goes up, these will step up and actually the buildings are divided in half so the building itself steps up so it repeats that same, for visibility from down below. . . Mayor Chmiel: Anyone have any questions? Kirk Willette: This is the for sale units, which are along the south side. And these are a vinyl siding and brick accents on the front . Each unit having a two car garage. Mayor Chmiel: Are those 8 units, that one? Kirk Willette: Right . They're all 8 unit buildings then the rental units are like this with a two story with a walkout on the back side. And then the garage is. . . Mayor Chmiel: How are we going to eliminate parking on those streets? Kirk Willette: Really the parking is, there's isn't room to do, to actually have parallel parking on the street because it is all perpendicular parking along the streets on the one side and the other side. . .and there's not enough space for people to park in front . . . Mayor Chmiel : Just looking at emergency vehicles coming in and out of that particular area. It said that it was 50 feet. Did it go to 60? Kate Aanenson: We're just talking about the street and that street . The other streets would just be private. That's not a public street. Mayor Chmiel: Still, the accessibility has to be there for the emergency vehicles and that was one of my concerns. Kirk Willette: That 's why we wanted to put all the parking, in previous projects we've done some of the parking where it was in front of a garage and we 37 City Council Meeting - Aliaust 10, 1992 found that just doesn't work. People start to park all over in the streets and parallel park so that 's why we did. . . Mayor Chmiel: That 's right . Okay, does anyone have any specific questions at this time before we? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I •was going to ask. You mentioned the, I like the way the building looks, and it 's non, you don't have to keep, it's easy upkeep in other words. Or no upkeep. When you have rental property and ownership in the same vicinity, are you going to have some covenants that the private owner cannot change the exterior so that it all looks uniformally or how do you handle that? Kirk Willette: Yeah, I don't know if Brad wants to address that but yes. Brad Johnson: We'll probably have a owners association with some kind of cross covenant between the two. One on the for rent.. . Councilwoman Dimler: But they are going to look similar aren't they? I mean the whole plan. Brad Johnson: . . .similar and I guess next time when we come through we'll be more specific. Right now we're trying to deal with concepts so. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I understand but my question is, how would you keep the private homeowner from, how do you stop them from changing the exterior of his home. Brad Johnson: Oh, that 's in the covenant. Councilwoman Dimler: In the PUD covenant . Kate Aanenson: Development contract . Brad Johnson: The best project they've got now is the one over on Kerber where the two families are. Look at that . Just two, what 5 two families off of Kerber. . .commons area and look how nice. . .maintained and all common maintenance of the exterior even though each person owns a unit. Councilwoman Dimler: They do own them? Brad Johnson: Yeah. So you can do it. but years ago they didn't do it that way. - Mayor Chmiel: I guess there aren't any other questions at this time. Is there anyone? Councilman Workman: Can it be explained to me what switching the rentals and the rentals and the single family homeowner units does? Brad Johnson: Well, the previous project had, let's pretend there's like a for sale type of unit that we're selling in Chanhassen.. .and that type of style that would work, works on this area because it takes a flat site. If you go up on 38 City Council Meeting August 10, 1992 that hill, you're going to find out that it isn't flat . So what we did then is took a non-standard design and I said, Arvid. Just design some units that will fit in here and work with the contours. So these are sort of new rental types of units that probably haven't been built . . . You know, there's no standard unit that would fit the contours. And then we were able to go from 8 units. . .16 and we were able to vary them. We can vary the height of them every 4 units and move. They've got a lot of flexibility so that we can meet this. Well it just turns out , we can't do that on this side and we can do that on this side. And that 's the way. We cannot design the for sale units for over here. We don't have a design that would sell at a reasonable price. That 's the only reason for it. Councilman Workman: Well my point though is if you look to the south. you know we were flirting with the idea of building a Target down below this. • If we put single family home ownership there up above the hill from the Charlie James' property, they're going to be looking down on potentially a huge retail. Brad Johnson: I think they'll be looking over it . If you go up there and look, you can look for miles. It 's not as if you look so much down. That 's the design and most of these for sale units are more internal rather than external. They're not a townhouse kind of thing where everybody has a backyard and looks out over the park. Councilman Workman: But you know as well as I do whatever comes first . Brad Johnson: This will come first . Councilman Workman: I know. So when you're then, see if you already have the retail down below there and then you build them and then if you sell them then you can kind of say, well you moved in there and now you can smell pizza and that 's your own fault . But I mean we have single family from old town down here up against pizza and everything else and they're wondering when I 'm going to come over and have pizza with them. But you know, that 's kind of the order of things. Logically is that he who's here first kind of dictates what 's coming next because I 'm not going to be here when that 's commercial developed you know. Brad Johnson: I think you're going to end up with something here that isn't so tuned into straight down because that's one of our concerns. We want to sell them. It just works better that way. The rentals won't work over here. You'll end up with the kind of building you wouldn't want to see. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this? Has everyone had an opportunity to see this, from what was presented previously? If not , maybe you can turn it around and show to each side so they can get a little better idea than seeing it on the video. Yes sir. • Dave Callister: Dave Callister, 7540 Canyon Curve. I think all of us realize that there's going to be apartments there. It's zoned multi-family residential. I think we all realize that but what we're trying to do is to minimize the impact of this particular proposal to the neighboring properties which happen to be single family homes. And I think if you look and you've started discussing it but if you look at a good transition, you normally would go from like an R-12 to an R-4 to an R-1. But in this case, for some reason or another in the past 39 City Council Meeting - AI .st 10, 1992 it has been zoned multiple family or R-12 right up against an R-1 or single family residential area. And I don't think that provides a good transition so I think there needs to be a lot of different things done here to address the impact of this proposal. One would be the height of the buildings in the back. I think that was brought up. They're going to be 3 stories and they're going to be 40 feet high. And they're 40 feet high on top of a 30 foot hill so they're going to be sticking out of the trees. No doubt about that because they're walk outs. They're going to be on top of the hill. I think that needs to be addressed. Not only for the neighborhood but everybody that travels in that area as well. The other concern as you've addressed is the switching the rental units with the for sale units. I think, as you can see from the drawing, from the rentals to the for sale units, the for sale units are not as imposing in height . Also I think, what are they 8 units? 8 units is the maximum number that are clustered together. And I think, I don't know if this can be explored but I hope it can. They've mentioned that you have to move back further from the oak trees because there may be some danger of losing those trees but if you could move those back far enough to get towards the top of the hill. I think you could minimize the grading associated with that and possibly level that out to an extent where you can put those for sale units on or near that hill. Another concern would be obviously traffic. I don't know whether there's going to be a traffic study done but there's 240 units and you figure at least 2 vehicles per unit plus visitors. That's certainly going to impact the neighboring traffic areas, Kerber and Powers. Screening. That will be addressed more fully at the next stage of the preliminary review but there's going to have to be adequate screening to assure the residents that everything is covered including parking lots and so on. And I guess if anyone would like, I didn't bring a picture. I had a picture here last time to show the oak stand is not a full oak stand as portrayed on this drawing. If anyone would like to come out to my deck in my backyard, I'd be glad to show you exactly what I look at and exactly the gaps between the trees. And I would like to have that addressed at some point by the developers during the review process here. And I guess I'll leave the other comments to the rest of the neighbors. Thank you. Tim Anderson: Hi. My name is Tim Anderson over at 7550 Canyon Curve. I'd just like to first of all reiterate what Dave had just said about a transition between a commercial area and a single family residential and it does seem to me too that a more logical transition would be to place the rental units adjacent to a commercial zoned area and an owner/occupied units adjacent to the single family units. The second thing I want to talk about is the planned unit development . According to the staff report. a planned unit development should encourage the preservation of desireable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands. lakes and scenic views. The plan that Brad Johnson and the architects put together does go a long ways to protect what's out there. I believe it could go a bit farther. One thing is that they're not preserving steep slopes. The buildings. the farther north buildings. these units, the hill _ is approximately 50 to 70 feet high depending on where you are and those units, the walkout levels are approximately 30 feet above the pond so essentially they're built right on the hillside and on a steep slope. I'm not sure of the grade but it's probably approximately 20% grade. I'd also like to see the building setback farther from the oak trees than what's shown here as was graded before. Another thing I want to comment about is the storm water drainage. I know this is on a conceptual level. The staff report states that there could no 40 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 ponding on the site. The storm water ponding would have to be below in the existing wetlands or pond areas. I don't believe this is true. There is natural depressions located on top the hill on an existing drainage which comes down here and as the pond could be constructed on top the hill. And this would not only, could serve to reduce the discharge of entering the lower ponds, but would also help during the phases of the construction for sediment control. If planned properly, it would probably more reflect the name of the development which is Oak Ponds by placing it up on top of the hill. One reason I'm saying this is because the engineer's report stated that the existing storm water ponds were designed, appeared to be designed only for the existing homes at Saddlebrook. I live on one of the ponds and I don't want to see these ponds, first of all I don't think the level should be raised. The flood levels raised from these ponds because that would effect my property. I don't see a real way of expanding these ponds, except for possibly this pond and it would involve cutting into a fairly steep slope. As you know, when you cut into a steep slope, you're going to increase slope even greater and that's going to cause a safety issue with children in both the apartment complex and Saddlebrook and possibly anybody walking along the path on Kerber. And also it may be an eyesore having a very steep slope. It might require fencing. I guess those are the items I wanted to talk about tonight , thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none, let 's bring it back to Council and have some opinions one way or the other regarding the conceptual site plan approval. There's also rezoning to be done with it as well. I guess I have a few of the concerns that I've heard here, at least that I've written down. One is the traffic flow coming out from there. What study has been done or if anything has been done. 240 units times 2 plus potential of, if I remember reading staff reports from additional apartments that could be contained within that area as well. Is that correct? Kirk Willette: On this site? Mayor Chmiel: Down below. Not on this particular site but farther down. Paul Krauss: No, this would be the extent of it unless something ever happens on the Eckankar piece. Who knows. Mayor Chmiel: So we're looking at roughly 480 cars in and out of that particular site times 2 or 3 trips besides that . You're going to get a multiplication factor of a considerable number in and adjacent to Kerber as well as County Road 17. Even with the conceptual plan, the setback requirements are going to be sufficient from the change in the road that we're going to have with 78th Street making it's turn. Will there be proper setbacks from one to the other to allow for an additional cut into that County Road 17. Paul Krauss: The County Engineer raised that concern too. This location is, and we're going to restudy the issue but this location has been looked at periodically over the years. It really is the only spot to come out. Well the County Road 17 is the one that he's concerned most with. It really is the only location to come out. Any further north you wind up in the wetland. On the Kerber side, we looked at several alternatives. There's three alternatives on the table. The Santa Vera one seems to be the further from the homes. Brings traffic away. It allows them some site plan flexibility. It aligns with city 41 City Council Meeting - Av - 'st 10, 1992 streets. It avoids the problems of coming through that existing apartment townhome development which, although was supposed to be designed to allow for a public street to come through, if you go back in there, it really doesn't work terribly well. Some questions were raised by some people at the Planning Commission meeting though about the Santa Vera connection and would that promote a possibility of thru trips over to Chan Elementary over on the other side of the park. we'll look at that a little further. I suppose there is that potential but we're not sure to what extent it's a relationship. Mayor Chmiel : Good. Thank you Paul. Rezoning of the property to the R-12 to PUD. What 's the city really getting for this other than the protection of the oak trees and so on? Kate Aanenson: I was going to say, as part of the development contract. the issue came up about guarantees of the maintenance and that sort of thing. Those are the kinds of issues that you'd want to put in the development contract so those kinds of controls in the PUD. Mayor Chmiel: And I see there's a considerable number contained in here. Paul Krauss: To build on that a little bit . Staff has always been a real strong proponent that one of the primary benefits of PUD zoning is it's basically contract zoning by any other name. If the City Council approves the project , you're buying that approval. That plan becomes the zoning on the property. If for some reason they're unable to complete the development, that plan is still the zoning on the property. Nobody can do anything else as of right unless they come back before you for a rezoning action which gives the Council the greatest amount of control. And that's just a functional thing and I think right now with the R-12 zoning, it's a little bit of a wild card. Somebody can do what the former developer tried to do which is say, I have met your ordinance. You have to approve me you know and this would put us in a much better position. Functionally though, we shouldn't get away from the point that this project really does a very nice job of saving tree cover, which was a big issue the last time. It 's become a bigger issue given the visibility of that site. It of course protects the wetlands, but we would have done that anyway. It gives us a very nice type of, nicely designed architectural unit . It also has a privately developed park. Not park but recreational amenities for the use of their residents while at the same time kicking a substantial dollar amount into our park development fund. So there's a lot of pluses I think with considering this as a PUD. Mayor Chmiel: Some of the things I looked at too with this Paul was the size of the building. Basically in the heights and it is up there. They're 40 feet, some are at 40. The others are at 35, if I remember what's in here. Kate Aanenson: Again, on this one we felt it was superior because the roof line breaks on these. Even with the for sale and the multi-family and that's part of the reason with the topography as opposed to the other ones which were just massing and I know during the Planning Commission meeting, people were stricken at the impervious surface but again we felt that the roof line breaks and some of those kinds of things instead of looking at a massive building and I think that 's what they're trying to resolve now is how to even further reduce the look of the single family area. 42 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 Mayor Chmiel : Okay. The only other thing that I had too, having rental units in and adjacent to a residential area, as opposed to the for sale ones that would be there. I would think just the flip flop of that would not have been too bad of an idea because there's a little more pride taken in their own buildings in and adjacent to that area. And probably not as much. I don't know if there's that much rowdiness going on but you'd have it within those places. If you come to mine you'd get the same thing. But I'm thinking that it would sort of blend that being closer to each other would have been a little better than having the rental units in that particular location. But that's just my view at this particular time. We have 10 units per acre. Is that exactly what we're saying with density? Screening was the other concern. And that I think will be addressed at some particular time. But other than that I guess I'll go back to Council. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I wanted to ask, do we have any concept idea yet of what the lot sizes are likely to be? Kate Aanenson: It 's my understanding it 's all common ownership. Paul Krauss: Yeah, the lot size in this project . Councilwoman Dimler: It 's common ownership? Even for the single family? Paul Krauss: Well , they'd essentially be condominium units. You buy the space. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So there's no free standing single family in the concept? Okay. One of the other concerns I had was the parking. I don't know where all this parking is coming from. Sometimes I drive on Kerber and I see in excess of 30 cars parked on the west side of Kerber Blvd. and there's no ballgame. And I 'm wondering, is that coming because that development there didn't have adequate parking within it? I would like to avoid that situation. We've got to have adequate parking. Mayer Chmiel: I think maybe you had seen the day that they were going to restripe their lot and some modifications to the parking area. Tney were all out in and along. Councilwoman Dimler : That could be. But there were a few days when I just went , what 's going on. Mayor Chmiel: That did take place but that was because of what they were doing. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so that was only a special situation but I, you know we've got to make sure that we have adequate parking for visitors as well to avoid that kind of a situation. And my third question was, there's a proposal here to use HRA funds for the infrastructure of the utilities, roads and also the land buydown. And I'm wondering if we do that, if the community recreation center would have to be available to the public or is it still legal to allow only the Oak Pond residents to use it. Kate Aanenson: Todd's here and he can speak to that but it's my understanding the Parks Commission addressed that issue and said they wouldn't give them any credit for that as far as park fee. 43 City Council Meeting - A• 1st 10, 1992 Paul Krauss: But you have the more fundamental question I think. Councilwoman Dimier: Because it 's HRA money, it 's public money. Paul Krauss: Yeah we, the HRA is not , to the best of my knowledge, seen this yet and has not taken a position on it. Don Ashworth: The guidelines for the redevelopment plan for the HRA permits the use, designates that a developer may use increment to pay off special assessments associated with that project. Road, sewer, water. I know of no request for any land writedowns and I'm not anticipating that . I do not think that it would be favorably received by the HRA. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I thought I saw a land writedown in here. But legally Elliott , could you address that? If that were to occur, would they then be able to just have a recreation center for the residents in Oak Ponds if we use public money or would that have to be open to the public at that point? Elliott Knetsch: I believe they can have it for the residents only. • Councilwoman Dicier: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: The main question I got out of the presentation was the parking. 240 units and is there adequate parking? This seems to be a high density situation. The only comment I would like to make, if I may Mr. Mayor, it has to do with rules. This is before us using our rules. Staff is creating this using our rules and everyone coming before us is maximum useage of property. High density and we don't talk about future impacts of what we're doing here. They're complying with the rules so I have no criticism but our are rules right? Do we have conservative enough rules and I look at 240 units coring in and the other housing areas that have come in with their high density and people keep coming in here talking about traffic and densities of population and cars and then I talk about city services. And frankly, I see people as being very expensive. The higher density of people, the higher the impact on city services. It just simply is more expensive. I mean there's more being taken out than is being putting in, it seems to me. So I would just take this opportunity to bring up the issue of rules. If we have rules, even if we had minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet, to quote Bill Morrish, if we had rules and if those rules were consistent and applied to everyone, people would come. Chanhassen would not be abandoned to the wolves. Our current rules seem to allow for a very, very high density style of neighborhood in housing and I'm beginning to wonder if every single one of these coming in is going to be this density. When we really want to look down the future 20 years, are we making the right decisions here or should we start to question our rules. Other than that , I think the unit that I saw is clean and a good project. I'm just worried about our existing rules as they impact.. .proposal at all would be Ursula's question on parking. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thomas. 44 City Council Meeting - 4ugust 10, 1992 Councilman Workman: I was looking for the boats and the dock and was ready to give it all up for the lake. I'm a St . Cloud State graduate. I don't know if there's any others in here. But the oaks in St . Cloud, if you guys did your marketing properly, to a St . Cloud State, is very a majority. The oaks were something I had a lot of fun at when I was in college but today would not want to have my home near there. I don't know how we can demand covenants on a place. We can't demand covenants. We can demand them but they can change covenants. So if they want to change covenants, they can I'm assuming, correct? Elliott Knetsch: I think we're talking here about conditions in a development contract versus covenants. So if it 's in the development contract , that cannot be changed without our consent. Councilman Workman: I'm concerned about the buffers and the transition and that 's what I have a very, very big, big problem with and thank you for tying the HRA funding into it . I know we always look at the Planning Commission, they're always, the Planning Commission has a zillion things going on. They have kind of a list of things that are going on. One of them is blending and my understanding of blending is trying to blend things along. And there's never anything about blending. I know you guys are never talking about blending. It just kind of sits there. They've got too many things going on but , this is not blending. This is more like freight training I think. Kind of shoving it in there and then we get people at our meetings like this. If you guys know where I live over on the other side of town. You have highway S and then, which I live fairly near. It was there before I moved in. And then there's the Meadows, or the Village Apartments now. You know where they are? Okay. And then as a buffer to my neighbor there's TH 101, which isn't a real good buffer. And then there's the town houses and we are here to approve those townhouses and I think those townhouses are much like the ones that they're trying to approve here. In fact those people, and then comes my house. Granted it 's a trailer home but . Then there's my single family home, okay. And I've got a berm and everything else. It 's very nice. I can see these people out my back window in the morning but it 's great . They own them. It 's this condominium type stuff and they're very nice people and I don't have any problems. The only problem I have is the people who are parking over in the apartment buildings because the boat landing's full and they're walking through my yard and asking me why my dog isn't leashed. So I have a problem with this and I know you guys are on this topography thing but it just seems turned around. And just as we discussed the bad rule in 1981, they had to do something. I feel like we're going to be the Council of '92. Who could have put these houses up here on this prominent area where there's going to be people selling and commerce is ugly and they're not going to want to look at it and they're going to want to smell it or anything else. You guys have the same of your units under control for yourself. I understand that . But it's going to be very difficult for an HRA and the City Council in the future to develop this thing down below. So I'd like to see that work. That is something I guess that , I think the neighborhood assumes that this is something of this nature is going to be built up here and they probably assumed that when they moved in but it just seems it's turned around and I'd like somehow to turn it around. I bet you they would even pursue the idea of losing an oak tree if they could get that done. No? I have a question about the, and this is maybe related to your's Dick. . The for sale units. The ones that are going to be owned. What are those going to be for sale for roughly? 45 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 Brad Johnson: Under $90,000.00. Councilman Workman: Under? Okay. I think that 's about like what is near my home. How much are the rental units going to be basically? Brad Johnson: More expensive. Councilman Workman: More than what? Brad Johnson: It will cost more to live in the rental units than the for sale. Average on a $90,000.00 home or $80,000.00 home. . .would be about $600.00. And it will be about $700.00 for the rentals. The rentals will cost more just because of taxes. Councilman Workman: There's no inside parking for those units? Kate Aanenson: Yes. One covered and then one exterior. Councilman Workman: For the for sale units? Brad Johnson: Two. Councilman Workman: Two car garages on those? Brad Johnson: The for sale units are actually bigger than. . . Councilman Workman: That 's all I have. I really, I just turn it around to my thinking. Brad Johnson: If I could just one thing about this. The owner and the partners of mine would prefer to do the for sale on the other side. We worked this project a number of different ways and we couldn't do it and make it work and do what we could do to preserve the site. We needed a smaller, ■ore flexible building and that 's what the rentals allowed us to do. I mean that 's just , we couldn't do it . Councilman Workman: Is there an option, and I maybe direct this at Mr. Ashworth. Is there an option where both with the PUD and increaed HRA funding to some extent , that that can be alleviated? This is a very prominent hill in Chanhassen, as we've discussed earlier. And so there's going to be some permanency obviously to it. Brad Johnson: The problem there is we have to have rental to get the HRA. Councilman Workman: I'm just thinking less of them. Brad Johnson: But that's the problem. To get funding to do the project , you have to have rental houses. Councilman Workman: Okay, but you're telling me that the problem is you can't put the singles on the other side. Brad Johnson: That 's true. 46 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 Councilman Workman: No amount of funding in the world could. Brad Johnson: Not unless you don't want the oak trees there. If you look at the last project , and we flatten it out . You can leave the ones on the far north section. . . I think what you should do is wait , we're coming back through with this and we'll try to give you a better feeling for the design. Lower the roof lines. These are all common area, you know ownership of the land. It will probably look like. . .as far as landscaping. Remember no in this whole neighborhood. . . Mayor Chmiel: Paul , when Cenvesco had that property, they didn't incorporate as much acreage as what is being done now, is that correct? Paul Krauss: Well the first time Mr. Mayor it came through without that triangular piece of ground that they bought. The second time they came through, they were ordered to come in with a park and they bought that other piece and developed part of it and set some of it aside. So the site grew. In Kate's researching the thing though, we found out that Cenvesco gave us some bum information and picked up a couple of fictious acres in the process to lower their density. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and I was trying to put that together and I couldn't . Paul Krauss: That 's why the numbers don't add up. We're convinced that the acreage that we have now is the correct one and Cenvesco never had any more. They just . - Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 25.9. Paul Krauss: If I could touch on a couple things though that Councilman Workman brought up. That buffering, I forgot what they were going to call it . Blending ordinance, was something that the Planning Commission was talking about about 3 years ago and ultimately dismissed. You're only talking about it in single family districts with the idea being that if you have an area with one acre lots and somebody wants to plat 15,000 square foot lots, that they had some obligation to come in with bigger lots because they were near to somebody who had a bigger lot . Fundamentally the problem is one of equity. That the ordinance applies to everybody unless you have the misfortune to live next to somebody who's got big lots, therefore your land is worth less because you can only get x number of units. So they never pursued that concept . More importantly for this, the idea of a hierarchy of uses, is kind of one that's been around in zoning since it 's inception in the 1920's. The idea was that industry was evil and spewed smoke and disease and it kind of went down and that you had to keep everything pure. The world's changed and hopefully we've gotten a lot more sophisticated and what we've tried to do in Chanhassen is go with a performance approach. In it 's purest sense, it means you can virtually put anything next to anything as long as it 's done correctly and responds to the needs to protect the single family homes in response to needs to protect the environment . We're pretty convinced that this project is shaping up to meet that need. It clearly has to be refined a little bit but given appropriate design, we can achieve the goal of buffering, yet providing the density. One of the reasons for that density being here is, on the other side, this is a block 47 away from our main street. This is downtown Chanhassen so it's a real critical site and clearly it has to be treated with a great deal of sensitivity and care. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Any other discussion? If not , I would entertain a motion for a conceptual approval. I think that Planning Commission also went through that conceptual approval of Site Plan Review 092-3 as shown on the plans dated June 15th subject to the following conditions and they had 16 conditions contained within. And with that , maybe you may want to add something of your own. Councilman Workman: Well I think everybody knows, you want me to put that in as a condition? Mayor Chmiel: I think there's some concern that you've had and whether it can be met or not , that 's another question. But it is at least going to be addressed so they can look at it again. Councilman Workman: Well I figured I had two options. Yeah, one add it in there. Tell them to flip flop the whole thing or vote against the concept. I was hoping to force that Sunny Slope dock on them too. So I don't know that they're going to, I guess it would be simpler for me to say I'm not happy with the concept than to add that in there and then they're going to. Mayor Chmiel : Okay. I would still entertain a motion then. Of either approval or say you'd like to see something else as yet . Councilman Workman: Well that 's simple enough. I'll make a motion to approve conceptual site plan approval for the Oaks with the 16 conditions plus the condition that we switch single family, or the for sale for the for rent . Brad Johnson: See that won't work. Mayor Chn.iel: Well, maybe what you can do is just come back with something and show us why it won't work. Kate Aanenson: Can we word it that way? Paul Krauss: Yeah, I'm wondering if that can be to mean that the goal is set to switch them but I think that if the net result is they demonstrate to your satisfaction that the alternative is to flatten the site, you're not going to be happy with that either. So the goal would be to strive to relocate them or alternatively respond to the concerns that are raised in other ways. But your primary goal is to have them swapped. Councilman Workman: Well that 's why I felt it would be easier for me to just say I don't like the plan. You guys are forcing me to make a motion so. Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to restate your motion other than the fact that. Councilman Workman: I'll withdraw my motion. Councilman Wing: The Planning Commission went through this didn't they? There were a lot of options presented there. Sketches I mean earlier in the 48 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 process. I guess I found this one to be maybe the most flexible or the one that worked the best . Fit in the best . The other drawings I saw, I didn't like at all . I can point blank say this isn't for me at all. This one I think with. . . has kind of blended the land use in the buildings a little bit . I think it 's appeased the neighbors. Some of their concerns hasn't it? Paul Krauss: Well I think it 's a process that 's ongoing. I think there's some progress that 's been made. Clearly there's more progress that has to be done but they've shown I think a good, the developer's shown a good willingness to work with us and work with the neighbors and I think the architect is a particular creative one and has come up with a number of ways of responding and is continuing to do so. Councilman Wing: Do we hurt anybody by approving this? The concept? Mayor Chmiel: Not really. It has to go through the other stages. It still has to go through HRA. So this is sort of getting the foot in the door but yet not endorsing what 's being shown. Councilman Wing: It 's their option, if it 's simply zoned, I mean right now it 's R-12. Their option is to simply come in and go by the rules and build it . And have straight streets and I see the options as being a lot heavier than this. With all due respect to you, because I agree with you. Paul Krauss: Clearly there's a lot of worst things that can happen. I guess you don't like to plan on the basis of. if you don't do this, you get that . I mean we already had. Mayer Chmiel : We had that . We didn't like that . Councilman Workman: So why didn't we get that then? Mayor Chmiel: Because they weren't up forward as these people are right now. Councilman Workman: Well, I don't mean to make a big stink out of this or back down. I'm just saying, it 's just that little thing about , because I bet you the back of these will look fine. I'll bet you they'll look classy enough but it 's that little thing about pride in ownership and the way that people who own things act versus the people who rent things and are going to move in 6 months or have a different roommate or you know the whole thing. And so that it 's that kind of thing that weighs on people's mind, especially when they're looking out a deck at what is a serene pond, wildlife area now. And then behind it as a backdrop is going to be that . And it 's not going to be so much, it 's going to in part be the architecture. I mean it's going to be kind of ominous but you can kind of get used to that . But you can't get used to new tenants every spring or whatever and so it 's not ownership thing that I know these people are. That 's what they're aching about I think mostly.' In that what do you, you have less of an idea about what you're going to get from people. So it 's a more transient . Brad Johnson: Two things. One is, I think if you measure your distant from TH 101 . . .distance from their backyard into these units. 250 feet we'll have at the shortest . And from their building, their lot line to these buildings. 200. . . 49 Lllr 4-DunL11 neetiny - Muyust 1U, 1774 Councilman Workman: So they're going to be as close as TH 101 is? Brad Johnson: Well, if you've got the whole apartment building inbetween you. The distance from here to here okay. This is a long distance. This is quite a distance away from that , what did we figure. 200. That 's almost a football field length from there. Just their property line, not their house. Their property line. • Resident: Put the hill in perspective though. Brad Johnson: Let me just continue on. Then number two is, well I can't = remember what it was. Oh. . .there will be no activity back here. And we can take you to different units that they've designed and built and you can go and walk around. There's nothing happening back here. We've designed everything to happen up front of the building. Councilman Workman: There won't be any decks off the back? Brad Johnson: There's decks but you can go, we'll take you to some projects if that 's chat you're concerned about . That have been built like this. On hills like this and it just turns out that there is no activity. People. . .back. They may sit on the deck but they don't walk around or use the back area at all . It won't be mowed. These are all designed to open up into here. And then we've also created, put as much buffering in here as we can. Now part of this is design but your concern to me is the design. You know not who this is but the design. I've lived in apartments like this in Washington D.C. and I'll tell you, there's nobody around. It 's just a wonderful place to live. Councilman Workman: Personally, I have nothing against the people who are going to live there en masse. I can't tell you who's going to live there. Brad Johnson: But what you have to do is go visit a number of sites and. . . Mayor Chmiel: Okay, appreciate it . Thank you. I would still entertain a motion. Conceptual plan is still there. It's nothing cut in stone. Councilman Wing: Don, I'll make that motion only because to the north it seems relatively buffered. What we're forgetting here is to the east is the West Village Apartments. This is not exactly abutting up against a prominent neighborhood if you will of large lots, large homes. And the other south end does abut directly upon downtown commercial. And this is somewhat of a transient rental area so I guess it's sort of fitting into the gameplan here plus it 's zoned this way so I'll move approval of this conceptual site plan. I guess that 's all. Mayor Chmiel: With an additional review? Councilwoman Dimler: Plus the PUD? You wanted the PUD? Councilman Wing: Yes. With the PUD. Mayor Chmiel : Is there a second? 50 City Council Meeting August 10, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second it . Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Rezoning of property Zoned R-12 to PUD, and conceptual approval of Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the plans dated June 15, 1992 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies, i.e. Watershed District , MPCA, Health Department , Carver County Public Works. 3. The developer shall dedicate and construct the utilities and streets within the public right-of-ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities outside of the easements or right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained. 4. Detailed construction plans and specifications including sizing for the utilities improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. 5. Appropriate No Park restrictions shall be placed on the private service drives accordingly. 6. The final plat shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the proposed east/west connector street . A 36 foot wide urban street shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standards. 7. It is recommended that concrete sidewalks be placed on both sides of the proposed main east/west collector street . The sidewalks should be 6 feet in width. 8. A detailed erosion control plan shall be incorporated into the grading plan and submitted for approval with the construction plans and specifications. 9. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all fees incurred with the previous and current review and development of this project. A cash escrow account of $7,000. should be provided by the applicant to insure payment . 10. Apply for a wetland alteration permit for the location of the trails and possible location of sedimentation pond before preliminary plat approval. 11. Implement the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation for parks and trails. 12. Construction plans for the storm sewers will be required with the construction plans and specifications submittal prior to preliminary approval. 51 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 13. Parking spaces must meet the parking standards as required by the zoning ordinance. 14. The landscaping plan shall be modified to include streetscape along Powers and Kerber Boulevards. In addition, conifers shall be placed south of the oak trees to provide additional buffering. 15. The 16 unit rental building, which is oriented to the most northerly portion of the site, should be moved and an 8 unit building put in its place, to minimize the impact to the single family homes to the north. 16. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during construction. All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK/CLAY MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND NORTH OF THE GRAVEL PIT. TOM ZWIERS. MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE. Paul Krauss: The applicants are requesting approval to remove approximately 250,000 cubic yards of clay. This site is a 45 acre piece of ground that 's the north. . .illustrated there. It goes up to, almost up to Pioneer Trail up the old railway tracks. The applicant also owns and operates the Moon Valley gravel pit which is. . .to this part to the south. These are two contiguous but separate requests. The requested mining of the clay is to be used for the capping off of the Eden Prairie landfill which is being closed. Upon completion of the excavation, black dirt which would be saved on this site. would be respread and the area reseeded. The proposal calls for the construction of actually three sedimentation basins. Two of them are illustrated on this diagram here, one being located up in the north end of the property. A small portion of this draining that way. A large central basin and there's a request as well in the packet for a basin at the south end which is basically in this area down here. It's got a separate design detail but for the time being, we'll just refer to this one here. The grading activity itself, the mining activity would only occur in an open field area. This is an area that was formerly farmed until recently. Is all open field and would not result in the loss of any tree cover. The treed area is illustrated in green. The mining activity takes place entirely outside of that . Basically they're going to take that open field, lower it approximately 10 feet , recover it and have done with it . Mining activity is allowed as an interim use in this agricultural district. There's an extensive history with the Moon Valley operation and I think you're all up to speed on that . There's been litigation. A series of requests being made. Hopefully that 's on the final route to being resolved. Again, while this is contiguous to that operation, and is being proposed by the same applicant, it is a completely separate request . It is subject to the new, well the 3 year old now, grading and mining ordinance and is under the full control of the City — Council. As you probably recall, that old gravel pit predated the ordinance and had a lot of grandfathering rights and is under some court orders. So you do have a lot of leverage and authority to get this done in a manner that 's consistent with City standards. Staff believes that the proposal to mine here is fairly sensitive for this type of an operation. Again, we are not losing any trees. The land mass, major land contouring will not change visibly from off 52 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: October 26, 1992 SUBJ: Minnewashta Manor Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot BACKGROUND The Minnewashta Shores Subdivision was platted in 1947. There are 37 homeowners in the association. The association's beachlot is located on Lot 11, Block 3 of Minnewashta Manor. This lot is submerged under water or is below the ordinary high water mark. Therefore, the association does not have any unusable beachlot property. The association is using the right-of- way of Minnewashta Avenue to gain access to the lake. This street was never built and does not serve any homes. There is a gravel access to the beachlot along the extension of Sandpiper Lane and Minnewashta Avenue. Access to the homes in Minnewashta Park, the subdivision to the south, is off of a private drive from Sandpiper Lane. The proposed location of Minnewashta Avenue is under water along the lake side and is not required for any public use. Staff would recommend vacation of this street (Attachment#1). The recreational beachlot is located in a channel/cove off of the main lake. The association was granted a wetland alteration permit to dredge the channel. This dredging went a distance of 950 feet to the Pfeiffer residence and did not extend to the association's lot. The dock for the association extends to the Pfeiffer residence in order to gain enough lake depth for docking boats. The association is requesting 1 dock, 20 feet in length and 2 boats to be docked. An inventory was not taken of this beachlot in 1981. The association has stated that they have had a dock with boats for many years. The concerns of staff include whether or not the association can meet the dock setback zone and the association's use of the city right-of-way. Because the association does not have beachlot property, and are using a city right-of-way, staff would recommend that the association acquire lake frontage. Ars t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Don Ashworth October 26, 1992 Page 2 SUMMARY The Association is requesting approval of 1 dock, 20 feet in length and 2 boats to be docked. Staff would recommend that the Association petition the city to vacate Minnewashta Avenue and the Association obtain the vacated property to use for the recreational beachlot. Until this is achieved, staff would recommend this item not be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Subdivision Map. 2. Non-Conforming Beachlot Application. 3. 1981 Beachlot Inventory. 4. Map of Wetland Alteration Permit. 5. Notice of public hearing with property owner names. NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT ASSOCIATION P.C. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST RECOMMEND ACTION Association Minnewashta Manor — Lake Minnewashta Number of Homes 37 Size, square feet 2,400 sq. ft. UNDERWATER Shoreline 174 feet Motor Vehicle Access yes — Off-Street Parking no Boat Launch no Buildings not requested — Picnic Tables not requested Grills/Campfires not requested Seasonal Dock 1 (20 feet) Diagram Canoe Racks not requested Boats on Land not requested Boats at Dock 2 — Boats Moored none Swimming Beach no _ Marker Buoys no Swimming Raft no Miscellaneous — * Items requested by the Association for determination. � Q �� Hp''N‘i µC ass. o Mt�lMe.14 L : - 9 d �p y ► o �_ A �� o. ,759/ ► �`�� C17Ywo • — /`f7 co- `moo so ��,D• - 10 /f ��`` OF CHANHAS.EN - 637' .i Q° 4Y 0517 II �� 'voRr/ 791/ x`740 �S¢i N /Q F o• 12 13' ' ,71;.3/' .4_ keels — ka e 9 C ). ........‘ it-i.-- q ay3o � 0 j • e Oft+ 0 o q N (7..:-..).%! / SHTA �9�0 6' /y 1 8 °• S1�TA. r�i �� /I 2 .i// �'t 7 6 1 fid/// . r O �.— i 3 • 1.30 5 1 PAo �- /,W0/ , ' O \-7g°d 1 s �--�13-�� , 4 RQq -N� o �.e;T \ /" nasi , t,P , iaa. !•1 "�'°"I \.. 5 / die//" wo 8a/ 1 I X72/ —2 �-- �. 3/ 6 /" af3/ /71121 983/ so N // z 7 z ER 0 •? 3�2 .7730 a \ i .\�• /04 sa 4 g�11 f 3 2 ' )/ 9 `\C. -. 078s\ X94,0 : '?7S/ IIs \\ )) ..! 5:,)OUTLOT B . ( 10. •• Q 40/ , 7 c OM1 N1 ,, Q 6 .?8/0 `f 43sS I N / _(71.711 _______ .- - ate° .$ 1� ci ;/ -----1-------- --SNI . — ---____ ) ) \ :, 5° asp2 7 - —4 , 6�-p'R ' ' — ___ C' - f 26 fji 1-----w -., 7:- i,/, p► 2011414.25 44 N 22 i i21 /l/ N M\NN spR C►°*' y 24 ► ; I n I i 19 a . 23- $ — i ii . • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION !' �,ff y►• HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: h n� was +6e ldhke_ o w n ems s o c CONTACT PERSON: J d e s S f ADDRESS: z h'2.; LA)a s 4 fi. E. . 41. ,, FK ce/s,.rr S.-3 3 TELEPHONE (Day time) 33)- ? )c (0 TELEPHONE (Evening): 47 f - 7 Y-3 '2-- _ Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. _ 1. Number of homes in the Homeowners Association 3 7 2. Length of shoreland (feet) %Q - o�,C►ifx . 3. Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) c I af x. 4. Number of docks I 6. Length of dock(s) o� 7. Number of boats docked _ 41, 8. Number of canoe racks D 9. Number of boats stored on canoe racks 0 10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. 0 11. Number of boats on land O 12. Swimming beach Yes No )( Buoys Yes No _ 13. Swimming Raft Yes No X 14. Boat Launch Yes No _ OCTIZO 1 2 s ,' •s• �.e. . CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY -- sc� - '. MINNEWASNTA- MMC- OWNEQS Assoc =. - • 10 r . \•- - . • 1 1 7- —71.7187--._— • I ----- '---74.?p." /1 , / it I �N1 P: 1 l, 1 I/ N..: .1... j r 4,..1 LIn .....,Q. I ,r Q — at LAVE- ,..._..1. ii ,Ti ,... A* ', 1 I .e.... (4, , , , _ ,...... ----r-,----, , • , 1/4..... : ..........., ....- - I/ A ` � T e�• 5 DESCRIPTION: i'�' 1 Lot 11, Bloc 3 h : MINNESOTA. , r I , (� ` o - Denotes trot I _,.....) I isu � � 1 • vO - • J — • 1 4 • A I �.r - tiI FILE NA. 2%73 i y 2,1%1 ' I `• .1 • 'C f ; r j t ' a 1t 16, 4929 Transfer from No. 4856 Originally registered the 20th day of January 19_5_4 Volum•" 7 Page 68 ") REGISTRATION -- SranoPu son. ' CourrroCARvER Qi rArit A, Minnewashte Manor Home Owners association a Minnesota corporation. '" box 225W, haute 5 104 City J _Exceleior Carver Am'est a4s ' Minnesota Alesr,,1b41srwsb17/.M_Ab4_.dinaY in fee simple /i .. .44wr slifnlsi ,�iaei/idisa�otisig*oOti wiet► Lot Eleven (11) block Three (3) Minnewashta Manor, according to the plat thereof on file and of record office Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. On condition that said lands be used for park and recreation purposes for the benefit of the owners of land in the plot of said Hinnewashta danor and subject to the further provision that if said lands cease to be substantially used for nark and recreation purposes as above set out, then said lances shall become the property of the County of Carver or its successors to be used for public park purposes. • wl .. �. r ,�.�44, www.. �...al.:46 :,,/4i : `inlea.y alarm amishya.e,,.,at r amw4L eae..r4.L..Lw4 .rami#4'.FKw.(ri.,'r/�.44tir4 ,IWr•,,gs oii.,:d4~/;innea 1d1.., •...14uf0d..:..Bf.t..seel.6s,,f wy.Iwwaiak. : atirdrAlarg44.144.enwe. i :y.yy4..lr &...dew6rsAigsa .g..iive riAi5.0.+•t14.463e4MWr .G /464 d hlnnewashta minor Home Owner's Association ¢yfhgQ T oe,y mya ausayek is a h;innesote corporation Isy�/�, no .La, it Illtiessinereae �10 �„1'M July ,�y of 9 A.M. (9aJ,i' .��.�ri/Irl',,�aG�i4Z�(I�s�Lf(..�.�l�M►ir6L7o`- -� RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Minnewashta Manor 34 homes Lake Minnewashta 30 ' width of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access no no Off-Street Parking yes 1 yes 1 space space Boat Launch no no Permanent Buildings no no Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no Portable Restroom no no Picnic Tables no no Grills/Campfires no no Seasonal Docks yes des Approximate Length 40 ' 40 ' Canoe Racks no no Boats on Land no no Boats Moored no no Boats Docked 2 3 Swimming Beach no no Marker Bouys no no Swimming Raft no no Comments: limited limited access access weedy weedy 690 COULTER DRIVECITY• P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSENOF, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: October 27, 1992 SUBJ: Wetland Ordinance As part of the Surface Water Management Program, the city reviewed 'e existing wetland ordinance. For some time, the city has wanted to update the wetland ordinance and propose changes where there have been weaknesses in its effectiveness. We also wanted to include "state-of-the-art" understandings of methods to improve wetland protection while taking a more reasoned approach. To begin the review of the wetland ordinance, a subcommittee was formed. The subcommittee consisted of members of the Surface Water Management Program Task Force, members from the original Wetland Committee, who were responsible for the existing wetland ordinance, staff and the city's consultant, Frank Svoboda. Part of this process also included having all of the city wetlands mapped. The wetland inventory was performed by two wetland experts hired by the city. Each wetland was located on the aerial/topography plans and then each wetland was site visited to locate the ordinary high water mark and to determine the characteristics of the wetland. The draft wetland ordinance was completed by the subcommittee and then presented to the SWMP Task Force for their comments. The draft being presented to the Planning Commission contains the most recent changes made by the SWMP Task Force. The proposed wetland ordinance has also been reviewed by the City Attorney. The draft wetland ordinance is attached to this cover memo and should be reviewed in detail. What is being proposed, in certain aspects, has not been done before, and as a result we are once again at the forefront of wetland protection. During this whole process, we have worked with the new state law (Wetland Conservation Act- WCA) and what the regulatory rules may be. We have also used the knowledge of wetland experts to incorporate new means of protecting wetlands. The new state law and rules are not yet finalized and may be significantly revised. The changes could result in the addition of regulatory agencies having a say in local wetland enforcement. Our ;,rdinance is consistent with the intent of the law and many of its provisions. t0' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission October 27, 1992 Page 2 Depending upon what is finally adopted, we may need to amend the ordinance at some point in the future. For the interim, we believe it is very important to adopt our ordinance and show _ that local governments can effectively administer wetland regulations. The following is a summary of some of the major changes to the wetland ordinance. 1. CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF WETLANDS. Currently, our wetland ordinance has two classifications of wetlands; Class A (types 3-8, Circular 39) and Class B (types 2, Circular 39). Essentially, Class B wetlands were allowed to be altered with mitigation and Class A wetlands were typically required to remain untouched. One of the problems with just the two classifications was that the wetlands were not just "good" or "bad" — wetlands. Also, many times a Class B wetland would be allowed to become a storm water pond, but still be under wetland regulations. This caused several problems and misunderstandings. What we are proposing is three classifications of wetlands; Pristine, Natural and Ag/Urban. We have also added a definition of utilized which is not protected as a wetland. • Pristine - High valued wetlands which have few visible signs of significant impact by agriculture or urbanization. Pristine wetlands are considered to be areas which all development is prohibited and for which the greatest amount of protection will be provided. Should not receive untreated surface water drainage. • Natural - High to moderate valued wetlands that have suffered from some impact but which offer or can be improved to offer high wetland values and functions. May be impacted by development only when the city finds there to be no reasonable or prudent alternatives. Wetland mitigation must be designed to offer improved value and function. Should not receive additional amounts of untreated surface water drainage from projects being considered for approval. • Ag/Urban - Moderate to low valued wetlands. May be impacted by development contingent upon the provision of mitigation/replacement plans. The city encourages the provision of replacement/mitigation plans that serve to improve value and function to allow reclassification to natural wetland status. May directly receive surface water drainage. • Utilized - Utilized water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not to be classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland characteristics. Wetland alteration permits shall not be required to undertake work on these water bodies. These definitions of wetlands fit in with how we have been working with wetlands. A pristine wetland is a unique and rare wetland which under no means should be altered. The city has two pristine wetlands located near the old Assumption Seminary. These wetlands will have increased Planning Commission October 27, 1992 Page 3 setbacks, buffer strips and now that we know where they are, we can influence off-site impacts. A natural wetland is what we have in the past called "good" wetlands with little or no previous alteration and ones which should be protected. An ag/urban wetland is similar to the Class B wetland, one which has experienced alteration, and has the potential to either be improved to a Natural classification, is a good candidate for a storm water pond with reclassification to utilized or can remain as is. The fourth classification is utilized. This classification is not a wetland, but rather a storm water pond or some other similar use. A utilized water body will not be protected as a wetland with a setback, buffer strip and regulated uses. We have added this classification to prevent the problems we have had in the past with wetlands being altered to accommodate storm water retention yet still having to meet the wetland regulations. We also have cases where storm water ponds are created and then take on wetland characteristics. There were misunderstandings whether these ponding areas should now be protected as a wetland. This prevented the ponding areas from being maintained without complications. The four classifications will simplify enforcement of wetland regulations and should be easily understandable to all who are involved. These definitions can also be translated into the "circular 39" and cowardin wetland classification system used by other agencies. The wetland inventory provides one of the four designations for each wetland. The wetland maps and informational • sheets will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. We suggest that you find a wetland near you and see what you think it should be and then we will look at it at the Planning Commission meeting. 2. WETLAND BUFFER STRIPS AND SETBACKS Currently, the wetland ordinance requires a 75' setback for structures. There is no regulation on what can take place within the 75' setback. One of the problems we have had with the current wetland ordinance is that we could require a structure to be 75' from a wetland edge, but the area within the setback could be altered (such as a manicured lawn area) so that the wetland was not really being protected. One of the ways we felt could improve this situation was to require an undisturbed buffer area around the wetland. A buffer strip would provide habitat and food for wildlife and would provide an additional "trap" for sediment and nutrients. The buffer strip is being required in addition to the setback. Staff felt the setback could be reduced from 75' since we will now be getting a buffer strip which will better protect the wetland than just a setback. The setback and buffer strip are different for each classification of wetland. There is also a requirement for all or a portion of the buffer strip to be vegetated with native vegetation, if such does not already exist. Planning Commission October 27, 1992 Page 4 Pristine Natural AR/Urban Utilized Structure Setback 100' 40' 40' 0' measured measured from the from the outside edge outside edge of the buffer of the buffer yard* yard* Buffer Strip* 20-100' 10-30' 0-20' 0' Buffer Strip Minimum Average Width 50' 20' 10' 0' % of Native entire entire optional optional Vegetation** in Buffer Strip * The dimensions of the buffer strips shall be determined by the city based upon the quality of the wetland, local topographic conditions and the type and design of development being proposed. The table above provides minimum and maximum dimensions for the buffer strip. The use of a meandering buffer strip to maintain a natural appearance, is encouraged. Structure setbacks are also described in the table. On single family — subdivisions in the RSF district, the applicant must demonstrate that each lot provides sufficient area to accommodate the applicable front yard setback, 60' x 60' building pad, and a 30 foot rear yard area. All of these elements must be provided outside of designated wetland and buffer strip areas. ** Native Vegetation: Restore disturbed areas in appropriate native ecosystem including native trees and shrubs. 4. For development approved prior to (date of ordinance adoption) within wetland areas and for lands abutting a wetland area, the following minimum provisions are applicable unless alternative plans are approved by the city under a wetland alteration permit: Planning Commission October 27, 1992 Page 5 TABLE OF WETLAND CLASSIFICATIONS Pristine Natural AgJUrban Utilized Setback Principal 100' 75'* 75' 0' Structure For development approved prior to the adoption of the new wetland ordinance, the existing setback of 75' with, no buffer strip, is required (except for pristine wetlands). 3. MITIGATION The current ordinance does not address mitigation. We have always required mitigation on at least a one to one ratio for any alteration approved as part of the wetland alteration permit. The mitigation required by the city always resulted in a wetland of equal or better function and value. In doing, this Chanhassen was ahead of its time. Although the verdict is still out on what type of mitigation is the best (and if any mitigation actually "replaces" a natural wetland) a lot of progress has been made with mitigation. The new state law (WCA) is also influencing mitigation requirements. We have addressed the new wetland technology and the new state law requirements. Currently, the interim state law requires a one to one ratio in area for mitigation. With the implementation of the final rules, this could be changed to two to one. What we have done in the past, and want to continue to do, is to not just look at mitigation in area but to take function and value into consideration. Any mitigation must result in an improvement to the wetland function and value. Mitigation will not always be based solely on an acre to acre replacement, but may be based on replacement of habitat units (HU) through the use of habitat evaluation procedures (see attached). If significant improvements in the wetland value and function result, acre for acre surface area replacement may not be required. The wetland ordinance also goes into detail on mitigation standards and techniques. — 4. MISCELLANEOUS There have been several changes to the format of the ordinance to make it more understandable. We have emphasized our intent to "avoid", "minimize" and "mitigate". This is referred to as "sequencing" of wetland impact decisions under the state law. Planning Commission October 27, 1992 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached Wetland Ordinance. L CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Th.. c.im►±ciI ((.!_')�i_'-j.�:C R._rr\.I.nur• n Fax(6I21 45'-555: Th maw M.Sart Gar% Llame-R \raIt,,n EII, ael A.n t'di October 28, 1992 \Lch.,d A.Br,,Kick Rena,:I).Steiner L BY FAX AND MAIL Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Wetland Protection Ordinance Dear Jo Ann: Enclosed please find revised wetland protection ordinance _ which changes the definition of utilized wetlands on pages 3 , 14 , and 15 pursuant to your request. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. B • � Susan R. Nelson, Secretary to Roger N. Knutson SRN:ms Enclosure RECE, d ED OCt2 1992 LC!lY OF CNANNA:. LiV �:;;;C.• i1 • EaganJale Office Center • 13z)0 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, M\ 55E1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING WETLANDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20, Article VI of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read: ARTICLE VI. WETLAND PROTECTION Sec. 20-401. FINDINGS AND INTENT. (a) Wetlands help maintain water quality, serve to reduce flooding and erosion, act as sources of food and habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife, and are an integral part of the community's natural landscape. Wetlands provide the aesthetic benefits of open space and can be used to provide a natural separation of land uses. It is the intent of this Article to establish a policy of sound stewardship through coordination of — regulations which conserve, protect, and enhance these environ- mentally sensitive resources. In addition, it is the intent of the City to promote the restoration of degraded wetlands where feasible. (b) The intent of this Article is to avoid alteration and destruction of wetlands . When this is not feasible, mitigation must be provided to recreate the lost or altered wetlands value and function. Sec. 20-402 . PURPOSE. The purpose of this Article is to assure the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents through preservation and conservation of wetlands and sound management of development by: (1) Conducting an inventory and classification all wetlands within the City and maintenance of a comprehensive set of official City maps delineating wetlands. (2) Establishment of wetland regulations that are coordinated with flood protection and water quality programs under the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. r10/28/92 (3) Requiring sound management practices that will protect, conserve, maintain, enhance, and improve the present quality of wetlands within the community. (4) Requiring measures designed to maintain and improve water quality in streams and lakes. (5) Protecting and enhancing the scenic value of wetlands. (6) Restricting and controlling the harmful effects of land development on wetlands. (7) Allowing only development that is planned to be compatible with wetland protection and enhancement. (8) Providing standards for the alteration of wetlands when alteration is allowed. (9) Mitigating the impact of development adjacent to wetlands. (10) Educating and informing the public about the numerous benefits and features of wetlands and the impacts of urbanization. (11) Obtaining protective easements over or acquiring fee title to wetlands as appropriate. Sec. 20-403. DELINEATION OF WETLANDS. Wetlands shall be subject to the requirements established herein, as well as restrictions and requirements established by other applicable City ordinances and regulations. The Wetland Protection Regulations shall not be construed to allow anything otherwise prohibited in the zoning district where the wetland area is located. Wetland boundaries and wetland types as established by officially adopted City maps shall be prima facie evidence of the location and type of wetland. The official maps shall be developed and maintained by the Planning Department. If an applicant questions whether a wetland exists or disputes its delineation, the applicant shall have the burden to supply detailed information for review supporting the applicant's position. The applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to, topographical survey and soil data deemed necessary for the City to determine the exact wetland boundary. The Planning Director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated wetland boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on City plans and maps based upon the data that is supplied. Data for wetland _ determination shall be certified by a registered engineer, surveyor, or a qualified wetland consultant. The applicant may -2- appeal the Planning Director's determination of the wetland boundary and type to the City Council. This Article establishes 3 wetland types and 1 water body type . - Utilized. Utilized water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water — quality improvements. These water bodies are not to be classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland characteristics. Wetland alteration permits shall not be required to undertake work on these water bodies. Wetlands, Ag/Urban. Wetlands that have been influenced by agricultural or urban (residential, commercial, or industrial) land usage are called Ag/Urban. Influences include: overnutrification, soil erosion and sedimentation, and water quality degradation. As a result of these influences there is a loss of plant species diversity, overcrowding and domination by invasive species such as reed canary grass, and reduction in wildlife habitat. Wetlands, Natural. Natural wetlands are still in their natural state and typically show little sign of impact from surrounding land usage. The vegetative community of these wetlands are characterized by a diversity of plant species with mixed dominance of species. Other key factors include: presence of natural indicator species, good wildlife habitat, and being aesthetically pleasing. Wetlands, Pristine. Wetlands that exist in a natural state and have special and unusual qualities worth protecting at a high level are called Pristine. These qualities include: outstanding vegetation community, native species population, rare or unusual species present, and habitat for rare wildlife species. Sec. 20-404 . NO NET LOSS. Except as specifically provided herein, a person may not drain, grade, fill, burn, remove healthy native vegetation, or otherwise alter a wetland of any size or type. Sec. 20-405. STANDARDS. The following standards apply to all lands within and abutting a wetland: (1) Septic and soil absorption system must be a setback minimum of one hundred fifty (150) feet from the ordinary high water mark of the wetland. (2) The lowest ground floor elevation is three (3) feet above ordinary high water mark of the wetland. -3- (3) Docks or walkways shall be elevated six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ordinary high water mark or six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ground level, whichever is greater. (4) Private boat launches requiring fill are prohibited in wetlands except on lakes without a public boat access. All other access across a wetland shall be by means of a boardwalk and only upon approval of a wetland alteration permit. (5) The City's Best Management Practices Handbook shall be followed. Sec. 20-406. WETLAND BUFFER STRIPS AND SETBACKS. (a) For development approved after (date of ordinance adoption) , a buffer strip shall be maintained abutting all wetlands. Buffer strip vegetation shall be estab- lished and maintained in accordance to the following require- ments. Plant species shall be selected from wetland and upland plants to provide habitat for various species of wildlife. Buffer strips shall be identified by permanent monumentation acceptable to the City. In residential subdivisions, a monument is required for each lot. In other situations, a monument is required for each 300 feet of wetland edge. The buffer strips and structure setbacks shall meet the following standards: Wetland Type Pristine Natural Ag/Urban Utilized Structure 100' 40' 40' 0' Setback measured measured from the from the outside edge outside edge of the of the buffer yard* buffer yard* Buffer Strip 20-100' 10-30' 0-20' 0' Buffer Strip Minimum Average Width 50' 20' 10' 0' % of Native Vegetation in Buffer Strip Entire Entire Optional Optional -4- AG/URBAN WETLAND ILLUSTRATION 1 / _ / _BUFFER MONUMENT STREET I - ( 31' ) WETLAND EDGE I HOME C - 60' i/W- 1 SETBACK FRONT YARD- FROM WETLAND I S :ACK i BUFFER 30'-? EC I 40' I II iI I i 5 10'EASEMENT _ _ - - • / WETLAND BUFFER STRIP\• (AVERAGE 10' DEPTH) I .\ The dimensions of the buffer strips may be adjusted by the City based upon the quality of the wetland, local topographic conditions, and the type and design of development being proposed. The table above provides minimum and maximum dimensions for the buffer strip. The use of a meandering buffer strip to maintain a natural appearance, is encouraged. Structure setbacks are also described in the table. On single family subdivisions in the RSF district, the applicant must demonstrate that each lot provides sufficient area to accommodate the applicable front yard setback, 60 x 60 ' deep building pad, and a thirty (30) foot rear yard area. All of these elements must be provided outside of - designated wetland and buffer strip areas. (b) For development approved prior to (date of ordinance adoption) within wetland areas and for lands abutting a wetland area, the following minimum provisions are applicable unless alternative plans are approved by the City under a wetland alteration permit: Table of Wetland Classifications Pristine Natural Aq/Urban Utilized Setback Principal 100 ' 75 ' 75 ' 0 ' Structure -5- The City may approve reduced wetland setbacks as outlined in subparagraph (a) above. Sec. 20-407. WETLAND ALTERATION. An applicant for a wetland alteration permit must prove that reasonable alternatives to the proposed action have been explored and are not appropriate. The City must find that the alternatives are inappropriate or that a wetland enhancement would result for the City to approve the wetland alteration request. A wetland alteration permit shall not be issued unless the proposed development complies within the provisions of the Mitigation Section of this ordinance, as well as the intent and purpose of this Article. If the City determines that the required calcu- lations in a particular instance are needlessly burdensome because of the area and nature of a proposal, it may agree to a substitute analysis. Sec. 20-408. PERMIT REQUIRED. Drainage, grading, filling, burning, removal of healthy native vegetation, or otherwise altering a wetland of any size or type requires a wetland alteration permit. Activity in a wetland requiring a wetland alteration permit includes, but is not limited to: (1) Construction of new streets and utilities. (2) Creation of ponds or dams and alterations of the natural drainageways of water courses. This shall only be allowed as part of a mitigation project, or to restore or improve the function and value of the wetland. (3) Installation of boardwalks. (4) Creation of sedimentation and water quality improvement basins if part of a mitigation project, or used to restore or improve the function and value of the wetland. These basins may not be created in "pristine" wetlands and may only be created in "natural" wetlands if the City determines that there is no reasonable alternative. (5) Discharge of storm water runoff in a manner that impacts the wetland. Sec. 20-409. FILLING. When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing filling in a wetland, the following standards shall be followed: -6- (1) Filling must be consistent with the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. (2) Filling shall not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to be diminished to an extent that is detrimental to any area river, lake, or stream. (3) Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic wastes may be used. (4) Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation. (5) Filling in wetland areas will not be permitted during waterfowl breading season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the City that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. (6) Filling in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this Article. Sec. 20-410. DREDGING/EXCAVATION/GRADING. When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing dredging, excavating, or grading in a wetland, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The dredging will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland. (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. (3) It shall not adversely change water flow. (4) The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. (5) Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area. (6) Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures. (7) Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the City that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. (8) Dredging in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this -7- Article if the activity results in a loss of functional wetland. Dredging to create water quality improvement basins may be allowed by the City where reasonable alternatives are not available or where the wetland is of low quality and designated for this purpose by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. Sec. 20-411. STORM WATER RUNOFF. When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing storm water runoff to discharge directly into a wetland, the following standards shall be followed: (1) An increase over the natural volume of storm water runoff from a development may be allowed when necessary for use of property, but only when it will not have a net adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the existing wetlands. The restric- tions on runoff set out below shall not be exceeded. Since the total increase in runoff which can be permitted is limited, the City, when considering permit applications, shall consider, in addition to the following, apportionment of increased runoff opportunity to all wetland property within the surrounding wetland area. (2) Storm water runoff from a development may be directed to the wetland only when free of debris and substan- tially free of chemical pollutants and silt, and only at rates which do not disturb vegetation habitat or increase turbidity. Sheet flow and other overland drainage of runoff shall be encouraged. (3) The allowed total increased runoff, in combination with the total fill allowed, shall not cause total natural flood storage or nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to be reduced in a manner inconsistent with requirements established by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. Sec. 20-412 . MITIGATION. (a) Mitigation Intent. Where wetland alteration is approved and mitigation is required, mitigation must result in an improvement to the wetland function and value. Mitigation plans must address water quality, improvement, and maintenance of pre- existing hydrological balance and wildlife habitat. The wetland function and value will include improvement of water quality, maintaining hydrological balance, and provision of wildlife habitat. Mitigation will be performed at ratios required by state law to achieve replacement of the wetland function and value. Mitigation will not always be based solely on an acre to acre replacement, but may be based on replacement of habitat units (HU) through the use of habitat evaluation procedures. When -8- significant improvements in the wetland value and function result, acre for acre surface area replacement may not be required. (b) Mitigation Standards. Mitigation of wetlands for function and value should be restored, created, and enhanced to have the following characteristics: (1) Relatively stable water levels subject to natural fluctuations. (2) Pretreatment of inflow waters to improve quality. (3) High level of upland/lowland intermingling. (4) A ratio of open water to aquatic vegetation between 1: 1 and 1: 2 . (5) High degree of intermingling of open water and aquatic vegetation. (6) High level of plant species diversity. (7) Restoration of native plant species in upland and lowland areas. (8) Undisturbed upland/lowland edge (i.e. , buffer) . (9) Meandered wetland edge. (10) Irregular bottom contours - mix of shallow and deep water. (11) Shallow side and bottom slopes - preferable 10: 1 to 30: 1 around and within wetland; steeper slopes may be used to provide open water and greater vegetation variability. (c) Mitigation Techniques. (1) Mitigation will be performed at a ratio required by state law. (2) The City will use the Habitat Evaluation - Procedures (HEP) to determine Habitat Units (HUs) to be replaced. (3) Mitigation should always result in an improvement to the wetland function and value. The wetland function and value will include improvement of water quality, maintaining hydrological balance, and provision of wildlife habitat. -9- (4) Mitigation will not always be based solely on an acre to acre replacement, but may be based on replacement of habitat units (HU) through the use of habitat elevation procedures (appendix) at a ratio of 2 : 1. When significant improvements in the wetland value result, direct surface area replacement on a 2 : 1 basis may not be required. The City Council will determine when wetland impact will be allowed and the nature of mitigation which will be acceptable. (5) Mitigation shall provide a buffer strip as set forth in this Article. (6) Mitigation shall maintain or enhance the wetland hydrological balance through the following: - Restoration of deteriorated wetlands - Flooding of previously drained wetland basins - Creation of new wetlands - Enhancement of existing wetlands (7) Mitigation shall provide for pretreatment of water prior to it entering the wetland to improve water quality if required by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan. (8) Mitigation, through the buffer strip, shall provide landscaping for nesting and food for wildlife habitat. The buffer strip landscape shall provide for wildlife cover and utilize a diversity of native flora (i.e. , trees, shrubs, grasses, herbaceous plants) to encourage wildlife diversity and provide visual variety. (9) Wetland mitigation should be undertaken on-site. If this is not feasible, mitigation should occur locally within the sub-watershed. If this is not possible, mitigation should occur outside the sub-watershed, elsewhere in the City. If mitiga- tion cannot be accomplished on site, or if the City deems it necessary to perform mitigation off-site, the applicant shall be responsible for contributing into the City's wetland mitigation fund. The mitigation performed off-site shall meet the above requirements. (10) The City may determine that the public interest is best served by requiring off-site wetland mitigation. This determination will be made based upon the City of Chanhassen's Surface Water Management Plan. When this situation arises or when the applicant is unable to restore wetlands on-site, the City will require payment into the dedicated Wetland Mitigation Banking Fund. This -10- fund shall be used solely to create new and/or expand and improve existing wetlands according to the priorities outlined in this Article. The City Council shall establish the fee structure on an annual basis. Fees shall be based upon the average price for similar property elsewhere in the City. Sec. 20-413. APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE OF PERMIT. The applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall furnish the information required by the City including, but not limited to, a site plan, topographic data, hydrological data, and habitat evaluation procedures for the review of a wetland alteration permit application. The Planning Director shall use discretion regarding the level and complexity of information required to review the request. A wetland alteration permit shall not be issued without having been first reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council following the review and hearing procedures set forth for conditional use permits. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the proposed use or activity complies with the purposes, intent, and other provisions of this Article. The Council may establish reasonable conditions which are specifically set forth in the permit to ensure compliance with requirements contained in this Article. Such conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind, or character of the proposed work, require the construction of other structures, require replacement of vegetation and wetland function and value, establish required monitoring procedures and maintenance activity, stage the work over time, require the alteration of the site design to ensure buffering, require the provision of a performance security. Sec. 20-414 . INSPECTION OF WORK. The City may cause inspection of work for which a wetland alteration permit is issued, at the applicant's expense, to be made periodically during the course of such work and shall cause final inspection to be made following the completion of the work. Sec. 20-415. EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL OF PERMIT. (a) Unless otherwise specified by the City Council, the person issued a wetland alteration permit shall begin and complete the development authorized by the permit within one (1) year after the date the Council approves the permit application. (b) The permittee shall provide written notice to the City twenty-four (24) hours prior to the commencement and completion of the development project. No project shall be deemed to have been completed until approved by the City after receipt of notice of completion. (c) If the permittee fails to commence work on the development within the time specified in this section, the permit -11- shall be void. The Council may renew a void permit at its discretion. If the Council does not renew the permit, the holder of the void permit may make original application for a new permit. (d) The permittee may make written application to the Council for an extension of the time to commence work, but only if the permittee submits the application prior to the date already established to commence work. The application of an extension shall state the reasons the permittee requires an extension. Sec. 20-416. EXEMPTIONS. Activities exempted by Minnesota Statutes 103G. 2241 from State Wetlands Protection shall be exempted from the provisions of this Article. However, certificates of exemption must be obtained from the City and filed with the County Recorder prior to starting work. The statutory exemptions include, but are not limited to: (1) Activities necessary to repair and maintain existing public or private drainage systems as long as wetlands that have been in existence for more than twenty (20) years are not drained. (2) Activities authorized under, and conducted in accordance with, an applicable general permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, Title 33 , Section 1344 , except that nationwide permit in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33 , Section 330. 5, paragraph (a) , clause (14) , limited to when a new road crosses a wetland, and all of clause (26) . (3) Placement, maintenance, repair, enhancement, or replacement of utility or utility-type service, including the transmission, distribution, or furnishing, at wholesale or retail, of natural or manufactured gas, electricity, telephone, or radio service or communications if: - the impacts of the proposed project on the hydrologic and biological characteristics of the wetland have been avoided and minimized to the extent possible; and - the proposed project significantly modifies or alters less than one-half acre of wetland. (4) Activities associated with routine maintenance of utility and pipeline rights-of-way, provided the activities do not result in additional intrusion into the wetland. -12- (5) Alteration of a wetland associated with the operation, maintenance, or repair of an interstate pipeline. (6) Activities associated with routine maintenance of existing public highways, roads, streets, and bridges, provided the activities do not result in additional intrusion into the wetland and do not result in the draining or filling, wholly or partially, of a wetland. (7) Emergency repair and normal maintenance and repair of existing public works, provided the activity does not result in additional intrusion of the public works into the wetland and do not result in the draining or filling, wholly or partially, of a wetland. (8) Normal maintenance and minor repair of structures causing no additional intrusion of an existing structure into the wetland, and maintenance and repair of private crossings that do not result in the draining or filling, wholly or partially, of a wetland. (9) Development projects and ditch improvement projects in the state that have received preliminary or final plat approval, or infrastructure that has been installed, or having local site plan approval, conditional use permits, or similar official approval by the City or other approving governmental body or agency after August 1, 1987 . Sec. 20-417. VARIANCES. Variances from the requirements of this Article may be granted in accordance with the variance provisions of this Chapter as regulated by Article II, Division III of this Code. Section 2 . Section 20-1 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting the following definitions: Class A Wetlands means wetland types 3 , 4 , 5, 6, 7, and 8 . In case of wetlands adjoining a public waters designated as lake or pond this class shall also include type 2 wetlands. Type 2 wetlands shall also be deemed a Class A wetland when adjoining a stream designated as public waters to the extent that it encroaches upon the 100-year floodplain of the stream. Class B Wetlands means type 2 wetlands not adjoining a public waters designated as lake or pond nor within the 100-year floodplain of a stream designed as public waters. Wetland Types means classifications of wetlands as defined in U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39 , "Wetlands of the U. S. 1956". -13- Wetland Watershed means that area of land from which water drains into a Class A or Class B wetland. Section 3. Section 20-1 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definitions: Buffer Strip means an area of nondisturbed ground cover abutting a wetland left undisturbed to filter sediment, materials, and chemicals. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) is a species-habitat data management system for impact assessment developed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Its purpose is to document predicted impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed land and water resource development projects. Habitat quality for selected key species is described by an index, the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) . Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) is a fish or wildlife species-specific index value rating the ability of key habitat components to supply essential life requirements for the species. Index value ranges between 0 to 1. 0. Habitat Units (HU) . Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) multiplied by the area of habitat being evaluated. HU's are used for comparing habitat quality from one wetland to the next or for measuring the effectiveness of mitigation. HU's integrate both quality and quantity of habitat. Vegetation, Native. Native vegetation is the pre-settlement group of plant species native to the North American continent which were not introduced as a result of European settlement. Wetlands means lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this definition, wetlands must have the following three attributes: (1) have a predominance of hydric soils; (2) are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and (3) under normal circumstances support a prevalence of such vegetation. Utilized. Utilized water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not to be classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland -14- characteristics. Wetland alteration permits shall not be required to undertake work on these water bodies. Wetlands, Ag/Urban. Wetlands that have been influenced by agricultural or urban (residential, commercial, or industrial) land usage are called Ag/Urban. Influences include: overnutrification, soil erosion and sedimentation, and water quality degradation. As a result of these influences there is a loss of plant species diversity, overcrowding and domination by invasive species such as reed canary grass, and reduction in wildlife habitat. Wetlands, Natural . Natural wetlands are still in their natural state and typically show little sign of impact from surrounding land usage. The vegetative community of these wetlands are characterized by a diversity of plant species with mixed dominance of species. Other key factors include: presence of natural indicator species, good wildlife habitat, and being aesthetically pleasing. Wetlands, Pristine. Wetlands that exist in a natural state and have special and unusual qualities worth protecting at a high level are called Pristine. These qualities include: outstanding vegetation community, native species population, rare or unusual species present, and habitat for rare wildlife species. Section 4 . This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1992 . - ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1992 . ) -15- APPENDIX 3 Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) -2- Introduction Acre for acre , wetlands are among the most productive lands on earth. Besides providing valuable and often essential habitat for fish and wildlife , wetlands also play an equally important role in maintaining environmental quality through removal of excess nutrients, sediments, and chemical and organic pollutants, while - providing food which supports a variety and abundance of aquatic life. In addition , wetlands provide a variety of socio-economic values including flood and storm damage protection , erosion conrol , water supply and groundwater recharge, livestock grazing , harvesting of wetland products and recreation (Tiner, 1984 ) . The Minnesota Wetland Habitat Mitigation Banking (WHMB) program resulted from a long-standing state and federal recognition of the biological and other functional values of wetlands as they relate to national , state , and public benefits. WHMB is a logical and straightforward process to compensate for unavoidable losses to Minnesota wetlands from state highway projects. Habitat Evaluation Procedure A key requirement of the Minnesota WHMB program is the availability of a habitat evaluation methodology to quantify debits and credits. Fortunately, several habitat-based methodologies have been developed to quantify habitat impacts. Our initial challenge was to select a habitat evaluation methodology which would be simple to use , easily understood by biologist and non-biologist alike, and one which would require a minimum expenditure of time and effort. We selected the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service' s Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) as the basis for our evaluation methodology (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , 1980) . HEP was developed by the Service to quantify habitat losses associated with land and water resource development projects. Its primary use was developing compensation plans to replace habitat losses associated with these projects. It has since evolved into a useful planning tool to evaluate project alterntives at an early stage of planning. The 1980 version of HEP was developed to quantify habitat impacts for individual species or groups of species, in contrast to the habitat or cover-type approach of the 1976 version (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1976 ) . In HEP-80, habitat changes are expressed as Habitat Units (HU) lost or gained for individual species or species groups ( e.g. , 100 HU lost for white-tailed deer) . However, experience has shown that it is often more desirable to display habitat losses in terms of habitat or cover types, per the 1976 format ( e.g . , 100 HU lost for bottomland hardwoods) . Subsequently, -3- HEP-80 has been afforded greater flexibility in providing users the option of tracking habitat;either habitat types or species in the evaluation. We chose to use the option of tracking habitat (wetland) types in the WHMB process . The HEP methodology selected for use with the WHMB program involves four simple steps: ( 1 ) identification of wetland types to be affected by state highway projects in Minnesota , ( 2 ) assigning a numerical habitat value to each wetland type (HSI ) , ( 3 ) estimating wetland losses or gains (acres) for debit and credit areas, and (4 ) quantifying wetland losses in terms of Habitat Units ( HSI x Acres = HU ) . The following is a detailed account of steps used in the habitat evaluation procedure for the Minnesota WHMB program. Steps Involved in the Habitat Evaluation Procedure Step 1 . Identification of Wetlands Impacted Circular 39 (Shaw and Fredine , 1956 ) was used to identify wetland types which may be affected by state highway projects in Minnesota. Circular 39 was used in favor of more recent wetland classifications ( i .e. , Cowardin, et. al. , 1979 ) because : ( 1 ) it is referenced in existing state public waters legislation, ( 2 ) the classification scheme has been widely accepted and utilized by state/federal/local agencies in the State, and ( 3 ) the system more clearly classifies wetlands into discrete and understandable categories which facilitates use of the HEP procedures and understanding of evaluation results by biologists and non-biologists alike. Based on the Circular 39 classification scheme , the following wetland types were identified as having the potential to be impacted by state highway projects in Minnesota : Type 1 - Seasonally Flooded Basins or Flats. The soil is covered with water or is waterlogged , during variable seasonal periods but usually is well drained during much of the growing season. This type is found both in upland depressions ( classified as Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin in WHMB) and in overflow bottomlands ( classified as Type 1L Bottomland Hardwoods in WHMB) . Along rivers, flooding occurs in late fall , winter, or spring . In the uplands, basins or flats may be filled with water during periods of heavy rain or melting snow. Vegetation varies greatly according to the season and the duration of flooding . It includes bottomland hardwoods as well as some herbaceous species. Where the water has receded early in the • -4- growing season , smartweed, sedge , grasses, and weeds ( such as ragweed and cocklebur) are likely to occur. Shallow basins that are submerged very temporarily usually develop little or no wetland vegetation. Type 2 - Fresh Meadow. The soil usually is without standing water during most of the growing season but is waterlogged within at _ least a few inches of its surface. Vegetation includes grasses , sedges, rushes , and various broad-leaved plants. Meadows may fill shallow lake basins, sloughs , or farmland depressions , or these meadows may border shallow marshes on the lakeward side. Hay is often cut from such wetland areas. Type 3 - Shallow Fresh Marsh. The soil is usually waterlogged during the growing season; often it is covered with as much as 6 inches or more of water. Vegetation includes grasses , bulrush, spikerush, and various other marsh plants such as cattail , arrowhead, pickerelweed, and smartweed . These marshes may nearly fill shallow lake basins or sloughs , or they may border deep marshes on the landward side. They are also common as seep areas on irrigated lands. Type 4 - Deep Fresh Marsh. The soil is covered with 6 inches to 3 feet or more of water during the growing season. Emergent vegetation includes cattail , burreed, arrowhead, bulrush , spikerush, phragmites, and wild rice. In open areas, both submergent and floating-leaved vegetation dominates including pondweed, coontail , watermilfoil , duckweed, and waterlily. These deep marshes may almost completely fill shallow lake basins, potholes, limestone sinks, and sloughs, or they may border open water in such depressions. Type 5 - Open Water. Shallow ponds and reservoirs are included in this wetland type. Water is usually less than 10-feet deep and is fringed by a border of emergent vegetation such as cattail and bulrush. Submergent or floating vegetation (mainly at water depths of less than 6 feet) includes pondweed, wildcelery, coontail , watermilfoil , and waterlily. Type 6 - Shrub Swamp. The soil is usually waterlogged during the growing season , and is often covered with as much as 6 inches of water. Vegetation includes alder, willow, and dogwood. Shrub swamps usually occur along sluggish streams and on floodplains. -5- Type 7 - Wooded Swamp. The soil is waterlogged to within a few inches of its surface during the growing season, and is often covered with as much as 1 foot of water. Wooded swamps occur mostly along sluggish streams, on floodplains , on flat uplands, and in very shallow lake basins. In Minnesota, tree species include tamerack, white cedar, black spruce , balsam fir , red maple, and black ash. Type 8 - Bog . The soil is usually waterlogged and supports a spongy covering of mosses. Bogs occur mostly in shallow lake basins, on flat uplands, and along sluggish streams. Vegetation is woody, herbaceous or both. Typical plants include heath shrubs, spagnum moss , and sedges. In Minnesota, leather-leaf, Labrador-tea , cranberries , and pitcher plants are often present. Scattered and often stunted , black spruce and tamarack are also common in many Minnesota bogs. Step 2 . Determination of Standard Wetland Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI ) In order to reduce travel and personnel expenses associated with conducting many small HEP evaluations , and to provide consistency in conducting HEP evaluations for both credit and debit areas throughout Minnesota , we decided to develop Standard Wetland Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI ) for wetland identified in Step 1 . This approach is similar to the development of standard HEP values which were successfully used to evaluate habitat impacts associated with a large number of alternative dredged material disposal sites on the Upper Mississippi River (Wege and Palesh, 1983a, 1983b) . In addition, since the quality and quantity of wetland types varies between geographic regions of Minnesota, and because the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT ) is decentralized into specific geographic districts, we decided to develop standard HSI values for each of the nine MNDOT Districts . Our intent is to use standard HSI values to determine habitat losses ( debits ) for individual highway projects. Standard values can also be used as a starting point in conducting a more extensive HEP evaluation of habitat gains ( credits) associated with wetland compensation projects ( credit areas ) . This would be done at the option of the biologists involved in credit area evaluation. A guilding process was used to select eight evaluation species for each wetland type identified in Step 1. This process involves categorizing species in wetland communities according to feeding and reproductive guilds. The following eight guilds were chosen for use in selecting wetland evaluation species: -6- 1 . Terrestrial Surface Nester. Species which nest at or within six inches of the ground surface . 2 . Arboreal Nester. Species which nest in vegetation that is higher than six inches above the ground surface. 3 . Cavity Nester. Species which nest in a cavity (e.g . , tree cavity, burrow, den, etc . ) . 4 . Water Surface Nester. Species which nest at or within six inches of the water surface . 5 . Surface/Shallow Water Feeder. Species which feed on the ground or in shallow water that is less than twelve inches deep. 6 . Deep Water Feeder. Species which feed at water depths greater than twelve inches . 7 . Aerial Feeder . Species which capture their food in the air. 8 . Arboreal Feeder. Species which feed in vegetation that is higher than six inches above the ground or water surface. One species was selected for each guild occurring in each wetland type (Appendix 3-A) . WEtland types were evaluated for selected species by concensus of the HEP team (USFWS , DNR and Mn/DOT biologists) using the Rating Criteria for Evaluation Species (Figure 1 ) . These criteria evaluate the food, cover, and reproductive values of wetlands for each of the selected evaluation species . Numerical ratings for each evaluation species are based on a scale of 0-100 . A value of 100 indicates that the particular wetland provides ideal habitat for that species . Since eight species were used to evaluate each wetland type, their total score was divided by eight to obtain a mean value; this mean value represents the standard (HSI ) for the particular wetland type on a scale of 0-100 . Standard HSI values for wetland types were developed for each Mn/DOT District after several interagency meetings during 1985 (Appendix 3-A) . -7- Step 3 . Estimation of Habitat Losses/Gains The HEP evaluation quantifies habitat losses in terms of Habitat Units (HUs ) by multiplying the habitat quality (HSI ) by the change in habitat quantity (acres) . In the case of debits , wetlands impacts are unavoidable losses associated with individual highway projects . Acres lost are determined for each wetland type impacted. This information is supplied by Mn/DOT and included in project documents ( i . e . , Project Path Report, Study Report) . The size of credit areas is usually determined by the HEP evaluation team. Step 4 . Quantifying Habitat Losses and Gains (Debits and Credits ) The final step in the HEP evaluation is to quantify habitat impacts or mitigation in terms of HUs by the general formula: HSI x Acres = HUs Where HSI represents the quality of the particular wetland and Acres represent the quantity of loss or gain. For minor projects , HUs can easily be calculated by hand. Computer software is available for more extensive projects and applications . Table 1 . Example WHMB account for District X. Project Habitat Unit Debits Habitat Unit Credits A 402 B 314 C 102 D 203 E 300 Credit Area 1 3000 -8- Figure 1 . Rating criteria for evaluation species to be used with the Minnesota WHMB Program. These criteria are used to calculate individual (HSI ) values for each evaluation species selected. (Refer to text and Appendix 3-A. ) RATING CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION SPECIES FOOD Daily, seasonally, or intermittently available forage/prey. Adjacent uplands are not to be considered for evaluating food. 0. 0 1 .0 2 .0 3 .0 4 .0 Not Used Poor Fair Good Excellent COVER Daily, seasonal , or intermittent shelter from the elements and predators of the species . Included is cover for reproduction, nesting , resting and cover for the young . Adjacent uplands are not to be considered for evaluating cover. 0 . 0 1 . 0 2 . 0 3 .0 4 .0 Not Used Poor Fair Good Excellent REPRODUCTION Resources necessary for mating and nesting . Adjacent uplands are to be considered when evaluating reproduction. 0 . 0 1 .0 2 .0 Not Used Fair Excellent - 0 - The following examples are provided to illustrate the HEP and WHMB processes. Resulting debits and credits for these examples are shown in Table 1 . Example 1 - Debit Area . Construction of Mn/DOT Project A in District X will result in the unavoidable loss of 5 .0 acres of wetland habitat . All practical measures were taken by Mn/DOT to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Wetland losses include 3.0 acres of Type 3 (Shallow Marsh) and 2 .0 acres of Type 6 (Shrub Swamp) wetlands. Standard wetland HSI values for District X are 84. 0 and 75 .0 for Types 3 and 6 wetlands, respectvely. Habitat units lost ( debits ) for this project are: Type 3 84. 0 HSI x 3 . 0 AC = 252 HU Type 6 75 . 0 HSI x 2 . 0 AC = 150 HU Total : 402 HU These debits are entered into District X WHMB Account (Table 1 ) . Example 2 - Credit Area . Credit Area A is located in Mn/DOT District X and is 100 acres in size. The area is predominately Type 2 ( Fresh Meadow) wetland habitat. Upon reviewing this potential credit area in the field, the HEP team ( FWS, MNDNR, MNDOT biologists ) decides that Credit Area A would be acceptable for the District X WHMB Account. Presently, Credit Area A contains 100 acres of Type 2 wetlands. By constructing a water control structure at its outlet along an existing roadway, these wetlands could be converted to Type 3 (Shallow Marsh) , a more biologically desirable wetland habitat in District X. The HEP team visits Credit Area A and must initially quantify its existing ( baseline ) habitat value. The team reviews the stadard evaluation species and HSI values for Type 2 wetlands in District X as a starting point in their baseline evaluation. The team decides that the standard evaluation species and HSI value of 55. 0 for Type 2 wetlands are appropriate for Credit Area A. Therefore, Credit Area A provides 5500 Habitat Units in its existing ( baseline ) condition (55.0 HSI x 100 AC = 5500 HU) . Next , the HEP team must quantify the habitat value of Type 3 wetlands to be created with the addition of the water control structure (with-project conditions) . The team reviews the standard evaluation species and HSI value of 85.0 for Type 3 wetlands in District X as a starting point in the with-project evaluation. The team decides that both are appropriate for use in quantifying the habitat value of Type 3 wetlands to be created. Therefore , Type 3 wetlands to be created will provide 8500 Habitat Units through installation , operation , and maintenance of the proposed water control structure (85 .00 HSI x 100 AC = 8500 HU ) . To determine the - 1U _ net gain ( credit ) in habitat value for this project, the team merely subtracts the baseline condition ( 5500 HU ) from the with-project condition (8500 HU ) . A credit of 300 Habitat Units is entered into the WHMB Account for District X (Table 1 ) . In some cases , the HEP team may decide that standard evaluation species and HSI values are not appropriate for specific wetland evaluations. In these instances , the HEP team may substitute one or more evaluation species, change standard individual species values , or both. The HEP procedure developed for the WHMB provides such flexibility to the user. However, any changes made to the _ standard species or values must be documented and attached to the HEP evaluation. - 11 - REFERENCES Cowardin , L. M. , V. Carter , F. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands, and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31 . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , Office of Biological Services , Washington , D.C. , 103 pp. Shaw, S. P. , and C.G. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. Circular 39, 67 pp. Tiner , R.W. , Jr. 1984 . Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Washington , D.C. , 59 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. Habitat evaluation procedures. Division of Ecological Services , Washington, D.C. , 30 pp. U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures ( HEP) . Ecological Services Manual 102 . Division of Ecological Services, Washington, D.C. 1 Wege, G.J . , and G. D. Palesh . 1983a . Habitat evaluation of dredged material disposal alternatives using the habitat evaluation procedures (HEP ) . Pages 80-102 In Proceedings of the thirty-ninth annual meeting. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee , March 16-18, 1983. Quincy, Illinois. Wege, G.J. , and G.D. Palesh. 1983b. Standards for use with the habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) to evaluate dredged material disposal alternatives on the Upper Mississippi River (GREAT-I ) . U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Paul Field Office, St. Paul , Minnesota 11 pp. 1 MN/DOT DISTRICT 1 WETLAND TYPE 1 (t(SEASONALLY FLOODED BASIN))) - 12 - NICHE I SPECIES11 F000 I COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I I 1 I I t It 1 T.rr.etrial 6urface N.st.r Mallard II 30 1 0 1 10 II 40 I 1 1I 1 I II I Arboreal Nester IC Y.11o.throst II 10 I 0 I 0 II 30 I 1 It I I II 1 Cavity Nast.r Mood Duck II 30 I 0 I 10 II 40 " I 1I I I 11 1 Mater 6urface Rooter t Kllld.er II 30 1 0 1 10 II 40 t 1 11 1 1 11 I Mater/Ground S 1 Ulue-wing.d Teal 11 30 I 0 1 10 II 40 I I II 1 I II I Deepwater (Ring-necked Duck II 20 1 0 I 10 II 30 I I II I I II I Aerial F ITr.e Swallow II 10 I 0 I 0 II 10 I 1 II 1 I II I _ Ar 1 1Swasp Sp II 10 I 0 1 0 1I 10 t S TANDARD HSI > I 27.3 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 1 WETLAND TYPE IL ((( HARDWOODS))) r 1 NICHE 1 SPECIES II FOOD I COVER 1 REPRODUCTION II TOTAL 1 I II ..I I ..II I IT trial Surface Nester I II 40 I 40 1 20 1I 100 I 1 I It --1- I II 1 'Arboreal N ISr.at Horned Owl II 20 I 30 1 10 II 40 I I I II I I II I (Cavity Nester (Meed Duck II 30 I 30 I 20 II 160 I 1 I II I I II I 1 Surface Nester IS II 20 I 30 1 20 II 70 I 1 I II I I II I (Mater/S (Mink II 30 I 30 I 20 11 SO I 1 I II 1 I II I -- IDIR/ng-necked Duck 11 10 I 10 1 10 II 30 I 1 I II I I II I 'Aerial F ITree Swallow II 20 I 30 I 20 II 70 I I I 1I I I II 1 t Arboreal F 'Drown Creeper II 30 I 30 I 10 II 70 I S TANDARD NBI > 1 70 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 1 WETLAND TYPE 2 (((FRESH MEADOW))) I NICHE I •PECIESII FOOD I COVER 1 REPRODUCTION II I 1 I II ..I I II I ITerrestrial Surlace Nester Mallard II 30 I 20 1 20 II 70 I I 1 II t I II 1 'Arboreal Nester !Sedge Wren II 40 I 40 1 20 SI 100 I t I II I I II I 'Cavity Nester (Raccoon 1I 20 I 20 I 10 II 30 1 I1 II I 1--------------11 I !Mater Surface N ICessea Snip. II 30 1 30 I 20 II SO 1 1 1 11 1 1 II I IMater/around Surface F 'Blue-winged Teal II 30 1 20 1 20 II 70 I 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 IDo.pwater Feeder (Ring-necked Duck II 30 1 20 I 20 II 70 1 I 1 II I I 11 I _ "Aerial F (Eastern Kingbird II 30 I 0 I 10 I1 40 1 I I 11 I 1 I1 1 lArboreal F 'Swamp I1 30 1 30 t 20 II SO 1 STANDARD Nal > 1 70 I MN/DOT DISTRICT I WETLAND TYPE 3 ((<ONALLOS MARSH))) I NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD 1 COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I 1 I II I I tl1 IT tel Surface Nester Mallard11 40 I 30 1 20 11 90. I I I II I 1 It I IArbere.l Nester (Red-winged Blackbird II 40 1 40 I 20 II 100 1 1 I 1I 1-----------1 II 1 (Cavity Heeler 'Wood DuckII 30 1 30 I 20 II 00 I 1 I II I 1 II -1 (Mats 6urface Nester IN II 40 1 30 1 20 II 90 I I I II 1 I It 1 INat.r/Sreund Surfer. F (Slue-winged Teal II 30 1 40 1 20 II 40 1 1 I --wit 1------------1- lb 00000000 -lb00000t.► Feeder "Ring-necked Duck II 30 I 20 t 10 11 60 1 I I I l-----«----t 1--««-------I I--«--«-I :Aerial "Bleck Tern I1 30 1 30 I 20 11 SO I I1 I I-----------t 1 --1 1 1 'Arboreal Feeder (Marsh Wren 11 30 1 30 t 20 II 00 1 S TANDARD MINI > I 03.73 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 1 WETLAND TYPE 4 (((DEEP MARSHY)) weeneeeee I NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION 11 TOTAL I I I II I 1 II I IT trial Surface Mester Mallard 1I 40 1 40 I 20 II 100 I _ 1 I It --I I II 1 lere I ISreat Slue H.r.n11 30 1 40 I 20 II 40 I I III I 1 II I 1Cavlty !Mood Duct 11 40 1 30 I 20 II 40 1 I 1 II I 1 It I (Water Surface Nester IN I1 40 1 40 I 20 II 100 1 5 I II I I II 1 I Mat ound Surf 'Slue-mingled Teal II 40 1 40 I 20 II 100 1 I II 1 I I1 I ID t (Ring-necked Duck II 40 1 40 I 20 it 100 I I I It 1 I II 1 'Aerial (Slack Tern 1I 30 I 30 I 20 II SO I I 1 II I 1 11 I IA I / :Mer•h Nr enII 30 I 30 I 20 11 •O I '-. S TANDARD !1St > I 92.3 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 1 WETLAND TYPC 3 (((OPEN WATER))) - 13 - - I NICHE , SPECIES :t FOOD t COVER I REPRODUCTION It TOTAL I I I II I I II I IT trial Surface Nester IMallard II 30 I 30 I 20 II SO I 1 t 11 I 1 tl I !Arboreal Nester 'Great Slue H.ren I: 40 I 30 t20 II 00 1 I I II I I It I 'Cavity Nester :Wood Duck II 30 I 30 I 20 II SO I 1 1 11 I II I '-- 'Water Su IS II , 30 I 40 1 20 II 90 I I 11 1 I II I I ound 5 !Pelted KinQflahsr II 40 I 30 : 10 II SO I I 1 II I 1 II 1 !Deep.ater F Mins- Duck II 40 t 30 I 20 II 90 I 1 I1 I I II I 'Aerial !Slack Tern • 11 30 1 30 I 20 !I SO I ...." I I II I 1 II I !Arboreal F IC llo. II 20 I 20 : 20 II 60 I STANDARD HSI ) I 01.23 I NN/DOT DISTRICT I WETLAND TYPE • (((SHRUG SWAB►))) I NICHE t SPECIESII FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION 11 TOTAL I I I II 1 I......-..---•.II IT till S Neste. IMesdcock II 40 1 40 1 20 I1 100 1 I I II I II I I 1 'Alder Flycatcher II 40 1 40 I 20 II 100 I t 1 It I I 11---------1 !Cavity NIII 30 I 30 I 10 It 70 1 II II I I --11-"------1 'Mater Surface Nester IC SnipeII 30 I 30 : 20 11 SO t I I Il I 1 II 1 'Water/Ground Surface F :Melt.-tailed Deer11 30 I 30 I 10 II 70 I I I II I II t IDeep.at er !Rina-necked Duck II 10 I 30 I 10 II 30 I 1 I 11 1 II I !Aerial Feeder :Tree Swallow I! 30 I 20 I 10 II 60 I I I II I II I !Arboreal F :Yeller Warbler II 30 1 40 I 20 11 00 I STANDARD NSI > I 73 1 RN/DOT DISTRICT l WETLAND TYPE 7 ((<WOODED SWAMP'', 1 NICHE 1 SPECIES II FOOD I COVER t REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I I 1 II I 1 II 1 ITerres trial Surface Nester 'Snowshoe Ware II 20 I 30 I 20 II 70 I I1 II I I I1---------1 IA► 1 :Yellow-ruep.d Warbterll 30 I 40 I 20 II 90 I I I- II I I 11 I ICavity Nester IRed Squirrel II 30 t 30 I 10 It 70 I 1 1 I1 I I II 1 ! (Mater Surface Neater IRuffed Orem.. II 10 I 30 I 10 11 30 1 II II I I 11---------1 IWat ound Sur INnite-tallsd Hee 11 10 I 30 1 10 II SO I I I II I I /I------1 1 Ming-necked Duck II 0 I 0 I 0 I' 0 I II II I 1--------«----11---------1 'Aerial Feeder IY/S Flycatcher II 40 I 40 I 20 11 100 I 1 I II t I II I 'Arboreal F INashvllls Warbler II 40 I 40 I 20 11 100 I STANDARD NSI ) I 46.2$ I MN/DOT DISTRICT 1 WETLAND TYPE S (((SOS))) I NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD I t REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I I Ilee.ee.eo.e.I I II IT trial Surface Nester 1 Kars II 20 I 20 t 10 II 30 t t II I -1 --11-- IArk 1 N IYeltow-rusO.d MarbltrIl 30• I 20 t 10 II 60 1 I II I I 11--------- 'Cavity ITrse Swallow - II 20 I 10 I 10 II 40 1 I - II I_ !Mater Sur Nestor 'Sharp-tailed Mouse II 20 I 20 t 10 II SO : 1 11-___«____--I -----1« II«.....-... IWatsr/Meund Surface Feeder INAits-tolled Seer II 10 1 10 1 10 II 30 I I II I'-'---------1««____««__/1...-«___ ID..pwatsr Mine------- Duck II 10 1 10 I 10 II 30 -- I 1 II :Aerial Feed.. IY/S Flycatcher II 30 I 30 1 10 II 70 I I 11 1Arboreal I ills Warbler II 30 1 30 1 10 II 70 STANDARD 1011 ) 1 SO 1 MN/DOT DISTRICT 2 L 4 WETLAND TYPE l (((SEASONALLY FLOODED SASIN))) .- 14 '-` 1 NICHE 1 SPECIES II FOOD 1 COVER t ION II 1 1 I 11 I ! It I IT trial Surface Nester !Mallard II 40 1 0 I 10 II 30 I I I II 1 1 II 1 IA 1 IC lloethroat 11 10 1 0 1 0 II 10 t I I II I I II t ICartty Nester 1 II 10 1 0 1 0 II 10 1 I I II I I II I !Nater Surface Nester iElllde.r II 30 I 0 I 10 II 40 1 I I 11 I I II I !Water/S Surface Feeder !Slue-winged Teal II 40 I 0 I 10 II 30 I 1 1 II I 1 II I r IOeepwater Feeder IRIng-necked Duck II 30 I 0 1 10 II 40 t I I 9.. 11 I I II 1 IAerlal F IN ingblyd II 10 I 0 t 0 II 10 I I I II I I it I IArbereal F Meanie t! 10 I 0 I 0 11 10 1 STANDARD HSI > I 27.3 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 2 i 4 WETLAND TYPE IL <(<POTTOMLAND HARDWOODS>>> I NICHE 1 SPECIES II FOOD I COVER ! REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I $ I II 1...........•1.... II I IT trial Surface Nester IWhlte-tailed Deer It 20 I 30 1 10 II 40 I l 1 II I I II I !Ar 1 N 1Sreat Gra II 30 I 40 1 l0 II SO 1 I I II I ---I II 1 (Cavity Nester 1Nairy ter I1 40 1 20 1 20 II SO I I I II I t II 1 !Water Surface Nester IS II 20 1 20 ! 20 II 40 I I I II I I It i (Water//round Surface F 1R II 30 t 30 I 20 li SO 1 I I II I 1 II 1 ID ter I/napping Turtle II 10 1 10 I 20 II 40 1 I I 11 I I II 1 IAerlal F 1S.0 1 11 30 1 40 1 20 II 90 I I I II I 1 II I !Arboreal F 1SIk Capped Chickadee II 30 1 40 I 20 II 90 I STANDARD 101 ) I 72.9 1 -- MN/DOT DISTRICT 2 L 4 WETLAND TYPE 2 (((FRESH READOW>>> 1 NICHE ! SPECIES II FOOD ! COVER I REPRODUCTION 11 TOTAL I I I 11 I I -.II I IT trial Surface Nester (Slue-winged Teal 11 40 1 40 I 10 II 40 I I I II I I II !Arboreal I/edge Wren II 40 I 40 1 20 II 100 I I I II 1 I II I ICartty Nester IR II 20 1 20 1 10 II SO I I 1 II I 1 II I •..., (Water S Nester ISora Rail II 30 1 30 I I I I I I I 10 I I- 70 1 1 Sreund S ISandnfil Crane !! 30 I 30 I 20 II SO 1 I I II-- I 1 II I IDeep.at.r Feeder :Ring-necked Duck II 30 1 20 1 10 II 40 I 1 -- 1 II I 1 II I (Aerial F ($..tern Kingbird II 30 1 10 I 10 II SO I 1 1 II I 1 It 1 I IC lloothreat II 30 I 20 I 10 II A0 1 I ) t 70 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 2 k 4 WETLAND TYPE 3 (((SHALLOW MARSH))) 1 NICHE 1 SPECIES II FOOD I COVER 1 REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I I I II I I II I IT trial Surface Nester !Mallard II 40 I 40 1 20 II 100 1 I 1 11 I I 11 I 1 Art I Nester !Red-singed Blackbird 11 40 1 40 1 20 11 100 1 1 I 11 I I Il I !Cavity Nester IR II 30 1 40 I 10 II SO I I I 11------oo----1 I II I (Water Surface Nester !Muskrat It 40 I 40 1 20 II 100 I I I II I ! ----II---------I IWater//round Surf !Slue-winged Teal II 40 I 40 1 20 II 100 I I 1 II I I II I ID.epwat.r F..d.► :Redhead 11 30 I 30 I 10 II 70 I I I II I 1 11 I !Aerial !Slack Tern II 40 ! 30 1 10 II SO t 1 I II I I 1I---------1 _ :Arboreal F !Marsh Wren II 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 I STANDARD MSL-------> I 91.23 1 ern 00000 MN/OOT DISTRICT 2 4 4 WETLAND TYPE 4 <((DEEP RARSH>>> I NICHE SPECIES II FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION t1 l 1 I II I I II .1 17 1 Surface Nester (Mallard 11 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 I I I II I I II I !Arboreal M !great Slue Moron II 40 1 40 I11 1 I II I 1 20 11 f00 I (Cavity Nester IRII 40 1 30 I l0 II SO I 1 I 11 1 I II I :Water Surface Nester IN II 40 1 40 1 20 11 100 t 1 1 II 1 I II I tklater//round Surface Feeder Mug-singed Teal II 40 1 40 1 20 11 100 I _ I 1 II 1 I 11 I !Deepwater Feeder IC II 40 I 40 1 20 II 100 I 1 1 II I I II I !Aerial !Slack Tern It 40 1 40 1 20 11 100 I 1 I 11 1 I It t !Arboreal F 1 ReraN WrenII 40 I 30 I 10 11 SO I ••«•- • STANDARD NSI > I93I AN/DOT DISTRICT 2 L • WETLAND TYPE 3 (((OPEN MATER))) 15 _ T I NICHE 1 SPECIES It FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL 1 1 I 11 I I 11 1 IT lal Surface Nestor !Mallard 11 30 1 30 I 20 11 SO 1 I 1 II 1 --1 II I 1 I Nester IOreat Slue Heron II 40 I 30 1 20 11 70 I 1 II I I II 1 ICavlty Nester IWoad Duck II 30 I 30 I 20 :1 SO 1 I 1 II 1 I I1 I 1a :Coot It 30 I 30 I 20 it SO 1 1 I II I I It I IWater/S S F ISelt.d Kingfisher It 40 1 30 1 10 II SO 1 1 1 II I 1 1I I 1Deep.ater F IP1ed-billed Srebe :I 40 I 30 I 10 11 SO 1 I ! tI 1 1 II 1 !Aerial :Slack Tern II 40 1 30 I 10 II SO 1 1 I II t I II 1 1 1 1Marsh wren 11 30 t 30 1 10 It 70 I STANDARD HSI ) t SO ! MN/DOT DISTRICT 2 b 4 WETLAND TYPE 4 (((SMRUS SWAMP))) I NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD I COVER 1 REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I I 1 :t ..-.mmmmmmml 11e..ee.e..1 :T tat Surface Nester (Unawake. Mare II 40 I 30 1 10 II SO 1 IIt 1 1--------------II 1 IA I Nester ICee.on Yelloothreat II 40 t 40 1 20 II 100 I 1 1 . II I I 11 I 'Cavity Mester I II 30 I 30 I 10 It 70 1 t t II I- I II I I water Surface Mester MCeeeon Snipe II 30 I 30 1 20 11 SO 1 I I II I I 1! 5 (Water/Sround Surfa !White-tailed Deer 11 30 1 40 I 10 11 SO I t 11 1 I It I IDeepea ter F (Ring-necked Duck II 20 I 10 1 10 II 40 1 I I II I I II 1 :Aerial Feeder 1 ingbird II 30 I 30 : 20 tt SO I I It ----I I II I !Arboreal F :Yellow Warbler II 40 1 40 1 20 it 100 1 STANDARD MSI > 1 73.73 MN/DOT DISTRICT 2 b • WETLAND TYPE 7 (((W00DED SWAMP))) 1 NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD 1 COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL 1 1 1 :t I I 33 mammon moo IT trial Surface Mester IShoeshoe Hare II 30 1 30 I 10 II 70 1 t 1 II I 1 II 1 IA 1 Nester IY.Ile.-cusped Werblerll 40 : *0 t 20 I! 100 1 I It I I II I :Cavity Nester !Red Squirrel II 20 i 30 I 10 II 60 1 1 I It I 1 II---------1 Mater Surface Nester (Ruffed Neuse 11 10 I 30 I 10 II SO I i t t II I 1------ II I !Water/Sr.und Sur !White-tailed Deer II 10 I 40 1 10 11 60 1 I 1 II I I 1:---------1 iD !Ring- Duck It 0 I 0 I 0 !I 0 I I I II I I II I !Aerial F :Y/U Flycatcher II 40 1 40 t 20 II 100 1 t 1 II 1------------I II 1 !Arboreal F !Nashville Warbler II 40 I 40 I 20 !I 100 I STANDARD MSI--»»-> 1 £7.5 I mnonnoomn NN/DOT DISTRICT 2 k • WETLAND TYPE S (<(SOS))> e I NICHE 1 SPECIES II FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I I I II eei I II-.sewee.t IT lal Surf I Hare II 20 1 20 I 10 II SO 1 1 1 11 1 1 11---------1 IA I Mester IY.11ee-rueped Warblerll 30 1 20 I 10 II 60 I _ 1 I II 1------------I 11--------I ICavity Mester (Tree Smalls.- II 20 I 10 1 10 it *0 1 1 I-----------------........-11----...------1--...--------1--------------1,---------1 !Water Su Nester 1Ceeeen Snipe II 10 1 10 I EO 11 20 1 1 I 11 !Water/S,ound Surface Feder !Meese II 10 I 10 1 10 11 30 1 1 I 11------------1 I------ II-- 1 !Deep.at.r Feeder Ming-necked Duck 1I • 10 I 10 I 10 II 20 1 1-- 1 !Aerial Feeder IY/D P1 It 30 t 30 I 10 II 70 1 I ----I I t»--»------1»-»----�--1»»----»»--t I--»-----t 'Arboreal F !Nashville Warbler 11 30 1 30 1 10 II 70 1 STANDARD IMI-------> 1 47.3 I eee.ee.ee o o o o i MN/DOT DIDTRICT 3, 7 k 9 WETLAND TYPE 1 ft<OCAOONALLY PLODDED DARINl - lE - 1 NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD I COVER 1 REPRODUCTION II 1 1 I !1 I 1 It I ITerr..trial S IMallard II 40 I 0 I 10 II 30 I 1 I 11 I I II I IAr 1 IRed-winged SI trd I1 0 I 0 t 0 II 0 I I 1 II I It !Cavity N.•t.r (Wood Duck II 40 I 0 t 10 II 30 I 1 I II I I II I 'Water Surfae. Nester IKllld..r II 40 I 0 I 10 II 30 I _ 1 I II I I II I IWat.r/Sr.und 5urrac. Feeder !Slue-hinged Teal II 40 I 0 I 10 t! 30 I 1 1 II 1 I II I ID ter F :Rine- Duck II 20 I 0 I 10 II 30 1 I I II 1 I I1 1 IAerSal F IEa5tern Kingbird II 0 I 0 I 0 It 0 I 1 I II I I II t !Arbor..! F IC llo.throat II 0 I 0 I 0 II 0 I STANDARD HSI > I 25.75 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 3, 5 1 9 WETLAND TYPE 1L ((CSOTTOMLAND MARDWOOOS) > I NICHE I SPECIE! II FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I 1 I II I I II I ITerr..trial Surf I 11 30 1 40 I 10 1I 10 1 1 I - II I I II 1 !Arboreal Nester !Great Morned Oct II 30 1 40 I 20 II 90 1 1 I It I it 1 ICavIty Neater IWeod Duck II 30 I 40 : 20 II 90 1 I I II 1 I 11 I IWat.r Surface Neater I1 II 30 I 20 1 10 II 40 1 I 1 II 1 1 11 1 'Water/Sreund Sur I5reat SI II 30 I 20 1 20 II 70 1 I II I I It I IDeep.ater IRing-necked Duck II 20 1 10 1 10 11 40 t 1 I II 1 I II I !Aerial t6r.Creeted Flycatcher!! 30 1 40 I 20 II 90 I I I I1 I I II I !Ar 1 Feeder tC.rullan Warbler II 40 I 40 I 20 :I 100 : STANDARD HSI > 1 77.5 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 3, 5 1 4 WETLAND TYPE 2 (((FRESH MEADOW))> I NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL 1 1 I I1 1 I I1 1 IT trial Sur !Mallard II 30 1 20 1 20 11 70 I I I :1 I I I1 tArb 1 Neater !Sedge Wren II 40 I 40 I 20 !t 100 1 1 I 11 I I II I tCavlty Neater IWeod Duck 11 30 I 30 : 10 !! 70 1 1 I II I I 11 I :Water Surface N I II 30 1 20 I 20 11 70 I I II 1 1 II 1 !Water/8 Surface Feeder ;Slum-hinged Teal It 30 I 30 1 20 11 SO 1 1 I II 1 I II -I ID.epeater Feeder !Ring-necked Duck II 30 1 30 1 10 II 70 : .l I 11 I I II 1 '*sial Feeder IE tngbtrd II 30 I 10 I 20 II 60 I 1 I II I II I tArb I ICo.eon Yelloethreat II 30 I 10 I 20 :I 40 I STANDARD NSI > 1 72.3 1 MN/DOT DISTRICT 3, 5 k 9 WETLAND TYPE 3 <(({MALLOW )>> on ! NICHE 1 SPECIES It FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I — 1 1 II I I I: 1 IT tal Sur !Mallard II 40 I 40 1 20 II 100 I 1 1 II 1 I 11- 1 1Ark 1 IVIrglnla 1.11 II 40 I 40 1 20 II 100 1 1 I1 1 I 11---------1 !Cavity Neter IR II 30 1 30 1 20 II SO 1 I I II 1 1 11 I .. l Net.r Sur Nester IN II 40 1 40 1 20 It 100 1 I I II I I --it 1 IWat.r/Sreund Surface P ISiu.-■tng.d Teal II 40 I 40 1 20 II 100 1 1 I II------------1 I I1---------1 ID..p.at.r F :Ring- Duck II 30 1 30 1 10 II 70 t II II I------------1 --II--------1 .Aerial F Mack Tern II 30 I 40 I 20 II 90 1 1 1 I1 1 i tl---------1 :Arboreal F INar.h Wren II 40 1 40 I 20 II 100 1 I > 1 42.3 NM/DOT DISTRICT 3, 5 k 9 WETLAND TYPE • (((DEEP NARSM))> I NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD I COVER t ION II I I It 1 I 11 I IT tai Surf IMallard It 40 I 40 I 20 11 100 1 I 11 1 I 11 t IA 1 Nester ISreat Slue Heron II 40 1 40 : 20 II 100 I I I I1 I I II I !Cavity NNter :Wood Duck 11 30 1 30 I 20 SO 1 I II I 1 It I 'Water 5 I t I: 40 I 40 : 20 11 100 I I I II I I 11 I IWat.r/•round Surface Feeder ;Slue-hinged Teal 11 40 1 40 : 20 it 100 I I I II I I 11 I IDe.p.at.r F ;Pled-titled 1r.b. II 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 1 1 I II I I II :Aerial F :Slack Tern II 40 I 40 t 20 I1 100 1 I t II I I I1 1 IA I F IMeren Wr.n II 40 1 30 1 20 II 40 I STANDARD HGI > 1 94.27 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 3, 3 L • WETLAND TYPE S (((OPEN WATER>>> - 17 - . 1 NICHE 1 SPECIES I1 FOOD t COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I T' I 1 II I I 11 I IT 1 Surface Nester INallard II 30 I SO I 70 I1 SO 1 t 1 II I I II 1 IA I N 'Great Slue N.ron It 40 I 30 I 20 II 90 I I t II I I II 1 1Cavtty Hester 'Wood Duck 11 30 I 30 I 20 11 SO I 1 I 11 I I It 1 INat.r Surface Nestor (Coot 11 30 1 30 I 20 11 SO 1 I 1 II 1 1 II 1 IWat.r/Sround Surface Milted Kingfisher :1 40 I 30 I 10 II SO I I 11 1 I 11 1 IDeep.ater f IPI.d-billed grebe II 40 1 30 I 20 ti - 90 I I t I1— I 1 11 I Aerial F !Slack Tern It 30 I 30 I 20 II SO 1 I I II 1 1 II I 1Arb 1 P..d.r tCoeaon Yelloatkreat 11 20 I 20 I 20 11 40 I STANDARD U.S > I SO NN/DOT DISTRICT 3, 3 6 1 WETLAND TYPE 6 (((SHRUS SWAMP)), • 1 NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION 11 TOTAL I I I II 1 I 11 t 1T lel Surface Nester IRIng-necked PNoa.ent 11 20 I 40 I 20 II SO I 1 It I I 11 t 'Arboreal Nester ICo.aoa Yello-throat II 30 1 40 1 20 II 40 I I 1 II I I - 11 t 'Cavity Neater I 11 30 1 30 1 10 11 70 t I It I I II I 'Mater S IC Snip. 11 30 I 30 I 20 it SO 1 1 I II 1 I II I 1 S Surface F IMnite-tall.d Deer 11 30 I 30 I 20 I1 SO i I 1 II I 1 II I IDeep.ater f Ifing- Duck II 10 I 10 1 10 11 30 I t I 11 I I 11 1 !Aerial F 11a.tern Kingbird II 30 I 30 1 20 II SO 1 t I 11 t I II !Arboreal P 'Yellow Warbler 11 30 I 40 I 20 II 90 I STANDARD NSI > I 75 1 NN/DOT DISTRICT 3, 5 L ♦ WETLAND TYPE 7 (((WOODED SHARP))> I NICHE 1 SPECIES II FOOD I COVER 1 REPRODUCTION It TOTAL I t I II I -1 mm It mamma 1 iii S ISNo..No. Hare II 20 I 40 I 20 It SO I I1 11 1 1 11---------1 !Arboreal Neater 'Yellow-ruep.I Warbler', 30 I 40 I 20 11 40 1 I I 11 I 1 --It I !Cavity Nester IDewny k.r II 20 I 30 I 10 II 40 1 ` I t It I ---I 11 I !Water Sur !Ruffed S II 10 1 40 I 10 II AO I I1 Is——_---------I_--»-------I 11 I -. Mater/11 !White-tolled Deer II 10 I 30 I 10 I! SO I — I I 1t 1------------1--------------II-- I ID ter !Ring-A.ck.d Duck II 0 I 0 1 0 II 0 1 II 11------------I I ----II 1 !Aerial F IY/S Flycatcher II 40 1 40 I 20 II 100 I 1 I ----II------------! 1--------»----11----«-__1 IAr 1 I Ills Warbler II 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 1 STANDARD Nil > I 67.3 t IMS/DOT DISTRICT 3, 3 6 • WETLAND TYPE S «(SOS>>> aa...• aYM. M 1 .. 1 NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD 1 COVER 1 REPRODUCTION I TOTAL 1 1 I II la..e.a.a..a.I Ie.e......I 1 till Sur/ace Me.t.r ;Showsho. Nara II 20 1 20 I 10 1 SO I I1 __--11------------1 I t ---1 I I IYsllee-rasped Marbl.rtl 40 1 30 I 10 I SO I 1 1 II ICavlty N IT,.. Sallow II 20 I 10 I 10 t 40 I $ I II ;Mater Surface Mester ISNarp-tolled S►eus. 11 20 I 20 t 10 1 50 I 1 I II------------1.-----.«---I------ I---------1 IMat.►/SrDuna Surface F.ed.r !Whit.-tailed Deer II 10 I 10 I 10 1 30 I II !1 --I------------I---•--«•-•-« I I ID..p.at.r Feeder !Ring- Duck II 10 I 10 I 10 I 30 1 I ----I II----_—------I t 1«-------1 1410,161 F SV/0 fl II 30 I 30 I 20 I SO 1 1 1 11•-----------I ---I I------»-I IAr 1 P 1 Ills Warbler II 30 I 30 I 20 I SO I • STANDARS NSI > 1 SS 1 i MN/DOT DisTRIcT 6 WETLAND TYPE I (((SEASONALLY FLOODED SASIN))) .- if NICHE I SPECIES II F00D t COVER 1 REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I C 1 II 1 1 II 1 T.rreetrial Surface Nester INallard II 30 I 0 I 10 II 40 1 • 1 II I 1 II I Ar 1 Neater IC 11 II 20 I 0 I 0 II 20 1 I 11 I 1 1: Cavity Nester 'Wood Duck 11 30 I 0 1 10 It 40 1 1 II I I II 1 :Water Surface Nester IBreat.r Yalio.legs II 30 I 0 I 10 II 40 I I I II I 1 II 1 I Nater/O Surface F fetus-winged Teal II 30 1 0 I 10 II 40 I I I II I I 11 I :Deap.ater Feeder 1Rlnq-sacked Duck 11 20 t 0 1 10 :I 30 I 1 I II I I 11 I !Aerial F IE ingb/rd II 10 I 0 I 0 II 10 I I I 11 I I II 1 (Arboreal F 'Yellow Warbler '7 10 I 0 I 0 II 10 I I ) I 25.75 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 6 WETLAND TYPE IL <((SOTTOMLAND HARDWOODS>)) I NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD 1 COVER I REPRODUCTION 1' TOTAL I I I $1 I 1 ..I1 I :T trial Surface Nester (White-tailed Deer II 30 1 30 I 10 11 70 I I I 11 I 1: I IAr 1 Nester 'Brest O.1 II 30 I 40 I 20 II •O ! 'Cavity Nester !Wood buck II 40 I 40 1 20 tI 100 1 1 I II 1 1 II 1 'Water Surface Nester IS 11 30 I 20 1 10 I' •0 I I I II 1 I II IWater/ground S IR tl 30 I 20 1 20 11 70 1 1 I 11 I 11 I ID 'Snapping Turtle II 10 1 20 1 20 It 50 I I II I I II 1 :Aerial Feed., Illr.Cr.sted Fl I1 30 I 30 I 20 II SO 1 1 I II 1 I II 'Arboreal F ICerulean Warbler II 40 I 40 I 20 11 100 I STANDARD HSI ) I 77.5 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 6 WETLAND TYPE 2 (((FRESH MEADOW))) I NICHE I SPECIESI! FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL i I I II I I II I ITerrestrial Surface Neater ISiu.-elnq.d Teal II 30 I 30 I 20 II SO I I II I I II 'Arboreal Neater 15.dge Wren II 40 I 40 I 20 II too 1 t II 1 1 II I :Cavity Waster !Raccoon :1 20 I 20 I 10 II 50 1 1 I II I I II I :Water Surface Nester 'Sora Rail II 30 I 10 I 20 11 40 I 1 I :1 I I 11 I IWat.r/Sround Sur !Mallard 11 30 I 30 1 20 II SO 1 1 II I I I: I ID..prater Feeder I If 30 1 10 I 10 II 50 I 1 ! 11 I I !I i !Aerial F (Eastern Kingbird II 30 I 10 1 10 11 50 I I I 71 I I II 1 !Arboreal F IC lloethreat I: 20 I 20 I 10 II 50 1 STANDARD HSI ) 1 A5 MN/DOT DISTRICT 6 WETLAND TYPE 3 (((SHALLOW MARSH))) 1 NICHE 1 SPECIES II FOOD 1 COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I 1 II I 1 II-- I 'Terrestrial Surface Nester 'Mallard II 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 I : 1 II 1-----------I II I :Arboreal Nester IRed-winged Blackbird II 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 1 I I II 1--- I --II I (Cavity Nester I It 30 I 30 I 10 II 70 I I 1 II I-----------I II I 'Water Surface Nester IN II 40 I 40 I 1 I II I- I 20 II 100 I !Water/S Surface Feeder (Slue-winged Teal II 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 I I1 II I-----------1 1 1--------1 :De.p.ater Feed.r I II 30 I 30 I t0 II 70 1 1 1 II-----------1 I-------------II 1 'Aerial 'Slack Tern II 40 I 30 1 to 11 00 1 II II 1-----------I 11 1 IAr 1 'Marsh Wren II 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 I 1 ) I 10 I MN/DOT DISTRICT • WETLAND TYPE 4 (((DEEP MARSH))) 1 NICHE I SPECIES 11 FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I I II I 1 11 1 :T lel Surf 'Mallard II 40 I 40 f 20 11 I00 I 1 I 11 t I II 1 IA 1 Nester Isreat Slue Heron II 40 I 40 I 10 II 90 I I II I I II 1 'Cavity Nester 'Wood Duck II 40 I 40 I 10 II .0 I I 1 II I I II 1 !Water Sur IM t II 40 1 40 I 20 II 100 1 1 1 11 I I II I I ISlue-.Inged Teal II 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 I 1 1 11 --I 1 If 1 ID ter F 'Pled-billed Srebe II 40 t 40 20 II 100 I 1 I II I II I 'Aerial !Slack fern II 40 1 20 1 20 11 SO 1 1 I 11 7 1 II 1 :Arboreal F !Marsh Wren II 30 I 30 1 20 II SO 1 -- STANDARD STANDARD HSI ) 1 12.5 I RN/DOT DISTRICT 6 WETLAND TYPE 3 (((OPEN WATERY,' — 19 — •NICHE t SPECIES 11 FOOD I COVER t REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I 1 II I 1 It I '�— trim/ Surface N..t.r IH.11ard :1 30 I 30 I 20 II SO I II I 1 II I Arboreal N ISr.at Slue N.ron :1 40 1 30 I 10 II SO I 1 II I 1 II I Cavity Nater !Wood Duck 1: 30 1 30 1 10 II 70 I 1 II 1 I II 1 ,..— Water Surface Nest.r !Coot II 30 1 30 1 20 II SO I I II 1 I II I Water/•round Surface F IS.lt.d Kingfisher II 40 I 30 I 10 11 SO I I II I I II 1 :Deepwater $Pled-billed grebe :I 40 I 30 t 10 II SO I 1 I I I 1: I (Aerial I Slack T.rn 11 30 I 30 I 10 II 70 I I III I I II I lArb 1 :Marsh Wren 11 20 I 20 1 10 II SO 1 STANDARD NSI ' : 73.73 I '..• NN/DOT DISTRICT 6 WETLAND TYPE • (((SHRUS SWAMP))) 1 NICHE 1 SPECIES :I FOOD I COVER 1 REPRODUCTION It TOTAL I I 1 11 I I II 1 ITo r.strtal Surl.e. Waster :Ring- II 20 I 30 I 10 II •O I _ I II I I 1I I :Ar 1 !Casson Y.IIo.throat II 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 I I II- I I II I iCavlty Nester 1 II 30 I 30 I 10 I1 70 I I I 1: 1 I II I (Wats Surface Nester :C Snip. II 40 I 30 I 20 II 10 1 1 I It I I II---------I IWt.r/Sround Surface F !Whit.-tailed Deer11 30 I 30 I 10 11 70 I I I II I I II I (Deepwater I..d.r /Ring- DuckII 20 I 20 I 10 II SO I 1 1 II I I II I !Aerial !Eastern Kingbird II 30 I 30 I 20 II SO I I I-- II I I II I 101r I F !Yellow Warbler II 30 I 40 I 20 II 10 I STANDARD NSI , I 76.27 I t f MN/DOT DISTRICT 7 b S WETLAND TYPE 1 C(<SEASONMLL1 FLOODED AAIIN.)) - 20 I NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION 11 TOTAL 1 I 1 II I 1 II 1 IT iii SurfaC. Meats IMallard II 30 I 0 I 10 II 40 I I 1 II 1 I II I IArbor..I Nester 1Co.eoo Val 1o.tMr.at Ii In I 0 • 10 11 74 I u. 1 1 II 1 I II 1 (Cavity N.st.r (Mood Duck 11 30 I 0 I 10 II 40 I I I II I I II I 'Water Surface Neater IAtllds.rII 30 I 0 I 10 II 40 I I I II 1 I II I IWat.r/Sround 6 IDlu.-winged Teal II 30 I O I 10 II 40 I ... 1 1 II I II I IDeso..ter feeder IRing- d Duck II 20 I 0 I 10 II 30 I I I II 1 i II 1 (Aerial F IN..t.rn Kingbird II 10 I 0 I 0 II 10 I I I II I I II I (Arboreal (Sago 8oa•.o0II 10 I 0 I 0 II 10 I S TANDARD MSI ) I 26.75 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 7 k 6 WETLAND TYPE IL (((SOTTO NARDWOODS))) u m NICHE I SPECIESII FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I I - II I t II---.-s..-1 141 6urfac. Nester IWMlt.-tall.. D..r II 30 I 30 I 20 11 60 I III I------------I II I Arboreal IIr..t Morn.d 001 II 30 I 30 1 20 II SO I 1 II I I--------------II I um Levity IR..- II 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 I 1 II I I II I Water S IS I1 30 I 30 1 10 II 70 I I II I I ----11 I Mater/ground S IA II SO I 30 I 20 II SO I I II I I II I D..o.at.r F..n.r 1S04100100 Turtle II 10 I 10 I 20 II 40 I I II I I II I Aerial 'Western Kingbird II 30 I 30 I 10 II 70 I I II I 1 II I A. 1 16lk- l II 40 I 30 I 20 II 90 I S TANDARD M61 ) I 76.23 I MN/DOT DISTRICT 7 1 S WETLAND TYPE 2 ((<PRESN MEADOW;>) I NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD I COVER I REPRODUCTION 11 TOTAL t 1 1 11...---»...sl I II I ITbrreatrial Surf ISIv.-.ing.d Teal II 30 I 30 I 20 II 60 I 1 111 I 1 II I 'Arboreal 'Swags bran II 30 I 40 I 20 II 90 I I III I I II I (Cavity Nester I II 20 I 20 I 4 II 40 I I - I II 1---------- II I (Water Surface Nuot.r 16or4 R.11 II 30 I 20 I 10 Il /0 I I I I, 1«---«--_«1_-------.»---. II I IY.t.r/Srsuna Surface Feeder (Mallard II SO I 30 1 20 II SO I I 1 II ----I 1 ------II I IDeep.atm, !Ring- Duck :I 20 I 20 I 10 II 50 I I I II 1 'Aerial F 'western Kingbird II 30 1 10 I 10 :1 30 I ., I I II I II I !Arboreal ICo-ion Yellow 0000at II 20 I 20 1 10 II 50 I STANDARD HSI-------) I 02.5 I u u MM/DOT DISTRICT 7 1 P WETLAND TYPE 3 (((SWALLOW MARSH))) 1 NICHE I SPECIES II FOOD I COVER 1 REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I I Ii .I I 11 I IT.rreetrial Surface, Mester :Mallard II 40 1 40 I 10 II 70 I um 1i I --II 1 /fir 1 Mester IR.d-pinged blackbird II 40 1 40 1 20 I: 100 I I I II I I II I !Cavity Nester (Raccoon II 30 1 40 I 10 :I SO : I I II I I II I (Wats Surface Mester 1Mue II 40 1 40 I 20 it 100 I I I IWater/6round Surface F..aer 'Slue-winged Tail II 40 I 40 : 20 I 100 I I I- II t I I ID tar 1 II 30 I 30 I 20 I 60 I I 1 II I f (Aerial ($leek Tarn II 40 1 30 I 10 I SO I I 1 Il I---«. ....I f....«...1 IA, 1 I Rarrr Wr.n II 40 I 40 I 20 I 100 I STANDARD M61 1 I 91.23 1 MN/DOT DISTRICT 7 4 6 WETLAND TYPE 4 (((DEC► MARSH))) NICHE SPEC/EP FOOD COVER : RCPFODUCTION II TOTAL II I I II I Terr.atrl.l $urf.Ce Neuter IM4114rd 40 : 40 • 20 II 140 : 1 I II Arboreal Neater :Orsat Plus Moron 40 . 40 I 24 II 100 1 :1 1 CavityMest1 Neste) I: 30 1 30 I 10 74 1 :I I Yater Surface Nester IMusirat t1 40 1 4n I 20 100 1 II 1 I II I Water/Pr 6uriot. F.eerr :Flue-winged Teal :I 40 1 40 . 20 • 100 I I I: s Ii 1 0 tar 11)104-b1ll.d 0•00. :1 40 I 4) I 20 I: 10' I I :1 1 1: 1 Aerial !Slack Tern II 40 I 40 1 20 :I 104 : •1 I 1 II Arboreal F :Marsh Mr., II 4n I 3C. 1 20 II 40 t CtANDA-D NSI • I .- I Appendix 3-A Districtwide HEP analyses for all wetland types 1 wN/DOT DISTRICT 7 ► S wETLAND Tv'E 3 .ffOREN NATER..' - 21 - - 1 NICHE SPECIES II FOOD 1 COVER 1 REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I I I II I I II I 17 trial Surface wester (walla OII 30 I 30 I 20 II SO 1 I I II 1 I II 1 'Arboreal Neuter 10reet Slue Aaron 11 40 I 30 I 20 :1 e0 I I I II 1 I :1 1 ICavItf Neater !Wood Duct II 30 1 30 I 20 II S0 1 I gt I II I 'Water Surf w e ',filter (Coot 11 36 I 30 1 20 II SO I 1 I II t I II I INater/Sround Surface F 'Belted KInOttener II 40 I 30 1 10 :I SO 1 III 1 I •I I 14eeseater Feeder IPIed Rllled Grebe II e0 .^ 1 10 It SO I 1 1 II 1 1 II I 'Aerial F 'Slack Tern :1 40 I 30 I 10 II SO I t 1 II I t II I IArbereal 1naren Mrs., tl 30 1 30 1 10 11 70 1 STANDARD ASt 7 I SO 1 MN/DOT DISTRICT 7 ► B WETLAND TYPE A t<<BMRUB P$ PlP7•1 t NICHE 1 SPECIES11 ROOD 1 COVER 1 REPRODUCTION II TOTAL I I 1 II I 1 eeeell 1 IT tel Pur face Mester IRln0- II 20 I 40 I 10 II 70 I 1 1 II ----I 1 11 I 'Arboreal Mester IC 110e II 40 1 40 1 20 11 100 1 t 1 11 1 1 --11 1 'Cavity Nester t II 30 t 30 1 10 11 70 I I I. --11 1 1 --II I IWetur Surface Rueter IC Snipe IJ 30 1 30 I 20 II SO 1 I I ----II I I ------11 1 1 round Surf 'White-tailed Deer II 30 1 60 I 10 II SO 1 1 I I1 I 1 11 I IDeupeatur F 'Rtn0.. Duck 11 20 I 10 1 10 II 40 1 1 1 1. I 1 II I IMrl al IYuutern Kingbird It 30 1 30 1 20 II SO 1 1 1 11 I I ll I tSr I ITellee Warbler 11 40 I 40 I 20 II 100 I STANDARD HSI 7 1 77.0 I - 22 - HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR WETLAND TYPES BY DISTRICT SUMMARY TABLE I MN/DOT DISTRICT I I WETLAND TYPE I 1 12 I 7 14 ! 5 16 17 18 19 I I 1 1 1====1 ====:====:==== :==== :==== : ====: Ila ---- I ---- I---=I=- = I---- I---- I ---- ' la SEASONALLY FLOODED 127 128 ! 28 128 128 129 127 127 128 I 1 • 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 Iib BOTTOMLAND HARDWOODS 170 175. ! 77 175 177 179 176 176 177 I 1 I 1/I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 !2 FRESH MEADOW 166 ! 70 172 ! 70 172 163 162 162 172 I 1 1 1 /. 1 1 1 1 I3 SHALLOW MARSH 18;• 191 192 191 192 194 191 191 192 I — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I4 DEEP MARSH 192 195 196 195 196 196 195 195 196 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I5 OPEN WATER I 81 ! 80 I 80 I 80 I 80 I 74 I 80 I 80 I 80 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 16 - SHRUB SWAMP 175 178 175 178 175 176 177 177 175 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 t — I7 WOODED SWAMP 166 167 167 167 167 I NA I NA I NA 167 I I8 BOG I 52 I 50 ! 50 I 50 I 57 ! NA I NA I NA I 57 I 6, CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: October 2, 1992 SUBJ: Appointment of Planning Commission Representative to the Tree Preservation Board The preservation of trees within the City has been a long time goal. The intent has always been to protect, promote and plant more trees within the city. Staff is recommending the establishment of an official Tree Board. The group will be comprised of a City Council member, Park and Recreation Commission member and a Planning Commission member, along with 4 citizens at large. The city has received 7 applications from interested residents. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend a member to serve on this board. ATTACHMENT 1. Memorandum from Todd Hoffman dated September 23, 1992. t«: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITYOF CHANHASSEN t‘' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 111 FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator --! DATE: September 23, 1992 SUBJ: Tree Preservation Board The idea of establishing a board or commission to address issues pertaining to tree preservation and the promotion of planting trees in the city has been addressed for some time. Trees are often a topic of discussion for the City Council, Park and Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission. Trees dominate discussions in some cases, and in others they are discussed in less detail. The intent has always been, however, to protect, promote, and plant more trees within the city. The establishment of an official Tree Board is also a requirement of being named a Tree City USA, a designation the city is currently seeking. To move ahead in this regard, invitations for applications for membership to this board were placed in the city's quarterly newsletter and the Chanhassen Villager. Excluding Council and Commission members who have voiced an interest to serve on this board, seven "at-large" applicants have shown interest. A suggested organizational structure to get this board up and running is to select one member each from the City Council, Park and Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission to form a base for the board. On Tuesday, September 22, the Park and Recreation Commission approved the appointment of Randy Erickson to this board. Upon confirming all three of these members, the at-large applicants can then be interviewed by the appointed board members to facilitate the selection of an additional four members to round out a seven member board. Once all members have been selected, an inaugural meeting of the board to establish an agenda and to take care of general housekeeping items, i.e. selecting meeting dates, times, chairpersons, etc., will be set. Upon the City Council's approval of this format, and upon their appointment of a member of the City Council to the board, staff will facilitate the coordination of interviews and the establishment of this new City of Chanhassen Advisory Board. Both Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner and I would be working cooperatively as staff members to this board. pc: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner • Is �� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 7 , 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Matt Ledvina , Steve Emmings , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes , and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; Kate Aanenson , Planner II ; and Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician PUBLIC HEARING: LUNDGREN BROS . PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 41 . NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND ADJACENT TO 7305 HIGHWAY 41 ( HAZELTINE BOULEVARD ): A . REZONE 93 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR , RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT . B . PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 112 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 8 OUTLOTS . C . WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT . Public Present: Name Address _ Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros , 935 E . Wayzata Blvd , Wayzata John Uban Dahlgren , Shardlow & Uban , Inc . Ken Adolf Schoell & Madsen , Inc . Ron Peterson Wetland Specialist Bruce Buxton 401 Golf Course Drive , Baxter , MN Thomas W . Green Box 5055 , Brainerd , MN Tim Keene Larkin-Hoffman Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparral Lane David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd . Paul Savargen 9950 No . Shore Road , Waconia Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Terry Forbord : Mr . Chair , members of the Planning Commission , my name is Terry Forbord . I 'm Vice President of land development for Lundgren Bros . at 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata . As you may recall , we were before you not too long ago with this concept plan approval and at that meeting the Planning Commission embraced our concept almost entirely and passed it onto the City Council for their review . At the City Council meeting held recently , they also accepted the recommendations of the Planning Commission and also agreed on a couple other fine points that we had presented to the City and approved that concept plan approval and as you know now we 're back before you for the preliminary plan approval . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 2 - Before we go any further , let me just introduce the development team to you in case you have any questions of those professionals that I can 't answer To my immediate right is Ken Adolf . He 's our consulting engineer and he ' with Schoell and Madsen . To his immediate right is Mr . Ron Peterson and he is our wetland specialist . And over here in the corner is Mr . John Uban - and he 's a principle with the firm of Dahlgren , Shardlow & Uban , and they have attended all the meetings previously with me . Because you 're already so familiar with this proposal as we 've pretty much covered most of the details conceptually during previous meetings , out of courtesy to you and I know you have a full agenda , I thought what we would do is go directly to the recommendations in the _ conditions . Since we last met , and since the City Council meeting of a couple weeks ago , there have been some additional conditions imposed upon this approval and I thought it would be important for us to go through those this evening and clarify some of them and discuss the remainder . - What I 'm handing out to you is what is on the overhead and basically it i just a repeat of the recommendations that you have before you in your packet with below it , or in the margin , our comments and I ' ll just go through these as quickly as I can and if at any time you have any questio s or you choose to interrupt me and ask a question , please do so . On some _f these I will actually have our engineers or the planners or the wetland specialist address them . Under the first items related to the approval o- the PUD , we have no comment on either number 1 or number 2 . On the recommendations in the conditions related to approval of the preliminary plat ( 92-4PUD ) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions . We are requesting that you delete what is being proposed in the recommendation and inserting in it 's place the following . The front yard setback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the street _ right-of-way . The intent being to minimize the impact on the natural features of constructing a new home on each homesite . The lots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lots 1 , 14-19 , 37-43 , 52-57 , Lots 62 , 65 , 73 , 74 and 78-81 in Block 2 . In addition to these - lots , staff has also recommended similar flexibility on the following lot . Lots 22-24 , Lots 30 , 31 , 46 , 47 , 58-61 and 66-72 in Block 2 . The reason that we are asking for that is because if it states as proposed that they_ shall maintain a 20 foot period . That means that that has to be the setback . 20 feet . Now the idea , and I think that we 're on the same wavelength as the staff on this and of the Planning Commission for that matter , because we discussed that at a previous meeting . The idea behinc- the flexibility is to insure or to give the capability to move that structure around a little bit to try to maybe save something . There might be a tree there . There could be something to give you that flexibility b-t if you say that everyone has to be 20 feet , what happens if at 24 feet you 'd save a tree? We think that flexibility is an important item . The next item , number 2 , we do not have a problem with . Item number 3 , we _ would prefer to modify that and the reason that we would prefer to modify it is based upon my discussion with the Fire Marshal Mr . Littfin and he r._ d concerns about reducing the cul-de-sac diameter to 100 feet and we indicated to him that that would not be a problem for us . We could - maintain that larger diameter and we could work with that . Batzli : Excuse me one minute . Jo Ann , was this originally done? Dropped down to 100 in order to reduce the grading . Was that the only reason tha we had done that? Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 3 Olsen : Right . Yes , we 're fine with that . Terry Forbord: And we agree with engineer Dave Hempel in that the collector street right-of-way should not be reduced to 50 feet . We think because of the nature of that roadway and the fact that there will be a sidewalk there , that we should leave that at a higher , and I 'm not exactly sure what right-of-way you 're proposing . What is that , Dave? Hempel : 60 feet . Terry Forbord: 60 feet , okay . Olsen : That condition just referred to local streets . Not the collector . Terry Forbord: On page 2 , items 4 thru 7 , we are in agreement with . On item number 8 of the same page , right now the recommendation , the condition of this recommendation states that the area shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement . The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation . What we are proposing instead would be that a tree removal plan , approved by the City staff , will be required for each lot in the subdivision prior to the issuance of a building permit . There shall be no clear cutting permitted for any lot •except for the placement of the house pad and utilities . Clear cutting is defined as removal of any vegetation with a 4 inch caliper or more at 4 feet in height . And I 've taken this paragraph from a developers agreement between the city and Lundgren Bros on the Summit at Near Mountain and it 's worked quite well . It was actually I think proposed by the city . The reason that we 're proposing this instead is because the way that it 's written now , you couldn 't build any home . You couldn 't build any streets and you couldn 't put any utilities in which would preclude us , obviously we wouldn 't be able to proceed . Batzli : Can I interrupt you one more time Terry? Terry Forbord: Yes sir . Batzli : Have you guys seen this before? Or did Terry just give this to you guys as well? Olsen: Just now . Terry Forbord: I did not get a chance to get this to them . We had the _ staff report late Monday and between now and then there was no time to respond and get back to them . Krauss: Excuse me , did you want us to raise some questions or can we raise some questions on some of these? Batzli : Yeah . Yeah . I 'd rather now have to go back through it so if you have questions , you bring them up . Terry Forbord: We could back up if you 'd like . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 4 - f Krauss: Well this is on number 8 . I think we 're comfortable up to that - point . Olsen: Terry is correct in saying that that 's the wording for Summit and we 've had some difficulty in the tree removal plans where you ' ll have a tree removal plan . You 'll see that the house pad is showing the removal c some of the trees that you had intended to save . Then you 're out on the site . It 's between you and the homeowner and well , that 's where I have t- have my house . So you end up losing trees that were supposed to be preserved . And this is , I was just kind of roughly this up right now but the blue area shows the trees on the site . The solid blue areas are the _ trees that are being removed so the highlighted areas that have not been shaded in are the treed areas that are . . . Anyway , you can see that the house pads will still have room in the clear areas and these are the areas that we 're saying are to be shown to be preserved . That 's one of the whc-e reasons that the PUD has been proposed and is being accepted . We 're sayi g that fine . We 've agreed that those are all to be saved . Let 's save them . And they are not in areas where the utilities are going to be going . - They 're beyond the house pad area and this is what we did with the Willow Ridge PUD and it 's been working very well . Terry Forbord : Mr . Chair? Batzli : Yeah . Terry Forbord: Perhaps there 's just some confusion in the language and t e understanding . What I was interpretting what staff 's condition was , was that the areas in blue would not be able to be , they 'd have to be in a - preservation zone . And obviously there 's streets and there 's house pads n there and that would be very difficult . It was just my interpretation of what I was reading . Is it my understanding that the area then that 's in white is the preservation zone? Olsen: Right . The area that you 're showing . That plan shows all the vegetation . It shows the vegetation that 's being removed and our intent - was the vegetation that 's not being removed , to be preserved . John Uban: Maybe I could . Some of our confusion I think came from the _ point that when we were before you last time , we had discussed not removi g as many trees and allowing the home placement . The actual building of th,. home to be fitted into the trees that could be saved and not torn out during the construction process of putting in utilities , building pads ar the roads . We do have some places on this particular map where we anticipate the home and the woods will meet . And there may be the need to remove some trees based on the construction that we actually find happeni-g when we 're out there and do the final plans . What we don 't want to happe is to have that construction process , the final design and siting of each home to be inhibited by a preservation area that could use some adjustment . So what we were suggesting is , rather than the strict preservation based n our preliminary plan at this point , that a preservation happen later on after we 're better able to adjust . That 's why we suggested this different wording so each site could be looked at specifically . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 5 T Batzli : Let me ask you this question . On the plat we 're looking at , if you come around the podium and you look up there , you show trees and the house pads aren 't anywhere near those preservation areas that Jo Ann has drawn up there . Now I don 't understand . I mean you two are missing each other I think . Jo Ann is saying there are tree preservation areas which will be deeded as tree preservation areas . You haven 't shown on your plat here , clearly not anywhere near any house pads or anything else . Is there a problem with preserving the tree areas that you show us tree areas on the plat? You can save other trees . Terry Forbord: Yes . Batzli : We 're not telling you to cut down all the other trees but we 're saying these trees in particular are ones that we want preserved . John Uban: The actual drawing and putting an easement on the plat prior to construction may not accurately show the edge that will actually be created when you put each one of the homes in place and make those final adjustments . We may decide , and hopefully we ' ll find some trees that we can save in the construction process . It may be in a sideyard or a front of a house . We may wish to move the house back or twist it a little bit and . . .adjustments may be inhibited if we too early set a line that says this is the line for tree preservation . Hopefully , the process we had suggested with individual site plans that show how that tree preservation works would be the best way to match the home with a site and have that preservation take place . Batzli : But see I see a big difference between your condition , which says nothing about tree preservation area . All you 're talking about is you 're going to submit a tree removal plan . This would be a preservation area which would be part , it would run with the land . Am I right? Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair . We don 't have a problem with the concept of what you 're saying . Here 's where the problem exists and we 're already starting to feel this a little bit in a previous development . When we talk academically about these kinds of things and we try to create in the narrative what 's going to happen , we try to draw these lines to scale of 1 inch equals 100 and 1 inch equals 50 feet . And all that looks real wonderful but if any of you have ever even done any landscaping your yard or done any kind of work where you actually get out into the real world and you 're dealing with dirt and you 're trying to make some things work , I mean that fine line disappears . I mean it disappears . There 's no such thing as a fine line . That fine line becomes 10 feet . Becomes 15 feet . And it becomes impossible to do something . For instance , if you 're building a home , you 've got to have a perimeter around that home of probably of anywhere from 10 to 15 feet minimum , just to be able to function and to operate and everything 's going to be wrecked inbetween . Unfortunately . It 'd be neat if there was a better way but so far there hasn 't been one developed and all we 're saying , it 's where that envelope , that building envelope meets the preservation zone is where the adjustment somehow needs to be made and that 's where it gets real difficult to start dealing with . As far as everything beyond that , everything beyond that envelope or that construction zone , I don 't have a problem with having a preservation zone . But what happens is that , if you clearly try to say here 's exactly where Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 6 - it 's going to be , well then you say , you know how do you predict what a _ house that isn 't even there yet , how it 's going to fit in that . And so somehow I think that it 's important that , and this is what we do in other cities as well and this is what we 've done already in this city . We bring forth , here 's the plan . Here 's the house for this lot . Here 's the tree preservation plan for this lot , and it works quite well , or it has in the past . Batzli : How do you react to my comment that your tree preservation , well your tree removal is not equivalent to a tree preservation area which is a condition of approval? _ Terry Forbord: Like I indicated , we don 't have a problem with a preservation zone . I think it 's the language or the semantics that we come up with right where the construction envelope touches that zone . What is— it going to be? The way I interpret this right now , and maybe I 'm being too paranoid too . I mean that 's possible but I 'm the guy that has to go out and live and breathe it and make it work . And what we 're already - finding is that these are very difficult parameters . I think that it 's fair to say and I believe that you would agree with me . You trust that kw have the same motivations that you do and I trust that we 're on the same _ wave . We want to save as many trees as possible . It 's to my benefit . It s to my customer 's benefit but I do know for a fact that when I get out the e it 's not as easy as what you see on those pretty drawings in the real world and so we 're trying to figure out a way to make that work . And maybe somebody has a better idea than I 've been able to come up . Batzli : But we don 't gain a preservation easement though . Terry Forbord : I 'm willing to grant a preservation easement outside of t„e building zone , as long as we have that capability that we 're not going to have that problem . Batzli : When does that happen though then? Emmings: That has to happen early . Krauss: Yes . It has to happen now with the plat and frankly that 's all _ we 've ever asked for . We are not trying to pick and choose homes that yc have to shoot uh , I 'm sorry . Trees that you have to shoehorn a home inbetween . We frankly have found over the years that this tree cutting plan , and it 's not only with Lundgren . It 's been used in a lot of projects , is a meaningless exercise . I mean I will save every tree that I don 't have to cut down . Well , that 's nice . We 're not trying to restrict the type of homes . We 're not trying to restrict where you put the home . — We 're saying set up a reasonable pad . Set up a reasonable area for the deck . Where there 's trees coming into that lot , set up a reasonable line beyond which cutting should not occur . Now if they can pick and choose and save trees between there and the street because they shoehorn the house i , more power to them . But we don 't want to get into the business of regulating individual trees like that . That 's too difficult . We just don 't want to do that . Terry Forbord: I agree 100% with what staff just said . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 7 Emmings : Then how do you define the no cutting zone? Krauss: They 're obligated to show us a building pad on each lot . If it 's a 15 foot clear zone beyond that , so be it . You just boot the line further back . It 's no different than establishing a no cut line around the wetland . You make your best estimate of where it is and you shoot that line . It 's not a new technology . Terry Forbord : I think we 're talking the same language here . In fact we want to take this even a step further in that it 's possible that some of the trees in this area that are cross hatched , that are shown for removal , will actually be there when it 's done because we 'll be trying to save that tree and then try to get the house in behind it . So from the comments that I 've just heard from staff , I think we 're talking the same language . How precisely you put that in a narrative and make it so , I 'm not exactly sure but I know we 're talking the same language . I do not have a problem putting it in a preservation zone beyond the building pad and I think that 's what they 're saying also . Emmings : I have a question here . We 've called these conservation easements in the past and now we 're calling it a preservation area . Is that the same thing? Krauss: It 's one in the same . Olsen : It 's one in the same . I think with Willow Ridge we did call it preservation . We switched over so that 's why we 're doing it . And then just one final thing is that we were basing it on this plan that you see here and even in our narrative of the report , we did point out that they are showing the trees right up to the edge and aren 't providing that 15 foot area around the house pad and that we do want to have the plans to reflect that . To be honest and say that , when they show the reduced grading , they now show it right up to the house pad and we 're saying , well really you 're going to be 15 feet beyond there and so that 's what we are agreeing to . That yes , there will be removal of trees beyond that . Not right up . We understand the house pads . That they won 't . Emmings: Jo Ann , essentially so I understand . Are the areas you 've outlined as the preservation areas on this map , at least roughly the same as what we 're seeing in dark green? Olsen : Well we 're both using the same information but this is not what you 're going to get . I honestly believe that there will be less trees preserved than what you see on both of these plans because they are not showing that 15 foot leeway around the building pad and that 's one of the reasons we pointed that out in the report was just to say that the tree removal has been reduced but yet the plans aren 't really showing all that will be removed . Emmings: But the area that will be in the preservation zone is yet to be agreed upon between the staff and the developer? We 're just saying there 's going to be one . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 8 Olsen: Well there will be a plan similar to this and if Terry wants to add that 15 feet , then yeah . That would be the plan that we would go with . Terry Forbord : And I think you can even add to that by what I 've just stated previously . Is that it 's possible that some of those trees that -e now scheduled to be removed will not be removed . And again , these things are , it 's not an accurate science . When you 're driving you know a Laterno or a Caterpillar , dual engine , I mean it 's just not that precise and so - what you try to do is you try to save it as best that you possibly can . What I 'm hearing is that we 're in 100% agreement with the staff . Is what I am hearing here and these are things that when you get into the actual final design documents , these things become a little more fine tuned and then actually in the developers contract you get further into the languac so I don 't see this as a problem based upon what I 've heard . Batzli : So even if we said something like , the areas as substantially shown on the plans or something . These are the areas that we 're trying to preserve . You 're comfortable with that . - Terry Forbord: Yes sir . Batzli : Okay . Terry Forbord: Are there any other questions related to number 8? Number 9 was that this has come up before you folks and I think you directed the- staff to work with the applicant . It went to the City Council and they deleted this item . And because staff felt that it was important they had requested that it be placed back on . And this requirement basically would require that the applicant would provide the city with "as-builts" , locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official . Let me give you a little bit of background of what this means . An as-built would be an - engineered drawing that would show you a cross section of a building site that would show the depth , width , height , all drawn into detail of what was done on a lot in a subdivision if it had soil corrections done . For each- lot that had them . Now , in many subdivisions there is a considerable number of lots that have soil corrections done to them and it 's because you have to make your site balance and make all the dirt work and the water _ flow where you want it and the roads have to go and the house pads , I mea it 's a complicated thing that you 're trying to do . And so in some areas you 're going to end up either adding dirt or you 're going to be trying to cut dirt and if some of the existing dirt that 's there is poor dirt or if- it 's an organic nature and it has some , it compresses and it does not become firm , you can 't build a house pad on it . So you have to go through of stripping of that out and then you put in dirt and lifts of maybe 1 font or 2 foot and you compact it with a roller . Then you put in another lift and you do that until you get it to the elevation that you want to get it at . The problem with all this , and it works quite well , but if you had to do an engineered drawing for each lot , you would add $400 .00 to $500 .00 c- cost to each lot and you 'd have a piece of paper that did not solve your problem . Now I think that in my discussion with the building inspector , the problems that they have had in the past typically . Not always but - typically have been when they have a developer who is not the builder . 4 d if he 's here , I 'm sure he can address those . I don 't know if he 's here or Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 9 not . But in the case with Lundgren Bros . we are the builder . We do the work in there . We build the homes and we 're there from the very beginning to the very end . Now there 's two situations that , two solutions or remedies that we have as a builder . If in fact we have corrected the soil on a lot , and then we sell a house to someone and it 's typically like a corner of a house may just get off the building pad a little bit because you might want to tilt that house just to take advantage of the way the streetscape is or the way the cul-de-sac is . Or maybe it just looks better tilted so let 's say you just tilt a house a little bit so typically if this condition does happen , and this is the fear of the Building Inspector , maybe the corner of a house would just be off the edge of a "corrected building pad" . Okay there 's two choices you have if you 're the builder . One , you can move the house back into an area where the soil is suitable . Or two , you dig down further until you hit suitable soil and then you add additional courses of block . And now some of you may have heard this type of terminology before . Those are your two choices . Okay , so by having an as-built doesn 't solve either one of those problems . You wasted $500 .00 and it didn 't solve a problem . Now when I asked the Building Inspector , he agreed he had never had a problem with Lundgren Bros . on any situation like this . That we had always gone ahead and if in fact we did go off of a building pad , that we always went about and built and constructed the house in the manner that there would not be a problem . But the situation obviously just is one of those additional layers of regulations that you could add and it wouldn 't have to be just confined to this type of situation , that keeps adding to the prices of homes and it doesn 't solve the problem . And I asked the Building Inspector , what would this provide you with if in fact you had this? He said , well obviously what he could do is he could have it to scale . When we submit for the building permit , he could take the house , reduce it to that scale and kind of jockey it around on to see if it was on the building pad . But what are you really doing there again? You 're dealing with drawings at 1 inch equals 100 feet . There 's absolutely no accuracy whatsoever when you 're doing something like that . You could not take a drawing reduced to that size and come up and say yeah , now you 're on the pad . Now you 're not . I mean you could be off 5 feet easily so from a. realistic perspective , that 's really not going to give you anything . So we would request that that item be deleted and what we would rather do is what we 're doing right now . We 'd like to , the Building Inspectors come out . They inspect the dirt . The pad before the footings are poured and we would be happy to provide them with whatever information that is normally done . We 've never been asked this in Chanhassen before . We 've never been asked it in any other city that we 've ever worked in 23 years and we feel it 's just a level of bureaucracy that wouldn 't really help solve a problem . Batzli : Why is this in here? Krauss: Because the Building Inspector asked it to be . We have had , the Building Inspector has had problems . There have been homes that have slid off their building pad . I would agree with Terry that the situation where those happened , I think there were 2 or 3 of them that happened , is not really germain necessarily to this situation because that was a project that had mass site grading . It was a cornfield . That 's not the way this is going to be developed . We have asked Steve Kirchman to think of some alternative measures that are less onerous that satisfy him and his Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 10 department . We assume that there are . I really don 't know how to advise you on it . It 's not something we have expertise in . The condition is worded such that alternative options should be looked at and we 're not bound by one method or another . So I 'd like to leave it in or leave it with some sort of a provision or provisionary note that says it should be— resolved by the time it gets to the City Council . And at that point we c n ask the Building Inspector to defend that or make that case themselves . Terry Forbord : We have added our recommendation to there and maybe that would suffice with what Paul just said , in that the applicant shall work with the Building Official to assure that each home is constructed on suitable soils . - Krauss: Initially I would say that that 's fine . I mean either way you read it , any alternative is possible . So the alternate language is fine .— Batzli : Well , if for example the applicant had to receive approval of the city building official and he was requiring as-builts because he wasn 't _ convinced that it was suitable soil , they 'd have to provide that , right? Krauss: Correct . Yeah , and this is a new requirement for the Building Official . And we 'd like him to research it a little further . But again ,— we don 't have a good answer for you tonight . Ahrens: Couldn 't we just change similar to other and leave . . . - Krauss : Sure . Terry Forbord: Any further questions on number 9? Hearing none , item 10 and 11 are fine with the applicant . Item number 12 . We would like to replace 12 with the following . That the applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development .- The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6 , Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1 , Block 4 . And individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D ( cul-de-sac ) to provide _ service to the exception parcel . At the time of the exception parcel connects to the water and sewer service provided , the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros . The applicant shall be reimbursed for the cost of installation of said improvements to said properties through credit of a trunk and sewer and water assessments . I think that our consulting engineer , Ken Adolf can explain this engineering item better to you than I can . Ken Adolf : The two locations that are requested as far as sewer and water extensions are the north side of the development . Sewer and water extension in this area from the north plat line , and another extension it this area to the corner of the exception . And also sewer and water servi e from the cul-de-sac . . . The developer is agreeing to do those but is requesting that some consideration be given to reimbursement of the costs- for those extensions to serve other properties . The lift station which serves this entire area is located right there . So there 's a fairly long connection required just to get from the lift station to the development ._ And if these facilities are going to serve other properties , we feel there 's some basis for having some of these costs considered either trunk Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 11 — improvements or some reimbursement or credit to the current assessments to this property . Hempel : Mr . Chairman , if I could address that condition . One other condition that was deleted I guess was the modified version was the applicant shall extend sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary . There is a small piece of high ground east of the subdivision that would be very difficult to serve with sanitary sewer when that parcel _ develops . We anticipate sewer would be brought in from Galpin Boulevard or south of the property on up . There 's a low ravine area that would have to be crossed and rather doubtful that there 'd be elevation to service it and be a gravity so it is our recommendation then that Street A , at the easterly edge of the plat , that sewer be extended to that plat edge . Unless the applicant has other provisions to serve that parcel to the east . Ken Adolf: I forgot to address that that 's an extension in this area . The most easterly lot is right here and that house is really on the west portion of that property . It 's kind of the top of the hill . This street grade is going to drop off fairly sharply and in order to service any of this area in the Song property would require lowering the sanitary sewer considerably in this area . We feel that this area of the Song property would be better served by sanitary sewer being extended through the Song property from the south . Terry Forbord: To the forcemain that 's being constructed as a part of the trunk sewer project? Ken Adolf : Well actually it 'd be a gravity sewer . . . Terry Forbord: What increase in depth would you anticipate in that collector road of the sanitary sewer if in fact it was extended in that portion easterly? Ken Adolf : This street drops 10 or 15 feet in elevation from this point tc the plat line . Terry Forbord: So the additional depth of the pipe . Ken Adolf : The sewer would have to be at least that much deeper to service it . Terry Forbord: I think these are engineering items that the engineers can possibly get together and work through . Batzli : Yeah . What I would suggest is that you have your consultant talk to our City Engineers to see if that would even be feasible because I don 't think that we can vote on that yea or nay without knowing whether the depths and everything else would work out . — Terry Forbord: I think it 's fair to say that Lundgren Bros , when we meet with the City Engineers , as we always have in the past , we 've always come to a conclusion that 's been workable for the City and for us and so I think it 's just a matter of having that opportunity to do so . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 12 Emmings: What about the other changes they 're suggesting there tonight . . . Hempel : Yes , typically the City would refund a portion of the service costs to the exception . We 've done it on similar plats . Vineland Forest Addition . However , as far as the trunk sewer and water assessment , the — City has not typically refunded those costs back to the developer . The cost the City would refund would be a lateral type assessment or cost for installing that section of main to service that parcel . The trunk sewer _ and water costs are assessed on a unit basis which , depending on the acreage and so forth , is how we arrive at the number of units to be assessed on the parcel . Therefore we would request that that be eliminated in their proposal . Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair . We 'd like to go on record saying that a lateral benefit reimbursement would be acceptable to Lundgren Bros and we think Li would be fair . Are there any other questions on number 12? On number 1: The existing business that 's on Lot 1 , Block 1 , we 've been asked to require to connect that to urban services . That business is going to be demolishec on January 3rd of 1994 at the latest . If the current owner can find a place to relocate to , then he will be moving sooner . I think it wouldn 't be well advised to spend the kind of money to hook up a building to sewer and water that was going to be demolished in that short of a period of ti—e period so we would ask that that would be struck from the recommendation . Krauss: We could agree to that . Terry Forbord : Number 14 . All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City 's standard specs and detail plates . We 've asked that , except for the condition in recommendation number 3 above , which discussed the right-of-way reductior and also discussed leaving the cul-de-sac at 120 which everybody seemed to agree with , that shall be constructed in accordance with the latest editi—r: of the City 's standard specifications and detail plates . Everything elsE to that remains the same . Emmings : I don 't understand the change you 're making . Terry Forbord: The change is if you look at item number 3 , or condition number 3 . It states that the preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce= the local street rights-of-way from 60 to 50 and reduce the cul-de-sac radius from 120 to 100 . We 've already discussed that item and it 's already been acceptable but I believe the City 's standard specifications show 60 - foot right-of-ways and that 's why I 'm saying except for . And I think they 'd agree with that . Hempel : Yeah . No , we 've comfortable with that . Terry Forbord: On page 5 , 22 thru 24 are , we 're in agreement . Page 5 . Did I skip a page? - Emmings: Yeah , there 's a page missing . Terry Forbord: Page 5 , or mine are out of order . Excuse me . Page 4 . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 13 Emmings : Our 's are too . — Terry Forbord: How can those copying machines collate out of order . I 've not figured that out . I apologize for any inconvenience . Emmings: You could work for the city if you do something like that . Terry Forbord: Number 15 and 16 are okay . And number 17 , we would ask that that be modified so it would state that the grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation and we 've struck the areas related to drain tiling because we do not know where existing drain tile is on the site and we do not know if there 's any proposed drain tiling . And so I 'll let the engineer deal with this and discuss this because he 's the one that has alerted me to this . Ken Adolf : Well as Terry said , it 's really impossible to show the existing drain tile because no one really knows where they are . We do know that there are a number of tiles in the area . As far as proposed drain tile , where existing drain tile are encountered , we 're proposing that those would be , by encountered I mean during the construction process we 're proposing that those would be either repaired or connected into some storm sewers so that the drainage patterns would not be altered . Hempel : The reason why Mr . Chairman I believe that comment got put in there is one of the plans did show an existing drain tile through one of the wetland areas . Also , the plan showed a proposed drain tile to connect the two wetlands I believe and we just would like to see that information also on the grading plan . Terry Forbord: It is true , we have discovered one drain tile . The drainage patterns , as our wetland specialist can tell you , would lead one to believe that the site is laced with them but we don 't know where they are . They probably will be discovered once construction starts out there . And so it 's difficult to put them on the grading plan now because nobody knows where they are , except for the one or two exceptions that exist but I can assure you there are more than that . Batzli : You don 't go out there with your little bent welding rods and kind of dozz around there? Terry Forbord: I always wanted to learn how to do that . Batzli : It works . It works . I 've had to find drain tiles that way . Terry Forbord : Are you available on weekdays or weekends? Well , Mr . Hempel , do you have any recommendations how we could maybe amend this? Hempel : I believe we could amend it to include any wetlands or drain tiles that are encountered I suppose during construction . With the as-built construction plans , that these drain tiles be shown on the record drawings . Batzli : If they find one when they 're grading , would they be required to fix this? Would it hurt something if they switched it somehow or took out a section? Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 14 — Hempel : The city is laced with drain tile systems and what we 've found is the past is you 're better off to connect these to a storm sewer system or reconnect the drain tiles to keep the drainage pattern that 's going . If you interrupt the drainage pattern , you could cause a problem upstream which you may become liable for in the long run . So we have , in the past— typically reconnected any drain tiles back up or connected them into a storm sewer system . Batzli : He added to his proposal that the wetland mitigation area is the a known existing and proposed tiles or whatever and also include that they will report any that they find and may be required to connect them or work with staff if they find them . That would be satisfactory? Hempel : That would be acceptable , yes Mr . Chairman . Terry Forbord : That is acceptable to Lundgren Bros . On number 19 , the only modification that we have added to there is the word drainage . That would be in the third line I believe where it says now , it presently says_ an easement shall also be provided . I just added a drainage easement she 1 also be provided along wetlands . I think that was in the intent . I 'm pretty sure by reading further on in the text . Is that correct? Hempel : If I could maybe just ask Jo Ann . Typically wetlands , do we ha' a conservation easement over those as well as a drainage easement or , have we in the past? — Olsen: We do have conservation easement also . Hempel : Okay . So the final plat of the development can reflect the drainage or drainage utility easement over the wetlands . However , the final plat cannot reflect a conservation easement on that document . Any conservation easement is dedicated through an easement agreement . So I — think the language that we use by an easement covered both types of easements . A conservation easement and the drainage easement . Terry Forbord: That 's acceptable to Lundgren Bros . I thought they were talking drainage . So number 19 is okay . Emmings : Well now , wait a minute . It only does talk about easements for drainage and utilities . That 's all 19 talks about if you read it . So should we add something there? Olsen: The intent was also to protect the wetlands . Emmings : It doesn 't say that . — Terry Forbord: So the appropriate . Emmings: Conservation , drainage and utility easements should be conveyec If we just add the word conservation in there will we do what needs to be done? Olsen : Are you on the first sentence? Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 15 T Emmings: Yeah . If I just add . Ahrens: But is the purpose of a conservation easement to provide access . . .? Olsen: Right . So it is the second sentence . Batzli : But the conservation easement is over the wetland area but you want it for . Olsen: It includes the wetland area . The buffer . Batzli : So your number 25 doesn 't cover it? Olsen: Yeah , that covers it . Emmings: So we can leave 19 the way it is . Originally? Is that what we were saying now? Olsen: I don 't think it makes that big of a difference . Terry Forbord: That would be fine with Lundgren Bros . On number 20 , I ' ll let the engineer describe that to you . Ken Adolf : This is probably one of those items that could be worked out with the city engineering staff . . .but the request , or the condition I should say was to extend the storm sewer which right now is going to end at that point and to extend it to this storm water basin . We feel that right now this is discharging right at the existing wetland and there 's really no need to extend the storm sewer any farther . . . .surface very shallow swale . . . I don 't see the need for the storm sewer extension . Terry Forbord: What we 're trying to avoid , is we 're trying to avoid putting a bunch of pipe in the ground where it 's not needed . That 's the issue . Hempel : Staff 's issue on this is you 're essentially discharging the storm sewer in the middle of the resident 's back yard . We 're saying extend it to the rear property line which is the sedimentation basin limits or the wetland limits . In either case there 's going to be a drainage utility easement over that . The rear yard to provide maintenance and drainage ways so we just felt the resident would end up having an undesireable ditch section through it 's back yard and one way to resolve that is to pipe it with storm sewer an additional 30-40 feet of pipe . Ken Adolf : I guess extending it to the rear property line is fine . That 's a shorter distance than the entire distance to the basin . Terry Forbord : To make sure I understand what the two of you are saying . You 're saying extend it to the rear property line? Okay . I think this is another item that the engineers are agreeing to agree . Batzli : Well Jo Ann , is there an issue of them putting it directly into a — wetland? Were we trying to filter it somehow? Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 16 Olsen: I think this is different . Is this the same drainage? This is different . Hempel : This case is different than what Jo Ann had previously indicatec about connecting the storm sewer between the wetland and had the pristine spring water traveling through it . What we 're concerned about is the - discharge of the storm sewer in the middle of the back yard also creatine erosion problems . Typically the outlet of the storm sewer is at the sediment basins so discharge is at water level . Not up above which would- have the potential for being an erosion problem over time . Olsen : This is what we 're talking about is . My issue is these wetland _ basins , this drainage would come in . . . Hempel : Again , I 'm sure it 's an issue that can be worked out during the plans and specs review process . Emmings: Now does piping it to the rear of Lot 33 solve the problem as far as you 're concerned? - Hempel : I think it 's two different issues . Emmings: Oh it is? Alright , then I don 't get it . Obviously . Olsen : The piping that they 're talking about is coming from the street . Drainage . And this over is overland drainage . - Emmings: But 20 addresses storm sewer lines . Olsen: Right . Emmings: So now if we 've got two issues here , which one are we talking about in this condition? Batzli : We 're not talking about Jo Ann 's . Olsen: Not talking about me . Emmings: Okay . So you don 't have an issue here? Alright . So now , does_ giving it to the rear of the property line make everybody happy? Hempel : Happier . But we can work it out during the plans and specification process to arrive at a comparable spot where the pipe - should discharge . Terry Forbord: I think that the item that I do agree whole heartedly - with , and I don 't believe that is what we 're doing but David had indicated that he doesn 't want this going right through somebody 's yard . Well neither do we . And I can say that for the record . It 's not our intent to do that . But we do believe that we can reroute that water or - route that water without having to put in pipe . Batzli : Well , what happens if we say that you 'll work with the City - Engineering to do this or an other alternative acceptable? Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 17 Terry Forbord: That is acceptable . Yes sir . Batzli : Okay , what 's next? Terry Forbord: Well because my pages are backwards here , I 'm going to go back to the previous page . Onto number 25 . Olsen: That 's fine with us . Terry Forbord: The only reason we eliminated G and H is because those are areas scheduled for future development and I 'm pretty sure that the thought was the same between us and staff and I just clarified it . Okay , onto the last page . I 'm not sure if my numbering is correct here but for the last item I just stated that all conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit as shown below . Because we had requested that some of those be changed so if we move into the wetland alteration permit _ #92-9 , we would like to delete item number 2 and I will have Ron Peterson , our wetland analyst address that . Ron Peterson : Thank you Terry . Could I get that mitigation plan for the corner of the site? Just by way of re-orienting you to this portion of the site wetland basins . Batzli : Excuse me a moment . Can everyone hear? Okay . Ron Peterson: Wetlands 7 and 7A lie immediately to the north and east of the storm water pond that 's shown on this plan . These basins are very , very marginal remnants of a larger wetland that appears to have once existed in this entire area . And are just barely wetlands . And the reason for that is that there appears to be an extensive tile system — under that whole area . What is occurring is that we 're getting drainage coming in from the east . From the Song property that enters these two small basins and essentially disappears . It enters the tile system at that point and then re-appears at the northern most head of Basin 1C . Which essentially takes on a ditch like character from there . It flows to the south . Now maybe Ken can correct me if I 'm wrong but I don 't know that we have a problem in routing that drainage to the mitigation area versus the storm water pond . I don 't know that it necessarily would need to be piped but perhaps I think a swale was already shown in the plans . But I see two options for dealing with these basins , and the reasons behind those options would be related to making sure that we don 't end up with some type of a drainage problem with the adjoining lots . One would be to essentially encourage the continued drainage of that area . In other words , and I think that 's what we applied for initially , was to drain those two basins so that all of that water goes to the south and could go into the mitigation area . In that manner we could make sure that that flow doesn 't end up turning up in somebody 's basement or elsewhere . The other option would be perhaps to provide a little bit more fill around the edges of the house pads in those lots and then even excavate those basins slightly deeper so that they form an amenity and then have those again , discharge to the south . I think to maintain those areas in their current condition is more or less going to just leave a couple of soggy spots off the back ends of a couple of lots that aren 't going to really serve any particular wetland functions and aren 't going Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 18 to be an amenity to the lots adjacent and they 're going to be rather soggy places for the kids to play in , is what they 're going to be . Olsen: The reason that we stated in there that it could be , that wetlanc 7 could be maintained is that on some of the plans it still showed that it was existing and that the house pads could still meet it so we were - saying that if it didn 't need to be removed , don 't . I agree with what Ron 's saying . If it 's just going to be kind of a worthless mushy area , that 's not a major issue with us . We do strongly feel that the runoff — should be routed to the new wetland mitigation pond . And I don 't think it can be a drainage swale . I believe that 's a hill . So I don 't know , is it? I can 't see on here . Hempel : The grading plan that we looked at indicated a hill there kind of sloping down towards the house pad and . Olsen: So therefore it would have to be piped . Hempel : Yeah , it 's going to be rather difficult to put a swale in there ._ We felt a pipe would have to be installed . Ron Peterson : Perhaps we could get some clarification about what the — problem is with running it through the pond . I mean if it goes into the pond , I don 't know what 's . I mean the mitigation area that we 're creating should have wetland hydrology without having the additional drainage . Essentially all we 're doing is bringing two higher areas down to the grade of the existing wetland on either side so that we should be getting wetland hydrology even if we don 't get this drainage . Olsen: Well it was , it 's just not to waste that drainage because it was good drainage . And in working with our wetland consultant , they were saying , it was just something that he really remembered when he was visiting the site that there was a high amount of runoff coming into that pipe from the Song property and that was very high quality runoff coming from another wetland system that carries wetland vegetation with it . All the other nutrients . I guess he was saying it would be a real waste to have that go to a storm water pond . That it would be beneficial to have it go to the new wetland mitigation area , and we agreed with that . Batzli : Well let me see if I 'm even coming close to tracking what we 're talking about here . The current wetland 7 and 7A , they 're not high quality wetlands , correct? Olsen: Correct . Batzli : So you 're trying to take the water and get them out of a not. very high quality wetland and put it down into the newly created one which is about 4 or 5 lots to the south? Olsen: They are currently directing that into a storm water pond that 's adjacent to the mitigation pond . We 're just saying direct it to a different . I mean it 's not that much of a difference . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 19 Ron Peterson: I think we can probably find a way to engineer that . I mean I think , we think that would be beneficial too to run that water in there . I 'm sure that between the engineers we can workout a way to get that in there . Olsen: Into the storm water pond? This is where it 's being proposed to be directed to a new storm water pond . What we 're saying is that it should instead be directed to the new wetland area . Terry Forbord: . . .water quality? Olsen: It 's good water . It should go to the wetlands instead of a storm water pond . Terry Forbord: We don 't have a problem with that . Batzli : Okay . Terry Forbord: Okay , the last item that we had a concern with was the next item , item 3 and Ron will address that as well . Ron Peterson: Perhaps you could leave that same graphic up there for another moment or two . The concept behind the wetland mitigation plan in this area is to blend these two areas , or three areas into existing wetland basin 1 . The three different parts of it , 1A , B and C . And for that reason we have tried to match the grades of that wetland area and perhaps maybe take it down another half a foot to a foot . The reason for that , or for trying to replace what 's being lost as close to in kind as we can . And I don 't think we have a problem with making some minor changes to add a little bit more diversity in these areas to get a combination of open water and emergent vegetation but we thought that 6 feet was possibly a little too deep to suit that purpose and is going to result in an awful lot of excess material that we 're going to have to waste somewhere and I don 't know exactly where that material would go . The second part of this recommendation regarding getting into that part of Wetland 1C that lies between those two mitigation areas and deepening that as well . We 've been trying to avoid extensive modifications to existing wetlands because the other wetland agencies that we have to deal with will view those as adverse impacts , even though all we 're doing is perhaps changing one wetland type to another . In recent months we 've been on other projects been required to actually mitigate for changes we 've made to other wetlands . And so we 're trying to keep our mitigation in line with our impacts and leave any existing wetlands we can alone as much as we can . Olsen: Okay , this is what we were proposing was to combine the mitigation for this whole area , and to increase the depth so there is some open water . We agree that you should try to mitigate in time but this area is such a large wetland area . It 's really pretty low quality and we shoudl really add some open water and just a diversity would be very beneficial . I agree with what he 's saying though by increasing the amount that 's going to have to be removing from a wetland that would have been altered to begin with . That 's probably a good point and so we should probably modify the condition that this be two new basins then . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 20 Add increase depth to this and they don 't necessarily have to alter this one . - Terry Forbord: That is agreeable with the applicant . Batzli : Okay so Jo Ann , what ever happened to the conditions we used to put on when people did things like this that talked about slopes and undulating bottoms and muck and all that good stuff? Olsen: Well they 're doing that with the one wetland . And that 's essentially kind of what we 're requesting for these other ones . Batzli : But we 're not putting that condition in? Olsen: They already did it with the one , but no . We could put it in but_ some of the mitigation that 's being proposed are going to reflect what exists there and then those really wouldn 't really match so it wasn 't an easy condition to do as a general condition . Batzli : Okay . But those conditions are still what we 're trying to achieve? Olsen: Yes . Batzli : Do you follow the change they made to condition 5? Okay . Do you have anything else Terry? Terry Forbord: Just a follow-up on your comment to what you were just describing . Those conditions are not a problem for us . As long as we - don 't have a consistent 6 foot depth in these . We think that 's a little over kill and extreme . It ends up causing other problems with other agencies and things and we 're trying to avoid that . That is the end of _ our comments . I think we may have a couple comments regarding some of the issues related to the buffer strips and I think Mr . Uban has some comments on those . John Uban: Sorry , I was distracted for a second . Terry Forbord: Okay . We were just talking about the buffer strips and - the setbacks . John Uban: When we put together our plan and so forth , and showed the setback to the wetland , 40 feet and then accommodated a 10 foot buffer strip , it was our understanding that when we met with staff and had talked with them , that this basic process was , the setback was to the wetland . And then you created a buffer strip in which you maintain - natural vegetation in there . In that setback area . And what has transpired as either a misunderstanding or somehow we 're not , didn 't track exactly what was the intent of the setback and as we read the staff_ report , as it 's been amended and handed to us this evening , that they are indicating that the setback is from the buffer strip . Not from the wetland . And we will do our best to accommodate within the development those adjustments and the fact that we can narrow up some of the streets - by 50 feet versus 60 and looking at that type of flexibility , we will Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 21 adjust to best meet that condition . There may be a few spots where it may not exactly fit and we would hope that the flexibility within the PUD and so forth would allow a 5 foot variance here and there where it may be necessary . We don 't think it 's a big problem and we will make our adjustments accordingly but we did have some confusion on the real intent and how the ordinance was being interpretted and applied to this condition . Batzli : Thank you . Jo Ann , we never got your response or rebuttal if you will from their recommendation to modify condition 1 of the preliminary plat . They listed a lot more blocks and lots if you will . Did you have any reaction to that? Olsen: No . We 're agreeable to what they 're proposing . I guess we were just trying to go one step further and to point out lots where the 20 foot front yard setback would be very beneficial . It would reduce the impact to trees , the wetlands and grading . And so we 're just playing it out that those lots should have the 20 foot front yard setback . Again that 's the whole purpose of the PUD . We 're just concerned a lot of times where the setback would actually be 30-40 feet and that would actually be impacting more than what is being shown or believed to be happening now . Batzli : But given their , assume for a minute that they have a conservation easement around the trees and assume that they need to put the 40 foot buffer from the wetland . Would you still be uncomfortable with allowing them flexibility to move it around , which is what their proposed wording gives it? Olsen: Right . What they 're doing is fine . I don 't think we need to be as strict as I was . Batzli : Okay . This is a public hearing . If there is anyone else who would like to address the Commission . I invite you to do so . If you 'd come to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record , we 'd appreciate that . Tim Keene: Tim Keene with Larkin , Hoffman , Daley and Lindgren , 7900 Xerxes , Bloomington , and I 'm here this evening with Tom Green and Bruce Buxton on behalf of Mills Fleet Farm . Property owners to the south and west . Just a quick question for either of the engineers . It wasn 't clear from the drainage plan , and I believe it 's wetland 6 in the southeast corner . Will that be discharging off site and if so , which direction? Batzli : I think it 's 1C . Wetland 1 . Tim Keene : Well it 's in the extreme southeast corner of the site . Emmings: Can we get something up on the board so he can . Olsen : Yeah . This shows the wetland that you were asking . . . Ken Adolf : I believe the question was , is the storm water basin in this general area , number 6 . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 22 Tim Keene : Correct . Ken Adolf : That 's going to discharge off site . I guess indirectly it does . It will discharge into this large wetland . . .which will extend ultimately off site . Tim Keene : Okay . Will that be wholly contained within the property controlled by Lundgren Bros or will it be effecting our property off site? Ken Adolf: As I said , this will discharge into this very large wetland complex so we don 't expect that given the size of this wetland , that there will be any impact at all . On site or off site . Tim Keene : Okay . Batzli : Is the property that you 're here representing , do they abut this wetland? Is that the issue? Olsen: On the south side . Tim Keene : I 'm not certain as to the extreme boundaries of the wetland and Tom , is that contiguous to? - Tom Green: I 'm not sure . Tim Keene : Yeah . It 's hard to say from that site because the site information , once you get off the developed portion is not any level of detail . That was our only question . Hempel : Mr . Chairman , as with any storm retention pond , the city does require that the pond discharge at the pre-developed runoff rate from the sedimentation pond . So the volume of water or the discharge rate of the - water will be at the pre-developed runoff rate . Overall I would anticipate the overall volume or the amount of runoff would be slightly increased with the added impervious surface through the development but as Mr . Adolf has indicated , there 's a very large wetland to the south of this development . Batzli : So you wouldn 't envision having to put in some sort of pipe or - culvert at a certain elevation in that wetland is so large? Hempel : That 's correct , no . Tim Keene : Okay , thank you . Batzli : Would anyone else like to address the commission? Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Joan , do you have some comments for us? Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 23 Ahrens: I feel like I just sat through a staff meeting . I think that a lot of this stuff should have been worked out before coming to us . I 'm saying that not just staff but for Lundgren Bros because we 've been sitting here for almost •2 hours discussing things that you 're in basic agreement on . Besides that , I 'm not going to go over each condition that Terry has discussed here . I 'm going to go along with the staff report on this and with everything that 's been agreed to tonight between the developer and the staff . The only condition that I kind of have a problem with is condition 8 that deals with the tree preservation area . I guess I ' ll be satisfied . I think Brian you proposed to insert some language . I 'm not even sure because I didn 't write it down but I think it was something about the areas . . .proposed tree preservation areas will be . . .eventually agreed to by the staff . Batzli : I think I said something about the areas substantially as shown on the plans will be protected in that they 're going to work with staff to get a final designation . But I would like some comfort from us . I agree with you that what we 're looking at is the area that we think . It 's substantially that area . I don 't mind if they 've got to move in 5 feet or 10 feet because that 's where the house pad goes . I agree with Terry that looking at this plan with these scales , there might be a couple of minor adjustments but I would like to be assured that it 's substantially what we 're looking at is going to be preserved . Ahrens: And if that can be done with the language that you 've stated , I guess that 's all we can do but I agree . I think that that area should be preserved as it 's shown on that plat . I guess the questions that remain open I guess I 'm going to defer to the city 's expertise and allow them to work those things out with the developer . Do we see this again? Batzli : No . Do you have any feeling , we talked about this last time a little bit . The issue of the private park versus public . Or 50 foot easements or do you have any concerns with those or the islands? Ahrens: Well I understand the park issue has been resolved by the Park and Rec Commission . They weren 't too crazy about the private park . I don 't personally like the idea of a private park . I like to see public parks going into neighborhoods . I don 't know why developers wouldn 't be welcomed to that idea either . But I don 't think that we have anything to say about that at this time anyway . Batzli : Well we could recommend . Ahrens : Okay , I recommend that it be a public park . That 's going to be a collector street going through and it 's going to be eventually there 's going to be kids from other neighborhoods riding their bikes to it . There 's going to be a trail along TH 41 . I mean who 's going to , is the Association going to be , going to take turns monitoring the park to make sure there are no outsiders in the park? Batzli : Well the thing I don 't want to see is something that we 've talked about in a little bit different setting and that is the problems we 've had with some private beachlots . You know , who enforces these things? Who patrols them? If this is a private park and there 's a party Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 24 there , are we responsible? Are the neighbors responsible? Who 's responsible to these and that 's kind of bothered me . It also bothered _ me , I think I brought up last meeting . The kid rides his bike over from the Song property , if Lundgren doesn 't develop that and somehow include it . And does this mean that he really doesn 't have a right to play there? Ahrens: Well if it 's a private park , I guess not right? Batzli : Well that 's the issue . Ahrens: What was your other question? Emmings : Islands . Batzli : Islands . Easements . The roadway easements . How do you feel - for example about a 20 foot setback from the road with the reduced right- of-way? How that impacts? I think you get , if this is , well actually the collector street , are there any houses that will be pulled up on a collector street 20 feet from it? Olsen: They 're proposing some . Batzli : Are they? Ahrens: That are going to be what? Olsen: 20 foot setbacks . Batzli : There was a comment in the report about Lake Lucy Road . That this isn 't going to be the same as Lake Lucy Road . Do you remember that Jo Ann? Ahrens: Right . They said that . Olsen: The justification for not having the 80 foot right-of-way . - Batzli : Yeah . Is it Lake Lucy Road on the east side of , is it Powers that 's real . What 's the one that they 've got the houses tucked in . It 's_ a collector street . Ahrens: That 's on the east side of CR 17 . Lake Lucy Road , they have all the problems all the time because people drive too fast on it . - Batzli : It seems very narrow and it 's a collector street and it seems like we 're constantly talking about it . How is this different from that?_ Krauss: There are some similarities but there 's some differences too . There 's fewer homes on the frontage in this proposal than there is on that street . That street has very small lots . The biggest problem on - that street though is that curve where you come onto Nez Perce . In coming around that curve and not being able to see around it and cars then manuevering and turning north into Vineland Forest . The street itself we had some complaints from residents on it when some of the Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 25 platting was occurring . That they didn 't wish to encourage thru movements in front of their homes . Unfortunately , that 's what that street 's designed for . It is a thru street and so that part of their questions couldn 't be answered but most of the problems there come from that , it 's probably about a 15 mph curve down to Nez Perce . Batzli : Well it seems to me that there 's always a lot of human activity around that road and it seems ill suited to be a collector and I 'm wondering how we 're avoiding that kind of situation here . Or aren 't we? Is it because the lot sizes are small so it 's just kind of a dense congregation of kids playing out in the street? Ahrens : But really there 's not even any development on this side of Lake Lucy there so it 's not like there 's a lot of homes . They 're small lots on the south side of Lake Lucy . Krauss : No , it 's the same up and down . Ahrens: On both sides? Batzli : It 's both . You could drive up and down . Krauss : There were a few vacant lots up to the summer but they 're now built on . You know that 's a perfectly straight shot . Each home is 90 feet apart . There 's no variation in lot width . There 's no change in grade . There are those tough intersections . In this case , I 'm not even sure . We do have a wider street section anyway being proposed . That was built to a very narrow street section . They 're proposing to compromise some on the right-of-way requirement for a collector street but what 's the street width going to be there? Hempel : The street width is like a local street of 31 foot back to back wide street . Where the proposed street in Lundgren 's would be approximately a 39 foot back to back . Batzli : So this would be 8 feet wider than that road? Hempel : That 's correct . Krauss : It 's also going to have a trail along side it . Batzli : I guess I 'm just thinking , if we have a lot of buffer zone and preservation in the back yard , the place to play will still be in the street because we ' ll have small front yards , and granted there will be the private park which hopefully will be where the kids go to play or at least in the cul-de-sacs but I 've noticed a lot of activity on that road . Ahrens : One more comment . It doesn 't , are there going to be no parking signs posted in the cul-de-sac? Is that what 's being proposed by the Fire Deparment? Hempel : That 's correct . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 26 Ahrens: That doesn 't , I mean that doesn 't make any sense to me at all . Cul-de-sacs always have lots of people parking on them . Who 's going to — be monitoring that? It 's so unrealistic , I can 't even believe that it 's proposed . Olsen: He 's making that requirement as a result of the cul-de-sac islands . Ahrens: Right , but you know and I know and everybody else knows that people are going to still park on those cul-de-sacs so why doesn 't the city just fix the problem and make the area bigger or get rid of those islands if they 're unworkable for the city instead of setting up — unrealistic expectations . Hempel : Well that was our initial proposal was to have those islands deleted . However , we 've been kind of advised through the Planning — Commission and City Council that they like the idea and to maybe work from a design standpoint to enlarge the cul-de-sac and to make it so we can have vehicles park there and still facilitate the turning movements — of a fire truck and school bus , garbage truck and so forth . So it may require additional pavement in the cul-de-sac to do that if the applicants willing to do that . Ahrens: . . . like the idea of an island there but are people going to like having no parking signs in their front yards? Emmings: No place for guests to park . Ahrens : Yeah , no place for anybody to park . It 's just . . . I think the — islands have got to go . Batzli : I thought it was my understanding from Dick Wing and I won't _ quote . I ' ll kind of quote . I ' ll paraphrase . His line was , if we can get close , hose lengths are no problem . Are what we 're talking about here is the fact that they won 't want to back up? Hempel : I believe that 's the Fire Marhsall 's contention . If they get down a cul-de-sac and it 's the wrong cul-de-sac for whatever reason , turning abilities are constricted and they end up backing out . Batzli : If for example we have people parking all the way around the cul-de-sac , could a fire truck turn around in there anyway? Hempel : No . You 're correct . They would not be able to . They would however be able to jockey back and forth easier than with an island obviously . — Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair , may I . We had purposedly deleted this portion of our presentation because it would be redundant because we have already_ given it to you before and to the City Council but we are prepared to addressed each of those issues . The City Fire Marshall himself has a diagram that he shared with us . It had the City of Plymouth 's logo on it and I 've seen it many times because we 've developed more lots in Plymouth— than anybody else . And what is an acceptable turn around , and there 's 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 27 or 4 different variations . There 's one called a hammerhead . I mean there 's just a number of different types of variations of what can be done by an emergency vehicle in the event they needed to turn around . In the event they couldn 't go through a cul-de-sac . In the event it was closed . I mean they try to figure worst case scenarios , which they should because precious minutes could save somebody 's life . When we met with the Fire Marshall , he shared with us schematics of turning radius of the equipment that the City of Chanhassen has . Including their new vehicle that they purchased within the last few years . We talked with him about his concerns about turning that vehicle around in the event somebody was parked in the cul-de-sac . Whether they were on the outside of the cul-de-sac or whether they would be against the island , because we have the same concern he does . We don 't want anybody to get hurt but are people making a bigger deal out of this or is there really another way around this? And so what we 're tried to do , is we 've figured out a way to answer that question . Now if you remember , the largest truck that the city has is a boom truck and it has a boom up on top of it and it 's high off the ground . So John if you would maybe put those up on the overhead and then you can describe your overhead to the Planning Commission . John Uban: This is a diagram that we were given that shows . . .and this shows the turning radius . . . Terry Forbord: John , can I interrupt you . Can you describe to everybody what each one of those lines is . _ John Uban: I ' ll be glad to . The line with the dash , this is right-of-way right here . This is 120 feet of diameter for the right-of- way . These are lot lines radiating out from the cul-de-sac . The home , we 've shown one home with a car and so forth so you can envision then instead of driveways all the way around . . . Here we show the island and cars parked on the edge and you can see that the template and the equipment can move around the cul-de-sac with cars parked on the inside . We also then looked at what happens with cars parked on the outside . Batzli : Assuming for a minute that the front edge of the fire truck is right at the curb as you drive it there . What 's the clearance between the back of the truck and those parked cars? John Uban : Through here , all of 6 feet approximately . Batzli : 6 feet between the back of the fire truck and the car , the way you 've got it drawn? John Uban: Right here . Batzli : Yeah . John Uban: Approximately 6 feet . I might be , you know depending on the cars that stick out . Batzli : Yeah , and if they 're parked several feet away from the curb . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 28 John Uban: If they 're parked out and away from the curb , certainly . The condition that we found that would happen with the cars parking around the perimeter of the same cul-de-sac . What we found is that the outer edge , that is the turning radius , it 's not the center island that restricts the movement . It is the parking on the outer edge which happens no matter if you had an island or not . And so that is the - condition where there is difficulty in getting the equipment to move around the outer edge . The best way and the only way to manuever them is for the vehicle to come up into the cul-de-sac , back halfway around the _ other side or a third of the way around , and back out again . Any cul-de-sac , this is the method that has to be used for turning the vehicle around if there are cars parked all the way around the outer edge . Islands or no islands , that is the situation . The island is - actually in the center where few movements are actually made so that it actually helps the drawing of where the cars can park . . . Now this is what we have proposed . This is within 120 foot cul-de-sac width or -- right-of-way and approximately 90 feet then where the cul-de-sac curves . We also have another design that we will be showing to the Fire Marshall for his review which shows 50 foot radius or 100 foot deep of curve . And_ this then gives us a lot more room for the occasional parked car and wher we compare it what Plymouth has , they have 80 foot . So if we have the difference between 80 feet and 100 feet , that gives us 10 feet on either side which can accommodate a parked vehicle and still allow some movement- of most vehicles . . .except for maybe a semi-truck or something like that , through the cul-de-sac without ever having to stop or make any adjustments with an island in the center . Terry Forbord: I think the most important thing that one needs to remember is what Chairman Batzli has stated . That if there was no island_ in this cul-de-sac , that vehicle would have difficulty turning around if cars were parked within the cul-de-sac . The Fire Marshall 's concern about cul-de-sacs isn 't if there was a fire in this cul-de-sac as if it was a fire in a different cul-de-sac and they made a mistake and went to - the wrong place . That 's what his concern is . Because if there was a fire in this cul-de-sac he could pull the vehicle straight on it and I guarantee they 'd fight that fire . They wouldn 't say , oh I can 't get _ close enough . I 'm going to leave . But they are concerned if they 're in the wrong cul-de-sac and they have to go away . And the way that they would do it , if they couldn 't not turn around as indicated , they would do what is really what is done in a hammer head approach . They 'd pull in - and back up and drive back out . Ahrens : Have these plans been shown to the Fire Marshall? - Terry Forbord: He showed us the plans and we 're showing . Ahrens: . . .plans been shown to the Fire Marshall? Terry Forbord : These plans are renditions that we made after he gave us the information and we illustrated it for your benefit . - Ahrens : Okay . I think they can go back to the Fire Marshall and see if this is acceptable to the Fire Marshall . They look fine to me . . .so that _ should be taken care of outside of our group . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 29 Terry Forbord: And I think his memorandum indicates that too . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Do you have anything else? Jeff . Farmakes: I 'd like to back up Joan and say that I think we could have saved ourselves an hour here at least if this had been worked about before the meeting . In fact I 'd like to compliment Lundgren Bros . I was at your home on Lake Lucy Road . Your model home . I asked questions about the conservation easement along next to the wetland and acting as a customer and they answered all the questions correctly in regards to that so my compliments . That isn 't often the case by the way . Batzli : Undercover . Farmakes: That 's right . I was undercover for the city . I guess first of all I ' ll address the issue of this amended piece here . I support the City on 8 . Whatever they feel comfortable with . I think the idea of the tree preservation thing is a good one . And how they want to reword that would be fine with me . The rest of the 9 , 12 and 20 , whatever they can work out with the city and them is fine . The rest of them , it was my — understanding that you 're in agreement with them . So I 'll leave that . Some of the stuff that disturbed me is stuff that we talked about already so I 'm not going to go at great lengths about it . I 'd just be repeating myself . But the issue of these long cul-de-sacs is not very wise for us to pursue . I know that the Council has approved this and I 'm in a minority here . I don 't think that everything that we should be doing design wise for the city should be customer driven . That there are a lot of very educated people telling us not to do this who 's profession it is to design and actually build the city and maintain it . And yet we continue to approve these type of things . These long cul-de-sacs which would be B Street which is basically one long private road . And I think that the original idea of G and I , connecting them was a good one and it reduces any of the cul-de-sacs that are there in this development to being at least fairly short . I think we 're being kind of arrogant on our part by ignoring this type of advice that we 're getting from staff . Getting from noted city designers . Professional opinions . At least from what I 've read in that regard . We also don 't deliver the mail . We don 't pick up students . Deliver them every day . We don 't do the type of functions of plowing streets and I think we 're ignoring what they 're saying to us by encouraging this type of development . For the issues of — J and H and some of the other comments . I ' ll support the staff on . If they don 't think that that would be appropriate based on their earlier recommendations , I 'll support them on that . That 's it . The issue of the islands . On the issue of maintenance , I 'm not sure if that 's still been — explained . If there 's a city concern on that but the turning radius , if in fact the Fire Marshall says it makes no difference for safety . — Batzli : Thank you . Steve . Emmings : I guess I don 't have too much to add . I agree with everybody — else on the preservation easement on the trees . I think that we 've got to have that ahead of time and not at the time of issuing the building permit . On connecting G and I , I do agree with Jeff 's comments . And I think we also , Dave did you tell us that they are going to be utilities Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 30 that run on G and I streets and will run between the cul-de-sacs as if there were a street there? - Hempel : That 's correct . The utility extension will be between the two cul-de-sacs and service part of that subdivision . Emmings: So you 'd just have easements across those yards to get in there for , so there will be sewer and water and all that? Hempel : That 's correct . Batzli : Jo Ann , just remain me once more . If they did connect those cul-de-sacs , do they lose any lots? Olsen: No . They showed that they actually gained a lot . Is that correct? Terry Forbord: That 's correct . We would gain lots by doing that . The only reason we did it . . . Emmings : I know people like cul-de-sacs and I actually , there was a time when I was , I didn 't like cul-de-sacs at all . The only reason , it seems _ like the marketplace says people like to live on them and I recognize that . I 've been told it enough times by enough developers but this is ar. awful long one . You know when you start all the way up there on A street and get down to here , that 's a lot of cul-de-sac so I think it 's a minority viewpoint anyway and especially on the City Council so , but I just wanted to let you know . I still think too that options to push B Street to the east ought to be preserved . But I mentioned that last time and nobody was interested in that either . Batzli : You 'd have to build a bridge over the wetland . Emmings : Well I don 't know . Or you move it up a little to the north anc go around . They say that 's not much of a wetland anyway . But I don 't think any of those things are going to happen . So that 's my comments on - that . I don 't think I have anything else . Ahrens : Brian , can I say just one more thing? Batzli : Yeah , please . Ahrens : I also thought that , I said this at the last meeting that G and - I should be . . . I don 't think that 's a minority viewpoint . Emmings: Maybe not . - Batzli : Matt . Ledvina : Well I don 't have too much more to add . I would support the conditions that staff has generated and also the modifications which have been discussed tonight . I think Lundgren has pretty much addressed the issue regarding the islands and I think that 's a nice feature for the - subdivision so I 'd support that . I also support the connection of the _ Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 31 two cul-de-sacs . So I think that would , it would improve the serviceability of the development . Batzli : What do you think about , since four people have now said they support connecting these cul-de-sacs . If in fact the City Council decided that or Lundgren you know , lobbied them that they really didn 't want to connect these , would it make a difference to anyone on the Commission that they drop the island on these lower cul-de-sacs to improve safety , if that 's a concern? In other words , we 're talking long cul-de-sac and if they did have to back out of this thing , it would really be quite a back so would that impress anyone? That that would be an option if the Council decided . Emmings: It doesn 't sound like islands are the . . . Ledvina : It doesn 't appear that that 's an issue as far as the information they had there . Batzli : Well they would be an issue if people were ignoring the no parking and they were parked all the way up and down . Someone has a party . There 's cars parked all the way up and down , maybe it would be helpful . Farmakes : Actually if the island wasn 't there , when I go into a cul-de-sac , usually I park within and not on . Batzli : In the cul-de-sac across from me , they park a boat and a truck out into the cul-de-sac so you 've got about a 30 foot object sticking into the cul-de-sac so I don 't know . I don 't know why an island would hurt but anyway . Farmakes: I actually agree with them . I think it 's a dead space really . Ledvina: No other comments . Batzli : Tim . Erhart : Well Brian , you know I 've been here for 6 years and I tell you , we 've been talking about cul-de-sacs in every other development for 6 years and you know , flexibility 's nice but this is anarchy , and I agree _ with Joan and the others that said that some of this stuff could have been worked out ahead . But I 'll tell you the real problem is , we 've got a lot of subjects where we have no policy . If we don 't have ordinances , we ought to at least have some policy on some of these things . It 's a free for all . I mean one day , depending on who the commissioners attend a certain meeting or whatever seems to be the mood that night . That developer gets stuck with the short cul-de-sac . He has to have short cul-de-sacs . A nice guy comes in , or a guy like Terry comes in with a slick message and you know , everybody loves long cul-de-sacs and we 're worrying about , now we 're worrying about the City Councilmen . What they 're saying these days . And it 's not just cul-de-sacs . It 's the islands . It 's the entrance islands . Now all of a sudden we 've evolved a new thing called a tree preservation zone and I 've been trying to get on this agenda now all summer is a discussion to set a policy for tree Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 32 preservation because I tell you what , we haven 't even talked them out because Paul already has stated in a report that we 've got some problems with the tree preservation zone that we 're already applying and I personally think there 's a big problem . I 'm not going to get into them right now because it 's a waste of time . Because I tell you , I 've just listed a whole list of as-built drawings . I mean I could go on and on - and on . Why do we sit here and discuss in front of all these people and work until 10 :00 at night because some city official here decides that he wants to go to Paul and says he wants as-built drawings . And it 's not Paul 's decision to tell him no . It 's a policy decision . You can 't make that in front of every developer that comes in here . Because the next guy that comes in is not going to be as good as Terry and he 's going to get stuck with as-built drawings . We 've got to decide here to set some policy on some of these issues . I think it 's a great plan . I 'm not surprised that there 's a little confusion about the setback thing . I think we 've really got to make sure in our new wetlands ordinance that — that 's clear because it 's a change from what we had . I think that 's probably the confusion . The note that it 's a change so I 'm glad you 're willing to go with that . And it looks like there was pretty much agreement . . . it looked like you were comparing the notes Steve . Other than that , I quite frankly a couple years ago we probably would have moved to table it until it came back . I remember when Dave Headla was complaining about 12 . Thank goodness we 're not going to do that here . - We 're not going to see you on this one again . I think it looks good . That 's all my comments . Batzli : Okay , thanks Tim . My comments , oh go ahead Terry . Terry Forbord: Just a brief comment . The reason we 've continued to pursue some of the items that I 've heard being discussed here tonight primarily is the islands , the lack of connection between I and J , and the medians was because that 's what the Planning Commission passed onto the City Council . The Planning Commission already said that this is what they wanted and they passed that onto the City Council and they agreed with you . And so that 's why we 're back because I think the vote was 4 to 2 before . I think it was Commissioner Ahrens and Commissioner Farmakes - were opposed to the islands and the medians and everybody else was for them and they also wanted the cul-de-sacs . So that 's why we continued to pursue it . It is what we wanted . Council agreed with you . Batzli : Thank you . Farmakes : I think we 're also ignoring though that that was staff recommendation that we connect . That was part of the staff report . So I don 't think that 's inconsistent with their policy as far as at least , I haven 't been here that long but as far as I know , they 've always been opposed to long cul-de-sac situations . I believe it 's 1 ,500 feet . Erhart : If you don 't put some rules on it , if you don 't put some measureable things on it , it 's irrelevant . Farmakes: I don 't think this is an ordinance . I think they 've been consistent with their recommendation . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 33 Krauss: It actually used to be an ordinance . Before my time there was a 500 foot length which is fairly standard in most communities . Erhart : You don 't have , what 's a long cul-de-sac? What to you is a long cul-de-sac might be different to me is a long cul-de-sac . Farmakes : 1 ,500 feet , was that the? Krauss: 500 feet was . Batzli : We used to say and turn around 1 ,500 or something . Emmings: That 's because we have one that 's that long . I think that 's where that number was from . Batzli : So that was our rule of thumb? Emmings: Yeah . That was the bad one . Farmakes : I remember this issue first , when I was here first coming up as the issue on TH 101 where there was already an area a long cul-de-sac . Emmings: That 's where we first ignored that policy . The Commission said let 's stick with it and the City Council said no . Let 's have a long cul-de-sac . Ahrens: We tried to be consistent . Erhart : Is there a policy? Emmings: I think there has been . I think the Planning Commission has always said , let 's not have them . . . Erhart : Well I guess my point is , in our office we have a policy it 's in writing because I don 't think anybody can use a verbal policy . Particularly in a situation that 's complex and so many people involved . Emmings : We have a policy but it 's writing them down . Batzli : Thanks Tim for your comments . I think they 're good ones . I also would express a little bit of disappointment that some of this stuff wasn 't handled . I understand that Lundgren didn 't get the report until 2 days ago _ or what have you so that doesn 't give them much chance to iron out their issues with staff and I think the problem may be us trying to push some of these things onto the calendar before you 're able to work out all these things with the developer . And I 'm not sure where that pressure comes from , although I have a good sense of where it does , to get these things on the calendar but you 're probably in the awkward position of , too much of this is resolved behind the scenes . We complain that we 're not part of the process but we were just part of the process and we didn 't like it . So in the future , to the extent that these kinds of things can be resolved , I think the Commission in general would be grateful . I like the development in general . I have mixed feelings about the cul-de-sac issue . I like the islands . I 'd like staff to , obviously the developer 's going to work with Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 34 the Fire Department on the island issue . I think if it would help to _ redesign , if it turns out that we have a long cul-de-sac and it would hel safety at all to remove the islands on those particular , you know on the end ones . The fire truck goes down the long cul-de-sac and he 's going to run , that 's where he 's going to have the most trouble . And to the extent— it would help , I guess I 'd at least have recommended staff maybe look int that as an alternative if , I get the sense I should say , that we 're about to recommend that the cul-de-sacs be joined . And maybe this all goes away then but if we don 't and it 's still an issue because the City Council either overrules us and puts the cul-de-sac back in , maybe staff might wa.,t to take a look at that as an alternative which would help safety . I agree with the changes that we talked about . I 've been glancing over Steve 's — notes and I think I agree with most of what he 's about to say so I 'd entertain a motion now if we have one . And I do appreciate Lundgren working . I think they have been fairly sensitive here to the wetlands arA trees and grading and things and hopefully if history repeats itself , they 'll be sensitive to that as they develop this project so looking forward to good things . Emmings: I 'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Rezoning from A-2 to PUD with the conditions , the two conditions in the staff report . Batzli : Second . Is there any discussion? Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning from A-2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of the preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval . 2 . All conditions of the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Batzli : Move on to the preliminary plat approval . Emmings: I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat ( #92-4 PUD ) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions . Condition 1 will read as proposed in the handout — given us by Lundgren Bros . Number 2 will remain as is . Number 3 will re d as follows . The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet except Street A and maintain _ the cul-de-sac at 120 feet . And then I 'm going to add to that one that cul-de-sacs must be large enough to facilitate turning around of all emergency vehicles in the city of Chanhassen , taking into consideration cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning - radius . And no parking signs may be required . Number 4 thru 7 will stay as they are in the staff report . Number 8 , we use the version from the staff report with the following modifications . The first sentence will _ read , the area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement . And then the second Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 35 sentence will stay as it is . Another sentence will be added that the precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed upon between the developer and staff . 9 will stay as it is in the staff report but we ' ll change the word similar to other . 10 and 11 will stay as they are . 12 will stay as it is in the staff report . And as an aside here I 'll say , with the understanding that the work that has to be done between the developer and staff with regard to the extension of the sanitary sewer on Street A . 13 will read as proposed by Lundgren Bros in their handout tonight as will 14 . 15 and 16 will stay as they are in the staff report . 17 will read as follows . The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas and any known or proposed drain tile systems . Furthermore , the developer shall also report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction . 18 and 19 will stay as they are in the staff report . 20 will read as follows . The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33 , Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No . 6 or some alternative design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be developed . 21 thru 24 will stay as they are in the staff report . 25 will read as proposed by Lundgren Bros in their handout tonight . 26 thru 30 shall remain as they are in the staff report . Time out , we 've got two 31 's . So 31 as it appears at the bottom of page , oh no , okay . 31 will stay as it is in the staff report , as will 32 . 33 , I propose that cul-de-sacs G and I be eliminated and that road be pushed , that I street and G street be connected . Batzli : Is there a second? Farmakes: I 'll second that . Batzli : Discussion . Ahrens : Good job Steve . Batzli : I 'm probably about to vote not in favor of the motion . Not because it wasn 't beautifully crafted but only because of the issue on the cul-de-sacs and I guess in talking about it last time , I think we had agreed and there was probably a different mix of people here , that we liked it . And I 'm not convinced one way or the other whether it should go in so I 'm going to vote against this probably just to alert the Council that it 's not I think a heartfelt unanimous decision , at least by all of us on the Planning Commission but thank you Steve . Any other discussion? Emmings moved , Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat ( #92-4 PUD ) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions: 1 . The front yard setback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the street right-of-way . The intent being to minimize the impact on the natural features of constructing a new home on each home site . The lots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lots 1 , 14-19, 37-43, 52-57, 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78-81 , Block 2 . In addition to these lots , staff recommends similar flexibility on the following lots: Lots 22-24 , 30, 31 , 46 , 47 , 58-61 , 66-72 , Block 2 . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 36 - 2 . Each lot shall maintain a side yard separation of 20 feet between each principal structure , including decks . The applicant shall be require to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foc separation is being maintained . 3 . The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet except Street A and maintain the cul-de-sac at 120 feet . Cul-de-sacs must be large enough to facilitate turning around of all emergency vehicles in the city of Chanhassen, taking into consideration cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning radius, and that no parking signs may be required . 4 . The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along Hwy 41 within the subject property . The exterior landscaping - plan must be approved by city staff . 5 . The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and _ approval by city staff . 6 . The pool located on Lot 4 , Block 2 shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing of the final plat . - 7 . Outlot F and Lot 1 , Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3 , 1994 . The applicant shall be required to recei.ue demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings . 8 . The area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement . The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation . The precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed upon between the developer and staff. 9 . The applicant shall provide "as-built " locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official . 10 . The applicant shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property . The applicant shall provide a 20 foo wide trail easement for future trail construction along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Highway 41 . 11 . The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility easements for construction of the lift station within the development 12 . The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development . The sewer and water - service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6 , Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1 , Block 4 . In addition , the applicant and city engineering staff shall work together regarding extending the - sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary . An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 37 ( cul-de-sac ) to provide service to the exception parcel . At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided , the City will refund a portion ofthe connection fees to Lundgren Bros . 13 . The existing home on Lot 4 , Block 2 will be required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is operational . The existing business on Lot 1 , Block 1 shall be removed after January 3, 1994 . 14 . Except for the condition in Recommendation 3 above , all utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates . Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting . _ 15 . Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City 's Fire Marshal . 16 . The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as MPCA , Health Department , Watershed District , DNR and MnDot . 17 . The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas and any known or proposed drain tile systems. Furthermore , the developer shall also report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. 18 . The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes . Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10 year storm events . Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 year , 24 hour storm event . Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen 's Best Management Practices Handbook . 19 . The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to maintain the ponding areas . An easement shall also be provided along wetlands and each side of drainageways from the storm ponds or wetlands . Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement area . In those areas the easement width shall be increased to 30 feet . 20 . The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33 , Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No . 6 or some alternative design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be developed . 21 . The applicant shall construct a 36 foot wide gutter-to-gutter urban street section along Street A . The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards ( 31 foot wide back-to-back ) . 22 . Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses in accordance with the City grid system once the streets have been Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 38 constructed with the first lift of asphalt . Driveways shall also be _ relocated to take access off the interior street ( Street A ) . 23 . Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher quality type wetlands . Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or — lower quality wetlands and sedimentation ponds . 24 . The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easeme—t through Lots 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 , Block 5 . 25 . Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision , including outlots except for Outlots G and H which shall be replatted in the future . 26 . Prior to the City signing the final plat , the applicant shall enter — into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements . 27 . The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands . 28 . The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleratic lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbounc Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDot . These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly . 29 . Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul-de-sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal . Note : "No _ Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required . This will depend on the si e of the cul-de-sac and the ability of the fire apparatus to turn arounu with vehicles parking in the cul-de-sac . 30 . All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoic duplication or confusion with existing street names . 31 . A 10 foot clean space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as t avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable , i .e . NSP transformers , street lighting , cable boxes , landscaping . 32 . All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit . 33 . Cul-de-sacs G and I be eliminated and that I street and G street be connected . All voted in favor except Batzli and Erhart who opposed and the motion — carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Batzli : Your reasons Tim . Erhart : . . .reason you have to be consistent on previous Planning Commission . And I still , as I say , I don 't agree with this tree ordinance thing and I guess that by itself wouldn 't cause me to vote no on it but I— think we haven 't thought that through and where it goes with the lot owne s on the end . I think we 're imposing this on a couple of developers already . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 39 Finding ourselves writing things like , I mean it was a little shocking to me that we , I thought you misread item number 1 where it said we shall maintain a 20 foot front yard setback . Terry , I have to commend you on that . I thought you were just a little off base but what it really is , that 's driven by this tree thing . We have put people 's safety , we have put trees over people 's safety in our thinking in this thing and it 's crazy . Emmings: What 's the safety issue? No front yard? Erhart : No front yard . And then we 've had years of a real policy . . .an ordinance where we said you have a minimum of 30 yard setback . And then all of a sudden somebody gets a wild hair that this tree is worth more than anything and next thing you know we 're demanding , we 're going to our developers and demanding that we don 't exceed the 20 yard setback . Emmings: See I think it 's more than that . I don 't think it 's just the trees . I don 't really connect those two in my mind , although I think sometimes it works out to be the trees . But I think we 've also heard people talk about the fact that their back yards are more valuable to people who live in developments like this than their front yards . I 'm going to be real interested to see what a development with 20 foot front yard setbacks look like . I 've got real reservations about it . Erhart : You 've got one down by south of the one we just approved . South of , north of Lyman Boulevard where you have these tree preservation easements . 20 foot setbacks . Aanenson: Stone Creek . Erhart : Yeah right , Stone Creek . Emmings : Well yeah but you can 't see houses there yet . But I want to see what they look like when they 're in and I don 't know what it 's going to look like and I 've got real reservations about it but . Erhart : Well I certainly do . Emmings : But I think it has as much to do with , you know if you 've got people use their back yards for a lot of recreation . I think you 're trying to create a little bit bigger back yard and you have all the easements with the wetlands too , not just trees . Erhart : Historically they would go in and make good old American decision . This is their land and if they wanted to remove some trees and make a back yard , that was their perogative and now we 're getting into telling people now how to run their home . Emmings: Folks used to shoot their neighbors when they got mad at them too . Batzli : I don 't agree with that because this is a PUD and we 're preserving more than what they would have had to preserve had they gone in there with a standard subdivision and they could have done exactly what you 're proposing with a standard subdivision , and we chose to preserve natural Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 40 features and that was a decision we make by doing this this way . But I - agree with you . Erhart : . . .20 foot setbacks . Batzli : Well then I say , why did you vote to change the zoning to PUD? mean let 's just do it as a straight subdivision . Erhart : I think it needed a PUD but this 20 foot setback is only one thi g as part of what we 've got for the PUD . Ahrens: What 's the setback on the house . . . is that about 20? Terry Forbord : Terry Forbord speaking . To be honest , I just don 't know right off the cuff like this . Ahrens : It looks like about 20 . Terry Forbord: I believe that it is . An example also is in Near Mountai� . Near Mountain has setbacks like that and I 've mentioned that before and I know it 's an older subdivision so it 's difficult to remember back . That was 10 years but those are 20 foot setbacks . I apologize , I did not hear- the vote . What was the vote? Batzli : It was 4 to 2 . Terry Forbord: Okay . In favor or? Batzli : In favor . So the motion does carry and my reason again was , onl� on the issue of whether to link the cul-de-sacs . I don 't know that we fully looked at that and so I have a hard time voting to link them up . I 'm not opposed to linking them up . I just don 't know that we really address-d that so , is there a motion on the wetland . Oh , this is well after the fa t but I just noticed this . That we approved this without referencing the plans . Emmings : Yeah , and there were 42 plans here and I don 't know , do we need a reference to a particular plan? Olsen : Well I thought we had the date September 9th in there . That 's tF- date of the plans . The official copy that we got . Batzli : Our motion was made by looking at these plans so for the purpose of the City Council , yeah okay . Is there a motion on the Wetland Alteration Permit? Erhart : What did you finally agree with on 3? Emmings: I can take a shot at it if you want to get going . Planning Commission , I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetla d Alteration Permit #92-9 with the following conditions: 1 and 2 as they appear in the staff report and then 3 , modify the version that 's in the - staff report by just changing the second sentence . The second sentence will read , the proposed wetlands to the north and south of Wetland 1C shall Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 41 be combined with Wetland 1C . 4 , 5 , and 6 shall be as they appear in the staff report . • Batzli : Is there a second? Ledvina : Second . Batzli : Any discussion? Emmings: Did that do what you want it to? Olsen: Well I don 't know that you can do the first sentence and the second sentence together . I think if they 're combined . Emmings: Well that 's what you said . You said you still want them to go to 6 feet on the parts they were creating but not to do the part in the middle I thought . Olsen: Right , but I don 't know if that means combining them . Emmings : I don 't either . Olsen: . . .I think what we agreed to was , what we meant by combining them was that they would be the whole , the middle part . The wetland 1C would be graded also so you 'd have one basin . But now I think what we 've said is that rather than having to mess with the wetland that wouldn 't have been touched , that you have just two basins on either side of it . Emmings : So that won 't be combined? Olsen: So essentially it 's not being combined . Emmings : What will be between the . Olsen: Existing Wetland 1C . And you 'd have basins on either side of it . What we had proposed is that they would be combined and be one basin and they were concerned with the dredging out wetland 1C that wouldn 't have been altered otherwise . Emmings: So you 're actually thinking those two basins will have borders all around them? Batzli : There won 't be any flow between the . . . Emmings: Okay , I misunderstood that . How can we fix it? Fix it . Batzli : Just eliminate the second sentence . Do you like that? Olsen : I think that , yeah just using the first sentence . That takes care _ of it and I 'll need a change of at least 6 feet . They don 't want it to be consistently 6 feet . . . .the 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to those shall have a depth . Batzli : Shall have an undulating depth in places 6 feet . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 42 Olsen : Right . And then remove the rest . Batzli : And then eliminate the second sentence . How 's that for a frienc y amendment . Olsen: Sounds good . Batzli : Who seconded this? Ledvina : I did . Batzli : Do you accept that? Ledvina : Yes . Emmings : That 's fine . Batzli : Is there any other discussion? Emmings moved , Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-9 with the following conditionE- 1 . The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland 1A shall not be replaced . - 2 . The runoff currently entering Wetlands 7 and 7A shall be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to Lot 28 , Block 2 . If possible , Wetland 7 shall be maintained in its current condition and location . — 3 . The three proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A , 1B and 1C shall have an undulating depth of at least 6 feet in places . 4 . A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge , the proposed buffer strip and dimension , and the proposed setback and dimension ( not including the buffer strip ) . This plan shall alsc include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan . 5 . The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer — strip required is being met . The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot . The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff . 6 . All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 43 PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT APPROVAL TO REZONE 178 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD , PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATED AT THE SE QUADRANT OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41 AND NW QUADRANT OF WEST 82ND STREET AND HIGHWAY 41 , GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK , OPUS CORPORATION . Public Present: Name Address Bruce Buxton 401 Golf Course Drive , Baxter , MN Thomas W . Green Box 5055 , Brainerd , MN Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparral Lane John Uban Dahlgren , Shardlow and Uban , Inc . Ken Adolf Schoell & Madson , Inc . Ron Peterson 7101 York Avenue So , Edina — Harry Adams 115 West 82nd Street , Chaska David K . Dungey 105 West 82nd Street , Chaska Peter Olin Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Michele Foster Opus Corporation Bruce Perkins 125 West 82nd Street Paul Paulson 3160 West 82nd Street Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Commissioner Erhart left during discussion of this item and was not present for voting on the motion . Michele Foster : My name is Michele Foster . I 'm Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation and I 'd just like to make a few brief comments . We were pleased to be able to spend a great deal of time with city staff on Monday afternoon so we won 't need to spend a lot of time tonight trying to clarify the staff report since you 've been through that process once this evening . Opus is very pleased to be part of this project . We are not the land owners but we have been selected as the developer for Gateway West Business Park . We understand the importance and the prominence of this site in Chanhassen and to the city and that 's partly what attracted us to the site . Both it 's location and access . It 's visibility . It 's natural amenities and it 's our intent to develop this park as a high quality mixed use business park similar to many other business parks that Opus has developed throughout the Twin Cities . I think Opus is recognized for the quality that we aspire to in our business parks and we expect to perform and implement the same kind of standards in — Gateway West . As Kate mentioned , there are a number of issues and we 're embarking on a very complicated process for this property and time consuming process . We , by no means have resolved many of the issues . Basically our goal through this part of the process is to identify what those issues are and work with the city and the city staff as cooperatively as we can to come up with a development concept that works both for us , the landowners and the city of Chanhassen . John Uban , who you saw a few minutes ago wearing one hat is also the group that we are working with as the planning consultants for the project and John would like to make a brief presentation . Basically giving you our perspective on the development concept that we have presented for the property . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 44 John Uban: Thank you Michele . I ' ll show you a few overhead transparencies and I ' ll leave a number of them out because maybe staff has really reviey d a number of the issues , the comprehensive plan and so forth . What I 'd like to show is just generally how we have viewed the site . How we have organized it really to work in a way that we think addresses the many nee�s that we see the property being used for . There are future goals or futur _ policies of the city that we cannot address at this time because they have not been completed . This obviously will take more work with the various - task force and so forth . But what we 're trying to do is develop a park that has a very individual identity within itself , yet works well with the surrounding properties . Adheres to good , responsible environmental standards and provides wonderful opportunities , not only for employment t t also for recreation . And what we 're looking at is an overall perspective . One that takes the cooperation of both the landowner , the developer and the city to really make a project that everyone is proud of . One of the elements in this is saving what I think everyone recognizes is the most visible , the most prime corner of the site and saying , let 's do that last . Let 's wait for the best use possible to come forward and it 's one of thoe- things I think that everyone can get excited about . Get involved with ar the city and the developer can really work together to make something very nice happen there . We have two cities that are very interested . Chanhasser and Chaska in how the area looks and it 's going to be difficult for us tc adhere to every one , each individual 's concerns about aesthetics and so forth . But we are committed to developing the best possible set of standards that will work with development and at the same time meet publi- standards for aesthetics . If I could show you then . Basically outlined r the different colors . In yellow are the wetlands and in green are the woods . And you can see most of the environmental features are on the eastern edge . So when we looked at this particular part of the site , we said let 's make this the area for park . It has very nice woods in it . IL, attaches into the industrial that is developed to the south in Chaska , and we 're hoping that a park can really develop out of these natural features And then allowing those edges that are all along the highway , State Hight. y 41 and 5 to then develop with normal industrial/commercial type development . On the edge over next to the Arboretum we do have another -- wetland which we either see as being used partially for development or for . . .but we have tried to work it into our development plan so it does create a nice edge for the adjacent uses . Basically as shown in the comprehensive plan we have indicated from TH 41 and 5 connecting road pattern . This pattern . . .to conform with what is in the comprehensive pia, . Again and connect a frontage road system on the south side and then to connect at the appropriate places to Highway 5 and to Highway 41 . These highway connections have been reviewed many times with MnDot and we have been working with them in detail to coordinate how to enter the property . At what point and how to grade and so forth . The actual development plar- well the other thing that we 've looked at , I know there are some concerns about how the right-of-way will be handled along the south side of Highway 5 . This is the plan we just received a few days ago from MnDot that has _ been completed by their consultant Barton-Aschman . And this conforms to what we always have understood to be the right-of-way for Highway 5 , exce, t for the small dip in this area which is for slope easement . But primarily we 're still working with MnDot to coordinate their needs for right-of-way- both on TH 41 and on TH 5 , grade considerations and access and we ' ll continue to do that . The actual plan that we have developed shows our Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 45 collector street , frontage road that will access the properties to the east . The property to the east is mixed . There are large wetlands and there are areas that are out of the wetland and there are lots of woods . This is a transitional piece of property . Transitional in the sense that it is heading towards more residential uses as you get to Galpin and 117 . This frontage road system then will connect to 117 and service those developable pieces as it goes through that area . What we 're proposing then is all along the eastern edge as shown in this green area . To have this area be park . The dark green are the trees and the wetlands are in there . We proposing a pond . It doesn 't have to be there but we thought parks like to have water and this was our presentation that we also made to the Parks Commission . We 've been before them and we have a number of issues I think to really work out with them on what is the direction the City wants to take with parks and we have some ideas . I ' ll show you a sketch of it later . Also , within this development we 're showing , right at the corner , _ this area that we want to hold for a very good development . For a very good piece of improvement that can really be a landmark for the city . And we will work with the city staff and develop some scenarios to see what works and what works best . Obviously we 're going through the PUD process to get some flexibility . To get some of the things that have been addressed in your PUD ordinance and we 're looking for that mixed use type of development where we really can 't pull in a variety of uses into an area . And we 're looking at the potential of institutional , commercial , industrial , office , corporate office , whatever works there the best . And we 're willing to wait for that . Obviously getting utilities to this area is the critical part of the whole structure because utilities really are sort of the end of the extension as planned by Chanhassen at this point . There is this opportunity to get some utilities through the city of Chaska and that would allow us then to start development on the southern edge , directly adjacent to the industrial that 's there today . And we have been working with the exception along Highway 41 and we 'll continue to do that . To work out a reasonable way or incorporating their property and this development or attaching and selling to them a parcel that would then give them full access to 82nd so they could develop their parcels independently . So we would include then in our planning so that the whole area is consistent with access and other treatments . Water tower site . Things like this we will obviously continue to work with the city . Overall , we 're trying to prepare a concept here . It isn 't really the buildings or the parking that we 're illustrating on this . It 's basically the land uses . The road alignment . The park and open space and how we 're generally going to treat and work with this property . And the details we ' ll work out with city staff and we ' ll be back obviously with a preliminary PUD with a lot more information . Our scoping EAW . Traffic studies and so forth as we proceed on . We ' ll have a lot more detail about the kinds of building standards and so forth that are typical for an Opus park . Just to help illustrate some of the things that we 're trying to do that we want to have be part of the focus of the park . This is an aerial photo . This is the exception along Highway 41 . And part of the buildings are not actually along the exception of the out buildings but the two homes are . It 's a single parcel that happens to have two houses on it . Then this is 82nd Street and this goes down . This is down into Chaska . These are the woods that are really nice upland woods that we 're proposing then to be a focal point as you come in on 82nd and then this park area would extend on to the east . How this works , if I can get these to line up . Our proposed road Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 46 - would come off 82nd Street , start looping through the land to the east and this area is the area of park that we 're proposing . . . With the park , at the present time we 're proposing approximately 10% of the land as park ar,u that is without the , we have 56 acres of upland out of the whole 178 acres . 22 of the acres are wetlands and so when we subtract those things out , OL-- net Tnet land , if we take 10% of that , it gives us about 15 1/2 acres and we have about 16 acres here of upland park that we 're creating in the park atmosphere . The wetlands of course we 're not counting . The parks department is considering acquiring or additional land for other activities . We think that it may not be wise to take land that with an industrial base that creates a fairly high tax value and employment for tie city , to consume a great deal of that for park purposes . We don 't know i the city wants to head in that direction and that 's why we want to look s_ some other ways the park area may really be expanded without taking too much more of the industrial property . So what we 've shown on this graphi is the extension of the collector road all the way through to Galpin and here , this area , there are wetlands through here . This is a DNR wetland or the south side . Here 's the wetland up on the north side . This is - developable and this area in here is not wetland but it 's marginal soils but it is very suitable for baseball fields and so forth . And what this does then , it combines all these woods together with a field and other _ activities and connects that all the way out to Galpin where you have a proposed school just on the other side and residents . And this system tF r will also attach to Highway 5 so it preserves and gets parkland right up to Highway 5 . It preserves the very large area of the woods and then it — connects with these kinds of activities , both the residential areas and t e industrial . We think this combination will really work out well and is the kind of planning and vision that we would like to work with the city to sae if this can take place . So it 's this combination of working together anc looking at potential of adjacent properties to really make the whole industrial park , business park work for the community . We 'll be glad to answer any questions you might have . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . This is , did you have more? I 'm sorry . This is a public hearing . If there 's anyone else that would like to address the — commission , please come to the microphone and give us your name and addre s for the record . Paul Paulson: My name is Paul Paulson . My address is 3160 West 82nd Street and my 10 acre parcel was indicated on the map earlier this evenir_ . I have one question and several comments . First of all the question . On page 3 of the staff report . The first paragraph and the section labeled — site characteristics . I ' ll just read the last few sentences and then I ' l ask the question . The other residence is owned by the Paulson 's and is 10 acres in size . Staff is recommending that these excemptions be included 'n the proposed layout of this project . Future street and utility access tc these sites needs to be assured . If possible , they should be acquired . The question I have has to do with the last sentence . If possible , they should be acquired . It 's not clear to me what 's to be acquired here . Whether it 's the city and street access or our property . I guess I 'd lik clarification on that . Aanenson: Well our first choice would be that they be all planned togetF r and not separate because as we 're doing the PUD zoning , we 'd like them to Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 47 be uniform in architecture and control and that sort of thing . So that would be a first choice . That that be all part of the same development , understanding yours is a larger piece and you have separate access . But obviously the next thing that we are concerned about is that your piece be not excluded from this as far as how that road is , how they have access into that off of West 82nd and the same with the Wrase 's . That they not be excluded as far as access and those sort of issues . _ Paul Paulson : Speaking of access to the property , in looking at the concept plan , it appears that the southern portion of my current easement appears to be proposed to be a private drive . And I have a concern . Well I would prefer that to be a city street rather than a private drive . Batzli : Where 's he talking about? Aanenson: He 's talking about this . His property is right here . He 's got an easement . 60 foot easement that comes out . . . Paul Paulson: Now the staff report indicates that the city would prefer that that be a city street . But it appears to be a private drive in the concept plan . On the map here . — Aanenson : That 's one of the issues that when we look at the traffic study that these are some of the things that we ' ll have to , we 're just raising these as issues . These are things we ' ll have to do further investigation on and see which is the best way to serve that property . As I mentioned before , that piece that 's adjacent to you , this piece right here . It 's a dififcult piece to be developed and we ' ll have to go through the wetland alteration process to see even how much , because that 's a significant wetland there , how much buildable area and where that access is going to be coming to because they 're splitting the parking lots . It 's a tough piece to develop . So we have to look at where their accesses need to be and so . Paul Paulson: One of my concerns is that the plan doesn 't seem to take into account the surrounding land use on Lot 19 , which is the lot directly south of my property . To the north of my property is the Arboretum . My property has residential use . To the west of Lot 19 is the Arboretum . And also to the south of Lot 19 is also residential use . To the south of 82nd Street is the city of Chaska and the City of Chaska comprehensive plan calls for property to the east of their ravine trail system , which you can see on this plan . It starts just at the sourthern most point of the easement and extends south . So the Chaska comprehensive plan shows commercial development to the east of that line and residential development to the west of that line . So Lot 19 has residential use both to the north and the south and the Arboretum to the west and it doesn 't seem that it is a consistent use with the surrounding property . So that 's a concern . Aanenson: Can I just clarify that . Your property is guided for commercial industrial so if you were to come in tomorrow and propose something . I think what we stated in the staff report , we don 't know what their timing is on that and as things develop and we look at access , that we look at what type of use goes in there and how it 's laid out and the height and the impacts and those sort of things . We look at that more carefully . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 48 Paul Paulson: It may be that it 's guided for commercial use but the fact of the matter is , it 's residential use . Aanenson: Certainly . And you may be there 20 years . Exactly . That 's what we 're saying . We ' ll look at that when they come in and as this develops . Krauss: But the concern is raised that the site plan or concept plan doe. not reflect the surroundings very well , we agree with . We 've said that i our report . That 's one of the things we want them to look at . Paul Paulson : Okay . So it sounds like you have maybe similar concerns b=t I just wanted to make it clear that I believe the plan that produces commercial use between two residential areas may be in conflict with the current use . In regards to Lot 19 . Also , I believe given that the - comprehensive plan calls for my property to be guided towards commercial use , that even so the plan does not take into account my property and in fact I am to become a captive of the development . If I 'm landlocked without consideration for my property in the plan , my property has been severely depreciated for future use consistent with the City of Chanhassen 's comprehensive plan since my property will be precluded from visual access from 82nd Street , traffic coordination within the plan and also signage issues . And so this is a problem if in the future my proper y is to become part of commercial development in this area . Given that Lot 19 does not appear to be a consistent use with the surroundings , I believe that the plan has a natural stopping point along the eastern part of my property , including the easement . And my easement would make a natural western boundary for the development . This would be normal and consistent with the Arboretum property north of my property . My property , the Arboretum property west of Lot 19 and the residential area south of Lot 1 . Given the existing land use on the north , west and south sides of Lot 19 , Lot 19 I believe should not be included in the PUD but should rather be - used as a natural or creative buffer or transition zone between the existing uses and the PUD . I am absolutely and vehemently opposed to any development west of my easement under any circumstances . Any consideration of the PUD west of Highway 41 should be mixed use taking into considerati n possibly multi-family residential for appropriate blend and transition of use and higher commercial use along Highway 41 corridor and east of Highway 41 . I guess the problem I 'm having is partly a matter of transition . I — believe that there should be a transition from the western edge of the project into the higher commercial uses of the east . I request the staff not to give concept approval to the portion of the plan west of Highway 41 since I believe some of the investigations underway and including wetlanc review , site design and park areas are not sufficient at this time to justify approval of that part of the PUD west of Highway 41 . Also , two _ parties directly affected by the plan were not given notice of this meeting , namely the Landscape Arboretum and the City of Chaska . I requeE of the Commission continuation of this meeting and at this point I cannot be supportive of the PUD as it is in regards to that portion west of - Highway 41 but am supportive of the overall concept of commercial and lis t industrial development in the general area . Specifically east of Highway 41 . In general I think it looks like a really nice project . I am impressed with some of the sentivity I 've seen to the quality of the project . How it fits in with the interest of the city of Chaska and Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 49 Chanhassen . But I do have problems with the western part of it . The west side of Highway 41 . Batzli : Your name was again , sir? Paul Paulson: Paul Paulson . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Bruce Perkins : My name is Bruce Perkins and if I can use this for a second . I live at 125 West 82nd Street with my wife and again , I am also addressing a problem with Lot 19 . On page 4 of the staff report it says West 82nd , everything south of West 82nd Street is a business park . That 's 3/4 true because from here over, it is designated as business park but this portion is Chaska city park and that runs down that whole ravine . And this portion of course is residential . So the staff report really didn 't cover or look at close to . . .82nd Street . Also , I guess I would like to ask whoever 's in charge of this , these two buildings were removed about 2 years ago , yet they show on the drawing . And Paulson 's house , which is directly effected by this , isn 't even on here . And it seems too easy to look at this property and say , well there 's nothing there . Not to worry about it . I guess I would ask whoever 's doing these drawings to include the Paulson 's house and to remove the buildings that are no longer there . Batzli : Sir , do you know is your house and the house I guess directly to _ the north , in Chaska 's long range comprehensive plan , are you aware of their plan document and whether they have included you in their park? Their office industrial park . Or whether your long range zoning is that , does that stay residential? Resident : Yes it does . Batzli : It does stay residential? Okay . Paul Paulson: Excuse me , I do have a coyp of the Chaska Comprehensive Plan with me tonight if anybody wants to look at it . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Bruce Perkins: In our residential , and I know this is growing and I don 't have a problem with that but currently we have 11 acres of property and during the summer it 's nice and secluded . In the wintertime we can see the security lights on these properties across TH 41 and I 'm also concerned , if this were developed , it brings a lot of light all night into the residential area , which I think degrades the area . I can see we may have some problem here but my concern really has to do with Lot 19 . I guess the other recommendation I have is to include Paulson 's house there and remove the 2 buildings that aren 't there . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address this Commission? Peter Olin: My name is Peter Olin . I 'm Director of the Arboretum . I _ would like to make , if possible , some general statements and then some specific concerns . First of all I was real pleased to find that Opus was Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 60 to be developing this because they have a record of quality development and we 're obviously very concerned about what happens on those corners . The - Arboretum is a major state and regional resource . We have visitorship nc of 200 ,000 people and that 's on an upward trend . It 's qualities are it 's unique plants , research in trees , shurbs , fruits and vegetables . It 's - diverse native sites . It 's spectacular beauty and it 's prominence as a place of human refuge and respite for visitors are it 's qualities . The Arboretum is concerned about any and all development which comes to it 's _ borders and the impact of that development on the Arboretum 's qualities . The potential impacts from any of the developments is in general , the goa of the Arboretum is to preserve it 's integrity and that 's the integrity of the site by ameliorating any negative impacts of adjacent development . Ar-d in particular our concerns are visual impact , and that 's with any commercial development , especially fast foods , gas station type development . Or whatever commercial might go in there . It 's also a - concern I think as a gateway to the Arboretum and as well as the gateway o Chanhassen . We 're concerned about air and perhaps water pollution impact from the concentration of cars on that site and on Highways 5 and 41 . Certainly the air quality will be effected and it will effect our researc- and it could effect our collections of plants . The water we 're not sure because we don 't know exactly how that 's going to work . We haven 't seen any grading . Noise and possibly light pollution impact . Greatly increae....d noise , especially from the commercial areas . Come and go traffic will we k to destroy the restorative aspects and the solitude of the Arboretum 's character , especially when it 's right up on it 's borders . Commercial development , parking lots , and the like will denegrate the edges of the Arboretum which will essentially begin penetrating in both a visual and physical sense further into the Arboretum . The edge of the development if not treated carefully , both at the land use scale , this conceptual scale ,- as well as the detail design scale , will be detrimental . And it 's going o be detrimental to both the Arboretum and the gateway to Chanhassen . There could be some adverse impact on the current and proposed apple and other _ tree research along Highway 41 . By the roadway cuts that are probably going to go in there , parking lots and building construction . Further ar,u lastly the pressure to sell off our corners of TH 41 and TH 5 becomes all the greater as these high intense uses occur on the other corners . There-s already pressure to do that . We have some specific concerns about this plan . On the west side of Highway 41 , I ' ll just reiterate some of the ones that were said but there 's a visual impact of development on the Arboretu- . Of the buildings and the parking lots , especially Lot 19 . But also Lots 9 and 20 and 22 is an intrusion into the residential development along the Arboretum 's boundary . The impact of grading these sites on the Arboretum_ property and the potential runoff impact again we don 't know , because we haven 't seen it but that could be quite dramatic given the condition of that particular site with a depression in there . The impact of parking lots , as I mentioned right on the property line . We find that to be without any consideration of buffering . Then the lack of buffering considerations throughout the site . The impact of commercial development proposed for Lots 20 and 21 on the Arboretum is they are obviously not serviced to the major portion of the industrial development as it 's state , because if they were , they 'd be in the center of the development . We recommend that again there 's no conceptual approval of anything on the west side of Highway 41 because even conceptually there 's simply too many questions which have not been answered . On the east side of Highway 41 , e Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 61 are very concerned about the city 's proposed water tower which will be visible from most of the Arboretum . And that 's a major visual impact and it is our concern . Maybe that can 't be helped but it 's certainly something that was news to me when I received this package . I did get it yesterday afternoon . The fact that the parking lots are all in front of the buildings , which they could creatively be clustered behind the buildings , again at a conceptual level but nonetheless an indication that this is sort of a development as usual . The location of the proposed entry to Highway 41 , which we had talked about perhaps lining up with some future entrance to the Arboretum , is actually in a location which makes it very , very difficult to make a reasonable entrance into the Arboretum there . So we probably would not consider that in the future if that were to be the _ location . Again , if the commercial development 's to support the industrial development , it 's not located to suggest that . It should be more central . What it suggests to me are fast food chains that 's right there on the highway . Which brings me to the lack of , it 's already been mentioned , the lack of any indication of what happens on the corner of Highways 5 and 41 , which it says in there is going to be , in their letter , institutional educational office/industrial or commercial which to me means it could be nice big commercial development . Strip development or anything else because that 's going to pay a lot of money for it . I 'm glad that the city is asking that that be some indication of what happens . The proposed park , which I think is admirable , and it is preserving the wetlands and the wood lot , and again when John showed this expanding into the next property it 's not really what might happen there because it 's someone else 's land . It does make sense and it makes my comment perhaps not as valid but it doesn 't have much of an opening to this particular development . It 's sort of a back lot and not much of a park or a focus to the area . I think if it 's considered in a broader context , it does make a lot more sense as a park . There was a comment from the staff about removing the treed islands and I guess I would object . I think the more trees we can get , especially in wide expanses of paving , can only help to ameliorate some of the negative effects of all that paving . Do you have a little campaign on with that? In the concept , I think in general really could be reworked to reflect the kinds of quality development that Opus does and hopefully in the details we get that but I think even at the conceptual level it 's important . I guess just to summarize , the Arboretum is a unique and regional resource . It happens to be located in Chanhassen , Chaska and Victoria . In order for it to continue as a valuable and unique resource for research , education , beauty and a place of refuge and respite , it must be guarded by not only the University of Minnesota and the Landscape Arboretum but by the cities in which it lies . The Arboretum must , I can 't read my writing here , continue to be a large tract of land and it has to be defended visually as well as buffered from noise and air pollution . If it 's not , we ' ll soon lose this valuable resource and I think it 's something that absolutely has to have a lot of consideration . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? David Dungey: May I just briefly? Batzli : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 62 David Dungey : My name is David Dungey and I live at 105 West 82nd Street which is , may I? _ Batzli : Yes . David Dungey: I 'm this guy here . As you may have already guessed , I ha\,- a concern with a large parking lot being perhaps directly across from my home where my wife and I moved 18 1/2 years ago because of the Arboretum and the agricultural nature of the area . I agree with Dr . Olin and the rest of my neighborhood . . .more eloquently than I ever could express their concerns that Lot 19 I think is thrust into an area inconsistent with the intent of serving Chaska , which I 'm sure you may not have any concern about at all but . I don 't know how you guys get along with Chaska but . I just think it would be real difficult to remain living next to a light manufacturing plant say with perhaps round the clock shifts . Cars coming and going . A driveway that empties onto a gravel road that is intended t remain gravel for quite some time . The area to the west of the ravine system again is going to stay residential . It just seems like you 've got a finger of industry pushed into rurality just because you can so I ask that you consider . . .concerns too . Thanks a lot . Batzli : Thank you . Harry Adams : I 'm the last one . My name is Harry Adams . I live on 115 West 82nd Street with my wife and youngster . I live between David Dungey and Bruce Perkins and it sounds like we met before this meeting . All of -s started considering this plan today , or yesterday . I would just move to second the good recommendations of the earlier speakers for the neighborhood use and I would hope that , I would second the good things said about the Opus people and I would hope that your staff and the Opus peopl would keep us in the loop and I think things would go a lot better if you could do that . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Paul , are the people in Chaska on our list to be notified of the various meetings? Aanenson : Some of them are . Krauss : Some of them are but we can certainly expand the list to make _ sure . Batzli : If any of you did not receive notice , please give your name and address to Paul before you leave tonight so that you do get notices . Is - there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted ir. favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Matt , we 're going to start with you . Ledvina : Okay . Well I think that this site lends itself to a PUD and I agree with that approach . I really don 't know what would constitute an - acceptable concept plan for us to approve tonight . I don 't have a good Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 63 feel for that . I understand that we 'll be seeing this a number of different times as it goes through the preliminary plat and the other steps _ but I am uncomfortable with some of the things that have been discussed by the residents in the vicinity of this project and primarily the concerns as it relates to the development west of TH 41 . I think that the transition is a very important one to me and there may be a way of doing that in this area but there 's going to have to be some well thought out plans to really reduce the impact of the proximity of residential and light industrial office , if it can be done at all . So let 's see . I had some comments about just generally , I was a little bit confused as to what the direction or what staff really thought about the proposal . They indicate I guess in the proposal summary , one of the last paragraphs indicated that the proposal or we do not believe that the City 's many goals have been met by the concept plan and then three sentences later it says staff is recommending the PUD concept be approved . So I 'm confused there . Aanenson: Well the purpose of the concept is to try to outline all the issues that need to be addressed . You need to have a starting point and sc this is a beginning and we reflect , as Michele mentioned , we sat down with them Monday for a couple of hours and we said okay , before this can go forward this kind of causes the rest of the things to happen . We 've outlined all the other issues . All the ones you just heard tonight . The EIS . The traffic study . How this is going to be serviced by the sewer . All those issues are the next step and it won 't come back . It may be 6 months . It may be 9 months before you see this back but they needed a direction to know what needs to be addressed to go foward so they come foward with a concept plan and ask for some direction . The comments you 've heard tonight are some of the same concerns that the staff has and they 're aware of that and they need to know what direction to go to proceed . That 's why it 's a concept . Ledvina : Okay . I have a concern about the location of the water tower . I know it was discussed in the report regarding the engineering considerations of locating it in the highest elevation . That 's fine but I also have concerns as it relates to the visual impact of that . We 're attempting to focus this as a gateway . . .so to speak and I look at the situation with the water tower at , by Ridgedale and you see that water tower on 394 as you go by Plymouth Road there and it dominants the whole landscape there . And I think that the water tower should be located in another site . Well , it could be in this area but just off the road a bit . It can 't be right on the road here so I would very much like to see an alternate location there . I guess in general , I feel that this does represent a good concept overall and I think it 's great that we take a large piece of property and not be afraid to put it together as a comprehensive type of development , which this very much is but at the same time I 'm very concerned about the residents ' opinions and also the Landscape Arboretum 's opinion and I guess at this point I don 't think I would support approval of the concept plan . Batzli : Okay . Steve . Emmings: Let 's see , where to start . This should be a PUD . There 's no question about that . I frankly would probably be almost be happier if this was blank because what 's on here is very difficult for me to accept even Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 64 — though I know it 's a concept stage . There 's some things I like about it _ but it 's scares when you know the most valuable piece of the property has nothing on it . That 's just , I have to know more about the corner before could even approve a concept plan . So while I think they 've done some things that are nice things . I like the park area . It makes some sense .—I like the road that comes down from 41 and you come into a T and you see c t into that whole park area you know . That 's kind of a nice thing . But I 'm not voting for a concept plan on this piece of property without seeing mote about what 's in that corner . I think it should be tabled and it should come back . Just as an example . If we look at Lot 7 , there 's a building drawn on there and a parking lot and there 's 7 , what do you call the little lines that show grade? John Uban : Contours . Emmings : Contours . There 's 19 of them in that building and it 's not eve that big a building which means , I don 't know , does that mean there 's a lot of grading going on there? I thought one of our goals for this piece of _ property when we went on the bus tour for the Highway 5 study area and everything else . One of the big goals was to not do too much with that topography . Really somehow , and I don 't know if it 's possible to do anything there without doing a lot of grading . I don 't know but when I =—e that , that seems to fly right in the face of the kinds of things that we were looking at that time . I 've also seen a plan for this piece of property that was done by , as part of the Highway 5 study that had the _ buildings arranged more in a , it was almost in tiers that was all orientE back to the wetland area which made a lot of sense to me . That plan I think did go out of it 's way not to , to leave the topography that 's there_ in place and orient itself more inward than outward which made some sense to me . And I don 't know if Opus has those plans or is aware of those plans . Michele , were you aware of the fact of the presentation that we had from the Arboretum where they were proposing an entrance to the Arboretum— out there? Okay . That 's an opportunity that ought to be pursued exhaustively . It seems like a tremendous opportunity again from the standpoint of having this system of roads that would go around Highway for local trips and to have the Arboretum on the end of that with an entrance is an opportunity that shouldn 't be lost . I agree that that piece of property that 's on TH 41 , that 's an exception now has to have internal access on this thing . At least to 82nd Street , if nowhere else . Lot 19 —s incredibly inappropriate . There is no way that that should be sticking c t there like that . Everything west of TH 41 looks kind of inappropriate but especially is 19 and close on it 's heels is Lot 22 . That building is — jammed in there in a way that just looks ridiculous to me . I don 't know what you can do there but that looks just awful to me . Peter Olin mentioned the parking lots all in front of the buildings and again , I know this is a concept plan and I assume this stuff is just thrown in there bu it does feel like just more unpleasant development without much thought and I don 't like that . The way the whole thing is laid out , the fact that it should be a PUD , I have no quarrel with whatsoever . — Batzli : Are you on the Highway 5 Task Force? Emmings : Yeah but I haven 't been getting notices of meetings . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 65 Farmakes : Neither have I . Emmings: And I didn 't get notice of , the last one they held I never got a notice . Farmakes: Or if I did , I didn 't see it . Emmings : I found out after that it had been held . Krauss: Well we haven 't had any since then . We 're in the process of finalizing the Phase II contract and we expect to have another meeting end of October , early November . We 're going to set the date in the next couple days . Emmings: Please . That 's something I 'm real interested in . Krauss : And one of the concerns we had was that we very much wanted to include the Highway 5 Task Force , get them involved in a project of this magnitude . You can 't ask people to sit and give their evenings to plan for the corridor and then take one of the most important pieces out of that context . So in essence though , I think it 's got to be recognized , we 're asking Opus and their planners to do something that 's very difficult . We 're asking them to design to a plan that doesn 't exist yet , to a set of policies and standards that we haven 't agreed on yet . Emmings : But . Krauss: But there are some general concepts . Emmings : You bet there are . There 's a lot out there and as a matter of fact , like I say . Tell me the name of guy from the University . Aanenson: Bill Morrish . Krauss : Yes , they 've been given Bill 's . — Aanenson : Yeah , they 've seen that . Emmings: If they 're talking to him , then they 're talking to us because _ Bill 's been a real significant leader in that regard and so if you 're talking to him , I think you 're talking to the right person . And he is the one who drew that initial plan which may not suit their purposes and I understand that but well , I 've said my piece I guess . Batzli : Thanks . Jeff . Farmakes : I 'd just be repeating myself . Most of the items were just touched on that I have listed on my little page here . But again I ' ll just say that that corner of that highway to the north and south is certainly just fundamental to all the work that 's been done up until that point . The Highway 5 corridor plan . It 's an extremely important piece of property . Just overall for the aesthetics of the city and I couldn 't agree more that where our thinking is and the work that 's been done up until that point , I don 't know how it applies commercially , which is also an important point . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 66 I don 't want to beat up Opus because I think that they 're really a fine developer . I 'm glad they 're out here working on this piece of property h t a lot of the design considerations took in what I thought were the sensitivities to the Arboretum and to the adjacent area to the west of TH 41 which is definitely a concern . And again , I 'd just be repeating myselr to call out these lots or repeating Commissioner Emmings here . But I toc think that actually the direction that he had was more focused on the drive that came in from the east and for some reason the parking or , I don 't krt=w if it was developed where it was realistic commercially but the way that that was structured was much more pleasant and much more in line with an overall effect of taking into consideration of the adjacent property and uses than just maximizing the property at hand . That particular piece of! property . It seems kind of almost punitive to take the position to punis the existing landowner of that particular piece because it happens to be there but it is an enormously important piece to the city . And the — Arboretum and I 'm sure Chaska , if they were here tonight . But going back to the effect of I think we should table this also but I agree that this should be a PUD , if that 's any headway at all for anyone . Batzli : Is that it? Farmakes: One more comment . When they bring in a concept plan , it woulc be appreciative if , particularly because of the sensitivity of the area t the west , if we could move the chart over a little farther and see more of what 's actually to the west . The comment that one of the individuals mac' here , I think that that 's a necessity to see more specifically of what 's happening in the surrounding areas if we 're going to develop the property to the west of TH 41 . Batzli : Okay , Joan . Ahrens : I too agree with just about everything that everyone has said sc far . Including the comments Matt made about the water tower . I remember going on that bus trip with Bill Morrish a long time ago and looking at the site from the bus and he had this vision . One of those vision things . — Emmings: Our guru . Ahrens : For that corner and this isn 't exactly it . And I don 't even knc what it was but I think talking to him would clarify what we 're trying to say to you tonight . I don 't like any of the stuff west of TH 41 . It kind of reminds of the controversy that 's going on now around Yellowstone Park— The ranchers who want to . . .to the border of the park and they 're saying y u can 't do that because the health of the park doesn 't stop at the borders . You have to be sensitive to everything that 's going on around the park and I know that unless we go in and buy this land or the Arboretum buys it , maybe they should do that . Emmings : Just ask the Legislature for it . - Ahrens: But you know , realistically it 's tough to dictate that someone should leave their land vacant because we just want them to do it because— it 's the right thing to do . Although I do think it is the right thing to do . I think that that area should be preserved . I think this has to go Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 67 back to the drawing board . There 's some things that I like . I do like the park areas but they seem a little isolated over there . I don 't understand what this looks like . I don 't understand the buildings and , it looks like a lot of stuff is real close together in here with a lot of pavement . And so this has to go back to the drawing board . That 's it . Batzli : Thank you Joan . I think one of the , well I mean there 's obviously several issues that have been touched on . Not the least of which is some of the treatment of the development west of TH 41 . Issue of the gateway . Potential gateway into the Arboretum . Whether this jives with our corridor , Highway 5 corridor study vision . Some access issues into some accepted lots . And I think maybe one of my biggest problems , the Lot 1 which is kind of vacant and nebulous . And I know that , I don 't know that the recommendations that are there right now give us comfort that these things will be changed and I don 't know that we can draft them right now . For example Kate , I know you mace , you discussed at great length and very nicely that they would have to give us some more concrete thought . Aanenson: What we asked them to do was plat it . Show how the road can go through there and maybe be lot in 5-10 acre lots like they show on the rest of it . If they do want to leave it out for a bigger use , they come back and tell us specifically so we can run that past you . What specific uses they 're looking at . We feel the same uncomfort level and we need to know what 's going to be there . What we 're asking them to do is tell us more specifically , or lot it out so we can bring that back to you . Batzli : But where is that in the conditions? Aanenson: It 's in the report . Emmings: There 's a lot of stuff in the report that isn 't in the conditions and we do that a lot of times on concept reviews . We tell them these are our concerns and they 're not necessarily in the conditions . So I don 't think that that 's unusual really . Batzli : But in this case that 's half the development . Emmings: Yeah . Aanenson: It should be , right . Batzli : The other thing I think is just the overall sensitivity to the site and maybe that wouldn 't normally be in a condition but here I think it _ has to be . Steve pointed out Lot 7 which looks like it has about a 30 or 40 foot drop over the length of the building . That 's serious grading . There 's parking lots over similar contours and I doubt they 're going to have a parking lot with that kind of a substantial hill in it . And these — things concern me from the standpoint that conceptually PUD makes sense . Some of the alignments may make sense other than the fact that they don 't do what we want it to do with respect to the Arboretum . So maybe it doesn 't make any sense at all . And I 'm wondering I guess what concept I would be approving if I voted for this tonight because clearly the overall concept doesn 't mesh with what we 've thought of for this site . Yet the PUD , the park , the general types of uses do make sense . I 'm kind of Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 68 wondering if this is salvagable tonight or if the applicant doesn 't want tc table it and come back , I get the sense that the Planning Commission wou 7-1 recommend that the City Council not approve conceptual approval . So I 'm t a loss here as far as would the applicant like to kind of take a second shot at it or , because I get the feeling that the Commission isn 't going - .o be in favor of approving it . We 've had several people say that they wou: ' move to table it or would like to see it come back . Michele Foster : I 'd like to respond directly to that . And if the feeliT-I of the Commission is that they cannot support the plan this evening , theT we will certainly agree to continue the item until we can come back and better address some of the issues that have been raised this evening . want to make a couple of comments , one of which is that the property is guided for industrial and office use and I was not part of the discussions that the city went through at the time that this property was considered _ for that designation . I do think that it 's only fair to say that yes , there is going to be some significant grading that needs to occur on this site regardless if an industrial and office park is going to occur here . Now I understand we may not have addressed that very well . We 're also nc-. at that stage of the development process to be able to show you grades al grading plans so we have a little chicken and egg problem here of trying tc come up with something that clearly you need to feel comfortable with at stage where we don 't have a lot of very clear direction which is why we 'r going through this process . And I understand that there are a number of visionary things that the City would like to see happen here but I 'd also like to say that there is some boundaries in which an office and industr3 l park can function . And it does probably mean that the property can 't st`, in it 's current state and there are going to have to be some significant modifications to what you see there today . But I also understand that obviously we need to go further in addressing some of the concerns that we 've heard this evening and putting as much detail to that as we can and we would be , not pleased but if the Commission so chooses to postpone any'- action on this until we come back , that 's acceptable to us . Batzli : As a general conceptual thing , and I don 't mean to tie your hands on this . Are you dead opposed to putting some sort of buffer where Lot 1 is? I mean are you opposed to doing some of the things you 've heard fron us tonight? Michele Foster : No , and in fact that 's partly why we sat down with the staff on Monday . We sat down with representatives from almost all the city departments to try to understand those issues . I think we 'd probably be _ the first to admit that the property on the west side is very challenginc given the numerous objectives that we need to try to accomplish there regarding buffering and the Arboretum and access and wetlands and we probably don 't have the perfect solution there . So no , we understand the- issues that are raised in the staff report and that 's why we 've not objected to any of those . We understand that this is a starting place from which we have to go to the next level of detail and try to incorporate - those kinds of concerns . That 's what we thought the process was about . Not that we were trying to get some kind of approval that tied your hands in terms of getting the kind of development that you want to see there . _ This to us is a starting point and the kinds of comments that we 've gotte , while challenging at least tell us where we need to head and what we neer Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 69 to deal with . But like I said , there are some boundaries around which even the most creative among us and I 'm a developer , not a planner or a designer but we are dealing with ,a number of very complex and sometimes conflicting goals that we 're just going to have to try to sort out as we go through this and balance them as best we can . Farmakes : As you understand the Highway 5 study that was done earlier from the city , do you feel that the marketplace would keep the city from , and Opus , from producing something that is special there? Something that 's different . Michele Foster : I ' ll be honest with you . I can 't , I mean I have not myself spent a great deal of time analyzing what was in that document so I really can 't address that . We will go back and do that and look at it and be in a better position to respond to that question the next time we come to see you but I 'm not really prepared to answer that very well tonight . Farmakes : Perhaps there 's something we can do to , are you comfortable Paul that they 've taken in the information? Krauss : . . . I 'm sure Bill would be willing to come down and kick some things around . Again , we laid these things on the table . We weren 't exactly sure which way to go . We do view this as the start of the process and we 'd just like to get as many opinions at this point on the process as we can do that when they do go through and make changes , they 're the right changes . Farmakes: It would certainly seem to me from that plan that the whole crux of this thing would be where that road would enter from , coming from the east . Krauss: But see there 's responsibilities on several sides of several of these issues . If a road 's going to be aligned to provide a new entrance into the Arboretum , which is a fine idea , there needs to be a commitment from the Arboretum to build their side of the road . And again , we wanted to get these things on the table so that people can start looking at the need to make these decisions . Farmakes : And for that to really , sort of the back bone of what his design for that concept area was , that if something like that was altered too much , you 'd lose a lot of gas out of it . There 'd be , you 'd lose a lot of the effect . Like you said but it 's the egg and the chicken . It would seem to me that if we could keep getting a type of communication , maybe even — more human communication involved it 's their understanding of what we 've come up with . Where we 're thinking so that there 's . . . Aanenson: I guess where the staff was coming from too , we can 't really lock into a design until we 've looked at some of these other issues . I mean we need to look at the traffic . We need to do the EIS . We need to look at the wetlands before we know what some of these buildable lots are and some of the topography issues so they kind of , all these issues need to kind of run parallel . • Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 70 Farmakes : My concern would be the valuation of what the realities of the marketplace would be comparatively to what aesthetically we would like tc— do . Because I don 't know if we 're terribly familiar . Michele Foster : We 'll make sure that you hear that so I don 't think you _ need to worry . Farmakes: It 's sort of a two way communication thing . Batzli : But I agree . I think with Chaska 's planning comments in a broac sense and apparently that 's all really , give the opportunity to look at it in kind of a broad things to look at it . Consider it and I think those a- e some of the same things we 're looking at for better or worse . I hate to agree with them but he 's right . No , I 'm just kidding . We like Chaska . sc I would , as long as the applicant doesn 't mind , I guess I 'd like them to .2c back and review it a little bit more with staff . Is there a motion to table? Emmings : So moved . Ahrens: Second . Emmings moved , Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission table the Concept PUD for Gateway West Business Park for further review . All vote° in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS . Public Present: Name Address Bruce Buxton 401 Golf Course Dr , Baxter , MN - Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Bruce Buxton: Can I get a copy of the schedule? Batzli : You can if you want one . Emmings: I don 't know why you 'd want to do that to yourself . Ahrens : You can have my copy . Emmings : And mine . Bruce Buxton : The reason I ask is because I 'm an engineer and . . . Emmings : I don 't think that will help . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 71 Batzli : The minute we approve this , you can have one . Emmings : You can have 5 of them . Krauss : Well actually , feel free to give yours out Joan but I 'd like to keep the rest of them to give them to the Council . This isn 't the final printing . We do have some corrections . Batzli : I 'm going to keep mine . Emmings: You 're asking us to vote on something that I have no idea what the hell it is , you realize that? Krauss : I had to write a report on something I had only the foggiest idea . Krauss: Okay , there 's no one else in the crowd that wants to address the Commission . Ledvina moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Emmings : I just have one question . Dave , should we do this? You 're an engineer , should we do this? Hempel : Yes . We have put together . Emmings : That 's enough . Hempel : Okay . Emmings: Nothing you say is going to help me understand this . Batzli : Does anyone else have any comments in regard to adopting this in our ordinances? Ahrens: No , I think it 's a great idea . I 've been waiting for this for a long time . Batzli : This is actually fairly significant from the standpoint I think , that it goes hand and hand with the wetland alteration permit process and setbacks and things that we 're going to talk about . Because we are I think now on the verge of shrinking the setbacks and things like that and we need something to enforce and to make sure the wetlands are protected as we move closer to wetlands here so , this is actually a very important part of that process . So it 's something the wetland , the swamp committee has been working on in connection with these consultants . So I think it 's a good step . Is there a motion? Ledvina : Ah yes . I 'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend that the amendment to Sections 18 thru 62 and 20 thru 94 referring to the Chanhassen construct site and erosion and sediment Best Management Practices Handbook be approved . Batzli : Is there a second? Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 72 — Farmakes: I 'll second it . Batzli : Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend — approving the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code concerning construction site erosion/sediment control requirements as presented in the Best Management Practices Handbook. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE TREE PRESERVATI( 1 BOARD. Ahrens: I 'd like to nominate Tim to the Tree Preservation Board . — Emmings: Absolutely . Second . Batzli : I don 't know that Tim really wants to preserve trees , from what I 've heard . Emmings: Tim and I share a lot of opinions about that . — Batzli : You 're not a tree hugger either? Emmings: No . Not if they 're on my property . I don 't want the City telling me what to do with any tree on my property . Ahrens: Oh one of those . — Emmings: I 'm taking down three oak trees you can 't get your arms around. It 's costing me $500 .00 a tree . You ask why I do that to myself . — Batzli : Why? Emmings: I have to . I have too damned many trees . I can 't see anythir and there 's a lot of reasons you might want to take down a tree . I still have 20 you know . Ledvina: They 're not dead? Emmings: No . One is dying and the top fell off a second . But I sure — wouldn 't want to have to come to the City and ask if I can take these tre s down because I don't want them where they are . Ahrens: Did you write that down what he 's planning on doing to his tree! Krauss: Yes , we 'll send the police out there . Farmakes: The tree police . Emmings: I welcome you to come to watch . When you get there all you 'll do is hear the chainsaws and I 'll be running . Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 73 T Batzli : Paul , how often does this Tree Board meet? Krauss: We have no idea yet . I 'm assuming it 's going to be monthly . Batzli : What are they going to do exactly? -- Krauss: It 's going to be a 7 member group . One Planning Commission , one City Council , one Park representative and four residents . Batzli : Is this why we haven 't , have we even talked about Tim 's proposal on the tree conservation easements because of this or because we 're running out of time? Krauss : Well , sometimes we run out of time and sometimes we run out of Tim . I mean it 's been on the agenda a lot . Batzli : Yeah , and we keep on not talking about it . Ledvina: It 's always continued because he 's not here . Ahrens : Is that why Tim left tonight? Emmings : Yeah , he 's mad . Batzli : Is there someone that would like to serve on this Board here? Present? In the room? Joan? Ckay . Well , why doesn 't everybody think about it . Let 's do this next time . When is this going to fire up? Krauss : Within the next , I honestly don 't know . Probably within the next 30-40 days . Batzli : Okay . We can wait one more meeting then . Krauss : Yeah . Batzli : See if somebody steps forward . Emmings : Well , he has strong opinions . Batzli : He has strong opinions so he may want to be on it and so let 's wait for next time to see if he does want to be on it because I would rather appoint somebody that wants to be on it than . Ledvina : I might want to be on it too . Batzli : We 'll wait for next time . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 16 , 1992 as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Batzli : Do you have a 30 second report from the Director , Paul? Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 74 _ Krauss: No . I mean do you want one? Ahrens: No . Emmings: No . _ Batzli : Unless there 's something we really need to know , because I didn ' t_ look at this part . Krauss: Well yeah , I mean things, real visible things . Target is movin ahead . Emmings: How 's Target going? Krauss: Well it 's got a problem. The site plan 's been approved . The — Rezoning 's been approved . The issues outstanding concern the final configuration of the street and it 's supposed to be resolved at next Monday 's City Council meeting . So that 's going ahead . The Bluff Creek sewer project should be going ahead , we hope . It 's all been , an issue of getting some final easements . Normally sewer projects aren 't important k t this one is because it 's the major pipe south of Highway 5 so , this is what ultimately reaches out to the project that we talked about a few minutes — ago . Apart from that , I guess that 's about it . Ledvina : Who 's Don Buckhout? Krauss: Don Buckhout is a fellow with the DNR who Bowser asked to manage this wetland rules . Ledvina : Okay , that 's fine . Emmings : On this thing , our work list . Number 14 , sexually oriented — businesses . Krauss : I thought we finished that . Emmings: Well yeah , I don 't know why it stays on here . You know it 's at the Public Safety Commission and is going to the City Council so why don 't we get it out of there . — Ahrens: Is the only thing you were concerned about? Batzli : What did we do on that? We said we couldn't come up with an ordinance . Krauss: Well we determined that it wasn't really a matter of zoning . It—s more a matter of licensing . The only , there were two approaches . One is the designated combat zone . The other was to define it and then regulate it , license it and say you 've got to be so many feet away from sensitive — land uses . The licensing approach was the one that seemed more likely which took it out of the purview of the Planning Commission . It 's not a zoning issue . So it was bumped over to Public Safety and Roger Knutson — wrote an ordinance , I guess pretty similar to , a standardized ordinance Planning Commission Meeting October 7 , 1992 - Page 75 7 that 's been adopted . In fact it makes for rather interesting reading . I mean the definitions . Emmings: No , I read it real slow and several times . Did it include tree huggers? Batzli : To make a comment . I recall that , well I don 't recall the discussion going quite that way so I guess I 'm interested that the Public Safety Commission not only looked at it but they came up with an ordinance when I thought it was our position that we didn 't want that kind of ordinance . I think it does effect the public land use and so I disagree from the standpoint that because it 's licensed doesn 't have anything to do with use because it will significantly impact a lot of uses if you license one . Krauss: Well , the context was , I mean I think we all agreed that we had some First Amendment sensitivities and had some difficulties with the process . We also had difficulties with , I mean this was not an issue you brought up . It was an issue the Mayor brought up and it was one that we were being asked to come up with something and then move it along . The only zoning based option you have is the combat zone designation . You can 't ban these things so you 're then forced into allowing them someplace that 's a legitimate commercial site . So what are you going to do? Are you going to say between 78th and 79th Street , between Market Blvd . and Great Plains Blvd . That 's our combat zone . That 's where these things can go . Well I don 't think anybody was ready to consign over any part of Chanhassen 's downtown to this kind of stuff . And I really don 't remember the exact discussion at the meeting but I remember that it was considered not to be a zoning approach and that if anybody 's going to do anything _ about it , the Mayor really wants something done , it ought to be put into the hands of Public Safety Commission because the concern is more one of social impact I guess . And they took a look at it and they were somewhat hesitant to do much with it at first . But the ordinance was developed and refined a little bit and it 's one of licensing . What you actually wind up doing is you require these uses to get a license and some of the obligations of the license are that you don 't have a criminal record and all those kinds of things . The same as the liquor license that they administer in Public Safety . The other thing is , the only thing that has any relationship to land use is it establishes 500 or 1 ,000 foot separation between those uses . Emmings: And other uses . Krauss: And other uses and then uses such as schools , churches . Farmakes : As I recall though , the second part of that discussion was that legal opinion that you got . That just seemed to back up what our concerns were in the first place . At least that was my interpretation of even reading that and you people are the lawyers but , that seemed pretty vague to me still . How many possibilities for hourly billings there so I couldn 't make anything out of that . Krauss : That ordinance that ultimately came out of the Public Safety , and it hasn 't gone to the Council yet . Scott Harr 's got to take it to them , is Planning Commission Meeting October 7 . 1992 - Page 76 virtually identical to the one that Bloomington 's adopted . Minnetonka 's adopted . A number of communities have adopted . It gets rid of the worst- - abuse . The situation I think was up in Ramsey where you had a pornograph store open up next to a daycare center . It gets rid of that . But no , there 's absolutely no way to prohibit it in total . Farmakes : It 's pretty late here but I have one quick comment . When I wa_ out getting water there , the designer who 's working with Opus . Emmings : Uban . Farmakes: Yeah , he made a comment to her that he was asking , what vision, So you might want to follow up . We might want to follow up closely with that to make sure , because I firmly believe that Morrish did enough work there that you can see a direction that 's happening , the interaction _ between that frontage road coming in from the east and the Arboretum itse f and what he worked out there I think was pretty outstanding so . Batzli : The amazing thing to me though , even beyond that , is that Shardl-w gave us a presentation on behalf of the Coalition of Highway 5 owners 2 years ago that did a much more sensitive job all the way along . It was at least better than what this , this thing just looked like a bunch of roads_ with big buildings . Krauss : Actually I 've got a copy of that original one . . . Batzli : Maybe over time it 's soften . Krauss : I think so because when I first saw John Uban 's plan , geez I 've - seen this one before . Batzli : Okay , so was it that one? Krauss : Yes . Batzli : Okay , so they haven 't changed it at all . Krauss : They just took the shopping center off the corner and made it a blank spot . The road alignment changed a little bit . - Farmakes : Is the Arboretum moving on doing their work on their end for other there? Krauss: To the best of my knowledge , no . Emmings moved , Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favc- and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :55 p .m . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim • CITY OF C liANBASSEN ,-- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: October 29, 1992 SUBJ: Report from Director At the Monday, October 12, 1992, City Council meeting, the following actions were taken: 1. Final plat approval and PUD development agreement for Ches Mar Trails, Craig Swaggert, was approved on the consent agenda. The Planning Commission approved this proposal approximately one year ago. It involves the division of property at Ches — Mar Farms along with the elimination of pre-existing non-conforming apartment building. The final plat and PUD agreement were delayed for some time due to complex closing requirements on the property. The work is now proceeding. 2. Appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a Bluff Line Preservation setback variance request south of Deerbrook Drive, Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook, James Stellick. This item is of interest to the Planning Commission, although it is not one that you have acted on previously. It involves the bluff line ordinance that was adopted by the city last year. Mr. Stellick originally proposed a building plan which in essence completely ignored the existence of the bluff line ordinance. He was looking to build a walk-out rambler type of home over the edge of the bluff line. Staff objected to the proposed zero foot setback, extensive grading and loss of tree cover and recommended denial of the request. The Board of Adjustments agreed with staff and acted to deny the proposal. Mr. Stellick then appealed the request to the City Council. The City Council continued action on the proposal during the first hearing asking if the applicant was willing to work with staff to work on a compromise. A revised plan was submitted which relocated the house 30 feet back from the bluff line but still proposed extensive grading on the bluff and bluff protection area. A variance was no longer required, however, under the bluff ordinance, an earth work permit was necessary. Since we believed Mr. Stellick would probably appeal staff's conditions on the administratively issued earth work permit, we kept the item on the City Council agenda. Staff proposed allowing Mr. Stellick to os t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission October 29, 1992 Page 2 remove a small wooded knoll located in the bluff protection area since it is something of an anomaly and does block the view. However, we did object to the more extensive grading that was requested by Mr. Stellick who wished to have bluff views not only from his main living floor but also from his exposed basement. At the meeting Mr. Stellick did object to staff's conditions. The Council discussed the — request at length and ultimately voted to uphold staff's conditions on a 5 to 1 vote. 3. Proposed Target Development, approval of PUD, rezoning, PUD agreement and development contract. Action on this item was tabled at the request of Target. There are some last minute negotiations relative to various funding options. In addition, we believe Target wants their attorneys to review and comment on contractual agreements being proposed between the city and their organization. We expect to have the item back on the agenda shortly. 4. Site plan review of Chanhassen Professional Building, Phase II, Copeland-Mithun. The Council reviewed this proposal and approved it in accordance with conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The City Council did not make a final determination as to whether or not the canopy between the two buildings should be built. They asked that the item be brought back to them in the future. 5. Non-conforming use permit for a recreational beachlot for Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association. The permit was approved by the Council as recommended _ by the Planning Commission. At the Monday, October 26, 1992, City Council meeting, the following actions were taken: 1. Target Given Final Approvals. After several months of deliberations and refinements, the Target proposal on West 78th Street was finally approved. The site plan is in many ways identical with the one the Planning commission approved, although there have been significant improvements in the area of landscaping. Approximately 50 additional trees were added and many trees which were identified as ornamental will be substituted by deciduous over story trees. The delays in gaining final approval for the project came from two sources. The first is non-planning related contractual issues and financing details. The second relates to the disposition of the — 78th Street improvement project. The configuration of 78th Street that was finally approved will take an alignment that is somewhat different from the original location for the realignment which can be seen on the site in the form of a graded right-of-way. The approved plan locates the detached 78th Street connection to Powers Boulevard approximately 100 feet south of the original proposed location but is far enough north to provide high degrees of safety. Traffic signals will be installed at Powers Boulevard, a joint access point into the south and to the James property to the north Planning Commission October 29, 1992 Page 3 approximately 300 feet west, Kerber Boulevard, Market Boulevard, Laredo and Great Plains Boulevard. Grading work will begin on the store shortly. 2. Approval of Non-conforming Use Permit for Minnewashta Shores Recreational Beachlot. The Council approved the beachlot request based upon Planning Commission's recommendations. 3. Lundgren Bros. Property Located on the east side of Hwy. 41, north of Hwy. 5 and adjacent to 7305 Hwy. 41. The Council approved requests associated with this proposal including first reading of the rezoning to PUD, preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. The only substantive issue concerning the plat that was discussed concerned the connections of the two streets that has long been an issue on this project. As you will recall, staff had recommended that the streets be connected to limit the length of a dead end street. The Planning Commission and City Council initially supported the developer's position that these should remain as cul-de-sacs. The Planning Commission reversed themselves on this matter when this item was formally approved. Ultimately, the City Council agreed with staff and the Planning Commission that these streets should be connected. However, in a related matter on the City Council agenda, the proposal to bring utilities to this site has been tabled. The Council raised concerns regarding the potential of this project to promote what they termed as "leap frog" development. While it is unclear as to how this determination might be made or why this project is different than most other projects that the city has dealt with, the City Council asked for a month to research the matter further. Items which would be discussed include what percentage of the off-site costs should be born by a developer and what level of risk the city should take in financing such projects. All approvals for the Lundgren proposal were conditioned upon satisfy resolution of the utility issue. 4. Zoning ordinance amendment concerning the construction site, erosion/sediment control requirements. This handbook, which has been developed by the SWMP Task Force, was given first reading by the City Council without substantial discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION TERMS Three Year Terms NAME APPOINTMENT DATE TERM EXPIRES Joan Ahrens 1/90 12/31/95 Brian Batzli 1/1/88 12/31/93 Ladd Conrad 2/2/81 12/31/94 Steve Emmings 9/9/85 12/31/94 Tim Erhart 2/12/86 12/31/94 Jeffrey Farmakes 1/1/91 12/31/93 Matthew Ledvina 1/1/92 12/31/95 mntri o a CJ A� H• n N (D Yr rr lQ Q H• U1 (D cn cn X > X > > X un '' z > I ,< >< >< >< X U, bU t'7 n7 X X X X X X > > < >c ga > H z X X X X X I- ;U ro 0 C) X X X X X > > > X X X X X X X rn -< . H X X < > O , 1-< > Z > X X X > X w z C c- tin X < < X < > > H t 6 X > > < ,< >< U, 0 C n > X X X X X X Loi-, O C 0 X : : : : : : : 'X < x J y n 0 � N 1-3no < Oz Coy' Coz .CCx dpC > 1-3Of-3 O] C� N � ,.; ^..J N CITY OF 4 cniiNHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning director DATE: June 25, 1992 SUBJ: Tree Conservation Easements At past meetings, staff has been asked to elaborate on tree conservation easements which have been utilized on several recent plats. The City Attorney has developed the easement format that is attached to this memo. What it essentially does is permanently identify an area that is to be protected for tree conservation purposes and bind all present and future property owners to maintain the forested area in its natural state. The only activities allowed in this area are removing diseased or storm damaged trees. - Some of the commissioners have expressed potential concerns over permanently binding a home owner from doing anything relative to trees. I would point out that these tree conservation easements are used sparingly. They are used only when a specific concentration of trees worthy of preservation can be identified. Staff has taken pains to ensure that they do not hinder normal use of a lot to either build a home or accommodate normal household functions. I would also point out that these tree conservation easements are developed as a fundamental tool for addressing the impact of development. That is the preservation of these trees may often be the key to gaining approval of the plat and designing a development that is acceptable to the city and neighbors. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to provide permanent protection for these areas. Arguably, some of the City Attorney's language is rather strict and some modifications may be appropriate. For example, while we would not want any permanent structures built in a tree conservation area, the construction of walkways, placement of playground equipment, or some other normal activities associated with single family lots may be appropriate. Staff looks forward to getting your guidance on this matter. Is to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT 8& FUCHS , P .A May 15 ,92 10 :25 No .007 P . 02 CONSERVATION EASEMENT INSTRUMENT made this - day of , 19 , by and between ("Grantors") , and the CITY OF , a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") . The Grantors, in consideration of good and valuable consider- ation paid by the City, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, grant the City a permanent conservation easement as that term is defined in this instrument over, under, and across the premises described in the attached Exhibit "A" ("subject property") . 1. Grantors for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, agree that the following are prohibited in perpetuity on the subject property: A. Constructing, installing, or maintaining anything made by man, including but not limited to buildings, structures, walkways, clothes line poles, and playground equipment. B. Cutting, removing, or altering trees or other vegeta- tion, except those diseased or storm damaged. C. Excavation or filling. D. Application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical. E. Application of chemicals for the destruction or retard- - ation of vegetation. F. The deposit of waste or debris. G. The application of herbicides, pesticides, and insecti- cides. H. Outside storage of any kind. - CHAN:FORM Jnr /. r /nn CHAN:FORM r05/15/92 �nn ULLL f hive I JVI' P a r)LnJ , r .r7 1LJ •t() I. Activity detrimental to the preservation of the scenic beauty, vegetation, and wildlife. 2. Grantors for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, further grant the City the affirmative right, but not the obli- gation, to enter upon the subject property at any time to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument. _ GRANTORS: GRANTEE: - CITY OF BY: Its Mayor BY: Its clerk/Manager _ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( $5. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by NOTARY PUBLIC -2- CAMPBELL . KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A May 15 ,92 10 :26 No .007 P .04 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by . NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( S9. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by , Mayor, and by , Clerk/Manager, of the City of , a Minnesota municipal corporation, in behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority of its City Council . NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: Campbell , Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A. 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (612) 452-5000 -3- Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 65 Ledvina : If I understood the criteria by which this proposal was being evaluated , I would try to make some determination but I 'm so confused as to what we 're looking at . Farmakes : We were too . Conrad: But we voted . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 3 , 1992 as presented . OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FORM . Krauss : That one I think we ought to maybe lay over because there 's some questions . Erhart: Also I think , I haven 't talked to Steve about this but I know in the history . . .he has strong feelings about people 's rights to do things in their own yards and if somebody wanted to hold this over , I think it 'd be just fine . Farmakes: I 'd be curious as to how this fit in with this thing on Monday where they talk about the city compensating landowner 's for trees on their - property . Krauss: Oh , you mean the Lucas Decision? Farmakes: The Supreme Court . Krauss: I don 't think anybody really knows yet what the implications are but I had a conversation with Roger about that decision this morning and I used to get all worked up about these Supreme Court decisions thinking the sky is falling and generally you find it 's because somebody screwed up or did something . . . I 'm not sure they 're nearly as pervasive as you might think at first blush . Batzli : Where 's that thing about this article? One Planner 's Reflection of the Edge City . You write that? Krauss: Yeah. _ Batzli : And it 's going in which issue? Krauss: It should be this coming on . Batzli : Congratulations . You downplayed your work . I liked it . Should we table this easement? Okay . If nobody 's opposed, we 'll table that over to the next meeting . Erhart : The next meeting is what , the 15th? Krauss: The 15th , yes . Erhart: Why does Council want to meet? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 66 Krauss: The Council , I 've got to double check if that timing works but the Council wants , on an annual basis they sit down with all the Commissions and keep the communications open . Ask what your issues are but hopefully they ' ll tell you what their issues are . I 'm not sure if we 'll have frankly enough time to do it on the 15th . Erhart : Is this an annual meeting? Krauss: I think we 've gotten them once or twice before . Farmakes : Can I ask you a question since we spent so much time on this PUD and we just sort of skipped over the City Council update . Do they really believe you when you tell them that that 's just sort of a variance guideline , the PUD situation? What 's your opinion on that? Krauss : What do you mean a variance? Farmakes: The Councilmen that I 've talked to on this PUD thing , it seems to be mistrust that what they 're doing is making an ordinance people can build on and that the City 's committed to . But the way it 's been explained to me over and over again is that it 's really a variance . That the City can refuse if they don't feel that it 's appropriate to approve it . So why then do I continue to hear this almost a reluctance that we 're approving this type of thing? Is there a trust factor there? Krauss: I don 't think it 's a matter of trust because staff 's relationship with the Council is a pretty good one . But I think , I don 't want to characterize it unfairly either but you 've got the Council , the people I 'm most familiar with on the Council are people who have moved to this community 15-20 years ago and they did it for some very explicit reasons in terms of what kind of liftstyle was offered . I don 't know , maybe there 's something of a mind set that that 's exactly what everybody wants as the standard mode of living . There 's also , I mean they 're very comfortable with the lifestyle they have . They have good lives here and they think that that is something worthy to pass on . I guess I don't dispute that but I think there 's other ways of getting at it and I 'm not all clear if the Council 's going to go through with it or not . Farmakes: When they come in here , should there be more discussion with us in regards to those issues? Those issues and the second coming of American city . A lot of stuff that we 're doing is the exact opposite of what they 're . Krauss: See that 's the thing. I mean you talk to people like Councilman Wing and he 's got very strong feelings of support for the neo-traditionalist movement and the kind of stuff we hear from Bill Morrish . This PUD is fully consistent with achieving those goals , yet they 've got a lot of trouble digesting that . I don't know how to rationalize that , except to maybe ask Bill to talk to him about it because they have some type of . . . Farmakes : Well a lot of traditional suburban planning , which we 've been into here for , since after World War II , or at least the past 25 years , is not really based on diversity . It 's highly suspicious of it and I get a Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 67 lot of feedback from that and I 'm sure maybe you do too . That that 's why the 10 ,000 square foot and so on . A buzzer goes off whether it 's relevant or not . There seems to be a lot of walls that we smack into there when we start to discuss some of this stuff even in the HRA and the downtown development . We continue to build these large parking lots facing access streets and we place the building farther back when a lot of current design information has been coming out the past 10 years saying no . that 's not th< right thing to do . It used to be the right thing to do back in the 70 's but now we 've discovered that we should be doing it differently. We continue on . And basically the developer is framing that down into reality . We say yeah. It 's sort of a philosophical thing . I 'm not sure if we caught up with that and I 'm not sure , they 're sort of accountable to their voters . What kind of information they 're getting there and whether - or not they really believe it . From a professional level . Krauss: There 's a real philosophical change I suppose that needs to come but you know , it 's one thing to see and read all this stuff and be interested and want to try some of this stuff but on the other side , there 's a reason that all of us , myself included , moved to the suburbs . And there 's a million and a half people in the Twin Cities did it . It clearly offered them something they were seeking so I 'm not as willing as the neo-traditionalist are to throw it all on the , and say everybody 's wrong . All the decisions you made were erroneous and you're foul people and you messed up the world and let 's remake it . On the other hand , I think Chanhassen 's in a really unique position to do some very nifty , innovative stuff that will make this a community that 's different than most of the suburban communities . And I think we 're well on the way to achieving that and it 's stuff that I 'm pretty convinced , maybe conceitedly that most people , once it 's here , most people are going to be real proud of it . And real comfortable with the changes it has . With the ability to have a real downtown . With the ability to walk to places or bike to places . With the ability not to go on a highway to go everyplace you have to go . Those are things that we can offer here that most people can 't . Most towns can 't . Batzli : So , do we talk to the City Council about these things? Krauss : I think it 'd be an interesting discussion . Frankly it 's probably a whole lot more interesting than, what do you want us to do next year . Don 't rock the boat . Batzli : One question before I want to adjourn and that is these provisional population estimates by the Met Council . Are these meaningful to us? Krauss : Very . Batzli : Why? That 's what I didn 't get . Krauss: Did I give those to you? Batzli : Yeah . They 're on the back of your article . Administrative section . - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 68 Krauss: Oh . When you go to the Metro Council with a comp plan amendment , or to justify , rationalize building a road or to rationalize getting funding for a county park or a trail system , or build a sewage treatment plant like in Chaska . The first thing they do . They make projections okay and you think projections are innocuous . If it doesn 't turn out to be correct , we ' ll change the projections . They don 't . They change reality to fit the projections . You 're way ahead of the game to have projections that are real and reasonable . For the first time I , I think it was the first time I 've ever heard of it . The Metro Council 's population projections are actually larger than we projected when we did the comp plan . Now that doesn 't necessarily mean that people are going to come and knock on the door at Chanhassen tomorrow and say the Metro Council told me to move here so I 'm going to come . But it 's indicative of the fact that the Metro Council agrees with us that this city is in a real , it's in the driver 's seat . Batzli : And everything else is moving along? Target 's moving? Task force 's are moving? Krauss: First task force meeting for the corridor study is on the 15th before the Planning Commission meeting . Batzli : When does the City Council talk to us? Krauss : It should be on the same evening . Batzli : Okay , so everybody will be here for that . Krauss : We 're starting to get a lot on that agenda . I 'm a little bit leery of it . Erhart: The 15th? Conrad: I won 't be here . Batzli : I don 't know if I 'll be here or not . Okay , as far as HRA , have you been getting the HRA packet now? Krauss: No . We talked about that this morning . Batzli : Here we 've got a guy who actually is going to go to HRA meetings for us . We 've got to start getting him the packet . Because they're going a lot of stuff right now . They're doing the bowling alley thing . _ Krauss: That 's why I included, in fact Ashworth asked me to make sure that you got all those reports because we thought you'd find it interesting . Batzli : On the Target and the bowling alley and all that stuff? Yeah . Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim Tim A. Erhart 775 West 96th Street Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 612/474-1116 October 20, 1992 • To: Paul Kraus, Director of Planning, City of Chanhassen Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission HOMEOWNER FOUND GUILTY Homeowners have just been found guilty of the destruction of our forest. The sentence is perpetual banishment from the wooded areas in their backyard. The area will be described legally and recorded with the county at the homeowners expense. The guilty party and their successors will be prohibited from ever touching any live plant in the defined area . Sound crazy? It is. We've put the homeowner on trial and found him guilty of a crime which I believe hasn't been committed. Have we seen a pattern of homeowners doing something to destroy our urban forest? We may see an isolated case of someone doing something thoughtlessly but, I believe homeowners make good decisions about trees. They recognize their contribution to their home life and their value to their investment. If there remains a problem with developers needlessly destroying trees despite our oversight mechanism then let's deal with that. My concern is that we're starting to apply tree conservation easements on a regular basis without thinking through their need and their ramifications on neighborhoods and the tree stands themselves. Let's try to put trees and our urban forest in perspective: 1) While development initially may destroy some valuable trees, as a whole, urbanization increases forest cover. I estimate that undeveloped land in Chanhassen which exist in predominately agricultural use today has less than 25% tree cover. Urban areas, those in existence over twenty years, probably have 60- 70% tree cover. Most of these trees were planted after these areas were converted from Ag to housing. 2) Somehow we have concluded that tree stands are irreplaceable. It seems that we are equating tree stands with wetlands in that it is an act against humanity to destroy any aspect of them. As opposed to a wetland, trees can be replaced. Sure, you can't replace a 100 year old white oak in thirty years, but you can easily duplicate the effect a of a mature tree stand within thirty years. They key here is to get planting now! Those of us over forty recognize that thirty years go by pretty darned fast! TIM ERST ANCOMM I0120/92j -1 - By use of a mixture of fast growing trees such as evergreens, ash, silver maple, red oak (which by the way is a relatively fast growing tree), I have been able to convert large areas of previously tilled fields on my farm to a woodlot in only twelve years. Some of the trees are over twenty feet in height. The key is to start planting as soon as possible. I welcome anyone who would like to see this project. 3) We seem to have the notion that tree and brush removal is harmful. Nothing could be further from the truth. Brush spreads disease. Trees which are too close together become deformed. Trimming and shaping trees is critical to their development if they are to mature into properly shaped trees. Lastly, many tree species in existing tree stands are useless and rob soil moisture and sunlight from those trees we want to invest in. A homeowner is wise to assess which trees are the most valuable on his property with regard to location, shape and species. Brush such as prickly ash and trees such as box elder, black cherry, ironwood, some ash, and linden may be removed to make the area more useable in an urban setting and to encourage the healthy growth of the more valuable trees. Sometimes mature trees (particularly oaks) need to be cabled together to prevent splitting. (Which incidentally can be prevented if they are pruned properly as they grow.) Occasionally an elm may be so valuable it should be treated for Dutch Elm disease. Best of all, removing dead branches prevents the spread of disease. Do you think a homeowner who is not allowed to remove brush and trim trees is going to remove dead and decaying branches? I believe homeowners have a darn good record of identifying which trees are valuable and working to make the wooded areas on their property healthy and more valuable. 4) What's the cost to the family buying the lot to have the easement area surveyed, defined and recorded? A couple of hundred dollars? More? Do we even know? 5) In order to "protect" tree stands from homeowners we're now attempting to require that developers place the house 20 feet from the street right of way. Drive through some of our sub-divisions in the summer. You will see cars, boats, motor homes, and the like, parked in driveways everywhere. Kids are running around them. Even in older sub-divisions with small lots, we never put garage doors that close to streets — they were put in alleys so people had space to park and care for the vehicles on their premises. We have an ordinance that requires a minimum 30 ft. setback. I think it's a pretty – good one which without any discussion has been thrown out as outdated. Please, let's think about this. This ordinance has served us a long time. The idea of experimenting in neighborhoods and then going back after the homes are put in to see how it looks is very disturbing to me. I believe we have an obligation to the people buying their homes to determine on paper what a twenty foot setback does for useability, safety, traffic noise, lights and on-street parking, etc. TIMPERSIPLANCOMM 10,20192j -2- I'm always surprised at how short term things can be at times. When we design a neighborhood we need be thinking 100 years ahead or more. Once installed, our streets and houses are not going to move. Trees will die and be replanted. The forest will change and move to suit its new urban use. It's appropriate that it does. Yes, I'll say it, I think it is un-American (note that I don't use the term "Communist" anymore) to jump in and meddle with people's homes. I state this in light of the fact that we have not shown that homeowners have been detrimental to trees to the extent that their action endangers the health and safety of our society. Do we think somehow that Chanhassen's woodlots are unique? If you think so, just drive in any direction and you will find them all over the place. Hundreds of sites more dramatic than that of our Bluff Creek gorge exist all over Minnesota. What's unique about our woodlots is that they are among us — the 11,000 people who live here. With these easements we're attempting to freeze woodlots in their existing state because somehow we feel that the world is running out of trees. In Minnesota we have more tree cover today than we had in the early 1900s. What we must do is to make our woodlots more valuable to us — in an urban setting. This means access for people who cannot drive to the rural, undisturbed woodlots i.e., trails, etc. I'm not opposed to purposeful easements where their are appropriate. It seems to me that privately owned areas planned for quasi-public use may be an appropriate place to apply such easements. Steep slopes where the removal of any vegetation would cause erosion may be another. I ask that we define what areas are appropriate and what restrictions should apply and to think through the effect we are having on neighborhoods which will be there for hundreds of years. Instead of freezing these woodlots we should be concentrating our efforts on developing an ambitious planting program. In 30 years this will pay more dividends than freezing woodlots and forcing undesirable steet and house locations. I simply ask that we carefully think through the concept of tree conservation easements and then establish a clear policy to use if and when they are applied. I hope you've enjoyed reading this as much as I've enjoyed writing it. Sincerel Tim A.Erhart TAE:j TIMPERSIPIANCOMM I0/20/92j -3- CITY QF 0‘.4CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: October 14, 1992 SUBJ: Cul-de-sac Lengths Chairman Batzli has asked that we schedule a discussion on the question of cul-de-sacs and street connections. He has pointed out that the Planning Commission's recent reversal of its position on the proposed Lundgren subdivision indicates a lack of direction and agreement on how these issues should be handled. Furthermore, there is some question as to the City Council's positions on items such as the Kurvers Point Subdivision which was designed for a street loop and approved as such by the Planning Commission and which the City Council allowed to be built as a long cul-de-sac. There is no question that cul-de-sacs are highly valued by developers and homeowners alike. They provide a sense of seclusion, a sense of security, particularly for younger children who play in the area, and there is a belief that they are somehow safer since there is no through traffic. Typically, lots on cul-de-sacs are sold at a premium. Staff's position on cul-de-sacs is one of acceptance since they are a fundamental part of the suburban landscape. However, we typically raise concerns when cul-de-sacs are unusually long and will typically recommend that street connections be made, where possible, to minimize potential problems. The litany of staff's concerns relative to cul-de-sacs is becoming somewhat repetitious. After stating them so many times at Commission and Council meetings, only to find ourselves typically overruled with the final decision, the issue is becoming rather tedious. However, in our professional judgement there are significant problems with these over-length cul-de-sacs. These include the following: 1. The access pattern that results with extensive use of cul-de-sacs and inadequate provision of street connections is an inefficient one. Distances traveled are lengthened and this holds true not only for autos but also for pedestrians and bicyclists as well since the sidewalk or trail system tends to follow the streets. Thus, in many respects n t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission October 14, 1992 Page 2 we tend to become a community isolated into tiny little pockets along cul-de-sacs rather than one of true neighborhoods in the traditional sense. 2. The provision of emergency services is made more difficult. In instances where time is generally of the essence, tragedies can result. We are often called fear mongers by residents and others when we raise this issue, but the fact remains that it is a concern. The lack of through street connections, with its poor circulation patterns, means that trips from fire stations and wherever a police car happens to be are necessarily longer than they would otherwise be. There is a significant problem of traveling down the wrong cul-de-sac only to have to turn around and go back. Perhaps this problem is somewhat minimized by the 911 system these days, but the fact of the matter is, it is a concern to our Fire Marshal and Fire Chief. We had two instances this past summer where there were emergency calls up in the Teton Lane area. The fire engine found itself on the wrong side of the barricade that had been erected there to prevent through • movements. In these events no harm was done but it certainly could have. I, myself, have witnessed an instance where an ambulance traveled down the wrong cul-de-sac, had to come back out and go back down another. Lastly, on this issue, is personal = experience. I was the chief for a fire department run by my college in Vermont. There is often a significant amount of confusion in terms of gaining accurate directions to respond to a fire or emergency call. This confusion is made worse when _. you find yourself stuck on a dead end street only to see that the emergency is one street over. Yes, these problems can be minimized through improved knowledge the city street system and the 911 system in maintaining accurate maps in each vehicle, — but why take the risk. 3. Over length cul-de-sacs have a much higher probability of creating a loss of access due to emergencies such as water main breaks and storm damage. It is true that this does not happen all the time or with great frequency, but it is a fact that it does happen. When it does happen, access into an area can be completely blocked or significantly hindered for a critical period of time. 4. Increased street length and travel distance creates problems for the provision of _ services. Miles traveled by school buses are increased which is a cost that the public, although not directly the city, must bear. It should also be noted that typically, school buses cannot turn around in cul-de-sacs and will not enter dead end streets. Therefore, children must walk to the neck of the cul-de-sac which in some cases in Chanhassen may be 1/4 mile away. While the idea of kids having to walk a little bit is not of concern, there is a security matter particularly for younger children having to wait far from the parents direct view. Planning Commission October 14, 1992 Page 3 5. In a related matter, the cost of providing snow plow service is increased. It is really not possible to say how much it is increased, but it is appreciably increased when you have a community that has hundreds and hundreds of these situations repeated throughout the community. Any snow plow that travels down a cul-de-sac must travel back up it. The cul-de-sac turn around area itself takes some additional time to clean. When you are trying to get out the door the morning of a new snow fall, time is of the essence. Ultimately, the city will be pressured into adding equipment and personnel to allow us to respond to snow falls in a rapid manner. Chanhassen's ordinance formerly had a 500 foot limitation on the length of cul-de-sacs. Traditionally, this has been a fairly common restriction throughout the Twin Cities. Staff is currently in the process of calling other communities to find out what their most recent standards are and we should have this information available at the Planning Commission meeting. Chanhassen's ordinance used to contain a similar standard but this was eliminated with much fuzzier language replacing it a number of years ago. Section 18-57(k) reads as follows, "The maximum length of a street termininating in a cul-de-sac shall be determined as a function of the expected development density along the street, measured from the centerline of the street of origin to the end of the right-of-way." In essence, we have no limits on the length of cul-de-sacs now. As to what constitutes a reasonable limitation on the length of a cul-de-sac, staff has an opinion but this will take further discussion. Maximum cul-de-sac length should be in the range of 500 to 1000 feet. This would allow between 13 and 26 homes on a dead end street, based upon a 90 foot lot width. The ordinance should be designed to allow longer cul-de- sacs when, due to environmental and topographic constraints there are no other feasible means of accessing an area. Thus, a cul-de-sac length limitation should not unduly limit access to a development in a particular area, nor should it require environmental damage to mandate an inappropriate loop street. CITY TF _t CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 October 26, 1992 Mr. Bill Brisley AMCON Corporation 200 West Highway 13 Burnsville, MN 55337 Dear Bill: The city has received the revised landscaping plan for Market Square, dated October 21, 1992. The purpose of the revised landscaping is to screen the additional compactor located south of Festival Foods and to better screen the compactor located at the southeast corner of Festival Foods. A condition of approval was that the trash compactors must be screened. The southerly compactor is new to the plans and is not screened. The southeasterly compactor was provided with a wall for screening, but the wall does not extend as far as the compactor. I spoke with Todd Christopherson on October 26, 1992, to go over additional changes staff wanted and we agreed to the following: 1. The southerly wall screen will be extended to cover the larger trash compactor located at the southeast corner of Festival Foods. 2. One evergreen tree will be added to the three proposed evergreens north of the southeasterly trash compactor. 3. Three evergreen trees will be added to the open area southeast of the southeasterly trash compactor. Once we receive the final approved revised plans, we will sign off on the certificate of occupancy for Festival Foods. We also still need a parking plan showing that there is still adequate parking with the removal of four parking spaces at the rear of Merlin's Hardware. t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Bill Brisley October 26, 1992 . Page 2 Please call me should you have any questions. Sincerely, 222C ' 7a Ann Olsen Senior Planner • pc: Todd Christopherson, AMCON Paul Krauss, Planning Director Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager Steve Kirchman, Building Official Planning Commission City Council October 20, 1992 Sharmin Al-Jaff Planner 1 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 OCT 2 , 10.`,2 Dear Ms. Al-Jaff, Thank you for your letter indicating the various changes we would have to make to comply with the Council's approval of the Planning Department recommendation regarding the proposed house at Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook. As I indicated at the last Council meeting, the Planning Department recommendations that were approved by the Council were riot acceptable to us. We have provided notice of cancellation on the Purchase Agreement regarding the parcel and will not be building at that location. As was also mentioned at an earlier meeting, this has been a terribly disappointing process for us, since we were very much looking forward to designing and building a house that will work for us on a site that is both large and beautiful. We felt then, and feel now, that we would have been good neighbors, and productive and responsible residents of the City of Chanhassen. We were truly looking forward to being there. I was going to eat the disappointment and let this issue pass, but your letter stirred my juices once again. To the Planning Department and the Council, I offer the following: I would like to commend the Planning staff and the Council for its rigorous defense of the Bluff Ordinance. It is only through these kind of actions that you will be able to maintain the integrity of Chanhassen and the bluff areas. Were it not for this ordinance, clearly the City would be inundated by people wanting to build $600,000 houses on large lots, that would have absolutely no concern about what kind of environmental havoc they might cause. Those people would be foolish enough to not care that their house will slide into the abyss because of inappropriate erosion controls. Further, they might even be against natural foliage such as trees and ground cover. They might insist that removing less than one percent of the trees on a site, and then replanting new trees, would have little impact on the site. And worst of all, they might feel that building within 30 feet of a bluff would not impact the views and natural ambiance of Chanhassen, even though the bluff side of the site would only be visible to the good people of Shakopee, approximately five miles away. Imagine the irresponsibility of that attitude. Also, I feel strongly that the City should stand tough against the granting of variances. They are an inconvenience. Why would the City want to be put into the dilemma of granting a valid variance, when it has just recently passed a new ordinance? Where's the logic in that?And since valid variances should not be granted, isn't there a simple way to just do away with them? Maybe stonewalling the petitioner would work best. Just say you are not going to grant one, in spite of what the law says. By doing that you can put the legal burden on the petitioner, or perhaps the problem will go away because many times there isn't enough time to fight the battle. This isn't coercion, it is just doing your civic duty and standing up for principals. And to imagine that someone might want to build a walkout styled home to take advantage of the view. Why it's just preposterous. Just because someone else has trashed the neighborhood with a similar styled house, located on the bluff, is no reason to let anyone else do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right. I would guess that the City is so outraged at the home on Lot 7 that they will refuse to accept the tax money it generates, since it would be a compromise of principles to receive money from such an eyesore and obvious environmental hazard. Isn't it just a shame that the bluff ordinance wasn't passed before that home was built?The City would be so much better off without it and the type of people that must live in it. I say that if we all can't have a home like that, then nobody should. I really don't understand why backward cities such as Eden Prairie haven't become so enlightened. They have simply allowed residents to build on the bluff lines of Purgatory Creek and the Minnesota River valley, after having to comply with numerous strict State and local requirements. And just look at the devastation there. Some of the homes are over$1,000,000 and they had to remove some trees to build them. Can you imagine? Replacement trees and professional landscaping just isn't the same. Wonderful views of the natural foliage toward the Creek aside, they should have just let it stay as farmland. The serenity of the bluffs there has been severely damaged, yet people are still clamoring to build on the immediate opposite side of the bluff. Can't they see the light?And I know that those homes will be sliding into the ravine any day now. Mark my words. I would also encourage you to expand this save-the-environment philosophy to lakeside residences. If bluff sites should not be allowed to view the bluff, then why should anyone that has a home on a lake in the City have the right to see the lake. Just knowing that the lake is nearby should be enough. Homes with views of the lakes will only serve to ruin the ambiance of those lakes for others that live nearby. And you know people that live near lakes; they might want to use them. What complications that can bring. We must keep the lakes clear of visible homes and protected for the benefit of all. Since erosion occurs in God's domain, even without human input, I would strongly suggest that the City simply buy the bluff land. Then the vast City resources could be put to use to stop the erosion, trees that are mature or damaged could be replaced, public walking paths could be built so that everyone could see the pristine bluffs. Stand on the abandoned railroad tracks or on the gravel pit to get the best views. Whatever you do, don't just simply pass good legislation that allows the owners some discretion over their own property, because they never know what is best for themselves. - If you ever feel weak and allow someone to build on a bluff site, never, never stop at anything less than full compliance of the ordinance. If they move the house back from the bluff line, and artificially raise it one full story higher to insure minimum site disturbance of the bluff area, make sure that you dictate what trees can be removed, and follow that with insistence that only the City knows what is an acceptable view and how much of the ground can be disturbed. Make it impossible for them to build the normal style of house that fits the lot and the neighborhood. Its sort of subtle, but then you won't seem to dictate what kind of house they can build. Tell them they can always build a two-story. Stand firm. Hold tight, folks. You have to watch these citizens. "We've seen the enemy... Si erely, ames P. Stellick 0432 Purdey Road Eden Prairie, Mn. 55347 cc Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician ✓ Paul Krause, Planning Director Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor Ursula Dimler, City Council Mike Mason, City Council Richard Wing, City Council Tom Workman, City Council